User reviews

This updated version wasn't quite what I was expecting, though surprisingly good. The dominant theme is friendship and family and they explore this through a rather subtle tension. Pete loves Elliot, but he also needs a family (which he finds in surrogate form through Bryce Dallas-Howard, her fiancé and his young daughter).

The threat feels shoehorned in, as Karl Urban's inexplicably vengeful logger decides to hunt down the dragon and do...well, he hasn't really thought that one through. It's a weak plot device that sells the story a little short, but is ultimately forgivable. I had a sizeable lump in my throat at several points in the film, and I'm not one for sentimentality. Director Lowery handles the emotion well, particularly through an inspired folksy soundtrack.

There are distinct shades of ET here, as a boy comes to terms with the impossibility of a critical friendship. Not a lot really happens in this movie, but what you get is well paced and thoughtful.

Well worth a watch.

The 1977 'Pete's Dragon' was a favourite as a child. As far as by today's standards, while not a great film and not as good through adult eyes (plus there are better live-action Disney films, especially the timeless 'Mary Poppins'), it's still well worth watching.

Despite having some really talented names on board, expectations were both of great interest but feeling dubious. It did have potential to be better than the 1977 film, and still stand very well on its own, or it could have been a lazy and pointless cash-grab. While it is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, it proved to be a better film than anticipated.

Not one of the best live-action Disney re-imaginings like 'Cinderella' and 'The Jungle Book' (much better than 'Maleficent' though), but still for a re-imagining 'Pete's Dragon' was a good one. It is let down by the final act, where the darker and more action-packed tone jars with what was happening before in the film and at this point the film starts to feel rushed. The villain just felt very shoehorned in and out of place, for the sake of "needing" an "obligatory" villain for conflict (that to me wasn't necessary), not helped by the hammy performance of Karl Urban that just feels out of kilter with the rest of the cast.

Where 'Pete's Dragon' especially soars is in the very charming and touching friendship chemistry between Pete and Elliot, essentially the heart of the film. Speaking of Elliot, he is a very lovingly crafted creature with not just beautiful details to him but also with a personality that wins one over in how endearing he is.

'Pete's Dragon', apart from some overly grim lighting in places, looks great visually, the splendid scenery being especially good complemented beautifully by cinematography that's atmospheric and picturesque. The music is lovingly whimsical and fits the film well when it could easily have not done.

Scripting serves its purpose well and doesn't hurt the atmosphere or the central friendship at all, weakening only with the villain and when the film gets darker. David Lowery directs very capably and balances the various elements well. Although it won't work, and hasn't worked, for some (with criticisms of it being thin narratively, slow-moving and either too sentimental or cold), for me the story (radically altered with a more sombre tone for example) was immensely charming and appreciated the calmer, straightforward, more gentle and deliberate nature of the story which allowed the friendship to resonate. Never found it mawkish and thought that there was enough emotion without it overshadowing things, though admittedly there is not much that is particularly new.

Urban aside, the acting is good. Oakes Fegley and Oona Laurence are very appealing, while Bryce Dallas Howard is luminous and compassionate and, while not being on screen for long, Robert Redford achieves the right balance of the grizzled and the sympathetic. But essentially it is Elliot and the friendship between him and Pete that carry the film, and, as they should, captivate most strongly.

In summary, while with its foibles 'Pete's Dragon' was a much more impressive re-imagining than expected after mixed expectations. 8/10 Bethany Cox

I watched the original movie when I was kid, and my brothers and I still consider it one of our fav children movies ever. You can imagine my excitement and also my apprehension when I learned that this film was being filmed.

This is a very enjoyable family film that has lovely moments of tenderness, wonderful special effects (the design of Elliot, flying scenes, etc.), it has fun and plenty of action, and Redford and Howard are good in their roles and seem to believe in magic because I thought they were the best thing in the film.

However, the movie lack the most important thing to me -- magic. All the characters keep speaking about magic, but the actors playing them don't believe in magic, the film does not create magic, so it feels a lovely fantasy film not a magic children's film. I didn't feel it in my heart. And that being the case, the film is not memorable to me.

7/10. This is a remake of Disney's 1977 classic, in which a lost little boy (Pete) finds friendship with a dinosaur called Elliot. Now I must say up front that I really was never a fan of the original, I found it dull and boring. It is not a big classic like a lot of other Disney films, but it still has a big following of people that love it. However I am very glad that they went back 39 years later and remade it, I really liked this film and thought it was a great film for the whole family, with heartfelt moments, funny moments and also action scenes that were good fun for adults and children. I have heard criticism of the way this film starts off, with Pete losing his parents, but honestly this is not a put off for young children and is made in a way that is not sad. My two young kids were not afraid in this film at all, and absolutely loved it. Director David Lowery does a fantastic job in this remake for families. Oakes Fegley who plays Pete really does a great job for a young boy, I think he might be one to watch in the future. Pete's Dragon #petesdragon https://m.facebook.com/Aussiemoviereview/

5 year old Pete is in a car accident that killed his parents. He is saved by a magical dragon named Elliot. Six years later, a crew of lumberjacks is closing in on their home. Pete is taken with Natalie. She's the young daughter of forest ranger Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) and lumber company owner Jack (Wes Bentley). Grace has been told many times about a dragon by her father Meacham (Robert Redford). Grace and Natalie find the young boy Pete in the woods and take him in. Meanwhile, Jack's brother Gavin (Karl Urban) goes hunting for the mysterious creature in the forest.

I like the story, the characters, and the dragon. I can't help but think that the movie could be much better. It could improve with less money and holding back on showing the dragon. There is a natural questioning of Elliot as a figment of Pete's imagination that is missing from the audience. By showing the dragon from the start, Elliot is never in doubt. Heck, the dragon is often invisible. It would be more logical for it to be almost entirely invisible and the audience can wonder whether it's real, imagined, or a projection of Pete's imagination. The reveal would be infinitely more powerful. I like Bryce and the kids. Karl Urban is a little too broad. Robert Redford is odd in his role. He's too big of a movie star. The role should go to an elderly character actor from the retirement home. I have no problem with the look of Elliot but it would be more compelling to reveal him much later in the movie.

Liked this a lot. I was 4 when I first saw Pete's dragon way back in '83 or whatever back in England. I remember how much I loved the idea of Pete's dragon. I watched the original a few years back and realized that it was a fairly average musical with an animated dragon. But still!!!! I remember how great the story or idea of a personal dragon was. The modern spin is very sentimental, but never cheesy. Everything was great; from casting to special effects. I really enjoyed this movie. If you remember the old Pete's dragon from back when you were a skid, you'll love this movie. To be completely honest, there were several tear jerker moments. I guess they really nailed down the aspects of a child becoming suddenly orphaned. They also did a really good job if propelling the story so that it never sat idle. Robert Redford played the integral old timer part, but played it exceptionally well as to be expected. It is also relevant to mention that I typically do not review movies I have just seen immediately after I have seen them. This film made an exception for me.

Love, Just a one syllable four letter word. So simple yet so powerful. Hatred, a two syllable word, complex but powerful. Both the words are powerful enough in their ways. Both resides on us, but it's us, humans, who have to decide which side we will take, on which word we will act on! Animals are primitive, ferocious, vicious and wild, but it's ours, men's point of view. May be they think of us the vice-versa. We fail to see the beauty of them, beauty of this planet. It's because we look upon them with our greedy eyes and filthy souls. But what of a child, who looked in a different way, . He saw them kind, naive and innocent. He could see the goods in them because he acted on the first word, Love! The message was great. To talk about the direction, it's overall an average, sometimes down to the marks direction! The boy is a brilliant actor, with some help of a good director, he can deliver the goods.

I worry about taking pot shots at a movie like Pete's Dragon. No one wants a twentysomething's jaded take on a kid's movie. I am aware I am not the target audience. The ticket vendor's surprise at my selection was no surprise to me. What can I say? The other option was an anthropomorphic hot dog. I took the chance because a children's film can be a light fantasy. Disney has taught everyone that "fun for the whole family" is not a death sentence. So when I criticize Pete's Dragon, understand I am not assailing aspects of the genre, e.g. the simplistic plot. That's not the movie's goal nor should it be my point. Pete's Dragon fails because it is utterly devoid of wonder.

True, wonder is a pretty squishy concept. Fortunately for me, my sense of wonder need not go on trial. That's because of my official co-reviewer, the kid who sat immediately next to me in the otherwise empty theater. He looked about the same age as Pete, our protagonist. I regret not asking. Regardless, I understand why this story could be appealing to my new colleague. Pete is tragically separated from his parents, but is rescued by a forest dwelling dragon. Pete names his new friend Elliot and together they spend their days playing in the woods and sleeping in a tree/cave/house. It is an idyllic existence, but it is ruined by the interference of other humans. Pete is threatened by greedy loggers and, the Nazis of family movies, child protective services. However, our hero finds some allies in ranger Grace (Howard) and her storytelling father (Redford). The entire movie scored two responses from my associate. First, a chuckle when Elliot gets a dosing of soot from a chimney. Second, a genuine chortle when an EMT dropped a stretcher. That part was my favorite too. Almost Two hours, two laughs. I refuse to believe this is the best Disney can offer. Admittedly, my second did applaud at the close, but this reaction was not half as enthusiastic as when his dad bought him a Slurpee.

Now hopefully I can take over explain what went wrong. First, the titular dragon. It is a dog. Elliot the big green dog. Elliot chases his tale. Elliot sneezes on people. Elliot is a dog. Whyyyyyyyyyyy? This is one of the most pathetic attempts at satisfying the boundless imaginations of children I have ever seen. Even the flying shots are derivative, all rendered in CG that just screams "I was meant to be seen in 3D." Well I'm cheap. All the other characters were equally tedious. Any idiosyncrasy or characteristic would have been appreciated. You can learn all there is to know about these personalities in 15 seconds. For the remainder of the movie, they will never surprise you, or charm you, or do anything worthy or remembrance. Part of the reason I attended Pete's Dragon was to gather data on the condition of Redford's career. I dread saying this, but this another performance suggesting he is washed up. Then again, in the role, Redford might never have stood a chance. Watching him mug like he was witnessing the second coming because a dragon turned a lighter shade of green was embarrassing. Another sad waste of talent was the cinematographer. The forest itself was the most magnetic character in the film. The natural beauty set a tone, only to be beaten down by the ham-fisted elements. So yes, I guess there was some wonder. Not enough to be redeemable. Pete's Dragon is a soulless morality tale on the importance of the nuclear family. Its grand aspiration was being inoffensive enough so you could bring your children. Disney can do better and we should watch better.

I thoroughly enjoyed 'Pete's Dragon' because it made me remember that there is magic if you dare to believe!

To be fair, there were a few things that were not too great (like some of the actors), but for some reason I could see beyond that. Thanks to the beautiful story itself, the magnificent cinematography, the lifelike CGI animation of Elliot (the dragon) and the superb acting of Oakes Fegley as Pete.

David Lowery did a good job directing the movie, and casting Robert Redford as Meacham was a smart choice.

I can only recommend this movie - and not only to families and kids, but to everybody who's open to fairy tales and magic.

I haven't seen the original yet, but this is a real family movie. And yes some may be surprised by the fact that the voice of the Crypt Keeper (Tales from the Crypt) is "speaking" the Dragon, but that would mean you are not familiar with the versatility of the guy behind the voice and also his body of work (no pun intended).

But apart from the good effects and some good family story, you also have some heavyweights in front of the camera. Redford alone is amazing, but he gets support (literally) by everybody else. A story with highs and lows and while it is predictable, it is also exactly what family entertainment should be. Nothing more but certainly nothing less

I'm not sure how you can make a story about a dragon boring, but they did with this movie. From the soundtrack to the cinematography, to the acting and storyline, I've honestly seen better movies on Lifetime. My kids fell asleep about halfway through it and I suffered through the predictable storyline and cringe worthy "feel good" moments. A Disney movie about a dragon should inspire the imagination, excite us, surprise us, and touch our hearts. This movie fell short in all areas. The last ten minutes of the movie are worth seeing but the lead up to those moments takes far too long. A concentration on better humor to break the nonstop sentimental expression would have gone a long way with this movie. I love fantasy and adventure movies and hopes to share a great evening with the kids. Unfortunately we fell asleep at an overpriced B rated movie.

After a sudden accident separates young Pete (Oakes Fegley) from his parents, the boy is stranded alone in the woods - but only momentarily, as he soon encounters a giant, friendly green dragon, whom he names Elliot. Years pass without incident, until loggers begin encroaching further into the forest, threatening Pete and Elliot's simple, isolated lifestyle. When lumberjack manager Jack (Wes Bentley), his daughter Natalie (Oona Laurence), and his girlfriend Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) discover Pete near a harvesting site, they take him back to their house for the night and promise to help Pete look for Elliot in the morning. But while the well-intentioned family attempts to reunite the boy with his magical companion, fearful townspeople - led by Jack's brother Gavin (Karl Urban) - hunt the creature for their own avaricious purposes.

It begins with a somewhat terrifying opening scene, which demonstrates both the best and the worst aspects of this redux of a much-loved '70s venture. A lost, scared, tiny child is rescued by a benevolent creature, as gentle as it is enormous. But getting the boy to that point is an aggravatingly overused gimmick of camera viewpoints and predictable tragedies that works to nullify the poignancy of a mighty guardian and a helpless orphan. This mixed approach to storytelling tactics resurfaces frequently later on, as adults become villains, humans immediately confront unknowns with fear and hatred, and an anti-deforestation message is infused into the already tiresome family-friendly morals.

It may not be difficult to best the success of the 1977 picture, but this 2016 re-imagining certainly attempts to fall into the same traps. This version is equally overlong, slow, and inundated with music; no less than three car-ride sequences showcase songs presiding over wide eyes staring out windows. It's as if the filmmakers couldn't come up with any other way to segue from one location to the next. And though the computer-animated Elliot is crisper, sharper, and far furrier (the whole dragon is covered in bristling hair to replace the purplish mop perched on the traditionally-drawn predecessor), he's also not as cute or endearing. And his actions and behaviors are virtually equivalent to a standard dog.

Perhaps this film's genericness is its biggest detractor. Every human character acts and reacts exactly as they've done before in everything from "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" to "King Kong." The government wants to control the situation; hunters want the fame for catching a monster; and children just want to return the beast to its home and freedoms. The plot also borrows from "Tarzan" and "The Jungle Book" (particularly with the addition of a love interest - or a romantic curiosity for the boy), while following the exhausting, commonplace paths for conflict, the stopping of villains, and the exhibition of Elliot's propriety in helping even those who would hurt him.

In all of this ordinariness, a few repeated lines hold significance, a couple of decent laughs find their way into the script, and many of Pete and Elliot's interactions prove genuinely emotional. But with the updates in special effects, environments, and the general sincerity of acting, it's more difficult than before to accept the existence of a chameleonic dragon and his tranquil touch (and his extreme intelligence and understanding of English). This, of course, also makes it more inconvenient to merely dismiss Pete's increasing proficiency with the language, despite his not communicating with anyone else for such an extended period of time. It's all meant to appeal to the very young, but it's the kind of subject matter - and production - that could inspire a decent theme park ride more than one's imagination or sense of wonderment.

• The Massie Twins

I remember the 1977 original well as I used to see fairly often when I was a kid. I remember it being fun and having that Disney magic. It also had some musical numbers, which was the norm back then.

I was a bit unsure when this was announced as I felt the original was of its time and that the transition into 2016 would not work. But in the people involved in front and behind the camera gave me hope that we could have a respectable re-make.

It ends up being that. The tone, story and message that it sends out may have been done a thousand times before. But is that a bad thing, no. It remains to be a solid watch as its heart is in the right place and it has an old school feel to it which was refreshing to see. It almost had a feel of early Spielberg to it, especially in the final act, and also had a similar tone to a lot of Robert Redford's directed films. So I could definitely the potential of a really good film in here, rather than just a decent film.

I was impressed by the cast that they got for this and they all did their roles fairly well. Oakes Fegley was really good as Pete and does look a lot like the kid who played Pete in the original which was pretty cool. Oakley was quite a draw and very believable. Bryce Dallas Howard was classy and definitely was well suited in the tone of the film and felt like a warm character. I felt Robert Redford had a nice screen presence and you felt safe every time he was on screen. I was really happy to see Karl Urban as he seems to be great in anything that he does. Like Dallas Howard, he fitted into the tone of the movie really well and played a solid villain (of sorts). I was also great to see Oona Laurence again in a role after her brilliant performance in Southpaw last year. As for Wes Bentley, he was completely underused and anyone could have done that role and it would not have changed my opinion on the film.

I felt the design of Elliot the dragon was quite good. I liked the look, the personality, he made me laugh and on the whole is a really cute and sweet character.

Most of my negatives are minor. The pacing felt too slow for me, especially in the first act. It felt as if they did not have enough of a story to fill the duration and decided to just stretch it out. It is hard to compare it with the original. But I felt the characters in this one were not as memorable nor as well developed. There was also less fun I felt. But my big negative with it came in the very final scene. I obviously won't spoil me. But it just felt wrong in what they did in the end and in the end just did not make sense at all.

It goes at a gentle pace and has a simple story that everyone can follow. Kids aged between 5 and 7 will probably get the most enjoyment out of it. But it is first and foremost, a nice, heartfelt and pleasant family film that everyone can get on board with.

In what is clearly the year of films about man meeting nature/animals (The Jungle Book, Legend of Tarzan, Pete's Dragon), Pete's Dragon doesn't manage to bring anything new to the sub-genre. But there's still some magical moments to be had with the latest Disney adventure.

Helmed by Ain't Them Bodies Saints director, David Lowery, Pete's Dragon tells the story of an orphan boy, Pete, who finds a home in the forest outside a small town, with a mysterious dragon. Of course, natural comparisons can be made to Dreamwork's 'How to Train Your Dragon' series. But Pete's Dragon, although live-action, feels a bit more childish and dumbed down. With that said, I don't think aiming this film towards a children-heavy audience is necessarily a bad thing, it's just disappointing. It's a cute story, but I don't think it has the mass appeal that the previously mentioned films do.

The cast is well-rounded with talent including Bryce Dallas Howard, Wes Bentley, Karl Urban, the great Robert Redford, and relative newcomers Oona Lawrence and Oakes Fegley. Howard and Redford shine as likable characters who help Pete along his way, but them along with the rest of the cast, are stuck in some weak dialogue. However, no actor was more out of place than Urban. Great in most things, he's far too over the top in his clichéd antagonistic role. Whether it was Lowery directing him into frustrating clichés or his doing, it wasn't good.

Luckily, there still is the power of Disney behind this project. It definitely takes a bit for the story to get where it wants to be, but I finally did come around to the magical tale. If nothing else, I bought into the dynamic between Pete and his (furry?) dragon, Elliot. The emotional undertone to the adventure is about discovery and looking further than what meets the eye, and you certainly get that. But the problem is that this story is structured on what feels like mindless dialogue.

Another small issue could be that Elliot not only doesn't really look like a dragon, but the CGI is average at best. Dragon's look better on a smaller budgeted TV show, Game of Thrones, than they did on a Disney scale budget on the big screen. Look, Pete's Dragon has its moments of Disney magic, and kids will love it. But it doesn't have a mass appeal nor does it have the best script or execution.

+Disney magic

+Pete & Elliot's relationship

-Dumbed down dialogue

-Average CGI

-Over-the-top Urban

6.0/10

Having never seen the original Pete's Dragon I had no idea what the story was except that it evidently involved someone called Pete and a dragon! From the first few moments I was drawn in and captivated throughout. The dragon itself was wonderful - quite unlike other on screen imaginings. He was expressive and I loved that he didn't "talk"....something that immediately ruins any suspension of belief - think Dragonslayer's Sean Connery voiced incarnation!!! Please! The film took me through intrigue, joy, pathos, anger, heartbreak and laughter - not necessarily in that order. I cried an awful lot! Great film and if it doesn't touch you then you have no soul.

Out of all the Disney properties to adapt/remake for the 21st century, Pete's Dragon is by all accounts a quixotic choice. Those who remember it, I'm sure remember it fondly but anyone who has seen the 1977 version lately wouldn't even rank it in the ballpark of Black Cauldron (1985). Maybe within the same vicinity as the jubilant sentimentalism of The Apple Dumpling Gang (1975) but let's face it, the original is not a classic no matter how many can find it in the dusty recesses of their VHS collections.

If summed up, the original film was the story of a truant hillbilly boy whose invisible pet dragon gets him into all kinds of zany mischief. In the remake, the boy is less a loose chain of vaudevillian clichés and an actual character worth investing in. As a five-year-old, Pete (Fegley) finds himself recently orphaned and alone in the middle of a vast rural forest. Alone and afraid, Pete quickly befriends a dragon who stays undiscovered by the nearby town thanks to his cloaking abilities. five years later, Pete wonders near a lumber work site and is discovered by Park Ranger Grace Meacham (Howard). She brings him back to civilization and invites him into her family which includes fiancée Jack (Bentley) and daughter Natalie (Laurence). Despite Meacham's hospitality, Pete still wants to return to the forest to stay with the dragon he dubbed Elliot. Meanwhile Elliot finds Pete missing and searches for him capturing the attention of Jack's overzealous brother Gavin (Urban).

Tonally, Pete's Dragon is a much more mature rendering of the original high-concept. Young audiences may well be delighted by the dazzling flight sequences and the precious few attempts at humor. Images of a huge dog-like dragon sneezing huge wads of snot is pretty much the funniest thing you're gonna get out of this movie. In addition, kids will enjoy young Oakes Fegley who brings depth to a character that would otherwise be a young Tarzan routine.

Older audience will no doubt appreciate the positive themes of family and bravery not to mention the most spare and concise justification of faith put to the big screen in quite sometime. Most of those themes are drummed up by Robert Redford's wily granddaddy Meacham, who seems to be doing his best impression of Garrison Keillor in all his folksy, folksy charm. The film digs deep and pecks at the neurons hiding your fondest E.T. (1982) memories and almost makes it to the finish line with enough panache to justify its run time.

If there's one glaring weak point though it's the central conflict. Gavin and his rag-tag group of lumberjacks head into the forest with no plan and seemingly no serious work their leaving behind. Once they come face-to-face with Elliot for the first time, Gavin focuses most of his attention on convincing Jack of what he saw instead of, I don't know, calling the authorities, probing deeper into Pete's story, bringing a bigger posse next time etc.. Granted it's a little refreshing when Redford calls Gavin out after his second run-in with Elliot, concluding "you really don't have a clue do you?" But the characters lack of motivation apart from "git r done" seems less of a villain story oversight and more of a decision by Disney to not make Big Lumber the bad guy this time around.

Elliot's creature design is remarkable given the relatively small scope and occasionally iffy green screen work of the film. He's a cross between the original 2D green goofball and Sully from Monsters, Inc. (2001) only with a snout resembling a dog. It's certainly a different take on the mythical creature and part of me longs for a revival of the Smaug meets Dragonheart (1996) aesthetic but let's not get carried away; this is a Disney movie after all.

As a remake, Pete's Dragon blows the old one out of the water and as a kids movie, the film smuggles in some honest and wholesome family- oriented plot devices. Yet as a movie period, Pete's Dragon is a bit too stiff and a bit too light in the conflict department; even if talented actors like Dallas Bryce Howard and Oakes Fegley are working extra-hard to make ends meet.

OK, so I know this film is aimed at the younger audience but does it really have to be so cheesy and clichéd? From the get go I realized that it was going to be only for the younger audience and us older folk would just have to grin and bear it. There were numerous times throughout where I felt the hairs stand up on back of my neck and my cringe meter when full throttle. I.e Pete howling like a wolf and when some non important character states "Let's go catch a dragon" I'd like to say the kids will enjoy it but there were two sitting in front of me that were clearly getting bored after 45mins. Average film with average acting

This is my first IMDb review, I really liked this movie that's why I felt the urge to let the people know how amazing It is!

Firstly I want to tell you that I had my doubts, I din't know if it was going to be any good. Luckily the doubts disappeared as soon as I saw the first scene, I'm not going to spoil it but it was an amazing intro to a brilliant movie which is always keeping you interested and intrigued.

Disney has a unique, almost magical way of touching your soul, and it did just that in this movie. It will make you feel like a kid again, no matter how old you are. It will make you feel sad, it will make you feel happy and it will make you feel angry. I'm not ashamed to admit that I cried a lot and also caught myself yelling at the screen! You share the character's emotions and you are feeling like you belong in the story. Another thing that helps with that is the kid who plays remarkably good, and the dragon that feels like real.

I strongly recommend it to you. Anyone can watch it. Your kids, you and even the older people can enjoy this amazing fairy-tale.

This movie . . is nice. The story; nice. Special effects; quite nice. Redford; classy nice. Howard; noice! Nice directing in getting the young actors' realistic performance against a co-star who existed only in post-production. And nice talent-find on the kids. They've got good prospects. Even the ""villain"" is nice. Perhaps too nice. (Any villain from Walt's day would have eaten him for lunch and used his pore misguided redneck bones for toothpicks!)

But perhaps the nicest thing of all is Disney Studio's decision to do away with Walt's annoying habit of always including morals, ethics and life-lessons that led to many after-discussions with the kids about things that truly mattered in life. Entertainment should be just that -- sweet and pre-mushed like a Gerber dessert that one doesn't have to work on a lot to digest. None of this 3-course, home- made stuff Walt foisted on us, peppering even what was called a "marginal success" peppered with notions like the true nature of friendship and love (the song "It's Not Easy"), commitment to a loved one and keeping hope in times of despair ("Candle on the Water"), finding joy in everyday tasks ("Brazzle Dazzle Day"), tolerance, consideration for others ("There's Room for Everyone in this World") and the difference between loving someone and just using them ("Bill of Sale"). It was . . . nice . . . of Disney Studios to go to such lengths to make sure our pure entertainment was not sullied by these things that we as a society have so obviously out-grown. :P

To be fair, it's a good "post-modern" entertainment event. But that's all it is. One could easily imagine Walt approving the movie as a nice beginning but asking them how they were going to flesh it out to make it a "complete meal".

This movie was a major let down. I really like movies with heart. However, this movie just reeks of bad acting, terrible dialog and weak story telling.

Robert Redford was unbelievably bad. His acting came across as insincere and his dialog was stiff. Dallas Bryce Howard was much better in this movie than Redford. However, the way she engaged the young boy (Pete) was more like a textbook than what I would expect someone to do.

This movie ultimately fails because the acting isn't genuine and the dialog is just plain terrible. It achieves feel good, but, it insults the intelligence of the audience. The Jungle Book was much better dialog. Don't talk down to kids. They are not stupid.

I hope Disney take more risks like this. However, they need to tighten up the dialog and acting a lot.

Ultimately, this movie is more like a C grade TV show. They need less insulting of the audience's intelligence.

I love Pete and Elliot! I love Bryce Dallas Howard. This movie just lacks the cheerfulness that I would expect from a children's movie. So much of the story is chaos and running away and being chased and bad things happening.

There aren't enough happy joyful fun feel good scenes in this movie for me.

The music score is one of my favorite things about the movie. I absolutely love the music!!

I love the flying sequences! I really love any scene with Elliot. He's like a big fluffy green dog Loveable that can fly.

It took me three nights to get through this movie and I kept pausing it because I kept getting bored and looking at my phone.

The movies overall color scheme was very muted which made it feel more depressing than it was.