notmicro Its a somewhat interesting curiosity, strictly for fans of the actors. I assume that 90% of people these days will watch it because of Montez, and they will probably be a bit confused and disappointed; "Cobra Woman" this is not! Its very much kind of a version of "She" in the Sahara, with the odd low-budget feel of an old B&W Saturday Matinée serial; but this is very adult and not for the kiddies! Its intellectual and philosophical in some ways, and the Queen plays games of chess with her victims. Unfortunately for all sorts of reasons it ends up being a disjointed mess. My feeling was that its most fatal flaw among many is that it has several excellent actors struggling to give serious performances against the odds, and needs Montez to come up to their level; unfortunately she was absolutely not up to this task.

dbborroughs 1940's version of oft filmed story of finding Atlantis under the Sahara is probably best known when it was filmed several times under the l'Atalante title of the novel. The plot has a couple of adventurers stumbling upon the lost continent under the desert and coming in contact with the queen of the continent, romance and other complications ensue. This time out we get a well made version but the pacing is a killer and after a half an hour I began to wander literally, I went into other rooms in my house as this was running in the DVD player because the movie is just so darn slow. Worst of all is Maria Montez as the queen who is beautiful but leaden. She's so bad in fact that her name is now linked in my mind to one of the worst performances I've ever seen (and I've seen a good many). You can try it but you may snooze

Charles Reichenthal Stangely, I had never seen this film and, stranger still, I had high hopes for it as some kind of 'discovery'. Yes, I knew its long history, its several directors, and its difficult production... yet, the mythic story always has held interest. Well, I finally obtained an only 'fair' copy, and, sigh, the film is really almost as poor as had been reviewed at the time. The wonderful surprise, however, is that Montez looks at her most beautiful in this black-and-white film! Jean Pierre Aumont and Dennis O'Keefe TRY to show some logic amidst a script that makes absolutely no sense. A fantasy about Atlantis can be fun, but this plodding, ill-written wreck shows its deficiencies too eagerly-- the mysterious entrance to the 'lost continent' (which seems to be one building, hardly even a city block) is easily reached. Where is the atmosphere coming from in the midst of the Sahara? And the water? And the people who know how to dance hoochi-koochi? There is a poetic fantasy screaming to come out, but it would require a good writer, ONE director, and some color. I was truly disappointed to find that I now believe all of the negative(s) that have been this film's historical document.

David Kelsey The setting of this film suggests that it will be similar to the escapist fare which Montez starred in at Universal. She plays the man-hungry Queen Antinea of Atlantis, which is located inside a mountain in the Sahara Desert, into which two officers of the French Foreign Legion stumble. Within this setting, however, the story played out is not an action adventure, but psychological melodrama, involving a femme fatale, obsession, deception, jealousy, murder, guilt, repentance, and fatalism.There are many noirish resonances: the monochrome photography of the claustrophobic torchlit chambers of the underground kingdom, the obsession of St. Avit (Jean-Pierre Aumont, Montez' real life husband) for the queen, the amoral cynicism of the court librarian Blades (Henry Daniell), and the alienation of all the characters. The nearest thing to normality is the Legion outpost. The film ends with a strong suggestion that nothing has been resolved and that the same sequence of events is about to be replayed.This was Tallas' first film as director. He had previously been an editor, and indeed edited this film as well as directing, but the film's producer, Seymour Nebenzal, probably had more influence over the mood of the piece. Two years earlier he had produced "The Chase" (which also ended with the suggestion that it was all about to start again), and three years later produced "M" - clearly a man with a taste for the noir. The two uncredited directors also have noir credentials. Arthur Ripley had directed "The Chase" for Nebenzal, and John Brahm had directed "The Locket."The film suffers from somewhat disjointed narrative flow in parts, although this may be due to damage to the surviving copies. Whatever its faults, it is better than many reviews suggest, and is surely the weirdest amalgam of exotic "eastern" and film noir that you will ever meet.