I know I know. I’m about three months out of date with this one, but I decided to create some random principle where I wasn’t going to pay any money, other than the subscription, to Disney+. Even though it’s Disney and I love them almost as much as I love my family. Then I pissed about during the beginning of December (ok, pissed about = watched Christmas films), rather than watching Mulan on 3rd December when it became available for free.
Alas, I have now watched it and am about to divulge my thoughts to you.
When they initially announced that Disney were remaking Mulan as a Live Action, my daughter and I were super excited. We could not wait to see what they were going to do with ‘Reflection’ and ‘I’ll Make A Man Out of You’, as they are two of our favourite Disney songs (the latter in particular). However, it became apparent by about 20 minutes in, and a lack of ‘Honor To Us All’, that this was a non-musical remake. Heartbroken! It has always been my opinion that the 1998 version has the most underrated songs of the Disney films and I could not believe that they had removed them all!
So that was the first down point for me. The second? There is no Mushu! He has essentially been replaced by a phoenix, that occasionally crops up to give Mulan a bit of confidence and general direction.
Third down point. No ‘Mulan’s Grandmother’ and the ‘lucky’ cricket. Instead, we have Mulan’s sister (who doesn’t really add much, to be honest).
If you were expecting a remake of the animated Mulan, this is not what you will get. Instead, more of a film adaptation of the Chinese folk tale of the same name. It’s a lot more ‘straight’ than the original (which I would certainly say was a comedy). Rather than the guidance of her ancestors, through Mushu, Mulan seems to have magical powers, referred to as Chi (which I always thought was what the Chinese called ‘energy force’… I could be wrong… I’m probably wrong). There is a lot of combat in this film, of which a large amount seems to be strongly aided by CGI and other special effects. We also get a sorceress, who is assisting the antagonist at the start, but is on Mulan’s side by the second half.
I appreciate that I seem to be focussing on the negative, but I did enjoy this film, as did my daughter and, when he had decided to join us on the sofa during the second half, my son (and he doesn’t like films… except for Moana). So, it does the job with entertaining various age groups. It has some lovely cinematography, stunning scenery and, based on songs from the original 1998 version, a beautiful score (even if it doesn’t have that awesome bit of music when she takes her fathers sword and chops her hair off in the original).
Give it watch. You can’t sing along and you’re unlikely to laugh, but I’d recommend it otherwise.
7/10
Happy New Year! We send you all our best wishes for a much better 2021, to you and your families and remember:
“Stay Safe, Stay Home. Stay Disney”.
xxx
Kerry 😁
Based on the book by Eoin Colfer, Artemis Fowl is the story of… Artemis Fowl (Jr, to be precise). A twelve-year genius/prodigy who’s father (Artemis Fowl Sr) gets kidnapped by a fairy (I mean various synopsises say it’s a fairy, although their voice and demeanour didn’t seem overly fairy-like). Artemis has to devise a plan, requiring other creatures from the fairy realm, to help get his Dad back. That’s the story in a nutshell.
I can see where the book lovers are coming from though. It was quite vague in parts, which I’m sure is where the books would fill in the gaps. However, despite not knowing the characters, I enjoyed the casting choices. Current Disney-darling, Josh Gad, is great in every role he plays and his portrayal of giant dwarf thief (he is a giant dwarf that is a thief, not a big guy that steals dwarves, I should clarify), Mulch Diggums was no exception. It was nice to see Colin Farrell not playing a bad guy for a change and he is very easy on the eye, so his presence in the film as Artemis Fowl Sr, was appreciated by me and my daughter. Judy Dench was Judy Dench, so no complaints there.
The storyline for the live action is very similar to the original. A pedigree cocker spaniel from the upper-class neighbourhood meets a mongrel and after some disruption at home, runs off with him to be shown what life is like on the other side of the picket fence. If you haven’t seen the original, I highly recommend it.
Onto the next ‘issue’. Jock being female. She was voiced by Ashley Jenson, who I feel brings so much character to any role she plays and didn’t disappoint here. Did they need to change Jocks gender? No, he was fine as he was. Did it make the character any worse being female? No. I felt it actually improved the character and gave them more to work with. Why did they change the gender? Don’t know and, frankly, don’t care. Next!
In this version, Devon & Rex, act like interior designers and decide that the house needs ‘redecorating’. Aunt Sarah still thinks that it is Lady that has trashed the house, but there is no indication to anyone that she has attacked the cats. Why Aunt Sarah would put a muzzle on a dog because they trashed the house makes no sense. Surely a muzzle stops a dog from biting. It could still trash a house quite easily with the muzzle still on. Ok, so as my daughter just pointed out (as I read this out to her and Ben), muzzles also stop a dog from barking but, again, still wouldn’t stop them trashing a house. So, in conclusion to my ranty monologue, should have changed the song? Yes. Should they have changed the breed and character of the cats? No. However, once again, does it take away anything from the quality of the film, in my opinion? No. Finally, just a little addition to this point, I actually really enjoyed the song, ‘What a Shame’.
They just don’t appeal to me. So, I was interested to see what I thought of it and went in with an open mind, convinced that as it’s Disney, I will love it. So, I said to Ben, “I’m going upstairs to watch a new Disney film”, to which he responded (as he had briefly misheard me), “That sounds like my kind of ‘Isney’ film” (say my sentence out loud, if you missed what he might’ve heard). The fact that I’d said that I was going upstairs, in the middle of the day, to watch it, must’ve very much raised his eyebrows. Anyway, onto the review!
Timmy is an only-child that lives with his single mum (you see his Dad walk out on them at the beginning of the film) and believes that he runs his own detective agency with his partner, Total, a full-sized polar bear. Now, initially, I was wondering how he managed to own a polar bear but, alas, Total is essentially his imaginary friend. I should add here that the polar bear is seriously cute, for a 1200-pound carnivore. The film follows Timmy’s life as he tries to run his detective agency and deal with school, whilst trying to prove that all the crime in the area is being perpetrated by the Russians that live in his city (Portland, Oregon).
I felt that Timmy wasn’t coping with the world at all and his mum’s frustration was all too close to home, for me. I do have a habit (as does Ben) of getting too emotionally invested in fictional characters (see Ben’s Bambi review if you want to see how much). It was quite clear that he had created this world of ‘being a detective’, as I way of attempting to gain some control of his life. We see that ‘Total’ comes into his life shortly after his dad leaves. The child has developed an ability to block all his emotions. He says, “Affirmative” instead of “Yes”, “Negative” instead of “No” and, more concernedly, he can not bring himself to say the word, “Sorry”, when he has done something wrong (even to his mum) and instead says, “Mistakes were made” (hence the tagline to the film). Timmy clearly has compassion, and we see this a few times throughout the film, but at times my heart breaks for his mum. Funnily enough, I don’t want to watch a Disney film and feel like I’m psychoanalyzing the characters. I appreciate the most people just watch films and switch off from seeing the characters as humans, but I really struggle. My issue. Shall we psychoanalyze me? Let’s not, eh. By the end of the film, he has developed in his character a bit, but not enough to make it worthwhile. 
Then the film just ends. It doesn’t seem to have the usual beginning, middle and end. It just… is. There is no real sense of starting at an equilibrium, getting into a disequilibrium and the ending at equilibrium again. I found that at 25 minutes in, it was really struggling to hold my attention.
The film starts with Ian waking up on his 16th birthday. Ian is an elf that lives with his mum, his older brother Barley and their pet dragon. Ian’s dad, Will, died from a sudden illness when Ian’s mum was pregnant with him, so Ian never got to meet his dad. Ian and Barley’s mum tells them that their dad had left a package for them, that they weren’t allowed to open until they had both reached 16. When opened, the package is revealed to be a magical staff, with a spell attached that will bring their dad back to life for one day. This not only confirmed Barley’s theory that magic is still out there, but that their Dad had magic in him and was a wizard. The spell can only be performed by another with magic in them and with the aid of a phoenix stone in the top of the staff (which they also find in the package). Barley spends a long time trying to perform the spell, but to no avail. However, later on when Ian tries, the spell starts to work (proving that Ian has inherited magical powers from their father), but halfway through, the phoenix stone gets destroyed, leaving only the lower half of their dad’s body. Ian and Barley decide to go on an old-style quest to find another phoenix stone, to complete the spell in order to have their full dad back. Unfortunately, the spell will wear off at sunset the next day, so they have a time limit for the quest.
Disney - Guide for the Misguided 