Available Quality: DivX, DVD, iPod, Hi Def, Hi Def
Director(s): Rob Bowman
Country: USA, UK, Ireland
IMDB Rating: 6
Matthew McConaughey (U-571) and Christian Bale (SHAFT) star in an explosive action-packed adventure with bone-charring special effects that will have you glued to your seat! When workers in a London tunneling project awaken an unearthly fire-breathing beast from centuries of slumber, all hell breaks loose. Twelve-year-old Quinn (Bale) sees his mother, one of the workers, die trying to escape this new terror. Twenty years later as a fire chief, he tries to keep a group of refugees alive with fierce dragons dominating the air, burning the land and feeding on the ash. Unexpectedly, Van Zan (McConaughey), a hotshot American militia leader, shows up with a ragtag group of slayers on a perilous crusade to hunt down and destroy the beasts. Tempers flare when there is a struggle for leadership -- until both men realize only one species is getting out of this alive.HD 1080p PC, Mac, PS3 and XBOX 360 COMPATIBLE
|Reign of Fire (iPod)||Resolution: 480x208 px||Total Size: 260 Mb||
|Reign of Fire (Hi Def)||Resolution: 852x480 px||Total Size: 580 Mb||
|Reign of Fire (Hi Def)||Resolution: 1920x1080 px||Total Size: 4086 Mb|
|Reign of Fire (DVD)||Resolution: 1024x438 px||Total Size: 2100 Mb|
|Reign of Fire (DivX)||Resolution: 608x256 px||Total Size: 707 Mb|
ShinKyo81 (24 May 2013)
(Could find SPOILERS through all the text... You've been warned:P)I've just arrived from watching "Reign of Fire" and I must say it hasachieved the entertainment level I expected. I consider myself as a personwho is quite a fan of the dragon thing: I find those mythological creaturesvery frightening and interesting at the same time, and we don't have toforget that it's one of the mythologies that exists around the world, fromEurope to China. Anyway, back to the review. "Reign of Fire" happens in England, the year2020 AD, and the Earth has been completely destroyed by hundreds of giganticfire-breathing dragons. The human survivors hide in fortresses with deeptunnels to shelter from the flying menace. One of those survivor communitiesis lead by Quinn (Christian Bale), who is the responsible of this dragonincident.Then, a group of americans (lead by Van Zan -Matthew McConaughey-)armed withtanks arrived to Quinn's fortress and proposes to hunt the dragons andfinish the nightmare.As you can see, "Reign of Fire" combines the post-apocalyptic genre (like"Mad Max") and dragons, and with success. The film is pure entertainment, abit B-Series in some moments, but the acting is incredibly great( Bale andMcGonaughey fit perfect in respective characters), and the dragons arebrilliantly created, very good CGI and sound effects. Those are the twothings that make "Reign of Fire" a very entertaining movie.Does it have flaws? Of course. ^_^ Sometimes, the action slow down, and youcould also find the film quite repetitive after an hour. But I enjoyed it alot (maybe the ending was a bit disappointing), because of the great acting,the great CGI and the good atmosphere! 7/10Worth the look, but if you're not a dragon fan... be careful.:P
(24 May 2013)
I wish we could still go to the movies and watch one or two "B" pictures before seeing the main feature. Going to the cinema would be a lot more enjoyable then. It would also mean that movies like REIGN OF FIRE would get a fair shake.REIGN OF FIRE is an extended "B" picture. Pure and simple. The movie isn't a superdriven "A" film intended to bring in lots and lots of cash (though that would have been nice). No, the picture was made as a throwback to the types of action shorts that used to be shown before the main picture. However, instead of swashbucklers, pirates, and Flash Gordon; we are presented with the tail of dragonslayers living in a world after nuclear destruction where dragons rule the Earth.Sure the plot is thin, the dialogue cheesy, and the scenery corny. That's what B pictures look like. If you don't believe that, watch the film and play close attention. This is best illustrated in one of my favorite scenes in the movie. The two leaders of a band of humans living in rural England not too far from London entertain the children of the castle by acting out a story. The story they act out is from STAR WARS. STAR WARS! Get it? The movie is filled with such whimsical devices and if one pays attention to them, one gains an appreciation for what REIGN OF FIRE truly is: a modern day "B" picture; a movie great for watching before an "A" picture such as RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. However, if nothing else, the movie is worth watching for the dragons. True they are few and far between, but they are lifelike and rather menacing.
Mark (16 May 2013)
REIGN OF FIRE (2002) looked promising from the hype and trailers producedbefore the film. But as I sat in the theatre watching I was constantlytrying to stay awake. The movie begins slowly, moves at an extremely slowpace, and ends in the same slow manner. The trailer showed intense actionand fireballs throughout.. but what we end up with is a fight between astruggling nomadic leader and a gang of bandits. No, not with guns, onlywith words and a short fist fight. I would not reccomend this movie to anyone at all. If you're looking fornon-stop action rent Platoon or xXx, this is an action movie wasted withmelodrama and cheap thrills.*1/2
alorindanya (15 May 2013)
This movie has been highly underrated by critics. I have no idea of whatthey were expecting, but I wasn't disappointed. Quinton (Bale) is a trueleader, putting the lives of his people first. The American's who comeintohis community dedicate their lives to destroying Dragons, ultimatelyleadingthe beasts to Quinton's camp...which is exactly what Quinton did not wanttohappen. This movie shows the best and worst of humanity. People will dowhatthey think it best, reguardless of leaders or majority rules. The specialeffects are phenominal...couldn't even tell there was CGIinvolved...acceptfor in one scene ontop of a cylo (you'll definately catch it if you seeit).Well worth seeing multiple times.
Selestia Fionaire (12 May 2013)
Two wings down. Period. The entire movie was so blooming -vague- thatyoureally couldn't follow the plot that well. It was, what? Eighty...five?Seven? Minutes long? Had they made it an easy one-twenty, they couldhaveadded in enough storyline fillers to make it just -that- much moreinteresting. There were too many holes in the plot, then just that muchmore herky-jerky scene-splitting what-the-heck-just-happened-there sort ofrummaging. Quite frankly, that could confuse some people. Likeme.The soldiers. Everyone thus far seems to have liked the soldiers. Whatsoldiers? There's...four...five...six? Maybe? Listening to Van Zam'sgrunted out orders to go suicide "arch angel" diving out of a helicopterbefore or after a thirty-odd foot beast hell-bent on turning them into amid-flight snack? I don't -think- so.Reviews say that the dragons are the best part. Ooookidokie. Exactly-what- dragons? You see...two. And only split-second shots of them. Forthe length of "seventeen seconds". Otherwise they're dead or blown up.Riiiight.This movie, via the hardcorse AD&D folks, ranks right up there withDragonSlayer. Except that one was better. Some reviewers ranked it nexttothe movie Dungeons & Dragons. No. A piece of sci-fi highschooldrama-class...whatever that was like this can not be ranked next to amoviebased on...well...something actually -viable- and believable. (Right,elvesand magic are believable. Riiiight. Of course they are--someone thoughtofthose a -long- time ago! And people -enjoyed- that!)Huge fan of dragon movies. Love the fantasy flicks. But whoever decidedtocross DragonSlayer with The Terminator and splash in a bit of When HarryMetSally really needs to get their head examined.
mtenga (12 May 2013)
Firstly I'll say that I enjoyed the film and it kept my interest to thevery end but ultimately it was clichÃ©d and unoriginal in most respects.The characters and settings will be fairly familiar to anybody who hasever watched an apocalyptic movie such as Mad Max, The Postman etc...Like the brooding hero partly responsible for setting the whole thingoff, his wise cracking second in command, the driven lost soul but goodhearted American etc.. etc..., Nothing new.The dialogue was slow, not very snappy and I was constantly hoping forthings to errr catch fire, but they never did.A saving feature was the special effects. Seeing the dragon in its fullglory at the end will no doubt have terrified many children and the oddadult and it was excellent. But the weak and obvious plot and dialoguedid not save the movie, or make it worth a second view.
Peter-266 (08 May 2013)
The first half of the film sets the mood brilliantly and introduces arefreshingly new concept on Armageddon, not from nukes or mad funnymoustached dictators with a badly concealed chemical warfare plants, butfrom Napalm breathing Dragons.I must admit from the start I was hooked and, yes, although the acting andplot does have a few holes, they weren't serious enough to get in the way ofa decent story and some first class CG. The dragons are excellent and havejust the right measure of menace to give the right level oftension.There's a decent cast of Brits but the show is easily stolen by Mad Matt McConaughey's double well 'ard character with a magnificent slap-head, steelwool beard and accompanying well 'ard tattoos. Cool but obviously driven abit bonkers mad by his obsession to kill all Dragons.Definitely worth a look, I read about this in my regular SF magazine thistime last year and had high hopes for it, thankfully it wasn't adisappointment.
Robert Wood (08 May 2013)
Not the greatest action movie ever as one review I read said, but a greatone at that. For an action filled movie, Reign of Fire wasn't too gory.Interestingly enough, I don't think I noticed a single cuss word. Themoviehas a good introduction, deceit from within, action, catharsis as the 2maincharacters learn the error of their hubris, and an awesome conclusion,firefight and all. Oh, yeah! My wife also mentions Matthew McConaugheylooks good when he's all sweaty.This one has it all.
(04 May 2013)
Christian Bale and a bald, beefed up Matthew McConaughey looking like the guy from Fast and Furious star in a poorly executed film about dragons taking over the planet. Other than the opening scene when the first dragon is discoved underground the story takes place twenty years from now. A combination of fire breathing dragons and the use of nuclear weapons used against the seemingly indestructable dragons leave the cities of the Earth looking like South Bronx. (The film was shot in Ireland and if Ireland looks like that it is time to quit using things that blow up.)The remaining humans - whom the dragons consider food - are living underground and not doing so hot. Matthew shows up with a raggedy army claiming to have killed a dragon and looking for volunteers. Bale is a bit sceptical about his claim to have killed a dragon until one shows up and Matthew dispatches it using a small missle and one of his soldiers as bait - sort of giving you the idea why he needs volunteers. Never-the-less, a dead dragon lying on the ground does wonders for the downtrodden humans.The most interesting scene in the film is a skydiving sequence. Imagine sky diving while a dragon, considering you the main course in a drop-in restaurant, is trying to pick you out of the air for a snack. You have to open your chute a close to the ground as possible but you are in clouds so you can't see the ground. HooHa! Exciting! Very well done.A little conflict between the stars, a little romance between Bale and the female helicopter pilot for interest and they set off to London Town to find the one male dragon. I am not certain how the one male dragon has any time for a skirmish with the humans as there are a lot of females about - sort of like a rooster in a big, big hen house - but skirmish he does in a big finish. The problem with spending most of the budget on the dragon scenes is that it does not leave much for anything else. There are long drawn out dialog scenes in between the action that seem to go on forever while you are waiting for the dragons to arrive. My kids wandered off after ten minutes of nothing happening. But I think they did an okay job on the film and, as I said, the skydiving sequence is great.
thor1310 (04 May 2013)
If you're a Sci-Fi fan, go see this movie, you won't be disappointed.If you're not a Sci-Fi fan, skip it, you will feel like you wasted$5.This movie is not brilliant, nor genre-twisting, nor particularlymemorable,but it is entertaining, and well-made, and you really can't ask for muchmore from a movie these days.I suppose the nicest thing, for me, was that the special effects didn'tdominate the film, unlike "Minorty Report" and "Episode Two". The storyisdecent, the acting is fairly good, and it moves along without reallydragging down. There are some very funny lines scattered throughout, andofcourse, the dragons are fun to watch.6/10
apclaus (01 May 2013)
I saw this movie again today. It was shown on Dutch TV and I have to behonest, 3 years down the road, it's still impressive. Christian Baleseems to always go to the extreme in his character and the rest of thecharacters do just that what they should do in a Fantasy movie. Thismovie is one of the best dragon movies around........hum pleasecritics, it's a dragon movie, nothing more, nothing less. One of thebest out there. Also technically this movie has what it takes in theCGI scenes. Just look at the London scenes at the end of the movie,were the male dragon suddenly appears above the female dragons. If thatdoesn't make your juices flow, nothing will. Again, this is a good darkfantasy movie about dragons.....
robsha (30 April 2013)
I would say this was a colossal waste of time and money but I with all it'sflaws I still found it fun. The effects and photography were first rate. Icould tell where the money was spent. McCouanghy did a good impression ofmixing Brando and Duvall from Apocalypse Now. Christian Bale plays oureveryman hero. Izabella plays our roughed up pilot with model looks. It'sall pretty cliche so I'm sure most of you know what happens. The plot andstoryline are so full of holes it's not worth discussing. This is notoriginal and certainly not Academy material but worth at least one viewing.
Frederick (30 April 2013)
Caught this on DVD recently and was happily surprised. It's a'post-apocalypse' story where mankind is reduced to living an almoststone-age existence by a global disaster, but this time the apocalypse isbrought about not by nuclear weapons but a race of dragons unleashed fromthe depths of the earth by over-ambitious mining! OK, it's a pretty silly concept, but the whole thing is handled withpanache. Director Rob (X-Files) Bowman is obviously at home with this kindof subject matter and the visuals are excellent thanks to cinematographerAdrian Biddel, a dab hand at photographing the impossible thanks to his workon the two Mummy films and The World Is Not Enough.Critics here in the UK panned it when it came out, saying that it neededmore special effects, but they completely missed out on the charm of thefilm, which was in the ingenious ways that it showed the human race had beenchanged by the onset of the dragons. I loved the scene where Quinn and his sidekick, having to entertain a castlefull of children without the benefit of TV or video games, enact a scenefrom Star Wars, providing both dialogue and narration as they go.Don't listen to the critics, this is definitely worth alook.
Moon-7 (30 April 2013)
This movie's plot had more holes in it than the dragon's wings in the endbattle. How the heck could it fly when it's wings looked like tornsails?!!!Spoilers below!!!Bad biology: How did they know there was only one male on the entireplanet?Bad plot device: How come the dragons could flame a tank and armoredfighting vehicles to death with an extended flame spewed like a fire hosefrom a couple hundred feet up but couldn't hit our heroes at 50 feet andseemed to "belch" rather than "blowtorch" as seen earlier.If dragons eat ash, why were the ruined crop fields not "grazed" by the onein the early part of the film?Bad logic: If a single-shot whaler-type harpoon cannon can down onedragon,a squadron of A-10 tank busters should be able to turn several hundred at atime into chop suey. Bet dragons can't fly at 30,000 feet or close to Mach1. I will also bet a dragon's flame won't reach a mile or so..ever seen anA-10's main gun in action? Dragon burgers.More bad logic: Why rush everyone out onto the ramparts when a dragon issighted? Get everyone the hell down into the deep cellars. Heat rises.Part two: They had a radar antenna shown working in one scene, yet theyrelied on a falcon getting cranky and an old man with a telescope when adragon was nearby.Bad tactics: Ramboesque leader lets his armored vehicles bunch up when theystop at a road block...no one past Basic would do this, it just screams"flame the entire line in one swoop!" Yet he knew he was headed for"dragoncentral".Bad plot device: Their radar can't "see" the dragons unless three unitsareplanted and working.Bad plot device again: Rambo type brings a main battle tank, a chopper andsupport equipment but has *zero* anti-air or anti-tank missles? Not even aDragon (pardon the expression) anti-tank load? C'mon! Apparently not evena decent 20mm AA, or even a few LAAW rockets. They take on the dragon atonepoint with .50s, M-16's and 9mm sub-machine guns. Sheesh. I know heclaimsto have lost a lot of stuff but they'd have surely salvaged somethingbetter. A couple of grenade launchers surely. Now the Brits beingunder-armed I can understand, I was amazed they had as much civilianweaponry as they showed, current politics over there being what they are,normal civilian defense couldn't stop an invasion by street mimes let aloneherds of rampaging dragons. ;)Final disappointment: Watching the trailers and hearing ads and lookingatprint ads, you expect "Independance Day" type air battles with Apachegunships duking it out, air strikes etc...nada. The posters and newspaperad copy blatantly distort that completely...almost the entire conquest ofthe planet takes place via narration and a few flashback or newspaperarticles and voice-over newscasts. They overhyped that part rather badlyinthe advertising.
danm99 (29 April 2013)
Why is it that Hollywood today is so obsessed with producing so manyMISSEDOPPORTUNITIES?This so-so enterprise begins with a compelling opening scene (reminiscentofthe beginning of "Five Million Years to Earth" - a highly recommendedScience-Fiction classic): In an underground excavation site in London, adragon is unearthed after millions of years of slumber, and escapes. Sofar, promising.THEN, for whatever stupid reason (lazy screenwriting, not fully up to theoccasion or just rush job), the director immediately cuts to newspaperclippings with voiceover, telling how hordes of more dragons havedestroyedall civilization and wiped-out most of mankind. STOP! CUT!Let's rewind a moment and allow me to ask a really dumbquestion: HOW COME THAT WASN'T THE STORY? Doesn't sound too dull to me.Isn't that what the poster ads conveyed?Isn't that what most of us expected? Isn't THAT what brings in TONS OFCASH!!! Instead we get stuck with this so-so Cable TV-like movie thatmoreresembles a third or fourth faded sequal (after the original producershavemoved to Paradise Isle): REIGN OF BURN.Wouldn't it had been suspenseful to have seen what happened right afterthefirst dragon escaped from its dark lair hibernation? Then we'd see whereall the others came from (O.K. So we must indulge some pseudo moviesciencehere. I'm not Einstein), and how they start to launch their massiveattacksagainst the world (they must also possess great intelligence - GO!DRAGONS!GO! KICK MANKINDS BUTT FOR WHAT HE'S DONE TO THE WORLD - AND ESPECIALLY TODRAGON MOVIES! GET YOUR DRAGON UNION TOGETHER, PRONTO!). Those ominouslycreepy newspaper clippings "Dragon Sitings Confirmed" and that teasingTIMEmagazine cover illustrating NYC in flames - THE END?.A group, consisting of the main characters, try to escape as the worldburns. Then the shocking revelation when the scientists realize it wasthepredatory fire-breathers that annhiliated the dinosaurs. OH!-OH! Imagineasurreal flashback that actually SHOWS THIS instead of just mentioning itinpassing. Then, the shocking crucial scenes when the militaries are notonlyunable to stop them, but also end up succumbing to the dragons' globaldevastation.The story frightfully concludes with the characters tense and terrifyingflight to imagined safety, towards that castle in the country miles fromLondon, as they hear radio reports telling of the final destruction of alllife on Earth. (Terrifying eerie montage and gruesome sounds would workreally effectively at this shattering climax).We are left with the disturbing mystery as to what their future, if any,forwill be, as the ominous sounds of the dragons, who know rule the Earth,loomon the dark horizon.FADE OUT (Where my million dollar paycheck?)(Pity that Hollywood is so scared of downbeat and profound ambiguousendings. That's what they're suppose to do, aren't they? The 5O'sthroughthe late seventies, we had filmmakers and producers who had the balls totake some gutsy risks. Isn't that what the creative arts is allabout?)Isn't THAT, essentially, what great B-plus classics are made of? I'dstandall night out in the rain to be the first in line on opening day (wouldn'tyou?) - and I usually don't do crazy things like that. (Do you?) And whocares if it isn't an Oscar magnet, won't garnish any Pauline Kael awards(I'm not moaning) or be honored at any Scientific PerfectionistConventions.Would that be the end-of-the-world?Anyways, I had to propose INDEPENDENCE DRAGON, for I felt, in all brutalhonesty, and from all my nightmarish screenwriting struggles, that WAR OFTHE DRAGONS (aka AS THE WORLD BURNS) would have truly rocked anddelivered -and made you later trip on THE END!This would be a REAL REIGN OF FIRE. I welcome real responses.Prequel, Anyone?P.S. I wasn't that keen on INDEPENDENCE DAY, which was another wastedopportunity. Talk about tiresome trends.
cheesemeister (28 April 2013)
If anyone out there watches either Bottom or the Young Ones, you may getQuinn (Christian Bale) confused with Dave Hedgehog in this.It's a very basic film, following all the traditional Hollywood cliches.Itlooks good and sounds great, but the acting is wooden, the plot isextremelythin and it's not the sort of film you can provide artistic analysisof.
rhybeckah (27 April 2013)
Christian Bale was terrific... the film would've been even better withoutthe over-acting of matthew mcconaughey, indeed he was badly miscast in thisand shouldn't have been in it at all.The rest of the cast was fine.The best dragons since "Dragonslayer".
(27 April 2013)
This isn't a classic fantasy film. It definitely owes much to the Mad Max films, set in a world where burned-out machines, rubble, ash-strewn landscape and a barely surviving keep in England represent what's left of England. Communications are down all around the world; dragons - real ones - have been on the rampage destroying everyone in sight; the band of survivors in the keep have no idea who's left alive in the entire world.Are they all that is left of the human race?Well... no. A band of marines with attitude and mean machines turn up with a hotshot plan to track down the main dragon - the one that they've deduced is the only male. All the dragons they've killed so far are female, so they work out that there must be but one male, and that he flies over all the dragon eggs to fertilise them. Kill the male, and the ever-worsening dragon problem is stopped in its tracks... because the main problem is that the darned dragons proliferate at a terrifying rate.Now... all of this sounds like an interesting film. Unfortunately, the script is mostly slow-moving inundated with clichÃ¨s and enlivened occasionally with dragon encounters. The directing is nothing above the ordinary, and the characterisations are very, very stock.There really are only two reasons to watch this film: Christian Bale (who is always worth watching) and the dragons, which truly are wonderfully portrayed. However, the dragons don't get very much screen time, and the overwhelming attention is placed upon character interplay, which is a pity... because character interplay is far too weak a thing in this film, and thus the film as a whole is more tedious than I'd expected.I purchased the DVD hoping for a better film, but in my opinion, this is more a "rent it" DVD than a "buy it" DVD.
atomfred (26 April 2013)
I agree this movie leaves you with a lot of questions. But nottheway really bad movies do so that nothing really makes sense andyoujust get angry because of it.ROF has some holes in the plot but it's fun trying to fill themforyourself. Just try accepting the fact that it doesn't tellyoueverything because it's details you don't necessarily need.I couldn't imagine Matthew McConaughey playing in ROF but when Ifirstsaw him I couldn't believe how COOL he can be. He looks like hejustjumped out of the classic beat'em up game Street Fighter. Whoneedsa character like his' to be developed further and further. Heisjust cool. Great fight scene with Christian Bale!The scene which showed where the money for the movie came from waswhenthe "glory Americans" arrived to save the day/earth and broughtfruitsfor the desperate children. What a joke. At least they didn'tsurvivethe next 30 minutes and had to admit they failed this time (probablytonot to loose the European audience).
irregardless (25 April 2013)
This movie looks good in the previews, but unless youlike a lot of carnage and gore and a shirtless MatthewMcConaughey (okay, maybe that's not so bad) ... go seeMinority Report instead. Reign of Fire is predictable,really poorly written (lots of cliches and hokey dialogue),and the story wasn't interesting enough to keep my mindfrom wandering all over the place. If you've seeneverything else playing and you want to see a movie,go ahead and see this one ... but it seems to me thatalmost any movie could outrank it.
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20