Director Uwe Boll has a reputation as one of the worst film directors of all time. In the mid-2000s, he helmed a string of well-publicized but critically savaged video game adaptations that immediately sunk to the bottom of cineastes’ estimations. In 2003, he made “House of the Dead,” and followed that in 2005 with both “Alone in the Dark” and “BloodRayne.” He chased those with “In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale,” “BloodRayne 2: Deliverance,” and “Postal” all in 2007, and capped off his run in 2008 with “Far Cry.” Fans of the games on which those films are based were incensed that Boll should so clumsily handle the source material, and fans of the cinematic medium were incensed that
Despite his critical reputation, Boll has remained prolific, sometimes helming multiple pictures a year. He directed “First Shift” and “Bandidos” in 2024, and is set to release “Run” in 2025.
I have spoken with Boll for an interview, and it’s easy to see why he continues to get work. He’s talkative, smart, and pragmatic. When confronted with his critical reputation, Boll usually shrugs, offering a “whatever” response, feeling that his achievement in making a movie outstrips whatever critics might have to say. He’s also an idea man, able to succinctly pitch movie treatments in a way that makes them seem intriguing. He loves making movies, and that’s all he needs.
What’s more, Boll’s films all tend to boast illogically impressive casts. He has revealed that he usually just calls famous actors on the weekend of filming and asks if they’re free. If they wanted a few bucks to sit on a throne and read a few lines, maybe taking six hours out of their Saturday, then they’re in the movie. Some disgraced actors are petitioning to stage their comebacks via Boll.
This certainly must have been the case of “In the Name of the King,” which starred Jason Statham and Ron Perlman but also featured Burt Reynolds, Ray Liotta, John Rhys-Davies, and Matthew Lillard.
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale was a critical and commercial flop
“In the Name of the King” was based on “Dungeon Siege,” a medieval-fantasy-themed RPG released by Gas Powered Games in 2002. The story follows an evil mage named Gallian (Liotta) who has sicced evil monsters called Krug onto the country of Ehb. A simple man known only as Farmer (Statham) is able to protect his farm but loses his son in the attack and his wife (Claire Forlani) is kidnapped. Farmer and his friends Norick (Perlman) and Bastian (Will Sanderson) undergo a quest to rescue Farmer’s wife. Eventually, Farmer will — through battlefield prowess — gain the attention of King Konreid (Reynolds) and will be adopted as his son.
The theatrical cut of “In the Name of the King” was a lengthy 127 minutes, although Boll’s 156-minute director’s cut was released on Blu-ray. Not that the extra footage would have much helped. “In the Name of the King” was released to abysmal reviews, gaining a mere 4% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes (based on 51 reviews). Critics felt the performances were unilaterally bad, and that the production values were noticeably low. This, despite the film’s budget topping out at about $60 million, was the most expensive film in Boll’s career. Marc Savlov of the Austin Chronicle compared “King” unfavorably to the works of Edward D. Wood, Jr., and Laura Kern of the New York Times noted that everyone on screen looked dazed, as if they were playing dress-up instead of acting in a movie.
The film also lost a pile of money. That $60 million budget reclaimed only $13 million worldwide. Many video game fans already knew Boll’s work from “House of the Dead” and “Alone in the Dark,” and were wise to stay away. Boll maintained that he was a genius.
Wait, there were sequels?
Once the blood was in the water, the reputation for “In the Name of the King” only built. It became solid proof that Uwe Boll was the Ed Wood of his generation, only lacking Wood’s oddball, idiosyncratic dialogue, and sexual fetishes. The Razzies nominated “In the Name of the King” in five categories, including Worst Picture. Boll won Worst Director, although the film “lost” the top award that year to “The Love Guru.”
Curiously, despite being a massive bomb and becoming one of the more openly hated movies in years, there was still seemingly enough clout behind the “Dungeon Siege” I.P. to warrant a few follow-up movies. In 2011, Boll rethought the original film’s premise, and decided to make it a time-travel story, scooping up a modern man and placing him within the world of “Dungeon Siege.” The sequel, called “In the Name of the King 2: Two Worlds” starred Dolph Lundgren as a modern-day soldier who gets magically deposited into medieval times. While one might expect an “Army of Darkness” style farce, the film isn’t action-packed or funny. Its biggest advantage is that it was made for only $4.5 million. That’s modest, even for a straight-to-video release. Lundgren was the only notable celebrity this time.
Then, in 2014, Boll returned with “In the Name of the King 3: The Last Mission.” That film starred Dominic Purcell from “Prison Break,” and retained the time-travel element from the second film. Purcell played an assassin who, thanks to a magical amulet, is thrown backward in time. He fights dragons, etc. This one only cost $3.5 million. It may be enough to acknowledge that it exists.
After that, Boll seems to have given up on the video game adaptation beat, moving on to other genre films and ancillary projects. Boll has maintained that his films are fine and that a lot of better-known Hollywood directors are hacks. Say what you will about Boll, the man sticks by his guns. Solana Token Creator
