Queen of the Amazons

Heck! It was different time altogether. What made for excitement in 1947 is merely amusing, boring, or fascinating depending on your attitude towards films and movies.

I watched it. I enjoyed it despite the amazing plot holes. The first thing you will note that the movie takes place mostly in Africa even though the Amazon is in South America. Oh, but this is about a strange white women's tribe living the jungle so they must be Amazons. Oh, and the white women's tribe is mysterious in its nature even though the origin is very well known and no-one ever decided to go rescue the survivors of the shipwreck. I can't figure it out so it is best not to try.

Stock footage runs amok. It doesn't always match or even come close in the continuity of details department or even in film granularity. One hilarious example occurs when the lead actress looks through a telescope at the wildlife and notes how they are all in a hurry. Then we are treated to stock footage of a herd of gazelles jumping away - in slow-mo. Ha ha! We must have been shown footage of 5 or 6 different tribes of people which were lumped together in this film to represent one tribe. We even were privy to stock footage of trees which are not native to Africa - but there they are growing on the landscape. It's pretty awkward but no-one probably noticed in 1947. That wasn't the point back, I suppose. This movie is here to entertain or fill time. It does both.

The acting is surprisingly competent enough by most although there seemed to be an abundance of inappropriate smiling, especially by the lead actress who gets a good share of close-ups. Yeah, she's pretty. But for a woman who has lost her fiancé to the jungle she just doesn't seem very upset. She is simply determined to go on with the safari even though her feelings for her fiancé are seriously challenged by another man in her party.

Meanwhile, her fiancé has fallen for the 'Amazon' queen but has decided to be a rat and not tell anyone. Apparently he thought no-one would care if he simply vanished along with the rest of his earlier safari party.

Meanwhile the Amazonians get the blame for all the mysterious deaths in the region. They are determined to remain secret and keep their territory safe from outsiders - except for the one lone male which the Queen keeps for herself. Considering how awesome this tribe of white women must be since they can overwhelm a safari without much problem - you never see more than 3 of the white women tribe. In fact, they put up no defense whatsoever during the eventual incursions into their camp by the antagonists - except for a well-timed blowgun incident.

Meanwhile the Queen says she will kill to keep her man but we can still be friends. Huh?? Others have noted and I will reinforce - this is not a movie to get all serious about. These are the movies I saw when I was young and it is really quite lame - but still it has a charm. It tries to be fun and succeeds a few times.

The ending moans and groans. But at least it's happy and doesn't set you up for a sequel.

Rainy day fodder when you are not so critical. Bring a pillow.

One of Edward Finney's most well-known films, Queen of the Amazons is the story of a young woman (Patricia Morison), her guide, father-in-law, an absent minded professor, a cook and a man scorned who all go on safari to hunt down her missing fiancé. The film includes a number of subplots ranging from the romance to murder mystery, and somehow, it is all linked up to illegal ivory smuggling. The safari, inexplicably, launches from colonial India, and the search takes up more than half the story.

Most of the story is driven by transitional scenes between stock footage of African wildlife, jungle scenery and well-acted action scenes including animal attacks. The script, which takes on the responsibility for drawing everything together and driving it along, is not really up to the task. Dialog is used to establish virtually everything the stock footage can not. Besides the bland camera-work, the often laughable stock footage, and the over-taxed script, the directing and editing are good. There are a few continuity errors, but not as many as some reviewers have claimed. After all, this is Queen of the Amazons (who were written about by ancient Greeks 1500 years before Europeans arrived in South America) not "Queen of the Amazon" (a river named after the Greek stories). One, however, is worth watching out for. Pat Morison is examining some stock footage of African Savannah animals running away through binoculars. Just as she says "why are they running away so fast?" we see a herd of gazelles in the binoculars - running in very slow motion.

The cast performs very well given the limitations of the script and story. The only acting disasters belong to the nevertheless likable Amira Moustafa (who had a remarkably short career). Many of the other actors were veteran character actors, or on their ways to becoming so.

What the film fails to do, despite a fairly strong effort, is to generate any sense of drama or urgency. Nevertheless, it is not a complete mess, and the stock footage is actually quite nice!

Jean Preston travels with her intended father-in-law, friend Wayne Monroe, and a milquetoast professor to the Middle East to find her fiancé who disappeared when his safari was attacked. Jean's movements are shadowed which leads to the death of a native who knows where and what purpose the safari was to meet. She learns he was last seen at a point in Africa and plans to trek into the jungle with guide Gary Lambert (who resents traveling with a woman in the jungle) and a cook Gabby. Lambert also takes the journey since the safari was searching for ivory poachers and after being attacked, Wayne is mysteriously killed, and the safari is led off course on occasions,and Jean later begins to suspect someone into the troupe is sabotaging the traveler's efforts. Eventually the safari makes its way to the village where Greg (Jean's fiancé) is, which is an all white woman group, the only survivors of a shipwreck, and Greg and Zita, chief of the Amazonian tribe, have fallen in love. Will Jean be able to cope, as well as survive, with the safari attacks by a hostile group of natives led by the mysterious leader? The movie started off well with nice mysterious angles to the story, but after the 12 minute mark, it turned into every minute of new footage is three of stock footage, which rarely matched what was being filmed and served no purpose but to pad the film (and unintentionally bore the audience). The script was predictable, the mystery villain was sure simple to figure, acting wooden, and has an ending to make anyone groan. Rating, based on B movies, 2.

I just watched this film on my computer at work (on my lunch break). What I find amazing is how a whole movie could be constructed around some African safari stock footage and still be entertaining in a junky way. The 1940's stock character actors do their best to put the plot across and for me it works as a grade B campfest. The men are either handsome and stalwart or older and rather dithering and the women look great in that 1940's glamor sort of way. I love that all the jungle amazons look like they stepped out of a Hollywood beauty parlor in full make up. The action scenes are hilariously hokey and you'll have fun pointing out the mistakes in continuity. As the way to pass an hour I prefer this kind of fun trash to some TV reality show or CSI Wherever.

I saw this film on the science fiction classics DVD set, but knew that there would likely not be much science fictional in it -- after noting that it also contains "prehysterical" women or the Sons of Hercules films. There was a "bugologist" and some lessons in anthropology, which were quite fictional, even some unexpected dancing and poetry. It was fun, if like me you happen to like these kind of movies with corny, old-fashion, happy endings -- especially after a hard day's work thinking. The monkey and the raven did seem to be the most interesting actors, especially the monkey.

There is even a serious side. It certainly reminds one of how things have changed since then in that then it was against the law to sell ivory without giving the colonial power its cut, while now it's supposedly illegal to do so to anyone at all.