*** Official "REIGN OF FIRE" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Kami]

I'm confused about the whole egg thing too...they made it out to be a scene of significance, but then nothing really happens.

 

[Chad R]

I couldn't understand how the helicopter was allowed to fly in so close to the city and land without encountering any dragon resistance when there seemed to be so many around.

they flew along the coastline and cliff walls to mask their entry. I'd call it a flimsy explanation, but honestly I don't know enough about dragons to know if that would work well enough. In the context of the movie they sold it well enough to me to not be a problem.
And peronally, I didn't want to see the dragons overtaking the world. That would be a different movie altogether, and just a rehash of ID4. I thought the idea of the aftermath was much more interesting. I'm a bit tired of the CGI fueled wall to wall action movie. I thought this one excelled at creating atmosphere and a sense of wonder.
And finally someone realized how to make CGI more convincing: don't show so damn much of it! That's why the original Alien worked so well, we never got a good look at the creature. The brevity also helped to amplify our fears. The idea that these people were so scared of them that they barely looked at the dragons and just ran went a long way in conveying both their majesty and ferocity without having to have them drop into frame, do a 360 for everyone to see and then start munching.
Great flick.

 

[todd s]

Someone mentioned that where did all the dragons come from if it was only the one male we see escaping. If I remember right. In the beginning montage they mention other dragon sites being found or that the dragons emerged from different sites. Remember they hibernated when they were starving. So maybe the male being awakened, awoke the rest of them.
But, I too would have liked a more coherent montage of what happened to the world at the beginning.
Another thing I thought about was the people said they were starving. Now unless they nuked the oceans. They would still be filled with fish. So maybe they should have gone and done a little more fishing.
All in all. I enjoyed the movie. Yet, I did feel a need for wanting more about the beginning and some loose threads cleared up.
ps- What was the deal with the ending and the radio tower? I assume it was showing how people are beginning to get in contact with each other again.

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

Also, I believe Van Zan does mention that he's basically out of fuel and men when he tries to convince Quinn to make a last-chance stab at London.

 

[Richard WWW]

Spoilers below...read at your own risk.

I was relatively entertained by this film. I felt that McConaghey was a little hammy in his characterization, but that was okay, cuz he was still fun to watch.

I was, however, disappointed. I felt the advertising for the film (poster and trailer) were deceiving. Another commentator in this thread said he felt the film was lacking in scope, and I agree completely. In the poster, you see dragons descending on London and burning it to dust, and you get the feeling that there's going to be a massive battle between an army of dragons and the RAF, or something along those lines. But the film doesn't deliver anything like that. To me (and this may just be my opinion) the advertising promised something it couldn't deliver. It's obvious that there were only two (rather claustrophic) main sets because this film just didn't have the budget to be an epic kind of story.
Humanity is nearly obliterated by the time the real action starts, and apparently one lone team of heroes is trying to kill off the dragons. One chopper. One tank. And we don't even really see the tank do anything except rumble menacingly at the beginning of the film.

I don't really get the part where the dragons eat ash, but that's okay. I was willing to accept this, even though it doesn't make sense to me. But it was only the first of a plethora of nonsensical things in this film, some of which I'll mention in a moment.

And if you accept the idea that dragons live off ash, then you'll understand why they were starving. They'd apparently burned off nearly all the flammable materials on earth by the time the main part of the film takes place. A few human outposts remain, trying to grow a few miserable crops in secret that the dragons won't find and burn.

But this film is nothing more than a B movie, and the script is weak. Here are my gripes, but keep in mind, I liked the film for a matinee.

1. How long can a dragon live? Are we supposed to believe that these things were hiding in the London underground for thousands of years?

2. They make the point that the female dragons lay eggs and then the bull comes along and fertilizes them. Like fish. So there is no copulation. So how can Christian Bale's character pull a fertilized egg out of a dead female dragon's womb? We can tell it's fertilized, because you can see the shape of a dragon inside? Just one of many instances where the film abandons internal logic for the sake of making what the director or screenwriter believed would make a cool scene/shot.

3. Someone asked earlier in the thread how Matthew got so buff? Where did he find the time to work out? I want to know how McConaghey and Bale got the FOOD to support their builds. Several times, the point is driven home that the people are starving. Well, you wouldn't know it, looking at McConaghey and Bale!

4. McConaghey and Bale get in a fight. McConaghey goes at Bale like Ed Norton beating the crap out of Jared Leto in Fight Club! And Bale gets two little cuts on his face, no visible welts, and a scrape on his arm. If a guy beat another guy like that in real life, there would be broken bones, lacerations, and big contusions.

5. So Bale's people build this fortress as a hiding place from the dragons, right? So why in god's name didn't they make it out of stone and cement? They've got a ton of flammable materials in the tower, as evidenced by the fires that engulf the building after the dragon torches it. Common sense, one might think, would tell these people to keep all their flammable materials underground, wouldn't it?

6. The ending was pathetically predictable (at least to me). After all the female dragons conveniently vacate London, McConaghey makes the comment that the odds are now three to one (him, Bale and the girl against the one bull dragon). And I thought, 'well, it's obvious that what's going to happen now is McConaghey's gonna die, and Bale and the girl are gonna live.' Lo and behold, I was right. Of course, the dragon HAD to die.

There were a lot of other things that made no sense, but I list these few to represent the fact that this is not a great film. Mildly entertaining, maybe, and the cgi dragons were well-done, imo, but this is just a B movie with pretensions at something more.

The best part of the story, by far, was the 'white knight/black knight' bit.

 

[LennyP]

So Bale's people build this fortress as a hiding place from the dragons, right? So why in god's name didn't they make it out of stone and cement?

They didn't build it, they just camped out there, England is full of old castles and it IS build out of stone.
Etc... You can dig under any movie and find something to pick at, I've only read a couple of threads here and they're both like that. It seems that you hate the films and pick them apart, why not just enjoy them, discussions like this are pointless. It's a dragon movie mmmkay, set in 2020. I mean, whatta heck do you want.

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

As far as the castle goes, there isn't much better protection from fire than stone (wasn't that the original purpose behind the stone castle?) and the castle had an underground area for emergency shelter. It also has a high vantage point to spot approaching dragons (or other people such as marauders).

Where else were the people supposed to go?

 

[David Oliver]

While I enjoyed this movie, it wasn't great. Just an entertaining diversion. But only one male? From an evolutionary standpoint this is a sure way NOT to ensure the survival of your species.

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

David,

There is no evolutionary need for more than one male. If their system is so dominant that it has, in waves, killed off all other major lifeforms on earth - they have no barriers other than their own greed and no natural predators or limits, why do they need more than one male?

With their size and flight ability, one could argue that the entire planet constituted only one social unit. As with many animal species, there is only one dominent male allowed in one unit at a given moment.

I'm probably stretching things a bit (no probably about it) but given what they establish about the dragons, it's not totally out of the realm of possibility.

 

[Evan S]

BIG SPOILER ALERT BELOW!!!!

Did anyone else think that the movie would have been better served by ending with the "dive bomb" scene instead of the crossbow kill? I thought that scene was rife with tension and suspense. It was just a very cool scene and I felt the movie dragged a bit after that with anticlimax.

If they had used a dragon kill scene in the middle with the "crossbow" technology, it would have built up an ending with an aerial assault on the male dragon. I think that would have worked much better than the way they decided to do it...the "lone wolf" approach with just the three commandos. Not only did it stretch plausibility, but it weakened the ending.

Just my humble opinion. Overall a fair to good movie, if slightly disappointing.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Yeah, I could see that working well. They could even work in the son angle given that he was going to join them as a paratrooper.

 

[Vickie_M]

I liked the explanation that dragons alone didn't destroy civilization, that man's efforts to kill the dragons helped do that.
I thought it was a decent movie. I was disappointed immediately after it was over, because it wasn't what I expected (a big, dumb, but fun, let's-kick-some-dragon-ass popcorn flick) but the more I thought about it, the more I liked it for what it actually was, a movie about the characters Quinn and Van Zan, and how they each view the dragon threat and what to do about it. It wasn't big; I was very surprised at how intimate the movie was. It wasn't dumb; ok, there are some plot holes, but I didn't feel insulted. It wasn't fun; it took itself, the dragons and the characters very seriously, and there's nothing wrong with that. To get my fun, campy, winking-at-the-audience fix, I'll be seeing Eight Legged Freaks tomorrow.
It was the third of 3 movies I saw yesterday. The first two were Road To Perdition and Insomnia, both of which I thought were excellent. ROF was certainly the lesser of the 3, but I still enjoyed it. I'd like to see a prequel or sequel.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Did anyone else think that the movie would have been better served by ending with the "dive bomb" scene instead of the crossbow kill? I thought that scene was rife with tension and suspense. It was just a very cool scene and I felt the movie dragged a bit after that with anticlimax.

I agree, and as Alex said we had the setup for the kid to be involved.

Especially because that attack was played up so much early on. It was the perfect desperate, crazy idea that it would take to win an unwinnable battle.

In fact, I fully thought that Van Zan's plan was going to be to attack the male, lure it back to the castle as bait, then make a final attack with the chopper. To me that would have worked MUCH better and the narrative had every bit of setup for just such an ending.

Plus, by having the male follow them back it more sensibly explains the lack of other dragons and how they got near London in the chopper. I got the cliff story, but if you have been to London you know that it's not exactly hanging over a cliff by the Channel.

The other thing about my ending that I like is that it gives Bale an issue to be upset with...his people/city being used as dragon bait. The motivations for both characters would work perfectly for conflict in that way too, yet the final resolution would also make sense.

And Van Zan could be eaten mid-air still as one of the para-fighters.

You should always end on your best action sequence or something close to it. In this case the film used it once mid-way and then forgot about it.

 

[Malcolm R]

I was also a bit confused with how the size of the male seemed to keep fluctuating. When he was climbing up the castle, he essentially dwarfed the structure like a child playing Godzilla to a sand castle.

But at the final showdown in the streets of London, he didn't seem much larger than any of the female dragons? Seems like someone in the continuity department wasn't paying attention.

DVD out on 11/13.

 

[Stephen_L]

Just saw the film and found it to be a fun flick. I actually liked the more intimate scale of the film. As mentioned before, so many films are glutted with epic CGI effects its become routine. A few effects used judiciously have far more impact than wall-to-wall CGI. I prefer the story of this lone outpost and the conflict between the defense mentality (Quinn) and the offense (Van Zan) The narrative could have been significantly tightened to clean up some plot holes. (Example: Have Van Zan's team traveling from one fuel cache to another. Allow the climactic battle with the bull to occur at the castle outside of London, away from the female dragon harem.) I would also have enjoyed more of the archangel attacks; it was a dazzling set up but then dropped.

And one pet peeve: having fist fights that end in minor facial injuries is an old film convention. I'm a doctor and I agree that fights like that end not only in terrible facial injuries but fractured fists. However, the film storytelling medium makes certain compromises with reality for the purpose of telling a good story. One could also complain that its unrealistic for everyones faces to be so well lit when they're speaking or for their voices to be heard so clearly. Those artificialities like the 'blood from the corner of the mouth' and the well-fed muscular heroes work to keep the story going.

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

I have a question that I don't think anyone mentioned.

In the trailers, if I remember correctly, they say it is the year 2084 yet the movie is 2020. Am I imagining this or did they make a mistake here?

 

[Chad R]

No, the marketing department made a mistake.

 

[Phil Florian]

Just saw this yesterday. I liked it and feel the comparison to a B-minded movie like "Pitch Black" is appropriate. It was the low-budget movie it appears to be but makes the best with such limitations. Another high point was that it wasn't another frickin' remake/sequel/reimagining flick that seems to dot the movie horizon like a hoarde of dragons. The fact that I have a genre movie to watch that at least as a newish storyline makes me grin.

I didn't get too worried about minutae. It is the fanboy's favorite activity, I know, but I don't need EVERYTHING explained. I thought there were enough hints to make it work. Fuel? It was apparent that Van Zan and crew were making their way around the world scrounging for fuel ala Mad Max et. al. I am sure with very few alive to use any more fuel, there would be stocks of it along the way. There. I agree with the other poster who noted that the stories showing the Dragons scorching the earth noted that they didn't do it alone. Humanity fought back with it's big guns (nukes) which, if I remember my Cold War history, goes a long way to explain why we lost. Nukes have a lot of side effects which dampen other defenses. The Electromagnetic Pulse would prevent any other electronic countermeasures (meaning missles, jets, radar, communications, etc.) from working for a while. That was also enough for me (once I realized nukes were involved).

I actually liked the whole army of badasses getting kicked so easily. It was (again) an homage to Aliens where the troops that look to be invincible we find out aren't enough for the job. What it did lack was that movie's inspired ending. I agree that a better use of story would have had the showdown at the castle. That was kind of the whole point of Quinn's character arc. He was so afraid of doing anything but hiding and making do until "something" happened. He knew that the army going out to the male would bring armageddon for his tiny band and even tells his people this (and thus the fist fight). A full-on defense of the castle to the last man where Quinn, his "son" and even the now-whipped Van Zan get to have their heroic moments would have been a more satisfying way to cap off what was a nifty, atmospheric film.

I also agree with the (very) few who think that a prequel would be silly. First of all, we know how it ends (er...the world burnt to a cinder) so there wouldn't be a lot of hope for a happy ending. And it would be, as some noted, a wall of CGI explosions and such and there are plenty of movies that do that all year long. A sequel would be just as irrelevant (though I read that the screenwriters want it, but which screenwriter doesn't?). "Wait, we forgot the OTHER male!" How lame. I didn't think the egg thing was there to provide the seed for another movie. I think it was more "wow, Van Zan was right" sort of moment. It was Quinn's first up close and personal dragon.

I like the sound of this screenwriter's upcoming flicks. One is a new Robin Hood tale (and no, I don't consider taking classic storylines and reinterpreting them as lame as reinterpreting existing movies like "Planet of the Apes" etc.) called "In a Dark Wood" and a Civil War picture (about hunting down the last Confederate fugitive...wasn't that Josey Wales?). Here is hoping we get more fun genre pictures like this from time to time.


Phil

 

[Paul Jenkins]

Saw this movie today at a matinee (finally seeing other things than AOTC )
I like the movie a lot until the end, which lowered it a notch or two on my ladder. I thought the story up until the final 1/2 hour was very solid and the acting, characters and CGI was very well done (again, not overdoing the dragons as others have stated).
I would have rewritten the ending to include the male dragon attacking back at the castle and having the last stand there. A large fight, where all the previous techniques are used on the large male and many, many people die (rather than having them all go out before they get to London the way they did). In the end, the male is downed and ready to be killed, but flames Van Zant and the girl right before Quinn finishes him off. End credits with Quinn standing over the male dragon and the rest of the kids emerging from the castle. Or something like that
Still, an enjoyable film and definitely worth a trip to the matinee or a rental!

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

I thought the ending in London was appropriate because it brings Quinn full circle and it also shows Quinn realizing that he has to take an active role. Previously, his whole stance had been to hide and wait - the attack of the male shows how this is an ultimately futile approach. Yes, it's Van Zan's fault but at the same time, how many more seasons could they have lasted before drawing the male's attention?