The Son of Kong (Dir: Ernest B Schoedsack, 1933).
How would the makers of Son of Kong manage to top the groundbreaking, blockbuster original King Kong(Merian C Cooper & Ernest Schoedsack, 1933)? Short answer: they wouldn’t. But neither did they try. Ernest Schoedsack returns as producer/director but Merian C Cooper, his collaborator on the first movie, bowed out when RKO slashed the budget. Scriptwriter Ruth Rose also returns, as do cast members Robert Armstrong as Denham and Victor Wong as Charlie the Cook.
A month after the disastrous events of the first movie, beleaguered showman and moviemaker Carl Denham escapes his creditors by chartering a ship to Kong's Skull Island, in search of mythical hidden treasure. Joined by an animal trainer cum singer (Helen Mack) and shady ships' captain (Frank Reicher) and faithful cook Charlie, the gang are cast overboard by a mutinous crew and arrive on the island via rowboat. After a hostile encounter with the native islanders they encounter the ape sinking into quicksand. Denham and the singer (unnamed in the movie but referred to as Hilda in the credits) rescue pint-sized Kong who then befriends the pair as they battle a cave bear and brave a massive earthquake in their search for riches.
Although this movie lacks the grandiose special effects set pieces of the original King Kong, Kong Jr is still an impressive beast. There are certainly some effective sequences, such as baby Kong wrestling with dinos like his old man before him. The climactic earthquake also offers plenty of thrills. However budget and time constraints - Son of Kong was released a mere nine months after King Kong - means that the spectacle is on a distinctly smaller scale this time around.
Smaller than his pa at 12 foot, as opposed to Kong’s 20ish foot, Kong Jr is also more anthropomorphised than his father. The stop motion ape is, once again, beautifully animated by special effects genius Willis O’Brien. Yet with more human like expressions he is less menacing than his dad, but likewise less sympathetic. This ups the comedic aspect but ultimately makes for a less awe-inspiring beast and somewhat hampers any dramatic aspects of the movie. In fact, apart from the tragedy that befalls one character, Son of Kong adopts a much lighter, more comic tone than its predecessor. As a result the movie is, sadly, less impressive, less poignant and less engaging than the original King Kong. But it is by no means the disaster it was initially perceived to be.
A major disappointment in its day, the years have been kind to Son of Kong. Its special effects are still superlative; the performances are strong and at barely 70 minutes it doesn’t outstay its welcome. While seen as a minor footnote to its mighty predecessor it is certainly not the worst movie of the Kong franchise. Lower your expectations (slightly) and you will find The Son of Kong a highly entertaining time waster.
Related reviews:
King Kong (1933):
No comments:
Post a Comment