Schwerter des Königs - Die letzte Mission
Originaltitel: In the Name of the King: The Last Mission
IMDb-BEWERTUNG
3,0/10
2546
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Ein moderner Attentäter, der aussteigen will, wird für einen letzten Auftrag angeheuert: die Kinder eines örtlichen Geschäftsmannes zu entführen.Ein moderner Attentäter, der aussteigen will, wird für einen letzten Auftrag angeheuert: die Kinder eines örtlichen Geschäftsmannes zu entführen.Ein moderner Attentäter, der aussteigen will, wird für einen letzten Auftrag angeheuert: die Kinder eines örtlichen Geschäftsmannes zu entführen.
Joan Mihailov
- Boy
- (as Yoan Mihaylov)
Tatyana von Pedersen
- Woman
- (as Tatyana Pedersen)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 is one of the best worst Uwe Boll movie, right behind House of the Dead.
It's so bad, on every possible level, that it become funny.
Nothing more to add than the other reviewers on this website has already said:
But I would still recommend it for a good laught. Dominic Purcell doesn't seems to really understand what is he doing in this production. The 'large' battles of the movie are edited with a new camera angle every 1.2 second (which will make you dizzy, be careful, this movie wants to harm you) and the ending doesn't make any sense.
Uwe Boll also hide a third reich logo on one of the waggon, close to the end of the movie.
It's so bad, on every possible level, that it become funny.
Nothing more to add than the other reviewers on this website has already said:
- acting is awful
- logic is not present
- camera does nothing extraordinary other than being present
- all the aerial shots of our marvellous heroes came from the same 300*200 acres meadow
But I would still recommend it for a good laught. Dominic Purcell doesn't seems to really understand what is he doing in this production. The 'large' battles of the movie are edited with a new camera angle every 1.2 second (which will make you dizzy, be careful, this movie wants to harm you) and the ending doesn't make any sense.
Uwe Boll also hide a third reich logo on one of the waggon, close to the end of the movie.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesThere 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.
- PatzerAfter the first battle, Arabella and Hazen are sitting by the river. Arabella has two very visible eyebrow piercing marks above her right eye.
- Zitate
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.
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is In the Name of the King: The Last Mission?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsländer
- Offizieller Standort
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- In the Name of the King: The Last Mission
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 3.500.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Laufzeit
- 1 Std. 26 Min.(86 min)
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.78 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen