In the Name of the King: The Last Mission

No need in writing anything, it doesn't deserve the effort. Avoid at all costs. I would rather clean the toilet than watch this garbage again.

I found the fake reviews hilarious. 90% of the reviews for this film are fake, made by members that (surprise) joined IMDB the same day they wrote their review, and they only have one review written, the one about this film.

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.

20 August 2014. Uwe Boll's third directorial effort on his In the Name of King Franchise and in this case again using a magical time travel theme, he uses to great effect the on site location of Bulgaria that gives a cinematic authenticity and richness to foreign and historical period of the movie. Dominic Purcell attempts to hold up his character throughout the movie and does quite well at the beginning with its raw martial arts combat and assassin demeanor.

The photo cinematography is noteworthy, the brief flash back at the beginning of the movie is well done and its use relatively never done. For a while the awkward time culture clash especially the horse riding scenes are brilliant and comical in their balanced emotive relief and again later with the chicken soap reference. The first two-thirds of the movie, the script holds up well with a few weaknesses, like Purcell's leaving fingerprints because he doesn't use gloves, the sudden and abrupt transition in the use of duck tape, and the less than convincing reaction to a dragon or first single handed combat with an ancient warrior, and rather questionable first kissing scene.

Besides an intrusive shaky use of the camera, eventually the script becomes lazy as well as the direction as Purcell's character fails to offer up a credible leadership performance or professional assassin level planning, and even overlooking the possibility of creating gun powder with superior advanced science knowledge. Instead the script descends into more of the typical butchering combat with not real distinction of Purcell's abilities and becomes a brown and power over sophisticated assassin mentality allowing himself to become ambushed and the scriptwriter appears to desperately resort to the dragon appearance to get our hero and his followers out of an impossible situation and adding the implausible entrance into a castle.

Overall, the movie has a comprehensible thread, starts well, but just runs out of substance by the end. One would be better entertained by Déjà vu (2006), Demolition Man (1993), Black Death (2010), The Book of Eli (2010), The Matrix (1999); The Chronicles of Naria: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe (2005); and Spirited Away (2001).

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?

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.