Talk about a let down.
After receiving some information from a dying explorer. Two brothers set off in the search of an elephant graveyard for its highly priced ivory, but along the way they stumble by a small band of English settlers planning to farm and settle somewhere in the East Africa plains. They hire the two hunters as their guides, and unknowingly to the settlers, they secretly lead them in the dangerous direction (which is filled with deadly wildlife and unwelcoming natives) to eventually get their wealthy payout. However could a woman come between the goals of the brothers?
A Tarzan movie without Tarzan? Where's the man when you need him. Well it might have been far more interesting if he did appear, than the lacklustre and very sluggish effort we got here. Everything about it is misleading. Namely the film's eye-catching tag line; "White woman vs. deadly python." Where was my lady vs. snake sequence? Oh there was something along those lines, but really was that it. Talk about lousy. Not that I think this was a bad movie, but instead a frustrating one that promises something it didn't deliver. Forget about that tempting cover-artwork too. Director George P. Breakston goes onto fulfil a technically flat (just look at the attack sequences involving snakes and "blood-thirsty" natives) and fundamental job without the slightest sense of energy or inspiration. What seem like it was going to be some tacky, cheap fun became a drawn-out, colourless and polite jungle adventure. Chuck in for good measure is the usual animal stock footage one sees in these early safari presentations. Writer Dermot Quinn predictably pens a rather limp script of little surprises and scrap together a basic plot that equals a terribly bumpy trek. The performances don't hurt, but no one really stands out and everyone basically gets lost in not very well presented background features. The African setting is far from enticing, and unattractively framed, but I found the wildlife captivating enough. Maybe they should have centred on it and turned into a documentary. Some odd scenes are played for a comical effect, with lesser results and the more serious moments is where I found myself snickering.
A Tarzan movie without Tarzan? Where's the man when you need him. Well it might have been far more interesting if he did appear, than the lacklustre and very sluggish effort we got here. Everything about it is misleading. Namely the film's eye-catching tag line; "White woman vs. deadly python." Where was my lady vs. snake sequence? Oh there was something along those lines, but really was that it. Talk about lousy. Not that I think this was a bad movie, but instead a frustrating one that promises something it didn't deliver. Forget about that tempting cover-artwork too. Director George P. Breakston goes onto fulfil a technically flat (just look at the attack sequences involving snakes and "blood-thirsty" natives) and fundamental job without the slightest sense of energy or inspiration. What seem like it was going to be some tacky, cheap fun became a drawn-out, colourless and polite jungle adventure. Chuck in for good measure is the usual animal stock footage one sees in these early safari presentations. Writer Dermot Quinn predictably pens a rather limp script of little surprises and scrap together a basic plot that equals a terribly bumpy trek. The performances don't hurt, but no one really stands out and everyone basically gets lost in not very well presented background features. The African setting is far from enticing, and unattractively framed, but I found the wildlife captivating enough. Maybe they should have centred on it and turned into a documentary. Some odd scenes are played for a comical effect, with lesser results and the more serious moments is where I found myself snickering.
- lost-in-limbo
- May 31, 2007