Les magiciens du royaume perdu II

Three kingdoms have been overtaken by three evil lords and only Tyor, a teenage boy with magical powers, can restore peace to the land with the help of a bumbling elder, wizard and a hero in each kingdom.

This was Charles Griffith's last feature film credit and is a quasi-sequel to the Argentine-American cult film "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" (1985). Griffith began his career with "Gunslinger" (1955), meaning he spent over 30 years as the right-hand man to B-movie legend Roger Corman.

The film includes stock footage of characters and scenes from "Barbarian Queen" (which starred Lana Clarkson) and "The Warrior and the Sorceress" (starring David Carradine), both of which were also a co-production between Argentina and United States. For the most part, the footage blends in well.

On IMDb, this film has one of the lowest ratings I have ever seen. But, to be honest, I found the film immensely enjoyable. Not good in any technical sense. But get together with a friend of two, grab some beers, and I think this would be a great deal of fun.

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.

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.