Opiniones de usuarios

A middling sequel to the original, not as good as that but far better than the third. This one does actually have a budget, albeit a B-movie budget, and starts off with the usual low rent heroic action before moving the action to then-modern day L. A. where the usual fish out of water action takes place. A typical mix of CONAN and DR DOOLITTLE here, a far cry from THE ICEMAN COMETH but reasonably entertaining if you're in the right cheesy mood. The cast includes genre standby Wings Hauser, a young Kari Wuhrer, and Uncle Phil himself.

...and all from the script. That's because this isn't a sequel, it's... more like an overgrown tongue-in-cheek fan-fic film that just happened to lure Singer in for the ride.

There's a lot to laugh at here, and unfortunately the "plot" is most of it. The players are fairly game and give some effort to their portrayals, but the writing just is never serious. Sadly, sometimes it pretends to be, but always returns to campiness before long. The dialog is very dated, too, as others have noted. Prepare to wince.

Taken for what it is -- cheesy, spoofish fun -- it actually isn't too bad, IMO. 4/10 for being brisk enough to carry me along to the end and make at least a few actually funny jokes. (My favorite was the line about the 2 guys she'd met in Mexico.) Kari's character annoyed me a lot at first but she got better later. Wings actually surprised me; I thought he made a serviceable villain (at least for this sort of camp), and I was expecting him not to fit well. Then again, I was expecting a real sequel....

One thing that needs pointing out is that Lyranna vanishes near the end of the film. The character just isn't seen any more, with no explanation of what happened to her. Oops.

So... If you don't allow it to be what it is and instead hold it up to the first movie, it stinks, as most reviewers have pointed out. If you're going to watch it, don't make that comparison. Just mostly forget the first movie, relax, and laugh at the intentional and unintentional humor here. Throw stuff at the TV when the cheese gets too thick. That way you should be able to enjoy it well enough.

Dar (Marc Singer) fights against the villain Arklon (Wings Hauser) who can shoot laser beams and uses his devilish laugh frequently to prove how evil he really is. A witch (Sarah Douglas) offers him access to a strange world, the so-called LA, where Arklon can obtain a weapon of ultimate power, the neutron bomb. Quicker than you can say 'transdimensional gate', Arklon, Dar and the witch jump through the gate and confuse people in Los Angeles by their outlandish garb. Dar meets a senator's rich daughter (young Kari Wuhrer) who introduces him to cars and other miracles of this world.

The sequel is nowhere near the qualities of the first movie, and it suffers from some scenes where the contrast between barbarians and modern age is just not as funny as the makers expected it to be. Still an entertaining little trash flick with a couple of good moments - I don't think I have seen another movie where policemen are trying to catch a guy with a pet tiger.

During the closing credits (at least in the version that hit theatres), the Beastmaster can be seen running into the sunset. This sunset is actually a painted backdrop, and after a while, you can clearly discern that the guy is actually running in place for almost two minutes as the credits roll! A perfect end to a perfect movie!

Truly bad as part of the series, stupid in almost every way. If you're gonna watch it, just pretend it has nothing to do with the other films. It sucks less that way. It even has some charm, so I think it deserves more than one star.

The film breaks fundamentally with the tone set in the original. That was primarily an adventure film, though not without its lighthearted fun/silly moments. This one is just comedy, and not very good.

Two examples of how bad it is (minor spoilers):

1. The language in Dar's world turns out to be LA American English! They actually speak the exact same accent as the LA characters in the story.

2. The nukes in the US are extremely badly guarded, anyone can just walk in and grab one, if they're willing to knock out a guard behind a desk. And when they're stolen, it is is a local LA police department that handles the case.

I love the first and third Beastmasters, but this one was an abomination. It was almost as horrible as 'The Never Ending Story 3', for the same reasons. They took a fascinating fantasy world of Barbarian tribes, farming villages, witches, supernatural creatures, and a cult of religious fanatics using a pyramid; and thought it would be funny to mix in our materialistic pop-culture world of rock & roll, sushi (I think thats what it was), and flashy sports cars. These two worlds do not belong together. I do not want to see a bunch of ancient barbarian looking people dancing to some rock song on the car radio. I have a sense of humor, but this is just stupid. This is what Hollywood does to good fantasy movies when they run out of ideas. Don't give up though, the Eye of Braxus is much, much better. That one I gave a 10. This one, Portal of Time, I give a 1. Believe me, I don't always give such extremely high or low ratings. I just tend to comment only such movies.

If you are ever in the mood for a truly terrible film, it would be hard to find something that could even compare to this. I have spent a lot of time watching a lot of terrible movies just for the sheer joy I get from it, and man, this is one of the worst. This movie was so bad, I had to buy the third Beastermaster online. That one wasn't as bad, which is amazing since it was straight to video. This is one of those films that is hard to comprehend how it was made in the first place. I mean, someone had to actually have read the script (or many scripts, I'm sure they made several drafts) and said "Yeah, that's it. Here's some money." Actually, they probably just wanted to make a Beastmaster 2 before they even had a script, then went with whatever they had. Ack, horrible. So, if you are a fan of really bad movies, watch this one. It is a true classic, and film doesn't get much worse than this. And if it does, please let me know.

This time The Beastmaster(Marc Singer) returns only to face off a new enemy Arklon(Wings Hauser) however due to an annoying teenager(Kari Wuher) they are transported to the future where they then duke it out. Lots of (lame) fish out of water jokes ensue. You honestly don't get sequels this rotten to the core. Beastmaster 2 is a painful movie to behold. The references and "hipness" date the film badly (This was made in 1991) and really who wants to see The Beastmaster in the present times? Also of note is Wings Hauser who's embarrassing performance is easily the film's best asset. Singer looks awkward, Wuher is irritating and the whole 1991 slang just makes the movie downright unwatchable. This is easily one of the worst movies ever made.

1/2* out of 4-(Awful)

I really liked cult filmmaker Don Coscarelli's fantasy "Beastmaster" and this follow-up "Through the Portal of time" really does decide to go in a different (much campier) direction, which looked like it could have been its downfall. Despite its bad wrap (although it does have its fans), mostly modern-day setting and rather goofy tone it still remains quite a competently, enjoyable good and evil sword-and-sorcery comic strip venture. For most part it seems to be playing for laughs (sometimes intentional other times not), and the fish out water novelty (Dar trying to stop Arklon getting his hands on a dangerous weapon while in Los Angeles) has its amusing moments. The tone and style had me thinking of another sword-and-sorcery caper with a very tongue-in-cheek approach "Deathstalker II" and no surprises why, as Jim Wynorski had a part in both screenplays. Dialogues are risible, but there are few humorous in-jokes within and the direction is constantly spirited. The performances are fairly animated, almost mock-like. Bryan Singer returns as Dar the Beastmaster. Bringing all the right qualities to the role, although it does feel like a self-parody and there's no doubts he really likes to boast about his "friends". Along for the ride are his animal friends (although the panther has been replaced by a tiger). Wings Hauser decked out in long blonde hair, phantom of the opera style of mask, a cheesy grin goes about his evil shtick with great aplomb, by waving about his magic wand / bow with little respect and having organisms when reading minds. Sara Douglas who parades around provides the wit as the witch Lyranna and the lovely Kari Wuhrer perks it up in her role as the modern-day girl who gets caught up helping Dar. Some other faces show up like; James Avery and very minor parts for Michael Berryman and Robert Z'dar. It's not perfect, but it's a breezy and theatrically hammy time-waster.

I liked this movie way too much. My only problem is I thought the actor playing the villain was a low rent Michael Ironside. Of corse Ironside is just a low rent Jack Nicholson. I guess Mike was busy that year with "Highlander 2: The Quickening". Sadly "Beastmaster 2" would have been a much better career move. It is certainly the best of the Beastmaster series and in many ways reminiscent of that great big screen classic "Masters of the Universe". Not only does it star the incomparable Mark Singer it also features an amazing supporting cast, specifically the second girl from "Sliders", Uncle Phil from "Fresh Prince of Belair" and evil chick from "Superman 2". It rocked my world and is certainly a must see for anyone with no social or physical outlets. BEASTMASTER FOREVER!!! ROCK'N ROLL!!!

Add me to the list of people who wasted their time on this film. As a fan of the original, I appreciated that while low-budget, it was chock-a-block full of non-stop action, with just the right amount of slow, sentimental scenes. The acting was also very enjoyable, with Dar often letting his boyish, good-humoured self come through in so many scenes. In this sequel there are so many things wrong, I don't know where to start.

First, how about hair and makeup? It's the first noticeable flaw. Whatever they did with Marc Singer's hair was tragic. Marc, who has light brown hair was given subtle, natural highlights in the original Beastmaster. He was also buff, while not needing to emphasize on his body. Marc naturally did that on his own. But in Beastmaster 2, it seems the hair and makeup team went bananas. I don't know if they were inspired by the early 90s look from rock bands like Skid Row or Warrant, but Marc was given an entire new hair-do that mimicked Jani Lane, with an all-over dye job of lemon-blond hair (also, lemon-blond dyed eyebrows, making them look non-existent). His hair was then-styled in that pre-grunge one-length, longer by several inches than we remembered him. Also, his body was tanned and oiled, giving it a waxy appearance in every scene. Simply awful.

Second, the writing and acting. I expected less and got it from the entire cast, but Marc Singer it seems was given so little dialogue this time around. He has safe, predictable lines, and apart from that, just appears bewildered. What ever happened to our lovable Dar? The Dar with the impish grin, who teased everyone he liked-both men and women. The Dar who enjoyed using sarcasm and sly humour to make his point. That Dar is completely rewritten for Beastmaster 2, and not for the better. Dar in this film seems completely reprogrammed to align with Tarzan, who has very little to say, and whatever he does say is uninteresting.

Third, the plot itself. While I'm not opposed to the idea, it's just that the fish-out-of-water stories have been done before, normally crossing over in our own linear world. For Beastmaster, it's hard to tell which side is supposed to be silly. Is it the fantasy, sword n' sandals bunch, or the materialistic, big city no-minds from our world? Usually a film's set puts the viewer into a mood. We feel lit when we are prepared to watch fantasy, science fiction, that we understand while watching what we are expected to see. This film does a messy job of combining both worlds, and neither one sits well with the other for the viewer. At least, it certainly didn't for me.

Finally, the evident loss of familiar faces. Marc Singer is expected to carry on in the title role, but the original had so much more going on when it came to key characters in Dar's life. Obviously Tanya Roberts couldn't reprise as Kiri with L. A. rich girl Jackie showing interest in Dar. But what about John Amos (Seth), Josh Milrad (Tal), and Ralph Strait (Sacco)? All three were around in 1991 and could have been very capable to reach out to, but were they? Not only that, but the animals weren't even recognizable. Ruh is no longer black (but apparently there was good reason for this for the safety of the cats), but what happened to Sharak? Smoothed down light feathers, compared to the full-feathered dark coloured bird from the original? It's too different. As for Kodo and Podo, I guess we'll just pretend they're just the kits we saw at the end of the original film. The problem is with the animals, there really wasn't much involvement from them, aside from a few minutes at the beginning of the film. Otherwise, they just hang around Dar, with Sharak, maybe being more useful than the others. So as far as familiarity goes, we still miss out on our old friends from the original.

I've probably typed out too much for a stinker of a film as it is. If you watch it, you'll do so out of morbid curiosity for being a fan of the original. But don't say you weren't warned.

This one kind of is like an earlier movie from 1987 "Masters of the Universe" based on the cartoon "He-man". Basically, you have a great old world and they for some reason have to have nearly all the action of the movie take place on modern earth. Well I guess it is not so modern earth now and that it is an ancient world now of strangeness and a den of good times gone by. Well I guess I can figure why they did in fact place nearly all the movie in modern times in this and that movie. To save money on costumes and sets. It is a lot easier to recreate what is going on in the present than a strange world like that of Eternia in He-man or an ancient world with cults and strange pyramids, sacrifices and strange creatures that hug you to death. This movie is forgettable and not very entertaining, your first clue that it is not going to be the best movie in the world is that Robert Z'Dar is in it. The only thing this one has going for it is the animals which are not as prevalent in this one as they were in the last. Marc Singer is back and it is sad to seem him in this state, the guy was a fairly good actor reduced to trying to make a sequel to a movie that really did not need one, and even if it did it came five years to late.

Dreadful sequel of The Beastmaster (1982) with striking discontinuity: Dar's ferrets Podo and Kodo are both alive (whereas Kodo died in the original movie, leaving offspring, but nevertheless) and Ruh the panther is now an Indian tiger (in movie 3 a lion, by the way). Singer looks okay (except for his very blond hair, where did that came from?). Parallel world 1990 scenes should all be deleted, including the teenage girl and her Porsche. Dar's evil brother is more imbecile than evil. One of few highlights: cameo of The Hills Have Eyes' Michael Berryman as pilgrim. Obviously Tanya Roberts as Kiri could have saved this movie, as she would save every film.

First of all: Remember that this genre was quite popular in the beginning of the 90's, as well during the 80's of course. Many out there who're voting, and never seen this before, tend to compare this with modern movies and their film techniques and not seeing it for what it is. Not going to say masterpiece here, nor a work of art, but well above average. Actually, there's one part of this movie-series that are in some fashion a work of art, and that'd be the work they did with the animals. No you say? How do you get a friggen tiger to behave, the ferrets (Of which we won't get to see too much, except for in the beginning, as they "acted" in the first movie. That eagle, how do you train one to begin with? Let alone getting it to lay almost dormant on the ground for that period of time until Dar picks him up?

Then there's that nostalgic feeling of the 90's vs. a parallel world without modern technology. That part I like, and also am missing the 80-90's when ppl. were more friendly (Started to become worse during the 90's though) and not like today were we're screwing one another over something as trivial as monetary issues, or even worse, status. I'm not saying that y2k is when it all started or anything, 'cos it did way before that, I'd say like the 70's or something like that, probably before that, but what I'm saying is that it has escalated enormously since technology grew into what it is today when it's easier to hide behind a computer instead of socialize as we did 'back then'.

With this I want to point out that "thanks" to science we've become increasingly obsessed about, or should I write picky about how well a movie is made, what funding it had, how good the directors (status) are etc. This is what passes for good movies nowadays. Yeah, sure, a lot of them ARE good, but that's most likely because they (Companies behind them) were well funded and all of that ballet. Back in the old days the filming-crews were experimenting with new cameras, lenses, and generally improvised whenever something difficult to shoot came up. They didn't have the same kind of funding either, as the the investors weren't aware whether it'd be a success or not. And by saying that, they also didn't have that much insight into the technical stuff (A.k.a. - This is how the movie will turn out to become!).

It bothers me that ppl. are ignorant of such things, as well as clanking down on actors ("Bad" movies in general), when it's really the (casting-) directors fault, or just a bad written script. It's rarely ppl. take a movie for what it is and how much heart has been put into it.

This movie I think they mostly did for fun, and because we ppl. always have it in for cultural hick-ups and also we like it when disasters happen and all that jazz.

I gave this 6 out of 10 just because it's fun, retro, and I like Mark Singer (Mostly from V-series really) as an actor.

This time, it gets more interesting, but in some scenes too violent or out of control. Once again, now grown up Dar still has his pets and has to kill his brother after trying to discover what the real world looks like. Dar also discovers a new friend who lives in the city of Los Angeles where Dar's brother entered. It's not that bad until Dar's brother tries to destroy the world. In the beginning of the movie, some kids who are allowed to see this might be interested seeing a scene where the crow who was in the first movie nibbles some of the villian's face. They just don't show blood to prove it.

Like the first Beastmaster movie this is s so-so ripoff of Andre Norton's Beastmaster and Lord of Thunder, great science fiction about the last survivor of the Navajo nation who arrives on a new planet following earth's destruction during a war with the alien Xik, and learns to deal with his loss and love his new home Marc Singer's character in no way resembles Hosteen Storm and his animal companions are only close to the book. This is basically a cheapo that owes more to the Hercules movies of the 60's than to Sci-Fi.