Pinocchio? More Like Pi-Nope-io

Dave and I watched Disney's new "live-action" version of the classic children's story so you don't have to!

There was a time in my life when I aspired to make myself the world's leading expert on the life and work of acclaimed actor, ten-time Saturday Night Live host, and model celebrity husband Tom Hanks. I started with the early stuff: Splash, The Money Pit, Philadelphia, Joe Versus the Volcano, That Thing You Do. I hungrily made my way through his classic filmography, until, somewhere around The Da Vinci Code, I lost interest. Though I still have great affection for the two-time Academy Award winner - after all, I have a beating heart - I set my sights on higher goals.

This week, my viewing of the 2022 Robert Zemeckis "live-action" remake of Disney's 1940 animated masterpiece, Pinocchio, in which Hanks stars as Gepetto, did not cause me to regret that decision.

My long-suffering, voraciously content-minded fiancé, David, and I decided to watch both versions of Disney's Pinocchio in order to compare and contrast them. Perhaps we'll revisit this subject when Guillermo del Toro's animated version comes out in December, but for now, WE HAVE THOUGHTS.

Strap in, kids.

First, I'd like to know who, exactly, asked for this remake. The fact that Disney is working its way through its catalog making "live-action," or at least photorealistic versions of some of its beloved animated classics, has become a punchline. And the results have been, well, we'll say, kindly, mixed. Beauty and the Beast was sumptuous! The Jungle Book was a revelation. The Lion King was a painful trip to the uncanny valley, and Aladdin was just plain disappointing: even pre-slap, Will Smith was intolerable.

But I'm afraid this version of Pinocchio, despite its A-list headliner and some stunning performances by supporting actors, falls into that regrettable latter category.

My next gripe with this remake is the fact that a good part of the movie is not, in fact, live-action, but CGI. I have great confidence in the technology Disney has access to, but no, I did not expect them to create a wooden marionette and actually bring it to life to play Pinocchio. Still, the figure acting opposite Tom Hanks and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, admirably voicing Jiminy Cricket, does not look like a marionette brought to life. Somehow, this concept works in animation, but not at all in a photorealistic setting. On top of that, why on Earth should Cleo the goldfish and Figaro the cat be so obviously computer-animated? Is it so hard to find the real animals? It's been a long time since I was on prop-mistress duty, but I feel like I could still manage to locate a goldfish and a cat.

But it's not just the characters. Several key sequences are also computer-animated, such as the Pleasure Island segment, which has been cringingly updated to include vices of the social media age, and the sequence with Monstro, who is not a whale but a clearly fantastical sea monster. (Given that the original story, “The Adventures of Pinocchio,” by Carlo Collodi, takes place near Genoa, Italy, as does the 2021 Disney film Luca, I was hoping to see Monstro depicted similarly to the sea monsters in that movie, but I guess I should have known better.)

One glaring difference between the films is the music - indeed, the degree to which they can be considered musicals. The 1940 animated version of the story is a charming, beautifully hand-illustrated musical comedy. Several of the songs are solid bops - "I've Got No Strings;" "Hi-Diddle-Dee-Dee (An Actor's Life for Me)" - the "Little Wooden Head" song, tenderly sung by Gepetto, is a real tear-jerker, and, of course, "When You Wish Upon a Star," as sung by Jiminy Cricket, became Disney's signature tune, as synonymous with the company as Mickey himself. But in the 2022 remake, "Wooden Head" is jettisoned in favor of Hanks speak-singing a few rhyming lines à la Rex Harrison. Other outlets have noted that one such scene involves Hanks rhyming the word “Pinocchio” with the not-a-phrase “Holy smoke-eo,” but this sin is so egregious that I, too, must call it out.

In other disappointing musical editing choices, the Blue Fairy, portrayed stunningly by Cynthia Erivo, sings a truncated version of "When You Wish." Erivo is a vocal powerhouse - girl, they did you dirty!

On a slightly better note (pun intended), Benjamin Evan Ainsworth, playing the title character, carries the catchy "I've Got No Strings" capably, though in a thin, high voice that seems like an impression of Dickie Jones, who originated the role. And Keegan-Michael Key, who has a wonderful voice, is criminally under-utilized as "Honest" John, the fox who sells Pinocchio to Stromboli. He's given a rousing but too short version of "Hi-Diddle-Dee-Dee." A couple of new songs are added, too: Kyanne Lamaya plays an injured dancer (and her stand-in, a ballerina marionette who befriends Pinocchio) with Stromboli's marionette theatre, and she sings a nice, if forgettable, ballad. Also, Luke Evans, playing the Coachman, who conveys young hoodlums to Pleasure Island, brings his powerful, Broadway-ready tenor to a new song added for the purpose. (If you saw the adaptation of Beauty and the Beast, you'll remember his excellent performance as Gaston as soon as he starts belting it out.)

Erivo, Key, and Evans' highlights are not the only effective performances. Joseph Gordon-Levitt does good voice work as Jiminy Cricket, managing to sound similar to Cliff Edwards, who originated the role, while still making the character his own. And relative newcomer Benjamin Evan Ainsworth, currently awaiting his 14th birthday later this month, gives a very enthusiastic, almost manic vocal performance as Pinocchio.

But what about that A-lister in the human role? It's painfully clear from the first scene that my beloved Tom Hanks is playing not a talented but excessively sentimental woodcarver, but rather, is playing the animated Gepetto character from the 1940 film. He's also been given an unnecessary tragic backstory: as he puts the finishing touches on his marionette, we see that he's working from a black and white picture of a young boy in the trademark Tyrolian cap, muttering to himself about missing the youngster terribly. And it just so happens that it's his deceased son's birthday. Hmm. Is he creating a replacement son? We're not quite sure. In the 1940 cartoon, we simply accept that Gepetto is the kind of single, older dude who would wish upon a star that his puppet creation might be brought to life. We don't ask questions! And I'm not sure we need answers!

Again, what works in animation does not always translate well to photorealistic action. Hanks gives a silly, even goofy performance here. And although I majored in linguistics, and I admit to hypersensitivity to the proper pronunciation of Romance languages, I can't be the only one who was distracted by Hanks' Italian accent, which, uhh, really comes and goes.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the two movies is evident in the way they end. In the 1940 version, Pinocchio, feared drowned after rescuing Geppetto from Monstro, is miraculously changed into a real boy, a human child, by the Blue Fairy, since he's proven himself to be unselfish, brave, and truthful. Presumably, Gepetto and Pinocchio live happily ever after as father and son, along with goldfish Cleo and kitten Figaro. But in this version, it's Geppetto who almost drowns, and Pinocchio, still a marionette, sheds a very real tear on his cheek. This wakes up Geppetto, and he tells Pinocchio that he has certainly proved himself to be unselfish, brave, and truthful, and that makes him as real as any boy could be. The final scene is of Pinocchio, Geppetto, and company walking home, while Jiminy Cricket gives a voiceover explaining that, while some people say Pinocchio did turn into a flesh-and-blood human boy, no one really knows - and it's beside the point, anyway, for the reasons Geppetto laid out.

I like the ending, actually. It gives us something to think about. But it's a disconcertingly human touch to a story that seems to want to stay as true to its animated roots as possible. And that begs the question, why do this? Why make this movie, especially in this way? I'm not entirely sure.

In short, “Holy smoke-eo” is about right.

Now. That said, try to keep me from the coming "live-action" adaptation of The Little Mermaid - sure to be filled, itself, with a mixture of human actors and CGI - and you will see a side of me that could be very bad for business!