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.
Comments
Post a Comment