Home > Adventure >

Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold

Watch Now

Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold (1986)

December. 18,1986
|
4.5
|
PG
| Adventure Action Comedy Mystery
Watch Now

After his brother Robeson disappears without a trace while exploring Africa in search of a legendary 'white tribe', Allan Quatermain decides to follow in his footsteps to learn what became of him. Soon after arriving, he discovers the Lost City of Gold, controlled by the evil lord Agon, and mined by his legions of white slaves.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

SpuffyWeb
1986/12/18

Sadly Over-hyped

More
Steineded
1986/12/19

How sad is this?

More
Moustroll
1986/12/20

Good movie but grossly overrated

More
Acensbart
1986/12/21

Excellent but underrated film

More
Desertman84
1986/12/22

Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold is an adventure comedy that is loosely based on the novel written by H.Rider Haggard entitled,Allan Quatermain.It stars Richard Chamberlain in the title role together with Sharon Stone,James Earl Jones and Henry Silva.It is the sequel to King Solomon's Mines.After receiving a mysterious gold piece, Quatermain travels to Africa to find his brother, who is searching for a lost white tribe. In his search, Quatermain discovers a lost civilization. Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan,the same one who made Superman IV, served as the film's producers and it Gary Nelson directed it.The film's biggest achievement is it managed to bring back all the stars of the first film,King Solomon's Mines.But it still manages to capitalize on the popularity of Indiana Jones during the time of its release as it just manages to become its parody and nothing more.But nevertheless,it still managed to be cheesy fun despite of it.

More
JohnHowardReid
1986/12/23

At the plus end of the scale (both entertainment-wise and budget-wise), I really enjoyed "Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold" (1987), despite its bad reviews. I thought director Gary Nelson captured the spirit of Rider Haggard's African fantasy rather well. Many of the movie's detractors have obviously not read Haggard and are thus unaware of its strong "Boys' Own Paper" quality. One of my greatest pleasures in life was reading the Quatermain books as a schoolboy. I wouldn't read them now, that's for sure. But I thought the movie equally thrilling. It would have knocked my socks off if I was a lad. True, the last sequence in the temple does tend to out-stay its welcome, and Mr Silva makes a ridiculous high priest, but my eyes are still dazzled, and then some!

More
vip_ebriega
1986/12/24

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.

More
tess_wren
1986/12/25

Is it just me, or does this seem like a bad takeoff of Indiana Jones to anyone else? Exploring jungles..... looking for treasure..... near-death experiences..... sound familiar to anyone else? I just thought this was a cheesy, idiotic movie. At first, I thought it might be interesting, but after the rather hard-to-follow introduction, it just kept going down in my view. I find Indiana Jones much more satisfactory movies. They're easy to understand, have action that is a bit more believable (I said a bit more, not totally!!), and better actors. But then I may be a bit biased as I was forced to view this movie, I didn't watch it by choice. Just my views!!

More