In the Name of the King: The Last Mission (2014) User Reviews

In the Name of the King The Last Mission: Oh dear

[Platypuschow · 2/10 · 8 May 2018]

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

Stop it!!

[adaptor · 2/10 · 5 March 2021]

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 don't even know why I'm giving this a second star...

[LumosX · 2/10 · 11 February 2014]

*sigh* Where do I begin? Well, maybe from me being from Bulgaria, and, as this film explicitly told us, it was filmed in Bulgaria.

First of all, I want to say that I am ashamed of the Bulgarian actors and their horrific English accents. It's obvious that nobody actually cared to practice their lines for more than ten minutes before filming. And even I, the Bulgarian (though with a certified proficiency in English), couldn't stop cringing when they'd speak. And when the little girls, present on screen maybe for 2 minutes, speak English better than your main cast, you know you're in trouble. The evil king (whose name I couldn't understand at all, Marian Valev) also contributed to this horror of mine, especially with his dreadfully placed "BETRAYAL?!" line. And Uncle Tybalt (Nikolai Sotirov) had the worst accent of them all, yet he was given the epic speech near the end... I wonder how poor Dominic Purcell didn't feel the need to rip his ears off... At least some of the actors' mistakes were funny to hear, like Ralitsa Paskaleva's: "Go on the horse". "Go." Not "get".

Maybe it wasn't the actors' fault. Perhaps the screenwriter wasn't at all proficient in English?... *sigh* Forget it.

Now, accents aside, this film is still terrible. The opening is boring and drags on forever. Dominic Purcell, ever the watchful assassin, leaves his fingerprints all over a crime scene and nobody even notices the pile of corpses he's left in the hallway of a big hotel. He then goes to some random people's flat -- it's got a little inscription on the door saying something like "The Andrews family" or whatever it was -- and smokes a cigarette in the kitchen. Nothing about that is explained. It's not his flat, because it's a family home, as the tag tells us.

Dominic isn't "the chosen one", and the film relies on his accidental getting of a tattoo to justify him being selected to bring order to the fallen kingdom... of Bulgaria. Then, the portal to the medieval world opens up for no apparent reason, at which point Dominic starts shooting at a dragon with a gun. I must admit, that's pretty hilarious and also a perfectly natural response to seeing a damn *dragon* in front of you.

Did you catch the big reveal? Bulgaria. The film takes place in Bulgaria. The *story* takes place in Bulgaria. It's not Dungeon Siege any more, it's not "Ehb". Ralitsa Paskaleva's character straight-up tells Dominic Purcell that he's in Bulgaria.

Last I checked, there weren't any dragons in Bulgaria, neither in the medieval one, nor in the modern one.

Anyhow, Dominic is now in the dragon-infested medieval Bulgaria, apparently. It is by sheer luck that he's been teleported into the right place for the rightful heirs of the throne to find him and to bring him along on their quest for glory and peace. And so on...

And once again, our main character was not given any armour whatsoever. Like in all the previous "In the Name of the King"s, which continues to make no sense at all.

The villain is as 2D as he could get, he's flat, one-sided and not even interesting or rational. He does have a court though -- or should I say a courtYARD, as the courtyard of the Baba Vida castle, probably, is about as much as we see of his fortress.

The plot doesn't make too much of a sense, and the battles don't either. People have conversations in the middle of battles, and apparently yelling "STOOOP FIGHTIIING" at the top of your voice actually causes soldiers to stop fighting.

So, the accents are a disgrace, and villain is a disgrace, the plot is a disgrace, and the combat scenes are as well. Dominic Purcell actually throws a sword and it kills someone. Unbelievable.

Did I mention the Shaman? Yes, there's a "shaman" in medieval Bulgaria. He cooks things on a fire using a large soviet-era metal cooking pot. A "shaman" in an Eastern Orthodox country. Yes...

You know what else is a disgrace, to top everything off? The costumes. The bad guys wear a blend of XIV c. plate armours, Saracen turbans and yatagans, and katanas and what looked like Japanese Samurai armour. Truly something to be called an "eyesore", and it's NOT something you'd ever see in medieval Bugaria.

Talking about disgraces, I should mention the ending. It's truly and utterly, and completely and terribly, and I ran out of adverbs, dreadful, with the dragon passing through the portal and chasing Dominic's hijacked soviet-era Zhiguli through the streets of Sovia. Oh, dear... (Dominic also steals the driver's shirt later, which was actually funny.)

This is the first film in my life that caused me to take a pen and write down all the faults in it. By the end, I had four full pages written in my notebook. "Oh God, why?", says the popular Internet meme. I'd ask the same.

If only they didn't say that this was taking place in medieval BULGARIA, I'd be more lenient. As it stands, it's like having a very bad film set during Charlemagne's reign in France, but having people running around fighting Norse-style elves in Zulu armour or whatever, with Buddhism being the predominant religion. It's just nonsensical. And disgraceful.

Reading the (only) plot summary at the time of posting of this review, it seems that Uwe Boll himself has written it. "Inspired by Dungeon Siege"? The film takes place in medieval Bulgaria. Ish. "Mind-blowing special effects"? Not a chance in hell. You know what the CGI dragon lacks? MASS. It looked and felt like a CGI thing superimposed on the picture. Not like a dragon, unlike other films. Hell, "Dungeons and Dragons 2: Wrath of the Dragon God" is a quadrillion times better than this, and it's not the best fantasy film with dragons either. "Nonstop action"? Yeah, right. "A massive army"? Probably, if you call thirty men "a massive army". (Still better than the previous film, where armies were six men on each side.) In fact, I'm gonna go round there and try to submit a different summary that doesn't glorify this piece of rubbi... "art". With heavy air-quotes.

Seriously, don't waste your life with this. Go and watch something else. There's plenty of good films to choose from, and many better bad ones too. Watch the first "In the Name of the King". It's actually good fun, if you can believe it.

Such a disgrace to my motherland. *sigh* Damn you, Uwe Boll...

Good landscape and action, lousy plot

[barbosa-vicki · 5/10 · 27 November 2014]

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.

This was awful

[Cinefil_Original · 1/10 · 15 June 2018]

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.

Just a tad better than the second one .. .

[signlady · 3/10 · 15 January 2022]

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?

Think before buying !

[peter-neilen · 3/10 · 10 July 2016]

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.

When they tried this plot Army Of Darkness it worked. This one did not. To be fair though I didn't like the other two

[cosmo_tiger · 4/10 · 5 February 2014]

"You're on the path that you must follow to its end and that end might come sooner then you think." Hazen Kaine (Purcell) is an enforcer for the mob who wants out. After being given one last job he thinks he gets his wish. He is to kidnap the daughters of the royal family and hold them for ransom. When he takes a necklace from one of the kids something strange happens. He is teleported back in time to the dark ages and the only way back is to save the village from a dragon. So...yeah. That is actually what the movie is about. When they tried this plot in the Army Of Darkness it worked. This one did not. To be fair though I didn't like either of the other two so if you did you may like this one. I am not a Uwe Boll fan but after watching and really liking Assault On Wall Street I was hoping for better then this one. But when the main character in your series goes from Jason Statham to Dolph Lundgren to Dominic Purcell there is really only one way the series can go as well. Overall, I have seen worse but it's really time for this series to stop. I give this a C-.

Uwe Boll probably try, but he lack budget AND talent.

[destroyerwod · 3/10 · 27 December 2018]

We are closing 2018 and i finally saw this movie (2014 made) so as you can guess i was not in a hurry to see it. I found it out of a video store sale section and they had this christmas/boxing day sale week so it costed me 2$ canadian. They also buy back any movies for 1$ so at that price i was like "what do i have to loose?" . If it suck, ill return it and it will have cost me 1$.

I saw the first 2 movies and tough the first one was enjoyable, the second one was not too bad but was buried by very crappy practical and cgi effects combine with a cheap feeling.

I can say that this third movie is pretty much the second one in the cheap factor but a bit different. For instance this time the castle actually looks like its made of concrete and not cardboard, so a plus for that, and the cgi dragon look a bit more convincing altough we are far from Game of Thrones level.

But everything else still feel so cheap. The problem is nothing really convince you that you are watching a movie of that era, even if Uwe Boll is probably trying. For instance the "rebel army" is basically what... 30 dudes while the King's Army is under 100. The last movie felt the same way, its not convincing. If you are to have a KING and his army, they got to be at least in the thousands.

Speaking of the King, there is a scene where he is topless at some point and you can spot current days tatoos. This look so out of place and does not help the immersion, especially since there was no need to see him topless at all. You can also spot one of the sister's eyebrows scar wich clearly show she used to sport an eyebrow ring. This is the problem of Uwe Boll. I can understand a lack of budget in many aspect but details like this are just taking you off the movie. Why would an european king of the medieval period (or such) have a chinese symbol on his neck? Cmon now. Kinda like when he cameo in Bloodrayne wich is set in the 1800s and kept his modern day watch. You are the director sir, you should CARE about those things.

The dragon altough a bit more convincing than in the second movie serve no purpose and is basically there to just be there. Movie wouldn't had been much different without it.

As for the rest of the plot, its alright if you can pass the cheap feeling. It kinda look like an episode of Hercules The Legendary Journeys if i can say... exept that show was made in the 90s and was a TV SHOW, so you can excuse the cheapness feel. Characters where also much more entertaining.

Before i wrap up this "review" i got to mention the shaky cam. I know shaky cam can be used to enforce a chaotic feeling in a situation, and i didn't mind it that much watching Rampage, one of the few Boll movies i taugh was decent, but in this movie it just distract the viewer and is either used to hide a lack of talent for filming the battles or simply hiding the low budget. The shaky cam really make you look at the screen blinking saying to yourself "whats going on, can it end already" .

Overall its just a very cheap movie made a director who just lack the talent to make movies. I think this script in better hands with a better budget could had been fairly entertaining. Not a masterpiece but a decent medieval style movie.

But in its current form, its just a throw away "made for TV" movie, or at least it feel like it, the kind of movie you watch on a saturday afternoon when your bored or have a hangover.

A Nice Start But Can't Follow Through

[tabuno · 4/10 · 16 January 2019]

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).

Very decent movie

[RonanHarris · 9/10 · 12 March 2014]

By 8, it really means a 8.5/10. Not sure what's with the negative reviews, but I enjoyed the movie very much. It's well-executed and the direction was clear and crisp. There's no distinct feel-good actions scenes because the pacing is kept constant throughout and I don't see why there's an issue with the pacing being that way. It's hardly flat, it's just a very honest, straight- flushed story-telling, and it fits the themes that are underscored by the movie. Hazen Kaine is a reluctant hero whose personal agenda serves as his existential core. I like how these themes are teased out and zoomed in upon throughout the movie. Also, there are some absolutely delicious production details and CGIs that are just absolutely feasts to the eye. Not to mention the superb cast and the wonderful performances. I think this is a honest and loyal adaptation that will appeal to fans of Dungeon Siege who fell in love with the story precisely for the moralistic themes it explores.

FOLLOW THE PATH OF COURAGE

[nogodnomasters · 6/10 · 10 August 2018]

Dominic Purcell has taken over the role of the tough guy as Hazen Kaine. He is a hitman in Bulgaria and is given one last job before he retires, and that is to kill the two young daughters of Bulgarian royalty. He kidnaps them and locks them in a sealand. He takes from the older girl a medallion, one that matches a forearm tattoo he got in California. The next thing you know he is transported back into time...a time in Bulgarian history when they had a fire breathing dragon and spoke modern English with Eastern European accents.

He discovers that because of a tattoo which his now dead wife liked, he is destined to lead an army against the bad guys, fend off a dragon, and oh yea, there are these princesses babes with swords, the older of which doesn't like him. But in order to get back to the future, he will have to do it. I think you can write the rest of the story on your own, toss in a good shaman, and dress the bad guys in black. In fact you could script a better tale.

You don't really need to see the other two films of this Uwe Boll masterpiece series of bad theater in order to understand it, although I will admit I was more partial to those films. This is very similar to the second feature of the series

My biggest criticism is the name "Hazen Kaine". In the first feature the hero is named "Farmer." In number two it was "Granger." So what was with Kaine? How about "Stockman"? Sure there is a homonym connection Kaine=Cane. A crop is not a farmer.

Parental Guide: Plenty of F-bombs from Purcell...especially when he tries to mount a horse. No sex or nudity.

Don't buy, don't watch

[rapan · 1/10 · 7 October 2021]

The only thing this film is good at, is being a bad example ... so if you are into learning how NOT to make good films, watch it.

It's a generic low-budget popadanets-isekai fantasy film.

[agof · 4/10 · 1 May 2023]

After seeing this i can define why the second movie is better than the third. The second film is lean, and it's better paced with the longer runtime. It's all content, such as it is, and no dilution. This one starts to meander after the mid-point. This is not an oscar-bait serious drama. It's better to do something, it's better to do anything, than to hold your shots, to linger on a token "emotion", and to show things not happening.

In the second film Lundgren, Munro and several other actors and their characters are good enough. Here, there is no one of interest between the actors and the characters.

In the second story Lundgren was isekaed because he is Statham's son. The whole weak story with all its flaws flowed. In the third story some random dork got a drunken tattoo designed by his drunken wife, which came in contact with a child's tsatske and isekaed him into ancient fantasy bulgaria where everyone speaks english. The whole story has no meaning and just happens, poorly.

This is still better than the high-budget first film, but it's kinda boring to watch past the mid-point.

Pretty Good

[TommyJarvis44 · 9/10 · 12 March 2014]

I just don't see, why any other recent fantasy movie deserves more respect than this one. The story is fluent, the characters are well built, everyone has its own motive. Yes film is more of a personal struggle journey of the main character and that is what I like. For the fans of action it is also good. The effects are quality mastership. The most memorable scene is when Dominic Purcell's character sees what he has become. The movie itself has its flaws however and also suffers from pacing problems- just when the narrative is about to steamroll forward, the scenes abruptly change so that any emotional momentum is lost because there just isn't much characterization of the main parts; everything that should have an emotional impact is glossed over by a jump to a new scene with way too much focus on explanations of what the characters are doing so that the audience fails to gain sympathy for the minor characters.

Seen Worse

[Dragonborn64 · 6/10 · 28 February 2020]

Very low budget Bulgarian made charmer. Dominic Purcell is understated and gives life to a usually cardboard character though he looks a bit worse for wear. This ain't art but it's entertaining enough.

Action-packed, spectacularly acted Fantasy is sabotaged by Fanboys

[argybargy2014 · 9/10 · 12 March 2014]

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?

Better than expected

[user-946-673018 · 9/10 · 12 March 2014]

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

Surprised by how much I enjoyed this

[criswellpredicktz · 9/10 · 14 March 2014]

Not going to lie, when I saw the first teaser I wanted to hate this movie. The original is just such a classic. One of the few movies from I can still watch and genuinely enjoy without relying on nostalgia for the game it is based on. That said, I really enjoyed this movie. While I love everything about the first one; the effects, the one liners, the violence,and the campiness, I didn't find myself comparing the new one to the old one when I watched it.

In my opinion, the new additions to the story really help make it more of a complete story, one based closer to our current reality than the original movie was. Nothing felt forced and there was a much better explanation for why everything was happening and certain key players motivations.

It's definitely not the fun campy movie it once was, but it throws out a few fun nods to the original classic In the Name of the King. I found this movie to have more heart, and for a man to truly control his dark side as a contract killer.

The action was top notch. Most of the CGI looked very natural, and the fight scenes were intense. I really liked what they did this time around.

I wouldn't go in expecting the original In the Name of the King, but I found this new film to be one the most enjoyable action movies I've seen in a while. I look forward to another possible sequel.