After six months of delay, Disney's live-action remake of "Mulan" is finally scheduled to be released in China in September. But setting aside the controversy caused by direct charging on Disney+ from overseas, is this movie really worth watching?
The answer is yes, although the 2020 version of "Mulan" is nothing more than the much-loved 1998 cartoon It's better, but the live-action version's heartfelt reinterpretation of the animated version has indeed avoided most of Disney's recent mistakes in live-action remakes.
"Mulan" is not as good as Jon Feiru's " Fantasy Forest ", but it proves that Disney still spent a lot of effort to transform these classic stories, instead of just trying to gain money by changing tricks. The movie
may not be perfect, but compared to Disney+'s high on-demand pricing, domestic audiences can definitely make money to watch it in movie theaters.
However, this article is not to praise "Mulan", but to focus on the shortcomings of this film...
4. Visual effects are inconsistent
Although the production cost of "Mulan" is very high, up to 200 million US dollars, but I have to say that for such an expensive movie, the final product is much worse than you expect.
Although the set, costume, location, photography and overall production design are all gorgeous, but like Guy Ritchie's "Aladdin", the overall aesthetic is extremely inconsistent.
This is a movie that looks expensive and cheap, sometimes like a big-made martial arts film, and sometimes like a copycat hodgepodge trying to become a historical epic. In terms of aesthetics, the worst thing about
is undoubtedly the visual effects. Although the visual scenes are usually exquisite and convincing, they always become muddy and fuzzy inexplicably, especially in the avalanche shots in the second half of the film. The shots taken by
director Nikki Carlo ("Whale Rider") are not unattractive, but after special effects, they often look confusing and cheap, and even old-fashioned, which is a bit disappointing for a movie of this size. .
3. Musu’s absence is regrettable.
Although the new version of "Mulan" has abandoned the animated version of the music style, many fans are worried about it, but what is more controversial is that Mulan’s beloved partner Musulong was excluded from the Outside the film. You know, in 1998's "Mulan", Eddie Murphy's Musu dubbed was loved by many western audiences.
Considering that "Aladdin" also weakens Jiafang’s pet Iger, Musu’s disappearance seems to be in line with Disney’s requirements, that is, to remove those “ridiculous” elements from these live-action remakes, but considering that Musu is in the original version Animated films occupy a very important position, and his absence is undoubtedly very regrettable.
Turning Musu into a tougher and more serious character in a live-action movie will be a challenge, but it can definitely be done. As a result, Disney may be concerned about the possible negative impact of the Chinese market and replaced this joking dragon with a more symbolic but ineffective phoenix.
2. A bit bloated
Like most Disney remakes of live-action movies, "Mulan" is not only a remake, but also an extension of the original story, which is nearly 30 minutes longer than the previous animation.
Although this movie is not long, there is not much that can justify the film's length of close to two hours. Although the fascinating action scenes of the third act are worth looking forward to to a certain extent, there are still a lot of boring scenes and nonsense about the importance of clan conflicts and family in the film. What makes
even more strange is that the new version of "Mulan" deleted all the songs of the original animation, and it turned out to be so much longer than the animation version.
Although the first and third acts have been edited properly, it is clear that some of the extra content and small talk in the middle part can be reduced.
Basically, there is no reason for the length of the film to exceed 100 minutes.
1. The English dubbing of the role of Jet Li is distracting
If you fail to recognize Jet Li's role as the emperor in the film, you can't blame you. Because his character has a thick beard on his face, And unexpectedly wasted his Kung Fu superstar's signature.
Although it’s no big deal, it’s very strange that Jet Li’s English dialogue was obviously re-dubbed during post-production.
Although his role in the movie is not particularly big, but every time he appears on the screen, bad dubbing will attract a lot of attention, making it difficult for the audience to take his role seriously, or even notice that he is in Say what.
It is hard to imagine why Disney made such a decision. Although Jet Li's English may not be very good, his speaking of English in his Hollywood career did not affect the audience's understanding of the movie. Therefore, I still suggest you to see the Chinese version dubbed by Jet Li himself.
Put aside these complaints, "Mulan" is still a steady and steady Disney live-action remake...
