In the Name of the King - Review

Comment on “In the Name of the King”

Note: This website is not intended for use by minors. The views expressed in this comments section are not necessarily our own. Comments that we deem to be poorly worded, off topic, or threatening will not be published. For free, uncensored discussion visit our forum.

1. Benjerama Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 23:43

   Quick question;
   
   How high were you when you saw this movie?
   
   The only reason I'm asking this is because you have just done the unthinkable. You gave a Uwe Boll film a positive review. I think even Uwe is shocked.
   
   If you listened to the cinemablend podcast interview with him, he was making excuses already about why the film was bad.
   
   And yet I'm staring at a 3 star review.
   
   Your review will go down in history as the one positive review for the Uwe Boll film, "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale".
   You have brought great shame to this website :(
   
   This is a sad day for Cinemablend.com.
   
   But seriously.....
   
   Really?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

1. JoshT Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 23:46

   Really.
   
   I know, I may be the only one. I have to be honest though. That's what this site is all about. I may not like saying it, but I enjoyed In the Name of the King. What more, I think I enjoyed it because of Boll's directing. Not a lot, and it barely gets a positive rating, but it was not an awful experience.
   
   Burn me at the stake if you want, I probably deserve it.

1. fred Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 23:51

   josh,Your just giving it 3 stars coz u dont want to be bashed by uwe boll. (hah hah).

1. Tom Says:
   January 12th, 2008 at 02:54

   "...if you see it with appropriately lowered expectations you might just walk out not hating it. "
   
   Does that really count as positive?
   Meh, subjective I guess. I think I might see this with my friends, but we like seeing laughably bad movies.

1. biosci Says:
   January 12th, 2008 at 02:56

   "Wisdom is our hammer, prudence is our nail." This, I kid you not, is a line in this movie. And if you enjoyed this movie on its own merits, you must have gone in with incredibly low expectations. Now I have to say I had a blast in this movie, but only because my girlfriend and I gave the movie its own Monty Python Holy Grail dialog instead of following the awful acting. ("Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.") And if you don't laugh out loud at the line Ray Liotta delivers to Claire Forliani at the end...well, you've missed an unforgettable moment in cinema history. And just when you think it's finally over, there's the song during the closing credits! Priceless!

1. JoshT Says:
   January 12th, 2008 at 02:56

   Tom, it's mixed positive. Three stars is a middle of the road rating for us, it's kind of straddling the fence. Click on the star rating for an explanation.

1. NotJosh Says:
   January 12th, 2008 at 14:56

   Drink much?

1. Aaron Says:
   January 12th, 2008 at 14:56

   I saw it merely for something to do. The ticket was free. Imagine my surprise when I found myself entertained. This is not a masterpiece of a film, but it was fun. It easily deserves the 3 star rating. If anyone else had made this movie there wouldn't be an argument at all. But, since its Uwe Boll, people want to hate it. Hell, I wanted to hate it. I just wasn't able to do so. I'm not a film critic, I don't really want to be a film critic. I just want to be entertained and this movie does that.

1. Justin Says:
   January 12th, 2008 at 14:58

   You know, this means you're the one they're going to quote on the DVD when it comes out in two weeks.
   
   "In the Name of the King... tries to mix a little originality in with... LOTR... and surprisingly, ... proves immensely more entertaining."
   
   Or they might just abbreviate it to "Better than LOTR!" ;-)

1. Thomas Says:
   January 12th, 2008 at 18:10

   Just saw this movie today and wow....lol, I lost count of how many times I laughed out loud during the movie because of how laughably bad it was.
   
   "In the Name of the King at least tries to mix a little originality in with all the LOTR robbery and surprisingly, with its much smaller budget, proves immensely more entertaining. "
   
   Please explain to me (us) your definition of "immensely more entertaining". Because obviously, those aren't exactly the right words to be put in that sentence. Second, please name one or two things about this steaming pile of doo doo which makes you think its "immensely more entertaining" than LOTR.
   
   "The special effects are down to Earth and the battle scenes are well staged and free of the excessive CGI that plagues so many other movies." Battle scenes are well staged? Are you sure you weren't watching the wrong movie? Because, wow, during many of the fight sequences, the camera unreasonably cuts to another scene, making it hard to figure out what the hell just happened. "Free of excessive CGI", thats because for an epic movie with a budget of 60 million dollars, the CGI is bound to be less and much crappier.
   
   Most of the dialogs are so bad that it pains you because of how hard they make you laugh. If you have seen Bloodrayne then you would know. The 2 films' dialogs are probably on the same scale of cheesiness. All of the actors in the movie looks so out of place as if none of them belong on the set. Its as if Uwe ToiletBoll forcefully put them there against their own will. This movie is so bad that its not even on par with Eragon, and you all know that movie was terrible.
   
   You know, if this movie didn't take itself too seriously, I would've named it the #1 comedy of the year. But it looks like Uwe is dead serious with this one =/. I'll admit, this is Uwe ToiletBoll's best work, then again that doesn't mean anything. Its like saying you're the smartest person in the room and no one else is there.
   

1. Scott Says:
   January 12th, 2008 at 23:52

   You did actually SEE this movie, didn't you? This was complete and utter bollocks. No one associated with this film should ever be allowed to work again. Indeed, they should all be taken into a field and summarily shot. This film was a race to the bottom, even for Boll. It has replaced Baby Geniuses as the worst film in history.

1. adam Says:
   January 12th, 2008 at 23:52

   he doesnt say its more entertaining than LOTR, just moreso than the LOTR knockoffs. Read better mmk? And no i havent watched the movie, just lookin the the reviews

1. JT Says:
   January 13th, 2008 at 13:43

   He didn't say it was immensely more entertaining than LOTR, he said it was more entertaining than Eragon, which is not hard to do.
   
   I'm looking forward to seeing Uwe Boll's least painful movie. House of the Dead and Alone in the Dark are two of the worst movies ever made, but BloodRayne had a greater mockability factor with actors like Michael Madsen and michelle Rodriguez stumbling around in it.

1. Justin Says:
   January 13th, 2008 at 20:37

   Guys, I wasn't suggesting that Josh actually thinks its better than LOTR, only that it's not exactly outside of the behavior pattern of a studio with a bomb on its hands to, shall we say, take a mediocre review and quote it selectively to make it sound outstanding.
   
   It wasn't even intended to be a serious post. What do you think ";-)" means?
   
   Check the context, people. Mmkay?

1. Koko Says:
   January 14th, 2008 at 00:48

   Josh! Josh, josh ... josh ...
   
   Your review is the ONLY review keeping this thing from being %0 at ROTTENTOMATOES.COM ...
   
   Congrats!

1. JoshT Says:
   January 14th, 2008 at 00:50

   I've never been much of a follower.

1. Mike Says:
   January 14th, 2008 at 13:16

   Ok, I am going to have to somewhat agree with Josh on this one.
   
   I do agree that if you walk into the movie with low expectations, it's not a terrible movie. Yes, the acting was terrible. The best acting in the movie was performed by Jason Statham, and he isn't very convincing at all. The cheesy dialogue, yes, I laughed quite a few times at how bad it was. Most of the actors looked kinda depressed that they had to perform in an Uwe Boll film. However, I found that the last 30 minutes of the movie were quite entertaining. The battle scenes weren't too bad at all. Grant it, I've seen much better, but they weren't too shabby. I especially liked the little sorcerer sword fight toward the end. For such a small budget for an epic film, it was much better than I thought it would be.
   
   Believe me, I hate Uwe Boll films as much as any other basher because of his destroying of video games adapted to movies. But I give credit to him here, he did a decent job. Still not that great, but decent. If he dropped the whole video game movie thing, he may just have decent films.
   
   I walked into that movie bored out of my damn mind, so maybe that's why I somewhat enjoyed it. All in all, I'd still agree that this was a bad movie, but not as bad as Boll's normal pile of crap. Oh, and if you actually stayed and listened to that song during the credits, good luck getting it out of your head.

1. Jeffuary Says:
   January 14th, 2008 at 13:17

   Be prepared to be "that positive review" on the DVD case.

1. Pongpeng Says:
   January 15th, 2008 at 00:51

   If you look at some reviews on Rottentomatoes.com, you could see that even though they are rotten, some of them (gasp) still have (very) few good words for something in this movie. I haven't seen the movie, but the review at Reelviews (the site in which I respect very much) is very much in the same mold as Josh's. Sure, two stars out of four is rotten, but for the site, that is kind of "watchable".

1. Riki OH Says:
   January 16th, 2008 at 18:27

   I saw this film for free, and wanted a refund within 5 minutes. A refund on my time. This movie isn't bad enough to be properly mockable (groans come more frequently than the laughs), and isn't a halfway down the path towards being a great film. However, there were a few fun moments, so I can see where this review is coming from. However, with lines such as "If you see it with appropriately lowered expectations you might just walk out not hating it.", sounds like you peg it as more of a 2 to 2 and a half stars kind of film.

1. KraYz|e Says:
   January 16th, 2008 at 19:32

   this movie is (by far) the worst movie i've seen.. i'm usually the kind of person who appreciates everything, but not this. it's just bad! the only reason why i saw this because jason is the star and the standee looks good. i felt like a was watching POWER RANGERS. arg!

1. mjay Says:
   January 20th, 2008 at 02:26

   You ruined Uwe's perfect Rotton Tomato score of 100% Rotten, and his big grand slam chance for "The Worst Picture Of Year". This year he was awarded the 2nd worst picture of the year. Seccond best is the same as second worst. Who cares? The worst picture of the year is his only claim to fame and now you made his chances tougher.

1. Henry Says:
   January 22nd, 2008 at 03:10

   Hey I just came from watching this movie and well I went alone to watch something because I was bored and stumbled onto this neat looking movie poster so I decided to watch it without realizing some of the characters on the poster so I had no idea what to expect and I was hopeful too. So after the first few minutes I realized what I had done. I was wondering if it was a comedy or just a really bad movie. I then saw the actors weren't meant for something of this genre for one for Jason Statham, it was just so awkward and bothersome. I could almost see that Uwe was literally watching LOTR as he was directing the movie. I could go on forever but all i wanted to do after this was go home and watch LOTR to feel better about having purchased a movie ticket from an absolute ripp off.
   
   I mean has LOTR really ruined it for everything else thats fantasy b/c they did such a perfect job about EVERYTHING that movies just can't compete? Well I know some have made it in the similar genre like Harry Potter, and CofNarnia, and possibly The Compass which I still need to see but as for these other movies that involve orcish fiends and large battles between man and beast, etc. has LOTR really ruined them all?! Well whatever the answer, I can still watch LOTR many many times and still be awed, well im off to watch the series. Bye

1. Joey T Says:
   January 23rd, 2008 at 15:18

   I'm going to stick to what the first guy to comment said..Seriously dude what were you smoking when you saw this and where can I get some. I actualy walked out after paying my 8.15 for a seat with I'd say at least 45 mins left. Now I'm not usualy one to walk out on a movie I want to get my money's worth no matter how terrible it is but my holy sweet God this movie was so beyond terrible I in all seriousness can not understand how anyone I mean anyone even the director himself can give this movie a positive review. Dude just watch the thing go back into the theater buy another ticket and just watch it. Not high this time or drunk if thats what you were. You'll realize my god what have I done..what have I done..

1. Dave S Says:
   January 24th, 2008 at 12:51

   I did go with lower, nay, low expectations and it blew that out of the water! It was the worst movie I've seen in 10 years! I saw your review on rotten tomatoes and had to see what the deal was. You're the ONLY critic who gave it even a remotely good review.
   
   The directing was the worst part! How can you even say that it held it together. Good actors acting their worst performances = bad directing! Your review is almost summed up to. "Yeah most things are bad but you might like it if you think it will really suck" and then give it 3 stars?!?!
   
   As a reviewer I think you are leading people astray on this one.

1. Tyler Says:
   February 27th, 2008 at 23:19

   Josh,
   
   I respect your opinion (at least your right to have one)
   
   ...that said...that was the worst fricken movie I have seen.......period. I commented to my wife several times about the cheesy LOTR knockoffs during the movie. I LOVE going to movies....half of the fun for me is the event itself...the other half is the movie. I have never once in my 38 years been tempted to walk out during the movie....until this movie(REALLY). I have played Dungeon Siege since its inception so I was primed to love this movie even if it were normal crap.....but this wasn't normal crap....this was the worst movie I HAVE EVER SEEN!

1. julian cook Says:
   February 29th, 2008 at 00:10

   im very glad i did not pay for this absolute tripe! this isnt even good enough to go straight to dvd!! i cant believe they are actually showing this on cinemas. the whole experience is completely nauseating, from the score(which sounds like satanic worshipping played in reverse) to burt 'plastic fantastic' reynolds playing a king!!! the king should look battle hardened and worn, not like he's just stepped off the surgeons table after ANOTHER facelift. The actors must have serious cashflow problems to be involved in this because the script/dialogue is possibly the worst in movie history. There is not one redeemable feature in this film, do not watch this under any cirumstances, you would have more fun grating your balls! THE WORST FILM EVER, PERIOD!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Security Code (required)