King Rising 2: les deux mondes

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.

Im not exactly sure I even bothered to watch this. Just by reading some reviews, and viewing the trailer, one can tell alone that this film was set-up to fail. I tried giving it a chance but the film just isn't good. Not a surprise really because Uwe Boll directed it. The first one was also awful but that had Jason Statham, Ray Liotta, Ron Pearlman, Burt Reynolds, Leelee Sobieski and had some unintentional comedy from the lines and mid-evil fantasy but this one was just boring and ridiculously insane. Some would find parts in this as comedy but I really didn't. Even though Two Wolds was only 96 mins, it felt longer. I don't hate Uwe Boll like others. Id actually like to see him do a good film (Rampage was good, Darfur was decent and Postal was kind of funny) but apart from that, most of his films are trash. It's as if he just rushed in production and the script and the end result ends up coming out as trash. He shouldn't direct video game type films, seeing as Rampage was loosely based on a video game and that turned out surprisingly well. In The Name of the King: Two Wolds has a current rating of 3.6 with only 638 votes (showing that most people are sick of him by now with so little votes, but the film just been released I believe a few weeks ago- votes will go up by the end of the year). I know this film was bad but I think Boll has a setup for a sequel. The last scene shows something like it, in which Dolph Lundgren gets home from the mid-evil times to the present after following the "fake" king into the portal, they start attacking one another and Lundgren drowns him in his bathtub. Afterwards he goes in the kitchen then pours himself a whiskey and talks to a picture of his dead war comrades. The camera then zooms in on the medallion then cuts to the black screen. Film ends, credits roll.

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.

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 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.

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.

Hard to say who mucked this one up. I expected more of Uwe Boll after his brilliant work on "Dafur". It feels like Dolph's character (Granger) never really settles in the "other world" he has been taken to. Maybe its because he keeps wearing his Army jacket... But while he keeps being an outsider, you don't get "sucked" into the movie. The whole plot is awfully slow, nothing really happened halfway through the movie. The action is unsatisfying, it seems the side-cast is just practicing. The "Castle" looks completely artificial and so does the Kings Crown. (its one of those 5 bucks Made in China crowns you'll buy for your kids to play) I am disappointed to say the least. My advice: skip this one.

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...

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.