Well it was bound to happen at some point. A good movie has finally hit theatres. Dungeons and Dragons had recently made headlines for greedy practices outside of the theatre, so I went into the movie with admittedly low expectations. Finally, I was wrong. Finally a movie in 2023 worth the price of admission for me.
 |
| Picture by Forbes |
Also admittedly, I am a D&D player. I have been most of my life. So to say I'm biased is easy, but in a lot of cases, I expected that to work against my review of the movie before seeing it. The plot of the film is very over-the-top, but this works because many D&D adventurers are just like that. It really reminded me of a simpler time when you could just watch a movie and just enjoy it for what it was. The lore is obviously not the same as it was in the D&D lore books. By many accounts, there was no real way for a lot of the core material to be properly adapted to the screen. However, the things that were, were done very right in my opinion.
Photo by Vanity Fair
A great example of this is Helga, the Barbarian. During the first fight scene I had that woke culture thought of "Oh great, here's another example of a female fighter that will steal the show and step on the male counter-part to do it", and I was so wrong. Yes, Helga is powerful and she fights very well, and yes she does save Ed (Chris Pine) on several occasions, but in these cases, the events are done very organically. She's a Barbarian, she's supposed to fight and be rough. Once I figured out that they were actually using classes in the movie, I was so pleased. Then the movie introduces us to a young sorcerer and then the druid. Yes, the druid does not function like a druid does in D&D, but in my opinion, she was better. No only was she a Tiefling race, she wasn't constrained by old rules of engagement and was able to transform at will and into virtually whatever create she wanted. To see it live action was simply a treat. This movie was a clear example of the production teams and director actually understanding the source material and staying as true as they could to it.
 |
| Photo by Dicebreaker |
Many of the smaller facets of D&D were also added, again, organically to the film. Things from needing to attune to a magical piece of equipment before it will work correctly (or at all), explaining that a spell has a cast range of 500ft, or even the easy things like adding in a Gelatinous Cube or the Mimic Chest. Simply Beautiful.
Photo by Geekwire
Was the movie perfect? Of course not. Did the druid need to do the "Hulk-smash" thing at the end, no. Was the plot predictable, yes. The characters all had arcs in the story, but few were really flushed out. There was lots of lore left on the table and many things spoken about and just left there. A great example of this is when they talk about (and enter) the Underdark. The paladin they are with at the time explains "its a dangerous place", but that's the only explanation the audience gets. I'm not saying we need a 10 minute dialogue dump of every environment they enter, but something like the Underdark that is very important to D&D likely should have more discussion. The acting was believable enough, but nothing over the top here with the exception of Hugh Grant. I thought he was a strange pick for a D&D movie, but he pulled off the character very well. When you hate a character in media, that means the actor has done their job well.
Photo by Screen Rant
I felt like the movie had a few missed opportunities, and that it could have ended a little before it did, but overall, well made film. If it helps anyone out there, I liked it enough that I saw it in theatres twice.
Overall score: 8 out of 10 stars
Comments
Post a Comment