Reign of Fire
for intense action violence.
Reviewed by: Alan Roberts
CONTRIBUTOR
| Moral Rating: | Average |
| Moviemaking Quality: |
|
| Primary Audience: | Teens Adults |
| Genre: | Sci-Fi Action |
| Length: | 1 hr. 41 min. |
| Year of Release: | 2002 |
| USA Release: |
July 12, 2002 |
dragons and dinosaurs—discover how they are connected
dragons in the Bible
| Featuring |
Christian Bale … Quinn Abercromby Matthew McConaughey … Denton Van Zan Gerard Butler … Creedy Izabella Scorupco … Alex Jensen Scott Moutter (Scott James Moutter) … Jared Wilke David Kennedy … Eddie Stax Alexander Siddig … Ajay Ned Dennehy … Barlow See all » |
| Director | Rob Bowman—“Elektra” (2005), “The X Files” (1998) |
| Producer |
Spyglass Entertainment Touchstone Pictures See all » |
| Distributor | Buena Vista Pictures, a division of Disney |
“Reign of Fire” from Touchstone Pictures is a typical Hollywood production that reflects much that Hollywood holds high (much of which Christians must reject in favor of allegiance to our Lord, on multiple levels.) It speaks philosophically about two major themes: evolution and post-apocalyptic nightmarish life.
“Reign of Fire”, starring Christian Bale and Matthew McConaughey, features fire-breathing dragons as the vehicle for an evolutionary message, along with their demise at the hands of the “smart apes.” The post-apocalyptic nightmare is the vehicle for Hollywood’s standard Freudian self-analysis and self-flagellation over the current state of affairs in the world and human self-destruction. Hasn’t Hollywood been beating this same drum for some 50 years now?
The initial plot portrays a pre-teen boy, shades of Harry Potter, accidentally reawakening an ancient prehistoric monster, to the immediate destruction of his mother. Plot holes immediately follow, as well as huge strains on credulity. For example, if this is sci-fi, shouldn’t there be internal consistency and some believability, e.g., how do monsters hibernate for 50 million years? But total fantasy and evolutionary doctrine reign supreme over logic, common sense and plot consistency. By the way, what construction company permits a boy to visit his mother at work in the heart of an underground tunnel construction effort?
The movie offers a brief illogical explanation of how we arrive at the post-apocalypse that occupies the rest of the story. The portrayals of life in such a climate are extremely well done, the stark bleakness of the landscape a very worthwhile cinematic effort. But plot explanations of how the dragons achieved ascendancy over the world are insulting.
The rest of the movie is a page lifted out of evolutionist hypothesis of how our Neanderthal forbears did battle with mammoths and saber-tooth tigers, with the addition of some modern hardware which mysteriously always seems to fail at the critical moment in battle, or is deemed worthless against the outsmarting dragons. So the old handheld weapons are best in the minds of the characters. The conclusion to “Reign of Fire” references evolution yet again.
We Christians certainly believe in an impending apocalypse, but we have hope in Christ for deliverance and future glory. This movie fashionably suggests that we will always have to tough it out ourselves, a reprise of the theme of Invictus, especially at the defiant climax.
The best part of this movie is the wonderfully somber cinematography. The worst is the ridiculous plot explanations and devices.
See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.
The post-apocolyptic settings were realistically drab and dangerous and I found the strange story-line leading to the near extinction of humanity refreshingly new. After all, mankind has never been able to predict God’s path through history—why not dragons? I also liked how the story line indirectly pointed out that much of what science presents as likely fact is mere theory (i.e., the disappearance of the dinosaurs theories).
There are no sexual overtones, minimal language problems and good character is clearly held up as a goal to shoot at (in addition to the dragons of course!)—humility is lauded over arrogance, loyalty over disloyalty, sacrificing self for others…
[Better than Average / 4]
I would not bring a small child to see this movie, but my twelve-year-old daughter was fine with it. Actually, the most objectionable thing about the movie was that the hero led the children in “prayers” that were not prayers, but a litany of how to avoid being killed by dragons, sort of like “Stop, drop, and roll.” It has a thoroughly secular world view; the heroine remarks to the hero (closing scene) “Well, let’s hear it for Evolution.” And LOUSY military tactics.
It was very refreshing to go to a movie where I didn’t have to cringe through bad language and sexual immorality. It’s easy enough to talk to children about how lucky we are to have a God who answers prayer, and how prayer is not what the movie portrays, and how if the hero had prayed for wisdom, he might have been able to slay the dragon without losing so many men.
[Better than Average / 3½]
[Better than Average / 4]
There is of course a lot of action. It is quite intense in many places and the dragons, technologically awesome, are also quite scary. I would not recommend taking kids. Visually, it’s a very cool movie. Some of the writing and acting could be better though.
[Average / 3]
I loved this movie for one reason and one reason alone. It was a very unique action flick. I went in expecting it to be a dumbed-down Arnold movie with no plot and terrible characters, but something just caught my eye and it seemed smarter than the average action/adventure movie. The cinematography is excellent. This is a beautiful movie (even though it’s supposed to look ugly and post-apocalyptic).
There is some language, gore, and a scene where a mock prayer is recited, but other than that it’s just your normal “blow stuff up” action movie as far as immoral acts are concerned. Christian Bale and Matthew McConaughey are wonderful in this movie. My only complaint is the fact that this is supposed to be a post-apocalyptic film… and the leading lady has too much makeup and lipstick on. Where did she get the time in all this dragon-slaying to clean up and put on a bunch of cosmetics?
[Somewhat Offensive / 4½]
I loved this movie and see a parallel with our lives, to take up an attitude of victory and success(Van Zan often said, “we’re gonna get this dragon),” instead of a cowering attitude toward evil.
Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 4½
For instance, how had Quinn’s group survived for at least 8 years, largely above ground, without being destroyed by the “millions” of dragons? But the special effects were very good… the dragons were incredible! The first 5 minutes brings an intensity that lasts the whole movie. Matthew McConaughey does a great job as usual. There is a fair amount of profanity, especially when any of the characters references the dragons, although the English accent of most of the characters could have kept me from understanding other offensive words! :-) Evolutionary theory is mentioned but not emphasized. There are absolutely no sexual themes or nudity. Mostly, it’s a shallow but decent action flick.
[Average / 3½]
[Average / 3]
[Better than Average / 4½]
[Better than Average / 5]
[Average / 1]
[Average / 1]
PLEASE share your observations and insights to be posted here.
The story line had much more potential than was taken advantage of. The cinematography was above average, and the special effects were good. The acting was average and the character development was only fair. My advice: wait for the video.
My Ratings: [Better than Average / 3]