Just As Long As There's No Singing... "The Jungle Book"

The Jungle Book (2016)

Rated PG-13

Starring Neel Sethi, Bill Murray, Idris Elba, Ben Kingsley, Lupita Nyong'o, Scarlett Johannson, Christopher Walken,

Directed by Jon Favreau

The Story:

Mowgli (Sethi) is a man cub growing up in the jungle, raised by a pack of wolves. However, Shere Khan (Elba) is ready to exact vengeance, so they decide it's time to return Mowgli to the man village. Bagheera (Kingsley) leads him through the jungle, hoping to keep him safe until they reach their destination. But the jungle is full of interesting creatures, and Mowgli is an inquisitive little boy...

So Disney returns with their lastest live action update of their animated classics.

For those keeping score at home, we were deadlocked at 1-1.

Maleficent was an interesting take on Sleeping Beauty and added something new to the legend.

Cinderella was a straightforward bore, partially due to the fact that it is one story that has been told in many different forms over the years, and has been done better.

So it's up to the Jungle Book to break the tie.

Would I love it, or would I be indifferent.

Well, for starters, like Life of Pi, this movie is absolutely gorgeous. Whether it's all green screen, or they actually went on location to the most lush jungle imaginable, there isn't a jarring CGI blip in the action, so it's totally believeable.

The talking animals, well, you either love or hate that aspect of films. They did a good job and the animals all look pretty realistic, and the voice cast does a wonderful job with their roles.

And let's face it, that animated film had some of Disney animations' finest voices on that film.

Sethis' Mowgli is in 95% of the movie, and he does a great job as the little man cub who has to grow up and learn the ways of the jungle, all the while allowing a little bit of his humanity to seep into the character.

And I loved the ending did not send Mowgli back to the man village.

Yay!

So did I like it? Yes I did.

Did I love it...

Well, I probably would have...

But...

Then they let the animals sing.

:: sigh ::

No offense, but I thought they would let Murray whistle "The Bear Necessities", or even just use part of it as dialogue.

But then they sang, and I felt myself cringing. It's just out of place and wrong that late in the movie to suddenly become a musical.

But okay, I guess I can forgive this one moment...

Wait, what?

King Louis (Walken) is getting angry and starts talking, and then breaks into song...

No.

NO, this is too much.

I could feel the review crumbling as I watched, there was no coming back from this.

So yes, I hammer this film for the singing, and it falls from Best of the Year contention, to just another movie that I watched.

Final Grade:  B-

"The Finest Hours" Is A Great True Story...But A Mediocre Movie

The Finest Hours (2016)

Rated PG-13

Starring Chris Pine, Casey Affleck, Ben Foster, Eric Bana, Holliday Grainger, John Ortiz,

Directed by Craig Gillespie

The Story:

During a tremendous blizzard in 1952, a tanker rips in two and the Coast Guard sends just about everyone they have to try and save any survivors.

This is not that story.

You see, there was a second tanker that also ripped in half and had survivors on it. What was left of the Coast Guard was dispatched to try and find the remnants of that ship and bring in any survivors.

This is that story.

And it's true.

The biggest problem with this, the story and much of the acting and pacing is stiff, wooden and rather boring.

Which seems really weird when you have a thrilling rescue mission at sea that bogs down while trying to be told.

Weirder still that it was a product of Walt Disney studios who excel at these true life stories.

There's equal parts of blame to go around all over the place, even the leading man, Chris Pine, and quite possibly especially him, is not above finger pointing.

His character is probably supposed to be shy and humble, but it just comes across as stiff and unlikable.

Things do pick up considerably once the storm is raging and the rescue attempt begins, but the buildup to it with Pine and Grainger's romance...

Goodness that's some painfully dull cinema to endure.

Good intentions, a great real story that just gets muddied when it was turned into a film.

Final Grade: C

And Now For Your Movie Of The Week... "Saving Mr. Banks"

Saving Mr. Banks (2013)

Rated PG-13 for thematic reasons...

Starring: Emma Thompson, Tom Hanks, Annie Rose Buckley, Colin Farrell, Ruth Wilson, Paul Giamatti, Bradley Whitford, B.J. Novak, Jason Schwartzman

Directed by John Lee Hancock

The Story:

Author P.L. Travers (Thompson) has fought off the advances of Walt Disney (Hanks) for over 20 years.  He wants her book, Mary Poppins, to be brought to life onscreen to fulfill a promise to his daughters.  Travers is not interested in seeing her very personal story brought to life in an animated movie, but agrees to meet with Disney to see what will happen.  She is very insistent on everything, including recording her sessions with Disney's representatives Don DaGradi (Whitford) and the Sherman Brothers (Novak and Schwartzman).  However, it is flashbacks to the story behind the Mary Poppins story that reveal why this tale is so important to Travers and why she is so insistent on not giving it to Disney.

We all know that she relents eventually, but the journey is one worth taking to see how she gets there.

I was expecting a good movie.

I don't know that I was expecting it to be *this* good though.

The story opens with flashbacks to Travers as a girl named Ginty (Buckley) who absolutely adores her father (Farrell).  When they move to the end of the line in Australia to take on a new bank job, their mother (Wilson) is nearing the end of her rope.  Mr. Goff is an alcoholic and this is the latest in a series of jobs that have taken a toll on the family.

Yet the father is so sweet, fun and loving, it's impossible not to feel why Ginty loves her dad.

The movie moves back and forth between flashbacks of life in Australia and Travers' meetings at the Disney studios.

While Hanks does an admirable job as Walt Disney, it should be noted that the majority of Travers meetings are with screenwriter DaGradi and Richard and Robert Sherman.  In fact, Disney himself probably has the least amount of screen time in the whole movie of all of the characters. 

And that's not a bad thing.

This is the heart and soul of most of the conflict within the movie, as everything they pitch to her, she rebuffs.

Robert Sherman is the first to openly even question "does it even matter?" to many of her objections, much to the horror of his partners.

Travers remains insistent that the film not be animated and not be a musical.

So you can tell, it's a long, uphill battle for Disney's team to win her over.

However, it's when they realize how personal the story is to Travers, and how they can remedy the tale by providing a happy ending to Mr. Banks that her father never had, that Travers finally relents.

Naturally, being based on a true story, much of the tale is open to interpretation and change.

That said, I like the way the movie played out, and have a better appreciation for Mary Poppins than I did previously.

Plus, this adds yet another layer of appreciation for what the Sherman Brothers brought to Disney studios.  These two are geniuses that deserve much more notoriety and accolades than they have received.  Their songs alone provide much of the heart of the films they provided songwriting duties for.

Including this one.

Well worth a viewing.

Final Grade: A-/B+ range

Rewatchability/Purchase Factor: I'm sure I'm the only one in the house, but much like Mary Poppins, I liked it and wouldn't mind owning it and/or watching it again someday.

Zooming To The Top of the List of Worst Movies I've Watched..."Spring Breakers"

Uncle Walt would be spinning in his grave...

The Story:

4 college girls (Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens and two other irrelevant actresses) want to go on spring break, but they don't have enough money.  So they rob a place to get the money...

And I turned the movie off.

ZzzzZZZzzzzZZzzzzz

9 minutes... I went fast forward from about the 2 minute mark wondering if any semblance of plot or characterization would develop.

Then there was the stylish direction where shots were continually weaving in and out of focus...

Nope.  Just girls frolicking in bikinis, getting high at every conceivable opportunity.  It seems like the director's voyeuristic fantasy, and it just felt creepy.

Apparently Hudgens and Gomez wanted to break free of their Disney image, because yes, why be grateful towards a company that made you a bit of cash in your lifetime and turned you into a star?

I hear people say that James Franco was amazing in his role.

Congratulations James Franco, you're apparently the best part of a movie I couldn't stand to watch.


Yes, I think MacGruber has been saved from being the worst movie I've seen so far this year.

Final Grade: F

Rewatchability/Purchase Factor:  To quote Vince McMahon "No Chance in Hell!"