 |
The Good
The Bad
Judgment
Closing
Back to Top
Plot Summary
Trouble is brewing in the land of Ehb and realm-wide unrest is afoot. Though usually unarmed and disorganized, hordes of Krug are ravishing the land, destroying villages, and, strangest of all, taking prisoners. Duke Fallow (Matthew Lillard), the nephew of king Konreid (Burt Reynolds) may have a hand in these goings on. Or perhaps it is the mysterious magus Gallian (Ray Liotta), who has secretly taken the warrior/enchantress Muriella (Leelee Sobieski) as a lover who is pulling the strings.
All that's clear is that amidst this strife the humble Farmer (Jason Statham) seeks only to live a quiet life with his wife Solana (Claire Forlani) and son Zeph (Colin Ford). This idyllic life doesn't last, however, as it's not long before the Krug attack Farmer's village.
Now, with his family dispersed, and a desire to restore order to the land in his own way, Farmer sets out with Norrick (Ron Perlman) and Bastian (Will Sanderson) to set right what seems to be so very wrong.
Will this trio be just another group stricken down by powers beyond mortal control, or will they be the ones to catch the villain behind it all and cry "Stop, In the Name of the King"?
Back to Top
The Good
In the Name of the King boasts some of the best acting talent in a fantasy movie (not based on any written/drawn work) of recent memory. We've got Jason Statham on action, Ron Perlman and John Rhys Davies (the king's magus, Merick) on all-around-awesome, Matthew Lillard on ham, and Burt Reynolds on kingly bearing. It's a great ensemble and quite a treat to see them all together.
Plus, Statham in the role of Farmer, gets into the thick of some pretty good action sequences, but more than anything he weilds a boomerang in this movie. A boomerang. He definitely must have stopped off at his local wind temple before the events of this movie began.
 |
What's more, this movie was filmed in Hollywood North - Vancouver and Victoria British Columbia, Canada. And more business for Canadian film is always good, right?
Back to Top
The Bad
As you might have guessed from the lack in the previous section, this is not a movie with a lot of inherent redeeming features. So, let's start working through where this one failed, starting with the most nit-picky and working our way toward the more general of the film's flaws.
First and foremost, sumptuary laws, the medieval codes governing the clothing colours and styles and accessories that can be worn by different parts of society, are not observed.
Solana, Farmer's wife, is the worst violator of these laws. Not only does she have her face done up to look like a noble woman throughout the movie, she also wears purple throughout the movie. Peasants were not allowed to wear purple under most medieval sumptuary laws since it was considered a regal colour. Therefore, either she is a noble woman and we're never told about it, or she's a peasant and somebody on this movie's production team didn't do their research.
Similarly, Statham's use of a boomerang can slide, since for a medieval (European) setting it's a nice exotic touch. But, his possession of a sword, even if it looks like an old and worn one, wouldn't be permitted. Medieval law restricted the ownership of swords to the noble classes, partially as a status symbol and partially because they could be expensive to make. Now, a counter-argument could be made here, but it involves spoilers. So, skip the next paragraph if you'd rather not have this film's plot ruined.
<*spoilers*>It turns out that Farmer is the son of the king. This makes him a noble by blood, and therefore allows him a sword. But, the thing with that is, he isn't recognized as the king's son until a fair bit of wrangling goes on in the last third of the movie. Up until that point he is, even in his own mind, just a peasant, and therefore has no business owning a sword.
Speaking of the classic medieval weapon: Though they make for decent spectacle, the movie's sword fights are far too simple.
Instead of the movie showcasing sword-fighting as an art, what the movie shows is more of the hack-and-stab school of swordfighting. This style kind of works for Farmer, since, even if he's always had his sword, he may not have ever learned how to use it, but the generals, soldiers, and wizards in the movie definitely ought to be beyond the most basic of sword strike-sword counter drills that are prominently featured in each fight.
Perhaps the action choreographer (Tony Ching Siu Tung) was going for a simpler, grittier style of sword-fighting to match the grit implied by the movie's generous smatterings of greys and browns, but people who fight with swords for a living aren't going to make wide, large, unnecessary swings - they're going to make precise, small, movements that give them exactly the power, energy, and force that they need in any given situation. And, when life-long swordsmen and women make such movements, they're going to look far more graceful than they do in this movie.
Now, it must be granted that the movie's actors all get a fair shake at showcasing their talents in a fantasy setting, but Ron Perlman is cheated in this movie. <*spoilers*> Norrick dies near the end of the movie, but we're not given any kind of scene centering on this. We see him get hit, we see him go down, and then we see Bastian, who's with him, declare that he's dead. There's no big speech, there're no tear-felt last words, Perlman's Norrick just dies and then that's it.
Also, more a matter of casting or make-up than acting, Ray Liotta's Gallian shouldn't be in command of planar magic, he should be too busy with a show in Vegas to learn such things. Just look at his mug:
 |
Moving from acts, action, and acting, to the movie's screenplay, it's about as solid as the non-existent forest canopies that the movie's Amazonian elves use to swing down from during a major battle sequence.
As a writer, I can understand any storyteller's fear that loading the beginning of their story with exposition will leave audiences confused, disconnected, and disinterested. But that doesn't mean that you should put most of this exposition (especially those things that you could use to lead to some really amazing plot and character developments) into the last 20 minutes of your movie.
Nonetheless, in In the Name of the King, it is within the last 20 minutes that we learn how the world's magic works, that Gallian somehow made himself king over the erstwhile kingless Krug, that there are only two magi left in the world, that magi can transfer their powers to one another, and that Farmer knows what to do with a sword both in melees and in single combat.
Putting all of this up front, or at least spreading it out could have made the movie much more interesting. Instead, what carries us forward through it is the promise of action and nothing else. What's more, we never learn anything about the world, outside of what we learn in those final 20 minutes, that relates to anything that isn't directly involved in the story.
 |
Adding insult to the injuries already inflicted on its audiences' sense of taste, the movie rips off Lord of the Rings fairly openly. Galleon's keep is practically Isengard, and the Krug seem to be multiplying beneath it, just as orcs do in Sauroman's domain. Star Wars is also plagiarized, but there are already dozens of movies with protagonists whose fathers turn out to be very prominent figures.
Rather unsurprisingly, In the Name of the King also suffers from something I like to call Titan-itis. This movie malady is named for Clash of the Titans and Wrath of The Titans since both of those movies focus almost entirely on their male characters and their relationships, only bringing female characters into the story when necessary for romantic or plot reasons.
In the Name of the King does the same thing. It may even have a worse case of this illness, since Muriella, a capable, strong woman (warrior/sorceress) seems like she's been torn right from the pages of medieval romance, but she is never actually shown doing anything in the realm of men.
And, topping off all of the movie's shortcomings, its relative production values are likely trumped by those of the two Blind Guardian songs that play over its credits.
Back to Top
Judgment
Epic fantasy movies are a difficult bunch. Other films in the genre, like Labyrinth, or The Never Ending Story, have it pretty easy since they weave their worlds carefully, draw their audiences in, and tackle some dark themes while being disguised as "kids' stuff."
In the Name of the King does none of that.
Even worse, In the Name of the King has almost no redeeming qualities if looked at as a whole. Its storytelling is backwards, its dialogue is awkward and out of place, its world is poorly constructed, and its characters, unfortunately, show almost no growth whatsoever.
Even after becoming king, it seems that Farmer just stays as he is. In fact, aside from Farmer's new title, things will probably wind up as they were at the movie's beginning since Gallian, upon delivering one of the movie's weirdest lines to Solana ("I can feel him in you"), reveals that she is carrying another of Farmer's children.
The movie's action keeps it going, but if you happen to turn your brain on at all during the proceedings you'll quickly find that doing just about anything other than watching this movie would be a better use of your time.
So Freya, avoid In the Name of the King at all costs, and let it rot where it lay. The Field of Fallen Films is truly the best place for it, though even there it may keep some of the others from fertilizing the earth beneath them.
Back to Top
Closing
Check back here next week for a look at another ill-thought of fantasy movie, However, if you really want to see a good underdog fantasy movie, check out Your Highness.
Also, the blog update continues, but it doesn't look like my regular entries will become regular again just yet. Follow me on Twitter (@the_penmin) or follow this blog via email by typing yours into the box to the right of the top of this entry to keep on top of the happenings here at A Glass Darkly!
Back to Top
No comments:
Post a Comment