Same Story, New Skin
Dean DeBlois returns to direct the live-action adaptation of How to Train Your Dragon, a film he first brought to animated life in 2010. With Mason Thames stepping in as Hiccup and Gerard Butler reprising his role as Stoick, this new iteration looks and feels every bit like its predecessor—because, quite frankly, it is. From the story beats to the dialogue to the camera angles, this live-action version is a near-identical remake, cloaked in the gloss of blockbuster-level visual effects.
For longtime fans of the original, there’s an immediate sense of déjà vu. Every major narrative moment—from Hiccup’s accidental encounter with the Night Fury Toothless to their exhilarating first flight—is reproduced almost frame by frame. While this strict adherence might be an intentional homage, it also results in a lack of innovation. Rather than updating the story or deepening the character arcs, DeBlois opts for replication.
Stunning Visuals Can’t Mask Creative Stagnation
To its credit, the film is visually striking. The dragons, rendered with impressive CGI, have a believable texture and presence that give scenes a tactile sense of danger and wonder. The aerial sequences, particularly the first flight between Hiccup and Toothless, genuinely capture a sense of exhilaration and cinematic scope that animation can’t always convey in the same way.
But the dazzling visuals can only go so far when the emotional and narrative terrain feels already traveled. The original film was already a modern classic, complete with heartfelt storytelling, powerful themes of empathy and understanding, and groundbreaking animation. Translating that same story into live-action might give it a new coat of paint, but it does little to justify its existence in a marketplace already flooded with remakes.
Even some of the worst live-action adaptations of beloved animated films have at least attempted to try something new—be it a different tone, a reframed narrative, or a riskier visual palette. This film, however, feels hesitant to take any creative leap beyond the technical.
Faithful to a Fault
There’s something admirable in DeBlois’s commitment to his original work. He clearly believes the story doesn’t need fixing, and he isn’t wrong. The plot, themes, and character dynamics still hold up beautifully. That’s why the original film has endured. But that same strength also makes the remake feel unnecessary.
Outside of Butler, who seems to relish returning to the role of Stoick, the new cast—including Nico Parker and Nick Frost—are directed to mimic the performances of their animated predecessors. It’s a decision that, while reinforcing the idea of faithfulness, removes opportunities for actors to bring new dimensions to their roles. Rather than reinterpretations, they feel like impressions.
The only audience who may benefit from this remake are those who never saw the original, or whose memory of it has faded with time. For them, this will be a competent, entertaining fantasy adventure with dragons, heroism, and heart. For everyone else, it’s a high-budget echo of something they already loved.
A Blockbuster for a New Generation—But At What Cost?
It’s easy to see why Universal Pictures greenlit this remake. The How to Train Your Dragon franchise has blockbuster DNA and a passionate fanbase. Bringing the story to a new generation in live-action form seems like a safe bet. But with the original trilogy only recently concluded in 2019, nostalgia hasn’t had the time to truly settle in.
That proximity is part of the problem. The visual leap from 2010’s still-impressive animation to today’s live-action CGI doesn’t feel substantial enough to warrant a full redo. What felt vibrant and revolutionary 15 years ago remains so today—meaning that this remake lands as more of a technological exercise than a storytelling necessity.
Verdict:
The live-action How to Train Your Dragon is a beautifully rendered but ultimately redundant retelling of a story that didn’t need updating. It’s not a bad movie—just an unambitious one. And when dragons are involved, shouldn’t we be aiming for more than just good enough?
Rating: ★★★☆☆ (3/5)
