What Critics Are Saying About Kong: Skull Island

There's a lot more than a $190 million budget riding on Kong: Skull Island. With Marvel and DC continuing their one-sided battle for supremacy in the superhero stakes and Universal getting ready to re-launch their classic monsters franchise this summer, Legendary Pictures have been quietly going about setting up their own cinematic universe. The company teamed up with Warner Bros. in 2015 to create a world shared by King Kong, Godzilla and an "ecosystem of other giant super-species." The two mythical beasts are slated to meet in 2020 for Godzilla vs. Kong, though all of that depends on one thing—the reaction to Kong: Skull Island.

Will Jordan Vogt-Roberts' film kickstart a franchise that will be with us for years to come, or will it fall flat on its face and force the planned battle of the super-beasts to be postponed? Here's what the critics are saying about it.

Writing for the Toronto Sun, Jim Slotek started his review by expressing his encouragement at Legendary/Warner Bros.' plans to make King Kong and Godzilla do battle before going on to compare their respective solo features. "I actually liked Kong: Skull Island more than [the 2014 reboot of] Godzilla, for the simplicity of its plot. To wit: overconfident humans invade Kong's domain and pay the consequences." Simplicity remained the theme of Slotek's review, with the writer calling the dialogue prosaic and goofy as well as questioning the originality of Samuel Jackson's revenge arc, though he did so while recognizing that this was all part of a plan that ultimately paid off. "This is a monster movie for the nine-year-old kid in all of us, and the filmmakers take it as un-seriously as that suggests... And if it all seems at times to be pointless sound and fury, well, yeah. That's the point."

Reviewing duties for Kong: Skull Island fell to Owen Gleiberman, who took over as the trade's chief critic in 2016. He drew comparisons to the "messy and unimaginative piece of thunder-lizard junk" that is Jurassic Park: The Lost World in his review, admitting that he pretty much expected the same thing from Kong: Skull Island. "The surprise is that Skull Island isn't just 10 times as good as Jurassic World; it's a rousing and smartly crafted primordial-beastie spectacular." He went on to praise the performances of the entire cast (with a special nod to the "terrifically dry" John C. Reilly) and offered the highest of compliments to the movie itself. "In its jungle-stranded B-movie way, Kong: Skull Island may come closer in spirit to the wide-eyed amazement of the original than either of those remakes. That's because it's more casually willing to be its own thing."

The headline for Scott Mendelson's glowing review reads "King Kong Kicks Butt In This Gorgeous Pulp Adventure." The Forbes critic distanced himself from the majority of other film reviewers by insisting that Kong: Skull Island actually works regardless of its top-of-the-line CGI effects, not because of them. "The picture is a briskly paced and character-driven adventure that just happens to be a big-budget monster mash and part of a would-be cinematic universe... While the film is technically a prequel to the Gareth Edwards' Godzilla, it stands entirely on its own in terms of content and visual style." In terms of the cast, Mendelson gave particular props to the "superb" John Goodman who portrays the senior official in charge of the expedition to the titular island, and to the "scene-stealing" John C. Reilly, who plays a WWII vet that has been stranded there for 28 years.

Unlike critics who bemoaned the lack of an intimate relationship between Kong: Skull Island's eponymous ape and his female human visitor (more on that shortly), Den of Geek's Don Kaye felt that this latest re-telling of Kong's story actually benefits from having the inter-species romance watered down. In his review, Kaye praised Brie Larson for allowing her character (a war photojournalist and peace activist) to "feel for the big ape while refreshingly avoiding most of the 'beauty and the beast' trappings of previous Kong movies." Male counterpart Tom Hiddleston also came in for praise here, said to have brought a "nice mercenary attitude and formidable physical prowess" to the role of disillusioned British pilot James Conrad; however, Kaye called the fact that the human characters, story and the overall pacing are all handled well "a pleasant bonus. Above all, the movie is fun."

The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw has been reviewing films for the British newspaper since 1999, and in that time he's given a select number of scathing one-star reviews. Kong: Skull Island is a surprise new member of that undesirable group, dubbed a "fantastically muddled and exasperatingly dull quasi-update of the King Kong story" by the veteran writer, who called Vogt-Roberts' version of the giant ape one "deprived of his kingship and his mystery." Bradshaw's chief complaint was the focus (or lack of it) on the titular monster, who he feels plays second fiddle to the island he inhabits, full of the reptilian creatures called skullcrawlers. "The dramatic presence of Kong himself is muddled. The film tries to make him the island's noble-savage deity, the hairy good guy, as opposed to the huge baddie lizards who are scuttling around the place but are kept in check by the mighty Kong."