MovieChat Forums > Dungeons & Dragons (2000) Discussion > 3.6?? Seriously?

3.6?? Seriously?

posted 11 years ago by ronaldhp_duke
7 replies | jump to latest

This movie deserves 6.0 at the very least. I had more fun watching this than those Harry Potter movies when they got "dark" or those horrible Pirates of the Caribbean sequels. The acting wasn't even that bad. Even though some parts were cliche, the actors were still genuine and some of the one liners (from the blue lips guy) were pretty funny. Best of all, the movie doesn't take itself seriously and knows when its trying to be funny in a serious moment.

This is actually the only movie where I enjoy the use of magic. There's no pausing, no revving up, no dramatic staring, it's just, VOOM, firebolts firing everywhere, POOF, magic barrier. That apprentice mage chick did more magic in 30 seconds than in one entire movie of Harry Potter. This is the type of magic I wanted Harry to use, but almost every scene he was in, it's like he never went to wizard's school for god's sake.

The CGI here is pretty bad, but who cares. The badass young empress made up for it.

Does anyone else agree or am I just delusional?

[–] chivers677 11 years ago

It's very hard to judge. I think the movie is hilarious, but it fails in it's initial field. I won't deny it's a classic, even if...

1. the performances were hammy and laughable
2. the costumes and make-up were cheap
3. the writing was horrendous
4. the plot was clichéd in every sense
5. the movie was unfaithful to it's source material
6. the CGI was undeveloped and not very advanced at all.
7. the characters were cookie cutter and the audience could not emote or sympathise at all with any of them
8. the filmmakers were only interested in making money and didn't even conceive the thought of having any creativity here at all, by rehashing the same old Hollywood formula (generic villain longs for destiny, two peasants long for victory, defeat bad guy and get the girl of his dreams, happy ending)

To be fair though, the movie is often ill-judged, and can be a riot to watch. I don't think you're delusional. Unless I am as well

"Stop looking at the walls, look out the window." ~ Karl Pilkington On Art

[–] JamesMitchell451 11 years ago

You're delusional

[–] Mullah_Omar 9 years ago

3.6 is very charitable.

[–] elbiomachado 8 years ago

3.6 approaches Keeping Up With The Kardashians. I'd rather have the script to this movie tattooed on my face than watch those whores pretend they're real people. So i think this should at least be 4.0ish

[–] dx360 8 years ago

This movie deserves a 1. The story was awful, acting awful, characters a awful, fighting awful, effects beyond awful even for the year it came out...movies much older had better effects.

Let's see...awful directing and editing, awful sound design awful sets

It has non redeeming quality other than to laugh at

[–] chilone (17252) 3 years ago

I enjoyed it too.

[–] PersistentViewer (1796) 2 years ago

I'll also give it a generous 6.
Definitely does not deserve it's current rating.

Jeremy Iron's overacting was hilarious and laughably bad. The acting by others weren't the best.
But the sets were gorgeous, and costumes were also good. The CGI is extremely dated, but the interaction of the dragons were good.

I really enjoyed it.