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 Zack 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.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism