Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Michael_Elliott Angkor (1935) ** (out of 4) This here is basically a trip to Cambodia where we get a bunch of stock footage showing off various things including the violent wildlife as well as a group of people who dress up as gorillas. Oh yeah, for you exploitation lovers, there's some topless women carrying things around.This film has a bunch of stock footage and it's basically a travelogue for those who might be interested in seeing the jungles of Cambodia. Producer Dwain Esper (MANIAC) bought the film and released it as FORBIDDEN ADVENTURE and really played up the exploitation aspect including the nudity that is in the film thanks to the locals. Obviously when the film was originally shot this footage was just showing off the local women but under Esper's control it became a reason to try and sell additional tickets.To be honest, viewing this as an exploitation film really isn't going to work because there's nothing shocking here. What nudity there is is rather tame and it's certainly not shown in a sexual manor. What the film does do well is a great way to see Cambodia as it was during the time that the footage was shot. I thought the various footage of the wildlife was very entertaining and I also thought the silly editing to try and match up footage was worth watching. Just take a look at the scene where a baby monkey falls into the water and the fake drama that the editor tries to build.No matter what you call the film, ANGKOR is mild entertainment that shouldn't be viewed as exploitation or anything overly serious. Former D.W. Griffith star Wilfred Lucas appears as a hunter and serves as the narrator.

Leofwine_draca FORBIDDEN ADVENTURE is a story about a group of explorers who make their way to Cambodia and explore the ruins at Angkor Wat. Don't go into this one expecting any kind of story or indeed narrative sense, because it's a very cheap production that plays out as a travelogue more than anything else. Thus we have endless scenes of local wildlife mixed with a few spicier scenes of topless female natives in their everyday lives. Except, of course, they're actually prostitutes on a studio backlot in Hollywood. The result? Cheap, shoddy, and incredibly boring.

SilentOne92 This exploitation film starts off with an introduction setting up the story. The story is told by a narrator who starts by giving an academic presentation at a conference. The film/documentary is supposed to be film shot in Angkor Cambodia right before or during World War 1. This black and white film is a combination of stock footage with exploitation inserts shown as a "documentary". The "documentary" is based on the sacred monkeys. This film is a pre cursor of the later "Mondo" films which were so popular in the 1960's. It follows the same basic script in which "explorers" are going into a sacred place in a mysterious land. One of the selling points is obviously the scenes of topless native women (these women apparently were hired out of LA brothels). This is not an accurate of well done film. It should be viewed only in a historical context of exploitation films shot in the 1930s. This film apparently was shown a lot during the 40's - 50's in exploitation theaters.