Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Chrisg

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale

Recommended Posts

Ray Liotta as a dark mage. That's pretty much the selling point.

Share this post


Link to post

I have not seen this movie but Uwe Boll is the worst and still making movies even though the German government no longer gives him tax breaks. I did watch House of the Dead directed by him and the movie was so bad even the topless women were not attractive. Why do any actors with a whiff of success elect to work with this modern day worst director?

Share this post


Link to post

I have not seen this movie but Uwe Boll is the worst and still making movies even though the German government no longer gives him tax breaks. I did watch House of the Dead directed by him and the movie was so bad even the topless women were not attractive. Why do any actors with a whiff of success elect to work with this modern day worst director?

 

Generally, the actors he works with haven't had a whiff of success in years. Jason Statham seems to be the only one who wasn't on a career downslide when he worked with Boll. I mean, Burt Reynolds and Matthew Lillard? (Lillard was good in "The Descendants," and I've heard good things about his directorial debut, but at the time, his most recent successful movies were "Scooby-Doo 2" and "Without a Paddle.")

Share this post


Link to post

Burt Reynolds, Ray Liotta, Ron Perlman, a guy from Scream, and for some reason Jason Statham.

 

Liotta especially phones this shit in so hard it's spellbinding. He's just an evil wizard from North Jersey.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Burt Reynolds, Ray Liotta, Ron Perlman, a guy from Scream, and for some reason Jason Statham.

 

 

 

You had me with Ray Liotta, Ron Perlman. two Solid actors who never give up artistic integrity for the sake of financial gain.

Share this post


Link to post

I was flipping through channels one day and caught *SPOILER* Burt Reynolds' death scene, where he sounded less like he was dying and more like he was experiencing a minor inconvenience. I haven't seen the film in it's entirety, and it looks like a chore to sit through at over 2 hours (plus being terrible, which would make it feel closer to 5), but do I need to actually see it at all to get the second one? The second one has Dolph, and I fucking love Dolph.

Share this post


Link to post

Dude, I doubt it. The trailer for the 2nd one shows Dolph running around fighting monsters in rubber masks and CGI dragons that look like they came out of the Atari version of Skyrim. Oh, and he is also apparently a time travelling retired special forces agent from our present sent back to the past to fight evil wizards (you know like in the real 14th century or something), so he has guns.

 

 

ps - Both of these awful things are on youtube in their full glory. The first is more enjoyable probably since it has so many recognizable hasbeen actors that I'm assuming are in serious debt.

Share this post


Link to post

They're both streaming on Netflix right now too. It's amusing that rather than call it something else and try to capitalize on the somewhat hot streak that Dolph was having (he's great in the Expendables films and the AWESOME recent Universal Soldier installments), that he decided to sequelize the film that essentially banished him from theaters forever, as nothing he did after that ever played on more than a few screens. I mean, Boll is a brand in and of himself, and Dolph's got his following, so I wonder if sticking a 2 at the end of a title of a movie that people actively avoided got anyone else to watch it that wasn't already sold on it. I wonder if making the plot of this second one the opposite of "Masters of the Universe" was a conscious decision from the beginning, or if it only came about after getting Dolph attached to it? "Plot". *teehee*

Share this post


Link to post

"Dolph Lundgren initially turned down Uwe Boll's offer before coming back on his decision when he and his wife decided to get a divorce."

 

I guess that answers your question.

If going through a divorce meant that I'd have to do "In the Name of thJESUS CHRIST, a sequel? To THAT? Really?" for Uwe Boll, I think I'd try my best to make a last ditch effort to make that marriage work. For the kids...and my sanity...

Share this post


Link to post

they made two of these movies and i've never heard of them tell just now.. wow I guess I now know what skyrim the movie would look like. no need to make that one.how do they get a sequel out of a crappy low budget movie.

 

and you know what they are making a third one.

Share this post


Link to post

Well the budget for Skyrim was $85 million and it made $450 million within less than two weeks of release. The first one of these turd movies had a budget of $60 million (thank you, dumb German laws!) and has grossed just over $10 million worldwide to date. If they really made a Skyrim movie the popcorn sales alone would most likely outweigh Boll's career net. I would hope Burt Reynolds voices the dragon, though.

Share this post


Link to post

Well the budget for Skyrim was $85 million and it made $450 million within less than two weeks of release. The first one of these turd movies had a budget of $60 million (thank you, dumb German laws!) and has grossed just over $10 million worldwide to date. If they really made a Skyrim movie the popcorn sales alone would most likely outweigh Boll's career net. I would hope Burt Reynolds voices the dragon, though.

This just reminds me of when "Halo 3" came out, and they were touting the next week that it "made more money in one day than any other form of entertainment" or some similar such bullshit, that it had made more than the opening weekend of "Spider-Man 3". The math was a little fuzzy, because people were paying 8 bucks to see "Spider-Man". Meanwhile, the video game was going to set you back at least sixty, and I'm sure that more than a few folks plopped down a hundred for "Halo 3: Giant Fucking Helmet Edition" or whatever.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Holy shit, regarding who would do the voice of a dragon in a Uwe Boll movie, I was going to say "If they got Connery for Dragonheart, I'd bet Uwe Boll would get..." followed by a seemingly random has-been name that seemed pretty clever to me. I knew that there was a DTV sequel to "Dragonheart" and figured I'd see who did the voice in THAT and then go a notch lower, but when I looked, I saw the EXACT name that I was going to say before double-checking, and it turns out that ROBBY BENSON has already done a dragon voice. I'm 100% positive that I didn't know that, and damn it, now I have to think of someone a notch lower than Robby Benson. Adam Rich? Adam Rich, I guess. I had to look and make sure that he was still alive...

Share this post


Link to post

Speaking of Collectors Editions there is a good piece over at gamestop about all that game collectable stuff people buy, guess it's not going to win you a spot on antiques roadshow anytime soon.

 

When it comes to dragon voices, Sean Connery's got that market tied down.

Share this post


Link to post

Well my point was more that I'd trust the makers of Skyrim over Boll when it came to producing a viewable film, but now that I think about it I'd also put my dead cat in the same category, so meh.

I understand, but comparing the budgets and grosses of the movie and game just reminded me of that other thing :)

Share this post


Link to post

Let's get back on track: this movie is ridiculous. I would suggest having Uwe Boll as a guest but he tends to punch his critics, so that could get ugly.

Share this post


Link to post

Jason Statham's character is named Farmer. Ray Liota plays a wizard in a leather jacket! Burt Reynolds is the King, LeeLee Sobieski plays some chick or whatever. This has to be one of the most comically bad movies ever made. It's on Netflix instant, so it's easy for people to watch. Please, please, please do this movie.

Share this post


Link to post

Wait -- Are you deriding them for casting Leelee Sobieski as a woman? Because she's pretty convincingly a woman. Say what you like about the rest of the movie, Leelee's talent for playing female roles is unreproachable.

 

;)

 

Sorry -- Just being a dick for no reason.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  

×