Forums of Filth

Do you like monsters? Then go see it. End of review.

.
.
.

Oh, okay, I'll give you a bit more to go on. This is a BIG-SCREEN monster movie, and you'll be sorry you missed these fantastic dragons if you skip it. True, the film has some slow patches between the attack scenes--but to be fair, it has some good "in between" stuff, too (I quite liked the players re-enacting THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK on a primitive stage for a captive child audience, for instance... "Did you really make that up yourself?").

And since we're not constantly being assaulted with dragon effects, it makes it all the more special when they do show up. The combat scenes are original and innovative (you're going to love the "paratrooper" attack), and the pyrotechnics are as spectacular as you could hope for.

Does every film have to be "the greatest film ever made" or even "the best film of the year" to earn our attention? I think perhaps not. Here's one to just have a blast with--and on that level, I again urge you not to wait for the video.

I'm planning on going, the dragons look pretty badass in the trailers. I look forward to your review of "8 Legged Freaks" too. I have some hopes for it despite the wreck that was the false Godzilla, gotta love giant spiders

Always remember... Emmerich didn't direct EIGHT-LEGGED FREAKS. Hope springs eternal.

But you know me--I'll even review HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION...

Reign of Fire was great. The seamless integration of modern weaponry with old-school "steampunk" technology was right up my alley. I agree about seeing the dragons less often making you appreciate them all the more. It's a shame, the opening weekend crowd (Saturday 7:40 PM showing) was incredibly thin.

I was pleased to see that REIGN OF FIRE, in its second weekend, stayed in the top five, while EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS, in its first (opening on a Wednesday, yet) bombed at number seven.

Now, here's something to chew on--here's a quote from my nemesis Mr. E (who trashed REIGN and recommended FREAKS).



REIGN OF FIRE / * (PG-13)

July 12, 2002







Van Zan: Matthew McConaughey
Quinn: Christian Bale
Alex: Izabella Scorupco
Creedy: Gerard Butler
Touchstone Pictures presents a film directed by Rob Bowman. Written by Gregg Chabot, Kevin Peterka and Matt Greenberg. Running time: 102 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for intense action violence).









BY ROGER EBERT



One regards "Reign of Fire" with awe. What a vast enterprise has been marshaled in the service of such a minute idea. Incredulity is our companion, and it is twofold: We cannot believe what happens in the movie, and we cannot believe that the movie was made.

(SNIP a bunch of plot point whining, after which he admits he wasn't really paying attention: see conclusion of review)

I know I have probably been inattentive, and that some of these points are solved with elegant precision in the screenplay. But please do not write to explain, unless you can answer me this: Why are the last words in the movie, "Thank God for evolution"? Could it be a ray of hope that the offspring of this movie may someday crawl up onto the land and develop a two-celled brain?

END

Oooookaaayyyy.... He obviously WASN'T paying attention, because he makes such a whine about the last line of dialogue in the film, which he doesn't even remember correctly.

The last line of the film was "Well, here's to evolution," and it's a reference to a character who finds optimism in himself after assuming it's all been burned away a long time ago. He says "It's a recent development," and she says "Well, here's to evolution."

Sound perfectly simple and straightforward to me--and it doesn't sound like "Thank God for evolution," either.

So I took Ebert up on his challenge and sent the "Answer Man" the correct line of dialogue and its proper context.

That was two weeks ago--and today's "Answer Man" column pops up--guess who got completely ignored? Story of my life.

I CHALLENGE you, Ebert. Stand up and FACE me. ACCOUNT for yourself. I will devote an entire chapter of my upcoming nonfiction BOOK to you if you don't.

Thanks!

Originally posted by Remo D
I CHALLENGE you, Ebert. Stand up and FACE me. ACCOUNT for yourself. I will devote an entire chapter of my upcoming nonfiction BOOK to you if you don't.

Do it, man. I'll come to the book signing. Or maybe you could just storm the set of his show. Or take out a one page ad in Variety, issueing a challenge. Or hack into his website.

Its a shame he didn't address your e-mail instead of blathering on about his precious Maxivision for the umpteenth time but something tells me he fears your kind...

I found ROF overall quite enjoyable, but felt a LOT was left unexplained in regard to the dragons. Like did the dragons eat ash? If so, why were they starving, when there was lots of stuff around to burn? If it had to be specific ash, like that of animals, why did that one dragon "not care" about the guys escaping in the vehicles? It just seemed like exposition (and relevant exposition) had been hacked from the film.

The dragons were very cool, and except for the scene with guys falling through clouds, I liked the CGI. People just never look convincing to me in CGI form, it seems.

My wife did raise the issue that the film gets taken over by Americans, and I see her point. The film starts as a bleak, British, attempting to carve a survival niche and accepting the situation, then the US boys show up and suddenly it's a typical action movie type plot.

Overall, certaily worth catching with the dragons all big on screen.