Au nom du roi: Dungeon Siege

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.

Okay, a crap script. Serious problem with that. But some good acting, beautiful sets, nicely shot, good special effects. If you want to see a fantasy movie, and you have seen all the good ones, this is worth a spin. Loads of action. Well choreographed. The trailer movies on the DVD imply you are an idiot man who likes to watch movies for the boobs and violence, which doesn't set the mood, I admit. But there is no exploitation of women in this movie, and some of the women even take up swords. So, okay, this isn't Shakespeare. If fact, prepare thyself for character arcs that are vapid and almost theme-less. It's basically a medieval/supernatural revenge tale. But if you're just looking for a no-brainer fix of non-dragon fantasy and action, especially on a weekend afternoon, you will enjoy this. Jason S. is excellent.

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.

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.

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