The Animationado

Disneython #52: Wreck-it Ralph (2012)

Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:03:00 +0000

Well, I thought I should write a review of Disney’s latest animated film, Wreck-it Ralph, so that I can say that I have reviewed all the official animated Disney films for the Disneython. I finished the Disneython before this film was released, but I feel I would be leaving it out, so I’ll write this review, put it in my ranking, and then feel better about myself. And so, because I want to review all the films, this means that I will have to review every future animated film Disney releases, which I’m fine with…just expect them to be a little late, as proven here.

So Wreck-it Ralph had been a developing idea at Disney since the late 1980’s, which is ironic in its comparison to Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, the Disney/Touchstone film released in 1988. As well as the film being compared to Roger Rabbit, it has also been compared to Toy Story, for the same reason: the story of Wreck-it Ralph takes place in a world where pre-existing characters make cameos and interact with original characters, though more so in Roger Rabbit. In this case, Wreck-it Ralph takes place in the video game world, where pre-existing video game characters appear all over the place. …And this was quite a strong marketing point for this film: in most of the trailers, it showed a lot of the video game characters’ appearances, and famous characters were on almost every poster. But hey, it must have worked, because Wreck-it Ralph was a big success commercially. It got a lot of ages in; it brought families in obviously, because it’s a Disney animated film, but it also brought the gaming audience in, who were generally older being fans of the older video games. It was an all-round crowd-pleaser, and a reminder that Disney’s animated films are still keeping a golden streak.

When the video game store closes, all the video game characters come to life, and go about their own lives in the video game world. The game Fix-it Felix Jr. is turning 30 years old, and its main antagonist, Wreck-it Ralph, is sick and tired of being the ‘bad guy’, so decides to jump into another game to obtain a medal, to prove he can be a ‘good guy’. However, as soon as he gets the medal in one world, he loses it in another, thanks to a glitchy character called Vanellope, but the two make a deal to help each other out to get what they want. Meanwhile, Fix-it Felix, along with another game character Sgt. Calhoun, must find Ralph and stop a threat that he has started that could affect the entire video game world.

Even though I’m a huge Disney fan, I wasn’t exactly interested in this film, probably because it was so focused on gaming. I’m not a big gamer at all; I know who Sonic is, and I’ve played Pac-man and Mario Kart, but that’s it. To be honest, I thought Fix-it Felix Jr. was a real game, and this was an adaptation. But no, it is an original story, and I did end up seeing the film anyway; after the Disneython, I think it’s only fair to see every future animated Disney film now.

So you know how I said that video game characters appear in this film, and that they were used to market the film? Yeah, they don’t appear through the entire film; it’s really only in the first act that we see video game cameos and in-jokes. Once Ralph leaves his game, the film focuses more on its own original characters and settings. Which is good for me, because So I didn’t really get the in-jokes, didn’t really recognise the characters, but I could still enjoy it. In fact, I love the original characters. I love Ralph, I think he’s an extremely likeable main character; yes, he is your typical Disney protagonist – screwing things up, but he has a good heart – however this protagonist has a label of being the ‘bad guy’, which not many other Disney characters have had; you’re either a good guy or a bad guy, normally. He seemed to be reminding me of Shrek, though I like Ralph way more than him. He’s determined in what he wants, he has flaws and he’s very sympathetic – and voiced really well by John C. Reilly; with his voice fitting the appearance of the character, it just feels absolutely perfect.

But I think my favourite characters are Fix-it Felix and Sgt. Calhoun. They are a fantastic pair together: really funny, really cute, and I would have happily watched more scenes with them, but of course, they’re only supporting characters. We might actually get more of them though, because apparently there’s going to be a sequel to Wreck-it Ralph, which I really don’t want, no matter how much I like this movie. I think I probably like Felix a little bit more than Calhoun, but only because there’s more of him in the film. You know how I love my nice guys, and Felix is a nice guy – and he’s really cute and a total romantic. He’s almost like the typical Disney prince, where everything he does is perfect, and he always saves the day. But I really like how they show that being perfect doesn’t always help things, in that scene where Felix is locked in the ‘fungeon’, tries to break the bars but only makes them thicker; it also kind of shows that he shouldn’t be doing what he isn’t meant for, and to simply be yourself, which is a running theme with Ralph’s character too.

So the original characters are great, I love the main characters…except for one, and that is Vanellope, who has gotten a mixed reaction from audiences. People either love or hate this character, and I…don’t hate her, but I am not a fan. Disney has had their obnoxious sidekick characters in the past, and Vanellope is certainly one of those, though more in the vein of obnoxious child sidekick, like Koda in Brother Bear. She’s meant to be cute, but I just find her annoying; I find obnoxious over-confident kids annoying in general, so not much was going to make me like her. Her voice doesn’t help, either: I’m not familiar with Sarah Silverman, but she really didn’t need to put on that voice for Vanellope; it just adds to her annoying-ness. And with Vanellope comes the kiddie humour. I mean, really kiddie humour. I mean, an entire joke about the word ‘duty’ sounding like ‘doodie’. Kids like poop jokes. There’s also Ralph and Vanellope calling each other names, and the kids like that, too; I think kids like Vanellope a lot, but I wouldn’t know because I don’t spend a lot of time around kids.

And it’s a shame that the kiddie humour is in here, for a film with such an interesting and clever premise, and ideas. Mentioning comparisons again, the beginning of this film did remind me of Toy Story: when the game store closes and the people go away, the video game characters come to life and live within their game settings. I really like the idea that characters can travel across to different games via ‘trains’, and there’s a big train Central station where video game characters are walking around; the train line is literally through the wire of the game that plugs it in, so it comes off as the characters literally travelling through the wire at their size, and the Central Station is the socket. The gaming worlds are very creative, particularly Sugar Rush; I liked how they created that world and the game itself, with the sweets and everything; that’s one game I would play! The animation is also very good too, as Disney animation always is. Now, unlike Tangled, Disney’s last CGI-animated feature that totally could have been traditionally-animated, Wreck-it Ralph works as a CGI-animated film mainly because it’s involving video games, and the CGI is able to create the right visual effects that would appear in a video game that traditional animation mightn’t be able to do; for example, whenever Vanellope ‘glitches’, I really like that effect, but it’s obviously very computerised, and so the computer can create that and make it look great. Another bit of animation I like, though it is sometimes jarring, is how the Nicelanders in the Fix-it Felix Jr. game move like 8-bit video game characters. You could probably animate this by hand, but I don’t think it would be able to re-create that movement as well as the computer. It does get jarring though, because Ralph and Felix aren’t animated as 8-bit characters, and so them mingling in with the Nicelanders looks a bit odd.

Overall: Disney’s still going strong. Another great animated film of this supposed new Renaissance, that not only feels like a Disney film, but a Pixar film too (I know, rather ironic as all Pixar films are technically Disney films). Great premise and ideas, great characters (for the most part), it’s funny (for the most part), and it’s got heart too; it’s a welcome addition to the Disney canon.

Ehehehhh, so Apologies

Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:46:04 +0000

Yeahhhh, I started the Pixarthon, got to A Bug’s Life and just gave up; that film made me wanna give up the Disneython as well. And it’s not like I have a big problem/don’t like the film, I just don’t wanna review it :P

So apologies for the delay, I might continue the Pixarthon in the summer, when I have a bit more time. I’m currently working on a story in my free time at the moment, so that’s keeping me busy, hence not watching movies and reviewing them.

I was also wondering whether I should do a quick review for Wreck-it Ralph, seems as it’s in the Disney animated feature canon, and I must review ALL the Disney animated features. I have finally seen it, and it’s probably my favourite animated film of 2012, so I might just do a quick post about my thoughts on it. :)

Pixarthon #1 - 3: The Toy Story Trilogy (1995 - 2010)

Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:32:54 +0000

Obviously I was going to start the Pixarthon with Toy Story, the first Pixar film and also the very first full-length CGI-animated film, but I thought it would be much easier to write about all three Toy Story films together in one post, as they’re all pretty similar and it is a film trilogy; I think I might talk about the two Cars films together too, but that’ll be later on.

Um, this is the part where I talk about the history of the film, and how it was made, but I think it would be simpler (and because I’m just lazy) to point you to a documentary called The Pixar Story by Leslie Iwerks: it tells you everything you need to know about the history of Pixar Animation Studios, how CGI animation was being introduced into film, and a bit about all the Pixar films up to Cars, especially Toy Story. The documentary’s a special feature on the Wall-E DVD, but I’m sure you can find it elsewhere, but it’s essential if you’re interested in Pixar and CGI animation. So there’s your history paragraph for this post.

Before I go into each film separately, I just want to say that I love the main group of characters, Andy’s toys, in all three films. They’re like the Winnie-the-Pooh characters, they’re always charming and always funny; they don’t change at all between each film. I am Team Woody all the way, I have always been on his side through all three films: I love his animation, I love his voice, he’s one of my favourite Pixar characters. I also love Rex, who makes me laugh with everything he says or does. For those who don’t know, fan-boy God Joss Whedon had a part in developing the script for the first Toy Story, and it was his idea to add Rex into the story, so I have to thank him for that. Oh, and I don’t like Mr. Potato Head, I think he’s a jerk. Now onto the separate films:

Toy Story: For those two people who don’t know the plot, Toy Story is about a group of toys who belong to Andy, who live in his room and come to life when he’s not around. Andy’s favourite toy is Woody, a cowboy doll, but his world is turned round when Andy gets a new favourite toy, Buzz Lightyear, a space ranger action figure, who he becomes extremely jealous of. Their rivalry eventually sends them out of Andy’s house and into the big wide world where danger could be waiting anywhere.

This film came out when I was 2, so I didn’t see it in cinemas, but I do remember watching it on video, and liking it; I think I started liking it a lot more as I got older, for some reason. As an adult now, I really love it: if I’m not basing the films on nostalgia, then this would be in my top 3 all-time favourite Pixar films, as it seems to be for most adults.

For the first CGI full-length film, the visuals are pretty impressive, considering the studio had only been around for nine years. …Well, okay, you can tell that CGI animation hadn’t developed much at the time, it was 1995: the human characters and the dog aren’t fantastic, and the backgrounds/objects still have a long way to go - but to be honest, I only think that if I really focus on them. The toys are obviously the best-looking thing in the film, because the majority of them are plastic, so the CGI works on them (it was a good idea to go with toys for your first CGI film)! But seriously, the character animation is fantastic, especially on Woody: facial expressions are great, and his movements are great, and funny at times; I think Woody’s dance after the toys scare Sid away is hilarious.

But the title of ‘first CGI-animated full-length film’ isn’t the big gimmick about this film. It wasn’t just a film to show off the technology: Pixar put a strong story and characters first, which was what Walt Disney wanted with Snow White, the first full-length traditionally-animated film way back in 1937. And that’s what’s so great about Toy Story: the story is timeless, and it still holds up today; in fact, it’s still better than most CGI-animated films being released today. The story is so great (and the reason I love it is) because it’s mostly character-driven, there’s three solid acts, and there is reasonable conflict and resolution: when things start to look alright for the characters, there’s always something stopping things from looking alright; but when the characters are faced with a problem, there is a reasonable resolution that gets them out of their problem. That’s just simple but effective storytelling. Toy Story deserves all the praise it gets, and this was the perfect film to introduce us to the magic of Pixar.

Toy Story 2: I think I read somewhere that Pixar would not make a sequel to any of their films, unless there was a really good story to go with it. I have yet to know if that was the case with Cars 2, but this mantra is the definite case with Toy Story 2 and 3. When Woody is ‘injured’, he worries about being thrown away and forgotten by Andy, but things get worse when he is stolen by a toy collector, and taken away from Andy’s house where he discovers that he is a rare collectible from an old TV show, along with other Western toys. While he is contemplating the idea of ‘immortality’, Buzz and the rest of Andy’s toys set out on a rescue mission to save Woody.

I can’t remember if I saw this in cinemas, but I do remember watching it countlessly, endlessly on video; I loved this movie as a kid. But as an adult…okay, I’ll be honest, I think this is my least favourite Toy Story movie - but that doesn’t mean I dislike this movie at all. I still really love it, it’s just that I love the first and third more; another reason why this trilogy is so wonderful.

Well, the animation has certainly gotten better, in terms of humans and animals; Buster the dog has come a long way from Scud. Everything looks a lot more realistic, which is understandable, with Pixar having developed their technology since the first film. Andy’s toys are great as ever, and the new characters are alright: I used to love Jessie as a kid, but I find her a bit annoying and obnoxious now; I don’t even care if she has a sad backstory, I don’t like how she treats Woody! Easily the best new character is Barbie, but I do have to like Prospector Pete, purely because he’s voiced by Kelsey Grammer. Oh, and there’s totally no reason to have Emperor Zurg in this film, except to add more conflict and possibly tie in with the 2D Buzz Lightyear TV show that was being made at the time? I don’t know. Oh, and also it was nice to see that little bit introducing Buzz and Jessie’s romantic relationship; I thought that it just came out of nowhere in Toy Story 3.

There are some great scenes in this, mainly (and unsurprisingly) involving the gang from the first film; if not the best, they’re the funniest scenes. I almost forgot that Buzz comes across another Buzz with a utility belt who still thinks he’s a real space ranger, and it’s so great when Buzz and the others are like: ‘Oh God, not again…’ It reminds me of Spanish Buzz in Toy Story 3, in that it’s Pixar’s way of trying to make me like Buzz more. Well, he does make me laugh, but I’m still Team Woody, sorry. You can tell this is a sequel, because everything is bigger and on a larger scale, and this shows from the toys running round Al’s Toy Barn to the climax scene in that huge airport baggage area and on the airport runway. And I can’t tell you how much I miss the Pixar bloopers they made for the end of their earlier films (yeah, it was only for A Bug’s Life, Toy Story 2 and Monsters, Inc.); those were the best part of my childhood.

Toy Story 3: Quick plot summary: all our favourite characters, Woody, Buzz and the gang, are shipped off to a daycare center, as Andy is growing up and going off to college. The gang think it’ll be great, but when the real truth comes out about their new ‘home’, they must find a way to escape the daycare center, and get back to Andy’s house. Notice how I say Andy’s house, and not Andy. The story begins at the point where Andy is all grown up, and is ready to go to college, and during the time between the second movie and this movie, Andy has obviously grown out of the toys we’ve all grown to know and love, and they have accepted that Andy doesn’t want them anymore…which is kind of sad, when you think about it. It is true, this film’s a little more emotional than the first two, but it makes it the perfect ending to the series. We, as an audience, have grown up with Andy, knowing and loving these toys, and now with this final film, we have to let them go. Oh no wait, Pixar are still making short films with the Toy Story gang, so we don’t really need to let them go at all!

From the very beginning of the film, I get such nostalgia for the first two films: I love the re-enactment of Andy playing with the toys in the first film, it was the best way the film could have started. I also liked the little in-jokes to the first two films too (‘Careful; these toys might get jealous of new arrivals.’). The new characters in the day-care center are pretty good: the animators must have had so much fun creating all these new characters, they had a lot more freedom to add big, brand-new personalities to the cast (there are only really about five or six new characters in Toy Story 2). I don’t really have a favourite new character, but you really have got to love Ken, and his relationship with Barbie.

I thoroughly enjoy this movie every time I see it and, although it’s quite emotional, I think there’s a lot of humour throughout; I find myself laughing more than worrying about the conflict the characters are in. But having said that, there’s still conflict, and there’s still good resolutions - well, except possibly in the climax. If I have to nitpick, I have to say that the way the conflict is resolved in the climax scene in the junkyard (though incredibly intense and with jaw-dropping animation) is a tiny bit convenient – but it’s a great little in-joke from the first film, and I find it pretty funny.

Overall: The first changed the face of animation forever, the second was just as good if not better, the third was probably Pixar at its peak, but overall they’ve managed to do, if not the impossible, the very rare: make a film trilogy where every film is exceptional. It’s not just a trilogy of great films, it’s a trilogy for all ages that will be enjoyed over and over again for a very long time.

I am Doing the Pixarthon!

Sun, 09 Dec 2012 14:16:00 +0000

I had been thinking about this for a while, but I’ve decided I’m going to do a Pixarthon; like the Disneython, only reviewing the 13 Pixar films (and possibly the shorts in one post). I had been contemplating doing this for a while back and forth during the Disneython, and at first, I was going to review the Pixar films in the Disneython, but I left them alone because I felt that the majority of Pixar films are just so good that there wouldn’t be much to talk about with them. Now I think I’m ready to review them; I probably might still have the problem of not having much to say about them, but I just want to do it anyway. Besides I need something to do over Christmas.

Now I’ve promised myself, I WILL finish this one! I will NOT take 6 months to do this! I’m hoping to post them all in the 2 weeks I have off from college, starting from the 22nd to the 7th of January; I may start earlier, just so that I have some more time (with 14 days, I’d have to post a review every day, which will be impossible seems as things like Christmas Day and New Year’s Eve and time spent with family get in the way). I have actually already written 2 reviews for Pixar films, back when I was reviewing them in the Disneython (Monsters Inc and Toy Story 3), so I really only have 11 films to talk about; I will be talking about them in chronological order, starting with Toy Story and ending with Brave.

I may have been a huge fan of the animated Disney films when I was a kid, but I think I was a bigger fan of the Pixar films when I was a kid. Pixar was a large part of my childhood; I remember watching, and loving, the Pixar films far more than I do some of the Disney films. I can’t tell you how many times I watched some of these films when I was a kid, though I haven’t seen them in quite some time. Of course I saw most of these films as soon as they were out in the cinemas (except for a certain few), and have all except their two most recent films on DVD (and some of those DVDs have been worn out many, many times). So I am quite excited to see some of these again, though slightly fearful of writing the reviews - seriously, I’m warning you now, I may be repeating myself a lot in this Pixarthon.

So look out for the first review; I really will try to get them out in a timely manner!

My Favourite Disney Films

Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:01:00 +0000

So I’ve just finished the Disneython, and after every review, I’ve put every film in a ranking list, from most liked to least liked. The entire list is not numbered, I can’t physically do that, so it’s kind of separated into 4 different categories for me, and they are: ‘All-Time Favourites’, ‘Love/Like’, ‘Eh, It’s Alright’, and ‘Do Not Like’. It was quite difficult making this list: in these 4 specific categories, there are some films that I definitely put above or below another, but there are some films that I don’t, that I kind of put on the same level…within those categories.

This is NOT a list of which Disney film I think is best. I believe that the ‘best’ animated Disney film is not just one film, but the first 5 films in the official canon, made by Walt Disney from 1937 - 1942; the ‘Golden Age’, if you will. But this is my list of which Disney films I like the most, and which I like the least. If you want explanations why, go and read the reviews I spent six months writing. And if you’re wondering if this list is based on nostalgia value…yes, it is, but I’m also taking into account how much I like it as an adult too, and sort of combining that opinion…for some films. If you have any queries about my list, such as: ‘OH MY GOD, WHY ISN’T THIS FILM HIGHER/LOWER?!’, well…ask away.

So here we go :)

All-Time Favourites

The Little Mermaid (1989)
Beauty and the Beast (1991)
Fantasia (1940)
Bambi (1942)
Aladdin (1992)
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
Dumbo (1941)
Fantasia 2000 (1999)
Lady and the Tramp (1955)
Peter Pan (1953)

Love/Like

Tangled (2010)
Mulan (1998)
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
Cinderella (1950)
Pinocchio (1940)
The Lion King (1994)
Tarzan (1999)
Sleeping Beauty (1959)
Lilo & Stitch (2002)
The Emperor’s New Groove (2000)
The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949)
Winnie the Pooh (2011)
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)
The Princess and the Frog (2009)
The Jungle Book (1967)
Hercules (1997)
Bolt (2008)

Like/Eh, It’s Alright

Pocahontas (1995)
The Great Mouse Detective (1986)
The Rescuers Down Under (1990)
Alice in Wonderland (1951)
Treasure Planet (2002)
The Rescuers (1977)
The Aristocats (1970)
The Three Caballeros (1945)
Robin Hood (1973)
One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961)
Dinosaur (2000)
Brother Bear (2003)
Fun and Fancy Free (1947)
Saludos Amigos (1942)
The Sword in the Stone (1963)
Meet the Robinsons (2007)

Eh, It’s Alright/Do Not Like

Melody Time (1948)
Oliver & Company (1988)
Make Mine Music (1946)
Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)
The Black Cauldron (1985)
The Fox and the Hound (1981)
Home on the Range (2004)
Chicken Little (2005)

The Last Disneython Reviews - Part 2

Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:30:00 +0000

The Aristocats (1970)

As a kid, I really loved the Aristocats; I think I wore the VHS out quite a bit. My favourite part was the two geese waddling to that music; apparently I used to re-enact that, and my mum found it adorable. However, it’s not one that I’ve seen recently, I probably haven’t seen it since I was about ten, so I was gonna have a bit of nostalgia for this. And as an adult…well, it doesn’t really work for me, and I think it’s because I feel like it’s a Disney film more oriented towards kids than adults – and I know all Disney films have to have a bit of orientation towards kids in them, but this one more so. But I enjoyed it, it was a pleasant way to pass the time, and it was only 75 minutes.

You know what’s really odd about this film? Because I watched it so much as a kid, I could remember all the scenes and dialogue while watching it…but now, trying to write this review, I can’t actually remember much of it, starting with the characters. From past reviews, you’ve seen how I give my opinion on who my favourite characters are and everything, but with this, I don’t really love any of them. The closest I am to loving a character is Thomas O’Malley, he’s probably my favourite; he’s got a good introduction, and a good introduction song to go with it. I also like Duchess as well, she’s nice and charming enough, and she’s also really pretty for a cat! But the other characters are just forgettable, or don’t need to be there altogether. You know how Disney films have to have comedic characters, and filler scenes that don’t really add to the story? Well, this film combines those things, in the geese and the two dogs, Napoleon and Lafayette; they probably weren’t needed in the film, but hey, filler filler. I like most of the songs, there’s really only four of them, and I like three; my favourites are ‘The Aristocats’ title song and, of course, ‘Everybody Wants to be a Cat’ – that’s actually a really good scene (if a bit out-of-place in this calm, uneventful film), which doesn’t appear until the last twenty minutes, which I was surprised by. And the animation is still good too; it’s still the Nine Old Men, doing what they do best.

My problem is that this story doesn’t have enough conflict. It’s a very safe film, in formula and in the events of the story. The formula meaning that the plot is essentially 101 Dalmatians: set in a European city, domesticated talking animals get kidnapped from their home, and so have to make their way back. 101 Dalmatians made money, so let’s make something similar to it, only with cats. Only with 101 Dalmatians, at least that film had a distinct visual style to it, whereas The Aristocats has…a very sketchy visual style, probably the sketchiest of the Xerography films made by Disney. In story, there is not enough conflict in this: Edgar is a really weak, unthreatening villain – if they took so much from 101 Dalmatians, why couldn’t they take some inspiration from Cruella deVil? – and the cats make their way back home easily. Any conflict that does come up is resolved in a few seconds. The comedic scenes and characters could have been replaced with some more scenes of conflict, stopping the cats from getting back home.

Overall: It’s just very…nice and cute, and harmless, much like most of the Disney films of the 60’s and 70’s. I think it’s going to be one of the first Disney films I show my kids (if I have any kids) because it is just so nice and harmless. Not necessarily a good Disney film, but a pleasant one that’ll pass the time.

Beauty and the Beast (1991)

…I don’t think I watched this one a lot as a kid; at least I don’t remember, and I think it was because I was scared of the Beast, I don’t know. The last time I remember watching this movie recently was when I was ill, July of 2010, and I was crying like a bitch at the end; I did watch a bit of it in college too, when someone brought in their laptop and had it on there. So I don’t think I had watched this film very much, and yet I feel like I know it really well.

Now. When I started this Disneython, I was wondering when this film was going to come up for me to watch and talk about. And as time has gone on (it did start in May), I’ve kind of been scared because, as I’ve been doing my research, I found out that everyone loves Beauty and the Beast. Everyone’s favourite Disney film is Beauty and the Beast. So I kept telling myself: ‘Come on, it’s not that great; it’s totally overrated’, and as I was getting closer and closer to watching it, I was preparing myself not to like it. ‘Whatever I do, Beauty and the Beast is not going to be in my Top 5 favourite Disney films, not even my Top 10’, I told myself. ‘I’m going to find at least ten films I like more to keep it out of there’. …But I can’t do that. There is a reason why everyone loves this film. It’s in my Top 10, it’s in my Top 5; I might… actually like it more than The Little Mermaid.

Firstly, I’ve got to give props to the insanely high-quality version I watched, which made the film look and sound absolutely fantastic. I could hear every single piece of orchestral score and sound effects in every scene that I never noticed before, and I could see things on the screen that I never noticed before, for example, Maurice’s eyes are green (or at least, that’s how they looked to me). It was a truly incredible viewing, and if that’s the quality that’s on the blu-ray, oh my goodness, get me the blu-ray right now.

As for the film itself, you all know why it’s so damn good. The story is great, the characters are great, the music is great, the animation is great, and it all just comes together so brilliantly, and never feels dated or for a specific audience; it’s timeless, and can be enjoyed by just about anyone. I love all the characters, they all deserve to be in the movie: my favourite character…it’s probably a three-way tie between Gaston, Lumiere and the Beast. I’ve always loved Lumiere since I was a kid, I started to love Gaston when I was a bit older, and I found a new love for the Beast during this viewing. My favourite song is ‘Beauty and the Beast’, but I love all these songs. Menken and Ashman knocked it out of the park with this one, even when Ashman was dying during production; he never even got to see the finished film, which is extremely sad. The film ends with the tribute: “To our friend, Howard, who gave a mermaid her voice, and a beast his soul. We will be forever grateful.” Shout-out to Andreas Deja for his animation on Gaston, and Glen Keane (of course) for making the Beast so human.

Overall: Nothing is shoddy or half-assed here. This is a near flawless movie, and really does deserve all the praise it’s gotten from the world over for years since the film was first released. It is not the best Disney film, in my opinion, but it might be the best Disney film made after Walt’s lifetime, and probably the best of the Renaissance (– or at least on par with The Little Mermaid).

Home on the Range (2004)

I actually liked this film as a kid. Actually loved it. I remember seeing it in the cinemas, watching it on DVD tons of times; I even remember seeing the artwork and models in the Animation Studio in Florida before the film was released, when I went to Walt Disney World. I obviously learnt later that this film was the last to be traditionally animated at the Disney studios, but was not the reason why Disney stopped making traditionally animated films, as I thought it was – however, I still believe it killed any audience’s interest in traditional animation for good in 2004. Making this your last film in a tradition lasting 67 years probably wasn’t the best idea – I would have preferred Brother Bear to be the last, which it was intended to be, even though I don’t love that film.

Alright, it may be good for kids, they’ll stay interested (heck, I did), but for adults, like me now…no. Just don’t see this film. It’s a true blotch on Disney’s paper of history, along with The Black Cauldron as an all-time low at the studios. It’s got the childish plot, it’s got the obnoxious characters, it’s got the…pop culture references. The only characters I kind of like are Grace and Mrs. Calloway, but even then I don’t like them all the time; some of their jokes fall flat, and they’re just kind of forgettable. Maggie is just horrible and obnoxious, the villain is stupid, Buck the horse is…uuuuggghhh. I do kind of like the Willy brothers, in an ‘I know it’s stupid but it’s funny’ way. But everyone else is not much and forgettable, or too much and annoying.

I will say that the climax is quite exciting…but only quite. The rest of the story is just…well, have you read the plot? Three cows try and catch a cattle rustler…yeah, what? It is a very silly story, but then again, it’s a silly film, even down to the look of it. It’s very cartoony, but not really appealing, like The Emperor’s New Groove, which I think this film was trying to be. It felt like more of a comedy than a drama to me, and oh my God, it’s not funny.

I wasn’t even impressed with the animation much in this film; the only character animation I really liked was of Wesley, a truly unappealing despicable-looking character, but animated really well by Mark Henn. With the style, I really hate how anthropomorphised the animals are in this film: for example, the cows can stand on their hind legs and use their hooves as hands and can lift their front legs up as arms – the horse even has biceps in his front legs. And I know that in The Emperor’s New Groove, Kuzco as a llama can stand on his hind legs, and uses his hooves as hands, but that’s because he’s a human transformed into a llama, so there’s reason for it. These are just cows supposedly living in the real world, and so it’s just used for slapstick and comedy.

What disappoints me is that Alan Menken did the music for this, and it’s hardly his best. I know all the songs pretty well, seems as I watched it so much as a kid, but I don’t really like any of them, except for ‘Will the Sun Ever Shine Again?’ It’s sad that Alan Menken’s music isn’t a strength in this movie, where it was in other weak Disney films.

Overall: It’s really childish and silly, and I am totally not the right audience for it, but with Disney films, they’re able to touch both children and adults, so in my eyes, this is a failure. It’s probably an alright film for kids though, seems as I loved it as a kid.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (1937)

This wasn’t one I watched much as a kid, and I think it might have been because the VHS was broken, I don’t know; I probably saw the musical numbers more than anything, from the Sing-Along Songs videos. But when I was sixteen, and I found some Disney films on YouTube, this was one of them, and I really enjoyed it, especially the dwarves. Now I know that, before I go into my opinion, that I have to have serious respect for this film, with it being the first one, and creating a new medium of cinema, and showing the world what animation can really do. So, if I don’t like it, I have to at least admire it.

Okay, so with this being the first one, there are some things wrong with it, let’s get them out the way first. The animation on the human’s faces is very clunky; still expressions, and when they don’t have to speak are fine, but their mouths when they do speak? …Yeah, it’s not the best animation. Before this film, the Disney studio was just used to making animated cartoons, usually involving animals and caricatures of humans, so of course in this film, the expressions on the animals are very good, as well as the movements (though it must have been odd to see these cartoony animals, and then see the ultra-realistic animals in Bambi just five years later). As I said, Disney were only used to making shorts, they had never made a full-length animated film before…so the film does have an episodic feel to it, and there is a lot of filler: the real plot takes up only about thirty-five, forty minutes. But the filler in this film is really entertaining, especially with the dwarves, and some of it’s pretty iconic, like Dopey and Sneezy putting themselves in the coat and making the man tall enough for Snow White to dance with.

And I like pretty much everything else. I like Snow White. Yeah, I said it. She’s a very sweet young girl, I don’t see anything really dislikeable about her, apart from her ability to do nothing but clean and…sing. She’s just very nice, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The dwarves are awesome. My favourite’s Dopey, he’s just so cute, but I also really like Doc and Happy, and Grumpy, of course, probably more for his animation though, done by Disney legend Bill Tytla. The Evil Queen/Witch is great, though I almost forgot about her: she’s obviously in the beginning, but then she doesn’t appear until forty-five minutes later. But when she does appear, she has that awesome transformation scene where she makes the potion and becomes a witch. As a witch, she’s got a bit of a dark sense of humour to her, which I liked; when she’s in the dungeon, she says to a skeleton: ‘Thirsty? Here, have a drink!’ and kicks an empty cup at him. Well, I thought it was funny.

Finally, I have to say that while the animation is sometimes quite cartoony, the art in this film is gorgeous. Every background is truly beautiful, and really shows that an animated film can be a work of art, that it can be an animated film, and not just a cartoon, even though there are cartoon animals and dwarves in it. While I like the whole film, the part that amazes me in its artistry is probably the last ten minutes. The climax in the storm? Gorgeous. The mourning scene with all the dwarves crying? Gorgeous. The end scene in the woods? Gorgeous. Just as a moving piece of art, it excels.

Overall: This is a classic, easily. It does suffer from ‘first-time’ problems, but the artistry is incredible, characters are memorable and you’re not gonna argue with the legacy it has created. I did think it would be odd for my last review to be about the first in the list, but I think it was really the best way to end this Disneython: on a beautiful, well-loved, ground-breaking film that, if it had not been made, we wouldn’t have so many classics (and not just from this studio), and hopefully many more to come in the future.

So, the Disneython is now finished! Only took me 6 months, but at least I finished it! Thank you all who have read my reviews; I’ll put my Ranking List of Favourite Disney Films up soon, now I’ve seen them all :)

The Last Disneython Reviews - Part 1

Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:35:00 +0000

Yeah, it’s still taking me forever to watch these last few movies, but I’m getting there, okay. I have seen 4 of them though, so I thought I’d post them here to get them out the way. I said they would be ‘brief’, but this is me we’re talking about; they’re about half the length of my normal reviews. No background research or plot summary, just my opinions on them :)

Pinocchio (1940)

I don’t think I really liked Pinocchio as a kid, I do remember watching it, but not a lot. About two years ago, I found some of the classic Disney films on YouTube, and I watched Pinocchio, but I don’t really remember it. So watching it now, it felt like it had been ages since I properly saw it…and yet I could still remember a lot of the scenes, much like how I could remember a lot of the scenes from Dumbo. I didn’t think I was going to like it, because I didn’t watch it as a kid, it’s not a princess movie (seriously, there are only two female characters in this, not including puppets), and it’s actually pretty frightening. In Disneyland Paris, I went on the Pinocchio ride, but it was a ride through all the scary parts of the movie; when I got out of it, I was like: ‘Oh my God, I don’t remember Pinocchio being so dark!’

So I was a bit hesitant, but in the end, I really enjoyed Pinocchio. There’s something I just love about it, but I don’t know what it is. The animation and artistry is brilliant; you can tell Walt Disney wanted to push animation forward into bigger, more spectacular realms after Snow White. Two shout-outs to Milt Kahl, who animated Pinocchio (who I really like as a character), there’s some great acting on him; I think it’s probably my favourite of Milt Kahl’s work; and also Ward Kimball, who animated Jiminy Cricket: the poor guy spent months animating a soup-eating scene with the Dwarves in Snow White before it got deleted from the film, so Walt gave him the honour of animating Jiminy Cricket, and his work is fantastic. I kind of realised that it’s just as much Jiminy’s story as it is Pinocchio’s: he’s been given a job, with a reward at the end, which he must achieve and be motivated to get. It’s a bit like the fairies in Sleeping Beauty, where the supporting characters have a very big part in the story.

I was surprised to find out that the first twenty-seven minutes, pretty much the first act of the film, is set in Gepetto’s house, and it’s just Gepetto with his cat and his fish making this puppet, with Jiminy Cricket just sort of watching and commenting. Then Gepetto wishes on a star, Blue Fairy comes and makes Pinocchio come to life. I feel like some of this first act could have been cut – for example, there’s a short song where Gepetto just kinda dances round with the Pinocchio puppet – but on the other hand, most of it is really charming so none of it could really be removed. But it’s probably my least favourite part of the film: it’s when Pinocchio gets out of the house and into the world is when the film gets more interesting. I think I have one story nitpick, and it’s the Fairy es Machina: Pinocchio and Jiminy get back to Gepetto’s, but they realise he isn’t there, so they need to find out where he’s ended up. How do they do that? Blue Fairy sends a letter from the sky telling them where Gepetto is! Maybe Disney just needed to save time, because the movie’s actually quite long as it is (for a Disney film), being 83 minutes.

Overall: Loved Pinocchio; great animation, really charming, frightening in parts even as an adult, and a true Disney classic. Oh, and the version of ‘When you Wish Upon a Star’ at the beginning of the film is gorgeous.

The Princess and the Frog (2009)

This is one of the ‘new’ Disney films, so I don’t have nostalgia or fond memories of it from when I was a kid; I did see it when it came out though…and I think I liked it? I think I loved it more because it was a traditionally-animated film, and the animation was just so great…oh, and I totally loved Prince Naveen. But watching it now, I can see that I do have some problems with it.

But I’ll start with what I like. Love Tiana; love Naveen, he’s probably my favourite character; I love the relationship the two have with each other; love Charlotte, she’s fantastic; I like the songs quite a bit too: most people have complained that they’re not memorable, but I got the soundtrack and have listened to the songs a lot of times, so they’re memorable to me, and I love them; ‘Friends on the Other Side’ is by far the best song. The score, however, is not memorable at all.

So the things I don’t like…firstly, I hate the Frog Hunters scene. I know it’s just one scene, but I hate it so much: it doesn’t add to the story, it’s not funny, and it just reminds me of something out of Home on the Range; it could have easily been cut out. Secondly, I think there should have been just one sidekick, and not two, by sidekicks I mean Louis the alligator and Ray the firefly; it would have been better if they had just kept one because there isn’t enough screen-time for them both. Louis the alligator is the first one Tiana and Naveen meet, but there’s really nothing for him to do once Ray is introduced. So if I had to choose one or the other, I’d choose Ray over Louis – even if an cartoon alligator playing a trumpet is really funny to me. Thirdly, I want to love Dr. Facilier, he could have been very interesting, but I don’t see him as being a very strong villain; as the film went on, I felt like he was barely in it. During the middle, it feels like his story and Tiana and Naveen’s story are completely separate. And uh, speaking of story, finally, I think there’s too much happening in the story. I don’t think they need the whole Mardi Gras parade part of it, where Charlotte’s a princess, and her and Lawrence (disguised as Naveen) have to get married so Facilier can take over the city, and Naveen has to kiss Charlotte to break the spell, but only before midnight. They could have gotten rid of the character of Lawrence, he doesn’t do anything (though he does give Human Naveen more screen-time). And they didn’t need to kill Ray off; I’m still not too sure why the writers decided to do that. They should have just stayed with the story of Tiana and Naveen falling in love and becoming human again, which is what they do focus on, I guess.

Overall: Despite my problems with it having too many characters or too much subplots, I like The Princess and the Frog. Its main characters are great, the romance is great, there’s some lovely imagery, but I think the thing I love about it the most is that it’s a traditionally-animated film: I’m so glad Disney revived the 2D animation studio, as this film really reminds me of those classic Renaissance films I grew up with, and it gives me hope that Disney can make more films like these in the future.

The Great Mouse Detective (1986)

I didn’t watch The Great Mouse Detective as a kid; I didn’t own it on video, but I think I saw it once somewhere else. Again, those two years ago when I found some Disney films on YouTube, The Great Mouse Detective was one of them, so I kind of watched it for the first time then, and I don’t really remember it too well.

Well, I remember absolutely loving Basil, and I still do now, two years later. He is just wonderful: he’s egotistical, but knows when to calm down; he’s smart, but can doubt himself sometimes; he appears to be unconcerned about others, but does show his sensitive side (whether he likes it or not). What I like about him the most is how enthusiastic he is when he’s finding clues and deducting things; he’s just great. I know that this film was based on a book which was inspired by Sherlock Holmes: I’m not too familiar with Sherlock Holmes, only the Robert Downey Jr. films and briefly the TV series Sherlock, but if I have to choose, Basil from this film is my favourite interpretation of Sherlock Holmes – and he doesn’t even have the same personality as Holmes (which is probably a good thing, seems as I don’t like the original character anyway). I also love Basil’s counterpart, Professor Ratigan (what is he a professor of again?): Vincent Price is so awesome in this, he does a brilliant job voicing him (kind of helps that it was one of his dreams to be a voice in a Disney film), and the animation is perfect too – oh, Glen Keane was the supervising animator? Coincidence! And before I move on, I have to say the animation on Basil is very good too – in fact, all the animation is this film is very good. I noticed that at different points, there’s a moment when Basil and Ratigan almost lose their temper but then compose themselves, and it’s just a little sign to show how similar the characters both are, so when you put them together, it works so well. Probably the best part of the film is the climax in Big Ben tower, where Ratigan becomes the animal he truly is and battles Basil for the last time.

Unfortunately, Basil and Ratigan are the only things I really care about in the film; I’m not so crazy about everything else. Well, I tell a lie: I think the story, while simple, is fine, though it could have used a few more scenes between Basil and Dawson. But there’s just something about it that…feels small and cheap – and to be fair, it was made very cheaply, after the failure of The Black Cauldron. All the other characters I can take or leave: Dawson’s just okay, Olivia’s nice enough (though I wish she was a bit older, for some reason) and I almost forgot Olivia’s father was in the film. Though the film isn’t a musical, the songs it does have aren’t great: the one I have the problem with is the big glaring song number about forty minutes into the film, and it totally doesn’t belong there. But I shouldn’t complain too much, because the film doesn’t lose focus on the most important aspect, and what I like the most: the hero and the villain.

Overall: It’s by no means bad, and it’s one of the better boy-oriented Disney films, and it’s got a fantastic hero and villain. However, I’m not too thrilled about the rest, but hey: without this movie, there wouldn’t be The Little Mermaid.

Fun and Fancy Free (1947)

This is the last film I hadn’t seen before this Disneython, so when I was finished watching this film, I have now seen all 51 animated features in the canon…now I don’t know whether to include Wreck-It Ralph into this Disneython, now it’s coming out pretty soon. Anyway, even though I hadn’t seen this film all the way through before now, I had actually seen half of it as a kid, and that was the Mickey and the Beanstalk segment, which I remember watching and liking as a kid; it must have been shown on the Disney Channel at some point, because it had been recorded off the TV. But I had not seen the Bongo short that was paired with it in Fun and Fancy Free, and I wasn’t missing much.

I just didn’t care about this short: it just dragged and dragged, and it was all filler. This was planned to be a feature-length film, it shouldn’t have even been as long as it was as a short. The only thing I think I liked was the animation on Bongo, and that song about bears slapping each other; that was kind of funny. If you’ve read my reviews of the past package films, I’m not a particularly big fan of every single segment in them: there’ll be a few I like, and a few I just lose interest in; the exception is Ichabod and Mr. Toad, though I still prefer one over the other. This is the same here, where I kind of knew before Bongo was over that I would prefer Mickey and the Beanstalk…so the whole time watching, I was thinking: ‘Come on, when is this going to finish so we can get to Mickey and the Beanstalk?’ …But when it was over, I had to sit through the bits with Jiminy Cricket – I still have no idea why he’s in this movie – and the live-action ‘interstitial’, with…those disturbing puppets. Seriously, who has a birthday party with a grown man and two puppets?

I think Mickey and the Beanstalk is a much better short, and not just because I got a lot of nostalgia remembering all the scenes. There’s a few great scenes, like the beanstalk growing out of the house while Mickey, Donald and Goofy are sleeping (which ran longer in my memory), and Goofy having a fight with his hat on the jelly. Mickey, Donald and Goofy are great as usual, and Willie the Giant can be funny at times too. I love the singing harp, love her voice, I’ve loved her since I was a kid. And you know what the problem is? It’s too short. Like The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, I wanted this short to be much longer (ironically). The beanstalk growing out of the house scene could have been longer, Mickey, Donald and Goofy finding all the food could have been longer, more could have happened in the climax (though Mickey getting the key takes enough time). But I know, the Disney company didn’t have enough money or time to lengthen it out; this short was meant to be a feature-length film too, and I would have preferred that over a feature-length Bongo.

Overall: if it were just Bongo and a few other shorts, then it would just be on the same level as the other package films. But Mickey and the Beanstalk makes this film, and it takes up roughly half of the running time. …So I guess it’s alright…but I’d prefer to just watch Mickey and the Beanstalk separately.

P.S. Apparently there’s a version of Mickey and the Beanstalk with the narration by Sterling Holloway. I must find this version.

Soooo as you can telllllll...

Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:13:46 +0100

I haven’t been doing the Disneython. My bad. So I just wanted to tell you how the Disneython is going to end.

I’ll watch the rest of the films I have to see, I’ll put my brief thoughts and opinions on them in one post and THEN I’ll be done with the Disneython. Because it’s just gone on for too long, and I can’t write these reviews. So I’m still gonna watch all the Disney films, which was what I intended to do, and I’ll still give my opinions, but I just can’t do the big, long reviews. Maybe I’ll do them later, when I’m bored, but it’s not likely.

So um, look out for that, I’ll try and watch all the films pretty soon so I can get the final post done :)

Disneython #43: Hercules (1997)

Sat, 29 Sep 2012 23:41:06 +0100

(I told you it’d be up very soon!)

It was the late 80’s, Disney were just about to unexpectedly create a Renaissance with four successful feature films (and one other film that is never remembered by anyone and is a sequel to The Rescuers), but before the world could truly consider the studio being back on form, they needed to get themselves out of the Dark Ages, and the failure of The Black Cauldron. And they managed to do that partly thanks to two guys: John Musker and Ron Clements. This duo went to CalArts, they were hired by Disney, they had done some animating on a few films, and in 1986 they made their directorial debut with The Great Mouse Detective, which is probably the real film that started the Disney Renaissance; it got them out of their rough spot, and it certainly gave them the confidence they needed in their animation department. So after this, Ron and John were thinking of story ideas for the next potential Disney film, and the story they really wanted to put to film was a re-imagining of Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island, but set in space (which I have already reviewed). But Eisner, Katzenberg and co. didn’t think it would be very profitable, so they offered the duo The Little Mermaid, and that was extremely successful. So into the 1990’s, Ron and John still had this idea of Treasure Island in space, but it was rejected again and they were offered Aladdin, and that was extremely successful too. Feeling pretty confident with themselves, Ron and John told the executives that now was the time to do this Treasure Island in space…but no, it just wasn’t thought to be a big seller. So the studio offered them a Greek myth idea, and so they reluctantly accepted – but only if their next project could be Treasure Island in space, assuming that the Greek myth idea was commercially successful.

And so it was, kind of. It did alright at the box office, and it did alright with the critics, but it was still treated the way Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame were before: they just weren’t the films of the early Disney Renaissance. And…I think it’s still liked today? Apparently some people hate it, and some people love it? I don’t know, I can’t really do my research on that. All I know is that I used to love the film as a kid; I remember getting up really early for the premiere on Disney Channel to record it off the TV, and I remember it all pretty well. So I came to it as an adult and…well, I think it’s changed, like a few other Disney films I’ve already reviewed.

Very very loosely based on Greek myth Hercules, the story is set in Ancient Greece, where Hercules is the son of Gods Zeus and Hera. Out of nowhere, Hades, Lord of the Underworld, wants to kill Hercules after hearing a prophecy that Hercules will one day defeat him. Only in order to kill him, he must turn the God mortal, which does happen, but his god-like strength remains inside of him. Learning of his past when he’s older, Hercules must go out on a journey, train himself up and become a ‘true hero’, but not until he defeats the many obstacles in his way.

Well, you can certainly tell that the directors of Aladdin directed this film – and in a way, this film is very similar to Aladdin…you could almost say that it is trying to be Aladdin. A few choice similarities the two films share are that they have a pretty modern feel to them, they have pop culture and movie references, you have a comedian voicing a main character, it’s more comedy than drama, the animation is very fast-paced and fluid. I focus mainly on the ‘modern comedy’ aspects because it’s what sticks out to me with these two films. With Aladdin, the modern references only come out of the Genie, who is a fantastical character who could be from any time period. In Aladdin, the modern-ness works. In Hercules, it really doesn’t. It’s really jarring to see all these modern jokes and references, particularly in the ‘Zero to Hero’ scene; did they really need to put the Hercules merchandising in, like the shoes and the drink and the mosaic billboard and the fan-girls? None of the modern-ness fits in this world because it’s Greek mythology, and there’s no place or reason for it. With the humour in general (as this film is more of a comedy), it’s kind of half-and-half: Pain and Panic are never funny, Phil isn’t really that funny, but Hades is really funny, and Meg has some good snarky lines too, even if they do seem a little modern.

Hades is starting to become a sort of classic Disney villain: a lot of people love this villain because he’s so funny and yeah, he is. Some fall flat, but it’s only some, and even though he might be the most modern character in the film, it…kind of works with the character: he’s a bargaining guy, a schemer, but has some anger management issues – and what would you expect when you’ve been exiled from all the other Gods? The animation on him is great too, I love it whenever he flips out and explodes and just goes straight back to his normal blue colour. Maybe my only problem with him is that sometimes he is too modern, and his comedy sometimes overshadows his villainy. Another character I love is Meg I’ve loved her since I was a kid, and I think I relate to her more as a teenager, and it’s because she’s pretty cynical when it comes to love. I won’t lie, I’m a cynical, jealous girl who hates every couple in the world because I’ll never know what it’s like for someone to love me, and so I’ve got to like Meg quite a bit, with her ‘sometimes it’s better to be alone, so no one can hurt you’ look on love, though it is still quite a modern look. But I love her design, I love her voice actress and she’s a fresh Disney heroine – well, I guess she’s a little similar to Esmeralda.

As well as Meg, I like Hercules, but only as a teenager. I like my nice Disney heroes, and Hercules is your typical underdog, and a very clumsy one at that. But I was feeling sorry for him at first, and I love his ‘I Want’ song ‘Go the Distance’ – yeah, not many people like it, but I do! But then as soon as he becomes ‘adult’, and has done all his training, he just…changes, and I don’t like him as much – and it’s not because of his appearance. He jus t gets arrogant and big-headed, and he’s meant to be naïve but he just comes off as stupid. And I know that he’s meant to become arrogant because of all the fame he’s getting, but the whole time, I was thinking: ‘the teenage Hercules would never act like this!’ And sure, he does learn something by the end about becoming a true hero, and he’s revealed to be a total hopeless romantic, which is kind of cute (and Meg and Herc’s romance is okay), but it doesn’t seem like he’s learning anything at first. Once Zeus basically says: ‘You need to become a true hero and stop being an ass’, Hercules does have a bit of a moment where he wants to reject the fame – but when and after he’s with Meg, he gets all stupid and arrogant again! I would have much preferred it if the teenage Hercules led the rest of this story, and not this bland hero he becomes.

I think one of the things that possibly splits people’s opinions on this film is the music: some people absolutely love it, others outright hate it. I…am on the fence. I like most of the songs: as I said, I love ‘Go the Distance’, but I also love ‘I Won’t Say I’m in Love’, they’re probably my two favourites, but I would be lying if I thought that those songs fit in seamlessly with the gospel-inspired songs sung by the Muses that appear throughout the film. Like a lot of people, I wonder why the Disney studio chose to use gospel music and these Muses for the majority of the songs, and to me, the songs do add to the film’s modern feel.

Overall: There are things I like, such as certain characters and certain songs, but there are things I don’t like, such as certain characters, some of the humour and the all-round modern feel and references. I will give it points for trying something different, particularly in the overall design of the film, but when your film is more focused on comedy than drama and heart of the story, and the comedy isn’t that funny, I can’t love this film too much, like I did as a kid.

Next time, I’ll be reviewing…1940’s Pinocchio.

Disneython #42: Saludos Amigos (1942)

Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:33:00 +0100

Quick recap on the package films again: package films were a collection of short subjects strung together to make one feature-length film made during and after WWII, when animated films with a feature-length story were becoming too expensive to make, and the studio were not financially stable after making ambitious films like Pinocchio, Fantasia and Bambi. With this package film, Disney and a team of artists and musicians were taken to South America, where they were intended to make an animated movie to be shown in the US, Central, and South America as part of the Good Neighbor Policy. And if you want to learn more about that, then I’m afraid you have to go somewhere else because I know nothing about it. I’m not knowledgeable in any historical events, so sorry for skimping on details; I’m here to give my opinion on Disney films, not explain the entire backstory of its production.

This film consists of four main segments, and each of them lasts about ten minutes, making this the shortest film in the Disney Animated Classics Collection. I had not seen this film before, all I knew was that it was about the culture in South America, and Goofy was in it (and it was only 42 minutes). And let’s get this out the way now: it’s a package film. There’s nothing particularly special about the package films. So don’t expect any overwhelming feelings about this one.

Lake Titicaca

The films starts with live-action footage of the Disney team getting on a plane and going to South America, and then seeing some of the culture of the people located in Peru. So I was thinking: ‘What? This is an animated film, right?’ But the animation does show up eventually, and the animated segment stars Donald Duck, in his first feature-length film, as a tourist trying to adjust to the South American culture. It’s a cute, funny scene; apparently Donald’s not as funny in this segment as he is in other separate shorts but, to be fair, I haven’t seen many Donald Duck shorts so I can’t judge. But I thought Donald was pretty funny here; I really liked Donald’s original voice in this segment, even though I’m used to the new voice; I still have no idea what he’s saying most of the time though.

Pedro

We then go back to live-action and move to Chile, where we don’t really get anything about their culture (maybe because the Disney team weren’t allowed cameras there?) but instead get an animated short about Pedro, a little plane who embarks on his first flight picking up air mail from Mendoza. This short feels the most like the package film shorts I’ve seen in Melody Time and Make Mine Music, only without the music; it reminds me the most of the ‘Little Toot’ short from Melody Time. I was not really fond of that short, and this one’s no different. It’s cute, but it’s nothing special.

El Gaucho Goofy

Cut back to live-action, and the Disney team are now in Argentina, where they are looking at the native Gauchos, who are sort of like Mexican cowboys. To educate the audience about the ways of the Gaucho, we are given a Goofy How-To short! …Well, it’s not really a How-To, but it’s pretty close: it’s got the narration, it’s got Goofy performing for the audience, Goofy barely talks, and it’s really funny. I think Goofy’s funny in anything, so maybe I’m a bit biased, but I chuckled all the way through this segment. Probably my favourite part is when Goofy is playing the guitar and singing: I was like: ‘Oh my God, Goofy has a great singing voice!’ But then it’s revealed that he’s just miming to a record player.

Aquarela do Brazil

The final segment takes place in Brazil, and it’s easily the best part of this film. It shows some live-action footage of a samba carnival in Rio, and then it goes into a segment almost like something from Make Mine Music, where visuals are put to the song ‘Aquarela do Brazil’ or simply ‘Brazil’: it’s a fun and energetic scene involving a paintbrush creatively painting out vibrant backgrounds, plants and animals. Donald Duck makes another appearance, and is introduced to José Carioca, who we would see more of in The Three Caballeros: I think I like José a lot more in this film than in The Three Caballeros, he just seems a lot more exciting in this first appearance. He then leads Donald into another song, ‘Tico-Tico no Fubá’, introducing him to the samba – and the song is so good; I couldn’t help but dance to it in my chair. I guess if The Three Caballeros is meant to be a spiritual sequel to Saludos Amigos, then this segment would be the overlapping of the two films.

Overall: I think it does get better by the end, but it’s still just a package film that isn’t really spectacular. It shouldn’t really be put with the other Disney Animated Classics, as it’s barely feature-length, but because it’s the first package film, you can’t really miss it out. This is probably only an animated Disney film to see just so you can say you’ve seen them all, like I’m doing.

Next time, I’ll be reviewing…1997’s Hercules.

Disneython Update

Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:23:38 +0100

Sooooooooooo last week I said I would do a separate blog post about the Disneython reviews and going back to college and everything like that.

Yes, I am back at college, and it’s terrible, and I would much rather review the remaining 10 animated Disney films. Buuuuuut I found out that I have 3 pieces of written work to be finished by the start of October, with 3 monologues to learn and 3 dance routines to choreograph/remember. Plus the fact that whenever I come home from college, I feel like giving up on life and so I don’t do anything at all that night.

So I apologise if some of these last Disneython reviews are short or lacklustre, I will really try to get my opinion down (unless it is a film I really don’t care for/have nothing to say about). It’s funny, I was meant to do this Disneython for the summer, and now we’re halfway through September and I still haven’t finished yet. I said I would give myself until the 25th of September to finish the Disneython (as I spent 25 days in August writing a story), but unless I can watch and write reviews for 10 films in 8 days, I might have to go over-schedule again.

As I said, there are 10 films left to review, I know which ones they are (if you’re a Disney buff, you know them too), but I don’t know the order I’ll be reviewing them in…well, actually I do, I know the last 4 films I’m reviewing: one is everyone’s favourite Disney film, one is considered to be one of the worst Disney films, one is very similar to 101 Dalmatians and one is Snow White. Yeah, the last film I’ll be reviewing in the Disneython is Snow White.

So there are 6 more films before them: I have seen Saludos Amigos, and I shall write a review of it soon, and I can tell you the next film I’m reviewing is Hercules. …Yaaaay. Out of the 9 films left for me to review, there are 5 I’m really looking forward to/intrigued to see again, and there are 4 that I’m not that excited about; Hercules is one of them. But we shall see.

So look out for the Saludos Amigos review, and if your favourite Disney film hasn’t been reviewed yet, don’t worry, it shall come soon :)

Disneython #41: Sleeping Beauty (1959)

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:03:33 +0100

It seems ironic that I would be reviewing Sleeping Beauty right after I reviewed The Black Cauldron, as I mentioned in that review that I felt The Black Cauldron reminded me quite a bit of Sleeping Beauty, and there are plenty of similarities: they’re both fantasy stories, both spent a long time in production, both very pretty unique styles in the art direction, both very ambitious, both presented in Technirama, both financial failures. Only one film is much more superior than the other.

Sleeping Beauty was probably the animated film that Disney took the longest to make until The Black Cauldron, with story work dating back to 1951, finally completed for an early 1959 release – and with an ambitious film like this, it was going to take a lot of time to get it done. Because Disney had already made two Princess films, in Snow White and Cinderella, Walt Disney wanted his third Princess film to have a different look and so, for the first time, he hired one main person to supervise the entire look of the film: Eyvind Earle, who was put in charge of the colours and backgrounds of the film. Disney just let Earle have full control over the style, which didn’t please the animators who were used to contributing their own little style to the settings and characters – but at this point, Walt was past caring. In this 50’s – 60’s period, this was the film Disney was probably least involved in, though he would still come in and give the final say on ideas and decisions made. Again, he was off sorting out his theme parks and live-action films; in fact, the live-action The Shaggy Dog, released the same year as Sleeping Beauty, made much more money. Poor Sleeping Beauty barely made its money back, and got mixed reviews too, with criticisms of its slow pace and lack of character development. However, the film is still very popular now, with some hailing it as one of the best animated films ever made: Princess Aurora is still popular Maleficent is still popular, even the main castles in Disneyland California and Disneyland Paris are Sleeping Beauty’s castle, and not Cinderella’s. The film is also currently my 4-year-old cousin’s favourite Disney movie.

Based on Charles Perrault’s fairy tale, the story is of three fairies: Flora, Fauna and Merryweather, three Good fairies who are invited to the celebration of the newborn Princess Aurora. Each fairy grants Aurora a gift, but before Merryweather can give her gift, the evil fairy Maleficent puts a curse on the newborn baby that on her sixteenth birthday, when she pricks her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel, she will die. Merryweather changes the curse so that instead of dying, the princess will stay in a deep sleep. But while Maleficent is still around, the fairies must protect the princess from her, and so they decide to hide her away in the forest until the sixteenth birthday, when the princess is returned to the King and Queen.

Um, this wasn’t one I watched a lot as a kid: I certainly remember watching it (we recorded it off the TV, so I remember where the ad breaks were when watching this time), but not a lot. But I had actually seen this since my childhood: when I was about 16, I discovered a lot of classic Disney films on YouTube, put up in parts and I watched Sleeping Beauty, Snow White and Pinocchio – however, the films weren’t really fresh in my head, so it still felt like I hadn’t seen the film since I was a kid. This was one of the films I was looking forward to quite a bit in the Disneython, and I was not let down; it’s a great Disney classic.

As I said, some people consider this as one of the best animated films ever made, or the best Disney film of the Silver Age, and if it was solely based on the visuals, then this film would definitely live up to those titles. Oh my God, this movie looks gorgeous. Its unique and very stylised visuals are probably the best part of this film: with the film being presented in Technirama, it gave the artists more space on the screen to create and put more detail into the backgrounds. Walt Disney wanted the film to look like a living painting, inspired by medieval tapestries and paintings, and it really makes the visuals stand out from all the other Disney films. While I compared The Black Cauldron to this film, there are actually some parts in Sleeping Beauty where I compare it to Fantasia, the most ambitious film from Disney’s Golden Age; there’s a particular part at the beginning where the fairies are granting their wishes, and there’s sort of daydream-like visuals on the screen that resemble the swirling universe in the ‘Rite of Spring’ segment. Some people criticised that the backgrounds in the film were so lavish and detailed that the characters were swallowed up in them being too distracting, but I didn’t really see that when I watched it. I could watch the characters and still be awe-struck at the backgrounds at the same time.

Along with the beautiful visuals, this film showcases possibly the most beautiful-looking Prince and Princess in Disney history. Now, I’m sorry if I’m coming across as shallow/weird for finding animated characters attractive (you should be used to it), but I just have to address it: Princess Aurora is so undeniably beautiful; I know most of the Disney princesses are pretty, but God, they don’t have nothing on Aurora! I personally think that Aurora looks a little bit like Winona Ryder, but I think I’m the only person on the planet who thinks this. I’ve said that my favourite Disney princesses are Ariel and Rapunzel, but I’d say Aurora’s probably next on my list, in terms of appearances…because she doesn’t really have a personality in this film. True, she’s in the film for less than twenty minutes, but she’s sort of your standard princess, more like Snow White than Cinderella…which is sort of taking a step back in terms of Disney princesses. However, the Disney Prince moved forward in this film – yes, the Prince actually has a name in this one! He’s also given a bit more personality – not much, but a bit more. And he’s probably the prettiest Disney Prince, but that just comes with the Prince package. But let’s be fair, all Disney Princes and Princesses are pretty gorgeous, so I can’t actually choose a best-looking couple. Okay, I’ll stop now.

So this movie may not have the best Prince and Princess, but it arguably has the best Disney villain: Maleficent. Everyone loves this villainess, and it’s hard not to. She’s a classy villain but she can lose her temper at times, she’s elegant but she can be reckless, she’s so confident that she is evil, she even calls herself ‘The Mistress of All Evil’ (she’s actually pretty hot too). However she doesn’t necessarily have the best motivation: you got snubbed at a birthday party, so you put a curse on the newborn baby? Though, you could probably argue that Maleficent didn’t cause havoc because she wasn’t invited but because she’s just evil and likes to cause havoc; she didn’t seem too bothered by her not being invited, it was almost like a sarcastic ‘I feel quite distressed that I wasn’t invited’. And you’ve got to love a sarcastic villain. But there is one thing that puts her above all the other Disney villains: she creates possibly the best climax scene in a Disney film. About half-way through the film, I started asking myself: ‘When’s the climax in Maleficent’s castle coming up, and is it going to be the best part of the film?’ Not that I wasn’t enjoying the film, there just wasn’t much happening. The climax is very good: from the moment the fairies arrive at the castle to the fight between Prince Philip and Maleficent as a dragon is great; that fight was animated by good old action-man, Wolfgang Reitherman. The only problem I really have in the climax is when Flora tells Prince Philip: ‘The road to true love may be buried by still many more dangers, which you alone will have to face’ …But we’re just gonna help you with our magic, anyway. But if you can get past that, then it’s a very good climax.

So speaking of the fairies, they are actually the main characters in this film, if you think about it. They do all the work, they make all the decisions, they are the real protagonists of this story; so I guess this is the first time Disney has had the supporting comic relief characters be the stars of the film, and it actually works. All three fairies are extremely likeable, they all have distinct personalities and they all have their funny moments. Probably my favourite is Fauna, the fairy in green, because she’s the most like me.

While I do like the whole film, I have to nitpick that in the first half of the film nothing really happens: the fairies try to make a dress and a cake, and Aurora has one scene in the woods where she meets Prince Philip. I guess that it’s to show what life has been like for the past sixteen years, and it’s build-up to when the fairies have to take Aurora back to her parents, but still, it takes up about twenty minutes; I was surprised to realise that Aurora doesn’t prick her finger until fifty minutes into the film! So those twenty minutes in the cottage and the woods feel a bit slow, particularly Aurora singing and walking round the woods with her animal friends. And then, just before Aurora is taken back to her parents, there’s a four-minute scene between the two Kings that really isn’t needed plot-wise, but I guess it does show that Aurora’s father, King Stefan, is actually a pretty good guy: he cares about his daughter, and doesn’t want her to get married so quickly, while King Hubert has sorted everything out for Aurora and Philip already; she is only sixteen, after all (but even then, she does still get married by the end of the film). But that scene could have been taken out, and the film could have gone straight to the fairies taking Aurora back…however, now I think about it, at the end of the two Kings’ scene, there’s a bit where Prince Philip comes and tells his father he’s going to marry a peasant – I don’t know, is that needed? Could that have been taken out too? I guess so, because when the fairies put the whole kingdom to sleep (in a really nice sequence), Flora finds out from King Hubert that Philip has fallen in love with Aurora… Okay, so maybe the scene is needed, I take back what I said.

Overall: The story is fairly simple (with it being a fairy tale), so there are some comedy parts to pad out the 75 minutes, but the characters shine through, as they should in a Disney film, there’s a great climax and ending, and again, there’s no denying that it looks so downright beautiful. One of the most visually gorgeous Disney films, Sleeping Beauty could be classed as an ‘artsy’ film, much like Fantasia, and there’s nothing wrong with that, I don’t think.

Next time, I’ll be reviewing…1942’s Saludos Amigos.

Disneython #40: The Black Cauldron (1985)

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:50:19 +0100

In the 1980’s, things at Disney’s animated studios were not going too well: it was a battle between the old staff, who had worked with Walt Disney himself and knew what he would have wanted, and the new staff, who wanted to get away from the ‘traditional’ type of Disney films that had been released in the 60’s and 70’s. This new team wanted to make darker, more adult animated films, and they did so with The Fox and the Hound and The Black Cauldron. The latter had actually been in production for over a decade, since Disney got the rights to Lloyd Alexander’s book series in 1971, but didn’t get released until the summer of 1985. It was meant to be the Snow White of a new generation, being incredibly ambitious with a big budget; it was the most expensive animated movie ever made at that point. But the studio also wanted to make a Disney film geared towards teenage boys, and older audiences in general, as the new team felt that teenagers wouldn’t be seen dead going to see a Disney movie. When the film was finally set to be released in the fall of 1984, Ron Miller, Walt Disney’s nephew and chairman of the studio, was ousted and Michael Eisner and Frank Wells were introduced into the studio, bringing Jeffrey Katzenberg along with them as chairman of the animation studio…which didn’t help matters, as none of them were particularly interested/had no experience in animation. When Katzenberg saw the finished product that was The Black Cauldron, he demanded to edit it, cutting out ten minutes of the darker, more intense scenes; even with the cuts, he still felt like The Black Cauldron was not a very marketable film for Disney. Editing a fully-completed animated film had never been heard of at this time, and Katzenberg’s editing put him on the bad side of the Disney animators, but the film was finally released in 1985 with disastrous results.

The Black Cauldron? How about the black sheep of the Disney Animated Classics Collection. This was the first Disney film to have no musical numbers in it. This was the first Disney film to get a PG rating. This was the Disney film that is considered to be one of Disney’s biggest failures, if not the biggest failure. With its big budget, The Black Cauldron failed to make its budget back, making just over $21 million; it did so poorly, that The Care Bears Movie actually made more money than it, released just a few months before. Disney were (and are still) ashamed of The Black Cauldron’s failure, and so they tried to forget all about it, not issuing a VHS release for it until 1998 (only out of requests from fans of the film); Disney still don’t give it much attention today: you never see the film anywhere in its theme parks, you never see any toys or merchandise from it, it’s got one Special Edition DVD release in 2010, it probably won’t get a Blu-Ray release. I think this film is only remembered because of its infamous reputation as being known as the ‘worst Disney film’. Apparently it has a cult following, and more and more people are finding it, but mostly people aren’t really fond of it.

Based on two books of the Chronicles of Prydain series by Lloyd Alexander, the story is about Taran, a young pigkeeper who has a pig who can see into the future. The pig’s obviously very special, and it turns out that the Horned King is after the pig to see if it can reveal the whereabouts of the black cauldron, which the Horned King plans to use to summon up an undead army to help him rule the world. So Taran, with the help of Princess Eilonwy and a musician named Fflewddur Fflam, must rescue the pig and destroy the cauldron before the Horned King can get to it.

Is The Black Cauldron Disney’s worst film? For me, it’s not. I have seen Chicken Little. But it is by no means a good movie; it’s alright, at best. And yet there’s something I like about this movie, and I don’t know what it is. As a young kid, I didn’t watch it much, but it wasn’t until I kept seeing the advert for it on my Disney videos that I rented it out and watched it when I was about 10, 11 years old, and I think I liked it; I particularly liked Eilonwy, and I loved Gurgi. But I hadn’t seen it since until now, and I realised that when I was watching it, I could remember every scene…and while I wasn’t enjoying it (I don’t think), I still wanted to keep watching. I don’t know, there’s just something about the film that keeps me watching; maybe it’s some form of nostalgia or something.

The one thing I am sure of with my opinions of this film is that it doesn’t feel like a classic Disney film to me…and yet this is one that should feel like a classic Disney film: it’s a fantasy, it has knights and sorcery, it has talking animals (well, one), it has fairies, it was witches; it reminds me a lot of Sleeping Beauty, Disney’s other ambitious project that didn’t fare too well. But I can recognise where it doesn’t feel like a Disney film: firstly, no songs (and I don’t really think the movie could be improved if it did have songs), and secondly, the point that pretty much everyone agrees on, it’s too dark. Now, Disney can be dark, they have had dark aspects to their films, but I don’t think they’ve ever been as dark as this. I shall just say this: the titular black cauldron is used for evil to summon up an undead army, and the only way for it to be destroyed is if a living being takes their life and throws themself into the cauldron. Yeah, you weren’t finding any of that in earlier Disney films; probably the closest it’s gone to being that dark is the ‘Night on Bald Mountain’ sequence in Fantasia, which I love…however, you could argue that Pinocchio is full of dark stuff, but I put that type of darkness in a separate category to the dark aspects in The Black Cauldron, for some reason.

The darkest thing, apart from the matter of the black cauldron itself, is the villain in the Horned King. Well, he certainly looks terrifying, and I’m pretty sure he scared many unsuspecting children watching this film. When I saw it as a kid, I wasn’t scared of him, I always thought he was really cool, and the undead army was really cool; then again, I wasn’t affected by many dark things in Disney as a kid. As an adult, the Horned King still looks creepy, and his voice is great, but he’s hardly the best Disney villain. He just doesn’t do anything throughout the film; he can’t even get his undead army off the draw-bridge before he’s thwarted by our hero. His death is pretty creepy, but it’s over too quickly: speaking of the editing earlier on, Katzenberg edited the most out of the climax, where the ‘Cauldron-born’ are unleashed and the Horned King is defeated, and I think it would have been better if the climax was longer – at least get the undead army out and causing harm! Oh, and I just have to mention that the Horned King loses his scary appearance in the climax: he gets little black pupils in his red eyes, and I think it makes him look really goofy. Throughout the film, his eyes are just black, or they’re glowing red softly, but once he gets angry, he gets these pupils and it makes him look unthreatening. Go and find his death scene and see what I mean.

With the rest of the characters, well, they’re one of the biggest faults of the movie. There are no characters here that are memorable, or well-developed, or even likeable; I just don’t care for any of these characters. With our main character, Taran: I like how he looks, and I like his name, and there are some points in his animation that are pretty good. And that’s it. He’s useless in this story, he shouldn’t be our hero – and when he’d daydreaming about being a knight and enamoured by everyone, I kept thinking: ‘Why do you think you’re gonna get to that place when you don’t do anything!’ And then by the end of the movie, he’s just like: ‘Oh, okay, let’s go back home and continue being a pig-keeper’. What?? Eilonwy has a nice design and voice, but there’s nothing interesting about her; she doesn’t need to be a princess, as Doug Walker mentioned in his Disneycember review, so I don’t think of her as a princess – oh, and I don’t like her facial animation, it’s not very good at all. I don’t care for Fflewddur, I don’t care for the fairies, I don’t care for the witches. They actually drop some characters throughout the film without any explanation: once the fairies give Hen-Wen, the pig, back to Taran, they’re gone for the rest of the film, except for one. But the one fairy, Doli, just bails out on the gang before the climax: he literally just goes: ‘Well, you’re all useless, and I give up!’ and then just disappears. He then doesn’t appear until the end of the film with Hen-Wen showing Dallben, Taran’s guardian, the future; Dallben says: ‘You did well, my boy’, and then Doli just says ‘Yep’. What??

…I’m undecided on Gurgi. While he certainly doesn’t annoy me as much as he does everyone else, I don’t…love him, but I don’t like him – I don’t know, he’s not annoying, but he’s not endearing. One thing I would have added to the ending is to keep Gurgi dead (sorry, if you haven’t seen the movie and/or want to), but I knew that if they did, there wouldn’t be a happy ending, and I wouldn’t know how the movie could have ended with a ‘bittersweet’ tone. When the witches give Gurgi back to Taran and Eilonwy and Fflewddur in exchange for the useless cauldron, they should have just given them the corpse; seeing as they’ve been given something that’s of no use to them, they should have given them something back that’s of no use. I’m not familiar with the original book series, so I don’t know what properly happens at the end of the story, but apparently this movie pretty much botched up the whole plot from the original books anyway so it doesn’t matter.

Overall: The Black Cauldron is not Disney’s worst film, but merely a mediocre one, without any memorable stand-out moments or characters, which are essential to classic Disney films. And yet, I still find something about it that can’t make me hate it; I don’t want to be too hard on it. Maybe it’s because it had a lot of effort put into it, despite all the trouble and difficulty in its production. It’s just an unintentional mess. If it’s not remembered for its characters and (lack of) charm, it will always be remembered as Disney’s black sheep.

Next time, I’ll be reviewing…1959’s Sleeping Beauty.

Disneython #39: Brother Bear (2003)

Sat, 08 Sep 2012 19:54:24 +0100

…Um, well, there’s not much to say about Brother Bear’s background. It was first developed in 1994, and was intended to be very similar to The Lion King, in that it had a very dramatic storyline with elements of the Shakespeare play King Lear. …And the working title was ‘Bears’. Wow, Disney, you couldn’t think of anything better? It was the third and final film made solely at Disney’s Feature Animation Studio in Disney-MGM Studios in Florida, it was released in the early 2000’s, when Disney’s animated films weren’t making that much money, and people were growing out of traditionally-animated films and flocking to CGI films like Shrek and Ice Age, the latter having quite a few similarities to Brother Bear (even though the Disney film went into production before the Blue Sky film): both involve Paleolithic-era Inuit people (even though Brother Bear takes place after the ice age), and both plots focus on a road-trip/journey of some type. Brother Bear made a bit more money than its predecessor, Treasure Planet, and it was considered to be fairly successful; however, if you think about it now, its total box office number is the budget of one of Disney’s most recent features, Tangled. It didn’t help that critics were still giving mixed reviews, and it seemed that at this point, the Disney animation studio could not do anything about their string of unpopular animated features; Brother Bear was meant to be the very last traditionally-animated film from Disney, however it was pushed forward because of problems in the Home on the Range production. Would it have been better if Brother Bear ended Disney’s catalogue of traditionally-animated films? Well, I haven’t reviewed Home on the Range yet, but even if Brother Bear is (most likely) better, it’s not really the highest note to go out on.

The story is of Kenai, a young man who gets given a totem representing what he must achieve to become a man…and he needs to achieve love, and his totem is of a bear. To make things worse, a bear comes out of nowhere and steals the tribe’s food, leading Kenai to go after it and kill it – but he’s not going without his brothers, Sitka and Denahi. When Sitka gives his life for his brothers while the bear survives, Kenai goes out again to kill it, this time to avenge his brother’s death. But when he is successful, the spirit of Sitka comes down and transforms Kenai into a bear as punishment. So with the help of another bear called Koda, Kenai must make a journey back to the mountain where he was transformed and learn the lesson of love that was bestowed upon him.

Before I go on, this is going to be another pretty short review because I didn’t particularly care for this film. I loved it as a kid, I remember watching the DVD so much (I didn’t see it in the cinemas so saw it for the first time on DVD)…but now, it’s just alright. I didn’t particularly care for any of the characters, the humour is hit-and-miss and I don’t think Kenai did learn the lesson of love by the end of the movie. Maybe because I had watched it so much as a kid, I wasn’t wowed by it – but then again, I watched The Little Mermaid and Aladdin way more times, and those films still entertain me. Maybe I was just tired while watching it: I watched this when I got home from my first day back at college, and so all I wanted to do was just get into bed and sleep (just so you know now, I’ll put a separate blog post up later, but now I’ve started college again and I’ll need time to work, some of the Disneython reviews will be a bit short or lacklustre…like this one is).

I’m bringing Doug Walker up again, because he said in his Disneycember review that he absolutely loved the first twenty minutes of Brother Bear; I don’t absolutely love it, but I do like it. It does show the film’s roots as being more dramatic like The Lion King: heck, a (very likeable) character that we’ve gotten to know dies in the first thirteen minutes! The brothers have a good chemistry and the setting and lifestyle of these people is established very well too – and of course, the movie looks incredible. I didn’t realise that the movie actually changes aspect ratio after Kenai’s transformation, but the art style definitely changes too, in terms of characters at least. I have to mention the transformation scene because for me, it was the big stand-out part and probably my favourite part of the film. The song used is fantastic, there’s some great effects and it’s almost breath-taking when you watch it. If you haven’t seen this film and don’t particularly plan to, just take a look at the Transformation scene here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iSKQr6rnbs

But once Kenai turns into a bear, they really shove in the comic relief and the wacky characters that aren’t needed. Rutt and Tuke, the two moose, are the ‘main’ comic relief side characters and I didn’t care for them; it was kind of nice to see them have a dramatic moment and that their brotherly relationship tied in with Kenai and Koda’s brotherly relationship, but other than that, they’re a bit annoying. Speaking of the main brotherly relationship…I don’t know how to feel about it. Yeah, I guess it does work…it seems like they act like brothers, but there’s something that I can’t really put my finger on that doesn’t feel genuine about it to me, just like I think Kenai never really learnt the lesson of love by the climax of the film. Their love-hate relationship seems to be more hate than love to me, and it’s sometimes jarring to see them getting along (only a little) one moment, and then having an argument the next. I think it felt more like a friendship than a close brotherly relationship.

Another thing I’ll say is that I like the songs. Like with Tarzan, apparently people don’t like Phil Collins’ songs that much, but even though they’re not as good as the songs in Tarzan, these Brother Bear songs are the ones I grew up with that I know so well. My favourite is the Transformation Song that I mentioned earlier.

Overall: What I said above: it’s just alright. There were some parts that I liked, particularly the first twenty minutes, and there’s some good emotion and intensity in scenes, but there’s nothing else about it that’s really memorable.

Next time, I’ll be reviewing…1985’s The Black Cauldron.

Disneython #38: Winnie the Pooh (2011)

Tue, 04 Sep 2012 22:44:45 +0100

Winnie the Pooh is Disney’s most recent animated film (at the time of this post), and it’s a rare thing indeed. It’s a traditionally animated film that has no real big names voicing the characters, it’s just over an hour long and it’s a sequel to one of Disney’s package films from the 1970’s. This is the second film from Disney’s ‘new-and-improved’ animation studio, that is to say new-and-improved since John Lasseter became chief creative officer and brought traditional animation back to the studio, however, according to Wikipedia, it will be the last Disney animated film to use traditional animation. If this is so, I am going to sit in a corner and cry for several hours, and then move on with my life. So, as I said when I reviewed the first Winnie the Pooh movie in the Disney Classics Collection, Winnie the Pooh was created by English author A.A Milne, Walt Disney licensed the rights to the characters and stories, Disney made three short Winnie the Pooh featurettes and created a package film of the three shorts in 1977, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. Thirty-five years have passed, and Winnie the Pooh is probably Disney’s most popular franchise, so popular that the studio decided to make a sequel…and it was a modest financial success, however it wasn’t the best idea to release your film the same weekend as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2. And to be fair, not every kid wanted to see Winnie the Pooh: they were more interested in films like Cars 2, and Kung Fu Panda 2 and…The Smurfs. But the families who didn’t/haven’t seen this film are really missing out because I thought this film was fantastic – yeah, I’m an adult, obviously the first time watching this film, I freaking loved it.

With nothing really connecting to the original Winnie the Pooh shorts, there are two stories here that our beloved characters take part in: one is a story in which Eeyore loses his tail, and so his friends try their best to find a replacement, and the other is a story in which the gang believe that Christopher Robin has been abducted by a terrifying monster called the ‘Backson’. But these stories aren’t told separately, like in The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh; they put them together into one timeline, although it does begin with one story, forgets about it to go onto the second story, and then comes back to the first story at the end.

Again, all the characters are so strong and they carry this film on their shoulders; it helps to have a Disney veteran who was actually an animator on one of the original Winnie the Pooh featurettes work on the film as the storyboard artist, so there was no worry that the characters would not act the way they should. I think every person working on this film was passionate about keeping the original charm of the earlier featurettes, and they didn’t fail at that at all. I was very happy with how they used the characters in this film because 1. There’s more Eeyore and 2. There’s more Piglet. Eeyore has more depressing things to say, and I was just laughing at all of them (I feel so bad for saying that); he has a bit of a subplot with Tigger, which is kind of cute but I felt a bit sorry for what Tigger puts him through in the song number between them. Piglet gets put through a lot of pain too in one scene, which I didn’t like; how dare you show poor Piglet in pain! I also got my cute Piglet moment in the film, when he runs off and gets a flower and thinks it’s pretty.

But the film doesn’t forget to focus on Pooh, who is still the main character, and he still just wants his honey: that’s all he wants out of his life. He actually has that generic character formula to him: he wants something, he tries to get it, he is constantly thwarted, he succeeds in the end. He also has kind of has this in Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree, but I was feeling sorry for Pooh, and rooting for him more in this film to get his honey because you can see that his lack of honey is affecting him negatively: from the beginning of the film, he doesn’t get to have any honey, and throughout the film, he gets hungrier and hungrier, his stomach-rumbling is getting worse, and he is so starving with hunger that he actually starts to hallucinate – only it’s not as scary as ‘Heffalumps and Woozles’, it’s a nice hallucination. And all the while I was just shouting: ‘Give Pooh his honey!!’ I know he’s a stuffed animal, but he’s gonna die if he doesn’t eat something soon! But thankfully, he does get to eat by the end of the film, I don’t think I’m giving much of a spoiler there.

The rest of the characters are again all likeable – even Rabbit’s a little bit nicer in this film; I thought he was a lot funnier in this, too. And I thought this film was really funny: I was laughing so much at parts of this film. And I think the funniest part is that all the film’s conflict is caused by just how stupid all the characters are – and I mean, all of them, even Owl and Rabbit, and I thought Owl was pretty smart! There’s actually a part in ‘The Backson Song’ where Owl seems to have a bit of sense, and it made me laugh really hard, but he just ignores it and carries on being stupid with the rest of them. I went past the point of being annoyed by it and was just laughing at it; it sort of added to the charm. The fourth-wall jokes return in this, using the storybook format once again, and there’s probably even more character interaction with the book than in The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. John Cleese is the narrator in this, and he’s wonderful; they couldn’t have gotten anyone better.

If I have to nitpick, I would nitpick about the new voices for the characters. Obviously, they couldn’t get all of the original actors to voice the characters from 1977, so they used most of the voice actors from the more recent Winnie the Pooh films like Winnie the Pooh’s Most Grand Adventure, The Tigger Movie, Piglet’s Big Movie e.t.c. (I have only seen The Tigger Movie out of that set of films). I wasn’t bothered by Pooh and Piglet’s voices: Jim Cummings has been doing Pooh for a while now, so he’s got it down to an art, he’s just as good as Sterling Holloway. Piglet’s voice is sometimes similar to the original, but sometimes it’s too high-pitched; he sounds like a little girl when he’s shouting. Jim Cummings has also been doing the voice of Tigger for a while, but at some points his voice sounded a bit off…and his Tigger is the voice I’m most familiar with! This voice kept reminding me of Ray, who Cummings voiced in The Princess and the Frog. Eeyore’s voice was a bit of a surprise but I got used to it, and I think Tom Kenny (Spongebob Squarepants) did a pretty good job as Rabbit, but I don’t think Owl’s voice sounds like the original, however I’m not even that familiar with the original. He’s voiced by Craig Ferguson, who is apparently a famous comedian and TV host (who has done a few voices for animation recently). And I don’t really care about Kanga and Roo’s voices, I’m fine with them; the voice of Kanga is actually one of the songwriters in this film.

Which brings me to the songs, and they are all really, really good. They were written by Robert Lopez and his wife, Kristen, and Robert Lopez is the Tony-Award-winning Broadway musical writer responsible for the songs in Avenue Q and The Book of Mormon…and considering the type of humour in those musicals, you’d be horrified to find out that one of the songwriters wrote the songs for a movie starring Winnie the Pooh. But Lopez’ music at least does have that light-hearted, catchy sound that fits into the Hundred Acre Wood universe perfectly. …I think my favourite is the ‘Everything is Honey’ song, which is the song Pooh sings in his hallucination scene. Zooey Deschanel also has a few songs in this film as well and, while I find Zooey Deschanel and her voice annoying, she’s tolerable singing the ‘Winnie the Pooh’ title song and an original song during the end credits.

My biggest problem is of course that the film is just way too short: why were there only two stories, there should have been more! This film is just over 60 minutes, they could have used fifteen or twenty more minutes to add another little story in there, and of course, I want to see more of these characters! Give me more of these characters, movie! And give me more traditional animation! If it’s not obvious by now, I prefer hand-drawn animation (and stop-motion) far more than CGI animation (with some exceptions *cough* Pixar), and it’s really nice to see such fantastic animation on these classic characters. Renaissance-era animators Andreas Deja, Mark Henn and Eric Goldberg returned to animate Tigger, Pooh and Christopher Robin and Rabbit, and it’s fantastic, like I said. I particularly liked Eric Goldberg’s animation on Rabbit, and I noticed something in that at some points, where Rabbit is just downright hysterical, there are blue circles round his pupils and they’re only there for a frame or two, but I thought it was a really cool touch. See, even the paragraph stating my problems ends with something else I love about the film.

Overall: If you’re a fan of the original Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, or any of the earlier Winnie the Pooh films, then you will love this, as it captures the charm of the original characters with no real modern touches to it what-so-ever, except the cleaner animation. And even if you’re not a big fan, like I am, you can still love it: I loved this film, and I just wish there could be more kids’ films like this nowadays. And if this is the last traditionally-animated film ever to be made by Disney, then this is a pretty good way to go out.

Next time, I’ll be reviewing…2003’s Brother Bear.

Disneython #37: 101 Dalmatians (1961)

Tue, 04 Sep 2012 18:07:00 +0100

It was the start of the 60’s, and the start of a new sort of style for Disney – the three films released in the 60’s are still part of the Silver Age, but there was a new look and process to the animated Disney films. 101 Dalmatians introduced the Xerox process, replicating the animators’ sketches directly onto cells, making it cheaper and wasting less time inking; the ‘sketchy’ look would be used for the next six films the studio released over two decades. Walt Disney never particularly liked this look, but he was past caring at this point. He was losing interest in his animation part of his ever-growing company: there was even talks of closing the animation studio down, but Disney couldn’t bring himself to do that; he still had a soft spot for animation. So he kept the animation studio going, but the next feature film had to be much cheaper, after the financial failure of Sleeping Beauty. And the film made back its money, and was probably Disney’s most popular animated film in this ‘sketchy’ style behind The Jungle Book, getting numerous re-releases.

Based on the novel by Dodie Smith, it is the story of two Dalmatians, Pongo and Perdita, who belong to Roger and Anita, living in 1960’s London. Perdita has a litter of fifteen puppies, who Cruella DeVil, Anita’s old schoolmate, wants to capture and make into a Dalmatian fur coat, as she ‘lives’ for fur. So once her henchmen kidnap the puppies, and the humans have done all they can to search for them, it’s up for the dogs to make the journey and save the puppies.

I’m afraid I don’t have much to say about this one, because I don’t really care for it. I did watch it as a kid, but it wasn’t my favourites. It’s just one of those nice, harmless Disney films that came out during the 60’s and 70’s with no real ambition; it’s just a pleasant little film that doesn’t stand out to me. It seems like a lot of people still really like this film, but I guess I just think it’s okay.

I think I liked the first twenty minutes the most; when I was watching the opening credits and remembering the music, I was liking it. I love the beginning with Pongo’s voice-over and trying to get Roger and him a girlfriend each, and that’s very cute, and then the two couples meet, and that’s very cute. And it’s all happy and pleasant until Cruella DeVil makes a visit, causing Roger to create a song about her right on the spot – I wish I could think up a song as good as that off the top of my head. I did find Roger to be pretty funny in that scene with his song intruding in on Anita and Cruella’s meeting. I didn’t realise that Cruella’s entrance was pretty funny too: when Anita asks how she’s doing, she replies with: ‘Oh, miserable, darling, as usual, perfectly wretched!’

Which brings me onto Cruella: she is by far the most interesting character in this, and is the most popular and memorable character to come out of the film. Anita calls her ‘eccentric’ at one point in the film but oh no, I don’t think that: she’s more like a total psychopath. I seriously was a little disturbed by her in this film, she just comes off as being insane: she waltzes around, putting on a show, she maniacally laughs at nothing, she talks to herself, and she’s just so determined to get these puppies for her coat…it’s just a fur coat, lady. I really want to know what happened to her in the past to make her like this. But she is what makes the film interesting, and her craziness kept me going for the rest of the film; she also makes the car chase in the climax a bit more exciting, because she just becomes so mad and psychotic. I was wondering who animated her out of the Nine Old Men, and I thought it was Milt Kahl or Frank Thomas, but I was surprised to find out that it was Marc Davis, who animated Cinderella and Flower from Bambi. However, I did also find out that he animated Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty earlier, so it makes sense.

But as I said, she was what kept me going because once the conflict actually starts when the puppies get kidnapped, I found myself losing interest with the bland characters. The puppies have no personalities and so I’m not as concerned about them, although the fact that they’re puppies makes you have at least a bit of concern about them being harmed. The only other character I really like is Sergeant Tibbs the cat – typical, in a film focused on dogs, I have to like the cat – but I only really like him because of his voice…I guess I like that he’s hard-working and never gives up on his mission to save the puppies.

…And because I don’t really have anything else to say, I’ll just say that I did love a bit in the ending where Pongo and Perdita have returned home with 99 puppies; Anita asks: ‘Where did they all come from?’ Roger looks at Pongo and exclaims happily: ‘Pongo, you old rascal!’ Hehehe, naughty Disney.

Overall: It’s just okay, it’s just a nice little film. Nothing really special (except for maybe having the most psychotic Disney villain), it’s just…a Disney film, and it’s not really captivating.

Next time, I’ll be reviewing…2011’s Winnie the Pooh.

Disneython #36: The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)

Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:14:52 +0100

Considered to be one of Disney’s darkest, ballsiest films, Hunchback was made around the same time Pocahontas was being made, so Disney were still wanting to make their films epic dramas, after The Lion King made a ton of money. Perhaps Victor Hugo’s novel was too much of an epic drama for a Disney adaptation, as many people questioned how and why Disney would want to use this story for their next film; it was a bit of a different direction from the studio with a string of family films combining comedy with dramatic moments. The studio knew that there was going to have to be some darkness in this film, because the novel is so dark by itself: they had to keep some key parts of the novel into the film, like the theme of religion, something Disney had always stayed away from. There are issues dealing with sin, profanity, Heaven and Hell, prejudice, lust and the use of the word ‘damnation’ (twice!). So they tried their best to also make it kid-friendly at the same time, focusing more on the theme of acceptance and being different than the theme of church corruption and architecture, making the characters nicer and kinder, and adding comic relief and musical numbers, blind-folding the MPAA into giving the film a G rating. But even then, this wasn’t exactly the best film to get family audiences into the cinemas to make lots of money, after the disappointment of Pocahontas. Critics weren’t crazy about the film, and the die-hard Victor Hugo films obviously shunned the film for changing so much of the original source material. But its popularity has been growing over the years, and I think it’s because the children who went to see it when it was first released have grown up, discovered it and understand it a lot more. As a Disney fan, as you grow older, there are some Disney films you appreciate more as an adult than as a kid. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is one of those films.

Based on Victor Hugo’s famous novel, the titular hunchback is Quasimodo, a deformed young man who lives in the bell tower of Notre Dame, brought up by Judge Claude Frollo, who forbids him from leaving the tower…and of course, that’s all Quasimodo wants to do. When he does, he is celebrated in the Festival of Fools, but soon tortured and made the laughing stock in front of the town. Everything changes when a gypsy named Esmeralda comes to save him, and so Frollo, with a hatred for all gypsies, starts a search to capture Esmeralda and burn her to death, accusing her of witchcraft. But both Quasi and Frollo cannot bear to part with her, while Quasimodo has fallen in love with her, Frollo has an uncontrollable lust for her.

Before I get into my review, I shall just point you to Doug Walker’s Disneycember review of it: http://blip.tv/nostalgiacritic/disneycember-the-hunchback-of-notre-dame-5848566 because he basically explains my opinion; everything he mentions is how I feel about the film (except for one thing, which I’ll get to later).

I have not read Victor Hugo’s novel (and I do not plan to), but I know pretty much everything that happens in it…and I think it’s best that people do not compare the film to the book, because it just ruins your view on the film – that is, you haven’t seen the film before you read the book, which might be a small amount of people. I of course saw the Disney film first, and I loved it as a kid; obviously all the religious themes and Frollo’s lust for Esmeralda went completely over my head, but I still loved it. And now I think about it, I’m not really sure why I loved it – but I did; it was a Disney movie, go figure. It wasn’t until I was about sixteen years old, and I saw good old Doug Walker’s Top 10 Disney Villains and Villain Songs videos which feature him giving a bit of an opinion on Hunchback, and I was curious to watch it again, and I loved it even more; I understood all the themes of acceptance and prejudice and, of course, knew what ‘Hellfire’ was all about now. And then I hadn’t seen it since then until now. Now before I watched it yesterday, I included Hunchback in my all-time favourite Disney films, and I was wondering why I did. But then I saw the film again, cried about five times during it, and I was reminded how much I love this film. Yes, I have my problems with it, but I still love it so much for it to stay in my all-time favourite Disney films for a while.

Shall I start with the characters, as that’s always the part I’m most interested in with Disney films. One of the reasons the Disney team wanted to make this film is because of the characters, even though they altered them heavily and made them a lot more likeable, which I have no problem with. My favourite character in this is Quasimodo…you all know that I like my protagonists kind and good-hearted, so this was a no-brainer. Quasimodo is probably the character that made me prefer likeable protagonists because he is just so likeable: he’s so kind and so sweet, and yet he’s very anxious and self-conscious and has been tricked into thinking that Frollo has been treating him well all these years. He’s a lot like Dumbo, in that he just wants to be accepted, and I wanted to follow him all the way through, rooting for him to the very end. I also love Esmeralda, she’s a great heroine: she has the right balance of being feisty and independent, but also being gentle and amiable. Oh, and in this film, she has three guys going after her, and you can totally see why: she’s smokin’ hot. But I can’t use that as a positive because looks aren’t everything, as this film tells me.

But there is one character who wants Esmeralda for her looks (and…possibly something else), and that’s our villain, Judge Claude Frollo. He’s probably one of the best Disney villains because he’s a conflicted, complex villain: he sees everything except himself as corrupt, and tries the ‘purge the world of vice and sin’, but he has sinned, and keeps sinning himself. He does realise that he is sinning, in his lust for Esmeralda, but he believes that everything he does is never his fault, and that it’s all in God’s will. You don’t get that from any of the other Disney villains, do you? He’s not my favourite, but he is a very strong candidate for Best Disney Villain.

Two of the three guys after Esmeralda fall in love with her for her personality, the first being Quasimodo and the other being Phoebus. I never really cared for Phoebus as a kid, but I actually really liked him this time round. He’s the ‘Prince’ in this story as a supporting character, which is something Disney hasn’t really done before, and though he sometimes comes off as a little bland, I think he’s alright; he has the funniest lines in this film, no doubt. I like his relationship with Quasi, and I also like his relationship with Esmeralda, which is the one thing I disagree on with Doug’s Disneycember review. I think Phoebus and Esmeralda have good chemistry together, though I can see more why he goes for her more than why she goes for him – and even though I like them together, it’s still heartbreaking for Quasi when he realises Esmeralda never loved him; that was one of the times I cried during the film, just thought you’d like to know that.

Another character I love is Clopin, and my first problem with the film is that there is not enough of Clopin. And I’ll be honest, I don’t really see anywhere in the film there could be more of him, but I really love him. He is in the film five times, and he is great in all of them. He also has great animation: there’s one bit I particularly love in the ‘Court of Miracles’ song where his puppet comes out and shouting ‘Wait, I object!’, and he has a fight with it, I really like that bit of animation. Oh, and he’s got a killer singing voice: his ending notes in ‘The Bells of Notre Dame’ are so awesome.

I guess now I’ll get onto the problem which is the biggest problem with the film, and the problem that everyone has: the god damn gargoyles. They just don’t need to be in the film at all. And I know, Disney has to put the silly comic relief characters in for the kids, but if you knew you were going to be adapting a Victor Hugo novel, you should have known that there wasn’t going to be a lot of comedy. Of course, I don’t know if there are some small bits of dark humour in the novel, but putting silly comedy into this type of story just isn’t going to work with all the drama and conflict going on; the silly comic relief characters work in Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid because they’re fantasy films, and there’s a magical element to the universes. Doug Walker brings this up in the Disneycember review that if the gargoyles were just in Quasimodo’s mind, then they would have been more tolerable; he puts it really well in that it would have been a ‘tragic way to get your comic relief in’. But it’s not just that they really do exist and just choose to become stone when they like, it’s that they’re obnoxious and the humour is not funny. The ‘A Guy Like You’ song number really annoys me because it feels ‘modern’ to me – oh, and they’re responsible for the one movie reference during the climax. If someone could edit this movie together and cut all the unnecessary gargoyle gags, the song number and everything they do in the climax out, then it’ll be a lot better.

Also, another comedic scene that doesn’t really fit is the Festival of Fools scene with the ‘Topsy Turvy’ song number, but with this scene, it has to be in the film, it’s integral to show Quasimodo at the Festival…and so we have to show Disney’s version of the Festival of Fools, and it’s got to be bright and silly and comedic. I sort of wonder how the Festival is depicted in the novel, as I’m pretty sure it’s not as light-hearted as in the film. But the song is good and hey, more Clopin, I can’t complain too much.

I’ll end this review by talking about probably my favourite part of the film which is the music, both the songs and the score; this is by far Alan Menken’s best work in terms of music (rivalling Beauty and the Beast). The songs are fantastic too, and just because they don’t have Howard Ashman’s lyrics doesn’t mean that they can’t be on par with the songs Menken/Ashman wrote earlier. Like with Pocahontas, the lyrics are by Stephen Schwartz, and while they may not be as clever as Ashman’s, they still gel wonderfully with Menken’s music. My favourite song is ‘Out There’: I know everyone loves ‘Hellfire’, but I’ve always really, really loved this one and at the worst moments it can make me break down into tears…just like in the Disney Dreams fireworks display at Disneyland Paris. But to be fair, every song works well for me – even ‘A Guy Like You’ is still a decent song on its own, and I even like the short ‘Court of Miracles’ song (because it’s more Clopin, come on).

I realised this viewing that there are many songs in the first half, but by the end, the score sort of takes over in the climax and ending…and good Lord, is the score incredible. Throughout the film, it’s dramatic, beautiful and tragic, and the choir makes everything much more so. This, like his score for Pocahontas, is exceptional work.

Overall: No, it’s not perfect, and no, it’s not one of the first Disney classics you think of but for me, this is still one of my all-time favourites. This is ‘Disney epic drama’ done right…with some faults. But I truly don’t let those faults get to me, and I don’t care if the film isn’t like the novel. I like that it’s darker, and more mature, it’s very emotional and it’s very beautiful too, in its music, its visuals and theme of acceptance and, like Dumbo, I can relate to that so much.

Next time, I’ll be reviewing…1961’s 101 Dalmatians.

Disneython #35: Dumbo (1941)

Sat, 01 Sep 2012 15:01:00 +0100

Dumbo is a very simple film. Because Pinocchio and Fantasia lost money on their release, Disney just needed to make a small low-budget film to get some money back. Unlike the first three ambitious animated films the studio made, the animators and artists had to cut down on the lavish backgrounds and detailed realistic character animation. Around the same time, the studio were also working on Bambi, which would have all the lavish backgrounds and detailed character animation. Instead of expensive gouache and oil paints, the backgrounds were watercolour. Instead of detailed character animation, the style was much more cartoony; it was almost like a full-length Silly Symphony short. Walt Disney didn’t have time or money to experiment with scene ideas, so there were barely any scenes that weren’t put into the final product and even then, the film is only 63 minutes long, keeping it short and simple. About five months before the film was released, there was an animators’ strike (that would be depicted in a scene of Dumbo), where much of the studio staff left and the atmosphere around Walt and the remaining staff was changed forever (if you want more information on that, go and look it up yourself because I don’t understand any of the financial talk, I apologise). If this movie didn’t succeed, then the studio was probably likely to shut down.

But it was a miracle that Dumbo was a financial success, and it got positive reviews. But who would have thought that the little simple film would go on to be one of the most popular films associated with the Disney studio. All over the world, people of every age still adore this movie – and they have good reason to. Four of the five Disney films of the Golden Age may be more ambitious and visually stunning, but Dumbo fully deserves to be right up there with them, in terms of being considered the most emotional and charming film of this collection.

I think everyone knows this story, it’s pretty simple: Dumbo is a little elephant with big ears, and he’s teased and ostracised by the other elephants and circus animals. His protective yet ill-tempered mother eventually gets herself in trouble when she retaliates against a human audience member, and she is separated from her baby. So Dumbo is all alone, being the laughing stock of the circus, but with the help of a little mouse named Timothy, he must prove himself to the world and discover his secret talent.

I was thinking before I watched this film that I didn’t watch Dumbo much when I was a kid; I remember watching it, but I don’t remember watching it much (either way I was excited at watching it again). But as soon as the opening credits started, and the score played, it just turned a light on in my brain and I remembered the rest of the score; I found myself humming along to it. I guess I did watch it quite a lot because as the film continued, I knew every single shot that was coming next; I remember every single scene in this from when I was a kid. I was so happy with this that I was just sat there with a big smile on my face for the first fifteen minutes; this is nostalgia at its best. Did I like it as a kid? I loved it as a kid. Do I like it now? I love it now.

Let’s get this out the way: Dumbo himself is one of the most adorable characters ever created in fiction. You seriously cannot help ‘Awwww’-ing along with the other elephants when you first see him, and if you don’t find his actions just a little bit endearing, you have no soul. There is no doubt that all the credit goes to Bill Tytla for this. Bill Tytla was one of the Disney animators of the Golden Age that taught the Nine Old Men, and he was one of the highest-paid animators at the studio because he was so damn good. Before Dumbo he had animated Grumpy from Snow White, Stromboli from Pinocchio and Chernabog from Fantasia (and as I said in that review, I adore the animation of Chernabog). But in fear of being typecast to animate these big, antagonistic characters (well, excluding Grumpy), Tytla wanted to animate Dumbo, the tiny little elephant overflowing with innocence. And what a job he did: his work in this film is considered to be some of the best in animation history. It is amazing how Dumbo can express all the characteristics of a child just through his face and his movements with no dialogue what-so-ever. It’s just pure acting through drawings, and because of this, we are totally with Dumbo throughout the whole film. I guess another reason we’re with Dumbo is because everyone has been in his situation: everyone has (or at least felt like they’ve) been bullied or ostracised, and felt like an outsider. I still feel like an outsider, and probably always will, so of course I was going to feel something for Dumbo. There is actually a scene I really like where Timothy (I’ll get to him later) is washing Dumbo with a toothbrush, and he’s trying to tell him how great he was in the circus show, and that he was amazing, but Dumbo just keeps crying; he can’t accept that he was amazing, because he’s just so down on himself. That is me all over; I feel like that all the time, so I could really relate, much more than when I did as a kid (for the record, I didn’t feel ostracised as a kid, I was perfectly happy being the freak I was).

Though I was very familiar with the scenes, one thing I wasn’t expecting was how early on in the film Dumbo’s mother gets taken away from him. There’s a really lovely scene where it’s just Dumbo and his mother playing around, and it’s so sweet – and then about two minutes later, Dumbo’s mother flips out and the circus hands have to tie her down and put shackles on her feet, and they’ve taken Dumbo away. But I guess it’s effective having her out of the picture early, because then there’s time for Dumbo to miss her, and time for Timothy to befriend him…before the scene where Dumbo gets to see her again. Yes, it’s the ‘Baby Mine’ scene. Dear God, I was not expecting to cry so much. I do not normally cry at films: I will scream and melodramatically flail my arms, but I don’t have actual tears coming from my eyes, unless it’s a really, really special moment in a film (and if I’m feeling extremely down). I cried like a baby during this scene: as soon as his mother’s trunk reaches down to him, and Dumbo puts his head on her trunk, the look on his face just sets me off. And the song starts, and oh my goodness, it’s heartbreaking. Oh God, I’m actually crying just remembering it in my head.

Even though I think I emotionally died from that scene, there’s not actually that many other really emotional scenes. As I said, the style of the film is very cartoony, and because it’s a circus setting, there’s big, lively scenes with loud music and comedic characters, and it’s alright; it doesn’t really get annoying, it’s entertaining, but I like the comedic animals more than the human clowns. The animals at the beginning of the film are cute, and they did cheer me up in the ‘Baby Mine’ scene; of course, it cuts to several of the other mother animals sleeping with their babies and they made me laugh; I had tears streaming down my face, but they made me laugh.

And then right after that scene, the clowns are celebrating how well the show went and go off to ‘hit the big boss for a raise’, knocking a bottle of champagne into a bucket of water. …And Dumbo and Timothy get a bit drunk. And then five minutes of complete pointlessness happens. Even though they didn’t have the budget of the past three films, Disney still wanted to push the envelope of what could be done with animation even further in this film, so he had to put in just one scene to show that. It’s the ‘Pink Elephants’ scene. As a kid, I think I didn’t like it: I would watch it, I wasn’t scared of it, but I just didn’t like it. I hadn’t seen this in its entirety since I was a kid, and…yeah, the whole time I was asking: Why is this in the movie? And more importantly, why was it put straight after the scene where I’ve been bawling my eyes out? I had to watch the ‘Pink Elephants’ scene wiping my eyes – but that was pretty hard to do, because I couldn’t take my eyes off the screen. The scene actually is really impressive: Disney did push the envelope with how surreal, crazy yet fun the visuals are, and how the images can transform into anything. It’s very creative, and very entertaining, even though it has no place in the film. Seriously, what was in that champagne.

What I also really love is the music (yeah, I’m gonna talk about the music again, and I will definitely be talking about the music in my next review). I remember it all from my childhood, so maybe that’s why I find the songs so catchy. The songs are all really great, but my favourite song is ‘When I See an Elephant Fly’; I’m in full sing-along mode whenever I hear it. And they are of course sung by the supposedly racist crows. …Yeah, this movie’s been called racist because of these crows. With racism in Disney films…I don’t really notice it, but maybe that’s because I’m a stupid white girl who isn’t knowledgeable about black people or black history. With the crows, I am taking Eric Goldberg’s word for it: on the making-of featurette, Goldberg states that the way the crows talk and act in the film is accurate to how a jazz band like Louis Armstrong’s would talk on a record. And there’s no doubt that they’re important to the plot: they’re the ones that give Dumbo that confidence to love himself and find that special talent he has, and they’re sympathetic with him. And I think they’re cool, as I said, I love their song, and the dance number that comes with it. Interesting fact: Ward Kimball, who animated the crows fantastically, was the only one of Disney’s Nine Old Men to work on Dumbo, while the others worked on Bambi, because Kimball’s strength was animating comic cartoony characters, and he didn’t really like realism in animation, so he was put on Dumbo instead of Bambi, which required heavily realistic characters.

One thing that makes Dumbo stand out from the other animated Disney films is its short running time; it’s not the shortest film in the collection, but it barely makes a feature-length film at 63 minutes, and I reckon that’s because of the low budget they had. If I hadn’t said it before, I’ll say it now: I’ve noticed that the climaxes to some Disney films are extremely short, and that the resolution and ending is normally very rushed. Do you want to know how long it takes for the conflict to wrap up? Two minutes and ten seconds. That’s a record. But I’m not complaining at all because the moment when you see Dumbo falling without his feather and then using his ears to zoom up past the clowns just gives you the biggest feeling of relief and joy; it’s so satisfying to see little Dumbo succeed. Though the ending is extremely short, it’s just over a minute long, it tells you everything you need to know: Dumbo becomes world-famous, Timothy…becomes his manager, but most importantly he is reunited with his mother, and that was all I really wanted for him, so it worked for me.

Overall: I put this film on the same level of Bambi: I find them to be very similar, and I have a lot of love for both of them. While I love Bambi for the pure artistry and animation, I love Dumbo for its simplicity and emotional attachment. Yes, it’s very short and fast-paced, and it does get cartoony and wacky, but the overwhelming sympathy, sadness and joy I got out of it makes it an undeniable favourite.

Next time, I’ll be reviewing…1996’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

P.S. I just wanted to put this story I found on Wikipedia here, because I thought it was really sweet: In 1967, Bill Tytla was invited to a screening of Dumbo at the Montreal Expo’s World Exhibition of Animation Cinema as part of an Hommage Aux Pionniers, but he was worried that no one would remember him. But when the film ended, they announced the presence of “The Great Animator”, and the audience erupted in “a huge outpouring of love”. I just think that’s a really sweet story, and it’s a shame that it wasn’t too long after that night that he died.

Disneython #34: The Jungle Book (1967)

Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:05:26 +0100

The Jungle Book is known as Walt Disney’s last film – or at least the last Disney film that Walt himself worked on – and he didn’t even get to see the final product, which is a shame because he really did put a lot of himself into the production. As I’ve said before, during the 1950’s and 60’s, Disney was losing interest in his animated films and was more concerned with the Disneyland theme park, TV shows and live-action films, and so was barely ever present during productions of films like Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmatians and The Sword in the Stone. After The Sword in the Stone didn’t do very well critically or financially, Disney made sure that he was more involved with the studio’s next planned film, an adaptation of Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book; I like to think it was because he really wanted to make this film, and got invested in the jungle setting and characters. But the production was not without its problems. Story writer Bill Peet wanted to make the story darker, like in the original book, but Walt wanted to keep things light-hearted because this was a family film. This led to Peet leaving production and the Disney studio altogether, although the personalities he had created with the characters – and the inclusion of two new characters – remained intact. Walt had to change the songwriter for the film, because he felt Terry Gilkyson’s songs were too dark, and so he got the more familiar Sherman brothers to write the songs, although one Gilkyson song is kept in the film. And of course, there was the tragedy of Walt’s passing in December of 1966, ten months before the film was set to be released. But I’m sure he would have been elated to have known that the film was a critical and financial success, was re-released three times and it is still a beloved Disney classic today.

Loosely based on Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book, Mowgli is a human boy found in the jungle as a baby and brought up by a pack of wolves (who are out of the picture pretty quickly). But when news goes round that the tiger Shere Khan is back in the jungle (with a deep hatred for humans), Bagheera, the panther who found Mowgli, must force him to leave his jungle home and go back to the ‘man-village’. However, Mowgli is perfectly happy in the jungle, and so decides to stay, meeting a colourful cast of characters on the way.

So I think the general consensus of this film is that everyone likes it pretty well, and it’s one of the more kid-friendly Disney films. Well, I can tell you, I think this was the one Disney film that I did not like as a kid. I never watched this film because I was scared of one part: Baloo’s roars. I am scared of stupid things. But I was so scared of it, I didn’t watch it for most of my childhood, until I was eleven years old, and I wanted to watch it again because I was trying to watch every Disney film ever made, and I liked it then. Though I didn’t watch the film too much, I know most of the songs really well: they were all on the Disney Sing-Along Songs videos that I watched religiously as a kid; I also had a Disney’s Greatest Hits album that had ‘The Bare Necessities’ and ‘I Wanna Be Like You’ on it, with all the instrumental parts kept in, so I know those songs by heart. I reckon this viewing for the Disneython is probably the third time I’ve seen The Jungle Book, and I wasn’t sure whether I was going to like it: as proven, most of the Disney films that I have a strong childhood attachment to are the ones I still love (and am probably a bit more biased to).

So I started watching and right from the opening credits, I was really interested. The opening credits are shown over the backgrounds of the jungle and George Bruns’ score, and I really love it: I love the backgrounds throughout this film and if ever the sketchy animation was a bit hard to look at, I could just look at the backgrounds surrounding them. Now some people aren’t too keen on the ‘sketchy’ animation in the Disney films of the 60’s and 70’s, but I don’t really mind it; it’s still Disney characters being brought to life by some great animators, and there’s actually some really astounding character animation in this. Eric Goldberg, one of the animators of the Disney Renaissance, has said that The Jungle Book has some of the ‘best character animation a studio has ever done’, and other fellow animators Andreas Deja and Glen Keane were inspired by this film to go into the business. As well as the animation, I just love the designs of the animals, especially the elephants. The Disney animators’ goal with their animal characters was to always transfer human expressions on the animals’ faces, while their bodies would move realistically, using footage of the real-life counterparts for reference, and it really does shine here.

I am sort of half-and-half with the music in this film: some of the songs I like, some of them I don’t. My two absolute favourites are yours, ‘The Bare Necessities’ and ‘I Wanna Be Like You’, but I can’t actually choose one that I like more than the other. Both are so lively and catchy and there’s great instrumental parts and great vocals and the scenes they appear in are the real stand-outs of this film. However, the other songs I can take or leave; I know them really well, but if I didn’t, they wouldn’t be very memorable. Even though I liked the score in the opening credits, there wasn’t actually much else of the score that I noticed, maybe because half the scenes in this film are played in silence, with no background score, and it made me feel like those scenes went on for too long. The only other bit of score I remember now is in the scene before Mowgli gets caught by Kaa the python, because it’s really similar to the music in the opening credits.

I shall get this out the way now: yes, there is re-used animation in this film; it’s Wolfgang Reitherman, it’s one of his ‘trademarks’. But there is also re-used score in this too. I guess George Bruns just got lazy because he decided to use a piece of music from his score from Sleeping Beauty and some of Paul J. Smith’s organ music from Snow White in two scenes of The Jungle Book. Now I have yet to review Sleeping Beauty and Snow White, but I probably won’t be able to tell where the music they used in The Jungle Book is in those films because I can barely remember the music. But those are the only lazy parts of this film and they were barely noticeable to me; the only other lazy part of this film is Baloo the bear (that’s me trying to make a joke. Ha).

Baloo is probably my favourite character in The Jungle Book, but that’s hard to say when you’ve got such a cast of characters. There are a lot of characters I love in this: Baloo, Bagheera, Kaa, King Louie, Colonel Hathi, that cute little baby elephant, the tall dark-haired vulture…and of course, Shere Khan. I think that Shere Khan might be my favourite animal villain, because he is just so aware of his dangerousness: he is so sure that he is the biggest, baddest guy in the jungle, and he just doesn’t have a worry that he may be defeated. Oh, and his voice just makes him. George Sanders has such a fantastically classy British voice that it’s just perfect for Shere Khan’s nonchalant personality; there’s a great part in the scene between him and Kaa, where Kaa tries to hypnotise him, but he just slaps Kaa on the head and is all like: ‘Oh, sorry, I can’t be bothered with all that’, and it made me laugh so much. Classy tiger. Speaking of Kaa, he’s really cool too, and of course, it’s Sterling Holloway voicing him, so of course I’m gonna like him; I was actually surprised that I wasn’t distracted by his voice, because he’s basically using his Winnie-the-Pooh voice, but not once did I think: ‘Oh, that’s Winnie the Pooh inside a snake’s body’ – that’s got to be some real talent as a voice actor, right?

Anyway, I need to talk about Baloo, because I just said he’s my favourite character, and the reason he is my favourite character is because I sort of want to be him. No, I don’t want to be a bear, no I don’t particularly want to live in the jungle (seems as I have a fear of pretty much every animal, especially wild ones), I just want his lifestyle. Baloo is just a laid-back, chilled-out, worry-free guy who just takes life as it comes and is completely happy with his position in life; he was singing ‘Hakuna Matata’ before Timon and Pumbaa were. Obviously, it’s impossible for anyone in this world to have Baloo’s lifestyle because life is hard, and there are always problems that get in the way, and you don’t actually have the time to chill out and not worry. But wouldn’t it be great if you could live like Baloo? Just chilling out every day, doing whatever the hell you want, singing and dancing round everywhere. Disney sets high expectations. Anyway, I don’t just love Baloo for that, I love that he makes me smile every time he’s on-screen. I wasn’t really sure when he was going to first come on-screen, but as soon as he did, I just had this huge smile on my face. He really makes the film come to life from his appearance. I will admit, the beginning of this film is a bit weak: the whole bit with Bagheera finding Mowgli and giving him to the wolves is forgettable and very narrative voice-over-heavy; they didn’t need to put voice-over in at all, the fantastic animation on Bagheera’s face says it all. You get a bit of Kaa, and that’s okay, and you’re introduced to Colonel Hathi and the elephants, and that scene goes on for too long. Then you get a nice scene between Bagheera and Mowgli where they have an argument and Bagheera leaves him alone…and then Baloo literally just walks on-screen singing to himself, and the movie gets better from there.

Throughout the first half of the film, Baloo’s a funny character, and he’s really entertaining; he reminded me of the Genie from Aladdin, which I reviewed not too long ago. But then about half-way through the film, after the big scene with King Louie and the monkeys, there’s this dialogue scene between Baloo and Bagheera, and I was totally not expecting it. It’s a pretty dramatic scene, where you see another side of Baloo: you see the concern for Mowgli, and you see him stop being cool for just a minute to realise the real problem that’s happening. And you see that Baloo is just a child himself, when Bagheera is trying to explain the problem to him, but it’s kind of funny how he explains it too; I found it even funnier when Baloo tried to explain it to Mowgli a few minutes later. But the point is I wasn’t expecting these five or ten minutes of drama, to show another side of Baloo and to let the film slow down a little, and I really really liked it. It reminded me of the ‘Ave Maria’ sequence in Fantasia, and how Charlie Chaplin had said: ‘Never be afraid to give your film a slow, quiet moment’, and Walt Disney said that he wished he had done that with Snow White (don’t know what he thought the dwarves mourning over Snow White scene was, but oh well); knowing that, these few minutes in The Jungle Book bring Walt’s contribution to light, and that’s a really nice sign.

Overall: This movie is soooooooooo much fun, and it wasn’t hard for me to be entertained. You don’t need a very strong plot to be entertained in a film, but it is very hard to pull it off – this film manages to, thanks to its fantastic characters. The Jungle Book gets its comedy and drama balanced well, which is the sign that Walt Disney had played a large part in this. This is a wonderful way to end the marvellous career of a pioneer and innovator of not only animation but film in the 20^th Century.

Next time, I’ll be reviewing…1941’s Dumbo.

Disneython #33: Chicken Little (2005)

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:34:15 +0100

…I’m not going to use this review to have a rant. I’m not going to spend too much time on this review; this movie doesn’t deserve it. This movie does not deserve to be called a Disney film. I knew this was 21^st Century Disney, and times were hard at the studio when it was being made, but this film just doesn’t deserve to be classed as one of the Animated Disney Classics.

You could say that Chicken Little was a big film for the studio. You all know that traditionally-animated Disney films were not making any money at the beginning of the 21^st Century, and in 2004, Home on the Range was announced as the last traditionally-animated film from the Disney studio. So hopping on the CGI band-wagon (seeing the success of Pixar and Dreamworks’ films), Disney started on their first fully-CGI-animated film, Chicken Little. Around the time of its release in cinemas, Disney’s co-production deal with Pixar was about to end, and whatever was going to happen next was all down to how well Chicken Little would do at the box office. The film actually made money. It shouldn’t have, but it did, and that was all that mattered to Disney. A critically panned film with no originality or inspiration? No, no, as long as it makes money, it’s fine. So Disney and Pixar decided to stay together, but instead of signing a new mutual contract, Disney decided to purchase Pixar in 2006. But let’s be fair, Chicken Little is not a patch on any Pixar’s animated films; let me remind you that Pixar’s most recent film at the time of Chicken Little’s release was The Incredibles. It is not a patch on any of Disney’s traditionally-animated films, possibly even their 21^st Century films (we have yet to review Home on the Range). And you know what really disappoints me? This film is directed by Mark Dindal, who directed the previously-reviewed The Emperor’s New Groove. What on earth happened?

I had not seen this film before now, though I did see the advert for it a lot on my Disney DVDs…and I wasn’t sure whether I wanted to see it or not. I wasn’t desperate to see it, but I wasn’t too interested in it either. I think it was because it was CGI and the characters didn’t look very appealing, I wasn’t really excited for it. But I had no idea how terrible it would be.

Based on the short fable of Chicken Little/Chicken Licken, the story has been moved to a modern city where its inhabitants are bi-pedal anthropomorphised animals. The title character, Chicken Little, is shown at the beginning of the film sending the city into panic because he believes the sky is falling, but it was just an acorn that fell on his head. It turns out that the sky is actually falling, when a year later, a UFO lands in the city and an alien invasion breaks out.

I’m not doing a review for this: as I said I don’t want to waste my time writing about why I hate this film. Absolutelynone of the jokes are funny, the characters aren’t nice to look at, the animation is hardly great and I knew how this story was going to end even before the ludicrous alien invasion plot kicks in thirty minutes in. There.

Overall: I can’t help but wonder if I would have liked this if I had seen it as a kid. I reckon that it’s certainly more entertaining for kids than adults, because I really did not like this film. This is a horrible low on the Disney scale. This is not a Disney Classic, this is not a Disney film; this is almost a Dreamworks film, with all its pop culture jokes and its pointless comic relief and its ugly characters.

Next time, I’ll be reviewing…1967’s The Jungle Book. Thank God.