In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Seige Tale
Right off the bat, infamously bad director Uwe Boll starts my 2008 movingwatching year off with the most craptacular film of the holiday season. I can’t wait to catch up with previous disasters “Bloodrayne,” “Alone in the Dark,” and “House of the Dead” to see just how high he ranks among the worst filmmakers of all-time. If this film is any indication, he could very well be the worst since Ed Wood (and that’s saying something people, ’cause I’ve seen “Manos: The Hands of Fate” and “Monster A Go-Go”).
It’s about at this point in the review I go into a story summary, except this film- based, like Boll’s earlier American releases, on a video game- doesn’t really appear to have one. It’s not often you see a movie like that- even Ed Wood had basic outlines generally, even if they were poorly told- but damned if Boll- who once challenged his critics to a boxing match- hasn’t done so with flying colors. About all I can tell you is that it involves magic, Crugs (think poor-man’s “Rings” orcs), ninjas, boomerangs, betrayal, kings, fathers, sons, and just every other damn thing you can think to put in a fantasy adventure. The problem is none of these things converge into what one may call a logical story or a rational thought. The most linking idea from beginning to end seems to be the journey one man takes in order to say “I Love You” to his wife. Tolkien himself couldn’t follow this film, which helps set big screen fantasy films back to the days prior to the “Lord of the Rings” and “Harry Potter” franchises. Even the music seems like a 3rd rate effort, always audible but never interesting. Seriously folks, someone please email me if you can sort this film out.
I normally don’t find a lot to write about bad films- you’ll notice it’s rare to find a negative review on the site. Few deserve such contemplation. A movie like “In the Name of the King” damn near requires it. In an attempt to discern how the film fell through the cracks of competency down to the level of rough editing, Z-movie production values, and almost non-existent storytelling skills. In an attempt to figure out why name actors like Jason Statham, Ray Liotta (who almost makes his performance in the equally-awful “Turbulence” look like his work in “GoodFellas”), Burt Reynolds, John Rhyes-Davies (who should seriously know better), Ron Pearlman, Claire Forlani, and others would sign on to such a prospect (did they see Boll’s other credits?). In an attempt to figure out how the filmmaker got as much money as he did to make this film (a popular theory with friends of mine includes him actually being independently wealthy).
Who knows, though. Maybe we’re looking at a new form of comedy filmmaking from Boll. His next film, “Postal,” certainly has elements of comedy in it. The difference being, of course, that “Postal” looks purposely funny. One gets the feeling watching “In the Name of the King” that at one point, the film was intended to be taken seriously. Instead, it was funnier than “Balls of Fury,” “Rush Hour 3,” and “Idle Hands” combined. I’m not looking to get my hopes up for “Postal”- just as easily as he can turn dramatic filmmaking into high comedy, I’m sure Boll is just as capable of turning comedy into taut drama, or at least turgid melodrama. Neither one would surprise me. Just so long as I have a crowd of people around me capable of getting in on the fun.
