Fortune hunter Allan Quatermain teams up with a resourceful woman to help her find her missing father lost in the wilds of 1900s Africa while being pursued by hostile tribes and a rival German explorer.
Allan Quatermain once again teams up with Jesse Huston where the discovery of a mysterious old gold piece sends Quatermain looking for his long-lost brother, missing in the wilds of Africa after seeking a lost white race.
James Earl Jones
Chris, slick adventurous grandson of legendary adventurer Allan Quatermain, searches for the mythical treasure of Alexander the Great with the help of a pretty German girl, while eluding a dangerous greedy gangster.
Thomas Ian Griffith,
Three adventurers lead an expedition into darkest Africa in search of the treasure of King Solomon, and on the way encounter hostile natives, volcanoes, dinosaurs and a lost Phoenician city ruled by a beautiful queen.
Allan Quatermain is a fortune hunter who is convinced by Jesse Huston to help her find her father, who's been lost somewhere in the African jungle during his last exploration. Written by
Chris Makrozahopoulos <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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.
38 of 56 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?