Sexylocher Masterful Movie

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Edgar Allan Pooh . . . did not start in the 21st Century. KING SOLOMON'S MINES, a 1950 flick, documents that the Watusi Clique was resolving such disputes at least as early as the 1800s through their gyrations on the dance floor. While the two contestants making up the final pairing here may be wielding some sort of flimsy ceremonial "spears" not unlike the artifacts used during the Olympic "sport" of rhythmic gymnastics, the only implied scoring move apparently came out so lame in every "take" that it was cut from the final print of this film for being too trivial of a detail to include. Overall, the choreography of KING SOLOMON'S MINES leaves a lot of room for improvement. Featuring repetitious drumming, drab and hot-looking bulky costumes, as well as stiff almost geriatric "moves," these period movers and shakers would not make it out of the preliminary round of any present-day competition. However, since KING SOLOMON'S MINES also features the very real-looking extermination of many of Today's endangered or extinct critters of Africa (where this flick was shot), it's liable to hold a lot of historical interest for Wildlife lovers.

classicsoncall It was fairly clear to me that Elizabeth Curtis (Deborah Kerr) had no real intention of finding her husband once the expedition started. The only thing we needed to learn was why and it was answered about mid-way through - she didn't love him and treated him badly, so it was guilt all along that provided her motivation. The story would have been helped out if all those tentative glances between Quatermain (Stewart Granger) and Ms. Curtis were acted upon more deliberately, but the chemistry between the two actors never did seem to gel for me, even though they reportedly did carry on an affair for a time.Considering all the misery endured by the trio of adventurers during their trek, I would have expected the reveal of King Solomon's fortune to be a bit more lavish. What was that - a crate of colored glass? One was led to believe that there would be an entire cave filled with gems to make the expedition worthwhile, even if the original explorer was never found. Man, I had a chuckle over that one.I don't know, it's not often my summary line can also be used to characterize a movie but I think it fits. Notwithstanding the excellent cinematography, the film just didn't seem to offer a spark for this viewer. The Watusi actually had a name for it - 'yeer saba'. It describes a pointless, endless game. Whadda you know?

MartinHafer If you want to see one of the most awful and wince-inducing films of the 1980s, try watching the Richard Chamberlain version of this movie. I don't recommend it...unless you have a very strong stomach and a bit of a masochist within you! However, just because this film was a god-awful mess of a comedy does not mean this 1950 version or any of the other versions are at all like this newer film. The other "King Solomon's Mines" are NOT comedies but rousing adventure stories.One of the biggest pluses of this version is that it was actually filmed in Africa--just like the exceptional 1937 version. Because of that it lacks the studio-bound look of most other African savanna films of the age. Plus, there is none of the usual crappy stock footage (which, in many films show Asian and South American animals--in Africa!). No, MGM pulled out the stops for this one--filming it in color and on location. And, unlike the (yuck) 1985 version, no cannibal stew pots filled with plastic veggies and African explorers! Allan Quatermain (Stewart Granger) is a famous African hunter and guide. He is about ready to retire when he's approached by Elizabeth (Deborah Kerr) and her good friend John (Richard Carlson). It seems that Elizabeth's husband went to Africa some time back and is assumed lost or dead--she wants Quatermain to guide them in search of this lost man. However, the whole expedition seems entirely too dangerous--especially with a woman coming along with them. So, Quatermain is difficult to convince...until they offer him a huge fee. On the way, there are lots of adventures, death and mystery. Ultimately, they learn that the missing man was in search of King Solomon's supposedly mythical treasure. I could say more but don't want to spoil the fun.Apart from a VERY cheesy tarantula early in the film, this is an excellent film. It's better than the 1937 version in two ways--it's in lovely color and Quatermain's associates aren't dumb! But, the first film was more original and was blessed by the dynamic presence of Paul Robeson. Overall, I'd say they are both about equal.

TheLittleSongbird While it could have done with more characterisation, King Solomon's Mines is a lively and beautifully photographed film. The cinematography and scenery is fabulous and the editing is crisp and Mischa Spolainsky's score is rousing and beautiful. The film goes along at a good pace, has a good script and has an engaging story full of animal action, frenzied tribesmen and sentimental love scenes. The direction from Compton Bennett and Andrew Marton is strong, while Stewart Granger is very likable and the lovely Deborah Kerr is watchable as she always was. In conclusion, a very good film worth seeing for the leads and the visuals. 8/10 Bethany Cox