In the Name of the King: Two Worlds

Let me begin by saying that I found the first "In the Name of the King" quite entertaining and I gave it a 7 or 8 stars, if I recall correctly, even though it didn't deserve them. This film may not even deserve the three I'm giving it. I'm trying my best to think up of something coherent to say in this film's defence, and I find it quite problematic. Even if we forget about the blatantly obvious car behind the trees in a few medieval scenes, there's still a lot of problems remaining. The acting feels unnatural, events happen for no reason, epic armies consist of ten men on each side. Come on, herr Boll! You did far better with the first one. Yes, the first one was hands-down better. I thought about racking my brains on some of the things and events in the film, but this will mean that I should include spoilers, which I wouldn't really like.

The largest problem however seems to be that the film attempts to be "larger" than it is. It tries to imply that it's grand, while constantly contradicting itself through the points suppiled above.

I really like this film's poster though. Please, dear reader, open a new tab with the picture and analyse it. You see our hero Granger clad in what seems to be full plate armour, holding a longsword heroically. You see a battle of epic proportions happening in the background. You see a fair lady dish out the pain using a hand-and-a-half sword or something like that. You see a dragon that breathes fire with devastating effect. You see that guy with the beard on the left of the sword-maiden (played by Aleks Paunovic) about to stab someone in this conflict of epic proportions. You see a great city, or at least a part of it, in the background. What I really like about this poster is that the film also contradicts each and every single damn thing in it. Not ONE thing is the same as the poster portrays it.

If you're a masochist like I would appear to be (for watching yet another Boll-film), or if you like bad films like I do, go ahead and give it a watch. Else, please go and watch something more entertaining. Your life is more valuable than this film.

By second most boring film I mean it was the longest 90 minutes of my life, the most boring film I've ever seen was a low budget horror movie called NECROSIS, a movie with a pace so slow it actually feels like its standing still.

However, deep in the back of my mind I don't think Dolph Lundgren is very happy with this film, to think the other potential candidates for the lead role were Randy Couture and Steve Austin (Imagine how it would've turned out then.) the film honestly is terrible, Uwe Boll doesn't create scenes that are great to look at, they are dull and are basically just tight close ups of the actors, most of the cast don't even fit their roles, Lochlyn Munro is completely miss cast as the king, I mean I don't have a problem with him as an actor or otherwise but he doesn't work as the king, Natassia Malthe who is a gorgeous woman and a great actress, struggles to say her lines with a straight face but if you hear the stuff she has to say you can't blame her.

The plot itself is actually pretty lousy and slower than a snail, to be more specific if you're familiar with many adventure games where you ask a character a question about something and he or she takes one to two hours to give you the full history of everything than that's how this film really is for a full 62 hours before the first action scene eventually happens.

Overall, the one good thing about it is that its a great alternative to a sleeping pill but otherwise its better to go for something directed by someone other than Uwe Boll, I know making movies is hard but you can only cut a film so much slack.

It amazes me that people are still giving this guy money to make movies. He has yet again demonstrated that he should never ever ever make another movie again. The story was probably one of the worst ideas he has had yet. After the last movie with a great cast being, yet another, total let down I didn't have high expectations on this one. Even with the extremely low expectations I had going in to this one it was worse than I could possibly imagine. The acting was mediocre, and the overall plot was not interesting at all. I was ashamed that Dolf even took the part in this movie.

Save your money and don't bother with this.

The first In the Name of the King movie was a bit silly, but not bad as sword and sorcery stuff goes - and Uwe somehow got a whole cast full of real actors to and decent enough effects people to work on it.

This abomination, on the other hand, was so terrible that I, who can usually find some value is just about anything, gave up in disgust after that first half hour or so - life is too short to waste time on stuff this bad.

Even Dolph Lundgren, who can usually do a fair impersonation of a wall, was given absolutely nothing to work with here - and I'd never heard of anybody else in the cast.

Rewatching the original In the Name of the King is a much better use of your time than trying to watch this thing.

"Remember who your meant to be, remember that you must return to this place. It was my prophecy to die for you, it is your destiny to be here." Granger (Lundgren) is an ex-special forces soldier who is now teaching karate to young children. While at home one night he is attacked by a strange being and is somehow transported to a different time. After being told of a prophecy it is up to him to save the strange world that he is now in. I have to admit that I tried to watch the first one a few times and could never make it through (even though I love Statham). This one made the first one look great. Without trying to be too harsh I couldn't tell if the acting was really bad or if it was the writing that made it that way. The fight scenes were this side of High School plays and the story was something that was thought of in a drunken night. All that said no one watches this type of movie for acting or plot anyway. Overall, I couldn't really finish either of these movies but if you liked the first one I think you will like this one too. I did not. I give it a C-.