The little known movie review depot

[RossRoy]

Rating :

That's 1/3 of a good news

Actually, what happens is I've decided to branch out a bit from my usual purchasing habit, and buy something not as mainstream as I usually do. And for that first time, I decided to mirror your last What Ya Got post:




I didn't research them.. At all! I decided to trust you implicitly, not read your reviews when you post them (except final rating of course), and order these three. We'll see how it turns out! 

[Tom]

Actually, what happens is I've decided to branch out a bit from my usual purchasing habit, and buy something not as mainstream as I usually do.

Admit it: You made this decision when you read the following in Jimmy's WhatYaGot post  

Who I am kidding this is 3 erotics movie with a lot of lesbian imagery with decent history

(Bold by me)

But who am I to blame you: I have planned to make a lesbian themed weekend movie marathon someday.

[RossRoy]

Actually, what happens is I've decided to branch out a bit from my usual purchasing habit, and buy something not as mainstream as I usually do.

Admit it: You made this decision when you read the following in Jimmy's WhatYaGot post  

Who I am kidding this is 3 erotics movie with a lot of lesbian imagery with decent history

(Bold by me)

But who am I to blame you: I have planned to make a lesbian themed weekend movie marathon someday.

Busted! 

But actually, reading Jimmy's reviews really made me thinking that I should check out more "obscure" stuff. ANd when I saw the comment, I thought this is as good a time as any! 

[Jimmy]

The Seduction of Misty Mundae is a "remake" of a film made by Joe Sarno in his Swedish period and even if I've not seen it already I'm sure that this film is good. Sinful looks a little bit weird but since it's another colaboration between Misty Mundae and Tony Marsiglia I expect that this one will be well made too.

Those one are top production of Seduction Cinema so don't worry. This studio had made a lot of crap that I will not touch, but it had made many quality product too (for dtv made in less than a week with no budget).

I don't talk about the extra on my review but Chantal had a lot of them : 2 commentary track, the making off, a lot of trailer and as a bonus you get the film who has inspired this one (Chantal 1969) with a commentary by Nick Phillips and an interview with him. You really get your money worth 

Let me know what you think when you will watch than and why not a review?

[RossRoy]

Let me know what you think when you will watch than and why not a review?

Of course I'll post a review when I watch them!

[Jimmy]

I've forgot to mention that one of the profile isn't in the database and the other two are incomplete. Let me know if you want my profile when you will receive your order.

[RossRoy]

I've forgot to mention that one of the profile isn't in the database and the other two are incomplete. Let me know if you want my profile when you will receive your order.

Actually, if you could post them right now, as I usually add them when ordered, it would be much appreciated.

[Jimmy]

Actually, if you could post them right now, as I usually add them when ordered, it would be much appreciated.

They are suppose to be complete with the cover too

edit : I have just notice that the profile keep the number they have in my collection. Is it a problem? If yes I can repost them without a collection number

[RossRoy]

I have just notice that the profile keep the number they have in my collection. Is it a problem? If yes I can repost them without a collection number

No, it's not a problem. I just had to think to move them back to the Ordered list, and I'm guessing when I receive them and move them to Owned, it'll offer to assign a new number.

Thanks a lot for that! 

edit: And they already shipped! 

[Jimmy]

MOVIE / DVD INFO:

Title: In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale

Genre: Adventure-Fantasy
Director: Uwe Boll (BloodRayne)         
Rating: PG-13
Length: 2h07
Video: Widescreen
Audio: English
Subtitles: English, Spanish and Close Caption

Stars:
Jason Statham (Crank)
John Rhys-Davies (Sliders)
Ray Liotta (Goodfellas)
Ron Perlman (Desperation)
Burt Reynolds (Deliverance)   

Plot:
The life of a simple family man named Farmer (Jason Statham) is changed forever when a horrifying army of animal-like warriors known as Krugs who are controlled by the evil Gallian (Ray Liotta) invade his village, murder his son and kidnap his wife. Farmer sets out on a momentous journey to get his wife back and along the way, encounters magic and adventure as the quest soon reveals his real destiny in the kingdom.

My Thoughts:

I'm a fan of Uwe Boll, I'm not ashame of this and I don't care about the childish Boll bashing game that every losers like to play for some years now. I don't read any review for his films before buying them, since it's impossible to really read an honest one. I understand that some of his film are not really good (Alone in the Dark), but they are more entertaining than the majority of what is made since some years : Crappy remakes, Eli Roth crap, Michael Bay mtv action films, ...

First misconception about this film : this is not a « Lord of the Ring » ripoff. Since when an adventure-fantasy movie equals LOTR? The genre was there before it and it will be there after it (by the way LOTR is not that good). The first strong point is Jason Statham, I've not really see him before this but he does a great acting job in this. Almost everyone in the cast are perfect : Ron Perlman, John Rhys-Davies, Brian White, Claire Forlani and Burt Reynolds (if you forget that he looks like a freak now) are particullary good. The fight scenes are well done and they are not over the top like the one in House of the Dead or Bloodrayne. The cinematography is incredible (Mathias Neumann is probably one of the best DP actually)



The classical score is really good (I don't understand why the dvd doesn't have an isolated score track), powerfull and perfect for this kind of movie.

But not everything is perfect... The film have some miscast problem (something usual with the film of Uwe Boll) : Ray Liotta is not a really good choice to play a wizard and he overact too much. I can't find anything positive to say about Matthew Lillard, I can't understand why he continue to act : he always overact, he is untalented and he is the new Jay Underwood but worst! There are some problem with the script too : we have a feeling that we're late from a party (we have no idea why Gallian hate the kingdom that much), too predictible and some caracters are not developed at all and are a loss of time (by exemple the Leelee Sobieski caracter).

This movie was a complete flop in his theater run and the Boll bashing has a great responsability for that. This movie never really had a chance, with any other director I'm certain that it would have been a success. The movie is long but it doesn't feel like that at all. This is one of the best Uwe Boll's film that I've seen (and I've seen them all except for his German ones), it just ask for a chance. Try it and I garantee that you will like it as much as I do.


Rating :

Movie Trailer
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/lYW3pCSr4co" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/lYW3pCSr4co</a>

[Kathy]

...by the way LOTR is not that good...

Wow. I think this might be the first time that I've been in complete disagreement with one of your reviews.

 I am not saying that LOTR is THE adventure/fantasy movie that all others must stand up to BUT "...not that good..."?!?  I thought it was great and is one of the movies that I watch once a year (I ring in the New Year with it...get it?!...RING in the New Year... ).

Can you clarify your statement for me? Have you read the books?

By the way, I'm a Uwe Boll fan too!

[Jimmy]

Can you clarify your statement for me? Have you read the books?

By the way, I'm a Uwe Boll fan too!

I was sure that someone would react to this statement 

Yes, I've read the books a long time ago.
I don't say that LOTR is not good, just not "the best of the best of the top adventure-fantasy ever made in the entire galaxy". I found that it miss some very important part of the books, by exemple the old forest part in the first book (who show that it's possible to resist the attraction of the ring), the end is change (I find this an outrage to the reader), the film countains too much CGI (Gollum is a perfect exemple of this, an actor in a suit would have been better) and the're many other little thing that I dislike but I can't remember them all (I haven't seen the 3 films recently and, honestly, I don't want to pass 10 hours angry again because of them)

But I know that I'm in the minority there 

[DJ Doena]

Can you clarify your statement for me? Have you read the books?

By the way, I'm a Uwe Boll fan too!

I was sure that someone would react to this statement 

Yes, I will. 

Have you - Kathy - just seriously mentioned Dr. Uwe Boll in the same postings as the LOTR books/movies?

Have you even a remote idea of the punishments for this blasphemy?

I give you some ideas:



And not one of them. ALL of them!


























Just kidding. 

(but you did deserve it!)



(AESP_pres will simply be stoned to death for his heresy)





(Did I mention that the LOTR books are rather boring but the movies are great?)

[Jimmy]

I was just on my way to post to defend Kathy since her answer was a reaction to my review. I was the one who has mention the 2 together (but I have not said that ITNOTK is better than LOTR, I don't want to die  ).

But between my first visit and now you have edited your post and now I'm stone to death. I don't need to defend Kathy anymore, I'm dead stoned by the Muslim   

(Did I mention that the LOTR books are rather boring but the movies are great?)

And you are the one who call us heretics and stoned worthy   

[Jon]

Jimmy, I share some of your criticism of LotR, but perhaps in a different manner. I believe they were not brave enough to reinterpret the books a little; for instance, the walking talking trees in Two Towers read well in the book, but on screen, I found them ridiculous. And the ending? Tolkein wrote appendices, but they thought it better to lump it in with the narrative and I don't think it works at all. In fact, it breaks basic fundamentals of filmmaking! Overall, a little more daring would have made for even better films.

I said "even better" because despite those small points, all three films are bloody wonderful and they are the height of fantasy cinema. I've been reading fantasy since being a kid and I've never seen one film come close to the worlds I used to read about. Except for Peter Jackson's love letter to Middle Earth. Sci-fi was conquered decades ago, but no other filmmaker has presented a fantasy world with the same conviction. Maybe The Princess Bride, but it doesn't really count because of the nature of the story.

Uwe Boll would give one of, if not both of, his nuts to have a single atom of talent capable of producing a mere second comparable to LotR. He is the filmmaking equivalent of a bulldozer, single-handedly ruining several half-decent creative ideas from video games and he won't stop! Someone please shoot his kneecaps before he gets to Half Life. I truly and deeply respect your love of the Little Known Movie. There are many filmmakers out there who need championing, but this guy does not deserve such attention. A complete waste of space.

In fact, why the heck are you reviewing him in your "Little Known Movie" thread? Everyone knows him! Where's that damn petition? Where do I bloody sign?