Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God (2005 TV Movie) User Reviews

Surprisingly good.

[Cimmerian_Dragon · 6/10 · 8 October 2005]

I was someone that had mixed feelings on the original D&D movie. I thought the script was clunky, the acting was awful as far as good guys were concerned, it contained wildly inappropriate dialog for the setting, and the tone made light of what could have been dramatic events. On the other hand, the movie looked good, had a couple decent fight scenes and the huge Dragon war at the climax was dynamic and exciting. Still, with it's less than impressive reception, I figured this would be a series of one.

Imagine my surprise when a sequel was announced, and even greater shock when I watched the films premier and found it to be everything I felt it's predecessor lacked. The acting, while not Oscar worthy, was perfectly reasonable work from a handful of unknowns. The plot is treated seriously this time around, with a minimum of cliché and jest (Although there are two laugh out loud moments) and actually features an intelligent foe with a genuinely epic plan for the forces of justice to combat. Speaking of which, the heroes are a nice diverse bunch, and the film manages to showcase each one's unique talents well.

As for the action and eye candy, there's plenty. The fights are staged better than 90% of the action flicks on the shelves, with realistic flow and quick pace. The special effects are among the best I've ever seen in a non-theatrical film and are leaps and bounds above any other Sci-Fi premier yet broadcast (Though not quite as good as a theatrical release). The final battle is not as kinetic as the first films finale, but manages to be a fitting climax to the quest.

If this is what this crew can produce with a terribly low budget, I say give them 70 million bucks and get Dungeons & Dragons III in theaters ASAP!

Not great, but better than the original in almost every way

[Shaedar · 6/10 · 9 October 2005]

In spite of the fact that it (reportedly) had about half of the budget of the rather embarrassing D&D film that was released in theaters a few years ago, this Sci Fi Channel movie is superior in almost every way, both as a tribute to the game and as film-making in general.

One of the main reasons that this film stacks up favorably against its predecessor is due to the fact that it seems to have been made by people who have actually played the game, or at least read the rulebook. Fans of the pen-paper-and-dice adventures will be happy to recognize the setup of the story: A party of adventurers (Fighter, Priest, Mage, Barbarian, Thief) journeys through a series of dangerous locales (haunted forest, goblin village, trap-filled dungeon, etc.) in order to recover the powerful artifact that can save the world from certain doom. The somewhat trite storyline is what lends the movie some of its charm- it feels like an adventure that you would actually play in the game.

The cast of unknown actors and actresses do a good job with the decent script they are given to work with. There is not a whole lot of character development, but the cast does a good job of actually coming across as medieval adventurers, as opposed to Hollywood actors with swords and silly costumes (as in the original movie). they avoid the use of any anachronistic modern slang or demeanor. More importantly, they follow most of the rules of D&D adventuring (the types of spells and methods of spellcasting, searching for traps and secret doors, barbarian rage, etc). Though veteran players will be shocked and dismayed that they ignore the most important adventurer's rule: always protect the Cleric.

My main objection to the film is that things happen too fast - many of the events that should be significant in the story just don't feel significant. Powerful characters, both good and bad, are defeated and sometimes even killed much too quickly and easily- I think the movie would be much more effective if it made these events seems more important- perhaps through better music, perhaps through cutting away to other scenes and then coming back in order to make the fights seem longer, and also by taking more time to show how the characters react to things as they happen. These are the kinds of things that would have turned a decent film into a very good one.

Another fumble from the D&D franchise

[knight110tim · 6/10 · 10 February 2006]

I should be in geek heaven. Another Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) movie? After the critical hit that the first one took, I wouldn't have thought it possible ... but clearly someone has more faith in the franchise than the viewing public.

Wrath of the Dragon God is better cinematically than the original, but just isn't as much fun. While the first went for all the clichés (including the initial tavern rendezvous) and the full-on dragon war climax, the latest seems oddly low key ... despite its typically apocalyptic plot line.

Over a century has passed and Damodar (Bruce Payne) has returned from undeath with another foul plan for world domination. A band of experienced adventurers is hastily assembled - representing all the major character classes (a fighter, mage, cleric, rogue and barbarian) - to thwart him. And that's pretty much it.

There's a decent dungeon crawl sequence and some okay fight scenes, but it all seems very pedestrian and just an odd rehash of Hawk The Slayer (still, in my humble opinion, the best non-D&D D&D movie). We do get a pretty 'realistic' cinematic interpretation of Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons, some eye candy in the Xena-esquire shape of the barbarian Lux, fanboy in-jokes (in the shape of adventure module name dropping e.g. 'Barrier Peaks' and 'The Ghost Tower of Inverness' to name but two) and a few snippets of witty banter.

But for my two gold pieces, it could have been so much more. If the movie makers were trying to breath new life into the franchise they should have tried to make something that was dramatically different from the first, not just another version. In this sort of low-budget fantasy adventure fare, one quest is very much like another - whatever trinket the champions are seeking.

And enough with the CGI dragons already...

999 experience points to the writers, cast and directors for effort, but not enough to take them up a level yet.

This film kicks ogres' behind

[winterpage · 30 March 2007]

You probably have read all the reviews and wonder what everyone means when they say that Wrath is truer to the D&D universe and is better than the first movie (which sucks donkey balls). I will give you an example to clear up any doubts.

When our heroes in Wrath met a lich in the forest, did they battle the lich to death in grand Hollywood fashion? Did they hell! They packed their stuff and run for their puny lives -exactly what any normal D&D adventurer would do when a lich is encountered. Fight a lich? Uh huh. And one of the heroes got frozen and eaten up by a white dragon which is always cool (pardon the pun). The mage is hot too.

This is why we love this movie. Read bad-ass D&D villains that kick major ogres' behinds unlike the idiot beholder in the first movie that appeared for 10 seconds and floated around looking stupid. In Wrath, the balance in the Force is finally restored. I hope the backstabbing, awesome lich made a return in D&D III.

Decent

[haplo48-1 · 4/10 · 15 September 2005]

It was a fairly decent movie. They had a few of the more obscure monsters, but at least it was more than just a beholder like its predecessor. At least it was better than that sewer slop that was the first movie. The cast was better and they seemed to focus more on the quest than just idiot humor. I had hoped it would help the genre, but I think it fell short of that. I say get rid of Damodar and the city and start over again. Doing that could only help any more D&D movies they may make. If you're a D&D fan, it's worth taking the time to watch it, but I wouldn't buy it on DVD or anything, unless you bought the first one and just want to have the set. It's not worth the money.

A massive improvement from the first

[cwestfa1 · 5/10 · 1 October 2006]

A big improvement over the dreadful theatrical release. A mediocre film, which is a far cry superior to the original, some big improvements, no annoying Wayans Brother, no giant 5'6 dwarf, and a better understanding for the feel of a typical D&D setting. The acting isn't a big improvement but no one gets on your nerves either. D&D players will also enjoy the opening sequence if for just the use of Monster Manuel illustrations, and decent use of CGI to recreate some monsters that actually fit their environment in one scene. Even features an attempt at random encounters.

Not bad to watch on cable or for a cheap rental, if you buy this film for more then 6 bucks you will feel ripped off.

An improvement over the original... but that is not saying a lot

[mentalcritic · 1/10 · 27 January 2006]

Wizards Of The Coast, then the holders of the Dungeons & Dragons copyright, almost certainly would have stopped the original feature film if they could. In fact, they did everything legal that they could do, including offering to buy back the rights to the franchise for what would probably be quite a lot more than Courtney Solomon paid for them way back in the early 1990s. I do not know what price they offered, but if a billion dollars had been what it took to stop the film from going ahead, it would be the best billion dollars a franchise holder ever spent. As a direct result of the film going ahead, Dungeons & Drgaons went from a fringe franchise to the butt of every joke about roleplaying nerds. A poorly-made film, the original lost nearly twenty million at the box office. So it was all but inevitable that this sequel would go straight to home video. Not that this is undeserved. The dialogue is more stilted than the house shown in Lethal Weapon 2, the scenario is so full of holes that it could not hold boulders, and the acting is so wooden that one could put their drink on top of it.

The plot is far more complex and imaginative than was the case in the original, but it is only so much garbage when filtered through the acting and writing. In essence, Damodar, the Vaderesque figure of the original, was cursed by Profion so that he would become the walking dead if he failed any of Profion's commands before he died. Or something. As he rightly points out, he did no such thing, so the use of this plot device to resurrect him is flat-out idiotic. Not to mention that aside from Bruce Payne's presence, absolutely no effort is made to connect the two films. This is hardly surprising, however. New Line obviously sold all their interest in the films, having learned their lesson from the disastrous original. The companies who footed the bill for production in this case are unknown, but Warner Brothers took up the cost of foreign distribution and home video. That the film is available on DVD in Australia long before it has been made such in America is a troubling sign.

Also troubling is the fact that the film is being marketed under its working title, The Elemental Might, in Australia. Generally, when a film is released under one title in one market and another in another market, its for a reason. And thus we come to the actual quality of the film. In a nutshell, Wrath Of The Dragon God is terrible. As previously hinted, the dialogue is terrible, serving to advance the plot or set up events when a little plotting could have served this purpose better. Indeed, so much of the plot smacks of convenience its a wonder that this script was approved for production by the fringe companies behind the film. That said, Gerry Lively is a far better director than is Courtney Solomon. We do not have one actor seemingly refusing to act at all while another decides that if their opposite is not going to act, he might as well do all the acting for both of them. Some of the special effects of the film even look halfway convincing, although it becomes obvious in a hurry that only fifteen million dollars was spent whenever one of the actors opens their mouth.

It must really pain Solomon, as a matter of fact, that Wrath Of The Dragon God does far more to coincide with a Dungeons & Dragons plot than his abysmal effort. Treachery, death, and twist are a staple diet for Wrath Of The Dragon God's plot. Indeed, there is far less flat-out stealing from Star Wars and a good deal more invention. Not all of the ambitions of the film are carried out. The CGI is often pathetic, and the stuntmen are quite low-rent. There are no real battle sequences to speak of, save for perhaps the undead dragon at the end, which is a real disappointment considering the speculations that the filmmakers wanted to feature a plot with Damodar raising an undead army. Attempts to create large, complex battles fail because there is no money to achieve the necessary scale. Again, the film also succeeds in making what is meant to be a wide and vast world seem like it is about fifty miles square. In a nutshell, the makers put in a valiant effort, but are so overwhelmed by their need to emulate more complex fantasy films with bigger budgets that it is all for naught.

I gave Dungeons And Dragons: Wrath Of The Dragon God a one out of ten. It is a terrible film, and it succeeds in being boring at times when it should be great, but there are times when it is so stupid that it becomes brilliant. Bruce Payne, as always, succeeds in creating a great character where everything else around him is unbelievable and mediocre. The film is worth watching entirely for his performance, and he certainly deserves better material.

Good, but not great.

[macenthe · 7/10 · 4 October 2005]

I was amazed when I found out that they were making a sequel to the horror that was the first Dungeons & Dragons movie. Despite the poor quality all around of the first one some people gave the source the benefit of the doubt and were willing to try it again. Thankfully this time the source material was taken more seriously and the project was put into better hands.

The result is a decent film with a comprehensible story, and decent production quality. The cast is by no means A-list, or even B-list; though they do well in their respective roles. The effects are alright, but if the movie had a better budget it would have been even better.

All things being equal this movie is superior to the first. DnD folks out there should like it and appreciate the detail taken to make sure the source material comes through correctly. It's a mixed bag on how much other people will like it. If you are willing to look past the lower grade special effects, and the cast of unknowns then you might enjoy it.

This is not good!

[toymaker1980 · 2/10 · 4 February 2006]

Having been lucky enough (or unlucky as the case is) to have had a preview of the movie given to me i thought i'd settle down to a evening in front of the box! being a D&D player myself and being a fan of the first film i was looking forward to watching the film....how wrong i was. To start with the story is just awful, and the plot almost non existent my 5 year old cousin could write better. The film is then further let down by some pretty awful CGI i couldn't help but notice how dreadfully fake the creatures and scenery looked the scene with the ice dragon in just made me want to cry! But to finish this flop off is the acting which is some of the most wooden, unbelievable and just downright stupid i have ever seen. please even if you have an interest in D&D give this film a miss and use the two hours you have saved to play D&D its much better!

Exactly what the first should have been, and I want more!

[JemyM · 7/10 · 30 September 2005]

This, my friend, is Dungeons & Dragons. This is not a cinematic masterpiece. This is not Shakespeare. The storyline wont change your future. But it's 1:45h of real entertainment for any Dungeons & Dragons fan.

Unlike the first movie, D&D:Elemental Might go back to the book. Many fantasy movies have wizards and fighters, but I believe the creators actually focused on really bringing the things we recognize from the D&D world into this one. There's a real "party" with classic Dungeons & Dragons professions represented and they really do what is to be expected by their roles. There's real dungeons... There's dragons... and there's even a few unique D&D monsters that is recognized from the books. The villain is more evil. The good is more good. There's heaps and heaps of magic, and even divine magic (which is unique to D&D) plays a great role this time around.

If you ever played D&D and you can accept some budgetcuts on bringing your fantasy to life, get ahold of this movie. If you never played D&D but you are a general fantasy fan, get this movie because it's the most fantasymovie you have seen since Lord of the Rings. If you are neither a fan of fantasy or an oldtime fan of Dungeons & Dragons, you can probably forget about this one and watch something else.

I will buy it and I want to see more D&D movies in the future!

So bad I had to turn it off.

[dwkenady · 1/10 · 14 October 2005]

Being a fan of RPGs, Role-Playing Games, I thought I would give this movie a try. So I started watching it. The graphics were cheesy. The acting stiff and forced. And dialog was just out of one of my high school gaming sessions. This was why I quite playing D&D and went to another system. All they needed is for one of the character to yell out, "Are there any Cheeto's left?" and you would have the perfect gaming night.

Normally I will watch a movie all the way through regardless how bad it is. There have only been a handful of movies that I just had to stop watching, and this was one of them. Do yourself a favor, watch something else.

Fun if you are a D&D fan, probably not so fun if you aren't.

[trancejeremy · 8/10 · 9 October 2005]

The first D&D movie was largely hated by D&D players, partly because it wasn't a good movie, but also because it was not very much like D&D the game.

Perhaps because of the cool reception of the first, this was changed dramatically in the sequel. It now really is like the game, sure to provide lots of geek moments where viewers try to guess which spell is being cast or what magic item is being used. The characters also tend to act like D&D characters, and they actually explore a dungeon.

Unfortunately, as a movie, it has some shortcomings. For one, much of the acting is uninspired. Not bad, but about a wooden as a dummy of Keanu Reeves. The first movie also suffered from this problem, but in this movie, it's probably because most of the actors are new, this generally being their first film. Exception being Tim Stern, the guy playing the Rogue, who brought some life to his character.

The characterization and dialog isn't great, either. Less character development than in some commercials, even though this is a fairly long movie. But I chalk that up also to the inexperience of the screen writers (though also is relatively common in D&D games, so perhaps is a feature, not a bug).

When it comes to special effects, they are about on par with Sci-Fi channel offerings. Slightly better. Lord of the Rings it ain't. But not terrible, either.

Still, just judging it as a fantasy movie, it's much better than most other low budget ones. Worth watching. And for D&D players, it's a lot of fun.

This sequel better than original.

[ramspite · 7/10 · 15 September 2005]

A surprisingly satisfying film. This film takes the subject matter far more seriously than the original film, with the end result bringing me more into the story then the previous film. While on it's own it's really only passing fair amongst other films of the genre, it's connections to the original film, and it's remaining true to the spirit of the material from which it was drawn made this movie an enjoyable watch for me. Without giving any spoilers, I would have to say as a D&D'er, this film is much truer to the game then the original movie in every possible way. The character's are more interesting, the perils they face are more dire, the antagonists are clever and deceitful (which is rare in any genre), and their is definitely some decent, though not great, acting. I would definitely recommend this movie.

too damned horrible to believe!

[gonnadad · 2/10 · 14 November 2005]

I thought the first movie was a turd! This one is more of a polished turd. First or all it looks like it was shot with a cheap video camera. It has all of the look and ambiance of a afternoon soap opera. Since this wasn't an indie suppose they had a big enough budget to make it look good. So I can only conclude that you just failed abysmally in this department. Second, just tossing in a few well chosen D&D names does not make it all better. Granted, it is better than the first film, but you had nowhere to go but up after that one! In the end the plot and acting are below mediocre at best, and fail to capture the role playing experience of D&D at all. Please, just give this up. Don't force another piece of D&D crap on us. I have enough trouble explaining D&D to non role players without apologizing for these two movies. But, since I know you don't care or even listen to the hard core role players (the insipid world of Eberron is just one example), at least hire out the next movie to people who actually live and breathe D&D. Not corporate desk jobs who see everything as a marketing tool.

It is worse than the first despite good intentions

[Quebec_Dragon · 3/10 · 23 May 2009]

Simply horrible. Very low-budget pseudo-sequel to the previous film with none of the same actors except one. It almost makes the first one look like a masterpiece. From the few extras, it seems that the creators actually wanted to do well and take this seriously but it certainly doesn't show in the final product except for a lack of b-movie fun that might have actually made this palatable. The fight choreography was lame, the dialogs were cliché, the special effects were pathetic (except perhaps for the first dragon but even there...), the actors were either mediocre or stunningly uncharismatic and the story... well I don't remember what the story was nor did I care much about what was happening. Actually, I saw this not so long ago and I remember very little of it. I'm giving an extra half star for the effort and genuinely noble intentions of the filmmakers who did try to make it closer to the rpg and because I've seen worse. Dungeons & Dragons deserves a much better movie. Why not one based on some of the Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance novels?

Rating: 3 out of 10

What an Anti-Climax

[Masquerade_Ball · 2/10 · 28 October 2006]

After watching the First D&D movie in 2000, I thought I might give this one a view, on DVD since it never hit the big screen down here.

Spoilers Start -

The Fantasy Dilemma: We have our damsel in distress, a sorceress in training who sucumbs to a decaying curse. We have our villain, Damodar AKA Mr Blue-Lip-Gloss (who was the evil side-kick from the first movie). And of course we have our bunch of heroes, a banded together D&D cliché group consisting of a thief, swordswoman, wizard-type, and other generic types. Unfortunately they each die before you can really associate with their characters (unlike the first movie). A few scenes hinted at some promise to the movie, such as the "blink and you'll miss it" battle against the Ice Dragon, but ultimately these random skirmishes, plus the anti-climactic climax do little to save this movie from the DVD bargain bin.

Spoilers End -

This movie also has a "made for TV" feel to it as well.

I wouldn't recommend this to general movie viewers, but if you enjoy D&D fantasy movies, this will be some entertainment, but it's far from a classic in the genre and pales in comparison to many big budget fantasy films.

very strange it is........

[tomprobert666 · 5/10 · 31 August 2009]

it is beyond me how a very badly received film got a sequel made. I thought it wasn't possible but just look at BloodRayne II a sequel to a bad film and no.2 was even worse.

I only saw this film just to see if this was as bad as the first film. I was ready for the mistakes from the first film but was surprised to find that film was mildly entertaining. none of the stupid jokes from film 1 were included and seemed more like a fantasy film rather than an overblown joke. yes the film did still look tacky like the prequel and the dialogue did sound a bit cheesy at times, but the acting was better, the story line didn't move to the left, to the right, upside down or inside out so i was able to follow the film without shouting WHAT THE HELL! 6 or 7 times.

the CGI was much worse however but because I knew what was going on I didn't worry about the CGI (Terminator 1 had the very tacky Arnold dummy during the mirror scene and is the film bad? no). This film had none of the actors from no.1 (apart from Bruce Payne as Damodar) so I was reassured that the characters were not going to say or do something pointless.

The film was darker than no.1 which is good and far more serious which is also good but just like the first film too many people were placed in the shots so the scenes still felt overcrowded.

its not a good film but it is not a bad film. still it beats the D&D 1 ten times over.

Skip the first ten minutes, otherwise good

[richard-bowers · 7/10 · 8 October 2005]

The first few minutes were the visual equivalent of a bad novel's prologue. Rathern than introducing the problem through the story, the bad guy tells you about himself and his plans, although not in enough specifics for it to make sense. Fortunately, the heroes don't watch the prologue, and they're reasonably good at explaining the plot to the viewers as the movie goes on.

The movie did a good job of using D&D terminology (arcane vs. divine magic, etc.) and had the feel of a typical D&D adventure. It was paced fairly well, and the acting was appropriate for an original Sci-Fi channel movie. The special effects were very well done, but some of them weren't too understandable unless you were a D&D player.

If you aren't a D&D fan, there's probably not much here for you. If you are, then it's worth watching, as long as you can avoid speculating on what color certain beasts are or complaining that certain things aren't the way they are in the manuals. Just assume their DM has house rules, OK?

Bad acting, Bad effects

[wolfbeast · 3/10 · 30 July 2008]

I had expected this sequel to be in line with the first D&D movie with regards to the general feel and content/quality, but was quite disappointed.

The visual effects were notably a lot worse, a lot of jerky, stuttered animation in the movements of the creatures, not at all the same kind of quite natural movement I expected to see after having seen the first movie. Lack of detail, cheesy transitions, poor interaction of rendered with real-world elements. There are more different creatures from the fantasy realm in this movie, but none of them are executed well, or even convincingly. Cutting corners with lots of gray and black.

Then, the acting: Sure, it's not been a strong point in the first movie either, but once again, a lot less convincing to put the characters down. No depth to them, feeling more like a high-school play at times which is also indicative of poor directing and a scripts with no real interest in telling a story, but rather to "produce".

I like the fantasy genre, I enjoy the setting this movie plays in. The medieval feel of all the extras was good, and some nice stunts there with the (many) explosions, but overall: a thin story, poor acting of the main characters, and horrendously B-movie special effects make this movie one that only barely scrapes a score of 3 out of me.

It's is OK to watch once. And only once... If you can sit through the 1-3/4 hours of it without getting fed up with it or tired of seeing the poor execution.

no spoiler review

[vespid81 · 7/10 · 23 September 2005]

For all of those who play DND and have played DND throughout the years... you may have seen a movie that came out in 2000 that you may have hated or maybe even liked what was called Dungeons and Dragons The Movie. Well in my opinion it was a flop... Well recently they actually made a Dungeons and Dragons 2. I watched it last night even though it has not been released yet (it plays on the Sci Fi channel on Oct 8th) and well... it was great! I was totally surprised with the production. It wasn't cheesy (except a few of the special effects) acting wise or production wise. The movie played out like it was a regular adventure that a DM would make up, the spells were cast properly, the "core" rules were not broken, and most importantly the characters were interesting and were not INVINCIBLE... they are just like us PC's (getting arms eaten or chopped off or getting eaten whole by a purple worm!). So trust me... it was great. Even though it was obviously lower budget than say... Battlestar Galactica. But what DND game isn't low budget.

Yep, it is better than the first film, but I still didn't find it that great

[TheLittleSongbird · 4/10 · 21 June 2010]

Just for the record, I hate the original Dungeons & Dragons, and consider it not only the worst fantasy film of all time but one of the worst movies ever made. This sequel was an improvement, but it was for me still mediocre. The sets, special effects, music and pacing are better, and the lack of Marlon Wayans- who was so irritating in the first film- was a major bonus. However, while not as unbearably cheesy the script is weak, and the plot line is predictable. The pacing is rather sluggish, and the direction is lacking at times. The acting was an improvement, but the protagonists were bland(not as bland as Justin Walin though) and the villains while more interesting and less exaggerated are underdeveloped in terms of character development and not very well explored. Overall, not unbearably awful like the first film, but it could have been better. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Much more "D&D" then the first.

[StevenThrasher · 8/10 · 18 September 2005]

I enjoyed this more then the first. There was no slapstick comedy which really teed me off in the first film. Although there was a clear leader, it was more balanced on a party of characters. It was more of what I would expect from a D&D movie. The action was well paced, and the plot progressed well. The SFX were decent. A few times the CG wasn't that good but it didn't really detract that much. Ellie Chidzley as Lux was very easy on the eyes. Hope to see more of her in the future.

In overall context of movies maybe 6.5/10. In the context of a D&D movie and to those looking for one I give it 8/10.

Worth a view.

Oh the game references...

[Jobe00 · 7/10 · 10 October 2005]

I liked the fact Damodar, the only good thing from the first abysmal movie, was the main villain in this one. Someone mentioned that he seemed to be a spellcaster now, but I disagree. I think he was still a Fighter, but he had an artifact that did all sorts of things for him. Also, why did Damodar run from Berek (the Fighter) at the end? My guess is that Berek is a higher level fighter than Damodar (who was put at 7th level in the first movie in Jeff Grubb's adventure adaptation of the movie), and he knew it. I'd run from a higher level fighter too.

Things I liked from the movie in no particular oder: we were told about arcane and divine magic, a passing reference to the Barrier Peaks, the god invoked to save the day was Obad-Hai, the Rogue checked for and disarmed traps and picked a lock or two (and used and ancient secret of the Rogues guild at one point...watch carefully for it!), the Rogue palmed a Gem of True Seeing (which saw some good use), LOTS of lightning bolts, a white dragon with the proper breath weapon, the great wyrm black dracolich (The dragon god, but just woke up so he wasn't up to full god power. Shame he breathed fireballs instead of acid streams, but chalk that up to SFX difficulties.), the Rogue burned through a lock with purple worm stomach acid, we had a lich (who was great near the end), wraiths, cloakers, cool traps, a cameo by a pair of dead drow, and Damodar's half-orc toadie.

Someone said the cleric pulled a novice move by jumping out and trying to take down the white dragon, but if he hadn't done so, the rest of the party would have been wyrm food too.

All in all, it was an entertaining movie and easily the best movie Sci-Fi Productions has ever done.

DND-The book is better

[wocillo · 2/10 · 9 October 2005]

As a DND fan I was excited to see this movie and compared to the first one it was a masterpiece. The acting wasn't terrible, and the plot was at least coherent, if a bit cliché. However I thought that the production was awful. I know that it was low budget but c'mon. The costumes and set pieces looked like they came out of a high school theatre company, and the special effects were a joke. The cinematography and editing was muddled, and I think the actors did their own makeup. I was disappointed. With some of the most exciting cinematic material available, DND movies could be a blockbuster miniseries of films with the right script and production team. I'm still waiting for these movies to live up to their potential.

Just wow...

[turn-the-lights-off · 1/10 · 11 October 2005]

Alright. To those of you who believed that the first movie was as bad as it was going to get... you were WRONG. I honestly believed that the first was of poor quality, but now think it is a piece of artistic supremacy after watching this mockery of the DND name. I was once a vivid player, and I recently started back up. I had just sat down and started to set up a campaign, decided to have this running in the BG. After just 10 minutes of this I found myself disgusted and lacking interest in the DND name. I don't even want to RP after that movie. The graphics were like something out of an OLD PS game, the storyline was terrible, and the acting reminded me of a grade 1 play I was part of like 15 years ago. I am outraged that Wizards would allow such a thing to be made with the DND name attached to it. I hope to god that if they ever make another DND movie, they will take the time to ensure it is worth watching and maybe put more than $20 into the budget.