more entertaining than it's 2005 counterpart

Rating: 7/10 (15 March 2017)

***may contain spoilers***
***warning - reviewed by a analytical mind. if logic means nothing to you this review might not be helpful. (yes, sometimes it is OK to suspend logic such as core elements like superheroes or space/time travel but the basics?)***
aaah, I digress, sometimes I wonder if some of the members writing reviews are suck ups? I'd actually give this movie a 6.5 but since I can't choose halves nudged it up to 7.
anyways, it is definitely entertaining and does not start off slow which is nice. would have found it more entertaining if they would have explored the hollow earth theory more than wasting time on a love story and a useless leading actress. really, what was her point? without her the story would have been fine and pretty much the same. does every movie just have to have a leading actress and leading actor? get a grip Hollywood. the answer is no. at least in the original (I think) and the '76 movie there was an actual point to having the leading actress. this time around it's just a waste of time and film. so is the love interest angle. I mean she's a photographer who ends up learning and deciding she shouldn't use her photographs. *smh* note to Hollywood, Godzilla and Kong do NOT need love stories, love interests, anything of that nature, or leading actresses unless they serve a purpose like having useful information or are some story element expert. (let me state to be more clear, the love story angle took up only a small part of the movie, it just was pointless and unnecessary) note to future Godzilla movie makers, INCLUDE FREAKING GODZILLA IN THE MOVIE the way THIS movie included Kong. morons.
my other logic rants is whoever designed Kong doesn't appear to have any knowledge of gorilla anatomy what so ever. sure Kong won't be exactly like an overgrown gorilla but his chest looked terribly disproportionate to his head.
uh, why didn't the helicopters disperse and fly away from Kong or HIGHER? this part of the movie made no sense.
why didn't ANYONE tell Jackson's character about Kong protecting the world from skullhead lizards sooner? AND ACTUALLY EXPLAIN the fact that his team was creating holes with the explosives is why Kong reacted how he did? oh, that's right because logic messes up the need for the dumb story plot to work. you know, if they had at least explained the reasoning and Jackson's character still acted like a crazy moron I'd have felt better.
positives were the fact we actually get to see plenty of Kong! kudos. the stranded soldier was an excellent story element. the hollow earth theory. sounded very cool. the story of how there was more giant gorillas and Kong's parents, very cool to! so many cool stories just told but not actually seen in the movie. *sigh* overall an entertaining movie.
how about a movie about his parents and them falling prey to the skullheads and Kong escaping to protect the day? you know minus any useless love story gunk other than between Kong's parents maybe.
edit: after seeing the trailer a couple of more times it reminded me there was one other ridiculous scene some of you might want to pay attention to. it's one of those forced scene done just to do that would have been better without the first part. without being able to pause an actual theatre movie I have no idea how Kong ended up under and then entangled in the chains. save money on the effects guys, especially when they are ridiculous. movies are better without them.
edit (03/19/17): so the 2005 Kong just aired on TV after I typed my review. had not watched it since seeing it at the movies. basically watching this reminded me why I haven't seen it since then. the Egyptian really? cartwheels? juggling? at least the girl in this new version doesn't do the Egyptian, cartwheels, or juggling and at least Kong is NOT just an oversized regular gorilla (right down to munching oversized bamboo). it's like they went crazy with the special effects because they got a 2 for 1 deal or something. oh, and the dinosaur scene? just wow! as in wow, can't believe how unbelievably BAD that was and dinosaurs were the least unbelievable unrealistic thing about the whole scene.
what I'm saying is the new Kong here is definitely better than the 2005 one and even with the ridiculous chain scene it is less ridiculous and more logical.