Of course, when critics ask if a film is "necessary" what they're really saying is that a film has no obvious reason to exist beyond the usual crass commercial interests that motivate pretty much every movie that makes it to a cinema that seats more than thirty people. Again, this is Disney we're talking about here: all of their movies exist in a web of marketing and cross-promotion, and they're perfectly happy for you to know about it. So why is Aladdin any worse than any of the other polished but soulless products from the House of Mouse?
Partly it's because the strings are more obvious with these remakes. The Marvel movies and Star Wars still occasionally feel like the decisions taken by their creative team mean something; somewhere in there a human being is trying to communicate something of value. But Disney's run of turning perfectly good animated films into passably watchable live-action films feels like a thrilling combination of trademark maintenance and promotion for upcoming rides and theatrical events. The goal with these films is to not suck, and while that's a worthy goal it's nice to see something occasionally that aims just a little bit higher.
This conservatism means that despite having Guy Ritchie sitting in the director's chair (failing to give us the cockney gangster Aladdin we deserve), this film doesn't feel like it was directed so much as it was fabricated, a do-over where every minor change from the original was focus-grouped to within an inch of its life. Much of this focus seems to have been aimed at fleshing out the character of Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott), which would have been great if the song shoe-horned in so she can express her desire not to be silenced wasn't easily the worst song in the film.
And yet, the original animated Aladdin was so good that this gets over the line largely because it doesn't try to change too much. The story of a "street-rat" (Mena Massoud) who finds a magic lamp and magic carpet and uses both to help him woo the Princess and help her save her kingdom from the evil vizier Jaffar (Marwan Kenzari) remains basically the same.
A version that drifted further from the original might have been more lively and fun, but clearly Disney wasn't willing to take that chance. The only alteration that even breaks even is Will Smith's genie, in large part because Will Smith - whether due to star power, a role that gives him more freedom than everyone else, or just sheer ability - seems to be the only person actually putting any real energy into proceedings.
Unlike Robin Williams' shotgun blast of pop culture references (Smith's genie does not make any topical comments, so that theory that the original Aladdin was set thousands of years in the future is kaput), Smith plays his slightly more subdued genie as an actual character. Which most definitely helps considering everyone else here feels like they're doing an excellent job auditioning for the off-Broadway tour of the stage version.
Yes, Smith doesn't really sing and yes, it's a comedown from Williams' legendary performance and yes, the CGI around him isn't all that great, but still: it turns out that even with all the magic available to Disney, the most interesting thing to watch on the big screen remains a talented actor putting in a bit of effort. Who knew?
- Anthony Morris
No comments:
Post a Comment