Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:07:39 PM
713350 Posts in 53056 Topics by 7725 Members
Latest Member: wibwao
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Reign of Fire - Good or Bad? « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Reign of Fire - Good or Bad?  (Read 4917 times)
The Burgomaster
Aggravating People Worldwide Since 1964
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 773
Posts: 9036



« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2004, 09:33:37 PM »

This is a bad movie that isn't even much fun to watch.

Logged

"Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much leave me the hell alone."
peter johnson
Guest
« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2004, 09:50:51 PM »

Whoops!   Such strong feelings about this one --
Now, my wife & I went to see it on the big screen when it came out, as we knew that big ol' flying dragons would look real good blowed up big-like on the screen.  We weren't disappointed.  Sorta bugged me about that one dragon coming from inside the earth, leading the rest out, and not stopping to eat the kid who sees him, but I accepted that this has to happen for all the mythological-nemesis reasons.  
My wife and I had no trouble at all accepting and enjoying this film on the level of a myth/fairy tale.  It has fairy-tale logic.  Some of the above arguments are sort of like arguing about Snow White or Red Riding Hood.
I mean, c'mon, wasn't watching the dragon crawl along the ground like a vampire bat toward the Northumbria-style castle just a wicked cool image?
Or the scene where the story-tellers are acting out "Star Wars" for the children, as if it were a tribal folk-tale?  This, to me, gave a clue as to how the whole film was to be perceived.
Dragons coming from inside the earth is such a mythological theme -- sort of American Indian by way of Norse.  If I accept that, then matters of gun calibres & helicopters and what-have-you don't confront me none.
Put me down in the "liked it" category.
peter johnson/denny crane
Logged
AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1402
Posts: 11156



« Reply #17 on: November 18, 2004, 05:52:22 AM »

I'm still inclined to agree with those who felt this fantasy strayed a little too far from reality. That is the number one rule in writing science fiction and fantasy: if you want people to buy your unbelievable premise, ground it in reality. Where it strays from reality, provide a reason, and then treat that as any real-world rule. Saying that it's already a fantastic premise, so reality goes out the window, is a poor excuse for sloppy writing, and it doesn't show a lot of respect for the genre. Any good SF writer will tell you this is a common mistake.

As for the telling of Star Wars as a folk tale, I found that to be one of the more insightful and imaginative parts of the movie.

Overall, however, this movie was just plain dull, which again points to a badly written and badly executed story under all of the flash. When a big-budget movie about dragons taking over the world manages to be uninteresting, there is definitely a problem.

Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
dean
Guest
« Reply #18 on: November 18, 2004, 06:12:50 AM »


Usually I would really like this sorta movie: films which have humans getting kicked, and dragon type creatures roam are usually pretty entertaining, however this one didn't sustain my interest enough.

But that star wars scene was pretty damn funny, if only the film kept that sorta feeling to it all the way through, i may have enjoyed it more.

CG is annoying when used in the wrong way, such as when a studio seems to say: lets make this CGI because its cool, instead of actually doing it properly.  For example, AVP was much better because the Predators and Aliens, for the most part at least, weren't in CGI, yet other films which could do something similar, just went CGI.

There was some good and interesting parts in Reign of Fire, but overall, it didn't deliver.

So I guess that makes me a person who is on the 'didn't like it' side of the pendulum, but not straight out hate.
Logged
Wence
Guest
« Reply #19 on: November 18, 2004, 08:35:07 AM »

Pure boredom is never a criterion for a good movie  - neither in the meaning of good good movie nor in the meaning of good bad movie.

To have fun watching a bad movie there is a criterion I think it is the most important of all:
- the unintentional comic effect

Everything that has the opposite effect on the audience instead of the effect the director/the makers intended to is a reason to laugh about. (One exeption: boredom instead of entertainment)

And when laughing is a criterion for having fun, then the unintentional comic effect is a criterion for a good bad movie.
Logged
peter johnson
Guest
« Reply #20 on: November 18, 2004, 07:54:13 PM »

I like Wence's bit of Formal Logic here -- since it made me laugh, I guess it's good Bad Movie Philosophy --
I know that I'm not going to suddenly convince anyone that the film has merit if they plain didn't like it -- sort of like arguing about Ralph Bakshi, if nobody's ever seen the uncut "Heavy Traffic -- but I do wonder at the limitations imposed by Genre and Criteria --
AndyC's point about science fiction and fantasy is well-taken, but isn't it a tad limiting?  I mean, surely there are other types of film:  Un Chien Andalou, for example -- where the hell do we put that one?  Or Magic Mountain?  Or The Cost of Milk?  Each of these films I've named have an extremely high fantasy quotient, but simply don't follow many rules or expectations.  They have elements of Bhuddism, Dada-surrealism, etc., but are mainly -- to me -- Fairy Tale Pictures.  Their logic is so internal as to be invisible.
 As I said, the key for my enjoyment of Reign of Fire was do I accept that winged dragons live for thousands of years beneath the Earth or not?  If I can accept such a wholly outlandish premise, then anything that follows -- and I do mean anything -- is really a piece of cake.
I mean, what the hell did the dragons eat down there?  If they live under the Earth, what the hell are those bat-wings for?  Why do they even have eyes?  Why aren't they all blind?  You can really go on like that forever . . .
Take your standard creation myth in most cultures:   Either we listen to the story and accept that crows flew beneath the ocean & shat out the offspring of a shape-changing seal/seaweed goddess-being, and these offspring became the first Eskimos/men, or we don't.  We're free not to, of course, but we may miss a cool story.
peter johnson/denny crane
Logged
Max Gardner
Guest
« Reply #21 on: November 19, 2004, 01:07:40 AM »

I thought this movie looked entertaining.  I watched it.  I nearly fell asleep.  It was simply bad-bad (like Underworld), not good-bad (like Resident Evil).  Shame on everyone involved with this film, but especially Christian Bale, as he's shown he's made of better stuff than this.
Logged
AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1402
Posts: 11156



« Reply #22 on: November 19, 2004, 11:39:43 AM »

peter johnson wrote:
> Each of these films I've named have an extremely high fantasy
> quotient, but simply don't follow many rules or expectations.
> They have elements of Bhuddism, Dada-surrealism, etc., but are
> mainly -- to me -- Fairy Tale Pictures.  Their logic is so
> internal as to be invisible.

I did sort of mention, although maybe not clearly, that where the story strays from reality, it should at least have an internal logic. The fantasy should follow rules as consistently as reality does, even if the rules are silly. Likewise, where fantasy meets reality, I really think reality needs to be correct, no matter how outrageous the fantasy.

That doesn't mean that someone really talented can't do something totally off the wall and make it work, but I think that's the exception and not the rule.

I can actually suspend my disbelief  pretty easily, but the most outstanding stories are the ones that make the suspension almost effortless. To tell a story like that, you have to cover all your bases. To say that because a movie is based on an unbelievable premise, we don't need to expect much from it, or the writer didn't need to do his homework, is an excuse. Or rather, it's no excuse.

If you want people to swallow the unbeliveable, the best way is to make everything else as believable as possible. Not everyone can suspend their disbelief as easily as we can.



Post Edited (11-19-04 13:26)
Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
trekgeezer
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 4973


We're all just victims of circumstance


« Reply #23 on: November 19, 2004, 03:55:04 PM »

Ain't that what I said?

Logged




And you thought Trek isn't cool.
Yaddo 42
Guest
« Reply #24 on: November 19, 2004, 06:42:01 PM »

I wasn't entertained enough to call it good or recommend it, but the parts I liked like the "Star Wars" kids story/folktale (Wonder if Han shot first in their version?) and the climax were good I just wish the rest of the story had been as well done (no pun). Big holes in the plot and weak writing hurt the film (the one male dragon for the whole planet gimmick, the less than impressive methods of the American dragon hunters). I got the impression that the people involved wanted to make the dragons so badass and make the humans' plight so grim that they wrote themselves into a corner. They so stacked the deck against the humans that it was too hard to tell a good story and have them convincingly win.

So I'm not a fan of the movie, the friends I saw it with liked it, but we all thought most of the film was pretty forgettable. What I did like was seeing how much fun Matthew McConaughey was having hamming it up as Van Zan and looking so freaky with the shaved head, goatee, and ripped muscles (must have had a hell of a portable gym in that convoy of military equipment). He was more fun than the movie, and I usually run hot or cold on his acting. This time I got a big kick out of him showing off. Plus I decided after watching this that if someone ever makes a film of the Cormac McCarthy book "Blood Meridian" I now know who I want to play the preacher character.
Logged
Flangepart
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 653
Posts: 9477



« Reply #25 on: November 21, 2004, 03:26:44 PM »

Fearless Freep....buddy. I did like Reign enough to have a laugh. I just did not take it seriously, after i...thought about it awhile.
Like, the fact the Dragons have these holes in their wings.
That would have to affect their flying, man. Thise holes would cause drag, and affect the available lifting serface the wings had to work with.

And when the hero's friend said "I'm your best friend"...i knew "Oh, he is SO toasted." And when he did get fried...where was his smokeing corpse when they opened the fire door?

Good dragon CGI, yes. But Shakespear it ain't.
But i love Godzilla and friends, so i shoild talk?

Logged

"Aggressivlly eccentric, and proud of it!"
cheecky-monkey
Guest
« Reply #26 on: November 21, 2004, 05:56:08 PM »

It was good. Great special effects, a good acting and a gloomy atmosphere. I usually hate CGI but this film defenitely was one of the few exceptions.

Logged
jk
Guest
« Reply #27 on: November 21, 2004, 11:19:13 PM »

657657
Logged
Gerry
B-Movie Site Webmaster
Bad Movie Lover
****

Karma: 49
Posts: 971


It's not what you say, it's how you say it.


WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 22, 2004, 11:51:08 AM »

peter johnson wrote:

> I mean, c'mon, wasn't watching the dragon crawl along the
> ground like a vampire bat toward the Northumbria-style castle
> just a wicked cool image?

I'm with you peter.  The bad-ass images more than made up for the plot holes for me.

Then again, I'm a sucker for anything post-apocalypse or with dragons in it.  Except for DRAGONHEART.  That one sucked so totally and completely, even I couldn't forgive it.

And yes, I even like DUNGEONS & DRAGONS.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Reign of Fire - Good or Bad? « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.