MovieChat Forums > Legend of the Lost (1957) Discussion > Movie Review: Legend of the Lost (1957)

Movie Review: Legend of the Lost (1957)

posted 14 years ago by Crazyhorse30
9 replies | jump to latest

Five years before we saw the mystique of life in the desert with Lawrence of Arabia, and decades before we saw archaeologists in action with Indiana Jones, there was Henry Hathaway’s now almost unknown, Legend of the Lost.

This movie is good and bad all at the same time, which is surprising because of the trio of cast members.

American screen legend John Wayne stars alongside two Italian icons of cinema, Rossano Brazzi and the up-and-coming Sophia Loren. One would think that with such a cast, the film’s acting would be of legendary status, but in fact, the acting ended up being its downfall.

Wayne plays a hard-drinking, tough-as-nails trailblazer Joe January, who is hired by Brazzi’s character, an archaeologist, to guide him through the Sahara desert to find a lost city that his dead father reached, but never returned from. There is also said to be a lot of treasure, in gold, rubies, and emeralds there. Along the way, Loren, who plays a prostitute in Timbuktu, joins in, and helps the two in their quest for lost treasure.

This was a film that was a new idea at the time, and no doubt inspired other archaeology themed movies in the many decades to come. Hathaway’s cinematography is visually stunning, and the movie was filmed on location in Libya, which posed as the Sahara, and on the actual site of a lost Roman city, Timgad. This added to the realism at the culmination of their journey, because it was not some back-lot set.

However, as visually appealing as it was, it was brought down by just plain bad acting. No complaints about Wayne’s character, who plays his normal tough-guy self. Brazzi, on the other hand, was just awful, and Loren was not much better. There was absolutely no chemistry between the three, and the script could have been written by a child.

There is also very little action, save for a fist fight and a few gunshots towards the end. This is a story that required peril along the way, but all we saw is the trio struggling to keep their wits about them as they wandered through the desert with little water.

Legend of the Lost was so very close to becoming an iconic work of cinema, but it missed, and now ends up as an almost unknown project in both Wayne and Hathaway’s film careers.

My final grade of this film will be a 6 out of 10, because of an original storyline and once again, the beautiful camera work and scenery. But this movie leaves an uneasy feeling in me, wondering what could have been a landmark achievement in the adventure genre.

Taken from: http://gcaggiano.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/movie-review-legend-of-the-l ost-1957/

Sports, movies and history at http://gcaggiano.wordpress.com/

[–] pastorwillie-1 13 years ago

I thought this was the worst movie John Wayne starred in. I first viewed the film in 1958; again a couple of days ago and still feel the same.

[–] petrilloi 13 years ago

Check out Genghis khan or the Conqueror. Both are much worse.

[–] JoeJanuaryII 13 years ago

No way! Total respect to your opinion but I completely disagree. I mean, the film itself is not quite what it could have been but for me, as a huge fan of the Duke, I think he's the one thing that makes this movie kinda good. January seems to hate women and it's surely a flawed feeling but he draws on it because he's obviously been hurt so he takes his pain out on Dita. There might even be a history between the two but it doesn't matter. His drunken rants are awesome! Nobody plays a drunk like Wayne could and I say that with the utmost respect. Why was he so good? Because he knew drunks were drunks for a reason. Something made them turn to the bottle for solace and for Joe January it had to be a woman. And that's the trick. He thinks he hates women but he really doesn't because as soon as danger arrives, his first instinct is to protect Dita. That's always been the Duke: Protect those around him. Anyway, I'm not going to change your mind about the movie and that's fine. I mean, I think this flick could have been cooler because they could have gone for much more adventure because it's Loren and Wayne but whatever. I think of this as The Mummy but without the Mummy and the special effects. I enjoy it because it's so underrated and nobody knows about it. Like I said, I think Wayne gives one of his best performances. And remember, it's directed by Henry Hathaway who directed True Grit which earned Wayne a best actor trophy from the Academy. Seems he had a grip on Wayne like Ford and Hawks did. A lot of people bitch about the Duke being unable to act. Whatever. To me, John Wayne shined when he played flawed characters. Joe January is terribly flawed. That's what seperated him from somebody like Clint Eastwood. Clint is great as an actor and director, but when it came to westerns like The Good the Bad and the Ugly, Eastwood always had to be the baddest dude around. Wayne was best when he played a regular person because people are flawed and he seemed to understand this. Long live Legend of the Lost because it's proof that John Wayne DID NOT play himself.
'Nuff said.

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

"Possible Spoilers"

I'm a huge fan of the Duke as well, but unlike you I still think he played himself in Legend of the Lost...nothing wrong with that IMO. That's not the problem ...the problem is with the story....mirage - like, there's virtually nothing of substance there.

Like many of the other posters and reviewers I agree that the film looks a million dollars. It was a great idea to film in Libya...but you have to have some sort of story to sell to your audience and this was as empty as the burning sands themselves.

An essentially nice guy archaeologist (he's nice to the locals) goes searching for his missing father (presumed dead) and a mythical lost city complete with hidden treasures in the desert. He is aided and abetted in his search by a hard drinking, two fisted "American?" guide and the cleanest looking "woman of the night" from Timbuktu (with a heart of gold) you'll ever see. He finds the city, finds the treasure, finds that his father ended up in a situation much like himself and then suddenly goes mad??? For what reason, I'm still not sure, except that by this stage Henry Hathaway and the script probably dictated that the film needed some sort of tragic conclusion to transmit a morality message.

There is a singular lack of suspense and adventure in LOTL and some of the lamest dialogue, which is kind of unusual for a JW pic. Nothing at all unpredictable happens (if we discount Sophia Loren not getting sunburnt after weeks in the desert despite never wearing a hat and Rossano Brazzi not actually displaying any scientific curiosity or interest in the lost city). Every thing plays out as you might expect.

End of story....seriously. After watching it (and I'll watch anything of the Duke's), I knew why I'd never heard of it before and why it clearly sank without a trace beneath the desert sands at the box office, just like it's subject lost city.

[–] Lt_Brannigan 11 years ago

I find the movie to be an interesting film in John Wayne's career, makes me wish he did something like Indiana Jones. I give it a 7/10.

---
I own 111 of 150 John Wayne movies on DVD!

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

Yes, I think it's historically interesting in terms of his career and his body of work, but I guess you'd know that owning so many of his films.

It's just a pity that the film was not better in terms of story etc.

I couldn't give it much more than 5 out of 10 and that's primarily because of its excellent production values.

[–] Gary O. (997) 6 years ago

Wayne plays a hard-drinking, tough-as-nails trailblazer Joe January, who is hired by Brazzi’s character, an archaeologist, to guide him through the Sahara desert to find a lost city that his dead father reached, but never returned from. There is also said to be a lot of treasure, in gold, rubies, and emeralds there. Along the way, Loren, who plays a prostitute in Timbuktu, joins in, and helps the two in their quest for lost treasure.

*****************************************************************************

An essentially nice guy archaeologist (he's nice to the locals) goes searching for his missing father (presumed dead) and a mythical lost city complete with hidden treasures in the desert.

Brazzi's character was not an archaeologist. He was a treasure-hunter.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8453) 2 years ago

I think that is a good point. Wayne never really got to flex his acting muscles, because unlike his contemporary Gary Cooper, Wayne always played himself he had such a strong persona ... plus he also did not, or his agent did not, really push him. I think that is why he is fading and other actors of the time seem to still be at least a little relevant.

[–] PeterBlues 8 years ago

notice the pretty rough film editing at times, i've never seen a movie where sophia loren gets manhandled like this, not that i can recall, and even more surprising when she went back at them, i've never seen a movie this old where a woman punches someone with a knuckled fist, same goes for the duke using the word "jackass" (while raving dead drunk if i recall right). i thought sophia loren was really convincing in the scene playing exhausted in the desert. but as for the story overall seems nothing original happens and like you're left with nothing but having watched a very predictable to every point movie by the end.

went off the track,
down in low land,
no other ticket i saw,
evil grin outside the window,
with no other place to go,
until a blessing as you came along,
like a train put on a rail of gold,
lord after in the mud and sinful ways below,
to a blue sky above no electric light needed in the wagon window,
from the low down ways you set me on the right coarse,
i tried to tell myself what i had was right,
till you showed what it was all about,
rolled out of the lowland to the right track darlin i found.