Directors: Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders
Screenplay: Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders
Based on the novel by: Cressida Cowell
Starring the voice talents of: Jay Baruchel, America Ferrara, Gerard Butler, Craig Ferguson
Year: 2010
(4.5/5)How to Train Your Dragon is surprisingly amazing – a popcorn movie for kids, sure, but soooooooo much fun. Between the abysmal Shreks and Monsters vs. Aliens, Dreamworks Animation is still a poor cousin to Pixar, but they’ve cranked it clean out of the park this time. Or more aptly, they’re up there riding dragons, and everyone else is watching from the ground.
The tale, loosely adapted from the childrens’ book of the same name, concerns Hiccup (Jay Baruchel, weary and winsome), the only citizen of his particular Viking town who isn’t built like Mr. Incredible wearing a grizzly bear. Further to his dismay, Hiccup is the only son of the chief, Stoick the Vast, who is indeed both stoic and vast; and even worse than this, the town is under near-daily attack by rampaging dragons. Vikings being Vikings, dragon-killing is the national pastime in this rocky corner of the world, and Hiccup ain’t even fit to fetch the water.
Given Stoick’s size and the fact that his late wife’s breast-plates can be worn as hats, one imagines that Mrs. Stoick must have done some hefty smoking while carrying Hiccup. He vaguely resembles my cousin Mark, age twelve – a Q-tip in pageboy clothes. When Hiccup’s opportunity comes to kill a dragon, he can’t do it. He’d like to make a name for himself, or at least win himself a girlfriend, preferably Astrid (America Ferrara, rock on!), the fierce and proud tomboy warrior-girl in his Dragon Killing Class. Unable to fight dragons on traditional terms, Hiccup designs contraptions to shoot them out of the sky, and one day succeeds. He’s no warrior, but he’s brainy and a hell of a problem solver, and when he faces his wounded lizard foe in a silven glade… well, you know where it goes from here.
And it’s all just so much damned fun. Everything – from the pace to the production design to John Powell’s grandly propulsive score – is turned up to eleven, but it’s a breathless good ride, charming and sharp where it could so easily have been plain and blunt. And anytime Hiccup and his dragon take to the air, look out. Parents of Avatar-enraptured kids would be well advised to steer clear of Alice or Titans this spring, and take the youngins to see Dragon instead… except that you may never again be able to convince them that “dragon rider” isn’t the best occupation in the entire history of man.
“Toothless,” Hiccup’s inky-black dragon/prey/companion/best friend creature who looks for all the world like a cross between a house cat and that huge fish-looking thing from The Host, is marvellously well done. Dreamworks animated films have always suffered in the majority of their character animation, but not Toothless. His pet-like behaviour is eerily familiar and oh-so-goshdarn-lovable. There are two kinds of people in the world: those who think dragons are cool, and those who do not. Even among the latter, only the hardest-hearted will be able to resist the charms of this dragon, who falls second only to WALL-E on the animated character scale for pure adorability. And meanwhile, anyone who knows a Hungarian Horntail from a Great Leonopteryx is probably gonna faint.
Toothless, injured in his capture, can’t fly without Hiccup’s contraptions, and Hiccup can’t survive Dragon School without the insight into the creatures that his secret dragon best friend provides, which Hiccup can use to devise non-lethal solutions to his challenges. This earns him the adulation of the town while enraging Astrid, which forces Hiccup to let her in on his big secret, thereby earning her punches and kisses. And it brings Hiccup’s relationship with Stoick to its natural head, which, Vikings being Vikings, is going to involve an every-last-man land-battle against the biggest fucking dragon you’ve ever seen in your life. And if you can make that father-son reconciliation feel earned, you’re really onto something.
How to Train Your Dragon joins a limited clique of films where the moment it was over, I wanted to watch it again immediately. It’s fun, often breathtaking, and hits all of its required emotional beats with high-spirited verve. I wish I had one of these when I was a kid.
Shit just got real. The toddler is keeping me busy and I am not getting out nearly as much as before, but...
Matt, you saw this in 3-D right? Can you talk a bit about that? Thinking of seeing it tomorrow with The Boy and though we usually go 2-D, I’ve heard the 3-D here is quite good (actually I think I heard that from you…).
I’m psyched to see it either way.
The 3D is outstanding. Easily the best way to watch the film.
Apologies Bob, I had intended to mention… I did NOT see the film in 3-D. Generally speaking I still lean non-stereoscopic in my viewing preference. In this case, though, because it is available in IMAX 3-D and because I enjoyed the film so much I am definitely going to go back this week and see it again in the large-format stereoscopic.
This thing is drop-dead gorgeous in 2D. Some of the best Animated Cinematography, like, ever. They are in the Ratatouille league with this, perhaps better. It was certainly one of the chief pleasures of the film, and I’m very happy (personally) to say that this is the first Dreamworks Animated film I’ve enjoyed in quite some time. So much fun.
Its because they brought in the best cinematographer on the planet to act as a consultant.
I concur, gamble. If Deakins isn’t the best (a hard thing to quantify) he is in the top five or so. The rest of the CGI projects should start scrambling to get this sort of assistance on their films, it pays in spades.
Just came back from a 3-D screening…
The film is pretty damn great. Instantly involving, good characters, very good voice work and the dragon Toothless is absolutely perfect. There’s some gorgeous, striking visuals (especially in the flying) scenes, so when I saw Deakins name in the end credits as Visual Consultant, it made complete sense.
As for the 3-D, I’m on the fence…It’s my first animated film in the new 3-D and even though some effects are quite good (I have nothing to compare to really), it initially took me a bit out of the story and didn’t let my eye roam around the frame as much. It helped in some of the flying scenes (or at least didn’t hinder) and worked quite well with the final battle and I got used to it halfway through so it didn’t bug me much…But nothing really grabbed me to the effect of “I have to see all the animated films like this now!” As a matter of fact, from seeing the trailer to Toy Story 3 in 3-D, I definitely want to see it in 2-D.
There’s a few standard conventions in the movie and a few scenes where they went for the obvious, but overall it was a tremendously satisfying experience. My 9 year old really enjoyed it too.
And Matt B, the apologies are on my side – I thought you had mentioned the 3-D somewhere, but it was Matt G who had.
really? This looked like shit.
I mean, the trailer, not the film.
Yes, quite middle of the road trailer. Exceptionally fun and entertaining movie. It happens sometimes, surprising for DreamWorks animation, but there you have it. Props to them for pulling this off.
Speaking of cinematographers, did any of you read The Man Who Heard Voices? Christopher Doyle sounds like a fucking amazing person, and he does shoot the shit out of movies. The Doyle aspect is worth the book alone, but it’s great beyond that I think. Deakins is pretty good too, the connection to the book is that he shot The Village and is mentioned several times in comparison with Doyle.
I read The Man Who Heard Voices a few years ago, and I remember it being pretty poorly written – lots of short, overly simplistic sentences, and too much of a wishy-washy tone concerning Shyamalan (i.e. constant reports on how he “felt” about the project and how it was going). I’ll agree that the Doyle portions were hugely entertaining, though.
I don’t understand, you didn’t want to know how Shyamalan felt about the project?
Maybe the sentences seemed overly short to you, but for people who don’t usually write sentences like “I read The Man Who Heard Voices a few years ago, and I remember it being pretty poorly written – lots of short, overly simplistic sentences, and too much of a wishy-washy tone concerning Shyamalan (i.e. constant reports on how he “felt” about the project and how it was going).” – I think it’s a reasonable length.
Letting readers know how Shyamalan felt about the project is fine, but to me, the book focused too much and too closely on him and his wishes for the project. In other words, it didn’t take an objective-enough tone, in the same way that a well-researched, properly distanced book like Peter Biskind’s Easy Riders, Raging Bulls gives a nice and thorough overview of films and events from multiple perspectives. TMWHV, on the other hand, was way too much on Shyamalan’s side, portraying him as an artist unjustly faced with difficulties from Disney. The fact that The Lady in the Water turned out as bad as it did only hurts the book’s biased attempts to paint Shyamalan in that sympathetic light.
And I don’t have a problem with short sentences, but that book seemed to use them far too often, so much that it became pretty distracting at times. Good writing should have some flow to it, and with that book, there was barely any to it with so many short, simplistic sentences.
I love (LOVE) Doyle’s work. He is certainly one of the few celebrity cinematographers. His work with wkw is exemplary, actually, it’s fucking magnificent. See also the wonderfully shot The Quiet American, Rabbit Proof Fence and Dumplings. I’d love to see him get involved in making CGI films look like he shoots conventional film.
Other cinematographers of interest: Dion Beebe (My Blueberry Nights, Collarteral Miami Vice), Robert Richardson (Shutter Island, Natural Born Killers, Inglourious Basterds), Robert Elswit (There Will Be Blood, Michael Clatyon, Punchdrunk Love), Tim Orr (George Washington, Undertow) and Vilmos Zsigmond (who admittedly is getting up there compared to these other guys, but shot McCabe and Mrs Miller, The Deer Hunter and Deliverance, and has five feature films in production, so is still really working!)
Aye, Doyle is one of the greats. I also love Bruno Delbonnel, who did Amelie, A Very Long Engagement and Across the Universe, and was just up for an Oscar for harry Potter 6.
God yeah I love Doyle and Deakins for that matter. Also Vittorio Storaro is worth a mention for Apocalypse Now alone, that film’s cinematography makes me drool every time I see it.
Good call on Storaro, David. Apocalypse Now is indeed one hell of a good-looking film. He also did a great job on Bertolucci’s The Conformist – lots of nice colors and interesting compositions.
Yeah The Conformist looks great, I had no idea it was the same guy who did Apocalypse Now. Didn’t think it was anything spectacular, but I guess there are some cool things in that movie too.
Marc, it’s not meant to be an academic book about the production of a movie. It’s a book about an artist, I don’t think it paints him in a very sympathetic light, but the important thing is that the book is sincere. It’s not some douchebag picking some random topic and applying his academia to it – there are plenty of those books around if that’s your thing.
Henrik – Like I said, it has been a while since I read the book, so I would probably need to read it again to comment on its specific objectives with more confidence. But it DOES talk about the production of The Lady in the Water as one of its main topics, and the whole focus of the book is on Shyamalan as he is trying to make that movie. So, saying that it’s more of a portrayal of an artist than a production history doesn’t really pardon it for its biases, no matter how sincere they might be. You can accept those biases if you want – but they’re still there.
And no – douchebags picking “random” topics and applying their academia to it isn’t my thing – writers providing informed and engaging pieces about topics they genuinely care about is. And if your last comment is a shot at Biskind and his book, then you clearly have the wrong idea about them both.
Well, my idea only comes from your description of it being “a nice and thorough overview of films and events from multiple perspectives.” and also saying that it was “well-researched”. I’m not ragging on what you read, I’m just saying your problems with TMWHV seems more of an issue of your expectations being way off than the book itself.
The book also focuses on Cindy Cheug, her career, and how she ended up in the movie. It sheds light on the inner workings of major hollywood studios and how movies get made. There is a lot to it.
Which biases are you talking about? Are you saying the book is biased in favor of Shyamalan? I definitely do not think that’s the case, it doesn’t hide away from what his production is becoming, and the author on several occasions admit to not getting the movie Shyamalan is making, as do several other people throughout.
And, for all of you snobs, the paperback version has a foreword by David Bordwell himself, so you can all go eat it.
Yep, I was referring to it being a little too pro-Shyamalan. And I do recall the bits about Cindy Cheung, but not so much the more critical ones of him and the project. Hmmm. That’s probably where a re-read of the book would do me good – I mostly remember the book being a little too oriented towards Shyamalan, but that’s good if it also acknowledges the doubts people had about the movie.
However, whether I’d completely change my mind about the book ultimately rests on a re-read. For now, all I have is my dissatisfation with the reading experience it last gave me.
Whoa! One of the best looking films of the past 12 months to be sure. The character designs were exactly what I was hoping for – but the thing I liked the best was the way they incorporated familiar animal behaviors with Toothless. He is playful like a kitten, cute like a puppy, flies and grunts a little bit like a stallion (Pegassus?) might and gets angry like a mama bear at times.
3D = unnecessary. Saw it in 2D and loved it just fine. In fact I think it was probably all the better for it. If Pixar puts out anything half as good as this in 2010, it’ll be a damn fine movie.
Brilliant! I loved feeling somewhere in the space between cartoony color and silliness and amazing super-realism. Yes, Deakins is a genius! I am glad I saw this in 2D first, as I think I would have been visually way too overstimulated, but now that I know what to expect, I might give this one a chance in 3D.
Also loved the character design and the insertion of the “sketches” not only in the credits, but into the movie as we are looking at the dragon “text” with Hiccup. Did any one else notice the stark similarity between Toothless and the character of Stitch in Disney’s “Lilo & Stitch” ? (which incidentally, is a Disney favorite of mine)
Finally caught this last night and yes it’s awesome, loved every minute of it. Ran rings around Up in my opinion – Pixar’s finally got a bit of competition.
I saw it in 3D and it was pretty impressive, I think it’s some of the best use of 3D I’ve seen, at least on a par with Avatar. Saying that I don’t think it made me enjoy the film anymore than I would have though, which just backs up the gimmick argument. With all this 3DTV business and the fact that all of next year’s blockbusters are in 3D though I think it’s going to be sticking around unfortunately. It’ll be interesting to see what happens once there’s a really big and expensive 3D flop.
I remain a stick in the mud, refuse to see this.
Visually speaking, I agree: it’s better looking than “Up” and much more fun than “Wall-E.” This will be hard to beat as best animated film of the year.
after seeing it twice in 2d, saw it in 3d.
they really actually did an excellent job, it was very nicely gradated from front to back, so that by the end i wasnt so aware it was a 3d movie.
I’m hoping THE ILLUSIONIST is better than DRAGON. I have high hopes for that one.
Am I wrong or are non of you willing to admit that you’ve seen Lilo and Stitch?
Sorry, I’ve not actually seen Lilo and Stitch. Take that as you will.
Just finally saw this today, and I’ll eat my skepticism about it – the trailer’s still crap, but the movie is excellent. Much better written than I expected, and easily the best thing DreamWorks has ever done. I saw it in 3D, though, and I was annoyed by the 3D pretty much the entire movie. So if this is the best 3D can do or has done, I’m hopping off the fence and firmly onto the anti-3D side. I’ve been giving willing to give 3D a chance film by film, but there was not a single 3D moment in this film that wasn’t either unnecessary or actually annoying to me. Done with it.
Join us. Jandy. Join Us!
3D Sucks, but I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t curious to see what Scorcese and Herzog have planned for the format.
3D Sucks
Jesus, quit crying in your breast milk.
been watching this off and on for the last couple days when I have had a chance and I now see what you are talking about… the trailer really undersold this, very enjoyable.
Ooh! I need to know where to find the kite! My husband, our daughter & I LOVE this movie & can’t help watching it all the time!