How to train your Dragon (Spoilers)

[Zor]

I have just gotten back from seeing this movie and it gets my full recomendation.

First of all, i am just going to get over what i felt was the shortcommings of the film. Its somewhat predictable what is going to happen (this is IMHO not too much a ditraction from enjoying the film mind you, just don't go expecting massive suprises) and there are a fair number of design choices for the Dragons which are a bit too cartoony with some of the dragons for me at least. Its more a matter of how far you take it and it actually worked for the Human Charecters. That said, this was in no way enough to deture me from liking this film alot. At most they were minor Hiccups (no pun intended).

Now lets move onto the good. The plot, while predictable is well executed, the physical comedy works and the acting is pretty damn good. The Main Dragon (Toothless) is a notable exception in being a design that i rather like, sort of like a Giant winged skink crossed with a fish and something that is in its way cute, but still something you can actually see flying. Speaking on flight, the scenes in the second act of Hiccup flying on toothless are quite beautiful and amasing to watch. The rest of the cast is pretty decent, with the father, the blacksmith and the nerdy dragon expert kid which reminds you. This film also has some pretty good story telling and world establishing, showing and explaining dragon varieties and so forth as well as showing off Hiccup and Toothless getting along together. One praticular moment involves a helmet made from some metal recylced from an unusual place, which looks like a dumb joke (and to an extent is) but quietly establishes some of the motivations behind Stoick. The climax itself is exciting and rather intense. Basically this is the best non Shrek thing that Dreamworks animation has produced.

Zor

[Vastatosaurus Rex]

I thought it was pretty good too. However, I am tired of every Dreamworks animated movie being a CGI comedy. Whatever happened to the more serious, traditionally animated movies they used to make?

[Teleros]

Thanks for that Zor - had heard a little about it, so if it's out in time for when I next see the family during Easter I'll recommend it.

Vastatosaurus: well if Dreamworks don't do it who'll be left to compete with Pixar ?

[Whiplash]

I thought it was pretty good too. However, I am tired of every Dreamworks animated movie being a CGI comedy. Whatever happened to the more serious, traditionally animated movies they used to make?

This really wasn't a comedy, it was more of a coming of age story with some slapstick thrown in. In this movie they literally did what you asked.

I thought it was a little dull and scattershot in the beginning switching between the training sessions and Hiccup's fake tail sessions with Toothless, but it picked up. The 3d flight scenes were great, the actions was great. I liked to voice acting, but with some characters like Snotlout (the cocky kid) and Fishlegs (the chubby nerdy dragon expert), the voices were great, but they really didn't seem to match the actually character design for me. The comedy didn't really do it for me overall, but there really wasn't that much of it so that'sa minor complaint. Overall, its easy appreciate Dreamworks standing out of their comfort zone, it didn't work entirely (for me it wasn't missing something, but I don't know what), but I can appreciate the movie for what it was.

[SylasGaunt]

Whatever happened to the more serious, traditionally animated movies they used to make?

Titan A.E. happened.. which is unfortunate because I really liked Titan A.E.

[SylasGaunt]

Okay contributing now since I actually saw the film. Off the top of my head..

1.) It's not the slapsticky comedy the trailers make it out to be.. which is good.

2.) I really wanted to see some more of the dragon varieties from the book because some of them sounded nifty (though the ones in there were damn nifty to).

3.) Speaking of dragon types, Night Furies are awesome as hell. Between the breath weapon and the whole 'screaming dive' thing they do, they're certainly on my list of cool dragons.

4.) Thanks to internet research the reason I was being reminded of Lilo and Stitch so much is finally explained!

Suffice to say I had a good time watching the film which had some great sequences (the flying sequences with Hiccup and Toothless in particular), and a pretty awesome climax to.

[andrewgpaul]

The voice casting was good but a bit odd; apparently at age 23 or so, all Vikings change from sounding American to sounding Scottish.

Since the title says "spoilers", I'll note that if I was paying more attention at the beginning, I'd have noticed the physical resemblances between the various types of dragon and the dragon-slaying trainees. The scenes between Hiccup and Toothless were pretty good, I thought. I liked how Toothless gradually got used to Hiccup, rather than it being a quick "hop on, let's go" affair.

[ebs2323]

The main thing that bugs me is that giant dragon at the end. How does it fly? the wing span doesnt match the size. I know this is a fiilm, but it still bugs me.

[Atlan]

The main thing that bugs me is that giant dragon at the end. How does it fly? the wing span doesnt match the size. I know this is a fiilm, but it still bugs me.

Who cares. Tootless had a breath weapon which has more in common with Star Wars blasters than a flamethrower, but he was freakin' awesome. It's a movie about Vikings fighting Dragons.

I, for one, loved it. There was only the bare hint of a love story, instead of the movie revolving around it, the action sequences were wonderfully done, the 3D was excellent, and the story itself was surprisingly mature and not nearly as much comedy as we were led to believe.

[Patrick Degan]

Saw the film with my six-year old today. 'Twas a bit bizarre, the Vikings speaking in a Scots brogue, but once past that it was an enjoyable movie all around. Yes, the plot was predictable: you could practically see the checklist being ticked off point by point. But the characters were good, the visuals were damned impressive —not just the flight scenes but the departure of the Viking fleet for the dragons' island— the battle was pretty well done, and I was impressed that Hiccup actually lost a leg, which you don't usually see in a kids' animated film in which it's a rule that nobody will be killed or maimed or otherwise suffer.

What I most appreciated about the movie was the entire plot thread in which Hiccup does what no other Viking had even thought to do: study the dragons. He observes Toothless, makes copious notes and drawings in his journal, learns Toothless' habits, figures out how to make an artificial tailfin for the dragon to be able to fly again and methods to control it. Applied science. Brain proves far more valuable than Brawn.

That's a pretty good message to put in a kids' film.

[UCBooties]

Went to see it this past weekend in 3D and was very pleased. The past few Dreamworks animated movies have been a stark improvement over their previous works. This was quite a bit better than the trailers made it look, but of their recent work, Kung Fu Panda is still my favorite.

I too, was impressed with Hiccup as a protagonist. He is smart, he is determined, and he is always looking for clever ways to solve his problems. Major kudos that he was able to get better at dealing with Dragons by researching and learning about them. I especially like the fact that in the end his work was fully appreciated and being incorporated into some of the more traditional craft of the town. (see the blacksmith incorporating some of his mechanical ideas into the prosthetic leg) Finally, I liked the fact that at the end of the movie, he and toothless both needed the other to be whole. It was very touching and surprisingly mature for a kid's adventure movie.

Dragon design is overall positive, but Toothless is the standout. Representative of the expected form but unique in look and ability. Some of the other dragons were interesting but did not quite seem to fit the overall look of the movie. Toothless is also the most expressive of the dragons and it goes a long way into making him a real character and not just a device for Hiccup's character development. The scene where Hiccup brings him fish for the first time is a great example of this. Also very cute.

Overall a lot of fun, some of the running jokes wore a bit thin for me. Definitely recommended, especially if you have enjoyed Dreamworks' other recent CG movies Monsters Vs. Aliens and Kung Fu Panda.

[Sinewmire]

Saw this with my friends (18-25) in 3d, and we all loved it.

The story was a little predictable but was well told, with good voice-acting all around (although the accents were jarring at first, and the what, 14 year old protagonist sounded about 40).

The 3d was particularly effective, especially in the flight scenes and the scene with falling ash, where I felt I could reach out and touch the falling flakes.

Whilst at the beginning the incongruities and anachronisms bugged me, I forgave that for the film's humour and imagination. I stopped mentally wincing at the accents once I realised the kids were wearing jeans along with their skull bedecked shoulderplates and tunics. The Dragons were all straight out of a kid's book, which I actually liked, and the message, that brains, empathy and knowledge are more valuable than brawn and martial valour was a good one.

Toothless was both cute and threatening in equal measure much like a real wild animal, although the reason he got his name - retractable teeth - seemed a bit pointless, and was never used again. Perhaps we'll see more on that in the DVD?

[hongi]

I quite liked the use of the Norse runes, but I couldn't say if they said the things that they meant to say. Also, does this mean that Jormungand exists?

[Zixinus]

Among the anachronisms what bothered me particularly was the horned helmet. Only the equivalent of priests are supposed to have that. But then again, vikings weren't supposed to be that crazy as shown in the movie.

What bothered me more is that a teen boy could master so much under so little time. He made blacksmith parks pretty quickly, while learning to be a blacksmith can take decades.

I liked the movie, a lot. Very cute and shows that intellect and empathy can be turned into greater use than raw devotion and strength.
But also, observation over that of legend: Hickup changed his perspective on dragons from observation, not just raw emotion. He observed the behavior of his dragon and found a way to directly apply it. He also found out that the Dragon Manual is rather inaccurate.

What bothered me about the ultra-big dragon is: what was it exactly? How do the other dragons know that they have to feed it (rather than just go away)? What if its really their queen and thus important for the survival of other dragons?
Then again, that's unlikely considering how the other dragons were afraid of it and got eaten by it.

Most of all, assuming non-magical creation, there has to be more than one of those things. Meaning that those things have to mate.

[Zixinus]

Actually, let me add to that:

I loved the film.

There are many things that I liked. Toothless was awesome.

One of the big successes of the film has to be the music: the scene where Toothless bonds with Hickup has to be one of the most effective scenes I've saw.

The other thing was that the film was a little more humble than your usual individualistic power fantasy: Hickup wasn't so arrogant to presume that his entire tribe will change for his sake (okay, at least not from the start). He tried anyway, more out of hope to get the girl than because he assumed it would work.

No, what made people go to over his side was fact: his way was clearly more effective. Look at the kids as Hickup learns more about dragons and uses what he learns in dragon training. Despite being vikings, they seem to like the kid that can render a dragon docile and harmless without any axe-flinging. They would rather learn his way than to go about fighting dragons head-on.

The dragons, being magical creatures, seem to be very domesticatable. Even with taking story-superspeed into account, Hickup became a dragon-whisperer in just a few months.

Another thing I liked was the family scene thing: the scene between Stoic and Hickup "we finally have something to talk about" is one that I find to be surprisingly realistic or at least less ridicolous.

Anyone knows the relationship between the hook-guy's actor and Stoic's actor? I know that they were supposed to be good friends but one of the interviews somehow suggested that they were gay.

[hongi]

Anyone knows the relationship between the hook-guy's actor and Stoic's actor? I know that they were supposed to be good friends but one of the interviews somehow suggested that they were gay.

Um...Craig Ferguson of Late Late Show fame and Gerard Butler (SPAAAARTA!) are both Scottish actors, and presumably good friends as well. But I don't think they're gay.

[AniThyng]

I must add that that the soundtrack was very suitable and stands out on its own. It sounded awfully famaliar at parts too, very much like Ice Age (which is also good).

Of course, google thought me that it's the same composer

[Gil Hamilton]

I greatly enjoyed the movie too. I'm glad it wasn't much like the trailers or even the title of the movie. Dreamworks did an outstanding job. I've got a few criticisms in that the movie was entirely predictable (the only surprise I had was that Hiccup lost his foot in the end, but I suppose that makes alot of sense in terms of symmetry) and that Hiccup really didn't seem to have anything at all in common with the rest of the village. At all. It's like his character was dropped in fully grown, without any explanation about how someone raised by a guy like Stoic could end up the complete and polar opposite of the entire rest of the village. Don't get my wrong, I like Hiccup, but his uniqueness was pretty heavyhanded.

That's about it. I very much enjoyed its message about science and rational investigation, rather than brainless tradition. I enjoyed the characters, enjoyed the dragons, and liked the plot. I kind of wish the movie had more "coiling serpent" dragons though.

[Patrick Degan]

Just saw the film again, in 3D this time, just this past weekend and was most impressed.

[Sinewmire]

Hiccup really didn't seem to have anything at all in common with the rest of the village. At all. It's like his character was dropped in fully grown, without any explanation about how someone raised by a guy like Stoic could end up the complete and polar opposite of the entire rest of the village. Don't get my wrong, I like Hiccup, but his uniqueness was pretty heavyhanded.

Subtext! Hiccup is the chief's son and heir apparent according him respect but making him harder to bond with. He lost his mother at a young age, which could easily have made him a witdrawn and sulky child further rendering him apart from his peers and society.

I'd imagine Stoic didn't raise him so much. I'm sure he did the best he could - seeing that he was fed and watered and had shoes and the like - but I can't imagine Stoic is one for nuanced understanding of a child, and I imagine he got dumped with Gobber the smith because Stoic didn't know what to do with him.

Hiccup would have interepreted this as lacking approval, so he worked as hard as he could to gain his father's approval. As a child, he wouldn't have been strong enough for the harder work of the smithy, so Gobber would have put him to work on the fiddly, finesse bits. As Hiccup worked on these more and more it gave him a better and better understanding leading him on to his engineering.

So we have a bit of a social outcast, encouraged to work hard at technical workings, with plenty of time to experiment and the hierarchical standing not to be beaten back for his mistakes.