Watch Allan Quatermain and the Temple of Skulls For Free

I love this movie so much

Absolutely Fantastic

A Masterpiece!

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

An alright film for a Sunday afternoon of thunder storms, and there is nothing else on the television. A few scenes that are dragged out for too long. Some pointless scenes. If I could give it one star, I would.

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!

"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!