Trader Horn, l'aventurier

I spotted Stewart Granger and Co, from "King Solomon Mines numerous times during this "movie".It was so obvious .I notice grasslands and rolling Los Angeles hills in background of this show.They the actors never went within 12 ,000 miles of Africa. A travesty of the original movie from 1931.MGM should hang its head in shame.Start of Rod Taylor's downfall in movies.

When a film credits the novel and its writer but then gives a totally different writer a "Story by" credit (in this case co-scripter Edward Harper) you know the original source has been junked. Indeed, there is almost no correlation between this film and the 1931 original or the novel. In fact, the filmmakers have simply taken the title and its main character and grafted him onto the H. Rider Haggard story of 'King Solomon's Mines.' As for the film itself, it boasts in its end credits that plenty of African locations were used... but that's mostly, if not all, Second Unit material. The actors seem to have been filmed on stage sets or at Southern California locations (wild animal park/nearby desert dunes). Lots of process screen work and indoor settings, although the African footage is good. And Rod Taylor is perfect casting as Trader Horn. You can believe him as a rough-hewn, know-it-all, wheeler-dealer and reluctant guide. Less believable is his romance with Heywood. And Don Knight, as the British commander ceaselessly hunting for Horn, whom he's branded a "traitor to England in a time of war" (it's 1916), is almost buffoonish, as if channeling Malcolm McDowell through a 'Carry On' film. The African natives are a mix of obvious Hollywood actor types and real natives (many just stock footage or Second Unit). Much of the scenic stuff doesn't match up with the actors, and the plodding story never catches fire. Why MGM felt this would be a success at the box office is hard to fathom.

This was just a waste. Remember catching a blooper. This was suppose to be in Late 1800s early 1900s but in one scene there was a 60something Chevy Impala you could see drive by just behind some trees and shrubs. Think there was another with jet con trails in it. Acting was so-so directing was bad and the story was just OK. They should have not made it if they could not do it right. The 1931 version was better. I was with family and they did not believe me when I told them about the car. So we sat through it again until that scene to prove I was right and they did see it. Hated watching it again but I was determined to show them I was right. Wish we had not wasted our money on it. Was brutal sitting through it to prove my point.

I couldn't even watch more than a half hour of it because it glorifies killing magnificent and endangered species like leopards and elephants. Rod Taylor could play sophisticates, rough guys, idealists, military types, anything but a song and dance man really. He was fine in comedy opposite Doris Day in THE GLASS BOTTOM BOAT for example. But here, he is a rugged, jaded antihero in a below average script (what I could stay long enough for anyway) with a dated theme or two: killing wild animals and profiting from selling to Germans in World War One. Danger in Africa it seemed would be the running motif....been done before and since. Rod Taylor should have stayed a movie star, movies like this may indeed explain why he later took smaller parts and often was seen on TV instead. Even after a half hour, I could tell this was not special.

So much stock footage from Stewart Granger's "King Solomon's Mine" minds makes me wonder how much new footage there actually was. I spotted Stuart Granger and others from his movie more than once while watching the film. Overall it is a relatively somewhat decent African adventure film and easy to make fun of because of the overuse of stock footage. I don't know what MGM was thinking when they approved this movie but they should be embarrassed over it.