Disney’s live-action “Aladdin” (May 24, 2019)

Will looks really creepy as The Genie.

 

I just watched the official trailer and noticed it’s directed by Guy Ritchie. What! Surprised by that turn of events from gangster to mouseketeer!

 

Laughing..

 

59%
TOMATOMETER
Reviews Counted: 106

 

The FIRST one.

How about a movie named after an area in a theme park, Tomorrowland?

 

I guess no one else has seen this yet!

Went to it today and thought it was... okay. Better than "BatB" or "Dumbo", which were both misfires - though for different reasons - but not as much fun as the original film.

Like "BatB", the new "Aladdin" just seems kinda superfluous to me. It's not a scene-by-scene remake but it's close enough that it never manages to create much of an identity of its own.

The new actors are competent but none of them manage to leap off the screen.

Although he essentially plays "the Will Smith Character", Smith becomes the best part of the movie, if just because he adds some much needed personality and charm. The movie's a tough slog until Genie arrives, and Smith immediately gives the film an infusion of energy.

It's not a bad time at the movies but it's not something that "needs to exist". The original did it better!

 

It needs to have an identity of its own. It must have an identity of its own to do well, as specially right now.

It does "need to exist".

I think that right now is a hard time for new releases.

There are still some movies that have previously opened that are still lingering around and taking in box office revenue.

There are movies that just have opened, along with Aladdin.

There are a lot of summer movies opening SOON.

Godzilla and Rocketman are coming up this week.

With X-Men: Dark Phoenix and The Secret Life of Pets 2 following the week after.

Men in Black: International and Toy Story 4 following these.

This is all within a month of Aladdin's release.

 

I'll see it because I never saw that animated one (the scenes of Robin Williams doing manic schtick were enough to drive me away from it.) So I don't care whether or not it just tells the same story as the animated one.

 

I don't care whether it tells the same story or not. That is not important.

Dumbo was not a shot for shot remake of the animated version.

Beauty and the Beast was almost exactly shot of shot just like the animated version.

But both of those remakes did bring something to the story.

People really liked Beauty and the Beast and Dumbo, not so much.

Since most of what Hollywood seems to do is to remake stories (movies), I guess the trick is to keep bringing something new into the story/movie.

 

Seems like these 'cartoon remakes' projects are losing propositions. And yet there's many examples of NEW cartoon projects, featuring new characters, that are successful. Can it be that new, fresh ideas are actually worth something!!??

 

New is a bad concept to Hollywood movie studio's.

You are right, there is an infinite amount of quality new material out there.

Unfortunately, as you can see, they would rather keep recycling old material.

I think that we are overdue for a remake of a Jane Austen novel.

IMDB informs us that the last movie remake of a Jane Austen novel was back in 2016.

 

There's a 'Lion King' remake to be released later this year (live animals and computer effects). I think that will be a big hit.

 

Huge!!!

 

Still waiting for a live version of Song Of The South...

...and then, maybe we get Donald (Glover) In Mathemagic Land...

 

I don't think there are actual live animals in the new "Lion King" - they're all going to be CG created...

 

Just catching up on this year's movies, are you?

 

I posted about the Disney live re-makes quite a while ago. You can look up the post if you're that concerned. Was there a problem with me adding a comment to the current conversation in this thread?

 

I don't have any problem with it.

The live action remake of the Lion King and Dumbo has been discussed all year including already being mentioned by the OP in an earlier thread.

Your post make it appear that the live action remake of the Lion King is some sort of revelation.

 

They are all remakes.

 

I watched Aladdin, and it was neither as horrible as I feared nor a good movie in any way.

** (out of ****)

Booksmart is far, far better.

(Of course, so is the original Aladdin. Watch it instead.)

Shalom, y’all!

L. Bangs

 

That's true, but photorealistic CGI can kind of be regarded as "live action" in a way. I'd point to the same director's version of Jungle Book as an example. If it looks like it was shot in the real world, then for all intents and purposes, it's live action (in terms of how the audience perceives it). The new version is a much different visual experience:

 

It is just like in Avengers: Endgame, Goose the flurkin/cat, is both real and CGI, you can't really tell which is which, it is done so well.

 

I get that. Just correcting the potential impression that the movie will use real animals!

 

Darn! And I was really looking forward to seeing really well trained animals singing, dancing. and talking.

 

Here in LA, whenever there is some entertainment report bit re: Lion King, they always refer to it as the "live action" Lion King. And my wife and I always crack up. It's a thing now, where we are waiting for them to to suggest that we are going to watch some lions trained to be chatty catties!!