My prediction came true, at least so far. "King Kong" doesn’t appear to be the blockbuster that was expected. It took in $50 million its first week to be number one at the box office but that doesn’t seem like that much when compared to what other blockbusters have done. Let’s wait for the word of mouth reactions before we make a real judgment.
My feelings all along have been that these movies are relying too much on special effects. The audience feels that it has "been there, done that." Also, this flick has a running time of 3:07, much too long. A lot of kids are going to this one so there will be a lot of squirming in the seats once they are bored with the repetitive special effects. Good luck to parents on that one!
Another factor is that they tried to make a spectacular remake of "King Kong" in 1976 and it failed. Are audiences really that different now? I don’t think so plus the fact that not as many people are going to the show anymore with all the other options available to them including home theaters.
The stars in this one don’t intrigue me either. Naomi Watts is a pretty girl and a good actress but I think that at 36 (37 now) she is a bit old for the Fay Wray part. Fay was 26 when the original was made and that seems a lot more logical for that part. I like Jack Black but not as Carl Denham, that role will always belong to Robert Armstrong. Suggestion: See the new "King Kong" if you must. Then, check the schedule for Turner Classic Movies and watch the original 1933 version. If you are a true movie buff I think you will enjoy the period charm of the older version more.