In the Name of the King. What now?

Shryke

I don't know if many people have seen this but I just cannot wrap my mind around the casting in this film. It's directed by Uwe Boll so I was expecting it to be woeful but what annoys me is it had a really decent cast. It was just so badly written, shot and edited... in fact I wasn't going to watch it at all until I saw the cast listing. Jason Statham, Ron Pearlman, Matthew Lillard, John Rhys Davies and Ray Liotta *ahem*andBurtReynolds*ahem*. There not exactly A-list but I really like some of these guys. I'll watch Pearlman in anything, Stathams doing alright for himself, and Liotta has impressed me on occasion. How did any of these people get signed up to this freaking film?
I was going to write a critique on it but damn. There's nowhere to even start so all I'll say is this is the best Boll film I've ever seen, I only rubbed about three pounds of salt into my eyes after watching it.
... thoughts?

rizzla

Some actors are tied to contracts with film studios. If they do all the film's on the contract they would then be able to resign for more money, or go to a different studio.

It's all about money.

Karl Hungus

Say what you want about Uwe Boll as a director, the man is a genius producer. I remember reading about how he assembles a cast, and usually gets them for less money than their normal cut is. How he goes about it, is that instead of contracting the actors for months before filming, his production company approaches them before they're going to start filming, and says that they've got a film ready to go, ready to shoot, and are they interested. It's a very clever way of doing things, and has really worked out for Boll.

Haven't seen In The Name of the King yet myself, but I'm sure I'll get around to it soon enough. Kinda looking forward to seeing it.

humanji

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Say what you want about Uwe Boll as a director, the man is a genius producer.

I've always said that. If he gave up the writing and directing, he'd make a fortune. He'd actually be liked by the film industry and by movie fans.

Vic Vinegar

In The Name Of The King is certainly not his worst film (not saying much, i know) but it is highly amusing! boomerangs in medieval times? ha!

Some of the lines are just plain priceless though!
"Wisdom is our hammer, prudence is our nail" WTF???

Matthew Lillard left no scenery whatsoever unchewed! he seemed like he was having a laugh with it anyway.

Back to Boll, all his movies are funded by Nazi gold (according to him, in Postal!)

johnny_ultimate

While I haven't seen the whole film, what I have seen features the most amusingly bad special effects in many, many decades.

I do agree he is a great producer / self-promoter. He certainly knows how to rile up gamers. But his recent rant about Hollywood had some good points, if fundamantally flawed by the fact that he doesn't make good films.

And yeah, he does make his money. You'd be surprised at how many people went out In The Name of the King based on cast alone.

Shryke

I thought the special effects were one of best things about it. I think Lillard may have actually been drunk, I know I would have. More wine!
The main characters name is Farmer FFS. Guess what he does? (We need a blank face smily).
This wasn't a film to even laugh at. I can understand getting kicks from films that are so bad they're good but with the cast and all this was something that could have actually been something good. I felt slightly bad for everyone involved.
I don't see the appeal of Boll at all. Not even in a cringeworthy sense. He may be a good producer but that's like saying Hitler was a talented pianist.