hollywood safari trailer

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

• Upcoming Movies and TV shows
• Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
• Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

• What's the Tomatometer®?
• Login/signup

Movies in theaters

• Opening this week
• Top box office
• Coming soon to theaters
• Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

• Netflix streaming
• Prime Video
• Most popular streaming movies
• What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

• Love Lies Bleeding Link to Love Lies Bleeding
• Problemista Link to Problemista
• Late Night with the Devil Link to Late Night with the Devil

New TV Tonight

• Mary & George: Season 1
• Star Trek: Discovery: Season 5
• Sugar: Season 1
• American Horror Story: Season 12
• Parish: Season 1
• Ripley: Season 1
• Loot: Season 2
• Lopez vs Lopez: Season 2
• The Magic Prank Show With Justin Willman: Season 1

Most Popular TV on RT

• 3 Body Problem: Season 1
• A Gentleman in Moscow: Season 1
• We Were the Lucky Ones: Season 1
• Shōgun: Season 1
• The Gentlemen: Season 1
• Palm Royale: Season 1
• Manhunt: Season 1
• The Regime: Season 1
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV
• TV & Streaming News

Certified fresh pick

• We Were the Lucky Ones Link to We Were the Lucky Ones
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

Pedro Pascal Movies and Series Ranked by Tomatometer

Dwayne Johnson Movies Ranked by Tomatometer

What to Watch: In Theaters and On Streaming

Awards Tour

TV Premiere Dates 2024

Renewed and Cancelled TV Shows 2024

• Trending on RT
• 3 Body Problem
• Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire
• Play Movie Trivia

All Hollywood Safari   Videos

• 162.437 movies
• 10.224 shows
• 29.894 seasons
• 615.591 actors
• 8.990.042 votes

• Best movies top 250
• Movie updates
• News Updates
• TV Shows updates
• Celebrity News
• Most Popular Celebrities
• Top 100 Celebrities
• Highest Net Worth Celebrities
• Celebrities born today
• On demand News
• Amazon Prime
• BBC iPlayer
• Paramount Plus
• Awards & Events News
• Sundance Film Festival
• Cannes Film Festival
• SXSW Film Festival
• Tribeca Film Festival

• Hollywood Safari

• Cast & crew

Hollywood Safari (1997)

Genre: adventure / action, duration: 99 minuten, country: united states, directed by: henri charr, stars: john savage , ted jan roberts and don wilson, imdb score: 4,1  (207), releasedate: 5 august 1997.

This movie is not available on US streaming services.

This movie is not available on UK streaming services.

Hollywood Safari plot

"Two Lions Loose in the Hills... One's Not Their Pet!" When a murderous mountain lion kills an innocent boy, a real manhunt ensues for the animal. Coincidentally, a circus lion escapes from a truck and the animal is immediately identified as the culprit. Trainer Troy and his wife go to great lengths to convince the police that the escaped tame lion isn't homicidal.

Actors and actresses

Deputy Rogers

Josh Johnson

Peter Johnson

Sheriff Todd

Rookie McLean

Reviews & comments.

• Opinion/Review

E-mail address

No comments are posted yet. Be the first to leave a comment.

Latest News

2024's biggest movies - Everything you need to know about Alien: Romulus including NEW trailer

New Movie Releases: Playing in U.S. theaters from this week

New Movie Releases: Which movies are out in UK cinemas this week?

Little Nicky 2 Poster: Is it real or fake?

More to explore.

Drama, 1999

Mad about Mambo

Comedy / Romance, 2000

Warriors of Virtue

Fantasy / Action, 1997

Music / Comedy, 2003

Trending Movies

• Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire
• Le Salaire de la Peur
• Dune: Part Two
• Snack Shack
• Heart of the Hunter
• The American Society of Magical Negroes

Trending Shows

• 3 Body Problem
• The Walking Dead: The Ones Who Live
• Renegade Nell
• Ore dake Level Up na Ken
• Constellation

Corporate & Media

Realtimes | Publishing Network

• FootballTransfers.com
• FootballCritic.com
• FCUpdate.nl
• FighterFans.com
• MovieMeter.nl
• MovieMeter.com
• MusicMeter.nl
• BoekMeter.nl
• GamesMeter.nl
• WijWedden.net
• Kelderklasse
• Anfieldwatch
• MeeMetOranje.nl

About MovieMeter

MovieMeter aims to be the largest, most complete movie archive with reviews and rankings, in the World. Our team of journalists delivers the latest news for movies and TV shows. Click here to read more about us .

Social media

• MovieMeterReviews
• moviemeter__
• @MovieMeter_

Popular top lists

• Top 250 best movies of all time
• Top 250 best scifi movies of all time
• Top 250 best thriller movies of all time
• Top 250 best action movies of all time
• Top 100 best movies released in the last 3 years
• Top 50 best family movies of all time

© 2024 MovieMeter B.V.

MPAA Rating

Produced by, hollywood safari (1997), directed by henri charr.

• AllMovie Rating 5
• User Ratings ( 0 )
• Your Rating
• Overview ↓
• User Reviews ↓
• Cast & Crew ↓
• Releases ↓
• Related ↓

Synopsis by Perry Seibert

Characteristics, related movies.

Hollywood Safari (1997)

Cast & Crew

Movie details, popular adventure movies.

Movie Reviews

Follow Moviefone

Movie trailers.

Watch Hollywood Safari

• 1 hr 39 min
• 4.2   (205)

Hollywood Safari is a 1997 adventure-comedy movie that follows the thrilling and hilarious journey of three friends who embark on an African wildlife safari. Starring John Savage, Ted Jan Roberts, and Don Wilson, the movie takes place in the beautiful landscapes of Kenya and Tanzania, where the three adventurous friends set out on a safari trip with their tour guide.

The movie begins by introducing the three friends, Jack (John Savage), Brian (Ted Jan Roberts), and Brad (Don Wilson). Jack is a former pilot who lost his license due to an accident, Brian is a young college student, and Brad is a martial arts instructor. The three friends have nothing in common except for their love for adventure and risk-taking.

On their arrival in Tanzania, the group meets their tour guide, Jonathon (Frank Kabele), who takes them on a wildlife safari. Jonathon's knowledge about the local wildlife and surroundings amazes the group, but they soon realize that he is not the guide they signed up for. Jonathon is nowhere near as adventurous as the group hoped for, and they convince him to take them on a different kind of tour.

The movie follows the group's hilarious misadventures as they veer off the beaten path and come across unexpected obstacles. Jack, Brian, and Brad soon find themselves in a life-threatening situation when they are faced with a group of poachers who are killing the wildlife for profit. The group decides to take matters into their own hands and stop the poachers from hurting any more animals.

As they fight for their survival, the three friends realize that they have a newfound respect for the African wildlife and its natural beauty. They become increasingly aware of the harsh realities of illegal poaching and hunting practices, which motivates them to do their part to protect the animals.

The movie has plenty of action-packed scenes that keep the viewers engaged, along with a good dose of humor. The comedic timing of the actors is perfect, creating some laugh-out-loud moments that are sure to keep the audience entertained. The stunning scenery and wildlife of Africa are also showcased beautifully in the movie, making it one of the main highlights.

Overall, Hollywood Safari is a fun and entertaining movie that is perfect for anyone looking for an adventurous and hilarious ride. The movie is suitable for all ages and is a great choice for a family night in. While it's not the most polished movie out there, it definitely makes up for it in its charm and overall feel-good factor.

Hollywood Safari is a 1997 action movie with a runtime of 1 hour and 39 minutes. It has received mostly poor reviews from critics and viewers, who have given it an IMDb score of 4.2.

• Genres Action Adventure Kids & Family
• Cast John Savage Ted Jan Roberts Don Wilson
• Director Henri Charrett
• Release Date 1997
• MPAA Rating PG
• Runtime 1 hr 39 min
• Language French
• IMDB Rating 4.2   (205)

• Rent or buy
• Categories Categories
• Getting Started

Hollywood Safari

Customers also watched.

Cast and Crew

Other formats

14 global ratings

How are ratings calculated? Toggle Expand Toggle Expand

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Start Selling with Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

• Coming Soon Theaters • Online
• Advanced Search
• Collections Top 500
• Recommendations Movies • TV Shows
• Search by Name
• Popular Top 500
• My TV Shows
• My Calendar
• Coming Soon Premieres

TV show's Ratings

• IMDb 7.7 54
• Cast & Crew

Related Movies There are no related titles yet, but you can add them:

Add a short review

280 characters

Sign up and you will see here friends impressions of the TV show.

Friends comments and ratings, trending tv shows.

The best website for movie search and thoughts sharing with friends

• Browser extension

Join or Sign In

Sign in to customize your TV listings

By joining TV Guide, you agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge the data practices in our Privacy Policy .

• Seasons & Episodes

TV Listings

• Cast & Crew

Hollywood Safari

• Animal Planet

Adventures of the Johnson family, which trains wild animals for movies.

Loading. Please wait...

My cable/satellite provider:

There are no TV airings over the next 14 days. Add it to your Watchlist to receive updates and availability notifications.

Cast & Crew See All

Tommy devers, peter johnson.

Troy Johnson

Josh johnson, latest news see all, popular shows see all shows, the pursuit of love.

FBI: Criminal Pursuit

Walker, Texas Ranger

• Festival Reports
• Book Reviews
• Great Directors
• Great Actors
• Special Dossiers
• Past Issues
• Support us on Patreon

Subscribe to Senses of Cinema to receive news of our latest cinema journal. Enter your email address below:

• Thank you to our Patrons
• Style Guide
• Advertisers
• Call for Contributions

Hatari! and the Hollywood Safari Picture

– Howard Hawks on Hatari! (1962) (1)

Africa : An Introduction

A month prior to the scheduled opening of Warner Bros.’ Land of the Pharaohs in June 1955 – and to the “crushing disappointment” that its release would entail for its makers (2) – director-producer Howard Hawks announced to the press that Gary Cooper had agreed to appear in his upcoming picture, “Africa”. (3) In fact, Cooper had given his word on the condition that he would be allowed first to approve the film’s script, which at this early stage had yet to materialize. (4) As the months wore on with no finished screenplay, Cooper repeated his condition, before flatly telling Hawks associate Charles Feldman that he was no longer interested. (5) Cooper’s withdrawal was followed by that of would-be executive producer Jack Warner, prompting the director to commence litigation against the studio bearing Warner’s name. (6) Ultimately, the dispute would be settled with an additional $50,000 “slipped” into the budget of Hawks’ next and final Warner Bros. picture, Rio Bravo (1959). (7)

In spite of the critical and box-office success of the director’s third Western, Warner remained uninterested in the “Africa” project, leading finally to the director’s break from the studio and the film’s sale to Paramount in late 1959, early 1960. (8) By the time “Africa”, later re-christened Hatari! , began shooting in November of 1960, the recent mania for safari-themed pictures had long since subsided. From 1950 to 1953, four safari pictures finished among the top dozen at the box office in their respective years: Compton Bennett and Andrew Marton’s King Solomon’s Mines (1950, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer) placed second, John Huston’s The African Queen (1951, United Artists) seventh, Henry King’s The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952, Fox) third and John Ford’s Mogambo (1953, MGM) eleventh. (9) However, following the last of these – which “holds the record for first-year grosses of all Ford’s pictures” (10) – no additional safari-themed film finished among its year’s top twenty until Hatari! placed eighth in 1962. (11) Yet, even Hatari! failed to achieve unmitigated commercial success: though it was “very popular with kids that summer [… and was] a fine performer in the Midwest and Southwest, it did less well in bigger, more sophisticated markets” (12) . In fact, provided Hatari!’s relatively high production expenses, “the film remained officially in the red until the 1970s, when television sales started generating residuals” (13) . Thus, while Hawks’ safari picture was the highest grosser since the form’s early 1950s heyday – and in unadjusted numbers Hatari! bested the cycle’s previous peak, The Snows of Kilimanjaro – the director had not found a way to make the safari picture profitable once again.

Nor did his film receive particularly outstanding notices in the press (14) , save for its ecstatic appreciation in France, where it finished third in Cahiers du Cinéma’s annual poll of the year’s best – and first on filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard’s ballot. (15) While Hartari! did manage one Oscar nomination for Russell Harlan’s cinematography, this is half the number received by either The Snows of Kilimanjaro or Mogambo ; one-third as many as King Solomon’s Mines , which won trophies in the Best Cinematography and Editing categories, while being the only film in the cycle to be nominated for Best Picture; and finally one-fourth the number secured by The African Queen , the winner of a Best Actor award for Humphrey Bogart’s performance. In short, Hatari! failed to match the recognition bestowed upon the highest-grossing safari films of the early 1950s.

If Hatari! was neither the most financially successful (given again its high expenditures) nor the most critically-lauded safari picture of its time, Hawks’ work nevertheless remains the supreme artistic contribution of a cycle that it completed nearly a dozen years after it had began. Further, not only did Hawks make the finest film to emerge from Hollywood’s post-war spate of safari pictures – that is, Hatari! is not simply the best film that happens to be a safari picture, though it is this, too – his is the single example in the cycle that most fully resolves the æsthetic problems that are endemic to its form: namely, by finding solutions for the difficulties presented by the form-defining presence of both documentary and non-documentary footage. To be sure, this inherent coexistence of ontologically distinct materials complicates both the narrative structures of these pictures, and also their respective visual appearances. In Hatari! , however, Hawks has found new bases to integrate the action footage of the safari and the abutting narratives, thus reducing the form’s inhibiting seam. To put it another way, Hatari! more fully constructs the world (the diegesis) that all safari pictures struggle to shape.

It is imperative to note that the above use of the term ‘constructs’ to imply the making of a narrative world, rather than say ‘preserves’ to indicate the capture of a pre-existing, unified time and space, follows necessarily from the codes of the safari film. Specifically, the safari picture – at least in the early 1950s cycle – trades on the spectator’s acceptance that the documentary footage of the African wildlife and that of its white characters is contiguous in time and space, and, as such, that the white (and sympathetic native) persons are subject to bodily harm. This very danger – though in most cases fictional – defines the safari picture.

It is also the aspect that French film theorist André Bazin emphasized in an extended footnote included in his “Virtues and Limitations of Montage” essay. To clarify his views on Albert Lamorisse’s Crin Blanc (1953), Bazin offers a second example from an “otherwise mediocre” Ealing picture, Where No Vultures Fly (Harry Watt, 1951). (16) After setting up the parameters of a scene where a young child wanders off from his parents in a South African game reserve, the author provides the following analysis:

Here let us interrupt the story for a moment. Up to this point everything has been seen in parallel montage and the somewhat naïve attempt at suspense has seemed quite conventional. Then suddenly, to our horror, the director abandons his montage of separate shots that has kept the protagonists apart and gives us instead parents, child, and lioness all in the same full shot. This single frame in which trickery is out of the question gives immediate and retroactive authenticity to the very banal montage that has preceded it. (17)

Bazin indicates this same quality of proximity as generating spectatorial “horror”, though one that is determined by the preservation of a single space, a non-fictional, spatial-temporal reality. Whereas montage allows for “trickery”, for the child and lioness to appear close when in reality they may not be, the single frame reveals the absence of barriers between the two, and therefore the possibility for bodily harm. While Bazin proceeds to note that, “the feat was made possible by the fact that the lioness was half tamed”, and was of no real danger to the child consequently, he reaffirms the “homogeneity of space” as a mark of “realism” (18) . In other words, whether or not any actual risk was presented to the child, the fact of a single, undivided space provides the condition for danger that creates the film’s suspense. Here, we see the possibility of bodily harm even if it is not particularly likely.

In this we also see the dream that inspires the safari picture: to show real bodies in real African settings in real danger. Throughout the history of the form, we are granted the first two, though not always together, with little hope of the third. Hatari! again is one of the rare examples of a work that – on occasion – combines all three. To a lesser extent so does W.S. Van Dyke’s Trader Horn (1931, MGM), which in a number of respects may be considered the paradigmatic example of the Hollywood safari picture. Accordingly, it is with Van Dyke’s defining work that the following study of the Hollywood safari “A” picture will commence.

Following this preliminary examination of the form’s defining or even classical text – in terms of the safari picture’s formation rather than its relationship to Hollywood proper – its 1950s-era peak will be considered, before returning to the cycle’s culmination in Hawks’ 1962 masterpiece. At each step, the joining of documentary and non-documentary footage will be considered, with particular attention paid to the solutions posed by each set of filmmakers.

Trader Horn : the Paradigmatic Safari Picture

While certainly Bazin is accurate in tracing a line from these earlier examples to Trader Horn in terms of the latter’s reliance upon location shooting in exotic places, the fact remains that Trader Horn belongs fundamentally to the adventure genre, where its documentary/non-documentary hybridity lends the genre a measure of authenticity. As the picture’s theatrical trailer announced: “From MGM’s ‘Hall of Fame’ comes Trader Horn … the most amazing and the greatest adventure picture of all time. Never! Never! Never equaled in screen history.” (23) With its voice-over commencing, this theme of the authentic (however salacious) is made explicit:

Trader Horn reveals the long hidden secrets of the Dark Continent; the mysteries of a jungle so wild and weird as if to be almost unbelievable; thrill follows thrill as the safari fights its way through the wilderness. ‘The curious fantastic pygmy warriors’… ‘See animals in death grapple’… ‘See lions in battle’… ‘See drums of juju’… (24)

Hence, Trader Horn will show its viewers “the long hidden secrets of the Dark Continent”, spectacles that no one has seen before. Trader Horn in this way certainly does endeavour to serve as an engine of exploration. And, yet, it is a pleasure to be granted the spectator within the contours of the narrative cinema. Authenticity is less its own justification in Trader Horn than it is a source of pleasure and excitement, which indeed are the film’s ultimate ends: be it those of seeing Africa’s untamed wildlife or of the adventure story that frames these scenes.

Moreover, the repeated use of the word ‘see’ in the trailer discloses not only the role of spectacle in Trader Horn , but further mimics a strategy that is present throughout Van Dyke’s work. As the picture’s two male leads (Harry Carey as the eponymous Horn and Duncan Renaldo as Peru) cross the African veldts and jungles, images of the terrain’s wildlife is often introduced by the less experienced Peru pointing off-screen and imploring the veteran Horn to “Look!” With this invitation, we share the characters’ assumed point-of-view as Horn explains to his young protégée and the film’s viewers alike what they are seeing, be it “Tommies … [i.e.] Thompson Gazelles” or the leopards that Horn offers are “dirty fighters”. In this regard, Horn himself acts as the picture’s experienced narrator, lending both Peru and the picture’s viewer a clearer understanding of what they are looking at in this fiction/non-fiction textual hybrid. This looking often signifies a suspension of the narrative’s forward progress, for we, like the film’s leads, are provided the opportunity to see the continent’s wildlife without considering their place in the picture’s narrative. The story waits to show us the footage that Van Dyke’s MGM crew captured in its ten-month location shoot in Tanganyika, Uganda, Kenya, the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan and the Belgian Congo. (25)

Likewise, the spectacle of Trader Horn extends to include the picture’s use of sound at a moment of that technology’s relative infancy – portable sound equipment was sent on location (26) , and, though a great detail was re-recorded after the crew returned to America in mid-January 1930, the intention at least was to record the sound “entirely on location” (27) . With this on-site sound, as with the film’s visual track, the effects can be of a purely æsthetic nature, as for instance when the crashing sound of a waterfall virtually prevents us from hearing a conversation conducted in its vicinity, or with the (presumably) native tongues that come unembellished to the spectator. In sum, Trader Horn asks us to hear the continent as much as it does to see it, be that of its natural wonders or the strange tongues of its peoples. Van Dyke’s work, therefore, is profoundly a spectacle of its historical moment, of the period of transition from the silent to sound cinemas.

Trader Horn often actively integrates the soundscapes of Africa into the picture’s narrative in much the same way that it narrativizes its safari footage. With respect to the former, Peru expresses his desire “to hear those [native] drums; maybe it’d be fun to be frightened”. To this, Horn immediately responds that in fact “it’s no fun”. Thus, Van Dyke cues his spectator to experience the repetition of this sound not as a spectacle extracted from the narrative, but instead as a signifier of imminent danger. With the sound of the native drums, narrative consequence will take precedence over aesthetic experience.

This same sense of danger presides over those interchanges between the picture’s human figures and the wildlife that imperils them, including the scene derided by Bazin. Frequently, in such instances, Van Dyke combines rear-projected images of the animals lunging toward the viewer and a performer attempting to stave off these attacks. In a less successful example, we see a rhino charging the screen and an African actor feigning a mortal wound. In a much more successful one, another African performer thrusts his spear into the oncoming lion. While it remains obvious that we are looking at the actor and animal in two separate spaces, the precise match of the angle of his throwing arm (which is cropped by the right edge of the frame) and the spear’s trajectory as it enters the frame, killing the lion at the last moment, indicates a visually-plausible interaction between man and animal, if not an actual event. Were the spectator unaware of the textural variations of the rear-projected animal and three-dimension foregrounded body, one could indeed imagine the occurrence of this very act as happening in this time and place, which is limited here only by the figure’s placement along the edge of the frame. The spear that kills the animal could come theoretically from this man’s hand.

Of course, the viewer cued to montage’s ‘trickery’ readily can see the techniques employed in this case. In separate moments, however, Van Dyke does indeed stage his actors in the same spaces as the picture’s wildlife. Perhaps the most spectacular example features heroine, Nina (Edwina Booth), among others as they hide between a pair of parallel trees, through which a group of storming wildebeests pass. Here, there is no question that a group of persons is occupying the same space as an unpredictable nature, even if in practice their situation behind the trees would prevent any likely bodily harm. Ultimately, the location of man and beast within a homogenous space stimulates an inherent sense of danger to the degree that the will of the animal remains unknowable. Surely these are domesticated and/or carefully manipulated creatures; yet, hovering above these images is the possibility that the animals will act according to their nature rather than their training, that they will finally escape prediction.

Trader Horn was an immediate critical and commercial success for MGM, generating strong reviews, an Oscar nomination for the best picture of 1930-1931 and box office that placed it among the six highest grossing films of 1931. (28) Accordingly, MGM, again under the direction of Van Dyke, attempted to follow on Trader Horn’s success with another jungle-situated picture, Tarzan and the Ape Man (1932). “With sufficient leftover footage from the Trader Horn expedition available (and no desire whatsoever to return to Africa), producer Bernard Hyman assembled basically the same crew” (29) to create a film that the studio hoped would be “the Trader Horn of 1932!” as the picture’s theatrical trailer announced. (30) In this way, Tarzan forged a parasitic relationship to the earlier picture, weaving the ‘leftover footage from the Trader Horn expedition’ into Tarzan ’s North Hollywood “jungle” locale. (31) Thus, if Trader Horn introduced the safari picture to the sound era, Tarzan and the Ape Man marked its re-articulation within the studio context. Or, to put it more forcefully, after Tarzan the safari picture would be bound to the studio, where it would remain until the post-war period.

King Solomon’s Mines : Tanganyika in Technicolor

Whereas the earlier work focused upon the Africa “of many exotic legends”, which is to say the Africa that could be reproduced on a London soundstage, the MGM version opens with thanks for the film’s numerous African locations; a title placing the picture in the 19th century; and gazelles, elephants, and a long take of white hunters and spear-bearing Africans approaching the camera under the arch of a savannah tree. As with Trader Horn nearly two decades earlier, MGM’s King Solomon’s Mines offers the spectacle of its actors in real African locations. (34) The filmmakers then cut in to a full shot of Stewart Granger as Allan Quartermain and his safari companions in an African landscape. Granger motions silently to his fellow hunters as they prepare to shoot nearby game. After another set of reverses between the hunters and the wildlife, maintaining an imagined 180° axis, a pair of the gentleman fire on the animals in tandem. The filmmakers reverse to the elephants, which charge on this cut. Another rifle shot brings the first of these animals to the ground, twitching as it struggles for its life before the camera. Bennett and Marton then cut back to a medium close-up as a hunter lifts his gun to take another shot. Quartermain, however, stops the hunter, objecting that he already has his.

Throughout this opening passage, the film’s two directors maintain a separation between the spaces figuring the actors and those that depict the wildlife – and again, utilizing Trader Horn’s strategy, the picture’s actors often implore their companions to “look”, thus setting off a shot/reverse-shot chain. Generally, Bennett and Marton preserve this reverse-shot strategy – with or without audio cues – with only occasional exceptions. One is the immediate aftermath of the hunt in which a white hunter and an African spear-bearer briefly share the same frame with an elephant. However, the filmmakers quickly cut to a reverse-angle composition of the two gentlemen kneeling on the ground, and then back to an image of the elephant charging the camera. As the filmmakers’ camera returns to the human figures, we see first the white hunter running from the animal – presumably in an image combining the actors and a rear projection of the charging elephant – and then an African, from a reverse close-in angle, tossing his spear at the elephant. The filmmakers continue their rapid cutting at this point, such as a brief insert of an African lifted by the elephant’s trunk, accompanied by a scream as a stunt man effectively flips over the animal’s head. The impact in real-time, however, is of the animal tossing the person over its head.

In the brief scene that immediately follows, Quartermain and company cross a hippopotamus and alligator infested river in a canoe. Of course, this scene, like the last, is introduced with an extreme long-shot of the actors in an African setting. Hence their distance from the camera appears to have allowed the filmmakers to substitute doubles for his billed performers, a strategy that is common not surprisingly to safari pictures. Furthermore, one might speculate (given the four disparate locations used during the five-month shoot) that the locations captured in these long-shots do not correspond geographically to those registered in the tighter compositions of the actors – the locations registered in each do not always possess the closest resemblance to one another, surely, though it is generally clear that each is an African location. (35) The point is: a creative geography is constructed in King Solomon’s Mines that fittingly concludes at a fictional African location of its own. Bennett and Marton have created an African to match that invented by the film’s source material.

Speaking of the film’s two directors, Compton Bennett and Andrew Marton, a quick look at their respective filmographies makes the picture’s probable division of labour clear enough: whereas Bennett is perhaps best known otherwise for the Oscar-winning Freudian drama The Seventh Veil (1945) and the Errol Flynn-Greer Garson romance That Forsyth Woman (1949), Marton’s credits include second unit work on Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ (1959, William Wyler), for which he won a special Golden Globe for his direction of the chariot race, and another co-director credit for The Longest Day (various, 1962), where he was responsible for the specific exterior episodes. (36) As such, it would seem logical to conclude that Bennett directed the picture’s performer interactions while Marton was in charge of its wild exteriors. This split in a sense highlights – and may even allegorize – the lack of unity that characterizes both King Solomon’s Mines and the safari picture more broadly. Given the documentary and non-documentary registers that all ‘A’ safari pictures manifest, the form would seem naturally suited to collaboration.

Prestige Productions: The African Queen and The Snows of Kilimanjaro

The next in this early 1950s cycle of African subject ‘A’ pictures, Henry King’s The Snows of Kilimanjaro , represents producer Darryl Zanuck’s attempt to translate Ernest Hemingway’s twenty-nine page short story into a feature-length film. In fact, it was the picture’s literary provenance, not its ostensible connection to the safari cycle, which proved to be its chief selling point. As the text from the trailer reads:

High on the list of the screen’s unforgettable achievements stand the immortal series of Ernest Hemingway … A Farewell to Arms … For Whom the Bell Tolls … The Sun Also Rises … To Have and Have Not … Now … Out of Hemingway’s greatest story, 20 th Century-Fox has created another motion picture masterpiece … The Snows of Kilimanjaro . (38)

However, given the combination of the short length of the text and the film’s 113-minute running time, The Snows of Kilimanjaro is less a straight adaptation than a composite text. To this end, King and Zanuck’s picture combines both the short story and elements from a number of separate Hemingway texts, thereby demanding a series of locations that include not only the African veldt, but also Paris, the Riviera and Madrid. Accordingly, second unit director of photography Charles Clark was dispatched to all of these places (save for Madrid, which was reproduced entirely in studio, thus giving the relevant sections their extreme artifice) before principle photography commenced. (39)

In comparison to King Solomon’s Mines , The Snows of Kilimanjaro features an even more pronounced separation of documentary and non-documentary footage. While the MGM picture largely utilized separate African locations which the film’s makers – particularly its Oscar-nominated editors Ralph E. Winters and Conrad A. Nervig – sutured together to create a plausible, if sometimes less than fluid space, The Snows of Kilimanjaro barely masks its fundamentally distinct materials. For example, when we see the film’s leads Gregory Peck (as Harry Street) and Ava Gardner (as Cythnia Green) on the trail of rhinos in the picture’s Kilimanjaro location, King employs two distinct places to convey the single setting that the actors occupy – in contrast to the single spatial field featuring Granger and company in King Solomon’s Mines . In The Snows of Kilimanjaro , we have foreground stagecraft, in this case tall grass, through which the actors wade as they approach their prey. Behind this three-dimensional space, there appears a rear-projected, two-dimensional background that situates the narrative in the vicinity of Kilimanjaro. That is, the foreground was studio shot, while the background was filmed on location.

Moreover, here as elsewhere, King and Oscar-nominated colour cinematographer Leon Shamroy utilize three-point lighting to mould the actor’s bodies three dimensionally. The effect in this scene, particularly with the back-lighting hitting Peck and Gardner’s shoulders, is to extract the performers from the space, denying the spatial integrity of the image in a form whose claims on verisimilitude are already quite fragile. King and Shamory’s three-point lighting gives the foregrounded human figures a volume that contradicts the flatness of the backing landscape.

Following this set-up, the actors recommence their motion in an extreme long-shot, not unlike those employed in King Solomon’s Mines . Here, extras are used in those occasions when we see actors in Africa. When again King cuts to the picture’s credited actors in a multi-figure medium-shot, it is not simply that we see the variations in volume and lighting but that the textural differences between the images register significantly: between the crisply lit foregrounded actors and the grainy, largely out-of-focus backdrops. In fact, a subsequent shot/reverse-shot series makes this same comparison even more extreme – again, a grainy, poorly-focused image of a hunter shooting a rhino is combined with Gardner’s reactions, crisply lit with a three point-lighting scheme, staged amid stagecraft thistle and situated before a decidedly out-of-focus backdrop of the African landscape. In terms of the combination of footage, therefore, it is hard not to see The Snows of Kilimanjaro as a regression from King Solomon’s Mines (to the extent that the 1952 picture far less successfully hides the seam resulting from the picture’s disparate film stocks).

Nevertheless, The Snows of Kilimanjaro does feature one technique that serves to lessen much of the form’s inherent unevenness. Specifically, the picture’s frequent use of filters achieves the effect of day-for-night, as the narrative moves between Peck’s character Harry Street lying in the shadows of Kilimanjaro and the wildlife that presumably surrounds this camp. This militates against the textural and colour-match issues that noticeably different film stocks exaggerate. Further, as with both Trader Horn and King Solomon’s Mines , The Snows of Kilimanjaro features a scene wherein a human body occupies the same space as a hyena. Of course, the body in question belongs to Peck’s double rather than to the actor himself, though at the very least The Snows of Kilimanjaro does introduce a human space breached by wildlife that contributes to many of the cycle’s most memorable moments.

Mogambo : the Auteurist Safari Picture

Mogambo was producer Sam Zimbalist’s second safari picture for MGM following King Solomon’s Mines , and, like that earlier work, it too was based on a 1930s source falling outside the safari genre; in the case of Mogambo , the point of origin was Victor Fleming’s 1932 adventure picture, Red Dust . (40) Indeed, like its source, Mogambo starred Clark Gable, alongside Gardner and twenty-three year-old Grace Kelly in her third motion picture role – a role that Ford scholar Tag Gallagher argues “ made her a star” (41) . Perhaps more prestigious than its cast, however, was the participation of director John Ford, who was fresh off his fourth Best Director Oscar for 1952’s The Quiet Man . While his predecessors at MGM and Fox were considered “studio directors”, Ford was already established as one of the greatest directors in Hollywood. Surely, commensurate with his and his cast’s high profiles, Mogambo was to be a major picture from the beginning; and, indeed, “the production safari [was] one of the largest safaris in modern time”, covering a thousand miles in eight days, and ultimately securing footage in five separate African states. (42)

Still it is less the picture’s production values than Ford’s unmistakable visual style that emerges most clearly in Mogambo : from the single African figure before a strong horizon at the sun’s rising to the director’s frequent manipulation of branches to frame discrete sections of the frame, from the director’s signature low angles to his side-lit porches echoing similar transitional spaces on the American frontier, Mogambo exemplifies the director’s visual rhetoric. Likewise, the African landscape, as important as it is to the safari picture as a type, corresponds to the director’s preference for natural exteriors throughout his Western corpus. Monument Valley, in other words, has been exchanged for Equatorial Africa.

Of course, as with each of the previous safari pictures, Ford does make occasional use of rear projection, as for instance when Victor Marswell (Gable), Honey Bear Kelly and Linda Nordley (Grace Kelly) share a boat ride down a calm river. With the rear-projected safari footage behind the actors, Grace Kelly’s character points off-screening pleading with her rival Honey Bear to “Look!” Characteristically, Ford then cuts to an elephant on the riverbank. Similarly, a hippo charging in the direction of the camera results in the boat rocking on its side and Honey Bear falling on her back – without, of course, any genuine contact between the two. Nonetheless, Mogambo remains much closer to Zimbalist’s previous safari picture in its predilection for natural landscapes save for the few occasions when the interaction of the picture’s stars and the animals in a wild context requires the safety of rear projection.

Then again, within the safari picture cycle Mogambo does offer unprecedented interaction between its actors and animals. Beyond Honey Bear’s heart-stopping encounter with the cheetah, she comfortably interacts with the wildlife (and particularly the baby elephants) on a number of occasions. Frequently, Garnder is shot within the same space as the animals, petting and interacting with the young elephants, sharing the frame with a young rhino and even fawning over a full-grown male lion through a set of hatched bars. In most of these instances, Mogambo offers representations of a tamed Africa to stand beside those of the wilds that characterize the safaris and especially the picture’s climatic encounter with the gorillas. As such, Mogambo no less than with its visual style, reaffirms the key thematic of the Fordian corpus: namely, the conflict between the garden of civilization and the desert of its absence.

And as with his Westerns, Ford has conceived of settings within which the civilizing of the desert is manifest: not only implicitly in the transitional spaces of the porches that serve as boundaries between the hearths of home and the wilds of nature, but more so the camp’s makeshift zoo where nature is effectively domesticated. This metaphorically rich ground compares to no less a Fordian set-piece than the half-built Tombstone church that so richly sums up the author’s garden/desert worldview in his masterpiece My Darling Clementine (1946). If Ford’s safari film does not quite equal My Darling Clementine’s crystallization of themes in the semantics of Tombstone and its population – Mogambo’s genre does not generate its meaning in the same organic sense – Mogambo nevertheless rates as the finest safari picture of the early 1950s cycle, and perhaps of the pre- Hatari! corpus as a whole.

Hatari! : “We Were Animal Catchers”

Then again, Hatari! did not simply create the necessary conditions for bodily harm – the actual spatial contiguity of human being and beast – but moreover placed its stars, and particularly Wayne, in real danger. An extended passage from McCarthy’s biography reveals much concerning the real life danger posed to the actors during the shooting of the film’s game-catching scenes:

Work soon began on the action that made everyone the most nervous – the catching of rhinos. Although stunt doubles, notably Hawks’ old friend Cary Lofton, were on hand, all the actors, at their director’s encouragement, intended not to use them, particularly Wayne. Veteran hunter Willy de Beer’s truck was rigged so that the animal catcher did his work from inside his cab, but that wasn’t very photogenic, in Hawks’ opinion, so a seat was affixed to the left front fender. This made the actors as visible as a large hood ornament but also very vulnerable. As soon as Wayne arrived, he grandly announced, “That de Vargas isn’t going to ride in the bucket seat anymore. I’m going to ride in it!,” and with very little practice, he proceeded to show everyone how it should be done. (44)

McCarthy continues:

John Wayne always said, “The most fun I ever had on any picture was on Hatari! ” But Hawks later revealed that Wayne, who admitted to being scared during much of the hunting action, “had the feeling with every swerve that the car was going to overturn as he hung on for dear life, out in the open with only a seat belt for support, motor roaring, body jarring every-which-way, animals kicking dirt and rocks and the thunder of hundreds of hooves increasing the din in his ears.” (45)

Therefore, the testimony of the actors corroborates the visual evidence that even the most cursory look at the picture emphasizes: we see Wayne in the catcher’s seat, from every imaginable angle. When, for instance, Hawks cuts in to an over-the-shoulder composition depicting the capture of a wildebeest, it is Wayne who fills the frame, reaching with his hook to secure the animal. Elsewhere, it is Duke again, not a double, whom we see wrestling a giraffe; sharing the same frame with a recently caught zebra; and even roping one of the famously dangerous rhinos. Thus, Hawks offers his spectator much more than a homogenous space with theoretical, yet minimal danger – though we see this in a number of Martinelli’s and Girardon’s scenes, as well as in the picture’s well-known “Baby Elephant Walk” climax. Hatari! , instead, depicts the real capture of wild animals on screen – made especially dangerous by their “total unpredictability” – conducted in many cases by the actual actors rather than their stunt doubles. (46) As supporting player Valentine de Vargas put it:

we learned a lot just from being around the men who did this, and eventually I saw that Hawks had us mesmerized, because we actually became part of it. We were animal catchers. (47)

Unlike those pictures which preceded it, Hatari! is the real thing: a filmed safari with its actors as participants.

In the midst of action, Hawks only rarely extracts his performers from their African setting. The one occasion that this does occur is in the filming of dialogue in the cabins and beds of the speeding trucks. In these instances, necessitated by the implausibility of performing and capturing dialogue amid an actual safari, Hawks does utilize that stock-and-trade of the safari film: rear projection. However, where each of the previous instantiations of the safari picture regularly uses this same technology to imply that its actors share the same space as its wildlife – when, of course, this is not the case – Hawks does not employ this technique to imply a space that did not in actuality exist. Rather, Hawks uses rear projection to render dialogue during moments of great duress, at very high speeds. We are not being tricked into believing that the actors occupied spaces they did not; we instead are asked to imagine that they are more in charge, more professional perhaps than we might expect newly-trained animal catchers to be. Hawks’ cheats serve narrative ends, not those of the film’s spectacle. They make for more plausible characters.

The Safari Picture and the Art of Waiting

These visceral highs are only part of the picture’s equation. In between Hawks’ and cinematographer Russell Harlan’s expertly filmed action sequences, Hatari! features a series of dialogue-heavy interstices, which, though technically “improvisational” according to Red Buttons, were meaningfully less so as “Howard had this all mapped out in his head. He played his people, he saw what they were and what they could do, who he could pair up, who he couldn’t.” (48) On the shoot, screenwriter Brackett “was on the set every day, working ‘till ten o’clock at night writing the scene they were going to shoot at nine o’clock in the morning” (49) . Brackett, along with Hawks, was charged with “putting all the pieces together, taking the disparate parts and making it look as though it grew that way” (50) .

In fact, we see this newfound integration in a subsequent scene featuring Martinelli and Wayne. Sean approaches Dallas after a taxing day of work with the latter seated in a chair beside the tame cheetah, which happens to be licking the actress’s hand. As Dallas voices her anxieties concerning her place in this environment, Hawks commences with a series of shots and their reverses, separating Sean and Dallas in opposing frames. Throughout this interchange, their occupation of distinct compositions indicates their physical and romantic distance, in comparison to their recently established professional compatibility that was sealed with a two-shot. In other words, Hawks modifies his framing to accommodate one or more performers on the basis of how they relate to others within the scene. Form follows from narrative content.

Sean shortly departs and Buttons’ Pockets takes his place beside Dallas – in the cheetah’s chair. As the sequence continues, Pockets and Dallas forge a friendship in a series of shared frames, though the director continues shooting in a series of reverse angles. However, given their close physical proximity in the parallel chairs, and more to the point their shared human feeling, both actors are present in each of the set-ups. The contraposition of shots and their reverse angles in the earlier exchange with Seanhas become shared spaces as we now have characters who share something in common, their friendship.

Indeed, this newfound pairing is reinforced in a subsequent scene that occurs in the catcher’s camp. Here, save for a single cut in to an elephant nearby – perhaps to cover a mistake in the dialogue – Hawks shoots the entire conversation in a pair of unbroken medium-shots. In this way, their recently constituted friendship is once more figured spatially, with the two persons interacting within a single, undivided space. However, when Dallas walks over to Sean and asks him how he likes to kiss, the pair is now rendered within a single frame, be it in the two-shot that registers the conversation, or in the medium close-up shot/reverse-shots that present the pair kissing. While obvious kissing actors cannot be divided into separate frames, their shared frame also reflects their burgeoning relationship. Hawks’ actors share spaces when they share something else in common, whether it is love, friendship or even work. In fact, when intimacy is not at issue, be it in the context of romance or friendship, Hawks still composes his images with multiple figures, as for instance when he frames seven of the animal catchers in a single shot. This is a space of men (and women) doing the same work, who in Hawks’ visual terms are equals. In other words, the director’s egalitarianism and even humanism is figured through a series of homogenous spaces, where people share metaphorically by occupying the same space. The style doubles the sentiment.

Likewise, this same degree of organic integrity can be witnessed in the picture’s narrative structure: that is in moments of narrative repose, of waiting between the visceral animal-catching sequences. In these many passages of down time, Hawks’ characters sing, drink, etc., with the languid pace of said activities matched by the slow cutting between shots, and the warm air circulating through the interior and exterior spaces of the compound doubled in the sounds of off-camera voices wafting through the night air. Hence, Hawks has constructed a form to match the experience of the film shoot itself: where the animal-catching sequences are documented on the one hand, and the moments of waiting are reconstructed on the other. As François Truffaut argued during the film’s French release, Hatari! provides a “disguised account of the process of [his] filmmaking” (52) . If Truffaut’s point goes more to Hawks’ collaborative efforts with stand-in Wayne at the centre, the form itself matches the director’s stated goal of creating a film “like it was vacation”.

Moreover, Hatari! represents a solution to the fundamental narrative problem of the safari picture itself: namely, how does one connect the various segments of non-fiction, safari footage? Trader Horn , King Solomon’s Mines , The African Queen and The Snows of Kilimanjaro all depend upon source material with African settings to provide the impetus for including African footage, even when this content is not integral the narrative flow. Hence, the story is compelled to stop in those moments of spectacle that are commonly introduced through commands such as ‘look.’ In fact, even in Mogambo , which has found a contemporary and in some sense an organic purpose for its safari scenes – that is in the animal catching and later in the photographing of apes – the images of wildlife still occasionally demand imperative dialogue to justify the picture’s detour away from its primary subject, the love triangle between Victor Marswell, Linda Nordley and Honey Bear Kelly. Here, again the narrative stops for the spectacle of its safari scenes.

However with Hatari! , the narrative equation is reversed: rather than waiting for the story to recommence, the equivalent stopping (or more accurately, the slowing) occurs when the narrative takes a break from the animal catching. In these moments of repose, we are given time to breath, to rest before the picture’s next visceral sequence. And when the action does pick up, the actors’ participation in the events does not call for the shot/reverse-shot strategy of the earlier examples of the form – and, therefore, the need to introduce spatially dislocated imagery. In fact, Hatari! ’s safari footage does not represent a variable ontological register, but instead coheres with the similarly-shot (though far less rapid) interstitial sequences. In the trucks as at home, Hawks utilizes multi-character mediums and longs to construe his professional environment, where man is judged by his works.

Hatari! , in short, introduces a form modelled on the experience of these shoots themselves, and, as such, a narrative structure that resolves the safari picture’s traditional disunity of documentary and fiction materials. That is, Hawks succeeds in minimizing this disunity by making a single document of the work and relaxation of a group of African animal catchers. All is Hawks’ brand of vacation filmmaking, be it the safaris, the drinking and singing, or even the coupling of the actors. Hawks’ picture lacks the hybridity of other safari pictures, as it is itself a document of its making.

Conclusion: The Safari Pictures Becomes Classical

Then again, Hatari! ’s successes do not necessarily indicate any historical deficiency on the part of the safari picture, even as the type’s earlier instantiations struggled with a means to combine its documentary and non-documentary footage. What the best examples of the Hollywood safari picture accomplish – from Trader Horn to King Solomon’s Mines (1950) to Mogambo – is the creation of a diegetic world that combines the fictional contours of the picture’s story and the actuality of the African landscape. That is, the safari picture in its conventional Hollywood form represents the balancing of story and spectacle that the narrative cinema seems particularly calibrated to accomplish (inasmuch as the narrative cinema is by its nature a hybrid form, combining real people and places, be they locations or sets with the characters and worlds they are intended to connote). And, importantly, these leading examples are the works that use rear projection least obtrusively; they in other words make the most of the human body in a real African space.

Even so, much of the safari picture’s interest from a theoretical standpoint rests in its imperfect combination of these variable registers. In other words, the safari film is as often compelling for its failures as it is for its accomplishments – take for example the combined two- and three-dimensional footage in Kilimanjaro . However, in those singular examples when the form’s hybridity seems more a narrative device than an ontological problem, as especially in Hawks’ entry, the possibilities of the safari picture as classical text become clear: the form need not seem divided, the narrative need not stop to show this other world. Rather, Hatari! represents the classicization of the safari picture: that is, a new peak in the narrative economy of the African-based adventure subject and the making of a unified fictional universe in this historically resistant form.

• Cast & crew

Hollywood Safari

The adventures of the Johnson family. The father, Troy, is a park ranger; the mother, Jayne, is a veternarian. They live on a California ranch where they train animals for the movie business... Read all The adventures of the Johnson family. The father, Troy, is a park ranger; the mother, Jayne, is a veternarian. They live on a California ranch where they train animals for the movie business. The adventures of the Johnson family. The father, Troy, is a park ranger; the mother, Jayne, is a veternarian. They live on a California ranch where they train animals for the movie business.

• Sam J. Jones
• Caryn Richman
• Ted Jan Roberts
• 1 nomination

Episodes 27

• Troy Johnson

• Jayne Johnson

• Josh Johnson

• Greg Nichols

• Loretta Wilding

• Peter Johnson

• Park Ranger

• Paintballer

• Danny Bowman

• Old Charlie

• Lloyd Marks

• Charlie Bergdorf

• The Director
• All cast & crew
• Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

Did you know

• Connections Spin-off from Hollywood Safari (1997)

User reviews

• 1998 (United States)
• United States
• Cinemotion Twenty-First Inc.
• See more company credits at IMDbPro

Technical specs

Related news, contribute to this page.

• See more gaps
• Learn more about contributing

More to explore

Recently viewed

The Definitive Voice of Entertainment News

Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter

site categories

Zachary levi brings magical chaos to the human world in ‘harold and the purple crayon’ trailer.

Zooey Deschanel, Lil Rel Howery and Jemaine Clement also star in Carlos Saldanha's animated/live-action hybrid adaptation of Crockett Johnson's beloved children's book.

By Tatiana Tenreyro

Tatiana Tenreyro

• Share this article on Facebook
• Share this article on Twitter
• Share this article on Flipboard
• Share this article on Email
• Show additional share options
• Share this article on Linkedin
• Share this article on Pinit
• Share this article on Reddit
• Share this article on Tumblr
• Share this article on Whatsapp
• Share this article on Print
• Share this article on Comment

Zachary Levi brings a beloved children’s book character to life in the trailer for animated/live-action hybrid movie Harold and the Purple Crayon .

Related Stories

Jerry seinfeld, melissa mccarthy race to invent the pop-tart in netflix's 'unfrosted' trailer, anya taylor-joy transforms for battle against chris hemsworth in 'furiosa' trailer.

Luckily, Harold isn’t navigating real life alone, as he gets help from his new friends, Moose ( Lil Rel Howery ) and Mel (Benjamin Bottani). Harold also gets guidance from an enigmatic figure named Gary ( Jemaine Clement ).

“Do you know what brought you to life?,” Gary asks Harold. “It’s what your crayon is made of. The most mysterious, powerful, extraordinary stuff on Earth: pure imagination.”

Harold does try to adjust to the human world despite his magical abilities, getting a job at a department store. But that quickly goes awry when he accidentally turns a helicopter kiddie ride into a real chopper. “What were you thinking?,” asks his co-worker, played by Zooey Deschanel .

The official synopsis for the movie reads: “Harold can make anything come to life simply by drawing it. After he grows up and draws himself off the book’s pages and into the physical world, Harold finds he has a lot to learn about real life—and that his trusty purple crayon may set off more hilarious hijinks than he thought possible. When the power of unlimited imagination falls into the wrong hands, it will take all of Harold and his friends’ creativity to save both the real world and his own.”

Harold and the Purple Crayon hits theaters on Aug. 2.

THR Newsletters

Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day

More from The Hollywood Reporter

The high highs and low lows of alan ritchson, paola cortellesi’s ‘there’s still tomorrow’ leads italy’s donatello awards nominations, ‘free time’ review: a clever new york indie comedy highlighting gen z malaise, ‘the first omen’ star nell tiger free on her showstopping scene that made crew walk off set, ‘godzilla’ and ‘dune’ power imax-led premium screen boom while theaters struggle, george miller to be honored at cinemacon with international career achievement award.