Recensioni degli utenti

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!

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.

It amazes me that people are still giving this guy money to make movies. He has yet again demonstrated that he should never ever ever make another movie again. The story was probably one of the worst ideas he has had yet. After the last movie with a great cast being, yet another, total let down I didn't have high expectations on this one. Even with the extremely low expectations I had going in to this one it was worse than I could possibly imagine. The acting was mediocre, and the overall plot was not interesting at all. I was ashamed that Dolf even took the part in this movie.

Save your money and don't bother with this.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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!

First of: We bought this movie because we wanted to try out a 3D movie. I did like the first film (Statham) and Lundgreen is an OK actor - we knew what to expect. There is no way one can take this movie serious - and it never claims to be one. Dolph has some dry humor, the ladies are nice to look at, it even has some some story and a few amusing situations. No, it was not a waste of money but it's no A-movie either. The story is known from the summary, so I will not go into it. The only thing disturbing was too much camera movement sometimes - that gives you a headache in a 3D movie. The effects are good as it was shot in 3D not after wards altered. Sometimes the scenes appeared like in a computer game but still, I'll probably watch it again in half a year or so. Don't expect too much and you will have a nice TV-evening. Better than some crap that's around or on TV at any given night.

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.

"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-.

When a person wants to describe something, or try to convey a thought so everyone can understand it probably, one generally doesn't use a tired internet meme like the summery is. However in this instance I could think of no other thing to convey my feelings. This movie is a perfect example of a movie that should never been made. The quality and production of the movie do not even meet straight to DVD standards, and can easily be beaten by amateur film makers with far less "experience" and far less money to produce it.

The script is a just a failure. My friend and I (who had the unfortunate hope this movie would so bad its good) concluded the script writer was either high or six when making this. Coupled with the poor sound quality (to me it sounded like a lot of the actors just mumbled their lines) and even worse plot line, one wonders how this movie was ever allowed out of production. Hell we even found ourselves more concerned with the bath tube than anything else in the movie.

If you are looking for a bad movie to play a drinking game with, or something so bad you can laugh at it, this is still not the movie for you. This is the type of movie you never want to see, nor subject your worse enemies too.

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

First let me say, this movie had potential. Just like the one before it, which I thought was pretty good, the concept was there. The problem is Dolph Lundgren can barely walk, never mind swing a sword. The man is disabled and has no business playing an action hero at this point. It hurt me just watching him try to bend over to pick up the sword. Someone needs to tell him it's over. It's the humane thing to do.

With that being said, another problem is the special effects are absolutely horrible. The one positive is some of the supporting actors did a decent job, but not good enough to save the movie. It's to bad, a younger actor could have made this a decent flick.

I was surprised by this movie. I figured it could not be worse then the first In the name of the king that had Jason Statham in it. That one was pure rubbish! And I was right about this movie! It was not worse, in fact it was better then the first one. I guess the biggest reason is they only had one actor who was known (Dolph Lundgren) and the rest were unknown actors and that the story in this movie wasn't a blatant rip off of the Lord of the Rings like the first one was. In fact I am not exactly sure how this is a sequel at all since it did not relate to the terrible first movie in any way.

Don't get me wrong, if you're expecting a movie like Lord of the Rings or Kingdom of Heaven this is going to disappoint you. Uwe Boll is not that kind of movie maker. Yet if you are expecting a great TV movie then this one should surprise you because it was not boring or horrible. I guess I can say that I will probably watch this movie again. Check it out if you like medieval type movies with swords.

Jesus Christ, Really?? except for having at least one recognizable actor this film seems a lot like a straight to video lionsgate film. This is basically Blacknight(Martin Lawrence) with a little violence. Dolph has made his fair share of straight to video movies but this one is a special kind of suck. Dolph obviously is not keeping himself in shape either. This shows by the way he basically limps every time he walk or attempts to run. I'm thinking he and Steven Segall have the same agent because they both are totally out of shape but yet keep making bullshit straight to video or USA channel movies. Get back into shape you if you are going to make action films you jerks.

First lets say i am not that much of a Boll hater... He did made 2 very bad Bloodrayne movies, a franchise i truly love, but the third was lets say... acceptable.

I meant i actually enjoy some Boll movies, like Rampage where the dude start killing everybody in a full armor, of course Boll had to put his sucky touch and abuse a shaky cam, but the movie was actually interesting. In the name of the king 1 was also a fair movie, i enjoyed it, and as much as i saw the bad cinematography of alone in the dark i kinda enjoyed the movie for what it was.

This being said, i watch ITNOTK2 with an interest cause one , Dolph is in it, two, Natassia is in it, and three, like i said i enjoyed the first one.

Now i think this movie had a lot of potential, Dolph is very funny and his line aren't bad at all, its kinda made to be a mix of a comedy and an action movie, sure its nothing original but in its own category it could be interesting. Yet there is again the Boll touch that made it borderline average(for me anyway)

1) Shaky Cam again(why Uwe, WHY, it never give anything good) 2) The fort... OH MY GOD it looked so FAKE and CHEAP !!! 3) CGI... didn't look much impressive really, cheap CGI effects.

As for the king, i recognize the actor, i don't think he was bad in itself, it probably come from the fact that for a King, he look pathetic, his clothing is terrible, the fort look like its made of cardboard and he barely seem to have 100 mens...

So what can i say... its signed Boll... I don't understand how Natassia love so much to work with him... she is a good actress and before she started to work for Boll she was actually getting fun and interesting roles...

The only thing I enjoyed about this movie was ....The Cover... It has Dolph in a suit of armour and a nice fortress that was not seen in the movie.....

But they did have in the 43rd minute.....

(As the guards close the fortress doors and the camera pans out...in between the right side of the fortress and that big tree.....you'll see an Automobile, 4 door I think.... lol)

And what was that camera shot with the king setting his wig at the beginning. I thought that it would be significant later on in the movie...but No..

Nope!! definitely not a keeper

First of all, Uwe Bolls slick visuals to well to mask the fact this has an eighth of the 1st ones budget. Indeed, during some scenes esp the fight ones there were noticeable editing tactics deployed to make them passable. As a hole on the fight sequences, they were well enough choreographed, but not all of them contained a great sense of thrill or excitement.

Some of the scenes were plain forced for stories sake. Like the friendship between granger and a kings loyal servant is pathetic.

The main problem here, is this movie with a $7.5mill budget takes itself too seriously (drama-fantasy) at some points, despite appreciated lighthearted sarcastic jests by Dulph lundgren. There was a twist kinda which was okay. The storyline was a Lil eh and the characters were a lil meh it was a action/decision driven plot to fulfil a prophecy. It was all technically competent and okay.

Whilst the first one had awesome moments and LOL worthy scripting, this one had neither miscasting or brilliance. Hard to laugh with or at, completely mediocre, although I imagine the directors commentary would be a hoot.