Allan Quatermain et les Mines du roi Salomon

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.

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).

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.

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.

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