In the Name of the King

As a quick refresher: I have to do enough thinking at my job and at various other times that when I eventually go and see a movie, I don't have any need for the movie to be amazing in any sense for me to enjoy it. As long as it can manage to suspend my disbelief a little bit, and let me not think about work for two hours, then I'll enjoy it. Explosions help, too. In summary, I have very low movie standards.

Refresher over.

In the Name of the King was bad. Really bad. It had so many good actors in it, who at least pulled off a so-so job in this movie, and yet for some reason, it was just bad. The scene where the king dies and passes power to his son should be dramatic and tense ... the theater was laughing.

In typing this, it hits me that part of the problem might have been Burt Reynolds. He should always be a truck driver or a pimp. He can't be a medieval era king. Still, he didn't do a bad job.

Jason Statham has (to the best of my knowledge) only been in movies with a modern day setting. Seeing him placed in this "historic" context was a little strange. But he still did a fine job.

I think it had to have been the director. Ah ha! Now it all makes sense. Uwe Boll. According to IMDB, he has been responsible for some of the poorest movies ever made. BloodRayne parts 1, 2 and 3. Alone in the Dark 1 and 2. And a bunch of other winners. Well, there you have it. A movie is only as good as its director, it turns out.

So why in the world did these actors sign up with this dude? I don't get it.

Oh I nearly forgot. Honorable mention has to go to Ray Liotta for the worst acting performance I have seen in a very long time. But, I'm willing to blame the director. Ah, and the Matrix-esque special effects ... So. Very. Bad.