• Caelbain
    Old Man
    Comments: 4

    Should I be happy about another review, or be utterly distraught about the fact that there is another “In the Name of the King”. Oh and by the way: The brother from prison break. (Also love the no-fucks-given faces in the movie)

  • Vin
    Comments: 15

    Never play Nickelback again, please.

  • BarryTheMasterOfSandwich
    Bat Hero
    Comments: 91

    I love that music you dub in (the fake tuba sounding thing you’ve used in many other videos). Once I hear that song start playing, I can’t help but laugh.


  • Leech
    Comments: 65

    Great work, Phelous! You are my favourite internet reviewer person guy. Your Uwe Boll reviews never fail to make me happy. Also, this has got to be the cheapest Boll movie yet, in terms of budget. I was suprised about all those eight and nine star reviews this stupid, stupid movie got on IMDB, though…


    EDIT: btw, is it just me or does nobody on this site have more than the “Eli Roth”-one-star-rank? Is the ranking system broken?

  • Doresh
    Just might make the CUT
    Comments: 40

    What’s the point of making a time travel story if you barely do anything with the time travel? Princess “Human Ranger 2 / Fighter 10+” would certainly make for a much more interesting protagonist. And without the stupid modern day stuff, there might just be time to actually SHOW the stuff mentioned in the expositon. Though I guess they wouldn’t have enough budget or something. Guess the dragon was just way too necessary…


    Is it normal for assassins to be covered in tattoos? I would assume they don’t like to attract attention, or have any sort of easily-identifiable mark.


    Oh boy, those dragons sure were a bitch back in the Generic Middle Ages. We Europeans finally managed to get rid of them when we build houses for everyone. I’ve heard the dragons then went to Canada to destroy some kingdom or something.

    • woodgod
      Old Man
      Comments: 2

      It’s meant to be fantasy and the series was actually (very, very losely) based on the Dungeon Siege games, so a dragon isn’t actually out place even if they use a real locaiton (it’s like complaining about fantasy stories where people go back the times of  Arthurian). They did waste the whole time travel aspect though, and it’s pretty stupid to have the same concept two movies in a row..

  • t1337dude
    A Real Turtles Fighter
    Comments: 31

    Phelous has answered my prayers with this video. You’re the man.

  • Daleklawyerbrony
    A Real Turtles Fighter
    Comments: 33

    he hasn’t once challenged you to a wrestling match yet I’ve seen you do the majority of his movies

  • SpiderMwa
    Old Man
    Comments: 1

    This movie “series” really didn’t require another one, I’ve seen the movies myself and… ooh boy, this one needs to be watched as well. With friends, of course.

    I hope that Phelous doesn’t find out that there actually is also another sequel to Wrong Turn…. as in Wrong Turn 5….

  • obsolete
    Prodigy Pet Gym Leader
    Comments: 122

    hahaha good ole A&W theme song, the ending had me in tears hahaha

  • likalaruku
    Completely Useless Now
    Comments: 935

    Back in time on what planet? Why can’t people who make fantasy movies be assed to do any kind of research?

    *Word meanings changed over times, couple that with unknown accents & any hope of communicating with locals just went down the shiter.

    *Contrary to popular belief, soap, bathing, mouthwash, toothbrushes, & a close shave were common in these days, just different & made with less hygienic things.

    *Wealthy women married as early as 12 while poor ones did child labor & married in their 20s.

    *Marriages were loveless business exchanges arranged by parents. Unless his parents were dead or sickly, a man had about as much say in who he married as a woman did, & that goes double for royalty.

    *Incest was par for the course in royal families, since they had all intermarried for generations. The church looked down on it for anyone else, though 2ed cousins were permitted.

    *The life expectancy of a peasant woman was 40. They were expected to hold a job (at half a man’s pay) while pregnant & even after birth. Rich women didn’t work & ignored their children; leaving their rearing to the servants.

    *The only weapons women were permitted to use were hunting bows & sheering tools.

    *Round tipped shoes were highly unfashionable. Knigths & nobles wore brightly colored clothing with pointed toe shoes called Poulaines, often with patten sandals.

    *Men wore their hair no shorter than chin-length. Short hair on male royalty was considered disgraceful.

    *Facial hair was fairly unfashionable, what facial hair there was was expected to be styled. A buzz cut & a goatee were not things you’d see on a man.

    *Women, were not permitted to show exposed skin beyond hands, neck, & face. The church also looked down on cosmetics. Despite this, many women painted their faces with lead to look as milky as possible. Lipstick eventually became a status symbol for renaissance women.

    *The church looked down on exposed hair. Depending on the time & location, women either wore their hair piled under headdresses, or braided & covered in nets & fashioned into intricate styles. Simple parted hair with no accessories wouldn’t have been acceptable even for a peasant.

    *Bangs were unfashionable & women shaved them off pretty high, because long foreheads were in vogue. Also unfashionable for women; eyebrows.

    *Paint existed back then. Castles had painted walls.

    *Medieval English was practically an entirely different language.

    *Pants were not like modern pants. Peasant men wore cloth tights under long tunics. Rich men wore silk tights. Sometimes breeches were worn over tights; those stop at the knee.

    *They had handguns back then, more like small canons. Culveriners & harquebusiers.

    *Large breasts, thinness, tans, & good posture were unfashionable for women in medieval times. Thinness & tans were associated with poor working class people. Women preferred to stand in a position that made their stomachs protrude.

    *Men weren’t allowed to walk around shirtless.

    *Rich men wore more jewelry than Mr. T.

    *Tattoos were not an alien concept back then. Knights were said to have gotten religious tattoos.

    • woodgod
      Old Man
      Comments: 2

      The keyword is “fantasy” (actually based on a high fantasy videogame series, not that anyone would now if it wasn’t the subtitle of the first film). Not to defend this movie or anything, but it’s silly when people get all bent out of shape over historical details in a fantasy setting. Imean you did notice that there was a dragon, right? It’s not like getting the details right would have any effect on the overall quality.

      Plus, the points about medieval English is a bit strange since, as Phelous pointed out, it’s weird that they’d evenn be speaking English in the first place.

      Also, I’m no expert, but I don’t think that all of Europe followed the same customs, so not all of that may even apply to Bulgaria (especially not the English part). And regarding the firearms, they only started appearing in the late medievil period. We have no idea what year they’re supposed to be in.

  • Dragon_Nexus
    A Real Turtles Fighter
    Comments: 28

    You know, that gun thing. That tattoo. I was thinking they could so easilly fix that Chekov’s Gun issue by making the tattoo power his gun.

    I mean come on, that tattoo kinda looks like a revolver’s bullet champer, right? It’s on his right arm, his gun arm. It’s near his hand. What’s stopping them doing a silly CG thing to show it turning as he fires his empty gun that can now fire magic bullets?


    I mean sure that’s stupid as all hell but it would be something. And at least people could have a good laugh about it!

  • Troggyman
    Bat Hero
    Comments: 90

    lika, the medieval period spanned centuries, and europe had numerous cultural differences depending on place and time. Almost all of that would be incorrect in some areas and periods.

  • Lulzy Hunter
    Lulzy Hunter
    Comments: 12

    Great review, Phelous.

    BTW, are you going to review the other two times Dominc Purcell embarrassed himself under Uwe Boll’s direction?

    First, there is Assault On Wall Street (2013) and then there was Suddenly (2013).

    • Phelous
      Comments: 625

      No particular plans for those.

      • Lulzy Hunter
        Lulzy Hunter
        Comments: 12

        I see. One other suggestion I would recommend if you are looking for a horror film with him in it would be the 2009 Joel Schumacher 2009 film Blood Creek.
        Let’s see, it is directed by the guy who brought us Batman Forever as well as Batman And Robin, it has Dominic Purcell as the lead, and it also has Henry Cavil (the current Superman) and Michael Fassbender as co-stars, & it even features Wentworth Miller in an uncredited bit part. Seems like plenty of fodder material for jokes.
        Any thoughts, Phelous?

  • likalaruku
    Completely Useless Now
    Comments: 935

    30:32 Just curious…Is that the Murky Dismal theme from Rainbow Brite, or is my brain just confused?