Analysis and Review: Curse of the Dragon Slayer (Fantasy B movie)

Analysis and Review: Curse of the Dragon Slayer (Fantasy B movie)

My review and analysis of a 2013 low-budget fantasy movie (also called SAGA: The Shadow Cabal and Dragon Lore: Curse of the Shadow) made by Mainstay Productions, directed by John Lyde and starring Danielle Chuchran, Richard McWilliams, Paul D. Hunt. I think it is an interesting example of what is possible within the constraints of a lower budget.

My book, _Muramasa: Blood Drinker_, is out now! https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01H6PDVM0
Find me outside of youtube:
Read my books- http://dvspress.com
www.amazon.com/author/davidvandykestewart
For more music stuff – http://davidvstewart.com
http://www.facebook.com/davidvandykestewart
plus.google.com/+davidstewartwriter
http://davidvandykestewart.blogspot.com
twitch.tv/davidvstewart
stu@davidvstewart.com

1,650
Like
Save

Comments

Jaime Osorio Yohn says:

Me encanta la banda sonora de esta película. Pero no la encuentro por ni una parte. ¿Dónde puedo encontrarla? I like the OST of this film. But I don´t find this for anywhere. Where can I find this OST? Please? Thanks

nick SOULE says:

Leather bracer were a thing, roman armies for sure had bracer as even a light blow from a sword can cut you enough to make you bleed out and effectively remove you from the battle at hand

nick SOULE says:

Leather armor is used by smaller, faster moving people, less weight means more speed, each and every armor set has its advantages and disadvantages, so really no armor set is better than another since each armor set is made with a very specfic fighting style in mind and once you leave the realm of that fighting style that armor because mostly useless, i.e. a heavy greek phalanx would use massive bronze sheild, helmet, legs, etc, since their style of fighting require a tight formation and fighting emenies only from the front means that the heavy greek phalanax was ineffectively armor in the rear as all the armor they had would be used for facing the frontal assualt, now look at the persian of the same era, they literally used leather or cloth but the main point behind that is that armor is cheap, can be mass produced to outfit massive armies, and their fighting style was engage enemies in the front with throw away units from their empires holding while their elite horsemen would work around the flanks of the enemy army, thus the heavier the armor the perisan wore the more ineffective their battle tactics would become as their tactical doctrine relied more on movement/position than pure fighting ability/heavy assult troops.

thus no armor set is better than another per say as each armor set is design with a specific combat situation in mind and once you leave the design combat of any weapon it becomes ineffective when compared to weapons that are design to be used in the situation

Hope Basden says:

Hey man I haven't watched your video because I plan on watching the movie so I don't want spoilers but I was wondering what does Fantasy "B" stand for?

MainstayPro says:

Very entertaining and informative review.

Nice commentary about the map. The map was from the video game SAGA that the movie was loosely based off.

The demon at the end wasn’t CGI. It was my brother in a monster suit. The fire veins were added CGI.

The original title was Saga: The Shadow Cabal. The original distributor changed the title to Saga: Curse of the Dragon Slayer. The US distributor changed it to Curse of the Dragon Slayer. They even changed the synopsis. The producers contacted them and the distributor basically said they can do whatever they want.

JAmericanGamer says:

Sorry to tell all people that don't actually make movies or games.

But when you clad every character in armor head to toe, you actually kill the IMMERSION! That's why in most games and movies, actors don't where helmet.

Alot of games even give you an option to not show your helmet. All these realism analysts, are so smart they're dumb.

nobodi12 says:

Do you know of similar fantasy B movies?
Somehow I really liked the CUrse of the Shadow.

FortCastellan says:

Woah, you skipped over one of the more interesting parts of the production:  In the middle of the movie, the heroes have to fight a larger-than-human monster.  But rather than animating some cave-troll-knock-off, and having to build the scene around what they could animate, they instead made the monster a giant muppet!  And then they had that muppet wander into the scene, be surrounded by minions, punch up our heroes, ect.  All on-set and in-camera!  Sure, its not super-convincing, but nor does it reek of cgi fakeness.  It's different that what you'd expect in modern movies, and it has that old-school charm….I have to admit, love this movie.  I really appreciate its ambition, and I find it satisfying in all the ways that that Hobbit movies aren't.  But yeah, it is a B-movie, and have no problems loving a movie and laughing at its shortcomings at the same time.  I mean, I'm the kind of guy who would watch the theatrical cut of The Final Sacrifice if given the chance.

Wes Knowles says:

I seen movie

The Blind Marksman says:

"The orcs are forced to go into the wasteland, which is the desert parts of Utah."

I live in Utah, can confirm.

SynergstSavedByGrace says:

I saw it about 2 years ago. It was enjoyable enough for spectacle, though the lack of good writing and production values showed a bit much. The acting was okay, with the exception of the elf trying to appear feral…it looked more like a model trying to be pouty than a truly fear-inducing snarl. They were also channeling a lot of LOTR when the orc and elf made amends, it was virtually copied from the "I never thought I'd die fighting side-by-side with an elf" scene.

andeace23 says:

I came in with rock bottom expectations and was pleasantly surprised.

DeCipher says:

One topic that I think would really be worth doing a video on is the place of conflict in a narrative. For me, the majority of films that fall flat do so because of the conflict being handled badly in some way. As you suggested is the case in this film, many films have interesting first Acts but then start to flounder around the middle and I think that's mainly because of being premise centred rather than conflict centred.

tamara ns.ns.II. says:

I liked the movie, my love for high fantasy managed to suspend disbelief quite lot 🙂
What really threw me off was atrocious acting. Orcs were good, but everyone else sucked hard.

El Ochentero says:

I watch this movie like a couple of months ago, I liked, is pretty good for the tight budget they have, they put a lot of effort, especially regarding make ups

Simply the Best says:

I saw that movie almost a year ago, or maybe shorter than that. I liked it .

I do agree the 3rd act turns the movie from could have been great to just too low budget fun.

I wouldn't pick on the armor much, ( you can if you want too but….) this is not medieval armor its fantasy armor. For all we know the leather working works better in their world.

What got me out of immersion was the orcs prosthesis. I'm just done with masks.

It shows no emotion and that kills it for me. That's something that I hated in the force awakens.

On a larger budget I would mix prosthetics with CGI motion caption for movement. IDK I got this artistic approach is not Hollywood ideology.

Gallen Dugall says:

Obscure movie reviews are always fun.
Low budget but their chainmail isn't a chainmail print like many big budget movies try to get away with.
You would hate the "armor" they wear at Medieval Times as it's OMG bad. Decent floor show & the tomato bisque is good though – don't judge me I live ten minutes away and my brother loves it. I think drinking must make it better.
Most movies aren't better or worse than okay. I think one of the most interesting things about low budget movies is that there is no pressure from some company suits desperate to make their investment not a total loss by striving for mediocrity.
Great video look forward to more.

Comments are disabled for this post.