Wow! Such a good movie.

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

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.

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.

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.