REVIEW: Pete's Dragon (2016)

Despite how much I loved the recent remake of The Jungle Book, I think it's safe to say that Disney's modern trend of remaking their classic films is getting to be a bit stale. Part of why that movie worked out so well, I think, is because the original film is somewhat less-than-remarkable. If you ask someone what their favorite Disney movie is, chances are they won't say "the original version of The Jungle Book". Movies like Beauty and the Beast and Mulan and even Sleeping Beauty still hold up to this day; the Disney brand is dripping with the iconography of these films for a reason. They're classics, so unless you're going to stray drastically from the original material (and if you're banking on the original film's status as an acclaimed classic, why would you?) there's no real point in re-making them. If the source material is less popular, however, a whole new world of creative potential opens up. Case-in-point, last year's remake of Pete's Dragon. The original film was one of many live-action musicals Disney released in the 60's and 70's in an attempt to recapture the magic of Mary Poppins; all it really has going for it in terms of legacy is some fun animation, a few decent songs, and an iconic float in the Main Street Electrical Parade. I recall picking it up as a kid because of the cartoon dragon on the front, only to discover the dragon spent most of the movie invisible in order to save money on animation. It's a film that few people feel especially passionate about, which makes it a perfectly acceptable candidate for reinterpretation. 

Set in 1977, the story begins with a family driving into the mountains on vacation. After swerving to avoid a deer, the car flips and goes off the road, leaving a young boy named Pete (Oakes Fegley) the only survivor. Scared and alone, he wanders the woods before coming across a giant, friendly dragon (with vocals provided by John Kassir). Six years go by and the two live happily together in the forest until Pete is discovered during a logging operation. He ends up in the care of a park ranger (Bryce Dallas Howard) while a group of loggers comb the woods in search of the dragon (now named Elliot); what follows is a surprisingly low-key, reserved tale of Pete struggling to come to terms with where he belongs. It's a story about friendship and family and the responsibilities that come with loving someone (or something).

For me the most striking thing about this movie was its tone. One might expect a movie about a boy and his dragon to be chock-full of fantastical adventure; imagine my surprise when this turned out to be a movie that put much more emphasis on character drama. The implications of a little orphaned boy living away from society for six years is played totally straight, as is the reality that this boy was living alongside a fire-breathing dragon. Despite its fantasy trimming, this is very much a film that is meant to take place in the real world. It's one of those rare films that doesn't talk down to its intended audience. Sure, there are plenty of cute moments where Pete and Elliot romp through the woods, but the subject matter tends to get surprisingly heavy in some places. I imagine the opening sequence in particular must have sent several angry moms and bawling toddlers back to the lobby in search of a refund. I wouldn't exactly describe the places this movie goes to as "dark", but "dreary" definitely seems like an appropriate term.

While I certainly don't think such a subversive tone a bad thing (honestly, it's the reason I enjoy and respect this movie as much as I do), I can't help but feel that Pete's Dragon will miss the mark for its target audience. I enjoyed it immensely, but there were a number of times I openly thought "if I was a kid, I'd be bored to tears right now". That's not to say that every kid will dislike this, but anyone looking for an upbeat adventure about a magic dragon will be disappointed. The pacing is especially slow, Elliot barely appears in the second act, and there's little to no action until the climax. Again, none of these are outright negatives, but they're definitely things to consider when recommending this movie. If you're in the mood for a more traditional Disney film, this certainly isn't it.

The cast is quite good, made up of talented actors who all play their parts well. Oakes Fegley gives a performance that is surprisingly easy to take seriously and Bryce Dallas Howard injects a good amount of motherly emotion into her part. Robert Redford is beyond charming as Howard's elderly father and I really loved Karl Urban as a lumberjack who becomes obsessed with capturing Elliot. He plays the role entirely straight, even when shouting lines like "FOLLOW THAT DRAGON!" and I really appreciated how he turned out to not be the same flat, greedy stereotype we've seen a million times before. The CGI on Elliot is quite good, as the green of his fur meshes well with the surrounding forests. This is a creature who comes off as appropriately charming and fantastical, while not clashing too cartoonishly against our real actors. All in all, this is a very verdant movie, sure to have anyone who watches it feeling the urge to go hit the hiking trails in search of adventure.

I really must commend the film's director, David Lowery. While so many of these remakes seem to have absolutely no ambition beyond "retell the animated story with five additional minutes of original content", this is a film that actively takes some risks in terms of its story and presentation. I'll be honest, when I first saw the trailer for this, I assumed it wouldn't be anything special; the idea of a gritty reboot for Pete's Dragon seemed downright laughable, but sure if this movie didn't prove me wrong. I can understand the logic behind all these reboots; if kids are still buying merchandise for a film that came out in the early 90's, why not try and squeeze a little more milk from that proverbial cow? But it wasn't that long ago that the market was flooded with superfluous straight-to-video sequels of famous Disney films (with Cinderella 3: A Twist in Time somehow being one of the best). It cheapened the brand and the studio only started to get back on track when John Lasseter took over Disney Animation in 2006. 

If Disney isn't careful, they could very easily see themselves poisoning their own brand with a series of middling, unambitious retreads of their most celebrated films. If anything, Pete's Dragon is proof they should do the opposite, repurposing their less fondly-remembered films into something new and original. Rather than bloating their stable of movies with projects that don't offer anything new, they could simply refine what they already have, acting as a bastion of experimentation and artistic integrity. Then again, Pete's Dragon barely made its budget back while the Beauty and the Beast remake is on track to cross the billion-dollar mark, so I guess that's all the incentive they need to stay the course until that bubble eventually pops.