Clarence, the Cross-Eyed Lion

The best thing I like about Clarence The Cross-Eyed Lion is that it shows Africa as it is and not Africa as Hollywood made it up in the 30s and 40s. This is the newly emerging independent Africa and the white folk you see here are ruled by the governments of the new countries.

Colonialism goes and independence comes but the work of widower Marshall Thompson and widow Betsy Drake goes on. Thompson has a veterinary clinic for jungle animals and he lives there with his teen daughter Cheryl Miller. Drake is an anthropologist and she studies the primates like Dian Fossey on whom her character is modeled.

The running gag in this film is the lion who's the Ben Turpin of the jungle and has double vision. Which makes him a lousy hunter and he would have doubtless died in the jungle had he not been discovered and taken in by Thompson and Miller and fed like a pet.

Named Clarence he's a gentle soul, but he causes a lot of mischief. In the end though he deals well with Maurice Marsac who leads a band independent soldier of fortune guerrillas.

This is a nice family film and it led to the Daktari TV series.

There are many wonderful animal-themed family movies out there, but this is not one of them. About the movie in general: The script is poor, the characters are stereotyped and undeveloped, and the acting is poor, except Richard Haydn (Mr. Rowbotham) who adds some comic relief to an otherwise uncomical family comedy. Cheryl Miller (as Paula) displays some of the worst acting I have ever seen, as she tries to play a character that appears to be about 10 years younger than she actually is. It is very obvious when the movie cuts to nature film footage, and when the gorillas are real and when they are someone in a costume, but considering the date of the movie, perhaps this was forgivable. Also, for a G-rated family film, there are a surprising number of swear words and there are several mildly violent scenes.

About the way wildlife is portrayed in the movie: On the positive side, the characters are trying to help wildlife, and the message that poachers are bad is very clear. However, the way that wild animals are portrayed as pets is terrible. The ideas that wild lions can be tamed with chocolate cake, that animals can be captured and released without any worry about human imprinting, or that a chimpanzee makes a good companion to a gorilla field researcher are all incredulous. And that's just the beginning. Also, the "leopard" is actually a jaguar.

This was a movie from Ivan Tors Productions, the same company that brought the world family entertainment (often centered around animals) like "Flipper". Unlike "Flipper", "Clarence, The Cross-Eyed Lion" has more or less been forgotten, and it's easy to see why. It's a pretty cheap-looking movie, for one thing - it's obvious that the bulk of the movie was not shot in Africa and was instead filmed in southern California. There is some African footage, but it's painfully obvious that it's stock footage originally shot for some other production. It's also a very dull movie, and I can imagine children will be squirming in their seats. The oddest thing about the entire enterprise is that despite the title, Clarence the lion is almost an afterthought - much of the movie does not focus on him, but on the human characters in an endless series of vignettes that have little to no relation to each other. Even those who are cross-eyed will see that this project was misguided from the start.

This is a good family film!

I only want to say that the previous reviewer is not correct. This is fabulous, entertaining and well-done family film. I highly recommend it! Just seeing the real Africa and not a Hollywood set is reason enough to see this film. Also, please note that this film was made into a good TV series: "Daktari". Yes, Richard Hayden is the best thing in the movie! What a great comedic actor!

Perhap some might not like the movie because it is simple, straight-forward and charming. It is a kids movie that adults will like too!

I saw this in the theater when I was a child and watched the TV show too.

One of my favorite shows as a kid.

I admit this movie was not a fantastic watch, but it was mildly amusing for the time and era of the movie. If you are going to critique I think you should carry on a subjective opinion based on not just whether the acting/directing/writing, etc. was good or not but consider what they had to work with at the time. To say that the movie was awful because they made it seem like you could tame a lion with chocolate cake is ridiculous. Lots of movies do not display things that we necessarily agree with, but it does not make them bad movies. I don't agree with cannibalism, but Silence of the Lambs was good, yet I don't see you protesting the implications that the bad guy was killing people to eat. I thought Clarence was a cute movie. No, it wasn't a greatly acted or directed one, but it was cute. One more tiny little suggestion, don't use movies to tell you how to live your life.