Golden Ivory

British western set in Kenya in 1890. Two brothers who are hunters join a caravan inland to Masai country looking for the legendary meeting place of elephants.

It follows the normal western storyline, that is, of a group in search of something (in this case ivory), betrayal and intrigue, a few encounters with animals, someone important dies unexpectedly, and a romance with a young ingenue.

Susan Stephen has a bit of a surprise for the boys in the cinema.

Yes, the title is not only misleading but downright inaccurate. Two brothers take an extended family out into the dangerous Masai country in East Africa to make a small settlement and become fast friends with the powerful natives. Along the way a romance develops with the leading man Robert Urquhart( a workmanlike actor and performance) and a young lady whose parents were killed by other natives. We get a lot here with African wildlife playing a fairly significant part and being believably presented. The acting is overall decent and the story not terribly bad. What does all this add up to? A rather banal and bland film. The film did manage to hold my attention enough though, and I was somewhat interested in some of the characters and the story. The final story with the brothers reminded me much of what happens between the two brothers in Lost Horizon. The direction is nothing short of average at its best moments but never descends into amateur hour either.

After receiving some information from a dying explorer. Two brothers set off in the search of an elephant graveyard for its highly priced ivory, but along the way they stumble by a small band of English settlers planning to farm and settle somewhere in the East Africa plains. They hire the two hunters as their guides, and unknowingly to the settlers, they secretly lead them in the dangerous direction (which is filled with deadly wildlife and unwelcoming natives) to eventually get their wealthy payout. However could a woman come between the goals of the brothers?

A Tarzan movie without Tarzan? Where's the man when you need him. Well it might have been far more interesting if he did appear, than the lacklustre and very sluggish effort we got here. Everything about it is misleading. Namely the film's eye-catching tag line; "White woman vs. deadly python." Where was my lady vs. snake sequence? Oh there was something along those lines, but really was that it. Talk about lousy. Not that I think this was a bad movie, but instead a frustrating one that promises something it didn't deliver. Forget about that tempting cover-artwork too. Director George P. Breakston goes onto fulfil a technically flat (just look at the attack sequences involving snakes and "blood-thirsty" natives) and fundamental job without the slightest sense of energy or inspiration. What seem like it was going to be some tacky, cheap fun became a drawn-out, colourless and polite jungle adventure. Chuck in for good measure is the usual animal stock footage one sees in these early safari presentations. Writer Dermot Quinn predictably pens a rather limp script of little surprises and scrap together a basic plot that equals a terribly bumpy trek. The performances don't hurt, but no one really stands out and everyone basically gets lost in not very well presented background features. The African setting is far from enticing, and unattractively framed, but I found the wildlife captivating enough. Maybe they should have centred on it and turned into a documentary. Some odd scenes are played for a comical effect, with lesser results and the more serious moments is where I found myself snickering.

The USA title of "White Huntress" is way off base. The movie has nothing to do with a white female hunter. The title "Golden Ivory" isn't much better. You don't actually see any ivory either. What the movie does have is some African scenery, and wildlife, a little romance, some natives and a simple story line. There is very little excitement or action even by the standards of 1957. This is a very low budget black and white movie of relatively poor film quality. The purpose of the movie was to make an action adventure movie but it fails on many levels. The story is fairly simple. In 1890 a small band of white settlers set out into the interior of British East Africa with the purpose of establishing a farm. They hire two brothers, seasoned hunters as guides. The brothers real goal is to find a legendary gathering place of elephants and make it rich from the ivory. The two men fall for the same woman, in come some hostile natives, a few wild animals and a man who was searching for gold. It sounds like this could have been a winner but it's just a yawner. There are no big man vs wild animal hunting scenes. They are very plain and simple. The tagline is white woman vs. deadly python. There is no actual fight between woman and snake. This is a very tame and to be honest, boring movie. Like most movies, ignore the action cover art. It has no link to reality. It certainly isn't anywhere near the worst movie I've seen but it's so blah you'll feel like you wasted your time.

Quick and colourful African western concerning English settlers getting to grips with the perils of native Kenya. Essentially a glorified faunalogue in which reluctant hunters on horseback stalk the savanna in search of game, whilst mild romantic undertones simmer in the background.

Urquhart is the more amiable of the contracted hunters, trying his best to manage his alcoholic brother (Dobson) and the attentions of a nubile female passenger (Stephen, whose rather revealing moment bathing in a river late in the movie appears to have been missed in the editing room). Local beauty Maureen Connell also appears in her film debut before becoming an occasional female lead in Britain in the late 50s.

Tussles with leopards, lions and snakes offset by lighthearted moments admiring giraffe and tree monkeys, but there's tension on the horizon as the intrepid adventurers attempt to cross a treacherous river and must survive local tribes unhappy with colonialist encroachment.

Economical British safari is generally well acted standard fare, akin to any number of traditional second-bill westerns of the 50s, although there's an unexpected twist at the climax before justice is served. No frills, just the usual threats punctuated by inert-looking wildlife and tepid romance.