This movie is something of a throwback to the old jungle adventure films of the forties and fifties. Forget the computer effects, besides they usually suck. The movie moved at a slower, more realistic pace. The acting was pretty good and the leading lady was very sexy in a unique way. I also enjoyed the scenery. There was something about this movie that kept me glued to the screen. I really enjoyed it. It was a lot more realistic and probably more like what an African adventure was really like back in the day. I know kids won't like it because there is no one in tights and a cape and not enough massive explosions and car wrecks. I guess thats what I did like about it. For someone with a bit of a pulp fiction fetish, its all good I guess and definitely interesting on many levels. And its not some a goofy Indiana Jones ripoff. No huge bowling balls come running out of the background and its not stupid or idiotic like the Indy movies.

That's right, ill, although I think I've overdosed on zinc tablets.The film was unreal, there was about 6 lines in the entire thing. The hero, who didn't do anything heroic, was called Alan. The bad guy was like a school caretaker. He was smiling like he had jaw's metal teeth, but he didn't. On the up side the female was attractive and the African tribes women had their t**s out. All I remember was the tiny cast all waking across a field on an overcast day, very, very slowly.It's no wonder they'd all given up, the treasure map looks like a 2 year old drew it.It felt like they'd all given up from the very start.If they'd have shouted BANG when they shot guns, that's would have been more convincing.The only explanation to the creation of this movie, was Alan trying to get his leg over with the lead lady in real life.Would I recommend this film? Well if you are an actor trying to get yourself into a frame of mind to play a deeply depressed and ill character, give it a go.Never judge a DVD by it's cover. We did, and paid the price.

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.

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!