George and the Dragon

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.

A brave knight goes on a quest to find a missing princess, who -how surprising- is very stubborn but also very beautiful. He finds himself helping her to protect the egg of a dragon, living in constant hesitation between destroying it and continuing to protect it. Throw in a greedy prince and a bunch of villains and you have a nice romantic and adventurous fairy tale.

This movie was nice to watch and enjoy, but just as easily forgotten. In terms of special effects, you cannot compare it to other dragon movies like Dragonheart or Reign of Fire. The storyline was however quite entertaining. A happy end tends to leave you behind with a smile no matter how bad the acting or how lousy the costumes. So I guess that's why I appreciated this movie in a weird kind of way.

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 :-)

There was a lot to complain about in this film - the editing was awkward, the fight scenes poorly shot (they were well choreographed, but poorly filmed), and the special effects were mediocre.

Still, I'd watch this movie again, simply because the characters were so much fun, and the movie made the point of not taking itself seriously.

I saw this movie on Sci-Fi channel, and didn't realize it was any thing other than a made- for-TV movie, and so thought that many elements were better than average. James Purefoy and Piper Perabo were wonderful - and had a good chemistry. Piper was absolutely delectable as a spunky, confident woman. Certainly not 'period,' at all, but then the really good princesses never are.

James Purefoy was equally enjoyable - he seems very much the natural, whether on horseback, wielding a sword, or doing a classic double-take. He makes every scene his own with great charm.

Michael Clarke Duncan, while having a small role, was enjoyable, and would have liked to see have seen his character more fully developed.

Patrick Swayze was very, very weak - he didn't seem interested in what he was doing, unless it was a fight scene. An English accent wouldn't have killed him either.

But I had fun with the movie - I laughed out loud more than once, and really, really enjoyed the jokes. I thought that they kept the tongue-in-cheek quality at just the right level.

This is such a sweet little film - it's too bad that it is having such horrible distribution problems. I think lots of kids would enjoy it, and it's quite watchable for adults, too! Especially since James Purefoy is wonderful in it. After his performance in "Vanity Fair," a serious and heartbreaking dramatic role, it's nice to know that he is just as capable of making a funny, lighthearted film as well.

Everyone else is grand as well, except for Patrick Swayze, who just sort of walked through his role. Even the simple, scaled-down fairy tale type dialogue just sounded awful, falling out of his mouth like clumps of half-chewed food. Of course, the CGI dragons aren't exactly as slick as you'd like them to be in 2005, but the cinematography is beautiful, and the editing is fast and keeps the pace rolling along at a good clip.

Did I mention that James Purefoy is wonderful? And the outtakes at the end are great!