It was fairly clear to me that Elizabeth Curtis (Deborah Kerr) had no real intention of finding her husband once the expedition started. The only thing we needed to learn was why and it was answered about mid-way through - she didn't love him and treated him badly, so it was guilt all along that provided her motivation. The story would have been helped out if all those tentative glances between Quatermain (Stewart Granger) and Ms. Curtis were acted upon more deliberately, but the chemistry between the two actors never did seem to gel for me, even though they reportedly did carry on an affair for a time.Considering all the misery endured by the trio of adventurers during their trek, I would have expected the reveal of King Solomon's fortune to be a bit more lavish. What was that - a crate of colored glass? One was led to believe that there would be an entire cave filled with gems to make the expedition worthwhile, even if the original explorer was never found. Man, I had a chuckle over that one.I don't know, it's not often my summary line can also be used to characterize a movie but I think it fits. Notwithstanding the excellent cinematography, the film just didn't seem to offer a spark for this viewer. The Watusi actually had a name for it - 'yeer saba'. It describes a pointless, endless game. Whadda you know?

This film makes my special list: One of the worst pictures ever nominated for best picture. Obviously, it didn't win. "All About Eve" was in a totally different superior class.To say that this film is dull is to put in mildly. We are subjected to all kinds of animals and Deborah Kerr spends most of the film fainting, falling and gradually coming to love Stuart Granger.The premise is good. Kerr and brother, Richard Carlson, go to Africa to locate her missing husband. He ran off to explore and hasn't been heard from in over 2 years. Wait until you discover his fate! Kerr had to find out the very hard way. Of course, there is animosity between Kerr and Granger at first. She had hired him to lead the way.Suddenly, we're into a civil war between the tribes. Luckily, it was a very brief one.The cinematography is nice. I guess the Academy needed this film to round out the 5 required at that time. Come to think of it, there had to be something out there that was better than this junk.

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.