King Kong is one of those classic figures of cinema who keeps turning up very few decades. At this point, you should pretty much know what to expect from a Kong movie; some destruction, some great effects, and enough mayhem to propel the plot forward. Kong: Skull Island isn't an all-out remake of the original, so we're dealing with new characters, a new time period, a new story, which also serves as a new introduction to this incarnation of Kong. Unfortunately, while this is a gorgeous film, and it never really slips into being boring, it's one of the more mediocre films I've seen in a long time. It's appropriately large in scale and unique in vision, but almost everything else is so devoid of anything significantly new that there's nothing to latch onto.
We enter the story at the tail-end of the Vietnam war, with Bill Randa (John Goodman), of the secretive organisation MONARCH, embarking on a mission to an uncharted island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Along with tracker James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston), photographer Mason Weaver (Brie Larson), and a military escort led by Colonel Preston Packard (Samuel L. Jackson), Randa's team arrives on Skull Island. When they begin their experiments, they're attacked by an enormous ape, and the team is spread across the island. Scientists and soldiers journey through the island, trying to survive the various, unseen creatures that populate it, including the deadly Skullcrawlers.
Kong: Skull Island seems more interested in exploring the world that it creates - meaning the visuals and designs - than populating that world with meaningful characters or an engaging story. I believe that monster movies live or die by their human element, and despite the undeniably fantastic cast, the characters are paper-thin. The screenplay does them no favours, as the soldiers throw around clichéd dialogue to make it seem like they're friends, and mention their families over and over again so that we feel bad when they eventually die. Some of the soldiers have their little quirks, but none of the performances stand out as memorable. They're just bodies there to be killed, with some half-hearted attempts to make them feel like more.
Tom Hiddleston is your typical leading man, who is very capable and handsome, and that's the extent of his personality. Brie Larson is the Ann Darrow stand-in - meaning that she's the blonde woman who forms a connection with Kong - but there's absolutely no reason for that connection to form. It's almost laughable when the film tries to make you care about Kong, because it's never clear if we're supposed to be siding with him or the humans, and the way that the line is drawn is done at the expense of any subtlety. The only reason that conflict continues later in the film is because Samuel L. Jackson (using his character's name is unnecessary, it's just Samuel L. Jackson) goes insane for no reason. The film tries to justify so much, but none of it ever feels believable.
The story and themes within this film just feel empty. The characters wander through the jungle, but the only real purpose of their journey is to encounter creature after creature to justify action sequence after action sequence. The characters begin and end in the same place, and while the setting and story aren't really built around the characters, that critical human element is just ignored. The only reason I could remember the differences between each character was because I recognised the actors playing them. The dialogue is unbelievably stale and stilted, and I found myself laughing at several moments that were supposed to be dramatic or impactful. Kill any hope of efficient exposition being delivered to you before you walk in.
While there isn't anything to emotionally invest in, Kong: Skull Island is an undeniably beautiful film. Every shot is vibrant, with colours popping in ever single shot. At the same time, it utilises a very rapid-fire, unnecessarily flashy style of editing in many sequences. It never messed with the cohesion of individual scenes, but I can recall a number of times where the film will cut to a shot in the middle of a scene, and the only justification that I can think of for the shots is that they look cool. These moments of forced stylising felt like nothing more than a brief distraction, and then I wondered what exactly those shots added. A bullet rolled over the edge of a helicopter? Okay, great. How does that enhance this scene?
The film as a whole feels almost like a feature-length trailer. There's a lot of quick-paced dialogue, with very brief information doled out to define each character. There are some impressively-crafted sequences, but the effects aren't mind-blowing. While Kong himself is very well-realised, I can't help but feel like the film really wants you to be blown away by an effect that we've seen before. The action scenes have a lot of money shots, but I never felt myself truly wowed. Monsters punch each other for a bit, then one monster wins. Any attempts at character-building feel shallow and insipid, and the only moment that really got me excited was the post-credits sting, but even that was undercut by my pre-existing awareness of an upcoming film in this monster cinematic universe.
Despite my unfamiliarity with the series as a whole, I refuse to believe that Kong: Skull Island is the best film that this giant ape has appeared in. This film is a bland, predictable monster movie that will entertain you if you're looking for some simple monster-on-monster action, or even if you just want to see Kong on the big screen again. I saw this film in IMAX, and the few extra dollars likely mad certain sequences more engaging. But when the only real positive about a film that jumps out to me is "it looked nice", then it doesn't offer much. I've already forgotten most of the film, and you'll get pretty much the same viewing experience if you just watch the trailers. I'll retain some hope for the upcoming Godzilla vs. King Kong, but a sequel to this film alone doesn't entice me in the slightest.
Comments
Post a Comment