Change Your Image
world_of_cassia
Reviews
The Jungle Book (2016)
Hit or miss - but more of the latter
Another live-action Disney remake, in a trend that shows no promise of slowing down. Hoo-rah.
Jungle Book is a difficult movie to say whether I like or hate, because when it does something good, it's really good. The casting of the animals is nearly perfect and brings out the greatest qualities of their respective characters. I can't complain too much with Bill Murray as Baloo, although he does seem to be channelling Garfield a bit too much here. Strange, considering he hated doing that one. Christopher Walken as Louie sets him up as a sort of Godfather ape, which I certainly didn't mind, Ben Kingsley as Bagheera preserved the panther's upright nature, Scarlett Johansson made a frightening Kaa, and Idris Elba's Shere Khan was very intimidating.
All that said, however, I don't think this remake entirely gets the point of the 1967 original's appeal. The animated version of the sixties was not only a much more lighthearted outing, but also a product of its time - slang terms and jazz musical styles that were popular at the time were incorporated in. Now, remaking that into a more realistic, dramatic version isn't a bad idea in and of itself, but it lacks its own identity. Two of the songs from the original are shoehorned in for absolutely no reason other than to evoke memories long past. Seriously, if you want to build a comedic musical from the sixties as a dark and dramatic tale of survival, I doubt highly that musical numbers are going to come across as anything other than incongruous. That said, I'd be lying if I said that hearing Christopher Walken recite and expand upon I Wanna Be Like You didn't make me smile a little. But if you're going to go the nostalgic route, why only include two songs? Where's Trust in Me (only in the credits), Colonels Hathi's March Song, That's What Friends Are For?
I can answer those last two, because the elephants (easily the best part of the original for me) are barely more than some demigod cameo and don't speak a single word of dialogue, and the vultures are conspicuous by their absence, except in perhaps an even briefer cameo. Another great character that barely gets any screen time is Kaa, who was built up in the trailer, only to be in the movie to spout exposition for five minutes and then go away forever. Not only is this a slap in the face, but her exposition is entirely pointless. Why not just have Shere Khan do that bit? It definitely would have felt less forced. Speaking of our feline antagonist, he's in it plenty, but I feel his character has had a bit of a downgrade. The 1967 Shere Khan was almost a Shakespeare villain, but with claws and teeth. Even when he knew others were lying right to his face, he'd just smile and lure them into a false sense of security, making their entrapment all the sweeter. That sophisticated sense of intimidation made him so interesting and compelling. The modern Shere Khan comes off as your hypocritical, antisocial, violent villain. "Roar, man is evil and I shall kill the man-cub who dares to dwell in our presence. I am so determined to kill the man-cub before he does evil things that I will do evil things in the name of the law that I have broken before, apparently." This character's motivations make little sense if you think about them too hard, and loses a lot of that charisma in the process. Finally, while Mowgli isn't the unlikable little brat I found him to be in the original, he still isn't helped by some of the worst child acting I've seen in a long time. People tell me to be easy on child actors since they're just kids and they haven't learned the ropes yet. That's nonsense for two reasons. One, that's on the director to make us believe that the kids are the characters they're playing, rather than just doing an imaginary game of pretend in front of a camera. Second, if Shirley Temple, Dakota Fanning, and Taylor Momsen were able to give believable performances as children, then what's the excuse here? Heck, the titular character in Finding Nemo was voiced by a ten-year-old boy! When Neel Sethi screamed the line, "You're lying!" I legitimately had Last Airbender flashbacks when the kid playing Aang did the same thing. I doubt that's a good sign. If this kid wasn't surrounded by acting giants giving their best, the movie would be crumbling around his ears like King Louie's temple. Ultimately, while I can't call The Jungle Book a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, it is a bit of a confused one. It can't seem to decide whether it wants to stick closer to the 1967 animated film, the book by Rudyard Kipling, or do neither and interpret the source material its own way. The good parts are great, don't get me wrong, the problem is those bits are outnumbered by misfires.
Zootopia (2016)
Okay Disney, I officially forgive you for Chicken Little.
Because in terms of the setting, it's kind of like that, but good.
Disney's latest CGI feature outing is beginning to make me question whether or not Deadpool is going to be the best movie I watch all year, as Zootopia is giving it a pretty good run for its money. While watching this, I was struck by all of the things it tries to do differently. Despite the fact that there are predators and prey coexisting, it feels no need to paint one side as better or worse than the other. In fact, it tries to teach that in societies with an "us" and "them" concept, that there are good and bad individuals in both groups. Among other lessons it tries to convey are that things are done for reasons other than the obvious, authority and social roles should be challenged when the need arises, respect should be earned rather than blindly given... I could go on for a while, but I'd get pretty boring and preachy.
So instead, I'll leave behind my after-school special bit and explain what else works. This movie certainly knows how to reference pop culture, in that the reference is innocuous at worst for those who don't get the reference and still manages to work in context without joke behind it (as opposed to loudly declaring "Hey, this thing exists! Now those of you who know the thing, laugh in recognition!"). The characters are also very enjoyable, my personal favourite being Nick Wilde. He's slick without being oily, clever and quick with a pun, but not mean-spirited. In fact, out of the entire cast, he's probably the most level-headed and least presumptuous. Judy is also a great example of an underdog (or should I say underbunny?) who defies the odds and social norms to achieve her dreams, but she's also prone to fallacies and misconceptions, making her likable yet flawed without either feeling forced.
However, there are some things about the movie that bug me a little. Why is it that only the mammals evolved to become how they are today? What about the birds, the fish and the reptiles? Why does the movie go so far to build Zootopia as a place with so many different zones, but only visit a few? And finally, why does it have the hardheaded police chief cliché? If Judy and Nick hadn't pressed him to listen to reason so hard, the movie would have had a much more grim ending. I just wish that there could be a police chief character who had more awareness than a sack of wet concrete.
All in all, though, Zootopia is a great movie that's worth a watch because of its top-notch story, solid characters, superb soundtrack, and thought-provoking messages. If you like this, I'd also recommend Arashi no Yoru ni, which is very similar, minus the modernized setting.
Monster a Go-Go (1965)
Current worst movie I've ever seen
Good. Gravy. Some of the notoriously bad movies I leave feeling almost robbed, since I find at least one worthwhile thing. Manos was inept on every level, but the story was at least an idea (note that I didn't say a good one). Zombie Nightmare at least had Adam West and Tia Carrere in it. Reefer Madness and Batman & Robin I find too silly to get really angry about. Monster a-Go Go... I've got nothing.
This is first time I've gotten headaches and nausea from the cinematography alone. Not anything displayed on screen, the camera- work by itself was enough to make me sick. As if that weren't enough, every frame looks like the negative was photocopied 17 times and spliced together, the sound and dialogue made me think my ear buds had gone dead, and the concept itself makes no sense. Given that the project had been abandoned in 1961, then picked up, finished, and put out in 1965, it should come as a surprise to no one that the story is borderline incomprehensible - I'm talking trying to divide by zero while drunkenly stumbling through a hedge maze levels of confounded here. Of course, that's not even close to the biggest problem with the movie: the ending. Not since Robot Monster have I seen such a cop- out conclusion for a movie so mind- bogglingly lazy, out-of-place, nonsensical, and insulting to the audience.
This thing is the current title holder for the worst movie ever made, in my own opinion. If there comes a film to dethrone it, I will retract this statement accordingly. However, I am convinced that it would have to consist of two hours of TV static with a cat hacking up in the background while a monkey takes a tire iron to my skull for me to even slightly consider it for my bottom spot, and even then it likely still wouldn't be as bad as Monster a-Go Go.