Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

ThrillMessage There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

mark.waltz William Powell was on the last stage of his film career when he made this colorful but odd adventure tale with western overtones and comic moments about a young boy (Tommy Ivo) suddenly orphaned and adopted by the aging Powell and his seemingly younger wife (Rosemary DeCamp). While having a picnic near the waterfall that has become mystic for its legends, Ivo discovers a hidden cave with a treasure, and greed takes over his new-found family. Some shady characters try to get their hands on Ivo and the treasure, and finally, a revelation comes along that ties Powell and Ivo together. The lovely Julie Adams and Charles Drake receive high billing but are totally wasted as a young couple who are friends of Powell and DeCamp's. Slow pacing and long periods of nothing but chat make this an occasional bore with a sudden house fire seemingly the end of the film, yet continuing with more bizarre plot twists. This is attractive to look at but structurally weak. Powell gives his all with an energetic performance, and Ivo is a likable kid. Ultimately, however, the film fails with too much plot and some truly ridiculous storyline elements that never ring true.

bkoganbing No longer the debonair and very urban leading man, William Powell was trying to move into roles more in line with his age. Powell turned 60 at the time The Treasure of Lost Canyon and was now playing an eccentric married man who's cousin, Henry Hull has been robbing him blind for years.Into his life comes young Tommy Ivo whose mother died and his father killed in a stage holdup. Though he didn't think so, Powell takes to the young boy and his dog and plans to adopt him. Ivo locates some old bandit loot on Powell's property which seems to be the answer to their financial worries. That's the treasure in the title. But there are still a lot of questions to be answered.The Treasure of Lost Canyon is based on a Robert Louis Stevenson short story, The Treasure of Franchard and is clearly aimed at a family audience. It's a pleasant and rather short film, 82 minutes and is moderately entertaining. Stevenson fans will note the similarity between young Tommy Ivo and a couple of other young Stevenson heroes, David Balfour and Jim Hawkins.Besides those mentioned Rosemary DeCamp is Powell's wife and Charles Drake and Julia Adams play a pair of helpful neighbors. Especially Drake who is most helpful in getting a lot of questions answered.The Treasure of Lost Canyon is not a great film, but entertaining enough. Sad to say movie audiences apparently didn't take to William Powell in a role more suited to Gabby Hayes or Walter Brennan. Still though, Powell as romantic lead was far more ridiculous at his age.

MartinHafer This is a decent family film, though I was surprised to read one review that gave the film a 10! GONE WITH THE WIND or CITIZEN KANE this certainly isn't!! Instead, it's a somewhat difficult to believe but nice film that is a good one to show the youngsters--especially since it affirms a lot of important values, such as honesty, the importance of money, etc. However, the story is a tad old fashioned and may seem preachy to some--probably since the story is based on an old Robert Lewis Stevenson story ("The Treasure of Franchard").The reason I saw this movie is pretty simple--it starred William Powell and I have always enjoyed his laid-back approach to acting. Powell played a somewhat older but rather funny and endearing guy who adopts an orphan. Much of the story involves their relationship and these moments in the film when they interact are pretty charming.As for the plot, it seems to have a little of EVERYTHING!! A child being kidnapped away from his kin by an evil relative, a lost treasure, a big fire, great heroism, financial swindles, etc. In fact, in some ways there is too much in the film--straining the film's credibility a bit! In addition, since it is based on an older story, there is just a bit too much irony to be real as well. This was an acceptable plot device in the 19th century (Dickens used it a lot in GREAT EXPECTATIONS), but how the film is all neatly wrapped up at the end is a bit hard to take on one level, though on another it's great for those who want a super-happy ending.Overall, the film is an amiable time-passer. Not great stuff by any stretch, but still it's worth a peek.

skysober1 This film has drama and real life lessons within it. There is bonding between the adopted father and the son that is missing in many of todays families. The suspense in one scene as the boy dives into the water is so dramatic you almost sit on the edge of your seat cheering him on. One can tell this film was made before the fanatic censorships of today, as the boy is then clad only in his wet undergarment and tends to show more of himself physically than is allowed in todays television. Yet that innocence and nostalgia of the film overall gives it the #3 best movie of that year by many critics. I own this film as I watched it once on AMC and they only bring it out of the vault once every two years or so... I highly recommend this film!