For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

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.

From what I had heard about the first film, I was better off skipping it and watching the second. When the opportunity arose to do that, I decided to seize it since I had a couple of hours that I could waste. I can't compare it to the first in the series, but as a Dungeons and Dragons player since the 80s and a great fan of fantasy, I can analyse it on its own merits.The first thing and the main thing that impressed me was the inclusion of several aspects from the actual game. I really liked the little touches of detail. Spells, items, monsters and more were all here. It was really wonderful to see all these brought to life.The second was that it really did have a very distinctly Dungeons and Dragons feel to it, rather than just any fantasy film. There was an eye to things that fans and players would know, and that made it distinctly identifiable, which was nice; so often filmmakers, especially Hollywood, are notorious for tacking on an inapplicable brand name to a barely identifiable film tie-in.Unfortunately, despite all these things, making it Dungeons and Dragons doesn't necessarily make it good Dungeons and Dragons. The film was a rather bitter and unhappy affair, and I found myself often really brought down by its miserable tone throughout. It is comparable to taking your character to a session run by a stranger, who has bought a module at a rummage sale somewhere and wants to inflict it upon you; he doesn't really know very well how to run the game and tries as hard as he can to destroy you all, to give himself some sort of sadistic pleasure. Afterwards, unhappy with the experience, you take your character and file him away, to be brought around for another campaign run, instead, by someone you know and trust. Which may not happen for years. And at that point you conveniently omit that one odd session out, because it was that unenjoyable.And that's essentially what this film is: a bad module run by a nasty, childish sadist of a dungeonmaster. The story is relentlessly depressing and poorly-handled in every such aspect, and it additionally functions to make virtually all of the characters difficult to sympathise with or even care about. The leader is completely bland, although his love Melora was the high point of the film (and, predictably, the most tormented). The Elf mage was interesting but underused, the female barbarian was there solely for eye candy (though she did a pretty good job with her lacking part), and the cleric was there because someone apparently thought clerics were useless. All of us who know otherwise sent up a collective groan at the treatment of this one.The rogue was a good actor, but his part was similarly inane and the character completely unlikable. He also ended up underused in the parts that could've shown his strengths, and overused in parts where he was completely superfluous. The villain was utterly forgettable unfortunately, although the monster effects were quite memorable indeed. I really did enjoy the dragons and so forth, especially the ultimate confrontation. Really exciting and really well done.It's just a pity that the rest had to be endured to get there. This is the kind of story that you hear from people who decided to try the game once, got some garbage like this thrown at them, and ended up quitting and never again going near a tabletop game. It's sad, but it's amazing what an inept dungeonmaster can do for someone's enthusiasm. That's essentially what happened here.And while the details were nice for a while, there were times when they were just useless and frustrating. We had a Drow throwaway joke, but where were any actual Drow? We had a 'necropolis' (cleverly masquerading as a sylvan glen) complete with a lich, but what real purpose did it serve? And so on.If there had been more of a heroic, pleasant fantasy tone rather than a by-the-numbers destroy-em-all gauntlet tone, it would've been much more satisfying. As it was, it gave the impression of enduring the film, rather than enjoying it. There were some pleasant parts and some nice aspects, some talented people trying to do their best with lacking parts and ludicrous circumstances, but the tale itself was all too unpleasant. And as any player of Dungeons and Dragons knows, the story is everything.It wasn't a complete loss. It's not totally a horror. But it is by no means a fantastic film, unfortunately for those who put so much energy into it. Hopefully if they do a third one, they will go for a better situation and different villain, as well as a less depressing, unhappy, and just plain unpleasant story.And for pity's sake, somebody tell the DM that nobody likes to play games with someone trying hard to get them killed!

This is a straight presentation of an unreconstructed Dungeons and Dragons adventure, the way your grand-pappy used to play it - or at least the way I used to play it. And I mean when it was called Dungeons and Dragons the first time round, before all that "Advanced" frippery. No feats for us, you young whippersnappers, and no proficiencies neither: we just stood toe to toe with Evil and rolled until one lot of miniatures were all lying down.Yes, this films is flawed in many ways: it's competent but trite, with stilted dialogue, ropey FX, erratic pacing and shallow characterisation to name but four, but it has the overriding merit of very clearly being written by people who know and dearly love D&D, and they put all that right up there on the screen. That excuses so many sins.A film is more than just the sum of its parts. There is much to criticise about D&D:WotDG, but it's churlish to do so, since it achieves its primary goal with aplomb. It's a Dungeons and Dragons film that you could sit down and enjoy watching with other Dungeons and Dragons players, and that's a novel experience.