- IMDb page: Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God (2005)
- Rate: 4.8/10 total 4,060 votes
- Genre: Action | Adventure | Fantasy
- Release Date: September 2005 (Thailand)
- Runtime: USA:105 min | Philippines:105 min
- Filming Location: Trakai Castle, Lithuania
- Budget: $15,000,000 (estimated)
- Director: Gerry Lively
- Stars: Bruce Payne, Mark Dymond, Clemency Burton-Hill | See full cast and crew
- Original Music By: David Julyan
- Sound Mix: Dolby Digital
- Plot Keyword: Sword Fight | Sorcery | Second Part | Violence | Ampersand In Title
Known Trivia
- Magic runes seen in the film come from two sources. The first source is the set of zodiac symbols from astrology. The second source is The Chaosium's role-playing game "Runequest", which was a competitor of the original D&D and AD&D games in the '70s and '80s.
- The film has several explicit references to the AD&D game. A map during the opening credits contains the name "Yeenoghu", a demon lord from the game, and another demon lord from the game, "Jubilex", is mentioned by the characters several times. Also, several references contain the names of AD&D adventure modules (published scenarios). Berek mentions that Dorian helped him in the Ghost Tower of Inverness, a reference to module of the same name (C2). Nim asks Lux what happened to her brother at the "Barrier Peaks", a reference to the module "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks" (S3). Lux makes reference to the Shrine of the Kuo-Toa, a reference to the module of the same name (D2).
- Lux's name itself is a game reference. Strategic Simulations Inc. produced a series of computer games based on AD&D, one of which is called Pool of Radiance In the game, you have to search out passwords for unlocking certain locations. Lux is one of a trio of passwords you need for an island keep filled with skeletons. They are Lux, Samosud, and Shestni.
Goofs: Revealing mistakes: In the scene with the darkmantles falling from the ceiling, Berek's sword accidentally digs into the wall by the exit and leaves a mark when it digs in past the paint to the plaster underneath. Moments later in another shot, the mark is gone.
Plot: Based on the phenomenally successful role-playing game, Dungeons & Dragons 2 takes you deeper into the dark and fantastical world of this fantasy epic... See more » | »
Story: Based on the phenomenally successful role-playing game, Dungeons & Dragons 2 takes you deeper into the dark and fantastical world of this fantasy epic. When the evil sorcerer Damodar braves a perilous whirlwind vortex to steal the elemental black orb he declares a sinister plan of vengeance against the kingdom of Ismir. Berek, a decorated warrior, and Melora, an amateur sorceress join four heroes representing Intelligence, Wisdom, Honor and Strength to battle against Damodar's growing army of gruesome creatures, flying harpies and an ice dragon to reach a vault room holding the orb. Together, they build their own army to retrieve the orb using elemental forces to defeat Damodar before he summons the sleeping black dragon whose omnipotent evil powers could lay waste to the entire kingdom. Written byPress Release
Produced By:
- Bruce Payne known as Damodar
- Mark Dymond known as Berek
- Clemency Burton-Hill known as Melora
- Ellie Chidzey known as Lux (as Ellie Chidzley)
- Tim Stern known as Nim
- Steven Elder known as Dorian
- Lucy Gaskell known as Ormaline
- Roy Marsden known as Oberon
- Geoffrey T. Bersey known as Galtar (as Geoffrey Bersey)
- Leonas Ciunis known as Old Mage
- Liubomiras Lauciavicius known as Mage #1 (as Liubomiras Laucevicius)
- Ervinas Peteraitis known as Mage #2
- Vytautas Rumsas known as Valerious
- David Merheb known as Tibio
- Aurimas Meliesius known as Klaxx (as Aurimas Miliesius)
- Laurynas Jurgelis known as Magmin
- Andrius Zebrauskas known as Pico
- Arturas Orlauskas known as Dandy
- Leonardas Pobedonoscevas known as Barnaby
- Tauras Cizas known as Warrior
- Tomas Vaitkus known as Oarsman
- Arturas Builovas known as Wicked Doctor
- Mykolas Dorofejus known as Priest
- Ramunas Abukevicius known as Priest of Obadhai
- Evaldas Leskauskas known as Lizard Shaman #1
- Tomas Zaibus known as Lizard Shaman #2
Production Companies:
- Skyline Films (as Skyline Dungeon & Dragons Ltd.)
- Studio Hamburg WorldWide Pictures
- Sweetpea Entertainment (as Sweetpea BVI Ltd.)
- Zinc Entertainment Inc.
- Anvil Post Production sound post-production
- Lietuvos Kinostudija production services
- Lip Sync Post digital transfer to 35 mm
- Mayflower Studios adr recording
- Mayflower Studios sound post-production
- PIC Agency titles
- Panavision UK camera equipment provided by
- Slovak National Symphony Orchestra orchestra
- First Look International (2005-) (worldwide) (all media) (sales)
- Carrère Groupe (2006) (France) (theatrical)
- Lizard Cinema Trade (2005) (Russia) (theatrical)
- Falcon Films (2005) (Lebanon) (all media) (Middle East)
- IPA Asia Pacific (2006) (Thailand) (all media)
- IPA Asia Pacific (2006) (Vietnam) (all media)
- Optimum Home Entertainment (2010) (UK) (DVD)
- Optimum Home Entertainment (2010) (UK) (DVD) (Blu-ray)
- Universum Film (UFA) (2006) (Germany) (DVD)
- Warner Home Video (2006) (USA) (DVD)
Special Effects:
- Image FX (prosthetic effects)
- LKS Cinevision (visual effects)
- Munky (visual effects)
- Red Vision
Visual Effects by:
Filmography links and data courtesy of The Internet Movie Database
I am grading on a curve, but this movie was surprisingly good andfaithful to the D&D theme. The actors are all unknowns and acquitthemselves well, especially Clemency Burton-Hill.
ReplyDeleteThis movie is superior in almost every way to the original--the actingis better (none of the overacting of Malcolm McDowell) and the dialogueis decent (cheesy, but not to a ridiculous degree like the original).
The best part is how faithful the movie is to D&D concepts like limitedspell casting and a Lich controlling Wraiths. And for a $15 milliondollar movie (according to IMDb), the producers did a great job ofbuilding lavish sets and costumes which give the appropriate mood andtexture to the movie (again, in contrast to the fake and cheap sets ofthe original).
The weakest part of the movie were some of the computer effects.Understandable given the budget, but a bit of a distraction, especiallysince the climax uses a lot of it.
Giving this an 8 out of 10 since I'm grading on a scale (this movie wasmuch superior to most direct-to-video or SciFi "original" movies).
I should be in geek heaven. Another Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) movie?After the critical hit that the first one took, I wouldn't have thoughtit possible ... but clearly someone has more faith in the franchisethan the viewing public.
ReplyDeleteWrath of the Dragon God is better cinematically than the original, butjust isn't as much fun. While the first went for all the clichés(including the initial tavern rendezvous) and the full-on dragon warclimax, the latest seems oddly low key ... despite its typicallyapocalyptic plot line.
Over a century has passed and Damodar (Bruce Payne) has returned fromundeath with another foul plan for world domination. A band ofexperienced adventurers is hastily assembled - representing all themajor character classes (a fighter, mage, cleric, rogue and barbarian)- to thwart him. And that's pretty much it.
There's a decent dungeon crawl sequence and some okay fight scenes, butit all seems very pedestrian and just an odd rehash of Hawk The Slayer(still, in my humble opinion, the best non-D&D D&D movie). We do get apretty 'realistic' cinematic interpretation of Third Edition Dungeons &Dragons, some eye candy in the Xena-esquire shape of the barbarian Lux,fanboy in-jokes (in the shape of adventure module name dropping e.g.'Barrier Peaks' and 'The Ghost Tower of Inverness' to name but two) anda few snippets of witty banter.
But for my two gold pieces, it could have been so much more. If themovie makers were trying to breath new life into the franchise theyshould have tried to make something that was dramatically differentfrom the first, not just another version. In this sort of low-budgetfantasy adventure fare, one quest is very much like another - whatevertrinket the champions are seeking.
And enough with the CGI dragons already...
999 experience points to the writers, cast and directors for effort,but not enough to take them up a level yet.
For all of those who play DND and have played DND throughout theyears... you may have seen a movie that came out in 2000 that you mayhave hated or maybe even liked what was called Dungeons and Dragons TheMovie. Well in my opinion it was a flop... Well recently they actuallymade a Dungeons and Dragons 2. I watched it last night even though ithas not been released yet (it plays on the Sci Fi channel on Oct 8th)and well... it was great! I was totally surprised with the production.It wasn't cheesy (except a few of the special effects) acting wise orproduction wise. The movie played out like it was a regular adventurethat a DM would make up, the spells were cast properly, the "core"rules were not broken, and most importantly the characters wereinteresting and were not INVINCIBLE... they are just like us PC's(getting arms eaten or chopped off or getting eaten whole by a purpleworm!). So trust me... it was great. Even though it was obviously lowerbudget than say... Battlestar Galactica. But what DND game isn't lowbudget.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this more then the first. There was no slapstick comedy whichreally teed me off in the first film. Although there was a clearleader, it was more balanced on a party of characters. It was more ofwhat I would expect from a D&D movie. The action was well paced, andthe plot progressed well. The SFX were decent. A few times the CGwasn't that good but it didn't really detract that much. Ellie Chidzleyas Lux was very easy on the eyes. Hope to see more of her in thefuture.
ReplyDeleteIn overall context of movies maybe 6.5/10. In the context of a D&Dmovie and to those looking for one I give it 8/10.
Worth a view.
The first few minutes were the visual equivalent of a bad novel'sprologue. Rathern than introducing the problem through the story, thebad guy tells you about himself and his plans, although not in enoughspecifics for it to make sense. Fortunately, the heroes don't watch theprologue, and they're reasonably good at explaining the plot to theviewers as the movie goes on.
ReplyDeleteThe movie did a good job of using D&D terminology (arcane vs. divinemagic, etc.) and had the feel of a typical D&D adventure. It was pacedfairly well, and the acting was appropriate for an original Sci-Fichannel movie. The special effects were very well done, but some ofthem weren't too understandable unless you were a D&D player.
If you aren't a D&D fan, there's probably not much here for you. If youare, then it's worth watching, as long as you can avoid speculating onwhat color certain beasts are or complaining that certain things aren'tthe way they are in the manuals. Just assume their DM has house rules,OK?
This, my friend, is Dungeons & Dragons. This is not a cinematicmasterpiece. This is not Shakespeare. The storyline wont change yourfuture. But it's 1:45h of real entertainment for any Dungeons & Dragonsfan.
ReplyDeleteUnlike the first movie, D&D:Elemental Might go back to the book. Manyfantasy movies have wizards and fighters, but I believe the creatorsactually focused on really bringing the things we recognize from theD&D world into this one. There's a real "party" with classic Dungeons &Dragons professions represented and they really do what is to beexpected by their roles. There's real dungeons... There's dragons...and there's even a few unique D&D monsters that is recognized from thebooks. The villain is more evil. The good is more good. There's heapsand heaps of magic, and even divine magic (which is unique to D&D)plays a great role this time around.
If you ever played D&D and you can accept some budgetcuts on bringingyour fantasy to life, get ahold of this movie. If you never played D&Dbut you are a general fantasy fan, get this movie because it's the mostfantasymovie you have seen since Lord of the Rings. If you are neithera fan of fantasy or an oldtime fan of Dungeons & Dragons, you canprobably forget about this one and watch something else.
I will buy it and I want to see more D&D movies in the future!
I was someone that had mixed feelings on the original D&D movie. Ithought the script was clunky, the acting was awful as far as good guyswere concerned, it contained wildly inappropriate dialog for thesetting, and the tone made light of what could have been dramaticevents. On the other hand, the movie looked good, had a couple decentfight scenes and the huge Dragon war at the climax was dynamic andexciting. Still, with it's less than impressive reception, I figuredthis would be a series of one.
ReplyDeleteImagine my surprise when a sequel was announced, and even greater shockwhen I watched the films premier and found it to be everything I feltit's predecessor lacked. The acting, while not Oscar worthy, wasperfectly reasonable work from a handful of unknowns. The plot istreated seriously this time around, with a minimum of cliché and jest(Although there are two laugh out loud moments) and actually featuresan intelligent foe with a genuinely epic plan for the forces of justiceto combat. Speaking of which, the heroes are a nice diverse bunch, andthe film manages to showcase each one's unique talents well.
As for the action and eye candy, there's plenty. The fights are stagedbetter than 90% of the action flicks on the shelves, with realisticflow and quick pace. The special effects are among the best I've everseen in a non-theatrical film and are leaps and bounds above any otherSci-Fi premier yet broadcast (Though not quite as good as a theatricalrelease). The final battle is not as kinetic as the first films finale,but manages to be a fitting climax to the quest.
If this is what this crew can produce with a terribly low budget, I saygive them 70 million bucks and get Dungeons & Dragons III in theatersASAP!
I was amazed when I found out that they were making a sequel to thehorror that was the first Dungeons & Dragons movie. Despite the poorquality all around of the first one some people gave the source thebenefit of the doubt and were willing to try it again. Thankfully thistime the source material was taken more seriously and the project wasput into better hands.
ReplyDeleteThe result is a decent film with a comprehensible story, and decentproduction quality. The cast is by no means A-list, or even B-list;though they do well in their respective roles. The effects are alright,but if the movie had a better budget it would have been even better.
All things being equal this movie is superior to the first. DnD folksout there should like it and appreciate the detail taken to make surethe source material comes through correctly. It's a mixed bag on howmuch other people will like it. If you are willing to look past thelower grade special effects, and the cast of unknowns then you mightenjoy it.
The first D&D movie was largely hated by D&D players, partly because itwasn't a good movie, but also because it was not very much like D&D thegame.
ReplyDeletePerhaps because of the cool reception of the first, this was changeddramatically in the sequel. It now really is like the game, sure toprovide lots of geek moments where viewers try to guess which spell isbeing cast or what magic item is being used. The characters also tendto act like D&D characters, and they actually explore a dungeon.
Unfortunately, as a movie, it has some shortcomings. For one, much ofthe acting is uninspired. Not bad, but about a wooden as a dummy ofKeanu Reeves. The first movie also suffered from this problem, but inthis movie, it's probably because most of the actors are new, thisgenerally being their first film. Exception being Tim Stern, the guyplaying the Rogue, who brought some life to his character.
The characterization and dialog isn't great, either. Less characterdevelopment than in some commercials, even though this is a fairly longmovie. But I chalk that up also to the inexperience of the screenwriters (though also is relatively common in D&D games, so perhaps is afeature, not a bug).
When it comes to special effects, they are about on par with Sci-Fichannel offerings. Slightly better. Lord of the Rings it ain't. But notterrible, either.
Still, just judging it as a fantasy movie, it's much better than mostother low budget ones. Worth watching. And for D&D players, it's a lotof fun.
A surprisingly satisfying film. This film takes the subject matter farmore seriously than the original film, with the end result bringing memore into the story then the previous film. While on it's own it'sreally only passing fair amongst other films of the genre, it'sconnections to the original film, and it's remaining true to the spiritof the material from which it was drawn made this movie an enjoyablewatch for me. Without giving any spoilers, I would have to say as aD&D'er, this film is much truer to the game then the original movie inevery possible way. The character's are more interesting, the perilsthey face are more dire, the antagonists are clever and deceitful(which is rare in any genre), and their is definitely some decent,though not great, acting. I would definitely recommend this movie.
ReplyDelete