New York, 1933. Struggling filmmaker Carl Denham embarks on an expedition to an unknown island to film a movie that can revive his career. Among those on the trip are leading lady Ann Darrow and screenwriter Jack Driscoll. They and the crew of their ship encounter horrors beyond their imagination upon reaching the island. Most incredible of all the exotic creatures is Kong, a gigantic gorilla who becomes attached to Ann. When Denham decides to capture Kong in order to bring him back to civilization, regardless of the risk, the stage is set for a showdown between modern man and the forces of nature.

Peter Jackson was originally set to remake King Kong back in the early to mid 90s, but the escalating nature of the budget, combined with Jackson's less that successful box office record scuttled the project. After completing his ambitious, but critical and financially successful Lord Of The Rings trilogy, Jackson had the clout to get his dream project back on track. The result is the three-hour, $200M King Kong (2005).

The first thing I want to point out about this new Kong is the nature of its excess. There is always a danger in letting a fan make a movie about the subject of their fandom. It inevitably proves too hard to let go of things that are best cut. King Kong suffers from a great deal of this "fanboy syndrome". Jackson is so in love with Kong and so in love with his version of Kong that he ended up with a picture bloated from every type of excess. Scenes go on too long, unnecessary action sequences seem to exist solely so Jackson can show off what he can do. The camera lingers on the CGI Kong, as if Jackson can't bear to take his eyes off of him. All these things slow the picture down, sometimes to a crawl.

Secondly, there is the question of basic storytelling. One of the things that made the '33 Kong such a success was the way the story was structured. On the recent DVD release, one of the commentators compared it to Psycho (1960), since both films seem to be one thing and then suddenly prove to be a whole different animal. In the case of Kong, in the 1933 original we know that the crew are on their way to an exotic location and that exciting things will happen, but the sheer enormity of it is staggering, since nothing we have seen up until Kong's appearance can prepare one for the reality of it. In the remake, however, Jackson front-loads the movie with so much foreboding and references to fate and the like, that the shock and the wonder are greatly diminished. Jackson makes it all too clear that the trip that Denham and Company are embarking on will have a monumental impact on everyone. This is underlined by dozens of moments, from Ann Darrow's sense of impending destiny to young Jimmy reading Heart Of Darkness. These are meant, I suppose, to add foreshadowing, but really they telegraph where the film is headed, robbing it of its potential mystery.

Jackson's direction is inconsistent. He seems to do his best when handling straightforward adventure sequences, like the ship foundering on the rocks as it approaches Skull Island. He also sets the scene quite well. Although I never quite felt like it was really the 1930s, Jackson pays attention to making sure that we always know where we are, since it could otherwise get quite confusing. But his romantic scenes (either Darrow/Driscoll or Darrow/Kong) are clunky and some (Central Park, for instance) are embarrassingly cheesy. The big action sequences are too fast, with the camera whipping around so much it is almost impossible to follow the action. Jackson's predilection to overuse of close-ups and camera tricks is also in full force. I can't think of another director who would put so much emphasis on the typing of the word "skull".

The cast of King Kong is pretty good, but few cast members stand out. Jack Black is not nearly as irritating as the trailers suggested (more on his portrayal of Denham later) and Adrien Brody proves a surprisingly capable hero, when called upon. The supporting cast is mostly effective, but they are a simplistic and two-dimensional bunch. We are meant to feel sympathy for them when things go awry, but there are so many of them, all with dialogue and screen time, that there's never a chance to get to know any of them very much, even in three hours.

The one truly solid performance is Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow. Her casting is an inspiration, as there are very few actresses today who can project both the timeless beauty that Darrow must exude as well as ground her more concretely for today's (theoretically) more sophisticated audiences. The only other actress I can think of capable of pulling this off would be Watts' good friend Nicole Kidman. But she may be too large a film icon and may have overshadowed the part. If her character may be slightly sappier than the original and Darrow's almost instant devotion to Kong a bit unbelievable, Watts pulls it off as well as anyone could.

The visual effects in Kong are, not surprisingly, quite strong. But they aren't as strong as I could have hoped for. There were many places where the CGI was very noticeable, especially in action sequences, the likes of which I have seen handled more effectively in films like Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. The Kong model is good, but the high level of "humanity" thrust upon it does tend to hurt its believability. And I also think that the effects suffer from some of that excess I mentioned earlier. Many sequences simply go on too long; I think merely to show off the effects. (I'm thinking of most of the dinosaur sequences here, as well as the "Spider Pit".)

The music lacks the thematic elements that made the 1933 original really jump out at you. The original's composer, Max Steiner, has been called the originator of how we think of film scores and his '33 score is still iconic. King Kong (2005) needed something similar and perhaps Jackson should have sought out a different composer, rather than stick with his Lord Of The Rings collaborator Howard Shore. A similar situation faced Richard Donner in 1977 when loyalty led him to first ask Jerry Goldsmith, composer for Donner's The Omen (1976), to work on Superman (1978), when he really wanted (and thankfully eventually got) John Williams. This is not a knock on Shore (or Goldsmith, for that matter). It's just that films of this kind require a certain type of score that simply is not their strong suit.

Many of these things that hurt King Kong (2005) seem to stem from the same source: Jackson's fandom of the original movie. By not being able to discard excess fat in his film as he was able to do from his body, Jackson ends up with a flabby film. But these are not the things that hurt King Kong (2005) the most. Surprisingly, it is where Jackson decides to stray from the original that the film goes most wrong.

In changing the nature of the story, Jackson and fellow screenwriters Walsh and Boyens also change the fundamental nature of the characters (with the exception of Darrow), most notably Carl Denham and Jack Driscoll. Denham and Driscoll were originally based on Kong creator Merian C. Cooper and his producing partner Ernest Schoedsack. Cooper and Schoedsack were true adventurers and heroes. Cooper served in both World Wars, spent time in prisoner of war camps, and went on countless expeditions and other adventures. Schoedsack was also an adventurer and worked with Cooper, pre-Kong, filming thrilling stories in dangerous situations. Their alter-egos reflected the men themselves. Denham: strong, daring, honest and honorable. Driscoll: handsome, down-to-earth, yet just as daring and reliable. The Denham of '33 was a fast talker, but no shyster, like the one of '05. And it's interesting to note that while the Driscoll of '33 was a first mate; a man of adventure, the Driscoll of '05 is a playwright, a man who normally writes about life, rather than living it. I can't help but see a comparison between Cooper, a man who made movies that drew on his real life experiences and Jackson, a man who makes movies that draw on books and movies made by others. It is this fundamental disconnect that is at the core of the problems with King Kong (2005).

Strangely enough, I think that Jackson might have been better off following the lead of Godzilla (1997) and Planet Of The Apes (2001). Both of those films were critical and box office disappointments, but they are able to stand on their own, since their respective filmmakers followed their own lead, rather than grafting their notions onto the originals'. In following the original story so closely, Jackson can't quite reconcile his take on the characters with the story as it was conceived. If he had abandoned his true remake and come up with a "re-imagining" a la Planet, he would have been free to portray the characters any way he liked, as they would have been truly his. (On the other hand, of course, that's what King Kong (1976) did, and look where that got them. I'm working under the assumption that Jackson would do a better job than they did back then.)

Peter Jackson says that King Kong (1933) is the film that made him want to be a filmmaker and that he wanted to remake it so that a new generation could be inspired like he was. And in a way, he may have succeeded. His remake has put the spotlight back on King Kong and new generations will have the opportunity to be inspired. But I think it will be the original that will continue to be the source of that inspiration. There's just too little of that old magic in King Kong (2005).

• screenplay by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Peter Jackson
  from a story by Merian C. Cooper and Edgar Wallace
• directed by Peter Jackson
• music by Howard Shore
  ambient music by Mel Wesson, David Donaldson, Steve Roche & Janet Roddick
• Cast: Naomi Watts (Ann Darrow), Jack Black (Carl Denham), Adrien Brody (Jack Driscoll), Thomas Kretschmann (Captain Englehorn), Colin Hanks (Preston), Andy Serkis (Lumpy / movement guide for Kong), Evan Parke (Hayes), Jamie Bell (Jimmy)