Pete’s Dragon
Now I am going to be completely honest with
you. I went to see this movie with my
family this past weekend. It was an
experience in film watching for sure. I
suppose my experience with this movie even began before that, when I was at
Disney’s California Adventure and I went to one of those sneak previews they
have of the movie in “4D.” I can’t
possibly imagine what this movie would have been like in that venue but the
little snippet that they gave you there was a lot of fun. It was like any good trailer: lots of editing
and splicing together; quick transitions building intensity, and mind blowing
sound to suck you in. It was a lot of
fun. I was excited enough to have my
daughter and the rest of my family with us there for the movie. I thought I was going to sit back, relax and
enjoy a nice piece of fluff.
Obviously this is the perfect transition
for a nice big “but.” But before I get
there I want to give some context with the whole experience. I am sure like many of you, you have
experienced some of Disney’s interesting remakes, or re-imaginings of its
classic fairy tales. There has been
Cinderella (enjoyed it), Maleficent (very disappointed), the Jungle Book (not
as whimsical as the original but fun) as well as upcoming features like Beauty
and the Beast. But it’s hard to view the
new versions without having some thought in your head about the original.
The original, while definitely Disney, was
produced in the 1970's post Disney himself.
And while it might have been missing some of his wit and charm, it was
unmistakably a Disney production. Lost
boys in need of help, fun musical numbers, and crazy villains were hallmarks of
his films, and this was no different.
Pete was an orphaned boy controlled by a ruthless family and who had been adopted by a magical dragon to be
able to help get him into a better family and find his own place in the
world. At which point Elliot, the
dragon, would no longer be needed. There
was magic. There was silliness. There was warmth. And ultimately it was about finding family.
Which brings us to the new film. How can we look at the new film without
thinking about the old film. Obviously
there is still Pete, an orphaned boy.
And there is still a dragon who is protecting him named Elliot. And as my daughter put it so bluntly, that is
where the similarities end. I am not
sure that it is completely true that the similarities ended there, but I will
get into that a little later on. First
let’s begin with the setup. There is a
boy who seems to be orphaned in the Pacific Northwest sometime in the
1970's. I am only guessing this because
of the costumes that the parents seem to be wearing at the start of the
film. They were dressed up in either 70's
or early 80's clothing. And in trying to
avoid a deer they end up flailing off the road and the parents do not survive
the accident, but Pete does; and along
with a book about a lost dog named Elliot, he scampers off into the woods to
avoid scary noises that he hears. Along
comes Elliot the dragon to the rescue, protecting him from the nasty wolves that are in the
area (wolves are a hallmark of Disney film making for sure). And from there he spends the next 6 years on
a series of adventures of fun and fancy free in the wilderness, that is, until he runs into a girl.
This girl is part of a blended family with
a woman who is a forest ranger and environmental activist, and a nice but
gullible guy who is torn between supporting his anti-environmental brother, and
the woman who is in love with all things trees.
Finally there is the old codger, played by a "barely looks like he got
out of bed to play this role" Robert Redford.
If I am trying to map this onto the original I am not sure that Mickey
Rooney’s zany drunk maps perfectly onto the Robert Redford loony dad. But that is another attempt to try to match
character for character.
Unfortunately I think where they stop
matching characters is where Pete’s Dragon loses some of its heart. They do have the crazy brother trying to
catch the dragon and use it for his own profit.
But this character loses something in the fact that he isn’t necessarily evil. He still has some
attachment to his brother, which you can tell by the end of the film. So he’s
not really a catalyst for the action, other than to capture Elliot so that he needs to be freed later. And his other side messaging is that he is
anti-environmental and therefore evil in the film. Sticking this message in the middle of a
kid’s film may work for the kids, but it’s too easy to make him out to be the
evil-ugly-bad guy. And it doesn't ring true to make
him out to be the heavy when his character has too many mixed notes. Maybe they were trying to show that humans
aren’t perfectly anything. But somehow I
think this weakens the story.
While Jim
Dale may have been ridiculous in the original, he worked perfectly as the evil
manipulator trying to take advantage of everyone, and Elliot is his ticket to
money. Karl Urban is not purely evil,
and definitely not a foil for the dragon Elliot trying to manipulate rather
than help people. And he doesn’t work as
the family trying to use Pete or people.
This part of the character is too weak as he seems to still have a soft
spot for family. And it doesn’t seem to
impact Pete at all, except maybe that Pete is actually related to him in the
end.
Finally I think the unfortunate part of Pete’s
Dragon is in the mixed up relationship with Elliot. The beauty of him being seemingly imaginary
and yet not in the first one is that he truly is Pete’s guardian angel. He is there to get him through his rough
times and seeing him into something better.
But when Pete is separated from Elliot in this movie, we don’t feel the
accomplishment of Elliot, or the need for him to help other lost souls. What we see is loss. Elliot is essentially Pete’s father figure
for all of those years and now the story is just taking Pete away from
Elliot. Maybe it’s not an abandonment in
the classic sense. But society seems to
be ripping apart a family, albeit an unnatural one. Society itself feels evil. Even the welcoming family for Pete, while not
necessarily evil, seem to have as their intention taking Pete away from Elliot. This new family is encroached upon. And we see Elliot himself mourning the
loss. Even reuniting Pete with Elliot
in the end seems to be missing something.
As for the acting, I would say that they
did a good job with the animation for Elliot.
And Bryce Dallas Howard did a creditable job as the Grace Meachem, the
ranger. Oakes Fegley did an admirable
job as the lost boy Pete. Karl Urban
seemed somewhat miscast in his role as Gavin.
It never felt like the movie allowed him to settle into any role. Whether purely bad guy, or family man, or
bumbling buffoon, he never seemed to have his bearings throughout the
movie. And as for Robert Redford as Mr.
Meachem, I feel like he slept walked through his role, literally. Throughout the film it looked like he had bed
head and his acting seemed stilted. It’s
like they hired him for the voice over Narration and decided to film him in the
movie as a last resort because they needed a silly old guy role to fill.
Despite the beautiful cinematography, and
Oakes creditable job as Pete, I am not sure that it is worth the retelling of
the original film. Maybe my bias is to the
original, but I feel like the original had more heart and the interactions of
the characters seemed to make more sense for the driving of the plot. Although I will have to say that my daughter
did love the film, as did my niece and nephew.
And with so much other poor choices for family movies, it’s an ok
weekend matinee film. Just don’t expect
to find any of the original’s heart.
Toast not all the way cooked
Two Stars
No comments:
Post a Comment