Disney Live-Action Trudge: Maleficent (2014)

Of all the movies I have lined up in this marathon, Maleficent was the one I was most dreading, it wanted to make a villain more sympathetic, it completely changed the story from the original, and if I look at the timeline, I actually think this is the movie that got the Disney Live-Action remake trend started. I mean we glare at Alice in Wonderland a lot, but I think if this movie failed then the trend would not have really begun, because after this movie, every year had at least one live-action adaptation or remake or sequel. I pin the blame for all of them on the success of this movie, so it should not be any surprise that this is the movie I was the least willing to watch. At the very least, Alice in Wonderland had a potential hook to it, and wasted it but that's already been talked about, the very concept of Maleficent irritates me.

You know that Maleficent's name sounds very close to "Malevolent" right? So, why was THIS the villain they wanted to give a tragic backstory to and make sympathetic? The character whose name is literally an off-shoot of a synonym for evil, is the one they thought could be redeemable? It boggles my mind, like I know the whole "What's in a name?" line, but like, this is a very glaring issue for me, you don't name someone "Maleficent" and make them a hero, unless you're doing some serious subversion like Nimona did. I guess this is also a subversion, but it's not a very good one. I mean, why not just have Maleficent be a nickname, a name given to her by her enemies, give her any other name? You're more than willing to change the names of the other fairies, why not change hers and still make her name technically be Maleficent? And you really want to know the most infuriating part of this movie? It's actually okay.

Yeah, I was shocked, this movie is... okay. Like, as a movie it is competently made, the writing is fine, couple nitpicks with the story, but like overall I can't say it's a bad movie, just a bad concept. I think if they made original characters for this movie there would be less stigma around it, and I could see it working a lot better. A lot of my problems are that these aren't original characters, like change everyone's name, change the title to "The Real Evil" or "The Dark of Light" or something and I'd be absolutely down. Maybe that would have hurt revenue somewhat, but even then I could see it being a big cult movie if it didn't do so well.

I think what really got to me was the three fairies in this one, terrible parental figures really piss me off, so making the fairies into squabbling, incompetent disasters just annoyed me a lot more. It also didn't help that Maleficent "The Mistress of All Evil" was essentially just a trickster in this movie. All throughout the movie, all she does is just play tricks on the fairies, like you're a powerful fairy and you just play tricks on people? Granted that is pretty accurate Fae behavior but that isn't really accurate Maleficent behavior. It just reiterates my point that I think this movie would have been a lot better if these were original characters and not caricatures of iconic characters that we know and love. Also just gonna say it, Angelina Jolie does not give half the performance that Eleanor Audley gave in the original, the scene where she curses Aurora just feels off and not as powerful.

I also kind of hate what they did with King Steffan, not the whole "Make him the real villain of the story" part, I understand that, but the whole... "Make him a villain" at all part. I mean, this is a villain redemption story, on some level, why did it need a real villain? Like, if Maleficent can be redeemable, why can't the king? Is it because we hate royal hierarchies? I don't know, it just doesn't sit right with me that there had to be a "real villain" in this story at all, like I'm totally not on his side, the movie does a good job of making him the bad guy, but like... maybe I didn't really want a bad guy.

I should talk about the rest of the movie, but honestly there really is not a lot to talk about. It's just okay, kind of generic, but ultimately okay. I really do feel like if Disney made the bold choice to make this an original I.P. it could have lead to a decently big franchise, like imagine it, a dark fairy who was wronged by humans, growing attached to the child of the human that wronged her and bridging the two worlds into one, frankly I'd love to see other stories that could spawn from that, imagine that as the premise for a TV series, or a series of novellas, or a comic series. I think they did hamper the potential of this movie by tying it to the Sleeping Beauty property. I'm not a big fan of the original Sleeping Beauty, I think it is that era's equivalent of Frozen, but if I had to pick I think I do prefer the original, it's an iconic fairy tale and it didn't need all of this. Overall though, I can't say this is a bad movie, as a movie it is perfectly decent, but as a concept, I hate it.

Also, this movie did not need a narrator!

Disney Live Action Trudge: Alice in Wonderland (2010)

It's easy to forget that the first live-action remakes of Disney properties came out in the 90s, because the first big ones would come out in the 2010s. 2010 was such a game changing year for entertainment, for televised animation Adventure Time, Regular Show and My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic began airing, for film there was Inception and The King's Speech, plus Disney seemed to be entering a second renaissance of sorts with the release of Tangled and Pixar's Toy Story 3. DreamWorks was starting off another franchise with How To Train Your Dragon, a film trilogy I desperately need to review some day, and Iron Man 2 was building up to the eventual Marvel Cinematic Universe. Video games had releases like Red Dead Redemption, StarCraft II, Halo: Reach, Amnesia: The Dark Descent and Super Meat Boy. It may be easy to forget, but in hindsight, 2010 might have been one of the most important years for entertainment, it did pave the way for quite a lot of things, including the Disney Live Action Remake.

Alice in Wonderland was not one of the movies I was looking forward to for this marathon, but I eventually bucked up and gave it a watch, and honestly it really wasn't as bad as I thought it was gonna be, because somehow it was worse. Not all that much worse, but if given the choice to watch this movie or take five slaps to the face like Barney Stinson, I'd take the facial slaps. It's a shame because I really do think a darker and more twisted take on Alice in Wonderland could totally be done, something that really added in some horrific aspects and put an emphasis on the darker tones. I dunno, maybe someday one of the guys who did Design work for ID Software or that Czech who does Claymation can do a better version. Ha, yeah, if you haven't quite figured both American McGee and Jan Švankmajer have both done darker takes on the Alice in Wonderland story, with Švankmajer's Alice releasing in 1988 and American McGee's Alice releasing in 2000, but Tim Burton has his own style, so it would be fascinating to see what he could do with the story, at least I thought so. That was before I watched this movie.

My first major issue with the movie is quite simple to state, it's boring. I figured that the opening scene was meant to be boring to kind of contrast to the zany and wacky stuff happening in wonderland, not that the mentality excuses the opening from being boring itself, but at least it's an explanation, but then again the rest of the movie is also just as boring. It's really odd because not only is this Alice in Wonderland, the definition of "Shouldn't be boring", but this is also a war movie. Yeah, one of the most brilliant decisions made in cinema, Alice in Wonderland, a WAR movie! Now someone's gonna say, "But Disney also made Treasure Island into a Science-Fiction movie, and Shakespeare into Kimba the White Lion, so why aren't you against those?" Easy, Treasure Planet is still an adventure film, like the original story, Lion King still has some remnants of a tragedy, like the original Hamlet, nothing in the original Lewis Carrol books ever implied that the story was best suited to have a war in there. Treasure Island can be put in space, and Hamlet can be told with lions, Alice should not fight in a war.

The movie is also not subtle about it. They really want you to know that people are dead in this movie. The Queen comments about eating one of the Frog Servants kids after sending him to be beheaded, the dormouse plucks out a monster's eye, and that is not done off camera, Alice cuts the Jabberwocky's head off and we see the body wiggle and writhe while it slowly dies. I get this is a PG movie, and a hard PG, but it really feels out of place. But why is this out of place and American McGee's Alice isn't? Well, I think ultimately it's because American McGee actually uses the story to explore themes of mental issues and trauma, which the story of Alice in Wonderland does lend itself too, at least it lends itself better to that than it does to a war. I'm fine with dark kids movies, but there is a limit to that, movies like Land Before Time or A Series of Unfortunate Events are dark, but not too unpleasant, and the unpleasant moments are balanced out by the happier moments. This movie doesn't really have that, it's just moments that are less unpleasant than others.

And the acting, oh my gosh the acting is pretty bad in this movie. No offense meant to Mia Wasikowska, I'm sure she does great performances in her other roles, but something was just not working with her role as Alice. There is a big moment where she is standing up for herself, not letting herself be told what to do and who to be, and she just does not sell it at all. Even when she realizes this isn't a dream, I absolutely do not believe she is the character. The other actors aren't that bad, but not all that great. I'm conflicted a bit on Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, he slips in and out of accents a lot and kind of does a lot of stuff I think would have been better if it was someone like Jim Carrey in that role. Plus, whoever designed the Red Queen in this movie succeeded in making something truly hideous, and not the good kind. This is like watching the life-sized cross between a Funko Pop and a Conan O'Brien caricature. Actually the design work as a whole is kind of disappointing too, like the Red Queen's castle has like, a couple of heart shapes and motifs in the design, but it looks like any other castle. No Expressionist influence, no excess use of the heart motifs, it just looked really plain and boring.

Yeah, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is pretty bad, way too dark for it's own good and not interesting enough to justify it. Is this the worst Disney movie of 2010? Alongside The Sorcerer's Apprentice? I doubt it, but it's definitely one of the worst I've seen. This is very much a different take on the story, but it's a take that does not work. I know I'm only two movies into this marathon, but I'm ready to call this one of the worst of the bunch, but as of now we have seventeen more movies to get through, counting both Peter Pan and Wendy and The Little Mermaid 2023, so it may have some competition, but it is only fitting that this movie really kicked off the Live Action Remake trend, since it was the omen that this trend was gonna suck. Well, that's done, it looks like Maleficent is next on the docket, another one that I'm not looking forward to, but at the very least Sleeping Beauty isn't a movie I hold close, so I may end up liking it. We'll wait and see. 

Disney Live Action Trudge: 101 Dalmatians (1996)

 

There are four words that, when said in succession, can invoke the deepest feelings of hatred, sadness and tiredness in any animation fan, "Disney Live Action Remake". The reason these words make animation fans upset is because Disney is synonymous with animation. Disney was a lot of peoples introduction to the medium, and they have done so much for it, from popularizing technologies and techniques, to innovating television animation, to producing the first Computer Generated animated feature film, it really is saddening to see THE animation company remake so many of their movies into a medium that is not fit to tell certain stories. That being said, I've not actually watched that many of them, so I can't actually judge them. Are they all actually soulless attempts to make easy money without putting in much risk or effort? Or are there some movies in there that are genuinely good? Keep in mind, this is not going to be me comparing the animated originals to the live action remakes, this is predominately going to be me looking at these movies on their own, though there may be some comparisons here and there. So, let's begin my trudge through Disney's Live Action remakes... pray for me.

Okay, so I wanted to start this in February with the 1994 movie "Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book", which wasn't really a remake, but still a retelling of a story Disney already told. Unfortunately, that is not available on Disney+ for me as of yet, so I'll be starting with the next movie in the line-up, 1996's 101 Dalmatians, the first proper remake in the line-up. Immediately, there are somethings that just don't sit right with the idea of remaking 101 Dalmatians into a live-action movie, first off, that was a lot of dogs to animate, so imagine how many that would be to find and train. Secondly, the dogs talked in the original movie, which does seem like a non-issue, but then you remember that movies like Babe are actually the exception to the rule that talking animals in live action movies always look fake. So, barring those two, teeny tiny blue whale sized hurdles, how does the live-action 101 Dalmatians movie stand?

Admittedly, this movie does begin a bit slow, not that there isn't some good comedy and goofy acting, but it's mostly there to set up Roger and Anita's relationship, Roger's storyline about trying to design a video game, Anita's relationship with Cruella and where Cruella gets the idea to make a Dalmatian fur coat. It is all necessary, mostly, and I do like the idea of Anita being an employee of Cruella's, it can be a bit slow and unengaging though. Honestly, I'm quite impressed with how loyal they were in recreating scenes from the original, the midnight bark, Roger and Anita falling into the pond, those scenes are here, but they are different in their own ways.

The casting in this movie is quite excellent, Jeff Daniels and Joely Richardson do a good job as the everyfolk Roger and Anita, and Hugh Laurie and Mark Williams are superb as Jasper and Horace, I probably should have guessed Hugh Laurie was good at physical acting since his most iconic role has him limping, then again that isn't really the same as slapstick. However, the show stealer really is Glenn Close as Cruella de Vil, she just chews the scenery, she really is just the fashionable lunatic and I loved every demented minute of her on screen. My favourite scene with her was when she was just screaming at a bunch of farm animals, like at this point you can tell she's lost her mind, or what was left of it. I think she's a bit more entertaining than she is in the original movie, mostly because in the original movie she just kind of comes off as... a Karen, she's a total Karen. She's bitchy and whines about not getting her way, acting as if not getting what she wants is a personal attack, original movie Cruella is totally the kind of woman who shouted to employees and threatened having them fired. The only difference is Cruella has more fashion sense. This movie's Cruella is just a crazy lunatic and that is much more enjoyable to watch.

I also do like some of the little details this movie incorporates, like the video game Roger is making with graphics that look like the original movie's animation, I actually think there was an actual PC game that, if not based on this bit from the movie, then the bit from the movie was based around. I also always find it amusing when Disney has their characters watching their own stuff, so having the Dalmatians switch the channel from AristoCats to Homeward Bound, it made me chuckle. Speaking of which, this movie has John Hughes as a writer and producer, knowing his work on movies like National Lampoon's Vacation, Home Alone and like... dozens of classic 80s comedies, you can probably tell this movie is going for a more comedic tone, and whether or not you find this funny, will probably depend on how much you like slapstick comedy, there were bits I found funny, like Jasper and Horace over the electric fence, and Cruella in the molasses, though there are some pretty lame jokes too. At points, it does also feel like a weaker Home Alone, Hugh Laurie and Mark Williams even kinda look like Daniel Stern and Joe Pesci as Harry and Marv at points.

So, how does this movie stand up? It's not awful, in fact if you're in the mood for a dumb comedy, I'd say give this one a shot. As a movie on its own, it's watchable, and I think your enjoyment of it is really going to depend on how much you like John Hughes style of comedy, and especially slapstick comedy. If you're a big fan of the original, I can see you having some strong opinions, but if you keep in mind that these are two separate movies going for two separate ways of telling the story, I think you can find some enjoyment. It's like comparing the two versions of DuckTales, they very much are their own entities. All in all, this movie is fine, was it worth being made, eh, but I can't imagine this movie causing any harm or really upsetting anyone by existing. It has it's moments, it's a solid movie, it ain't bad.

Normally this is where I'd give this movie a recommendation rating, but since that isn't really the point of this side blog, I'll just leave it as is. Next on my list is 2010's Alice in Wonderland, not officially counted as a Live Action Remake, but still worth talking about. I will get to Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book at another time, if I find a copy or it comes out on Disney+, I will get to it then.