MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

robertguttman This movie, about a lone man's quest to save the African elephants from extinction at the hands of big game and ivory hunters, undoubtedly suffered when it was initially released due largely to the fact that it was at least 30 years ahead of it's time. In the 1950s nobody gave a thought to things things like ecology, conservation and endangered species; let alone considered them to be causes worth fighting for. The fact is that, while it would be perfectly natural for modern-day audiences to recognize Morel as a heroic character, in the 1950s he would have been regarded as merely eccentric. That simply goes to show that, while it takes a long time to change peoples' minds, they do change nonetheless.I understand that Trevor Howard was actually given the role of the central character, Morel, after William Holden dropped out. Frankly, Howard was probably the better choice to play the part in the first place, since he does a good job of keeping the attention of the story grounded where it should be. The film itself is somewhat uneven and episodic, with some interesting character actors making periodic appearances revolving around Morel. Orson Welles, in particular, makes a conspicuous appearance as a larger-than-life American television broadcaster who was probably modeled on Lowell Thomas.All in all, "The Roots of Heaven" represents a good effort at tackling a subject that probably didn't attract it's initial audience anywhere near as much as it would undoubtedly attract audiences today. Given the change in the public's appreciation of environmentalism, it definitely rates a fresh look by young, contemporary audiences.

MartinHafer It's really amazing that the film crew went to so much trouble to make this movie. After all, they went to the hellishly hot and rather primitive country of French Equatorial Africa and filmed it on location- -and because of this the film looks great. Yet, inexplicably, at the same time the movie looks so incomplete and sloppy at times-- particularly when it came to many of the characters. As a result, the film's great message is muted and far less effective.When the film begins, a hunter has already killed four elephants and is about to kill more when he is attacked and beaten up by Morel (Trevor Howard). It seems that Morel is outraged by the wholesale slaughter of African animals (in particular, the elephants) and he's sick of sitting back and doing nothing. Soon, he goes to see the governor and begins circulating a petition to stop the slaughter--mostly to no effect. So, he and a few followers decide to take the law into their own hands. They burn ivory warehouses and attack hunters--shooting them in the butt! And, in one of the few funny scenes in the movie, they storm a ritzy party and deliver a well-deserved spanking to a society dame who delights in talking about all the elephants she's slaughtered.All this sounds very timely and important, right? Well, yes...but the film manages to take a great idea and make the least of it. While Trevor Howard is fine in the lead (though he's billed third!), many of the other characters are underdeveloped and wasted. Instead of seeming like real folks, they seem like they are doing a walk-on--like many celebrities that appear and disappear in a Muppet film! Flynn got top billing though he was barely in the film at all. And, when he was on camera, he pretty much played himself--a dying alcoholic (he died a year after this film was made). Orson Welles is an interesting character-- yet his change of heart from hunter to conservationist seemed bizarre and confusing--again because his part was severely under-written. Eddie Albert appears out of no where late in the film--and has a few good moments but is otherwise quite out of place. And, the same can be said about MOST of the rest of the cast! You would have thought that the writer, director and producer would have noticed this big problem. With better writing and directing, the film SHOULD have earned an 8 or 9. Instead, it's just an overly long and forgettable film.By the way, I found this film of particular interest because I just got back from a photo safari in South Africa. In my trips to this country, I was surprised how few animals remain and how those that do are confined mostly to game reserves. Also, while the elephants are the subject of "The Roots of Heaven", the biggest problems today are the poaching of the rhinos and the near-extinction of species such as the African Wild Dog. My advice is go soon to visit Africa soon as some of these animals simply might not be there in the near future.

rtanner-6 This was an excellent film based on my all-time favorite novel of the same title. Both novel and film were ahead of their time in their concern for the fate of the African elephant specifically and the sustainability of the earth generally. The cast was superb; Trevor Howard and Juliette Greco were perfect. (But then, so was everyone else involved.) An important theme in both novel and film was the tendency for others to analyze Morel's motives through their own eyes. Thus some thought him politically ambitious, some supposed that he detested humankind, and others found other motives. I believe his actual motives were purer, simpler, more altruistic, and altogether as he stated them. I would like to have used this film in my university classes, but like an earlier reviewer I regret that it was not possible to find it. That's a great shame.Given the apparent unavailability of the film, I highly recommend the book - if you can find a copy! Occasionally I have challenged bright students to tell me why the character Father Tassin is so interested in learning everything he can about Morel. To help them, I have lent them not only the novel but a short book about the real-life "Tassin." One or two succeeded in making the connection and thus understanding the work at its most profound level. And it truly is profound, once you understand that connection.Incidentally, author (and screenplay writer) Romain Gary lived an adventurous, unique life which made him just about as interesting as Morel. War hero, winner of France's highest military and literary honors, literary prankster, tragic political victim, and much more.

elsaesser3 Have lately been reading Zolotow's Book about Billy Wilder wherein he relates the following: Wilder encountered by chance Romain Cary in John Huston's office and told him(in so many words) that he didn't think the shooting script for "Roots," was very good. Naturally, Cary was less than thrilled with this remark and riposted with several remarks of his own that were probably less than well thought out. I've always been a fan of Wilder and respected(nay, admired)most of his work; obviously feel the same about Huston and "Roots," so how does one "digest," all this,ie what's the point? No doubt, there's some problems with the script. It does have a on site improvised feel to it-when we see Errol Flynn on screen, the dysfunction's palpable-which shouldn't be all that much of a bad thing. After all, Wilder himself usually started production with most of the script still in his head, so why the problem. Probably because "Roots," is about people searching for something-if the title hadn't been retired with Robert Ruark's novel and film,also about African themes-Something of Value. Morell, one of the few in the film who's entirely clear about what's real and valuable in this life, knows that it's the animals that need protecting and conserving and sometimes not the people. Muddled perhaps? Probably, but clearly at odds with 50's era sentiment. Still, after all this time(64 maybe, since I first saw it NBC's Saturday Night at the Movies)the visual ambience holds up admirably as does Malcolm Arnold's score-as transcendent as anything he's ever written for film. I wish it were available on VHS.