Allan Quatermain And The Temple Of Skulls Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
History's greatest treasure, Protected by the world's most dangerous land.
H. Rider Haggard's classic adventure novel King Solomon's Mines gets retold for a new generation of cliff-hanger fans in this film that finds titular hero Allan Quartermain setting out in search of the most valuable treasure known to man.
| Sean Michael | Allan Quatermain |
| Christopher Adamson | Hartford |
| Natalie Stone | Lady Anna |
| Daniel Bonjour | Sir Henry |
| Wittly Jourdan | Umbopa |
| Mr. Big | Big |
| Henry Brown | Engineer |
| Peter Conway | Prospector Dan Tuddle |
| Nick Everhart | Neville Heresford |
| Thomas Fakude | King Twala |
| Kende Gamede | Mhambi |
| Phiwayinkosi Gumede | General Infadoos |
| Jiyane | Jiyane |
| Xolisile Khanyile | Nonkululeko |
| Mfafa Msimango | Bhekizizwe |
| Mark Atkins |
3.30 out of 10 (371 votes)
Visitor Reviews
A little glimpse from behind the scenes....
posted on 16 May 2009I'm not one of the filmmakers on Allan Quatermain, but I do happen to know the guys that made this film, and they did an absolutely amazing job, especially when you consider what they were up against. Consider this.... this film was made from pre-production to post- production in little more than 2 months (started around Jan 15, completed March 26). They turned up in South Africa with five actors, a crew of five people (Line Producer-Nick Everhart, Visual EFX-Scott Wheeler, Sound Mixer/BoomOperator/Grip/Gaffer-Trenton McRrae, Assistant Camera-Sara Renard, and Director/Cinematographer-Mark Atkins), $10,000 in their pocket, and 9 shooting days (a lot of travel time between locations). They put together a pretty impressive film here, with some very entertaining scenes (I especially love the bathtub scene, and the Zulu village scenes). They were able to obtain an authentic steam train, filmed in an authentic Zulu village, with AUTHENTIC Zulu maidens and AUTHENTIC Zulu warriors. They also filmed in Sudwala Caves, the oldest known caves in the world (240,000 million years old). The director wanted to make a film that was true to the adventurous nature of the book by H.R. Haggard, and had no interest in doing an Indiana Jones rip-off. Which, if you watch the film, you will see that this is NOT an Indiana Jones movie...it IS an Allan Quatermain movie. It was intended to be an old-fashioned romantic adventure film, and that's exactly what it is. It's a lot of fun, has quite a few very entertaining scenes... and some very solid actors. Post-production was also an insane roller-coaster ride.... imagine trying to edit an entire feature film, do all the CGI Visual Effects, shoot an opening scene, score the film, color correct, and sound mix in five weeks time! It is a near impossible feat! So I say hats off to these guys for pulling off a miracle, and making a really great, fun film under extremely challenging conditions! No, it's not a multi-million dollar production like Indiana Jones. But it has a lot of heart, and it's very entertaining.
Bet this movie made a KILLING at the box office!
posted on 10 May 2009I bet this movie made a killing at the box office! Mainly the careers of anyone associated with it! OOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!! I am seriously in PAIN.Show this movie to suspected terrorists and you'll get an immediate confession! The plot was so predictable it wasn't even funny! Even what I'm sure the director considered to be plot "twists" was predictable! The "bad guy" was seriously NOT evil. Gun play was laughable. The "natives" were not at all convincing.As for sound? Please! The sound of their footsteps walking down the road was louder than the conversation! I've always loved the legend of Allan Quartermain, but a 10 year old could have done a better job!
This is a Very Bad Movie
posted on 30 Apr 2009This is the worst movie I have seen in several years. It's worse than "Dungeons and Dragons" (2000).The editing is abysmal. The cinematography is lousy. The acting is amateurish. The casting was apparently performed by lottery. The plot might be generously described as "loose." The dialogue is highly unnatural. I couldn't tell when it was supposed to have been set. There is what looks like a 19th century steam train, but Quatermain has velcro tabs on his pockets. Which reminds me that the wardrobe must have been just whatever was lying about. There was a weird mix and match of various styles and time periods which lent a great deal to the overall atmosphere of "slapped together." To be fair, though, I didn't watch the whole thing. So, maybe I'm off base. I watched the first 15 minutes, waiting for something believable or interesting to happen, then started fast forwarding and watching a couple minutes at a time, looking for the good parts. I never found them. I watched probably 25 minutes of it in all before I threw up my hands, declared defeat, and turned off the video in disgust.Don't bother watching this film.
Amateurish camera work, acting, sound effects, dialogue
posted on 21 Feb 2009This movie looks like something to come out of a film school project where each first year student does a small part of the job. The casting was downright abysmal because the hero looks like a drunk with swollen, slit-like eyes, and the female lead who is supposed to be an English lady of rank looks like, and is made up like, a Fleet Street tart. The wooden dialogue sounds more like high school remedial English or a Berlitz audio for Hungarians planning to visit London. The plot bristles with mistakes, like four travelers making a three-day trek on foot across the blazing African wilderness but not carrying so much as a thimble full of water. Forget about tents and supplies. There's a bad guy who chases them in his truck when they're on a train, and he's driving with one hand, swaying all over the road and firing a rifle with one hand -- like it was a pistol -- all of which gives him absolutely no control and poses no threat. But hero Quatermain, crouching behind a steel railroad car with a pistol, who could easily finish off the bad guy with one shot from his protected barrier, decides he and the tart should jump from the train -- which they do. Now what could be stupider? The sound effects. The sound effects are stupider. Every time somebody fires it sounds like a cross between a muffled cough and a fart.H. Rider Haggard was a terrific writer, but this rendition of his work is so clumsy, amateurish and silly that its most useful application should be for film students: How NOT to write/produce/cast/direct a movie.
Worst Movie I Ever Saw
posted on 13 Feb 2009This has to be the worst movie (in my recollection)That I have ever seen. They try to claim it was the inspiration for Indiana Jones, The cast spent about two thirds of the movie walking around in the grass. The Filming Locales such as the train depot, look like tourist attractions. The plot was weak there were few special effects (sometimes when a gun was fired it was only a sound effect) The villain was not threatening at all although he tried. The story was lame, the Directing was lame, the acting was lame, it was just a LAME movie! I may have seen a worse movie but i cannot recall when! Don't waste time or money on this one, the best part was the cover art!
LOVED this film... great scenes, great acting, and a lot of fun to watch!
posted on 11 Feb 2009This film has a lot of memorable, really fun scenes, the characters are very likable, the acting was good, especially the villain... he was AWESOME, very entertaining. I could watch his scenes over and over again! The main actor was very true to the character of Allan Quatermain in the original book by H.R. Haggard. I thought he did a really solid job. This film was very well directed, had some beautiful cinematography, and is overall a really good, fun film that I would highly recommend. This is by far the best film that the Asylum has ever done. I was very surprised at the quality of the story, the acting, the directing, everything was at a distinctly higher level than any of the previous films I've seen come out of The Asylum. I would say that this is a director to watch in the future. Very talented.
Bad. Don't bother with it.
posted on 03 Feb 2009This movie is BAD: poor acting, poor writing, and poor costuming make it look terribly amateurish and simply laughable. Some of my digital media students have created better films. I can give credit for the cinematography, it was pretty good, and the music was decent. But, overall, it's not worth the plastic to make the DVD.Some reviewers here seem to have a very high opinion of Natalie Stone, but I found she was the worst actor in the entire film. And she's really kind of homely.While some reviewers here have given this film good ratings based on effort, they apparently don't understand that effort only counts for so much. What matters is the end result. It's no big deal to create a bad movie on a small budget (those are all too common), but if they could make a good movie on a tight budget, then that's an accomplishment. In this case, they haven't, they've failed miserably. If there is any threat that this film could be foisted upon you, run away, very quickly.
Indescribable rubbish
posted on 10 Oct 2008Other than a few interesting scenery shots there is absolutely nothing to recommend this movie in my opinion. The acting is appalling and the plot line is even worse! The "villain" should have been fitted with a more suitable set of false teeth, I believe the bottom ones were missing - a more gross and unbelievable character would be hard to find. The "fierce savages" were mostly armed with pointed sticks and I am sure would have run a mile if Quartermain had said BOO! The (rent a crowd of maidens) had some interesting moves, but it all got rather tedious after about 10 minutes. I think your time would be better served relaxing with a good book or visiting the nearest pub.
I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry...it's so bad
posted on 04 Oct 2008It is not possible to describe how bad this film is. The acting is dreadful, especially the laughable shoot-outs. I've seen kids in the playground do better using their hands as guns and shouting "BANG"! The script is absolute rubbish, the story jumps from place to place with no rhyme or reason. The villain looks more retarded than scary, he wouldn't frighten my grandmother. The direction is very poor, you're often left wondering what the various looks between the actors are supposed to mean. This is the worst film I have ever seen. Don't waste your time watching it. The only use for this film is to be shown at acting college as an example of what not to do.
Quatermain rules...
posted on 28 Sep 2008While watching the movie i kept trying to figure out which part the baddie, Hartford, played in "Pirates of the Caribbean". Anyone know? Anyways, I actually enjoyed the humor and simplicity of "Temple of Skulls". Sure, it seriously lacked action and adventure and the special effects sucked, BUT i enjoyed the acting, especially of the baddie and Quatermain. I think Michael came real close to the original character from the book, though it is a pity more time wasn't spent on his friendships and background story. I loved the authenticity of the warriors and the locations were flipping epic and amazing. That alone was worth the $20 for the DVD. Yeah, it's low budget, but an entertaining hour and a half i think.
Better buy "King Solomon's Mines"
posted on 27 Aug 2008This is the worst among all "Allan Quatermain" movies. As this is a remake in 2008, the expectation was far higher than this poor production. Its all waste of money and time except some good acting. That's where I put my rating-3. But as of production, i would rate it 0 as you already have movies in market with same story. If you couldn't do any better than previous "King Solomon's Mines", why putting money on it? I feel very sorry for the cast and crew.Other Allan Quatermain movies: http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0026724/As of remake, "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" is a better make of 2003. But this one is worst; don't buy it.
The Worst Film Ever
posted on 21 Aug 2008They couldn't have made a worse movie if they had tried. I can't believe I actually watched it through to the end. Perhaps in the vain hope that it might have livened up. Not a hope. The acting was wooden. the plot was wooden the dialog was wooden in fact everything was wooden (except for the wildlife and even that was spliced in)and as for the directing, well a child of 3 could have done better. Can someone please explain how anyone can go off on safari in the African Bush without a trace of equipment save for an obviously well stocked handbag, being as her ladyships makeup remained almost perfect throughout, and a revolver. When Quartermain announced "we'll make camp here for the night" one had to wonder what with? Total and Utter Rubbish.
Worst King Solomon's Mines ever
posted on 30 Jul 2008I expected some good action and adventures in this yet another adaptation of Haggard's 'Kings Solomon's Mines'. Such a great book of adventure makes almost a perfect scenario for a nice action/ adventure packed movie. And one can surely enjoy a nice portion of adventure once in a while. And I've always thought that it is almost impossible to spoil this nice plot created by Haggard and cherished in hearts of so many who read that great novel. Guess what? I was wrong. This movie indeed was the worst adaptation of King Solomon's Mines ever IMHO. To say it was boring would be almost compliment to the movie. Acting was terrible and unconvincing. The adventure part made me yawn and wish to have this 'forward' button to push so this torture would end faster. Unfortunately I didn't have one. If I could I'd give this movie -2 points. Although as it is impossible I give it one star though it is not worth of it after all. And I'd better go and watch some other and much better King Solomon's Mines versions
Pathetic Indiana Jones ripoff that makes all the wrong moves w script and costuming.
posted on 26 Jun 2008Really utterly brain-bashingly pathetic. I had to shut it off when the African tribesmen showed up wearing what looked like was cobbled together using the Walmart Halloween section.PLOT: a map is ripped in two our Indiana Jones ripoff guy has one half- drama ensues- will they find the treasure, and will someone be able to document all the pathetic inconsistencies in this movie? It could take a lifetime.This is what Indiana Jones would have been without a script, a budget, costuming and casting.If you paid to see this horrible piece of junk, demand your money back.
What a mess!
posted on 24 Jun 2008What 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!
A potentially great film, with an obvious error in the film.
posted on 23 May 2008First let's look at the error. In the scene when Lady Anna and Allan Quatermain are leaving the bathroom, if you look at the wall behind them you will see a motion detector. Guess they forgot to cover that one up. It even blinks as they move through the hall way. The movie has a good story line. However, I do not think they had the budget to make it a really good movie. Some of the special effects are not smooth. The women in the tribe have very colorful neck dresses, wonder if they were made from Michaels or Wal-mart beads. When the villain and Quartermain have fight scenes, you can tell they were not well rehearsed. Also, I you look at the motor car that Sir Henry hides up after the train disappears going backwards on the rails, notice the front plate of the rail car. It is a Wickham Rail plate which is used in Australia. Wonder how Africa got one of those?
So bad it can ruin your whole week
posted on 03 May 2008I have never commented on a movie before. This one is so bad that the only way I could live with myself is to try and warn others. Sure there are different tastes in movies and people may think different. But you do not have to try poop on a bun to know it is not right and awful. After watching this movie terrorism does not seem so bad. I have seen XX rated movies with much better direction then what was attempted in this 1 hour 33 minute 10 second movie. Time actually went slower watching this movie then when I am on the tread mill at the health club. This movie can actually cause a tumor. This made "Doctor T and the Women" seem like a 4 star movie. This movie MUST have been filmed in only 3 hours. There was so much walking in the grass I thought I was watching PBS. There was boobs shown in the movie and I did not even care, boobs!
Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear
posted on 07 Jun 2009Just look at the poster for this movie and straight away you'll notice the resemblance to the Indiana Jones posters, and the resemblance doesn't stop there. This is a blatant attempt to cash in on the recent return of the superior film franchise. Its not the first time the adventures of Alan Quartermain have been used to scrape some of the profits off the top of the Spielberg movies. When the original films where released a remake of "King Solomans Mines" was rushed out shortly after with Richard Chamberlain hamming it up as Alan Qaurtermain.Although I don't really like the Indiana Jones movies I think its in very bad taste to copy them in order to milk some of there profits. This movie was pushed out faster than a novice skydiver on his first jump. Slapped together in under 8 weeks, and you can tell! this is a poor effort at storytelling. Sets and cinematography are quite passable but the plot has more holes than a tea bag, therefore Im not even going to mention any of the story because what you don't know wont bother you as the kind of person who enjoys this rubbish are those with the intellectual capacity of a retarded goldfish.I have given this film 1 star... as the IMDb wont allow me to give it none! Give this movie a wide birth at all costs!