You’re right that my main issue is the length but that is not to say that I hate long films, quite the opposite but every film has an optimum running time, whether it be long or short and I fell that stretching an 89 minute film to 180 minutes was ludicrous and damaged the final product. You pointed out that Jackson claimed to re-imagining the Kong story; Well that can be said for any remake but this was a loving copy of the original with almost all of the scenes intact to some extent. There were obvious changes, namely the characters which would be unworkable in a 2005 film but beyond that it was a special effects extravaganza, and that made up for some of the film’s flaws.

Though my likening Darrow and Kong’s relationship to bestiality, I accept that, that was a deliberately inflammatory and provocative comment but there is still some truth in it. You are claiming that it is a platonic love but this is still more fanciful than the source, where Kong had more of a fascination and later obsession with Darrow than any real affection.

Thanks for your time in both debunking my review and reading it but this was never intended to be a professional prose. This is a very personal and subjective analysis of a film which left me wanting. I know that out of my family and circle of friends, with is made up people of various ages, classes and backgrounds, I am one of the most forgiving towards King Kong. Most of which, find it boring, dull and you guessed it, overly long and pompous. Are they ALL wrong too? From your comments it sounds as if this film should come with a manual as to how to appreciate it. Every viewer will read what they want into the film and if we all don’t see the same key things then maybe the director is at fault for not clearly conveying their narrative to their audience.

And yes, I’m looking forward to The Hobbit, as I loved Lord Of The Rings, which I felt were NOT too long as the lengthy books justified the running time. King Kong and Lord Of The Rings are NOT comparable…

Your “main problem” with this movie is its length. And yet, you knew long before going to see it that it was helmed by Peter Jackson, who also directed the at least three-hour per installment franchise of The Lord of the Rings. You say that you knew long before going to see it that it was a labour of love for Jackson. And yet, here you are complaining about length. What in the world did you expect? With the expectations of movie-goers having been slowly changed over the mid-to-late 90s with 2 1/2 hour + movies, it really should be no surprise to anyone that a revised Kong movie, being treated more dramatically than its forebears, would exceed the length expected of its older counterparts.

Universal gave the reins to Jackson. He had the final say on everything in the project, given that he would stay close to the original. Jackson himself said that this was a re-imagining of the Kong story, and he purposely gave more depth to the relationship between Kong and Darrow. He also wanted audiences to have more of a personal connection with Kong, which is why he puts Denham in the role of antagonist. So, while you may be right in saying the 30s version was not much more than a monster movie, you are wrong to say that nothing is different about the plot elements. Almost everything is different. Like the fact that Driscoll is tricked by Denham into staying on board, or that the authorities gave the Captain orders to dock in India or Singapore (I don’t remember now), causing them to turn about, causing them to enter the fog of Skull Island. The 30s version was a monster movie. The 2005 version is a dramatic love story and adventure. Drama must move at a slower pace in order for audiences to absorb its effect. The uneducated whine at length instead of trying understand the reason for it.

Your likening of their relationship to one of bestiality only goes to show how shallow-minded you are. Neither “fell for” either!Their “love” is not like that between “lovers”, it is more of a coming together of two kindred spirits that felt incredibly alone in the world. Like the elder person who gets a dog to feel less alone, or the only child who falls in love with their new cat, the relationship between Darrow and Kong was never intended to mean anything else. Gorillas, like humans, are very social creatures who, when separated from their families or peers, become lonely. The next time you watch the movie, pay attention to the conversation between Darrow and her mentor in the beginning; it will foreshadow, in a slight way, what’s to come, and it will give you an idea of the loneliness she has to face ahead. There is a reason for every scene; pay attention. Even the relationship between Darrow and Driscoll is setup for a reason — see the ending!

Your hack-and-slash attempt to discount or discredit the length of the 2005 theatrical version of King Kong is completely biased, lacks true analysis, and fails to provide any valid reasoning other than to cite your own preferences, which when measured to Jackson’s preferences are far outweighed by vision alone. When The Hobbit part one comes to theaters, be prepared for a near three-hour event, and instead of complaining about how slow certain scenes are and how long your butt has to endure the padding beneath you, pay attention to every scene and every word. Maybe then you won’t even realize your three hours has come and gone. Maybe then you’ll appreciate the reason 2 1/2 hour + movies are that long.