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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

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 system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.