Fool me once, shame on you Fool me twice, shame on me Fool me three times, I'm a ruddy idiotI'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 muchThe Bad:This is a protagonist, really?CGI is really poorUnforgivably boringDishonest coverThings I Learnt From This Movie:Even Hollywood recognises womens insistence on going for the biggest a-hole availableUpon being pulled through a portal you will have instantly attained the ability to wield a sword like an expert

Well what can i say about this one. Do not buy it. It is throwing your money away. Bad acting, well the actors are not having chemistry. Bad filming, the camera keeps moving and you will get a feeling of being seasick. It is very annoying. The script, well you start wondering if they had a good party when they made this one. Actually this film does not do any credit at the last 2 movies. These were nice movies to watch. So do you want this one in your collection. The answer is not in mine collection. If there will be another one they better get there act together !! This could have been a much better movie..... So if you have some time to kill , do not take this movie. It is not worth the time to view it.

This won't win any awards or any box office weekends but it will keep you entertained. I never saw the original or its first sequel so I can't compare them but I sat there and enjoyed the action sequences and the few comedic lines that were delivered in part 3.The special effects were well done and the acting was better than expected. It's a good and talented cast and I think that helped this movie be better. I recently read that the director wanted an "R" rating for this movie and I kinda wish I saw that version. The action was good but I feel like they could've taken it farther. Still worth a watch however. It feels like the video game film genre is dying out so this movie being made was a real treat for someone who loves the genre like me

Full disclosure: the original In The Name of the King is among my top 5 favorite films of all time, and I've easily watched it over 200 times. With that being said, I still looked forward to this re-interpretation due to my love of the series' antihero main characters (whose legacy had already been profoundly tarnished by the catastrophically misguided sequel) and my admiration of director Uwe Boll's "Bloodrayne" films (as well as his other video game films). Suffice to say, I came into the this one with a bias toward wanting the film to succeed.I'm willing to acknowledge that it may be for this reason that I found this film to be a resounding (if slightly flawed) success. Conversely, it is my belief that a large contingent of overzealous "fans" were hellbent on seeing this film fail, therefore had pre-determined that the movie was trash. How could it possibly withstand several years of unwavering hatred during its production and be given a fair shot? Judging by the middling 3.3 IMDb rating, many people loathed the film just as much as they'd hoped they would.This viewer simply cannot accept that In The Name of the King III is anywhere near as bad as people are rating it. For starters, the film has been bashed mercilessly for idiotically trivial elements such as "His can't ride a horse without help!", "He doesn't ever go to the bathroom!", or worst of all, "I refuse to support a film version of Dungeon Siege". It is my firm belief that all of these criticisms are merely the ravings of closed-minded fan boys who are (bizarrely) searching for the next movie to "ruin their childhood". It's a phenomenon that is baffling and absurd.Anyway, I rated the film 10/10 on IMDb because I wanted the score to weigh heavier in the positive direction. Truth be told, I think the film is a solid 8 and may even grow to become a 9 over time. Of course it's not as good as Boll's original classic, and obviously it's much different in tone. For that I am grateful. I didn't want another movie trying to mimic the satire of the original, nor did I feel that anyone could ever one-up the original film, so why try? There are those that argue that this film should have simply been called something else other than In The Name of the King if it wanted to be so different from the original, and I get that...except the bottom line is few studios will ever green light a multi million dollar film without some kind of name recognition. It's a sad truth. But in utilizing the Dungeon Siege brand name, Boll was given the funding to acquire a brilliant cast and design cutting edge digital effects. In my opinion, a little brand recognition is a fair trade off if it helps the film achieve the look and feel of a high-end fantasy blockbuster.Anyway, I've already babbled several paragraphs longer than I'd intended. The bottom line is you should abandon your preconceptions and watch the movie for what it is: a genuinely smart, heartfelt and wonderfully acted fantasy featuring characters we get to know and love. What's so awful about that?