King Solomon's Mines

There's nothing really wrong with this version of King Solomon's Mines. There really isn't. It follows the events of the original novel rather faithfully, yet still changes things where needed to keep the story flowing in this different medium.

Though yes, I would prefer that Allan Quatermain, a character noted almost solely for his marksmanship, would actually connect with a bullet at least once, but other than that, the characters are fine. The sets and locations are also suitably varied and impressive-looking, the music is not awful and as far as TV movies go, the action scenes could be a lot worse. Though yes, actually hitting stuff seems to be something of a problem.

But, the biggest problem is that it's a TV movie. As thus, the plot absolutely crawls forward. With emphasis on crawls. I get that they didn't have a budget to do anything really outlandish and that it needs to be of certain length, but come on... something needs to happen for the majority of time.

I honestly think this would have been a better experience if I hadn't sat through it in one sitting. At almost three hours it's way too long for any viewer to keep up his or her interest from start to finish. In the end that means that King Solomon's Mines falls just short of being average, but is by no means a movie you shouldn't check out if you're interested.

I thought King Solomon's Mines was beautifully done. My only reservation was Alison Doody. Her acting was superb but her makeup and hair was not of the period, and always seemed to make her look out of place next to the other actors. I thought Patrick Swayze was an excellent choice for Alan Quatermain. It was nice seeing a seasoned, rugged looking actor in this role after sitting through movie after movie with the fair haired, fair skinned actors like Val Kilmer, Brad Pitt, etc. He was an excellent choice and I enjoyed every minute of this movie. This version cannot be compared with the 1950's version with Stewart Grainger. It was a big screen movie and not a made for TV movie. I thought both Quatermains were believable but the two medias have to be kept separated. I am looking forward to seeing this once more, and I hope Patrick Swayze will again look to these type of roles.

Watched both parts twice. Enjoyed the story and enjoyed seeing an older Patrick Swayze as the hero. He was very believable as the hunter Alan Quartermaine and certainly bested the performance of Richard Chamberlain. I do admit that I would have preferred seeing someone else as the "Lady in Distress". Alison Doody should stick with modern and not period pieces. She didn't have the look of the woman of the 1800's. The rest of the cast were terrific and followed the plotlines very well. I am glad to see that the actors of this generation are not afraid to try on different characters and are not afraid to be seen as getting older. Age is inevitable, but let's not hide from it. A man at 50+ can be much sexier (and , Patrick truly is sexy) then a green youth, no matter how pretty. Hoorah for character lines to go along with a great smile.

I give 3 stars only for the beautiful pictures of Africa. The rest was... well pretty boring. For about 50min we have the outline of the plot... In War of the worlds, the introductory part lasted, oh, about 10min? Then was real action! This is something like:"Let's take a walk in the savanna and gasp at the beautiful sunsets!". And maybe deliver a message, like "Don't kill elephants!". Very ecological. I would have expected this out of a "new" Steven Segal movie, not from this... The leading actress makes me think about artificial sun-tan, dyed hair and too much foundation! And I didn't see one scene where her hair is messed up, or she sweats, or her clothes are dusty. She just doesn't look like a 19 century woman! And in the bar, where they seek up our hero, Swayze makes a comment about the commander that he looks like Dracula. Hmmm, Bram Stoker wrote his book and published it in 1896, and it became famous in the next years. Livingstone and other explorers went to central Africa from 1840 to 1880. So unless the action takes place between 1896 and 1900.. Houston, we have a problem. :) Swayze makes a nice impression.. as a nutshell - hard on the outside, but soft and cuddly on the inside. Not that I would cuddle with a nut, but you get the point. He really manages to have that beaten puppy look on his face on several occasions. The movie stank. Way too long and increasingly boring. don't watch it! Don't buy it! It's a waste of your money!

I thought of the film as way too long and quite boring as there didn't really happened much in almost three hours compared to the 1985 movie version with Richard Chamberlain. If you are in to Africa, then you might like the film as there is a lot of nice footage of it. Patrick Swayze is as always his own stiff self, but the beautiful Alison Doody does a great role, or so I think, it doesn't really matter as she is extremely, ridiculously good looking. As for the purpose of the film I don't know. Why make TV-films that really don't give you much of a thrill as it has been shown that it is possible to do them with a bit more content. You who love movies like Indiana Jones or Lara Croft and think this will be anything like those movies will be disappointed...