A princess must recruit the most brave and powerful swordsmen in the land with the sole purpose of vanquishing the dark wizard who terrorizes the kingdom with a giant, menacing dragon.A princess must recruit the most brave and powerful swordsmen in the land with the sole purpose of vanquishing the dark wizard who terrorizes the kingdom with a giant, menacing dragon.A princess must recruit the most brave and powerful swordsmen in the land with the sole purpose of vanquishing the dark wizard who terrorizes the kingdom with a giant, menacing dragon.
Amelia Jackson-Gray
- Princess Alora Vanir
- (as Amelia Jackson Gray)
Matthew Wolf
- Sir Cador Bain
- (as Matt Wolf)
Jon-Paul Gates
- Lord Artemir
- (as Jon Paul Gates)
Kurt Altschwager
- Dark Elf Slynn
- (uncredited)
Tyler Constable
- Dark Elf Sulin
- (uncredited)
Thomas Downey
- Schmendrip the Incontinent
- (uncredited)
Featured reviews
I'm seeing all of these negative comments about this movie, but clearly these are people who don't know the industry at all.
Actually, I was extremely impressed, given the budget. I've seen worse films that cost WAY more to make.
The negative people here are all comparing this film to films with $100 million to $150 million dollar budgets. The budget on this film was not $100 million, or $10 Million, or even ONE million dollars. It was only half a million.
I very recently saw poorer special effects on a film which had a budget of more than ten times this amount. (The budget on that one was around $7 million, so roughly 14 times the budget that this film had.) There were some problems with the film, sure, but I expected much, much less of a film with less than a one million dollar budget.
They did a great job with what they had.
Even Stargate, a show I LOVE, and which has a much higher budget per episode than this entire movie cost, had a "dragon" recently that was nowhere near as good as this one.
If you want to critique a movie, compare apples to apples, not apples to diamonds. I'm sure if this film had a budget that was 200 to 300 times higher, it would have been considerably better, but they did a hell of a job with what they had.
Actually, I was extremely impressed, given the budget. I've seen worse films that cost WAY more to make.
The negative people here are all comparing this film to films with $100 million to $150 million dollar budgets. The budget on this film was not $100 million, or $10 Million, or even ONE million dollars. It was only half a million.
I very recently saw poorer special effects on a film which had a budget of more than ten times this amount. (The budget on that one was around $7 million, so roughly 14 times the budget that this film had.) There were some problems with the film, sure, but I expected much, much less of a film with less than a one million dollar budget.
They did a great job with what they had.
Even Stargate, a show I LOVE, and which has a much higher budget per episode than this entire movie cost, had a "dragon" recently that was nowhere near as good as this one.
If you want to critique a movie, compare apples to apples, not apples to diamonds. I'm sure if this film had a budget that was 200 to 300 times higher, it would have been considerably better, but they did a hell of a job with what they had.
I'll give it a 6 for not terrible acting, the action scenes are OK and the effects are not great but you can tell they had a low budget to work with. The reason I didn't give it higher is mostly because it's slow, and there's way too much talking. Most of the time they're not even moving while talking. Granted to tell a story he wanted to tell, with limited budget of course he felt he had to have the characters reveal the story, but that's just exposition, which is not what movies were made for.
Had to fast forward it through half the movie to keep from getting bored. If they would have kept them moving at least, you'd have something. But 5 stars for effort 1 more for everything else.
Had to fast forward it through half the movie to keep from getting bored. If they would have kept them moving at least, you'd have something. But 5 stars for effort 1 more for everything else.
I found it difficult to sit still. The film was just dull and boring. I love fantasy totally, dragons and the like. I tried hard to give this film a chance, but halfway through I was wondering when it will go on. It was like watching paint dry. It had some people dressed up in a forest, playing with swords and arrows, then a dragon you hardly ever see. It was mainly chit chat, and zero mystery, no action or adventure. The only nice thing was the scenes of mountains and forests.
I'm a sucker for sword and sorcery movies, but after reading many bad reviews I was regretting renting this one. Then I watched it, and was quite entertained. With any low budget fantasy movie you have to watch with lower expectations. They usually lack in acting and script-writing, this did not. The actors and actresses gave a good performance. The story was straight forward, easy to follow, and didn't try to be more than it should be. I think the things that hurt the movie the most were the sound problems (when your shooting on location it's hard to get good sound), the integration of the CG dragon, and to a lesser extent, some of the shots were framed funny. From what I understand this movie cost a half million dollars to make. Lord of the Rings cost more than 200 million, yet was not 400 times better than this movie. So, in terms of ratios, Dragon is a better movie than LotR. Ah, but seriously, I enjoyed the movie and will watch the rest of the trilogy (if it gets made). Heck, I may even buy it if it's cheap enough.
A member of my family recently picked this up, and I watched it today.
Even though I'd been warned, before viewing this movie, that this was low standard, none of what I'd been told prepared me for just how poor this was. I've seen a number of low budget movies in my time, but this one has to be just about the worst one that I've yet come across.
The actors came across as being merely amateurs, many of the scenes were clumsily shot and as for plot there was barely any of it.
Despite early warning signs, I continued to watch the movie. As this is supposed to be an epic adventure production, I was sure that there would at least have to be some action worth seeing. However there wasn't even that!
The overall impression I had was that the film makers started this off with a few ideas in mind, but then abandoned most of these later.
A movie that I can only describe as being laughable at best.
Even though I'd been warned, before viewing this movie, that this was low standard, none of what I'd been told prepared me for just how poor this was. I've seen a number of low budget movies in my time, but this one has to be just about the worst one that I've yet come across.
The actors came across as being merely amateurs, many of the scenes were clumsily shot and as for plot there was barely any of it.
Despite early warning signs, I continued to watch the movie. As this is supposed to be an epic adventure production, I was sure that there would at least have to be some action worth seeing. However there wasn't even that!
The overall impression I had was that the film makers started this off with a few ideas in mind, but then abandoned most of these later.
A movie that I can only describe as being laughable at best.
Did you know
- TriviaThe movie was released on December 12th, 2006 to capitalize on Eragon (2006), which was released in the U.S. on December 15th, 2006.
- Crazy credits"No dragons were harmed during the making of this motion picture."
- ConnectionsReferences Cœur de dragon (1996)
- SoundtracksForsaken
Written and Performed by The Divine Madness
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $500,000 (estimated)
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content