My Non-Review of The Lion King (2019)

     I'm not going to see The Lion King remake in theaters. I've had my mind made up about this for some time. I may or may not check it out when it is released on home video and streaming but I have no interest in supporting its theatrical run. As I have quite liked some (though not all) of the Disney live-action remakes, I felt the need to address this on my blog.

     First of all I have made an informal resolution to watch less Disney films in theaters. There are many reasons for this including the studio's promotion of abortion and other left-wing causes that I find distasteful (to put it mildly) but the main reason is that the corporation (calling it a studio is no longer really adequate) has gained an increasingly dangerous amount of monopolistic control over Hollywood in the last ten years. The acquisition of 20th Century Fox is what really clinched it for me. While many geeks celebrated what would (eventually) mean the entry of the X-Men and Fantastic Four into the MCU, I looked on in horror as the big six Hollywood studios became the big five. Consequently I have also felt compelled to support other studio releases (especially Warner Brothers) more often, not because they're not monopolies themselves (they are) but because Disney is the biggest and most dangerous at this point, so the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

     With that said I still go to see some Disney films in theaters. Marvel is certainly the biggest exception though I will also probably see whatever their next animated film is out of a (likely misplaced) sense of loyalty for what the studio used to be. But I skipped Mary Poppins Returns and have thus far avoided seeing Toy Story 4 and Spider-Man: Homecoming (my younger siblings will probably drag me to one or both eventually).

     So what is it about The Lion King in particular that impels me to give it a pass? Well, for one thing, I have a lot of affection for the original film (despite not having grown up with it) and I respect how formative it was for many who saw it at a young age. I also resent the cloying appeals to nostalgia that have become so commonplace in Hollywood today. Then there's the fact that, as their are no human characters in The Lion King, a "live-action" remake would really be a CGI remake and, unlike Cinderella or The Jungle Book, which were based on source material that could be further drawn from, The Lion King is a wholly original film. This, along with it's iconic status, seemed to make it likely that the film would be highly unoriginal.

One of these shots has atmospheric lighting, dynamic camera angles and
expressive facial animation. The other ... does not.

     All of this made me wary of the film from the moment it was announced. I held out a certain amount of hope because of the involvement of Jon Favreau who, in my opinion, did an excellent job with The Jungle Book. Perhaps this remake would resemble that film as opposed to Beauty and the Beast, which was essentially a shot-for-shot remake. But the release of the trailer made it pretty clear that this would not be the case. Then there was the Rotten Tomatoes video which compared the visuals of the trailer with shots from the original film showing "how much animation has evolved in the last 25 years" despite the fact that 1) hand-drawn animation and CGI are not remotely comparable and 2) it only served to highlight how bland and expressionless the new film looks in comparison to the original. This was the moment, I think, that I decided I was not going to see the film.

     Now, some might argue that there is nothing wrong with revisiting a beloved story with some new gloss. After all, tribute bands have been a thing for years and popular theatrical plays are revived time and time again. The difference is that plays and concerts are fleeting things. They exist only for the short moment in time that you are watching them. That some might want to recapture such moments is only natural. But film is a different thing. Like books they exist perpetually (as long as they are properly preserved) and, with all the benefits of modern home video technology, one can revisit them at any time. Because of this it seems rather pointless to remake a film that many people consider a peerless classic. If people want to see it on the big screen why not just re-release it? The 25th anniversary of the original release would have been a perfect opportunity to do this and indeed the studio did so two years ago to coincide with the film's 4k release.

     Of course the answer to all of these questions is rather obvious: money. Movie studios have long operated under the conviction that re-releasing a classic film (except in a very limited venue) was a waste of time unless something new was tacked on, whether that was new footage, 3D or updated special effects. Perhaps this explains, in part, why I'm spending more and more of my theater-going expenses on Fathom Events and other classic film series, as if in silent protest to this trend.

     In many ways this is all a natural consequence of my growing disdain for modern Hollywood. Gone are the days when big studios produced films with modest budgets for niche audiences (or even one as broad as a "family"). Now studio's feel the need to pander to the widest audience possible by appealing to nostalgia and vulgar brand recognition. It's hard to argue against this strategy as it has clearly paid off for the major studios but I no longer want to be a part of that equation. Perhaps instead I'll revisit the original film on Blu-Ray. I would invite my readers to do the same.

Saturday Evening Cartoons: Storks (2016)

Sorry I haven't posted in a while. I'd been busy getting ready for vacation (I went top Gettysburg a few weeks ago), prepping D&D adventures, and working on a major project I have coming down the pipeline but I watched this random animated movie so I figured I might as well review it...

     Storks was released on September 23, 2016. It is produced by Warner Animation Group (The Lego Movie) and written and directed by Nicholas Stoller and Doug Sweetland. In it Junior (Andy Samberg), the top delivery stork for Cornerstore.com, is about to become the new head of the company when Tulip (Katie Crown), an orphaned girl he's supposed to keep out of trouble, inadvertently activates the old Baby Making Machine, creating a baby girl. Desperate to deliver her before the boss (Kelsey Grammer) finds out, Junior and Tulip race to make their first-ever baby delivery.

     Storks is an interesting animal (excuse the bad pun). On the one hand it seems to have a refreshing message about the importance of family and child-rearing in an increasingly frenetic and corporate world. On the other hand this message can't help but feel a little suspect coming from a big budget studio film like Storks. Consider, for example, the film's climax. Hunter, Cornerstore's CEO, wanting to cover up that the company has created another baby and corners Junior and Tulip in the baby factory. To distract them, Junior activates the baby-making machine, causing it to produce hundreds of babies. In response, Hunter tries to use a giant crane to destroy the factory (and presumably the babies as well.) Now, the site of a corporate CEO trying to destroy a large group of "undelivered" babies might strike the pro-life Christian as being rather symbolic of the abortion industry but I doubt this was intentional.

     The real message of Storks is that parents (surrogate or otherwise) should place the needs of their families and children above economic advancement which is fine as it goes but, again, it feels a bit insincere at times. I have to admit however, that it's fairly well written, contrasting Junior's relationship with Tulip and Diamond with that between Nate (Anton Starkman), who ordered the baby in the first place, and his mother and father.

     The animation is quite good with some really expressive facial work and a lot of fun slapstick. The humor in general is on point with the funniest material provided by Stephen Kramer Glickman's Pigeon Toady, Junior's strange, awkward, nosy coworker, and the wolves played by Key and Peele. The film is well cast all around with Andy Samberg doing a fine job in the lead. His chemistry with Katie Crown's Tulip is reminiscent of old screwball romantic comedies (without the sexual element of course).  Kelsey Grammer is also hilarious as the sadistic CEO. Finally, Anton Starkman, Ty Burrell and Jennifer Aniston provide the film with a (relatively) relatable human element as the Gardner family.

     Another solid addition to modern Warner Animation (even if it will never again reach the creative heights of Chuck Jones and Tex Avery), Storks delivers (no pun intended) a funny and fairly heartfelt family film any accidental subtext notwithstanding.

Score: 8/10

Gods and Generals (2003) Film Review

I recently visited the Gettysburg National Military Park for the 156th anniversary of the battle. I also finally got around to watching Gods and Generals, the much maligned prequel to one of my favorite films...

    Gods and Generals was released on February 21, 2003. A prequel to the hit film Gettysburg it is based on the book of the same name by Jeff Shaara (son of the late Micheal Shaara whose Pulitzer Prize winning novel "The Killer Angels" was the basis for Gettysburg). Ronald Maxwell returns as the writer/director.

     The film chronicles the early part of the American Civil War (commonly described at the time as the War of the Rebellion or the War of Northern Aggression) prior to the Battle of Gettysburg. The extended cut (which is the version I saw) is split up into 5 parts: Manassas, Antietam, Fredericksbug, Moss Neck, and Chancellorsville. It focuses throughout on General Stonewall Jackson (portrayed by Stephen Lang who played Pickett in Gettysburg). Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (played again by Jeff Daniels) is introduced in Part 2, and we see him join the 20th Maine and fight at Fredericksburg along with his brother Thomas and the fictional sergeant Buster Kilrain (C. Thomas Howell and Kevin Conway both reprise their respective roles).

     As in Gettysburg the battle scenes are quite well done, giving the audience just enough information to follow the overall progress of each engagement and portraying the terrible loss of life exacted. This is where Maxwell and cinematographer Kees Van Oostrum really shine. The score, by Randy Edelman along with John Frizzle, is quite good as well, though occasionally a little overly bombastic and generally less consistent then Gettysburg.

     The performances too are quite strong, better, in some cases, then in Gettysburg. The returning actors (Daniels, Howell and Conway) all do a fine job, even if they've visibly aged ten years. Howell, in particular, feels more seasoned and confident in front of the camera then he did in Gettysburg. Robert Duvall is great as Lee, better then Martin Sheen in fact. While I like Sheen's Lee more then some, I have to admit that he lacks the presence and the gravitas to play the legendary general at times. Duvall brings these qualities to the role while still maintaining the characters sense of humanity. Stephen Lang really delivers despite being recast in a much more prominent role as General Jackson. He may not be as eccentric (or borderline crazy) as the historic Jackson but, as written, he puts in a great performance.

     The writing is a bit of a problem as Maxwell fills the film with too many heavy handed speeches and handles the drama with too much stiff solemnity. The characters never come to life the way they did in Gettysburg. Some of the fault for this may lie with Jeff Shaara but, as I haven't read his book I cannot comment on this. Another problem is that the issue of slavery is handled too delicately and the only black characters seen in the film, a house slave played by Donzaleigh Abernathy and General Jackson's Cook played by Frankie Faison, are loyal to the Confederacy. This is not a problem on its own, but portraying some rebellious slaves would have given the film some much needed balance. In general, the southerners are given much more focus in this film. Besides Lee, Jackson and the aforementioned black characters, the Confederate cause is also championed bu John Wilkes Booth (Chris Conner) in a distracting subplot that attempts to serve as a sort of Greek Chorus, but ends up coming across as pontificating and preachy. Chamberlain is the sole spokesman for the Union, and he's not introduced until almost an hour into the film.

     The biggest problem with Gods and Generals is that it is burdened with too much material. Four hours may have been sufficient (if just barely) to cover one, three day battle, but trying to cover the first two years of the war in that time is not really feasible. Consequently, the film can't decide whether to be a Stonewall Jackson Biopic, a character driven prequel to Gettysburg, or an overview of the breakout of the war. In the end, it doesn't quite succeed at any one of these things.

Score: 6/10