Review: Kong: Skull Island

He's a God here.

Bill Randa (John Goodman) and Houston Brooks (Corey Hawkins) work for a a mysterious company and are heading a mission to a remote island in the south Pacific that has gone mostly unnoticed due to a storm that constantly surrounds it. All they have is satellite images and a hunch of what could be there. They meet up with with a group of soldiers that were just about to come home from the Vietnam war, Colonel Samuel L. Jackson, (Samuel L. Jackson) Mills, (Jason Mitchell) Cole, (Shea Whigham) Slivko (Thomas Mann) among others. A few scientists San, and Nieves (Tian Jing and John Oritiz) a photo journalist, Weaver (Brie Larson) and a British tracker Conrad (Tom Hiddleston) and set off for the island. There, they encounter Kong, and a lot more. 

Monster movies tend to have bland characters and thus, you don't really care for them and only want to see carnage. That's half true for Kong. I did care about what happens to a few of them, like those played by John C. Reilly, Larson, Hawkins, Jing, Mitchelle and Mann. The rest range from red shirts to characters who's actions are solely plot conveniences. Jackson is playing himself, which isn't a bad thing. Samuel L. Jackson is pretty fucking cool, but his character's actions become frustrating. Tom Hiddleston is horribly miscast, he's supposed to be this badass tracker but he spends most of the film posing.

It's obvious the filmmakers were big fans of Apocalypse Now. We saw that in the posters, and there's shots that mirror what we saw there too, and it's beautiful. The cinematography and special effects in this film are really lovely. 

It's your typical monster flick, I had fun with it. I cared about Kong, half the cast, and there was never a dull moment. There's also a scene after the credits that ties this film in with another we already saw, it's definitely worth sticking around for.

Recommended: Yes

Grade: B

Memorable quote: "They sound like birds, but they're fucking ants." - Hank Marlow (John C. Reilly)

15 comments:

  1. I'm not sure if I wanted to watch this but I might give it a chance. Great review!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a fun enough popcorn flick. Definitely worth the watch!

      Delete
  2. It's pretty much what I thought it would be. I will see it for fun but it will not have the depth of Jackson's King Kong or even the 1933 version that started it all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will say this movie is better than the first 1/3 of Jackson's King Kong, which was pretty damn boring. lol

      Delete
    2. Oh bummer...I liked the whole film:)

      Delete
  3. Jackson's King Kong is monstrously overlong, especially the first third.

    This might be fun so I will check it out soon. Good review - Your comment on Hiddlestone made me laugh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I always break Jackson's King Kong into thirds. The first third sucked. The second third was amazing, and the third third (heh) was good.

      Delete
  4. I absolutely loved this. Unashamedly nostalgic and some fun, fast-paced action. And I really went for the Vietnam War era setting. Can't wait to see it again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree! This was fun, I'd definitely watch it again.

      Delete
  5. This sounds like a fun movie. It might even be worth seeing in the theater.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree. We saw this at Alamo Draft House this past weekend and it was just ... missing something. While I did love the creatures and what not I started to get annoyed with Jackson's character. His lines where hilarious though. For example : "Bitch Please". LOL! I wouldn't watch it again myself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like how he repeated his Jurassic Park line "hold on to your butts."

      Delete
  7. Im alnost pissed this made money cause Hollywood will continue thinking Hiddles is leading man material

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anything that helps take money from Beauty and the Beast. #petty lol

      Delete

No seriously, post one. I need attention.