Beastmaster 2: Attraverso il portale del tempo

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.

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!

...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.

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.

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.