Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” is a king-sizeddisappointment. While it manages to entertain, it falls short due to its length, an overdose of bigaction scenes, and plot holes. Jackson, best known for the now-legendary “Lord of theRings” trilogy, attempts to top himself with this remake of the 1933 classic, butfails.

Basically, “King Kong” is the story of an eccentric filmmaker (JackBlack) who learns of an uncharted island. He puts together a movie crew and cast, hires a ship, andtakes off to make his dream movie. On the island, the party is met by a 25-foot tallgorilla, savage islanders, and many creatures.

Jack Black, Naomi Watts and Adrien Brodystar. While Black does an admirable job, I was disappointed. Black is known for high-energyperformances in movies like “School of Rock,” but here he plays it conservatively. Ihoped for something special, but his performance was just ordinary.

Watts and Brody aresolid, but don’t offer anything spectacular. The best acting in the movie is by Andy Serkis,who plays Kong. Known for Gollum in “The Lord of the Rings,” he reconnects with Jacksonto play another CGI character. Serkis does a great job, making every movement feel as if it weretruly coming from a giant gorilla.

The first of the film’s faults is its length. Atthree hours, many scenes drag on. A sequence where characters fall into a pit of large insectsseems as if it will never end. On top of that, it is entirely unnecessary. A few anonymous sailorsdie, but nothing happens to any of the main characters and in no way does this scene affect theplot. Jackson attempts to make “King Kong” more than a typical action movie by addingdepth to the characters, but he takes so long that I grew weary of the long-winded, melodramaticscenes. The constant shots of Naomi Watts looking up at Kong with tears in her eyes began to makeme ill.

The second major problem with “King Kong” is the unnecessary actionscenes. The movie can be split into three acts, the second of which takes place on Skull Island,home of King Kong. There are some thrilling action scenes but unfortunately, there are just as manydull, useless ones. There is a limit to any audience’s threshold for watching monsters fightother monsters.

The third major issue is the plot holes. “King Kong” pushes theboundaries. For instance, we are never told how Denham (Jack Black) acquires his map of SkullIsland, which is supposedly unknown to most of the world. A few action sequences are almostentirely implausible. It is believable that the monsters on Skull Island exist, but I refuse tobelieve that human beings can outrun giant dinosaurs or that Adrien Brody can defeat a raptor inhand-to-hand combat.

“King Kong” is fun for your average movie-goer, but it isnot the epic masterpiece it wants to be. If I had wanted to see a mediocre action movie, I couldhave done so with countless other films that weren’t three hours long. “KingKong” is not worth your time.