In the Name of the King 3: L'ultima Missione
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaA modern day assassin, wanting out, is hired for one final job: to kidnap the kids of a local businessman. Things go haywire when it turns out he's chosen to return to the Middle Ages and br... Leggi tuttoA modern day assassin, wanting out, is hired for one final job: to kidnap the kids of a local businessman. Things go haywire when it turns out he's chosen to return to the Middle Ages and bring back order to a kingdom in chaos.A modern day assassin, wanting out, is hired for one final job: to kidnap the kids of a local businessman. Things go haywire when it turns out he's chosen to return to the Middle Ages and bring back order to a kingdom in chaos.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Boy
- (as Yoan Mihaylov)
- Woman
- (as Tatyana Pedersen)
Recensioni in evidenza
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 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.
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?
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).
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThere is a tattoo on the arm of Hazen Kaine, played by Dominic Purcell. The sign has a very important role in the plot of the film. In reality it is based on the Pliska Rosette - a seven-pointed bronze rosette with a type of runic letters and signs on it found in 1961 in Pliska, the medieval capital of Bulgaria. It is dated by archaeologists to the VII-IX century. The plot of the film also takes place in Bulgaria.
- BlooperAfter the first battle, Arabella and Hazen are sitting by the river. Arabella has two very visible eyebrow piercing marks above her right eye.
- Citazioni
Hazen Kaine: Listen. I understand what I need to do now. I need to defeat Tervin to get the medallion so I can go home and you won't have to worry about Tervin anymore. We can work together.
Arabella: Look, you fight only for yourself and you're not a skilled fighter, even if you think you are.
Hazen Kaine: Try me.
I più visti
- How long is In the Name of the King: The Last Mission?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- In the Name of the King: The Last Mission
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 3.500.000 USD (previsto)
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 26 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.78 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
