Reviews

It’s Good to Be King in 'Kong - Skull Island'

Jordan Vogt-Roberts’s monster mash may be one long setup for future films, but if the monsters are going to look this good, we should let them keep fighting.


Kong: Skull Island

Director: Jordan Vogt-Roberts
Cast: Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, Brie Larson
Rated: PG-13
Studio: Legendary Entertainment / Warner Bros.
Year: 2017
US Date: 2017-03-10
UK Date: 2017-03-09
Website
Trailer

There are two objectives when making a monster movie. The first is creating cool monsters that smash things up real good. The second, and more challenging objective, is creating human characters that don’t induce coma in the audience between the monster fights. The latest iteration of the giant ape that prefers blondes, Kong: Skull Island, understands monster movies well enough to overcome its many flaws and give us the simplistic thrills that we crave.

From the iconic 1933 original to Peter Jackson’s bloated 2005 re-make, King Kong has always been about trying to control the uncontrollable. Man strives to shackle the Beast, while the Beast yearns to possess the Beauty. These conflicting motivations fuel an escalating fight that invariably leaves the humans miserable and Kong wishing he had never seen the Empire State Building.

Director Jordan Vogt-Roberts and Legendary Entertainment’s ‘MonsterVerse’ have far more pressing concerns than human frailty and monkey infatuation when it comes to Kong: Skull Island, however. This re-boot/prequel is the second in what will be, presumably, a long line of films that eventually kills our desire to watch CGI monsters fight.

The fitfully entertaining Godzilla (2014) lurched from the gate with a conservative formula more befitting the Marvel Cinematic Universe than the gleefully weird Toho squash-fests of the past. More attention was paid to building continuity with future films than adding anything new or exciting to the stagnant monster genre. In other words, it was entertaining but instantly forgettable.

And so it goes with Kong: Skull Island.

Here, the secret government agency introduced in Godzilla, Monarch, continues their investigation of all things monster related. Amidst the backdrop of the United States’ hasty retreat from Vietnam in 1973, Monarch representative Randa (John Goodman) organizes an expedition to an island in the Pacific known as “Skull Island”. Why people tempt fate with these sinister island names remains a mystery (nothing bad ever happened on “Bob’s Island”). All manner of weird rumors swirl around Skull Island, as does an ever-present hurricane that deters intrusion from the outside world.

That doesn’t stop Randa, who assembles a team of military helicopter pilots led by the slightly unhinged Colonel Packard (Samuel L. Jackson). Packard personifies obsession and naked human aggression, fueled by his squadron’s disastrous initial encounter with Kong. It’s a glorious sight to behold; Kong’s hulking physique backlit by the heat-distorted rays of the Sun. He destroys everything with style, sometimes using helicopters as improvised clubs.

This sequence highlights the full destructive power of Kong, who stands guardian to the Native inhabitants of Skull Island. Beneath the island’s crust lurks the “Skull Crawlers”; an uninspiring hybrid between lizards and the industrial waste monster from Joon-ho’s The Host. Luckily, there are more interesting monstrosities on Skull Island, including giant ants and an octopus that would make Captain Nemo wet his trousers.

Vogt-Roberts (The Kings of Summer, 2013) never indulges the urge to overuse Kong. He rumbles from the jungle, does something beastly and unrelentingly loud, and then retires to his giant ape estate that was apparently too expense to show. The filmmakers understand that audiences want short, spectacular bursts from their monsters, and Kong delivers on every level.

The remainder of the film must be carried by Kong’s human co-stars. Tom Hiddleston assembles a respectable Bond audition reel as Conrad, the tracker with a troubled past. He’s joined by a rabblerousing photojournalist named Mason (Brie Larson). There’s a hint of conflict with Colonel Packard, who blames Mason’s damning war pictorials for swaying public opinion on Vietnam, but it never really amounts to much. Mostly, people just walk around the jungle waiting to be eaten by creatures.

Hiddleston is a serviceable action hero, but that’s not where his brooding talents lie (see: Only Lovers Left Alive). Larson is better, easily making you believe that a primordial beast could fall for her. She’s a smoldering physical force. In fact, Kong: Skull Island might easily be renamed Larson: Tank Top. It’s ironic that the romance between the Beast and Belle in Disney’s upcoming blockbuster Beauty and the Beast is easily eclipsed by the awkward bond between Kong and Mason. They stare soulfully into each other’s eyes and you believe it completely.

Samuel L. Jackson has a blast with Packard's Ahab-like obsession to crush Kong. The bombs may have stopped falling, but this is a man who will never return from the war. It’s no coincidence that many of the river scenes in Kong: Skull Island, in which a derelict boat winds its way into the wild jungle, resemble the haunting cinematography from Apocalypse Now. Colonel Packard and Colonel Kurtz are cut from the same wild-eyed cloth that demands moral justice from an indifferent universe.

Jackson’s over-the-top performance is emblematic of a film that lacks subtext. Sure, there are some vague comparisons between America’s thirst for conquest and Packard’s complete disregard for the residents of Skull Island, but these are limited to a few lines of random dialogue and some stock Vietnam War footage. Even worse is an overbearing ‘70s soundtrack that leaves you wondering if Forrest Gump actually scored the film.

Still, Kong: Skull Island is a perfectly acceptable monster mash. Kong looks great, the action is thunderous, and any film that features John C. Reilly using a samurai sword to battle giant monsters is definitely worth seeing. Seriously, why isn’t John C. Reilly in every movie? This may be one long setup for future installments, but if the monsters are going to look this good, we should let them keep fighting.

6

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less
6

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less
Theatre

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less
10

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less
7

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 Popmatters.com. All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.

rating-image