In the Name of the King 3: L'ultima Missione

Fool me once, shame on you Fool me twice, shame on me Fool me three times, I'm a ruddy idiot

I'm a longtime Boll defender, movies like this do not help my cause at all.

The first In The Name Of The King (2007) was mediocre but passable, it's sequel (2011) was a bit of mess but nothing too offensive. This however, is a slap in the face with a part of Uwe's anatomy we should not discuss anywhere........ever.

Here we see mercenary Dominic Purcell ham it up as another guy ripped through space and time, mistaken for a "Chosen one" and forced to battle evil forces including an awful looking cgi dragon.

Nothing against Purcell in fact I think the guy is a decent enough actor for the genres he tends to do, but here he is officially phoning in his performance and looks bored from the outset.

Now onto the stupidity, for a start our protagonist is a bad guy with few redeeming features. No movie which starts with a guy kidnapping children is going to get me to root for him.

Secondly the front cover is yet another dishonest one, at no point does Purcell wear a suit of armor.

Boring, mindless stupidity is all you'll find here.

The Good:

Not so much

The Bad:

This is a protagonist, really?

CGI is really poor

Unforgivably boring

Dishonest cover

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Even Hollywood recognises womens insistence on going for the biggest a-hole available

Upon being pulled through a portal you will have instantly attained the ability to wield a sword like an expert

This is one of the best worst Uwe Boll movie, right behind House of the Dead.

It's so bad, on every possible level, that it become funny.

Nothing more to add than the other reviewers on this website has already said:

• acting is awful
• logic is not present
• camera does nothing extraordinary other than being present
• all the aerial shots of our marvellous heroes came from the same 300*200 acres meadow

But I would still recommend it for a good laught. Dominic Purcell doesn't seems to really understand what is he doing in this production. The 'large' battles of the movie are edited with a new camera angle every 1.2 second (which will make you dizzy, be careful, this movie wants to harm you) and the ending doesn't make any sense.

Uwe Boll also hide a third reich logo on one of the waggon, close to the end of the movie.

Seriously, Uwe: please stop doing this to us! All of your movies are bad but the "In the Name...." series is the worst of the bunch. At least M. Night Shamilan (sp?) started with something decent before devolving. How can you not improve? Please: stop.

I just watched this and enjoyed it, but only because I like Dominic Purcell. I really liked him in John Doe and in Prison Break, and was hoping he'd been in some better movies. Sadly, this is all I could find.

What I liked about ITNOTK 3: Dominic. His acting was low-key and emotionless, but I guess that's appropriate for a hit man. The landscape. The dragon which was pretty good, although I would have liked to see more of it. And to see the hero engage with it a little more than just firing at it.

What I didn't like: the cheesy accents. The inspiring speech before the climactic battle was embarrassing. The plot: it made little sense.Nothing fit together: Why did the same actor play both villains, in the past and the present? Why did the hero have the tattoo? Why did the little girls have the amulet? Why was he chosen to lead them to victory when he actually did very little? And my biggest question: why did he decide to rescue the children when he had been the kidnapper? What made him change from a bad-ass hit man to a compassionate (I presume) rescuer? Was it something the princess said? ("That's not a job for a man.") Is that really enough to turn someone's life around?

The best line in the movie: "We're all going to die."

Was it worth watching? If you like Purcell, and dragons. If you want a coherent plot and superb acting, look elsewhere.

I laughed at some of these reviews. I too wonder WHY am I watching a THIRD film of this . . .

In the first film, I wondered why actors like Ray Liota, Statham & others were willing to work with this director.

I figure maybe they were needin' work . . . ?

Then I found out there were 3 of these.

I SHOULD'A looked them up - instead, I assumed they were sequels to the first one. Like, maybe the story got better . . .

But . . . No.

Thankfully, I got the 3 disc DVD set pretty cheap . . .

While 2 & 3 ARE worse than 1, I actually think 3 was a tad better than 2.

At least, there are no modern vehicles parked around the kings castle in 3, but Ulrik the shaman did have a modern yellow, metal bird cage . . .

The first movie had 12 producers.

The second one had 2. This one had 6.

Apparently, if any of these were going to approach being good, they need a minimum of 24.

Aside from really bad directing, I'm a little stunned that any group of 2 or more producers go along with these poorly done movies.

Apparently, these ones are all birds of the same cheezy feather.

Did they keep making the same basic movie with the same general story & title because they were TRYIN' to get it right?

I mean, in the movie industry, if you fail on the second try WORSE - are ya supposed to do the same movie again but with different actors to see of that helps? Make the 'catalyst' a tattoo instead of a dragon? Oh yeh. That'll make it better, and DON'T call it a catalyst this time . . .

Basically, I think these must be a big tax write-off. None of these were ever intended to be even fair, much less good. Doesn't matter. We needed a tax break to cover some yachts, etc.

Also wanted to add - this Purcell guy is so dull. I'm not sure if his character is meant to have no personality.

For some reason, I kept thinking Mickey Rourke shoulda played this part. He would've at least brought somethin' to the character.

ANYWAY - I guess we need really bad films now & then so we recognize & appreciate the really good ones.

Note: This review contains no spoilers - bc - how can you spoil somethin' already rotten?