Return of Jafar

I am going to break with my traditional introduction - and the reasons are twofold. The first is that no one will care/notice/read this and the second is that Return of Jafar is a departure for me, in that it is genuinely brilliant. I’ve never seen anything like it, but I hope to again one day in my life. Luckily I have it on video. The plot, such as it is, takes off Not-Too-Long after the events of Aladdin; his good self and Jasmine are betrothed and he now lives the Arabian equivalent of the Life of Riley – but that hasn’t deterred him from stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. The film’s opening sequence takes place somewhere not dissimilar to the Cave of Wonders – only not a giant, sandy lion mouth -  where Aladdin battles some less humanitarian thieves (you can tell they’re bad ‘cause of their accents, Jason Alexander excluded) for the Less Wondrous Cave’s gold. Aladdin is cheeky, he flies away, smooches with Jas, accidentally gets his life saved by Iago, who whilst still retaining his quippy bent, comes good, and WHOA, WHOA, WHOA…

I assure you, I will go on to discuss the finer points of this absurd feature; however, one component must first be acknowledged: Gilbert Gottfried. For whatever reason, the guy decided to take this gig semi-seriously, and as a result, he hit a home run. He acts his socks off and the character is given a legitimate arch, aside from the ridiculousness of his escape (him and Jafar dig their way out of the Cave of Wonders...) He then abandons his long time cohort, realising he could get a lot further going his own way and then, entirely for his own gain, decides to ally himself with Aladdin and Friends. But along the way, he learns the value of their friendship and realises that this is far more valuable than any power he ever had. Lessons are learnt, bonds are forged, yadda-yadda-yadda. But the genuine discomfort Gottfried portrays when Jafar blackmails him into betraying his new family is weirdly moving, as is the final scene, wherein he nearly dies to save them. So yeah. Gold star for Gottfried. The same cannot be said about the rest of the movie.

Return of Jafar is a mess of continuity errors, weird fourth wall jokes, cruise liner standard song-and-dance numbers and poor, poor Dan Castanellaneta, as the Genie. A little history lesson on the movie; Robin Williams fell out big time with the studio, after they went back on their promise to not use his name and image to promote the Genie as a major character in Aladdin – this was in exchange for him doing the movie at a fraction of his usual pay (so far, so petty, but hey-ho). Anyway, long story short, they made up, and Castanellaneta’s dialogue for the third film in the franchise was dubbed over by Williams. If only the poor guy didn’t have to take credit for this movie, either. The writing for the Genie is utterly devoid of any context, or indeed humour. In the first movie, they utilized Robin Williams’ GENIEus (…) improvisational skills, but the impressions, the references, the nineties slang, they all were rooted in what was going on in the plot. In Return of Jafar, the Genie will literally say something and turn into it, as if they’re trying to cram in as many “gags” as they can, just to make the time pass.

The writing for the rest of the characters doesn’t fare any better; Aladdin himself is insufferably smarmy, with none of the charm he had in his namesake movie. He nudges, he winks, he acts like an idiot, but for whatever reason, now has no shred of his old insecurities, and struts about like an entitled fuck. Jasmine is just… Weird… Considering she was another one of Disney’s strong-willed heroines, it’s a pretty big middle finger to the first film that they’ve made her so permanently seductive, she appears almost drugged. The pair go through a cookie-cutter conflict and we don’t give a damn. But we have a helluva time along the way, and here’s why:

Eyebrows disappear and reappear, characters behave with either no motivation, or one so far removed from reality, that the audience is none the wiser, facial expressions are surreally badly animated and shot in weird close-ups and… These things are a joy to behold and joy to share with and point out to other people. Much like The Room, mutual bafflement is the key to this film. It’s best watched with a couple of friends at 3 o’clock in the morning. Like all the best bad movies. And for those reasons, I’m glad to have seen it nine-hundred times.   

Cats and Dogs, DVD

I have no opinion on Cats and Dogs – but my cousin had one once; and it was that Cats and Dogs is “like a fucking endurance test”. I guess that’s a start. What was left of my brain, after my inexplicable second viewing, luckily retained enough of the basic premise to write this review. Jeff Goldblum, unable to resist the allure of either another zany scientist role, or another paycheque, plays Professor Brody (thank you, Wikipedia…) an inattentive, but well-meaning father, intent on curing his allergy to dog hair. However, his current test subject and son Scott’s (Alexander Pollock) beloved pet, apparently runs away. In fact, he has been kidnapped by a SWAT team of nefarious cats, led by the maniacal Snowball (Sean Hayes). Enter Lou (Tobey Maguire), a puppy mistaken for a highly-trained dog-agent (I can’t believe I just wrote those words), who is adopted by Brody and his family. What follows, is a torrent of unrelenting crap - more so than if you were to buy an actual dog.

Bratty little Scott Brady (not the actor’s fault, just the script’s) rejects poor Lou at first, before gradually warming to him. This is fairly standard family fare and therefore comparatively inoffensive. The scenes between Brody and his wife (Elizabeth Perkins) are hopeless, however. Coldly written and acted, as if the two have never seen a conversation between actual human beings before. But this is nothing compared the A Story, a war between the cat population, who under Snowball’s lead, wish to rule the planet, and the canine agents, who seek to protect their beloved, oblivious humans. The animal characters, like in Madagascar (the last movie I reviewed on here and one that, compared to this, could be fucking Fantasia) are cardboard cut outs. Lou is taken under the wing of a gruff, older dog, with “a past” and a lost love. She herself is sassy, self-assured and of course, good hearted. Yawn. But Sean Hayes’s Snowball is a character that, under a more adept writing team – yes, this was written by more than one person (!??) had the potential to be really funny. He’s an arrogant, sophisticate who is routinely and humiliatingly coddled by his elderly owner’s house keeper. Hayes’s ability is wasted, by and large, apart from a few mild chuckles regarding his happy-go-lucky and incompetent assistant. There is nothing wrong with a movie for families satirizing the standard character traits that appear frequently in adult films, but it’s not enough for them to just exist. They have to be written well and this film’s writing is mind numbingly stupid.

You may have wondered why I have relayed so little of the plot, thus far. It's because there is almost none – nothing happens, until about two-thirds of the way through, when the conflict comes to a head, and then ends, in a scene where the audience has next to no idea what’s happening and cares even less. Everything up until that point is a series of stupid exchanges between the animals and dull and stupid exchanges between the humans. I’ve rarely encountered movies with so little respect for their audience.

What is particularly disheartening about this film, is that according to the featurette, the CGI and animatronics were at the cutting edge at the time the movie was made. The artists (crew, not actors – they’re clearly just picking up their cheques) speak passionately about the effects they are able to accomplish on the film – but what a waste. The idea that a large sum of money was spent on Cats & Dogs is depressing, but unsurprising. But to invest in talent in regard to effects and not script, seems genuinely odd.

It may seem, given I’m not a part of this film’s demographic, that I’m judging it too harshly. I go further into my feelings on this in my Madagascar review. I will say this, however. I grew up loving cinema, not because poor family films did not exist during my childhood. They did - and how... But despite getting some laughs from such mediocre movies as Space Jam, the films that made me fall in love with the form were the Jungle Book, Aladdin, Roger Rabbit. And unless I’m actually a twenty-three year-old curmudgeon, it seems movies of that high a standard, for kids, are rarer nowadays. Does this mean a generation of children will grow up not falling in love with the movies? Probably not. But I don’t think we should take that chance.

Coming soon – A far more light-hearted review, of the high-larious Return of Jafar. A movie so bad, yet so glorious, that it can’t be and WON’T BE (!!!) faulted.

Also check out The Pitch, in which I attempt to analyse animated films that are genuinely good.

I have no opinion on Madagascar. But if I did, this would be it. A group of neurotic New-Yorkers being dumped into the jungle and left to, rather pathetically, fend for themselves, has undeniable potential on the gag/pathos scale. As does the ironic twist that these city slickers are a gang of pampered zoo animals. So, with genuinely innovative animation, and some impressive acting talent, Madagascar should be, at least, diverting escapism. So why isn’t it? Simple. Madagascar isn’t funny. Which begs the question, why would one review this as a comedy, as opposed to “just” a children’s film? There are a few answers, the first being that it is a comedy. It is quite clearly pitched as a comedy and it’s certainly fair to expect a family movie to chuck in some laughs. But lazily referencing a talent pool of superior film is not comedy. Neither is, much as it pains me to admit it, being really, really in-your-face. Madagascar sadly falls prey to the notion that these things add up to a coherent script, plot and character be damned! Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, the writing team behind both Pirates of the Caribbean and Shrek, understand that this isn’t the case. The first Shrek had moments of genuine poignancy and was consistently funny when I watched it again as a real person (read; grownup). Pirates 1 may not exactly be Woody Allen, but Captain Jack is – in that movie, anyway – a laugh.

I would be remiss if I didn’t comment on the undeniably genius animation – and the concept behind it, as a kind of love-letter to the Looney Toons. Chuck Jones’s comic timing is honoured extremely well - particularly under the constraints of the weak script, his influence stamped onto every visual gag. You can also expect to be entertained by Sacha Baron Coen and David Schwimmer (channelling Ross), who are both blatantly having a ball. Whilst I would always rather hear the polish that you only get with an experienced vocal artist, the two are perfectly cast and know it. It is difficult for me to comment on the characters themselves because whilst Coen, Schwimmer and co are entertaining, they are also one-dimensional caricatures. You have the Blandly Dissatisfied Hero One… The Sissy One, the Sassy One, the Fat One, the Fat AND Sassy One, the Quirky One and so on and kill me. These stereotypes are too often excused in animation, the argument being that animated characters are inherently one-dimensional. They are also too often allowed to pass for legitimate children’s entertainment. That in particular, has to stop.