Perils of the Jungle

Only if you have nothing else to do. Not even at a Tarzan movie level. Most of the film is made by predictable, already seen schemes, material, using a studio jungle, Republic Studios. But it is an agreeable time waster, if you seek some childhood memories. Not really boring. The director George Blair, a totally uninspired and without the least ambition film maker, does the union minimum to get his payroll. Blair was the exact equivalent of Philip Ford, another "home" Republic Pictures director, whose career for the studio was exactly the copy of Blair's one. Same kind of movies, grade Z or I would say under Z, before running away from it to TV industry, realizing that they could not survive because no one, in the big screen industry, would even think to use them anymore. Which company could have needed such lousy technicians?

This is a surprisingly bad film. Now this is NOT because there were a lot of watchable jungle movies made from the 1930s-1950s. No--most of them were terrible. But, because this one starred the very famous African explorer, circus owner and lion tamer, Clyde Beatty, I expected a bit more--such as realism. But, once again, like all the second-rate Tarzan ripoffs of the era, the animals were occasionally from different continents (Africa and Asia) and the gorilla was yet another guy dressed up in a cheap gorilla costume. I just thought I'd see better than this.

As for the story, it's a bit odd. Instead of a normal narrative, it is told as a flashback--and a rather sketchy and episodic one at that. It seemed like they cut scenes from several different movies to make up this one--and perhaps they did. The first story is about a female big-game dealer (Phyllis Coates--of "Superman" fame). The second, in a carryover from the first, is about an evil big-game dealer. And, the third segment is about an evil white guy who controls a tribe of savages. None of the stories are very good and it's all set in the dense jungles of Africa--which, for the most part, are only in the movies as lions and the like do NOT live in such environments but in the savannas. Once again, this is a mythical representation of Africa and despite Beatty's presence, it seems little like the real thing. Which makes you wonder if either Beatty didn't care or perhaps he wasn't quite the awesome explorer he portrayed himself as being during his interesting life. Overall, pretty dull and forgettable.