KONG: SKULL ISLAND - Run Through the Jungle

Director: Jordan Vogt-Roberts
Writers: Dan Gilroy, Max Borenstein, Derek Connolly, John Gatins
Cast: Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, Brie Larson, John C. Reilly, John Goodman, Corey Hawkins, John Ortiz, Tian Jing, Toby Kebbell
Runtime: 118 mins.
2017

Twelve years ago Peter Jackson's King Kong was released. Hot off the monumental success of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Jackson tackled another passion project. The result was an overbloated labor of love, its failures symptomatic of Jackson's indulgent impulses, its successes clearly issuing from passion and immense skill. Its legacy endures thanks to the lavish attention Jackson paid to Skull Island. The film was swimming in Jackson's signature talent for all-encompassing dread. That mystique is embodied in Kong himself, as motion captured by the great Andy Serkis. Jackson/Serkis's Kong is a high mark for CGI creations. He is the soul of the film, a brute that exudes empathy, and one of a long line of Serkis motion capture triumphs.

PJ's King Kong exhibited all the strengths and pitfalls of the auteur-driven style of Hollywood filmmaking. Now a dozen years later we have a film that exemplifies the producer-driven model. For Kong: Skull Island is, to nobody's surprise, the impetus for a shared cinematic universe. Kong and Gareth Edwards' Godzilla are slated to tussle in 2020. To establish this universe Warner Bros. has tapped second-time film director Jordan Vogt-Roberts, no doubt a talented creator, and no doubt one who doesn't have the clout or the vision to stand up to the studios. Kong is an exercise in style over substance. It's clear that there are strong ideas at the core of the reboot, but they suffer from a backslide into generic blockbuster territory.

Credit where due, the film's cast is incredible. We kick things off with John Goodman, hunter of eccentricities, who wants government funding because he found a map to this cool sounding place called Skull Island. I don't remember where he got the map, or maybe they didn't care to let us know. Anyway, Richard Jenkins inexplicably gives him $$$, and he and his assistant Corey Hawkins set about getting the band together. That includes monster hunter Tom Hiddleston, maniacal soldier Samuel L. Jackson, and regular photographer Brie Larson. They zip on over to Skull Island where Kong immediately throws trees at them until many are dead and their helicopters are busted. From there the groups are split, with one trying to get to an Extraction Point, and the other trying to kill a bunch of large animals.

In what is certainly an overcorrection from complaints about Peter Jackson's version, we have very little time to get to know these characters before being thrust into the action. I don't know if that's a good or bad thing. On the one hand, some more time with these characters might have filled them out. On the other hand, these folks may have been flat and dimensionless regardless. It's an enormous testament to the actors that everyone is basically likable, because they are wisps of nothingness on the page. Tom Hiddleston has nothing to do. Brie Larson has nothing to do. John Goodman sort of does something for one scene. Samuel L. Jackson has maybe a good monologue or two. We are simply watching ciphers traipse ghostlike through the greenery.

The sole exception is John C. Reilly, who plays the on-the-nosedly named Hank Marlow. He's a WWII pilot who has been stranded on Skull Island for decades. When he's not spouting exposition, he oscillates between decent comic relief and legitimate pathos. It bespeaks Reilly's tremendous talent as a character actor that I actually found myself concerned for his safety. He monopolizes the film's best moments.

But what about Kong, the real draw? How is he as a character? The answer is... fine. Toby Kebbel, Serkis's motion capture apprentice, takes over Kong Duty. He's about as much worse as you can be while still doing a good job. Kong is described as godlike: true to form he is aloof, terrible, and occasionally beneficent. His scale is impressive in a loose way, unlike the grandiosity that Edwards achieved with shared universe playmate Godzilla.

The issue is that Vogt-Roberts, either due to inexperience or meddling, demonstrates little control over the deep-tissue subtleties of his craft. Kong is big, but inspires little wonder. The creepy-crawlies are well-designed, but rarely compelling. The characters are surface-level likable, but they serve no narrative function. One major character was set up to be a thematic lynchpin of the film, but his death plays out in a cool way that has no purpose. There is no commentary, no subtext, not even any subversion. It means nothing.

In that sense Kong is a shell of a movie. It tries to be Apocalypse Now in monster movie digs, but the comparison is embarrassing. It comes close to making a commentary on the Vietnam War, busting us over the head with its cool classic rock soundtrack so that we understand. The elements just don't congeal.

Which brings us to the one worthwhile aspect of Kong--the visuals are gorgeous. This is shot to shot one of the more handsome blockbusters in recent memory. To a certain extent, Kong would work better as a slideshow than a movie. Larry Fong's cinematography is unassailable. Explosions are reflected in sunglasses, dragonflies are rack-focused into helicopter shots, and there is a particularly delightful recurring shot of a Richard Nixon dashboard bobblehead. Despite the erratic editing and woozy storytelling, the film even manages to cobble together a capable action sequence in a megafauna graveyard. I can't be all mad at a film that has a Gatling gun set up between triceratops horns, or Tom Hiddleston slicing through huge bugs with a katana in a cloud of tear gas.

One could easily enjoy Kong equally throughout which is more than one could say about Peter Jackson's film. Yet I prefer that film by a significant margin. Even a flawed passion project kicks the pants off a deliberate franchise-starter's messy fumblings. Kong gropes around enough to find threads of inspiration here and there, but it ends up being little more than dazzling placation, just enough to make you pay attention to a nebulous movie to come.

2.5 / 5  BLOBS