Disney's filmmaking has become so decrepit and lifeless that they've all but given up on any good ideas, let alone any new ones. We used to enjoy Pixar's groundbreaking brilliance with animated films like Toy Story, Monsters Inc., The Incredibles, and Finding Nemo. Now we have Disney/Pixar's unimaginative, member-movie cash-grab sequels like Monsters University, Finding Dory, Incredibles 2, Cars 2 (and 3), and the upcoming Toy Story 4. (That last one should have ended two movies ago.) But they couldn't ruin just Pixar, could they? No, now we're being force-fed brazen, pathetic attempts at "re-capturing the magic" of Disney's own animated classics. "Hey, 'member when our movies were good? 'Member when we actually valued creativity? I 'member."
Disney has been churning out these soulless inbreeds since 2015, with Cinderella being the least objectionable offender. The Jungle Book was creepy. Nobody even tries to defend Alice Through the Looking Glass. Christopher Robin couldn't have been more boring. And I know that Beauty and the Beast became a live-action favorite. But no, Beauty and the Beast wasn't good, either. It was garbage, in fact; but since it was sprayed with Disney Febreze, we all pretend that it didn't stink. I didn't see Dumbo, but I wasn't racing to see a movie about a CGI circus elephant that was directed by the guy who screwed up Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Which brings us to Aladdin.
Our story begins with Will Smith speaking to young children--the audience, vicariously--about the tale of Aladdin. This is a strong start because Will Smith as Genie is essentially the only redeemable aspect of the entire movie. Many (myself included) were skeptical of Aladdin from the start due to Robin Williams's integral role in the original. Truthfully, though, Will Smith nailed the part as much as Will Smith could. It'd be unfair to compare him to Robin Williams. He's simply Will Smith, which was enough. The only criticism of his character is the moderately creepy animation for his blue pigmentation.
Despite Will Smith being the best part of the movie, he has less screen time than Abu the monkey. Every other character was written either flatly or abysmally and were acted in a similar manner. Mena Massoud (Aladdin) cannot sing his way out of a paper bag. He'd talk his way through half his songs and ride the coattails through his costars during the other half. Some of his dialogue was funny despite his delivery being duller than a rusty spoon. And while his acting could have been worse if he tried too hard (as opposed to his current "not at all"), this titular character is about as lively as his promotional poster.
He was still better than Jafar, though. Imagine the dullest, poorly acted, cardboard-cutout villain imaginable; then decrease that level of quality by a few notches. Congratulations! You have just written 2019-Aladdin's Jafar.
Naomi Scott (Jasmine), on the other hand, was a pleasant--albeit slight--silver lining to the remaining characters. Her dialogue might have been rubbish, but some of the worst scenes are moderately tolerable when she was onscreen. Is this because she's downright gorgeous? Mostly. However, her acting, while still amateur, is the start of what could be a successful Hollywood career. She's also clearly the strongest singer of the bunch to boot.
I spent so much time writing about characters because Disney movies are so character-heavy. Branching out, however, Aladdin becomes even worse. There are almost zero moments of old-school "Disney Magic" it's so desperate to kindle. The pacing is so difficult to handle, largely due to the peculiar song placement.
The first act is paced relatively well, with several songs being sung in Disney-musical fashion. The second act was stretched out so thin and spent so much time on tangential nonsense, much to the chagrin of the story. The last 20 minutes had enough plot to warrant an entire act; filled to the brim with rushed storytelling. Maybe we dedicate enough time to the story at hand so the climax can feel tense and earned? Doesn't that sound better than forced Genie/Dalia romance and played fish-out-of-water humor? I guess not.
In short, Aladdin isn't good. It could have been worse, but that's a pretty low bar. The overarching problem, however, does not lie with its issues alone. The most disappointing aspect of these two-bit, shameless re-hashes is their inability to answer a one-word question: Why? Why do we need another Aladdin? Or another Cinderella for that matter? Are we so desperate for fancy graphics that we can't watch hand-drawn animation anymore? What's wrong with appreciating things for what they are? I sure hope we can finally begin to value creativity and want a new story to be told instead of riding on the coattails of name-recognition. Because mark my words, if we don't, we're in for endless years of more aggressively pointless nonsense.
Comments
Post a Comment