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.

The thing that struck me about this movie was how much it set itself apart from similar 'treasure hunt' movies of its day. None of the acting was so overdone that it became unbareable. And the authenticity of the setting and location were extremely refreshing, peeking through the dusty cotton print that has survived. Van was actually cool. He didn't do any big cliches that was criminal. The Egyptian cast was first rate. No Peter Lorre's and miscast Europeans playing the native tongue to the ground. Jack Lee. BAM.

Writer Nicholas Chapman (Van Heflin) teams up with archaeologist Dr. Burnet and his pretty daughter (Eric Portman, Wanda Hendrix) to search for golden mask of Moloch. Two thieves (Jacques Brunius and Charles Goldner) try to sabotage the expedition to get the mask for themselves. Tomb-raiding adventure film is very dry and very dull. Forced romance between Van Heflin and a girl young enough to be his daughter doesn't help. Partially shot on location in Algiers but there's still plenty of poor rear projection effects. Ultimately, it's an avoidable film that is lacking adventure or suspense -- two prerequisites for movies of this type.

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!

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?