I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Deeper than the descriptions

A different way of telling a story

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Firstly, the synopsis: partial immortality??? What the heck is partial immortality? You are either immortal or you are not. More often than not it felt like I was watching a stage play instead of a movie. The film was also much too lighthearted to be taken seriously. If intended as a comedy, it wasn't funny, though, it was silly. I found it cartoonish at times. The film is laden with flaws, conveniences and assumptions that render the film more suited for a young demographic, as it might not appeal to a mature audience, who will not find it very believable or convincing. The character's actions leave very little to be desired. There are so many instances where characters hears conversations from meters away, and arrive just in time to continue a conversation. Uhm, really...! This is so Hollywood!David Thewlis was not very convincing as the antagonist. Dennis Quaid was kind of likable as the hero, but then again, he generally is. I did enjoy Sean Connery's voice. Oh, that voice!Ok, so the film had a cool ending. It still did not compensate for all the silliness. The visual effects were great.

Okay medieval dragon tale about shiftless conman Dennis Quaid striking a bargain with a CGI dragon (voiced by Sean Connery) to attack villages who will then pay Quaid to "slay" the dragon. It's a clever idea, but the film is so vanilla that it might as well have been a throwaway 1970s Disney film. Don't get me wrong, I love a good sappy Disney film, but the characters and emotions here were all very by-the-numbers, leaving the audience with no real investment in what happens to them. The film either needed to be more real on a character and emotional level, or it needed to be grittier (i.e. "Dragonslayer" or "Reign of Fire"). Still, "DragonHeart" is well crafted from a technical and production value standpoint and Connery voicing the dragon is pretty irresistible. Worth watching, but pretty forgettable.

Disclaimer: I saw this movie in theaters when I was 6 or 7 and cried my eyes out there. It was the very first movie that I got home and tearfully, hauntingly asked my parents why it had to happen that way. Why did the good dragon have to die? I don't remember what they had to say, but at 25 I still spill whiskey soul tears when I watch this movie to the end. The clear-cut morality of it, the good and bad and how it gets complicated. It's just painful in real and in the best/worst way. I'm quite sure I'll expose my someday kids to this movie, especially because the special effects and Connery's moral, good voice will live up to it. I only wish I live up to the Old Code every day at my hard job and teach my kids to do the same.

I'm surprised this movie is not at least a 7 in IMDb. Dragonheart used to be one of my favorite movies when I was teenager. It is fun, funny and emotional, the CGI are great for late 90's and Denis Quaid acting is remarkable. Leaving aside the fact that this is a story about dragons and knights, The bottom story of honor and betrayal is a little stereotypical but still very catching. To me the downside is the antagonist casting: The guy is so boring. Other than that, Sean Connery's voice and the movie soundtrack are spectacular. Highly recommended to watch in family for those who haven't seen it yet, and for the rest, revisiting this title now and then, can be a good plan for a Sunday afternoon.