IMDb RATING
4.2/10
3.8K
YOUR RATING
Dar is a warrior who can talk to the beasts. He is forced to travel to Earth to stop his evil brother from stealing an atomic bomb and turning their native land from a desert into, well - a ... Read allDar is a warrior who can talk to the beasts. He is forced to travel to Earth to stop his evil brother from stealing an atomic bomb and turning their native land from a desert into, well - a desert.Dar is a warrior who can talk to the beasts. He is forced to travel to Earth to stop his evil brother from stealing an atomic bomb and turning their native land from a desert into, well - a desert.
Lawrence Dobkin
- Adm. Binns
- (as Larry Dobkin)
Steve Donmyer
- Police Officer
- (as Steve Donmeyer)
Richard L. Duran
- Guard #1
- (as Richard Duran)
James Patten Eagle
- Soldier
- (as Jim Eagle)
Featured reviews
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!
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.
2erha
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaThe subtitle of the film is "Through the Portal of Time," but the plot doesn't involve travel through a time portal. The characters travel through a portal to a parallel universe where the 1991 Earth exists.
- GoofsIn the first film, Dar's symbol is on his left hand. In this film, it's on his right hand, as seen in the battle against the creature, at about 19:20.
- ConnectionsFeatured in The Making of 'Beastmaster 2: Through the Portal of Time' (1991)
- How long is Beastmaster 2: Through the Portal of Time?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- El señor de las bestias II
- Filming locations
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $6,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $869,325
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $381,889
- Sep 2, 1991
- Gross worldwide
- $869,325
- Runtime1 hour 47 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was Beastmaster 2: Through the Portal of Time (1991) officially released in India in English?
Answer