Green Mansions

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.

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.

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.

Anthony Perkins does seem a little out of place in this beautifully shot, unique film from 1959. That is, until he makes it to the inner jungle and meets the bird girl Audrey Hepburn. In the romantic scenes with her, the two of them work quite well. The scene where he plays guitar and sings his love song to Rima (Hepburn) and seeing her face as he woos her, is the definite highlight for me. When he's trying to play the tough, strong guy it's a bit laughable. The cinematography is stunning and the Venezuelan jungle comes off as an idyllic fantasy place that's a sensual delight to watch. (The fakiness doesn't distract from the beauty but only helps to give it an otherworldly look. I really don't think it was intended to appear real) Overall this is not a very good film, but there's a romantic, sexual and fantasy appeal to the jungle scenes with Hepburn and Perkins that fuels the imagination for a film that could have been. Watching Hepburn prance around the jungle and glide along tree branches in that lithe way of hers is enough reason to watch this very different and amusing tale from the late 50's.

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.