It doesn’t seem like 15 years since the original “How to Train Your Dragon” animated feature earned raves for its heart and remarkable visuals, a 99% Rotten Tomatoes rating, Oscar nominations and nearly $500 million at the box office. And that’s one of the problems with a live-action version coming out so soon – the third feature in the animated series was only six years ago. Comparisons are impossible to avoid, forcing us to wonder what is gained and what is lost in the move to live action. The answer, sadly, is the balance tips into the red.
The story, characters and plot movement are almost identical to the 2010 film (not the books, from which the films diverge significantly): On the island of Berk, hardy Viking-like people engage in regular battles with dragons as they eke out their existence. Robust chieftain Stoick (Gerard Butler, the only actor reprising a role from the animated trilogy) is a fearless fighter, but his teen son, Hiccup (Mason Thames) is a sensitive soul more interested in learning and inventing. Hiccup manages to down a legendary beast, a “Night Fury,” with one of his inventions and intends to kill it, but it turns out to be … cute.
There’s more to it than that, of course; the nut of the film is about empathy. Hiccup bonds with “Toothless” and learns his dragon ways, which makes the kid appear to be a great dragon fighter when he really has no interest in harming them. Hiccup and the other trainees, including fierce warrior girl Astrid (Nico Parker) will end up having their mettle tested when their people encounter a threat greater even than the dragons. In other words, it’s the 2010 film, but live-action.
So why the redo? The business part of the answer is obvious, with IP ruling Hollywood and most of Disney’s live-action remakes of its classic animated films turning tidy profits. But artistically, what’s the reason? For viewers, why risk sullying so warm a memory, and one so recent? The remake is written and directed by Dean DeBlois, who received Oscar nominations for directing each of the three animated films (as well as one for “Lilo and Stitch,” which coincidentally has its own live-action remake in cinemas currently); did he have more to say that he couldn’t express previously?
There aren’t good answers to those questions. For one thing, the gorgeous look of the animated films is not recaptured here, apart from photorealistic dragons – Breathe easy: Toothless is just as adorable as before. But visually, those movies had an ace in the hole: One of film’s greatest cinematographers, Roger Deakins, as a consultant. His influence brought deeper shadows, mistier forests, moodier lighting, even blacker blacks to the palette.
That’s not to knock live-action shooter Bill Pope, whose distinguished career includes “The Matrix,” for crying out loud. But the visual feel is quite different, in a less engaging way. It’s less atmospheric, less rich. That’s clearly by choice and in collaboration with the director and all departments, including production design, costumes and VFX. The vistas can be lovely, but the environments often feel very much like movie sets. Perhaps part of the calculus was that full realism and Deakins’ stark imagery would be bad for a live-action kids’ movie.
The new film is at times a shot-for-shot remount, which feels more like fan service than artistic expression. The flying scenes translate wonderfully, with VFX having advanced so far in the last 15 years as to make them reach – perhaps surpass – the original’s high standard. The aerobatics and aerial combat are photoreal and downright thrilling.
But things that feel like part of big-studio animated language – broadly drawn conflicts, cartoonish behavior, even use of score – feel awkward and pushed with live humans. Stoick’s casual shoving aside (physically) and other rough treatment of Hiccup isn’t nice in animation; in live-action, it borders on child abuse. The relationship between Hiccup and eventual girlfriend Astrid feels more contentious, but also more predictable.
This reviewer brought along two experts – teens who had grown up on the books and films. Their verdict was harsh: They found the Hiccup-Astrid relationship contrived and off-putting, the environments uninspired and lifeless, and the experience as a whole lacking the charm they cherished from the original. They agreed with this reviewer that Thames’ lead performance felt flat, one-note (as opposed to Jay Baruchel’s endearing vocal delivery in the original), though the actor is only 17 and has a lot of room to grow.
To be fair, this version tries to, um, flesh out the characters with a bit of backstory for some of Hiccup’s fellow trainees. And it aims for more diverse representation, smartly heading off anti-“woke” critics at the pass, explaining these aren’t just “Vikings,” but the greatest dragon fighters in the world.
Still, the question remains, do the gains of a stylistic redo outweigh the losses? Live-action affords an opportunity to explore relationships and emotions in a different, perhaps deeper and more resonant way, taking advantage of subtleties possible between humans. That opportunity feels squandered. The magic of the original is otherwise only partly recaptured. The experts’ recommendation: “You won’t get the experience of the books from either film version, but the animated movie is the more enchanting of the two. Skip the live-action in favor of the animated,” they say. This reviewer must agree.
A Universal Pictures release, “How to Train Your Dragon” opens exclusively in theaters on June 13.
