Skip to main content

Viet Kong

          Director Jordan Vogt-Roberts clearly took a look at previous iterations of King Kong and figured they were alright, but could use a heavy dose of Oliver Stone. Kong: Skull Island is the latest reboot of the famous monster movie franchise, and for good or bad it’s unlike any other King Kong movie.
          In 1973, an eccentric government agent (John Goodman) organizes a geological expedition to the uncharted Skull Island. With a military squad led by a jaded Vietnam vet (Samuel L. Jackson), a British tracker (Tom Hiddleston), and a photojournalist (Brie Larson), they make their way to the island where they run afoul of the islands’ monsters and specifically, its behemoth ape King. 
          This movie isn’t an adaptation of the classic Kong story or a remake the way Peter Jackson’s 2005 film was. It’s entirely focussed on Skull Island and the attempts of the humans to survive, never going to New York or the Empire State Building. The direction of the story has to change as well to build up the continuity this film has with 2014’s Godzilla. But while this film is very different from previous Kong movies in story, it’s still incredibly familiar. 
          The people behind this film clearly wanted to make it in the style of a Vietnam War movie, particularly Apocalypse Now, but with shades of Full Metal Jacket, Platoon and even The Deer Hunter. From the soundtrack and cinematography to the characterizations, writing, lighting, and marketing, everything is taken from the bin of Vietnam tropes. It’s so intentionally hitting all the clichés, you half expect to hear Jackson’s characters’ inner monologue about how war is hell, or for Credence Clearwater Revival to start playing as the helicopters fly towards Kong. There are numerous shots and a lot of mise en scene that are obviously trying to relate a Vietnam motif, many of which you see in the advertising. The way the soldiers interact with the native creatures is very reminiscent of a war environment, they might as well be under attack from camouflaged guerillas. While intended as homage, it often comes off as pretty laughable, especially in terms of character types.
          This movie has a pretty strong cast but sadly almost none of the characters are memorable. Jackson has a few decent moments but for the most part is just the typical Captain Ahab stand-in. Larson, Hiddleston, and Goodman are clearly variations on previous King Kong roles, but even as one-dimensional as those characters could be, they were still more interesting than this lot. Hiddleston and Larson in particular are painfully generic and despite being virtually guaranteed to survive, you don’t care if either of them dies. It’s good to see Jing Tian in a better movie than The Great Wall, but she’s under-utilized; as is Shea Whigham, Toby Kebbell, and the Straight Outta Compton reunion of Corey Hawkins and Jason Mitchell. The one good character is John C. Reilly as the Ben Gunn of Skull Island, having been surviving there since the Second World War. Because he knows the island better than anyone, relishes the chance to return home after decades, and has that likeable John C. Reilly humour, he’s the only character who earns your investment.
          But maybe the biggest character failing is with Kong himself. Don’t get me wrong, he looks fine. In fact the CGI is generally decent and this movie very much like Godzilla, has a great sense of scale. It’s also worth noting this movie avoids the Godzilla mistake of cutting away from Kong during the most action-heavy moments. But Kong still doesn’t play as a big a part as he should. This is definitely the humans’ story, which isn’t where the focus should be in a King Kong movie. And it’s really unfortunate that this leaves Kong with little personality. Unlike Godzilla who’s always been a larger-than-life monster, Kong perhaps because he’s a primate, has always had an arc we can identify with: usually it’s the very human trait of love which drives his actions in the climax. But here that’s absent, and he’s little more than a monster for the humans to fear and admire. This is something the Jackson film, which I actually quite like, did superbly. It also captured, thanks in large part to Andy Serkis, realistic ape behaviour that very seldom comes across in this film.
          This movies’ strongest assets are the action scenes, which though occasionally unconvincing (particularly one bit involving Hiddleston and a katana) and prone to some distracting 3D and slow motion effects, are pretty fun overall. There is some creativity to some of the monsters on the island and Kong throws down with them in enjoyable ways.
          Kong: Skull Island has a unique look for a monster movie, some good action and decent effects, and one enjoyable character. If you’re a fan of Vietnam war films, you may well like the presentation, but for me it’s not original enough. That combined with a lack of engaging characters and especially a disengaging Kong makes it a movie that delivers on only the bare minimum.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more