A different way of telling a story

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

For a period drama set in colonial South Africa it is very odd to see people in the tavern wearing Nike T shirts. I get it was low budget but the only period features of this movie were the woman's dress and a steam train.

Allan Quatermain and the Temple of Skulls is a direct-to-video that was released after Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull was released on theaters.Obviously,it was a parody of Indiana Jones and it tried to take its cue from the 1985 film adaptation of King Solomon's Mines.It stars Sean Michael as Allan Quatermain together with Christopher Adamson,Sanaa Lathane,Daniel Bonjour and Wittly Jourdan. In it,Quatermain has been recruited to lead a British-American expedition in search for treasure in an unknown African land.It could have been a good film.Too bad that it took its cue from the 1985 adaptation of the King Solomon's Mines novel rather than the better version of the novel such as the 1937 film and 1950 classic.Also,it tried to capitalize on Quatermain as a parody of the Indiana Jones character rather than giving their own version of the novel.This errors led it into becoming a disastrous movie.

Ho HO! This film is crawling to it's death on cable even as I type.I had to come here and find what people were saying about this stillborn turd of a movie. I gotta tell you, the reviews are the best part of the viewing experience. Even the two good ones are so obviously self serving they might have been written by the director's mother.I won't rehash what so many others have already said. Every criticism is spot on and should be accepted as fact.It's as if someone said, "The problem with the Indiana Jones movies is that they rely too much on action, personalities, spectacle, and special effects, so I won't put any of that in my film!" I can imagine how the film was so badly made, but I have one complaint that I have never thought to make of ANY movie, no matter it's budget or terribleness.The woman who plays the 'romantic interest' in this film is probably the least convincing seductress ever to appear in a movie. This slightly doughy mouth breather made me question my sexual orientation, as I have never in my life been so unmoved by a feminine presence on screen. I'm not one to demand classic beauty from any woman, and indeed have lusted greatly after some pretty odd looking ducks from the days of direct to VHS creepitude, but this woman...GOD! Is she the money man's sister? "You told me I could be in your MOVIE! MOMMMM!" I'm sorry if you bought this hospital food as adventure flick, because you got it on DVD. A few years ago, you could have taped over it and gotten a little return on your investment.But as it is, enjoy the bad reviews.I know I did!

Enough has been posted already about the shortcomings of this film that I needn't rehash the same criticisms here. Yes, the film is awful; I watched it all the way through out of perverse interest in seeing how bad it would get (it stars poorly and gets worse). At least one reviewer says the film is a remarkable achievement because it was shot in only nine days. For my part, I wonder why it took that long; the film looks like it could have been made in three days.What really intrigues me about this film, however, is its chronological ambiguity. In what time period is it supposed to be set? H. Rider Haggard published KING SOLOMON'S MINES in 1885, so the original story is clearly set in the 19th century. That date is important because the book came out at a time when little was known about the Southern African interior in which the it is set–mostly the region now known as Zimbabwe. To call Zimbabwe unexplored territory in 1885 would be an exaggeration, but outsiders knew little enough about it, and especially its impressive stone ruins, to make a fantasy story about ancient mines seem plausible at the time.This ALLEN QUATERMAIN film appears to be set in the 21st-century present, with a strong 19th-century flavor. The modern clothes characters wear, beer bottles, the occasional appearance of an automobile, a letter addressed to Quatermain in "KwaZulu-Natal" (a name coined during the 1990s), and other details all point to a modern time period. By contrast, the notion of unexplored territory, an antique train, and other details point to a 19th-century setting. My guess is that the makers of the film wanted to set the story in its original time period but couldn't afford the costumes and sets necessary to carry off that illusion. Still, they might have taken greater care to keep obviously modern elements out of the film.Much is made by the producers and by some review posters about the film's being shot in South Africa. A nice touch, certainly, but not a big deal. Aside from transportation costs, it would have been cheaper to film in South Africa than elsewhere. In any case, they could have made better use of South African landscapes. There's a lot of beautiful scenery in the film, but little of it evokes the rugged, mountainous terrain of Haggard's novel, and the film totally fails to convey the idea its characters are on an epic journey. The only significant animal scenes in the film appear to be from stock footage, and the scenes shot in an African "kingdom" (apparently a modern tourist village) are an embarrassment to watch. (Incidentally, most of the original novel's story is actually set north of South Africa, so it's a little misleading to suggest that this film was shot where the story takes place. ) A few reviewers have commented on the film's excellent music. I don't know why; I found its score dull and unimaginative. The African drumming is especially bad. One can hear better drumming in a "Bomba" film.