Director Uwe Boll has a reputation as one of the worst film directors of all time. In the mid-2000s, he produced a series of well-publicized but critically savaged video game adaptations that immediately fell to the bottom of Kinaste's ratings. In 2003 he recorded "House of the Dead" and then in 2005 with "Alone in the Dark" and "BloodRayne". He chased those down with "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Story," "BloodRayne 2: Deliverance" and "The Mail" in 2007, and ended his run in 2008 with "Far Cry." Fans of the games on which those films were based were angry that Ball handled the source material so clumsily, and fans of the film medium were outraged that

Despite his critical reputation, Ball remained prolific, sometimes producing multiple paintings a year. He directed First Shift and Bandidos in 2024, and is set to release Run in 2025.

I spoke with Ball for an interview, and it's easy to see why he continues to work. He is talkative, smart and pragmatic. When confronted with his critical reputation, Ball usually shrugs, offering a "whatever" response, feeling that his achievement in filmmaking outweighs anything critics might say. He is also an ideas man, able to present film treatments in a way that makes them seem intriguing. He loves making movies and that's all he needs.

What's more, all of Ball's films tend to boast an illogically impressive cast. He revealed that he usually just calls famous actors during the weekend of filming and asks if they are 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 looking to stage their comebacks through Bol.

This certainly had to be the case with 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 was based on Dungeon Siege, a medieval fantasy RPG released by Gas Powered Games in 2002. The story follows an evil sorcerer named Gallian (Liota), who has cured evil monsters called the Circle. 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 save Farmer's wife. Eventually, Farmer—through prowess on the battlefield—will come to the attention of King Conrad (Reynolds) and be adopted as his son.

The theatrical cut of In the Name of the King ran a lengthy 127 minutes, although Ball's directorial cut of 156 minutes was released on Blu-ray. Not that the extra footage would have helped much. In the Name of the King was released to dismal reviews, receiving just a 4% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes (based on 51 reviews). Critics felt that the performances were one-sidedly poor and that the production values ​​were significantly low. This, despite the film's budget exceeding about $60 million, was the most expensive film of Ball's career. Mark Savlov of the Austin Chronicle compared The King unfavorably to the works of Edward D. Wood Jr. and Laura Kern of The New York Times he noticed that everyone on the screen looked dazed, as if they were playing dress up instead of acting in a movie.

The film also lost a lot of money. That $60 million budget only returned $13 million worldwide. Many video game fans already knew Ball's work from "House of the Dead" and "Alone in the Dark" and were wise to stay away. Ball claimed to be a genius.

Once the blood was in the water, the reputation for In the Name of the King only built. It became solid evidence that Uwe Ball was the Ed Wood of his generation, only lacking Wood's quirky, idiosyncratic dialogue and sexual fetishes. The Razzies nominated "In the Name of the King" in five categories, including worst picture. Ball won the award for worst director, although the film "lost" the top prize that year to The Love Guru.

Interestingly, despite being a huge bomb and becoming one of the most openly hated movies of the past years, there was still seemingly enough influence behind the Dungeon Siege IP to warrant several follow-ups. In 2011, Ball reconsidered the premise of the original film and decided to make it a time travel story, collecting a modern man and placing him in the world of Dungeon Siege. The sequel, called In the Name of the King 2: Two Worlds, stars Dolph Lundgren as a modern-day soldier who is magically transported to 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 dollars. That's modest, even for a direct-to-video release. Lundgren was the only celebrity this time.

Then, in 2014, Ball returned with In the Name of the King 3: The Last Mission. That film starred Dominic Purcell from Jailbreak and retained the time travel element from the second film. Purcell played an assassin who, thanks to a magical amulet, is thrown back in time. He fights dragons etc. This one costs only 3.5 million dollars. It may be enough to admit that it exists.

After that, Ball seems to have given up on the video game adaptation beat, moving on to other genre films and ancillary projects. Ball claims that his films are good and much more famous Hollywood directors are hacks. Say what you will about Ball, the man sticks to his guns.