Reign of Fire

Rating:
Summary: It's pretty disappointing.
Review: Reign of Fire sounds like it could be a sci-fi/action/fantasy thriller for the ages. In the near future, man is destroyed by dragons and what few humans remain must live in fear and hiding. Then they plan one last stand against the dragons to determine who rules the planet. Sounds exciting, huh? Well, I'm still waiting for that movie.

Reign of Fire is a surprisingly slow and sluggish post-apocalyptic actioner that features very little action. Just as bad, there are hardly any dragons to speak of on screen. If my memory serves me correctly, there are a grand total of three dragons the humans fight, and it's all one at a time. Three fight scenes, in a movie that's just over 100 minutes long. Damn, the stuff in-between had better be compelling. Too bad it's not.

Unlike The Road Warrior and Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, this film fails to gel its apocalyptic premise in-between the action scenes, which are admittedly quite thrilling (and more on them in a moment). Instead, we get a lot of mumbling dialogue spoken among the survivors, very little of which is interesting, and it eventually grinds the pace to the equivalent of a turtle (albeit, a faster than usual turtle).

Things do liven up a bit when Matthew McConaughey arrives, but he's actually less interesting than Christian Bale, who plays our protagonist. What captured my interest with mConaughey is that wild, unkempt look he sports, that completely shaved head, and the dazed look in his eyes. This role is a definitely first for the man, and he pulls it off convincingly.

Structure-wise, there are quite a few resemblances to Pitch Black (which was far superior), not only in the form of flying beasties but as well with Izabella Scorupco. Anyone else think she's almost a dead-on for Radha Mitchell from the aforementioned film (though, for some reason, I find Mitchell a lot hotter) (must be the tight tank-top and pants she wears in Pitch Black)?

That aside, there also the action scenes which are fairly thrilling, but also don't hold a candle to the excitement of Pitch Black. Basically, watch that movie instead, is my advice. Yeah, Reign of Fire has some good action and special effects, but it's otherwise slooowww pace, head-scratching script, and dull dialogue mar this picture. I haven't been this disappointed in a while.

Rating:
Summary: A pyrotechnical B-movie masterpiece
Review: I honestly do not understand all the bad reviews that Reign of Fire received when it opened. Most people expected an Independence Day style brainless special effects vehicle and instead they got a slow paced character driven sci-fi flick. I guess these are the same people who thought XXX was a masterpiece. Anyway, I love Reign of Fire for everything it is and isn't. Matthew McConaughey (who it is great to see in another great movie without Hollywood gloss, see Frailty to see what I mean) brings to life one of his best roles in the dragonslaying Van Zan, while Christian Bale proves once again that he isn't just female eye candy (for another example see American Psycho). Both actors are fantastic, while X-Files film director Rob Bowman moves the film at a purposely slow pace so that every time we get a glimpse of a dragon it leaves the viewer wanting more and eventually getting it. The dragons themselves must be seen to be believed, they breathe, move, and stalk like one would imagine a dragon would in real life. All in all, Reign of Fire is a masterful high grade B-movie that shines without the Hollywood gloss, and is a true treat of a film.

Rating:
Summary: Big Dissapointment!
Review: One regards "Reign of Fire" with awe. What a vast enterprise has been marshaled in the service of such a minute idea. Incredulity is our companion, and it is twofold: We cannot believe what happens in the movie, and we cannot believe that the movie was made.

Of course, in a story involving mankind's battle with fire-breathing dragons in the year 2020, there are a few factual matters you let slide. But the movie makes no sense on its own terms, let alone ours. And it is such a grim and dreary enterprise. One prays for a flower or a ray of sunshine as those grotty warriors clamber into their cellars and over their slag heaps. Not since "Battleship Earth" has there been worse grooming.

The story: A tunnel beneath London breaks open an underground cavern filled with long-dormant fire-breathing dragons. They fly to the surface and attack mankind. When one is destroyed, countless more take its place. Man's weapons only increase the damage. Soon, civilization has been all but wiped out; the heroes of the film cower in their underground hiding places and dream of defeating the dragons.

Along comes Van Zan (Matthew McConaughey), the Dragon Slayer. He is bald and bearded, and his zealot's eyes focus in the middle distance as he speaks. He's the kind of tough guy who smokes cigar butts. Not cigars. Butts. He has a disagreement with Quinn (Christian Bale), the leader of the group. I am not sure why they so ferociously oppose each other, but I believe their quarrel comes down to: Van Zan thinks they have to fight the dragons, and Quinn thinks they have to fight the dragons but they have to look out real good, because those are dangerous dragons and might follow them home.

There's not much in the way of a plot. Alex (Izabella Scorupco) gets grubby and distraught while standing between the two men and trying to get them to stop shouting so much and listen to her scientific theories. Meanwhile, dragons attack, their animated wings beating as they fry their enemies. Their animation is fairly good, although at one point a dragon in the background flies past the ruined dome of St. Paul's, and you can see one through the other, or vice versa.

I'm wondering, why, if civilization has been destroyed, do they have electricity and fuel? Not supposed to ask such questions. They're like, how come everybody has cigarettes in "Waterworld"? Van Zan figures out that the dragon's fire comes from the way they secrete the ingredients for "natural napalm" in their mouths. His plan: Get real close and fire an explosive arrow into their open mouth at the crucial moment, causing the napalm to blow up the dragon.

He has another bright idea. (Spoiler warning.) All of the dragons they see are females. Many of them carry eggs. Why no males? Because, Van Zan hypothesizes, the dragons are like fish, and it only takes a single male to fertilize umpteen eggs. "We kill the male, we kill the species," he says.

Yeah, but ... there are dragons everywhere. Do they only have one male, total, singular? How about those eggs? Any of them male? And also, after the male is dead, presumably all of the females are still alive, and they must be mad as hell now that they're not getting any action. How come they stop attacking?

I know I have probably been inattentive, and that some of these points are solved with elegant precision in the screenplay. But please do not write to explain, unless you can answer me this: Why are the last words in the movie, "Thank God for evolution"? Could it be a ray of hope that the offspring of this movie may someday crawl up onto the land and develop a two-celled brain?

Rating:
Summary: Silly, but fun
Review: Reign of Fire (Rob Bowman, 2002)
Veteran TV director Rob Bowman gives us his third feature film, Reign of Fire. "Stupid" is the first word that comes to mind, but it's stupid in an affectionate, agreeable sort of way.

Christian Bale (American Psycho, Shaft) plays the leader of one of the last remaining outposts of humans on earth, which has been devastated by dragons. Yes, dragons. Seems they'd been hibernating for millenia and were awakened by a team drilling a new subway (which just happened to include Bale's character's mom). He and his crowd are just trying to get along in the world, until a band of marauders, headed by Matthew McConaughey, stop in claiming to be dragonslayers.

The best parts of the movie feature Bale and McConaughey engaged in a kind of tug-of-war for the loyalty of Bale's compound, while at the same time forming a grudging respect for one another. There is actually very little of this. Much of the rest is either a special effects extravaganza or attempted sexual tension between Bale and ex-Bond Girl Izabella Scorpuco (GoldenEye). Silly and predictable, with great unrealized potential. Still, there are worse ways to turn your brain off for a couple of hours. ** 1/2

Rating:
Summary: B-Monster Movie Upgraded by Modern CGIs
Review: "Reign of Fire" (or I would like to call it more blatant "Humans vs Dragons") is directed by Rob Bowman, a guy behind the movie "X-Flies" and some of its TV episodes, and that would tell you something before you see the film. No logical development of story can be found in the whole film, and you just cannot expect it from the start.

Before you watch the film, stop your thinking. I tell you this because what you see first is the construction site in London for extending the subway line, and a boy is allowed to enter the tunnel, where a hollow cave is newly discovered. I mean it, it's London, but it seems there have been no buildings or sewers around that place. But you better forget that part anyway, and the film says a dragon ressurrects from the earth, and this unleashed fire-breathing creature destroys the whole world before you knew it.

The film then goes on depicting the humans living with meager food, hiding in a castle, fearing the attack of the dragons. (Wait! DragonS? Sure, somehow the first one succeeded in reproducing the spieces, but I say, don't think.) Christain Bale is Quinn, trusted leader of the people, but one day he meets an American troop led by Patton-like charismatic leader Van Zan played by overacting Matthew Mcconaughey. (But how did they manage to fly over the Atlantic Ocean?)

Let's be honest. The film's logic is too silly, and requires us to turn our blind eyes to the story. The way the troopers fight the deadly dragons is displayed with certain amount of brio, but the details are so incredible that you have to keep on believing what you see on the screen (which is quite a task). The CGIs are just OK, but somehow keeps you interested in the film, helped by fast speed of the story.

Here I give you warning; the film's mid-size budget clearly didn't allow the crew to shoot some scenes, so if you think that the most intriguing part of the story is the mass destruction of the city, the country, or modern civilizations, you will be disappointed. After the advent of the first dragon, the film just leaps to many years later, with an apologetically inserted subtitle "20 years later" and many newsmagazines' headlines like "Paris Burns!" But unlike "Armageddon" we don't see that.

In a sense, "Reign of Fire" is kind of updated version of the 1950s type B-flicks in which humans desperately fight monsters. There is nothing wrong with the formula if we see the film as such. Unfortunately, our expectation level has risen since "Jurassic Park" so we want something more original in thetrical features. Though the film is not bad, and it is good for spending some time on a rainy day, "Reign of Fire" just doesn't deliver anything new.

Rating:
Summary: Futuristic dragons and unbeatable British talent
Review: Having grown up on films such as "Krull" and "Dragonslayer" I was excited yet hesitant to see "Reign of Fire." (We've all been burned before on these types of films.) But since I'm a huge fan of the very talented Christian Bale, I decided to take the risk. Wow! The dragons sent chills from my head to my toes. As did Bale and his side kick Gerard Butler. (He was the best thing about "Dracula 2000." Probably the sexiest vampires EVER! Can't wait to see him in "Tomb Raider 2.") But the actor who surprises the most was Matthew McConaughey. With biceps bulging and shaved head, he came off as a real force to reckon with. What's even more impressive about the story is its unique combination of genres, fantasy and sci-fi. It's a clever concept.
Any fan of Rob Bowman ("The X-Files") will appreciate this effort. And the closing song by Mad at Gravity is fantastic. Not without some holes, but a very enjoyable 1 hour and 40 minutes well spent. I'm certainly going to buy the DVD even though it doesn't look like it has many extras.

Rating:
Summary: Good Movie
Review: See it for yourself. I think this movie is an aquired taste. Also the review titled,"Big Dissapointment!" was copied and pasted. It was originally written by Roger Ebert. Good job "A viewer" from the Bay Area!

Rating:
Summary: Big Dissapointment!
Review: One regards "Reign of Fire" with awe. What a vast enterprise has been marshaled in the service of such a minute idea. Incredulity is our companion, and it is twofold: We cannot believe what happens in the movie, and we cannot believe that the movie was made.

Of course, in a story involving mankind's battle with fire-breathing dragons in the year 2020, there are a few factual matters you let slide. But the movie makes no sense on its own terms, let alone ours. And it is such a grim and dreary enterprise. One prays for a flower or a ray of sunshine as those grotty warriors clamber into their cellars and over their slag heaps. Not since "Battleship Earth" has there been worse grooming.

The story: A tunnel beneath London breaks open an underground cavern filled with long-dormant fire-breathing dragons. They fly to the surface and attack mankind. When one is destroyed, countless more take its place. Man's weapons only increase the damage. Soon, civilization has been all but wiped out; the heroes of the film cower in their underground hiding places and dream of defeating the dragons.

Along comes Van Zan (Matthew McConaughey), the Dragon Slayer. He is bald and bearded, and his zealot's eyes focus in the middle distance as he speaks. He's the kind of tough guy who smokes cigar butts. Not cigars. Butts. He has a disagreement with Quinn (Christian Bale), the leader of the group. I am not sure why they so ferociously oppose each other, but I believe their quarrel comes down to: Van Zan thinks they have to fight the dragons, and Quinn thinks they have to fight the dragons but they have to look out real good, because those are dangerous dragons and might follow them home.

There's not much in the way of a plot. Alex (Izabella Scorupco) gets grubby and distraught while standing between the two men and trying to get them to stop shouting so much and listen to her scientific theories. Meanwhile, dragons attack, their animated wings beating as they fry their enemies. Their animation is fairly good, although at one point a dragon in the background flies past the ruined dome of St. Paul's, and you can see one through the other, or vice versa.

I'm wondering, why, if civilization has been destroyed, do they have electricity and fuel? Not supposed to ask such questions. They're like, how come everybody has cigarettes in "Waterworld"? Van Zan figures out that the dragon's fire comes from the way they secrete the ingredients for "natural napalm" in their mouths. His plan: Get real close and fire an explosive arrow into their open mouth at the crucial moment, causing the napalm to blow up the dragon.

He has another bright idea. (Spoiler warning.) All of the dragons they see are females. Many of them carry eggs. Why no males? Because, Van Zan hypothesizes, the dragons are like fish, and it only takes a single male to fertilize umpteen eggs. "We kill the male, we kill the species," he says.

Yeah, but ... there are dragons everywhere. Do they only have one male, total, singular? How about those eggs? Any of them male? And also, after the male is dead, presumably all of the females are still alive, and they must be mad as hell now that they're not getting any action. How come they stop attacking?

I know I have probably been inattentive, and that some of these points are solved with elegant precision in the screenplay. But please do not write to explain, unless you can answer me this: Why are the last words in the movie, "Thank God for evolution"? Could it be a ray of hope that the offspring of this movie may someday crawl up onto the land and develop a two-celled brain?

Rating:
Summary: Lies
Review: Spoilers thar be.

Oh, what a glorious amazing film this could have been. A fascinating idea with a lot of original potential. As usual, it was all flushed away in favor of easy trash. But what is really worse is that the posters (and trailers to some degree) still advertised this film for what it could have been. Not what it is. It's basically false advertising.

The posters feature London in flames, Big Ben blazing, an apache helicopter in aerial combat with a dragon. Wow! Did this EVER happen at any point in the film? NO! What we do get however is 90 minutes of dirty peasants standing about in a quarry and 10 minutes of very unremarkable dragons huffing and puffing. The idea of them ruling the world is completely lost as we never see anything other than a dirty quarry.

The trailer said that the movies takes place in 2084 but it doesn't it begins in 2010 (for no particular reason) when a young Christian Bale (a great actor who is repeatedly contracting himself to bad movies) hangs about at his mother's work (drilling for a new underground tunnel for London's tube trains). He comes across some kind of weird egg in a long, long forgotten cave. This, somehow, reawakens a sleeping dragon (which must be female if it has laid this egg) which promptly kills some of the diggers and escapes. Right at this moment the movie jumps to several years later!

What a rip off! The entire story of the Dragons taking over the world is just skipped. Why? They threw all of that away! Then they expect us to accept a story in which tough American soldier Van Zant (Matthew McConaughey) travels all the way across the Atlantic with his team to wipe out the Granddaddy of all dragons, who is located in London. But Van Zant travels there via a Northumberland quarry. Makes sense. He says that he would have brought a bigger team but lost most of them over the ocean. Why would dragons be out on the ocean? Fishing? Swimming? I hope they didn't expect us to imagine that they were on some kind of reconnaissance mission.

So, anyway, Van Zant believes that this big dragon is the only male and killing it will lead to the extinction of the speices. This means that female dragons can only lay female eggs. So where did this male come from if the Dragon at the start was female? Even a throwaway line of pure exposition would have covered over this gaping error.

And how does all the 3D imaging technology and tanks and helicopters Van Zant brings with him work? It would have broke in that space of time. And how did they transport a tank over the Atlantic exactly? And how could his team have lasted so long when they are clearly idiots and get killed right away?

All good questions. No good answers.

The fact that it's only 98 minutes long makes me suspect major changes in post-production.

The DVD is in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen with Dolby 5.1 sound (the R2 release by Disney has a DTS track).

Rating:
Summary: Looking for dragons? Won't find many of them here.
Review: Despite the wonderful science fiction premise -- a post-apocalyptic world ravaged by bestial creatures responsible for the dragons of legend -- "Reign of Fire" fails to deliver in an important department: dragons! Although supposedly the cause of the near annihilation of the human race, the dragons seem strangely absent for most of the film, dropping in for the occasional none-too-thrilling action sequence, then vanishing for long periods. The short finale is especially disappointing and delivers none of the promise of humans going head-to-head with a dragon. The only action sequence that really works is a clever piece near the beginning involving skydivers with nets chasing down the fire-breathing nasties.

Strangely, the film works better in the character category, and is at its best between the dragon attack scenes. Usually films of this type have the situation completely reversed. The portrait of survivalists facing the end is wonderfully, vividly portrayed, and McConnaughey's grizzled and slightly insane American dragon hunter (the "Captain Ahab" character of the story) is a good performance. The role certainly is a big departure for the actor away from his image in films like "The Wedding Planner." Much more drama goes on between him and Christian Bale's character than ever occurs with the absentee dragons.

If you're a dragon lover, rent "Dragonslayer" instead; you won't feed your need with this underwhleming picture. (And wouldn't it be nice if someday someone did a film adaptation of Anne McCaffrey's "Dragonriders of Pern" novels? There's a science-fiction take on dragons that would make a great movie series.)