Aladdin (2019)

Disney's original animated film from 1992 is one of the crown jewels of the Disney Renaissance. I would watch it over and over as a ten year old and I still have the show memorized. We are now in an era where Disney is making live action remakes of their animated films and with that comes the temptation of doing very little with the story in order to make an easy wad of cash. I felt that some the changes the filmmakers made with this well-known Disney tale were acceptable but they weren't advertized very well. We were given something that we weren't exactly promised and the film contained a few other flaws. That's not to say that "Aladdin" is bad. It had funny moments and scenes of great spectacle but I think I am just tired of these remakes and I desire something original and something that comments on our own society in a subtler manner.

People may think back on the animated source material and remember only Genie and/or the songs but there were so many other aspects that worked together to make that film a masterpiece. When one of the aspects is taken out, the change becomes a lot more apparent and you come to appreciate the missing aspect. The storytelling in this remake was a little lacking because of some small but harmful changes. "Aladdin", along with many other current Hollywood films, is a little too preachy. The theme of the original animated film was obvious but it was depicted subtly as well throughout the movie. We are taught to be ourselves instead of "pretending to be something [we're] not." It is an obvious message that is verbally spoken so that kids will understand. What we didn't notice is that other characters besides Aladdin also try to pretend and fail in their efforts. This allows the obvious message to really sink in because we are learning something subconsciously. For this live action film, one could say that the theme was the same but I would say that another messages were trying to be preached at the same time. This diminishes the power of the original message. In this new movie, Aladdin is also tempted with power and luxury. Either theme is fine but the filmmakers should have chosen one instead of trying to do multiple messages. Yet another theme in this movie was fighting for time in the spotlight. Jasmine has a much larger role in this movie and her dilemma is not internal but external. I think it is much more dramatic to have an internal struggle by the way. In this film, Jasmine is not being taken seriously with both tradition and those higher standing suppressing her. Because of this approach with the character, I was snapped out of my passive-viewing state. There is nothing wrong with this message but the problem stems from an imbalance with the other strong themes in the movie, competing for attention. The story suffered because of the contending themes. The title of this movie is "Aladdin" after all. If the filmmakers had given this live action adaptation the title "Aladdin and Jasmine", we would have received what we were promised. Imagine if "Maleficent" was entitled "Sleeping Beauty". If the filmmakers were determined to produce a film with two protagonists, there was nothing stopping them from making that title change. In another example from the Disney Vault, the studio took "The Frog Prince" and morphed it into the amazing film "The Princess and the Frog". Even before that, the original "Beauty and the Beast" found a way to have two protagonists and the title accurately includes the names of both characters. The trailers for "Aladdin" were a little manipulative also because they highlighted mostly Aladdin and the genie where as the movie clearly had Jasmine as a challenger for the protagonist role. The movie was so focused on showing her being offended and her struggles that the story felt flawed because it wasn't balanced with Aladdin's plotline. The filmmakers also failed in making one of Jasmine's moments truly meaningful. She delivers a powerful speech for example that challenges Jafar as the new sultan but it doesn't make a difference because Jafar uses his second wish to command respect. Her speech does make a small difference at the end of the movie but a simple "We will never bow to you" in the animated version showcased Jasmine's strength without slowing down the story.

There were other parts of the story that needed refining. The genie had too much free will it seems in this version of "Aladdin". In the animated film, it was verbally indicated on two occasions that Genie couldn't help Al as long as Jafar was master of the lamp. The biggest plot hole of the live action film is the genie sending the magic carpet to save Aladdin. This is a plot hole because if the genie can to do that, he could have just zapped Aladdin back to Agrabah himself and saved time. In the original show, it is the carpet that saves Aladdin from the ends of the earth. The live action genie also was the one to defeat Jafar in remake when you think about it because he came up with his own interpretation of Jafar's final wish. Aladdin may have given the genie the idea to do so but Aladdin was a lot less triumphant in the climax. In the climax of the original film, Aladdin fools everyone: Genie, Jafar, Jasmine and the audience. It wasn't until Jafar's lamp appeared that we understood Aladdin's trap. The live action version on the other hand has an audience that knows the lines of the original ending by heart. There isn't that same level of concern for these characters and I think the filmmakers should have spent more effort on creating an original climax. That way, there would have been a higher level of entertainment. I have already talked about the story imbalances in "Aladdin" but the pace of the plot was also flawed. The filmmakers seem to have rushed the opening of the film. We may know this story but if you are going to make a live-action remake, you must provide moments where the audience can become emotionally invested in these new versions of the classic characters. Some vital story moments in the source material, besides those preceding the inciting incident, were dramatic moments that Genie and Aladdin share. The corresponding live action moments felt rushed or lacked sincerity. Speaking of rushed, you could tell that the film speed for a lot of the action or dancing sequences was sped up. If the filmmakers were trying to match the speed of an animated film, they must not have considered how much of a distraction that can be in live action. I would like to mention some admirable decisions that were made story-wise. The subplot between the genie and Dalia was a great inclusion because it had genuine originality. The Prince Ali sequence was very well crafted and performed. What I liked the most was how awkward Aladdin was at first but as the song progressed, he starts to relish the moment. The subsequent scene where Prince Ali introduces himself to the Sultan and the Princess was just as great. The best parts of the film were in the middle and that usually doesn't work when making a movie. A climax must be a high point obviously and as I said, "Aladdin" lacked a sufficient culmination.

The cast of characters and filmmakers were a mixed bag of good and bad decisions. Aladdin for me must be crafty but also good hearted. He must be established as streetwise. I felt that was achieved well enough but as previously mentioned, his attraction to his new life as Prince Ali made him less heroic and admirable in my eyes. I liked his animated counterpart better because instead of getting greedy and smug, Aladdin becomes guilt-ridden when it hits him that his lies have grown him a pair of short legs. I am glad the filmmakers decided to go with an unknown actor in the lead role. With Belle in 2017's "Beauty and the Beast", Emma Watson had the ideal persona. It is hard not to argue with that decision but with Aladdin, I can't think of a famous actor that would work as the lovable street rat. Canadian-Egyptian actor Mena Massoud did well enough all things considered. I think we can all agree that if Robin Williams were still alive, he would be in this movie when you considering that James Earl Jones is reprising his role in the upcoming remake of "The Lion King". Before I saw the live action "Aladdin", I realized that the filmmakers were exchanging one 90's comedy star with another. You get some originality in the process and still retain a connection with that era of comedy, albeit a small connection. Will Smith's take on the genie was fine enough. The special effects in terms of bringing the genie to life worked equally well. One element that is noteworthy is that the genie in his blue form is GCI with motion capture. I mistakenly assumed that the genie's head was Will Smith's real head. I was looking for chemistry between Massoud & Smith and there was moderately enough. The scene where Prince Ali introduces himself to the Sultan and the Princess had some great acting chemistry. This is where Will Smith shined the most and I laughed quite a bit. The scene where Aladdin granted the genie's freedom was nicely written and executed. Again, the acting chemistry allowed for genuine drama and steps were made to be slightly different from the source material. Robin Williams as Genie was a show stealer but Aladdin was still given the room he needed to be the protagonist. The same can be said for this movie but the problem is that Aladdin's status as protagonist was challenged by another character. As I illustrated earlier, Jasmine was a supporting character in the original film. It is possible for audiences to relate to and be inspired by supporting characters. Some examples include Han Solo, Samwise Gamgee and Hermione Granger. If the filmmakers were going to change her role, they should have relied less on the source material in crafting the rest of the movie. At least there was some romantic chemistry to help save the movie. Now we come to the biggest piece of criticism I have about this remake of "Aladdin". I want to know what happened to the "tall, dark and sinister ugly man" (he was supposed to play the part of "Al"). What we got instead was a boring, decently-looking fellow of average height. This is yet another example of us not appreciating how important something is until it's missing. Because of this remake, I can honestly say that the original Jafar is my favourite Disney villain thanks to the work of Jonathan Freeman, Andreas Deja and the character designers. He is deliciously evil and his entertainment value is increased because he has a talking parrot to play off of and Jafar himself can be funny. He makes me laugh on more than one occasion. Jafar was kind of dull in this film, lacking theatricality. His entertainment level was quite lacking and I think this is because the filmmakers were more focused on other areas of the production. A hero is only as good as his villain and the whole show was affected because of this mistake especially. Abu was quite realistic at some times and not at others. His eyes became too cartoonish at certain moments in the film. Disney-regular Alan Tudyk gave us a realistically sounding parrot. While I miss Gilbert Gottfried, this is a more-realistic take on the tale. I was happy to see Frank Welker back as the voices of the Cave of Wonders, Abu and Rajah. He likewise gave us a more realistic version of his previous performances. There was some controversy when it came to casting the supporting roles & background actors and I feel this stems from the lofty goal of trying to be politically correct. The harder you try to please everybody, the more likely you will anger people even more. If you advertise yourself as sensitive to everyone, people will look for any excuse to be offended. When you consider the fact that the "Prince Ali" sequence has over 1000 performers and observers for example, it is very hard and costly to make sure everyone on camera is PC. I think filmmakers should be more focused on the scripts and on entertaining the audience instead of being afraid that the public will be offended. When you produce a winning masterpiece, anything controversial that does arise will be overshadowed by the film's entertainment value. Just look at "Avengers: Endgame" and its plot holes.

Alan Menken, for the most part, didn't make any mistakes but I prefer his work on TV these days. Director Guy Ritchie's greatest achievement in my opinion was "Sherlock Holmes" in 2009. On the other hand, he once earned a Golden Raspberry for Worst Director. I don't think he did horribly but I think I would have preferred a different director with more experience in this genre. Some might be offended by what Disney did with this film but I am not. Disney can not break down my door and take my copy of the 1992 film. I am just very articulate in my opinion only because I am big Disney fan and I care. I just hope that one day, Disney will realize that remaking its animated masterpieces isn't in keeping with the company's legacy. The studio has made some immortal film adaptations over the decades and they are immortal because they had originality. The majority of these live action remakes over the past decade can hardly be called original. With "Aladdin", a few of the differences from the original film ruined the experience. Other changes from source material could have worked if more effort was put into crafting the story, advertizing properly and taking a more subtle approach. On a more positive note, there are a lot worse movies than this.

3.5 Stars out of 5