Clarence, the Cross-Eyed Lion

Excellent family-oriented animal adventure film with plenty of human interaction and comedy. Marshall Thompson is Doctor "Daktari" Marsh Tracy, head of an animal study compound in Africa. Widowed, he takes care of his teenage daughter Paula played by cute and perky Cheryl Miller. Sort of an American Hayley Mills, Paula Tracy is a bit of tom-boy (she has a python for a pet) but is growing up into a woman (she tapes her stockings to her thighs with masking tape to hold them up). Betsy Drake (the former Mrs. Cary Grant) is Julie Harper, a sort of Jane Goodhall type character who studies apes in their natural habitat and is the romantic interest for Dr. Tracy. The great character actor who made a career of rolling his r's, Richard Haydn ("Five Days in a Balloon"), is excellent as the comic relief Rupert Rowbotham, Paula's tutor, who is afraid of all the animals (especially Mary Lou the python and Clarence, the lion who tend to snuggle up to him). Add some wrestling with wild cheetahs, a few dangerous gorilla poachers, the antics of Doris the chimpanzee, and of course Clarence, the cross-eyed lion and what you have is the most consistently entertaining of the African animal adventure films which include John Wayne's "Hatari" and Hugh O'Brien's "Africa--Texas Style!. Ivan Tors ("Flipper," "Sea Hunt," "Gentle Ben," "Zebra in the Kitchen") produced this film which later became the TV series "Daktari."

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.

I laughed at some of the corny setups and jokes and loved the animals. However, this movie made me rethink what passed for family movies back in the 60's (I was a kid then but I'd never seen this movie before today--I wasn't really into animals at 12 years old.) There were some very adult behavior that would never make it into a family film today--all the alcohol drinking and a few Hell's & Damn's thrown in not to mention the raid by troops on poachers. But if you don't have anything else to do and this movie is on, it's not a total waste of time. Betsy Drake is really pretty good in it and Richard Haydn made me laugh some. I've seen Marshall Thompson in better movies but maybe the reason he never was a huge star was because he really wasn't a good actor. I was glad they kept Cheryl Miller's scenes to a minimum.

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.

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.