Les magiciens du royaume perdu II

Who said that Citizen Kane deserved to be in the top 10, and where is Wizards of the Lost Kingdom 2? Someone give David Carradine a high-five, ASAP. Does anyone else want to throw fifteen bucks to hire the costume designer of this movie to dress up an upcoming wedding? What needs to be said about the plot, other than it's a beautiful template that ignores logic for the sake of a god damned good movie. Buy a six pack, call a friend or text them or whatever it is you do to reach people, sit down in front of a TV when you're already too drunk to drive and watch these actors blow your mind right out of your skull. This movie might be suitable for children, but it's way more suitable for you, who may be able to pick up on the subtle sophistication that oozes from every pore of this hysterical, bloated masterpiece.

It made me look at life with new eyes. Now I will never be the same again, forced to face the world a new man with untold possibility and danger. Does that sound anything near exciting to you? That's not even close to how exciting these special effects are.

My review was written in February 1990 after watching the movie on Media Home Entertainment video cassette.

Lost in the shuffle of recent sequels, this low-budget fantasy pic had a modest release theatrically last year in theaters and video stores and is reviewed here for the record.

A sequel to an equally minor 1985 release, film is piloted with little sense of involvement by Charles B. Griffith, legendary scripter of such pics as "A Bucket of Blood" and "Little Shop of Horrors". Wizard Mel Welles (shop owner Mushnick in "Little Shop", has the task of reuning three kingdoms against evil in a far future era. He's aided by a youngster (Bobby Jacoby) and legendary warrior (David Carradine. During their boring trek, the heroes encounter many well-endowed women, including Lana Clakson, but nothing happens to threaten the film's PG rating. It probably would have worked better targeted for the hard R tag most Roger Corman's films generate. Chief area of interest is the chance to see old Corman regulars, like Welles and Sid Haig again, plus one of the final roles for recently deceased Henry Brandon.

I daresay I am very fond of B or even Z movies. Westerns, sci-fi, horror, fantasy, you name it. I've seen quite a lot of movies ranging from bad to very bad, with an occasional gem flirting with the 'execrable' mark. However, this thing was simply out of scale. It is neither the gaping plot holes, pitiful lines, inept sets nor below 80's D&D scenario storyline. I think it is the way all actors without exception seemed not only bored but plainly ashamed of being immortalized in such a lame show.

They are all, without exception, amazingly clumsy, slow, and boring. I still wonder what coaxed Carradine into this piece of junk - trouble with the IRS maybe ? But the worst disappointment came from the lame performance of Captain Spaulding, head of the unforgettable dysfunctional family of the house of 1000 corpses and the devil's rejects. Yes, this movie even managed to bore the flamboyant Z movie star Sid Haig into near-catatonia. Not a small feat in itself, if you like that sort of things.

Add a terribly annoying soundtrack with garbled voices and very loud out of sync "background" music (in all fairness that last bit could have been due to the appalling state of the venerable VHS tape) and you get something that managed to defeat my unusually high tolerance for *really* cheap movies.

Not even worth a rent unless you invest in enough booze to wash away this tedium.

I love watching old, dumb, cheesy movies. They try hard to be good but are so horribly directed and acted. This movie is definitely the worst movie I have ever seen. The film is set in medieval times but they talk like its the 1980's. David Carradine is his old bad acting self. I still don't understand how people thought he was so good in Kung Fu. The main "hero" is a horribly acting boy trying to become a wizard. He can not act like I mean go grab the next 14 year old you see give him this script and I will guarantee he would do a better job. For those of you who like watching bad movies because of how horrible they are that it's funny this one is definitely horrible but it's not even funny to watch...its more stupid and annoying than anything. Definitely the worst movie I have ever seen hands down. I gave it a 2 out of 10 though because of Lana Clarkson and her 2 "friends" who are always worth at least 1 star no matter how bad the movie is.

I have sworn me a mighty oath to look at every movie I can, to consider it calmly in terms of not just "Did I like it" but its actual value as a piece of cinema. I have seen some dire movies as a result. This one sets a new standard in terms of every part of the multitudinous specialties of the field. It includes dull writing, bad acting, poorly composed shots, badly lit shots, slack editing, poor costuming, awful set design.... well, the list goes on.

True, some of its flaws are standard. People have clean 1980s hair, which for a bunch of peasants in a medieval world is ridiculous.

If your pleasure on watching movies is to make fun of them -- and I know people like that -- then this is the movie for you. If, like me, you hope for something positive to say, something with something in it that is worthwhile, then go watch something else.