Cult Review
Senior Film Conservator

Honestly, only if you have a weird itch for early 20th-century travel footage. If you’re looking for a plot, you’re going to be bored in about three minutes. But if you like seeing how people used to film the 'unknown'—which is mostly just looking at folks minding their own business—it has a certain charm.
It’s definitely not for the modern viewer who needs a fast cut every five seconds. You’ll probably hate it if you need a story arc to stay awake. 🌿
There’s something inherently strange about watching this. It feels less like a movie and more like someone’s very expensive, very serious home video from a vacation they took ninety years ago.
John S. Clark Jr. is out there doing his best to capture something 'authentic.' Sometimes it works, and you see a flicker of a real life happening behind the lens. Other times, it feels like they’re just waiting for people to do something interesting while the camera just... stays there.
The pacing is entirely dictated by the jungle itself, which is to say it’s slow and humid. You can almost feel the sweat on the camera lens. It reminds me a bit of the silent era weirdness you find in Tillie's Punctured Romance, though obviously with zero comedy and a whole lot more bugs.
It’s not as manic as Mickey's Warriors, that’s for sure. It’s just... there. It just exists. I kept waiting for a narrator to pop in and tell me how to feel, but it mostly just leaves you alone with the images.
There’s a moment where they’re setting up camp and the silence is just heavy. It’s the kind of silence you don't get in movies anymore. No music, no swelling score, just the feeling that they are miles away from anything recognizable. It’s kind of cool. Or maybe just kind of boring. I can’t decide. 🤷♂️
It’s a relic. Treat it like one.
Year
1933
IMDb Rating
—

Editorial
Deciphering the legacy of transgressive cult cinema.
Community
Log in to comment.