RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Cissy Évelyne It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

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.

skybrick736 What I enjoyed most of the Son of Kong is being able to relate to the cast and watching likable characters on the screen being portrayed by Robert Armstrong and Frank Reicher. Robert Armstrong was big get and I don't think I would have liked the movie anywhere as much as I did without him. That being said I enjoyed the story leading up the return of Skull Island and the introduction of Helen Mack. The movie lacked at times when tension should have been higher and have a little more pace without drawn out scenes. I liked the message the movie told about mistakes and having to live with them and I was content with the ending. Son of Kong is a good movie to follow up directly after King Kong but its nowhere near as good having some dull and rehashed scenes and ideas.

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.

MartinHafer I cannot blame RKO for rushing this film into production. After all, "King Kong" made a fortune and the public was clamoring for more. However, I wished they'd rethought plot just a bit before they began filming, as it started off so great but then the movie degenerated into a bit of a sappy affair.The beginning of "Son of Kong" was great. Now that Kong was dead, a LOT of New Yorkers were mad at Denham (Robert Armstrong)--and everyone was ready to sue him because of all the damage the creature did! I loved this, as too seldom do sequels talk about the public's reaction to the idiot who orchestrated the big mess! And so, he sets off to sea and goes in search of a fresh start.Now you would think with a planet this big that the chances of Armstrong's character to stumble upon another enormous ape would be practically nil. Yet, despite not trying to do so, he ends up finding what appears to be Kong's younger and a bit smaller son! What are the odds?!?! However, and here is where the film falters, this Son of Kong is nice...really, really nice. He smiles and mugs for the cameras repeatedly AND is incredibly helpful and kind towards Armstrong and his new hot babe (Helen Mack). The end result is a film that might please little kids and those who don't want a violent monster film....but the other 98% probably will be disappointed by this kindler, gentler sort of ape! Watchable but it could have been a lot better.