About the D&D movie. *SPOILERS*

Remove all ads!

i just watched it for the second time and here are some questions and complains...

1. Does Izmer actually exist in the FR world? If so, where?

2. Why did they include democraty(sp?) in the movie? It doesn`t fit good at all in fantasy and medieval movies.

3. What grade do you give it out of five? Mine is 5/5.

4. I am planning to do some items from the movie. Do you have any good BAMs to them?

5. Witch year is the movie in?

6. Do you agree that it has to be a D&D 2? I think its a must-have.

7. Do you think that the dwarf there is cooler that Gimli? in the LotR movie? I do.

8. Wouldn`t it be better if Snails were raised? He was cool.

9. Isn`t the beholders there just awesome?

well thats all folks...

[ December 14, 2002, 17:36: Message edited by: Ivanji, son of Loki ]

 

Hmmm -

No, Izmer is not FR. (And therefore your year question is inapplicable)

Out of five, I would have to give it a two or maybe a three.

If they did a D&D 2, they would have to do a much better job than they did with the first one.

Gimli is much cooler than the dwarf in that move, definitely - he actually has a personality, oh, and dialogue too - that is one of the things that upset me the most about the movie - the dwarf had very little dialogue, and seemed to be filling only a token "you can't have d&d without a dwarf in it" role.

Acually, I was glad that Snails stayed dead - it is nice to see dead characters staying dead in a fantasy world for a change. If they had raised him, it would have been too hokey and "nice" of an ending.

The beholders were awesome, I will give you that one! So were the dragons.

Personally, I was very unimpressed with the movie - it had no plot, weak characters, and bad dialogue. Although the cast was great - some really good actors - the material they had to work with was not too great. The special effects were good too, I just wish that they had taken D&D a bit more seriously - it seemed like they tried too hard to include everything - like the thieves guild - YUK! That was certainly the low point in the movie for me. It was not much fun to watch, and although it had some high points, on the whole, I was sorry that i wasted the money on the theatre tickets. Not to bad as a cheesy rental film, but not exactly a masterful work of cinema.

 

This film is a blight to the name of Dungeons & Dragons. One of the worst film I have ever seen. Even Willow makes this film look cheap.

[ December 15, 2002, 19:44: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

 

Yes Z-Layrex, D&D movie was horrible, but it made me laugh many times Ok, there is at least one good thing in it: beholders.

[ December 14, 2002, 19:55: Message edited by: Harkle ]

 

well... now i have made the big evil guys two-handed sword... and it does the electric damage as well.. do you have any good BAMs for any other thing from the movie...

[ December 14, 2002, 20:01: Message edited by: Ivanji, son of Loki ]

 

What Falstaff said.

They made sure to throw in EVERYTHING, and it actually made D&D suck.

Plus, democracy does not fit well, I agree.

They made a checklist:
THINGS TO INCLUDE IN MOVIE
1. A warrior, preferably the hero.
2. A thief, preferably the hero's comedy sidekick.
3. A high-ranking polititian on the run from his/her own government, who joins the above. Possibly a mage.
4. A beholder.
5. A talking skeleton.
6. An Elf, or at least a half-elf. Preferably a female ranger.
7. Mention potion and spell names a lot.
8. A dwarf with an axe.
9. A visit to a scummy thieves guild.
10. Something to do with booby traps.
11. Enchanted artifacts, including at least one sword.

and it goes on.

Incidentally, what the HELL was with the ending? I couldn't make heads or tails of it? Was Snails still dead, or did his name just disapear?

2.5/5

[ December 15, 2002, 03:01: Message edited by: The Soul Forever Seeking ]

 

now that i have been thinking about it, it would be a lot cooler if they included a gnome instead of the dwarf...

 

I flipped through part of it on the computer months/years back.

Couldn't even stand 10 minutes of it then. I don't even think 5 minutes.

One of those movies you're glad you didn't watch, and waste precious sleep-time...

 

I thought the movie was quite good - but think even I could have made a better one

I think it was sort of - hey I have an idea - let's get a movie that hundreds of geeks will want to see! How about... D&D? That sounds right. No sane person with a social life plays D&D surely!

 

ehermm... me is one...

 

God has mercy on those who say the movie is good.

If i want to open an acedemy of directing, i would show every students D&D as a lesson of what makes a movie look stupid. i bought the dvd for the movie and i am now soooooo regret. i rate the movie 1 out of 1 zillion gazillion million trillion.

First is the animations. Seriously, i have seen Singapore invested Chinese martial art fantasy movie with better computer animation that this. Singapore don't invest a lot in movie and Chinese movies don't use computer graphic a lot. Still D&D looks stupid when comparing with this. The intro was so out of the way fake. The intro shot that flys above the dull water, under the dumb bridge, into the fake sewers is simply dull, dumb and fake. The water looks like plastic and the sewers is so clean and shiny.

Second is the 'bridge' between one scene to another. Time and time again the movie bombarded me with castle/tower overlooking computer graphic animation to tell me 'Meanwhile, in the castle ...'. Is that necessary? Obviously the director was not taught well in college. There are more then one way to tell the audiences where the story now takes place. Instead of showing the animation over and over again, they can use a 'guards walking in a great long hallway' to show that now the story goes into the castle, for example.

Have i go into the acting? Thora Birch, the Empress, previously in American Beauty, was a disappointment. She has only one facial expression, frown. She just frowned her way from start till nearly the end. To express one is feeling trouble, you don't have to frown always. Eyes are the key. Apparently she only knows how to work her eyebrows and in between. Sad. Justin Whalin, the rogue/thief, previously acted in 'louis and clark', was another disappointment. It is for the best interest of the public and himself that he remains as a TV actor, until he further polish his acting. You know, there is a reason why there is no close-up on him during dramatics emotional moments.

Fourth, the story. The overview, overall story was ok, only little things. Too many things was left out when they edited the film. This i truely don't understand. It looks as if someone has limited the movie length, but why? What happened when they met the dwarves and jumped into the sewers? What happened inside when they entered the scroll? Now, you judge this, when the elf told Snails she was some hundred years old and Snails back off forever, is Snails such person? They cut the following part away.

You may think that this is a bit off topic. But after i watched the movie, i was so boiled and there is no where for me to speak because the movie was so long ago. Now seems to be my chance.

[ December 15, 2002, 22:01: Message edited by: teekc ]

 

pheew... someone didn't like the film... ok i think that the emperess looks like she was twelve or something like that but the beholder where GREAT... almost none of the f/x where bad...

 

Well, teekc, you took all the points I was going to make and made them for me. I agree with you on every aspect except one. I do not think Thora Birch's acting was bad, I think it was atrocious. The woman is an Oscar winning actress, I think she should have been able to do better. Granted, she acted in this movie before she won the Oscar (and I think before she did American Beauty even though it came out first). Her acting with the SFX was horrible, like when Profion hit her with that demon thing. But even throughout her other scenes, her movements were stiff.

I was sorely disappointed by the movie. Were there any deleted scenes from the movie on the DVD? Is there anything on the DVD to make purchasing it worthwhile?

MrGrouch

 

Some people dislike the movie because it has no content. Some people actually go to see a movie for the plot line and acting, not the animation. IMHO the D&D movie was a group of short animation linked together by some horrible acting.

As a side note, no matter how many times you say the beholder looked cool, the movie will not become oscar material.

[ December 16, 2002, 04:02: Message edited by: Thorin ]

 

two words: Zoe McLellan.

 

The selling point of DVD are the left out scenes and the 'before animation mix will real acting' scenes. In one of the scenes, it will point out the D&D founder who played a small role in the movie.

Frankly, it is not worth purchansing. Rent it is a better solution to your curiosity (if you have any). If you cannot rent it, then borrow. If borrow is still impossible, then look for ===censored due to board rules==== ones.