Matcollis
This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.
Comwayon
A Disappointing Continuation
Billie Morin
This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows
Keeley Coleman
The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;
clanciai
A very odd film like no other, with a startlingly modern and timeless argument and therefore conveying an urgent message for all times. Romain Gary, married to Jean Seberg, was a superior genius, and all films made on his books are on a special level of quality and interest. The argument is what already Walt Disney dared to introduce in "Bambi" - the outrageous abuse of nature by man.The character Morel, aptly played by Trevor Howard, who must have found this sort of character a special treat, takes a stand against man for the elephants and actually starts a crusade against poachers. He is supported by Juliette Greco, who gives the film a very fitting female extra dimension. Orson Welles is perfect as usual in a particularly revealing character of a parody on Americanism, like also Eddie Albert as the final photographer, while Herbert Lom makes a perfect villain. The final touch is Errol Flynn in his last bow as a failed soldier who nevertheless in spite of his exaggerated and pathetic alcoholism succeeds in ending honourably. This is the only film he mentions in his autobiography as a film to be proud of.Objections have been raised against John Huston's direction. The rhythm of the film is very slow, as focus is more on the important dialogue than on any action, but nevertheless he succeeds in sustaining a constant suspense throughout the film although very little happens. In fact, the story in its wild but monotonous settings never ceases to came up with new surprises.It didn't cause much attention in its day, although its problems should have been of concern to all humanity even then almost 60 years ago, few really understood it, since it was so far ahead of its time, but the story with its argument is a compelling work of genius which today is more imminent in its message than ever, and John Huston definitely secured the message.
utgard14
Errol Flynn's penultimate film is this overlong snoozer, directed by John Huston, about a man trying to stamp out elephant hunting in Africa. Despite being top-billed, Flynn isn't the lead. That role goes to Trevor Howard. The movie starts with Howard speechifying and there are many more speeches to come, from him and others. The script is little more than a series of speeches. Before you say "so what," keep in mind this movie is two hours long. The production was troubled, to put it politely. The reasons are many and other reviewers have covered them well. The cast looks impressive on paper but most of the name stars have small roles or cameos. Orson Welles is enjoyably hammy in that way he was so good at being. Errol Flynn looks absolutely horrible. I'm sure it will come as no surprise to anyone to discover he was inebriated constantly during filming. He would die the year after this was made. Juliette Greco, Darryl Zanuck's girlfriend at the time, is given the female lead role. Watching her, it's not surprising she didn't become a big star. She, too, is a victim of the horrible script. At one point her character goes on about how many men she has had to sleep with (or been raped by). What could have been an emotional, powerful scene in the hands of a better writer and actress is turned into a risible monologue ("The only thing really sticks in my memory is brass buckles of der belts."). Well-meaning but too long, too dull, and too pompous. The only positive is the location shooting, which is nice. One final note: during the filming of this movie about protecting elephants from poachers, John Huston went big-game hunting. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that but I guess it goes to show Hollywood has been full of hypocrites since way back.
Robert J. Maxwell
Spoilers. It's always convenient for scientists to treat the brains -- not to say the "minds" -- of animals as black boxes. We know what goes in ("stimuli") and we know what comes out ("responses") but we don't know what's inside. But anyone who has owned a pet knows that the black box has a good deal of personality inside it. (I once had the world's nastiest canary.) The study of animal consciousness is beginning to take form. Elephants in particular have curious traits that are difficult to interpret without being "anthropomorphic", a bad word in science. But Jeffrey Masson's "Why Elephants Cry" provides a good survey of their quirks. As described in this movie, one of the characters pumps shot after shot into an elephant before killing it. There was just such an historical event in which a hunter, having wounded an elephant and caused it to lean against a tree, put several deliberate bullets into it as an experiment, to see which one would most effectively bring it down. Observers noted that as the animal absorbed these shots he was weeping. They are curious indeed. They take care of their ill or disabled offspring. That much we can identify with. But when a group comes across a long-dead elephant carcass, thoroughly skeletonized, they get extremely excited and noisy, and they try to actually pick up the scattered bones and carry them away. And this we cannot understand -- not you, not me, and not ethologists. But we WILL go on killing them, and other "game" animals, for the most trivial of reasons -- trophies, money, folk medicine. Morrell, the idealist in this film, says of elephants that they are the largest land animals on earth, but nothing fears them, and they fear nothing. They eat only tender greens and are harmless. The movie makes Morrell and his followers look like loonies in the context of what was then French Equatorial Africa. And sometimes the movie makers turn him into a rabid visionary, the John Brown of the environmentalists. But he's right of course and the rest of Homo sapiens who do not recognize this are self-destructive fools. The movie doesn't come together as it should. The plot outlines are clear enough. Morrell is waging a lonely battle to save the beasts. Cheswick, a famous American hunter and journalist popularizes his cause. Morrell is then joined by other figures, some idealists and some exploiters who need the notoriety. A number of his valuable colleagues are killed in a shootout with ivory poachers. Morrell and the few survivors march off to carry on their fight. We don't find out what happens to them. And there is a girl, Juliet Greco, whose place in the narrative is uncertain. If we think about it, it seems as if Morrell may go on, but that his cause is lost, which means that the elephants lose as well. The director, John Huston, has inserted some welcome humor. A snobby boastful and very tall white huntress, Madame Orsini, gets thoroughly spanked on her bare bottom for having killed so many elephants. The funniest episode is Cheswick's visit. Orson Welles struts around his well-appointed African camp, that sonorous baritone more pompous than ever -- "Oh, it's dangerous," he tells the audience through his microphone, "and it's tough". (Here he grabs a bottle of Vat 69 scotch with his free hand.) "But I like the danger. I'd rather be here than in the crumbling ruins of Greece. Because here is where you stand face to face with the big ones. Yes, they're big alright." (Here, he bends over a table, exposing his broad-beamed rear, which then receives a blast of shotgun pellets.) The performances are pretty uniformly good. It's nice that Trevor Howard, as Morrell, wasn't chosen because of his prettiness but because his face has character. On the whole, despite the humor, and the open-ended final scene, designed to maintain hope, it's a sad movie. It's a shame that, in going about making their livings, human beings can't confine themselves to eating water lillies and green shoots.
elsaesser3
Have lately been reading Zolotow's Book about Billy Wilder wherein he relates the following: Wilder encountered by chance Romain Cary in John Huston's office and told him(in so many words) that he didn't think the shooting script for "Roots," was very good. Naturally, Cary was less than thrilled with this remark and riposted with several remarks of his own that were probably less than well thought out. I've always been a fan of Wilder and respected(nay, admired)most of his work; obviously feel the same about Huston and "Roots," so how does one "digest," all this,ie what's the point? No doubt, there's some problems with the script. It does have a on site improvised feel to it-when we see Errol Flynn on screen, the dysfunction's palpable-which shouldn't be all that much of a bad thing. After all, Wilder himself usually started production with most of the script still in his head, so why the problem. Probably because "Roots," is about people searching for something-if the title hadn't been retired with Robert Ruark's novel and film,also about African themes-Something of Value. Morell, one of the few in the film who's entirely clear about what's real and valuable in this life, knows that it's the animals that need protecting and conserving and sometimes not the people. Muddled perhaps? Probably, but clearly at odds with 50's era sentiment. Still, after all this time(64 maybe, since I first saw it NBC's Saturday Night at the Movies)the visual ambience holds up admirably as does Malcolm Arnold's score-as transcendent as anything he's ever written for film. I wish it were available on VHS.