Dragon Sword

Dragon Sword(480P)

source: Dragon Sword

A "What really happened" retelling of the tale of St. George and the dragon. It begins when the dutiful princess Lunna (the perky Piper Perabo), who agreed to marry a man she hates for the good of her father's kingdom, is abducted by a dragon. No one realizes that she wasn't abducted to be devoured, but to help care for the dragon's egg while she recovers from an injury! George(James Purefoy) returns from the crusades and agrees to rescue the princess in return for land. Accompanying him is Lunna's self-absorbed betrothed (Patrick Swayze) and a small boy who grew up on tales of noble knights and Dragon Slayers. George thinks to find Princess Lunna gentle and despairing, but instead she's sick of playing gentle princess and ready to defend her charge by any means necessary. This movie is refreshing in it's ability to poke fun at itself and the swashbuckling tales in general. Watch for the "secret origins" of the fork, skateboarding, and England's patron saint. Don't watch if you can't stomach a single anachronism.

This film looks as though it had major production problems with cast (disapearing) and hence a revised plot line?? After what I imagine is a bit of a bodge job on the script the cast has persevered with a lot of humour and gusto to present a story which although it has many flaws also has a charm that makes up for this to the credit of Purefoy, Perabo and Duncan who throw themselves into making the best of it I suspect. If you like a comedy along the lines of A Knights Tale combined with a bit of Robin Hood Prince of Thieves then this is pretty much what you are getting, a good old romp with some hammy over the top theatricals thrown in.

I just saw this on SciFi channel, and normally I have contempt for most movies that play on that channel. But THIS one was enjoyable to watch. Good, sincere performances without the usual annoying clichés that infect most scifi CGI-filled fantasy films. Good cast has fun with the story. On the downside, there is some bad editing, cheesy CGI and everything is a bit rushed to speed towards the climactic battle. Still, it is a very ambitious piece, with action, humor and romance. Fun for the whole family, I can forgive the technical glitches. This has ambition like Lord of the Rings, action that sort of equals Eragon but with well written characters who are as fun to watch as those of Princess Bride. Awesome stuff

Unlike the title suggest, this movie hardly features any dragons and the movie should perhaps had been titled; "George and the Dragon Egg". Still the movie further more features all of the adventures ingredients you would expect. Swordfights, princesses, traveling, villains. The movie is a fairly good adventure family for the entire family. The movie features some violence but the fun musical score by Gast Waltzing makes sure that the movie remains always light and fun to watch, no matter how serious or scary the movie ever gets. The story is rather weak and simple and the way it is told makes things even worse. Everything is told so formulaic and predictable that nothing ever comes as a surprise- or across as well written. It makes everything that happens in the movie feel disjointed and also quite messy. The character treatment is poor and at least halve of the characters that are introduced seems to be redundant for the movie. Tom Reeve obviously is not a very experienced director yet and I'm not too sure if the real talent for it is present. He often works as a producer or second unit director of B-action movies. The kind of stuff Dolph Lundgren, Rutger Hauer and Christopher Lambert star in. This production is definitely a step-up from those movies but Tom Reeve didn't handled this opportunity very well. Appearantly the movie cost $32,000,000 to make but it doesn't really show in the movie. Sure, the sets and costumes all do look nice but what the movie lacks are some truly impressive and large scale sequences or even some spectacular action sequences. It makes the movie really low budget looking. Looks like they spend most of the budget on the cast. The cast is surprisingly enough filled with some big names but yet the casting gets no thumbs up from me. James Purefoy is a good actor and he mostly showed that in the HBO mini-series "Rome" but he's not good and charismatic enough to play the main heroic character of this movie. The supporting cast is far more impressive with actors like Patrick Swayze, Piper Perabo, Michael Clarke Duncan and Val Kilmer in a small cameo. But unfortunately for most of them also goes that they're miscast in their roles. Piper Perabo plays her character with an overdone English accents that doesn't suit her. It makes you wonder why didn't cast a real English and good actress instead. Also Patrick Swayze feels really out of place in this movie but he at least seemed to be enjoying himself playing in this movie. The highlight of the movie is perhaps the Val Kilmer cameo. Still the movie entertains enough to consider this a watchable enough, at least if your expectations for it aren't too high. The movie does have its good and adventurous moments but it all is not quite good and impressive enough to consider this a real truly great genre movie. 5/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

I just watched this movie entitled as Dragon Sword (26 Aug 2006) on the SCI-FI channel. It had a lot of references to other movies in it... Star Wars, George of the Jungle, Back to the Future (skateboard scene in the beginning) It also had several well known actors in it that I wasn't expecting to see. Some of them could have tried a little harder making their roles more believable. The fight scenes were quite fun to watch, and it looked like they were having fun making them. I liked this movie, it reminded me a little of the comedy stylings in the Princess Bride. Not that it was anywhere near as good as the Princess Bride. It would be fun to watch with someone who had seen all the reference movies.

The director didn't even bother to ask his actors for the most part to use European or English accents and that's just the first thing wrong with this farce. There seems to be a ideologically-motivated move in recent years to suggest Crusade Knights were morally enlightened towards their Muslim 'brothers', first we had Kingdom Of Heaven then Robin Hood and now George & The Dragon. The reality was a little different, the hatred of the Crusaders and it's people's against their enemies was legendary due to Muslim ambition, expansion and it's need to have Christian nations 'submit'. We have poor village children speaking the Queen's English (RP) as well as many other goofs including the statement that forks were a Middle Eastern invention (they originated in China in 2400 BC) I could go on and on but suffice to say it's a waste of your time and eminently unsuitable for children due to it's ideological revisionism.

They always say never judge a book by its cover. Well, the truth is we all do, even though we know better. Some do it more than others. Me? Well, I guess I'm no different. I saw this movie listed on my "You might like this" list at one of the DVD websites, and, after scoffing at it here and there, wondering what kid of film would have such unimpressive DVD cover art (technically very good, but nothing unique) for a title I'd never heard of? After a while I became curious, dismissed it, then became curious again, until I finally broke down a bought a copy. It was pleasantly enjoyable for what it was. The sets, costumes and even the acting were respectable and entertaining. The truth is this is a kids' flick, so you can't really expect true-to-history swordsmanship and all that went with it. It's meant to tell a tale of knights and chivalry to youngsters who are into that sort of thing. And the film does so successfully. I have no great love for the film, but I appreciate it for what it is, and even then I think it's A quality flick in terms of historic children's' fair. Respectably shot, though somewhat skidding a rough gray area of prosaic and inspired lensing, the film achieves a certain artistry that might be compared to some of the black and white classics in terms of shot composition. But maybe that's getting too high- falutin' for film meant for younger ages. There's some contemporary pop culture references, and the acting is a little over done, but again it's all aimed at younger audiences. The one interesting aspect was to see Patrick Swayze in a historic/fantasy film. One is so used to seeing him in films dipped in Americana that it almost almost seemed out of place for a middle aged Texan to be donning chain mail and strapping on a sword. But, he's an actor. That's his job. He can be anybody. Does he succeed? He sure does. He's in the same thespian league as the rest of the cast. It's an entertaining little film that should put grins on young boys and girls alike on a lazy weekend. If my adult side had a serious criticism, well, I'll just keep those to myself :-) Not a big favorite of mine, but something that shows that a film in this genre can succeed. It's a film that despite being aimed at younger viewers, shows that there's more than enough story material that can be eeked out of a period that's very unfamiliar to most people. In fact this film didn't need all the theatrics and SFX had it been aimed at an older crowd. It shows how this kind of stuff is truly interesting to people... dragons or no. With that in mind, give it a chance. Enjoy with the family :-)

Val Kilmner was great for the 90 secs he's in it. The comedy was top notch, slapstick Monty-Python style. Patrick Swayze looked bored, like he would rather be surfing than riding a horse. The princess is great, that perfect mix of sass and feminity (a' la' Princess Leia) and she can take on three large picts without having to boot to the groin! I never knew bowling was originally done by hanging people upside down and using their head as the ball. Then the movie gets boring. The story keeps rolling along, with the good guys trying to protect a dragon egg, the last of the dragons. The humor stops, completely. The story, (much less, the boring drab sets) is just not strong enough to hold interest. They spent the 32 million budget on a few actors and a few nice camera shots and the dragon (all 3 or 4 scenes). The battle scene at the end doesn't do anything to grab your interest back. Micheal Clark Duncan's reappearance can't save it. If you fall asleep during this one, don't worry, all the fun was at the beginning.