Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

petercmd I give it an "8" for historical interest as the first colour feature filmed in my country of New Zealand, even though I haven't seen it yet (I have a copy ordered). This film is available (legally) on DVD in Australia in a two-movie pack with another Jack Hawkins film "The Planter's wife". You can order it from www.ebay.com.au (for only ten Australian dollars!!!). Is also advertised on www.ebay.com in the States from another Australian source. "The Seekers" is an important film historically in New Zealand where I live, because it's the first colour feature filmed here and one of the handful of international productions before the 1970's explicitly set here and it features several prominent indigenous Maori actors including acclaimed opera singer Inia Te Wiata who went on to perform at Covent Garden in London.No doubt the comments posted by others above are valid re-the racist colonialist attitudes etc. After all, at the time this film was made, in 1954, the only features made here in New Zealand were directed by foreigners such as the British Annakin. We had to wait until the 1960s before a feature by a New Zealander. And even white New Zealanders in this period shared such colonialist attitudes and saw themselves s carrying white civilization to the "barbarous Pacific." No doubt some humour can be found if, like me, you enjoy marveling at the dated heroic poses often found in these British films made at the fag-end of Empire when Britannia hadn't quite yet waived the rules...At least this production has some Maori cast members- most Hollywood films set in New Zealand of this period use Mexicans or Asians to stand in for the indigenous Maori people (see below).Other major international productions filmed or set in New Zealand in this period include "Green Dolphin Street" (director Victor Saville, 1947; starring Lana Turner and Van Heflin) about an Englishman thwarted in love who seeks redemption in exile in New Zealand, which won an Oscar for Best Special Effects for its earthquake scenes; "Until They Sail" (director Robert Wise, 1957; starring Paul Newman, Jean Simmons, Joan Fontaine, Sandra Dee and Piper Laurie) about GIs romancing New Zealand girls during the war; and "Two Loves" (director Charles Walters, 1961; starring Jack Hawkins again, Shirley MacLaine and Laurence Harvey) in which Shirley Maclaine is an idealistic young American immigrant school teacher amongst the impoverished Maoris battling (and in love with) the cynical Harvey and the set-in-his ways school inspector Hawkins. All the Maori roles seem to be played by Asians or Mexicans. This is also the case on "Green Dolphin Street" where all the Maoris seem to be played by Mexicans (apparently that one was filmed on a Hollywood lot).A late entrant in the "British films with a New Zealand connection" genre is the entertaining "Mr Forbush and the Penguins" (aka "Cry of the Penguins") 1971 (starring John Hurt and Hayley Mills) based on a New Zealand novel. Esteemed English thespian Joss Ackland wins the all-time award for "worst foreign attempt at a New Zealand accent" in his cameo as a Kiwi official at the High Commission in London (has to be heard to be believed!!!).

morpheusatloppers This is definitely one for the Haunted Wing of IMDb! Only two comments. One, as I write this, is four years old - the other from a decade ago! So how long will it be before THIS comment is read - by ANYBODY?! Ever? Never mind, I'll carry on regardless (did you see what I did there?)Why am I chatting about this mediocre film? Well, a movie stands by how much of it you can remember years later. And I suspect I will have forgotten the latest Bond (Quantum Of Solace) by next week, yet although I saw this movie only once, MANY years ago, I STILL remember it.So does that make it a better film than Quantum? Not necessarily! For although it'll last longer in my memory than the AWFUL "2nd prequel" to the Bond Saga (with Dame Judi Dench STILL playing "M" - even though she played the part in Pierces' outings - which makes NO sense) it is FAR worse.Granted, production values have advanced a tad during the half-century twixt this rubbish and Bond 23 (or 24 or whatever) and the Bond had a somewhat bigger budget (even allowing for inflation) but this mess had two things Bond lacked.Kenneth Williams acting BUTCH - and Laya Raki's BOOBS!Somehow, the Fifties censor managed to MISS Ms Raki's over-exposure, whilst she was in that pool. It was a blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment, but when UK TV showed this turkey (as an afternoon filler) I'd TAPED it (for Kenneth Williams) and took a slow photographic exposure direct off a frozen frame from the sequence. I still have it.I'm old enough to remember the vivacious Ms Raki from a TV series called "Crane", which starred Patrick Allen (later more famous for his ad voice-overs) and I recall the screen seeming to brighten every time she appeared.Then there's a pre-stardom Kenneth Williams playing STRAIGHT. A MAJOR rarity. In his early days, he strove to be a serious actor and this execrable garbage is one of the very FEW examples of his efforts.So forget the plot, acting, production values, score, etc. Just watch it for Laya and Ken! THEY are why I gave this twaddle a FIVE!

sol- There are some nice locations in this film that are captured in strikingly vibrant colour with effective camera movement and angles. It is, however, not a very well written film, with a dull romance, stereotype characters and some unwelcoming ideas about colonisation. The visual side of the film keeps it moderately engaging, with good costumes and sets, and a few extra sparks are added in by Kenneth Williams, in an early pre-Carry On role. It becomes sillier and lamer as the film progresses, and some of the music choices are awfully unfitting, but the film does still have a small share of virtues nevertheless.

David Atfield This film, about white men colonising New Zealand in the early 1800's, starts off well as two sailors discover the Maori culture. Unfortunately once they return to colonise, things become melodramatic and silly. Hawkins is good, but the wonderful Glynis Johns is completely wasted. The most interesting casting is the young pre-Carry On Kenneth Williams playing, as butch as he can, a go-getter colonist. The ridiculous music score constantly over-powers the action, and the action scenes are poorly staged and filmed.But what is most distressing about this film is its assertion that white man and his Christianity saved the Maoris from a savage society constantly at war and brought them peace. In reality white man brought mass slaughter, disease and cultural genocide. I am amazed that as late as the 1950's such imperialist racist attitudes still prevailed.