Rival kings in the dark ages attempt to unite and defeat an alien dragon menace.Rival kings in the dark ages attempt to unite and defeat an alien dragon menace.Rival kings in the dark ages attempt to unite and defeat an alien dragon menace.
Angel Boris Reed
- Medina
- (as Angel Boris)
Maxim Genchev
- Fastrad's Guard
- (as Maxim Gentchev)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
I watched this on television this morning. I hadn't really intended to, but when I saw that John Rhys-Davies was in it, I decided to give it a chance. I, too, at first wondered what he was doing in this movie. The dragons were immediately impressive, but the stunts during their first rampage in the opening scenes looked like they could have been pulled off by average high-school drama students. Guys getting their backs lit on fire, screaming, flapping their arms, and falling down. (This, by the way pretty much sums up the stunts in the rest of the movie, as well, and none of the people seem to have the sense to even roll in the snow once aflame.)
To anyone with at least a little of a discerning eye, these opening scenes are a bit of a red flag. Bad stunts usually make for bad movies. But, as I hadn't yet seen John Rhys-Davies, I kept watching. And I'm glad I did. All-in-all, it was an enjoyable film.
I think budget must have had a lot to do with the way this movie turned out. The dragons must have been expensive, and unless John Rhys-Davies was doing it as a favor to someone, I'm sure he wasn't cheap either. So, it seems, they had to skimp somewhere, and they apparently chose to do so with the stunts.
Yes, the acting is cheesy at times, but appropriately so, for such a tale. And, regarding John Rhys-Davies, he certainly brings a certain presence and dignity to all of his parts, but if you really take a look at his body of work, he hasn't exactly done Shakespeare all his life, either. I think, just as with Sean Connery, he improves any movie he graces with his presence, even the stinkers.
Ultimately, I think they did quite well with the resources available. And when you think about it, would the movie have been better with great stunts, but with lousy dragons?
So, if you like this sort of thing, it is well worth a watch. Just keep your sense of humor about you, and don't allow yourself to be put off by the opening scenes.
To anyone with at least a little of a discerning eye, these opening scenes are a bit of a red flag. Bad stunts usually make for bad movies. But, as I hadn't yet seen John Rhys-Davies, I kept watching. And I'm glad I did. All-in-all, it was an enjoyable film.
I think budget must have had a lot to do with the way this movie turned out. The dragons must have been expensive, and unless John Rhys-Davies was doing it as a favor to someone, I'm sure he wasn't cheap either. So, it seems, they had to skimp somewhere, and they apparently chose to do so with the stunts.
Yes, the acting is cheesy at times, but appropriately so, for such a tale. And, regarding John Rhys-Davies, he certainly brings a certain presence and dignity to all of his parts, but if you really take a look at his body of work, he hasn't exactly done Shakespeare all his life, either. I think, just as with Sean Connery, he improves any movie he graces with his presence, even the stinkers.
Ultimately, I think they did quite well with the resources available. And when you think about it, would the movie have been better with great stunts, but with lousy dragons?
So, if you like this sort of thing, it is well worth a watch. Just keep your sense of humor about you, and don't allow yourself to be put off by the opening scenes.
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.
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.
For SciFi pictures this movies is surprisingly not bad. Not to say it's good at all, but it was much better than some of their cheese.
I was pleasantly surprised with the Dragon CGI. The characters were pretty hilarious (though not intentionally) in their appearance and actions. The huntsman's hair was probably the best part of the movie. For a man that spent his life outdoors, his hair was nicely cut and styled and he had some very feminine bangs (though he did need a bit of conditioner). The acting was pretty bad and the subplots got in the way of good old Dragon Slaying. It's quite obvious who's going to die once all the character's are introduced as well. Who cares, though? This movie is fun and cheesy. Watch it one Friday night while drinking a couple beers and eating pizza.
Go check out Chupacabra Terror if you enjoyed Dragon Storm. Chupa is another cheesy Sci-fi pictures original that's even more hilarious than Dragon Storm. It's about the South American goat-sucker on a cruise ship captained by none other than John Rhys-Davies.
I was pleasantly surprised with the Dragon CGI. The characters were pretty hilarious (though not intentionally) in their appearance and actions. The huntsman's hair was probably the best part of the movie. For a man that spent his life outdoors, his hair was nicely cut and styled and he had some very feminine bangs (though he did need a bit of conditioner). The acting was pretty bad and the subplots got in the way of good old Dragon Slaying. It's quite obvious who's going to die once all the character's are introduced as well. Who cares, though? This movie is fun and cheesy. Watch it one Friday night while drinking a couple beers and eating pizza.
Go check out Chupacabra Terror if you enjoyed Dragon Storm. Chupa is another cheesy Sci-fi pictures original that's even more hilarious than Dragon Storm. It's about the South American goat-sucker on a cruise ship captained by none other than John Rhys-Davies.
I have seen far worse and more time-wasting movies than Dragon Storm. It could have been much better but also much worse. I did think the dragons on the whole were well done, with good movement and design, and their battle was the highlight of the film. The costume and set design are also decent, not stunning as such but at least there is a fantasy-adventure element. John-Rhys Davies is a very enjoyable presence, hammy yet dignified. Dragon Storm definitely could have had some improvements though. The editing is rather choppy, luckily the rest of the production values weren't so bad(compared to other low-budget films I've seen recently) but if they were alongside with the editing the film would have been very cheap to look at. Sadly the camera work isn't much better either, with a lot of dizzying quick shots and edits that if you are not used to can make you a bit seasick. The story does have some exciting moments, mainly with the dragons, but a lot of it is rather dull with lots of things happening for no reason. Although the sets are not too bad the film is very sparsely populated, making it hard to believe that we are talking about two feuding kingdoms and excepting the dragons the rest of the effects are cheaply rendered, stunt actors doing the whole fire gag gets old fast. The dialogue is horrendously stilted, and apart from Davies the acting is wooden. Overall, not a movie I'd recommend but I have seen worse. I am just wondering whether SyFy are ever going to make an at least worthwhile dragon movie(even the best one is heavily flawed), but if they have in all honesty I haven't seen it. 4/10 Bethany Cox
I watched this and as we know the 2nd reason for making a movie is entertainment (1st being money). If they called this entertainment, then the Battlefield Earth was defintely the best movie ever made. I made a better movie when I was in junior high school. I agree about the plot (uhh, what was the plot). Acting was poor at best, Rhys-Davies is an excellent actor and even he couldn't pull this one out. The Action was horrifying. Stunts were terrible and the only other good thing in the movie (besides Rhys-Davies)was the CGI dragons. Decent dragons, liked the crunching. They should take this movie back and start over again and this time use money to pay people to actually make a movie.
Did you know
- GoofsDuring the attack on the castle, one of the characters employs a telescope. Telescopes were not invented until the 17th century
- Quotes
King Fastrad: It very big. Big is good in presents.
- ConnectionsReferenced in Sharksploitation (2023)
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $1,000,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 36m(96 min)
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content