Escape to the Movies: How to Train Your Dragon 2 - Dragon Training Pays Off

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

What was wrong with Shrek? I thought it great!

This takes place right after the first?
I thought the tv series took place right after the first?

daxterx2005:
This takes place right after the first?
I thought the tv series took place right after the first?

about 5-8 years after, hiccups 20 in this one.

Loved the first film, but the trailer for the second film just didn't grab me. It might be because I thought they were spoiling the hell out of the film (is the stuff about Hiccup's mum being alive a spoiler? I assumed it was), but I just lost interest.

Bob's review has assured me that it is actually good, so I might persuade my girlfriend to watch the first one and then go see this.

'It is not really our function to tell you whether or not a movie is good, that's subjective'.

If I wanted a simple opinion & discussion about whether a movie is good, I would ask my friends. But I don't cause I don't want a simple opinion & discussion. I prefer the opinion of someone who has a clue about movies in general than someone in my circle who thinks that 'We're The Millers' is a good comedy and coming satisfied out of the Robocop reboot. Whose opinion carries with it some amount of weight. So for me, what you said is not your job, is PRECISELY your job. Subjective or not, it helps me save money.

Also, I haven't seen the trailer for the movie, I tend not to do that in films I am interested in cause since The (first) Hangover, that turned out to be the way to go for surprises and I like being surprised.

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.

katsabas:
'It is not really our function to tell you whether or not a movie is good, that's subjective'.

If I wanted a simple opinion & discussion about whether a movie is good, I would ask my friends. But I don't cause I don't want a simple opinion & discussion. I prefer the opinion of someone who has a clue about movies in general than someone in my circle who thinks that 'We're The Millers' is a good comedy and coming satisfied out of the Robocop reboot. Whose opinion carries with it some amount of weight. So for me, what you said is not your job, is PRECISELY your job. Subjective or not, it helps me save money.

Also, I haven't seen the trailer for the movie, I tend not to do that in films I am interested in cause since The (first) Hangover, that turned out to be the way to go for surprises and I like being surprised.

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.

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.

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.

Seldon2639:
"If your only question is 'is this movie good' go see it."

And with an unlimited amount of time and money, I probably would. But as I have neither unlimited time nor unlimited money, I rely in part on watching reviews to figure out what movies would be worth my time and money.

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!

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.

Ai will watch this: It shows inclusion of cripples into society so it desurfs moviegoers' money.

Grenge Di Origin:

Merklyn236:
Huh. This sounds more interesting than I would have thought.

I struggled with the first one primarily because all of the younger character spoke and acted like modern kids to the point I expected one of them to see something amazing and then say 'Hold on I have to tweet about this.' Maybe it wasn't a problem for anyone except me, but it really bugged me during the first movie. No, I didn't expect them to look and act like realistic Vikings but can we pull it back just a tad?

On the spoiler issue, some reviewers feel the need to go into the entire movie in detail to tell you whether or not they felt a movie was worth watching. That's offputting (to say the least) to me since I do, normally, want to enjoy the story without knowing what's around the next corner. So I appreciate being told if there's going to be spoilers in the review. Note: IMHO MovieBob as a rule isn't guilty of this, and the times he has felt the need to really walk through the full movie he warns you plenty ahead of time in his video.

Okay, let me give you my personal recommendation: there are revelations to be had and expands on the concepts introduced in the first movie (like any good sequel should), but they're done in a refined and meaningful way. It's always awesome to see action sequences that aren't afraid of using vibrant and vivid primary colors. It's so cool to see how the writers and designers of this movie not only didn't give up on Hiccup's facet of engineering that was fun to see from the first one, they've totally embraced it. It's awesome to see the renderings of all the tools and structures and dragon-human interfaces used in a dragon-integrated Berk: they're impressive from a design standpoint as much as the dragons themselves are impressive from an artistic standpoint.

As far as the story goes, it's functional. There are no plot-holes, or any dire story/character threads that go carelessly overlooked. It's enjoyable, yes, but what sends it over the top is how beautifully animated it all is, and isn't that just why we decide to tell a story with the animation medium? It's a success on DreamWorks' part.

The only snag I can attribute to this movie is that you see the first movie beforehand. It's not totally necessary to understand 2's story, but the first movie introduces the secondary characters much better.

#betterthanmoviebobatwritinganonspoilerreview

So Bob's argument for giving away spoilers is because there's nothing interesting to talk about? What a lame and lazy excuse. See also: Film Crit Hulk's piece on writing reviews without spoiling (and also about Iron Man 3's reviews):

Film Crit Hulk:
HECK, EVEN SAYING THE WORD "TWIST" SETS UP A DRAMATIC EXPECTATION THAT RENDERS THE AFFECTATION OF SURPRISE MEANINGLESS. YOU DON'T TELL SOMEONE THERE'S GOING TO BE A SURPRISE PARTY REGARDLESS IF YOU LEAVE OUT THE SPECIFICS. AND THIS WHOLE ONE-SIDED CONVERSATION THING IS NOT JUST ABOUT MODERN SPOILER-PHOBIA, BUT OFTEN REFLECTS A COMPLETE MISUNDERSTANDING THAT, AS A CRITIC, YOU JUST EXPERIENCE MOVIES IN A RADICALLY DIFFERENT CONTEXT FROM THOSE WHO READ YOUR REVIEWS...A REVIEW SHOULD ONLY OFFER THE THINGS THAT WILL BEST HELP A PROSPECTIVE AUDIENCE MEMBER WATCH AND ENJOY THE MOVIE. YOU ARE ONLY THERE TO HELP. AND IN HULK'S MIND, IF THE READER HAS NOT SEEN THE MOVIE YET THAT MEANS NOT MENTIONING THE PLOT WHATSOEVER OR EVEN REALLY EVALUATING THE MOVIE BEYOND SIMPLE RECOMMENDATION. INSTEAD, THE REAL DETAILS GIVEN SHOULD ONLY ABOUT PUTTING THE READER IN THE FRAME OF MIND TO BEST ENJOY. AND SOMETIMES THAT MEANS THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO FOR THEIR ENJOYMENT IS GIVE A SENSE OF CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING TO THE MECHANISMS BEHIND THE MOVIE.

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.

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.

Steve the Pocket:
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.

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).

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!

Seldon2639:
"If your only question is 'is this movie good' go see it."

And with an unlimited amount of time and money, I probably would. But as I have neither unlimited time nor unlimited money, I rely in part on watching reviews to figure out what movies would be worth my time and money.

You can argue that what he's doing is more analysis than review, but I'm about 90% certain that the tags for these videos include "review" and not "says something interesting about it."

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.

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.

Evil Smurf:
What was wrong with Shrek? I thought it great!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh well, I'll see it again when it comes out on DVD and see if my opinion changes.

Spacebaby: Glad to see I'm not the only one disappointed by the whole role -or lack thereof - that Valka played. Felt like I was a minority of one there.

Ronack:
Once again you're encouraging us to just not see your video's. Now literally when you said "just go see it" instead of watching your review. How about you slap on a quick, one-minute review in front of the spoiler-parts where you discuss things more broadly before delving in to the specifics. Any half-decent reviewer should know how to do it, and you've been around so long you've probably passed half-decent a while ago. I'm positive you'll be able to do it.

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.

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".

Amir Kondori:

Ronack:
Once again you're encouraging us to just not see your video's. Now literally when you said "just go see it" instead of watching your review. How about you slap on a quick, one-minute review in front of the spoiler-parts where you discuss things more broadly before delving in to the specifics. Any half-decent reviewer should know how to do it, and you've been around so long you've probably passed half-decent a while ago. I'm positive you'll be able to do it.

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.

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".

"Go see it" isn't a quick review. It's a recommendation.

Ronack:

Amir Kondori:

Ronack:
Once again you're encouraging us to just not see your video's. Now literally when you said "just go see it" instead of watching your review. How about you slap on a quick, one-minute review in front of the spoiler-parts where you discuss things more broadly before delving in to the specifics. Any half-decent reviewer should know how to do it, and you've been around so long you've probably passed half-decent a while ago. I'm positive you'll be able to do it.

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.

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".

"Go see it" isn't a quick review. It's a recommendation.

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.

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.

Amir Kondori:

Ronack:

Amir Kondori:

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.

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".

"Go see it" isn't a quick review. It's a recommendation.

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.

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.

... euh ... not quite. You can discuss large parts of the movie without going in to spoilers. Like, for example, the quality of the story and the strength of the characters. Also how it holds up to the original.

Lilani:

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.

But that's part of the point of picking reviewers you agree with most of the time. I don't come to this show of Bob's because I want to hear him wax poetic about a movie, I want to hear his opinion because (from experience) I agree with him about 80% of the time. Sometimes movies he likes are ones I'm not a huge fan of, sometimes I don't find his criticisms to be valid (Days of Future Past). But most of the time his recommendation fits with what I'll turn out to like.

And there's a reason media criticism morphed from those kinds of general art discussions and into brass tacks; because the "say something interesting" is less immediately useful to the average reader/watcher/viewer than "if I agree with you most of the time, will I likely enjoy this."

This is especially evident on a site where Bob actually has a "say something interesting about movies and games and media" show.

Ronack:

Amir Kondori:

Ronack:

"Go see it" isn't a quick review. It's a recommendation.

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.

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.

... euh ... not quite. You can discuss large parts of the movie without going in to spoilers. Like, for example, the quality of the story and the strength of the characters. Also how it holds up to the original.

Bob himself says that he does not believe he can say anything interesting about the film without this spoiler. That may or may not be true, but that is his call as a reviewer.
He also says it is a mild spoiler that is in the trailer. So really at this point you either go see the film, because you are interested in it and want to keep yourself on a media blackout, or you watch the review.

Moviebob: It's not my Job to tell you whether or not something is good.
*Video is described and tagged as a review*
Moviebob: How to Train Your Dragon 2 is a great movie.

If you want to be a critic, be a critic, don't be a terrible reviewer hiding under the guise of being a critic, since that's clearly not what you do, and BE CONSISTENT ABOUT IT.

It's like your a little kid trying to pull out any excuse you can as to why people can't criticize you, while you constantly criticize them.

Just saw the movie.

It was FANTASTIC.

I really can't see any flaws with it, it just blew me away.

Particularly during the the third act:

I enjoyed the first movie, so I was expecting this movie to be at least good. But it exceeded far beyond my expectations.

I've never been annoyed by a spoiler warning in one of your videos but they do tend to mean that I don't watch them if I plan to watch the movie on question.

Gorfias:
Part 1 had some good stuff, largely ticked me off that you still had a really big, really bad monster to deal with. Back then Hiccup should have learned that you can't negotiate with some people.

He was still young then, and the Green Death was more like another one of those Alpha Dragons - a beast of intelligence but ultimately too belligerent to do anything other than avoid or kill. He probably figured that since Drago was man, he could get through to him.

A hard lesson, but its admirable that that film didn't shy from it.

scorptatious:
Just saw the movie.

It was FANTASTIC.

I really can't see any flaws with it, it just blew me away.

Particularly during the the third act:

I enjoyed the first movie, so I was expecting this movie to be at least good. But it exceeded far beyond my expectations.

I don't think his morals were shattered. Certainly tempered; he'll probably be less willing to simply go fly off and meet the next enemy face to face like he did Drago. I feel Hiccup is the kind of man who will happily talk peace but also be willing to rain dragon fire down upon those that would threaten Berk. And if he won't, Astrid certainly will.

Honestly for me this is the only movie I've enjoyed this year as much as I enjoyed Winter Soldier - all the dramatic and comic beats were dead on target; the visual design is just gorgeous and all the different dragons were just so much fun to behold.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here