In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale Reviews

Page 1 of 239
½ August 2, 2016
This movie is so bad I couldn't even finish it. The dialogue is awful. The action is boring and the special effects are a joke. This is just not worth the time.
½ July 25, 2016
Jason Stathem isn't too bad in movies but this is just a disaster!
Uwe Boll Sucks!

Score: 1.5/10
½ December 22, 2015
This is truly terrible. Badly written, poorly directed, awfully cast and acted and with laughably bad special effects it's pretty much one of the worst films of the 21st century.
November 30, 2015
How is this not a 0% movie?!? I honestly can not think of one worse... even those that have 0% I like more than this one.
½ October 21, 2015
This is a terrible movie and its horrible acting and pathetic dialogue is almost as bad as Furious 7. In an unintentionally funny way, it can be amusing to see known actors prostituting themselves for a paycheck because they're over the hill and desperate. Miscast to the nth degree are Burt Reynolds as the king and Ray Liotta as the arch villain. I've seen much better performances in high school plays.
½ July 19, 2015
Why did these above average to great actors sign on for this Uwe film? I quit watching soon after i saw the orcs....
½ July 17, 2015
So hilariously bad. Saw this in the theater and it was like watching a very bad made-for-tv movie on a big screen. I don't know how this movie got an actual release.
½ May 24, 2015
Perhaps the best Uwe Boll movie.
May 1, 2015
remembering this film it think i may have been too hard on that conan remake. Wanna see Jason Statham pretend to be conan? cause that's about the only people who will endure this. Ray Liotta acts and dresses like he forgot this is set in the fictional past, Leelee Sobieski, Claire Forlani & Burt Reynolds are so unmemorable that only through the synopsis did I remember they are in this film. It seemed like a good ideal on paper, but in the end just another terrible Uwe Boll film, though probably his best one.
½ April 22, 2015
Truly awful. I can't even find something positive to say about this movie
½ April 9, 2015
wrost movie of the 2006
March 15, 2015
Absolutely horrible movie, I should've paid attention to the Netflix rating of 2stars
February 28, 2015
The fantasy genre certainly has its ups and downs. On the one hand, we've got epic, multi-award winning sagas like the "Lord of the Rings". In the other we've also got a good amount of laughably bad, shoddily made ones like "Dungeons & Dragons". Earning itself a likely permanent spot among the worst of is "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale". It's a film that is not only poorly acted, written and made, but it's also tedious and excruciating to watch. The story follows a man creatively named Farmer (Jason Statham) whose son is killed by an army of orcs I mean Krugs. His wife is captured so off he goes to rescue her from the creatures and their foul overlord, the evil wizard Gallian (Ray Liotta?! Say it isn't so!). He gets some assistance from an old friend Norrick (Ron Perlman? Seriously?). We learn that Gallian is planning on raising an army to overthrow the king of the land (Burt Reynolds) with the help of the king's snivelling, slimy nephew, Duke Fallow (Matthew Lillard). Time for some sword battles, epic battles in the rain, wizardry, some Ringwraith knock-offs and some silly political backstabbing. Take it away Uwe Boll!

I'm not going to say that this movie rips off the Lord of the Rings, but there are some elements that are surprisingly similar. We've got the dueling wizards, with John Rhys-Davies (who played Gimli in the Peter Jackson films) playing the good counterpart to Gallian, we've got the armies of orcs, the elf-like forest creatures, the shadowy horse riders that Gallian uses to command his armies and a couple of scenes here and there. I'm not saying that this is a terrible movie because of these though, I'm saying the movie's so bad even if it was the first fantasy film you ever saw it you would have a hard time sitting through it.

First of all, what kind of protagonist are we given? A guy named "Farmer". Apparently he calls himself that because he believes that a man is whatever he does. Does that mean that if he becomes the mayor of the town he'll change his name to "Mayor Mayor"? Jason Statham has had his share of bad movies but he's never been more wooden or less charismatic than here. Even when he's throwing boomerangs or inexplicably doing karate kicks, you'll wish the film was following someone else. Singling out Statham isn't quite fair though because pretty much everyone here comes off as an amateur. Matthew Lillard plays his character way over the top. It's a wonder the guy hasn't been thrown in a dungeon under suspicion of every single unsolved murder in the city. Ray Liotta looks absolutely bored in every scene he's in, but might just be trying to turn invisible so no one notices him. Overall, everyone is trying to get through the cringe-worthy dialogue as best they can but few escape unharmed. I'd give some examples, but the film's lack of subtitles (an inexcusable sin considering this Dvd was released in 2008) makes it hard to quote.

I was actually taken aback by how shoddy the action sequences were. Every scene where farmer goes around kicking looks very staged and are not the least bit exciting. Late into the film they explain why our titular character is able to kick so much ass, but until then these Krugs come off as real chumps. A significant amount of them fall down after being kicked in the chest and then never get up and come on, they can't take down an old guy armed with a pickaxe? Story-wise, it comes off as pretty laughable often. I know it's for dramatic effect, but I'd like to imagine that the reason there happened to be a wedding going on when the Krugs first attack is that they're just jerks and wanted to ruin this perfect day by setting the town on fire and killing everyone in sight. Even the special effects aren't very good. Whenever Farmer throws his boomerang, it's an obvious computer generated effect and several of the environments looks downright cheap. I'm not talking about the sets, which are decent enough. I'm talking about the wide shots with castles and such.

To the film's credit the Krugs and done with practical costumes and while their armour and weapons look cheap, at least they don't clash with the hapless villagers they're slaughtering. The elves (or whatever they are called, to my knowledge they were never named in the movie) are played by talented acrobats that do their own stunts. Hurray for faint praise!

The fact that I had to re-watch part of the film to jog my memory brings me to the film's biggest flaw: it's too long and it's boring. This beast runs at slightly over two hours and there's just nothing here that will capture your interest. The characters barely have any personalities, the legions of opponents aren't menacing and their masters are one-dimensional. The battles are edited frenetically, meaning you're going to have a hard time figuring out who is winning and which character is dying when things get rough. It's really difficult to explain why the film is boring, but I can easily see people turning this one off before finishing it. It's Uwe Boll's shoddy direction that sinks what could have been at the very least a film that's so-bad-it's-good into an absolute bore to sit through.

Not even a reasonably big budget could save the curse of Uwe Boll. "In the Name of the King" proves itself to be a film that is utterly devoid of any fun moments, aside from a few action scenes where you can laugh at them ironically. It's absolutely terrible and I beg of you to stay away from it. (Theatrical version on Dvd, January 24, 2014)
February 22, 2015
Yikes, that was rough. Awful acting, even worse script, cheese out the ass. Not to mention the ridiculous looking Power Rangers-esque bad guys. Medieval putty patrol? So bad.
½ February 16, 2015
Great action packed film
January 22, 2015
Uwe Boll Is The Worst Director...
January 8, 2015
Slightly, only slightly, better then Boll's previous work. But that's not saying much whatsoever. Wasted talent and another wasted game film adaptation.
Super Reviewer
January 2, 2015
Jason Statham , Burt Reynolds , Ray Liotta , John Rhys-Davies and more.. a great cast indeed in this adventure flick. The movie it self arent quite as great tho but its a watchable movie for sure despite all the negative reviews. It's in the same level as Eragon kinda i would say and have some LOTR inspirations. In a lower level of course. Jason does the job nice with similar action scenes as he usual do. Overall a decent epic movie style in the rate level average..
½ December 28, 2014
A tour de force of failed filmmaking. With a reported $60 million budget Uwe Boll, whose work I have never before had the rather dubious pleasure of watching, has clearly managed to employ some decent people to do some very terrible things.
Several of the sweeping landscape shots, echoing Peter Jackson's approach to showcasing New Zealand, even up to and including a rather decent little wizard's keep with traditional lava flows, are not bad. Others though, especially those featuring the castle of the good king (more on him later), are quite transparently dodgy CGI, perhaps the addition of a coconut clapping squire exclaiming 'it's only a model!' would have helped here.
Writers, perhaps, were not where the money was spent, either in overall plot concept or dialogue. Mysterious orphan being heir to the throne is not really a trope still in the blossoming of its youth, though the man could make a good business selling dream turnips to various incarnations of the Baldrick family. His proficiency with a machete/sword and a boomerang early on indicates he is either the son of a great and noble line, or the Hero of Time reborn. Unfortunately he has no green hat, or indeed any wardrobe change within the whole two odd hours, even after becoming king (ironically the machinations of the known next-in-line, good king's nephew, are what cause his status to become known, not sure if this irony, or vague Macbeth-like plot device are intended, probably not).
Other points of interest include the vaguely elven/Amazonian pseudo-pacifist forest dwellers and their magic ivy, good king and his fascinating accent (accents being randomly scattered throughout the population by the god or gods (although it is quite clear the goodies have a religion the invoked power/s are rather evenly split between the singular and plural), who is clearly a very good and just man because he knows about a village capable of raising two crops a year because seaweed is washed onto it, enriching the soil (salt water not being an issue in this magical land). Oh, and the 'krug' who are an apparently boorish and stupid race, with no desire to do anything, unless an evil wizard says so.

The evil wizard, who seems to come from Las Vegas, is the real villain of the piece, with an accent perhaps even more jarring than good king's, he opens the piece by apparently draining the magic power out of good wizard's daughter mid-coitus, before running off to mastermind the krug attack from the midst of his swirling cyclone of clichéd dialogue, whence he seemingly possesses all the leadership amongst the non-human baddies at once, controlling his minions with vaguely fascistic arm movements, and sending his avatars one by one into the good guys' swords. Lucky for him, there are an infinite amount of bad guys to get slaughtered, indeed, when they aren't dying fast enough they jump into their own catapults, set themselves on fire and shoot themselves at their foes (except when their foes have the high ground but are backed onto a vast forest and using flaming munitions might actually have some tactical value).
Oh, did I mention good king has a squad of ninjas? He does, no idea why. They turn up when the krug learn to burrow under the ground and come up under people in the manner of zombies, but pop up occasionally even after the krug forget they can do that.
John Rhys-Davies turns up every now and again as the good wizard (sorry, magus). One hopes he was well paid, poor fellow. If only Peter Jackson had let him be a wizard as well as a dwarf and an ent he might not have felt the need for this.
In short, ludicrous film, real budget, great big mess. In honour of the concept I have written this review without editing or bothering to check it holds together. Maybe if you've managed to get this far you'll manage the film too.
Page 1 of 239