Green Hell

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.

Some people know how to make a movie. That is when we get a film.

This is an example.

This is simple story telling and adventure, with some great scenery.

It's set in a jungle as a team of excavators hope to bring back Gold and news of an archaeological find.

The key is to have all the elements.

We have expert directing, more than adequate editing, and good script writing enough to tell an exciting and interesting story. In today's world of dull routine scripts, this is probably more exciting than a modern audience is used to. This was made in the days when people were smart enough to know de Mille was someone to emulate, and this director does emulate de Mille in many ways, as much as he can with a less than de Mille budget.

The next element is believable and interesting characters. We have a slew of them. More than the usual excavation team. Even a few of the natives have interesting, believable, and important roles. Some of the more ignorant red necks of today will scoff at the superstitious ways, but superstitious attitudes are what makes this even more believable. We're at an Information Age cusp right now in which many of the younger people wallow in an Ignorance they aren't aware of, and don't realize what makes a character in 1940 credible.

This is excellent story telling and adventure. To deny that is to look like a jealous fool.

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.

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.

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.