Kevin's Groove
----------------
The best thing The Emperor's New Groove has going for it is that it's not Dinosaur. It is kind of funny, isn't it - both films were released in the same year, so there must've been a long overlap during which both were being made at the same time. One a "realistically" styled computer-animated story told straightly, the other a very VERY very cartoony hand-drawn feature-length Saturday morning cartoon done with only scant traces of seriousness at all. If I had to pick one over the other, I'd easily pick TENG, but it would be rather like choosing a handful of rock candy over a bowl of wilted lettuce.
It certainly looks a lot nicer. There are some fascinating character designs and animations, including the awkward way newbie llama Kuzco tries to walk. It's funnier, in the sense that there are some bits worth laughing at, and Dinosaur had none.
But there's this thing that they both have in common. I'll warn you. I'm going to ramble yet again!
Again, we get a character who is presented as a Bad Guy because...well, because she's the antagonist of the title character. She does try to have Kuzco killed, and that does make her a bad person. However, to have a good reason to root for Kuzco to triumph over Yzma, you would have to ignore that one scene in which Kuzco himself has a guy killed. Yeah, when Little Adorable Piglet-voice Man is thrown from a tower window, it's played for laughs in a toon slapstick fashion, so you assume he'll be okay, but what bothers me is that you have to be consistent about this sort of thing. Because not too much later on, Kronk is seen being legitimately concerned when Kuzco is close to... also falling from a great height. There's no precision to the comparison since it's not clear just how high both of those heights are, but ... come on. If the frail old man was able to survive his collision from the sky onto the ground, I'm sure the young, healthy emperor will be fine when he hits the water. Or maybe this all makes more sense if you try the notion that Kronk is too stupid to realize you can't kill a cartoon character that way?
But even so, I actually don't see why Yzma is more evil than Kuzco is. Plotting to kill a guy isn't "worse" than casually having a guy killed, is it (Well, we'll let the Incan justice system sort out the degrees of murder involved)? Yzma is ... not the nicest person, personality-wise, but then again Kuzco was also a jerk. Really the only important difference is that we later find out that Kuzco is... not a complete jerk. But who's to say Yzma wouldn't have changed her ways had she not met Pacha herself and had to undergo a coming-of-age-new-buddies road trip, complete with cliché waterfall (I'll admit I do at least like that a joke acknowledges it being a cliché) and unreliable rope-bridge (there was something awfully familiar about that guy trying to cross a dangerously high broken rope-bridge with a llama... intentional homage, yes or no?)? And the lead-up to the climax of the movie suggested that there was something at stake for Kuzco to reach Yzma and reclaim his rightful place on the throne, but was there really? Maybe I missed it, but was there any indication of what would be different with Yzma in the emperor's place, other than the egotistical cosmetic changes
We also get an animal-transformation sequence that probably could've
had a lot of potential for creativity and fun, but isn't played out
anywhere near as well as the Merlin-Mim duel from The Sword in the
Stone.
Anyway, I'm running out of time and might add to this later but Amanda has plenty to say anyway., so let me end mine for now with....
Favorite character: If you can't get Vincent Price for your comically weird "villain," get another 60s Batman series villain portrayer: Eartha Kitt!
Least necessary character:
Overall: A movie that tries too hard to be funny too often and occasionally succeeds is at least better than a movie that tries to be too seriously and emotional and fails completely.
Amanda's Groove
------------------
I'm so glad TENG became a Saturday morning cartoon series because that was clearly its calling. The slapstick, the breaking of the fourth wall, the comic "villian" without a backstory, the heavily stylized characters. It just all fits so perfectly.
Now here I have to reference Kevin's post and voice my disagreement through the use of hoity toity theatrical blabbity. There are a small handful of traditional conflicts that are recognized in classical theater and a few of them are as follows: Man vs. man, Man vs. Self, Man vs. Nature, Man vs. Beast, etc.
I think the folly that Kevin has fallen under is the idea that this movie has a Man vs. Man plot in which Kuzco as the protagonist is pitted against Yzma as the antagonist. To this I say nay-nay. In reality, I think this falls somewhere in between Man vs. Self and Society vs. Man. Kuzco's main problem isn't Yzma, because for three quarters of the movie he doesn't even know she's out to get him, his main problem is his own bad attitude as pointed out by Pacha (Society). Yzma is merely one of the plot devices providing convenient turning points for Kuzco's self discovery.
Turning points of course are any points within a story that change the situation or condition of the main character. Turning points that Yzma and Kronk provide: Turning Kuzco into a llama (changing his physical being); accidentally tossing him onto a cart so that he ends up with Pacha (changing his physical location and societal group); being overheard plotting his death (changing his emotional state); and so forth.
Even at the end when he's facing off against Yzma while trying to get the Essence of Human, it's all down to a conflict against himself as he decides between his personal desire to become human again and the societal correctness of saving his fellow man.
Most unfortunately this has become more of a lesson than a review. Yet, it feels a bit like a compliment to the film. While on the surface it's a slap-sticky, nonsense-filled, David-Spade-starring, piece of fluff, there is actually a lot of structure under the surface that gives it some sense and makes it oddly relate-able. The terribly interesting character design makes it very watchable, and the music might not add a whole lot but it's not detracting either and Tom Jones is always good for a laugh.
Favorite Character: Yzma. She's voiced by Eartha Kitt with every bit of camp that we loved her for as Catwoman and that take she gives the camera/Kuzco while Kronk talks to his shoulder angel/devil made me laugh out loud.
Least necessary character: Pacha's family. I just don't think we needed his family at all to understand his plight of feel for him. Plus those kids were a little bit insufferable.
Overall: Seems like a movie I would have hated, but I actually enjoyed. But you don't have to take MY word for it!
Showing posts with label d52. Show all posts
Showing posts with label d52. Show all posts
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Sunday, September 9, 2012
D52 - Week 36 - Mulan
Amanda say:
-----------
Mulan is a weird combination of awesome and satisfying Wha? I love the daughter doing what she thinks is right even though it's against society's norms. I love the weird attraction that Shang seems to have to Mulan before he realizes she's a she. I love the ridiculous American-style charicatures of The Band of Three. I severely love the celebrity voices with Mr. Miyagi at the very top of the list and Jackie Chan as the Chinese dub of Shang right there after it. Sassy Black Man Dragon Mushu is hanging out Riiiiiigghht at the cusp of when I still liked Eddie Murphy and only a year or two later did he cross the line and go from amusing to annoying for me.
I'm torn on the songs. On the one hand I recognize that certain songs are trying to emulate the Chinese style but as a culturally uneducated American, I'm not sure if they hit the mark or if perhaps I should be slightly offended. The songs that do NOT try to fit a style are excellent however. "Be a Man" is so catchy and forceful that it would be a shame for anyone not to immediately add it to their workout playlist. "Reflection" of course was the radio single and while I think the song is great standing alone it does feel a little bit belty for the intimate moment that it accompanies on screen.
While I love this movie as a whole I can't help but find myself shouting at the screen during moments when I just cannot suspend my disbelief. The idea that rural china has a busy enough roadway system to cause a massive wreck, the idea of a single heavyset man lifting his entire platoon and a horse, the idea of a rope that slender actually taking the weight of that horse, the black eyeballs of the Huns, and the idea that of the entire platoon, Mulan and Shang are the only horse owners is just too much for me to take. I think the nit-picky problem here is that in general, this movie ping-pongs between extremely serious (a village being burned, an elderly man going to war to die) and just plain silly (a cricket and dragon dressed as a soldier riding a panda). And yet despite the whiplash of mood, they seem to balance out as long as we utterly avoid the middle ground.
Favorite Character: Emperor Miyagi. I can think of few others who can pull off sassy Confucious like Pat Morita can.
Least necessary character: Little Brother. Eeyup.
Overall: Despite the occasional "Oh Come ON!" moment, I have always and still do now enjoy this one.
Kevin Say:
-----------
"Mulan" sure does have some interesting voice casting choices. Donny Osmond as the hunk! Harvey Firestein as the tough guy! James Hong as a fusspot - well, that one isn't ironic. Erm, George Takei as Chinese! Which is okay, because George Takei. Also, Jackie Chan in the alternate audio track, including the singing part. That's the best reason to watch it on DVD over VHS! And I say the audio track instead of the music video because the music video isn't as entertaining as it should or could be.
There isn't much to love about the movie, but there I can't really think of much to hate about it either. The story is more engaging than, say, Pocahontas. But about the "woman posing in a man's army" theme and jokes. While they're not terribly unamusing, I can't help but think of the Futurama episode "War is the H-Word" from a few years later and how much funnier it was using the idea.
But while "Mulan" isn't very hilarious, it's not embarrassingly unfunny, like a lot of a certain movie about a regal wild cat. Eddie Murphy does come dangerously close to annoying Donkey level, but it's hard for me to hate him because Mushu's eyes look like Pluto's. As for the "serious" parts, I will say that it does action pretty darn well, something you don't normally associate with Disney movies. It also has something else we haven't seen much of this year: a good guy (ahem, girl) beating the bad guy not through the power of love or magic or luck, but with her wits. I mean, mostly I'm talking about the avalanche thing and he comes back after that, but STILL. That's satisfying as heck.
And the art/animation quality is similar in that it certainly isn't flawed, really, but... Well, after Hercules it's a bit of a downer, after being spoiled with a new and unique visual style, to get something with a look that "plays it safe." I really don't know how to define the overall look of the film, other than "normal 90s Disney." It's a normal that's done to perfection, though...so I'm not even sure whether that's a good thing or a bad thing!
I pretty much agree with Amanda on the music. Except apparently I prefer Jackie Chan's rendition of "Be a Man" whereas she prefers Donny Osmonds because, and hilariously - Donny Osmond's is more manly. And it is, strangely. But maybe what I like about the former is knowing that it's Jackie Chan. Jackie Chan as Jackie Chan. Because personally, if I could choose the perfect man to model myself after, the guy that I should strive to be as much like as possible, it would be Jackie Chan.
Favorite character: I wonder why Jackie Chan couldn't have been cast for the English-speaking role of...oh, uh. Yeah, I guess his English acting isn't the best. In that case, then, Chinese dub Shang.
Least necessary: Aw, I wanted to call dibs on Little Brother. It sure did seem like they were setting up a character at the beginning that they would actually end up using later, didn't it? For the sake of voting for another one, though, I'll go with Disembodied Head guy. That type of gag would fly if he was in something with that sort of tone established, like The Haunted Mansion or Corpse Bride, but here it's just off-putting.
Idea for a fanfic: Mulan meets Po from Kung Fu Panda. Make it happen!
Overall: The weird thing about "Mulan" is that, while I don't remember a whole lot about it afterwards, I do remember having enjoyed watching it when I did (I don't mean as a kid, but this past week and a year or two before that). And as strange as that sounds I would find that good enough reason to recommend it.
-----------
Mulan is a weird combination of awesome and satisfying Wha? I love the daughter doing what she thinks is right even though it's against society's norms. I love the weird attraction that Shang seems to have to Mulan before he realizes she's a she. I love the ridiculous American-style charicatures of The Band of Three. I severely love the celebrity voices with Mr. Miyagi at the very top of the list and Jackie Chan as the Chinese dub of Shang right there after it. Sassy Black Man Dragon Mushu is hanging out Riiiiiigghht at the cusp of when I still liked Eddie Murphy and only a year or two later did he cross the line and go from amusing to annoying for me.
I'm torn on the songs. On the one hand I recognize that certain songs are trying to emulate the Chinese style but as a culturally uneducated American, I'm not sure if they hit the mark or if perhaps I should be slightly offended. The songs that do NOT try to fit a style are excellent however. "Be a Man" is so catchy and forceful that it would be a shame for anyone not to immediately add it to their workout playlist. "Reflection" of course was the radio single and while I think the song is great standing alone it does feel a little bit belty for the intimate moment that it accompanies on screen.
While I love this movie as a whole I can't help but find myself shouting at the screen during moments when I just cannot suspend my disbelief. The idea that rural china has a busy enough roadway system to cause a massive wreck, the idea of a single heavyset man lifting his entire platoon and a horse, the idea of a rope that slender actually taking the weight of that horse, the black eyeballs of the Huns, and the idea that of the entire platoon, Mulan and Shang are the only horse owners is just too much for me to take. I think the nit-picky problem here is that in general, this movie ping-pongs between extremely serious (a village being burned, an elderly man going to war to die) and just plain silly (a cricket and dragon dressed as a soldier riding a panda). And yet despite the whiplash of mood, they seem to balance out as long as we utterly avoid the middle ground.
Favorite Character: Emperor Miyagi. I can think of few others who can pull off sassy Confucious like Pat Morita can.
Least necessary character: Little Brother. Eeyup.
Overall: Despite the occasional "Oh Come ON!" moment, I have always and still do now enjoy this one.
Kevin Say:
-----------
"Mulan" sure does have some interesting voice casting choices. Donny Osmond as the hunk! Harvey Firestein as the tough guy! James Hong as a fusspot - well, that one isn't ironic. Erm, George Takei as Chinese! Which is okay, because George Takei. Also, Jackie Chan in the alternate audio track, including the singing part. That's the best reason to watch it on DVD over VHS! And I say the audio track instead of the music video because the music video isn't as entertaining as it should or could be.
There isn't much to love about the movie, but there I can't really think of much to hate about it either. The story is more engaging than, say, Pocahontas. But about the "woman posing in a man's army" theme and jokes. While they're not terribly unamusing, I can't help but think of the Futurama episode "War is the H-Word" from a few years later and how much funnier it was using the idea.
But while "Mulan" isn't very hilarious, it's not embarrassingly unfunny, like a lot of a certain movie about a regal wild cat. Eddie Murphy does come dangerously close to annoying Donkey level, but it's hard for me to hate him because Mushu's eyes look like Pluto's. As for the "serious" parts, I will say that it does action pretty darn well, something you don't normally associate with Disney movies. It also has something else we haven't seen much of this year: a good guy (ahem, girl) beating the bad guy not through the power of love or magic or luck, but with her wits. I mean, mostly I'm talking about the avalanche thing and he comes back after that, but STILL. That's satisfying as heck.
And the art/animation quality is similar in that it certainly isn't flawed, really, but... Well, after Hercules it's a bit of a downer, after being spoiled with a new and unique visual style, to get something with a look that "plays it safe." I really don't know how to define the overall look of the film, other than "normal 90s Disney." It's a normal that's done to perfection, though...so I'm not even sure whether that's a good thing or a bad thing!
I pretty much agree with Amanda on the music. Except apparently I prefer Jackie Chan's rendition of "Be a Man" whereas she prefers Donny Osmonds because, and hilariously - Donny Osmond's is more manly. And it is, strangely. But maybe what I like about the former is knowing that it's Jackie Chan. Jackie Chan as Jackie Chan. Because personally, if I could choose the perfect man to model myself after, the guy that I should strive to be as much like as possible, it would be Jackie Chan.
Favorite character: I wonder why Jackie Chan couldn't have been cast for the English-speaking role of...oh, uh. Yeah, I guess his English acting isn't the best. In that case, then, Chinese dub Shang.
Least necessary: Aw, I wanted to call dibs on Little Brother. It sure did seem like they were setting up a character at the beginning that they would actually end up using later, didn't it? For the sake of voting for another one, though, I'll go with Disembodied Head guy. That type of gag would fly if he was in something with that sort of tone established, like The Haunted Mansion or Corpse Bride, but here it's just off-putting.
Idea for a fanfic: Mulan meets Po from Kung Fu Panda. Make it happen!
Overall: The weird thing about "Mulan" is that, while I don't remember a whole lot about it afterwards, I do remember having enjoyed watching it when I did (I don't mean as a kid, but this past week and a year or two before that). And as strange as that sounds I would find that good enough reason to recommend it.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
D52 - Week 35 - Hercules
Kevinese, God of Frivolity
--------------------------
Talk about a change of tone! I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, though. I'm having trouble imagining what "Hercules" would've been like if it had been done in a darker, brooding way. And I bet it was an intentional decision to depart from the traditional film style we usually see used to tell tales of Gods and Goddesses. So I kinda like it this way.
The main problem with telling the story of Hercules is making him a sympathetic character. How are we supposed to relate to a God - well, a mortal with God-like powers, anyway? This is handled well enough by making Hercules a clumsy geek who can't handle his own strength, but there's still something missing. I find him too...goody-goody. Quasimodo was perfectly kind-hearted, too, but a better job was done with explaining why Quasimodo had that personality. He was taught and conditioned to believe he should be thankful to be protected from the outside world. But is Hercules a good (")person(") because Zeus and Hera made him that way, with their Godgenes, or was he raised to be perfectly proper by his parents? I understand there was a midquelly cartoon series (that I don't remember ever seeing) and I think maybe a direct-to-video movie based on that series which explored the Disney Hercules's teenage years, and maybe that answers this question, but the theatrical movie itself doesn't. I bring this up because there's something about having to just take it on good faith that a character is "good" just because we see him being polite to people. It's a bit shallow, character-development-wise. It basically makes him your Boring Disney Prince, doesn't it?
At least his love interest ... no, I don't want to call her that. The woman he immediately finds attractive and after brushing aside snide sarcastic remarks from and somehow decides his life is worth risking for after one date, is at least herself an interesting character. She actually has a backstory, which explains her personality! She has a flaw, for which she redeems herself near the end of the movie! I find myself wishing I could've been watching a movie titled after her, instead. It's funny how the "sacrificied her soul for a guy who ended up leaving her for another" backplot is casually mentioned as if it's some not-too-important aside, when really that sounds far more interesting than the "proving himself worthy just for the sake of proving himself" story of Hercules. But oh, Kronk from The Emperor's New Groove can get HIS own spin-off. Tuh!
So whereas The Hunchback of Notre Dame has the feel of a grandiose broadway musical, Hercules comes off as a Saturday morning cartoon. You got your pop culture references, your silly jokes that seem funnier when you're a kid than when you're an adult. Which do seem especially sugary after having just seen "Hunchback." But it is a Saturday morning cartoon designed and animated with the brilliance of flair of a theatrical feature. What keeps me eyes glued throughout is how much I love how stylized everything is. Philoctetes (whose suggestion to just call him Phil is a symbol of the way this movie treats itself as a whole) is a squashy-stretchy character who wouldn't be too out-of-place in a Steven Spielberg cartoon. Hades could be seen as a very parody of villains modeled after their voice actors. Megera has amusingly dynamic hips! As for pegasus? Well, ya gotta have a hammy horse. The hydra? Auhhh... you're getting there, CGI character incorporation! Almost! I could've done without Panic and his reminding-me-of-Phineas-or-is-it-Ferb-you-know-which-one-I-mean head, but Pain provides the funniest line in the entire movie, which is funny for how truly unexpected it was.
How about the music? It's fun and stuff. Again, the stuff of Saturday mornings. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, of course. It's just hard for me to say anything particularly glowing about it so soon after the darn-near-perfection of Beauty & the Beast and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. But I will say that I prefer the lively gospel R&B much more than the Michael Boltony power ballads.
There is something pleasing as well about being able to watch a Disney movie that isn't tied to a specific book or actual historical events, because when things do get frivolous and wacky, I don't feel as much that it's an affront to its source material. There weren't any Greeks who found this genuinely insulting to their ancestors' beliefs, were there?
Question: I'm a bit confused about the Zeus-statue. When it comes alive, is that, like, Zeus talking through the form of the statue? Like a long-distance ancient form of a hologram? Or is it just a sort of representation of his being, like a... ghost, even though he's still "living," or what? What I mean is, after Hercules meets up with Zeus again "in person" on Mount Olympus, will Zeus be able to recall the conversations he had while as a statue-figure?
Video meme idea: YouTube video strategically cut so that Pegasus appears to be having the hots for Rainbow Dash or Fluttershy.
Favorite character: By picking Meg, is this my first time choosing a female character as my favorite? I'm...not sure. But anyway, my only complaint is that she wasn't voiced by Bernadette Peters.
Least necessary character:
Overall: Mostly thanks to the unique and fantastic visual style and some of the more interesting side character, I do find it a mostly enjoyable junk food romp through the world of Greek Gods and Goddesses. If only I had a reason to like the title character...
Amanda, Goddess of Humility... HA! No, I'm joshin ya.
-----
Did you know that this movie was extremely offenseive to the point that the Greek government did something about it? Google it. For realsies.
I'm quite a bit confused myself about what could possibly be offensive about it. It's so dang fluffy. I mean this perfectly perfect victim of circumstance decides to quit being a victim and start being a grown-up with a briefcase and a job where someone precedes his name with Mister, falls in puppy love along the way and when his hard work pays off the end. Is... is that even a story worth telling? Guy works hard, gets a good life. Sounds like a boring fable that your dad tells you that's a poorly masked autobiography.
Well anyway, while Hercules himself isn't particularly interesting with his boyish good looks and his extreme naivete, the characters that surround him are fleshed out and fantastic. I love Megara. She's such a brat, but not so far as to be a bitch and anyway, she's got her quickly glossed over reasons. I love Hades who for being on fire most of the time sure is a slimy git. He's so resentful and I completely get that he's coming from that Mommy-loved-Zeusy-best crybaby corner. His sidekicks are more annoying that endearing, but kudos to the screenwriting department for at least getting them introduced enough for us to remember their names.
Now here I disagree with Kevin in that he thinks the best story would be about Megara and I agree that it would be a great story, but I'm more interested in Phil's story. I would love to have seen Phil's previous failures (especially considering in the version I heard Deseus did in fact slay the Minotaur). What makes a satyr dream of fathering a godly figure? How did he learn his trade so well as to teach others how to hero? Does Phil secretly have Daddy issues as much as Hercules does?
I can't possibly go without mentioning the style choice. I love it. It looks just like that old pottery that we all saw in our ancient history books. It's such a change from the hyper-realism that we got in Hunchback. The Disney Character Cameos were a great deal easier to pick out (though still not as pronounced as Aladdin) and that makes for a fun mostly brainless viewing experience. I for one am an advocate of frivolous, fluffy entertainment. The music is equally upbeat and while I can't figure out what gospel has to do with ancient Greece, I'm not about to look a sassy black horse in the mouth.
Favorite Character: Rock Titan. "ZOOOOOOOOOOOSsss!" Lulz
Least necessary Character: Disappointingly, Hercules' adoptive parents. Maybe the story would have been more about Herc and less about his supporting cast if we had seen anything worthwhile about his parents and his relationship with them aside from the fact that they found him while searching the rocky hillside for some delicious goat meat. Okkay we don't know why they were out on the rocks, but maybe we should have. I just can't believe that they were out there on a pleasure walk during the wee hours of night.
Overall: Brainless, fluffy, inoffensive except to Greeks, has a bouncy beat. Worth watching while eating pizza on a night when you don't have to be anywhere particular the next day.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
D52 - Week 33 - Pochahontas
Kevin the Aspiring Pokéhon Trainer
----------------------------------
Here's one I had never seen before, at all (unless you count trailer clips). And I'm okay with that because it turns out I wasn't missing much.
The first thing that strikes me is that we seem to be approaching that time in animation history where other animation studios were starting to make names for themselves. At least, I associate DreamWork's earliest and biggest hits featuring realistic(ish) human characters, and didn't Anastasia come out around this time too? Since I'm writing this offline I can't match up timelines, but I do get the feeling that Someone was influenced by Someone Else during the latter half of the 90s. I can't say I care for that animation style, either. I often find myself disappointing watching animated people - who by their very medium are unrestricted in what they can do - pretty much only do what real live actors could easily do themselves. So let's talk about the characters in "Pocahontas."
Pocahontas herself is one of many women in fiction(alized stories) who are bethrothed to be wed to a prechosen man but someone are shocked to only find out about it very shortly before the wedding. How disconnected was she from her tribe that she came to grow up as an adult without knowing how marriage works in her own culture? At least Simba and Nala got early warnings. But you can feel compassion for Pocahontas's unwillingness to marry Kokomo. He's clearly an unfit suitor, because he...doesn't smile. Yeah, about that. Do any of the other guys she knows smile? You could think it would be more of an expected trait rather than a flaw. And it ties in to my criticism of the way the Native Americans are portrayed here. They are certainly not at all "How! Smoken peace pipe" bunch seen in "Peter Pan." They're certainly handled very politically correctly. But, too much so, I would say. Up until the big battle near the end, they're calm and respectful and reserved...which are admirable qualities in real life people, but very boring qualities for movie characters. I'm not saying I would rather they hoot and holler while slapping their palms on their mouths. But look at the "white men" in this same movie. John Smith? Yes, he's also terribly boring (I prefer Mel Gibson as Rocky the Rhode Island Red). But then there's Wiggins, who actually has a sense of personality about him. And those other guys, whose names I don't remember BUT they too were, well, different from the other white dudes. What qualities set any of the NA men apart from any of the other NA men? No idea. If you can have the realisticish John Smith and half-cartoony Radcliffe interacting with the quite caricaturish Wiggins, why couldn't there, say, just one wacky Indian? I just feel that, in trying too hard not to display any negative Native American stereotypes, the movie ends up reinforcing the idea that all Native Americans are ultra-serious and completely humorless, and that's not much of a step forward.
Speaking of the integration of humor. Remember in Fox and the Hound, Boomer and whatshisname, the woodpecker and his fellow avian? I'm pretty sure I remarked at the time about how they seemed to exist as their own short within the movie, not having really much or anything to do with the actual story. Now, we get Meeko, Flit and Percy, who even moreso give that vibe. They clearly exist for the sake of distracting the youngest viewers who can't/won't get into the dialogue-heavy plot of a woman having an inner conflict about her fate and hey look, the cute animals are doing funny things! Abu was also a younger-view-cute-animal-comic-relief type of character, but at least I bought the idea that Aladdin and Abu are long-time friends who depend on each other. But to Pocahontas, Meeko is... some animal who she sometimes sees and talks to? How odd that a main character who sings entire songs about her connection to nature doesn't seem to have all that significant a relationship with her animal friend(s). Even Radcliffe doesn't interact with his dog Percy as much as I feel he should. It could've been the type of interplay we saw with McLeach and Joanna. Maybe the whole point is that he doesn't even have much time to spend with his dog? But if that's the case why does he have a dog? No, I'm reading too much into this.
Basically, Radcliffe - mostly the name - makes me think of Ratigan, and how much more awesome a villain he was. Ratigan's song was about the precise things that made him despicable, like drowning orphans. Radcliffe's song is about how much he likes money. Ugh. I don't like money-wanting songs. And it's a dull and vague motivation for a villain to boot. At least if he sang about how much new land he wanted to discover/conquer, or even flat out about how much he hates Indians, and why, that would've been something I (think I)'d never heard in a song before. I like the "mine-mine" wordplay that the lyrics were going for, but it wasn't enough to make it a solidly worthwhile song.
But it does follow the trend of the previous batch of D52ies in its acclaim-worthy visual artistic accomplishments. And even the music - that is, the score of the songs, moreso than the lyrics - is thoroughly pleasing. Never mind what's going on, but just watch as it happens. In that way, Pocahontas makes me think of Fantasia. You know what? That's what Pocahontas should have been. Imagine if the whole story was condensed - maybe even only through music and without words at all - and saved for Fantasia 2000. In my imagination it works much better that way. Or what if, instead of Pocahontas, this week's film was a newer compilation in the style of Melody Time and its tall tales, but with stories based on real events, Pocahontas being one of its less-than-half-hour segments? I bet then we wouldn't even care nearly as much about its historical legitimacy.
Favorite characters: There is only moment in the entire film that I found funny, but it was laugh-out-loud hilarious. After Grandmother Willow tells a bad joke (I think it's the one about her bark being worse than her bite), we see a shot of two owls, who are never seen in the rest of the movie at all. The expression of the owl on the left hand of the screen might go down as one of my favorite reaction shots in cinema history. I would've laughed way more often if, anytime any of the characters did something that was supposed to be funny, the camera just cut to that same shot of the owls. I wish I could screen capture it but I don't have the capacity to do so now. I would so try to start a screen-capture-sequence-told-with-impact-font-ending-with-the-same-shot-"comic" meme, called something like "Schathingly Unamused Owl."
Least necessary character: Cocoa-Yum, for the sole reason that he makes me disappointed that his name is not an actual breakfast cereal. But wasn't there a Pocahontas cereal, or am I deluding myself?
And another thing: What's Grandmother Willow all about anyway? Does she have a history that we should know about? Were Pocahontas and Pocahontas's mother the only people who knew about Grandmother Willow's existence before John Smith saw her? What qualifies her to be wise anyway? I don't think I should trust someone as being automatically all-knowing just because she's old and is a face on a tree. Stop plopping mystically magical old ladies willy-nilly into movies! And before you ask, yes, even that one.
Overall: If you only know this movie by its most-played songs Just Around the Riverbend and Colors of the Wind (and their accompanying animation sequences), your assumption of what the rest of the movie must be like could easily be better than what it actually is.
Amanda's recipe for blue corn moon pies
---------------------------------------
You'll need for this recipe
3/4 Bluecorn meal
1/2 cup milk
2 eggs
2 tblsp brown sugar
2 tblsp butter
Butter a cast iron skillet set on medium high heat.
set your oven to 350 to preheat.
Mix the first four ingredients just until combined and pour into the skillet.
after 2 minutes, remove the skillet from the heat and place it in the oven for another 30 minutes. Slice into wedges and eat by hand.
WARNING: I just made that up. Don't actually make this recipe... or DO and tell me how to fix it!
Anyway Pocahontas.
This movie is boring. Really really boring. Pocahontas is too spiritual to be interesting. John Smith doesn't have a personality except for "supposedly hot guy." The cute little animals for holding the attention of children have nothing to do with the story and are designed so incredibly differently as to be jarring. Bah.
The bummer part is that the music in this movie is really terrific. There are some native American influences both in the lyrics and in the rhythms. The verses are nearly as memorable as the choruses and nearly two decades later, they still sound very modern or at least timely. The accompanying "music video" as I like to think of that section of the movie is stimulating. There are lots of surreal colors and interesting cinematic choices and those sections are genuinely entertaining. If only the rest of the movie would fit in with it. I feel quite a bit like they were trying to recreate the same style and feeling they were getting when Howard Ashman was still alive and just not quite understanding it at the depth that was needed.
Unlike Kevin, I have seen Pocahontas before and so I was quite surprised by this particular DVD edition which included the song "If I Never Knew You" not only in the credits but within the story as it was originally planned. It was nice. It didn't detract. It's a pretty song. But unfortunately that's all I have to say about it. It clearly didn't make much of an impression beyond "Hey! This wasn't here last time!"
Favorite Character: Dang it! Why did Kevin steal the OWLS? They were so dang funny. Yeah that was my favorite moment too.
Least necessary character: Do we really need a talking tree to understand that Pocahontas is spiritually connected with the Earth? I just don't think that whatever Grandmother Willow brought to the story couldn't have been done with a soliloquy by Pocahontas herself.
Overall: It's boring. Sorry. It's boring and it doesn't even do a good job telling the historical story because it chooses to tell the prince and princess version of it. The big redeemer is the fact that it's gorgeous. This is visually stunning (except for the dumb animal antics) and easily the most technically accomplished piece of work yet! So check it out for the visual appeal and try to zone out for the story bits.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
D52 - Week 32 - The Lion King
Kevin's Afternoon Report
-----------------------------------
There was one Disney movie that was a clear childhood favorite for me. I watched my VHS tape over and over, memorized the songs, and collected all of the fast food kids meal toys associated with it because I just loved it that much.That movie was "Toy Story."
But my favorite non-Pixar movie of around the same time was The Lion King. At the time, I found it to be funny, with an engaging story, and memorable music! But most importantly, it was a Disney feature that wasn't "for girls." That may also be why I was more drawn to Aladdin and this one but dropped out of Disney movies once Pocahontas and Hunchback got into the picture? Or maybe I was just growing out of them at the time. Anyshoe.
Before I get into the inevitable downsides, I love the look of The Lion King. I daresay that, in my opinion, it's the best-looking of the D52. Maybe I'm partial to the realism that doesn't get too realistic. The backgrounds. The painting. The cinematography. The subtle change in stylization to reflect the mood. The animation. The...the art! Beauty & the Beast was fantastically artistic to, but there was a few slightly off facial expressions here and there. And while I can't say The Lion King is absolutely perfect in its art - those computerized hyenas jar me - it strikes me as the highest possible quality that can be achieved through hand-drawn-and-painted animation. There's so much gorgeousness. And I know we'll see comparable beautiful imagery coming up in Fantasia 2000, but it somehow seems more meaningful as part of a story.
But as for the story itself? Well, of course we're not the first to point it out, but I can't not mention the very dodgy "lessons" being "taught" here. You see, kids, one day you'll be very successful, that is if you happen to be born into it. Just be sure not to visit that dark area of your city You know, that broken-down, scrummy-looking area? Anyone you meet there is a bad person and will try to hurt you. Especially if they, you know, talk kind of funny. And don't let the type of people who live there move to the part where we live, because if they do, well.... droughts and all that. But if something bad does happen to you, and you decide to spend your college years slacking off, it's...okay as long as you face your past later on?
This movie is obviously trying to teach a lesson, but doesn't actually do it very well. It's something to do with facing your demons instead of running away from, but it's so weird in this case because it's something that Simba didn't even need to run away from in the first place. So what they're saying is, if you've been convinced that you did something bad, then you should confess to having done it? I don't know. It's just so weird that I don't even feel like thinking about too heavily. And that means something coming from me!
Amanda will probably be better at talking about that element anyway, so let's move onto the music. Well, you know how kids are not very picky in their musical tastes, and easily gravitate towards things like mindless bubble gum pop? I confess, I listened to the songs of The Lion King all the time during the mid-1990s. And now...I'm not saying it's badly-written. As far as bubble gum, it's like...I don't know, what's the highest quality of bubble gum on the market? But compared to what I've been spoiled with from Ashman and Menken, it leaves clever rhymes and lyrical jokes to be desired. The bare-bones DVD we watched this week did not include "The Morning Report," but we had seen it before, and I don't think we were missing much this time around.
Favorite character: I'm gonna say Rafiki, partly to continue my monkey-as-a-favorite-character streak.
Least necessary character: Has the African Association of Hyenas with Mental Disabilities lodged any complaints about the use of Ed as a comedic element?
Overall: The Rule of Nostalgia hits hard as I realize The Lion isn't as funny, well-written, or musically strong as I remember it being when I was much younger. But I now appreciate what I didn't appreciate as much back then: How gosh-darn pretty it all is.
Amanda Matata
-----------------
Friday, August 3, 2012
D52 - Week 31 - Aladdin
Kevin's Review
---------------
There was this very short-lived show circa mid-2000s called Drew Carey's Green Screen Show. The idea was that performers would improvise game-based scenes in front of, imagine this, a green screen. Then different animators would animate elements over the different scenes. I did rather like the concept overall, since there's something pleasantly pleasing about seeing cartoons playing out to actual spontaneity. And that's what I like most about Aladdin. That's not to say that scripted animated characters can't be funny, but it's no wonder that more and more often you hear - mainly if you watch or listen to the interview and commentaries on DVDs - about contemporary animated movie directors letting the voice actors heavily ad-lib their parts. Wait, did I already talk about this in the post for Rescuers Down Under? Well, if we assume John Candy pioneered the idea, Robin Williams perfected it. And yes, your enjoyment of the Genie character will largely hinge on your fondness/distaste for the Robin Williams....style. But I would defend it by saying that I really couldn't imagine the character being handled any other way. At least, not entertainingly. I'm sure glad it wasn't the typical droning, humorless genie seen in numerous other Arabian Nights adaptations. And, for my Pixar comparison of the week, Genie is like Mater, in that in the same way that I find Mater the Tow Truck more appealing than Larry the Cable Guy, I find Genie more lovable than Robin Williams doing stand-up. Mater acts and sounds like Larry TCG, but the rustic charm works better coming from an actual redneck (rustdoor?) than from a guy who used to be a redneck but is now making millions of dollars but still acts as if he still has the same lifestyle. When Robin Williams acts...like Robin Williams, he's doing it for the sake of being funny, and maybe for attention? But with Genie, you can imagine a guy who's just been BORED for hundreds of years and, once he finally gets to talk with a non-rug*, he finally gets to expand all of that pent-up energy in an overblown and ostentatiousness splashy technicolor way. He's not doing it to make Aladdin laugh - he can't expect Aladdin to get all of his magical predictions of pop cultural references of the far-but-no-later-than-early-90s future anyway! He's just doing it for his own sake, because, hey, he couldn't do all of that from inside the lamp! That's more interesting, isn't it?
What do I have to say about the rest of the movie? Yes, the songs are great fun. Howard Ashman will be sorely missed, and how many ways can I say that Alan Menken is consistently terrific at what he does?
The animation is stellar, with the some of the computer animated bits (Carpet, the entrance of the Cave of Wonders) looking better over time than others (escape from Cave of Wonders). The story....well...
Anytime a story involves the idea of wish-granting there's bound to be, oh, discrepancies. The idea of wishes itself is so vague and open-ended that it just can't be broken down to a science at all. But still. That being said. I'd like to lodge a complaint over Jafar's wishes. He first wishes to be a sorcerer, then uses his second wish to be the world's most powerful sorcerer, and that's just dumb. You couldn't use your first wish to be the world's most powerful sorcerer in the first place? For a guy who's been consumed with finding the lamp for such a long time, you would think he would've planned his wishes better! But that's not even what I want to complain about. There is a clearly-stated rule about not wishing for more wishes, right? But isn't wishing to be a sorcerer pretty much that, just worded differently? It's not made clear exactly what "a sorcerer" can and cannot do (can a sorcerer bring back the dead or make someone fall in love with you?), but given what we see Sorcerer Jafar do, he's pretty much granting his own unlimited wishes on the spot, isn't he? It would've cost him several wishes in saying, "I wish to put trap Jasmine in a huge hourglass!" and "I wish to turn the Sultan into a jester!" and so on and all of those spells that he casts, but by making the Sorcerer wish(es), he gets all of those for the price of 1 (or, 2 ultimately). Hmm. I guess it was a cleverly economical wish strategy after all.
Wishy-washy wishes aside, the characters themselves are well-rounded and focused enough that they make up for the story they're in. Not quite at the same level of cast development as Beauty and the Beast, but still better than the D52 average (so far?). As for the characters themselves...
Favorite character: Abu, partly because I am partial to monkeys, and partly because I am partial to Frank Welker. It's just so astounding that he voices the deep supergrowly Cave of Wonders AND the duckishly squeaky Abu...AND his Abu voice is distinctively different from his Curious George "monkey" voice.
Least necessary character: A main-character genie named Genie...a plot-important carpet* named Carpet...and yet the tiger, who isn't named Tiger but gets to be called Rajah, doesn't seem to do enough to warrant getting its own non-self-referential name.
Overall: Oh, what the hey - it's loads of fun. The only thing keeping me from praising it more highly is that it had such a tough act to follow.
*Correct me if I'm wrong. And I know you will. But I always thought that a carpet covers a floor completely, and always touches the walls, and a rug is what you would place in roughly the middle of a room with space between it and the walls. What I'm saying is, isn't "Carpet" a rug, at least more than he is a carpet? Granted, "Magic Rug Ride" sounds off-putting. Or is this just a cultural linguistics thing?
Amanda's off-line type-up:
----------------------------
---------------
There was this very short-lived show circa mid-2000s called Drew Carey's Green Screen Show. The idea was that performers would improvise game-based scenes in front of, imagine this, a green screen. Then different animators would animate elements over the different scenes. I did rather like the concept overall, since there's something pleasantly pleasing about seeing cartoons playing out to actual spontaneity. And that's what I like most about Aladdin. That's not to say that scripted animated characters can't be funny, but it's no wonder that more and more often you hear - mainly if you watch or listen to the interview and commentaries on DVDs - about contemporary animated movie directors letting the voice actors heavily ad-lib their parts. Wait, did I already talk about this in the post for Rescuers Down Under? Well, if we assume John Candy pioneered the idea, Robin Williams perfected it. And yes, your enjoyment of the Genie character will largely hinge on your fondness/distaste for the Robin Williams....style. But I would defend it by saying that I really couldn't imagine the character being handled any other way. At least, not entertainingly. I'm sure glad it wasn't the typical droning, humorless genie seen in numerous other Arabian Nights adaptations. And, for my Pixar comparison of the week, Genie is like Mater, in that in the same way that I find Mater the Tow Truck more appealing than Larry the Cable Guy, I find Genie more lovable than Robin Williams doing stand-up. Mater acts and sounds like Larry TCG, but the rustic charm works better coming from an actual redneck (rustdoor?) than from a guy who used to be a redneck but is now making millions of dollars but still acts as if he still has the same lifestyle. When Robin Williams acts...like Robin Williams, he's doing it for the sake of being funny, and maybe for attention? But with Genie, you can imagine a guy who's just been BORED for hundreds of years and, once he finally gets to talk with a non-rug*, he finally gets to expand all of that pent-up energy in an overblown and ostentatiousness splashy technicolor way. He's not doing it to make Aladdin laugh - he can't expect Aladdin to get all of his magical predictions of pop cultural references of the far-but-no-later-than-early-90s future anyway! He's just doing it for his own sake, because, hey, he couldn't do all of that from inside the lamp! That's more interesting, isn't it?
What do I have to say about the rest of the movie? Yes, the songs are great fun. Howard Ashman will be sorely missed, and how many ways can I say that Alan Menken is consistently terrific at what he does?
The animation is stellar, with the some of the computer animated bits (Carpet, the entrance of the Cave of Wonders) looking better over time than others (escape from Cave of Wonders). The story....well...
Anytime a story involves the idea of wish-granting there's bound to be, oh, discrepancies. The idea of wishes itself is so vague and open-ended that it just can't be broken down to a science at all. But still. That being said. I'd like to lodge a complaint over Jafar's wishes. He first wishes to be a sorcerer, then uses his second wish to be the world's most powerful sorcerer, and that's just dumb. You couldn't use your first wish to be the world's most powerful sorcerer in the first place? For a guy who's been consumed with finding the lamp for such a long time, you would think he would've planned his wishes better! But that's not even what I want to complain about. There is a clearly-stated rule about not wishing for more wishes, right? But isn't wishing to be a sorcerer pretty much that, just worded differently? It's not made clear exactly what "a sorcerer" can and cannot do (can a sorcerer bring back the dead or make someone fall in love with you?), but given what we see Sorcerer Jafar do, he's pretty much granting his own unlimited wishes on the spot, isn't he? It would've cost him several wishes in saying, "I wish to put trap Jasmine in a huge hourglass!" and "I wish to turn the Sultan into a jester!" and so on and all of those spells that he casts, but by making the Sorcerer wish(es), he gets all of those for the price of 1 (or, 2 ultimately). Hmm. I guess it was a cleverly economical wish strategy after all.
Wishy-washy wishes aside, the characters themselves are well-rounded and focused enough that they make up for the story they're in. Not quite at the same level of cast development as Beauty and the Beast, but still better than the D52 average (so far?). As for the characters themselves...
Favorite character: Abu, partly because I am partial to monkeys, and partly because I am partial to Frank Welker. It's just so astounding that he voices the deep supergrowly Cave of Wonders AND the duckishly squeaky Abu...AND his Abu voice is distinctively different from his Curious George "monkey" voice.
Least necessary character: A main-character genie named Genie...a plot-important carpet* named Carpet...and yet the tiger, who isn't named Tiger but gets to be called Rajah, doesn't seem to do enough to warrant getting its own non-self-referential name.
Overall: Oh, what the hey - it's loads of fun. The only thing keeping me from praising it more highly is that it had such a tough act to follow.
*Correct me if I'm wrong. And I know you will. But I always thought that a carpet covers a floor completely, and always touches the walls, and a rug is what you would place in roughly the middle of a room with space between it and the walls. What I'm saying is, isn't "Carpet" a rug, at least more than he is a carpet? Granted, "Magic Rug Ride" sounds off-putting. Or is this just a cultural linguistics thing?
Amanda's off-line type-up:
----------------------------
 |
Sunday, July 22, 2012
D52 - Week 29 - The Rescuers Down Under
Amanda's Bit-on-the-barbie
----------------------------
The Rescuers Down Under makes a name for itself as the first "sequel" Disney Full length feature. Does it hold up?
First of all, I'm not sure that the Rescuers deserve title billing. It's established early on that they are coming to the rescue, but they never even come into contact with the kidnapped boy Cody until the third act! Frankly, I think Cody could have easily enlisted the help of any and all of his animal friends (because who is to say he doesn't have mice as friends in the outback to begin with?) and we could have had basically the exact same movie without either Bianca or Bernard.
That being said, I find this to be an enjoyable movie for a lot of reasons. The score is great. In fact, it's so good that it is now being used as temp music for teaser trailers when productions don't yet have the final music finished. It has the right amount of hope and adventure and heart that it can be placed over nearly anything and still feel pretty good. The animation is polished and the framing is exciting. The casting is (well the two leads are obvious and happily both agreed to come back) excellent for the newly introduced characters and in particular John Candy. The backgrounds are wide and sweeping, and computerized background animation is used at very appropriate times and with a certain amount of finesse despite the still very new technology. The story is fairly straight-forward, easy to follow, and full of entertaining business that still serves the plot.
Like I said earlier, I see no reason why Bernard and Bianca were specifically needed for this film except to lend utterly unnecessary credibility. I felt the villain, Percival C. McLeach, could have been a little bit smarter because he and his Goanna, Joanna, appeared to make some completely idiotic choices. For example, he's trying not to get caught by the rangers while he goes out every day poaching critters, and yet the vehicle he drives (The Bushwhacker) is the size of an 18-wheeler, rattles like building being demolished, and has a giant megaphone on top such that he can be heard from the clifftops of the outback. Also, what's up with Jake's approval at the end? He was trying to horn in the whole movie and now he's just giving the thumbs up? Whut?
Now, if you read back a ways and saw my nostalgic comments on The Rescuers, you may remember that I was confused about the cognition of animals especially regarding interactions with children. I notice that Cody can freely speak to and understand Bernard, Bianca, and Jake, but he can only speak to Marahute and at best can guess at her thoughts based on body language. Joanna the Goanna occasionally makes Frank Welker's signature almost human speech noises and yet never speaks directly. I thought perhaps there was a size limit to the animals ability to communicate, but in this movie Cody can clearly speak to the Faloo the Kangaroo, but he can't seem to communicate with Joanna the Goanna despite the fact that she is a smaller animal. So where's the limit? It can't be about species because Frank is a reptile and can speak. It can't be about size because the tiny Kookabura cannot (presumably) speak (and yet Wilbur the Albatross can). Bah. I just want a suitable answer!!!
Favorite Character: As annoying as Frank the Fringed Lizard is, he still gives some pretty entertaining stupidity. I can't hate him for it.
Least Necessary Character: The Flamingcranes.. I don't know what kind of birds these pink things were supposed to be, but they didn't help out poor ole' Wilbur and they were snobs about it too.
Non-Rudd Kevin
------------------
It's kind of hard to believe that The Rescuers Down Under was released between The Little Mermaid and Beauty & the Beast. It's not that it's worse than them, exactly, but that it's so different thematically and tonally. No one even sings in it! unless you count Wilbur singing along to his radio or McLeach's rendition of "Home on the Range." Does that count as his villain song? It is scary in the sense that it makes you realize you're getting closer to watching the movie "Home on the Range."
So it may be easier to dismiss a film by comparing it to what the studio brought us before and after, even though those really shouldn't be compared to it in the first place, but yes I'm defending "Cars 2."
I do think this is one of those rare cases where the sequel does improve on the original. It looks better, it sounds better, it's paced better, it's funnier, the main characters are more likeable and the story makes more sense. And it helps even more that this is one of those cases where the very idea of a sequel existing is perfectly understandable. Isn't it weird that, even amidst all of those head-scratchingly unnecessary Disney sequels like Lady and the Tramp II and 102 Dalmatians and the like, there was never even a low-budget direct-to-video The Rescuers 3? No, it should be something non-numerical, like The Rescuers Go East or The Rescuers: Norway Out! (in which they rescue a Norwegian poet) or The Rescuers Get Frenched! or heck, I'd even take The Rescuers Save Christmas...over Santa Buddies, anyway. And it's not even that I completely love The Rescuers themselves, but I do like them more than I like Lady and Tramp and the Dalmatians. I could just be anticaninic.
Now I want to talk about cartoon violence. This cartoon has its fair share of slapstick, but some of it is misguided. Mainly I mean the scene with Wilbur getting unfortunate "medical treatment." First of all, Wilbur's a friendly fun-lovin' guy. He's glad to help, even if a bit apprehensive about flying in the middle of winter, but what non-arctic bird wouldn't be? So I don't really want to see him in pain. I can laugh at Joanna getting hit in the head on a cliff edge and such because she supports the bad guy and "deserves it." A good guy can get away with getting the brunt of anvils and mallets and whatever, but he has to pull it off the right way (being gleefully clumsy helps). There's a bit in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" where Roger sings the praises of Goofy's acting abilities and perfect comedic timing, and...I seriously think he has a good point. Not just anyone can do what Goofy does!
In trying to get back on track, my beef with Wilbur's scene is that it isn't cartoony enough. The cane! In his back! Gahh-h-h! And then...huge syringes!...fired out of a shotgun?! Is this...is this one of those "SAW" movies? He's genuinely terrified, isn't he?! That's horrible! It's not funny!
Maybe it's just me. And it's a shame, because I like John Candy as Wilbur. Nowadays every CGI animated feature and its mother has the bonus feature with the creators revealing that the voice actors did a lot of ad-libbing, even though that's so often the case now that it shouldn't count as a did-you-know-tidbit anymore. But was that done much before the 80s? Is this the genesis of that? I am glad that they opted to cast him as Orville's brother, as opposed to just recasting the same role with a different voice. It's less jarring and does make enough sense that they would share duties and look alike and have comparable personalities. Too bad you can't pull that trick with other sequels. "What, you've never met Slinky Dog's brother, Springy Dog? He's always existed, of course."
Favorite character: I do quite like Wilbur, but I'm going to pick *s*h*l* koala Krebbs. Not enough non-villain Disney characters act that way.
Least necessary character: When I first see Jake's fly friend Sparky I expect that he'll be joining the adventure as Jake's sidekick throughout, but...no, he's never seen again after his first scene. Bummer. Maybe Evinrude will play checkers with him.
Overall: Compared to its preceding and following musical siblings, The Rescuers Down Under may seem to fall flat, but compared to The Rescuers it's a bit o' good fun, mate.
----------------------------
The Rescuers Down Under makes a name for itself as the first "sequel" Disney Full length feature. Does it hold up?
First of all, I'm not sure that the Rescuers deserve title billing. It's established early on that they are coming to the rescue, but they never even come into contact with the kidnapped boy Cody until the third act! Frankly, I think Cody could have easily enlisted the help of any and all of his animal friends (because who is to say he doesn't have mice as friends in the outback to begin with?) and we could have had basically the exact same movie without either Bianca or Bernard.
That being said, I find this to be an enjoyable movie for a lot of reasons. The score is great. In fact, it's so good that it is now being used as temp music for teaser trailers when productions don't yet have the final music finished. It has the right amount of hope and adventure and heart that it can be placed over nearly anything and still feel pretty good. The animation is polished and the framing is exciting. The casting is (well the two leads are obvious and happily both agreed to come back) excellent for the newly introduced characters and in particular John Candy. The backgrounds are wide and sweeping, and computerized background animation is used at very appropriate times and with a certain amount of finesse despite the still very new technology. The story is fairly straight-forward, easy to follow, and full of entertaining business that still serves the plot.
Like I said earlier, I see no reason why Bernard and Bianca were specifically needed for this film except to lend utterly unnecessary credibility. I felt the villain, Percival C. McLeach, could have been a little bit smarter because he and his Goanna, Joanna, appeared to make some completely idiotic choices. For example, he's trying not to get caught by the rangers while he goes out every day poaching critters, and yet the vehicle he drives (The Bushwhacker) is the size of an 18-wheeler, rattles like building being demolished, and has a giant megaphone on top such that he can be heard from the clifftops of the outback. Also, what's up with Jake's approval at the end? He was trying to horn in the whole movie and now he's just giving the thumbs up? Whut?
Now, if you read back a ways and saw my nostalgic comments on The Rescuers, you may remember that I was confused about the cognition of animals especially regarding interactions with children. I notice that Cody can freely speak to and understand Bernard, Bianca, and Jake, but he can only speak to Marahute and at best can guess at her thoughts based on body language. Joanna the Goanna occasionally makes Frank Welker's signature almost human speech noises and yet never speaks directly. I thought perhaps there was a size limit to the animals ability to communicate, but in this movie Cody can clearly speak to the Faloo the Kangaroo, but he can't seem to communicate with Joanna the Goanna despite the fact that she is a smaller animal. So where's the limit? It can't be about species because Frank is a reptile and can speak. It can't be about size because the tiny Kookabura cannot (presumably) speak (and yet Wilbur the Albatross can). Bah. I just want a suitable answer!!!
Favorite Character: As annoying as Frank the Fringed Lizard is, he still gives some pretty entertaining stupidity. I can't hate him for it.
Least Necessary Character: The Flamingcranes.. I don't know what kind of birds these pink things were supposed to be, but they didn't help out poor ole' Wilbur and they were snobs about it too.
Non-Rudd Kevin
------------------
It's kind of hard to believe that The Rescuers Down Under was released between The Little Mermaid and Beauty & the Beast. It's not that it's worse than them, exactly, but that it's so different thematically and tonally. No one even sings in it! unless you count Wilbur singing along to his radio or McLeach's rendition of "Home on the Range." Does that count as his villain song? It is scary in the sense that it makes you realize you're getting closer to watching the movie "Home on the Range."
So it may be easier to dismiss a film by comparing it to what the studio brought us before and after, even though those really shouldn't be compared to it in the first place, but yes I'm defending "Cars 2."
I do think this is one of those rare cases where the sequel does improve on the original. It looks better, it sounds better, it's paced better, it's funnier, the main characters are more likeable and the story makes more sense. And it helps even more that this is one of those cases where the very idea of a sequel existing is perfectly understandable. Isn't it weird that, even amidst all of those head-scratchingly unnecessary Disney sequels like Lady and the Tramp II and 102 Dalmatians and the like, there was never even a low-budget direct-to-video The Rescuers 3? No, it should be something non-numerical, like The Rescuers Go East or The Rescuers: Norway Out! (in which they rescue a Norwegian poet) or The Rescuers Get Frenched! or heck, I'd even take The Rescuers Save Christmas...over Santa Buddies, anyway. And it's not even that I completely love The Rescuers themselves, but I do like them more than I like Lady and Tramp and the Dalmatians. I could just be anticaninic.
Now I want to talk about cartoon violence. This cartoon has its fair share of slapstick, but some of it is misguided. Mainly I mean the scene with Wilbur getting unfortunate "medical treatment." First of all, Wilbur's a friendly fun-lovin' guy. He's glad to help, even if a bit apprehensive about flying in the middle of winter, but what non-arctic bird wouldn't be? So I don't really want to see him in pain. I can laugh at Joanna getting hit in the head on a cliff edge and such because she supports the bad guy and "deserves it." A good guy can get away with getting the brunt of anvils and mallets and whatever, but he has to pull it off the right way (being gleefully clumsy helps). There's a bit in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" where Roger sings the praises of Goofy's acting abilities and perfect comedic timing, and...I seriously think he has a good point. Not just anyone can do what Goofy does!
In trying to get back on track, my beef with Wilbur's scene is that it isn't cartoony enough. The cane! In his back! Gahh-h-h! And then...huge syringes!...fired out of a shotgun?! Is this...is this one of those "SAW" movies? He's genuinely terrified, isn't he?! That's horrible! It's not funny!
Maybe it's just me. And it's a shame, because I like John Candy as Wilbur. Nowadays every CGI animated feature and its mother has the bonus feature with the creators revealing that the voice actors did a lot of ad-libbing, even though that's so often the case now that it shouldn't count as a did-you-know-tidbit anymore. But was that done much before the 80s? Is this the genesis of that? I am glad that they opted to cast him as Orville's brother, as opposed to just recasting the same role with a different voice. It's less jarring and does make enough sense that they would share duties and look alike and have comparable personalities. Too bad you can't pull that trick with other sequels. "What, you've never met Slinky Dog's brother, Springy Dog? He's always existed, of course."
Favorite character: I do quite like Wilbur, but I'm going to pick *s*h*l* koala Krebbs. Not enough non-villain Disney characters act that way.
Least necessary character: When I first see Jake's fly friend Sparky I expect that he'll be joining the adventure as Jake's sidekick throughout, but...no, he's never seen again after his first scene. Bummer. Maybe Evinrude will play checkers with him.
Overall: Compared to its preceding and following musical siblings, The Rescuers Down Under may seem to fall flat, but compared to The Rescuers it's a bit o' good fun, mate.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
D52 - Week 24 - The Fox and the Hound
Kevin's part---
So there's this fox, right? His name is Todd. He's named Todd by the woman who finds him after his father/mother(both?)? is killed because he reminds her of a toddler. What do you suppose his parents called him before that? In any case he decides to go by that name from now on anyway. Todd meets a basset hound? bloodhound? who's named Copper because...well it doesn't matter why he's called that. They become fast friends as pup and kit. But then a year...I presume? Maybe two...well some substantial amount of time passes, and the two learn that they're destined to be enemies by Copper's very occupation, despite their friendship. And then, despite this sounding like a fascinating set-up for a movie, um...well not much happens. There's a climax involving a bear, which is good for making jokes that reference any other Disney bear. Um. Todd meets a lady fox. Who...doesn't do anything else in the film aside from making Todd feel better, though you would think the ultimate resolution with Copper would do this just as fine. And if Todd gets to fall in love, why doesn't Copper? You would think his owner Amos would've, even in the first place, wanted to breed his own hunting dog puppies. And why did Amos get so upset over what happened to Chief even though the dog was already quite old and he probably raised Copper because he expected something would soon enough happen to Chief and he knew he'd have to be replaced anyway? And why did Copper get mad at Todd for what happened to Chief on the railroad tracks if all he was doing was running away for his own life? Did Copper think Todd lured Chief onto the tracks intentionally?
Oh, and I should also mention the short included with this movie. You know, the one about the two birds who try in vain to eat on particular bug? Kind of interesting how this unrelated short story was interwoven into the main movie itself. The characters in it even talk with the main movie's character! That's a novel idea there.
Favorite character: The Porcupine, for the simple reason that he is voiced by John Fiedler (you know, Piglet). Porcupine should've had his own starring role in some form.
Least necessary character: Vixey tries her best to make you think about foxes making the beast with two bushy tails.
Overall: I get a lot of Bambi vibes from the whole feature, including the nice-enough-but-not-terribly sticky songs, except I remember Bambi being more engaging to at least look at.
Another thing about names: What do you suppose Big Mama's name was, before she was big and (presumably) a mama?
Amanda's part----
As I understand it, there's a book upon which this movie is based or inspired. I want to read that book because it seems like it fits firmly in the book was better than the movie category.
It's not to say this is a bad movie, just that I feel like every time a new scene begins, I feel as if I've missed two or three other scenes in between. Let's say for example that we saw Todd and Copper meet and they had some fun together. That's fine, but I'm not sure that lifelong friendships come from one playdate. Another scene later Copper is tied up and not allowed to play. Another scene later, he's off on the hunting trip. After three scenes and only one instance of hide and seek and a dip in the pond, I'm just not convinced that this is a deep and lasting friendship. It seems to me more like a friendly acquaintenceship that would have been long over by the time Copper got back from the hunting trip. In people years, that's like having a kindergarten best friend that you didn't see again until after they got back from college and had no contact whatsoever in between! I just don't buy it.
So then Copper's owner hunts foxes among other things. I can get behind that, but if that's the case, why would Widow tweed have let Todd go? Sure she dropped him off at the animal sanctuary, but it's not like it was an enclosed animal sanctuary. That flimsy fence makes it seem like they could come and go as they pleased. What is there to make her think Todd would stay right there and not venture out past the fences since he seemed to like to go past the fences when he lived at her house anyway?
And in the end, are the Widow and Amos Slade friends? Lovers? Is she a nurse? They were at each others throats last I saw and he was trying to hunt down her pet. I just don't see where the camaraderie would have developed during that time.
Favorite Character: Dinky. He's the little yellow bird. Not much of a reason, but I like to imagine that in a remake of this film he'd be voiced by one of the Jersey Shore cast.
Least Favorite Character: Vixy. What was the point of her? Was a love story at all necessary in this film? Maybe in the book she had more to do, but in the movie she was an utterly unnecessary vapid female.
Overall: It's cute, and I guess there's a message that you should stand by your friends and don't be racist or something, but I just feel that the end result was just so rushed and pieced together. It's a real shame because if a little more time was spent on internal character development there could have been a very touching story about loyalty here.
So there's this fox, right? His name is Todd. He's named Todd by the woman who finds him after his father/mother(both?)? is killed because he reminds her of a toddler. What do you suppose his parents called him before that? In any case he decides to go by that name from now on anyway. Todd meets a basset hound? bloodhound? who's named Copper because...well it doesn't matter why he's called that. They become fast friends as pup and kit. But then a year...I presume? Maybe two...well some substantial amount of time passes, and the two learn that they're destined to be enemies by Copper's very occupation, despite their friendship. And then, despite this sounding like a fascinating set-up for a movie, um...well not much happens. There's a climax involving a bear, which is good for making jokes that reference any other Disney bear. Um. Todd meets a lady fox. Who...doesn't do anything else in the film aside from making Todd feel better, though you would think the ultimate resolution with Copper would do this just as fine. And if Todd gets to fall in love, why doesn't Copper? You would think his owner Amos would've, even in the first place, wanted to breed his own hunting dog puppies. And why did Amos get so upset over what happened to Chief even though the dog was already quite old and he probably raised Copper because he expected something would soon enough happen to Chief and he knew he'd have to be replaced anyway? And why did Copper get mad at Todd for what happened to Chief on the railroad tracks if all he was doing was running away for his own life? Did Copper think Todd lured Chief onto the tracks intentionally?
Oh, and I should also mention the short included with this movie. You know, the one about the two birds who try in vain to eat on particular bug? Kind of interesting how this unrelated short story was interwoven into the main movie itself. The characters in it even talk with the main movie's character! That's a novel idea there.
Favorite character: The Porcupine, for the simple reason that he is voiced by John Fiedler (you know, Piglet). Porcupine should've had his own starring role in some form.
Least necessary character: Vixey tries her best to make you think about foxes making the beast with two bushy tails.
Overall: I get a lot of Bambi vibes from the whole feature, including the nice-enough-but-not-terribly sticky songs, except I remember Bambi being more engaging to at least look at.
Another thing about names: What do you suppose Big Mama's name was, before she was big and (presumably) a mama?
Amanda's part----
As I understand it, there's a book upon which this movie is based or inspired. I want to read that book because it seems like it fits firmly in the book was better than the movie category.
It's not to say this is a bad movie, just that I feel like every time a new scene begins, I feel as if I've missed two or three other scenes in between. Let's say for example that we saw Todd and Copper meet and they had some fun together. That's fine, but I'm not sure that lifelong friendships come from one playdate. Another scene later Copper is tied up and not allowed to play. Another scene later, he's off on the hunting trip. After three scenes and only one instance of hide and seek and a dip in the pond, I'm just not convinced that this is a deep and lasting friendship. It seems to me more like a friendly acquaintenceship that would have been long over by the time Copper got back from the hunting trip. In people years, that's like having a kindergarten best friend that you didn't see again until after they got back from college and had no contact whatsoever in between! I just don't buy it.
So then Copper's owner hunts foxes among other things. I can get behind that, but if that's the case, why would Widow tweed have let Todd go? Sure she dropped him off at the animal sanctuary, but it's not like it was an enclosed animal sanctuary. That flimsy fence makes it seem like they could come and go as they pleased. What is there to make her think Todd would stay right there and not venture out past the fences since he seemed to like to go past the fences when he lived at her house anyway?
And in the end, are the Widow and Amos Slade friends? Lovers? Is she a nurse? They were at each others throats last I saw and he was trying to hunt down her pet. I just don't see where the camaraderie would have developed during that time.
Favorite Character: Dinky. He's the little yellow bird. Not much of a reason, but I like to imagine that in a remake of this film he'd be voiced by one of the Jersey Shore cast.
Least Favorite Character: Vixy. What was the point of her? Was a love story at all necessary in this film? Maybe in the book she had more to do, but in the movie she was an utterly unnecessary vapid female.
Overall: It's cute, and I guess there's a message that you should stand by your friends and don't be racist or something, but I just feel that the end result was just so rushed and pieced together. It's a real shame because if a little more time was spent on internal character development there could have been a very touching story about loyalty here.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
D52 - Week 10 - Melody Time
[Amanda suggested I go ahead and post this even though she hasn't written her bit yet, so...here goes!]
Kevin's bit
Instead of reviewing these shorts in the order in which they're shown in Melody Time, I'll review in order of the one I liked least to the one I liked most.
-"Trees" is dull. For what it is, a poem set to gently moving images, it's done well. If it were to be seen among a series of other similarly paced animations, it might be easier to appreciate it, but when surrounded by other much more energy-filled scenes, it just comes off as boring.
-I'm not sure what I'm supposed to like about The Legend of Johnny Appleseed. The legend itself is interesting enough to hear or read about orally, but what's to be gained from seeing it played out? With Pecos Bill, we get to see a larger-than-life character do the impossible. With Johnny Appleseed, you see...a kid tend to apples. And plant them. Then befriend forest animals. And then there's that hootenanny that I'm still not convinced has anything to do with his story. Again, the problem here too might be a case of comparison - the other tall tale seen in this package clearly overshadows this one.
-Blame It on the Samba also suffers with the context in which I'd seen it. It's pretty much more of the same that I'd already seen in Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros. But in this one there isn't even much Donald comedy. It makes me wonder why he gets a very prominent spot on the cover of the VHS I watched. It is very lively and colorful animation, but I can't help but think it should've been in Saludos Amigos in the first place, if that were chronologically possible.
-Little Toot (as a short) is cute, but...again with the comparisons, I just have to judge it alongside little flying Pedro and Susie the Blue Coupe. It's a bit harder to sympathize with Little Toot himself since he is rather a brat. It is a great short to watch as far as animated water is concerned. The song itself is also fun.
-If you don't mind the weird relationship implications of Once Upon a Wintertime, it is a charming little piece that'd be great to bring out during the appropriate time of year.
-It probably does have a lot to do with my remembering fondly but not having seen this segment for a very long time, and being excited to see it again, but I get a kick out of seeing that little Bumble Boogie bee. I actually wish it went on longer.
-Pecos Bill does what The Legend of Johnny Appleseed didn't. I am partial to the use of animation's potential to show the fantastic. For my money I want to see a folk tale legend accomplish Chuck Norris-esque feats (and really, aren't tall tales just older "Chuck Norris jokes?"). And that is exactly what I get to see here. But I would still only call it a favorite in the context of this set. I wonder if I would've liked it more if Bill were played by Goofy?
Favorite character: The Bumble Bee! Just because.
Least favorite character: Spooky waves with creepy water hands!
Overall: It won't take long for me to get mixed up which bits were in Melody Time and which were in Make Mine Music or some other compilation. So I'd probably rate it at about the same overall level as MMM, which is to say, passably entertaining.
Amanda's bit
[To be posted....soon??] [Amendment... NOW!!]
Okkay so is there such a thing as being anti-inspired? I don't mean just the blah uninspired feeling, but the feeling that any inspiration you might have had has been crushed out of you forcefully? This seemingly never-ending march of package features is doing that to me.
I'm left wondering if this is how audiences felt back when these features were fresh. Were they spaced out enough that people appreciated them and I only feel this way because there are so many so close together? Perhaps they though the Disney Studio had made their two hits with Pinocchio and Snow White and were gradually going to fade out. Perhaps Disney was at this time more solidly making a name with live action features instead. They do usually seem to be less expensive and less time consuming. Perhaps I'm just too eager because I know about the classics that are coming up soon.
Favorite Character: Wid-uh-maker. (Yes, I know it's Widowmaker, but the drawl is part of the character!) He sure is a jealous fool.
Least necessary character: Male Snow Bunny. He seriously started the entire ice danger and didn't have any part in the rescuing.
Overall: As before, each of the individual pieces are good, but trying to string them together just feels disjointed to me.
Amanda's Extra: Phoning it in for this one, folks. Once Upon a Wintertime was the most memorable section of this feature partly because during my childhood every Disney holiday special seemed to include this short. I loved watching Scott Hamilton and Kristie Yamaguchi ice dance to Disney songs and this short was always one of the interludes.
Anyway, enjoy this snowflake.
Kevin's bit
Instead of reviewing these shorts in the order in which they're shown in Melody Time, I'll review in order of the one I liked least to the one I liked most.
-"Trees" is dull. For what it is, a poem set to gently moving images, it's done well. If it were to be seen among a series of other similarly paced animations, it might be easier to appreciate it, but when surrounded by other much more energy-filled scenes, it just comes off as boring.
-I'm not sure what I'm supposed to like about The Legend of Johnny Appleseed. The legend itself is interesting enough to hear or read about orally, but what's to be gained from seeing it played out? With Pecos Bill, we get to see a larger-than-life character do the impossible. With Johnny Appleseed, you see...a kid tend to apples. And plant them. Then befriend forest animals. And then there's that hootenanny that I'm still not convinced has anything to do with his story. Again, the problem here too might be a case of comparison - the other tall tale seen in this package clearly overshadows this one.
-Blame It on the Samba also suffers with the context in which I'd seen it. It's pretty much more of the same that I'd already seen in Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros. But in this one there isn't even much Donald comedy. It makes me wonder why he gets a very prominent spot on the cover of the VHS I watched. It is very lively and colorful animation, but I can't help but think it should've been in Saludos Amigos in the first place, if that were chronologically possible.
-Little Toot (as a short) is cute, but...again with the comparisons, I just have to judge it alongside little flying Pedro and Susie the Blue Coupe. It's a bit harder to sympathize with Little Toot himself since he is rather a brat. It is a great short to watch as far as animated water is concerned. The song itself is also fun.
-If you don't mind the weird relationship implications of Once Upon a Wintertime, it is a charming little piece that'd be great to bring out during the appropriate time of year.
-It probably does have a lot to do with my remembering fondly but not having seen this segment for a very long time, and being excited to see it again, but I get a kick out of seeing that little Bumble Boogie bee. I actually wish it went on longer.
-Pecos Bill does what The Legend of Johnny Appleseed didn't. I am partial to the use of animation's potential to show the fantastic. For my money I want to see a folk tale legend accomplish Chuck Norris-esque feats (and really, aren't tall tales just older "Chuck Norris jokes?"). And that is exactly what I get to see here. But I would still only call it a favorite in the context of this set. I wonder if I would've liked it more if Bill were played by Goofy?
Favorite character: The Bumble Bee! Just because.
Least favorite character: Spooky waves with creepy water hands!
Overall: It won't take long for me to get mixed up which bits were in Melody Time and which were in Make Mine Music or some other compilation. So I'd probably rate it at about the same overall level as MMM, which is to say, passably entertaining.
Amanda's bit
[To be posted....soon??] [Amendment... NOW!!]
Okkay so is there such a thing as being anti-inspired? I don't mean just the blah uninspired feeling, but the feeling that any inspiration you might have had has been crushed out of you forcefully? This seemingly never-ending march of package features is doing that to me.
I'm left wondering if this is how audiences felt back when these features were fresh. Were they spaced out enough that people appreciated them and I only feel this way because there are so many so close together? Perhaps they though the Disney Studio had made their two hits with Pinocchio and Snow White and were gradually going to fade out. Perhaps Disney was at this time more solidly making a name with live action features instead. They do usually seem to be less expensive and less time consuming. Perhaps I'm just too eager because I know about the classics that are coming up soon.
Favorite Character: Wid-uh-maker. (Yes, I know it's Widowmaker, but the drawl is part of the character!) He sure is a jealous fool.
Least necessary character: Male Snow Bunny. He seriously started the entire ice danger and didn't have any part in the rescuing.
Overall: As before, each of the individual pieces are good, but trying to string them together just feels disjointed to me.
Amanda's Extra: Phoning it in for this one, folks. Once Upon a Wintertime was the most memorable section of this feature partly because during my childhood every Disney holiday special seemed to include this short. I loved watching Scott Hamilton and Kristie Yamaguchi ice dance to Disney songs and this short was always one of the interludes.
Anyway, enjoy this snowflake.
Friday, March 2, 2012
D52 - Week 9 - Fun and Fancy Free
Kevin's prattling-on:
The thin thread that connects Bongo with Mickey and the Beanstalk is Jiminy Cricket. But it isn't about Jiminy telling us these stories, but rather leading us to places where the stories are told by someone else. Which is kind of weird when you think about it. But not really.
Supposedly, Bongo was at some point proposed as a feature-length film itself. Surprising, since I thought the half-film version was rather padded out as it was. Did we really need the scene where Bongo just sits there, in the flowerbed, doing nothing but looking around and taking in his surroundings for a while?
But I feel kind of bad for Bongo - not for what he went through in his short, but how he's practically been left in the dustbin of forgotten Disney animated characters. Searching through Google and eBay for any Bongo merchandise that's ever existed, I only find the video, the book, pins, and the odd figurine. Has there really never been a plush Bongo? Compare him to another Disney bear: Duffy the Bear, who currently is available at many, many Disney retailers, along with a plethora of clothes and accessories. You can even have your picture taken with a "Character Greeting" Duffy. But whereas Bongo was one of the stars of an early full-length animated (package) feature, Duffy started out as a thing-for-you-to-buy. And he still gets all the glory nowadays. Poor Bongo. Maybe somewhere out there right now he's riding the unicycle from Pixar's "Red's Dream."
The second half features a grown man who has invited a young girl and nobody else to attend a "party" of just him and his handful of puppet friends. Ye-e-ep. If you like that old vaudevillian style of comedy where every other line is either a set-up to a joke or the punchline to it, you'll like these segments. Me, I have to be in the right mood for it.
I'm sure I had seen the cartoon before but I don't remember the live-action bumpers at all. Perhaps I'd seen it in some truncated form by itself? Or I just blocked the Bergen antics from my memory. There are definitely bits worth remembering though, like Goofy's experience with gelatin. I'll choose to gloss over the narrative cheat of the three heroes adventuring into the castle simply because, eh, they felt like it and were curious.
Favorite character: Who else but Donald would be driven so mad as to make an impromptu sandwich out of plates and cutlery and chomp a big shattery bite out of it? [Note: Amanda thought I laughed too hard at that.]
Least-necessary character: The Bergen puppet we first see, which is to say his drawn-on hand. I realize the (intentional?) irony of having a famous ventriloquist who regularly uses intricately designed puppets first being shown using the simplest version of one, but it still was rather unnecessary.
Overall: While Mickey and the Beanstalk has its worthwhile moments (and this can be said of many non-package-feature shorts), Fun and Fancy Free is front-loaded with a cartoon starring a not-loveable-enough non-icon, making the entire presentation more fancy-free than fun.
Tiddlybits:
-I don't know what the bear/doll thing was all about. Maybe it was supposed to be whimsical. But a doll or pair of dolls being perfectly lifelessly still one moment and in a different pose and different expressions on their faces after you look away and back again ... that's a horror movie scene right there.
-The name "Mickey & the Beanstalk" sure does seem to snub Donald and Goofy. I realize "Mickey, Donald, Goofy and the Beanstalk" is not quite as punchy, but still. At least it's not as bad as "Mickey's Christmas Carol," which only showed Mickey a bit at the beginning and end. I wouldn't be surprised if Willie the Giant had more screen time than Mickey in that one.
-I think of Mortimer Snerd as the Tow Mater of his era.
Amanda's part
I can't say I'm a fan of these package features or so they are apparently called. I like all of the individual shorts that get put together in them. Growing up in the 80s and 90s I have seen all of them. The little tidbits were always part of various Disney specials particularly around Christmas and each was extremely memorable on their own. The unfortunate part for me is that when they are all strung together, I get a case of ADD and at the end, I have trouble remembering ANY of them.
There was something about a bear. There was a baseball game... no wait, that was another package feature. OH Mickey and the Beanstalk! I honestly thought that was something that was released on its own. I know Jiminy Cricket was in it singing a friendly little song and I was jarred readily by the live action sequences.
Bah. I just am so so ready to watch some nice full length movies that aren't a stream of unrelated shorts.
I'm not sure I can even do Favorite, Least necessary and Overall because I just don't remember anything that happened.
Amanda's Extra
Mickey and his buds were forced up the beanstalk because they were all heavy sleepers, but once there, they found themselves in a good position to save the very pretty and very valuable harp. It's not as pretty, and not as valuable, but here's my version of the harp.
Monday, February 20, 2012
D52 - Week 8 - Make Mine Music
Kevin's more-than-two-bits:
There's a disclaimer at the beginning of the DVD of Make Mine Music that we watched which mentions that it has been edited for content. It turns out that an entire 7-minute segment called The Martins and the Coys was cut. If one watches Make Mine Music without seeing that short, does it still count as having watched Make Mine Music? How does that work canonically? Having just watched it illegitimately on YouTube...I wasn't missing much. The Wikipedia entry says that it was cut due to comic gunplay, but I imagine the hillbilly stereotypin' and spousal abuse wasn't looked on too well either.
Blue Bayou one-word review: Boring.
All the Cats Join In: Was anyone else disappointed that this didn't feature felines? And when you think of jazz music, what comes to mind? White kids, right? Animation-wise, I've gotta admire it. I'm a sucker for cartoon characters being drawn by and interacting with cartoon pencils (and the erasers of those pencils). It's fun and has a great energy to it (though I guess anything would seem fun and energetic after Blue Bayou). But in terms of humor, it certainly shows how much comic sensibilities can change over many decades. Whereas the sight of a teenage boy dancing with his girl holding her upside-down as if she's a mop might have been funny at the time, now it's just plain baffling.
Without You one-word review: Depressing.
Casey at the Bat one-sentence review: Oh, why can't real life baseball be as fun to watch as cartoon baseball?
Two Silhouettes one-word review: Nice.
Peter and the Wolf: I can't help but wonder if putting this to moving images defeated the purpose of the piece itself. I thought the whole point was to use the sounds of each instrument to visualize the action in your mind? As I watch the cartoon after time I find myself paying more attention to the animation and absent-mindedly ignoring the instrument-character associations. I think I rather prefer experiencing Peter and the Wolf with just my mind's eye. Even if now I find it hard to not imagine them all in that Disney style.
After You've Gone one-word review: Neat!
Johnny Fedora and Alice Blue Bonnet: Near the end of this short, when (SPOILER ALERT?) scissors are taken to Johnny Fedora to create ear holes, I find myself thinking, "AAH! Doesn't that hurt?!" Then it occurs to me. I'm sympathizing with a cartoon hat. It's weird how I care more about this fedora than any of the human or animal characters in the rest of the feature (yes, even Peter). Maybe it's because it's a non-human-or-animal. For a moment I think, "What if the hats I've worn throughout my life had feelings? Have I mistreated them so badly? I'm so sorry if I have!" Then, again, I realize how incredibly silly that is. Still, the story is charming and the song is great. It's easily, as far as I care anyway, the best reason to watch Make Mine Music. It should've been the very last short of the set, to leave you with that ooey-gooey happy feeling. Instead, there's The Whale Who Wanted to Sing at the Met. It's funny how I remember this one. I'd seen it twice (the second time as recently as last year, I reckon), and I remembered full well that Willie (spoiler alert...) dies at the end, but I thought that he dies after getting to live out his dream career. What a bummer that it only happens through a fantasy sequence. It's not sad just that he dies, but that he dies without ever getting to sing at the met. And how disappointing that there's no follow-through on the set-up of the title itself. Imagine if you watched a movie called, I don't know, The Search For the Golden Orb, but they never actually find the golden orb. Also, another example of the comedic change of the times: Willie's separate vibrating uvulas were possibly funny then. But now... more unsettling. Wouldn't you agree?
Favorite characters: Note to self: Shop for one fedora and one blue bonnet.
Least-necessary character: Oh yes, thank you Mr. Seagull, for leading the harpoon-happy hunter to your "friend" Willie the Whale.
Overall: We're still going through the shorts-collection period, folks. If you can compare Saludos Amigos and The Three Amigos to eating at a couple of ethnic restaurants, Make Mine Music would be more of a potluck. Not everything is great, but the variety is the strong point itself, since you're bound to find something you like in it.
Amanda's bit
I'm a little curious, possibly enough to research it further, as to how the Disney Studio managed to grow during this shortstravaganza period. Is there profit to be had in making short films? Were each of the shorts run separately before features? Were each of the shorts run in rotation on television? In any case, I'm very impressed with the business aspect during this era.
I speculate that the studio is continuing its endeavors to experiment and embrace new technologies as well as find ways for the new to work beside the old, and I respect that a great deal. Beyond Fantasia however, which comes right to the forefront and admits that it is a concert, I feel that cohesion is still so very important to making a successful, memorable feature. On the other hand, this collection had a few very strong stand out chapters which easily grew greater than the whole. Johnny Fedora and Alice Bluebonnet has been burned into my brain since before I can remember. Casey at the Bat was a classic poem that I knew as a child and chuckle about still today. While I agree that I prefer Peter and the Wolf in my imagination than played out for me, I cannot deny that little Russian Petey is the one that I think of first.
Favorite Character: I'm sorry Constable Hat! I thought you were someone I knew!
Least necessary character: I must admit, I found the Two silhouettes so incredibly boring, I very nearly fell asleep. I'm not sure how my favorite animation studio took a piece of ballet (which I normally find very engaging) and made it a snoozefest.
Overall: The bits justify the whole, but if I could give you the edited for Amanda's taste version, you'd probably enjoy it even more.
Amanda's Extra: This era of Disney is a modge podge of little bits with barely any theme. It seems appropriate here then to add to my always growing stash of afghan squares. Nothing is more bits and pieces than your classic Granny Square. It's got the little scraps of yarn to remind you of the original project that you loved so dearly...possibly right next to that awful hand me down yarn that you made into an itchy hat when you couldn't say "No thank you Auntie; that sort of yarn doesn't suit my taste." Either way, it'll make a kitchy cute blanket someday.
Friday, February 17, 2012
D52 - Week 7 - The Three Caballeros
Kevin's bit
When the Disney crew took business trips to ... countries south of the United States, did they always intend that there would be not one but two feature films made from of? Was all of Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros together originally intended to be one longer feature, but later split into two? Or did they, after creating Saludos Amigos, decide that they enjoyed it so much they would do a very similar project for the next time? At least in this case, the live-action documentary-style bits are replaced with the much more entertaining Donald Duck. Even though they're movies-within-the-movie, at least we get to see Donald interacting with some of the bits.
The Cold-Blooded Penguin is made cute enough solely because Sterling Holloway serves as narrator. But after having seen a film like March of the Penguins, you can't help but realize the actual lives of real-life penguins are much more interesting. The Flying Gauchito would've fit in Saludos Amigos quite nicely (and would help balance the overall running times of each feature). Baia seems to be the type of segment mostly impressive for the novelty of combining live action with animation. Those who've seen the trick done often enough, however, have little else with which to be entertained. All of that excitement is then followed by the abruptly low-key tenderness of Las Posadas. Then Donald sexually harasses some ladies and some of the maddest of all Disney madnesses ensues. I don't even know where they were going with the insanity or why it was there, but...I rather like it, on its own. How did they even storyboard or draft out scenes like that?
Tidbits:
-Where exactly do the Donald present-opening scenes take place? Donald's very empty bedroom of uncertain volume? Purgatory? An alternate dimension in which no other matter besides Donald and his friends and their possessions exist?
-Why are there no men on that beach? Do/did such female-only beaches exist anywhere in the world? If so, how inappropriate for T3C to have intruded on them from the skies!
-Nice cameo appearance from Fantasia's "The Soundtrack!"
Overall: Compared to last week's it does seem like more of the same, but at least wrapped in a nicer (and more substantial) package. Again, I enjoy it primarily out of Donald fandom.
Amanda's bit
Once again, I just can't get behind having a crop of short films being referred to as a movie. I appreciate each of the short segments on their own as really cute and entertaining bits of animation. I appreciate that the filmmakers at least tried to have a running theme to connect the segments (although I do have to mention that "our filmmakers taking a trip" and "receiving a box of presents intended to take you vicariously on a trip" seems a bit too similar for my taste), and I appreciate that it wasn't filled up with documentary style live action sequences. I absolutely appreciate that the many countries to the south of the United States had enough vitality to fill up a huge number of short films and movies.
Yet in the long run though, I would have appreciated it more if all these short films were allowed to shine separately. At the time, there was no Disney Channel and no VHS and so the studio was probably concerned about the longevity of each of these shorts as well as the monetary value they would each bring forth. This makes sense. Uncle Walt had by this time been discussing the idea of a theme park with family and close colleagues and in only one short decade Disneyland would open. On the other hand, perhaps the studio was simply bowing to demands. The many short films that preceded features at the theater were very popular. It's not so farfetched to think that at the time people were willing to pay full box office prices to see just the short films as long as there were enough to make the price and the travel worth the trouble. Seems like this might be an interesting thing to research in the future.
Tidbits-
-Donald... can't fly?
-Even though this could easily have been just Panchito and Donald's film the way Saludos Amigos was Jose Carioca and Donald's film, it was a nice unifying image to see a figure representing all three sections of the New World. Donald as North America, Panchito as Central America and Jose as South America. Someone needs to get to work on something to unify the other continents. And then we can have world peace when someone then unifies those other movies. (No, I'm not so naive to believe that it will work, but it's a fanciful thought.)
Favorite Character: Definitely Panchito. I can't figure out why a lighthearted, energetic, party animal with a heart of gold like him never really caught on. Jose too is quite a lot of fun and yet both of them seem to have been banished to the Mexico pavilion at Epcot never to be seen anywhere else again. Shame.
Least necessary Character: Woman-faced Flower Hallucination. Donald really needs to lay off the partying. He never can just go out and have a good time. He always seems to go way way overboard.
Overall: Entertaining if you're particularly interested in Mexico, Central American and South America. Amusing if you like to watch a bunch of shorts in a row. Don't call it a movie. It's just so vain. Be proud to be a collection of cartoon shorts! There's no shame in it!
Amanda's Extra:
"We have the stars to guide us/ Guitars here beside us/ to play as we go."
And sure enough, a guitar is here beside me, but I needed a strap to play it comfortably. Why not give it a Central American flare by embracing and mixing the dark colors so that you might match "three happy chappies with snappy sarapes"?
Saturday, February 11, 2012
D 52 - Week 6 - Saludos Amigos
Kevin's bit
It's another shorts compilation! This one is segmented with live-action documentary-style pieces about the Central American culture. The animated shorts are fun enough, pretty much on par with Disney animated shorts of the time that weren't packaged as movies. Being partial to Donald Duck, I enjoyed the first cartoon about Lake Titicaca. Pedro is the most likeable animated plane you could hope to see, but the short as a whole is no "Little Suzie Blue Coupe." Hm, I wonder if Pedro might make a cameo appearance in the upcoming Disney (sans Pixar) Planes feature? El Gaucho Goofy is classic Goofy. Try not to even chuckle at the slow-motion scene! Aquarela do Brasil plays a bit like Saludos Amigos's answer to Fantasia, but it's not much on which to end. The whole movie kind of...just ends there. As for the live-action segments... if you're fascinated by Central America, then....well, you should probably watch a more up-to-date film, I imagine. Even if the featured countries haven't changed all that much since Saludos Amigos was first made, the quality of documentaries has improved enough since then that you'd be better off with one made from this century. And it's really more of a sampling than a comprehensive look.
Favorite character: The llama.
Least necessary character: Is José Cairoca only here to set up his appearance in the next movie?
Overall: It's at least worth seeing if you're a Donald Duck fan.
Amanda's bit
Well, what's there to say that I can say without wasting the exact same commentary for the upcoming Three Caballeros? Not a whole lot.
I like short cartoons! I really do! The thing is, when I go to see a movie, I expect to see a movie. Call me crazy, but I expect some sort of plot. And no, I don't think "these travelers visited here and then here and then here" a plot; that's more like an itinerary at best. It's not that it's not entertaining as a whole, but there's no resolution aside from a lame getting through customs joke that tells us our entire film crew made it home in one piece and with more souvenirs than the average person can afford.
Favorite Character: ... There were characters in this? Uhhh... hm. Pedro the plane was cute.
Least Necessary character: ... There were characters in this? Uhh...The customs man. I really could have done without that customs joke.
Overall: It's very entertaining if we call it a compilation of shorts, but let's not try to pull the llama wool over my eyes any more; calling it a feature is kind of insulting.
Amanda's extra: The Goofy short in which he is dressed as a Gaucho showed a fun looking slingshot that I thought could translate well into a non-dangerous around the house plaything. Basically it's a ladder toss toy without the target. Of course who is to say that I won't also make a target now? In the meantime, I'll be tossing these at Kevin and hoping for minimal retaliation.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
D52 - Week 5 - Bambi
Amanda's bit:
What's this? Kevin's making ME go first? Well, I have to admit that as a child I thought Bambi was rather boring. I wasn't much of a girly girl and I thought cute things were only for the wimpy mean girls. Now that I'm older I appreciate this movie much more.
We follow the maturing of a young deer from birth to adult witnessing his first steps, first words, first kiss, and first children. The story is fairly straightforward and yet carries the weight of a number of heavy themes.
First and foremost is death. Bambi in fact includes the very first Disney death and audiences were shocked. Current popular culture has us believe that seeing this movie as children is a recipe for trauma, but I can't remember every feeling that way. I recognized the loss and I was smart enough to know that Mother wasn't returning, but Bambi was an excellent role model. He mourned his loss and continued with life.
The second big theme that I felt was suffering. Because Bambi runs like a nature film in which the animals have personalities of their own instead of personalities thrust upon them by a narrator's script, the struggles of every day life in the wild are clearer and more relate-able than ever.
Not only are there a host of other heavy issues to be taken in, but there is a lot of beauty on the screen. It's clear that Fantasia had a lot of bearing on the use of music for Bambi. Whereas most Disney films use music to add to the story, Bambi has score and lyric to set the atmosphere and relate the passage of time. It's as if the score were an entirely different character in the movie, perhaps the voice of Mother Nature. Personally, I approve.
Favorite Character: The Mole "Nice, sunny day!"
Least necessary character: As much as I hate to say it, Flower. Flower is beyond cute, but really had nothing to do with plot.
Overall: Beautiful artistry. Beautiful music. Heavy adult themes. Cute kiddie animals. I recommend it highly and is certainly way up high on my list of favorites.
Amanda's Extra: I have had the pleasure of reading the book on which this movie was based and if you haven't, I intensely recommend that you do. It requires a lot of imagination to truly feel the tone that is laid down in the book and can't be read from the point of view of a human. One really has to get into the skin of the wildlife and try to understand an animal's instinctive actions.
I was most inspired by the conversation between two leaves reduced to a few moments of score in the movie, but original and moving dialog in the book. It's easy to relate to fellow members of the animal kingdom when it comes to the circle of life, and it's so easy to overlook the suffering of the flora which happens in tune with the animals. The book describes the conversation between the last two leaves as they hang on the branch. They ponder the fate of their fallen brethren as well as their own future. What will happen to them when their stems can no longer hold? As they lose their grip from the tree, the conversation ends abruptly and life in the forest continues as if it had never taken place.
Kevin's bit
It's a very, very cute movie. Achingly cute - maybe too cute? At least there's death (even if it is followed by more cuteness immediately afterward)! And fire!
As already said it has great art and animation and important themes. And as much as I enjoyed seeing it for the first time in a long time, I don't find myself wanting to see it again and again. I guess I feel about it the same way I do most well-made nature documentaries - interesting the first time but little rewatchability.
Favorite character: Friend Owl adds the right amount of sour that this sweet dish needs.
Least necessary character: Ronno kind of came out of nowhere and was vanquished rather easily. I guess it just bothers me that he wasn't set up at all earlier in the film.
Overall: Let the kids watch it. How else are they going to relate to all of those "Bambi's mom" jokes they'll inevitable come across later in life?
Kevin's extra: I just had to share this. It turns out there's a "Cine-Manga" version of Disney's Bambi. Basically, it's stills from the movie with word balloons and sound effects passed off as graphic novel frames. It's as silly and lazy as it sounds. So, how does the picto version handle the iconic emotional moment? Maybe for the sake of taste it simply lets the pictures speak for themselves to reflect the somber moon and...no well anyway this is what it actually does:
...ACTION SOB!
Saturday, January 28, 2012
D52 - Week 4 - Dumbo
Kevin's bit
Dumbo is one of those cartoons that I have a fondness for simply because I remember enjoying it as a youngin'. I don't remember exactly what I liked about it at the time. I suspect I was partial because I was at that age where I rejected anything that might seem "girly," and Pinocchio and Dumbo were a couple of Disney movies that could be "boy" movies.
But does it really hold up to watch it as a grown-up?
One thing I like about it: it's short. After Fantasia, which passes the two-hour mark and especially thinking of certain newer blockbusters that near or even break three hours (I'm looking at you, Avatar), it's satisfying to watch an about-an-hour motion picture. Granted it's another full-length film that feels and plays like a short, but at least enough happens to justify it being longer than ten minutes. It is a bit jarring how rushed the wrap-up at the very end is, though.
Dumbo himself is an interesting titular character, in that not only does he not have any speaking lines at all, but he...doesn't really do anything himself to progress his own adventure. He pretty much does what everyone else leads him to do, without really making any decisions of his own. You care about him simply because he's a cute baby animal: would you have any reason to like him if he wasn't? Timothy is a more interesting character. I'm beginning to think it should've been about him.
As freaky and insane as the Pink Elephants on Parade sequence is, you've gotta admit: it sure ain't boring!
On the other hand, Dumbo's mother being confined in that dark trailer is one of the saddest Disney moments ever, trumping even a lot of death scenes.
Favorite character: Timothy, especially when he first wakes up after his hangover,
Least necessary character: Freaky elephant body made up of elephant heads.
Overall: Though I happen to like it, I would find it hard to recommend it highly in general.
Tidbits:
-Was Timothy an actual part of the circus show or does he just wear the little ringmaster costume on his own accord?
-Timothy gets indignant at the crows for making fun of Dumbo, but weren't they really making fun of Timothy for suggesting the notion of Dumbo being able to fly?
Amanda's bit
When I buy or borrow a DVD or other digital copy of a movie, I'm often as or more enthralled by the extra material. I'm very interested in what the creators thought of their own work and what contemporary peers, colleagues, and historians have to say about it.
With Dumbo, I was downright shocked at how many people thought that this was the very best movie made during that era or at all. Really? I generally don't like to be negative, and I'm certainly not saying Dumbo was a bad movie, but the best? The story was precious and original. The music was catchy and clever. The animation was as technically pristine as one would come to expect from the Disney studio. Yet, after all of that, I can't bring myself to see the "masterpiece" claim that everyone in the commentaries and featurettes kept praising.
Favorite character: The lead Crow. While folks currently claim that it's a racist portrayal, it's still a positive portrayal. The crows as a group were like a jazz band egging each other on and the head Crow (did any of them even have names?) while having a bit of fun, did offer the best solution to the plot.
Least favorite character: Yeah, Elephant head thing was gross but for the sake of choosing someone else, I thought the ring leader was ridiculous. Did he never allow any of his acts to rehearse?
Overall: It's entertaining as well as a little bit horrifying at moments. I'd rather watch this movie than 90's sitcom reruns. You can make of that what you will.
Tidbits:
-One bottle of booze in a barrel full of water would be awfully diluted. I can see Timothy getting drunk, but surely Jumbo Jr. had a big enough liver to hold his bubbly.
-I'm surprised at how many people know Timothy Q. Mouse's name considering the only time it was mentioned in the film was on a signed contract upside-down in cursive for a few moments on the cover of a magazine.
Amanda's creation: We all need our own magic feather to help us believe in ourselves. Mine is in the form of a funny yarn feather pen. If you want to make your own, all you need is a bunch of lengths of yarn, a pen, and some spray adhesive. Use spray adhesive on the pen working in small sections. Fold the lengths of yarn in half and catch the sticky pen in the loop. Alternate the direction of the loop so that both ends of the feather are fairly even. Trim the yarn ends into a feather shape and write with something fabulous.
Dumbo is one of those cartoons that I have a fondness for simply because I remember enjoying it as a youngin'. I don't remember exactly what I liked about it at the time. I suspect I was partial because I was at that age where I rejected anything that might seem "girly," and Pinocchio and Dumbo were a couple of Disney movies that could be "boy" movies.
But does it really hold up to watch it as a grown-up?
One thing I like about it: it's short. After Fantasia, which passes the two-hour mark and especially thinking of certain newer blockbusters that near or even break three hours (I'm looking at you, Avatar), it's satisfying to watch an about-an-hour motion picture. Granted it's another full-length film that feels and plays like a short, but at least enough happens to justify it being longer than ten minutes. It is a bit jarring how rushed the wrap-up at the very end is, though.
Dumbo himself is an interesting titular character, in that not only does he not have any speaking lines at all, but he...doesn't really do anything himself to progress his own adventure. He pretty much does what everyone else leads him to do, without really making any decisions of his own. You care about him simply because he's a cute baby animal: would you have any reason to like him if he wasn't? Timothy is a more interesting character. I'm beginning to think it should've been about him.
As freaky and insane as the Pink Elephants on Parade sequence is, you've gotta admit: it sure ain't boring!
On the other hand, Dumbo's mother being confined in that dark trailer is one of the saddest Disney moments ever, trumping even a lot of death scenes.
Favorite character: Timothy, especially when he first wakes up after his hangover,
Least necessary character: Freaky elephant body made up of elephant heads.
Overall: Though I happen to like it, I would find it hard to recommend it highly in general.
Tidbits:
-Was Timothy an actual part of the circus show or does he just wear the little ringmaster costume on his own accord?
-Timothy gets indignant at the crows for making fun of Dumbo, but weren't they really making fun of Timothy for suggesting the notion of Dumbo being able to fly?
Amanda's bit
When I buy or borrow a DVD or other digital copy of a movie, I'm often as or more enthralled by the extra material. I'm very interested in what the creators thought of their own work and what contemporary peers, colleagues, and historians have to say about it.
With Dumbo, I was downright shocked at how many people thought that this was the very best movie made during that era or at all. Really? I generally don't like to be negative, and I'm certainly not saying Dumbo was a bad movie, but the best? The story was precious and original. The music was catchy and clever. The animation was as technically pristine as one would come to expect from the Disney studio. Yet, after all of that, I can't bring myself to see the "masterpiece" claim that everyone in the commentaries and featurettes kept praising.
Favorite character: The lead Crow. While folks currently claim that it's a racist portrayal, it's still a positive portrayal. The crows as a group were like a jazz band egging each other on and the head Crow (did any of them even have names?) while having a bit of fun, did offer the best solution to the plot.
Least favorite character: Yeah, Elephant head thing was gross but for the sake of choosing someone else, I thought the ring leader was ridiculous. Did he never allow any of his acts to rehearse?
Overall: It's entertaining as well as a little bit horrifying at moments. I'd rather watch this movie than 90's sitcom reruns. You can make of that what you will.
Tidbits:
-One bottle of booze in a barrel full of water would be awfully diluted. I can see Timothy getting drunk, but surely Jumbo Jr. had a big enough liver to hold his bubbly.
-I'm surprised at how many people know Timothy Q. Mouse's name considering the only time it was mentioned in the film was on a signed contract upside-down in cursive for a few moments on the cover of a magazine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)