Anssi Vartiainen
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.
Gold_Fish
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!
Alphonse_van_Worden
This is the worst imaginable crap. The novel by H. Rider Haggard is very entertaining and dramatic. The makers of this worthless movie don't follow it closely. Well, old novels aren't sacred and making free versions of them is fine with me if one has ideas of one's own. If all one can do is changing things and replace them with uninteresting and watered-down clichés one should stick to the original. If they had done that this film would have been at least twice as good even with worse actors and if filmed inside a studio with huts made of cardboard. BUt there's no imagination at all only tiredness. This should be bought or watched only by collectors of Victorian novels made into movies.Just a hint, and not a spoiler I think, to make those of you who have read the novel understand what has taken place and what you may expect if you decide to watch this on TV or - God forbid - waste money on buying this. Gagool an old baddie witch in the book and some precursor to Gollum has been turned into a nice gal!
Elswet
The problem with the 1985 version of this movie is simple; Indiana Jones was so closely modeled after Alan Quartermain (or at least is an Alan Quartermain TYPE of character), that the '85 director made the mistake of plundering the IJ movies for dialog and story far too deeply. What you got as a finished product was a jumbled mess of the name Alan Quartermain, in an uneven hodge podge of a cheaply imitated IJ saga (with a touch of Austin Powers-esquire cheese here and there). It was labeled by many critics to have been a "great parody," or "unintentional comedy." Unintentional is the word. This movie was never intended to be humorous; witty, yes, but not humorous. Unfortunately, it's witless rather than witty.With this new M4TV mini-series, you get much more story, character development of your lead, solid portrayals, and a fine, even, entertaining blend. This story is a bit long; much longer than its predecessors, but deservedly so as this version carries a real storyline and not just action and Eye Candy. While it features both action and Eye Candy, it also corrects the mistake made in the 1985 version by forgetting IJ all together and going back to the source materials for AQ, making for a fine, well - thought - out plot, and some nice complementing sub-plots. Now this attempt is not the all out action-extravaganza that is Indiana Jones. Nor is it a poor attempt to be so. This vehicle is plot and character driven and is a beautiful rendition of the AQ/KSM saga. Filmed on location in South Africa, the audience is granted beautiful (if desolate) vistas, SA aboriginal cultures, and some nice wildlife footage to blend smoothly with the performances and storyline here.Steve Boyum totally surprised me with this one, as I have never been one to subscribe to his vision. In fact, I have disliked most of his work as a director, until this attempt. I hope this is more a new vein of talent and less the fluke that it seems to be. This version rates a 9.8/10 on the "TV" scale from...the Fiend :.
AD
