King Rising 2: les deux mondes

"Remember who your meant to be, remember that you must return to this place. It was my prophecy to die for you, it is your destiny to be here." Granger (Lundgren) is an ex-special forces soldier who is now teaching karate to young children. While at home one night he is attacked by a strange being and is somehow transported to a different time. After being told of a prophecy it is up to him to save the strange world that he is now in. I have to admit that I tried to watch the first one a few times and could never make it through (even though I love Statham). This one made the first one look great. Without trying to be too harsh I couldn't tell if the acting was really bad or if it was the writing that made it that way. The fight scenes were this side of High School plays and the story was something that was thought of in a drunken night. All that said no one watches this type of movie for acting or plot anyway. Overall, I couldn't really finish either of these movies but if you liked the first one I think you will like this one too. I did not. I give it a C-.

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

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.

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.