In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale

POOPERSCOOPER · Post by **POOPERSCOOPER** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:05 am

I couldn't think of anything cleverer than putting the actual title of the movie.

It wasn't a good movie and it was borderline bad but it was somewhat entertaining. It has a lot of people in it that you will recognize which if had been under another director maybe would have been a decent movie. There is quite a few moments of unintentional comedy and the story is very cliche and stupid. I've never seen Uwe Bolls other movies but I'm guessing this one is a step above anything hes made according to the reviews of his others.

There was actually a lot of moments of unintentional comedy now that I think about it.

Tell me how you liked my review.

Frater Perdurabo · Post by **Frater Perdurabo** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:19 am

You forgot the "lol" in the title, lol.

Blargh · Post by **Blargh** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:56 am

O Gods, how could I not derive much laughter from your choice ?

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:27 am

I'm more curious about the events and circumstances that led to the decision to go watch this movie.

PiP · Post by **PiP** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:01 pm

VasikkA wrote:I'm more curious about the events and circumstances that led to the decision to go watch this movie.

oh no you're not.

Zetura Dracos · Post by **Zetura Dracos** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:13 pm

My date last night actually requested to see it, which, well, I knew that she had no taste in movies when I let her pick so...

It isn't a bad film, but it isn't a good one either. It suffers from some crummy camera work, an effects budget that's about three million dollars too small, and some really shitty acting on the part of Ray Liota and Mathew Lillard. Seriously, Liota, when Burt Reynolds is out-acting you... you are doing a bad job.

Mostly though, it's just bland. It doesn't seem to want to take any time to develop it's world, focusing instead on the fight scenes which manage to be merely okay. When we do get concepts on the world they are potentially interesting, but very vague (example: the description of where wizards get their power from). A lot of this can come from the fact that it's source material is a hack-n-slash pseudo-RPG which didn't have a whole lot going for it anyway.

Some of the performances are good I suppose. Burt Reynolds manages to pull off his role even if he is terribly out of place, Ron Perlman delivers as expected even with some truly ridiculous lines (Not bullshit example: "Give me the chicken! Nom, nom, nom!"), and Jason Statham manages to look the part and not go too over the top even though his character makes not a lick of sense.

So, ultimately, it's miles better than any other Uwe Boll film and shows that he can make a movie that at the very least isn't a steaming pile of shit... but it won't make you change your opinion of the man. Seriously, the dude put himself at the top of the Special Thanks list in the credits.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:36 pm

Isn't the movie suppossed to be a two parter or a three parter as well?

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:47 pm

Wolfman Walt wrote:Isn't the movie suppossed to be a two parter or a three parter as well?

One part crappy video game, two parts Uwe Boll.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:51 pm

A recipe for disaster, to be sure.