I’m “biast” (con): nothing
(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)
I suppose this new Pete’s Dragon falls under the umbrella of Disney’s ongoing project to produce live-action remakes of all of its animated features. The 1977 film was mostly live-action, of course, except for the key element of the mischievous giant reptile itself, which was really cartoonish visually. The opportunity for a dragon do-over in the era of lifelike CGI must have been irresistible.
And this new dragon — again called Elliot — is a delight and a marvel: a sweet-faced creature of green fur and exuberant spirit, he may be monstrously enormous, but there’s little of the monster about him. He’s more like a really big mutt of a dog: he chases his own tail in one bit, so prepare for awwws. And he loves his boy, orphaned, abandoned Pete (newcomer Oakes Fegley), who’s about 10 years old and lives a Mowgli-like existence in the forests of the Pacific Northwest. Indeed, this new Pete’s Dragon has more in common with Disney’s recent Jungle Book remake than it does with the 1977 original — this one is set in the 1980s, not the turn of the 20th century, and it’s no longer a musical — and even more in common with E.T., with its tale of a lonely little boy attempting to protect his secret fantastical friend from adults who would do him harm.
Director and cowriter (with Toby Halbrooks) David Lowery’s most recent feature is 2013’s vexing Ain’t Them Bodies Saints, an oddly dreamy romance among criminals, like if Terrence Malick made Bonnie and Clyde, and not wholly successfully; his previous two features are also decidedly on the arthouse end of the spectrum. So I wonder if a conscious decision to go very much in the other direction — toward simple family-oriented entertainment — is what led to the gentle mildness of Dragon; at times, the movie even drifts into dullness. There’s certainly little of the frenetic, colorful action that characterizes many movies aimed at kids these days: this is more like a pleasant walk in the redwood forest where Pete and Elliot live than a rollicking adventure with them. (That’s not a terrible thing, and is probably more effective as a subtle pro-environmental message than a movie that prominently features commercial logging could have tried to push.) There’s surprisingly little in the way of drama, too: when park ranger Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard: Jurassic World, The Help) discovers Pete living in the woods — where he’s been alone (except for Elliot) for six years after an outing with his parents to the middle of nowhere ended in a car wreck that killed them — it’s easier than we might expect for her to get Pete to come back to civilization. Pete may be a bit dirty and disheveled, but he’s hardly feral, and slides rather easily back into the world with Grace; her boyfriend, logging manager Jack (Wes Bentley: We Are Your Friends, Interstellar); and Jack’s daughter, Natalie (Oona Laurence: Southpaw). Pete’s only worried about Elliot, particularly when he learns that Jack’s friend and coworker Gavin (Karl Urban: Star Trek Beyond, The Loft) has glimpsed Elliot and wants to go dragon hunting.
I often felt, in the midst of the movie, that it wasn’t enough of anything: not scary enough, not funny enough. But its serenity and warm heart are infectious, and even as it tells a story that feels familiar, it avoids the sort of clichés that might have rendered it tiresome: Gavin turns out not to be quite as villainous as he could have been, for one. And I especially appreciate how Lowery portrays Grace: her father (Robert Redford: Truth, A Walk in the Woods) has been scaring the local kids for years with his story of a dragon encounter in the woods when he was young, and Grace has been scoffing at that story for years, because she knows the forest like the back of her hand and has seen no evidence of dragons. (Elliot can make himself invisible, which is very convenient for staying hidden.) It would have been very easy for Pete’s Dragon to cast her as the no-imagination grumpy-grump in a lazy parable about keeping an open mind. But the movie never goes anywhere near there.
In the end, I found that the mildness of the film has fooled me, and that some big feeling had snuck up on me and left me in happy tears. The magic of Pete’s Dragon may be understated, but it is soft and clean and lovely.
The original never left a particularly strong impression on me, but MAN is 2016 Elliot cute!
One quibble I have with Disney as of late, though: what’s with all the “non-dog animal acting like dog” characters in so many of their films, now? Maximus from “Tangled”, Sven from “Frozen”, apparently 2016 Elliot, and from the looks of it, the little pig in the upcoming “Moana” is basically a puppy. I suppose Elliot gets a pass here, since dragons aren’t real and no one knows how one would act, but who at Disney decided that the only way to make an animal sidekick endearing was to have it act like a dog? The animators study these animals to figure out how to draw them, so why not incorporate that animal’s behaviour into its character, too?
Dogs are probably the animals most of us humans have the most experience and most affection for. It seems an obvious shortcut for getting us to like a creature onscreen to make it like a dog.
Actually my family preferred cats…
Yeah, it has gotten really tired and uninspired, though. Especially since Disney never had problems with endearing its non-talking animal sidekicks to audiences in the past without having them all act like dogs.
More dragons, we must have more. I demand a film adaptation of Naomi Novik’s “His Majesty’s Dragon.” Not by Peter Jackson though… please. This needs to be a thing.
I’m still waiting for HBO or Showtime to do a Pern series…
Harper Hall trilogy please!
We need a remake of 1987’s Dragonslayer. Preferably without the 21th century equivalent of Peter McNichol. And preferably with a dragon as un-doglike as the dragon in the original movie.
I’m with you on that and then not. I loved and still love Dragonslayer. Vermithrax Pejorative is one of the best dragons ever, and Sir Ralph Richardson was great. “You want me to do battle with THAT?”
Well, I obviously love the original too. But given the number of soulless remakes of various 1980s movies that have been released within the last few years, I can see why you might have doubts.
Oh, well. It was just a suggestion.
I read the first couple books, then gave up. It was getting too ridiculous.
I agree they would make for great entertainment as a tv series, or movie series, though.