Nés en Chine

The story of the animals is very touching and the scenery is beautiful.

I got to see a special advance screening of this movie 6 months before its US release. I may mention certain specific moments of the movie, but I won't spoil anything.

One of the producers came onstage before the movie started and talked about how it took 4 years to film everything and then they edited everything together to form each of the stories. This is noticeable in at least one scene where it cuts back and forth between a panda and red panda to imply they're looking at each other, but that's the only noticeable instance that comes to mind.

Among all the animals they filmed, the three main stories center around families of Pandas, monkeys, and snow leopards. The narrator tries to anthropomorphicise everything the cute furry animals do. I know other nature documentaries sometimes do that, this one does it a lot, trying everything to make it more emotionally relatable, and I guess for the most part it works, but it might get a little annoying at parts.

Speaking of the narrator, I assume there was a technical difficulty at my screening since there was no narration for the first 10 minutes, then all of a sudden he started taking as if we already knew who the animals were. What's up with that?

It sorta goes without saying that the landscapes are beautiful and the footage is impressive. What really sets this film apart is how much footage they got of the snow leopards. If you didn't know, snow leopards are very rare and notoriously difficult to photograph, let alone film. Even Planet Earth didn't get anywhere near as much footage, or as close. I'd say this movie is worth checking out just for the snow leopard footage alone.

It's difficult for me to give nature films a numerical rating since they're so different from traditional movies, so all I can really say is its pretty good. I gave it a 7/10 because I ranked every movie I've seen in theaters in 2016 from best to worst, and this movie falls in the 7/10 block for me.

The DisneyNature documentaries are interesting enough though some are better than others, for examples 2011's 'African Cats' being very good and 2020's 'Elephant' being a let down. The most common plus points being that they are all amazingly photographed and the scenery and animals are every bit as awe-inspiring. But when it comes to narration (writing and delivery) and tone the documentaries vary in quality, some work and others don't.

2016's 'Born in China' is one of the DisneyNature documentaries that could have been a lot better and didn't work as well as it ought to have done. The production values are extremely high but when it comes to the narration (John Krasinski on paper sounded wrong narrating a nature documentary so that already raised alarm bells) it is near-disastrous all round. As far as they go, 'Born in China' is in the lower end and am saying this with regret, being a fan of both Disney and documentaries.

'Born in China's' best aspect is the photography, which is nothing short of stunning. Likewise with the scenery, where the colour literally bursts out while also showing that the habitats can pose challenges for the animals. The music is grandiose without being over the top, while having some nice variety of tone.

In terms of footage, the footage visually is a wonder and unlike anything seen before by me. The animals, a nice mix of familiar and not so much and a mix of prey and predator, look photogenic and have a lot of personality that is more than just cute (quite wide-ranging and individual).

So sad though that the narration and the pace are massive minus points. The writing of the narration, as well as too talky, is very childish, if it was trying to appeal to younger audiences it was taken to extremes here, and tends to have a talking down to people quality. There is little sincere about the content and nothing struck me as illuminating, not to mention like some other DisneyNature documentaries it has a bad habit of over-explaining what's going on in a contrived way. And then it was delivered by Krasinski in a way that does not fit with what is going on in the imagery, even for the writing it was like he was acting out a mild comedy sketch, and is well over-the-top.

Pacing is pretty poor in 'Born in China'. It feels incredibly rushed, as a result of being far too short (it needed to be at least 15 minutes longer) and trying to squeeze in too much content. As incredible as the footage and animals took, not enough time is taken to explore them properly, very "talk about one thing and then a few minutes later literally jump to another" quality. The editing also tended to be too gimmicky and choppy, with a feeling of incompleteness. 'Born in China' tonally is a muddle, we have childish narration and then we have scenes that will disturb younger viewers and make adults understandably question the target audience. The storytelling is too contrived, too underdeveloped, too rushed and at times too schmaltzy to allow me to invest emotionally in what was going on.

On the whole, a disappointment. 4/10

Born in China was a mixed bag - some spectacular footage only partially spoiled by the editing and narration Disney imposed upon it. This has a very different tone than your usual David Attenborough BBC Nature Documentary (such as Planet Earth), adopting anthropomorphizing storytelling of the characters (I initially hesitated to use the word characters to describe animals, but such was the extent of Disney's approach that it is, unfortunately, fitting here) instead of the objective, informative narration you might be expecting. I think it's likely well-suited for children, but if you're a nature documentary loving adult without children, my advice would be to pass. I'm still giving it a 6/10 for the quality of the footage itself and what I'm estimating is a decent film for its target audience, very young children.

The good: The footage itself was wonderful. The team captured some beautiful and fascinating nature scenes. The detail into which the film delved into the social life of the monkeys was interesting and new. There were lots of baby animal scenes and who doesn't love baby animals?! John Krasinski of "The Office" fame was, in my opinion, an excellent narrator *for the material given to him*. Because Disney chose a more playful, childish tone in the narration, I think an actor's touch was needed, and John Krasinski handled the material well. I just didn't care for the material (ok sorry that was a good and a bad, but it's hard to praise the narration without acknowledging the terrible writing!).

And onto...the bad: * The writing itself. While John Krasinski performed the playful tone well, I disagree with the choice for the writers to use that tone to begin with (or at the very least, if I'm to temper my criticism I'll say it's not well-suited to adults). This film was not highly informative, and most of the narration felt like it was projecting human emotions onto the animal "characters", which I found very irritating.

* Predator subjects but no successful hunting footage. With a significant portion of the film covering snow leopards, one of nature's most capable and majestic hunters, one would hope for some spectacular hunting footage! Disney omitted it, presumably as a concession to their target audience. Another thing that's not *necessarily* worse if you concede that the movie is strictly for young children, but in my opinion makes it worse for anyone *but* that small audience.

* "Dishonest" editing. I strongly suspect the filmmakers fixed a LOT in post to fit the narrative they wanted to tell, and make things "more interesting." You would think after Disney's history of this (Google "Disney Lemmings" for more, and prepare to be shocked if you don't know the story!) they would be extra vigilant to be honest in their depictions, but Born in China appeared to cheat a LOT. For example, there's a scene with the Baby Panda climbing, and the footage would cut back and forth between face shots of the baby panda and a "nearby" red panda, who they imply with the juxtaposition of shots is watching the whole ordeal. But an establishing shot with the baby panda and the red panda is never shown, and the implied perspective of the red panda remains static, even after the baby panda takes a tumble down a hill. For all we know (and I strongly suspect), the footage of the red panda was completely separate, but they chose to inject it into this scene to tell a more "interesting" story. This is just a minor example of manipulating the footage shot to support a slightly more compelling narrative, but I for one would prefer honesty. There are other examples as well, and you'll notice watching the film that the edits are more like that of a sitcom than a nature documentary - character focused rather than an objective account of the events. They try too hard to tell a story, and beyond the tone of the writing itself, it appeared that they spliced together disjointed footage to make it fit their narrative. This kind of "dishonesty" in portrayal upset me the most about the film, because it goes against what I feel a nature documentary should be.

6/10 is higher than my own enjoyment of the film (which I'd put more along the lines of 4/10, with Planet Earth being an easy 10/10), but I think for its target audience it's a bit better than my own experience so I'm giving it some benefit of doubt there, and again the footage itself was excellent. It probably deserves some real credit for that alone, as well as some adjustment for the context of its target audience.

The cinematics were beautiful, but that was the movie's only good part. The rest just focused on the made up struggles of cubs and parents. This was so stupid though, since they made the cubs super angsty and the parents super mean. The worst part was the parts where they gruesomely focused on the deaths of the animals and then went on to recite some stupid saying about Chinese yin and yang and then that's it. Overall absolutely terrible, there are much better nature movies.