Reviews (19)

Naked Does Not Mean Defenseless
Most films which have the basic premise of a white man battling native Africans somewhere in the Dark Continent usually portray these natives as nameless, unmotivated ugga-mugga tribesmen whose only purpose in life seems to be able to toss missionaries into a round cooking pot. Thankfully, Cornel Wilde acts in and directs himself in THE NAKED PREY, a movie that is as astoundingly gripping as any film whose plot revolves around the hero's struggle for survival in a savage environment.
Wilde is a guide whose safari of foolish white hunters antagonizes some ferocious natives, who proceed to kill the hunters in a variety of graphically nasty ways. The natives allow Wilde a head start, then chase him. It is this chase that forms the bulk of the movie. Along the way, Wilde shows the natives (and the audience) that a near naked white man can still be a formidable foe. The pursuing natives, led by Ken Gampu, are a diverse lot, not all of whom are as dedicated to the chase as he is. They have numbers, food, knives. Wilde has only his fierce determination to live. What starts out as a standard chase movie, morphs quickly enough into another sort of chase. This time, though, it is Wilde who starts calling the shots about who is chasing whom. THE NAKED PREY is full of magnificent vignettes of survival on the African plain. This is no jungle movie. It is an engrossing film that allows the camera frequent panoramic sweeps over vast desert plains that are quite capable of supporting life if one only knows how. The natives are astonished that Wilde's knowledge is at least as full as theirs. Along the way, Wilde befriends a very young boy whose family was captured by Arabic slavers, and it is this boy whose very initial helplessness reminds Wilde that vulnerability is a trait that has the practical value of reminding one that arrogance on the plain is a negative survival characteristic. The latter half of the movie is a continuing series of confrontations between Wilde and Gampu. By the end, both the pursued and the pursuer recognize that sometimes the distinction between the two is a muddied affair at best, and the winner is not necessarily the one with a trophy, but with a recognition that all life, even the life of your enemy, has some value during a deadly game of chase.

Exciting, well paced adventure shot entirely in Africa.
Actor/director Cornel Wilde has fashioned a tight, well crafted adventure story of survival in the African bush with "The Naked Prey". The story involves the capture of a party of white trophy hunters by a tribe of native Africans, who are gruesomely tortured to death one-by-one. Cornel Wilde, whose clothes had been removed by the natives in preparation of his execution, succeeds in escaping (hence the title of the movie). The rest of the film involves his fight for survival in the wilderness while being pursued by a group of native warriors.

The film starts out slowly but the tension builds as the white hunters ignore and insult the natives that they see as harmless. The scenes of torture and death are quite graphic for a mid-60's film and because of this the film is not for family viewing. The movie really takes off once Cornel Wilde escapes and his fight for survival is as realistic as it is gruesome.

one of my all time favorites
I accidentally caught this movie late at night when I was a kid...and found it the most gripping movie I had ever seen. 30 years later my opinion has not changed one bit. After an hour into the movie, I remember finding myself amazed at how much I cared about the characters and how strongly their personalities came through - even with virtually no dialogue!! This is perhaps one of the most underrated movies in the latter half of the 20th century. Other reviewers here have already done an exceptional job of running down the highlights, so I need not do the same.

This film leaves me with 2 questions that I would love someone to answer. First, why do they not make movies like this anymore? And second, when oh when will this come out on DVD??

Sometimes the oldies are the freshest
Tarantino wishes he could make a movie like this---exact opposite of his over-dialogued palgiarisms, this gem has almost no dialogue!

The setting shows the beasts of africa acting out a passion play for survival. The beasts are all that inhabit the landscape---the tribesmen, the "Man", and the assorted toothed mammals running about!

this flick knocked me out when i first saw it, I cannot understand why it is not on dvd yet.

For those who would say that this movie is racist, give me a break with that old tired song! All who inhabit this movie are seen as both bad and good, with no regards to color. One of the heroes is a young child, in fact, who befriends "the man".

great stuff!

THE ULTIMATE IN EXOTIC ADVENTURE
A true rarity in the action/adventure genre, this film lingers in the viewer's mind long after it's over. Haunting. Satisfying. At times even moving. I am always amazed at how modern this film appears today. Though the actions of the African natives who pursue Cornel Wilde may be seen by civilized people as brutal and savage, the warriors are depicted as a people who truly believe that their motives are justified, thus no stereotypes in this film. Perhaps just as good as the other great survival adventure, JEREMIAH JOHNSON. By the way, before I forget-- the "little boy" in the film mentioned by some viewers is billed as 'Bella Randles as "the little girl'". Peace, bro. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A lesser version of the Camelot legend, Sword of Lancelot is practically a one-man show by Cornel Wilde, who coproduces, directs, and plays the title role in this 1963 film. The major plot points are all here: Lancelot is King Arthur's most valued Knight of the Round Table and a paragon of courage and virtue. Things change, however, when the good knight falls for Guinevere (Jean Wallace, Wilde's wife), bride of Arthur (Brian Aherne, who has essayed this character more than once), and she for him. Ten years after Richard Thorpe's Knights of the Round Table, the illicit romance this time is portrayed as a more intimate affair, and the sword fights have a more menacing reality (Wilde was an excellent fencer). A subplot concerns Arthur's effort to forestall a challenge from a rival king, a problem that will inevitably catch Lancelot up in a personal conflict. As a director, Wilde (The Naked Prey) knows what he wants, though his skills are generally outmatched by the size of his themes. Still, there is something very likable about this movie, and it's definitely recommended for anyone who can't get enough of Camelot. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (2)

60'S HOLLYWOOD VERSION OF LANCELOT-GUENEVERE-ARTHUR
Cornel wilde was sort of the bridge wetween Errol Flynn and Kevin Costner. He started out in swashbuckling adventures, then tried his hand directing epic movies, attempting to re-interpret each genre he tackles. Here he tackles the Arthurian romance/medieval epic with a focus on the suffering of passionate love against loyalty and duty.

One can say that a parallel of passions is played out here. Both Guenevere and Mordred want something they can't have, and Lancelot's duty to King Arthur is to deny them both. These two desires wind up working for each other, though in Mordred's case it's deliberate, Gwen's passion makes her not realize the danger she is putting the kingdom in.

Hollywood movies had gotten a little less stiff in how they portrayed romance and love scenes by this time, and Wilde takes advantage of it, giving the romantic leads a little bit more steam than they had in "Knights of the Round Table." It doesn't make the romance much more convincing, however. The trouble with many Arthurian movies is the unconvincing set up for the love between Lancelot and Guenevere ("Camelot" is a significant exception to this). The slightly stilted writing and silly French accent that Wilde puts on doesn't help.

There is plenty of sword-swinging action scenes. There's a joust, two battles, a fight through the castle, and a rescue. There is some innovation in the fight scenes; heads and body parts are cleaved, rather than sanitary thrusts to the armpit. Unfortunately, there is a degree of stiffness to the fighting and battles (unlike the love scenes) that detract from the drama. In the joust Lancelot sits on his horse, standing still, and recieves a lance with nary a quiver. Perhaps the pan-and-scan ("full-frame") presentation is at fault in some bits. In several battle scenes the figure in the center is the guy standing around like he doesn't know what to do. It also seems that some of the weapons, axes and maces, are too big for the one-handed use they are given.

The production design follows 11th-12th century styles of costume, armor, and architecture (mostly). This would match the period in which was written Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the Kings of Britain," the foundation of much of the Arthurian legend (ironically, Lancelot is not in that version). Unfortunately there is some stiffness here also. Certain pieces of costume and armor look clumsy and awkward, and of course the chain mail is all Hollywood fake stuff.

This film does have more appeal to fans of the genre than the average movie viewer. It is interesting as a transitional piece between "Knights of the Round Table" and "First Knight" ("Excalibur" is in a different league).

A bit of trivia: In one scene, Gwen talks about a bowman named Diccon. Diccon bowman was a charater in Henry Pyle's "Men of Iron," made into the movie called "Black Shield of Fallworth."

Neither Flynn nor Havilland
Mr and Mrs Wilde (Jean Wallace) suffer a lot, but all their suffering does not touch the heart. Mr Wilde is perhaps too old for this part and uses terrible intonations. Brian Ahearne as a King is very good. Fights are good with a lot of fighters. I recommend Flynn and Taylor epics instead of this. It is not bad, but something is lacking. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

60'S HOLLYWOOD VERSION OF LANCELOT-GUENEVERE-ARTHUR
Cornel wilde was sort of the bridge wetween Errol Flynn and Kevin Costner. He started out in swashbuckling adventures, then tried his hand directing epic movies, attempting to re-interpret each genre he tackles. Here he tackles the Arthurian romance/medieval epic with a focus on the suffering of passionate love against loyalty and duty.

One can say that a parallel of passions is played out here. Both Guenevere and Mordred want something they can't have, and Lancelot's duty to King Arthur is to deny them both. These two desires wind up working for each other, though in Mordred's case it's deliberate, Gwen's passion makes her not realize the danger she is putting the kingdom in.

Hollywood movies had gotten a little less stiff in how they portrayed romance and love scenes by this time, and Wilde takes advantage of it, giving the romantic leads a little bit more steam than they had in "Knights of the Round Table." It doesn't make the romance much more convincing, however. The trouble with many Arthurian movies is the unconvincing set up for the love between Lancelot and Guenevere ("Camelot" is a significant exception to this). The slightly stilted writing and silly French accent that Wilde puts on doesn't help.

There is plenty of sword-swinging action scenes. There's a joust, two battles, a fight through the castle, and a rescue. There is some innovation in the fight scenes; heads and body parts are cleaved, rather than sanitary thrusts to the armpit. Unfortunately, there is a degree of stiffness to the fighting and battles (unlike the love scenes) that detract from the drama. In the joust Lancelot sits on his horse, standing still, and recieves a lance with nary a quiver. Perhaps the pan-and-scan ("full-frame") presentation is at fault in some bits. In several battle scenes the figure in the center is the guy standing around like he doesn't know what to do. It also seems that some of the weapons, axes and maces, are too big for the one-handed use they are given.

The production design follows 11th-12th century styles of costume, armor, and architecture (mostly). This would match the period in which was written Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the Kings of Britain," the foundation of much of the Arthurian legend (ironically, Lancelot is not in that version). Unfortunately there is some stiffness here also. Certain pieces of costume and armor look clumsy and awkward, and of course the chain mail is all Hollywood fake stuff.

This film does have more appeal to fans of the genre than the average movie viewer. It is interesting as a transitional piece between "Knights of the Round Table" and "First Knight" ("Excalibur" is in a different league).

A bit of trivia: In one scene, Gwen talks about a bowman named Diccon. Diccon bowman was a charater in Henry Pyle's "Men of Iron," made into the movie called "Black Shield of Fallworth."

Neither Flynn nor Havilland
Mr and Mrs Wilde (Jean Wallace) suffer a lot, but all their suffering does not touch the heart. Mr Wilde is perhaps too old for this part and uses terrible intonations. Brian Ahearne as a King is very good. Fights are good with a lot of fighters. I recommend Flynn and Taylor epics instead of this. It is not bad, but something is lacking. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

60'S HOLLYWOOD VERSION OF LANCELOT-GUENEVERE-ARTHUR
Cornel wilde was sort of the bridge wetween Errol Flynn and Kevin Costner. He started out in swashbuckling adventures, then tried his hand directing epic movies, attempting to re-interpret each genre he tackles. Here he tackles the Arthurian romance/medieval epic with a focus on the suffering of passionate love against loyalty and duty.

One can say that a parallel of passions is played out here. Both Guenevere and Mordred want something they can't have, and Lancelot's duty to King Arthur is to deny them both. These two desires wind up working for each other, though in Mordred's case it's deliberate, Gwen's passion makes her not realize the danger she is putting the kingdom in.

Hollywood movies had gotten a little less stiff in how they portrayed romance and love scenes by this time, and Wilde takes advantage of it, giving the romantic leads a little bit more steam than they had in "Knights of the Round Table." It doesn't make the romance much more convincing, however. The trouble with many Arthurian movies is the unconvincing set up for the love between Lancelot and Guenevere ("Camelot" is a significant exception to this). The slightly stilted writing and silly French accent that Wilde puts on doesn't help.

There is plenty of sword-swinging action scenes. There's a joust, two battles, a fight through the castle, and a rescue. There is some innovation in the fight scenes; heads and body parts are cleaved, rather than sanitary thrusts to the armpit. Unfortunately, there is a degree of stiffness to the fighting and battles (unlike the love scenes) that detract from the drama. In the joust Lancelot sits on his horse, standing still, and recieves a lance with nary a quiver. Perhaps the pan-and-scan ("full-frame") presentation is at fault in some bits. In several battle scenes the figure in the center is the guy standing around like he doesn't know what to do. It also seems that some of the weapons, axes and maces, are too big for the one-handed use they are given.

The production design follows 11th-12th century styles of costume, armor, and architecture (mostly). This would match the period in which was written Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the Kings of Britain," the foundation of much of the Arthurian legend (ironically, Lancelot is not in that version). Unfortunately there is some stiffness here also. Certain pieces of costume and armor look clumsy and awkward, and of course the chain mail is all Hollywood fake stuff.

This film does have more appeal to fans of the genre than the average movie viewer. It is interesting as a transitional piece between "Knights of the Round Table" and "First Knight" ("Excalibur" is in a different league).

A bit of trivia: In one scene, Gwen talks about a bowman named Diccon. Diccon bowman was a charater in Henry Pyle's "Men of Iron," made into the movie called "Black Shield of Fallworth."

Neither Flynn nor Havilland
Mr and Mrs Wilde (Jean Wallace) suffer a lot, but all their suffering does not touch the heart. Mr Wilde is perhaps too old for this part and uses terrible intonations. Brian Ahearne as a King is very good. Fights are good with a lot of fighters. I recommend Flynn and Taylor epics instead of this. It is not bad, but something is lacking. ... Read more