Growing up in the ‘80s, I became a huge “King Kong” fan through repeated viewings of both the original 1933 RKO classic and its less-dignified, though still entertaining, 1976 remake. In between those decades, Kong resurfaced in a silly Rankin/Bass cartoon and an affiliated Toho Studios Japanese “Kaiju” spin-off -- not to mention his immortal battle with Godzilla in the early ‘60s.

Therefore, I have no problem at all with Peter Jackson remaking KING KONG for a new generation -- especially not when you see the loving care that Jackson applied to the remake: references to Fay Wray, Marian C. Cooper and RKO Pictures pop up early on. Later in the movie, Max Steiner’s original ‘33 themes are performed by the pit orchestra as Kong is introduced to the city of New York (conducted by Howard Shore, whose original score to this version was tossed out at the last minute), while the goofy tribal dance from the Cooper-Schoedsack classic is reprised by dancers on-stage. The end credits even appear against a backdrop with the 1933 title card fonts -- elements all respectful of the filmmaking milestone that was the very first “King Kong.”

Naturally, Jackson’s movie has the benefit of new technology behind it: this is a film packed with visual delights, from the authentic recreation of Depression-era NYC, to the amazing animation and “performance” of Kong himself. Articulated to a degree by Andy Serkis (Jackson’s Gollum cohort) and marvelously rendered on-screen, this is a Kong that’s a far cry from the stilted Rick Baker suit in Dino DeLaurentiis’ 1976 remake and ranks with the most awe-inspiring technological achievements that special effects wizards have produced throughout the decades.

So, there’s no problem at all with Jackson’s new film, right? A remake respectful of its predecessor with sensational visuals ought to be something to be admired and savored for generations to come, no?

Sadly, not everything in Jackson’s sprawling, overlong, three-hour (!) opus matches its good intentions and aesthetic qualities. This is a movie that plays like the kind of “Director’s Cut” studios indulge filmmakers on DVD, bulging with superfluous details and side characters with no pay-off, and scene after scene that could have been sliced in half and been every bit as effective -- if not more so for their brevity.

Since the original movie’s premise needs little introduction, it’s best to dissect the alterations Jackson and his collaborators (writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens) have applied to this version. Here, leading man Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) is a playwright suckered into one of director Carl Denham’s latest productions. Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) is a down-on-her-luck actress seeking a way out of the Depression, and finds the opportunity of a lifetime despite the suspicious motives of Denham himself. All three, and a crew led by captain Thomas Kretschmann, find themselves on Skull Island, a prehistoric environment teeming with dinosaurs, giant insects, wild natives and one giant ape named Kong...

One of the first things you’ll realize about Jackson’s “King Kong” is that -- after a marvelous beginning in an early ‘30s Big Apple -- the film chugs along at a snail’s pace. The journey to Skull Island finds Jackson spending minute after minute on extraneous side characters and details; unlike his “Lord of the Rings” adaptations, though, the source material here doesn’t beg for a three-hour treatment, with one especially infuriating subplot involving Jamie Bell’s young seaman and his older, wiser superior (Evan Parke). Their relationship doesn’t add anything to the finished film, and could have been jettisoned without any detriment to the central drama.

Over a third of the movie is over before Kong appears, and naturally there are several “jackpot” set-pieces, including a brontosaurus stampede and a chase with raptors (and later, a pair of T-Rexes) not far behind. Regrettably, the movie then stalls out again with sequences that run on too long: the “spider pit” scene in particular is especially bloated (and atrociously spotted with inappropriate music from a mostly subdued, ultimately forgettable James Newton Howard soundtrack). Eventually, Jackson gets Ann, Jack and Denham off the island and back to New York, but even there, every scene feels several beats off-measure: the icy jaunt through Central Park with Ann and Kong is cute but ought to be over in half the time, and even the final battle on top of the Empire State Building (which Jackson wisely refrains from being overly bloody) leaves you feeling like you’ve watched each and every fly-over of the bi-planes that eventually take Kong down.

Between the bloated running time, over-reliance on side details and minor characters, what one is left with in “King Kong” is a film where the viewer ultimately has little interest in its heroes. Watts looks fetching and is effectively emotive in her encounters with the big ape, yet her scenes with Brody’s Jack are confined to the first third of the movie -- something that detracts from any real chemistry between the two. Brody himself looks as if he could have made for a perfect “everyman” kind of hero, but the script doesn’t give him nearly enough to do. Worst of all is Jack Black’s Denham: the movie clearly didn’t want to make him into the nefarious bad guy that Charles Grodin served up in the ‘76 version, and subsequently balances out some of the character’s despicable behavior with comedic elements. Yet, he’s still unhinged, and the film ultimately doesn’t come down hard enough on him: his reading of the movie’s final line rings false because it’s still Denham in this version who’s truly responsible for the tragedy of the final act.

By the time the would-be heart-tugging climax arrives, I felt more exhausted than moved by the 2005 “King Kong.” This is a reverent and beautifully-made picture that nevertheless wears you down: after all the running, shooting, shaking camera and muddled characterizations, it becomes apparent that Jackson’s movie left its heart somewhere between here and Skull Island. (**½, 187 mins., PG-13).

---