Worthless

Rating: 2/10 (6 July 2017)

When I go see a sci fi movie like this one, I know that I am expected to suspend my disbelief but this one is beyond even that.
"Kong: Skull Island" is an updated version of the Edgar Wallace/Merian Cooper 1933 creation "King Kong". There have been many others that more closely follow the story-line. There have also been dozens of sequels. Most are rather low budget but entertaining.
This update is set at the end of the Vietnam War. It is a story about a group of scientists and soldiers sent to explore an uncharted island. So far, so good. The acting is okay but not great however no reason to leave the cineplex just yet. However, this changes once on the island. Here are some of my issues with it:
1. Lack of tactical retreat: When they are flying low across the island and first come across Kong, they keep flying toward it. I guess that is reasonable. However, at some point, certainly after a couple of the helicopters were easily destroyed by Kong, you would think the commanding officer (Col Preston Packard ie Samuel Jackson) would order a tactical retreat in order to reassess the situation and decide on an appropriate course of action. Instead, he tries to fight on.
2. Getting too close: Kong is much bigger than in most previous versions of this story. His arms seem to have a span of a football field. Yet the helicopters (including a Chinook full of scientists) keep darting in front of his face. Why not back off? Although he can run very fast, a helicopter can fly UH-1 Huey can fly at a speed of over 100 mph, Konk could not keep up. Or, why not climb?
3. Shoot first and ask questions later: This movie maintains the stereotypical soldier who shoots first before assessing the real danger. I will not comment on whether or not that is a warranted stereotype but it certainly is how the soldiers in this movie react out of fear. They shoot at anything and everything that moves without regard to the true level of danger.
4. The "White Whale": Kong becomes Col Packard's white whale for which he is willing to sacrifice the lives of all his men in order to kill. Okay, you might be thinking this is not a bad direction for the movie to take and you are right. I am just tired of it. Why do so many military type movies have to have an obsessive character whose only thought is to kill at any price?
5. Why are the chief bad creatures immune to bullets and fire but not to swords?
6. While on the subject of fire, where did the flamethrower and chemical grenades come from? Neither are standard equipment for a tactical military unit of any kind.
And I could continue on but will not tire you. If you can suspend your disbelief beyond what I am able, you might enjoy this trash.