Reign of Fire Reviews

• A pyrotechnical B-movie masterpiece

  
  By AJKWF4W7QD4NS on 2002-12-03
  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.
  
  

• The Truth About Dragons

  
  By A3GKPMHV4U64IY on 2005-07-12
  A London construction project uncovers a horrible secret and a young boy loses his mother at the same time. A tunnel project has awakened a dragon. Soon they breed like rats and proceed to burn civilization and all life into oblivion. They have been here before but we did not recognize the signs. Their attack is so quick that years later humanity is all but completely wiped out.
  
  The young boy is now a young man and in charge of a group of refugees trying to reestablish themselves. Dragons are getting desperate as their food supply is almost completely gone. But internal and external forces combine to bring great change. Some residents are losing faith and want to go against the community's plan. A group of American military arrive and they specialize in killing dragons. They also have a crazy plan for getting rid of the dragons for good but they need more men.
  
  This tale of survivors facing impossible odds with an iron will to survive is well crafted and easily rewatchable. The acting is good while the effects are excellent. but this is not a movie about dragons, it is a movie about people and how they deal with adversity. Although the movie is really about people, the dragons are wonderful and full of menace. Definitely worth watching.
  
  

• An atypical "B" flick with grade-A effects!

  
  By A30CULRZ756V0G on 2002-07-13
  Sure, this movie is a mish-mash of Mad Max, King Arthur, and Dragonslayer. Sure there are holes and a few question marks in the plot. But then again...we're watching a movie about dragons and the people who live in a future time where dragons rule so, why question it to begin with?
  I was afraid of seriously cheesey dragon effects a la Dungeons and Dragons, but WOW was I pleasantly surprised! The creatures were well textured and moved almost cat-like. The fire they breathed didn't look all pixellated like a lot of fire done with CGI. That all combined to deliver a good-looking (?) set of monsterous dragons.
  The sound was probably the best I've heard in a long time. The theater I saw it in is set up for Dolby Digital surround...and let me tell you: this movie made FULL use of the sound system!!! Dragons flying all around you..and when they growled..whoa..puts a shiver down your spine!!!
  Go see it, don't believe it....just enjoy it. The actors are all excellent, even though at times the British actors's accents were so thick it made understanding them all but impossible. This movie is around 1 hr. and 40 minutes long...not too short and not too long...but long enough enjoy the heck out of yourself!!!
  
  

• Unintentionally hilarious

  
  By A29IYGR7SNPRIV on 2002-07-26
  Here's a movie with great special effects and beautifully moody cinematography; some intentionally funny lines delivered by the little boy in the opening sequence. Then comes the future in a wonderfully well-constructed montage illustrating the worldwide destruction caused by the unleashing of legions of enormous fire-breathing dragons who feed on ashes. Yup. Okay.

  The future bears so many similarities to the Road Warrier series that one can't help but take note of them: the faces of a collective of children, the good-hearted leader of this community of survivors (Christian Bale, acting his heart out as a Cockney--for reasons known only to the director. It's an odd affectation, given that his mother--who gets knocked off right at the beginning--has a middle to upper class accent.) So Christian is trying to keep his flock safe in the oddly low-tech/high-tech castle (with lots of water handy) when some of his rebellious associates decide to sneak out and reap their crops before they've reached maturity. And, kaboom, here come those flame-throwing dragons!

  A few heartbeats later a convoy arrives bringing the American factor to the castle in the form of a completely unrecognizable Matthew McConaughey, whose performance is notable primarily for his heavy breathing, his grunting and his delivery of lines that are so silly it's a wonder he could keep a straight face. (I'd pay to see the outtakes.) I kept expecting him to declare, "I love the smell of dragon's breath in the morning!"--given that he was basically playing the Robert Duvall role from Apocalypse Now.

  From the point of Matthew's arrival, the movie gets so camp, so riddled with cliched and predictable dialogue that the only thing to do is start laughing. And if you go in expecting to be amused, you won't be disappointed because the screenplay is just so absolutely silly it's not possible to take it seriously (unless you're very very young and haven't seen a whole lot of movies.) That doesn't mean this is bad; it just means that the film borrows so much from so many other movies that it offers almost nothing in terms of originality. In some of the scenes the dragons look like nothing so much as flying rats with wings and such serious cases of heartburn that they keep burping fire.

  Definitely not the worst movie ever made, but certainly one that takes itself so seriously that it winds up being one of the funniest features I've seen in ages. Go prepared to laugh and to anticipate the dialogue; you can say it along with the actors.
  
  

• It's pretty disappointing.

  
  By A3L2U581LL17EB on 2002-11-08
  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.
  
  

• Actors give earnest effort but movie is a mess
  By on 2002-07-10
  I had high hopes for Reign Of Fire, but in the end, the movie is a mess of choppy sequenced shots and plot and little action with the dragons. The trailer pretty much gives you all of the action with the dragons. The rest of the movie is bits and pieces of apocolyptic fare that seems to have taken a page from Mad Max.

  I am giving the movie 3 stars only because the stars, to include McConaughey, put forth an earnest effort, but in the end, their performances could not save this beast from burning out.
  
  

• DRAGONIAN LACK OF PLOT IN A FIRY BORE
  By A1L8HRCM60W0W7 on 2004-08-13
  Without wasting much time (about 1 minute to be precise) with unnecessary trivialities such as a background about the advent of flying dragons, this noisy post-apocalyptic snore has a near-future London tormented by giant mythic smoke-snorting beasts laying waste to humanity.
  
  We are led to believe that all of them are female, except for that one omnipotent male dragon who single-handely supports the entire beastly race. To be fair, the Jurassic-like fire breathers are well crafted but appear mostly disingenuous through all that soot and noise in the murky night light, which is pretty much the tone of the entire movie. Quick action takes and camera swivels are employed to evoke a frantic Hollywood action mode, but they only add to your migraine.
  
  And if there's anything more stupid than these caricature animals, it's the army that's pulled together to fight them. Our smart humans have discovered a complicated system of dragon fighting that has substantially advanced beyond the time-honoured techniques of a brave heart and a well-aimed sceptre between the beast's shoulder blades. The new strategy involves the best aspects of trick flying, skydiving and dodge ball.
  
  If you're still with me, well done, but Reign of Fire marks the worst variety of over-the-top drivel produced in Hollywood. The lint on my old shirts has higher IQ.
  
  
• Cool dragons, flimsy plot
  By A340VLH8QDWB8Q on 2002-07-13
  First of all, my actual rating of this movie is 3.5 stars, but since I can't rate using fractions of a star I decided to be generous.

  "Reign of Fire" starts with a young boy named Quinn going to visit his mother in the English mine where she works. He wanders over to where one of her co-workers has encountered a problem, and the man sends him into the hole he has dug. Inside, Quinn discovers a gigantic dragon that unleashes its fire on the mine, leaving a wake of destruction.

  Twenty years or so later, Quinn (Christian Bale) find himself the leader of a colony of survivors that have managed to evade the dragons and to survive the nuclear winter caused by humanity's attempts to destroy the dragons. Enter Van Zan (Matthew McConaughey), an American soldier with a mission to kill all dragons. Fate teams the unlikely pair together, and with the help of helicopter pilot Alex (Izabella Scorupco), they go on a quest to save the world.

  I found "Reign of Fire" to be somewhat of a disappointment in terms of plot. I was hoping for a lot more. The premise of the dragons-rule-the-world concept was cool and convincing in a fantasical sort of way, but it wasn't enough to carry the movie. From there, the plot sort of when downhill. It didn't flow smoothly, and I found the climax to be the greatest disappointment of all. It just seemed too easy at the end. The acting was more than adequate, but it just couldn't save the flimsy plot.

  However, the special effects were great (which is why I gave this 3.5 stars). The dragons were very realistic: they flew naturally and breathed fire just the way you would expect a dragon to. Even the dead dragons looked real. My one request would be that the dragons be given more screen time.

  Bottom Line: Awesome dragons, not much story. Only go if you like dragons, Christian Bale, or action movies.
  
  

• Pass the Popcorn
  By A1TD9JUXG1DGW3 on 2002-07-28
  Lots of hateful dragons versus a few stalwart Brits and sassy Yanks on a post-apocalyptic burnt earth battlefield. That's the premise for Reign of Fire. It's better than I'd feared, but it doesn't transcend anything. Note to fantasy writers and film-makers, there seems to be a market for dragons; it appears a great many young'uns were expecting this to be the definitive dragon movie of all time, and it wasn't, and they were disgruntled.

  Matthew McConaughey chewed more scenery than the dragons did, but that was okay because it was perversely soporific in places and he did wake me up. There wasn't enough chewing to keep me from cynically noting whopping huge plot holes. Still, this is a story about dragons, for heaven's sakes, not military logistics, and I tried to keep the critical part of my brain stifled, which may explain the tranquilizing effect. The dialects were hard to understand so I gave up worrying about the dialogue and let the pictures tell the story. And while I'm complaining here, I may as well admit that I found the score intrusive rather than supportive.

  Okay. Done complaining. I think. On the positive side it's, well, not bad. I enjoyed it. It doesn't pretend to be an epic. It had a nice, consistent feel to it and it didn't feel orphaned the way that movies do when everyone loses interest in them midway through. And of course it had dragons, which are always good for getting the old reptilian brain fired up. I'd wondered if I'd be sympathetic towards the dragons. I wasn't. I wanted them dead.
  
  

• It fizzled....
  By A25ZVI6RH1KA5L on 2003-04-25
  I had high hopes for this movie when I intially saw the trailer. After seeing it, I thought "What a waste". So much potential, with so little payoff. The dragons looked great, and I thought the actors were pretty good, but the story seemed to not really go anywhere. Halfway into the movie, I found myself looking at the clock, instead of the screen, trying to figure out how much time was left. Visually stimulating, but unable to keep me interested throughout. By the end, I found myself rooting for the dragons to eat everyone and the movie to be over.
  Apparently, during some deep tunneling, man has woken some long dormant dragons, and a few years into the future, the dragons have become the dominant species on the planet. With a few surviving groups of humans, they decide to try to work together to try and overcome the dragons, looking for a weakness to exploit in the dragons and save the human race from the brink of extinction. Seems like a pretty good idea, but it just didn't play out all that well. If you're really interested, go and rent it, or wait for it on cable before buying.
  
  
• so-so effort
  By A19ZXK9HHVRV1X on 2002-07-24
  **1/2 "Reign of Fire" is a no-more-than-passable sci-fi monster movie, strong on production values and special effects and weak on just about everything else. Once again we have the typical gray-and-khaki hued post-apocalyptic world filled with burnt out cities, roaming bands of grimy-faced survivors, and enough soot, dirt and rust to make the audience feel the need for a shower once they get out of the theatre (in other words, the "Mad Max" look).

  The apocalypse in this case comes in the form of a race of fire-breathing dragons that are awakened from their millennia-long state of dormancy thanks to a deep-drilling construction project in downtown London. We are told that these ash-eating dragons hibernate for eons at a time waiting for the earth to replenish itself before embarking on another mission of total bio-global destruction. This is, in fact, the explanation for the demise of the dinosaurs, though, if this were indeed the case, one might question just how this species managed to so completely avoid leaving any evidence of its existence in the fossil record. In this kind of movie, it is probably best not to ask questions of this sort and to just go along with the sheer inanity of it all.

  The first specimen to be unleashed is discovered by a young London lad named Quinn Abercrombie who, 18 years later, has grown up to be the hunky Christian Bale, leader of a group of survivors holed up in a kind of mountainside fortress with very little hope for a future. That is, of course, until one fateful day when "Dragon Slayer" Denton Van Dan (Matthew McConaughey) makes his sooty-faced appearance. From then on it becomes a battle of the minds and muscles between these two strong-willed individuals who have decidedly different ideas about how best to ensure the survival of the human race.

  Movies like "Reign of Fire" pretty much preclude any real critical analysis. Suffice it to say that the special effects and art direction are quite impressive throughout, the dialogue bland and purely functional, and the performances adequate to the admittedly rather unchallenging task. And the characters are at least allowed to show their human side at times, displaying various amounts of fear, uncertainty and emotional vulnerability even at those moments when they are having to be at their most daring and heroic. There is one truly inspired scene in which two of the adults beguile the children by acting out the Luke Skywalker/Darth Vader "I am your father" confrontation scene from "The Empire Strikes Back." More clever moments like that would have helped make "Reign of Fire" a more distinctive film than it currently is.

  Oh well, if nothing else, the theatre-shaking soundtrack is enough to keep you awake, if not exactly interested, at all times. But cranking up the volume is often the first indication that a movie has very little else to offer.
  
  

• Pure adrenalin!
  By A9H8FQ9LDFK2H on 2005-07-08
  I won't beat about the bush: I LOVED THIS MOVIE! It was so exciting, I was on the edge of my seat the whole way through. At times, I even began to cheer!
  
  I've been stuck in bed sick these last few days and I've had to endure watching some dreadful movies in that time. But this was a great change from those. Out of all the movies I've watched lately, this was far and away the best one.
  
  The storyline of this movie is not entirely original--it definitely borrows elements from Mad Max, George A. Romero's Day of the Dead, and John Wyndham's book The Day of the Triffids. But all three of those were absolutely brilliant, and so is this.
  
  I noticed that one Amazon reviewer complained that they could not understand the accents in this movie. Well, I would advise that reviewer to get their hearing checked because I didn't have a problem with the accents at all. If you can't understand the occasional very mild Scottish accent, you really need to get a life. FYI, though, most of the characters in this speak with an English or American accent, neither of which should be too hard for persons of average intelligence to understand.
  
  I also read reviews that claimed there were too few dragons and not enough drama in this movie. Jeeze, those reviewers so didn't get it. As I saw it, there was a good reason why the dragons weren't onscreen the whole time and it had to do with building drama: the drama was actually in the 'when will the dragons come, will they find us, oh God, is that just the wind outside or the sound of a dragon coming to get us, aaargh!' type suspense. Silence of the Lambs didn't just feature Hannibal Lector and the other serial killer slaughtering people all the way through it--it relied on the suspense factor, the 'what will happen next?' feeling, the build up, the psychology. Suspense = drama, and in this movie, if the dragons were on screen the whole time, you'd lose that. (Be assured, though, that plenty of dragons do appear, and when they do, they're awesome!) Also, the reviewers seemed to miss the scintillating psychological drama of the 'enemy within' component of the story. The people living in the fortress were unsure about whether the well-armed and scary looking American soldiers they were letting into their midst were friends or foe. Were these new humans in fact more dangerous to them than the dragons outside? That was the same thing I loved about Romero's 'Day of the Dead', and I thought it worked well in this movie too. Let's face it, some people are scarier than the worst of Hollywood monsters, and the military certainly has its fair share of these people.
  
  I could go on for hours pointing out the flaws in some of the other reviews, but I won't bother. If people want to be dumb, let 'em. There are some logic gaps in this movie's script, sure, but not nearly as many as the other reviewers say. Watch this for the entertainment value, not just to nitpick, and you won't be disappointed.
  
  I loved the sense of humour in this movie--it may be set in a grim 'end of the world' scenario where the few survivors are forced to live in almost medieval conditions, but the people prove that they can still have a laugh and keep themselves entertained. (You MUST check out the 'Star Wars' panto they put on, it's an absolute hoot.)
  
  The cast is top notch. Matthew McConaughy is awesome, and such an over-the-top gung-ho army guy that he's almost scarier than the dragons. Christian Bale is inspiring--he's strong, but at the same time very human and vulnerable, a good guy caught in a very bad situation. And Gerard Butler is as lovely as he always is in movies, and yet, very tough and heroic--girls, as if you needed another reason to watch this, there it is!
  
  There was never a slow moment in this movie. The action was brilliant, the fiery explosions were good and big and loud, and the special effect that allows us to see the world through a dragon's eyes was pretty cool. But the coolest part was when you get to see the world through the eyes of guys who are falling from a helicopter without a parachute whilst trying to hunt a dragon--I've got a fear of heights, but even I couldn't look away, it was so compelling.
  
  Watch this, I urge you, but be warned--you might wear out the edge of your seat! And your lungs, too, as you cheer the heroes on.
  
  
  
  
• NOT ENOUGH action, but PLENTY of drama
  By A1OXUVBFZAAQAQ on 2002-07-14
  If I had a choice between the comedy of "Dragonheart" and the drama of "Reign of Fire," I would definately, without a moment's hesitation, choose the latter.

  First of all, let's get one thing straight. This is not the fantasy dragon film you and I have been waiting for. As stated by a character in the film, there is nothing magical about these prehistoric beasts. They are as mortal as the dinosaurs in "Jurassic Park," though infinately more dangerous (obviously).

  The key to enjoying "Reign of Fire" is having the right expectations. This is not a pure, wall-to-wall action flick, which is what the ads imply. This is not even a fantasy flick. This is an apocalyptic sci-fi drama (key word: drama) about humanity, it's will to survive, the dangers, the risks, the rewards, the choices, the hindrances, etc, etc, etc. It bears the cliches of several genres, and while it never soars above its peers, it plays out like a breath of fresh air. Just don't breathe too deeply.

  While "Reign of Fire" contains the occasional monster-movie-esque run/chase/trap/escape/fight action sequence, the dragons are not that terrifying. They certainly scare the film's characters aplenty, but the fear never translates beyond the screen to the audience. The fact of the matter is, the dragons are secondary to the two main characters of the film, portrayed aptly enough by Bale and McConaughey. Bale is dark and broody and McConaughey is truly psychotic. He chews up the scenes with the best of them (re: Gary Oldman) and he's loving it. His character is a total nutjob who, excluding the "party-crashing" scene, brings much-needed lightness to an otherwise overly depressing film. And geez, the guy is huge.

  I was expecting to have a lot of fun with this one, but such was not the case. Lacking any jump-out-of-your-seat shocks or spine-tingling chills, the script is too bleak and dreary. The effect the dragons have on Bale and his band of refugees is readily palpable but oftentimes too burdening.

  Character development is slight but sufficient, with Bale's "Quinn" being the most fleshed out. Scorupco's high-flying "Alex" and Bale's adopted son "Jared" had potential to be great characters but were severely underused. Disappointing but not surprising.

  I wanted to fall in love with this movie, but alas, there are huge, distracting gaps of common sense in the script that don't hold up to scrutiny. Why do the dragons, supposedly super-smart, fight the humans singly when they outnumber them by the hundreds? How did the first dragon baby come to being with only a daddy to start with? And where in the heck did the humans get all that fuel and electricity?! But really, it's not worth dwelling on such flaws. Overlook them and "Reign of Fire" may just surprise you with its unflinching eye to despair and it genuine grasp of raw emotion. Plus the dragons look pretty darn cool. That is, when you actually get to see them.

  It's a sad thing when the best scene of the whole movie involves Bale, his friend, and a bunch of kids, but no dragons whatsoever. It's a smart scene that resonates on several layers of meaning by paying homage to the concept of an oral myth passed down through the generations. Unfortunately, the rest of the script never reaches the same intelligence and it becomes obvious the screenwriters struck gold by mistake. They were just telling an old Stars Wars joke.

  Another noteworthy scene is the elaborate skydiving dragon trap. It's stupid, impractical, inefficient, and ineffective, but it's an ultra-cool concept that results in some awesome visuals and the best thrills of the entire film.

  All in all, "Reign of Fire" is an unusual summer flick that's smarter and darker than your average blockbuster. It certainly could've used a bit more action, a better climax, smarter battles, a lot of charm, and a huge dose of prozac, but the film delivers enough oompf to meet expectations.

  One minor warning: Bale has a pretty thick accent and I couldn't follow alot of his dialogue. This probably didn't make much of a difference to my understanding of the film, but I found it very annoying nonetheless.
  
  

• Sigh...What a disappointment
  By AHCVWPLA1O4X8 on 2002-11-28
  The whole premise for this movie is cool. The old legends were true--there WERE dragons back in Midieval days. They also killed the dinosaurs, brought on the ice age with their ash, and starved themselves into hibernation. Then one day some engineers dug too deep (as engineers always do in these kinds of movies) and the whole world went to pot.

  Cool concept, huh? Too bad there wasn't much beyond that. I was ready and rarin' for lots of action, but there was very little, and it was sporadic and not even that great. The plot is okay, not very original, and was pretty entertaining for one viewing. I don't know if I could sit through it again, though.

  In short, this is one of those movies that looked really cool but proved to be a let-down. My advice? Watch it once (if you like this kind of movie) before you decide to buy. I know I won't be owning this one.
  
  

• great dragons but little else to recommend it
  By A2C27IQUH9N1Z on 2004-07-08
  This sure seems like it should be a winner, and as someone who enjoyed all the Mad Max movies and who likes Matthew McConaughey and Christian Bale, I was prepared to be thoroughly entertained, but this was a mess that started out well and then deteriorated. Strangely enough, things seemed to grind to a halt when McConaughey's character (Van Zan) enters the picture, so to speak. And who thought it was a good idea to take a good looking guy like McC and turn him into a bald cigar-chomping neanderthal? The dragons were excellent and the sets and design were great, but the script and plot needed work.

  DVD extras include a trailer, a 12-minute conversation with director Bowman, a 15-minute making-of featurette and an 8-minute sfx featurette. The film can be heard in English or French and subtitled in English or Spanish.
  
  

• Wasted Opportunity
  By A3U1DMBGNDJSW8 on 2004-08-12
  This is so typical of misleading hype and false advertising. Awesome posters of dragons burning up London, as Apache Copters engage in intense battle with them. Sounds really great, doesn't it? Well, SURPRISE! None of this is to be found in this dreary disappointer.We begin with a suspenseful, promising opening scene where a dragon is accidentally unearthed in a London excavation site, and escapes. So far, so good. Now for the bad news: The director (for whatever moronic reasons) then cuts to '20 Years Later' - after everything that is worth seeing has already happened. WTF??!!Imagine if something like WAR OF THE WORLDS began with the Martians' arrival, then immediately jumps ahead a few years after all the action and suspense has occured. Bet you'd really love that. I can envision furious audiences storming the box office, demanding their money back - and rightfully so. You just don't pull something as deceptively cheesy as that, and expect any loyalty from your disgruntled audience and ex-fans. RoF skips right past the real story of the dragons' assault on the modern world, and their eventual destruction of civilization. Wouldn't that have made a far greater movie than this tepid dreck, which only has fleeting moments of any real action? Imagine spectacular scenes of cities being devastated by armies of dragons, with modern technologies' desperate fight to try to stop them. And when the scientists learn that they caused the dinosaurs' extinction - and a flashback that SHOWS this.With a decent script and right director, a prequel could really deliver. Just keep Roland Emmerich and all his idiocy far away from it.Otherwise, another vapid wasted opportunity that could have really delivered - if anyone had bothered to care.And the budget was $95,000,000. So don't give me that 'not enough money' cop-out. How about a serious prequel? Or am I 'asking too much' from most of the bozos involved in 'film making' today?
  
  
• B Movie Fun
  By A1V51M8M216Y69 on 2004-08-05
  Reign of Fire isn't as bad as some of the reviews here say it is. The key to enjoying this film is to recognize it for what it is--a B movie. If you see a B movie and expect a great movie, then you'll be let down. You have to be in the right mindset to enjoy it.
  
  Basically, a hibernating dragon is unearthed on modern Earth, and then from that one dragon, the planet becomes overrun by dragons. It's not explained how that one dragon produced enough offspring to destroy the world, but B movies are not about science lectures. Flash forward to the future. Pockets of humanity are scratching out an existance. Most of the world is destroyed. A group of British survivors, are doing everything they can to survive, when one day a group of American dragon hunters happen upon their dwelling. The Americans have a plan to end the dragon threat, but the British are a little cautious of the crazy plan. Will it succeed? Kick back and enjoy this piece of B movie fluff.
  
  
• groan!
  By A2FTHCGH06O4Y5 on 2005-08-19
  One of the most colossally idiotic monster movies I've ever seen! The people responsible for it ought to be flogged!
  
  I suppose the idea of a bunch of dragons having taken over post-Apocalyptic London was serviceable enough, but the thing that really sunk the movie was the script's insistence on throwing technology into the mix.
  
  Uh, helicopters in a post-Apocalyptic age? I hate to be the one to point this out, but helicopters (and tanks, for that matter) require an infrastructre of modernity and civilization to keep them going: replacement screws, gaskets, dials, cylinders . . . not to mention the specially refined petroleum!
  
  Where are they getting all this stuff? Western civilization's been kaput for over 15 years! Ebay?
  
  And you're telling me they jump out of helicopters to ensnare the dragons with nets? And that the dragons feed exclusively on "ash"? Brother!
  
  I wanted to hide from the movie, not the dragons! (Too bad their fire-breath didn't torch the script before it could be filmed.)
  
  Also: The idea of the one "bull" dragon who has simply been impregnating all these females? Sheesh! The poor creature would be too exhausted to take wing!
  
  And the script's attempts to create interest by stirring up pseudo-conflict between the humans was unconvincing and silly.
  
  Matthew McCaunaghy sure does look cool with a bald head, though!
  
  
• A Modern-Day "Britzilla"
  By A3VQ9PD2T6RSH7 on 2007-04-08
  My fifteen-year-old son had me watch this DVD with him and we ended up having a lot of fun with it. Once I got over the cornball acting and lame plot, I realized that I was essentially watching an English filmic answer to "Godzilla".No less crude in terms of acting, script and plausibility than that now classic Japanese monster movie, watching Reign of Fire is like watching an equation of the 1941 Blitz (which my parents lived through) with the Arthurian legends of old. In the same way that Godzilla mirrors the horrors and devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so too does Reign of Fire mirror the German firebombing of London, Coventry and Liverpool during the Blitz. Godzilla was an attempt by the filmmakers to make sense of the nuclear bombs in mythological terms, using their own ancient dragon legends. I suspect that the makers of Reign of Fire have attempted the same, or at the very least, given a nod to the Godzilla tradition - the height of B-moviedom. This is a well-known aspect of the Godzilla film, and it cannot have escaped the notice of the makers of Reign of Fire that there was potential for the same in this movie. Recently a great deal of attention has been paid to those with memories of the Blitz and collection of eye-witness accounts is currently taking place in the U.K.
  
  If you watch this film with the same attitude with which you might watch Godzilla, you might be entertained on that level and this might manage to carry you over the other very obvious shortcomings of this film. Especially if you have teenage children in the house who are into fantasy story lines and are not too picky about the versimilitude of what they are watching. It might even open a discussion about film history, war, and the background of all creative efforts, even less sophisticated examples.
  
  
• It's not Lord of the rings and it's not dungeon &dragons!
  By A2DRHY9HJ4DE1F on 2002-07-12
  A film that probably isn't worth watching with all those other movies still on the screens! Matthew McConaughey presents a reasonably impressive effort. But he was better in U571. It's a confusing modern day Medieval drama-if that makes sense. It's too much of a fantasy! It's like reading an encyclopedia of a sci-fi version of old legends. Then why did I even give it 4 stars? Hey-I like the dragons. The best thing in the movie were the dragons. The impressive special effects used in creating the dragons-bold fire breathing creatures were great! Still it's nothing like Lord of the Rings!
  
  It's set in present day London where a mum wakes up a dragon-hidden for centuries. It's up to the son to save a small community still alive twenty years later!
  
  Still the movie wasn't all that bad with the dragons entertaining the audience. It's a goofy flick but still sort of interesting. Think of it as a fantasy and you'd like it. It's not that original-it's a mixture of a lot of fantasy flicks I've seen (namely Armageddon, Godzilla, and Dungeons &dragons). It isn't a movie that'll be named a classic years from now but it's still enjoyable. I wouldn't mind riding a rollercoaster produced after the movie. The movie can be described as a thrilling-horror theme park ride. So overall the film isn't all that bad-but it could've been a lot better!
  
  
  
  
• Reign Abdocates to Silliness!
  By A15Q9YEG1XPEJN on 2002-07-16
  Where did this movie come from? I'm fairly current on films being released, but I never heard of this one coming out. Could it be that it was scheduled for later release and then moved up to cash in on full lines to see other blockbusters? Could it be that it was canned for a long time and then dumped in the middle of blockbuster season on unsuspecting viewers?

  Either way, Reign of Fire is sadly disappointing in everything but the visuals.

  The Good: Since T2 and Jurassic Park, we have come to expect a much higher grade of special effects in films. Reign does not disappoint in that respect. The dragons are amazingly realistic looking (is that possible, since they never existed?).

  The Bad: Matthew McConaughey absolutely chews up the scenery, he's overacting so badly. He's doing some sort of "Sgt. Rock" impression throughout, attempting to be this ultra tough commando who apparently has a crotch itch or something stuffed up his bum, because he sure does walk funny. He chews a cigar constantly and overemotes incessantly. Why he has more tattoos than the Illustrated Man is not known, but seems a ridiculous character trait.

  The Good: Christian Bale does his very best to keep his character centered and in doing so, becomes the emotional center of the film - which is what the film sorely needs. He reacts believeably and shows his emotions appropriately for the situation in which his character exists.

  The Bad: This story has more holes in it than swiss cheese. If we assume that the premise this movie uses is real for the characters, then there are some serious "reality" issues to deal with. If one dragon was discovered by Bale's character when he was a child and according to the story, it was a male - where did the rest of the dragons come from? If dragons have been running around for 16 years when McConaughey's character arrives, and dragons love igniting stuff and almost the entire world is industrially devoid - where is all the gasoline coming from that they use to power the autos? And even if there were some reserves available, how is McCon's convoy availing itself of it? Further, how in the heck did the convoy get from the U.S. to Great Britain, if just about anything moving gets burned to a crisp by the dragons? If there is only one male dragon which must fertilize all the female's eggs, and that one male is only located in GB, how can it fertilize the eggs of the dragons throughout the rest of the world? Why does McCon's character sacrifice himself? He has no ingrained knowledge that in doing so he will save the day. It makes no sense.

  The Good: The film looks really cool. It's shot in blues and greys and looks realistic to the film's premise.

  The Bad: The film drags in many places.

  The Bad: The filmmakers missed the opportunity to develop the emotional relationship with Bale and his eldest "adopted" son. The basics are there, but it isn't nearly as fleshed out as McCon's overacting is.

  The Verdict: Wait until it hits video and then you'll only waste 4 bucks.
  
  

• If Only This Could Have Been 4-6 Hours Long
  By A165ICWVUXX8G1 on 2002-07-17
  I'm sure the title of my letter has created a groaning noise all across the net, since there are so many movies that should have been shortened by three hours at least. However, this movie could have been enormous if ample time had been available to really explore its story.

  After reading other reviews, most seemed satisfied with the visual effects,were less than thrilled about the heavy accents,were even less thrilled wth the plot, but still couldn't go all the way to disliking the movie. I had the exact same response to Minority Report, which I forgot within 10 minutes of my theater exit. Throughout my Reign of Fire experience, I was amazed at how strongly I could feel the plight of the characters, particularly those in the background like the small children who were powerless against the threat that they faced. When attacked by the male dragon, with fire engulfing the last bastion of hope they had, there was an absolutely apocalyptic weight in the air, and I appreciated the efforts of everyone involved in creating that, because it's rare now to ever feel more involved in a movie plot than you would in the average Lottery commercial on T.V. You know; the one where there's only one winner, it's obviously not you, and no matter how hard you try, you just can't jump for joy about it.

  The explanation of events in the movie was believable, and they did a relatively good job of getting themselves out of the bind the trailer got them in; namely explaining how 40 people were going to defeat millions of dragons while resorting to such tactics as jumping off of rooftops with battle axes. However, I would like to have seen a lot more of the backstory portrayed on film, and a much more involved, developing resistance to the dragons resulting in far more unsuccessful rebellion attempts of increasing complexity and danger. The film felt really short, like there was so much ground to cover and such a mountain of a premise to overcome, and thus, defeating a million dragons was factored down to defeating just one real...dragon. I'd have taken the risk and played out a plotline based on the trailer's premise; it would have made the movie all it could have been.

  I agree with the consensus that there should have been far more interaction with the dragons themselves at a much closer range than what we saw. They ultimately appeared to be little more than a plot device scripted in to add urgency to the relationship between the lead characters. This was a major flaw, similar to but not as devastating as seen in that $98 million Heckle and Jeckle movie with the cameo by Godzilla. I was also not amused by the party scene with the Jimi Hendrix music playing in the background. Yes the roof is on fire, but hopefully because of the dragons, not because the music was funky. The intensity of the situations depicted simply demanded more in-depth experiences than we were given.

  All in all, Reign of Fire was enjoyable for what it was, even with knowledge of what it COULD have been. Sure, it borrowed from Jurassic Park, possibly Waterworld, and practically worshipped both The Terminator and Mad Max, but the premise, character acting, effects, and atmosphere more than made up for this. You may still groan at the title of my letter after what I've said, but for those who have seen it already, just think of what could have been done with this given the same running time as Lord of the Rings. For those who have yet to see it, see it now. Don't wait for the DVD, so you can be robbed of said atmosphere and the catastrophic power of many of its scenes...
  
  

• Great for the kids!
  By A16X61RLY1YJL7 on 2002-07-18
  This is one that the kids will really love. It has great special effects and reasonably decent acting, however, it doesn't live up to all the advertising it was given. It has several points in it where, they started something but did not finish them. The accents were a little hard to understand. Overall, not a bad movie, it just didn't live up to it's potential in my opinion. I would only buy this one on DVD because my child really liked it.
  
  
• Grim and Grimmer.
  By A3NM0RAYSL6PA8 on 2002-08-14
  This is one bummer of a movie. Encased in dirt and grime, the characters are engaged in a last ditch effort to rid the world of thousands of fire-breathing dragons. In fact, the entire world is gray, gloomy, and depressing--and filthy. There's only so much of that I can take.

  Just in case you thought that the movie would provide some quasi-believable backstory about dragons, forget it. The writers either felt no reason to provide any logical basis for incredible idea that dragons are real, or they thought that the audience would be too dumb to need one. Any movie that takes itself this seriously needs to provide at least some basis for suspending disbelief, and there ain't one here.

  I can't give any spoilers in this review, so I'll do the best I can to review the movie without them.

  Now lets suppose that you actually get beyond the point of the very silly explanation for how dragons might have survived for thousands of years in a very odd location, what next? Poor acting (for the most part), one-dimensional characters, and a small amount of suspense. The ending is flat. It could have been great if it came after compelling battles against great odds, but it doesn't. It just sits there.

  There is one clever scene in which the last remaining humans begin crafting their own mythology based upon some popular culture icons, but that's the one high point in the entire film.

  Now for the real question: Are the dragons cool. I suppose, for the little amount of time they are actually on screen (maybe 5 or 6 minutes at most). But you don't go to a dragon movie to see hints of dragons, you go to get a good look at one. That is the crowning let down.
  
  

• Even one star is too high for this turkey!
  By on 2003-01-02
  I'll watch almost any kind of sci-fi or fantasy type movie, but Reign of Fire was a total waste of time. Little plot/character development, cheap effects...the dragons should have been flying turkeys, because that's what this movie was!
  
  
• I'll be generous and say one star.
  By on 2003-03-19
  The plot was an excellent idea. How it was done was not near excellent. Reign of Fire seems to be more concerned with nice looking CG of dragons breathing fire on defenseless civilians than anything else.

  The movie is basically entirely filler; the only real thing that happened was the climactic moment at the end, which wasn't terribly exciting anyways. The lines are not atrocious, and the acting isn't badly done, but the movie has so little actual plot content that it barely deserves one star.
  
  

• REIGN OF BURN
  By A6L3T1OMQG3QZ on 2003-04-06
  Talk about major disppointments and wasted potential! Here we have a very interesting (and promising) opening scene where a dragon is accidentally unearthed in an underground London excavation site and escapes. THEN, the director (for whatever lame reasons) immediately segues into a brief newspaper montage, describing how more dragons have emerged and eventually annhiliated most of the world.THEN, it's twenty years later. WHAT? COME AGAIN? Let's rewind a moment, and allow me to ask a really dumb question: HOW COME THAT WASN'T THE STORY? It doesn't sound too dull to me. That's what those deceptive posters and trailers conveyed. Why didn't this tepid production have the guts to stick to its guns?When it jumps twenty years ahead, it then becomes like a cable series; that medicore kind where the pilot episode seems highly promising, but only to go downward from there. At this droll point, everything worth seeing has already happened. Party's over, you can go home now. How's that for true excitement?I was all geared up to want to know what happened right after the first one escaped and how all the others came to be. It would have also been compelling to have crucial scenes where the scientists come to discover that the dragons were responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs and the start of the ice age. (Imagine surreal flashbacks that actually SHOW THIS, instead of just 'mentioning it in passing'). Thus, the film would be more than just two hours of dragon breath and barbequed mankind. I would have also been very curious to SEE how the human race fought them - and lost (as chillingly depicted in that TIME mag cover of NYC in flaming ruins with those ominous words: THE END?). That was the suspenseful and terrifying film I wanted to see, instead of this dismal effort which only boasts fleeting moments of action. Also, WHERE WERE THE DRAGONS? All I saw were what appeared to be birds in the distance; nothing too threatening or scary about that. Obviously, we now live in the disconcerting cinematic age of the LOST OPPORTUNITY. Isn't it a pity?PREQUAL, ANYONE?
  
  
• a neat idea wasted...and where WERE the dragons?
  By AZSLD22IPN0S2 on 2004-01-15
  When I saw this movie advertised, I was really excited, expecting to see fighter planes duke it out with dragons. Sadly, what I got was dirty american and english people complain a lot and get excited about the dragons, of which we get to see very few. The plot was thin and made little sense and we, the humans were victorious because we killed the one (and only!!) male dragon who, similar to fish (sort of), fly around overhead of the eggs to inseminate them. I am by no means a biologist (yet, I'm working on it), but it seems highly illogical to have one male for the entire species. I could see having the females outnumber the females, but to have only one in the whole world? I don't think so.
  Additionally, we never got to see the joyus destruction of mankind and society. One day, everything is hunky dorey...then the dragon "awoke", and then we fastwarward a number of years (couldn't tell you exactly how many...didn't really care that much) and *poof* society as we know it is no more. Do we get to see the carnage? NO! I would have rooted for the dragons, but we only got to seem a handfull of times.
  Fortunaly, I was quite liquered up when I saw this movie, so that helped a bit...but not enough for me to ignore the fact that this movie was horrible. I couldn't even be comforted by the fact that there were two attractive actors in the film, due to the fact that they were dressed to be as filthy as possible.
  If I could have given this film a negitive rating, I would have. Don't watch it!
  
  
• the best movie of all time.
  By on 2004-02-08
  forget the other "film-school dropout i wish i could direct a movie" clowns...this is undoubtedly the BEST "post-apocalyptic dragons roaming the earth and burning everthing down to the ground while a handful of brits is left to continue the species starring christian bale and matthew mconhaughey" movie of all time. if that's your gig, this is your film...'nuff said.
  
  
• Lies
  By A319SKSB556033 on 2004-02-21
  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).
  
  

• King Arthur - The Director's Cut (Widescreen Edition)
• The Fifth Element
• Hellboy (Two-Disc Special Edition)
• Underworld (Widescreen Special Edition)
• The Prestige