Diagonaldi Very well executed

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Wizard-8 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).

TheLittleSongbird As bad as the first In the Name of the King film was and wasted a potentially good cast of talented actors, this sequel- which doesn't do anything with its much lower budget and largely unknown actors- is even worse. Some of the scenery and the music score are beautiful but that's it for redeeming merits, the film on the whole is a complete shambles and one of the worst sequels I've seen in a whole. The photography is too jittery and has a real shoddy effect in the action sequences and the castle/fortress is really artificial-looking. The special effects are even more fake, the dragon is the least bad effect and brings a speck of excitement when it appears but its design is still anaemic-looking rather than imposing. The costumes don't look all that authentic and the sort you'd find at a medieval dressing up party, and the make-up likewise, too 21st century-like. Even the weapons look like plastic toys. The script is an utter mess and was in desperate need of at least two or three read-throughs, because someone clearly didn't check to see whether it made sense or flowed well. Almost all the time I was asking what did the writers and characters mean by that?, and just as bad are the use of done-to-death fantasy clichés and the awkward mix of medieval jargon and contemporary-speak, never did this viewer like they had been effectively transported back in time to the medieval era. The story is far too thin to sustain the length, with some scenes feeling like filler that leads nowhere, it makes the further mistake of being so dull that it makes the nearly 100 minute length seem longer. The action/battle sequences are shoddily shot and edited, sometimes not being able to see what's going on, and have no tension or excitement whatsoever, doesn't help that they are very under-populated. Uwe Boll proves that his reputation as one of the worst and most inept directors around is justified, the ending is a real cop-out with the last fight like one big stupid anti-climax and the characters are ones we know nothing about other than their roles in the movie and what kind of character they are and never care for as a result. The acting is awful all round, especially from a woefully miscast Lochlyn Munro who portrays one of the weakest and least threatening Kings you'll find on any movie with the charisma of a squashed cabbage. Natassia Malfe speaks her lines like she's constantly gasping for air and like she's reading them from a cue, and the most and only really well known actor Dolph Lundgren should have been perfect for the lead role but is wooden and looks befuddled a lot of the time. Other from Christina Jastrzembska nobody looks natural in their roles. Overall, the first film may have been a very bad film but it is a masterpiece compared to this shambolic mess of a sequel. 1/10 Bethany Cox

boltar469 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.

project_ydna_681 I almost didn't watch this movie due to the extreme hate comments against uwe ball as the director but then again no one who has actually graduated a real accredited university like myself have any type of realistic feedback on the actual film itself. I love time travel films and mid-evil movies so this was a must watch for me. Considering that fact that this is a low budget film, I couldn't even imagine how they fulled off the special effects with the dragon and Dolph's character Granger really shows a side of the actor that we never knew existed. Overall, please leave your hate comments for uwe ball away from the movie, he directed a good film if you hate him that much then send him letters but do not waste people's time with faulty reviews of a film that was pretty good. I wish the ending would have been more in-depth (but almost no movie is now a days) but other than that it is worth your time if your a time travel movie fan!