1933: King Kong scales the Empire State Building for the first time. The cinematic kaiju legacy is born. Godzilla, the so-called King of Monsters, won’t make the big screen for two more decades. In that time, Kong was king of the gigantic movie terrors. Since then, King Kong’s popularity declined under the shadow of Godzilla. In modern times, other monstrous kaiju were popularized by blockbuster Pacific Rim. Except for that visually-stunning Peter Jackson film over a decade ago, King Kong was just a big ape.
Kong: Skull Island is the gargantuan ape’s return to the limelight. More than a return to form, it modernizes Kong as the awesome but terrifying monster he should be.
Kong, as a film, remains fully aware that it’s a monster movie. And it isn’t just a cheesy kaiju movie. It’s a war (or anti-war) movie set during the Vietnam War. That automatically makes it extra cheesy. But Kong is beautiful because it’s not pretentious. Much of its beauty draws on its self-awareness and refusal to be anything other than what it should be. It doesn’t stuff itself with dark, brooding characters or over-the-top slapstick humor. It’s the right blend of campy terror and majestic awe that only Kong can inspire.
Whereas the past films start with the daredevil camera crew travelling to Skull Island, Kong applies ‘Nam and Cold War sensibilities to the Kong origin story. William Randa (John Goodman), an official of the monster-hunting organization Monarch, approaches the US senate for expedition funding to the uncharted Skull Island, citing that they should get there before the Russians. He enlists the help of spec-ops tracker James Conrad and a Vietnam War crew led by Lt. Preston Packard (Samuel L. Jackson). Photojournalist Mason Weaver (Brie Larson) joins the crew for her own reasons as well. Soon, it becomes clear that Randa’s motives may not have the Russians in mind, especially when Kong mauls the unwelcome visitors’ landing party.
In a fit of Captain Ahab bloodlust over the loss of his men and personal disappointment on America’s loss in Vietnam, Packard vows to take down Kong. Hank Marlow, a solider stranded on the island since World War 2, argues that Kong protects the island and its inhabitants from dreaded “Skullcrawlers,” a self-fashioned name for a race of terrible reptilian monsters from the depths of the Earth.
First, let’s talk about the good. Kong is visually stunning. It was made and directed with an IMAX release already in mind. However, unlike most 3D movies which use the technology just as a cheap toy, Kong follows in the footsteps of technologically-acclaimed IMAX 3D films Avatar and Life of Pi. Kong used IMAX 3D technology to enhance how landscapes and the creatures looked. Not a single thing leaped from the screen to touch the audience (except for one scene which, because it was only one, caught me off-guard). Most of the time, I marveled at how well-crafted the island and each absurd creature was.
Kong replicates the wonder and awe that Jurassic Park and Avatar evoked in audiences when they first premiered. Mixed in with its beautiful grandeur, Kong delivers the most terrifying and tense sequences short of a horror movie. You’ll never know what’s lurking behind a bush or underwater. Brief silences, a tentacle cameo, logs turning into animals. And goddamnit, gigantic spiders with bamboo shoots for legs will haunt your nightmares if you’re even just a tad bit arachnophobic. Kong is a nerve-wracking flick, period.
Whereas the monsters are placed in the visual spotlight, humans are in the narrative core of the movie. It’s the typical “don’t screw with nature or nature will screw with you a hundredfold” plot, but it’s done with so much brio from its main antagonists. Randa wants to the prove that monsters exist. Packard wants to kill all the monsters. Meanwhile, Conrad, Weaver, and Marlow strive to leave Kong and the island alone.
As always, Samuel L. Jackson’s performance as Packard was strongly convincing. He commands all the scenes that he’s involved in. I was also relieved that John C. Reilly’s character as the stranded soldier wasn’t done out of pure comic relief. Instead, he gave weighty lore exposition as to the film’s primary conflicts. It was appreciable that Kong strove to develop its characters’ backgrounds and how they developed throughout the film.
That being said, I couldn’t get behind either Conrad or Weaver. Tom Hiddleston did what he could for the character, but it’s impossible to like the static, generic badass (complete with a pointless action sequence in the latter half). Sure, they did give him a bit of backstory, but his character ultimately fell from being interesting to just static. Brie Larson’s character was worse. In the beginning, someone asks Weaver why she’s going on the expedition when she’s already a Pulitzer-winning photojournalist. I have to ask the same question. Her motivations were never clear throughout. Props for not playing out the damsel-in-distress trope often associated with King Kong, though. Still, it’s a travesty that Hiddleston’s and Larson’s talents were wasted on bland characters.
Their deficiencies don’t detract from Kong’s overall quality, though. Kong is still a wonderful movie if you’re willing to ride through it from beginning to end. It reinstalls King Kong as the king of the jungle and a strong contender for the giant monster showdown looming in the far future.
Oh, and don’t miss the end credits scene for a teaser of what’s to come in the future.
![](https://2ndopinion.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/300x250.png"")
