Customer Reviews

In the Name of the King - A Dungeon Siege Tale

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(23)
1 star:		(45)

 

 

This movie is so unbelievably bad that I have to break it down into parts for this review.

Overview:

Based on a video game, it comes over as The Lord of the Rings lite, complete with Orc-like Krugs, John Rhys Davies, and a guy with a Legolas hairstyle. Bad guy Gallian (Ray Liotta) swirls around in clouds of smoke, and does his business through the eyes, ears and lips of really big Krugs who ride horses.

The only redeeming parts are the fight scenes with Statham, and even the battle scenes get monotonous after a while. And speaking of the battle scenes, we get the infantry and the archers and so on, but why do we have ninjas and Amazonian tree women in the mix-up? (Mind you, Kristanna Loken of the L-Word looks really good wrapped in leaves)

Leelee Sobieski is underutilized as the daughter of Rhys Davies character Merick, but comes into her own at the end, while Matthew Lillard does his Scooby Doo thing mainly for comic relief.

Short Attention Span Summary (SASS)

1. A farmer named Farmer farms his land with his family
2. Marauding Krugs under the command of Gallian attack
3. See Farmer fight
4. Fight Farmer, fight
5. Farmer fights in vain, but lives to fight again
6. The King wants Farmer in his army, but Farmer wants to be a one-man show
7. No man is an island
8. Farmer signs up, but has problems with the armor, which doesn't suit his image
9. Battle scenes
10. Change of leadership occurs
11. Grand finale with bad guy proves that books have power
12. Women totally rock


Characters:

Jason Statham's role

There once was a farmer named Farmer
Who was rugged, but really no charmer
When the Krugs came for battle
He killed them like cattle
Without ever wearing his armor

Ray Liotta's role

There once was a power drunk mage
Who totally failed to engage
He is so badly cast
It will leave you aghast
As he stinks up his time on the stage

John Rhys Davies' role

Though this ain't The Lord of the Rings
We're glad for the class that he brings
And though he's on his own
There's a Legolas clone
To help the return of the kings

Burt Reynolds' role

We're more than a little bit hurt
To see what's become of old Burt
More tired than mean
He's a creaky machine
Out of gas, and now fully inert

Conclusion:

This movie's no more than a joke
Filled with nothing but mirrors and smoke
With ninjas and magic
The plotline is tragic
And it's NOT Uwe Boll's master stroke.


Amanda Richards, February 23, 2008

There were two movies that came out in 2008 which probably rank among the worst in history, this one and Punisher: War Zone.

This movie sucks. You can pretty much ignore what every character says and just insert something you know from Lord of the Rings or Willow. You'll be close enough that it won't matter. Better yet, just watch it in German. It is after all the director's native language. As for the plot, again, just make up your own details from what you've read and seen. You can see the formula revealed without much effort.

"But you gave it three stars, dip****!!"

Yes, and here's why. This film is a monument to bad filmmaking, a milestone that may never be surpassed. It's a clash of opposites though because it is an incredibly expensive, slick production. I would call it one of the most well-made bad movies ever. So much effort and expense went into casting, action sequences, choreography and special effects that it should have been good, but Boll made it awful, so awful that I had to keep watching to see how much more awful it was going to get. Here's a quick breakdown:

Farmer's name is Farmer and he's hero Jason Statham (possibly the only good casting choice).

Farmer's friend is Ron Perlman who for some reason isn't cast as creepy bad guy.

Creepy bad guy is Ray Liotta, which doesn't make sense because he's got in Irish blood in him so he could never be a made man (It's Ray freaking Liotta in a freaking Fantasy movie, what can you say to that!?).

The role of Gandalf will be played by Gimli, son of Gloin.

The role of Arwen/Eowyn will be played by Leelee Sobieski, who is young, pretty and maybe talented, but honestly, the fact that she is in it at all should tell you it's a bad movie. She may consider finding a new agent.

It's a fantasy movie and Burt Reynolds is in it. Why? Because they could, I guess.

Burt Reynolds's toadie is Matthew Lillard, which should be another tip-off that it will be a bad movie.

So the hero decides to be a hero, fights some nondescript bad guys, rallies more people to fight nondescript bad guys, then it all comes to a head and they all fight the one descript (well, if nondescript is a word...) Ray Liotta (Ray Liotta?? Seriously??). Lots of fighting and dialogue reminiscent of Star Wars prequel trilogy (low blow, I realize that) ensue along the way.

In two words, it's heroicly bad. If you are a real movie buff, you HAVE to see this movie just to see how bad it is. It's as if you're watching bad film history unfold before your eyes. That is the only reason I give it a positive rating, because for better or for worse (mostly worse), it's worth seeing.

"In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale" is Uwe Boll's most ambitious film, which is probably why it's also one of his worst. Here's a story that wants to be an epic fantasy but completely skimps on the epic part--the remaining fantasy is occasionally enjoyable at best. The battle sequences are small-scale and oddly claustrophobic, the characters are broadly drawn, and the dialogue is some of the dopiest I've ever heard. I suppose it would have been too much to expect something more, given that this is a film adaptation of a video game. But that really isn't saying much, since Boll's filmography consists largely of video game adaptations, and almost none of them have been decent. I exempt his previous film, "Bloodrayne," simply because it was just mindless enough for the entertainment to sink in. I concede that "In the Name of the King" has moments of entertainment, but since most of the film is about as unintentionally campy as a B science fiction film from the 1950s, that's not much of a compliment.

Most of the problems stem from the casting choices: virtually every actor seemed like a square peg in a story full of round holes. Let's begin with the first billed actor, Jason Statham. He plays Farmer, so named because he feels that a man is defined by what he does; much like the archetypal heroes of fantasy plots, Farmer begins as a humble, land-toiling family man, only to eventually discover that his destiny calls for greater things. And yes, he's reluctant to take part in it, since the only life he knows is planting and harvesting crops. But a personal tragedy pushes him into the need for vengeance, a need that will only be met if he joins the King's army to fight the kingdom's enemies. Statham could have been right for this role had he not relied on his macho action-picture persona--Farmer is not too far removed from Frank Martin of the "Transporter" films, with his over the top fighting skills and a voice that's as soft and monotone as Steven Segal's.

Next, let's focus on Ray Liotta. He plays a wicked magus called Gallian, and as you might expect, he's gone mad with power and wants complete control of the kingdom. I don't know if I've ever seen an actor more out of place in a film; Liotta has played some evil characters before, but his bland American accent and under-whelming resolve proves that he just can't play evil in a fantasy film. Gallian has a pseudo-love affair with a strong-willed young woman named Muriella (Leelee Sobieski), who doesn't seem to realize that their relationship is a threat to the kingdom. She also doesn't seem to realize that the chemistry between them is nonexistent, despite the fact that he's teaching her to harness her own magical powers. She has powers, by the way, because her father is another magus. His name is Merick (John Rhys-Davies), and he's a good man who's dedicated to the King. He also takes a special interest in Farmer, since he believes him to be a man of great importance.

And then there's Burt Reynolds as King Konreid. As is the case with Liotta, Reynolds is hopelessly miscast, completely lacking any regal or noble onscreen presence. He seemed more like an afterthought, really, which is bad when you consider the prominence of his role. Bloodthirsty creatures called krugs are attacking Konreid's kingdom in droves (and it should come as no surprise they're under the direct control of Gallian); if he wants to stop them, he'll need a strong army and a little help from Farmer, who has an uncanny ability to survive a battle without wearing any armor. Both Farmer and Konreid fail to realize how important they are to each other, which is why Merick is on hand to explain it to them.

Matthew Lillard is the only actor in this film to manage his role accordingly. He plays Konreid's nephew, Duke Fallow, an arrogant, scheming young man who secretly schemes with Gallian. Unlike the other actors, whose straightforward roles leave much to be desired, Lillard goes in the right direction by thoroughly hamming it up. "In the Name of the King" would have been much better had it been as over the top as Lillard's performance. But to attempt a serious "Lord of the Rings" style fantasy at this scale is laughable, and not in a good way, either.

There are also a number of ill-fitting side characters: Farmer's wife, Solana (Claire Forlani), one of many taken prisoner by the krugs; Farmer's surrogate father, Norick (Ron Pearlman), who tries for comedy relief but gets only the occasional chuckle; Elora (Kristanna Loken), a member of a forest-dwelling, war-hating tribe that swings around on rogue vines. This is about as diverse and interesting as the characterizations get.

The most entertaining part of the film occurs within the final ten minutes: at their final confrontation, Gallian attempts to subdue Farmer with a cyclone of flying books. Not only was it impressive to look at, it was also a delightfully pompous display of power on the part of a sorcerer. I also enjoyed a number of shots showing Gallian surrounded by swirling fog; standing there, he can see through the eyes of a supernatural creature. But there isn't much else to go on, here, which is sad considering how big it wanted to be. I'm sure that "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale" will someday be regarded as a milestone of camp, an accidental cult classic screened at midnight movie theaters to the delight of select audiences. But I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.

Now you would have to a true optimist to think a Uwe Boll movie based on a video game would be worth watching. And if you were said optimist you would have been sadly let down after watching this sad excuse for a movie. If you manage to sit through the entire movie you are one tough hombre, or blind. Ten minutes in and I was ready to poke my eyes out with my soda straw.

There are some good actors signed up for this movie, which might throw some people. But you can be certain minutes into it that they are just there for a paycheck. The story is cliche and boring, and being it is based on the video game Dungeon Siege that is not surprising. While it might be adequate for a video game based on killing things and taking their treasure to have a barely there story, it doesn't work on the big screen.

If you haven't seen the movie you are a better person for it and it is my solemn responsibility to warn you not to pay actual money for this DVD, or even play money. If you are certain that you want to see it just wait until it finds its way into the 99 cent bin at the local super store. But don't say I didn't warn you.

The master of error himself, director Uwe Boll strikes again with another video game adaptation, this time around taking on the popular PC series Dungeon Siege with In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale. Jason Statham stars as a farmer named Farmer (seriously) who takes the fight to the evil Gallian (Ray Liotta) after his wife (Claire Forlani) and child are kidnapped. Along the way are some pretty bad and monotonous action sequences, as well as a surprisingly decent sounding cast that includes Burt Reynolds, Ron "Hellboy" Perlman, John Rhys-Davies, Leelee Sobieski, Kristanna Loken, and Matthew Lillard. What is even more surprising is that In the Name of the King isn't the terrible waste of film that we've come to expect from Uwe Boll, and is by far his best effort yet. That really isn't saying a whole lot in the long run, but the fact that the film as a whole isn't laughably bad (although there are a good amount of laughable moments, particularly with an overacting and uninterested performance by Liotta) is a nice bonus in itself. Statham is actually good as the vengeance seeking Farmer, with his rugged and magnetic personality being the main highlight. All in all, In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale is not the ungodly terrible flick from Uwe Boll that you may be expecting, which in itself is a small miracle.

I really enjoy the fantasy genre, both in literature, games and movies. This movie, however, hardly justifies what theaters would charge to see it. I'm not going to beat a dead horse, but wait for this one to show up on TV. There won't be anything to cut out, and you'll have some much-needed commercial time to get away for a couple minutes.

In fact, this movie should probably have gone straight-to-SciFi, so Joel McHale could use it for material on The Soup.

I gave it three stars because though it was no LoTR epic, it wasn't the complete trash others have described it as. You just have to set your expectations before watching it. Then manage your expectations and resist the temptation to fast forward just to get through it faster.

If you subscribe to a movie rental service and are looking for something to watch before another good movie is released, and you're even mildly into this genre, go for it. I'll pass the afternoon just fine.

I will keep this review fairly short. There are bad movies where...you have a fairly good idea that its going to be bad...and you start actually enjoy it (Evil Dead for example, or most low budget films). This movie is worse than a bad movie...its a horrible movie that honestly tries to pass itself off as a good movie...I am not even that mad that this movie is horrendous...I'm mad because I think that the creators or this film might actually think it is good. Its like they took a great cast (Jason Statham, Claire Forlani, Ron Pearlman, and Ray Liota...HELL YEAH),a great idea for a film (I am a fan of fantasy/sci-fi movies like this) and then gave it to a 15 year old lazy but pompous screenwriter and his equally clueless director. Its not just the acting and the screenplay, but basic stuff like the sound, the visuals, the effects (they go from really good...to laughable...its like this movie is meant to annoy). You will regret watching this.

the film sums itself up perfectly with the closing credit, which reads: An Uwe Boll Film. $60 million budget and they couldn't even get that right?

I'll admit it - I'm impressed. After sitting through his previous features, I doubted that Uwe Boll was capable of making anything that even resembled a good movie, but apparently I was wrong: through a $60 million budget, an all-star cast or some other means, "In the Name of the King" is, without a doubt, the most solid picture that our favorite director has made in recent memory. But then again, being a Boll film, this means little: if judged against anything other than his own films, "King" looks sloppy, mediocre, and faces stiff charges of blatantly copying from Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Rest assured, it's a bad movie; the question simply is "How bad?" Care to find out? Well, get ready for a long review...

In the kingdom of Ehb, the power-hungry mage Galian (Ray Liotta, GoodFellas) has turned his power against the elderly King Konreid (Burt Reynolds, Boogie Nights): aided by the king's treacherous nephew Duke Fallow (Matthew Lillard, Scooby-Doo), he prepares to overthrow the kingdom. All that stands in his way are the efforts of the king's loyal magus (John Rhys-Davis, "The Lord of the Rings") and a simple farmer (Jason Statham, The Transporter) whose family was killed during Galian's attack on his home.

Because it needs saying, here's the rest of the cast: in addition to the aforementioned, there's Ron Perlman (Hellboy) as Farmer's surrogate father, Leelee Sobieski (Joan of Arc) as the magus' daughter and Galian's lust interest, Claire Forlani (Meet Joe Black) as Farmer's wife, Brian White (D.O.A. - Dead or Alive) as the commander of the king's armies, and Kristanna Loken (Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines) as the leader of a mystical tree-dwelling folk. Without a doubt, this is one of the most unique casts that have ever been assembled in a single film, and I have no doubt that even years from now, fans will still be discussing just how Boll got all of these folks together. With that said, the acting really is a mixed bag. Rhys-Davis is the best performer in the movie, opposite of Liotta, who performs as though Anthony Hopkins is still feeding him his own brain. With the exception of Brian White (who puts the most effort of anybody into his role but still kinda stinks), everyone else falls into a grey category - having highs and lows, but not really standing out but occasionally blundering into unwatchable depths of overacting.

What made this movie so surprising to me is how much Boll has managed to improve his formula. Gone are the flashbacks, the gratuitous nudity, the shock violence, and general mindlessness that perpetuated throughout his earlier attempts. What we have here is a focused story that has definite heroes, villains, and changes in tone and emotion. But while the plot is more alert than usual, it's still considerably scatterbrained: the story jumps from place to place as though it were necessary that the viewer know exactly what is going on in every other location while an otherwise isolated event is taking place. This causes not only for disorientation, but also cuts the mood of any scene in half since the event being transitioned to is usually of the completely opposite tone (e.g. Tarish and Muriella spar harmlessly while Farmer's family comes under attack). Also, even though I enjoyed the simple labeling of good and evil in characters, their intentions were always way too obvious for my liking: you KNOW that Fallow is a bad guy from the moment he shows up on the screen for his pigishness. What's worse, this obviousness lets the viewer know what's going to happen sometimes an hour before it does: you KNOW that Muriella will come to come to odds with Galian the moment the film opens and you see the two of them kissing as though their mouths were full of novocain.

Where technical aspects are concerned, the most notable improvement is that Boll has learned how to actually shoot a movie: the cinematography looks decent, and with the aid of choreographer Siu-Tung Ching (House of Flying Daggers), the action has never looked better. Alas, these are only superficial plusses, too: the camera angles aren't anything that you'd expect beyond any other run-of-the-mill big budget film, and even if you can get over the thought of kung fu in a medieval environment, the fights are edited so erratically that it's difficult to follow the action, especially in the event of a big battle scene where there are dozens of characters on the screen. These "epic" battles are also a weak point: they should serve as highlights of the film, but end up only slowing everything down. Boll is completely clueless as to how to shoot a fight of such proportions, for instead of pulling the camera back to show off scale, he brings the camera in real close, marginalizing any awe that such a scene should instill and making it look oddly claustrophobic.

As an afterthought, the graphics are fairly nice: Galian's "portal" through which he controls the Krug is cool, as is the disapparating effect the magi use, and the final battle between Galian and Farmer is a triumph of the computer.

What bothers me the most about "King", however, is the very blatant ripping off of material from "Lord of the Rings". The list really doesn't stand in favor of any contradictory opinion: the Krug are orc wannabes, the armored riders will remind anybody of the Nazgul, the woodland people are two pointed ears away from elves, Galian's domain is Mordor by any other name, and the final battle is filmed in the dark and in the rain - just like the battle of Helm's Deep. Smaller scenes like Tarish and Muriella sparring (like Aragorn meeting Eowyn) and Muriella donning armor to fight (like Eowyn) stand as a backdrop to large plot devices like Farmer, Norick (Perlman), and Bastian (Will Sanderson: Legolas Clone) banding together a'la the Fellowship, as well as the revelation (SPOILER ALERT!) that Farmer is the king's son and heir...just like Aragorn was. Then again, Boll frequently compared his movie to "LotR" before it was released, so I'm not really surprised.

On one hand, we've got some definite improvement coming out of the House of Boll, yet on the other, we've got a movie that has promised to keep the director away from other big budget projects for a long time. While I like the movie more than I should, there's enough nonsense here to decree "In the Name of the King" a certified rotten tomato...and that's before you witness Solana's laughable crying scene, arrows that magically change direction between shots, the longest deathbed sequence ever, and the incredibly soppy and dopey dialogue (e.g. "My girlish stupidity has damaged him!"). Essentially, Uwe Boll tried to squeeze all three of the "Lord of the Rings" films into a two-hour movie and didn't even do a good job of pretending that they were his own ideas. I haven't touched on whether or not the film remains true to its video game roots, but that's a moot point: Boll wasn't attempting to make an adaptation - he was trying his hand at being a director of "epic movies" like Peter Jackson or Ridley Scott. Time will tell whether he can surprise me again by actually redeeming himself, but at his snail's pace, I probably won't even like movies like this anymore by the time his first good one is released.

Jason Stratham, Ron Perlman & Claire Forlani (gorgeous) & John Rhys Davies were awesome. Their fine acting skills saved this film from a 1-star review.
However, the casting staff should be fired for ruining what could have been an entertaining, if shallow, fantasy film. Ray Liotta was ghastly and jarring in his screen-time (fine actor, lousy part). Burt Reynolds is sleepwalking and again miscast. Leelee Sobieski is blah. Matthew Lillard looks like he wants to giggle through the film. Ugh.
Not totally horrible, thanks only to Stratham Perlman, Forlani & Rhys Davies.