Thinnest characters ever\Plot holes galore

Rating: 2/10 (26 November 2017)

WARNING: Tons of spoilers!!!!!
What did I miss? How did this flick get those solid reviews? This was incredibly lazy storytelling at its best. They very quickly establish every character as cliché so they get can the movie going. Hiddleston is that travelling, adventurous loner which we get in about 8 seconds after seeing him. Larson is that journalist whose ethics are so pure, she quickly brushes off a dream assignment because you know, she doesn't do it for the money. Actually not sure why her character is there at all other than there just had to be some sort of damsel in distress. Every soldier is instantly showcased as stereotype, Vietnam-film guys. We know that because there is also very stereotype Vietnam, 70s rock music that goes with them. Goodman is weird in that he feels very cliché but I'm just not sure which one. I think they wanted to mix in multiple clichés that he became unidentifiable. Still he feels like the most likable character to some extent because there is no one else to like. Then he gets snuffed out for what feels like no reason. It wasn't that huge impactful moment of a main character leaving like Goose or Gandalf. But it's clear the film thinks of his death that way. It was dumb and unnecessary. Kebbel is that aww- shucks, do-gooder who just wants to get back to his family but before we can even remotely care about him, he's snuffed out very abruptly. It's clear the film thinks they've done enough to set him up enough we should be sad and horrified when he's taken out. Barely knew him. John Ortiz is the corporate mongrel because we just had to have one. He's there to make the typical, dumb decisions for no good reason whatsoever. His death though, is the worst. It's just there. It happens and your like, did we need that? Not sure why it happened when and how it did. Uhh okay. I guess Reilly is likable because at least there's nothing dumb about him at least. Still you would think for a guy who is seeing his wife after 20-some odd years and meeting his son for first time, they would spend more than 8 seconds during end credits on that moment. It's just so hard to care with such lazy, thinly written characters. It's an insult to barely establish these guys and then act like we are supposed to care about them so much when tragedy happens. Problem is there isn't enough to care about.
So where do we start with the logic gaps? Despite flying through what they believe is some fierce thunderstorm\hurricane type clouds, there is no worry about them falling out the side of the open helos.
Why does Jackson bear so much vengeance that even though the bad monster is bearing down on him, he strangely only focuses on killing Kong even though it abundantly clear Kong is needed to ward off the bad monster?
While running from bad monster one soldier suddenly stops because out of nowhere he's just worn out and can't do it anymore. That would've been fine if he had shown any signs of feeling beaten down leading up to it. So he then decides to go out a hero. The moment builds up and the SWAT! Monster flicks him aside and he dies. What? What was the point?
Of course the worst one, when Kong starts taking out the helos, how come not one of them, you know, FLIES AWAY FROM KONG?!!! You know like a safe distance away or something even crazier like HIGHER!
What a waste. I mean what a tremendous, pointless use of resources. There is talent galore with the actors involved but terrible writing and going-through-the-motions directing leave this film painfully shallow. They got to get different writers and directors for future Kong films because he deserves a ton better.