MovieChat Forums > The Valley of Gwangi (1970) Discussion > Harryhausen's Most Unpleasant Movie? (SP...

Harryhausen's Most Unpleasant Movie? (SPOILERS!)


Before I go into why I think this movie is mean, some more general plot-related complaints.

Everyone in this movie seems like they're either complete imbeciles or outright jerks.

T.J. is really obtuse and stubborn and has no clue how to properly make money. She's had the Eohippus all this time and hasn't exhibited it yet? Why? Because she wants to teach it tricks? What? Even if people don't realize it's a prehistoric (as almost no one seems to until Bromley comes in), its size alone would make it a curiosity worth paying money to see. And yet with her show floundering poorly, she holds back this wondrous creature because she wants to teach it tricks, as if it weren't interesting enough on its own.

I also gotta love how Tuck's "friends" all immediately assume - based only on Carlos' brief glimpse of him - that Tuck stole the Eohippus.

I get that he and their boss have a rocky past history together, and they have every right to resent Tuck's desire to buy their show while they're down on their luck, and, indeed, they don't know Tuck showed Bromley the Eohippus, but surely they've all known Tuck long enough to know he isn't an underhanded sneak and a thief, and be resistant to the notion that Tuck is the thief. The conflict between Tuck and the others that arises because of this feels forced and artificial as a result, and I have always hated it.

And overall, I think that they're just plain ignorant and entitled. To this day, I dislike watching T.J. rope the poor, cute little Eohippus as it tries to escape, and I hate that upon seeing their first dinosaur, Champ, Bean and Rowdy's first and only thought is "Let's get him for the show!" as if it were some freak for the freakshow. At least the Eohippus escapes. The Ornithomimus isn't as lucky; they chase the poor thing directly to its horrible death in Gwangi's jaws.

It's a testimony to how good Harryhausen is at his work that I feel such sympathy for these creatures being tormented by the uncaring humans in this manner. He sells their fear and desperation as these morons chase after them with ropes. The fact they're not mean about it, that it's so casual for them to just go after anything they see as if it belongs to them the minute they set their eyes on it, makes it worse than if they'd been cruel or evil.

Then there's Carlos. What a dick. There was no need to snap the Pteranodon's neck once they'd gotten Lope away from it. And then of course there's him deciding to spear the Styracosaurus and not Gwangi later on. What did that accomplish? At least he pays the price for backing the wrong allosaurus when Gwangi eats him in the very next scene (or not; more on this in a second).

The gypsies' motivations make no sense. Do they think Gwangi is going to come looking for the Eohippus...? When he hasn't yet, despite it being obviously some time since Carlos' brother found the thing? Why? If they're more used to these animals than the Americans, why do they regard them with such superstitious fear? Shouldn't the gypsies just consider them big, dangerous animals that they've lived near for generations, instead of evil demons? And everything they do is self-defeating. Kidnapping and releasing the Eohippus leads to the one thing they wanted to avoid; the valley being found. And their "plan" at the end was a complete joke. Send the least physically capable guy to open Gwangi's cage in the middle of a crowded amphitheater. Brilliant, guys.

But, to be a little fair to the gypsies... Gwangi is evil. In fact, I daresay he's the least sympathetic of all of Harryhausen's creations. Whatever he sees, he attacks without any reason and butchers. And he never eats his prey. He kills just to kill. After finishing with one victim, he discards the body to immediately go after a new one. The only thing he is ever suggested to even eat is ironically the only thing he didn't kill, the dead Pteranodon.

And now... I was always struck by the feeling this was just a plain mean-spirited movie. I've already discussed the chasing of the Eohippus and Ornithomimus, and the latter's cringe-inducing death, and Carlos' use of needless violence, we also have the elephant battle, which I cannot sit through because it makes me so uncomfortable seeing the brave pachyderm being beaten up and killed horribly by the vile Gwangi. Its horrible screams always made me cringe as a boy. I think on Trog dying in Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger is worse and more gruesome to me, since he's an actual character Harryhausen took the time to give a personality to, but I still feel bad for the elephant.

And how about Zorina being trampled by the fleeing crowds? She probably deserved it, and being blind doesn't exempt her from being responsible for the entire climax and all the deaths that happen because of it, including her own dwarf attendant, but still, it seemed especially mean of the movie to have her, helpless without her attendant, getting knocked down and presumably trampled to death. Admittedly, having blind people done in this way in panicked crowd scenes is a staple, so I guess I can let it slide.

The inoffensive (if stupid) Bromley being crushed by the falling cage door also struck me as overly gratuitous.

And then there's the dwarf. I'm not sure if the festive music the band plays while he's dying makes his death more unsettling, or just plain hilarious.

And as much as I think he is every bit as evil as Zorina claims him to be, I still find the way Gwangi screams inside the burning church at the end just agonizing.

...and for all this, I still like the movie. Go figure! XD

"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"

reply

I agree with each and every thing you said ... except the last bit about liking the movie. Harryhausen's animation is -- like always -- awesome, but it isn't enough to make up for the ugliness of the plot surrounding it.

I want to live in a world of magic and miracles, not emptiness and entropy.

reply

I don't know if a movie being about characters whom you consider to be "mean" or "ugly" makes the movie or the movie's plot mean or ugly. The movie is about 19th century cowboys - I don't think you would much care for a 19th century cowboy if you were to ever meet one. They would have completely different sensibilities, especially with regards to animals, than you or I.

A movie can be about people with different moral standards than us and not itself be immoral. "Goodfellas" and "Reservoir Dogs" are not mean or bad movies just because they are focused on mean and bad people. The movie's characters have a different moral code than we do and probably than the filmmakers did. This isn't "Cannibal Holocaust" here, where what you see happening to animals on screen is what the actors did to animals in real life. In "Gwangi" the violence is perpetuated against Harryhausen's awesome models.

The OP makes a fair point about whether some of the characters deserved their fate, and if you want to consider the movie to be mean based on that then I won't argue with it (though I would disagree). But for the treatment of animals shown in the film I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

reply

I agree with troodon311. After all these are humans we're talking about, far from being perfect. I do however dare say I'm a fan of "Cannibal Holocaust" it's ugly to be sure, and the animal deaths were needless and cruel, but even that says something about the nature of man.

As for Gwangi, I echo what the OP said. Harryhausen's animation is awesome and he infuses every creature in this movie with a personality of its own. I don't however think Gwangi was evil. He was just being the dinosaur he was, maybe overly aggressive but hey he's an animal and animals aren't good or evil, they just "are". That made his death all the more agonizing. His screams were just pitiful.

Peace is not the absence of affliction, but the presence of God. ~Author Unknown

reply

His screams were just pitiful.
I think Lope's tears at the end are for Gwanji.

reply

The unpleasant thing about this movie, for me, is that on my old VHS copy, the color's so off that Gwangi's PURPLE. It looks like 'The Valley of Barni!'

"You may have come on no bicycle, but that does not say that you know everything."

reply

It ain't your vhs copy, drunkbearbastard. I just watched a hd version online and Gwangi is purple half the time and a more greenish hue the other half the time. Not sure what the hell that's all about...still an awesome Harryhausen outing. I liked it.






Being like everybody is the same as being nobody.

reply

"Gwangi's apparent color changes several times over the course of the movie because there was so much animation to do that Harryhausen did not have enough time to do proper color testing."

Source: http://gwangipedia.wikia.com/wiki/Gwangi

reply

1. T.J. wanted to train the Eohippus for a circus act, which will bring in more money in their show's format. People come to the circus and sit in an arena. What would you have them all do, thousands of people walk single-file past the cage to see it? That isn't their show's format.

2. Tuck wasn't a very nice guy initially when he showed back up, so some mistrust is warranted.

3. It is a similar storyline to "King Kong," so yes, the unpleasant people in this tale exhibit disrespect for nature, along with greed: they are only thinking of themselves. There would be no story without this.

4. The old woman who didn't want to mess with the prehistoric animals, in order not to upset Gwangi, was the only gypsy who had any sense. She wasn't afraid of Gwangi, in my opinion; she was a realist. The others were stupid not to listen to her (annoying though she was).

5. Elephant battle -- since it was a clay elephant battling a clay dinosaur, I enjoyed looking at Harryhausen's work. If it had been a real elephant, it would have been different.

6. Gwangi in the church -- I loved that scene. Spectacular, with fire, and Gwangi in his death throes. Harryhausen at his finest. I wonder how he worked around that fire.

The movie did have a strong moral message. I wonder if it stemmed from the growing anti-pollution and anti-nuclear movements in the 1960s -- "man playing God" -- or maybe, since O'Brien authored both it and King Kong, it was a similar theme and nothing more.

reply

The King Kong comparison works better. Same story: Man exploiting nature for profit.

reply