For many years, only Disney has been turning their animated films into live-action remakes. Dreamworks recently joined in with How to Train Your Dragon.
Unlike Disney's remakes, How to Train Your Dragon adapts from a CGI-animated film. This would make its visuals stand out less from those of the 2010 predecessor (which I'm unsure I've ever seen). One notable feature in the remake (that is so prevalent in live-action) is the drab lighting. I know they want to be realistic (and I could see just fine in the theater), but the visuals could still be better.
Of the dragons, Toothless was the most cartoonish in appearance. He looked similar to his animated counterpart, putting How to Train Your Dragon in the same territory as the recent batch of Sonic films.
I have not seen the original (at least, not recently), but I heard that How to Train Your Dragon was almost identical to the animation (even more so than Disney's remakes). Almost all the scenes, including Hiccup (Mason Thames) touching Toothless and his ride with Astrid (Nico Parker), have been copied from those I recognize from the animated version.
Such an approach would imply the original film had no issues to fix (Disney's remakes attempted to fix socially perceived issues, which caused lots of backlash). Yet, it also gives the remake little reason to exist. To remake an already thoroughly developed animated film would imply animation as inferior.
It is also notable that How to Train Your Dragon became the first CGI-animated film to get the live-action treatment. CGI 3D animation itself brought the medium a long way from being a "kiddie thing" since the release of Toy Story in 1995. According to Noel Brown in The Hollywood Family Film: A History, from Shirley Temple to Harry Potter, 3D animation allowed moviegoers to expect the same thrills as they would from live-action; it no longer looked merely "cartoonish."
Enough with the debate. How to Train Your Dragon showed me why the franchise became beloved. Hiccup had a character arc from being an outcast afraid of dragons to befriending them. The film also had a three-act structure prevalent in many beloved on-screen stories.
The performances and costumes were also well-done. Mason Thames as Hiccup gave off a teenage boy vibe. Nico Parker, who previously played Millie in 2019's Dumbo, also shined as Astrid. I also liked her braids. The costumes, overall, gave off the Scandinavian viking vibe I was expecting.
One more element to praise in How to Train Your Dragon was the score. It was grand and moving, though it struck me as more Celtic than Nordic (maybe because I'm Irish).
Worldview wise, How to Train Your Dragon could be seen as a gnostic allegory with the dragons representing the devil, hence the bond with humans signaling sympathy for Satan. Yet, one can also read the film as a story about restoring human-animal harmony.
Overall, How to Train Your Dragon is far from my favorite film, but fans wanting to introduce the franchise to their children or those who have yet to see the original might want to check it out.
SCORE: Alright (7/10)
AGE RATING: 9+
Have you seen How to Train Your Dragon? What do you think about it?
No comments:
Post a Comment