Dude this is a good movie it doesn't suck.
I thought this was way better than the first and it's way more traditional to the D&D game. And for the budget it had it also had great special effects. Anyone agree?
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God Discussion > Dude this is a good movie it doesn't suc...
I enjoyed the film, too. Factoring in the price of admission I'd say it was a good deal.
---
He who pays the Piper ... calls the tune!
Definitely. I think it was much better written. Also, they did a good job of casting talent for the roles rather than "names". Hopefully, enough people will have enjoyed this film to encourage a future D&D film to go to the big screen again.
shareI watched this movie and after the painful display of bad effects and horrible acting was done, I wished I had that time back in my life. This was made after the breakthrough technology of Lord Of The Rings was done. After Star Wars for pete's sake!! With any kind of budget, I expected better CGI than Xena and Hercules. But not on this movie. The effects were better in the 2000 movie! Not to mention there was painfully little action. I kept waiting for something to happen and nothing ever did. The first one had action in it and it may not have been the best moves, but geez, at least they tried. This movie didn't even bother. My 7 year old, who LOVES action films (his favorite is Mortal Kombat) kept asking me to turn it off. I kept saying, hang on honey, maybe it will liven up. He didn't even ask to see it a second time. This is a kid who will watch Wallace and Gromit over and over but he couldn't stomach D&D2 again. Granted, I've never played D&D and you all can blame my disinterest on that...BUT, cinema I know. And this was NOT good cinema. Did it even make it to the big screen or was it straight to video? I don't even remember commercials for it. If they decide to try a 3rd film, I hope they put some real effort into it. Surely there are enough D&D enthusiasts to warrant having a real budget and getting a real director and real CGI guys. To me, this movie was like a bunch of D&D players getting together and deciding to put one of their game scenerios on film. I can see them in the editing room screaming COOL!!!!! THIS IS SO COOL MAN!!!! WE ROCK MAN!!!! It's bad enough you players waste your life away with the game, do you have to make a movie about it?? And a bad one at that!
Holding a grudge is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die.
First of all, it was A SciFi Channel made movie (From what I understand) So no it didn't get released in theaters, second off, Most people would agree if you never played D&D or just didn't like it... You'd hate the movie. Kinda like what I heard about X-men 3: IF you were a fan of the comic, you'd hate it with a passion, if you liked Movies, you enjoy it as a decent film.
As for the fact that you're so hateful about the people who enjoy games like D&D and the like. I'm sure there are things that you are into that other people would tell you to "Stop wasting your life on." So it isn't fair to call other people out on something that everyone has that is the same vice.
I'm a D&D player, so obviously I'm biased, but at the same time... this was basically made for the Sci Fi Channel by SciFi, and they're not known for making "Ground breaking" movies.
Just take it as you will, I enjoyed the movie very much, in fact I have it on in the background right now as I type this.
Ok, since it was a made for tv show, the FX are understandably bad. And possibly that excuses the acting. When I was a kid I was religious to the cartoon and was disappointed by the first movie that it was nothing like the cartoon. I know, I know that's not like the game either but I liked the cartoon. And no, I didn't like X-Men 3 because of how it abruptly ended, killing off a lot of key players and destroying the possibility of future movies. I don't think they did that justice. It was an ok movie, but rather pointless except for giving an excuse to see Jean get it on once. I also don't think they did the idea of D&D justice. There are certain things that should be left alone unless you have the budget and wherewithall to do the project well. What's the point in making bad movies? I mean, Xena and Hercules were great on tv. It worked for them. But when you're trying to turn a cult classic into a movie....well, can you imagine LOTR being done badly on tv and being liked? You know nobody would leave that one alone. Not when there is the capability of better out there and readily available.
Holding a grudge is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die.
From what I've heard this movie follows the game a bit closer than its predecesor. I dont know anythng about that i never could get into D&D, I'm more of the Magic type. However if it is truer to the game that means they tried. They tried to get their interpretation of a game, that 90% of is played in your head, put on tape. Now not everyone has the millions to spend making the movie but they obviously put work into it.
Im sure the gamers that came up with this did say This is cool and we rock, becuase to them it does. Its their baby. They got to make their vision happen and good for them
Not to necessarily defend the movie itself, which was ok and not much more, but what in the blazes is people's obsession with special effects and action? You say you know cinema; then you should know it encompasses a few more things than just lots of things happening with cool explosions. Starting with a story, and adding some acting.
The story in this movie was simplistic, but coherent. The acting wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either. The dialogue, while not particularly shiny, didn't try to be smart by throwing in a couple of crappy one-liners among a sea of cliches... On the other hand, the first movie, to take your comparison, had it all, the wrong way: the storyline was barely coherent and way too ambitious for the writers' talent; the acting was abysmal, and the dialogue made me cringe all the way. It was a text-book example of a movie that tries to be something it has no chance of ever being, by betting on all the wrong things: action, and special effects. "Look, we're dummies with bad lines and we don't have a clue what's going on, but we've got a cartload of flying dragons duking it out at the end, so it's got to be good!". Please.
This movie was called Dungeons and Dragons, and it delivered. D&D is NOT about vast armies clashing on blood-drenched battlefields, it's about small groups of adventurers going on quests. Boom. That's what we got. And the use of all the D&D gimmicks was bang on the money - spells, rogue tricks, artifacts...
I'll take a cheap and un-impressive attempt at a story any day over another lousy fragfest and explosion galore like Hollywood's been force-feeding everyone for so long.
Also, and even though I only play D&D about twice a year, I would suggest you keep your opinions on it to yourself. First of all, if you've never tried it, don't diss it. Second, unless you lead a 100% productive life all the bloody time with no recreation whatsoever, you're guilty of wasting part of your life doing whatever it is you're into, be it watching football, baking cookies, polishing your car or your china, or getting ratted on saturday night.
"Not to necessarily defend the movie itself, which was ok and not much more, but what in the blazes is people's obsession with special effects and action? You say you know cinema; then you should know it encompasses a few more things than just lots of things happening with cool explosions. Starting with a story, and adding some acting."
Thank you.
Problem is though this is meant to be a fantasy world,and with somepoor CGI that can be hard to belive,the weird monster at the start and the parting sea? looked pathetic and got me off to a bad start.I mean the dragon in dragonslayer over 20 years ago looked far superior to the one in this film IMO.
shareThis is one of the better posts I've ever seen on IMDB--kudos.
shareI sooo agree with Kitha22 on this movie. The effects were budget, obviously TV standard not box office. I'm a fan of the genre and enjoyed LOTR and many of the old Fantasy classics, but this film was like watching an extended episode of Xena/Charmed/Hercules.
Perhaps if people overlooked the "Trying to be hip" dialog from the first film (mostly from the token black guy) I found the first movie far more envolving and Jeremy Irons performance as the villian was first class as usual.
There is a saying in the movie biz, a movie is only as good as its villian, D&D 2 was week and the plot was juvenille, which is fair enough, as the target audience was the teen D&D market anyway (hence the PG13 rating).
For a sci-fi made movie, this was not bad at all. Give this director and cast the budget of the first Dungeons movie and you'd really have something. Second good Sci-fi channel movie I've seen with the other being Painkiller Jane.
shareWell... another mindless scenario... but better than the first one. Despite my fears I actually enjoyed it...
It's very entertaining, soooooo cool and has two of the most beautifull girls I've ever seen...
It ranks high atop my fantasy movie list. If the first one hadn't been such a shameful piece of garbage... this one could've made cult status.
It was 10 times better than D&D1 and 100 times better than the cheesy abomination called Eragon... if it keeps it up this way... D&D7 will rock LotR's socks off ;P
The good news (I'm really neutral but......D&D is not making any major money for game store owners anymore) is, no there aren't that many D&Ders anymore - and there were never enough to truly support a D&D based movie with anything like the budgets of Star Wars, LOTR etc. No nastiness intended , but movies are made to bring in either sure profit (a fairly certain number of people will show up to watch or will buy the DVD -without regard to critics or word of mouth) or attempt to reach huge profit (budgets go all out, Topic is supportable (D&D, WOM etc. aren't), major industry functions join in - and some will accept cut of profits as part of their pay).
That said, and recognizing that I am not a D&D fan (except for certain side things when it was in it's younger days and DMs didn't always take it seriously so you had Bottomless pit of Green Jello in the Dungeon, skeleton pizza delivery guys, Pegasi with 500 lb bomb undercarriages and other such) even I can recognize the nods to the D&D world - and that they did get the adventurers pretty much right!.
dude, not all action has to involve explosions, the rogue being crafty was pretty neat, I think
granted, most of the encounters were pretty undramatic, but hey, it's a low budget 100 minute scifi movie, they don't have time to do dramatic slo-mo and chanting while 4 guys fend off 10,000 orcs
simplistic as the plot is and bad special effects taken into account, it's still better than the second LOTR movie, which I couldn't pay attention to because it was so incredibly boring
there's dungeons, dragons, swords, spells, and arms getting chopped off, I feel with a larger budget and more screentime it would've really been good
but as is it's pretty decent, a lot better than the first, better than LOTR:TT
and eragon, well, I'd rather see steven seagal in a uwe boll movie than watch that again, so yeah
the first D&D was like a really stupid jackie chan movie without the plot (like shanghai noon), it was corny and stupid and had nothing to do with anything
a 7 year old kid isn't a good judge of anything, a 7 year old kid would think metal gear solid 3 is stupid, this isn't even an action film anyways
and yeah, don't diss D&D players, it will "waste your life away" no more or less than any other hobby, if you hate it so much, why are you watching a movie named after it anyways
Oh man... I know it's an old post, but wow... This movie, better than The Lord of the Rings?! HAH! xD
I'm the grim reaper, lardass, and you're my next customer.
Absolutely. Fantasy is extremely hard to get right. Play it too 'modern' and it comes across as linguisticly anachronistic, to heavy and it is 'cod-shakespearian' etc.
shareI dont care what you people say about the first DnD movie,
I really enjoyed it, Justin Whalin did a great job as Ridley, Marlon did a very good job being a funny/paranoid sidekick and Jeremy Irons did a great job as the villian...decent plot...so overall an above average movie.I just dont understand why there are so many haters out there..i think if people just enjoyed movies for what they were, and not what they might "expect" more people would be happy
(and i did play alot of DnD when i was younger)
Being an avid D&D player, I might be biased, but I really enjoyed this movie. I caught it on Sci-Fi and didn't expect much from it. I was very disappointed with the original movie. But the sequel really pays tribute to the game it is inspired from. I related more to the plot and characters than I did to the first movie. For the budget and for the fact that it was a TV movie, it's actually a very good fantasy film. As others have mentioned, it's not Oscar worthy, nor is it epic in scope. But it caters to the audience it was made for. After all, my home games are filled with bad acting and lame effects, but we have a great time anyway! Enjoy the movie for what it is and just have fun with it. I enjoyed it so much, I now own it on DVD!
shareOkay, I'm another avid D&D player and I enjoyed this movie. I thought I was much truer to the game than the original. It mentioned campaign names and settings, and used characters from the Player's Handbook, rather than made up ones. For example, Jozan, cleric of Pelor, was mentioned. As was Lidda, the halfling rogue. And they went so far as to include a deity, Obad-Hai. Much better than the original, whose only holdover from the game was a brief flash of a Beholder, and a lot of dragons. This film also incorporated more D&D "skills" than the previous. For example, the Gem of True Seeing, and the differentiation between "arcane" and "divine" spells.
All in all, this was the better of the two. :D
//.h4ck.th3.p74n3t.\\
As a Neverwinter Nights/Baldurs Gate fan I also enjoyed this movie.
Sure it was cheesey but I think you have to have experience the games to appreciate the little things.
Ok rewatched it again today,after a good nights sleep and the volume up and got to say it was not to shabby really.
Kind of like what the original game is all about.A small party getting a quest and going out there.
Was much better than the 'big budget' first one. Felt alot more like a D&D film.
MVL.
Ok, so let me get this right. You guys sit around, you play this game, it's anticlimatic and lacking in any kind of action and you like it? Don't get me wrong, I don't just like action films. And yes a 7 yo has a pretty good idea of what he likes and dislikes. Just because I didn't sit around playing this game doesn't mean I don't like something about the imagination. Yes, there should be a plot. You start there, you add actors...I stress the word ACTORS....you move on to the full story line with ups and downs and a climax and a smash ending. This one had a weak story line. I think there might have been a plot somewhere in there. There were no climaxes no ups and downs, and no smash ending. It was just people walking around talking a lot going from point A to point B and then yay we did something. I mean seriously, I could have written a better storyline. But then again, I'm not a player so it might have been closer to D&D1. Although that one mostly didn't do anything having to do with D&D other than there were some dragons and I think we saw a dungeon. A little literal. I was just expecting more out of both movies. The ideas that I get from the whole thing is just so much bigger than what either movie put out there. Ah well, what can be expected from an industry that is all about the almighty dollar rather than what is really truly a good story? Anyway, I'm done ranting about this movie. I'll let you guys get back to liking it. No harm meant....I just gotta ramble sometimes. ;)
Holding a grudge is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die.
It was pretty good for what it was. Compared to the first one it was Lawrence of Arabia!
I enjoyed it.
Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?
--Groucho Marx
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
i was quite pleased with the movie and enjoyed it thoroughly. I rented it expecting it to be terrible but was feeling adventurous, and was quite suprised and pleased with the result.
Definantly an under-rated film.
Yes, there are a couple places where the cgi was atrocious (the falling witch hat looking monsters for example) but overall it was quite well done, and even had a true D&D feel to it. (loved the little things, like the gem of seeing). If you arent expecting much you will be quite pleased, just dont expect LoTR type special effects.
A thousand times better than the first one. I played D&D religiously through the 1980's and early 90's and I really liked the adventure feel to it. Its funny how the no-name actors in 2 upstaged the bigger named actors in the 1st. I didn't really like the reappearance of Damodar tho....
sharewhat i find funny bout this is yes for the budget they did well with graphics but the acting is terrible, its like watching some rejected soap. now i think if uwe boll directed this most of u would be saying how bad it is.
shareThe special effects look like they were made on an Amiga in the 80s. Horrible.
share