The Movie Guru: ‘How to Train Your Dragon’ magical, while ‘The Life of Chuck’ not what you’d expect

‘How to Train Your Dragon’ (in theaters)

I’ll admit, I wasn’t looking forward to the live action “How to Train Your Dragon.”

I loved the 2010 animated original, and since every other live action adaptation has been mediocre at best, I was sure that would happen here. Yes, it was the same director, and the same writers, but I didn’t think that would make a difference. It would either be pointless or spit on the memory of a movie that meant a lot to me.

I was so, so wrong.

Director Dean DeBlois clearly loves the original just as much as I did, and you can feel that love in every frame of the remake. They made some changes — the Vikings are no longer only white, for example — but they fit seamlessly into the original story. And the story beats we love the most are almost all there, from beloved lines to musical cues.

The biggest surprise, though, is the live action. The cast doesn’t manage to be as broad shouldered as their animated counterparts, but they capture the spirit of their characters well. This is particularly impressive on the part of Mason Thames as Hiccup, who has the square-jawed attractiveness of most teen actors and yet somehow still manages to channel a level of awkwardness I would have thought could only be captured by animation.

Support Local Journalism

Donate

As for the dragons, they’re a revelation. Seeing them given the same level of visual respect as the dragons on “Game of Thrones” brings beloved scenes to a whole new level. For a moment, at least, it felt like I was watching them for the first time.

That’s real cinematic magic.

Grade: Three and a half stars

‘The Life of Chuck’ (in theaters)

“The Life of Chuck” isn’t the movie the trailers make it out to be.

The trailers make it look like a life-affirming tearjerker, but the movie itself is based on a not-that-great Stephen King short story. That means that it’s kind of life-affirming but also kind of disturbing, with questionable narrative construction and an ending that only technically pulls it all together. There’s a touch of the supernatural, and some alarmingly relevant creepiness in the beginning, but it’s more of an experience than a satisfying story.

The plot is technically three moments in the life of one man, but that description does nothing to communicate the actual experience of watching it. It’s more accurate to say that the first section is the apocalypse, the second section is a dance in the street, and the third section feels the most like a Stephen King short story. It technically all connects, but the way they do it feels a little bit like a cheat.

But there are moments. Chiwetel Ejiofer, Karen Gillan and Matthew Lillard are all unexpectedly moving in the first section, making you really care about the people they’re playing. Tom Hiddleston brings a real effervescent sense of joy to the middle section, enough that it may inspire you to get up and dance yourself.

Which is kind of life-affirming, even if it’s not in the way the movie expects.

Grade: Two and a half stars

Jenniffer Wardell is an award-winning movie critic and member of the Denver Film Critics Society. Drop her a line at themovieguruslc@gmail.com.