Genres

Visitors Review

tantauralus 2012-05-23 04:44:34

As a RPG-Player you have to see it !

First to say,anyone who does not play Roleplaying games issurelydisappointed of this Fantasy-Movie,because he does not get thepointof many things happening in the movie. But as a Roleplayer whowillsurely find parallels to your gaming group and like it.And for those who are not Gamers:when have you last talked so much about amovie? And to me the movie is that what I expect of cinema , entertainmentnot perfection!

2012-05-22 16:54:15

A Very Average Fantasy/Adventure Film For Such A Cult-Status Theme As D&D

This reviewer is one who has never played the D&D game. So I didn't have much of an idea what to expect from the movie. Thankfully, it isn't too hard for a non-D&D fan to understand. But I found the film to be much too mediocre and basically another stack of cliches, useful only to satisfy a friday-night spot for an adventure flick.I can't recall much of the exact storyline, as I drifted in and out of day-dream-land during most of the movie (yes, it can be somewhat boring). But I can assure you, the basic plot is all too familiar. Cutting it down to the essentials, there is something worth a lot of power (and also alot of money, depending on what your interest is) that both the good guys and the bad guys want, and predictable enough, they must race against time as well as each other to obtain it. Among all of the cheesy adventure antics that remind me of a sc-fi-channel original series, there is also a love story that evolves throughout the film (as if that would be unexpected). The acting is -- as most reviewers have pointed out -- quite distracting because of obvious lack of either acting talent or director talent (but no matter whose fault, there's no reason to point fingers, because they probably all were equal contributors to it's cheesiness). Most scenes will make you cringe with cliche action-movie lines and pathetic attempts at showing the character's emotion. But, before long, I found myself adapting to the corny world of the movie and it didn't distract me as much. Dungeons and Dragons is actually a decent fantasy flick if you can just train yourself to ignore it's overflow of cheesiness. One move D&D successfully executed was adding in plenty of humor. The terrible acting seemed a little more at home because the film in general takes itself quite lightly. But one negative thing is for sure worth mentioning, and that is the fact that dragon fans will be disappointed. This movie focuses much more on the people than the monsters -- especially excluding the dragons. The obviously CGI-constructed dragons only appear at the very beginning of the film and a few shots in the last 15 minutes of the film. I'm not going to take shame in it, I'm a fan of dragons. No matter the age, dragons are a dark and fantastic treat to see on the screen. But I must warn those who haven't seen it that, while the story line can revolve around them at times, the actual involvement of dragons is scarce.As far as DVD features go, there are some deleted scenes and step-by-step demonstrations on the CGI construction of the few parts the dragons are included, but not much to jump up and dance about. The best feature would have to be the documentary on fantasy games (mostly, of course, having to do with D&D).Overall, D&D is a very average corny fantasy/adventure flick that is definately only worth rental money. If you want an interesting storyline and more dragon-time on screen, you'll have to look someplace else. Regardless, I think anybody can enjoy this as a treatment to afternoon boredom.

Andrew Hutchings 2012-05-21 16:47:31

A night in a dungeon would be better entertainment!

I took my 2 children to see this film. They thought it was OK-ish.NormallyI enjoy things they like. But with this turkey I couldn't agree. Why itwasgiven a 12 certificate I have no idea. My grand-mother's teeth were morefrightening than anything here. My daughter was more disturbed by JurassicPark 3, yet that can be seen by any age. Jeremy Irons must be hard up tohave agreed to take part in this fiasco. I struggled to give this film 2outof 10. Films like this just prove that no matter how special the specialeffects, bad is bad, and special effects just make them especially bad. Adisappointing outing.

lilly-19 2012-05-21 04:00:20

What just happened?!

Dungeons and Dragon was so bad it is now considered by me, of course, to beone of the worst movies of all times.Oh, the acting was horrendous and flat. Oh it was bad.Just flat out bad. The SGi was okay, butI think they did too much cutting and pasting. Scenery just repeated to noend. They could do SGI, and they wereproud of it, and don't you forget it. Ever! Because they're going to repeatit over and over again.And the costumes... What o what can I say about the costumes?? Who madethem, and why?? Why did everything looklike it was glued together with electrical tape, and the costumes look likethey were made by someone with littleimagination (and thinks has a LOT!), and a huge budget??Please note that I haven't yet talked about the plot because there wasn'tany!It was just bad... I highly recommend it only if you're a B movie buff. Ifyou're not, don't even consider goingto see it. The end of the movie turned into a Mystery Science Theater 3Kmarathon. bad bad bad!

dr_foreman 2012-05-20 10:47:57

the old hams are the best part

I have a problem with "Dungeons and Dragons." I don't mean the movie; Imean the game. It should be wonderful, a flight of fancy that opens upinfinite possibilities, but every time I've played it I've been bogged downby statistics and rules, rules, rules. Dungeon masters - who should bemaster storytellers - usually exhibit the imagination of bricks, and run totheir guide books every two seconds to check for a figure that comes fromTable H in Appendix Y of the Compendium from Hell.Just thought I'd vent about that.So, isn't it fitting that this movie adaptation is also about as imaginativeas the average brick? It serves up cliches aplenty, including the LikableThief Heroes (like in "Conan"), the Big Bad Wizard (why is the smart guyalways the villain?), the Greedy Rapacious Dwarf (I hate friggin' dwarves)and the elegant, sagely Elves (why didn't the estate of Tolkiensue?).Best part? The old hams! Richard O'Brien is great as the Chief Thief, andTom "The Bomb" Baker puts in a surprisingly dignified performance as theelven healer Halvarth. Truth be told, I only saw this movie for Tom, sincehe's the best Doctor from "Doctor Who" (a show that proves you can do goodfantasy on a low budget), but alas he's only on screen for a few moments. Still, he out-acts the young cast without having to break asweat.Amusingly, Tom is fond of complaining that Jeremy Irons is the Most BoringActor in the Universe, so it's strange to actually see them in a movietogether. Irons, who perhaps took Tom's criticisms to heart, here tries tocast off his stoic reputation but chewing up the scenery so rabidly that youexpect torrents of foam to spring from his mouth. It is, quite simply, theworst performance that I've ever seen a "classical" actor give in a genrefilm; talk about miscasting! Maybe Tom is right about him afterall...

eric 2012-05-20 09:31:20

Highly underrated and misunderstood

Like most AD&D players, I looked forward to this one. And yes, thefirst ten minutes I didn't get it either. But there are probably justtwo ways to see this picture: it's either the worst waste of film, orone of the best, deserving cult status. (I tend to thelatter.)The problem, however, is that most people just don't *get* it. Thevote profile alone should give you a clue. This is not a movie. Is isan enactment on film of an AD&D gaming sessions.The characters behave exactly as players do, and the 'others' areplayed as poorly as any average Dungeon Master would. What a lot ofpeople would consider over-acting by Jeremy Irons is actually quitewell done.In this case he is not acting out his character, but actingout the average performance of a character played by a dungeonmaster.If one looks at the behavior of your average character, they wouldprobably not have lived beyond the age of three. Yet, here theyare.The only people who can actually appreciate this movie are AD&Dplayers who understand this is a gaming session, not amovie.Some examples:[NOTE POSSIBLE SPOILER HERE]The morning after a vile murder of a VIP nobody notices a small groupthat is 'completely inconspicuous' by walking over a market placeslightly bent-over and covered in black cloaks and hoods!In twenty years, within the walls of a thieves guild (the bestexperts) no-one ever thought of another way to get the ruby out? (diga tunnel? climb down the ceiling with a rope?)Just look at the motivation of the characters to go on the quest (theypromise to pay me someday, my friend is in lust and so on).Someone is in dire peril, gets his **** kicked big time, gets thrownover a table and still remembers to pocket the scroll? Yeah,sure...What about the market scene where everything gets stolen that'sactually not nailed to the floor, in plain view of everybody(including the merchants) and none to call out for the guards?! In mytown, people with boots hanging from their heads do attractattention.When a clearly low level thief attacks a clearly high level fighterthe only resulting comment: 'You must be joking.' Yeah, like my 6-thlevel fighter is actually threatened by one measly little koboldwielding a dagger.And of course, when looking for someone in a dungeon-prison, it'salways the first locked door we try...[END SPOILER]Actually actually tons of examples like these in there, most of whichI've seen first hand during sessions I participated in myself, justadding to the experience, which is quite funny too (if you getit!).And by the way, listen to the background singing during the 'romanticscene', being the highly annoying distracted players in the backdiscussing last week's groceries... There's so much more inthere.The problem with this movie is, people don't get it, like some stilldon't get pulp fiction.After seeing this movie, there's just one question one is left with:how does one kill a dragon? Chopping up it's toes until it bleeds todeath? You cannot get anywhere near the vital organs!

Chris 2012-05-16 11:18:34

Oh god, no!

This movie was dumb, stupid, terrible! WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!? I likealmost every movie I see, but I didn't like this one, and I'm really intofantasy. The only redeeming point (surprisingly) was Marlon Wayan'scharacter Snails. Please don't screw up Lord of the Rings!2/10

Stella-15 2012-05-16 00:26:22

Surely $35 mil could be better spent...

What a lousy film. Not only did the movie bear no resemblance to the game,but the acting, plot and script were 3rd rate at best. Special effectsweren't bad, but surely the producers could have spent part of the $35million budget to hire a better director, and better writers...

Rich Meyer 2012-05-10 00:48:45

A wasted effort and a waste of Jeremy Irons

I guess Jeremy Irons must be in need of some quick cash, because I can't seeany other reason that a high-class and usually-discerning actor would haveworked in this movie. The good points: Marlon Wayans. Believe me, I am not a fan of thismost-mugging member of the Wayans clan, so if I consider him to be thehighlight, there's rough seas ahead.The bad points: The storyline, which had no real ties to the game the movieis supposedly based on except for the use of the word "mage", the phrase"Thieve's Guild" and the appearance of a Beholder monster in the background. The acting, which was pretty pedantic...Jeremy Irons does little but sneerand shout and grumble facetiously. The special effects, which were prettytame and middle-of-the-road for a SFX blockbuster, which this was purportedto be at times.If you have the choice between watching this movie or playing the game,better opt for a nap...I mean, watch the movie.

2012-05-09 10:34:43

its hilariously bad

OH man, this is one of those movies that is so bad its hilarious. Be sure to see it with someone with a similar sense of humor. First time I saw this movie in theaters was in a large group, half were really trying to take it seriously (which was funny in its on right) and the rest were peeing their pants with laughter. Snails grave scene is probably the best, its this little pebble pile. But the blue-lipped minion is up there too, constantly looking seriously constipated. Top-notch overacting is what really puts this over the top. Personally I don't know how much I would pay for a terrifically bad movie, but if you have the chance to see this cheap or free with some good friends, jump on it. It will be a fun night.

kergillian 2012-05-02 20:02:52

This is why gamer geeks shouldn't be allowed to direct...

As a long-time D&D player, this was thoroughly disappointing. Aside fromRichard O'Brien's surprise role as the guildmaster, which was amusing andwell done, the rest of the film tanked. Jeremy Irons how could you do thisto us??? It can only be called ironic when the best part of a film isinner-city comic relief in a MEDIEVAL SETTING!! Poor in most ways,3/10.

revere-7 2012-05-02 19:42:47

A quarter century was not worth the wait for this game adaptation.

The grandaddy of role-playing games finally makes it to the bigscreen. Too bad it wasn't worth the wait. Strong CGI effects,great costumes and beautiful location photography in EasternEurope can't save a poor script that falls prey to cutsiness,cliched dialogue (e.g. Good guy:"You said you'd let them go."Bad guy:"I Lied."), or both (everything Wayans - the tokenblack thief - says and does here). There are some greatperformances, particularly Richard O'Brien. And, everyone inthe mostly young cast suffers by comparison in scenes oppositethe classically trained Jeremy Irons. In the end one wishes themovie were more derivative of the game and less derivative fromthe Cliffs Notes of Star Wars. Some may find it perfectlyentertaining, but I'd recommend staying home and enjoying agood game of Dungeons & Dragons instead.

modernprometheus 2012-05-02 05:01:41

Tremendously enjoyable; screw the books!

I have to agree with ericmuss of Cleveland that hardcore D&Ders willlikelyas not dislike this film. Myself, having played most systems out there,sawall of the potential. This movie was EXACTLY LIKE a real game. Thecharacters didn't always get along. The powers didn't obey exactly whatthebooks said.But best of all was the special effects. They weren't so spectacular thatthey directed the course of the movie; they did, however, leave somethingtothe imagination, and encouraged the suspension of disbelief (which Ipersonally think is a quality lacking in cinema these days). The cameoappearances were fantastic; Richard O'Brien was spectacular as Xilas,Guildmaster of Thieves. This role had some similarity to his part asCosmoNation in the film "Shock Treatment," with the maze, and... well, I won'tspoil it. Tom Baker played the King of the Elves, and delivered a briefrole which harkened MY mind back to his days as the goodDoctor.Still, I thought that the ending was a little disappointing, even thoughitdid leave the way open for a sequel.

Michael Bennett Cohn 2012-05-02 00:42:40

unwatchable (minor spoiler)

Set aside the modern colloquial talk amongst the two main characters, theobvious Star Wars and Raiders rip-offs, the bad dialog, the confusing story,the whimsically and hastily constructed fantasy universe, the polished butuninteresting special effects. This movie has a sheen of non-quality aboutit, that's noticeable from the prologue title cards at the very beginning.This is an example of a script that would have benefitted from its writersfollowing the most cliche, Syd Field-ish rules of story and characterconstruction. When Marlon Wayan's character, Snails, meets an untimely demise, a youngwoman comforts his best friend by saying "I'm sorry about Snails," whichcomes off like she's apologizing for escargot. That's a moment not meant tobe funny. And it's the highlight of the movie.Honestly, I'm still not sure whether of not this movie evenexists.

fearfulofspiders 2012-05-01 10:58:41

Waste of Time and Resources...

Okay, I was never a fan of Dungeons and Dragons (game), nor am I tothis day. As much as I love fantasy, this franchise is unoriginal andrivals the theft that is Eragon.The acting in this film is the worst of the decade by far. Jeremy Ironsis in his thousandth role as a villain, with a hoarse and over the topvoice performance. The secondary characters, like the purple guy andvarious market people are unbelievable and horribly portrayed -- tryingtoo hard to resemble the bar scene in Star Wars. Marlon Wayans is acomplete misfire in casting, as well as the main character guy, whosename escapes me. The girl that plays the queen or princess can deliverthe lines verbally, but has no idea what body language is and how tomove her lips when she's talking; she's stiff as a board.The special effects are terrible, rivaling the highest budget Sci-FiChannel "Original" Movie. The dragon at the beginning is so phonylooking, how people could continue on believing in this garbage isbeyond me. The maze and portals are ridiculous, and there's about 10minutes of film where we get sweeping shots of tall buildings as asegue into the next scene. Just all a redundant mess this is. The finalbattle with all the dragons can be summed up in one word: LAME.The screenplay is hogwash. Awful dialogue and terrible action scenes.The directing by Courtney Solomon (a dude, if you can believe it) isjust as wretched, and I can only hope we don't see more of his work inthe years to come.As far as music goes, this is a train wreck. Not one concise theme todrive the film. Just one huge mess. Avoid this at all costs whenpresented with the task.All in all, there's no way in Heaven or Hell that I could recommendthis to anyone. To call it a guilty pleasure is too high a praise togive it. Skip this if you can, it is a waste of time and resources.

hans5846 2012-05-01 02:05:38

Not as bad as I thought...

Going into this movie (Seen with about 30 other raving fans with mycollege's Alternate Realities Club), I was pretty much next to sure I wasgoing into a steaming pile of nothing. My first thought about Waynes wasthat this was idiotic. Well, his perfomance was what I expected. Even a bitimpressive, given that I don't think he used a curse word the entire time.Everyone else overacted as badly as he did however, and I think that themovie was generaly not well thought out and written/produced/directed bypeople who thought D&D players were idiots. There was no respect for theaudience - and I think in the end thats the failing of this movie. Thegraphics were very impressive, and you get a good amount of Dragon fightsatthe end of the film. Now the ending seems to sugest a sequel. I hopethey'lldo some more consumer research with the people who will go see the film andaway from toning down an over-the-top comedian.

2012-04-27 13:04:29

There Are 2 O's In POOR, But How Many Are in BOOOOO(etc.)!!?

Just how sad can a movie based on a famous role playing game be? Sitting through this shameful excuse for an adventure/fantasy film was so sad, my eyes watered as if I was cutting onions for two hours straight. Dungeons & Dragons was such an embarrassment in so many different areas, I should have kept a tally on how many times my cheeks blushed bright red! The only enjoyment I endured while watching this eye sore came from my mouth as I endlessly commented put-down after put-down. Here's a short list of cons I thought might help your decision of whether to watch or buy (or neither)...please notice, not a single pro is too been seen:1.) To Be Or Not To Be, It AIN'T: The acting in D&D is so horrible (which caused 75% of my blushing), it makes Xena, Hercules, and campy fantasy/adventure shows alike, look like Shakespeare classics. If you dare watch the film, take notice to endless mugshots and smirks while delivering the cheesiest and entirely unoriginal dialouge and one-liners. The body language they use while delivering such lines as, "Pick on somebody your own size!", urges you to yell at the screen, "OH MY GOD THAT WAS LAME!" with pride and not give a dang if you're once again yelling at the TV, like your grandmother, knowing the actors can't hear you. 2.) Can you believe Jeremy Irons actually has an Oscar?: What's this guy doing in this atrosity? Something I find quite humorous is the fact that Irons is taking this evil mage role to heart, speaking in an accurate accent and such, all the while the rest of the cast isn't at all playing off it. Their poor acting, without the slightest idea of what genre/style of film they are in, makes Irons look like a fool and comes off as over-acting.3.) Wayans + girly screams + playing a kleptomaniac = What the heck? or possibly, "Barf bag anyone?": Another unwise casting decision at the least, which seems to be the film's weakest link. Marlon can be a funnyman...in comedy movies. D&D shouldn't need "comic relief", nor should it contain it. Plus the fact that theives are swift, intelligent, and commonly naive. Marlon has one right. But come on! He's clumbsy, sharp as a butterknife, and worst of all annoying in this role. Though the actual game's theives are most commonly elvenkind, that doesn't matter too much. What chaps my rear is the weapons at Marlon's disposal. A sword?! Give me a break. That clumbsy goof would cut his own head off...which doesn't sound too bad an idea.4.) Plot? Really?! Where..?! Show me..!: I think that last sentence says it all. I got that notion in the first 10 minutes, and that's being generous considering 9 minutes was spent telling myself to not worry and that it could get better. That's the last time I listen to my Homer Simpson conscience.5.) Special Defects: That's right. I swear they had something, then they lost it. Towards the end of the film Red Dragons are fighting the Gold Dragons up in the sky. The whole time I'm wondering why are they concentrating on the foreground where the actors are instead of the background where the main event is taking place..? Until...they show me why. A close up on the dragon's head lies the truth...which is: they surely didn't hire on the same dude who did the DRAGONHEART films. These dragons and special (ugh) effects are an additional 10% of forceful blushing. After seeing these "special effects" I'm sure you'll say the same thing I did..."I heard the movie only lasted in the theaters for about 4 weeks (give or take a week), which if you think about it, is 3 weeks more than what was spent on the "special effects"."6.) The DVD will gross more than it did at the box office, but that isn't saying much: I'm sure the extras on the D&D DVD could sway somebody to buy it, plus hardcore D&D fans will probably faithfully stand by in it's defense no matter how bad they thought it truely was. I however, will deny/decline to anyone who asks me if I've seen it, want to see it, or want to watch it with them. Special Editions are becoming the ultimate excuse for many bad movies, which in fact is what NEW LINE does quite often. The special extras may be a treat, and yes, NEW LINE does make quite the DVD when it comes to "special editions", thus is where my 1 STAR rating comes into the picture. But after seeing this disaster, would you really want to watch the whole thing over just to hear a commentary? Then, since the DVD has two commentaries, would you really want to watch it again, just to hear the second commentary? If you did, I could guarantee this: Your eyes would burn, your ears would automatically go deaf 5 minutes into a commentary, your attention span would mimic that of an newborn kitten, and you will be staring at your own reflection in a puddle of your own (or someone else's, depending on how many people are watching with you) vomit that lays at your feet. Recommendation? Sure, I got one: Skip D&D and save yourself the cash it costs for eyedrops, hearing aids, uppers, and most importantly kaopektate. (NOTE: The remaining blushing (15%) was caused by waking up the day after viewing D&D, realizing it wasn't all just a horrendous nightmare.)

Andrew Manning 2012-04-27 11:51:26

Spends too much time being a game of Dungeons and Dragons instead of telling a story.

2012-04-26 10:10:24

How can we possibly still make movies so bad?????

This movie did not live up to even my lowest expectations. The characters were lifeless, the plot lost my interest immediately, the computer graphics were so terrible and obviously fake that it ruined any scene where they were used, and the acting was HORRIBLE (Oh my God, I mean horrible doesn't even begin to describe it). Even Jeremy Irons overdid it with the soap opera drama that teetered on the comedic. The movie centerpiece "rod" looked like a toy picked up at at a local K-Mart complete with a flashing light (and probably even pulsating sound too). I am so mortified that I came so close to buying it without renting it first. The only redeeming qualities were the costumes, the score, and the reason behind why it was made.... to capture the fantastic worlds created by the game Dungeons and Dragons.

Sherri Winston 2012-04-25 23:22:18

The visual spectacle, special effects and action should impress lovers of the fantasy genre.