In the Name of the King

Several days ago, in a fit of insanity led on by the devil's nectar, we watched Uwe Boll's Dungeon Siege inspired masterpiece, In the Name of the King. And I must say, in it's defense, it cost us nothing to watch. Anyway, for anyone who doesn't know about this royal spectacular, its about a man named Farmer who goes to get his wife back from Krugs who kill his son. Also, Ron Perlman walks a pig at the start. Probably the highlight of the piece, methinks. So, today, let us look at some 5-star reviews of this awe-inspiring piece of artwork:

 Amazon.com:

Wow, I just watched this movie last night and logged on to post a complimentary review (And thank God you did, blessed sir!). I'm tempted to ask, did you people see the same movie (Probably, it had the same name. Although I'm willing to believe I watched an aborted fetus for 2 and a half hours, the effect is the same)? While I can understand and even agree with some of the criticisms posted (That the film was God-awful?), I can't believe the hammering this film received (I can). Now, I'm a fantasy fan (Then you should have been upset about this genre mutilation)... meaning, I am used to, and don't object to, fantasy (That's not really what a fan is. A fan would, at the least, claim to like fantasy. What you appear to be is a fantasy tolerator). I go looking for it and it's here in this movie (You've confused fantasy and fecal matter). I thought this movie scored well in many ways (Nope. Two ways - the Krug slingshot, and that Pig walking Hellboy). Sure, it's over-the-top... it's fantasy (That's not the way it works...)! I want evil wizards, unarmored heroes, total evil vs. total good, all the things that don't exist except in fantasy. Here are a few of the things I liked about this movie:
1) Jason Statham... normally one of my least favorite actors, more watchable than usual in this heroic role. (Ironically, I usually enjoy Jason Statham and feel he is more watchable in films that aren't this. But I guess everyone's different, and I'm right)
2) Burt Reynolds... fun to see him again and his king wasn't so bad. (It wasn't exactly Deliverance though, was it?)
3) Ray Liotta... over-the-top, just as an evil wizard should be. (He used to be an actor...)
4) Claire Forlani, more beautiful than ever, does an great job as the brave wife and mother... worth destroying a kingdom for, anyday. (Well, the second I saw her, I planted a big atomic warhead under my own home Kingdom and destroyed it, so yea, I agree.)
5) Leelee Sobieski... an excellent job, would have liked to see her part even bigger but it seems we have a deeply cut version here in the states. I'll be looking for the uncut version. (Poor sods. I wish you many more hours of Name of the Kingness fun)
6) John Rhys-Davies... does his usual fine job, considering what he has to work with. (Yes. This was much better than any other film he's been in. Especially that crappy fantasy one about Rings)
7) Not to go too long, many of the supporting performances were worthy and well done (Well, stilted and wooden. And I saw some actors in a fight scene waiting for the cameras to start before moving.). I had no trouble watching this movie and found many touches that lent it a unique personality (Despite the clear Lord of the Rings rippy-offyness of many parts). The reviewers that panned it were unfair, IMO, and many of the criticisms of the director were unfounded (No. No they were not Sir.). This movie was not boring. Of course, it was predictable, it's fantasy (Fantasy, the realm of magic, mythical beasts and great heroes, is of course limited in its possibilities)! We do want a happy ending, no? (There son was still dead. Why did that never come up again?) I liked the fast pacing, the skipping from scene to scene, the occasional humor, the  special effects, and overall, the entire movie (How nice for you. Are you mad?). A good job by all! OK, go ahead, cut me to pieces (Sorry, I've already done it. I kind of went through your review, doing it as I read. Sorry again). I know somebody out there is just waiting (Well, not waiting. Indeed, your review predates me seeing the film. Or knowing of its existence).... I'll try to die realistically. (I'm not going to kill you over this. Unless you're Hitler.)

 Amazon.com:

This isn't supposed to be a documentary (Fuck, really?) - it doesn't need to be
realistic, just entertaining (Yes. But it wasn't)- which it is. I will admit, Burt
Reynolds shouldn't have played the king (Why? He wasn't any worse than anyone else), but everyone else does a good
job. (Oh, wait. Apparently he was. Sorry about that)

Amazon.com:

Let me start off with saying that I have never seen an Uwe Boll picture before entering the theater last Friday night (Similar. Not the theatre part, but the never before seeing lark). I have heard that there are many people in two very fervent camps about his pictures and aptitude. I am not one of them. (I've only heard of one camp, and it contains everyone, and they all hate his films. And another camp, which contains him. Liking his own films. And other people liking them. Thus, ironically, I've proved your point. I think I wanted to stress they're not even-sized camps. Probably. I certainly wanted to stress something)


Action is a genre and it takes the archetypes of a particular community and builds characters around them (Often, yes. Although that's not a law or anything...). Because we file in for the visuals in these films, the script requirements are terrifically simple and rooted in the most extreme of polarities (Ok. That sounds good, but what does it mean? Action films don't have to be simple - yes, they lend themselves well to simplest characterisations and the like, hence the term "mindless action", I suppose. But that shouldn't be all one aspires to. Besides, this is a fantasy film, so there's quite a lot of scope for character. . Action is one of the leanest genres as it distances the archetype from the character very little so we can recognize, at first glance, the side this character stands on. In other words - the bad guys are dark and scary, the good guys are noble and wear white. In this case, they're farmers (Just one. Called Farmer) who speak poetically of the days of old whilst harvesting turnips with their blond and cherubic son. It is cardboard and that is what it needs to be. (It doesn't need to be. I agree, this story sets forward to use straightforward fantasy archetypes, which is well suited to the source material. However, the fact it sets out to be simple and achieves this is of little merit in itself, and hardly redeems the film's many failings)


I was totally unprepared for In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (Why? Did it sneak itself into your DVD player when you were deep-frying an otter?). I went for the bizarrely assembled cast, though I expected the film to be painful and plodding (Where were you surprised then? You got what you were expecting...). To my surprise I found the extension of a time old, cheap-o Hollywood lineage. ITNOTK:ADST is a direct heir to schlock films like Cobra Woman and all of those insipid, plaster biblical epics (Fetch it its insipid, plaster crown then. Let us crown this heir to the Kingdom of cheap-o-ness). It casts its spell with overtly simplistic dialogue (Well, I can agree that statment) and a soundtrack which lambasts you into emotional compliance (erm... No. It seemed jarring, and didn't fit in with the scenes, nor did it differ in order to create conflicting emotions ). But so thrilling is its emotive force, that I could barely breath outside of those gasps the film demanded of me. It is aligned to cause no confusions - the good are majestic and the bad, either dark and void, or in Ray Liotta's case, palpably so in floor-length leather. (Or Krugs. You forgot the Krugs, because everything that is ugly is evil. Such is the way of the world. Apparently) 


Those gasps, it is fair to mention, did not emit from any of the graphic sequences. The film looks to have been made for pennies (60 million dollars, actually - 2/3s that of the Fellowship of the Ring. Which didn't look like a cat coated in fecal matter...) - down to the wan film stock (Well, if you say so). No, this is a textbook study in emotional ebb and flow (I'm beginning to doubt you're being serious). What Leni Riefenstahl would have crafted, were she not so artful. From the opening moments of Statham's Thoreauvian sonnets while tending the land (Well... it wasn't exactly Civil Disobedience, was it? I assume you mean that Farmer put forward the virtues of the simple life. And also threw boomerangs at crows. Like Thoreau), to Ray Liotta's perfected baddie-hamming, this picture is a cornerstone of the dunderheaded (Yup, the dunderheaded movement being so important to film, was really reinvigorated by this movie). Matthew Lillard and Lele Sobeieski duel, for God's sake! Sure, it is a direct rip on the Lord of the Rings pictures (Not directly. I could have accepted that if it had ripped-off the bit where LotR wasn't shit), but it's liberation from creativity allows the story elements free reign to indulge to their furthest potential (Which, it transpires, wasn't very far). I find it hard to believe I'll have a more fulfilling experience in theaters for a number of months. (Try erotic asphyxiation.)

Amazon.co.uk:

It's actually quite a fun film (If you're drunk and angry, I suppose). You have to take a lot of things wiht a pinch of salt (put the pinch of salt in your eyes, it makes the film better), but in a wierd sort of way this film actually works (Yup, watched it from start to finish and the TV didn't break once). Lots of people comment on the daft naming of 'Farmer' as the main character (It was rather foolish), who is, unusually, a farmer. However, listen to the tale and you find out he chose this name to go with his occupation. So where you THINK there are things to pick on, there are actually few. (You didn't have to listen intently, it was pretty clearly explained. The point is, that's still stupid. It would be ok as a nickname, but would he really use that at home - you didn't think it sounded unnatural for his wife to address him as "farmer"?)
It's a very basic tale of heroism, luck and wild stunts, and the fight scenes look as though people got HURT - specifically one poor soldier who has his helm knocked off in the middle of a fight, there is a definite OUCH there! (He probably did get hurt. But I would blame that on bad directing) The story follows the usual recognised path, local farmer makes good, but it is more the peripheral characters that make this movie fun! The magic is well done, (Again, it looked a bit like a feces covered cat) and the wood-dwellers are amazing to watch, even though they play such a small part in the story. Burt Reynolds manages to pull off the role of the crusty (People aren't toast, you know that?) old king, and the soundtrack is pretty good too. (Would you believe in a (K)night like this? If you are up for some hokum and light entertainment, then get this film. If you are a picky perfectionist, go laugh at Lord of the Rings! (You see, the mistake you made was thinking these films were comedies. There's nothing funny about either Krug, on the one hand, or hairy-feeted little Hobbits getting up to mischief on the other...)

Cover via Amazon

The Lord of the Rings (3 Book Box Set)

So, I thought I'd keep going with Lord of the Rings. Perhaps you've read it, perhaps not. I'll admit, it was quite long. Parts of it took some soldiering through. But the Lord of the Rings trilogy are rightly remembered as classics. Or are they? Once again, I turn my scornful eye against the unsuspecting Amazon public:

I think my problem with this book(/s) (These books. There's 3 of them. Come on) is that I didn't read it when I was a child (Someone should have been spanked more then...). If I had done, I may have loved it like I did Star Wars (You don't love it anymore? But... What about Yoda?) or appreciated the world it creates like I now accept that the World of Warcraft universe is impressive in its size and scope(It's just 'the Warcraft Universe'. It existed before WoW).

As it is, I can't get over how thoroughly mediocre (Oh, my giddy aunt) the whole thing is. People talk about it as an epic but what is epic about it other than its incredible length? People talk about the life lessons you can learn from it or its universal themes of good and bad. Really? Are we ever given even the tiniest shred of motivation for any of the characters?(Yes) Is it ever explained to us why the 'good' characters are good or why the 'evil' ones are evil? (What? Did you want it to explore the nature-nurture debate?)


I challenge any one of this books millions of fans to find a single person who read this after the age of 25 and liked it.(Really? I bet there'll be at least one person in the world who read LOTR after 25 and liked it) Or to re-read it themselves without the rose-tinted spectacles of their childhood and explain to me why it is in any way more impressive, inventive or rewarding than most of todays fantasy computer games (Because Tolkien basically created the fantasy genre). These too create whole worlds with plenty of maps and creatures and races and fights and quests and so on, usually with more to their story than: "Walk for 1400 pages then throw a ring into some lava" but none of these are every held up as the ultimate examples of literature. (Well, no. Because if you summarize the entire plot of a novel in one sentence, then it never looks very good. Because that's one sentence. Not a synopsis of the entire plot. Because more things happened than just walking and ring-throwing.)


Like "The DaVinci Code", this book is cited as a masterpiece only by people who simply haven't read enough other books to know better. (Erm, no. You see, this argument starts to work because The Da Vinci Code was a light, easy read. Lord of the Rings is big. If you can manage to read all of it, then you probably don't have a problem reading.)

Please Sir, can I have some more?

i read this book because all my freinds where saying how cool it was, but really it was rubbish!!! i mean i like fantasy but this book was so derivitive!!! (Derivative? Of what?) not to mention wordy... i think people just think its 'a classic' because its really old and really long, but actually it stinks!!! (Mmh, scratch-n-sniff) If you want good fantasy try the Warhammer books, those have elves and dwarves and stuff in but at least there not boring!!!! Too easy.

Lastly, the middle paragraph of one review:

Image via Wikipedia

An Elf. How angry must this guy be now?

Truth is I have never managed to get past the first of the three books that make up this shockfest. I have always got to the point where the hobbits enter the elvish forest and thrown (yes physically thrown) the book across the room. When I say always I must confess that I have attempted to read this thing three times and always come to the same conclusion - it is too bad to be worthy of my time. Seriously? You threw the book? You were that angry at it that you read a considerable chunk of the first book, presumably in one go, before the bile rose in your chest. Then, unable to contain yourself, you literally took the book, pulled back your arm, and - with no regards for the passing cat - THREW A BOOK across the room? Because you don't want to know about elvish forests? YOU THREW A BOOK BECAUSE IT MADE YOU ANGRY ABOUT ELVES! AND YOU DID THIS AGAIN, TWICE! Why? Did you think that with time, your irrational anger towards elves would have subsided? What possessed you sir?

Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Extended Edition) Amazon

So, let's have a look at the Extended Edition of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, available at Amazon. With my own notations, of course.

Why doesn't nobody in the entire World (They do. On Amazon) say anything bad about these films!!!? (Well, thank God, brave soldier. Fighting the good fight for us all. And THREE exclamation marks to one question mark? Nice ratio)

It'sThey're awful! Sure, the CGI is good(I'll tell Peter Jackson). But it's about some dwarfs(Oh, they're Hobbits. Come on, how did you not gather that?) running about with a ring. It's basically midget wrestling, which is far more entertaining anyway (Well, adaptations of epic classics aren't for everyone, I suppose).
Why do people love it? Because it's an epic with great fight scenes and wonderful music and even better costumes (Those are certainly some of the features. Do you really dislike these films, or are you pulling our collective legs).
The story is a rip of of Dracula(erm... No. They're so very different), you don't care about any of the characters (I do, actually), because it's all abotu about the scenery really.(Again, erm... I'm sure there was some sort of story there. About a ring, you mentioned it earlier.)
Give me midget wrestling any day! (Yup, because it features characters you care about)

You demand MORE? Well, I oblige:

This man is evil. He WILL eat your babies.
Image via Wikipedia

Peter Jackson's self-described "adaptation" (Yes. It's a quote, apparently. Presumably a direct quote from Mr. Jackson self-describing his self-described adaptation) of The Lord of the Rings is basically an example of fan-fiction, the genre in which professed fans of a particular writer carry on the story after the end of the book: for example, Mr Darcy and Elizabeth Bennett's life together after they got married.(Thanks. Helpful AND not patronizing! Ironically, this definition clearly illustrates that Jackson's adaptation was just that - an adaptation of Lord of the Rings, not a piece of fan-fiction based in Middle-Earth) Why I describe Jackson's effort as "presumptuous" (You haven't actually done that before) is because he decided it was OK to rewrite the original work itself (Words don't always translate into pictures. So I hear), to "fix it up" in accordance with his own tasteless "aesthetic" and pop psychology. (What a wanker Peter Jackson is. I hope a herd of cats lick him without mercy) It's "mediocre" simply because, as film critic John Marriott said of George Lucas, the trouble with Peter Jackson is that "he can't write and he can't direct" (But he said that about someone else. You can't use quotes that way. And Jackson can direct, I've heard). His alterations are neither minor nor necessary: they grotesquely distort the arc of the story at every turn and render most of the leading characters unrecognisable (No. They're recognisable. They had the same names and basic appearances. You could argue for virtual unrecognisablessity, if you wanted. Or use real words). That's fine if the alternative is valid but it is far from that. Like Jolene, Jackson "took" LOTR "just because he could". (Is that a relevant quote? Really?) (Anyone wanting a far more extended and insightful analysis of why these films are a grotesque travesty should check out David Bratman's wonderful essay in the book Tolkien on Film.) (No. They were films. Perhaps you didn't like them, I suspect so. But they weren't a "grotesque travesty". They weren't the holocaust. No-one died.)