George and the Dragon

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 :-)

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.

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!

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.

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!