feeling listless

Film During the 1980s, there was always trepidation surrounding the release of board games and especially computer games based upon popular films of the time - who can forget the classic that was Back to the Future. Almost as a kind of revenge, film-makers during the nineties have taken extremely popular games and turned them into unwatchable nonsense. Dungeons and Dragons was one of the most long awaited adaptations, and perhaps because of the length of its gestation period, the finished film could never live up to some of the fans expectations. It's a pity though that it fails to live up to any expectations.

Rather than keeping with the ready made plot contained in the classic D&D cartoon series, the film makers have attempted to create a status quo akin to a group of friends playing the game. Indeed, the dialogue at times mimics the creativity of a bunch of game players during a post-pub dungeon hop. For the first half hour of the film, it almost becomes expected that the scene would dissolve into a group of people in home made costumes gathered around a table (a feeling which returns at the film's coda). Instead, sense of disbelief is stretched to its limit as a series of characters without pasts are dragged through the hero's journey, the wind whistling through the pages of Joseph Campbell 'The Hero with a Thousand Faces' as it sits on the table next the writer's keyboard.

It's a brave move to assume that the audience understands the rules of fantasy as a genre - but despite first glances, it can be as sophisticated or simple as the writer wishes. Here, too much understanding is expected of the viewer. The importance of the staffs is never full explained and neither is how they control the dragons. The important fact (dramatically) that a mage cannot use magic unless she has something to work with is ignored somewhere as well, so for much of the film we wonder why our friends keep getting captured. The Arthurian abilities of Ridley also seem far fetched. Yes, we know he's special, but could you show us how? These are small things, but as they niggle away at us whilst we watch they draw us out of the story.

Perhaps the most likable parts of the film are in the scenes were the actors are not running around and shouting at each other. Justin Whalin shows the charisma of a young Dennis Quaid; Marlon Wayans is more likable here than in Scary Movie although he could do with trying to be himself and not Eddie Murphy; Zoe McLellan is startling touching as the love interest and could do well in a none genre piece. Richard O'Brien must have been laughed himself stupid at getting to play being keeper of maze again in a fight to the death edition of The Crystal Maze. And Tom. Dear Tom Baker - who despite his elfin ears managed to produce on the few truly human performances. is said some of the actors don't do quite as well - Thora Birch looks embarrassed to be their in role probably filmed before American Beauty; Jeremy Irons decides that if you can't see the set, its best shout a lot and grimace; Kristen Wilson looks disappointed that she didn't get to be Storm in X-Men, but her role seems to have been curtailed to simple pronouncements.

But what of the special effects? In order to bring a world to life there has to be some consistency in the magic brought to bear in creating that world. Unfortunately, there is a feeling that a number of different SFX houses were at work, and they all thought they were working on different films. The magic effects are superb, as good as anything seem in The Matrix and its friends. But its in the imagery of the place, the castles, the landscapes, the dragons, that things become unstuck. Anyone whose played the old PC classic Myst will be familiar with the standard of rendering. Its almost as though a game was in preparation and the graphics were used here. In a feature film this isn't enough. Dragonheart proved the sophistication which can be achieved in the imagining of mythic creatures, but the effects here fall short of expectation. We should believe in the world, not sit and marvel at how sophisticated the rendering is - for that I'll go see Toy Story or Shrek.

So overall, a very disappointing experience like many adaptations. Too simplistic for fans, too irrelevant to the average punter, New Line may have made a mistake releasing the film as a curtain raiser to Lord of the Rings. It's a bit like Lucasfilm offering up Battlefield Earth. If your average cinema goer thinks that this is the best fantasy has to offer, you can imagine the rest of that series going direct to video.

[I thought I'd post this old review in hindsight. Luckily the average punter didn't think that Lord of the Rings would be anything like this and Peter Jackson wasn't too pissed that his own studio tried to take the wind out of this sales. Looking back it might have been more interesting if they'd done a straight adaptation of the cartoon series...]