How Long Is 'In The Name Of The King' Movie?

2026-04-21 13:24:33
117
Share
ABO Personality Quiz
Take a quick quiz to find out whether you‘re Alpha, Beta, or Omega.
Start Test
Write Answer
Ask Question

4 Answers

Bianca
Bianca
Bookworm Photographer
I’ve sat through 'In the Name of the King' more times than I’d admit. The runtime depends on which version you catch: standard is 127 minutes, while the director’s cut stretches to 154. It’s wild how those extra 27 minutes somehow include more slow-motion sword swings and Ron Perlman growling. The editing’s choppy, but the sheer audacity of the world-building (magic trees? Evil sorcerers named Gallian?) makes it a hilarious watch. Perfect for riffing with pals.
2026-04-22 21:51:38
8
Victoria
Victoria
Favorite read: The King’s Seduction
Ending Guesser Analyst
I first stumbled on 'In the Name of the King' during a late-night streaming session, and wow, it’s a commitment. The shorter version still feels long at over two hours, but the extended edition? That’s a whole marathon. What fascinates me is how it swings between gritty medieval drama and over-the-top fantasy nonsense—like Burt Reynolds in a wizard robe. The runtime could’ve been tighter, but there’s charm in its messiness. If you’re curious, go for the theatrical cut unless you’re really invested in lore about magical seeds or whatever.
2026-04-22 22:20:29
4
Quentin
Quentin
Twist Chaser Data Analyst
Man, 'In the Name of the King' is one of those fantasy flicks that feels like it’s trying to cram an entire epic into a single sitting. The theatrical cut runs about 2 hours and 7 minutes, but there’s also an extended version that clocks in at 2 hours and 34 minutes. I remember watching it with friends back in the day—we had to pause halfway through because it just kept going! The pacing’s a bit uneven, honestly; some scenes drag while others feel rushed. It’s got that classic Uwe Boll energy where you can tell they threw everything at the wall, from medieval battles to awkward CGI. If you’re into cheesy, B-movie vibes, it’s a fun time, but don’t expect 'Lord of the Rings' levels of polish.

Funny thing is, the extended version adds more subplots with Jason Statham’s farmer-turned-hero, but it doesn’t really fix the tonal whiplash. Still, if you’re a completionist or love guilty-pleasure fantasy, the longer cut might be worth it. Just keep snacks handy—you’ll need ’em.
2026-04-23 09:49:54
7
Gavin
Gavin
Story Interpreter Veterinarian
127 minutes for the standard version, 154 for the extended. It’s a lot of movie—some good, some baffling. Leelee Sobieski’s subplot alone could’ve been its own thing.
2026-04-24 11:32:20
7
View All Answers
Scan code to download App

Related Books

Related Questions

Who stars in 'In the Name of the King'?

4 Answers2026-04-21 06:50:21
The cast of 'In the Name of the King' is a wild mix of talent that somehow ended up in this fantasy romp. Jason Statham leads as Farmer, bringing his signature gruff action-hero vibe to a medieval setting, which is hilarious if you think about it. Then there's Ray Liotta as the villainous Gallian—imagine Goodfellas meets dark sorcery. Leelee Sobieski and Claire Forlani add some grace to the chaos, while Ron Perlman and Burt Reynolds (yes, THAT Burt Reynolds) show up to chew scenery like it's their last meal. What's fascinating is how the film tries to balance B-movie energy with A-list faces. John Rhys-Davies, who you'll recognize from 'Lord of the Rings,' plays a king, and Matthew Lillard overacts gloriously as the traitorous Duke Fallow. It's like someone threw a dart at a board of '90s and 2000s stars and said, 'Fantasy epic, go!' The whole thing feels like a fever dream, but hey, that's part of its charm.

What is 'In the Name of the King' about?

4 Answers2026-04-21 09:29:40
The first time I stumbled upon 'In the Name of the King,' I was expecting a straightforward fantasy romp, but it surprised me with its blend of medieval politics and personal redemption. The story follows a farmer named Farmer (played by Jason Statham) who gets dragged into a war after his wife is kidnapped by evil creatures called Krug. It’s got this classic 'reluctant hero' vibe, mixed with some epic battles and a kingdom on the brink of collapse. The world-building is decent, though some of the CGI feels dated now—those Krug designs haven’ aged gracefully. What I find oddly charming is how unapologetically it leans into its B-movie roots. Uwe Boll directed it, and his films always have this... unique flavor. The supporting cast is wild too—Ray Liotta as a sorcerer? Burt Reynolds as the king? It shouldn’t work, but it’s weirdly entertaining. If you go in expecting 'Lord of the Rings,' you’ll be disappointed, but as a late-night popcorn flick with friends, it’s a guilty pleasure.

Where was 'In the Name of the King' filmed?

4 Answers2026-04-21 00:37:09
That movie 'In the Name of the King' has such gorgeous scenery, doesn’t it? A lot of it was shot in British Columbia, Canada—those lush forests and rugged mountains are pure BC vibes. I remember watching behind-the-scenes clips where they talked about filming near Vancouver, which makes sense since so many fantasy projects use that area. The medieval village sets blended perfectly with the natural landscapes, especially around Squamish and Burnaby. Honestly, I’d love to visit those locations just to geek out over the filming spots! Funny thing is, some scenes felt like they could’ve been ripped straight from 'Lord of the Rings,' but nope—just Canada flexing its versatility. The production team even built elaborate sets in studios around Vancouver to match the outdoor shots. It’s wild how one province can double as a whole fantasy kingdom.

Does 'In the Name of the King' have sequels?

4 Answers2026-04-21 03:22:32
I got curious about 'In the Name of the King' after rewatching it last weekend—such a fun, campy fantasy romp with Jason Statham swinging swords like it’s no big deal. So I dug around, and yeah, there are sequels! 'In the Name of the King 2: Two Worlds' and 'In the Name of the King 3: The Last Mission' exist, though they’re… well, different. The first sequel swaps Statham for Dolph Lundgren, which is a vibe shift, and the third goes full-on medieval-meets-modern with Dominic Purcell. They lean harder into B-movie territory, but if you’re into cheesy action and loose continuity, they’re a hoot. Honestly, the original’s charm was its accidental sincerity—like a D&D campaign gone live-action. The sequels feel more self-aware, almost winking at the audience. I’d say watch them with friends and snacks, not expecting high art. Fun trivia: Uwe Boll directed all three, which explains a lot. The man’s got a style, love it or hate it.

How does In the Name of King compare to its novel?

4 Answers2025-10-07 15:59:53
When I first encountered 'In the Name of the King,' I was pretty excited about its fantasy setting and the blend of action with an intriguing story. Having read the novel, I expected a rich, detailed world, and I have to admit, the film took some creative liberties that changed the whole vibe. The character development in the book felt so much deeper. I found the protagonist's journey to be relatable, filled with struggles that made each victory feel earned. In the film, though, it seemed like they rushed to the action scenes, wanting to capture a larger audience but sacrificing some of that emotional connection. The visuals in the film were quite stunning, with epic landscapes and battles that really brought the fantasy to life. Yet, it often felt like adding more spectacle rather than focusing on the core narrative. Some scenes that had significant emotional weight in the novel came across as just a series of quick cuts in the movie. It’s a classic case of style over substance, which disappointed me a bit. I still enjoy the film for its entertainment value, especially when I’m in the mood for some mindless adventure, but the detailing in the book is where the real magic lies. In the end, both have their charm; I often think of the book when I'm watching the movie, imagining how that one character could have developed into something richer if given more time to breathe on screen, you know? So if you're a fan of fleshed-out characters and a slow-burn narrative, definitely grab the novel!

Is 'In the Name of the King' based on a book?

4 Answers2026-04-21 11:41:58
I got curious about 'In the Name of the King' after stumbling upon it during a late-night movie marathon. Turns out, it’s loosely inspired by the medieval German epic 'Lohengrin,' but it’s not a direct adaptation of any single book. The film, especially the 2007 Uwe Boll version, feels more like a fantasy pastiche—mixing tropes from Arthurian legends, Dungeons & Dragons, and even 'Lord of the Rings.' It’s got that campy, B-movie charm, though, with Jason Statham swinging swords like he’s in a medieval action flick. What’s wild is how the sequel, 'Two Worlds,' veers even further from any literary roots, leaning into generic fantasy RPG vibes. If you’re after deep lore, you’d be better off with 'The Witcher' books or Malazan. But hey, sometimes you just want to watch a cheesy dragon fight, right?

Related Searches

Explore and read good novels for free
Free access to a vast number of good novels on GoodNovel app. Download the books you like and read anywhere & anytime.
Read books for free on the app
SCAN CODE TO READ ON APP
DMCA.com Protection Status