Jeff’s Dragon: a review of Pete’s
Dragon (2016)
Written by Jerry Skids
 |
| Pic courtesy of Disney |
Some people say
that you should never COMPARE a reboot to the original...but how can that be
possible, when the studio went through the trouble of securing the rights to
the original franchise just to use the characters, plot and yes TITLE of the
original film. They are physically asking you to compare it, whether you
like it or not. In Disney’s journey in rebooting a plethora
of their original films into live action, the most recent film was the
not-very-well-advertised-and- therefore-no-one-is-talking-about-it Pete’s
Dragon. The original 1977 film, Pete’s Dragon, was fun, silly, out of
control, humorous, and had tons of great songs to sing along to.
The reboot was none of the above.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I actually had a good time watching
this film, but it is a far cry from anything the original intended to be.
The story is mostly subdued, introspective and dramatic, with any
inklings of comedy being few and far between. And that’s great if I was looking
for that sort of thing, but when you bill a film with the SAME NAME as the
original, you’re expecting the same intentions. And while the 1977 film
was original and fun, the 2016 film was safe, standard and as generic as it can
get.
Comparisons aside, the new Pete’s Dragon’s biggest problem was not
knowing what it truly wanted to be. For instance, it is set amongst a
group of lumberjacks and the main character, Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard), is a
park ranger who is in love with the forest and its wildlife, as well as her
husband, Jack (Wes Bentley) who just happens to BE one of those lumberjacks...
And that’s it. There is no conflict revolving around these
circumstances, with the exception of ONE random running gag that I won’t spoil
in this review. How do you create a film involving these two very
opposite things, yet NOT have it be part of the actual plot?!
Speaking of plot….At the climax of the film, I found myself asking
“Wait...we’re here already?! How is that possible?” The reason
being, there really is no semblance of a plot anywhere to be found beyond the
main tired story. Not one character had any sort of arc..except for Pete
and Elliot (and even theirs is arguable weak). And that’s the biggest
issue this film has...There is NO character development and very little
backstory for any of the characters. You spend the entirety of the hour
and 45 minute run time without knowing why anybody actually does what they are
doing. It’s such a shame because there are some really potentially
interesting characters.
Besides Grace and Jack, we have Grace’s “kooky” father (Robert
Redford), who has been claiming all his life that dragons exist ...don’t worry,
you’ll only see this interesting character for about 15 minutes because any
sort of story would be too much for this film. We also have Jack’s
daughter, Natalie, who really adds to the film with her warming and
unrestrained personality...but of course, you don’t learn anything about her
beyond the fact that she has a good relationship with her father. And
finally, Jack’s brother, Gavin (Karl Urban), the lumberjack/hunter, who steals
the show as the “villain.” If only he were given some sort of motive to
work with, or even a hint of backstory. But no..that’s not happening.
Not in this film.
The one thing I did LOVE about this film was the music. The
soundtrack was made up of melancholy folk songs to really smack you with a
feeling of loneliness...and that’s what really worked here. The mood, the
feeling, the attitude. In a small town where everyone knows each other,
they all seem to be so disconnected to the outer world...and the vast forest
and mountains that surround them makes it even tougher. While they don’t
go into this in the film via dialogue or action, it is told solely through
music and mood. As happy and quaint as everyone might be, there will
always be this disconnect from society.
The music also contributes to the timeless feel of the film.
No one has cell phones, they listen to music on vinyl, the score is made
up of folk songs and instrumentals, which could be from any time, really… and
that works in the film’s favor. It will never feel dated. We are in
a small town, in some time period, with bland people who live normal lives.
The final thing I do have to go into is the fact that this is
titled Pete’s Dragon. Yes, there is a boy named Pete...and yes, he has a
dragon. But that is the ONLY similarity to the original, plotwise.
The story is different, the setting is different and the characters are
different, so why even bother using the same name? Doesn’t it make more
sense to have this be a sequel? In the 1977 film, (do you have to say
“spoilers” for a near-40 year old film??) Elliot leaves Pete in the end to go
find a new boy to save. Why not have this main character be the new boy?
Name him….I dunno...Jeff or something. He’s completely different
from the original anyway. The original Pete was an orphan living with
abusive foster parents, who was looking to run away from his horrible life,
which factors into the plot throughout the whole film. In THIS film,
Jeff..er, Pete’s folks die in a car crash and he escapes into the forest, where
he is raised by his dragon...so it’s basically… Tarzan...or Mowgli… This film
could have easily just been the continuing adventures of Elliot. All they
needed to do was slap on a different title like “Jeff’s Dragon” and all would
have been resurrected. In fact, I honestly have no clue why they didn’t.
The movie wouldn’t have been perfect either way, but it would have still
had its own identity, which is what this version is absolutely lacking.
Instead, it was piggybacked onto the original as a reboot, which dragged
it down a few notches, when it could have stood on its own.
Was Pete’s Dragon (2016) awful? No. Was it great?
No. It was fine. The dragon looked amazing, the effects were
flawless, the mood was great...but the one thing it lacked, were the two most
important things: character and story. While Pete and Elliot were given
distinct personalities, they were the only ones who didn’t come off as
ancillary. The audience cannot build any sort of connection to the other
main characters, because they come off as two dimensional (sometimes even
one-dimensional). It’s definitely worth seeing for the effects and the
general feeling of the piece - it’s always great to see a level of art to a
major studio film. But don’t expect any sort of development, because it’s
just not there. C-
Written by Jerry Skids
