3. King Kong (2005)
What critics say: "Featuring state-of-the-art special effects, terrific performances, and a majestic sense of spectacle, Peter Jackson's remake of
King Kong is a potent epic that's faithful to the spirit of the 1933 original" - Rotten Tomatoes (84%).
King Kong 2005 was also named one of the American Film Institute's Top 10 Films of the Year, which is rather surprising considering...
What audiences think: You can immediately see the disagreement on this fantasy epic just by looking at the Rotten Tomatoes page. Only 52% of the voters in the audience poll liked it and it sports a hideous 2.8/5 rating. The most common criticism lobbied against it is the length, which in typical Jackson fashion is over three hours.
Who's right? King Kong is a frustrating film to watch. I'm confident that somewhere in its 180+ minutes is a great adventure film hiding. The visual effects are more than worthy of the Oscar gold that they received, but the story doesn't warrant the epic run time. Some films need to be three hours.
Lord of the Rings was one of those stories where it would be impossible to sufficiently tell it without each movie being that long. The 1933 version of
King Kong was a little over 90 minutes, so even if you add a little more backstory for the characters (like Jackson did in the first act), it shouldn't really be more than 2 hours and 15 minutes. While I did like some of the performances and the finale at the Empire State Building, I have to agree with audiences that the film is too long to be truly great.