‘Kong’ fails to live up to high expectations

Can a film that’s going to rake in more than $500 million be a disappointment?

“King Kong,” the three-hour Peter Jackson opus that swung into theaters last month amid a publicity campaign that would make a monkey blush, is already the eighth-biggest film of 2005 with $195 million in North American ticket sales.

Worldwide, it has taken in $465 million and will likely break the half-billion mark over the weekend.

But “compared to expectations, it was a disappointment,” says Brandon Gray of Box Office Mojo. “But that’s what’s going to happen when you spend $200 million on a movie that stars an ape.”

Before the movie opened, Entertainment Weekly hailed it as the “blockbuster of the year.” Pundits projected it would earn at least $300 million and could give “Titanic” – which took in $600 million in North America, $1.2 billion worldwide – a run as box-office king.

Now it has become a cautionary tale about overselling big-budget fare.

“We saw ‘King Kong’ as a panacea that was going to solve the box-office problems for the year,” says Russell Schwartz, marketing chief for New Line Cinema. “But we’re putting too much pressure on a movie to perform. And we’re going to have to ask ourselves if we’re trying too hard to turn movies into ‘events.’ “

Where did “Kong” go wrong? Analysts see several missteps:

“Too loud. “The Chronicles of Narnia,” which has taken in $250 million, likely will outperform “Kong” with a quieter ad strategy that included showing the film to churches and schools.

“Too long. At 3 hours and 7 minutes, “Kong” “is a major time investment,” says David Poland of moviecitynews.com. “That’s asking a lot.”

“Too special-effects driven. “You’re not going to make a smash live-action movie when your lead character is a special effect,” says Gray. “Especially one that doesn’t even speak.”