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.
10 Reviews
It's a blah movie.
ChuckStraub13 March 2006
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.
Talk about a let down.
lost-in-limbo1 June 2007
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.
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.
Seen on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater in 1964
kevinolzak6 December 2009
"The White Huntress" (original British title "Golden Ivory") was shot on location in Kenya in 1954, and first released in the US in 1957. While it is true that the American ad campaign was misleading, there is a brief (one minute) sequence which features a huge python crawling across the neck of our sleeping heroine (Susan Stephan), who calmly reaches for her knife and stabs the reptile to death. I went in expecting little, but I must say that it didn't bore me, simply accepting it for what it is. Scriptwise, there's nothing we haven't seen before, but the location shooting makes for a more authentic African adventure than Hollywood could ever muster, and there appears to be no stock footage that's been seen in countless cheapies before or since. The two brothers do lead the settlers into danger, but only the good one (Robert Urquhart) falls for the heroine, the other too preoccupied with booze and greed to notice much beyond fool's gold. I would surmise that most viewers may wish that the filmmakers had concentrated on the behind-the-scenes action that resulted in a movie that few people would have wanted to see. This appears to be one of those color films that saw TV exposure only in cheaply done black and white prints, until the advent of full time color resulted in these titles falling into even greater obscurity. That is also the reason why this, and other color films like "Manfish" (1955), are only available today in B/W. "The White Huntress" aired just once on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater, as the first feature on November 14 1964 (paired with 1957's "Blood of Dracula").
The Message of the African Outback
The_Dying_Flutchman14 October 2011
"Displaced Australians roaming the range of the east Kenyan outback, their noble brumbies riding hard" this could have been the headline of this flick's advertisement appearing in any country's 1950's newspaper. Richard Urquhart, a Scotish actor and presenter of civil defense bulletins, in real life, finds himself hitching up the oxen of actress Susan Stephen, whose best supporting role came as the once wife of Brit film director Nicholas Roeg. They and a stumbling band of covered wagoners wander across the Kenyan hinterlands. This is Masai country and they make a serviceable stand-in for Apaches as this is a transported Western. Instead of a cattle drive, they are searching for the Blood Butte, a kind of netherworld of dead Masai warriors. Why is never made clear. The countryside is filled with the usual animal terrors including snakes, hyenas and fights between various beasties. This is a tough place, unfit for a white woman, let alone a white huntress, which is nowhere to be found. The one young white gal keeps wandering off into the bush for various reasons none of which are entertaining or meaningful.
"The white man is master" as one of the men utters, is the true message of the African outback: everything must be tamed, made safe for future family outings on Sunday afternoons. The natives, naturally, don't like this message, but as we all know too well, this land is ours for the taking.
"White Huntress" is a tired rip off of the "King Solomon's Mines" routine and a mumble fest of multinational accents. Perhaps, a tad better than swimming in a barrel of hammer head sharks, but not by much.
"The white man is master" as one of the men utters, is the true message of the African outback: everything must be tamed, made safe for future family outings on Sunday afternoons. The natives, naturally, don't like this message, but as we all know too well, this land is ours for the taking.
"White Huntress" is a tired rip off of the "King Solomon's Mines" routine and a mumble fest of multinational accents. Perhaps, a tad better than swimming in a barrel of hammer head sharks, but not by much.
Good cinematography
malcolmgsw2 June 2019
Not even Susan Stephen's charms can enliven this
gingerninjasz27 July 2023
I first heard of this a couple of years ago, mainly due to the fact it features Susan Stephen in it. Originally released as Golden Ivory in 1954, it later changed it's name to the less apt White Huntress when it was bought up by American International Pictures and released as part of a double feature with Naked Africa in 1957 to corner the sexploitation market. There is a reason why they bought this up (I'll get to that later on), but bizarrely they released it in B&W and cut 15 minutes from the film. The original full length colour version is hard to come by, but I was fortunate enough to come across it. However, if you are expecting a daring and risque film, you are going to be severely disappointed.
Indeed, this is one of those average adventure films that they used to churn out in the day. The story starts intriguingly enough when a chap staggers across the African landscape to a hut where he collapses and dies holding a parchment. The native who finds him shows it to two brothers, Jim and Paul Dobson (Robert Urquhart and John Bentley), who realize it gives details of an elephant graveyard where precious ivory can be found to make their fortune. Soon after they latch themselves onto a party of settlers who are going across Kenya to set up a new life and offer to help lead them over the dangerous terrain. Their real intentions are clear: they are plotting to find the elephant graveyard, but a spanner is thrown into the works when brother Jim falls for the daughter of one of the settlers, Ruth Meecham (Susan Stephen) and his focus becomes more on her and the settlers safety.
Already there are some features that will grate with modern audiences. A story of ivory hunters would certainly be frowned upon today, as would the pioneers going out into Africa to find a new life in someone else's country, and the settlers attitude to the natives and the uprising Masai rebels, who are a little peeved about them claiming parts of their land for themselves. But in watching old films viewers should remember that it is portraying a part of life in history, whether good or bad - just the same as many who happily watched TV series like Rome or Spartacus where those pesky Romans colonized other countries and kept slaves. As it is, the main problem they should complain about this film is that it is just so dull! The film is only 1hr 20mins long, but it feels longer. Along the way the group encounters a number of dangers, including tiger and snake attacks, a couple of native uprisings, plus the arrival of Mr Seth (Alan Tarlton), a mysterious stranger who tells a story of surviving a massacre, but who leaves the viewer uncertain whether to trust him or not. But each incident feels like a set piece, like going from A to B, and a couple of these incidents look a little comical - especially the scene where Mr Seth wrestles with a deadly snake (Tarzan, eat your heart out!). And speaking of snakes, one of the film's posters features a woman wrestling with a giant snake, but the reality in the film is somewhat more tame compared to the poster. Yes, Susan Stephen does encounter a snake in a scene where it crawls over her while sleeping, but she makes short work of killing it (probably later turning it into a fashionable handbag). It's not the only time she encounters a snake in the film, but both times she is more than prepared to tackle it herself rather than wait for a man to rescue her. Indeed, she gets stuck into whatever Africa has to throw at her, and is as equally comfortable shooting Masai rebels as she is in dealing with deadly animals. The film deserves some credit for portraying independent women, and all of the women in the film are equally adept at looking after themselves - an interesting premise in 1954.
And speaking of snakes, Susan Stephen also encounters bad brother Paul (John Bentley), who forces his attentions onto her in one scene after preventing her from tackling a snake in a tree. Part of the film's selling point is a love triangle between Susan's character Ruth and the brothers Jim and Paul Dobson. But it's clear to see which one she will choose, even though there is very little spark between any of them. Robert Urquhart makes for a rather bland lead as Jim Dobson, while Susan herself doesn't offer much enthusiasm in her role of Ruth. That goes for much of the cast, who all go through the motions in a film that does much the same, with the notable exception being John Bentley as the far more interesting brother Paul. Considering that Bentley is better known for his hero roles as The Toff and Paul Temple, he is remarkably effective cast against type as the bad brother who has little qualms about seducing Ruth, stealing liquer from the wagons or even betraying the others in his bid to find the elephant graveyard. But even he cannot quite enliven this film. There is however one scene that will certainly generate interest and that is a midnight swim that Susan Stephen takes about an hour into the film. Although she is in her underwear, the result when she rises after being told that crocodiles are in the river is so see through that it leaves very little to the imagination! You don't expect to see that in a film from 1954 and even proved a selling point in one of the posters in a clinch with Robert Urquhart used to advertise the film. It is doubtless what American International Pictures saw when they bought up the film to sell as part of the sexploitation market, but apart from that scene there is very little else to get excited about in this film.
When not even Susan Stephen taking a revealing dip in the water can maintain interest in the film you know you are in trouble. Granted, it is a standard adventure film that does have moments of drama, and at least two of the settlers die on their way to Blood Mountain, just to show that the pioneers won't have it all their own way. But most of the cast perform as if they are half dead anyway, and if they can't really be enthused about appearing in this film then what hope does the audience have? For John Bentley fans, this offers an interesting performance against type. For Susan Stephen fans, there is that midnight dip. For everyone else, there is little else to recommend it. It's an average adventure yarn that makes the cardinal sin of being just too dull.
Indeed, this is one of those average adventure films that they used to churn out in the day. The story starts intriguingly enough when a chap staggers across the African landscape to a hut where he collapses and dies holding a parchment. The native who finds him shows it to two brothers, Jim and Paul Dobson (Robert Urquhart and John Bentley), who realize it gives details of an elephant graveyard where precious ivory can be found to make their fortune. Soon after they latch themselves onto a party of settlers who are going across Kenya to set up a new life and offer to help lead them over the dangerous terrain. Their real intentions are clear: they are plotting to find the elephant graveyard, but a spanner is thrown into the works when brother Jim falls for the daughter of one of the settlers, Ruth Meecham (Susan Stephen) and his focus becomes more on her and the settlers safety.
Already there are some features that will grate with modern audiences. A story of ivory hunters would certainly be frowned upon today, as would the pioneers going out into Africa to find a new life in someone else's country, and the settlers attitude to the natives and the uprising Masai rebels, who are a little peeved about them claiming parts of their land for themselves. But in watching old films viewers should remember that it is portraying a part of life in history, whether good or bad - just the same as many who happily watched TV series like Rome or Spartacus where those pesky Romans colonized other countries and kept slaves. As it is, the main problem they should complain about this film is that it is just so dull! The film is only 1hr 20mins long, but it feels longer. Along the way the group encounters a number of dangers, including tiger and snake attacks, a couple of native uprisings, plus the arrival of Mr Seth (Alan Tarlton), a mysterious stranger who tells a story of surviving a massacre, but who leaves the viewer uncertain whether to trust him or not. But each incident feels like a set piece, like going from A to B, and a couple of these incidents look a little comical - especially the scene where Mr Seth wrestles with a deadly snake (Tarzan, eat your heart out!). And speaking of snakes, one of the film's posters features a woman wrestling with a giant snake, but the reality in the film is somewhat more tame compared to the poster. Yes, Susan Stephen does encounter a snake in a scene where it crawls over her while sleeping, but she makes short work of killing it (probably later turning it into a fashionable handbag). It's not the only time she encounters a snake in the film, but both times she is more than prepared to tackle it herself rather than wait for a man to rescue her. Indeed, she gets stuck into whatever Africa has to throw at her, and is as equally comfortable shooting Masai rebels as she is in dealing with deadly animals. The film deserves some credit for portraying independent women, and all of the women in the film are equally adept at looking after themselves - an interesting premise in 1954.
And speaking of snakes, Susan Stephen also encounters bad brother Paul (John Bentley), who forces his attentions onto her in one scene after preventing her from tackling a snake in a tree. Part of the film's selling point is a love triangle between Susan's character Ruth and the brothers Jim and Paul Dobson. But it's clear to see which one she will choose, even though there is very little spark between any of them. Robert Urquhart makes for a rather bland lead as Jim Dobson, while Susan herself doesn't offer much enthusiasm in her role of Ruth. That goes for much of the cast, who all go through the motions in a film that does much the same, with the notable exception being John Bentley as the far more interesting brother Paul. Considering that Bentley is better known for his hero roles as The Toff and Paul Temple, he is remarkably effective cast against type as the bad brother who has little qualms about seducing Ruth, stealing liquer from the wagons or even betraying the others in his bid to find the elephant graveyard. But even he cannot quite enliven this film. There is however one scene that will certainly generate interest and that is a midnight swim that Susan Stephen takes about an hour into the film. Although she is in her underwear, the result when she rises after being told that crocodiles are in the river is so see through that it leaves very little to the imagination! You don't expect to see that in a film from 1954 and even proved a selling point in one of the posters in a clinch with Robert Urquhart used to advertise the film. It is doubtless what American International Pictures saw when they bought up the film to sell as part of the sexploitation market, but apart from that scene there is very little else to get excited about in this film.
When not even Susan Stephen taking a revealing dip in the water can maintain interest in the film you know you are in trouble. Granted, it is a standard adventure film that does have moments of drama, and at least two of the settlers die on their way to Blood Mountain, just to show that the pioneers won't have it all their own way. But most of the cast perform as if they are half dead anyway, and if they can't really be enthused about appearing in this film then what hope does the audience have? For John Bentley fans, this offers an interesting performance against type. For Susan Stephen fans, there is that midnight dip. For everyone else, there is little else to recommend it. It's an average adventure yarn that makes the cardinal sin of being just too dull.
Uninteresting British production.
MonsterVision9913 January 2022
Dull "safari adventure" with no thrills, no excitement and no white huntress anywhere to be seen. It has competent action sequences but its overall a lackluster and disposable hack job.
Just a low budget B-flick released by American International with more lurid and interesting marketing that has nothing to do with the picture. It pales in comparison to other AIP productions and even other movies by the same director (The Manster is a much better film).
Just a low budget B-flick released by American International with more lurid and interesting marketing that has nothing to do with the picture. It pales in comparison to other AIP productions and even other movies by the same director (The Manster is a much better film).
Entertaining Safari Flick, Misleading Title
zimmered1 July 2005
While by no means the cream of the crop of safari adventure flicks such as the earlier Weissmuller Tarzan pictures or Hatari, "White Huntress" has its share of thrills and intrigue with a healthy amount of snake attacks and tribal warfare thrown in. The only real trouble one is bound to run into with this film is its curious lack of anything even remotely resembling a white huntress - no such character or plot twist exists in the film. I rented the DVD expected a jungle girl flick along the lines of the Nyoka vein, and although I was not terribly disappointed by the film I ended up watching, I cannot for the life of me figure out how it ended up with such a ridiculously misleading title. 7/10
Hello boys
dsewizzrd-1090611 August 2019
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.
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
