Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Abegail Noëlle While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Desertman84 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.

bkoganbing Well presumably Allan Quatermain And The Temple Of Skulls is based on the famous H. Rider Haggard novel King Solomon's Mines and they did use the same characters. There are certain of the same plot elements in the film. And it is shot in Africa.After that you'll look far and wide for any similarities to the classic film that starred Stewart Granger, Deborah Kerr, and Richard Carlson from 1951. More Indiana Jones type action gets mixed up in this film and the results aren't good.Hopefully all the no name actors associated with this film will still have careers left after this was inflicted on the movie watching public. It went to DVD immediately, that should tell you something.

Maria Fahlsing There are so many problems with this movie that I cannot even begin to count them. The most glaring error is that the title is Allen Quatermain and the Temple of the Skulls, yet there is no temple and there was only one skull in the entire film. A strange staff that the chief holds out to a young boy for breaking a rule and leading outsiders to their camp is beheaded by the staff when it transforms into a claw, rips his head off, and magically all of the tissue vanishes to leave a crusted, reddish skull. No reference to, explanation of, or attempt to find the temple is ever made. The title has absolutely nothing to do with the (lack of) plot. Secondly, it is unclear when the movie is supposedly set as a motion detector is clearly visible in a hallway, the scarf/bandanna Lady Anna wears around her head to conceal her crown is leopard print, and women in the 19th century did not wear heavy makeup or trousers! "Lady" Anna is no lady. She dared to wear a knee-length white dress without a bustle or corset, fell down exposing her stockings, and does not conduct herself like a lady of refinement at all.The love/attraction between Allen Quatermain and Lady Anna is contrived and forced at best. They have no chemistry and their love at the end of the film makes no sense and does not follow logically from their treatment of and reaction to each other throughout the film. Also, Lady Anna's character wears thick, caked-on makeup which was not the fashion in the 19th century. Also, she nor the other characters ever sweat, have pit stains from the scorching hot African sun, and never get sunburned. White people being baked by the sun for hours have a tendency to burn. Lastly, instead of looking for the Temple of the Skulls, the real plot of the movie seems to be accidentally finding an African tribal queen who is in hiding or exiled or something (I don't think we ever really found out the story there) and restoring her to her reign. So, why not call the movie Allen Quatermain and the Lost Queen or something like that? The plot is non-existent and nonsensical. The writing is so bad, it makes me want to scream, pull my hair out, and cry. My inner English major is yelling at the writer (who also directed this pile of garbage).This horrible film is so horrible that a new term needs to be created to properly describe the atrocity this mess really is.Do not waste your time. What has been seen cannot be unseen.

Kent Rasmussen 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.