5/10
Stereotyped characters mar fine performance from cat
8 May 2015
Warning: Spoilers
To be fair, I went into this with something less than an open mind; I was always going to be rooting for the tiger, maneater or not. However, it wasn't hard to maintain my stance, given the lack of any single human character herein who doesn't quickly wear out their screen-welcome and have you baying for their blood.

There are a couple of good scenes, most notably one in which villagers drive the tiger towards the hunters using elephants and making a god awful racket with drums and horns, and the tiger itself exudes charisma (sadly lacking in it's human co-stars) each time it appears.

The love affair between Stewart Granger and Anne Rush, which takes up much screen time including a lengthy flashback sequence, is one reason the film never crackles into life, but there is another factor which puts the fire out altogether.

Child star Martin Stephens plays possibly the most simperingly irritating cute kid I've ever encountered. More sickeningly sugar coated than an Elvis Christmas album, he makes Hamchunk from The Green Berets look like John Wayne from The Green Berets. How I prayed for the tiger to tear him apart every time he appeared on screen.

So anyway, Stewart and his faithful Indian sidekick ("as long as I am at your side, Mr Harry") eventually of course kill the tiger, Granger loves and loses the girl, and to cap it all off the cute kid cutely asks for and receives the tigers skin as a souvenir of his beloved Harry.

Despite these complaints, I did enjoy some of this film, the location shooting and the shots of the tiger especially, and would say it's definitely worth watching once.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed