You’ve probably seen the meme of the guy who keeps failing upward. In the world of cinema, that guy is Uwe Boll, and his "masterpiece" is In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale.
Honestly, looking back at the year 2007, it’s hard to wrap your head around how this movie even happened. Imagine having $60 million to spend. Most directors would use that to build a sustainable franchise or, I don't know, maybe hire a script doctor who doesn't use clichés as a primary language. Instead, we got a movie that felt like a high-budget Renaissance fair where everyone forgot their lines.
It’s the kind of film you find in the $2 bin at a thrift store and think, "Wait, is that Jason Statham holding a sword next to Burt Reynolds?" Yes. Yes, it is. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of weirdness.
The Wildest Cast Ever Assembled for a Video Game Movie
When people talk about In the Name of the King, the first thing that comes up isn't the plot. It’s the cast. It is absolutely unhinged. You have Jason Statham—pre-megastardom but still a legitimate action lead—playing a character named "Farmer."
Yes, his name is Farmer. Because he's a farmer.
But then look at the supporting players:
📖 Related: Gwendoline Butler Dead in a Row: Why This 1957 Mystery Still Packs a Punch
- John Rhys-Davies (Gimli himself, probably wondering why he didn't stay in Middle-earth)
- Ron Perlman (doing his best to look stoic in what looks like a Spirit Halloween wig)
- Ray Liotta (playing an evil sorcerer as if he’s still in Goodfellas but with a bathrobe)
- Burt Reynolds (as the King, looking genuinely confused about which continent he’s on)
- Matthew Lillard (who is basically playing Shaggy from Scooby-Doo but with medieval political aspirations)
It's a bizarre mix of talent that should have resulted in something epic. Instead, it feels like a fever dream where several different movies are happening at the same time. Statham is in a gritty action flick, Liotta is in a campy villain monologue contest, and Burt Reynolds is just trying to find the exit.
Why In the Name of the King Failed So Hard
Money doesn't always buy quality. The film grossed about $13.1 million worldwide. When your budget is $60 million, that’s not just a flop; it’s a legendary crater.
The critics weren't just mean; they were offended. It currently sits at a 4% on Rotten Tomatoes. Why? Basically, because it tried to be The Lord of the Rings without understanding what made those movies work. It copied the aesthetic—the sweeping mountain shots, the hordes of "Krugs" (which are definitely not Orcs, wink wink)—but forgot to include characters you actually care about.
The dialogue is famously wooden. At one point, Ray Liotta’s character, Gallian, says things that make you wonder if the script was written in a single afternoon. The "Krugs" themselves look like guys in rubber suits because, well, they were guys in rubber suits. In an era where King Kong and Pirates of the Caribbean were pushing CGI boundaries, this felt like a step backward into the 80s.
The Uwe Boll Factor
You can't talk about In the Name of the King without talking about the director. Uwe Boll is a name that sends shivers down the spines of gamers everywhere. He specialized in buying cheap rights to video games—House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, BloodRayne—and turning them into movies that had very little to do with the source material.
👉 See also: Why ASAP Rocky F kin Problems Still Runs the Club Over a Decade Later
There’s a legendary story about Boll challenging his critics to actual boxing matches. He actually did it! He flew out several online critics and fought them in a ring. He won, too, but it didn't make his movies any better.
In the Name of the King was his biggest swing. It was his attempt to prove he could handle a blockbuster budget. Instead, it became a cautionary tale about why you need more than just a famous cast and a lot of extras in the woods to make a fantasy epic.
The Sequels You Didn't Know Existed
Believe it or not, this movie spawned two sequels.
- In the Name of the King 2: Two Worlds (2011) – Starring Dolph Lundgren as a modern-day soldier sent back in time.
- In the Name of the King 3: The Last Mission (2014) – Starring Dominic Purcell.
Neither of these had the $60 million budget of the first. They were direct-to-video affairs that leaned even harder into the "so bad it's good" territory. They ditched the Dungeon Siege branding because, frankly, the game developers wanted nothing to do with the franchise after the first disaster.
Is It Actually Worth Watching?
Kinda? If you love "bad movies," this is a holy grail. There is a specific joy in watching Ray Liotta chew the scenery while Jason Statham tries to maintain his dignity while fighting guys in gorilla-pig suits.
✨ Don't miss: Ashley My 600 Pound Life Now: What Really Happened to the Show’s Most Memorable Ashleys
It’s not a good movie by any objective standard. The pacing is weird, the costumes are questionable, and the plot is a mess. But as a piece of Hollywood history—a moment where a massive amount of money was thrown at a director with a "unique" vision—it’s fascinating.
What you should do next:
If you’re going to watch In the Name of the King, do it with friends. Don't go in expecting Game of Thrones. Go in expecting a chaotic, expensive mess.
- Watch for the hair: The wigs in this movie deserve their own documentary.
- Spot the "LOTR" Rips: See how many scenes you can identify that feel exactly like a scene from Peter Jackson's trilogy.
- Check out the "Director’s Cut": If you’re a true masochist, there’s a version that is nearly 3 hours long. It doesn't make the movie better, but it definitely makes it longer.
Ultimately, the film serves as a reminder that the "golden age" of video game movies took a long, painful time to arrive. Before we had The Last of Us or Arcane, we had Jason Statham as a guy named Farmer. We should never forget where we came from.