Truck Reviews Beauty Warlight Men's slip on sneakers nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Unlimited Music. Always ad-free. Learn more. Electronics Gift Guide Fire TV Stick Grocery Handmade Personalized Jewelry Shop by look Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon TheGrandTour TheGrandTour TheGrandTour  Echo Dot Fire tablets: Designed for entertainment Kindle Paperwhite Find a new favorite show Find a new favorite show Find a new favorite show Shop now SWMTVT18_gno



on August 17, 2013
I like this movie. I know a lot of people hated on Bowlls saying this was the worst movie ever made but I couldn't disagree more. Sure its no LOTR with a gillion dollar budget, however for a movie based on a video game I think he did a great job. Id say its one of the best dungeon genre video game movies ever made, and compare it to the original Dungeon & Dragons movies this movie blows them away. It has a great cast, Ron Perlman, everything he does is instantly a classic and I was shocked his character gets killed but that's life. Statham does a great job as well as all of the cast. Statham has become one of my all time favorite action movie actors. I read reviews and people are so overly critical of this movie, its like they work for a competing movie company or are so snobbish in their intelligence they can't find joy in anything. The movie relies more on action and sets and less on overly priced special effects. There is a good amount of special effects but its no GREEN screen movie, which I find Hollywood has relied too much on GREEN SCREEN technology. the special effects are used sparingly and at the right times. There are people in great well made costumes, I like sets with real buildings, I find it makes the actor get into character and everyone in this movie does it well. Mathew Lillard plays a great P.O.S traitorous bastard. John Rhys-Davies just has to walk on the set and smile to be good. Some people hated on Liotta, normally I would agree cause I got so burned out watching all his mob movies, so it was refreshing to see him play an evil person that didn't talk with a jersey accent. Brian White was excellent, and did well in his training for this movie. His sword fights were flawless. Then there is Burt Reynolds, and I have to say I liked his roll as king and he dies well an with honor. I loved his elite guards with their ninja assassin moves. I know some people commented on how stupid it was, but obviously they have never played the games or these type of games. There were assassins in games as well a our own history. Anyways, Sobiesky though her part is small, is as always smoking hot and could have shown more cleavage but you know at least Kristanna Loken made up for that. Statham was a lucky man to me locking lips with her. When she learns her son is dead you could see the muscles in her face reacting like a real mother would. Very believable and what I liked is that Bowlls didn't focus on the emotion, he showed it and moved on further into he story. You don't need to see ten minutes of someone sobbing over a child, and in this type of movie you don't want some chick flick tear jerker, you want action and believability. I have not see a lot Bowll's other works but for what its worth this was a great movie an I enjoyed it thoroughly.
2 people found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
on April 15, 2010
If you're looking for a review about the movie itself, go to the standard release page; this is merely a critique on the two-disc special edition...which, I'm sorry to say, is not special enough to save the movie if you didn't like it in the first place.

The only reason you have to buy this Canadian-exclusive release is for the special features. The 165-minute director's cut promised by director Uwe Boll is available on DVD only in overseas countries and on the Blu-ray release of the movie; this edition contains the exact same cut of the movie as the regular release. The special features aren't anything worth paying extra for, so I suggest you only buy this here if you can get it cheap. On the second disc, you get 1) an 18-minute making-of featurette (not featured on the regular release), 2) 16 minutes of deleted scenes and extended footage (these are already on the regular release), 3) free digital download of the movie, 4) a downloadable demo of the Dungeon Siege 2 PC game, 5) previews and trailers, and 6) an unnecessary and unexceptional photo gallery.

Unless you want the movie on your mp3 player for potentially less than demanded by online sites, the only noteworthy addition is the making-of clip, which is only moderately insightful as to how the movie was made but still good for a few laughs. It's basically Boll and the performers telling you how great the movie is going to be: Brian "Tarish" White claims that people were actually competing for the opportunity to work on the flick, Ray "Gallian" Liotta says that he couldn't relate to his character at all and therefore had to rely entirely on actual acting ability, Jason "Farmer" Statham proudly claims that he did his own stunts (not entirely true), and Boll reiterates that you're foolish to expect a movie adaptation to actually follow the game it's based on (but Claire "Solana" Forlani is confident that gamers will still like the movie because of the Krug and fighting). To his credit, Boll lauds his actors, speaks highly of action choreographer Tony Ching's contributions, and explains his reasoning behind the claustrophobically-shot battles.

I don't imagine there's too many of them, but for actual fans of the movie, this "special" edition is a bit of a rip-off, seeing as they'll still need to buy another version of the movie to get the full nine yards out it. Nevertheless, in a pinch, for those who haven't seen the movie at all and are open to potential disappointment, I suggest you buy this version if you can find it cheap and don't live in Europe or own a Blu-ray player, since it's still marginally more satisfying than the standard release.
3 people found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
on October 2, 2008
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, and a really weird script, "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...

The story: in the kingdom of Ehb, the power-hungry mage Galian (Ray Liotta, Hannibal) 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), Galian 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) seeking revenge for the death of his family.

Because it needs naming, 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 yet 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. 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 temperament (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. What's worse, this transparency 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 pluses, too: the camerawork is basic, 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.
3 people found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
on March 19, 2018
In all honesty, a good fantasy movie is hard to come by and this...is close enough. I mean, it's not the greatest plot in the world, but it does a pretty good job following the plot to the video game. My only complaint is that Jason Statham uses that silly boomerang rather than pick up a real weapon.
|0Comment|Report abuse
I saw Jason Statham was in it, and I was excited because this was going to be a great movie.

Then I saw Uwe Boll directed it, and I was sad because this movie was going to suck.

In the end, it kind of evened out. I can't say Jason saved it from Uwe, Jason was just Jason. I think Uwe is starting to get a little better, or at least getting better people around him.

Burt Reynolds as the king was kind of amusing. It reminded me of my childhood: 9 to 5, and Best Little Whorehouse In Texas, etc. Only he is the king.

Overall, it wasn't as terrible as the director's name implies.
One person found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
on December 25, 2017
Pretty darn good, not nearly as bad as a lot of people think.
No idea how close to the video game it is, since never played it and really does not matter one bit, forget the game and enjoy a very good heroic fantasy tale.
The acting is good and this is one of Uwe Bowle best effort actually.
|0Comment|Report abuse
on July 8, 2010
When this first came out I thought poor casting for the type roles and so I passed on it. Since I have seen it on TV at least three times since then I actually grew more fond of it each time. Although this is no The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Theatrical Editions + Digital Copy) [Blu-ray] it certainly has some entertainment value. I think it has aged well and considering there aren't that many of this genre that are great this deserves a second look. Perhaps since I grew up on low budget movies of this type I may be giving it more latitude, but I think most those that enjoy this kind of escapism won't be disappointed. If you enjoyed this, catch Dungeons and Dragons- Wrath of the Dragon God (Widescreen Edition).

CA Luster
One person found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
on January 4, 2018
While not into Dungeons & Dragons fantasy' I do admire jason Statham's acting ability. This movie had a sound plot and intense action. It's worthy of your purchase.
One person found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
on July 20, 2017
First rate. Arrive as specified and in great condition. Great Movie. Thank you.
One person found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
on March 25, 2018
It is a decent film, Statham was good as always but overall story was alright for the price but while enjoyable the watches on this one won't be too frequent.
|0Comment|Report abuse