IMDb रेटिंग
3.1/10
5.5 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंAn ex-Special Forces soldier gets thrown back to medieval times to fulfill an ancient prophecy and ends up finding redemption for his own battlefield experiences.An ex-Special Forces soldier gets thrown back to medieval times to fulfill an ancient prophecy and ends up finding redemption for his own battlefield experiences.An ex-Special Forces soldier gets thrown back to medieval times to fulfill an ancient prophecy and ends up finding redemption for his own battlefield experiences.
Natalie Burn
- Elianna
- (as Natalia Guslistaya)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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.
"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-.
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
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.
Uwe Boll is the stuff of legends, he's a director so detested that he's become one of those things that is trendy to hate. People slate him and rate his movies without even seeing them and I find that a damn shame.
The trouble with Boll is he doesn't have a style, you watch a Bruckheimer/Bay/Spielberg/Nolan etc film you can tell it's one of theres whereas Boll has no identity beyond his love of adapting video games.
I personally don't think the hatred is justified, yes he's done some stinkers and yes the man himself is a lunatic but he has done some very enjoyable films as well.
In The Name Of The King (2007) wasn't one of them, but it was passable. This sequel however is a cliched mess.
It was doomed from the outset, Lungren turned the roll down and only later changed his mind due to his divorce and financial situation. So immediatly you have a leading man who doesn't want to be there, and was vocal about this fact.
To make matters worse Lungren injured himself on the first day of filming, this is evident throughout the movie as he is barely mobile and has a nasty limp.
The film itself is a highly cliched tale involving a man who is dragged through time and forced to fullfill a prophecy. Yeah, exactly.
The Good:
Natalie Burn & Aleks Paunovic
CGI is better than expected
The Bad:
Script is poor
Stupidly cliched
Lungrens injury is blatant
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
Every fantasy movie needs a black forest from which no man has ever made out alive!
The trouble with Boll is he doesn't have a style, you watch a Bruckheimer/Bay/Spielberg/Nolan etc film you can tell it's one of theres whereas Boll has no identity beyond his love of adapting video games.
I personally don't think the hatred is justified, yes he's done some stinkers and yes the man himself is a lunatic but he has done some very enjoyable films as well.
In The Name Of The King (2007) wasn't one of them, but it was passable. This sequel however is a cliched mess.
It was doomed from the outset, Lungren turned the roll down and only later changed his mind due to his divorce and financial situation. So immediatly you have a leading man who doesn't want to be there, and was vocal about this fact.
To make matters worse Lungren injured himself on the first day of filming, this is evident throughout the movie as he is barely mobile and has a nasty limp.
The film itself is a highly cliched tale involving a man who is dragged through time and forced to fullfill a prophecy. Yeah, exactly.
The Good:
Natalie Burn & Aleks Paunovic
CGI is better than expected
The Bad:
Script is poor
Stupidly cliched
Lungrens injury is blatant
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
Every fantasy movie needs a black forest from which no man has ever made out alive!
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाDolph Lundgren had turned down Uwe Boll's offer once, before he eventually agreed on the advice of associate producer Bob Van Ronkel who had introduced them during a festival in Kazakhstan. Lundgren said in an interview to Empire magazine: "It was an experience, it wasn't exactly my taste, but I did it for other reasons. I was getting divorced at the time and I needed some cash quickly to pay for a few things... lawyers."
- गूफ़When in front of king's castle gates cars parked behind the trees can be seen several times.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is In the Name of the King: Two Worlds?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- In the Name of the King 2
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $45,00,000(अनुमानित)
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें