Review: In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
Filed under: Action, Comedy, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Theatrical Reviews
I suppose that reviewing an Uwe Boll film is a lot like having a fancy restaurant critic do a write-up on McDonald's new McGristle sandwich -- but I'm not "fancy" by any definition of the word, and I've grown madly in love with Uwe Boll's enthusiastically slipshod filmmaking techniques. So to those who thought miracles were actually possible, I have some disappointing news: Boll's latest, In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale, is every bit as consistently awful as the director's earlier offerings -- only it's 126 minutes long. And that's just not fair.
Also unfair is the stunningly blatant way in which Mr. Boll tries to rip off the Lord of the Rings trilogy in this chintzy little epic. Every other sequence has a musical cue, a costume, a bit of dialog, or a background character that just fell off the Hobbit truck. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Uwe Boll just spent 126 minutes telling Peter Jackson how thin, talented and gorgeous he is. To be completely fair, I did notice a few components (mainly the action scene editing and a few moments of strangely effective cinematography) that manage to improve upon films like Alone in the Dark, House of the Dead and BloodRayne -- but really, you could probably improve upon those three movies using only a cell phone camera and a powerful flashlight.
For a flick that runs two hours, the plot is distressingly skimpy: Villains are ransacking the countryside, so a farmer called Farmer takes up arms, grabs a few sidekicks, and heads out to destroy the evil and perpetually cackling Boss Villain. That's it, really. But we're not going to see an Uwe Boll video game adaptation for the plot, are we? No. We're usually watching his flicks for the sheer unintentional hilarity of it all, but King is even better because it's an ensemble piece! We've got...
The heroic farmer called Farmer, as played by the very bored-looking Jason Statham. (More bored than usual, I mean.)
An oddly plastic-looking Burt Reynolds as the heroic King Konreid. (The powder-white wig really brings out the goofiness of his jet-black, massive eyebrows.)
A horrifically frantic Matthew Lillard as a devious Duke called Fallow. (Prize: Best awful acting in a movie filled with awful acting.)
An aimless (yet still beautiful) Claire Forlani as Solana, Farmer's damsel in humorous distress. (Someone please rescue this actress from the B-list already.)
A goofy-wigged Ron Perlman as wise-crackin' sidekick Norrick. (Not even Ron Perlman can make this movie fun for more than three seconds in a row!)
The typically bombastic John Rhys-Davies as King Konreid's wisdom-spouting chief magic-man Merick. (John, c'mon. You must still have a big chunk of Rings money somewhere.)
The completely vacant Leelee Sobieski as Muriella, Merick's fight-hungry daughter, who mistakenly gives some tail to the Boss Villain. (Yes, she still looks like a smaller version of Helen Hunt.)
The lovely-yet-also-hilarious Kristanna Loken as some sort of lesbian tree-woman called Elora. (Hey, she hangs out with three other forest chicks and throws vines at men!)
And (saving the best for last) a completely unhinged Ray Liotta as a very confused evil wizard known as Gallian. (I'd never in my life say a bad word about Ray Liotta, but ... hoo boy. I hope he got a nice check for his six days of work on this thing, because he vamps it up like nobody's business.)
If you need to know much more about In the Name of the King than what I just described to you, my simple advice is this: Never see this movie. Ever. But if you found yourself chuckling quietly as I described the flimsy plot, the obvious inspirations, and the awesomely amusing cast, then I bet you're going to have a (slightly) good time with the flick. (In the comfort of your own home, that is, where you can keep on drinking beer.) And what the hell are ninjas doing in this movie, anyway?
Like all of Boll's films, the thing is a film critic's worst nightmare: Between the goofy FX assaulting your eyeballs, the powerfully ripe stench of the clumsy dialog, and the aggressively dreary sound design, you won't know which of your five senses to extinguish first. Even the intended audience for a action/adventure cheese-fest like this (I'm guessing it'd be "aimless 14-year-old boys") will find themselves earning a quick education on the fine art of bad filmmaking. And then after those 14 minutes are over, they'll just get bored.
From the flat CG work to the seamed matte paintings to the mud-covered "krugs" who are forever attacking our heroes, the flick feels like something slapped together by a bunch of Tolkien-addicted high school kids whose dads happen to know some pretty famous actors. If the thing sped by and delivered its dorky payload in about 88 minutes, I could probably recommend it to fans of bad cinema -- or the very, very stoned. But at 126 minutes, the thing becomes a chore of epic proportions -- which kinda makes it even more amusing. And get this: The DVD version will be a whole lot longer!
Oh, Uwe. January would be so boring without you.
'Ridgemont High' Inspirations Are Now Protective Parents
You Say 'Twilight,' Taylor Swift Says 'Firelight'
Robert Pattinson Talks 'Breaking Dawn' & 'Unbound Captives'
Gwyneth Paltrow Joins Nicole Kidman in 'The Danish Girl'
Discuss: The Movies That Haunt You
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-27-2008 @ 10:25AM
trickyturner said...
This Boll chap needs to be diverted from the film industry.
Utter drivel. Formless, baseless, jumping on the bandwagon that's not even there because LOR was too superbly definitive utter utter UTTER waste of time.
My one single consolation is that, living in China, I was able to purchase the pirated DVD copy and therefore fast forward when required. If I had had to endure the full 126 mins in a cinema...well I'd have to had come up with some solid reason to try and get my money back from the ticket office.
This film makes "Stardust" seem fun...and I've only just come out of the coma that tragic mess induced.
Reply
1-11-2008 @ 11:05PM
sam.hage said...
Boll should do some boxing matches..he is only good at kicking geeky writers around the ring.
Reply
1-11-2008 @ 11:18PM
Gary Privitt said...
uwe bolle (pronounced ewe-y). kinda lost real intererest when i saw his name attatched. someone should take his cameras away before he makes more "movies"
Reply
1-11-2008 @ 11:31PM
Patrick said...
I dont think that Uwe Boll was trying to rip off Peterjackson, if you have played the VG which most likely you havent. You would know that there was nothing in common other than the fact that they were the same era. People are and have been writing there reviews all over the net, trying to get in bad press when there wasnt even a copy out yet. I think that there are way to many people hating on him, Postal is getting great reviews over seas. Alone in the dark was an ok flick, cheesy goodness..
Reply
1-12-2008 @ 8:10AM
Sam H. said...
I desperately want to see this movie. Something is very wrong with me.
Reply
1-12-2008 @ 9:29AM
mikeym5 said...
"1-11-2008 @ 11:31PM
Patrick said..."
"People are and have been writing there reviews all over the net, trying to get in bad press when there wasnt even a copy out yet."
How do you know that? Are you assuming that Scott Weinberg didn't see it before he reviewed it? I'm pretty sure that he did and a lot of other critics did, too.
"I think that there are way to many people hating on him"
Yes, and much of that hate is deserved. He is considered a bad film maker. Unless he can prove that he can make a good movie that most, if not all, people can enjoy, people will continue to hate him.
"Postal is getting great reviews over seas."
That may be the case over seas, but that doesn't mean that a lot of people will like it in America.
"Alone in the dark was an ok flick, cheesy goodness.."
I thought it was a crappy flick and there was nothing good about its cheesiness.
Reply
1-12-2008 @ 9:40AM
Philip said...
A farmer called Farmer?
Man I can't stop laughing.
Reply
1-12-2008 @ 11:05AM
que said...
you know it will be a bad movie so why waste your time watching it.
Reply
1-12-2008 @ 11:06AM
que said...
he is bad...but leave him alone
Reply
1-12-2008 @ 11:15AM
Kim Voynar said...
Patrick,
Just to dispel any doubts -- I can tell you as Scott's editor that he is a consummate professional and would never write a review of a film he has not seen. I assure you, he suffered through all 126 minutes of this film so he could review it for the site. Further, Scott very often pays out of his own pocket to review films (like this one) that are not press-screened.
It's not Scott's fault if Uwe Boll can't make a decent film -- honestly, I have to wonder sometimes if the man has a method to his madness, and just really enjoys making crappy films so he can read reviews like this one. He probably keeps them in a scrapbook and makes party guests read them.
Reply
1-12-2008 @ 1:55PM
Christian Toto said...
The next sometime someone tells you, "you review movies? What a great gig!" You can say, "yeah, but I have to endure Uwe Boll movies, too."
Reply
1-12-2008 @ 2:07PM
madgamer said...
"the plot is distressingly skimpy" The dungeon siege game had next to no discernible plot, so its not very surprising that the movie is a bit lacking in that department. How does Boll get real actors for this stuff?
Reply
1-12-2008 @ 2:40PM
Ed said...
Have to agree it's not like Dungeon siege is the most plot driven game out their so it's no surprise why the movie would be weak in that area. And the game timeframe, and elements are used quite commonly in most of this genre such as LOTR, and any number of books movies ect. With that said, who keeps hiring this guy to make movies? Do movie execs sit around a meeting table and say, "You know we really need a Video game based movie this year that will cost us a couple hundred mill. and be a sure fire flop.... Who should we hire to make it?" I mean really come on.
Reply
1-12-2008 @ 4:44PM
Franklin said...
Anyone who is an indie filmmaker or hopes to break into the biz should study how Boll gets his movies funded and cast. Seriously. He may be a terrible director and screenwriter, but you cannot deny the fact that he's managed to have several movies funded and produced. The actor list in this Dungeon Siege flick reads like the cast of names that Paul Thomas Anderson (director of There Will Be Blood, Magnolia and Boogie Nights) might cast in one of his ensemble movies. In this regard, I'm genuinely impressed with Boll -- he has good taste in actors (though he has no idea what to do with them).
Reply
1-12-2008 @ 5:57PM
Karyn said...
I don't play videogames but it would seem to me that if you were going to make a film based on a VG it would make a little sense to beef up the plot and the characters a little. After all, people aren't paying to play the game, they are paying to see the movie expect a little more from the experience.
Reply
1-17-2008 @ 7:35PM
pk said...
Boll is funded in his home country of Germany-- there are several funds there for the arts and people seldom take advantage of that face. I am also impressed with his taste in actors, but yah... he's quite a genius for continually arranging funding despite the reputation of his direction and the ratings of his films. Interestingly enough, I hear that some new film website is giving away an actual prop sword from the movie...
I believe this may be it:
http://www.movieset.com/dungeon-siege-contest
Reply
1-18-2008 @ 5:58PM
Bruce said...
I have been in love with the Dungeon Siege game series since it came out. I had a blast with the first game and its expansion (Legends of Aranna); I've always been a fan of the role-playing type of game, and even though Dungeon Siege is VERY stripped down in terms of character development and overall plot as opposed to a game like Bioware's Neverwinter Nights, it was still a fun hack 'n' slash play-through, reminiscent of Blizzard's Diablo franchise. When I found out Gas Powered Games was releasing Dungeon Siege II, I very eagerly followed its development and was in line to get a copy the day it was released. I liked the second one even moreso, as it was just a better game all the way around, and had a much more cohesive and consistent storyline.
That said, I don't understand why a movie wasn't made reflecting the more in-depth storyline that Dungeon Siege II had, considering that the first one basically didn't have much of a story; I guess this guy Uwe hadn't picked up a copy of that one...
I have yet to see this movie, though I have been keeping an eye on it since I found out someone was actually making a movie based off of one of my favorite game series. I really thought it would be a great concept for film, if done properly, and with taste. I began looking a little deeper, and discovered that EVERYONE tears this Uwe guy apart every time he makes a film. That's when I started getting nervous, and started praying to Chris Taylor and the Gas Powered gods that they didn't license the Dungeon Siege name to a guy who's going to totally destroy any reputation that the Dungeon Siege franchise may have already made for itself.
I've never seen any of Uwe's movies (at least I don't think I have). After reading everything that I've read about this guy and his legacy of fantastically horrific movies, I began thinking that I don't ever want to see ANY of his movies. The sad thing is he made this one, and being the Dungeon Siege fan that I am, I just simply have no choice; I HAVE to see this, to give it a fair and objective once-over, if only to see just how bad it really could be.
I was actually thinking about checking this out all by my lonesome at the theater tonight, but after all of these reviews I'm seeing, I think I'll just wait for the DVD release.
What kills me the most is that this movie really is a day late and a dollar short; Dungeon Siege came out in 2002 and Dungeon Siege II came out in 2005. I didn't see any news about a movie loosely based on the sparse storyline of the first game until AFTER the second game was already released. Hell, even Gas Powered Games has moved on to Space Siege (currently in development), at this point...
Reply
1-22-2008 @ 10:25AM
Janice said...
This was probably one of the worst movies I ever seen in my life! The dialog was so poorly written that Burt Reynolds' big dying scene had me laughing so hard I had tears rolling down my face. The music is way overly dramatic going from intense one second to whimsical the next. You never really care for any of the characters and there is so much disconnect from scene to scene that it is hard to figure out what is going on, and the epic fighting scenes just seem to go on FOREVER!!!! If you look closely you will see some of the same scenes in the battles used over and over, but please do not look that closely it may cause brain damage. And by the way, what where ninjas who shoot arrows with bells on them into tree trunks doing in the movie? One of the biggest mysteries is how did they get so many big stars to act in this corny movie, and to over act so badly? I won't even get into the old English dialog with all of the cast except the bad wizard who speaks in contemporary language and dresses rather contemporary too. In one scene the bad Krung fighters were using a catapult to throw flaming boulders at the good guys during battle, and suddenly a Krung runs and jumps into the catapult like it was a carnival ride and he is lit on fire and thrown at the good guys. It must have looked really fun because another Krung took a turn at it too. As I said, this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen but I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. I had to bury my face in my jacket to not blurt out in laughter and my husband had his face buried in his arm to muffle his laughter and he refused to look at me for fear of totally loosing it. We laughed all the way home but must warn you not to see this movie for it will kill your brain cells!!!
Reply