Change Your Image
alistla
Reviews
Dragon Storm (2004)
Can you say "disappointment"?
No wonder the Sci Fi Channel didn't promote this film as vigorously as many of their others. On paper it sounds like a fun concept -- medieval kingdoms forced to cooperate in order to contend with a fresh infestation of dragons. Execution is everything, however, and in this case the director, screenwriter, and most of the actors ought to be executed.
Believe it or not, I do not relish being so harsh about the film. For one thing, I love medieval films of all stripes, and want to encourage Hollywood to make more. But this is one of the most amateurish productions I've ever had the displeasure to see on television. With the notable exception of John Rhys-Davies, the acting was execrable. No wonder the cast isn't listed on IMDb beyond him and Maxwell Caulfield (about whom the best I can say is that at least he didn't totally suck, like the rest of them). Actually, the guy who played the huntsman wasn't irredeemably bad, either.
This was obviously a low-budget film. The dragons at least didn't look half-bad, though the movie was (for budgetary reasons, no doubt) rather parsimonious with their appearances. But the rest of the production values -- a bare-bones cast, lame costumes, an embarrassing lack of extras or sets -- the castles seemed dangerously underpopulated, and since when have you seen a "tavern" scene set entirely out of doors, especially in the middle of winter? -- revealed nothing but amateurism and lack of funds.
Most of the money must have gone to John Rhys-Davies; not a bad decision, in my opinion, but he was wasted in a role that was rarely on-screen. I feel very sorry for Mr. Rhys-Davies, actually, because he is a much better actor than this movie. He must either really need the money or have really relished finally getting an opportunity to play a villainous medieval king -- a role for which he was born. I truly hope he gets more, and better, chances.
As for the direction, in a word it was horrid. If I see one more slow-motion scene of someone falling off a building, or catching fire... Someone needs to teach whoever really directed this film (according to the onscreen credits, someone named Feuerstein, according to IMBd, Stephen Furst -- I can completely understand the reluctance of anybody to take credit) that slow-motion is only effective if used sparingly. Actually, someone needs to teach the director a new trade, because film direction clearly ain't it. The screenplay also needs a tremendous amount of work. (Again, we're not sure who wrote it -- IMBd says Patrick Phillips, while the film credits say someone named Sam Wells.) I hate to use the word "episodic," but it clearly belongs here, as the script went from one seemingly unrelated incident to another.
The whole opening sequence, of the dragons attacking the "fortress" outside of Rhys- Davies' castle, illustrates my point. It really has nothing to do with the rest of the story. There is a whole long bit where dragons first attack a peasant in a wood shed, who runs to the fort. And then the fort is attacked and destroyed, but not before a soldier escapes to warn Rhys-Davies, who naturally thinks he's full of it. Then the dragons attack Rhys-Davies' castle, eventually burning it to the ground and driving Rhys-Davies and his remarkably paltry band of supporters into the woods.
Now, what was the point of all the dragon attacks, up until the one on Rhys-Davies' castle, which is the first one to set the plot (such as it is) in motion? The plot really doesn't really get going until about 40 minutes, at least, into a 2-hour movie, when a group begins to gather to counter-attack the dragons. The whole subplot of Rhys- Davies trying to best Caulfield's king seems tacked on, virtually irrelevant. There are a few good moments of suspense about half of the way through, when the dragon-hunting group is stalking and fighting the dragons. It's just unfortunate that we have to slog through so much amateurish acting and irrelevant proceedings to get to that point.
View at your own risk.
Timeline (2003)
Why can't Hollywood make a decent time travel movie?
I loved the concept behind the film (and the book), but the film just seemed to be going through the motions, lacking a strong narrative drive. If you're looking for a movie that has fun with the notion of time travel, or with the juxtaposition of modern people in a medieval setting, then this isn't the movie for you. It's all plot plot plot, with cardboard- thin characters and a total lack of emotional involvement.
The first half was strangely uninvolving, considering that you have modern people traveling back in time to the medieval period. I hate using this word, but I'm sorry to say that it was too episodic -- this happens, then that happens, then that happens, without a strong narrative thread tying everything together. Frankly, I started nodding off about halfway through the movie, which is never a very good sign.
*caution: light spoilers ahead*
As soon as our cast lands in the past, they come under attack. Okay, so far fair enough: action right off the bat. But they are almost immediately captured, and we're subjected to a series of (implausible) escapes, and recaptures, and (implausible) escapes again, followed by still more recaptures. I felt sorry for poor Billy Connolly, as he kept uttering the lines "You're alive! I thought you were dead!" at various intervals throughout the movie. The third time he says this, I almost burst out laughing.
Which leads me to another criticism: The film totally, utterly lacks a sense of humor. Now, I'm not a big fan of action comedies, which usually don't take the premise or dangers seriously. But come on, this film is so lugubrious it just screams out for a little comic levity now and then. And you've got the great comedian Billy Connolly in a leading role, but he's entirely wasted. Indeed, as others have noted, in the novel his character was proactive and resourceful; in the film version he's simply a victim, buffeted by forces beyond his control. As is the case with most of the characters.
It's hard to put my finger on it, but the movie is limp and lifeless, like the acting. The script never gives the story the breathing room to have any fun with the setting, it's just a problem to be solved. The best performance comes from Gerard Butler, the actor portraying Marek. Curiously, he has a Scottish brogue, like Connolly's, and yet it's never explained why There are many odd angles and touches like that, that just leave you scratching your head wondering, why? and not in a good way. The movie's rhythm just seems curiously off. You get the sense that nobody involved with this project had their heart in it: not the actors, not the writers, certainly not the director. It's an exercise in sleepwalk-filmmaking.
This may surprise those who haven't seen the movie yet, but they never once explore the differences between modern and medieval life. You would expect at least one or more moments when the characters would have to confront the problems of dealing without modern conveniences, or comment on the distinction between life in modern vs. medieval times. I regret to report that this never happens, not even once! It might as well have been set in modern times, for all they make of the potentially rich setting.
It's been pointed out that a major difference between the novel and movie is how the Paul Walker character is now the son of Billy Connolly's professor character, rather than a student, as in the novel. The filmmakers explained this move as a means to create a stronger bond between the characters. Well, this attempt totally falls flat. It's a major miscalculation, as no one would ever believe that Paul Walker, with his all-American blond surfer pretty-boy looks and demeanor, would ever issue from the loins of Billy Connolly, the quintessential shaggy, heavily-brogued Scotsman. It would have been more believable if he'd been a student, as in the novel (though even that would be a stretch -- how many archeology grad students do you think resemble Paul Walker?). I'm sorry but the attempts to make Paul Walker a major star have been a failure thus far. When will Hollywood realize that we don't want our leading actors to be models, but actors with character? Where are today's Bogeys and Mitchums?
The reasons I'm not scoring the movie lower than a 6 are twofold: the final siege-battle between the French and the English has its moments (though it's too little too late to totally redeem this snoozefest), and I want to encourage Hollywood to keep making movies with medieval settings. I love period films, and I don't think Hollywood can make enough of them -- even if they're as lackluster as this particular effort.