George and the Dragon

I saw the world premiere of George and the Dragon at Cinenygma, Luxembourg International Film Festival. Despite problems encountered during the production and even more so during post-production, the film will now be released. After the opening minutes of "George", it should be clear to anybody that it is time to cast aside expectations of seeing LotR's little brother, the skateboarding monk reveals that this film does not take itself seriously at all or does it just emulate a certain elf surfing shields? The film thrives on the performances of its main cast and possesses a simply but entertaining plotline. The quirky humour that springs up every now and then reminds one of "Willow" and "Army of Darkness" but does not harm as much as entertain. 7/10

Probably it could've been a better work, but still I got lots of fun. In first place it reminded me greatly "A Knight's Tale" - the same historical/fantasy action comedy. Quite interesting actors/characters interleaving: Purefoy starring as George here played a tiny but plot-significant role of Prince Edward in "Knight's Tale" and this character could be the future of George; and vice-versa for another comic fantasy "Willow", also close by the mood to this one, where we had Kilmer starring, and his tiny but plot-important role of El Cameo #1 in "George..." could be the bad future of his thief character in "Willow", would he not have a chance to show himself as a true hero.

We also have a charming princess, which reminds me the one out of "Shrek", with strong character and extraordinary view on the world, a sweet smile for friends and a hard hand for foes, quite a charismatic character as well as George himself, and James Purefoy makes a very charismatic presence in the film, becoming my personal actor discovery, so if you love Purefoy, that's definitely a title to enjoy.

I haven't seen Patrick Swayze on screen for a long while and he was my reason to buy this movie, but that's definitely not his best appearance, I had an impression that he wasn't giving himself a lot into playing that knight. I heard he did want to plain villains, but he still looks best as romantic hero by his manners, and thus he fits well for this role since his character is quite ambiguous: not romantic, not sensitive, eager for power and fame, but he does show the qualities of a strong chief and he's also drawing sympathies as a deft and humorous warrior. Almost until the end I was hoping they would still end up friends with George, as they started out being naturally attracted to one another as two of a kind, but the end roughly outlines the core difference between them – purity of the heart, even still showing their similarities.

Well, the bottom line – that's not a piece of art, but a very good entertainment, perfect for kids. Simple nice and romantic plot, a classical fairy-tale story, with right moral accents. Very good set of actors, the characters are almost all hilarious: what of the Father Bernard played by Jean-Pierre Castaldi or George's best friend out of Crusades - Tarik the Moor played by Michael Clarke Duncan! None of "good guys" in the film actually is too good - they're not "white and noble" but they are good at heart! And thus we have a moral too: to judge people by their hearts and actions, not just their manners. And the plot is not without a knot - quite a nice & kind "upside down" view of a famous Christian legend of George the Dragon slayer!

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 :-)

I had been looking forward to seeing this movie through weeks of advertising and I was not disappointed.

The story was well written, with several interesting twists. The movie is a mix between legend and farce and is very well done. It is fast paced with just the right mix of seriousness and playfulness.

James Purefoy is excellent. His voice, his looks, his charisma are everything a knightly hero should be. His acting is extraordinary and his comic timing was superior. I had enjoyed him in his small role in "A Knight's Tale" and wondered if the promise he showed in that movie would carry over into others. His acting surpassed my expectations. The other actors and actresses play their roles well, too. They made an unbelievable story believable... well, almost.

The direction was not heavy handed, maintaining the lighthearted spontaneity of the movie. Costumes were great, sets were lovely, script was fun.

All in all, this is a movie I would recommend to my friends.

Returning from the crusades, our hero George wants nothing else than to get a piece of land and to settle down. Soon he finds himself on a quest to find a lost princess. A princess who turns out to have quite a big secret.

George and the Dragon is a simple, and light medieval comedy that takes on the story of St:George and the dragon. But foremost it is a traditional knight-rescuing-princess story with a dragon, a king, some bandits, an evil guy and a few good fights. It would probably fare well amongst the younger movie viewers.

Michael Clarc Duncan is far from convincing as a moor with that wide American accent, but that does not matter. The filmmakers seem to have focused more on having fun than trying to outdo the LOTR-series. And if you still were in doubt, you will be convinced by the clumsy thatcher falling in the town scene. The movie is pleasantly free from overbearing Hollywood cliché humor that most simple comedies are contaminated with.

The story is very simple, and quite skittish: first this happens, then he did that, then they did this. No quirky explanations or long winded story, and there are really no surprises you could not figure out far ahead. Nothing for the movie buff, but perhaps just the thing for a younger audience. Especially since the violence is quite harmless, and of course there is a happy ending. My only complaint is how the Picts (scots?) are depicted (no pun intended) as simple grunting savages. But hey! I guess SOMEONE had to play that part.

George (James Purefoy) is charming as the hero, and the princess (Piper Perabo) is willful and strong, although she feels like a college sweetheart at some points. The role of Garth seemed made for Patric Swayze, and the rest of the cast are quite likable as well.

If you are looking to be dazzled with a good story, sparkling action and mesmerizing effects. Look elsewhere, or be disappointed. If you accept this as a simple happy-go-lucky knights tale, you'll be better off. Perhaps not worth the movie admissions, but should be great on TV, or as a rental for the kids. Who knows, it might turn out to become a childhood classic, just as The Princess Bride.