Isaac Schofield’s review published on Letterboxd:
Yes, I am aware this is trying to be a 'conventional blockbuster', full of action, with paper-thin characters, no plot, and plenty of meaningless combat between CG monsters.
No, I did not enjoy it.
I reject the sentiment that blockbusters should be like this. This film is trying to be simple and stupid... but why? It's not funny, the CG is average at best... the only times this film is good is when it does accidentally take itself seriously. The cinematography at times is splendid, the screen oozing with a Vietnam-esuqe tone of oversized helmets, M16s over shoulders, and tropical leaves sweating with moisture.
Kong was fairly irrelevant to the centre of the story, and was underused. He wasn't particularly scary. He wasn't particularly badass. There was no new twist put on his mammoth role in 20th/21st century film and media. Why take one of the most iconic images in the human history of film and waste him so appallingly? A fantastic cast were underused... not because there roles weren't intense and demanding, just there was too many of them and they were all boring.
I just didn't really get the point. What's so great about a paper-thin blockbuster that one should make a film fullfilling this convention to it's fullest with no subversion?
Maybe I'm just boring.