Lumos Let me begin by saying that I found the first "In the Name of the King" quite entertaining and I gave it a 7 or 8 stars, if I recall correctly, even though it didn't deserve them. This film may not even deserve the three I'm giving it. I'm trying my best to think up of something coherent to say in this film's defence, and I find it quite problematic. Even if we forget about the blatantly obvious car behind the trees in a few medieval scenes, there's still a lot of problems remaining. The acting feels unnatural, events happen for no reason, epic armies consist of ten men on each side. Come on, herr Boll! You did far better with the first one. Yes, the first one was hands-down better. I thought about racking my brains on some of the things and events in the film, but this will mean that I should include spoilers, which I wouldn't really like.The largest problem however seems to be that the film attempts to be "larger" than it is. It tries to imply that it's grand, while constantly contradicting itself through the points suppiled above.I really like this film's poster though. Please, dear reader, open a new tab with the picture and analyse it. You see our hero Granger clad in what seems to be full plate armour, holding a longsword heroically. You see a battle of epic proportions happening in the background. You see a fair lady dish out the pain using a hand-and-a-half sword or something like that. You see a dragon that breathes fire with devastating effect. You see that guy with the beard on the left of the sword-maiden (played by Aleks Paunovic) about to stab someone in this conflict of epic proportions. You see a great city, or at least a part of it, in the background. What I really like about this poster is that the film also contradicts each and every single damn thing in it. Not ONE thing is the same as the poster portrays it.If you're a masochist like I would appear to be (for watching yet another Boll-film), or if you like bad films like I do, go ahead and give it a watch. Else, please go and watch something more entertaining. Your life is more valuable than this film.

mergatroid-1 The first movie at least was slightly epic. They had a lot of actors, and then there was Statham and Reynolds, and even though both didn't live up to their full potential, they were better than any actor in this version.This is an even lower budget production, and the acting and script are not very good. The direction was also lacking. The first movie is watchable, if a little drawn out. This movie most likely should be avoided, unless you have to watch it once to see how a movie should not be made.Dolf actually isn't too bad, considering all his other movies. All the rest of the cast might as well be replaced with first timers.

picturetaker 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.

gabriel_lan-260-472056 I loved the first one with Statham, so I had at least some hopes for this one. I was sadly mistaken. While the plot for the movie had a good amount of promise, Dolf's acting and the directors' directing left much to be desired. The unknown supporting cast actually performed their parts fairly, but Dolf plodded through his. Get a much better director, a bigger budget and someone like Liam Neeson to play the lead and this movie could be quite good. If you have a choice between doing the laundry or this, get your clothes cleaned. What cgi there was in the movie was so so. The choice of scenery, or location of the film if you may, was quite nice. I think the worst parts were that Dolf wasn't very heroic, camera was jittery like a hand-held and the plot twists were weak at best.