and if it is more than fiction ? or useful propaganda tool against Communism ? or exotic story ? certainly, it is a different Capra. more cold, precise and realistic. but defined by the same spirit like his entire world. a plan clash. and a hidden world. a real Heaven at the first sigh. a sort of golden cage at the second. and interesting/provocative use of an old theme of humanity.a film about beauty and illusion and truth. remembering the work of Jules Verne and Sci. Fi. literature but giving more than another nice story. and this does Lost Horizon one of the films who has the status of experience. one who wake up memories from childhood.

I was probably 7 years old when I saw this on TV and it had a powerful effect on me. The search for Shangri-La where everything was peaceful and beautiful. The wise and ancient High Lama who knew all the answers to all of life's mysteries. I knew right then that I would be following in the footsteps of Ronald Colman.So yeah, I finally made it, I'm sitting here in the Valley Of The Blue Moon writing this movie review and having all my needs attended to by friendly native girls! What a life, and I owe it all to being inspired by this great film when I was just a young and troubled nitwit.You should show it to your kids too, but do it while they are very young, before they have seen too many action movies or video games, or else they might just roll their eyes and be bored with the lack of explosions, in which case you'll know it's already too late for them.

Frank Capra directs this appealing fantasy that stars Ronald Colman as British diplomat Robert Conway, who is evacuated from a troubled country by plane with other refugees. They get to know each other en route, but unfortunately the plane is sabotaged, and it crash lands in the Himalayas, where they later discover an Eden-like society hidden by mountains called Shangri-La, where everyone is cared for, and all outside conflicts(like the looming world war) are irrelevant. Most of the refugees settle down to this place, and Robert even meets the high lama(played by Sam Jaffe) whom he has great respect for. Problems arise when one of them is determined to leave, and takes an unhappy citizen(played by Margo) with him. Robert feels obligated to go with them, but a terrible truth about staying there will be learned, as Robert vows to later return to Shangri-La, no matter how long it takes...Moving and appealing film is beautifully directed and acted, showing us a wonderful place that anyone would want to stay in, making Conway's desperate fight to return there quite compelling. Unusual film isn't without flaws, but is still most worthwhile, with a welcome ending.

This magnum opus becomes little more than a magnificent embarrassment by its end. Rumored to be originally cut at 6 hours by its director, and then "trimmed" to 3 hours for it's premier, I understand that the original audience reactions were so vehemently negative back in '37 that it had to be whacked down some more (some prints are as short as 97 minutes) before it could be reasonably endured. The restored print I viewed recently, at 132 minutes, put back enough of the misery that even one of the hard core filmies with me at showing opted to flee instead of throw more good time after bad, and the whole experience made it abundantly clear to me why this film, though it may be important for so many reasons, and impressive for its scope and many of its elements, fails on far too many levels to be revered as so many have been confused into revering here and elsewhere. I'm glad I saw it, but I'd spare anyone else the misery, if they might be considering the film for anything other than as a film history curiosity.The opening sequence is, to be fair, fairly brilliant. The crowd scenes are intense, and the editing is crisp and emotionally powerful. Ronald Coleman's take on the character is likewise fully up to the task, and Capra's deft touch with the action surprises and delights. (Who knew!) But things so quickly head into La La Land (sorry, bad pun) from there, that you almost forget by the end how good it was for those first few minutes.The list of problems with this film is pretty long. John Howard's performance, as younger brother George to Coleman's older brother Bob, is so bad and over the top it takes first prize for me. (So very bad words fail). But there is plenty of competition. Characters appear at such random intervals, and entertain each other with such random dialogue, that it makes you wonder how much possible sense from those original 6 hours of film had to be left on the floor in order to get things down to 2. Margo, as Maria, sports mismatched eyelashes in some of the scenes, which are actually somewhat amusing if you don't mind laughing at a movie you're trying desperately to like. Isabell Jewel gets to show off a few lines of her classic "gun moll" dialogue skills, but she soon becomes almost invisible as her makeup is wiped off and her character is literally written out of the script. The most enjoyable characters and performances are Thomas Mitchell's and Edward Everett Horton's, and they're fun to watch when they appear, but they serve no ultimate dramatic purpose, nor make a whole lot of sense.The main premise, that of the internal and eternal question of the possible existence of something like "Shangri-La" itself, remains unsatisfactory all the way to the end. By the time a gratuitous and completely exposited summary is recited at the gentleman's club to supposedly explain why we've been watching the entire movie, you realize that Capra had so thoroughly lost the thread of things that even he couldn't make sense of it or produce an actual film of his intentions. Film school students do a better job choosing ways to visually portray ideas and emotions. This film ultimately fails.As for my favorite bits, I'll commend once again the opening sequence, and encourage anyone to invest the time to watch at least that much. It's excellent. Ronald Coleman's performance, and Jane Wyatt's with him, are outstanding, and some edited bits of that will please anyone with an appreciation. I also very much enjoyed H.B. Warner's Chang, and even didn't mind Sam Jaffe's High Lama impersonation. Add in Mitchell's and Horton's contributions, and the better part of 2 million 1936 dollars, and you'd think a guy like Capra might be able to make a pretty decent movie. (Fail).The sets are incongruous. The main building in Shangri-La looks like nothing so much as a faux-classy hotel. (Think Vegas circa 1960--maybe they were copying). The airplane interior is great, as are many of the rooms at Shangri-La. But the inconsistency of styles moving back and forth from interiors to exteriors to panoramas, is jarring. (Feels very much like different location directors with vastly different styles had to be cut together without any attempt whatsoever to find a thematic consistency). Too many performances clunk. The story itself is well overlong, and moves so pointlessly that the emotional and existential intent of the story is all but completely obscured. Yes, we get it that we're supposed to think about the possibility of it, but when 10 minutes of film succeeds in communicating the paradox of it, the 2 additional hours belaboring that point make things anything but better.