Allan Quatermain et le temple des crânes

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.

"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.

Haven't seen such an awful film for ages. It is so bad it almost has the potential to become a cult classic. You should watch it with a bunch of good friends and a lot of beer, and then you might just get through it.

I struggled to understand what historical period it was set in; the political references suggest 1940's, but Umbopa wears modern dress and Quatermain's school bill is of a modern order of magnitude. The effect was surreal. We were given very few clues as to the plot. There were so many loose ends or things unexplained. The unpreparedness of the Fearless Four as they embarked on their quest was laughable. Acting was either wooden or OTT.

It was as though a bunch of people met on safari in the bush with a camcorder and said, "hey, let's re-enact that old King Solomon's Mines movie" and didn't bother to plan or rehearse it much or edit the results.

Having said that, I thought the scenery (and Wittley Jourdan) was strikingly beautiful, and the cast clearly had a lot of fun making this movie!

Just look at the poster for this movie and straight away you'll notice the resemblance to the Indiana Jones posters, and the resemblance doesn't stop there. This is a blatant attempt to cash in on the recent return of the superior film franchise. Its not the first time the adventures of Alan Quartermain have been used to scrape some of the profits off the top of the Spielberg movies. When the original films where released a remake of "King Solomans Mines" was rushed out shortly after with Richard Chamberlain hamming it up as Alan Qaurtermain.

Although I don't really like the Indiana Jones movies I think its in very bad taste to copy them in order to milk some of there profits. This movie was pushed out faster than a novice skydiver on his first jump. Slapped together in under 8 weeks, and you can tell! this is a poor effort at storytelling. Sets and cinematography are quite passable but the plot has more holes than a tea bag, therefore Im not even going to mention any of the story because what you don't know wont bother you as the kind of person who enjoys this rubbish are those with the intellectual capacity of a retarded goldfish.

I have given this film 1 star... as the IMDb wont allow me to give it none! Give this movie a wide birth at all costs!

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!