The Jungle Book Review

So, it seems that live-action remakes of classic Disney animated features are going to be a trend now. I still say that Maleficent was not that impressive, while Cinderella exceeded my expectations. I'd heard about a live-action Beauty and the Beast remake, but a live-action version of The Jungle Book (2016) slipped under my "coming soon" movies radar. The original animated Jungle Book isn't one of Disney's greatest films, though I enjoyed it as a kid. This newer version has more story to it and is more thematically cogent.

Raised by a family of wolves since birth, Mowgli (Neel Sethi) must leave the only home he's ever known when the fearsome tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba) unleashes his mighty roar. Guided by a no-nonsense panther (Ben Kingsley) and a free-spirited bear (Bill Murray), the young boy meets an array of jungle animals who don't have his best interests at heart, including a slithery python (Scarlett Johansson) and a smooth-talking ape (Christopher Walken).

The Jungle Book is a collection of short stories written in 1894 by Rudyard Kipling. And according to Disney tradition, their original 1967 animated musical was a significantly watered down and sugar-coated version that had little to do with the book upon which it was based. There was a 1994 live-action version of The Jungle Book which featured no talking animals. This third version of The Jungle Book strikes a balance between Disney's two previous versions by retaining the buoyant spirit of the 1967 films (as well as some of its memorable songs) while crafting a movie with more realism and peril. I think this balance worked out very well.

In the animated Jungle Book, there wasn't much theme or story surrounding it. Disney was content to have some cute characters sing some musical numbers and have a villain generate some kind of tension regardless of how vague his motives might be. Thematically, I interpreted the animated movie to be about growing up. Mowgli is being encouraged to leave the fun filled jungle and go to the man village and take on responsibilities, Mowgli resists this, trying on new animal personas, up until he discovers a human young lady and then has no trouble at all moving from childhood. In this version of The Jungle Book, it's more about nature and man's place in it. Back in Kipling's day, nature was something to be overcome and tamed, where as now nature is something to be protected. Mowgli loves and respects nature, but as a human he is prone to making and using tools. This is mankind's adaptive skill, as opposed to tooth and claw that the rest of the animal kingdom has. It is established, that while Mowgli's tools have very practical use, they are not in alignment with the natural world, and it would be in his best interest to leave the jungle to be with his own kind where such tools are more inherent. A sense of urgency is produced by Shere Kahn who distrusts man and his tools because he was burned by fire or "Man's red flower" which disfigured him. Fire itself is developed as a powerful tool that humans use. Fire was similar to The One Ring in The Lord of the Rings, in that controlling it was  going to give someone ultimate power, but corrupt them as well as create destruction. Thematically, everything fit together beautifully. The story and theme were woven together in this new interpretation without detracting from the fun quality of the original animated film.

Initially, I was surprised that more of the movie was not shot in actual jungle locations, given the prominent theme of preserving the natural order of things. This was a CGI intensive movie that used a lot of green screen to create a surreal, dreamlike world. The Jungle Book made glorious use of photo-realistic rendering, computer-generated imagery, and motion capture technologies in such a way that frankly rivaled the innovations of Avatar and Life of Pi. Among the most impressive uses was the motion capture, and none was more impressive than that done for the character of King Louie. This antagonist shows up later in the movie, and is essentially the catalyst which gives Mowgli the idea of how he can defeat Shere Kahn. When we see King Louie, I thought he looked familiar. It took me a few minutes before I realized that this Gigantopithecus, looked, sounded, and acted a whole lot like Christopher Walken. The mannerisms were so spot on of the actor, even Louie's eyes looked like Walken's. The visuals and camera work are nothing short of amazing.

Admittedly, I wasn't real keen on a remake of The Jungle Book, since I didn't find the original all that great. But this version was fantastic! It's as lovely to behold as it is engrossing to watch, and is only bolstered by a stellar vocal cast. The Jungle Book actually makes significant improvements upon its predecessors while setting remarkable new standards for CGI. This wasn't a musical, though it had Baloo singing a bit of the song "Bear Necessities" and King Louie singing a shorter and slightly altered version of "I Wan'na Be Like You" to give it a different context for this version of the movie. Though not part of the actual movie, Scarlet Johansson sings Kaa's "Trust in Me" song over the end credits. This is a good movie and worth the money to see in theaters; it would be a great film to see as a family. I'd also consider getting a copy on home video when it's available.

Disney is cranking out live-action versions of their animated classics. I'm still looking forward to Beauty and the Beast, even more so after seeing this the fantastic transition made on Cinderella and now The Jungle Book. What is an animated Disney movie that you'd like to see made into a live-action film? Comment below.

Osmosis Jones Movie Review

Do you remember being in elementary school and having to watch animated videos about the immune system? I recall germs being compared to criminals and white blood cells being compared to police officers. Evidently someone thought to take this concept and make a full length movie about it. Peter and Bobby Farrelly take their usually body function-inspired humor to a creative extreme in Osmosis Jones (2001) with a mixture of live action and animation.

Frank (Bill Murray) is an unhygienic zoo keeper, and a father of a bright young girl named Shane (Elena Franklin). Frank follows the “Ten-Second Rule” which dictates that dropped food is still safe to eat after ten seconds on the ground. But Frank doesn’t seem to consider the fact that his hardboiled egg had been in a monkey’s mouth and on the cage floor. The egg is crawling with germs, sending “The City of Frank” into a panic. At the Cellular level, we meet Osmosis Jones (Chris Rock), a maverick white blood cell cop working for The City of Frank Immunity Department. Also on the egg is deadly virus named Thrax (Laurence Fishburne) that begins terrorizing the city. Thrax is intent on becoming the next big viral disease, attempting to kill each new victim faster than the previous one. Meanwhile, Osmosis Jones teams up with a cold pill named Drix (David Hyde Pierce) that Frank took to try to combat his symptoms. They have 48 hours to stop Thrax before he destroys Frank.

Osmosis Jones flips back and forth between live action and animation. The scenes outside of Frank feature comedy actors like Bill Murry, Molly Shannon, and Chris Elliott, all Saturday Night Live alumni. Bill Murry is amazing in everything he is in, and he’s particularly good at comedy. I’m fairly certain that most of the scenes that featured Bill Murry were improvised. He’s amusingly gross and unsanitary. You’ll both cringe and laugh at his performance.

Roughly two-thirds of the movie is set in the fictionalized human body where anthropomorphic micro-organisms go about their business in the City of Frank. This is where the movie really shines. The art style is highly colorful and very creative. The animation looks slimy, goopy, and drippy. The characters move like blobs, rather than figures with a bone structure. The buildings sway and jiggle like gelatinous structures. Everything is just fascinating to watch.

The way the human body is depicted as a city is so creative. Various body parts represent different neighborhoods. The slums of the Lower East Backside, the stomach is the airport with regular departures for the colon, the Mafia hangs out in sweat glands in the armpit, and the brain is City Hall where Mayor Phlegmming (William Shatner) is planning his reelection against his opponent Tom Colonic (Ron Howard). Osmosis Jones and Drix gallivant all over the body chasing Thrax, yet the movie graciously avoids adventuring in the genital area.

There is a lot of bodily humor in this movie. In response to an inquiry about the housing shortage, Mayor Phlegmming announces the construction of a third chin. Tom Clonic’s campaign ad promises exercising and eating bran. There’s even a scene when Frank is trying to hide a runny nose which is pretty disgusting.  Yet it fits so well into the story and setting.

There are two stories going on here. Are they good? No, not really. It’s a very generic parent and child trying to bond in spite of different personalities and interests. It’s also a very typical buddy cop movie. Neither story does much to set them apart from others of their kind. While the plot is pretty standard and the characters are all common and predictable, the anthropomorphizing of cellular organisms is remarkably imaginative and the dialogue is usually witty.

Osmosis Jones is pretty good for what it is. Most critics seemed to dismiss it for its crude humor. I’m not a fan of crude humor, but I didn’t think it was a drawback. If anything the unconventional implementation of the crude bodily humor made it better. If you’re not too put off by Murray’s scratching and gas-passing antics, you’re in for an imaginative and eye catching tour of the human body. Kids will love the exciting action and the anatomical plumbing jokes and adults will enjoy the fanciful animation of this energetic movie. I recommend seeing Osmosis Jones and possibly buying a copy for your shelves at home; it’s good enough to see more than once.

Lost in Translation Movie Review

Bill Murray has been appearing mostly in independent films and as cameos in bigger budget films. For Lost in Translation (2003) director Sofia Coppola wrote the lead role specifically for Bill Murray, and later said that if Murray turned it down, she wouldn't have done the movie.  In fact, she wasn’t even sure if Bill Murray was going to do the film, only having a verbal confirmation. It was on the first day of filming that Murray actually showed up.

Bob Harris (Bill Murray) is an American film actor who is far past his prime. He visits Tokyo, Japan to appear in some celebrity endorsed commercials. While at his hotel he meets Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson), the young wife of a visiting photographer. Charlotte is trying to find her place in life, and Bob is tolerating a mediocre marriage back in the States. Charlotte is puzzled with how much her husband, John (Giovanni Ribisi), has changed in their two years of marriage, while she's been unable to launch a creative career of her own. The spark has gone out of Bob's marriage, and he's become disillusioned with his career. Bob and Charlotte end up being perfect, yet improbable traveling companions. Both suffer confusion and some amusing antics due to the cultural and language barriers  between themselves and the Japanese. As their companionship deepens, they come to the realization that their visits to Japan (and each other) will soon end. But does it need to?

Murray’s and Johansson’s characters were both well developed and interesting. Bob was inundated with mundane domestics; even while he was in Japan, his wife sent him carpet samples though FedEx so he could decide what color to re-carpet the home office. She also faxed him samples of shelves to decide how to redecorate their home. Phone calls with his wife usually involved her being frantic about home decorations and screaming children, and not listening to anything Bob has to say.

Charlotte is stuck at a hotel while her negligent husband is doing photo shoots for celebrities. He doesn’t seem interested in his wife of only 2 years. When Charlotte and John run into a celebrity  acquaintance (played by Anna Faris), John jumps at the opportunity to do a one-on-one “photo shoot” with her and tells Charlotte that “he'll be working, and she won't have a good time if she comes along with him.” So Charlotte is constantly left on her own to mope around the hotel and wonder what her place in life is.

These are relatable issues, yet other issues bring to mind the “First World Problems” internet jokes where pictures of people crying are coupled with captions like, “had to park far from the door.” Bob is a celebrity! Who hasn’t dreamed of being interviewed on talk shows, having people snap photos of you, and asking for your autograph? Charlotte is visiting Japan! What percentage of Americans get to travel overseas, let alone to Japan? If I were there I’d be on the streets every day touring and exploring everything I could, regardless of how busy my self-absorbed spouse was. That was a theme in the movie; the attitude you have towards events in your life really affect your feelings about life. These characters were literally doing what many people dream of and were still despondent.

Over the course of the film, several things get “lost in translation.” In a particularly funny scene while Bob is working on a commercial, the Japanese director uses lots of hand gestures and long bits of instructions in Japanese. An interpreter translates this to Bob as, “He wants you to turn, look in camera. OK?” Bob looks bewildered and asks, “…is that all he said?” The characters themselves are lost, too; lost in the alien Japanese culture, lost in their own lives, and lost in their relationships.

The relationship that Bob and Charlotte form is interesting. It’s almost expected that if (in movies) two characters of the opposite sex form a relationship it will always be a sexual one, maybe even a romantic one. But the relationship that Bob and Charlotte form is a platonic relationship. They share something deeply personal with each other; their true feelings, rather than something as commonplace as their genitals. Their relationship was fascinating to see, and I would love to see more relationships like this in movies. In fact, the only sexually explicit content in the movie is some topless strippers in the background when the two are exploring Tokyo.

The scenery captured in Lost in Translation is so gorgeous! There are strange locations that captivated the feel of Japan, and the movie really explored Japanese culture. In the context of the characters being tremendously out of place, everything looked amazing and defies description. From simple family-run restaurants to flashy casinos and arcades to tranquil Zen monasteries, everything was eye-catching and beautiful to see. I’m ready to go visit.

Lost in Translation was a good movie, though I don’t think it would appeal to everyone. It’s pretty slow moving and dramatic. The visuals are stunning, and I think it’s worth watching for that aspect. Most of the “adult” elements (apart from the previously mentioned strippers) are only talked about, not visually depicted. It’s a fairly clean movie. It ended with the characters simply feeling better, but their problems remained unresolved. That felt a bit anticlimactic, but still complimented the theme of attitude affecting your view of life. This was a well done movie, but I wouldn’t rush out to see it unless you enjoy drama films.

Can you think of a movie that really captivates the essence of a certain culture? What's the movie and what's the culture? Comment below and tell me about it!

Ghostbusters Movie Review

We’ve all seen monster movies. We’ve all seen comedies. Monster movies rely on suspense to move the story forward, leaving little room for comic relief. Comedies have the flow disrupted if there is much tension. It’s rare to see a movie that combines these two elements; I can’t think of another example of a fusion of monster mayhem and humor as accomplished as the iconic movie Ghostbusters (1984).

Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Dr. Raymond Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), and Dr. Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) are parapsychologists at Columbia University who research paranormal activities and ghost appearances. After gathering their first useful hard data from a specter at a library, they return to Columbia University to find their funding and tenure cut off. Now jobless with useful scientific data on ghosts, they create their own paranormal exterminator service called “The Ghostbusters” using ghost catching technology invented by Egon. They catch their first ghost at the Sedgewick Hotel, and become hugely successful. Business booms and they have to hire Winston Zeddmore (Ernie Hudson) to help meet the demand. The Ghostbusters are summoned by Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) to investigate a demonic spirit that she finds in her refrigerator. Peter takes interest in Dana and begins competing with her neighbor Louis Tully (Rick Moranis) for her affection. Ray discovers that the Dana and Louis’s apartment was built by a cult leader and that the design of the building acts as a conductor to summon Gozer, a demon god of destruction, from another dimension. The Ghostbusters are summoned by the city to handle the massive ghost outbreak, and save them from impending annihilation.

Where to start on this classic?

One of the more endearing features of Ghostbusters is the combination of genres. It’s sort of a suspense/action/comedy movie. Usually high production special effects and comedy don’t blend well. Comedy requires spontaneity while special effects require meaningful planning ahead of time. High end special effects detract from spontaneity, and thus from good comedy. Ghostbusters somehow managed to pull it off, though. Most of the scenes featuring improvisation comedy sketch masters Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis were in fact, improvised. This is amazing because every line of dialogue, even the improvised ones, develops the plot and characters. Yet the spontaneity doesn’t detract from the special effects; there was a natural progression of the plot and characters to cause Gozor to take the form of the cute food mascot, the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. The ordinarily contrasting film elements merged beautifully to make a great movie.

The art design in the movie was fantastic as well. Remember that this movie was made long before computer special effects were available. The models and puppets for the ghost creatures were made transparent and well designed. They looked monstrous and creepy, yet weightless and ghostlike.

The wardrobe was fantastic, too.  The characters all looked really believable within their context.  The Ghostbusters team looked perfect in their field gear.  The jumpsuits and proton packs (used for catching the ghosts) were so well designed that they are now iconic symbols of the Ghostbusters film.  The Ghostbuster’s car, Ecto-1, is a 1959 Cadillac ambulance/hearse combination which is, itself, so iconic that it is almost its own character. It was beautifully designed with lots of detail.  A good indication of great movie design is seeing ordinary people try to replicate it.  You’ll see Ecto-1 and Ghostbusters uniforms replicas at sci-fi conventions and even some car shows decades after the movie was released.  Everything about this movie exudes personality and classic cinematic artwork. 

With great special effects, some suspenseful scenes, hysterical humor, and one of the catchiest movie theme songs in cinema history, Ghostbusters has withstood the tests of time. It is required viewing even if you have only the vaguest of recollection of the film.  If you have seen this movie before, go see it again! If you’re a bit too young to have seen it back in the day you must watch it at your earliest convenience so that you will know who you’re gonna call.