The live-action Aladdin film is one of the very best of Disney’s latest live-action remakes I had ever seen. Will Smith literally killed it as the Genie, the songs were fun, and Guy Ritchie’s take on the film as a whole was absolutely amazing. It’s a film that I can’t help but favorably compare to the live-action Beauty and the Beast film, if I may add, which didn’t seem as creatively inspired and lacked a sense of fun, despite having its positives to hold it up.

My only gripe is that, while I can see that Marwan Kenzari was trying his best, I can’t help but constantly find him to be too miscast in the role of Jafar. I feel that the character should’ve been played by someone much older compared to Aladdin and Jasmine, and it seemed like no matter how hard he tried, Kenzari wasn’t able to get his performance to click with the character. He seemed to be making Jafar more of a wimp than an intimidating threat, especially compared to Jonathan Freeman and the animated version of the character.

Is there anyone besides me who thinks this? Or has similar feelings?

7172237
I think the remake never should’ve happened. None of them should’ve ever happened.

7172237
Biggest reason why I found the film a somewhat fun, but mostly vacuous waste of time over all?

No Jafar Prince Ali Reprise.

7172259
What about the live-action Jungle Book film?

That one was excellent.

7172259
7172266

The Jungle Book is the only one that I've seen that I think is justifiable, because it's a different enough take on the story that we can safely call it a full-on remake, and not just a shot-for-shot whatchamacallit.

Jungle Book or Tarzan?

7172288
Huh?

7172299
They are more or less the same right?

7172303
🤷🏻‍♂️I don’t think so.

7172237
Yeah, he looked too....young to play Jafar, not as intimidating

... Will Smith had the most lackluster performance I've ever seen out of the man. There was no energy in Prince Ali. Most of his lines were fairly flatly delivered and honestly. That entire movie should never have been touched. The animated movie was one of their best of the last hand drawn movies they made. Along with The Lion King and a very few other notables. Disney is dead as a production company. I mean hell, just look at what they did to Star Wars!

7172362
I disagree with you. And for your information, I’ve enjoyed the films of the latest Star Wars trilogy.

Aside from that, at least they aren’t like “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”, which was one of the most agonizing, dull, and painful films I had ever seen.

7172237
Yeah, Will Smith did great as the Genie and I bet he did Williams honor. As for Jafar, I had no disrespect for the actor, but I have to agree with you: Nobody beats Freeman in playing Jafar. (Unless it's someone who can do his voice prety well) Nevertheless, Jonathan Freeman totally nailed the character since the first time Aladdin premiered.

Freeman has played Jafar in lots of things, even in the Broadway musical.

7172237
As 7172259 , and 7172362 have stated, no remake should have ever been done, they all are less than garbage compared with the original Animated features.

Want the tykes to get acquainted with the stories? RE-RELEASE THE GODDAMN ANIMATIONS DISNEY!

The problem with the remakes is the same problem Ghostbusters 2016 has: it is a massive cash grab, meant to take advantage of the original properties and their long time fanbase (With Ghostbusters 2016 adding the "Female demographic pandering" to its list of sins.

Personally I won't touch the remakes with a 10'000,000 ft. long pole (including watching Nostalgia Critic's reviews of them), but yeah, the casting of Jaffar was the greatest mistake in the mistake that was that remake.

Regarding Star Wars... the Disney Era has been... meh with CAPITAL M, e, and h, butt that ain't Disney's fault (the Prequels still hurt man!).

As for Star Trek The Motion Picture... you either need to have your eyes or your brain checked, that or your opinion should be disregarded on the topic entirely. but then again, I LOATHE the Kelvinverse too.
You asked for opinions, so don't complain when we believe yours are objectively WRONG.

7172428

As for Star Trek The Motion Picture... you either need to have your eyes or your brain checked, that or your opinion should be disregarded on the topic entirely. but then again, I LOATHE the Kelvinverse too.

It wasn’t the Kelvinverse films I was talking about. It was the very first Star Trek film in the history of history that I was commenting on. The one that was made in 1986 is the one I find to be a hunk of junk so far.

Personally I won't touch the remakes with a 10'000,000 ft. long pole (including watching Nostalgia Critic's reviews of them)...

Honestly, I’ve despised the Nostalgia Critic for as long as I can remember. He’s nothing but an idiot with nothing to do but complain.

7172259
I wouldn’t say that.

The only ones that should’ve never come to fruition are the Lion King and Beauty and the Beast remakes, because they turned out to be extremely uninspired.

7172404

at least they aren’t like “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”, which was one of the most agonizing, dull, and painful films I had ever seen.

7172436
Oh, I know that, personally, I found that, while it was a bit slow, the Tale of V-Ger was a fun romp (I had watched up to Enterprise when I could watch ST:TMP, so I was a Trekkie deeply rooted by that time). The kelvin reference was to express the point that I enjoy more the original timeline, including the tale of V-Ger.

meh, not everyone can understand the appeal of watching a certified lunatic rant and rave about things one enjoys, which cements the idea of disregarding most of your Noble Pinions.

After all, Nostalgia Critic fulfills a very important role in Life.

7172404
Congratulations. Did I say anywhere you couldn't enjoy them? They're objectively terrible films in which one of the directors has come out and openly stated he did not care or pay attention to any of the established lore of the entire series, nor did he care for any of the characters. This includes the movie he was supposed to be making a sequel of. He purposefully sabotaged one of the most financially successful franchises in cinema history.

As for Aladdin. Want to know just how boring Will Smith was? Listen, just listen to Will Smith's Prince Ali, then go listen to Robin Williams's rendition. Note that Smith's rendition is probably one of the most phoned in performances of his career, and I'm generally a fan of his.

7172452

Oh, I know that, personally, I found that, while it was a bit slow, the Tale of V-Ger was a fun romp (I had watched up to Enterprise when I could watch ST:TMP, so I was a Trekkie deeply rooted by that time). The kelvin reference was to express the point that I enjoy more the original timeline, including the tale of V-Ger.

TMP was my first ever exposure to Trek, when I was just three years old. It's what got me into the series in the first place. I started rewatching it the other day, and I think I like it even more now.

As for the Kelvin Timeline stuff...eh, I don't really hate it. Beyond is my favorite out of the three.

7172452
Your opinion’s your opinion. But I pretty much stand by my own when I say that V’Ger was a dull antagonist, and that her quest was ridiculously stupid.

7172455
You talking about Star Trek or Star Wars?

7172458
"Her"? Where on Earth did you get the idea that V'Ger was female? Or even had a gender at all? It's a stinkin' Voyager probe; a machine. It just used Illia's image as the probe it sent to the Enterprise to communicate its intentions with the crew.

And no. It's motivation of trying to find it's creator isn't stupid. It's ironic. The vast, cold, calculating, nigh-invulnerable alien super-intelligence, about as far from human as you can possibly get, has a motivation that is more human than one would think it could have. "Is this all I am? Is there nothing more?".

I'm not gonna lie, if you can just write of something like that as "stupid" then...well then I really don't know.

At least it wasn't trying to find God on a planet at the center of the galaxy. Because that's just stupid on multiple levels.

7172266
Still not worth all the other trash remakes.

My vote goes for Naveen Andrews or Oded Fehr

They both portrayed Jafar in the TV series Once Upon a Time and we're great in the role

I agree with you on Jafar. Most people seem to have this complaint too. But I don't like the film at all. The only live-action films Disney has put out that I have liked are Cinderella, The Jungle Book, and Christopher Robin. Funny enough, I think the Cinderella remake is the best one they've put out so far.

7172237
Not to mention, lacking that same charm, and charisma which makes Jafar as enjoyable as he is. I'm not sure what the producers were thinking of adding in that "I used to be just like you" and the "this nation is a threat, and must be destroyed" duo of plotpoints for Jafar. The original Jafar is a suave, eccentric, and enthusiastic snake (no offense to the snakes of the world) whose only real concern was gaining power: he wanted to depose the idiotic sultan who was far too gentle, and naive for his role. He hated the Sultan for his incompetence, and envious that someone like him had complete control over the most prosperous city in the land. BUT.......he was always composed when he was in the presence of royalty because he knew how to bide his time.

The kind of unpredictable player in a game of chess.

And when he DID seize control? All the pretenses were dropped, and he was no longer a subtle sadist: his maniacal sadism was on full display, and he demonstrated how he enjoyed EVERY, SINGLE, MOMENT of his evil. The confidence, and evil charisma oozing off of this man as he gave out abject humiliation was delightful as he demonstrated his newfound might as a sorcerer. And in this new form, his true self was revealed as a truly wicked, temperamental sadist who takes pleasure in humiliating others just as much as killing them. A manipulative serpent who was only defeated by a simple "Street Rat's" quick thinking, and his own obsession with absolute power. He's a villain who steals the show in intimidation, flare, and entertainment.

Unfortunately, I didn't get any of that from Marwan Kenzari. I doubt it was his fault, but his execution, and Jafar's over-all depiction left much to be desired. He wasn't threatening, nor did he carry that obvious villain vibe he's supposed to have when he's introduced. The whole making him a "street rat" who worked his way to the top just to make him Aladdin's foil was unnecessary since the original characters were already perfect foils: one a poor, dirt-ridden street dweller who is treated as worthless yet still remains a diamond in the rough, and the other an aristocratic vizier who garbs himself in fine robes and jewelry to present himself with regality and nobility which only hides the evil inside. That's the whole entire message of Aladdin, as genie/the peddler put it: "Do not be fooled by its commonplace appearance. Like so many things, it is not what is outside: but what is INside that counts." As a major disney buff, I couldn't feel that message in the movie when it came to the parallels between Aladdin and Jafar. The producers basically downplayed one of Disney's greatest villains into a standard, militaristic-minded noble who is kind of a one track villain........which makes me really sad, given how Jafar IS one of my favorites.:(

But Will Smith REALLY gave it his all in bringing us a new approach to the Genie of the Lamp, and it really works out well.:D At least, in my opinion.