Schwerter des Königs - Zwei Welten

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.

To be fair to this movie, it might have had a chance had it been directed and produced by someone else - anyone else - than the now infamous Uwe Boll. Mr Boll can perhaps most accurately be described as a modern-day Ed Wood, and is at best a director whose work produces performances of the finest teak, whose stories have the gravitas and literacy of a MacDonalds burger wrapper, the visual crafting and fine artistic sensibilities of a no parking sign, and whose cinematic inspiration apparently stems solely from bargain bin video games of the 1980s.

If you want to know what this film is like, simply look up Uwe's resume on this website and check out any or all of the titles he has written, directed and produced. They are all pretty much on the same level. How he still draws in investors to any project he is connected to mystifies me completely.

But there is one great thing about Uwe Boll. I know with absolute certainty that if his name is on the credits in any capacity whatsoever, to avoid that film like the plague. Somehow I missed seeing it with this film, my attention being drawn aside by the fact that apparently Jason Statham was in the first In the Name of the King movie. I should pay more attention. Mea culpa.

Thank you.

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

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.

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.