My Take: How could such a decent cast get sucked in to this mess? A boring, so-called "adventure" with unintentional laughs.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Rating: *1/2 out of 5.