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.

Zootopia

I'm usually down for a Disney movie, but the trailers for Disney's latest film Zootopia (2016) did not thrill me at all. They consisted of genuinely humorous blips featuring talking animals but not a single thing about plot. It's usually a red flag when a movie trailer doesn't tell you anything about the plot, or interesting details about the characters, or even innovative cinematography to perk one's interest. More often than not if a trailer says nothing about the story, it's because they're trying to hide the fact that there is none. Fortunately, I ended up seeing Zootopia and I loved it! It's full of delightful characters, stellar animation, and tackles touchy social issues in a tasteful way.

From the largest elephant to the smallest shrew, the city of Zootopia is an anthropomorphic  mammal metropolis where various animals live and thrive. When Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin) becomes the first rabbit to join the police force, she quickly learns how tough it is to enforce the law. Determined to prove herself, Judy jumps at the opportunity to solve a mysterious missing person case. Unfortunately, that means working with Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman), a cynical con artist fox who is her only lead and who makes her job even harder.

Who doesn't like talking animals? Disney's been doing it for years. They're usually good at it to be honest. This is the first time anthropomorphic animals have been used to illustrate a complex and diverse society. It's a highly creative setting and atmosphere that is deliriously fun to watch. It also creates a safe environment to explore the complexities of race, privilege, and social stratification. There are generalizations made about different species; foxes are cunning and sneaky, elephants never forget, rabbits are passive and meek, cheetahs are fast and agile, etc. However, none of those traits are accurate to the specific characters we meet, and it's even a little offensive to them when they are stereotyped that way. We have those generalizations proven wrong by these characters time and again, showing that you can't make broad generalizations about people based on their appearance or standing in life. It also addresses the idea that our circumstances profoundly affect what we can and cannot do. It's not the ghastly sweet trope of "you can be whatever you want to be" which sounds nice but is effectively untrue. Zootopia acknowledges that life is more complicated than the cute slogans we often try to attach to it, and that we all have limitations and make mistakes. All of this is beautifully illustrated, symbolically, through these talking animals and their fascinating world setting. One of the best lines that demonstrate this is from Police Chief Bogo (Idris Elba), "Life isn't some cartoon musical where you sing a little song and all your insipid dreams magically come true. So let it go." This was also a delightfully playful jab at Disney's Frozen.

Another thing that sells this world setting so well is the animation. It's amazing! The detail is impressive and the designs are astounding. It is difficult to animate fur because each individual stand of fur needs to move on its own, such as when wind blows through the fur, when the fur it touched, or when the skin bunches as the body moves. It needs to move in such a way that it looks natural and like actual fur moves. Fur gets wet, mussed up, sticky, muddy, and physical contact between furry creatures happens a lot, and it all looks fantastic! In Zootopia the little details are astounding. My favorite is how the small stands of fur on top of Nick's muzzle bunch up on the rare occasion when he starts to bare his teeth. It looks so believable and lifelike, for a fox wearing a Hawaiian shirt and tie.

These characters are utterly delightful. Judy Hopps is an optimistic, bright-eyed character with high hopes. This isn't out of the ordinary for Disney, of course. Judy is expected to be naive or innocently stupid. While she is a good girl through and through, she's not a dumb bunny. She's intelligent and resourceful and regularly caused me to do a double take when I realized how she'd out witted or out talked characters who don't take her seriously. She's a fantastic character. Judy was a much needed and delightful change of pace from Disney's usual heroines. Unlike most of Disney's female protagonists whose stories revolve around romance or family loyalty, Judy's focus is on her dream career as a police officer and serving her city. Nick has a wily, dry wit and is crafty and sarcastic, not unlike how one would expect a fox character to behave. But he frequently shows a great amount of heart and depth, especially when we learn about his past and why he seems so emotionally detached. I loved these characters and I almost wish the movie had been longer so I could see them shine longer. It was fantastic to see two characters who form a strong friendship rather than romance for a change.

The story was that of a classic mismatched buddy cop movie. Judy and Nick get along like cat and dog at first, but are forced to cooperate to the mutual benefit of one another. The suspects keep changing and it keeps the audience guessing. As of this writing I have seen the movie twice in theaters (it's just that good) and knowing the end from the beginning allowed me to notice the little hints at the big picture. The ending is still a surprise, but it doesn't come out of the blue like some poorly written "whodunnit" stories do. The whole movie is really well structured, well written, and has plenty of action and gags to laugh at.

Zootopia is fun, funny, cute, charming, well written, and thought-provoking. The cast is great, the characters are lovable, the action is fantastic, the story is complex and entertaining, the theme is tastefully implemented, the animation is amazing, and it's suitable for viewers of all ages. I honestly can't think of a single negative thing to say about this movie. It's just so much fun! It's timely message about the harm of prejudice in the face of prevailing xenophobic political rhetoric is very much needed and welcomed. Zootopia is absolutely worth the cost of tickets at the theaters. This is the kind of movie we want to encourage Disney and other studios to keep making. I encourage you to go see this and to consider getting a copy on home video when it's available.

What's the best family-friendly "buddy cop" movie you've ever seen? Comment below and tell me all about it!

Pacific Rim Review

When the trailers for Pacific Rim (2013) were released, it looked like it could have some potential. Once the movie hit theaters I kept hearing people say it was like Power Rangers for grownups. While Power Rangers is a bit hard to take seriously, the idea of Power Rangers for grownups sounded flipping awesome! Now that I've seen Pacific Rim, I think I can agree with the Power Rangers analogy.

When legions of monstrous creatures known as Kaiju, start rising from the sea, a war began that would take millions of lives and consume humanity's resources for years on end. To combat the giant Kaiju, a special type of weapon was devised: massive robots, called Jaegers, which are controlled simultaneously by two pilots whose minds are linked in a neural bridge. But even the Jaegers are proving nearly defenseless in the face of the relentless Kaiju. On the verge of defeat, the forces defending mankind have no choice but to turn to two unlikely heroes - a washed up former pilot Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunnam) and an untested trainee Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi) - who are teamed to drive a legendary but seemingly obsolete Jaeger from the past. Together, they stand as mandkind's last hope against the mounting apocalypse.

Guillermo del Toro co-wrote and directed Pacific Rim. Near as I can figure del Toro saw some Power Rangers episodes or an old Godzilla movie and went, "Bah! I can do better than that!" The movie starts out giving us a Lord of the Rings style prologue, a very quick summary of everything that has happened leading up to the beginning of the main story. We hear there's a portal at the bottom of the ocean, it took three days for tanks and fighter jets to take down the first monster, then after the second monster a new weapon had to be devised, and then describes why two pilots are needed to operate the giant robots. Really it's not too hard to take this prologue as it is; there really isn't anything so ridiculous (bearing in mind this is high end sci-fi) that we roll our eyes in exasperation. We accept it and then look forward to seeing these two monsters duke it out.

And duke it out they do! Really, the draw to see Pacific Rim is to see huge monsters fight. Was there any other reason to watch this movie? I can't think of one! While I don't normally like to use this cliché adverb, the monster fights are epic! The fights are drawn out, not short and quick; they have a massive scale, not just a brawl in a small arena; and they are intense. The movement for both the Kaiju and the Jeagers are stunning. They don't move quickly and effortlessly. The way they are animated gives them a strong sense of mass and weight. They move slowly as if heavily labored under their own weight. You really feel the scale of these things. That comes from a good director who can frame the action well. Yeah, we know they are big, but the camera work is so beautifully done that you are simply stunned by the enormity of the Kaiju and Jeagers. They aren't just big, they are colossal! I don't think we ever get to see them fit into a single shot. This shows some excellent camera work and directing.

So, there are some human characters in Pacific Rim believe it or not. Most were pretty standard characters. Becket is basically everything you'd expect from a washed up former pilot; tough and world weary. That's about all that character has going for him. He serves his purpose well and that's all he did. Mori was more interesting; she has a past, a desire to prove herself, and personal obstacles to overcome. then there is Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba), the commanding officer of the Jaeger program. He's a hardcore mentor character that whips our two heroes into shape; you can't have any doubts about this guy since he's such a competent and strong leader. My favorite characters were Dr. Newton Geizler (Charlie Day) and Dr. Hermann Gottlieb (Burn Gorman). They provide some much needed levity and comic relief; they have polar opposite personalities and disagree on all their research. They still play an important role in the story. There really aren't any characters that are awkwardly placed in the story or who don't serve a purpose, which leaves me thinking they are reasonably well rounded characters.

Guillermo del Toro has made another visually striking movie that is absolutely fun to watch. It is some high end sci-fi, but it's not so outlandish that we find it hard to take seriously. The monsters and robots are beautifully animated to make them seem as realistic as possible. The characters are pretty decent, the script flows well and reminds me of Independence Day a little bit, and those fight scenes are nothing short of epic. I highly recommend catching Pacific Rim in theaters if you can, this movie was made to be seen on the big screen. I didn't think I was going to enjoy as much as I did, but I think this is worth owning a copy of once it's available on Blu-Ray.

Do you have a favorite monster movie? What is it and why did you like that one in particular so much? Comment below and tell me all about it!

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance Movie Review

Back in 2007 Marvel Studios released a movie called Ghost Rider. It was pretty dumb, but didn’t take itself so seriously that it couldn’t be enjoyed. It was corny with a silly setting, but Nicolas Cage helped make it kind of fun. I even bought a super cheap used copy because it was just a silly and fun superhero romp that no one in their right mind could take seriously. Nicolas Cage must have been put on a contract for a sequel or something. I can’t imagine why anyone, let alone a big Hollywood name, would want to be associated with Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2012).

Years ago stunt motorcyclist Johnny Blaze (Nicolas Cage) sold his soul to the devil to save his dying father’s life. In exchange he became a hell blazing vigilante to help fight the devil’s battles. Having finished the errand given him by the devil, who goes by Roarke (Ciarán Hinds) when in human form, Johnny is on the run to make sure no one is harmed by his alter ego, The Ghost Rider. He is approached by a monk named Moreau (Idris Elba) who tells Johnny that he can help free him from The Rider. But first he needs Johnny’s help to protect a boy named Danny (Fergus Riordan) whom Roarke plans to use to give himself a more powerful body.

If you saw and remember anything about the first Ghost Rider movie, you’ll probably see some discrepancies between it and this plot summary. The back story was different from what we saw in Ghost Rider. Johnny Blaze wasn’t trying to rid himself of The Ghost Rider, he was going to keep it and use it against the devil. The devil doesn’t have a weak body that becomes weaker when he uses his powers. The Ghost Rider doesn’t feed on the evil of his victims no matter how small the infraction, from genocide to a white lie. This movie took place in Eastern Europe. Ghost Rider’s thing was to be a supernatural western of sorts, set in the US Midwest. Why set it in Europe?

The screenplay was written by David S. Goyer, Scott Gimple and Seth Hoffman, who are all probably 10 years old and have never seen the first Ghost Rider movie. I could just see them saying to each other “Dude, wouldn’t it be cool if we got Ghost Rider to ride a big wrecking machine? We should write a movie about that!” The dialogue was just terrible, the characters were stupid, and it follows none of the previously established rules and setting. Much like the demonic characters in this movie, I’m pretty sure this script came from hell.

If that wasn’t bad enough, the movie was directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, who I assume are film school drop outs. The editing was ridiculously dreadful. It made Ghost Rider seem to be spastically teleporting all over the set, and twitching constantly when he wasn’t teleporting. This makes Ghost Rider seem a lot more like a crazy convulsing skeleton man rather than a dark, powerful being from hell. Even his costume was remarkably bland and ordinary.

To make things worse, they did cut-away gags, like you would see on Family Guy. For example, Moreau solemnly tells Johnny that his brothers are all dead, and that would be too if not for the grace of God. Then it cuts away to a green, leafy tree in broad daylight with Moreau sticking his head out of the leaves and giggling to himself. Then it cuts back again to Johnny and Moreau. There are several gags like this and it contrasts with the tone of the movie so much that I rolled my eyes every time it happened. If I wanted Seth MacFarlane style humor, I would have gone to Hulu.com.

Nicolas Cage is reprising a previous role, but he still acts very differently than he did in the previous movie. In the first movie he was calm, collected, sarcastic, and arrogant. In this one he seemed to be combating schizophrenia and nervous tics. I blame the writers for screwing up the character; I hope Nicolas Cage was simply doing what the directors were instructing him to do. And what they were telling him to do was terrible! I suppose he did a good job of acting insane, he just had horrible material to work with.

One of the thing that ruffled my feathers was when they were attempting to remove The Ghost Rider from Johnny. I appreciate the fictional angels and demons sort of mythology, but there’s only so far you can go with it before it begins to becomes religiously offensive. To initiate removing The Rider from Johnny, Moreau prepares a sacrament for Johnny. This is taken so lightly and even comically that I began feeling slighted by it. Viewers who take religion even more seriously than I do would probably get very bent out of shape by it.

With a horrendous script, sloppy directing, disregard of movie it claims to be a sequel of, uneven CGI work, and Nicolas Cage acting insane, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance was total crap. I’ve seen B-horror flicks that were better than this! I think it was trying to be trashy fun, but ended up just being trash. I would call this the worst movie of the year if I didn’t know there was another Twilight movie coming out. DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE! It’s a waste of time, and insulting to watch. Even if you’re a fan of Marvel Comics and their movies, you will be sorely disappointed by this one. Even though I’ve never read a Ghost Rider comic, I’m pretty sure this movie violates cannon in almost every regard. If you’re not a Marvel comics fan, I doubt you’ll even make it half way through the movie before shutting it off and using the disc as a $20 cup coaster.

Sequels are rarely as good as their predecessors. What’s the worst movie sequel you’ve ever seen? Comment below and tell me why!