sign in
register
Watch
Amazon Video
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
JustWatch
Your probable score
?
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale

2008
Fantasy, Action
2h 7m
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. (imdb)

Directed by:

Uwe Boll

Screenwriter:

Doug Taylor, Jason Rappaport

Starring:

Ron Perlman, Will Sanderson, Claire Forlani, Burt Reynolds, Ray Liotta, Jason Statham, John Rhys-Davies, Leelee Sobieski, Matthew Lillard, Brian White, Kristanna Loken

Genres:

Fantasy, Action, Adventure

Countries:

Canada, Germany, USA

Language:

English
imdb IMDb
Update history
Suggest edit

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale

2008
Fantasy, Action
2h 7m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 12.7% from 653 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(660)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
pickpocketPickpocket
Rated 06 Aug 2009
1
12th
It's like Uwe Boll watched LOTR, got a boner and said "I can do this!" then failed miserably. My first Boll and hopefully the last. Damn you Streusand for making me watch this!!
Rated 06 Aug 2009
uwe_bollUwe Boll
Rated 06 Jul 2009
100
0th
this one was great. the actors were stupid idiots in this, but my directing was good enough to make up for that.. defintly one off of my favurites of my new modern art films.
Rated 06 Jul 2009
corbadCorbad
Rated 23 Apr 2020
45
10th
Like an episode of Xena written by someone who is scared of women, directed by someone with no sense of humour, and shot by someone incapable of holding a camera. There are boomerang follow-shots, posing forest acrobats, and medieval ninjas, but it's all taken so seriously by worst-ever-person Uwe Boll that if he had his way it'd be no fun at all. Luckily, those ridiculous antics will never not be entertaining. Add in an incoherent plot and awful acting and you're in for a real treat.
Rated 23 Apr 2020
adalonAdalon
Rated 27 Jan 2008
35
9th
The only difference between this and LOTR(apart from the quality) is the size of John Rhys-Davies
Rated 27 Jan 2008
indyatmnINDYATMN
Rated 13 Jan 2021
72
29th
Not sure why people are so hard on this. While it's obviously an attempt to mimic & cash in on the success of LOTR, doesn't a lot in the fantasy genre seem derivative? & somehow Uwe Boll got a lot of $$! How? The movie is also easy to follow (I just saw Bloodrayne, so...) Yes, he miscast Liotta; yes it's got some hokey dialogue; yes it's dull despite many sword fights; & yes, it's as predictable as possible. But the locations & cinematography are stunning & it should work for kids.
Rated 13 Jan 2021
sieghardtSieghardt
Rated 28 Sep 2015
70
66th
Ron Perlman is enjoyable as that guy Ron Perlman is in every film like this
Rated 28 Sep 2015
myfavchordsmyfavchords
Rated 10 Apr 2020
35
3rd
Over and over again this movie makes you say what? The script is terrible and the movie drags on and on. All of the cast have done better work elsewhere and some of the performances are bad. Overall this film is a complete disaster.
Rated 10 Apr 2020
macswellMacSwell
Rated 22 Sep 2017
20
4th
It's simply staggering to think that anyone on Earth would be prepared to greenlight a $60 million Uwe Boll project. His fantasy epic is predictably dismal, featuring a cast who are never remotely authentic to their environment and a story that's impossibly banal. The dialogue is worse yet, but is at least moderately entertaining in its badness.
Rated 22 Sep 2017
detoxDetox
Rated 04 Feb 2017
25
7th
24 of the points go to the audio commentary from Boll himself. Watching it was one of the most absurd experiences in my life.
Rated 04 Feb 2017
ericamblerericambler
Rated 09 Jul 2016
27
3rd
Most of the cast appears sedated, the script is fantasy mad libs, and the action resembles Power Rangers more than LOTR. Still, IN THE NAME OF THE KING represents one of Uwe Boll's more sincere attempts to please his target audience, though one could argue that his contempt might have produced a more memorable film. At least Jason Statham's leaping kicks look badass.
Rated 09 Jul 2016
exirelExirel
Rated 26 Jun 2016
2
5th
This is just terrible. Terrible acting, terrible story, terrible special effect. I loved it.
Rated 26 Jun 2016
vengefulkbmVengefulKBM
Rated 21 Feb 2015
5
0th
Easily the most boring Lord of the Rings knockoff ever created. This actually, literally, put me to sleep.
Rated 21 Feb 2015
begoniabolbegoniabol
Rated 12 Mar 2013
3
6th
Uwe Boll farts out a movie with a well known cast, and it reeks so so bad. The accents the actors tried to pull off just fail horribly, the special effects are alright for Boll standards I guess. But goddamn, what a giant piece of shit. Too awful to watch in one go. And seriously Uwe.. Ninja's? SERIOUSLY!?
Rated 12 Mar 2013
methad1methad1
Rated 28 Jan 2013
25
3rd
There is some bad, bad editing in this.
Rated 28 Jan 2013
andaghandagh
Rated 22 Aug 2012
25
5th
I guess this is the reason Ray Liotta was never considered for the part of Saruman the White. It's always a bad sign when you are out-acted by Uwe Boll regular Will Sanderson.
Rated 22 Aug 2012
maartenmaarten
Rated 17 Feb 2012
8
0th
You have to applaud Boll for his achievement to gather such a fine cast (Perlman, Statham, Rhys-Davies...), but that's the only positive thing I can find, really... My very first Boll movie, and I can already see where he gets his reputation - but I still can't see how he gets such actors to 'work' for him...
Rated 17 Feb 2012
sweekodenSweekoden
Rated 09 Aug 2011
44
26th
By far the best Boll movie. I was actually entertained--albeit mostly by stuff that wasn't intended to be all that entertaining--and I had a heckuva time being surprised by all the name actors Boll had managed to lure into his web.
Rated 09 Aug 2011
okkervilOkkervil
Rated 18 Mar 2010
1
1st
I only watched about 40 minutes of this as a sort of Boll Experiment, having never watched one of his films before, but quickly came to the same conclusion as anyone with a brain would: Uwe Boll is a fucking retard.
Rated 18 Mar 2010
sagremoreSagremore
Rated 16 Dec 2009
60
33rd
The film director knows his job, the scenes are not bad, but not extraordinary too and the repetition of battle scenes becomes boring. The scenarist know his job too, but the scenario is not extraordinary too. We are far from Z series, but it's clearly a B movie. It takes some elements from the Lord of the Ring, from the chinese action movies too and from other films. It's not a bad movie, but it suffers cruelly of a lack of genius !
Rated 16 Dec 2009
pewbengpewbeng
Rated 06 Dec 2009
9
12th
Why do I even waste the time... - How does Boll get those actors?
Rated 06 Dec 2009
thedicemanTheDiceman
Rated 18 Nov 2009
5
0th
So bad I didnt watch it all.
Rated 18 Nov 2009
kusanagiKusanagi
Rated 20 May 2009
30
1st
My god.... stop Uwe Boll. Please, stop now.
Rated 20 May 2009
xaddictxaddict
Rated 16 Jan 2009
60
21st
I actually thought it was pretty decent, compared to Uwe Bolls other work/crap. It lacks however the depth of story, brilliance of plot, essence of emotion, the view of a pro and the really nice twists and character changes even the smaller kids' fantasy movies have. I liked the performance of some actors, but hated the way the story starts without an intro and the movie ends without having an explanation or even a feeling of it being over.
Rated 16 Jan 2009
luna6ixLuna6ix
Rated 12 Jun 2008
69
32nd
The best movie Uwe Boll has ever made, but it still manages to be a bad movie, even the hordes of amazing actors couldn't make up for the stench of Uwe Boll. One more thing, the bad guys look like putties from "Power Rangers", and that is not a good thing.
Rated 12 Jun 2008
teddedonTedDedon
Rated 14 Jan 2008
37
11th
In the Name of the King may be an objectively bad movie, and is a resounding failure, it's still easy to see several redeeming qualities in it. For one, the movie is very funny, mostly due to its poor overacting and terrible script, on the other hand the movie looks really good; it's shot with that same epic feel you got out of The Lord of the Rings. However good that may be, that is probably the funniest part about this movie, how insanely redundant it is of the LOTR series. It's no good.
Rated 14 Jan 2008
mittenmitten
Rated 12 Jan 2008
5
0th
You know how bad the movie is when Burt Reynolds gave the finest acting performance of the lot.
Rated 12 Jan 2008
scribScrib
Rated 07 Jul 2022
10
0th
If Lord of The Rings was a Power Rangers movie. If Sauron was a TV chat show host. If Ents were female Tarzans. If Frodo was Jason Statham and had a boomerang. If the Fellowship had zero character development. If treason was a tolerable crime.
Rated 07 Jul 2022
jimmy_suedeJimmy Suede
Rated 28 Apr 2017
30
8th
Jason Statham, Ron Perlman and Burt Reynolds play themselves in a medieval fantasy flick, teaming up with John Rhys-Davies, some ninjas, and a Cirque de Soleil act to fight Ray Liotta (who looks like he popped over from another movie without having time to change clothes or hair) and his orc horde. Statham treats everyone from enemies to friends to the king with contempt. But I was actually still entertained by this LOTR budget knockoff. I just had to set my expectations really really low.
Rated 28 Apr 2017
argion21Argion21
Rated 05 Feb 2017
19
4th
Most of the points are made up by the audio-commentary. Boll is probably the most delusional director to ever walk the earth.
Rated 05 Feb 2017
mrblacktronMrBlackTron
Rated 09 May 2016
71
53rd
Olağanüstü oyuncu kadrosuyla, zaman zaman LOTR hatırlatan konusuyla ve sahneleriyle zevkle izlenen film. Film 10 dan fazla başrol oyuncu barındırıyor, müzikleri ve arkaplanlar şahane, konu çok bilindik gibi görünmesine rağmen kendini izlettiriyor.
Rated 09 May 2016
wulfstanleeWulfstanLee
Rated 13 Nov 2015
0
0th
It borrowed Lord of the Rings' pastoralism. It borrowed Lord of the Rings' chiaroscuro. It borrowed Lord of the Rings' score. It borrowed Lord of the Rings' Uruk-hai. It borrowed Lord of the Rings' Battle of Helm's Deep. It even borrowed Lord of the Rings' John Rhys-Davies. But what good is borrowing things you have no earthly idea how to use (and never will)? This is one of those films that's so terrible it's actually kind of interesting and entertaining to watch (if you like catastrophes).
Rated 13 Nov 2015
glm01glm01
Rated 15 May 2015
30
0th
30.000
Rated 15 May 2015
guvolefouguvolefou
Rated 29 Jul 2014
3
0th
Eynesil: Kötülüğün epik boyutu.
Rated 29 Jul 2014
donquixoticdonquixotic
Rated 27 Jul 2013
15
11th
HDTGM
Rated 27 Jul 2013
wicheWiche
Rated 23 Jun 2013
27
8th
A good lot of action. And bull.. Absolute crap.
Rated 23 Jun 2013
hellboy76hellboy76
Rated 02 Mar 2013
0
0th
Utter fucking nonsense. Burt Reynolds and Matthew Lillard in a fantasy piece. That echoes in the halls of cinema as a great fucking idea. GREAT JOB UWE BOLL.
Rated 02 Mar 2013
jhmclellanjhmclellan
Rated 24 Feb 2013
35
5th
Not good. But Leelee Sobieski and Claire Forlanie are quite hot.
Rated 24 Feb 2013
matthew_parkinsonMatthew Parkinson
Rated 22 Feb 2013
20
7th
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale is an absolutely awful film. Do you have any reason to watch it? No. Even many of the "bad" sword and sorcery films of the '80s and '90s were better than this, and that's saying a lot. At least those, even if they weren't good, were fun because you could laugh at them. This one is too long and dull to permit even that. It has awful performances, boring action, a lack of clarity, coherency or reason to care, and I hope nobody else is subjected to it.
Rated 22 Feb 2013
adoubleadouble
Rated 01 Oct 2012
5
3rd
Uwe Boll must have naked pictures of somebody to get a cast this good. Statham, Perlman, and Reynolds definetly deserve better than this. There's always value in a movie like this in terms of laughing at it, but Alone in the Dark and House of the Dead are better if you want that. This one just is not worth your time.
Rated 01 Oct 2012
ofterdingenOfterdingen
Rated 04 Sep 2012
28
7th
Of course it's bad but better directors have done much worse than this. And so have Uwe Boll. The production design is surprisingly high quality.
Rated 04 Sep 2012
frederikaFrederikA
Rated 13 May 2012
10
2nd
...yeah, that was (predictably) a waste of everyone's time...
Rated 13 May 2012
fvdhamfvdham
Rated 04 Jan 2012
75
63rd
Several good battles.
Rated 04 Jan 2012
chmulcr0nchmul_cr0n
Rated 15 Nov 2011
60
28th
Surprisingly solid and entertaining. Also: Claire Forlani's cleavage.
Rated 15 Nov 2011
glmissexyglm_is_sexy
Rated 31 Aug 2011
33
0th
33.000
Rated 31 Aug 2011
goremeatgoremeat
Rated 27 Apr 2011
10
3rd
Amazingly boring. My guess is that it was deliberately bad.
Rated 27 Apr 2011
makotofumakotofu
Rated 02 Nov 2010
1
2nd
I don't even know...
Rated 02 Nov 2010
slantmagSlantMag
Rated 21 Oct 2010
5
2nd
"Only Uwe Boll would assume that the moviegoing public craved a trashy Lord of the Rings rip-off starring Burt Reynolds and Matthew Lillard, and only he could then manage to make such a potentially riotous endeavor so humorless." - Nick Schager
Rated 21 Oct 2010
jamesdepaolojamesdepaolo
Rated 30 Jun 2010
0
2nd
1.filmed in the 17th century but they had matrix trenchcoats....2.one part of the movie burt reynolds was dying his wig was falling off...3.matthew lost his accent in two scenes...this movie is horrible..even for Uwe Boll...he must think he is Lemel...
Rated 30 Jun 2010
davidblastDavidBlast
Rated 01 Jun 2010
5
1st
Perlman, Rhys-Davies and Reynolds?! What in God's name... no wait. This has nothing to do with God. This is 'Uwe Boll makes Lord of the Rings', when he should be asking himself if its time to just give up on this whole directing thing. Uwe's 'Ed Wood - only evil' persona makes him impossible to truly hate, but the same simply cannot be said about his movies. Unforgivably dull.
Rated 01 Jun 2010
sliderccslidercc
Rated 23 May 2010
25
23rd
So bad its funny. How did Uwe Boll get these people to do this?
Rated 23 May 2010
janusjanus
Rated 02 May 2010
30
5th
Enthrallingly poor dialogue. Overwrought music blaring constantly. Combat scenes composed irresponsibly enough to warrant Boll time in a pillory. I cannot recommend this movie highly enough.
Rated 02 May 2010
miss_jesusmiss jesus
Rated 27 Apr 2010
14
2nd
Almost worth watching for the train-wreck aspect. Except you put yourself at risk because your intestines may at any moment move up into your chest and make a noose around your heart and then silently kill you out of pity.
Rated 27 Apr 2010
jellyscudsJellyscuds
Rated 12 Nov 2009
20
5th
I was generous with this rating, only due to the Blind Guardian and Hammerfall tracks that ran through the end credits. Sadly the end credits were the best part of this movie and that's coming from someone who's very tolerant of this genre.
Rated 12 Nov 2009
gerudogerudo
Rated 19 Apr 2009
2
3rd
I wanted unintentional humor and all I got was a shitty, boring movie.
Rated 19 Apr 2009
kmcneilKMcNeil
Rated 28 Mar 2009
2
15th
Clearly better than the awful "Alone in the Dark", but also unfortunately without the hilarious idiocy of "Bloodrayne" and "House of the Dead". A few bits and pieces were disappointingly mediocre. I can't make fun of mediocre, goddammit! Give me utter crap for 90 min., Uwe. We both know you've done it before.
Rated 28 Mar 2009
empiremagempiremag
Rated 18 Feb 2009
1
3rd
"Absolute tosh."
Rated 18 Feb 2009
favrewanabfavrewanab
Rated 18 Jan 2009
35
1st
Bad acting and bad story = Bad movie.
Rated 18 Jan 2009
tvfilm_hubTV+Film-Hub
Rated 16 Jan 2009
5
28th
Doug Taylor (the screenwriter) should be taken out and shot in the head for putting dialog like this on screen.
Rated 16 Jan 2009
ohadOhad
Rated 10 Dec 2008
14
10th
Yet another movie carrying the name of a video game franchise without the makers actually playing it. fell asleep twice.
Rated 10 Dec 2008
optimusmikeOptimus_mike
Rated 28 Oct 2008
20
10th
Why the hell was Ron Perlman and Jason Statham in this turd, seriously what shady ass shit did they get into?
Rated 28 Oct 2008
glowweaverglowweaver
Rated 29 Sep 2008
0
0th
worst movie i have ever seen . . . I can't believe jason statham did this movie. what a load of rubbish.
Rated 29 Sep 2008
tathieltathiel
Rated 22 Sep 2008
11
1st
Up until now "the best" Uwe Boll has produced... I can only recommend to read all my fellow's mini-reviews! And this "director" is so convinced that he does great movies...
Rated 22 Sep 2008
spaceflohspacefloh
Rated 25 Aug 2008
34
13th
eng
Rated 25 Aug 2008
ivyyivyy
Rated 07 Aug 2008
34
15th
allahim o muzikler neydi oyle kabus gibi filmin olmayan konusuna dahi odaklanamadim kafam sisti
Rated 07 Aug 2008
andertonanderton
Rated 19 Jul 2008
30
19th
more entertaining than half of the movies i saw last year
Rated 19 Jul 2008
td888td888
Rated 30 Jun 2008
10
2nd
AAAhhh. THis movie didn't show the director on the box, so it should have been a big red flag, but I rented it anyway. Big mistake. Unbelievable how they suckered some 'established' actors to play in this movie. It's uterly crap. It looked like Ray Liotta had some fun with his role, but the others just grabbed the money and run I guess. Stay away from this, if you see this DVD somewhere, burn it. You'll be doing everyone a favour.
Rated 30 Jun 2008
gravymaximusGravyMaximus
Rated 29 Jun 2008
10
6th
hahahahahaha
Rated 29 Jun 2008
vandelay1Vandelay1
Rated 27 Jun 2008
2
0th
bad movie
Rated 27 Jun 2008
dean_franzDean Franz
Rated 18 Jun 2008
3
3rd
Why... the FUCK did all these actors sign on the work on this?! Why? Well, no matter. They can't save this trainwreck of an overlong, wanna-blow-your-own-brains-out boring piece of Boll. Avoid.
Rated 18 Jun 2008
tidusffxTidusFFX
Rated 07 May 2008
81
68th
No comment.
Rated 07 May 2008
thedenizenTheDenizen
Rated 03 May 2008
20
6th
Jesus Christ this was painful. Uwe Boll should just give up.
Rated 03 May 2008

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...