Created by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, Dungeons & Dragons (2000) set the standard for generations of role-playing games regardless of their format. Make no mistake, if it wasn’t for Dungeons & Dragons, we wouldn’t have video games like Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, or the World of Warcraft franchise. Although the game inspired plenty of sword and sorcery films (and the fear-mongering television film Mazes and Monsters starring Tom Hanks), it took ages for a film bearing the title Dungeons & Dragons to be released. Unfortunately, the one we got was universally panned and is commonly considered to be a truly terrible film.
MOVIEWEB VIDEO OF THE DAY
23 years later, and we are finally getting a new big-screen adventure inspired by the classic tabletop game titled Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves. Starring big names like Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez, and Hugh Grant, the film looks to inject a lot of self-aware fun and adventure into its story in order to tell a bigger, more crowd-pleasing story than its predecessor. While this is undoubtedly an exciting prospect, it does raise the question if the 2000 film really as bad as everyone remembers. The short answer is yes, but the full answer is slightly more complicated and interesting. Since we’ve had over two decades to reflect on that first film, is it possible that time has made it slightly better? We discuss that idea in detail below.
Proper Context for Dungeons & Dragons (2000)
New Line Cinema
When discussing how time may have changed one’s point of view of Dungeons & Dragons, it’s important to understand the time in which it was released. By now, we’ve seen not one but two blockbuster trilogies and a prestige streaming series based on the work of J.R.R. Tolkien (The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and The Rings of Power, respectively), two HBO dramas based on novels written by George R. R. Martin, not to mention The Witcher on Netflix, Willow on Disney+, and a series set in the world of The Dark Crystal. When it comes to major studios producing high-quality epic and heroic fantasy, we’re spoiled for choice. Looking back on Dungeons & Dragons (2000), one can almost view it as a quaint attempt to test the waters for the immersive entertainment we’re enjoying today. It was released one year before both Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings brought this kind of entertainment to the mainstream. Had this been the last piece of fantasy filmmaking to ever be released, it would be easier to still hate it, but since we’ve had so much great work to devour since, we can forgive its faults.
Getting to the Point
Thanks to the incredible worlds in which they’re set, fantasy usually requires a great deal of time to establish who everyone is and how they operate for the audience. That’s why Lord of the Rings begins with a massive prologue setting up the history and importance of the Rings of Power before easing us down in Hobbiton to acclimate ourselves. If you have a world and story as rich as the one created by Tolkien, that’s fine, but when it’s just your run-of-the-mill adventure story, taking forever to get the plot moving can be a grating experience. Say what you will about the plot of Dungeons & Dragons, but at least it never stops moving. Within the first few minutes, you know who the villain is, what he wants, and why he wants it, and you know the same goes for the heroes. They may be one-dimensional and cliché, but you get what’s going on. This is one aspect we can appreciate now since there have been plenty of fantasy titles that insisted on dragging their feet. Therefore, Dungeons & Dragons is kind of a nice change of pace.
A Classic Adventure Score
If there’s any tension, excitement, or suspense to be found in Dungeons & Dragons, it’s probably thanks to the score composed by Justin Caine Burnett. While there may not be a single theme you remember from the film, the music provides every scene with the proper atmosphere needed to keep the story engaging. That may sound like damning with faint praise, but when the score could have easily been generic, public domain filler, you can’t help but appreciate the swashbuckling energy the music brings to the proceedings. It may not rank up there with the work of John Williams, Howard Shore, or Jerry Goldsmith, but it doesn’t have to be, which is another realization that comes with age: not everything needs to be the greatest thing ever. Sometimes, it’s nice when a thing is just plain effective, which Burnett’s score is.
A Step Towards Diversity
One of the drawbacks to having so much fantasy entertainment to choose from is the angry and territorial fans who feel the need to ridicule and spread hate speech over any casting choices that don’t conform to their personal standard of what a character should look like. While these days we have trolls sounding off because there are a few characters in House of the Dragon and Rings of Power who have different skin colors than the ones they’re used to, that kind of hateful bile didn’t make its way into public discourse the way it does now. Sure, there were probably hardcore Dungeons & Dragons fanatics who were upset that Damon Wayans and others who don’t look like white Europeans (despite the fact that it takes place in a fictional world) were cast, but the only mainstream discussion of the film’s faults (if there was any) most likely centered around everything other than the casting. For modern viewers revisiting the 2000 film, it can be interesting to imagine (or remember) a time when no one accused an actor of color portraying an elf as some kind of political agenda.
Tom Baker Is in It
Although the iconic UK sci-fi series Doctor Who was shown on PBS stations in the United States during the 70s and 80s, its American fanbase was minuscule compared to the one it enjoys today. To a certain degree, it can be argued that the pinnacle of the show’s success in the states at the time occurred during Tom Baker’s era, which lasted from 1974 to 1981, making him the definitive Doctor for decades. When Dungeons & Dragons was released, the show had yet to have its extremely successful rebirth in 2005. Therefore, it’s very possible that his small appearance in the film went unnoticed by the majority of American viewers. Since the show has been back on the air, millions of modern fans have taken the time to revisit classic Doctors and discover the mad brilliance of Baker’s performance. Thus, when watching the film again with fresh eyes, the fact that one of the greatest Doctors in history makes an appearance offers a subtle level of enjoyment that may not have been there originally.
So Bad It’s…Not Boring?
If you paid good money to go out on a Friday night to see Dungeons & Dragons back in 2000, no one would blame you for being upset. Before streaming, we all had to be selective about the media we devoted our time to because if it was bad that meant we weren’t watching something good and our time has been wasted, and it might be a few weeks before a new movie you want to see comes out. With the advent of on-demand movies and television, audiences are in control of what they watch at all times. We don’t necessarily hate a movie for being bad because we can turn around and watch something great right after, or shut it off and watch something else right away if it’s boring. With that perspective, it’s much easier to embrace and celebrate everything that makes Dungeons & Dragons so bad. From Jeremy Irons’ unhinged performance, all the predictable plot elements and cliché dialogue are kind of fun now. Perhaps the phrase “so bad, it’s good” doesn’t completely fit this movie, but at least it’s never boring and that’s something we can appreciate more than we could have over 20 years ago.
