In The Name Of The King

It's rare to see a movie that uses CGI where the CGI is so showy and obvious. But how else to you make a boomerang not only HIT it's intended target but return exactly to the hands of it's thrower? I always thought that the 'return' feature on that weapon was there so that you would get another chance at the target if you MISSED.

I have found that an thrown object loses all forward momentum when it strikes a stationary target but that could just be more of my fancy flawed book learnin'. (two point off the top for that alone)

Where most would cry, "STUPID" and be done with this, Calvin is a different animal entirely. Look at this cast - Jason Statham, Burt Reynolds, Ron Perlman, LeeLee Sobieski, John Rhys-Davis, Claire Forlani, Mathew Linnard (SHAGGY???), Ray Liota? Are you kidding me? How did all these talented people jump to join this picture?

If you ever wondered how important a good director is to coaxing a great performance out of an actor you need only compare Ray Liota's work in "Good Fellas" with his work in this one. Good God almighty he is lame here. Embarrassingly so. With his perfectly shaved face and modern haircut, he looks like he just came from home, put on a cloak, read his lines and was home for lunch. Sad.

Then I saw the director was the infamous Uwe Boll - a man that never met a movie cliche he didn't like. If anything I have to watch this one for it's cultural importance to human civilization alone. I can just see him being told about the physics of boomerangs and replying with bellowing arrogance, "If the GREAT DIRECTOR says it will return, it RETURNS!"

OK, fuck you. You have my attention. Now shut up and let me enjoy my movie.

Statham is Farmer, a simple man in a simple time with a simple name. What is with this movie trend. In 'Ghost Writer', Ewen McGregor was simply known as 'The Ghost'. It would be cool to see a movie where NO ONE has a name - just a title. ("Why do they called you 'Second Whore' in that picture Grampa?")


This farmer named Farmer sees his life destroyed when an enemy more orc like (The Krugs) than human attack his home and village resulting in person tragedy for this simple man. Or maybe not so simple at all as he goes off to raise an army to drive these beast men back where they came from and we learn more about is past. I am three minutes into this thing but I can tell you where it's going but I won't because you know too.

The fight scenes have some nice flourishes too them but suffer from that lazy old technique of cutting everything fight scene with clips so short in duration that they take us out of the action entirely. Adding one second so that I can get my bearings would pay off huge in my enjoyment of a movie but many directors don't get that.

Why hire a choreographer when you can just do a crappy job yourself? After all, you don't need input. You are a genius. You were also right to CGI the squirting blood that accompanies a decapitation. It looked SO real. Guess you didn't need a make-up artist. ("They have combs. Let them style their own hair. Make-up? This is supposed to be the Middle Ages sweetheart - the only makeup they wore was dirt.")

And that is the central conceit in what could have been a nice little picture. The great movies are the result of collaboration. Many professionals tossing in their two cents and a director smart enough to hire people he respects (and not just employs) to help him round out his vision. James Cameron suffers from this same kind of ego. Luckily for the rest of us Cameron respects everyone around him except for a good storyteller/screen writer.

Don't get me started on the accents or the the characterizations that are both broad and cartoonish. Then again. I ask to much. Watching Statham cut through a swath of evil Kurgs is often a pleasant diversion.


But you have seen it all before. I got to ogle the beautiful LeeLee Sobieski in some pretty battle armor and medieval dress but I could have got the same effect doing a google image search. So I did that. You're welcome





Sweet Jeebus this is terrible. I could continue to mock it as I watch but I am posting this review now and then continuing without further comment. I will let it run in the background of other things so I can say I saw it. It's not even worth getting on my list of movies I started watching and never finished. Now those movies are worthy of my full scorn ('Space Balls' and 'Maximum Overdrive')It's a waste of my abilities to bless it with my sweet criticism.

If you doubt me check out the trailer below. Remember it is designed to make you want to see the movie. Don't hurt yourselves in a rush to Netflix.

3/10




The Numbers

Nominations: Worst Picture, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Director and Screenplay

Rotten Tomatoes Rating 96% Negative (that is 4% positive, folks)
Box Office $4,775,656
Budget $60 million (estimated)