What 1976 Kong should of been.

Rating: 8/10 (10 May 2017)

I'm saying that as a fan of the 1976 film, which gets a lot of flack and disdain. But this Kong film is a breath of fresh air, compared to the 2005 remake of the classic Kong from 1933. How was the film?
I really enjoyed the film. Great CGI, along with great action, and set pieces. Only thing setting this apart from being much greater is the cinematography and characters(besides three of them).
The cinematography doesn't do much to distinguish the size of the characters and the size of Kong. To many times you'll question the scope is uneven and is noticeable.
And for the characters. Most of them are have no room to layer themselves in the plot. They're mostly your run of the mill, disaster team built squad of characters. Find the island, put together team, got to island, no connection but to survive, etc.
But the best characters within the film is the WWII pilot portrayed by John C. Reilly(Hank Marlow), John Goodman(Bill Randa), and believe or not, Samuel L. Jackson(Preston Packard).
John C. Reilly stills the show as the most lovable character. He is what glues the other characters together once he enters the scene. John Goodman, underutilized as he was, still makes good use of his screen time. And Sam Jackson portrays a really good broken captain in a battle between man and beast
I recommend this film if your wanting to see an excitingly good monster flick. 8/10