I fall somewhere in the middle between wqpx and, as he currently known as, jcdavies, though I'm leaning towards the latter. A couple of excellent points by him:

"-over-reliance on special effects and spectacular sets 
-macho bludgeoning into submission and obsession with size."

[My old post]

Prior to watching Peter Jacksons King Kong a couple of weeks ago, I had only seen the 1976 Kong by John Guillermin, and even that was quite a few years back on French television. Since then, however, Ive had the opportunity to catch the Merian C. Cooper & Ernest B. Schoedsacks 1933 original and also a few parts of the 1976 remake on TCM and AMC (Ill let you guess which played where). Anyway, whats quite remarkable about the original film is that it makes the most of its playing time of about 100 minutes: its screenplay is lean and to the point. Also, Willis OBriens "visual effects" were considered to be quite remarkable for that time and its not hard to see why. On the other hand, the first remake plays out like a genuine "B" film (not surprising considering that it was produced by Dino De Laurentiis) containing shoddy performances and nauseating special effects. Kongs behavior in this film is also oversexualized which is actually what sticks out more than anything else (no pun intended). The expression on his face while hes stroking and fondling Jessica Lange (lookin mighty fine, btw) with his finger is simply priceless. The behavior of our new Kong is comparably much more mature and gentlemanly. A friend blithely suggested that perhaps like many of our other "leading men" this year, Kong is gay, and wouldve preferred if the natives sacrificed Driscoll instead of Darrow. (No wonder Watts actually had to "vaudeville" him. I cant even imagine what the other Kongs wouldve done to her for their, and our, pleasure.)

*The opening sequences certainly did provide a more than efficient background for the characters and the world they inhabited. But once the journey began, thats where Jackson was quite loose with the editing. Skull Island shouldve been reached in about, say, 45-50 mins., instead of the whole hour it took.

*It was amusing to hear the man/nature monologues by first-mate Hayes. And that was because of my suspicion that perhaps Jackson recovered a few sound reels in Australia that Malick left behind after The Thin Red Line (1998). Even Howard Shore's score all of the sudden turned very familiar. Anyway, Jamie Bells Jimmy was on the receiving end, the only purpose he served. 

*Im not sure how to divide the credit between Andy Serkis and the technicians who handled the CGI motion-capture related with Kong. He is simply a magnificent creation. There wasnt a moment where he didnt look "real."

*The running with the Brontosauruses was a highlight, and one of the few moments where it wasnt clear what was about to happen next (and thats a good thing). A later sequence involving Kong and a couple of Tyrannosauruses was quite silly, though. I wasnt aware of the fact that Kong has watched a few "Chop-Socky" flicks in his lifetime.

*One of the reason why I brought up the editing issue earlier is because it wouldve been a nice touch to spend some time with the characters on the way back from the Island. Jackson couldve utilized the time to depict the evolving relationship between Darrow and Driscoll. And what about the feelings Captain Englehorn had for the leading lady? Wasnt he the one who initially risked the lives of his men in order to save her? But then, I guess there's a reason why the film is titled what it is.

*And does anyone care about the blondes who were picked up and thrown aside and the planes who probably crash-landed somewhere on someones rooftop? Nah, me neither. Last year it was Scorseses pretty boy, and now its Jackson himself (playing one of the gunners, just like what Cooper did in the original) who just might come crashin in. Hollywood is now literally invading your living-rooms so LOOKOUT!

King Kong had the potential to be a remarkable film, kind of like Titanic (1997), but Jacksons towering ambition, which did wonders for him in the Lord of the Rings trilogy ('01-'03), seems to have hurt him on this occasion. The film is a little too long, a little too loud, and a little too pleased with itself. LA Weekly's film-critic Scott Foundas said it best: "Kong never misses an opportunity for ostentation. Its like the nouveau riche on the block who drives his Lamborghini to the corner store when walking would suffice." Having said that, it could be argued that it is far and above recent remakes like Frankenstein (1994) and Psycho (1998). Jackson has said that he wants to do a couple of smaller films at this point, and hopefully he'll stick to this plan.