In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale

Adoration of J.R.R. Tolkien's world packed into two hours with the literally distasteful addition of omnipresent clichés. The Lord of the Rings screams from every other shot, but the cameraman's copied flyovers and sweeps quickly start to fade away, just like futile attempts at any mythology (see the clumsy king reminiscing about old times or the hilariously failed attempt at creating elves of their own). Uwe Boll simply fell hard and dragged down everyone involved. Apart from the fact that it brought shame upon solid actors like Ray Liotta or Matthew Lillard, unfortunately even Jason Statham, the sympathetic character, gets lost in a flimsy parody of Aragorn. And when it turns out at the end that the main villain actually made no sense at all, that's a real blow to the head. (04/12/2009)

I continue my slow and gradual exploration of Uwe Boll's filmography. I was quite surprised by the actors he managed to cast. In some cases, they were literal legends, or at least top-tier contemporary talent. After watching the film, I can't help but agree that Uwe Boll is simply a hated director. The film doesn't deserve such bad reviews. It is pathetic, it's sometimes silly, and Uwe Boll tries to show off and takes inspiration from everything possible, including Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. On the other hand, from a filmmaking perspective, it's not all that badly executed, and it does have tension and emotions, although it probably won't resonate much with you. I liked it, and it gets three stars. (02/27/2014)

Honestly, I have never understood the popularity of Ed Wood, the enthusiastic comments, and the five-star ratings from those who consider themselves or maybe even are knowledgeable film experts. Even his "best" films contain so few entertaining elements that it is much more reasonable to spend an hour and a half staring at the wall or to prefer a poorly edited family video of unsympathetic brats from the neighborhood. On the other hand, when Uwe Boll wants to and has his day, he can make a masterpiece that I would expect to receive enthusiastic comments from fans of B-movies and low productions. Of course, it is all still cheap trash that lacks even a fraction of the nobility and grandeur of successful fantasy films like The Lord of the Rings and the old legends they are based on. This is a pulp concoction of all possible elements of historical fantasy, fighting styles, and worn-out genre clichés that can entertain merely by the fact that Uwe Boll shamelessly steals from his famous colleagues and combines everything possible and even impossible. So armored knights fight in the style of kung-fu and the main hero skillfully handles a boomerang. The king's advisor addresses the subjects as citizens, talented and successful actors overact to the point of caricature, and I could go on almost endlessly. By the way, my eight-year-old son was openly enthusiastic about the movie, as this film truly corresponds to the spiritual horizon of children this age. Measured by the same standards that I have for A-movie productions, I could raise a thousand and one objections, but for moments of relaxation and for those who can temporarily turn off their brains, In the Name of the King can be a good choice. Overall impression: 25%. There are certainly worse films in the respective genre, and if Boll could maintain the level of his films on this line, he probably wouldn't feature among my film nightmares. (09/04/2010)

Jumbled, with uneven visual effects and unconvincing visuals, and incredibly stupid. Still, entertaining in certain circumstances. If you can enjoy bad movies starring people who KNOW they won't win an Oscar for them, you'll be satisfied. (02/15/2008)