|
Post by Dragonsrule on Dec 18, 2007 0:12:09 GMT -5
Wow, started to see commercials for this and went to sight. Looks awesome, and what a cast. Seems to be based on the Dungeon Siege games, by the title.. In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale. www.inthenameoftheking.com/Jason Statham, John Rhys Davies. Matthew Lillard, Burt Reynolds, Ron Pearlman, Ray Liotta.... WOW. A Fantasy movie that looks like it might be done right.
|
|
|
Post by pigdish on Dec 18, 2007 8:01:57 GMT -5
Great find! I watched the trailer and it looks like a fun movie.
|
|
|
Post by Dragonsrule on Dec 18, 2007 10:20:38 GMT -5
Yep. See watching Pro Wrestling finally payed off. I think the commercial ran like 3 time in the 2hr show. But seriously when have you seen a cast like that for a Fantasy film. LOTR really only had New comers and B list stars.
|
|
|
Post by MjolnirH on Dec 18, 2007 15:11:14 GMT -5
LOL yes its based on the PC game dungeon siege since they mention Krugs and that's the only place I've ever seen that monster ROFL, it looks ok though
|
|
|
Post by pigdish on Dec 18, 2007 17:40:14 GMT -5
NOOOOOO! If it is based off a game it will invoke one of my movie rules. No watching movies made from games because they always suck.
My wife and I played Dungeon Siege a few times and it was fun for a mindless hack-n-slash game.
|
|
|
Post by Antioch on Jan 2, 2008 12:36:35 GMT -5
This looks good. I saw another promo at the movies and I think I'd go see it.
|
|
|
Post by Antioch on Jan 8, 2008 13:41:37 GMT -5
Heard this opens this Friday. I might see it in 2 weeks. I'll let you know what I think then.
|
|
|
Post by Dragonsrule on Jan 14, 2008 14:53:41 GMT -5
OK. I just came back from seeing it. This movie had soooooo much more potential, than what we get. The writing could have been better. This movie was ripe to get the "Highlander" treatment. With flashbacks at all the right spots, it could have made this movie over 3hrs, but would have been a much better movie. OK 1 or 2 spoilers here. Ray Liotta was Excellent, but I would have loved scenes where we get back story, on his and John Rhys Davies characters hatred for each other. More scenes between Sobieski and Davies would have helped also. Ron Pearlman was given a very stiff character, that was used wrong again. Given flashbacks would have made his character whole. Killing him when the did was wrong also, he should have at least survived to confirm Davies' story, about Farmer. Jason Statham, as Farmer, was what you would expect from him. Yes, yet again, flashbacks would have been nice, to find out why a farmer, can fight with a sword so well, let alone martial arts. Of the battle scenes. They were OK. However there is no one that will believe, the way the archers are used, in the forest. And come on Catapults in a forest?(they were used by the Kruggs). As for the direction, welllllll. It was jumpy from time to time, 30-60 sec scenes bouncing back and forth. I don't know, didn't look, if Boller did the writing, but he did ok with what he was given. But as the director, he should have seen that flashbacks, to explain would have given more continuity to the movie. If you go in not expecting too much, you wont be dissapointed. If you go in expecting an average Uwe Boller movie, then it will live up you your expectations. Myself 2.5-3 out of 5 from me.
|
|
|
Post by Rincewind on Mar 20, 2008 16:50:29 GMT -5
I found this on the internet (at TV Tropes), and it actually explains Uwe Boll. Scary. He's a successful version of the guys in The Producers.
Uwe Boll is a director, primarily focusing on film adaptations of video games. The casual reader might hear of him and think he's doing a fantastic thing by ensuring that the masses learn of said video games and will want to play them. Unfortunately, all of his films fall under the So Bad Its Horrible quality, including his earlier films that aren't based on existing video game licenses. And somehow he keeps finding the way to make more of them. This is because his financial backers are taking advantage of a loophole in the tax code of his native Germany. It actually benefits them if the movies lose money.
|
|
|
Post by Antioch on May 12, 2008 13:27:12 GMT -5
I agree with everyone. Finally had this movie come around on my netflix queue. It could have been so much better. Innovative camera angeling, but it actually really distracted from the story with all the flying around of the camera. Backstory flashbacks would have totally made this a better movie.
Hugely famous cast for a moderately lame movie...what a let down.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Dec 23, 2008 12:15:39 GMT -5
As Pigdish said, this movie is one more reason to NOT see movies based on video games. Course, if they do a BioShock film, I probably go see it, like a lemming...
|
|
|
Post by pigdish on Jan 8, 2009 23:36:25 GMT -5
OMG! Just finished watching (with a lot of fast forwarding) this dung heap of a movie. I feel like I've been repeatedly hit on the head with donkey balls, given what this movie did to my mind.
For the love of God people, stay away from this movie!
|
|
|
Post by Rincewind on Jan 9, 2009 11:20:52 GMT -5
Heh, Pigdish, most people would have figured that one out based on the other reviews here already And then there's this sage comment: NOOOOOO! If it is based off a game it will invoke one of my movie rules. No watching movies made from games because they always suck.
|
|
|
Post by pigdish on Jan 10, 2009 8:56:03 GMT -5
Yeah yeah, I know. Despite all the advice I can't help checking out a fantasy movie. It's that optimist in me that was hoping that there was a slim chance the movie might turn out to be enjoyable.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Jan 10, 2009 9:31:41 GMT -5
Yea, I watched it cause I was bored, it was free, and I did enjoy the Transporter slightly - it was what it was, nothing more, nothing less.
Sadly, In the Name of the King makes the Transporter look like high art or something.
Ah well... still not as bad as some of the suckfests I have seen.
|
|