Au sud d'Alger

I watched this film for Van Heflin and Eric Portman; both usually excellent when given some half decent material. Here they floundered, unable to make something of the dreary dialogue and predictable plot. There was jerky editing of the film, with obvious back projection and use of actors' doubles on location, as well as location shooting cut in from another (bigger) budget film (maybe Portman's and Thorold Dickinson's earlier 'Men of Tomorrow') mixed up with studio close ups. The mix is very uneven and after a while it becomes part of the entertainment to spot whether it's a) studio b) location c) doubles etc Van Heflin does his best, trying to instill some oomph into his supposedly devil may care risk taker entrepreneur character. Trouble is Heflin looks as though he checks the risk percentage on ev ery step he takes. Portman has to watch endless tribal singing and dancing, probably taken from that other African film cut into this one. Wanda Hendrix has so little to do she could have phoned her performance in. However it passed away an hour or so on a wet winter's evening.

Watchable. Interesting footage of actual local culture, journeys through the desert. Lacks character development, apart from Van Heflin's character, and one poignant scene between Wanda Hendrix and Jacques, Heflin's rival for her affection.

I like to research backgrounds to films after I watch them, so some actual history would have given the film a bit more depth for me. I looked up the character Marcus Manilius- there was a famous poet/astrologer by that name, and one famous general with a similar name, but no connection to the plot here. Same with the places Rifka and Sadamis- nothing turns up.

Racism is implicit in this movie: the cast and crew must have smelt the coming rebellion against French colonial rule. All the Arab characters were played by Europeans, albeit the main Arab role, "Thank-you", was played by an Indian-Englishmen, who'd gone to Oxford, was probably the most educated person on the set. He seemed to be heavily made up, with skin darkening, which reminds me that the English in India sometimes referred to Indians as "blacks" (one of the nicer terms). There was one name in the cast, "Abdie", whom I cannot remember, who was played by "Massoud". Well, how did the audience like it? How did the audience react to little Jasmine and her brother with their donkey? How did these two "desert Arabs" come to speak English? Racism is a sort of romance, where at the end the romantic ones slaughter those about whom the romance is written. That's the plan, anyway. In actual life, usually it is the racist-romantics who get slaughtered, or at least lose their empires. Can we say that the plot, concerning an ancient Roman, "Marcus Manelius", a looter of a city of the other ancient empire in the region, Carthage, successor to Phoenecia, warns us of the fate of all empires? Is that the actual message of the movie with Van Heflin's gentle humor?

This movie has not been seen anywhere for several years (that I am aware of. The story deals with an archaeologist's passion to find a fabulous golden mask thought to be buried in a Roman tomb. The hunt begins in Rome and ends in the sands of Africa.The pursuers of the mask range in character from good to evil. The movie rather reminded me of the movie,Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Both are in black and white, dealing with greed and the consequences of greed.The flavor of this movie was interesting to me. The rather bleak desert locations were more than made-up for by the depiction of the local tribes and their customs. Unfortunately for this movie, the background music was seriously overdone, almost detracting from it. I find this to be the case often with early European movies. However, if you enjoy treasure hunts and ancient history somewhat fictionalized, this is a treasure hunt movie worth seeing. I'd like to see it again.

This film was recently shown on Turner Classic Movies and the print was appallingly bad. While shot in Technicolor, the print is badly faded, a bit dark at times and a bit blurry. It sure ain't pretty.

Dr. Burnet (Eric Portman) is an archaeologist whose passion is finding the famed Mask of Moloch. However, after years of searching in Algeria, he's exhausted his funds--though he thinks he's tantalizingly close. In order to finance his next expedition, he's forced to take along an American writer who he has no interest in taking with him. He thinks Nicholas Chapman (Van Heflin) is a boob, though Chapman is naturally the right man for the expedition. You know this because the British producers of this film have imported an American to star in the picture--and they'd never have such a star be an idiot! While such an expedition might seem pretty mundane, unfortunately a couple fortune-hunters, Kress and Petris are never far behind--waiting to steal the treasure and sell it to the highest bidder. You realize that something is afoot when Chapman returns to his hotel room to find it ransacked. But Kress and Petris are more than willing to go much further to get the mask.

With all these story elements, you would most likely assume it would an action-adventure film like "Raiders of the Lost Ark", right? Wrong. I agree with the other reviewers that say that it plays more like a documentary in style and especially in its pacing. The film should have been exciting but too often it just seems like a travelogue with a bit of a plot tossed into the mix. It takes too long to develop and the characters are amazingly flat. So, the dryness in this film is not just due to the desert locale! Overall, watchable but this is hardly an endorsement for you to watch the picture!