IMDb RATING
5.6/10
4.6K
YOUR RATING
A knight returning from the Crusades takes on a dragon and becomes a legend.A knight returning from the Crusades takes on a dragon and becomes a legend.A knight returning from the Crusades takes on a dragon and becomes a legend.
- Awards
- 1 win total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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 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 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!
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!
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!
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!
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
I rented this one for some evening's mind pablum and my wife and I enjoyed it thoroughly. OK. It's not St. George and is full of anachronisms, goofs and puns and is more slapstick than sandals and slice 'em up. But, the cast is delightful and even the villains are having a good time. If you're familiar with the several versions of George and the Dragon, there are lots of good puns and carry-overs to amuse it but the amazing thing is it works. It doesn't lapse into stupidity or overdone, ham-bone theatrics. The pace is quick, regular and interest is maintained throughout the story. I plan to show it to my grandkids as it is a jolly romp through one of our grand old myths.
Did you know
- TriviaThe movie is loosely inspired by the Legend of St George and the Dragon, popular in British and European folklore.
- Quotes
George: [George and Tarik are walking on the beach, about to part paths] Tarik, things won't be the same without you. What will I do with myself? When you're not praying five times a day.
Tarik: [laughs] Do exactly the same thing you would do when I *was* praying.
George: Oh, that's impossible.
Tarik: Why?
George: Because I was stealing your food.
- Crazy creditsA selection of outtakes, bloopers and behind-the-scenes jokes are featured during the closing credits.
- ConnectionsReferences Robin des Bois, prince des voleurs (1991)
- How long is George and the Dragon?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- Dragon Sword
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $32,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross worldwide
- $47,636
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content