Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Did you people see the same film I saw?

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Shipwrecked by an unseen reef, having lost every one of his shipmates and travel companions, a world-renowned hunter turns up on the doorstep of a strangely luxurious estate and is welcomed by its perplexing, eccentric, eastern European owner. Chances are, you already know the rest of the story. This old film has been parodied and name-dropped so many times, it's virtually ubiquitous. Already knowing the twist, it seems pantomimed from the start, and I couldn't help wondering if it was really so telegraphed or if I merely knew what to look for. The production itself is cut-rate, obviously reusing set pieces throughout the jungle, but those shortcuts seem almost quaint given its age. It's technically uncertain, too. One particularly daring long zoom, from the top of a staircase to a lingering close-up, is clunky and awkward enough to draw a laugh, but also admirably ambitious for the period. Rough, bumbling cuts and edits litter the screen, barely covering for (or, in some cases, causing) a flubbed line or weird cadence from the actors. The plot is scrappy and short, though, straight to the point with little ballying about, and the penultimate chase through the jungle works amazingly well. More of a short story than an epic feature, it's a good way to burn an hour and appreciate how far the format has come.

The first cinematic version of this famous story opens with a potent shipwreck / shark attack scene, though it's a little too obvious in setting up its theme ("How would you like to change places with the tiger?", someone asks hunter Joel McCrea). The exposition segment in the middle could have been shorter, and could have used less of Fay Wray's tipsy brother. But the final third is exciting and relentlessly paced. Leslie Banks must have studied Bela Lugosi's performance in "Dracula" the previous year; he is not a vampire, but he also wants blood. Fay Wray is so beautiful that you can't take your eyes off her. *** out of 4.

What a deliciously creepy and suspenseful film this is. We know what's coming, but that doesn't stop us from feeling real tension that builds into a crescendo with an extended hunt sequence in the second half of the film. Leslie Banks is fantastic as the intellectual and cruel Count Zaroff, and Joel McCrea and Fay Wray play their parts well. The film is hokey in places (such as a rather comical fighting/wrestling scene), but that adds to its camp value, as did recognizing some set elements from 'King Kong'. I found it easy to overlook the sillier things because the story itself is so strong – well ahead of its time, and re-used in countless movies and TV shows over the decades. A small example of that is the ending, which may remind modern viewers of 'Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan'.Early on we're given some food for thought with this line: "I was thinking of the inconsistency of civilization. The beast of the jungle, killing just for his existence, is called savage. The man, killing just for sport, is called civilized. It's a bit inconsistent, isn't it?" We get action in the form of a shipwreck and shark attack. We get eeriness and sadism in the Count, as well as a pre-Code ominous hint of intended rape ("Kill! Then love."), and that's all before an exciting game of "outdoor chess". There's a lot to like in this action-packed and fun film.

If you ask me, I think that the decidedly deranged Count Zaroff seriously needed to chill, big-time, and, with that, find himself some cute, little boy-toy to play around with and just put all of the mad zest for the sport of the hunt right out of his head.(I mean, c'mon, man! Give it a rest, already!) Even though I'd say that this somewhat stilted moldie-oldie (from 1932) had plenty of potential, it, unfortunately, also left a whole lot to be desired.Regardless of its surprisingly brief 63-minute running time, this Adventure/Thriller noticeably dragged its ass in a number of crucial scenes. And, with that, I'd say that a good 15 minutes edited from its story would have benefited the sluggish pace of the action, immensely.This tall tale of "cat & mouse" also contained some really unconvincing violence that, often enough, had me hooting with laughter. Believe me, regardless of some expensive-looking sets, this 82-year-old early-talkie certainly hasn't aged very well, at all.