Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

Well who'd of thought a film about a theme park ride would become so huge. A simple theme park attraction that I rode when I was but a wee nipper in Disney World Florida, and it wasn't that amazing if I recall. So Verbinski and Bruckheimer take many ideas and leafs out of the video game The Secret of Monkey Island and low and behold we have our pirate flick.

Tis the year of our lord errr...the late 17th Century, or possibly the early 18th Century, not too sure, but plundering be a plenty! The crew of the Black Pearl are after cursed treasure and the blood of the last remaining pirate so they can break the curse put upon them for stealing the cursed gold in the first place. Unfortunately the last pirate is dead (cos they killed him) so they need his offspring instead, in the mean time Captain Jack Sparrow is wanting his beloved vessel back under his control.

The plot is actually kinda fiddly methinks and even now I'm having to wrap my head around exactly why and how things happen. So the Aztec gold is cursed and that curse turns the pirates into the undead, skeletal warriors that are unable to be killed. Now is that really a curse? These guys are pirates, they live a life of danger and plundering, surely being immortal and invincible would be really handy traits to have no? I don't really understand why these guys wanna break the curse so badly and make themselves vulnerable to death which inevitably awaits them at every turn. Especially with the whole British Navy after them all the time.

There are many little quibbles I have with the plot really, in all the battle sequences the good guys fight the pirates, but what for?? They can't win, the pirates can't be killed, it just seems so pointless to me. To break the curse all the pirates that stole the gold need to put their blood back into the chest along with all the gold...I think, yet that isn't made clear. You tend to think its just the offspring of Bootstrap Bill, this is why Sparrow wipes his blood on the coin in the end which I never clicked on. That leads me to the other point or mistake that Barbossa is shot by Sparrow before Turner drops the last blood soaked coin into the chest. So doesn't that mean that at the exact moment he was shot he was still cursed and invincible? Thusly he should have survived that bullet. The coin should of been in the chest before Barbossa was shot surely.

Quibbles aside the film is actually a rollicking good adventure the likes of which hadn't been seen for some time. In the good old fashioned tradition of Errol Flynn swashbucklers by jove. I can't deny that the film is tremendous fun enhanced of course by the campy performance of Depp which came straight out of left field. No one really expected what Depp came up with and it was really fresh! The film could so easily have become a stuffy straight laced predictable action romp ('Cutthroat Island' anyone?) but the inclusion of Depp's Sparrow really gave a different angle. You have the obligatory hero in Bloom and of course the damsel in distress with Knightly but Sparrow was such a unique character giving such a quirky boost to the traditional proceedings.

On top of that was the inclusion of a vast array of really decent pirate characters both good and bad from all sorts of ethnic backgrounds. This not only gave the film a nice comic book-esque feel but also actual realism as of course pirates of the day were a scurvy bunch from all over, pirates were pretty politically correct and hired anyone. I personally liked Mr Cotton and his parrot in the traditional sense there. Ragetti and Pintel are a classic slapstick duo of baddie pirates that amuse nicely. Whilst Kevin McNally as Gibbs gives us another traditional approach with lots of golden pirate dialog that I think stems from Robert Newton and Disney's 1966 Treasure Island film.

Gotta give kudos to the makeup and costume designs for the pirates, they really do look completely unwashed. Their teeth, facial hair, coarse knotted looking head hair, even their eyes, it all looks really authentic. Naturally Sparrow isn't quite as scruffy as the rest but his attire is definitely more effeminate which is funny, more so with his body language. Oh and Barbossa...Soul Calibur the movie much? Cervantes if you ask me, just running that up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes it.

In all honesty there are so many good characters in this film its hard to narrow them all down. Then you have the typical type of visuals that you'd think Tim Burton had a hand in, excellent dark atmospheric sequences and shots including dark misty seascapes, fog bound galleons, the yellow glow of light from a cross hatched window pane breaking through the gloomy night, skeleton pirates in the moonlight, bleak islands by night etc...Then on the flip side there are the gorgeous daylight visuals of the British ports, sandy beaches, palm trees, galleons and various other vessels harbouring against tropical settings etc...its all here. Everything you'd expect to see and everything you want to see in a good old fashioned pirate film.

I can see why the film expected to bomb as its one of those dodgy types of genres, but from the offset you can see the quality of detail on display. Everything really looks top dollar all the way through the film but amazingly the film has such a good range of characters (which is unusual lets be honest) it really doesn't matter. For once a Hollywood blockbuster actually got it right and gave us something other than flashy special effects, they gave us good fun characters we care about...to a degree. Also the special effects aren't all CGI which is one for the books (skeletons aside), a lot of the action is using real sets, real explosions, real stunts and in real locations which really does make all the difference, just like in the good old days.

The actual pirate skeletons still look OK but of course feel a bit dated these days. The CGI can't be hidden with these guys and it is obvious, that inescapable fake plastic feel about them. Should have used stop motion I reckon.

To this day I still can't believe this summer blockbuster managed to do what the creators set out to do. To make a film harking back to the days of the silver screen, the golden age of Hollywood and at the same time use traditional real time effects without much use of CGI (what they did use was sensibly done, sparingly). They took an Errol Flynn swashbuckler added some nice touches of humour, a little modern action here and there, a dash of good old fashioned sea tales/myths and cranked up the location visuals to produce a top adventure. If only the plot had been a little clearer in places. Gotta love the film title though huh.

7/10

Evil Dead (2013)

A reboot of the very original Evil Dead film which was rebooted once already with 'Evil Dead II', so this is the second reboot. Major changes are afoot this time round as the comedy is out, kicked to the curb, Bruce Campbell's 'Ash' is also out, Raimi is replaced and of course the plot has been tinkered with slightly.

Apart from a few changes here and there the plot is basically the same. Group of young adults stay in a broken down old cabin in the depth of some creepy woods. One accidentally unleashes the evil demons that dwell within the woods and they are drawn into a bloody game of staying alive. Question is which character will be the new hero? or will there be one at all?

So the big change here is of course the direction for the film as a whole, no more daft effects, no more goofy moments of schlock, no more slapstick...its all very serious. Does this change please a fan like me? Well yes and no. I adored the comedy aspect of the original errr...sequels, horror comedy is a fantastic genre that seems to work so well. When I found out this aspect would be taken away I was disappointed and worried, Evil Dead is horror comedy much like 'An American Werewolf in London'. I won't beat around the bush, this film does work in a serious manner, and I was surprised truth be told. That said I'm not sure I liked it outright.

Thing is why do this? The original films are classic and I'm sure another sequel would have been terrific and much anticipated. Now we know they are doing 'Army of Darkness 2' (aka Evil Dead 4) so again I must ask, why do this? The serious switch does work but it does come across as unoriginal in terms of visuals...and yes I know you must expect that with a remake. What I mean is the glossy, slick, shiny, sharp visuals just don't fit this franchise in my view. The gore effects are excellent and do enhance the film no doubt but it just looked like many other previous big name reboots (you know the ones). That is what set the franchise apart, the shoddy tacky visuals, without them it loses its appeal somewhat and just falls in line with every other gore/torture porn horror flick.

A good example would be at the start when the group enters the cabin and discovers the basement full of hanging dead animals. This whole intro sequence just felt like a complete rip off from various films like 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre', the sequence just made me think I've seen this before, I've been here before, why is this in here?

I know this debate is kinda old now but it is an important issue as a fan and I just can't ignore it. So yes the serious real horror approach is solid, but its not Evil Dead for me, it didn't feel right. On the whole the film does look good and it is recognisable, as said the gore effects are very good, but why lose that classic Raimi demonic look? The new CGI (?) eyes on the possessed characters looked awful, like something outta 'Lord of the Rings', it wasn't anywhere near as eerie as the all white eyes previously.

I also thought there were a bit too many self mutilations going on, I don't think the possessed really needed to do that, it felt cheap, easy shock tactics. I much preferred the full mask type look in the previous films where characters tended to look more like mutant witches. There were some really nice moments of looming dread though, some moments where you really did wonder how on earth the living characters would get outta this pickle. Some of the undead attacks were nasty, the syringe attack was a particularly wincing little sequence as was the nail gun sequence. I gotta admit I was never really sure which of the characters (if any) would make it to the end and be our new Ash...or equivalent of sorts (although I did suspect a gender change naturally).

Some things didn't add up to me either. It is said you can free someone from possession by killing them, this tends to indicate that a dead body can't be possessed or simply isn't for whatever reason. Yet one dead character is possessed which felt like a contradiction. This leads me to the fact they bury one character 'alive' (or while possessed) to 'kill' her so the demon leaves her body. But these possessed bodies seem pretty invincible when a demon inhabits them, bullets, knives, boiling water etc...doesn't stop them, so why would simply burying them do it? Lastly, the small sequence where the last male character has his little A-Team moment and builds a defibrillator from odd bits and bobs hanging around to revive a dead character. Yeah its possible I'm sure and he could have the medical knowledge but it just seemed a bit too far at the time. Of all the madness and gore splattering going on that was one moment that just felt too silly to me.

I can't leave it at that though, the ending was an anti climax in my opinion. I read about the chainsaw ending and how it was suppose to be an awesome rock show of body chopping and blood. So as we loomed up to it I was thinking lots of demons popping up for a good chainsaw battle, a huge alpha demon? Maybe going down the crazy ass classic route a bit just for the crossover possibilities...no. The finale was average at best, the big 'Abomination' was a damp squib and was easily dispatched with the whirring chainsaw of death.

So its very 50/50 for me, I liked the new approach, it is a good film, but it just didn't really feel like Evil Dead to me. I knew what to expect and I knew there would be modern day cliches and idea ripping (as usual) and I got exactly that. A good horror film in its own right, one of the better remakes for sure, but its not The Evil Dead even though I knew it wasn't meant to be exactly the same, its still hard to accept it with the same title.

They don't half go overboard with the hand chopping though. I know its obviously a homage to the sequels but sheesh! Take it easy guys, no need to cram the fact down our throats, we get it.

Stay to the very end of the credits for a kick ass surprise.

6.5/10

My Name is Bruce (2007)

Directed co-produced and starring the main man Bruce Campbell, judging by the title and the whole premise of the film would you say this is a vanity project? Well I kinda think it is really and whether you actually like the film or not depends completely on your personal preference to Mr Campbell.

The plot is as old as the hills, a parody comedy on Campbell himself. BC plays an over the top unlikable version of himself, a big movie star fallen from grace and eking out an existence in B-movie trash, but not popular B-movie trash. He is brought to a small town to help them defeat a supernatural problem involving a Chinese demon. Of course everyone thinks BC is the brave hero he is in his movies, but alas he's a selfish coward.

The concept is nice but overused, it really is. The idea that Bruce plays a narcissistic big headed coward who is nothing like his film persona is also a nice idea...but again totally overused. The majority of this film is merely showing how much of an asshole Bruce's character is, mocking what he obviously goes through in his daily life with fanboys and movie producers plus parodying his schlock horror film career. So yes BC can have a laugh at himself it seems which is good but at the same time you do feel the whole thing is a tad of an ego trip. You may as well of called the film 'Bruce Campbell: The Ultimate B-Movie Action Hero'...as that's almost what its implying. Yep its probably true but really?

The other thing is nothing really happens in the film, its not really very exciting or fun. Sure there is some decapitations and blood and the odd bit of amusing dialog but its really quite dull. Its not helped by the unadventurous sets and location which all seem so...not eerie. Its obviously meant to be along the lines of previous BC films with a low budget and cheesy effects, mocking the Evil Dead franchise mainly, but it just looks so bland. All you get is the odd swirl of mist here and there.

Then there is the demon, a big samurai demon even though he's suppose to be Chinese? This guy looks like a ghostie from the Scooby Doo live action films! really he just looks lame. Yes again he's not meant to be a top of the range boogeyman with excellent makeup and costume but I just feel more could of been done to up the anti a bit. I mean it really does feel like a live action Scooby Doo flick half the time, could of at least had some more harsh language guys.

The finale of the film does show us why everything does look as it does this is true, but I don't really like that twist honestly. Feels like a cop out when it could of been a straighter parody with BC being the douchebag and having a real adventure to cope with. In the end it just kinda feels like a waste of time with nothing much happening and another cult franchise for Campbell to lap up and take all the glory with. I do like the guy but this film just feels too self indulgent for me truth be told, regurgitating all his best one liners over and over. I know that's part of the parody but it feels excessive. Could of been a great spooky comedy but its very tepid at best.

4/10

Army of Darkness (1992)

I remember very clearly when I saw this film on the shelves at my local videoshop all those years ago. The films poster/art cover looked a bit scruffy, there was only one lone copy and I recall thinking to myself what tacky cheesy B-movie guff it looked like. It kinda looked like a grotty seedy rip off of 'Willow'.

Following straight on from 'Evil Dead II' we now find Ash in medieval times, an age of knights and Kings...for some reason. Yep Ash crash lands in 1300 AD which I'm guessing is in our past? Not an alternative dimension or anything I presume? Not overly sure about that one as it clearly isn't the rolling hills of merry olde England, although the King or Lord is called Arthur but that's not the King Arthur, so perhaps an alternate Arthur or maybe just a less heard about Arthur. The time period isn't accurate either or even close but maybe I'm just delving a little too deep here.

Of course the main reason why the land looks as it does is probably down to the fact Raimi and co couldn't afford to actually go to England and film there...if its suppose to be medieval England that is. This leads me to my first tiny issue I have with this film, the era/setting and visual effects used. I do like the setting ideas and the dark middle ages type approach but it also does tend to invite the cheapness to shine through on occasion. The reason for this I think is because some of the film is in daylight and it just doesn't look as it should, its not dark obviously, not eerie or creepy...its errr daylight. It highlights the joins in the special effects as it were.

The other issue I had with the film was the fact it looked too cheap in places for me. We all know the film/franchise is suppose to be a low budget schlocky affair but over the course of the three films the budget got better and so should the effects to a degree. You look at 'Evil Dead II' and its cheesy as fuck, but the effects still have a great look about them in that classic 80's tradition, looks both good and bad at the same time. This film at times does look really really cheap, maybe a bit too cheap. The skeleton hordes at the end are just extras in basic costumes with plastic skeleton bits stuck on them, really didn't like that. A sequence where Ash is fighting skeleton warriors, the skeletons are clearly just being thrown at him one by one by crew members...actually it is a deliberately hilarious little moment.

Some of the effects are a sheer joy to watch, use of classic stop motion animation on some of the skeletons and a bit on Ash look terrific. Its just a shame all the skeletons couldn't be stop motion, a big stop motion battle at the end. Like the previous film effects are covered by every trick in the book, some glorious makeup jobs, masks and prosthetics alongside some ultra hammy bluescreen work on the mini Ash creations. Loved Evil Ash's design and makeup job, really top notch work there, when Ash splits in two is a brilliant sequence as we see the crazed delirious Ash running wildly through the misty moonlit night, loved the sets for most night scenes and the odd deadites we saw had that classic Raimi look about them, nice.

In this film Ash has also completely converted into a fully fledged iconic fantasy hero with his chainsaw hand and shotgun. The character has the look of a comic book character and is totally different to previous incarnations in the last two films. This is bolstered by the snappy dialog, quickfire quips, plenty of hero posing with the shotgun, a bit more muscle on show and the classic damsel in distress to save. I do like this aspect very much but at the same time I felt it got a little bit out of hand at times much like the overall comedy aspect.

'Gimme some sugar, baby'

There are moments where I really wince because its just too goofy, when Ash is getting some Three Stooges treatment from the skeletal hands coming up from their graves is one such example. Another is when Ash has two heads and we get more Three Stooges tomfoolery, was that really needed? Also there are odd bits of dialog from the bad guys which have been edited in and are just too silly for me, that and some really hokey skeleton prop moments...yikes!

Another discussion builder is the two ending sequences, which do you prefer? Myself I'm not sure, I liked the apocalyptic ending but I don't really get how that is suppose to have happened. Its a bit of a Tim Burton 'Planet of the Apes' ending that one, makes no real sense. So I guess I must go with the cornball ending where Ash becomes or continues on as a one liner spewing, shotgun wielding demon/deadite slayer. I think that ending does fit more inline with the character and plot. All those cool one liners do feel very much like a precursor to 'Bubba Ho-Tep' if you ask me.

'Hail to the king, baby'

I tend to think of this film as a twisted Harryhausen flick, a dark surreal vision of his work, just a different spin. It is an oddity indeed, its not really horror, not scary at all, its outright fantasy really, much like 'Krull' 'The Beastmaster' or 'The Princess Bride'. The film is such a drastic move away from the original concepts of the first two films its quite unusual. I do like the film very much, its a great little dark bizarre fairytale of sorts but I just don't think it fits in with the Evil Dead franchise really, its so different from the first two. Great to get away from the cabin location of course, the grim medieval setting is fine and the dark humour is fine...I just feel a bit more gore, a little less slapstick and maybe a touch more jumpy in the horror department and it would have been perfect.

7.5/10

Evil Dead II (1987)

Sam Raimi already gave us one of the most iconic horror films ever devised by man so what does he do next? He gives us the sequel which is even more iconic than the previous film! 'Gimme some sugar baby'...oh wait that's the third most iconic horror film ever.

So up to a few years ago I was a little confused by this sequel. The plot appears to show Ash venturing back up to a remote cabin with another girlfriend, was this the original cabin or a completely new one? I asked myself. As things progress (very quickly) Ash discovers yet another recorder which he plays and inadvertently sets the dark demonic forces free again. It was at this point I was thinking why on earth Ash would do that? Didn't he learn from his first cabin experience? And when you think about it why the hell would he go back to a remote cabin?! Dude seriously!

Twas then I found out that this sequel is actually a reboot of the first film, yet Raimi called it Evil Dead 2 as though its a continuation of the first. The plot is exactly the same as the first film because its a remake basically, a remake with better effects, more action and less build up...essentially more game time. Ash is even wearing the same outfit he had on in the first film! So yes that is a bit confusing if you're not in the know but somehow it doesn't matter, the film is so damn fun you let it slide. Myself I think he should of avoided the 2 in the title and tried to make it follow the first but hey.

As I said there's no messing around in this film, no sooner has Ash arrived at the cabin he's released the demons and all hell is breaking loose. This is good as we know the basic outline from the first film, everybody simply wanted to see more of Ash kicking undead ass. And that is exactly what we get with much sweeter looking effects.

The effects are much the same type of thing as in the first but due to success and extra mula they are simply better. Of course by today's standards they aren't that good, a bit basic, any fresh faced kids are gonna laugh at most of it truth be told. But again its the old adage that with little money and tech you've gotta work to make your film look good. You've gotta be inventive and once again Raimi and co excel with their visuals. A nice blend of classic makeup, mask work, models, stop motion, bluescreen, miniatures, puppets etc...the full gamut of special effects to bring every creature alive in the best possible way.

Personally I loved the sequence where Linda's corpse rises from the grave and then dances around in the swirling bleak mist as Ash watches in horror from the cabin. The whole scene is using classic stop motion and even though it of course looks a bit hokey the atmosphere is just so flippin eerie. It could almost be a Tim Burton moment. There is so much to enjoy here, chock full of tasty visual kookiness, the severed hand that scrambles around, the excellent possessed makeup jobs on the survivors, Campbell especially, and then there's the huge demon head/face thing at the end. Corny as hell but so much fun.

Its also no secret that this sequel was taken down the horror comedy route. The first film was suppose to be an all out horror but this started down that surreal goofy route which has now become so legendary. Not for the most part though, most of the film is still very dark, some of the demonic sequences are clearly more slapstick but its still evil looking. Its only when the last female survivor crafts Ash's chainsaw onto his bloody stump along with his shoulder mounted shotgun do we finally cross over fully into the comic book/graphic novel genre. Its at this moment that Ash becomes a superhero of sorts and enters into the world of merchandise.

Does this mood swing cause any problems? No, no it doesn't, in fact it just makes the film even more awesome and gives it a whole new scope. We go from classic horror gore with Ash being the victim in all manner of slapstick tomfoolery, to action man gore and violence with the start of ice cool witty quips and full on hero posing.

It is strange how this franchise developed no doubt about that, plus the oddity of rebooting/remaking his first film virtually scene by scene and calling it a sequel. Like the first its not really scary but this time it was never meant to be scary, its a wild ride bordering on fantasy that happens to have a lot of blood and goo. Its one of those perfect 'sequels' where everything is just right, it all works...even the bits that kinda don't work, work. There are moments of great horror and moments that are almost childish in nature, you could even say its a satire of certain grotty horrors. End of the day Campbell can simply make these things work.

No excuses here, its a balls to the wall, hyper demonic blood n ooze frenzy with typically gritty low budget ferocity and absurd creations. A completely cheesy turbo charged B-movie of diabolically hellish proportions, you wanted it you got it...and its groovy baby.

10/10
                                                                                                                                                                 

The Evil Dead (1981)

The biggest cult film ever? Well maybe. Back in the good old days of the 80's this film was seen as the biggest splatter fest flick ever here in the UK, it was banned in some countries and labelled the number one video nasty, top of the hit list. There was just no way in heaven or hell you would get to see this as a kid back in the day, it was just as bad as porn...if not worse! Will someone please think of the children!!

Well those days are long gone now and the film is looked upon as jokey and tame! A horror comedy with an iconic central character and bucket loads of hammy gory visuals. What is interesting for me is the fact this first film wasn't suppose to be a horror comedy, its not a horror comedy at all. Its only since the sequels that the franchise kinda leaned that way, this film was an all out horror which was suppose to scare people, and back in the day it did just that.

The main hook with this film is obviously the effects, its a horror film, ergo its effects are the main crux. The effects in this film are in places bad, they look cheesy, badly animated with dodgy editing. But the key thing to remember is this was because of budget restrains and limits on technology...but mainly lack of money. All the effects were made as best as they could make them, using every penny, every drop of fake blood, every piece of material gathered and utilising as much imagination as possible in both camera usage and illusion.

This ultimately makes the effects terrific despite the fact they do look very dated and highly dubious now. The films visuals are a success because of the fact Raimi and co had to be creative to get them done, they had to think out of the box with little money. This is why some older films work so well as they couldn't just sit back and rely on CGI to do it all for them, they had to really work and show real craftsmanship to make it work. All the blood, bone and goo may look corny in places but its real, its really there and basically that will always look better than CGI.

Of course back in the day the effects were seen as reasonable slick to a degree but still hokey, they weren't groundbreaking by any means. But the flair, creativity, ingenuity and sheer amount of gore was groundbreaking. Worst bit in the entire film for me? When a possessed Cheryl stabs Linda in the ankle with a pencil, oh my god that sound effect when the pencil punctures her foot! I think it was the sound of an apple getting pierced? Then the fact she twists and pulls on the pencil opening up the wound!! That always makes me wince.

The plot is so damn basic it hurts, plus what we see half the time is so stupid you can't help but laugh. Why would anyone want to spend time in a tiny remote cabin like that firstly, secondly when things get creepy why does one girl wander off into the dark dark woods alone? Errr...hello?? And then there's dumb ass Ash falling for the old 'help me I'm OK' trick from his possessed friends. Did I mention continuity errors like Ash's hair? Have to remind myself this film is very dated and was the first of its kind of sorts, this is the original horror in the woods.

For me its not as strong ever since the comedy themed sequels but its still a powerhouse of originality no doubt. The gore isn't shocking these days but more of a really good example and lesson in how to go about creating your own special effects. See what can be achieved with a little thought. Its not even particularly scary these days either, that ship has sailed now for most adults methinks, but its not about that, its just the cornball horror ride you get out of it, the thrills and the fact its such a classic now.

8/10

Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness (2012)

Once again the films poster is really really good but completely false advertising, because the film isn't as good. The third film after the quite disastrous original with big hitters Irons and Payne and this time its a UK production. Does this mean its better? well it does mean we see British soap/drama actors in the film which does actually give some class to it.

The plot is totally nonsensical to me, there is a nice animated sequence at the start to give you the background but it lost me, I dunno maybe I should of paid attention. Basically there is a bad wizard type guy who wants to sink the world into darkness or something. The bad guys kidnap this good looking guys dad for his blood or something, so its up to the good looking guy to save his dad. He does this by joining a band of other bad guys covertly to get to the main bad guy? something like that.

Plot aside the film isn't actually too bad, acting of course is drab from most accept for the odd British actor. Anthony Howell plays a sorcerer type fellow and does give a sterling performance, he may look stupid but he plays it for real. The characters on the whole are quite good really, a small band of warriors in typical D&D fashion. We have a female warrior (very sexy), a sorcerer, the good looking warrior, a big musclebound warrior and a slimy untrustworthy warrior, a cliched bunch for sure.

Visually they do look a bit terrible and hokey, lots of obligatory spiked armour, the female warrior is scantily clad, each warrior has their own special skills and weapons and there is a strange obsession with tribal markings/tattoo's. The female character has lots of crappy looking tribal markings on her face which look like a child has scribbled on her with a felt tip. The big musclebound guy is merely covered in body paint like a cheap Star Trek alien. The untrustworthy warrior has more tattoo-like markings on his head (hes bald) which are equally poor looking.

So yes they all look a bit ridiculous but as a team they do work well. The added bonus with this film is I believe they have gone down the route of the actual D&D game this time. There is a sequence in a store where they buy items I'm sure are from the game, the plot also seems quite heavy with D&D lore...I think. The films title itself, although it sounds awful, is from D&D lore (sounds a bit Evil Dead-ish too).

Amazingly this film is actually far superior to the first two, yes its true! The story is cliched and the characters are stereotypical fantasy fluff (what do you expect), but it is a lot more faithful to the famous game and there are also some really nice CGI landscapes too. The actual CGI dragon and general magic/sorcery effects are a bit poor but the landscapes and skylines are impressive, look a bit 'LotR' in places. The undead child sequence is actually very good too, the effects on this zombie kid are excellent for such a small production, pretty creepy looking too, kudos.

So ignore the films poster as its not that exciting but believe me its not that bad either. If you want a true D&D adventure this is you're best bet in my opinion. Forget the other two, this is the film, which I still can't get my head around, who'd of though it!

5.5/10