IMDb > Kong: Skull Island (2017) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Kong: Skull Island
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Kong: Skull Island More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 55:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 546 reviews in total 

249 out of 372 people found the following review useful:

Unbelievably juvenile. Ridiculous story.

2/10
Author: latinfineart from Los Angeles
17 March 2017

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

193 out of 314 people found the following review useful:

Message to all the studios: stop with the reboots and all the hacks you hire to write good reviews

2/10
Author: John AbuSaleem from Los Angeles
10 March 2017

So it is like Ghostbusters 2016 all over again. On the day of release of another unrequested, unwanted, unappealing reboot a whole bunch of accounts appear and write super duper positive reviews. Well, they are all fake. Although these fake reviewers are getting more 'sophisticated.' Look at tvsweeney-39052 for example, the account was created several months ago and give Village Road Show and Columbia releases all 10/10, but has thrown in a couple of bad reviews of other studios' releases in the interim.

This movie sucks. The unoriginality stinks to high heaven The token Chinese cow to satisfy Chinese investors and Chinese ticket sales is beyond useless and cannot act and Kong is not even Kong (they don't even want to call him King because he is so off). This is one of those standard cliché films where the grown up audience knows after 5 minutes, that the target group is hacks. Even in the middle of the film's major actions scene, the whole logic pauses, as two supposedly cool characters have to talk, run and get into danger and make the audience yawn, because it is just so bad.

Unlike many fantasy films, this film is not interesting at all. If some young script writer thought that it would be "cool" for a remote island to be "interesting", then the accountants at the studio would write this script for him.

Yawn

Was the above review useful to you?

176 out of 281 people found the following review useful:

Oh, boy.

3/10
Author: Dalton Vaughn from United States
12 March 2017

*** This review may contain 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.

03/10

Was the above review useful to you?

145 out of 235 people found the following review useful:

I walked out after an hour

1/10
Author: dwmccleney from United States
20 March 2017

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

164 out of 278 people found the following review useful:

Truly one of the worst movies I have ever seen

1/10
Author: wd-8 from London, England
17 March 2017

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

169 out of 290 people found the following review useful:

Really, really just terrible.

1/10
Author: Thatcher
11 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

143 out of 244 people found the following review useful:

Second Worst Movie Of The Year

2/10
Author: Cameron
12 March 2017

*** This review may contain 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

Was the above review useful to you?

152 out of 273 people found the following review useful:

A stylized version of Kong that you may or may not have wanted

7/10
Author: Andrew Marks
4 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

56 out of 83 people found the following review useful:

Donkey Kong

2/10
Author: Cruise
16 March 2017

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

63 out of 99 people found the following review useful:

Plot Holes You Could Drive Through

3/10
Author: streeton1-43-160066 from Australia
19 March 2017

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 55:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
External reviews Parents Guide Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history