Welcome back to Rhode Island Movie Corner’s big end-of-the-year list, in which I’m counting down my Top 12 Favorite Films from 2016. This is Part 2 of 4 and today I’ll be covering the films that landed in the #9-7 spots. For my #12-10 picks, as well as my 7 Honorable Mentions, be sure to click the following link to be directed over to Part 1 of this series. But, for now, it’s time to get back to the list…
An animated classic saw new life this year with an excellent new adaptation that’s easily one of the most visually beautiful films of the year…
Disney’s new trend of live-action remakes, as I’ve noted numerous times in the past few months, has been a controversial one, to say the least. Those against it question the necessity for Disney to do live-action remakes of their animated classics. However, the most recent efforts in this ‘line’ have done well with both critics AND audiences instead of just with the latter as was initially the case. In 2015, we got the excellent re-imagining of Cinderella. And this year, we got not one but two great live-action remakes in the form of the previously mentioned Pete’s Dragon and this, director Jon Favreau’s take on Rudyard Kipling’s classic novel The Jungle Book. This story was previously adapted by Walt Disney Animation in 1967 and was the last major Disney animated film that Walt Disney himself ever produced. The original Jungle Book is an undeniable classic. Despite what channels like Screen Junkies and Cinemasins may claim (seriously, their videos on it were so negative that I had to fast-track my ‘60’s/70’s Disney Retrospective’ just to give it a positive review. They were that harsh!), it’s a terrific entry in the Disney animated canon thanks to its classic characters and memorable songs. With his version, Jon Favreau both respects the original film while also doing his own unique spin on the story. Part of this stems from the fact that he utilized elements from both the original animated film as well as Kipling’s original story. Some of the classic songs from the original film appear, namely ‘The Bare Necessities’ (obviously) and ‘I Wanna Be Like You’, but only in snippets. In other words, this is not an outright musical. It’s just a well-handled take on the classic story of the man-cub Mowgli and his adventures in the jungle, from his encounter with the infamous King Louie to the fun, care-free times that he had with Baloo and, of course, his run-in with the intimidating Shere Kahn.
One of the most talked-about aspects of the film has been its visual effects. And for those not yet in the know, at least 95% of this film is CG. They shot all of this on a sound-stage with Neel Sethi (Mowgli) being the only major human character in the entire film and most of the backgrounds created digitally. So, technically, it could be argued that this is more of a CG remake. But I’m not going to get into that argument right now. Instead, let’s continue to marvel at this film’s fantastic visuals. The animals look incredibly photo-realistic and it’s also impressive how real the environments look for being almost completely CG. As for the cast of animal characters, Favreau did a nice job in terms of selecting a voice cast to portray these classic characters. Each voice actor is perfectly cast in their respective roles. This includes Ben Kingsley as the dignified panther Bagheera, Idris Elba as the imposing Shere Kahn, Bill Murray as the laid-back Baloo, and Scarlett Johansson as the seductive Kaa. And for being the only major human actor in the entire film, Neel Sethi does an excellent job when it comes to working off these CG characters. Thus, The Jungle Book proved to be another excellent remake of a Disney classic. And, like Cinderella the year before, it’s not meant to ‘replace’ the original in any way. That’s basically the main fear of those who oppose these remakes. They believe that, with these remakes, Disney is implying that animation is inferior by comparison. Trust me when I say that this is not true. These remakes are just meant to be a neat complement to the original film which, quite frankly, is something that I feel the best remakes are supposed to do. Instead of replacing the original, they instead should just be an interesting new take on a classic story. And considering that this film is basically only one-half of Kipling’s original story, I’m excited to see how the upcoming sequel is going to turn out.
Boy, are things going to get weird with my Number 8 pick…
Like I said in my original review, Swiss Army Man is one of the weirdest films that I have ever seen in the 7-plus years that I have been doing film reviews. It tells the tale of a man named Hank who ends up stranded on a deserted island. Driven despondent to the point of suicide, he notices a dead body wash up on shore that is farting uncontrollably (just go with it…). Hank manages to get back to the mainland with the help of the corpse, whom he names Manny (who is somehow still able to speak), and the two embark on a journey to get back home. Along the way, Hank learns that Manny is capable of being used like a ‘swiss army knife’, hence the title Swiss Army Man, for various purposes, whether it’s for chopping wood or hunting for food. Yes, that plot may sound weird to some of you, and I wouldn’t blame you for that because I agree, but amidst all the farting, talk of masturbation, and magical wangs that act as a compass (don’t ask…), this film is… strangely beautiful. Obviously, a lot of weird stuff happens in this film but, at the same time, it’s a simple and charming story of friendship, lost love, and regaining one’s humanity. Hank and Manny prove to be a likable duo together and Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe, respectively, do excellent jobs in the roles. The soundtrack is fantastic, featuring a lot of great acapella tunes, including a hilarious rendition of the theme from Jurassic Park (“If you don’t know Jurassic Park, you don’t know s***!”) and an epic montage song that’s literally called ‘Montage’. And, ultimately, this was one of the funniest films of the year. I mean, sure, given this film’s wacky premise, that was probably to be expected going in. But, to put it simply, this was just a strange yet highly entertaining little adventure.
Everyone’s favorite absent-minded fish returned in what was either a highly-anticipated sequel… or one that some people were hesitant about given the studio’s track record with sequels…
7. FINDING DORY
The character of Dory, as voiced by Ellen DeGeneres, is widely regarded as one of the best parts of Pixar’s beloved 2003 effort, Finding Nemo. And after many years in which fans were kept eagerly waiting for a follow-up (including Ellen herself as evident from all the times that she mentioned it on her show), Pixar finally gave us a sequel to Finding Nemo in the form of Finding Dory. Andrew Stanton once again returns to direct and, as the title suggests, the film sees the optimistic and lovable Pacific regal blue tang take on the lead role. However, at the same time, this film also had to prove itself to those who were hesitant about it given Pixar’s general track record with sequels. While the Toy Story sequels were undeniable critical and commercial hits, Cars 2 was the studio’s first poorly-received effort. And while the prequel Monsters University did perform better with critics, by comparison, it still wasn’t one of the studio’s best-received efforts… even though I’d argue that film is totally underrated but I’m starting to get off track here. Yes, the internet has been putting a lot of pressure on Pixar these past few years to do more original stories. After all, this is the same internet that now regularly expects ‘15/10 masterpieces’ from the company and views any film that doesn’t reach that status as the equivalent of a criminal offense (seriously, I wish I was joking about that but, per my good friend Kyle Ostrum (kylesanimatedworld.blogspot.com), this connection was, in fact, made once on an online forum). Thankfully, Finding Dory manages to prove a lot of its critics wrong by being just as charming, beautifully animated, and most importantly heartfelt as its predecessor.
First off, the film smartly avoids the common mistake that a sequel can potentially make; rehashing the same plot of the previous film. Instead of just having the plot consist of Dory being captured and taken away by divers to P. Sherman, 42 Wallaby Way, Sydney, it instead sees her traveling to ‘the Jewel of Morro Bay’, AKA Morro Bay, California’s Marine Life Institute, to find her long-lost parents, whom she had been separated from ever since she was little. This is what gives the film its heart and, thus, the scene where she finally reunites with them at the end is a guaranteed tearjerker. At the same time, the film maintains a lot of the same great qualities of Finding Nemo. The main characters are all very likable. This includes both the returning cast (Dory, Marlin, Nemo, etc.) and the new cast of characters, including a grouchy but lovable octopus named Hank (Ed O’Neill), Dory’s childhood friend Destiny (Kaitlin Olson), a near-sighted whale shark, and Bailey (Ty Burrell), a beluga whale who mistakenly believes he is unable to use echolocation after suffering a concussion. The animation is outstanding as usual; seriously, I’d argue these Finding Nemo films feature some of Pixar’s absolute greatest animation. Finally, another great thing about this film is how it embraces those with disabilities. Of course, the film is primarily about Dory who, as we all know, suffers from short-term memory loss. And while that does make her journey to find her parents difficult at times, she manages to overcome it by the end. In other words, instead of shunning those who suffer from any sort of disability, this film assures them that their disabilities don’t define who they are which, if you ask me, makes the whole experience even more special. So, in conclusion, to quote the title of the end credits song performed by Sia, which is a cover of a classic song, Finding Dory truly is ‘unforgettable’.
That’s the end of Part 2. Thanks for following along and be sure to check back in tomorrow for Part 3, in which I’ll be listing Films #6-4.
No comments:
Post a Comment