Aladdin (2019) Film Review: Why, Guy Ritchie, Why?!?

Months ago, I reviewed Guy Ritchie's "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels", which I stated that it was his one and only masterpiece. After rewatching it, I was reminded of the worst film he has made. Although one might say his King Arthur film is worse, you can at least say that it's a Guy Ritchie film, something that you can't say about the "Aladdin" remake. A live-action adaptation of the 1992 animated hit, Aladdin is a thief who is in love with the princess, Jasmine. The villainous Jafar instructs him to capture a magical lamp, which contains a wish-making Genie that can help Aladdin become a prince to woo Jasmine, while Jafar attempts to get the lamp for himself.  While the film does stick close to the animated counterpart, they decided to change up on certain set-pieces and flesh the character of Jasmine out more, along with some political intrigue that Jafar and the Sultan are butting heads over. These differences only manage to harm the film in the process. The set-pieces are way less engaging as everything is scaled back for whatever reasons. From the Cave of Wonders collapsing being less exaggerated to the climax having a giant parrot chase the heroes rather than Jafar fighting them with his magic. Fleshing out Jasmine's character in return takes away more time from Aladdin and doesn't establish him very well, despite his role as the lead. The political intrigue is also uninteresting as it involves Jafar wanting to invade another kingdom where Jasmine's mother was from. The issue with this useless subplot is that we not only see Jasmine's mother, but not one single person from this mysterious land at all. There are other changes and inclusions, but the point is that they all degrade the original in a minimal or large scale. The humour is also lacking as it tends to go for more awkward dialogue rather than hilarious lines. It also doesn't help that the Genie is made to be more charismatic rather than goofy. It does work for the character as a whole, but the humour only grants a chuckle here or there because of this.

Mena Massoud as Aladdin is a polarizing role, as many either think he did an awful or good performance. The issue with the character is that there's not really much of one. He's deadpan, lacking emotion, and doesn't have much depth to him. However, Massoud is clearly trying his best and his scenes with Jasmine are good to say the least, going for an awkward teen asking out their crush vibe. I honestly think that he's a good actor, but he's just not been giving much direction of his character. Will Smith as the Genie is meant to steal the show and well, what can I say? It's Will Smith being fun and charming as always. He's not really funny, mind you, but he's entertaining to watch interact off with Massoud. Naomi Scott as Jasmine is also pretty good, given her increased role for wanting leadership of her kingdom, and being a good singer. She's a bit too white for the role in my opinion, but she's still a good actor. Then, there's Jafar, who is practically the worst character of the movie. Although the character was so charismatic and devious in the original, they got the worst actor for the job. Marwan Kenzari is not only too young to play a character whose age is made fun of, but his line delivery is just laughably bad. I'm sure Kenzari is a nice guy and can act in different films, but he was clearly not meant for this role. As for the side characters, there's the Sultan, who I feel is the best performance of the film, as the character is much more serious than the animated counterpart. Dalia is Jasmine's annoying handmaiden who falls in love with the Genie, who I just can't stand. She's clearly meant to appeal for the rom-com audience and is just the stereotypical role of the woman's best friend who is more thirsty about boys and won't shut up about them. Lastly, there's Prince Anders, a silly-sounding Scandinavian stereotype who is a suitor for Jasmine in one painfully, unfunny scene. Why did I mention him? Well, he's going to get his own spin-off, that's why. So, we can hear more of his unfunny voice. The cast overall is actually pretty good with the actors boasting an enjoyable performance, outside of the characters of Jafar and Dalia.

Guy Ritchie is a director who hasn't really reached his full potential since his first film. With the case of Aladdin, his directing is not only tired, but practically in auto-pilot as there's barely any creativity. Ritchie tends to direct films with a gritty, down-to-earth feel, which doesn't really work in a fantasy musical. While there are some nice sequences, mainly as the city is shown, that's mainly because there's a lot of digital effects in the way. The city of Agrabah is one that is not convincingly brought to life. The interiors of the palace and the set for the city look nice and detailed, there's just way too much CGI used in the backgrounds, especially in the nighttime exteriors. Is it that hard to shoot in Tunisia or something? Cairo in "Indiana Jones" feels much more alive than the kingdom of Agrabah. The costumes are a mixed bag where some looks stylish and fit realistically in the world, while others are either too silly or exaggerated. The cinematography for many of the romance or scenes of exposition is just flat with little care to keep the audience engaged. His signature slow-motion is thrown in at the most random of moments such as Aladdin falling into the ocean or when a fake CGI Abu grabs the fake CGI lamp. I know I keep mentioning the CGI, but a big problem of the filmmaking is the overreliance of the technology. Abu didn't need to be a CGI monkey, a real monkey could be used for most of the scenes that don't put the animal in danger, same can be said for the tiger and Iago, who has no character in this movie. Yet for some reason, they decided to stick with a fake-looking, CGI monkey doing things that a real monkey can do with much better effect. The quality of the CGI as a whole isn't terrible, but using them too much for things that can be done physically will make the effects look pretty bad as the years go by. Lastly, we have the songs. While the original songs are still nice to listen to, and the musical numbers work really well for the film and put on the best effects or physical work, there's still quite a lot of auto-tune used. It's not as bad as the "Beauty and the Beast" remake, but it's pretty noticeable. The new song, Speechless, was pretty unnecessary though. Scott's vocals are good and it's a nice little female empowerment song, but the musical number is a bit silly and the scene that follows up shows Jasmine's plan working only for Jafar to just instantly make her a damsel. It brings up the question why Ritchie was chosen to direct this film in the first place.

"Aladdin" is one of the better Disney live-action remakes, but that's not saying too much. While most of the actors do a good job in their roles, the change of Jasmine and the Sultan's character being the best improvement that was introduced, the set and costume design attempts to make the city of Agrabah come to life, and the musical numbers are decent if you ignore the auto-tune, there's also a lot of issues with the film. Most of the changes made were practically a downgrade from the original, the humour was weak, Jafar was just an embarrassment to the character, Dalia and Prince Anders were annoying inclusions, Ritchie's directing was flat, the overuse of CGI is headache-inducing, and the new musical number just adds useless padding to the film that is instantly disposed of once the scene ended. This is a film that needed to be made by a Bollywood director, which was the remake's biggest wasted potential. A Bollywood-style Aladdin movie would've worked extremely well. Not only would there be far less CGI, but there would be more effort in the musical numbers, the physicality of the actors, more on-location scenery, and perhaps an over-the-top tone that can salvage broken elements such as Jafar's performance. If the film emulated the Bollywood formula, we could be talking about one of the most boldest and creative remakes ever. However, we just got a standard, executive-charged, product that only fuels more uncreative remakes in the near future.

Verdict: 5/10. A mediocre film that could have been so much more than what it is. Just a paycheck for the washed-up director that is Guy Ritchie.