Son of Kong

Starring: Robert Armstrong, Helen Mack, Frank Reicher, John Marston, Victor Wong, Ed Brady, Steve Clemente (uncredited), Noble Johnson (uncredited)
Directed by: Ernest B. Schoedsack
Rating: Passed
Genre: Adventure, Drama, Science Fiction
1933

Times Seen:
Tim: 1

Summary: Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) faces serious consequences after the Kong disaster in New York. He leaves the country and decides to return to Skull Island.

Review:

Tim: I do find this interesting- the same year (1933) that King Kong was released (an all-time classic film), the sequel was released as well- Son of Kong. This film paled in comparison and basically caused the giant ape to sit on the shelves for nearly 30 years, before he was resurrected for Japan's King Kong vs. Godzilla in 1962. How can you go from one of the greatest movies ever made, to squandering the goodwill in less than a year? Well, this movie accomplished that feat.

That being said, I don't think Son of Kong is a bad movie. It's a misguided one, a film that pales in comparison to the original in every single way. The quality drop off here is massive. It boggles the mind how such a bland film could come out the same year as the original, which is excellent. Budget and a focus on quality truly do matter. This movie has a lot of problems, chiefly the whole premise. Why would anyone be interested in seeing a film about King Kong's "son", a 12 foot creature that ends up basically befriending our protagonists? This whole concept feels like a poor cash grab, an attempt to seize the moment of the original film's popularity. Now, it could have been far worse. Getting Robert Armstrong to reprise his role- to make the showman from the original film the protagonist of this one, to connect the film's events so closely to the original- that made a ton of sense. I liked the continuity this film presented. It felt like an easy continuation of the original story, verses one that was conveniently slapped together. Why wouldn't we want to see what happened to Carl Denham after the events of the first film? This helps the movie immensely. The premise of the "son of Kong" sucks, but the idea of following Denham is a worthwhile one.

The story from there is fine. Denham travels around, meets various people, falls for Helen Mack's tragic character. Her subplot was fairly interesting and while it was a bit hard to swallow everything, it did make for an interesting subplot and gave her character at least a bit of depth. The film definitely sets up some human drama to go along with the creature battles and the movie is better for it. Armstrong is solid in the lead role- he gives a typical performance of the time. He's not great, but works more often than he doesn't. Helen Mack was fine- I didn't have any big issues with her performance, but it's not exactly memorable, either. She's no Fay Wray here. I really enjoyed seeing Frank Reicher back as Captain Englehorn- again, bringing this actor back to reprise his role built strong connections to the original. It helps that Reicher is a strong actor and makes the movie better with his performance.

The main thrust of the movie is when our protagonists get to Skull Island and face all sorts of monstrous creatures. This part of the film abandons story somewhat to give us Little Kong vs. various creatures. These battles are entertaining and the stop motion visuals work. They're fun to watch and although feel more predictable than in the original, are still worth our time. I watched this movie with my 9 year-old son and we both enjoyed the battle sequences. Little Kong fights a Styracosaurus, a cave bear, and a Nothosaurus. Kong risks his life continually, I guess to repay the quicksand debt. That makes up the back part of the movie. Sure, the characters continue, searching for treasure, seek to get off the island, but none of it feels all that important. It's all about monsters battling each other. Everything else is secondary.

Son of Kong isn't a bad movie, but it's a deeply disappointing one. It certainly feels like it jettisons any depth for more surface-level thrills. Little Kong is significantly less interesting and memorable than King Kong. I enjoyed seeing several characters' stories continue, but the whole film elicits more of a shrug than anything else. It's a cheap sequel, one that doesn't really do anything especially well and can never step out of the original film's shadow. I suppose one positive is that Son of Kong is slightly better than the bad Son of Godzilla, so this franchise gets another one up on its adversary. Still, there's not a lot here to get excited about. It's a perfectly okay movie, but it's startling how substantially worse this film is than the original.

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating: 6



If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend: King Kong, Son of Godzilla