Kong: Skull Island (2017) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
760 Reviews
Sort by:
Better Than Most Kong Remakes
OnlyNick5 November 2017
Any movie, or anything, really, that keeps my attention is good. Although I didn't really like the orange tinge everything seems to have in the very beginning, the technical side improves dramatically as the film progresses.

It takes place in 1973, just after the Americans "abandoned" the Vietnam War (according to Samuel L Jackson's Preston Packard character). The 70's production design is good and brings me back to my childhood (the soundtrack was awesome with plenty of 70's hits), although you don't see much of the 70's vibe after the first 20 minutes or so. The CGI is very good and doesn't make me feel like I'm playing a video game. This movie is like Jurassic Park meets Godzilla and they had a baby called Platoon and it grew to become a mash-up of the three of them with its own uniqueness called Kong: Skull Island.

Just under two hours in length and "hold onto your butts" and watch the credits.

My favourite quote from the movie is, "A camera is more dangerous than a gun." Seems like SLJ get's all the good lines.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Shut Down Your Brain and Enjoy the Adventure
Claudio Carvalho9 April 2017
When the Vietnam War ends, Bill Randa (John Goodman) and his partner Houston Brooks (Corey Hawkins) from the Monarch organization succeed to get the financing for an expedition to the recently discovered Skull Island from Senator Willis (Richard Jenkins). He hires the former Captain James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston) to guide the expedition; a group of soldiers under the command of Colonel Preston Packard (Samuel L. Jackson); and the awarded journalist and photographer Mason Weaver (Brie Larson). On the arrival, the helicopters need to cross a storm and soon they drop bombs on the forest to map the seismology of the island. Soon they are attacked by a huge gorilla called Kong that destroys the helicopters and kills part of the crew and scatter the rest through the island. The group commanded by Conrad meets Hank Marlow (John C. Reilly), a survivor from the World War II that lives with a tribe of natives. He explains that Kong protects the island and the natives from underground monsters and shall not be killed. But Colonel Packard is insane seeking revenge for his men that died.

"Kong: Skull Island" is a brainless adventure with several stupidities. For example, the number of helicopters in the beginning of the journey of Randa, Conrad and Packard is totally incompatible with the size of their ship. Bo pilot would dare to cross a storm like that in a helicopter. The attack of all the helicopters to Kong is absolutely imbecile. Most of the survivor's attitude are at least unreasonable. On the other side, the adventure is highly entertaining and the special effects are top notch. Therefore the best option to the viewer is to shut down the brain and enjoy the adventure since this is the purpose of this type of blockbuster. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Kong: A Ilha da Caveira" ("Kong: The Skull Island")
70 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Unbelievably juvenile. Ridiculous story.
latinfineart17 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Not even sure what to say about this one. Kong was 950 feet tall. And sweet. So sweet. Unless you threatened him or made him angry. Which they managed to do. I think pretty much anything that Samuel Jackson is in these days, must be avoided like the Bird flu. He is a compromised actor of extreme proportions, and will literally do anything for a buck. He is so tired. His routine is so old. Here he plays an army officer, who of course has no respect for nature, animals, or the earth. Hence the environmental statement. It is a statement that feels like it was written by a 5 year old. Hollywood being the nearly culturally bankrupt institution it is, seems to be incapable of a balance, nuanced, elegant statement of any sort. So, they keep producing this kind on inane garbage.

Why did 14 helicopter pilots, when faced with a 950 foot tall Kong, who has a wing span the size of several football fields, fly within swat range of this beast? Was it not possible they could have done any better than that? Does Hollywood really need to continue to insult us at every possible opportunity?

The only redeeming quality this movie had was John C. Reilly. His comic touch was all that kept me from walking out on this turkey.

Hollywood, you can do better than this. You need to stop catering to Chinese teenagers. This movie was terrible.
383 out of 578 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
What did I just watch???
zach03087 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Hey. You wanna see this movie? I can write it out for you and you will literally get the same experience as watching it. Ready?

Kong: Skull Island

*Opening credits*

*Introduce characters and story as fast as possible, with no back story, making sure you don't care about them at all*

*Bad dialogue*

*Unbelievably cliché Vietnam era music plays*

*Bad dialogue*

*Unbelievably cliché Vietnam era music plays*

*Some shot that adds literally nothing to the movie*

*Bad dialogue*

*Random slow motion shot for no reason*

*cliché music*

"Who are these people?? What? Why? Hold on wait...what? Helicopters can fly through hurricanes? Why isn't any rain getting inside? The doors are open...whoa. There's king kong. He totally just took down a helicopter. We should probably fly higher..since hes only like 100 feet tall...and we are in helicopters? No? Well OK I guess..."

*pew pew pew...booooom. pew pew*


*slow motion as cliché music plays*

*lots of bad dialogue and stuff that doesn't make any sense*

*comic relief*

*bad dialogue in slow motion*

*pew pew pew boom boom people die pew pew in slow motion as crappy music plays*

*plot and story that makes no sense*

*pew pew boom roar smash ending fight*



An absolute masterpiece. 10/10. Would rather scratch my eye balls out with rusty nails.
119 out of 180 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Donkey Kong
Cruise16 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Skull Island is another much-publicised remake that should have been left alone.

Granted, monster movies are enjoyed mainly for the effects, the graphics and gratuitous, large scale destruction and carnage. Top that off with a hero, a damsel and a nutcase or two and away you go. Who cares about acting, characters that you could identify with or hate and a script?

All that is well and good except for one thing and better movies have failed because of it. That thing is in the form of characters who are unusually and blatantly stupid. It may help advance the storyline but if that is the only avenue then the script needs to be rewritten, preferably by someone with an IQ.

No, I'm actually generous in my criticism. Here are some examples:

Helicopter pilots who fly really close to a 100ft ape that has already grabbed and mangled several other helicopters until every single one has been caught and pulverised. These are experienced pilots fresh from the Vietnam war. Now everyone has to get to the North of the island for a supply drop on foot. Really?

Or how about this, a female reporter who wanders into no-man's-land to help a 60ft water buffalo that is trapped under a fallen helicopter. Instead of getting any of the strapping blokes and tribesmen who are just around the corner to help, she tries to shift the helicopter by herself. So what if the megaton bullock couldn't budge it?

Yes, it exposes her to danger. The type of danger that otherwise can not be manifested in any other way. Really?

Oh please, stop! Mercy!

On the plus side, by this stage I had developed real feelings for the scriptwriter, the director and the producer, none of which was intended or that I care to express here.

Go see it if you must. Suspend your sense of reality and just go with it. Rest assured, you too will come out with feelings towards the aforementioned gentlemen.
116 out of 176 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Oh, boy.
Dalton Vaughn12 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I want to start off by saying that I am not going to sit here and pretend to be above wanting to see a 100-foot tall ape shred through some giant lizards and whatnot for around 2 hours.

If you were worried that Kong would wait 40 minutes to show the action only to cut-away when the fan makes contact with the feces, then you can put those worries to rest because this giant hairy grump is in your face right off the bat.

I could immediately tell that this film wasn't about to shy away from what we all craved so dearly in 2014's Godzilla, because from the first gunshot onward this script hauls some serious behind straight toward that colorful Skull Island which we were all so eager to see from the trailers.

Now, I have learned from a number of painful years that discipline is a key ingredient both behind the camera and beneath the projector. I like to think that my expectations were fair. I did not look at any reviews at any point before I hit that seat on that Thursday night - popcorn and drink in hand. I was ready, man.

If I told you that the neat visuals surrounding the lineup of lovecraftian nasties rendered into digital existence to confront the titular ape was enough to save this picture, then I would be lying straight to your face.

Yes, of course we get to see a glorious pair of giant angry ape fists make heavy and satisfying contact with: Some helicopters, a couple of lizards without legs (which is funny, because the T-Rexes in Peter Jackson's King Kong lacked arms), a giant squid because, you know, we needed 5 seconds of squid footage in the trailer I guess, more lizards, and a big lizard whose sole purpose in life is to rustle some serious jimmies.

But unfortunately, these scenes are sprinkled between around 2 hours of having the camera choppily bob and weave between two separate groups containing some of the most boring and uninteresting characters I have ever come to forget. There is a cardboard hero who is good at everything that the script needs him to be good at, a photographer who takes, like, pictures I guess, and John C. Reilly, who is arguably the closest this film gets to an interesting character.

And this is not because of the script. This is because he is John C. Reilly adding his own touch to the script he was given, like Gordon Ramsay doing his best after being handed a bag of plain rice and half of a dildo.

Everybody else is a nameless nothing that we get to see be picked off by giant insects in front of some of the worst green screen I have seen in some time. Good, lord. What time of day was it again? Because I swear to sweet baby Christ on a cracker that the sun set about six or seven different times in the same day.

The helicopter's encounter followed (after seemingly quite some time) by the final throw-down between Kong and captain ptorsodactyl mcwigglynoodle was what truly got me through the cringe-inducing humor and painfully humorous deaths.

This is one of those red-box gems that you'll have a better time with once there is a beer in your hand rather than a 7 dollar popcorn.

254 out of 406 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I walked out after an hour
dwmccleney20 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Samuel L. Jackson's character ruined this movie. I found the plot and theme to be very interesting, but so much of this movie (that I saw...walked out right after the two parties met up and decided to go look for the airman that was already dead)was just wrong. Flying helicopters, in close formation, through a hurricane so severe no ship can survive it? Ludicrous. Attacking a 300 ft. gorilla the 1st time you see it, without even considering pulling back and assessing the threat, and losing all of your helicopters in the process? Even more ludicrous. The determination, by Jackson's character, that he's going to avenge his fallen airmen and kill Kong? Just plain asinine. This seems like a dig on the military as a bunch of crazed killers, whose first instinct is to shoot and keep shooting until something, seemingly anything, is killed. Rational, thinking people don't do this. A few changes would've allowed this movie to be a wonderful adventure.

Take Jackson's role out of this movie and it might be a classic. As it is, I wouldn't rent it from Redbox. Very disappointed in this film.
233 out of 372 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Kong would regret being in this film
Jane Zhang13 March 2017
I was confused about the purpose of this film, and sadly, I was still confused after watching the film. All the elements of this new version of King Kong have been recycled. Taking parts of the originals/remakes and hastily gluing them together again in a different way doesn't mean it is going to create an inventive artwork.

And I knew they would put a scene where Kong saves a pretty lady in his palm, I just knew it. All that's improved from the previous films is Kong's appearance. He is fluffier, angrier and more realistic. Some points must be given to the stunning visual effects.

The characters' names and faces have also changed, but their nature and characteristics are half dimensional and predictable. It is stereotypes upon stereotypes. It is a major waste of talent with Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L Jackson and Academy Award winner Brie Larson ("Room") struggling in the muddled chaos. You could see and feel the disappointment. Even Kong seems confused. The performances are half- hearted and there is just no substance for them to work with. I bet all they were thinking of while filming was 'get me out of here' – literally.

For the majority of the film, everyone says very few words to each other. The conversations are forced and laughable. It wouldn't have made a difference if they were just silent. It's so predictable that you would know exactly what the next line would be.

I thought while watching this, was this meant to be an exaggerated satire of King Kong? Or was it meant to be taken seriously? Even the execution of the film presents the same questions. At one point, it would be slow and mystic, and minutes later, overly upbeat music would hit your ears, and we are treated to magnified slow-motion action. It feels it is trying too hard to get our attention. And once it does, it doesn't know how to sustain it.

And finally, there are so many extreme close-ups of Samuel L. Jackson's face, it probably took up half the film. They did it to match Kong's face, so you can imagine how gigantic it was.

Maybe if Director Jordan Vogt-Roberts figured out from the beginning what type and style of film this would be, it would have been a better film. It seems like he had an idea but is unconvicted towards it, and instead keeps changing his mind to offer more 'fun'. The result that it is a jumble of various pieces that don't belong in the same puzzle.
75 out of 118 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Plot Holes You Could Drive Through
streeton1-43-16006619 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I like to see a movie that on some level is at least plausible and does not require you to suspend reality entirely to go along with what you are seeing on the screen. First why would all twelve choppers stay within striking distance of Kong after the first couple were knocked out of the sky?? And then all of them get destroyed as well - Ridiculous! Second how does a creature the size of a ten story building sneak up on the unsuspecting human characters over and over? After Kong being machine gunned early on in the film and seeing that he was bleeding heavily and in quite a bit of pain he miraculously heals as if it had never happened! The leader of the squad of pilots somehow thinks he can kill Kong to the exclusion of all rationality in the face of overwhelming adversity and convince his fellow pilots to go along with him - ludicrous! How do giant squids and the giant skull crawler appear out of nowhere in shallow water not even up to Kong's knees? I could provide many more examples but I think I have made my point clear. Whoever writes these scripts does not base things on even vaguely realistic scenarios which makes for a less than satisfying viewing experience.
109 out of 178 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Truly one of the worst movies I have ever seen
wd-817 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This abortion of a movie should never have seen the light of day. With a credits list of OVER 1,300 people, you think someone would have put their hand up and said "Umm... Wait a minute"

This is supposed to be 1974, but apparently no one bothered to check any actual history. Even the props are more modern, with an office full of DEC-VT100 display terminals from 1978 and later. Many other items in this movie are clearly more modern than they should be. Totally lazy for such an expensive project.

I guess if you cast Samuel L. Jackson into anything these days, it must pass his "cartoon silliness test" to be produced. Tarantino can get away with this with great dialog and action. The clowns producing this hairball should hide their faces in public.

You can tell from the very beginning that this is going to be bad. Even if you, as did I, go into it expecting very little. The setup of the movie is long and face-slapping cliché. The actors, whom we know to be quite skilled, are entirely wasted by bad bad bad dialogue and bad direction. The editing is not so good either.

And when we get out onto the ocean (1974 remember), we are insulted by Hollywood physics and meteorology. A huge storm doesn't even churn up the waves near the ship *facepalm*

Of course, the dorks then fly their non-vintage helicopters into the hell-storm, with super-fake lightning all around, and get through to see the beautiful islands.

Within a few minutes, ALL of them have been knocked down by insisting on flying close enough to Kong to get bashed *facepalm* holy crap.

Things only get more clichéd from there, with the grizzly 28 year survivor (with the 20 year old son at the end), the demented Samuel Jackson staring and almost drooling as he chews the scenery.

Vietnam veterans are insulted by their blind obedience to a ranting idiot. Civilians and military alike enter "the valley of death" in spite of the writers allowing some of the characters to suggest it's a bad idea.

And then it gets really bad. "OMG bad".

And in all of this, you feel incredibly bored. It's dull, and bad, and stupid.

Oh, and the "teaser for the idiots' sequel" comes after the 1,300+ lines of credits, if you are not asleep or barfing in the toilet.

Astoundingly bad.
250 out of 430 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A stylized version of Kong that you may or may not have wanted
Andrew Marks4 March 2017
Some people go to the movies to be wowed by the superb acting, heart wrenching and well written story, and overall solid production... THIS has good effects? The acting in this film isn't bad, but it definitely won't win any awards for it.

The story has characters Bill Randa (John Goodman) and Houston Brooks (Corey Hawkins) piggybacking on an expedition to an uncharted island to test their "hollow earth" theory. Tom Hiddleston plays a tracker, Brie Larson plays a photographer, and John C. Reilly plays a surprisingly funny WW2 vet marooned on Skull Island.

The film takes place in 1973 and loves to remind you with CCR and old technology as if it was a hundred years ago. Kong: Skull Island pays homage to Apocalypse Now quite frequently even though it seems a bit excessive at times.

Kong looked good, almost all the creatures looked cool and all the fights between them looked really good, especially in IMAX 3D. Some of the green screen effects, like backgrounds behind characters, were distractingly bad. Ultimately, you get some great stuff out of all the effects if you're not looking too closely.

The characters are more hollow than the earth (according to the film's characters themselves), the story is mediocre, but the effects reign king in this film adaptation.

My suggestion: See it! it's a blockbuster meant to fill seats, not win awards. Take it for what it is.

Seen at an advanced IMAX 3D screening in Minneapolis.
219 out of 387 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Second Worst Movie Of The Year
Cameron12 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
When I initially saw the trailer to this movie I immediately knew that this movie was going to be absolute garbage. Making a movie just to set up future sequels is a horrible idea since it removes all tension in the movie. Although I expected the movie to be bad, I didn't expect a contender to Worst Movie of the Year (first is XxX: Return of Xander Cage). Almost everything this movie does is horrible due to bad acting, despite having big actors, bad cinematography, bad plot, and horrible characters. One mediocre thing about this movie was the special effects. So let's begin by talking about the worst thing of the movie:

1.Characters: The characters in this movie are the absolute worst. There is not one likable or memorable character in this movie except John C. Reily's character. All the others are uninteresting, stupid, and not memorable in the slightest. One example of this would be San, played by Tian Jing. Despite San being a "main character", she is never introduced (if she was it must have been a second long) and is always in the background saying about two lines in the whole movie. The only reason I can think of why her character is introduced is to appeal to the Asian crowd the studio was marketing this movie to. The rest of the characters are just as boring as San with everyone doing a horrible job at acting. It is apparent that the director was trying to make the marine characters likable. However, unlike movies that had likable marine characters like Predator and Aliens, Kong: Skull Island's marines are the most boring characters ever and don't evoke emotion when they die, except maybe happiness. The only good character in this movie is John C. Reily. Even though he would occasionally stop the movie's pacing with his joke's, he was clearly the only one who tried their best.

2.Setting: Another weakness of this movie is its setting. After my viewing of the movie I realized that there was no reason for this movie to take place during the Vietnam War other than to give an excuse to go to locations in Asia to appeal to Asian countries. However, the island is interesting and has a variety of environment, which does add some anticipation.

3.Kong/Creatures: Now it's time for the meat n' potatoes of the movie, the creatures. In Peter Jackson's portrayal of King Kong, the creatures fit in the story. However, in Kong: Skull Island, it seems like the director went outside and made whatever he saw big. Another problem is that the creatures are always alone. In 2005 King Kong, we saw the creatures in big packs that showed how large the population was. Another problem was the main bad creature which didn't fit with the real life creatures featured in the film.

4.Inconsistencies/ Stupid plot devices: One main problem with this movie is all the stupid devices that keep the story more exciting. One example would be how bullets don't hurt the main evil creatures but a sword does. Also, Kong being immune to fire is very distracting and ends up making the ending ridiculous. One distracting inconsistency would be the scene when they head towards the storm that supposedly hides Skull Island. When they are on the ship it is clear that there is about five choppers on the ship. However, when they start heading into the storm there are about twelve choppers. One reason for this is to inflate the number of casualties after Kong destroys all the helicopters.

In the end, Kong: Skull Island is a very bad movie. However, if you are able to turn off your brain and not realize everything bad about the movie, then you will enjoy it.

Final Verdict: 2/10
189 out of 332 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Truly Great Ape
blaskofilms10 March 2017
Movies used to be fun. Genuinely fun. Kong: Skull Island is a throwback to the era when movies were fun - like, Stars Wars fun. Like Jaws fun. That kind of fun. The leads embody characters that are all understandable and genuinely likable. The plot isn't stuffed with technical geek references and "easter eggs" that weigh down other universe-building films. From the fire- singed Kong fur to the slick skull crawler tongues, the special effects are brilliantly detailed and animated. And it's genuinely refreshing to watch an action/monster film in which native peoples are depicted with dignity and respect, and where black and Asian characters aren't used as props or fodder for violence (admittedly, the film could have gone further with this, but I sensed some progress being made). Kong: Skull Island isn't Life is Beautiful. It isn't Casablanca. But it is genuinely, thrillingly, rigorously fun. It has heart, scales, teeth and a ferocious roar. Monster movies are back. Get in line. Hail to the King.
161 out of 295 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Really, really just terrible.
Thatcher11 March 2017
I am not a movie snob and am easily entertained, but this movie was absolutely a complete and utter joke. It felt like a 3rd grader wrote the script. It contained every single cliché imaginable, from corny Platoon/Apocalypse Now-type one-liners to ridiculous slow-motion "sacrifice" scenes-- all incredibly cheap, contrived and void of any depth what-so-ever.

Absolutely NO PLOT-- not a single tangible, well-built contextual plot exists in this movie. John C. Reilly was the whole point of the movie-- it should be called "King Reilly and His Adventures"-- but then again, there really weren't any adventures to talk about...

The worst part of the movie was that I could absolutely not tell when the movie was supposed to be serious or a comedic parody, and folks, that's never a good sign, as it usually means the film is not good. And Samuel L. Jackson?? I think I just might use his appearance in future films as cause to not see them because he is clearly cast for his popularity and for a quick marketing boost for films that clearly need that extra kick. I am going to binge-watch King Kong (2005) with Jack Black until I can forget that I ever saw this new attempted failure to reprise Kong. Have our standards really fallen so far?? I honestly do not think there was a single frame that lasted longer than 2 seconds, I am not joking. Oh, the agony.
288 out of 544 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
great creature feature!
fritzlang12 March 2017
Boy did I enjoy this film.

forget plot and logic. This is an all out creature feature...It is called Skull Island because that's where the action takes place with all the neat creatures.

There is a LOT of screen time devoted to Kong and the monsters. And LOTS of cool death scenes. Pretty gory, in my opinion, and surprised this got a pg-13. Some scenes would be very frightening for little ones.

Most surprisingly, it is the the acting of John Goodman and J.C. Riley that stands out - even overshadowing tom Hiddleston. I am not a big fan of Goodman or Riley, so this really surprised me.

For the plot - people go to Skull Island. They encounter Kong and various giant monsters. Mayhem and death ensues. Some return home. The end.

Doesn't sound like much but the monster scenes really made the movie, and Kong was fantastic. They really had him move - he was almost like a giant Hulk smashing those airplanes!

Oh, and PLEASE stay after the credits. What was shown put a BIG smile on my face... No spoilers.. you have to see it for yourself.

My wife and I had a blast. The first 20 minutes were regrettably lame, but the rest of the movie was a hoot.

8 out of 10 for fun factor.
162 out of 304 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
fun monster movie
fuzzhead7211 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I grew up watching classic monster movies at my Great Grandma's place - Wolfman, Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Blob, etc. This movie made me feel the enjoyment of discovering those movies again.

I liked the fact that the movie was chronological, and made it very obvious when it changed time or place. I hate flashbacks, and am happy to be able to say that this movie did not make use of them. Thankfully, it also did not make use of the "shaky camera footage" that a lot of movies are using these days.

Some big monster movies also tend to be kind of slow at the beginning, and hide the "main character" until towards the end of the movie. Not so with this - Kong makes his appearance right at the beginning. The movie also doesn't really bog down anywhere. On the other hand, there are plenty of movies that scream "eye candy" - where it seems quite obvious that there is not much of a plot, so they are just throwing things around to distract you. While the focus of this movie is definitely on the giant monster battles, it is done very well.

Both my wife and I give this film an A+ - it's a nicely done foundation for the upcoming Kong vs Godzilla film.
78 out of 140 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Sorry, there is no king here.
Danielpotato17 March 2017
King Kong (1933) was a perfect movie in its proposal. A simple, direct and clear message. No remakes or sequels required. This is why all sequels and remakes are always inferior in impact to the original. Filmmakers always want to add anything new and unnecessary.

In this new film, Kong leaves the territory of quality and embarks on a trip to the territory of blockbusters, in other words, special effects and jokes (just watch the retarded and unnecessary joke scene about the Skullcrawlers name with Hiddleston, Larson and John C. Reilly) overlap the story, and so the film is passable and totally forgettable in a week.

Once again, Hollywood treats scientists as idiots when the character of Corey Hawkins can not even open a can of canned food and feels intimidated by a woman. Not to mention the macho colonel, who wants an unnecessary revenge with Kong, because Kong killed his men (in a casual meeting).

And not to mention the idiotic plans that Jordan Vogt-Roberts uses to focus the eyes of the Samuel L. Jackson character with the eyes of King Kong. It seems like the director Jordan Vogt-Roberts wants to make a kind of (unnecessary) fight in the old west style. Pure waste of time, as we know that the macho colonel, is no challenge for Kong, so why waste precious screen time with these situations? Because Kong's story can be told as in the original in just 90 or 100 minutes. And the filmmarkers have to put 2 hours of film and for this they have to put unnecessary situations and scenes.

As the disposable soldier of the colonel, who gets lost from the group, just to see Kong crush a giant squid (and then Kong eats it), then after some scenes, be killed by another giant monster. What could be an interesting conflict between the characters of Tom Hiddleston and Samuel L. Jackson, but that ends up in nothing. Because people are written from a stupid one-dimensional way (like the stupid macho colonel). That is, more movie time, for less story. This is because Kong never leaves the island in this movie, Kong will only leave the island in 2020 in the movie Godzilla vs. King Kong. Yes this movie aims to create another shared universe (MCU type of crap), and in the end this compromises the quality of this film. The filmmakers have their hands tied, because they can not put their best on this film, however they have to think how this movie will work with another movie from another guy, three long years into the future.

I went into the movie hoping to see a good and fun Kong movie, and I ended up seeing a crap and bad one, because of the ambition of the studio that compromised the quality of the movie, for the money. Not to mention, even as a fun movie, this movie fails so much.

You see, the scenes with special effects, you can see that the scenes were all filmed on a green screen. And the final fight between Kong and the giant lizard is even inferior to the T-rex fights in Peter Jackson's 2005 remake. Yes, the fights and clashes between Kong and the other giants monsters were better, bigger, more epic, more brutal and vicarious than in this pathetic 2017 movie. I'm not defending the Peter Jackson movie, that film obviously had its flaws, but in the department of special effects and action scenes (this department that does not save a movie, nonetheless) is vastly superior to this Jordan Vogt- Roberts movie. Even as an action movie and blockbuster, this movie fails in a big way.

But if you were disappointed, and if you were sad that you had lost money unfairly, you can wait until 2020 to see the rest of the film in Godzilla VS King Kong.

My God, that's why commercial filmmaking is in the mud. The commercial cinema has as main target children, teenagers and young people. And this is why the quality bar is so low.
171 out of 327 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great classic monster movie fun
quinnolynyk10 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This movie for me personally was just a fun classic monster movie with funny characters and great action.

  • Great visuals, Skull Island did not disappoint me.

  • Mix of funny and serious characters blended very well together. Tom Hiddlestone, Brie Larson, and John C Reilly were my personal favorites.

  • King Kong was actually represented as a different kind of ape entirely, not just a giant gorilla. He was also given a personality, maybe not as well as Peter Jacksons King Kong, but fairly close.

  • Skull crawlers served their purpose greatly, with them being visually terrifying but also not overfilling the movie with their presence.

  • Story was easy to follow and interesting to watch.

Overall, this movie for me has already placed itself in my list of favorite movies this year and it's only March. I can't wait to see what else 2017 can throw at me.

One last thing, definitely stay for the end credit scene, it does not disappoint.
44 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Better Than Expected Adventure
garethvk8 March 2017
The legendary King Kong returns in an all new adventure that gives the classic tale a much needed update and new setting. Unlike Perter Jackson's retelling of the original Black and White film, "Kong: Skull Island" eschews the old for the new and in doing so breathes a much needed new life and vitality into the franchise.

The film is set in 1973 when William Randa (John Goodman), informs the government that they have detected a previously unknown island and need to investigate it before the Soviets learn of it and beat them to whatever the island my hold.

William recruits a team which includes a former British officer named James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston), and Photographer Mason Weaver (Brie Larson), to assist his team lead by Houston Brooks (Corey Hawkins), in mapping the island.

William also asks for a military escort and the government enlists Lt. Colonel Preston Packard (Samuel L. Jackson), and his team to accompany the mission. Packard is trying to find his place in the world as he and his helicopter combat team are dealing with the recent end of the Vietnam War. His men are looking forward to going home and resuming their lives, but a dour Packard jumps at the chance for another mission over the uncertainty of the future.

Upon arriving on the mysterious island and starting their survey mission by using seismic charges, the team attract the attention of Kong who is not at all pleased with the intrusion on his island. Kong makes short work of the copters and the team finds themselves scattered about the dangerous island. They soon learn that Kong is not the only danger on the island and must find a way to rejoin each other and make it to their extraction point alive.

Naturally some of the characters have a hidden agenda and there are dangerous and action around every corner. Further complicating matters is the appearance of Marlow (John C. Reilly), a downed WWII pilot who has been stranded on the island for 23 years and warns of dangers far greater than Kong that are ahead of the team.

The film combines a solid cast with state of the art special effects to take a new twist on the standard adventure fare. While many parts of the film remain silly Popcorn entertainment, the quality of the assembled cast allows the film to move beyond being just an assembly of potential victims for a menagerie of CGI creatures to dispatch. While the story is more in lines with the linear and thin plots of adventure films of old, the sum of the parts does add up to an enjoyable film experience for those who like the giant creature films. You will want to make sure to stay after the credits as there is a very good scene that shows a setup for a future film that had those in attendance at our press screening cheering.

The film may be a bit intense for younger viewers but if you are looking for a touch of nostalgia and action, you may find the film just what you need.

3.5 stars out of 5.
69 out of 126 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Kong:Skull Island is the PERFECT Monster movie
ericdavidami-335074 March 2017
No Spoilers here.

Kong: Skull Island is the perfect monster movie. It's an epic display of what a popcorn movie should be. Great visuals, soundtrack, and a pleasant plot that is not bogged down by the melodrama that killed the Godzilla flick from 2014. It's a giant monster movie. Have fun.
204 out of 406 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
James De Bello10 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A diverse team of scientists, soldiers and adventurers unites to explore a mythical, uncharted island in the Pacific, as dangerous as it is beautiful. Cut off from everything they know, the team ventures into the domain of the mighty Kong, igniting the ultimate battle between man and nature. As their mission of discovery becomes one of survival, they must fight to escape a primal Eden in which humanity does not belong.

What starts out as a well oiled, climactic first act with a big big promise slowly meanders its way more and more through second and thirds acts that constantly keep the viewer less and less involved in any of the struggle, culminating in a very underwhelming finale.

Unfortunately this film is one of those that relies a little too much on its eye candy and whilst you way (or may not) be entertained by the big set pieces and the wonderful design and look of the monsters, the more you think about it the more the movie sticks out as uneven, terribly fragmented in almost all of its departments with many basic story threads not working.

What I will say is that Vogt-Roberts nails the monsters. We'll later touch on the CGI quality, but on a level of scale, fear, imagination and action he is almost constantly delivering. The fights with Kong are always shot in a wide, sweeping shot that turns around him and holds on for long. Those are absolutely incredible, they are sophisticated, beautiful shots to which sounds adds a real savage nature and together bring a real enthusiasm for the audience to the fights. Moreover, the various other monsters from the island are all interesting creatures and all feel part of the island.

Furthermore, the director shows off quite a drive in his first act. The journey to the island is riveting and build with constantly good editing and witty cinematography choices that always keep us oriented in what's going on. The first full blown action sequence is amazing, really absolutely stunning. He places the camera in the most interesting places and it throws us into the world and the size of Kong.

But, after that it is all downhill. The emptiness of these characters slowly reveals itself and once we're at the end of the second act it just becomes forced scene after forced scene of romance. The more it goes on the more it seems to completely fall apart, by the last action sequence the suspense of disbelief has totally disappeared, characters are doing stuff that is out of their abilities, the set pieces become ridiculously bloated, the green screen CGI becomes almost unacceptable, the amount of explosions is borderline parodic and you're left uncaring of anything or anyone, there is no interesting struggle by the end, the climax is underwhelming. Many choices of setting and build up seem really out of place, the whole dynamic that evolves at the end in (without spoiling anything) where they find themselves and where they have to go is shallow. Capping it off is one of the worst characters and portrayals I have seen in a motion picture ever, John C. Reily is a travesty every time he is on screen, there is no contribution he brings to the story and weakens it because of his terrible dynamic that is neither funny nor interesting.

This was definitely a weak day at the theater for me, the first act revved me up, it was really good and had a charm to it, it managed to build excitement very effectively. Sad it is that it didn't deliver on that promise and gave us a pretty mediocre blockbuster.
62 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Action-packed, intelligent and undeniably entertaining
themadmovieman9 March 2017
After the crushing disappointment that was Godzilla, I have to say that Kong: Skull Island is a tremendous surprise. Not only a hugely entertaining monster movie, but a well-directed, well-written and well-acted film full of ideas from start to finish. Its action set- pieces are utterly spectacular, the CGI is fantastic, and there's even a story that's genuinely interesting throughout, something that I definitely didn't expect going in.

But by far the greatest achievement of this film is the presence of Kong himself. As plain as most of the film was, the biggest issue with Godzilla was that there just wasn't enough Godzilla. Fortunately, Skull Island rectifies that exact problem, and makes Kong as big a character in the film as any of the humans, appearing on screen at regular intervals, and actually playing a genuine role in the story.

And that story is probably the thing that surprised me most of all. Again, Godzilla was a slow, empty and formulaic monster movie that really bored me. Kong: Skull Island, on the other hand, is a fast- paced and absolutely jam-packed action movie that actually gets better and better as it moves along.

Of course, there's a part of me that's a little sad that we're not getting the classic story of King Kong that made both the 1933 and 2005 films so beautiful. However, Skull Island does do a fantastic job at bringing the character to a different time period and making a new, riveting story.

Above all, the film's ingenious parallels with the Vietnam War make for fascinating viewing. Bringing a different dynamic to the relationship between the humans and Kong, the way that Skull Island looks at the story through the lens of the anti-Vietnam War sentiment of the 1970s adds an impressive layer of depth to the story, keeping Kong an interesting and emotionally resonant character despite removing his love with Ann Darrow.

What's more is that some of the film's characters have some very layered and interesting backstories. In particular, Samuel L. Jackson's character, a stubborn, war-mongering colonel taken from the Vietnam War he loved fighting in, is hugely interesting to watch. At times mimicking the role of film director Carl Denham from the original, at others adding a far darker and more serious edge to the story of the invasion of Skull Island, he's absolutely fascinating to follow from start to finish.

There are a whole host of other characters that bring some impressive depth to the story, depth that I certainly didn't expect after the two-dimensional heroes of Godzilla, and make the film's large ensemble cast work amazingly well.

One more positive from the film is undoubtedly the action. As I said, this is a very exciting monster movie that's full of action throughout. Above all, the opening and closing action sequences really stand out. Both because of the amazing visual parallels drawn with Vietnam War films like Apocalypse Now, Platoon and Full Metal Jacket, but also thanks to the stunning CGI that allows Kong to tower over the screen in comparison to the humans, but also puts a formidable and genuinely terrifying enemy on a very level playing field.

As far as blockbusters go, Skull Island is top-quality, but it still isn't entirely perfect. For one, whilst it's brimmed with ideas and interesting characters throughout, that does lead the film to becoming a little crowded at times. The lack of a main character amidst the huge ensemble cast means it's definitely not as streamlined as I would have liked.

Also, the parallels with Vietnam, whilst unique and great to see in a movie like this, are a little overbearing at times. Particularly in the first act, there comes a point where the film really hits you over the head with how similar it is to Apocalypse Now, and although that does die down to a better level later on, it's a little frustrating at times.

Simply put, Skull Island is an impressively brainy and innovative blockbuster, but it goes a little too far with everything it does. That's far better than a completely empty film like Godzilla, but with an enormous main cast and a story that's so jam-packed, I felt like things could have been carried out a little smoother than the finished product.

Still, I had a really good time with Kong: Skull Island. It's a massively entertaining monster movie that places its title character right in the thick of the action, surrounded by more interesting human characters, excellent visuals, stunning action sequences, and a genuinely engrossing and intelligent original story.
141 out of 279 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Kong Surprised Me
Di7 March 2017
I had a free AMC preview of the movie on March 1st, 2017. My husband is not a fan of some of the actors in this film BUT he loves KONG! So, during the movie I felt he was enjoying it. I'm not going to give away anything because I hate when people do that; all I will say is the skull crawlers gave me a nightmare and the entire movie from start to finish was really really good.

The plot was good, the acting was outstanding. I really felt I was in the 70's. The music in the movie was dead on perfect.

Hope you go out and support this movie because I am sick of remakes and this is NOT one of them, This movie stands alone by itself! A MUST SEE...

Stay to the very end...
137 out of 271 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hollywood is committing suicide
NeromancingTheStone14 March 2017
They are pushing so many sequels, prequels, reboots and offshoots that the cash-in is going to make Hollywood collapse unto itself. Who needs any more reboots?? One more X-Men and the world shall vomit unto itself. I have the remedy for what ails Hollywood though: Go to Unoriginality Anonymous meetings and force yourself to try to write an original script People should boycott all these nefarious cash-ins Ban JJ Abrams from anywhere near Los Angeles (and his ilk) No more Morgan Freeman either Give Samuel Jackson an integrity infusion etc

As for this film: A group of cash whore actors gather in a film studio to parody the original dignified metaphor that was King Kong. The actors make jokes that are hilariously funny. Then they run away and ambush and attack Jurassic style. Then they go somewhere and there are a lot of explosions. The enemies are ugly, and they also fight each other, so it's OK to kill them. After two hours the film ends. The film is marketed to kiddies, kiddies-in-brain and China (via the token Chinese eye candy or in this case plain vanilla useless whatever..)

Did you hear? Kong called his agent in New York City, USA at the Empire State Building to ask his images be erased from this turkey and demand that his agent get him better work going forward. The agent wouldn't take his call however. How could he? He didn't recognize the caller. That isn't King Kong after all.
121 out of 239 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
leaves you wanting more...and maybe a little frustrated
methodman-1447313 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
As a period piece, I loved the nostalgic Vietnam War setting and the panoramic nights scenes of Saigon that they managed to weave into the film. The plot was pretty formula and characters predictable down to the frustrated Army Lt with nothing to return home to longing for one more battle. The one thing I wasn't expecting was a colder, more emotionally uninvolved "Fay Rae" who neither falls in love with the big ape or seems too concerned overt what happens to him one way or the other. And then finally, when he saves her life for the last time, we watch the lonely beast slowly lumber away back to his isolated oblivion while our beautiful little ingrate turns and hugs her boyfriend. Sorry but that last scene was begging to be re-shot. All in all, it's still a good flick.
29 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews