Dungeons & Dragons

"Dungeons & Dragons" is so terrible, I can't help myself from laughing at people who say they liked this film.

This is one of the worst mistakes ever made in Hollywood. I had an inkling of what the end result of this film would be; however, I wanted to give it a chance.

The first problem is the lack of plot to accompany the numerous action sequences. It seems to me that the action was supposed to be the main draw. I can only assume the writer forgot that there are people who actually like to see a film with BOTH action and story when they see a film. In addition, the cause of fighting the villain is so stupid; who cares.

The second problem I see is casting. Combine an unestablished actor with little film experience and zero talent with a very talented veteran, Jeremy Irons and you have a disaster for a film called "Dungeons & Dragons."

"Dungeons & Dragons" should have stayed locked in a dungeon in a far off place so nobody has to go the suffering I did when I saw this film. If you see this film, good luck.

If there hadn't been a "Battlefield Earth", this movie probably would have gotten my vote for worst movie of 2000. The only way it is (slightly) better than that movie is the (very) occasional good set or effect.

I could write for hours about what's wrong with this movie, but this is what comes to mind immediately

(1) The horrible acting. I honestly can't understand why someone so talented as Jeremy Irons would be going so over the top. It's clear, however, that he isn't enjoying himself in the movie, so maybe he's getting revenge against the movie by acting so terribly

The most annoying performance goes to Marlon Wayans. His shrieking, cowardly character uncomfortably brings up images of stereotypes from the 1930s. At least he doesn't say "Feet, do your stuff!" - though he sure comes close.

(2) The bright, glitterly look of every scene. When you think of sword and sorcery, I think we all think of things rough and with grit. Not here.

(3) The movie constantly rips off from other (better) movies, most notably from the four STAR WARS movies

(4) The characters. Why the hell were the dwarf and elf in this movie? They could easily have been written out without consequence. And the main thief hero is one of the blandest heroes I've ever seen in the movie.

(5) Virtually all the special effects, sets etc. are AWFUL. Sometimes they look even worse than those seen on the Xena and Hercules shows! (Though those two shows at least have the excuse of having lower budgets - and they make up for the cheap effects by having better scripts, characters, and acting!)

(6) And speaking of scripts...thos script is terrible! Mainly it's because the story itself hardly makes any sense!

Ridley and Snails are thieves in the underclass of their world. Breaking into the magic school to steal they are captured by Marina but, when her master is killed, the thieves find themselves drawn into an attempt by the evil Profion to use the power of a lost sceptre to seize control from Empress Savina, who is trying to reform and make all men equal.

It is hard to really judge the plot of this film because I'm sure it could have been a rollicking, engaging "swords & sorcery" affair and it is only the delivery here that has turned it into a massive, insulting pile of rubbish. The way that the characters have to explain every single action in BIG LETTERS for the audience was something that grated on me and took me from thinking of it as lazy writing to finding it offensive that the writers thought I was too stupid to follow the story myself. Instead of being a strong narrative the film is just a basic adventure for kids, with effects and noise to keep them distracted. As such it is still only so-so because even children might struggle to care about the unimpressive CGI backgrounds and action set pieces. It'll please the very undemanding genre fan under 12 years old but unlikely many others.

The characters are another major failing – who thought that writing obnoxious, annoying or smug characters across the leads would cause an audience to be engaged by them? With this to work with, is it any wonder that the cast are roundly poor? Whalin must have thought his luck was in when he landed this role, but he messes it up with a performance that shows he is out of his depth and unsure of himself. McLellan is bland and quite irritating for the majority of the film but her faults pale in comparison to a trio of performances that stick in the mind as the worst of the film. Irons hams it up with all the carelessness of a pro who knows an easy payday when he sees it – he is hilariously terrible at times. Payne's blue lipstick seems to have affected his voice and every line is delivered as a sneer – it is never menacing and quickly becomes tiresome. However the worst performance is form, surprise surprise, Wayans who made me understand what Spike Lee's Bamboozled was getting at. He is a shrieking, mugging ethnic cliché – even worse than he usually does and even more annoying. The odd cameo from O'Brien or Baker do nothing to stop the rot and the cast add to the impression that this was cheaply made without much love.

Overall a poor film that will probably only appeal to kids. The plot is badly delivered and the effects are not as impressive as director Solomon was clearly banking on them being. The cast are lost in the middle of it all and not a single on of them gives a performance that you could call "good", all in all producing a pretty poor attempt at a blockbuster.

This movie is what defines "nothing special". You watch it, you like some parts, some you don't, and you will never think about it once you leave the theater.

As a player of the Baldurs Gate computer game, the D&D cosmos is nothing new to me. But in this movie, most of the inherent magic of this fascinating world was simply let out for poor effects and cheap character stereotypes. The female mage has nothing to do but to look nice and to scream in moments of danger. She hardly ever uses her magic abilities, and therefore is a splendid example of the poor role play adaption this movie is. She is no mage - she is simply a damsel in distress.

The humor of the movie also is very simple and nothing to really laugh about. That is, if you leave out Jeremy Irons' incredibly bad acting - his bad mage routine should be added to acting books under the chapter "how to overplay a character". But, to be true, those were the most funny moments of the movie, so at least Irons was good for something here...

All in all a rather unspectacular start to the new wave of fantasy films which will accompany the giant blockbuster "Lord of the Rings" production. I pray to God that the Tolkien adaption will be far better than this mostly trashy b-movie.

There are many people out there who are completely and in my opinion ridiculously set in their views on movies. So when anything out of the ordinary comes along they dismiss it as bad or poorly made. When in reality it is a breath of fresh air in an ever stagnating Hollywood. It isn't often that something fresh comes along and while the story might not be the most original the style of this movie is. Some people say that the acting is terrible in this movie bu, I felt that it was very well done. For those of you who say it is corny and unrealistic I would love to introduce you to the real world. I an't count how many times I have seen people act exactly the way the characters/actors do in Dungeons and Dragons.

The plot in this movie was obviously streamline for time purposes but it doesn't suffer because of this. In fact it benefits greatly by keeping the action moving and the audience engaged. For once I actually felt the urgency of the task set before the heroes where as in other movies the horrible destruction of the world always seems to wait until the hero is done having sex with the girl and all the snappy jokes are delivered. If anything is unrealistic it is that type of story. Anyway I am rambling on so to finish up I love this movie and I feel that all those involved did a wonderfully spectacular job.