Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

All the King Kong movie are good. This is a sequel to King Kong (1933). It is not as good the original 1933 version of King Kong. It is not as good as the 1976 remake of King Kong. The 2005 remake of King Kong is better. It is still good movie it as some the actors from the first one. The acting is very good. The special effects are very good. the story is very good. It is the forth best King Kong movie. The best one would be King Kong (1933). The second best would be King Kong (2005) The third best one would be King Kong (1976). I don't what more say. See it See See it. See all the King Kong movies. Great movie Great movie Great movie Great movie.

PLOT - Several months after he disastrously brought Kong to Manhattan, former adventure filmmaker Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) hides out from his debtors in a boarding house. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed against him, and he learns that he has been indicted by a grand jury for the destruction caused by Kong. When Capt. Englehorn (Frank Reicher) suggests that they immediately set sail for the South Pacific to become merchants, Denham jumps at the opportunity. Along the way, they meet with Helstrom (John Marston) the skipper who gave Denham the map to the island and Helene (Helen Mack) who will be Denham's love interest. They return to Skull Island, were Denham and Helene find "Little Kong," a 12- foot-tall white gorilla who Denham assumes is Kong's son. Feeling sorry for the events that happened to the predecessor, Denham takes Little under his wing, while still being wary of the creature. They encounter several creatures until the finale where they must survive the fate of the island.REVIEW - This is a good movie, using the same talented crafts from the original. The only thing different about it is that it's to me the fastest production I've ever seen, being released the exact same year as the original, that is unbelievable for a sequel. Though it is entertaining and interesting, it could have been better. It feels very rushed and I wish they could have taken their time on it. It's shorter than the first movie, and at times drags.CHARACTERS - The Characters are once again fantastic and we see more development in them, especially Denham and the pity he feels of what happened to Kong. Helstrom is a great, but cowardly villain. The scene in the bar with him Denham and Englehorn is very well acted and written. VFX - The animation and effects are once again fantastic, seeing creatures like the Styracosaurs which was cut from the first film. Although some creatures though cool looking, don't really make much sense, like the Cave Bear and Dragons. Really? You couldn't have picked more dinosaurs from the fossil record? Kiko (Little Kong) is more cute and funny than he is terrifying like his predecessor. His character is I hate to say like a mute Jar Jar Binks, clumsy and silly. The sound is great once again, and the music is okay, there is allot of recycled music from the first.OVERALL - It's a good movie and a good sequel, but just not on par or as memorable as the first. So let's give it the benefit of the doubt.

The story of KING KONG (1933) does not demand a sequel, but that's never stopped Hollywood. Impossible to live up to its groundbreaking predecessor, SON OF KONG (1933) is a nice little adventure flick that serves as an epilogue to the earlier film.The movie picks up where KING KONG left off and focuses on ruined showman Carl Denham dealing with the fallout after his giant ape runs amok in New York City. He faces lawsuits and jail time and has boarded himself off from the public. He even feels remorse for his actions in the first film.Denham is reunited with Captain Englehorn and the two sail away from the scandal. Before long they learn about a treasure hidden on Kong's island and decide to return for it. Back on the savage island, the group encounters giant prehistoric monsters, dangerous jungle terrain, and a young white-haired Kong gorilla.Robert Armstrong returns as Carl Denham, with Frank Reicher reprising his role as Englehorn. They are joined this time around by Helen Mack, a cute brunette. The creative team behind KING KONG is back again, but limited by a smaller budget for this quick follow-up (released the same year as its predecessor). Willis O'Brien's stop-motion creature effects are back, but there's relatively little time spent in the jungle.The filmmakers take a more sympathetic approach to the beast this time. Kong Jr. is made to be more likable than his old man. He's given a childlike innocence and a pleasant disposition. (The sometimes comical touch given to the white-haired Kong reminded me of the bumble snow monster from RUDOLPH THE RED-NOSED REINDEER.) Spurred on by Helen Mack's character, whose father had a circus act with animals, Denham aids the giant gorilla. Feeling sorry for bringing about the elder Kong's demise, Denham figures he owes something to Junior. This kinder, gentler Kong proves to be a useful ally. The girl is not afraid of the giant ape and her understanding allows Denham to reform and possibly redeem himself.This sequel is short and sweet, only 70 minutes long. It's not at all essential to viewers of the original KONG, but it's a neat curiosity. A little-known follow-up that ultimately brings the Skull Island saga to a close. The character of Carl Denham gets a nice little resolution. Not in the same league as the earlier film, the movie is still rather enjoyable. Helen Mack sure is a cutie. I'll have to watch out for her other films.6+/10

I am aware that it touts having Willis O'Brien on hand for the effects, but it really doesn't. Cooper and Schoedsack are mostly the in name alone. In fact, as noted in other reviews, this was a rushed affair to capitalize on 'King Kong' and was done for laughs. This is somewhat unfortunate because this could have ended up being a fairly decent flick instead of the fluff it ended up being. I like the idea of Skull Island being a mystery that needed to be unlocked. This sequel kind of dilutes that possibility by saying, "Yeah, Kong was great but we were only kidding." It starts out very credibly with good ol' Carl Denham up to his eyeballs in legal problems after the Kong and he is looking for a way out. In fact, much of the build up to eventually ending up on Skull Island is a fairly decent adventure story with murder and intrigue. Even the natives are still annoyed that their god has been taken - their motivation for existing was eliminated and they live with a profound vacancy. Naturally, they want nothing to do with Denham and encourage him to be on his way. So, they paddle their way around the island until they can find a place to set down - it's sheer precipice, remember? At this point the sense of reality distorts as the ambiance becomes noticeably enhanced miniature. Not the attention to detail, but a rushed camera tracking through a watertank. We meet little Kong and despite Armstrong's acting as if scared, we aren't. Nearly the rest of the movie takes place in this little area that has nearly no awe, majesty or mystery. It looks like a sound stage. There is a dinosaur chase scene that has none of the excitement as the brontosaur in the original. In fact, it even looks like it was slapped together to hastily get through it. L'il Kong fighting a huge bear is, frankly, underwhelming as is his eventual battle with a goofy long necked who-knows-what. The whole thing looks and feels rushed. Then, in order to get to the end of the film what better way than destroy the island? A classic vehicle as a means to an end. It is tragic enough though. But truly by the end I felt cheated. It is a rather short film so I felt like maybe a chunk had been removed somehow. But no. It's all here - just thrown together with haste and actually with little to no support from the original crew. A obvious movie demanding a decent remake.