_**"Jaws" in Medieval Times, except with a Dragon**_ A medieval kingdom is harassed by a dragon, apparently the last of its species. Those in government decide to appease the horrific beast with regular sacrifices of virgin maidens, which are selected through a questionable lottery system. When the King's daughter is picked for sacrifice, the monarch employs a sorcerer's apprentice (Peter MacNicol) to slay the dragon. "Dragonslayer" (1981) takes the "Jaws" route by not fully showing the beast until well into the second hour of the film. Prior to that moment the film expertly builds up a heap of horrific anticipation concerning the creature. The first virgin sacrifice scene is particularly terrifying. When we finally DO see the monster it's not a let down. Despite the film's age, this has to be one of better dragons to appear in cinema. I've heard some complain that MacNicol was wrong for the role of the protagonist. I disagree. He's easy to relate to because he's a flawed human being with naive, boyish qualities, not a larger-than-life superhero, like Conan or Beastmaster. I've also heard some complain that the heroine, Caitlin Clarke, is too "man-ish" looking. Well, duh, that fits into the whole sacrificial lottery plot. When Caitlin ultimately (and uncertainly) dons a dress & make-up she's woman enough. The Dark Age sets/costumes/locations really impressed me. If you're in the mood for a top-of-the-line medieval flick with castles, dungeons, forests, villages, fair maidens, kings, sorcerers and caves, this one fills the bill. "Dragonslayer" was an inexplicable flop at the box office when it was released, perhaps due to the glut of sword & sorcery pictures in the early 80s. But that doesn't mean you can't discover it (or rediscover it) and savor it now. The film runs 1 hour, 48 minutes and was shot in Scotland (Skye) and Wales (Snowdonia & North Wales) with studio stuff done at Pinewood Studios, near London. GRADE: B+

A suitably entertaining fantasy film from Disney, if a tad too long. <em>'Dragonslayer'</em> is just about good. I like some of the locations used as well as the, admittedly dated, special effects. As for my dislikes, those would be the cast, characters and story. I had a fine time following all three, but I didn't overly care for any of them - I didn't feel attached. Peter MacNicol, who I always remember from 1997's <em>'Bean'</em>, is alright as Galen, if unspectacular and mostly forgettable. As are the rest of the cast in truth, I can't say their performances will stick in my mind either unfortunately. I can see how some people would enjoy this. I did, just not majorly.