Michael_Elliott Lost Horizon (1973)** (out of 4)A plane full of people head off for Hong Kong but the plane is hijacked. They end up crash landing on a snowy mountain but soon a group of people come to their rescue. After a long walk through the mountains the people land in Shangri-La.This remake of Frank Capra's 1937 classic was released into theaters with an already negative buzz surrounding it. The film had an extremely large budget for the time and it was clear from early screenings that no one was going to like it. The movie was a disaster at the box office and it gained not only the reputation of one of the worst movies ever made but many people blame it for killing off the musical genre. How's that for a reputation? I should add that in a funny twist, it was one of the only major Hollywood movies that never even found a VHS release. While this isn't nearly the disaster it was made out to be, you still have to wonder what on Earth they were thinking.This movie was released during the disaster film era so you've gotta think that they could have cut out all the musical numbers and been left with something that could have at least been thrilling or entertaining. The movie could have been a straight remake with current special effects and an all-star cast and ended up much better. I actually thought the first portion of the movie was pretty good. We got a decent action sequence to get things going and for the most part I thought the cast were entertaining. The conversations and scenes on board the plane were at least entertaining. Once they get to Shangri-La things still weren't that bad. The locations and scenery were actually very good and the film at least looked terrific. The cinematography was also extremely good, which was another plus.With that said, nothing that happens in Shangri-La can be taken serious because of the awful and downright embarrassing songs from Burt Bacharach and Hal David. Roger Ebert even started off his review asking how much Ross Hunter had to pay them and added whatever it was it was too much. I'd certainly have to agree because these songs appear to be aimed at 5-year-old kids and even they would probably be bored by the length and subject of the movie. Clocking in just under 140-minutes, it's doubtful any kid would make it through this thing and for the adults watching you can't help but look at the screen wondering what they were thinking.LOST HORIZON will always been known for everything wrong with it but perhaps time has been a little friendly to it. It's certainly no where near the original but fans of "bad" movies or poorly received movies will want to check it out.

MKHFromHollywood ...and somehow persuaded Bacharach and David to write songs for it, this is what would result. Of course, Ed Wood would never have the kind of budget to make this, nor his pick of prestige stars. Funny thing, when I saw this as a little kid I was actually impressed. I think the gorgeous footage shot in the Cascade range of the Pacific Northwest was a part of why, and the obvious care put into the building of sets. The production values are through the roof here. However, looking back on it, this deserves all of the brickbats it's gotten. John Gielgud in yellow-face. Sally Kellerman and Liv Ullman and Peter Finch trying to sing. Everyone trying to dance except for Bobby Van, who obviously is a hoofer. And Bobby Van lays on the corniness, almost making his dancing as cringe-inducing as the non-dancers trying to dance.This is most definitely a creature of its time as well. The cheesy New Age philosophy of the lyrics is cringe-worthy. And of course, the misunderstanding of Tibetan Buddhism that goes all the way back to James Hilton's original novel. Yes, it's directed like a '40s or '50s golden age musical, and movie musicals from the period like Godspell, Jesus Christ Superstar and The Wiz had more of a gritty texture from shooting on location instead of on a back lot with something other than big, lumbering 65mm cameras. And the costumes...dear goddess the costumes look like they came from Sears' Exotic Groovy India and China collection of 1971. Yes, it IS that bad. Producer Ross Hunter wound up never doing theatrical pictures again after Lost Horizon. He spent the rest of his career doing TV movies, exiled from the big screen. Making a flop-o-roony like this, which cost $12 Million in early '70s dollars to make and only took in $3 Million in early '70s dollars at the box office, was definitely enough to make no studio want to take a chance on future projects of his. It ranks with the legendary failures of Hollywood studio pictures...Heaven's Gate would come later, and would actually wind up being vindicated after the fact. I see a few people actually sticking up for this steaming pile. Each to their own taste, I suppose. But really...

myspecialparadise A lovely musical with a goal to show us what life could be like, compared to what it is. It also brought the caftans into the limelight, to the point of Elizabeth and Richard Burton to be married in one.As an entertainer of the 70s, I adopted the number done by Sally Kellerman and Olivia Hussey (in the library) into my act, which always brought on a standing ovation for me, and whatever local talent I brought into the number.The casting was almost perfection ... the talent above par! Sally Kellerman's part hit home ... big time! And she played it to almost perfection, save the slightly forced bedroom scene. Sally sometimes tends to go over the top enough to be very noticeable. Someone else may have done a better job in her over the top parts, yet not do as good elsewhere. Casting directors are usually very good at finding the right person for a part ... but not 100% of the time, as is obvious when it comes to William Shatner in anything but Star Trek ... and Jeffrey Hunter was better for that series than Shatner ... but it was not meant to be.It is so nice to see Charles Boyer is a movie such as this one ... uplifting! Liv Ullman and Olivia Hussey were perfection ... as were the other main characters ... especially Bobby Van. Musical score by Burt Bacharach, with lyrics by Hal David ... a great team! Now we come to the story of Shangri-La ... which was originally created by James Hilton, and came about during his visit to Nepal. A place I visited in the spring of 1978. Kathmandu is the capital city of Nepal, and is at the foot of the Himilayan Mountains. Kathmandu is surrounded by some of the highest mountains in the world that are crowned by the glory of Mount Everest, the highest peak on earth. Due to these high mountain ranges, there are no televisions, and no radios ... because there are no radio waves, etc.! If that has changed due to satellites, I am not aware of it. Like I said, I was there in 1978, and I have not been back. It should be noted here that foreigners were only allowed to visit Nepal, and Tibet, after 1924, I believe. When I was in Kathmandu, I got to see the royal elephant ... the only elephant in Kathmandu ... and I also was able to meet the King's mother, whom lived behind the home I was renting. What Kathmandu is like now is unknown to me ... but in 1978 it was filled with unbelievable experiences ... some, not so great ... others, totally inspiring. But nothing like this movie. If it had been ... I'd still be there.Now we get to Michael York. Casting him in Cabaret was genius ... casting him in Lost Horizon was not. The part was completely out of character for him.Basically, this is a family picture, a feel good movie, that should be enjoyed by all ... numerous times.

info-12388 I wont belabour the plot: if you don't know it by now, then you've been living under a rock for these past 80 years.But what truly amazed me on watching this is how much it lifts — in terms of adaptation, photography, entire chunks of dialogue — right out of the Colman version. It's as though someone sent Larry Kramer (the sorta screenwriter) the script used in the 30s and told him to rewrite... but not too much. So a couple of characters are revisited — the paleontologist becomes a stand up comedian, the investor becomes an engineer — but everything else is taken, almost shot for shot and line for line, from the earlier film. In some cases — such as the cave at the end where (SPOILER) the young girl's actual age is revealed — it's like they even went so far as to use the same set.And the sad thing is that the earlier one was no masterful adaption itself: talky, almost proselytizing at times, it rearranges things in HIlton's novel to suit some unseen agenda — and Ross Hunter blithely continues down whatever path that might have been, making many of the same mistakes, but on a larger, grander scale: for example, the lamasery in Colman's version looks like it's right out of the NY World's Fair of 1939, while the one in Hunter's film, while a simple re-build of the castle from CAMELOT, looks larger, grander, and much more incongruous for a Himalayan valley. The musical numbers... sigh. They range from the moderately acceptable to the egregiously awful. The "Fertility Dance" in the middle of "Living Together" is one of those "You really have to see it to believe it" moments, while Bobby Van's "Question Me an Answer", despite its American-centric approach, almost makes the cut as reasonably fun and enjoyable. To be honest, he looks like the only one there having a good time. The rest appear, at times, downright embarrassed to be taking part. But if anything else, the musical numbers, inserted with all the finesse of a sledgehammer, underscore how much this thing owes to not the book but the previous film. Cut them out and watch it with the Colman side by side, and you will be amazed at how audacious the theft is. I'm giving it a three only for Van and Boyer, whose scenes as the High Lama are at least watchable.Someday, someone will do a film of this book that actually rises to the lovely brilliance of the original source material. This one, sadly, is not it.