In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
PG-13 | 11 January 2008 (USA)
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale Trailers

A man named Farmer sets out to rescue his kidnapped wife and avenge the death of his son – two acts committed by the Krugs, a race of animal-warriors who are controlled by the evil Gallian.

Reviews
VividSimon

Simply Perfect

... View More
SanEat

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

... View More
Aneesa Wardle

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

... View More
Derrick Gibbons

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

... View More
FrodoPotter

Really? A 3.8 and 22% gives it a 1? And a 4% rotten on RT?That is just hyped hate. I watched the movie last week on TV, knowing nothing about it. Did I think it was a good movie? No. But it certainly wasn't terrible either. It was just an okay movie like there are so many. But this one in the quite rare fantasy genre. It had bad parts in acting, fake scenery and generic story. But it also had decent to even good parts in the same area's, and the bad parts are not as bad as people here will have you believe. There was not much wrong with the fighting scenes, good fun I thought, and camera and directing were certainly not great, but I've seen much worse.All in all it's a somewhat generic fantasy movie that does some things bad and some things good. I quite enjoyed watching it and was surprised to see all the hate in reviews. I sense a lot of bias though. People seem to love to hate this director, but I don't know him.So as a completely neutral unbiased viewer I rate this film a 6.5/10 Quite alright for when you feel like watching a fantasy flick some night.

... View More
winopaul

After seeing Uwe Boll whine about not getting his kickstarter money and what a prick he is, I looked him up and came here. I never heard of him or his movies prior to today. I really wanted to hate this movie. I was going to do a whole "forensic accounting" style review talking about how he vaporized 60 million. Oh how I wanted to hate him. Oh, how I loved the comments. The one about how Scooby Doo should have a cameo, and all the ones complaining about every single thing in the movie. I loved the Japanese guy: "I think {Uwe Boll} should get some education from whatever school he goes too and learns and relearns directing techniques to keep people interested in his movies." Oh god, I laughed until I needed oxygen, all that home-spun Japanese decency. I was ready to pile on, and then, get this, I watched the movie.What I saw was a 120-million dollar movie delivered for 60-million. I was amazed. There were some shadows crossing actor's faces, but the cinematography was so good otherwise, I have to believe this was hip and intentional. How neo-postmodern. Decent score, decent acting, good audio, all around pretty good, plot not so hot.I know this movie was a flop. It barely moved the needle the first week, and fell off a cliff the second week. I know that Uwe must have offended some gamer Asperger sensibility, but I'll be darned if I can figure it out. Perhaps he respected women too much. Was he too socially adept? Viewers sure hate him for something. Yeah, it was goofy in places, but I liked it way better than any of the Lord of Rings movies, none of which I have been able to watch beginning-to-end. I try again every few years, maybe its time.Perhaps it was not goofy enough, I mean, maybe with this genre you do have to go full retard and have walking talking trees and flaming hemorrhoids in the sky, like Lord of the Rings. This movie was pretty mild, some particle effects, I thought rather well done. So maybe you have to have wildly implausible things to get a true following, like Scientology or Mormonism. Gosh knows it works for Lord of the Rings, talk about stupid stuff going on. That movie makes gold plates and personal planets look sane.As you can surmise, I am not too fond of this type of movie, so rather than push it into full retard mode, I would scale it back. You have to realize the demographic is not the 13-to-16 year old Howard Stern demo. Its the 8-to-12 Caucasian boy demo. Its a little tougher.Since mom and dad may well be at the theater, lets just take out Ray Liotta. I liked him, despite it looking like he just had a Botox enema, but all this mystic debbel crap will just get the parents looking at each other and going "huh?" Sad fact is that the antagonist goes from the hyena people at the beginning to Liotta at the end. So half the money shots are with Ray. Too bad, now we're in rewrite.Just as well, since the other problem is that 8-year-old Caucasian kids might idolize their brothers, and they still remember momma's breast feeding, but they really don't want to root for dad. So both Burt Reynolds and Statham are father figures in a movie trying to appeal to a demographic that is starting to resent and hate their fathers.OK, easy fix. The weaselly slightly effeminate son of the king--Lillard-- that is the guy the kids want to identify with, not Burt. So switch those two roles. Now the weaselly kid can be the boy regent hero, and Burt can be the evil vizier, like in Aladdin. Now we are right back to Boogey Nights and Burt is in his element. Leave Burt in it, or replace him with Statham, to get mom and dad into the movie. For Statham's character, same deal, instead of his son getting killed by the hyena people, let Statham get killed and have the son be avenger. Now the 8-year-old boy has a reason to watch, and to watch the endless sequels as well. I surf the web while I played the movie so a lot of it made no sense. It seemed like there were the hyena people so it started out like 7 Samuri/Magnificent 7. Then it went kind of Bronson/Walking Tall, which is just fine. But keep it with the hyena people, not Ray Liotta at the end, its too confusing for me, much less 8-year-olds. I loved the Tarzan Girls that dropped out of the trees. I was struck by how artistic and visual it was, while still being dirt cheap to film. Remember, they are not sex-objects to an 8-year-old, so give them bigger breasts to serve as momma reminders.That Ironboy.... ahhh...jethead---- ahhn no, Hellboy, that Hellboy guy was in the movie and he is always great. Not sure who he was or what he was doing, but keep him in for sure. With Liotta out, that should get the time closer to 90 minutes, that is another key thing to fix this.The mom character was way too old-- this is for 8-year-olds so she should be 25 tops. Wasn't the mom in the Stargate franchise? Gosh I love her from there, but sorry, ya gotta work the demo.So, switch Reynolds and Lillard's roles. Switch Statham and Ford's roles. Write out Liotta. Substitute any teen vampire fluff babe for Claire Forlani. (I now realize she is not the Stargate girl, Claudia Black, sorry ladies.) One kid dies from an arrow, the other kid saves his mom and the kingdom, 85 million domestic gross, but the action figures will haul in 40 million easy. Hellboy can be the kid's new daddy, how cool is that?

... View More
brianjdavies

I honestly cannot see why this movie merits a score of only 3.8. It seems to me that there must be a horde of Boll-trolls who delight in marking down this particular director. OK, Lord of the Rings it isn't, though it borrows heavily from that trilogy. It has a strong cast who make the best of a somewhat clunky script. The battle sequences are rather good, with a bit more in the way of tactical movement than a lot of similar movies. Jason Statham is, well, Jason Statham up to his usual action tricks. Claire Forlani is excellent and well supported by Ron Perlman. Matthew Lillard is gloriously over-the-top as the villainous nephew of the king. All in all I found it an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours, with my brain in neutral.

... View More
snassillahie

Awful is the only word for the film. My son was an extra so I had to be on set while he was in the film. What I saw of the production that day did not inspire confidence the film would be at all decent. There was little no consideration being given to how the scenes should work or have continuity between takesWhen we finally watched it when was screened here in Victoria and it was worse than I could have imagined. In some of the scenes I could see the problems with the continuity caused by no attention to any detail.The plot is more or less missing for the movie which leaves you ask Why? most of the time.Burt Reynolds as the king is so bad as to almost be funny.The only actors that brought anything to the film were Jason Statham and Ron Perlman

... View More