Aladdin (Guy Ritchie)

[Dukefrukem]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ2ODIyMjY4MF5BMl5BanBnXk FtZTgwNzY4ODI2NzM@._V1_.jpg

[Dukefrukem]

Oof. Why hire Guy Ritchie for this?

[Skitch]

Oof. Why hire Guy Ritchie for this?

Yeah, what a weird choice.

[Dukefrukem]

I had more time to think about this. As anyone here knows, I am an unabashed Disney fan. Most of the movies hold a very special place in my childhood, particularly the films that followed the Little Mermaid in 1989. Beauty and the Beast worked on every level for me (visually, the musical set pieces, the cast) . The Jungle Book worked for me as the emotional connection between the animals and Mowgli. Haven’t seen Dumbo yet. But Aladdin didn’t work on any level for me practically the awkward musical segments which are my favorite parts of the cartoon.

I would really like to understand why Disney thought Guy Richie was the right choice here. I usually like the pacing and editing that follows a Richie film; I thought he was the perfect choice for the Sherlock Holms franchise. But what are we to gain here in a Disney film? It almost feels like the studio took over creative control after principal. If I hadn’t seen the title card “A Guy Richie Film” I would never have guessed, he was involved.

The casting is my 2nd problem with this film; and this maybe because anyone following Robin William’s act as Genie is faced with an uphill battle, but it really felt like Will Smith was phoning it in. I would have preferred a much more ecstatic Will Smith but am I just reflecting from William’s take on the character? Maybe. There’s even a particular scene where genie gets offended by Aladdin when he decides not to use his third wish to set him free, and it didn’t feel convincing at all. The only casting that worked for me was Naomi Scott as Jasmine, but even her chemistry with Aladdin felt forced and inorganic. The “Do you trust me” portion felt shoehorned. The lack of Iago talking like a human also was disappointing. We’ve already established that magic exists, just make the parrot talk more.
The musical numbers; A Whole New World was the only one that felt genuine. One Jump Ahead was cut up into segments because the music couldn’t keep up with the actors on screen. Friend Like Me, Prince Ali were spectacles and contained a ton of dance numbers but stayed pretty grounded with the source material. And there was also an original song sung by Naomi Scott that felt powerful. I’ll have to revisit it on the soundtrack.

Overall, the biggest disappointment for me was the humor or lack of humor. I expected them to go NUTS with the Will Smith transforming into weird characters and play-on-words but it really was quite tame. The closest I got to laughing was Aladdin’s first interaction with Jasmine where Genie is whisper coaching him on what to say and Aladdin is coming across very nervous and says some inappropriate things to a princess.

I’m still highly anticipating Lion King (CGI animals), but definitely not looking forward to any human-live action Disney films at this point.

Richie's worst.

[MadMan]

Yeah, what a weird choice.

I agree with you both. Maybe he did this so he could finally get Sherlock Holmes 3 off the ground? I donno.

[Mal]

Naomi Scott is wonderful, and Mena Massoud isn't so bad himself. But goodness, this is some stale bullcrap. Will Smith operates between charming and likely pained to be doing this material (same for Nasim Pedrad who is a good sport). Everyone else in this film is terrible, suffering through the choices the studio made to clean up the questionable lyrical content and overall message of the film (which includes FEMALE EMPOWERMENT!!). I did really like the leads.... woof this movie. Chintzy sad studio backlot. The best thing I can say about it overall is that it wasn't as wholly abysmal as Beauty and the Beast.

[Dukefrukem]

The best thing I can say about it overall is that it wasn't as wholly abysmal as Beauty and the Beast.

Beauty and the Beast was 10x this movie in every single category you can list.

[Mal]

Beauty and the Beast was 10x this movie in every single category you can list.

No, absolutely not. Beauty and the Beast is a goddamn travesty of a film.

[Ivan Drago]

This successfully replicated the energy of the original cartoon, the leads were good in their roles (Naomi Scott especially), and the production/costume designs are stellar. But Jafar was a weak villain this time around, it rushes through the emotional beats of the original and while some of the comedy, other attempts were REALLY hokey. Overall, while what was added to the narrative here adds something new to the iconic story, I kept thinking about how much better the ‘91 cartoon was...which I guess is the intention of these nostalgia-driven remakes, soooo mission accomplished?

[MadMan]

While I rather enjoyed this movie, had I not seen the credits I would have had no idea this was a Guy Ritchie movie. I did like the entire cast and Will Smith was a surprisingly good Genie.

I think Disney is running out of ideas again, but hey this movie was a huge hit so they'll worry later.

[Dukefrukem]

While I rather enjoyed this movie, had I not seen the credits I would have had no idea this was a Guy Ritchie movie. I did like the entire cast and Will Smith was a surprisingly good Genie.

I think Disney is running out of ideas again, but hey this movie was a huge hit so they'll worry later.

What about this movie was a good idea?

[Irish]

I dunno if I'd call it a huge hit. It did like "Amazing Spider-man 2" business --- the bare minimum a movie like this could do.

[Dukefrukem]

I dunno if I'd call it a huge hit. It did like "Amazing Spider-man 2" business --- the bare minimum a movie like this could do.

Definitely not a huge hit in the same vein that Beauty and Beast was. I expect those kind of numbers for the Lion King though.

[Peng]

I looked it up, and I think after Dumbo underwhlemed with 350m ww, Aladdin’s 875m (and still counting) must come off as both a relief and a hit. Also, Amazing Spider-Man’s 709m is quite significantly lower, no?

[MadMan]

What about this movie was a good idea?

It was a hit? Also the original really is one of the weaker ones from Disney's 80s/90s revival period. I thought this new one was an improvement.

[Irish]

I looked it up, and I think after Dumbo underwhlemed with 350m ww, Aladdin’s 875m (and still counting) must come off as both a relief and a hit. Also, Amazing Spider-Man’s 709m is quite significantly lower, no?

Semantics and preference on my part, but nothing is a hit unless it passes a billion.

All these branded tentpole movies have similar budgets and similar spends. They release into 10,000 theaters day and date, worldwide, after a $100MM campaign. So is it surprising they land in the same comfortable box office range? ~$800MM feels like it should be a gimme.

Not saying they're no outliers in either direction. But compare "Guardians of the Galaxy" to "Batman v Superman." Sometimes it's hard to tell the hits on box office alone, which was my point in bringing up "Amazing Spider-man 2."

[Dukefrukem]

It was a hit? Also the original really is one of the weaker ones from Disney's 80s/90s revival period. I thought this new one was an improvement.

No I dont think so. I think it's universally praised as top tier Disney aside from the fact that Robin Williams changed voice over work as we know it today.

[MadMan]

No I dont think so. I think it's universally praised as top tier Disney aside from the fact that Robin Williams changed voice over work as we know it today.

*Shrug* I don't care what critics think. Robin Williams carried the original movie imo.

[Skitch]

Animated Aladdin is top three Disney movies for me.