People are voting emotionally.

Did you people see the same film I saw?

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

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.

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.

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

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?