A few initial thoughts... There's a lot I will eventually say, but aside from too much in certain departments, I think the picture is very good--not great. While the three hours length didn't bother me overall, there are certainly portions which could use some editing down. Jackson is indugent occassionally and it drags the story, threatening to stop it at some points. I'm wondering if I will get the impulse to see it again. The CGI looks a lot better on the big screen than on segments I've seen on television, and the finale--considering we all know what the ending is going to be--is much more emotionally effective than I expected. It's a million times better than the 1976 remake. No surprise there. But the original has not been challenged in the charm department nor the stop-motion fantasy look of Kong. Jack Black was fine, something I didn't expect to say. As has been mentioned in articles about the film, he is clearly patterned after and resembles the young Orson Welles. Naomi Watts is quite effective and believeable for the most part, although Jackson has her do a few things which boarder on the ridiculous. Adrien Brody has been panned by some critics as being "miscast," but I think it's more the refashioning of the Jack Driscoll character in this movie which may be bothering them, not really Brody. All these types of pictures nowadays tend to contain a moralizing, intellectual type in them. Think of Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park. A few of the island set pieces go over-the-top in that there are far too many creatures lurking around. A brontosaurus stampede doesn't work at all, and the insect infestation in the pit is too overwhelming for its own good. I would definately recommend it to anyone on the fence about seeing it. It is vastly superior to almost all big monster pictures, and I'm sure is a great deal better than if the likes of Spielberg had made it.