anwarul210 How this was nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards is beyond me. This is not a movie, but a documentary- and not a good one at that. The title cards for this silent movie try to give the impression of grandeur to the jungle whilst explaining what a simple Siamese family is up to. However, they end up as hokey, antiquated and unnecessary.Most of the film is spent on how the Siamese people trap or kill animals or escape from them. It appears that most of the killings were for the benefit of the film crew as the animals did not look like they posed a threat to the people normally. As for the family, I did not care what happened to them.Dull and boring. I have seen better documentaries on 'Sesame Street'.

dougdoepke Thanks to those other reviewers for filling in the background to what is now an antique-- but no less fascinating-- oddity. The movie reflects a time period when enterprising (and intrepid) filmmakers like Cooper and Schoedsack were discovering the audience potential for semi-documentaries showing exotic peoples and locales. Here it's an adventure in northern Siam (Thailand). The rough storyline follows a Laotian family and villagers as they compete against a fierce jungle for livelihood. As expected, scenes are filled with wild beasts and clambering natives. Some scenes are obvious pandering —the gamboling monkey, the cute baby; others are pure spectacle—the rampaging elephant herd, the marauding big cats. Of course, much of the animal spectacle-- though not the killing-- is familiar in our age of 24-hour cable TV. Still, seeing how the natives cope under primitive conditions remains fascinating.A couple points, I think, are worth noting. Though the exact locale is not pin-pointed on a map, the location appears roughly within what has since become known notoriously as The Golden Triangle (northern convergence of Burma, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam). Whatever its status in 1927, the Triangle has grown into one of the world's biggest sources of heroin-grade opium. I can't help wondering whether the advance of a money economy has since turned villagers like those of the movie into cash-crop farmers.Also, the movie's theme writes confidently of the jungle's permanent presence. Eighty years later with new waves of extractive technology, and I wonder if that permanence is as assured now as it was then. Looks to me like the rainforests are under industrial siege and may well be losing their presence in the face of human advancement. A rather ironical turn of events.Neither of these points is meant to detract from the overall excellence of the film. However, I don't think the movie should be viewed as a dead historical document. Instead, it can be used as an informative lens for looking at the age-old struggle between man and nature.

MartinHafer I actually had very low hopes for this movie when I picked it up--it looked like a dull silent documentary about a dull group of Siamese (Thai) villagers living in the jungle. I was either expecting a dull documentary or a fake film filled with White folks dressed like Asians and stock footage instead of real action. However, I was very pleasantly surprised when the film turned out not to exactly be a documentary but had a surprisingly interesting story behind it as well as excellent writing--making this a far from dull story indeed. In addition, the film was not filmed on some back lot or crammed full of stock images, but Paramount Studios went to a lot of trouble--going to Siam and using real Siamese (not conjoined) people. And, these Asians were NOT White people acting like dumb lackeys like Charlie Chan or those in THE GOOD EARTH but real people that you cared about. So, thanks to a good story, decent characters and action as well as a sensitive portrayal in the jungle, this is an excellent film and it occasionally had a nice sense of humor. It also helped that real elephants, tigers, leopards and other animals were used--not props or stuffed animals. However, of all the animal stars, I think I liked the gibbon best--you'd have to see it to understand what I mean.For 1927, this is truly an amazing and modern film, though modern sensitivities might be aroused. PETA members will no doubt cringe when much of the plot involves hunting and killing tigers and leopards and elephants! All these scenes are amazingly realistic and given that the villagers were being killed by these critters, I could certainly understand the film--but in the 21st century, some people are bound to be shocked with the savagery of the action.

thompson62208 I had just seen Cooper's movie "The Most Dangerous Game" and really liked it. A friend of mine suggested this film also by Cooper (&Schoendack) "Chang". I'm not one who normally rents silent movies but glad I did this one. Explores family life in the jungles of Siam (Thailand)in 1925. The way the family interacts with an unbelieveable assortment of animals is astounding. The scenes with tigers, leopards, bears, snakes etc are not to be missed. I venture to say that the elephant (Chang) stampede scene in this movie has never been done the way its done in this film--simply fantastic.