The protracted $200 million remake of a remake almost twice as long as the original for no discernible reason numbs butts on streaming

To paraphrase Jeff Golblum’s iconic quote from Jurassic Park, Peter Jackson was so preoccupied with being given the complete creative freedom to remake his favorite, that he didn’t stop to think if he should. That’s not to say 2005’s King Kong is a bad blockbuster, but it could have done with a much more judicious trim in the editing room.

The 1933 original comes in at a breezy 100 minutes, with the 1976 remake starring Jeff Bridges significantly lengthier at 134 minutes, but apparently emboldened by the success of the butt-numbing (but brilliant) The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the epic creature feature leisurely strolled into theaters at 188 minutes, while the Extended Edition came in at a cool 200.

The single most expensive production in history at the time with a price tag of $207 million, King Kong did at least bust some blocks by netting $562 million at the box office and winning three Academy Awards for its technical merits, but there’s a vastly superior version of the same story in there that runs for at least 30 minutes less.

Sure, that’s not a sentiment everybody is obligated to agree with, but large swathes of the first and third acts drag on for what feels like an eternity, even it does soar spectacularly at its highest moments. Streaming subscribers do seem to be in it for the long haul, though, with FlixPatrol outing Jackson’s love letter to his all-time personal fave as one of Prime Video’s top-viewed titles.

If you prefer your giant rampaging apes to be on the shorter and less elegiac side, then there’s always the MonsterVerse to scratch that itch.