Four years in the making and this sequel does what few ever manage; soaring as high as its predecessor!
Life on the island of Berk has improved since Hiccup proved to the viking people that the native dragons could be friends, even pets. We see Hiccup's impression on the village with everyone using gadgets and inventions, however our hero is not feeling confident with his father's plan to make him the new chieftain. But when a notorious dragon training tyrant called Drago has plans to take their pet dragons for his army, Hiccup feels he can resolve the problem without violence.
I felt the 2010 film didn't require a sequel; it functioned as a single feature and even the series of books it is based upon does not give it a sequel, but... this new film is great!
Our characters have grown up, but they maintain their snappy dialogue and relations and possibly the best part: they aren't angst-ridden teenagers! Hiccup may have identity issues, but the film does not linger on this, it doesn't even try the old cliche of putting deliberate wrenches in his relationship with Astrid (this is very tastefully handled in general!) Toothless too has retained his cute charm and gains plenty of knowing looks towards Hiccup's more harebrained ideas. I love where they take his own personal story. Hiccup's father, Stoick the Vast, remains one of my favourites, in fact a lot of the film is focused on his past which I really appreciated; it fit what we did and did not know from the first film.
I was going to argue that Drago (Djimon Hounsou) the exotic villain of the piece, is the weakest element, but upon further reflection he does provide a tremendous amount of weight to our lead characters, and even acts as a mirror to Hiccup's own ethics (being a dragon trainer himself) and I believe his character will improve over further viewings.
The graphics are gorgeous. Over the four years between films the characters and locations have been virtually made high definition, most obvious being Astrid's hair! The 3D too was very good, much like the first film.
I'm talking a lot about the characters, but that is because I love good characters more than the stories themselves, and these two films have had a consistently great cast!
My only gripe does not affect the film itself. While the plot's narrative felt far more predictable this time around, I hate this film's trailer. The trailer gave way too much away! Trailers need to stop doing this because there are reveals in this film that should be both intense and surprising, but if you've seen the trailer entire scenes become needlessly ambiguous. This review is not giving away any of this and I implore you: if you haven't seen the trailer yet... don't! Just believe me and go and see the film (and the first one if you haven't already!)
HTTYD2 does what sequels rarely do these days; it takes everything that made the original good and didn't mess with it. It doesn't over-complicate its already splendid characters with cliched yo-yo plotlines, it doesn't throw in grandiose concepts that break the narrative's simplicity, it merely gives us what we want: more! Expanding the world, explaining the lore just enough to keep things light and fun but also challenge us with intensity and daring.
I think I have a new Film of the Year.
Additional Marshmallows: All the way through this film I was listening to one particular character's voice... for ages I was like: "Is... is that...? Is that really Jon Snow's actor in this film??" Yep. Game of Thrones' star Kit Harington features as a newcomer and he is pretty funny too!
2010 was a tough, tough year to rate films; so many excellent films, it remains the most memorable year for me. Inception won out, but even with Tron Legacy and Toy Story 3, How to Train your Dragon came a very, very tight second behind Christopher Nolan's mind-warping thriller. Even now... I question that choice: in my top 50 films of all, this film comes a solid 18th (one place higher than Inception).
I adore this movie.
In a fantastical land, warrior vikings battle dragons on a daily basis, but one viking Hiccup is not like the others; he is meek and sheltered and instead of battling he creates traps and gadgets, instantly becoming a laughing stock of his peers and a disgrace to his father. But when Hiccup wounds a mysterious new dragon and begins to form a friendship with the beast, his world is turned (sometimes literally) upside down!
I remember the early posters for this film. I remember scoffing: "Hmpf, How to Train your Dragon? Another lame animation full of crude humour from the studio that brought us Shrek? Count me out." But then the trailer appeared and wow. Then I watched it and I was floored.
For a ninety minute feature it is crammed with story and great characterization! The dialogue first and foremost is witty and snappy but never overbearing or obnoxious (something a lot of animation suffers from at least a couple of times) this comes from having genuinely wonderful characters. Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel, probably now typecast for life) is not whiny or too hopeless, using intellect and unorthadox thinking to win out, and the film's core being the developing friendship between him and his dragon Toothless, which is both very powerful and fun to watch! I don't think I can forget their first scenes together on screen!
Toothless, what can one say? Media has had a lot of great dragons in the past, Toothless is right up with the best of them! Somewhere between a dragon and a cat, his is intensely cute and fiercely loyal to Hiccup. They become like joshing best buddies.
It doesn't stop there either, the supporting cast are excellent too. Gerald Butler gives a fantastic performance as Hiccup's father, the amazingly named Stoic the Vast (the father-and-son "talk" scene is actually one of my favourites) and even potential love interest Astrid (America Ferrera) isn't anywhere near two-dimensional.
It isn't all fluffy cuteness either, the overarching story is intense; these vikings live to hunt and kill dragons, this is a war going on and at times How to Train Your Dragon does not pull any punches. There are some challenging, heart wrenching moments in the third act, and as such this film single-handed showed the world that Dreamworks Studios are capable of standing as tall (if not taller) than Disney and Pixar combined.
The music is a soaring Celtic and orchestral mix, the graphics are often eye-popping (the sky and rock effects are incredible) and the animation on Toothless is to die for, the screenplay is tight and never wasteful and the dialogue is smart and refined.
Dare I say it, nothing is wrong with this film!
Additional Marshmallows: If you haven't already, I recommend you find the How to Train Your Dragon short animations, they are great additions to the world and provide even more wonderful character dialogue!
The first entry of the Lord of the Rings' prequel trilogy based off Tolkien's children's book proves to be greatly embellished (for better and sometimes worse) but provides excellent spectacle and detailed fantasy adventure.
Oh lord, this will be a big review. First, some history. The Hobbit was the original book that Tolkien wrote for children while he was a teacher marking school papers back in the 1930s, and he offhandedly wrote the immortal opening line: "In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit". The book was short, forgiving and easy to read (by Tolkien's infamous standards!) and all together innocent. Afterwards, publishers asked him to write a follow-up story and to make it more adult driven. The Lord of the Rings was born.
I loved reading The Hobbit story as a child, so much so that I remember starting Lord of the Rings and despising Frodo initially because he wasn't Bilbo! Imagine that. I'm re-reading The Hobbit now and I can say that I remember it beat for beat, and the news of Peter Jackson's trilogy gave me a lot of room for trepidation... The Hobbit simply isn't as epic or trilogy-worthy as Rings.
The film therefore strikes on a knife edge of over embellishment and fine detailing; playing a dangerous balancing act of several audiences' expectations at once!
Set sixty years before the Rings trilogy, we see Bilbo as a sheltered, ignorant and contented Hobbit, who is set on an adventure by Gandalf the Grey. In a party of thirteen dwarves led by the mighty Thorin Oakenshield in a quest to retake their kingdom from the dragon Smaug, Bilbo must first come to terms with his destiny and the wider, exciting world beyond his home comforts.
Where to begin. The film is a marvel to watch. It is visually astounding and each frame is crammed with beautiful details and compositions that relay book illustrations; we have been here before, Jackson, his crew and WETA special effects people have never made something more fantastical and wonderfully rendered. The casting and acting are great; they are doing what comes naturally to them now, but the newcomers (especially Richard Armitage as Thorin) are bringing their A-games also.
As I re-read The Hobbit, I saw the obvious desire from Jackson to exaggerate. Tolkien himself writes huge events very casually... almost absurdly so... The Mountain Giants for example. Huge rock giants who are (in the book) casually lobbing massive rocks around while our waddling heroes pass by completely unhindered. Read it, it happens. In the film, this mere sentence is given a full action sequence! Is that wrong? No... it makes more sense in the way the film portrays it, it is danger and it is happening nearby, and makes for very creative sequences. But did it need to be in the film at all? That is a harder question to answer... and Jackson's (wayward?) desire for a trilogy may answer it for some cynics...
This example can be said about nearly all of the scenes in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, except for those that people remember fondly, and these are naturally given the most attention! From the three trolls who attempt to cook our heroes to of course The Riddles in the Dark, which is frankly amazing to see on the big screen as one of my favourite pieces of fictional writing (Gollum himself looks jaw-droppingly real here, even more than in Rings!)
But it is not all about Bilbo (much to my inner-child's slight disappointment) as the story is given direct ties to the Rings trilogy. This isn't as bad as one may theorise. Tolkien himself edited The Hobbit after publishing Rings to accommodate. The appendices of the Rings books are carefully added and suggest greater things to come in The Hobbit trilogy. This does give the otherwise simple story more subplots than traditionalists would ask for; you can say that the filmmakers wanted to make The Hobbit somehow bigger than Rings, even make it as serious as Rings, which it simply isn't! These grand sequences and serious subplots can be seen as huge deviations from what the book was about, and that perhaps there is a nicer version of the story yet unmade. But when considered fully, you can appreciate the choice. It aids consistency for cinema goers and adds lore that Tolkien readers will happily devour.
I could go on and on, but there are two more films after all!
Wow, this review has gone on hasn't it.
- Should you go and see The Hobbit in the cinema, you ask? Yes, absolutely, definitely yes.
- Is it a faithful adaptation of the original book? Yes and no, it is embellished to accommodate the massive cinematic event that was the Rings trilogy, and if you expected anything other... you may want to re-address your expectations.
- Should you see it in 3D and/or HFR? The 3D doesn't feel necessary, so you don't need to splash out to experience more. The HFR is a new experience and takes some getting used to. If you suffer from motion sickness or similar you may want to reconsider as you may feel uncomfortable... But if you are keen to see developments in film-making I would highly recommend it. It is unique to say the least, and you will have an opinion on it afterwards (see above!)
I was happy to dive back into Middle Earth once again, and I love consistency within films. Learning more about the world (through added details I've not read up on) I can safely say I want to see the next films and conclude the tale! Some may find it too ponderous, biding time before things really kick off, but I came out of this film with a smile on my face.
I should flesh-out my thoughts on Peter Jackson's HFR (Higher Frame Rate) 3D. Most films are shot in 24 frames a second, as a rule, since the human eye can only see so many still images in one second to convey motion. However here we have 48 frames per second (since in actuality the human eye can perceive more) and the effect is... curious. Initially I feared I would hate it; characters appeared to move too quickly, from the simplest nod of the head to walking appeared rapid, as if a fast-forward button had been pushed. I wouldn't handle three hours of that!
However as my eyes adjusted, it settled into regular motion, and details (especially in motion) became alarmingly precise and crystal clear. Similar to comparing Standard Definition to High Definition, only more so. The only issue I had was (curiously) during "tracking shots", when the camera moves laterally through a set or room, my eyes knew they were seeing more than usual, and would try to take it all in only to see an almost shuddering motion while doing so. This was however only during long tracking shots.
The 3D effect therefore did not hinder the film; there was no strain on my eyes or blur present, everything snapped and popped out. Maybe a little... too much. At times characters appeared as though they were in front of a flat background, like they were before a matte painting or theatre backdrop. Again, curious. I couldn't tell if this was the HFR adjustment, poor 3D use or both! I actually took my 3D glasses off at times, and I could see the 3D was only slightly used...
I can see HFR becoming the norm, or at least with 3D films; the motion is incredibly fluid and you feel immersed even further and details strike out more. I will say that The Hobbit does not use 3D nearly as well as it could have, we are not watching the same quality as Avatar (speaking of which, James Cameron should look into HFR for his future Avatar sequels) but that said, it means the 2D version will not suffer! I think I counted one 3D "gimmick" moment.
