Micah Lloyd
Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.
Melanie Bouvet
The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.
Ezmae Chang
This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.
TheLittleSongbird
Well actually, Green Hell is not as bad as all that, it begins strongly and has some decent battles at the end. But what started off promising goes to dust once the two best actors of the movie, George Sanders and Vincent Price, get killed off early on, and Joan Bennett's very irritatingly dull character gets introduced, making a short spout of perhaps unintentional fun turn to tedium after a while. Green Hell doesn't look that lavish and the sets are rather hokey. The dialogue is unbearably corny and the story is full of predictability, a complete lack of credibility(I agree about people sounding too much like they come from Kansas) and contrived situations. James Whale's direction seems disengaged and does little to make anything exciting or thrilling, the two main things that a jungle adventure does need. The acting looks great on paper, but most take their roles too seriously(Douglas Fairbanks Jnr, Joan Bennett) or try hard but are not in the movie anywhere near long enough(George Sanders, Vincent Price). Overall, not a complete disaster but ludicrous, contrived and corny and possibly the worst films of Whale and Price(possibly Fairbanks as well). 3/10 Bethany Cox
tedg
I will propose here that some films have merit, and are worth watching even though they are horrible. I mean to exclude laughing at ineptness from the equation. This is an example. It has three notable items, the first of which is where the allure resides.— It takes itself seriously. Really, the appeal of competence fades in the light of earnestness. As soon as it appeared, the participants realized it was a disaster, but you rarely know that when you are making the thing. It had name talent and a reasonable budget. The narrative stance has no irony or folds. It was intended to hit straight on, and even if the arrow did not score, it was shot with the intent to kill. And that matters.— The film world had long since developed a shorthand for black sexual malevolence by depicting the risky jungle. Two touchstones were "Kongo" and "King Kong" both of which exploited the (then) visceral fear from racism. The same is attempted here, but I do not believe that any of the natives are played by blacks. The effect is startling, a now comic understanding of how transference occurs. You have the deep seated fear of sexual arousal out of control in the American populace. Deep, and strong. That gets transferred to an innocent people, only recently by the time of this film. That in turn gets denoted in unambiguous ways by the jungle and jungle people in film. At each step, there is a trailing disconnect, so that by the time you get to this film, the people in the jungle do not have to remotely look native. (It is not Africa, but that is irrelevant.)— the script has all the elements. Sexual betrayal. Sexual competition (separately). Ancient magic attached to gold. Sexual imagery with phallic structures and blasting through walls to release floods. All the competitors (stereotypes) locked in a small space fighting the inevitability of death. It doesn't work, like "Kongo" does. But there sure as heck are all the parts.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
ccthemovieman-1
With a cast that includes some big names (Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Joan Bennett) and a couple of guys who usually play fascinating villains (Vincent Price and George Sanders) you'd think this movie would be a lot more entertaining than it is. Also, for an adventure story of men going into the jungle to find lost gold from an ancient civilization might also spark added interest...but that didn't work, either.Credibility is a big problem here, at least looking at this film 50-plus years after it was made. When you see South American natives that look and sound like they came right off the farm in Kansas, it's tough to take the movie seriously! The sets were pretty hokey, too, and the dialog was really corny.This was another movie that started off strong and the quickly became horrible and stayed that way.
Sleepy-17
Essentially "Lost Patrol with a Girl"; not enough action to be a true adventure. Nice photography and spotty acting are the main features of Whale's last film. Noble Englishmen exploit grateful natives, finding treasure in an Inca temple. They fight over "the girl" and then are surrounded by savages with poison darts. Good battle scenes at the end. A must for Whale fans, for everyone else it's a moderately amusing time-waster.
