Highly Overrated But Still Good

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Blistering performances.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

The Son of Kong (1933) *** (out of 4) Fun sequel to KING KONG finds Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) broke and being sued by just about everyone so he heads off and plans to make a living on the shipping market. Before long he finds himself back on Skull Island when he learns that there might be a treasure there but first he finds a baby gorilla.KING KONG was released on April 7, 1933 and became an instant smash. You can pretty much tell that this sequel was rushed into production by the simple fact that it was released on December 22 of the same year. Yes, that's right, a movie had its script written, filmed, put together and was on the screen in less than eight months. It should go without saying that THE SON OF KONG doesn't reach the levels of the original but at the same time it's rather amazing that it turned out as good as it did since the budget was cut in half and the filmmakers were under the gun to get it in theaters by Christmas.I think the film offers quite a bit of fun moments. I do wonder if the sympathy shown towards Kong in the original film is why the filmmakers decided to make his son a good guy. In fact, most of the memorable stuff in the original is missing here including the various pre-code moments. The sexuality and violence is pretty much gone here and in its place are scenes of comedy and cute bits. When we first see Kong Jr., he's stuck in some quicksand and from here on out we see him fight a few prehistoric beasts and pretty much be a puppy dog as he follows Denham and Hilda (Helen Mack) around.These scenes are actually pretty good simply because of the charming personality they manage to give the little creature.The special effects this time out aren't nearly as impressive and you can tell that many of the creatures were rushed. Their quality level isn't nearly as great as the original film but none of them are poorly done. The baby Kong design is actually good and the facial expressions are quite flawless. Another major plus is that we get a continuation of the original film since Armstrong is back. He's certainly very good in the role as is Mack in her supporting bit and Frank Relcher is also good in the role of the captain.THE SON OF KONG is obviously rather cheap but fans of the original should still have a good time with it.

Robert Armstrong and Frank Reicher return as Carl Denham and Captain Englehorn in this rushed sequel to "King Kong". Denham, now broke and besieged by lawsuits over the Kong destruction, accepts an offer from the Captain to join him on a trip to the East Indies as traders. In the Dutch port of Dakang, they meet a young singer(played by Helen Mack) who will later stow away on their ship, which is now headed back to Skull Island to search for a rumored treasure. When they arrive, they are surprised to find a pint-sized version of Kong(son apparently) who is quite friendly, and saves them from a giant bear attack. They find the treasure, but the island sinks as a consequence, threatening all their lives... OK sequel is still reasonably entertaining, though lacks the scope and ambition of the first. F/X are good, and film is fun, if too rushed, especially the climax, though the ending is still satisfying.

Which isn't to say it's better (or as good as) the original KONG, which is a film that will never be equaled (as De Laurentis and Peter Jackson spent millions proving). But as sequels go this one is just right. When modern film makers produce a sequel to a hit movie they essentially remake it only bigger. If the original had ten explosion the sequel has a hundred, if the original had one big angry monster the sequel has five. In other words they take a good idea and turn it into something tedious and overblown. The producers of SON OF KONG shrewdly realized that they could never top the original so they gave us a pleasant little followup instead. As another reviewer aptly noted, SON is a light dessert after a steak dinner, which is just what you want. The effects and action are good, the humor is excellent, and I for one prefer Helen Mack's spunky gal to Fay Wray's insipid heroine. So sue me.

i believe most of us can agree that a great movie like king Kong didn't need a sequel. but of course those Hollywood executives will do anything to make more money, even force the filmmakers and everyone involved in making the movie who really do it more for the art than the money to ship out another one the same year. obviously with a lot less time and a smaller budget it isn't going to be amazing. but the filmmakers and story writers actually were able to make good script. they took the more comedic side with this one knowing they weren't going to be able to top the original masterpiece king Kong, on top of that it is still well written and great adventure story. not to mention the acting from the the cast is nothing less than fantastic, especially Robert Armstrong. and the visual effects by Willis O'Brien and his crew, my god for such small budget and little time they are still great as ever. so this film to me is mostly solid and a great sequel to king Kong. just sad it was rushed because it could've been such a classic if the filmmakers had more time and money.