There seems to be a pattern of movies getting renamed when they run on SciFi. IMDb shows this movie to be titled George and the Dragon. I reviewed it on August 27, 2006:
Just watched Dragon Sword on SciFi tonight. Set in England during
the Crusades, our hero is George. Of course, when one hears about a
knight named George from England and talk of Dragons, it is
impossible not to think about St. George the Dragonslayer. Sort of
gives away the ending, doesn't it? Strangely, no. Though something
of a period piece, it doesn't take itself seriously. The fight
scenes are reminiscent of Xena and the dialogue uses modern idioms.
At one point, a support character escapes on a Medieval skateboard.
Though the previews showed dragons, they appear very little. The
CGI is mediocre, so it was wise to limit the dragons' role.
The cast is surprising. There was Patrick Swayze as a knight and would-be king who begins as a playful and fun warrior with grand plans only to evolve into a villain. Of course, to have someone who isn't white, it was necessary to introduce a Moor (think Morgan Freeman in Robin Hood) but this time it is Michael Clark Duncan (Green Mile). James Purefoy plays St. George. Val Kilmer even has a cameo. With this cast, the acting was quite good for such campy material.
As I mentioned, the story is set sometime after 1100 AD. Saint George lived from 275 to 303. So, the story is immediately undermined by the most basic knowledge of history. Saint George was a Roman soldier who happened to be Christian. He lived in what is now Turkey and was executed for refusing to persecute Christians and also for being a Christian (thus his sainthood). The story of the dragon was attached to him sometime after his death and states that, during his travels, he came to a town terrorized by a dragon and slew it before it devoured the Princess. Even that mythical story is turned on its head in this version since it is the Princess who saves the dragon from George. The historian in me wishes the writers had named him anything but George.
All in all, it wasn't great but it wasn't bad. If you have a couple of hours to kill, I recommend you read some of the marvelous material on this blog. But, if your internet is down for some reason, Dragon Sword is not a bad alternative.
The cast is surprising. There was Patrick Swayze as a knight and would-be king who begins as a playful and fun warrior with grand plans only to evolve into a villain. Of course, to have someone who isn't white, it was necessary to introduce a Moor (think Morgan Freeman in Robin Hood) but this time it is Michael Clark Duncan (Green Mile). James Purefoy plays St. George. Val Kilmer even has a cameo. With this cast, the acting was quite good for such campy material.
As I mentioned, the story is set sometime after 1100 AD. Saint George lived from 275 to 303. So, the story is immediately undermined by the most basic knowledge of history. Saint George was a Roman soldier who happened to be Christian. He lived in what is now Turkey and was executed for refusing to persecute Christians and also for being a Christian (thus his sainthood). The story of the dragon was attached to him sometime after his death and states that, during his travels, he came to a town terrorized by a dragon and slew it before it devoured the Princess. Even that mythical story is turned on its head in this version since it is the Princess who saves the dragon from George. The historian in me wishes the writers had named him anything but George.
All in all, it wasn't great but it wasn't bad. If you have a couple of hours to kill, I recommend you read some of the marvelous material on this blog. But, if your internet is down for some reason, Dragon Sword is not a bad alternative.
No comments:
Post a Comment