Professionals in ancient times proudly flaunted their respective profession by adopting it as their family name. In In the Name of the King: a Dungeon Siege Tale, a wandering child who was found and brought up by a farming village wears his profession proudly in his first name.
A sword-wielding farmer, simply called ‘Farmer’ (Jason Statham), is summoned to the court. King Konreid learns that this is his long-lost son. The king’s only other descendants are a crackpot nephew who dreams of sitting on the throne and a rebellious daughter who wishes to join the services even though women are not permitted to do so.
The characters are all humbug.
It’s amazing how some ordinary farmers who are attacked by monsters can swing whatever they have in their hands and emerge unscathed.
An “evil sorcerer” is in league with the crackpot. And has the princess in his arms. He enters and disappears from her bedroom at will. Since his magic is so strong, why does he not simply eliminate the king and install either one of these heirs? Also, if it is the castle that he wants, what purpose is served by waging a terrible one-sided bloody battle against innocent agricultural folk?
Further, it appears very odd that a sorcerer should raise an army for battle rather than using his dark powers, to win a kingdom. And how does an action hero armed with only a sword plan to win a one-on-one sword fighting battle against a sorcerer who magically controls swords without even touching them?
Jason Statham does his action stuff with a difference, fighting with and against swords for a change, occasionally even employing a flying kick when necessary. Though some amount of thought has gone into the sword-fighting sequences, the battle scenes are staged and artificial.
The acting, fights, and story kill the best intentions of the technicians.
The editor (or producer, or whoever was responsible) have made a fine decision of chopping off over thirty five minutes from the director’s version. This ensures a more interesting pace as well as a few sequences that come across as being mildly esthetic, such as this: Just as a boy is about to be murdered the scene cuts to the hero hurriedly finishing a one-to-one battle and then running hurriedly. In the shot that follows, he shovels the earth with a grave face.
Uwe Boll’s sword-and-sorcery film is an exercise in amateurishness from start to finish. It’s insipid. But at least it got me thinking about the science of etymology. I wondered: Will this farmer fellow called Farmer change his name to reflect his new profession if he’s crowned king at the end of this boring nonsense?
