Uwe Bol has made some terrible films. I certainly won't defend his making crap like "House of the Dead" and "Alone in the Dark". And, I noticed that quite a few of his films are on IMDB's infamous Bottom 100 List...including this movie. But I also noticed that "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale", despite it's pathetic score of 3.8 that it's really NOT a bad film. Flawed, yes...but overall rather enjoyable if you like fantasy films.
The story is about an evil sorcerer (Ray Liotta) who is in league with a pathetic wiener, the King's nephew (Matthew Lilliard). And, using the sorcerer's power, he is able to make the brainless Krug attack the people of Ehb and in the surrounding countryside. Amazingly, the fate of the people all rests on the back of a simple farmer (Jason Statham) and his small band of allies.
So what are the film's weaknesses...other than having Uwe Bol's name on the picture? Some of the characters (in particular, Statham) are underwritten and wooden and a few of the casting decisions are strange...though they mostly work. Some of the dialog is a bit silly. And, sometimes the film was very easy to predict. But, if you turn off your brain and just enjoy the story, the great music and the lovely BIG cinematography, there is a good movie here. Great? Certainly not...but not a bad film at all...and one I found I enjoyed even though I was totally expecting to hate it.
By the way, I noticed some reviewers called it, essentially, a bad "Lord of the Rings" knockoff. Despite having John Rhys-Davies, the film really didn't seem to be trying to copy the trilogy. The closest movie to this one might be one more like "Krull" or "Conan"...which is also quite watchable.
The story is about an evil sorcerer (Ray Liotta) who is in league with a pathetic wiener, the King's nephew (Matthew Lilliard). And, using the sorcerer's power, he is able to make the brainless Krug attack the people of Ehb and in the surrounding countryside. Amazingly, the fate of the people all rests on the back of a simple farmer (Jason Statham) and his small band of allies.
So what are the film's weaknesses...other than having Uwe Bol's name on the picture? Some of the characters (in particular, Statham) are underwritten and wooden and a few of the casting decisions are strange...though they mostly work. Some of the dialog is a bit silly. And, sometimes the film was very easy to predict. But, if you turn off your brain and just enjoy the story, the great music and the lovely BIG cinematography, there is a good movie here. Great? Certainly not...but not a bad film at all...and one I found I enjoyed even though I was totally expecting to hate it.
By the way, I noticed some reviewers called it, essentially, a bad "Lord of the Rings" knockoff. Despite having John Rhys-Davies, the film really didn't seem to be trying to copy the trilogy. The closest movie to this one might be one more like "Krull" or "Conan"...which is also quite watchable.