SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

JamieWJackson ...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.

Tony_Hedlund 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.

Alfabeta All the reviewers are making one big mistake. This movie was not suppose to be taken seriously.It was made for kids and teens of the late 80ies or early 90ies and as such it was truly a film of it's time. If you hated that period, or love the first movie so much that you can't even take a joke about it, then this is garbage, but only because it wasn't meant for you. The low budget here and failure of the Beastmaster 1 at the box office (grossed under four mil. with a nine mil. budget) were obviously the reasons to drop the seriousness of the original and to put it in the present day. You can complain about the story, dialog or logic, but again this was made to run, not to win races. If the movie had tried to take itself seriously it would be a total failure, but it doesn't do that for a second (in "our" world, Dar sees a movie theater that's advertising The Beastmaster 2, enough said). To paraphrase Clint Eastwood from Dirty Harry movies: This movie knows it's limitations. It's more of a comedy/parody then usual adventure. Soundtrack (for the time) was also great. Actors aren't taking themselves that seriously either so even the usually irritating "spoiled rich brat" role (played here very well by young Kari Wuhrer) turns out good. So, if you are nostalgic for the 80ies/90ies (cheese) culture, or you liked the first part, and don't mind going out on a cheese limb, you'll have tremendous fun with this attempt to revive Dar in the 90ies (literarly). This is not really the sequel to the first, and don't watch it if that's what you want. It's more of a "what if" fantasy sequel.As for the "why different dimension and not just different time" question: When in history did we have those tall winged humanoid creatures that suck the flash of bones (from the end of part 1)? By the way, the movie ends in the Zoo because of an attempt at a cheap (moneywise) big finale. It's suppose to be the best place for Dar to show all his moves (him being the manipulator of animals).

thewag777 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.