Disney's ‘The Jungle Book’ (2016): A Review

Ah, the remake. I have to admit, I’ve never been a fan myself, mostly because remakes often pale in comparison to their predecessors. Recently, however, Disney’s remakes have fared rather well in terms of garnering positive audience responses. Sure, they’re not for everybody (I, for one, am still rather opposed to remakes on the whole – they simply don’t do a lot for me, personally), but you could do far worse than watching one of Disney’s recent rehashes. The Jungle Book, an adaptation of Rudyard Kipling’s Mowgli stories, is the latest of Disney’s canon to receive the ‘remake treatment’, and it has, as of yet, garnered high praise indeed. But is it as good as the 1967 classic of the same name?

The Jungle Book, Disney, 2016

The plot is obviously a familiar one. It follows Mowgli (Neel Sethi), a ‘man cub’ discovered by Bagheera (Ben Kingsley), a panther, who takes him to be raised by a pack of wolves, led by Akela (Giancarlo Esposito). After Shere Khan (Idris Elba) arrives and threatens to kill the man cub, Mowgli chooses to flee, and Bagheera encourages him to find and reside in the man village. Along the way, Mowgli meets Kaa the snake (Scarlett Johansson), Baloo the bear (Bill Murray) and orangutan King Louie (Christopher Walken), who demands he give him the secret to ‘the red flower’ (fire) –  a nice, if slightly overcooked, recurring motif alluding to the original movie.

Firstly, the visuals are indeed sublime, as can be expected from a live action/CG adaptation. The problem is that there’s no subtlety. From beginning to end, we’re carried from one action scene to another, without good reason. Everything in the original movie maintained symbolic undertones – something this remake manages to almost overlook completely. Even the ending – which originally saw Mowgli take his place in the man village – is completely changed for the remake, which, story-wise, is a major problem. The narrative is supposed to follow Mowgli’s coming of age, his eventual arrival at the man village representing his maturity. The final scene in the remake sees Mowgli contentedly embracing life in the jungle, which misses the point entirely. The film instead just peters out without concluding properly.

The Jungle Book, Disney, 2016

Besides the visuals, the only other positive aspect worthy of a mention is the acting, which is decent. Neel Sethi does a tremendous job in the role of Mowgli, especially considering the fact that the only other cast members are computer generated. The voice acting is also acceptable, however there are some notably obscure casting choices, the strangest perhaps being the film’s antagonist Shere Khan, voiced by Idris Elba, whose refined English accent drains the character of any credible sinisterness. Put simply, he’s just not menacing enough. Compare this with the likes of the original 1967 voice actor George Sanders and there’s just no competition. And Scarlett Johansson as Kaa is pointless. In terms of the narrative, even the character is pointless, as she serves no purpose to the plot whatsoever. Another bizarre addition to the voice cast is Christopher Walken as the surprisingly creepy King Louie, the power-crazy orangutan. I’ve nothing against Walken as an actor, but in this role he’s simply himself incarnated in the body of an orangutan, which was a peculiar decision, especially considering his inevitable rendition of a frankly ill-placed musical number in homage to the 1967 classic. The song falls flat completely and has no place in what is otherwise a serious narrative.

The Jungle Book, Disney, 2016

This brings me on to another major issue I have with the movie – it lacks direction. I’ve no issue with King Louie being represented in a more menacing and villainous fashion than his appearance in the original animated film (he is, after all, an antagonist), but his presentation is hilariously overblown. At one point, he even roars like a lion. And, to reiterate, his rendition of ‘I Wanna Be Like You’, along with Bill Murray’s version of ‘The Bare Necessities’, just doesn’t fit, simply because it’s unclear what the filmmakers were trying to achieve. On the one hand, the remake depicts a far darker, grittier adaptation of Kipling’s Mowgli stories, but on the other it tries to pay homage to the original by integrating musical numbers that just do not sit with the film’s tone. The talking animals, too, range from the frighteningly realistic to cutesy, cuddly and ‘Disney-fied’. The realistic graphics and the voices that accompany them do not always match, and some are downright cringe-worthy. Some might say they’re cute, but the cuddly wolf cubs are frankly vomit-inducing.

The Jungle Book, Disney, 2016

As expected, this film is a visual extravaganza, but it otherwise bears little value. The actors do a decent job, and the animation is very impressive. Story-wise, however, the film gets a bit lost in the jungle, so to speak. Consequently the narrative is underwhelming, and ultimately unsatisfying. The fact that this film has audiences in awe is somewhat concerning. Computer animation improves constantly; without a consistent narrative, any appraisal that focuses primarily on a film’s visuals calls its lasting appeal into question. For the time being, however, it’s worth seeing if only for its technical aspects, but a bare necessity, it is not.

 

 

A Disney Decline or Remake Renaissance?: Thoughts on the CG Reboot

It seems as though Disney’s live action remakes are a little hit-and-miss. While the Tim Burton adaptation of Alice in Wonderland (2010) maintained a rather bland and rudimentary narrative, and Cinderella (2015) was hindered by its sluggish pacing, their latest remake The Jungle Book (2016), based upon the 1967 animated feature of the same name, seems to be a success. But with the recent slate of animated movies planned for live action/CG reboots, I’m more than a little concerned about Disney’s direction, although until now it’s been hard to pinpoint precisely why. I mean, the majority of Disney animated movies are themselves derived from works of fiction, implying that these so-called ‘remakes’ aren’t necessarily remakes at all, but alternate adaptations, which isn’t really such a bad thing. However, with the news that The Lion King (1994) is next in line, it’s fast becoming apparent that Disney’s focus is entirely monetary.

The Jungle Book, Disney, 2016

This isn’t at all a criticism of the techniques applied to recreate these movies. I’ll admit that, when it comes to animated films, my preferences have often tended to be, well, conservative, in a sense, and anchored by a strong, somewhat tantalising, yearning for a reprisal of traditional methods. That said, I have since warmed to what I would have previously referred to as ‘the new-fangled’ way, since Disney and indeed many other production companies have, over the last two decades, proven their ability to convey a complex and powerful story through the utilisation of computer imagery. With that in mind, this latest criticism in no way revolves around the means by which story is conveyed, but instead focuses predominantly on story itself. The Jungle Book manages to get away with being another adaptation of the same work of fiction (Rudyard Kipling’s Mowgli stories), even if it does borrow sequences from the 1967 Disney classic. All the same, considering the latter’s continual popularity amongst audiences, many likely see it as a remake – a carbon copy – rather than a reimagining, especially considering the string of Disney animated classics that have also fallen victim to the same process, such as Cinderella (2015), Maleficent (2014) and Alice in Wonderland (2010). And there’s more to come, including a live action version of the ‘Night On Bald Mountain’ sequence from Fantasia (1940).

The Lion King, Disney, 1994

News of a Lion King remake follows the overwhelming success of The Jungle Book, which managed to draw in $103 in box office revenue in its opening weekend. The trouble with a rehash of The Lion King, however, is that it makes Disney’s artifice all the more visible. While previous ‘remakes’ were clearly based on works of fiction, The Lion King falls into the trap of being a blatant recreation of a classic animated film – and an unnecessary one at that. While the film is indeed loosely based on Hamlet, a live-action and/or computer animated rehash highlights Disney’s complete disregard for original story or, at the very least, fresh perspective. The Jungle Book may have been a box office success, and audience reception indicates that it’s indeed a quality adaptation – but the fact remains that it’s devoid of the originality that made Disney a household name. A Lion King remake merely substantiates my fears that very little thought at all is given to the original source material. Why not make another adaptation, based on another, separate work of fiction?

The Jungle Book, Disney, 2016

This is nothing new, of course. As far back as 1996, Disney unveiled a live action 101 Dalmatians, which, while still inspired by the novel by Dodie Smith, is ultimately no more than a remake of the Disney animated classic from 1961. And the remakes don’t seem to be grinding to a halt any time soon. Other films that are reported to be on the way include Pete’s Dragon, Peter Pan and Dumbo. Indeed, it appears we’re in the midst of a ‘remake era’, in which classic Disney movies are being given reboots, whether they’re actually in demand or not. Let’s face it, there are already plenty of Peter Pan adaptations already, and Pete’s Dragon is a strange choice for a reboot. Besides the promise of visual potential, there’s nothing particularly innovative or necessary about these remakes – which isn’t really a problem as such, as long as there remains a firm focus on narrative and character as opposed to technical aspects. Put it this way – the original Cinderella (1950) and Alice in Wonderland (1951) are ironically more three-dimensional than their live action counterparts. In that respect, I for one am not looking forward to a Lion King remake, simply because it’s not necessary, and can only pale in comparison to what is one of the greatest animated movies of all time. I only hope Disney don’t lose sight of what’s truly important. That’s assuming they haven’t already. Even so, it seems as though this may actually be happening, so there’s nothing more I can do than to reserve judgment until the film arrives. Only time will tell if The Lion King, and Disney’s other remakes for that matter, will be a roaring success.

Disney’s ‘Zootopia’ (2016): A Review

It seems as though Disney are most definitely on a winning streak. The last few years have seen the company churn out success after success (we’ll not mention you-know-what), and, judging by critics’ reviews and box office turnout, this latest release is no exception. But, with all the hype, one anticipates disappointment. And with the same teasers and trailers screened over and over ad nauseam, one cannot help but wonder if the scenes shown are the only ones worth showing. So, is Disney’s latest offering as ‘zootopian’ as its title suggests?

Zootopia, Disney, 2016

The film focuses on Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin), a bunny who yearns to become a police officer. Her parents, though well-meaning, are ultimately discouraging, telling her not to set her goals too high as she is, after all, just a bunny. She relocates to Zootopia, a city populated by all sorts of anthropomorphised animals, and achieves her dream, only to be assigned the task of distributing parking tickets. While on her shift, she meets con artist Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman), a fox, no less. Chief Bogo (Idris Elba), an African buffalo, punishes Judy after she abandons her shift to pursue a criminal, but before he can fire her, Mrs Otterton pleads with the police to locate her missing husband. Judy immediately pipes up and agrees, and eventually identifies Wilde as her lead. What follows is essentially a buddy-cop-comedy adventure – something that Disney have as of yet strayed from presenting in their 50-plus animated movie canon.

Zootopia, Disney, 2016

Before I properly commence this review, I’d like to address something that, to my knowledge, has not yet been addressed. The UK release of this film is inexplicably titled Zootropolis. I’m confused as to why this is, particularly since here in the UK, we don’t actually have metropoliseseses... Moreover, Zootopia works as a title because it’s a clever pun, and emphasises Judy’s initial perception of the city as being a near-perfect centre of equality. Zootropolis just… doesn’t, frankly. I’m not at all certain why they altered it but, hey, let’s not get too bogged down by marketing strategies and talk about the film, which, I must say, is nothing less than fantastic. Honestly, I never give such high praise unless it’s absolutely necessary, and here it most certainly is necessary. It’s bright and colourful; it’s fresh, quick-witted and exhilarating, and the narrative keeps you constantly hooked throughout. I’ll admit some of the trailers were played and replayed so much that it seemed the film was overhyped (that scene with the sloths in the DMV springs to mind) but this film never has a dull moment. It’s consistently funny and engaging throughout, with an added mystery aspect that involves a twist that actually works (yes, Frozen, once again I’m looking at you*). The biggest surprise and appeal for me, however, was that the film’s main focus – its child-friendly menagerie of colourful characters – bears some rather mature and realistic undertones.

Zootopia, Disney, 2016

On the surface it might seem strange that they really emphasise the fact that this is a Disney film all about animals – a world of animals – and that this appears to be the feature’s main unique quality, when by this point Disney are essentially known for little else besides anthropomorphised characters and folk story adaptations. What does make this film unique, however, is that it utilises that set-up to reinforce its story, and in clever ways at that. Animals in this film are used symbolically to delineate a moralistic and at times bitterly truthful tale of societal prejudice. A number of people have already noted the striking, almost feminist, undertones of sexism, particularly with regards to perceptions of women (or bunnies, in this case) in the workplace, and in society in general. But this film intelligently covers all grounds in terms of addressing prejudice, even if these particular prejudices are never mentioned explicitly. Contextually, this film arrived at just the right time, and it handles the sexism issue and gender roles far better than the likes of Frozen (2013)*. For a film about a city of animals, it’s altogether very ‘human’.

So, those are the film’s key positive features in a nutshell. But what’s bad about it? Well, to be honest, not a great deal, fortunately. If I had to nit-pick, I would complain about the Frozen* references dotted throughout the picture. They weren’t overly distracting but they were, well, less than subtle. And I’m not too impressed with Disney’s leaning toward the ‘celebrity voiceover’ route – that, I prefer to see as DreamWorks’ territory; Disney doesn’t need Shakira in a guest role. Otherwise, I have no major complaints at all. Zootopia is a wholly satisfying experience for young and old alike. It tackles some fairly heavy themes with surprising aplomb. Indeed, Disney’s latest offering is more than just a cute fluffy bunny.

*I’m aware I said I wouldn’t mention that film. I make no apologies.

‘Finding Dory’: Will Pixar Sink or Swim?

Finding Dory, Pixar’s long-awaited sequel to fan favourite Finding Nemo (2003), is due for release in June 2016. And people are excited. Very excited. Ellen DeGeneres, who lends her vocals to our forgetful fish friend, has been constantly promoting the film in the media, including premiering clips on her chat show, much to everybody’s enthusiasm. But I have to admit that I have reservations myself. To begin with, even the title alone makes the sequel sound like a cheap, ill-thought-out follow-up. And Pixar’s reputation of late doesn’t exactly keep my hopes afloat.

Now I appreciate that it is unfair to deride and criticise something prior to seeing the finished product, and those of you who’ve read many of my former posts will know I’ve a tendency to voice my scepticism when as little as a teaser trailer has been unveiled. But in this case, my concerns, I think, are justified. I’m not saying Finding Dory will necessarily be a bad movie – it actually looks alright from what has been revealed so far. But my scepticism is grounded in previous experience of movie franchises that took a nosedive into the mediocre, the disappointing, and the downright catastrophic.

Finding Dory, Disney/Pixar, 2016

In their 20-plus years in the animated feature film industry, Pixar have rarely let us down. Even now, in the post-Disney-takeover era, when criticism is rife, they still continue to churn out enjoyable produce, even if many of their latest efforts aren’t quite up to scratch. The trouble is that, for a company as renowned as Pixar, any noticeable decline in quality of their output would inevitably bring their reputation crashing down. The truth is, no company is infallible. Whether their recent lacklustre efforts such as Brave (2012) and The Good Dinosaur (2015) are indicative of a permanent diminishment or a temporary lapse, there’s no denying that they’re currently representing a shadow of their former selves.

The Good Dinosaur, Disney/Pixar, 2015

Furthermore, there’s been far too much focus on second-rate sequels of late. While Toy Story 3 (2010) turned out to be of equally high quality as the previous two movies in the franchise, their subsequent effort Cars 2 (2011) proved to be a major bump in the road, so to speak. Though a moderate box office success, the former king of story-telling had been knocked from his pedestal thanks to a middling, well-worn and frankly bizarre narrative concerning espionage and a shameless attempt to boost merchandising profits by blatantly appealing to an international market. Monsters University (2013), too, while hardly catastrophically ‘bad’, just didn’t resonate with me as much as its original counterpart. Visually, creativity abounds, but story-wise it’s nothing special, and ultimately conveys itself as a rather bland college movie. It’s not awful, but it’s not great either. With a slew of sequels in the pipeline, this doesn’t exactly instil me with confidence.

Finding Dory, Disney/Pixar, 2016

A major issue I have with Finding Dory conceptually is its predominant focus on one of the original movie’s secondary characters. Sure, in Finding Nemo, Dory had a fairly major role, but all the same, she’s best utilised as a form of light relief – a side character. In the original movie, she does indeed share the spotlight with Marlin (Albert Brooks), but the fact that she is now expected to carry the plot of the sequel all by herself does not fill me with hope. Just look at the Cars franchise. Now, I’m aware the first Cars (2006) movie continues to receive a lot of criticism, mostly because of the fact that the characters are cars, and cannot emote in the same anthropomorphic way as toys, bugs or monsters, for example. And I’ll agree that, while the film has heart, it falls flat in its attempts to draw an emotional connection with its audience. Regardless, the story is actually very pleasing; it’s ultimately very enjoyable and, at times, lightly touching. Its sequel, however, turns its focus away from the exploits of racing car Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) and instead lets comic relief Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) take the wheel, with disastrous consequences. The story is a mess, the lead character is annoying as all hell, and it’s littered with gratuitous violence; put simply, it’s completely devoid of the finesse and narrative drive that saved the original movie from being a car crash. Now, Finding Nemo does not suffer from the same problems as Cars, and is conversely regarded as being a Pixar masterpiece. But that’s all the more reason to leave it alone. Supporting cast generally do not carry a narrative well on their own, and that’s what worries me.

As I stated before, these criticisms are merely concerns in anticipation of the movie. I love Finding Nemo – everything about it; the characters, the story, the emotional impact, the humour… But I love it so much that I’m deeply concerned that they’ll continue the undersea saga with a lacklustre follow-up. If Pixar’s recent output is anything to go by, these fears are hardly unfounded. Dory in the role of protagonist might not be a bad thing, but ultimately the movie needs a decent narrative to stay afloat, and a damn good one if it intends to meet the standards of their original effort. Put simply, Dory needs story - something that many Pixar movies have been lacking lately. That’s pretty much all that can be said for now. Until the film’s release, there’s no knowing whether Finding Dory will sink or swim.