Kong: Skull Island
More like Count Kong
+: a model of discipline and unpretentiousness compared to Peter Jackson’s King Kong (2005), or even Godzilla (2014); cast that’s probably too good for the material.
-: making this a technically-not Vietnam film doesn’t mean it’s not a Vietnam film, with all the redundancy implied; at no point do Captain Marvel and Loki fight.
Warner Brothers might not like Marvel Studios, but they do love the money they make, and as a result, they’re pushing forwards with at least two cinematic universes. Despite the success of Wonder Woman (2017), one of these remains an artistic basket case, although it curiously remains the bigger money-spinner.
The second universe has just two protagonists, although this isn’t preventing it from having at least four films (a Godzilla sequel arrives in 2019, and a crossover in 2020). Another factor not standing in the way of crossover is the fact that, for better or worse, Kong: Skull Island has about as much to do with its ostensible predecessor Godzilla (2014) as, say, Fantastic Four (2005) has to do with The Dark Knight (2008).
And whilst Kong: Skull Island is no Dark Knight, it’s not Fantastic Four either. This is in part because the screenwriters have watched plenty of recent films, and stolen some pretty good parts from them, like the storm sequence from Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) or the credits sequence from Watchmen (2009), and even the period detail from X-Men: First Class (2011). There’s also tiny bits of Jurassic Park (1993) in there, because they’d be idiots not to.
They’ve also stolen the army clichés from every film involving the military released this century, so the kleptomania has its limits. It also doesn’t help the film’s cause to mimic both Hulk films, where the military’s response to a giant, unkillable monster is to fire endless tiny bullets rather than, say, strategic retreat.
The second factor is the worldbuilding; given the excuse to create an entire environment, production design has thrown in a strong effort, both more creative and more plausible than, say, Avatar (2009).
The third reason is the cast. This film needed certain archetypes, ones which might as well have been named “John Goodman”, “Samuel L. Jackson”, and “John C. Reilly”. They also go completely mad and hire Brie Larson to take photos, react to things and do pretty much nothing else. They assume she’s likeable enough to elevate the film simply by being in the presence of other cast members; this assumption isn’t wrong, but it’s not solid either.
It’s entertaining in the moment, though — not a classic. At one point, a soldier intones, “sometimes the enemy doesn’t exist until you’re looking for one”, and at this point a small child might as well run into shot waving a banner reading “HAHAHA WE’RE TELLING NOT SHOWING”. Or maybe “HEY LOOK GUYS IT’S A VIETNAM FILM REALLY”, still a solid Hollywood go-to because none of the subsequent foreign policy quagmires have proven as easily romanticised.
It’s lots of little things that prevent Kong: Skull Island from being the best it can be, which is already not the best a film can be. It’s better than Godzilla (2014), if for no other reason than because it’s so much less ponderous; Kong shows up, in non-prologue form, within the first half-hour, and plenty of times thereafter. Does it work, for an hour and forty-five? More or less. As part of a wider universe? Not really.
