movie

First Thoughts: ‘The Jungle Book’ Trailer

jungle book trailer

The Jungle Book is Disney’s upcoming live-action remake of the 1967 animated film of the same name. This, of course, is not a surprise due to the successes of Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent. And with 2015’s live-action Cinderella being such a big hit, remaking the last film Walt Disney ever produced was inevitable.

You may not remember this (I certainly didn’t), but Disney already did a live-action remake for this movie in 1994. It borrowed stories from both The Jungle Book and The Second Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling, and it was actually well-received by both audiences and critics. Yet many people still scolded the film for veering so far away from Kipling’s original stories, not that the animated film did a good job of this.

There was also an animated Jungle Book sequel made by DisneyToon (they make the majority of Disney’s direct-to-video movies) in 2003. I’ve never seen it, and I honestly don’t intend to anytime soon. For context, this is the studio that brought us Planes and Planes: Fire and Rescue.

Oh, and I guess I have to mention that the first Jungle Book movie ever came out in the 1940s, decades before Disney got to work on it. Also, an unrelated movie called Jungle Book: Origins will be coming out in 2017, and it’s being made by Andy Serkis and Warner Bros. We honestly don’t have time to get into that, but I will mention that it has a stellar cast.

jungle book trailer

Now, we have the first teaser trailer for Disney’s next retelling of The Jungle Book, and it provides a lot of information that will intrigue longtime fans of the story. Even if you’re not very interested in the Jungle Book franchise, I think you’ll still find something unique to latch onto as we learn more about this movie. It’s the first Disney remake I’ve come across that seems like it could bring something new to the original story.

Sure, Maleficent and Alice and Wonderland already tried this by extending their stories and putting more emphasis on the villains. And they’re not terrible movies or anything. My only issue with them, honestly, is that they feel like unnecessary accessories to an animated movie that’s already great.

But with The Jungle Book, we have a source material that has so much potential as a live-action movie with updated special effects. It will be a visual spectacle just to see these complex animal characters coming to life on the big screen. And since The Jungle Book hasn’t been retold thousands of times over the years (ahem, Cinderella), this new movie will hopefully feel fresh for many people who see it.

Here’s the trailer below, and I encourage you to watch it at least twice. Afterward, we’ll discuss. 

OK, so to start things off, let’s talk about the cast.

Jon Favreau, the director of Iron Man, is helming the film and will probably make a cameo at some point. Mowgli is being played by a newcomer named Neel Sethi, and like the original animated film, he’ll be raised by a family of wolves.

Giancarlo Esposito (Breaking Bad) will voice the alpha male, Akela. Lupita Nyong’o (Star Wars: The Force Awakens) will voice of the mother wolf, Raksha. And the panther, Bagheera, will be voiced by Ben Kingsley (pretty much every movie you’ve ever seen).

Bill Murray is voicing Baloo in this film (yes, that’s the song he’s whistling at the end), and Idris Elba is voicing Shere Khan. When I first heard that Scarlett Johansson would voice the seductively dangerous snake, Kaa, I was less than excited, but she kills it in this trailer as the narrator. And of course, Christopher Walken will be handling the voice of King Louie.

jungle book trailer

I was hoping that this new movie would borrow more from Kipling’s work, and I think this might be the case in some ways. Naturally, Disney is maintaining a lot of what made the original animated film so well-liked, but they seem to be adding some of the darker material that got cut from the original. Pirates of the Caribbean proved that Disney has room for darker and more epic movies, and I hope they apply that here.

So, how is this new film like the old one?

Kaa the snake will apparently be more of a villain who wants to eat Mowgli, at least at first. In the book, she actually saves Mowgli from the Bandar-log after he gets kidnapped, which could also happen here. Pretty much everything related to the Bandar-log and King Louie in this trailer looks more like the animated movie, instead of the book.

Baby Mowgli is found by Bagheera instead of the wolves, just like in the animated movie. And that last scene with Mowgli and Baloo floating down the river is clearly an homage to the 1967 film.

jungle book trailer

But something from the book that appears to be happening in this trailer is Mowgli stealing the “red flower” from the village. He runs across the bridge holding fire, as instructed by King Louie. This could mean that he’s going to fight Shere Khan with the red flower, which is straight out of Compton-er-the book. Toward the end of the trailer, you can see a glimpse of this fight.

It also looks like the film is adding something that neither the book or movie did, which is a fight between Bagheera, Shere Khan, and Baloo. I have absolutely no idea where this is going, so I’m excited to see it go down in the film. It’s the natural progression of the story when you think about it, at least before Mowgli gets his chance to face Shere Khan on his own. Or it could mean that he’s not fighting the tiger alone.

Finally, I want to point out that the look of many of these characters is coming from the book, which is a great thing. This includes Baloo, who is now a brown bear instead of the bluish grey bear from the movie. And Hathi, the old elephant, appears more like the domineering and wise character that the Kipling story portrays. He’s not supposed to be comic relief, like we see in the 1967 film, which I think they added because they already had so many know-it-all animals running around in the script.

jungle book trailer

Like I said before, the movie is so far coming off as darker and more epic than the animated film. That said, some people who’ve seen footage of the movie at D23 claim that it’s actually light-hearted, so this trailer might be a little misleading. Whether that’s a good or bad thing is up to you.

I don’t know how I feel about this film yet. On the one hand, it’s cool to see that they’re breaking away from the music numbers and treating the source material more seriously. But I’m worried this will take away what people loved about the classic film in the first place. I guess we’ll have to trust that Disney can surprise us once again with something that fits comfortably in the middle.

The Jungle Book opens in theaters, April 2016.

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

Which Movie Is The Most ‘Rewatchable?’

rewatchable moviehttps://jonnegroni.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/nowconspiring3.m4a

For the first time in the history of Now Conspiring, we completely botched the recording of an episode. The original episode featured me, Kayla, Maria, and Adonis making podcast gold talking about movies that are the most rewatchable, but one corrupted audio file later, I was forced to rerecord the episode by myself.

This is a weird, but thankfully short episode that I don’t encourage anyone to actually listen to. Seriously, don’t press play. Stop. OK, fine you can listen, but I warned you.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: What is YOUR most “rewatchable” movie?

Go on…Which Movie Is The Most ‘Rewatchable?’

Hitman: Agent 47 Review — This Is Not a Game

hitman agent 47 review

Hitman: Agent 47 was directed by Aleksander Bach and written by Michael Finch and Skip Woods. It stars Rupert Friend as Agent 47, Hannah Ware as Katia van Dees, and Zachary Quinto as John Smith—er—Brian.

It’s based on the video game of half the same name, Hitman, which is a popular franchise about an elite assassin with no emotions or empathy coming up with creative ways to kill his high profile targets.

He’s traditionally shown wearing his iconic red tie and nice suit. He has a shaved head, a bar code at the base of his neck from when he was “engineered” into an agent, and his trusty silver ballers, which are basically just Lara Croft’s dual pistols with silencers.

hitman agent 47

I’ve been a big fan of these video games since Hitman: Codename 47 came out in 2000. I still remember the brilliance of Blood Money from 2006, and I even liked Absolution, the somewhat poorly received game from 2012.

Even the 2007 movie starring Timothy Olyphant was a passable diversion for me. It had its problems, but it at least fell within B-movie territory. It had neat ideas, the characters were OK, and even memorable action scenes I still remember almost a decade later.

I saw Hitman: Agent 47 just a few hours ago, and I barely remember any of the action scenes in that movie. I don’t even know if I can explain the plot to someone without giving up halfway through.

So what’s this new Hitman movie about? The plot centers around a young girl who is looking for someone she’s never met who apparently holds the secrets to creating an army of super-powered assassins. She’s hunted by one of these assassins, who turns out to be Agent 47. She comes across a CIA agent who tries to protect her, but it’s revealed that he’s…the bad guy? And then Agent 47 is sort of the good guy. But they’re all looking for the same thing for different reasons…and…I think the bad guys want to…well, it’s never explained.

hitman agent 47 review

I think Jurassic World‘s militarized raptor subplot made more sense than this.

The opening scene itself lost me instantly. It’s heavy on exposition we don’t care about, and it goes on for way too long explaining things we don’t care about with computer screens and pixellated faces we don’t care about. From then on, the movie boils down to people chasing each other and explosions. That’s about it.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise if you recognize the talent of the writer I mentioned, Skip Woods. You may remember him as the guy who wrote X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Credentials, and…Hitman (2007)?

No, seriously, they brought back the guy who worked on the Hitman movie that completely bombed on top of the worst X-Men movie. People who make money doing this for a living made that decision.

hitman agent 47 review

Not even the director seemed to know what he was doing here. This is Bach’s directorial debut, and even though the movie has some style to it, you can tell that it lacks good direction. The action scenes and editing are put together alright, and there are even some interesting ideas here and there (though nothing truly inspiring).

But there’s a complete lack of connectivity going on between both the characters and the set pieces.

There are multiple instances of Agent 47 and Katia having what appear to be “visions” that let them know what’s going on in other parts of the building. This doesn’t work at all because most of the visions are triggered when they touch someone or something or each other, making you think they’re psychic or just having hallucinations.

Also, it makes no sense WHATSOEVER that they can see through walls. Maybe the script does a better job painting this picture, but I found myself completely distracted by the lack of logic in how everything moved and related with each other in almost every scene. Even the ones in confined quarters.

hitman agent 47 review

What about the actors? Individually, they’re fine, but once they start interacting with each other, the movie becomes a chore to sit through. The first issue is how the endless exposition seems to do more harm than good because it introduces a new plot hole every 47 seconds. There’s enough plot holes going on visually, but when the writing gets involved…

I had a headache after watching this movie. Not because it was loud and dumb, but because there were so many plot holes, I couldn’t sit still. I was constantly engaged with how poor and ill-conceived this movie was. It caused me physical pain.

The second issue with the characters is their complete lack of apparent interest in anything that’s going on. Watching Agent 47 and Katia interact is like watching two coworkers talk about work. Just look at this image:

hitman agent 47 review

And I’m not cherry picking. That’s the extent of their expressions throughout the entire film. No passion. No hint of a motivation written for them. To be fair, this is expected from Agent 47 because that’s his character (even though the games make 47 look like the Joker compared to this guy).

But Katia is supposed to be our gateway into the lore of this movie, and she’s just as bland as everyone else. It was actually a smart idea to present Hitman through a person learning how to be one from the legend himself. So it would have worked if there were genuine reactions and important dialogue coming from this character, but they’re nonexistent.

What about the action scenes? They could have been good, as some of the setups are clearly inspired from the game and play homage here and there. Unfortunately, the CGI is pretty terrible and noticeable. And the few decent scenes were always ruined halfway through.

hitman agent 47 review

There’s a great sequence where Agent 47 uses stealth to take out a few guards. It would have been great if they left it at that, but then you see him walking casually down a staircase just shooting everyone and walking away unharmed. It completely undercut any tension that started to build when the scene started.

Another scene has 47 steal the clothes from a guard he’s taken out, which is a fun throwback to the games. But then he’s encountered by another guard in what is at that point a race against time, but then he takes the time to take out that guard too and change his clothes again for no conceivable reason.

One of the most frustrating scenes is when Agent 47 has multiple opportunities to finish off the main villain, but he just walks away every time he brings the guy down. Then the villain gets back up and tackles him. Agent 47 knocks him down again and walks away. Then the villain gets up and tackles him again. This cycle happens about four times WHILE AGENT 47 STILL HAS A GUN IN HIS HAND. 

Then there’s the matter of Agent 47 being surrounded by armored guards with machine guns, but he’s able to defeat all of them in the middle of broad daylight without moving. And he doesn’t get shot once.

hitman agent 47 review

And the soundtrack? They couldn’t even get that right. One of the prime attractions of this character is how beautiful classical music contrasts with the bloodshed that’s taking place. There’s not one moment where this happens. Instead, the scarce music that does take place is a boring mix of electric guitars and…I can’t remember what else.

 

This is easily one of the worst action movies of the year, and probably the summer. While I didn’t have high expectations for it, I honestly thought we could at least get something interesting to salvage from a movie paying tribute to a fantastic game series. Now I’m more jaded than ever that they can’t get a Hitman movie done right.

Strangely, the only good Hitman movie is last year’s John Wick. Like the games, it features an overpowered assassin working within the confines of an underground organization. In fact, just watch John Wick this weekend instead of Agent 47 and you’ll get your fill.

Grade: F

And that’s all I have left to say about it. I wouldn’t even recommend it to someone who wants to “turn their brain off” and watch a good action movie. Go watch Mission: Impossible again or any of the legions of other superior action movies that are out there and avoid this mess at all costs.

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

‘The Man from U.N.C.L.E.’ Review — I Spy a Franchise

man from uncle review

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. was directed by Guy Ritchie and stars Henry Cavill, Armie Hammer, Alicia Vikander, Elizabeth Debicki, and Hugh Grant. It’s an adaptation of the TV series of the same name, and like the show, it’s a spy thriller set in the 1960s.

The movie is about two special agents, an American and a Russian played by Cavill and Hammer, who have to team up on a mission to stop a criminal organization from starting a nuclear arms race (the plot is only slightly less generic than I’m making it sound). They seek help from the daughter of someone within this criminal organization, who is played by Vikander.

Warner Brothers has been wanting to make this movie for over a decade now, but it’s somehow coming out during what I like to call “Spy Summer.” We’ve gotten a lot of pretty decent spy movies over the last few months, so how does this one stack up?

Well, one of the first things you’ll notice in U.N.C.L.E. is that the stunts are pretty well done. Cavill and Hammer did a lot of their own stunts, especially Hammer. At one point, his stunt double said in an interview that he hardly had to do anything (look out, Tom Cruise).

man from uncle review

In fact, Tom Cruise was one of the lead actors first snagged for the role of Napoleon Solo, the American agent. Henry Cavill (who initially sought the role of Hammer’s character) eventually got the part, so I think a lot of people must be wondering how the “man of steel” fares in this.

Fortunately, I can say that both Cavill and Hammer have great performances in this movie. Their characters are well written, their banter has that signature Guy Ritchie style to it, and you can more or less believe that they exist in the 60s. My only complaint is that physically, they don’t seem to match up since Hammer is meant to be a brute, while Cavill is more of the sleuth. But when you look at them side by side…well, it’s just a nitpick.

Speaking of nitpicks, I didn’t find as many as I normally do in spy movies like this, and that’s a testament to the fast pace and good writing, even if there are a few too many cliches in the overall story. I can’t say I was very invested in what was going on in this movie, and at times I felt a little lost. The movie is shot with a lot of shaky cam during its action sequences, and the script kept reusing an Ocean’s 11 plot device that felt useless by the third and fourth time.

man from uncle review

That said, the movie had a lot of memorable moments, rivaling Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation (the other spy movie that came out this month). A drunken Alicia Vikander tackling Armie Hammer’s daunting character out of nowhere was great to watch, and a certain scene involving a sandwich was the film’s best moment.

Overall, U.N.C.L.E. is an entertaining B movie with some neat surprises and good performances, though a little bogged down by a generic plot. What truly saves it from getting into mediocre territory is the soundtrack, which is currently my fourth favorite of the year (behind Mad Max: Fury Road, Inside Out, and Paddington).

Grade:  B- 

If you like spy movies, throwbacks to good spy movies, the 1960s, and Guy Ritchie, then this is a must-watch.

Extra Credits: 

  • Again, I’ve never seen the original TV series, so I’m curious to know how U.N.C.L.E. stacks up. Let me know in the comments if you’ve seen both and can share your thoughts.
  • No after credits stinger, but it’s definitely setting up for a sequel (assuming it makes enough money).
  • Elizabeth Debicki is my next pick for playing Audrey Hepburn in any kind of biopic.
  • So Superman, the Lone Ranger, and an Artificial Intelligence try to stop a nuclear war…

man from uncle review

If you want to hear more thoughts on this movie before checking it out, listen to our upcoming podcast episode of Now Conspiring, where we’ll do a roundtable review with multiple critics. The episode will be ready for download this Sunday at 9:00 am (Pacific).

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

Review: ‘Trainwreck’ Was Impossible For Me to Like

trainwreck review

Trainwreck could just as easily be titled, “The Amy Schumer Movie.” It encompasses the comedy, writing, and tone of her projects in a way that not even Judd Apatow (Knocked Up, Funny People) could overshadow. I doubt I would have guessed Apatow was even a part of this film if I had not known that going in.

For these reasons and many others, I found it impossible to like Trainwreck. This is because I found it impossible to like Amy Schumer in this. Her character, aptly named Amy, is one of the most unlikable characters I’ve seen on a screen all year. Right up there with Jupiter Jones and “Oh” the alien.

Before we dive in and discuss the movie, keep in mind that I also didn’t like Spy, the other summer comedy that everyone else seems to believe is a laugh riot. I don’t look down on anyone who likes a comedy that I didn’t enjoy, but I also don’t hold back from announcing the huge problems I have with these movies, so you’ve been warned.

trainwreck review

Trainwreck stars Amy Schumer as Amy, a free-spirited magazine writer who finds romantic commitment boring to the point of mocking it. She sleeps around without remorse until falling for the subject of an article she’s writing. Aaron Conners (played by Bill Hader) is a sports doctor that tries to woo Amy and hopefully help change her life for the better.

It was directed by Judd Apatow and written by Amy Schumer. As Apatow puts it, Trainwreck is based on a smattering of personal stories she shared with him, and the director liked them enough to turn Amy’s story into a movie.

That’s sort of the problem with Trainwreck. The film is essentially a series of raunchy comedy sketches that mostly feature Amy Schumer reacting negatively to things that we find normal, expect inserting gross-out gags to make them seem out-of-place.

trainwreck review

Again, comedy sketches.

To make them all connect, the film has to drag its plot points in admittedly familiar Apatow style to keep things coherent. And even then, multitudes of dialogue and character choices end up making zero sense within the context of the story Amy is trying to tell with this script.

A prime example is Amy’s reaction to Aaron’s advances early in the film. She and her coworker best friend panic at the idea of a guy asking to hang out after having sex. This flies in the face of the first 15 minutes of the movie, which show Amy with a consistent boyfriend she cheats on (John Cena in a role that is just as confusing as the rest of the movie. The script can’t decide if he’s a softy who truly loves Amy or a closeted gay man).

trainwreck review

The killing blow to a comedy is when its protagonist is unlikable. If you can’t get onboard with Amy Schumer’s character, then you’re going to feel the length of this movie.

The only funny moments I could salvage were from scenes featuring Bill Hader and Lebron James alone together (the gag involving “Gold Digger” is the only funny moment I can recall from this movie). But even these scenes ended up dragging because they revolved around a central plot I wasn’t invested in.

Now, many people seem to like Trainwreck, which leads me to believe that many people like Amy Schumer’s character in this movie. I find that pretty alarming considering everything about her that’s revealed over the course of two hours. In the first act alone, we see Amy as this condescending, self-centered drag who thinks everyone around her is less intelligent. Or cool, I suppose.

trainwreck review

A movie can present its main character as a “train wreck.” It’s not Amy’s self-destructive behavior and constant partying that keeps me from sympathizing with her.

It’s actually how she claims to have a black best friend who is really a waiter in the background of a photo…

how she endlessly picks on her sister’s stepson for not being “cool…”

how she makes her sister feel guilty for settling down in every scene they’re in…

how she goes on a rant about how people who like sports are stupid (which repeats throughout the movie only for Aaron to finally call her out on this)…

how she writes these scenes to make her one-night stands exaggerated versions of morons in order to make us think that she’s this special flower but also a train wreck at the same time…

and how she essentially makes zero decisions for herself despite presenting herself as this woman who is happy with her choices…until she’s not.

trainwreck review

Amy just goes along with dating Aaron, despite protesting it relentlessly. She keeps dating him, even though her inner monologue tells us she doesn’t really want to. She falls in love with him, even though her inner monologue says she expects the relationship to fail anyway.

Why in the world should I care about a character who doesn’t even seem to want to be in the story that’s being told? That’s not comedy. That’s drama.

I blame poor writing for these problems, because even though I wanted to laugh and have a good time, I found myself feeling depressed just by watching this. Amy Schumer has good comedic timing, and the supporting cast is great. But when your central premise is a tribute to nihilism disguised as a generic romantic comedy, then people who don’t want either of these things (namely, me) won’t enjoy it.

trainwreck review

But Trainwreck has been a critical success and a hit among audiences, probably because the generic romantic comedy elements are enough for casual moviegoers to have a good time with this film. Even if the movie isn’t especially profitable, it will and probably already has cemented Amy Schumer as the next comedic powerhouse. Maybe even in the same way people saw Sarah Silverman during the 2000s.

And while I don’t want to write off Schumer as a talent after just one movie, I can’t help but predict that I’ll be skipping the next comedy grab she’s part of. Especially if she wrote it.

Grade: D+ 

While I somewhat enjoyed the performances from Bill Hader, Lebron James, and Brie Larson, I honestly couldn’t forgive this movie for its consistent narrative flaws and hackneyed premise fueled by its absurd lead actor.

trainwreck review

For those of you who’ve seen the movie and agree/disagree, let me know your thoughts about Trainwreck in the comments. Did you like it or did you dislike it? Why?

If you want a different take on the film, check out our most recent podcast, where Maria Garcia gives a more favorable review that you might find interesting.

‘Ant-Man’ Review — Huge Expectations

ant-man review

Part of the Marvel storytelling rulebook is to take a certain character and spin their weaknesses into massive strengths. Their powers are always paradoxes of who they are, from Iron Man’s sarcasm/mad genius angle to Thor’s power/humility character arc.

So if you like how Marvel has crafted these iconic characters so far, then you’ll probably enjoy Ant-Man, which does more or less the same thing with new faces and situations.

Paul Rudd plays Scott Lang, a master thief who wants to do right by his daughter (oh, but who doesn’t want that?) He teams up with brilliant scientist Hank Pym (ideally cast as Michael Douglas) and his estranged daughter, Hope (also a well-cast Evangeline Lilly) in order to stop a powerful technology from being sold as a weapon. He’s armed with a suit that lets him shrink in scale, but increase in strength, and he must rely on training from Hank and Hope in order to hone his new skills.

Like Guardians of the Galaxy, this film relies a lot on its self-awareness and wit to balance its silly premise. Edgar Wright (who once helmed the project before getting replaced by Peyton Reed) has his fingerprints all over this film, and thankfully so. Ant-Man’s quick edits and impatience with slow moments makes it a fun, breezy film with a lot of great action.

But the true star of the film is Michael Peña, whose hysterical performance makes you yearn for him in every scene he misses.

Grade: B+

While it’s not the best superhero film (or Marvel film) you’ll ever see, it’s definitely a sign of good things to come.

Extra credits:

  • Yes, there’s an after-credits scene, as well as something during the credits. Thanks to Age of Ultron, we actually have to point that out now.
  • Other critics are liking this movie. It currently has a 76% on Rottentomatoes and “Generally Favorable” reviews from Metacritic.
  • No spoilers if you know all of the hidden easter eggs teasing the Marvel Cinematic Universe. We’ll hit some of that on this week’s podcast, Now Conspiring.
  • I’m already a Paul Rudd fan, and this will go down as one of my favorite performances from him. It’s not his best, but it’s absolutely a good time.

ant-man review

Ant-Man stars Paul Rudd as Scott Lang, Michael Douglas as Hank Pym, Evangeline Lilly as Hope van Dyne, and Corey Stoll as Darren Cross. It was directed by Peyton Reed and co-written by Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish, Adam McKay, and Paul Rudd.

‘The Witcher’ Could Be Hollywood’s Next Billion Dollar Franchise

the witcher franchise

Adapting movies from video games is no easy thing. It sparks fear and discord among burned Hollywood executives who’ve had to throw money in the trash for Super Mario, the Prince of Persia, and Hitman (and possibly again with Agent 47). Why would The Witcher be any different?

This is a recent post I published on Moviepilot concerning the future of The Witcher, a popular series of video games adapted from short stories and novels written by Andrzej Sapkowski. In it, I give a crash course on what The Witcher is, where it came from, and where it’s likely going.

Needless to say, I think this franchise is gearing up for a massive release across mediums. And we should all take notice.