Leofwine_draca
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.
Grim The Reaper
I watched Dungeons & Dragons 1 a few years ago and my god was that bad.With that in mind, I started watching Dungeons & Dragons 2 with a feeling of: "Here we go, get ready for a movie that is the equivalent of being poked in your eye with a screwdriver." Surprisingly, while watching the movie, that feeling never really came to pass. Of course, the special effects don't come anywhere near triple A movies for a movie with only a small budget. The dragons and the Gargoyle were horribly animated and could have been done better. However, the costumes, the environments and the lightning were quite good and definitely worthy of a B movie rating. The characters did feel a bit bland though and could have some more additional backstory instead of the thirty second introductions of each member of the party. Especially if you consider this is a D&D movie where a backstory really brings a character to life. They also felt a bit too cliché and were typical D&D class types like the Rogue, Mage and big girl with a huge sword. But overall, it works quite alright if you are used to playing Roleplaying Games.If your not into fantasy, you really should skip this movie. However, if you like fantasy stories and don't mind the very cheap special effects, you'll probably enjoy Dungeons and Dragons 2.
wyldcat2500
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.
Sanou_san
For some point I'm really thwarted with the fact that this movie is a hyper-poor far-version of Lord of the Rings. I purchased the original piece in the market and saw a tagline phrase saying "From the team that brought you the special effects from lord of the rings, comes the most visually stunning epic of the year!" visually stunning for me is terribly sub-zero film flick. The chief characters were good on their roles, the others were awfully inappropriate, and most of all the foundation of this movie was its special graphical effects, I've only seen little. Too diminutive of its creative stuffs, this movie indeed is high in introductory trailers (for it attracts my attention because of its astonishing coverthe Ice dragon, who appeared only once and within a short span of time, how sad) but irrefutably scarce in graphical effects quality, the props are also unconvincing, probably the setting as well and the prelude even sucks. I can't imagine that I spend almost $5.00 for an original copy, which considers not beingmaybe.However to future viewers out there wait for it to appear on TV's, don't spend your money for seizing a copy.
AD
