Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Knightfall" data-source="post: 3990618" data-attributes="member: 2012">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 [spoiler]climb into catapults to launch themselves at the human soldiers,[/spoiler] during one of the battle scenes. Funny stuff. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f621.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":mad:" title="Mad    :mad:"  data-smilie="4"data-shortname=":mad:" />I can't stand that!</blockquote>

Verification