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?
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?