Wizards of the Lost Kingdom II (1989) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Hilariously bad
Lloyd-2314 November 2000
Warning: Spoilers
My guess is that this film was made by idiots, because it would take an extraordinary team of geniuses to make a film this awful deliberately.

Supposedly, many people enjoy bad films, even when they know that the films are bad. I don't. This film is the glorious exception. Whereas many films are just bad and boring, this one transcends its incompetence, and presents the viewer with a spectacle of such consistent and unremitting low-quality, that one is left fighting for breath. You will be astounded that anyone capable of taking the lens cap off the camera could have considered this film worth making. This is definitely a film to be watched with many friends, and several beers.

The genre is "fantasy" of the swords and sorcery type. The plot is the usual: boy becomes wizard, joins a small party of heroes to defeat the local evil sorcerer-ruler. This is near enough the plot of all fantasy films. Powerful rulers who use magic are always evil. What sets this film apart from the tedious mass, though, is that it is enlivened throughout by jaw-droppingly abysmal dialogue, costumes, incidents and effects.

This film cannot be spoiled by "spoilers". Indeed, the only way to appreciate it is spot as many atrocious things in it as you can. Here I present some of the things to watch out for, and doubtless you and your ale-soaked friends will spot many more.

The pitiful shack in the middle of the woods, which on the inside looks like a studio set, and turns out to be the local tavern.

The bartender, clad in black, with a big ornate black sword on his back, who at first claims to be a "simple bartender" as he polishes a leather tankard, but who then starts a fight in his own tavern, before admitting that he is a "hero" (yes - that's actually the word they use!)

The villainous sorcerer, with the terrifying name of "Veneer" whose dialogue for almost all of the film consists entirely of demonic evil laughter. This man is pointlessly evil. For instance, he forbids his own population to drink from the well. WHY?

The appallingly-costumed guards around the well, who carry swords in their hands at all times, because they lack scabbards, and who fight with the speed of a pouncing limpet and the wit of kapok.

The well itself, which consists of a stone wall encircling some water. The water actually comes up to the rim of the well-head, suggesting that the local water-table is three feet above ground level.

The gladiators fighting inside an arena which is simply a high wooden fence enclosing a circle of ground. Why are they fighting? No one can see them.

The "hero" they happen across in the well-lit dungeon, who, on being freed from his bonds, finds his sword nearby on the floor. This man rescues three girls from a cell. These all look like cheer-leaders and all have shampooed and blow-dried hair, as well as zips up the backs of their dresses.

The fight between two monsters. Each is rather obviously a man in a costume. One clue is the bare arms revealed occasionally during the struggle, as the make-up doesn't go all the way up the actors' arms, and the sleeves of their shirts are rather short. Both monsters drop dead simultaneously, without a mark visible on either.

The moment when it is suggested that the heroes incite revolt. Immediately the scene cuts to some footage, very obviously taken from another film, of many people fighting each other apparently at random.

The shop which has a window, but no door. The "merchandise" is a few paltry things on the windowsill. Saving on building a door, the scene cuts to the interior.

The "secret passage" which is huge, easy to find, and leads straight into the dungeons of the villain's stronghold.

The moment when the villain has magically adhered some peoples' feet to the floor, and he gloats and walks not just to within easy punching distance of them, but actually between them, and within punching distance of both.

I have not seen Wizards of the Lost Kingdom, but it seems to be in a similar league of inspired dreadfulness. I believe that there was even a third in this series of films. I am agog at the brazen cheek of anyone who could commission a follow-up to this film with a straight face. If these films were commercially successful, it was not because their makers knew what they were doing.
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
"Show me where the sword is, or I'll skewer you like you've never been skewered before."
bensonmum223 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Tyor, a young wizard in training, has been chosen by fate to defeat the three evil lords who are terrorizing the kingdom. Together with his mentor, Caedmon, and some help from a few other friends, Tyor must find the mystical amulet, sword, and chalice if he is to bring piece to the land.

First, I'm not sure why this is called Wizards of the Lost Kingdom II as it has absolutely nothing to do with the original Wizards of the Lost Kingdom. While that's not necessarily a bad thing because the first movie was so bad, it's an odd decision to call this Part II.

Next, like the first movie, this one is so juvenile it's ridiculous. Who was the target audience for this thing? Fights that are poorly choreographed, humor that never hits it's mark, and special effects that are just terrible. I love a good sword and sorcerer type movie, but this bloodless thing leaves a lot to be desired. If the humor ever worked, it might be okay as a parody, but it doesn't. And then there's the liberally use of stock footage. Whole scenes are ripped right out of other movies like Barbarian Queen. I know it saved money, but it's lazy film making.

The only reason I've rated Wizards II higher than Wizards I is the cast. With David Carradine, Sig Haig, and Lana Clarkson, they could have made an entertaining movie. But all, especially Carradine, seem to be uninterested and in it for a paycheck.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
we must have this on DVD!
TheGuru-427 February 2002
The previous poster pretty much said it all - this movie contains flubs on ever level, from costumes to special effects, dialogue, editing, sound editing, continuity, and just plain out-and-out stupidity. My friend's kid brother enjoyed this film in a serious way back in 1990 - but he was only 9 years old so that makes sense. Even at 15 we understood how lame this really was. And yet we watched it so many times and laughed harder and longer than most movies that are intentional comedies! Some more examples of badness:

The warrior princess character uses bows and arrows and can somehow shoot them from impossible angles, i.e. killing men while standing in a tree and they are bending over, yet still hitting them squarely in the heart. I guess the arrow ricocheted off the dirt up into his chest.

Our "hero" fights a battle against a tentacled styrofoam creature that is shown in brief 1 second flashes with lots of dry ice to mask it's cheesiness. Somehow, the hero kills it though it's not really shown.

The hero goes from standing with his sword across his back, then cut away to some villagers, cut back - suddenly he is brandishing the sword! Guess it would be too much effort to see him unsheath it.

One evil wizard guy looks like Commander Data from Star Trek, right down to his gold painted face.

A final scene is a total ripoff of the whole Star Wars theme of "strike him down and you will turn to the Dark Side". Some sample dialogue (from memory):

"Don't you know that even if you embrace the thought of killing him, you will become evil and join him and NOT kill him, GET IT?"

Suddenly George Lucas sounds like Shakespeare. :)

A few more quotes (said in all seriousness in this movie):

"This is a hard time for heroes kid" "Hey - I'll see you at 7:30" (don't think they used time in such increments in the middle ages) "Now shut up - or start dancing, one or the other" "To the king and the queen of all creation, HAIL." "What can you do against the power of the Amulet of Light?!"

In conclusion, rent this !!
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I love watching bad movies but even this was too bad to watch
jandg42063 October 2020
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.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
you have to draw the line somewhere
cat-that-goes-by-himself18 October 2007
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.
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Incompetence
boblipton1 October 2020
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.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Amazing
the_ass6919 May 2009
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.
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Utterly Brilliant
gavin69428 October 2017
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.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
does this film need a summary
flipper3313 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
OK aside from my vote which was cast to get your attention, would you watch it if i gave a 1, this film is so bad it's good, if you get this to see a good story, great acting or fantastic special effects, you may be disappointed, this film looks like it was made on a budget that could make 10 seasons of blake's 7, the only good thing about this movie was susan lee Hoffman thighs killing a guard, and if they made a film of her killing guards with her thighs for an hour and a half, it would be a thousand times better than this film, in fairness thou this is a funny film when it's not trying to be a barbarian queen rip off, and sid haig is always good for a laugh even in something this bad, there is no real surprises in this film it's a standard good kid vs bad wizard film with a happyish ending, it is worth a look if you can find it.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Trivial fantasy sequel
lor_9 May 2023
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.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed