Well, it's definitely not like the rest of the scum material produced by the Sci-Fi Channel's numerous production studios, but it's no gem either. While flawed, it's a nice and simple fairy tale that children under the age of 10 may find interest in.
The acting is hammy from everyone. There's not one solid performance at all, but even for such lame acting, everyone seems to have had a good time making this little film. Val Kilmer is pretty much wasted here, as well as Patrick Swayze. Michael Clark Duncan is okay, but just like Kilmer and Swayze, his screen time is so limited, why they didn't go for someone "cheaper" is beyond me. James Purefoy and Piper Perabo both had nice chemistry, even if they tended to overact most of the time.
The writing is where the film is vastly flawed. The story is so simplistic, that the core of the plot is pretty much hard to be seen. This airs on television under the name Dragon Sword, yet there's hardly any dragon, and no sword that serves a purpose to a title like that. The title of George and the Dragon as listed on this site is also a little misleading, as any dragon seen in this film is only on screen for maybe 10 minutes all together. The plot seems to center mainly on protecting a dragon egg, rather than anything else. The romance is contrived at times, and the villains are clearly marked.
The music is very overbearing and repetitive. It does provide a good atmosphere to some scenes, but as a whole, there's not a lot to warrant a purchase.
When the dragons do finally show up, the special effects are mediocre. They're not as bad as one would think for such a low-budget production, but for what they were worth, they are easily forgivable. The action is very short, and not at all edited nor choreographed well.
All in all, this is a film that really passes the time, that is the only major positive thing I could grant George and the Dragon. The acting, while hammy, is okay; the special effects are mediocre; the music is less than desirable; and the film is just WAY to simple for mature audiences.
I highly recommend this for children under the age of 10.
The acting is hammy from everyone. There's not one solid performance at all, but even for such lame acting, everyone seems to have had a good time making this little film. Val Kilmer is pretty much wasted here, as well as Patrick Swayze. Michael Clark Duncan is okay, but just like Kilmer and Swayze, his screen time is so limited, why they didn't go for someone "cheaper" is beyond me. James Purefoy and Piper Perabo both had nice chemistry, even if they tended to overact most of the time.
The writing is where the film is vastly flawed. The story is so simplistic, that the core of the plot is pretty much hard to be seen. This airs on television under the name Dragon Sword, yet there's hardly any dragon, and no sword that serves a purpose to a title like that. The title of George and the Dragon as listed on this site is also a little misleading, as any dragon seen in this film is only on screen for maybe 10 minutes all together. The plot seems to center mainly on protecting a dragon egg, rather than anything else. The romance is contrived at times, and the villains are clearly marked.
The music is very overbearing and repetitive. It does provide a good atmosphere to some scenes, but as a whole, there's not a lot to warrant a purchase.
When the dragons do finally show up, the special effects are mediocre. They're not as bad as one would think for such a low-budget production, but for what they were worth, they are easily forgivable. The action is very short, and not at all edited nor choreographed well.
All in all, this is a film that really passes the time, that is the only major positive thing I could grant George and the Dragon. The acting, while hammy, is okay; the special effects are mediocre; the music is less than desirable; and the film is just WAY to simple for mature audiences.
I highly recommend this for children under the age of 10.