2025, Dean DeBlois (How to Train Your Dragon) -- download
The live-action. My post for the original animated movie is here. The original is also a pre-Blog movie, so said post is a rewatch.
I am prone to say posts about movies that are more Marmy (the Peanut Gallery) movies than mine, are "our" posts.
This movie post wedges in nicely with my current project -- the one about live action remakes of Disney animated movies. Not because it is Disney, but because for some reason, Dreamworks decided that their super-popular animated series about an island of dragon riding Vikings needed to become live-action.
i.e. if Disney can do it then Dreamworks can DO. IT. BETTER. (screams a purple suit)
I imagine this concept is designed for introducing an older movie to a newer generation, but the old man yelling at clouds in me cannot help but reflect on the "there are no new ideas" rant of the past decade or so. Everything is nostalgia, everything is reused, all that is old is suddenly new again. But, despite me yelling at that cloud, I am not bothered by this ideal at all. Sure, mine my childhood, create something new from it, rework and reboot it to your heart's content. Yet, if its pretty much the same content, same story, same look & feel, then... why?
We have to be careful to not write here what should be said during the post of the first project movie's post, or... gasp... repeat myself.
Didn't repeat myself ! In the Disney post[s], I am not asking "why" at all, well not "Why is Disney Doing this?" but probably going to ask, "Why am I doing this?" more than once. Why did I do this one? Cuz we love the original and I was curious what they would do with this. I am still wondering why.
OK, Berk, an island somewhere.... north? Its all treacherous coastlines, grassy knolls and somewhere out back, pine forests. The Vikings are being attacked on the regular by dragons. There is a commentary on how most of the homes on their island are new, because they keep on having to rebuild, but there are no signs of previous attacks, and all the buildings look well lived in, until the preamble ends and half the houses in the opener are exploded and/or on fire. Part of me will repeat this adage of cartoons -- in animations, even 3D animations, we don't care about these kind of details, cuz its a cartoon, but in Live Action, it annoys me. Details folks, details.
Hiccup (Mason Thames, The Black Phone) is our reluctant hero. Other than the Tiktok hair, he's not as goofy as animated Jay Baruchel, and yes, part of what lent to Hiccup's distinct character in the original was Baruchel's refusal to give up his Canadian-isms. Of the rest, only Gerard Butler (Greenland) plays his original character, which is a fun detail on its own, but I was disappointed they went with Nick Frost (Paul) for Gobber instead of just sticking Craig Ferguson (The Drew Carey Show) in a ton of makeup -- no slight to Frost; love the guy but despite his expanded role, he was lacking for this character. And in the current tradition of Generated Outrage (I hate that an actual marketing tactic is to court the worst aspects of humanity for controversy; even bad publicity is free publicity) they cast a (gasp) black actor for Astrid, one Nico Parker (The Last of Us) and to supplement the idea of black Vikings, they added more to the island. I don't have state the ludicrous nature of disputing that their could be fictional black Vikings in a movie about dragons. If I was going to have any dispute with character change choices, it would be the twins not twins.
Again, my love for the original is unabashed, and the D&D player in me should love the idea of these cartoony fantasy aspects finding some (real)life but... it all fell flat for me. Sure, the story is the same, and much of the imagery is faithful, but... it did not stir me. No real complaints, but for minor quibbles, but munch... burp... done, and its gone from memory. Even the majestic dragon flight scenes were... yawn. Was it me? The movie? Probably me.
I should at least be gracious and give some credits. Snotty Snotlout is Gabriel Howell (The Fence), giant sized dragon nerd Fishlegs is Julian Dennison (Deadpool 2), the "twins" Ruffnut and Tuffnut are Bronwyn James (Mickey 17) and Harry Trevaldwyn (Sweet Sue) respectively; and yes, I get the idea they were "identical" twins for hyuk-hyuks. Nods to Peter Serafinowicz (The Tick) and Ruth Codd (The Midnight Club) as Spitelout and Phlegma respectively.
I am not sure this bodes well for this little project, even if you yell at me and remind me that technically, this movie is not part of the project.
I used to be a Pixar snob. Years back. I just thought every other studio producing cgi-animated movies was just churning out pap for the masses. Oh sure, Dreamworks`first effort, Antz, was decent enough, perhaps in some respects a more daring film than A Bug`s Life, but it doesn`t quite have the same allure as the Disney branch. I mean, those tedious monsters Shrek and Ice Age that kept getting churned out every other year were such a grotesque, average bore, and ever other studio`s offering seemed like they were written for the brain dead.
It`s only since my daughter`s been around, so the past 5 years or so, that I`ve truly given the other studios a shot. Oh, sure, I dosed her heavily on Pixar in the first two years, but there`s only so many times one can watch Monsters Inc. before he needs a change of pace. And let`s face it, Pixar hasn`t really been holding up their end, either, these past few years. Brave, Cars 2, Monsters University, all not without their charms, but decidedly second-rate when compared to Up, WALL-E, or Toy Story 3.
I warmed to Dreamworks` a bit because of Kung-Fu Panda, but How To Train Your Dragon was the true softening blow, coming to that film only in the past 2 years. It`s a beautiful boy-and-his-dog story mixed with a "nobody understands me, least of all my father" sub plot that is utterly affecting. In ramping up for the second motion picture, Dreamworks produced a series, Dragonriders of Berk, which further expanded the world and its characters, maintaining much of the film's voice cast (which is rare for TV spinoffs), which has become my mother's favourite show. So I was prepped, as were my kids, to see the sequel in theatre, but the experience was sullied when my daughter freaked out before the film started. So I sent her packing back home with her grandmother (thus denying my mother a viewing of her favourite show on the big screen), and tried to not brood about it while the film was playing.
But I brooded nonetheless. I enjoyed the movie, but it had obvious flaws, particularly around its villain, the role of Hiccup's mother, and the necessity of the demise of another character. The death in particular is an affecting an emotional sweep, on the one hand, but it also feels very story/plot driven and not true to the situation or the characters. The film's upbeat finale feels grotesquely hollow and unearned in the wake of the character's death, and really has me question whether it was truly necessary. Disney films have long had death in them, exposing children to the mortality of their elders seems to be a mandate of film, but this was less than necessary for this movie.
The introduction of Hiccup's mother, which is a bit of a spoiler, provides a great moment for Hiccup, and Valka (voiced by the always awesome Cate Blanchett) is a great character. Living in hiding, wrangling dragons, providing sanctuary, she's kind of a nutbar having lived in seclusion from any other humans so long. Her humanity has kind of escaped her, and she's fiercely against the society that she's left, but given the changes that Hiccup introduced she should be welcome back home. Naturally she's wary, and her reincorporation into society and reintroduction to her family should provide great drama, but the film unfortunately scuttles her and her story to the side to have the BIG FIGHT SEQUENCE which all summer movies must have. Her story would be much better served on Dragonriders of Berk.
Drago (Djimon Hounsou) is the first non-white (human) character introduced into the HTTYD cinematic world, and it would be great if we could just look past it and not think anything of it, but that he's also the bad guy, stubborn, violent, and ultimately evil, it does seem an unfortunate choice from the filmmakers (as David also points out in his review). True, vikings and Scandanavians are depicted as Caucasians traditionally, but there's no reason fiction, and fantasy more specifically, can't be more inclusive. Beyond that, Drago is a painfully thin character. He's basically on the scene to be menacing, filled with hate, rage, and puffed up with power... his deep, croaking voice meant to inspire fear in children. The other new addition, Eret (Kit Harrington), gets more to do, and, despite being a poacher and working for Drago, gets his redemption.
The other Dragonriders besides Hiccup get the short shrift here, which I'm unsure whether it matters or not. I found the same true of the Kung-Fu Panda sequel, where the focus is on the main character and perhaps a secondary character and all the great supporting cast gets scuttled further into the background. They get reduced to quip machines or exposition talkers, and don't really feel like the ensemble they do on Berk or in the first film.
Story aside, the animation is stunning. The flying sequence are breathtaking on the big screen, while the introduction of Valka's sanctuary finds the screen chock-a-block with dragons. Hiccup's affection for Valka's main dragon yields some charming physical comedy, while the epic scope of the Alpha dragon fight which often eats up the entire background, was worth the price of admission alone. We were treated to Pacific Rim last year, and Godzilla at around the same time as this... it's been a good 12 months-ish for giant monster fighting.
Though the story isn't quite as thoroughly solid as it could have been (rumours say that originally Valka was to be the villain of the piece, which would have made for an even more enticing film, and surely a tighter story) it's still vastly entertaining.
How to Train Your Dragon 2, surprisingly with no title of its own, continues the story 5 years later on a much more colourful Berk. Figuratively colourful, as in the vikings living on the island now raise, train, ride and are friends with dragons. And literally colourful because, wow, so much colour! The houses are painted, the sheep are painted and the dragons are naturally colourful. Its bright and cheerful and full of primary colours. The vikings have risen out of their drab, morose background of defending themselves from dragon attacks to grow into a better life. But out there in the world, there are still grays and earth tones full of sombre mood.
Hiccup is now the talk of the town, soon to become Chief, if his father's pressure works on him. He makes dragon saddles and tools for the village and in his free time, explores the wilds, seeking out new lands and new dragons. On one of these journeys, he comes across a band of evil (ok, misunderstood) dragon trappers who work for the Big Bad, Drago. It still kind of erks me that we have to resort to dark skinned bad guys these days, along with all the connotations attached. But I also have to admit that Djimon Hounsou voices Drago brilliantly, filled with menace and the tenacity of a fanatic. It is inevitable that Hiccup will butt heads with this madman. Luckily, his mother turns up with unexpected help.
The movie is great. But it does suffer from a bit of sequel-itis. The structure still involves Hiccup being a bit of an outsider, not wanting to become Chief, and the discovery and confrontation of a leviathan sized dragon, the Bewilderbeast. Through team work and loyalty, Hiccup and his friends are able to defeat the Big Bad, but not without cost. Seriously? They killed off Stoick? Bah, one of my favourite voice overs is Gerard Butler. But with sequel comes movement forward and without his death, Hiccup will not be leader for the third, likely even more world changing, movie.
The Nightmare Before Christmas - 1993, Henry Selick - DVD
Frankenweenie (Short) - 1984, Tim Burton - DVD
Hotel Transylvania - 2012, Genndy Tartakovsky - in theatre
Wreck-It Ralph - 2012, Rich Moore - in theatre
How To Train Your Dragon - 2010, Dean DeBlois, Chris Saunders - tv
The bane of many parents' existence is the prevalence of obnoxious children's programming in the household. In Canada, the dedicated children's programming channel, Treehouse, is equally a parent's saviour (for times when you need to get stuff done, and need the kids out of the way) and nightmare (pretty much any other time you're exposed to it). Some of the kids programming, like Yo Gabba Gabba, Octonauts and, even still, Sesame Street, is actually quite surprising, and casually engaging for even adults.
My household is a little more complicated, though. With one television and two kids -- of different genders and seven years age difference -- it can pose a little more challenging to entertain both kids at once (or it should, but for some reason the 10-year-old still has no problem watching banal kiddie pap like Mike the Knight or Bubble Guppies). As parents, we have to take a little ownership over what the kids watch and try to guide them towards quality entertainment, and in our situation, find something that will stimulate a 10-year-old boy that will also not be too advanced, frightening, violent, or challenging for a 3-year-old girl.
With the boy, he's always been cool with watching anything, so long as its a cartoon. Live action stuff like Star Wars was never his thing. As geeks, the wife and I have long had DVDs of cartoons we liked for him to watch: Batman The Animated Series, Justice League, Looney Toons, the Tick, Samurai Jack, as well he took a shining to the more mainstay Nickelodeon animated comedies, the children of Ren & Stimpy, like Spongebob and Fairly Odd Parents (the more palatable of the genre, the knock offs are atrocious and annoying). As a result, though we've tried to reign our daughter into more age appropriate fare, we learned quickly that she could no only handle, but liked her brother's programming.
Both kids thankfully enjoy and can sit through movies. The Pixar films are a particular hit with everyone in the house, but most other kid-centric films don't appeal as broadly. So, it can truly be a crapshoot, a roll of the dice to find the winners that are not only worth watching, but worth watching again and again. Outside of the mostly reliable Pixar, I've only found a handful of other movies that I like as much as the kids do. Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs is ridiculous but tremendously funny with a great voice cast. The Muppets, including the latest Jason Segal effort, Muppets From Space and the early films all hold a nostalgic potency that the kids seem to tap into as well. I haven't test run The Fantastic Mr. Fox on my daughter yet, but the boy said, after watching it in the theatre, that it was probably the best movie he ever saw (I wonder if that would hold up).
Sitting on our shelf for years, untouched and unloved, was The Nightmare Before Christmas. I've had this movie in my collection since it first came out on DVD in 2000, and if I've watched it more than once (until recently) I would be surprised. I was, in the 90's, a Tim Burton devotee, and as a result I was committed to loving Nightmare even though I'm not all that certain I was as enamored with it as others became. It wasn't a flop, but at the time it seemed a disappointment at the box office. However, within a few short years it became a monster cult hit, spawning an endless barrage of collectibles still found in record stores, comic shops and novelty boutiques.
I recall trying to expose my step-son to Nightmare a few years back but he was creeped out almost instantly, and I don't think we made it ten minutes into the picture. To be honest, I don't think I'd watched it in over half a decade and at that point couldn't recall any details beyond the chorus to a few of the songs. Recently, it the pursuit to diversify my 3-year-old's viewing regimen, I asked her if she wanted to watch it, and I sat, hesitantly watching her in the opening minutes, waiting for her to cringe and tell me she didn't want to watch any more.
It would seem I have a little goth in training, as she adored it instantly. It's beautifully creepy in its design, with cheerfully morbid songs and an ominous joie de vivre that my little girl obviously keyed into immediately. With this, his feature directorial debut, Henry Selik proved himself a stop-motion animation wizard, rapidly earning prestige and clout within the industry and with fans alike. Working from Tim Burton's poem and with his lanky and lean character designs, the figures give wonderfully expressive physical performances, while an unprecedented number of head sculpts (about 400) gives lead Jack Skellington (voiced by Chris Sarandon with Danny Elfman subbing in for the songs) a richly emotive face, while other characters had some subtle traditional animation overlaid for lip synching.
Almost two decades later, Nightmare still feels very fresh and unique. Stop motion animation is such a heady commitment and time consuming endeavor that Nightmare's modest initial returns didn't spawn the spate of imitators it would have were it a blockbuster. Combined with it's gothic sensibility, it's borderline creepy aesthetic and its unusual holiday connection, as well as a soundtrack that was far more sinister than the usual Disney fare (although they paid for it, Disney scuttled it under their Touchstone Pictures masthead, when it could have used the Disney push... but then the traditional animation brand was still riding its Lion King/Little Mermaid/Beauty and the Beast high, so they weren't willing to risk the brand on this unusual offering).
The film holds up as a holiday classic for two holidays, meaning parents can get a
lot more mileage out of it. It maintains a holiday movie sensibility
but by splitting the difference between Halloween and Christmas it
actually separates itself somewhat from both, meaning it can be enjoyed
outside of any festive spirit. It's soundtrack has maintained a classic sensibility, the songs having a compounding infectiousness that may not appear so catchy at first but certainly digging into the ear after multiple exposures.
It's obviously not going to catch every kid's interest, but those that do key into it will love it deeply. If there's any negative to The Nightmare Before Christmas, it's that it is not long enough. At a meager (but wonderful) 75 minutes, it seems over as soon as it starts if you're trying to occupy your kids while you go off and do something else.
The 2000 release of the DVD (and subsequent Blu-Ray releases) for The Nightmare Before Christmas contains Tim Burton's 1984 live-action short film (roughly 30 minutes) Frankenweenie, naturally the source for the 2012 animated feature of the same name.
Using black and white film, shooting with a low-budget, delightfully retro 50's sensibility and a style reflective of a hybrid Twilight Zone and Leave It To Beaver, Burton tells the story of a boy, Victor, whose dog, Sparky, is unceremoniously killed. Though wallowing in grief, he learns of the wondrously restorative capabilities of electricity in science class, and spares no effort in attempting to revive his best friend from his mortal slumber, an effort which does not go unnoticed by a suspicious neighbour.
When Sparky is fully revived in a grade-school interpretation of the science lab from the classic Frankenstein movie, he unintentionally gets up to no good, riling up the neighbourhood and causing a panic. This leads to another homage to the classic Frankenstein, with the neighbours taking up arms and chasing after the dog, only to unwittingly trap Victor and Sparky in a mini-putt windmill set alight.
It's a charming short with quality performances from child star Barrett Oliver (D.A.R.Y.L., Cocoon, The Twilight Zone The Movie) as Victor, Daniel Stern and Shelly Duvall as his parents and characters actors like Joseph Maher and Roz Braverman as the neighbours, and even kid supporting actors like Jason Hervey and Sophia Coppola in the mix. Burton's natural flare for off-beat children's stories shines through, but filtering it through the peachy-keen 50's aesthetic lessens most of the darker edges. It's that same retro-50's filter that gives this nearly 30-year-old production a timeless feel, as it adopts the vibe wholeheartedly rather than doing so through an 1980's filter.
If anything, it's overlong for a short feature, which makes me wonder exactly how padded out "Tim Burton's Frankenweenie", the new animated feature, must be. (I believe David has a review in the pipeline).
This year has seen a curious trend in spooky children's entertainment, as if Hollywood has only recently caught on to the fact that kids like creepy things too. David covered Paranorman recently, though it was released in August. Frankenweenie came out in time for Halloween, preceded by Hotel Transylvania, a monster mash of a film, meant to be more of a comedy than fright fest.
The titular hotel in the picture was started by Count Dracula as a refuge for all monsters to come, to be free from the oppression of human society and to relax in the assurances of both security and camaraderie of fellow monsters. Upon the celebration of his daughter, Mavis' 118th birthday, all of his monster friends have arrived at the hotel, but amidst the joyous occasion Dracula frets as his daughter seeks to establish her independence and venture out into the human world for the first time.
Dracula does manage to trick her into staying home, but the human world comes knocking on their door in the form of a young backpacker, Jonathan, who is both completely freaked out and equally enamored with the hotel and its denizens. Disguised as a distant relative of Frankenstein by Dracula so as not to freak out his patrons and friends, Jonathan becomes the hit of the festivities and the object of Mavis' affections.
It's a cute plot that's equal parts parental anxiety and teenaged romantic comedy, but it's hindered by a painfully high number of puns and obvious gags involving the various monsters traits. Featuring a script from British sketch comedy wizard Peter Baynham and Saturday Night Live/Late Night With Conan O'Brien alum Robert Smigel, and featuring the voice talents of a largely ex-SNL cast, including Adam
Sandler, Andy Samberg, Molly Shannon, David Spade, Jon Lovitz, and Chris
Parnell, the film should have been far more amusing. It is pretty sharp at times from a storytelling standpoint, but the overall tone of the humour and proceedings seems dumbed-down to juvenile levels. Given how successful Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs was at being absurd but hilarious and romantic and sentimental, there's no reason Hotel Transylvania, with all its talents, couldn't have replicated that same sensibility. Sandler, for his part, commits to one of his less annoying voices in his cinematic career, doing a hybrid of cliche Dracula and Triumph The Insult Comic Dog (actually it was mostly the latter... I wonder if there's a "for me to poop on" outtake or ten somewhere).
In a valiant but unsuccessful effort the film features a half dozen original songs. It's definitely a preferable route than plugging in the kid-approved hits of the day, but also futile as they all sought to replicate those very same hits, to largely painful degrees.
The name that initially sold the picture for me, however, was director Genndy Tartakovski. Tartakovski's brilliant resume, including the Powerpuff Girls, Dexter's Lab and the first (and best) animated stab at Star Wars: The Clone Wars, was the main draw. My daughter has discovered Tartakovski's Samurai Jack, a favourite of my step-son's as well, and I hold that show as the epitome of animation at the point where art crosses entertainment. I was hoping some of Tartakovski's more unconventional influences and inspirations would come out in Hotel Transylvania, like they did in most of his previous work, but it's a fairly straightforward directorial effort. The only scene that had any particular impact was a sweetly framed sequence of Dracula walking down the steeply-pitched roof to join a moping Mavis. One stand-out composition was far less than I was expecting out of this (from what I've heard, however, Tartakovski was a late arrival on the project, its sixth director).
Given that I had really no preconceptions and no expectations from the film, I was neither disappointed nor pleased. It was moderately entertaining, well animated, but overall a forgettable experience.
Getting away from all the creepiness, yet, still focussing on supposed bad-guys, Wreck-It Ralph is a kid-flick in the vein of Toy Story, wherein it builds a world for our playthings unknowingly in our midst. In this case it's the shared world in the arcade, where video game characters can interact not only in their own game, but with any game. Like Toy Story, the characters "come to life" after the arcade has shut down and there's no people to notice them.
But Wreck-It Ralph isn't so much about the world it inhabits, but the characters that inhabit it, which would actually be disappointing if the story and characters weren't so involving. The titular Ralph is the bad guy in a vintage Donkey Kong/Rampage hybrid arcade game called "Fix-It Felix Jr.", but after 30 years, Ralph is sick of being the bad guy and sets out in search of a gold medallion of his own, if not to be the hero, then at least be seen as less of a bad guy. Of course, by abandoning his game, in the real world, they think the machine needs to be put out to pasture, so Fix-It Felix Jr. has one night to find Ralph and bring him back before they're unplugged.
Ralph, however, is a catastrophe waiting to happen and, true to his name, he kind of wrecks everything he touches, whether it's his intention or not. When he winds up in the cutesy "Sugar Rush" racing game, he meets Vanellope Von Sweet, a glitchy character within the game who is similarly deemed an outcast by the other game characters. The two characters naturally forge an uneasy friendship, Vanellope's playful, precocious, sarcastic nature continually sitting uneasily with Ralph's surly, patience-free, singularly focused demeanor.
To continue explaining the ins and outs of the film would take some time, as it's not so easily summarized. For what's ostensibly a family movie, it's surprisingly dense in its structure, with moments building upon moments, and keeping virtually everything relevant. Though it may seem like it at the time, there's truly no fluff in the film.
Wreck-It Ralph features a seemingly endless array of sight gags and gamer in-jokes, many of which I -- a very minor dabbler in video games -- picked up on, but I'm sure there were even more that I didn't. Thankfully these types of jokes, unlike Hotel Transylvania, were laregely unobtrusive, and mostly set deep in the background. They certainly weren't key to enjoying the film, which I think is its brilliance, that it could make a movie about video games, fill it with nuances that only gamers could appreciate, and yet make it accessible to almost every viewer.
The central story is about what it means for Ralph to be a bad guy, and the film very, very quickly takes the black and white of good and bad and plays with its shades of grey. A formidable moment that kickstarts the third act finds Sugar Rush's monarch, King Candy (voiced with gleeful, lispy aplomb by Alan Tudyk) having the unfortunate job of convincing Ralph that in being a good guy and helping his friend Vanellope, he's actually going to do her more harm. Then, upon returning to his own game, Ralph sees the effect of his quest for heroic redemption, the end of his own game.
The main voice talent is perfectly cast. John C. Reilley provides the precise awkward voice for a gigantic, disheveled ape-man, while Sarah Silverman is the only person who can make being an incessant annoyance endearing and cute (well, perhaps Kristen Schall). Jane Lynch playing the tough as nails sergeant from a Halo-esque shoot-em-up provided the perfect amount of edge and balls, but also just the right hint of fragility, while Jack McBrayer's puritan, high pitched, mid-western drawl is perfect for a beloved 80's video game handyman hero in the Mario vein. That the cast largely recorded together as well makes for a noticeable impact on the repartee between characters, particularly Ralph, Vanellope and King Candy (though I don't know how anyone kept from giggling when Tudyk did his thing).
The animation, quite frankly, is some of the best I've seen with
regards to attention to detail, and I'm not talking in the design of the
worlds (although the central hub is brilliantly conceived, while the
landscape of Sugar Rush is a thorough delight) but in the nuance of
movements and the shifts in pixellation between games, and those moments
where we see what's happening in-game from an outside perspective. The
animators, and the director, obviously know their gaming history and
put their knowledge to good use.
And then there's the
soundtrack, which blends video game sound effects from across the ages
and old 8-bit style compositions with modern composition techniques to
wondrous effect. It's hard to pull one's self away from the visual
stimulation of the images on screen, and even more difficult to remove
one's self from the story to notice, but at times I found myself smiling
only to realize that it was the score that was triggering it.
I'm more impressed with Wreck-It Ralph in hindsight than I was after first viewing. Not to say that I disliked it, far from it, but I wasn't as enamored with it as early reviews seemed to imply I should be. Yet, in thinking about the film, and writing about it now, I find myself flat out impressed by it. Where Pixar let us down with the tepid mommy-issues story in Brave, Wreck-It Ralph (though a Disney proper film and not a Pixar effort) truly is the heir to the Pixar throne. All that John Lasseter, Brad Bird, and Andrew Stanton built, designing wholly unique worlds amidst our own and populating them with characters worth investing in and seeding their movies with the broadest range of emotions and excitement, from empathy and humour to suspense and even mild horror, Wreck-It Ralph truly carries that torch.
Speaking of Brave (and to a lesser extent, Hotel Transylvania) and the whole "parental issues" subgenre of kid-flicks, How To Train Your Dragon is ostensibly of this ilk, and yet transcends it in ways Brave just couldn't see fit to do, by actually giving the main character a journey that wasn't so much about their parents but about them.
In HTTYD, Hiccup is the scrawny, wimpy son of the leader of a Viking clan, and though he's been given the role of apprentice to the weapons smith, he's aware how big of a disappointment he is. The town they live in is occasionally attacked by dragons, and the culture takes great pride in the hunting and killing of dragons, as well as dying by them too. During one such attack Hiccup manages to injure a fabled Night Fury in flight, and the next day, upon coming face-to-face with the wounded creature, finds that the killing spirit is not within him.
Naturally the two bond, as Hiccup studies the Night Fury, "Toothless", and learns more about their nature than any viking past. Simultaneously, Hiccup is forced to participate in dragon-fighting training, but using his newfound knowledge of dragon whispering, Hiccup soon bests every captive dragon his trainer has, without ever having to use a weapon or harm the creature. By the time his father returns from a hunting party, he's a celebrity, but naturally it's completely misunderstood.
The film develops the characters and their relationships nicely, including the kids, who are quite apparently born and raised amongst a warrior community. The dragons equally have a mix of different races, each with their own nuances, and individual dragons with their own personalities. There's a lot of emotion (a surprising amount for warriors, I would assume) throughout, all of it well earned. Hiccup's path to hero, not just amidst his people, but amongst the dragons as well, is a wonderful tale with plenty of depth, humor and heart, as a well as a surprising amount of intensity and a respectable amount (for a kids picture) of the viking brutality in tact.
(Side note: I did find it odd that this Norse-god loving clan spoke with Scottish accents, save for the kids who spoke with conventionally North America accents, and yet, it kind of worked for the film.)
Of all of these, my 3-year-old is most enthused with The Nightmare Before Christmas. She was about as enthused with Hotel Transylvania as I was, and while she liked Wreck-It Ralph, I'm not sure that it resonated with her like Iron Giant or Monsters, Inc. has. I don't even think she stayed and watched all of Frankenweenie, while How To Train Your Dragon, she watched somewhat passively (though she mirrored my wife's comments that Toothless looks and acts very much like our black cat).
The 10-year-old, well, he's harder to read. He tends to avoid Nightmare when it's on, and I think he really enjoyed Hotel Transylvania in that it seemed targeted specifically to his age group. He seemed to assume that because Frankenweenie looked old (ie. 1950's old) that it was old (which it is) and seemed to dismiss it, only somewhat retaining interest because he knows there's a cartoon of it out there. Wreck-It Ralph, well, he stayed through to the end credits, so I imagine he liked it, but he's not always the most forthcoming with his response to seeing a movie (I think the biggest responses I have seen out of him were the aforementioned Fantastic Mr. Fox and an arms-up-high, "AWESOME!" for John Carter). He saw How To Train Your Dragon in theatres two years ago, and seemed to enjoy it, but he poo-pooed reading the novel series when suggested to him, so I guess he wasn't that enamored with it.
