Allan Quatermain and the Temple of Skulls

"King Solomon's Mines" is one of the great adventure novels of all time, but it seems so difficult to successfully adapt to the screen, for no reasons that I cannot fathom. This may be the weakest version yet, paling even to the pathetic 1985 Richard Chamberlain/Sharon Stone debacle. While the director brags about using the same African locations as the classic Steweart Granger/Deborah Kerr version, it's clear that this was a misuse of the $50,000 budget. The acting and overall production values are so weak, that it's clear all of the money has gone into travel costs. A better, more spectacular movie could have been made in the deserts of the American southwest and jungles of Hawai, and none would have known the difference.

Of the no name cast, only the actor playing Allan Quatermain acquits himself reasonably well. His performance is perfectly adequate, and he has screen presence. The rest of the cast is abysmal, and the changes from Haggard's book don't even serve to make the story more contemporary or exciting. This is the kind of film that gives the straight to DVD industry the reputation it has, and it's likely only the opportunity to cash in on "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" (hence the title) , which opened around the same time.

Skip this one, and see either the Granger version, or the made-for-TV Patrick Swayze version. Or even "Police Academy 6: City Under Siege". All do a better job of capturing Haggard's book, and are just more fun.

What a mammoth stuff-up!

There's a place to record goofs on IMDb but, come on guys, there isn't enough space for them all! What period was the movie actually set in? There was a modern motion detector in one scene and a working steam train in others. (I like steam trains, by the way, so I'll give the movie 3 just for those shots!) When Lady Anna sprains her ankle, the supposed-to-be real "Indiana Jones" character is so stupid that he removes her boot out in the middle of nowhere! I'm no bushman but even I wouldn't have done that. It stands to reason that, if the ankle is injured, once the compression of the boot is removed, it will swell up to the point where getting the boot back on would be impossible. So, when the party moves on in the next scene, Anna is not wearing her boots (neither of them!). What she IS wearing isn't easy to see but, since the group had no extra gear with them, it must have been someone else's socks! But guess what? In the very next scene climbing a steep and rugged escarpment, there's Lady Anna with her boots on again!

Then, after suffering lousy screenplay, pathetic acting (from EVERYONE - with the possible exception of Wittley Jourdan). awful continuity and sad attention to detail, viewers are presented with a whole sequence of scenes in the bowels of the earth where no one took any sort of lighting, yet everything was brilliantly illuminated enough for the protagonist to see a black "beheading glove" with which to win the battle! Wow! The excitement was just too much for me!

Now, in most action movies, it is customary to have a bit of glamour somewhere so what went wrong here? By no stretch of the imagination could Natalie Stone be described as glamorous! Come to think of it, did South Africa EVER make a hit movie? The best I can think of was "The Gods Must Be Crazy" and that wasn't all that great!

If anyone is reading this before contemplating watching this movie, take it from me - DON'T!

I need to go and lie down! I just hope I don't fall asleep - I might have nightmares about being a cast member in a Mark Atkins movie!

It is not possible to describe how bad this film is. The acting is dreadful, especially the laughable shoot-outs. I've seen kids in the playground do better using their hands as guns and shouting "BANG"! The script is absolute rubbish, the story jumps from place to place with no rhyme or reason. The villain looks more retarded than scary, he wouldn't frighten my grandmother. The direction is very poor, you're often left wondering what the various looks between the actors are supposed to mean. This is the worst film I have ever seen. Don't waste your time watching it. The only use for this film is to be shown at acting college as an example of what not to do.

This film has a lot of memorable, really fun scenes, the characters are very likable, the acting was good, especially the villain... he was AWESOME, very entertaining. I could watch his scenes over and over again! The main actor was very true to the character of Allan Quatermain in the original book by H.R. Haggard. I thought he did a really solid job. This film was very well directed, had some beautiful cinematography, and is overall a really good, fun film that I would highly recommend.

This is by far the best film that the Asylum has ever done. I was very surprised at the quality of the story, the acting, the directing, everything was at a distinctly higher level than any of the previous films I've seen come out of The Asylum. I would say that this is a director to watch in the future. Very talented.

I bet this movie made a killing at the box office! Mainly the careers of anyone associated with it!

OOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!! I am seriously in PAIN.

Show this movie to suspected terrorists and you'll get an immediate confession! The plot was so predictable it wasn't even funny! Even what I'm sure the director considered to be plot "twists" was predictable! The "bad guy" was seriously NOT evil. Gun play was laughable. The "natives" were not at all convincing.

As for sound? Please! The sound of their footsteps walking down the road was louder than the conversation!

I've always loved the legend of Allan Quartermain, but a 10 year old could have done a better job!