Peter Jackson’s 2005 remake of King Kong came with sky high expectations from fans. After all, it was his follow-up to the Lord of the Rings, so audiences weren’t only expecting a good movie - they were expecting a masterpiece. The resulting film probably can’t be called a masterpiece, but it is a wildly ambitious, beautifully made film that pays homage to the 1933 film that inspired Peter Jackson to become a director. At the time, the critical reaction to the film was muted. The Lord of the Rings films were almost unanimously acclaimed, but King Kong, was still receiving largely positive reviews, wasn’t taken as seriously by critics. Fan reaction was also muted, with many complaining about the film’s three hour running time, which, compared to the original’s lean 100 minutes, seemed bloated. The Blu-ray director’s cut would beef the running time up to 200 minutes. Box office wise, the film was considered a disappointment, even though it was still one of the top grossing movies of the year and didn’t lose Universal, the studio that made it, any money. In the years since, many seem to regard Peter Jackson’s King Kong as a failure - perhaps wrongly. In this episode of WTF Happened to this Movie, we dig into its long-gestating origins, the unusual casting choices (Jack Black, Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody) and more!