We knew In the Name of the King was going to be bad. Everybody knows it is bad - It's directed by Uwe Boll, famously bad director. But how bad could it be?
The movie takes place in a mythical time of swords and sorcery, and picturesque scenery from the Pacific Northwest. Jason Statham is "Farmer", a stoical farmer with a lovely wife, a young son and an annoying neighbor (Ron Perlman). When bands of marauding Krugs kill his son and kidnap his wife, he sets off to rescue her.
Meanwhile, an evil wizard (Ray Liotta) is plotting against the the king (Burt Lancaster), his good wizard (John Rhys-Davies), while macking on good wizard's daughter (Leelee Sobiewski). Just roll that cast around in your head for a moment - a Goodfella, the Bandit, Gimli and Joan of Arc, all in one bad movie. Ray Liotta in particular looks like he is William Shatner playing the lead role in The Liberace Story.
So, big name actors, terrible acting. How about the action and special effects? The action scenes aren't bad, just a little muddled - especially when the ninja show up, do some stunts and have basically no effect on the battle. The scenery is gorgeous - I just found out this is called Scenery Porn. Some of the cinematography is quite nice, usually involving the scenery.
So, how bad was it? In my humble opinion, not as bad as you might think. The direction and writing are inept, but the production values give it an attractive sheen. I'd put it down around Eragon - Eragon had more soul, but ItNotK had better production values. So, it would be a contender the most expensive bad movie or the worst expensive movie.
But neither one could be said to be good. If you want to watch them, don't say you weren't warned.