In the Name of the King 2: Two Worlds

So, like many of you, I wondered how an original movie so dreadfully awful could produce a sequel. I think I've found the answer, thanks to Wikipedia: (copied directly) "Until the law was changed in 2005, Boll was able to acquire funding thanks to German tax laws that reward investments in film. The law allowed investors in German-owned films to write off 100% of their investment as a tax deduction; it also allowed them to invest borrowed money and write off any fees associated with the loan. The investor was then only required to pay taxes on the profits made by the movie; if the movie loses money, the investor got a tax write-off." There it is. This movie (and anything by this director) is a tax write-off, on purpose.

This is Uwe Boll movie - lost kings, holy mothers, Toys'R'Us dragons and comical villains. But nevertheless - this particular movie is entertaining. I've rented it and was content about it for two major reasons. First is Lundgren act. He plays tired, physiologically traumatized American special forces officer who was suddenly transported to medieval times as natural and believable as possible. "Tired and straight" is priceless. I also liked the fighting. In most medieval\fantasy movies fighting is all stylish, with all cool looking armors and massive armies. In reality hand to hand combat is blood and sweat. If you are wounded - it doesn't matter if you are going to survive this particular battle - you going to die from deceases later. This atmosphere was delivered quite fairly. So three stars - best rating I gave to any of Uwe Ball movie so far.

I just had to try this movie after reading some of the awful reviews. I thought, "there is no way that any movie could be that bad." I was wrong. The idea of having a modern day soldier at loose in the middle ages is a great one, but the idea is as far as this movie got to greatness. The acting is so stilted and awkward that I cringed with every word, the story plot is so stretched it is ridiculous, and the props and costumes were so bad that it looked like the kids day at the ren fair. Even the buildings looked like Halloween knock offs. Ick.

Rented both the original and this sequel together and watched them back to back. The first one is Great! This one... OMG - total loss. Never could find it's teeth. It's just plain terrible and has absolutely no correlation to the first movie. If you're thinking of renting this to carry on the story line, let me save you some money. DON'T. It isn't worth your time. Better to use the few dollars you save to wipe your hiney.

Save your time and Money … a disaster !

Uwe Boll uses tvtropes.org as a how-to manual for making movies, and even manages to screw that up. His work makes the Dungeons & Dragons movie look like Lord of the Rings. I don't know whose cousin or nephew he is, but Uwe Boll must be related to someone important in Hollywood to have been put anywhere near a Director's chair. It's like putting a blind man at the helm of an oil tanker. The only way to be safe is to stay away!!!

low budget crap

If you are a Dolph Lundgren fan, consider skipping this one and keep your fond memories of him intact. Seeing him in action (calling it "action" is a stretch of the imagination in itself) was just sad. I honestly wish I could UN-see this film!

Bad but not bad enough to be funny. Waste of money. Bad acting. Terrible sets. Dumb story. Weird fighting. Bad costumes. Plus camera shaking during whole film. . Waste of money and time.

Rotten movie