While I wouldn't call "In the Name of the King: Two Worlds" the worst movie I've seen from the notorious Uwe Boll, it is (to date) the DULLEST movie I've seen from him. Watching it, I didn't sense any enthusiasm, either from the cast (including Dolph Lundgren, who is usually a fun B movie actor) or from behind the camera. This may be because the script is both highly predictable and filled with far more talk than action. The limited action, by the way, is poorly constructed, with rapid editing and lame choreography. The film also looks quite cheap, with most of the budget apparently blown on the costumes, with little else for sets and special effects. Two points of merit can be found in the movie, however. The filmed in British Columbian wilderness backdrop does look nice at times, and the movie gets points for making its central protagonist Canadian (something you seldom see in fantasy films).

I know in theory there must be someone out there who enjoyed Uwe Boll's "In the Name of the King: a Dungeon Siege Tale", and they're wondering how the sequel "In The Name of the King II" rates in comparison. I'll get to that in a second, but first I'm sorry your brakes gave out that night and you ended up killing that gypsy. You really need to get that curse that was put onto you reversed because that sorry excuse for a Jason Statham medieval fantasy is awful and whatever spell has been put on you that makes you think otherwise is going to ruin your life. This sequel, well, it's even worse. None of the actors return so we've got a cheaply made, boring and nonsensical piece that makes the first one look like "Return of the King". Our story begins in present day Earth (what?!) where ex special forces Granger (Dolph Lundgren) is just sitting comfortably in his study when he is attacked by time traveling medieval ninjas! Brought to the past, Granger learns that his appearance has been prophesised. He is "the chosen one" destined to rid the land of the "Dark Ones". Joined by Manhattan (sure whatever), a female doctor (played by Natassia Malthe) Granger unravels a plot that could mean doom for not only the past, but the present as well! This movie is cheaply made and boring. There are no armies of orc wannabees, no giant castles under siege, not even a single wizard battle or any armies on the warpath. There is supposed to be a big reveal later in the film about the villain but this film is so bad and so uninspired you can see the twist coming about 2 seconds after the character is introduced. Characters act completely illogically, changing personalities at the drop of a hat, killing people, or threatening to kill them for whatever reason the plot demands and if you really analyze the movie, you can tell that this must have been written in about half a day. Take for example, the scene where the blind oracle is killed and her body is discovered. Instead of reporting the death to the King, a guard goes over to the King's room, brings him over and shows him the dead body. This is the same king, that doesn't like to be touched and treats everyone else as if they were dirt. What made the guard think the king would care?This movie also suffers from having way too many characters, particularly the women. I guess the attempt here was to have some "strong female characters" in the movie to contrast with Dolph Lungren. We are introduced to 4 female characters, 2 of which get killed off after about 5 minutes of screen time, one of which is absent for more than half of the movie and the last one is only introduced when there's about 20 minutes left. None of these feel like they're developed in any way whatsoever. It just feels like a waste of time trying to memorize who is who because they're tossed away like trash left and right. Writing about this movie is such a chore I'm struggling to figure out what to say because it is completely forgettable and never really interesting. The acting is bad, the few special effects present are cheap and the climax of the movie makes absolutely no sense.This medieval story devolves into what's essentially Dolph trying to prevent the villain from unleashing a weapon of mass destruction into the present. Why would someone living around 1,000 A.D. be concerned about what happens in the year 2000? And of all the schemes to cook up, why a super virus that is neutralized with water? People make fun of the aliens from "Signs" for being easily defeated (and in that film's defense, the bizarre weakness worked itself into a bigger story filled with symbolism and questions of faith), but this is a thousand times worse. Not only is water one of the most common things found on our planet, but the movie can't even keep to its own rules because there is a character that is eventually killed by this virus... while submerged underwater!I also have to draw some attention to the shoddy-looking castle. It appears to be a bunch of Styrofoam walls painted gray with a couple of rock-shaped pieces glued here and there to give the illusion that it's a small fortress. They say the people living there were driven away from the great castle we saw in the climax of the previous film, but you're not fooling anyone. We know that you just couldn't afford to make anything better, something all the more evident when you realize that the rest of the film is set in 3 other locations: Dolph Lungren's house, a meadow with a bunch of wooden huts and a regular forest. I hope I've convinced you of how bad this movie is because it really was a chore to sit through. Yeah you can have a bit of fun pointing out the plot holes (like is the portal through time limited to opening only in Granger's apartment?) and the characters that don't make any sense (like that first female assassin sent against Granger, what was she actually doing? I ask because her actions do not match up with some of the developments we find out later in the story) but this is an abysmal film. It drains you and makes you feel exhausted, like you should just go to sleep and lie there for hours trying to mentally rebuild your mind after a traumatic event. I can't think of a single thing that was actually well done here so don't even check it out because you think you might enjoy it ironically or because it was given to you by someone that's pretending to be your friend. (On DVD, April 18, 2014)

The first movie at least was slightly epic. They had a lot of actors, and then there was Statham and Reynolds, and even though both didn't live up to their full potential, they were better than any actor in this version.This is an even lower budget production, and the acting and script are not very good. The direction was also lacking. The first movie is watchable, if a little drawn out. This movie most likely should be avoided, unless you have to watch it once to see how a movie should not be made.Dolf actually isn't too bad, considering all his other movies. All the rest of the cast might as well be replaced with first timers.

I loved the first one with Statham, so I had at least some hopes for this one. I was sadly mistaken. While the plot for the movie had a good amount of promise, Dolf's acting and the directors' directing left much to be desired. The unknown supporting cast actually performed their parts fairly, but Dolf plodded through his. Get a much better director, a bigger budget and someone like Liam Neeson to play the lead and this movie could be quite good. If you have a choice between doing the laundry or this, get your clothes cleaned. What cgi there was in the movie was so so. The choice of scenery, or location of the film if you may, was quite nice. I think the worst parts were that Dolf wasn't very heroic, camera was jittery like a hand-held and the plot twists were weak at best.