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.
Add a Review
-
JornB12 December 2006This movie lacks just about everything as expected from a good movie, or even a decent one. To be nice: not very good acting, script, music or effects. The whole movie shrieks of "Hey, I got some money to spend let's try and make a rip-off of Tolkien". One thing they copied directly from the footage of the Trilogy was the vast air shots showing the nature scenery and mountains, think I counted to five or six of those.
Alright, it's fantasy but with a dragon looking like it's made with play-doh and dark elves looking like, I don't know what, I suggest you go see another movie or buy a good book by R.A Salvatore (at least you get to picture the monsters yourself and not seeing them like this).
To sum it up, a complete waste of time and money! -
nightroses14 April 2022I 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.
-
dandrews113813 March 2007I'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. -
jora_dyn22 December 2006yes that's right. I enjoyed this film. Now granted it is no where near the level of Lord of the Rings, but that is pretty much a given to anyone who takes a look at the back of the box. Think really low budget.. okay now take that image and go lower.. yeah that's probably around what they were working with...
I was honestly very impressed with how well the film was done based on how obviously low budget it was. I mean as a fantasy film, it was actually better than some of the one's I've seen recently put out. things like the D&D movies, Dark Kingdom, I even almost want to say Eragon. I mean I really did enjoy the characters and the story. I'm not saying it's AMAZING or my new favorite. But if you like fantasy and you have an understanding that this film was made with very little money behind it. I think you will find it isn't that bad.
But some people will find it too be a bit slow.. because it's more about characters than flashy effects and battle scenes. But I rather liked that about it. it was fun. Like a big LARP. -
soupdawg3027 October 2008I picked this movie up for $1 at Wal-Mart not expecting much but for how much I paid I was impressed. As for graphics the Dragon doesn't look very great and some scenes are to dark. The aerial views are very beautiful but the actual footage shot on ground is bleak and repetitive. The sound is rough in some parts but the story is actually pretty good. As far as the acting goes it was alright. Some performers definitely did better than others. The movie has what seems to be an original idea for the plot and that alone is worth the watch. If a sequel was ever made I would definitely pick it up. I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes the fantasy genre.
It's not the best of its kind but given the low budget it is a winner. -
mono_mosh14 March 2010as much as we can all appreciate the time and effort that goes into film making, this movie could do with a lot of improvements and a story etc to fit the budget. seeing as it is part of a trilogy they would have been better to roll them all into one film and have a bigger budget.
there is far too much talking in this movie. it is too easy to get bored waiting for something to happen. the shots fail to meet even basic film making techniques and i know first year students who have made a better job than this. the dragon does not even look rendered and more represents the early attempts at King Kong (and i mean terrible mechanical stuff about as scary as jaws). the props have all been taken from other movies. the elves look like bad attempts at making black people look like lord of the rings creatures.
i cannot give a correct review as i skipped past more than half of it as it was so hard to keep watching. not a movie i recommend seeing unless you are looking for how not to make a movie. I'm shooting from a lower position than those who made this film but i am sure i can at least produce a dragon looks rendered or at least in colour. -
prontostud11 December 2006Godawful writing, horrific acting, pathetic effects and kindergarten swordplay.
Screenplay, an attempt at old sounding English which is complete nonsense made even nastier with complete inconsistency where not only is one sentence made up of modern and "old proper sounding" (not actually correct)English but also the section of the dialogue containing this faux old English will throw in a word that is entirely out of place. Exacerbated by the fact that they drone on and on without getting on with the plot as if we should admire the skillful turn of phrase (sic).
Acting, I have never in my life seen such a terrible ensemble, the only actor who actually sounds natural while speaking has no screen presence whatsoever whilst the rest of the time you will groan at the rest of the cast while they ham it up with nasty attempts at various British accents.
Not very special effects that look as though they were downloaded from somewhere and slapped in with no actual flow into the movie with cause and effect being shown without actually showing the event, picture a truck driving down the road then suddenly cutting to a person flying through the air and now u need to imagine that the truck has hit the person.
And the coup de gras, many sword fight scenes of people trying their best to hit each others swords and then lots of "going for the kill" stabs into the earth.
I'm sorry but this rubbish truly offended me. -
dfactor-111 December 2006I had opportunity to see this movie, and all I can say is - "this movie sucks hard"... If now would be 1995 year or so, we would probably love the CG animation and effects, but now all you see is unprofessional animation and awful modeling. THe camera shots are awful to, same as the acting. Watching this movie I felt like watching a play on the theater stage - this crap absolutely can't be called a movie... If I were you, I'd spend those cinema ticket money on something more useful... After such advice some also advises to buy a DVD, I don't !!! I don't recommend this nor for kids nor for adult viewers, this movie has nothing in it, it's just one more "money making" product, made with no thinking about the viewer...
-
keith-857-44947028 September 2010If you're thinking of going into acting, watch this film. It will give you great confidence. Assuming the cast actually got paid for their performances (I use the word advisedly), there's hope for anyone who ever played Third Soldier in the school play. In fact, school plays were several cuts above the acting here. The cast wore a permanently bemused expression, as well they might given the awful "special effects" that looked like they were created on a Sinclair Spectrum. The fight scenes were laughable, where the heroes guarding the princess (I think she had a severe skin condition) swished away at thin air (you were supposed to think they were fighting the dragon). The dialogue was written by someone who has never conversed with human beings, and their epic journey about as dangerous as walking to the bus stop. Even if this was done by primary school kids with a camera phone (and it often looked like it), Dragon is tosh.
-
98nurdinm-115 June 2008So my friends see this DVD, right, in our local shop. They see the title: "Dragon". The blurb at the top reads: "The Action of 'Reign Of Fire'. The Adventure of 'Lord OF The Rings'." They seem suitably impressed by it, so bring it round to the larger gathering of us. We sit down and start to watch. I'm not sure if I'm glad that we did or wish that we hadn't.
Putting it very bluntly, this is a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, BAD film. It starts off okay - you get suitably epic scenery shots of great mountains, an ominous female narrator talking of a great battle, setting the scene. And then comes the first shot of CGI and you just know that from then on in the film is just going to get worse and worse.
The acting is almost abysmal. Almost, because it is semi-saved by an actually okay performance from Eliza Swenson, with big scary eyes as the witch who created the mythical title beast. Trouble is, my opinion of her is brought down heavily by the fact that she wrote the story. The script is very bad indeed, with very bad dialogue been spouted from mouths with accents that take more dips than a roller-coaster.
The action scenes, the few that there are, are either badly choreographed or full of the worst CGI this side of "Tron". Even the earliest forms of CGI in films is better than the effects in this. The dragon itself is never really fully seen, so there's no sense of menace or...actually, I don't think there's any sense of anything! Some may argue that it's SUPPOSED to be this bad, that it's SUPPOSED to look amateurish. But the major problem with this argument is that the film, at the end of the day, is just incredibly boring. The dialogue scenes are long and slow, and you just feel your eyes drooping, even if you're not tired. If it WAS meant to all be a laugh, it would be less boring, it would be more apparent.
So basically, I hated this film. It's a film that makes you laugh for just sooooo many reasons. It's a very bad film and please, please, PLEASE, unless you like personal torture, please do not subject yourself to its pure awfulness.
1/10 -
Takenu13 December 2006This story tells us of a princess who is on a diplomatic mission to ally with a neighboring kingdom to defend against the hordes of Dark Elves that cause death and destruction throughout the lands. Certainly things don't go as planned and a dragon eventually gets involved.
For one thing, I think the dragon looks all right. Also the character's outfit and the like are quite adequate. However I have to note a couple of drawbacks as well. Often we are granted an aerial view of inhospitable mountains covered in forests. Although the whole story takes place in a forest, we never see even the smallest hill whatsoever and I must assume the place of shooting the film was thousands of miles away from the beautiful mountain landscape that we get to see. However, this is but a minor issue in my opinion.
The actors are all right I guess, at least I was not disturbed by any bad acting. The script might be somewhat thin every now and then and you should not expect big surprises. However, I enjoyed watching the movie anyways. I could recommend this movie to anyone who is a fan of fantasy tales. However if you're looking for a deep movie with a meaning you better had a look elsewhere. -
uhfgood30 December 2006I'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. -
naslapi26 February 2007And a bad one for that matter. The level of acting is so bad that it over power the poor visual effects. The scenery and the make-up complete this miserable attempt at film making.
I did not expected to watch a masterpiece or academic show award classic, but come on, there should be a limit to what studios are distributing as a movie, But at least, I thought to myself, there is Amelia Jackson-Gray. A lovely lady by all means. (You can see some of her pictures here on this web page)., I thought, it worth to watch the film just for her sake. But even that minor expectation was robbed of me. But somehow in the process of making this disaster, they have managed to ruin this as well.
(You will not recognize her in the film by the pictures that are on the web site).
Casting unknown actors does not mean that they will have to over act, and law budget films does not mean that putting some black color on an actor face, makes him look like a dark elf. The audience is stupid and expect a little more. -
Emma28621 May 2007A 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. -
anjibaby12 December 2006I had seen a trailer of this film and just had to see it based on that. I knew from the trailer that this was no big money production with well known stars acting in it but have found quite the many jewels in smaller budget films in the past.
I was extremely disappointed -- especially so considering I was looking forward to the two future films to complete this trilogy. I can sit thru the worst films ever just to be doing but could not keep from drifting off during this one! The story line could and should be a pretty decent one but is overshadowed totally by unimaginative filming and special effects in the movie. Basically if you watch this film you will switch between the following scenes throughout the whole thing; 1)the cast walking in a single line v e r y slowly through the same woods 2) the cast stopped in the woods bickering with one another 3) one or two of the cast stopped in the woods having a vision or a dream (both located in the SAME woods and involving one or two of the other actors) 4) the cast stopped in the same woods fighting with the same dragon (NOT a very realistic one at that) and last but not least the scene you will see every five minutes throughout...a camera giving you a panoramic view of some unknown mountains that never change supplemented with crappy Celtic music.
As I said...VERY disappointed. -
kimberroo19 January 2007My family sat to watch this movie and were so terribly disappointed that we couldn't sit through the whole movie. Awful acting and even worse special effects. The cast of yet unknown actors and actresses will remain unknown after a performance like this one. We love the genre and sit and watch LOTR and others like it over and over again. I do not expect every movie caring this type of plot to be great but this was substandard even by the lowest of expectations. We recently watched Eragon and were pleasantly surprised. A cast of little known actors { save Jeremy Irons } was a good movie with proper special effects and decent acting.
-
SPGinc22 October 2007There can be no dispute, this is an amazingly bad film. First off, it's badly written. I honestly don't think I have ever read, watched or heard a story more uninteresting than the story this film is based on. What few 'twists' there are- equally boring and confusing in places. The acting, plain bad. I understand that pretending to fight a monster that's going to be added in with special effects later may be a bit difficult, but surely they should look like there fighting in the same battle, rather than waving there weapons around seemingly at random. The choreography was terrible. And from start to finish, the whole film was simply a bunch of people hanging about, talking incessantly and occasionally getting into a fight. Remind you of Big Brother?
-
TheLittleSongbird23 May 2011I saw this on the Syfy channel, expecting it to be literally horse-poop. But while Dragon is far from a great film, it isn't awful either, better than in my opinion the tepid rating and reviews suggest. I did like the costumes, scenery and sets and the photography was mostly decent, the music was serviceable as were most of the effects and I did like the concept which looked as though I was despite Syfy's reputation of making mostly crap in for a typically fun fantasy film. As for the dragon, at times it does look good with an interesting design, but it is lacking in consistency and doesn't always blend well with its surroundings. The acting is also mixed, some are charismatic and likable, others are rather stiff. The characters aren't really that well written or developed but they aren't annoying or unlikeable mostly. Where I do find the most fault with Dragon is the sloppy direction, weak and cheesy script and uneven storytelling(too many scenes that either drag or serve little purpose to the plot). And also with the hackneyed fight sequences, tighter editing wouldn't have gone amiss. All in all, Dragon is far from great but I have seen a lot worse, and also despite its many problems this is one of Syfy's more tolerable films. 5/10 Bethany Cox
-
Malaena198530 December 2006I wish I read these reviews before I rents this DVD! I can sort of get past the sweeping scenes of the mountains blanketed by trees and mist (I was thinking that were going to be shown walking on these mountains similarly to Lord of the Rings); I can sort of get past the take-three-steps-and-stop-to-rest whenever the characters talk (they can walk and talk at the same time?); I can sort of get past the really, really, really bad special effects which includes Freja's eyes (even on the cheap, they could've put forth better effort); I can even sort of get past some of the ill-placed 20st Century slang and gestures; but I CANNOT get past INCONSISTENCY and SLOPPY REPETITION! The director should've told the actors what kind of accent they're going to use for their character. If the actor isn't good at the certain accent, then the director should've done one of two things: 1) made the actors practice hard perfecting the accents of their characters, or 2) if the actors can't keep up the accent (therefore character because the characters aren't complete without the accents) then the director should've found someone who could! Talking about actors and their characters, surely the actress who played Freja could have more facial expression besides being a constant wide-eyed wonder (well, she was consistent with that at least)! I guess the contacts were really bugging her that much? Sure, she was the only one who really expressed herself through body movement moreso than others but, it would've been nice if the other characters weren't so wooden. I think she would've done great in Ginger Snaps Back.
At least actors were CONSISTENTLY wooden. This is where I don't like inconsistency. I've seen so many scenes the actors could have redone in body gestures that would've been more powerful, believable, and interesting. Clearly, the director didn't think much of his cast and that is shameful on his part. Honestly, if costs were indeed an issue, I think the director and producer would've done better to go to a Ren Faire to pick up performers and actors. If there are going to be sequels to this movie, I want really, really, REALLY encourage the cast to take acting lessons, or go to a Ren Faire at the very least! -
ImGisele4 March 2007Don't waste your time. 90% of the movie takes place in a "dark" forest and the heroes are talking about how to kill the dragon. The dragon looks okay and a lot more could have been done if there had been a script. If a bunch of teen agers had gotten together to make a movie it would have been more interesting. At least there would have been more action and some comedy relief. This movie took itself too seriously, and the characters spent most of their time philosophizing about class, duty, etc. Boring in any movie, but this kind of movie is by definition supposed to be exciting. Early in the movie, the princess is offered the chance to kill one of the hated "Dark elves", and is unable to do it. Later we find out that its not because she feels pity, but rather because she "doesn't" feel pity. She doesn't want to "feed the creature her bloodlust". What? Yeah, me too...Don't waste your time or money!!! Just say no!!!
-
refrankfurt19 May 2009Digiview Entertainment. What won't these fellows do for a buck? In recent years, their name has very nearly become almost sort of synonymous with the preservation of such unparalleled cinematic treasures as "King of Kong Island", "Hercules Against the Moon Men" and "The Guy with Secret Kung Fu". So obviously they're good for a laugh, and a cheap laugh at that. They actually leave you enough money to buy a halfway decent brand of beer to go with the movie.
Having said that, I am obliged to admit that I was a little disappointed with this offering. Judging from previous reviews, I am not alone in this opinion. Others have already commented on the lackluster gaggle of characters (and their utter lack of chemistry), the relative paucity of action, and the infuriatingly protracted dialogue, some of which rivals anything Bulwer-Lytton might have scribbled down in his cups, even on the darkest and stormiest of nights. Under the circumstances, a bit more of the bad guys would have been a welcome escape from the good guys, but we actually see very little of the bad guys in this movie. The CG dragon only appears in a couple of all-too-brief sequences, and the dark elves alluded to on the cover seem to be little more than an afterthought. If you're going to subject someone to the indignity (not to mention the expense) of dressing up in a ridiculous outfit and having his face painted, the least you can do is leave him in front of the camera long enough for the audience to get a good look at him. This film desperately needed something, and a bit more of the dark elves might very well have done the trick. In addition to more screen presence, they should have been given a few simple lines. Even a pair of dark elves exchanging orcish pleasantries such as "Stop your squealing, you dunghill rat!" could have contributed an actual dimension to this insipid opus, with very little effect on the overall production costs. Oh, well. Maybe they'll have a better feel for the thing if they ever get around to doing Part 2. Better yet, maybe they'll never get around to doing Part 2. -
caladin23 December 2006For those of us who like Fantasy... we have to take our helmet's off to this film as an attempt to make more Fantasy... why do fantasy movies have to have 100 million dollar budgets? They might have had 100 thousand but probably less and they made a movie. A Fantasy movie and we should all be supporting Scott and Dragon no matter if we think it is bad or good. Because after several more experiences he could be making more Fantasy. And thats all we want. Yes they could have worked harder on the sword play but it looks like they were clashing with real steel metal... and on bigger budget films they clash with fiber-glass and aluminum swords so they can really hack away and hit each other. I saw the making of and thought these guys are crazy to hit steel on steel... a sword could break and impale someone or they could chop off a finger no matter if the sword was not sharpened. The Dragon was done on someone's home PC or Mac so that is pretty cool. A few more layers of texture and it would have been really good... it was better then the giant blue rooster in Eragon. The acting was good. I thought the actor with the most charisma was the big warrior... his accent was iffy at best... I think he should have just used his American accent because this is Fantasy... not Enlish history. The two warrior knights were solid British actors, I bet really good a Shakespeare. All the girls were solid especially the Magic user with the white contacts. She has a Angelina Jolie quality that really made this film watchable... please bring her back in the sequels and a reincarnated Gandalf character... who is more powerful. She is the best thing about this movie. And all her bolts of energy were really well done, just as good as the new Dungeons and Dragons movie. A few simple things could have really improved this movie... change of locations... find some rocks or a cave... lots in Wisconsin. Cut dialogue in half... find a dwarf... do not clash real steele swords (only in close ups)... you are going to kill somebody and it never looks right. All in all we should encourage Mr. Scott to formulate the story and bring it back for two more... come on a low budget fantasy trilogy... that's good and ambitious... spend a few thousand dollars on a really good script doctor or a professional who is really savy with dialogue (Mr. Scott and his writing partner are good with original story... while Eragon is a plot point for plot point copy of Star Wars). All is all if you like Fantasy is is worth renting or buying so say look at this... the world's lowest budget fantasy movie. Helmet's off... Keep making them.
-
scioninja20 July 2007OK, first let me say that I love terrible movies. Attack of the Griffin was a recent favorite. It was so chock full of terrible acting, hilarious special effects and just all around poor quality that I loved it. My friends and I were laughing and cracking jokes the whole way through.
I rented Dragon hoping for a similar experience. I was actually pretty excited. "How can they go wrong?", I thought. "It's a low-budget fantasy film and it's made by Asylum, it's got to be hilarious." Boy was I wrong. There was absolutely nothing funny about this train wreck of a film. We were actually reverting to making jokes about Attack of the Griffin while watching it, because this one gave us no material whatsoever. The acting wasn't funny, it was just bad. The actors made me want to cry rather than laugh. I felt embarrassed for them. Oh, and the direction... Leigh Scott needs to understand that things happen in movies. One of my friends jokingly suggested that a fifth grader could direct a better film. It's a funny suggestion, but unfortunately it's true. I would rather watch a screen adaptation of a ten year old's diary than sit through this rubbish.
I can safely say I have never seen a more poorly conceived film. There is literally no plot. They never do anything in this movie. They stand around and talk. About what, I couldn't tell you, but they do it for hours on end, in between sparse and uneventful "action" scenes. I am seriously disgusted. No B movie has ever left me feeling like this. Leigh Scott should drop the camera and walk away. Right now. -
daviesjon-112 March 2008It's very easy to bash low-budget films, and most do not realise the time, effort and passion that goes into their creation. People only seem to comment on the 'bad' acting, the 'bad' SFX, and the 'bad' dialogue, forgetting - and lets be honest here - that's the whole reason we watch them.
However, when a film comes along that spends it's entirety in an utterly featureless forest so that superfluous and forgettable characters can spout exposition of unseen events while trying to create a vague air of looming malevolence by waving swords at the ether, you really begin to wonder... "Dragon - why do you hate me?"
There's much to enjoy here - endlessly quotable dialogue for the bad movie fans, and Eliza Swenson always commands attention - but entirely let down by a screenplay chock-full of Leigh Scott's brand of plot-less meanderings and the less-than-seminal notion that trees are now suddenly fun to watch. Well they're not. They're trees.