Bwana le diable

I saw it the first day of its first run release at the Chicago Theater in Chicago in 1952. 'Bwana Devil' was the brainchild of radio director, Arch Oboler. - best known for the radio (and early live TV series) 'Lights Out'. Oboler's brother-in-law was Milton Gunzburg. Gunzburg was, I believe, the optician who connected the use of Polaroid lenses to the making of stereoscopic films.

In 1952, television was stomping out movies and movie theaters the way rogue elephants could destroy villages. Hollywood was searching for any gimmick it could use to bring people back to the theaters. Cinerama, a cumbersome early widescreen process had come on the scene. It produced an 3-D like effect. That opened the door for Gunzberg and his brother-in-law. They called their process Naturalvision, raised some money to demonstrate the process, and produced 'Bwana Devil'.

While the story and production values took a back seat to the illusion of depth, the picture was a hit. It was quickly followed by 'House of Wax' and others. Most producers opted to exploit the stereoscopic effects rather than make good movies. 'House of Wax' was one of the rare exceptions. After about a year, audiences tired of the shoddy productions, and Naturalvision eventually disappeared. Into the void Fox introduced CinemaScope, a flat wide-screen process, and helped stem the sinking theater system.

I imagine seeing 'Bwana Devil' in flat projection would be painful. But for those of us who saw it with pristine prints, and quality projection, it was something to behold. Lions leaping off the screen into our laps was something few of us would forget.

It has taken another fifty years for 3-D to return. Today's producers seem not to be making the same mistake as those in the early fifties. I hope so. After all, 3-D is so much more fun than flat.

The story is not unlike the story of Jaws. A tiny group of people is isolated and threatened by this horrible creature, cut off from the world. Experts are brought in to eliminate the menace and restore order.

The only reason I mention this is to show the difference between talent (Spielberg/Benchley) and zero talent (Obler/Clampett) for story telling and film making. This 79 minutes (plus the mandatory intermission early 3-D requires) seemed to stretch way beyond its length. Horrible film.

Quick notes: What year is this story set in? It sure seems like 1952 until Barbara Britton, in high-button shoes, steps off the train.

The highlight was when star Robert Stack took his shirt off. Maybe if he had done the entire thing shirtless I would raise the score a half a point.

This was seen at the Film Forum in Manhattan, struck from the camera negative. It made zero difference as it was still completely awful.

An interesting premise, based on a true life story of two man eating lions but unfortunately, poorly executed. Leading man Robert Stack lacks charisma and the film at only 1 hour and 20 minutes, still drags and, at times, is ludicrous. Nigel Bruce is billed third in this as Dr Angus McLean and it is his penultimate film appearance. Though he has an amusing story about a fish, he is, in the main, a straight character here, though has a twinkle in his eye. He features throughout until the last 20 minutes but unhappily, his Scots accent (Stirling) doesn't really convince and undermines him more than somewhat.

I will admit that "Bwana Devil" is not a great movie, but to compare this groundbreaking 3-D movie to "Plan 9 From Outer Space" is utterly ridiculous, as "Bwana Devil" is not bad--but it is slightly below average. The negatives are Robert Stack's overacting and forgetting his accent frequently as well as a few cheesy scenes (seeing a stuffed lion tossed on Nigel Bruce when he was supposedly being attacked was unintentionally funny). The HUGE plus is that this film was made mostly in Africa and looks so much better than the tons of schlocky African films of the 1930s-50s.

The story is a dramatization of a real story of a couple man-eating lions and the man who ultimately killed them. It's the same story you'll see in the newer and better "Ghost and the Darkness"--so my advice is see this film instead. But, if you don't, you'll essentially learn the same story...along with Stack's less than stellar performance. Not a bad film at all--just not one that will bowl you over, either.

I saw this movie when it was first released in Pittsburgh Pa. I had traveled from Youngstown Ohio, a distance of approx. 85 miles. I knew nothing of the plot nor the players. I had read no reviews nor had I talked to anyone who had seen it. Believe me I will never make that mistake again. It was being touted I believe as the first feature length movie filmed in the new 3D process. That was what enticed me to make a 170 mile round trip.

There was a waiting line two abreast that stretched (I kid you not) 2 or 2½ blocks long and moving very slowly. I could hardy wait to be seated. If I had only known at that moment what I soon would know, I could have been ¾ of the way back to Youngstown by the time the feature started.

By the time the first 3D scene was shown, I was already nodding off. The novelty quickly wore thin and from then on it was pure agony.

Without going into excruciating detail, I can only offer the following advice. If you have ever seen the famous film PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE, supposedly the worst movie ever filmed, it in my humble opinion stands head and shoulders above this garbage.

I don't know if this has ever been shown on tv, if it has I don't know why. If you ever get a chance to see it, do something else. Take a walk, cut the grass, wash the dog, have someone flog you with a rubber hose. ANYTHING. Your time will have been better spent.

This has been my first movie review. It might well be my last unless a worse movie comes along and I wouldn't make book that will happen.

Bill