Eric_Tweener

2025's How to Train Your Dragon was exactly what I expected: not bad but way too reliant on the 2010 film for me to appreciate it in its own right.

Continuing the trend started by 2015's Cinderella where beloved animated movies are practically recreated in live action with some story alterations, this time Dreamworks throws its hat in the ring for the first time. Out of their filmography (the animation branch to be specific), How to Train Your Dragon makes the most sense, but it's not a movie I would have thought begged for a re-do this relatively soon. The general moviegoing public seems to disagree with me, however, and this remake fits in well with the various other forms of 2010s nostalgia prevalent nowadays.

I'll admit I myself have no real nostalgia for the original movie, not having seen it upon release and having little interest in the franchise overall. I did however eventually watch it and I like it. I don't love it like many people do but I can't deny its merits, which I'll go more into. No matter my opinion of the animated film, however, a live action remake is something I could probably never get excited for. I'm not opposed to remakes as a concept, but the thing these live action remakes all have in common is that they're all worse than the original. Their populist appeal lies in the novelty of recreating classic movies in live action, not that they make actual improvements to the story or presentation. The ones that stray further from the originals like Dumbo and Mulan tend to be the least successful and well-received. For that reason, I had no reason to believe the new How to Train Your Dragon would be compelling beyond just being a remake of a good movie. I think remakes have the potential like any adaptation of a book or play to create something new and interesting out of an older movie. Luca Guadagnino's Suspiria is a good example of this, following the same basic story but with an entirely different approach and feel. But the intent of these remakes is generally not that.

From the start, it's clear that it's heavily replicating the original film's... everything. The great John Powell score, the production and character design, various shots, and following the script very closely. It sets the tone for the rest of the movie, which is that it's technically not a bad recreation but also kind of lazy. The opening also highlights one of the main problems with the movie, which is that it's not better than the original in any way. The visuals are one of the most obvious elements. The original looked fantastic for its time and still looks quite good even if it has somewhat aged. The new one, however, looks like a CW show with its flat cinematography, and the animated designs replicated in live action do not help. This becomes especially noticeable when Toothless comes on. The hyper-detailed cartoon dragon does not fit the live action characters. The CGI is fine overall, but the green screen is somewhat wonky and there's a really bad moment in the climax when Toothless drops Astrid off. The animated movie has none of these issues. Of course, it's easier when everything is CGI without needing to blend with live action components, but why remake a 15-year-old movie this closely if it's inevitably going to look worse in comparison? That's another problem with these remakes; they're made in such a way that makes them age worse than the originals.

Honestly, I can't tell what about the story was changed from the original. Granted, I don't know the original front to back, but it did stand out just how much was taken directly. The remake is half an hour longer, and to its credit, it doesn't feel overlong. With Disney's remakes, they always have something that's a clear deviation or addition, but this movie seems afraid of messing with the audience's expectations. I don't think it's inherently a good or bad thing to not make significant changes, but it adds to the pointlessness of remaking something. I don't think it's ideal for a big-budget movie to function as a glorified rewatch of an older movie. Would it have been better to make the characters look different or to alter the story somewhat? I don't know, but it would help this film form an identity of its own. As much as I don't like the 2019 Lion King, the fact it aims for realistic designs as opposed to turning the original designs into CGI gives the movie something of a purpose. The biggest design deviation is Astrid, who looks completely different from her animated counterpart, costume included. I would have liked to see more of such changes instead of everyone else looking like they're cosplaying the original characters.

Regardless of my issues, I still feel comfortable giving this a 6/10. I will say that it is better than most of the Disney remakes in that it feels like it understands the original better, no doubt the result of getting the 2010 film's co-director Dean DeBlois to direct. The recreated moments from the original are executed well, which is not a given for remakes of good movies. It's competently put together and not boring. However, the film has trouble standing on its own. I've spent the entire review comparing it to the original because that's basically what it's asking for. In the future, what appeal will this movie have? It's a worse version of a movie that will likely continue to be fondly remembered, but I can't see the remake having close to the same impact. I'm not one to put one thing down just because another is better, but this movie feels like it will only suffer from having nothing that could really be considered an upgrade over the original.

David Cronenberg's Crash is a well-made film, but feels held back in the writing department.

My main problem with the movie is how static it feels. There is a story, but while multiple things happen throughout, I felt very little actual progression from beginning to end. The characters are the biggest reason why; every significant character in the movie is a one-note plank of wood that barely emotes or reacts to things around them. They think car crashes are the most interesting thing in the world, but the movie does, in my opinion, not find a way to make that attribute interesting. The movie depicts weird people doing weird things but since they're essentially doing the same thing throughout the movie, it becomes old very fast.

The characters do not feel distinct enough from each other. With the exception of James, the main character, and Vaughan, any of the crash enthusiasts feel like they could be substituted for each other in any given scene without any difference. The relationships between the characters are barely felt beyond the movie making it clear that they have some sort of relationship. And as mentioned prior, the two most important characters are still lacking. James, despite being the POV character, hardly displays any actual development other than his acquired interest in car crashes. He starts out as odd and unrelateable, and stays that way. Vaughan, while playing an important role in the story, also suffers from being completely flat.

Despite my criticism of the writing, I will say that the filmmaking keeps the movie somewhat interesting. There are some good shots and the style overall doesn't feel cheap. The music, however, is quite obnoxious.

I found Crash neither particularly boring nor particularly entertaining. At its core, I don't think its concepts are particularly fresh and its lack of actual profundity makes it feel like shock value is its goal, which did not hit me either. It feel it could have been improved by a more colorful script; one that isn't solely focused on the depravity it wants to get across. To me, it's slightly saved by good directing but sits at the lower end of a 6/10.

Mega Man Legends is the start of the third major series in the Mega Man franchise, following the Classic and X games. I have played through those games many times, but never got far with this one before. Now that I have beaten it, I can say I had a good time but it's not my preferred gameplay type for Mega Man.

The story is there, but not particularly engaging. The writing has never been one of the franchise's strong points, at least in the ones I've played, so that's not surprising. I will give it credit for trying to add some flavor, but I was never really interested in where the story was going or the character interactions, so I largely tuned the cutscenes out.

It's a 3D action game with mild platforming elements, and it works well. For a fifth-gen game, the controls are pretty good. Movement feels good and the auto-lock makes combat simple but intuitive. I encountered few if any issues due to the controls, and I'd call the gameplay a good evolution of the type in the previous Mega Man games. However, the lack of variety is a weak point. Other Mega Man games experiment with different level types and gradually increasing challenge, but this one has pretty repetitive level design that doesn't really evolve throughout the game. I get that the control style doesn't lend itself to platforming too well, but I wish something had been done to make the levels different.

One of the main characteristics of the game is the exploration. The island can be explored on foot, which can be slow and hard to navigate between rooms, but usually you can call on Roll to transport you to where you want. I'll admit that I tended to have trouble figuring out where to go. I played this over multiple non-consecutive days, and I did feel the need to look up a guide to find out what the game wanted me to do. I'm not sure whether to consider this a criticism, but from my experience this tends to happen during most non-level-based games from this era, so it's not exclusive to this game. I think a map with indicators would have helped the game be more clear with that you have to do.

There are lots of things to find and people to talk to, which is appreciated as it encourages you to spend more time to find upgrades. I didn't do every optional mission, but the option to do things outside the main story does help flesh the game out.

The combat offers some nice variety but could have been improved. You have your normal cannon, which can be upgraded in various ways, whether you want to improve the power or range or both for example. There is good strategy involved, and I did frequently adjust the upgrades for different situations. However, I can't say the same for the special weapons. Throughout the game, you obtain weapons with limited ammo such as grenades. They would have been a good addition if they had any use outside situations where they're required. You can only use one weapon at a time and have to go to the R&D lab to change it for another, so it's not very easy to experiment with them all. Their power leaves something to be desired, as I always found that the regular buster was more convenient. Like the buster, you can upgrade the special weapons, but the upgrades are so expensive that I did not find them worth it. Considering how important special weapons have been to other Mega Man games I wish they were better handled here.

I'm pretty fond of the graphics. They are blocky, but stylized in a way that works with the limitations. The characters have a cartoonish style and decently expressive faces during cutscenes, so it holds up better than things from the era that aim for more realism such as Resident Evil. The cutscenes are also nicely dynamic with camera angles, even if nothing groundbreaking.

The music was a bit of a letdown. It's serviceable, but not particularly catchy. I liked the TV studio and hospital music most, but the themes during the main action are less inspiring than I was expecting from a Mega Man game. Then there's large parts with no music, which fits the atmosphere but perhaps not ideal.

I'm a bit mixed on Mega Man Legends, but I liked it overall. The combat is fun and I like the exploration, but I wish the special weapons had been handled better and the game is a bit too open-ended at times for my taste. I might have a different view when I eventually replay it, maybe when it gets rereleased on current platforms.