- Review: John Wick 3 (C)
Scott Sycamore - Weekend Box Office
May 17 - 19 - Crowd Reports
Avengers: Endgame - Us
Box office comparisons - Review: Justice League (C)
Craig Younkin
DVD Review
Reign of Fire
By Lee Tistaert Published February 11, 2003
US Release: July 12, 2002
Starring: Matthew McConaughey , Christian Bale
PG-13
Running Time: 101 minutes
Domestic Box Office: $43,060,000
Starring: Matthew McConaughey , Christian Bale
PG-13
Running Time: 101 minutes
Domestic Box Office: $43,060,000
C
79 of 143
It?s more often boring, but has some semi-adrenaline filled scenes
How to tell a story via a script is a crucial element to how powerful and effective a movie concept will eventually be.
If it?s something like Reign of Fire where there?s a dragon that?s found in the underground coal-mining territory, and eventually the characters? ambition is to put the creature to death, then a novel idea could be to go the M. Night Shyamalan (Signs) way. That is, reveal one thing at a time while escalating the suspense and the curiosity, or perhaps the mysteriously unknown. The problem with Reign is that there is barely ever any suspense, and that is mostly due to the fact that we are introduced to our antagonist in the opening bit. The story plays as if we?re dumb. If we know the creature?s physical qualities and what it can do to us earlier on in the film, where?s the suspense? Where?s the thrill that comes from not knowing everything?
If the antagonist is shown in the opening scene in full light, we know through the book of film rules and cliches that the action sequences up until the climax leave our nemesis roaming free. The only room that is left to behold is the space of thrill that it may leave us regardless. The problem is, these scenes don?t engage the viewer with any great sense of excitement. The eagerness to want to know more is extremely minimal, as we have most of the answers early on. The filmmakers then leave the boring and uninteresting characters to entertain us for the remainder of the screen-time. There definitely was a scarcity of creativity in the screenwriting stage, as Reign of Fire could have had potential to be a great popcorn flick.
Instead of showing the only dragon in this movie (yes, that?s right, there?s only one) in the opening segment of the show, why don?t the screenwriters instead build into a footprint that is found by this dragon (that we have not seen yet)? Why don?t they introduce various clues that there?s something roaming their territory? Why don?t they try and scare the crap out of us with silence and what may be around the corner or lurking within the darkness but we?re not completely sure? Why don?t you insert likeable and enjoyable leads that would entertain us and would personally care for if ever losing their presence? The personas attached on-screen are simply there for the dragon to be taunting. They?re cardboard people; they don?t matter. They?re simply ants with one human whose foot is squashing/haunting them.
The movie tries so hard to be a brainless popcorn feature, and while I?ve had my share of guilty pleasures when it comes to these types of flicks, this film is just too brainless; it?s dumb. If Reign of Fire was more than just a dragon movie and had meaning inside its package (which it doesn?t), then there could be some exceptions with how to tell the story. But even so, the way it?s executed there?s no reason to really stay for the entire ride if you?re looking for a good buildup to see what our antagonist looks like. We know what the damn creature looks like in the very beginning. Our presence is only continuing to be there to see it eventually be killed off. Oh, and of course, to experience any of the possible fun and thrills that may come into play via the fire-breathing dragon, explosions, and the form of the chases.
Reign of Fire feels like Eight Legged Freaks (which also made a crucial error of being redundant in its second half). The build-up to what the critters looked like in Freaks actually had won me over to a certain extent, as it was somewhat of a cheese-ball fun little movie (the first half). When the creatures invaded at the tick of the second half, the entire rest of the movie was a "Oh no, they?re chasing us, let?s run!" over and over again. There were no real surprises after that point, as they weren?t getting anywhere in plot outside of the fact that we knew the bad guys were all going down eventually.
The thing with Reign of Fire is that it doesn?t even wait till the second half to reveal its antagonist. What saves the film from being any worse than Freaks (which I gave a C) is that the visual look of the film can be a fun little aspect at times. Eight Legged had more of a standard directorial approach in terms of style, while Reign is darker in mood and the director has skillfully taken some edgier lenses to make some scenes look cooler than they normally would. But still, the flick lacks a lot of material to classify it as even a guilty pleasure.
It?s more often boring, but has some semi-adrenaline filled scenes and some nice visuals occasionally. What takes away part of the adrenaline is that anybody with any sense of moviemaking knows how it?s all going to play out in the end. It?s a movie formula that has been tinkered with since the dawn of man, and all these filmmakers are really doing is re-hashing what?s already been played with beforehand, just dumbed down and aimed at an audience who doesn?t have any knowledge of the flicks it?s ripping off of. This is a movie that kids are prone to enjoy for its flashy looks and visual motifs, but when it comes to people with a reasonable sense of what is and what isn?t a good movie, Reign of Fire will likely play mediocre at best.
The film is uninspired and clich?, as it takes every action film device and uses it to occupy screen time. It?s neither continuously exciting nor constantly engaging, as it?s just kind of there. We wait and wait for the climax, only periodically being enthralled by the events that show up. It?s just another sign of how easy it can be for producers to accept a run-of-the-mill script concept, as long as it?s a moneymaker.
If it?s something like Reign of Fire where there?s a dragon that?s found in the underground coal-mining territory, and eventually the characters? ambition is to put the creature to death, then a novel idea could be to go the M. Night Shyamalan (Signs) way. That is, reveal one thing at a time while escalating the suspense and the curiosity, or perhaps the mysteriously unknown. The problem with Reign is that there is barely ever any suspense, and that is mostly due to the fact that we are introduced to our antagonist in the opening bit. The story plays as if we?re dumb. If we know the creature?s physical qualities and what it can do to us earlier on in the film, where?s the suspense? Where?s the thrill that comes from not knowing everything?
If the antagonist is shown in the opening scene in full light, we know through the book of film rules and cliches that the action sequences up until the climax leave our nemesis roaming free. The only room that is left to behold is the space of thrill that it may leave us regardless. The problem is, these scenes don?t engage the viewer with any great sense of excitement. The eagerness to want to know more is extremely minimal, as we have most of the answers early on. The filmmakers then leave the boring and uninteresting characters to entertain us for the remainder of the screen-time. There definitely was a scarcity of creativity in the screenwriting stage, as Reign of Fire could have had potential to be a great popcorn flick.
Instead of showing the only dragon in this movie (yes, that?s right, there?s only one) in the opening segment of the show, why don?t the screenwriters instead build into a footprint that is found by this dragon (that we have not seen yet)? Why don?t they introduce various clues that there?s something roaming their territory? Why don?t they try and scare the crap out of us with silence and what may be around the corner or lurking within the darkness but we?re not completely sure? Why don?t you insert likeable and enjoyable leads that would entertain us and would personally care for if ever losing their presence? The personas attached on-screen are simply there for the dragon to be taunting. They?re cardboard people; they don?t matter. They?re simply ants with one human whose foot is squashing/haunting them.
The movie tries so hard to be a brainless popcorn feature, and while I?ve had my share of guilty pleasures when it comes to these types of flicks, this film is just too brainless; it?s dumb. If Reign of Fire was more than just a dragon movie and had meaning inside its package (which it doesn?t), then there could be some exceptions with how to tell the story. But even so, the way it?s executed there?s no reason to really stay for the entire ride if you?re looking for a good buildup to see what our antagonist looks like. We know what the damn creature looks like in the very beginning. Our presence is only continuing to be there to see it eventually be killed off. Oh, and of course, to experience any of the possible fun and thrills that may come into play via the fire-breathing dragon, explosions, and the form of the chases.
Reign of Fire feels like Eight Legged Freaks (which also made a crucial error of being redundant in its second half). The build-up to what the critters looked like in Freaks actually had won me over to a certain extent, as it was somewhat of a cheese-ball fun little movie (the first half). When the creatures invaded at the tick of the second half, the entire rest of the movie was a "Oh no, they?re chasing us, let?s run!" over and over again. There were no real surprises after that point, as they weren?t getting anywhere in plot outside of the fact that we knew the bad guys were all going down eventually.
The thing with Reign of Fire is that it doesn?t even wait till the second half to reveal its antagonist. What saves the film from being any worse than Freaks (which I gave a C) is that the visual look of the film can be a fun little aspect at times. Eight Legged had more of a standard directorial approach in terms of style, while Reign is darker in mood and the director has skillfully taken some edgier lenses to make some scenes look cooler than they normally would. But still, the flick lacks a lot of material to classify it as even a guilty pleasure.
It?s more often boring, but has some semi-adrenaline filled scenes and some nice visuals occasionally. What takes away part of the adrenaline is that anybody with any sense of moviemaking knows how it?s all going to play out in the end. It?s a movie formula that has been tinkered with since the dawn of man, and all these filmmakers are really doing is re-hashing what?s already been played with beforehand, just dumbed down and aimed at an audience who doesn?t have any knowledge of the flicks it?s ripping off of. This is a movie that kids are prone to enjoy for its flashy looks and visual motifs, but when it comes to people with a reasonable sense of what is and what isn?t a good movie, Reign of Fire will likely play mediocre at best.
The film is uninspired and clich?, as it takes every action film device and uses it to occupy screen time. It?s neither continuously exciting nor constantly engaging, as it?s just kind of there. We wait and wait for the climax, only periodically being enthralled by the events that show up. It?s just another sign of how easy it can be for producers to accept a run-of-the-mill script concept, as long as it?s a moneymaker.
Lee's Grade: C
Ranked #79 of 143 between Blue Crush (#78) and Eight Legged Freaks (#80) for 2002 movies.
Ranked #79 of 143 between Blue Crush (#78) and Eight Legged Freaks (#80) for 2002 movies.
Lee's Overall Grading: 3025 graded movies
| A | 0.4% | |
| B | 30.0% | |
| C | 61.7% | |
| D | 8.0% | |
| F | 0.0% |
