Admittedly I didn't attentively watch all of it so I'm being a little unfair, but it cemented my belief that directors shouldn't remake films they loved as children. If you are to make a film from a book you loved as a child, honour those childish impressions with rigorous honesty (as with Švankmajer and 'Alice' or Ruiz and 'Treasure Island') rather than thinking "what would I enjoy if I saw this as a child today?"
Andy Serkis is a phenomenal motion capture actor, but that doesn't excuse how boring and unnecessary this film is to slog through. Why is Jack Black in it? So they can make fat jokes? Probably. Regardless he's awful as is everyone else. It's like no one wanted to be there. Just like no one wanted a third version of a film that wasn't interesting to begin with. Let King Kong die plea... Oh wait they made another one?
The original kong (what i can remember) was screen magic....here, tho the cgi glut exposes the magician's tricks, and not even the fresh off lotr direction of jackson, the antic "charm" (he has his moments, here and there) of Jack Black, nor the brittle beauty and grace of Watts can save this HUGE steaming pile from it's own excess....
It is understandable that an ape want to run into the sunset with Naomi Watts, who is timeless in this film. At times a loving homage and expansion to the 1933 film with better written characters that go deeper into why they are on the boat but the overkill of CGI ruin the film and Kong lacks the soul of the original as the film is more interested putting characters into peril making it too brutal for its own good.