En el nombre del rey

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.

I'm sure this movie sounded like a good idea on paper. Why else would anyone bother to even attempt to put this mess together? It's pretty apparent that they were going for the whole Willow meets Lord of the Rings meets Kingdom of Heaven meets...you get the point. The end result is pretty abysmal to say the least. I've seen some really bad movies in my day, as I'm sure we all have. In the Name of the King makes a serious push to climb atop "worst movies I ever saw" lists everywhere. Bad story, bad acting, bad special effects, bad costumes, and hell, even the DVD menus suck. For about the first 10 minutes I was actually fooled into believing that this might not be a total train wreck. My optimism soon turned to despair as I got my first look at the evil creatures referred to as The Krug and I cringed for the first time of many as I immediately realized what I had gotten myself into. The Krug are a race of animal warriors but remind me more of villains from Power Rangers and thus lead to laughter every time you see them which I'm sure wasn't the intent of the filmmakers. Unfortunately this was only the beginning of my nightmare. Despite the fact that there is some decent acting talent in the movie, none of them really belong in this movie. I would be very surprised if whoever did the casting on this film still has a job. Burt Reynolds as the King? Ray Liotta as a sorcerer? Matthew Lillard as anything other than the quirky funny guy? The only thing worse than Lillard's horrible English accent is everyone else's complete disregard of one. Even Claire Forlani who is actually from England, decided to forego her natural way of speaking for this role. I guess she didn't want to show anyone up. I have to admit though, it is pretty funny to listen to how out of place Ray Liotta sounds with his Jersey accent in what's supposed to be some medieval time. When it comes to the fight scenes in the movie, they're actually not as bad as everything else, but I guess that's not really saying much. The fights could be pretty entertaining to look at if I could actually see them better. Bad camera angles and quick cuts negate what seemed to be respectable choreography but I guess we'll just have to take their word for it. The story is basically non-existent. If someone told me right now that this movie was 95 percent improvised, I wouldn't be shocked. Actually, I'd probably be a little bit relieved. The movie jumps around scene after scene not really doing or saying anything different from other movies of it's kind and not nearly as good. The dialogue will remind you of a junior high school play and I can probably say this again, not nearly as good. Altogether I'd say you can probably get a more enjoyable story by reading a kid a fairy tale at bed time. As if the movie wasn't bad enough, you really get nothing else on this disc. I don't know if there were different versions of this released but the version I got from Netflix has very poor special features. Then again I guess that's a good thing because once you're done watching this movie you probably don't want any more. Fact is, you're probably gonna want to stick it back in it's envelope, run to your nearest post office and make sure this gets back to them as soon as possible. I would've over nighted the thing to them if I could've. On another side note, this did not come to me in Blu-Ray as most of my movies do. I guess this movie looks so bad that Netflix did not want anyone to see this atrocity in high def. Speaking of Netflix, this teaches me a lesson. I am no longer gonna add everything they recommend to my list, especially when the first 15 to 20 movies in my queue are all on "very long wait." That's how you end up with a movie like this in your mailbox and disappointment in your heart :-( Sorry, veered off the review for a bit. In closing, from the outside looking in this movie might look like it deserves a chance. Epic battles, burning villages, hideous creatures, Burt Reynolds' ninjas (yes, I said Burt Reynolds' ninjas), and tree dwelling lesbians led by Kristanna Loken. Sounds fun but truth is I was looking at the clock the whole time and at the end I wasn't sure if I should be glad it was over or disappointed at the precious two hours of my life that I'll never see again. Honestly, I felt a little of both. If you feel the urge to watch this kind of movie just do yourself a favor and watch one disc of any of the Lord of the Rings movies and get on with your day. In the Name of the King gets half a star out of pity and another half a star just because Jason Statham is so freaking cool, even in this piece of garbage. Best line in the whole movie, "Are you gonna fight, or talk me to death?" So a grand total of one star or if you don't understand the star system, it's really, really bad! Rent at your own risk, buy only if you're 8 years old, stoned, or a really big Dungeons & Dragons fan.

I am a big fan of fantasy movies. I love Lord of the Rings. But, I am sorry to say, this movies shows, what all can go wrong! The story is thin, the acting is average at most, the dialogs are embarrassing dumb. Even the special effects are not up to date. In one scene the CGI characters even judder ! The only nice thing are Claire Forlani, Kristanna Loken and Eva Padberg (although only one short scene) - but only because of their visual appearance. Leelee Sobieski is disappointing stiff. Jason Stratham is a good actor for action movies, but fiction movies have a story, too. Burt Reynolds - I don't know, why he did it. John Rhys-Davies a veteran to this genre - helpless. Ray Liotta - suffers from bad directing.

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

Fortunately, I read a few reviews before watching this. I had already ordered it as part of my mail-in DVD program, so I was stuck with rental, even if I had been thoroughly warned by the folks here. At least I had low expectations now, so I wasn't disappointed when I discovered - yes - it's certainly was not up to what you'd think by looking at the famous names in the cast.

The actor who astounds me the most is Ray Liotta. What has happened to him since "Goodfellas" fame to do something like this? Has his career plummeted this bad, or did he just make a poor choice of roles to play? I can see Burt Reynolds taking anything since he's peak days are long gone, and Leelee Sobieski, because she's never been a star, but Liotta?

Actually, to present both sides, the action scenes, the costumes and the story overall are not boring and not the worst thing I've ever seen. Some of the special-effects were a lot of fun to watch, so it's not all bad.....but the dialog is horrendous. It totally ruins the film and makes the whole movie appear like some B-grade cheapie. It's why I also was disappointed to see Ron Perlman and John Rhys-Davies being part of this.

The worst acting performance in here, by far, was not Liotta but Matthew Lilliard as "Duke Fallow," the son of the king. How Reynolds, who had a fine career, could work opposite this over-the-top guy and keep a straight face, is beyond me. Lilliard overacted so bad, it was embarrassing to watch. I can only hope he was supposed to act that ludicrously, but if that's the case his character is so annoying, it's not fun to view.

Jason Statham: well, I've had it watching his movies. I loved his early work ("Snatch," "The Transporter," etc.) but now he's just a ridiculous action-freak-character, one of these guys who can beat up 50 people by himself in every film, especially this one, as "Farmer." I have to admit, however, I did like him using a boomerang as a weapon. I thought that was pretty cool. I like Claire Forlani, too, who played his wife.

Sadly, the dislikes far outweigh the likes and I can see why so many reviewers here panned this film. With this cast, I guess all of us expected a better film.