In the Name of the King: Two Worlds

Uwe Boll is the stuff of legends, he's a director so detested that he's become one of those things that is trendy to hate. People slate him and rate his movies without even seeing them and I find that a damn shame.

The trouble with Boll is he doesn't have a style, you watch a Bruckheimer/Bay/Spielberg/Nolan etc film you can tell it's one of theres whereas Boll has no identity beyond his love of adapting video games.

I personally don't think the hatred is justified, yes he's done some stinkers and yes the man himself is a lunatic but he has done some very enjoyable films as well.

In The Name Of The King (2007) wasn't one of them, but it was passable. This sequel however is a cliched mess.

It was doomed from the outset, Lungren turned the roll down and only later changed his mind due to his divorce and financial situation. So immediatly you have a leading man who doesn't want to be there, and was vocal about this fact.

To make matters worse Lungren injured himself on the first day of filming, this is evident throughout the movie as he is barely mobile and has a nasty limp.

The film itself is a highly cliched tale involving a man who is dragged through time and forced to fullfill a prophecy. Yeah, exactly.

The Good:

Natalie Burn & Aleks Paunovic

CGI is better than expected

The Bad:

Script is poor

Stupidly cliched

Lungrens injury is blatant

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Every fantasy movie needs a black forest from which no man has ever made out alive!

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.

A sequel with only a tenth of the budget of its predecessor obviously doesn't stand a chance in the comparison. Instead of Burt Reynolds as a king facing an army of 1000 Orcs in leather armour, you get some unknown young man as a king with an army of 20 extras in black cotton. The fortress looks like anyone could destroy it on a Monday morning. The dragon shows some professional CGI effects, one rare point that exceeds the expectations. Nevertheless, if you decide to do a fantasy movie when you are forced to make many restrictions, either the story and characters must save the day (like in 'Warrior Angels'), or you make uncompromising, hilarious trash (such as 'Barbarian Queen'). In "Two Worlds", neither of these two possibilities is accomplished, it must be said.

Movies where fantasy heroes are traveling to the modern age (from 'Beastmaster 2' to 'Masters of the Universe') are usually cheesy. They fortunately tried the other way around here and moved a modern day hero to the distant past: Dolph Lundgren. As Granger the Stranger, he has unusual things to worry about, like drinking water probably full of bacteria, and he certainly has no respect for kings and witches. Natassia Malthe gets the funniest part, which must have been a nice change for her after the Bloodrayne stuff: she is a doctor trying to find out more about the medicine of the future. The story is well paced, so the 90 minutes passed quickly, but I was left with a feeling that I didn't quite get what I expected.

Well, what can u say. You cant blame Uwe Boll for not trying, can you? Make no mistake, this movie is not going to disappoint you - IF you are a true Uwe Boll-fan. Im NOT. You might think Uwe Boll learned from his mistakes from his last movies, but his directing style is not going anywhere - it is still utterly horrible. Two worlds does not have a big budget as some of Uwe bolls other movies, nor are there any bigger names to talk about either. The story is just plain stupid and the way it is told is even more stupid. At some point you will wonder if you are watching a bad comedy or something, cause you simply cant take it seriously. I don't even have to tell you what the movie is about cause you will most likely turn the movie off before you even passed the intro-scene anyway. The movie does not even qualify for television, its that bad. The only reason i watched this movie was to see HOW bad it was. Considering all the movies Uwe Boll has directed, and not progressed an inch from it, Uwe Boll must be the worst director ever out there.

I believe making of this „masterpice" went something like this. Uwe Boll came to the office and said: -hey! Lets make some bad movie for a change! We didn't commit enough of those, didn't we? And they did. Another one. I could write full review, about how acting is completely against art, how camera is operated so badly, that it hurts my eyes, I can write long essay about why it's a great example of bad CGI FX. Bland and pointless story deserves own research I believe and wooden dialogs should exclude the writers for movie-makers-club, and… so on, and so on… But even reading about this movie is completely waste of time. It's enough to know, that this movie is boooooooring and bad! (in – cheaply done context, not bad-ass context) O maybe bad and boooooring? I will never know