Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueRival kings in the dark ages attempt to unite and defeat an alien dragon menace.Rival kings in the dark ages attempt to unite and defeat an alien dragon menace.Rival kings in the dark ages attempt to unite and defeat an alien dragon menace.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Angel Boris Reed
- Medina
- (as Angel Boris)
Maxim Genchev
- Fastrad's Guard
- (as Maxim Gentchev)
Avis à la une
I have seen far worse and more time-wasting movies than Dragon Storm. It could have been much better but also much worse. I did think the dragons on the whole were well done, with good movement and design, and their battle was the highlight of the film. The costume and set design are also decent, not stunning as such but at least there is a fantasy-adventure element. John-Rhys Davies is a very enjoyable presence, hammy yet dignified. Dragon Storm definitely could have had some improvements though. The editing is rather choppy, luckily the rest of the production values weren't so bad(compared to other low-budget films I've seen recently) but if they were alongside with the editing the film would have been very cheap to look at. Sadly the camera work isn't much better either, with a lot of dizzying quick shots and edits that if you are not used to can make you a bit seasick. The story does have some exciting moments, mainly with the dragons, but a lot of it is rather dull with lots of things happening for no reason. Although the sets are not too bad the film is very sparsely populated, making it hard to believe that we are talking about two feuding kingdoms and excepting the dragons the rest of the effects are cheaply rendered, stunt actors doing the whole fire gag gets old fast. The dialogue is horrendously stilted, and apart from Davies the acting is wooden. Overall, not a movie I'd recommend but I have seen worse. I am just wondering whether SyFy are ever going to make an at least worthwhile dragon movie(even the best one is heavily flawed), but if they have in all honesty I haven't seen it. 4/10 Bethany Cox
No wonder the Sci Fi Channel didn't promote this film as vigorously as many of their others. On paper it sounds like a fun concept -- medieval kingdoms forced to cooperate in order to contend with a fresh infestation of dragons. Execution is everything, however, and in this case the director, screenwriter, and most of the actors ought to be executed.
Believe it or not, I do not relish being so harsh about the film. For one thing, I love medieval films of all stripes, and want to encourage Hollywood to make more. But this is one of the most amateurish productions I've ever had the displeasure to see on television. With the notable exception of John Rhys-Davies, the acting was execrable. No wonder the cast isn't listed on IMDb beyond him and Maxwell Caulfield (about whom the best I can say is that at least he didn't totally suck, like the rest of them). Actually, the guy who played the huntsman wasn't irredeemably bad, either.
This was obviously a low-budget film. The dragons at least didn't look half-bad, though the movie was (for budgetary reasons, no doubt) rather parsimonious with their appearances. But the rest of the production values -- a bare-bones cast, lame costumes, an embarrassing lack of extras or sets -- the castles seemed dangerously underpopulated, and since when have you seen a "tavern" scene set entirely out of doors, especially in the middle of winter? -- revealed nothing but amateurism and lack of funds.
Most of the money must have gone to John Rhys-Davies; not a bad decision, in my opinion, but he was wasted in a role that was rarely on-screen. I feel very sorry for Mr. Rhys-Davies, actually, because he is a much better actor than this movie. He must either really need the money or have really relished finally getting an opportunity to play a villainous medieval king -- a role for which he was born. I truly hope he gets more, and better, chances.
As for the direction, in a word it was horrid. If I see one more slow-motion scene of someone falling off a building, or catching fire... Someone needs to teach whoever really directed this film (according to the onscreen credits, someone named Feuerstein, according to IMBd, Stephen Furst -- I can completely understand the reluctance of anybody to take credit) that slow-motion is only effective if used sparingly. Actually, someone needs to teach the director a new trade, because film direction clearly ain't it. The screenplay also needs a tremendous amount of work. (Again, we're not sure who wrote it -- IMBd says Patrick Phillips, while the film credits say someone named Sam Wells.) I hate to use the word "episodic," but it clearly belongs here, as the script went from one seemingly unrelated incident to another.
The whole opening sequence, of the dragons attacking the "fortress" outside of Rhys- Davies' castle, illustrates my point. It really has nothing to do with the rest of the story. There is a whole long bit where dragons first attack a peasant in a wood shed, who runs to the fort. And then the fort is attacked and destroyed, but not before a soldier escapes to warn Rhys-Davies, who naturally thinks he's full of it. Then the dragons attack Rhys-Davies' castle, eventually burning it to the ground and driving Rhys-Davies and his remarkably paltry band of supporters into the woods.
Now, what was the point of all the dragon attacks, up until the one on Rhys-Davies' castle, which is the first one to set the plot (such as it is) in motion? The plot really doesn't really get going until about 40 minutes, at least, into a 2-hour movie, when a group begins to gather to counter-attack the dragons. The whole subplot of Rhys- Davies trying to best Caulfield's king seems tacked on, virtually irrelevant. There are a few good moments of suspense about half of the way through, when the dragon-hunting group is stalking and fighting the dragons. It's just unfortunate that we have to slog through so much amateurish acting and irrelevant proceedings to get to that point.
View at your own risk.
Believe it or not, I do not relish being so harsh about the film. For one thing, I love medieval films of all stripes, and want to encourage Hollywood to make more. But this is one of the most amateurish productions I've ever had the displeasure to see on television. With the notable exception of John Rhys-Davies, the acting was execrable. No wonder the cast isn't listed on IMDb beyond him and Maxwell Caulfield (about whom the best I can say is that at least he didn't totally suck, like the rest of them). Actually, the guy who played the huntsman wasn't irredeemably bad, either.
This was obviously a low-budget film. The dragons at least didn't look half-bad, though the movie was (for budgetary reasons, no doubt) rather parsimonious with their appearances. But the rest of the production values -- a bare-bones cast, lame costumes, an embarrassing lack of extras or sets -- the castles seemed dangerously underpopulated, and since when have you seen a "tavern" scene set entirely out of doors, especially in the middle of winter? -- revealed nothing but amateurism and lack of funds.
Most of the money must have gone to John Rhys-Davies; not a bad decision, in my opinion, but he was wasted in a role that was rarely on-screen. I feel very sorry for Mr. Rhys-Davies, actually, because he is a much better actor than this movie. He must either really need the money or have really relished finally getting an opportunity to play a villainous medieval king -- a role for which he was born. I truly hope he gets more, and better, chances.
As for the direction, in a word it was horrid. If I see one more slow-motion scene of someone falling off a building, or catching fire... Someone needs to teach whoever really directed this film (according to the onscreen credits, someone named Feuerstein, according to IMBd, Stephen Furst -- I can completely understand the reluctance of anybody to take credit) that slow-motion is only effective if used sparingly. Actually, someone needs to teach the director a new trade, because film direction clearly ain't it. The screenplay also needs a tremendous amount of work. (Again, we're not sure who wrote it -- IMBd says Patrick Phillips, while the film credits say someone named Sam Wells.) I hate to use the word "episodic," but it clearly belongs here, as the script went from one seemingly unrelated incident to another.
The whole opening sequence, of the dragons attacking the "fortress" outside of Rhys- Davies' castle, illustrates my point. It really has nothing to do with the rest of the story. There is a whole long bit where dragons first attack a peasant in a wood shed, who runs to the fort. And then the fort is attacked and destroyed, but not before a soldier escapes to warn Rhys-Davies, who naturally thinks he's full of it. Then the dragons attack Rhys-Davies' castle, eventually burning it to the ground and driving Rhys-Davies and his remarkably paltry band of supporters into the woods.
Now, what was the point of all the dragon attacks, up until the one on Rhys-Davies' castle, which is the first one to set the plot (such as it is) in motion? The plot really doesn't really get going until about 40 minutes, at least, into a 2-hour movie, when a group begins to gather to counter-attack the dragons. The whole subplot of Rhys- Davies trying to best Caulfield's king seems tacked on, virtually irrelevant. There are a few good moments of suspense about half of the way through, when the dragon-hunting group is stalking and fighting the dragons. It's just unfortunate that we have to slog through so much amateurish acting and irrelevant proceedings to get to that point.
View at your own risk.
For SciFi pictures this movies is surprisingly not bad. Not to say it's good at all, but it was much better than some of their cheese.
I was pleasantly surprised with the Dragon CGI. The characters were pretty hilarious (though not intentionally) in their appearance and actions. The huntsman's hair was probably the best part of the movie. For a man that spent his life outdoors, his hair was nicely cut and styled and he had some very feminine bangs (though he did need a bit of conditioner). The acting was pretty bad and the subplots got in the way of good old Dragon Slaying. It's quite obvious who's going to die once all the character's are introduced as well. Who cares, though? This movie is fun and cheesy. Watch it one Friday night while drinking a couple beers and eating pizza.
Go check out Chupacabra Terror if you enjoyed Dragon Storm. Chupa is another cheesy Sci-fi pictures original that's even more hilarious than Dragon Storm. It's about the South American goat-sucker on a cruise ship captained by none other than John Rhys-Davies.
I was pleasantly surprised with the Dragon CGI. The characters were pretty hilarious (though not intentionally) in their appearance and actions. The huntsman's hair was probably the best part of the movie. For a man that spent his life outdoors, his hair was nicely cut and styled and he had some very feminine bangs (though he did need a bit of conditioner). The acting was pretty bad and the subplots got in the way of good old Dragon Slaying. It's quite obvious who's going to die once all the character's are introduced as well. Who cares, though? This movie is fun and cheesy. Watch it one Friday night while drinking a couple beers and eating pizza.
Go check out Chupacabra Terror if you enjoyed Dragon Storm. Chupa is another cheesy Sci-fi pictures original that's even more hilarious than Dragon Storm. It's about the South American goat-sucker on a cruise ship captained by none other than John Rhys-Davies.
It seems as though we're all pretty well agreed that this film was a real dud.Listless,a poor script,and boring.
Someone asked as to how a fine actor like John Rhys--Davies got mixed up with this.Well,how did Basil Rathbone get into "The Magic Sword?"How did Ben Kingsley end up in "BloodRayne?"(His foray in "Oliver Twist"is a real mess,too.)How did Sidney Poitier get into "The Long Ships?"
We all have some messes in our careers,and this was one for him.Either he owed somebody a favor;he had some obligations for a particular director and/or producer;he needed the cash-we all have that happening once in a while-;or he had a blank spot in his calendar,and wanted to keep his hand in.As the man said"You can't win them all."
Someone asked as to how a fine actor like John Rhys--Davies got mixed up with this.Well,how did Basil Rathbone get into "The Magic Sword?"How did Ben Kingsley end up in "BloodRayne?"(His foray in "Oliver Twist"is a real mess,too.)How did Sidney Poitier get into "The Long Ships?"
We all have some messes in our careers,and this was one for him.Either he owed somebody a favor;he had some obligations for a particular director and/or producer;he needed the cash-we all have that happening once in a while-;or he had a blank spot in his calendar,and wanted to keep his hand in.As the man said"You can't win them all."
I honestly don't think this movie was meant to be taken very seriously; if you can watch it with a sense of humor, it's actually pretty fun. We've got John Rhys Davies, the evil king of some downtrodden acreage, wearing a crown that looks like it came with a kid's meal at Burger King. He hams up his performance throughout. His "castle" (which looks like an abandoned church that the roof rotted off of decades ago) gets destroyed by dragons, and he and his remaining men set off to the neighboring kingdom for shelter. Along the way they get lost, and meet a huntsman who helps them find their way. It's rather humorous because they show a map of the kingdoms and pan the camera across it to show the journey, but according to the map there's a road they could have followed. I guess if they're too stupid to even know which direction the neighboring kingdom is in, they're too stupid to take the road.
So they take refuge with the neighboring king, while all the time plotting to overthrow him. However, the main story is with the huntsman, who teams up with the king's daughter (played by Angel Boris), and some other folks to go hunt the dragons. By far the best part of this movie is the main battle with the dragons, which takes place at night. This is simply beautiful - a large bright moon, marvelous looking dragons skimming above the tree tops, one getting hit with an exploding spear and falling, trailing fire to the ground. The special effects in this sequence simply do not belong in a low budget movie like this, they're WAY too good. How in the world were they able to pull this off with the money they had? I've seen movies with similar budgets where the CGI was absolutely laughable, yet this stuff is not only completely believable, but moody and atmospheric as well.
Of course, there's some comedic dialog going on during this wonderful battle, provided by the woman with the large crossbow who keeps yelling "Fire!" when she wants it fired, even though she's the one firing it.
Overall, if you can take a large dose of cheese with your really cool dragon battles, you'll probably get a good bit of entertainment out of this. If you're looking for a serious movie, you'll be terribly disappointed. I enjoyed it immensely.
So they take refuge with the neighboring king, while all the time plotting to overthrow him. However, the main story is with the huntsman, who teams up with the king's daughter (played by Angel Boris), and some other folks to go hunt the dragons. By far the best part of this movie is the main battle with the dragons, which takes place at night. This is simply beautiful - a large bright moon, marvelous looking dragons skimming above the tree tops, one getting hit with an exploding spear and falling, trailing fire to the ground. The special effects in this sequence simply do not belong in a low budget movie like this, they're WAY too good. How in the world were they able to pull this off with the money they had? I've seen movies with similar budgets where the CGI was absolutely laughable, yet this stuff is not only completely believable, but moody and atmospheric as well.
Of course, there's some comedic dialog going on during this wonderful battle, provided by the woman with the large crossbow who keeps yelling "Fire!" when she wants it fired, even though she's the one firing it.
Overall, if you can take a large dose of cheese with your really cool dragon battles, you'll probably get a good bit of entertainment out of this. If you're looking for a serious movie, you'll be terribly disappointed. I enjoyed it immensely.
Le saviez-vous
- GaffesDuring the attack on the castle, one of the characters employs a telescope. Telescopes were not invented until the 17th century
- Citations
King Fastrad: It very big. Big is good in presents.
- ConnexionsReferenced in Sharksploitation (2023)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Dragon Quest
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 1 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Durée
- 1h 36min(96 min)
- Couleur
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant