One of the worst movies I've ever seen

The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

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.

I'm officially boycotting all Uwe Boll movies, I've seen two of his films and their all a waste of time and money, I didn't even realize this was one of this films till it was too late.This movie sucked, terribly. The only thing that I liked was the detail that went into the dragon... otherwise it was terrible. You knew first thing that the "king" was wearing a wig... and a really bad one at that. The fight scenes were pathetic and poorly done, in acting, choreography, and filming of, just terrible. Its said that even in the initial scenes they couldn't even bother to put the fake blood on the knife/dagger/swords even after a stabbing. Why make a fight scene if you aren't going to follow through and make it interesting or even semi-believable? Natassia Malthe must be really good on her knees, because she sure can't act. I find her extremely annoying and cheesy, everything that she means to be serious and dramatic comes out funny and sub-par. Her character is a down right laugh and waste of film time. The character suddenly and out of character, jumps Granger without the slightest bit of a hint at attraction... just suddenly uses Granger as an over-sized and rather talkative dildo.With brings me to Granger, played by Dolph Lundgren.... yeah, he sounds like a really crappy impressionist of Sean Connery, her moves like a guy who's 70 and for someone who's character is former military sure doesn't have an movements or mannerisms that make the view believe that thought.This movie sucked.... was a waste of time and money and wasn't the slightest bit interesting, a complete waste of time and a real snooze fest. Uwe Boll you are a waste of air.

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.

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.