New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

This is part of what makes The Beastmaster so simultaneously fascinating and infuriating. I don't have a problem with someone deciding to mimic another successful movie. That happens all the time, and in the case of this film, there are actually some benefits. Dar's ability to speak to animals is intriguing, but like most of the more interesting aspects of Beastmaster, nothing is ever fleshed out. How did he get his powers? Are they from the Gods? Is it a mutation? Did he have a 104 fever for three days when he was a toddler? How does it work?

You may think I'm nitpicking, but the entire film is like this. From one scene to another, events are either influenced by things that happen offscreen or are never explained in at all. Dar's powers add an interesting element to the story - he can command animals to protect him, he can see through their eyes, and he seems to care for them very deeply. But we never discover much about how his powers work or their extent. When Dar wants to see what's happening miles away, he calls out a hawk to do some sightseeing. When he needs delicate work done, he has a pair of ferrets at his disposal. But whenever Dar and his friends are being chased by mutants on horseback, it never occurs to him that he can just command the horses to stop.

And it never occurs to anyone to ask him.

At some point, Maax and his followers apparently overthrew the government and imprisoned the king and enslaved the population. But all of this happens offscreen, and it's never clear exactly what the hell is happening in the realm of Aruk and why. Who is Maax? Why does he like barbecuing little kids? Why was such a sadistically evil whack job even working for Zed in the first place? Does Zed ride a hog? How did he get captured? What is even happening in this movie? There are long stretches of time where literally nothing happens to move the plot forward, or dialogue is delivered that means next to nothing, robbing the story of interest and momentum.

The Beastmaster was clearly made to capitalize on the success of another, better film, but it never even attempts to capitalize on what newness it does bring to the table. Rather than engage in any world building or expand on these characters' stories and motivations, Beastmaster is content to just check boxes off the Conan The Barbarian Emulation Matrix. There's a love interest, and she's tougher than she looks. There's a sidekick, played by John Amos, who is still super buff at the time and doesn't get nearly enough time killing people on screen. And speaking of the battles, marc Singer has like three moves with that sword, tops. There's just nothing interesting going on in this film at any time.

Ever.

The only upside here is that I was ready to be disappointed, so in a way, I got exactly what I wanted. There's a significant gap between the film Beastmaster IS and the film it THINKS it is. As a child, I was probably more in love with the potential of this movie than the movie itself. Every aspect of this story that might have made it unique and memorable are put on the back-burner in favor or reminding you of another movie. For that reason, I might suggest that if you're in the mood for a little swords and sorcery, skip Beastmaster altogether and check out That Other Movie instead.

Continued:       1       2       3