King Rising - Au nom du Roi

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.

and is true, if you want something new in a fantasy movie then expect some good story. If you expect new creatures and new settings then you don't know what this genre is about. For example you cannot take the cowboys and the horses out from a western - is not going to be a western in the end no?

This movie is OK i think. The bad guys and the good ones. Is true that the details are a little bad and is true that seems everything is too rushed but just don't think like the herd. I can find many errors in The Gladiator but that doesn't mean is BAD. If you like fantasy movies you should see this movie.

(comments here need a little more objectivity - i'm really not interested to come on IMDb and read 30 comments with phrases like "i think this director is so bad - he should stop hurting people!". be mature and serious when comment please.)

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

I saw this in the theater because it looked interesting, but I was disappointed. Terrible acting, terrible plot, terrible editing. It was basically just a rehashed made for TV fantasy that wound up in the movie theater. The plot line was like a super condensed version of lord of the rings without the magic, story, and allegories. The film starts and leaves the viewers wondering and doesn't explain the plot well. The editing is VERY choppy and amateurish. The actors looked bored and unexcited. The krugs were basically ORCs stolen from Lord of the Rings.

I should have waited until it was dollar night. But for a couple of hours, it did fill some time. Overall grade - D

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.