How to Train Your Dragon review – faithful yet utterly soulless remake

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"DreamWorks Releases Live-Action Adaptation of How to Train Your Dragon"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 5.1
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

DreamWorks has released a live-action remake of its beloved animated film, How to Train Your Dragon, which has sparked mixed reactions. The new adaptation, directed by Dean DeBlois, who also helmed the original, aims to capture the essence of the story about an outcast Viking boy named Hiccup who befriends a dragon named Toothless. While the film features real actors and landscapes, many critics argue that it lacks the soul and charm of the animated version. The original film, known for its stunning animation and emotional depth, is contrasted with the new version's reliance on green screen aesthetics and a more static camera, which fails to replicate the dynamic motion and visual splendor of its predecessor. The performances, while competent, struggle to convey the humor and physicality that animated characters effortlessly delivered, with the actors often appearing shackled by the limitations of live-action storytelling.

Despite criticisms, the film does manage to resonate with younger audiences, who may find the new adaptation appealing due to its familiar narrative and characters. The action sequences, particularly a flight scene reminiscent of Avatar, provide moments of excitement, although they fall short of the visual poetry found in the animated film. Additionally, the remake attempts to engage with deeper themes present in the original, such as the complex relationship between fear and understanding in times of conflict. However, the subtleties of these messages may be lost on the younger demographic. Overall, the new How to Train Your Dragon offers a visually engaging experience but struggles to capture the heart and depth of the original, leaving many viewers longing for the animated classic's emotional resonance.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article critiques the recent live-action remake of "How to Train Your Dragon," suggesting that it lacks the emotional depth of the original animated film. It reflects on the trend of studios producing remakes to capitalize on nostalgia and the familiarity of beloved stories.

Intent Behind the Article

The author appears to aim at expressing disappointment with the trend of remaking animated classics into live-action films, particularly highlighting the perceived lack of originality and emotional resonance in the new adaptation. By using terms like "soulless," the piece seeks to evoke a strong emotional response from readers who cherish the original film.

Public Perception Manipulation

The review positions the remake negatively, likely intending to influence readers to feel critical of such adaptations. It suggests that this trend may dilute the quality of storytelling in cinema, particularly for younger audiences who may not have the same attachment to the original work.

Hidden Aspects

There doesn’t seem to be a specific agenda to conceal information, but the article does imply a larger critique of Hollywood's trend towards remakes, which can be seen as a commentary on creativity in the film industry.

Manipulative Elements

The article's tone and choice of words are quite critical, aiming to sway public opinion against the remake. Phrases like "lucrative live-action remake bandwagon" and "cynical game" convey a sense of commercial exploitation, potentially leading readers to view the film and its creators negatively.

Reliability of the Review

The review offers a subjective opinion rather than an objective analysis, which impacts its reliability. It does reflect a critical view that may resonate with audiences familiar with the original film, but it may not account for the perspectives of those who might enjoy the new adaptation.

Cultural Commentary

The piece indirectly comments on broader cultural trends regarding nostalgia and the remaking of classic films. It suggests a growing dissatisfaction with the recycling of content instead of the creation of new stories.

Audience Reception

The article likely resonates more with older audiences who have a nostalgic connection to the original film and may feel protective over its legacy. It may also appeal to film critics and cinephiles who value originality in storytelling.

Market Impact

While this review may not directly influence stock markets, it reflects a cultural sentiment that could impact the box office performance of the remake. Companies involved in the production of remakes might face scrutiny if audiences react negatively to the perceived lack of quality.

Geopolitical Relevance

There is no direct geopolitical implication of this article; however, it fits into a broader conversation about cultural production and globalization in media, as remakes often target international markets.

Artificial Intelligence Involvement

It’s unclear if AI was used in composing the article, but the structured critique and engaging narrative style suggest a human author. AI, if involved, might have influenced the choice of language and style to align with common critical perspectives.

In summary, this article serves as a critique of the live-action remake trend, leveraging strong language and emotional appeals to shape public perception. While its reliability may be questioned due to its subjective nature, it reflects a significant cultural commentary on creativity and nostalgia in contemporary cinema.

Unanalyzed Article Content

It was only a matter of time before DreamWorks jumped on the lucrative live-action remake bandwagon with its soulless newHow to Train Your Dragon. Disney has been playing this cynical game since 1994 – releasing their Jungle Book remake (the one starring Jason Scott Lee) the same year DreamWorks was founded – and striking gold with Tim Burton’sAlice in Wonderland(2010), which arrived in theatres just weeks before the original How To Train Your Dragon landed.

It also comes as no surprise that DreamWorks moved with Night Fury speed to revisit a movie that’s only 15 years old. As the recentLilo & Stitchproved, there’s plenty box office gold to mine from introducing new children to a young and beloved property, while banking on the nostalgia that a generation without fully formed frontal lobes would carry for the not-so-distant animated films and TV spinoffs they were weaned on.

The younger audiences will no doubt be dazzled by the new How To Train Your Dragon, with its simple and appealing “ET but with Vikings” tale, which now features flesh-and-blood actors, some real landscapes and crashing blue waves (emphasis on “some”) and a still rascally and adorable Toothless – the name given to its central flying reptile. Meanwhile, the slightly older kids will likely find this retread functional and satisfying enough – as my own teens did – while being able to clock the diminishing returns.

Director Dean DeBlois, who helmed the original alongside Chris Sanders, returns, staying protective of and faithful to the original, in which an outcast adolescent named Hiccup (voiced with nasally anxiety byJay Baruchel), who is raised in a community insistent on slaying dragons with extreme prejudice, befriends Toothless, the aforementioned Night Fury with the jet-black sleekness of a panther but cuddly nature of a house cat.

The script, the gags and the action remain mostly intact. But this time around, real actors and sets become deadweight to a story that soared in larger-than-life animated form.

Some of the reasons are pretty obvious to anyone who spent enough time with these live action remakes. The green screen aesthetics, rendering surrounding environments (not to mention still computer-generated dragons), are less convincing and simply pale in comparison to the glorious images that made the original How To Train Your Dragon stand apart. Some scenes, like an opening night-time siege in which the Vikings of Berk, Hiccup’s village, battle dragons, are so muddy and low contrast that you can’t even make out the action. “The views are nothing to complain about,” says Hiccup, now played by Mason Thames, in the opening narration, where we can barely see a thing.

It’s worth noting that legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins was a visual consultant on the earlier movie. His influence is felt in the elegant animation, when faces and rustic sceneries often appeared beautifully lit by the glow from a nearby fire, or when Berk’s highland mist was just thick enough to achieve an emotional quality. In the most breathtakingly romantic moment from the original, when Toothless carries Hiccup and Astrid, the girl he cozies up to, into the skies, the pink-hued atmosphere tilts on an axis around the characters.

The new movie – so often shackled to a more static camera that can’t replicate the dynamic motion of the original (or even find a decent angle) – doesn’t even attempt that shot. Nor do the actors attempt a lot of the fun physical comedy and action from the original. It’s already a struggle for them to just incorporate the dialogue’s humour, written for pixels, into corporeal form.

Thames (of The Black Phone fame) plays Hiccup as slightly more petulant than petrified. As Astrid, Nico Parker plays things more cool than spunky, filling in her tough Viking girl performance with shades of bitterness over the class divide between her and Hiccup, whose father Stoic is the village chief. As Stoic, Gerard Butleris the most at home, not only because he’s reprising his role from the original, but because he has his own cartoonish demeanor that works spectacularly in both animation and live-action.

If there’s one moment that nearly grasps the visceral thrill of the original, it’s the centrepiece Avatar-like flight sequence, when Hiccup and Toothless sync up and soar through skies. The moment falls short of the simple and pristine beauty from the animated movie, when Toothless carves the clouds with his wings, but it’s got the same rollercoaster momentum as the dragon grazes the water and ducks through cavernous landscapes, the audience riding on his back alongside Hiccup. For many, that sequence will be worth the price of admission.

Perhaps another benefit to revisiting the franchise today is the opportunity to absorb the post-9/11 war on terror allegory that DeBlois and Sanders introduced to their original adaptation, in which the dragons rain down destruction from the skies.

Cressida Cowell’s 2003 source novel wasn’t about jingoistic and bloodthirsty Vikings who fear and seek to wipe out a misunderstood enemy desperately defending themselves. That element is exclusive to the movies, in which Butler’s Stoic yells: “They’ve killed hundreds of us.” Hiccup, defying the dominant narrative in his community, responds: “and we’ve killed thousands of them”.

The way those lines resonate today, as the war on Gaza rages on, will likely go over the heads of the target audience. But it’s a message worth repeating, even when packaged in muddled live action form.

How to Train Your Dragon is out in cinemas on 13 June

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian