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

[Andres Munoz]

I liked this film a lot.

Bale and McConaughey were very good. They didn't show that much of the dragons and that made them a bit scary. The CGI was very good and convincing.

Yes, there are many plot-holes and we can spend all week picking this movie apart, but then again, you can do that with ALL movies, even the great ones. I just took it for what it was: a good, fun sci-fi flick.

I agree that there is a lot material that can be used to make a prequel and a sequel. But it all depends on how much profit (if any) the movie makes.

 

[Brad Nilsson]

For an interesting discussion of how dragons would fare against real military weaponry, take a look at USS Clueless.
BTW, I thought the movie was, at best, a "C" "B" movie.
Brad Nilsson

 

[Paul Jenkins]

For an interesting discussion of how dragons would fare against real military weaponry, take a look at USS Clueless.

Yeah, I thought that as well, I mean, have you seen what a C130 Hercules and A10 can do firepower-wise? No flesh animal could hope to stand up to that firepower...
Dragons would get their arses handed to them by the US military

 

[Kami]

But there was MILLIONS of dragons. I have no doubt that the military could kill them quite easily, but in those numbers? I guess that's why they say humans resorted to nuclear weapons (so they could kill a bunch at once). Remember the quote "every time we killed one, ten would replace it."

The Warthog is my fav plane because of its raw power, but it can't move like a dragon. Sure it would take out quite a few, but put it up against 3 or 4 dragons and it would be toast (pun intended).

You can come up with an arguement for anything if you dig deep enough, but all this guy (on that site) has to work with is a flippin few minutes of the actual movie where they discuss the history!

 

[Paul Jenkins]

But there was MILLIONS of dragons

oh yeah, well we can produce billions of bullets
The movie was fun, I'll probably pick it up on DVD when it comes out, I liked the fx and the story well enough for sure (+, I'm a sucker for dragon movies!)

 

[Tim Glover]

Just returned from this. Not bad. Better than I expected...Agree with some here about the loose ends though but a good escapism movie. I did want more of the dragons as they were very very cool and very very mean looking.

Certainly won't make the AFI's top 100 but good fun anyway...

 

[Brad_V]

All of the talk about plotholes and things makes you wonder why half the people here don't work in the movie business instead of the hacks that currently do. Oh yeah, I forgot, you usually have to know someone in order to get a job in Hollywood.

I should be seeing it later this week, but at least from the reviews here I'll know to lower my expectations. I was thinking it was going to be a dumbed-down, action-adventure Anne Mcaffrey movie or something. Too bad.

Guess I'll go watch the dragons in Duneons and Dragons again now....

 

[Janna S]

Finally got around to seeing this and really enjoyed it. I don't usually bother to watch such unremittingly "guy" flicks, but this was fun.

I liked the varying interests that Quinn had (rescued the child, cooked, led prayers, led the people, etc.)

Liked the "don't harvest too soon" concept (although it seems to me that in such dreary country, tomatoes or tomato-like items would have been the least likely crop to try to nurture and harvest!)

I liked the addition of the female warrior without weakening the action or adding distracting attraction/lust scenes. Liked the fact that both male leads took their shirts off a lot, and no woman had to strip down to her underwear. (I kept laughing to myself, thinking about Bale, "That's Gloria Steinem's stepson!")

Liked the "Coffeyville, Kansas" anecdote.

Didn't mind what some people think were "loose ends" because most of them won't loose ends in my mind (most have been explained above, or just aren't worth dithering over).

Worth the time and money.

 

[Paul_D]

Saw this earlier this afternoon, and really enojoyed it. I was thrilled that it was of the more-character-time-less-crap-cgi mould of summer movie. The idea of a film about the world's destruction by fire is groan-inducing. 2 hours of cgi-fire. No thanks. I go to the cinema to see human stories. Focusing on the struggles of a small group of people, as well as being the only affordable option, is far more compelling to me than a non-stop blast-fest.The less cgi the better. I think they struck a good balance.
The English setting was fun, though I expect it was a budget-cutting measure of sorts because the desolate look they were going for is the standard for most of England! It's been pointed out above, but I chuckled to myself as they choppered beside the cliffs and flew up and landed right next to the ruined Houses of Parliament/Big Ben/St. Paul's/Standard London Destruction Scene. Going down the Thames from the North Sea leads straight into the herat of Londn, but the precipitous drop from ground to sea really levels out as you get further inland, so even before they started approaching London, they would've been out in the open and ripe for the picking.
It does take itself more seriously than other films of its type, but it is still a film about dragons taking over the world. Plot nitpicking will only lead to disappointment over any film, other than the most resolutely realistic narrative.
Despite the testosterone-driven feel, and pure guy-movie sentimentality, I thought it was really refreshing to see a film where it's the guy that goes topless. I was expecting some sort of love-scene with Scorupco (sp?), but was pleasantly surprised that it didn't arrive.
By far the best thing about the film was McConaughey and Bale. Both give superb performances. Viscous and desperate yet strangely humble. Really enjoyed both actors, and it's their scenes together that keep the film compelling. Bale really is proving that he's one of the best actors out there at the moment.
Great fun.
A sequel/prequel would'nt work IMO. This story has been told.

 

[felix_suwarno]

is it possible for a chopper to cross the ocean / from america to england without refueling in the air?

why were they called the "marauders"? i thought they were bandits.

how did the male dragon track where van zan came from? his smell on the ground or what?

 

[Malcolm R]

That's what I assumed, just like a big flying bloodhound.

 

[felix_suwarno]

"I don't think they flew the chopper. I thought they had some sort of big military transport plane (C-130?) because they also brought the tanks, other equipment, and a whole lot more soldiers. "

well that means the whole movie is a big plothole then. c-130 is a big ass plane, and with the dragons around i dont think it is possible to cross the ocean.

i really want to like this movie, but there are lots of unexplained things.

like, the marauders!

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

Felix,

We don't ever see marauders in the movie, I believe they're only mentioned in dialog, along with rogue marines, et al. What exactly were you looking for to be explained about them?

Also, I thought VanZan did explain how they got over the ocean. I don't remember what he said though...