Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Granted, this immediate sequel doesn't possess the same raw power and resonance as the original, but it still manages to work quite well as a pleasing lighthearted adventure romp that picks up right where the first one left off and provides a disgraced and regretful Carl Denham (a fine and engaging performance by Robert Armstrong) a golden opportunity to redeem himself after he stumbles across Kong's adorable albino offspring while searching for treasure on Skull Island.Director Ernest B. Schoedsack keeps the entertaining story moving along at a brisk pace, stages the monster fights with rip-roaring gusto, and pulls out all the stirring stops for the exciting earthquake finale. Frank Reicher lends sturdy support as the stalwart Captain Englehorn, the fetching Helen Mack adds plenty of charm and spark as perky aspiring singer Hilda, Victor Wong supplies amusing comic relief as loyal Chinese cook Charlie, and Ed Brady cuts a suitably hateful figure as no-count troublemaker Red. Unfortunately, John Marston hams it up to a painful degree as surly drunk Helstrom. Willis O'Brien's superb stop-motion animation effects deliver a wondrous wealth of neat creatures, with Kong Jr. rating as an exceptionally cute, sweet, and gentle fellow. Max Steiner's robust score does the rousing trick. A nice little film.

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.

SON OF KONG isn't a particularly bad film by any means, but it's fair to say that it pales in comparison to its monstrously good predecessor and thus is destined to remain forever in KING KONG's shadow. It's weaker than the first film in every respect, and yet despite the flaws I found it to be quite a watchable movie.The good news about SON OF KONG is that it's short and to the point, with little chance for the viewer to get bored by the on-screen proceedings. The plot is serviceable, utilising simple devices to get some recurring characters from the first movie back on Skull Island, where they inevitably encounter a young, cuter giant ape.Willis O'Brien's wondrous stop motion effects are once again in evidence here, although they're used quite sparingly and the actual scenes of monster mayhem are sparse, although the ending doesn't disappoint. The characters are one-dimensional and the script is straightforward, but there's the requisite amount of adventure and atmosphere for fans of this enjoyably dated genre to enjoy.

Having watched KING KONG Monday night, this seemed obvious for Tuesday.The sequel, I read, was quickly knocked out in about 8 months, for about one-THIRD the budget of the original. This caused Willis O'Brien to get soured on it, and 2 major sequences planned to be cut. One of these would have involved a tribal war on the island, the other, a dinosaur stampede when the earthquake starts.I note how "sad" most of the film is. The entire long build-up really gets to you after awhile, every character in the film seems perpetually down on their luck, some because of their own actions, others not. Helstrom is a real creep-- he gets into a fight while drunk, "accidentally" kills his drinking partner and then runs out when a fire starts. Later, he incites a ship's crew to mutiny, then gets tossed overboard with the Captain! By the time that dinosaur stuck his head out of the water and ATE him, I figured he had it coming.The girl Helene, who Carl Denning eventually falls for, actually wound up reminding me a bit of my MOM this time around. Not much of a singing voice, puts herself into a situation despite people telling her not to, sticking with a guy despite whatever. Plus she kinda LOOKED like Mom. Made me think Denning seemed a lot LESS nuts than my Dad was.The best part of the film-- OF COURSE-- is what most audiences would be waiting for-- THE ISLAND. The styracosaurus is COOL! Is this the only dinosaur movie that ever had one? "Little Kong" winds up being the exact opposite of his bad-tempered uber-destructive dad. Curious, friendly, even helpful (but not too bright). The fights with the giant bear and the dragon were cool. It's heart-warming, funny and exciting. The design of the "temple" is also cool, though I'd have thought there'd be a lot more "treasure" than just ONE big necklace. Either the print or the quality of effects shots seem BETTER than on the first film, which is really odd.The ending seems completely uncalled-for. Sort of like blowing up the entire planet in that 2nd APES film. I realize now where I've seen it before-- it's very similar to the climax of the novel THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND. In that, the castaways have spent months building an escape craft, only to have it DESTROYED just before they could use it when the entire island disintegrates (I forget if a volcano was involved or not, as in the Harryhausen version). Only as they cling desperately to the last remaining fragments of the island does a rescue ship FINALLY arrive, led there by a message left on the OTHER island they visited in the book (but not in the movie). Hollywood has a long habit of swiping from various sources uncredited. I'd bet this is one of those.I could see an earthquake causing a stampede, but NOT completely sinking an island that had been there for MILLIONS of years, which just happens to sink right when Carl Denning is there. Like I said, the whole build-is is so sad, then, following a more upbeat middle, it ends on another sad note. Sure, Carl & the others will be rich once they hock that necklace, and he & Helene look like they'll probably get married. But there was NO need to kill off ALL those critters in the process. Just feels like someone's way of saying, "We're NOT doing another sequel-- DAMMIT!"