You won't be disappointed!

Nice effects though.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

.... however, from a D&D point of view this only display how a bunch of noobs would handle a stereotypical quest. As an experienced Dungeon Master I couldn't stop laughing for most of the movie and when I did, it was only to underline moments when a competent DM would cut it to "the party dies". The group is so terribly incompetent and all the D&D plot devices so ineptly used that all in all there's no redeeming quality to it at all.Its only viable tagline would be "an incompetent player's understanding of the D&D manuals" but that still doesn't excuse the lack of any acting talent whatsoever and the 80's flavor of special effects.I give it a 2 only to point out it's better than the first movie.

it is beyond me how a very badly received film got a sequel made. I thought it wasn't possible but just look at BloodRayne II a sequel to a bad film and no.2 was even worse.I only saw this film just to see if this was as bad as the first film. I was ready for the mistakes from the first film but was surprised to find that film was mildly entertaining. none of the stupid jokes from film 1 were included and seemed more like a fantasy film rather than an overblown joke. yes the film did still look tacky like the prequel and the dialogue did sound a bit cheesy at times, but the acting was better, the story line didn't move to the left, to the right, upside down or inside out so i was able to follow the film without shouting WHAT THE HELL! 6 or 7 times.the CGI was much worse however but because I knew what was going on I didn't worry about the CGI (Terminator 1 had the very tacky Arnold dummy during the mirror scene and is the film bad? no). This film had none of the actors from no.1 (apart from Bruce Payne as Damodar) so I was reassured that the characters were not going to say or do something pointless.The film was darker than no.1 which is good and far more serious which is also good but just like the first film too many people were placed in the shots so the scenes still felt overcrowded.its not a good film but it is not a bad film. still it beats the D&D 1 ten times over.

Of course, by "first Dungeons & Dragons film" I mean that horrible piece of drek released in 2000. This made for television movie manages to trump its immediate predecessor in almost every regard, though Bruce Payne is *still* horrible as Damodar.Indeed, the largest failing of the film is reintroducing Bruce Payne (whose acting was horrible) as Damodar. I can't help but think how much better the film could have been had they ditched the high-priced Payne, replaced him with a better (albeit lesser known) actor, and used the money saved to foot the bill for better CGI.Where Wrath of the Dragon God succeeds is in its faithful portrayal of many common D&D tropes, from actual dungeons and dragons to common monsters (e.g., Lich) and the stereotypical D&D adventuring party. If you listen carefully, you'll even find some nice (and appropriate) references to classic AD&D adventure locations.Likewise, the quality of acting in Wrath of the Dragon God is markedly better than than displayed in the first D&D move, despite this film's cast being composed primarily of unknown actors. Indeed, Tim Stern, Mark Dymond, and Ellie Chidzey are actually quite *good* in their respective roles as the stereotypical Fighter, Thief, and Barbarian.Finally, while the plot here is nothing to write home about in terms of originality (which itself may be a clever homage to D&D adventure modules), it is at least comprehensible — further, it manages to rise to the level of "entertaining" at times (usually when focused on the exploits of the adventuring party).If Gerry Lively had canned Bruce Payne and been given the same budget that Courtney Solomon frittered away on the first film, I can only assume that Wrath of the Dragon God would have been *great* rather than merely adequate (a measure of quality that the first film never came close to achieving).Seeing Wrath of the Dragon God outperform its big screen counterpart in almost every possible manner reminds me that, sometimes, the television screen is better than the silver screen for fantasy.

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.