I first saw (or at least noticed) Brody in the Pianist, Watts in Mulholland Drive, and Black in School of Rock.
I went to see these movies not because I like to go to blockbusters, but because I like what I think are good movies. The thing in common with these movies is that they are both interesting and off the beaten path.
I suspect Peter Jackson is a movie fanatic of the Spielberg mold, and that he was looking at movies such as these for casting King Kong.
Here is what I think about everyone judging KK by its "Box Office Mojo" or whatever.
I suspect Jackson did not make King Kong for the money. I think he made it for himself and for his friends. Having seen it myself now, I think it's pretty good. The first 20 minutes alone are, I think, worth the price of admission in the way Jackson captures the feel of the Depression era (remarkable in my opinion because he's from New Zealand).
If Jackson had wanted to pick name brand actors and actresses, I imagine with the budget that he had, he could have and he would have. But you would not be watching the movie anymore, you would be watching the personalities. Can one imagine Tom Cruise as Jack Denham?
I am not saying it is a perfect movie. Jackson piled it on a little too much-- he could have slimmed it down a little more, held off on some of the special effects in favor of more character development. But that's a quibble. And anyway, I don't think he made the picture as much for the audience as for himself and his friends. That's OK with me-- I think he and his friends have pretty good taste in movies.
I agree with all your assessments.
I saw the movie with my husband (who did not like it) but I did.
I'll admit I covered my face during the bugs sequence (couldn't handle it) but the rest of the movie was glorious.
I found myself paying the most attention during the scenes with Naomi and King Kong. They were beautifully filmed, directed and acted. She is some radiant actress.
I also enjoyed Adrien's performance. I am a fan of his anyway but he brought a great deal of sensitivity to the part.
Jack Black I had a little trouble with. Robert Armstrong, to me, in the first film nailed the part but I felt in some scenes Jack Black was good and in others he was not.
The supporting characters provided good and interesting acting, the young sailor and his mentor, the experienced sea captain and Lumpy, the cook. Gotta love Andy Serkis. Is there anything he can't do?
As mentioned, the special effects were phenomenal but you expect that of a Peter Jackson film. However, the acting is what sold me on the picture.
One disappointment, however, was the music - some parts of it were great - other parts of the movie I could barely hear it. Perhaps I am spoiled by the excellent soundtrack of all the LOTR movies.
Anyway, I will go see it again and I give Peter Jackson credit for tackling such a project.
Heck, I forgot about that movie! Strange flick but she was amazingly hot in that.