andrejedi-1 I read the book and watched the movie and I must say the movie did more harm to the book than gaining it attention. What was original a gem of literature is turned into a cliché of white man saving, or trying to save, a natural paradise. It ended up a farce. Of course, Audrey was wonderful, as she always was. But the adaptation was so bad that the original message, of relationship between human kind and environment and the danger of the former on the latter, was totally lost. Of course, the beautiful description of the land in the book is nowhere to be found. I strongly advise those who are interested to go and read the book itself. Understandably, this film was made in 1959 but the script is really so horrible that even the presence of Audrey could not save it.

ccamp3175 Given that this poor old movie might be surpassed for "feyness" only by the likes of William Shatner's Incubus, I hesitate to reveal that I watched TMC's entire presentation of it, through to the bitter end. I suppose I should really be embarrassed, moreover, that the reason I hung on, was none other than the fact that SHE cavorts in that rather clingy sheath for the entire length of the film. At least one other fan, though, admits to a rather lascivious interest the other star, the one without his shirt, (re: the 2009 thread above), so I probably won't be chastised for my insensitivity to Green Mansions' preciocities, and frankly salacious attraction to the incarnation(s) of A. Hepburn starring in it. I must say I was quite rapt with the way that shift stretches tight over her haunches as she scrambles up the rocks, and with the not infrequent display of wedgies, both fore and aft. Especially because there are basically no titillating scenes from the rest of her career, one quick shot of her in a swim suit beside the pool in Two for the Road notwithstanding. And, although I do love a skinny girl, IMHO, she is just a little healthier-looking in Green Mansions, and surely, she was very young. To my lasting chagrin, though, it's 2012, I'm 67, and I've never even heard of this bloody film. Thank the great movie spirits though, as usual, at TMC, for revealing to us new sides, as it were, of this eternal cutie-pie.

vincentlynch-moonoi It's a RARE film that I would give a "9" to, but I was tempted to do so here because this is a RARE film. Not a perfect film, mind you, but exceptional none the less. But, an "8" will suffice.The first reason I'm giving this film such a high rating is that there's not a single actor in it that I'm particularly fond of. In regard to Audrey Hepburn, I could take her or leave her. I enjoyed about 20% of her films. This is the only film of Anthony Perkins that I like. And, as with Hepburn, there are but a very few performances by Lee J. Cobb that I've really enjoyed. Yet, I very much enjoyed each of them in this film.The second reason I'm giving this film such a high rating is that it's truly unique. If you don't like this film, then you probably can't see it as a fable, rather than a real story. You must set aside reality to enjoy this film. The story is really one of a normal man seeking gold for revenge who finds something more precious -- an amazing love. There's no other film that comes to mind as being similar.I'll not relate the plot...others have done that. But I will discuss my displeasure with the ending. Apparently in the novel, Rima dies in the fire. Here, we are left to decide if the glowing image is really her, or her spirit. In earlier viewings, I thought Rima died and what we see is her spirit, because that would explain why Perkins finds the dead doe. But in my last viewing I noted that Anthony Perkins walks to her outstretched hand. So either it is Rima, or he has died...but from what. Obviously, MGM felt we had to have a sort-of happy ending.Nevertheless, because of its uniqueness and beauty, this is a film to savor.Kudos to MGM for the beauty of both the on-location filming in South America and the lush sets for other portions of the film.

Jim Colyer I was 13 in 1959 but was unaware of this film when it came out. Of course, I knew about Anthony Perkins and Audrey Hepburn in those days. I became aware of Green Mansions when I read the novel at age 23. It was after that, that I saw the film on television. I was captivated. It has everything: romance, adventure, politics and mysticism. Audrey as Rima the bird girl is mesmerizing. Her innocence is as much a part of the 1950s as it is Hudson's nature girl. Nature pervades this film. The South American rainforest envelops us. It is an exercise in green. Green Mansions is a work of art, beautiful to behold, yet one step ahead of raw reality at all times. Both Perkins and Hepburn died relatively young. Perkins, a bi-sexual, died of AIDS.