I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Tied for the best movie I have ever seen

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Even though American insurance adjuster, Al Colby (who was presently visiting Havana, Cuba) was somewhat of a disagreeable brute who thought nothing of shoving around both men and women whenever it suited his mood, he was still deemed so irresistible that he found not one, but two, sexy babes lusting after him as if he were the hottest hunk in tweed trousers.With that in mind, I found Plunder Of The Sun (POTS) to be one of the most clichéd, predictable and, yes, decidedly dumb Crime/Adventure stories (with its preposterous double-whammy romance, thrown in for good measure) that I've seen, from the good, old 1950s, in a mighty long time.Featuring some real goof-ball villains, annoying/boring femme fatales and various implausible (and highly laughable) situations, POTS' story about hunting for hidden treasure amongst the ancient ruins and pyramids at Monte Alban, Mexico, just didn't have what it takes to cut the mustard, from my point of view.With its story being told mainly through flashbacks, including lots of voice-over narration by Al Colby (Glenn Ford's less-than-appealing character), POTS was definitely one of those movies that left this viewer quite dissatisfied and thinking to himself that this picture certainly had the potential to be a whole lot better than it was.Even though POTS' running time was only a mere 80 minutes, it sure seemed to me that so much of the general action was all but worthless and easily forgettable.As well, this film certainly lost a lot of its overall entertainment value by being filmed in stark b&w.The many scenes that were shot amongst the Zapotec ruins near Oaxaca, Mexico, would have been so absolutely wonderful to behold had they been given the full Technicolor treatment.And, finally, I thought that, as an actor, Glenn Ford was not at all well-suited for his part. Like, c'mon, Al Colby (that face-slapping heel) actually had 2 fairly hot women throwing themselves at him regardless of what dangers this might have posed to their immediate safety.And, to me, that was preposterous beyond words.

I have never read the original novel by David Dodge, so I cannot in any way compare this movie to his book. I assume the other reviewer who felt the book was MUCH better was right--that usually is the case.It's worth seeing this film just so you can get a glimpse of 1950's Cuba. There are only a few films set there (a couple of Errol Flynn's last films were shot there) and it's a nice chance to see the country--as most Americans have never been there or seen the place in films.The film begins in Mexico. Glenn Ford is being held by the authorities and a worker from the US Consulate tells him to explain what happened. So, Ford begins to talk and the film flashes back one week to Havana. It seems he's been stranded there without funds and is waiting and hoping a letter with money soon arrives. When an odd man in a wheelchair offers him way too much money to deliver an 'unimportant trinket', Ford rightly figures that it's VERY important. And soon he's on his way to Mexico to go treasure hunting.All in all, it's amazing how uninteresting the film becomes. While it all concerns a HUGE treasure trove, the film never seems very realistic nor exciting. It's hard to put my finger on it, but I felt pretty bored bored during all these betrayals, drunken brawls and the like. Much of it was, I think, because Ford's dealings with the white-haired man never made much sense. Also what made no sense was the casting of Diana Lynn. At times the film tried to have her behave like a vamp or femme fatale--it was akin to seeing Donna Douglas or June Lockhart doing this! She just seemed ill at ease and the wrong lady for such a role. Cute and perky yes---a drunken slut, certainly not!

Glenn Ford has one of his strongest roles in John Farrow's "Plunder of the Sun", playing a debt collector in over his head in the stolen antiquities market in Cuba and Mexico. The film is unique in its time and genre in that the entire film was made on location in Mexico, and the ancient ruins provide an interesting backdrop to the story and characters. It's a fun movie but ultimately all the build-up doesn't really lead to anything as interesting as it seemed it might.There are many elements here that will remind the viewer of Huston's "Maltese Falcon" – the general theme centered around a stolen cultural artifact, the fat man with mysterious motives (in this case, Francis L. Sullivan), the weird violent guy chasing after the treasure (a bleached blond Sean McClory), etc. And then of course we also have some of the elements that are typical of many suspense films of the 40s/50s (the "noir" kind): the spoiled rich party girl Julie (Diana Lynn), devoted but devious glamour lady Anna (Patricia Medina), and a decidedly ambiguous leading man in Ford's Al Colby.So essentially we have a not-so-original story set in a very different and more convincing (because it's real) exotic setting, for what it's worth. I really enjoyed the scenes with Colby exploring the ruins when he first arrives in Mexico. Later we find that his character has apparently had a true spiritual epiphany on this occasion although his narrative comments only hint at this and he remains his typical ambiguous self through the rest of the film – even going so far as to rob the ruins with the imminently unpleasant archaeologist Jefferson (McClory). This is typical of the problems I see in this film – the resolution for the characters seemed in almost every case to be at odds with how they had been established earlier in the film, and there was little in the way of effective development to explain these changes. The film spends so much time building up the Julie character as a hussy from the Gloria Grahame school, but then it blows off all that steam with a lame hospital bedroom confessional scene. I really am not sure what they were trying to do with the Anna character. At times Farrow's direction and the costuming seemed to imply a kind of religious iconography, especially in the scene where Anna enters the room where Colby is arguing with Mexican archaeologist Navarro, with a procession behind her, wearing a kind of veil, and holding a gun in front of her like the rosary – you could call her the may queen of death. But the film didn't really establish her very well as either a "fatale" character or a mature partner for the hero – like most the characters in this film her actions seem arbitrary and to depend only on the circumstances that the plot demands. Speaking of Navarro, he's so underdeveloped that it's very jarring to find him later having an important impact on the plot's resolution. We don't even get his credit on IMDb, much less on the film itself, so I don't even know who played the role.Ford's strong characterization provides enough impetus to carry the film along; the writers apparently saw "Gilda" and decided that Glenn Ford would be even more popular if he was a complete misogynist. There are some really fun lines of dialog that he throws out there in his cynical way. I enjoyed the scenes where he devised the code to try to fool Navarro. McClory was also very impressive in a menacing character role. There are numerous small character parts that are all handled with great consistency by director Farrow.A final note – one interesting aspect of this movie is that the various "hiding places" used in the film are all so terribly obvious that it's almost impossible to believe it was accidental. And I believe there was even a line of dialog in the film about the best hiding place being the most obvious one. Thus Ford hides the parchment in his shoes (duh!), with the hotel lobby clerk, etc. And then when they find the treasure it's "hidden" in a spot where tourists stroll by every day. After absconding with the treasure McClory and his accomplice "hide" in the warehouse of the city museum! I'm not really sure if there was a deeper reason why this theme was being addressed, but it does also apply to the film's romantic resolutions. Colby ends up with Anna, the first woman he speaks to in the film and one who he expected to sleep with that very night, and Julie ends up with Navarro's son, who she has seemed to take for granted through the entire film. Possibly this is an element that was interesting in the novel but underplayed in the film, I'm really not sure having never read the book.

Not much of David Dodge's novel remains in this film version, other than the names of some of the characters and the basic plot. American insurance investigator Al Colby is hired to smuggle a package out of Havana and into Oaxaca, Mexico. When the man who hired him is murdered aboard ship, Colby decides to find out what he is carrying and why it is worth killing for. Unscrupulous antiquities dealers, disgraced archaeologists, and desperate women all clash in a search for buried Zapotecan treasure. Glenn Ford is serviceable as Al Colby, but the plot is murky, the characters are under-developed, and the location is inexplicably changed from Peru to Mexico. Although it is long out-of-print, copies of the book are still relatively easy to find (unlike prints of this film, which is still tied up in Wayne estate litigation), and reading the book is a much better use of one's time.