Skip to main content

Move away from the jams.

Aladdin
(2019)

(SPOILERS) I was never overly enamoured by the early ‘90s renaissance of Disney animation, so the raves over Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin left me fairly unphased. On the plus side, that means I came to this live action version fairly fresh (prince); not quite a whole new world but sufficiently unversed in the legend to appreciate it as its own thing. And for the most part, Aladdin can be considered a moderate success. There may not be a whole lot of competition for that crown (I’d give the prize to Pete’s Dragon, except that it was always part-live action), but this one sits fairly comfortably in the lead.

From what I can see, Aladdin 2019 sticks fairly rigidly to the 1992 version (Guy Ritchie and John August still wangle screenplay credits, however), but with an additional romantic subplot for the Genie (Will Smith) and some extra (as in, on top of the nascent struggle for marital rights of the animated original) female empowerment for Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott). The latter is squirm-inducingly crude, with power anthem Speechless written especially for the movie and dad (Navid Negahban) abdicating his Sultan-ness so that his daughter can take his place. For which the movie’s in good company this year, what with Avengers: Endgame proving similarly as subtle as a brick, and all the worse for getting accolades for playing the progressive card in the most cynically base manner. I guess Disney will do anything they can to ensure their various princesses have been fitted out with as much feminist cred as they possibly can, up to and including patronising their target audience (who may not know the difference, but where’s your self-respect, Disney?), and Jasmine was formerly lacking somewhat on that front. A shame this late-stage shamelessness wasn’t handled with a bit more aplomb, as Scott – who reminded me a little of Sarah Michelle Gellar – is a highlight of the movie, adept with the vocals and possessed of good chemistry with Mena Massoud’s Aladdin.

This bears emphasising, as the odds looked stacked against Ritchie’s venture into Disney territory from the first, with the debate about how his style would clash with the Mouse House, to the casting difficulties the picture experienced, to the underwhelming first look at Will Smith’s Genie. Indeed, everyone in the movie looked stiff, insubstantial or unenthused in the early promotional materials, so it’s a relief that all those in prime positions work so well.

Massoud brings strong comic timing and physicality, and an easy rapport with Smith (the jam routine), and if his singing voice isn’t amazing, well, it at least matches the generally perfunctory execution of the numbers. Smith is really good when he’s allowed to be Will Smith rather than required to go through the motions of that ker-razee Robin Williams material (this is where the movie is guilty of slavishly following the original’s best beats, even if it’s to the detriment of the whole; The Jungle Book made the same mistake by including the classic songs). He’s particularly affecting as a slightly (only slightly) bashful human incarnation wooing Nasim Pedrad’s Dalia (who also has great comic timing). Marwan Kenzari’s Jafar fails to enter the pantheon of villainous greats – you really need the villain in this sort of fare to be so joyously rotten that you root for them – but he’s sufficiently serviceable (Alan Tudyk, however,isgreat voicing parrot Iago). On the support front, Billy Mangussen steals his two scenes as an idiot prince of Skånland.

As for Ritchie, he’s definitely on tempered form, keeping the action sequences rattling along nicely – notably anything with the carpet – but only really attempting to apply his style to the musical numbers in the opening parkour-infused One Jump Ahead. As a consequence, the Bollywood-inflected routines tend to pass by without much claim to the attention. The visuals and general design are big and cartoonish, but Ritchie’s stylistic verve has always come from a musical approach to editing, and that’s largely absent, alas. The effects work is good, although Iago is much more engaging than the slightly uncanny-valley Abu (with those two and a tiger left over from Jungle Book, Hollywood animal trainers of yore must have all packed up and gone home). His best moment finds Genie atypically – for all his irreverence – fourth-wall breaking, as Smith “steps” into the audience and rewinds the reel to view Abu’s responsibility for the first wish. A moment worthy of Joe Dante.

So, of the four live-action Disneys this year, I had Dumbo pegged to go great guns and it only went and stiffed, while I thought this would be a stinker and it has turned out to be quite enjoyable. Coming up, Maleficent 2 looks every bit as enticing as the first while The Lion King still appears too damn photoreal to really evoke any emotional response. But seems like it will nevertheless be unstoppable. It’s unlikely that Aladdin, for all its relative merits, will entirely brush off those initial bad vibes; certainly not to the extent that its box office will reflect the love of the original. And there’s also, as if it need saying, the factor that parents may be becoming a bit choosy on what they drag the mites to when there’s a deluge of Disney reheats available each year rather than just that one crown jewel.




Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the