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.
39 Reviews
Dumb
SanteeFats12 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Using CGI to off set the terrible plot, bad acting, and poor non-CGI effects this movie is not very good. The Knights of the Sun arose to combat a malevolent evil and when blessed by a god won out. Now hundreds of years later the knights have fallen to a low level. None are being "blessed" when they are inducted into the fellowship. At an induction of the leaders son, who is not blessed either, the knights are attacked and wiped out except for the father and the son. The father is taken captive and the son goes after him. He runs into a hooker who spends her jewels (gems not the other) to help him out.(HA)! Any way the son hooks up with some really nasty adventurers, kill a dragon, go to a village with some rescued villagers and wreck some havoc. Just a badly done movie with the usual D & D crap and out come.
Going good until confused ending
SnoopyStyle24 December 2013
A young man tries to join The Knights of the New Sun. However it has been too peaceful for too long, and the knights have been corrupted. The Knights are massacred and only the young man survives. He and a band of morally questionable warriors must stop the reawakening of a great evil.
The characters are actually quite compelling. Most of them live by the idea of survival of the fittest. They have no time for the weak. It makes for an interesting group of heroes. And the actors play their parts very well. The scale of production and the effects are on the small scale but that's not unexpected. The movie is going well, but the ending is too convoluted. The action and the storypoints become too confusing and random. It was at least 5/10 if not for the ending.
The characters are actually quite compelling. Most of them live by the idea of survival of the fittest. They have no time for the weak. It makes for an interesting group of heroes. And the actors play their parts very well. The scale of production and the effects are on the small scale but that's not unexpected. The movie is going well, but the ending is too convoluted. The action and the storypoints become too confusing and random. It was at least 5/10 if not for the ending.
Better than the first, fall short from being worth watching
nstiles4225 November 2012
I'm a former playtester and RPGA member for D&D, so when I can watch these free (I was burnt for theater money for the first one) I DVR them and check them out. The plot was so weak that I took a break in the middle to do something else and came back to it.
First, they pepper in D&D references (actual supplement book names are used) and rare races. Where this starts out as a nice nod to fans, it is done so much that the movie loses direction. Each party member is a different race, the enemies are not well defined, and magic items mentioned are either not shown off (vorpal sword) or seemed to be added for one scene-- which starts to bog down the movie.
The dialog is fairly bad, the assassin is less "the professional" and more standard socio-path. Some characters grasp for depth through a two minute exposition, but the character actions do little to support more than flat characters. Some of the acting reaches decent considering the hurdles.
Oh-- the sexy Shadar-kai has the worst fake tattoo ever to be in a movie. It looks like a child's Halloween attempt.
The movie is better than the first, and about even with the second as they have different faults.
First, they pepper in D&D references (actual supplement book names are used) and rare races. Where this starts out as a nice nod to fans, it is done so much that the movie loses direction. Each party member is a different race, the enemies are not well defined, and magic items mentioned are either not shown off (vorpal sword) or seemed to be added for one scene-- which starts to bog down the movie.
The dialog is fairly bad, the assassin is less "the professional" and more standard socio-path. Some characters grasp for depth through a two minute exposition, but the character actions do little to support more than flat characters. Some of the acting reaches decent considering the hurdles.
Oh-- the sexy Shadar-kai has the worst fake tattoo ever to be in a movie. It looks like a child's Halloween attempt.
The movie is better than the first, and about even with the second as they have different faults.
Makes the first and the second film look like masterpieces.
beastwarsfan6 October 2012
Straight to the point - spare yourself the time and the pain and skip this god-awful (absolutely non-related to any of the other D&D films) sequel. As one can expect from a less-than-a-mediocre direct to video low budget sequel filmed in Bulgaria, this one aims to cash in on the popularity of the Dungeons and Dragons title. There's just a hint of writing, terrible acting combined with ridiculous make-up, cheap CGI, pathetic battle scenes... and tasteless random nudity.
Hey, count me in if it was a flick from the 80s - I'd put it along with DeathStalker, Amazons, Barbarian Queen, The Sword and the Sorcerer, Hundra, and all the other fantasy adventure B-movies. But releasing a film like D&D3 nowadays is just preposterous.
Hey, count me in if it was a flick from the 80s - I'd put it along with DeathStalker, Amazons, Barbarian Queen, The Sword and the Sorcerer, Hundra, and all the other fantasy adventure B-movies. But releasing a film like D&D3 nowadays is just preposterous.
Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness
jboothmillard9 April 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I was most interested to find out that filmmakers were rebooting the Dungeons & Dragons franchise, based on the popular role-playing tabletop game, the original 2000 film and its 2005 straight-to-DVD sequel, Wrath of the Dragon God, were both absolutely crap, I decided to watch this straight-to-DVD third film in the original series before the new movie. Basically, Nhagruul the Foul was an evil sorcerer who spread despair throughout his mortal life. As he neared his end, he sold his soul to the demon lords of the Abyss. When he died, his body was turned into the Book of Vile Darkness: his skin was turned into pages, his bones into the cover, and his blood uses as ink for its pages. Anyone who opened the Book and read its page became evil. The kingdom of Karkoth was consumed by evil until the Knights of the New Sun, a group of warriors, arose and saved the people using amulets given to them by Pelor, the God of light. They channelled the God's power using the amulet and light overcame darkness. It was the purity of their hearts that allowed them to wield such power. The Knights destroyed the ink, but pages and the covers of the Book were recovered and hidden by followers of Nhagruul. As people began to forget that Nhagruul existed, the power of the Knights dimmed. 2000 years later, a young knight named Grayson Azriel (Jack Derges) is recruited into the Knight order. But as with all Knights through the centuries, the power of the amulet is not granted to him by Pelor. While talking to his father Ranfin (Anthony Howell) about his failure, all the Knights are killed, and his father is abducted. Grayson joins a crew working with the barbarians, hoping to find and save his father. They crew are looking for the horn that will lead them to the cover of the Book. The crew is made up of Shadar-kai sorceress Akordia (Eleanor Gecks), human assassin Seith (Lex Daniel), Goliath barbarian Vimak (Habib Nasib Nader), and human Vermin Lord Bezz (Barry Aird). The horn is guarded by a wyvern (a type of dragon), Grayson slays the monster and saves Akordia and they fall in love. The group are hailed as heroes in the nearby town of Little Silver Keep. As Grayson and Akordia spend the night together and Vimak spends the night with a plethora of women, Seith steals the town's treasure. The Mayor (Dominic Mafham) discovers the robbery and will not allow the group to leave. Grayson tries to settle the argument of the treasure, but Bezz kills the mayor, causing a fight to break out with many townspeople killed. When the group set up camp for the night, Grayson poisons Vimak and places his body and the treasure in a bag and throws it into the nearby lake. Seith wants the horn and threatens Grayson, but he is killed by Bezz. The remaining three are led by the horn to encountering an undead child called a Slaymate and are forced to let it feed on their negative to prove themselves free of decency and thus worthy of obtaining energy of the Book. The Salymate feasts from the morally bankrupt Bezz. The creature is calmed by Grayson's unlawful deeds which are enough. But Akordia fails the test when her burgeoning feelings for Grayson poison the creature. The Slaymate summons a Helmed Horror (Lloyd Pitts) to kill them before disappearing. Bezz is stabbed through the chest, Akordia and Grayson fight and eventually defeat the Helmed Horror, and finally retrieve the cover of the Book. Akordia and Grayson are captured and taken to the stronghold the evil Lord Shathrax, who is extracting ink for the book from the pain of the purest Knight: Grayson's father. Grayson rescues his father, but they discover they are trapped because the stronghold is a collection of floating islands in the Shadowfell. As they are about to be captured again, Grayson's father suggests suicide, but Grayson insists that a pure knight never loses hope. As a result, the power of Pelor is granted and placed into his amulet. They defeat their enemies, but Bezz launches a sneak attack. Bezz plans to use Grayson's pain as ink for the book, he knew all along Grayson was the purest knight. But Akordia returns Grayson's amulet, and they manage to defeat Shathrax and his followers. Despite their feelings for each other, Akordia and Grayson part ways because of their different natures, while Bezz escapes as a cloud of insects. The cast are all lame, the film is filled mainly by inane chatter accompanied by a confusing and absurd script, and the attempts at special effects and makeup are wasted, I didn't even care about the characters or story, just as bad as the other two films, a low quality, boring and pointless medieval fantasy adventure. Poor!
Just made an account to tell how bad this movie is
mateushenry6 April 2023
The CGI is better than the first two movies, and that's the only good thing I can say about this film.
While the plot may look interesting, it's not nearly as explored and focused than the second film, or having an fun dynamic between the party members. The visuals are indeed improved, but only when talking about the animation and some of the swords. Most of the props looked even more fake than the first movie - especially the armor -. The references are there, sure, but name calling the name of a god or an item important to a franchise is the type of bait that 2012 liked to use as an cashgrab to fans of such a series.
In short: bland characters, bland plot. If your gonna watch for the boobs, please just go to a porn site, it's no worth it.
While the plot may look interesting, it's not nearly as explored and focused than the second film, or having an fun dynamic between the party members. The visuals are indeed improved, but only when talking about the animation and some of the swords. Most of the props looked even more fake than the first movie - especially the armor -. The references are there, sure, but name calling the name of a god or an item important to a franchise is the type of bait that 2012 liked to use as an cashgrab to fans of such a series.
In short: bland characters, bland plot. If your gonna watch for the boobs, please just go to a porn site, it's no worth it.
Amazingly geeky
Vartiainen17 April 2015
As someone who has played D&D for years, I can only marvel how this movie even manages to exist. It feels like someone literally took their campaign notes and used them as a script. It's not a movie inspired by roleplaying games, it's not based on any single campaign. It simply is a campaign, word for word.
And for what it is, it's amazing. The world of Dungeons & Dragons is transferred to the silver screen in all of its geeky glory. Men of might and valor set worth from their rural origins to battle great evil. Necromancers openly walk the streets, mass murdering people left and right with their black magic. Because that's what you do when you're evil. Loot is gathered, and even sold in stores, using the geekiest names imaginable. Dragons are slain, forces vanquished and damsels saved. It's glorious.
It's also stupid beyond all belief, don't get me wrong, but that's how we like it. The acting is surprisingly decent, given the budget, but it's still pretty terrible. The technical aspects show the lack of budget and the story... well, as stated, I think they simply used the campaign notes instead of writing an actual script.
This movie has a lot of "so bad it's good" value to it, especially if you're a gamer. It's bad, it's oh so bad, but it's entertaining as well. Exercise caution and bring a bowl of popcorn.
And for what it is, it's amazing. The world of Dungeons & Dragons is transferred to the silver screen in all of its geeky glory. Men of might and valor set worth from their rural origins to battle great evil. Necromancers openly walk the streets, mass murdering people left and right with their black magic. Because that's what you do when you're evil. Loot is gathered, and even sold in stores, using the geekiest names imaginable. Dragons are slain, forces vanquished and damsels saved. It's glorious.
It's also stupid beyond all belief, don't get me wrong, but that's how we like it. The acting is surprisingly decent, given the budget, but it's still pretty terrible. The technical aspects show the lack of budget and the story... well, as stated, I think they simply used the campaign notes instead of writing an actual script.
This movie has a lot of "so bad it's good" value to it, especially if you're a gamer. It's bad, it's oh so bad, but it's entertaining as well. Exercise caution and bring a bowl of popcorn.
Much better than the low averaged-rating suggests, for what it is....
goshin3414 October 2012
This is a modest-budget swords-and-sorcery fantasy based on Dungeons and Dragons... and for what it is, it is pretty good.
Don't expect Oscar winning performances, but most of the acting is acceptable and some is actually pretty good; the fellow playing the Vermin Lord does a very good job of quietly understated evil.
The effects and creatures are comparable to D&D:WOTDG (the second movie), but it moves faster and there is more action, and more variety in spell use with better imagery, and better fight scenes.
Gladly lacking the first D&D movie's lame humor and misplaced modern sensibilities about egalitarianism, and the slow-paced and stilted wordiness and failed melodrama of the second, this one is a bit more stark and grim than the others, with more actual fighting.
It is also more in line with actual D&D material, 3.5e I believe though the version I am more familiar with was new 30 years ago. :) D&D fans will enjoy it, Swords&Sorcery fans will like it, appreciating it for what it is. If you're looking for deep dialog with Johnny Depp and Julia Roberts, though, perhaps you should look elsewhere.
As for me, I was indeed entertained.
Don't expect Oscar winning performances, but most of the acting is acceptable and some is actually pretty good; the fellow playing the Vermin Lord does a very good job of quietly understated evil.
The effects and creatures are comparable to D&D:WOTDG (the second movie), but it moves faster and there is more action, and more variety in spell use with better imagery, and better fight scenes.
Gladly lacking the first D&D movie's lame humor and misplaced modern sensibilities about egalitarianism, and the slow-paced and stilted wordiness and failed melodrama of the second, this one is a bit more stark and grim than the others, with more actual fighting.
It is also more in line with actual D&D material, 3.5e I believe though the version I am more familiar with was new 30 years ago. :) D&D fans will enjoy it, Swords&Sorcery fans will like it, appreciating it for what it is. If you're looking for deep dialog with Johnny Depp and Julia Roberts, though, perhaps you should look elsewhere.
As for me, I was indeed entertained.
A racist, sexist waste of time
janehere14 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
If you haven't watched this movie, Don't do it. I did it, trusting on a positive review here, and it was a complete waste of time. Spoilers are marked on this review.
The characters were bland. The professional assassins were just sociopaths. The ONLY black person in the movie was "coincidently" the only character whose skin was all painted over. The only female character who isn't a whore, decides that one day after meeting the hero that "her body belongs to him" for his pleasure, and from then on she's just madly in love with him for no reason. This of course, was after she was the one who needed saving from a dragon, and the knight had to go save her. Not clichéd at all, of course.
*SPOILERS* The plot was so weak. If one of the Knights of the New Sun code was to not have sex, how come Grayson even exists? His father clearly broke that vow. And why would it be needed a Knight of Light's blood to make the ink for the Book of Vile Darkness? It wasn't said at any point that it had to come from a "good guy", and it'd be way more logical to come from a bad one. Was it for the irony? It just didn't make sense.
And then the move just ends with him them saying goodbye. It was badly done, it just seemed like they ran out of things to say so they called it a stop. I was expecting a conclusion made like the introduction was, telling us how Grayson destroyed or hid the book parts again, but apparently the future of the book is irrelevant for the movie called The Book of Vile Darkness.
The characters were bland. The professional assassins were just sociopaths. The ONLY black person in the movie was "coincidently" the only character whose skin was all painted over. The only female character who isn't a whore, decides that one day after meeting the hero that "her body belongs to him" for his pleasure, and from then on she's just madly in love with him for no reason. This of course, was after she was the one who needed saving from a dragon, and the knight had to go save her. Not clichéd at all, of course.
*SPOILERS* The plot was so weak. If one of the Knights of the New Sun code was to not have sex, how come Grayson even exists? His father clearly broke that vow. And why would it be needed a Knight of Light's blood to make the ink for the Book of Vile Darkness? It wasn't said at any point that it had to come from a "good guy", and it'd be way more logical to come from a bad one. Was it for the irony? It just didn't make sense.
And then the move just ends with him them saying goodbye. It was badly done, it just seemed like they ran out of things to say so they called it a stop. I was expecting a conclusion made like the introduction was, telling us how Grayson destroyed or hid the book parts again, but apparently the future of the book is irrelevant for the movie called The Book of Vile Darkness.
Surprisingly good
inkkipeipee11 November 2012
I really do not understand the low scores on this movie...
Yes, it is low budget, and yes it lacks the shine of those expensive movies...So? The plot is OK, love story is more realistic than in many many other movies, even the characters are believable. I usually find many annoyances in films, even the best ones, but whats very weird, nothing really annoyed me in this one.
I have played D&D games, and many other RPGs, but I don't think thats of any relevance, this is a decent movie for all who like these sword & magic fantasy flicks.
For a low budget movie, even the CG effects are very successful. And there's some more eye candy in the form of a Gothic hot chick ;D I had somewhat low expectations for this one, and I was very positively surprised, so 8/10 for this one, and thanks to other who have commented, wouldn't have watched it without you.
If you are into this kind of movies, try it, you might be surprised too...
Yes, it is low budget, and yes it lacks the shine of those expensive movies...So? The plot is OK, love story is more realistic than in many many other movies, even the characters are believable. I usually find many annoyances in films, even the best ones, but whats very weird, nothing really annoyed me in this one.
I have played D&D games, and many other RPGs, but I don't think thats of any relevance, this is a decent movie for all who like these sword & magic fantasy flicks.
For a low budget movie, even the CG effects are very successful. And there's some more eye candy in the form of a Gothic hot chick ;D I had somewhat low expectations for this one, and I was very positively surprised, so 8/10 for this one, and thanks to other who have commented, wouldn't have watched it without you.
If you are into this kind of movies, try it, you might be surprised too...
Better than the previous two movies...
paul_haakonsen8 October 2012
Alright, given the reviews and the ratings on IMDb for "Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness" then I was fearing the worst of this movie, especially because the prior two movies were not all that great. (Should be noted that I found the second movie "Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God" better than the first movie.) Despite the critique, bad reviews and overall poor ratings, I decided to give it a go because I am a big Dungeons & Dragons fan (been playing it for some 26 years or so), and if bad came to worse I could always turn it off and find something else to watch.
And having seen it now, I honestly do not understand the critique, the bad reviews and the general moaning there has been about this movie, because in my opinion, "Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness" picks up the prior two movies, slaps them around and then shows what D&D should be like.
In this third movie we follow a party of less than lawful-good characters here in a party out seeking the three parts of the Book of Vile Darkness. And it is refreshing to see a fantasy movie where the main characters are not goody-two-shoes. Sure, there was the devoted of Pelor (the good guy in the movie) thrown into the midst of a vermin lord, goliath, assassin and a sorceress - all of whom are less than your average lawful-good hero. So as a D&D player it was such a blast to have a group of anti-heroes starring as the main characters for a change.
This movie is a blast to anyone well traversed in the D&D universe, because there are some really great aspects to the world; such as you have your iconic D&D items - a vorpal sword (although it is beyond me why it wasn't put to use), a bag of holding, and of course the holy symbol of Pelor. But it was also really interesting to see the prestige classes such as the vermin lord and assassin brought to life on the screen. Personally I was well in favor of the vermin lord, because it was nailed right on the money as it is described in the actual Book of Vile Darkness (D&D 3.5 accessory as published by Wizards of the Coast).
The effects in the movie were actually quite alright and worked out well enough. So again, I must admit that I don't understand the moaning and complaining from other reviewers. It worked to illustrate what it was meant to do. And for fans of the D&D world (and those who own the Book of Vile Darkness 3.5 accessory) there are some really nice touches in terms of spells being used in the movie; spells that were taken right out of the rulebook.
Storywise, well the movie was pretty straight forward, fairly much like participating at a D&D gaming session, so it was alright. The story was somewhat predictable though, but still it was adequate entertainment.
Sure, "Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness" might not have had the same kind of budget and famous Hollywood actors to use as baiting in people, but the ones that they did hire for the roles did adequate jobs with their roles. Sure, it wasn't award-winning acting performances, but still it was worthwhile to watch and everyone did contribute something to the movie.
One thing that did miss from the movie was monsters. You can't really have a Dungeons & Dragons movie without brandishing off a couple of monsters. There was a red dragon, which was cool enough, although it was quite easily defeated, and being familiar with the rules of D&D, it was so strange that the dragon didn't make use of its breath weapon to defeat the 'heroes'. Then there was the undead child, which was a rather interesting creature for them to put into the movie, and the last monster was the wraith-like undead protecting the undead child. I will say that these creatures all looked alright in my opinion and worked out well enough.
If you are a fan of the Dungeons & Dragons game and were discouraged by the previous two movies which were, well, let's just say below average, then you definitely have to treat yourself to "Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness" because it is actually quite good.
I know this review is written with my pro-D&D goggles on, but I just don't see there is any leverage to the complaining and moaning that the movie has been getting. To me, this movie was enjoyable and better than the previous two D&D movies.
And having seen it now, I honestly do not understand the critique, the bad reviews and the general moaning there has been about this movie, because in my opinion, "Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness" picks up the prior two movies, slaps them around and then shows what D&D should be like.
In this third movie we follow a party of less than lawful-good characters here in a party out seeking the three parts of the Book of Vile Darkness. And it is refreshing to see a fantasy movie where the main characters are not goody-two-shoes. Sure, there was the devoted of Pelor (the good guy in the movie) thrown into the midst of a vermin lord, goliath, assassin and a sorceress - all of whom are less than your average lawful-good hero. So as a D&D player it was such a blast to have a group of anti-heroes starring as the main characters for a change.
This movie is a blast to anyone well traversed in the D&D universe, because there are some really great aspects to the world; such as you have your iconic D&D items - a vorpal sword (although it is beyond me why it wasn't put to use), a bag of holding, and of course the holy symbol of Pelor. But it was also really interesting to see the prestige classes such as the vermin lord and assassin brought to life on the screen. Personally I was well in favor of the vermin lord, because it was nailed right on the money as it is described in the actual Book of Vile Darkness (D&D 3.5 accessory as published by Wizards of the Coast).
The effects in the movie were actually quite alright and worked out well enough. So again, I must admit that I don't understand the moaning and complaining from other reviewers. It worked to illustrate what it was meant to do. And for fans of the D&D world (and those who own the Book of Vile Darkness 3.5 accessory) there are some really nice touches in terms of spells being used in the movie; spells that were taken right out of the rulebook.
Storywise, well the movie was pretty straight forward, fairly much like participating at a D&D gaming session, so it was alright. The story was somewhat predictable though, but still it was adequate entertainment.
Sure, "Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness" might not have had the same kind of budget and famous Hollywood actors to use as baiting in people, but the ones that they did hire for the roles did adequate jobs with their roles. Sure, it wasn't award-winning acting performances, but still it was worthwhile to watch and everyone did contribute something to the movie.
One thing that did miss from the movie was monsters. You can't really have a Dungeons & Dragons movie without brandishing off a couple of monsters. There was a red dragon, which was cool enough, although it was quite easily defeated, and being familiar with the rules of D&D, it was so strange that the dragon didn't make use of its breath weapon to defeat the 'heroes'. Then there was the undead child, which was a rather interesting creature for them to put into the movie, and the last monster was the wraith-like undead protecting the undead child. I will say that these creatures all looked alright in my opinion and worked out well enough.
If you are a fan of the Dungeons & Dragons game and were discouraged by the previous two movies which were, well, let's just say below average, then you definitely have to treat yourself to "Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness" because it is actually quite good.
I know this review is written with my pro-D&D goggles on, but I just don't see there is any leverage to the complaining and moaning that the movie has been getting. To me, this movie was enjoyable and better than the previous two D&D movies.
Absolutely the worst one
saelwen-e5 December 2021
The other two were enjoyably bad, this is just.. bad all around. The story, the dialogue, the characters. No one is enjoyable, least of all the only female character. The only one with any good lines was evil bug boy, which is why I gave this two whole stars.
Dungeons & Dragons 3 (2012) The best of the trilogy?
claszdsburrogato13 July 2023
Some trilogies become cinema classics and over the years are very remembered, but this is obviously not the case with Dungeons & Dragons. Not only were the previous two films bad, they also became the worst D&D film adaptations. However, will the third film manage to improve on this? It pains me to say this, but they almost did it. Some visuals are pretty cool and this darker tone than the previous ones was very interesting. The problem is that there is no emotion in any of the events. The deaths, the fights, the story, nothing has any kind of effect on the viewer. Besides being a horrible movie, it still manages to make you feel nothing. It's not worse than the first one, but it's almost on its level, mainly because of the ending that ends out of nowhere.
Pretty Good, especially compared to the Previous Movies
melacantra21 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Just watched the movie, after having forgotten all about mildly wanting to see it at some point. I'm glad I didn't have high expectations.
That said, it was pretty good. Really cool, with the hero going undercover with a group of bad guys. A question or two still remains: -Why the Pelor monolith 'rejects' him -And if the Vermin Guy had that scheme all along, why didn't he just capture him in the beginning. Still, the movie was good, if not great. The first Dungeons and Dragons movie was completely embarrassing. The second was a decent movie, although the characters seemed a bit generic. This third movie had characters with more personality. Although a bit lacking in monsters, in other respects, it actually felt like a DnD game.
The ending seemed anti-climactic. I would have liked to see more of a fight with the big bad guy.
That said, it was pretty good. Really cool, with the hero going undercover with a group of bad guys. A question or two still remains: -Why the Pelor monolith 'rejects' him -And if the Vermin Guy had that scheme all along, why didn't he just capture him in the beginning. Still, the movie was good, if not great. The first Dungeons and Dragons movie was completely embarrassing. The second was a decent movie, although the characters seemed a bit generic. This third movie had characters with more personality. Although a bit lacking in monsters, in other respects, it actually felt like a DnD game.
The ending seemed anti-climactic. I would have liked to see more of a fight with the big bad guy.
Low budget fun fest
mattiasahlberg16 October 2012
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.
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.
pleasant surprise
redhighlander26 November 2012
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. :-)
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. :-)
The darkest and most sinister D&D flick yet
Wuchakk30 April 2019
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-
"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-
Average movie; VASTLY better than the previous two
paddymew28 November 2012
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.
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.
This wasn't bad at all, actually rather good, in fact.
planchannel725 November 2012
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.
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.
By far and away the best of the Dungeons & Dragons movies, and the only one that is halfway decent
TheLittleSongbird11 July 2014
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
Better than Expected
mtyeo3 April 2023
I watched the three DnD movie 'preamble' with my girlfriend to lead into the opening day of the new DnD movie and this was the last of the three movies that came out out between 2000 and 2012.
The general plot is that one of the worst evil artifacts in the DnD game, the Book of Vile Darkness, is being re-assembled from three parts, centuries after having been broken up and hidden to keep it safe.
The bad guys have one of the three pieces (the pages) already, but in the intervening centuries, the ink for the book has been found and destroyed, so new ink must be created. Due to the nature of the book, it must come in the form of the anguished blood of a truly honorable man. The protagonist's father, a Knight of the New Sun, a knightly order devoted to the God of the Sun, Pelor, is that man. He is kidnapped early in the movie, destined to be drained dry by the forces of evil.
His son attempts to find him and reach him, in order to effect a rescue, but in order to do so, he must join with a band of evil mercenaries, who have been recruited to make an attempt for the third piece of the book, the cover. The movie follows him as he attempts to join the group and pass himself off as evil, in order to follow them to where his father is being held.
The acting isn't fantastic and there's some mild over emoting by most of the core cast, but the writing was actually better than the Hollywood average these days, surprisingly. The ethos and motives of each of the four evil mercenaries is explored, and you can see why they do what they do. Competent acting and decent writing make a better than expected tale, and what it really lacked was money for better costuming and effects, and some decent promotion.
Barry Aird as Bezz, a Vermin Lord wizard that's one of the four evil mercenaries, is a bit of a treat, and steals a lot of the scenes he's in with his pithy commentary about life and reality. You can sense that he's operating on another level than the rest of the cast.
Generally speaking, there's more here for fans of DnD (and in particular The Forgotten Realms setting) than general fans of fantasy, though there's so much overlap in that Venn diagram that most fantasy fans will probably find themselves at least somewhat entertained.
Shame it's so hard to find! With is being direct to DVD in the first place, only distributed in Europe, and the distributor going under in 2018, that I could even find a copy via the Internet Archive is amazing.
The general plot is that one of the worst evil artifacts in the DnD game, the Book of Vile Darkness, is being re-assembled from three parts, centuries after having been broken up and hidden to keep it safe.
The bad guys have one of the three pieces (the pages) already, but in the intervening centuries, the ink for the book has been found and destroyed, so new ink must be created. Due to the nature of the book, it must come in the form of the anguished blood of a truly honorable man. The protagonist's father, a Knight of the New Sun, a knightly order devoted to the God of the Sun, Pelor, is that man. He is kidnapped early in the movie, destined to be drained dry by the forces of evil.
His son attempts to find him and reach him, in order to effect a rescue, but in order to do so, he must join with a band of evil mercenaries, who have been recruited to make an attempt for the third piece of the book, the cover. The movie follows him as he attempts to join the group and pass himself off as evil, in order to follow them to where his father is being held.
The acting isn't fantastic and there's some mild over emoting by most of the core cast, but the writing was actually better than the Hollywood average these days, surprisingly. The ethos and motives of each of the four evil mercenaries is explored, and you can see why they do what they do. Competent acting and decent writing make a better than expected tale, and what it really lacked was money for better costuming and effects, and some decent promotion.
Barry Aird as Bezz, a Vermin Lord wizard that's one of the four evil mercenaries, is a bit of a treat, and steals a lot of the scenes he's in with his pithy commentary about life and reality. You can sense that he's operating on another level than the rest of the cast.
Generally speaking, there's more here for fans of DnD (and in particular The Forgotten Realms setting) than general fans of fantasy, though there's so much overlap in that Venn diagram that most fantasy fans will probably find themselves at least somewhat entertained.
Shame it's so hard to find! With is being direct to DVD in the first place, only distributed in Europe, and the distributor going under in 2018, that I could even find a copy via the Internet Archive is amazing.
Decent for the Rpg'ers-Pretty lame for the rest.
Occultslayer7 October 2012
If you are NOT an RPG player and a DnD fan you should seriously not watch this movie,On the other hand if you ARE a DnD fan then it's worth your while. Keep in mind it's a low budget movie but its much better than the 2 previous ones.You can actually see people LOOT the corpses after battles and the spells used are truly recognizable if you have played DnD 3.5
As i said don't expect anything special but for a fan of this genre that's into Dungeons and Dragons universe it will be an enjoyable movie.
Acting is more than OK on a couple of Characters but pretty bad on the main guy.
For the people unfamiliar with Dungeons and Dragons the rating should be like 2/10 so don't waste your time.
As i said don't expect anything special but for a fan of this genre that's into Dungeons and Dragons universe it will be an enjoyable movie.
Acting is more than OK on a couple of Characters but pretty bad on the main guy.
For the people unfamiliar with Dungeons and Dragons the rating should be like 2/10 so don't waste your time.
Great for D & D fans
mc1200017 June 2013
This low budget title is the third film of the D & D series. In terms of budget, storyline and effects it matches what we got with the second title. I would probably compare it with Armageddon 2 as the style is a close match.
The acting is not great but not terrible either. The plot and formula is very loyal to the D & D world, and it was cute to see some stereotypical elements being thrown in :) The lead actor makes for a perfect Paladin, and the rest of the characters portrayed their D & D roles quite faultlessly.
The ending could have been better and could actually have been engineered for a sequel.
The acting is not great but not terrible either. The plot and formula is very loyal to the D & D world, and it was cute to see some stereotypical elements being thrown in :) The lead actor makes for a perfect Paladin, and the rest of the characters portrayed their D & D roles quite faultlessly.
The ending could have been better and could actually have been engineered for a sequel.
Not a bad movie at all
HayesXII12 February 2014
I liked this movie a lot more then I thought I would. I've been a D&D enthusiast for many years so I might be somewhat biased but trust me, like you, I think I have an idea of what makes a bad movie. Terrible wooden acting...well, we can check that off because the people in this movie can act and could only be held back by their respective scripts and/or directors. Cinematography is thought out and enhances the movie well enough. I also liked the costumes and while acceptable I think Bezz's make-up could have been done a little bit better. Many D&D references were threw out without being totally obvious and it really added to the lore. This is not your average sci-fi channel garbage. Groundbreaking it is not. But, what it does it does well. Acceptable script, capable actors, decent costumes and good cinematography in a genre that is starved for something even half-way decent. Thank you to everyone involved in this movie. I give this movie a solid 7. But, most importantly its in my personal collection.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
