To anyone that doesn't like this movie:

Go find your brain and don't post without it being plugged in. ;-)

The 1976 version is better. Peter Jackson's is not bad but it's too fat.

It is very good. Though masterpiece is going a little too far.

Jackson's films are always full of imagination and King Kong is no exception. Just look at all the creatures on the island. The film oozes charm and Jackson is always creative with his set pieces, whether it be splatter comedy like Braindead or the blockbuster adventure we have here. There was a great build up and the period setting made it so much more interesting than the standard monster movies we get these days.

The film does get it's fair share of party poopers. Which is odd because it was critically adored on release. And I'm guessing their main gripe is the CGI. And fair enough, it is often pretty damn bad. It often looks unfinished. But I've always gone by the mantra that if the film is charming, likable and creative enough I will excuse bad CGI. I'm swept up in the film enough that it doesn't pull me out. And I felt that was the case here.

But still, we do need to be sparing with the use of the word 'masterpiece'.

This version was too long, boring, and full of really crappy CGI. Anyone who actually thinks it's a masterpiece can't be more than eight years old, at least not mentally.

The original had better special effects and story than this remake of a remake.

And it was released 72 years earlier.

I liked the original King Kong! I wish they wouldn't do remakes!

I disagree.

The 1930s "King Kong" was sufficient; the subsequent ones have been unnecessary, and haven't been very good. They should really stop making "King Kong" movies.