The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

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

Blistering performances.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

This movie marked the end of Africa as the Dark Continent, as it was seen in the 19th century. In the movies of the period, there were always blank spots on the map -- Terra Incognita and Hereabouts There Be Dragons. The movies treated Africa as a kind of theme park designed for viewers who had only seen lions and giraffes in the zoo, if they saw them at all. "King Solomon's Mines", like the films that preceded it, contain a kind of colorful travelogue in which the narrator -- here, the protagonist Stewart Granger as the Great White Hunter -- explains to us what we're about to see."And now the natives in their colorful garb celebrate a religious ritual with an exotic dance. Afterward they sit down to a feast. The fact that the roast gnu still has hair on it doesn't seem to interfere with their appetites!" After "The African Queen" this Dark Continent model more or less disappeared from the screen. There wasn't a single lion or rhinoceros in "The African Queen," and the worst living menace that Bogart and Hepburn faced were an apparently limitless cloud of biting gnats.Yet, "King Solomon's Mines" is more than just a travelogue. That old-fashioned element is gotten out of the way rather quickly, and what follows is a tip-top adventure story of a long and dangerous journey in search of a missing husband and a fortune in diamonds -- and the "natives" are treated with respect.It was a popular picture in its time. I was sick and missed the class visit to its premier at Radio City Music Hall. It's well acted, as well as nicely plotted. Stewart Granger is a disillusioned white guide who manages to sport a nice Malibu sun tan. His melodious and theatrical voice was impressive. Deborah Kerr in, I think, her first American film is breath-takingly beautiful in a winsome way that makes you want to take care of her between nuzzles. Richard Carlson is his standard screen persona with a slight British accent.The novel on which the film is based was written by H. Rider Haggard, 1856 to 1925, who had lived in South Africa and knew how to write cracking good adventure stories. I was addicted to them in adolescence. This was perhaps his most popular; this and "She", which gave us the phrase, "She who must be obeyed," which I don't like to remember because it reminds me of my marriage. I read some of Haggard's work more recently and -- well, I think it helps to be a teen ager to get the most out of them.The location shooting was done partly in Africa, most of it by a second-unit crew, and it's convincingly African -- even the parts that were shot in California.The film was hugely popular in 1950 and it's worth watching now because it still glows with some of the old magic.

H Rider Haggard was a visionary author. He wrote a series of Africa-based fantasy and adventure novels which took his Victorian audience into the most exotic places - even when those places were real (and they weren't always!) they were totally outside the experience of the reader.This 1950 film adaptation of one of those novels has the same sort of impact on its pre-TV cinema audience. Although it takes a number of liberties with Haggard's source material, it delivers action, adventure, colour, and exotic locations to an audience which was, for the most part unfamiliar with the African locations used here.Watching it now, 60 years later, it still entertains although it now comes over as rather on the quaint side. The TV generations are now only too familiar with locations all over the globe, so what was once eye-catchingly different is now somewhat familiar (although still quite eye-catching).Where this film is still unusual is in its use of Masai in acting roles.

If you want to see one of the most awful and wince-inducing films of the 1980s, try watching the Richard Chamberlain version of this movie. I don't recommend it...unless you have a very strong stomach and a bit of a masochist within you! However, just because this film was a god-awful mess of a comedy does not mean this 1950 version or any of the other versions are at all like this newer film. The other "King Solomon's Mines" are NOT comedies but rousing adventure stories.One of the biggest pluses of this version is that it was actually filmed in Africa--just like the exceptional 1937 version. Because of that it lacks the studio-bound look of most other African savanna films of the age. Plus, there is none of the usual crappy stock footage (which, in many films show Asian and South American animals--in Africa!). No, MGM pulled out the stops for this one--filming it in color and on location. And, unlike the (yuck) 1985 version, no cannibal stew pots filled with plastic veggies and African explorers! Allan Quatermain (Stewart Granger) is a famous African hunter and guide. He is about ready to retire when he's approached by Elizabeth (Deborah Kerr) and her good friend John (Richard Carlson). It seems that Elizabeth's husband went to Africa some time back and is assumed lost or dead--she wants Quatermain to guide them in search of this lost man. However, the whole expedition seems entirely too dangerous--especially with a woman coming along with them. So, Quatermain is difficult to convince...until they offer him a huge fee. On the way, there are lots of adventures, death and mystery. Ultimately, they learn that the missing man was in search of King Solomon's supposedly mythical treasure. I could say more but don't want to spoil the fun.Apart from a VERY cheesy tarantula early in the film, this is an excellent film. It's better than the 1937 version in two ways--it's in lovely color and Quatermain's associates aren't dumb! But, the first film was more original and was blessed by the dynamic presence of Paul Robeson. Overall, I'd say they are both about equal.

I remember the movie played in our little town's premier theatre to considerable fanfare— See Darkest Africa As It Really Is in Dramatic Technicolor!— you know, that sort of thing. In fact it was a treat to see all the wild animals and fearsome natives, plus an exciting adventure story. I expect MGM made back its expenses and then some.Of course, that was before TV brought the world into living rooms everywhere. The movie may have lost that long ago novelty, but it's still a good story set in what was then colonial Africa, with a first-rate cast, including the exotic Umbopa, the prince in exile. Then there's that thundering stampede whose mighty numbers still impress.Like many reviewers, I cringe now at the elephant kill. I'm sure I didn't at the time, but then this ecological type change reflects a newer awareness, and one I think for the better. Actually, Quartermain (Stewart) is also bothered by big game kills, one reason he's ready to give up his hunting safaris.Happily, Stewart's persuasive as the experienced white man, while Kerr does nicely as the British gentlewoman able to adapt her well-bred ways. (However, MGM, ever the glamour studio, refuses to de-glamorize her no matter how rough the going). I do feel a little sorry for tag-along John (Carlson) who, nevertheless, hangs in there. On the other hand, I'm still curious about the van Brun (Haas) role. Was that episode in the book or was it added to diversify and perhaps pad the storyline.No, those old promotionals about Africa in Color wouldn't work now. But the movie's still an eyeful with a good adventure yarn and a fine cast, and those are film features that do endure.