Ask Movie Slate - Episode 230 - Dragonheart



Today's Movie Slate is brought to you thanks to



You know I can get harsh with my own work, and that hasn't stopped with any of my pictures, but to quote Jazza "I really like the way this came out". Contrast this with how I felt about the Thorax picture I uploaded a few weeks ago, this one in comparison I'm actually very happy with. I really like the way the shading bounces off of Ember's body, and her body language and overall expression. I just really like drawing her! She was a ton of fun to work on, and Movie Slate appears cocky and confident for once which was also pretty enjoyable to draw. I had a good time with this drawing, good enough that I started missing working on it the moment it was done! Expect more Ember in the future. She's awesome.



I have a rather strong love-hate relationship with "Dragonheart". I watched it in theatres back in 1996, and even back then I felt conflicted about it, in a number of ways. Let's get the praises out of the way first. It looks wonderful. This movie is really nicely shot, with tons of good visuals, good cinematography work. The sets and costumes are between "Excalibur" and "Knightmare", which to me adds a good level of corny and cheesy without being too cynical. The acting is also pretty alright, for what is required at least. I wouldn't expect Dennis Quaid to pull of being sort of an Arthurian Knight, but he does really well, and of course Pete Postlethwaite was always a delight. It's also paced really nicely, with really good editing where it never feels too slow or too rushed. And of course, the special effects. Everyone was raving about the effects of this movie, and they were right to do so. It's one of the few post-Jurassic Park 90's movies where the CGI has aged rather nicely, especially in the scene where Draco uses his wing to keep Quaid's character away from the rain. So the acting is good, the setting is good, the effects are good, and the technical aspects are good. But...



There are pretty big issues with the tone and the writing in this movie. There is a rather unnecessarily amount of slapstick and crash humour that goes from awkward to downright uncomfortable. I have no problem with something goofy every now and then, like Draco's one-liners or anytime Quaid's character gets roasted by someone else, but pratfals, groin kicks, accidental boob grabs and talks about taxation and fees, this started to feel too goofy and like it didn't fit with the overall tone, especially when the movie goes full on super dramatic towards the end. The ending itself feels like it belongs to another movie, one with less silly stuff in it. It feels like Rob Cohen was trying to make two films and could only pull off half of each, then cobbled it together into one. The original idea had the effects being made by the Jim Henson Company, which when you think about it would've helped set up the tone much better. But when you're going for a dark and gritty fantasy epic, and you throw in a scene where a character fires an arrow and hits a dummy in the crotch, you have to wonder if they're confusing "Excalibur" with "Monty Python". It's not like there's a shortage of fantasy movies with consistent tone that precedented this one. "Krull" had a more consistent tone than this, hell "Deathstalker" as a series had a way more consistent tone than this. Maybe Rob Cohen was too busy directing "Daylight" to take care of keeping consistency with this one movie. That man had a busy year in 1996, didn't he?



"Dragonheart" is a wonderful but fragment piece of 90's cheese that you could take or leave exactly for what it is. If you're looking for a fantasy fix this will do you fine, but if you're looking for consistency in tone and theme you should look elsewhere.



You can check Movie Slate's post on Tumblr right here.



You can also check the Making of Post right here.



Please, let me know what you think of it in the comments. I appreciate and every single one I receive.



Thank you!



