Hackneyed, Clichéd, Boring.

Rating: 4/10 (25 April 2017)

Rarely have I found such a gaping chasm between the enthusiastic reviews and the disappointing on-screen reality as with this film. Since everyone knows the basic story of KIng Kong, there is, of course, no suspense and none is to be expected except in the details of the characters' various predicaments (and of course, which of the cast of characters will be killed in a nasty and/or surprising manner). So, that leaves the story and the cast to carry the movie, as well as the special effects we expect.
The director said that he was strongly influenced by video games, and it clearly shows. This is a film for an audience satisfied by "big monsters" and lots of automatic weapons. The acting is workmanlike and professional, as you'd expect from the talented lead actors, but you can see they're sleep-walking through their roles: Oh look, Samuel L. Jackson playing a military hard-ass Tom Hiddleston playing a reserved British ex-soldier with hidden mental and character strengths John C. O'Reilly playing a lovable oddball eccentric Wake me when the director has an actor playing against type, please.
Big insects and lizards: check. Angry huge gorilla: check. Spectacular and wild scenery and location: check. Mysterious natives: check. Soldiers trying to kill huge creatures with small arms and being crushed when the creatures and insects just won't die: check. Obvious references to other films (armed boat going down a river in Vietnam-war era, manned by soldiers, with rock music blasting—hmm,let me think) and the Joseph Conrad novella: check.
Compared to the outstanding and nuanced 2005 Peter Jackson film, this one looks like it was scripted and directed by a nine-year old sitting in front of his PlayStation, and aimed at a similar audience.