Hatari

I am somewhat surprised at a few of the negative comments in this forum regarding the movie. Although I see 95% positive, the ones that dislike the movie because of the romance between Dallas and John are particularly distasteful.

They point out an age discrepancy, and call John "Grandpa Wayne", good grief! John Wayne was 59 yrs old at the making of this movie, and the actress that played Dallas was 27. In real life those kind of romances happen all the time, why would anyone be surprised when they happen in fiction?

The animal scenes are exquisite. I doubt there will ever be a movie like this made again. This is how animals get into the zoos, they just don't walk in there and say "sign me up!"

I like everything about this movie; it is a diversification for Wayne, who was already maybe the most diverse actor in Hollywood history. (consider The Conquerer vs. The Quiet man). It has love, comedy, drama, and animals!

Plus all the actors in the movie were given great character depth. I am sure many people have heard of the baby elephant walk, but did not know it came from this movie.

Its such a fun movie, I have to give it a 10, because there is no way to make it any better. What a great achievement of direction, producing, and animal filming!

John Wayne is in charge in this Howard Hawks directed African Western. His character reminds me of Sam McCord in "North To Alaska". This time around Elsa Martinelli is Wayne's romantic interest.

This is not your standard John Wayne movie. He doesn't get to use his fists once. The emphasis here is on comedy rather than violence. Veteran comedian Red Buttons is on hand for wise cracks and some very funny moments. His capture of hundreds of monkeys is one of the film's better moments.

Some of the action is almost slapstick in character. Elsa Martinelli's baby elephants steal the show. Martinelli's character seems to be a magnet for homeless elephants. Ultimately, they have a central role in the film's finale, a fast and very funny tour around a Kenyan town.

There is plenty of exciting wildlife photography in this film, perhaps too much. The film tells the story of one season on a game ranch that captures animals for zoos. There is little real plot. Much of the suspense revolves around the dangers of capturing rhinos. A rhino gores Bruce Cabot in one of the early scenes. Later, he cautions Wayne to avoid them. Wayne of course ignores him and ultimately they capture a rhino.

Although enjoyable, this film reminds me of a Disney real-life adventure. There is little character development, a slim plot and the whole thing takes far too long. Henry Mancini's score is very nice, particularly the cute "Baby Elephant Walk". There is also some great stunt work, including a jeep crash in which two lead characters are messed up. This film is exciting and worth watching, but don't expect any great moral message. It's not here.

Wow! was longing to see the lighter side of The Duke 'John Wayne' and here my wait is finally over. No more fighting the villains of the west but catching the wild animals in Africa. Another great movie brought by Hawks with Wayne in the main cast. One must appreciate the classical way the movie team brought the wildlife scenes. You may fail to appreciate these scenes as it is commonly shown in satellite channels these days, but must we remember the movie was shot in 1960s. The famous 'Baby Elephant walk' theme by Mancini was more than a feeling. BTW, I'd salute to the humor played by Red Buttons in this movie was such a fine icing on the cake.

The political attack on this film is bewildering and annoying; it's such a parody of outraged liberalism that I can't help wondering if it's not the work of right-wing trolls pretending to be liberal to anger readers here.

At any rate let's knock down the most obvious fallacies of this attack: 1. In the "Trivia" section here, it is charged that the film was made under an apartheid regime because John Wayne supported it. Hatari was filmed in Tanganika, and there was no apartheid in effect in that country at the time. ("Apartheid" was a legalized caste system only ever in effect in South Africa.)

2. While the native African populations are kept largely in the background, there are no denigrating remarks made concerning them, but instead an insistence that their traditions be respected. The film's social structure is actually constructed to emphasize cultural pluralism - the focal group is made up of a German, several French descendants, a Swiss-Italian, a Spaniard, a Native American, an American Jew (Buttons as "Pockets") and of course Wayne - an Irish Catholic playing the only WASP in the group.

3. The "homophobia" charge directed against the film has to do with a single line, when Dallas asks Pockets why Wayne's character "doesn't like women," and Pockets says she suffers under a "misapprehension." I'm sorry, this is "homophobic?" I watched this movie several times over the past 40 odd years and I never noticed this until I read it on IMDb? Well, maybe it's not really there.

4. It is charged that the film has been "censored" for homophobia, sexism, racism and smoking (?!) in television broadcasts. Maybe in the troll's fantasy world. The film has occasionally been shortened due to it's length.

5. The film, it is charged, is sexist, using women as mere objects. Of what? Dallas, the female lead, is aggressive about her job, about her desires to experience Africa, about her sexuality. And she's hip and intelligent, intimidating the older (and old-fashioned) Wayne on a number of occasions. If this defined sexism, there would never have been any need for feminism.

6. Smoking - it should be pointed out that smoking is as much a right-wing issue as a liberal concern (it insults fundamentalist Protestant aesthetics). There's no denying that a lot of smoking takes place in this film. It was made when the preliminary studies on the dangers of smoking were just coming out and their veracity contested by the tobacco companies, and after a long tradition of heavy smoking in the cinema. The smoking behavior of the characters is just one of the things one tolerates if one wants to see a good film of the era.

7. It is suggested that the animals - especially the elephants - were mistreated during the film and killed off afterwards. There's no evidence to suggest this, reports that the actors themselves were involved in the capture of the animals are counterfactual evidence against this charge (what you see is largely what actually happened), and it is known that the baby elephants died four decades later of natural causes in zoos.

Now onto the film itself: The acting is largely insufficient (as plagued most Hawks films of the '60s). It is episodic. The plot, such as it is, meanders. The conclusion does feel somewhat artificial.

But it's largely a fantasy about a real way of life that most of us hardly knew existed before watching the film. And it's a fascinating way of life, fantasy or real.

The film is a kind of "Western" set in Africa, without a villain but with chases aplenty. It's an adventure film and a romantic comedy. Its canvass is wide, its strokes are broad. And it is character centered - if you like these people (and I do) you will have no problem liking this film.

I have loved this film since I was a child, and have found even more things to enjoy about it since I've grown up! Now, my 4 year old daughter is in love with all the animals (and she thinks Pockets is so funny). In fact, we have to play it at least once a day! If you haven't seen this film, it is definitely worth your time. The scenery is beautiful as are the animals they capture. This performance of John Wayne is one of his funniest, and the supporting cast are just as great. You have no problem believing these people truly do this for a living, and Red Buttons will keep you laughing.

This has something for all ages: exotic animals and Red Buttons' antics for the kids; adventure and romance for the adults. Give this one a try, especially if you are looking for a good family film you all can enjoy!