In The Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale

In The Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007)

4% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 45 reviews)

Runtime: 162 minutes (unrated version, and the runtime is not a misprint; the theatrical version is 127 minutes)

Directed: Dr. Uwe Boll

Starring: Jason Statham, Leelee Sobieski, John-Rhys Davies, Ron Perlman, Claire Forlani, Ray Liotta, Burt Reynolds

From: 20th Century Fox/Boll KG

To me, it’s always interesting talking about those films that you may have missed, the ones that flew under the radar or those that for whatever reason didn’t do as well as they should have. I talked about Waiting… due to it being on TV at the time, it’s theme of relationships on Valentine’s Day… and also because the director is from Central Florida and it didn’t make all that much in the way of money at the box office, but from what I’ve noticed it’s gotten more acclaim once it made its way to DVD.

The movie I’m talking about here is different from that. It’s gotten more attention on DVD, but what stands out about it-besides its nice cast and how it didn’t do well on the big screen at all-is who directed it. He’s well-known in some circles on-line, but if you don’t know, take a few minutes and read Uwe Boll’s Wikipedia entry to find out what he’s all about. He is quite the character, to say the least. He really is like our new Ed Wood, a guy who isn’t really all that talented but he does try and you shouldn’t get too mad at him. Some don’t like him because he started off adapting videogames and didn’t do it too well and wasn’t that faithful to the source either. Me, I never played any of those games, much less be a huge fan of them, so that doesn’t bother me at all. As for what I’ve seen, House of the Dead was SO bad it was like our generation’s version of Plan 9 From Outer Space (to quote someone from Dread Central) and ended up being great to laugh at, Alone in the Dark is pretty wretched all around but at least you can laugh at that, Bloodrayne was better than the first two and at least is bloody, and Seed… that is a horrible movie all around and should never be seen. That and this one are the only ones I’ve seen. But, I hear that Postal is a real demented comedy and he has some recent films (Rampage, 1968 Tunnel Rats) that are legitimately not bad and are worth seeing. So see, he’s improving (aside from Seed) with each movie. So, that’s why I say that all the hate he’s getting online (yes, it still happens, although it’s not as bad as it was a few years ago) isn’t really all that fair. There are other directors who are more worthy of condemnation, both famous (Michael Bay) and only known to hardcore genre fans (Ulli Lommel, who is literally a one-take only filmmaker who really doesn’t show any skill at all). I guess that Boll being loony at times works against him, but overall, he doesn’t deserve that hate any longer.

As for this film, I saw it in January of 2007 when it was released and it totally bombed at the box office, making about 10 million dollars total in the box office in the U.S. That’s a shame with that kind of cast and it’s not as bad as the critics would let you believe it to be. Sure, it’s apparently derivative of Lord of the Rings (but that doesn’t mean too much to me, as believe it or not, I haven’t seen any of those three films. I’m not joking. Maybe one day I’ll watch them, but I don’t have that much interest currently in seeing those flicks) but that doesn’t mean too much to me, and I at least got entertainment out of it.

To explain, the movie is about a farmer named Farmer (seriously; Statham) who has his son killed and wife kidnapped by creatures known as Krugs. It turns out that they are controlled by an evil wizard (Liotta) who is plotting to overthrow the King (Reynolds). Other stuff is involved, but that’s the real bare-bones breakdown of what the plot is. However, I do have to bring up that there’s a lady (Leelee) who is the daughter of the King’s magus (Davies) who wishes for equality, and the character of Duke Fallow (Matthew Lillard!) who is the King's nephew but the way he acts… the way that Lillard plays the character is like a more drunk and more fey version of Captain Jack Sparrow! It’s quite the mesmerizing performance.

I’ll admit that even in its shorter theatrical version, for some it may be tough sledding at some points as there’s a dull moment or a few, but the action was fine-enough for me, the scenery looks nice and the story is simplistic but engrossing enough for my tastes. So, I won’t say that it’s as bad as you may be led to believe.

As for this unrated edition, it’s only on Blu-Ray so that’s why it was just now that I saw it. I saw it in front of a small crowd on the big screen in ’07 (and most of them were obvious Boll fanatics) and once on DVD but I don’t remember the entirety of them, so watching the director’s cut was like a new experience. It was clear at times that the theatrical version (the original plan was for it to be two feature-length films, a la Kill Bill) had stuff cut out; for example, the fate of one character.

As for the director’s cut, as said about it on Movie Censorship (a great site to go to if you need info on different cuts of movies), there is more action, characters are fleshed out, and you do get to see the fate of one of the characters (and a nice fate it is). So, if you can find the Blu-Ray on DVD for rental or Netflix and you like stuff like Lord of the Rings (and thus can handle a lengthy film) then it may be worth seeing, even if you get more enjoyment out of laughing at it rather than enjoying it. There's that and the nice cast; so, it's not as bad as goofy online people and critics would let you believe.