User Reviews

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.

I had been looking forward to seeing this movie through weeks of advertising and I was not disappointed.

The story was well written, with several interesting twists. The movie is a mix between legend and farce and is very well done. It is fast paced with just the right mix of seriousness and playfulness.

James Purefoy is excellent. His voice, his looks, his charisma are everything a knightly hero should be. His acting is extraordinary and his comic timing was superior. I had enjoyed him in his small role in "A Knight's Tale" and wondered if the promise he showed in that movie would carry over into others. His acting surpassed my expectations. The other actors and actresses play their roles well, too. They made an unbelievable story believable... well, almost.

The direction was not heavy handed, maintaining the lighthearted spontaneity of the movie. Costumes were great, sets were lovely, script was fun.

All in all, this is a movie I would recommend to my friends.

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.

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

A brave knight goes on a quest to find a missing princess, who -how surprising- is very stubborn but also very beautiful. He finds himself helping her to protect the egg of a dragon, living in constant hesitation between destroying it and continuing to protect it. Throw in a greedy prince and a bunch of villains and you have a nice romantic and adventurous fairy tale.

This movie was nice to watch and enjoy, but just as easily forgotten. In terms of special effects, you cannot compare it to other dragon movies like Dragonheart or Reign of Fire. The storyline was however quite entertaining. A happy end tends to leave you behind with a smile no matter how bad the acting or how lousy the costumes. So I guess that's why I appreciated this movie in a weird kind of way.

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.

This movie started with some promise: big name cast, good looking sets, but then it fell apart.

Most of the time it can't tell whether it's a serious movie or a comedy. One minute they're talking about how there's no joy in killing and the next there is a fight scene set to funny music and funny banter.

Some of the acting is pretty bad, mainly from Patrick Swayze and Piper Perabo. She also gets some groaner lines like, "When I marry, it will be about love." Ugh.

But the worst thing about this movie is that it's just boring. Not enough action, not enough humor, not enough plot, not much of anything really. Just a lot of clichés and cheesy moments.

Also, a movie with "Dragon" in the title should contain a lot more dragons than the few (and pathetic CGI dragons) that appeared in this movie.

Can't the SciFi channel show *any* good movies?

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!

Wow! That James Purefoy looks exactly like Thomas Jane!

That's the most profound thought I took with me after having seen the rather underwhelming George And The Dragon. For a fantasy comedy, the story was very dull and the effects unspectacular.

The problem wasn't the acting. James Purefoy makes a good knight, and his various side-kicks are not bad characters. I even thought Patrick Swayze in this role was a pretty good idea, too. Flat-chested Piper Perabo also had some nice potential. I even liked the kid.

But the story and everything that happens, and the *way* it happens, was just "eh". Not interesting. Compared to another recent fantasy comedy, Ella Enchanted, which was actually funny, this movie comes up terribly short. I'm sorry for the decent actors who were in this yawn-inducing trudgery.

4 out of 10.

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.

I saw this on the Sci-Fi Channel so I knew it would be bad to start with but I was surprised at how much worse it was than expected. The CG effects on the dragon were terrible, even for the Sci-Fi channel and the writing was pathetic. I couldn't tell if this was supposed to be that stupid as a joke or if it just came out that way. The only redeeming quality of this movie is that it's so terrible it's almost funny, especially the part where Patrick Swayze's knight character goes home to his Knight father who has retired after losing his legs and is now bed-ridden in his armor for the sole purpose of letting the audience know he was a knight. The majority of the movie focuses around an enormous dragon egg that hatches into a not-so-enormous baby dragon with some of the worst CGI I've ever seen. This was just awful.

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!

I had been reading about this movie for a while and thought the idea of a humorous retelling of the legend of George and the dragon had some potential. However, the film was never widely released. Then I was watching Sci Fi Channel on a boring Saturday and suddenly this movie appeared (under the generic name of "Dragon Sword"). I quickly realized this was the "George and the Dragon" movie I'd been wanting to see. However, I didn't have very high expectations.

But ultimately, it's not that bad. It has some major problems. The plot becomes a bit incoherent at times. The editing is NOT good. The special effects are NOT good (and I'm not really that picky about such things). However, the actors lift it slightly above mediocrity. James Purefoy is fun to watch as the war-weary knight who just wants "an acre and two head of cows" and finds himself on a rather odd journey. Piper Perabo is cute as the spunky princess (though they never adequately explain why she is so obsessed with dragons). Their relationship follows the usual path of such movies: antagonism followed by mutual attraction. The supporting players are pretty good as well.

Keep your expectations low and you'll enjoy the movie. It could have been a lot better but it's pretty high quality for the Sci Fi Channel.

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 :-)

Title says it all. Fair flick, mild violence. Dragons and knights.

Simple things can be enjoyable.

This isnt competing with massive budgets like Lord of the Rings, or Arthur: Legend of the Sword, or "The Last Legion"

not much real blood, almost no "guts", hardly a swear word.

Its like a 50's reboot, but in 50's style.

Its a bit campy, and its SUPPOSED to be.. some comedy, some seriousness, and just light hearted adventure.

Wanna watch with young kids ?? Go ahead.. Some A list stars having a go in a B movie setting.

Just grab or cook some popcorn, and enjoy..

This is the one movie that represents all that is bad in the movie business. The actors are pathetic and the script is awful. The special effects, if there are any, are so badly done that it would have been better to do it with cartoons instead. Besides that it's great! I think the creators of the movie meant it to have humor, but the only time i was laughing was when I saw Patrick S. with long hair and the colorful costumes that every one had. The scenes at the end were good but they were not a part of the movie. In the end you will ask yourself "why did I waste my time and money with that crap when I could have watched the plants growing or the clouds moving". I don't think that I am some critic or anything but this is a truly lame movie! DO NOT WATCH! DANGER OF STUPIDITY OVERLOAD!

George (James Purefoy) has just returned from the crusades, with a Moorish friend, Tarik (Michael Clarke Duncan) with him. It is George's fondest wish to return to his village and acquire a cottage, a small plot of land and a wife. Not so Tarik; thus, they part company. Meanwhile, the king (Simon Callow) is in distress, for his beautiful daughter, Princess Lunna (Piper Perabo) is missing. No one knows the truth, that she has been kidnapped by a dragon for "company". Upon arriving at his father's house, however, George learns that his father wants him to "slay" the last dragon, if there is such a creature, before he, George, settles down. Dad gives George a "dragon horn", one that only the fiery ones can hear, to help locate the beast. Not wanting to disappoint his papa, off goes George. But, his search is constantly interrupted. First, Princess Lunna's arrogant suitor (Patrick Swayze) is searching for the beautiful princess, too, so that he can solidify his future riches and stature. He seems to find George a rival for the young woman's affections. And, second, Princess Lunna is guarding a dragon egg, after its mother dies, and she doesn't want any dragon slayers finding her or her treasure. She ESPECIALLY never wants to see her handsome former suitor for she detests him. From hill to valley to monastery to cave, who will find the princess? This is a very handsome film, with a nice cast and plenty of action. That's good, for the plot zigs and zags like a bee searching for honey. Its very hard to keep the story straight, so only older children will probably enjoy it. The actors are fine, with Purefoy making an excellent hero and Perabo giving the princess spunk, brains, and beauty. As the main "heavy", Swayze does a good job while Duncan makes the most of his smaller role, too. Callow and Joan Plowright add some nice sophistication to the movie as well. One could say, naturally, that the middle ages never looked as nice as this but most will be enchanted by the stunning art direction. There is also some modern twists for the old St. George legend so be prepared for some changes to the traditional versions. In addition, there is a good deal of violence, although it is of the mild variety, so heed this warning if it is important to you. But, in short, if you have a fantasy loving family who clamor for magical movies, this one should fit the bill.

I caught this movie while flipping channels on Roku's Live TV, on the Filmrise Family channel. It has a lot of heart, and, for a 2004 movie, manages to invoke quite a lot of 80s vibe. In fact, if it wasn't for the CGI, it could easily have been mistaken for a product of the 80s (and that is not a bad thing).

It is clearly on the low-budget side, but still manages to include a number of well-known actors. The film was a nice way to pass a lazy evening.

Unlike the title suggest, this movie hardly features any dragons and the movie should perhaps had been titled; "George and the Dragon Egg".

Still the movie further more features all of the adventures ingredients you would expect. Swordfights, princesses, traveling, villains. The movie is a fairly good adventure family for the entire family. The movie features some violence but the fun musical score by Gast Waltzing makes sure that the movie remains always light and fun to watch, no matter how serious or scary the movie ever gets.

The story is rather weak and simple and the way it is told makes things even worse. Everything is told so formulaic and predictable that nothing ever comes as a surprise- or across as well written. It makes everything that happens in the movie feel disjointed and also quite messy. The character treatment is poor and at least halve of the characters that are introduced seems to be redundant for the movie. Tom Reeve obviously is not a very experienced director yet and I'm not too sure if the real talent for it is present. He often works as a producer or second unit director of B-action movies. The kind of stuff Dolph Lundgren, Rutger Hauer and Christopher Lambert star in. This production is definitely a step-up from those movies but Tom Reeve didn't handled this opportunity very well.

Appearantly the movie cost $32,000,000 to make but it doesn't really show in the movie. Sure, the sets and costumes all do look nice but what the movie lacks are some truly impressive and large scale sequences or even some spectacular action sequences. It makes the movie really low budget looking. Looks like they spend most of the budget on the cast.

The cast is surprisingly enough filled with some big names but yet the casting gets no thumbs up from me. James Purefoy is a good actor and he mostly showed that in the HBO mini-series "Rome" but he's not good and charismatic enough to play the main heroic character of this movie. The supporting cast is far more impressive with actors like Patrick Swayze, Piper Perabo, Michael Clarke Duncan and Val Kilmer in a small cameo. But unfortunately for most of them also goes that they're miscast in their roles. Piper Perabo plays her character with an overdone English accents that doesn't suit her. It makes you wonder why didn't cast a real English and good actress instead. Also Patrick Swayze feels really out of place in this movie but he at least seemed to be enjoying himself playing in this movie. The highlight of the movie is perhaps the Val Kilmer cameo.

Still the movie entertains enough to consider this a watchable enough, at least if your expectations for it aren't too high. The movie does have its good and adventurous moments but it all is not quite good and impressive enough to consider this a real truly great genre movie.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

I just saw this on SciFi channel, and normally I have contempt for most movies that play on that channel. But THIS one was enjoyable to watch. Good, sincere performances without the usual annoying clichés that infect most scifi CGI-filled fantasy films.

Good cast has fun with the story.

On the downside, there is some bad editing, cheesy CGI and everything is a bit rushed to speed towards the climactic battle. Still, it is a very ambitious piece, with action, humor and romance.

Fun for the whole family, I can forgive the technical glitches. This has ambition like Lord of the Rings, action that sort of equals Eragon but with well written characters who are as fun to watch as those of Princess Bride.

Awesome stuff

The director didn't even bother to ask his actors for the most part to use European or English accents and that's just the first thing wrong with this farce. There seems to be a ideologically-motivated move in recent years to suggest Crusade Knights were morally enlightened towards their Muslim 'brothers', first we had Kingdom Of Heaven then Robin Hood and now George & The Dragon. The reality was a little different, the hatred of the Crusaders and it's people's against their enemies was legendary due to Muslim ambition, expansion and it's need to have Christian nations 'submit'.

We have poor village children speaking the Queen's English (RP) as well as many other goofs including the statement that forks were a Middle Eastern invention (they originated in China in 2400 BC) I could go on and on but suffice to say it's a waste of your time and eminently unsuitable for children due to it's ideological revisionism.