‘Aladdin’ remake is missing original’s energy

( PG ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

Even the magic carpet looks bummed out in the Disney remake of ‘Aladdin,’ directed and co-written by Guy Ritchie.

Daniel Smith/Disney/AP
Mena Massoud (l.) and Naomi Scott star in Disney's live-action adaptation of the 1992 animated children's film ‘Aladdin.’

Please forgive the pun, but the new Disney “Aladdin” rubbed this critic the wrong way. This film – about a street urchin who frees a wish-granting genie from a lamp and transforms himself into a prince in order to win the heart of a princess – continues the studio’s highly dubious trend of remaking its animated hits as live-action extravaganzas. This may make commercial sense but in every other respect, the results don’t begin to measure up to the animated originals, some of which weren’t exactly classics anyway.

Take, for example, the rejiggerings of “The Jungle Book,” “Beauty and the Beast,” “Cinderella,” and “Dumbo.” None of these live-action iterations came close to the visual inventiveness or wit of their sources at their best.

The 1992 “Aladdin” was not even top-drawer Disney animation, but it showcased Robin Williams’ Genie in perhaps the best and funniest animation performance of all time. Guy Ritchie, who directed and co-wrote the new version, is a specialist in cacophonous, ultra-violent crime capers (“Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels”) so it’s not clear why he was chosen to direct a children’s classic, and a musical to boot. (Most of Alan Menken’s original score, plus a new, unexciting song, “Speechless,” are back.) No big surprise that the musical numbers in “Aladdin” are cloddishly staged by Ritchie. There are no speeding cars, no brass knuckles, no firepower to juice things up.

As Aladdin and Princess Jasmine, Mena Massoud and Naomi Scott are so flavorless and squeaky-clean that they might almost be mistaken for CGI effects, of which there are plenty in this film, almost all of them cheesy. As the princess’s handmaiden, Nasim Pedrad at least has the comic timing that the rest of the cast, including, surprisingly, Will Smith, conspicuously lack. Smith understandably didn’t want to compete with Williams, but as the big, blue, top-knotted Genie, he’s uncharacteristically bland. Even the magic carpet in this movie looks bummed out.

Next up later this July is the live-action “The Lion King.” I hope this film will be an improvement over these others, but until then, I’m withholding my roar.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.