Perfectly adorable

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

The first D&D was not without flaws. Yet compared to this second attempt at the theme of D&D, it stands as a gem next to a pile of dirt. Some viewers seem to have appreciated the second more. They are no doubt gamers judging every work of fantasy by standards imposed in the industry of so-called role-playing games. And this is the single achievement of the second D&D - to have recreated the mindless yet flashy atmosphere of many video games, where the liberties of imagination and reality based self-esteem are replaced with the comfortable repetitiveness of pulling the trigger and the reward of calling yourself a hero. The difference between the first and second D&D cinematic experiences is that between watching a child building a sand castle and a child smashing one. D&D 2 does not tell a story. It only shows some poorly related elements of the fantasy D&D world, much like a dish that is supposed to taste good just because some known ingredients were thrown in at its making. The events of the movie fall in 2 general categories: the saying - when you are told about something in a detached manner, like in a documentary; and the doing - reduced to someone or something being hit. The actors don't fit their characters, rather they pretend acting. They mostly stare at the camera and shout nonsense or move around awkwardly in their costumes. Many uninteresting scenes are longer than they should be as if the direction had difficulties reaching an imposed length for the movie. The events are presented in a fragmented manner, probably according to the idea of turning the pages of a book. However the chapters of the said book seem to have been severely reduced, as if the scenarist had the task to adapt only the pictures in the book to the screen. Besides, this turning of pages is supposed to be done using music and scenery. The movie looks flat because all action takes place close to the camera, in short range, without secondary events happening in a background level and without the camera moving closer or farther from the actors. D&D 2 is not worth of the name unless as a 3rd grade or about performance at an elementary school's theater. See the first D&D for a well told story with lively interpretations and charming characters, that does not assume to be more than it shows and it shows more than you would expect. Forget D&D 2 - it was a mistake.

We're talking fantasy on a bargain-basement level here, of the kind not seen since the woeful days of BEASTMASTER 3 and KULL THE CONQUEROR. With a threadbare narrative propelling along a tired old story about "collect X magical relic of old and destroy X evil wizard in the process", WRATH OF THE DRAGON GOD is a walking cliché through and through.With copious nods to Lord of the Rings along the way, this film follows a party of adventurers as they set out on a seemingly impossible quest and...yep, I'm bored already. Although I haven't seen the original DUNGEONS & DRAGONS film, I can't imagine that it was much of an improvement on this. When a movie's sole actor of note is hammy B-movie stalwart Bruce Payne (PASSENGER 57), you know you're in trouble, and the would-be thespians appearing here instill zero confidence in the viewer. This is a cast picked for their looks alone, which occasionally pays off (Ellie Chidzey's female barbarian is a pleasure to watch) but often fails (Clemency Burton-Hill's wizard would look more at home pushing a pram around Bluewater).There are set-pieces galore, from a lich ambush in the woods to the battle with an ice dragon in a ruined village. Along the way, there's some dungeon adventuring stuff, a magic battle and a supposedly full-scale dragon attack climax. The CGI effects are never less than awful, but even worse are the rubbery masks worn by the likes of the guy playing the lich...absolutely terrible, Halloween-party stuff. As for Payne, he hams it up as you'd expect but would be more suited to a pantomime role instead of this dreck. Give WRATH OF THE DRAGON GOD a miss if you respect this genre even a tiny little bit.

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

Too many complaints about this movie IMO. This movie was fun to watch. It was like seeing a live action version of a very "standard" D&D module. I'm NOT saying it was good or stellar movie making, I'm just saying people need to have a little "fun" with a movie. Had this become a series on sci-fi people would watch it. It's no worse than any sci-fi original movie and a lot more entertaining than TNG doing the same kind of crap on the holo-deck. Besides, the chicks were hot, the cleric actually died doing something foolish, our hero is good looking and a believable leader, and how can you not like the smart ass rogue? Learn to have some fun people.