Pete's Dragon

It’s no great revelation that Disney, while continuing development and production on original content like the upcoming Frozen and Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, is releasing numerous remakes of its classic titles, including Jon Favreau’s The Jungle Book that came out earlier this year, Bill Condon’s Beauty and the Beast starring Emma Watson as Belle, due for release in 2017, and the subject of this review: David Lowery’s Pete’s Dragon, based on Don Chaffey’s 1977 Disney musical of the same name where a cartoon dragon (with the ability to turn invisible) interacts in a live action world. While the original film had some decent special effects for its time, its logic and storytelling was nonsensical and has not aged well, and its soundtrack, with the exception of the Academy Award nominated “Candle on the Water” performed by Helen Reddy, was forgettable and repetitive. Put simply, the bar has been set quite low for the adaptation.

There are a number of major changes made to the remake. The location is moved from a turn-of-the-century port town in Maine to a more modern-contemporary forested area and its town therein. None of the characters save for Pete and Elliot the Dragon retain their names from the original. Pete is adapted from a runaway orphan slave to a feral child raised by a dragon; in fact this film is one of at least three released in 2016 involving feral children, the other two being the aforementioned Jon Favreau’s The Jungle Book and David Yates’ The Legend of Tarzan. Elliot the Dragon is updated from a goofy cartoon character into a generally playful but occasionally fearsome animal. The design of Elliot is good – the film tries to update not only the method of animation but also gives the character a relatively unique design while having some features recognisable to the original with a similar personality. The CGI version is more anatomically correct than the tiny-winged overweight dragon (who can still fly for some reason) and looks more like a classical western dragon but with a mammalian appearance.

The film is about a young boy named Pete (Oakes Fegley), raised by his friend, a dragon whom he has named Elliot (John Kassir), as he is discovered and taken to civilisation by forest ranger Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard); Elliot tries to find Pete while Grace’s unofficial brother-in-law Gavin (Karl Urban), a logger, cuts further into the forest, eventually happens upon the dragon and plots to capture him. Also starring is Robert Redford as Mr. Meacham, the non-alcoholic equivalent of Mickey Rooney as the tipsy lighthouse keeper Lampie, Wes Bentley and Oona Laurence as Jack and Natalie, Grace’s boyfriend and daughter. Fegley bears somewhat of a resemblance to Sean Marshall’s depiction. He does a seamless performance of this version of Pete, outwardly simple, childlike, and showing Pete’s adjustment to his reconnecting with the human world. There’s a moment where an 11-year-old Pete thinks that he is 5, having not counted his birthdays for six years in the forest, and Fegley’s expression of confusion is subtle and effective. Kassir’s voice acting as the animalistic Elliot works well too – thankfully there’s no silly clicking and dragon gibberish like the cartoon Elliot did. However, the performances from the rest of the cast are…unremarkable. Whether because of the performances, the characters portrayed, or the tone of the film, the overall acting seems rather bland.

The plot is basically that of a tired environmental movie. Howard plays the gentle but rebellious type trying to save the forest while Urban plays the arrogant logger trying to make a profit. There are a number of clichés in its plot points and mannerisms; for example, when Elliot looks out to the sky, indicating that he misses his family, when Elliot looks sad and slinks back into his forest because he saw Pete with Grace and her family, and when Grace is reunited with Pete she puts her hands on either side of his face. Even Elliot’s story arc up to the midway point is basically the plot of Andrew Stanton’s Finding Nemo (2003). They’re plot points and gimmicks that audiences have seen several times before, and so audiences will catch onto them and lose interest.

To the pessimistic mind this film undermines Pete’s story arc. While the moment where a 5-year-old orphan Pete (Levi Alexander) meets Elliot is an undoubtedly touching scene, the film underplays the emotional consequences of Pete losing his parents immediately before, having only the sound of his crying off-screen. True, for a children’s movie it would be a hefty ordeal, but the crying as it is only lasts for a few seconds before Pete moves on, and there aren’t any tears running down his cheeks to illustrate the emotional state he’d be in. Also, Pete gets along with people a lot better than he realistically would, considering his separation from human contact for the latter half of his life. These may be the words of one lacking a suspension of disbelief; however, this review puts to its audience that the tone of this film doesn’t necessarily have to be compromised in any capacity in order for it to more closely represent the emotional conflicts that would arise from these situations. Pete can be more resistant to other characters and find difficulty in adjusting to a human environment. The emotional aspects of Pete’s story play it too neat and tidy.

And then there are the small parts of the story that can be somewhat bothering. For example, why doesn’t Pete consider Elliot a person after being raised by him for the last six years? He may be a dragon, but he does have a level of sentience, an understanding of verbal language, and is practically Pete’s adoptive father who provides for him. What are the rules of Elliot’s invisibility? Is it full invisibility, partial invisibility, or is it camouflage? There’s also what seems to be a dark turn once Elliot breathes fire and nearly kills some people. It’s an awesome sight to see the dragon have that kind of power after ever so much screentime, and the anger with which he unleashes it is understandable given the animalistic nature of this version, but it also seems out of character given how he is depicted throughout the film. Yes, he threatens Gavin at one point but never with the intent of harming him, just scaring him away.

In conclusion, the 2016 remake of Pete’s Dragon is bland. It doesn’t hit its audience hard enough like a timeless Disney movie would, it’s full of clichéd plot points and visual gestures, and while the music contributes to the kind of tone this film seems to be going for, it is generic. That said it does seem like a nicely designed picture, visually speaking, apart from some darker scenes that can be a little hard to see. Oakes Fegley as Pete and the character design of Elliot are enjoyable and there wasn't nearly enough of the two together. Finally, the film needs more depth if it were to have a unique identity and leave an impact with audiences. Sadly though, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume the remake will soon follow its predecessor into obscurity.