King Solomon's Mines

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 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.

If you a purist, don't waste your time - otherwise, hold onto your hat and enjoy the adventure. I loved the Stewart Granger/Deborah Kerr version - I've seen it dozens of times, but this film is every bit as good, only different. I won't detail the differences because it would spoil the film. Also, it is a pleasure to see Alison Doody again (I'm a huge Indiana Jones fan), Patrick Swayze is good as Quatermain, and the supporting cast is superb. I find the quality of the supporting cast one of the trademarks of a Hallmark Production and this film was no exception. The cinematography is splendid and the score is perfect. If you are looking for entertainment, you won't be disappointed.

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...

The main problem with this film was the casting of Patrick Swayze who did not compare well with Stewart Granger in the part of Allan Quatermain. The 1950 version was filmed in the Rift Valley of Kenya and Uganda in an area of brilliant light and suberb scenery. It dazzled us with tribal dancing, stampedes, and lots of wild animals. Unfortunately this current version has a made for TV look about it. Everything seems as if it was done on the cheap, including substituting South Africa for the rift valley. It is so long since I read the book that I cannot recall who were the villains, but this time around it is the Russians. The leading lady looks 70 years out of place with her 60's hair style and make up.

I recommend the 1950 version.