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

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

It looks like we’ve got another schizoid embolism!

Total Recall (1990)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven offered his post-mortem on the failures of the remakes of Total Recall (2012) and Robocop (2013) when he suggested “They take these absurd stories and make them too serious”. There may be something in this, but I suspect the kernel of their issues is simply filmmakers without either the smarts or vision, or both, to make something distinctive from the material. No one would have suggested the problem with David Cronenberg’s prospective Total Recall was over-seriousness, yet his version would have been far from a quip-heavy Raiders of the Lost Ark Go to Mars (as he attributes screenwriter Ron Shusset’s take on the material). Indeed, I’d go as far as saying not only the star, but also the director of Total Recall (1990) were miscast, making it something of a miracle it works to the extent it does.

How do you like that – Cuddles knew all the time!

The Pleasure Garden (1925)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s first credit as director, and his account of the production difficulties, as related to Francois Truffaut, is by and large more pleasurable than The Pleasure Garden itself. The Italian location shoot in involved the confiscation of undeclared film stock, having to recast a key role and borrowing money from the star when Hitch ran out of the stuff.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

I’m not the Jedi I should be.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)
(SPOILERS) Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is the only series entry (thus far) I haven’t seen at the cinema. After the first two prequels I felt no great urgency, and it isn’t an omission I’d be hugely disposed to redress for (say) a 12-hour movie marathon, were such a thing held in my vicinity. In the bare bones of Revenge of the Sith, however,George Lucas has probably the strongest, most confident of all Star Wars plots to date.

This is, after all, the reason we have the prequels in the first place; the genesis of Darth Vader, and the confrontation between Anakin and Obi Wan. That it ends up as a no more than middling movie is mostly due to Lucas’ gluttonous appetite for CGI (continuing reference to its corruptive influence is, alas, unavoidable here). But Episode III is also Exhibit A in a fundamental failure of casting and character work; this was the last chance to give Anakin Skywalker substance, to reveal his potential …

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

I think the exorcism made the problem worse.

Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)
(SPOILERS) While I’ve seen instalments the originaland III a number of times, until now I hadn’t got round to checking out the near-universally reviled first Exorcist sequel. Going in, I had lofty notions Exorcist II: The Heretic would reveal itself as not nearly the travesty everyone said it was, that it would rather be deserving of some degree of praise if only it was approached in the right manner. Well, there is something to that; as a sequel to The Exorcist, it sneers at preconceptions right off the bat by wholly failing to terrify, so making its determined existence within the fabric of that film becomes downright bizarre (the relationship is almost like Back to the Future Part II to Back to the Future, but not). Further still, it warrants a twisted validation for being its own thing, refusing to rehash its predecessor like 90% of sequels, then and now, thus exerting fascination all its own. Unfortunately, John Boorman’s film is also equal parts lis…