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.

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.

I was looking forward to it. But - found it hard, very hard, to take it seriously, I thought it might be a black comedy or skit on that classic novel. Acting? Dismal, non existent script & continuity? If they were Zulus, they didn't act or appear to be real. The scenery was great but came from all parts of S.A. Why would Lady Anna, come dressed for a party, entering not only a shady bush drinking place, but in the S.A. bush. And Allan Q, behaved like a dumb, recovering alcoholic with little facial expressions or body language throughout. Just as well I got it for nothing from the local library. If this was an adaptation of the classic novel, the script writer should be buried up to his/her neck in an ant-hill. The final scene, them bowing and smiling. What was that all about, or maybe I fast forwarded the sequence when it could have been answered.

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.