TheLittleSongbird For the Sci-Fi channel The Librarian: Return to King Solomon's Mines is not too bad. It is not a great movie, and could have been much more, but there have been far worse movies both from the Sci-Fi channel and in general. The Librarian: Return to King Solomon's Mines had some lavish sets and photography, some decent action and special effects and a rousing score. Noah Wyle is a likable lead and Jane Curtin and especially Bob Newhart are subtly deadpan. However, Gabrielle Anwar is beautiful but bland and out of place and Erik Avari's villainous role lacks subtlety. Wyle and Anwar's chemistry just isn't there either, while Olympia Dukais is good but severely underused. The script and story are generally weak. The humour in the script comes across as contrived and unfunny with a lot of quite stilted dialogue, and the storytelling is dull and derivative of Indiana Jones except with more predictability and less of the thrills, suspense and fun. The characters are clichéd, that's not a problem but it is if they are not written well or not interesting, and generally while not as problematic as other Sci-Fi films that was the case with The Librarian: Return to King Solomon's Mines. So all in all, not terrible, just not good either. 5/10 Bethany Cox

unbrokenmetal Flynn Carsen (Noah Wyle) has learned a lot in the year which has passed since he took the Librarian job, that makes him more of a traditional action hero with a clear idea of what he wants to achieve instead of stumbling accidentally into an adventure. That is already summed up in the opening sequence when he steals an artifact found by a competitor, runs a race horse against motorbike and casually mentions he does this kind of thing all the time. So why not try and find the most dangerous book in the world in King Solomon's Mines? While Carsen is less frightened, the audience is less thrilled. It's not least the monumental music by Joseph LoDuca ("Xena") which recharges the batteries and keeps the sequel running with a lot of energy. But even the fireworks attack by the special effects department cannot hide that everything is somewhat predictable, less funny and less original than its predecessor. I voted 8/5/7 for the Librarian trilogy.

Mark Ramirez First off, it is obvious to me that everyone that gave this "movie" good reviews is either a). a Child b). High, or c), a mental hospital escapee.Second, Let me say that I am a veteran of the crap movies that the sci-fi channel puts out. I have trudged through more of those than I care to admit, or remember.That said, this movie is crap. This is below most of the cheap, low-budget movies I have seen(10.5 apocalypse, Annihilation Earth, Human Extinction, Monster Arc) on, that's right, you guessed it, the Sci-Fi Channel. I know, I know, sci-fi this, sci-fi that, but they put out a lot of crap, so I'm used to a bad movie.On to the actual movie.The acting is OK at best; the plot is painfully predictable (Flynn and Gabrielle fall in love. WOW! Never saw that one coming, talk about unexpected!), and the Script is Laughable, at best. The special effects are sub-par, but not the worst I've seen.Probably the Biggest insult To the audience, is that this movie is just a straight rip-off of Indiana Jones(Indiana Jones being, of course, good). It's the exact same style: Finding one clue at a time in some ancient dialect, decoding it with his lady friend, getting in near-death situations, blah, blah, blah-the list goes on and on. The even tried (and failed disturbingly) at creating a catchy theme song akin to that of Indie's.In addition, There are many Historical inaccuracies in this movie: Flynn Says something about the Sumerians Helping out the Greeks or the Romans (you remember, when the two mental patients people call "actors" twist the globe around and open it up). This is however impossible, as the Sumerians Existed 7000 Years before any Greeks or Romans. You'd think these writers could splurge and spend $10 on cliffs notes for world history. These slip-ups, however, are no big deal, as the average person won't know or care about these.I Give this movie more like 2.5 stars because they did surprisingly well at copying and executing an Indiana Jones Rip-off with such a low budget. Also, since these guys have such a low budget, I'll cut them some slack I understand that this wasn't meant to be taken too seriously, but even with this in mind, it still reminds me of something I would see come out the backside of a dog.I Really hate to have to say all this, because it is obvious that the actors, writers, producers, director, etc spent a lot of time, effort, and money into making this, but it is just not very good. And of course with the low budgets these movies receive, it's tough, but this movie could have been better by, for example spending less of their budget on special effects and actually paying an editor to make the script and plot better. Sometimes, less is more.So here's my 2 cents: If you are an average movie watcher, under no circumstances spend ANY money to rent this. Do not even plan to watch this: If it happens to be on T.V. and you have absolutely nothing else to do, Turn your brain off and prepare yourself for a few hours of laughing. If you are one of those people like me who are used to crappy sci-fi movies, even this will be hard to trudge through. If you are someone who likes a logical, flowing, sensible yet unexpected plot with good acting, do yourself a favor and rent Sesame Street or the Teletubbies.

TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews No, I didn't care much for the flick that started this series, either. I wanted to see if this was similar. Yep, it is. This isn't as direct a copy of stuff in the Indiana Jones films(meanwhile, they do go to a well-known and loved classic, as well as Tomb Raider), though the main concept remains the same. One has to wonder why they had Newhart come back, when they weren't going to let him do his famous and popular schtick. This is one of those sequels that ignores one or more aspects about the movie they follow. Frakes does a nice job directing(and appears briefly in a role, as well), and the action here isn't half bad. The plot is relatively predictable, if it does hold a surprise or two. Heck, the effects are even better than in the original, you can't actually immediately tell how they did everything, this time around. The acting is again over the top, so it must be intentional. Humor remains pretty silly and not terribly funny. This has almost no references to well-known legends and such, I guess they ran out when they wrote the first one. Perhaps they weren't expecting to get another chance. I recommend this to fans of the 2004 one and/or the adventure genre, if you don't mind camp and corn value. 6/10