Film Review - "Frozen 2"

Frozen 2
Directed by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee
Starring Idina Menzel, Kristen Bell, and Josh Gad

The first Frozen was an unprecedented success turned worldwide phenomenon. It solidified a new era of high quality films from Walt Disney Animation, the likes of which hadn't been seen since the nineties. Naturally, a sequel was inevitable…questionable, but inevitable. Sequels have always been a challenge for the House of Mouse. Aside from the fact that most of them went direct-to-video, and done by their secondary animation studio DisneyToon Studios, not many of them have gone over too well with critics and fans alike.

…but that's just me being devilishly misleading (Suckers!). Frozen 2 is one of the best sequels Disney has ever produced, and while not necessarily better or worse than the first, it is certainly worthy of sharing its namesake.

Frozen 2 takes place three years after its predecessor, and finds Elsa (Menzel) ruling the kingdom of Arendelle with her sister Anna (Bell) at her side. When Elsa starts to hear a mysterious voice calling out to her, she initially tries to ignore it, but soon begins to follow it. This leads to her unintentionally awakening some unknown forces of nature, which threaten the safety of the kingdom.

Together with Anna, Olaf (Gad), Kristoff (Jonathan Groff) and Sven, Elsa ventures north to find the Enchanted Forest and the voice that is calling her. What they discover there will reveal secrets about their kingdom, their parents, and the origin of Elsa's powers…

Where Frozen was a very traditional Disney animated musical, Frozen 2 is more an epic, drama-feuled fantasy-adventure. They feel like such different films, it's hard to compare the two, but they compliment each other nicely. I don't think anyone was clamoring to know where Elsa's powers came from after seeing Frozen (Wether you watched season four of Once Upon A Time or not…) but it does make for an interesting premise of a sequel.

The film does a great job of building on the relationship of Anna & Elsa, as it should. After the first film focused on the two of them trying to rebuild their bond, this film sees that bond tested. Can these sisters retain the relationship they have as life forces them to grow, and to change? That's the big theme of the film. Growth and transformation, and if you forget don't worry, Olaf will mention it. A lot. Jokes aside, that's very powerful message that can resonate with audiences of all ages. That message is really represented well in the relationship of Anna & Elsa.

Frozen 2 also does a great deal of world-building, and creating a mythology for the kingdom of Arendelle. It's not a totally unique concept they set up for the magic in this land (It's definitely gonna draw comparisons to a popular animated series), but it works for Frozen. There's obviously a mystery to uncover, and you might be able to solve it before the third act, but it's executed well with some twists you may not see coming.

I guess if I had some criticism about the story, the method they feed information to the viewer is not as effective as I think they wanted it to be. This isn't really a spoiler, but we learn "water has memory", and Elsa can manipulate it to create ice sculptures of past events. Visually it looks cool, but as far as the golden rule of "show, not tell" they probably could have done a *liiiiittle* more "telling". Some viewers (perhaps younger children) might get a bit confused. So I guess what I'm saying is I wanted a deeper dive into the film's mythology.

Idnina Menzel is Elsa. She has a voice like no other. It's magical, it's maternal, and it commands your attention. Really no one can sing like Idina Menzel. There's a sort of "fragile strength" in her voice that I think perfectly matches Elsa's character. Her magic makes her the most powerful person in this world, but she's full of self-doubt, and longs to find her place in it. Kristen Bell delivers a truly powerful performance as Anna. Frozen was more Anna's story, and Frozen 2 is more Elsa's, but that doesn't mean Anna doesn't get her share of character development. A lot of intense, dramatic moments fall on Anna's shoulders, and Kristen Bell delivers it all. She's naive and sassy, but insecure and emotional. Anna is probably one of the more fleshed-out of the Disney Princess characters, and she's brought to life by Kristen Bell's amazing performance.

Thanks to the poor release plan of a certain holiday special, everyone now either loves or hates Olaf. Me, I like him fine, and he's got a lot of great material here. Surprise, some of the biggest laughs in the film are from Olaf, and Josh Gad brings him to life with an unrivaled comedic delivery. Olaf is naive, but he has heart, and the screenwriters know how to balance that. Combined with Gad's voice work, Olaf (wether your like it or not) is one of the best Disney sidekicks. Jonathan Groff has one of the best voices a man has ever had. That's just a fact. Kristoff in this film however, is underutilized. He's relegated to a subplot of constantly trying to propose Anna with not much success, and yeah, it's not that interesting. But Kristoff is still a great character, and Groff does great work voicing him. Plus he actually gets a song in this film, and man what a song…more on that later.

As with any animated sequel, you get some new characters. The problem is, none of them really get any attention. The one that stands out the most is Lieutenant Mattias, played by Sterling K. Brown, and that's probably why he stands out the most...because he's voiced by Sterling K. Brown. Evan Rachel Wood plays Queen Iduna, Anna & Elsa's previously unheard mother. She has some really nice moments, but overall is not a particularly memorable character.

Alright the music. The soundtrack of Frozen 2 is more consistent in quality than Frozen's, but it's not necessarily a stronger one? That probably doesn't make sense, let's just say the music is great. Elsa has two great songs in the film, "Into the Unknown" and "Show Yourself". You've definitely heard "Into the Unknown" in all the marketing, but they've kept "Show Yourself" under wraps, and there's a reason. When you hear the song and see it with the visuals, you'll realize it's this film's "Let It Go", not "Into The Unknown". I see it definitely getting a Best Orignal Song nomination at the Oscars. Olaf's song, "When I'm Older" is so damn delightful. It's "In Summer" to the next level, and I think any aging millennial will here this song and burst into nervous laughter. Ok, Kristoff's song "Lost In The Woods" is incredible. That's really all I can say. Just like "Show Yourself", when you hear the song with its visuals, you'll understand. The last song I want to touch on is Anna's second song in the film, "The Next Right Thing". It's not a song kids are going to ask you to play on repeat for the next ten years, but it's an incredibly quiet, but powerful character moment for her. Incoming Bold Statement: This scene alone should get Kristen Bell some acting nominations come awards season. That's how good it is. The stigma of animated films be damned.

Speaking of animation, why don't we talk about the animation in this animated film?? It's breathtaking. It's gorgeous. I am amazed at how much the technology had advanced in just the six years since Frozen came out. The detail on Olaf's snowman body, the realism of the water, and the way they bring Elsa's magic to life, it's well, magical. Some of the magical sequences provoke memories of the likes of Fantasia and Silly Symphonies from the early days of Disney. Frozen 2 shows why Disney still is the king of animation. The evidence is right there on the screen. The way they produce lighting and textures, I just stated how much I missed hand-drawn animation in my Klaus review, but when computer animation is this great, I can button up for a little bit.

Frozen 2 may not have been a necessary sequel to make, but it's a good one. It's mature, epic, and entertaining. It's filled with amazing vocal performances, gorgeous animation, and beautiful music, which is really the recipe of any great Disney film. But that hasn't always been the case with Disney sequels. Frozen 2 is the exception to the rule. It's worthy to stand side-by-side with the original film, ensuring that the Frozen phenomenon will continue to live on for years to come.

So, I'll see you in five years for my review of Frozen 3, and stay tuned for a lip-dub to…whichever song from this film I can't get out of my head…and that's like three of them…

Film Review - "Dumbo" (2019)

Dumbo
Directed by Tim Burton
Starring Colin Farrell, Michael Keaton, and Danny DeVito

This is a make-or-break year for Disney, and their relentless production of live-action remakes of their animated classics. There are three due to be released in theaters over the next few months. The first of which, Dumbo, hit theaters this past weekend. If Dumbo is any indication, we might be in for an…average year?

Some perspective…The original Dumbo was only Walt Disney's fourth animated film, released in 1941 and only clocking in at an hour and four minutes. It was partially made to help the studio bounce back from the financial losses of Fantasia, but that's beside the point. It's a pretty short film, with a pretty simple story: A baby elephant with unusually large ears is born at a traveling circus and is immediately considered an outcast, but wins the acclaim of the public when he discovers his big ears give him the ability to fly. So you're probably wondering what Disney and master of the odd Tim Burton do to nearly double the original film's runtime.

The film opens in 1919 as Captain Holt Farrier (Farrell) returns home from World War I to his two children Milly and Joe (Nico Parker and Finley Hobbins). A lot has changed since he's been at war. His wife has passed, and the traveling circus his family calls home has fallen on hard times. Max Medici (DeVito), ringmaster and circus owner, has sold Holt's horses, leaving the former equestrian without an act. Max has a plan to put the circus back on top though. He's recently purchased a prize mother elephant named Mrs. Jumbo, who is on the verge of birth, and he assigns Holt to be their caretaker. Max is ultimately dismayed however, when Mrs. Jumbo gives birth to a baby elephant with unusually large ears.

The typical Dumbo story-beats follow with some alterations. It's toward the middle of the film where things verge into uncharted territory, where V.A. Vandevere (Keaton), master businessman and amusement park owner discovers Dumbo. He charms Max into a partnership, and brings the entire circus to his park Dreamland in New York, with the soul intent on making Dumbo his prized attraction. Meanwhile, the Farrier children do their best to help Dumbo adjust to his new life, and hopefully reunite him with his mother.

First off, the character of Dumbo is so. Damn. Adorable. You can't stop going "Awwww" at him. He's too damn cute, and the CGI work is top-notch. The film on a whole, is fairly average. Everything with Dumbo and his mother is great. It's the stuff with our human characters that sort of fails to captivate. The strained relationship between Holt and his children is clear, but it's underdeveloped. The death of the mother is sort of just a story-note. They don't really grieve her, and there's really not a lot of moments where Holt and the children…well, interact. That's overstating it because they do share a lot of screen time, but I don't think the necessary attention to their character arcs was there. I get that it's a film about Dumbo the Flying Elephant, and they are there to service his story but they don't provide enough forward momentum.

But back to Dumbo. You might be asking, "How much good faith can an Impossibly Adorable CGI Elephant buy you?" For this reviewer, a lot. Again, this is his film, and everything on him is done really well. Your heart breaks when he's in trouble, and you cheer for him when he succeeds. Oh and uh, bring a fair amount of tissues because Tim Burton takes the sadness level up to eleven. Seriously, this film punches your heart in the face at times. I can't believe it but the original Dumbo might be less depressing.

Speaking of Tim Burton, he's always good at building visuals. Everything from the traveling circus to Dreamland in New York looks beautiful. At times what was on screen looked like a storybook come to life, conveying feelings of the classic Disney aesthetic. It's whimsical and eye-catching, as one would expect from Burton. Then there's his buddy Danny Elfman providing the music again. The music is very much in his style, but it really stands out in the scenes where Dumbo flies.

Overall the cast is very nice, but there's no real stand-out among them. Colin Farrell is nice. Eva Green as Collette the trapeze artist is very heartfelt. Danny DeVito as Max is probably the best out of all them. Michael Keaton though…I'm not sure what he's doing here. Jeremy Jahns probably put it best that he's doing a "Johnny Depp in a Tim Burton film" impression. Then there are our two child actors. Nico Parker is definitely the better of the two. She definitely has talent, and carries a lot of scenes, but sometimes she comes off as wooden. Finley Hobbins isn't particularly memorable. He's just kind of there. Really most of them are just kind of there, because the script doesn't give them a whole lot to do. Also, Alan Arkin is in this as a banker, and really it's just like Alan Arkin wandered onto set for a day.

I really do want to applaud Disney and Tim Burton for not sticking so closely to the source-material and not making this a shot-for-shot remake. Unlike the Beauty & The Beast remake,  and maybe even more so than The Jungle Book remake, it plays with the premise of the animated-original a lot more. Unfortunately, what they turned in fails to leave any major impact. They could have developed it a lot more. They could have given more time to the story of the Farrier Family. They could have worked more on how both Dumbo and the Farrier children are separated from their mothers, or how Dumbo and Holt both have physical deformities and are outcasts (Holt loses an arm in the war), or how both Dumbo and Collete are treated as glorified show-ponies.

I'm nitpicking at this point I think, but sometimes you have to service your supporting cast just as much as your protagonist. I would still recommend giving the Dumbo remake a chance. While average, I enjoyed it. It's sweet, bewitching, and entertaining. There's some of Tim Burton's brand of gloominess peppered throughout (and some of his darkness) but it's nothing to shield young kids away from. It's a nice film to watch with your family.

Dumbo sort of illustrates what these Disney live-action remakes need to do to justify their existence. It's not afraid to do something different with the original story. If you're gonna make the exact same story just in live-action, well that can be enjoyable for the fans but then why don't we just stick with the animated original? Conversely, if you do change things up, you run the risk of angering fans. But isn't taking risks part of the creative process? Two sides of the coin for you there…and then you just have the other school of thought, which is "Why remake any of these at all when the originals were fine to begin with?" I mean, to be cynical, did Dumbo really need an update?

This year of Disney remakes is off to an average start. Time will tell but what we've seen from Aladdin has been a mixed bag, and we don't have a lot to go on as far as The Lion King. You know I'll be reviewing them both. Anyway, I was supposed to end this two paragraphs ago. I liked Dumbo. Didn't love it. The End.

Yeah About That...Disney's Live-Action Self-Remakes

They say originality is dead in Hollywood. The box office is filled with nothing but sequels, reboots, and remakes. Personally I'm on the fence of this argument, but one thing is for sure is that originality is on life support at the Walt Disney Studios.

A few years ago, the Mouse House started a trend of taking films from their animated classics line, and turning them into live-action films. Some not straight-forward remakes, so much as crude, god-awful reimaginings with no sense of the source material they're adapting...anyway. Quickly the number of these "live-action self-remakes" in development began to outweigh the number of them being released to theaters. At this point you can pretty much name a Disney animated film, and the chances are it's getting remade.

With the Beauty & The Beast remake now one of the high grossing films of all time, let's take a look at the rest of the remakes in the pipeline, while I offer my two-cents on each project. Shockingly, I'm not completely opposed to...most of them.

Mulan
Directed by Niki Caro
Written by Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver
Starring: TBA
Coming To Theaters: November 2nd, 2018

Milan could actually really benefit in live-action, if done right. The fight scenes and the battle in the mountains could look amazing if choreographed properly and not completely dosed in CGI. The current word is it might not be a musical like original, and personally I'm fine with that. Let the film take on a more serious tone, but keep the comic relief so it's not completely dark and dull. Hell I suppose you could do like The Jungle Book remake and cherry pick one or two of the best songs so it's not a full-blown musical. Anyway this one I think can pass.


Mary Poppins Returns
Directed by Rob Marshall
Written by David Magee
Starring Emily Blunt and Lin-Manuel Miranda
Coming To Theaters: December 25th, 2018

Okay this one's not a remake it's just a sequel, but it's a sequel to a classic Disney film that had an animated sequence. So yeah. The sequel's set to take place in London during the 1930s, where Jane, Micheal and Michael's three children, receive a visit from Ms. Poppins after a family tragedy. I love Emily Blunt and I have no doubt she'll nail the lead role. Rob Marshall can be a fairly decent director. Into The Woods was good, and the fourth Pirates of The Caribbean was entertaining enough in my opinion. Lin-Manuel Miranda is writing music for the movie so have fun with that (Clearly he's found a comfortable home at Disney post-Moana). There's also a really strong supporting cast, featuring Colin Firth, Meryl Streep, Angela Lansbury, and the return of Dick Van Dyke. Based on Blunt's casting alone I'm cautiously optimistic for this film...despite the fact that P.L. Travers hated the first Mary Poppins, and forbid any more movies based on her books be made, so it just makes you wonder what kind of dark forces are we tempting here...but hey, you guys should watch Saving Mr. Banks.


The Lion King
Directed by Jon Favreau
Written by TBA
Starring: Donald Glover, James Earl Jones, Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen
Coming To Theaters: July 19th, 2019

This one's apparently on the fast track. After the success Favreau had remaking The Jungle Book, this holds promise. But unless they actually use real animals, can this be considered a live-action remake, or just a remake with more realistic looking animation? One thing The Jungle Book has that The Lion King doesn't, is the human connection with Mowgli. Time will tell if this hurts the film. Donald Glover as Simba is an exciting casting choice, and bringing James Earl Jones back to reprise his iconic performance as Mufasa is a classy move. Eichner & Rogen as Timon & Pumbaa...I don't know. With the casting of James Earl Jones there's two ways of looking at this. Why can't we bring back other original cast members, and if we can, then really how much can this film distinguish itself from the 1994 epic?


Aladdin
Directed by Guy Ritchie
Written by John August
Starring ...maybe Will Smith? As The Genie?!?!
Coming To Theaters: TBA

I look at Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes films, and I look at the style he's applied to his King Arthur (and the reviews...), and I wonder, is that going to work for a musical comedic-adventure like Aladdin? I have concerns. Let's be honest, this film is going to sink or swim solely based on the casting of The Genie. No one could ever hope to match the late Robin Williams's iconic performance. I don't envy the actor who has to fill those shoes. Apparently it might be Will Smith and honestly...that has a small chance of working, and a big chance of failing horribly. My fan-casting would be James Monroe Igelhart, who originated the role on Broadway. He was able to capture the spirit of Williams's performance while making it his own, and winning a Tony for it. Also it would help them to get Alan Menken back to do the music. He did it for the Beauty & The Beast remake.


Christopher Robin
Directed by Marc Forster
Written by Alex Ross Perry and Tom McCarthy
Starring Ewan McGregor?
Coming To Theaters: TBA

This one is basically Ted meets Toy Story 3. Christopher Robin is now an adult and forgotten his childhood imagination and adventures with Winnie The Pooh and company in the Hundred Acre Wood. His mundane adult life is thrown a curveball when Pooh shows up on his doorstep. Actually it sounds like Hook but with Winnie The Pooh not Peter Pan. There's real potential here, if the film amps up the nostalgia factor and goes right for the feels. Ewan McGregor could be adding another Disney remake to his resume, taking the lead role here which will be great. Marc Forster directed Finding Neverland and Quantum of Solace so stylistically it could be interesting. Tom McCarthy co-wrote Up and Spotlight, and rewrote Ross Perry's original script, so it's hard to say this early in the game what kind of film will get. Also for the love of God if you don't CGI Winnie The Pooh, Piglet, Tigger, etc. in the right way we could all be creeped the *bleep* and running out of the theaters in fear...


Oliver Twist
Directed by Tommy Kail
Written by TBA
Starring Ice Cube and TBA
Coming To Theaters: TBA

I guess you can consider this a remake of Oliver & Company...starring Ice Cube as Fagin...and it's being directed by the guy who directed "Hamilton" so it's going to be like hip-hop of the Charles Dickens story...okay? Yeah I'm not loving it.


James and The Giant Peach
Directed by Sam Mendes
Written by Nick Hornby
Starring TBA
Coming To Theaters: TBA

Not everything getting remade is from the animated classics line. NO FILM IS SAFE.
I didn't see the original stop-motion film until I was older, and I didn't really care for it so I couldn't care less about this project, and I don't think it's anyone's favorite Disney film so this remake isn't all that offensive as others. Sam Mendes is a talented director so maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised.


Cruella
Directed by TBA
Written by Aline Brosh McKenna and Kelly Marcel
Starring Emma Stone
Coming To Theaters: TBA

Much like a certain other Disney film...this will focus on the origins of the villain of the animated original, i.e. Cruella DeVil. Emma Stone is set to play the iconic Disney villain, which sounds amazing but here's the kicker. Brosh McKenna, who wrote The Devil Wears Prada (Heh..The DeVil Wears Prada...) but Marcel came in and rewrote it. She wrote Fifty Shades of Grey...
I love Emma Stone but I think it best she really think this through before she signed on the dotted line...or should I say the spotted line...okay I'll stop.


Tink
Directed by TBA
Written by Victoria Strouse
Starring Reese Witherspoom
Coming To Theaters: TBA

Why is this necessary when you've done like eight direct-to-video films on Tinker Bell and her fairy friends that have racked in a fair amount of money-oh wait...do we really need to know the untold origins of Disney's favorite fairy? Again? Who really wasn't that layered of a character to begin with?


Peter Pan
Directed by David Lowrey
Written by David Lowrey and Toby Halbrooks
Starring TBA
Coming To Theaters: TBA

Did you see Pan? It might be time to lay off Peter Pan films for now...and are you trying to set up a Peter Pan cinematic universe with this and Tink? If so that's...stupid.


The Sword In The Stone
Directed by TBA
Written by Bryan Cogman
Starring TBA
Coming To Theaters: TBA

The original is kind of a clunky film to begin with, so this one could probably benefit from a remake, granted that if they do the scenes where they turn into fish, squirrels, and birds and the CGI isn't horrifying. Also there's a guy from Game of Thrones writing it, but don't expect a ton of nudity and graphic violence.


Dumbo
Directed by Tim Burton
Written by Ehren Kruger
Starring Eva Green, Danny DeVito, Michael Keaton and TBA
Coming To Theaters: TBA

No! Hell no! No wants to see the cute, heart-warming story of Dumbo, get the creepy, dirty Tim Burton treatment. Look what he did to Alice In Wonderland! Also Tim Burton stop remaking stuff and gives us something original. Seriously get out of this funk and make a good film. And I keep bringing CGI up and I'm going to keep bringing it up, but I don't want to see a horrifying CGI Dumbo.


Pinocchio
Directed by TBA
Written by Peter Hedges
Starring TBA
Coming To Theaters: TBA

Again, like Peter Pan I think this is a story that needs to stop being remade because no film has really worked since Disney's animated original. I think the last one was Roberto Benigni's version...*shudders* I would much rather see the potential versions done by Guillermo del Toro or Robert Downey Jr, just because of their involvement.


The Little Mermaid
Directed by TBA
Written by TBA
Starring TBA
Coming To Theaters: TBA

I am curious to see how the underwater scenes are done, and I will laugh out loud if this film gets to theaters before and does underwater better than one of James Cameron's Avatar sequels (One's supposed to feature an underwater world). Alan Menken will be back to do music so that's good, along with Lin-Manuel Miranda who's going to produce (He's clearly getting comfortable at Disney). But I imagine a CGI Flounder and Sebastian looking gross...


The Second Jungle Book
Directed by Jon Favreau
Written by John Favreau & Justin Marks
Starring TBA
Coming To Theaters: 2019-ish?

So a sequel of a remake that's neat...unless they're remaking the direct-to-video sequel...no they wouldn't. There's plenty more from Kipling's books to adapt. Favrueau and Marks returning is a good thing, but with this supposedly shooting back-to-back with The Lion King, I wonder if Favreau is stretching himself too thin, and if both films will suffer. Hopefully some of the original cast can return, and they can get this going before Mowgli (Neel Sethi) gets too old.


Maleficent 2
Directed by TBA
Written by TBA
Starring Angelina Jolie
Coming To Theaters: TBA

......No........


That's all of them I think. Having gone down the calendar one by one, it's clear that some of these remakes have a far better chance at success than others. So far Disney's remakes have had pretty solid track record. I never saw Cinderella but it had favorable reviews, and The Jungle Book I thought was probably better than the original, in terms of script and pacing. Pete's Dragon, I never saw the original and I really have no desire to see the remake. Beauty & The Beast for the most part is a very entertaining and loving tribute to the original, but not without its flaws.

In order for these remakes to succeed, they need to distinguish themselves enough from the original like The Jungle Book did to justify their existence. In an interview a few years ago, Beauty remake director Bill Condon raised the question on why remake a film that, in his words is "so perfect"? He went on to say "Technology has caught up to the ideas that were introduced in that movie." That's not a good reason to remake a film, and frankly an insult to the animated original, and to a greater extent the legacy of the company that allowed the creation of both Beauty & The Beast films.

If you're going to remake these films in live-action just so we can have a non-animated versions of them, that seems like a waste of production and resources. Why can't Disney devote all this energy to making original live-action fairy-tale musicals in the same spirit of their animated classics, that can stand beside them in the studio's catalog? I don't know, if the films are as good as The Jungle Book and Beauty & The Beast, I suppose it's a harmless practice, but what if they're not?

Walt himself was always looking to push the boundaries of filmmaking and technology. Hell even in his later years he was becoming less interested in animation and more with live-action filmmaking and his theme parks, so you have to wonder what he'd make of all this. When once asked about making a sequel to The Three Little Pigs short, he said "You can't top pigs with pigs"...but then he did go and make more shorts starring the pigs...

I'll go back and forth on this issue more and more as these films continue to develop and make their way to theaters. One thing is clear though from this list. Not every Disney film needs to be remade.

Film Review - "Beauty & The Beast" (2017)

Beauty & The Beast 
Directed by Bill Condon
Starring Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, etc.

It's not much of a secret as it used to be,but let me just put in print: The original animated Beauty & The Beast is my favorite Disney film, and just my favorite film in general. Dare I say, it's one of the few films I could arguably label as "perfect".

So when Disney got on it's "live-action self-remake" kick, and this film was on the docket, I was more than skeptical. But as the casting announcements, production updates and trailers started to come out I started to feel more confident. It looked like Disney was treating one of its greatest properties with thought and care. After having seen the film twice now, I can say that while the original will always be superior, this one is a wonderful but not perfect tribute to it.

You know the story. A young girl named Belle (Watson) lives a provincial life in a French village. While on his journey home from the market, her father Maurice (Kevin Kline) ends up in the wrong place at the wrong time, as the prisoner of of a cruel prince-turned-Beast (Stevens) in an enchanted castle. Belle finds her father, offers herself in his place, and the Beast accepts. Belle and the Beast grow closer, as does the hope that she might be the one to set him and his subjects free from their curse, while the wicked Gaston (Evans) schemes to make Belle his wife.

I'll be honest, this is a tough review to write. It feels like a betrayal to praise this film, because I love the original and when it comes right down to it, this is still an unnecessary remake. Hell, I think all these Disney remakes are but more on that later. Let's look at the remake of The Jungle Book for a second. That film managed to rework the story in a way that actually improved upon the original's script. Beauty & The Beast, there's not much to improve upon in the original, so really the changes here are minimal, and the result is mostly a shot-for-shot remake.

The film does suffer because of it. I'd say that until we got to the "Gaston" musical number I wasn't truly enjoying myself. As it progresses, the film does allow itself to become its own thing, but there's still a hesitance to stray too far from the source material. But to play devil's advocate, the film is a beautiful, touching homage to the animated classic. Nostalgia is one of the film's greatest strengths. Those who look fondly on Disney's original film will find it hard to not have their heartstrings pulled at. I found myself getting emotional as some iconic scenes were brought to life anew, particularly "Be Our Guest" and the dance in the ballroom to the title song.

I should mention that while the film does play its cards close to the chest, Bill Condon and his team do make some changes to the story, and they attempt to fill some plot-holes that have bugged fans for years. Some changes work well, and some not as well as others. I felt some key story moments were glossed over or not given enough attention. For example the scene where Belle saves her father and first meets the Beast feels rushed, like a drive-by plot point. The pacing of some songs and scenes, like "Something There" are reworked to let the audience see Belle and Beast's relationship grow overtime. The personas and development of some characters, like the Beast, Maurice, and LeFou are changed in ways that I thought worked really well.

Another one of the film's greatest strengths is that they got Alan Menken back to do the music, and it pays off gloriously. The songs feel almost grander, and more cinematic, not to say that all renditions outshine their predecessors. Some personal favorites are "Gaston" and "The Mob Song". The new songs work well too. "Days In The Sun" is a lovely, warm-hearted replacement for "Human Again" (but I did miss that song). "Evermore" is so powerful and heartbreaking. "How Does A Moment Last Forever" is fine, but its too fleeting to leave a lasting impression like the other two. Maybe its from decades of listening to the soundtrack of the original over and over, but the score for the remake is almost forgettable.

The cast is fantastic. Emma Watson plays a pitch-perfect Belle, but unfortunately the same can't be said about her singing. She does a fine job, but there is evidence of auto-tuning. Dan Stevens is an amazing Beast. The real scene-stealers are Kevin Kline, Luke Evans, and Josh Gad as Maurice, Gaston, and LeFou. Kevin Kline is at his best as Maurice. Luke Evans is delightfully wicked as Gaston, and is a highlight among the ensemble. Josh Gad gives a great performance as LeFou, who is an actual character here and not a one-note sidekick. Ewan McGregor is a fine Lumiere, and his performance in "Be Our Guest" is pretty fantastic, but his "French" accent is meh. Ian McKellen is a spot on Cogsworth, and Emma Thompson plays Mrs. Potts with just the right amount of warmth and maternal sass.

So in conclusion, I really enjoyed this film and will always admire it for what it does, which is give a loving and well-crafted tribute to the animated classic. I encourage all fans of the original to give this film a shot. I will revisit this film in future, but it will not replace or overshadow the original Beauty & The Beast. As good as this remake is, it doesn't do enough to stand on its own or justify its own existence. There's the age old debate of what makes a film "necessary" to make, and while I find this film falls in the "unnecessary" category, it's not a bad thing that it was made. It's not exactly a bad thing to revisit a tale as old as time.

PS: If you'd like to see me interview audience members on their hopes and reactions to the film on opening night, click here.

Disney Sequel Showdown: "Beauty & The Beast: The Enchanted Christmas"

Disney Sequel Showdown: Round #4

Beauty & The Beast: The Enchanted Christmas
Directed by Andy Knight
Starring Paige O'Hara, Robby Benson, and Tim Curry

Well Christmas is over but it doesn't mean the glad tidings of the season have to stop! So long as you keep the Christmas cheer in your hearts, and the DVDs of your favorite Christmas specials at the ready! Everyone's got their favorites, from Elf to The Grinch and Santa Claus Is Comin' Town, and if Beauty & The Beast: The Enchanted Christmas is one of your favorites…why?

During a recent stint of Christmas shopping I came across this Disney direct-to-video sequel of old on DVD for ten bucks, and impulsively purchased. I hadn't seen this thing in a decade or so. You might say nostalgia combined with a decent price led me to buying it. Well as Christmas came to a close I sat down to watch it, and sadly this is not one of the better Disney sequels. Is it downright horrible? Not "entirely".

Also spoilers ahead. Do you care? Probably not. It's a Disney sequel from 1996.

The film is told primarily in flashback, and tells us how Belle (O'Hara) brought Christmas back to the castle, much to The Beast's (Benson) disapproval. The Beast hates Christmas. Why? Well it turns out the night he, his castle, and his servants were cursed was in fact, Christmas Eve. That's…neat? Jury's still out on the value of that twist.

Also I find the timeline of this film to be incredibly flimsy. Like it's supposed to take place after the wolf attack in the original but then where does it fit in? Before the library scene? No, because that's supposed to happen like a day after the wolf attack and he wouldn't wait like a week to give her the library. Before "Something There"? I mean that would make sense if it weren't for the fact that by that point in the original they were starting to get along and The Beast is a total dick here. Ugh, I'm getting ahead of myself.

Well it turns out that there's a villainous pipe organ named Maestro Forte (Curry), who used to be the castle's composer before the enchantment. Before the enchantment, The Beast had no use for Forte, and now The Beast uses his gloomy instrumentals as a source of comfort. So Forte likes this new sense of purpose and refuses to let Belle and The Beast fall in love and brake the spell. So he manipulates events through the workings of a piccolo named Fife (Paul Reubens. Paul Reubens is in a Beauty & The Beast film. That's wrong.) hoping to derail Belle's Christmas plans and have the castle remain enchanted forever.

Alright well to expand further on that "Beast is a dick" comment, someone pretty much hit the reset button on character development here.  Belle and The Beast's whole dynamic is wrong. The Beast is supposed to be changing by this point so Belle can learn to like him. Here, Belle is like his super-optimistic girlfriend trying to get him out of his emo funk. The Beast wasn't a dating project for Belle to work on. She was his prisoner for God's sake, and yes while she did make the best of a bad situation, she still missed her father and her old life.

Okay and then at a critical point in the film Belle leaves the castle grounds to go find a Christmas tree, and things get life-threatening. Beast finds her, rescues her…and then locks her in the tower for braking her promise to not leave. But she already broke that word when she ran into the wolves! And arguably at that point The Beast was probably being even less of a dick! So why does "running away from you being a dick" not equal imprisonment but "trying to make sure you have a Merry Christmas" does??

Now Im starting to get into nitpick territory but Forte, his ability to make music, it like, creates magic energy or projections? That he uses during his song (Yeah of course Tim Curry has a song) and the climax of the film. Okay, where's the logic in that? The Enchantress was just whipping up her spell and was like "Hmm, give the composer-turned-pipe organ magic powers." Well then why didn't she give Lumiere fire powers, or Cogsworth the ability to manipulate time and space?? I know this is a Disney movie and magic can run willy nilly, but in the first Beauty & The Beast it was established that these people just got transformed. No more. No less.

The songs in the film, are pretty bland, both on the sides of lyrics and music, although Tim Curry's song is pretty enjoyable. There's a song about Lumiere and Cogsworth's friendship, and it's catchy enough, but why is it here? It adds nothing to the film. There's no subplot about them. My guess it was left out of the original or the Broadway show and they shoehorned it in here. Animation is an obvious downgrade but it's nice given direct-to-video standards and the time it was made.

It's nice to get all the original voice cast back and they're all still giving it their best (despite the material…). Tim Curry is his usual enjoyable self as Forte, and I like the twist in his character wanting to remain enchanted. Paul Reubens as Fife is okay. Bernadette Peters features as the castle decorator turned into a Christmas tree angel, which is clever and she does a nice job. But…going back to nitpicking here!

We meet her in the attic with a bunch of other Christmas decorations. Look at an average Christmas tree, there's probably 30-40 ornaments up there. Now a tree by royalty standards? Probably hundreds. Who were all these people that they became ornaments??? What was their position in the castle that they got a special, seasonal curse? The Castle's Christmas Planning Committee?? And does this mean there's a bunch of poor bastards stuck in the attic transformed as Halloween decorations? Sorry I'm nitpicking I know, because in "Be Our Guest" we saw like hundreds of plates, glasses, etc. but it makes sense there would be all those! People will argue with me about this but oh well.

Beauty & The Beast: The Enchanted Christmas works in a way that passable fan-fiction works. It's not poorly made…if you don't mind forsaking character development and decent songs. Another rewrite or two and this could have been a worthy successor…by direct-to-video standards. If this is one of your favorite Christmas specials, then I won't take that away from you. It's not a disgrace and it's not unwatchable, there's some good intentions here. If it isn't or if you haven't seen it, strictly stick to the original (It's my favorite Disney film and my favorite film of all time), and pay attention to far better Christmas specials. Personally, this will probably remain at the bottom of my Christmas DVD collection. Happy Holidays.

Film Review Throwback- "Walt Before Mickey"

Walt Before Mickey
Directed by Koha Le
Starring Thomas Ian Nichols, Jon Heder, and Armando Gutierrez

It's honestly very surprising that a proper film about the life of Walt Disney hasn't been made yet. I can see part of the challenge in it though. Disney had a long, illustrious life and career, and it could be difficult for a script to find its focus. A screenwriter could arguably take one period of Disney's history and script a film out of it. Saving Mr. Banks did that to much success. Walt Before Mickey, not so much.

Now Walt Before Mickey does focus on one period of the man's life, but perhaps too big a period. Based on the book of the same name by Timothy S. Susanin, the film focuses on the first ten years of his career, before he created Mickey Mouse. Now not every average joe would know this, but Walt suffered a lot of setbacks before the mouse was made. If you didn't know, this film will definitely hammer that fact into your head.

We see every one of those setbacks, from his losing of Oswald The Lucky Rabbit, to being evicted out of his office and apartment. It's just all very depressing. Imagine, a film about Walt Disney being depressing. There's a lot of telling and not enough showing, and with the over-abundance of narration I mean that literally. There are some sweet moments in the film, but on a whole the pacing and the tone of the film is just off.

There is this strange subplot in the film, about Walt befriending a mouse he finds on the street (Yeah I know. So subtle.) that was obviously crafted by the filmmakers, that just comes off as a lame attempt to give some bit of structure to the script.

Not to attack the filmmakers themselves, but the whole film has a very cheap feel to it. Yes, I know it's an independent film, but everything is almost at amateur level. The film is just too weak to carry the rich source material its trying to adapt.

The same can be said for the acting. Honestly no performances stand out over all the rest. All seem to be giving their mediocre quality work. Nichols (Kevin from American Pie in case you couldn't recognize him...) as Disney is tolerable at best. Special criticism is reserved for Jon Heder as Roy Disney, who comes off as just so painfully dumb and wooden in his performance, but hey, this is the guy who gave us Napoleon Dynamite.

With a little more effort and production value, Walt Before Mickey could have been a better film. Instead it comes off as something in between "film students' senior capstone" and "low-budget indie". I'd say if you have any interest in the life and career of Walt Disney, give it a look if you have the time, but don't rush to this. There are plenty of better ways to learn how it all started before the mouse.