King Solomon's Mines (1985) User Reviews

Okay sue me! I actually liked it.

[vip_ebriega · 5/10 · 4 February 2007]

Review summary: Mostly obvious knock-off of INDIANA JONES, but functions more as an entertaining parody.

I've heard many bad reviews on this film. They all say "Indiana Jones rip-off" or "Worst movie ever". But to me, this is actually entertaining, and it's silly fun indeed. The film is usually called a rip-off because they see some elements they also saw in the Indy flicks. Truth be told, this has more in kin with the Lucas/Spielberg classic than H. Rider Haggard's classic adventure novel. But seeing the film, it actually has a lot of fun with itself. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously, and I agreed to the bargain. Richard Chamberlain is not that heroic as Indy, but he throws in a lot of jokes to make viewers crack a smile. Sharon Stone shouts, complains, whines in the entire journey, but what would you expect on a big-screen debut. Herbert Lom, as I see it, is being more of funny than sinister intentionally. Same goes for John Rhys-Davies, but he looks more villainous. But it wasn't all parody and humor. "King Solomon's Mines" is also action-packed. Perhaps one of the real downer in the action department are the special effects (terrible process shots!) and stunts (the most obvious stunt doubles ever!!). Still, we have crocodiles, tribesmen, Nazis and exploding caves of lava.

Perhaps it's my love for old-fashioned adventure that made me like this silly, mostly campy adventure, but I couldn't deny the guilty pleasure I had with it. Overall, this is actually functions as an enjoyable tongue-in-cheek adventure flick, but make sure you leave any pretense of common sense at the door. It's stupid fun.

Rating: *** out of 5.

Thirty years on, and I finally get it. It's a parody!

[BA_Harrison · 6/10 · 6 December 2015]

Based on H. Rider Haggard's novel, King Solomon's stars Richard Chamberlain as adventurer Allan Quatermain, who is enlisted by blonde babe Jesse Huston (Sharon Stone) to help find her father, who has gone missing while searching for the fables mines of King Solomon. Herbert Lom plays Nazi Colonel Bockner, who, with the help of wicked Turk Dogati (John Rhys Davis, sending up his own role in Raiders of the Lost Ark), also hopes to locate the legendary treasure.

When I first saw this film (back in the '80s at my local Cannon flea-pit), I thought it was abominable, a shoddy Indiana Jones clone thrown together in a hurry to make a quick buck. I now realise my mistake: instead of being a cheap rip-off, it is in fact a sly send-up that mercilessly mocks the conventions of the genre, which explains the ridiculously hokey script, the incredibly far-fetched action scenes, the cruddy effects, and the camp performances from a cast who are obviously in on the joke. When viewed as such, one's enjoyment of the film is greatly enhanced.

Director J.Lee Thompson certainly keeps the bonkers action moving along at a decent lick, with a silly sequence aboard a speeding (NOT!) train, a ridiculous scene that has hero Quatermain hanging onto the wing of a biplane piloted by a petrified Jesse, a tribe that lives upside-down in the jungle, a hilarious moment involving a cannibal tribe's massive cooking pot, and a really unconvincing giant spider attack. The film also boasts a surprisingly decent score from Jerry Goldsmith, who effectively mimics John Williams' famous Raiders theme, and benefits throughout from the appealing sight of the pre-fame Stone in tight shorts (that get shorter and shorter as the movie progresses).

Rip-off or classic?

[iammedotcom · 6/10 · 10 March 2005]

Well I read a lot of the reviews here and it seems to be pretty divided as to whether or not this is a good movie. So here's my 2 cents. In my opinion this was not trying to be Indiana Jones. I think the intension was to make a campy, cheesy spoof, and as that it succeeds fantastically. Keep in mind this was the early - mid 80's. Cheezeball B-movies were all the rage and popular. Look was came out in around that period. King Solomon's Mines, a year later a sequel, Lost City of Gold. But we had many other great cheese movies like Ice Pirates, Dungeonmaster, Dragonslayer, Spaceballs, just to name a few. Conan the Barbarian spawn a whole subgenre of barbarian movies as did Road Warrior for post-apocalyptic movies. I'm sure there where other movies of these subjects before, but these were the ones that really kicked it off for those subgenres. I think that many of those who are complaining that King Solomon's Mines is so bad are those who are too young to remember and appreciate these movies that came out in around that period or those who decided it's not "cool" to like cheesy movies.

Of course you can't compare the effects to that of Raiders of the lost Ark. Raiders had a near unlimited budget for the day, how do you compete with something like that? And do you honestly think that they blatantly ripped off scenes without getting permission first? I wouldn't be surprised if Lucas is making a small royalty of these movies, or at least did back when it came out. Yes, they rode the Raiders wave. Why is it that we criticize someone for riding a winning wave? If I had the chance, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I would argue that any of these movies have more heart than most of what comes out of Hollywood these days. These were made back when, for the most part, budgets were tight and people made movies for the love of making movies.

Having a weakness for violent gore movies and foreign, B-Movies and foreign probably comprise 60% of my DVD collection and 70-80% of my VHS collection. Almost 600 movies combined. But I have a rare gift to be able to sit down and watch a movie without comparison to another and judge it on it's own. That's why my collection contains everything from Little Mermaid and Aladdin to Cannibal Holocaust(Uncut) and Salo: 120 Days of Sodom(Uncut), from The English Patient to, yes, King Solomon's Mines. (I do, however, have Lost City of Gold on VHS) So sit back, try to watch movies without any preconception of what you are about to watch. Critics, friends, rumors are just that. You are your own person, make up your own mind. If you can't do this, you are probably looking at the wrong movie. All you will see is a bad Raiders rip-off and you should stick to what you know or "reality" *Ya Right* TV.

And that's my 2 cents.

ME

A campier take on the Indiana Jones Movies

[Son of Clouseau · 5/10 · 8 August 2000]

This movie will forever be dogged by the shadow of elder brother Raiders of The Lost Ark, when in actual fact the movie far more resembles that movies little brother, Temple of Doom. Now O.K., this is typical Cannon material. A blatant attempt to imitate more succesful efforts, and if sometimes in this movie anyway, things dont come off as intended the movie will LOOK bad. However, when all is said and done this is one of the better Cannon movies. Richard Chamberlain is simply wonderful as an Adam West-Alike Quatermain. Oblivious to the world around him. Sharon Stone too does well, with what silly dialogue she is given, and the rest of the cast [ John Rhys Davies etc ] take things seriously, which helps the film. The one thing that does let the movie down is the direction. Which is a carbon copy of the Indiana Jones movies. Maybe Cannon encouraged this, but J. Lee Thompson is in all honesty an uninspired director,. Maybe a younger director would have spurned the chance to out Spielberg Steven, and we might have had a better movie. Jerry Goldsmith's Theme is also badly under-rated but adds to the excitement, and enjoyment. When watching this movie dont take too seriously and sit back and enjoy a campy, Batmanesque movie.

KSM: A Brilliant Comedy

[simons1138 · 7/10 · 8 February 2007]

A long time ago, I was introduced as an "outsider" to a group of boys who would get together once a month to have a "Cheese Fest" of real bad movies. We watched three movies, and laughed until we cried. When it was over, I shyly suggested a movie called "King Solomon's Mines". They had never heard of the film, or hadn't seen it yet. This was my opening to be "cool" with the gang.

At the next gathering, I came over with a VHS copy I rented from a store. We watched it, and had to stop the movie several times because we were laughing so hard! We all agreed that this was the best worst movie we had ever seen! About two days later, my front door bell rang, and it was the boys there to give me a gift! I had been "accepted" into their gang! Many nights of "Cheese Fests" followed, but none were as successful as the night we watched "King Solomon's Mines"! The gift, by the way, was the very VHS copy of "KSM" (which we pronounce; "Chaos, Mmm") I had rented! I still have it to this day, and have shown it to many friends who thank me every time while wiping away a tear.

Ouch!

[hitchcockthelegend · 2/10 · 9 January 2010]

Jesse Huston (Sharon Stone) is on a mission to find her lost father, she enlists the help of legendary explorer Allan Quatermain (Richard Chamberlain) and both of them set off on their perilous journey.

Bland, routine and deserving of its reputation as an illegitimate sprog cash in of Indiana Jones. Director J Lee Thompson and his writers adapt H. Rider Haggard's classic novel and effectively hope that writing set piece after set piece will make for an exhilarating adventure movie. It doesn't. Bad script, bad acting, poor special effects, roller-coaster pacing, cringe-worthy dialogue and the sets look to have been knocked up overnight. It's not as if Chamberlain & Stone can't act, because they can, it's just that they are reduced to cartoon fodder and both look very uncomfortable in doing so. John Rhys-Davies adds some fun as Dogati but poor Herbert Lom phones it in as an ultimate caricature German villain. There's some interest in the pre-fame Stone's attire for the red blooded male, watch as her shorts grow steadily shorter during the film. And for the girls who like beards, well Richie Chamberlain sports a candidate for the world's tidiest beard throughout the adventure mockery; tho not quite as tidy as the frothy one worn by a big old fake spider.

Don't believe those who say it's in the "so bad it's good" category, it's just terrible and you are strongly advised to seek out either the 1937 or 1950 version instead. 2/10

Adventures , humor and romance in the exotic African jungles starred by the legendary Allan Quatermain

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 22 July 2013]

This new agreeable version from H. Rider Haggard adventure follows again Allan Quatermain played by a likable Richard Chamberlain . However , the original novel took place in the 1880s or earlier, but this film moves Quatermain's adventures to the era of World War I, in an unusual case of a semi-update . This is the adventure of a lifetime starred by a fortune hunter called Allan Quatermain (one of the members of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) who teams up with a resourceful woman (Sharon Stone , according to her memoirs Kathleen Turner turned down the role of Jesse) to help her find her missing father lost in the wilds of 1900s Africa while being pursued by hostile tribes , a rival German explorer (Herbert Lom) and a slaver Arab named Dogati (John Rhys-Davies who along with Richard Chamberlain starred TV-series "Shogun") . Allan is leading a safari in search of legendary diamond mines and to save the damsel's father . They are pursued by German soldiers and must confront natives , animals and several dangers and risks until they find the King Salomon's mines . The brave hunter and the elegant lady become fast friends, confronting magic rites and cannibals in search of legendary diamonds mines . While a native (Ken Gampu) is reclaiming his rights over throne of an African tribe next to King Salomon's mines .

This amusing spoof picture displays exciting action , thrills , humor with tongue-in-cheek , extraordinary adventures and outlandish cliffhanger situations abound . Richard Chamberlain as Quatermain is passable , though Stewart Granger in the classic of the 50s -by Compton Bennett, Andrew Marton and with Debora Kerr- is incredibly missed . Heat and ills affected the crew and main actors but Sharon Stone surprised for her resistance . Polished and colorful production design by Luciano Spadoni , though in low-budget and excessive transparency . The natives are played by a real ethnic people from Zimbabwe . Evocative as well as glowing cinematography by the Mexican Alex Phillips, being shot on location in Harare, Zimbabwe . Special mention to rousing and thrilling musical score by the great Jerry Goldsmith . The motion picture was middlingly directed by J. Lee Thompson , though filmmaker Tobe Hooper was attached to direct early in production . This film arrive in theaters in 1985, the year of the 100th anniversary of the first appearance of Allan Quatermain in the novel King Solomon's Mines in 1885. The sequel, Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold (1987), adapted the novel Allan Quatermain (1887), it was an impressive accomplishment that Quatermain had two films arrive in theaters for his centenary celebrations .

Other versions of this known story are directed by Robert Stevenson, a 1937 version in which the supreme role was performed by the singer Paul Robeson who proved his singing faculties. The best and classic version resulted to be directed by Compton Bennett, Andrew Marton with Stewart Granger and Debora Kerr . Kurt Neumann directed a rendition titled ¨Watusi¨ with George Montgomery and David Farrar . And TV adaptation directed by Steven Boyum with Patrick Swayze and Alison Doody, among others . Furthermore , ¨King Salomon's mines¨ was filmed concurrently with its sequel, "Allan Quatermain and the City of Gold" starred by same duo along with James Earl Jones and Henry Silva directed by Gary Nelson .

I can't believe I watched the entire movie

[MickeyLee · 3/10 · 9 May 2008]

This movie was so bad, it was ALMOST good in its badness, but not quite. It pulled only the very thinnest of plots from one of the best adventure novels ever written. In fact, if I hadn't read the novel or seen other movie adaptations of the story, I'd have been even more lost. I must admit, though, that the quality improved --somewhat-- toward the end. Sharon Stone's acting was just plain bad (she's gotten much better since this movie), but patient viewers are rewarded later in the movie by some nice views of her pretty legs as her costume gets mysteriously shorter and tighter as the story progresses. Richard Chamberlain seemed a bit like Pee-Wee Herman with a beard, wearing an Indiana Jones outfit. The rest of the characters are largely forgettable and unexplained, but John Rhys-Davies actually did a fine job. The musical score often seemed out of place, so much so that at times it was a distraction. See it if you must. There are worse ways one could spend two hours.

Good stuff.

[gsmith-23 · 12 February 2005]

I have seen this movie and I think it is a great spoof. I think we need a little clean humor in this industry of movie making. The lines are great and why not have a little fun with it? Sharin Stone may have been starting out but hey, you have to start somewhere and why not do it with a little fun. I think making the movie must have been hilarious. Granted Indiana Jones has some classic lines and Harrison Ford pulls it off most excellently, there are still some great jokes in the movie. Give the producers a break. They probably had to start out somewhere as well. Take the movie for the comedy and silly acting for what it is: entertainment, because, after all the is what it is all about.

I love Canon

[Chance_Boudreaux19 · 7/10 · 12 March 2018]

This is such a blatant rip-off of Indiana Jones that it is a downright parody. And a highly enjoyable parody it is. So many sequences, set pieces and even the music are so similar to a point where it makes one wonder how they got away with making this without getting sued. They even got John Rhys-Davies for a role! This is yet another piece of highly enjoyable Canon schlock, a studio that I cannot help but adore. Golan and Globus always tried to cash in on hot trends and along the way made some of my favorite cheesy, hugely entertaining pictures from the 80s. This doesn't rank up there with Over the Top, Bolero, Cobra, Bloodsport, Death Wish 3 and others but it is close and proves once again that Canon made some of the most entertaining movies from the 80s and I am on a mission to watch all of them!

Indiana Jones Discount

[Austin_Powers-1 · 3/10 · 29 August 2007]

This is a crime against H. Rider Haggard's classic adventure novel. A crime which I can still enjoy watching – Not because it's good, but so because it's so damn bad it becomes funny instead. Normally I'm not much of a bad film-lover, because they just make irritated instead of entertained, but King Solomon's mines was an exception (as well as the sequel "Allan Quatermain and the Lost City Of Gold").

This Indiana Jones-wannabe becomes more and more awful as it goes along, but fortunately all the bad elements keep you entertained. I wouldn't recommend anyone to spend more than a couple of pounds on this film, but watch it if you're having a taste of dreadful films.

great entertainment

[rustyrails38 · 8/10 · 2 August 2006]

This is a fun flick, based on the original story by Rider Haggard but with lots of bits from other sources, along with some totally humorous and almost unbelievable "stuff". If you want a serious flick and are the type who takes notes during the show, go somewhere else. If you want some genuine old-fashioned, borderline ridiculous entertainment along with your big bowl of popcorn, this is definitely it. Sharron Stone's character is a trip. The bit with her taking over the position of pilot in a commandeered biplane, even though she has never even been in a plane let alone flown one, is absolutely a scream. "Vroom!" was her exact summation of the experience. As for the Germanic presence in the dark Continent, as insinuated in this version of "Solomon's Mines", this is historically correct for the time, though far from accurate in its presentation; but this is entertainment! This edition of "Solomon's Mines" is not intended to be an accurate re-run of earlier flicks. If you gotta have precision and accuracy, see the '40's version with Stu Grainger and Liz Kerr. If you want some good entertainment of the non-serious vein, this is a good one. I've worn out my VHS version and am beating the bush for a DVD replacement.

Cheesy but never dull

[cyguration · 6/10 · 16 February 2021]

A lot of the negative reviews for this film harp on it for its cheesy effects, the over-acting, the simple story, and the lackadaisical nature of its structure, but this is actually a really entertaining movie.

King Solomon's Mines follows Allan Quartermain and the young daughter of a historian in search of King Solomon's Mines. What starts as a rescue mission turns into a daring escape from an evil baron and his evil German allies, which then turns into a search for hidden treasure deep into the mountainous jungles.

The highlight of this film is that it never stops.

The only downtime in the film is late in with the upside down villagers, but even then the downtime is used to move the plot along and give the characters their next clue. Before you know it they're at the mouth of peril once once more!

Yes, the effects are oftentimes cheesy, and the stunts ridiculous, there are no really memorable or engaging fight scenes, but the movie is a classic adventure flick with a lot of fun to be had, and Sharon Stone didn't seem to mind hamming it up with Richard Chamberlain, which certainly helps make it worth the watch. Stone also looks drop dead gorgeous in this, and the increasing amounts of fan-service as the movie wears on certainly helps retain attention even if the action scenes don't.

The locations look great here, and the film feels exotic and hopeful, boasting a great feeling of trekking across hazardous but beautifully foreign land. It's a shame we don't get films like this anymore, even though a lot of reviewers here seem to hate it.

The violence isn't gratuitous, the plot isn't hard to follow, and in some ways it feels like a more mellowed out version of Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom.

Shamefully unfunny

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 25 March 2011]

Okay, so somebody at Cannon decided it would be a good idea to make an Indiana Jones rip-off, utilising a 19th century boy's own adventure novel that hadn't been adapted for the screen for around forty years. Perhaps perceiving the ineptitude of the ensuing production, they did away with attempts at seriousness in favour of out-and-out comedy.

This is a terribly, terribly poor film.

I find comedy highly subjective, and as I have an unusual sense of humour I tend to dislike the genre (apart from rare treats like PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES). This is no exception. The jokes are lame, the overacting whiffs of embarrassment, the supporting characters are racist stereotypes. One of the "highlights" sees Quatermain and his love interest inside a huge cooking pot which they manage to tip over and roll down a hill. It's that kind of film.

The backdrops are okay, but the special effects seem particularly dated for the age (case in point: the silly blue-screen effects used to convince us that Chamberlain is hanging over a pool of crocodiles). Chamberlain himself seems mildly embarrassed - and so he should, as his acting career never recovered from this double debacle (a sequel was shot at the same time). Sharon Stone, playing a dumb blonde sidekick, is the worst I've ever seen (equally as bad as Erica Eleniak in UNDER SIEGE). John Rhys-Davies seems to be reprising his role from the Indiana Jones films, while the only performance I enjoyed was Herbert Lom as a comic-book German colonel.

Experienced action director J. Lee Thompson manages to give this film a decent pace and sense of momentum, but the woefully unfunny script scuppers it from the outset.

How the 1980s managed to be less politically correct than the 1880s

[JamesHitchcock · 3/10 · 31 March 2011]

H. Rider Haggard's "King Solomon's Mines" has been filmed a number of times, but this is the only version I have ever seen. It is only very loosely based on the original novel; a greater influence seems to have been the first two episodes of the Indiana Jones franchise. The action is brought forward from the 1880s to the time of the First World War in order to make the main villain a German; "Raiders of the Lost Ark" had been set in the 1930s with Nazi villains. Haggard's Allan Quatermain becomes an action hero based on Indy himself, complete with bush hat (although without the bullwhip). Like Indy, Quatermain has a glamorous young female companion, Jessie Huston (who bears certain similarities to Willie in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom"). His male companions from the original novel, apart from the faithful African servant Umbopa, disappear.

The 1980s are sometimes regarded as the decade which gave birth to the concept of political correctness, but there is little evidence of it in this film. (There is not a lot of evidence of it in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" either). For a film made in 1985, "King Solomon's Mines" achieves the difficult task of being, by a considerable margin, less politically correct than its source novel, published exactly one hundred years earlier. Haggard is never entirely free of late-Victorian assumptions about race, but he does treat his African characters with dignity and allows them major roles in his novel as heroes and heroines, not merely as villains. He even allows himself a romance between the African maiden Foulata and the white Englishman Captain Good.

Interracial romances might have been acceptable to readers in 1880s England, but cinema audiences in 1980s America seem to have been more puritanical on this point. Neither Foulata nor Good appears in the film, and Quatermain's love-interest is supplied by the white Jessie, played by a young Sharon Stone. American squeamishness about mixed-race romance does not appear to have diminished in the quarter-century since 1985; in the recent film version of "Around the World in Eighty Days" Phileas Fogg's love-interest was a white Frenchwoman, not an Indian woman as in Jules Verne's novel.

The most offensive thing abut the film, however, is the treatment of the African tribe, the Kakuanas. In Haggard's version they may have been noble savages, but here they are portrayed as ignoble ones, bloodthirsty cannibals who love to cook white people in a huge iron cauldron. This same old cartoon cliché comes up in the 1950s movie "Gentleman Marry Brunettes", but at least there its offensiveness is somewhat mitigated by its being presented in the context of a stage show; in "King Solomon's Mines", by contrast, the film actually appears to be suggesting that this is how real Africans behave. Ethnic stereotyping is not confined to Africans; we also have a treacherous, sadistic Turk and a ruthless, bullying German colonel.

The film's problems are not confined to its racial attitudes. It was evidently made on a much lower budget than the Indiana Jones films, and the action sequences and special effects are not in the same class. The story is frequently illogical, confusing or both. Richard Chamberlain makes a lightweight action hero compared to Harrison Ford and Sharon Stone does not show any evidence of the qualities which would later make her a major star, other than her sex appeal which is much on display. About halfway through the film someone obviously thought that Sharon was not showing enough of her sex appeal, as it is notable that throughout the later scenes her shorts gradually get shorter and tighter, until she ends up wearing a pair of minuscule hot-pants which in the 1910s would probably have got their wearer arrested for indecency. Male viewers, however, might as well enjoy the sight of Sharon's legs; there is precious little else in this movie to keep anyone amused. The only thing that surprises me is that the film-makers evidently thought highly enough of the film to follow it with a sequel "Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold" It is sad to think that the director J. Lee Thompson was once responsible for films as good as "Yield to the Night", "Ice-Cold in Alex" and "Cape Fear". 3/10

GREAT FILM!

[corinne_deasey · 12 June 2004]

This is one of my favourite films, as it is so easy to watch, i think the director was being Padraic of other action/adventure films and that is why it appears cheesy. I think the areoplane scene which we can tell is really fake, is meant to make you laugh. I particularly like the way secretly Sharon Stone's shorts within the film start as clam diggers and by the end of the film she almost has hot pants on (typical Hollywood male gaze of woman). I think for that time the special effects were excellent for an action/adventure treasure hunter film. I like the narrative of this film, as its not really complicated, i also like the way light is used in the tree tops when sharon & quatermain meet the upside-down people. This film is perfect to watch hungover eating warmed up pizza from the night before.

A fun but inferior sub Indiana Jones rip-off

[trevorwomble · 7/10 · 2 May 2020]

You have to admire Cannon films for this mid 1980s effort. They really tried hard to make a blockbuster in to tap into the Indiana Jones effect and make a competing franchise based on a classic Victorian era action/adventure story. A great cast headed by Richard Chamberlain, a pre-stardom Sharon Stone, the great Herbert Lom and John Rhys-Davies (who also appears in Raiders of the Lost Ark) as well as a veteran British director, J Lee Thompson, a man with many critically acclaimed action movies to his name, this film pulls out all the stops to try and rival the Spielberg classic.

However, despite the set-up, the film falls short. It bears little resemblance to it's source material (since when has Quartermain had an American accent?), in places there are some shonky visual effects indicating budget restrictions, some cringeworthy dialogue said by Chamberlain & Stone, and superficial character development that feels a bit hollow. Chamberlain and Stone try hard but the chemistry between them does not feel natural.

There is still some fun to be had, the film moves along at a decent pace, in part thanks to a terrific orchestral score, and youngsters may enjoy the action sequences (some of which border on absurd) and Herbert Lom is always fun to watch and seems to be enjoying his comic book villain role. The film is competently directed but it is possible to see that the film was hampered by a tight budget, especially in post production. In fact Cannon film productions were known for cost cutting and whilst this film had ambition, it is hampered by compromise and a script that could have done with another polish to tidy up some of the rough edges and occasional clumsy, if unintentional, racism.

If you take the film on it's own merits there's fun to be had but it is still a pale imitation of what it had hoped to emulate. Richard Chamberlain is likeable enough but he doesn't quite have the same movie star magic that Harrison Ford carries, the star in waiting Sharon Stone is quite watchable and would go on to do bigger and better things as we all know, Rhys Davies plays a less likeable version of the 'Salah' type character he played in the Spielberg film and Herbert Lom is the reliable, solid character actor he always was.

Watch it for what it is and you may enjoy it but it is very hard to avoid the comparisons with what it is trying to copy.

It can't get much worse, can it?

[IndustriousAngel · 2/10 · 1 July 2013]

Some reviewers here think that it's a fun movie because it's so ridiculous, sadly I can't share that feeling. Comparisons to Indiana Jones are out of place; a much better movie to measure it against is "Romancing the Stone", and it loses every single point. The main problem is not the cheap stock footage, nor the ridiculous script (that could basically work as a comedy), nor the silly sets and costumes - the main problem is the atrocious acting. A comedy needs actors and a director with good timing; it doesn't get funnier with bad acting but boring.

This would really only get 1/10 from me if it weren't for Sharon Stone's legs which get more and more exposed throughout the story. I can't find any fault with those legs, so 2/10.

Indiana Jones - Golan/Globus style! *** out of *****

[WelshFilmCraze · 6/10 · 19 February 2010]

To the uninitiated Golan/Globus are Cousin's Menahem Golan & Yorham Globus who were prolific producers of trash throughout the 80's making such 'classics' as Death Wish 2,3 & 4 & Missing In Action 1,2 & 3 (basically keeping Charles Bronson & Chuck Norris in work) among seemingly endless amounts of other less than fantastic fare released through their Cannon Film Studio.

So if you come into King Solomon's Mines knowing what to expect (In essence a low budget B-Movie, done with some of the worse dialogue imaginable,terrible visual effects and non-intentional hilarious scenes) you should be able to sit back leave your Brain at the door and enjoy.

While I realise this was made to capitalise on the success of Indiana Jones - Nobody watching this should compare the two, If anything this is a Indy spoof

Richard Chamberlain stars as Allan Quatermain who teams up with a young woman (a Pre-stardom Sharon Stone) to locate her Professor Father who's gone missing in Africa.

This has action in bucket loads, plenty of Comedy (some of it intentional - some of it not), The Acting is very hammy - baddies Herbert Lom is hilarious as is John Rhys Davies

Directed by J.Lee Thompson (The original Cape Fear & The guns of Navarone) A great Director who sadly ended up making trash mostly starring Bronson for Golan/Globus.

Filmed entirely in Zimbabwe - obviously back in that particular Country's good old days - Not Unsurprisingly it bombed taking just $238,000 on a $12,500,000 Budget

It's not great film making, It'll never win any awards (apart from the Razzies) but as B-Movie fun it's good stuff.

Surprisingly followed by a sequel (Yes! there's more) Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold was Filmed at the same time and released a year later.

*** out of *****

Good and Adventurous

[PeterS12Sam · 5/10 · 20 June 2021]

This new agreeable version from H. Rider Haggard adventure follows again Allan Quatermain played by a likable Richard Chamberlain .

A parody but super cheesy

[john-256-2615 · 6/10 · 30 May 2022]

This is a parody of the original story and obviously a rip on Indiana Jones. It has little to recommend it unless you enjoy laughing at Germans.

Otherwise it's really racist. If you want to know why, let me give a hint. It has to do with the comicbook trope of throwing pith-helmeted explorers into a large pot. Also, instead of being dignified, Mbobo is a caricatured well-meaning bumbler who is scared of cars. Should be kept mostly as a study in just how racist people were in the 1980s without realising it.

Bad special effects, lots of transition glitches (e.g the pot changes size and design, the number of lions, etc.).

Prepare to be rolling your eyes a lot.

I was 13 when this movie became the first 'walk-out-of' - one of only three or four out of hundreds - and, by far, the most deserving

[witster18 · 1/10 · 14 April 2009]

No excuse can erase the travesty that is King Solomon's mines. Spoof. Camp. Fun. HOmage. Whatever! Now, if you're looking for the best post-1985 submission to Mystery Science Theater 3000... then you have yourself a winner.

Let me address some of those 'it's funny' good reviews here... There are NO funny lines in this film.... if the creators wanted it to be funny they would have used some lines that WERE actually funny... no, I don't get a kick out of watching terrible site gags with wires, fake backdrops, fake everything and dull, forgettable, anything but funny performances.... NOW IF THAT's your bag baby...by all means rent this one. If I want that I'll watch a comedy....and if I want 'campy' comedy I'll watch 'army of darkness' or something that has A.Comedy...and B. a little of something else to offer... Admittedly, this film does 'appear' that it tried to achieve the 'worst movie of all-time status' that I'm granting it... BUT THAT DOES NOT make this viewer want to watch it... THere's a REASON the networks NEVER replay this one.... NEVER.... it would be a broadcasting death sentence.

King Solomon's is terrible. HOnestly, this is right there with Ishtar, Leonard Pt.6, and Pluto Nash as the worst high profile film ever made. I figured I'd write one review on 'my worst theater experience ever'... this is the choice.... We walked into the adjacent theater and watched the end of Rocky 4.... I could have killed my parents for making me sit through 3/4 of this film. I did revisit this about ten years later to confirm my opinion, and I must say, my opinion has not changed. The.....Worst.....EVER! If Indiana Jones sold out their rights and they made 12 MORE sequels with no-names(that nobody rented).... this would be the equivalent of 16th installment, probably starring some washed up wwe wrestler and Shaq. You can always notice the truly terrible films...the one's with bad numbers(here on IMDb) and a bunch of 1/13 'thought this comment was useful' votes from the 'OBSESSED IDIOTS'. There will obviously be a 'cult' following when you're talking about one of the 'worst ever'.

10/100

Almost Great

[ADOZER200 · 8/10 · 2 May 2002]

This is a movie rated so low by others but by some it gives them a reminder of indiana jones. Next to those movies this one is the next best. I would recommend it to indiana jones fans who have been waiting years for another sequel. This movie has a sequel too which is almost as good but get a bit slower at the end. The movie is really good though. I enjoyed the storyline, the actors, the music by Jerry Goldsmith is very enchanting, the only thing i could say isnt that good in this film are the special effects but for the time being it will do. Theres nothing to lose so go out and rent it!

I love this movie and can't see why it's getting a bad wrap.

[infantincinerator84 · 7/10 · 14 May 2008]

I have always been a fan of this film since i was a little kid and even as i reached maturity i still enjoy it. man y people harp on this film because it "rips off" Indiana Jones... I think it has obvious similarities to Raiders of the Lost ark, but certainly not a "rip off" and i am a fan of Indiana Jones to the extreme...but thats another story.. point is... if you like low budget adventure mixed with good old 80's cheesiness, this movie is perfect for you. I recently picked it up at a yard sale on DVD and HAD to pick it up. It's full of amusing jokes and cannibals and of course Sharon Stone is easy on the eyes, though her performance is substandard to say the least, but damn, is it entertaining.

The worst action-adventure flick ever made

[gcd70 · 1/10 · 10 April 2010]

The worst action-adventure flick ever made! Totally trying to cash in on the Indiana Jones fever that raged throughout the eighties, as many movies - "Romancing the Stone" - tried to do. This one was frighteningly bad though.

Humorless (not for lack of woeful effort), banal, uninspired, laughable and poorly acted. This one really stinks! Ruined Richard Chamberlain and would have done the same for Sharon Stone, had Martin Scorcese remembered she was in it. Also starred Herbert Lom and John Rhys-Davies. Poor composer Jerry Goldsmith wasted his talents on this one.

Based upon H. Rider Haggard's classic novel.

Friday, April 9, 1999 - Video