Thu 28 May 2009
Movie Review: JUNGLE JIM IN THE FORBIDDEN LAND (1952).
Posted by Steve under Action Adventure movies , Reviews[11] Comments
JUNGLE JIM IN THE FORBIDDEN LAND. Columbia, 1952. Johnny Weissmuller, Angela Greene, Jean Willes, Lester Matthews, William Tannen. Based on the comic strip character created by Alex Raymond. Director: Lew Landers.
I was joking around in the comments following my recent TCM Alert, posted here, saying something like this, and I quote:
“As for Jungle Jim — the movies, that is — I remember seeing them at the local movie theater when I was 10 or 12, and thinking even then that they weren’t very good. I suspect that, as you seem to be hinting, they haven’t improved with age.
“No matter. I’ll tape them anyway. Nobody says I have to watch them — but I probably will. Call me curious.”
My goodness. I did watch one, this one, and I have to tell you, assuming that it’s typical of the rest of the series (*), I didn’t really realize how bad they were. The funny thing is, I’ve just checked some of the reviews this mess of a movie has had over the years. They’re generally favorable, and the movie is simply awful. I’d have to stretch like Plastic Man to say anything positive about it, and then I’d be lying to you.
(*) This was number eight of either 13 or 16 films in the series. The last three Johnny Weissmuller essentially played himself after Columbia lost the use of the name of the Jungle Jim character. So unless I’m told otherwise, I’ll assume this one’s typical enough.
But by golly, they must have been successful. They wouldn’t have kept making them if people hadn’t kept going to see them. This one’s barely an hour long, but without all of the stock footage of various animals found in all four corners of the world, it probably wouldn’t have been run much over 30 minutes or so.
That plus a plot that makes no sense at all. To sum it up: ivory, a tribe of giant people, a lady anthropologist (the beautiful Angela Greene, whom you can see in the photo with Jim), rampaging elephants, greed – as exemplified by the truly and magnificently hard-boiled Denise (Jean Wiles), a chimp that does nonsensical things to make the kid folks laugh, and a rookie governmental commissioner who doesn’t know which end is up.
Did I mention a crooked native chief? Truth serum? Well I have now.
The costumes of the giant people (all two of them) were left over from some werewolf movie, I’m afraid to say. I hate to say this also, but the only reason that this review is so long – it’s probably going to take me longer than watching the movie itself to get it typed, formatted and posted – is so there’s room to fit all of the images in.
But I especially like this small movie theater flyer I found online. I certainly remember those from either of the two theaters in the town that I grew up in, but I hadn’t seen one in many a year until today.
In fact, the name of the theater on this very same promotional flyer is the Lyric, one of the two theaters I was just referring to. I’d wonder if it were the same one, but I imagine every other small town in the 1950s had a Lyric Theatre.
PostScript. If you read the review carefully, you’ll discover that I lied to you. There are some positive aspects to this movie, and I mentioned them both.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
The good news is the serial with Grant Withers as Jungle Jim is better than the movie series — but then it would have to be. I think Paul Norris had taken over the strip by the time Weismuller did the films, but even he was better than this.
Jim hung on a while after Raymond left the strip, showing up as a Dell comic, and then in the sixties a Charlton comic with interesting art by legendary cartoonist Wally Wood and Spiderman co-creator Steve Ditko as well as Pat Boyette (who even managed to direct a horror movie along the way). I’m not sure when the strip ended, but by the sixties Norris had moved on and was doing the Brick Bradford comic strip.
I can say this, the stories and characterization of both the Raymond and Norris versions were superior to anything in the Weismuller films.
Of course Raymond has a special place in the hearts of mystery fans for originating Secret Agent X-9 with Dashiell Hammett (later written by Leslie Charteris), and the elegant Rip Kirby detective strip begun in the post-war era.
X-9 spawned two serials, one with Scott Kolk and the second with Lloyd Bridges, and both better by a mile than any of the Jungle Jim features with Weismuller.
Jungle Jim began life as the bottom tier strip on the full page Flash Gordon Sunday page, an extention of Raymond’s training having ghosted the jungle adventure strip Tim Tyler’s Luck for Lyman Young. There was no daily Jungle Jim strip.
The Jungle Jim films have none of the charm of the Tarzan films, not even the later ones when Weismuller was running over his loin cloth a bit. They feel tired and look it. Any good reviews are likely die hard fans of Johnny or nostalgia not reinforced by repeated viewings.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
I too remember these movies from when I was a kid and like you, I recall them as being poor. So why were they so popular that they made several?
I think your review points out why they were a box office success: ivory, a race of giant people, a beautiful girl, rampaging elephants, a crooked native chief, truth serum, and costumes left over from a werewolf movie. Plus add a plot that makes no sense at all and you have a movie kids will love.
When I was 9 and started going to movie by myself or with friends, I remember each Saturday my mother giving me 25 cents and I would disappear for hours into the theater. I would go in when it was bright sunshine and come out after dark, having seen a double feature, cartoons, a serial installment, newsreel, coming attractions and then often watching some of this all over again.
In fact when I went every Saturday to the Broad Theater in Trenton, in the early and mid 1950’s, I didn’t even check to see what was playing. I loved the movies and the entire movie going experience and had to attend even if the films were poor.
I still retain one of my childhood habits all these years later when I go to a movie. I automatically buy a bag of buttered popcorn. I realize this cannot be good for my health and fully expect one year that I will keel over and my moving going will end. But what better way to go?
May 28th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
By the late fifties and early sixties when I was going to the local theater the ticket was up to 50 cents and the Saturday Matinee was over by early afternoon, but I still recall the days of old serials (which I somehow never saw the first or last episode of),cartoons, shorts, and two features. Jungle Jim by then was on television where I saw most of this stuff.
I loved it all then, but some of it doesn’t stand up now. The good news is that some does. Still Jim had to be better than some of the teen age movies, rock ‘n roll, and sf/horror grade Z films that replaced them. The chief difference seems to have been that by then the apes in werewolf costumes were wearing space helmets and carrying off some semi clad semi attractive actress to their pie plate on a fishing line flying saucer. Somehow an aging John Agar and Dino Contini were never satisfying substitutes for Johnny Weismuller.
And once in a while something good actually got through just to keep you coming. As the Count of Monte Cristo said, all wisdom is contained in three words: wait (until next Saturday) and hope.
May 29th, 2009 at 7:50 am
I started watching this one, but bailed out after 10 minutes.
Lew Landers has made some good B movies: but this wasn’t one of them.
What bugged me most: seeing the hero kill wild animals. First he stabs a beautiful black panther. Then a hippo… For shame!
Best dialogue: woman anthropologist is looking for a guide, and a consul recommends Jungle Jim.
Woman: “Jungle Jim? What’s his address?”
Consul: “He doesn’t have an address. He lives in the jungle.”
May 29th, 2009 at 8:35 am
I watched JUNGLE JIM. It was awesomely awful. Some of my thoughts about it are in my comments to a couple of Ivan’s posts over on Thrilling Days of Yesteryear.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:31 am
You’d think that after all this time, I’d know how to program a VCR, but obviously I don’t because I ended up missing two of the movies during that long day’s run of worthwhile movies on TCM.
It’s the difference between SP and SLP speeds that threw me. I accidentally clicked on the wrong one, and JUNGLE JIM, the first one and the one you saw, Bill, went missing when the tape ran out.
And Mike, I agree with you about the “killing” of the two wild animals you saw before you bailed out. I suppose you might call it justified since both hippos and panthers can be very aggressive toward humans, but I still thought the scenes were rather edgy today.
Of course back then they never thought twice about such things.
Jungle Jim sort of made up for it by saying no to the lady anthropologist who wanted him to guide her to the land of the Giant People, and refusing to help the small group of hunters kill elephants for their tusks — none over the limit, that is.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Of the people I have known who actually lived in Africa and not just in a city, but in the Africa we see in film, even those most sensitive to animal rights would voice reservations about two creatures — the hippo and the leopard. The hippo is actually one of the deadliest animals in Africa and responsible for many human deaths, and the leopard is a deadly killer who has never been as shy of man as man might prefer. Dog lovers in particular will tell you of the big cat’s taste for dog meat.
They have very bad reputations among zookeepers as well. Of the big cats the leopard is the only one that seems to kill for pleasure. Of course I doubt anyone involved in the Jungle Jim film knew that, and the only satisfaction we can take is that it was stock footage of a long dead leopard or hippo and nothing died for that film to come to the screen save some poor screenwriters self respect and a few actors careers.
Frankly I don’t think we really accomplish much when we try to hold these things to modern standards. You needn’t be blind to things like that, but I’m not sure it accomplishes anything to be overly sensitive either. I suppose it is all subjective, and too, something like that is a lot less noticable in a much better film. We might still be bothered, but I know some of my righteous indignation can be curbed if I’m being entertained as opposed to bored.
It’s about like the American tourist who hearing of an Indian village in a remote area plagued by a man eating tiger commented: “Well, the poor thing has to eat.” A little perspective helps.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:42 am
David, you have good points.
Still I much prefer Frank Buck, who captured animals for zoos. His famous motto: “Bring Em Back Alive!”
Good films like MOGAMBO and HATARI follow in this tradition.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Mike
Funny you should mention Frank Buck. I grew up in Gainesville, Texas, his hometown, and summers in college worked part time at the Frank Buck Zoo.
Gainesville was home of the Gainesville Community Circus that used to play Madison Square Garden, and was a wintering town for many circus people so I grew up doing things like making a spare buck washing elephants instead of cars.
In addition Clyde Beatty owned some oil property my grandfather drilled for oil on and I met him and got to talk to him a few times. He was the first person to mention the leopard’s treachery to me, claiming he would turn his back on a lion or tiger in the ring, but backed out of the cage if he was working with a leopard. That said, the one I got to pet purred like a big kitten.
Still, despite what I’ve written, like you and Steve I blanch a little at some of the slaughter in the African films, but try to keep in mind that many of the so called “white hunters” are now deeply involved in preservation and anti poaching. As I say it is all subjective, and frankly I’m not ready to give up Hemingway, Haggard, ERB, and others just because they are no longer pc.
Funny though that we are bothered by killing animals — even fictional ones — on a site devoted to books about killing people — even fictional ones.
Or as a friend of mine says he doesn’t care how many people are killed in the film if the dog in the picture makes it out alive.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
David said:
“Funny though that we are bothered by killing animals — even fictional ones — on a site devoted to books about killing people — even fictional ones.”
That’s absolutely true, and there’s no good or easy way to get around it.
I don’t read mystery fiction in which children are victims, though, and I generally put down any book (or stop watching a movie) in which the violence is more important than the attempt to end it.
Is that enough to solve the paradox for me? No, but it helps.
— Steve
May 30th, 2009 at 1:35 am
Steve
I suffer the same problem. Like you I avoid books in the “children in danger” genre with a few classical exceptions (MacDonald’s Warrant for X and some of Bailey’s Reggie Fortune books), and find some of the modern novels dealing with the subject exploitative however good the intent or actions.
On violence much of it depends on the point. The cartoonish violence of some films doesn’t bother me, but some films that come much closer to reality do. While I’m no fan of gore and splatter in films it doesn’t bother me. I’ve yet to see a single film that comes anywhere near looking like real violence or blood. Some of it looks worse than the real thing, but not real.
In 1977 my father was badly burned in an oilfield fire. Luckily he recovered fully and quickly, but the first time a scene came up in a movie where a man was on fire I reached for the remote to change the channel. He told me not to bother. The guy on the screen was a stuntman in a fireproof suit surrounded by men with extinguishers. It had no relation to what happened to him in real life. A combat veteran he felt the same about war movies, yet wouldn’t watch Saving Private Ryan because it came too close. There are always exceptions.
I think my point is that we are making a mistake by relating fictional violence and crime with the real world. There will always be a few sickos who imitate something they see or read, but anything can and does turn them on. I suspect most of us know when something goes too far, and I’m no fan of the PC police in any form.
I’m sure there was some busybody who warned that children would put their eyes out imitating the fencing in The Three Musketeers and that Sherlock Holmes pipe (much less his cocaine) was a bad influence. The one thing we can always be assured of is male and female old maids trying to protect us all from life.
That said, having seen real violence the movie and literary kind doesn’t really faze me. It has the same relationship to real life that Spam does to Ham — and Spam is much closer to the real thing. I would not wish visiting an actual murder scene on anyone, but once you have you’ll quickly see just how unrealistic even the best movie and television recreations are. To be a little graphic here, they have (thankfully) not perfected smell-o-vision, and what no one mentions is blood, wet or dried, smells, as do corpses — even fresh ones.
The stuff on the small and big screen is only a special effect. Relax, the most vile and violent nonsense ever out on screen (Pasolini’s Salo 120 Days of Sodom gets my vote), is noting but play-acting, syrup, and camera tricks. No life was experienced while making this film or writing this novel.