Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Megamind To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

vip_ebriega My Take: How could such a decent cast get sucked in to this mess? A boring, so-called "adventure" with unintentional laughs.After creating the passable, but at least good-looking, "King Solomon's Mines (1985), the guys from Cannon Group/Golan-Globus production rushed this low-budget sequel (filmed back-to-back with the original) with the same lead cast, Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone. The results in this sequel that's probably the least interesting adventure picture ever made. It's bad, but actually pretty funny. I can see the first film as a parody of the INDIANA JONES series, but this one just bad because... well, it's bad. Chamberlain and Stone (oh, the horror!) reprise their roles, this time even with an evident boredom. Chamberlain is as uncharismatic as ever, while Stone hams up her performance in ever way possibly. James Earl Jones is decent as an ax-wielding Umslopogaas, but his dialog is just as bad as the other actors. Robert Donner (Who's that guy? I don't know!) is funny, but even he is a disaster. Silva is bad bad (and talk about a bad hair day!). The sets are low-budget (the Lost City of Gold wasn't even that much made of gold), the action sequences are badly staged and the script is pale.But the film is still really funny (mostly unintentional, of course)so I would recommend it to any viewer who is scrunched in a seat with nothing to watch. But if your looking for an old-fashioned adventure romp, even like those in the same league as its predecessor KING SOLOMON'S MINES, your find yourself yawning after the first "action" scene unfolds. Ironically, the trailer for promoting this film had more action than the actual film. And the trailer's only 2 minutes! It's short, but sure is better than 99-minutes worth of boredom. Rating: *1/2 out of 5.

walcaraz Someone's lame attempt at cashing in on the original classic "King Solomon's Mines" (1950's version) and/or "Indiana Jones" interest.As I said in the title of this post, the only redeeming post is the 3 hot women besides Sharon Stone.One of whom is Cassandra Peterson (Elvira).James Earl Jones' acting talent (voice of Darth Vader) is wasted. He is relegated to walking around looking like a big, dumb, African. How insulting.I picked this movie up as a $5.50 Wal-Mart bargain bin DVD buy.That's about right.Pay no more than $8 for this movie if you actually want to buy it.

Jonathon Dabell Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold is a sequel to the 1985 J.Lee Thompson bomb King Solomon's Mines. Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone are reunited for this abysmal follow-up, which somehow contrives to be even worse than the already-awful original. In fact, this movie goes beyond mere badness and earns itself a spot in the list of all-time clunkers occupied by other such embarrassments as Tarzan the Ape Man (1981), Inchon and Myra Breckenridge. I would place this in the worst 50 films of all-time, possibly even within the worst 30!Quatermain (Chamberlain) and his sidekick Jessie (Stone) set off in search of the former's long-lost brother, who vanished while trying to locate a mythical lost city of gold deep in the Amazon. Their quest takes them through jungles, undeground tunnels, and along river rapids. Eventually they find the city, but find that its inhabitants live in fear of the cruel, tyrannical religious leaders. Quatermain leads a revolt and helps the inhabitants of the lost city to win back their freedom.There's a real cheap 'n' tacky look to the film which reminds one of low-budget TV movies on the same theme (e.g Robbers of the Sacred Mountain). Furthermore, everyone is guilty of giving lazy performances, especially Chamberlain and Stone who merely trot out the characteristics they built in the earlier film without trying to find a way to develop their characters further. James Earl Jones looks distinctly uncomfortable as a fierce warrior, Henry Silva wanders around looking dazed and confused, and poor old Robert Donner is reduced to the most embarrassing mugging imaginable in his humorless comic relief supporting role. Every jungle quest cliché in the book is resurrected for this dismal jaunt, but the effect is simply awful. At several points, you might actually find yourself grinding your teeth with despair! Even Trader Horn (1973) is more original than this!

Movie Nuttball At this moment Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold is at the IMDb bottom 100: #89 and I really disagree.It has a good cast which includes Richard Chamberlain,Sharon Stone,James Earl Jones,and Henry Silva! It has very good music,and very beautiful scenery and good action.What is wrong with the movie?I really don't know what else to say except if you haven't seen it yet rent it!Its a good movie!