MPAA Rating: PG/ Genre: Musical Fantasy/Stars: Tom Hanks, Cynthia Erivo, Luke Evans, Sheila Atim, Jamie Demetriou, Giuseppe Battiston, Kyanne Lamaya, Lewin Lloyd; Voices of: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Benjamin Evan Ainsworth, Lorraine Bracco, Keegan-Michael Key, Jaquita Ta’le/ Runtime: 105 minutes
*sigh* well here we go again dear reader. At this time, I think it can be safely said that if there is one cinematic trope that is becoming quite annoying, it is the one being instigated by Disney and which takes the form of pulling at random (I’m guessing) yet another of their timeless iconic animated slices of cinema and transforming it into a film that is a blend of live-action/computer animation. A trope incidentally that, with an exception here and there aside (2016’s The Jungle Book to name my favorite example), has resulted in a lot of these adaptations being viewed with more than just a singular skepticism-raised eyebrow as to why if something was so brilliantly and creatively done the first time around on the cinematic merry-go-round then why on Earth does it need to be rehashed? Suffice it to say that this take on Pinocchio is definitely NOT going to be the film to help Disney prove their side of that particular argument. Not by a long shot. I say that because, regardless of the fact that the phenomenally skilled director Robert Zemeckis is at the helm and the fact that acting icon Tom Hanks is playing a role here that seems like it should fit him to a t, this slice of cinema is one that I wish had listened to its conscience a lot more than it did apparently. Indeed, here is a slice of cinema that feels less like an actual movie and more like a compilation of greatest hits from the 1940 animated take on the story all while trying to give it a “modern edge” that, given the setting and locale, just simply does not work. Thus, I’m sure this 2022 “take” on the story of Pinocchio might be one that, if your child is ever home sick from school, you can turn on to keep their mind off how they feel for a little while. As for everyone else though (and even those kids too come to think): trust me when I say that there are a lot of better options out there to watch that won’t leave you checking your watch every 3 minutes (something I may or may not be able to attest to with this).
The plot is as follows: So stop me when this sounds familiar dear reader. The story of Pinocchio gets underway as we observe an anthropomorphic drifter of a cricket by the name of Jiminy as he sneaks his way into a house to get out of the elements for a while. We soon learn that the home our insectoid vagabond has decided to crash in for awhile is one where a kind yet solitary and slightly eccentric woodcarver named Geppetto resides with his cat Figaro and fish Cleo whom he loves with all his heart. Yet, there is someone else who resides in Geppetto’s heart as well. Someone who takes the shape and form of the son he tragically lost and who Geppetto has never stopped thinking about all these years incidentally. To that end, we (along with Jiminy) see that Geppetto has just put the finishing touches on a puppet that is based on the son he lost and who he bestows the name of Pinocchio to just before going to sleep. However, just before nodding off, Geppetto sees a star blaze through the sky and makes an impromptu wish that Pinocchio (get this) become a real live boy! We soon see that, courtesy of a visit from a magical blue fairy, this wish is granted and Pinocchio is shortly thereafter brought to life. At the same time however, he is also told that if he wishes to become a genuinely real young man, he must first show that he knows how to be honest, courageous, and selfless (or something like that). Yet, upon realizing that Pinocchio will need to be taught these things, we see the Blue Fairy grant Jiminy the authority to act as Pinocchio’s conscience until such a time that it is no longer necessary. Thus, the stage is now set for Pinocchio and Jiminy to now embark on a “grand adventure”. One involving a giant whale, a pair of con-artists, an island with a terrifying secret, and some genuinely vile people and that will either prove Pinocchio has what it takes to be a real boy or inspire the Blue Fairy to start accepting returns on wishes granted…..
Now in terms of the work done behind the camera for this film, I can honestly say I am shocked by what is on display here. I say that because all the creative team, spearheaded by helmer/co-screenwriter/co-producer Robert Zemeckis, has managed to do is give us 95% of the same movie we got in 1940 including narrative, story beats, and musical selection. Heck the only deviations on display are three new characters, some actors and sets being live-action, and everything else being made courtesy of Zemeckis’ defining romance with Lady Computer Animation. I mean don’t get me wrong: there are some examples of computer animation working wonders in this film including how the Blue Fairy is depicted, the look of the quaint little town where Geppetto lives, or even when it comes to making Pleasure Island look like the most perversely and dementedly enjoyable take on Disney World I have ever seen. At the same time though, there are quite a few drawbacks to the computer animation as well. Not only in terms of how certain characters (especially Jiminy Cricket) are designed, but also some key moments taking place on the water and a certain beast named Monstro that feel like a major step downward from what we have seen Zemeckis usually be able to pull off, but fingers crossed it’s because he ran out of money and not that he’s starting to slip creatively. It should also be noted that we do get a fairly well-done musical score here courtesy of iconic composer Alan Silvestri who also gives us some new songs here, but sadly none of them manage to be anywhere close to the level of instantly catchy let alone iconic as the time-honored favorites “When You Wish Upon a Star” or “I’ve Got No Strings”. Ultimately though, I think what saddens me the most about this film is that it is made by a man who has shown he can create a genuine spectacle with his movies, but here is more content to just stick to what the first one did and bring few new contributions to the table in the process. It is with that in mind then that I feel I must ask: if nothing of a substantial nature was going to be tinkered with save for transitioning from animated to a live-action/CGI hybrid then why bother to bring this to fruition in the first place? I mean does throwing out Chris Pine’s name and the multitude of Disney winks and nods in the clocks at Geppetto’s really justify a movie that, in the eyes of this critic, is only being made because kids of a certain age just feel like they have to have a version of this story made exclusively for them when the original is very much a story that is universal in nature? Suffice it to say that behind the camera this slice of cinema definitely has some good to it, but trust me when I say that there is quite a bit on display here that will definitely leave you scratching your head going “just what in the world were they thinking?”
Now you’re probably wondering about the performances in this slice of cinema and honestly they’re….alright at best. I mean don’t get me wrong: there are some “decent” performances to be found here that I can appreciate. For starters, I really do like what Luke Evans is able to pull off here in the role of the villainous Coachman. Indeed, Evans has as of late been a terrific antagonistic presence in a lot of the movies he’s been a part of and I think he most assuredly brings just the right degree of sinister energy and flamboyance to a part that definitely required it. It’s just that when you couple that with him working alongside two of the smoke monsters from LOST near the end of his screentime….you start to really ask yourself just what it is you are watching. I also felt that Cynthia Erivo definitely brings the right touch of magic and class to the part of the Blue Fairy…. even if the film infuriatingly wastes her talent and only provides her with 10-15 minutes of screentime tops, but hey at least she gets to sing (and fairly beautifully I might add) some of “When You Wish Upon a Star” as she exits stage right (lucky her). In terms of the voice roles, I will concede that I did get a twisted delight from seeing Keegan Michael-Key in the role of the conniving fox Honest John even IF there were moments where the dialogue he was uttering DID make me raise an eyebrow in disbelief that someone actually looked this script over and ok’d those lines coming out of the character’s mouth. This brings me however to the more…..fun performances that this film has to offer and no they’re not more fun because they’re better, but because of how jaw-droppingly hammy the live action role is, and how horrifically miscast the voice role is. In terms of the first category, that dubious honor goes to none other than Tom Hanks in the role of Geppetto and I would just like to say that I have a love for Tom Hanks as a performer like few others in the business to the point that his participation in a movie will automatically guarantee I see a movie at least once. At the same time though, I also know by this time when Hanks is genuinely acting or when he is hamming it up for the camera and this is definitely a role in the latter category. I mean don’t get me wrong: he IS trying, but boy is he having a blast being as eccentric and kooky as he possibly can in this. Suffice it to say that it is by no means a bad performance, but what does it say when the better role in 2022 to date for the man coined “America’s Dad” is not a live action take on one of the most famous animated Disney fathers ever, but the role of Elvis’ scumbag music manager? At this time, I would also like to say that I also enjoy Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a performer, but whoever it was that saw this clearly talented thespian and thought “wow! He would make a fantastic Jiminy Cricket!” needs to be given their pink slip and/or given a serious psychiatric exam ASAP. I say that because Levitt as Jiminy just doesn’t do it for me. Indeed, this version of the character is less a willing volunteer conscience who is wonderfully serious yet slightly comedic and more a self-confessed “temporary conscience” whose been, for all intents and purposes, blackmailed into the gig whilst also sounding a lot like Mr. Hanky from South Park and who gets in way too many wisecracks and not enough genuinely serious moments. Like I said Mr. Gordon-Levitt is, without question, a wonderful actor with the right material, but this is by no means the right material. Thus, just like everything else with this slice of cinema, there is good to be found in the work in front of the camera, but it also comes hand-in-hand with a lot of questionable material as well.
All in all, I’m not going to lie to you dear reader: if you are a member of the land of movie magic and you are aiming to make a live action remake of the timeless animated film from the Disney pantheon that is Pinocchio then please whatever you do don’t make your final product as wooden as the titular character. Indeed, if there is one thing I can say for sure about this slice of cinema, it is that this film is further evidence that Disney’s bullheaded goal to make versions that are a mix of both live action as well as CGI of all of its iconic animated movies is one that, with few exceptions, is proving that maybe just maybe the generation they’re doing this for needs to stop being so lazy and just check out the original movies instead. Further confusing me on why they are choosing to do this is because, again with few cinematic exceptions, there isn’t a whole lot being gained from this cinematic experiment in terms of novelty or originality. A case that can clearly be seen here is because, significantly rushed runtime and an odd ending aside, this slice of cinema is one that feels less like a movie and more like a cinematic greatest hits compilation of the original animated classic from 1940. Yet as if that wasn’t bad enough, we see that despite being devotedly (some might say blindly) loyal to those old-school trappings, this slice of cinema’s script isn’t too fond of this devotion. As such, we get a film that can’t decide between if it would like to embrace the old-time charm of the original or go down a more modern road which results in some absolutely cringeworthy dialogue that will make you want to scream into a pillow. Suffice it to say that the visuals might not be terrible and some of the performances, including a wonderfully hammy Tom Hanks who is to some degree trying here (though in all fairness when is he NOT), aren’t too bad. At the same time though, I would rather not see my nose grow courtesy of lying to you and saying that this is definitely a slice of cinema you need to see. Therefore, all I will say is this: if this movie was your wish upon a star come true then we need to have a serious talk dear reader. Make of that what thou will…..On a scale of 1-5 I give Pinocchio “2022” a solid 2.5 out of 5.
