Allan Quatermain et la Cité de l'or perdu

Now... I have read everyone's reviews on how terrible this movie was. May I say... why? What is so terrible about it? No... you shouldn't take it too seriously. But, what in television should be scrutinized so much you can't even enjoy it? This movie has all the qualities I admire in a movie. Action, adventure, comedy, and the hint of a myth beyond the whole thing. All in all, it is an excellent movie.

This film is in truth a terrible movie, there is hardly any credible acting, even with a average cast involved. The humor is even more awful, and the film is a carbon copy rip-off of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. But this movie can still be enjoyed by just about anyone, even with the whole family. When I watched this, when I was little, on tape, I really didn't care how bad it was, and I enjoyed it, I still do, but now only to a certain magnitude. This movie is for anyone who loves cheap film flam movies, like godzilla, or the famous cheap kung-fu ones made during the Bruce Lee era (not saying of course Bruce Lee movies are this bad). In truth, I saw this movie before the King Solomon's mine one that precedes it, and this makes THAT movie look like a actual wonder of a movie, and if you like one star movies, give this one chance, it really isn't avoidable in appearance only in content. My rating a VERY respectable 2 out of 10.

I have to agree with much of what has been said before me in other reviews. Yes, the film tries to piggyback on the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark, including a musical score that suggests the Raiders Franchise. The green screen effects are laughable as is much of the other "special" effects, but the film is still enjoyable enough for adventure/fantasy fans to waste a couple of hours on. You get to see a very youthful and slim James Earl Jones in probably a performance he'd like to forget, plus Sharon Stone once again proves that she can't act and Henry Silva is a raving lunatic, but again, what the heck eh? Lots of big names, but not the big budget. Watch it anyways just for the simple entertainment value without putting any importance to the flick.

There's bad movies, and then there's bad movies. And "Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold" fits in the B-movie criteria! Richard Chamberlin and Sharon Stone, before she was even a well-known actress play the protagonist explorers in Africa trying to look for Allan's lost brother and some treasure. Along the way the encounter savage natives and just the whole concept is just to embarrasing to explain! Even Richard Chamberlin and Sharon Stone looked embarrased to be in this movie! Guess they were just trying to earn a buck. This movie was even disliked by critics! Who could blame them?

This movie is great to watch with friends, that is if you want to do an MST3K thing while watching it. This movie should be listed in every B-movie book out there! It's so laughably stupid that it's a good movie to mock or induce vomiting whichever comes first! The title ought to be, "Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Quaaludes"!

I remember seeing this movie when I was 10. It was the greatest movie that came on the basic channels since Indiana Jones would only play on cable and occasionally come on regular TV. It had exciting adventures and amazing concepts such as open floors, fast water tunnels, and a whole lot of gold. Watching it as an adult, you can say that it's a horrible movie. Everything looks beyond fake, and the acting is one of the worst. It's amazing how a movie that came out in 1987 can look more fake than one that came out in the 70's. Whatever the case may be, let your children or little siblings watch it, they'll like it.