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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.