The Jungle Book (2016)

            Once again, we venture into the world of Disney animated films getting live action remakes. I’ve made my case before that I’m not too fond of the idea, because some of the previous attempts at doing this have turned out pointless and complete garbage, with the biggest offender being “Maleficent.” The only major exception we got out of this was Kenneth Branagh’s “Cinderella,” but that’s because the man is so well experienced with Shakespeare that he treated the project as such. Despite this, I still had no expectations for Disney’s next film, their remake of “The Jungle Book.”

            Based on the Rudyard Kipling books of the same name, the 1967 animated film follows the story of Mowgli, a man-cub orphan who is put under the watch of Bagheera the panther and Baloo the bear. As the years go by, Mowgli grows much attached to the jungle and doesn’t want to leave for the man-village, despite the threat of Shere Khan the tiger. Sure, the animation wasn’t great and a few songs are very forgettable, but it’s the characters and morals that make the film stand out the most. While the film isn’t the most faithful adaptation of Kipling’s novel, the film stands as its own little thing and is one of the most memorable Disney films, especially since it was the last film that Walt Disney was associated with before he died in 1966.

            So handling a live action remake of this film would need great care and attention given. Sadly, Disney failed at honoring that…in 1994. Yeah, most people may not know this, but there was already a remake of “The Jungle Book,” made back in 1994, directed by Stephen Sommers and starring Jason Scott Lee. And it was pretty bad. If you want to know more about that adaptation, go and watch The Blockbuster Buster’s review of it on Dailymotion.

            Now with Jon Favreau’s adaptation taking the scene in theaters, it’s obvious that only the original animated film is being honored and not the book. For those of you that wanted to see a true faithful telling of the book, don’t worry about that. There’s another film directed by Andy Serkis coming out in a couple of years, so maybe you’ll get a true telling of the story then. But going back to the Favreau film, does it honor the animated film, or at the very least surpass the 1994 film? Well, I’m happy to report that the new film is not only good, it’s really good. In fact, I found myself having a grand old time watching this film.

            One of the worries I had about the film was it being filmed entirely on a set with blue screen, instead of being filmed on location and used with practical effects like I would prefer it to be. Much to my surprise, the effects were done really damn well. It actually looked like a real jungle with animals that inhabited it. It’s really nice to see a film use CGI and take the time and effort to make sure it looked its absolute best, as opposed to other films nowadays that half-ass it for absurd reasons.

            Neel Sethi plays Mowgli, and I was really impressed with this kid’s acting chops. He really gave it his all, playing a child that was raised in the jungle under the guidance of wolves, a panther, and a bear, especially since he had to work off of characters that he couldn’t actually see. I hope that he steers in the right direction if he does continue acting, because there is a lot of potential with this kid.

            As for the voice cast, I was really impressed with what they did. Despite being mostly celebrities, they really did a good job making these voices feel like they belong to these characters, and not sound like actors in a recording booth phoning it in. Bill Murray as Baloo was such a lovable guy, but made it feel different from what Phil Harris did in the animated film. Sure, he can be a bit selfish at times, but you still grow to like him despite those little moments. Plus, you do see the concern he has for what happens to Mowgli, as the two grow towards each other. Bill Murray really did a great job with this performance, and I couldn’t be happier to say that. Ben Kingsley as Bagheera was such a perfect casting choice. The stern parental role really stuck throughout, and the tone brought about in the performance was just as strong as it should be. Sebastian Cabot would be proud. Idris Elba as Shere Khan was another great vocal performance, and one that also fully embraced the character. A threat, a villain, a ferocious tiger that doesn’t take opposition lightly. That is who Shere Khan is, and this film got that right perfectly.

            Now with what they did that was really good here, there were two things that did bother me quite a bit. For one, the scene where Mowgli encounters Kaa, played by Scarlett Johansson, did feel like a big exposition dump, especially with the narration during it. It wasn't a bad scene, it just felt like it could have been re-worked a bit better. My second problem with the film were the song numbers. I mean, the scene with Baloo humming “The Bare Necessities” in one scene was fine, but when they’re singing that in the river or when King Louie sings “I Wanna Be Like You,” it felt a bit out of place. It wouldn’t have been a problem if they only played them in the end credits, since they did that with “Trust in Me,” but to throw those two songs in the film and no others felt really distracting. Although, I will admit I got a kick out of Christopher Walken singing as a giant ape…that’s something I had to write down.

            Aside from that, Jon Favreau’s “The Jungle Book” is a film I highly recommend seeing. If you’re a fan of the original animated film, you’ll have a great time watching this. The production value is stunning, the acting is fantastic, and it’s an overall great film to watch.

Rating: 9/10

Hardcore Henry

            Gimmicks tend to go in either of two directions: either they catch on with people complaining about how they’re everywhere, or they happen once, and then disappear instantly. Whether they’d be with 3D, CGI, or D-Box seating, the success of these gimmicks depend on how well it blends with the film it goes with. And today, another gimmick is tested in the newest action film, “Hardcore Henry.”

“Hardcore Henry” is about a guy who takes part of a top secret experimentation that’s turned him into a super fighting android, but realizes it’s for a corrupt terrorist who wants to take over the world with an army of androids. Henry escapes, and teams up with a former worker of the mastermind, Jimmy, so they can take him down and get Henry’s wife back.

            This film was done as a follow-up to a 30 minute short film, where it was entirely shot on a Go-pro camera, and the creators decided to take the risk of making it a feature film. It’s a fairly simple plot, but the film’s not trying to be anything else different. The best way to describe this film is that it’s “Robocop” meets “The Raid” meets the game “Mirror’s Edge.” A man turned into a super weapon, with impressive martial arts skills, and all through the main character’s perspective.

Does this gimmick work for the film? In my view, it does. I was highly entertained by this movie, and I think the main selling point was the trailer using the song “Don’t Stop Me Now” by Queen (the song’s in the movie too, so I’m really happy about that). For the most part, the character that we interact with the most is Jimmy, played by Shartlo Coopley. He takes on the role of Henry’s guide through the journey that takes on many different forms. He really does have a lot of energy in this performance, one minute being completely serious but then immediately change his tone at a coin toss. Hell, the scene where he sings “I’ve Got You Under My Skin” by Frank Sinatra, only to immediately get serious later on is a prime example of that.

            If I had any complaints about the film, it would mostly be with it being a movie. Why? Well, if the project itself was done as part of an Oculus Rift project, sort of virtual reality, it would have played out better. Since he doesn’t talk, Henry himself isn’t that much of an interesting character. We only know that he got picked on as a kid, lost his memory, and become part of this experimentation. I get that it’s done to make the audience feel like they themselves are Henry, but it’s a movie, so it doesn’t have the same effect. Plus, some of the shaky cam does get in the way, especially in the beginning before we meet Jimmy. That, and the villain isn’t that interesting; we don’t even get an explanation for how he got his telekinesis.

            Complaints aside, the film is still a fun ride. If you’re in the mood for a live-action video game movie experience, then you won’t be disappointed with “Hardcore Henry.” My only concern is that the P.O.V. gimmick might catch on, and I don’t want that. Let “Hardcore Henry” stand on its own, and be the only film to have its glory.

Rating: 8/10

The Divergent Series: Allegiant

            As we continue on in this generation, the YA franchise craze still rages on. With “The Hunger Games” officially over and the “Harry Potter” series returning to theaters this November with “Fantastic Beasts,” the other struggling franchises: “The Maze Runner” and “Divergent” continue on to fill the void until then as best they can. The latter of which is today’s topic.

            The first “Divergent” film, directed by Neil Burger, told the origins of a dystopian Chicago, where the citizens are divided into factions: the Abnegation (selfless), the Amity (peaceful), the Candor (honest), the Dauntless (brave), and the Erudite (intellectual). When it comes time for Tris Prior, played by Shailene Woodley, to be chosen into a faction, she comes out as Divergent, meaning she fits all the attributes, but that could cause chaos among the city, so she hides out as a Dauntless. For the first film in a franchise, it actually does a damn good job establishing this world really damn well, and how it handles Tris’s character is really neat. It did have some major drawbacks, especially with Jai Courtney, but it was still pretty decent. Plus, you had some great supporting young actors like Miles Teller, Ansel Elgort, Theo James, and Zoe Kravitz to work off of.

            The second film, “Insurgent,” directed by Robert Schwentke, showed the characters on the run from the authorities after finding out about Tris being Divergent, with the leader, Jeanine, having plans for Tris to open a cube that holds the future to the city. While there were some nice improvements in the production value and the cinematography, the film maintained a decent balance from the first film. Not much was different from the first film in terms of quality, but I did manage to enjoy it slightly more for one major reason…we got to see Jai Courtney’s character die. Good, now he’s out of the rest of the films.

            And much like previous YA franchises, the last book had to be separated into two movies. Look, it made sense with “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” but since then other franchises are just doing it for money. However, with “Allegiant,” it wouldn’t matter if it was one film or two, because it would still be bad. Yeah, not going to beat around the bush here, “Allegiant” is not a good movie.

            After the death of Jeanine in the last film, the prisoners are left with that message about how the whole fractions thing was just a test and that they were waiting for a Divergent to emerge sooner or later. However, Evelyn Eaton, Four’s mother and the new ruler of Chicago, tells the citizens to stay put until further notice. So as you’d imagine, Tris, Four, Caleb, Peter, and Christina escape over the wall and find the people beyond the wall, leaving Evelyn and Johanna to go to war with each other. When brought to the Bureau of Genetic Welfare, Tris meets David, the leader of the Bureau, who tells her that her Divergence is completely pure and is what they need to help the others considered damaged. But as you’d suspect, some shady shit is going down.

            As you’d imagine, the story has now reached the point of “what the fuck is this?” and it definitely shows. Trying to explain it after seeing it doesn’t necessarily help, because it makes you realize just how stupid this series has gotten so quickly. The whole point of the first movie was that someone divergent was dangerous to the fractions, then the second one says the divergent was a key to the secrets of why we were here for so long, and now this film tells us that the fractions are important to get more divergents, but Tris is the only pure divergent and not four…okay, I need to stop, my head’s starting to hurt just thinking about it.

            Despite being the third film in this series, you can tell that most of these actors are phoning it in, even Shailene Woodley and Theo James. Every time either of them show up on screen, they look as interested to be here as the audience who paid to see this movie. Even for young talents as this, they’ve reached a point where they’re just doing this for an easy paycheck. Same can be said for the rest of the cast, even with big name actors like Naomi Watts, Octavia Spencer, and Jeff Daniels. Daniels in particular acts like he doesn’t give a shit about this movie, using a monotone voice throughout the entire film, and barely showing an ounce of emotion. It’s like he’s thinking “I was in two Oscar nominated films last year. What am I doing here?” Also, for someone who runs a station that has been wiping the memories of children, why did the soldiers do it in front of Four when he’s on patrol with them? Trust me, there’s a lot of other dumb shit that’s too stupid to explain.

            Out of the entire cast, the only one who had some energy in this was Miles Teller. He was easily the best part about this movie, being such a snarky double-crossing asshole, but at least he was entertaining. It’s like he took some pointers from Nicholas Cage on how to steal the show in movies like this…in fact, a movie with Miles Teller and Nicholas Cage would be kind of cool to see. I’ll also say this: the production design and effects are still pretty nice to look at. I mean, sure there are those wasteland scenes and dystopian Chicago that look pretty boring, but everything else still has some quality effort put into it.

            Other than that, there’s not much else to say about this film. It’s another example of a YA’s final book being split into two movies, because it wants money. Although, considering this film was a bomb at the domestic box office, barely making its budget back with foreign revenue, I think that should be taken as a sign. It’s just a confusing mess of a film, with its only saving grace being Miles Teller, but even then I’d say go see other Miles Teller movies like “The Spectacular Now” or “Whiplash.” It’s not the worst film I've seen this year, nor is it even the worst YA adaptation I've seen, but it's still not a good movie.

Rating: 3/10