In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
374 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
Who is Uwe Boll and what did we do to him to deserve this?
matt-soulliere11 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.
512 out of 643 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Wow this was bad!
tpaladino9 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.
387 out of 557 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
I rarely walk on out movies...
juliadinct20 October 2007
Warning: 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?
172 out of 242 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Terrible
JA_Japster11 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.
202 out of 305 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Uwe Boll does it again.....
redserpent78 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.
348 out of 545 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
saw it...
Stefan Hosemann8 October 2007
Warning: 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
100 out of 148 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
I did not enjoy this movie!
rcothren196913 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.
180 out of 278 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
3/10
Friday night Hoot
tprewitt12 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
122 out of 193 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
5/10
Not gut-wrenchingly awful
imdb-584920 October 2007
Warning: 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.
62 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Longer than Lord of the Rings (well not really, but it felt like it)
phileeguy915 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.
93 out of 148 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Absolute trash.
MightyNeonFraa11 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I just went to check out this movie tonight. I had never seen a movie by Uwe Boll prior to this and, honestly, had barely even heard of him except maybe in passing but certainly not enough to have an preconceptions about his work.

That said, this movie was definitely one of the top ten worst films I've ever seen in my 22 years of life. No, scratch that... top five. The dialog is awful, the writing is boring, the action scenes are jerky and stupid and the characters are one-dimensional and phenomenally uninteresting. This movie's got it all: the humble farmer who just wants to be left alone, the noble king who knows about seaweed and a villain who seems to have picked up his "bad guy speak" by following Skeletor around and taking notes.

So, with storytelling and writing in general being somewhere between incomprehensible and grating let's look at the fight scenes. The choreography was bad, the same shots were used over and over again and I got the impression that nobody working on the movie knew how to actually USE a sword (you do not fight with a longsword like you would with a rapier, you simply do not), nor did they have any comprehension on battlefield tactics. A few gems including why the Krugs are bringing siege engines to a battle in a forest and exactly where the human army traveling on foot with no wagons or ships managed to acquire boulders huge enough to roll down a hill and crush the enemy.

So... pretty much this is the first and last Uwe Boll movie I'll ever see, there is nothing good in this film and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone at anytime. Even if you ABSOLUTELY MUST rid yourself of eight dollars you'll have more fun converting it into pennies, putting it in a bag and tossing it off a bridge to watch the splash.
39 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
2/10
A Real Joke
sfrappier11 January 2008
Please do not waste your money on this movie at the theatre. Rent it if you must. Ray L. & Jason S. are the only good things in the movie. Jason is always good to watch in his fight scenes. Burt R. & Matthew L. are both big jokes. They should stick to comedy. Claire F. has "one" moving scene which I'm pretty sure she brought with her from her Harlequin Romance days. This strange mix of TV actors with A & B list movie actors just doesn't work. There were too many characters, too many plot lines. The fake backgrounds were too obvious and made you forget the beautiful scenery in other shots. The ripoffs of matrix scenes and Lord of the Rings make you laugh. Hopefully Jason S. will do a Transporter 3 soon.
94 out of 160 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
6/10
Cheesy Fun
kkmwills12 January 2008
First: Burt Reynolds is the king! :) Cool and cheesy like a Shatner marathon.

Secondly, there is enough eye candy for everyone.

I didn't think I'd find a hidden Oscar-worthy film, but I knew I might have a great time hootin' at bad lines of overwrought dialogue. I did, but I also found myself following a nice B movie story with various nits to argue with friends(Why the women are mostly wasted in their roles, another talky villain?, mostly dropped plots suddenly found, but only for fight scenes), but still? I'd recommend this for a weekend matinée or a dollar movie selection.
57 out of 95 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Uwe Boll must be stopped!!!!!!!!
Tommy Musso11 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I won't say that I hate really bad movies, because you can feel the heart and soul of everyone involved. But when it comes to Uwe Boll it is different, he has no heart or soul or an ounce of love for what he does. he seems to have the same enthusiasm as a convenience store clerk. There are many young filmmakers out there who could take the same script and a small portion of of his budgets and do a much better job than Mr. Boll.

In The Name Of The King in my opinion is the worst movie ever made. Complete laziness from everyone. No actor took the time to work with a speech coach to achieve the proper accent. Ray Liotta sounds like he was fresh of the set of Goodfellas and Burt Reynolds as the king is laughable with his southern draw. But worst of all is Matthew Lillard, who brought this turd to it's lowest point. I have been a fan of every actor in this movie, but I have lost a lot of respect towards all of them. None of the music fit the tone of the scenes, the editing was done by a blind two-year-old. All of the fighting and battle scenes were stolen from Walker: Texas Ranger. The only thing this movie had going for it was the locations, they were beautiful. But that's it, no other redeeming quality at all.

How on earth Uwe Boll continues to get money to make movies is beyond me. There are so many young filmmakers out there with the talent and inspiration that can't get a nickle to make what could be great films. Yet some continues to finance Bolls talentless pursuits into film making. Now is the time we should all stand together and stop buying tickets to see his films and stop renting or buying anything with his name on it. And maybe he will disappear with all of the crap he has given us The only reason I am giving it 1 star is because I can't give it negative stars
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
3/10
Not THAT bad. Have seen worse, have seen a lot better.
after-hour_dvd_collector8 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Just coming back from a double feature (In the Name of the King + The Golden Compass). All in all, ITNOTK felt just like an overlong TV feature. Some weird choices when it comes to editing (especially three locations at once in the final battle scenes, with a cut at about every ten seconds - so much for developing any kind of tension...). Image quality was uneven, especially when it came to "souped-up" scenery with the castles or the evil's lair, which seemed blurred or coarse compared to the close-ups of the characters. Some laughable ideas (using catapults in a forest? Suuuure...). Dialoge was really weird at times (at least in the German version), just short of holding up signs saying "LISTEN UP! THIS IS MEANT TO BE PROFOUND AND/OR MOVING!" (of course, being neither - just talking slowly and incoherently is most likely not character development...), while at other times it was ... like something straight from a certain group of New Zealand TV fantasy series of the nineties ;)

Impressive list of cast members, though their characters are all a bit flat. Like, "slide through beneath the door" flat. Not even cardboard. The combat scenes are fast-paced, almost all the time in close-up (aka "what's-going-on" mode), except for the final fight, which was along the lines of "who can spot the most MATRIX imitations". The evil wizard (Ray Liotta? who cares...) somehow lacks any qualities of being someone you love to hate, *spoiler?* combined with evil's usual incompetence when dealing with the almost defeated good guys. */spoiler* The good king (Burt Reynolds) seems more bored than bothered by the events throughout the whole film. Ron Perlman is seen without a ton of make-up. Camera knows of two color tints for the film: brown for all the outside scenes, and reddish brown for all the dungeon scenes. Sky is generally either blaring white or pitch black, image contrast is harsh, and on some occasions when the camera sweeps across the (rather nice) landscape, the results are blurry blotches. Some nice stunts and fight choreography (while the camera does it's best to hide that by shaking and moving), but that's about it.

All in all, slightly below-average fantasy fare. Feels like two hours of a role playing game cut-scene, and not in a really good way.
35 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Superbad!
teikyo307 December 2008
I can honestly say this was not only one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but THE worst movies I've ever seen. The really bad thing is they did manage to get some moderately good actors in the film, like Jason Statham, John Rhys-Davies, Ron Perlman, Burt Reynolds, and Claire Forlani (who is also extremely hot). But, it was sort of like they called these people up and said, "How much to show up and stay till the final cut?". Then paid them just that amount, gave them the scripts, started filming, but the had the director or producer work on something else. The acting was terrible. How do good actors act that poorly? Were they supposed to look like drama school dropouts? If so, mission accomplished.

Stay far, far away from this movie. Watch anything else. Watch an infomercial, watch paint dry, just please don't watch this movie.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
6/10
This film is at least a 6!
jonnyreggay111 June 2008
I really don't know how people can be so harsh. The movie is entertaining, and good fun for most of it. Nearly all of the actors in it are good, and well known. The CGI is very impressive and i was surprised. The fight scenes are good and fun to watch. I actually enjoyed it.

Things that let it down are: 1) Matthew Lillard is a joke - he really cant act, and makes you cringe when he speaks its so bad. 2) A terrible music score - people talk about how music can make a movie - imagine Jaws without the theme, and Halloween without the tense music!! Well the music is so bad in this film it spoils it. I wonder how well it would have done with Hans Zimmer or the late John Williams behind the music 3) Nothing particularly new in the story, very similar to parts of LOTR and Eragon

Overall i liked it, and people who gave it such bad scores must not be into this sort of genre, or are being too picky, as its an enjoyable movie to watch.
29 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
3/10
forget it
christian-holzer8 October 2007
I am a big fan of fantasy movies. I love Lord of the Rings. But, I am sorry to say, this movies shows, what all can go wrong! The story is thin, the acting is average at most, the dialogs are embarrassing dumb. Even the special effects are not up to date. In one scene the CGI characters even judder ! The only nice thing are Claire Forlani, Kristanna Loken and Eva Padberg (although only one short scene) - but only because of their visual appearance. Leelee Sobieski is disappointing stiff. Jason Stratham is a good actor for action movies, but fiction movies have a story, too. Burt Reynolds - I don't know, why he did it. John Rhys-Davies a veteran to this genre - helpless. Ray Liotta - suffers from bad directing.
79 out of 149 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
9/10
Did I watch a different movie?
The Non-Hip10 March 2008
After reading a lot of the comments about this movie, I have to wonder if I saw the same movie as everyone seems to have watched.

I like Statham as an actor, the man has amazing charisma as an action hero, so I decided to watch this despite what I had read about it. I was very pleasantly surprised.

The movie I saw was very entertaining fantasy story with a great cast, great scenic locations, engaging battles, outstanding costumes, that kept me thoroughly entertained for it's entire running time.

I would describe the acting as "adequate". Some of the characters seemed over the top and the worst by far was Ray Liotta (I've never been a great fan of his), but overall they got the job done.

I liked the magic in this movie. It seemed very "physical" and hands-on. The fight near the end with the floating swords was very nicely done, and all the magical effects seemed "believable" as far as magic goes.

The scenery and costumes were fantastic, it gave "dark ages" feel to it, dirty and gritty.

All in all, I really enjoyed this movie. I'd give it a 7, maybe an 8, but I'm giving it a little extra considering how pleasantly surprised I was due to all the negativity, ending up at a 9.
64 out of 122 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
2/10
wtf
nope nope9 March 2012
Quote from the movie's opening lines:

Muriella (Leelee Sobieski): "I knew you'd come." Gallian (Ray Liotta): "I told you I would." Muriella (Leelee Sobieski): "I mean, I felt it. I felt it before you came." Gallian (Ray Liotta): "You are developing your powers well, Muriella. Our time together is paying off!"

Pretty much encapsulates what's wrong with this flick. The dialogue is horrible, the script and director give the actors nothing meaningful to work with and the setup is completely cardboard in its appeal.

Don't get me wrong, cardboard can be entertaining, so long as some of the other elements of successful filmmaking come together, as well. No such luck, here.

As other reviewers have pointed out, the action choreography is lame, the camera work weak, the editing often insane, the art direction and cinematography limited or nonexistent, the musical score pointless at best...where to begin?

Well, I have nothing personal against a silly, anachronistic, amateurish action movie script that is concocted as a means of wiling away a harmless hour or two, even when it results in bad acting because of the director's complete lack of vision. It's kind of fun to observe how certain actors manage themselves in such a void. And as bad as he was in his role as King Konreid, Burt Reynolds was quite entertainingly cardboard, in my opinion. He walked right through the role playing his bored, wig-wearing self, and he was the only thing I could readily remember, months after I had seen this movie. He was so bad he actually stood out amongst this filmic muck...for the wrong reasons, of course.

A friend of mine had loaned me the DVD, along with several other movies he owns, but I couldn't be sure, months later, whether I had returned this one or something similar. So after searching my place recently to no avail, I was racking my brains for the name of the title, and I finally resorted to searching online using Reynolds' name and the word "king." That was all I could remember of this dud.

Pretty sad, huh? That my memory seems to be failing me. Or that Burt Reynolds in a miscast role is the most memorable thing in a movie starring Ray Liotta, also miscast, with Matthew Lillard, also miscast. The list of miscast actors taking away career embarrassment and (presumably, hopefully) a hefty paycheck in exchange for their participation in this $60m stinker continues most of the way down the line.

A possible exception, and what stands out in retrospect for me the most since my memory has now had a chance to be prompted by IMDb's cast listing for the movie, is that I was barely able to recall John Rhys-Davies or Kristanna Loken in their respective, fairly substantial roles here. I think this may be a compliment to the jobs they did, because it may mean that they turned in acting performances that rose above the level of outright ridiculousness, and they thereby avoided the WTF stare I was giving the rest of the cast.

I can't be sure, though. 'Cause none of this movie was memorable for the right reasons.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
5/10
Well
sgtericarzuagas4 February 2008
Well compared to bloodrayne, alone in the dark and house of the dead, at least this one was watchable.The acting was actually decent. The story seemed lacking, but I just watched because I thought it would be fun/funny st the same time. But I was rather surprised that I actually enjoyed it....a little. The special effects were ractually really good. Sound kind of sucked. It is actually his best work to date. That I've seen anyway. It looks to me that a lot of his movies are rushed though. So it take away from the final cut. I would like to know how he has private financers for his other piles of crap, and how he gets distribution through American theaters for other awful pieces.
13 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Bloody awful
mrtraska2 April 2011
If I hadn't been at home nauseated, aching, and convalescing with literally NOTHING else on that I hadn't already seen when I (sort of) watched this, I wouldn't have made it past the first 15 minutes: those are bad enough to warn off anyone with any sense. I barely did even so (I swear this flick made me even more nauseated than I already was). Another reviewer was kinder when (s)he wrote that it wasn't that the actors were bad per se -- because most of them certainly were. Only John Rhys-Davies, who's done this kind of crap before, taken it seriously, and taken it to the bank, and Claire Forlani were making any kind of effort at all. Not the rest. Ron Perlman was hamming it up on autopilot, but at least his ham act wasn't half as objectionable to the ones put forth by Matthew Lillard and Ray Liotta, which were grossly annoying. Leelee Sobieski basically sleepwalked through this thing, reprising bad bits form her St. Joan effort of several years ago, and Jason Statham frowned and grunted his way through the film, whereas Burt Reynolds couldn't even bother to be conscious for it and stared his way through it all, projecting the most godawful monotone and excruciating boredom with the whole thing (remind me again: **WHY** does anybody consider this fossil an actor??!). Reynolds and Liotta delivered their absolute worst performances of all time in this wasted effort. What the whole mess deserves is a mercy killing. If this review process allowed me to give it a zero, I would.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Burbank Aragorn meets Smokey and the Bandit... with boomerang
jbe-68 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This awful movie has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I'd rather mud-wrestle Margaret Thatcher than watch the first thirty minutes again... and that's as long as I stayed with it.

An ersatz 'Lord of the Rings' ripoff that fails utterly to entertain at any level.

I'm off to buy myself a movie camera. I know I can do better than this dude. In fact one of my hens laid an egg today that could make a better film than this.

Revealed... info about Uwe Boll's next film "Star Amble". Michael Caine is to star as a young space pilot who teams up with some other dudes (Eddie Murphy, Colin Firth, Mother Theresa and Sally Struthers) in a big spaceship, go back in time and kill a bunch of Rimulans. Enjoy.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Don't Waste Your Time!!!
bvaar-114 January 2008
Let me first say that I am a huge fan of Fantasy movies so would normally cut any film of this genre some slack. However, this movie is so terrible on so many levels that it doesn't even have hopes of making it as a "bad" cult classic. The script was poorly written, the acting (even by an all-star cast) was terrible and ran the gambit between lack-luster and over-acting. The dialog was boring and, depending on which character was speaking, ranged widely from having a stilted "old-style" tone to nearly modern - which was jarring. Also jarring were the horrible costumes and prosthetic monster make-up, both of which looked like they came from a local, cheap Halloween costume store...the special effects were slightly better and the backdrops/settings and set dressings were truly of good quality but this is about the only thing that can be said in favor of this film. The movie didn't know whether it wanted to be a comedy or a drama and mixed elements of both...poorly. There was virtually no character development and two of the main characters (played by Jason Stratham and Ray Liota) did not even feel like they fit in the time period/genre of the movie. Jason still had the look of a modern-day action star caught erroneously in a medieval setting and his martial skills were way, way under-used. In fact, the fight scenes in general were long, boring and poorly filmed. And Ray's modern-style haircut (complete with styling gel) was distracting and made him look as if he just stepped out of a salon - and his performance was so over the top as to make the main villain of the movie appear ridiculous and pathetic. Only three actors are worthy of mention as providing consistent and worthwhile performances: Brian J. White, Claire Forlani and John Rhys-Davies(in that order). Ron Perlman was also not bad....but unfortunately, none of them are the main focus of this film which just drags on and on and on..... Wow...what else can be said....the music was bad, ranging from melodramatic to Saturday-morning cartoonish - all of it noticeable and distracting. The editing was poor - some scenes were blurry or had a totally different color tone from other frames - again very noticeable. Some of the special FX were good but they too were few and far between. Lastly, the plot is entirely predictable with every cliché imaginable being used and nothing new or memorable to look forward to. As a lover of fantasy movies (and games) I felt compelled to sign-on and warn others about this movie. I am a fan of Conan, The Barbarian Brothers and many other "B-Grade" Fantasy movies...this one is an F-Grade!! It is not as good as Eregon (which is not saying much) and is nearly as bad as Dungeons and Dragons! Don't bother!
19 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
6/10
honest review
michelle-724 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
About in the Name of the King. (a dungeon siege tale).

I've watched the movie, twice, and seen the commentary track, also twice.

Let me start with the commentary track, it could be better. Uwe Boll leaves to get something to drink and to eat, comes back, and talks a lot about things that aren't about the film, and let's you 'enjoy a lot of scenes'.. I've seen the movie, I don't need to enjoy the scenes, I just seen them?? Tell me about the film, not about how Peter Jackson committed tax-fraud with the 14 billion of stolen money from Germany, next Commentary track, give me information which I care about, how did the actors do on the set, how did you create the movie itself, and why did you make certain choices.

The movie,

The main actors did a good job. Easily said. They were believable, they were into it, and well typecast.

The Krugs, were just bad.. instead of spending 8 months of getting the right sound of the krugs, which could have been done in an hour **rrooaagg**, it should be checked how to make them scary, instead of reminding me of the power-rangers...

Jason Statham in a serious role, he simply did a good job!! (and is a great actor)

CGI, some parts are very good (swordfight, books, fog's etc.) some where simply bad..

Don't exaggerate just to make it more fun.. the catapulting of krugs, was just giving a bad touch to a good movie.. I know Boll wanted to give the battlefield something no one has seen before, but maybe there is reason that other directors never showed it to us????

Continuity, there are some mistakes, but I don't think you will see them the first time you see it...

Breaking the rules of nature.. When a boomerang hits something, it won't come back, unless it is a magic boomerang, which it was not.

Story, Yes, the story was fun, it wasn't the script from e.g. Shawshank Redemption, but it was OK,

This was just a nice movie to watch, there will be some moments that you will be annoyed but there will also be a lot of moments on which you won't say a word.

A nice movie to watch on a night off, and I will rate this film with the 6 it deserves.

Michael
14 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews