Green Mansions

It's easy to see why 1959 critics called it "muddled". The film, which is set in South America's jungles, manages to be an ecological statement (man should take care of his surroundings), a love story, a tale of redemption (in the film's first ten minutes, Abel (Anthony Perkins) sees his father killed and vows vengeance on the killers. Audrey Hepburn as Rima does her utmost in a near impossible part. Lee J. Cobb overacts as Rima's protector.

MGM spent over one million dollars (a great deal of money in 1959) getting shots of South America to mix in with the main filming done on MGM's back lot. The mixing in of the shots is well done, but it's obvious what was shot at MGM and what were the South American jungle shots. Perkins is the voice of sanity in the film, because whenever the plot threatens to get too wispy, he brings it back down to earth. He has a scene where he serenades Rima with his lovely tenor voice. It was a pity that he was never in a film musical.

If the film has a message it seems to be that true love never dies.

I have heard people harp on and on about how bad this movie is and how Anthony Perkins and Audrey Hepburn were sooooo miscast! While the film is certainly no 'Psycho' or 'Roman Holiday', it is a lot better than people give it credit for. Everyone seems to come down pretty hard on Perkins especially, because he seems out of place or isn't 'rugged enough' for the role. Those people probably are the people who want to see him as Norman Bates and nothing else. I think his performance was just fine. He has this sensitivity and this almost childlike innocence, and sense of adventure that i think is ideal. He is no John Wayne, he is like an adventurous young child. But that innocence is perfect for the scenes he has with Hepburn. and while he is not the traditional leading man, it makes him all the more interesting. I think if the male lead was too good looking it would just be phony looking. Audrey Hepburn's trademark gentleness is ideal for this part. My only complaint about her is the fact that her hair and her make-up are flawless no matter what, but it really isn't her fault. Originally cast was Pier Angeli, who although a good actress lacked the same kind of gentleness that Hepburn had. If anyone looks silly here it's Lee J. Cobb. He looks more like a cross between Santa Claus, and a hillbilly, more than a South American. As for the film itself, it started off really well, but got kind of bizarre as it went on. After the scene were the three leads, leave Rima's (Hepburn) home i started to lose my interest. And when it came time for big emotional outbursts the actors fail to deliver. One of Hepburn's emotional outbursts comes out of nowhere, and is so phony i can't even explain. She wasn't so great at being angry i guess. However the intimate scenes between Perkins and Hepburn are moving. and i think this was the first time Hepburn took on a 'sexy' role like this. This is not her worst movie, i think it's actually better than 'Charade,' which i thought was overrated. The film has it's flaws but those flaws do not just lie in the performances as most people say.

I read this book in 8th grade English & loved it. After we finished reading the book, we watched the movie and I was thoroughly disappointed. They completely changed the ending, turning it into a sappy, everything's right in the world, Hollywood ending instead of the tragic ending of the book. Happy endings are great, but if you're going to make a movie from a book you should at least try to stay as close to the story line as possible. I'm normally a big Audrey Hepburn fan, but even she couldn't salvage this one for me. Don't waste your time with this movie-read the book instead.

Tony Perkins in tight pants, wrestling Henry Silva in loin cloth, in lagoon, for love of jungle princess Audrey Hepburn. Yep, that's about it. Tony and Audrey are supposed to be around 19 and 16 respectively, even though he's really 26 and she's pushing 30. Which is almost OK, since everything is so gauzy.

The story is silly and the production cheesy, and it all comes out like made-for-TV, which is a kind-of compliment, since it was released in 1959, which makes it ahead of its time, though, given the quality of made-for-TV, and that people had to buy a ticket to see this thing, that's not much consolation.

It's lush and ripe, and though they claim it's filmed in South America, I can see the familiar landscapes of the backlot and the flora and fauna of the San Diego Zoo. This one is borderline MST3000, so the best way to watch it is stoned.

Perhaps Mel Ferrer was not the right director for this sort of whimsical fantasy. Whatever, the dreamlike quality of the forest settings (some real, some with painted backgrounds on studio sets), combined with lifeless direction and uneven script, makes this a disappointment from beginning to end.

ANTHONY PERKINS, AUDREY HEBURN and LEE J. COBB are never able to flesh out their characters. Hepburn seems oddly miscast in a role requiring very little of her talent. Perkins does slightly better but again is hampered by a weak role that tries to give him a few heroics but fails to ignite any sparks with Hepburn or any of his co-players. Lee J. Cobb has the most substantial character to play and does it well enough.

The whole film seems like a low point in the careers of all involved despite gorgeous Technicolor photography and an interesting background score. No wonder the public stayed away.

The foolish ending with Perkins and Hepburn voicing some tired clichés about finding love is cringe-worthy.

Summing up: A true misfire for all concerned.