Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

You won't be disappointed!

Very disappointing...

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

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.

To say that this movie is poor quality would be somewhat of an overstatement. It's really hard to decide which is worse, the dialogue or the acting. Dolph Lundgren really drew the short straw with this one, which is to say that while his performance was acceptable, it was seriously let down by the performances of those around him. There seems to be some build up at the beginning, but all tension vanishes after the first ambush and even the plot twists are poorly executed as the movie progresses falling far short of the plot twists of the original movie (Farmer being revealed as the King was actually a decent plot twist that had some build up where as the reveal of Granger being the King hits with the bluntness of a hammer).For all the talk of magic and medieval warfare, very little of it is shown at all throughout the film, which makes the cover and general theme of the movie very misleading. Never once throughout the entire film is Dolph ever seen in a suit of armor, and the only time he holds a sword at all is near the end after all the plot twists have been revealed (and he never uses it).Even hardcore Dolph fans are going to have trouble watching him in this performance, which isn't to say that his performance is bad (mediocre might be a suitable word for it) but the overall setting, the acting, the story and the dialogue I would advise any and all to give this one a miss.

I picked this up at the video store because I'm a sucker for this genre. While I hardly thought the first movie was great or even good, it was at least watchable, fair, I think someone else said and I would agree. Given that there are so many really bad movies of this sort, I latched onto this hoping it would be at least equal to the first, even though Dolph in the lead role almost made me put it back down. Alas, it's as bad as I feared it might be. I'm third though it and don't know I can finish it. Dolph's character's moaning about just wanting to be left alone, left to sleep and let's just get it over with seem quite sincere, I believe that's exactly how he felt during the filming. Jason may not be everyone's favorite actor, but he manages to keep that angry mood notched up through the first film and it helped keep the film from becoming as boring and pitiful as this one is shaping up to be.Not sure one can "spoil" this movie, but spoiler alert because I'm gonna describe a "scene"I'm cringing, the 'healer', after a spat with Dolph, comes back and says "If we shall perish anon, I will not die unfulfilled" then immediately starts taking of her clothes while Dolph says "unfulfilled?". Then sighs, rolls his eyes and says "Oh, right" and lays back for her to have her way with him. Really? I mean Really?

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.