The movie is decent, but I don't think it deserves the high RT score it's got. Pete, Elliot (nice effects and the relationship with the kid worked), and the Redford character are the highlights for me. What really drags it down is an absolutely awful character (Karl Urban) whose sole purpose seems to be a walking cliche of a bad guy in a kids movie. Every time he talked or did something I rolled my eyes. Horrible.

Also, I don't think the movie is ultimately very entertaining for children. Much of it is pretty slow moving and there were many restless kids at my showing.

B-

Pete's Dragon, an admired-but-not-beloved hybrid of live-action footage and animation released by Disney in the late 1970s, is modestly improved upon in this big-budget, non-musical update. The story, of a child and his friendly dragon, is transplanted from turn-of-the-century Maine to the Pacific Northwest in the, I believe, 1980s. At least, I do not remember seeing a cell phone or laptop. The story is revised in other ways, too. Pete, for example, is not just an orphan, but a wild child in the Rudyard Kipling or Edgar Rice Burroughs sense, living long-haired and free as a bird in the forest alongside his dragon Elliott for six years until becoming reacquainted with human society via a benevolent forest ranger (Bryce Dallas Howard).

As a piece of family-oriented entertainment, this film is so square as to be almost novel. It moves at a relaxed pace and has an alternative-country, come-sit-by-the-campfire-and-hear-a-tale quality. It is old-fashioned, grandfatherly, more than a bit corny (but in a mostly positive way). It entertains without ever becoming extremely riveting. Howard and Robert Redford (as her father, an old man who has long regaled incredulous townspeople with his dragon-sighting story) deliver sturdy performances, and child actor Oakes Fegley is tremendous as Pete, a strenuous and complex role in which much has to be conveyed via physicality rather than dialogue. And the almost canine Elliott is well-rendered; the computer-generated imagery utilized is not entirely photo-realistic, but he registers as an authentic character with a substantive emotional range, and it is not hard to invest in the loyal friendship he shares with his human ward. My most significant complaint: I wish the film found a way to sidestep introducing an antagonist. Karl Urban, capable of being a very dashing and charismatic actor, is caught in a claustrophobic role as a logger who says, "Let's go hunting!" and has a poorly defined, King Kong-lite idea of capturing and monetizing the dragon. This subplot, with its tranquilizer guns and chains, is rote and unpleasant and feels inorganic next to Pete's more poignant and well-developed between-two-worlds character arc.

B

I thought this was lovely and so much better and heartfelt than the overhyped Jungle Book from earlier this year. It's actually one of my favorite films of the year so far. I found it incredibly moving. It was visually gorgeous too with sterling cinematography, and the entire cast delivered sympathetic and likable performances. Oakes Fegley in particular was fantastic as Pete, as was Oona Laurence. It's refreshingly old-fashioned during a summer filled to the brim with over-the-top mediocrity. A-

I couldn't get past this, thus my B- grade.

In Pete's Dragon, the emotional tone rang true, the environmental meassage was on point and the acting was solid, especially Oakes Fegley who played Pete and Bryce Dallas Howard. Unfortunately, the story structure was sloppy and the whole thing felt dragged out. Also the daylight cgi scenes were poor and even when done right, Elliot was one creepy ass looking dragon. *C+*

Saw it today and really didn't expect much of anything but ended up loving it. Very well-done and beautiful. Definitely got teary-eyed. The kid was great and the dragon was adorable. I was much more into this than this year's The Jungle Book (which was still very solid). It deserves more of an audience than it's getting.

9/10 (A-)

Eh. I found myself enjoying it near the ending but overall it's just an okay movie.

Better than The Jungle Book and probably a slew of other Disney family flicks, but it could have been something more IMO. It does feel drawn out at times and what they do with Karl Urban is awful, but I did enjoy it. It atleast had some heart to it which is missing from so many films these days and the dragon is actually really well done.

**1/2 / ***** (C-)

The movie was cute, charming and emotional up until Karl Urban's character wrecks unwarranted havoc in the story. His character feels so out of place, completely without any believable motivation that he single-handedly brings this movie to mediocrity.

There was definitely another way to bring the action into this one (for that braindead Hollywood action hungry viewers), though I feel that this movie didn't need violence and action at all. I feel it would be a great little movie about losing everyone you know, finding an unexpected friend in the time of trouble and learning how to say goodbye to him once the time comes.

This was super dull. The dragon was cute, but the characters were so black and white I couldn't get invested in them at all. It's so harmless and obviously aimed at small children, so I can't hate it, but the only weaker Disney release this year is Through the Looking Glass.

C-