Dungeons and Dragons | | Cast : | Jeremy Irons, Justin Whalin, Zoe McLellan | | Director : | Courtney Solomon | | Studio : | New Line Home Entertainment | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen, Dolby | | Released Date : | December 08, 2000 | | DVD Released Date : | September 14, 2004 | | Language : | English (Dubbed), English (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | August 06, 2005 | | Summary | A Very Average Fantasy/Adventure Film For Such A Cult-Status Theme As D&D | Content
 | 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. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 29, 2005 | | Summary | I've seen worse | Content
| "Dungeons and Dragons" isn't a great movie, but despite the complaints you'll hear about it, it's certainly not the worst of a lackluster genre.
OK, the sound man should be flogged -- I couldn't understand a word in either the beginning or ending segments with the dragons -- and the script needed to be something beyond a first draft, with recognizable motivations, less exposition and decent dialogue added. And someone wake Thora Birch up: She seems to have slipped into some sort of sleepwalking coma.
Having said that, the "Dungeons & Dragons" movie wasn't as horrible as I'd heard it made out to be. It was surely better than "Krull" or "The Sword and the Sorcerer." I'd rank it right below "Willow" and around the level of "Dragonheart": amateurish, kind of cheesy, but not offensively so.
There was some neat stuff in the movie. Well, neatish. Many of the characters, most notably Ridley certainly looked the part, and the computer-generated capital city was pretty excellent in all the pointlessly fast flyby shots. And I thought the dungeon sequences were handled reasonably well.
Courtney Solomon put "Dungeons & Dragons" together without the benefit of a real grounding in film, other than "parents in the film industry," which qualifies him to work at Starbucks, honestly. And it shows. But the film, if clumsy, also shows a real love of the source material that redeems most of its flaws.
You want to see a really bad fantasy movie? Check out "First Knight." Compared to that, this is Shakespeare.
Worth renting for families looking for light entertainment, and maybe owning for someone REALLY passionate about the "Dungeons & Dragons" game. |
| Rating | | | Date | June 27, 2005 | | Summary | its hilariously bad | Content
| 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. |
| Rating | | | Date | June 12, 2005 | | Summary | Gives D&D a bad name | Content
| Bad all the way around. Jeremy Irons as the villian seems embarassed as he should be. They decided to let him keep his regular hair so he looks like a business man from Wall Street. The main character doesn't seem to have a "class" as is normal in D&D. He is sort of of a warrior, rogue, or something else. It's an embarassment. Actually if the title was "Evil Red Dragons" or something I could have taken it better but for the actual D&D name to be attached to a bomb like this is quite irritating. With the name brand they had they could have launched a film franchise instead of slapping it on a throw away piece of trash like this. |
| Rating | | | Date | March 29, 2005 | | Summary | A bit to like here and there but just too bland. | Content
| Seeing a film in the theater on Christmas Eve has been a tradition of mine since I was a kid. On Xmas Eve 2000, my theater hadn't yet gotten Cast Away or Crouching Tiger, but it did have my third choice, D&D.
Well, I've never been so intricately close to D&D that I would have been labeled a sinner in the 80s, but I have ALWAYS loved medieval fantasy, and many of the D&D stories and characters. So, I had the feeling going to the film that I would have a good old popcorn munching time with one of my favorite genres. No decent movies about medieval times had come out in a while, so what better than D&D to end the drought?
Well, I left the theater laughing. Not at the movie, but at myself for having such high hopes. It had potential, I'll say that. I chuckled at a joke or two, I liked some of feel, like magicians and thieves and whatnot. But in the end, it felt like a washed out, Lord of the Rings lite. And who would have known that LOTR would indeed come out a year later and absolutely blow everyone's socks off?
The main problem with D&D is its basic plot. Several characters band together to retrieve a magical item and defeat the wizard. Ok, sounds fair. But the characters are so wooden and stereotypical, I just didn't care. The thieves are rebels who believe in justice and equality. The wizards are old and power hungry. The dwarf likes beer and fights. The elves are delicate and mysterious. And that's about the most we get to know anybody, although the main two characters (thieves) get more screen time and somewhat anachronistic dialogue. I admit I was surprised by a death halfway through, and surprised again at what happened / didn't happen with the dead at the end of the film. But outside of that, it's pretty stock stuff. And don't look for Jeremy Irons to save the film, he overacts here with the best of them. Although I did enjoy his last scene or two involving his magic and the dragon battle.
I guess bottom line is that it's worth a see if you're a real D&D or fantasy fan, but other than that, it's not that great, and if you've seen Lord of the Rings by then you've already seen better. Just too bland.
|
|
