In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 37:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 366 reviews in total 

498 out of 626 people found the following review useful:

Who is Uwe Boll and what did we do to him to deserve this?

2/10
Author: matt-soulliere from Canada
11 January 2008

I went into this expecting a bad movie, you could say I was hoping for the best but expecting the worst. I'm a fan of Jason Statham which made me want to see it despite my expectations, plus I work at a theatre and see movies for free which makes me less picky about the movies I watch.

Now I don't typically leave reviews for movies, but after seeing this I felt that I needed to warn people. Up until tonight, I'd never seen a movie directed/produced by this Uwe Boll guy and believe me, as I write this I wish that was still the case. There are no redeeming qualities to this movie and you realize it within the first ten minutes. The cast is brutal, Statham, Liota and Reynolds are all laughable as the main characters. The evil army of 'Krug' reminded me of the dudes in monkey suits in the early Planet of the Apes movies. During action scenes you see the same shot over and over again as if they only had one shot of 'bad guy hit by arrow'. Even the props were bad, Stathams sword looked like something you'd give a six year old on Halloween.

I don't even know if I can accurately put into words how bad this movie is. The best way to describe this pile is to piture you and your friends trying to remake 'lord of the rings' in your backyard, because what you ended up with would be of similar quality.

If you read this review, don't make the same mistake I did. Don't watch it to see if it is as bad as the guy on the IMDb said it was. This movie should only be shown to criminals in jail as further punishment for their crimes.

Was the above review useful to you?

380 out of 546 people found the following review useful:

Wow this was bad!

1/10
Author: tpaladino from United States
9 January 2008

OK, first off, all of the glowing, gushing reviews here were obviously (OBVIOUSLY) planted by someone doing PR for the film (which is shameful in and of itself). There is no way that anyone sane would think this movie was anything more than laughable tripe.

I saw it at a preview, and have to say that I was expecting much more. I didn't realize that Ewe Boll was directing, otherwise I would have skipped it altogether (he should never be allowed near a camera, ever). However, I like nearly every star, enjoy the genre and have been a big fan of the video games for years now, so I figured that this would be worth seeing (nothing will ever compare to LOTR, but it sounded promising).

So yeah, there's not much I can say that hasn't been said here already. Horrible dialog, two-dimensional characters, lousy cinematography, cheesy effects and a plot which is nearly impossible to care about makes this one worth skipping.

Seriously, don't pay to see this. It will only encourage them to give Ewe more projects.

Was the above review useful to you?

339 out of 533 people found the following review useful:

Uwe Boll does it again.....

1/10
Author: redserpent7 from United States
8 December 2007

Don't really know how he gets great actors in his movies. Uwe Boll does it again, a cast of some of the best actors in one of the worst movies ever made. The story is bad, really really bad, the acting wasn't good either even with the presence of Burt Reynolds, Ron Perlman and ray Liotta.

I have sworn that I won't watch a Boll movie again, they've proved to be a waste of time and money even if it comes in the shape of a 1$ pirated DVD. Never buy,rent, download or even think of borrowing it from a friend. Its a waste, and a huge one too. And be advised never to watch a Boll movie again, its enough already.

EDIT: I've posted this a while back and I just wanted to add something.

If you're reading this and you happen to work at a store where you sell video games, please and I beg you memorize the name and face of Uwe Boll and if you see him crossing the street immediately shut your doors and windows and put that close sign. Please never sell a video game to Uwe Boll ever again.

Was the above review useful to you?

168 out of 238 people found the following review useful:

I rarely walk on out movies...

1/10
Author: juliadinct from Toronto
20 October 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

but unfortunately this was one of the rare ones. I love epic fantasy, but this movie relates to LOTR and Gladiator as a bottle rocket relates to the Starship Enterprise, and to mention them in the same breath is a monumental insult to those fine films. I really wanted to like it, honestly. I love Jason Statham and Ron Perlman, and the rest of the cast (yes, even Burt Reynolds, who didn't deserve the audience's derisive laughter every time he appeared) were fine, although Ray Liotta was comically miscast and mis-costumed as Liberace. The British Columbia scenery was nice. The storyline, scriptwriting and editing, however, were absolutely abysmal. Just awful. The attempts at mid-battle banter were incredibly inept - they actually stop fighting to say things like "What took you so long?" and "They don't scare easily!". Jason Statham fights off big monsters who are armed with broadswords with what looks like a flimsy machete, while Ron Perlman uses a pickaxe(!). The opening scenes are amazingly clumsy, they just dump you randomly into the story with no preamble. And I am so tired of the overused Chinese martial arts film cliché of showing the audience a plain shot of mysterious badguys who suddenly aren't there as soon as the movie characters look - it's so cheaply manipulative. Lame, predictable line follows lame predictable line. When John Rhys-Davies comes to the bedside of the (unbeknownst to him) just-poisoned king (Burt Reynolds) I said to myself "If he says "The king has been poisoned!" I'm outta here... and guess what he said?

Was the above review useful to you?

193 out of 294 people found the following review useful:

Terrible

1/10
Author: JA_Japster from United States
11 January 2008

The movie is garbage. If you've seen ANY Uwe Boll flicks in the past, you know exactly what to expect. It's not that the actors are bad per say (most do what they can given the limitations of the terrible script) but the whole film just reeks of bad editing and worst direction. It's bad. Really bad. Almost bad enough to be considered a guilty pleasure just so you can writhe and cringe at how awful it is. Granted, it's not as bad as last year's Eragon, but don't expect anything close to what Lord of the Rings offered us in terms of epic fantasy adventure.

Oh, and those ten star reviews you keep reading? Uwe Boll has to be paying them. I can't imagine anyone out there (even on the internet) is THAT stupid to consider this a good movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

178 out of 275 people found the following review useful:

I did not enjoy this movie!

1/10
Author: rcothren1969 from United States
13 January 2008

I was SO disappointed in this movie. My husband wanted to leave about 45 minutes into the movie. I convinced him to stay. I just knew there would be some redeeming quality to it. Seriously, Burt Reynolds, Leelee Sobieski, Ray Liotta, and John Rhys-Davies, I thought with all these well-known actors it would be good. Boy was I wrong. It must have been a slow week in Hollywood for them to sign on. I should have known when I hadn't seen any press or reviews for it that it was going to be a stinker. As we sat through the entire movie, we watched others leave and never come back, listened to the boys behind us comment on how bad it sucked, and I was wondering if there was a money back policy for bad movies. I could have done something better with that $16 and 2 1/2 hours of my life. Watch this only if you have nothing else to do.

Was the above review useful to you?

99 out of 147 people found the following review useful:

saw it...

1/10
Author: Stefan Hosemann from Austria
8 October 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Okay, this Sunday i went to one of those fox-sneak previews here in Austria and saw the movie. First of all I thought.. nice.. a good fantasy movie... (you know.. just like anyone else, i just love the lord of the rings) but as soon as it started....

The whole movie theatre was cracking up because of the unintended funny dialogs in this movie. This is really amazing! Those writes should really quit their job! My absolute favourite scene was when they said to farmer that the king is his father... I was laughing so hard that I even started crying... if it was not for that, i would have cried because of the wasted time in this film.

Anyway.. if you like bad movies and stupid dialogs, you will love this one.. (think about it as an unintended parody of lord of the rings). If you expect a serious good and solid fantasy movie - forget it. Of course nothing can be compared to the lord of the rings but this one is just hilarious funny.

I just don't understand how actors like Mr. Liotta, Davies and Reynolds could ever sign up for this... but oh well... it might have been a chance.

Cheers

Was the above review useful to you?

120 out of 190 people found the following review useful:

Friday night Hoot

3/10
Author: tprewitt from United States
12 January 2008

We went to this film intentionally (knowing its reputation) as a means of escaping a really busy and stressful Friday. We don't recommend the film to anyone with serious cinematic intentions, However, as kitsch this film almost succeeds. So, OK, we tried to come home and convince our "knowing" kids that "In the name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale" was worth the Friday opener vote, but broke down laughing about five minutes into our rave when they just were not having any of it.

So let me add a few cogent notes. For 'entertainment' value, given what we were looking for after a long Friday, we were very satisfied, though we worried at times that our guffaws and groans, and open commentary, might have disturbed some of the other 30 or so people in the theater (but for their own laughing). King Burt Reynolds? Oh well. We have to admit that Ray Liotta's "Goodfellas" reprise as an evil mage was the most amazing thing we've seen since Jack Lemmon's service as Horatio in Branagh's "Hamlet." Of course, this mention of Uwe Boll's effort alongside Kenneth Branagh is totally appropriate, except that Branagh's "Hamlet" had little entertainment value of any kind. School is still out on which of these two can make the worst film of a decade.

If Matthew Lillard's over-the-top contributions to "In the name o..." (which is all of the title that fits on the ticket marquee at the theater) served well in a film with vine dangling amazons, synchronized ninja archers, prolonged out-of-focus long shots, granular irrational close-ups, and some of the most inane dialog in the history of film, one wondered in that case why Scooby Doo didn't put in a cameo in one of the dungeon or castle scenes.

Nonetheless, many of the second tier characters were convincing and well acted, amidst all the mish-mosh of incongruous effects and disaffects. So there were moments when one, though not entirely forgetting how bad this film was, felt sorry for many of those who found themselves in it. Or should they all have known better?

But laugh! Oh my, did we laugh, to the extent that it became uncomfortable laughing at a screen strewn with dead bodies and actors struggling for motivation. Oh, we could have seen high drama or thought-provoking art, but this way our Friday night was pure poetry...

the dungeon it was dark and dank the bodies in a pile and there atop the smelly heap was Ray Liotta's smile.

his polyester wizard suit bespoke a man with guile but then behind a squeaky line was Ray Liotta's smile

when Uwe Boll directs a film the casting's done with style that's why for evil, nothing's like sweet Ray Liotta's smile

and though we hoot and holler at such feckless goofy bile now laughing all the way to bank is Ray Liotta's smile

Was the above review useful to you?

91 out of 144 people found the following review useful:

Longer than Lord of the Rings (well not really, but it felt like it)

1/10
Author: phileeguy9 from United States
15 January 2008

I went to see this movie because I needed some time to kill, and at over 2 hours in length, this seemed like a decent candidate. Boy, I was wrong.

Like previous reviewers that have posted before me, I would say that this movie was "choppy," in that you never are watching one scene/actor for more than 5 minutes at a time. The back and forth between all the characters makes you feel a bit overwhelmed at first, but after a while when you get to grasp the plot it just becomes annoying. It's like the Director is saying "Okay, now we've got to show you what's going on with these characters right this second," even if what they're cutting to is inconsequential.

The acting itself is underwhelming, as is the script. The script calls for the cast to sound noble or poetic at times, but it just comes off as cheesy. The plot was a bit outlandish, but I cannot complain here as I knew it could be as this was a Fantasy. So you'd think that the special effects would redeem this as it's a big Action/Adventure/Fantasy type? Sorry, the monsters didn't look more than a pile of mud wearing mud colored armor, the battle scenes weren't anything special, and the magic special effects weren't anything we haven't seen before with a few twists.

Pros: Jason Statham finally shows that a Boomerang can be a deadly weapon. Much Better than Paul Hogan in Crocodile Dundee. Cons: "Choppy," too long, bad acting, bad script, sub-par effects.

Was the above review useful to you?

60 out of 92 people found the following review useful:

Not gut-wrenchingly awful

5/10
Author: imdb-5849 from Canada
20 October 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Watched it tonight at the After Dark Horror Fest. It was all right, if you're in an undemanding mood. The dialogue was awful. Scenes where a mother was told her child and parents had just been killed and the death of the King in particular produced howls of laughter, which I don't believe was the intended effect. Burt Reynolds comments on seaweed seemed singularly bizarre and produced heckling. That being said, it had a few nice action bits and Michael Lillard was very funny (probably on purpose).

Way too long (and in the QA afterwards Boll said there is a longer director's cut coming on DVD) but if you're in the mood for fantasy, have seen Lord of the rings recently so you don't want to watch it right now, and don't mind actors hamming it up (hello Ray Liotta) you could do worse, I suppose. No where near as bad as Bloodrayne, if that means anything to you.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 37:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history