Tinny-Tinette

Disney is obviously on a roll with their live actions remakes. The reason why they're in with this current boom is debatable. But it's not as their live action remakes of their animated classics are something new. In the 90's we saw live action adaptations of "101 Dalmatians" and "The Jungle Book" (by Stephen Sommmers). And semi-remakes as "Alice in Wonderland" (which was hampered of being a Tim Burton film within Disney) and the fan-fiction "Malificent". It's certainly a task to depict a live action adaptation and make it solid on it's own terms, instead of risking the comparisons to their animated counterparts. Last year, Kenneth Branagh's "Cinderella" was a critical (and commercial) surprise. Though it didn't came across as an exact replica of Walt's animated classic, it was a film that was made with a certain amount of heart and affection towards the fairy tale genre. And was a product with certain amount of class and quality.

Now this year, the live action adaptations are on their prime with "The Jungle Book", which has become a critical and commercial success. However, it's a relief to say that "The Jungle Book" is completely worth the buzz. This Jon Favreau version is simply the best live action remake of an animated classic and quite superior to the 1994 version. It is a movie that it's worthy of it's success. Due to being scepcitcal about another remake of this film and not finding the movie appealing by it's trailers, it's a relief to cite that skepticism about it was wrong.

It would be tempting to be biased towards Walt's animated classic, hence it was one of the first Disney films which I truly got fond of. However, pondering about it from an adult perspective, it's easier to spot it's faults (it's skimpy plot line). But Walt's hand drawn classic remains a delightful and enjoyable classic nonetheless. Jon Favreau's version is a movie that pays surprisingly homage to it's animated counterpart, but doesn't necessarily comes across an exact replica of it. It's an amalgam of the 1967 version and the original book (which pretty much had enough plot and intrigue for a movie anyway).

This new version manages to stand of it's own, without being overshadowed by the 1967's versions legacy. It's a movie with a quite amount of cuteness and charm. And thrills and excitement. The script is tight, intriguing, compelling and fills certain gaps which the animated movie had. The CGI animation is brilliant, the animals looks believable. And the same goes for the rest of the visuals of the film. While the 3D comes across as blurry at some parts, it does excel at others.

Young Neel Sethi appears as obviously younger than the animated Mowgli was. Nonetheless, while he does not steal the show, he manages to portray Mowgli decently. The other cast does a fine job, without overshadowing or distracting their CGI appearances. In the previews I had my hesitations about Scarlett Johanson's depiction of Kaa, but fortunately she's tolerable in the movie. Bill Murray is a charming Baloo, despite not being a complete replacement of Phil Harris' portrayal, he's good enough. Ben Kingsley makes a decent and rigid Bagheera. Certainly the scene stealer is Idris Elba's Shere Khan, which is a villain that steals the show just as his animated counterpart did.

The only true weak spots are the song segments. Both "Bare Necessities" and "Wanna Be Like You" are incorporated in the movie. Unfortunately they come across as completely jarring, silly and out of place with the naturalistic tone of the movie. Perhaps the end credits gags comes across a bit silly as well. However, those flaws are minor and really doesn't upstage the strengths of the rest of the movie.

So Jon Favreau's "The Jungle Book" is a worthy counterpart to Walt's animated classic and so far one of the finest films of 2016. If Disney could make their remakes which such amount of care and respect, then we could truly look forward to every of their live action adaptations.

It would be easy to dismiss "Thirteen" as a teen movie or even a chick flick. But the reality is that "Thirteen" is a low budget indie-movie and was the directorial debut of Catherine Hardwick. The title indicates that this is essentially a teen movie which centers about the life of a thirteen year old girl. It's a common, archetypal premise and the script was co-written by Nikki Reed, somewhat based on her own experiences. It's not a bad choice or move, but "Thirteen" does fall into the archetypal traits. But "Thirteen" comes across as a gritty departure and in some ways tragic.

Despite having nostalgic memories of this movie, I must say the indie-factor perhaps hampers the film more than it should. It's not that "Thirteen" is bad, It manages to engage and entertain. But despite the faux documentary style, the film suffers from clunky dialog, incoherent screen writing and bad character development. The problem is that "Thirteen" never quite develops the characters in a compelling or positive way. The grittiness and the willingness to dive deep into the themes is admirable, but "Thirteen" never quite manages to tell a coherent or fulfilling story or come to a final conclusion.

While none of the acting is outstanding, the actors makes the characters shine. Cute Evan Rachel Wood is natural and believable as the goodie Tracy. Nikki Reed makes a fine Evie, the hot, impetuous and popular teenage girl who becomes the bad influence on Tracy. Holly Hunter is the best one of the group, making a good, caring, yet oblivious and human mother.

"Thirteen" is typical of it's genre, but becomes watchable and engaging thanks to it's good cast and good songs. While the story could've been more tighter and less clunky, "Thirteen" is still fine entertainment.