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.

Cinderella Review

Last year Disney released a live action retelling of their animated classic Sleeping Beauty in the film Maleficent. It was okay; it would have been much worse without Angelina Jolie. This year, another live action remake of different animated Disney classic was released. After Maleficent's hype and subsequent mediocrity, I wasn't too keen on seeing the new Cinderella (2015). I was pleasantly surprised to find an engaging movie that has stuck to its (Disney) source better than the other fairy tale movies that have been released in the past several years.

Young Ella (Lily James) was raised in a happy and loving home by her parents (Ben Chaplin & Hayley Atwell). Her merchant father remarries following the tragic death of her mother. Keen to support her loving father, Ella welcomes her new stepmother Lady Tremaine (Cate Blanchett) and her daughters Anastasia (Holliday Grainger) and Drizella (Sophie McShera) into the family home. But when Ella's father suddenly and unexpectedly passes away, she finds herself at the mercy of a jealous and cruel new family. Finally relegated to nothing more than a servant girl covered in ashes, and spitefully renamed "Cinderella" since she is made to work in the cinders, Ella could easily begin to lose hope. Yet, despite the cruelty inflicted upon her, Ella is determined to honor her mother's dying words to "have courage and be kind." She will not give in to despair nor despise those who abuse her. One day Cinderella meets a dashing stranger in the woods (Richard Madden). Unaware that he is really a prince, not merely an employee at the palace, Ella finally feels she has met a kindred soul. It appears as if her fortunes may be about to change when the palace sends out an open invitation for all maidens to attend a ball, raising Ella's hopes of once again encountering the charming "Kit." Alas, her stepmother forbids her to attend and callously rips apart her dress. But as in all good fairy tales, help is at hand as a kindly beggar woman (Helena Bonham Carter) steps forward and, armed with a pumpkin and a few mice, changes Cinderella's life forever.

It's interesting that Disney chose to stick to the sweet innocence of their classic animated feature when remaking this live action adaptation. We've had movies like Red Riding Hood, Snow White and the Huntsman, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, and Jack the Giant Slayer which are all dark reimaginings of Grimm's fairy tales. But Cinderella stuck to its guns and remained a cute, romantic, and charming adaptation of the Disney animated classic. Had this come out ten years ago, I don't think it would have been as well received. Many of these dark fairy tales explore themes such as feminism, the blurred lines between hero and villain, and the strength of women. Those are great, and this Cinderella does focus on feminine strength, but not the sort in the previously mentioned movies. I think that to contrast these dark interpretations, Cinderella provides some pleasant themes of kindness for which we redeveloped a craving after all the mature and dark movies of the past decade. Some of them were good, but Cinderella is kind of a breath of fresh air we didn't realize we wanted.

This Cinderella has been criticized for making a weak girly character of its tragic heroine, lacking agency and independence. I disagree! Cinderella does have horrible things happen to her; had I been in her shoes I would have retaliated. But despite her circumstances, she chooses to return Lady Tremaine's cruelty with kindness and patience. She had the power to leave her abusive stepmother at any time, but chose to care for the home of her parents to honor their memory in spite of how demeaning and emotionally painful her stepfamily was. Also, in the scene where Prince "Kit" and Cinderella meet in the woods, at no point did I feel like he was in control. Cinderella was in control of the conversation and the outcome and allowing herself to be herself, regardless of what was thought of her. Furthermore, Cinderella had no interest in meeting the prince at the ball; her whole motive for attending was to simply have another chance meet the young man she'd met in the woods, not knowing he actually was the prince. She was not interested in high society, glitz and glamor, nor was she seeking to anything of self-interest. Cinderella was simply seeking a kindred spirit. This character is not defined by the men in her life, nor is she seeking to live up to men's expectations. Having said that, I think this Cinderella is more pro-feminism than Maleficent was; female strength needn't be physical nor should it be defined as power over men. It can very much be strength of character and sticking to ones principles. I love the warrior princess characters we've had in the past couple of years such as Merida in Brave, she and others are fantastic and worth emulating. I'm simply delighted to see a female protagonist be the type of woman who has the courage to be kind in a world full of cruelty. That's the kind of strength of character I think we should encourage and instill within our daughters.

I think this Cinderella is a better role model than its animated predecessor. I never liked the animated Cinderella movie that much because kind as the character is, she basically sits around wishing things were better and wants to go to the ball because girls like that kind of thing and the prince is handsome. This doesn't lend itself to depth of character, and even as a kid I thought she was uninteresting. I don't really like characters who rely on others to fix things for them, regardless of gender. This Cinderella, though, sticks to her principles with kindness and patience. She has moments of sorrow, but recommits herself to being a good person. It's not until she has reached her lowest low that her will finally breaks and begins to accept the world as a cruel place, no matter how hard she tries to make it good. At this point her Fairy Godmother intervenes, not to solve all her problems, but to give her the boost she needs to overcome her trials and find a sense of happiness again. The deus ex machina plot device that the fairy godmother normally provides is still present, but this Cinderella seems much more deserving of it. She's worked hard to be a force for good in her world rather than simply wishing things would get better.

I often mention good costuming to illustrate a time period. But the costumes and dresses in Cinderella were stunning and gorgeous beyond compare! Lady Tremaine's dresses are always the height of fashion, and Blanchett displays them as well as any fashion model would. The gown that Cinderella is granted for the ball is striking and resplendent; often put against orange colors, blue dress looks picturesque in every shot and almost seems to gracefully move of its own accord while Cinderella dances.

The only real issue I had with Cinderella was the CGI animal friends. Cute animal sidekicks and friends work well in animated Disney features, but in live action movies they tend to become awkward very quickly. I saw them in the trailer and was worried they would act as the primary comic relief, and be silly as they so often do in animated features. While they do appear regularly in the movie, it's only for short bouts and they act mostly like normal mice. I think it would have been just a little bit better had they trained some mice to run around looking cute rather than having slightly cartoonish digital mice run around looking cute.

Cinderella is a fantastic remake of Disney's classic animated feature. It's refreshingly traditional in this revisionist era of movie remakes. Kenneth Branagh shows us that Disney hasn't lost any of its old fashioned magic. This version has more depth and complexity than the original, but holds true to the classic tale even with some unexpected twists. They've done something right; this story has been retold many times over.  This fresh take on the story caused me to gasp a few times. This Cinderella is a stronger and more interesting character than her animated predecessor, and of a class that I would like to see more of. I even got caught up in the romance which is normally so clichéd that I check out of that particular subplot.  Cinderella is a good movie! The camera work was breathtaking in some scenes, especially the fireworks display at the ball.  After mulling it over in my mind, I've decided that I want a copy of it on Blu-Ray when it becomes available. You can wait until then if you want, but I think this is worth the price of a movie ticket.

With Cinderella being as well done as it was, I think I'm looking forward to Disney's upcoming live action Beauty and the Beast movie. That's one of my favorite animated Disney movies, and they'd better not screw it up! What are your feelings about this Cinderella movie and the upcoming Beauty and the Beast one? Comment below and let me know!

Maleficent Review

When Disney released a picture of Angelina Jolie in costume to promote the upcoming Maleficent (2014) movie, everyone went bonkers over it! It was a simple close-up that showcased the Disney villain's iconic headgear and face. I admit even I was instantly psyched to see it. But a movie starring a villain sounded like a gutsy move for Disney. It had potential to screw up a classic character, or to be dynamic and interesting. Incidentally, it did neither.

A beautiful, pure-hearted, winged young woman, Maleficent (Angelina Jolie), had an idyllic life growing up in a peaceable forest kingdom until one day an invading army threaten the harmony of the land. Maleficent rises to be the land's fiercest protector, but she ultimately suffers a ruthless betrayal - an act that begins to turn her pure heart into stone. Bent on revenge, Maleficent faces a battle with the invading king's successor, King Stefan (Sharlto Copley), and as a result places a curse upon the newborn infant Aurora. Raised by three bumbling pixies (Lesley Manville, Imelda Staunton, & Juno Temple), Aurora (Elle Fanning) is caught in the middle of a seething conflict between the forest kingdom she has grown to love and the human kingdom that holds her legacy. Maleficent realizes that Aurora may hold the key to peace in the land and is forced to take drastic action that will change both worlds forever - and perhaps to Maleficent's true happiness as well.

I constantly hear praise for Maleficent as being a feminist take on the classic fairy tale. I don't think that's the case. Feminism, as I understand it, is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of equality. That's a great thing to advocate! But the three main male characters are really awful for different reasons. King Stefan is a power hungry monster who will walk all over anyone to reach his goals; Prince Phillip (Brenton Thwaites) is the most vapid and pointless character in the movie, almost as if he inconveniently wandered on set while the cameras were rolling for two very short scenes; and while Maleficent's shape-shifting crow, Diaval (Sam Riley), has enough spine to voice an opinion once in a while, he's basically a subservient toady. Demonizing or controlling men is not what feminism is about. However, most of the women characters in Maleficent are at least as simple and ridiculous as the men are. Ultimately, I don't think feminism plays a particularly significant role for or against.

Maleficent has a fantastic and even romantic fairy tale vibe. It's some high end fantasy and often feels like a classic fairy tale that I was unfamiliar with. The classic Disney fairy tales usually started out with the camera focusing on a book with a brief narration to introduce the story. In Maleficent, there is a narrator that sounds like a sweet grandmotherly lady reading to us a bedtime story. I liked the narrator at first, but it quickly became evident that the narrator was being overused. The narration delivered a lot of exposition telling us things that the movie should be showing us rather than telling us, and it robbed the characters of development. We're told what Maleficent was doing and shown Jolie in dramatic poses instead of showing her do these things. It weakened the story and the characters by not letting us see the changes these characters are going through.

The major draw for Maleficent was to see Angelina Jolie play Maleficent. She looked amazing! The costume was perfection itself. Her makeup and prosthetics really helped sell this Disney icon. Those cheekbones could cut a person if they weren't careful. Jolie looked, sounded, and acted the part so beautifully, it was almost chilling. As Maleficent tries on this "evil" role as she seeks revenge, she genuinely looks scary! Apparently, Jolie in full costume was so intimidating that they couldn't get young child actors to go near her. The only one unafraid was Vivienne Jolie-Pitt, Angelina's six-year-old daughter, who was used to play young Aurora so that the two characters could be in close proximity. Here's a clip to help illustrate how amazing Jolie is in this role:

The visuals were plentiful and detailed, but they relied heavily on CGI and 3D effects. I'm certain most of the scenes were done in front of a green screen. It lacked heart and made everything feel even more artificial than a fantasy movie already seems. The pixies who resembled the Three Stooges looked awful and were very irritating. I'm sure the garish colors and flashy CGI was used to draw in audiences, but it failed to impress me.

Overall, Maleficent was okay. With only her voice and sense of bearing, Jolie effortlessly makes the notoriously wicked fairy seem real. No one else involved in Maleficent seems to have that magic. It was weird to see this powerful classic Disney villain depicted as a heroine who lapses into villainy. Reconstructing one of the most evil animated characters of all time this way didn't necessarily ruin the iconic Disney character, but it certainly didn't do her any favors. I want to say the story would have been better had it not used preexisting characters and changed their story, but then there would be no real attraction to see this movie. I still think Maleficent is worth seeing, just to see Jolie play this role so incredibly well. This is a good movie to watch as a family, and with a PG rating it's not too scary for young kids. I daresay it's more tame than the original 1959 Sleeping Beauty. It's not good enough for the cost of a theater ticket; it's a renter.

After seeing Maleficent, are you anxious to see the upcoming live-action Cinderella remake? It's set to release in 2015. Comment below and tell me why or why not!