Mason Weaver (Brie Larson) raises a flare gun against a mountainous jungle backdrop
Film review

Kong: Skull Island

2017 · Directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts · 1h 58m

In a sentenceThe helicopters make a persuasive case for leaving the giant ape alone

Captain James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston) arrives on Skull Island alongside Bill Randa (John Goodman), Mason Weaver (Brie Larson) and Lieutenant Colonel Preston Packard (Samuel L. Jackson). Kong, a giant ape, confronts the newcomers’ helicopters, making survival the immediate concern for Conrad and his companions. The aircraft offer little protection against a creature of his size. Conrad needs to get his companions through territory occupied by other dangerous creatures, while the party’s arrival has brought it into direct conflict with Kong.

Plays from YouTube when you press play; nothing loads from them until then.

Fi1m review

Jordan Vogt-Roberts makes an enjoyable monster adventure with a convincing Kong and too little for the people to do. The helicopter encounter earns our attention; the thin characters make it harder to keep.

Kong: Skull Island is an enjoyable creature feature with a serious shortage of interesting people. Jordan Vogt-Roberts puts his effort into the monsters and their encounters, with results that are often funny and satisfyingly physical. It has enough invention to justify an evening for anyone fond of oversized animals causing trouble. We recommend it on those terms, although the stretches when the humans take charge require more patience than they should.

The early helicopter encounter gets the proportions right. Larry Fong uses the aircraft to make Kong’s size clear, so we can see at once how badly mismatched the two sides are. We were delighted by it, because the effects give Kong enough weight to make this absurd confrontation feel physical. The scene also gives the creature a personality, which matters when so many other attractions are competing for attention.

The screenplay by Derek Connolly, Max Borenstein and Dan Gilroy is less attentive to the human characters. Tom Hiddleston’s Captain James Conrad is capable enough as a lead, but the performance gives us little reason to wonder what he might be thinking between dangers. Brie Larson’s Mason Weaver has even less room to become someone we can care about, despite a watchfulness that suggests she could. Samuel L. Jackson gives Lieutenant Colonel Preston Packard a forceful presence, although force alone cannot supply the missing nuance.

Stefan Dechant’s production design helps make the island feel worth exploring, even when the screenplay treats it chiefly as a place for another creature encounter. The monsters look as though they belong there, and their variety gives us a reason to remain curious about the next threat. Henry Jackman’s score supplies competent support for the action, but it is less memorable than the period songs. The creatures are sufficiently expressive that the music rarely seems to be adding much we could not already understand from watching them.

The Vietnam-war parallels are less rewarding. Jordan Vogt-Roberts makes the connection emphatic, but the people are too sketchy for the military imagery to tell us much about them. We can enjoy the scale of the confrontation without finding the implied commentary particularly thoughtful. The script asks us to take familiar ideas about men and violence seriously, while giving those men little beyond a function in the next encounter.

Richard Pearson, Christian Wagner and Bob Murawski keep the first stretch moving briskly, but the rhythm becomes less satisfying as the encounters accumulate. A creature arrives, the action takes over, and the humans have to make the next gap interesting; too often they cannot. At 118 minutes, this is hardly an endurance test, yet the weaker exchanges make it feel longer than it needs to. The switches between comic adventure and more savage monster action can also jar, because the script has not made us care enough about the people caught between them.

Anyone looking for the dread of a horror film should adjust their expectations: this is rowdy adventure, with monsters supplied in generous quantities. There is no need to admire its thoughts about warfare to enjoy the scale and silliness of the fights. Take it on those terms and the weak conversation becomes easier to forgive.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

60
Positive
13
Mixed
9
Negative
8

The reviews lean towards qualified enjoyment, with praise clustering around the creature effects, energetic monster battles and John C. Reilly’s warmth and comic timing. Kong’s encounter with the helicopters is a recurring highlight, while several critics find the ape expressive enough to compensate for thinly written human characters. Reilly earns approval even from some detractors, giving the adventure humour and feeling that the other performances have less opportunity to supply.

The spread is wide, however, running from enthusiastic approval to complaints of tedious action and weak storytelling. Underdeveloped characters are a common reservation even in favourable reviews; the Vietnam-war parallels divide opinion over how effectively the film handles its politics. Critics also disagree about the creatures themselves: Variety praises their imaginative variety, while Slant Magazine finds them dependent on size and gore. The central split is over whether the monster action supplies enough pleasure to make the screenplay’s shortcomings forgivable.

The Hollywood Reporter
2 March 2017 · Todd McCarthy
90*

McCarthy finds the film highly entertaining, brisk, and unusually well-balanced for a franchise blockbuster. He especially praises John C. Reilly’s warmly funny, multidimensional performance and the inventive monster-action sequences.

Read the full review →
Variety
2 March 2017 · Owen Gleiberman
85*

Gleiberman finds the film a rousing, smartly crafted creature-feature and a welcome improvement on earlier remakes. He especially praises its imaginative array of island creatures and John C. Reilly’s dry, sly performance.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · Terry Staunton
80

The four-star rating indicates a positive verdict on this adventure. The review highlights Kong and the island’s other creatures as the source of its life-threatening thrills.

Read the full review →
The i Paper
9 March 2017 · ★★★★ · Matthew Turner
80

Turner finds the film a monstrously entertaining and thrilling creature feature. He praises its spectacular creature effects and imaginatively staged monster battles, while noting that the human characters are underdeveloped.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
7 March 2017 · B · A.A. Dowd
77

Dowd finds the film an entertaining monster mash, though its Vietnam-war parallels are heavy-handed and its tonal shifts can be jarring. He praises the inventive creature action and the striking helicopter encounter with Kong.

Read the full review →
Sight and Sound
10 March 2017 · Kim Newman
70*

Newman finds the film a fast, playful pulp adventure that holds its own without matching the depth of earlier King Kong films. He especially praises Kong’s opening helicopter battle and the imaginative monster designs.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is Kong: Skull Island worth watching?
Kong: Skull Island is worth watching for fans of large-scale creature action, and we score it 71 out of 100. The helicopter encounter gives Kong convincing weight and personality, but the thin human characters make the gaps between monster fights less entertaining than they should be.
How long is Kong: Skull Island, and what is it rated?
Kong: Skull Island runs 1h 58m. It is an action and adventure film.
Where can I watch Kong: Skull Island in Greece?
Kong: Skull Island is available to buy from Apple TV from €3.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.
How violent or frightening is Kong: Skull Island, and is it suitable for children?
Kong: Skull Island carries a UK 12A certificate and mixes rowdy adventure with savage monster action, making it a cautious choice for younger children. We find it more boisterous than dread-filled, but the creature attacks and jarring shifts in tone warrant care with sensitive viewers; under-12s need an accompanying adult at the cinema.
How does Kong: Skull Island compare to Jurassic Park?
Kong: Skull Island offers rowdier monster action than Jurassic Park, but we recommend the dinosaur adventure more strongly for its patience, sharper characterisation and suspense. Kong’s convincing physical presence makes the fights enjoyable; Jurassic Park gives its creatures more time to fascinate and frighten, making it the better choice when spectacle alone is not enough.
What should I watch after Kong: Skull Island?
After Kong: Skull Island, try Jurassic Park (1993, Fi1m 91): Another disastrous encounter with giant creatures, handled with more patience and sharper characterisation. Then Tremors (1990, Fi1m 82): Small-town monster trouble, with resourceful characters and a welcome sense of humour; and Godzilla (1954, Fi1m 88): For a giant creature whose destruction carries a more troubling human cost.

Cast

Awards

Academy Awards, 2018

Nominated
Best Visual Effects

If you liked this, try…

  1. Jurassic Park (1993, Fi1m 91)Another disastrous encounter with giant creatures, handled with more patience and sharper characterisation.

  2. The Host (2006) · not reviewed yetA creature rampage with a family worth worrying about beneath the commotion.

  3. Tremors (1990, Fi1m 82)Small-town monster trouble, with resourceful characters and a welcome sense of humour.

  4. Godzilla (1954, Fi1m 88)For a giant creature whose destruction carries a more troubling human cost.

  5. Monsters (2010, Fi1m 63)A quieter journey through creature territory, allowing the human relationship time to develop.

Free account

Know what to watch tonight

Two lists that know where things are streaming, collections you can share, your own score beside ours, and Discover that remembers what you have seen.

  • Want to see, sorted by what is streaming now
  • Seen, with your score out of ten
  • No adverts, ever