Should I see it?
Sure, but be warned, it is social marketing.
Scrawny Hiccup is a twig-armed Viking boy who is ill equipped to join his father and the other men in his Viking village in their fight against local dragons. Hiccup then befriends a lone dragon and he learns to subdue the scaly beasts and eventually brings the two groups together.
This production is a good example of how a film can make it a long way on charm. The lighthearted nature of this movie is really all that it has going for it. The animation is competent, but not ground breaking. The script is predictable. The movie itself isn't that clever. What it is, however, is upbeat and friendly. You're getting ninety minutes of fluff, but it is sweetened fluff.
There are some questionable undertones to what is happening on screen. The dragons attack the village, burning many buildings to the ground and terrorizing the citizens. They even bring down a very large structure. As the story progresses, Hiccup learns that the dragons are attacking not because they're monsters or evil - but because the Vikings were trying to kill them. You see, it is the Vikings fault, the dragons are misunderstood, chummy pals that were the real victims. Hiccup's father, who fights to spare his village from the destructive attacks of the dragons is actually seen as the villain for much of the film. This is straight up social marketing, it isn't even concealed.
The treatment of women in the film is also notable. The only female characters of note are hardly female at all. Two Viking girls Astrid and Ruffnut do not play as girls at all, but rather thin boys; having been divorced of a feminine qualities. Girls are to act like boys used to act - the boys are best when they are emotive and weak. Obviously, these are supposed to be Viking girls, and yes there are tom-boys in this world, so the masculine girls does make some narrative sense. But, when taken in a broader cultural context, this is yet another example of the man-girl phenomena - she's not a real woman until she acts like a man.
As I mentioned, the movie is very predictable and simplistic. It is not an outstanding flick. Children will enjoy it however. Probably, your kids will like the dragons, they are very reminiscent of cats and there are enough action sequences to keep their attention. I will warn that there is some social marketing going on, so you may want to keep that in mind before renting.
Related Reviews:
Animated movies
Aladdin (1992)
Monster House (2006)
Other Critic's Reviews:
Hollywood Jesus
Jesus Freak Hideout
Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens
As the story progresses, Hiccup learns that the dragons are attacking not because they're monsters or evil - but because the Vikings were trying to them.
ReplyDeleteSmall point, perhaps. It's not all that obvious, but if you pay close attention to the plot, it's the giant dragon that is forcing the small dragons to hunt for it and act as minions. If they don't return with food, they themselves are eaten. The Viking village is just another source of food and should have every right to defend themselves. You'd have to be a fool - or a young child- not to agree with that.
The social marketing comes from the moral relativism of Hiccup's comment, basically equating the dragons attacking with deadly force with using deadly force defending against the dragons which are killing the villagers and stealing their food.
While I dislike that kind of message, one wonders if this is more story driven than pure propaganda. IOWs, how else would you bring the conflict between Hiccup and his father to a high level to set up the climax?
"one wonders if this is more story driven than pure propaganda. IOWs, how else would you bring the conflict between Hiccup and his father to a high level to set up the climax?"
ReplyDeleteThere would be a number of ways. It could be the father who is being lured into befriending evil (think Nevile Chamberlain).
The dragon could be more at odds with its cohorts and it is a defector.
The plot could have simply been straight-up good dragon vs bad dragon w/ humans in the middle
The plot wasn't written in stone and could have gone any direction. The trajectory of the plot was selected for a reason. It's resolution was intentional.
BTW, I bought your book from Amazon. About 1/3 of the way through. The only thing I don't agree with so far is your opinion of "Bedazzled". As far as I'm concerned, when you're in the middle of the secularist's media hive, a movie that has God as a friend and the devil as the deceiver should be cut a theological break.
ReplyDeleteThe rest? A-ok.
If you rewatch the ending of Bedazzled you will find the God character, or angel character if you like, tells the hero that we're all one part of everything and continues on with more clearly anti-scriptural nonsense. The very last shot of the film, the hero walks into a park where everyone else is moving at lightening speed - expect a couple on the right and a Tibetan monk sitting on a park bench.
ReplyDeleteIf you listen to the commentary track, Harold Ramis admits that the ending was difficult for him and he decided to follow his theology, which he describes as "Buddhish"
Acknowledging good and evil is not enough (even Satan does that). In particular when the devil is not treated as being all that bad.
I hope you enjoy the rest of the book! Thanks for reading it
I believe that since I can regurgitate the above response off the top of my head, I deserve some Film Geek of the Month award or something. HOW OBSCURE CAN I GET?
ReplyDelete