The Jungle Book 2016
First impressions count when it comes to a movie. Looking back, I remember the bad movies as vividly as the good and with the recent influx of remakes, first impressions mean more now than they ever have. It is at times impossible to stay impartial to new releases when the memories of the original are so strong. This week's review, The Jungle Book, is a another remake of one of my childhood favourites, possibly even one of my top 5's of all time. The original 1967 film has a belting soundtrack, perfect voice acting and a mix of humour, pathos and heart wrenching moments that still draw a tear to this day. The recent incarnation of The Jungle Book has a lot to live up to.
Director John Favreau 's Jungle Book switches from hand drawn animation to computer generated action. Still under Disney governance, the film has used the same special effects pioneered in The Life of Pi to create CG animals and voiced them for greater anthropomorphic effect. The tale is about an abandoned boy, Mowgli, who is raised by a pack of wolves in the Indian jungle. He is forced from his adoptive family by man-fearing Shere Khan, the tiger, and is watched over by Baloo the bear and Begheera the panther on his way to the man village.
The cast includes only one real person, Neel Sethi as Mowgli, acting against green screens and tennis ball markers. The voice talents include Bill Murray as Baloo, Ben Kingsley as Bagheera and Idris Elba as Shere Khan. They are supported by Scarlet Johansson as Kaa and Christopher Walken as King Louie. Sethi does a grand job in recreating the likeability and stubbornness of the 1967 Mowgli. He is charming without being annoying and energetic without being tiresome, and overall giving us a fantastic full feature debut. The voice acting is slightly off with only Kinglsey hitting his mark, really getting hold of the maternal nature of the over protective panther. Murray and Elba are good at points but are trying too hard to remain true to the original characters played before by the lovable Phil Harris and despicable George Sanders. It doesn't quite come off for them as they don't have the same gravitas, depth or range. And while Johansson and Walken are good they are hardly in the movie at all and need more screen time to have a bigger impact.
The CGI is magnificent. Recreating the jungle's vast and open landscape and making it believable is no mean feat. The landscapes are clear, precise and provide the perfect backdrop to Mowgli's adventure. The animals are beautifully created and kudos has to go to the effects team because between the animals and the backdrop, they have captured lightening in a bottle.
The score dips its toe too cautiously into the music of the original Disney film. There are less songs to hum along to and it seemed Favreau was not quite sure what to do with the well known melodies. Instead of committing to the classics, he has selected a couple and, at best, pays homage to them. He teases a few nice moments but they fizzle out before your foot has starting tapping.
Admittedly I went into 2016's Jungle Book with a skewed view. Favreau and Co clearly couldn't improve on the perfection of the animated Jungle Book so I was looking for a slightly different take with just enough backwards glances to remember the 60's film. The new Jungle Book looks good, as it should for $175 million, and it has a pluck and determination to be something special but I was looking for more. If this is someone's first impression of the Jungle Book they may hold it up as a classic however for those who have seen the old Disney film first, 2016's version will suffer by comparison. Uncle Walt has a lot to answer for.
Rating 8/10 1.0 off for the voice talents, 1.0 off for the on/off music .
Director John Favreau 's Jungle Book switches from hand drawn animation to computer generated action. Still under Disney governance, the film has used the same special effects pioneered in The Life of Pi to create CG animals and voiced them for greater anthropomorphic effect. The tale is about an abandoned boy, Mowgli, who is raised by a pack of wolves in the Indian jungle. He is forced from his adoptive family by man-fearing Shere Khan, the tiger, and is watched over by Baloo the bear and Begheera the panther on his way to the man village.
The cast includes only one real person, Neel Sethi as Mowgli, acting against green screens and tennis ball markers. The voice talents include Bill Murray as Baloo, Ben Kingsley as Bagheera and Idris Elba as Shere Khan. They are supported by Scarlet Johansson as Kaa and Christopher Walken as King Louie. Sethi does a grand job in recreating the likeability and stubbornness of the 1967 Mowgli. He is charming without being annoying and energetic without being tiresome, and overall giving us a fantastic full feature debut. The voice acting is slightly off with only Kinglsey hitting his mark, really getting hold of the maternal nature of the over protective panther. Murray and Elba are good at points but are trying too hard to remain true to the original characters played before by the lovable Phil Harris and despicable George Sanders. It doesn't quite come off for them as they don't have the same gravitas, depth or range. And while Johansson and Walken are good they are hardly in the movie at all and need more screen time to have a bigger impact.
The CGI is magnificent. Recreating the jungle's vast and open landscape and making it believable is no mean feat. The landscapes are clear, precise and provide the perfect backdrop to Mowgli's adventure. The animals are beautifully created and kudos has to go to the effects team because between the animals and the backdrop, they have captured lightening in a bottle.
The score dips its toe too cautiously into the music of the original Disney film. There are less songs to hum along to and it seemed Favreau was not quite sure what to do with the well known melodies. Instead of committing to the classics, he has selected a couple and, at best, pays homage to them. He teases a few nice moments but they fizzle out before your foot has starting tapping.
Admittedly I went into 2016's Jungle Book with a skewed view. Favreau and Co clearly couldn't improve on the perfection of the animated Jungle Book so I was looking for a slightly different take with just enough backwards glances to remember the 60's film. The new Jungle Book looks good, as it should for $175 million, and it has a pluck and determination to be something special but I was looking for more. If this is someone's first impression of the Jungle Book they may hold it up as a classic however for those who have seen the old Disney film first, 2016's version will suffer by comparison. Uncle Walt has a lot to answer for.
Rating 8/10 1.0 off for the voice talents, 1.0 off for the on/off music .
Pete's dragon 2016
It was Saturday afternoon and I was about to have the worst cinema experience of my life. No, it wasn't a trip to see Watership Down (I'm leporiphobic) nor was it a Nicholas Cage movie (..also hamophobic!) and it was nothing to do with the movie, Pete's Dragon.
Pete's Dragon is a kids movie and the showing was at 1:30 in the afternoon so I expected a bit of disruption. You know the thing - a wee toilet run here and there, occasional loud voices and the whooping of laughter at reasonably jokes. That is part of the movie going experience and until such time as I have my own cinema, I have to suck it up. The problem I have though is when the adults with the kids don't know how to behave in a cinema. We had smelly socked feet on the backs of seats, mobile phones being answered during the movie and one particular colourful review from the gentlemen in the row in front who turned to his grandchildren at the end of the movie and offered the sagely words "That was a pile of..", you get the idea.
Did we complain? Yes and No, we offered feedback to the cinema manager and we did receive a refund, however we were advised next time round if this happens we should disturb our viewing, come out and tell someone who will then deal with it. Really? Shouldn't there be someone in the cinema monitoring this or is it just a Hunger Games, behaviour based free for all where the most idiotic rules the auditorium?
Wow! That was cleansing. Now for Pete's Dragon which I am pleased to say did not reflect the idiot's review and in fact was one of the better movies of 2016, so far.
Pete's Dragon stars Bryce Dallas Howard, Robert Redford and Karl Urban and is remake of the 1977 Disney movie about an orphan boy, Pete, and his dragon.
First of all the cast are very good, never overplayed and do their job admirably. Bryce Dallas Howard downplays her park ranger, Grace. Robert Redford, now in his 80's, is still very watchable and Karl Urban plays a nice, sensible villain. The real magic trick in the cast is while the main three draw your attention to one part of the story, there are stellar performances taking place right under your nose, so subtle that you really have to reflect on what a grand job both Pete (Oakes Feagley) and Natalie (Oona Laurence) are doing. For large portions of the movie Feagley is acting to a green screen dragon and does it with style and all the maturity of a seasoned actor, despite his young age. The chemistry between Feagley and Laurence is directed well and never too saccharine or overly mature.
Pete's Dragon director David Lowery builds slowly, slathering the story with character, cultivating your attachment to the human characters and the CGI dragon that is so far removed from the animated Disney classic that it seems like a different beast altogether. While the 70's dragon was bumbling and goofy, the redesigned Elliot is like a giant shitszu who looks strangely believable.
There isn't a lot of laughs to be had in Pete's Dragon but this is OK as it's not a comedy, it's an adventure drama. There are few moments of light heartedness but nothing that will have your sides splitting and in the modern age of children's movies that assault the senses enough to make any adult viewers feel slightly queasy, Pete's Dragon is a refreshing change.
Pete's Dragon is not a perfect ten as the story has a bit of drag to it but this is its only downfall so I'm not quite sure what movie the charmer in the front row was watching but it certainly wasn't Pete's Dragon. This film was entertaining, charming and has bags and bags of heart. This is a definite watch however if, like me, you prefer to see your movies on the big screen, choose your cinema wisely.
Rating 9.5/10 0.5 off for the slight drag(on).
Pete's Dragon is a kids movie and the showing was at 1:30 in the afternoon so I expected a bit of disruption. You know the thing - a wee toilet run here and there, occasional loud voices and the whooping of laughter at reasonably jokes. That is part of the movie going experience and until such time as I have my own cinema, I have to suck it up. The problem I have though is when the adults with the kids don't know how to behave in a cinema. We had smelly socked feet on the backs of seats, mobile phones being answered during the movie and one particular colourful review from the gentlemen in the row in front who turned to his grandchildren at the end of the movie and offered the sagely words "That was a pile of..", you get the idea.
Did we complain? Yes and No, we offered feedback to the cinema manager and we did receive a refund, however we were advised next time round if this happens we should disturb our viewing, come out and tell someone who will then deal with it. Really? Shouldn't there be someone in the cinema monitoring this or is it just a Hunger Games, behaviour based free for all where the most idiotic rules the auditorium?
Wow! That was cleansing. Now for Pete's Dragon which I am pleased to say did not reflect the idiot's review and in fact was one of the better movies of 2016, so far.
Pete's Dragon stars Bryce Dallas Howard, Robert Redford and Karl Urban and is remake of the 1977 Disney movie about an orphan boy, Pete, and his dragon.
First of all the cast are very good, never overplayed and do their job admirably. Bryce Dallas Howard downplays her park ranger, Grace. Robert Redford, now in his 80's, is still very watchable and Karl Urban plays a nice, sensible villain. The real magic trick in the cast is while the main three draw your attention to one part of the story, there are stellar performances taking place right under your nose, so subtle that you really have to reflect on what a grand job both Pete (Oakes Feagley) and Natalie (Oona Laurence) are doing. For large portions of the movie Feagley is acting to a green screen dragon and does it with style and all the maturity of a seasoned actor, despite his young age. The chemistry between Feagley and Laurence is directed well and never too saccharine or overly mature.
Pete's Dragon director David Lowery builds slowly, slathering the story with character, cultivating your attachment to the human characters and the CGI dragon that is so far removed from the animated Disney classic that it seems like a different beast altogether. While the 70's dragon was bumbling and goofy, the redesigned Elliot is like a giant shitszu who looks strangely believable.
There isn't a lot of laughs to be had in Pete's Dragon but this is OK as it's not a comedy, it's an adventure drama. There are few moments of light heartedness but nothing that will have your sides splitting and in the modern age of children's movies that assault the senses enough to make any adult viewers feel slightly queasy, Pete's Dragon is a refreshing change.
Pete's Dragon is not a perfect ten as the story has a bit of drag to it but this is its only downfall so I'm not quite sure what movie the charmer in the front row was watching but it certainly wasn't Pete's Dragon. This film was entertaining, charming and has bags and bags of heart. This is a definite watch however if, like me, you prefer to see your movies on the big screen, choose your cinema wisely.
Rating 9.5/10 0.5 off for the slight drag(on).
Suicide Squad 2016
Trailers are funny things. They are supposed to tickle your movie-going whiskers, build the excitement and give you a small taste of future presentations. Well, that's how they should work. In reality, trailers are no indicators whatsoever of what the film is going to be like or how successful they are going to be. So in fact, trailers are a medium all to themselves. Looking back at some of the true movie stinkers I have peeped, every one of them had a belting trailer, promised a lot but delivered little to nothing. This week I am reviewing Suicide Squad which has a string of some of the best trailers I have ever seen in my movie going life. Does the feature length movie live up to its trailers?
Suicide Squad has Viola Davis' government manipulator, Amanda Waller assembling a squad of incarcerated super villains and sending them on a deadly mission, if they die then it's no great loss, if they succeed, they get time off their prison sentence. Joining Davis in Suicide Squad is a smorgasbord of talent jumping on the good ship "superhero". Will Smith and Margot Robbie head up the cast with Davis, Jai Courtney, Joel Kinneman, Jared Leto, Jay Hernadez, Cara Delevingne and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje providing the support.
The performances range from mesmerising to instantly forgettable with Warner Brothers throwing all their lesser characters at the wall to see who sticks. Will Smith is good if you like Will Smith and while not showing a huge range, he is very watchable as the hit man with a heart Deadshot. Robbie is magnificently twisted and adorable as the Joker's love interest , Harley Quinn, rocking the New Jersey accent (puddin', love it!) as the fan boys favourite. Davis, unfortunately, falls into the "could do better" bracket as Waller should've been hovering over the Squad like a swirling tornado, ready to rain down upon them at any given moment, instead Davis is reduced to a disappointing drizzle.
Out of the supporting cast, Leto is the star and has went in a direction we have not seen before with the Joker. While Jack Nicholson's had his 1940's gangster and Heath Ledger's had his anarchist, Leto gives us a malevolent Scarface-type who is one push away from Goodfella's Tommy Di Vito. Hernadez gives us a decent Diablo but is given too much screen time for a "D" list villain while Courtney as Captain Boomerang is promising but not given enough screen time to shine. Delevigne and Akinnuoye-Agbaje are forgettable and often silly. The biggest disappointment is Joel Kinneman who has all the talent and potential to take his Rick Flagg from lesser known character to memorable anti-hero and even threatens it from time to time with interesting tussles with Smith's Deadshot. Too many times though Kinneman comes across as a love sick puppy whose only purpose is to exposition the story along.
David Ayer's direction is fairly haphazard and there lies one of the problems with Suicide Squad. It doesn't know what it wants to be. It tries to be Guardians of the Galaxy but it doesn't have the originality. It tries to be Batman v Superman but it's too light and it certainly isn't the long awaited saviour of the Warner Brothers superhero franchise which some fans wanted it to be so it struggles to find its own identity.
The soundtrack contains a mix of retro tunes and contemporary hits but it feels tacked on in post production and not an integral part of the movie. As much as the songs are good to listen are distanced from the movie and are more like a long commercial for the official soundtrack.
If you get by these things there is actually quite a lot of fun to be had from Suicide Squad. It's a series of bouncy, entertaining set pieces that sometimes join together and sometimes don't. There is no doubt that writer and director David Ayer's movie has been fiddled with and I fully expect an ultimate edition Blu ray to be released in a couple of months time. If you watch the trailer at the top of this review, and I hope you do, don't expect all that it promises but get set for a reasonably sized bag of pleasurable nonsense that forms another stepping stone in Warner Brothers path to superhero movie nirvana.
Rating 7.0/10 1.0 off for some suicidal performances, 1.0 off for the post production soundtrack and 1.0 off for the identity crisis.
Suicide Squad has Viola Davis' government manipulator, Amanda Waller assembling a squad of incarcerated super villains and sending them on a deadly mission, if they die then it's no great loss, if they succeed, they get time off their prison sentence. Joining Davis in Suicide Squad is a smorgasbord of talent jumping on the good ship "superhero". Will Smith and Margot Robbie head up the cast with Davis, Jai Courtney, Joel Kinneman, Jared Leto, Jay Hernadez, Cara Delevingne and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje providing the support.
The performances range from mesmerising to instantly forgettable with Warner Brothers throwing all their lesser characters at the wall to see who sticks. Will Smith is good if you like Will Smith and while not showing a huge range, he is very watchable as the hit man with a heart Deadshot. Robbie is magnificently twisted and adorable as the Joker's love interest , Harley Quinn, rocking the New Jersey accent (puddin', love it!) as the fan boys favourite. Davis, unfortunately, falls into the "could do better" bracket as Waller should've been hovering over the Squad like a swirling tornado, ready to rain down upon them at any given moment, instead Davis is reduced to a disappointing drizzle.
Out of the supporting cast, Leto is the star and has went in a direction we have not seen before with the Joker. While Jack Nicholson's had his 1940's gangster and Heath Ledger's had his anarchist, Leto gives us a malevolent Scarface-type who is one push away from Goodfella's Tommy Di Vito. Hernadez gives us a decent Diablo but is given too much screen time for a "D" list villain while Courtney as Captain Boomerang is promising but not given enough screen time to shine. Delevigne and Akinnuoye-Agbaje are forgettable and often silly. The biggest disappointment is Joel Kinneman who has all the talent and potential to take his Rick Flagg from lesser known character to memorable anti-hero and even threatens it from time to time with interesting tussles with Smith's Deadshot. Too many times though Kinneman comes across as a love sick puppy whose only purpose is to exposition the story along.
David Ayer's direction is fairly haphazard and there lies one of the problems with Suicide Squad. It doesn't know what it wants to be. It tries to be Guardians of the Galaxy but it doesn't have the originality. It tries to be Batman v Superman but it's too light and it certainly isn't the long awaited saviour of the Warner Brothers superhero franchise which some fans wanted it to be so it struggles to find its own identity.
The soundtrack contains a mix of retro tunes and contemporary hits but it feels tacked on in post production and not an integral part of the movie. As much as the songs are good to listen are distanced from the movie and are more like a long commercial for the official soundtrack.
If you get by these things there is actually quite a lot of fun to be had from Suicide Squad. It's a series of bouncy, entertaining set pieces that sometimes join together and sometimes don't. There is no doubt that writer and director David Ayer's movie has been fiddled with and I fully expect an ultimate edition Blu ray to be released in a couple of months time. If you watch the trailer at the top of this review, and I hope you do, don't expect all that it promises but get set for a reasonably sized bag of pleasurable nonsense that forms another stepping stone in Warner Brothers path to superhero movie nirvana.
Rating 7.0/10 1.0 off for some suicidal performances, 1.0 off for the post production soundtrack and 1.0 off for the identity crisis.
Pretty in Pink 1986
John Hughes was a genius. His movies filled 80's cinema with neon comedy and teenage angst. For those too young to remember or not familiar with Hughes, he was a writer/director who was as talented as he was busy in his short life, churning out films such as The Breakfast Club, Weird Science, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Sixteen Candles, Home Alone and the subject of today's review Pretty in Pink. I would argue that these high gloss, often dated films are as important to the history of cinema as Stanley Kubrick's 2001 or John Ford's The Searchers. Hughes film's seem to be more popular now than they were at the time, with critics flip flopping from casting a derisory eye over them to now holding them in high regard. A shameful indictment of how critics tend to blow with the trends rather than sticking to unpopular opinion. John Hughes films were not there to be analysed, these films where about how they made you feel. So I delved back in for a reminder..
Pretty in Pink stars Molly Ringwald as teenager, Andie, who is barely holding her life together due to her mother leaving and trying to survive her last year of high school. In this last year, she meets "society" boy Blaine played by Andrew McCarthy who is from the more well to do end of town. We follow their journey from awkward first meetings to a horrible first date then to the prom.
You know what you are getting from Ringwald and McCarthy which is what made them such big stars in the 1980's. Ringwald's Andie has a nice mix of pouty iciness and emotional warmth. McCarthy was always the sensitive, serious one of the Brat Pack actors and in Pretty in Pink there is no difference.
The supporting cast are made up of comedy sidekick Ducky, played by John Cryer who sides on the annoying, James Spader as a Dick Dastardly type, chewing up scenery at every turn, Harry Dean Stanton playing Andie's father in his own, just off centre way and Ghostbuster's Annie Potts being suitably weird. There are also some quite nice minor performances from stand up comedian Andrew Dice Clay and a very young, blink and you miss her, Gina Gershon.
The soundtrack is a synth pop explosion that has a slightly harder edge with The Psychedelic Furs providing the title music and Otis Redding slotting into one of the many montages . OK, its cheesy but there are golden nuggets on this soundtrack that can be fondly reminisced over such as Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark and Echo and the Bunnymen to name a few.
The story is a run of the mill love tale which we have seen before. Can Andie and Blaine's love bridge the social divides? The social divide in Pretty in Pink is rich versus poor but it could quite easily be feuding families as in Romeo and Juliet, so it's not the most original. The relationship goes remarkably fast too which leads to the dialogue being a bit out of context at times. The peripherals, however, are so much more interesting and demand your attention, deflecting you away from the weaker elements of the story. The performances, the music, the fashions and the feel of the movie will catapult you back to the 1980's and for this reason, it is worth your attention.
Pretty in Pink is not for everyone. To the cynics out there in movie land it's a piece of pop fluff that disappeared leaving only a faint trace of pink neon dust. To others it didn't and has lasted in memory as a better film than it was. This is because the film has layers and layers of sincerity and heart, like a undemanding, feel good 1980's lasagne. If movies are about how they make you feel, this for me is one of the comfort films of my generation. John Hughes, you will be missed.
Rating 7.5/10 1.0 off for the irksome Cryer, 1.0 off for the unoriginal story, 0.5 off for a speedy romance
Pretty in Pink stars Molly Ringwald as teenager, Andie, who is barely holding her life together due to her mother leaving and trying to survive her last year of high school. In this last year, she meets "society" boy Blaine played by Andrew McCarthy who is from the more well to do end of town. We follow their journey from awkward first meetings to a horrible first date then to the prom.
You know what you are getting from Ringwald and McCarthy which is what made them such big stars in the 1980's. Ringwald's Andie has a nice mix of pouty iciness and emotional warmth. McCarthy was always the sensitive, serious one of the Brat Pack actors and in Pretty in Pink there is no difference.
The supporting cast are made up of comedy sidekick Ducky, played by John Cryer who sides on the annoying, James Spader as a Dick Dastardly type, chewing up scenery at every turn, Harry Dean Stanton playing Andie's father in his own, just off centre way and Ghostbuster's Annie Potts being suitably weird. There are also some quite nice minor performances from stand up comedian Andrew Dice Clay and a very young, blink and you miss her, Gina Gershon.
The soundtrack is a synth pop explosion that has a slightly harder edge with The Psychedelic Furs providing the title music and Otis Redding slotting into one of the many montages . OK, its cheesy but there are golden nuggets on this soundtrack that can be fondly reminisced over such as Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark and Echo and the Bunnymen to name a few.
The story is a run of the mill love tale which we have seen before. Can Andie and Blaine's love bridge the social divides? The social divide in Pretty in Pink is rich versus poor but it could quite easily be feuding families as in Romeo and Juliet, so it's not the most original. The relationship goes remarkably fast too which leads to the dialogue being a bit out of context at times. The peripherals, however, are so much more interesting and demand your attention, deflecting you away from the weaker elements of the story. The performances, the music, the fashions and the feel of the movie will catapult you back to the 1980's and for this reason, it is worth your attention.
Pretty in Pink is not for everyone. To the cynics out there in movie land it's a piece of pop fluff that disappeared leaving only a faint trace of pink neon dust. To others it didn't and has lasted in memory as a better film than it was. This is because the film has layers and layers of sincerity and heart, like a undemanding, feel good 1980's lasagne. If movies are about how they make you feel, this for me is one of the comfort films of my generation. John Hughes, you will be missed.
Rating 7.5/10 1.0 off for the irksome Cryer, 1.0 off for the unoriginal story, 0.5 off for a speedy romance
click below to see Previous months reviews |
click below to see next month's reviews |
|
|