alistla

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.