Lost Treasure

The writing was puerile and run of the mill, the director should have flogged. But Steven Baldwin was understated and came across very naturally - there's that.

It's gotta be fascinating to find out how movies like this get made. The budget and ambition of the film-makers appear to be large enough for pyrotechnics and CGI effects, with perhaps stock-footage accounting for some big-ticket items such as a fairly unnecessary scene inside a naval ship.

But let's start with that title. "Lost Treasure." Sure, that's what the movie is about, but could you have a more mundane title? That's like, say, calling "Independence Day" "Attack By Aliens." As noted by other reviewers, almost everything about this film is subpar, and yet it is still somewhat watchable. About the only reason for this is Mark Christopher Lawrence adding some much-needed comic relief as a disgruntled tourist. Otherwise, the only entertainment is derived from seeing how ridiculously bad the parts of the stereotypical bad guys are written. You could blame the actors, but why when they're given nothing to work with that you haven't already seen in countless other movies?

Meanwhile, on the good guy side, Coby Ryan McLaughlin tries gamely in his role of kidnapped cop, but his acting ability is the epitome of the entire movie in its averageness. Top billing goes to Stephen Baldwin, who does little more than reprise his role in the equally-awful "Shelter Island" as a brooding, moody type. About the only depth he's added to his character here is a beard.

Basically, pile some explosions, car chases and scenes of people being chased round an island in a storm on top of wooden acting and stilted dialogue and you have a very run-of-the-mill play-it-by-the-numbers movie that might not be the biggest travesty committed to celluloid, but doesn't add anything to the world of cinema either.

Released to cable in 2003 and directed by Jim Wynorski, "Lost Treasure" is an action/adventure flick about two estranged brothers (Coby Ryan McLaughlin and Stephen Baldwin) who team-up after finding a map to Columbus' lost treasure on a remote island in Panama. Nicollette Sheridan plays the bush pilot they hire while Scott L. Schwartz & Tami-Adrian George play an entertaining tourist couple for comic relief. Hannes Jaenicke and Jerry Doyle are on hand as heavies.

I'm giving this a relatively low grade because it's TV-budget comic book escapism with a story that's sometimes eye-rolling and not that compelling. But the protagonists are likable, there are a lot of thrills (with numerous explosions, if that's your thang), the locations are good and the story moves right along.

The film runs 90 minutes and was shot in Charlotte, NC, and the Los Angeles Arboretum.

GRADE: C-

I am fascinated by this film. It has Made-For-TV all over it, but there is way too much money on the screen for that. Others here have flat-out panned this film as a waste of time and questioned how films like this get made. I would like to ask what was the context of this film's production? It certainly could not have been done for a US theatrical release with the cast used, yet the money spent on production places this WAY out of the range of an Indie filmmaker. So, this means it was either contracted for a major cable release and foreign sales. But I can't find evidence of either. If anyone knows, I would love to hear the details. There are some valuable lessons in film distribution embedded here - if only someone will take us behind the scenes!

BTW - many ripped the effects as being out of character with the story and second rate. I agree with out-of-character but there was a ton of money in some of those effects. It is almost like someone bought the negative of a major but obscure foreign production and mapped a story around some of the major scenes in the "other" film. That would explain why an art museum would have drums of gas in the basement. It would also explain how the "big stuff" got into a film with such a low budget look and cast.

I have no idea why these films are still made. "Lost Treasure" -- the over-simplified title says it all. I had no plans to see it at all... I just bumped upon it (however lame that sounds, it's true). William Baldwin with a beard is the 'star' of this film. But what can actors do when they are to play such stereotypical and two-dimensional characters? The film used archive or shelf footages for CGI effects etc. That confirms that it's a low-budget venture after all.

It has a story you have heard/seen million times before. It has actors at their worsts. It has dialogues that encourage fourth-graders to write a screenplay. Nothing in it shows any trace of innovation or originality. How many films such as these are awaiting us in the future?