Undescribable Perfection

Strong and Moving!

Instant Favorite.

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

Though a critical and commercial disappointment upon its release, 'Dragonslayer' has had quite a reputation renaissance in the years that followed, currently sporting an %85 fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and a 6.7 rating here on IMDb. With numbers like that, I purchased a used copy of 'Dragonslayer' with rather high hopes. Too high as it turned out.'Dragonslayer' features some incredible special f/x; particularly the creation of Vermithrax the dragon, but its paper thin characters get lost within a story that is told without even an ounce of energy or flourish.

I caught about 10-15 minutes of "Dragonslayer" on TV a few months back, which was my first exposure to this film, and I determined right then and there to eventually purchase it. When I finally bought it I watched it TWICE, something I rarely do.THE STORY: A medieval kingdom is harassed by a dragon, apparently the last of its species. The people decide to appease the horrific beast with regular sacrifices of virgin maidens. The virgins are selected through a questionable lottery system. When the King's daughter is picked for sacrifice, the monarch employs a sorcerer's apprentice, Peter MacNicol, to slay the dragon."Dragonslayer" takes the "Jaws" route by not fully showing the beast until well into the second hour of the film. Prior to that revealing moment the film expertly builds up a heap of horrific anticipation concerning the creature. The first virgin sacrifice scene is particularly terrifying. When we finally DO see the monster it's definitely not a let down. Many viewers attest that this dragon is the best dragon to ever appear in film, even though the picture was made in 1981.I've heard some complain that the protagonist, MacNicol, was wrong for the role. Nothing could be further from the truth. He's easy to relate to because he's a flawed human being with naive, boyish qualities, not a larger-than-life superhero (like, say, Conan or Beastmaster). I've also heard some complain that the heroine, Caitlin Clarke, is too "man-ish" looking. Well, duh, that fits into the whole sacrificial lottery plot. When Caitlin ultimately and uncertainly dons a dress and make-up she's woman enough.The Dark Age sets/costumes/locations really impressed me. If you're in the mood for a top-of-the-line medieval flick with castles, dungeons, forests, villages, fair maidens, kings, sorcerers, etc. this is the one to see."Dragonslayer" was an inexplicable flop when it was released in 1981, perhaps due to the glut of similar-themed pictures at the time. Regardless, it can now be treasured on DVD. It took me over 25 years to witness its magnificence but I finally did.GRADE: A-

Recently I rented this movie through Netflix because I had not seen it for many years and wanted to see if it lived up to my nostalgia. And I have to say that Dragonslayer (1981) is still a special movie to me.There is not much plot in the movie that is not described in the title. Peter MacNicol plays a sorcerer's apprentice who, when his master is killed before fulfilling a promise to slay a dragon, must attempt to slay the dragon himself.Because it was released at the start of a run of sword-and-sorcery movies produced in the 1980s, Dragonslayer is different from almost every other movie in the genre that followed it. In fact, it is almost unique in movie history.I actually believe that Dragonslayer has more in common with Jaws (1975) than it does with other 1980s fantasy-adventure movies.Director Matthew Robbins, no doubt influenced by Steven Spielberg's directorial techniques in Jaws, introduces the dragon slowly, in fleeting glimpses, before finally revealing it in its entirety after more than an hour of screen time.There is, for example, a great shot from behind a character's head as he slowly rises to his feet with the dragon in front of him, with the dragon's head only just visible around his own.The director also makes clever use of camera angles to suggest that people are constantly in fear of death from above, crouching and even crawling along the ground in apprehension of awakening a sleeping dragon.Like almost all the sword-and-sorcery movies of the 1980s, Dragonslayer is also a triumph of production design. Production Designer Elliot Scott creates a world in which a fire-breathing dragon does not seems out of place. The sorcerer's castle is appropriately dark and dreary, the people live in a village that appears to be little more than sticks and rocks put together, and the dragon's lair, full of fire and steam, is an unforgettable sight.The screenplay has perhaps just the right amount of plot in it, yet I cannot say that it impressed me as much as the direction and production design, because it seems more like a series of clever ideas than a coherent screenplay.I do not want to spoil the movie for those who have not seen it, but I thought it was a clever touch for the hero to use a shield made of the dragon's own scales for protection against its fiery breath. Also, when the hero ventures into the dragon's lair, the dragon is hiding in the last place that you would expect a fire-breathing dragon to hide.Like many other movies of the genre, Dragonslayer does suffer from a bit of an identity crisis. Is this a movie for adults or for children? Obviously few people over the age of twelve care about the slaying of a dragon, yet the unrelenting grim and serious tone of the work suggests an ambition to be more than just a "kids' movie." This tone is maintained so completely that the jokey, lighthearted ending seems out of place, compared to everything that has preceded it.The screenplay also suffers from some awkward moments of transition, as when the hero, after battling the dragon, appears outside the dragon's lair, with no explanation as to how he escaped or survived. The myth of Saint George and the Dragon, which provided most of the source material for the screenplay, suffers from the same abrupt transitions, if I remember correctly, yet the screenplay should have improved upon the flaws in the source material.I also cannot praise the movie as an actors' showcase, especially since Sir Ralph Richardson, obviously the best actor in the movie and giving one of his last performances, is on screen the least amount of time. The other performances are merely serviceable, nothing more.I would give this movie 7 out of 10, because if you are a fan of fantasy movies then the movie is definitely worth seeing at least once. If you are not a fan of fantasy movies, then you might give the movie only 5 out of 10, as its good points would not be as meaningful to you.I have to admit that I have no idea how people today, accustomed to Lord of the Rings and other lavishly produced computer-generated spectacles, would view this movie. I would like to think that the movie has held up better than many other movies that rely upon special effects, thanks to its production design, and Alex North's atmospheric musical score, yet maybe this is not enough for viewers today.Perhaps the greatest praise that I can give this movie is that, at least for me, it is memorable and unique.This movie should always have a place in movie history, if only for its special effects. It was released the same year (1981) as Ray Harryhausen's last special effects movie, the original Clash of the Titans, and introduced a new stop-motion technique, "go-motion," which would be the special effects-industry standard for the next twelve years, until Jurassic Park was released in 1993 and made all stop-motion effects seem obsolete.It would be easy to dismiss Dragonslayer as merely a footnote in the history of fantasy and special-effects movies, but I would prefer to think that, when viewed today, it still succeeds in transporting the audience to another time and place and makes them believe the impossible.

Dragonslayer is movie well worth seeing. The name makes it sound like a formulaic movie about a fantasy hero fulfilling his destiny, but that is not so. This movie is interesting because it is different, it has so many nice little bits which are out of the ordinary.A formula movie would involve "the part where the villains are winning", "the part where the heroes are training", "the part where the heroes kick ass". Most of this movie involves the heroes not really knowing what to do or how to do it, just trying their best with mixed results. And the antagonists are all multi-dimensional, none are evil for the sake of being evil. Basically the movie is a play on the standard fantasy hero movie. But it is not a parody or critique of the genre; this movie is unusual in being much more subtle. It is simply about things being more complex than may appear on the surface. This artistic choice can at times make the movie seem unpolished and not "tight", but I think it is interesting.I've always liked the character development of the female lead. The dragon is great, especially the fire-breathing. The theme of the decline of magic is an interesting background element thrown into the movie. And the slow pacing and periodic focus on natural scenery make the movie feel both more realistic and more grand at the same time.The movie is hardly perfect. I'm not a huge fan of the male lead's performance. And you need a good attention span because parts of the movie run slow. But there is a lot to like about this movie.