No part of the dragon Wow. I was very impressed when I left the theater. I expected to see all sorts of things, but so that Walt Disney could compete in sanity with Russian cinema? I didn't expect that. Really impressive, to the point of disgust.
From the go, you can understand that this film was made by Disney on his knee without difficulty, imagination and idea for the sake of trying to collect money from him for the harchi, which will be laid out by desperate parents after unsuccessful attempts to pacify a child beating in hysteria, splashing liquids, climbing the ceiling, twisting his head 360 degrees and other ways to achieve his.
Nice move, yeah. To lure such a great mythical creature to the film - a dragon.
More specifically, in parts.
Dragon Since most of the screen time is dragon, most of the dialogue contains the word dragon, and even in the title of the film appears dragon, I think we should start with it. If you push for a very long time in the hope of comprehending what this creature is, then with a great stretch it can be called a chimera. This is a cross between a dog, a monkey, a tiger, a lizard and a bull. The dragon is covered with hair, head-brick - a mixture of all the heads from the list, with human eyes, has 4 legs, can become invisible ala chameleon, screams like a bull. And it is crowned by a pair of wings, which gives him the right to be called a dragon. The dragon was not given a voice and speech, so everything ' communication ' comes down to sounds similar to those made by Chewbacca, only if Chewbacca was mentally retarded. The main behavior is in favor of the dog. But I would say it's the behavior of a creature that fell a tree on its head as a child, and I think a dog would be very proud of its evolutionary development when it saw it. The arsenal of the creature is the snot that he spews out of his nose after smelling something, because it is so hilarious. The consistency of the dragon, apparently, is made of cotton candy, because all its movements, especially jumps, are not subject to any laws of gravity, which is most likely a joint of animation, not an idea.
Why invent a wheel when it is obvious that it will not work better? I understand that the film was made for children and the dragon was not supposed to be scary, but you can make a cute and quite classic kind of dragon, you do not need to go far for an example: there is a wonderful cartoon & #39; How to tame a dragon'
Actors The protagonist, of course, is a dragon, judging by the number of times he is in the frame, but this is not a person, so I omit him.
Oaks Figley played Pete and the whole film expresses absolutely nothing. The only thing he's good at is focusing on nowhere, which is what he's doing in the whole movie.
Una Lawrence - played by Natalie. Expresses emotions with his facial expressions, which makes it impossible to believe that this is a character in the film. This, of course, introduces an element of surprise like 'Ha, guess what an inappropriate emotion I will make this time!' but it would be better if Natalie played Oaks Figley.
Robert Redford - he, in fact, drags the whole picture on himself, played brilliantly, his character was the only one who set the film at least some entourage, turning everyday into a fairy tale, he was the only one whose role you could believe. But the film is not about him, but about the dragon, so we will watch the dragon.
The other actors, namely:
Wes Bentley,
Carl Urban and
Bryce Dallas Howard played with the view 'There was a hack, so I filmed ' They do not represent anything special in this picture, and there is little time for them to somehow reveal their characters.
Plot This is the first film in my life that doesn’t have a story. The absolute minimum of dialogue and the maximum of movement: Pete and the dragon run, Pete and the dragon jump, Pete and the dragon read a book, we are shown views of nature, occasionally the action is transferred to people, creating an attempt to give birth to a plot, even less primitive dialogues arise. What's happening is not clear at all. Is it happening?
In theory, a picture about the friendship of a man and a dragon, associated with survival in the wild ' ala Mowgli' Pete falls into the company of the dragon, but how he and the dragon managed to survive is a mystery that plagues me all day long. In all respects, the dragon deserves the character of a mentally retarded, not adapted to surviving alone, my attempts to understand any of his motives and actions ended in failure. Dragons in most works are intelligent and wise creatures, here the dragon resembles a stupid dog who attached himself to the child not as a guardian, but as a child.
Why does he live in the woods, is it so comfortable among the trees? What does he eat? Blackberries? Wood? Rainbow? How could this creature raise a baby if it behaves like a forced pet? Did he raise him somehow? What did he feed him? Why was it necessary to live with a child when you could give it to people? The bond of friendship was not really shown: here he picked it up, in the next frame they are already bosom friends. How do you believe that?
If in the book of the jungle, the animals did not moan, but talked, and they had a whole philosophy that could teach a child something (and this is very important - to give the child development, as we all know), then in this picture we see just a carcass with fur, communicating with a moo. Why put any meaning in the film? Why write dialogue, try to squeeze morality, when you can just create a furry mooing dragon?
Speaking of speech. Pete, by all indications, adopted a special mentality of his pet, because quite accidentally when talking with a person can either howl wildly, growl, kick and respond to speech with nods, showing that he does not particularly perceive speech, or quite adequately and understandingly communicate with words.
Where are the heartbreaking deep stories like Cinderella, the Lion King, the Sword in Stone?
Idea The idea, by and large, is all about friendship. But there's a couple of buts.
1) how can one promote the idea of friendship without really showing that friendship?
2) according to the film, the hero faces the dilemma of whether to go to live with strangers or stay with the dragon to live in the forest?
So what does this movie teach you? Do you have to live in the forest for the sake of friendship?
If I had a child, I wouldn’t be surprised by his desire to run away to live in the woods after watching this movie.
Yes, I, in fact, after watching and I want to run away to live in the woods and lose my memory, to forever forget that I went to this abomination.
2 out of 10
Original