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.
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.