Rating: 
Summary: a nearly pointless sequel
Review: despite what a lot of people may think about the 1985 version of "king solomon's mines" starring richard chamberlain and sharon stone, i thought it was a very good, and entertaining movie. definitely one deserving of a sequel.but folks, let's face it, this is certainly no "indiana jones and the temple of doom". "Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold" (and i apologize for listing it as "allan QUARTERMAIN and the lost city of gold" in my review of "king solomon's mines")is an almost pointless sequel that does not do justice to its predecessor. yes, it does have its good moments but they are few and far between. the musical score is once again incredible, but not enough to carry the weight of the entire film. if you are ever able to find a copy of this film, do not purchase it. i wouldn't even suggest renting it. you might sit through it once, though, if it comes on HBO, cinemax, or showtime, but those would be the only channels i would recommend watching it on. any other network would have to stretch the already ridiculous hour and forty minute film out to an absurd two and a half hours. certainly too much time to spend watching a piece of cinematic rubbish like this.
Rating:
Summary: a nearly pointless sequel
Review: despite what a lot of people may think about the 1985 version of "king solomon's mines" starring richard chamberlain and sharon stone, i thought it was a very good, and entertaining movie. definitely one deserving of a sequel. but folks, let's face it, this is certainly no "indiana jones and the temple of doom". "Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold" (and i apologize for listing it as "allan QUARTERMAIN and the lost city of gold" in my review of "king solomon's mines")is an almost pointless sequel that does not do justice to its predecessor. yes, it does have its good moments but they are few and far between. the musical score is once again incredible, but not enough to carry the weight of the entire film. if you are ever able to find a copy of this film, do not purchase it. i wouldn't even suggest renting it. you might sit through it once, though, if it comes on HBO, cinemax, or showtime, but those would be the only channels i would recommend watching it on. any other network would have to stretch the already ridiculous hour and forty minute film out to an absurd two and a half hours. certainly too much time to spend watching a piece of cinematic rubbish like this.
Rating: 
Summary: King Solomon's Mines was at least fun, but this?
Review: I actually enjoyed King Solomon's Mines. Sure it was bad, but the funny sense of humor was a treat and the action was non-stop. The sequel Allan Quartermain and the Lost City of Gold lacks all this. It tries to capture the same humor as the first film but fails. Also the action is rather dull and unspactacular. I believe part of the problem was the low budget. King Solomon's Mines had a way bigger budget so they could afford the fun action scenes. Here there's not much budget to go around so the action was cut short. Overall a dismal sequel that is totally pointless.
Rating: 
Summary: my sides really hurt now
Review: I rented this one with it's prequel King Solomon's Mines, but I watched them from the floor since they had me rolling with laughter! WOW!!
Rating: 
Summary: Good clean slapstick!
Review: I thought this film was funny, and fun to watch. I enjoyed seeing Richard Chamberlain in a comedy for a change. I would recommend it to anyone who likes good clean fun.
Rating:
Summary: Lost City of Gold is truly "PURE"
Review: I was hooked at the very first entrance of Sharon Stone. I thought this movie lived up to its sequel. Not many sequels can do that. Special Effects were alright but at the time it was made, it was brillant.
Rating:
Summary: More comic book fun
Review: If you don't like humorous action adventures or comic oriented films then you will most likely hate this film. If you can have fun watching a "fun" film then this is an addition to you. It is more of the same from the original "King Solomon's Mines" with Sharon and Richard. Its a fun film in the vein of Indiana Jones and the bond films. It unfortunately was always deemed an Indiana knock off when it is based on novels written in the 1800s. The films are fun from days long lost and gone forever! No sex, pg violence and fun.....
Rating:
Summary: LAUGH YOUR [...]OFF!
Review: KING SOLOMON'S MINES AND ALAN QUATERMAIN ARE JUST TOO MUCH FUN TO WATCH BACK TO BACK!! THANK GOD THEY ARE ON DVD! I'M IN B-MOVIE HEAVEN! BLESS YOU CHAMBERLAIN! SHARON STONE IS "GREAT" IN IT TOO!
Rating:
Summary: LAUGH YOUR A** OFF!
Review: KING SOLOMON'S MINES AND ALAN QUATERMAIN ARE JUST TOO MUCH FUN TO WATCH BACK TO BACK!! THANK GOD THEY ARE ON DVD! I'M IN B-MOVIE HEAVEN! BLESS YOU CHAMBERLAIN! STONE IS GREAT TOO!
Rating: 
Summary: not as good as the first - but not too bad either
Review: Lost City of Gold starts out as a fun adventure just like the previous Quatermain movie King's Solomons Mines. It stays that way for a fun journey to the lost city but once they get there it becomes a Clift's Notes version of Haggard's novel without very much of the silly fun as the first film or the first half of this one. They should have taken longer to get to the lost city I guess. It's still worth seeing though and fans of King Solomon's Mines will love the first half. Those who haven't seen the first film will probably enjoy it since they wont compare it to the superior previous movie. Chamberlain, Stone, and Jones are all in good form and are extremely fun to watch in the first half of the film. After that they do their best but the lost city isn't much fun to hang around once it's been found. 3 and half stars for the good stuff.
| 
