How To Train Your Dragon

Dreamworks doesn't have a very good reputation with moviegoers right now, and I only understand part of that. I skipped Monsters Vs. Aliens, with good reason I think, but the first two Shrek movies where a romping good time and Kung Fu Panda was fun seasoned with the right amounts of comedy, sweetness, and old-fashioned ass kicking. So I wasn't as skeptical going in to How To Train Your Dragon as some people may have been, and I feel like my open-mindedness was justly rewarded.

Every part of this movie is good. Dreamworks has definitely stepped up their game in terms of animation, and Dragon is visually their best work by miles. Sweeping skies and pounding waves make up the backdrop of this Viking story, with a few idyllic forest scenes and a waterfall tucked away for emphasis. One of Dreamworks' flaws in the past has been over-filling their scenes, so that you get overwhelmed by the amount of STUFF in the frame (that isn't rendered nearly as well as, oh, Pixar) but here wide spaces are used to dramatic effect. Watching the little black dragon sweep through a backdrop of mounded clouds is breath-taking.

Speaking of that little black dragon, Toothless and his lizardy friends are the absolute show stealers here. Jay Baruchel's Hiccup doesn't compete with them for the attention they command; instead, he seems to spend most of the time presenting them for appreciation. Toothless, his sleek, black adopted friend, is somewhere between a housecat, a leopard, and a really big snake - he's intelligent, and fierce, but inclined to roll in the grass to scratch an itch, or prepare a pounce from a rocky ledge. I was fascinated by the other varieties of dragon that are also in play; a two-headed beast, a long and pointy one that sets itself on fire, a stubby fat one that resembles a junebug. They're unique, and exceptional, and they're not pretty - these dragons are not romanticized, and I appreciated that.

The Vikings are, for the most part, not nearly as interesting, but they fill their story roles well. The voice cast helps enormously with that: Baruchel is funny, self-deprecating, with perfect vocal inflection for the max amount of comedic timing possible. Gerard Butler is gruff and awkward (and doesn't hide his Scottish accent, THANK GOD) and the perfect duo with Craig Ferguson, who plays a blacksmith missing several limbs. The Vikings are funny but never clownish, which went a long way to keeping the tension in necessary places; even though, intellectually, I KNEW everything would turn out ok in the end, the film kept enough gravity that I was at the edge of my seat as it neared its climax.

Even if you don't like fantasy, even if animation isn't your thing, see this one. It's touching, poignant, silly, and will cause you to gasp in excitement. (As a side note, I did not see it in 3D and I didn't feel like I was missing anything.)

Clash of the Titans

I grew up watching the glorious, campy, jerky-effects ridden Greek mythology movies. Jason and the Argonauts, the myriad Voyages of Sinbad, and especially Clash of the Titans - Ray Harryhausen productions are an indelible part of my childhood. So when I first heard a rumor of Clash of the Titans being revamped, I was absolutely thrilled. What could be better than taking the familiar story and giving its Eighties-era aesthetic a shot of adrenaline? Converting Harry Hamlin into Sam Worthington, pitting Liam Neeson against Ralph Fiennes, and gigantic scorpions; how could it go wrong?

Damn the 3D technological movement, is what I have to say about that. Damn it and throw it out the window.

The remake, which I saw on Saturday with my parents and my boyfriend, simplifies the story from the original, sticking closer to the myth itself. What we lose is basically the Calibos storyline, which is tragic only in that we also miss out on the eternally brilliant line, "Calibos! Be merciful!" Zeus and Hades are the only gods that get screen time (although there is a fabulous call-back to Athena from the original when Worthington unearths Bubo the mechanical owl from a chest of armor). The battle with Medusa has survived basically intact, and Medusa benefits hugely from the improved effects, becoming a sleek and terrifying monster that moves through her temple with sibilant ferocity. The film is fun, exciting in moments, and as fabulously violent as I'd hoped.

Where it suffers, and it does suffer greatly, is in the cinematography. The decision to add the 3D element halfway through filming was a TERRIBLE one - Neeson as Zeus is already filmed through a soft focus lens, and adding the 3D tech makes him almost completely out of focus. It doesn't add anything and it detracts quite a bit. Especially in the shaky-cam, close-up fight scenes, which bothers me in better filmed movies; I hate not knowing who's killing who, and I lost a lot of perspective on the action scenes (which take up the majority of the film).

Clash also obnoxiously hardly ever gives us wide-angled shots. We are treated to an overabundance of close-ups, which in some cases makes sequences tense and exciting. In others, well, I just want to see the damn Kracken, ok? I get that he's huge, and terrifying - show me the breadth of his size. Let me SEE him in comparison to Argos and the cliff; that will truly show me what Perseus is up against.

I'd like to see Clash again in 2D, and see whether or not the viewing quality improves like I hope it will. Otherwise, I'm glad that I saw it, and it was definitely enjoyable, but I think I'll be sticking to Hamlin and Harryhausen.