Michael_Elliott 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.

jessegehrig Kind of underrated, I mean also to a degree rightly so. Its a stupid sequel and was obviously written and conceived of just to cash in on the success of King Kong, yes duh. Underneath the stupid though, something truly special lies dormant waiting to be discovered. As ridiculous as the plot is, the idea that Robert Armstrong's character feels deep guilt for his role in King Kong's exploitation and subsequent death, it has the makings of a great story. Early on Helen Mack performs a little music number with a monkey, and she does a whole song, not some snippet of music featured in the movie so as to justify a movie soundtrack available for purchase, but a whole song by itself for itself, its a beautiful thing. The movie is worth seeing and should be remade.

utgard14 Following the events of King Kong, director Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) finds himself being sued right and left for all the damage Kong did. To add to his troubles, he discovers a grand jury is about to indict him so he sets sail with Captain Englehorn (Frank Reicher). These are the only two of the main cast members from the first film to return. Eventually the two run across the man who sold Denham the map to Skull Island and he tells Denham there is treasure on the island that they left behind when they captured Kong. So they all return to Skull Island, along with a pretty stowaway (Helen Mack). Once there, they find an albino "Little Kong," the son of Kong from the first picture.Obviously this was a rushed production. It was written, shot, and released the same year as King Kong. In many ways it feels like a B movie. It takes over forty minutes of this barely over an hour movie for Little Kong to show up. Out of those forty minutes, there's maybe ten or fifteen minutes of necessary story. The rest is filler. When Little Kong does show up, it's not that impressive. He's played mostly for laughs, at times resembling the Bumble from Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer! But he does have some nice fight scenes with dinosaurs and a giant bear.Robert Armstrong reportedly liked this movie more than King Kong. If that's true then it probably speaks to Mr. Armstrong's vanity since he got to be the romantic leading man and hero for this one. He's likable and his performance is fine but Carl Denham being made into the hero is one of the many problems with this movie. Denham's rough edges are what made him such a good character in the first film. Softened up, he's a rather bland character and a poor fit for leading man. Helen Mack is no Fay Wray but she's very attractive and does about as well as can be expected given the weak script. Willis O'Brien's special effects are not surprisingly the highlight of the picture. Ernest B. Schoedsack returns to direct, although noticeably without Merian C. Cooper, who is only an executive producer on this one.Doing sequels is tricky business, then and now. Even more so when you're following up one of the greatest films of all time. The truth is King Kong didn't need any sequels. But greed always wins out in Hollywood. Is Son of Kong a bad sequel? Yes, of course. I don't see how that could be disputed. Is it a bad movie? Not really. It's watchable and even entertaining in spots. But the specter of its predecessor is always looming over it.

joseph mason 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.