The Jungle Book (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 105 minutes
Director: Jon Favreau
Writers: Rudyard Kipling (book), Justin Marks (screenplay)
Cast: Neel Sethi, (voices) Ben Kingsley, Bill Murray, Idris Elba, Lupita Nyong'o, Giancarlo Esposito, Scarlett Johansson, Christopher Walken

The Jungle Book is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed by Walt Disney Studios.

Originality is a dying concept in Hollywood with cinema complexes flooded by remakes and sequels. In a world where this is now an accepted notion, it is important to still see a point of difference in order to appreciate a film in it's second production run. Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book has done this and more.

What Favreau has done with the beloved classic is something which would have been deemed impossible years ago and even until recently the thought of a live action The Jungle Book could not have been taken seriously enough to imagine it being successfully carried out to the point of critical success. Yet, Favreau's vision has been executed gloriously with spectacular computer generated VFX landscapes and characters which connect on an emotional level as well being aesthetically pleasing.

Based on Rudyard Kipling's classic novel and drawing inspiration from the 1967 Disney film, The Jungle Book tells the tale of the man cub, Mowgli (played by Neel Sethi in his first starring role) who was found in the Indian jungle and raised by a pack of wolves as their own. When he is on the verge of becoming a man, he attracts the eye of the savage and feared tiger, Shere Khan (voiced by Idris Elba) who vows to take out his anger towards men on Mowgli. Fearing the worst, Mowgli's loyal protector, the panther Bagheera (Ben Kingsley) accompanies him on his journey back to the man village. Even though the strain is lessened by the new friendship with Baloo the bear (Bill Murray), the journey is not a safe one as Shere Khan is never far behind and other threats are waiting to take advantage of the seemingly helpless boy.

The Jungle Book is an astounding piece of cinema which showcases what CGI is capable of in 2016. There is only one piece of the film which is not computer generated and that is the character of Mowgli, but one could be forgiven for believing that the whole film was shot on location in the Indian jungle with the animals in their natural habitat. The result is absolutely stunning with visuals that are breathtakingly beautiful and at times agonisingly graphic as a result of their realism. It is important to keep in mind that the 1967 animated version of the film was overwhelmingly family friendly, but in real life the wilderness is unforgiving towards humans and animals are ruthless and unpredictable creatures. This is what Favreau has captured in his film and some scenes are rather tense and confronting due to the film's realistic view on nature and this may be unsuitable for younger family members.

Disney always does a fine job of playing homage to it's history and past projects. This 2016 version of the Kipling classic does contain elements borrowed from it's animated predecessor, but it's differences are refreshing and proof that in recycled ideas there can still be originality. What fans of the first Disney film will be appreciative of is the fact that there is still "The Bare Necessities" and "I Wan'na Be Like You" with just a tad of "Trust In Me" by Kaa. This new film is by no means as musical as the original, but manages to insert these iconic songs as a means of storytelling. Along with the obvious visual differences between the two films, there are also differences in the actual story and the ending to give an element of originality to a much told tale.

When we first meet Neel Sethi's Mowgli, one can see why he was cast in the much coveted lead and only human role in the film. Sethi has the cheeky and adventurous spirit which Mowgli is known for and his playful smile makes him instantly likeable. The Jungle Book is Sethi's first major role and although this is obvious at times, he does remarkably well considering he is taking on the always difficult task of being the sole player on the film set with no fellow actors to work off.

However, it is the animal characters who are the most intriguing and endearing which is an incredible triumph for Favreau as they are all purely a creation of CGI. It has always been a challenge of animated and now CGI characters to emotionally connect with a cinema audience and in this case, it is the animals that are actually more likable than Mowgli and definitely more captivating. It would seem that in this film there is an underlying theme that wasn't in the 1967 version, which is that of the environment and the threat to the natural habitat of these glorious animals. Man is seen as a greater enemy with the large part that fire or the "Red Flower" plays in the film. The Jungle Book is very much a reversal of roles from the real world. Animals are not acknowledged as, but appear to be the superior species while humans are the outcasts and while watching The Jungle Book, we are unknowingly seeing ourselves through the animals' eyes.

Again, it is a true triumph to feel so much and greatly relate to these characters purely created by CGI. Bagheera (as voiced by Ben Kingsley) and Baloo (Bill Murray) together are the two best friends anybody could ever ask for and compliment each other so well. Bagheera is a fiercely protective, commanding and strong character, but at the same time incredibly endearing and a beautiful creature. Baloo on the other hand is not as goofy as his Phil Harris voiced counterpart, but Bill Murray brings a more human feel to him and allows his humour to flow more naturally. The wolves can also be described as beautiful not just physically, but by nature and their pack is depicted as the perfect place for not just wolves to grow up, but any species and in particular, humans.

On the other side of the animals, the not so friendly characters may not create empathy with the viewer, but they do create tension and terror. Idris Elba's Shere Khan is terrifying and menacing. Nothing is scarier than a villain who's arsenal is part of his natural instinct. Yet in all the horror he evokes, he is still an incredibly beautiful and exotic creature to behold. It was a wonderful decision by Favreau to make Kaa the python a female rather than male, as Scarlett Johansson adds to the entrancing and alluring nature of the beast. She is another creature that is terrifyingly beautiful and one that those who afraid of snakes will maybe not enjoy seeing in 3D. King Louie (who has also been reimagined here as a gigantopthecus rather than an orang-utan) is a three way cross between his voice actor Christopher Walken, King Kong and Marlon Brando as he appeared as Colonel Walter E. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now. The result is incredibly intriguing, but also menacing and dangerous.

Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book is incredibly ambitious and therefore is a complete success with the way it has incorporated it's stunning use of CGI and managed to provoke depth and emotion in it's characters at the same time. It is a classic tale which has been respectfully enhanced with an entertaining and enjoyable film.

8/10

Aloha (2015) film review

Year: 2015

Running Time: 105 minutes

Director/ Writer: Cameron Crowe

Cast: Bradley Cooper, Emma Stone, Rachel McAdams, John Krasinski, Danny McBride, Bill Murray, Alec Baldwin, Jaeden Lieberher, Danielle Rose Russell, Bill Camp

 

Director Cameron Crowe made his latest film Aloha as a love letter to Hawaii and it is just that. A love letter to a beautiful part of the world which silently tells his audience that he was just desperate to make a film there and it didn't matter what sort of film. Aloha is a fine example of how trying too hard and not enough is possible in one film. Military man, Brian Gilcrest (Bradley Cooper) returns to Hawaii after more than a decade away and reconnect almost immediately with his now married ex-girlfriend, Tracy (Rachel McAdams) who he stood up in a most cold way. He is teamed up with Hawaiian born, Allison Ng (Emma Stone) who opens up Brian to a world he had neglected and helps him find happiness. He finds that old ghosts catch up with him quickly here and old acquaintances are not easy to forget.

 



Aloha is a wonderful travel advertisement for Hawaii. Cameron Crowe's love for the 50th state comes across loud and clear in this film so much that it feels as though everything else besides the visual representation is done at a mediocre level. The story is incredibly predictable and although there are some elements of originality in there, there is too much going on to pay attention and appreciate the creativity of one storyline when several unoriginal ones are also taking place at the same time. Likewise, it is hard to feel any connection and emotion in any of the film's sub-plots as they are all happening simultaneously and with little time and effort put into each one. This isn't helped by the characters being badly written so that no one can sympathize with them as they never truly feel as if they know them.

 

 

Everything in Aloha points to the explanation that Crowe was just desperate to make a film in Hawaii and that means any film. It feels as though he was so set on writing a film that is set in Hawaii that he only half developed everything else, including the depth of the characters and screenplay. Visually the film is very pretty, which is a feature that many will find attractive and be drawn to the film because of. It is rather atmospheric, but only in relation to the way white people are living there. The way the natives live on Oahu is not represented in a favourable light when it is seen in the film, which is seldom and although Crowe tries to work them into the film it does not seem like nearly enough.

 

Bradley Cooper has had a stellar run of film roles in recent years thanks to the wonderful scripts that have come his way. It will come as no surprise that Brian Gilcrest in Aloha is not one of these roles. Cooper does all he can, but Brian is such a badly written character who at the end of the day really has no idea who is so how is the audience expected to understand him or connect with him? He swings from being arrogant and obnoxious to being goofy and playful with no warning and although his background he should indicate a significant amount of depth, it is hard to take him seriously. Yet, the final scene is such a fine piece of work by Cooper and is his redemption.

 

Perhaps the biggest talking point of Aloha is the casting of Emma Stone as Allison Ng, the quarter Hawaiian and quarter Chinese love interest of Brian. Stone is a fine actress and has the quirky, but relatable personality which is highly marketable and cherished in Hollywood at this point in time. One cannot blame a film maker for wanting her to be in their film, but was Crowe craving her so much that he had to place her in a role that clearly wasn't meant for her? Performance-wise Stone does cross the line into the territory of over-exaggeration in an attempt to maintain her quirky comedic style so many have come to love. However, even if she was spot on it is incredibly hard to take her seriously when she talks of her heritage and her passion for the land and their customs because of her physical appearance.

 

The stand out among the performances is that of John Krasinski who plays Tracy's husband, Woody. The surprising thing is that Krasinski says only a handful of words throughout the whole film, but he is truly hilarious and proves that actions speak louder than words.

 

It is hard to decipher whether Aloha has the potential to be a better film than what it is. Cameron Crowe certainly has the ability to be a better film maker and the impressive cast have given much better performances in the past. Overall it is a mere disappointment, but the last ten minutes is a gem. It is just a shame you have to wait so long for it.

 

2.5/10

 



St. Vincent (2014) film review

Year: 2014
Running Time: 102 minutes
Director and Writer: Theodore Melfi
Cast: Bill Murray, Jaeden Lieberher, Melissa McCarthy, Naomi Watts, Scott Adsit, Chris O'Dowd

St. Vincent is now showing in Australian cinemas and is distributed by Roadshow Films.

Theodore Melfi's St. Vincent is a perfect example of how the right casting can create something truly special from a story which is not completely innovative. While the film is indeed well made, the story of Vincent and his neighbours is not overly creative and rather predictable. However, it is the characters which are extremely well developed and absolutely fascinating that are brought to life by wonderful performances that truly make the film a completely memorable experience.

When one has the misfortune of meeting Vincent (Bill Murray), it is obvious with his extreme brutal honesty, disregard for personal hygiene and aggressive outlook that he is not a people person. That becomes problematic when recently divorced Maggie (Melissa McCarthy) and her son, Oliver (Jaeden Lieberher) move in next door and Vincent offers to look after Oliver each day after school for a chosen fee. Oliver finds that he cannot change who Vincent is, but he sees past his tough front and understands who this man truly is.

While the screenplay is beautifully written and Theodore Melfi is a wonderful storyteller, it is not a revolutionary story with a great deal of originality. The story of a youngster befriending someone from an older generation and the two of them finding out how much they need each other is a film plot that seems to come around periodically and when it does always offers little unpredictability. It has become a story which can now only really work in a film if the screenplay is exceptionally strong and has intriguing characters which connect on an emotional level with audiences. St. Vincent is indeed one of these films. Melfi does a wonderful job at turning a story so often told before into a fresh cinematic experience with his wonderful direction in this character driven film.

 It is in this way that St. Vincent is a film which relies more on it's characters than it does it's story in order for it to work. Without the incredibly interesting and deep characters brought to life in brilliant performances by Murray, McCarthy and Watts, the film would feel rather ordinary and unmemorable. This is not to say that the film has only one good aspect, as this is not the case. It's soundtrack fits well with the tone of the film and the cinematography gives the audience the chance to really feel what it is like to be in the Brooklyn which the film is set in. There are some truly tender and emotional moments in the film, some of which are tragic and others completely heart warming. However, it are the characters and performances that allow one to forget how many times they have seen this story done in film before.

The casting of the four main characters in St. Vincent is perfect. Unlike many protagonists, Bill Murray ensures that Vincent wins no fans as the film opens. He is repulsive and repellent, which makes he and his story all the more intriguing. He never completely restores himself in the audience's eyes, yet he does produce moments which evoke sympathy and he is still enormously entertaining to watch as a result. Murray is excellent in the lead and gives an incredibly well rounded performance of a complex human being. He has wonderful on screen chemistry with young Jaeden Lieberher, who in his feature film debut does wonderfully. The way in which his character of Oliver develops throughout the film is incredibly portrayed by an actor of such a young age.

As the broken Maggie, Melissa McCarthy gives her best performance to date. From her first moments on screen as her and Oliver move into the house next door to Vincent, one feels her overwhelming sadness and pities her without even knowing the full scope of the situation her and Oliver have found themselves in. Maggie is McCarthy's most likable role in her career so far and shows her incredible dramatic ability. On the other hand, Naomi Watts as Vincent's pregnant Russian stripper girlfriend, Daka paddles into the unknown waters of comedy (if her role in the dud Movie 43 is neglected) and is an absolute delight. Although her character has some moments of distaste as Vincent does, the heavily pregnant lady of the night is larger than life in personality and Watts is a complete joy in this role.

St. Vincent is an example of starting with something that is neither overly interesting or special, and understanding what to do in order to make it special.

7.5/10

Hyde Park on Hudson (2012)

Year: 2012

Director: Roger Michell

Cast: Bill Murray, Laura Linney, Samuel West, Olivia Colman, Olivia Williams

Before I begin my review…..

  “THIS SEASON’S THE KING’S SPEECH” Hyde Park on Hudson’s promotional poster declares.

 Honestly, this is probably the worst quote they could have chosen to put on their poster. Of course it is a compliment of the greatest kind because The King’s Speech is one of the best films of recent times so there is no better way to promote your film. Yet what it means is that once you get your people into the film, they are just going to be comparing it to The King’s Speech. And that’s a problem when your film clearly isn’t this season’s The King’s Speech.

The obvious similarity between the two is that King George VI and Queen Elizabeth are in both of the films so some of the topics addressed are in both films. This is the third film in as many years to feature these two historical figures. The second film being Madonna’s W.E., which was again by some camps likened to The King’s Speech as it was about King Edward VIII’s abdication to be with Wallis Simpson and King George VI and Queen Elizabeth were featured in it.

 Neither of the latter films contains the power which The King’s Speech had. Not many do considering the film won Best Picture at the Oscars. None of the performances are bad by any of the actors who played Bertie (King George’s nickname to his family) and Elizabeth, but Colin Forth set the bar for future performances of the character.

What a performance to try and live up to. It is quite like thinking about Daniel Day-Lewis’s performance as Lincoln in the film of the same name and imagining someone trying to give the same sort of performance. It’s a hard task as it’s a historical figure they are playing so they can’t put their own spin on what the character is like as there is factual information about how they are. All three actors are striving to be the same person.

 So I do feel sorry in a way for Samuel West. He does give a good performance, but it is hard to look at him and believe he is Bertie as you know that is who Colin Firth perfected. It’s a tough gig.

Review

Hyde Park on Hudson is a good little historical recreation of a weekend which meant so much to both England and the Unites States.

It serves its purpose of informing as well as entertaining, but it is only light entertainment. Hyde Park on Hudson is not a powerful film in any way, shape or form. It would seem there would have been some strange decisions made in the writing of the screenplay and in pre-production that have resulted in this film falling short of its potential.

Daisy (Laura Linney) is a fifth cousin of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Bill Murray) and although she lives not far from his family home of Hyde Park on Hudson, her life is far from the privileged life of the Roosevelts. Her life is turned upside down when FDR’s mother (Elizabeth Wilson) calls upon Daisy to visit her cousin to relax him and two become close friends and then lovers. Daisy is in attendance at Hyde Park on Hudson when King George VI (Samuel West) and Queen Elizabeth (Olivia Colman) come to stay for the weekend, which is a historical occasion as a British king had never before visited the United States. It is also a very important visit for the British royals as Europe was on the verge of war and they wanted the United States as their allies. The visit provides a Saturday night in which nobody gets any sleep and nobody involved will ever forget.

 This film is a treat for anybody who loves their modern history films. It contains four of the most prolific historical figures of the twentieth century as seen from a personal point of view rather than a political point of view. The film makers wanted to show who these characters were as people and show that they are still just like us when they are out of the spotlight.

Director Roger Michell definitely does this, but it is actually quite discouraging in part as by the end of the film, all the characters flaws have been bought to the forefront of the film so much that it is what you most take away from the film. With historical figures such as these who people have and still do love and admire, it’s not really a bad perception of them that you want to walk away with. For example, Queen Elizabeth just comes away looking like a bully to her husband and that notion isn’t really made up for at the end of the film. History tells us that she was a strong willed woman, but also extremely supportive of her husband. It is understood that Michell wanted his characters to be seen as real people with flaws just like the rest of us, but surely he didn’t want to actually put them in a bad light to be remembered.

The films really is very light, there is not a great deal of emotion to be felt about anything in it really. You don’t feel particularly drawn to any of the characters or feel any type of severity for their situations. The way screenwriter, Richard Nelson chose to write the relationship between Daisy and FDR and the way Michell chose to film it is so ridiculously lack lustre. Daisy talks about how much she cares for and misses FDR, but you can’t understand why. Besides being summoned whenever he is in town, their time together doesn’t really seem all that sentimental and there just seems like there is not chemistry between the two at all.

However, the acting is still very good. Bill Murray completely personifies FDR and Samuel West and Olivia Colman are both also very good. Laura Linney hasn’t been given much to work with and she does well from what she is given, but Daisy is not a very interesting character and Linney has certainly had better roles.

Visually, Hyde Park on Hudson is quite impressive with some beautiful location shots and wonderful cinematography. The musical score is also very good and very appropriate to the 1930’s.

This film had so much potential and would have benefitted from changes in the screenplay and production that would have allowed it to have more of an impact on an emotional level. It is an easy watch and a good little historical lesson, but not much more than that.

6/10