Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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.

AaronCapenBanner Robert Armstrong and Frank Reicher return as Carl Denham and Captain Englehorn in this rushed sequel to "King Kong". Denham, now broke and besieged by lawsuits over the Kong destruction, accepts an offer from the Captain to join him on a trip to the East Indies as traders. In the Dutch port of Dakang, they meet a young singer(played by Helen Mack) who will later stow away on their ship, which is now headed back to Skull Island to search for a rumored treasure. When they arrive, they are surprised to find a pint-sized version of Kong(son apparently) who is quite friendly, and saves them from a giant bear attack. They find the treasure, but the island sinks as a consequence, threatening all their lives... OK sequel is still reasonably entertaining, though lacks the scope and ambition of the first. F/X are good, and film is fun, if too rushed, especially the climax, though the ending is still satisfying.

joseph mason i believe most of us can agree that a great movie like king Kong didn't need a sequel. but of course those Hollywood executives will do anything to make more money, even force the filmmakers and everyone involved in making the movie who really do it more for the art than the money to ship out another one the same year. obviously with a lot less time and a smaller budget it isn't going to be amazing. but the filmmakers and story writers actually were able to make good script. they took the more comedic side with this one knowing they weren't going to be able to top the original masterpiece king Kong, on top of that it is still well written and great adventure story. not to mention the acting from the the cast is nothing less than fantastic, especially Robert Armstrong. and the visual effects by Willis O'Brien and his crew, my god for such small budget and little time they are still great as ever. so this film to me is mostly solid and a great sequel to king Kong. just sad it was rushed because it could've been such a classic if the filmmakers had more time and money.