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.

Wow - this movie should have been named Velveeta! The plot was non-existent, the acting was worse than a high-school play, and it was just plain cheesy. It seemed like the vast majority of the movie time was filled with completely meaningless scenes. Some of those filler scenes were twice as long as they should have been. The pauses on the various characters after finishing their line was reminiscent of watching a soap opera and the music constantly built to non-existent climaxes. This movie literally could have been 20 minutes long and would have not been any worse. I think the budget was mostly spent on the catering for the actors. This movie doesn't deserve any more words!

Not just Allan Quatermain, but anyone who would watch this movie has to be out of their skull. This was such a terrible movie that I wanted to walk out of the theater and go home. The problem was I was already home, watching it on a DVD.

There were so many things wrong with this movie that it would be impossible to list them all, but I'll give you a few examples.

How about going off for a hiking expedition without taking any supplies, not even water or food. They didn't even carry canteens. All the bad guy, who was after them, had was a rifle and pistol and the clothes on his back - but no hat. I thought it got hot in Africa? No one was sweating. I know this because the leading lady's heavy eye makeup never ran.

How can the bad guy take out two crew members of a moving train with two shots but never hit Quatermain even when Quatermain is standing still or is only a few yards away. This happens several times in the movie.

And where did the earthquake come from? Just thrown in for good measure, was it? And when was the last time you explored a dark cavern without any lights? If Quartermain took the job to get the tuition money for his son and then gave it to his housekeeper to mail, what happened to the envelope when the housekeeper went on the trip with him.

At least they didn't have any trouble finding the unknown land where King Solomon's mines were, as a wide dirt road had been created for them to follow. The bad guy had a truck, so why did Quatermain and his party have to walk on the road? Since his house is in the country, you would think he would have a vehicle too.

I have watched many movies where the actors had to walk to get where they were going. I'm surprised that Quatermain's party ever got anywhere. I have never seen people move this slow. I walk faster inside my own house.

And what was that terrible flying swarm? Bloodsucking locusts? Day flying bats? Enraged hummingbirds? Would have been nice to know.

I could go on, but why? So I'll sum it up.

No plot. No character development. No one with any acting ability. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it a -3.

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!

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!