In Defense of Disney's Live-Action Remakes

(Disclaimer: As some of you will recognize, this is not the first time that this specific post has been published. A few weeks ago, I submitted a different form of this post to the animation website Rotoscopers. I knew that it would spark some controversy there due to those who aren’t big on Disney’s remake run, but I wanted to point out some positives about the company’s current live-action film strategy and try to reason that it’s not the worst thing in the world. I would like to thank the team at Rotoscopers for publishing my post and will be dedicating this new version of it to them. I will also be providing a link to the Rotoscopers post for you folks to check out if you haven’t already. The major difference between the two versions of this post is simple; with Rotoscopers, I had to keep it to a specific word limit. Here, expect a much longer post that’s much more in line with the usual content that I post here.)

This weekend sees the release of one of the year’s most highly anticipated films; Disney’s Beauty and the Beast. The film is a live-action adaptation of the studio’s beloved animated masterpiece of the same name from 1991 and is the latest in a growing line of new adaptations of classic Disney stories. For you see, Disney’s current live-action film slate is primarily based around one thing; live-action remakes/re-imaginings of their animated classics. This trend first got started in 2010 with Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, a pseudo-follow-up to the studio’s animated take on the Lewis Carroll story of the same name from 1951. While the film received mixed reviews from both critics and audiences, it was a smash hit at the box office, as it managed to gross over $1 billion worldwide. Four years later, that commercial success continued with Maleficent, a ‘re-imagining’ of Disney’s 1959 effort, Sleeping Beauty. It was the same situation; the film attracted a polarizing reception but was a major box-office hit. One year later, Disney then released a remake of Cinderella but unlike the previous two films, this one not only did well at the box office but it was also the first to be generally well-received by critics. Because of this, Disney then proceeded to announce a wide slew of remakes/re-imaginings over the next few months for films like Mulan, Winnie the Pooh, Dumbo, and so on and so forth. It’s honestly gotten to the point where almost every single Disney animated classic has a remake that has either come out, is slated to come out, or is currently in the works.

But, as some of you might have guessed, this slew of ‘remake announcements’ hasn’t gone over entirely well with everybody. Namely, there are quite a few people on the internet who are not a fan of Disney’s current live-action film strategy for various reasons, including the obvious argument of ‘why remake a classic’ and the fact that these remakes are now the primary projects on the studio’s schedule instead of original films. In fact, some of my good friends in the blogger community are in this exact crowd. As for me, though, I’m eagerly looking forward to a lot of these new remakes because of the great potential that they have. Now, for the record, I’m well-aware of an old quote from Walt Disney himself in which he remarked that ‘you can’t top pigs with pigs’, which basically asserted his own theory on the idea of sequels after he produced several sequels to the studio’s 1933 classic short, Three Little Pigs, that weren’t as successful as the original. But that was a different time; nowadays, nothing is ‘truly original’ anymore, meaning that stuff like this is bound to happen. Now, let me be clear, I love seeing an original film as much as the next person. Heck, my #8 favorite film from last year was Swiss Army Man. However, I’m not one of those people who outright condemns sequels, reboots, and remakes just because they exist. Thus, today on Rhode Island Movie Corner, I’ll be listing three reasons as to why I’m enthusiastic towards the upcoming line of Disney’s ‘live-action remakes’. Again, let me be clear; I understand where those who are against the remakes are coming from but, please, hear me out on this for a moment.

REASON #1: MANY OF THE RECENT REMAKES HAVE BEEN GOOD

Now, of course, this is an argument that can be quite subjective, just like film itself, hence why I decided to start this post with this argument right out the gate. There is no such thing as a ‘universally beloved’ film; every film has its critic and the recent Disney remakes are no exception to this. However, some of the most recent remakes in this lineup have genuinely been a success with BOTH critics and audiences. And again, as I noted earlier, this wasn’t initially the case. Both Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent were polarizing, to say the least, and believe me when I say that I have come across opinions on both sides of the spectrum. I have seen plenty of people who have expressed absolute contempt for these remakes. But, at the same time, I’ve also come across quite a few people that absolutely love these films. Therefore, it makes a lot more sense to me now why Alice in Wonderland managed to gross over a billion back in 2010; there were some people out there who did really like it. Same situation with Maleficent, which overcame its mixed reception to gross over $750 million worldwide and end up as the 4^th highest-grossing film of 2014. So, in short, while the films may not have done well with critics, they were doing well with audiences and, if you ask me, that usually matters more; knowing that audiences were enjoying it. Clearly, most audiences aren’t bothered by these remakes coming out and, if you ask me, why rain on their parade?   

But then when Cinderella came out, things were a little different as the critical reception was far more positive compared to Alice and Maleficent. Maintaining a solid 83% on Rotten Tomatoes and with over $500 million worldwide, it was very much the first in this line of Disney remakes that was a true bona fide success from a critical standpoint and not just a commercial one. Again, it did have its critics (believe me, I’ve gotten some flak from some people online for liking this film) but it ultimately proved that, if anything, these remakes could be fantastic. And then, in 2016, audiences were treated to not one but two highly successful adaptations of classic Disney films (note: before any of you bring up the critically-bashed sequel to Alice in Wonderland, Alice Through the Looking Glass, that doesn’t really count in this instance because it’s primarily a sequel). Director Jon Favreau’s adaptation of The Jungle Book was one of the best-reviewed films of 2016 and it grossed nearly $1 billion worldwide. And then, near the tail-end of the summer, there was Pete’s Dragon. It didn’t reach the same commercial heights of the other remakes, which is understandable considering that it’s based on a Disney film that isn’t as well-known compared to something like The Jungle Book, but it too was well-received by most critics and it did manage to break even with around $140 million worldwide on a modest $65 million budget. Now, let me be clear, I’m not saying that all the upcoming Disney remakes are going to be successful with both critics and audiences. There probably will be some critical duds here and there. However, no matter how well or how bad these upcoming remakes fare with critics, the previous three Disney remakes will stand as genuine success stories and proof that not only can they be done, but done well.

REASON #2: THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR NEW TAKES ON THESE STORIES

To me, the best thing that a ‘remake’ can do is offer a new take on a classic story. And that’s one of the key reasons as to why I am genuinely looking forward to most of these Disney remakes. While some will no doubt share many similarities with their animated predecessors, it’s not like they’re going to be ‘note-for-note’ copies or anything. The only real instance in which I’ve seen this happen is director Gus Van Sant’s 1998 remake of Psycho and the critical bashing that film got is a good reason, I’d say, as to why you don’t see a lot of ‘note-for-note’ remakes. Alice in Wonderland, for example, was a ‘continuation’ of the original story while Maleficent was the story of Sleeping Beauty told from the perspective of the titular villain, Maleficent. Say what you will about the films themselves but the decision to tell these stories from a different angle was, at the very least, ‘something different’. The other big Disney remake of this nature, which ultimately ended up being the most different from its predecessor, was Pete’s Dragon. Instead of being a musical like the original 1977 film was, the new adaptation was more of a drama. And while this may have ticked off some fans of the original, to the point where some even referred to the new film as ‘Pete’s Dragon in name only’, again, it was ‘something different’. Jon Favreau took a similar approach with The Jungle Book. While there were some elements of the original animated film that were featured in the new version (e.g. its most popular songs), Favreau also utilized elements from Rudyard Kipling’s original story to create something along the lines of a hybrid between the film’s two primary source materials.

Now, admittedly, the 2015 remake of Cinderella was basically just the same general story as its predecessor; a young girl is subjected to relentless cruelty from her wicked stepmother and stepsisters but her life then changes once she meets a charming prince. So, of course, some of you may ask “Well, why the heck did they remake it, then?” But, you see, they did throw in a few new things here and there to differentiate itself from the original, like having scenes with young Ella and her parents (whereas in the original, these scenes were just part of the opening narration, sans her mother) and additional scenes between her and the Prince prior to the Ball instead of just having them first meet at said Ball. Stuff like this, especially the latter, did help the film expand upon the story of the original which, as great as it is, is admittedly a product of its time. And, overall, it’s clear that a similar method is going on with the new Beauty and the Beast. While still the same story of a young woman who slowly falls in love with the monstrous-looking prince of an enchanted castle, there are a few changes that have been made here and there to make it its own thing; most notably, Belle is now an inventor just like her father. Now, for the record, I’m not saying that these changes are going to automatically improve upon the original, nor am I expecting the new film to be ‘better’ than the original. Instead, I view it in the same way that I do the other Disney remakes; as a nice complement to the original that can stand on its own merit alongside the original. On that note…

REASON #3: NOTHING. IS. GETTING. REPLACED!

This is the one point that I feel should be stressed ad nauseam… because, clearly, this is the one thing that those who are against the Disney remakes fear the most when it comes to them. They fear that these remakes are the studio’s way of ‘erasing’ the original animated films from existence, implying that animation is inferior to live-action/CG. Trust me when I say that this is not the case whatsoever. This isn’t like the original Star Wars trilogy, where George Lucas has continually made changes to the films without ever giving us any chance of viewing them in their original format. No matter what happens with these remakes, the originals will still be there at the end of the day. Case in point, the original Beauty and the Beast was just given a fancy new 25^th-anniversary Blu-Ray right in time for the release of the new film. They also released the original Jungle Book on Blu-Ray a few years ago; sure, it may have been two whole years before Jon Favreau’s live-action version and it’s since gone back into the Disney Vault but, again, it shows that Disney still cares about the original versions. Yes, there have been a few behind-the-scenes videos in which those working on the new BATB (namely, director Bill Condon) say stuff along the lines of ‘technology allows us to do things we couldn’t do in 1991’ but that’s just the marketing material talking. Not once have they ever said ‘we’re trying to replace the original film’. In fact, most of those who’ve worked on these Disney remakes have made it clear in interviews that they adore the original films and were doing their best to try and live up to their reputation.   

And at the end of the day, if any of these upcoming remakes don’t turn out so good, so what? It’s not like they’re ‘metaphorical murder’ or anything (note: that phrase ‘metaphorical murder’ was an actual comment made by a critic of the Disney remakes). The reputation of their original sources won’t be tarnished by them; heck, if anything, they’d just end up making the originals even better by comparison. This is a mentality that’s been around for pretty much every other remake, reboot, and so on and so forth that’s come out in the past few years, not just the ones from Disney. Whenever one’s announced, the internet reacts to it like it caused the plague or something. But, really, that’s all that it is; a mentality, not a reality. Sure, some remakes are more questionable than others but it’s not like there’s some law out there that states that a certain film can’t be remade. The worst possible outcome would be that it’s just a lame remake, nothing else. Heck, this backlash towards the Disney remakes is honestly not too far off from what happened with the new Ghostbusters film. As we all know by now, when that film was first announced, it was absolutely savaged by the internet, particularly from angry fanboys who just couldn’t handle the fact that their favorite franchise was being brought back (and don’t get me started about when they found out that women were starring in it). But, it came out, and it did ok with critics. More important, though, is the fact that all copies of the original Ghostbusters films did not spontaneously combust into flames as was feared. And guess what? Neither did any of the Disney animated films when their live-action remakes were released.

In fact, some of the most beloved films of all time just so happen to be remakes. John Carpenter’s The Thing? Remake. The Departed? It’s a remake of a Hong Kong film from 2002 named Infernal Affairs. And the classic Wizard of Oz that we all know and love from 1939? That was the 11^th film adaptation of L. Frank Baum’s books (and it sure as hell wasn’t the last either)! Bottom line, just because Disney’s releasing a bunch of remakes doesn’t mean that they consider animation to be inferior. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that films like Frozen, Zootopia, and Moana are more than enough proof that animation is still Disney’s primary source of film output. Now, I’ll admit that I do think that Disney probably should’ve been a bit more conservative when it came to announcing all these remakes. It probably would’ve been better if they had announced like one or two a year instead of, you know, a new one every other week. Still, I think it’s exciting that we’re getting new takes on the classic stories of our childhoods that will help introduce them to a new generation. Just remember that the original films still exist, okay guys? Because if there’s any real sign of these films being overshadowed by their new live-action counterparts, it’s more the internet’s fault and not Disney’s (Remember when all those videos bashing The Jungle Book came out before the remake's release? Well the same thing just happened again with Beauty and the Beast.). And to those who aren’t big on these upcoming remakes, that’s fine; no one’s forcing you to watch them. Just let those who are excited for them have their fun, okay?

Click here for the original version of this post that was submitted to Rotoscopers.com

TOP 12 FAVORITE FILMS OF 2016: #12-10 + Honorable Mentions

2016… was an odd year for film. Now, for the record, I don’t mean that in terms of the films that we got this year. I mean more in terms of ‘how’ people viewed the year in regards to the films that came out. By the time that summer was over, there were countless articles online expressing severe disappointment with this year’s line of summer blockbusters. Now, as I’ve stated before, I thought that this year’s summer film slate was perfectly fine, though, clearly, I’m in the minority on that. But then that negative stance started to go away once this year’s award contenders started to come out. Thus, most of the ‘year in review’ posts that I’ve seen recently are now saying that, overall, this has been a great year for film. I mean, it’s sort of a complete 180 considering what the consensus was like a few months ago, right? Anyway, I too agree that 2016 was a great year for film. But, again, I’m one of those people who thinks that it was great for most of the year, not just the final third. If anything, a lot of these films served as a temporary reprieve for when it came to having to deal with some of the terrible things that happened this past year (e.g. all the major celebrity deaths that are no doubt going to produce the longest ‘In Memoriam’ segment in Oscars history at this year’s show, politics, etc.). So, with all that said, it’s time to end this gut-punch of a year on a good note with my annual ‘Top 12 Favorite Films of the Year’ list. Now for those of you who are new to this site, the reason why I do a ‘Top 12’ list instead of a ‘Top 10’ is simple. While it was originally done as a joke to tie into the fact that I started this site in 2012 (Get it, 12 films for 2012?), it’s basically become my thing ever since. That’s because doing a Top 12 list allows me to cover more of the great films that I saw this year compared to if I had done a Top 10.

As always, though, I must start things off by listing the usual disclaimers that I make every year when it comes to this list. First, I must warn you that this entire list will be one big spoiler post. I will be discussing key moments from these films in considerable detail, so just be sure to tread carefully if you haven’t seen any of these films prior to reading these posts. Don’t worry, I will provide links to my ‘non-spoiler’ reviews throughout these four posts for you to use if you want to avoid any spoiler talk. Second, as with any year, I’ve not seen every single film that’s come out in 2016. So, if you’re wondering why films like Silence, Hell or High Water, or American Honey aren’t here, odds are that either I haven’t seen them or they just didn’t make the list. And yes, on that note, most of the films in my list will be of the ‘blockbuster’ variety. I apologize in advance to those who prefer films from the indie scene, but for now, that’s just not my thing. Don’t worry, though, for I do have a few indie hits here and there on this list, at least more compared to last year’s list which was pretty much all blockbusters. Finally, as always, please be respectful of each other’s opinions. I recognize that some of the choices on this list are going to be rather controversial given their overall critical and audience reception. And that’s perfectly fine; after all, film is a subjective thing. Just don’t be a jerk and give others (or me, for that matter) flak for liking a film that you didn’t like and vice versa. With all that out of the way, it’s time to kick off Rhode Island Movie Corner’s four-part series of my Top 12 Favorite Films from 2016. This is Part 1 of 4 and today I’ll be listing films #12-10.

But first, as always, let’s start with my Honorable Mentions. And because there were a lot of great films this year, I have 7 to mention…

HONORABLE MENTIONS

BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (ULTIMATE EDITION)

Again, let me be clear, the three-hour ‘Ultimate Edition’ of the film that was released on Blu-Ray. I’m not referring to the 151-minute cut that was released in theaters, even though I’m one of the rare people who did like that version of the film. Still, there’s no denying that the Ultimate Edition of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice improved upon many of the Theatrical Cut’s faults, especially in terms of the story. Some scenes in the Theatrical Cut felt rather disjointed in terms of how they were edited and how certain plot-points felt under-developed. Thankfully, that wasn’t as big of an issue with the Ultimate Edition, which adds in the missing scenes that better explained the plot. Granted, the Ultimate Edition won’t change the minds of everyone who disliked the Theatrical Cut. Certain elements of Zack Snyder’s direction that some fans may have been iffy on are still there. However, like Man of Steel, I feel that this film gets way too much flak. Whereas many saw it as a gloomy and messy story, I felt that it was a visually spectacular superhero epic with awesome action sequences and excellent character moments, including the death of Superman and, yes, even the infamous ‘Martha’ moment. Seriously, consider the context of that moment and you’ll see why it’s such an emotionally powerful scene. It’s a shame, then, that the ‘Ultimate Edition’ of the film wasn’t the one released in theaters, apparently because Zack Snyder just didn’t have the clout to have the full three-hour cut be used. Newsflash, Warner Bros, we would’ve been totally fine with having to sit through a three-hour film just so that we could know that this was the version of the film that Snyder intended. If you want your DC Extended Universe to truly succeed following the franchise’s rough 2016, you’re going to need to have more faith in your directors.

THE BFG

The one and only Steven Spielberg gave us an incredibly charming family-friendly adventure this year in the form of The BFG, an adaptation of legendary author Roald Dahl’s classic novel of the same name from 1982. Under the Disney banner, Spielberg does a fantastic job of recreating the delightfully wacky visuals of Dahl’s writing on the big-screen. There’s quite a lot of visual effects in this film and they’re all excellent. And while fans of the book may be disappointed to find that the film doesn’t really embrace the darker elements of the story (I admittedly wouldn’t know having never read the book), the story is still a charming adventure that is full of heart, especially thanks to the lead duo of Sophie and the BFG. Newcomer Ruby Barnhill makes an excellent screen debut as young Sophie while Mark Rylance (in his second outing with Spielberg after his Oscar-winning turn in Bridge of Spies) makes the BFG a character that truly lives up to his title as the ‘Big Friendly Giant’. Really, the only thing holding this film back, in my opinion, is that the villainous giant characters who oppose our two heroes were rather underdeveloped. Plus, the ending in which the evil giants are defeated by the British army also felt rather anti-climactic. But, despite all that, this is easily one of the best family films to come out in recent years. It’s a shame, then, that it didn’t really do so well at the box-office; it made its budget back but just barely. With that said, do yourselves a favor and check out this highly-underrated Disney flick. Speaking of Disney…

PETE’S DRAGON

Of all of Disney’s recent live-action remakes, this one is notable because it’s not based on one of the studio’s animated features. Instead, it’s based on a 1977 live-action/animated hybrid musical that may have initially received mixed reviews but has since gone on to amass a sizable cult following. And I bet that this new version will attract a similar fan-base in the years to come. It’s a different spin on the story of a young orphan named Pete and his best friend, a green dragon named Elliot. For one thing, it isn’t a musical and while that meant that some fans of the original viewed this as ‘Pete’s Dragon in name only’, director David Lowery gives us an endearing fantasy story that mixes child-like imagination with solid themes that older audiences can appreciate. And just like how The BFG benefitted greatly from the lead duo of Sophie and the BFG, the heart of Pete’s Dragon mainly stems from the duo of Pete and Elliot. Oakes Fegley carries a lot of the film by himself as Pete while Elliot proves to be one of the most endearing CG-created characters in the history of film. These two are such a great duo that I guarantee you that the ending, in which the two sadly go their separate ways, will bring a tear to your eye. Pair them with a solid supporting cast that includes Bryce Dallas Howard and Robert Redford and you have yet another great 2016 effort from Disney. Not only that, but this also continued the studio’s hot-streak with their live-action remakes. They managed to go 2 for 2 this year with their big live-action remakes, once again proving that the many upcoming remakes on Disney’s slate do have the potential to be excellent. What about that other one, you ask? Well, that one’s coming up much later in the list.

EDDIE THE EAGLE

This was definitely one of my biggest ‘surprises’ of the year. Eddie the Eagle, on paper, is just your standard sports flick with the usual tropes of the genre; the grumpy mentor, the training montage, the moment where it looks like all is lost but then a miracle happens that allows the main character to keep competing, etc. However, this film is so damn charming that you can kind of ignore the similarities to other sports films. That is because, as cliché as it may sound, this is not your typical sports story. Michael ‘Eddie’ Edwards was not your typical all-star athlete. While he was the first British Olympic ski jumper in nearly six decades, he finished last in the two main events that he participated in at the 1988 Winter Olympics. However, his likability and ‘never say die’ attitude made him a fan favorite and that translates well into the film adaptation, even if it’s not a 100% accurate representation of its true story. Taron Egerton, fresh off his star-making turn in Kingsman: The Secret Service, does an excellent job in the role and makes Eddie an incredibly endearing protagonist. He also works well with Hugh Jackman, who stars as Eddie’s coach, albeit not Edwards’ real-life coach. Together, they form a great student-coach relationship and the film maintains a solidly light-hearted atmosphere throughout with some great bits of humor peppered in here and there. My favorite humorous moments in the film are when Eddie successfully completes one ski jump and then decides to immediately try a larger ski hill after just one jump. In conclusion, Eddie the Eagle may be a traditional sports film but you will find yourself cheering Eddie on once the finale rolls around.

X-MEN: APOCALYPSE

I’m just going to be frank here… I will NEVER forgive the internet for what it did to this film. Despite being the follow-up to one of the BEST superhero films of all-time, X-Men: Days of Future Past, this film got totally shafted by the internet in terms of hype. Yeah, I get that this was the year of Batman v Superman, Captain America: Civil War, and Suicide Squad, but pretty much ever since the internet first started to relentlessly mock the first photo of Apocalypse for looking like the villain from the first Power Rangers film, X-Men: Apocalypse suddenly became the ‘forgotten’ entry in 2016’s superhero slate. And that’s a damn shame because I’d argue the film is great. Is it as great as Days of Future Past? No, but I think that it’s not too far off in terms of quality. It’s just another highly satisfying X-Men adventure with excellent action sequences and great character moments. I don’t really agree with the arguments claiming that this film lacks emotional depth and is too overloaded with action sequences. After all, this film is called X-Men: Apocalypse, not X-Men: Minor Incident. And as for emotional depth, the emotional moments with Magneto (e.g. when he loses his wife and daughter) are quite powerful. Sure, I get why some felt that the story was too predictable for what was the ninth entry in the X-Men franchise, but the always great direction from Bryan Singer (the unsung hero of the superhero genre, I might add) makes up for it. And the excellent new representations of classic characters like Jean Grey, Cyclops, and Nightcrawler proves that this series still has the potential to continue in exciting new directions. Hell, I liked this film more than Deadpool… yeah, I said it!

HACKSAW RIDGE

Mel Gibson returned to the director’s chair this year for the first time in a full decade after his previous effort, 2006’s Apocalypto. And he returned to directing with a bang thanks to the ‘true story’ war film Hacksaw Ridge. The film tells the story of Desmond Doss, an Army soldier who attracted a considerable amount of controversy when he refused to carry a gun into battle due to his religious beliefs. He was branded a coward but he soldiered on (no pun intended) as a conscientious objector and ended up becoming a hero when he saved countless lives during an intense skirmish in the Battle of Okinawa. Admittedly, some parts of the opening are a bit cheesy, namely, the parts where Desmond romances his future wife Dorothy, but that all changes once the action sequences roll around. The battle at Hacksaw Ridge, a tall cliff face that the U.S. Army had to climb to reach the Japanese forces, features some of the best war sequences ever put to film. These super-intense bits of action really showcase Gibson’s talents as a director when it comes to shooting action sequences. But, through it all, the film also gives a great protagonist to latch onto during all this in Desmond. Excellently played by Andrew Garfield, Doss’ convictions make him a sympathetic character through and through. Plus, it could be said that we could all learn from this man who did his duty as a member of the U.S. Army in a way that wasn’t the norm. After all, in doing so, he became the first (and, to date, only) conscientious objector to receive the Medal of Honor. Because of this, Hacksaw Ridge is one hell of a comeback for Mel Gibson as well as being one of the best war films in recent years.

DOCTOR STRANGE

Yes, folks, this is one of the rare occurrences where an MCU film just barely missed out on being in my Top 12. However, that’s not to say that it wasn’t a great film… because it was. Doctor Strange is yet another excellent entry in the MCU. Sure, the story may have been a bit standard at this point in the superhero film genre but, at the same time, the things that it introduces in the Marvel Cinematic Universe tease exciting possibilities for future films. The film serves as our introduction to the mystical side of the MCU and, thus, results in plenty of awesome visuals. The MCU films have always done a great job when it comes to visual effects but with this film, the visual effects team truly went above and beyond with the visuals, producing some of the most surreal but visually beautiful action sequences in the entire franchise. And of course, like with any MCU film, the writing is solid, the humor is well-handled, and the cast is excellent. Benedict Cumberbatch does a fantastic job in the title role and Chiwetel Ejiofor, while perhaps a bit underutilized as Karl Mordo, is set-up terrifically to be the villain that he’s known to be in the comics. Tilda Swinton does manage to overcome a decent amount of the negative buzz that stemmed from the ‘whitewashing’ controversy surrounding her casting in the role of the Ancient One with an admirably dignified performance while Mads Mikkelsen proves to be one of the better MCU villains as Kaecilius. Granted, I wouldn’t say that he’s one of the absolute best MCU villains but he does get more material to work with compared to others, including the one that he almost played, Malekith from Thor: The Dark World. Yeah… he was better off in Doctor Strange. So, in conclusion, thanks to this film, Marvel Studios’ hot streak continued once again and the titular sorcerer proved to be a welcome addition to the MCU.

And now, finally, it’s time to get onto the list. Kicking things off at Number 12 is the second of Disney Animation’s pair of 2016 releases. It’s a rare occasion for the studio to have two major animated films come out in one year and an even greater achievement considering how great both films turned out (and yes, the other one’s coming up later in this list…)

12. MOANA

The best thing about Moana is that it does a fantastic job of representing the primary culture of its setting; Polynesia. It’s very clear that the filmmakers made a considerable amount of effort to accurately translate Polynesian culture to the big-screen and it shows. Moana is brought to us by the duo of John Musker and Ron Clements, the same duo who brought us some of the studio’s biggest hits of the Disney Renaissance, including The Little Mermaid and Aladdin. And while this is their first computer-animated film, the transition that they make from traditional animation to computer animation is a smooth one. The animation is as great as you’d expect from Disney and there are even a few bits of traditional animation thrown in here as well, mostly via Maui’s sentient tattoos. As for the story, it’s an entertaining ocean adventure that’s bolstered by the film’s excellent titular heroine, Moana. Newcomer Auli’i Cravalho makes a fantastic screen debut in the role, making Moana a likable and spunky protagonist through and through. However, I must ask, is it possible for us to praise Moana without crapping on previous Disney heroines in the process, particularly the Disney princesses? I mean, I’ve been seeing this quite a bit in regards to how some critics have been addressing her in their reviews. There’s been a lot of buzz surrounding the fact that Moana is a Disney princess without a love interest. Yeah… so? Elsa didn’t have a love interest in Frozen. Neither did Merida from Brave, for that matter. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that they let Moana fully be the hero of her own story, and she’s a great protagonist to boot. But just because most of the other Disney princesses ended up in relationships doesn’t mean they’re terrible by comparison.

Anyway, Moana is paired excellently with the film’s other main character, Maui, the charismatic demi-god voiced by the king of charisma himself, Dwayne Johnson. These two work off each other very well, especially when it comes to Moana having to constantly keep Maui’s ego in line. And while Maui does start off as an egotistical protagonist who’s mainly looking to reclaim his former glory, he does learn to become more selfless as the film goes on. As for the film’s side characters, admittedly they’re not as prominent compared to other Disney films because the focus is more on Moana and Maui. Still, there are a few memorable side characters here and there, including a villainous crab named Tamatoa (voiced by Jemaine Clement) who sings an unforgettable David Bowie-esque song called ‘Shiny’. Speaking of music, as one would expect from a classic Disney film, the film’s soundtrack is excellent. In this case, the soundtrack was handled primarily by the one and only Lin-Manuel Miranda (you may have heard of his Broadway sensation, Hamilton) and, dare I say, I think that this soundtrack even managed to surpass Frozen. To name a few of the soundtrack’s best songs, there’s Moana’s solo ‘How Far I’ll Go’, an emotionally-fueled anthem, ‘You’re Welcome’, which perfectly encapsulates the character of Maui and is also pretty much the perfect song for someone like ‘The Rock’ to sing, and, as mentioned before, the glam rock inspired tune ‘Shiny’. With all this in mind, Moana is yet another excellent addition to the Disney animated canon that keeps the studio’s current hot streak running strong. But, if I had to compare this to the other Disney animated film of the year, I’ll admit that I prefer that one by a slim margin. But, again, both films are fantastic.

Ok, I’ll admit, some of you probably guessed ahead of time that this next one would be on the list somewhere…

11. ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY

Disney’s new line of Star Wars films started off on a great note last year with Star Wars: The Force Awakens, which was a whirlwind success with both critics and audiences (*someone brings up the ‘it’s too much like A New Hope’ argument* I SAID WHIRLWIND SUCCESS, DAMN IT!). But as for this year’s franchise outing, Rogue One, it too had a lot to live up to. It was to be the first installment of a new series of spin-off films set within the Star Wars universe, allowing for new stories that didn’t adhere to the typical story structure of the saga films. Thankfully, this new line of films started off on a great note with Rogue One. Directed by Gareth Edwards, it went into the details surrounding one of the crucial plot-points established in the opening crawl of A New Hope; how the Rebel Alliance acquired the plans to the Death Star. And how did they do it? It was all done by a ragtag team led by Jyn Erso, the daughter of one of the Death Star’s key engineers, Galen Erso. Admittedly, the film takes a bit to get going, namely due to it jumping around to multiple planets quite a few times in just the first few minutes. But, once the main cast of characters is fully assembled, that’s when the film finally starts to pick up the pace. And while I can’t really say that this film has the franchise’s best cast of characters, the cast is still solid throughout. Felicity Jones does an excellent job in the role of Jyn, finding a nice mix between the spunk that Daisy Ridley brought to the role of Rey in The Force Awakens and the roguish nature that always defined Han Solo. She’s backed by a solid supporting cast that includes Diego Luna as Captain Cassian Andor, who serves as a nice contrast to Jyn being the Rebel soldier who is sometimes forced to follow orders that he doesn’t agree with, Alan Tudyk as the film’s main droid K-2SO, a far more sarcastic droid compared to the other major droids of the Star Wars universe, and Donnie Yen as the badass, Force-tuned, blind warrior Chirrut Ȋmwe. He also gets the best line in the film when one of Saw Gerrera’s soldiers puts a bag over his head. (“Are you kidding me? I’m blind!”)

Sure, some characters don’t get as much to work with compared to others, namely the ‘main villain’ of the film, Director Orson Krennic (Ben Mendelsohn), who’s basically just ‘there’ for the most part, but, again, the cast is solid throughout. And while I will give the edge to The Force Awakens in terms of it having a better story and cast of characters, there are some legitimately effective emotional moments in this film. A lot of them come courtesy of Jyn’s father Galen, played by Mads Mikkelsen. There are two specific scenes that I’d like to point out in regards to this. One of these is the scene where Jyn listens to the message in which Galen reveals the secret flaw of the Death Star, a vulnerability in the station’s main reactor that Luke utilized when he destroyed it in A New Hope, while also reaffirming that he still loves his daughter. The other moment is his last scene in the film where he finally reunites with Jyn (his ‘Stardust’, a pet name that comes into play later when Jyn and Cassian use it to find the Death Star plans) but dies soon after. On that note, this film did have a major hurdle to overcome being that it’s primarily set before the events of Episode IV: A New Hope. Considering that none of these main characters appear in that film, it may have been easy to figure out going in that, spoilers, they all die at the end. But, to the film’s credit, it did manage to do just enough to make the ‘Rogue One’ crew an endearing group, particularly during the final battle. You get to see the sacrifices that every character makes so that they can successfully steal the plans to the Death Star, from defecting Empire pilot Bodhi Rook (Riz Ahmed) having to go out into the action to get the equipment needed to transmit a message to the Rebel Alliance to Chirrut walking out, while right in the middle of an intense fire-fight, to pull the master switch that allows them to transmit said message. 

On that note, for a film that started off on a slow note and had what some may argue was just an ‘ok’ second half, it’s all worth it just for this film’s finale. The final battle on the paradise-like planet of Scarif, in which the ‘Rogue One’ crew embarks on a suicide mission to retrieve the Death Star plans, is easily the best part of the film. If there’s one major advantage that I’d give this film over The Force Awakens, it is that it has arguably some of the best action sequences in the entire franchise. The third act is worth the price of admission alone. These scenes are well-shot, well-edited, and deliver one hell of an epic space/land battle. And then there’s the big scene with Darth Vader. Yes, the iconic Sith Lord makes a brief appearance in this film, an appearance which mainly comes into play during the finale when he boards a Rebel ship and slaughters a whole group of rebel soldiers to try and retrieve the Death Star plans. Some may be disappointed that he isn’t in this more (he’s only in it for like four minutes or so) but, thanks solely to this scene, we can now forget about that one time where he once said that he didn’t like sand… or that time he yelled ‘NOOOO!!!!’… or the other time he yelled ‘NOOO!!!’, bottom line, Darth Vader was made badass again. On that note, some have warned that this film may be too intense for younger viewers, probably due to things like that big Vader scene or the intense results of the Death Star using its weapon. Whereas in A New Hope the effects of the weapon were seen from afar, here we see them up close. In other words, you truly see the devastation unleashed by it. But, if you ask me, I don’t think the action was ‘that intense’. Don’t get me wrong, some of the fire-fights are undeniably intense, particularly during the finale, but not necessarily to the point where they’re graphic or anything. I’d say it’s suitable enough for, I don’t know, kids 8 and up?

Finally, I should probably address the ‘elephant in the room’ that is the CGI-based recreations of characters from A New Hope; specifically, Grand Moff Tarkin, as played by the late Peter Cushing, and a young Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia. This has easily been the most polarizing aspect of the film, with some questioning the ethical nature of bringing back a character as played specifically by an actor who had been dead for years. At first, that was solely the case with Tarkin, given that Peter Cushing passed away in 1994, but with the tragic passing of Carrie Fisher a few weeks ago, now the same question could arguably be raised with Leia as well, However, personally, I wasn’t too bothered by it. The reason why I say that is because we now live in an era where visual effects are fully capable of effectively re-creating actors in a certain state via CGI. Just look at what Marvel Studios did when they de-aged Michael Douglas for Ant-Man. But, also, in the case of Tarkin and Leia, it isn’t like this is anything new. There have been plenty of times in the past where filmmakers had to use CGI to replicate a recently deceased actor. Other cases of this include Oliver Reed in Gladiator and Brandon Lee in The Crow. Granted, those were more cases of having to do it for ‘recently deceased’ actors, which isn’t the case with Peter Cushing as Tarkin, but the point remains. And for the most part, the visual effects used to recreate Tarkin and Leia were solid. Sure, perhaps more in the case of Leia than Tarkin but still a good attempt nevertheless and, in a way, the final scene with Leia now has a touchingly poignant effect to it in the wake of Fisher’s passing. So, in conclusion, that’s Rogue One. It may not be perfect but it’s still a well-made entry in the Star Wars franchise that exemplifies the great potential that these upcoming spin-offs have.

Just a quick heads-up; my Number 10 pick may be a bit controversial given who directed it as well as the real-life event that it focuses on. Just throwing that out there…

10. 13 HOURS: THE SECRET SOLDIERS OF BENGHAZI

Yep… a Michael Bay film lands a spot in my Top 12 list. Most unorthodox! Well, as I’ve said many times in the past, I am a fan of most of Bay’s films. I’m not one of those many people on the internet who think that he’s the worst director in the industry… far from it. And this film is a prime example of Bay at his best. 13 Hours tells the true story of what happened on September 11, 2012, when an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya was attacked by Libyan militia. Obviously, this incident attracted a lot of political controversy back here in the States. However, I think that Bay made the right decision by not focusing too much on the political aspect of the incident. Instead, he focuses on those who were there when it happened, namely the six-man security team of Tyrone S. Woods, Jack Silva, Mark ‘Oz’ Geist, John ‘Tig’ Tiegen, Kris ‘Tanto’ Paronto, and Dave ‘Boon’ Benton who put their lives at risk defending those stuck at the compound. And while the film is still very much your usual dose of Bayhem (in other words, the action is focused on more than the story and characters), the six main leads, led by John Krasinski in an against-type role as Jack and James Badge Dale, who’s been a great supporting actor in films like The Walk and Iron Man 3, in the lead role of Tyrone, all work off each other very well. And I’ll admit, there was a legitimate scene where I got a bit teary-eyed; the scene where Tyrone and Glen Doherty (Toby Stephens) are killed during the final assault on the compound. Yes, there’s a tear-jerker moment in a Michael Bay film; you don’t hear that brought up a lot, now, do you? In short, like 2014’s American Sniper, this isn’t a story about the politics; it’s about the men who were there. That needs to be remembered.

That’s the end of Part 1. Thanks for following along and be sure to check back tomorrow for Part 2, in which I’ll be listing films #9-7.

Pete's Dragon (2016) review

Up until now, Disney’s current trend of live-action remakes have mainly been based on the studio’s long line of animated films; Alice in Wonderland, The Jungle Book, Cinderella, etc. And as I’ve gone over before, while this current practice has obviously been rather controversial with some fans, at the very least the films have been performing very well commercially and some of their more recent ‘re-imaginings’ have actually been doing really well critically too. But with their newest remake, Pete’s Dragon, things are a little bit different. This time around the source material is not an animated film, well, not entirely at least. In 1977, Disney released Pete’s Dragon, a live-action musical centered on the titular Pete, a young orphan boy, and the adventures that he had with his best friend, a dragon named Elliott. While the majority of the film was live-action, Elliott was an animated character with the film’s animation notably being directed by animation legend Don Bluth. Upon release, the film was a fairly decent box-office hit and although the reviews were mixed at best, it has since gone on to amass a pretty sizable cult following. But now here we are with a brand new take on the story of the boy named Pete and his dragon friend Elliott, brought to us by David Lowery, director of 2013’s indie hit Ain’t Them Bodies Saints. His take on Pete’s Dragon is noticeably different from its predecessor because whereas the original 1977 film was a full-blown musical, this new film is more of a drama. But despite the change in ‘genre’, this new take on Pete’s Dragon is still a very charming and heartfelt story that may seem simple but is full of strong themes that both young and old can admire.

The film opens as a young boy named Pete (Oakes Fegley) tragically loses both of his parents in a car accident while the three of them are on a road trip. The accident ends up stranding him in the forest alone but he soon comes across a large, furry, and friendly green dragon whom he names Elliott (Elliott’s ‘vocals’ are provided by John Kassir) after the title character of his favorite book. The two become best friends and spend the next 6 years living together in the forest. But Pete and Elliott’s peaceful lives are soon interrupted by the growing presence of people from the nearby town of Millhaven, specifically a bunch of lumberjacks from the local lumber mill owned by Jack (Wes Bentley). Pete ends up being found by one of the town’s park rangers, Grace Meacham (Bryce Dallas Howard), who also happens to be Jack’s fiancé. Fascinated by how a young boy like himself was able to survive ‘alone’ in the forest for six years, Grace decides to invite Pete to live with her, Jack, and Jack’s daughter Natalie (Oona Laurence) until they can figure out where he really came from. However, Pete becomes increasingly anxious about being separated from Elliott for too long and Grace realizes that he’s referring to the same mythical ‘Millhaven dragon’ that her father, woodcarver Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), had always told her about when she was younger. And to make matters worse, Elliott soon becomes ‘known’ to the people of Millhaven which then leads to people like Jack’s hunter brother Gavin (Karl Urban) to go after him.

As noted earlier, this film eschews the musical aspect of the original film for a more ‘straight-faced’ approach, which was probably the best move that it could’ve done in order to readapt the story for modern audiences. However, with that said, some have argued that this is really just Pete’s Dragon ‘in name only’ due to how much is changed from the original. However, despite the change in overall execution, this new take on Pete’s Dragon is quite fantastic. Thanks to the indie experience of director David Lowery, the film very much finds the heart within its extremely fantastical story. As a result, the film could certainly remind you of a film from the likes of Steven Spielberg or even more recent efforts like J.J. Abrams’ Super 8. It’s a simple story overall (heck the film is even set in the late 70’s/early 80’s) but one that is rooted in strong themes; family, friendship, etc., and said themes are handled excellently. It also isn’t afraid to go to some dark places at times. After all, the film straight up opens with the death of Pete’s parents (this is a Disney film, after all). But amidst all of the serious moments, the film also very much wears its heart on its sleeve, allowing audiences to be whisked away by the magic of the story. And while it’s very much told from a child’s perspective, both young and old can appreciate it for its charm and lovable characters.

Pete and Elliott are very much the heart of the film. Oakes Fegley does a fantastic job in the role of Pete, displaying a great sense of maturity for his age and showing that he’s perfectly capable of carrying a lot of the film on his own. But of course it wouldn’t be Pete’s Dragon without its dragon and while he is a CG-created character, Elliott proves to be a very believable and extremely endearing character. Just watching Elliott respond to various things, from Pete scaring off a bear in the beginning of the film to when he ends up going into town to look for Pete, is an incredibly charming sight. Their friendship is so strong that, without giving anything away, the ending is most certainly a tearjerker. But they’re not the only great members of this cast. Another young star, Oona Laurence, also shines in the role of Natalie, who quickly becomes Pete’s friend as he adjusts to normal life. Bryce Dallas Howard brings much warmth to the role of Grace, who very much becomes the closest that Pete has ever had to a ‘mother figure’ in quite some time. After all, as Jack notes, Pete being alone in the woods for so long doing his own thing is very much reminiscent of her. Robert Redford also provides plenty of charm in the role of Grace’s father, who unlike his daughter and the rest of Millhaven still believes in magic due to his own experiences with the mythical Millhaven dragon. Finally, there’s Wes Bentley and Karl Urban as brothers Jack and Gavin, who admittedly end up getting the least amount of material to work with in the film. Both Bentley and Urban do excellent jobs regardless but Jack is basically the most thankless part of the story and doesn’t really add much to the proceedings. And as for Gavin, who’s basically the main villain of the film, while he is at the very least not a completely evil ‘mustache-twirling’ villain he’s still a fairly simple villain who’s primarily motivated by greed.

I should probably mention that, at the time I am writing this, I actually haven’t seen the original Pete’s Dragon. I recall watching snippets of it when I was younger as I did own the film on VHS (ah, the good old days…) but never in full. I promise that I will try and get around to watching it in the future but until then, I can only talk about the newer Pete’s Dragon. And remember back in my review of The Jungle Book in which I explained why I’m optimistic about all of these upcoming Disney live-action remakes, saying that if they can be done well and stand on their own merit while still respecting their original adaptations then this slew of upcoming remakes isn’t such a bad thing? Well, now Disney has had three straight hits in a row when it comes to their most recent remakes because Pete’s Dragon is another fantastic Disney flick. As someone who, as noted earlier, hasn’t seen the original, this new film very much stands on its own merit. I mean it pretty much does the smartest thing that any remake can do and doesn’t directly copy its predecessor note for note. Instead of being a straight-up musical like the original adaptation, this new film is more of a drama. But even with the change in tone, the film still maintains a lot of heart, especially in regards to the friendship between Pete and Elliott. Sure in some ways it’s a pretty simple story but sometimes that’s exactly what audiences need, if you ask me. As a result, this is very much a highly recommended family flick that both young and old will very much enjoy. It may seem strange that Disney decided to remake one of their lesser-known live-action films but ultimately it worked out in the long run.  

Rating: 4.5/5