Lost Horizon (1937) User Reviews

"I believe it because I *want* to believe it.."

[darkpixie1980 · 8/10 · 17 June 2005]

"I believe it because I want to believe it". This one line speaks volumes about what the movie (and the original novel) was trying to say. The concept of Shangri-La, a place where people work and live in peaceful harmony, is as relevant today as it was in the post-World War I era that James Hilton wrote 'Lost Horizon', where the world was still in turmoil following a devastating war and another was on its way.

In these days of war, humanitarian devastation and disease, how many people are there who dream of getting away from it all and living out their lives in a remote paradise just like Shangri-La? The High Lama's words to Conway resonate strongly even today.

"Look at the world today. Is there anything more pitiful? What madness there is! What blindness! What unintelligent leadership! A scurrying mass of bewildered humanity, crashing headlong against each other, propelled by an orgy of greed and brutality." On a more cinematographic note, the movie is visually stunning in an age before CGI and astronomical budgets. The beauty of Shangri-La, the stunning mountain landscapes and the overall settings of the movie make us believe that such a wonderful place can exist. All the actors are commendable in their portrayals (though some characters are different to those in the original novel) and their interaction with each other add a real sparkle to the movie.

'Lost Horizon' is a beautiful adaptation of James Hilton's masterpiece and captures the very feeling of the novel and I would highly recommend it to anyone who has ever dreamed of escaping from the hectic world in which we live.

`Lost Horizon' is indeed a remnant from the golden age of cinema.

[ilovedolby · 9/10 · 22 May 2003]

There is an aura that seems to surround classic films made before the days of computer generated visual effects and intense marketing campaigns. It was a time when motion pictures depended on grand stories, superb performances, and great direction to catapult their success. This was exactly the case of `Lost Horizon,' a film from director Frank Copra (`It's A Wonderful Life'). With elaborate set designs, excellent performances by Ronald Colman, Jane Wyatt, John Howard, Thomas Mitchell, and Edward Everett Horton, `Lost Horizon' is a story of survival and ultimately finding a way home, that cannot be forgotten. `Lost Horizon' is a tale of five castaways who inadvertently find themselves in Shangri-La after their plane crashes in the mountains of Tibet. They are lead into the place of eternal youth, natural beauty, and free from strife by members of the region. They are treated as guests, and although they want to leave and find their way back to the world as they know it, porters are hard to find. It all leads to a notion that none of them want to admit; that they were meant to be in Shangri-La. Out of the thousands of movies that have been produced in the past 100 years, only a few afford of the privilege of remembrance. What's more, only a few seem to survive due to the nature of celluloid prints breaking down over time. A similar problem plagued `Lost Horizon,' in that after decades of worthy theatrical re-issues, the prints depreciated, with many withering away. As such, a preservation program was set in place to save copies of the film. Thanks to the works of countless individuals, this classic has been restored, to a certain degree, with some of the footage missing, replaced by still shots of the actors and recorded dialogue. From a critical standpoint, `Lost Horizon' has stood the test of time to be one of the greatest adventure classics ever produced by Hollywood. What is astonishing about this film is the attention to detail. As the film begins, a battle is taking place somewhere in China where we meet our protagonist, Bob Conway (Coleman). As the film continues, the scene changes to a scene on an airplane where our characters are trying to leave the war torn region. At one point, the crew is at a high altitude where the temperature is very cold. As such, we can see their breath in the shot as they speak. Normally, this kind of feature is ignored as the scene is short, but it adds a touch of realism that can't be denied. Incredible detail went into the creation of Shangri-La. With its large sets, beautiful costume design, the film takes on an epic proportion only rivaled by the grand designs of such Biblical epics as `Ben-Hur,' and `The Ten Commandments.' Truly, director Capra wanted to create an image that audiences would be astounded by…and he truly succeeded.

One can't help but admire the characters-they are all a bit naïve, but all intriguing in their own ways. Conway (Coleman) is a British diplomat and explorer whose fame is well deserved. His brother, George (Howard) presents a great deal of fear for the unknown Shangri-La. The characters of Henry Barnard (Mitchell) and Alexander P. Lovett (Horton) add a real sense of humor to the film. There are some minor inconsistencies in the story and various tasks that the characters try to pull off, but it's hardly worth complaining about because the film is such a treasure among other films. After 66 years, `Lost Horizon' remains far better than most of the adventure films that play in cinemas nowadays. One can only wish that they could have been present to see this in a theater during its original run. How amazing it would have been to see this epic tale of survival and the human struggle against itself back in 1937. `Lost Horizon' is indeed a remnant from the golden age of cinema. ***1/2

Painstaking Restoration of a Rarely Seen Classic Reflects True Vision

[EUyeshima · 8/10 · 29 December 2005]

One of my favorite books growing up was James Hilton's classic 1933 book, "Lost Horizon", and I believe it motivated a great deal of my current wanderlust. Even though I have had the misfortune of seeing the disastrous 1973 musical remake when I was young, the original 1937 film adaptation has been a film I have wanted to see for years, but for whatever reason, it was next to impossible to uncover. Apparently, bastardized versions have shown up on TV through the years. Now we are fortunate to have this 1999 restoration spearheaded by UCLA film archivist Robert Gitt to match as closely as possible to Frank Capra's original 132-minute running time.

Similar to what was done with George Cukor's "A Star Is Born", "Lost Horizon" is presented with its complete soundtrack, but missing footage had to be found through other sources, even 16-mm prints recorded from TV broadcasts, and in a few scenes, production stills were sadly the only option to fill in the gaps. Consequently, there is a variable quality to the print, but when one thinks that much of this footage could have been completely lost, the visual lapses are more than forgivable. Now that I have seen Capra's vision of the book, I can now understand why it's a cinematic classic though I have to concede not as timeless as one would hope.

The fanciful plot centers on Robert Conway, a top-level English diplomat about to become the Foreign Secretary, who helps refugees and assorted others from war-ravaged China. A motley crew of passengers led by Conway boards a plane that is skyjacked toward the Himalayas where it crash lands in a desolate spot of Tibet. They are eventually met by a sect of locals who takes them to a paradise called Shangri-La. The focus of the story then becomes how each of the plane survivors responds to this utopian existence. With his instantly recognizable mellifluous tone, Ronald Colman is perfectly cast as Conway, the only one who embraces this seemingly perfect haven from the outset. He captures the natural curiosity and open romanticism of his character with his trademark erudite manner.

The rest of the cast is a gallery of stock characters fleshed out by the variable quality of the performances. H.B. Warner plays Chang with the requisite serenity of his vague, mysterious character; and Jane Wyatt - two decades before playing the perfect suburban wife and mother in "Father Knows Best" - is surprisingly saucy as Sondra, the young schoolteacher who has Conway brought to Shangri-La. She even has a brief nude swimming scene. John Howard unfortunately overplays the thankless role of Conway's obstreperous brother George to the point where I groan every time he appears on screen. A similar feeling comes over me when I see Edward Everett Horton's overly pixilated and fey turn as Lovett and Sam Jaffe's bug-eyed, ethereal High Lama. Isabel Jewell and Thomas Mitchell fare better as a dying prostitute and a fugitive swindler, respectively.

The set designs for the Shangri-La lamasery by Stephen Goossón are intriguing in that they look like a post-modern tribute to Frank Lloyd Wright's prairie architecture, though one could argue that the exteriors also resemble a fancy Miami Beach resort hotel. I also imagine that the isolationist philosophy espoused by the High Lama may have been at odds with pre-WWII patriotic fervor, though the more lingering problem is the racism apparent in the casting (e.g., non-Asians like Warner playing inscrutable Asians) and the portrayal of the Tibetan porters as gun-toting derelicts. However, for all its flaws, the movie has some really stunning camera-work by Joseph Walker, surprisingly masterful special effects (for a near-poverty row studio like Columbia), Dmitri Tiomkin's stirring musical score and a powerful sense of mysticism that gives the film a genuine soul. It is no accident that Capra, the most idealistic of the master filmmakers, helmed this movie because a more cynical mindset could have easily sabotaged the entire venture.

The DVD is a wonderful package. First, there is a fascinating photo montage documentary with narration provided by film historian Kendall Miller, which gives a true feeling of how Capra approached the production. Gitt and film critic Charles Champlin provide audio commentary on an alternate track of the film with Gitt very informative about the exhaustive restoration process and Champlin more in awe of the result. There is even an alternative ending included that Columbia chief Harry Cohn insisted on filming and using upon release, but it had thankfully been dropped two weeks later. This is a genuine treat for cinemaphiles, as there are few films that make such a compelling case for seeking out one's personal utopia.

Colman of Tibet: An attempted key to "LOST HORIZON"

[theowinthrop · 10/10 · 9 October 2005]

Along with A TALE OF TWO CITIES, THE PRISONER OF ZENDA, and THE LIGHT THAT FAILED, LOST HORIZON represented the best performance possible out of Ronald Colman. And his Robert Conway is the most modern of them (up to the time the films were made). LOST HORIZON is set (as James Hilton intended) in the 1930s, in war torn China. It is not the only reference in the story to the 1930s that Hilton puts into his fable of a paradise on earth.

Hilton had reason to fear about the world he lived in. The Great War (as the First World War was generally called in the 1930s) was still a savage and recent nightmare. The 1920s and 1930s saw dictatorships seize control of European and Asian state, and Democracy retreating everywhere. "Look at the world", says the High Lama (Sam Jaffe), "Is anything worse?" The High Lama is correct - the world is collapsing, and the so-called panaceas (Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Spain, Imperial Japan and it's "Greater Asiatic Co-Prosperity Sphere") are worse than the seeming ineptitude and drift in badly divided France, weakened Britain, and recovering American.

Hilton took Conway, his brother George, Professor Edward Everett Horton, suspiciously quiet businessman Thomas Mitchell, and consumptive Isabel Elsom to an oasis (possibly the oasis) on that troubled old earth - Shangri La, or "the valley of the Blue Moon") where contentment and peace reigned and people could live, if not forever, far longer and more happily than in say 1937 Germany, Britain, France, Russia, Italy, the U.S., or Japan.

On the whole Capra catches the spirit of the novel - his sets were dismissed as being far to simplistic, but as simplicity is the hallmark of life at Shangri-La the critics seemed to miss the point. As a matter of fact, his sets (in a temperate valley in the Himalayas - a real impossibility) are more acceptable than the idiocies of the future world in the contemporary science fiction film THINGS TO COME, where H.G.Wells believes we should live in cities built in caves.

The acting is very good, particularly Sam Jaffe's ancient High Lama (always shot in shadows). Remember, he is over two hundred years old. Today, because Jaffe had a long career in Hollywood (despite being blacklisted in the 1950s), we think of him as an old man in THE ASPHALT JUNGLE or as "Dr. Zorba" in the series BEN CASEY. So we think he must have looked old in real life when LOST HORIZON was shot. Actually, he was in his thirties or forties, so he was not that old. But he gave a performance that suggested he was an old man.

Another member of the cast that I would wish to bring up for consideration is John Howard. He is not recalled by film fans too much, but Mr. Howard was a good, competent actor. That he played Hugh "Bulldog" Drummond in a series of "B" features in the late thirties makes it ironic that he played the younger brother of Ronald Colman here, who had begun the talking picture segment of his career with the same role. Howard does not have a British accent, but he does show the adoration of the younger brother for his famous sibling, and the growing anger and contempt he develops when brother Robert fails to plan for their leaving this prison they were dragged to - note how he wants to return with a bomber to destroy Shangri-La. It is one of the two roles in major films that John Howard is remembered for, the other being "George Kittridge", the erstwhile fiancé of Tracy Lord (Katherine Hepburn) in THE PHILADELPHIA STORY, who is pushed aside by both Cary Grant and James Stewart.

As it is one of Howard's best roles, it is nice that when the film was restored (as well as possible) in the 1980s, Howard (one of the three surviving cast members) was able to appreciate it - many of the missing sequences were his scenes. Howard was very happy at the restoration result.

Now, one or two notes that may help appreciate the film a little more. Who is Robert Conway supposed to be? He is called, by the High Lama, "Conway, the empire builder." He is supposedly able to do impossible things - hence the admiration of his brother. When he returns to Shangri-La at the end, the comment of the man telling the story is that Conway's journeys by himself back to his valley was beyond what ordinary men could do. So who is Conway? Well, in 1937, the model for Robert Conway was dead, from a motorcycle accident, for two years. It was, of course, Thomas Edward Lawrence "of Arabia", who had never been in Tibet (officially, anyway) but had served time in the Indian subcontinent area on government business in the 1920s. Quite a model for an empire builder.

The character played by Thomas Mitchell is also based on a real person. Harry Barnard's real name (which I have forgotten) is that of an international financier whose vast empire collapsed ruining thousands of investors. It turns out Mitchell's character is based on Samuel Insull, a mid western utilities empire builder (out of Chicago) whose financial doings brought about his collapse in the Great Depression. Insull fled in disguise to Greece, but was found on a dirty freighter, and returned to the U.S. (where he would stand trial for fraud, but be acquitted). Edward Everett Horton's anger at Mitchell when he learned the latter's identity is understandable. Mitchell's involvement in installing new pipes in Shangri-La mirrors Insull's early days, when he was an electrician, and an assistant to Thomas Edison.

The use of these two real figures as the basis of the characters helped contemporary audiences to accept the background of the plot of the film.

Happy Valley

[telegonus · 9/10 · 3 October 2001]

The Frank Capra adapation of James Hilton's popular novel, Lost Horizon, was somewhat controversial in its day, not polticality but because of its length (several reels were removed after a disasterous preview), and its production design, which many critics found unattractive. Now, in its restored version, we can see the film pretty much as it looked when it came out. Scenes that have not been found are represented by still photographs over which we hear the original dialogue. This is therefore not exactly the movie that was released to the theatres, but a fairly close approximation of it.

The story concerns a planeload of passengers hijacked during a violent uprising in China who find themselves ultimately in Tibet, where the plane crashes, and are met by guides who lead them up a steep mountain to the valley of Shanri-La. In Shangri-La the weather is always perfect. There is no war or violence because the people's motto is 'be kind', and they live up to it. In other words, they are in paradise. The valley has a history, too complex to go into in any great depth, and the perfect climate enables its inhabitants to live very long lives.

As one might imagine, there is trouble in paradise, and some of the visitors decide to leave. Shangri-La does not automatically make people happy. One still has to work at it, albeit under extraordinarily favorable circumstances.

The movie is far from flawless, and the middle section, with the usual romantic stuff, is none too inspired; but it begins with a bang and very nearly ends with one, too. In the chaotic, early scenes there is a palpable sense of danger; and the generous budget enabled Capra to use large crowds, and he makes the most of them. Rarely, on screen, have large numbers of human beings, whether screaming, shooting or pushing, seemed so frightening. The airborne part of the film is likewise very satisfying. There's a good deal of exposition here, but it's so well done that one can scarcely find fault. The scenes of refueling in a remote village are eletrifying, and one isn't sure at first what's going on. Are they being attacked? No, but it takes a while to figure this out. The soaring over the clouds is mesmerizing in its simple beauty; while the crash-landing of the plane at what appears to be the foot of the mountain that leads eventually to Shangri La, is highly effective. And Capra, ever the master of film climate, offers us, briefly, a quite pretty and at the same time literally chilling sense of what it would be like to die, snowbound, in the Himalayas.

But Capra's greatest triumph is the scene of hero Conway's departure from the peaceful valley, with his brother and girl-friend in tow. Conway does not want to leave, but his younger brother is in love with a Russian girl, who is unhappy in paradise and talks aginst the locals. As Conway is discussing the matter with his brother, inside, we hear wordless chanting outside, in what sounds like a religious ceremony, as robed figures carrying candles form a long line that surrounds the building, then pass on. As the talk inside becomes more heated, the voices (and accompanying music) grow louder. By the time Conway has made his decision to leave, and is walking up the hill to the opening in the rocks that will lead him from the warm, friendly valley to the freezing tempratures of the outisde world, the music rises in intensity, to a kind of lugubrious, hynoptic crescendo, providing a perfect auditory counterpart to the journey Conway is embarking on, and his mixed feelings about it. The result is one of the single most moving and lovely scenes in movies, technically and emotionally devastatingly effective. Ronald Colman's heartbreak as he gazes back, with as soulful expression as has been seen in movies, is worth seeing the rest of the picture for, and one of the highlights of American film.

For those who have not lost hope

[alexander_caughey · 30 March 2004]

I watched this film for the first time as a 10 year old and its effects on my willingness to be a optimistic idealist have always been led by my memories of this hope inspiring tribute to the need for the human being to find Heaven in this life. Perhaps Lost Horizon could have been that spark that enabled me to find just that. Like all films from another era do not judge this film for its apparent imperfections, rather for what it offered the audiences of that time (1937), hope that all would be well when man would recognize that his time is always better spent broadening his horizons of understanding. Frank Capra's guides his audiences through danger and turmoil to that place which dreams are made of, when we all make the effort to make it happen.

A beautiful film

[mattymatt4ever · 7/10 · 13 January 2003]

Many people may not be drawn to a film like this because it doesn't involve a lot of conflict, and that lack of conflict does make it slow-going at times, but it's still a beautiful film. The sets are wonderfully designed for a modestly budgeted (though it was a big budget at the time) motion picture. Ronald Coleman is a terrific actor, with a dominant screen presence and a certain strength in his voice. The film delivers a good deal of life lessons, and Shangri-La really does look like a great place to live. They believe in doing everything "in moderation," which is a fine philosophy. No wars, very little conflict, everyone's in good health. Can't complain about a place like that. The ending is especially poignant. One minor flaw is the lack of development of the prostitute. She's the only character who doesn't have an arc, and holds much contempt throughout the whole film. I wanted to know the source of her contempt. I never gathered why she was so whiny.

If you want to see a beautiful, feel-good movie with great performances, then "Lost Horizon" is the one to see.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

"The other side of the hill"

[Steffi_P · 9/10 · 1 July 2011]

The second half of the 1930s saw the return of the big picture - bigger budgets, grander ideas, longer runtimes in which to tell a story. But the 30s were also a decade of highly emotional and humanist cinema, fuelled by the hardships of the great depression. Lost Horizon sees what was for the time a rare marriage between burgeoning picture scope, in what was "poverty row" studio Columbia's most expensive production to date, and poignant intimacy in the source novel by James Hilton.

Thank goodness for director Frank Capra, who seemed really able to balance this sort of thing. Capra could be a great showman, composing those beautiful iconic shots to show the magnificent Stephen Goosson art direction off to best advantage. But he also knows how to bring out a touching human story. In some places Capra's camera seems a trifle distant, and is almost voyeuristic as it peeps out through foliage or looming props. But rather than separate us from the people it is done in such a way as to give a kind of respectful distance at times of profound emotion, for example when Ronald Colman comes out of his first meeting with the High Lama. The camera hangs back, just allowing Colman's body language to convey feelings. At other times Capra will go for the opposite tack, and hold someone in a lengthy close-up. In this way we are given to just one facet a character's emotional experience, and it becomes all the more intense for that.

Of course such techniques would be nothing without a good cast. There couldn't really have been anyone better than Ronald Colman for the lead role. Now middle-aged, but still possessed with enough charm and presence to carry a movie, Colman has a slow subtlety to his movements which is nevertheless very expressive. His face, an honest smile but such sad eyes, seems to be filled with all that hope and longing that Lost Horizon is about. Sturdy character actors H.B. Warner and Thomas Mitchell give great support. It's unusual to see comedy player Edward Everett Horton in a drama like this, and comedy players in dramas could often be a sour note in 1930s pictures, but Horton is such a lovable figure and just about close enough to reality to pull it off. The only disappointing performance is that of John Howard, who is overwrought and hammy, but even this works in a way as it makes his antagonistic character seem to be the one who is out of place.

Lost Horizon is indeed a wondrous picture, and one that fulfils its mission statement of being both sweeping and soul-stirring. It appears that Capra, always out for glory, was out to make his second Academy Award Best Picture. But history was to repeat itself. In 1933 he had had his first go at a potential Oscar-winner with The Bitter Tea of General Yen, only for that picture to be ignored and the more modest It Happened One Night to win the plaudits the following year. Lost Horizon won two technical Oscars, but bombed at the box office, but in 1938 the down-to-earth comedy drama You Can't Take it with You topped the box office and won Best Pic.

Lost Horizon was in no way worthy of such a dismissal, and is indeed a bit better than You Can't Take it with You. It was perhaps more than anything a case of bad timing. Audiences were only just starting to get used to two-hour-plus runtimes, especially for movies with such unconventional themes. If you look at contemporary trailers and taglines, you can see it was being pitched as some kind of earth-shattering spectacular, whereas it is more in the nature of an epic drama. For later releases the movie was edited down to as little as 92 minutes. Fortunately, we now have a restored version. The additional material that has been reconstructed is vital for giving depth, not only to the characters, but also to the setting of Shangri-La itself. With hindsight, we can look back on Lost Horizon as a work of real cinematic beauty.

Adventure exciting, utopia boring

[Karl Self · 7/10 · 28 March 2011]

The movie starts off as a great adventurous tale of a group of Englishmen (and one woman) being airlifted from a murderous revolution in the Chinese boondocks. Still in the air the next morning they realise that their plane is headed the wrong way. When they alert their pilot they find out that he has been replaced by an armed Chinaman -- they are being hijacked! The plane lands in a desert, is refueled from canisters by a wild tribe or horsemen, continues its journey, until its fuel is spent, and crash-lands in the mountains, killing the mysterious pilot. The five passengers find themselves in a subzero wasteland, with the scantiest chances of survival. And that's where the story begins for good ...

Up until this point I loved this movie. Then the story of Shangri-La unfolds, a utopia of moderation, temperance and abundance, and the story inescapably becomes naff and boring because paradises always are. Still, the movie conveys an exciting vision of adventure and parallel reality long before the age of sophisticated SFX and CGI. It's also fascinating to see how every utopia is shaped by the day and age that spawns it -- the idea, for example, that abundance eliminates crime seems naive by modern standards.

A nearly perfect film...in my top 10

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 9/10 · 4 April 2012]

This is one of those rare films where the original story (in this case by the wonderful James Hilton) is improved by the movie script. Conway in the film (Ronald Colman) is a successful diplomat and probably next Foreign Secretary. That works very well in the story...making him the target of the kidnapping. Having a love interest is, of course, nearly mandatory for a film, while there is none in the novel. Hence we get a delightful performance from Jane Wyatt (much later of "Father Knows Best").

As civil strife erupts in 1935 China, Colman helps many Westerners escape, before escaping himself on a plane with a handful of others...only to be kidnapped in mid-air. While it is a shame that we did not get to see the early scenes shot by Capra due to extensive editing, this is a very exciting beginning to the film. The plane crashes in the Himalayan Mountains, with scenes filmed in a giant ice house so that one would see the breath in the blizzardy weather. The group is rescued by Chang (H.B. Warner), of a local lamasery. Of course, it's a set-up -- the remarkable head lama (Sam Jaffe) knows he is about to die, and he wants Colman to become the new high lama. Colamn and his troupe find the beautiful Shangri-La, an idyllic valley where people live very long lives. Stay, or return to "civilization"? I cannot imagine an actor who could play this role so perfectly as Ronald Colman in a sort of pensive manner. Perfection in acting. Sam Jaffe -- brilliant as the high lama, although his screen time was short. Edward Everett Horton as the comical paleontologist who lets his hair down a bit in Shangri-La. Thomas Mitchell as the swindler turned philanthropist. Jane Wyatt great as the love interest. And notably H.B. Warner as the assistant to the high lama...a role for which he was nominated for an Oscar; nice to see him in a heftier role than usual.

But I can't compliment everyone. Margo did not impress me. John Howard...well, here he's guilty of either bad acting or over-acting...either way he detracts from the picture. And Isabel Jewell demonstrates a it of overacting, as well as the unhealthy prostitute brought back to health (and interestingly played the seamstress who Colman went to the guillotine with in "A Tale Of Two Cities"). There three performances are the only reasons I don't give this film a "10".

There are few films that I describe as a "masterpiece". This is one, and in my view, one of the 10 greatest films, particularly considering the year it was made...1937. It is clear that the director over-reached here. His "director's cut" lasted 6 hours!!!!! Particularly interesting since Hilton's novel is not particularly long. The documentary accounts on the DVD are very interesting to watch. Very highly recommended film for both watching and having on your DVD shelf!

And, the recent (I'm amending this in 2018) Blu-Ray anniversary edition looks great!

Trouble In Paradise

[Lejink · 7/10 · 17 November 2019]

Quite unlike his other major films in his run of great movies from 1935 to 1946, Frank Capra's "Lost Horizon" is something of an epic which ran way over budget and actually failed to make money on first release. There's no denying its ambition though especially with the elaborate sets used to recreate Capra's vision of author James Hilton's Utopian Shangri La mountain village to where British foreign diplomat and coming man Ronald Colman and a small group of disparate passengers, including his brother, are abducted by plane at the start of the film.

Once there they all react differently to the perfect gilded cage in which they find themselves so that by the end only one of the original five actually still wants to return back to "civilisation" and leave their new surroundings. As for Colman, the ancient High Lama of the place has special plans for him. Will this formerly ambitious man, with important work to do in his home country as it prepares for war, be tempted to stay in this idyllic setting with a pretty young girl now at his side, well, what would you do?

While the allegory of blissful communal living in a self-sufficient bountiful land protected from the elements, without care or responsibility as compared to the hurly-burly realism of life in contemporary London is perhaps over-simplified and possibly not the best example to set for movie-goers with war clouds on the horizon (sorry!) remembering it is only a movie, I was rather charmed with the fairy-tale-like scenario Capra presents.

He certainly picked the right man with the required gravitas as his lead actor in the form of Ronald Colman who is excellent throughout. There's light humour among the supporting cast with Thomas Mitchell and Edward Everett Horton bantering with each other and romantic interest supplied by Jane Wyatt and the enigmatically named Margo who separately attract the disharmonious brothers, while H.B Warner and Sam Jaffe come across all inscrutable, zen-like and benevolent as the Yoda-like leaders of the lamasery community.

The Art Deco sets and exterior location work featuring a spectacular air crash and a torrid trek through Arctic-like snowstorms are well rendered and while the film does lapse occasionally into recognisable Capra-esque sentimentality and naivety, looked at from the relative calm of today, I certainly enjoyed being transported to this magical mystical other-world for an hour or two.

A Wonderful Fantasy /Drama - - Just As Good 68 Years Later

[guidon7 · 10/10 · 10 June 2005]

I have seen this film many times over the years and it never ceases to amaze me. Perhaps other Capra films are better known, but I don't think they can hold a candle to this one. The cast, every one, turn in stunning performances. In his secondary role as Ronald Colman's brother, I believe John Howard's performance was superb, even among this stellar cast. His career consisted of leads in "B" films (Bulldog Drummond) or usually the second man in "A" films (such as The Philadelphia Story). A talented, highly underrated actor in my view, he was of the opinion that he deserved better roles, such as those of Ronald Colman. I agree. And how about that musical score! THE BEST OF ANY FILM, in my humble opinion. What a treat it is to watch a real gem - - Lost Horizon. Incidentally the film is far better than the book by James Hilton. Could another actor have portrayed Robert Conway as Ronald Colman has? I doubt it, even in that age of excellent actors. The scene where his brother George, aided by the Russian girl, try to convince him that Shangri-La is not what it is, is remarkable for Colman's reaction. He turns away and his face changes from disbelief to uncertainty then to acceptance of their arguments. All this without dialogue. Shortly after he turns to look at Shangri-La for the last time before plunging into the outside world and again, silently, his emotions touch us all. (At least they touch me!) We are very fortunate to have this masterpiece available to us. Now, will future generations recognize this film for what it is? Judging from today's "hits" I really wonder.

Shangri-La.

[AaronCapenBanner · 7/10 · 10 October 2013]

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.

A nice place to visit but...

[deewitt · 5/10 · 18 June 2010]

Watching this movie again after many years is like taking an acid trip. Capra's film is a total hallucination, suffused with a "make love, not war" philosophy that quickly disappeared with the horrors of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo, then returned with a vengeance 30 years later with the hippie culture.

Absurdities abound in Shangri-La. Can anyone really believe all that 10-ton furniture was shlepped up those dangerous mountain trails by mysterious "porters?" I guess the point is that greed makes people risk anything for gold. And in a culture in which everyone is equal, why do the wise and educated live in high-rise splendor while the happy laborers toil below? It's like a benign "Metropolis." Or better yet, George Orwell's "Animal Farm," in which some are more equal than others. I couldn't help but wonder how many workers were sweating in the marble quarry while Ronald Colman and Jane Wyatt were frolicking in the forest. Women, of course, are chattel in Shangri-La, as befits the period in which this story was written.

That being said, there is still much to admire in this bizarre fantasy. The opening sequence of the revolution in the Chinese town and the ultimate escape by airplane is tremendously exciting. And the sets, art direction, and photography continue to captivate. I was amazed by the avalanche toward the end of the film, an awe-inspiring effect superior to most of the computer-generated images seen in movies today. And Sam Jaffee steals the show with his perfect portrayal of the High Lama.

I understand the yearning of some people for a place like Shangri-La. For me, however, it's a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.

Journey To Shangri-la

[Lechuguilla · 10/10 · 8 October 2014]

What a masterful film, filled with adventure, memorable characters, and a story that is profoundly thoughtful. During a tumultuous revolt in China, a party of Westerners, including an important British diplomat named Robert Conway (Ronald Colman), escapes by airplane, flying west through the high mountains of Asia. In this no-mans land, disaster strikes. But beyond, a peaceful kingdom called Shangri-la awaits the party, led by their guide, the wise and purposeful Chang (Oscar-nominated H.B. Warner). Much of the plot takes place in this beautiful and serene place.

In Shangri-la, doctors are not needed, there is no crime, residents are content and happy. And people age very slowly, as a result of "the absence of struggle". Despite the forbidding mountains and their harsh weather that surround Shangri-la, this isolated paradise contains lush vegetation, useful minerals, a picturesque waterfall, birds and other wildlife.

Most characters are appealing. I like the wise and patient Mr. Chang. The High Lama (Sam Jaffe) exudes peace and wisdom. The George character is annoying, but serves a purpose as the representative of conventional humanity. There are many lines of thoughtful dialogue. One of my favorites is a quote from Chang who talks to Conway about aging. Says Chang in a non-judgmental and soft voice: "You know, each time you Westerners celebrate your birthdays, you build another fence around your minds".

B&W visuals are grainy. Lighting ranges from evocative to bad. In the outdoor adventure scenes, there are lots of interesting long shots. Sets make use of painted backdrops and miniatures. And the special effects are terrific for the era. Background music is intermittent and ranges from nondescript in early segments to ethereal in Shangra-la. Acting is adequate.

Though the film tells a great outdoor adventure story, the real value of "Lost Horizon" lies in its deep spiritual themes, as expressed by Chang and the High Lama. Rarely does a film exude such wisdom. And it is mostly for this reason that, despite imperfect visuals, the film ranks among my all-time favorites.

Another Capra gem

[Calysta · 10/10 · 16 January 2000]

This is not another of Frank Capra's sophisticated, stylish comedies of the era. That might explain the reason that "Lost Horizon" takes a back seat today to "It Happened One Night" and "Mr Deeds Goes to Town", the immensely critically acclaimed comedies of the time. With the theme of the small man triumphing over the big, good over evil, perhaps here Capra was trying to explain idealism over humanity. He believed in the book. In his own words, "It held a mirror up to the thoughts of every human being on earth".

Ronald Colman is perfect in his role of Robert, an English diplomat and a leader of the people. Edward Everett Horton was again great in a seemingly bubbling, comic role and Sam Jaffe, later the professor in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" gives a memorable performance as the High Lama, establisher of Shangri-La, the perfect world high above in the Himalayas.

Some of the cinematography was absolutely amazing. It was a shame that the film was cut to the extent that footage was lost and stills had to be used in the missing sound track places. The imagery that Capra stirs up for the viewer has certainly fulfilled his vision. The film is a bit long in some parts, but it certainly does not fail to entertain, it merely takes its time to tell a great story.

Is there another film from the period that sums up the great human ideal, a perfect world, a better one than the one we already exist in? "Lost Horizon" with its ideals is the film for the thinking person. It thrives on its themes for humanity, of kindness and moderation, stripping away the pretense of our lives. The message is as clear as anything, but maybe we all don't want to realise it, or perhaps we can't.

I hope that this movie is never remade for a third time. It is a story that could only be preserved in its own time, for this version has the message that still rings clear today, unspoilt, endearing, so simple. Hollywood will never again be able to recapture what has been already crafted. Capra's neglected movie could scarcely have been more effectively filmed.

Rating: 10/10

Pure movie magic of a rare kind

[fred-83 · 14 May 2000]

I think I was about seven or eight years old when I first saw this film, and has always lingered in the back of my mind. This is pure movie magic of a rare kind, and it is surprising how well it holds up today. The story is handled with just the right balance of seriousness and humour, with fine performances throughout, and the timeless message it sends is truly profound. The middle part may be lacking a bit in pacing, but it is a minor quibble, since this, for my money, is a masterpiece. And it still looks great, with impressive set design and an abundance of atmosphere. The finale is simply sublime, and stays in the mind for a long time afterwards, one of my favorite movie moments of all time. A movie everyone should see.

Not Capra's best by a mile but...it's a Capra so it's worth watching

[nomoons11 · 6/10 · 1 October 2011]

I have the fortune of knowing 2 things about this movie before I watched it. Lost Horizon was the first book I consciously remember reading as a kid...and....I have seen the hour long interview with Capra that Dick Cavett did with him back in the late 60's where he talks about this film at length.

First off I'll say this is not even close to Capra's best work. This film suffers from a lot of tedium to say the least. It just drags on and on. In the interview he did, he mentions this film being screened at 3 1/2 hours long. Can you imagine this film being 3 1/2 hours originally? Well it was and he mentions at the end of the screening that the majority of the comments on the cards at the end were negative. He thought he had created a masterpiece but the audience just didn't get it. Well I can certainly understand because this film was made only 3 years after he book was released and I'm bettin' that most of the audience hadn't read the book before seeing this movie. The audience just didn't understand what the movie was about. Well, he mentions that he decided to just chuck a couple of reels of the film and he was left with what we see today, the 132 minute version. It seemed to work.

To me there are no real standout performances in this because the movie just meanders from one thing to another. The start of the tedium is the beginning where the aircraft is stolen. I bet they spend a good 12 to 15 minutes with this aircraft sequence. It's just too darn long. I was lookin at the clock sayin..."when's this scene gonna play itself out?"

As good as Ronald Colman is as an actor, he's just secondary to the "idea" of the film. The idea being the concept of living in a place where there's no war..no crime..no hate..no poverty etc. The whole time your watching your trying to wrap your head around it but if you wanna get a better idea of it and really grasp the concept, read the book. It's much better.

I was really looking forward to seeing this finally but by the middle of it I was surfing the net and just looking at the screen here and there. It was a film that just didn't capture my attention. I think a lot of it also was that the casting wasn't too special. With the exception Colman and Wyatt, there were no stand out actors. You never really get to know any of the actors well enough because there are so many of them it would have taken the original 3 1/2 hour film to flush it out. Even I wouldn't have wanted to see that cause I can imagine, it would have been even more tedious.

This film was well made without a doubt but it was just dead boring to me. I think many tend to think Capra and say well it's him and all is stuff is good but IMO, this was a misfire in his career. It's at the bottom of his list for quality.

Read the book then see this film and you'll understand the differences...and my point.

"There are moments in every man's life when he glimpses the eternal."

[utgard14 · 9/10 · 6 January 2016]

Frank Capra classic about a group of British citizens, led by diplomat Robert Conway (Ronald Colman), who flee a rebellion in China only to have their plane crash in the Himalayas. They are taken to Shangri-La, a magical place isolated in the mountains where people can leave behind the worries of civilization. They learn they will live for hundreds of years there but only if they never leave. The world-weary Conway is intrigued by the promise of this utopia but not everyone in his group feels the same way.

It's an ambitious undertaking for Capra, who made no other movies on the scale of this one (or with the budget). The costumes and Art Deco sets are beautiful. Great script from Robert Riskin, adapted from James Hilton's novel. Lovely, haunting score from Dimitri Tiomkin. Ronald Colman, an exceptional actor who never did a bad job that I've seen, gives a moving, sincere performance that ranks among the best of his impressive career. Sam Jaffe is also excellent in his small but important role as the High Lama. The rest of the wonderful cast includes John Howard, Jane Wyatt, Edward Everett Horton, H.B. Warner, Isabel Jewell, and Thomas Mitchell (the first of four movies he did with Capra). Jane Wyatt's swimming scene is probably the sexiest thing she ever did on film. The opening scenes are exciting and the climax is powerful. The middle of the film is where many people complain that it's slow or that it loses focus. I admit there is a chunk of the middle of the film, dealing with Colman and Wyatt falling in love, as well as everyone adjusting (or not adjusting) to Shangri-La that drags just a bit. But I never felt bored and I don't think it derails the film at all. The dialogue and performances in these scenes is still great. The original cut ran much longer and I can only imagine whether that version would be better or worse. As it is, seven minutes of footage is still missing from the current version. The dialogue for these scenes is intact, with production stills in place of the missing footage.

It's escapism, pure and simple. Many viewers will poke holes in the idea and philosophy behind Shangri-La, calling it naive and childish. Perhaps they're right; perhaps the cold, cynical reality of selfish human nature means such a utopia is impossible. But the thing about most of Frank Capra's films, and why he is probably my favorite director ever, was that he believed in telling uplifting, optimistic stories about us helping each other overcome our baser nature; that good can triumph over evil and there are such things as happy endings. While Lost Horizon is not really one of his "Capra-corn" movies, I think the basic Capra elements are still there, right down to the final shot. Most other directors would have likely gone for the sad or tragic ending, but Capra gives us one that is hopeful.

So different from Hilton's novel

[richard-1787 · 6/10 · 31 December 2008]

After seeing this movie again the other night on TV, I decided to reread the novel, which I hadn't read in almost 50 years. What I discovered was that the movie is RADICALLY different from the novel, in the following ways:

1. Characters

Edward Everett Horton's character was a complete creation of the script writers; in the novel there are only four Europeans on the plane, not five.

Conway's brother is, in the novel, a younger colleague.

The woman, rather than being a lady with a questionable past, is a woman member of the London Missionary Society.

And Conway himself, though he has largely the same character as in the movie, is in the novel just another undistinguished minor government functionary, not a distinguished author and diplomat about to be appointed foreign secretary.

Only the American, played by Th Mitchell in the movie, is about the same in both works.

There is no real romantic interest for Conway in the novel - which, by the way, has a recurring homosexual hint to it. Jane Wyman's character in the movie was a complete creation of the script writers, as was Horton's.

2. Plot

From there on, more is similar. In the novel the High Lama had not chosen to bring Conway to Shangri-La because of his writings, but once he gets to know Conway he decides to make him his successor, as in the movie.

Again, the purpose of Shangri-la is to provide a place for contemplation during a forthcoming holocaust. The novel's Conway was deeply affected by World War I, an element left out of the movie, and that makes the desire to avoid the terrors of the next one easier to understand.

Since there is no romantic interest for Conway in the novel, his desire to return to Shangri-la after he agrees to accompany his colleague and the young woman out is strictly a result of his eagerness to be part of the Shangri-la community; he is not going back to a lost love as in the movie.

The character in the novel, Lo-Tsen, on whom the movie's Maria is based is a much less important character; we never actually see her speak.

Nor in the novel do the other Westerners who decide to stay in Shangri-la develop that very Frank Caprian love of helping their fellow men. The missionary wants to convert the "heathens" and the crook wants to mine the gold.

Rather to my surprise, I found that I enjoyed the book less than the movie. This is one case where the Hollywoodization was an improvement.

Impressive Capra

[blanche-2 · 10/10 · 27 March 2007]

Ronald Colman finds "Lost Horizon," the 1937 film beautifully and masterfully directed by Frank Capra and also starring Jane Wyman, John Howard, Edward Everett Horton, Thomas Mitchell, Margo, H.B. Warner, Isabell Jewell, and Sam Jaffe.

Growing up I have two vivid memories - one is the horrific musical version of this film (remember "The World is a Circle"?) - which I saw in a theater, God help me. The other is a takeoff of the original film on the Danny Kaye Show where Kaye, as Colman, kept saying in an arch British voice: "But I must get back to civilization."

Based on James Hilton's famous novel, Ronald Colman plays Robert Conway, most probably modeled on D.H. Lawrence. Conway is a diplomat who has just helped people escape via plane from a violent situation in China. The group includes a consumptive woman (Jewell), Conway and his brother (Howard), a mysterious man (Mitchell) and a teacher (Horton). While traveling, they realize the plane has been hijacked. It finally crash lands in the treacherous, snowy mountains, and the party is picked up and brought to Shangri-la, a magnificent paradise bordered by mountains, somewhere around Tibet, where the air is perfect, the people live by a rule of kindness, age very slowly, and want for nothing. It's kind of like communism but without the oppression and with heavy emphasis on metaphysics. The travelers are met and hosted by Chang (H.B. Warner), and Conway gets an opportunity to meet the founder of Shangri-la some 200+ years ago, the High Lama (Sam Jaffe). He knows by then that it was no mistake that he was brought to Shangri-la, but he wonders why. Knowing that the world is growing more insane by the minute, the High Lama wishes to have all the great knowledge and beauty protected in his paradise and wants Conway to be his successor. Conway later learns that a lovely resident of Shangri-la (Wyman) had read his books and requested that he be brought there.

His brother George is anxious to leave and falls in love with a young woman, Maria, (Margo) who is equally desperate to get out. She makes Conway doubt what the High Lama and Chang have told him, so Conway agrees to accompany George and Maria and forsake Shangri-la.

This is a fascinating film, absolutely enormous in scope, that has been restored to 132 minutes with some difficulty. Seven more minutes of the soundtrack remain than there is of film, so occasionally one is treated to a frozen screen or stills. There are many thrilling scenes: the opening of the movie, the refueling scene, the walk to Shangri-la, and the trek away from Shangri-la just to mention a few - as well as scenes of great beauty and poignancy, particularly the scene when a heartbroken Conway leaves the paradise on an evening when the citizens, carrying candles, have a procession (this might be part of the High Lama's funeral, which was cut from the film). The music crescendos, and outside the branches that signify the entrance to Shangri-la, the wind whips the snow into a frenzy. Conway turns and takes in the beauty one last time. A gorgeous moment.

Ronald Colman is wonderful as Conway, a man who finds the peace and love in Shangri-la that he has searched for his entire life. Sam Jaffe, though the producer insisted he be replaced, is very good as the fragile High Lama, and H.B. Warner brings suitable gentleness to Chan. Isabel Jewell's major moments are in the airplane at the beginning of the film, and by today's standards, she's a bit over the top. Horton and Mitchell provide their usual solid and sometimes amusing support. Jane Wyman, who died only recently at 96, is lovely as Sondra. Howard, best remembered as Katharine Hepburn's fiancée George in "The Philadelphia Story" is appropriately bombastic; and Margo, who would marry Eddie Albert and have a daughter named daughter Maria, is effective in her role as an unhappy citizen. The question remains - why was she so anxious to leave Shangri-la? And what was with George anyway, that unlike the others, he could not embrace the peace and happiness of the place? We are never told. Perhaps in Capra's original, long disastrous version, we get more of an idea.

70 years later, "Lost Horizon" is a sad reminder that a) they don't make movies like this anymore; b) the world hasn't changed much and is still in the sorry state it was in 1937; and c) there isn't any lost horizon - because we never found one.

James Hilton's novel becomes stirring movie-adaptation....

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 23 October 2005]

Utopian society isolated in the Himalayans welcomes group of plane-crash survivors who are alternately pleased to find refuge there and yet are suspicious of their new home. Handsome film-version of James Hilton's novel was shown in butchered prints for years, and was finally restored to almost its original form by the American Film Institute in 1979 (some missing scenes are represented by stills and the soundtrack only). It's a worthy job for a sterling movie, despite some hammy overacting by Edward Everett Horton and occasionally overwrought melodramatics. Jane Wyatt's skinny-dipping scene can still raise eyebrows, though she's enchanting and the sequence is beautifully filmed. Remade (quite well) with music in 1973.

*** from ****

Capra adapts James Hilton's Utopian novel with grace and beauty.

[hitchcockthelegend · 9/10 · 4 March 2008]

It's so nice to be able to see something resembling the original vision Capra had for this story, the wonders of science gives us a cracking restoration to enjoy at our want.

Robert Conway is a British diplomat who helps a group of people (one his younger brother) escape from a Chinese revolution in a passenger plane, all doesn't go to plan, though, as the plane has been skyjacked and is heading into the Himalayas, and Tibet. The plane crash lands due to the pilot becoming stricken, and after the passengers get out they are greeted by a party of people belonging to the Valley Of The Blue Moon, to which is a beautiful and peaceful world known as Shangri-La.

Shangri-La is gorgeous, there is no illness there, no war or hostility, the landscape is paradise on earth, people live far longer than is deemed possible in the outside world, it is utopia in everyone's wildest dreams. Here Conway and the group, after initial scepticism, come to love the place and have no desire to leave this haven that is shut off from the outside world. That is, all except the younger Conway (George), and as is always the case in large social communities, cracks begin to emerge and questions remain unanswered.

The film has a wonderful dreamy quality about it, it's filmed firmly with romantic fantasy intention, and the quality of the production really helps to emphasise this intriguing story. The sets are gorgeous, the music is perfectly on tempo throughout, and the acting is top notch, while the love Capra had for the topic is evident in every frame. Thankfully all of the great work on the film has the story to match, and it's the story, and the subsequent turn of events in the last third, that is ultimately the film's crowning glory. Magical. 9/10

Enjoyable--beautifully filmed movie

[bardbuff · 7/10 · 27 July 2007]

I just saw the restored version of this film, and enjoyed it very much. I thought it was a good movie about a rather idealized hero in a very thirties style, but at the same time it had many aspects of the archetypal hero's journey of spiritual awakening, which made the experience of the movie more interesting and resonant. Ronald Coleman is just perfect for his part.

I can imagine that after WWI the idea of such a place with no reason for conflict was extremely attractive to movie audiences everywhere. It must have been almost heartbreaking to leave the theatre after this movie and step into the streets of Berlin, for instance.

The sets and mountain scenes are just great. I got a real feeling of cold and danger in those mountains.

Certainly there is some material that is dated or otherwise a bit jarring to the modern sensibility; white people are taken to be more important than any other people with a breathtaking assurance, and the "ethereal" performance by Sam Jaffe is a bit much for my taste, but when watching a movie one adjusts to the world of the movie or has a bad time.

I thought Bob's brother George was very annoying. Panicky, selfish, with no interior life, he is all fear and no thought.

A window on pacifism

[wearenotamused · 5/10 · 20 March 2009]

_Lost Horizon_ puts into the mouths of a British diplomat and a self-made Lama the humanistic hope that humanity can be perfected, indeed, will be perfected, by practicing good manners and patiently waiting for the alpha males to kill off each other. As the Lama puts it, "the Christian Ethic will then be realized, and the meek will inherit the Earth." He does not mean that Christianity is true, only that the teachings of Jesus, some of them, anyway, are cool. This was one of Hollywood's first forays into New Age propaganda, an uncritical mix of Eastern mysticism and Unitarian pacifism. Shangri-La reveals some beautiful Bauhaus architecture. I suppose, being filmed in 1937, it was intended to look futuristic and timeless. We are also presented with free love, easy divorce, and universal day care as important lanes of the highway to Utopia. If you watch this film, notice that the Lama evades and never answers Conway's question about what is to be done if life really is pointless. No one asks how one gets to live in the nice Bauhaus administration building (with imported furniture) instead of working in the valley below carrying water in buckets. As with most other Utopias presented in film and literature, this society has an unusual source of wealth that funds all this happiness. In Shangri-La, gold is laying around like so many rocks, which allows them to trade for upscale furniture with a caravan that comes by every few years. (In _Twenty-One Balloons_, Krakatoa has diamonds to support its economy. The Dem's Utopia would have "the rich" to support it. I wonder what happens after the rich get soaked -- but I digress.) The acting is not bad for a Capra film. Still, I guess _Lost Horizon_ gets high votes because that many viewers agree with its message. Yes, it would be a much better world if people were just nice. The question is how we can get people to be nice. Moore, Marx, Dewey, Hilton (the author of _Lost Horizon_), and Pol Pot have all tried to answer that question (respectively: communism, communism, socialism, just BE nice and let the not-nice people kill off each other, communism), but with poor results. Being nice is a good idea. Relationships are everything--living in communion with God and with one's neighbors is the meaning of life. However, there will always be plenty of not-nice people, no matter how nice other people are to them. _Lost Horizon_ belongs in the Museum of Yesterday's Tomorrows. It's a good way to peek at what intellectuals were presenting as the answer to the world's problems in 1937. The seventy years since then have shown some of the results, but, unfortunately, the learning curve among the cultural leadership seems to be relatively flat. I give LH a 5 mainly for its interest as a cultural artifact. As entertainment, it is pretty boring.