Fine performances from Quinn and Hawthorne, and an hilarious cameo from Edward Fox, make this film work. I also learnt things about Stanley and Livingstone that I didn't know before. But the piece plays a little too much like a history lesson, and is rather too reverential towards its subjects, especially Livingstone. Well, if not excitingly, shot in London and Africa.
Add a Review
-
David-24021 June 1999
-
CommDocDenver21 May 2008We tuned in to Forbidden Territory on a night when we were surfing through free movies on OnDemand. We know little or nothing about the Livingstone-Stanley saga, so decided to give it a try. I don't recall ever seeing a movie production by National Geographic, so this was going to be new to us as well. We were very pleasantly surprised. The production values were topnotch, acting was fine, sets and cinematography very good. We enjoyed the story and ended by feeling that we learned something new. I nearly always check out "historical" stories and found several items confirmed by Wikipedia. There is even a portrait on Stanley's page done by his former fiancée, Alice Barney.
What pleased us most of all was the treatment of Livingstone's missionary work. We normally cringe when Hollywood gets hold of material with any sort of Christian theme, knowing that inevitably the Christian is portrayed as (in the words of Steve Taylor) "a loony or committing a crime." Not so here. There were no diatribes on the wrongfulness of wanting to bring Christianity and civilization to Africa. No not-so-subtle hints about how white men were going to destroy the indigenous culture and the environment. Thank you, National Geographic, for this little gem. -
movie-enthusiast19 August 2011This film shows a glimpse of what Africa was like in the 1870's - perhaps what it really was like. You may be expecting romance, serenity, and wonders of nature; however: You will get the hard reality of Arab slavers who murder more natives than they capture. You will experience the difficulties of forming an expedition and holding it together. Fearlessness of disease is met with the brick wall of disease. The only romance is the letter writing from Stanley to Alice Pike which is precious little. There is a good deal of introspection into Stanley's life starting with his childhood. Though interesting, this feels like an interruption to the story of the expedition. It does tell us, however; that Stanley is searching for other things as well. The actual meeting between Stanley and Livingstone seems anticlimactic but, now Stanley discovers the unrelenting drive in Livingstone to explore. --Stanley has reached his goal and perhaps found the father that he never had. Livingstone gives him letters to take back to England and these eventually become the proof of his success. Take the challenge and go on the expedition with him.
-
quitwastingmytime26 July 2021Only half the film is on Stanley's invasion/supposed "search." The other half is a lot of introspection about his early life as an orphan abused by the man who took him in. That half slows the film down to a crawl. It's bad Dickens imitation, and not told in an interesting way.
Nat'l Geographic did present this, as they did originally sponsor the invasion force. Yes, invasion force. Stanley and his men were heavily armed, intruding in other nations' territory. A local chief leading his people to fight off slave traders is shown as evil and barbarous. Most people would say he's the good guy. But Stanley befriended the slave trader and fought alongside him against the anti slavery local natives, personally killing at least half a dozen.
Stanley also, the film made clear, was using forced labor. Once local porters joined they could not leave, and were beaten and threatened, poorly fed, living under dangerous conditions, and died at high rates. Finally they had enough and rebelled.
So Nat Geo actually showed the ugly sides of Stanley, and is to be commended for that. The friendship between Stanley and Livingstone and the later dispute back in London over whether Stanley made up his stories are where the film slows down to a crawl. It's as slow paced as those awful Merchant Ivory films. But if you enjoy them, you might enjoy this. -
len-murray27 November 2004Pity the makers didn't realize that David Livingstone was a Scot and not an Englishman; or perhaps even worse - that they don't know the difference! Otherwise, it was a film that my wife and I thoroughly enjoyed. It is the sort of film that has everything, a good story line, some excellent acting (especially from Edward Fox ) a bit of excitement - indeed quite a bit of excitement - and a fair bit of history. I am not sure just how close it is to actual fact but it is very enjoyable just the same. I am troubled by the ignorance of such a basic fact (the nationality of one of the principal characters) and that does raise doubts in my mind as to the accuracy of the rest but even if you were to view it all as fiction it is still well worth watching.