-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
In the Name of the King
- Thread starter Zaukrie
- Start date
Knightfall
World of Kulan DM
I went to see this movie tonight, and I liked it enough to rate it 6 out of 10 on IMDb. The movie was a great "popcorn flick" with some really good action sequences. Jason Statham "was" Farmer, although I would have liked the character to evolve a bit more as the movie went along. (Some real armor would have been nice.) John Rhys-Davies, Ron Perlman, and Brian J. White all gave good performances in this movie, with Rhys-Davies giving the best performance as Merick.
Claire Forlani's and Burt Reynolds' performances weren't as good, but still passible compared to some fantasy movie performances I've seen. Matthew Lillard's comical potrayal of the sniveling Duke Fallow seemed out of place in a fantasy movie. Leelee Sobieski's and Ray Liotta's performances were uninspired and painfully campy. Liotta was almost unbearable to watch in this movie, IMO. And his outfit is laughable. (Bad wardrobe designer! Bad!) I would have liked this movie a lot more if they had gotten someone else to portray the evil magus, Gallian.
(Kristanna Loken wasn't on screen long enough to make an impact beyond her good looks and revealing garb.)
The krugs could have been done better, but they were merely fodder, so I let that go. The best part about the krugs was watching them
during one of the battle scenes. Funny stuff. 
Most of the special effects were done well, even if they weren't eye-popping. (This is no Lord of the Rings.) I loved how the magi teleported. Very elemental. It is unusual when a special effect (magical maelstrom) is a better character, on screen, than the actor (Liotta). (No, I'm not kidding.)
The cinematography was very well done, IMO. That kept me interested more than the dialogue. The scenes in the rain were the best. Boll did "ripoff" some Lord of the Rings visuals, but who can blame him after the success of that trilogy. (I doubt he'll be the only one.) Some of the cuts between scenes had me shaking my heads, but overall the visuals were well done.
In conclusion, "In the Name of the King" was a decent fantasy flick that only failed to get a better rating from me due to the uninspired acting of a few actors that seemed to be mailing in their performances. (I'm looking at you Ray Liotta!) I went into the theatre with no expectations, and was entertained. The worst part of the experience was the dumbasses sitting behind me who were there just to laugh at the screen because it was a Uwe Boll movie.
I can't stand that!
Claire Forlani's and Burt Reynolds' performances weren't as good, but still passible compared to some fantasy movie performances I've seen. Matthew Lillard's comical potrayal of the sniveling Duke Fallow seemed out of place in a fantasy movie. Leelee Sobieski's and Ray Liotta's performances were uninspired and painfully campy. Liotta was almost unbearable to watch in this movie, IMO. And his outfit is laughable. (Bad wardrobe designer! Bad!) I would have liked this movie a lot more if they had gotten someone else to portray the evil magus, Gallian.
(Kristanna Loken wasn't on screen long enough to make an impact beyond her good looks and revealing garb.)
The krugs could have been done better, but they were merely fodder, so I let that go. The best part about the krugs was watching them
climb into catapults to launch themselves at the human soldiers,
Most of the special effects were done well, even if they weren't eye-popping. (This is no Lord of the Rings.) I loved how the magi teleported. Very elemental. It is unusual when a special effect (magical maelstrom) is a better character, on screen, than the actor (Liotta). (No, I'm not kidding.)
The cinematography was very well done, IMO. That kept me interested more than the dialogue. The scenes in the rain were the best. Boll did "ripoff" some Lord of the Rings visuals, but who can blame him after the success of that trilogy. (I doubt he'll be the only one.) Some of the cuts between scenes had me shaking my heads, but overall the visuals were well done.
In conclusion, "In the Name of the King" was a decent fantasy flick that only failed to get a better rating from me due to the uninspired acting of a few actors that seemed to be mailing in their performances. (I'm looking at you Ray Liotta!) I went into the theatre with no expectations, and was entertained. The worst part of the experience was the dumbasses sitting behind me who were there just to laugh at the screen because it was a Uwe Boll movie.
I can't stand that!
Last edited:
Ranger REG
Explorer
After this, Bill Gate will be having second thoughts about turning over his leadership mantle to someone else in Microsoft (last I checked, Dungeon Siege is their franchise).
Unless he himself recommended Uwe Boll.
Memo to Sony and Blizzard: DO NOT let Uwe Boll make films based on your popular games (i.e., respectively EverQuest and World of WarCraft).
Unless he himself recommended Uwe Boll.
Memo to Sony and Blizzard: DO NOT let Uwe Boll make films based on your popular games (i.e., respectively EverQuest and World of WarCraft).
It could have been better, it missed the hallmark of Uwe Boll films in that no female lead was naked.
There was some good bits but others parts just dragged on. It had a great cast and some really tryed to help this movie, to others it was just a check.
There was some good bits but others parts just dragged on. It had a great cast and some really tryed to help this movie, to others it was just a check.
Alaric_Prympax
First Post
I saw this opening day and my expectations were low, it is a Uwe Boll movie afterall. I must say that is was better then I thought it would be.
Liotta seemed a miscast to me and was the worst of the cast, though he does have a good laugh. Sobieski seemed emotionless thoughout except for one scene and that still wasn't a good one. And more Kristanna Loken would have me it a better film eventhough her character lacked any but more scenes with her were wanted. Matthew Lillard, well enough said.
I will say I thought it looked good, nice locations and a good computer castle.
I wished it followed the game a little though... there was a perfect time go into the crypts to get to Stonebridge but they didn't, very sad.
Liotta seemed a miscast to me and was the worst of the cast, though he does have a good laugh. Sobieski seemed emotionless thoughout except for one scene and that still wasn't a good one. And more Kristanna Loken would have me it a better film eventhough her character lacked any but more scenes with her were wanted. Matthew Lillard, well enough said.
I will say I thought it looked good, nice locations and a good computer castle.
I wished it followed the game a little though... there was a perfect time go into the crypts to get to Stonebridge but they didn't, very sad.
Last edited:
HeavenShallBurn
First Post
At one point I saw a fragment of a leaked trailer supposedly from this movie and it had some sort of evil knight (Anti-Paladin I presume) riding a horse in the forest who gets pincushioned with arrows and keeps fighting. Since this was based on Dungeon Siege I've got to ask does it seem to emulate the D&D hitpoint scheme with important (high level) characters being ridiculously tough?
Ranger REG
Explorer
Wait a minute. The leading character is a man?
I thought DS is about a female leading character?
I thought DS is about a female leading character?
Knightfall
World of Kulan DM
No, the lead character in the video game is a man who is a farmer whose family is murdered by krugs. It's a fun game. See here...Ranger REG said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_Siege
Now maybe you can choose to play as a male or female character. I can't remember. It's been a while since I've played it.
Last edited:
frankthedm
First Post
I too remember "red head and flaming sword" dungeon siege ads.Ranger REG said:
Similar Threads
