Most Helpful Customer Reviews
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Not bad. Not the best. But there is much worse out there..., April 26, 2010
I've seen Uwe's other works and he must be crapping out money or has Kevin Reynolds as an investor(ala, Costner for Waterworld,Postman,etc..) because he is able to come out with not so great movies that are epically long, but has great actors in them.
Alone in the Dark? Don't get me started, that movie had nothing to do with what the franchise was about.
However, This movie actually wasn't really all that bad. Yea, the fight scenes could have gone on for an additions 80 min. or so. /sarcasm. But to be honest, it was not a bad film to just sit and watch.
And believe it or not, this script has followed the Game that it represents a lot more closely than his other movies. So I guess that is something.
Did This movie have a lot of reference to LOTR? You bet it did. But so did the story line/feel/atmosphere of the Original Game Dungeon Siege. Just a few things changed here and there.
SPOILERS(if you care)
Some of the things that stood out for me were:
Good:
-The story was cliche but, so are a lot of stories in Hollywood.
-Great location. Props were good. Great scenery and decent special effects. Much better then some of the indie films that you see. And really the directing was pretty decent for as big of a project as this was.
-The Actors did as good as they could. And the Krugs were no more ridicules then the ground creatures from the movie "The Time Machine".
-I liked the fact that he(Uwe) didn't try to make it one big blood bath. The kids got to see it and enjoyed it.
Not so good:
-Ray Liota? No, he's a great actor. But his "Bad Guy" performance was kind of stiff. I think they should have gotten Tim Curry to be the bad guy. Way better.
-Tried to cram and do WAY to much story wise. Instead of just taking some of the story and making it a movie, It seems as if they(production) looked at the script and said "It's all good, so it must all stay!!!" As this movie is long. And if he(Uwe)wanted it to be long. He could have made it a mini-series or had a sequel done with it instead of cramming.
-Different accents, yet related? Didn't get that..
-Yes, the Ninja thing I didn't get. At first I thought they were the women of the forest in their respective armor. But I'm not so sure. Not a lot of detail on that.
-There was just a lot going on and a lot of characters to keep track of. Farmers band that fought with him in the first war, are pretty much absent from the 2nd half of the movie. For obvious story reasons, but it felt like(or was presented as)they were going to be the posse for the whole movie....but I guess not.
-Fight scenes way too long. nuff said.
-Music...This might have been out of his hands, but there were times when it was decent. But sometimes it was way to loud and didn't fit the mood, especially during some of the many fighting scenes.
-The Ending.....what the hell? Money run out? Couldn't do a follow up to the final fight scene. "I want to tell you, that I love you."....Then.....credits role? huh? What happens afterward. What characters were still alive? What happened to Matt Lillard's character? I mean, surly just a quick followup/closing should have been in order. And I think, it's because of this quick no closure ending, is what cheapens the movie even more. I mean, would it kill them to add just a scene that says. "Thank you for watching till the end of this movie, here is what happened to the characters." type of thing. It is what they call in the movie business a "Conclusion".
Well, these are my opinions. Others will disagree. But, it wasn't horrible, the pay and script must have been halfway good on paper for these higher actors to be in it. In the end, it all depends on how it gets edited though. And in that respect the movie speaks for itself.
Again, not horrible. And not a bloodbath, so you can sit with your kids and watch it. The Blu-Ray looks pretty darn good though. Is it LOTR? No, but it's a movie that you can watch and not take seriously and have fun with.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
35 of 48 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
You have no idea how terrifying Boll can be, September 2, 2008
Once upon a time, a brilliant and talented cult director made a spectacular fantasy epic, full of love, monsters, epic battles and noble kings. It became a cinematic classic.
This is not that movie.
But that doesn't stop Uwe Boll from inflicting another ghastly video-game adaptation on the innocent viewing public, after scrabbling for high-fantasy shreds straight from the wastepaper basket of Peter Jackson. It's not quite his worst work, but it's still a horrendous, vomitous, hilariously wretched experience that inspires pain, tears of laughter, and perhaps a drinking game or two.
A farmer wittily named Farmer (Jason Statham) is living in agricultural bliss with his wife (Claire Forlani) and son. But then a bunch of krugs (low-budget orcs) attack -- kid dies, wife is kidnapped. Naturally Farmer vows bloody gruesome revenge, and teams up with his brother-in-law and neighbor (Ron Perlman, who deserves better than this) to help get said revenge.
But of course, this is no isolated incident -- the unspeakable windbag King Konreid (Burt Reynolds) and his hired wizard Merick (John Rhys-Davies) are opposing the malevolent wizard (Ray Liotta) and his vast army of faceless krugs. But naturally it falls to our humble butt-kicking Farmer to somehow defeat the evil wizard and save the day. And yes, the climax will involve killer books.
It's damning "In the Dane of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale" with faint praise to say that this is among Uwe Boll's better efforts. After all, this is not only the director who showed his cinematic ability by literally pummeling his critics -- this is the director who has produced some of the dreckiest, most ghastly films ever to make it into distribution (rather than direct-to-DVD).
As a fantasy experience, "In the Name of the King" is dull, drab and shlocky. The settings are pretty but overcast, the "fantasy" moments are intensely cheesy (swinging on leafy ropes!), and the fight scenes are well-choreographed but full of wild anachronisms -- including kung-fu. Seriously. Despite a relatively big budget, "In the Name of the King" feels like a bunch of dudes went to a Renaissance Faire and decided to stage their own fantasy film. After a few beers.
Granted, none of that inherently marks it as an Uwe Boll film. That is reserved for random ninja that show up (you can hear Boll thinking, "Eff Jackson! It's my fantasy movie, so I can have what I want -- and I want NINJAS!"), humble farmers who fight like Jet Li, maudlin dramatic moments, and truly ghastly dialogue. When it isn't stilted ("Those who you fight... we will help you fight them") it's hilariously pompous ("Wisdom is our hammer").
At the same time, Boll is shamelessly aping Jackson's "Lord of the Rings." No, not just the sets and makeup, although many of these are shamelessly (and less realistically) cribbed. He attempts the same sweeping cinematography and score, but inserted at random and without any kind of dramatic payoff. By the finale, we've also been assaulted by airy elfin sprites who desperately need a smackdown from Legolas' long-knives.
As for the characters, you can find them in any rotten half-baked "high fantasy" novel -- aging king, treacherous noble, good wizard, bad wizard, and valiant peasants. The actors appear to be painfully aware of this fact.
To make matters worse, Statham is playing the same role he's basically played in dozens of other movies -- the stone-faced man of action out to kick some butt. It feels like someone cut-and-pasted the dude from "Transporter" right into this movie. Reynolds creakily sleepwalks through his rotten speeches, and Liotta has apparently decided to embrace the sheer silliness and run with it. As for Kristanna Loken... well, she played Bloodrayne. Nuff zed about her acting ability.
The only cast members who manage to bring any kind of dignity to their roles are Perlman and Rhys-Davies. Rhys-Davies actually works quite well as a kindly old wizard, while Perlman brings more presence and power to the screen than Statham does.
With that in mind, turning out a "Director's Cut" is a little like sprucing up the label of a strychnine bottle, and making a blu-ray is like using a magnifying glass on a decaying log. So of course they're turning one out -- a 162-minute director's cut with forty five extra minutes of Boll's work. Somehow I doubt that given the horrific quality of those first 120 minutes, that those cut minutes will improve matters -- the theatrical version was already too long for its ghastly flimsy storyline.
You can guess what kind of movie "In the Name of the King - A Dungeon Siege Tale" will be just by its title, but it dips into new levels of ghastly cheeze that few fantasy movies have managed to. A milestone in fantasy cinema -- the worst of its kind thus far.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2.0 out of 5 stars
I'm sure it could have been worse..., January 16, 2012
SO, I didn't actually get a chance to see this whole movie...A couple of my buddies and I were bored, so we decided to check this out in theaters (first mistake) and I snuck in a few beers, but after having finished drinking them, my buddies and I looked at each other and, without need for words, simultaneously got up and walked out. It was probably right around the 45-minute mark, but I couldn't stand to see the baddies from Power Rangers revived to fight a bad LOTR knockoff battle with Statham. Take my review for what it is...the movie failed the 30-minute test and from reading the rest of these reviews, I am glad that 45 minutes is all that I wasted on it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
