Exploitative cinema seemly is of all times
Even in the classic and respectable 30's, whenever a slick producer saw the chance of making extra money of a certain success-formula, he took it. And righteously so! Who could possibly blame director Ernest B. Schoedsack and his film crew for trying to gain some more dollars out the tremendous box office hit "King Kong", released only 8 months earlier? Unlike the milestone his daddy starred in, "Son of Kong" certainly isn't a must-see film, but it nonetheless remains an enjoyable, light-headed little film that still features all the nifty elements of its predecessor, only to a lesser degree. The mini-ape is still an engaging Willis O'Brien creation but his appearance is a lot more brief and comical. The story of this sequel supposedly takes place one month after King Kong climbed up the Empire State Building, and has Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong reprises his role) fleeing from all his New York creditors. He sails off to see and, along with a whole bunch of people that aren't worth introducing, he washes ashore Skull Island again where they encounter the son of King Kong. The film is never boring, but it's totally pointless and it can't seem to decide whether it wants to be adventurous or simply cute. Also, it's difficult to accept the character of Carl Denham as a hero all of a sudden, since he was the greedy bastard responsible for King Kong's downfall.
Oh, and another thing
I'm not a great biologist, but apes don't come crawling out of eggs as far as I know. So, assuming King Kong isn't a hermaphrodite, there should also be a Mother Kong somewhere! Where the hell is she? Wasn't her story interesting enough to tell? Is she such an atypical female that she decided to stay out of the picture during the cinematic adventures of both her man and son? Or maybe she went back to living with Mother-in-Law Kong when she noticed her husband fancied Fay Wray and followed her all the way to New York? Now that's something to think about!
