Lost (1983) User Reviews

Not bad but slow moving and bad acting....

[srmccarthy · 5/10 · 25 September 2000]

The plot for this movie had the potential to be good, but it is so slow moving and the acting is so bad, it just does not entertain enough.

A little girl cannot get along with her step father (Note: her real father is still around). She is mad at Step dad for sending away a mule she loves, runs away with her dog. General fictitious journey in the wilderness, which might be good, except the acting is SO BAD it just does not get your emotions going. It has a good music score & I can not say it is completely undesirable. The girl is cute as a button, and the meaning is well intended, but it just was not entertaining enough for me.

Not bad acting, just simple and inadequate writing and production.

[jimsbaddog · 6/10 · 1 July 2020]

It seems like everyone is quick to jump on the actors if the movie is slow and without any drama or a serious plot. While this an be true it takes a lot of other people to make a movie good, or .to make it bad. I've seen a lot of terrible movies with great actors in them. Did those actors just decide to act like dummies? I rather doubt it. If the producers can''t get adequate funding to turn a book into a movie but they know it has potential they will simply get the cheaper directors and writers. I thought the movie was a little slow or dull too, but I know a few of these actors and they are anything but dull or slow. If you are thinking about watching this then get ready for some real acting in a rather tough situation. I'll leave you to figure out the rest but you won't be disappointed. Real life situations can be a huge challenge, just watch and see...

I think we are setting our standards too high for this film...

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 3 November 2009]

This film was directed by Al Adamson--who was probably one of the most incompetent writer/director/producers of all-time. His ability(?) is ranked right up there with the worst of them--Ed Wood, Ted Mikels, Arch Hall, Sr. and the like. These men made careers out of making super-low budget films--the sorts with budgets that were scarcely more than the cost of film developing. So, considering that my expectations were so incredibly low for this, yet another Adamson masterpiece, were tremendously low in the first place--so the film could only be better than I'd assumed, not worse!! Surprisingly, it turned out to be almost adequate--and a film that didn't 100% suck! Sure, it was dull, the script was clichéd and the characters poorly developed--but that is STILL an improvement over such horrid Adamson films as Dracula VS. FRANKENSTEIN and BRAIN OF BLOOD! Surprisingly, LOST!--unlike most of his other movies, he did not write or produce this film. And, surprisingly, the direction wasn't that bad.

The film begins with a newly blended family moving to the American West--a far cry from the city where they had lived. The new Dad seems like a nice guy but his step-daughter is having problems adjusting to her mother's marriage. This is totally understandable, but oddly the characters keep wondering why the child isn't instantly bonding with New Dad--a serious weakness in the script because any non-brain injured person would understand this situation. Unfortunately, none of the family is particularly memorable, however, and they're all rather bland folks living in a very bland land. Later in the film, the girl wanders off and gets lost. Her wondering about in the hills and her family looking for her constitutes most of the film. And, unfortunately, this makes for a rather dull plot. But at least it isn't bad--just not all that exciting.

Little girl wanders around - lost

[architect_2k · 1/10 · 6 October 2005]

A young girl is lost in the desert with her dog. It's hot. It's sandy. Nobody's within a hundred miles. They are lost. The girl's character is so one-dimensional you have to wonder if anyone's noticed she's gone. Her dog is the second most important person in the movie. The dog follows her around but otherwise doesn't add much entertainment value. There's plenty of walking around "lost" and just the right amount of monologue between her and the dog discussing the whole "lost" thing. It's miserably hot. It's sandy. This might be the longest 90 minute movie ever. If your curiosity is piqued and you are determined to rent it, I'd recommend you pick a cold dark winter day so at least you'll enjoy the desert landscape.

Worst of the Worst

[tgraca-95763 · 1/10 · 18 June 2019]

I have seen the worst movie ever, and it was way better than this movie. At least it makes me appreciate good movies even more.