It is 2007. Uwe Boll, a man often described as the "world's worst director," somehow secures a $60 million budget to adapt the Dungeon Siege video games. He doesn't just hire a few B-list actors and call it a day. No, he assembles a group of people so disconnected from one another that the In the Name of the King cast feels like a fever dream generated by a random actor generator. You have a gritty British action star, a legendary Shakespearean veteran, a scream queen from the 90s, and the guy who played Shaggy in Scooby-Doo. It makes no sense. Yet, here we are, nearly two decades later, still talking about it.
The Leading Man: Jason Statham as Farmer
Before he was the indestructible force in the Fast & Furious franchise, Jason Statham was still finding his footing as a solo lead. In this film, he plays a character literally named "Farmer." He’s a simple man with a mysterious past—a trope older than the dirt he plows. Statham does exactly what you’d expect: he scowls, he kicks people, and he refuses to change his accent. Honestly, it’s one of the few things that keeps the movie grounded.
He treats the sword fights like a pub brawl in East London. It’s jarring. While everyone else is trying to act in a high-fantasy epic, Statham is basically doing The Transporter with a medieval skin. He’s the anchor. Without him, the whole thing would have drifted off into the ether of unwatchable bargain-bin DVDs.
The Villainy of Ray Liotta
If Statham is the anchor, Ray Liotta is the lightning bolt—or maybe just a very confused spark. Liotta plays Gallian, a powerful sorcerer. Watching the late, great Ray Liotta, a man who defined the mobster genre in Goodfellas, wearing a velvet cape and waving his hands around to cast "magical" CGI spells is... an experience.
Reports from the set suggest Liotta might have been the only person having a blast. He chews the scenery until there’s nothing left. He’s not playing a wizard; he’s playing a guy who is incredibly annoyed that he has to be a wizard. It is camp at its highest level. You can’t look away.
👉 See also: Charlie Charlie Are You Here: Why the Viral Demon Myth Still Creeps Us Out
John Rhys-Davies and the Fantasy Pedigree
You have to wonder what John Rhys-Davies was thinking. He had just come off the massive success of The Lord of the Rings, where he played Gimli. Now, he’s Merick in the In the Name of the King cast. He brings actual gravitas to the role, which is almost a problem because it makes the rest of the movie look even sillier.
He speaks with a booming authority that makes you forget for a second that he's in a movie directed by the guy who once challenged his critics to a boxing match. Rhys-Davies is a professional. He knows how to wear a robe. He knows how to deliver exposition about "Krugs" (the Orc-like villains) without laughing.
The Rest of the Unusual Suspects
Then there’s the supporting cast. This is where the budget clearly went.
- Matthew Lillard: He plays Duke Fallow. Lillard is an actor of extreme energy. In this film, he dials it up to eleven. He’s sniveling, he’s treacherous, and he’s wearing outfits that look like they were stolen from a high school theater department’s "Renaissance" bin.
- Ron Perlman: Playing Norick, Statham's mentor/friend. Perlman is always good. He has that face that just belongs in a world of mud and iron. He doesn't have to do much; he just has to exist and look rugged.
- Burt Reynolds: This is the big one. Why was Burt Reynolds, the king of 70s cool, playing King Konreid? He looks exhausted. He spends most of his time sitting on a throne, looking like he’d rather be literally anywhere else—maybe in a Trans Am. It’s a somber performance that feels out of place next to Lillard’s manic energy.
- Claire Forlani and Leelee Sobieski: They provide the emotional stakes, though the script doesn't give them much to work with. Sobieski, in particular, gets caught up in the "Magi" subplot which feels like it belongs in a completely different movie.
Why This Cast Didn't Save the Movie
On paper, this lineup is incredible. You have Oscar nominees, action icons, and character actors who usually turn gold into platinum. But the In the Name of the King cast suffered from a total lack of tonal cohesion. Nobody seems to be in the same film.
✨ Don't miss: Cast of Troubled Youth Television Show: Where They Are in 2026
Statham is in an action movie.
Liotta is in a pantomime.
Reynolds is in a Shakespearean tragedy.
Lillard is in a cartoon.
When you mix these ingredients, you don't get a gourmet meal. You get a smoothie made of steak, skittles, and old library books. The film's 4% rating on Rotten Tomatoes reflects that. People went in expecting The Two Towers and got something that felt like a very expensive LARPing session.
The Stunt Work and the Krugs
One thing people often overlook is the actual physical work the cast put in. The "Krugs"—the antagonists—were mostly played by real stuntmen and athletes in heavy rubber suits. There wasn't a massive amount of CGI for the grunts. Statham did many of his own stunts, which is why the fight scenes are actually the strongest part of the film.
If you watch closely, the choreography is surprisingly competent. This is because Uwe Boll hired Ching Siu-tung, the action director behind House of Flying Daggers. It’s another example of the bizarre "high-low" mix of this production. You have world-class martial arts choreography being performed by a guy named Farmer who is trying to rescue his wife from a mobster wizard.
🔗 Read more: Cast of Buddy 2024: What Most People Get Wrong
The Legacy of the 2007 Fantasy Flop
So, why does the In the Name of the King cast still get searched for today? It's the curiosity factor. In the modern era of tightly controlled "cinematic universes," we don't get movies like this anymore. No studio is going to hand $60 million to a polarizing director and let him hire Burt Reynolds and Jason Statham to fight rubber monsters.
It represents a specific moment in the mid-2000s when video game licenses were being handed out like candy and nobody knew how to make them work. The movie eventually spawned sequels, but the star power evaporated. In the Name of the King 2: Two Worlds starred Dolph Lundgren, and the third featured Dominic Purcell. They were fine, but they lacked the "how did this happen?" magic of the original ensemble.
How to Watch It Now
If you’re going to revisit the film for the cast, don't go in expecting Game of Thrones. Go in for the performances. Watch Liotta's eyes. Watch how Statham handles a sword like it's a lead pipe.
- Look for the "Director's Cut": It's significantly longer (almost three hours) and actually tries to flesh out the world. It doesn't necessarily make it a better movie, but it makes it a more coherent one.
- Focus on the Background: Some of the sets were actually quite massive. They filmed in British Columbia, and the natural scenery is stunning, even if the costumes look a bit itchy.
- The Lillard Factor: Pay attention to Matthew Lillard's performance as a masterclass in "going for it." Even when the material is thin, he is committed.
The In the Name of the King cast remains one of the most fascinating "what ifs" in Hollywood history. It’s a testament to the fact that you can have all the talent in the world, but if the vision is fractured, the result will be glorious, chaotic junk.
Actionable Insights for Movie Buffs:
If you want to dive deeper into this specific era of cinema, track down the documentary Raging Boll. It chronicles Uwe Boll’s career during the filming of this movie and provides much-needed context on how he managed to lure such high-profile actors into his projects. It turns out, a lot of it came down to simple persistence and being able to pay upfront. For those interested in the transition of Jason Statham from ensemble actor to solo star, compare his work here to Blitz or The Bank Job—it shows a fascinating evolution of his "tough guy" persona before he became a global brand.