In the Name of the King 2: Two Worlds (2011)

An ex-Special Forces soldier gets thrown back to medieval times to fulfill an ancient prophecy and ends up finding redemption for his own battlefield experiences. In the Name of the King: Two Worlds is a sequel to a pretty forgettable film that starred Jason Statham and this time he is being replaced by Jason Statham a capable action hero who unfortunately doesn't get to do much with such a silly and boring concept and people will probably forget that this movie even existed in a matter of hours, minutes or days the most. (0/10)

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.

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.

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.