And lo, the beast looked upon the face of beauty. And it stayed its hand from killing. And from that day, it was as one dead.

Perhaps I should add a movie reviews section to my site, since they create so much controversy, and people almost actually seemed interested in them. Of course if I did that it would be exclusively on movies that interest me, and those that don't - well haw, they don't get reviewed...too bad for them.

Anyway on to King Kong, my most recent movie viewing, and the lifelong dream of director Peter Jackson (of course we all know and love him for his work on Bad Taste (1987)). *note to readers if you are lost right now its because my last comment was a joke, and its his work in Lord of the Rings that I actually liked* but I digress.

*back to Kong...again (pun intended)*
Peter Jackson sets out to make a remake of the classic 1933 movie King Kong. If you go into this film expecting a reworking of the 1933 movie you may be disappointed - because this is not by any means the same movie, nor should it be. If it was going to be the same movie then there'd be no point in making it, because its already been done. Peter Jackson very much makes this movie his own. I would like to point out before going on, that I watched the 1933 version the night before I watched the 2005 version just so I would see where it all started, and I very much enjoyed the 1933 version and thought it was well made, especially for its time.

I like long movies and guess what - this is a long movie. Most people don't like long movies and can't handle sitting for 3 hours at a time. For those people I am truly sorry because you may just miss out on some of the greatest movies made if you go by that philosophy. King Kong is not one of the greatest movies ever made, but it is a very very good movie. Jackson focuses much more on the characters and the story behind each of them than the original does, and he expands the focus of the movie to a much wider scale. This is part of the reason the movie is twice as long. The pacing was good throughout - but I'm sure there were some pieces that could have been left out. I've heard it called, "over the top," but after watching the original 1933 version I thought that one was over the top for its day, so it seems only natural that Jackson would make this one over the top for our current time period. He does that, and he does it well.

The acting was great throughout. Naomi Watts in particular does a superb job. She makes you believe in Kong, and she makes you feel sad for him. Jack Black does a good job in a serious movie which is a plus for him, but he also conveys well the, crazy producer that he's suppose to be. You can tell that at any moment he's going to do whatever it takes to make money, but you can also see the other side of him where he is about to fall apart because of all that’s happening to him (on the ship when he finds out about a warrant for his arrest).

As for the visuals...well, they're amazing. And unlike too many films these days, the computer animation is believable. I see too often directors saying - "oh that scene would be difficult to shoot - lets animate it!" (notable references would be the Matrix, and the new Superman movie). This movie uses animation throughout, but you never sit in your seat and say..."that part is fake." You know its fake, but it doesn't matter, because its believable and you're able to forget about that. King Kong himself is done in amazing fashion, he is one of the two computer animated characters in film that I have totally believed in. The other being Gollum, ironically both characters were played by none other than Andy Serkis (who also appears as the ships cook in the movie). The shots of NYC were amazing, and while they were computer animated, they looked beautiful nonetheless. Great job in that department.

Well worth the price of a movie ticket, and I do suggest going to see this on the big screen, preferably in a good theater, but since most of you don't live near any of those you'll have to make due with what you've got.