PLOT SYNOPSIS (from imdb.com): A man named Farmer sets out to rescue his kidnapped wife and avenge the death of his son -- two acts committed by the Krugs, a race of animal-warriors who are controlled by the evil Gallian.

ANALYSIS: I am surprised by IN THE NAME OF THE KING. Director Uwe Boll (the same guy who challenges movie critics to boxing matches) has made a film that isn't terrible like some of the trash he has directed (HOUSE OF THE DEAD, BLOODRAYNE). Uwe Boll has been trashed by critics and movie viewers alike (They are even coming down hard on this one too). IN THE NAME OF THE KING is an enjoyable fantasy adventure film. Forgive some of the badly written dialogue (the first two lines spoken in the film come to mind) and bad acting from some (Matthew Lillard annoying as ever, Burt Reynolds who sometimes looks bored). IN THE NAME OF THE KING does feature some good battle scenes, moments of humor, decent CGI work, and actors who can own evn the worst material when they speak it. I think Ray Liotta knew what he was in for and he decided to overact his role as evil wizard Gallian (dressed up like some New York City pimp daddy). Jason Statham knows the routine and does his best (so does Ron Pearlman and John Rhys-Davies).

IN THE NAME OF THE KING is fun B-movie Fantasy fun. It is better than DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. It almost is as good as ERAGON, but doesn't come close to LORD OF THE RINGS greatness. I do think the movie is a little better than some reviewers (who are Uwe Boll haters) let on. I'm not championing Uwe Boll, but IN THE NAME OF THE KING is an improvement over some of the dreck he has directed. Next time, he should learn how to direct a few of his actors more and get even better script writers.

this movie review is (c)1-18-2008 David Blackwell and cannot be reprinted without permission. send all comments to lord_pragmagtic@hotmail.com  


look for additional content at http://enterline-media.tripod.com  and http://enterlinemedia.livejournal.com