Wonderful character development!

Excellent but underrated film

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

"Mighty Joe Young" became known over time as the kid-friendly version of "King Kong." Ever wonder about that?In "Mighty Joe Young," we watch a young girl steal jewels, money, even a big flashlight, all to swap for a gorilla she knows full well she shouldn't own: "He's better than a doll. I can play with him." Daddy not only countenances this misbehavior; he lets her keep the gorilla.What kind of lesson is that for impressionable youngsters? At least in "King Kong," bad actions have consequences. Take a trip to Skull Island, you risk getting crushed in a giant maw. In "Mighty Joe Young," everything's fun until someone gets hurt, which never happens anyway.Reuniting several "Kong" talents, including director Ernest B. Schoedsack, screenwriter Ruth Rose, effects artist Willis O'Brien, and producer Merian C. Cooper, "Mighty Joe Young" seems a conscious attempt at giving a gorilla an even break. The title character, while ferocious, is a gentle giant with a soft spot for bananas and a deep affection for little girl Jill Young, now grown into teenager Terry Moore, who stole Joe's heart as well as that flashlight."Joe wouldn't hurt anybody," she tells cowboy Gregg (Ben Johnson). "He wouldn't if you treat him right."The problem of the film is hardly anyone ever does, including Jill. She allows smooth operator Max O'Hara (Robert Armstrong, another "Kong" carryover) to use the towering beast to achieve Hollywood fame, as feature attraction at a tacky nightclub.This is all mostly played for laughs, though these don't get in the way of the impressive special effects, designed by O'Brien and achieved by someone who, like Johnson, had an Oscar in his future, Ray Harryhausen.The effects stick out most, in ways that impress even CGI-jaded eyes. The miniature work and stop-motion animation come together most impressively. Attention is paid to Joe's face and eyes, to the point where he becomes a dynamic character and a font for some engaging humor.The story is pretty minimal, as is the acting. Johnson in particular seems pretty wooden in his first role. There are scenes that make little sense, beginning with an opening that shows a river crossing for no reason. There are long stretches of listless story action waiting for Joe's next appearance, and some odd set pieces like O'Hara's big stage show, which is a "Trader Horn" meets Busby Berkeley bit that runs too long.What "Joe" has, in abundance, is charm. O'Hara is a con man, but also shows himself a "square guy" in the end. Even the cop who wants to hurry up and shoot Joe because he's got a date is played for laughs rather than anything darker.Moore notes in a DVD commentary how much comment she gets about one scene of Joe lifting her character while she plays their song ("Beautiful Dreamer"). It is not only striking for the way Joe seems to soak up the attention from the audience as he shares the spotlight with his beloved, his eyes taking everything in, but of course the way it subconsciously hearkens back to another scene we all remember, of a giant ape lifting a woman up high enough for all Manhattan to see.The trick this time is the ending, though not without punch, aims for happier results. Except at the box office, "Joe" certainly got those. He even won an Oscar, something big brother Kong didn't manage until 1977! So here's to keeping it short and sweet, relatively speaking.

The director of this film was the same who directed king kong (1933), and it kinda shows. there are no dinosaurs but there is an unrealistically large gorilla. It's not a giant but ya know it's...a gorilla. OK it not that great. its basically the whole let wild things be wild, theme. the big ape is forced to perform on stage and suffers for it. human greed comes at the price of natural innocent things. for those who want to see some destruction(like me ) there is a scene later on where joe goes bananas. since it only there to progress the story to the climax, and they could have simply had the ape pick up a child and get the same result, mindless destruction seems to be the best route.

. . . seldom has been more truthfully depicted on the big screen than in 1949's MIGHTY JOE YOUNG. Seduced by limelight, applause, and booze, this "Gorilla Ironman" (G.I.) Joe does ALL of the work and is given NONE of the profits. Hollywood's infamous accounting methods subject him to abject poverty in an appalling condition of solitary confinement. His career is on track to be shorter than James Dean's, River Phoenix', or Heath Ledger's, as a judge orders his summary execution by firing squad at his first hint of Union Activism. Always the Rich Man's stooges, the L.A. cops are only too happy to oblige The Man. But before these murderers-by-proxy can carry out their ghastly orders, G.I. Joe detours from his escape-back-to-Africa route to rescue a handful of young girls from a burning orphanage--the only thing preventing his liquidation by the Oppressors' Tools. A few years later John Garfield (GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT), Dalton Trumbo, and the rest of the "Hollywood Ten" martyrs would NOT fare so well!

"Mighty Joe Young" is a fun, escapist movie. However, as I sat and watched it, I couldn't help but think that the much more famous "King Kong" (completed 16 years earlier) looked a heck of a lot better. For example, the matte paintings used through much of the film look much less realistic--they looked just like paintings. In "King Kong", they had an other worldly look that was priceless--such as the great looking Skull Island. Also, as Joe the gorilla ran about, the background images looked like they were projected on a movie screen behind it--and looked much more fake than it should have. You would have thought after all those years that this all would have looked a lot better. However, I do seem to be in the minority here, as MANY of the other reviews talked about how great the effects looked! I stand by my opinion--this should have been a lot better.The film is very much like a reworking of "King Kong". Like "Kong", it stars Robert Armstrong and also is about a big gorilla--though Joe is minuscule compared to Kong. Joe's big compared to a gorilla but only about 15 feet tall--not the HUGE creature Kong was. Also, Joe is NOT the dangerous and scary monster that Kong was--he's a beloved pet of a girl living in Africa. When they are discovered by Armstrong, they agree to come to America to go on tour. There, they become a huge hit. Sadly, however, poor Joe and the girl soon tire of this life and long to go back home. Then tragedy strikes and,...well, you should see what happens next for yourself.The biggest difference between Kong and Joe is far more than size. Joe is a nice-guy--and the film is very much like a child-friendly giant ape film. He doesn't eat anyone, doesn't kill any creature and is VERY family-friendly. In other words, while enjoyable, Joe is also a bit dull! I know a lot of people loved the film, but I wanted a bit more violence and mayhem instead of the sweet, lovable creature we see in this film. This, combined with the fair special effects make this a pale shadow of Kong. Enjoyable, certainly, but it could have been so much better without the schmaltz.By the way, what is with that scene in the nightclub where everyone is tossing things at Joe to torment him?! This made little sense and just seemed awful and out of place. And what followed really didn't make a whole lotta sense.