January 13, 2023

**A shame.**

If “Dragonheart” managed to make an impact and assert itself as an iconic epic adventure, the same cannot be said of its sequels. In the review I wrote for the initial film, I spoke a little about its popularity and impact… and when a film achieves this effect, it already makes a series of sequels designed to “milk the cow” and monetize the success obtained.

This was the first sequel, and it was so weak that it would have been … read the rest.

**A shame.**

If “Dragonheart” managed to make an impact and assert itself as an iconic epic adventure, the same cannot be said of its sequels. In the review I wrote for the initial film, I spoke a little about its popularity and impact… and when a film achieves this effect, it already makes a series of sequels designed to “milk the cow” and monetize the success obtained.

This was the first sequel, and it was so weak that it would have been better not to exist. We already know that sequels are rarely as good as the original movies (although we can name several examples of sequels as good or better than the originals), but this movie is so weak and had such a limited budget that I have doubts about the real effort. from the studio to bring the project to a successful conclusion.

The most praiseworthy and redeeming aspects of this film reside in some of its technical characteristics. In fact, the film has a good soundtrack (in good part a recycling of the first film's musical themes) and tries its best to be fun, engaging, friendly and enjoyable for the whole family. There's plenty of humor, although the jokes don't always work: burning flatulence or drool dripping over a human are situations we've seen before on film, and much better.

Everything else is woefully weak: the script, based on an implausible prophecy and a dragon's egg left behind by Draco, is rather weak and riddled with problems; there are several action-packed scenes, but almost all of them are overly choreographed, imaginative and uninteresting, plus the climax was clearly cobbled together in a hurry. The sets and costumes also suffer from the excesses of imagination applied to the script, turning the Middle Ages into Middle Earth, or almost. There are clearly problems with the lack of good taste in the design of some sets and costumes.

The film used CGI and computer effects quite intensively, both for the castles and the dragon itself. Its use, however, should have been more punctual, since nothing is real, and we clearly understand that. I, for one, don't remember seeing many movies with such clearly fake and amateurish CGI and effects! There are also pacing problems, which reveal faulty editing and many shortcomings in the post-production work.

About the actors, I can only say that we shouldn't hope for miracles. We are dealing with a very weak cast, with weak talent and little able to shine. The main character is the CGI-created dragon, but despite Robby Benson's good voice work, he's a jerk. The best interpretations are by Christopher Masterson and Harry Van Gorkum. Masterson is the classic hero and Gorkum is the Machiavellian villain. What unites them? Both are crooks.

show less