Notedog
11-09-2008, 09:55 PM
The most recent film in an assembly line of "unnoticed epic fantasy
movies" is "In the Name of the King A Dungeon Siege Tale" (Directed by
Uwe Boll). Although it can't quite hold itself to the Lord of the
Rings trilogy, Dungeon Siege does several things right… and several
things wrong. It presents a "mixed bag" of innovations to the genre.
For starters, Dungeon Siege starts off very quick, and has no opening
narration or any narration at any point in time for that matter.
Unlike other fantasy flicks, Dungeon Siege tells its own story,
instead of having someone else tell it. Is that a good thing? Well
that's where our mixed bag comes in. The beginning of the film
introduces us to two key characters, and then quickly leaves them
before we really know who they are. Of course, it isn't hard to guess
that the evil looking guy is the "bad guy," (Gallian played by Ray
Liotta) and that the woman he's with (Muriella played by Leelee
Sobiesk) is someone not quite evil, but tempted by the apple so to
speak, who also has a father of great importance.
From there we move to our hero, a simple Farmer (Jason Statham) named…
Farmer. As previously stated, the beginning is very fast paced for a
fantasy epic. We quickly learn of Farmer, his friends, family, and
past (including the origins of his name) and it would seem that at the
very moment that we've learned enough, the focus shifts to an
additional set of characters. The Noble King (Played by Burt Reynolds
in his fantasy debut) and the despicable Duke Farrow (Matthew
Lilliard). Burt Reynolds is another one of those mixed bags. There are
times when he delivers his lines with excellent emotion, and the
nobility one would expect of a king. Then there are times when he
sounds completely bored with his role, and at one point in time,
"southern." Lilliard on the other hand does an excellent job of
playing the annoying traitorous tool that his character was designed
to be. If you can't stand Lilliards character, it's only testament to
the fact that he's done a good job. After all, the characters in the
film can't seem to stand him either!
Although an action fantasy film at heart, the film never forgets to
make the audience care about the characters. We see a father teaching
his son the importance of innocent life, a husband showing love for
his wife, a grandmother who talks playfully to her grandchild. By
showing the audience that the characters love each other, it causes
the audience to love them too. Unfortunately, some instances of this
are not as well played out as others and clearly serve only to inform
the audience. The audience sees a grandmother play with her grandchild
because the characters love each other. But the audience sees a young
boy asks questions about his father that he should already be well
aware of only so that the audience can be informed of it. There is a
difference, and it shows.
As the last of our main characters are introduced, the action sets off
giving us our first fight scene. The director does a great job here,
giving us the first of several dual scenes, cutting back and forth
between two different locations. Unlike future instances of this
technique which showcase separate battle scenes, the director helps
put the audience in the shoes of the character by switching back and
forth between a scene of peace and tranquility, and one of looming
danger. It brings about a feeling of uncertainty, but never to the
point of confusion.
As the action begins we are introduced all too quickly to the "Savage
Krug." To call the Krug a rip off of LOTRs Orcs is not only an insult
to Peter Jackson, it also suggests that Peter Jackson invented one
dimensional expendable bad guys, which he did not. The Krug are for
the most part inanimate, wearing masks instead of face paint, and
their poorly acted dialog seems to consist of the same canned "Ugg"
and "Argh" sound effects repeated throughout the film.
The fight scenes are very well shot, and manage to make use of quick
fast paced cuts without confusing the viewer. You always know whose
fighting and what you're seeing. The over head shots that pan over the
entire battle field may be used once too often, but they showcase some
very well choreographed fighting, and landscape that varies from
beautiful to dreary, always helping set the right mood for the fight
scene. These shots can show us how peaceful a town was before it was
attacked by the Krug, and how hopeless a mud drenched battlefield is
to a small band of soldiers taking on a seemingly endless army. The
director was aware that he was working with a fantasy piece, not a
period piece, and was not afraid to innovate by adding hand to hand
and foot to stomach fighting in addition to swords and magic. This
helps vary the fights, particularly towards the end, as we are treated
to three fights at once. We see an epic battle between two army's as
well as a very personal fight between the protagonist and antagonist,
and a much more minor fight between guards and escaped prisoners. All
of these are tied together quite well by the plot device of Gallian
controlling several of his key minions. And just when it seems like
things are going great… the director throws us a matrix shot. An
overused technique is used to little effect, and would be better off
the cutting room floor. Amongst other weak aspects of the action would
be the krug themselves. No, they aren't terrible, and they do their
job as fighters, but their movements and acting are completely wooden,
and not on par with the rest of the film.
This finally brings us to the music, which seems to run from the
beginning to the end of the film without silence, and the idea works!
It's the one part of the film that is truly great with out any
hindrance. Even though the beginning of the film moves quite quickly,
the music keeps up with it all times, always setting a great mood.
This is music that can enhance the love of family, the simplicity of
innocent people, the savagery of beasts, the tragedy of loss, and the
wretchedness of a traitor. Furthermore, the film ends with some
excellent credits music. As mentioned, Boll knew that he was working
with a fantasy piece, not a period piece, and was not afraid to use
some very fitting rock music for the credits reel.
Further pushing itself away from the fantasy genre is the ending. Much
like the beginning, it moves very quickly. It resolves the storyline
and leaves the characters with what they've earned. There is no need
to spend time watching the characters rebuild from their loses, or to
journey home, it resolves what must be resolved, and leaves to the
viewers imagination what should be imagined. So there you have it. If
you can get over most of Liottas acting (much of which can be blamed
on his dialog) some of Reynolds, and all of the Krugs, you can enjoy
for yourself a fast paced alternative to the slower paced fantasy
epics we are so familiar with.
7/10
movies" is "In the Name of the King A Dungeon Siege Tale" (Directed by
Uwe Boll). Although it can't quite hold itself to the Lord of the
Rings trilogy, Dungeon Siege does several things right… and several
things wrong. It presents a "mixed bag" of innovations to the genre.
For starters, Dungeon Siege starts off very quick, and has no opening
narration or any narration at any point in time for that matter.
Unlike other fantasy flicks, Dungeon Siege tells its own story,
instead of having someone else tell it. Is that a good thing? Well
that's where our mixed bag comes in. The beginning of the film
introduces us to two key characters, and then quickly leaves them
before we really know who they are. Of course, it isn't hard to guess
that the evil looking guy is the "bad guy," (Gallian played by Ray
Liotta) and that the woman he's with (Muriella played by Leelee
Sobiesk) is someone not quite evil, but tempted by the apple so to
speak, who also has a father of great importance.
From there we move to our hero, a simple Farmer (Jason Statham) named…
Farmer. As previously stated, the beginning is very fast paced for a
fantasy epic. We quickly learn of Farmer, his friends, family, and
past (including the origins of his name) and it would seem that at the
very moment that we've learned enough, the focus shifts to an
additional set of characters. The Noble King (Played by Burt Reynolds
in his fantasy debut) and the despicable Duke Farrow (Matthew
Lilliard). Burt Reynolds is another one of those mixed bags. There are
times when he delivers his lines with excellent emotion, and the
nobility one would expect of a king. Then there are times when he
sounds completely bored with his role, and at one point in time,
"southern." Lilliard on the other hand does an excellent job of
playing the annoying traitorous tool that his character was designed
to be. If you can't stand Lilliards character, it's only testament to
the fact that he's done a good job. After all, the characters in the
film can't seem to stand him either!
Although an action fantasy film at heart, the film never forgets to
make the audience care about the characters. We see a father teaching
his son the importance of innocent life, a husband showing love for
his wife, a grandmother who talks playfully to her grandchild. By
showing the audience that the characters love each other, it causes
the audience to love them too. Unfortunately, some instances of this
are not as well played out as others and clearly serve only to inform
the audience. The audience sees a grandmother play with her grandchild
because the characters love each other. But the audience sees a young
boy asks questions about his father that he should already be well
aware of only so that the audience can be informed of it. There is a
difference, and it shows.
As the last of our main characters are introduced, the action sets off
giving us our first fight scene. The director does a great job here,
giving us the first of several dual scenes, cutting back and forth
between two different locations. Unlike future instances of this
technique which showcase separate battle scenes, the director helps
put the audience in the shoes of the character by switching back and
forth between a scene of peace and tranquility, and one of looming
danger. It brings about a feeling of uncertainty, but never to the
point of confusion.
As the action begins we are introduced all too quickly to the "Savage
Krug." To call the Krug a rip off of LOTRs Orcs is not only an insult
to Peter Jackson, it also suggests that Peter Jackson invented one
dimensional expendable bad guys, which he did not. The Krug are for
the most part inanimate, wearing masks instead of face paint, and
their poorly acted dialog seems to consist of the same canned "Ugg"
and "Argh" sound effects repeated throughout the film.
The fight scenes are very well shot, and manage to make use of quick
fast paced cuts without confusing the viewer. You always know whose
fighting and what you're seeing. The over head shots that pan over the
entire battle field may be used once too often, but they showcase some
very well choreographed fighting, and landscape that varies from
beautiful to dreary, always helping set the right mood for the fight
scene. These shots can show us how peaceful a town was before it was
attacked by the Krug, and how hopeless a mud drenched battlefield is
to a small band of soldiers taking on a seemingly endless army. The
director was aware that he was working with a fantasy piece, not a
period piece, and was not afraid to innovate by adding hand to hand
and foot to stomach fighting in addition to swords and magic. This
helps vary the fights, particularly towards the end, as we are treated
to three fights at once. We see an epic battle between two army's as
well as a very personal fight between the protagonist and antagonist,
and a much more minor fight between guards and escaped prisoners. All
of these are tied together quite well by the plot device of Gallian
controlling several of his key minions. And just when it seems like
things are going great… the director throws us a matrix shot. An
overused technique is used to little effect, and would be better off
the cutting room floor. Amongst other weak aspects of the action would
be the krug themselves. No, they aren't terrible, and they do their
job as fighters, but their movements and acting are completely wooden,
and not on par with the rest of the film.
This finally brings us to the music, which seems to run from the
beginning to the end of the film without silence, and the idea works!
It's the one part of the film that is truly great with out any
hindrance. Even though the beginning of the film moves quite quickly,
the music keeps up with it all times, always setting a great mood.
This is music that can enhance the love of family, the simplicity of
innocent people, the savagery of beasts, the tragedy of loss, and the
wretchedness of a traitor. Furthermore, the film ends with some
excellent credits music. As mentioned, Boll knew that he was working
with a fantasy piece, not a period piece, and was not afraid to use
some very fitting rock music for the credits reel.
Further pushing itself away from the fantasy genre is the ending. Much
like the beginning, it moves very quickly. It resolves the storyline
and leaves the characters with what they've earned. There is no need
to spend time watching the characters rebuild from their loses, or to
journey home, it resolves what must be resolved, and leaves to the
viewers imagination what should be imagined. So there you have it. If
you can get over most of Liottas acting (much of which can be blamed
on his dialog) some of Reynolds, and all of the Krugs, you can enjoy
for yourself a fast paced alternative to the slower paced fantasy
epics we are so familiar with.
7/10