Lilo & Stitch (2025)

For over a decade now, Disney has been making such lifeless attempts of their classic animated films to make money quick by making live-action versions of the same material. Some are completely different versions on the material like 2020’s “Mulan,” and others are lifeless copies like 2019’s “The Lion King.” Their latest effort at this infuriating formula with “Lilo & Stitch,” theatrically released in May, ends up falling somewhere in between those two categories. Joshua Mbonu said in his review, “The original Lilo & Stitch film from 2002, despite coming out at a time when Disney Animation was in a slump, proved to last through multiple generations as a heartwarming story about the meaning of family.” Unfortunately, seeing the quality of the previous attempts, it’s no surprise that Disney’s latest live-action remake misses the main part from the original.

Mbonu said, “The new Lilo & Stitch, despite running 20 minutes longer than the original film, has so much less thematic substance than the original that it’s utterly confounding. When it’s not just following the beat-by-beat strokes of the original, it makes some of the most bizarre and haphazard changes and additions to the story that either add nothing to the film but fluff or actively harm what the remake is trying to accomplish. Young actress Maia Kealoha, as Lilo, seems to be the only aspect of this remake that the movie captures with the warmth of the original. Still, Lilo & Stitch appears to yet again render these remakes as pointless, sludgy-looking cash grabs for the company’s benefit.”

The story of this remake mostly remains the same with scientist Jumba (Zach Galifianakis) being put on trial for the creation of experiment 626, aka Stich (Chris Sanders, co-director and voice of Stitch in the original film). Still, Stitch goes on to escape his trial and lands on planet Earth in Hawaii where he is adopted by Lilo and Nani, played by Sydney Agudong. Mbonu noted, “However, the issues with this remake are apparent from the start with a weirdly breakneck pace through its first 20 minutes of introducing us to the characters while trying to hit beats that the movie knows its audience will remember.” The main problem is that this is another evidence where the lack of these moments in the remake will be filled in with the nostalgia that many have for the original film, which is the laziest way to tell this story to both newer and older audiences.

As said before, it’s very evident that the only performance here that manages to capture even an ounce of the original’s likability is Maia Kealoha, who brings a similar likability to the character that is there in the original. Mbonu said, “She manages to find a nice connection to Stitch even though the CG creature is not there with her on set, an incredibly impressive feat for such a young first-time performer.” Unfortunately, when looking at the performance there isn’t much else to talk about other than the incredibly awful performance from Zach Galifianakis. From the beginning, it is so obvious that his type of voice and mannerisms as an actor do not fit the character at all, and it doesn’t help matters when they completely change Jumba as the villain of the film. This disorganized change ruins the dynamic he is supposed to make with Stitch later in the film, when he realizes the creature has greater purpose than destruction.

Despite the main focus of the original is around Lilo and Nani’s family, there are a shocking amount of changes and new additions to the human cast of the film too. The most evident of them is including Tutu, played by Amy Hill, as a neighbor who lives next to Nani and Lilo, but as with the other remakes, it comes off as an insertion whose presence makes no difference to the film. Courtney B. Vance plays the film’s version of Cobra Bubbles who is also strangely changed to be a CIA agent who decides to be a social worker in disguise instead of the other way around. Mbonu said, “yet another unneeded fluff change that somehow doesn’t even compare how different Sydney Agudong’s Nani is in this version of the story.” Here, she is changed into wanting to be a marine biologist who can’t accomplish that dream because of her little sister. Mbonu said, “Not only does this change barely add anything new to the core of the story, but it forgets that what made Nani’s smaller regular life conflicts so important was that it could relate so much more to the struggles of the average person. It’s an utterly confounding change that takes so much more away than it adds.”

Mbonu continued, “The truth is, I wish I could say Disney’s Live-action Lilo and Stitch was even just mildly better than the bottom of the barrel quality we’ve been getting from these kinds of movies for years now, but that would just be a swerve further away from the truth than imaginable. It’s yet another limp reincarnation of such an lively 2D animated film that fails to even remotely capture the same sort of magic that was present in that 2002 film.” “Lilo & Stitch” is an empty case that will leave the memories of anyone watch it immediately after (like the rating Jeremy Jahns give some of the films he reviews).

This is another poor remake from Disney. Granted, it is nowhere near as bad as some of the others, seeing how this made a lot of money at the box office, unlike the “Snow White” remake, but that still doesn’t negate the fact that this remake was superfluous. No one wanted this remake, and it doesn’t do anything but take away what made the original so lovable. Don’t see this on Disney+ because there is nothing I can recommend about this movie. Just avoid it, like I have been saying about all of the live-action Disney remakes.

Tomorrow I will be looking at another MCU show in “Disney Month 2025.”

Snow White (2025)

There’s no secret that Disney is having an identity crisis that has gone down to their ability to update their beloved fairy tales into modern remakes. Director Marc Webb’s 2025 live-action “Snow White” remake (which came out in March), sadly, falls victim much like the previous remakes.

Lindsay Clarke said in her review, “Both the film and its protagonist are directionless and emotionless.” When the Evil Queen (Gal Gadot) takes away Snow White’s (Rachel Zegler) kingdom, the archetype Disney princess is sad. When the Evil Queen threatens Jonathan, played by Andrew Burnap, a young man stealing to help feeds his friends, Snow White is upset. Clarke admitted, “I know this because she looks sad and upset. She doesn't put up a fight and barely sheds a tear, which the movie assures audiences is fine, because her father gave her a necklace telling her to be brave.” Looks like this will be her character arc: bravery. When you look at it, that’s what this era of Disney Princess has to be, right?

Luckily for Snow White, her enemy is just as boring. Just like in the original 1937 film, Snow White angers the Evil Queen by being prettier than her. That’s a strange idea not to update, seeing how the princess is supposed to be loved for her courage, not her beauty. Clarke criticized, “Gal Gadot gives the Evil Queen a lacklustre performance, awkwardly delivered lines and half-hearted singing, overall looking like she doesn't want to be on set at all.”

Then there are the Seven Dwarves themselves (Jeremy Swift, Andrew Barth Feldman, Tituss Burgess, Martin Klebba, George Salazar, Jason Kravits, and Andy Grotelueschen), and Jonathan’s motley crew of thieves (George Appleby, Colin Michael Carmichael, Samuel Baxter, Jimmy Johnston, Dujonna Gift, Idriss Kargbo, and Jaih Betote) – which are the most entertaining parts of the movie. Their funny, sincere, and goofy appearances are a reminder that Snow White is supposed to be entertaining.

Clarke is right when she said, “Unfortunately though, the no-longer-titular Seven Dwarfs look creepy, and leave audiences wondering if there would have been a better, more inclusive way to include them. The film uses CGI for the creatures of the film, so animating the people of short stature in the same way — and not even doing a very good job of it — comes off as tone deaf.”

Clarke continued, “Snow White isn't a feast for the eyes — more like concept vomit without a notable colour scheme. The computer-generated flowers clash with the tones of grass. The sets look like they were made by people who never agreed on a look for the town. Snow White's token dress seems silly, overly bright, and out of date compared to the other, more drab costumes.”

The songs, a combination of new symphonies and the songs we grew up with, aren’t memorable, but they aren’t terrible either. Waiting on a Wish is catchy enough, and Princess Problems gives the film a charming song, but this is likely because the scene-stealing Andrew Burnap sings in it.

For everything, the climax is oddly enjoyable, paying off a lot of what was set up and giving justice to every character audiences will cheer for and, of course, Snow White herself. Clarke rebuttal, “But a rewarding finale to a subpar film only functions as a staunch reminder that Disney knows how to make good stories, but doesn't know how to make them for the right reasons.” Telling girls to be brave because that’s what every other studio says isn’t the same as actually wanting to make a brave female protagonist.

Clarke said “What could have been an important update to a beloved but aged story ends up being contrived nothingness.” “Snow White” is a fight of colors and ideas that would be quickly forgotten if not for how memorably strange most of the creative decisions were.

Sorry guys, but this is another lifeless remake. Why did they even think of remaking this classic? The dwarves looked completely ugly and there was nothing in this film that made it look watchable. The updates made were bad enough, especially since the new songs didn’t leave much of an impact. Don’t watch this. This isn’t one of the worst remakes, but it’s still a remake that is unwatchable and bad enough that you will instantly forget about it. Especially since this was a disaster at the box office. Just don’t bother seeing this on Disney+.

Tomorrow I will look at a sequel to a film that was released straight to Disney+, but it was still an entertaining one, in “Disney Month 2025.”

Mufasa: The Lion King

The latest “live-action” stain from Disney thrown into theaters in 2024, making a decent amount of money but nowhere near the unbelievable shocking amount that its 2019 predecessor did. “Mufasa: The Lion King,” released in 2024, is obviously a giant waste of time, a prequel that makes no sense with a framing device the torture people made, only elevated somewhat by the director, Barry Jenkins, who you may remember from “Moonlight.” Kyle Amato said in his review, “How he ended up in this mess, I’d rather not think about. There’s a great (depressing) Vulture piece about it if you want to wallow a bit.”

While Nala (Beyoncé) is busy giving birth, Simba (Donald Glover) leaves his daughter Kiara (Blue Ivy Carter) in the care of Timon (Billy Eichner) and Pumbaa (Seth Rogen), who are there to be annoying as Rafiki (John Gani) tells Kiara the story of how her grandfather Mufasa (Aaron Pierre) became king. We are told he was talking out of his rear end when he told Simba he came from a long tree of royalty, as this Mufasa is a stray who grew up with Taka, played by Kelvin Harrison Jr., the actual heir to the throne. Amato said, “Taka, here rendered a petulant incel, grows up to become Scar and kill his brother, before Simba knocks him off Pride Rock and his hyenas eat him. Circle of Life!”

Honestly, there is no point getting into this. Amato said, “This review mostly exists to register my continued disgust with the Disney machine, pumping out garbage like this while trapping talented -if clearly naive- directors in their cogs. Barry Jenkins could have been doing so much more than giving us lifeless close-ups of ugly lions doing nothing.” “Mufasa: The Lion King” was always going to look horrible, but Jenkins does at least try to get some nice shots in. Unfortunately, this film is about two hours too long. Amato said, “Somehow this movie even features the creation of Pride Rock, something I just assumed happened long before these dead lion puppets moved in. Guess not!”

Jenkins can only hope that this film goes the way of the other Disney live-action remakes and disappears from the collective consciousness, never to be seen again. Amato’s rebuttal, “Unless, of course, you are a Barry Jenkins completist and need to watch this for a full retrospective, a permanent humiliating stain on the filmography of one of our most promising American directors.”

Amato continued, “I had nowhere else to put this so let’s end here: a not insignificant part of the film’s first half focuses on Mufasa’s infatuation with his stepmom, a relationship that feels more romantic than the one with Simba’s eventual mother. Not sure why Rafiki needed to tell this to his granddaughter, but it’s more of a question for the screenwriters, I’d say.” If you ever do rewatch this, and you shouldn’t, you’ll feel the Oedipal Love right away. That is uncomfortable.

Like I have stated in practically every live-action Disney remake, this has to stop. However, the lions are more expressive this time around, and the look of the movie is beautiful, but who was really asking for a prequel to know of Mufasa’s origin. Who cared about that so much? Not anyone that I can think of, that’s for sure. We have Tiffany Boone, Mads Mikkelsen, Thandiwe Newton, Lennie James, Anika Noni Rose, Preston Nyman (replacing John Oliver), and Keith David in here as well. Don’t watch this on Disney+ because this is not good. Maybe there are people out there who love this movie, but I don’t recommend this at all. People might think this is ok, but I’m more in the category of this not worth seeing.

Tomorrow I will be doing my first TV miniseries review of the month in “Disney Month 2025.”

Haunted Mansion

Tonight, on Disney+, I saw “Haunted Mansion,” which came out in July but on Disney+ at the beginning of the month. How is the second attempt at the famous Disney Park ride?

Sean P. Means said in his review, “With the box-office success of “Barbie,” Hollywood studios are once again looking to their existing intellectual property — the past books, movies, TV shows, video games, toys and other franchises — to save their financial skins.”

Means continued, “Before the suits get too excited, though, maybe they should look at Disney’s “Haunted Mansion” as a cautionary tale of what happens with bad IP happens to good people.”

This is Disney’s second attempt at making a feature-length comedy action movie based on the Disneyland attraction – and apparently, no one in Disney’s studios remembers the one from 2003, starring Eddie Murphy, which was terrible. (Means mentioned, “There was a Disney+ special in 2021, “Muppet Haunted Mansion,” which I’m willing to try someday because it’s the Muppets — and because it’s only 52 minutes long.”)

The mansion in this film is bought online by Gabbie (Rosario Dawson), a widowed New York doctor, who is relocating to New Orleans with her 9-year-old son Travis (Chase W. Dillon). However, after one night in their new house, they realize it’s haunted by a lot of ghosts – some scarier than others – and that the ghosts follow them if they leave.

Gabbie starts looking around for someone who can make the ghosts go away. First, she asks a priest, Father Kent, played by Owen Wilson, who may be not fit for the job. Father Kent finds Ben Matthias (LaKeith Stanfield), an astrophysicist who now does walking tours of haunted New Orleans landmarks – a job he took over from his wife, Alyssa (Charity Jordan), who dies just after the movie’s opening.

Ben has invented a camera that shoots spectral images that could, theoretically, get images of ghosts.

Because of Ben’s hesitance, and still mourning his loss, Gabbie and Father Kent find more people to help: Harriet (Tiffany Haddish), a psychic who knows a little about spells, and Professor Bruce Davis (Danny DeVito), a history professor who knows about New Orleans’ ghostly real estate problems. It’s through Harriet that the group meets Madame Leota (Jamie Lee Curtis), a disembodied head in a crystal ball who knows the spell that could end the haunting – and bring down the evil Hatbox Ghost (Jared Leto, under a lot of prosthetics and computer animation).

Means notes, “The screenplay, by Katie Dippold (“Ghostbusters: Answer the Call”), hits all the familiar touchstones of the Disneyland ride — the hitchhiking ghosts, the ghost-filled ballroom, the stretchy living room, and so on.” What’s missing is a plot that connects those ideas logically, or characters we should care about as they run through the story’s maneuvers.

Means mentions, “Meanwhile, director Justin Simien is hamstrung in his first major studio assignment, and brings none of the comic timing he showed in his indie debut, the 2014 college satire “Dear White People.” It doesn’t help that the actors don’t connect, and give the impression that they were randomly kidnapped from the same Hollywood clique and are being forced to finish the movie before they can see their families again.

The movie does end, in a dark array of computer effects. Means ended his review by saying, “Where “Haunted Mansion” fails to generate laughs, it does evoke feelings of terror — mostly the fear that Disney will trot out this IP again in 20 years.”

You would think that the second attempt would be better, after learning from their mistake of what made the first attempt so bad. However, this attempt turned out to be worse, if you can believe that. Don’t watch this film, as it will have you asking why this was made. However, there are some humanizing moments here, but they get quickly shattered by their funny remarks or other ridiculous things. Just avoid this film because this film is a waste of time. Not right for Halloween time.

Now that we got this out of the way, tune in tomorrow when I talk about the “Carrie” remake in “Halloween Month 2023.”

Peter Pan & Wendy

Last night, I saw “Peter Pan & Wendy,” which premiered on Disney+ back in April. How is this new adaptation of Peter Pan?

The story of Peter Pan, Wendy, and Neverland has left a mark on generations of viewers and readers.

After JM Barrie’s play “Peter Pan; or, the Boy Who Wouldn’t Grow Up” debuted in 1904, it was followed by the 1911 novel Peter and Wendy.

Film adaptations started with a silent film in 1924, but it was the 1953 Disney film “Peter Pan” that brought the story to countless new people, and it has been watched by many more over the years since. We also have had Steven Spielberg’s “Hook,” 2003’s “Peter Pan” and 2015’s “Pan,” but they failed to match the magic of the Disney film.

“Peter Pan & Wendy” doesn’t, too. However, it’s still a nice and fun take on the beloved story, which it tells in a modern way, while also exploring timely themes that make it feel all the more perceptive.

Greg Wakeman said in his review, “It has been co-written and directed by David Lowery, who previously oversaw Disney’s delightful live-action remake of Pete’s Dragon.” “Peter Pan & Wendy” starts with Wendy Darling (Ever Anderson), who is about to leave her mother Mary (Molly Parker), father George (Alan Tudyk), and two brothers John (Joshua Pickering) and Michael (Jacobi Jupe) behind for boarding school.

Wendy is afraid to leave her childhood home behind, even though her parents insist that it’s time she should grow up. Then, one night, Peter Pan (Alexander Molony) and a tiny fairy Tinker Bell (Yara Shahidi) arrive at Wendy’s home to take her and her siblings to Neverland, where Pan refuses to grow old.

As well as being the home to Pan, other Lost Boys, and an indigenous tribe, Neverland’s waters are sailed by Captain Hook, played by Jude Law, a pirate and Peter’s enemy, who wants to get revenge against him after he cut off his right hand and fed it to the crocodile. He has since replaced his hand with a sharp, metallic hook.

Wakeman said, “Peter Pan & Wendy might be overly saccharine from time to time, but Lowery’s swash-buckling approach to direction makes sure that it’s always light-hearted and fun to watch unfold. Lowery takes such an inventive and carefree approach that he even includes several musical moments in the film. They never feel forced, though, and are organically incorporated.”

While he’s always firmly aware of his main audience, Lowery also manages to make sure that “Peter Pan & Wendy” is filled with so many dark moments and scenes that give the story an important edge.

Wakeman noted, “That’s hardly a surprise when you consider that, as well as the child-friendly Pete’s Dragon, Lowery has previously directed the romantic crime drama Ain’t Them Bodies Saints, the supernatural fantasy A Ghost Story, and medieval fantasy The Green Knight, each of which were firmly aimed at adults.”

With “Peter Pan & Wendy,” Lowery knows exactly the right imagery and shots to use to be gripping, while always making sure that he doesn’t distance its targeted audience. The highlight is the look, size, and chaos created by the giant crocodile that threatens Hook and his fellow pirates, which leads to the film’s most entertaining moment.

What also makes “Peter Pan & Wendy” stand out is how it updates the characters and its story. Not just in its look of Neverland’s indigenous tribe and the diversity of its cast, but also by how it examines themes of the fears and pressures of growing up, friendship, ego, and responsibility.

Wakeman noted, “Ultimately, there’s a theatricality and melodrama to Peter Pan & Wendy that occasionally overwhelms the film, and its sincerity gets a bit much, too.” More often than not, it’s such an enjoyable and inspiring film that you’ll be able to overlook the flaws, especially as it looks at Wendy, Peter Pan, and even Hook in such a new and original way.

This is fine. I don’t see anything in here that would make people mad or regret ever playing it, but I think everyone can watch this and enjoy it just fine. Go ahead and check it out if you, since I liked it alright. As a Peter Pan movie, I think everyone can get into this fine and not have them scratching their heads as to what they were thinking. If you have kids, they can watch this with no problem.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned Friday for the finale of “Morgan Freeman Month Part 2.”

The Little Mermaid (2023)

Tonight, on Disney+, I saw “The Little Mermaid” remake, which came out theatrically in May but on Disney+ five days ago. If you know my opinion on all the Disney Live-Action Remakes, you might guess what I thought of this. However, I will still tell everyone.

The 1989 animated original “The Little Mermaid” escorted a new golden era of Disney’s celebrated animation legacy. A clean version of Hans Christian Andersen’s classic tale about a young mermaid who wants to be human and how far she’ll go for that dream, the film had top-notch animation (for the time) production and the musical composing of the great contemporary composer Alan Menken. With a runtime of 83 minutes, the film quickly and lovingly introduced a fairy tale story that would pioneer several princesses for Disney, “The Little Mermaid” quickly followed by Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, and Tarzan. Four of those films have since been adapted into live-action versions, and this year, “The Little Mermaid” is the fifth to get the live-action remake.

While Rob Marshall’s version of “The Little Mermaid” (written by David Magee) tries to make some modern steps in its casting and storyline, the film – like its predecessors – offers nothing whatsoever for a reason to exist at all. Lisa Trifone said in her review, “This version clocks in at a mind-boggling 2 hours and 15 minutes, and while it makes every effort to appear sweeping in scope with colorful styling and clever underwater graphics, the film instead plays like a budget version of the animated classic, offering none of its magic, grandeur or charm.” Ariel, played by newcomer and not well Halle Bailey, lives in an underwater kingdom we never really see. Prince Eric, played by Jonah Hauer-King, is an adopted royal on an island that looks brighter than the underwater realm. Trifone noted, “The film’s efforts to transform the mermaid’s desire into a search for independence defangs the story—Andersen’s or Disney’s—of its stakes, however low they were to begin with.”

Much of what’s familiar from the original is left in Marshall’s remake, from Prince Eric’s shipwreck to Ariel’s collection of human trinkets she doesn’t know how to use. Flounder (Jacob Tremblay), Sebastian (Daveed Diggs), and Scuttle (Awkwafina) are right by her side, and King Triton (Javier Bardem) and Ursula (Melissa McCarthy) are annoying adult influences who don’t always have her best interests in mind. Ariel wants to experience life on land, but her father rejects her every time (there’s a backstory about her mother’s death at human hands that’s never really explained). When Prince Eric’s ship crashes during a storm, Ariel saves him from the sea only to disappear in a cloud when he wakes up on the shore.

Trifone said, “From there, Marshall and Magee overfill this otherwise straightforward fable with so much extraneous plot the whole thing becomes more bloated than a blowfish.” McCarthy gets the shortest end of the stick, having to spend her entire first scene explaining to everyone why she’s livid at her mean big brother King Triton, and what she’s going to do about it, using Ariel as her pawn. Trifone said, “I suppose it’s worthwhile to get a glimpse of a villain’s motivation for their nastiness, but this all seems to take the concept a step (or four) too far—the scene is saved only by the way McCarthy absolutely revels in Ursula’s oversized personality.” Once Ariels makes her bad deal with the Sea Witch and finds herself on land, we see a little more in the life of royalty, but these extra scenes – mainly a crazy carriage ride and a strange walk through a market that turns into a poor excuse for an ensemble dance number – feel more like filler than fun.

Trifone noted, “Similar to the issues the team behind the “live action” adaptation of The Lion King confronted when adapting that creature-driven family drama, The Little Mermaid suffers from a lack of imagination in how to bring all three dimensions into Ariel’s world. Underwater, Bailey’s hair swishes this and and that, and she awkwardly fins herself through the seaweed in her mermaid get-up, but the world is small and claustrophobic; all we ever really see is her cave of things and King Triton’s throne room. Above ground, the sets look more like something from a Disney parks experience, fake and flat, and the film’s pivotal final scenes, with a powerful Ursula who’s desperate to keep Ariel from happily-ever-after, never achieves the towering heights of intensity intended.”

Those familiar with (and limited to) the 1989 original will recognize so much in “The Little Mermaid,” most notably Menken’s charming songs that, even here, remain warm and welcome (Trifone admitted, “though don’t get me started on whatever it is the filmmakers are trying to do with sea urchins dancing during “Under the Sea”)”. Those only meeting Ariel, Eric, Ursula, and everyone else through this new adaptation might leave feeling entertained to some point, but the final product is an empty shell of what both Andersen wanted and Disney is capable of. Trifone said, “In theory, this trend of adapting these classics for a new audience with new technology and a contemporary narrative eye is a worthy—and even promising—endeavor.” However, as of yet (with the possible exception of 2016’s “The Jungle Book”), no one given this task has completed it successfully.

This is nowhere one of the worst Disney Live-Action Remakes, but it is borderline to being decent. The look of the film is nice, except for when it gets dark, and maybe there are some chuckles here and there, but overall, the songs that were redone were poor, the new songs didn’t do it for me, the added scenes felt like it was there to have the film run long, and it just didn’t feel like a faithful adaptation/remake. It made me want to watch the original again, and I guarantee a lot of people will have the same feeling after watching this. The movie didn't need to be as long as it was. They could have easily made this a half-hour shorter. Just do yourself a favor and don’t waste your time watching this remake. Like a good majority of Disney Live-Action remakes, this one is just not worth seeing.

Thank you for joining in on my review tonight. Stay tuned this Friday for the continuation of “Morgan Freeman Month.”

Pinocchio (2022)

Last night, I checked out the latest Disney live-action remake, “Pinocchio,” which came out on Disney+ three days ago. We have been seeing these live-action remakes from Disney for what, 12 years? Mostly, they’ve been hit or miss. Some were very successful, like “The Lion King” and “Aladdin.” Some not so much, like “Lady and the Tramp” and “Mulan.” Occasionally there have been some interesting ones that may or may no count, like “Pete’s Dragon” or “Cruella.” Now we are back to one of the true animated aces of the Disney OG classic time: “Pinocchio” form 1940. This is one of the films that pushed the idea of what was possible with animation at the time and still holds up very well. Julian Lytle said in his review, “The story told through the Walt Disney lens always felt like a morality play—a puppet who wants to be a real boy has to learn right from wrong through his mistakes and losses, even though he has a guiding voice to tell him when he’s straying. It was such a compelling story that I remember adults referring to “your nose growing” when you would lie or to explain lying to you. Since the story is so well known, I’m not going to do the usual recap.”

This remake is directed by Robert Zemeckis who teams up with his regular actor partner Tom Hanks as Geppetto. Lytle said, “Now, as we’re used to, this film almost slavishly brings back the aesthetic design of the original.” Hanks looks like a perfect real-life representation of Geppetto. Even Pinocchio himself is a perfect recognition. Lytle said, “Even Pinocchio himself is an ideal realization. His living puppet look is cool, but you can’t help but think it’s there to sell a toy—much like those to-scale and perfectly accurate Woody dolls they sell.” The voice work by Benjamin Evan Ainsworth, as the title character, is excellent. His performance is nice and immature as we remember. Joseph Gordon-Levitt voices the classic Jiminy Cricket and adds in the right amount of formula while keep the sound of the character’s voice complete. Keegan-Michael Key does well as Honest John, even if he’s not in the movie much. Cynthia Erivo is also lovely as The Blue Fairy. The film also adds in a new character, Fabiana, a puppeteer who works for Stromboli, played by Giuseppe Battiston. Lytle admitted, “Kyanne Lamaya, who plays the character, does a fine job, even though I don’t know what the characters add to the story’s classic thematic point.”

Lytle continued, “Going from that theme, Fabiana is part of a change the filmmakers made that moves the point of the story into lessons that I don’t think the structure of the classic Pinocchio works in telling.” In this new story, while Pinocchio is still immature and still needs to learn right from wrong, with Jiminy’s help, the film decides that he rarely does bad things. Pinocchio is constantly tricked or broken by others. This choice, while subtle, makes most of the point doubtful. Despite him not ignoring Jiminy, they are constantly separated so that he can’t advise. Lytle said, “Pinocchio knows what’s right but, as I said, the world is the flaw as he’s inherently good. Jiminy, Geppetto, The Blue Fairy, and Fabiana are the only good beings he meets. The film, I feel, is about accepting disabled and other children as they are versus what a parent might want them to be. While this is a good message, I don’t know if it was worth changing the classic.” Scenes like when Pinocchio goes crazy and drinks and smokes or lies and the lesson he learns after the bad results of his decisions is also a worthy lesson.

Unfortunately, the changes also conflict with themselves as Pinocchio is literally the satisfaction of a wish Geppetto makes as a way of remembering his deceased son. This makes the ending more confusing. Lytle ended his review by saying, “I wished they went in a new direction with this movie like they did with Cruella, Maleficent, and Pete’s Dragon versus this remix we got here.”

This remake almost comes close to being decent, but the changes they make just keep going and it’s like, why are you changing those things? I don’t really recommend this, as this isn’t one of the terrible ones that I felt nothing but complete pain while watching it, but this is one of those that if you see once, you never have to see it again. I don’t think there was really a need to remake Pinocchio, but Disney really needs to stop rehashing the animated ones into live-action. Children can see the animated versions and like them just fine. The added scenes in this felt really weird and I think the original told the story in a nice, short, and better way.

Thank you for joining in on my review today. Look out next Friday for the continuation of “Starship Troopers Month.”

Cruella

Tonight, I checked out the new Disney “Cruella” movie, which was released on Disney+ with a premier access fee, and I will let all of you know if I thought this was worth paying the fee or not.

In recent years, Disney has gone through the huge vaults of classic characters for cinematic remakes of old favorites. Now when thinking of possible villains that could be redone into antiheroes, the last villain on the list would be Cruella De Vil, who after all was completely open about her motives to murder 101 dalmatians. Sean Mulvihill said in his review, “Well, Disney overlooked the objections of ASPCA and has moved forward with Cruella, the origin story of Cruella De Vil starring Emma Stone and directed by Craig Gillespie. Cruella is weird movie. I’m just not sure who the intended audience for this movie is, but I know that I’m not a part of it. As hard as Cruella tries to be something different, it can’t escape the fact that it’s a cookie-cutter corporate product. Finally, they’ve made a family movie for moms who shopped at Hot Topic in their teens.”

The film takes place in London during the ‘70s, and it starts with a flashback at the life of young Estella (Tipper Seifert-Cleveland) with her two-tone hair as she and her mother (Emily Beecham) make their move to London. However, a terrible accident happens and Estella’s mother is murdered, and she blames herself for her mother’s death. The child continues to London where she befriends two orphaned thieves (Ziggy Gardner and Joseph MacDonald). Years later, Estella (Stone) along with Jasper (Joel Fry) and Horace (Paul Walter Hauser) are continuously doing well-planned thefts so they can make a living. However, Estella is getting bored of her simple life of crime and has bigger dreams in the world of fashion. She soon gets a job for London’s reigning champion of fashion The Baroness, played by Emma Thompson.

Mulvihill noted, “At first Estella is intoxicated by the world of haute couture, but the buzz fades as she’s subjected to the casual cruelty of the Baroness. Estella begins working to undermine her boss by appearing at her fashion galas as her newly created persona, Cruella. With a punk-infused aesthetic, Cruella takes over the fashion world with her flashy entrances that dominate the headlines and infuriate the Baroness.” Suddenly, this becomes a complete fight for control of the fashion business, with dark family secrets hiding beneath everything.

Mulvihill admitted, “While I never connected to the story or characters of Cruella, it should be stated that this film is often a marvel to look at. From top to bottom, Cruella features top notch work from costume and design departments. While there are some aspects to the film that are unconvincing, the fashionable elements of Cruella features the glitz and glamour of the fashion world, as well as its main character’s devious twist on the stale classics.”

However, the biggest problem with “Cruella” is it just doesn’t have a nice flow, and that’s made worse by the film’s runtime. It’s not hard to see why so many parts of “Cruella” feel incoherent when the film has five credited screenwriters, and director Craig Gillespie is more focused on the film’s style than making the film focused. Sometimes Gillespie’s focus on style pays off in a really beautiful shot. Mulvihill said, “Sometimes Gillespie’s focus on style pays off in a truly gorgeous shot. Other times, Gillespie’s style becomes a hinderance, swirling around capturing tons of computer generated opulence that doesn’t add a thing to the story. And its genuinely astounding just how seriously Gillespie takes this material. The film just can’t balance its lighter moments with its more serious tone, and it leaves the viewer with a bit of tonal whiplash as the film vacillates between levity and tragedy.”

As much as “Cruella” is a movie that has a lot of flaws, there are no flaws with the film’s great cast. Emma Stone gives everything she has for this version of Cruella, rejoicing in the character’s contrast. As the despicable Baroness, you know what you’re getting out of the two-time Academy Award winner Emma Thompson, who excels as the cruel villain. As Cruella’s partners in thievery, Joel Fry and especially Paul Walter Hauser steal every scene they’re in. For a family film that is rather serious and light on laughs, any scene where Paul Walter Hauser show up to persuade a laugh is welcome.

Like a lot of these live action Disney remakes, “Cruella” is a real mixed bag. It’s a nice film to look at that just can’t hit you on an emotional or intellectual way. Mulvihill ended his review by admitting, “At times Cruella can be a really weird movie – I didn’t expect to ever hear The Stooges’ “I Wanna be Your Dog” in a Disney movie, especially in a movie about a would-be dog killer – but it’s never brazen enough to fully commit to its crazier aspects. Cruella is glossy enough to catch your eye, but there’s nothing under that sheen that sticks with you.”

I know I have stated this before, but the look of London in this film is good, the cast is nice, the performance they give is well done, and the soundtrack is nice, but some of the lines in this film comes off as just cruel. Would someone really say the things The Baroness would say? Also, the motive behind Cruella is just you saying, “Well, of course,” and when the past is revealed, I went, “You really are going to go to that level?” Honestly, this film doesn’t deserve for you to pay Disney+ the premier access fee. Just wait a few months for it to be available for free and watch it there. Please note that this isn’t one of the bad remakes, it’s just alright.

Thank you for joining in on my review tonight. Stay tuned next month to see what I will review next.

Mulan (2020)

Last night, I checked out the “Mulan” remake, which is released on Disney+ and you have to watch it by paying a premium fee, so I think I’ll let everyone know what I thought about it.

Even though this is a strong lead, the remake suffers from bad pacing, boring characters, and VFX problems that doesn’t make it anywhere as good as the superior 1998 original animated film.

Directed by Niki Caro, “Mulan” has a wide Asian cast. From the start of production on the remake, the movie was supposed to borrow from the legend of the character than how the 1998 original told the story.

The remake is targeted to the young woman audience that is supposed to be very familiar with. The basic story of “Mulan” has been the same since the original Ballad of Mulan Chinese poem: the young woman who disguises herself as a man to replay her old and handicapped father. The 2020 remake starts off the same, telling the Emperor of China’s (Jet Li) order that one man per family must enlist in the Imperial Army. Taking her father’s (Tzi Ma) sword and armor, Mulan goes off into the unknown and sees herself while saving her country. On this simple level, “Mulan” is the exact same film as the original animated film, but it separates itself a lot from here.

Niki Caro’s “Mulan” takes a lot from the original folktales and not from the animated film, but it also introduces new characters and elements. Many characters that are in the animated film were either written out, replaced, or broken into separate characters. Maybe the largest deletion of the film is not having Mushu, the comedic relief of the animated film. Fans of the original will miss the character, who brought a lot of light to the story and have Mulan a great person to think ideas back and forth.

Even though Yifei Liu plays Mulan well, it feels like she did not have a lot of lines in this film. Sheraz Farooqi said in his review, “Of course, the nature of the plot, as Mulan is under the cover of a man’s appearance leads her to be quiet for most of the film, it would have been nice to have her speak more often. The omission of Mushu once again plays into this as Mulan is alone throughout most of the film.” The second deletion fans will miss are the songs. Farooqi said, “While some notes and instrumental versions of the original songs find their way into the remake, the lack of ‘I’ll Make a Man Out of You” was definitely felt.” The character who sang that song, Li Shang, was broken into two characters, Commander Tung (Donnie Yen) and Honghui (Yoson An). Farooqi noted, “While the reasoning behind it made sense, unfortunately, the film itself did not serve either character well. Both felt very one-dimensional versions of a three-dimensional character in the original.”

Other than that, the villains were also poor in the remake compared to the animated film. Now I know that Shan Yu, the villain in the original animated version, will never be ranked amongst some of the best Disney villains at the time, but the two villains in the live action remake, Xian Lang (Gong Li) and Bori Khan (Jason Scott Lee) were not in any way better. Farooqi mentioned, “Each felt very one-note and character development for one them happened in a blinding second, to the point where their arc’s conclusion came off as puzzling, yet predictable. While the actors who played them did well with what they had, better writing and extra breathing room could have gone a long way.”

Farooqi continued, “On the topic of pacing and breathing room, something about 2020’s Mulan felt off. The film moved from scene to scene at a lightning pace, character development for the side characters happened in a more cartoony way than the cartoon itself and things felt disjointed in the plot in the third act. One could imagine there is a longer cut of Mulan that would have let the film breathe, specifically in the final half of the film.”

All these flaws aside, “Mulan” is still enjoyable. The film does by a good cast, specifically, it’s lead Liu. The production design of the film was nice and the choreography was well done too. Technically speaking, the film’s visuals are beautiful and it has a nice soundtrack. Farooqi said, “When comparing it to the recent Disney live-action releases, the film does not really reach the pulp feel of Aladdin or the 1:1 remake of The Lion King.” Even though I do applaud “Mulan” for being different from the original animated movie, I think it could have depended on the original a little more, like with the comic relief characters like Mushu, or have the iconic songs in the film.

In the end, “Mulan” is another one of the better live-action remakes that Disney has done. Even though the pacing and some pointless characters really detract from the strong acting performances, the film does get credit for being a more serious look at the Mulan story.

As I mentioned before, even though I like the beautiful visuals and look of the film, and the fight choreography was enjoyable, and cast and performances were nice, it really lacks with having a little forced humor that causes a slight chuckle and not having any of the iconic songs from the original. Also, I really don't think the runtime of the movie really needed to be close to two hours. For a film that was originally supposed to have a theatrical release, but because of the COVID-19 pandemic, it only got released in theaters in countries that don’t have Disney+ and others where subscribers had to pay Disney+ a premium fee to buy, I think I will let you decide if you want to watch it. I don’t think it was worth having a premium fee to watch the film and even though it is decent and one of the better live-action remakes, I don’t see myself re-watching this after a first viewing. Like I said, it’s a decent, ok film, but I would prefer to watch the original animated film like always. However, it’s not nearly as bad as some of the others, like “Beauty and the Beast,” “Aladdin” and “The Lion King,” so I give it credit there.

Thank you for joining in on my review tonight. I’ll see you next Friday for the next installment in “Ip Man Month.”

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil

Tonight, I watched “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil,” which came out two months ago, and it was a sequel that was superfluous. Do you want to know what I mean? Here’s your answer:

After not being in movies for four years, Angelina Jolie comes back by reprising the main role in the Maleficent sequel “Mistress of Evil,” the continuation of the Sleeping Beauty derivative that tries to tell the original story’s villain in a more difficult, understanding way.

(The over-sweet syrupy) Aurora, reprised by Elle Fanning, is now queen of the Moors, the delighted farm populated by magic creatures, while Maleficent is the woodland’s protector. After Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson) proposes to the formerly sleeping beauty, a very judgmental Maleficent unwillingly agrees to join her goddaughter to a dinner invited by her future in-laws, welcoming King John (Robert Lindsay) and devious Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer). As foretold, an argument starts, which ends with a split between Aurora and Maleficent. The latter leaves suddenly and finding out her heritage as one of the last Dark Fae, a powerful race forced into solitude because of human cruelty.

As war continues, the fate of the lands and its population is at stake. Sameen Amer said in her review, “But even at the most (seemingly) crucial of turns, there is an odd absence of suspense. The repercussions of what should be significant developments – including battle and bloodshed – seem lost on the film’s writers. The fantasy’s building blocks are all fairly standard and formulaic; the drama is oddly vacant. Potentially interesting ideas are thrown into the storyline but then not fully developed; the Dark Fae arc, for instance, raises more questions than it answers.”

The writing and character building are the movie’s main weaknesses. Fanning’s Aurora is beautiful but boring, and completely unsuccessful as a queen and the Three Good Fairies (Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple and Lesley Manville) and completely annoying.

Amer noted, “Pfeiffer’s Queen Ingrid is a caricature of an evil queen who seems to have been created simply to make the titular protagonist seem noble in comparison. Jolie’s Maleficent is often side-lined in her own movie. The actresses’ performances, though, are the film’s highlights. Jolie shines in her first live-action role since 2015 (she did lend her voice to Tigress in the third Kung Fu Panda adventure in 2016, but has not been in front of the camera since By The Sea), and it’s to Pfeiffer’s credit that her one-dimensional character seems marginally intriguing.”

Amer continued, “Disney’s fairy tale revisits, retellings, and reimagining(s) may be financially rewarding for the company, but they hardly deliver a rewarding cinematic experience to the audience.” Even if “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil” may be a little better from Disney’s recent number of atrocious remakes, it’s far from the company’s best.

I’m sorry, but it seems like so much was thrown into the movie that it was so hard to figure out what was going on. Were they trying to make this “Lord of the Rings,” because they can’t! It was such a convoluted movie that it looked like madness. Was there really a need for a sequel to this movie? If you didn’t like the first one, you won’t like this one, it’s worse. However, if you found some enjoyment in the first movie, I don’t think you’ll like this one at all. Don’t give into the madness and see this sequel. I didn’t like the idea and I don’t think it was needed. Just stop Disney with these live action remakes. Now you’re going to make sequels to the remakes? Why? Come out with original ideas again!

Alright everyone, thank you for joining in on all my reviews this past year, I’ll see you all next year. Have a great end to 2019.

Lady and the Tramp (2019)

Tonight, I saw the live action remake of “Lady and the Tramp,” which was released on Disney+ last month. You could probably predict what I’m about to say, but let’s just look at the film first.

When Disney’s new streaming service started, it has given countless movies and television shows from the company and its handful of additional. One of the large porch titles – one of the only new releases included in Disney+’s schedule – is a live-action remake of “Lady and the Tramp.” Disney+ has also given the original 1955 animated version of “Lady and the Tramp,” so anyone who wants to argue the comparative qualities of the two will have the chance. Matt Singer said in his review, “I am not sure the comparisons will be particularly flattering.”

In all honesty, the new “Lady and the Tramp” is fine. With its cast of cute puppies and tame canine adventures, it’s obviously targeted at very young children – and it will almost certainly satisfy that random audience. Singer said, “Still, in a world where it will be available right alongside the original film — both at a click of the exact same button for the same monthly price — I’m not entirely sure why it exists, beyond refreshing this particular IP, reminding customers about the original movie, and slightly padding out Disney+’s lineup of “original” offerings.” It is harmless and pointless.

Once again, the film is about the romantic journeys of a treated family dog named Lady (Tessa Thompson) and a street dog named Tramp (Justin Theroux). As it often happens to dogs, Lady feels ignored after her owners Jim (Thomas Mann) and Darling (Kiersey Clemons) have their first child. She follows the Tramp and they roam around their rural little town – the time isn’t entirely evident, but it looks like maybe the 1920s – sharing plates of spaghetti and avoiding the local dog catcher, played by Adrian Martinez.

The film’s setting hasn’t been updated, but some of the more racially thoughtless parts have. The “Siamese Cat Song” – one of the most famous songs from the original, and also the one that has been labeled with racial stereotypes – has been changed for a new musical number from a different pair of twin cats who apparently are not Siamese.  There are other minor changes, mostly when seeing how it has been given a 2019 updated look. However, this is mainly the “Lady and the Tramp” we’re familiar with only with live-action actors and real dogs – however the dogs are sometimes changed with CGI doubles (Martin noted, “or their mouths are Mister Edified with computers to make it look like they’re talking.”)

The other dog characters include a Pekingese that sounds doubtfully like Janelle Monáe a wise old Bloodhound with the rich bass tones of Sam Elliott, and an almost-achingly pretty Bulldog voiced by Benedict Wong. They’re exactly supporting cast. The main actors are the protagonists. Theroux shows so much personality as the proudly loner Tramp, but Thompson is boring and forgettable as Lady. Singer said, “I’m not necessarily looking for a lot of “chemistry” between these voices, but a little more enthusiasm would have been nice.”

The new “Lady and the Tramp” is a slight improvement from the new “The Lion King” that loaded into theaters this summer and quickly became a giant financial success for Disney despite being interior to the original animated film in every possible way. Singer noted, “The Lion King’s animals were entirely CGI, and for all their photorealism, they barely displayed any emotions as they belted out show tunes or mourned the loss of a loved one.” At least the dogs in “Lady and the Tramp” are real, and when they’re not replaced by talking CGI doubles, they show some real dog character in the way they walk and talk and sit when told. It is interesting to say, that both here and in “The Lion King,” that the more human CGI experts try to make these animals, the less real they look. Singer noted, ‘At least they’re dogs, who are objectively cuter and more fun to watch run around than big jungle animals.”

Singer continued, “The new Lady and the Tramp was co-written by Andrew Bujalski, the very talented indie filmmaker who was one of the founders of what became known as the “mumblecore” movement, and the director of excellent movies like Mutual Appreciation and Computer Chess. The results here bear so little of his quirky authorial stamp that if you asked me to guess who wrote this Lady and the Tramp, told me it was a director I greatly admired, and informed me the guy’s first name is Andrew, there is literally zero chance I would get it right.”

Singer ended his review by saying, “It never dawned on me until now how strange it is that the beautiful song “Bella Notte,” faithfully recreated in this version by an amusing guest star, is a love ballad about two dogs smooching over a bowl of pasta.”

This is better than the other live action remakes I have seen this year, with nice voice acting, direction and some funny moments. However, it lacks the heart of the original movie. The added storylines didn’t seem to fit, the reworked scenes and songs weren’t needed, the recasting of Pekingese was distracting, the CGI dogs were expressionless and almost not believable like the CGI animals in the remake of “The Lion King” and you could probably predict the direction they were going in. They didn’t need to make it as long as they did, seeing how the original was told short and sweet. Just don’t see it if you’re a subscriber to Disney+. At least this wasn’t theatrically released, which is a relief.

Now that we’re done with that, stay tuned tomorrow for the next review in “Disney Channel Original Movie Month.”

The Lion King (2019)

Folks, I just made the biggest mistake of watching “The Lion King” remake, which came out in July, and I will let everyone know how much I loathe this remake.

Disney continues to underwhelm with another botched remake of an animated classic, this time remaking the favorite 1994 classic, “The Lion King” in a CG adaptation just mainly focused on making life-like CGI animals that it forgets to do anything else of value in the runtime.

The remake faithfully retells the story of Simba, a young lion (JD McCrary) who is the son of Mufasa (James Earl Jones), the King of the Pride Lands. On planning to steal the authority, Simba’s uncle Scar, voiced by Chiwetel Ejiofor, kills Mufasa, and makes the cub believe that his father’s death was his own fault. Simba runs from Pride Rock, surviving an attack by Scar’s hyena minions (Florence Kasumba, Keegan-Michael Key, Eric Andre and J. Lee) before passing out in the middle of the desert. He is about to be eaten by vultures until he is rescued by meerkat Timon (Billy Eichner) and warthog Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) who becomes his friends.

However, his past comes back to him years later when he is a young adult, voiced by Donald Glover, forcing him to remember who he really is and take back his position as the rightful king of Pride Rock.

The story is still the same, as does many of the familiar scenes and the songs (however some of the memorable moments are furiously missing), but the remake fails to recapture the original’s timeless likeability.

Sameen Amer is right when she said in her review, “The animals, though incredibly realistic, lack the expressiveness and emotiveness of their traditionally animated counterparts. The storytelling no longer holds the same impact it did the first time around. The vibrancy and liveliness is gone, replaced by hollow retreading that leaves you yearning for original content instead of this endless string of remakes.”

The voice cast is completely forgettable. Glover and Beyonce Knowles-Carter (who voices the adult Nala, Simba’s love interest – Shahadi Wright Joseph voices her as a cub) – both great actors – are out of place here. John Oliver voices Zazu but he sounds exactly like John Oliver. Amer credited, “The only real exception is (surprisingly) the joyous duo of Eichner and Rogen who effortlessly steal the show, with their characters breathing life into an otherwise dull movie. Also, Jones is (unsurprisingly) impressive as he reprises his part and voices Mufasa majestically.” Alfre Woodard voices Sarabi and John Kani voices Rafiki.

Undeniably, the remake of “The Lion King” is going to make you want to watch the original over this mess. Amer ended her review by saying, rightfully so, “The film just feels like a soulless rehash of its predecessor and proves that no amount of technical wizardry can trump solid, affecting storytelling.”

I’m sorry, but nothing in this movie is going to make me like it. What was the purpose of remaking “The Lion King,” an already perfect movie? The voice cast didn’t act out the characters right, lines and scenes that were trimmed felt missed, scenes that were extended were superfluous, every animal had a blank, expressionless face throughout that you didn't feel any emotion from them, even when the lines were said, the songs didn’t have that same feel like the original and they stole the first line of Be Our Guest from “Beauty and the Beast!!!” Why!?!?!? What were you thinking!?!?!? Also, what's the reason for making this nearly two hours long when the original was only around the 90 minute mark and told the story much nicer than this one did!?!?!? If you love the original, like I do, seeing how it might be my most watched Disney movie growing up, avoid this remake at all cost. Seriously Disney, you need to stop with these awful remakes! What’s next? Live-action remakes of the direct-to-video sequels!? Come out with original ideas again!!!

Now I’m going to cool off so stay tuned for the next installment of “Halloween Month” on Monday.

Aladdin (2019)

I just made a huge mistake and saw the “Aladdin” remake, which came out three months ago, tonight. I knew going in that I was going to not like this movie, but I didn’t think that I wouldn’t like it this much. If you want to know what I mean, here we go.

Arab racism aside, the original animated “Aladdin” is a beloved movie, rising from your typical Disney cartoon to something larger than a huge part of it, thanks to its great, hilarious performance from the late Robin Williams as the Genie. Finding someone who can be exactly that way looked to be the most important part of the remake’s success. It’s difficult to say who was the right person that isn’t Robin Williams, but Will Smith is not the one. Genie, sadly, is the one who holds the entire movie together. Without a strong making, Agrabah will fall. In 2019, we should be happy that the fictional city is still around. Will Smith playing the crazy supernatural genie that lives in a dirty lamp sucks but deep, which is more of a reason to be sad. There’s a type of energy and spirit Williams’ voice acting carried that Smith, sadly, lacks. Expecting Smith to save this movie, which is nicely serviceable, is disrespectful to Smith. There is really nothing he, or anyone, could have done.

Megan Reynolds admitted in her review, “It was not my intention to see Guy Ritchie’s live-action remake of Aladdin on opening night, but life had other plans for me, which is why I found myself ensconced in a theater with recliners on Friday, wearing a pair of 3D glasses and ready to be carried away by Ritchie’s big budget retelling of a beloved Disney classic.”

Structurally, nothing really has changed, besides having a few additions to the plot to update it for 2019. The Sultan (Navid Negahban) is still being pushed around by Jafar (Marwan Kenzar), and Aladdin (Mena Massoud) is still a thief still smuggling food through Agrabah, which, as Reynolds described, “Looks like an Epcot imagining of the “Middle East.”” Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott) has a new handmaiden, Dalia (Nasim Pedrad), along with a changed sense of women empowering which wasn’t included in the original. Reynolds noted, “Jasmine is no one’s chattel but her own, thank you very much, and she will sing not one but two original songs to prove it. Please consider “Speechless,” a song seemingly crafted to fill the “Let It Go”-shaped hole that exists in every new Disney movie.” It is a small part of princess power that this movie did not need, which is mainly what you can say about this remake altogether.

The set pieces look nice, as do the costumes, and the actors did what they could have done. Ritchie obviously relied mainly on special effects and green screens, which means the actors had to work even harder to look engaged with each other or with their surroundings. A Friend Like Me, the Genie’s main song, was destroyed horribly by Smith’s poor interpretations – understandable, knowing that he was likely working on a soundstage and not the computer-generated Cave of Wonders we ending up getting. Reynolds admitted, “The same could be said for “A Whole New World,” the most exciting part of the original to me, and a song that still goes hard at karaoke, in the bathroom, or while doing the dishes. Jasmine and Aladdin hop atop the magic carpet, but the ride that they take lacks the fantastical sense of wonder conveyed in the animated version—perhaps because I knew while watching it that both these actors were astride a green screen platform, dodging and singing around invisible obstacles.”

Really, the best part about the entire movie wasn’t anyone real – it was the magic carpet, a completely computer-generated invention that was filled with a real personality. Reynolds admitted, “When Carpet was torn asunder during the movie’s climactic action sequence, in which Jafar (not hot, and not nearly threatening enough), tries to end the world via his Genie-granted all-powerful magic, I was upset. I tried to rifle through the dusty coffers of my memory to see if Carpet perished in the original; obviously, I was wrong, and obviously, Carpet is repaired anew. The fact that I was elated at its survival but did not care when it seemed Aladdin, Jasmine, the Sultan, and Dalia’s lives were in danger speaks volumes.”

Nostalgia is a really high product and movie executives with money in their eyes are looting the recent past to bring new, improved versions of beloved classics to the theaters thinking of getting the type of huge returns “Aladdin” has – making $113 million its opening weekend, and nicely thrashing everything else in its way. Reynolds ended her review by saying, “This doesn’t mean that the movie itself is worthy of such numbers, but it does seem like an easy way to spend two hours on a hot summer’s day when you no longer feel like driving the kids to the Target and back.”

Say what you will about the original, but that at least had some heart and drive to it. This one had bad acting, unfunny humor, reworked scenes that were superfluous, added scenes that were even more superfluous and songs that didn’t have that upbeat, catchy, toe-tapping vibe that the original had. This was a huge insult for those who grew up and loved the original animated version. I wasn’t a huge fan of it, but I did love Robin Williams’ Genie in that. Will Smith admitted in an interview that he didn’t try and just rapped because he can’t sing. The original had a simple, straightforward plot that was told in a nice, short runtime. The remake didn't really need to be two hours long, which felt tedious and made you wonder when it was going to end! Don’t make the mistake of watching this movie because it will leave you feeling empty and livid that they botched up this remake.

Thank goodness I’m done with that terrible Disney remake. Look out tomorrow when I continue “Video Game Adaptation Month.”