Spies in Disguise (2019) film review

Year: 2019
Running Time: 102 minutes
Directors: Nick Bruno and Troy Quane
Writers: Brad Copeland and Lloyd Taylor
Cast: (voices) Will Smith, Tom Holland, Rachel Brosnahan, Ben Mendelsohn, Reba McEntire, Mark Ronson, Carla Jimenez
Spies in Disguise is now in cinemas everywhere thanks to Walt Disney Studios and 20th Century Fox.

Spies in Disguise is a typical action-thriller starring Will Smith as a special agent, but with a plot so ludicrous that it could only be an animation. However, this film by Nick Bruno and Troy Quane is an absolute comedy riot with the suspension of disbelief that animation provides. While it does not prove to be a family film that will definitely stand the test of time, Spies in Disguise is a solid effort that works as, but not far beyond, a silly, basic comedy with some very amusing animal characters.

A film about an underestimated tech officer in a top secret agency turning the world's most successful spy into a pigeon would have been a hard pitch to make in Hollywood. The one sentence summary itself  both manages to combine the cliche of the unlikely team working together to save the world and also an idea so ridiculous that couldn't possibly be carried forward with any seriousness. Lance Sterling is the spitting image of Will Smith, the man who lends his voice to the character, with his tall, mysterious and handsome demeanour, while his unlikely partner-in-crime, Walter (voiced by Tom Holland) is about a foot shorter by animation standards, awkward and invisible by comparison. This mismatched protagonist combination is ridiculously overdone and basic, and Smith and Holland are consequently playing themselves.

Thankfully, in an accidental effort to disguise Sterling and protect him from being arrested for a crime he didn't commit, Walter turns him into a pigeon. Had Spies in Disguise not have taken this turn and not included these common birds of a feather, it would have been a very dull film and would not have appealed to the family demographic at all. Unfortunately, even with these hilarious birds, there are still many parts in the film which young children will find dull and will lose interest.

There may only be one talking pigeon in this film, but the other pigeons provide many comedic moments. Spies in Disguise brings to light certain parts of a city pigeon's personality making them seem a great deal more amusing than how they are usually perceived. It is no coincidence that Walter's favourite animal/bird just happened to be a pigeon. Pigeons are birds which are often not taken much notice of and dismissed or ignored frequently. More often than not, they are treated as pests. For this reason, they are birds which are perfect as secret agents or as a character on the run as their intelligence is underestimated and they can sneak through places unnoticed. Of course, how many times have you seen a pigeon in a mall or a fast food restaurant? It's amusing, but you never believe they really know what they are doing there. Spies in Disguise makes you question this thought.

Writers Brad Copeland and Lloyd Taylor have done a wonderful job of looking at all the ways the pigeons could bring the laughs to the film and have succeeded. The humour is wound tightly around an otherwise mediocre screenplay and this makes Spies in Disguise a solid holiday film. The downfall of these pigeons being so entertaining and amusing is that they are make the human characters of the film look even more dull and unforgettable. The animation is well done, but the human characters lack the originality and emotional punch to allow this film to make a real impact.

Spies in Disguise is fine as a school holiday film, but it is unfortunately not one that will keep children enthralled for it's entire run time. The star of the show are the pigeons, which is highly unexpected, even though it is definitely welcomed.

6.5/10

Frozen 2 (2019) film review

Year: 2019
Running Time: 103 minutes
Directors: Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee
Writers: Marc Smith, Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez (story), and Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee (screenplay)
Cast: (voice) Kristen Bell, Idina Menzel, Jonathan Groff, Josh Gad, Sterling K. Brown, Evan Rachel Wood, Alfred Molina, Martha Plimpton

Frozen 2 is now showing in the United States and opens in Australia on November 28, 2019. 

Frozen 2 is not only an absolute delight with it's charm and stunning animation, but it unexpectedly debunks the "happily ever after" myth that Disney themselves so actively promoted with their earlier films. Rather than following the usual formula of such a sequel, Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee's follow up to their 2013 phenomenon is a coming of age story that tackles the inner-turmoils many of us feel when wrestling with change, trusting ourselves and finding the strength to keep going in the darkest of times.

The wonderful thing about Frozen 2 is that despite it's inherent fairy-tale nature, it is far more relatable, passionate and inspirational than anyone would have ever thought possible. Anna and Elsa, voiced once again by Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel, are two of the most popular, if not the most popular Disney princesses with little girls of this generation and with good reason. They are of course marketable, especially Elsa with luscious locks and her gorgeous and regal dresses, but the girls and their feelings are also very real and their issues incredibly human..

It is common protocol for fairy-tales to end on the high note of "and they lived happily ever after", which is always a comforting and reassuring notion that this may be possible for you if it was for Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Belle, Ariel and many others. However, it is also common knowledge that "happily ever after" is an unrealistic concept that once tainted our little minds. Reality is filled with ups and downs, left and rights that contort the original pathway that we set for ourselves. If Frozen gave us a "happily ever after", Frozen 2 gifts us with the very real notion that nothing is ever perfect forever and we must courageously embrace and accept change.

One of the first musical numbers in Frozen 2, "Some Things Never Change" (sung by Kristen Bell's Princess Anna) is an indication of the direction the film will head as it is very tongue-in-cheek, much the same as "Love is an Open Door" was in the 2013 film. Both the princesses in the film are victims of the system and are unknowingly so. The two spend a great deal of time doing what they believe is right, but not what they believe is true in their hearts. While this may seem like a basic formula for a family film and something that a Disney film would have traditionally dealt with as lightly as possible, there are some very deep thoughts and ideas presented that are as important for children as for adults.

Despite Elsa saving the day and regaining her seat as Queen of Arendelle, she still feels as though she does not belong and is searching for someone or something that will give her all the answers. Now, low self esteem is not something that Disney generally deals with, but that is exactly what is happening here. In the first Frozen, we witnessed Elsa as a young girl being hidden away from the world by her parents because she has been told that she is different and dangerous. She is finally brought into the eye of the world and saves the kingdom and her sister, but in only a fairy-tale would that be the end of Elsa feeling like an outsider or like there is something wrong with her.

Of course, she would have recurring feelings of not fitting in or feeling like she is doing something wrong.  Thankfully, the sequel arrived to correct this wrong as it is damaging (and unfortunately, very common) to believe that one event will cure all your destructive inner dialogue. We all know Elsa is amazing, and even Anna says to her "I wish you could see yourself the way I see you", but she continues on her dangerous quest to find out who she really is despite Anna being against this as it would mean change.

Change is a thing that many people are frightened of, and will often go to great lengths to avoid. Although Elsa knows within herself something must change in order for her to find peace within herself, Anna is terrified of change as she is worried she will lose her sister again. Both Anna and Elsa were forced into change when their parents died and their loss and grief is looked at more in this film than in the first. Anna speaks for the first time to Mattias (Stirling K. Brown) about her dark days and ponders how you keep going in those times, which is something we all feel at one time or another. His response is perfect, "You just put one foot in front of the other".

In earlier Disney films and even in Frozen itself, these issues are avoided where "happy ever after" is concerned. However, it is a wonderful thing that Frozen 2 breaks down this myth and reminds both children and adults alike that your "ever after" requires change, resilience and acceptance to be happy and that things will never be smooth sailing.

Another thing that Frozen 2 does to avoid the usual sequel formula, is that it doesn't take the things that worked in the original film and exhaust their appeal. There are several similarities between the first film and the second, such as another big theme song as sung by Idina Menzel in "Into The Unknown" and the sparkly and incredibly stunning visuals of the mountains and forest. Olaf (as voiced by Josh Gad) was an absolute winner with audiences the first time round, and he returns and brings the biggest laughs of the film. It would have been so easy to have overdone his character this time around (eg. the Minions after their success in the first Despicable Me), but his screen time is not overdone in the slightest. Another character who really has his moment in Frozen 2 is Jonathan Groff's Kristoff. Kristoff was the good guy in Frozen, but his character and his love for Anna are fleshed out in this film, complete with his 'Lost In The Woods" power ballad. He steals the heart of everyone watching the film when he asks Anna what she needs from him, which is what everyone wants their partner to ask.

Frozen 2 is an absolutely wonderful follow-up to the 2013 film. It avoids the usual pitfalls of a sequel, and uses being a sequel as an opportunity to continue the story in the most relatable, moving and human way as possible for both children and adults alike.

8.5/10

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) film review

Year: 2019
Running Time: 118 minutes
Director: Joachim Rønning
Writers: Linda Woolverton (story and screenplay), Micah Fitzerman-Blue (screenplay) and Noah Harpster (screenplay)
Cast: Angelina Jolie, Elle Fanning, Michelle Pfeiffer, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sam Riley, Harris Dickinson, Robert Lindsay, Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, Lesley Manville, Ed Skrein
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil  will be released on October 17, 2019 and is distributed by Walt Disney Pictures. 

Following on from the 2014 film about one of the scariest, if not the scariest and most infamous Disney villain of all-time, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil continues the live action fairy-tale with a new story in the Sleeping Beauty universe that speaks to the world we live in. With it's spectacular visuals and seemingly simplistic story that will delight children and entertain adults, the film by Joachim Rønning is deeper than it would have you believe with it's themes of inclusion and gender equality, and obvious parallels to current world events.

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil continues the tale of the misunderstood Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) and her goddaughter, Aurora (Elle Fanning) by keeping the re-imagining of Sleeping Beauty a story that is gloriously drenched in feminism, something the Disney 1959 absolutely was not. While the original animated film had a large number of female characters and outnumbered male characters, the clear message of the film was that women are the weaker sex that are there to raise and nurture (as seen by the fairies), but are also to be feared (Maleficent) as they are easily tempted by evil (Aurora and the spinning wheel). In the end, it is the man who will save the woman from herself.

2014's Maleficent was Disney's opportunity to undo this injustice and they did not waste this. While Jolie's Maleficent took on maternal qualities, she was also the one to save Aurora while the men in the film took the role as the villain (Sharlto Copley's Stefan), the follower (Sam Riley as Diaval) and the prince who did not have the power to break the spell and save his princess (Brenton Thwaite's Prince Phillip). It was about realising that our true love is not always a romantic love, but rather the love of a family member or friend. The film also presented a more sympathetic side to Maleficent by providing her origin story and making her far more likable and the hero of the story.

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil continues with it's feministic retelling of the beloved, but flawed Disney classic with it's strong female characters who drive the story. Much to her godmother's dismay, Aurora finally says yes to marrying her Prince Philip (recast as Harris Dickinson) and two kingdoms are set to be united. However, it soon becomes evident that her new mother-in-law, Queen Ingrith's (Michelle Pfeiffer) intentions are not quite as honorable as her son's and she is not prepared to be at peace with Maleficent and the Moors.

It is true that these three lead characters are not quite as fleshed out as they could be, with Jolie's Maleficent being restricted by the screenplay and being not be able to truly showcase the thrilling and charismatic character she has made her own. Fanning's Aurora is also subdued and controlled, but also quietly unflinchingly strong. Pfeiffer is also a brilliant addition to the cast with another strong female character, but again wavers on the edge of giving her character true depth because of the whimsical nature of the screenplay. Her character of Queen Ingrith is not interested in the joining of the two kingdoms, but rather the destroying of a race which she believes is not equal to that of the humans. She exhibits qualities that are not unlike that of a dictator and in particular, that of Hitler and his attitude towards the Jews. Her views and actions in the film are similar to those of his and other current world leaders when it comes to those who are deemed different on the basis of race and religion. Along with gender equality, the message of inclusion and acceptance is a much talked about topic in society today and comes through in the film.

However, Maleficient, Aurora and Queen Ingrith are not only strong characters, but also strong leaders and the male characters merely take to shadowing these three. The fact that these three are leaders rather than the male characters (despite two of the main male characters holding royal titles) shows how gender equality has been worked into this extended Sleeping Beauty universe.

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil's screenplay, which is written by Linda Woolverton, Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster, is deceptively flimsy and whimsical. While this is an inherent trait of the large majority of Disney fairy-tale films, it is commendable how it says so much while it appears to be simplistic and a typical family tale of good and evil. What the film also does so well is deliver incredible cinematography and breathtaking visuals, specifically those of the Moors and the Kingdom (especially in the later scenes). The costume design by Erin Mirojnick is absolutely exquisite with entrancing variations of Maleficient's costume and breathtaking gowns worn by Aurora and Queen Ingrith.

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil may not pack the same punch that 2014's Maleficent did by way of it's lead character being as charismatic, but it continues with a story that is helping to bring to light issues that exist in the world today and promote the idea of inclusion as a way for us all to have a happy ever after.

7/10

Cars 3 (2017) film review

Year: 2017
Running Time: 109 minutes
Director: Brian Fee
Writers: Brian Fee, Ben Queen, Eyal Podell and Jonathan E. Stewart (story by), Kiel Murray, Bob Peterson and Mike Rich (screenplay)
Cast: (voices) Owen Wilson, Cristela Alonso, Armie Hammer, Chris Cooper, Nathan Fillon, Larry the Cable Guy, Bonnie Hunt, Kerry Washington

Cars 3 is now in cinemas everywhere and is distributed by Walt Disney Studios.

Disney Pixar has completely redeemed it's popular Cars franchise, by allowing Cars 3 to be exactly what Cars 2 should have been and goes even further than this.

The third film in the popular Disney Pixar Cars series captures the essence of the original film, but brings to life new, intriguing characters who bring with them important and relatable themes. Cars 3 also surprisingly takes a stand by breaking down gender stereotypes in a quiet, but highly effective way. For this reason, Cars 3 may actually even be superior to the original.

Brian Fee has proved to be the perfect person to take over the Cars franchise from John Lasseter, who co-directed the first two films with Joe Ranft (Cars) and Brad Lewis (Cars 2). Fee and his team of writers have successfully identified what made the first film a success and what gave the second film the unenviable reputation of being known as the worst Pixar film so far. Cars 3 embraces the themes of remembering where you come from and kindness to others that resonated during the first. It also brings back the excitement of the world of high speed car racing that runs parallel to quiet moments of reflection in quiet, rural towns.

However, the Lightning McQueen (once again voiced by Owen Wilson) we meet here is a much different race car compared to the character he once was in the previous films, as he exhibits in the very first scene when he questions himself saying his usual "I am speed" mantra. While he is still regarded by many as a champion, he is falling behind as new and improved race cars are making their way into the competitive arena. He is labelled and ridiculed by many as the old guy, especially by the new and cocky Jackson Storm (Armie Hammer).

It is a situation that will ring true for many. As our world progresses, it is not only sportsmen that are finding themselves in the shadows of younger competitors, but people in any industry. There are new products being developed and people are being made redundant as their positions are being dissolved. What Lightning McQueen reminds us is not to give up without a fight. However, at the end of the day, there is always a Plan B as he finds thanks to Cruz Ramirez (as voiced by Cristela Alonzo).

Disney has always been a champion for strong women in their animated films. What makes Cruz Ramirez different to the strong female characters that have come before her is that she is a girl in the racing world which is primarily a male domain. However, this is not the only that that is ground-breaking about the character of Cruz. She is a trainer who has always had dreams of becoming a racing car, but those around her made her doubt herself by encouraging her not to reach too high.

The beautiful thing here is that her gender is never once addressed. It is never said that she is discouraged based on her gender. This is the right way to break down gender stereotypes in cinema. We have also seen this recently in Wonder Woman , where Gal Gadot's Diana takes it on herself to save the world and is the only female fighting in the trenches. Yet, no one in the film speaks of how she shouldn't be doing these things based on her gender. As both Cars 3 and Wonder Woman prove, gender stereotypes are broken down when they are not directly addressed in the film. Gender equality is achieved when gender is no longer questioned.

Cars 3 is deceptively simple. There is plenty for young families to enjoy with it's stunning, colourful visuals and basic themes, but there are also themes of greater depth built into the story which makes it as important for adults as it is for children.

7/10

Power Rangers (2017) film review

Year: 2017
Running Time: 124 minutes
Director: Dean Israelite
Writers: Haim Saban (based on "Power Rangers" created by), Matt Sazama, Burk Sharpless, Michele Mulroney and Kieran Mulroney (story by), John Gatins (screenplay)
Cast: Dacre Montgomery, Naomi Scott, RJ Cyler, Ludi Lin, Becky G., Bryan Cranston, Elizabeth Banks, Bill Hader (voice)

Power Rangers is now showing in the United States and Australia. Distributed by Roadshow Films in Australia.

In yet another 2017 action reboot,  the goofy and self-important Power Rangers attempts to target the teenagers of today, while at the same time unintentionally neglecting their first and loyal generation of fans.

Jason Scott (Dacre Montgomery) was always the cool kid at school, until a mindless prank ruins his future chances of doing anything incredible while he is still a senior. During his time in detention, he meets the recently outcast Kimberly (Naomi Scott) and eccentric Billy (RJ Cyler). His unlikely new friendships with these two lead the three of them to uncover the site of an ancient alien spacecraft, along with other fellow students Zack (Ludi Lin) and Trini (Becky G.). The five discover that they have been chosen to be the five Power Rangers who are to help Zordon (Bryan Cranston) protect the world from the evil Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). First, they must learn to work together to become who they are meant to be.

Power Rangers, which is based on the 1990's television show "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers", is stuck in a time-warp believing that it is still primarily targeting the same young audience that it once was. However, with taking on a project like this, director Dean Israelite and screenwriter John Gatins have an inbuilt responsibility to also cater for the faithful who were fans of "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers" in their childhood. As a result, Power Rangers works rather well as a film for teenagers with it's simplicity, basic dialogue and themes, characters and stereotypes that are relatable for the high school demographic.

However, this clear vision of the filmmakers to make a superhero film about teenagers for teenagers neglects the majority of Power Rangers audience members....those who watched, loved and were faithful to the television show a good 20 years ago. These long time fans will find the film and it's screenplay a little too basic and silly to completely enjoy. While the action sequences are impressive, there are definitely not enough of them to make the film particularly fun or entertaining to adults who are used to watching more challenging action films brought to us by Marvel and DC. However, there are still reasons to believe that this fragment of the audience has not been completely forgotten as there are a number of shout-outs to the original television series, including the famous "It's Morphin time".

What has most noticeably changed from the 1990's Power Rangers is that the 2017 Rangers are more diverse than they have ever been....and this isn't in regards to race. The filmmakers have made sure that all teenagers who feel as though they are out of place in the world feel inspired by watching Jason, Kimberly, Billy, Zack and Trini. The five rangers are all considered misfits as they do not fit in at their school and in a very The Breakfast Club-esque turn of events, are all part of their school's Saturday detention. However, despite their inability to fit in, they all do incredible things. Most notable of these new special qualities are that of Billy having ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) and Trini being acknowledged as queer.

While it is absolutely a step in the right direction having a teenage queer superhero, there is too little done with this to make a real impact and truly feel ground breaking. Director Isrealite told The Hollywood Reporter that he wanted the moment that Yellow Ranger Trini subtly reveals to her new friends that she is not straight to encourage teenagers to believe that "That's OK". However, there is so much more that could have been done with this scene and it's aftermath that would have made it much more of a triumph for the LGBTIQ community, especially for it's younger members. In the scene where Trini "almost" makes her confession, it is still unclear whether she has just revealed her true sexual orientation or not. Israelite says in The Hollywood Reporter article that she is still confused and questioning (as many teenagers are at that point of their life), but this part of the scene seems too vague to be considered powerful. Again, it is no doubt that Trini being acknowledged as queer is a very positive step for both the action film genre and high school sub-genre, but it was an opportunity that deserved to be made more of.

Unfortunately for Becky G.'s Trini, her character development is exceptionally weak which is a travesty considering how pivotal her role is to the film and to cinema. The same can be said for Ludi Lin's Zack, as it is Dacre Montgomery's Jason, Naomi Scott's Kimberly and RJ Cyler's Billy who certainly have more screen time and as a result, their characters are dissected a great deal more. Montgomery, Scott and Cyler all do rather well in their roles and know their characters well enough to give convincing and well-rounded performances.

Elizabeth Banks' villainous Rita Repulsa is a great disappointment. When she first arrives into the modern day, she is truly terrifying. If she had kept the same twisted, ancient features she has in her first few scenes throughout the whole film, Power Rangers would have been a great deal more thrilling. However, the longer the film goes on, the more unintentionally comical and weak her character gets with some atrocious lines of dialogue. In her final scenes, she really is nothing more than a 90's young adult television show villain and this does nothing for the film.

The masses who will be flocking to see Power Rangers for a piece of nostalgia from their childhood will be disappointed with what they see. The film and it's story have not grown up with their audience and while there is a slight element of fun in the film somewhere, it is one of the more forgettable reboots and remakes.

4/10

Beauty and The Beast (2017) film review

Year: 2017
Running Time: 129 minutes
Director: Bill Condon
Writers: Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos
Cast: Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Kevin Kline, Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Stanley Tucci, Hattie Morahan

Beauty and The Beast is now showing everywhere and is distributed by Walt Disney Pictures.

Disney's second time round with Beauty and The Beast breathes spectacular new life into the much adored classic while always remaining lovingly respectful to the original fairy tale and animated original.

For a film that is so enchanting, whimsical and charming, it is incredible how much criticism and backlash Beauty and The Beast has received right through from it's initial announcement in June 2014 to it's recording breaking release in the United States last week and in Australia this week. While a film that has so far made over $460 million worldwide is clearly not being hurt by any criticism it has received, Bill Condon's Beauty and The Best certainly deserves to be defended from the unwarranted, meaningless and clueless backlash it has received.

While it is based on the original story written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve and revised by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont, the film is more so a live-action love letter to it's animated older sibling released by Disney in 1991. In the quaint French village of Villeneuve, Belle (portrayed by Emma Watson) is an outsider as even though she is beautiful, she is considered peculiar as she seems happier with her nose in a book than responding to Gaston's (Luke Evans) romantic advances. Her wishes for adventure are answered when her father (Kevin Kline) is captured by the terrifying Beast (Dan Stevens) in his castle and when Belle ventures to rescue him, she offers herself as prisoner in order for her father to be set free. During her period of stay, Belle finds herself strangely and increasingly drawn towards the Beast and she may be the one to set he and the enchanted members of his household free from their damning spell.

When Disney officially announced that it would be remaking one of it's own into a live action film, it was met with a great deal of scepticism. Since then, it has been met with the predictable backlash that occurs when a beloved family classic is remade. Much of the criticism has proved to have been unwarranted since the release of this film, but Beauty and The Beast has also attracted controversy for it's romanticising of Stockholm Syndrome (which is also completely predictable) and it's very brief "gay scene" (if you can even call it a scene). However, Disney deserves praise once again for overcoming the obstacles of the remake and also deserves defence against the controversy.

The inevitable question that had to be asked in June 2014 was "Why would Disney want to remake a near-perfect film?"

It's a valid question. When Beauty and The Beast was released in 1991, it became the first animated feature film to be nominated in the Best Picture category at the Academy Awards. It became an instant Disney classic and still remains a favourite Disney film for many, many people. Remakes are absolutely in fashion at the moment and it's not completely crazy to believe that Disney could have just fallen in step with this fad.

However, this is Disney we are talking about. The empire has had tremendous success turning their animations into live action (eg. Cinderella and The Jungle Book) and expanding the universe of their classics (eg. Maleficent and no doubt the upcoming Mary Poppins Returns). If there is one studio that could pull off this mammoth task of bringing Beauty and The Beast to the world of live action and coming away with a success, it is Disney...and they have delivered. That's not just in regards to the incredible box office earnings thus far either.

Beauty and The Beast is truly an exquisite piece of cinema that is absolutely beautiful to behold. Although it is not as grandly emotional, it is certainly touching and very family friendly. Did it need to be remade? Of course it didn't need to. However, Disney saw that the opportunity was there for it's 1991 film to be remade and use live action thanks to the advances in CGI to create something different and special. The CGI does incredible things for the film and helps to make memorable scenes from the original even more memorable and spectacular (including the pivotal dancing "Beauty and The Beast" scene and "Something There" in the snow). The CGI also brings such characters of Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) to life and gives them more refined and intriguing features than what we saw in the animation.

Whilst many will argue that this 2017 film is too much like the original, this is simply not true. One only needs to revisit the original to realise that there are many differences. There are many similarities there too, but with live action comes a whole set of new rules which need to be abided by which don't apply as much to animation. For example, character development is far more important in live action than it is in it's animated counterpart. This is a real treat for those who are fans of the 1991 original, as the characters of Belle, Beast and Gaston (to a lesser extent) are opened up. Although her singing voice may not be as powerful as one would hope for this role, Emma Watson does Belle great justice. She personifies what Belle is about and shows how her character truly is a modern girl in a time where she didn't belong. This does admittedly fit Watson's real life persona, but this character trait and her soft, but strong performance as Belle makes her a perfect Disney princess for these times.

The live action also obviously calls for a different mode of direction and bringing several of the musical numbers to life would have been no simple task. Bill Condon's direction of these Alan Menken, Howard Ashman and Tim Rice musical numbers (several of which were also adapted for this film) is superb and although animation can do a great deal with these songs, what live action gives the viewer is definitely more impressive, especially during "Belle" and "Gaston".

One issue that is always brought to light when Beauty and The Beast is spoken of is the presence of Stockholm Syndrome, which is the concept of the captured coming to feel empathy or developing strong feelings for their capturer through manipulation. It was only inevitable that this was going to arise with the release of this film. Also there is it predictable wrath of those who believe that Beauty and The Beast is dangerously sexist as it depicts a woman being captured and abused by a tyrannical beast. Both of these arguments are redundant here. Belle was never actually captured in this film nor in the original, as her father was captured and she demanded a switch. If there are similarities to Stockholm Syndrome (which there are very little when you look at the actual definition), that is the fault of the original story and not of the filmmakers. However, the condition wasn't even acknowledged until the 1970's so it is highly unlikely this was a theme on the intent in the original story. Beauty and The Beast has always been a romantic fairy tale about not judging a book by it's cover and this is the way it should be read.

Finally, the biggest and most controversial talking point in the past week has been the very brief acknowledgement of Gaston's sidekick, LeFou (played by Josh Gad) as homosexual. Several cinemas around the world have banned the film from being shown because of this inclusion. One can only imagine that the large majority of the outraged haven't actually seen the film, as what they are so up in arms about takes up only a matter of seconds in over two hours. There is absolutely nothing in these few seconds of screen time which is damaging, graphic or crude and all you would have to do is blink to miss it. This controversy is a massive overreaction and there are far more important things to be outraged about in this world rather than whether a Disney film has maybe 20 seconds where a man looks lovingly at another man.

Beauty and The Beast has overcome a great deal of scepticism to become a beautiful film that is an enjoyable and stunning companion piece to it's animated original. It's controversy is completely unfounded and should be enjoyed and praised for exactly what it is.

8/10

Trolls (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 92 minutes
Directors: Walt Dohrn and Mike Mitchell
Writers: Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger (screenplay), Erica Rivinoja (story) and Thomas Dam (based on the Good Luck Trolls created by)
Cast: (voices) Anna Kendrick, Justin Timberlake, Zooey Deschanel, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Russell Brand, Christine Baranski, Gwen Stefani, John Cleese, James Corden

Trolls is now showing in the United States and is to be released in Australian on December 1. Distributed by 20th Century Fox.

Like it's protagonist, Trolls is a crazily colourful explosion of sparkling optimism that is a whole lot of toe-tapping fun for the whole family.

Based on the dolls that were at their height of popularity in the 1990's, the trolls are a community of happy little creatures with crazy hair who live in the safe haven of Troll Village away from the hideous and troll-eating Bergens. When one of their parties becomes a little too loud, their cover is blown and several trolls are taken away to fulfil the wishes of King Gristle (voiced by Christopher Mintz-Plasse). The brightest and happiest of all the trolls, Poppy (Anna Kendrick) decides to venture behind enemy lines to rescue her friends and she decides to take her polar opposite, the pessimistic Branch (Justin Timberlake) with her. The two unlikely partners in crime take a journey which results in the two learning more about life and the real world off each other than they ever thought possible.

Trolls is definitely not a film for the extreme pessimists of the world with it's over-the-top, but pleasant mantra of happiness. It is a particularly simple film that doesn't say anything more than what is being said out loud, which is that happiness is always inside you. Of course this works well for the younger members of the audience, but the film is also enjoyable enough for adults not to crave anything deeper. Yet, again, some adults may find the film a little too overly optimistic for their liking and this is something that will vary according to the individual.

Directors Walt Dohrn and Mike Mitchell do not take the happiness theme lightly. Trolls is designed to have whole families leave the cinema with big smiles on their faces. Visually, the large majority of the film resembles a rainbow that has exploded, which is not a bad thing as Trolls really is beautiful to look at with it's amazing use of colour and all things pretty such a glitter bombs, cupcakes and long multi-coloured hair.

Then there is the uplifting musical score by Christophe Beck and executive music producer Justin Timberlake. Anyone who has heard the catchy Timberlake song "Can't Stop The Feeling" would have guessed the tone of the film without having to see it nor hear the rest of the soundtrack. The cast, which includes Timberlake, Anna Kendrick and Zooey Deschanel, have remarkable vocal talents which are on show with wonderful renditions of songs such as "True Colors", "The Sound of Silence" and "Hello".

There is no doubt that Trolls is definitely the most colourful and excitable film of the year. While some may find the film absolutely adorable, others who don't like feeling as though happiness is forced onto them will find it cringe-worthy.

7/10

Storks (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 90 minutes
Director: Nicholas Stoller and Doug Sweetland
Writer: Nicholas Stoller
Cast: (voices) Andy Samberg, Katie Crown, Ty Burrell, Jennifer Aniston, Kelsey Grammer, Anton Starkman, Keegan-Michael Key, Jordan Peele, Danny Trejo, Peter Helliar

Storks opens in Australian cinemas on September 22 and is distributed by Roadshow Films. Opening in the United States on September 23 and distributed by Warner Bros.

Much like the bird that is it's title, it feels as though Storks has completely flown under the radar this year. This new and original film has arrived in cinemas with perhaps not as much fanfare as other family animations which makes how enjoyable, hilarious, relatable and touching Storks is even more surprising.

You may have noticed that with so many other methods now available, storks no longer deliver babies. Instead, they deliver telecommunication devices from the online company, Cornerstore.com which is a great deal more practical. Workaholic stork, Junior (voiced by Andy Samberg) has just been offered the much coveted boss role , but first he has to fire the only human in the factory who was also the last baby that was attempted to be delivered, Tulip (Katie Crown). Junior and Tulip accidently re-discover and reactivate the Baby Making Machine leading to one little adorable baby being created. The two have to deliver this bundle of joy as quickly as possible so Junior can save his promotion.

Storks is a real breath of fresh air. With a completely original screenplay by co-director Nicholas Stoller, Storks takes a concept that doesn't seem overly interesting and makes it far funnier and more relatable than it should be. When compared to the other animated film that is currently in Australian cinemas for the school holidays, Storks gets right what The Secret Life of Pets got wrong. Both will entertain younger audiences just fine with their simple storylines and cute characters, but Storks will also completely win over older audiences.

Adults will find a great deal of enjoyment in watching scenarios unfold during the film that are so familiar to them as both workers and parents. Many of the amusing scenes in Storks are based on situational humour (which some younger members of the audience may not understand) with a slice of random humour in there for good measure. There will be no parent in the cinema who will not be able to see themselves in the film's characters at least once, especially when Junior and Tulip are attempting to get the baby to sleep and keep her asleep. Yet while these are the scenes that will make people chuckle, these are also the moments that will bring a tear to your eye as they are so touching. The ending is particularly true of this and anyone who has had to wait for a child to come into their life will be moved by the visuals accompanying Vance Joy's "Fire and The Flood". That adorable baby girl also shows the power cute babies have to make people go a bit silly at times.

Even if you are not a parent and feel that you cannot relate to this aspect of Storks, then you will definitely be able to relate to the workplace dynamics of Cornerstone.com. This idea of becoming the boss is one that is highlighted in the film. It's a job that everyone seems to want, but besides the usual perks like increased pay, so many people do not really know why they want to be the boss and cite that it "sounds cool" as their reason for wanting the job title. It's also not common etiquette to act excited when you are told you are boss, even though your brain is exploding. Then there is Pigeon Toady (as voiced by Stephen Kramer Glickman) who is the perfect embodiment of that over-the-top co-worker who is trying so hard to be friends that he is just creepy. Tulip's multiple personalities in the empty warehouse is also very amusing.

As cliché as it sounds, Storks really is a movie that the whole family can enjoy. It is a whole lot of fun with a load of laughs while still being moving and respectful.

8/10

The Secret Life of Pets (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 97 minutes
Directors: Yarrow Cheney and Chris Renaud
Writers: Cinco Paul, Ken Daurio and Brian Lynch
Cast: (voices), Louis C.K., Eric Stonestreet, Kevin Hart, Jenny Slate, Ellie Kemper, Albert Brooks, Lake Bell, Dana Carvey

The Secret Life of Pets is now showing in Australian cinemas and is distributed by Universal Pictures.

The Secret Life of Pets is a rather uncomplicated, sweet ode to those small, furry family members that younger audiences will relish, but it's simplicity will prove to be not enough to satisfy older audience members.

Ever wondered what your pets do at home all day by themselves? The Secret Life of Pets shows pet-owners the side of their cats and dogs which they don't get to witness. Most days their lives have a steady routine, but Max's (voiced by Louis C.K.) comfortable life with his much loved owner Katie (Ellie Kemper) is severely disrupted by the appearance of a new and much bigger dog, Duke (Eric Stonestreet). The automatic friction between the two leads to a most unforgettable day where new friends and enemies are made outside of their beloved home and in the big city.

While The Secret Life of Pets is solid and does not fail in what it sets out to achieve, it is a weak contribution to what has so far been a very strong year for animation. The film is extremely simple and straight forward as it is not saying anything more than what is presented on screen and in it's screenplay. For children, this easy to follow story line along with the cute and colourful characters will be extremely entertaining and enjoyable.

Yet for adults, it's simplicity will make it all seem a little "ho-hum". Not all movies need to be saying something to be liked or be entertaining, but the creative choices made within this somewhat original concept are too obvious and therefore lose a sense of surprise and enjoyment.

However, it would be both unfair and untrue to say that the movie is holds no enjoyment for adults. It is merely that it comes at a time when as film goers, we are expecting more from animated films. The Secret Life of Pets is definitely a treat for pet-owners. In particular, anyone who has ever come home after a long, hard day of work to their cat or dog will find the final scene especially heart-warming. Also, even though it is featured in the trailer, the most amusing part of the film and the most random is still the head-banging Poodle and the sofa-bouncing Chihuahua. It truly doesn't have much to do with anything which makes it even funnier.

Many of the characters in the film are still somewhat unoriginal in regards to the story, even though they are still charismatic in a cute and cuddly way. Kevin Hart as the villainous bunny rabbit, Snowball is a particular standout in the voice cast. He may not do a great deal vocally, but he does give Snowball a great deal of character. Without Hart providing his recognisable voice, the bunny would have been completely different. Jenny Slate is also a whole lot of fun as Max's admirer, Gidget.

The Secret Life of Pets is a fine film for families, but does not have enough depth and substance to make it memorable.

6.5/10

Pete's Dragon (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 102 minutes
Director: David Lowery
Writers: Malcolm Marmorstein (based on the screenplay by), David Lowery and Toby Halbrooks (screenplay)
Cast: Oakes Fegley, Bryce Dallas Howard, Oona Laurence, Robert Redford, Wes Bentley, Karl Urban

Pete's Dragon is now showing in the United States and will open in Australia on September 15. Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures.

Once again, another film enters cinemas this year that looks deceptively like a stereotypical remake. However, Pete's Dragon is only loosely based on the 1977 film of the same name with the only concrete similarity being that there is a boy named Pete who's best friend is a dragon named Elliot. Disney's new film has gone in the opposite direction of it's namesake and instead of remaking Pete's Dragon as the musical comedy it originally was, they have turned it into a family drama that is simple and quick, but incredibly sweet, loving and moving.

In the small Pacific northwest town of Mulhaven, there has always been stories of dragons in the woods, but with so little evidence they have never been proved to be much more than folklore. However, when a young, orphaned boy, Pete (Oakes Fegley) emerges from the wilderness, the town is shocked that he was able to stay alive living by himself for so long. Park ranger, Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) is able to earn Pete's trust and he confides in her about his best friend, Elliot, which challenges everything she and most of her family has ever believed.

While vastly different films, Pete's Dragon can be likened to the 2016 Ghostbusters. Both may be classified as remakes, but neither primarily aspires to replicate the original on a bigger and better scale as stereotypical remakes tend to do. In both cases, the filmmakers use the originals only as inspiration to do something new and different with the story and this is what should be done with remakes. A remake should be a product of seeing an original opportunity in an old idea.

Although the 1977 Pete's Dragon is loosely classified as a Disney classic, the Don Chaffey directed film which starred Sean Marshall, Helen Reddy and Mickey Rooney is considered mediocre at best. David Lowery's film may be a very different film to the original, but is so superior in it's production that it has the power to become the more referenced out of the two in years to come.

The 2016 Pete's Dragon is a truly surprising experience. While the film seems quite quick as it takes place over only two days and the story easy and straight forward, there is a great deal of power behind it's simplicity. The film is filled with so much love which is transcended onto the screen in the sweetest of ways so that it would take a cold heart to not be moved by Pete and his dragon. The audience feels an instant emotional attachment to the two unlikely friends as a result of splendid character development (especially that of Oakes Fegley's Pete) and wonderful casting and direction. This attachment formed between character and audience is one of the things which makes Pete's Dragon extremely moving. The soundtrack for the film is also beautifully utilised to give greater depth and understanding to the situations at hand.

In an age where CGI is such a dominant feature in mainstream Hollywood films, it takes something special to be truly surprised by the phenomenon these days. The CGI development of Elliot is outstanding, but not in the way it traditional sense. Elliot has been constructed with so much love that he is immediately likable and it is easy to forget that he is not a real being that is being filmed alongside Fegley. He is the perfect mixture of pet and best friend and while the idea of chemistry between an actor and a CGI created animal may seem impossible, it is certainly proved otherwise here.

This is a definite area of credit for Oakes Fegley. Acting alongside a CGI creation is often difficult and when this is so it transcends to the screen, but Fegley does a superb job of making us believe that he is really there with his best friend who just happens to be a dragon. Fegley's performance as Pete is one of the best by a young person of the year. Like Elliot, he is immediately lovable and empathetic. Fegley allows the audience to watch Pete go through some heavy emotions (such as hurt and grief, as well as the complicated notion of separation anxiety) in a way which is devastatingly real.

Bryce Dallas Howard also gives a performance which is just beautiful. Her portrayal of Grace is stunningly heart-warming and maternal. Robert Redford also does well as Grace's father, Meacham and makes the most of the screen time he is given. Karl Urban character of Gavin, who is the film's villain, is perhaps the only let down. He comes across as corny and over-exaggerated without a hint of real menace, which makes him a lousy nemesis to Elliot.

Who would have thought that in 2016 Pete's Dragon would be a loving family film that brings a tear to your eye on more than one occasion? What David Lowery has done with his film is truly wonderful and a perfect example of what a remake should be...inspired, but original in it's own way.

8/10

Finding Dory (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 97 minutes
Director: Andrew Stanton and Angus MacLane
Writers: Andrew Stanton and Victoria Strause
Cast: (voices) Ellen DeGeneres, Albert Brooks, Hayden Rolence, Ed O'Neill, Kaitlin Olson, Ty Burrell, Diane Keaton, Eugene Levy, Sigourney Weaver

Finding Dory is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed by Walt Disney Pictures.

The long-awaited Finding Dory is marvellously fun and sweet and whilst not being quite as emotionally powerful as Finding Nemo, basks in the glory of it's stunning visuals and colourful characters to remain highly entertaining and enjoyable.

We once again meet the endearing blue tang fish with the unusual ailment of short-term memory loss, Dory (voiced by Ellen DeGeneres) a year after she first meets her closest friends, clownfish Marlin (Albert Brooks) and his son, Nemo (Hayden Rolence). She is living a happy, fulfilling life in the reef with her friends until she quite abruptly starts to remember fragments of her forgotten childhood and realises that she was only very young when she became separated from her doting parents. Marlin and Nemo agree to join her on her quest to find her loved ones which will take them across the ocean to the California coast where they meet new colourful and quirky friends.

Finding Dory is an incredibly charming and sweet movie which takes the elements which made 2003's Finding Nemo work and replicates them, but perhaps not with the same intensity. Finding Nemo appealed to such a broad audience and remains a Disney favourite of many because of it's stunning animated visuals, wonderful characters and obvious, but adorably relatable themes. Finding Dory grasps the first two of these fan favourites almost as well as the first, but unlike Nemo doesn't have a human story gift-wrapped in tropical fish. The 2003 film was the story of a father knowing when to let go of his son, but also showing the power of parental love and instinct. Finding Dory is the reverse with Dory trying to find her parents in a situation caused by her memory loss which is far less relatable to the greater part of the audience.

It was the relatability of Finding Nemo that gave it the emotional edge that made it an instant Disney Pixar classic. While this aspect is missing from Finding Dory, it is still particularly strong in every other area. The film's location of the Marine Life Institute, an oceanic research facility with theme park elements allows writers, Andrew Stanton and Victoria Strause the freedom to be original with the screenplay and bring in a cast of new and enjoyable characters. The animation, much like the original, is absolutely stunning with the brilliant use of colour used to create the world under the sea and the life on the shore.

Ellen DeGeneres does a fine job in her second outing as the endearing Dory, but it is the new characters which steal the limelight. Finding Dory is flooded with new characters who have big, colourful personalities which are built on their physical characteristics and the stereotypes of their species. Dory's ability to speak whale is cleverly explained by introducing whale shark, Destiny (voiced by Kaitlin Olson) who has a sight problem as a result of her natural head shape. With Destiny comes Bailey (Ty Burrell), the beluga who believes he has been injured because of his head shape and has lost his self esteem as a result and cannot send or receive signals the way his breed of whale should. The sea lions (as voiced by Idris Elba and Dominic West) on the rocks outside the institute also provide a great deal of comedy relief.

True to the reputation of sequels, Finding Dory doesn't quite capture the all-encompassing magic of the original, but is nevertheless a sweet, pleasant experience that does entertain and delight.

7.5/10

Alice Through The Looking Glass (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 113 minutes
Director: James Bobin
Writers: Lewis Carroll (books), Linda Woolverton (screenplay)
Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, Sacha Baron Cohen, Alan Rickman, Rhys Ifans, Timothy Spall, Matt Lucas, Lindsay Duncan, Leo Bill

Alice Through The Looking Glass is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed by Walt Disney Motion Pictures

When one thinks about the thought process that must have taken place when deciding to do a sequel to the live action Alice in Wonderland, you could well imagine it would have been along the lines of
"Everyone else is doing it, why not?"

Alice Through The Looking Glass is a cross between a sequel and an en vogue origins film. Underneath it's somewhat monotonous yet very attractive abstract exterior, the film has some interesting and enjoyable character studies of those larger than life personalities made popular by Lewis Carroll in the 1800's. The Tim Burton directed 2010 film had people divided with many not enjoying the over the top spectacle created and the liberties that Disney took with the story and it's characters, while others were quite happy with the film's flamboyancy they felt it captured the true surreal nature of the original story itself.

In the second Disney live-action Alice film, James Bobin takes over the reins from Tim Burton who 's presence is still greatly felt throughout the film as he steps into the role as producer. Alice Through The Looking Glass does not have much in common with the book in which it is based on, "Through The Looking Glass and What Alice Found" by Lewis Carroll. In fact, the original Disney animated Alice in Wonderland in 1951 draws more inspiration from this book than this 2016 film does. Disney took great liberties with the 2010 film, which was not entirely a bad thing as it breathed new life into the story that has been adapted many times for film. These liberties continue into the new film which means that the only aspects of it that resemble the book are it's title and that Alice does, funnily enough, re-enter Wonderland through a looking glass.

Upon returning from her voyage as captain of the ship, the Wonder, Alice Kingsleigh (Mia Wasikowska) find herself still ridiculed for being a woman and is hardly taken seriously when trying to conduct business transactions. When she is starting to lose faith in herself and in the impossible, she is once again transported back to Wonderland through the looking glass and finds her friend, the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) in a terrible state. She is able to help him, but this requires going back in time and altering the past to stop Hatter falling into darkness in the future.

Once again, the great focus on the Mad Hatter in this film does feel as though the filmmakers are trying to maximise the use of Johnny Depp. This is not saying that Depp does a bad job, but it is not a particularly complicated performance either. The relationship with the Hatter that Alice has and had in the first film is far from what Lewis Carroll had in mind when he wrote the book and this is one of the things that audiences found and will find problematic. Had the Mad Hatter been played by anyone else besides Depp would his part in these two films been as large? Quite possibly not. Yet with Tim Burton at the helm in 2010 he was always the obvious choice for the role. Even without Burton, if one had to name the working actor who would make the best Hatter in a live-action Alice in Wonderland, Depp's name would have immediately sprung to mind. However, the right casting of an actor who is known for his quirky roles as one of literature's quirkiest characters still does not do much to ease the uncomfortable thought that the character was reimagined purely to suit him.

Had Alice Through The Looking Glass been purely an origins story about each of the characters and their backgrounds, it may have been a great deal more entertaining and enjoyable. The same can be said for if it was purely a sequel about what happened the next time Alice went to Wonderland. Yet it is the fact that it tries to do both of these things in one film that makes it weak as a whole. Bobin's film does try to be too many things which is where it's impact as a spectacle and as any type of emotional experience is lost. The flying back and forwards between time is not as much confusing as it is purely dizzying and irritating. However, the idea of Time being part man and part machine as portrayed by Sacha Baron Cohen is a clever one and is a great addition to the array of interesting characters that already exist in the film and makes the time travel bearable.

With the characters come many opportunities for emotion and depth, particularly with the Mad Hatter's inner torment and between sisters, the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) and the White Queen (Anne Hathaway). However, Depp, Carter and Hathaway do give the right amount of emotion for what is written into the story and none give a bad performance by any means, but any more tears or affection would actually seem out of place considering the lack of intensity in the film.

It is a shame because visually Alice Through The Looking Glass is extraordinary and often quite intense, particularly in the opening ocean scenes and when Alice is using the Chronosphere to transport herself back and forward through time. The production design for inside the world that is Wonderland and especially that of Time's castle is extraordinary and the use of colour is magnificent. Yet it is here in the visuals that Alice Through The Looking Glass's power is and not in the screenplay. Although screenwriter Linda Woolverton has attempted to make a film that is intended to be character driven, Bobin has neglected to take the time to allow the audience to sympathize and relate to the characters.

However, Mia Wasikowska should be complimented on her obvious growth as an actress since her breakthrough role as Alice in the 2010 film. Even from the very first scene, she is a great deal more powerful in her delivery than in Alice in Wonderland and like all leading ladies should be, gives the best performance out of anybody in the film. One thing that both the earlier film and this one have tried to do is install a sense of independence into Alice and make her a good role model for young girls, which is something that Wasikowska has been able to accomplish.

Any type of "Alice in Wonderland" adaptation is met with a certain sense of magic and despite the weak and busy screenplay, Alice Through The Looking Glass still maintains a whimsical air.

5.5/10

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