King Rising 3

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:

• 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.

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

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 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?