Tag Archives: disney

Live-action ‘Beauty and the Beast’ a cashgrab snore

Disney continues its run of uninspired, derivative live-action adaptations with “Beauty and the Beast.” Directed by Bill Condon, the film follows Belle (Emma Watson) as she meets the Beast (Dan Stevens) who… well, you know the plot.

The film feels more like an excuse to photograph lavish set design as its story is exactly the same as the animated film. Right down to the jokes pretty much, there is nothing new in this film, and the end result is that the movie is boring. You know what’s going to happen exactly as it happens. So while it’s pretty to look at, that’s no excuse for good story.

The cast is fine for the most part. Luke Evans is adequate as Gaston in a role that is far too villainous for its own good. Emma Watson does an okay job with Belle, but Dan Stevens as the Beast, in all his CGI monstrosity, is distracting. All the digital effects substitute realism for design and the result is a disconnect with whatever story we have. Special effects are supposed to blend in with the story, not be a central focal point.

In conclusion, the film is less a film than a mass marketing enterprise. It sells nostalgia instead of ingenuity. It sells it well though. The film has grossed half a billion dollars in the United States. Instead of nothing ventured, nothing gained, Disney has finally achieved nothing ventured, millions gained.

 

‘Zootopia’ a deeper Disney flick

The theme of just about every Disney movie is “follow your dreams.” It’s sweet, timeless and, by now, pretty boring. So it is great that with “Zootopia”, the filmmakers haven’t abandoned that concept but added a much-needed dose of reality and racial diversity into the equation.

“Zootopia” tells the story of Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin), a young bunny who dreams of being a police officer in the sprawling city of Zootopia, a place where predator and prey live together in peace. There has never been a bunny cop before, and she faces all sorts of prejudice for being perceived as less than bigger animals. As she tries to prove herself, she meets a sly fox named Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman), a con artist she enlists to help her get to the bottom of a case of disappearing predator animals.

The story takes a film noir approach (with a child-appropriate tone) towards the investigation and examines some poignant race-relation issues in the world today. The discrimination of predator to prey and prey to predator imbues the story with a deeper level of meaning than that of a standard Disney film. The characters must work through their own prejudices of the world to gain true understanding.

Real time and energy went into making the film not only fun and entertaining, but also different and deeper. It’s great to see an animated film, especially from Disney, tackle some prominent modern-day issues.

“Zootopia” is one of the better films of the modern Disney era. It is fun, insightful, heartfelt and memorable.

‘Moana’ beautiful, fun

Boasting beautiful animation, an engaging (if familiar) story and strong musical numbers, Disney’s Moana is an enjoyable cinematic experience.

Moana (voice of Auli’i Cravalho) is destined to lead her Polynesian island community, but the island’s resources are drying up. The sea calls to Moana, who must embark on a quest to return the heart of the goddess Te Whiti before the darkness overwhelms her home. She enlists the help of the demigod, Maui (voice of Dwayne Johnson).

Directed by the duo of Ron Clements and John Musker (past credits include Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, The Princess and the Frog among others), the film features several of the traditional Disney tropes: a princess, the bumbling sidekick, the quest, nature as a guide, the biased father-figure, the helpful grandmother. But while the story is rather so-so in terms of creativity, the songs and the visuals are great. The water in particular looks terrific and Lin-Manuel Miranda’s tunes are sure to stick in your head for better or worse long afterwards.

The film does an excellent job of really utilizing its location to tell its story. You can practically smell the sea-breeze off the screen. It is to Musker and Clement’s credit that they imbue the film with such energy and really bring Polynesian culture to life.

When given the choice between the familiar told well or the unfamiliar told poorly, telling stories smartly always wins. While Moana is nothing that new, it is fun, it is enjoyable, and it is another strong Disney entry in its recent revival (started not-so-coincidentally when John Lasseter took over as head of Disney animation).

Oh please, Disney. Don’t…

After the success of “Maleficent”, last year’s “Cinderella” and this year’s “The Jungle Book”, Disney has revamped their efforts at turning their animated classics into live-action films. So, if you’ve always been dying for a live-action version of “The Fox and the Hound”, hey, that is now a distinct possibility.

While the quality of these movies is not terrible, they are still unoriginal cash-grabs meant purely for reliving the glory days of yesteryear, not creating original and exciting films.

Which of the future planned live-action reboots is the worst idea? In this edition of “Oh please, Disney. Don’t”, let’s count them down.

14. Mulan

Admit it. You want to see a live-action Mongol horde attack an ancient Chinese city where the villain is blown up by fireworks. And the chance to see a strong heroine with a small, CGI dragon companion at her side. Unlike a lot of the entries on this list, “Mulan” is rife with possibilities of exploring Chinese culture and giving us something different than the whimsical fairy tale, sing-a-long so often exploited by Disney. Will they actually create something unique out of the source material? Who knows, but the possibilities are stronger than with any other property.

13. The Jungle Book 2

“The Jungle Book” was a fine, if unoriginal, film. It was one of the biggest hits of the year. A sequel’s been planned because, you know, more money. Of course, there wasn’t really a sequel to the original “Jungle Book” film. So maybe that means there’ll be new things, new adventures, new characters, you know, something, anything new. There’s hope in that.

12. Prince Charming

Sure, why not make a movie about Prince Charming? Nobody even knows his real name. Maybe Charming is his name. If it is, that’s unfortunate. If the film is tongue-in-cheek, it could be a hoot. If it’s taken seriously, it’ll be a bore.

11. The Sword in the Stone

King Arthur has been done so many times. There doesn’t really need to be another movie. But Disney’s animated “The Sword in the Stone” isn’t really a classic so you can give some leeway to the creative team to make the material it’s own. Plus there are lots of opportunities for strong visuals and a solid story of a boy king and Merlin.

10. Snow White

Sure, why not. Remake Snow White. The dwarves will be cool. I’ll bet that evil queen will be badass. At least rinse the taste of the “Huntsman” movies out of our mouths.

9. Aladdin

Ugh. Remake “Aladdin”? How are you going to keep this from being racist? And who could possibly do Genie with Robin Williams gone? This is one of those, “If they’re going to do it, make it different.” Make the Genie evil and do some forty thieves stuff.

8. Beauty and the Beast

This one has the potential to be just plain creepy. Hermione falling in love with a hulking CGI bison? Sure, it looks pretty, but what could this possibly add that’s different?

7. The Little Mermaid

How are they going to make this work? Like how? I don’t understand.

6. Tinker Bell

Oh, dear God. Just… the horror.

5. Pinocchio

Anybody remember that Jonathan Taylor Thomas movie? Yep.

4. Winnie the Pooh

There’s talk that it will be an adult Christopher Robin. Having him chatting with a CGI Pooh bear and friends won’t give anyone nightmares…

At this point, how can any sane person think any of these are a good idea? This isn’t even fun to joke about anymore.

3. Cruella

Maleficent got her own movie to show her good side, so of course the next logical choice goes to… Cruella deVille! I’m sure it will be easy to empathize with a psycho who wants to murder animals and then wear them. With Emma Stone set to star, what could possibly go wrong?

Seriously, what could happen in this movie? Does she have a secret heart of gold or something? Is she the villain? Wouldn’t that just make this a straight up remake like the Glenn Close one? I don’t get it. How could this possibly work?

2. Dumbo

Reasons this will be terrible other than the obvious: This movie has Tim Burton attached to direct it (mic drop).

1.The Lion King

Has Disney really sunk this low? One of their most beloved animated classics, a film that has practically no flaws… sure, let’s go ahead and remake it with a bunch of fake-looking CGI animals. This one has already caused an uproar (ha ha) because no good can come of it. It’s almost unfathomable what a poor decision to remake “Lion King” is; the only question anyone can fathom is, why?

 

‘Cinderella’ pretty but a snore

Disney’s latest entry of Cinderella closely follows the familiar tale. A young girl named Ella (Lily James) becomes orphaned and is forced to live with her uncaring stepmother (Cate Blanchett) and stepsisters Drisella (Sophie McShera) and Anastasia (Holliday Grainger) while dreaming for Prince Charming (Richard Madden). Her only chance at hope comes in the form of her Fairy Godmother (Helena Bonham Carter).

Director Kenneth Branagh, a strange choice to helm such a project considering his previous directorial efforts (Thor, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Hamlet to name a few), does not excel nor fail in directing. There does not seem to be much flair to really make the film stand out. Shots are static (except for the ball scenes) and the editing is rather bland. On top of this, some of the CGI effects look downright porous which is peculiar with Disney’s acumen.

What the film lacks in style it makes up for in lavishness. Sets are intricately designed and costumes gorgeously rendered. There are so many glowing lights and absorbing cinematography that the film is visually memorable, but narratively dull.

Overall, the film goes by rather quickly, hitting each familiar story beat calmly and without great emotional involvement. Blanchett, though perhaps miscast for being a bit too pretty for an evil stepmother, shines in a cast that does not pose a lackluster performance. Lily James contains just the right amount of bubbly energy and wanton desire, though she does seem a bit old for the role. Helena Bonham Carter provides a few laughs as the Fairy Godmother in a film sorely lacking in humor. Richard Madden as Prince Charming is, well, exactly as you’d expect him to be.

The problem with making fairy tale films with live actors however has always been the translation from simple stories into 90-minute long features. There’s just not a lot of depth and internal conflict for the characters to go through. The problem of one-note characters (the stepmother is evil, Cinderella is innocent and good) leaves the film emotionally uninteresting. Cinderella is almost too good for us to empathize with and the Stepmother is too evil for us to do so as well. Without a personal stake, Cinderella is all icing, but no cake. Some sort of internal dilemma would have greatly helped the story.

This is not to say Cinderella is a bad film. It is reasonably entertaining and sweet. But the greatest fault with the project lies in why it was even made. Do audiences really need another Cinderella movie? The film tells the exact same story exactly as we have seen it before. It does not present us with anything new or offer a different take as last year’s Maleficent (2014) did by telling a story from the villain’s point-of-view (though in fairness that is borrowed from Broadway’s Wicked) and offering a different interpretation of the story’s themes by changing the ending. Cinderella is nothing new and could have been so much more.

Just for ideas, why not a tale of Cinderella’s two stepsisters and how they look upon the world? Or a conflicted evil stepmother who must grapple with personal love, love of her children and perplexing hatred for this new stepdaughter? Or even a Cinderella-focused narrative that takes place in a different location, say India, or a different time period such as the the depression? Just something different or an interesting take would have added something to a story that we have seen over and over again.

‘The Jungle Book’ gorgeous

Despite the fact that it is a nostalgia-driven marketing endeavor, Disney’s latest live-action foray based off one of their animated classics works because it is filled with heart and gorgeously animated.

Much like its predecessor, “The Jungle Book” focuses on the young boy Mowgli (Neel Sethi) raised by wolves. When the tiger Shere Khan (voice of Idris Elba) threatens to kill him, his panther guardian Bagheera (voice of Sir Ben Kingsley) leads him on a quest to the man village where he’ll be safe. Along the way, they meet the villainous Kaa (voice of Scarlett Johansson), the gigantic King Louie (voice of Christopher Walken) and the lovable Baloo (voice of Bill Murray).

Much of the plot remains intact from the animated film with one huge change near the film’s conclusion meant to make way for a sequel (it is not terrible, but not great either). The characters are magnificent CGI representations, full of identity, grace and beauty, and all of the voice actors are excellent (Idris Elba in particular).

The theme of man as a disease to nature works well and respect towards each other across species is a metaphor to our current culture. With a fully realized world in the Indian jungle, the film is engrossing, entertaining and full of Disney charm.

Two detriments to the story are inherent however. One is that the movie can not help but exist in the shadow of its predecessor. It tries to push out and be its own film at times, but with every rendition of “I Want to Be Like You” the film reminds viewers that it is essentially a remake. The film then works as a companion piece to the original, but one can’t help but wonder what the final product would have looked like if director Jon Favreau had been able to create Kipling’s tale independent of the animated film.

The other is the manner of the making of the film. There is no actual jungle at all. Everything was shot in a Los Angeles sound studio. Every creature, tree, mountain is all computer-animated. It is the height of hypocrisy for a film whose moral is the preservation of nature to not actually feature any real nature in it. The film lacks grit and a sense of reality because of it. It is a shame.

But overall, the film is enjoyable, well-made and strong. It is the best live action from animated film released by Disney and an argument can be made that it is even better than the original.

‘Finding Dory’ lacks the ingenuity of its predecessor

In general, sequels always start at a disadvantage. When you are compared to an earlier film, you not only have to stand on your own, you have to match up with a film already established and add to its legacy. Some sequels (The Empire Strikes Back) accomplish this feat. Others (Men in Black II) do not. You can’t just be a good film. You have to be a worthwhile companion, a continuation that illuminates the first stories’ characters and themes. And “Finding Dory” is just an okay film; compared to its predecessor, it doesn’t measure up.

The film begins a year after the conclusion of “Finding Nemo.” Dory (voice of Ellen DeGeneres) lives with Marlin (Albert Brooks) and Nemo (Hayden Rolence), but she is lured on an adventure when she remembers her parents and how she lost them. The trio trek across the ocean to California and a rehabilitation center, encountering numerous animals along the way such as Hank (Ed O’Neill), a septopus that refuses to go back to the ocean, Bailey (Ty Burrell), a whale with broken echolocation, and Destiny (Kaitlin Olson), a near-sighted shark.

If one were to view “Finding Dory” as its own film, the result would not be a negative experience. The visuals are great, the characters are fun and the story is pretty good. Dory goes from sidekick to protagonist very well, as she realizes her own worth despite her short-term memory loss.

The problem is that in the shadow of “Finding Nemo”, the film is lacking. Where “Nemo” is grand and adventuresome, “Dory” is claustrophobic. Where “Nemo” utilizes a full cast of characters, “Dory” keeps it simple and contained. Where “Nemo” was groundbreaking, “Dory” is a case of been-there, done-that.

hank the octopus and dory finding dory .png

Marlin and Nemo have far too little involvement in the story and their character arc is simple and perfunctory. If they were absent, no one would notice. Bailey and Destiny are entertaining as are several of the other smaller parts (such as the sea lions), but after so many great moments in the original, they feel lesser. Hank regularly steals the show when onscreen, but there is little motivation for why he does not want to go back to the ocean. Some sort of backstory would have really helped make his arc more interesting.

And the ending is a bit too trite and predictable. Even though this is a “kid’s movie” (a term I personally loathe), the happy conclusion waters down the emotion of the journey. In the original film, Nemo’s mother and all his siblings die. Darla murders fish. Marlin and Dory get stuck in the belly of a whale. Marlin nearly witnesses the death of his son twice. The grit and reality of life felt more real. Trauma and heartache were real emotions. “Dory” feels just a tad too cartoony, especially at the film’s conclusion. It lacks chutzpah.

“Finding Dory” is not a bad film, and taken on its own merits, it stands up as a fun, if uneven, outing. But it is just a pale shadow to the original.

★★★ (out of five)