This masterpiece excels in all departments (script, directing, acting, graphics, music), has great characters, action and romance and comedy, and achieves to capture the athmosphere and the magic of a fairy tale better than all.
shareIT MIGHT BE THE BEST...ITS NOT MY FAVORITE THOUGH.🤔
share"Beauty and the Beast" is my personal all-time favorite, but "Aladdin" definitely belongs in the top five.
Remaking either was criminal.
To each his own, they are both great movies.
BatB is also in my top 5, the movie as a whole is awesome but in my opinion it is slightly too scripted, as in they fall in love because the script says so, Gaston is an evildoer because the script says so, the magic mirror, the father fucks up etc....I didn't feel too many passages of the story as natural, especially the love story, I wish they spent more time developing how they fell in love.
In Aladdin I was totally into it from start to finish, it sells every passage of a big story, including the romance, the only weak moment I can think of is the "I cannot free you because I'm nobody without you so Genie is offended" bit.
The remakes, are not worth metioning.
I totally agree with you about them both being absolutely fantastic movies, and which you prefer is a matter of taste, preference, and what hits you in the heart or gut.
IMHO if the "BatB" script has problems, the enchanting score gives the movie such a depth of feeling that I don't care! That's what a really good score does, enhances any feelings the characters have and brings more on its own, and adds another layer of beauty to a movie that's already visually stunning. It's one of those rare movies that gets me where I live, on both an emotional and aesthetic level, which is a ridiculous thing to say about a cartoon but there it is - the cartoon is THAT good!
"Aladdin" is just plain fun in every way, a totally enjoyable movie. But it doesn't grab me on any deep level, except by the funny bone.
Aladdin is gonna grab you with its adventure and magic.
It's an underdog story going from street rat to worthy to be a prince.
I guess you have to identify with the protagonist and his struggle, which I find it very easy to do. Of course it's all very charming and fun along the way.
While they are both excellent for everybody to enjoy, I feel that BatB is more female oriented, while Aladdin is more for guys. I know what you mean by depth of feeling that the score gives, that goes for the score of Aladdin too, diving us in this adventureous realm (specifically, Arabian Nights and A Whole New World).
Yeah, both BatB and Aladdin have superb scores, in addition to all their other excellent qualities. The score of "BatB" is lucious and emotional, the score of "Aladdin" is exciting and joyous.
The fact that Disney is capable of making such superb movies... makes the existence of all the crappy ones so terribly frustrating. I always wonder why the hell they don't do better.
Disney is waaaaaaaaaay too big for its own good.
It has so many interests beyond "making good stuff" that it's actually strange they manage now and then to pull off a great one.
Their main goal, like most corporations, is $$$. Just think about the crap they managed to attach to Aladdin or Batb with sequels, spinoffs, ripoffs, remakes etc. They try to squeeze every last drop and then they keep milking for years.
The number one enemy of talent is $$$. The last Disney renaissance from late 80s - early 90s was motivated by the previous years of crisis: they found heart and inspiration in really trying to make a 2 hour AAA animated events for broad audiences (letting go of kiddie friendly one). Now they look just for safe bets like buying big franchises, and try little daring projects (like some pixar movies) without really putting their hearts into them.
IMHO the profit motive is not inconsistent with great art or terrific entertainment, and the existence of "Aladdin", "Beauty and the Beast", and all my other favorite movies proves that. ALL movies are made for profit, they're fantastically expensive to produce, and they'd never get made if there weren't enough serious money to be gained from them to justify the investment of millions (or hundreds of millions) of dollars. Sorry, but movies are an aren't form that can't exist in a financial vacuum, even now they have to be made by many people, with expensive equipment and sets and props, and even now that means money is involved.
It's just that the movie studios seem to have forgotten that good movies make a lot more profit than bad movies.
Sorry but money IS bad for art.
And cinema is an art, even if it takes millions to produce...well, not really, nowadays it takes very little. Hollywood movies cost millions only because they makes millions in sales, so everybody wants their share. Most people involved would be happy with a decent salary, but of course if you know your boss is makin billions with something with your face or name on it, then you want to be paid in millions, not thousands.
But that's besides the point of how money is really BAD.
Creativity stems from necessity and freedom at the same time: you are in a pickle, and have the freedom to find your solution out of it.
The right balance, in my opinion, is right after a crisis and right before a new boom, like in the late 70s early 80s for sci fi, or late 80s for Disney, when studios need a new stream out of their rut.
Money creates a big necessity (need to make money->solution: good movies) but takes away most of the freedom to come out of the problem (need to not lose money->solution: formulas). So all this money ends up asphyxiating any creativity and freedom. Add to that, the lack of creativity and talent sported by big wigs and their infinite greed, and you end up with the new star wars, or most yet another superhero movies, instead of the artistically and creatively superior movies from the 70s/80s.
I'm sorry, but art and finance have been connected, since the invention of money. Most "great art", in any field, was produced with professionals who needed to earn a living by their art, or who wanted to actually get richer than they were. Even the cliche'd "starving artists" of legend, painting in their unheated attics, lived on the hope of being discovered and getting rich some day, and that's painting, an art form that doesn't cost much! No, the more expensive art forms, like opera and movies*, take a lot of money to produce and barring wealthy patrons, they need to cover costs at the very least if they want to keep going.
The thing is, the presence or involvement of money does NOT, IMHO, mean that the artist doesn't genuinely love the art, but Rembrandt ran an art studio like any business of his era, and Led Zeppelin needed serious money to pay for recording studio time and concert halls... but that doesn't mean that they weren't truly dedicated to and in love with their respective art forms.
The thing about Hollywood is that while all Hollywood productions cost money and are damn well expected to turn profits, there have always been people there who genuinely love film as an art form. I'd say Walt Disney himself genuinely loved movies and loved making the sort of movies he liked, and so did some of his predecessors. Not the current Disney management, though, if they did genuinely love movies they'd make stuff that's fabulous and original, instead of cranking out inferior remakes of good movies.
* It's only in the last few years that it's become technologically possible to shoot films on stuff you have at home and put it on youtube for free, but even homemade youtube films need actors, sets, costumes, and other stuff that costs money.
I liked the live action remakes of both.
shareI like both Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast. I am in the minority not liking Little Mermaid much. Honestly though my favorite Disney movies outside Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast are Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, Pinnochio, Alice in Wonderland, and Peter Pan. Yeah, Hunchback, Hercules, and Mulan aren't as good imo.
shareIt's my favorite of the renaissance movies. I was around 10 when it came out and was a bit of a Tom boy so even though I loved the little mermaid, Aladdin was really my favorite. I even had velcro sneakers with Aladdin on them. Jasmine, I thought, was the epitome of beauty making her tied as my favorite princess (next to Aurora). And I really enjoyed the Arabian setting. People may look back and say it's racist but I always thought of it as an introduction to the culture; the music, costumes, food. I always loved the palace. I remember when kids my age were drawing castles, it would always be a 'Mario' style castle. I was drawing fully domed and shaded Aladdin palaces, lol.
It's one of those movies that's not afraid to be a little dark and dangerous. Beautiful amination and colors.
Is it 'THE BEST'? debatable. It's hard to say that with movies like Peter Pan and Cinderella and other classics. But it's definitely top 5 (in the top 3) for me.
Lion King is 1a. Aladdin is 1b.
shareOnly weak point for me is that the ending to Aladdin kind of feels rushed although I much prefer a "to the point" story than the live remake which dragged out A LOT. Other than that, I agree Aladdin is one of the best if not the best. I feel like Robin Wiliams´ performance as Genie (which was obv brilliant) gets more respect now that he has been dead for several years, not sure if that is true though.
shareYes the end could have been a bit more heavy.
Williams was a perfect match for that character, and even when it premiered it was reconized as a performance for the ages.