Georges et le Dragon

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.

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.

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!

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!