Frank Capra has always been a utopian film maker, but with Lost Horizon, he takes that in a more literal direction as his characters (some pulled from the James Hilton novel, some new) are brought to Shangri-La, a virtual paradise in the Himalayas, against their will. There's a lot to recommend in the film, but it's mostly in terms of visuals. The opening escape from revolution-torn China is exciting, and the alpine photography breathtaking. But I found myself asking too many questions to really get invested. How does Shangri-La get all its stuff from the outside? Why make it a Christian utopia nevertheless filled with Tibetan monks? Why does it seem to be a leisure paradise for white folks who somehow found their way there, but the Asian natives appear to be part of a working class? And what about all those hints at something darker? And I was irritated with the broad comic relief of Edward Everett Horton as the least convincing Brit ever. I don't mean to sound so negative, as it was still interesting, but also preachy at times. I like Capra more when he wraps his utopian fable in every day Americana. Lost Horison is too overt and things get lost in its attempt at scope.
The original cut of this film was 6 hours long--it was later edited down to 3 1/2 hours, and subsequently 2 1/2 hours for the theatrical release.
Later edits cut that down to the runtime currently listed here on ICM and IMDB -- 97 minutes.
TMC is currently showing an AFI restoration of the film with a 137 minute runtime, with about 7 minutes of film consisting of still shots over the original full soundtrack.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 7 of 7
meerkate
An extremely unique and captivating film. Highly recommended.Paulo Martins
"I believe it, because I want to believe it.Here's my hope...
...that we all find our Shangri-La."
Fantastic film!!!
Siskoid
Frank Capra has always been a utopian film maker, but with Lost Horizon, he takes that in a more literal direction as his characters (some pulled from the James Hilton novel, some new) are brought to Shangri-La, a virtual paradise in the Himalayas, against their will. There's a lot to recommend in the film, but it's mostly in terms of visuals. The opening escape from revolution-torn China is exciting, and the alpine photography breathtaking. But I found myself asking too many questions to really get invested. How does Shangri-La get all its stuff from the outside? Why make it a Christian utopia nevertheless filled with Tibetan monks? Why does it seem to be a leisure paradise for white folks who somehow found their way there, but the Asian natives appear to be part of a working class? And what about all those hints at something darker? And I was irritated with the broad comic relief of Edward Everett Horton as the least convincing Brit ever. I don't mean to sound so negative, as it was still interesting, but also preachy at times. I like Capra more when he wraps his utopian fable in every day Americana. Lost Horison is too overt and things get lost in its attempt at scope.weirdboy
The original cut of this film was 6 hours long--it was later edited down to 3 1/2 hours, and subsequently 2 1/2 hours for the theatrical release.Later edits cut that down to the runtime currently listed here on ICM and IMDB -- 97 minutes.
TMC is currently showing an AFI restoration of the film with a 137 minute runtime, with about 7 minutes of film consisting of still shots over the original full soundtrack.
greenhorg
I did not expect to see a nudie scene in a 1937 Capra film. How did that one slip past the production code?AlexFilm
Great film, hasnt aged at all.Skyscore
http://www.afisha.ru/movie/179375/review/154891/