Dragon Fighter (2003)

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Amateur movie with Big budget

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

It's hard to praise this film much. The CGI for the dragon was well done, but lacked proper modelling for light and shadow. Also, the same footage is used endlessly of the dragon stomping through corridors which becomes slightly tedious.I was amazed to see "Marcus Aurelius" in the acting credits, wondering what an ex-Emperor of the Roman Empire was doing acting in this film! Like "Whoopie Goldberg" it must be an alias, and can one blame him for using one if he appears in this stinker.The story might been interesting, but the acting is flat, and direction is tedious. If you MUST watch this film, go around to your friend's house and get drunk while doing so - then it'll be enjoyable.

Many of the Sci-Fi channel titles I've seen have been complete wastes of time, such as "Mammoth," or the super-violent "Rottweiler." But after watching "Dragon Fighter" I was very satisfied. Sure, it was super-sci-fi-formulaic at many parts, like the scientist whose passion becomes a dangerous obsession and he turns mad (see "Hollow Man" and "Alien Lockdown"), or how the only survivors are the most attractive man and woman, and, OF COURSE, they fall in love, and start having small talk about their impending romance after all of their colleagues have met terrible deaths at the hands of a prehistoric dragon, but...The movie actually really enjoyable. Instead of being ridiculously violent, it's entertaining. And Dean Cain is a cool guy. He plays the hero who's trying to stop the dragon from spawning and killing more people. If you see this movie on TV and want to melt your brain watching a stupid but fun sci-fi flick, here ya go.2.9/4

When you wish for the dragon to eat every cast member, you know you're in for a bad ride.I went in with very, very low expectations, having read some of the other comments, and was not let down. Unlike some other cheap and failed movies, however, this one doesn't really remain hilariously (and unintentionally) funny throughout.-SPOILERS FOLLOW-First of all, plot it very inconsistent. Looking past the "small" mistakes, such as the dragon growing up in 3 hours, the whole idea it's based on is messed up. See, the movie wants us to believe that dragons came from outer space in the form of meteorites which really were dragon eggs. After explaining this, they show some peasant poking at one with his pitchfork and the dragon pops out. Later, the obligatory "crazy scientist" guy babbles on about how dragons outlived the dinosaurs. So apparently humans were around when dinosaurs were, or we just have a fine little plot hole here. The other major thing is that the lab is blown up with a force "half as strong" as what was used for Hiroshima. Then two guys later walk in to check everything out, and it's almost unscathed! There's even another dragon, which grew out of who knows what. All in all it's very predictable. As soon as the guy mentioned cloning, I guessed they'd clone a dragon. That means that our Mr. Smarty-pants security guy isn't so intuitive and smart as the movie would have you believe, if you ignore that I knew this film would be about, you know, dragons.Putting that aside, the second worst thing is the "special effects." Others have mentioned the fake rocks falling during the beginning, the CG helicopter, and the dragon. It looks a bit better than a blob, but it ruined whatever it had going for it when it trudged down the hall in the same manner time after time. To their credit, the flying dragons in the beginning looked OK from far away (although the one in the cave is probably the worst one in the whole movie.) These things are funny to watch, however. The scenes where a million different shots of the same person facing different ways are shown are not. Nor are the "introduction" screens with the vital stats.Coming to the actors, they weren't the greatest, but I guess at least they tried? They seemed more enthusiastic about what they were doing than many of the actors participating in the recent "BloodRayne," for example, and you've got to give them points for that. One thing I noticed though was that the woman who plays Meredith often had her face covered in make-up that was many tones lighter than the rest of her. She looked like she had a bad run-in with some white-face.The script is bad and cheesy. You don't really notice the music, but it's actually not too bad for the most part.The bottom line is don't watch it unless you want to see it because you hear it's bad (like I did), although the only funny things are the bad CG effects. Other than that, don't waste your time and money.

Not quite, Dean, more one of those old creature features from the 1950's. This may be a totally predictable film but I found it quite enjoyable as a throw-back to the old square-jaw, thud & blunder movies of the past.Yes,the plot is the old 'trapped in a contained space where the hunters become the hunted' etc and perhaps all done by the numbers. But it's played straight and the cast do well, flashes of humour, the dialogue is OK and Dean Cain makes a reasonable action hero.It's fine for what it is, a dumb monster movie that passes the time and moves along without becoming too boring or outstaying it's welcome. The multi-split screen bits weren't as annoying as I first thought they would be. The CGI effects were pretty decent too, you can see from repeat shots of the dragon that both time and money was at a premium but it still looks quite effective.Not a classic of the horror/creature genre by any stretch of the imagination but as lightweight popcorn entertainment, I felt it did pretty much what it set out to do.