Plots(1)

A compelling, original adventure from director Jordan Vogt-Roberts, the film tells the story of a diverse team of scientists, soldiers and adventurers uniting 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. (Warner Bros. Home Entertainment)

(more)

Videos (20)

Trailer 10

Reviews (12)

Kaka 

all reviews of this user

English Kong is big, King Kong 2005 was great. The words are very similar, but from a filmmaker's perspective they are completely distant. Peter Jackson made films for the love of the material, Jordan Vogt-Roberts makes what the current mainstream is most interested in – mainly drive, dynamics, imaginative monsters of all kinds and great fights. The script is unfortunately pulled out of thin air, and if it weren't for the incredibly polished visuals and the fine 70's atmosphere with old music, it wouldn't have been much fun. Brie Larson is only here for her looks, and the ensemble cast is saved by the impeccable John C. Reilly. The 10 percent better visual effects aren't enough to trump the 50 percent better approach to the material of its predecessor. It is also puzzling that the only emotion is evoked by the closing credits. ()

MrHlad 

all reviews of this user

English Kong: Skull Island is very different than it is presented in trailers. It has much closer resemblance to a classic adventure film, and those expecting the seriousness and maturity hinted at in the trailers will not find it. That said, Jordan Vogt-Roberts, an debutant blockbuster director, occasionally delivers some very nice shots and handles the epic monster battles flawlessly, and there are more of them than you would expect. Unfortunately, when Kong disappears from the scene and it comes to the human characters, it becomes significantly worse. For a moment, the film tackles Samuel L. Jackson's war traumas from Vietnam very seriously (and quite impressively), only to change into John C. Reilly's comedic relief the next minute. And in the meantime, a boring Loki and a bunch of other people run around, whom you really won't care about. Overall, it's okay, but I won't deny a slight disappointment. I suppose I'll watch a compilation of the battles at most in a year, but the entire film will be quite difficult. ()

Ads

D.Moore 

all reviews of this user

English A very well made but increasingly worse film as time passes. Alas. I was looking forward to it, and I can't say that I didn't get to see some good scenes (nothing beat the helicopter attack) and ideas, but somewhere after about half an hour the script got into a rather annoying loop of "period song - walking - monster appears - battle/escape - period song - walking - monster appears," very strange situations and scenes (the ship) and most of all I didn't care about almost any of the human characters. Why would I, when most of them were completely useless (Tom Hiddleston, for example, just walks through almost the whole film and doesn't do anything extravagant), unused (John Goodman, unfortunately) or downright annoying (John C. Reilly)... Seriously a shame. I wasn't expecting a second Godzilla, but at least some good fun. ()

POMO 

all reviews of this user

English An abridged version of this movie with all the “wow moments” can be found in the video section. It’s called “Trailer”. A five-dollar script. Whereas Godzilla was dark and stylish, Kong is a mass of colorful gelatin without a single emotion or a hint of tension. The great ape’s entrance is fast and furious, but the moment of surprise is killed by the knowledge already imparted by the trailers. The same goes for the astonishment over the cool monster, which had already been revealed beforehand. And that’s a pity, as there is an attempt to recreate the atmosphere of the lost worlds of the 1950s and 1960s, Hiddleston’s tracker is good (he and Brie Larson would’ve had great chemistry with a better script) and John C. Reilly is the highlight of the film. Only Samuel L. Jackson does not know what to do with his militant lunatic character; a butcher like the one played by Stephen Lang in Avatar would have been better here. ()

lamps 

all reviews of this user

English At first I was loving this romp unburdened by logic, and I wanted to come back to it repeatedly, but after a second date, the flaws in the form of the overly stylized script (as if the story was pieced together only around pre-conceived cool shots and scenes), the unfunny dialogues and the almost zero atmosphere don't do it anymore. I like the film as an ultra-loud, polished audiovisual spectacle, and for its sincere nature of a simple, fun blockbuster, the impressive 70s feel full of period songs, and the looks of the mesmerizing Brie Larson, but I can't forgive it for its reprehensible waste of a subject promising atmospheric goosebumps like Edwards' Godzilla. There are a few scenes that are genuinely hilarious and John C. Reilly steals the second half, but this could (and should) have turned out differently (and a little better). 70% ()

Gallery (148)