Donjons & Dragons 3: Le Livre des Ténèbres

On a world where sorcery is real, a greenhorn knight (Jack Derges) teams-up with a dubious group to find his father who was kidnapped by mysterious evil powers. The group includes a witch (Eleanor Gecks), a sorcerer Vermin lord (Barry Aird), an assassin (Lex Daniels) and a goliath warrior (Habib Nasib Nader).

"Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness" (2012), also known as "Dungeons & Dragons 3," is the third of currently three D&D flicks, unconnected to the other two: "Dungeons & Dragons" (2000) and "Dungeons and Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God" (2005). Evil wizard Damodar (Bruce Payne) was the only link between the first two movies, other than the fact that they both took place in Izmir. This third film abandons all links and takes place in Karkoth.

The first movie was the only one released to theaters and therefore had a hefty budget, but it was hampered by camp and a goofy tone centered around Wayans' humor. The second one, my favorite, was released to TV and therefore had a lower budget, but still pretty significant at $15 million. This third film is similar to the serious tone of the second, but is noticeably darker. The group the knight joins for his quest lacks the nobleness and camaraderie of the sojourners in "Wrath of the Dragon God." They're all either morally dubious or outright sinister.

The D&D universe is similar to the world of Conan the Barbarian, but with a more medieval flair and a little more sorcery. If you like Conan, you'll probably like this. The locations & sets are superlative while the magical F/X are TV-budget fare, but otherwise effective. The dragon especially looks good and the dragon-slaying episode is great. There's also a very creative (and dark) zombie girl sequence. On the negative side, this is easily the least of the three flicks in the feminine department, although Eleanor Gecks is a'right, I guess.

The film runs 1 hour, 30 minutes and was shot in Bulgaria.

GRADE: B-

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.

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

It is a surprise to find a decent, alluring story within this series of films, though I didn't find the 2nd film as bad as others say. I did see a bad trailer for this latest edition, so I wasn't expecting much at all. The production team here found a winning combination mixing more macabre, darker sensibilities with the fantasy, finally,(!) for this seems a better understanding of how it would be. Acknowledging that this entry is of a modest budget, I did find it to be more compelling than the other entries. My only real criteria, is that the ending appeared to be rather hasty, and also, I found the casting the knights father flawed in that he didn't appear old enough.

It is a shame that market constraints for this kind of film are so limited, I would love to see this at a longer running time, and explore these themes as novels are able to do, but given the constraints this production does create an intriguing moral predicament for this knight, and maintains an interesting atmosphere that adds much resonance to the story. Also the acting and the CGI effects are decent, the dragon in particular was surprisingly well done. Here's to a new direction in this series, I hope the creators can explore more fully.