MartinHafer young Renaldo some of the integration of clips is poor--wrong size/perspective bare breasts, animal violence--pre-code staged actual animal fights in Mexico! animal cruelty you black ape... monkeys Naked Prey"Trader Horn" is a very good film, but it's also a monstrous film--a very strange combination. I noticed that I my wife and I watched it, she was terrified and even angered several times--mostly because the filmmakers were so darned irresponsible in the way they treated the animals (and even cast members!).The film begins with Horn (Harry Carey) and Peru (Duncan Renaldo) trekking through Africa with their porters and Horn's assistant, Rencharo (Mutia Omoolu). They are looking to trade salt and trinkets to the locals for ivory and furs. But, instead of taking advantage of the naiveté of these tribesmen, the tables end up getting turned on them. Despite Horn's experience on the Continent, he's finally out of his league--among incredibly hostile natives who seem bent on killing them all. In an odd twist, they meet up with a savage white woman living among these locals and they take 'Nina' with them on a cross-country run from these hostile warriors. This portion of the film is highly reminiscent of the later film "The Naked Prey" (with Cornel Wilde).While the film is exciting and has a lot of great action location sequences, the film also is very tough to watch. Because the film was made in the Pre-Code era (where rules about film content were rarely enforced), the film is amazingly violent. In fact, MGM didn't like the final product, so they took a bunch of animals (probably from circuses or zoos) to Mexico and had them kill each other or killed them outright and stuck this into the movie!! There was no PETA or American Humane Association to oversee the project and it is tough watching animals actually die. In particular, there is a scene where a lion is impaled on a spear and it appears that they really did this for the entertainment of the audiences! Uggh. Additionally, being a Pre-Code piece, Nina spends much of the movie wearing very little--and all the native women are topless--which was not a problem in 1931. However, with the toughened Production Code of 1934, this film would have been heavily edited to be shown in the States or not at all. Because of all this, it's a film you definitely cannot ignore!! Exciting location shots, lots of action and a bit of trash--all make for a very exciting but unsavory film.

Robert J. Maxwell W. S. ("One-Take Woody") Van Dyke assembled one of those movies about two intrepid white men (Carey and Renaldo) trekking through the bush in search of a lost missionary's daughter. Whether or not they find her, and under what circumstances, I leave to the viewer's guess. Carey is the savvy white explorer and Renaldo is the handsome young novice, whom Carey calls "Laddie." It's not as racist as one might expect from a 1931 movie, and much of the spectacular footage was shot in Kenya and the Congo. The movie takes a reasonably sensible attitude towards "the beasts" they encounter too, though they chuckled as they shoot and kill crocodiles on the banks of the river. "You just wounded him," chides Carey, good-naturedly. As far as I could tell, they got the names of the beasts right -- gnus vs wildebeests; the black panther being a melanistic leopard -- and the tribal names too -- Masai and Kikuyu. (Remember the Mau Mau? They were mostly Kikuyu.) It had been nine years since "Nanook of the North" made a splash, and this splash is bigger and has stars with names, and they don't look like Nanook and his pals. But it's all old hat by now.The film must have gone over big with audiences in 1931. They got not only rhinoceroses but Duncan Renaldo is a pith helmet the size of a rain barrel and the configuration of a flying saucer.

LeonLouisRicci In the opening credits it states "dedicated to the White hunters" and they all have Esq. after their names. Fair enough. But, no mention of the natives at all. Not one name or Tribe or even an acknowledgment of their existence in the film. Seeing that the tribesmen are on screen 90% of the time, it seems a bit odd. Or maybe not.It is striking to see the natives in full display. There are cornrows, face piercing, tattoos, and fully exposed female breasts. There is even a "soul" handshake. All for your perusal for the price of a ticket. But no screen credit, as if they were somehow animated props.Racism and the dehumanization of the native people as a standard practice in Hollywood (and society) in 1931 was the status quo. So we will leave it at that.The film itself is quite a remarkable achievement. It is the granddaddy of jungle pictures and enjoyable today. There are incredible shots of wildlife and white life in contrast. A Caucasian woman raised by the natives and "rescued" by our heroes, cannibals, pygmies, love and death laid out against a tapestry of a beautiful virgin landscape. We moderns have lost our wonder and awe for this type of thing, but one could imagine audiences in 1931 completely enjoying this walk on the wild side guilty pleasure and relishing a ride to dark side.

nekengren-2 Watch this movie for the on location footage. Yes, the plot is simple but it is enough to keep the movie progressing forward with much interest. I was fascinated with the footage of various real African tribes. Lots of facial closeups and extensive footage of ceremonies with dancing and drums. This very much seems the real thing and represents Africa at a more primitive early century. I felt the dread of our adventurers when they are up next as sacrifices to the tribal ceremony. I suppose if you want to see stereotyping you can, but I saw both the good and the bad exhibited by these tribes. To know that they traveled in 1930 to do all this on location is quite amazing. The wildlife footage is the main focus of our films beginning. It feels very nature show but feels a different reality than the nature shows of today. The brutality of nature and of mans very real slaughter of creatures in this film may bother the squeamish. Truly ground breaking film for 1931.