Review of Kong: Skull Island

kongskullisland

Plagiarists! Tinseltown is full of them. Marvel took a chance by creating a shared cinematic universe, were their characters regularly crossover, and it paid off big time. Now everyone else is trying to replicate that profitable formula. DC has the Justice League in the pipeline, Netflix followed suit with the Defenders and even Universal is resurrecting their classic monsters for potential team up films. Not to be outdone Legendary Pictures has laid down the groundwork for a series of Kaiju blockbusters. First up was the 2014 Godzilla (directed by Gareth Edwards) and hot on its heels is everyone’s favourite climber of skyscrapers King Kong.

OVERVIEW

Kong: Skull Island is set in the year 1973. Thanks to advances in satellite technology the United States have discovered an unchartered isle that agent William Randa (a slender John Goodman) wishes to explore. Using funds procured from the senate, Randa assembles an expeditionary force comprising of scientists, an award winning photographer and a former SAS operative that specializes in tracking. Given the risk that the mission carries, a platoon of soldiers is also recruited to guard the team. Samuel L. Jackson (star of Snakes on a Plane) plays Preston Packard, the commanding officer of said military outfit.

Lieutenant colonel Packard hates serpents on planes so he chooses to transport the explorers via helicopter. After braving a storm, that surrounds their destination, the team arrive at Skull Island. Kong wastes no time in greeting the uninvited guests to his home. Like a chimp tossing faeces, the giant primate downs the choppers by hurling tree trunks at them. Randa, Packard and the remaining survivors now find themselves stranded in an inhospitable land. Their only means of escape is a rendezvous point situated on the northern coast. Unfortunately for them carnivorous creatures called Skull Crawlers patrol the passage. Skull Crawlers? Yeah, even the movie remarks that their name is corny.

VERDICT

My rating for Kong: Skull Island is a three out of five. An entertaining popcorn flick, but I’m not sure there is enough substance here to birth a franchise of creature feature sequels. The movie’s biggest problem is that the characters are so forgettable. Brie Larson, who plays the photographer, contributes little to the story other than looking fine in a tight vest. Tom Hiddleston’s portrayal of an ex-SAS soldier reminds me of the Predators protagonist. Both of them are accomplished survivalists who are totally devoid of personality. Most of the other actors are just fodder, waiting to be devoured by Skull Island’s assortment of bugs and flying reptiles.

I suppose Samuel L. Jackson was okay, as the crazed leader who is more concerned with killing Kong than getting off the island. Given that the ape slaughtered many of his men I can understand why he would be motivated by revenge. Retreat is also not on his agenda, as he recently toured Vietnam. After that fiasco he is not keen to abandon another war zone. My favourite character was a chap named Hank Marlow, who has been marooned on Skull Island since the forties. He’s a funny guy and I rooted for his safety, so he could reunite with the family he hasn’t seen in decades.

Even if the flesh and blood actors didn’t wow me their CG co-stars did at least leave a positive impression. The battles between Kong and Skull Island’s wildlife are spectacular. Based on this film and Planet of the Apes, it’s safe to say that Hollywood has mastered the art of animating virtual simians. Unlike Godzilla 2014, the makers of Kong are not shy about showing off the titular giant at every opportunity. Just as well. I see no point in teasing audiences with glimpses of the headline act. No one pays to watch the dull humans go about their business. We want to see the monkey bash stuff and in that regard Kong: Skull Island delivers.

This review is dedicated to the memory of Harambe. May 1999 to May 2016.

21 thoughts on “Review of Kong: Skull Island

  1. I actually enjoyed this movie more than I expected. It certainly has enough entertainment value to make it a worth while watch. But you are quite right it does lack substance and the characters are pretty mediocre at best. As far as what the movie promises to deliver, monsters fighting against each other, it gets it right on that department 😀 Great review as always 😊

    • I had a good time with this movie, but it feels like a good one off rather than the basis for a franchise. Mainstream audiences are likely to tire of the monster fighting novelty after a few sequels. On the plus side it seems like the studio is learning from their mistakes. I hear Godzilla was a bit dull, as it focused too much on the humans and barely showed the titular lizard. Kong does a better job of getting the balance right.

      • Godzilla was honestly, not too bad. I agree with the monster not appearing much in the movie, but I still enjoyed it enough. The atmosphere in the film was pretty intense. I prefer this movie though, over Godzilla, but the other one is still worth seeing 😊

  2. I avoided this at the cinema because the trailer made it look truly awful. General vibe is it’s not as bad as expected (hardly the greatest of recommendations!), so I’ll probably watch it at some point when I can pick it up cheap on DVD.

    • The movie surpassed my tempered expectations. It’s no Godzilla 1998 thankfully. Although watching the spectacular fights on a big screen would I have been nice I don’t regret saving my cash and waiting for the home video release.

  3. I was surprised to read all the high praising reviews ahead of seeing this at the cinema only to find it was great fun but not the substantial classic. they made it out to be.

    Then again, they all gave “La La Land” five stars too so… 😛

    • Kong: Skull Island is good, but not great. After writing this post I checked online and found a number of gushing reviews. Like you, I was taken aback by how many people highly rate the film.

      I’ll take have to take you on your word regarding La La Land. Musicals aren’t my thing so I’m unlikely to ever watch that movie, regardless of how many awards it wins.

      • La La Land was okay but not the greatest thing since sliced bread that many made it out to be. I do like some of the classic musicals so I could see the homage they were going for but I found the leads too obnoxious for my tastes. Whiplash is a much better film from the same director!

    • I’m looking forward to Kong vs Godzilla just so we can see the titular ape beat up more stuff. Hank Marlow was the only guy who stood out because, unlike the other characters, he had a backstory you could get behind. His humor helped too. It’s human nature to side with the funny guy.

  4. You know, theoretically, the Toho monsters were doing that whole shared universe thing long before the Avengers came along. And King Kong got to be part of it too. Maybe the surge we’re seeing nowadays is just copying them, and this film is a return to form.

    • Good point. Toho and the Universal Monsters proved that crossovers could be popular back in the day. I wonder why team ups vanished for a while. A movie with the brand recognition of two or more popular characters sounds like a guaranteed way of drumming up interest.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s