Dir: Uwe Boll
Starring: Dolph Lundgren, Natassia Malthe, Lochlyn Munro
Out of all the films of his that Uwe Boll could have made a ‘sequel’ to, In The Name Of The King wasn’t one I would have expected. This really is an in name only sequel, where his BloodRayne series shared the same name character at least. This is a weird one for Boll, and it actually isn’t as bad as one might expect from him. This is actually better than a lot of SyFy originals, so as strange as it might be to admit, the man has improved.
The story is well uhh, a little confusing and I know if I try to explain it, I just wont make any sense. So we’ll go with an ex-Special Forces soldier Granger (Dolph Lundgren) is suddenly sent back through time, medieval times I believe to bring a prophecy full circle. Things aren’t what they first appear to be, and he does his best to battle through.
I have to say, Dolph holds up pretty well in this, he takes the ‘I am not taking this serious approach’ and his laid back presence actually kind of worked. His reaction to being sent through time is that of the ‘Oh that just happened?’ variety, and he has fun with it. He brings his natural charisma along for the ride, and the rest of the cast seemed to be livened up when they were working against him. Natassia Malthe who portrayed BloodRayne in the second and third films is actually a lot better here, and while her dialogue is mostly awful she does try to rise above it and I have to give her props. Lochlyn Munro tried to keep the camp down played as The King but at times it shone through and honestly he ended up being funny. No one else really stood out for me, it was a mixture of not so good acting or just bland acting.
The story as I mentioned is confusing, and this does hurt the film as a whole. It doesn’t engage as well as it maybe should have, and the dialogue was just not good and in turn this affected the performances. The film was not shot well, it felt shaky through most of it and there was no reason for that. It didn’t feel like they were going for a gritty look, it seemed as if they could only afford someone to hold the camera, not get equipment. At times it was hard to see what was going on, and others it wasn’t too bad. The costumes were perhaps a little better than what I have seen from a Boll film, however the wigs looked cheap and they couldn’t stay on anyone’s head straight which proved to be quite funny. This didn’t feel as violent or bloody as previous Boll films, which was quite different. He certainly tried to take this in a different direction and in a way it worked.
This is an upper tier Boll film; it has a few positives, so there is that. Do I recommend this as a watch? Well you know what, there are far worse films out there and if you have to watch something from Uwe Boll, this is one that you can easily survive.
The Australian DVD:
The DVD I reviewed was a screener, so I am unable to comment on Picture/Audio quality.
DVD details here.
Thanks to Bill, care of Eagle Entertainment for the copy.