In the Name of the King: Two Worlds


Action / Adventure / Drama / Fantasy / Thriller

IMDb Rating 3.1 10 4574

Please enable your VPN when downloading torrents

Get Free VPN


Uploaded By: OTTO
December 14, 2011 at 11:27 AM



Dolph Lundgren as Granger
Lochlyn Munro as The King / Raven
Natassia Malthe as Manhatten
Natalie Burn as Elianna
595.59 MB
English 2.0
23.976 fps
1 hr 36 min
P/S 6 / 15

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by hwg1957-102-265704 3 / 10

So bad it's....bad

I suppose at some time or other in one's life one has to see a Uwe Boll movie and here is one I came across in the local pound shop. Though I was lured by it because Dolph Lungren was the star and I've always had a warm liking for Dolph (in his good and in his bad films) but here my admiration turned to pity as this was tedious as a walk on a wet Wednesday in Watford. Dolph plays an ex-soldier called Granger who is whisked to another world to fulfill one of those vague prophecies that usually feature in this kind of film.

A hilariously miscast Lochlyn Munro is the king of what appears to be a village with cardboard walls and the rest of the cast, including Dolph, go through the motions. Any attempt at emotions comes off flat. A passable CGI dragon comes on near the end but doesn't add much excitement. There are action scenes but shot in that shaky cam, quick cutting sort of way that is more annoying than thrilling.

The only laugh it gave me was the actor with the character name of 'Pudgy Dark One' which must look good on his CV.

Reviewed by Adam Foidart 1 / 10

Consider going to sleep instead.

I know in theory there must be someone out there who enjoyed Uwe Boll's "In the Name of the King: a Dungeon Siege Tale", and they're wondering how the sequel "In The Name of the King II" rates in comparison. I'll get to that in a second, but first I'm sorry your brakes gave out that night and you ended up killing that gypsy. You really need to get that curse that was put onto you reversed because that sorry excuse for a Jason Statham medieval fantasy is awful and whatever spell has been put on you that makes you think otherwise is going to ruin your life. This sequel, well, it's even worse. None of the actors return so we've got a cheaply made, boring and nonsensical piece that makes the first one look like "Return of the King". Our story begins in present day Earth (what?!) where ex special forces Granger (Dolph Lundgren) is just sitting comfortably in his study when he is attacked by time traveling medieval ninjas! Brought to the past, Granger learns that his appearance has been prophesised. He is "the chosen one" destined to rid the land of the "Dark Ones". Joined by Manhattan (sure whatever), a female doctor (played by Natassia Malthe) Granger unravels a plot that could mean doom for not only the past, but the present as well! This movie is cheaply made and boring. There are no armies of orc wannabees, no giant castles under siege, not even a single wizard battle or any armies on the warpath. There is supposed to be a big reveal later in the film about the villain but this film is so bad and so uninspired you can see the twist coming about 2 seconds after the character is introduced. Characters act completely illogically, changing personalities at the drop of a hat, killing people, or threatening to kill them for whatever reason the plot demands and if you really analyze the movie, you can tell that this must have been written in about half a day. Take for example, the scene where the blind oracle is killed and her body is discovered. Instead of reporting the death to the King, a guard goes over to the King's room, brings him over and shows him the dead body. This is the same king, that doesn't like to be touched and treats everyone else as if they were dirt. What made the guard think the king would care?

This movie also suffers from having way too many characters, particularly the women. I guess the attempt here was to have some "strong female characters" in the movie to contrast with Dolph Lungren. We are introduced to 4 female characters, 2 of which get killed off after about 5 minutes of screen time, one of which is absent for more than half of the movie and the last one is only introduced when there's about 20 minutes left. None of these feel like they're developed in any way whatsoever. It just feels like a waste of time trying to memorize who is who because they're tossed away like trash left and right. Writing about this movie is such a chore I'm struggling to figure out what to say because it is completely forgettable and never really interesting. The acting is bad, the few special effects present are cheap and the climax of the movie makes absolutely no sense.

This medieval story devolves into what's essentially Dolph trying to prevent the villain from unleashing a weapon of mass destruction into the present. Why would someone living around 1,000 A.D. be concerned about what happens in the year 2000? And of all the schemes to cook up, why a super virus that is neutralized with water? People make fun of the aliens from "Signs" for being easily defeated (and in that film's defense, the bizarre weakness worked itself into a bigger story filled with symbolism and questions of faith), but this is a thousand times worse. Not only is water one of the most common things found on our planet, but the movie can't even keep to its own rules because there is a character that is eventually killed by this virus... while submerged underwater!

I also have to draw some attention to the shoddy-looking castle. It appears to be a bunch of Styrofoam walls painted gray with a couple of rock-shaped pieces glued here and there to give the illusion that it's a small fortress. They say the people living there were driven away from the great castle we saw in the climax of the previous film, but you're not fooling anyone. We know that you just couldn't afford to make anything better, something all the more evident when you realize that the rest of the film is set in 3 other locations: Dolph Lungren's house, a meadow with a bunch of wooden huts and a regular forest.

I hope I've convinced you of how bad this movie is because it really was a chore to sit through. Yeah you can have a bit of fun pointing out the plot holes (like is the portal through time limited to opening only in Granger's apartment?) and the characters that don't make any sense (like that first female assassin sent against Granger, what was she actually doing? I ask because her actions do not match up with some of the developments we find out later in the story) but this is an abysmal film. It drains you and makes you feel exhausted, like you should just go to sleep and lie there for hours trying to mentally rebuild your mind after a traumatic event. I can't think of a single thing that was actually well done here so don't even check it out because you think you might enjoy it ironically or because it was given to you by someone that's pretending to be your friend. (On DVD, April 18, 2014)

Reviewed by TheLittleSongbird 1 / 10

A complete shambles, even worse than the first film

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

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment