Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuIn the jungles of the Amazon, a group of Western adventurers and two local native guides try to locate a lost treasure buried beneath an ancient Incan city.In the jungles of the Amazon, a group of Western adventurers and two local native guides try to locate a lost treasure buried beneath an ancient Incan city.In the jungles of the Amazon, a group of Western adventurers and two local native guides try to locate a lost treasure buried beneath an ancient Incan city.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
- Auszeichnungen
- 3 wins total
Wilson Benge
- Butler
- (Nicht genannt)
Eumenio Blanco
- Well-Dressed Native
- (Nicht genannt)
Anita Camargo
- Native Girl
- (Nicht genannt)
Iron Eyes Cody
- Indian
- (Nicht genannt)
Franco Corsaro
- Man
- (Nicht genannt)
Yola d'Avril
- Native Girl
- (Nicht genannt)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
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.
Started off promising but got bogged down in the middle with the introduction of Mrs. Richardson (Joan Bennett). Warning, spoilers will most likely be in the rest of the review. It seemed kind of pointless to kill off Vincent Price so early in the movie, a lot was made of how mysterious he was. Also, convenient of George Sanders to kill himself just before they get rescued, this prevents any kind of entanglements there might have been if they all had been rescued. The fun thing to do with this film, is that knowing that director James Whale was gay, is to look at the characters in another light. Isn't it strange that everything was going great with the exploring party made up of just men but once Bennett comes along everything goes to hell? Also what was the deal with John Howard and Douglas Fairbanks Jr.? It sure seemed to me that Howard was carrying a torch for Doug. Oh, the mind reels.
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.
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.
A search for gold in Incan ruins is complicated by the arrival of a pretty lady. This is one of those old movies that you really want to love but it just doesn't work. The sets are terrific and would be reused to great effect by Universal in other films. On paper the cast is excellent. Sadly most are either underutilized or given parts that don't play to their strengths. Why was Alan Hale playing a straight role? The movie would have benefited greatly from one of his fun lighter performances. Doug Fairbanks huffs and puffs his way through the whole thing doing a poor Clark Gable imitation. And that awful part for Joan Bennett - don't get me started!
I've revisited this movie a few times over the years, hoping to find more to like about it. At its best it's a forgettable Saturday afternoon adventure flick. Unfortunately a lot of it is kind of dull and lacking in much style. You'd never guess James Whale directed this.
I've revisited this movie a few times over the years, hoping to find more to like about it. At its best it's a forgettable Saturday afternoon adventure flick. Unfortunately a lot of it is kind of dull and lacking in much style. You'd never guess James Whale directed this.
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.
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.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesIn later years co-star Vincent Price ridiculed the inanities in this film. After the Medved Brothers' book "The Fifty Worst Films of All Time" came out in the late 1970s, Price declared in an interview that he could not understand how they could not include "Green Hell."
- PatzerRichardson is hit by two arrows which are at least two feet long. Back at camp, two comrades examine these arrows which are now about a foot long.
- Zitate
Hal Scott: Strange guy, Richardson. Always keeps to himself. You know anything about him?
Keith Brandon: Nothing. That's about the best thing to know about any man.
- VerbindungenFeatured in The Mummy's Hand (1940)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Green Hell?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Green Hell
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 27 Minuten
- Farbe
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.37 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen