I see that TUSKS gets panned across the board but I actually didn't find it too bad. The plot is reminiscent of a Wilbur Smith novel and involves a couple of game wardens, one of whom has a vendetta against the other due to a historical incident that saw him jailed for a crime he believes he didn't commit. John Rhys-Davies bizarrely plays a character of Indian descent here and although his ethnicity is off, his larger than life persona is fun. Andrew Stevens is the slightly wooden hero. A lot of the running time features cruelty towards elephants which makes it rather hard-hitting, but there's also character work and woman-in-peril situations too. Far from the best I've seen, but it held the attention reasonably well.
5 Reviews
Elephant Dung Smells Better Than This Crud!
Zantara Xenophobe4 September 2001
Warning: Spoilers
This review has some SPOILERS in it. Do not read if you plan on seeing this movie.
It is shocking to think that in the late 70's and early 80's, Andrew Stevens was one of America's hottest young movie stars. Then, about thirteen years ago, his fire fizzled ,and he has done nothing but cheap, sleazy B movies, usually along the lines of those bad `Night Eyes' films. I think that `Tusks' was the first sign that something was dreadfully wrong with Stevens's career. I didn't watch `Tusks' so I could write a review and pan Stevens, but I watched it because I saw the name John Rhys-Davies in the opening credits. He was both the star and the writer. John Rhys-Davies is a wonderful actor, and I love seeing him perform. Even if he is in an utterly terrible movie, like `Cyborg Cop,' Rhys-Davies is able to shine, whether he is the good guy or the bad guy. But in this one, he is just as bad as everyone else.
The movie opens with a scene that will set up the rest of the tension. Stevens and Rhys-Davies are African safari tour guides leading a wealthy client on a private expedition. A wild animal crashes the party and Rhys-Davies tries to kill it, but instead he kills the client by mistake. We jump to the present, and Rhys-Davies is just getting out of prison for the killing and is set on turning to a life of poaching elephants. Stevens has become a game warden, and the tension between the two is immediate when they meet again. Then things get really bad as the non-acting Lucy Gutteridge enters the movie. She is some sort of conversationalist who goes to Africa to see boyfriend Stevens and to speak out against poachers. After a series of boring scenes, Rhys-Davies kidnaps Gutteridge and uses her as bait to lure Stevens into a fight to the death. A large chunk of `Tusks' is filled with stock footage of African wildlife standing around, doing little. Funny thing is, the stock footage is actually the best part of the movie. Those elephants that we see are far more entertaining and interesting than the cast of characters. There is plenty of things wrong with `Tusks,' and here are just a few points:
* The tension between Stevens and Rhys-Davies is laughable. For instance, the two have a horribly choreographed fist fight. Not only is it poorly filmed, but it leads to nothing but a disappointing end.
* Stevens claims that Rhys-Davies shot the client on purpose. Rhys-Davies claims it was an accident and that Stevens was wrong for testifying against him. Who was right? Was Rhys-Davies a victim of his former friend and the judicial system, or was he a cold-blooded murderer all along? I don't think the film cares what the answer to the question is. Too bad, because it might have helped make things a little more interesting.
* There is a stupid `mystery' about why elephants are wandering on private land where they can be shot. When Stevens uncovers the not-so-surprising solution, you would think the movie would be near completion. Alas, it drags on and on and on, as Stevens chases and chases and chases Rhys-Davies and his kidnapped girlfriend.
* There are plenty of moments where the script hammers in the fact that Rhys-Davies is cold to life. He guns down stock footage of elephants for the heck of it. He just leaves the carcass lying in the wilderness to rot. As a poacher, he knows the value of ivory, yet he doesn't even bother to take the tusks! This happens far too many times.
* When Stevens gets Gutteridge back, they are attacked by a wild animal. Stevens shoots it to get it off their case. Completely out of character, Gutteridge emotionlessly says, `I am glad you killed it.' This is someone who was crying five minutes earlier after an elephant was shot. I know the situation is different, but still..
* The ending is simply dreadful. I think this movie's final five seconds are the worst in film history. I am not kidding. Watch it for yourself if you don't believe me, as I would love to discuss it someone. Sure, there are bad endings, like `Nail Gun Massacre,' but none are as sudden and stupid as this one, and this one makes you feel completely empty.
Other than seeing Rhys-Davies do a poor job, I can't imagine why anyone would want to see `Tusks.' Stock footage of the elephants is the only good thing about it, and I am sure Animal Planet has more than enough for animal lovers. But the people that turn on `Tusks' expecting to find a good adventure movie will be continuously be scraping the dung that is `Tusks' off the bottom of their shoes. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10
It is shocking to think that in the late 70's and early 80's, Andrew Stevens was one of America's hottest young movie stars. Then, about thirteen years ago, his fire fizzled ,and he has done nothing but cheap, sleazy B movies, usually along the lines of those bad `Night Eyes' films. I think that `Tusks' was the first sign that something was dreadfully wrong with Stevens's career. I didn't watch `Tusks' so I could write a review and pan Stevens, but I watched it because I saw the name John Rhys-Davies in the opening credits. He was both the star and the writer. John Rhys-Davies is a wonderful actor, and I love seeing him perform. Even if he is in an utterly terrible movie, like `Cyborg Cop,' Rhys-Davies is able to shine, whether he is the good guy or the bad guy. But in this one, he is just as bad as everyone else.
The movie opens with a scene that will set up the rest of the tension. Stevens and Rhys-Davies are African safari tour guides leading a wealthy client on a private expedition. A wild animal crashes the party and Rhys-Davies tries to kill it, but instead he kills the client by mistake. We jump to the present, and Rhys-Davies is just getting out of prison for the killing and is set on turning to a life of poaching elephants. Stevens has become a game warden, and the tension between the two is immediate when they meet again. Then things get really bad as the non-acting Lucy Gutteridge enters the movie. She is some sort of conversationalist who goes to Africa to see boyfriend Stevens and to speak out against poachers. After a series of boring scenes, Rhys-Davies kidnaps Gutteridge and uses her as bait to lure Stevens into a fight to the death. A large chunk of `Tusks' is filled with stock footage of African wildlife standing around, doing little. Funny thing is, the stock footage is actually the best part of the movie. Those elephants that we see are far more entertaining and interesting than the cast of characters. There is plenty of things wrong with `Tusks,' and here are just a few points:
* The tension between Stevens and Rhys-Davies is laughable. For instance, the two have a horribly choreographed fist fight. Not only is it poorly filmed, but it leads to nothing but a disappointing end.
* Stevens claims that Rhys-Davies shot the client on purpose. Rhys-Davies claims it was an accident and that Stevens was wrong for testifying against him. Who was right? Was Rhys-Davies a victim of his former friend and the judicial system, or was he a cold-blooded murderer all along? I don't think the film cares what the answer to the question is. Too bad, because it might have helped make things a little more interesting.
* There is a stupid `mystery' about why elephants are wandering on private land where they can be shot. When Stevens uncovers the not-so-surprising solution, you would think the movie would be near completion. Alas, it drags on and on and on, as Stevens chases and chases and chases Rhys-Davies and his kidnapped girlfriend.
* There are plenty of moments where the script hammers in the fact that Rhys-Davies is cold to life. He guns down stock footage of elephants for the heck of it. He just leaves the carcass lying in the wilderness to rot. As a poacher, he knows the value of ivory, yet he doesn't even bother to take the tusks! This happens far too many times.
* When Stevens gets Gutteridge back, they are attacked by a wild animal. Stevens shoots it to get it off their case. Completely out of character, Gutteridge emotionlessly says, `I am glad you killed it.' This is someone who was crying five minutes earlier after an elephant was shot. I know the situation is different, but still..
* The ending is simply dreadful. I think this movie's final five seconds are the worst in film history. I am not kidding. Watch it for yourself if you don't believe me, as I would love to discuss it someone. Sure, there are bad endings, like `Nail Gun Massacre,' but none are as sudden and stupid as this one, and this one makes you feel completely empty.
Other than seeing Rhys-Davies do a poor job, I can't imagine why anyone would want to see `Tusks.' Stock footage of the elephants is the only good thing about it, and I am sure Animal Planet has more than enough for animal lovers. But the people that turn on `Tusks' expecting to find a good adventure movie will be continuously be scraping the dung that is `Tusks' off the bottom of their shoes. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10
Misguided actioner
lor_26 May 2023
My review was written in August 1990 after watching the movie on Magnum video cassette.
"Tusks" is a five-year-old actioner about wild game poaching that is embarrassingly inept in terms of script and execution. Lame duck video release has little merit.
Pic was lensed in 1985 in Zimbabwe with the title "Fire in Eden" and had mucho post-production tinkering, credited to Gotham film doctor Simon Nuchtern. Hodge-podge of footage doesn't make sense and ends, as do many direct-to-video features, with an abrupt, irritating fadeout that would cause theatrical influences to throw things at the screen.
Toplined Lucy Gutteridge plays an artist who heads to the fictional African nation Sekomo to join pal Julian Glover in fighting against despoilers of wildlife. She immediately antagonizes ex-con John Rhys-Davies by castigating him in an airport interview as an evil poacher responsible for wiping out the rhino population.
Filmmaker Tara Moore's production problems surface rapidly in the nonmatch of a key prolog with the main action. Pic opens with Andrew Stevens and Rhys-Davies as buddies left with a corpse on their hands when mean hunter James Coburn Junior is killed by a charging buffalo. In the film proper they're depicted four years later as deadly adversaries, each supposedly having accused the other of murdering Coburn.
Though Rhys-Davies is credited as co-scripter with More, his character is an unplayable mass of contradictions -sympathetic one scene, heinous the next. He's portrayed as a victim of racism (of mixed British, Indian and Arab ancestry) yet only interested in killing hundreds of elephants for a fast buck. It's a blemish on an otherwise impressive character actor's career.
Film's melodramatic approach has nothing to say about the real issue of endangered species on this planet. In fact, pic's real bad guy turns out to be a militant conservationist whose Machiavellian approach to advancing his cause includes murder and manipulating the other characters.
"Tusks" features some okay wildlife footage, but it's not adequately integrated to shots of the main actors. Too often Gutteridge and Stevens are just intercut with shots of elephants. Fadeout has them clinching with a shot ringing out seemingly killing one, a groaner that's truly insulting.
"Tusks" is a five-year-old actioner about wild game poaching that is embarrassingly inept in terms of script and execution. Lame duck video release has little merit.
Pic was lensed in 1985 in Zimbabwe with the title "Fire in Eden" and had mucho post-production tinkering, credited to Gotham film doctor Simon Nuchtern. Hodge-podge of footage doesn't make sense and ends, as do many direct-to-video features, with an abrupt, irritating fadeout that would cause theatrical influences to throw things at the screen.
Toplined Lucy Gutteridge plays an artist who heads to the fictional African nation Sekomo to join pal Julian Glover in fighting against despoilers of wildlife. She immediately antagonizes ex-con John Rhys-Davies by castigating him in an airport interview as an evil poacher responsible for wiping out the rhino population.
Filmmaker Tara Moore's production problems surface rapidly in the nonmatch of a key prolog with the main action. Pic opens with Andrew Stevens and Rhys-Davies as buddies left with a corpse on their hands when mean hunter James Coburn Junior is killed by a charging buffalo. In the film proper they're depicted four years later as deadly adversaries, each supposedly having accused the other of murdering Coburn.
Though Rhys-Davies is credited as co-scripter with More, his character is an unplayable mass of contradictions -sympathetic one scene, heinous the next. He's portrayed as a victim of racism (of mixed British, Indian and Arab ancestry) yet only interested in killing hundreds of elephants for a fast buck. It's a blemish on an otherwise impressive character actor's career.
Film's melodramatic approach has nothing to say about the real issue of endangered species on this planet. In fact, pic's real bad guy turns out to be a militant conservationist whose Machiavellian approach to advancing his cause includes murder and manipulating the other characters.
"Tusks" features some okay wildlife footage, but it's not adequately integrated to shots of the main actors. Too often Gutteridge and Stevens are just intercut with shots of elephants. Fadeout has them clinching with a shot ringing out seemingly killing one, a groaner that's truly insulting.
MIKAH HILL
nogodnomasters24 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
John Rhys-Davies plays Roger Singh who receives a racial slur associating him with the black race, something the make-up people didn't exactly follow through with. It was less convincing than Sean Connery as a Russian. He is a bad guy and a poacher in a film where there is a fine line between poaching, legal hunting, and protecting your crops from elephants. Micah Hill (Lucy Gutteridge) is an American painter who has painted a rather dull painting with elephants that everyone raves about. She is going to meet with the president of South Africa and who knows. She is here on a visit which also includes Mark Smith played by Andrew Stevens, who got roles that David Hasselhoff turned down.
The movie goes into a contest of Mark vs. Roger, save the elephants etc.
I am sure the film had more meaning in its age than it does now. The writing was horrible. The opening scene had noticeably spliced footage of a buffalo running around and guys in trees. . . shades of Ed Wood.
Guide: F-bomb. Nudity (Lucy Gutteridge)
The movie goes into a contest of Mark vs. Roger, save the elephants etc.
I am sure the film had more meaning in its age than it does now. The writing was horrible. The opening scene had noticeably spliced footage of a buffalo running around and guys in trees. . . shades of Ed Wood.
Guide: F-bomb. Nudity (Lucy Gutteridge)
Looks great, but is otherwise terrible
Wizard-88 June 2015
You may know John Rhys-Davies as an actor, but you may not know that, for one time at least, he co-wrote a movie screenplay. "Tusks" is that movie, of course, and it explains why his character in the movie is a successful ladies' man and gets a lot more screen time than the protagonists. But despite all this, Davies seems to be performing on autopilot. Maybe he sensed upon filming that the story for the movie is an absolute bore. It takes more than half of this one hundred minute movie to fully set up the crisis of the movie, and that first portion of the movie is slow, endless, and pretty much action free. The remaining running time isn't that much better. The only thing that stopped me from pressing the stop button on my DVD remote was the African scenery, which looks nice especially since it's also well photographed. The only other possible thing the movie has to offer for viewers is the chance to see James Coburn's son in an acting role, though his part lasts only for a few minutes.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
