User Reviews

No longer the debonair and very urban leading man, William Powell was trying to move into roles more in line with his age. Powell turned 60 at the time The Treasure of Lost Canyon and was now playing an eccentric married man who's cousin, Henry Hull has been robbing him blind for years.

Into his life comes young Tommy Ivo whose mother died and his father killed in a stage holdup. Though he didn't think so, Powell takes to the young boy and his dog and plans to adopt him.

Ivo locates some old bandit loot on Powell's property which seems to be the answer to their financial worries. That's the treasure in the title. But there are still a lot of questions to be answered.

The Treasure of Lost Canyon is based on a Robert Louis Stevenson short story, The Treasure of Franchard and is clearly aimed at a family audience. It's a pleasant and rather short film, 82 minutes and is moderately entertaining. Stevenson fans will note the similarity between young Tommy Ivo and a couple of other young Stevenson heroes, David Balfour and Jim Hawkins.

Besides those mentioned Rosemary DeCamp is Powell's wife and Charles Drake and Julia Adams play a pair of helpful neighbors. Especially Drake who is most helpful in getting a lot of questions answered.

The Treasure of Lost Canyon is not a great film, but entertaining enough. Sad to say movie audiences apparently didn't take to William Powell in a role more suited to Gabby Hayes or Walter Brennan. Still though, Powell as romantic lead was far more ridiculous at his age.

"The Treasure of Lost Canyon" seems much like a Zane Grey Western, but it isn't. Surprisingly enough, this adventure drama and Western is based on a short story by Robert Louis Stevenson. The famous Scottish novelist, poet and adventure writer ("Treasure Island," "Kidnapped," and "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde") had visited and spent time in America among his many 19th century travels. Stevenson lived for a time in New York and California. In California, he married his wife, a San Francisco divorcee whom he had first met in France. While in America, Stevenson continued to write when he wasn't ill.

But this isn't a story that Stevenson set in California or even wrote in America, in spite of the opening credits. Universal bills it as "Robert Louis Stevenson's 'The Treasure of Lost Canyon.'" That's not true. Rather, it's an adaptation of a Stevenson short story entitled, "Treasure of Franchard." And that story is set in Fontainebleau Forest southeast of Paris. Stevenson had visited that area of number of times, and Franchard is the name of a gorge in the forest in which there are some ancient caves. So, it's strange that the studio would keep the French name and use it in the movie script when the whole story has been adapted and transplanted to California.

Universal probably thought it would boost the box office to make it sound like the movie was from an American story written by Stevenson. The film does follow the main plot of the original story. In the short story, a Doctor Desprez and his wife adopt an orphan boy. The doctor discovers the treasure of Franchard, and plans to move his family to gay Paris. But the boy likes living in the country and doesn't want to go to Paris. So, during the night, the treasure disappears.

The adaptation for this film is set in the gold-rush region of northern California northeast of Sacramento. The cities of Sacramento and San Francisco are mentioned. The outdoor scenes were filmed along the Feather River and at McArthur-Burney Falls Memorial State Park with its 129-foot Burney Waterfall. Again, it seems odd that the studio should keep the Franchard name in the movie. But it does. In answer to a question from David, Doc Brown says the mountain in the distance is Mt. Franchard. Later they ride in the horse and buggy through Franchard Forest and stop at Franchard Falls. That's a real mystery.

All that aside, this is a light drama and Western and adventure story with some comedy. It's an old-fashioned story of a broken family, greed, wealth, corruption, redemption and love. The comedy is provided by William Powell's character, Homer "Doc" Brown. Powell was 60 years old when this movie was made, and he would retire in 1955 after three more films. He could pass for 50 in this film, and his wife, Samuella, is played by Rosemary DeCamp who was 42 then.

The cast is quite small, but all give very good performances. Tommy Ivo plays David, Charles Drake plays Jim Anderson, Julie Adams plays Myra Wade, and Henry Hull is Cousin Lucius Cooke.

It's very interesting that the movie premier and release was in London on Jan. 27, 1952. Again, probably because of the Robert Louis Stevenson connection. It opened in American theaters on March 1 of that year.

The film has a couple of nice scenic shots of the gold rush area in California. That mountain in the background in the film sure looks a lot like Lassen Peak from one angle. Anyone who enjoys Zane Gray stories or films, or Louis L'Amour novels and tales should like this film.

Here are some favorite lines.

Homer "Doc" Brown, "Well, bless my soul. Why you're not a boy at all. You're a philosopher." David, "Am I?" Doc Brown, "Well, of course you are. You see things clearly; you answer questions truthfully. Well, you'd be amazed how few grownups can do the same."

Doc Brown, "You know, I disliked children all my life. Little monsters - most of them." David, "It's grownups make 'em that way." Doc Brown, "Well, I don't know whether I like you very much either. You're about the strangest young fellow I ever met." David, "Yes, sir. But aren't you a very strange gentleman?" Doc Brown, "Well... that's tit for tat."

Doc Brown, "Hmmm. You never laugh at any of my jokes. Don't you like 'em?" David, "Oh, yes sir. I like jokes."

Doc Brown, "A pair of self-centered people like us should avoid children as if they were germs."

Doc Brown, "I've found a most amazing young man. And I've decided to become a father. Uh, you better set another plate."

Doc Brown, "I struck gold - my brother, Ben, and I. And I count that the unluckiest day of my life." David, "Why?" Doc Brown, "Because money is filthy stuff. I despise it. It corrupts - eats out your heart. It separates brother from brother." David, "You mean you'd rather be poor?" Doc Brown, "Well, let's say that I, uh, I enjoy my present modest income. I'm free from all the worry that money brings. I have good food, good air, the meadows to walk in. Could I ask for more?"

David, "Won't you ever go back (to San Francisco)?" Doc Brown, "Never. The city is a wicked place."

David, "Samuella said you was a gay old blade."

Doc Brown, "And, David, if you ever see me buy a ticket to San Francisco, don't hesitate. Burn the stagecoach! Wreck the train! Anything were better than for me to reach the city alive. Can you remember that?"

This film has drama and real life lessons within it. There is bonding between the adopted father and the son that is missing in many of todays families. The suspense in one scene as the boy dives into the water is so dramatic you almost sit on the edge of your seat cheering him on. One can tell this film was made before the fanatic censorships of today, as the boy is then clad only in his wet undergarment and tends to show more of himself physically than is allowed in todays television. Yet that innocence and nostalgia of the film overall gives it the #3 best movie of that year by many critics. I own this film as I watched it once on AMC and they only bring it out of the vault once every two years or so... I highly recommend this film!

This movie is a severe disappointment. William Powell gives one of his typical effortless-looking performances, but seeing him downgraded to Old Coot status, making something out of nothing, is painful. This would be a sub-par programmer without Powell, and, as it is, is a waste of time.

I strongly disagree with the reviewers who said they were disappointed in this film. I realize that there are some Dickensian-type coincidences that may go over the top a bit, but considering the original story was by Robert Louis Stevenson, that is acceptable to me.

The main thing for me is the warm loving relationship between William Powell and the boy, and also the one between William Powell and his wife. They are such good-hearted people and interestingly eccentric, too, it really makes you wish that more people were like them.

I also loved the scenic quality of the area; is it Northern California? So unspoiled, apparently safe, and a nice place to live. I was so happy for the boy, who had suffered in his early life, that he got to move in with such fine people and in such a lovely home.

William Powell is always worth watching, no matter the role. I only discovered this film in recent years, after having known only his urbane persona since I was a child 40+ years ago. Therefore, it was a delightful surprise to see him as this lovable codger sort. A nice role for his latter years, I thought. Even better than the amusing "Mr. Peabody and the Mermaid" a few years earlier.

What makes this movie so good is the the relationship between the old man (William Powell) and the boy, so forgiving and accepting (so needed for kids to feel secure). The movie has a good story-line and good acting. This movie kept my interest and to me that's the watermark for a higher rating. The only disappointment was that Julie Adams was given second billing and she didn't appear until about 15 minutes till the end of the movie.

Not really a western for me, but rather an adventure film destined to the whole family, showing a young boy and a treasure search. Adapted from a Robert Louis Stevenson's story, it may sound familiar to those who love this great novelist and find common elements with his most famous book; TREASURE ISLAND, but though nothing to do with DR JEKYLL...adventures. It is not my cup of tea, this western which I expected more in the Universal Studios style of this period. But it is agreeable to watch, never boring, and William Powell seems comfortable for once not working for Metro Goldwyn Mayer company.