Other than a few gloriously cheesy monster scenes this was horrible

>>84153544
I fell asleep in the theater. Not even john c riley could wake me from my slumber.

>>84153544
>They did nothing to make you care about the characters

I cared about John Goodman and John C Riley.

One of these they killed off, the other got a nice coda but doesn't seem central to the plot at all. Meaning the characters that meant the most are least likely to matter in the long run.

Saw it.
Don't Remember it.

And I love monster movies, but this one was extremely forgetable.
Not even bad, just.. I don't even remember most of it.

too many characters but no one to care about (only riley and goodman but primarily because I like the actors)
too many overly long monster fight scenes
literally no tension at any point
skull crawlers hilariously underwhelming
big one was a shitty antagonist


nice helo scenes
nice establishing shots
goodman
riley
nice interaction between black science guy and chinese qt
iwis
the vietnam stuff was unexpected but kinda cool imo

>>84153544
it's th best king kong movie ever tho.

File: KONG.jpg (83KB, 550x755px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 550x755px

>>84155442
Objectively false. The original is still the best.

But it's better than Godzilla (2014).

>>84155442
Whoa there, what about the original?

>>84155628
>>84155535
okay, i don't really remember on that but probably right. BUT if a movie is advertised by it's about a mountain sized gorilla monster, i want to see him wreck things, and he does that in this, and not a romanticized shitfest how he fell in love with a human woman

>>84155921
tldr it's a decent monster flick

>>84153544
>skull island
>land with tons of ancient species

>a monkey, 2 legged walkers, a bamboo spider, a big octopus and a walking log

wow

>>84156144

you forgot Major Bison

>>84155442
Peter Jackson's King Kong > King Kong (1933) > Kong: Skull Island

I've never seen the 1976 version. Someone please tell me I'm not the only one who thinks Jackson's version is a monster movie masterpiece.

>>84155921
>>84155956
You have to take 1930s limitations into account. They didn't have the money or technology to make an entire movie of a giant gorilla wrecking shit.

>>84156144
>>84156227
and the 'birds'. and the ants.

>>84156373
>I've never seen the 1976 version. Someone please tell me I'm not the only one who thinks Jackson's version is a monster movie masterpiece.
i agree, nice visuals too
girl was hot

>>84154447
Not remembering a film is objectively worse than being bad desu