This isn't the same film as King Kong, we know all know that, but I find many people that only have negative comments to say about Son of Kong. It's that bad of a movie, I mean it's still fun and enjoyable and it provides a nice adventure. I really never knew that there was a sequel to King Kong untill I say this film on TV a few years ago. I liked how it just picked up right after the first one ended.
I liked it, granted it is not as part 1.
I agree with RivenWinner. As I say in my comments, "The Son of Kong" is a wonderful film in its own right, although it usually suffers, not surprisingly and not unjustly, in comparison to "King Kong." Take this movie for what it is -- a nice little adventure with a good sense of humor, better characterizations, improved (if limited) special effects, and a more human approach than that of its predecessor -- and you will enjoy it.
share[deleted]
I agree with Snorrem, they should've waited like they did with Frankenstein and Dracula, they waited atleast 4-5 years for each until they created a sequel.
We can DO IT ALLLL DAY LONG, (We'll have to pay more for the light bill if we do it at night!)
I find it very enjoyable. While it lacks the majesty and horror of the original, it's a fun sequel with lots of laughs, a nice adventure and even a little bit of tragedy. I love the opening scenes when Denham is having to face up to his troubles in New York as a result of bringing Kong there.
shareI wouldn't say it's awful at all. One thing that never worked for me in the original "King Kong" is that one is not really sympathetic toward the big ape. But "Son" actually has a lot of personality, and when (SPOILER!) he goes down at the end, with that slowly sinking, life-saving hand, it's pretty moving. I remember being pretty choked up over it when I was, oh, nine years old or so. Sure, it isn't the classic that Kong is. It's more of a cult classic. But it pleases, and really, that in itself is plenty for a movie to accomplish.
Rorschach: Hurm.
You should see Mighty Joe Young (1949) as that has the most sympathetic ape of all. I disagree that the original Kong is not sympathetic to the big guy, though. (**Spoiler**) I feel every bullet that rips Kong's flesh and I always tear up at the end, especially when Denham says "It was beauty killed the beast."
shareI enjoy this movie very much. Though Ray Harryhausen said in an interview that some of the gestures of Little Kong are not characteristic of a gorilla, I agree with other reviewers that there's more of a human element to this ape, which softens the tough stance of the predecessor. This was the first movie I ever cried watching, and I was about 9 years old as well. When it comes to special effects, the attention to detail is great -- especially considering the limited timeframe in which they had to film this. (SPOILER!) Based on reviews I've read elsewhere, I'm not sure if people realize that at the very end just before the water starts to rise around Little Kong his foot actually gets wedged between a couple of rocks because the ground shifted and this is why he can't break free and save himself (the grimace on Denham's face as he tries to help him pretty much says it all); apparently some people missed that.
sharei liked how kong hurt his middlefinger, and kept it sticking up. but seriously, i enjoyed the film, although it is a little short on action, i kept thinking to myself during the firs forty minutes, "this film is only 70 minutes long, when is our title character coming. but i liked it overall and enjoyed the russian communist undertones to the whole mutiny scene. overall id give it 2.5 out of 4 stars.
"in the words of my generation Up Yours!!!!!"
Yeah i liked it.
It seemed to provide a bit more depth to the (Kongs) and Denham. Denham seemed to realise that he was partly to blame. Yeah, little kong was quite cute and i thought it was sad seeing him dragged under.
It was just a short adventure and i think it should be seen that way.
[deleted]
Denham: "We'll split the treasure four ways."
Hilda: "Couldn't you just split it three ways?"
Denham: "How do you mean?"
Hilda: "Well, one third to the skipper, one third to Charlie, and one third ... to us?"
(Denham looks at Hilda. She looks up at him.)
Hilda: "Well, you said stick to you."
(Denham embraces her. She cuddles up to him.)
Hilda: "This is ... NICE, isn't it?"
Denham (smiling): "It's all right."
FADE OUT
Yeah, thats a nice bit of dialogue.
I think this film has the feeling that the original King Kong didn't have.
I like some of the contrast between this and the first one. In the first one, the first thing the big black gorilla takes from the people is the white woman, but in this one the first thing the wimpy white gorilla takes is a gun.
_______________________________________
Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'.
But it pleases, and really, that in itself is plenty for a movie to accomplish.
erichvm - well said! I agree 100%!
I fully agree with most of the posters on this board, that say Son of Kong is a good movie that they liked. I certainly did like it (in fact it is on my 100 favorite movies of all time list). It is not, of course, near as good as King Kong, and has nowhere near the action, thrills, and atmosphere, but still a good adventure story, with more depth and emotion. The characters are also fuller and more complex, and I really did like the way it picked up one month after the original and continued that with this story line-first in New York, then at sea and back on Skull Island. And I also liked the way it brought back Denham, Englehorn, Charley, and introduced Helda, her father, and Helstrom (I just wish it would have revealed what had happened with Jack Driscoll and Ann Darrow one month later-I did wonder about that). But I knew since the 1970s when seeing King Kong that this sequel did exist, but was never able to see it until September, 1988, when it came on a local TV station one week when they were running five different gorilla monster movies each night. I then taped it, immidiently liked it and watched it often after that. And last November I saw it was on DVD in the video stores, along with King Kong, and I look foward to seeing it on that again soon.
"I happen to be a vegetarian". Lex, from Jurrasic Park
I had heard that there was such a movie, but didn't know any details. I caught it on the late, late show one night when I was a kid, and was entranced. I loved the whole opening, with Carl Denham hiding out in the boarding house from all the people who want to sue him. Then, when Captain Engelhorn suggests they sail away on the Venture again and escape all their troubles, it felt like a great adventure that I was embarking on with them.
I liked the way that Denham seemed genuinely sorry for what happened. He seemed to have really grown and become a much mellower and nicer character than in the first movie. There's a real warmth and affection in his scenes with Hilda, and he and the Skipper have some great comic dialogue.
For old time music lovers, listen closely to the background piano playing in the bar, when Helstrom walks in and tries to get a free drink. It's played very rapidly, and you only hear a few bars, but the tune is unmistakeably the " Maple Leaf Rag" by Scott Joplin. Another old ragtime tune follows, and then the " Glow Worm" song. We never actually see the piano or the player, but it's a wonderful atmospheric touch.
The "Son of Kong" wasn't really a bad film, just a disappointing one. It had its moments but it also had far too many missed opportunities.
Its a very different film from its predessesor. "King Kong" was exciting and innovative, bold of conception and unique of content. "Son of Kong" was conservative and cautious by comparison. A film of light hearted moments and leisurely pace.
"Son of Kong" opens with great potential, picking up where "KK" left off (with rather logical and deserved consequences for Denhem), leading to the voyage that will take Denhem and Englehorn to Skull island, picking up the love intrest and the villain along the way. With exposition out of the way, we get to the business which is presumably why people came to see the film...the dangers of Skull island and Kong's kid. Sadly, this is where the film goes awry.
The neighborhood seems cleared up quite a bit since last we saw it. The T-Rexes, Pterodactyls, and other monstrous beasts seem conspicuously absent. This new and improved Skull Island doesn't seem like such a bad place, really, in comparison to the one we saw in "KK".
Up till now, we've been carried along in anticipation of little Kong's arrival. Sadly, when he does finally appear, its an anti-climactic introduction. Kong's kid is a cute, sweet 12 foot monkey who befriends our heroes instead of menacing them and mugs adorably for the camera. He does wrestle a bear but the fight scenes really don't match what we're used to after seeing Kong Sr. dominate the indiginous creatures of the previous film.
The haphazzard, semi-humorous plot meanders along, looking for a worthy resolution that the script writers don't seem to be able to provide. Whatever merit the script had up till this point is lost in the abrupt finale. All of a sudden, with no build up what-so-ever, all Hell breaks lose and the island starts to crumble into the sea. Our heroes sail away safty and we all know what happens to poor little Kong. This sudden, harsh ending cannot be explained in terms of narrative logic. Little Kong didn't have this karmic cummupance coming. And what about the native tribes from the original film? Why this sudden dislocated ending? Did the writers lack the imagination for a cleverer ending? Was there a budget or schedule reason to wrap things up quickly. Did someone say, "We have no time for a complete third act finale. Let's just sink the island!" I think this illogical ending hurts "Son of Kong" more than all the overly cute moments with baby Kong earlier. The slow and deliberate pace of the first hour of the film deserves a more thought out resolution than this packaged apocalypse.
Again, its not a bad film. I guess you can say that "Son of Kong" was an escapist film. How many people during the depression (When this film was released) wished they could sail away from their financial woes like Carl Denham did. (Think Tom and Huck.) Denhem finds romance, adventure, treasure and a chance to atone for past sins. Wish fulfillment for a generation.
I saw this movie after Id seen my first Kong film (King Kong 1976) but hadnt as yet seen the original... I absolutely loved it as a kid, and I think it was a perfect way to enjoy a Kong story without being 'too much' for child audiences.
I look at SOK like this... Its the Kong movie for the kid in us all, while KK 1933 is definately an adult orientated film. Both original and sequel are fantastic, and the 1976 movie is one of my favourite movies of all time... But Son Of Kong holds a special place in my heart from a time (when I saw it) when great movies were shown on weekend afternoons for the whole family to enjoy.
hjl
Michael Jackson 29/08/58 to 25/06/09. May Angels lift you as high as your music has lifted us
Ygoodwriter-the reason the movie was so disjointed is quite simple.Willis O'Brien was given half the time and a third of the budget of King Kong,in order to make the sequel quickly.Apparantly there was a good script,full of awesome scenes,but RKO said no.The massive success of Kong took them by surprise,and since RKO were in financial trouble at the time,they insisted the sequel come out the same year,while Kong was still fresh in the publics mind.So,with so little time to do the effects,some effects-laden scenes had to be chopped.Thats why the Skull Island part of the movie seems to fly past so quickly.The earthquake that sinks the island was planned all along,but preceding scenes were not filmed,including a scene of dinosaurs stampeding.The lack of budget probably explains why we dont see the native village again-all those extras would have to be paid.It really is a crying shame-this"not bad"movie could have been an all time classic.Whats worse,it set a precedent for hit movies having cheaper,shoddier,inferior cash-in sequels.Sadly,we are living with that legacy today.
shareIt's a charming film, nostalgic for me particularly because it used to be aired on television in a marathon on Thanksgiving Day, along with King Kong and Mighty Joe Young. :)
share[deleted]
[deleted]
It's a sweet little film. The albino baby Kong was simply adorable.
I am the Duke of IMDb bio writers! I am A#1!