D52 - Week 34 - The Hunchback of Notre Dame

A Guy Like Kevin

----------------

So far The Hunchback of Notre Dame is the first D52 film I'm glad I "forced" myself to watch. There were a few I hadn't seen that did make me say, "Hmm, that wasn't too terrible. It had some nice moments." But there is a lot to appreciate in "Hunchback" that I wish I had given myself the chance to appreciate before. Of course the animation and art direction is superb. That's to be expected. The music reminds me of Phantom of the Opera  or Les Miserables in that, even though they're not exactly fun tunes to sing along to on a regular basis, they are still powerfully impressive.

But what strikes me most is the overall tone. It's very...to put it simply, serious. But not serious in a boring way like Pocahontas. It actually deals with interestingly complex issues (or at least considerably more complex than "princess finds prince and they love each other) and handles them in a pretty respectable way. I mean, if you look past the crotch shots and sidelining comedy statues. And I do want to look past them, because I like to imagine this as the potential for a completely ... well it doesn't have to be serious and straight-faced at all times. I do like what Clopin brings to the party, and "Topsy-Turvy Day" is my newest earworm. But let's take away the outright goofiness of the gargoyles. I didn't find them funny and I don't buy that they're actually sympathetic to Quasimodo's plea. Even their song just comes across as a way to pass the time for actually important things to happen. So yeah, imagine what it would be like if (alternate Disney fiction-realities seem to be a recurring theme in my reviews, eh?) the granted-sparse-for-animated-Disney-standards comic relief was toned down even further, to the bare minimum of letting Clopin be whimsically weird and allowing Phoebus* his sarcastic remarks. First off I'm not sure how it would be advertised and marketed, since the real trailers sure did try their best to pass this movie off as a fun-filled celebratory romp. We did have a lot of fun with Quasimodo, didn't we? Up until the point where he gets publically shamed and humiliated and even further emotionally scarred. At the end of that same scene.

It shouldn't be a kids movie. I'm not saying that kids shouldn't watch movies that deal with mature themes ("HELLFIRE! HELLFIRE!") but that it strikes me as awkward to confront them with those themes when they wouldn't expect them. If you put it Hunchback on movie for the first time for them, they're gonna know it's a Disney movie and have expectations for something more fun and lighthearted than a judge who finds his soul tormented by the inner conflict of his hatred and lust.

Which is not say Disney shouldn't make this kind of animated movie. I think it's awesomely great that they even got as far as they did with the surprisingly deep moral themes. Could the remarkable stray from mostly fluff be considered a "gimmick?" Yeeeah, but a "gimmick" I enjoyed. Would I have wanted the Disney films to continue this same trend? No, I think it would've worn its welcome soon enough, and the cutesiness would be missed. Having already seen Hercules, I already know we'll be diverting back off of this path right away.

Favorite character: This may be a weird choice, but I'm gonna go with Clopin. I just love the way he's animated and how he talks. Is he unimportant and have nothing to do with the story? No! He's the best narrator since Alan-A-Dale (but oohh, who do I prefer? Tough call!) And like Alan-A-Dale, Clopin manages to be both the omniscent narrator and a character in the story itself. Not only that, but he somehow manages to start off telling you Quasimodo's backstory before the events of the movie take place, then is a part of the main story, and finishes telling you how everything ends as if he was telling it after everything took place all along? Or maybe his storytelling at the front of the film takes place at a different time than when he does it at the end, or...or, maybe it's best not to even question it. Until a Canonical Clopin Timeline is released, anyway.

Least character: Since at least two of the gargoyles serve the purpose of a passing acknowledgement of the author of the book, so my vote goes to Esmerelda's goat. Whose name is...Djali, I think? What did he/she? do, again? Other than tag along and not provide as much comic relief as it was probably originally meant to?

Overall: The very novelty of a G-rated Disney animated full-length feature that takes itself serious got me hooked, and the successful effort put into telling the story in a consistently entertaining way reeled me in.

*The name Phoebus, particular given to a straight-man character, might be the funniest thing of the whole 91 minutes. Phoebus. Try saying it aloud without even smiling!

Amanda's part

-------------

I'm a Hunchback fan.  I didn't see it in theaters, but my parents bought the movie as soon as it came out and I was pleased to watch it over and over again.

There's a lot to criticize, if you feel like getting nit-picky.  Those three gargoyle comic relief characters weren't terribly useful in any way.  They weren't funny, they did very little to push along the plot (especially when you consider that their personalities were hallucinated by Quasi himself and it's even acknowledged as such within the film), and the big war scene at the end only served to confuse me about their existance in that particular universe.

There was all the potty humor.  I suppose that it was simply a reflection of the era in which the movie was made.  At the same time in film making history, a lot of the writers thought that throwing in a groin hit or a few belches was enough to make the audience role in the aisles. MAybe at the time that was true, but it didn't cross over into this millenia at least for this viewer.

The computer generated crowd sequences were distractingly weird looking most especially in the overhead scenes when they seemed to be rendered as a sea of fleash colored dots.

Oh but then the score! Holy crap that is some intensely awesome, deep, bold, big, goosebump inducing excitement!  I love this style of music.  I grew up being taken to church every single week and I'm one of those people who ISN'T exaggerating about that.  I had Sunday school at 9:30 every Sunday and I had to go to either the mass before it or the mass after it.  Plus I was raised Catholic and heard all the latin words that I didn't really understand over and over.  Of course the older I got the more interested I was in things like other languages, symbolism, chord progression, etc.  Let me just say that this movie does all of that stuff right!

As for the characters, Quasimodo himself is a well acted and drawn character and his plight is sympathetic.  Esmeralda is headstrong and independant (perhaps annoyingly so, but this too is heavily influenced by the era.  Every female was headstrong and independant) but fights for a noble cause.  Frollo is despicable in the juiciest way and my favorite voice actor in the film.  Phoebus is on the lowest rung when it comes to main characters, but at least he does have some personality to speak of.  It's a shame he doesn't get any singing time because Kevin Kline could have done his own singing voice.

Favorite Character: Mostly Arbitrarily: Achilles, the Horse.  It's possibly a cheat to call him my favorite, but that horse made an impression on me.  I feel that every single other character (including the background extras) is heavily charicatured.  In a world where even the heavy looks bizarre, I can't help but appreciate how realistic, subtle, and well animated that horse is.  It's unfortunate that he was named just for a lame pun.  Couldn't it at least have been a GOOD pun?

Least necessary Character: "I'm free, I'm free!... DANG IT!"

Overall: It's thoroughly enjoyable to watch a Disney movie that doesn't at all fit the sugary sweet, constant playtime atmosphere that most people imagine.  There are a lot of dark moments and heavy themes including death, self-worth, lust, sacrifice, and religion.  It's colorful enough for kids, but fleashed out enough for adults and I'm surprised I've gone so long without owning this one.

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.

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

-----------------

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:
----------------------------

D52 - Week 30 - Beauty & the Beast

Kevin, the Enchanted Sketchpad
---------------------------------
The first thing for me to get out of the way is, Beauty & the Beast is a masterfully created film, and is a likely candidate for Best D52 Movie Overall. Oh, I'm sure you can find a flaw or two. What movie has none at all? But they would be the kind of flaws on the scale of finding a few grains of rice overcooked in your lobster risotto with truffled corn cream, crispy leek and puree of fine herbs*. It doesn't ruin the overall dish, and you're only really noticing it because of how much you're savoring the whole thing, and you're savoring it because it's worth savoring. If I may continue the food analogy, The Rescuers Down Under was a Snickers bar. Also quite enjoyable but not worth tweeting a picture to brag to your friends about. Or something.
When B&tB first came out I was a kid, and as such didn't have a very refined palate. So I would opt for junk food over fancy cooked meals and, similarly, I didn't appreciate this movie as much as I should have. I was more into...let's see, what came out the same year...ooh, Darkwing Duck! Yeah, I watched the heck out of that. But yet didn't pay much attention to Beauty & the Beast. Well, Snickers does satisfy.
And Beauty & the Beast is very, how do I put it, classical indeed. It's what I would think of as fairly highbrow theater, or at least high enough brow without being inaccessible to children. The gags somehow remind of the type of gags you might see in a live Broadway show. You certainly won't find any pop culture references (see: the movie after this) or fart jokes (see: the movie after that). Maybe that's why I didn't cotton to as a little one. It never gets too too silly. By which I mean, silly enough to have Beast making a mess of his mane with his food but not as silly as a mallard dressing up as a superhero and fighting villainous duck-billed anthropomorphic plants and electrocuting or liquidous dogs. And while I still enjoy very-silly, I think I appreciate not-too-silly now too.
I didn't see this film when it first came out, but I did see its 3-D rerelease earlier this year. And it only recently hit me that that was the only time I've seen any D52 movie in a theater. Would any of them be more appreciated with full surround sound and a screen that can fit several mes? I...actually thought the art quality kind of suffered with the theatrical experience. There's something about seeing slightly off drawn faces that makes that even more off. Or maybe instead, or compounding that, it was retrofitting the characters and settings and things into three dimensions. Amanda and I only paid for the tickets because we wanted to see Beauty & the Beast in a theater, not because we wanted to see it in 3-D. I've emphasized this point plenty before, and it's too bad that by paying for the 3-D tickets at all we're surely not making the point well to the distributors themselves. Ah well. Maybe it'll look better in Finding Nemo?
It was quite nice to hear the soundtrack through proper high-end sound equipment. This also may be nitpicking but the only thing I don't like is when the use of separate channels makes you realize you're watching a movie with strategically placed speakers, such as when you hear a knock on the door that comes from a particular corner of the room. But for the music...oh, man, the music. Maybe it's because I'm not what one would call musically gifted, but it amazes me when not one but two people working together can write and compose a set of songs that are not only consistently catchy, interesting, and can stand the test of time, but also each have a unique storytelling purpose and weave into the main story in the most seamless possible way. Really, think about how hard it must be to write a musical (well)! Think about all of the rock or pop or whatever musicians who go against the odds to create one or two or a few songs that are catchy and creative and memorable, and how must work and thought goes into that, AND THEN imagine how amazing it is to use that much creative energy to make an album's worth of music, all in one limited time frame, that each sequentially move along the characters in a story created by someone else. And to make each of those songs beloved in their own right....
Basically what I'm saying is it's top-of-the-line stuff.
But how about the story? If I may go back to my Little Shop of Horrors comparison. In both cases the story itself is kind of ... dumb. As tends to be the case when magical curses or alien plants are involved. I still don't get exactly what Audrey and Seymour actually have in common, and the case for Belle's possible stockholm syndrome is quite astute, and why didn't Seymour consider using stray animals to feed the plant before going straight to humans and why did everyone else in the castle have to pay for the way Adam treated the woman anyway?
So it doesn't quite mesh with, like, reality, but that may be the beauty of it. The very idea of taking an idea that sounds on paper like it should be stupid, but making it actually surprisingly watchable, is rather impressive. Not unlike using the right creative team to make My Little Pony much more entertaining than it should be!
So with all of this obvious admiration, is there anything about this week's feature that I don't like? Weeeelll, there is that added-in-later "Being Human" sequence. There isn't anything wrong with the song itself, but what bugs me is its placement. Here we the viewing audience are, getting to the climax, we're waiting to see what's going to happen with Belle and Beast's relationship, and Gaston and his mob are getting ready to strike, and everything's up in the air aaand - we get a light-hearted song that doesn't really have anything to do with what's going on. It kills the tension! Also, is it canonically official that Beast has trouble reading? Because before the Being Human scene "existed," my interpretation had always been that Adam/Beast enjoyed reading, and that's why he had that huge library and why he wanted to share it with Belle. Amanda disagrees by saying that it just happens to be in the castle because it was handed down through the royal line and yes, I'm sure that he hasn't personally read every single one of those books, but it does make a big difference on the "real" meaning behind that scene. I had always took it as a reveal that Belle and Adam shared a love of books, and a common interest is pretty darn significant as far as a building relationship is concerned. And it means even more when you consider Gaston dismissing a book because it doesn't have any pictures. You get to make a clear assessment: Belle loves books. Gaston doesn't care for books. Beast also loves books. Therefore Beast is more "right" for Belle. But the added scene shows that Beast doesn't. That changes the intention altogether. Now it means he was just showing her the library as a way of saying, "I know you like books, so here's a bunch that I happen to have because of my wealthy lineage." Where's the love in that? It doesn't even seem generous, if he didn't intend on using them anyway. I don't care for Belle's teaching Beast to read as a thing for their relationship, because who's to say that Gaston wouldn't let down his tough front and read with her after getting to know her long enough too?

Tidbits:
 -I find it kind of jarring when Belle actually calls the beast "Beast!" during the climactic finale. Does this mean she was calling him "Beast" during any of their off-camera time together? Come to think of it, does she ever call him by that name in any of the midquels like Belle's Enchanted World or Magical Christmas or whatever? You would think her finding an appropriate way to address him would fall somewhere in the whole "falling in love" process.
-I like to imagine that, after the curse was lifted, the occupants of the castle continue to do things as their respective object forms out of pure habit. Mrs. Potts absentmindedly tries to pour tea out of the middle of her face, Lumiere has to bother with actually lighting matches, and so forth.
-I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I really do hope that the opening-soon Be Our Guest restaurant in Walt Disney World's new Fantasyland has on the menu an item plainly called "The Gray Stuff." At the very least, the waiters should offer something that happens to be gray and recommend that you try it on account of its deliciousness.
-Gaston, you eat five dozen eggs and use antlers in all of your decorating. Are you really one to judge another's mental health?


Favorite character: The Beast has more emotional complexity and a better performance of them than all of the wild things from the Where the Wild Things Are movie combined.
Least necessary character: You would think the footstool dog would get the chance to do something at some point. Maybe he was practice for the rug in Aladdin.
Overall: With stellar animation, art, acting, direction, music and just about everything, it's hard to find a minute in Beauty & the Beast that isn't worth watching.

*See Food Porn Daily (SFW)


Amanda, the Enchanted [???]
...............................
Hoo boy.  Now we're talkin'! We're talking a big production where all the brightest and best young artists are all work on the same film and each of them is contributing absolutely everything that they have into each of their prospective specialties. 

For starters, whoa.  The animators sure cut their teeth good and hard on Little Mermaid, Rescuers Down Under, and Oliver and Company.  Now that they have grown up teeth there didn't seem to be anything that was too big for them to chew! The subtlety in facial expressions, the weight of body mass, the showmanship of the big crowds all thrill me and yet also do not distract me from the important bits.

As for the music, well, I love me some big ol' off Broadway productions that happen to be accessible to everyone in America and then some for a meager ticket price and actually use a huge cast of Broadway actors.  Now, I'm not saying Broadway actors are "better" than Hollywood actors because many choose to do both or transition from one to the other, I'm just saying that when this film was made, it was clear from the get-go that it was more than any previous Disney musical had been before.  While in many of the Golden Age movies, the music was at best, a way to change the tone of the movie, and at least, a way to pad out the running time with amusing song and dance routines for characters that otherwise aren't strictly necessary to the plot.

As for the story?  Yeah, Kevin's right, it's not necessarily the most believable or even belief suspending thing I've ever seen, but the pacing is so good and it's such a simple basic "Don't judge a book by its cover" story that it doesn't really need to be a piece of classic literature.  The joy here is the characters and seeing how they fit into their world and seeing how they react to each other.  Belle is so very different from Beast and yet they work together as a couple.  Belle is ALSO so different from Gaston, and yet they clash so distinctly.  Even some of the most minor characters are as memorable as the leads.  While she was never shown as a human after the transformation scene, I can picture her perfectly.  While Marie doesn't look anything like the feather duster she turned into and she has hardly any screen time all and yet after the transformation, there's no question of her identity even without the painfully obvious roles of servitude that each of the castle's objects played.

As for nit-picking? Yeah, I can do it with the best of them.  I was highly annoyed with the Spielberg-ing that was done to this film when it was re-released.  I know not everyone agrees, but I prefer to accept the idea that art, regardless of its form, represents an era.  It may become a classic for all time, but it still came into being during a certain time.  That perhaps time restraints and lack of funds might have stunted what it could have been, but that's all part of the artistry!  Make do with what you have and be proud of what you end up with.  While I don't hate the added "Human Again" sequence and I recognize its use in the Broadway version of the show, it really doesn't belong in this movie.  Making the extra scene a whole decade later caused some very clear jarring visual differences during the abrupt transitions.  While the animators and voice cast all came back for this encore performance, you can't bottle lightning.  I hate to get caught up in analogies, but while ecofriendly halogens may be the norm today, you can't force them to fit into out of date sockets and expect the same ambiance.  I suggest that such effort should have been put into making a better sequel or perhaps a christmas mid-quel that made a little more sense and had better music and animation in general.  But I suppose that's for some other year? (Don't hold your breath. Not a promise.)

Favorite Character: LeFou.  In my mind, LeFou is madly in love with Gaston.  He showers Big G with compliments, he tags along everywhere whether he's wanted or not, and he obeys every order he's given.  Poor guy went after a straight man and got permanently assigned to the Friend Zone.
Least Necessary Characters: The Bimbettes.  I'm no feminist (frankly I hover on the line between anti- and unconcerned) but even they gross me right out.  Come on, ladies.  If one of you ever got him, what would the other two do?  Blood is thicker. Bam.
Overall:  Need you ask?  Watch it.  Watch the original version and appreciate it.  Watch the re-release and appreciate how far technology has come in a decade.  But you needn't bother with Belle's magical world or Belle's Enchanted Christmas.

[Ask Amanda about her line-for-line performance of the entire movie. -KM]
Oh geez, fine.  Because this is so beloved a movie and came out at a time that fit perfectly into my adolescent life, I have rewatched it enough times to be able to recite it word for word and lyric by lyric.  Kevin challenged me and I accepted.  I assumed he would get annoyed quickly and tell me to shut up.  I was counting on it!  And then he decided to apply Film and Theater styles on me.
"Now the Beast has a Mexican accent," he says.
"Now you also narrate all the animals' thoughts," he says.
"Now Belle is played by Kristen Stewart as Bella Swan."

Let me just say.... Success. Hilarity. Equal mix of pride and shame.

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.

D52 - Week 28 - The Little Mermaid

Merkevin:
---------------
There isn't much to say about the plot that The Nostalgia Chick hasn't already hit right on the nail. And yeah, when you break down the plot it is all rather silly and though I've watched it a few times I still don't understand exactly why Ursula wants those limbo soul creatures exactly? But...dang, it has a great soundtrack, doesn't it? I don't care. It makes it all worthwhile. It's like how a thoroughly entertaining musical was made from the really dumb story of Roger Corman's Little Shop of Horrors! I bet the composer and writer of The Little Mermaid must've been inspired by Little Shop. It certainly doesn't hurt that the art style and animation is clearly improving around this time. Except for...oh, I wish I could make or find a .gif of it. But, if you happen to get the chance, slow-motion the carriage horse as he's going into the tunnel. Those frames are hilariously awkward. But it does remind me of how, with hand-drawn animation created by many hands, you get characters that sometimes look slightly different in different scenes. A more realistic Ariel some time after or before a more cartoony one. This is one of those things you don't really get in CGI productions. Is it a good thing in that it helps you appreciate the different people who worked on it or a bad thing because of its distractingness?
I suppose I would call it a guilty pleasure in the sense that normal society dictates that it's weird for a straight man to appreciate a masterfully created musical. Hey, if Brony culture can be a thing, how about a subculture for men of all ages who appreciate the music of The Little Mermaid? We just need some sort of amalgamistic name.
It's already been pointed out that WALL-E is similar to Ariel, what with his finding human things and coming up with unexpected uses for them, and immediately falling in love with the first being of other origin he sees, and all. But I'll add that Remy the Rat is Arielish, too. What with his rebelling against his father for despising humans* but in the end helping him understand that not all humans are so bad. Though I do wonder. If Prince Eric eats seafood, does Ariel at some point after the marriage bring up the issue? As in, "hey, don't eat that lobster, I knew him!"?


Tidbits: Is it just me, or does Prince Eric look like...no, no. He is. He is Dave Seville from the 1980s Alvin & the Chipmunks series. The same person. Ditched the Chipmunks, changed his name, became a prince. That's what happened.
Also: "Leave no shell unturned?" Wh...why can't you use the expression "leave no stone unturned?" There are stones under the sea, aren't there?
*Remy's distaste for humans makes perfect sense but what of King Triton's? He says it's because they kill and eat fish but...don't many sea creatures themselves eat fish too? Does Triton hate whales, then?
Favorite character: I would say Ursula, but I know Amanda would pick her too anyway, so for the sake of another vote, Sebastian. Note how he happens to have a Jamaican accent, but by being uptight and not-at-all relaxed, he goes against the typical Jamaican stereotype. It's a nice change from, say, Oliver and Company's Tito.
Least necessary character: What did Flounder do, again? I mean, besides flounder.

Overall: The Little Mermaid might just be a contender for one of my favorite Disney movies. It makes me want to sing alo - I mean, uh, because Ariel is totally hot. Yeah, that's it.




Mermanda:
------------
-.-. --- -- .. -. --.   .- -   ... --- -- .   .--. --- .. -. -   .. -.   - .... .   ..-. ..- - ..- .-. .
I am a female and therefore I am obligated to like this movie.

However, I have a brain and therefore I am also obligated to consider the reasons for liking this movie.  I think a lot of it has to do with the very formulaic approach brought by the Broadway musical duo of Menken and Ashman.  A stage musical requires certain key elements to always be present if it wants to make a big impression and these two men had all but mastered them by this point in their careers.  Watch or listen to the soundtrack of any successful musical (and when I say successful I mean if you can name it and any random person on the street recognizes it) from Gilbert and Sullivan to Sondheim and you'll notice it.

First of all, Ariel is an everymerwoman of the era.  During the late eighties and early nineties American culture was such that fitting in was either equally or less important than standing out. I should know because I grew up in it.  Ariel perfectly fit in because she was beautiful, had a nice family, had impressive talents, and a couple close friends to act as sidekicks.  She stood out because she was fascinated with the human world and collected the things she saw there and that goes against her father and society at large.  In essence she stood out because what she had wasn't enough. She sings a song that expresses her deep desires and the audience is basically given the chance to understand her very soul and fall in love with the character and have her dreams be their dreams and let her success be their success.

Next up, when chance throws a big old opportunity her way, her dreams are magnified and perhaps she sees them as attainable.  We're all rooting for her!  At the same time, we are introduced to one of the most over the top, indulgent, entertaining villains that we both love to hate AND love to love!  She has a dark lair and she broods and talks to herself and sums up everything she sees so that the audience has a super easy time following the plot!  Her scheming and sidekicks bring the heroine and villain together and one of my all time favorite villain songs gives us all the information we need to understand the ticking clock of the second act.

Finally, a huge exciting battle involving disguises and magic opens up an ending in which our heroine is finally understood and accepted by her old society and her family and everyone wishes her well and she lives happily ever after the end!

Good feelings all around.  And do you see the formula? Endear the main character. Express her desires. Introduce the conflict. Have a big and clear climax. Happy ending. (And there's a song for nearly every one of these steps that isn't just frivolous.)

Favorite Character: Ursula... thanks Kevin for letting me have her all to myself.  She's based on a drag queen! I mean come, ON!
Least favorite Character: I agree. Flounder is pretty useless.  If Sebastian can get all those animals to make music in the lake, why couldn't he just ask a random passing dolphin to pull Ariel?  It seems like the only purpose he served was to accidentally tattle on Ariel for talking to a seagull.  I see no reason why she couldn't have accidentally outed herself.
Overall: Watch the nostalgia Chick because she makes some good points, and then go ahead and enjoy this movie anyway because it's fun and it's a classic and it's pretty obviously the turning point that cuts the ribbon for the new and exciting Disney Renaissance.