The best
movie sequels are the ones that take their time to arrive, the ones that go
through a deep thought process on how to either improve or at least live up to the
high marks of the first. Unfortunately, most sequels are rushed productions, and
usually come out within three or even two years of its predecessor. However,
this isn’t a recent trend, as rushed sequels to popular films have been around
sense the beginning. Today’s topic is one of the very first movie sequels to
ever follow a landmark film, and it’s arguably the most rushed film project I’ve
ever heard of. 1933 saw the premier of a motion picture classic known as “King Kong”, and it was within the same
year of 1933 that its sequel premiered simply titled “Son of Kong”. This marks the only film in the franchise to directly
tie-into the original classic, and subsequently it’s also the only film that doesn’t
feature King Kong himself. As the title suggests, this film focuses on Kong’s son,
whom the human characters refer to as Baby Kong. Sounds like a recipe for
disaster, but hey, maybe there’s some merit to this film. It obviously could
never compete with a land mark event like the first “King Kong”, but in my view, it’s much better than a rushed sequel
had any right to be.
In the plus column, everything feels like a
natural progression of the first movie. After Kong met his demise on the Empire
State building, people begin suing the show owner responsible for bringing Kong
to the city in the first place. Said person is naturally Carl Denham, who’s
once again played by Robert Armstrong. While he’s losing money for all the
property damage, he’s also trying to amend his broken soul, as the guilt of
his failures is taking a toll. He reunites with the same Captain from the first
movie, and the two try to make an honest living transporting cargo. The two
cross paths with a shady sailor, one who was directly responsible for giving Carl
Denham the map to Kong’s home Skull island in the first place. He claims that
there’s also treasure on the island, which will help him get out of debt.
In truth,
it’s really just a ruse to maroon Denham on the island and claim his ship. So,
once again, we have an adventure on an island full of giant monsters, but this
time with no way to sail back home. A young woman named Hilda is also marooned, as she was accusing the crocked sailor for murdering her father a day earlier.
While trying to survive the dangers of the island, our heroes soon cross paths
with Baby Kong, who’s injured and in a tough spot. Hoping to make amends for
his past sins, Carl takes the role of a surrogate father, and helps nurse the
big ape back to health. In return, Baby Kong leads them on the path to find the hidden
treasure of the island and keep them safe from danger in the process.
A great deal of care was put into the
script, as the story is a natural progression, and the characters are developed
further. However, the one thing that is not consistent with the original film
is the tone. The first “King Kong”
was a mix of adventure and horror, while “Son
of Kong” by contrast mixes its adventure elements with comedy. Right from
the start, this film has a very goofy tone, and isn’t trying to be taken
seriously. The moment which firmly sets the films silly attitude is when our principle
characters watch a traveling carnival act, and the main attraction is a stage
performance focusing solely on real monkeys playing a variety of instruments.
It’s one of those scenes that’s so dumb I actually find myself loving it. The
characters likewise exchange funny quip-remarks, and its actually kind of charming
in its own simple way. Baby Kong himself has a really cartoony personality, and
comedic reactions. He’s notably smaller then Kong, which makes it easier for
him to bond with our human leads.
This is where the movie shines the most, by
centering the attention on the principle characters, as opposed to the
adventure. Robert Armstrong is the key ingredient that carries the whole film, and his
performance as Carl Denham is honestly superior to the first film. I love
seeing how much his character has grown and matured from before, while still maintaining
a witty personality. Even the love interest Hilda isn’t so badly stereotyped as
a damsel roped into an adventure. She doesn’t scream to the top of her lungs,
keeps a level head, is smart enough to take care of herself and even the
performance by Helen Mack is right on point. Even the supporting players are
all kind of likable in their own unique ways.
Of course, just like its predecessor, this
film looks fantastic, with gorgeous map panted backgrounds, and more terrific
looking stop-motion creatures. This time around, we get to see new dinosaurs
that weren’t featured in the original, and there’s still such a charm to these
old stop-motion creatures that just can’t be replicated in our modern films. Some
of the newer monsters in this film include a sea serpent, and a giant cave bear
who clashes with Baby Kong in the most memorable monster battle of the film. This
is where the rushed production of the film rears its head, because even by clay-motion
effects standards, there’s something slightly off about these creature effects.
They lack the same excitement and wonder that made the monsters in the previous
film so spectacular to behold. There’s a scene when Kong fights another serpent-like
creature, and while it’s still very appealing to watch, there’s just something that
feels lacking.
In the plus column, this movie explores
more of the island, including ancient temple ruins, and buried treasure
chambers. The simple imagery of giant statues and abandoned temples give the film
it’s flavor of adventure. Now spoiler warning, but I must comment on the
ending. After our heroes find the secret treasure, a storm suddenly hits the
island, and it’s apparently one of those rare wrath of God storms, as it’s literally
sinking the island into the ocean. With everything crumbling around them, the
team make a desperate attempt to escape on a boat before they all get pulled
under. In the end, Baby Kong sacrifices his life to save Carl Denham from
drowning. So, once again we have a tragic monster death, but far more valiant
then his father’s demise. Typically, in an old monster movie of this sort, the
film would stop as soon as the monster dies, but in a nice twist, the film plays
out a little longer, and our two heroes contemplate weather or not Baby Kong was
acting through animal instinct, or if he really knew if he was giving his life
to save his new father figure. It’s a nice little cap to the film, and closes
things on a positive note.
In the end, “Son of Kong” is no masterpiece, and is admittedly a forgettable experience,
but the creators behind this film really tried to make this special, and it
almost worked. It’s a far better sequel then it had any right to be, and it’s
consistently entertaining to watch. Even without the monsters, the characters
are still charming enough to hold my attention, and there’s a certain old-school
charm that makes it appealing. If you’re a fan of cheesy, yet classy old monster
movies, then give this one a single viewing. It’s no “King Kong”, but it’s an enjoyable little diversion all the same.
Thanks for reading my review of the
1933 sequel “Son of Kong” ... and continue to enjoy the movies you Love!
No comments:
Post a Comment