Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Anssi Vartiainen A noble knight (Dennis Quaid) is raising the prince of the realm, Einon (David Thewlis), trying to impress upon him the values needed to become a good king. He's in fact raising him to be the exact opposite of his brutish father. But then a tragic accident forces them to turn to a creature of legend for help. They must speak to Sean Connery. Well... a dragon voiced by him, but there's not much of a difference.DragonHeart suffers mainly from the passage of time. Its effect were actually quite decent for their day, even earning an Academy Award nomination. But nowadays you can almost see better graphics in mobile games. That's how badly they've aged. Not a pretty movie.The same goes for the plot. It's just so cheaply 90s, with a vague fantasy setting where people talk about the Old Ways, without ever really explaining them in detail, where dragons make jokes about their bad breath due to eating knights, where peasants are caked with mud and people clank around in armour even when it makes no sense for them to be wearing it. There's talk about good and evil in a very black and white manner. We even have the grumpy main character, who has become disillusioned with the world, but still has a good heart beneath his jaded exterior.In a word, DragonHeart is childish. It's not the worst movie ever, but neither does it have anything to offer beyond the trimmings of a cheap paperback fantasy novel. And even those are dogeared.

shamanwulf I've finally reached my fifties, but I still love this film as much as the first day I saw it in the cinema. It's a relevant thought, you see, because as I browsed the reviews I came face to face with an old acquaintance -- the realisation that childlike wonder and imagination are actually rare enough to be in short supply, enough to justifiably call those resources scarce.I raised an eyebrow, vexed, as people complained about realism; I've heard complaints of the improbability of a dragon's ambulatory system without ever the self awareness to realise that with a few tweaks to physics to account for a different world -- one where magic exists as an institution and resource, no less -- along with some fixes to common misconceptions of dragons and animal biology that one could make anything probable. Clever people call this 'escapism,' a retreat into a fantasy, fictitious world unlike our own. Escapism goes so much further than daydreams of attractive sexual partners and fast cars.Here I see in the 'goofs' section that the dragon's wings don't generate downdraft. Who says they need to? A man in Britain created a box that could generate quantum thrust by manipulating lasers. Who's to say that a dragon's lift doesn't work the same way? Cries off realism come only from dull, mundane, typical minds. Not anyone who's especially brilliant would even mistake fantasy for reality in the first place. Truly, if one is unable to discern that dragon's exist in the realm of the improbable, so far separated from our own, then they've bigger problems than 'unrealistic' dragons.The pseudo-intellectual of below average intelligence complains of unrealism, thinking himself clever. The truly clever person possessed of a sharp mind and considerable wit finds the challenge of explaining other realities with their own physical laws fun!So, to wit, this is a lovely film, heartwarming, ingenious, and with a fantabulous showing from Mr. Connery. You may like it, but you should probably only watch it if you're clever enough to understand the distinctions and boundaries between reality and fantasy. Though individuals quite clever enough for that are evidently few and far between.Don't apply if you subscribe oxymoronically to 'I don't want fantasy in my fantasy, only reality with the rules of that even normalised and simplified into mundanity enough that I'm able to actually understand it;' Or if you're inclined to prefer bat-like dragon's over their six- limbed cousins because they're more realistic (without being erudite enough to realise why that statement makes no sense, because playing by those rules the ambulatory pressure problems created by such a large, flying creature would make bat-like dragons every bit as unrealistic). If either of the prior is true, you're not good enough for this film. It deserves a better audience.If, however, that gave you a chuckle rather than fired your ire, you may just be good enough for it. In which case you really should watch it!

vincentlynch-moonoi I'm imagining an author or screen writer who has a story to tell. He writes his story to appeal to a particular audience...it could be an audience of children, or it could be an audience of adults. The film studio, however, always with an eye to have a bigger audience decides the film needs to appeal to both adults and children, so they require some changes so the film will appeal to both groups. But, in the end, it is too mature for kids, and too "kiddish" for adults, and really pleases almost no one. And that's a major problem with this film.On the positive side, the film is nicely filmed, and the special effects regarding the dragon are excellent. Also, the relationship that evolves between the dragon (wonderful voice of Sean Connery) and Dennis Quaid (which takes quite a long time to develop) is quite enchanting...yet also problematic -- it's a little too talkative and emotionally mature (not in a sexual manner) for most kids.On the negative side, close your eyes and listen to Dennis Quaids dialog when he's being forceful. I thought he must have taken speech lessons from Harrison Ford! Not saying Quaid doesn't do a decent job here, however. And then there's the mismatch between a little too much comedy to be taken seriously, and far too much drama to be taken as a comedy.As mentioned, Dennis Quaid as the knight does rather well. Sean Connery, though you only hear his voice as the dragon, is quite remarkable. I'm not sure this is a good role for David Thewlis as the evil king, It's clearly been a long fall for Julie Christie from Doctor Zhivago, although, as the king's queen mother, she has one delicious scene with her son toward the end of the movie. Dina Meyer as Kara, a peasant girl, is okay. And, you're right, that's John Gielgud's voice as the ghost of King Arthur.And, the ending simply ruined the film. Shameful and stupid.Some highlights, yes. But overall disappointing.

NathanWhite1981 As a child I'd go to my grandmother's house during the summer. She had bought this movie on VHS and my cousins and I would watch it. Then watch it some more and more. I'm amazed we never broke the tape. Dragonheart is, in my humble opinion, one of the best-ever dragon movies I have seen. So what if some of the plot is not 'believable'. It's a fairytale. So, when and if you watch/re-watch this movie, do so with an open heart. Top-notch special effects of the time and the inclusion of Sean Connery and Dennis Quaid, who performed their roles of noble dragon and despairing knight incredibly well. In my view, an amazing film, an amazing cast and an amazing result. This is a must watch and under-rated film in my opinion.