'Scream, Ann! Scream for your life!'

Some movie scenes give you goosebumps, others make your spine tingle, and still others do both. But it's a rare scene that gives you goosebumps and makes your spine tingle just thinking about it, even after seeing the scene dozens of times.

That's how I feel about the scene in King Kong when movie producer Carl Denham, played in all his over-the-top glory by Robert Armstrong, directs his new-found star actress Ann Darrow (the immortal Fay Wray) in a screen test on board the cargo ship that is taking them to Skull Island and an unknown fate.

"Now, you're quite calm - you don't expect to see a thing - then, you just follow my directions," Denham says to her as he starts cranking the camera. "Camera. Look up slowly, Ann. That's it. You don't see anything. Now look higher - still higher. Now you see it! You're amazed. You can't believe it! Your eyes open wider. It's horrible, Ann, but you can't look away. There's no chance for you, Ann - no escape - you're helpless, Ann, helpless! There's just one chance - you can scream - but your throat's paralyzed! Try to scream, Ann, try!!! Perhaps if you didn't see it, you could scream!! Throw your arms across your eyes and scream, Ann!!! SCREAM FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!!

With that, Fay Wray lets out one of the most bone-chilling shrieks in the history of cinema. We have established that Ann Darrow's boyfriend, first mate Driscoll (Bruce Cabot), and the ship's captain have been watching from above. A horrified Driscoll grabs the skipper's arm and says, "What's he think she really gonna see?"

All of this accomplished in the scratchy silence of a 1933 film - no John Williams music score underneath to add any more sense of menace to the scene (although Max Steiner's fantastic work enhances many other key moments in the movie). We're almost 45 minutes into the 103-minute masterpiece before we finally meet Kong himself, but the on-board screen test has long ago filled us with all the dread we need for that big moment. I love that scene.

All of the advance hype for Peter Jackson's reinterpretation of King Kong sounds too good to be true. Well, no, Matt Drudge reports that insiders are starting to think this version could challenge Titanic as the all-time box office champ, and I thought James Cameron's big-boat soap opera was an all-time disappointment. Drudge's report makes the new Kong sound similarly like a crowd-pleaser that stinks artistically:

"The human relationships are s**t ... the dialogue is piss poor and there is a scene of Jamie Bell shooting gigantic bugs off of Adrian Brody with a tommy gun ... those are the bad parts," says a Hollywood reporter. "But.... the scenes between Kong and Naomi Watts tug at the heart strings big time. And the final scene was just great! There were one too many longing looks between the ape and (Naomi) Watts ... but the audience around me ate it up."

Jackson did an amazing job with Lord of the Rings, so I have high expectations - but the thing is, I loved just about everything Cameron did until Titanic. Jackson has made some great decisions, beginning with setting the film in the 1930s where it belongs - but he's also added more than 80 minutes to what was a perfectly-paced thriller. Unlike Tolkien's treasure, you don't need a whole lot of time to tell the story of King Kong; I hope and pray Jackson hasn't added too much padding. Still, I'm looking forward to seeing this one - even if I don't expect Naomi Watts to make me forget Fay Wray screaming for her life.