Samiam3

So much of Aladdin feels over lit and void of shadow, that you can almost always tell where a green screen was placed. This is just one of the many ways that the film, fails to capture the imagination, but that should really come as no surprise. Even with all the bright colours, the word that comes to mind is ... bland.

If you watch the original Aladdin you'll notice how many wry smiles the whole cast delivers. Aladdin, Jasmine, Jafar, were all self consciousness about how cunning they are. It was a window into their souls that the animation helped to achieve, not to mention the animals had 'faces' too.

Here they go though all the same motions, with a more static and wooden demeanour. Simply put, they aren't much fun. And then there's the Genie. Is it too obvious to say that Will Smith is no Robin Williams. Then again, the movie doesn't ask him to be. However if, you are going to be a flying blue, ball of energy and magic tricks, a little flamboyance in personality would go a long way. It's a good thing that this genie can take human form, because as the blue guy, he looks ridiculous. Many people have said otherwise, but I can think of a dozen better choices than Will Smith.

Aside from an aerial chase scene featuring a giant Iago, there is little in the movie that shows the quirkiness or sharpness that you would associate with Guy Ritchie. His staging of "a whole new world" is so poorly shot, and void of adventure as to complete defeat the purpose of that scene, which is to capture Jasmine's imagination. I couldn't even tell what sights they were flying over.

And here is another element that is mishandled. In the animated film, Aladdin (as Prince Ali) is entertaining because of his ability to fake his flamboyance. This Aladdin can't act to save his life, and his first encounter with Jasmine, is so cringey in its phoniness that you wonder if Ritchie was actually writing the script that day.

As for the few memorable elements, Nasim Pedrad has the best comic moments and Marwan Kenzari's Jafar, is occasionally creepy (despite taking himself way too seriously). For the most part, all Aladdin really achieves is to bring back a yearning for a better (more animated) version of the story.

Here is a film that does some (but not quite enough justice) to the artist that is widely considered the world's greatest songwriter.

There are strong and compelling scenes in A Complete Unknown; most of which are in the first act, depicting Dylan's spectacular arrival into the folk scene. Chalamet's performance/impersonation is pretty dead on, although for me, Norton's Pete Seeger was the most convincing. I think part of that has to do which the fact that the script gives him better (not to mention FAR MORE) dialog.

What the picture was missing however, (as is often the case with biopics), is that the de-romanticism of its subject goes a little too far. Dylan is defined far more by his flaws than his strengths. He's so much a of punk that you never quite believe that this kid was capable of writing those songs. It would have helped if we had heard him quote Descartes, or be seen with a copy of Emerson, or something.

As is almost typical of the two hour biopic, fame makes people miserable and egotistical. Dylan is no exception. The script doesn't give him enough to do in the second half, other than brood. His slow build up of quiet contempt for the music industry climaxes with his rock star being unleashed on the folk stage; another scene done well. The anger behind classic lyrics like "I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more." is a reminder that Dylan never wanted to be 'defined'. His songs, were the very definition of him.

Even within the rather economic timeline of the story (covering only a few years), it feels like there is more to be said. From an acting and directing perspective, the film is done about as well as it can be. Mangold respects the privacy of Dylan's identity (or often lack there of), but why did he have to feel protective about his genius.

What a beautifully icky movie.

After being raped and murdered by her creepy neighbour, Susie Salmon, (who is almost too perfect to be real) wanders around in a pre-heaven world of her own mind, watching her grieving family, while sending them small signs of her 'existence'. The movie spends most of its time here, in a expanse of technicolor CGI, waiting to get to the punchline, which is her willingness to go to actual heaven.

I suppose it makes sense for a photography enthusiast like Susie to live in a Val Hala that looks like a postcard, but how is her soul not shaken to the bone? You would think she'd be brooding in a deep dark cave or something. This brings me to what I think is the movie's biggest problem which is that Susie never really resembles a human being. She's just a symbol of innocence to be deflowered. She narrates with a kind of angelic whispery voice, oozing with so much sentiment, that when she says she wants her killer dead, we never really believe it (even though we want to).

The movie drags on far too long considering the lack of story following the first act. There are some ill advised attempts at humour, coupled with equally poor soundtrack choices, in between the overbearing VFX.

There are a couple of good scenes, including a Kubrick like transition from the first to the second act, where Susie realizes what has befallen her. Otherwise, this is really just an overly glittery romanticism of an ugly tragedy.