• 13th episode in the 1932-1933 Pepper Pot one-reel comedy series.
• Vitaphone production reel #1482

Bergen (playing Charlie’s uncle!) is flying his aeroplane "The Spiritof Ammonia" over Africa, with Charlie as passenger. Thanks to Charlie’smeddling, the plane runs out of fuel and has to land in the middle ofthe jungle. Of course some natives show up, played by African-Americanactors muttering "unga-bunga" dialogue. Charlie addresses one of thenatives as "Congorilla" (which was the title of another recentdocumentary film about Africa). At this point, I cringed and expectedto hear a lot of racist jokes. By the way, who invented the cliché ofthe cannibal leader who wears a top hat? Yes, the leader of thesecannibals is wearing a topper.

Amazingly enough, after setting up the usual racist stereotypes,"Africa Speaks – English" then subverts its own clichés. When thecannibal leader arrives, he speaks perfect English … in what’s meantto be a cultured British accent! He cheerfully explains that he onceate an Oxford professor who was passing through the neighbourhood.(Must be a Balliol man.)

There’s some cute dialogue here, when the natives invite Bergen over"for dinner" and he’s not quite sure how to take this. There’s onebizarre moment when Charlie McCarthy nervously asks the cannibal kingif he’s a vegetarian … since Charlie is made out of wood, we can’t besure what sort of answer he’s hoping for!

There’s more action than usual for a Bergen/McCarthy short, but we alsoget three separate shots of Charlie spinning his head all the way roundon his neck like Linda Blair, with a slide-whistle sound effect. (Thisisn’t funny the first time Charlie does it; it’s even less funny thethird time.) And of course there’s an unfunny gag about black peopleeating watermelon. But the payoff line (SPOILER COMING) is funny: thecannibal king explains to Edgar and Charlie that they’re in no dangerof being eaten, because they landed in the jungle on Friday … and "onFridays we only eat fish". I’ll recommend "Africa Speaks – English" asone of the better examples of vaudeville-style comedy captured on film.

Try not to get too hung up on the racial jokes, which really aren’t asvicious here as they are in many other films of this period

2) While these types of comedy shorts were popular in their day (1920's -1940's), I find many of them lacking when viewed in a modern context. Ido better with the Three Stooges than Laurel and Hardy and some of theothers, as the Stooges seem to have less of a racist component to theirshorts. Africa Speaks – English, has ventriloquist Edgar Bergen and hisdummy, Charlie McCarthy landing in Africa and dealing with cannibalswhen their plane runs out of gas.

There are some racist elements here too, but not nearly as bad as someI've seen. Charlie wondering if Edgar could get Amos and Andy on theradio is one such reference, as the A&A radio program may have been themost racist in American history.

That aside, I suppose it's the continuity problems that bug me the mostabout these shorts. Whether it is the low budget, lack of stock footagein the early days of movies, or that they just figured the audiences ofthe day somehow wouldn't notice, they put very little effort intotrying to get things right. In this case, Edgar and Charlie are flyingalong in an all white bi-plane with a radial engine. They do a quickjump cut and the next thing you know, their plane is now plopped downin the middle of the jungle with trees all around and no way it couldhave landed. The plane is completely undamaged and is now a single wingaircraft with a dark nose, thick stripes down the side, and no radialengine. That's just too big a leap for me to accept.

If you can get past all that, some of the dialog is fairly clever, andit's over before you get a chance to be very annoyed anyway.

3) This is a very pleasant short starring Edgar Bergen and his dummy,Charlie McCarthy. Compared to other films I've seen with Bergen, thisis among the very best, as it's a very pleasant little film.

Charlie and Edgar are flying above the African jungle when their planeruns out of gas. When they land, things look pretty hopeless untilnatives appear. But, their joy is short-lived, as these guys seem to becannibals–albeit, the most polite and pleasant cannibals in filmhistory! The jokes aren't too bad, the situation rather funny andcompared to most films of the 30s, the humor does not come off asracist–which it easily could have considering the times. Nothingparticularly inspired here but a good representation of Bergen at theheight of his long career.

• There is a scene where Bud Abbott and Lou Costello are talking in their tent and Joe Besser dashes into the tent, grabs a glass of water and dashes out again. He repeats this several times until Abbott stops him and asks why he’s so thirsty. Besser replies that he’s not thirsty, it’s that his tent is on fire. That was based on an incident in Costello’s childhood, when he accidentally set some clothes in his bedroom on fire. His father was in the living room, which was between the kitchen and Costello’s bedroom. Costello, not wanting to let his father know that he had set his room on fire, dashed back and forth between the kitchen and his bedroom with glasses of water until his father finally asked what was going on, whereupon Costello was forced to tell what he had done.
• Features the only on-screen pairing of Joe Besser and Shemp Howard, who were respectively considered the 4th and 5th members of the Three Stooges.

>>> WARNING: Here Be Spoilers <<<
Trivia items below here contain information that may give away important plot points. You may not want to read any further if you’ve not already seen this title.

• SPOILER: The little “mini-car” that Lou Costello drives up to the office building near the end of the film isn’t a movie prop car, as some have claimed. It’s a Crosley, which was a real car produced by the Crosley Motor Co. from 1939-1942, discontinued during the war years, then resumed in 1946 until the company folded in 1952.

• Revealing mistakes: Stanley’s real eyebrows are visible and obviously covered with makeup during the high eyebrow raise scene.

There is a reason to spend the one dollar you might have to cough upfor this film. There is a Crosley in the movie. Most people have neverseen a Crosley. Most people do not know what a Crosley is. The Crosleywas a small somewhat popular car that was built shortly after World War2 (by a refrigerator manufacturer). If you watch this movie until theend you will see Lou getting out of a Crosley station wagon.

This is also a pleasant romp through the wild jungle with Bud and Louand some ex champion boxers, famous wild animal tamers, one pretty girland a couple of stooges. The scenes with Clyde Beatty and his lions areobviously real. He was an actual lion tamer. The scene with Lou in thecage with the lion looks very real even though it had to be a bluescreen or matte job.

One oddity I noticed here was that Lou Costello is playing the part ofStanley Livington (no "s"). First name Stan and last initial "L." Iwonder if that was a tribute to Stan Laurel? The gorilla is very wellplayed. The gorilla suits used in many of the movies of the 1940s and50s looked much better than the Chew Baca and other more moderngorillas.

Worth a look.

Tom Willett

2) This is a generally enjoyable Abbott and Costello comedy, with a lightand often silly feel that nevertheless works well enough. HillaryBrooke adds an elegant presence as their antagonist, and the storymakes relatively good use of its comic possibilities.

The plot has the kind of deliberately implausible setup that Bud andLou usually handled well, as their two characters become part of anAfrican expedition led by the scheming Brooke. Once there, there areplenty of lions and other beasts that get tangled up with thecharacters. Frank Buck and Clyde Beatty also appear as themselves,although they are mostly only incidental to the story.

Brooke and the Baer brothers, as her henchmen, make their end of thingswork well, and there are also some good moments from Shemp Howard andJoe Besser. Not all of the comedy ideas are of the same quality, butmost of it works well enough as long as you don’t take it tooseriously.

3) Since this independent Abbott & Costello comedy wasn’t produced byUniversal or MGM it comes off less slick than some of their otherfilms, yet still emerges as pretty funny and is worth a look for fansof the team. Bud and Lou are joined by sometime-Stooges Shemp Howardand Joe Besser, and also lovely Hillary Brooke, who would later jointhem for their regular weekly television show.

Brooke is a crime boss looking for a certain map that’s in A&C’spossession, so she and the boys (including Shemp and Joe) journey tothe jungles of darkest Africa to search for what the men think is arare type of orangutan gargantua gorilla (or some sort of nonsense);but actually, Hillary’s only hunting for a secret treasure trove ofprecious diamonds. When Abbott finds out what’s really going on, hebecomes quite the self-centered businessman and is really funny andmore mean than usual (which always works for me in these comedies).

Some jokes include Costello getting locked in a cage with a lion, thehumorous "I Lost My Pal" routine, and Lou tangling with cannibals.Real-life lion tamer/big game hunters Frank Buck and Clyde Beatty arealso on hand to do their stuff if you go for that sort of thing.

4) "Africa Screams" was Abbott and Costello’s independent production for 1949,filmed at Nassour Studios. A&C are booksellers who find themselves on anAfrican expedition; the leader of the expedition (lovely Hillary Brooke) isafter diamonds. Hilarity ensues as A&C dodge lions and gorillas; Will A&Cget their share of the diamonds?

"Africa Screams" boasts one of the finest supporting casts A&C worked with.In addition to Hillary Brooke (who later co-starred on their TV show), themovie is aided greatly by the appearances of legendary funnymen ShempHowardand Joe Besser. An air of authenticity is given with the appearances ofFrank Buck and Clyde Beatty. The tough-guy roles are nicely handled byboxers Max and Buddy Baer.

Bud is given more to do in this film, and he shines – he shows again thathewould have made a wonderful character actor. He stands up to HillaryBrookeand her goons, and cuts deals for himself. Although he takes advantage ofLou once again, I can report that Bud does get his in the end! (How, Iwon’t reveal. Watch for yourself and see.)

What prevents me from giving this film a higher rating than "6" are thelow-budget sets at Nassour. Bud and Lou never had a big-budget film atUniversal, but this film looks paltry by comparison. What also hampers theenjoyment of the film is the fact that it appears to still be in publicdomain; low-grade, scratchy prints are usually what can be found in thebargain section of the video store. All in all, though, a fun film. 6 outof 10.

5) "Africa Screams" is definitely one of Bud and Lou’s lesser works,although still better than their final few films (especially theatrocious "Dance With Me, Henry"). It’s difficult not to laugh atanything Lou Costello does; he’s just such a superb natural clown youcan’t help yourself. Bud Abbott has always had the reputation for beingthe best straight man in the business, and it was one he well deserved.While his skill is still evident, both he and Lou had gone through sometough times in the previous few years (watch "The Time of Their Lives,"one of their better pictures, filmed in 1946; only three years elapsedbetween that film and this one, but they unfortunately appear to haveaged WAY more than that) and Bud was starting to show some signs of thehealth problems that eventually forced his retirement. The combinationof his ongoing health issues (he was an epileptic, and it got worse ashe got older) and a severe drinking problem brought on by his conditionhad slowed him down considerably. He does show signs of his old spark,but at other times he seems somewhat sluggish, as does Lou. Don’t getme wrong, there are still some very funny moments in this picture. Theroutine in the lion’s cage still works well, and the way Abbott letshis greed overtake him when he thinks he can swindle everyone out ofthe diamonds is reminiscent of Humphrey Bogart in "Treasure of theSierra Madre" and shows what a good actor he could be, even withoutLou. Although other posters have praised the supporting cast,personally I think it’s somewhat weak. Shemp Howard is an asset, and isquite good; even though he doesn’t have as much screen time as heshould, he still manages to make his part memorable. Joe Besser isn’tas annoying as he was during his turn in the Three Stooges shorts, butthat’s really not saying much; he was TERRIBLE in the Stooges shorts(although he was terrific as Stinky in Bud & Lou’s TV series). HillaryBrooke, while as coolly and regally beautiful as ever, is, frankly, notup to the part. Her character is the villain of the picture, and callsfor the kind of edge and nastiness that you just don’t associate withher, and she couldn’t overcome that. Frank Buck is Frank Buck and ClydeBeatty is Clyde Beatty, and neither were ever particularly good actors,as is more than evident, but they were never supposed to be; they dowhat they do best, and acting isn’t it. Max and Buddy Baer are a littlemore interesting as Hillary’s henchmen. They have a nice bit wherethey’re tricked into fighting each other (by chimpanzees, no less!),and it’s actually quite funny. The main problem with this film, Ithink, is the one that others here have mentioned–the combination ofthe very low budget and its cheap and rushed look really detracts fromits good points. Director Charles Barton was responsible for many ofthe team’s best films, but even he couldn’t do much with this one.

Overall it’s one of Bud and Lou’s minor works. If you haven’t seen itit’s worth watching once, or twice maybe, but that’s about it.

6) While this isn’t the best of the famous comedy duo’s films (I personallythink that A&C Meet Frankenstein has that honor), this is a decent comedyfor fans of the pair. They manage to wring a few laughs out of a jungletheme that I personally feel was overused in films at that time. The actorwho makes the film for me, however, is that wonderful "unknown" stooge,Shemp Howard, in a humorous supporting role.

7) Wow! The usually frumpy Costello looks positively dapper in his snazzysalesman's suit at movie's start. Superior A&C comedy with goodroutines, productive premise, and unusual cast. The boys get to chasearound the wilds of a Hollywood sound stage pretending (not very hard)to be adventuring in darkest Africa. Of course, Lou gets to do hisslow-to-catch- on routine as crocodiles, gorillas, and other assortedman-eating critters nuzzle up in humorously menacing fashion. I loveit, though, when that savage-looking kitten scares the be-Jesus out ofhim in a downtown department store, no less.

And whose great idea was it to load up the cast with some realcharacters. Take the giant Baer brothers, Max and Buddy, for example.Together they look like they could tear down the Empire State buildingwithout a wreaking ball. Not exactly, your usual movie types, and whenthey start scuffling, you can almost feel the ground shake. Then too,what an inspiration to stick coke-bottle glasses on Shemp Howard ofThree Stooges fame and turn him into a nearly blind big-game hunter!So, better hide the house pets. But I really am curious how little, fatcomedian Joe Besser snuck on set when the movie already had a little,fat comedian who's a lot funnier. Add real life adventurers ClydeBeatty and Frank Buck, along with the always regal Hillary Brooke whoglitters, as usual, but never gets in on the fun, and it all adds up toa lively and entertaining bunch of characters.

Perhaps best of all, A&C are still looking fresh in their roles, and ifsome of the routines wheeze a bit, the boys are still able to give themthe needed lift, something they did not do in the last few years beforethe final 1956 break-up. Sure, this kind of nonsense is not everyone'scup of tea. But I defy even the sourest sour-puss not to surrender afew chuckles as the boys bumble along Africa-style.

Africa Screams, one of the least seen of Abbott&Costello's films was anindependent production that was released through United Artists. Thethin plot has Hillary Brooke believing Costello has the map to a hiddenterritory that is rich with diamonds. Bud and Lou go to Africa at herbehest with her two companions, the fighting Baer Brothers. Of coursethe payoff she has in mind is different than the one boys areexpecting.

Not that Universal studios exactly invested Abbott&Costello's filmswith much in the way of productions values, but this one is reallyreally bad in that department. What budget they had they must havespent on getting both Clyde Beatty and Frank Buck to do guestappearances playing themselves.

On the plus side the boys do have some amusing moments, especiallyCostello in the cage with one of Clyde Beatty's lions which he thinksis just Abbott in a lion costume. Joe Besser and Shemp Howard alsoprovide for some additional laughs.

My favorite moment in the film however is with the Baer brothers, Maxand Buddy, both of them having fought Joe Louis and coming out on theshort end, in Buddy's case twice, falling out and starting to fight asMax says he'll hit Buddy harder than Joe Louis ever did.

The film could have been a lot better, the boys are fine, but theproduction values give the film a look like something Ed Wood mighthave created.

9) The frantic duo now as a library clerks(Abbott and Costello)who becomeinvolve in African adventures when an ambitious group ruled by anasty,evil woman(Hillary Brooke)thinks which Costello knows a treasuremap.They go on an Africa safari which lead to a secret treasure ,theking Salomon's diamonds .Stranded in Africa happen numerous humorousadventures,odds and risks. The picture contains slapstick,simplehumor,parody and is pretty amused.This is okay comedy but a cheapieproduction with low budget developing a sarcastic look to the junglefilms.Most entertainment and madcap scheme comes from the animalsapparition when are frightening at Costello as gorilla,croc andlions,especially when into a cage he believes being Abbott.Besides assupporting cast appear familiar faces joined in the mayhem,thus,Hillary Brooke(acting alongside with crazy duo ¨Against the captainKidd¨) as femme fatal is especially known as wicked roles(¨Woman ingreen¨ against Sherlock's Basil Rathbone); Clyde Beatty and Frank Buck,they were actually lions tamers;The Baer Brothers,Max and Buddy,reallife muscle men heavyweight fighters and Buddy Baer(playing the giant)starred with the couple ¨Jack and the bean stalk¨; even appear the onetime ¨Stooges¨(Howard and Besser). The film is regularly directed byusual director of their films,Charles Barton.The flick will like tonutty duo fans.Hilarious and humorous gags make this one of the bestfrom barmy pair.

10) I've always been a fan of Abbott and Costello. The first time I sawthis movie it became my instant favorite. Why? Lots of reasons … Theplot is fun, its put together well, it flows, it has the type of humoryou'd expect from this duo, the sets work, the sound is good, thecontinuity is OK, but most importantly … The REAL reason its myfavorite Abbott and Costello flick … TA DA! The CAST! Aside from Budand Lou: Clyde Beatty! Geeze, a childhood hero of mine! Frank Buck!OMG, another one! Brothers Max and Buddy Baer, two of my favorites inwhatever they did. Wait a minute, is that? YES! Shemp Howard! Wait yetagain! Joe Besser? Yes again! Two of the six Three Stooges! And behindthe camera, over there and off to the side, never seen but heard byextension, its Norman Abbott. Bud's Nephew and the dialog director forthis flick. Norman Abbott is worth a little study of his own, havinghad one heck of a career! ALL of this, and its funny too!

It makes for a very interesting film that makes you think and realizethat humanity is much more important than nationality. Anyone who getsa chance to see this film really should. It is not a given as it'sauthor explained last night all the difficulties he has trying to finddistribution for it. Definitely not a "Hollywood typed" blockbuster butthat is what makes a good deal of the appeal to the film as well.

2) Great Film. It's just a shame that the French are killing the Africanfilm industry. Why is it so hard to get copies of these films???? Whatcan we do to help African filmmakers break the French stranglehold ontheir work and distribute their films widely???

I thought the film was extremely thought-provoking. I would like tohave a copy of the film for educational purposes. But do you think Ican manage to get it in the same easy way I can get brainless Hollywoodfilms? When will there ever be equity and fairness in this industry?Everyone should see this film.

I highly recommend this film.

2) Several of the locals were used in bit parts in the film. One of theselocals was Fanie Pretorius, who was a top hunter in the 70’s. He is nowretired, but remains something of a legend in the Victoria Falls region(more so for his knowledge of the African bush than his role in themovie).

In the film, he does a scene with Ursula Andress and plays(co-incidentally)a hunter. He even had a few lines of dialogue!

Definitely a great film that captures the essence of Africa in the70’s.

3) This is a lot of fun to watch, I’ve seen it quite a few times, own thesoundtrack (am playing it now – has the cool "Maeba" african song) and am abig fan of Biba the Chimp! Giuliano Gemma gets a chance to play a comic role tailored specifically forhim, Ursula Andress is very sexy and Jack Palance chew up the scenery atevery turn. This film had a sequel called Safari Express with the same castas the original, but is harder to find. To add to the confusion, somedistributors released both this movie and the sequel as "TropicalExpress"!!I still recommend this as a great family film. Kids will love the animalsand parents will appreciate the intelligent humour. Then the parents mightkill the kids if they don’t stop saying "Maeba" around thehouse.

Too bad there were only two in this series. Maybe it’s not too late for areunion? )

YOU WILL SEE:

A brutal and prolonged flogging of a mentally ill man by Muslim eldersof a village.

Sacrifice of various animals including chickens and antelope.

No less than 3 dozen circumcisions done with a big knife on littlekids. The guy doing the cutting has hands that are shakier than analcoholic with the DTs. OUCH!

A shaman sacrifices a jungle fowl by ripping it’s beak off.

Insanely painful looking scenes of tooth chiseling to get a gap in thefront teeth. This scene puts all other tooth violence films such asManchurian Candidate to shame. Unbelievably graphic and hard to watch.

Some bush woman has a rather long (5-6 foot) snake shoved graphically(ie penetration shots) into her vagina to facilitate fertility.

One of the film crews interpreters gets bit by a cobra in the upperarm, after the poor guy lifts a rock, the cobra literally launches athim.

A snake handler lets a venomous snake bite him and a kid, to ‘build upimmunity’.

People let scorpions sting them many, many times. Then there is anarm-wrestling match where the loser gets stung by a scorpion.

More male circumcision on a group of little kids, all of whom aresporting mohawks like little Mr. T’s of the African bush.

A camel that has broken it’s leg has it’s throat slashed and is thenbutchered.

Camel castration.

Insane amounts of bloody scarification carving with a razor on manypeople.

Carving a women’s breasts with a razor, and then all over her body withhundreds if not thousands of little slices. Bloody as hell.

And the finale is a long segment with at least a dozen child femaleclit extraction "surgeries", utilizing a rusty razor blade.Absolutelyunfreakinbelievable. One girl has a seriously herniated bellybutton that pulsates as she struggles against the barbaric and hideoustorture.

this is probably the harshest mondo i’ve seen yet. nasty stuff that hadme wincing every couple minutes, or feeling like i was gonna blowchunks. definitely an experience i am pleased to have had though.

2) This film acts as a documentary following a cannibalistic tribe in Africa.Though you can tell that it’s not an actual documentary, the acts of thecannibals seem very, very real. I’m not going to describe the actsperformedin this movie for the sake of any children who may stumble onto this page,but be warned, this is some sick stuff. It still makes me sick to thinkabout some of it. If you want to see some less graphic depictions of deathyou might want to try out the Faces of Death series.

This is like 'Africa Addio' except without a lot of the colonialviolence. Most of this violence is either self-inflicted or natural.

Is it watchable? Only if you're a fan of this genre. If you'renot…stay FAR away.

The home style surgery scenes will make anyone squirm.

And running the risk of sounding insensitive…some of those nativeswere UGLY.

The Castiglionis were just following the Mondo footsteps laid for themby Jac and Pros.

Again, only if you're a fan.

2) This film makes an indelible impression in content, subject matter, andcinematography. Documentary film making at its best as it narrates veryexotic and esoteric rituals of the primitive peoples of Africa. The visualbody of the film is extremely potent that its images mute any narration orinterpretation. Not recommended for the prude, narrow-minded, andnauseous.

• Despite having almost half of the original material removed, the English print under the title Africa Blood and Guts is noted as being more gruesome than the original, uncut print, as any scenes of pleasantness or history have been removed, leaving only the most violent and disturbing footage untouched.

If you haven't figured out by halfway through that this is thedirection the movie is headed in, then you have been sucked in andmanipulated by probably the most cynical excuse for a documentary evermade. Red flags immediate go up with the film's opening claim that thecamera is completely objective and only reports what it sees. The filmthen proceeds systematically to contradict this claim by mockingeverything that comes before the lens. The movie pretends empathy forthe displaced, abused and murdered whites in Kenya, then shows thembehaving ridiculously and exposes their complacency. A white judgesentencing Mau Mau rebels to extremely harsh punishments (though notnecessarily harsh for their crimes) stifles a yawn. Telling details,you'd think, cleverly captured, except when they take their place nextto other instances of derisive sound effects and people (supposedly)saying ludicrous things in ludicrous voices with their backs to thecamera.

The movie combines its mocking with the kind of prurience you'd find in1950s "sun worshipper" magazines and then with out and outsalaciousness. In a scene obviously staged, the movie illustrates itscompletely racist point that black men, given the opportunity, lustafter white women, by putting a group of clueless Africans in front ofa white stripper. They don't seem to know how to react as she caressesher body, and when she encourages one man to remove the pasties fromher nipples, and he does so only because he was instructed to, thepoor, embarrassed man is left looking at the pasties in his hands as ifhe doesn't know what has just happened. The bizarre scene is thenpunctuated by a revelation of the stripper's face, which has beenangled away from the camera to this point, and it is horsey andgrotesque, with a smile that reveals frighteningly long, vampirishteeth.

If you've been fooled into thinking the film has any empathywhatsoever, you should be undeceived by the episode in which the filmmakers, along with some German colleagues, try to land their two planesin rebel territory in Zambia? Rwanda?, the Germans landing first andbeing swarmed by rebels who take them captive and burn their plane. TheItalian film makers get away as their plane is shot at, leaving theGermans to their fate, and the movie excuses itself from any followupwhen the voice-over says, "At least they were still alive." It occursto you at this point that the Germans may have been patsies, decoyssent in to test the waters, the proverbial canaries in the mineshaft.It occurs to you that the film makers are guilty of much more than justdisingenuous bad taste. By the time we get to the animal carnage itshould be clear that what we are watching is pure adventure porn. Itfinds the place in the viewer that is disgusted by man's inhumanity toman and to nature, panders like crazy, and then treats us to sceneafter scene after scene of slaughter and dismemberment. Is thereempathy for the animals? Can you imagine there is in a movie so up toits chin in blood and guts? The movie goes so far as to show stillborncalves being pulled from slaughtered elephants. Point of view is a realissue here. These film makers had to have participated willingly inthese travesties (including the human murders at the end) in order toturn them around and toss them in the viewers face, purposefully makingyou feel implicated, while they throw their hands up and say, "Hey, thecamera only reports what it sees." This is a movie that lies even whenit tells the truth. This is a movie that pretends sympathy with theanimals while displaying almost complete ignorance of their habits andbehavior. This is a movie that can't tell the difference between astork and a vulture. This is a movie that cheapens the value of a humanlife for the sake of a spectacle. This is a movie that wallows inrotting corpses, the victims of political upheavals, the aftermaths ofcolonialism and other versions of political opportunism and corruption,and then ignores politics, ignores causes, for the sake of wading intorivers of blood, and then the movie says, "Don't blame us. The cameraonly reports what it sees."

2) Sent to Africa to make the next Mondo Cane movie the film makers foundthemselves in the middle of several revolutions. What they would filmwould form the basis of a damning attack on everyone, both black andwhite, involved in the shift in power on the Dark Continent.

I’ve watched the three versions of this film and I’m a fan of all ofthem. Interestingly the one I like the least is the original cut of thefilm which has several snide comments and re-dubbed voices that makethe film truly rude and cruel for no good reason. The original cut goesout of its way to have a holier than thou view that is missing fromboth of the English cuts. The original cut also has several moreminutes of animal cruelty that is completely uncalled for.

This film ran into serious trouble upon its original release becausecharges were brought, though later found to be false, that the filmmakers had paid some of the soldiers to kill some one so that theycould film it. (this charge would form the basis for The Wild Eye, afictional film about the making of a mondo movie made by another MondoCane director) Considering all of the the death and destruction in thisfilm I find it hard to believe that anyone would have had to have beenpaid to kill anyone.

Yes, its a tough film, but it leaves no one with clean hands, even thefilm makers.

See this film. It will make you think.

3) This is the ONLY example of which I’m aware where the complete loss of afilm is ignored by all media and critics. I saw this documentary on itsoriginal release in, I believe, 1967. It was very disturbing because ofthemiles of animal bones and bodies it displayed. It squarely placed theblameon both the whites AND the black native inhabitants. And the latter is,imho, the reason this film has disappeared. You can’t find the lousiest,most edited version, let alone the original. And this movie was made byAcademy Award winners for an earlier foreign film, so it’s not like it wasjust a throwaway cheepie.

4) This just aired on the small (digital) "culture" channel here in Finland. Iam not sure whether this was the censored or the uncensored version – ifthis was the censored one I don’t even want to think about what might be inthe uncensored version.

Very very very impressive photography and – above all – editing. It *is* inparts very gruesome (esp. animal lovers should be prepared for somedepictions of mindless cruelty) – but it also shows beautiful things, black,white, animal and floral.

That this is hard to come by today I can understand, it is just impossiblepolitically incorrect (and must have been so at the time too). The makers ofthis movie seem to sympathise with everyone and no-one

5) Truly presents the world as a dark place without a happy ending, or anending at all, a world full of intolerance part of the human condition.Even worse, there is great indifference towards this intolerance, evendisplayed by the filmmakers themselves as they arguably exploit therape of Africa, equally marvelled by the human tragedy and thecinematic scope of Africa in crisis. Yet, the images are genuine, ifnot presented in a genuine way, and the use of editing, music, and allthe techniques of cinema masterfully create a tour de force thatcommands debate, thought, and maybe – someday- action.

Is this perhaps an example of what "art" really is, for better and forworse?

The fact that it took me over a year to really put into words why thisfilm affected me so much, and yet was still villainous in many ways (aparadox to be sure), makes me think that it is.

6) This frank, unsettling eye-witness account of the chaos in Africa afterthe pullout of the English, French and Portuguese is one of the mostincredible films I've ever seen. It should be shown to everyone,everywhere, man, woman or child to help them understand what happenedto Africa and why it's not simply 'poverty' or 'debt' that created thehorrible state of impoverishment on that continent from Sudan toAngola.

This film is impressive because it shows the cost of war, not only tomen, women and children, but also to game preserves, the environmentand to the next generation that inherits these conflicts.

One of the most unsettling things in the documentary was the recordedfootage of Hutus killing Tutsis in Rwanda. No this isn't 1993. This is1966! Nothing has changed. Also there are shocking scenes of Africansin Sudan mass executing Arabs in makeshift prison camps. Funny in 2006,the Junjaweed Arab militia is currently massacring Sudanese blacks.

This is a film that will enraged you, but if you're white and from aNorth-Western European background like me, you can't help but feel thatthis is a portrait of a world we've sown.

7) This is a very well done documentary. But what it shows will mortifyyou. I was yelling at the screen.

The atrocities against the animals in this documentary absolutely mademe sick. Animals are slaughtered relentlessly, cruelly and for noreason other than the sport of it. I wanted those wild animals to riptheir killers to shreds. At least once it would have been nice to seeone of the poachers ripped to shreds by the elephants, lions andhippos.

It never ceases to sicken me how a man with a gun thinks he has reallyaccomplished something by shooting an animal. Watching the men standproudly with their gun over the carcass of an animal for a photo justmakes me sick. They should all have been fed to the lions.

This documentary proves one thing and one thing only. Humans are thesickest and cruelest animals on the planet.

AFRICA ADDIO, more commonly known as AFRICA-BLOOD AND GUTS (so named byinfamous exploitation distributor Jerry Gross), is undeniably masterful atholding one’s attention. But it makes the sleaze and sensationalism ofMONDO CANE seem like something produced by Walt Disney.

This movie is insane. It switches randomly from horrifying to absurd toeducational to beautiful to creepy to disturbing to … well, you get theidea.

Pumped up relentlessly by it’s makers to be a serious, unbiased look at thepolitical and social upheaval occurring in Africa during the late sixties,the movie is about as far from that as you can imagine. So many scenes areobviously fabricated outright or manipulated by the filmmakers, it’sdifficult to tell what’s real and what’s staged. In a way, however, thismakes the movie even more fascinating, though more for the shamelessexploits of the filmmakers than the subject matter.

There are such ridiculous scenes as a tribe of African natives emerging fromtheir tents to play a bluesy rock song, complete with a horn section andfunky piano and a scene in which African women get dressed up in "civilized"attire. These are juxtaposed with scenes of executions and rioting, footageof mass graves and poachers at work. The accusation that the filmmakersactually incited much of the violence displayed onscreen is difficult todiscount completely.

Once again, there’s plenty of live animal slaughter (an elephant beingspeared to death is nearly impossible to sit through unflinchingly), much ofwhich is perpetrated by so-called "hunters", who have the nerve to act proudat having shot an elephant to death, after it’s already been exhausted by ahelicopter taunting it.

The whole movie makes you furious at the treatment of the people of thecountry, having their land invaded by outsiders who force them to conform totheir own customs, and works (perhaps unintentionally) as a very disturbingparallel to the white settlers treatment of the Native Americans centuriesago.

Recently released as part of a MONDO box set by Blue Underground, whichcontains both the uncut English version, as well as the much more violent"Director’s Cut." The director’s version contains the infamous sequence inwhich a hippopotamus is speared to death.

Recommended for MONDO fans. Others will probably be too disgusted to getthrough more than a few minutes of it. The making of this movie was aninspiration of Ruggero Deodato’s CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST.

9) Africa Addio contains some really strong scenes of animal cruelty andhuman death. However the editing, lack of storyline and historicalfacts in general disappointed me. If the directors had taken their timeto research the events they portrait, the movie would have come outmuch better and informative. Some scenes are beautifully shot and made,but others seems added to just to shock and disturb the viewer.Generally the whole "Mondo" genre needs much more depth and facts,instead of the pure intention to shock the audience.

Africa Addio is a movie that could have been so much more, but lands asan average gore filled documentary which display the lack of insight ofthe directors. Filming animals getting killed for sports, peopleexecuted, stacks of severed hands, rotten corpses along the road andmass graves for the sheer shock value seems uninspiring and sometimesplain dumb. The creators of Africa Addio invented the Mondogenre – butat the same time, they hit a new rock bottom for the whole documentarygenre. It could have been so much more, but ended up real sad. I haveseen the "Directors Cut" of the movie – which according to thedirectors should be "more political, historical and informative", allthemes lack, and a movie which could have been highly educational endup as a sad shocker. Mondo Addio.

10) Africa Addio, is an Italian film with English subtitles. The film is adocumentary about Africa, including scenes of animals being poached, acivil war and a revolution and a bunch of tribes being slaughtered. Thefilm came out in Italy in 1966 and then came to North America in 1970entitled Africa: Blood And Guts, and had 37 minutes cut from it’srunning time. Winner of The David Award for Best Production at TheDavid Di Donatello Awards. The version I saw of the film was the 139minute director’s cut. The film is a very good looking film with greatcinematography and production design. The film is also very interestingand is very powerful and disturbing with some of the images it showsus. After awhile the film started to feel long though and felt like itdragged on a little bit too much the last half hour or so. Some partswere also a little confusing but generally this is an entertaining,interesting and powerful film that is just as shocking now as it was inthe 60’s.

• Forerunner of the TV series, "Cowboy in Africa" (1967).

2) Animal adventure show producer Ivan Tors ("Flipper," "Gentle Ben," "SeaHunt") had great success with his other African film "Clarence theCross-Eyed Lion" which served as the pilot for the TV show "Daktari". Thefeature film "Africa — Texas Style!" served as the pilot for his TV show"Cowboy in Africa." "Cowboy in Africa" is a much better title since thefilm borrows heavily from the John Wayne’s "Hatari," and is basically thestory about ranchers, range wars, poachers, and cowboys (doing it "TexasStyle!") with the element of the protection of African wildlife thrown in.Not as fun or with as much comic relief as most of Ivan Tors other work.Watch for star John Mills’ daughter Hayley Mills in a quick cameo at theairport. Not a bad film at all, and if you are a fan of the abovementionedworks, it’s worth a look.

3) This is about the quality you'd expect from a TV pilot film – even onethat received a theatrical release – which means that, for most of us,it's pretty dull viewing. A past-his-sell-by-date Hugh O'Brian playsJim Sinclair a brawny Texan cowboy clad in white and with a NativeAmerican sidekick (Tom Nardini) to prove just what a decent, honourablechap he is. That doesn't prevent him from nicking Adrienne Corri fromher stiff-lipped fiancée without a moment's hesitation, however.Sinclair also takes Samson, an orphaned black boy under his wing.Samson, of course, is Africa, a vulnerable waif in need of guidance andaid; he's cute as a button, but serves no real purpose other than topad out the running time which, at 109 minutes is about 108 minuteslonger than it really needs to be. John Mills obviously fancied aholiday in the sun back in '67, because there's clearly nothing aboutthis project in terms of artistic or creative merit that could haveattracted him, and his character, like little Samson's, serves no realpurpose other than to admire Sinclair. He even manages to bag a freebiefor daughter Hayley by having her make a 30-second cameo appearance inthe first five minutes, the sly old dog. Only Nigel Green as a bullishSaird-Efrikan adds any kind of spark to the proceedings, but he isn'ton screen long enough to redeem this dud.

4) When his own ranch in Texas is gradually eaten away by the populationboom and the unstoppable urban sprawl that is called "progress", JimSinclair seeks some more unspoilt country to carry on his skills.Following an invitation from Wing Commander Howard Hayes (retired) hetravels to Africa with his friend and partner (not like that) JohnHenry to look into a job offer. Hayes plans to capture the wild animalsof the African plains, tame them and breed them as others do withcattle. However the idea has its critics and Sinclair finds he has tocontend with threats on two feet as well as four.

I don't know what I expected from this western pilot for a TV series Ihave never seen or will ever bother to try and see. I assume it was theweirdly comic title screaming out of the TV guide at me because evenafter watching it I couldn't find anything else that would encourage meto watch it again. The film opens with sweeping landscapes but after awhile the shots of animals being roped start to get dull and it exposedthe fact that the plot, about catching wild animals, is actually prettyboring as well. Essentially the plot has been thrown together to get acentral "ranch" for the story to happen around but, as a pilot, thefilm put more effort into creating this base than it does intodelivering a story. Occasionally the dialogue gets into interestingareas on hunting, catching animals, racism etc but generally I thinkthese were in my mind because the film doesn't do anything of realinterest with the themes are the script dismisses the subjects as soonas they threaten to be more than words.

The cast can do nothing to reverse this because they are fairly TVstandard. O'Brian sleep walks his way through the film – or at least helooks like he is asleep but I got the impression that he was actingflat out to come across as wooden as he did. Nardini is just as bad – aMexican sidekick who cannot do anything add anything in the way ofcomic value. Mills takes the money for nothing while Corri is as dullas dishwater and a very bad choice for a sort of love interest. Greenis a solid villain while Malinda offers an acceptable cute kid torepresent Africa while also allowing lots of non-speaking performancesin colourful paint.

Overall a rather dull film that is a very obvious pilot due to howlittle it does other than set up a couple of cowboys, a ranch, somerelationships and a bad guy. The plot and the action are fairly dulland I cared less and less the more the film went on. The cast don't doanything to help matters and generally turned in the type ofperformances you get when the material just requires actions from theircharacters instead of emotion. Not worth the two hours it will fill.

2) So like the other comment says its about a Blonde model who has a fightwith her manager and takes off in a jeep across the sahara. beingheadstrong she doesn't take a driver or anything along. Blah blah blahher car crashes and she gets thrown from the car, and i believe itcatches on fire she hits her head and is out for a while. She wakes upand its dark she can't see anything and she gets up confused and startswalking. By the time she realizes what she did wrong she's to farturned around to know what to do. Basically its a story about spoiledprincess who is literally thrown into the wild to contend withstarvation, wild animals, injuries and death and is being haunted byher own memories. I liked the movie. But it is a little hard to find amovie i don't like. It being what it was it was good.

3) This movie has got to be the worst movie I have seen in years! Ithought that even though I had never heard of the actors before I wouldat least give the movie a go–bad idea! I actually checked the moviecover half-way through to check it wasn’t a comedy, it was that bad.The acting and script both made me cringe, the amount of continuityerrors and holes in the plot were astounding and the music and editingwere totally amateur it was embarrassing. If you want to take thismovie seriously, don’t bother, it just isn’t worth it. But if you takethis movie as something to laugh at, then you might just be able to sitthrough the hour and a half of it!

4) I gave this 2 out of a possible 10 stars.

Even WITH a plot it still wouldn’t have been very good. The acting ispoor, the direction is poor, the dialog is poor.

Vickie is a lingerie model who is just about to get sucked into thedrug scene, when she suddenly decides to take the week-end off.

Her and her would-be boyfriend squabble around in a rather sillyfashion over her life, and then wearing perhaps THE shortest mini-skirthumanly possible to wear, she gets in the jeep he rented for her andoff she goes. Just where she’s headed was never clear.

The jeep she is driving has roll bars but apparently no top whatsoever.This seems a rather dangerous thing for a beautiful, young woman alone,to be driving, but this is only the beginning of some rather ineptdecisions on her part.

She stops for gas at a station where the only woman there is behind thecounter, and there are several rough looking men hanging around. Theysexually harass her a bit, but this all comes to nothing.

She drives on alone in the night. She gets sleepy but refuses to stopat a motel. What’s her hurry? She has no destination.

Following her vehicle accident instead of doing the normal thing andseeing what direction the jeep came from and following that back to thehighway, she strikes off aimlessly into the African countryside.

Trust me – it doesn’t improve any after she gets lost out in the wildsof Africa. There is no climax to the film, no point, no message and noteven much suspense or concern for her safety and well being.

5) A blonde fashion model — not Charlize Theron — is on a location shoot withher boyfriend and his crew in South Africa. They have a row. She decidesto join him at another location by driving her car across the savanna. Shealmost has an accident with a truck and her car leaves the highway and flipsover. The truck driver evidently has paid no attention because she comes tolater lying alone next to her car. She staggers to her feet, wearing askimpy blouse, a virtual skirt, and a pair of heels. The highway can’t bemore than twenty feet away. So she smoothes her hair back away from therather becoming bruise on her forehead and decides to start walking off intothe trackless veldt. Mistake number one.

The rest of this interminable thing consists of three basic parts. (1) Shekeeps walking away from the highway getting punctured by thorns and trackedby lionesses and monkeys. (2) Flashbacks to the more comfortable momentsshe spent with her boyfriend. (3) Her boyfriend being joined by herparents and searching for her. They don’t find her but it doesn’t matterbecause she keeps plodding along until she stumbles onto another busyhighway, having acquired a very nice tan.

I don’t know why this movie was ever made. The performances are uniformlyrudimentary, the plot mixed up and boring, the character developmentnonexistent. None of that would matter much except that — well, it doesn’tmatter what the heroine is doing — falling into bushes, climbing trees,jumping off a cliff — she always manages to keep her knees together. Oh,there is a shot of her emerging nude from one of those pools at the foot ofa waterfall, but one ten-second shot does not a summer idyll make. And Iguess you DO get to see zebras, monkeys, lions, hyenas, and a dead eland(which she eats part of). She eats a grub worm too, come to think of it,and drinks muddy water from a small pond that elephants have just used as abathtub. The most unkindest drink of all. The Yir Yuront of Queensland inAustralia consider witchety grubs a delicacy so I don’t know what she’scomplaining about.

I won’t bother going on about this. You have better things to do with yourtime than watch this. If not, you might consider macrame. Or try theLondon Times crossword. They tend to be very hard. Here’s an example. Name a major seaport in the middle of Czechoslovakia. Answer: "Oslo." CzechOSLOvakia — get it?

6) The star, Dorette Potgieter (Vicki), is sure a pretty young woman thatdoesa great job of acting the part.

In the beginning of the movie, she is at a club or something like thatdancing. It is a very fancy and civilized environment. She soon getsfrustrated about her life and wants to be alone for a few days. So shedecides to drive alone across Africa. Of course she has a problem and endsup walking off into the wild and uncivilized part of Africa. The one thingIdon’t understand is why she walked away from the road. That makes nosense,but everything else seems logical. In the beginning she is not veryrationalbut after a while she accepts that she is lost in the wilderness andbeginsto be more logical.

Although there is some nudity, it is only minimal.

7) After accident can’t understand why she didn’t just returntoroad she had been on, rather than roaming the wilds ofAfricato find another one. Also, amazed she took her lighterwithher, yet didn’t bother with her Cell-Phone.

Africa is a good movie, it has an interesting storyline and it kept myattention the whole way through!

I would recommend it to anyone interested in a good actionmovie!

Better than La Haine, this film shows the stresses and strains ofAfrican expatriates in France. The student wants to get his PhD andreturn to Senegal to better life there. Everyone else in Paris (nativesas well as other Africans) think he just wants to stay in France.

The protagonist is torn between two worlds. The ways of Senegal are nowforeign to him, but neither is he European.

There is tension, violence, and sex and a good story. I wish I couldshow this to more people, but it's not available!!??!