Green Mansions

Let's dispense with the good points first. At least SOME of the casting works. Specificly, I'm speaking, first, of Hepburn at her most mysterious and bewitching. No one else could have possibly played Rima with the fey charm tinged with mystery that Audrey, at her most radiant, brings to the role. Then, there's Henry Silva as a virile, villianous Indian. Silva, to my mind, was and still is one of the cinema's great heavies, and he doesn't disappoint here. His quiet underplaying vs. Tony Perkins' hammy overplaying when the former's duplicity is discovered is a perfect illustration of what stands the test of time and what doesn't. Plus, there are the beautiful Amazon locations and Bronislau Kaper's beautiful, understated score.

Now on to the bad points, and where better to begin that Tony Perkins' impossible miscasting in the lead. The lean, intense Perkins was always a masterly potrayer of angst, as Hitchcock discovered the next year. But he was never much of a conventional leading man, and this film, and the following year's "Tall Story," bring this weakness sharply into focus. Someone such as, say, Robert Wagner or Laurence Harvey, would have been far more believeable. They were the right age for the role, and both were under contract to MGM at the time. What were they thinking? Then there's Sessue Hayakawa, still riding high from his "River Kwai" comeback, as the most improbable native chieftan on record. At least he comports himself with his usual innate dignity. Mel Ferrer, Hepburn's husband at the time, was always a fine actor, but never more than an average director. One can invision a William Wyler (busy at the time with "Ben-Hur"), a George Cukor, or a William Dieterle as a far better director for this film. Finally, Dorothy Kingsly's screenplay fails to patch up the several sizable holes in the original W.H. Hudson story, particularly the "Is-she-dead-or-isn't-she?" ending.

In short, you could do worse that this film, but you could do much, much better, too.

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.

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.

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.

After reading reviews of this film I expected it to be pretty bad. I wanted to see it anyway because I love Audrey Hepburn, and I always have an interest in seeing Anthony Perkins films since I loved him in Psycho (though I must admit I still haven't seen him do anything as well as he did Norman Bates.) So I put the tape in the VCR and expected something visually stimulating, but with a dull story. What I got was something visually stimulating, and a story interesting enough to keep me entertained. The scenery is gorgeous (though I agree with a previous comment that some of it looks fake), and Hepburn and Perkins are equally attractive. The music is heady and romantic (Tony Perkins sings - and he does this well!) A few scenes of primitive tribal rituals are the only inelegant parts of the film. I do think that Audrey Hepburn was miscast as "the bird girl"; she seems a bit too sophisticated for this type of role (and dare I say just a wee bit too old - she was about 30 at the time, playing a character constantly referred to as "that child.") But it doesn't matter. She was a great actress so she did this role well. Anthony Perkins did well at least in the more romantic scenes. The chemistry between them worked for me. The whole movie worked for me, at least on a hedonistic level. Green Mansions isn't a "great movie", but it's an enjoyable one.