10 Mar Kong: Skull Island Review

KONG: SKULL ISLAND

This is part of my ‘Re-Review’ series, where I revisit a movie that I haven’t seen in awhile to evaluate if my opinion has changed with time.

With the release of the first full trailer for Godzilla vs. Kong, I decided to re-watch six of my favorite Godzilla-centric movies, including the precursors to the new film.

Old Opinion: The best King Kong movie ever made

New Opinion: The best King Kong movie ever made

2014’s Godzilla kicked off a new MonsterVerse, and after establishing Godzilla’s origin, King Kong was the next logical solo entry; he is Captain American to Godzilla’s Iron Man, in MCU terms. Kong; Skull Island is an objectively better film in every way to Godzilla, which is high praise, since Godzilla was a solid movie.

Most of Kong: Skull Island is set in 1973 as the Vietnam War ends, and Kong features the secret organization Monarch as the primary driver of the narrative. At the dawn of the era of satellite imagery, and during imperial competition with the Soviet Union, Monarch assembles a motley crew of soldiers, mercenaries, scientists, and a photojournalist to explore, and potentially claim, newly discovered Skull Island.

There are a lot of characters in Kong by design, and Skull Island is where a lot of them die. The entire group of dozens of people is very quickly whittled down. In fact, most of the featured characters at the beginning die sooner or later. The entire cast, including Tom Hiddleston, John Goodman, Samuel L. Jackson, Brie Larson, and John C. Reilly, all give great performances, with Jackson and Reilly the standouts. The substance of the plot is simply a bunch of people trying to survive and escape Skull Island, a remote land lost in time, where Kong himself functions as the arbiter of peace, making sure no species dominates the rest.

Kong is a great movie for several reasons. First, the pacing and action are far superior to Godzilla, a very clear response to the most common criticism of the prior film. The special effects are superior and mostly happen in broad daylight, making the action scenes easy to follow and highlighting just how good Weta Digital did with the CGI. The action scenes are well choreographed and have not only real stakes, but also emphasize the power of the massive and deadly monsters the humans encounter on the island.

Second, the characters are all better written and acted than in Godzilla. Jackson, a soldier without a purpose as the Vietnam War comes to end, shines as he generates a grudge against Kong for killing so many of his comrades-in-arms immediately upon arrival at Skull Island. Reilly also gives one of his best performances ever, balancing his excellent comedy chops with real empathy as a pilot stranded on Skull Island since WW2. Because of the great performances, the entire human element of the film is elevated. There is nothing wrong with human characters in a giant monster movie, you just have to make them interesting enough to stay engaged.

Lastly, Kong himself is an amazing character. The performance capture and photorealistic CGI combine to create a version of Kong that exceeds all predecessors. Without speaking, you always understand his thoughts and motivations—no small feat. The other flora and fauna on Skull Island are also notable for the exceptional quality of their terror-inducing design.

Upon re-watching this movie, I really couldn’t find anything that I didn’t like. As a prequel, Kong: Skull Island stands (mostly) independent from the other franchise entries so far, while also giving Kong an introduction that makes you want more. The most disappointing thing about the movie is that some characters you really like die, and the survivors do not seem to have a path towards showing up again in the present-day entries of the franchise. In other words, I liked the characters too much…high praise for a monster movie.

Pros:

• Terrific story, characters, and setting, all realized in 1973-era glory
• Great performances all the way around
• Best version of Kong ever, as a character and special effect
• Some genuinely horrifying elements to the story
• Action scenes and pacing are basically flawless

Cons:

• Characters you grow to like either die in the movie or are seemingly timed out of a return in sequels…is that really a con, though?!

Rating: 4/5
Director Jordan Vogt-Roberts took Peter Jackson’s 2005 King Kong to school, making a tight, coherent story the centerpiece, not an exasperatingly protracted piece of fanfic.

Review by Jim Washburn