I began to wonder, watching King Kong the other day, if Peter Jackson knows - after the "Lord Of The Rings" trilogy - how to make a short film.
Or merely a shorter film, perhaps.
His latest movie is far too long and thus too self-indulgent. It could easily have an hour lopped off the film, including much of the first hour which labours to show how and why the film producer sets off on a quest for Skull Island.
Now beware, this piece contains spoilers - which is a ridiculous warning as the plot of King Kong by now must be pretty well-known.
The first hour of the movie also shows how Naomi Watts' character (Ann Darrow) is attracted to this venture. Unemployed, hungry and we must assume grateful for the kindness of rogue-like producer Carl Denham (played by Jack Black), who buys her an apple before her meal. My, he does spoil her.
Yet this over-long opening relies on two key elements that are treated badly. We see this mysterious old map in Denham's possession with no explanation how he came by it, and the way Darrow takes an interest in Denham and his project is poorly written. Moments after Darrow refuses Denham's offer to make her the star of his film he casually mentions the name of a playwright she admires.
Denham had no idea that would be the trigger to catch her attention so the fact he drops the name of writer Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) lacks any kind of believability.
They could have sorted the first hour out with Denham and Darrow bumping into each other on a New York street and she saying: "I'm an out of work and actress and hungry but I admire Driscoll's writing" and he responds, "Hey, I'm making a film because of a mysterious lost map I've got and Drsicoll is writing it for me."
Ten seconds later they could have been on the boat.
There are so many gaps in this film we can compile an impressive list of unanswered questions.
How is it Skull Island is shrouded in fog, making it hard to find, only at the beginning? We get nice weather after they land...
Why did the lookout, seeing the wall of rocks ahead, shout "Wall!" instead of a more usual warning? Usually "Rocks!" or "Land!" does the trick. Or "Iceberg!" in the right waters.
When the ship hits the rocks in heavy seas, it bumps off them. Really, without more serious damage?
When the ship is stuck on the rocks and the crew throw stuff overboard to lighten it (including a table and soup tureen) why didn't they throw all those heavy bottles of chloroform - bearing in mind they hadn't found Kong at that point?
Why are there remains of a lost civilisation on the island along with dinosaurs - are we meant to think ancient peoples managed to live long enough to build alongside even more ancient creatures?
How does the native who kidnaps Watts find her cabin on a ship that we might assume is completely foreign to him?
How does Watts avoid losing her arms when she is torn from the ropes holding her as a sacrifice for Kong?
How does Ms Watts' clothes stand up to so much without tearing - or even more to the point, how did she not get a single scratch until right at the end of her time on the island?
How does the woman survive being tossed around like a ball by Kong without losing consciousness or suffering whiplash?
Why does Kong's lair have skeletons in it to suggest he kills them for food when we see him eat bamboo shoots, presumably as he is a non-meat eater?
How did people survive running between the legs of panicking dinosaurs - running the same way as they were? But at least I now know that dinosaurs run at the same speed as adult humans.
How come, if dinosaurs can be killed so easily by smaller creatures, falling off cliffs or tangling with Kong, there are any left at all on Skull Island? I imagine over millions of years even a large island can't sustain such a rate of attrition.
What makes the natives on the island disappear from the story halfway through?
How is it bullets from lots of guns on the island do not harm Kong but, at the end, the beast is fatally wounded by guns from aircraft?
Just how many sailors were on that ship? Given the number killed on the island it must been a lot. Clearly the boat was able to sail home, halfway round the globe, with less crew than they arrived with and the smaller crew was also able to get the drugged ape on board.
Even assuming they somehow got the monster ape on the ship, how do they successfully keep it sedated for a journey of several thousand miles - and if they did, when did they feed the creature? If Kong is a vegetarian a factor in the life of a veggie-eating creature is eating a little, often.
Indeed, where exactly did they keep the ape? It wasn't that big a ship.
How do they get Kong ashore in New York, across town and into the theatre without anyone noticing?
How long did it take to make the chains and cuffs to hold the ape in place on the theatre stage? I ask this because the people on the ship must have ordered them in advance by radio with exact measurements. Can you imagine the problems if they hadn't been ready in time?
Why did five planes fly in to attack Kong and after three are smashed down by the ape, we still see three planes?
Why on earth was this film remade?
Despite its frequent chases, manufactured dramas and unanswered questions we might wonder not at the size of King Kong but why scenes like the monster insect valley were included, other than to kill more of the crew.
Having said all that, the movie does open very promisingly with shots of the down and out in depression-era New York - and one memorable moment shows a vaudeville act dance cut to the same gyrations of a man being arrested. Probably the best moment in the film, apart from the fall of Kong off the skyscraper which had a delightful if tragic grace.
If I had to pick the best thing in the film it would be King Kong. Yes, the movie was about the creature, true, but the Andy Serkis-led CGI was stunning and believable.
Next best thing was Naomi Watts, who had a good interaction with the massive ape, even if I didn't believe she would perform a juggling and comedy dance routine on the edge of a cliff.
After that I found very few of the characters either believable or interesting - especially Jack Black, who simply did not convey any kind of feeling of being an obsessed film producer.
I expect, despite more questions than answers, the film will wow audiences who like a chase or two. My one hope is that the movie world will say the film has been remade once too many times already and doesn't re-make it again.
But who knows?