Like Cal said above, it’s a good film for what it is. It shows the redemption of Carl Denham, in the first movie he was quite the heel, in the sequel, he becomes a much better person. I’ve always enjoyed this movie better than the original. The effects and look of it are not what they could have been, but it’s still a good movie.
He isn’t named in the film, IIRC, but in production they nicknamed him KiKo – from the first two letters each of King Kong.
BMalion – although Im responding to your OP, nothing I’ve said is in any direct response to your later comments. You’re too sensitive.
I loved it as a kid. We taped it off television and I actually made custom cassette cover for it (sharpie drawn image of li’l Kong on the sinking island.)
Saw it on tv just recently and it was cheesy fun.
Huh? I meant and took no offense. 
Oh, it was a joke.
Saw it when I was living in Wisconsin, 30+ years ago.
I’ve seen it a couple of times long ago. As others have said, they spared a lot of expense in making this film. Looks like a cheapie designed to get a few dollars. It does start off with Carl Denham broke and having about 19 lawsuits against him and ends up with him getting the girl (Helen Mack).Not a terrible way to spend 90minutes but I wouldn’t run out and buy/rent it unless you are really curious.
I watched all of those monster movies as a kid. Loved them.
I haven’t seen it in years. What I remember best isn’t Kong Jr. on Skull Island, but on the way there, Denham meets up with the girl who goes with him this time; her father bores Denham sick by “entertaining” him with a band of performing monkeys who play an endless and monotonous tune (as only trained monkeys can).
This is the best part of the movie. I think it’s the only time after a monster rampage that somebody actually says, Wait a minute, who’s gonna pay for this mess?
I always loved the movie, but I saw it for the first time when I was about nine.