Please enter your birth date to watch this video:
You are not allowed to view this material at this time.
X
Kong: Skull Island Image
Metascore
62
Based on 49
critic reviews
User Score
6.6
Based on 709
user ratings

Watch Now

Rate Movie
Score Breakdown
Metascore Generally favorable reviews
28 Positive Ratings 57%
19 Mixed Ratings 38%
2 Negative Ratings 4%
User Score Generally favorable reviews
435 Positive Ratings 61%
209 Mixed Ratings 29%
65 Negative Ratings 9%
Please enter your birth date to watch this video:
You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Rate Movie

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Add your rating

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Spoiler Alert!
0/5000
(49)
88
"Any movie with the sense, the wit and the visual instincts to introduce Kong the way this one does is fine with me." ... Read full review
80
"A large part of the enjoyment comes down to the sheer earth-shaking lunacy of Kong’s daily grind, even before the human intruders are factored in. " ... Read full review
75
"If you’re looking for a film that offers pure escapism, Kong: Skull Island should definitely meet expectations." ... Read full review
65
"It lacks neither fun nor polish, but it has the square tidiness of a compartmentalized fast-food meal." ... Read full review
60
"It's a heck of a cast, although the hands-down scene-stealer is John C. Reilly, in a gem of a comic-relief role that, in the interest of remaining spoiler-free, is probably best undescribed here." ... Read full review
60
"This is a creature feature, plain and simple — and, at least on a visceral level, a satisfying one." ... Read full review
20
"This fantastically muddled and exasperatingly dull quasi-update of the King Kong story looks like a zestless mashup of Jurassic Park, Apocalypse Now and a few exotic visual borrowings from Miss Saigon. It gets nowhere near the elemental power of the original King Kong or indeed Peter Jackson’s game remake; it’s something Ed Wood Jr might have made with a trillion dollars to do what he liked if he’d been given a trillion dollars – but minus the fun. " ... Read full review
(171)
10
EdwardGerry
Mar 12, 2017
This is one of the most immersive and captivating movies ever made! Its literally insane and theres something you would never expect everyThis is one of the most immersive and captivating movies ever made! Its literally insane and theres something you would never expect every five minutes I was totally loving it. It's a two hour movie but I was ready for another hour of these gigantic monsters! not a fan of samuel jackson though Expand
8
GinaK
Mar 13, 2017
An enjoyable film but the feeling of fragmentation is very noticeable. I also didn’t think we needed to bring up Vietnam and World War II,An enjoyable film but the feeling of fragmentation is very noticeable. I also didn’t think we needed to bring up Vietnam and World War II, although I can see why the (what can I call them?) newbies on the island had to be separated to contrast the militaristic and the humanistic to drive the plot along and provide some “drama.” Sadly Samuel L. Jackson was much too over-the-top and not believable. On the other hand, Tom Hiddleston gave an excellent performance as did Brie Larson. Although the previous two versions of Kong have their virtues, I liked this new version for its many excellent cast members and its attempt to do something different, faults and all. The monsters get a 9 but the cast average for me is a 7. Expand
8
Agent314
Mar 10, 2017
At times muddled and a bit awkward, K:SI truly shines when it matters. Some, but not all, the characters are a bit thin; however, this isn'tAt times muddled and a bit awkward, K:SI truly shines when it matters. Some, but not all, the characters are a bit thin; however, this isn't a character driven drama. It's a MONSTER MOVIE! And let me tell, boy does it have monsters. And when they fight you'd better hold on to your popcorn. This is why the film succeeds. Of course, the brilliant visuals and surprisingly good cinematography don't hurt. The true stand-out is certainly Kong himself. Both pensive and angry, he is oft times bewildered by the human cast and royally pissed off by them. But he is Lord Protector of Skull Island, and there's a lot more for him to be concerned with than human mosquitoes.

Expect to laugh. Expect to cheer, and be prepared to be amazed. But most of all, expect to have fun.
Expand
7
Spangle
Apr 5, 2017
Dear Billy,

Kong: Skull Island, directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts, is his chance at a Vietnam War. In his sophomore feature, Vogt-Roberts seems
Dear Billy,

Kong: Skull Island, directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts, is his chance at a Vietnam War. In his sophomore feature, Vogt-Roberts seems to have some self-recognition that he will never get to direct a Vietnam War film. This is not a shot at him, as he is certainly a promising young director with both this and his debut Kings of Summer standing as solid starts that show he is capable of handling both small intimate films and huge films of epic proportions. While neither are particularly great, they are both capable films nonetheless. In this film, he takes his chance to add as much Vietnam imagery as possible by setting the film in 1973 and also tossing in some Cold War paranoia for good measure in this story of a group of people wandering the jungles on a mission, encountering a remote tribe, and facing a being that the tribe sees as a god. Did Francis Ford Coppola not make this film, sans the big monkey, in 1979?

Wearing this Apocalypse Now influence on its sleeve, Vogt-Roberts shows a love of both gratuitous shots of helicopters flying into the island or of the smell of napalm in the morning when Preston Packard (Samuel L. Jackson) tries to dump napalm on Kong. Yet, as with all Kong films, it must run through the beats of the story. Fortunately, Vogt-Roberts improves upon Peter Jackson's recent rendition. By chopping off an hour, the film is not so dreadfully long, which is really a major benefit. Give me the dinosaurs, but not for too long. Give me some backstory, but not extended scenes in a boat and trying to get funding for the trip. This latest edition streamlines it, yet still has the time to get into very compelling mythology regarding Skull Island and the nature of Kong as well as the other beasts that call Skull Island home. Additionally, some of the more unsavory elements of Jackson's films included its depiction of the natives of Skull Island. Depicting them as horrible savages out to kill white people, Jackson's film indulges in nasty stereotypes that create a truly captivating opening scene in that film, but that hardly justifies the racism. With Skull Island, Vogt-Roberts dispatches of this nastiness and instead has a smart and respected tribe in the center of Skull Island. Playing host to WWII veteran Hank Marlow (John C. Reilly) for 28 years, these are no savages and Vogt-Roberts never pretends they are. Instead, the tribe is given its due respect throughout the film. This latest film also ditches the racist undertones of past Kong films. From the original to various remakes, critics have shown the parallel between King Kong being an ape (as black people have often been derogatorily been referred to as "monkeys") and the white/blonde damsel in distress that he clutches in his hand. To critics, it has been a parallel between the perceived assault on the white race by black America. Now, whether or not you buy that or not, I did once have a film professor who claimed that it was why no studio could have an American direct King Kong again, as that parallel had been made. She was not entirely wrong, even if Vogt-Roberts is American as Brie Larson is never a damsel in distress or screeching in his paw, which Naomi Watts did often in 2005. Instead, he holds her once and it is to save her. By then, she had already established that he was not an enemy and was passed out anyways, so no concerns there from her. Of all of its updates, ditching the possible racist undertones is certainly a major plus, regardless of whether you buy into that angle or not.

However, Vogt-Roberts' influences also come via the heavily 70s soundtrack, references, and the political situation at the time. Fortunately, it does actually have a lot to do with the plot. As the Cold War is burning brightly and the Americans are coming off a loss in Vietnam, the whole country needs a win. This mission to Skull Island is that win. Finding new species' or a new island would re-establish America as the top dog in the world and, as such, is a major effort even if it takes some convincing. Yet, what the film does very well with its 1970s post-Vietnam setting is to show the men trying to regroup and go back to war, even if it is a different kind of war. The men are resistant and constantly thinking home. From writing letters, discussing home, or making references to what they will do once they get there, the men form a common bond of trying to make the best of the situation. Yet, on the flip side men such as Packard or James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston) need this war. Even photographer Mason Weaver (Brie Larson) needs the war, though she is anti-war. The three of them have nothing left to do after the end of the Vietnam War and the Skull Island job represents another opportunity to feel useful in the world at a time when opportunities were scarce.
Expand
6
PeterAlexander
Apr 12, 2017
Kong: Skull Island is monstrously entertaining, follows a simple plot that works, but fails to deliver in terms of characterisation. The filmKong: Skull Island is monstrously entertaining, follows a simple plot that works, but fails to deliver in terms of characterisation. The film has some of the best action sequences you'll see all year, but also some of the worst. It also has some great acting performances, including John Goodman and Samuel L. Jackson, and some less than stellar performances. Overall I have very mixed feelings about this film. Expand
5
llamayarmybar
Jul 13, 2017
An embarrassing wet fart of a film. Absolutely boring monster designs, seriously a bipedal lizard? That's all you could come up with? ItAn embarrassing wet fart of a film. Absolutely boring monster designs, seriously a bipedal lizard? That's all you could come up with? It ends up trying to connect itself to "Pacific Rim" or something with the whole "Hollow Earth" theory they introduce one quarter of the way into the plot. Speaking of which, what is even happening in this movie? Everything goes wrong because of the humans arriving, Kong is never captured, just yelled at by Samuel L. Jackson for the entire breadth of the movie. Other acting talent is totally wasted here including Jon Goodman, who granted is a heck of a lot better than say, Jack Black, but isn't well developed. I found Kong himself to be fairly boring, especially when compared to 2005's Peter Jackson's "Kong" film, he was just on the island as was John C. Reilly as I suppose comedic support in a movie that didn't need it. I suppose I ought to chalk most of the lack-there-of of charm was mostly due to the period, the 70's just doesn't work here, and it paints the military as these stereotypical grunts that are apparently all Vietnam vets too. Everyone in this movie is a veteran too! How about that? How inclusive of Hollywood. The only real highlight here, is some average performances, a bizarre giant spider battle, more-so with a focus on giant spider "legs" and a couple interesting entirely computer animated Kong fighting a lizard-thing battles. I suppose if that's all you wanted, and don't care about any people in this movie, then you can join me in being utterly confused as to why we even spend so much time with once again, totally wooden, boring, poorly developed characters. Its been done a billion times, we see this in every monster movie, why do they keep writing characters like this? At least, the Peter Jackson contribution had a focus, not an amazing one, not a stupendous one, but it at least showed very human performances, especially between the big ape himself and his beautiful self-imposed damsel in distress, Naomi Watts. You can argue that they're both not amazing films, but I could always go back and find something "fun" or engaging in 2005's rendition over this burning dog turd of a film. As it stands, the very original King Kong is still a great film and I'd still watch that before going to see another terrible attempt at a re-boot or a remake or whatever Hollywood wants to call this poor excuse for a film. Expand
0
salazarj
Sep 5, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Underwhelming, predictable, and frankly, quite stupid. I know these kind of movies focus more on the mindless wrecking of everything around the so-called monsters, but really? They could have achieved so much more. The characters were bland, there was no development or generally anyone who made any sense, which bothers me because with a cast assemble like that, you could have taken risks and made it work in a great way.

I generally don't like movies in which the humans go nose first barging into the habitat of an animal (shark, monkeys, you name it) and in typical fashion, go destroy everything to their own benefit without thinking hey, that is the home of a living, sentient creature that yes, it can be aggressive when provoked but otherwise leaves you the hell alone, and then make the animal the **** ENEMY because it's pissed off that some idiots thought they owned it in the first place. Sam L. Jackson's role was **** which enrages me because he's a good actor, but the part they gave him here, with ****ty one-liners ("I am the cavalry"? Seriously?) to make him appear like this "bad-ass" sort of villain was so incredibly disappointing I can't even think about it. He's trying to take revenge on an animal that killed his soldiers because they dumped a ****load of explosives in his habitat in the first place? Cool. No.

They tried to include a lot of wannabe "cool" moments (I don't even know if that's what they were aiming for, but that's what it appeared to me) with the rock sounds in the background, without realizing it just looked stupid, plain and simple. The secondary characters were boring AND so obviously spare that I didn't give two **** when either of them died, even when they tried to glorify their deaths (it didn't work, by the way).

Don't even get me started on the main characters. We could ignore the whole trying-to-make-them-interesting-and-mysterious-and-horribly-failing thing they had going on (the introduction of Tom Hiddleston's character was sort of interesting, but then it went completely downhill from there, making him completely bland and uninteresting and empty with a lot of "intense" stares ahead and a whole lot of nothing), and focus instead of the fact that they tried to make them have a connection with Kong by one freaking second, not even that, and then suddenly make the "heart-stopping" (note the sarcasm) last minute decision to save him from the very team they came in with in the first place. And you'd think that the guy who'd been trying to drill some sense into them for their entire stay in the island would refuse and want to get the hell out because he's been there for years, but no, let's all run head first into the giant guy we were trying to kill and then love him because he blinked at me cute. What a freaking disaster.

The only good thing I can think of is that the cgi on Kong was pretty good. The lizard things were underwhelming and lacked imagination. Oh, and I almost forgot the part when they saw a **** bird and instantly went out to SHOOT it, because that's what you do, of course. If the other birds had had them all for breakfast after that, they would have had it coming. But no, bad, bad birds. And don't even bother to stay after the credits for the completely boring and senseless teaser for a sequel, it's a waste of time. This isn't a marvel movie, even if there are a few actors from there, so just don't.
Expand
When a scientific expedition to an uncharted island awakens titanic forces of nature, a mission of discovery becomes an explosive war between monster and man.
Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi, Fantasy
Rating: PG-13
Runtime: 118 min
Home Release Date: Jul 18, 2017