Two French Foreign Legion soldiers and their aids stumble upon the lost kingdom of Atlantis-apparently-deep in the Sahara Desert. There, their Queen Antinea shows alternating interest and disinterest in these travelers.
'The Mistress of Atlantis' follows the familiar premise of an H. Ryder Haggard novel or other such Victorian-era adventure stories. A hidden kingdom in an unexplored continent. Europeans in way over their heads in an unfamiliar land and yet able to hold their own. A possibly ancient female ruler of a possibly magical kingdom with possible magic involved. 'The Mistress of Atlantis' is basically a knock off of 'She' but with a heaping dose of ambiguity.
Whether anything mystical is involved is left entirely ambiguous. Sure, the queen Antinea could be exerting some sort of influence over the incoming Legionairres, but this is Brigette Helm of 'Metropolis' fame we're talking about, so it's entirely likely multiple men have gone nuts over her with no magical influence whatsoever. This ambiguity is one of the major weak points of the movie. The so-called "Atlantis" seems less like a mystical, ancient city and more like a random oasis town in the Sahara. That's still a cool thing to see, but not really worthy of the focal point of a Haggardian adventure tale.
However, the uncertainty of everything in this movie is actually one of the strong points. There is a dreamlike atmosphere throughout the story that could make up for the lackluster plot, story, and acting. The real problem is the direction and editing. In some ways the move feels more ahead of its times than it is. There are many odd close ups and tracking shots that were extremely uncommon in 1932 and give the movie a more modern look than it otherwise would have. The film quality is also atrocious even by 30s standards, so any benefit from a pioneering new film style are lost. More specifically, there are important sequences involving fights and battles that are shot so poorly it's difficult to tell what's even happening. Even if we take this to be a more serious film in the guise of a Haggard-esque adventure tale, that only makes these deficiencies more glaring. A movie trying to use a usually low-brow genre to present more thoughtful entertainment should be built better and with more care. This is an ambitious movie with some impressive attempts at film-making but ultimately fails at being either entertaining or thought-provoking. There are no single scenes that stand out. On a few individual scenes of performances are memorable. It comes so close to a hidden classic so many times and yet each times fails to reach the heights of even a minor classic.
If you're a fan of 'She', 'The Lost World', Allan Quatermain stories, and other similar adventure stories from the late 1800s, then by call means seek out 'The Mistress of Atlantis'. It's well worth a watch for fans of the genre. Even those interested in 1930s movies will be interested to see how it is in some ways ahead of it's time. Unfortunately, it's no 'She', so if viewers looking for a rollicking adventure will be disappointed.
'The Mistress of Atlantis' follows the familiar premise of an H. Ryder Haggard novel or other such Victorian-era adventure stories. A hidden kingdom in an unexplored continent. Europeans in way over their heads in an unfamiliar land and yet able to hold their own. A possibly ancient female ruler of a possibly magical kingdom with possible magic involved. 'The Mistress of Atlantis' is basically a knock off of 'She' but with a heaping dose of ambiguity.
Whether anything mystical is involved is left entirely ambiguous. Sure, the queen Antinea could be exerting some sort of influence over the incoming Legionairres, but this is Brigette Helm of 'Metropolis' fame we're talking about, so it's entirely likely multiple men have gone nuts over her with no magical influence whatsoever. This ambiguity is one of the major weak points of the movie. The so-called "Atlantis" seems less like a mystical, ancient city and more like a random oasis town in the Sahara. That's still a cool thing to see, but not really worthy of the focal point of a Haggardian adventure tale.
However, the uncertainty of everything in this movie is actually one of the strong points. There is a dreamlike atmosphere throughout the story that could make up for the lackluster plot, story, and acting. The real problem is the direction and editing. In some ways the move feels more ahead of its times than it is. There are many odd close ups and tracking shots that were extremely uncommon in 1932 and give the movie a more modern look than it otherwise would have. The film quality is also atrocious even by 30s standards, so any benefit from a pioneering new film style are lost. More specifically, there are important sequences involving fights and battles that are shot so poorly it's difficult to tell what's even happening. Even if we take this to be a more serious film in the guise of a Haggard-esque adventure tale, that only makes these deficiencies more glaring. A movie trying to use a usually low-brow genre to present more thoughtful entertainment should be built better and with more care. This is an ambitious movie with some impressive attempts at film-making but ultimately fails at being either entertaining or thought-provoking. There are no single scenes that stand out. On a few individual scenes of performances are memorable. It comes so close to a hidden classic so many times and yet each times fails to reach the heights of even a minor classic.
If you're a fan of 'She', 'The Lost World', Allan Quatermain stories, and other similar adventure stories from the late 1800s, then by call means seek out 'The Mistress of Atlantis'. It's well worth a watch for fans of the genre. Even those interested in 1930s movies will be interested to see how it is in some ways ahead of it's time. Unfortunately, it's no 'She', so if viewers looking for a rollicking adventure will be disappointed.