Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated As Old As Time in Books
Aug 16, 2019
Review by Disney Bookworm
I’m going to come right out and say (although you will probably be able to tell if you make it to the end of this blog) that this is, so far, my favourite book in the twisted tale series. Seriously, this is the second time I have read it and I loved it just as much as the first time. I got just as engrossed in the story and I seriously think Liz Braswell and I could be best friends!
As Old As Time is the retelling of Beauty and the Beast and opens with the familiar story of the enchantress and the young, vain prince that we all know. You can probably still picture the stained-glass scene from the original 1991 movie and the dramatic ballroom scene in the 2017 remake.
Refusing to be eclipsed by these though, Braswell follows the well-known tale with: “It was a very good story. It often entertained the woman who lay in her black hole of a room, manacled to a hard, cold bed.”
Wait! What?
There, with one fell swoop, on the second page, Braswell brings an almost gothic darkness to the fairy tale. Of course, some would say it is already dark: very few people who are cursed to become a beast are particularly jolly about the situation! However, Braswell goes one step further by both revealing the story behind the enchantress and taking us on a journey to discover the ugly truth in the present.
Liz Braswell creates a kingdom where magic and non-magic people have lived together peacefully for years but where politics and a lack of cultural understanding is threatening to tear that apart as les charmantes find themselves persecuted by les naturels. (I can’t imagine where she draws her inspiration from(!))
It is in this kingdom that we meet a young dreamer called Maurice and the enchantress Rosalind, Belle’s mother (nicknamed Rose- so clever!). Maurice is very much a younger version of the character we grew up with: loveable and devoted to his inventions. Rosalind however is much more headstrong and impulsive: even changing her appearance on a whim. Her pride is fierce and we first meet her holding her own against a large man insulting ‘her kind’, calling her unnatural and a child of the devil. The bully soon learns the error of his ways when his nose is replaced by a pig’s snout but a warning runs all the way through this tale: “magic always comes back on itself”.
Maurice and Rosalind’s life is happy and settled at first but they soon start to witness the persecution of les charmantes for themselves. Thus, when the King and Queen call on Rosalind to protect them against the advancing plague, she passionately fights for her people…only to be rejected and turned away. Maurice, always the voice of reason, convinces Rosalind to at least protect the children and servants and so it comes to pass that Rosalind later visits the young prince, on the eve of his coronation, carrying with her the simple gift of a rose.
Braswell’s character development is, as always, impressive. Belle is immediately relatable as the kooky bookworm we know and love: her story running parallel to the film until we, as readers, develop a relationship with her parents. It is then that we discover there is a slight edge to Belle. Although clearly tortured by the fact her mother cursed a 10-year-old boy, Braswell’s Belle is desperate to be adventurous and heroic like the characters in her books but soon realises an adventure is not all it is cracked up to be. Like her mother, Belle can be quite impulsive: grabbing the enchanted rose before the beast can stop her and destroying any chance of breaking the spell. However, she is also quick and cunning, tricking the wardrobe into revealing the curse’s timeline. Nevertheless, the bravery of our protagonist can never be doubted and Belle embarks on one hell of a journey to discover the truth about her family and herself.
Uniquely, within As Old As Time we slowly see side-line characters weave their way into the lives and stories of our characters. Levi and Alaric, for example, are old friends of Maurice and Rosalind and are seemingly insignificant to the story at first. However, Levi is also the godfather to Belle and the village bookseller (“If you like it that much, it’s yours!” – that guy). Alaric on the other hand has a significant link to the castle and both carry clues with them that assist Belle on her quest.
Any Beauty and the Beast tale would not be complete without LeFou and Gaston – that infamous double act- but even Gaston is ever so slightly darker than his animated counterpart. Frederic: another friend from the past and, quite frankly, odd from the start also plays a pivotal role in the story but I won’t spoil the surprise for you!
As Old As Time is true to its name: weaving two stories into its plot at different points in time: the story that we all know and the story of how that came to be. It is an ominous tale with curses, murder, creepy ivy statues and a frankly terrifying tour of the lunatic asylum.
It is not all doom and gloom however; Liz Braswell takes a very tongue-in-cheek attitude towards the infamous scenes within Beauty and the Beast: invoking a dry sense of humour into the story. From a chapter named “Be Our … Oh You Know the Rest” to a direct reference to Stockholm Syndrome: Braswell makes sure that we do not expect her novel to be a copycat, heartfelt tale with a happy ending. Belle even remarks to the Beast that hoping she would fall in love with him within a month or so was wildly unrealistic.
This is very much a novel for the cynical Disney lovers amongst us and highly deserving of its title of a twisted tale!
As Old As Time is the retelling of Beauty and the Beast and opens with the familiar story of the enchantress and the young, vain prince that we all know. You can probably still picture the stained-glass scene from the original 1991 movie and the dramatic ballroom scene in the 2017 remake.
Refusing to be eclipsed by these though, Braswell follows the well-known tale with: “It was a very good story. It often entertained the woman who lay in her black hole of a room, manacled to a hard, cold bed.”
Wait! What?
There, with one fell swoop, on the second page, Braswell brings an almost gothic darkness to the fairy tale. Of course, some would say it is already dark: very few people who are cursed to become a beast are particularly jolly about the situation! However, Braswell goes one step further by both revealing the story behind the enchantress and taking us on a journey to discover the ugly truth in the present.
Liz Braswell creates a kingdom where magic and non-magic people have lived together peacefully for years but where politics and a lack of cultural understanding is threatening to tear that apart as les charmantes find themselves persecuted by les naturels. (I can’t imagine where she draws her inspiration from(!))
It is in this kingdom that we meet a young dreamer called Maurice and the enchantress Rosalind, Belle’s mother (nicknamed Rose- so clever!). Maurice is very much a younger version of the character we grew up with: loveable and devoted to his inventions. Rosalind however is much more headstrong and impulsive: even changing her appearance on a whim. Her pride is fierce and we first meet her holding her own against a large man insulting ‘her kind’, calling her unnatural and a child of the devil. The bully soon learns the error of his ways when his nose is replaced by a pig’s snout but a warning runs all the way through this tale: “magic always comes back on itself”.
Maurice and Rosalind’s life is happy and settled at first but they soon start to witness the persecution of les charmantes for themselves. Thus, when the King and Queen call on Rosalind to protect them against the advancing plague, she passionately fights for her people…only to be rejected and turned away. Maurice, always the voice of reason, convinces Rosalind to at least protect the children and servants and so it comes to pass that Rosalind later visits the young prince, on the eve of his coronation, carrying with her the simple gift of a rose.
Braswell’s character development is, as always, impressive. Belle is immediately relatable as the kooky bookworm we know and love: her story running parallel to the film until we, as readers, develop a relationship with her parents. It is then that we discover there is a slight edge to Belle. Although clearly tortured by the fact her mother cursed a 10-year-old boy, Braswell’s Belle is desperate to be adventurous and heroic like the characters in her books but soon realises an adventure is not all it is cracked up to be. Like her mother, Belle can be quite impulsive: grabbing the enchanted rose before the beast can stop her and destroying any chance of breaking the spell. However, she is also quick and cunning, tricking the wardrobe into revealing the curse’s timeline. Nevertheless, the bravery of our protagonist can never be doubted and Belle embarks on one hell of a journey to discover the truth about her family and herself.
Uniquely, within As Old As Time we slowly see side-line characters weave their way into the lives and stories of our characters. Levi and Alaric, for example, are old friends of Maurice and Rosalind and are seemingly insignificant to the story at first. However, Levi is also the godfather to Belle and the village bookseller (“If you like it that much, it’s yours!” – that guy). Alaric on the other hand has a significant link to the castle and both carry clues with them that assist Belle on her quest.
Any Beauty and the Beast tale would not be complete without LeFou and Gaston – that infamous double act- but even Gaston is ever so slightly darker than his animated counterpart. Frederic: another friend from the past and, quite frankly, odd from the start also plays a pivotal role in the story but I won’t spoil the surprise for you!
As Old As Time is true to its name: weaving two stories into its plot at different points in time: the story that we all know and the story of how that came to be. It is an ominous tale with curses, murder, creepy ivy statues and a frankly terrifying tour of the lunatic asylum.
It is not all doom and gloom however; Liz Braswell takes a very tongue-in-cheek attitude towards the infamous scenes within Beauty and the Beast: invoking a dry sense of humour into the story. From a chapter named “Be Our … Oh You Know the Rest” to a direct reference to Stockholm Syndrome: Braswell makes sure that we do not expect her novel to be a copycat, heartfelt tale with a happy ending. Belle even remarks to the Beast that hoping she would fall in love with him within a month or so was wildly unrealistic.
This is very much a novel for the cynical Disney lovers amongst us and highly deserving of its title of a twisted tale!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Call Of The Wild (2020) in Movies
Mar 1, 2020
When they announced Call of the Wild with Harrison Ford I was onboard, then they said they were CGIing the dog and I became expressionless. I understood how some bits would need to be CGId... but the whole dog? I WANT FLOOFS!
An excitable family pet gets taken to the wilds of the Yukon and sold as a sled dog. Along the way he makes new friends and learns about the call of the wild... I know, you'd never have guessed from the title of the film!
Let's deal with the giant dog in the room first. It's difficult to express my exact feelings about the CGI in the film, yes it isn't great, but by the end of the film [well, quite early on] I didn't care. Buck has so many personality traits and goofball moments that you know he must be CGI but it really doesn't matter. A lot of the things on screen I'm sure you would see in a real dog, but you can't put them through the same actions as their computer-generated counterparts. The opening sequence with Buck running through the house was cartoonish and daft, and while I rolled my eyes it was one of the many funny moments that happened throughout the film. You just acclimatise to the whole thing and forget that Buck isn't real.
While the humans take a back seat to Buck's adventures most of the time they're still great on screen. Omar Sy and Cara Gee as Perrault and Françoise make a great duo, and Sy with Buck has some very fun pieces. His reaction to the dogs feels very natural and the ice scene you briefly see in the trailer was a strong moment for everyone involved.
Dan Stevens playing Hal is the villain of the piece and his whole performance reminds me of a classic animated Disney villain, a cross between things from Lady and the Tramp, Beauty and the Beast and 101 Dalmations. There's a very specific maniacal villain in my head but I can't remember who or what film and it's driving me nuts! [Do let me know if you know!] By the end of the film though I was bothered more by his cartoonish acting than I was by the CG.
Our main pull was, of course, Harrison Ford. I don't know how John Thornton is portrayed in the book but the one in this film is a very relaxed character that only occasionally has to step it up. It isn't much of a stretched for Ford, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone told me he wasn't even acting.
This is peak adventure, with excitement, peril and humour. The whole audience was reacting, and it was wonderful. Having gone in prepared to be annoyed the whole way through I was amazed at just how much I laughed and cried, and how exhilarating they managed to make things. Call of the Wild was a delightful watch, dubious CGI and all.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-call-of-wild-movie-review.html
An excitable family pet gets taken to the wilds of the Yukon and sold as a sled dog. Along the way he makes new friends and learns about the call of the wild... I know, you'd never have guessed from the title of the film!
Let's deal with the giant dog in the room first. It's difficult to express my exact feelings about the CGI in the film, yes it isn't great, but by the end of the film [well, quite early on] I didn't care. Buck has so many personality traits and goofball moments that you know he must be CGI but it really doesn't matter. A lot of the things on screen I'm sure you would see in a real dog, but you can't put them through the same actions as their computer-generated counterparts. The opening sequence with Buck running through the house was cartoonish and daft, and while I rolled my eyes it was one of the many funny moments that happened throughout the film. You just acclimatise to the whole thing and forget that Buck isn't real.
While the humans take a back seat to Buck's adventures most of the time they're still great on screen. Omar Sy and Cara Gee as Perrault and Françoise make a great duo, and Sy with Buck has some very fun pieces. His reaction to the dogs feels very natural and the ice scene you briefly see in the trailer was a strong moment for everyone involved.
Dan Stevens playing Hal is the villain of the piece and his whole performance reminds me of a classic animated Disney villain, a cross between things from Lady and the Tramp, Beauty and the Beast and 101 Dalmations. There's a very specific maniacal villain in my head but I can't remember who or what film and it's driving me nuts! [Do let me know if you know!] By the end of the film though I was bothered more by his cartoonish acting than I was by the CG.
Our main pull was, of course, Harrison Ford. I don't know how John Thornton is portrayed in the book but the one in this film is a very relaxed character that only occasionally has to step it up. It isn't much of a stretched for Ford, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone told me he wasn't even acting.
This is peak adventure, with excitement, peril and humour. The whole audience was reacting, and it was wonderful. Having gone in prepared to be annoyed the whole way through I was amazed at just how much I laughed and cried, and how exhilarating they managed to make things. Call of the Wild was a delightful watch, dubious CGI and all.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-call-of-wild-movie-review.html
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Mirror, Mirror in Books
Aug 16, 2019
Review by Disney Bookworm
Contains spoilers, click to show
If I’m honest I initially thought the tagline to this Snow White twisted tale novel was a massive plot spoiler but, when you are 300 pages into a book and no-one has eaten a poisoned apple, it may be the ideal opportunity to admit you were wrong. This book is not that simple!
Mirror, Mirror explores the traditional Grimm fairy tale of Snow White through the eyes of the two main characters: the Evil Queen and Snow White herself. The reader is completely under the control of these two women: finding themselves with no choice but to witness the familiar story from their perspective.
Jen Calonita’s novel is also heavily built on story telling through flashbacks. In my opinion, this is a genius idea as it provides an undeniable depth to her characters. Let’s be honest, everyone knows the story of Snow White but not everyone knows the story before Snow White and it is here where the twisted tale evolves.
Through these flashbacks we meet Katherine and Ingrid: two sisters whom have lost their mother and are being raised by their neglectful, sometimes violent, father. As a result of their upbringing, Ingrid, the elder sister, has adopted a motherly role towards her younger sister Katherine and strives to protect the innocent girl at all times. They leave home, finding work on a farm where Katherine finds her passion within the apple orchard, cultivating a new variety of apple which will later attract the attention of the King.
Ingrid however, always wants more than what she has. Older and more aware of the hardship life can bring, Ingrid is not as sweet and innocent as her sister: people do not dote on Ingrid as they do Katherine and eventually Ingrid finds that she cannot settle for a simple life- instead opting for a job in a small shop known for its association with dark magic and the home of a certain mirror.
You may have guessed by now that Ingrid is, in fact, the Evil Queen and her sister Katherine is Snow White’s mother! I know what you are thinking, I have just described how protective Ingrid was of the future Queen: surely she wouldn’t “off” her own sister and try to collect her niece’s heart in a box?
This is where the complexity of Ingrid’s character really shines through and where, (if hats suited me) I will take my hat off to Jen Calonita. Mirror Mirror takes you on a journey with Ingrid. You experience her love for her sister first-hand as well as her frustration with her sheltered life but later you also witness her lust for power and how easily Ingrid’s choices lead her down the wrong path.
I also believe that Ingrid is truly scarred by her past. She sneers upon her sister’s kindness and villainises Katherine for letting a man, and later her baby, come between them. Ingrid views herself as wiser and more intelligent than her little sister: believing that she would certainly rule the Kingdom more efficiently and not stopping until this becomes a reality.
Despite being a formidable woman, Ingrid is not devoid of vulnerabilities and, as the story progresses, the readers will witness Ingrid’s ghosts and note how one in particular never leaves her until the very end.
Of course, Ingrid’s enabler is the magic mirror. Calonita paints a picture of a mirror identical to the one we remember from the Disney 1938 classic animated film with a haunting mask dominating and manipulating The Evil Queen with every chance it gets.
The mirror creates an obsession and dependence within Ingrid that is chillingly portrayed. It is undoubtedly the real villain of the story: demanding blood from the start and weakening Ingrid until she cleaves to its will. However, we all know who is standing between the mirror and its plans for domination and undisputed power: the princess Snow White.
In the past, I have made no secret of the fact that Snow is my least favourite Disney princess. Her voice in the film grated on me and I just genuinely found her irritating. Thankfully Calonita’s Snow White is more akin to the ‘Once Upon A Time’ interpretation and so much easier to form a relationship with as a reader.
While fulfilling our expectations of being kind, innocent and prone to falling in love with conveniently handsome Princes: Mirror Mirror’s Snow White is bolder than we are used to and, as her story progresses, becomes more confident in herself as the heir to the kingdom. Her priorities are more political in nature, with a strong focus on rebuilding her kingdom and her bravery shines through almost from the very beginning. Snow does encounter challenges and dark thoughts as any person does but earns her Disney princess badge by helping true love to save the day!
Similarly, the seven dwarves are not as one-dimensional as the classic movie. They assist the Princess of course and shelter her in the forest but they also seem more street-wise (or should that be forest-wise?), squirreling away diamonds for bartering and mustering armies for Snow’s cause. There isn’t too much focus on the seven men in Mirror Mirror but I don’t think that the book is necessarily missing this. I think the characters are so well-known that too much character development would stray away from the main plot.
Mirror, Mirror is a modern adaptation of the familiar fairytale: centring itself around two very strong women in their own right but polar opposites in terms of their characters and choices in life.
The novel makes several nods to the iconic images formed in 1938 by Walt Disney such as the apple, the glass coffin and, of course, the seven dwarves. However, the recurring theme of choosing your own story and the complex backgrounds to her characters cause Jen Calonita’s novel to stand out on its own.
It may not have been the traditional “happy ever after” but this adaptation of Snow White was, in my opinion, the “fairest of them all”.
Written by The Disney Bookworm:
https://disneybookworm.home.blog
Mirror, Mirror explores the traditional Grimm fairy tale of Snow White through the eyes of the two main characters: the Evil Queen and Snow White herself. The reader is completely under the control of these two women: finding themselves with no choice but to witness the familiar story from their perspective.
Jen Calonita’s novel is also heavily built on story telling through flashbacks. In my opinion, this is a genius idea as it provides an undeniable depth to her characters. Let’s be honest, everyone knows the story of Snow White but not everyone knows the story before Snow White and it is here where the twisted tale evolves.
Through these flashbacks we meet Katherine and Ingrid: two sisters whom have lost their mother and are being raised by their neglectful, sometimes violent, father. As a result of their upbringing, Ingrid, the elder sister, has adopted a motherly role towards her younger sister Katherine and strives to protect the innocent girl at all times. They leave home, finding work on a farm where Katherine finds her passion within the apple orchard, cultivating a new variety of apple which will later attract the attention of the King.
Ingrid however, always wants more than what she has. Older and more aware of the hardship life can bring, Ingrid is not as sweet and innocent as her sister: people do not dote on Ingrid as they do Katherine and eventually Ingrid finds that she cannot settle for a simple life- instead opting for a job in a small shop known for its association with dark magic and the home of a certain mirror.
You may have guessed by now that Ingrid is, in fact, the Evil Queen and her sister Katherine is Snow White’s mother! I know what you are thinking, I have just described how protective Ingrid was of the future Queen: surely she wouldn’t “off” her own sister and try to collect her niece’s heart in a box?
This is where the complexity of Ingrid’s character really shines through and where, (if hats suited me) I will take my hat off to Jen Calonita. Mirror Mirror takes you on a journey with Ingrid. You experience her love for her sister first-hand as well as her frustration with her sheltered life but later you also witness her lust for power and how easily Ingrid’s choices lead her down the wrong path.
I also believe that Ingrid is truly scarred by her past. She sneers upon her sister’s kindness and villainises Katherine for letting a man, and later her baby, come between them. Ingrid views herself as wiser and more intelligent than her little sister: believing that she would certainly rule the Kingdom more efficiently and not stopping until this becomes a reality.
Despite being a formidable woman, Ingrid is not devoid of vulnerabilities and, as the story progresses, the readers will witness Ingrid’s ghosts and note how one in particular never leaves her until the very end.
Of course, Ingrid’s enabler is the magic mirror. Calonita paints a picture of a mirror identical to the one we remember from the Disney 1938 classic animated film with a haunting mask dominating and manipulating The Evil Queen with every chance it gets.
The mirror creates an obsession and dependence within Ingrid that is chillingly portrayed. It is undoubtedly the real villain of the story: demanding blood from the start and weakening Ingrid until she cleaves to its will. However, we all know who is standing between the mirror and its plans for domination and undisputed power: the princess Snow White.
In the past, I have made no secret of the fact that Snow is my least favourite Disney princess. Her voice in the film grated on me and I just genuinely found her irritating. Thankfully Calonita’s Snow White is more akin to the ‘Once Upon A Time’ interpretation and so much easier to form a relationship with as a reader.
While fulfilling our expectations of being kind, innocent and prone to falling in love with conveniently handsome Princes: Mirror Mirror’s Snow White is bolder than we are used to and, as her story progresses, becomes more confident in herself as the heir to the kingdom. Her priorities are more political in nature, with a strong focus on rebuilding her kingdom and her bravery shines through almost from the very beginning. Snow does encounter challenges and dark thoughts as any person does but earns her Disney princess badge by helping true love to save the day!
Similarly, the seven dwarves are not as one-dimensional as the classic movie. They assist the Princess of course and shelter her in the forest but they also seem more street-wise (or should that be forest-wise?), squirreling away diamonds for bartering and mustering armies for Snow’s cause. There isn’t too much focus on the seven men in Mirror Mirror but I don’t think that the book is necessarily missing this. I think the characters are so well-known that too much character development would stray away from the main plot.
Mirror, Mirror is a modern adaptation of the familiar fairytale: centring itself around two very strong women in their own right but polar opposites in terms of their characters and choices in life.
The novel makes several nods to the iconic images formed in 1938 by Walt Disney such as the apple, the glass coffin and, of course, the seven dwarves. However, the recurring theme of choosing your own story and the complex backgrounds to her characters cause Jen Calonita’s novel to stand out on its own.
It may not have been the traditional “happy ever after” but this adaptation of Snow White was, in my opinion, the “fairest of them all”.
Written by The Disney Bookworm:
https://disneybookworm.home.blog
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mortal Engines (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
At last, the hilarious Brexit comedy we’ve all been waiting for.
As comedy goes it’s classic gold! London has been transferred, presumably via a futuristic big-arsed forklift truck of some kind, onto a huge chassis and is now chugging its way across mainland Europe. Needing fuel, it has the capability to gobble-up other roving towns and cities (take that Barnier!) which London ‘digests’ (smoke that Tusk!). Curiously, the captured cities’ inhabitants are not exterminated but integrated into the City’s population: so much for any anti-immigration policy! (LOL).
But all doesn’t go entirely smoothly for the UK capital. The Lord Mayor of London (Patrick Malahide) declares “We should never have gone into Europe. It’s the biggest mistake we ever made”. (Classic: how we SNORTED with laughter!)
Cities on wheels. London in hot pursuit of a Bavarian mining town. (Some things you just write, and then have to do a double take!). (Source: Universal Pictures International).
Stuffing it squarely to the ‘remainers’, London makes its own future. “It’s time to show the world how strong London can be”. Having conquered most of Europe, it’s time to set its sights on new markets to conquer: so London takes the Chinese on! (Now the tears of laughter are flowing freely!) Trade deals have never been more entertaining since “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace”!
Well, perhaps not
OK, so in the interests of ‘advertising standards’, I’d better make clear before you rush out to the cinema expecting a comedy feature that my tongue is firmly in my cheek here. For “Mortal Engines” is the latest sci-fi feature from Peter Jackson. But when viewed from a Brexit perspective, it’s friggin’ hilarious!
In terms of plot, this (like “Waterworld”) makes clever use of the Universal logo to set the agenda. The world has been decimated with a worldwide war – though clearly one that selectively destroyed bits of London and not others! – and the survivors must try to survive in any way they can. Settlements are divided between those that are ‘static’ and those (like London) that are mobile and constantly evolving: “Municipal Darwinism” as it is hysterically described. But London, or rather the power-crazed Londoner Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving), wants revolution rather than evolution and he is working on development of one of the super-weapons that started the world’s demise in the first place.
But Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), separated when young from her mother Pandora (yes, she has a box and we’ve seen it: wink, wink) is intent on stopping him, since she is on a personal path of vengence. Teaming up with Londoner Tom (Robert Sheehan) and activist Anna Fang (Jihae) they must face both Thaddeus and the ever-relentless Shrike (Stephen Lang) to try to derail the destructive plan.
“I’m not subtle”
So says Anna Fang, but then neither is this movie. The film is loud and action-filled and (as a significant plus) visually extremely impressive with it. I’m not a great fan of excessive CGI but here it is essential, and the special-effects team do a great job. The production design is tremendous – a lot of money has been thrown at this – and the costume design inventive, a high-spot (again snortworthy) being the Beefeater guards costumes!
Where the film really crashes, like a post-Brexit stock market, is with the dialogue. The screenplay by Jackson himself, with his regular writers Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens contains some absolute clunkers, notwithstanding the unintended LOL-worthy Brexit irony. It’s jaw-droppingly bad, believe me.
The turns
The only real “name” in the whole film is Jackson-favourite Hugo Weaving. Just about everyone else in the cast is pretty well unknown, and in many cases it shows. Standing head and shoulders though for me over the rest of the cast was Icelandic actress Hera Hilmar, who strikes a splendidly feisty pose as the mentally and physically scarred Hester. I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Plagerism: the movie
Story-wise, there’s not a sci-fi film that’s not been looted, and a number of other films seem to be plundered too. (I can’t comment on how much of this comes from the source book by Philip Reeve). The Londonmobile looks for all the world like Monty Python’s “Crimson Permanent Assurance Company”; the teenage female lead is Sarah Connors, relentlessly pursued by The Terminator; the male lead is archaologist cum hot-shot pilot Indiana Solo, leather jacket and all; there is a Blade Runner moment; a battle that is a meld of “The Great Wall” and Morannon from “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers”; a less sophisticated aerial location from “The Empire Strikes Back”; and another classic Star Wars moment (without the words being actually said!).
A case of the Jackson Pollocks
Now I’m loathe to say anything bad about director Peter Jackson, after his breathtakingly memorable “They Shall Not Grown Old“. And the film has its moments of flair, most memorably a “life flashing before your eyes scene” that I found genuinely moving. But overall, as an actioner, it’s a bit of a mess.
It’s a long way from being the worse film I’ve seen this year by a long stroke – it kept me interested and amused in equal measure for the running time. But I think given it’s initially bombed at the Box Office, any plans Jackson had to deliver a series of these movies might need to be self-funded.
But all doesn’t go entirely smoothly for the UK capital. The Lord Mayor of London (Patrick Malahide) declares “We should never have gone into Europe. It’s the biggest mistake we ever made”. (Classic: how we SNORTED with laughter!)
Cities on wheels. London in hot pursuit of a Bavarian mining town. (Some things you just write, and then have to do a double take!). (Source: Universal Pictures International).
Stuffing it squarely to the ‘remainers’, London makes its own future. “It’s time to show the world how strong London can be”. Having conquered most of Europe, it’s time to set its sights on new markets to conquer: so London takes the Chinese on! (Now the tears of laughter are flowing freely!) Trade deals have never been more entertaining since “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace”!
Well, perhaps not
OK, so in the interests of ‘advertising standards’, I’d better make clear before you rush out to the cinema expecting a comedy feature that my tongue is firmly in my cheek here. For “Mortal Engines” is the latest sci-fi feature from Peter Jackson. But when viewed from a Brexit perspective, it’s friggin’ hilarious!
In terms of plot, this (like “Waterworld”) makes clever use of the Universal logo to set the agenda. The world has been decimated with a worldwide war – though clearly one that selectively destroyed bits of London and not others! – and the survivors must try to survive in any way they can. Settlements are divided between those that are ‘static’ and those (like London) that are mobile and constantly evolving: “Municipal Darwinism” as it is hysterically described. But London, or rather the power-crazed Londoner Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving), wants revolution rather than evolution and he is working on development of one of the super-weapons that started the world’s demise in the first place.
But Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), separated when young from her mother Pandora (yes, she has a box and we’ve seen it: wink, wink) is intent on stopping him, since she is on a personal path of vengence. Teaming up with Londoner Tom (Robert Sheehan) and activist Anna Fang (Jihae) they must face both Thaddeus and the ever-relentless Shrike (Stephen Lang) to try to derail the destructive plan.
“I’m not subtle”
So says Anna Fang, but then neither is this movie. The film is loud and action-filled and (as a significant plus) visually extremely impressive with it. I’m not a great fan of excessive CGI but here it is essential, and the special-effects team do a great job. The production design is tremendous – a lot of money has been thrown at this – and the costume design inventive, a high-spot (again snortworthy) being the Beefeater guards costumes!
Where the film really crashes, like a post-Brexit stock market, is with the dialogue. The screenplay by Jackson himself, with his regular writers Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens contains some absolute clunkers, notwithstanding the unintended LOL-worthy Brexit irony. It’s jaw-droppingly bad, believe me.
The turns
The only real “name” in the whole film is Jackson-favourite Hugo Weaving. Just about everyone else in the cast is pretty well unknown, and in many cases it shows. Standing head and shoulders though for me over the rest of the cast was Icelandic actress Hera Hilmar, who strikes a splendidly feisty pose as the mentally and physically scarred Hester. I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Plagerism: the movie
Story-wise, there’s not a sci-fi film that’s not been looted, and a number of other films seem to be plundered too. (I can’t comment on how much of this comes from the source book by Philip Reeve). The Londonmobile looks for all the world like Monty Python’s “Crimson Permanent Assurance Company”; the teenage female lead is Sarah Connors, relentlessly pursued by The Terminator; the male lead is archaologist cum hot-shot pilot Indiana Solo, leather jacket and all; there is a Blade Runner moment; a battle that is a meld of “The Great Wall” and Morannon from “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers”; a less sophisticated aerial location from “The Empire Strikes Back”; and another classic Star Wars moment (without the words being actually said!).
A case of the Jackson Pollocks
Now I’m loathe to say anything bad about director Peter Jackson, after his breathtakingly memorable “They Shall Not Grown Old“. And the film has its moments of flair, most memorably a “life flashing before your eyes scene” that I found genuinely moving. But overall, as an actioner, it’s a bit of a mess.
It’s a long way from being the worse film I’ve seen this year by a long stroke – it kept me interested and amused in equal measure for the running time. But I think given it’s initially bombed at the Box Office, any plans Jackson had to deliver a series of these movies might need to be self-funded.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Yes, I'm a scared cat and bailed out on the Unlimited Screening of this. Those of you on Twitter know that I prefer my horrors to be brightly lit with ample opportunity to scream at the idiots on the screen who are quite clearly going to get themselves killed. That being said, I did decide to see it after reading some general comments after the screening. I believe the phrase I used was "Suck it up, Emma. You can do this."
Pet Sematary is obviously a remake but as I understand it they've made a fair few tweaks to give viewers something a bit different. The premise is still the same though.
After the Creeds move into their new home they discover that the woods on their property are home to a pet cemetery that has quite a local tradition. When their cat, Church, dies on the road outside their house the neighbour overs to help Louis find a spot to bury him. Jud realises that Ellie will be devastated at the loss and leads Louis out to a remote and unusual spot to bury Church. What he doesn't tell him is that Church won't stay buried for long.
Jason Clarke is getting some great screen time this year what with The Aftermath and Serenity (which I hope to catch sometime soon). I liked how he managed to play the sceptic in this, he's a man of science which has a set of rules but the longer he spends in their new surrounds the more he becomes changed by them. He's also a great contrast with his wife and watching them trying to explain death to their daughter was captured in a very interesting way.
Amy Seimetz as Rachel felt a little underwhelming as a character, the backstory she has is odd on its own but having it pop up sporadically through the film felt confusing. I don't know whether it's the same storyline as was in the book but something a little less bizarre felt like it would have worked better and left you with less unanswered questions.
John Lithgow is always a favourite of mine and this performance was no exception. Sort of like the old man shovelling snow in Home Alone he comes across as scary until you realise he's not so bad after all. I'm intrigued by his character though, Jud should surely be much less friendly and changed because of his experiences with the woods, and yet he's fairly normal. The only thing that I was a little disappointed with was that his backstory was very obvious... and to be honest given all the trouble he's had you'd think he'd be a little more cautious.
Our little leading lady certainly has a flair for the demonic and I actually found her to be a much better offering after her unfortunate incident. From what I understand it's her little brother that dies in the original, but in my head I can't see that working very well. They do try and bring him into the story with a slightly supernatural ability to see the dead but it felt a little forced and perhaps it would have been better to just bypass it completely.
If you read my reviews every so often I'm sure you're aware of my dislike for cameras that move erratically. I was aware that we felt to be constantly on the move and it made for a challenging watch. Pet Sematary also featured my least favourite of all the shots, the overhead pan that sets off my motion sickness. Opening the film with a sweeping shot of the forest nearly had me passed out on the floor, and to my joy we also get a brief reprise of this towards the end.
Apart from the camera work that wasn't to my liking there wasn't a lot that I found out of place with the production itself apart from one moment that jumped out at me. When that monstrous little bastard of a cat lured Ellie out into the road we get what is a surprisingly well thought out scene, I was onboard and engrossed and then there were some terrible digital effects involving the truck that stuck out like a sore thumb.
Stephen King and I have a very patchy history with adaptations. I often feel like he writes a fantastic story and then realises he hasn't worked out how to end it and just goe "Boom! Aliens!" I'm looking hard at Under The Dome here, nearly 40 hours of my life... for aliens! Needless to say I was quite pleased that there was some "reasonable" explanation for everything that was happening. Not a single alien in sight and the ending wrapped with a nice ominous vibe that made me glad they hadn't gone with a happily ever after scenario.
Apart from the camera work and the cheap ass jumping scares this wasn't such a bad film. If you ignore the things that don't make sense, like why are parents letting their creepy children give their dead pets a procession through another person's property... or why does the "pet sematary" actually have nothing to do with the resurrections... or why do they walk through about five miles of Star Wars-esque forest and swamp to a random mountain to do the ritual... yeah, if you ignore those things it isn't too bad.
What you should do
It's not a bad horror to watch and if you aren't a big ol' chicken like me then you might want to see it on the big screen.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
What I would like is something very specific, like genie wish specific, I want Church... but I want him in his curly looking death state... without the death. No smell, no blood, no guts, no demonic hell beast, just the regular cat type of hell beast.
Pet Sematary is obviously a remake but as I understand it they've made a fair few tweaks to give viewers something a bit different. The premise is still the same though.
After the Creeds move into their new home they discover that the woods on their property are home to a pet cemetery that has quite a local tradition. When their cat, Church, dies on the road outside their house the neighbour overs to help Louis find a spot to bury him. Jud realises that Ellie will be devastated at the loss and leads Louis out to a remote and unusual spot to bury Church. What he doesn't tell him is that Church won't stay buried for long.
Jason Clarke is getting some great screen time this year what with The Aftermath and Serenity (which I hope to catch sometime soon). I liked how he managed to play the sceptic in this, he's a man of science which has a set of rules but the longer he spends in their new surrounds the more he becomes changed by them. He's also a great contrast with his wife and watching them trying to explain death to their daughter was captured in a very interesting way.
Amy Seimetz as Rachel felt a little underwhelming as a character, the backstory she has is odd on its own but having it pop up sporadically through the film felt confusing. I don't know whether it's the same storyline as was in the book but something a little less bizarre felt like it would have worked better and left you with less unanswered questions.
John Lithgow is always a favourite of mine and this performance was no exception. Sort of like the old man shovelling snow in Home Alone he comes across as scary until you realise he's not so bad after all. I'm intrigued by his character though, Jud should surely be much less friendly and changed because of his experiences with the woods, and yet he's fairly normal. The only thing that I was a little disappointed with was that his backstory was very obvious... and to be honest given all the trouble he's had you'd think he'd be a little more cautious.
Our little leading lady certainly has a flair for the demonic and I actually found her to be a much better offering after her unfortunate incident. From what I understand it's her little brother that dies in the original, but in my head I can't see that working very well. They do try and bring him into the story with a slightly supernatural ability to see the dead but it felt a little forced and perhaps it would have been better to just bypass it completely.
If you read my reviews every so often I'm sure you're aware of my dislike for cameras that move erratically. I was aware that we felt to be constantly on the move and it made for a challenging watch. Pet Sematary also featured my least favourite of all the shots, the overhead pan that sets off my motion sickness. Opening the film with a sweeping shot of the forest nearly had me passed out on the floor, and to my joy we also get a brief reprise of this towards the end.
Apart from the camera work that wasn't to my liking there wasn't a lot that I found out of place with the production itself apart from one moment that jumped out at me. When that monstrous little bastard of a cat lured Ellie out into the road we get what is a surprisingly well thought out scene, I was onboard and engrossed and then there were some terrible digital effects involving the truck that stuck out like a sore thumb.
Stephen King and I have a very patchy history with adaptations. I often feel like he writes a fantastic story and then realises he hasn't worked out how to end it and just goe "Boom! Aliens!" I'm looking hard at Under The Dome here, nearly 40 hours of my life... for aliens! Needless to say I was quite pleased that there was some "reasonable" explanation for everything that was happening. Not a single alien in sight and the ending wrapped with a nice ominous vibe that made me glad they hadn't gone with a happily ever after scenario.
Apart from the camera work and the cheap ass jumping scares this wasn't such a bad film. If you ignore the things that don't make sense, like why are parents letting their creepy children give their dead pets a procession through another person's property... or why does the "pet sematary" actually have nothing to do with the resurrections... or why do they walk through about five miles of Star Wars-esque forest and swamp to a random mountain to do the ritual... yeah, if you ignore those things it isn't too bad.
What you should do
It's not a bad horror to watch and if you aren't a big ol' chicken like me then you might want to see it on the big screen.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
What I would like is something very specific, like genie wish specific, I want Church... but I want him in his curly looking death state... without the death. No smell, no blood, no guts, no demonic hell beast, just the regular cat type of hell beast.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The moment has come for every budding witch and wizard to say goodbye to the cash cow that has been the Harry Potter franchise and what a send-off he’s been given.
David Yates has once again returned to helm the final instalment in the most profitable movie franchise in history and whilst he has created a near perfect film technically, it falls down on a few points like a lack of character development and overly rushed script.
Deathly Hallows Part 2 picks up immediately from the 1st chapter with a quick reminder of what preceded it. This is a welcome start as the film feels a little disjointed in parts and if you’re not a loyal Harry Potter fan; chances are you won’t understand what’s going on.
Voldermort is gaining power as Harry, Ron and Hermione search for the missing horcruxes in order to destroy them and cripple the fearsome villain. Their travels bring them back to where it all started; Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardy; which has changed since we saw it last. Hogwarts has been rendered fabulously and is perhaps the best use of the 3D technology in the entire film. The sweeping shots of the lush, yet foreboding landscape surrounding the iconic castle are given new depth as we literally fly through the sky and smash through castle windows.
The decision to convert the film into 3D was met with mixed reviews from critics who said it would spoil a film which didn’t need it. To some extent this is true, there is a definite lack of focus throughout the film as the eye tries to focus on too many things at once, but it is far from the worst 3D conversion I’ve seen.
Performance wise, everyone has upped their game. The main trio have developed strong bonds with each other in real life and this really shows in the film as they battle against near certain death to protect one another. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) is perhaps the weakest of the three in this film with Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron) tied in first place. Their quiet demeanour is excitingly suffocating and brings a sense of claustrophobia to the film.
Of our veteran stars, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman who play Professor McGonnagall and new headmaster Severus Snape are by far the standouts in a cast which are given a much greater chance to shine in this film. For a woman of Smiths age (76), she is exceptional and her performance really shows why Chris Columbus thought she would be perfect for the role all those years ago. Alan Rickman has been a favourite throughout the series and hasn’t let Potter fans down here, his final scenes are heart-breaking and worthy of a few tears.
Most of the other favourites make a welcome return, though all of them feel like cardboard cutouts, because their speech is limited to a couple of lines. Jim Broadbent (Horace Slughorn), Emma Thompson (Sybil Trelawny), Miriam Margolyes (Pomona Sprout) all make cameos in the film which is both a lovely and disappointing sight to see.
Ralph Fiennes does a lot of shouting throughout the film as vicious enemy Lord Voldermort but he performs well and does the role justice.
The only real flaw in the characters is that many of them aren’t given enough screen time. Helena Bonham Carter’s fabulous Bellatrix Lestrange is unfortunately lost as the army of Death Eaters grows and many other brilliant characters are only seen, not heard. (David Thewlis – Remus Lupin is the most prominent example of this.)
Being just over two hours in length means that this film is by far the shortest of the bunch and this shows in its pacing. Unfortunately, cutting the running time to this length has meant that certain scenes feel a little disjointed and certain parts, which were gut-wrenching in the book aren’t given enough time to digest in the film, which is disappointing seeing as an extra 10 or 20 minutes would’ve improved things greatly.
The climatic battle of Hogwarts as it’s been titled is fabulous and the special effects come into their own here as giants, acromantulas, death eaters and students pit themselves against one another with terrifying results. It’s a real treat to behold.
Yates’ cinematography is superb and every single shot he uses is beautiful in its own way. In one particular scene, located in the never before seen boathouse at Hogwarts, Yates manages to get around the 12A certificate which has blighted the last 4 films by shooting through frosted glass. I won’t spoil the scene for you, but it’s an emotional part of the film.
Moreover, the limbo scenes between Harry and Dumbledore, which were a low point in the novel, have been pleasingly shortened so that enough time is given to the main storylines. Unfortunately, the much talked about epilogue is too short and is a slightly anti-climatic send off for a film franchise that has been around for 10 years.
Overall, Harry Potter gets the send-off he deserved in a film which returns the magic and sparkle lost as the movies got darker. Yates has crafted a beautifully shot movie which doesn’t forget the action packed nature of its source material. Coupled with brilliant special effects and excellent performances by everyone involved, it’s a winning formula all round. The Harry Potter film franchise may have had a few lapses and a couple of disappointing outings, but thankfully the Deathly Hallows has made sure it ends on a high note. It may finish here, but when it ends this well, it most certainly won’t be forgotten.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/07/18/harry-potter-the-deathly-hallows-part-2-2011/
David Yates has once again returned to helm the final instalment in the most profitable movie franchise in history and whilst he has created a near perfect film technically, it falls down on a few points like a lack of character development and overly rushed script.
Deathly Hallows Part 2 picks up immediately from the 1st chapter with a quick reminder of what preceded it. This is a welcome start as the film feels a little disjointed in parts and if you’re not a loyal Harry Potter fan; chances are you won’t understand what’s going on.
Voldermort is gaining power as Harry, Ron and Hermione search for the missing horcruxes in order to destroy them and cripple the fearsome villain. Their travels bring them back to where it all started; Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardy; which has changed since we saw it last. Hogwarts has been rendered fabulously and is perhaps the best use of the 3D technology in the entire film. The sweeping shots of the lush, yet foreboding landscape surrounding the iconic castle are given new depth as we literally fly through the sky and smash through castle windows.
The decision to convert the film into 3D was met with mixed reviews from critics who said it would spoil a film which didn’t need it. To some extent this is true, there is a definite lack of focus throughout the film as the eye tries to focus on too many things at once, but it is far from the worst 3D conversion I’ve seen.
Performance wise, everyone has upped their game. The main trio have developed strong bonds with each other in real life and this really shows in the film as they battle against near certain death to protect one another. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) is perhaps the weakest of the three in this film with Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron) tied in first place. Their quiet demeanour is excitingly suffocating and brings a sense of claustrophobia to the film.
Of our veteran stars, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman who play Professor McGonnagall and new headmaster Severus Snape are by far the standouts in a cast which are given a much greater chance to shine in this film. For a woman of Smiths age (76), she is exceptional and her performance really shows why Chris Columbus thought she would be perfect for the role all those years ago. Alan Rickman has been a favourite throughout the series and hasn’t let Potter fans down here, his final scenes are heart-breaking and worthy of a few tears.
Most of the other favourites make a welcome return, though all of them feel like cardboard cutouts, because their speech is limited to a couple of lines. Jim Broadbent (Horace Slughorn), Emma Thompson (Sybil Trelawny), Miriam Margolyes (Pomona Sprout) all make cameos in the film which is both a lovely and disappointing sight to see.
Ralph Fiennes does a lot of shouting throughout the film as vicious enemy Lord Voldermort but he performs well and does the role justice.
The only real flaw in the characters is that many of them aren’t given enough screen time. Helena Bonham Carter’s fabulous Bellatrix Lestrange is unfortunately lost as the army of Death Eaters grows and many other brilliant characters are only seen, not heard. (David Thewlis – Remus Lupin is the most prominent example of this.)
Being just over two hours in length means that this film is by far the shortest of the bunch and this shows in its pacing. Unfortunately, cutting the running time to this length has meant that certain scenes feel a little disjointed and certain parts, which were gut-wrenching in the book aren’t given enough time to digest in the film, which is disappointing seeing as an extra 10 or 20 minutes would’ve improved things greatly.
The climatic battle of Hogwarts as it’s been titled is fabulous and the special effects come into their own here as giants, acromantulas, death eaters and students pit themselves against one another with terrifying results. It’s a real treat to behold.
Yates’ cinematography is superb and every single shot he uses is beautiful in its own way. In one particular scene, located in the never before seen boathouse at Hogwarts, Yates manages to get around the 12A certificate which has blighted the last 4 films by shooting through frosted glass. I won’t spoil the scene for you, but it’s an emotional part of the film.
Moreover, the limbo scenes between Harry and Dumbledore, which were a low point in the novel, have been pleasingly shortened so that enough time is given to the main storylines. Unfortunately, the much talked about epilogue is too short and is a slightly anti-climatic send off for a film franchise that has been around for 10 years.
Overall, Harry Potter gets the send-off he deserved in a film which returns the magic and sparkle lost as the movies got darker. Yates has crafted a beautifully shot movie which doesn’t forget the action packed nature of its source material. Coupled with brilliant special effects and excellent performances by everyone involved, it’s a winning formula all round. The Harry Potter film franchise may have had a few lapses and a couple of disappointing outings, but thankfully the Deathly Hallows has made sure it ends on a high note. It may finish here, but when it ends this well, it most certainly won’t be forgotten.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/07/18/harry-potter-the-deathly-hallows-part-2-2011/
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
May 27, 2019
"They said the age of heroes would never come again."
As a huge fan of Zack Snyder's first two efforts inside the DCEU and Patty Jenkins wonderful Wonder Woman, my expectations for Justice League were pretty much through the roof. After the mediocre buzz that it got and all the stuff that happened behind the scenes, I was a little skeptical but still very excited, but after getting out of the theater, one word really just describes how I felt; disappointed.
One of the most wonderful things about the huge explosion of comic book movies has brought, to me personally, is being able to see the comics/cartoons that I grew up on, be brought to life on the big screen. The Justice League animated series was my one of my favorite shows as a kid and seeing seeing them come to screen brought joy to my eyes, and was something of a dream come true and that's the one major point I can give to the film as a whole.
My biggest disappointment in the film is actually Warner Brothers. They are a big bunch of idiots, to be honest. If they would've left Snyder to take his time and actually hired someone who Snyder wanted, the film would've been so much better. It's a sad fact when you can obviously tell which scenes were Snyder's and which were Whedon's. I actually loved every part of the film that you could tell was Zack's; it felt passionate and like it was coming from a fan. Whedon gave shitty one-liners and basically made me feel like I was watching a TV-movie.
A major component to why I actually liked the film was the action. It left me satisfied and I was rooting for them to just kickass and look cool doing it, because when you look at the classic "Justice League" stories, that's basically what it was. But even though the action was pretty stellar; I'm so mad at the fact of Steppenwolf looked so fake and like some of the worst CGI I've ever seen; so it mad the fights a little weak when it looks like the team is fighting a green screen. Also, the last 30-ish minutes kinda saved it for me. It was really "epic" and it felt really pure, I guess is the right word.
The cast. Oh my god the cast was so freaking good. Marvel Studios gets it right a lot of the time, but damn DC you won this one. Ezra Miller & Jason Momoa stood out like a sore thumb at how much better they were. They were so charismatic, yet intense, and altogether just right at place in their characters. Ben Affleck I'm so sorry that Whedon choose to mess you up. Affleck was stellar in BvS yet here, he felt dull and not the Batman I know he could be. Gal Gadot & Ray Fisher were both pretty good, but Gadot felt a little like she was but in the backseat, for sure reason. Henry Cavill though, he was kinda good? I couldn't really tell because half the time he looked like CGI, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Even though there are some major problems I have with the film; Whedon, crappy CGI, and easily way too short for it too work, Zack Snyder's Justice League still works its way into my enjoyment field and I can see myself watching it further down the line. I definitely hope WB can release a longer, and more put together version, because what we got didn't live up to the hype I had for it.
One of the most wonderful things about the huge explosion of comic book movies has brought, to me personally, is being able to see the comics/cartoons that I grew up on, be brought to life on the big screen. The Justice League animated series was my one of my favorite shows as a kid and seeing seeing them come to screen brought joy to my eyes, and was something of a dream come true and that's the one major point I can give to the film as a whole.
My biggest disappointment in the film is actually Warner Brothers. They are a big bunch of idiots, to be honest. If they would've left Snyder to take his time and actually hired someone who Snyder wanted, the film would've been so much better. It's a sad fact when you can obviously tell which scenes were Snyder's and which were Whedon's. I actually loved every part of the film that you could tell was Zack's; it felt passionate and like it was coming from a fan. Whedon gave shitty one-liners and basically made me feel like I was watching a TV-movie.
A major component to why I actually liked the film was the action. It left me satisfied and I was rooting for them to just kickass and look cool doing it, because when you look at the classic "Justice League" stories, that's basically what it was. But even though the action was pretty stellar; I'm so mad at the fact of Steppenwolf looked so fake and like some of the worst CGI I've ever seen; so it mad the fights a little weak when it looks like the team is fighting a green screen. Also, the last 30-ish minutes kinda saved it for me. It was really "epic" and it felt really pure, I guess is the right word.
The cast. Oh my god the cast was so freaking good. Marvel Studios gets it right a lot of the time, but damn DC you won this one. Ezra Miller & Jason Momoa stood out like a sore thumb at how much better they were. They were so charismatic, yet intense, and altogether just right at place in their characters. Ben Affleck I'm so sorry that Whedon choose to mess you up. Affleck was stellar in BvS yet here, he felt dull and not the Batman I know he could be. Gal Gadot & Ray Fisher were both pretty good, but Gadot felt a little like she was but in the backseat, for sure reason. Henry Cavill though, he was kinda good? I couldn't really tell because half the time he looked like CGI, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Even though there are some major problems I have with the film; Whedon, crappy CGI, and easily way too short for it too work, Zack Snyder's Justice League still works its way into my enjoyment field and I can see myself watching it further down the line. I definitely hope WB can release a longer, and more put together version, because what we got didn't live up to the hype I had for it.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated A Frozen Heart in Books
Sep 20, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
It seems like adaptations of Frozen and Frozen 2 are everywhere right now: it must be so hard for an author to come up with a story that is different enough to draw readers in but still in-keeping with the story. Luckily, Elizabeth Rudnick’s skilled writing turns the typical Frozen tale on its head: telling it solely from the perspective of Anna and Hans.
It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.
Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)
Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.
Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?
Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.
Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.
Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.
I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?
Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?
‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.
It is this, seemingly simple, difference that gives “A Frozen Heart” it’s edge. The inclusion of Hans’ viewpoint allows us to witness his upbringing as the 13th Prince of The Southern Isles: we visit looming, black, inhospitable castle with it’s stern, hard-to-please King; an absent-minded, weak but loving Queen and the youngest Prince who has been bullied for his entire life.
Rudnick’s characterisation of Hans is nothing less than pure genius. It is difficult to feel anything but pity for Hans during his childhood: he is constantly disappointing his father and being physically and emotionally bullied by his brothers. The only family member whom Hans truly seems to love is his mother but she is portrayed as somewhat absent in her mental state. (As a mother I can only assume this is from having 13 sons! I struggle with 2!)
Even when Hans “plots” his way to Arendelle, it is purely an evacuation plan. He is so desperate to leave the Southern Isles that he believes Elsa, a social enigma of a future queen, is his best chance for a new life. Then, when Hans realises Elsa is a lost cause and goes off singing and dancing into the night with Anna, at first, the reader genuinely believes his intentions are good. It even reminded me of the fan theory that Hans is the real deal until the trolls sing “get the fiancé out of the way”.
Hans is never completely trustworthy though: he is too acutely aware of how others view him and his actions, as well as the relative power those onlookers have and whether they will support him with his next, calculated move.
Hans also seems to be of the opinion that a Queen needs a King and the King will rule. Apart from being adoringly archaic(!), it is likely that this could be an effect of the relationship between his parents: the brief insight we have into the King and Queen of the Southern Isles suggest Hans has never had a strong female role model in his life. Again, Rudnick’s writing and characters implying that Hans is not 100% to blame: perhaps he is merely a product of the harsh environment he was brought up in?
Unfortunately, the deep-rooted power complex instilled from his father wins out in the end and Hans can see no alternative life but one where he is ruler. Thus, the villain in him rises; constantly calculating and predicting how his actions will be judged by others and the tale with which we are so familiar plays out.
Anna’s story runs along similar parallels to Hans, with neglect and isolation from her closest family. However, the way this pain manifests in Anna could not be further than that of the Prince of the Southern Isles.
‘A Frozen Heart’ reflects Anna’s vulnerability in every sentence. As a young girl Anna lost her freedom as well as her best friend and sister; as a teenager she loses her parents and this has formed an extremely fragile, trusting, naïve young woman. Anna has lived the definition of a sheltered childhood: is it any wonder she falls in love with the first man who pays her attention? Anna’s even confesses to herself: “That is all I ever wanted. For someone to love me”.
Despite this, Anna does not present as a weak character. Yes, she is a hopeless romantic: all the best people are in my opinion! However, she is also strong-willed and is willing to go to any lengths to bring back her sister. Rudnick’s first-person perspective only highlights this strength in Anna: she completely accepts her faults and can see the error in her actions, particularly when it comes to Hans, but she can not and will not give up.
I really enjoyed the insight into Hans and Anna’s thoughts and particularly into Hans’ background. However, once this initial thrill was over, I felt that ‘A Frozen Heart’ merely followed along with the plot of the movie and, dare I say, became a bit lazy?
Please don’t misunderstand me, I did enjoy the book and Rudnick did an amazing job bringing to life our favourite characters on the page but I just needed a little bit more: perhaps an insight into Kristoff’s backstory? How does a young boy with a reindeer find himself adopted by trolls? Is Kristoff even an orphan? What has he experienced in order to consider the trolls love doctors?
‘A Frozen Heart’: an interesting concept but maybe played it a little too safe? Please let me know your thoughts.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
May 25, 2019
Succeeds...mostly...thanks to the charm and charisma of Will Smith
Unnecessary...a money grab...what was Will Smith thinking...why would Disney do this?
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)