Humans have inhabited this planet for a pretty long time. The dragons underground think it's been too long a time. So now it's finally time for them to come above ground and exterminate us the same way they did the dinosaurs millions of years back.
Fortunately, they leave one little boy alive in their first attack on London, and he grows up to be a warrior leading a group of survivors.
Don't worry, this isn't going to happen for another six years. Plus, it's just the plot for "Reign of Fire," the most dragon-eriffic, charbroiled movie of the year. So don't panic.
It's suspension of disbelief time in the land of "Fire," as dragons destroy Earth in a far-too-quick montage over the opening credits. Don't bother to figure out how they managed to survive underground with no food or sustenance of any kind for millions of years. Don't bother to ask why the first dragon left one little boy alive while killing every other inhabitant of London in the opening attack scene. Don't ask how they got a recording of Jimi Hendrix's "Fire" for a party scene in 2020. The film shows, but it won't tell.
Fierce philosophical debate over the next century or so will hopefully resolve these mysteries and others. I'll begin the discourse with the following contention: It doesn't really matter.
"Reign of Fire" is terribly effective with its dragon attacks, dragon hunts and claustrophobic atmosphere, but it definitely isn't in it for the details. The dragons are explained as feeding only off the ash of the remains of the things they burn. Yet they chomp people whole, without a single burn mark on them.
By the end, these minor issues matter less than the overall visceral impact. The dragon attacks in "Fire" are why fancy theater surround sound systems were invented. They're well-choreographed, pulse-pounding and placed far enough apart as to not become repetitive.
Here's the basic plot tying the mayhem together:
After the brief but effective opening attack, the lone survivor, Quinn (Christian Bale), ages 12 years through the magic of cinematic time travel and heroically leads a pack of other survivors in a remote castle.
There they deal with starvation, internal strife and the fear that their race may soon be headed for extinction. Thrown into this mix is a cavalry of U.S. Marines who arrive in tanks and a helicopter led by dragon-slaying, cigar-chomping, bald-headed, muscle-packing Denton Van Zan (Matthew McConaughey).
|
|
Using a combination of sky-diving, steel nets and good old-fashioned firepower, the marines bring down a dragon and decide to kill the species off for good by tracking the lone male dragon down to his lair in the heart of London.
"Fire" has been reviewed negatively pretty much across the board, so this is the second McConaughey movie so far this year that I'll probably be one of the only ones to recommend (the other's "Frailty").
It's really not that bad. Without doubt, the movie has faults (McConaughey's uber-John Wayne-esque strut is pretty lame), but by no means can it be criticized as too silly. "Fire" errs on the harsh side.
If anything, it's too serious. The dragon attacks are vicious, brutal and not presented in a really sensationalistic way. People die and it ain't pretty. There's a lot of sorrow. The few touches of humor in the movie work well, but there could have been more of them.
"Fire" is not a conventional monster movie. It's a "Road Warrior"-like post-apocalyptic mini-epic that has dragons thrown into the mix. It's more about the survivors trying to get by than the menace of the dragons, so be prepared to go long stretches without any monsters on the screen.
This movie is like a seat offered at the Mad Hatter's table - meaning it's definitely not everyone's cup of tea. It's more aimed at the "Mad Max" crowd than the "Dungeons and Dragons" folks.
But if you can deal with some over-the-top performances, a bit of silly dialogue and a generally somber atmosphere to go with your dragon mayhem, this one is cooked just right for you.