Legend of the Lost (1957)

Just so...so bad

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

I must have seen this one before because there were a couple scenes that seemed familiar. But going into it I would have sworn it was new to me.This rare gem is not one that usually comes to mind when one thinks of John Wayne movies and it's unfortunate because it's a good one.There were parts, to be sure, that just didn't work. For example, there's just no way I'm going to buy any red blooded man being such an asshole to the likes of Sofia Loren, as Joe January was throughout most of the film.Also, Paul Bonnard's character arc was just too quick and sudden. But over all I enjoyed the film. Fans of either John Wayne or Sofia Loren will probably like it also.I do think it was pointless to shoot on location in Lybia, of all places, since all the exterior shots could just as effectively been done in the deserts of the South West, like Glamis, or Death Valley.

A previous reviewer may be correct in identifying Lepcis Magna in promotional shots of Sophia Loren, but that Roman city was not used as a location in this movie. The ancient city is clearly Timgad and is referred to as such by John Wayne's character.The use of Timgad as a location is perhaps the most interesting aspect of this movie, notwithstanding the allure of Miss Loren. I thought so, anyway, when I first saw it on TV as a kid.I did not occur to me then, but, for a 'lost city' Timgad appears remarkably well maintained in this movie. The adventurers come across an archaeological site which clearly has had its streets swept regularly and various monuments reconstructed. Only the gift shop is missing.That the characters strike out from Timbuktu and arrive in northern Libya means they have traversed almost the entire breadth of the Sahara -surely an impossible feat, even for the indomitable Mr Wayne. His character is rueful when he name-checks the place, as well he might be, since a bus ride from Algiers would probably have sufficed!That he knows the name of the ancient Roman city was perhaps a favour to the Libyan tourist board.

I loved this movie and after getting my first DVD player, ordered the DVD as one of my first. I love the story, music and cinematography. It transports me to the desert every time I watch it. I disagree that there's no chemistry between Wayne and Loren. After all they are almost at each other's throats up to the point when the lost city is discovered. He disdains her and believes she is manipulating Bonnard. When she follows and joins them in the desert, his troubles are doubled. He has one more person to look out for and must ration--even further--food and water. They begin to bond as Brazzi begins to go mad.I need to correct one commenter who describes the skeletons of the prostitute, Bonnard's father, and the guide. The guide is the one with the knife in his back and the prostitute embraced him--not Bonnard's father. Bonnard's father is the single figure off to the side with the bullet to the head. The letter found in the prostitute's purse is from Bonnard's father. The father was obviously in love with the prostitute and promised to shower her with jewels. She apparently was in love with the guide as she died with her arms around him instead of the father. Since the guide died with a knife in the back, he was the one to die first.All in all, I love this movie, and enjoy seeing Wayne in a different movie than the usual western. I would also recommend two other Wayne pictures in which he is excellent. Horse Soldiers and North to Alaska.

First of all it doesn't really matter that the movie isn't a western,try to understand that we don't live on planet America and just because a western actor decides to appear in a non-western movie doesn't mean that movie is bad or the actor's performance is bad.Sure,it's not the same J.W. formula we've seen in his habitual movies,however I think this is one of his best movies because I get to see other things for a change,usually westerns resume to guns,mexicans,indians and bandits.This movie is different,it goes deeper,it has a lot of psychology in it,it doesn't have bandits,murderers or other western elements,it's a different kind of dish.Besides the idea of adventure and finding a treasure there is really no link between this movie and T.S.M.T. as some believe,the idea of searching for a lost treasure is a cliché that has been used a zillion times before!If you want to see a good movie this is it!Don't let the other negative posters change your mind because they don't have a clue of what a good movie consists in,what can you expect from somebody who gives 10 stars to idiotic movies like L.O.T.R. ?