Film Review: Kong: Skull Island (2017)
For vast segments of Kong: Skull Island, if I had closed my eyes, I could have been convinced that I was watching Apocalypse Now, or at least listening to its soundtrack. I don’t mean that as quite the slight it may come off as, I just mean that director Jordan Vogt-Roberts seems to have no problem borrowing liberally from the classic war epic (and its source material, Heart of Darkness, by Joseph Conrad—even naming one of the leads after its author). So be it.
For the record, I’m not a big fan of the Kaiju, or “giant monster” genre (unless you count Jaws as one of these, then I’m all in). Maybe I’m missing something, but huge beasts causing trillions in damage never did much for me. On that note, I was a bit biased headed into this latest installment, but I came out with a smile on my face, so that’s something anyway.
Kong has problems, but I can mostly overlook them due to the fun I had watching it. It’s cheesy, heavy-handed at times, and I know there’s plenty of political allegory jammed in there, but I’ll be damned if I can put my finger on exactly what the film is trying to say. I’m pretty sure they’re comparing Trump to Nixon, and current U.S. military efforts to the blunders of the Vietnam conflict, but it all gets lost in the mix.
Set in 1973, during the last days of the Vietnam War, a team of scientists, army men, a British jungle guide, and a photographer set off to the newly discovered Skull Island. They’re stated intention is to map the island, but one scientist (an always great John Goodman) has theories about monsters living under the Earth that he needs to investigate. In doing so, they anger a giant gorilla who quickly destroys a whole fleet of helicopters, thus becoming a white whale, with the Army commander (Samuel L. Jackson) as Ahab.
Overall, the entire cast handles the material well. Tom Hiddleston as the jungle guide pulls it off just fine, as does Brie Larson as the photojournalist (although I can’t figure out why exactly she was needed on the expedition—a woman for Kong to have a crush on, I suppose). The real standout, however, and this should come as no surprise if you’ve seen any of the trailers, is John C. Reilly as stranded WWII pilot, Hank Marlow. Reilly steals, not only every scene he’s in, but somehow every scene he’s not in as well. He’s a mix between Dennis Hopper’s character in Apocalypse Now, and Reilly’s own Dr. Steve Brule from the insane fever dream of a television show, Tim & Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! Put your mind around that! He exists largely to offer our heroes—and by extension, us—much-needed exposition, but he also gives the film its humanity. Even monster movies need some of that.
The big guy is revealed in full early on (the trailer also reveals him, so this should come as no surprise), which is a departure from previous installments in the Kong tale, and many giant monster movies in general. This is a plus, allowing for a play on the original airplane battle (which is the climax of the original 1933 film, and with Vietnam era Huey helicopters substituted here) to happen within the first half hour, which lets the rest of the film to advance of its own accord, with its own mythology and world building. There are several more nods to the 1933 (and beyond) production, but the film at hand manages to be its own entity.
One of the biggest “wow” factors and an element everyone is talking about is the eventual tie-in to the 2014 Godzilla film. It would seem that these days, the end credits are where you shore up all your loose ends, sneak in a few more Easter Eggs, and get your inevitable franchise build-ups in line. This time around, we are treated to a cut scene that, with no subtlety whatsoever, tells us that Kong will eventually fight Godzilla and that these two films inhabit the same world (Hydra and Mothra are also hinted at). Oh, the property damage!
It looks like Hollywood isn’t done with giant monster movies quite yet, which is something I find kind of endearing. It’s an age-old genre with debatable success, but it keeps coming back again and again. I have surprisingly high hopes for the future of this kind of film. I’ll admit, I want to see what they can pull off.
I liked Kong more than I thought I would, so I guess that counts as an endorsement. It’s a fun movie, I won’t deny it. It doesn’t break any new ground, but does it need to? No, not really. It might borrow heavily from other films that have had some cultural impact, but I never got the sense that it was itself trying to make the same impact. Even the half-veiled attempts political commentary is handled with a sense of humor (albeit with a bit more “wink, wink, nod, nod” than I care for). Its biggest fault is that it gets bogged down in too many storylines and characters. It becomes a lot to keep track of, especially when all we really want is more John C. Reilly, and maybe some more of that damned dirty ape fighting all manner of weird creatures.
