--Bill Randa, Kong: Skull Island
Despite serving as a sibling to the 2014 Godzilla, Kong: Skull Island represents a major step backwards from the successful aspects of Gareth Edwards' film that launched the MonsterVerse. Godzilla had its problems, to be sure [1], but Skull Island amplifies those problems to the point where almost nothing is executed well other than the creature designs, action, and general effects. Not even Samuel Jackson, John Goodman, Brie Larson, and Tom Hiddleston are able to salvage the rest of the movie.
 |
| Photo credit: AntMan3001 on VisualHunt / CC BY-SA |
Production Values
The majority of the movie might be poorly executed, but the visuals keep the scenes with Kong and the other monsters on Skull Island afloat. The action involving these animals is the best part of the film. In fact, the creatures--ranging from a giant freshwater squid to an enormous spider to reptilian "skull crawlers"--are the true stars of the movie, not that it takes much to be more engaging than the dreadfully superficial human characters.
Brie Larson and Tom Hiddleston play lead characters, but they are both capable of so much more than what Skull Island gives them. At least Samuel Jackson injects some semblance of sincerity into his character. Even so, he is very underutilized--although he does get to indulge in a "hold on to your butts" callback to Jurassic Park. John Goodman, along with the other major actors, is wasted on a simplistic character with no development.
If the pitiful attempts at humor weren't included, the characters could have come across as undeveloped but not necessarily wastes of acting talent, but the silly script and its lackluster dialogue (especially the "comedic" moments) annihilate almost every chance for any of the protagonists and their actors/actresses to delve into genuine depth. Godzilla suffered due to the simplicity of its humans after Bryan Cranston's character died, but at least it featured one great character and didn't smother its own plot with asinine jokes.
Story
Spoilers are below, not that there is much of a plot to spoil.
In 1973, a representative of Monarch (an organization that locates and documents cryptozoological beings) persuades the United States government to authorize a small trip to Skull Island, a landmass surrounded by constant storms. The team sent to the island quickly encounters Kong, a massive ape who presides over the area as its "king." The surviving team members try to reach a pickup zone at a far end of Skull Island before they are permanently stranded.
Intellectual Content
Even Godzilla (2014) at least teased a fairly significant message about the futility of thinking humans can control nature to any large extent, though it did not develop this theme very thoroughly. Skull Island doesn't even go as far as Godzilla, replacing scenes that could have been used to explore franchise-level themes with ones filled with shallow comedy.
Conclusion
Other than the action sequences and some of the effects, Kong: Skull Island has no redeeming aspects whatsoever as far as filmmaking quality goes. The plot, dialogue, and characterization are extremely superficial. Nonetheless, the film still serves as an important step within its cinematic universe. It might still be worth watching for some who simply want to keep up with each sequential step in Legendary's MonsterVerse, but Skull Island is easily eclipsed by both 2014's Godzilla and this year's King of the Monsters. The bar it sets is so low, however, that almost any level of script depth, not to mention comedy, is superior to what is offered here.
Content:
1. Violence: Some moments involve mild dismemberment. For example, a man's arm is torn off in the distance in one scene, and Kong pulls off a giant squid's tentacle in another. In yet another scene, a giant spider's leg impales a soldier.
2. Profanity: "Son of a bitch," "fucking," and "shit" are uttered.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/05/movie-review-godzilla-2014.html
No comments:
Post a Comment