It wasn’t that long ago that director Peter Jackson was a relatively obscure filmmaker making movies few people saw. His best back then was probably 1994’s Heavenly Creatures, which starred Kate Winslet and Melanie Lynskey in their first film roles. It told the story of two teenage girls, seemingly living in a fantasy world, who plot to and kill one of their mothers. Based on events that took place in New Zealand in 1952, Creatures was best suited to art-house theaters, not the gigantic multiplexes where Jackson’s films now play. Back then, Jackson was just an interesting director who used to make splatter films. Then the three The Lord of the Rings films came along, with Jackson at the helm, and everything changed.

The Rings trilogy was not only a box-office and critical success, but a technical tour de force that quickly established Peter Jackson as one of the world’s premier directors of special-effects films. One moment he’s making smalltime stuff, grouped in with countless other filmmakers, and the next moment his name is slotted up there with the makers of the biggest-budget, CGI-dominated spectacles: Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and James Cameron.

It’s now likely that he’s surpassed even them with his newest film, King Kong, a 187-minute spectacle that updates the basic story of the 1933 original with 21st-century moviemaking technology while retaining all the charm of that classic. This is the movie to see in theaters this Christmas season.

Jackson tells King Kong’s story in three parts. Part one takes place in New York City, where the main characters are assembled and set out from on a voyage to make a film on an uncharted island. Part two takes place on the island itself, where Kong is discovered and the leading lady, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), is literally carried away by the giant ape. Finally, Kong is captured and all return to New York, where part three unfolds. I’m hardly giving anything away here -- everyone knows the original story, which Jackson basically sticks to -- but what’s amazing about his film is how he manages to retell this well-known tale while keeping it fresh, even with a three-hour running time. One part of his success has to do with how long Jackson holds off showing Kong -- I didn’t keep track of time, but it had to be more than an hour into the film -- and another is how he develops the relationships among all the characters, even Kong and Darrow. Then there’s the climax atop the Empire State Building, which the director wisely keeps relatively short, focusing more on making it authentic and creating impact. After all, everyone knows what happens -- it’s how it all happens in Jackson’s film that is so memorable.

The dazzling special effects help keep King Kong riveting. While not all the computer-generated effects are entirely convincing, every scene that involves Kong is amazing in its complexity and realism, which is crucial. Perhaps some giant puppets were used in some scenes, but for the most part Kong is computer-generated, though you won’t know this from watching the film -- he looks startlingly real, even when he walks, leaps, or, quite surprisingly, slides around on ice. Whether you’re a fan of computer-generated images or not, you’ll have to admit that Jackson’s Kong couldn’t have been done any other way and still have looked this realistic.

The 1933 film remains a classic, but no one in their right mind thought it looked "real." The 1976 remake starring Jessica Lange wasn’t much better -- that ape looked like a giant stuffed toy. Jackson’s 2005 version is the closest to the real thing we’ll likely ever get, and it’s all wrapped up in a three-hour spectacle that mixes modern-day filmmaking with old-school storytelling charm. King Kong is one of the best remakes ever made, and one of the best films of 2005.

• Go Back