The start of this year has brought a deluge of surprisingly well-made movies, both in the obscure and the mainstream. Anna Biller’s The Love Witch was an homage to the colorful, fashionable glamor of classic cinema, while encompassing more contemporary views on femininity and sexuality. The LEGO Batman Movie was a jokey wink to the superhero genre, exploding with energy, inspired references, and clever satire. Jordan Peele’s film directorial debut, Get Out, was a darkly comedic yet disturbing horror mystery film, layered with metaphor and social commentary on racial discrimination. John Wick 2 was a frenetic thrill ride of eye-popping visuals and nonstop adrenaline action violence. Logan, on the other hand, was essentially a modern remake of Terminator 2 (1991), though with more grit; its gruff intensity, however, was warranted by the interplay of intricate characters, heartfelt emotions at play, inherent morals of family and sacrifice, and a universal but well-executed plot. I appreciate each of these films on their own merits, but none do I feel as inclined to write about than that of Kong: Skull Island. Out of all these films, I have to say that I had the most fun with Kong. To be honest, it’s hard to feel that way in a movie these days. The Marvel factory/emporium has done an impressive job mass-producing their line of entertaining and overall well-made superhero sagas, but outside the risky, boundary-pushing Deadpool, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Logan, they seem to otherwise play it relatively safe–and it’s starting to get a little bit stale. Most of the good “films” of recent conversely tend to rely on their dramatic stories and “deep” characters, automatically giving them the edge when it comes to making a compelling picture. It seems like most of the recent attempts at creating a successful and, at the very least, competent fantasy-adventure movie have fallen flat–constituted by a lack of originality (in both plot and visuals), bland acting/writing, and a formulaic reliance on tropes and clichés that we’ve all seen before.
But Kong is a little more clever than that. While we’ve seen the same story reincarnated at least three times by now, it’s the embroidered details of this film that really pack the punch (and, by the way, there are lots of them in this film). Kong is the perfect popcorn movie; it reminds us why we love the movies so much, and why the art of film doesn’t always have to be restrained to humble little films with melodramatic plot lines interwoven with a “socially redeeming” message. No, Kong is the perfect symbol for the grandness, the wonder, and the unparalleled spectacle of the movies, fueled by impressive special effects, imaginative storytelling, dramatic visuals, and a steady dose of humor that ultimately makes everything else work together.
Almost each previous King Kong film has been groundbreaking in its own right. The original 1933 version remains one of the most influential examples of movie special effects, inspiring later directors such as Peter Jackson, Tim Burton, and Ray Harryhausen. The 1976 remake was forgettable, however; I think the fact that I haven’t seen it proves it (just kidding; I haven’t yet seen Citizen Kane, either). Then, Peter Jackson’s 2005 revival brought computer effects and motion capture to a whole new level of epic proportions (quite literally; the original 1933 Kong only stood 24 inches tall). By this point, though, in 2017, special effects can’t carry the whole weight of a film. So what makes this Kong so special?
Again, it’s not really the plot. To recap, it’s the same old story retold from within a 1973 setting. Some characters, among them a group of Vietnam-army soldiers, go to Skull Island for some reason that the movie demands, and like always, they encounter some wacky creatures along the way: giant-sized reptiles, humongous spiders, a monstrous octopus, and, of course . . . “is that a monkey?” In fact, the movie parallels some of the key scenes of Apocalypse Now (1979) to the point where I think it’s safe to call the movie both a parody of Coppola’s film and the monster-adventure genre in general. Clearly mimicking Kurtz’s dramatic revelation in Apocalypse, our cast of main characters in Kong stumbles across the abandoned and crazed. . . wait for it . . . Dr. Steve Brule, “for your health”!!! This is when the movie, surprisingly, really starts to work, becoming something entirely special and unique. The highly idiosyncratic humor that John C. Reilly purports throughout the film is no different than it is in Tim and Eric; he has the uncanny ability to say any line in the script, and BAM!–immediately it’s so absurd and unconventional in its delivery that it’s hilarious. Normally you wouldn’t find this in your typical Kong remake, but I’m glad the filmmakers had the courage to take the risk. The humor worked; it fused the story with life and an extra layer of self-awareness, subverting the norm of a conventional Hollywood remake and instead creating something that’s surprisingly original and effective. Even if Dr. Steve Brule’s wacky humor feels out of place in a Hollywood Kong movie–well, that’s exactly the purpose, ya dingus. And even though it does feel a bit too superficial at times, the movie still miraculously delivers on the entertainment-meter.
The movie was also impressive on a visual scale. The special effects were magnificent, and for the most part, amazingly realistic. King Kong especially moved with such enormous weight, and it was fully apparent that the surrounding environment of Skull Island was handled with such outstanding detail and care in making it a fantastical yet convincing location. While there was a satisfying assortment of all kinds of outlandish monsters and pestilent creepy-crawlies, they were given just the right amount of screen time necessary to keep the movie going. They didn’t lag on to the point of Peter Jackson’s tiresome use of digital puppetry in the 2005 version, which seemed to muddle the story in a state of perpetual videogame-esque repetitiveness. No, these creatures were used in a way that ultimately kept the thrills coming and moved the plot forward, leading to some well-executed action scenes reminiscent of classic monster movies of the ’50s (and the original Kong, if I didn’t hit you hard enough with that yet), enhanced with extravagantly-handled modern visual effects.
This brings me onto my next point: this movie was enjoyably violent! Both humans and monsters alike were ripped apart, straddled with bullets, smashed around, impaled (Cannibal Holocaust reference, anyone?), eviscerated, disemboweled, and thrown about in some pretty horrifying and gruesome ways. Of course, the movie stays well within its PG-13 limits, but the violence is executed in such a thrilling and over-the-top fashion that you just have to laugh at it, yet be horrified by it at the same time. It’s the pure definition of what “movie violence” is all about, and it brazenly assumes its well-deserved role at the forefront of the movie’s swashbuckling, fast-paced, and adventurous tone. The creativity, fantasy, and spectacle in which the action is handled is something I haven’t really seen much since the days of Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson’s Kong, and Indiana Jones. It’s perfect within the boundaries of an entertaining action-adventure popcorn movie, and even handled in a lovingly schlocky sort of way.
So in a movie industry dominated by a tidal wave of the same deja-vu inducing Marvel movies, an envious yet incompetent DC superhero line trying to reach the same status, an influx of Michael Bay-inspired CG-explosion movies, a plethora of jump-scare-reliant horror movies, and the remainder consisting of overtly-serious Oscar-bait dramas, Kong: Skull Island is a refreshing theatergoing experience. In my opinion, Hollywood’s modern onslaught of adventure/fantasy films have been mostly disappointing, relying on banal computer effects, caricatured performances, unoriginal storylines, and the Disney logo. While Kong contains all of these (minus the corporate grasp of Disney), it goes the “extra mile” and, in a facetious, cheeky sort of way, turns those familiar tropes inside out. John C. Reilly’s eccentric layer of humor, the lavish visual effects, the creative and timely use of violence, and the surprisingly emotional core of the story will surely be enough to entertain you at the very least. If you have a soul, that is.