User Reviews

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

I saw this in the theater because it looked interesting, but I was disappointed. Terrible acting, terrible plot, terrible editing. It was basically just a rehashed made for TV fantasy that wound up in the movie theater. The plot line was like a super condensed version of lord of the rings without the magic, story, and allegories. The film starts and leaves the viewers wondering and doesn't explain the plot well. The editing is VERY choppy and amateurish. The actors looked bored and unexcited. The krugs were basically ORCs stolen from Lord of the Rings.

I should have waited until it was dollar night. But for a couple of hours, it did fill some time. Overall grade - D

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have seen several bad films, but I haven't seen one this bad in quite some time. Apart from Matthew Lillard, well sort of, nothing whatsoever works. The way the film is shot is in an incredibly shoddy and repetitive manner, and the film is one of the most ineptly directed films I have seen in years. And if that wasn't any worse, just listen to the dialogue, which is so clunky and juvenile. The story is too thin for the running time and the pacing is constantly on and off, while the characters are clichéd and I felt indifferent to every single one of them. The scenery is gaudy, likewise with the costumes, while the props look like fancy dress items more than anything else. The acting is also dreadful, Burt Reynolds and Ron Perlman can't do anything with their roles, Jason Statham is handsome and charismatic but his acting range is limited here and I have never seen Ray Liotta overact so embarrassingly than he did here. Overall, a mess. 1/10 Bethany Cox

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.

and is true, if you want something new in a fantasy movie then expect some good story. If you expect new creatures and new settings then you don't know what this genre is about. For example you cannot take the cowboys and the horses out from a western - is not going to be a western in the end no?

This movie is OK i think. The bad guys and the good ones. Is true that the details are a little bad and is true that seems everything is too rushed but just don't think like the herd. I can find many errors in The Gladiator but that doesn't mean is BAD. If you like fantasy movies you should see this movie.

(comments here need a little more objectivity - i'm really not interested to come on IMDb and read 30 comments with phrases like "i think this director is so bad - he should stop hurting people!". be mature and serious when comment please.)

Set in the medieval kingdom of Ehb, a man known only as Farmer is caught up in the battle for the kingdom. A powerful magus by the name of Gallian is using magical powers to control the orc-like Krug. Also working with him is Duke Fallow, the King's nephew, who wants power for himself. Farmer wants nothing to do with the war but when his son is killed and his wife taken he has no choice if he is to save her. He heads off in search of her with his friends Norick and Bastian; together they face various difficulties and are ultimately separated. Farmer later learns a hidden truth about himself before helping lead the fight against the Krug and ultimately facing Gallian.

I was surprised to see just how negatively reviewed this film has been; it may not be great but it is far from terrible. There is plenty of impressive action; this is exciting and stylishly choreographed by Siu-Tung Ching. The story may contain many clichés but just about every film in this genre does to some degree. Jason Statham does a solid job as Farmer and there is solid support from Ron Perlman as Norick. Some people weren't too keen on Matthew Lillard's performance as Duke Fallow but I rather liked it; the character was never meant to be heroic in anyway. Not all the performances impressed though; I never bought Burt Reynolds as the king and the less said about Ray Liotta's Gallian the better... he was more camp than commanding; certainly he never looked a match for Statham. While the highlight of the films were the battle scenes there were other impressive moments; I particularly liked the mysterious women of the forest and the way they moved on long vines. Overall I'd recommend this to fans of the genre; it may not be the best example but neither is it the worst that I've seen, by quite some way.

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.

Ok I don't understand why this movie is rated so poorly. I saw the rating and read a lot of the reviews before watching so I was expecting the worst. I just finished it now and I can honestly say I enjoyed it! Is it of the same caliber as Lord of the Rings? No. But it was still a great fun movie! It kept me interested from start to finish. The locations were beautiful, costumes were good and the story was interesting. I'd recommend this movie to a friend. Just don't go in expecting Academy Awards and you should be fine. The only real complaint that I had with it was Matthew Lillards character... I felt like I was watching Stu from Scream try to recite Shakespeare or something. Everyone else played it quite well, but Lillard was a bit too quirky and pulled me out of the moment quite often. Aside from that, lots of good action and Jason Statham kicking some ass! All good in my opinion!

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.

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.

This movie isn't as bad as Space Mutiny; I'll give Uwe Boll that. I'd just have to say that its only downfall is that it really doesn't have anything to do with the game besides include similar characters and locations. Beside that, it's your basic mediocre fantasy movie. Not "good," not the absolute worst, but in between somewhere.

The movie also tends to skip around plenty, but the plot was at least easy to follow as well amidst all the battles and dialog. It may be cheesy, and it may be clichéd, but at least it has some decent effects here and there and alright fight moves.

If you have to see this, and you played the Dungeon Siege game, go with a friend, as I did. It should make for a good laugh.

All-in-all, despite it being a pretty average movie, it's Uwe Boll's best so far.