Skip to main content

Kong's a pretty good king.

Kong: Skull Island
(2017)

(SPOILERS) Just two entries in, and a running flaw has already established itself in Legendary Pictures’ bid for a “MonsterVerse” cinematic universe: exemplary visuals (delivered by talented directors) and laudable design work married to borderline non-existent characterisation. For the humans, at any rate. Is this an endemic problem with such movies, that the massive, monstrous protagonists inevitably dwarf their human counterparts? I don’t know. At least Kong himself fares better in Kong: Skull Island than most over-sized feature creatures, mainly because he isn’t over-used and is mostly well-used when he is. But Jordan Vogt-Roberts’ movie generally seems uncertain over how to integrate its ingredients, from overblown Nam motifs to puerile anti-war sentiments to wacky comic relief.


Skull Island occasionally put me in mind of the considerably slenderer budgeted but considerably more imaginative 1975 adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ The Land That Time Forgot. Like Kevin Connor’s flick, Kong takes place during a period of warfare long enough past to have entered the realm of the mythic (60 years for Land, 45 for Skull Island), where the iconography of its fictional representations have become irrevocably entwined with the reality. Both take place almost entirely on strange and isolated islands populated by freaky creatures and feature uneasy alliances between differently, sometimes dubiously, motivated groups.


But, while Land offers mysteries and secrets to solve, Skull Island is an open book. There’s nothing up the sleeve of the screenplay credited to Dan Gilroy (Nightcrawler), Max Borenstein (Godzilla) and Derek Connolly (presumably employed because he co-wrote Jurassic World’s less-than-original-but-made-a-lot-of-dough screenplay). Maybe it’s John Gatin’s fault, since he provided the storyline and also furnished us with dreck like Real Steel and Need for Speed. Or perhaps it’s the old story of writers hard-pressed to juggle the demands of studio execs? Either way, beyond the admittedly arresting conceit of the period, which has already been stretched a very long way with its Kong meets Apocalypse Now advertising, there’s too much here that seems like a missed opportunity.


Kong’s so preoccupied with staking its franchise claim that director Jordan Voight-Roberts fails to ensure it is authentically pulpy, in the immersive way the best of these sorts of pictures are (see Raiders of the Lost Ark for the prime example). Instead, he mashes up genres and tropes and wonders why they don’t stick better. John C Reilly and Samuel L Jackson are in completely different movies, you’re never remotely convinced Tom Hiddleston is really hanging out in ‘70s Nam, and the island, for all that it includes some wonderful vignettes (the giant spider!) and stunning vistas, fails to evoke a truly uncanny environment.


There are stirrings of something more intriguing with John Goodman’s Bill Randa, promoting the always-appealing Hollow Earth theory (not that we get to see it – just one of those missed opportunities) and the lore of MUTOs, former dominant life forms on the planet, all set to regain control of the Earth, something that has been an enduring touchstone in one shape of form (Doctor Who’s The Silurians providing one period-appropriate example). There’s also his tale of surviving a monstrous encounter as a young sailor (something that might have been a more evocative means of starting the picture, as well as a direct link to Godzilla) And, being the ‘70s, the setup wouldn’t be complete without the lure of conspiracy, as seen in the government agency Randa works for, one with a – really obvious to the audience -– secret agenda. Oddly (or is it?), it’s called Monarch, which is also the name of the (purported) CIA mind control programme of that era.


So, there’s more than enough potential, but while Vogt-Roberts brings a turbo-charged, stylistic tour de force to much of the imagery and action, there’s only ever lip service to era, be it the references to Nixon, the war is hell of Nam or the liberal dousing of period pop tunes (regardless of how prolific they’d actually be in ’73), so literal they have White Rabbit playing in the bar where Hiddleston’s ex-SAS Captain James Conrad is found (Hiddleston’s performance is professional and serviceable, but outside of the occasional deadpan “How lovely” in response to some new nastiness, he feels miscast. He also has zero chemistry with Larson).


The maxim of any action movie worth its salt ought to be, “If you don’t care about the characters, you aren’t going to care about the spectacle”, no matter how expensive that spectacle. It’s this that’s far more damaging to Skull Island than the straight in-straight out linearity of the narrative (there’s no time to explore the island, with its set deadline; even Land, half an hour shorter, managed to get to grips with the mechanics of its microcosm; there’s a tribe in Skull Island but they’re resolutely silent, which I don’t know if it’s a stroke of genius or a complete cop out).


The deaths are meaningless. Even Reilly’s comic relief doesn’t feel indispensable (Reilly’s funny, but the producers bafflingly believe we care so much about his WWII survivor Hank Marlow that we’ll be invested in his credits roll family reunion; it would be neither here nor there if he’d been offed by a skullcrawler). In this regard, the demise of Goodman’s Randa, who actually had something interesting going on, is more of a loss. Crucially, I cared more for the giant stick insect Toby Kebell starts shooting at, which has all of a minute of screen time, than any of the humans.


The grunts are clearly designed to supply the broad strokes impact of the units in Aliens or Predator but entirely fail to do so. Kebbell makes an appearance in a non-motion captured role for a change, but his CGI counterparts confound his intentions (he does get one of the best lines, though: “Is that a monkey?”) Shea Whigham manages to exert some presence and at least goes out in a manner that made wonder for a moment if Vogt-Roberts was taking the piss out of such heroic last stand moments (his self-detonation is so completely off target, but it doesn’t play as a laugh, yet feels like it should) and was a minimalist commentary on the efficacy of the US war machine. But then I just as quickly concluded that such an interrogation was probably a waste of time. Generally, the attempts at commentary in the picture happily fit the description banal.


Jackson has more impact, of course, since the 2-D villainy of Colonel Preston Packard, bent on winning at all costs, having “abandoned” Nam (the “It was a draw” line having long since been taken by A Fish Called Wanda) allows him engage in some patented bellowing and ranting. He’s not very interesting, basically, so hissable that he may as well be a Disney villain, and falling into the same category we recently saw in Logan, where the bad guys can’t compete with the hero.


Who’s Kong, obviously, and who is surprisingly one of the better elements of the picture. I say surprisingly, as I’ve never found the character remotely interesting (I’m one of those who was always more fascinated by the dinosaurs of the original, before they happened across the great ape). His primal protector role, “King” of the island (given Legendary can’t actually call him King Kong directly, they’re amusingly cheeky about getting as close as they possibly can), is much more effective than the enormous simian chubby he develops for a tiny human female in each previous new iteration. Even given he’s bigger than before, and going to get even bigger for his upcoming grand slam tournament, the choice doesn’t detract from the action. 


Vogt-Roberts has clearly put a lot of thought into how to use Kong in each sequence, from the teaser that wisely dispenses with the whole origins business (albeit, that’s actually ma or pa Kong) and goes straight to the reveal, to the decisive takedown of military firepower as he swats helicopters away like flies. Later he wrestles (and makes sushi of) a giant squid-like thing and does some impressive WWF moves on the daddy of all skullcrushers before extracting its innards via its tongue (all these sequences needed were some Looney Tunes sound effects to sell how funny they might have been).


If avoiding the Kong/Ann Darrow romance angle is a plus, no one on board has stepped up to the plate of making Brie Larson’s Mason Weaver even remotely plausible. She’s a war photographer who’d make James Woods and Jon Savage in Salvador spit blood, particularly when she breathlessly announces “I’ve photographed enough war zones in my time to know a mass grave when I see one”. And that’s only the start. Mason struggles futilely to save a giant deer, which endears her to Kong. She instructs Packard not to shoot Conrad, whom he is all set to… and he doesn’t. Why? Go figure. She must just have that special something.


You could say it isn’t Larson’s fault, but she did take the bloody part (and the sizeable pay cheque). The last time such a graceless plummet befell a Best Actress Oscar winner, Halle Berry followed Monster’s Ball with Die Another Day and Catwoman. Weaver is, at least, an effective snapshot of all the issues with the picture; how exactly does a war photographer get on board a classified mission? Why do all her pictures look like they’ve been passed through a Photoshop Elements filter? She even goes around announcing she’s an “anti-war photographer”, before waging war on a skullcrusher with a flare pistol (there’s no reason for her to be an expert shot with it, other than this we are now two decades into post-Buffy Hollywood and such lazy empowerment is assumed (even her character name is irritatingly indolent, as if summoning Ripley’s ghost is all that’s necessary).


Vogt-Roberts also includes more than enough cheesy moments to make the argument he hasn’t much idea of what he’s doing (Larson charging in out of nowhere, lobbing an explosive cigarette lighter; Hiddleston, in a gasmask, brandishing a samurai sword, rollicking to the rescue), because they’re played straight rather than with an eye to how inane they are, by pretty actors unable to inhabit the sendup they need to work. He also tries to riff on the patriotic fallen heroes vibe (complete with mournful Henry Jackman score) that worked in Predator – kind of – but flails badly.


And yet, there’s still more than enough in the way of sheer panache. Cinematographer Larry Fong, on day release from Zach Snyder’s juvenile paws, is able to revert to the kind of scenic canopy that made his work on Lost so lush. Early scenes flow confidently and fulfil their potential, including the assembling of the team, the encounter with and fly through of the wall of fog, all the while a Nixon bobblehead informing the mission, and a dragonfly foregrounded as helicopters drop bombs. Indeed, the picture only really begins to own up to its shortage of ideas once Kong has downed everyone. And even then, Vogt-Roberts continues to devise set pieces like an artier exponent of a Jerry Bruckheimer movie (his use of slow motion is a delight).


Easily my favourite moment in Skull Island comes during the helicopter destruction derby, as one of the humans plunges towards Kong’s open jaws. Vogt-Roberts cuts away to a close-up of character biting into a sandwich. It’s the sort of thing Joe Dante would have embraced, if he’d had his hands on a blockbuster of this ilk, and suggests its director nurses an appealing, blackly comic streak. Likewise, John Ortiz being carried off by tiny vicious birds and having his arm torn off in silhouette against an orange sunset is both horrifying (well, it would be more so if Ortiz wasn’t as profoundly irritating as he always is) and audaciously witty. And then there’s Goodman’s camera flash, stuck on repeat from the belly of a skullcrusher. Vogt-Roberts refuses to allow his shots or sequences breathe the way Gareth Edwards did with Godzilla, which means that ultimately his set pieces aren’t as well-constructed, but the upside is a pacier picture, and simply a more engaging, likeable one.


I remain to be convinced that Legendary can come up with the goods for their MonsterVerse, however, and it’s difficult to see Kong vs Godzilla playing out any differently to Batman V Superman, just with less human interest (if that’s possible), but I’m all aboard for whatever Vogt-Roberts chooses next. Hopefully it will allow him to exercise that funny bone, and if it doesn’t, perhaps he should go back to making something smaller and more personal.






Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

We’ll bring it out on March 25 and we’ll call it… Christmas II!

Santa Claus: The Movie (1985)
(SPOILERS) Alexander Salkind (alongside son Ilya) inhabited not dissimilar territory to the more prolific Dino De Laurentis, in that his idea of manufacturing a huge blockbuster appeared to be throwing money at it while being stingy with, or failing to appreciate, talent where it counted. Failing to understand the essential ingredients for a quality movie, basically, something various Hollywood moguls of the ‘80s would inherit. Santa Claus: The Movie arrived in the wake of his previously colon-ed big hit, Superman: The Movie, the producer apparently operating under the delusion that flying effects and :The Movie in the title would induce audiences to part with their cash, as if they awarded Saint Nick a must-see superhero mantle. The only surprise was that his final cinematic effort, Christopher Columbus: The Discovery, wasn’t similarly sold, but maybe he’d learned his lesson by then. Or maybe not, given the behind-camera talent he failed to secure.

On a long enough timeline, the survival of everyone drops to zero.

Fight Club (1999)
(SPOILERS) Still David Fincher’s peak picture, mostly by dint of Fight Club being the only one you can point to and convincingly argue that that the source material is up there with his visual and technical versatility. If Seven is a satisfying little serial-killer-with-a-twist story vastly improved by his involvement (just imagine it directed by Joel Schumacher… or watch 8mm), Fight Club invites him to utilise every trick in the book to tell the story of not-Tyler Durden, whom we encounter at a very peculiar time in his life.

When primal forces of nature tell you to do something, the prudent thing is not to quibble over details.

Field of Dreams (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s a near-Frank Darabont quality to Phil Alden Robinson producing such a beloved feature and then subsequently offering not all that much of note. But Darabont, at least, was in the same ballpark as The Shawshank Redemption with The Green MileSneakers is good fun, The Sum of All Our Fears was a decent-sized success, but nothing since has come close to his sophomore directorial effort in terms of quality. You might put that down to the source material, WP Kinsella’s 1982 novel Shoeless Joe, but the captivating magical-realist balance hit by Field of Dreams is a deceptively difficult one to strike, and the biggest compliment you can play Robinson is that he makes it look easy.

You’re never the same man twice.

The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970)
(SPOILERS) Roger Moore playing dual roles? It sounds like an unintentionally amusing prospect for audiences accustomed to the actor’s “Raise an eyebrow” method of acting. Consequently, this post-Saint pre-Bond role (in which he does offer some notable eyebrow acting) is more of a curiosity for the quality of Sir Rog’s performance than the out-there premise that can’t quite sustain the picture’s running time. It is telling that the same story was adapted for an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents 15 years earlier, since the uncanny idea at its core feels like a much better fit for a trim 50 minute anthology series.

Basil Dearden directs, and co-adapted the screenplay from Anthony Armstrong’s novel The Strange Case of Mr Pelham. Dearden started out with Ealing, helming several Will Hay pictures and a segment of Dead of Night (one might imagine a shortened version of this tale ending up there, or in any of the portmanteau horrors that arrived in the year…