User Reviews

This Henry Hathaway-directed jungle adventure was well past its sell-by date in 1967, and now plays like some bizarro parallel universe cinematic representation of Africa: even the baldly propagandistic South African films of the '70s and '80s were based in a firmer reality than The Last Safari! Stewart Granger plays Miles Gilchrist, an old-fashioned great white hunter bemoaning the arrival of snotty rich tourists who are sullying the sport of kings (shooting animals). The tourists are personified by Casey (charisma-free Kaz Garas), a crude and brash American who wants to go on a great adventure with Miles. Personality clashes ensue, but not before Casey plays chicken with a rhino and spends an evening in a night club listening to a very strange musical act, which seems to consist of Masai tribesmen playing a blend of western jazz and Afrobeat. At least their music is better than John Dankworth's miserably dull score. The only watchable element of this colonialist fantasy is beautiful Gabriella Licudi as the worldly young woman who accompanies Casey on his adventures.

This film was actually my introduction to Stewart Granger, an actor I've never really seen too much in other films (I just read the Wikipedia biography of him today, at least 40 years after I first saw this film!).

While I've never actually seen all of this movie from the beginning, while growing up it came on enough times on television that I eventually saw at least 90% of it (if not more) -- more than enough to go beyond the basic plot, though I've never seen it straight through.

It is not a masterpiece, but it is certainly less annoying that most of Hollywood's films regarding the "dark continent" throughout Hollywood's long history, which were (and are) almost all ridden with clichés' about it and her people, and which has rarely (until recently, say, as in LeCarre's "The Constant Gardener") come close to transcending a completely naive, Euro-centric mentality (unless it is going very self- consciously in the other direction, straining to be ridiculously in "awe" of the natives, straining all credibility).

Instead, Granger neither depicts a man who live up to one's worst expectations of the "white hunter," nor is in a role where he must be as brave or good as Tarzan -- but is instead quite easy to love and respect, even if he's a bit grizzled and "rough around the edges." Hardly a "heroic" character in this, he is nonetheless far more believable -- cut down to a much more acceptable size than the usual, stereotypical white, European protagonist, whether good or evil.

I personally think he does quite well in this role, and have always liked, above all, Granger's "natural" acting, despite being schooled on the stage - where there's always a need to exaggerate somewhat just to be noticed - before transitioning to film.

I also always liked the basic theme in this movie (which is that he - an old and experienced hand at wild game hunting - meets a superficial playboy while on an African Safari who, despite his obnoxious - and rather hilarious pretensions - nonetheless is quite likable in his childishness, and thus ends up maturing toward the end of the film).

One of the charms of this "old movie" is that this was filmed before Africa -and the world for the matter - had really started going completely, and utterly, to seed (as it has since), yet was made after Hollywood had begun to finally mature a little - at least enough to go beyond its former stereotypes. Those stereotypes were mainly two: 1) the old Tarzan & Jane stereotypes (with their endless battles with greedy white men in pith helmets and khaki clothes. Though very endearing, these films were just too simplistic beyond childhood). On the other extreme, Hollywood films often depicted Africa as a completely "savage" place with only "jungle bunnies" as her inhabitants (though, of course, this was never explicitly stated, being too obviously racist for "liberal" tinsel town), versus the always-more- enlightened "Euros." Rather, the relationships in this film are more realistic and natural than what you might expect.

Yes, the scenery is beautiful, but not overdone. Most movies of Africa overdo the scenery bit. It is that Hollywood penchant for self- conscious, over-glorification of quite natural surroundings which instead of evoking appreciation, instead is often very annoying, as in "look at this!" and "look at that!" and "isn't this exotic!" or "isn't that lush and beautiful!" It is nice when filmmakers don't treat their audiences all like five year old kids, or go overboard showing what is left of our over-exploited earth. Most films of Africa that depict its beauty remind me of Robert Pirsig's comment in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" about how Yellowstone got on his nerves. He explains how it was because it was just too obviously like a framed picture on the wall, saying, "look at me." That is . . . nature separated from the rest of the society rather than integrated into it (tree lined streets, for example, or large sturdy arbors with lush festooned vines over box-store parking lots, for example). There's nothing wrong with parks, of course, including Yellowstone, but let's also have more appreciation of nature in the rest of society rather than this endless pretense . . .

Likewise, the Africans are depicted quite naturally, embodied especially in the actor playing Granger's helper/guide. He is neither depicted as an exceptional survivor of "the aftermath of colonial rule," nor as some sort of pathetic victim of white man's greed - (even though he meets a tragic end)- but simply as a professional (or semi professional) hunter's guide, and who could just as well been white (though he certainly is not an "oreo cookie" either (black on the outside, white on the inside.

In other words, this was post Tarzan, post "King Kong" and post much else, thank god!

I realize I might appear as overdoing to praise a bit (for indeed, this isn't, as I said, some lost, priceless masterpiece that will floor you), but it is unique. And it is the understated nature of this film that I like. It wasn't trying to be anything more than what it was. And even if Stewart Granger himself wasn't particularly proud of it, I still like it, and always will.

I find that the character of Grant, Casey's paid companion, to be the singular most annoying and detracting element of this film. She appears in the first 1/2 of this picture and her smug, hip- swinging, one-dimensional portrait of a mixed-race paid companion is amateurish at its best, almost unbearable at its worst. One wonders why millionaire Casey couldn't find someone much nicer. The second half is when the picture picks up. We leave the sobbing, overacting Grant behind and venture into the savanna with two men intent on conquering their separate obsessions. I have always thought Stewart Granger was an underrated actor. Previous reviews had criticized his performance in this picture as sleepwalking, or barely there. My opinion is different. I feel that his characterization is spot on -- he is portraying a man who fancies himself in total control over all he surveys -- the animals, "his" natives, and himself most of all. Thus, the one thing in his past that he could not control is the one thing he has to kill. Then, of all things, he could not do it. It was a moment of more than just self- awareness -- it was self-acceptance.

BTW, Granger only made three "great white hunter" pictures -- King Solomon's Mines (the main plot of which has him hunting treasure, not animals), Harry Black and the Tiger (obsessively hunting one tiger and one ex-wife), and this film. Also, The Last Safari is not a "jungle" picture as has been stated. It takes place on the East African savannas.