Don't really know how he gets great actors in his movies. Uwe Boll does it again, a cast of some of the best actors in one of the worst movies ever made. The story is bad, really really bad, the acting wasn't good either even with the presence of Burt Reynolds, Ron Perlman and ray Liotta.

I have sworn that I won't watch a Boll movie again, they've proved to be a waste of time and money even if it comes in the shape of a 1$ pirated DVD. Never buy,rent, download or even think of borrowing it from a friend. Its a waste, and a huge one too. And be advised never to watch a Boll movie again, its enough already.

EDIT: I've posted this a while back and I just wanted to add something.

If you're reading this and you happen to work at a store where you sell video games, please and I beg you memorize the name and face of Uwe Boll and if you see him crossing the street immediately shut your doors and windows and put that close sign. Please never sell a video game to Uwe Boll ever again.

Uwe Bol has made some terrible films. I certainly won't defend his making crap like "House of the Dead" and "Alone in the Dark". And, I noticed that quite a few of his films are on IMDB's infamous Bottom 100 List...including this movie. But I also noticed that "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale", despite it's pathetic score of 3.8 that it's really NOT a bad film. Flawed, yes...but overall rather enjoyable if you like fantasy films.

The story is about an evil sorcerer (Ray Liotta) who is in league with a pathetic wiener, the King's nephew (Matthew Lilliard). And, using the sorcerer's power, he is able to make the brainless Krug attack the people of Ehb and in the surrounding countryside. Amazingly, the fate of the people all rests on the back of a simple farmer (Jason Statham) and his small band of allies.

So what are the film's weaknesses...other than having Uwe Bol's name on the picture? Some of the characters (in particular, Statham) are underwritten and wooden and a few of the casting decisions are strange...though they mostly work. Some of the dialog is a bit silly. And, sometimes the film was very easy to predict. But, if you turn off your brain and just enjoy the story, the great music and the lovely BIG cinematography, there is a good movie here. Great? Certainly not...but not a bad film at all...and one I found I enjoyed even though I was totally expecting to hate it.

By the way, I noticed some reviewers called it, essentially, a bad "Lord of the Rings" knockoff. Despite having John Rhys-Davies, the film really didn't seem to be trying to copy the trilogy. The closest movie to this one might be one more like "Krull" or "Conan"...which is also quite watchable.

I have seen several bad films, but I haven't seen one this bad in quite some time. Apart from Matthew Lillard, well sort of, nothing whatsoever works. The way the film is shot is in an incredibly shoddy and repetitive manner, and the film is one of the most ineptly directed films I have seen in years. And if that wasn't any worse, just listen to the dialogue, which is so clunky and juvenile. The story is too thin for the running time and the pacing is constantly on and off, while the characters are clichéd and I felt indifferent to every single one of them. The scenery is gaudy, likewise with the costumes, while the props look like fancy dress items more than anything else. The acting is also dreadful, Burt Reynolds and Ron Perlman can't do anything with their roles, Jason Statham is handsome and charismatic but his acting range is limited here and I have never seen Ray Liotta overact so embarrassingly than he did here. Overall, a mess. 1/10 Bethany Cox