Dungeons & Dragons 3: Das Buch der Dunklen Schatten

I had very poor expectations going in, but was pleasantly surprised by a story that focus on characters that aren't your normal "do good" heroes.

The acting is okay and the effects are on par with the effects you can see on new television shows. The script is better than many of the big budget movies of today, but it's not Lord of the rings. The story is somewhat predictable, but enjoyably.

A few nods to the game can be found throughout the movie, but you could easily get the same enjoyment out of the plot without having ever played the game.

If you like fantasy give it try.

I went into this film expecting it to be awful. I hated the first two films in the franchise - unlike many here, I thought the 2nd film was far worse than the 1st, and the 1st one was bad. I was pleasantly surprised by this one (the 3rd).

Sure, it is cheesy at times. Some of the dialog is stilted, and the acting is spotty in places (like the shopkeeper, for example). The first battle sequence was worrisomely bad (as in, oh no. . .), but mercifully short. However, the rest of the fights scenes were well done. The CGI was much better than the first two films. While it was still obviously low budget, I have seen worse in theatrical movies. So, it was money well spent.

Remember how embarrassed Jeremy Irons looked in the first movie? There's none of that here. The actors try, and for the most part succeed, in playing their parts well. Some of them were quite good, others are amateurish in parts, but over all they were good.

The story was decent. The script could have used some improvements. Without spoiling anything, the end felt rushed and forced. The tone was a much darker take than previous entries in the serious, and that turns out to be a vast improvement.

I am puzzled by a lot of online reviews / summaries of this film, which describe the plot inaccurately, and even list characters and actors that are not in the movie. Even IMDb lists Meagan Good in the cast, when she's not in it. Clearly, these reviewers have not bothered to watch.

In conclusion, I would watch this for free on cable or Netflix, but it might not be worth paying to see. If you are a fan of D&D, RPGs in general, or S&S films, give it a shot, and you may just like it.If you're not a fan of any of the above, I can't relate to you, so this review may not apply. :-)

Although not an immediate favorite as far as made-for-video flicks go, I will admit this has gained a small spot in my viewing collection. Likely would not spend money on the DVD unless I just wanted to have a reference so as pen a sequel based off events from this third adventure. With the wonder of YouTube posting, anybody can watch this online for free basically. The movie has its pros and cons like any other feature. I appreciated the diversity in characters in the main group, although typical of classes: barbarian, thief, spell-caster and knight. The "knight" of the group, Grayson I could not truly get behind due to his immaturity throughout most of the quest (nothing personal against the actor himself, his character was just simply annoying). I might have appreciated Grayson more if he had a shred of cunning and direction in his personal mission to save his father, but seeming painfully too green to take seriously as a growing hero. The others in the party, were decent in their roles. Misses with this one would be the back-and-forth direction of attitudes among the party members, particularly between Grayson and Akordia (whom I know every male viewer absolutely could not get enough of. And I'm not saying I could deny the appeal either). Her character struck as being almost bipolar as one minute she's darkly-sweet, the next she turns on her own allies, including lover boy Grayson. This brings me up to my next point of the alleged love story. It too had a bipolar feel to it I could not (imo) get behind. And in the end, it ultimately did not amount to anything. Action quality was spotty, with perhaps the best improvement being the town fight, special effects were hits and misses, presenting blatantly C-quality CG imagery on the screen that nods obviously to the budget parameters. The ending indeed as one reviewer stated appeared rushed and that ma also attest to the budget of the film, being unable to produce a more elaborate ending that truly tied events together. I won't go as far to say this film outshines the previous sequel or the first film as being the very best, but it has its place. As far as features shown on the SyFy channel this might actually be one of the better ones. Comparing sequels, this shared some lack of development particularly with characters, yet that is expected with lower-budgeted projects. This has been described as being darker than the first two predecessors, hailed as being a refreshing change (perhaps only complemented for the film's graphic violence and sexual indulgences). The climax was lackluster as its rushed outcome suggested either a self-conscientious mind for the budget, or a mind for on-air television scheduling as though it had only two minutes before an important commercial was to play. Overall, The Book of Vile Darkness has seemingly pleased most D&D fans with its effort to return to the essence of the D&D world and all its game-play and story-telling elements. Fans of fantasy and adventure movies may well enjoy watching this every now and then for a change of pace.

That is saying a lot though, because the first Dungeons & Dragons gets my vote as the worst fantasy film ever made and among the worst movies in general; the second is a little better but is rather mediocre. Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness isn't great but compared to the previous movies it's certainly watchable. The ending is far too rushed and anti-climatic, also on the convoluted side. The dragon battle is also rather hastily paced and a little cheap-looking. The movie does drag a little at the beginning(the prologue maybe could have been trimmed a bit), there is the odd cheesy line and Jack Derges looks somewhat ill at ease as the hero. The cast mostly are very reasonable though, the best of the lot is Barry Aird as Bezz who is very menacing but in an understated way, thankfully a far cry from the chewing-the-scenery-to-pieces approach seen with Jeremy Irons in the first. Lex Daniel is an amusing and threatening assassin and Eleanor Gecks is sexy while not falling into the trap of being too vapid. There are definitely far cheaper-looking movies than Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness, the costumes are decent enough and the scenery is great. The special effects aren't award-worthy with the dragon being a disappointment but they do look as though some effort was put into them. The undead mutant child is really creepy and in a good way. The make-up is good as well, especially for Bezz. The music is dynamic enough and at least has a pace to it, the characters have a likability generally(they're not too bland and none of them are anywhere near as irritating as the one played by Marlon Wayans in the first), and the dialogue while ropey at times is still an improvement over the script-writing of the previous two movies, being thought-out and cohesive and there is little misplaced humour or tedious melodrama. The story is fun, swiftly paced and with a welcome dark and gritty touch, thankfully not going the camp or melodramatic route which the first two did, and the action excepting the dragon battle is decently choreographed with some intensity and energy. What Dungeons and Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness also has over its predecessors is that it is more loyal in spirit to what makes Dungeons & Dragons as an overall franchise work so well with the odd referencing, which the first two movies did not. Overall, the definitive Dungeons & Dragons is yet to be made and this movie doesn't really do the franchise justice, but it is not a bad movie at all and a significant improvement over the second and especially the first. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Considering the previous two failed attempts at making D&D movies, I was positively surprised at this one. Having followed the Book of Vile Darkness promotion a year past, I knew that the movie was in production for quite some time, along with its source material (the D&D 4th Edition Book of Vile Darkness for those wondering), and there are several references in the movie that will appear more than anything as name dropping or inside jokes - which can be a good thing, provided that you know what is being referred to. To be precise, the Heroic and Paragon tiers are mentioned in regards to magic armor, and the main character also encounters thassil root poison, and both Vicious and Vorpal longswords, along with a Bag of Holding (the last of which is used in a manner that most seasoned D&D players would be proud of). Furthermore, both the sun god Pelor and the Shadowfell, the D&D realm of the dead (along with Gloomwrought, the closest thing it has to a capital city) are mentioned. The inclusion of shadar-kai and a goliath instead of the typical elves and dwarfs is also a nice touch, and in line with this, it breaks with many typical fantasy tropes.

As mentioned above, knowing the source material beforehand can be a boon in the case of this movie, especially since the Book of Vile Darkness in its previous edition was suited only for people aged 18+ because of its... well, "vile" contents, along with a focus on playing evil characters that is unheard of elsewhere in typical D&D, where the player characters are usually the heroes - and the main character in the movie faces some of the same moral quandaries that are mentioned directly in the D&D source material. There is also the fact that the main characters mention a red dragon at some point in the movie that is clearly not a dragon, but a Nhagruul Dragonspawn, and is thus again tied to the Book of Vile Darkness supplement for D&D 4th Edition. It is strange that this isn't mentioned at all in the movie, however.

The acting isn't the best that one could want (maybe except for the Vermin Lord, who fits the bill perfectly) and some of the lines are somewhat illegible at times, but I would praise the story in that it both manages to feel somewhat "realistic" (in-universe at least) while staying interesting and entertaining.

All in all, I would consider this movie a success, in that it was both entertaining and thought- provoking, the latter of which especially with the aforementioned moral quandaries in mind. It's probably not for everyone, but I would recommend it to any somewhat seasoned D&D player, along with anybody interested in a fantasy film a bit darker and grittier than the usual.