I was under the impression that in the first one, the reason Hiccup loses his leg is because Toothless had to catch him with his mouth and therefore kinda well bit his lower leg off in the process of saving him. This is hinted at in a shot as Toothless is lunging down ward with hiccups legs upward as he falls. Thus unifying the fact that each others disfigurements are the result of each other.
Escape to the Movies: How to Train Your Dragon 2 - Dragon Training Pays Off
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
He actually already went over this in a big picture months ago. Today we are under the impression that that is what critique of a movie or game is. However way back when they really used to just be discussions of the arts and the art itself would be "reviewed" in different styles by different people and were not made to tell you if they were good or not.katsabas said:
Oh, it's that franchise! I remember now! I had it filed under "Cripplebuddies" in my memory bay, for some reason.
I thought it was a memory of some sort of fever-dream, honestly. It certainly had some interesting beats, but it felt like a spontaneous Shrek-growth of some description. Damn good Shrek-growth as it was.
It's rather interesting that they gave the sequel a bit more work than films like this tend to get. They evidently gave a toss, and that is always a good sign. It's nice to see it grow into something... More.
I thought it was a memory of some sort of fever-dream, honestly. It certainly had some interesting beats, but it felt like a spontaneous Shrek-growth of some description. Damn good Shrek-growth as it was.
It's rather interesting that they gave the sequel a bit more work than films like this tend to get. They evidently gave a toss, and that is always a good sign. It's nice to see it grow into something... More.
OK, already I'm seeing something wrong with Hiccup's mom. Namely, she doesn't look like how the first movie clearly implied she did -- basically a huge Brunhilde type. Remember when Stoick said that their helmets were made from her breastplate? I don't know if they designed her this way because the execs demanded she be conventionally attractive or because they were afraid of parents getting angry over a cartoon character with a large chestal region (even if the rest of her is proportioned accordingly), but either way there are unfortunate implications at play.
Furthermore, he apparently forgets that his entire profession exists for this very reason. It's like if Sears sent someone out to my house to fix my refrigerator, and instead he just popped his head in the door and said "It's not my job to fix your refrigerator. You should learn how to do it yourself." And then proceeded to get paid for the job anyway. Sure, I didn't have to pay him either way because it was under warranty, but I'm still out a working refrigerator and the time I spent waiting for him to show up.
Exactly. Methinks that Bob has forgotten that some of us don't get to just walk into any movie that looks interesting, flash a press badge at the ticket booth guy, and get to claim the next two hours as part of our job. Bob, you need to check your privilege!Seldon2639 said:
Furthermore, he apparently forgets that his entire profession exists for this very reason. It's like if Sears sent someone out to my house to fix my refrigerator, and instead he just popped his head in the door and said "It's not my job to fix your refrigerator. You should learn how to do it yourself." And then proceeded to get paid for the job anyway. Sure, I didn't have to pay him either way because it was under warranty, but I'm still out a working refrigerator and the time I spent waiting for him to show up.
"Parents take their kids to animated movies to shut them up"
Someone's not a parent..... definitely not a parent.
A) We don't.
B) It will have the opposite effect.
Someone's not a parent..... definitely not a parent.
A) We don't.
B) It will have the opposite effect.
Ai will watch this: It shows inclusion of cripples into society so it desurfs moviegoers' money.
But Bob's review was better. Not only did it not seem very spoilerish to me, it not only made me want to see this movie, it made me want to see the first one too. Yours, i'm afraid, did fuck of all of either, and was dry and bland as hell. It gave me no information at all about the film in itself, and if someone new absolutely nothing about the film before hand, your review would mean little to nothing to them. Bob's on the other hand, did ample. Bob is not only a reviewer of the technical merits of a production, but an entertainer.Grenge Di Origin said:
So i'm sorry, but , you really shouldn't take a high ground and tell other people to perform their jobs, or write their entertainment.
OH MY GOD, THANK YOU! This was the thing that got me really worried about the movie after the first trailer. It might just be my bet peeve, but I really liked the adult vikings' character designs in the first movie. They were all big, burly, and rough, like bunch of boulders and it conveyed very well just what kind of people they had to be in order to survive in those harsh enviroments. And this was true for the few female vikings as well (not counting the kids of course).Steve the Pocket said:
Personally I call BULL that Stoick would marry anyone who didn't look like they could smash a few heads with their bare hands. I would've really liked it if hiccup's mom would've been this big, intimitating, strong looking woman who's relationship with Stoick was based on being just as strong and hard willed as him and the respect between the two of them.
Okay, I'm just rambling here, but from what I can tell, her character design just looks really out of place...
Huh, by sheer chance I'd ended up not watching any trailers for it, so I ended up accidentally not being spoiled. Certainly better than accidentally being spoiled, I'll tell you that much!
Like food, movies are a bit of a risky investment, one which you won't know if you've done well until you've consumed the goods. A fine, expensive restaurant may get rave reviews from critics, but if you don't like what they serve then you aren't going to be satisfied at all. Donnie Darko got great reviews, but if you don't like that kind of story then you probably won't like it.Seldon2639 said:
I understand you don't want to waste your money, I do the same. However there aren't any reviews that are going to truly tell you if you'll like something or not. So sometimes I'll go see a movie in the theater just because I want to see it right then, or because I want the spectacle of seeing it on a big screen. However, if I don't end up loving it or even liking it, I don't consider myself deceived. I just consider it an experiment that didn't turn out in my favor, like ordering a new dish at a restaurant and not liking it. By their very nature, movies aren't subject to the "try before you buy" mentality consumer goods have become so open to in recent years.
Anyway, I just saw it and I really loved it. I was also a bit disappointed going in that they gave away that one thing in the trailer, but as Bob pointed out that reveal isn't really the lynchpin of the film. There was another moment in the film that really surprised me, spoiler'd for obvious reasons.
The way Stoak died. I was glad they had the guts to go there, and I was overjoyed they didn't give him a "dying words" moment. He was just hit by the fireball, and bam. Dead. No quiet, gasping, sentimental last words about how much he knows Hiccup will make a great chieftain. He was just there, and then he was gone. They let his final act say everything that needed to be said, and I think that was more powerful than any dialog they could have written to put there in that moment. Most people don't get to hear dying words from their loved ones when they lose them, so I feel like that kind of death resonates a lot stronger than the long, drawn-out ordeals some movies turn deaths like that into.
And I'm also really glad they didn't draw out the "Hiccup is mad at Toothless for killing his dad" thing. They let him have that one moment of helpless frustration, then got his head back in the game. They let his mom resolve that quickly with that line "It wasn't his fault, you know." And then that allowed them to move on to the much more interesting and less predictable story going on.
And I'm also really glad they didn't draw out the "Hiccup is mad at Toothless for killing his dad" thing. They let him have that one moment of helpless frustration, then got his head back in the game. They let his mom resolve that quickly with that line "It wasn't his fault, you know." And then that allowed them to move on to the much more interesting and less predictable story going on.
Shrek was a breath of fresh air when it was released, but then it spawned a franchise that Dreamworks drove into the ground before they finally let it go. And, it isn't quite as timeless as other animated films, since it's got a bunch of pop culture references and pop songs that really make it a product of its time.Evil Smurf said:
Which isn't bad, I also enjoyed it when it came out. Not every movie HAS to be timeless. But I saw it again a few months ago and it really struck me hard how dated it felt.
Don't be fooled Bob! its still Michael "ruin a franchise" Bay directing! don't get bewitched by the flashy lights!
as for the movie actually reviewed in the video, I have yet to see the first but not for lack of interest. The movies do look decent enough, and i am a kid at heart so i'm sure i will like them when i eventually get around to it.
as for the movie actually reviewed in the video, I have yet to see the first but not for lack of interest. The movies do look decent enough, and i am a kid at heart so i'm sure i will like them when i eventually get around to it.
If I had one complaint about the movie it's that I wanted Hiccup and Astrid needed more screen time together. It's very rare you get to see the chemistry of a long term relationship on screen. Still really enjoyed the movie, it's a welcome followup to the first.
First post here, thanks for all the reviews Bob.
**SPOILERS**
Its interesting that this movie is being so well received. I felt it was a lot weaker than the first movie, story and character-wise. I had a lot of little nit-picks, but my main problems were:
Toothless was a much more dynamic character in the first. In this movie he is simply generic unfailingly loyal super-pet. This goes for most of the supporting characters -- they don't DO anything or develop at all.
Hiccup's mom was poorly motivated. Her reasons for staying away were flimsy. This could have been interesting if the story stayed consistent with her being a female character that rejects the mother/wife role. Unfortunately, the story has her reembrace being a mom/wife, and again, her motivations are flimsy. I thought for sure that her deep knowledge about dragons was going to be pivotal, but it wasn't.
In his review, Bob said he didn't know where the movie was heading, but I felt like the movie wasn't heading anywhere.
**SPOILERS**
Its interesting that this movie is being so well received. I felt it was a lot weaker than the first movie, story and character-wise. I had a lot of little nit-picks, but my main problems were:
Toothless was a much more dynamic character in the first. In this movie he is simply generic unfailingly loyal super-pet. This goes for most of the supporting characters -- they don't DO anything or develop at all.
Hiccup's mom was poorly motivated. Her reasons for staying away were flimsy. This could have been interesting if the story stayed consistent with her being a female character that rejects the mother/wife role. Unfortunately, the story has her reembrace being a mom/wife, and again, her motivations are flimsy. I thought for sure that her deep knowledge about dragons was going to be pivotal, but it wasn't.
In his review, Bob said he didn't know where the movie was heading, but I felt like the movie wasn't heading anywhere.
Saw it, liked it, but not as much as the first. The first one's story was amazing; strong yet simple at it's core, allowing tons of room for character relations and development. The focus was on the father/son relationship and Hiccup's growth and self-acceptance as something other than the traditional role his father and village wanted to impose on him. To make room for the above, the antagonist only showed up two thirds (?) of the way through and needed no backstory or motivation, it was on par with a tsunami or other natural disasters to catalyze the character stories and dynamics.
By contrast, 2's story throws in not only a bad guy with backstory and motivations - all too shallow as it were - it also throws in a character I really wanted to love but find, in the end, pretty useless.
Why put in Hiccup's mom? I didnt' see the trailers or reviews, so she came out of left field for me. Maybe that's part of why I don't like her role in this. I should, though; older female ass-kicking character who struck out on her own on the strengths of her beliefs etc etc...Her scenes were amazing, the writers did a great cliché-free job of reuniting the family...but she just didn't FIT IN THE MOVIE! (IMO)
What part did she play that could not easily be excised? Dragon advocate? Hiccup's role. Showing Stoic's softer, younger side? Very interesting and well done, but could have been done via flashback with Stoic reflecting on Hiccup and Astrid's relationship. Exposition fairy? Yeah, I guess, but I prefer Fishleg's version from the first movie. Other than that and getting her butt saved by Stoic (seriously? We're doing that? Couldn't be the other way around?) what did she contribute to the movie? And in exchange for her, Astrid's role was criminally undercut. What good did SHE do in the movie after the first fifteen minutes, other than blunder into danger to shove the plot forward???
More than that, I did not like this idea that Hiccup's novel ideas on peace and dragon kinship were somehow inherited. It's a bit like some predestiny gimmick, and removes some of his accomplishments in the first movie. He wasn't completely breaking the mold and rewriting the book on dealing with dragons on his own, he was just retreading his parent's footsteps, even if he didn't know it. That...left a bit of a bad taste for me.
Every scene, character (other than the bad guy) and minute of animation of this movie were amazing, but they did not gel and balance anywhere near as well as the first, and Astrid's diminished role was a disappointement. If I'd had my druthers, I'd have excised mom, leaving Hiccup, Astrid and Stoic to carry the main poles of the story.
This opinion is purely personal and seems to be in the minority, and may have come about because fifteen minutes in, I thought the conclusion was that Hiccup was legitimately not meant to be a leader, nepotism not being the best societal model all said, and so he continues to be an explorer and dragon-wrangler while Astrid becomes the new chief. Hell, I thought this was how she was being set up in the FIRST movie. And mom would have remained a statuesque Valkyrie figure from Stoic's past like I envisioned her from her breast-plate/helmets. I'd have liked that movie. A lot.
Oh well, I'll see it again when it comes out on DVD and see if my opinion changes.
By contrast, 2's story throws in not only a bad guy with backstory and motivations - all too shallow as it were - it also throws in a character I really wanted to love but find, in the end, pretty useless.
Why put in Hiccup's mom? I didnt' see the trailers or reviews, so she came out of left field for me. Maybe that's part of why I don't like her role in this. I should, though; older female ass-kicking character who struck out on her own on the strengths of her beliefs etc etc...Her scenes were amazing, the writers did a great cliché-free job of reuniting the family...but she just didn't FIT IN THE MOVIE! (IMO)
What part did she play that could not easily be excised? Dragon advocate? Hiccup's role. Showing Stoic's softer, younger side? Very interesting and well done, but could have been done via flashback with Stoic reflecting on Hiccup and Astrid's relationship. Exposition fairy? Yeah, I guess, but I prefer Fishleg's version from the first movie. Other than that and getting her butt saved by Stoic (seriously? We're doing that? Couldn't be the other way around?) what did she contribute to the movie? And in exchange for her, Astrid's role was criminally undercut. What good did SHE do in the movie after the first fifteen minutes, other than blunder into danger to shove the plot forward???
More than that, I did not like this idea that Hiccup's novel ideas on peace and dragon kinship were somehow inherited. It's a bit like some predestiny gimmick, and removes some of his accomplishments in the first movie. He wasn't completely breaking the mold and rewriting the book on dealing with dragons on his own, he was just retreading his parent's footsteps, even if he didn't know it. That...left a bit of a bad taste for me.
Every scene, character (other than the bad guy) and minute of animation of this movie were amazing, but they did not gel and balance anywhere near as well as the first, and Astrid's diminished role was a disappointement. If I'd had my druthers, I'd have excised mom, leaving Hiccup, Astrid and Stoic to carry the main poles of the story.
This opinion is purely personal and seems to be in the minority, and may have come about because fifteen minutes in, I thought the conclusion was that Hiccup was legitimately not meant to be a leader, nepotism not being the best societal model all said, and so he continues to be an explorer and dragon-wrangler while Astrid becomes the new chief. Hell, I thought this was how she was being set up in the FIRST movie. And mom would have remained a statuesque Valkyrie figure from Stoic's past like I envisioned her from her breast-plate/helmets. I'd have liked that movie. A lot.
Oh well, I'll see it again when it comes out on DVD and see if my opinion changes.
He did give you the "quick review" by telling you to go see it. He likes it, he thinks it is worth seeing, that is good enough for someone like me who likes to avoid as much hype and as many spoilers as possible.Ronack said:
If you want more just watch the review. It shouldn't take away from your enjoyment of the film, unless you are like me and like to go in as blind as possible, in which case we are back to "just go and watch it".
That is what I meant. Literally the review boiled down to a recommendation for or against. Anything else and you might as well be watching the review.Ronack said:
EDIT: This is certainly not the first time Bob has done this, and it is one of the things I really like about his reviews. I have seen enough of his reviews to know, at least broadly, in which ways are tastes are similar and in which ways they are divergent. So when he gives a recommendation for a film I was already positive on then I know I am going to go see it and I will watch the review afterwards.
If you want a review you should watch the review.