Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

GarnettTeenage The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

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

gabriel_lan-260-472056 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.

Floated2 Im not exactly sure I even bothered to watch this. Just by reading some reviews, and viewing the trailer, one can tell alone that this film was set-up to fail. I tried giving it a chance but the film just isn't good. Not a surprise really because Uwe Boll directed it. The first one was also awful but that had Jason Statham, Ray Liotta, Ron Pearlman, Burt Reynolds, Leelee Sobieski and had some unintentional comedy from the lines and mid-evil fantasy but this one was just boring and ridiculously insane. Some would find parts in this as comedy but I really didn't. Even though Two Wolds was only 96 mins, it felt longer.I don't hate Uwe Boll like others. Id actually like to see him do a good film (Rampage was good, Darfur was decent and Postal was kind of funny) but apart from that, most of his films are trash. It's as if he just rushed in production and the script and the end result ends up coming out as trash. He shouldn't direct video game type films, seeing as Rampage was loosely based on a video game and that turned out surprisingly well. In The Name of the King: Two Wolds has a current rating of 3.6 with only 638 votes (showing that most people are sick of him by now with so little votes, but the film just been released I believe a few weeks ago- votes will go up by the end of the year).I know this film was bad but I think Boll has a setup for a sequel. The last scene shows something like it, in which Dolph Lundgren gets home from the mid-evil times to the present after following the "fake" king into the portal, they start attacking one another and Lundgren drowns him in his bathtub. Afterwards he goes in the kitchen then pours himself a whiskey and talks to a picture of his dead war comrades. The camera then zooms in on the medallion then cuts to the black screen. Film ends, credits roll.

tjabbalabba 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.