SON OF KONG (1933)
Article #130 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 7-24-2001
Posting date: 12-7-2001
Carl Denham, on the run from creditors, heads back out to sea. There he finds out information about a hidden treasure on Skull Island, and goes back there, where he encounters a small descendant of King Kong.
At the time of this writing, I see that this movie is still sitting on the list as one of the ten worst movies of the thirties at IMDB, and, whatever the flaws of this movie or the disappointment it engenders in the wake of KING KONG, it doesn’t deserve this fate. The problem is that it’s a well-known disappointment versus an obscure disaster; in order to be listed there, you have to have enough votes. Actually, I have a great affection for this movie; I saw it as a kid (before I ever saw KING KONG, mind you), and really enjoyed it. Nowadays, I still enjoy it, and a lot of it has to do with the ways it ties back to the original. I like the fact that Carl Denham feels guilty about what happened to Kong, that he is being held financially responsible for the destruction Kong wreaked in the earlier movie, and that Denham is not welcome by the natives on the island on his return, all of which show that some thought was given to the repercussions of his actions in the earlier movie. I don’t mind that son of Kong is cute and nice; in fact, I can’t help but notice that whenever Cooper, Schoedsack and O’Brien returned to giant apes after KING KONG, they were always of the friendly variety. And I find the movie interesting and watchable throughout (which is more than I can say for MURDER BY TELEVISION, currently NOT on the list of the ten worst movies of the thirties).