It sucked. 

Most of the acting was goofy.  Too many goofy personalities.  It's like every character was being played by a 13 year old.  They tried to cram too much high level stuff, into one movie.  They always quickly found the person / magic item / solution to the problem.  Nobody had to die, and stay dead; except for the bard's wife, in his memory flashbacks.  They survived an encounter, that should have been a TPK.  One of the big bad guys, was laughable.

I guess the best acting, was done by the paladin.  He was ok.

  So the record holds: not a good one yet. Oh Jeremy Irons, your acting chops were wasted on it before, Chris Pine your... eye candy? was wasted on it now.  I keed, I keed.

I liked it quite a lot.

I think if you like Marvel movies like Guardians of the Galaxy you will like this movie. But if you are looking for a more serious tone you will be disappointed.

It did get a surprisingly large number of good reviews from critics, for what that is worth. I thought critics would slam a movie like this.

It was NOWHERE near as good as GoTG 3. And that was a highly flawed movie.

Quote from: Mistwell on May 28, 2023, 12:26:18 PM
I liked it quite a lot.

I think if you like Marvel movies like Guardians of the Galaxy you will like this movie. But if you are looking for a more serious tone you will be disappointed.

It did get a surprisingly large number of good reviews from critics, for what that is worth. I thought critics would slam a movie like this.

Sorry. Hard disagree. Guardians 1 is my second favorite MCU movie and this D&D movie sucks by comparison. Watching these actors try and act in this movie was painful. It was very obvious that these big actors were acting like they honestly couldn't believe they were doing a Dungeons and Dragons movie, and the unknown actors were acting like they couldn't believe they were acting in a D&D movie with these amazing celebrities.

And the fan service... One of the worst examples of fan service I have ever seen in a movie.

I watched it. I happen to have the streaming service on a discount month and the movie showed up there.

I liked it. I still don't like the later-edition stuff like Tieflings, Dragonborn, and Magic item attunement. They could have added a major dwarf or elf character.

The movie didn't "suck"—that should be reserved for about half of everything that has come out in the fantasy genre, which suffer from some of the worst acting, cheapest effects, and goofy plots of any movie genre. The new D&D movie compared to Red Sonja or to Krull is no contest, in D&D's favor.

What the D&D movie was is essentially a B+ version of the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise. It has the same sort of ensemble construction, same types of jokes, same sorts of plot twists, as the GotG movies. It wasn't quite as good as GotG, but it was nonetheless decently executed. This doesn't mean you should LIKE the movie, because not everyone enjoys the James Gunn style, and having it imported from superheroes to fantasy might not be what some were looking for. It was a deliberate design choice, and I can see the argument of those who find it disappointing. But that is not the same thing as saying, "it sucks" like a 14-year old reviewing their high school dance team's performance at a pep rally.

I saw it pretty recently too, once it became available by "nautical" means.

I was pleasantly surprised. It's an extremely straightforward story with passable performances and effects, and IIRC it actually made me laugh once or twice. To me, the fact that it feels like a Sci-Fi Channel original movie from 10 years ago is more a feature than a bug. That's precisely what I would want from a D&D movie.

This might be a hot take, but I'm of the opinion that a serious tone would actually be inappropriate for an adaptation of the tabletop game. For those of us that are super-deep in the hobby, it's easy to forget that D&D --as experienced by the vast majority of people-- is a game where you sit up late at night, with a few friends and a bunch of unhealthy snacks, and joke around about the adventures of your imaginary characters. That was every bit as true in 1980 as it is now. A cartoony action-comedy is a far more faithful representation of most of campaigns than a serious fantasy epic would be.

As far as the 5e stuff goes, well that's the current edition. I'm not sure why anyone would expect differently.

The big surprise for me was how much of a straightforward good-vs-evil story it was. I fully expected it to be full of post-modernist subversion, and if anything it played things too safe. I was shocked that they let the paladin character actually be a paladin. As soon as that character was introduced, I was looking for the heel-turn. But no, they just let him be lawful good. The villains aren't secret victims or misunderstood anti-heroes; they're just evil dickheads. That alone is kind of refreshing

I didn't love the movie, and I'll probably never feel the need to watch it again, but the mere fact that it's basically inoffensive is a gold star from me.

EDIT: Come to think of it, the most accurate representation of a D&D campaign on film is probably Army of Darkness. Dark and gory, but also dumb and silly. And the protagonist is a self-serving meathead who somehow bumbles his way to success.

Quote from: ForgottenF on May 28, 2023, 08:02:30 PM
The big surprise for me was how much of a straightforward good-vs-evil story it was. I fully expected it to be full of post-modernist subversion, and if anything it played things too safe. I was shocked that they let the paladin character actually be a paladin. As soon as that character was introduced, I was looking for the heel-turn. But no, they just let him be lawful good. The villains aren't secret victims or misunderstood anti-heroes; they're just evil dickheads. That alone is kind of refreshing

Yeah, I did like that. Though technically Forge Fitzwilliam (Hugh Grant) does have a Face-Heel Turn. Possibly because the film was in development for so long, it evoked 5e D&D as published ca 2014-16, before WoTC went Full Woke. It even had a Half-Elf! 

I think personally I'd prefer "a movie set in D&D world" than "a movie that feels like watching people play D&D".
The obvious one would be a Driz'zt movie, but WoTC are terrified of SJWs and so terrified of using the Drow onscreen.

Quote from: S'mon on May 29, 2023, 02:32:54 AMI think personally I'd prefer "a movie set in D&D world" than "a movie that feels like watching people play D&D". The obvious one would be a Driz'zt movie, but WoTC are terrified of SJWs and so terrified of using the Drow onscreen.

While I agree that a Drizzt movie would be preferable to a generic action movie, I don't think that this addresses the main issue, which is the budget. Hasbro spent so much making this movie that even though it earned $200 million at the box office, it still managed to lose over $75 million. A cheaper, more focused movie seems to be the main move here (assuming that they actually care about making money).

Luckily, the dungeon offers the ideal setting as it's confined, can be shot mostly on a sound stage, and the darkness reduces the need for CGI. 2005's Descent looks like a good template. Just replacing the hillbillies with goblins.

Quote from: S'mon on May 29, 2023, 02:32:54 AM
I think personally I'd prefer "a movie set in D&D world" than "a movie that feels like watching people play D&D".
The obvious one would be a Driz'zt movie, but WoTC are terrified of SJWs and so terrified of using the Drow onscreen.

It does seem like an obvious choice, what with Drizzt being one of the few D&D heroes with any name recognition. But yeah, drow on film are probably a losing proposition. If you cast black actors, you're validating all the things dumb people say about the Drow (and being lore inaccurate at the same time). If you put your actors in makeup, you'll get the blackface complaint and it'll probably look terrible.

The fact that there were no dwarves, gnomes, halflings, or animal-people in the party suggests to me that they weren't comfortable with their effects for anything other than humans with pointy ears or horns. If you do want to do the weirder D&D races, I feel like you'd be better off going for an animated film.

I also wonder if there might be a rights issue. There have been fewer direct adaptations of the Drizzt stories than I would expect, in any medium. I'm pretty sure WOTC owns the rights to the characters, but maybe they have to pay Salvatore royalties if they use his actual stories.

A Driz'zt movie would be about a Drow, who is a black man with pointy ears, had to leave the benevolent, matriarchal utopia of his birth because something something white patriarchal racism. Maybe give him a sister who was way better than him, but who died saving Driz'zt from a horde of evil blonde men, after Driz'zt felt emasculated and ran off, only to realize his toxicity got his sister killed.

Quote from: ForgottenF on May 28, 2023, 08:02:30 PM
This might be a hot take, but I'm of the opinion that a serious tone would actually be inappropriate for an adaptation of the tabletop game. For those of us that are super-deep in the hobby, it's easy to forget that D&D --as experienced by the vast majority of people-- is a game where you sit up late at night, with a few friends and a bunch of unhealthy snacks, and joke around about the adventures of your imaginary characters. That was every bit as true in 1980 as it is now. A cartoony action-comedy is a far more faithful representation of most of campaigns than a serious fantasy epic would be.

Yeah. For me, a lot of both the silly parts (like speak with dead) and the smart parts (like the wagon heist) evoked a lot of my teenage D&D experience back in the 1980s.  A lot of the teen appeal of D&D was messing up DM plans by alternately being too dumb and too smart.

I'd have been fine with a lower budget and fewer name stars, but then I also know that tons of lower budget movies flop - even moreso than big-budget movies. It's never as simple as saying "Hey, The Descent made money. If we make a movie like The Descent with goblins, then we'll make money."  Some mediocre movies make a ton of money, and some mediocre films flop.

An opportunity to showcase forgotten realms to people who refuse to read...i imagine they squandered it?

Could be worse, they could have made a dragonlance movie...which they would most assuredly screw up by not casting porn star stacey bloom as kitiara.
Yes I know Sturm nutted in that shit.

#lanced.

Quote from: Slipshot762 on May 29, 2023, 10:44:40 PM
An opportunity to showcase forgotten realms to people who refuse to read...i imagine they squandered it?

Revel's End looked good.

Neverwinter and Castle Never looked good.

The Underdark looked good.