Review of Age of the Dragons (2011) by Amy H — 07 May 2014

I?ve got a lot of respect for anyone willing to take risks in the film industry, in particular some completely off the wall retellings (see Zombie Strippers) so though I was all in for a version of Moby Dick except with dragons. But no amount of dragons will rectify a film?s being plain bad.

I totally believe in a perfect ending saving a piss poor movie, and I try to never let a shittily handled ending ruin an otherwise good movie, but when a movie starts off with (at best) a small dollop of originality and then chugs away getting less and less interesting as the piece drearily sails on, a lacklustre ending is simply not enough to garner a single bit of praise from me.

I like seeing Vinnie Jones on screen, and I?m intrigued to fond Danny Glover getting work. The dragons were bearable given the low budget and the premise managed to ride the line between source material and new setting in an acceptable manner. But when the nicest thing that can be said about a film is ?bearable? and part of it was ?acceptable?, what your really saying is ?not worth while?.

While I?ve seen a million (exaggeration) worse movies in my time, even crap like Zombie Driftwood is at least laughably bad, sifting through mountains of needles to find that one little gem is hardly ideal when looking at a mountain next door that?s all gems, but with Age of the Dragons there?s really nothing worth catching here at all. No shiny. No torture. Other than in the on-screen literal sense there?s not even a goddamn mountain. It?s the most nothing movie I?ve seen since Rise of an Empire.

28%.

-Gimly.