13°
Movie Review
A Siege on the Senses
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
8:00 pm Jan 12 - by Paul Prikazsky – Buzz Writer
Related Media
Rated PG-13
0.5 Star Out of 4
Ah, the dismal abyss of the movie season that is January: the official dumping ground for studios unloading the rubbish they inexplicably produced in hopes of generating a few receipts. And Al Gore’s worried about carbon emissions. Please.
2008 kicks off with In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale; or as I like to call it, “The Lord of the Rings Wannabe with an Obnoxiously Long Title that Won’t Make a Dime.” And it’s directed by a man who needs no introduction (only a few clever tax loopholes). Without further ado, I give you the Sultan of Suck, the Squanderer of Celluloid, Mr. Uwe Boll.
Usually jumbling already simplistic video game plots, Boll moves into the fantasy realm of video games with the poise and swagger of a man on a year-long bender. His only saving grace in this convoluted mess is the hero, Jason Statham, retaining his English brogue and kicking many a monster’s ass.
Thrust on a treacherous quest with unlikely companions (including Ron Perlman), the once peaceful farmer must battle an evil sorcerer (Ray Liotta) who captured his wife (Claire Forlani) and now must reclaim the kingdom from an army of creatures vaguely resembling Manbearpigs.
Oddly enough Dungeon Siege boasts an unusual cast combining A-list, B-list and those who can’t spell “list”. From Statham to Burt Reynolds, Liotta and former Terminator, Kristanna Loken, Boll seemed determined to assuage the fetishes of every movie geek, no matter how perverted. But it’s too bad they come off like extras from a community theatre troupe, hardly justifying their engorged salaries.
A year ago, Boll challenged his harshest critics to single-round boxing matches to duke it out in some primal test of masculinity. Because the man has no talent he resorted to physical violence to silence those defaming his “films”. In that case, I have a message for Mr. Boll:
Sir,
By all means, I would be delighted to discuss the seismic absurdity, ludicrous plot-holes, despicable characters, and blatant disrespect for an admired medium (consider yourself lucky for I’m feeling rather amicable today). If you would care to express your twisted ideals in an intelligent manner I would be more than happy to do so. However, should you decide to respond inappropriately in your skewed manner, well then, dukes up, I suppose.
Regards,
Paul M. Prikazsky
Sound Off
Sign In or Register to post a comment
The views expressed are the sole responsibility of the visitors who submitted them and do no represent the opinions of the217, WPGU, buzz or Illini Media staff members.
Last post: Jan. 16, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Fairfield (Chris Fairfield) said on Jan. 16, 2008 at 2:18 pm:
This film (dretch, through and through) was better than other Boll efforts. It managed to be bad enough to be good in that bad movie sense. We saw it in the theatre, riffed the hell out of it MST3k style, laughed a lot and went home happy. The same could not be said for Bloodrayne. We sat there in abject horror at the screen (this time my television, we rented it) and no amount of riffing was able to help us get through that monster.
We're hoping Postal (slated to open against the new Indiana Jones (wtf?!)) will be in the same category of bad film. We can go, laugh inappropriately and leave. I suppose we're masochists in that regard.
Nikki (Nikki Blight) said on Jan. 13, 2008 at 6:07 pm:
At this point, a movie has only to be mentioned in conjunction with Uwe Boll to make me not want to see it. Ew...