#moviereview

MOVIE REVIEWS

MOVIE REVIEW: How To Train Your Dragon (2025)

By Brandon T. McClure

Released in 2010, the original How to Train Your Dragon launched a new and more confident era for Dreamworks Animation. With a new theme park in tow, Universal Studios has now remade the classic adventure of Hiccup and Toothless, this time for a live-action audience. While it feels like Universal has adopted at the end of its life cycle, they are no doubt hoping to cash in on Disney’s trend that has plagued much of the 21st century. Directed by the original’s co-director, Dean Deblois, How To Train Your Dragon, sports the tagline “the legend becomes real” but falls short of the original's greatness. While there is fun to be had, the film can’t get away from the cynical nature of the very style it’s cashing in on.

Once again, audiences are introduced to Hiccup, the scrawniest Viking in Berk. His desire to prove himself leads to him taking down a Night Fury, the most dreaded dragon the Vikings of Berk have ever faced. At this point, you know the story. Hiccup couldn’t kill the Dragon and the two form an unlikely bond that allows Hiccup to learn more about Dragons and change his world for the better. All the while his stubborn father has to be dragged kicking and screaming away from his Ahab-like hatred for Dragons in order to finally see his son. If you’ve seen the animated version, then there’s nothing on a macro scale that’s entirely new. But there’s a lot of tiny changes that both add and subtract to the overall theme of the film.

Much criticism has been lobbied at Disney for making unnecessary changes to their animated films when remaking them into live-action. Truthfully, it’s a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. If you keep the film exactly as it is, then it feels unnecessary, but if you change little things, then it still feels unnecessary. At the same time, with little changes they to try and trick the audience into thinking they’re watching a different version. For example, it’s never explained in the original Beauty and the Beast how the village that Belle lives in could forget about a castle right next door to them. The live-action version explains it by saying it was part of the curse that befell the inhabitants of that castle. No one who watched the original film ever had that question in mind, however, and having it answered doesn’t change the movie for the worse. It just feels like an unnecessary detail that was added for the sake of it. How To Train Your Dragon is no different, but there is one change that does help this live-action film stand-out from its animated counterpart in a positive way. That is the character arc of Astrid. 

Hiccup (Mason Thames) and Astrid (Nico Parker) in How to Train Your Dragon

While the original film sees Astrid as the object of Hiccup’s affection, she doesn’t get much of a character arc in the film. She’s strong and dogmatic in her desire to be the best dragon hunter in Berk, but she serves the story as an extension of Hiccup and only comes into her own in the sequels. Here, director Dean Deblois attempts to give Astrid more motivation and character throughout the story. Since the cast of the new film is far more diverse than the original, Deblois feels the need to explain where all these Vikings came from, in a long monologue from Gerard Butler’s Stoic. In this film, the Vikings came from far and wide to settle in Berk with the hopes of defeating the dragons at the very source of where they came from. This iteration of Astrid, who is from one of these far off viking clans, feels like Hiccup has had everything handed to him as the son of the chief and resents him due to her family not being as privileged as the other Vikings on Berk. However, while it’s great to give Astrid more of a character, following it to its natural conclusion robs Hiccup of the climax of his.

In the original film, HIccup leads the other viking children into battle with The Red Death (the Queen on the island) while riding Stormfly with Astrid. He barks out orders to the other children as Stoic looks up in awe at his son as he finally sees Hiccup as the chief he will one day become. In the live-action version, Hiccups and Astrid's roles in the scene are reversed. While Hiccup and Astrid are still riding Stormfly into the battle, it’s Astrid who is leading the charge. A seemingly small change but does stop Hiccup's character arc in its tracks in favor of Astrids. In some ways it’s refreshing that Dean Deblois committed to following Astrids new character arc to its natural conclusion but it will be a change that will likely be debated in fandom circles for years to come.

Outside of that, much of the film plays out the same way as the original with very little cut out or changed. In fact, many of the actors feel like they’re trying to copy the performances of their animated counterparts and other times they feel like they’re deliberately trying to avoid copying them. This creates an identity crisis for the film in both design and performance. This has the unfortunate issue of making the film far less charming and even less funny than the original. Almost every single joke is left in the script, but the deliveries rob them of their charm. Hiccup is a far more depressing main character then he was in the original. To be fair though, if you took out Jay Baruchel’s charming performance, then the character probably reads just as sad. But there does seem to be a concerted effort to take out the inherent charm of the original Dreamworks classic in order to be taken more seriously as a film. Sadly, it has the opposite effect.

One of the biggest unfortunate side effects of the shift to live-action is that change in cinematographer. One of the reasons why the animated How To Train Your Dragon looks so striking and impressive all these years later is because Roger Deakins consulted on all three films. This was revolutionary for the time because it gave the film a far more cinematic look that truly changed the game. Now for the live-action film, Bill Pope steps into the cinematographer seat. Pope is an incredibly prolific cinematographer who has worked on films such as The Matrix, Chang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, and Baby Driver, but he’s not Roger Deakins. Without Deakins' eye, the film feels flat and lifeless as all the color has been stripped from Berk.

The cast is a mixed bag. Nico Parker and Gerard Butler are the strongest in the cast by miles. Parker is wonderful as Astrid and perfectly captures America Ferrera’s performance while merging the new aspects of the character introduced in this film. Butler, the only returning cast member from the animated film, is a veteran of this story so it should be no surprise at how well he’s able to bring Stoic from animation to live-action. He hits most of the same beats, this time without much of the humor, and still manages to capture what the animators were able to bring to his vocal performance. Mason Thames as Hiccup often feels miscast but still plays a decent enough Hiccup that proves he’ll likely be better in the sequel. The rest of the main cast is fine. They get similar moments to their animated counterparts, and Snotlout gets a new subplot that’s, frankly useless. Finally, Nick Frost is the weakest link in the cast. His Gobber, originally played by Craig Ferguson is a boring and pale imitation of Stoic’s loveable friend and sidekick.

Ruffnut (Bronwyn James), Tuffnut (Harry Trevaldwyn), Snotlout (Gabriel Howell), and Fishlegs (Julian Dennison) in How to Train Your Dragon

John Powell, who scored the original trilogy, returns to score the live-action film. The animated score can be argued as one of the best film soundtracks ever composed, and now that Powell has a bigger budget, he’s able to make an even grander version of the original. It frankly makes the entire film worth it. All the themes are present and in the exact same places but bigger and more grand this time around. Powell even sneaks in a track from How To Train Your Dragon 2 that eagle eared listeners will delight in. The only mark against it is that he makes a truly baffling change to the iconic “Test Drive” that will leave many fans scratching their heads. 

Speaking of scratching their heads, fans will likely forget about this scene until the very end, but a (once again baffling) change to the story happens after the test drive scene. See, in the original, Hiccup learns much about the true nature of dragons, such as their weaknesses through his relationship with Toothless. The final thing he learns is that dragons aren’t fireproof on the inside of their bodies, through a cute little encounter with a couple of Terrible Terrors. This scene leads to Hiccup being able to defeat the Red Death by igniting a fire inside her that forces her to crash and explode. This scene is removed from the film but the way that Hiccup defeats the Red Death is not changed. It may seem like a small change on paper but audiences will be left wondering how Hiccup knew that would work in this new version of the story. This highlights one of the issues with these live-action remakes. While a change could seem small in the moment, it has the potential to dramatically change the outcome of the film and if you don’t follow that change to a new conclusion, but rather force the story to reach the same conclusion, then you end up hurting the film rather than helping it.

A more apt analogy of this idea would be if you were remaking a murder mystery. The audience already knows the outcome of the story so you decide to change all the clues so they point to a different murderer. The only problem is that the reveal in the original is so good and fans will be expecting to see that moment play out again, so at the last moment you reveal the murder to be the same person it was in the original. Except this time, it doesn’t make any sense because you robbed the audience of all the set up that was necessary for everything to pay off and didn’t follow the new clues set up to their natural conclusion. This is a much grander example than a bunch of animated films being made into live-action, but it gets the point across. 

If you’re a longtime fan of the How To Train Your Dragon franchise, then you’ll delight in seeing the same scenes play out in live-action. As remakes go, it could have gone way worse. It’s honestly one of the better attempts at this trend and the financial success of the film means that Universal Studios will likely be looking at Dreamworks' library to see what else they can try and remake. But you’ll never be able to shake off the idea that it feels unnecessary. While director Dean Deblois clearly has immense love for the story he helped bring to life 15 years ago, even he can’t wipe away the stench of a cash grab. He referred to this film as a “second draft” and if it is, then it’s an unnecessary one. The original is a classic that will be remembered for decades, and this will simply be a footnote in its memory.

MOVIES, MOVIE REVIEWS

MOVIE REVIEW & INTERVIEW / Locked (a film by David Yarovesky)

From producer Sam Raimi, this horror-thriller follows a petty thief (Bill Skarsgård) who breaks into the wrong car and becomes prey to its vengeful owner (Anthony Hopkins). Eddie faces a deadly game of survival, where escape is an illusion, and justice shifts into high gear.

Jenny sits down with the director of Locked, David Yarovesky to chat about horror icons, closed spaces and embracing the inspiring challenges of independent movies. Join the conversation in the comments and on social media.

For audio, please check out the Atomic Geekdom Podcast to listen in.

By Jenny Robinson

We are in a splendid time for indie movies right now. When movies like Anora can take home the Oscar, and historic art house theaters are becoming the hot spot for entertainment.

Locked (released in theaters March 21st, 2025 ) hasn’t seen a lot of hype on socials despite having two of the most acclaimed horror actors today. So far it has been a quiet backseat thriller, hidden behind the hype of the larger budget Steven Soderbergh Black Bag and the family friendly live-action, Snow White. Regardless of the constantly unpredictable market, this movie has the potential to out shine them all.

The direction style of Yarovesky works seamlessly with this story. Many times, as a theatergoer, I felt as if I was apart of this horror, a spectator on the outside, looking in. This feeling is driven home by how each camera and angle is applied. It holds our hand in how we view both inside and outside of the Dolus (the weaponized luxury SUV), by adding a layer of claustrophobic anxiety.

Bill Skarsgård’s portrayal of the central character Eddie, allows the audience to both feel annoyed with and identify you’re also on his side . Even his pink hoodie has costume design importance. A hoodie is synonymous in security cam footages to burglars and thieves. Having his shirt be pink to soften away from the black, makes him feel more amateur, a screw up. Every scene is master class in acting for a character full of stubbornness, determination, and atonement.

The movie brings you in full force, once William’s (Sir Anthony Hopkins) voice is audible in the car. Flashbacks of Hopkin’s calm, soothing and unsettling voice from his vast portfolio of films, took this role up an impressive notch. The way he can deliver lines that make you feel both empathy for the antagonist and fear is an example of his excellence.

The scenes when both of them are together, are exemplary, with the plot blurred between necessity, remorse, justice, revenge, all told through a clever lens torture. Where the rich can eat the poor, but the less advantage has street smarts the privileged could never understand.

This movie was one hell of a ride. Open the door, and see it on a big screen.

HORROR, MOVIE REVIEWS, MOVIES

MOVIE REVIEW/ AfrAID

By Anthony Caruso

Wow! Blumhouse has had quite the streak this year! Three films released in 2024 - Night Swim, Imaginary, and now AfrAId - and all three have been complete duds. It's a shame considering the fact that Blumhouse used to be a huge powerhouse in the horror space. Now, however, when their company logo pops up, I always end up giving an involuntary shudder and expecting the worst. 

The basic premise of AfrAId is promising enough: a family is chosen to test a new smart home AI called AIA, which ends up become self-aware and dangerously begins to interfere with and manipulate their lives. While it's definitely not an “original” idea, it's normally a solid enough idea that it usually spawns entertaining films. Not AfrAId, however. Despite the kernels of an interesting story about the dangers of artificial intelligence that are buried within Chris Weitz's muddled screenplay, and despite some interesting setup, AfrAId never takes off or lives up to the promise of its premise's potential. Especially not when it comes to its story, its characters, or its direction. Indeed, Chris Weitz - who also directed this film - ends up delivering to audiences what amounts to a Lifetime Original Movie. He tries to nicely gift wrap the dangers of AI in a story about a struggling, if loving, family. Not only does it look cheap, as though it has the budget of a made-for-TV movie, but it's also just boring on top of being bad. There never appear to be any real stakes, nor do you care enough about the film's characters to actually give a damn about what happens to them!

The cast of this movie is trying their best, and is actually quite charming, but they're never quite able to elevate the material they're given. They are unable to deliver memorable enough performances where I could say that the acting was good at the very least. That's a shame, because avid filmgoers will know that this cast is comprised of very good actors! John Chu has really come into his own over the past few years, demonstrating that he's more than just a go-to for stoner comedies but is somebody that’s actually capable of delivering true dramatics. Katherine Waterston is underrated and undervalued in a lot of ways, mainly due to the material she's been given in recent years like the bland Harry Potter spinoff films, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Unfortunately, the two, who play husband and wife here, have next to zero chemistry, and their characters seem intent on making the dumbest decisions possible at every turn. Meanwhile, after a star-making leading man performance in Late Night With the Devil, it was absolutely jarring to see David Datsmalchian in such a one-note supporting role as one of the supposed creators of the villainous AI. Speaking of AIA, though, the strongest performer in this film is actually Havana Rose Liu who not only voices her to perfection, but plays Melody - the flirty and mysterious "advance employee" at the tech company that invented her.

Between the cast, which seems to be simultaneously bored with the material while trying their best, and Weitz's uninspired direction and a story, AfrAId is a movie that is made of a bunch of disparate, jarring components that never coalesces into a coherent or satisfying whole. It's also a movie that, at an extremely short eighty-four minutes including credits, feels far longer than it actually is. And while the ending is interesting, and will leave you with a squeamish feeling in the pit of your stomach due to its real world implications, it's not earned at any point over the course of the entire film leading up to it.

In a lot of ways, this was Blumhouse trying to remake their very successful film, "M3GAN", while discarding everything that made that movie work - including its iconic AI doll - and doubling down and expanding upon its flaws. And though "AfrAId" isn't the worst film of the year - it's no "Borderlands", "The Crow", "Madame Web", or even "Night Swim" - it comes pretty damn close to being it. There's nothing salvageable about this movie, and it's not even interesting or fun enough in a "so bad it's good" type of way; it's just bad and boring, which is an even worse sin. Even for fellow A-List members, I wouldn't recommend rushing to see this one, nor would I recommend watching this one when it hits streaming. It's just not worth your time, and is merely another swing and a miss for a once great horror production company.

MOVIE REVIEWS, MOVIES

MOVIE REVIEW / Kali Karate: The 2nd Beginning

By Anita Wills

From The Blair Witch Project to Best in Show, independent filmmakers have excelled in the genre of Mockumentary film for quite some time. Sean Russel Herman’s experimental mockumentary film Kali Karate: The 2nd Beginning is complete chaos, in a good way. In his feature debut, Herman tells the story of Sensai Houston, a very bizarre martial arts enthusiast who manages to ruin the lives of everyone around him while on his journey to get his ex wife back. 

Not only did Herman write, direct, produce and edit the film, he also took on the lead role as Sensai Houston, a character he created himself that came from his own personal passion for martial arts and comedy. Fans of the Eric Andre Show will appreciate the film’s determination to make the audience uncomfortable and as well as question their own moral compass for laughing. 

Kali Karate is overflowing with different editing and cinematography styles, as well as a comic book transition drawn just for the film. On top of that, there is impressive stunt work and an original “rap” score. That being said, there is little room for the comedy to breathe. Many jokes fell flat due to the fact that there was not enough time to process them before the next one. Several small characters were introduced, but never reached any character development that helped move the story along. 

What really carried the film was the comedic chemistry between Sensai Houston and his roommate Shu played by comedic genius Shu Lan Tuan, as well as the gorgeous but sparse HBO Boxing’s 24/7 inspired shots which was interesting to see in a mockumentary film. 

The artsy dark comedy leaves you wondering, is Kali Karate a love letter to filmmaking, an overflowing introduction of Herman’s talents, or a farewell eulogy to the comedic avant garde?   

 

Kali Karate: The 2nd Beginning is available on Apple TV, Amazon Prime, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play Movies