Nés en Chine

Disney: Nobody does it better, capturing nature seen for the first time by the general public. In Born in China, cuddly Pandas are featured along with a sleek snow leopard, young monkeys' business, and yak moms. Not to forget an occasional goshawk picking off careless youngun's even though more often than not the babies get away.

Yep, that's Disneyfied reality, keeping things sweet until it's necessary to do a reality check that is nonetheless about as sanitized as a Mormon cathedral. None of this visual manipulation is as distracting as the verbal honey director Chaun Lu and writers spread on John Krasinski's grade-school narration.

Touching moments abound, especially the family play and eat times. Making this documentary acceptable for the whole family are benign Darwinian search-for-food segments that may mislead children to think Tennyson was a blowhard when he called Nature "red in tooth and claw." The narration couches the rough moments in the usual Disney circle-of-life motif. It's beautifully- photographed propaganda for Mother Nature.

Regardless, it is gorgeous in a Disney way, bereft of the trauma the world faces every day. Go, if you will, just for the Chinese landscapes—they're impressive. Otherwise, it's a feel good date

While Disney Nature's Born in China is a fascinating mix of gorgeous animals and breathtaking cinematography, it does tend to feel a little too staged for my liking.

I'll always support documentaries like Born in China, especially if they provide a different viewpoint on creatures and landscapes that are unfamiliar to most of the general public. Born in China focuses on a few animals, including Pandas, Golden Monkeys, and Snow Leopards. All of which, center upon one common theme, family. Although the story lines feel entirely made up, which include gimmicky names, the scenarios aren't. It's interesting to watch different animals try and fight the elements and other competitors to provide for their family just like us humans. In that way, Born in China is for people of all ages.

But when the film adds too much fake subtext from John Krasinski's narration, it feels like something for kids looking for some silly giggles. Because it is Disney and the audience is mostly families, the film does feel a little safe. Sure, we do have Planet Earth and other documentaries that show us some of the harsher sides to animals of the wild, but I think we could have used a little more from each animal in Born in China. Either that, or just focus on 1 or 2 animals instead of a half dozen.

Does Born in China accomplish what it set out to do? Yes. It's an entertaining and at least somewhat informative look at wildlife in parts of China. However, there are several moments that feel entirely fabricated and may take away from the viewing experience. In short, if you're going in looking for a short history lesson, I think you'll come out at least pleased with what you get. I mean, who can honestly be upset after watching pandas for an hour and a half.

6.5/10

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.

10/4/17. A great documentary about 3 species of animals found China. The cinematography is just out of this world! Don't expect to learn a whole lot of new information about the Panda, Snow Leopard and the Snow Monkey. Just enjoy the opportunity to watch these animals in their natural habitat doing what they do best - live.

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.