Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
vertov
Jun 14, 2003

hello
Directed by: Rob Bowman
Starring: Christian Bale, Matthew McConaughey

Most post-apocalyptic settings in film are the result of nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus, or some other variation of a cautionary message about powerful but unstoppable weapons in the hands of madmen. Reign of Fire does away with any such pretenses, casting a reawakened species of dragons as the cause of the end of the world, without any sort of guilt complex about manmade forms of armageddon. I remember seeing the poster for it in the lobby of the local cineplex a month or so before it was slated to open, and it looked really cool: helicopters and fire-breathing dragons duking it out over the scorched landscape of London? Sold! Unfortunately, the film isn’t quite what the poster lead me to believe, though it still delivers an equally outrageous premise, if not the one I was hoping for.

The setting of Reign of Fire is pretty similar to Mad Max or other variations of the same subgenre. A sudden catastrophe wipes out most of the Earth’s population, leaving a few scattered survivors who band together to try and rebuild while avoiding the lurking dangers of their new wasteland home. Instead of the outback, Reign of Fire takes place the English countryside, where a group of people have taken up home in an abandoned castle. They live in constant fear of an attack by the dragons, which makes venturing out into the world to gather food a hazard few are willing to risk. As they struggle to maintain order in their own micro-community, a group of rowdy American ex-military dragon fighters arrives, looking for a place to stay for a few nights and refit their weapons, causing mistrust and havoc as their true motivations becomes evident.

Reign of Fire is a B-movie with a ninety five million dollar budget, so gone are any hopes of a cheesy, campy adventure ala Roger Corman or John Carpenter, and the ridiculous premise keeps it out of respectable blockbuster territory, so what kind of movie can this be, other than a bad one? The only real saving grace of the film is the special effects and the world that is created by the art direction team. The effects, props and sets are stunning, and the film is a joy to look at, but the story and characters aren’t given a similar “upgrade,” are remain as wooden and contrived as one would expect. The premise itself is so outrageous that it would be hard to hope for anything of significant value, but the execution takes away what little joy there is to be had in watching Patrick Bateman

Director Rob Bowman (who mostly worked in television before Reign) seems pretty comfortable with the action scenes and capturing the brilliant creature effects, but the dramatic scenes are almost uniformly laughable. Christian Bale’s character is the only one with any sort of depth or ability to relate to the audience, everyone else being either hopelessly underdeveloped or a dull caricature. McConaughey throws enough zeal into his role as Van Zaan to stay entertaining for a few minutes, but his shtick wears off pretty quickly. The horribly forced romance between Bale and the helicopter pilot is one of the worst I’ve ever seen. They don’t even kiss! They just stare into space reading off their horrible dialogue as the audience’s eyes roll into the back of their heads.

There are a few really cool scenes throughout the film, but as a whole, it’s a real disappointment. The shamelessness of the basis for the film and some of the ideas they come up with are interesting (jumping out of helicopters with nets to kill a dragon? I wouldn’t have thought of that), but the highs of the scenes that do work are overshadowed by the lows of the rest of the film. This might be a good film to watch with your friends if you’re in the right mood (I’m sure there is some kind of drinking game that goes with it), but it’s really just a made for TV movie with a ton of money behind it. It’s probably better than what Michael Bay churns out, but that isn’t saying a lot. Rent it or download it.

A 2.5 for dragons, but there was a lot of unfulfilled potential here.

RATING: 2.5

PROS: here be dragons...
CONS: and bad dialogue/directing/storytelling

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253556/

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

CrackDealer
May 12, 2001
Just some in-valid
0.5
This is the worst movie I've seen, the plot and dialogue acting (From otherwise decent actors) are absolutely bottom rate, I had no idea the budget was so big, but for 1/10th of the same budget and a much better plot of Dragons vs Helicopters this could have been very good.

It is dire, not in the so-bad-it-finds-a-niche dire, it takes itself seriously and is appalling in every single aspect.

Do not rent this, do not download it. Avoid.

Pros: Dragons in the preview made it look good.
Cons: Every single moment of the movie.

Adar
Jul 27, 2001
About halfway through this movie, I was hoping I'd wake up and realize I was actually watching "Dungeons and Dragons". I mean, that sucked, too, but at least a Wayans brother died in that one. Oh yeah, and the dragons were slightly more entertaining.

This is a 'dragons vs. helicopters' movie and the goddamn dragons suck. Yes, it's that bad.

1/5

Green
Apr 16, 2003

the dialogue: :ssj:
Campy as hell and not in any redeemable way.

Some of the scenes do work pretty well such as the sky-diving scene, but those little adequate moments are beaten down mercilessly by some of the more repugnant scenes. McConaughey's ultra-dramatic axe kamakazi bit was one of the cheesiest things I've ever seen in my life.

I think this proves that dragons spell quality and credibility death for any movie that has one in it, a sad but true fact. (The Neverending Story doesn't count!)

1.5

Irony
Feb 28, 2004

Give a guy a gun, he thinks he's Superman. Give him two, and he thinks he's God.
So much hate! I own this film (it was a gift) and perhaps the trifecta of hot Christian Bale, hot (thought psychotic) Matthew McConaughey (sp?) and hot Christian Bale's buddy makes me a little more charitable towards the movie than my estrogen-challenged mates. With that said, however, I love post-apocalypse movies, no matter what kind of apocalypse it is, and I thought the dragon effects were great, although too few and far between. Yes, the scenario seems highly implausible or even downright laughable, but at least they didn't kill us off overnight; we had a good 30 years or so to suffer at the dragons' hands. I thought it was good, campy fun, with a nice gun show from the leading men.

Pipski
Apr 18, 2004

I loved this film. I had a hunch that I would and was happy to be proved right for once. The dialogue and characters are very cheesy, but the actors play them with great relish. The plot has gaping holes (how much damned fuel does that helo have???) and relies pretty heavily on coincidence (the kid who was first to see the big dragon also kills it?) and there's plenty of other things wrong with it too, but it's a solid, enjoyable monster movie. Post-apocalyptic setting gets it extra brownie points, as does Lindisfarne setting, and, considering how preposterous a movie about modern-day dragons could be, I thought this one sells its pitch pretty well.

When I get in the mood to watch a nonsense action movie, this is the kind of nonsense action movie I want to see. (Usually in a double bill with Resident Evil.) Voted 4 with no hesitation, nearly 4.5.

st0rmjunkie_xl
Aug 4, 2004

I'm glad to see my hatred is agreed with. This film is so incredibly bad it hurts. I mean, everything about it is rubbish, the plot quite simply appears to have been made up as it goes along, and there's nothing good or original in this film except maybe it takes film-making down to a new low.

Voted 1 out of generosity.

Doodles
Apr 14, 2001
Only the fact that it shows Dragons vs. Helicopters at all keeps this from suicide territory.

JohnCornwallis
Jan 27, 2004
Grand Counsul
A Badass movie when the premise is considered, good use of the large budget on effects and cinematography. Normally I'm not a fan of movies that rely on effects over plot but I found this movie entertaining and that is all that is important.

Was Taters
Jul 30, 2004

Here comes a regular
This movie further proves that if you add a Dragon to a movie, it begins to suck terribly. There are exceptions to this rule, but this and Dungeons and Dragons are not exceptions.

The dialogue is heavy handed and poorly written, the actions of the characters frequently nonsensible, and the end unsatisfactory. The dragons looked neat though. Still and all, it even failed as an effects pic.

Hexum
Jul 23, 2003

The incredible CGI dragons sadly did not make up for the cheesy and trite dialogue and action sequences. 2/5

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ClumsyThief
Sep 11, 2001

The plot to this movie was just too far-fetched for my tastes. Granted the dragons did look excellent, but the methods they used to hunt them and deal with them just wouldn't let me take it seriously. I was sure I disliked the movie when Quinn dives off the tower towards the male dragon near the end.

  • Post
  • Reply