Skip to main content

Follow that dragon!

Pete’s Dragon
(2016)

(SPOILERS) I didn’t see that that many movies at the cinema as a wee nipper (I know, boo-ruddy-hoo), but one I did was Pete’s Dragon. Aside from clips, I haven’t revisited it since, and I can fully believe it ain’t all that, reflected through the unflattering rear-view mirror of adulthood. But I was, and am, a fan of the mashup of animation and live action found in the likes of Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Looney Tunes: Back in Action (but not Space Jam). It seemed to me this remake was going for the least-imaginative route available in fashioning a CGI beastie. One who didn’t even talk, for heaven’s sake; it wouldn’t even be up to the standard of Dragonheart (ahem). Happily, I was wrong, as Pete’s Dragon ’16 is really good.


I hadn’t even taken much notice of the positive reviews. The trailers put me (and possibly the general public too, since Pete very much didn’t make a mint) off, with their feral child and furry dragon. I mean to say, divesting a dragon of his dragonhood via an anodyne redesign and his ability to converse, and so making him little more than an overgrown, devoted hound, seemed like something I’d happily miss. But this is way, way superior to that other kid-makes-friends-with-an-oversized-fellow movie from last summer (Spielberg’s disastrous The BFG). David Lowery’s picture engages in expert button pushing, aided by a thoroughly, upliftingly manipulative Daniel Hart score, but for the most part he succeeds admirably in delivering a movie that feels heartfelt rather than cynical.


Sure, there are elements on the side-lines that don’t fully succeed. Wes Bentley as the eventually adoptive father can’t appear in anything without the air of someone who has something sinister stashed in his wood shed. Bryce Dallas Howard tries to give off mumsy but is trying to give it off too hard (young Pete is too quick to hug her, to validate her desire for uber-mumsiness). And their daughter, Oona Laurence, is one of those kids who looks about 11 going on 80 (I realise now I previously saw her in Southpaw, where she was similarly jarring). As for poor Karl Urban, given the thankless role of logger turned crazed dragon hunter (and brother to Wes), the best I can say is that he serves his cartoonish antagonist purpose.


And he certainly is antagonistic, in a compelling scene where he and his cohorts capture Elliot. It made me realise there aren’t enough of these traditionally structured stories – there seemed to be a lot more around in the ‘70s, at any rate – pivoting on the dire straits of the good guys before paying off with ultimate release and triumph.


Or maybe it’s just that Lowery executes it all so well. He isn’t a consciously obtrusive director, but he is stylistically accomplished. Occasionally you become aware of how effective his approach is, such as when the sound drops out to emphasise a moment, but the most “look at me” sequence is actually the opening death of Pete’s parents, sensitively shot so you see nothing of what has befallen them, only the fallout on Pete. At other times a shot – Elliot bound on the back of a trailer, from overhead – is noteworthy, but for the pathos it instils, rather than demanding to be looked at. So too, the effectively-staged climax on the bridge is full of drama and energy.


I was grumbling away to myself for maybe half an hour that not having Elliot talk missed the entire appeal of the original, but Lowery has fashioned a justifiably distinct beast of a movie, where Oakes Fegley, despite that feral look, turns in a tremendously affecting performance as Pete, carrying the picture in a manner that translates entirely naturally (unlike, say, a Haley Joel Osment, of whom you were always very aware of his studied actorly choices and responses).


Robert Redford (he’s effectively playing Mickey Rooney – has it come to this, Bob?) has a lovely role as the grandpa who saw a dragon years before but wouldn’t relinquish his story, no matter how much he was mocked. And the dragon himself, for all that I don’t think the design is something to shout about (even Elliot’s drawing looks more like a dragon), has genuine soulfulness. Lowery even inserts the occasional bit of knowing humour – the picture is fairly straight shooting, not goofy like the original and certainly devoid of songs – as Elliot sniffs out Pete, arriving at a hospital where a girl announces to her oblivious mum she has seen a monster at the window, and some stunned medics drop their patient off a stretcher.


Pete’s Dragon is simply a supremely satisfying, assured family movie. Yes, it doffs its hat to E.T. a little obviously at times (the symbiotic link, the inevitable rite of passage of saying goodbye – although Lowery opts to soften that particular blow in slightly sugary fashion, and the separation is admittedly part and parcel of the original), but this is exactly the sort of family fare that deserves respect. There’s a strong conservation theme running through it, but never once does Lowery feel the need to grandstand on the subject, respecting (young) viewers enough to allow them to discern what they may for themselves. And, best of all, since it wasn’t a hit, we don’t have to endure the inevitable diminishing returns of an unnecessary cash-in sequel. Who knows, maybe Lowery can even make that elusive, decent live-action Peter Pan. On this evidence, I do believe in Lowery. I do, I do.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism