Disney Movie Challenge Bonus: Mulan (2020)

 Disney Movie Challenge Bonus

Mulan (2020)

Mulan is the latest of Disney’s live action remakes and the last one I will likely review for this blog.  Notable for many reasons mostly because it was due to come out a few weeks after the COVID-19 pandemic hit and was delayed 6 months.  When it finally came out it premiered in theaters and on Disney+ Premiere Access.  As a guinea pig for the Premiere Access it showed people were willing to spend extra money to get first run films at home.  Whether the experiment was a success or not is still to be determined, but they must have felt pretty confident about it since they released their newest film Raya and the Last Dragon the same way.  

Even prior to the chaos caused by the pandemic the movie had a troubled production.  As with Aladdin Disney felt pressure to have an ethnically correct cast and director.  Starting in 2010 Disney began trying to get a cast and crew together.  Noted director Ang Lee was asked to direct but turned it down.  Eventually Disney went with New Zealand director  Niki Caro who previously directed the acclaimed Whale Rider.  While they failed to find an Asian director the cast was prominently Asian.  Chinese Actress Yifei Liu was cast as Mulan and other notable Asian actors were cast including Donnie Yen, Gong Li, and Jet Li (Ming-Na Wen the voice of Mulan from the animated film also had a small cameo).    

The basic story sticks pretty close to the animated film.  To stop her father from having to go to war she pretends to be a man and enlists herself.  There she must not only learn how to be a warrior but also how to hide she is a girl and her true talents.  The details of the story are a bit different.   It is shown early that Mulan is special and revealed that her Chi allows her to be a powerful warrior.  Also, the invading army uses a witch to help win their battles.  It is in a battle with the witch that Mulan finally unveils exactly how powerful she is.  Once the troops know she is a woman she is kicked out of the army and left alone.  But seeing that the invading army is not defeated she heads to the Impereal City to warn everyone about the invasion.  

The biggest difference from the animated film is the elimination of the songs and Mushu the dragon sidekick.  In an effort to make the movie more realistic it was decided that both of these aspects would take the viewers out of the suspension of disbelief.  Oddly enough the addition of the witch and this story about Chi took away from the realism for me.  They also changed Mulan's love interest to a new character so she wasn’t falling in love with her superior officer but with a fellow enlisted man.  While they took the songs out of the movie they did incorporate the music as part of the score.  

The best part of the film is the action.  There are some really cool action scenes that reminded me of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon which is a movie I love.  Unfortunately the film falls flat with the character development.  I think the Chi explanation of Mulan’s powers takes something away from her as a character.  The romance in the film never feels fully earned.  I didn’t realize till almost the end that it was supposed to be a romantic interest and just felt like it was a friendship.  

Overall: Some cool action, timeless story, and good acting. Unfortunately the story doesn’t entirely work and the romance aspect feels forced.  I was happy that there was no Mushu in the movie since I found him pretty annoying.  

Disney Movie Challenge Bonus: The Lion King (2019)

 Disney Movie Challenge Bonus

The Lion King (2019)

As I watch another Disney remake of an animated classic I have to ask myself “What’s the purpose of remakes?”.   The obvious cynical answer is they are cash grabs.  Studios (not just Disney) know people will go back to visit a story they love.  The question then is why would a filmmaker attempt to do a remake?  The answer to that question is not as easy. Maybe they want to tell the story differently, maybe there is a different perspective they want to do, or for most Disney remakes they want to take an animated movie and turn it into a live action movie.  The weird thing about The Lion King is that none of those are true.  Unlike other Disney remakes they remade an animated movie into a differently animated movie. The only reason I can see (besides money) for Disney to remake The Lion King is to show off their new photorealistic animation technology.  Disney pushed so hard to make people believe that this wasn’t an animated film they didn’t even submit it for consideration for Best Feature Animated Film at the Oscars.  Another hard question to answer is why do some remakes work and some don’t?  Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast didn’t fully work for me, but  oddly The Lion King did.  Maybe it’s because I didn’t really like the original animated version so it didn’t have high expectations for this one.  

Let’s start with the things that I did enjoy about this movie.  Obviously the animation is amazing.  Everything really does look photorealistic and it is truly mind blowing.  While most of the voices were just alright, I really loved John Oliver as Zazu.  He added an extra comedic element to that role.  Also, based on trailers and bits and parts that I saw it seemed that the movie was a shot for shot remake (but somehow 30 minutes longer), which I’m glad is not the case. The one major difference was the “Be Prepared” number.  Originally they weren’t going to include it at all but the did a much shorter version without the Nazi imagery.  

On the flip side, while not truly a shot for shot remake it is a very, very faithful adaptation.  That being said I pretty much had the same feelings about this one as I had about the original.  The story still doesn’t work for me. Simba is still a bratty kid.  The voice actors don’t bring a whole lot new to the characters, and some of the songs sounded worse.

Overall: If the only reason Disney made this movie is to show off their photorealistic technology then they succeeded.  If the only reason they made this movie was to make money then they succeeded at that too.  The movie doesn’t add anything or change a whole lot about the original so doesn’t feel like a necessary movie.  If you liked the original you will probably like this version as they are basically the same.  If you are like me and didn’t particularly care for the original then this version isn’t going to make you think any differently.  But you cannot deny that  those visuals are stunning. 

Disney Movie Challenge Bonus: Aladdin (2019)

 Disney Movie Challenge Bonus

Aladdin (2019)

This is a tough one to write about.  I saw the live action remake when it was first released on Disney+.  I was only going to watch a little bit before bed but ended up staying up till 1 am watching the whole thing, mostly because it felt like a train wreck you couldn’t turn away from.  On this viewing it didn’t seem as bad.  Also I feel the reviews of the remakes are getting kind of repetitive.  Mostly it doesn't live up to the animated, it's too long, and why the unnecessary backstory. I still haven’t seen The Lion King or Mulan remakes but guessing they will have similar issues.

The good thing about Aladdin 2019 is that it’s not a shot for shot remake.  While it follows the story pretty closely it adds a few aspects.  First thing it does is give Jasmine even bigger aspirations.  In the animated film she just wanted to be able to marry whoever she wanted, in the live action version she wants to be Sultan.  She is fighting for her right to be heard and respected as an intelligent human. I think this is a reflection of the times and a good addition to the story.    Another aspect added to the remake that doesn’t quite work as well is a Genie side story.  For some reason in this one we get a secondary love story between the Genie and Jasmine’s handmaiden.  Feels like it was put in there so Will Smith had more scenes to act charming, but it doesn’t really add much to the story.  

The biggest problems for this movie are the lack of chemistry between the characters and that the songs sounded bad.  The movie was controversial right from the start of production when it came to casting.  Disney said they wanted to cast actors and actresses that represent the region, but then said it was taking so long to cast someone because they couldn’t find anyone that could sing, dance, and act.  Eventually we got a cast that included mostly unknowns and Will Smith.  The standout performance  is Naomi Scott as Jasmine, but she had very little chemistry with Mena Massoud who played Aladdin.  You never really felt that had any kind of connection.  The same goes for Genie and Aladdin.  They are supposed to be best friends but they just never really click.  

The songs are so iconic maybe it’s just hearing someone else singing them that throws me off.  But I really feel that they don’t sound as good.  It’s weird that Robin Williams would sound better than a singer like Will Smith.  My theory is that the songs were written in a Broadway style and that is not a style Will Smith is comfortable singing in.  There is a very bizarre remake of the song “Friend Like Me” in the end credits which sounds much more his style and you can tell Smith is having fun.  Maybe they should have tried to tweak the songs a bit to make it work for him.  But as it is it just hurts my brain.  Massoud just doesn’t seem to have the singing chops to make the songs work.  On the other hand Naomi Scott belts the songs out like she was born to play the role.  There is a new song that Jasmine sings and Scott does a great job at singing it.  The biggest problem with the new song is it sound more modern than the other songs and kind of stands out.  It feels like they really wanted to write a song that sounded like "Let it Go" from Frozen.

A few positives before I wrap up.  I loved the score.  They brought Alan Menken back from the original film and I feel he really improved on it.  Also the action was good, although I expected it to be better with Guy Ritchie directing. I really wanted more Aladdin doing Parkour, but that may just be me. 

Overall: Maybe for those that never seen the original this would work.  I like that it isn’t a shot for shot remake but feel they made some questionable decisions on what they did change.  And not sure why the remakes need to be over 2 hours.  Could have been better if just kept it shorter.  

Disney Movie Challenge Bonus: Beauty and the Beast (2017)

 Disney Movie Challenge Bonus

Beauty and the Beast (2017)

I always say it’s a little unfair to review a remake when you watch it close in time to the original.  With that in mind I don’t want to do a full review of the live action Beauty and the Beast.  The movie wasn't bad but and under different circumstances I think I might have enjoyed it more.  But with things as they are I’m just going to point out a few things in the live action version that made me realize how great the animated version really is. 

For me there are two scenes in the live action version that just feel like poor imitations of the same scenes in the animated version.  The two scenes are the Be Our Guest scene and the fight scene at the end where the objects are fighting the townsfolk. In the animated film the Be Our Guest scene is fun, bright, and a bit trippy.  The live action version just feels dull in comparison.  Some of that could be because Ewan McGregor has an awful French accent and his singing isn’t that great.  But I think the special effects just didn’t capture the fun and mesmerizing quality that the animated version had.  See for yourself here https://youtu.be/Fub_t22bK1w . Another problem is that trying to make a singing candlestick look realistic just doesn’t work.  Which is the major problem with the battle scene at the end. Trying to have a realistic looking objects fight in unrealistic ways really confuses the brain. While there are some funny bits in the fight scenes most of the time you are just looking like WTF? How can a clock throw books? How can a harpsichord shoot out his keys? How can a tea pot hang on a chandelier? Having the film fully animated helps with the suspension of disbelief.  And some of the objects just look awful.  For me the most worst looking object is the wardrobe.  Not sure what they were going for but it just comes off as kind of disturbing.  

A few quick things that also didn’t work well in the live action version.  

-Lumière and Cogsworth have a better friendship in animation. The banter in the animated version just works better. 

-Not sure why Disney feels everyone needs a backstory in the live action remake but some of it feels unnecessary and makes the film feel bloated.  Also the backstory about Belle’s mother dying  of the plague gave my kid nightmares. 

-New songs are fine but didn’t add much. 

For an interesting look at remakes check out this video from Cracked https://fb.watch/3a7maY_qix/

Overall:

I don’t want to bash the film.  Besides for Ewan McGregor the acting was fine.  Josh Gad as LeFou is probably the best casting in the film.  Also, the movie does give LeFou a bit more depth and an arc which is kind of cool.  I would like to revisit the film after more time has passed since I watched the animated version.  

Disney Movie Challenge Bonus: Christopher Robin (2018)

 Disney Movie Challenge Bonus

Christopher Robin (2018)

Adding to the ever increasing list of live action remakes of animated films Christopher Robin came out in 2018 to mostly positive reviews but never really seemed to make an impact with audiences.  Maybe it was it’s August release date and action movies were dominating the box office, maybe it just seemed like a knockoff of Hook, or people just thought Disney was trying to cash in on the Paddington craze.   Whatever the reason I feel like the movie went under the radar, which is unfortunate.  

In Christopher Robin we have the titular character who after he went to school slowly forgot about Pooh and his friends in Hundred Acre Wood.  We find Christopher as a grown man, married with a daughter. His job is putting a lot of stress on him and he has to miss a vacation away with his family to do business.  But as he is nearing his lowest point Winnie the Pooh suddenly appears and forces him to revisit his childhood.  He returns to Hundred Acre Wood and the cynical side slowly fades away.  But when he leaves to go back to London for work he forgets his papers and Pooh and gang team up with Christopher’s daughter to get the papers back to him before his meeting.  

The Hook comparison is fair.  Both films deal with a character that lived in a fantasy world who grew up and forgot how to have fun.  While I can see this feeling like a retread I think this one stands on its own.  It’s not overly complicated and you can see where it is going from the start. You know Pooh is going to teach Christopher how to recapture his imagination, that family is important, and help him figure out how to save the company he is working for.  But the journey is a satisfying one. It manages to capture the essence of Pooh and what Pooh means to so many people.  It’s charming and funny.  Ewan McGregor as Christopher Robin is spot on.  The guy does not get enough credit for the range he is able to play.  In this film you see him as a downtrodden man who slowly discovers the fun in life again.  Marc Forster who also directed the story of Peter Pan’s author J.M. Barrie in Finding Neverland once again creates a world where fairy tales come to life.  While this movie has more stakes than a typical Pooh movie it still doesn’t get real dark and keeps things light.  Seeing Pooh, Tigger, Piglet, and Eeyore in London creates a lot of opportunities for fun shenanigans, the score does a great job setting the mood, and the CGI looks great.  

Overall: I really enjoyed this movie.  My kid watched most of it with me and he usually hates the live action remakes.  The most surprising thing for me was how funny it really was.  Pooh has some great one liners and watching Ewan McGregor react to them is really a lot of fun.  Again the stakes are low but it’s a great movie for family night when you want something light and fun to watch. 

Random Facts:

Jim Cummings did the voice of Pooh and Tigger he has been doing the voices since the 80’s and is a spot on for the original voice actors from the animated films of the 60’s.  Chris O’Dowd was originally hired for the voice of Tigger but test audiences didn’t like the way his voice sounded so Cummings returned to voice Tigger.  

Some of the Sherman Brothers original songs were used in the film.  Richard Sherman returned to write 3 new songs for the film.  

Jóhann Jóhannsson (one of my favorite composers)  was hired to do the score but died shortly after he was hired.  Would have love to see what he would have done but the new composers did a great job. The movie is dedicated to Jóhannsson.  

Found out that in the original story Owl and Rabbit are the only two real animals in the books and the rest are stuffed animals.  The movie continued that tradition.  

  

Disney Movie Challenge Bonus: The Jungle Book (2016)

 Disney Movie Challenge Bonus

The Jungle Book (2016)

Every time I watch a Disney Live Action remake I say the same thing "It's not fair to compare it to the original" but it's always hard when you watch them close together. Of course I made it that much more difficult on myself because I watched this one the same day as I watched the original.  So expect some unfair comparisons.  

I feel like this movie set the bar for the live action remakes.  It was a huge hit and got some great reviews so went in with some high hopes.  Maybe it was because I watched the original on the same day that I left feeling disappointed but this movie just didn't have the same magic the original had.  The story unfolds a bit differently then the animated version. Since I haven't read any of the books I can't say if it follows the original Kipling story more closely.  In this one Mowgli is still found by Bagheera but this time we learn that it was Shere Khan that killed Mowgli's father and the Mowgli's dad the one that burned Khan. Bagheera then takes Mowgli to the wolves where he is raised as one of their own.  Shere Khan the tiger returns to the jungle during a water truce that allows anyone to drink from the water hole without fear from predators.  When Khan finds that there is a Man Cub there he vows that he will kill it one day but will not do anything during the water truce.  The wolves know that once the truce is over they will have to do something about Khan so they decide the best thing to do is have Mowgli leave with Bagheera and return to the man village.  Once on their journey they meet a cast of characters including Ka the snake, King Louie a gigantopithecus (a change from orangutan from the original) and of course Baloo the bear.  Khan on the other hand is waiting with the wolves and keeping the wolves in constant fear knowing that Mowgli will eventually return.  When Mowgli finds out that the wolf pack is in danger he goes and gets fire from the man village and returns to the wolves to scare off Khan.  But while he is running through the jungle he accidentally sets a big forest fire.  He does have a confrontation with Khan and must outwit him to win.

The movie has an amazing cast of voice talent including Ben Kingsley as Bagheera, Idreis Elba as Shere Khan, Scarlett Johansson as Kaa, Bill Murray as Baloo, and Christopher Walken as King Louie, Unfortunately their talents don't do much to elevate the characters.  Kingsley and Elba are the ones that stand out.  I think Johansson is actually a better Kaa than Sterling Holloway but she isn't given much to do.  As much as I like Bill Murray I just feel he was kind of miscast as Baloo.  While he seems like he would be a great person to play the aloof bear it just didn't work.  And you never get that feeling that he has a great friendship with Mowgli.  

The movie did have some great cinematography and visual effects.  The jungle really looked amazing and the animals fighting each other looked realistic.  I do wish we got more of Shere Khan vs. Bagheera as the two cats were fun to watch fight.  While some of the fast moving shots felt off overall it was a great looking film.  

Again maybe watching it back to back with the original gives it unfair standards to live up to, but it just felt the story wasn't as compelling.  Did we need a backstory about why Khan hates man? Or that Khan killed Mowgli's father? Also one of the highlights of the original is the fun banter between Baloo and Bagheera and that was sorely missing in this one.  Being more realistic made the songs feel out of place.  Christopher Walken singing "I Wan'na Be Like You" was pretty disappointing. Then all we got was Baloo humming "The Bare Necessities".  Either commit to the music or ignore it.  That just sets you up for comparison that you know isn't going to end well for the film.  

Overall:  There is  amazing cinematography and great visual effects but the story just feels like something is missing.  As far as the music goes I wish they would make up their minds, either keep the songs or get rid of them all.  

Random Facts

Not the first live action remake of the Jungle Book there was one in 1994. The film starred Jason Scott Lee, Cary Elwes, Sam Neill, Lena Headey, and John Cleese.  

Garry Shandling voiced a porcupine.  It was his last role before passing away from a pulmonary embolism prior to the film being released.  

Disney Movie Challenge Bonus: 101 Dalmatians (1996)

 Disney Movie Challenge Bonus

101 Dalmatians (1996)

Before it became a thing in the 2010's the first Disney Live Action adaptation of an animated film was 101 Dalmatians in 1996.  It was a huge hit that year ranking number 7 at the box office for the year even beating the Animated Disney Film that year The Hunchback of Notre Dame. 

The film updates a few of the aspects of the animated film.  In this one Roger is a video game designer not a musician and the relationship between Anita and Cruella is explained better.  In this one Cruella is Anita’s boss as a fashion designer. The rest of the film is pretty similar to the animated film.  Pongo is the one that gets Roger to meet Anita. Pongo and Perdita have 15 puppies. The puppies get dognapped by Cruella’s henchmen and taken to a rundown house with 84 other puppies.  Pongo and Perdita use the twilight bark to find them and rescue them.  Anita and Roger adopt all the puppies for a total of 101 Dalmatians.  Of course the biggest difference is that the dogs don’t talk in this one.  

This movie has everything you want from an adaptation of an animated film without having the animals talk.  It keeps the cartoonish slapstick comedy, over the top villain, and a whole lotta family fun.  The highlight of the film is of course Glenn Close as Cruella De’Vil. She just looks like she is having the time of her life being evil (she even got a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy). The rest of the cast is perfect also. Jeff Daniels as Roger, balances the slapstick with being charming perfectly.  Joely Richardson and Joan Plowright are great as Anita and Nanny. And it’s fun to see a pre-House Hugh Laurie just getting knocked around by animals. 

The biggest disappointment from the original is that Pongo and Purdita don’t have a bigger role in the rescue and the police due. Some of the charm of the animated film comes from the dogs being able to do what the humans can’t. But all the animals get a time to shine and watching Glenn Close get beaten by farm animals is fun. 

Overall: A fun adaptation that is able to show dogs communicating without making them talking dogs. The movie is perfectly cast with Glenn Close being the standout. Best line in the film “You may have won the battle but I won the wardrobe”

Disney Movie Challenge Bonus: Maleficent (2014)

Disney Movie Challenge Bonus

MALEFICENT

Disney films have had some iconic villains. There is the evil stepmother in Cinderella, the Evil Queen in Snow White, and Cruella DeVille in 101 Dalmatians. But the first to get their own film is Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty (although a Cruella movie is in the works).  This film is a twist on the animated story from the villain's perspective.  We start with a backstory on who  Maleficent was, and learn why she has such hatred for King Stefan.  After Maleficent curses Aurora we see more about the 16 years that pass from when Aurora is born till she falls asleep.  

The movie begins explaining that Maleficent was the greatest of the fairies and had the largest wings.  We also learn that there has been a war between the fairies and humans for a long time.  But when a child wanders into the Moors where the fairies live, Maleficent befriends him.  The child turns out to be Stefan and he visits her often and she trusts him.  But as he grows so does his ambition.    His desire to become king leads him to realize that if he killed Maleficent the current king would give his crown to him.  When he returns to the Moors Maleficent welcomes him back and they have a pleasant evening reacquainting.  She does not know his evil intentions.  But when she falls asleep he realizes he doesn’t have it in him to kill her so he just takes off her wings as a trophy.  This works and he becomes king.  But when Maleficent realizes she has been betrayed she sets out for revenge.  This is where we get the familiar curse and the three good fairies hiding Aurora away.  But it is also where the story shifts from the animation version.  Maleficent knows where Aurora is the whole time but hides in the background and observes Aurora as she grows.  The more she observes her the more she realizes that the three good fairies are incompetent and has to use her magic to protect Aurora.  Aurora realized that Maleficent is there and thinks that Maleficent is her Fairy Godmother.  A friendship develops between Aurora and Maleficent and Maleficent changes her mind on the curse but it can’t be undone.  In the end on her 16th birthday the curse takes fruition and the King does everything she can to kill Maleficent.  But, it is Maleficent's kiss that awakens Aurora, not a kiss from the prince.  With the help of Aurora, Maleficent is able to escape and return to the Moors and restore it to the peaceful place it once was.  

The beginning of this movie is really interesting and a fun backstory.  It was cool to see the villains side of the story and to turn her into a sympathetic character.  But once she curses Aurora and then starts stalking her it becomes a bit odd.  It’s never really clear why she feels the need to start watching her all the time or why she felt the need to intervene when the three fairies started to neglect her.  It’s easy to see why Aurora would think that Maleficent is her Fairy Godmother and it was nice to see Maleficent have have a change of heart.  Still the whole part of the film felt odd.  The end became an epic battle and Aurora got to really play a part in it.  

One of the things I remember reading about Maleficent when it first came out was how Stefan's betrayal of Maleficent was symbolic of a woman being raped.  It’s an interesting comparison and you can easily see how the imagery of a man taking what he wants from a woman while she is vulnerable can be interpreted as a rape.  Looking at the film from that point of view gives the film a whole new context about moving on from a tragic incident and finding peace again.  I would be interested in hearing if anyone else has theories on this or what people think.  

One of the things that happens when watching an adaption of a film so close to the watching of the original film is it becomes obvious the changes that were made. The the most disappointing difference is how the three good fairies are portrayed.  In the animated film they were the heroes of the movie.  While they might have been silly and goofy they weren’t incompetent.  In Maleficent they are grossly incompetent and almost let Aurora die a number of times.  I’m guessing to give Maleficent a more motherly role but I feel they could have done that without making them complete idiots. A their names were changed and their blessings were changed to wishes.   Of course the big change was the True Love’s Kiss at the end.  And this is a bit of an odd one that while definitely a surprise ending I’m not sure worked as well as they were hoping.  It was Maleficent’s sidekick Diaval’s quote that threw me off.  As Aurora wakes up he says “No Truer Love”.  I assume he means motherly kiss.  While it became clear throughout the film that Maleficent cared deeply for Aurora I’m not sure I got the feeling she felt like Aurora’s adoptive mother.  And if you don’t get the feeling that Maleficent feels like Aurora’s adoptive mother then the whole scene doesn't work.  

Overall:A sort of uneven film.  Had a pretty violent beginning and end, but the middle was kind of just weird.  I enjoyed this one but again maybe watching it so close in time with the animated film skewed my opinion.  

Random Facts

Angelina Jolie’s daughter was cast as young Aurora because all other children were afraid of her when she was in costume.

Nominated for best costume Oscar.

Last film legendary special makeup artist Rick Baker did before retiring from the film business. 

Disney Movie Challenge Bonus: Lady and the Tramp (2019)

LADY AND THE TRAMP (2019)

2019 was a big year for Disney adaptations.  First there was Dumbo, then we had Aladdin and The Lion King, and finally Lady and the Tramp.  The biggest difference was Lady and the Tramp was released on the newly formed Disney+ instead of in theaters.  Disney had really built up anticipation for Disney+ which was going to have  classic Disney Animated films, Marvel Films, Star Wars films, and Pixar films.  In addition they were trying to promote brand new original films and shows that were premiering on the platform.  One of the biggest original movies they were promoting was the live action adaptation of Lady and the Tramp. The biggest obstacle it was facing was trying not to feel like a lesser direct to video film.  

The plot of the film is basically the same. It’s still a classy girl who meets a boy from the wrong side of town. The update moved the location to Savannah, Georgia from London. It also expanded Tramp’s back story, expanded the role of the dog catcher, and switched up the type of cats from Siamese Cats to Devon Rexes.  The most noticeable difference is that Lady’s owners are a mixed race couple which based on IMDB reviews is the worst thing ever. 

It’s not really fair to compare this to the original but when you watch them pretty much back to back it’s hard not to do.  So let's just get it out of the way.  The two things I think they did better in this adaptation are the expansion of Tramps backstory and the introduction of the rat early in the film.  One of the things we never got from the animated film is really what happened to Tramp.  We can guess what happened but this film really gets into it and helps us better understand him and also makes the romantic relationship more believable.  Introducing the rat early on makes sense from a storytelling perspective.  In the animated film it just pops up out of nowhere. Here there is at least foreshadowing. On the flip side there is something about this film that doesn’t quite capture the magic of the animated version.  When the photorealistic The Lion King came out one of the big complaints is that the lions didn’t really show emotion.  And maybe that's the problem with this film.  The voice acting is fine but it just doesn’t match with the emotions you are seeing on screen.  It’s kind of that uncanny valley when what you are hearing and what you are seeing doesn’t match up.   I will say the CGI work did a pretty good job. There were a few scenes where it was obvious it wasn’t a real dog but the big scene of them eating spaghetti looked fantastic.  

Overall: The movie was fine.  It didn’t capture the fun or magic of the animated film, but it wasn’t awful.  I was hoping for something more from the first big Disney+ feature film but we got what looked like a straight to video adaptation.  Obviously the modern sensibilities will trigger some that feel Disney is just promoting SJW values and if you read the IMDB comments you will see what I mean.  

Disney Movie Challenge Bonus: Return to Neverland (2002)

Return to Neverland

In the early 2000's DisneyToons kept pushing out sequels to classic Disney Films. And they weren't going to miss a chance to make a sequel to Peter Pan.  But they decided they were going to release this one in theaters which is hard to believe since it has a direct to video feel to it.  

The sequel takes place long after the first one. Wendy has grown up and now has children of her own.  She still likes telling stories about Neverland to her children Jane and Danny.  They live in London during WWII and while their father is off fighting in the war Jane decides she will not believe in childish stories anymore and mocks her younger brother for believing in stories about Peter Pan.  One night Captain Hook shows up and confuses Jane for Wendy, and brings Jane to Neverland.  Still unwilling to believe in fairies and just wanting to go home she makes a deal with Captain Hook to set a trap for Peter Pan.  But she ends up learning to have fun with Peter and the Lost Boys and eventually she learns her disbelief is killing Tinker Bell. Despite changing her mind on the deal, Captain Hook manages to kidnap everyone. Jane goes back and starts to believe in fairies and Tinkerbell is resurrected.  With Tinks help Jane rescues everyone.  When she finally returns home she apologized to Danny and begins to tell him about her adventure.  Also instead of a crocodile haunting Captain Hook this time it's a giant octopus that shows up randomly.  

I had a lot of issues with the original Peter Pan but this one was just boring.  They thankfully avoided any Native American depictions so that was an improvement.  The believing in fairies bit hearkens back to the original play and was something that was ignored in the first film so that was a nice addition.  But it just felt flat.  There were some rock songs in the film which felt out of place in the Peter Pan universe (specifically the remake of "Do You Believe in Magic").  It sounds like the story went through a lot of edits and maybe not having a clear vision really hurt it. 

Overall: I think a girl living through a tragedy and then has to be reminded what it's like to be a child again could be a good story. Unfortunately this movie just feels flat and boring.  Tinkerbell also does not try to murder anyone so that is a good improvement also.  

Random Facts

 

Kathryn Beaumont, who voiced Wendy in the original, recorded all of her dialogues for the sequel, but then was replaces. 

Mermaids were given clothes in this film since they were considered to sexualized in the original.  

Disney Move Challenge Bonus: Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Disney Movie Challenge Bonus

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

One of the first Disney Animated films to get the live action version was Alice in Wonderland in 2010 directed by Tim Burton.  This film was a huge box office success and won 2 Oscars one for costume design and one for Art Direction.  It starred Mia Wasikowska as Alice and a hugely talented supporting cast including Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, Alan Rickman, and many others. 

Even though this was a huge hit and Oscar winner I had not seen the film.  Going in I assumed that the film would just be a retelling of the Alice in Wonderland animated film similar to how Aladdin and The Lion King were straight adaptations of their animated films.  So I was pretty confused when the movie kind of did it's own thing until I realized that this movie is a sequel to the animated film not a different version of it.  Basically, Alice goes back to Wonderland but doesn't remember her first trip there.  All the characters recognize her but she doesn't know them.  Her first trip to Wonderland she dismissed as a dream and assumed it wasn't real.  This tracks with the ending of the animated film which ended with her waking up from a dream. After she returns to Wonderland she has to learn to be The Alice, the one who will slay the Jaberwocky.  

The movie takes a lot of the fantastical elements from the books and animated movie and expands on them.  Tim Burton never liked the book or the movie because he never felt an emotional connection to the material.  That is probably because the original story was nonsense literature and didn't have much of a plot and the animated film basically followed the same format.  I had a similar problem connecting with the material.  But the dark fantasy films is Tim Burton's wheelhouse and he decided to craft a story he felt more connected to.  This led to a more conventional story of a girl rediscovering herself and learning to be confident.  The bulk of the story is inspired by the poem "Jaberwocky" which is found in the original Alice in Wonderland book.  The poem is nonsensical but Burton does a good job piecing together elements to make it work.  

Overall: The film looks fantastic.  The production design and special effects work really well in creating the universe that feels unique and lived in.  I wish I had realized sooner that the movie was more of a sequel and then I probably wouldn't have been as confused. I feel I need to do a rewatch to full get the story.  And finally RIP Alan Rickman who played the Blue Caterpillar and even though he wasn't in it much really was one of my favorite's in the film.  

Disney Movie Challenge Bonus: Dumbo (2019)

Originally this project was only going to focus on the Disney Animated films, but after watching Dumbo (1941) I decided to watch the new live action remake from 2019.  I figured since I watched it I might as well do a short review.

The movie starts off very similarly to the original Dumbo. An elephant gives birth to a baby with big ears.  Dumbo goes on to star in a circus routine that ends up getting ruined because he trips over his big ears.  Because he gets big laughs he is sent to be part of the clown routine.  It is during the clown routine that he shows he can fly.  The biggest difference is that the updated film also introduces us to a host of human characters that were mostly absent in the original film.  Colin Farrell plays a veteran who lost an arm in the war. He returns to the circus and finds that his cowboy act has been eliminated from the show. Danny Devito plays the ringmaster who is trying to keep the circus alive and thriving during difficult times.  He tells Farrell’s character that the only position he has available is as the elephant handler.  Farrell’s kids take a liking to Dumbo and are the ones that teach Dumbo to fly.  Similar to the first movie they convince him that to fly he needs to have a feather.  This is where the original movie ends but this one takes the story further.  Once news gets out that the circus has a flying elephant a big city promoter (Michael Keaton) takes a keen eye on Dumbo and wants to make him the centerpiece to his show.  

Since the original movie was so short it is easy to see where a lot can be done to expand the film.  I think they took the idea of the main parts of the original and built an interesting story around it. Since I was kind of expecting a more direct adaptation it was a bit shocking when the film moved to the city.  I usually love Michael Keaton but just didn’t think he worked for the character he was playing.  On the flip side Danny Devito was awesome and loved every minute he was on screen.  I think Colin Farrell did fine but I think his character could have been written better.  

It was great to see a lot of nods to the original film in the adaptation. There are storks flying away after Dumbo is born, and while the train doesn’t sing we get Danny Devito humming the tune. While Timothy the mouse was a big part of the original film there is a mouse character in this film but it doesn’t play a very big role.  They did eliminate all of the outdated racist stereotypes that were in the original which was a good decision.  

OVERALL: Takes the original story and expands it in a way I didn’t expect but once I got over the initial shock I was able to go with it.  It also keeps the same themes about bullying and believing in yourself that the original had, but also added an anti animal cruelty theme to it.  

A fun adaptation of the original, nothing earth shattering but great to see Danny Devito having a fun time.