MovieChat Forums > Dragonslayer (1981) Discussion > Terrible movie - at least 5 stupid and i...

Terrible movie - at least 5 stupid and illogical things


There are at least about five things in this film that are illogical and make no sense. None of these are disbelief-suspension issues--they are stupidity issues.

For example:

(1)(a) The entire village holds a big celebration for the protagonist after he magically causes a landslide that puts a bunch of rocks in front of the dragon's lair, because, apparently, everyone is absolutely certain the dragon has been killed, despite the fact that all that has happened is that the protagonist has used a spell to create a landslide, and despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that the dragon has actually been killed by the landslide, no evidence that the dragon has even been injured by the landslide, and no evidence that it wouldn't be a simple matter for the dragon to remove enough rocks from the entrance to its lair for the landslide to represent any more than a minor annoyance.

(1)(b)Even the protagonist himself is certain that he has killed the dragon, despite the fact that he apparently has psychic powers, as we learned when he remotely viewed a member of his party being killed despite not actually seeing it with his eyes.

(2)(a) The princess clearly commits fraud on the lottery and publicly admits to having done so, yet the results of her fraud are allowed to stand by the only person whose vote that matters, her father, the king, who just a minute before, thought that the lottery was legitimate and was nevertheless about to nullify it merely on grounds that his daughter's name was drawn even though in a completely fair way. The reason--because the princess said she wanted the result to stand, and this somehow vetoes what the king wants. Who cares what she says though?

(2)(b) And why would anyone other than a suicidal person go through such efforts to ensure she is killed by a dragon, no matter what the circumstances? There is no indication that the princess is suicidal.

(2)(c) And doesn't anyone care about the good of the state--presumably having a princess would avoid the turmoil of a succession squabble after the king's death. The princess is apparently the only child of the king. Everyone should be interested in ensuring that she does not die. None of this makes any sense.

(3) The protagonist's love interest clearly commits fraud on the lottery by pretending to be male her whole life. After she admits to having been female, the king should have at least considered forgoing the lottery one year and making her the sacrifice, as a penalty, putting her in jail, or, at the very least, putting her name in the pot a few times to increase her chances. She should have one lot for each year she skipped out, at the very least. Instead, she is given the same treatment as everyone else, and it is as if her fraud never occurred. All of this, with no outcry, despite the fact that everyone knows that the princess' name is never put in the pot and everyone is clearly upset about that, even though, presumably, she's the future ruler.

(4) A tiny nonmagical shield made by a peasant girl protects the protagonist against a torrent of fire so large that was blown at him for so long that it would have easily disintegrated a 10-story building. There is no way any kind of shield could protect someone from that sort of onslaught. The fire completely engulfed his entire person for several seconds, and was quite intense and hot. He used no spell to protect himself. He should have suffocated AND burned to death.

(5) The wizard tells the protagonist to destroy the amulet, and that he would just know when to do it. Nevertheless, when the time comes, the wizard tells him to destroy the amulet. The wizard should have just said, "I'll tell you when to destroy the amulet, but if I'm out of earshot, do it when it gets really bright." The wizard is trying to make it seem like a big mystical thing by telling him that he'd know when the time came to destroy it, but it really isn't a big mystical thing.

Regardless of all of the above, the lead actor Peter MacNicol is a total cheeseball, and that alone would've ruined the film.

What a terrible film. None of this is a matter of disbelief-suspension, which is what silly people say in response to someone pointing out problems like this. Disbelief-suspension is what you do in response to the fact that there's a dragon, or magic. You have to suspend your disbelief in dragons and magic to watch movies like this, and everyone knows that. All of the above are matters of logic. These are serious flaws in this movie.

This is probably the worst fantasy film I have ever seen. I am having trouble thinking of a worse one. The 6.8 rating here at IMDb that this currently has is laughable. This movie deserves no higher than a 2 or 3 from anyone.

reply

There are at least about five things in this film that are illogical and make no sense. None of these are disbelief-suspension issues--they are stupidity issues.

For example:

(1)(a) The entire village holds a big celebration for the protagonist after he magically causes a landslide that puts a bunch of rocks in front of the dragon's lair, because, apparently, everyone is absolutely certain the dragon has been killed, despite the fact that all that has happened is that the protagonist has used a spell to create a landslide, and despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that the dragon has actually been killed by the landslide, no evidence that the dragon has even been injured by the landslide, and no evidence that it wouldn't be a simple matter for the dragon to remove enough rocks from the entrance to its lair for the landslide to represent any more than a minor annoyance.


Because the villagers, desperate for a miraculous salvation were quick to believe that Galen had killed the dragon in the landslide, and Galen believed he had as well. Besides, it's not like they could go into the cave to look for proof of death. That was a big-ass landslide and the only cranes that existed in the dark ages were found near sea water.

(1)(b)Even the protagonist himself is certain that he has killed the dragon, despite the fact that he apparently has psychic powers, as we learned when he remotely viewed a member of his party being killed despite not actually seeing it with his eyes.


Not psychic powers, magic powers. Galen's master Ulrich was seen in the very beginning demonstrating similar powers of foresight. Galen clearly has that gift too, even if it's debatable that it's Galen doing it himself and not Ulrich, who put his spirit inside the amulet before he died. In fact, I'm convinced it's Ulrich giving Galen the visions.

(2)(a) The princess clearly commits fraud on the lottery and publicly admits to having done so, yet the results of her fraud are allowed to stand by the only person whose vote that matters, her father, the king, who just a minute before, thought that the lottery was legitimate and was nevertheless about to nullify it merely on grounds that his daughter's name was drawn even though in a completely fair way. The reason--because the princess said she wanted the result to stand, and this somehow vetoes what the king wants. Who cares what she says though?


There was no public outcry because it's likely the other villagers admired her for the way she bucked the system (and as for the king, it's equally likely that the King was aware of the fraud he was committing himself and that he neither knew, nor cared about a common girl masquerading as a boy. Nobles often had a certain disconnect with their vassals, they were content to rule over them without actually getting to know who they were ruling. Valerian did what she did to avoid a situation she could otherwise do nothing about. As for the Princess, she did what she did to correct an injustice. The princess even blatantly says so during that scene. If you're rich enough, you could buy your name out of the lottery despite the insistence that there are no exceptions. Elspeth substitutes her name for everyone else's for all the times she was unjustly excluded from the lottery. Her life for all the other girls in the kingdom sparing them the way she was spared in every choosing. It's very poetic.

(2)(b) And why would anyone other than a suicidal person go through such efforts to ensure she is killed by a dragon, no matter what the circumstances? There is no indication that the princess is suicidal.


Elspeth acted out of guilt. It's obvious in the film that the news that she's been exempted from the danger of the lottery because of who she is troubles Elspeth greatly. She did what she did to right a wrong, with the hope that her life would make up for all the others sacrificed in the name of an unfair system.

(2)(c) And doesn't anyone care about the good of the state--presumably having a princess would avoid the turmoil of a succession squabble after the king's death. The princess is apparently the only child of the king. Everyone should be interested in ensuring that she does not die. None of this makes any sense.


Perhaps, but King Cassiodorus was the one who came up with the lottery in the first place. He made the bed, he had to lie in it. It's basically his own fault that his daughter died. If there was a crisis of succession after the events of the film, it was of his own making. Clearly though, Urland is in a worse situation when we leave it. I just don't know why Galen and Valerian didn't go back to Craggenmoor to start their new life together. The place was essentially Galen's at the end of the film, and he had Ulrich's old books and scrolls if he wanted to continue persuing sorcery. If not? Hey, free kindling!

(3) The protagonist's love interest clearly commits fraud on the lottery by pretending to be male her whole life. After she admits to having been female, the king should have at least considered forgoing the lottery one year and making her the sacrifice, as a penalty, putting her in jail, or, at the very least, putting her name in the pot a few times to increase her chances. She should have one lot for each year she skipped out, at the very least. Instead, she is given the same treatment as everyone else, and it is as if her fraud never occurred. All of this, with no outcry, despite the fact that everyone knows that the princess' name is never put in the pot and everyone is clearly upset about that, even though, presumably, she's the future ruler.


I'm actually unsure on this issue about whether it's common knowledge you could buy your way out if you were rich enough and Elspeth was the only one being lied to or if it was just a rumor among the bitter commoners that turned out to be true, but common knowledge or not there was nothing the people could do about it. Valerian was raised as a boy to avoid the lottery, that much is true. But it's very different from the princess' situation. Valerian's fraud was fear of an unavoidable situation. Elspeth's name was deliberately kept from the lottery by those who created and maintained it.

(4) A tiny nonmagical shield made by a peasant girl protects the protagonist against a torrent of fire so large that was blown at him for so long that it would have easily disintegrated a 10-story building. There is no way any kind of shield could protect someone from that sort of onslaught. The fire completely engulfed his entire person for several seconds, and was quite intense and hot. He used no spell to protect himself. He should have suffocated AND burned to death.


You forget what the shield was made of -- Vermithrax's own scales. Dragon scales protecting the wearer from fire is an old fantasy trope. Besides, not even Valerian knew for sure if the shield would actually work or not. As for suffocation, that wasn't an issue. It is impossible to suffocate after 14 seconds.

(5) The wizard tells the protagonist to destroy the amulet, and that he would just know when to do it. Nevertheless, when the time comes, the wizard tells him to destroy the amulet. The wizard should have just said, "I'll tell you when to destroy the amulet, but if I'm out of earshot, do it when it gets really bright." The wizard is trying to make it seem like a big mystical thing by telling him that he'd know when the time came to destroy it, but it really isn't a big mystical thing.


Is it now. You're trying to say that a wizard whose life essence is bound to a magic amulet isn't mystical? To quote some people I know, "It's magic, you don't have to explain it". Ulrich's instructions were to wait until the best time, but he must destroy it while there was still life in him. So while yes, he could have given Galen explicit instructions about destroying it, he chose to trust his apprentice.

Regardless of all of the above, the lead actor Peter MacNicol is a total cheeseball, and that alone would've ruined the film.


That was the point. Galen isn't a swashbuckling hero, he's a barely competent sorcerer's apprentice. No one takes him seriously, except the villagers had they not seen the rock slide with their own eyes. I thought he did an excellent job as the unlikely hero. Everybody has the same reaction to him, they're like "This weenie is going to slay our dragon? Seriously?" In that respect, he gets an A+ for his performance.

What a terrible film. None of this is a matter of disbelief-suspension, which is what silly people say in response to someone pointing out problems like this. Disbelief-suspension is what you do in response to the fact that there's a dragon, or magic. You have to suspend your disbelief in dragons and magic to watch movies like this, and everyone knows that. All of the above are matters of logic. These are serious flaws in this movie.

This is probably the worst fantasy film I have ever seen. I am having trouble thinking of a worse one. The 6.8 rating here at IMDb that this currently has is laughable. This movie deserves no higher than a 2 or 3 from anyone.


I'm sorry you think that, but the genre's called FANTASY for a reason. It's not supposed to be realistic. However, judging by the nature of your complaints, my friend I'm going to suggest that you give the film a rewatch to allow it to convince you. This time, I recommend you watch with your eyes open.

Dragonslayer isn't perfect, but very few films are. I admit it drags a bit, but everything that occurs builds up to the reveal of the dragon, and it's well worth the wait when we finally see Vermithrax Pejorative in all her glory.

By the way, I can think of a worse fantasy film off the top of my head: Eragon.

reply

[deleted]

I watched the movie again after seven years. I think if one pays careful attention to details in the movie these objections do not have merit.

(1)(a) Valerian said that there was only one entrance to the dragon's lair. The side of the mountain fell over that entrance. It's not unimaginable that the villagers would think that the dragon was buried alive. Perhaps it was wishful thinking on the part of the villagers but the point is that it was not a plot hole since Valerian made the statement about one entrance. Also consider the earthquake that occurred while Galen was in the dungeon. Could it have been caused by the dragon digging itself out? Not likely. I think the avalanche that Galen caused earlier to seal up the dragon's lair may have caused geological instability that resulted in an earthquake later on. The earthquake may have created a fissure that allowed the dragon to escape. Without the quake the dragon may very well have been buried alive.

(1)(b) I don't think Galen had psychic powers. I think the amulet gave him visions. He had visions only when wearing the amulet.

(2)(a) I think the King allowed Elspeth's fraud to stand because at that moment the corruption of the lottery was publicly acknowledged by Elspeth. He may have feared a revolt of the people if he didn't let it stand.

(2)(b) Elspeth was truly a noble woman. She was willing to die for the sake of honor and justice. There are other noble women of mythology who were willing to die for honor like Antigone who was willing to die to wash her dead brother's body. Elspeth was of the nobility so it is not unimaginable that she would sacrifice herself.

(2)(c) You're assuming that women were permitted to ascend to the throne. The setting of the film is the early dark age. In that kingdom women may not have been permitted to reign. The crown may have gone to a male relative of the king upon his death. Historically, some European countries at various times have not permitted succession by women.

(3) The king allowed rich families to bribe their way out of it so why should he come down so hard on Valerian. To him the lottery was a practical solution to a problem. As long as a virgin was selected and that virgin wasn't his daughter he didn't seem to care that there was some cheating going on.

(4) When the dragon attacked Ulrich with fire he protected himself with magic. Likewise I believe the magic of the amulet protected Galen from the fire. The fire clearly went over the shield so it could not have been the shield protecting him. At the beginning of the movie Ulrich took off the amulet and told Galen to put it away before getting the dagger. Ulrich knew that Tyrian could not kill him with the dagger while he was wearing the amulet. The amulet protected whoever wore it from death.

(5) At the beginning of the movie Ulrich has a vision of the future but it's not clear that he sees exactly how the dragon is killed. He had to rely on Galen's instincts to destroy the amulet at right time. Also, as another poster mentioned Galen may not have heard Ulrich cry out. It may have been just an emotional outburst by Ulrich.

reply

Well, sice ll of the original posters complains/questions have been answered I will answer the only one that wasn't properly addressed. There was no magic used to protect Galen from the fire. His shield was made out of Dragon scales which are fire proof. If they weren't, then a fire breathing Dragon would burn himself a lot... Also, I read the book and it was a topic that was discussed.

VHS>DVD

reply

The flaws in the story, such as they are, are just typical fairy-tale storytelling. You can't look at it too closely.

Whores will have their trinkets.

reply

[deleted]

I agree on all of you points and would like to add that the direction and score was equally bad as the rest of the movie.

reply

1a) believeable inasfaras it represents how populist masses react when something they want so badly to happen seems to happen. Think about the kind of agony these people endure with the lottery and all...besides, the ruling class wasnt fooled.

1b) our protagonist was a kid, self-delusional...caught up in the moment as was everyone else.

2a) this point ill agree w you on. Any king who has a lottery like this should and would have put the smackdown on the entire situation. Unless it is understood he was worried about reversing such a public event (everyone was there). Would he have pushed the public too far? Maybe...if the movie had one scene outlining the king's fears of assassination or overthrow unless his daughter was chosen it would have worked. This really is the only part of the movie i have problems with.

2b) guilt, nobility, suicidal tendencies, take it whatever way you want. Think of the overall big picture - her father's a demagogue, and her decision represents an ultimate act of penance on his behalf to the people.

2c) disagree - id say the public lapped up her decision. The monarchy is clearly a bunch of paranoid monsters themselves, and the public gladly accepts her token rather then have one of their own daughters yet again be sacrificed.

3) but the public more ***sympathizes*** with those trying to stay out of it way more than those kept out by noble decree. In the USA, circa Vietnam, who woukd get more public sympathy: a draft-dodger who shoots himself in the foot, or the son of a senator? The former isnt exactly a saint, but still...

4) made of dragon scales. Fireproof, the movie would presume. I buy it. None of those scenes bothered me a bit. If it was a crappy leather / steel shield id take issue.

5) our protagomist was no sorcerer. The wizard calling his name out proves it. Our guy was just a kid, a failed sorcerer, and the wizard greatly overestimated his ability.

*Macnicol was fine. Played the naive apprentice part well, i thought.
*cant agree those are serious flaws, except for 2a. I thought this film accomplished quite well what it set out to do. Not a perfect film, but am effective one. And, no, im not going to repond w any "suspension of disbelief" stuff. The things you have problems w obviously bothered you a lot. 8/10 for me.


Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

reply

Last time I saw this movie I was probably 3 or 4. It was one of the first movies I remember renting at the videostore and all I remembered was a cool dragon. I rewatched it today for the first time and I loved it.

reply