Kevinosaurus
--------------
This one is just so weird. First of all none of it even really seems like "a Disney movie." Which is why I wasn't surprised to see no recognizable names in the credits (save a few of the voice actors). It's not even like a third-party-created-but-released-by-Disney movie. It's not even like watching leading competing animation studio's work (I'll get to Atlantis and Treasure Planet later). It's like this foreign-made film that has nothing to do with Disney and isn't even trying to be like Disney. So the very experience of watching it, expecting "a Disney movie," while it seems to constantly contradict that, is a weird one. It's not even just the animation quality, or even the story too, but ... everything about it.
But let me start with the animation. I believe back near the beginning of the year I commented about the use of hand-drawn animation over live action footage from Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros. In those cases it seemed like a gimmick, but at least it was a fairly fun gimmick, and it paved the way for better use of the technique. In "Dinosaur," we get computer-generated animation over live non-action footage, which comes across less as a gimmick even and more as just a way to save time and money on having to render all of the scenery. And it's hard to say it was even particularly novel at the time, since the audiences of the year 2000 would have already seen that sort of thing - computer dinosaurs transposed over actual footage - seven years earlier in "Jurassic Park." And the computer animation in "Dinosaur" isn't even a whole lot better. I know it's easy to criticize graphics many years later after huge advances have been made, but even Toy Story 2, released in '99, holds up pretty well today. I realize in Toy Story's case it helps that most of the characters and environments were artificial in nature and of course simulated more easily, but that is the point I'm going for here. Since animation technology at the time apparently wasn't sufficient enough to make believable animals in believable organic environments, Dinosaur suffers with off-putting models that I don't want to spend the entire length of a feature seeing.
Maybe it wouldn't so bad if the story itself was interesting in some way at all. But it's pretty darn cliché-packed, what with the young idealistic kid having trouble exposing his novel and ground-breaking ideas to the thoughtless masses, and the girl he meets who he should get with on the grounds that it's the first girl he meets despite her having to warm up to him, and the HORRIBLY UNFUNNY sidekick AGH YOU ARE SO UNFUNNY IT'S PAINFUL. To summarize the plot, various events happen. It's another weird thing about this movie, and I'm not even sure how much of it is due to the weird visuals. But I never really feel like I'm "in" the movie. And I can get "into" even a bad movie, like The Black Cauldron. But for this one it was more like I was just ... seeing things happen. I get what's going on not because I'm feeling the situation through the eyes of the characters but because I see the characters doing things and I understand what feelings I'm supposed to have for them. Like, there's this bad guy named Kron. Here's where I get lost in moral grey areas. Still feel like reading? I won't blame you if you feel like skipping at any point. Okay. So. One of the things that separate humans from animals is a separate set of morals. It's a society thing. For us helping the less fortunate and differently-abled is just plain the right thing to do, because we're at the point where we don't need to worry about protecting our species and letting only the fittest survive and all that. It just doesn't apply to us. So we might witness a small rodent-sized pet mother who, say, eats its own young, and that's horrible, but only really because we're applying it to our social structure. We don't even want to think of the possibility of a human parent doing anything like that, because obviously that would be horrible to us. It would be morally reprehensible because he or she should know better. But when a wild animal in a natural environment sacrifices the weak for the good of the survival of its own kind in the long run...well, that instinct is there for a reason, isn't it?
The reason I bring this all up is, the lesson we're supposed to learn in Dinosaur is a bit hinky to me. Aladar believes it's wrong to leave the slower members of the herd behind, and Kron is painted as being evil for believing only the strong should survive. If Aladar and Kron were people, I would have no problem with this. But they're dinosaurs! In the wild! Walking on four legs and foraging for food! And their very existence was even endangered at the time! It's one thing when it's anthropomorphic animals in a human-style setting (like Robin Hood) but when they're very animal-like animals in an animal setting, applying human morals seems as out of place as...well, any historical inaccuracies you may have noticed.
Talking point: Is Kron evil, or is he just an animal doing what an animal would be expected to do? If your housecat attacks a field mouse that finds its way into the house, does that mean your cat is evil?
Favorite Character: Kron, but only for the single reason that the same voice actor was also Sebastian the Crab, and that fact is so far the most and only amusing thing about this movie.
Least necessary character: "The love monkey." Get out of here with your exasperatingly unfunny trailer comments that don't fit the tone of everything else in the movie.
Overall: While there was certainly a lot of work put into the visuals of Dinosaur (strangely the "making of" features make it look better than it does when I actually watch the movie), they just don't play well enough to save the lackluster story and its unlikeable characters.
So it's come to this: I am now looking forward to watching a movie starring David Spade.
Amandadon
------------
Ughh.
UUUUGGHGHHHHHHGHGHHHH....
The Love monkey? Oh kill me now. That meteor can't come fast enough.
Dinosaur seems like the red-headed step-child masquerading as a genuine Disney movie. There are so many aspects to it that cause it to stand apart from the entirety of Disney's other works and let's not consider it a compliment.
Aladar is an iguanadon who was lost as an egg and was raised by a family of slightly wonky-moving lemurs. This would be interesting and possibly enhance his character somewhat if we were allowed to see some of his challenges growing up and witness any of his interactions with his family so that the cast would have some character to it. Unfortunately while taking advantage of some technology that is as jarring as it is beautiful (blending live-action footage with CGI characters), we skip from baby is found straight to mating day in the clan. This movie could have taken a cue from Tarzan and been about Aladar's isolation growing up with no one else like him. During the first few scenes, it seems like it might be going that way.
Suddenly a meteor! The (now abbreviated) family of lemurs and Aladar escape explosive destruction and run into a large mixed species herd who are headed towards a breeding grounds which escaped the fateful cosmic catastrophe. Once again we have an idea introduced that attempts to be the theme of the movie: Successfully travel from point A to point B. This alone could also be a successful concept. However, Aladar as an outsider doesn't understand the rules of the pack and as a result meets some eccentric characters near the back of the line who are less abled do to age and intelligence issues than the rest. The theme is now Help Others and Work Together.
Aladar feels for these poor misfits and places himself among them and the sexy female Iguanadon is apparently impressed by this, so the theme has changed once again: Kindness is a virtue most especially to the less fortunate. It's a good thing the horrible jokes from the unlikeable lemur don't cause permanent damage. This one holds on for a while until they all get separated and end up in a cave cowering from big meat-eaters and as Aladar almost throws in the towel and the big elderly Dino gives a lecture, the theme suddenly shifts to Never Give Up.
Or... maybe it's Show Personal Responsibility in Your Community because Aladar runs off to lead the herd to his new found path and they all Work Together to fight off the meat-eater and Family is Who You Love and Who Loves You because Aladar has babies and the lemurs are there to help him.
OHHHHH Forget it!
TL;DR
This movie has no focus. The use of live animation is more distracting than enhancing. The characters are either bland or unbearable. The character animation and design hovers in this weird animal uncanny valley. The story is unoriginal, poorly told, and not terribly interesting to begin with. Have I found a movie I disliked more than Black Cauldron? Yes. I think I have.
Favorite character: The horned old lady. She may have been a bland character with cliche lines, but Della Reese acted the hell out of them!
Least necessary character: ALL of the freaking LEMURS, but that incredibly unfunny ugly one with no girlfriend is the most putrid.
Overall: Snoozefest, Rageparty... take your pick.
Saving Grace
On the upside, I bet that "Dinosaur!" the ride in Walt Disney World might not have come to fruition without this movie. I love the ride and I believe that a lot of the success of this ride is based on the fact that the imagineers made no attempt whatsoever to adhere to the plot.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Saturday, September 22, 2012
D52 - Week 38 - Fantasia 2000
Kevin's Piece
--------------
Remember watching the original Fantasia back in the third week of January? It kinda seems like forever ago. Now trying to imagine the gap being 59 years, now that's something else. I went back to my Fantasia post and was surprised at how little I had to say about it. I did write shorter reviews earlier in the year, and there's not much to say about less plotty features, but it was just over two hours long. Then you have Fantasia 2000, at...75 minutes? Huh. And yet - and Amanda will disagree with me - I found I enjoyed it more. Fantasia did have many great segments, but for me the only one that really stands out in my recollection is The Sorceror's Apprentice...which is in Fantasia 2000 as well anyway! Speaking of which, geez. I thought we were past the recycled animation era. The Sorceror's Apprentice from Fantasia 2000 blatantly copies so many animation sequences directly from The Sorceror's Apprentice from Fantasia! But seriously, it's an interesting choice to include that in the 2000 version. Similar to how I found Finding Nemo 3D a worthwhile additional experience even after having seen it many times on home video, I would've liked to have experienced The Sorceror's Apprentice in full theatrical sound. er, The Sorceror's Apprentice the short, not the Nicolas Cage movie. I mean, not to judge the Nic Cage one. For all I know its music might be quite good too.
As for the new segments, while not every piece is a home-run, the ones that are, are hit out of the park and into the stratosphere. The Rhapsody in Blue cartoon actually reminds me of Looney Tunes, but if they were done to a perfect Disney polish. If there's anything wrong with it, it's that the animation is timed so well with the music, that I'm distracted by my amazement at how well it's timed with the music. The Steadfast Tin Soldier has got the right idea with working around then-CGI's limitations through stylization. The Carnival of The Animals is short but sweet. My favorite's gotta be Donald Noah's Ark. I get a kick out of Donald's reaction to the other ducks on the ships. It's about time a Disney character has directly acknowledged the strangeness of Disney toon species, even if...no, especially because it was done as a fleeting gag. It even leaves more questions unanswered, like were Mickey and Minnie and Goofy somewhere on that ark and...well my point is it's a great philosophical piece.
The other pieces...are very pleasant to watch and listen to, but...what else can I say? Space whales and Mother Earth Stag.
Favorite character: It's great to see Donald in a D52 role again, and not flirting with human ladies.
Least necessary characters: I'm unclear: What exactly were the other soldiers off doing when the steadfast one was fighting for his girl?
Overall: Maybe it's because I'm partial to funny toons over terribly classy ones, but I'll take the eye-and-ear candy of Fantasia 2000 over the refined palate plates of Fantasia any day.
Amanda's opus
----------------
Fantasia 2000 to me had so much more potential in planning than what was used in the final movie. I'm not saying it was bad, because it wasn't, but it plays out more like a cheesy clip show than polished, carefully planned movie piece.
Kevin was right when he said I'd disagree with him, but I think it's entirely based in the idea of education. I always felt that the original Fantasia was a way to not only entertain audiences, but to educate them in some of the older finer musical culture of the world and to do so with a spoonful of sugar that is visual stimulation. Let us consider the opening sequences in which there is no story and the music doesn't evoke concrete ideas. I felt that stylistically the original enhanced the idea of surrealism and abstraction through the use of unusual and infrequently used media within the context of animation. I noticed how the brush marks made me think of chalk drawings, pastels, oil paints and anything other than pencil to paper animation. And yet despite all the details that I noticed, I was never distracted from the music that inspired the design and I could hum a few bars if you asked me. In the more recent film opening sequence, I felt distracted by the visuals rather than feeling that they complimented the music. It was almost too concrete and I couldn't think about just the music and the colors; I was distracted by thoughts like "those triangles look like butterflies... oh I guess that's what they're going for." and "Is that a waterfall? So we're in the forest?" As a result, I can't tell you the first song nor can I hum a few bars.
I can't say I'm a fan of the celebrity introductions either. I almost feel like the filmmakers believed that if they didn't have celebrities that the film wouldn't be interesting enough and that's just plain insulting to my intelligence.
When it comes to each musical sequence, standing alone they are all very nice, but all together there's just too much story for my taste. It makes this feature feel more like a package film than a night at the orchestra. While I understand bringing back The Sorcerer's Apprentice and introducing Donald's Pomp and Circumstance as the two big story pieces, I feel overwhelmed when being presented with The Steadfast Soldier, The Rhapsody in Blue's New Yorkers wishing for Happiness, The Naughty Flamingo, Green Goddess fights Fire, and Whales go to Heaven. The original Fantasia only gave story to The Sorcerer's Apprentice and all the other musical sequences had a very vague theme at best and for my taste, that's a good thing because the music which let's not forget came first and was the inspiration never takes a backseat.
Now once again, let me say that none of the sequences were bad! Each one stands alone and each one would be a very entertaining short with which to present before any other movie, but because they are each so strong on their own, they feel as if they are clashing within this one film.
Favorite Character: I miss The Soundtrack... but I'll pick The Flamingo with his Yo-Yo. It's short, and it's a good laugh.
Least Necessary Character: All the Celebrities. I just don't see what was so wrong with a stoic narrator. He wasn't distracting and he wasn't trying to get a joke in and upstage everyone.
Overall: It's still good. There's a lot of beautiful animation and there's a lot of beautiful music and I just wish they could get along better instead of trying to play King of the Hill. It's still worth a watch and I hope very much that they come out with another Fantasia eventually because I really do enjoy a night at the Orchestra.
--------------
Remember watching the original Fantasia back in the third week of January? It kinda seems like forever ago. Now trying to imagine the gap being 59 years, now that's something else. I went back to my Fantasia post and was surprised at how little I had to say about it. I did write shorter reviews earlier in the year, and there's not much to say about less plotty features, but it was just over two hours long. Then you have Fantasia 2000, at...75 minutes? Huh. And yet - and Amanda will disagree with me - I found I enjoyed it more. Fantasia did have many great segments, but for me the only one that really stands out in my recollection is The Sorceror's Apprentice...which is in Fantasia 2000 as well anyway! Speaking of which, geez. I thought we were past the recycled animation era. The Sorceror's Apprentice from Fantasia 2000 blatantly copies so many animation sequences directly from The Sorceror's Apprentice from Fantasia! But seriously, it's an interesting choice to include that in the 2000 version. Similar to how I found Finding Nemo 3D a worthwhile additional experience even after having seen it many times on home video, I would've liked to have experienced The Sorceror's Apprentice in full theatrical sound. er, The Sorceror's Apprentice the short, not the Nicolas Cage movie. I mean, not to judge the Nic Cage one. For all I know its music might be quite good too.
As for the new segments, while not every piece is a home-run, the ones that are, are hit out of the park and into the stratosphere. The Rhapsody in Blue cartoon actually reminds me of Looney Tunes, but if they were done to a perfect Disney polish. If there's anything wrong with it, it's that the animation is timed so well with the music, that I'm distracted by my amazement at how well it's timed with the music. The Steadfast Tin Soldier has got the right idea with working around then-CGI's limitations through stylization. The Carnival of The Animals is short but sweet. My favorite's gotta be Donald Noah's Ark. I get a kick out of Donald's reaction to the other ducks on the ships. It's about time a Disney character has directly acknowledged the strangeness of Disney toon species, even if...no, especially because it was done as a fleeting gag. It even leaves more questions unanswered, like were Mickey and Minnie and Goofy somewhere on that ark and...well my point is it's a great philosophical piece.
The other pieces...are very pleasant to watch and listen to, but...what else can I say? Space whales and Mother Earth Stag.
Favorite character: It's great to see Donald in a D52 role again, and not flirting with human ladies.
Least necessary characters: I'm unclear: What exactly were the other soldiers off doing when the steadfast one was fighting for his girl?
Overall: Maybe it's because I'm partial to funny toons over terribly classy ones, but I'll take the eye-and-ear candy of Fantasia 2000 over the refined palate plates of Fantasia any day.
Amanda's opus
----------------
Fantasia 2000 to me had so much more potential in planning than what was used in the final movie. I'm not saying it was bad, because it wasn't, but it plays out more like a cheesy clip show than polished, carefully planned movie piece.
Kevin was right when he said I'd disagree with him, but I think it's entirely based in the idea of education. I always felt that the original Fantasia was a way to not only entertain audiences, but to educate them in some of the older finer musical culture of the world and to do so with a spoonful of sugar that is visual stimulation. Let us consider the opening sequences in which there is no story and the music doesn't evoke concrete ideas. I felt that stylistically the original enhanced the idea of surrealism and abstraction through the use of unusual and infrequently used media within the context of animation. I noticed how the brush marks made me think of chalk drawings, pastels, oil paints and anything other than pencil to paper animation. And yet despite all the details that I noticed, I was never distracted from the music that inspired the design and I could hum a few bars if you asked me. In the more recent film opening sequence, I felt distracted by the visuals rather than feeling that they complimented the music. It was almost too concrete and I couldn't think about just the music and the colors; I was distracted by thoughts like "those triangles look like butterflies... oh I guess that's what they're going for." and "Is that a waterfall? So we're in the forest?" As a result, I can't tell you the first song nor can I hum a few bars.
I can't say I'm a fan of the celebrity introductions either. I almost feel like the filmmakers believed that if they didn't have celebrities that the film wouldn't be interesting enough and that's just plain insulting to my intelligence.
When it comes to each musical sequence, standing alone they are all very nice, but all together there's just too much story for my taste. It makes this feature feel more like a package film than a night at the orchestra. While I understand bringing back The Sorcerer's Apprentice and introducing Donald's Pomp and Circumstance as the two big story pieces, I feel overwhelmed when being presented with The Steadfast Soldier, The Rhapsody in Blue's New Yorkers wishing for Happiness, The Naughty Flamingo, Green Goddess fights Fire, and Whales go to Heaven. The original Fantasia only gave story to The Sorcerer's Apprentice and all the other musical sequences had a very vague theme at best and for my taste, that's a good thing because the music which let's not forget came first and was the inspiration never takes a backseat.
Now once again, let me say that none of the sequences were bad! Each one stands alone and each one would be a very entertaining short with which to present before any other movie, but because they are each so strong on their own, they feel as if they are clashing within this one film.
Favorite Character: I miss The Soundtrack... but I'll pick The Flamingo with his Yo-Yo. It's short, and it's a good laugh.
Least Necessary Character: All the Celebrities. I just don't see what was so wrong with a stoic narrator. He wasn't distracting and he wasn't trying to get a joke in and upstage everyone.
Overall: It's still good. There's a lot of beautiful animation and there's a lot of beautiful music and I just wish they could get along better instead of trying to play King of the Hill. It's still worth a watch and I hope very much that they come out with another Fantasia eventually because I really do enjoy a night at the Orchestra.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
D52 - Week 37 - Tarzan
Me Kevin...
-----------
It's one thing to watch a movie based on a book before reading the book. It's another thing to see the movie after reading the book. But it's yet another thing to watch the movie in the middle (well, less than a third) of reading its book! It did affect me such that it distracts me into constantly comparing. "Well this was different but I wonder if this will be in the book?" ""Well if they did this part then how will they..." and so forth. But so far I can already tell that the character himself is presented VERY differently between the two versions. Wouldn't you know, it turns out the Disney version is less dark and much more light-hearted than the source material! How about that? Which isn't a good or bad thing, really. Print Tarzan so far is more gripping than I was expecting, but it is hard to like the character. He's borderline sadistic. Disney Tarzan is more endearing, and he's funny, but - and this separates him from other humorous Disney princes* - he isn't consciously trying to be funny. Just, a lot of things he does happen to come off comedically. His face looking an awfully lot like (current) 'Weird Al' Yankovic does have an affect, too. Even Jane is funnier than the average Disney princess**, what with her kookiness. She's certainly more fun than I was expecting her to be, anyway. And while we're going through the cast of characters, Clayton is played by Brian Blessed, and that's just cool. Terk and Tantor? I got too much of a Timon and Pumbaa vibe from them. What did they do anyway? They grew up with the main character in the jungle, the smart-mouthed one got angrily jealous when the main character started to fall in love, and the two contribute a bit in saving the day near the end with brute force. But Kala is definitely in the running for Best Disney Mother. Most other Disney moms are either: 1) Non-existent, 2) Killed off early in the picture, 3) Evil, or 4) Bland. Hopefully the minor technicality of not having actually given birth to Tarzan doesn't disqualify her. Kerchak is even a memorable Disney dad-type, in that he has a character flaw to work through, but it's one that doesn't make him an outright villain.
So the cast of characters is pretty well fleshed out, and they serve the story well. Granted a lot of the story is told through montages, but...well, as far as montages go they're very good montages. The opening montage is one of my favorite parts of the movie. It's possible I may have liked it less if I didn't already know what was going on before being bombarded by that much information at once, but since I did it's great stuff.
What do I not like about this feature? Having to hear Phil Collin's voice. I don't have an issue with his music, since I can see (hear?) it working in that sort of idyllic environment, but I find his vocals so unwelcome. Here I am, watching a rather good Tarzan adaptation, with this wonderfully created atmosphere, and the denizens of the jungle undergoing complex emotional issues, and then Phil Collins has to speak up about it. Or, sing up about it, rather. Oh well. Should I be thankful it wasn't Randy Newman?
Though I do like the overall look it seems rather a shame that so much of the jungle had to be rendered computer-wise, considering the process wasn't near perfected at that time. Maybe back then it seemed impressive, and I'm sure the creators were all excited about using those new techniques to make scenes like those roller coaster rides through the treetops, but looking back I can't help but think how much nicer everything would've looked painted. Painted flora does have a longer track record of looking pretty, after all.
Oh, and hey. Speaking of beautiful imagery that's pleasing to look at. (to be continued....)
Favorite character: Tarzan strikes me as the kind of character that Aladdin should've been.
Least necessary: Normally someone like Mr. Porter would be the comic relief of the movie, but since Jane herself is comic-reliefy, his role seems redundant. It would've been weird if Clayton and Jane were traveling by themselves, but Archimedes doesn't get to actually do much of anything.
Overall: Since I'd always dismissed the Tarzan story as I understood it (before having actually read or seen any Tarzan stories) as uninteresting, I was pleasantly surprised to be as captivated by Disney's Tarzan as I was, and it would be worth watching again.
*Of course Tarzan is a prince. He ends up becoming King of the Jungle? So surely as a youngster he is Prince of the Jungle.
**Let's say that jungle law dictates that when Tarzan and Jane became an item, at the time that Tarzan was "Prince of the Jungle," that made Jane "Princess of the Jungle."
Me Amanda:
--------------
Curse you, Kevin! Why did you have to mention Weird Al? Now I can't unsee! Bah.
Anyway, I too am feeling the effects of having only partly read the book before watching the movie. It almost gives the feeling that you're right there with the story team making decisions. Had I been with the story boarders, I'm not sure there is too much I would do differently. It's true that this movie is very montage heavy, but we have to consider the fact that the story intends to cover nearly two decades over the course of 80ish minutes. To be fair, they are very well done montages. Each montage seems to have been built to last exactly the length of one Phil Collins song and thus have the feeling of a music video with a strong plot. While I don't share the same animosity towards Phil's singing voice as Kevin does, I do think some of his lyrics are a bit poorly spun. One in particular bothers me the most: "The wisdom to be wise." What does that mean? If you have wisdom, then you are wise. There are others, and I won't list them all, but to Phil Collins, it seems that the rhythm of the words is more important than the lines making sense. In his defense, the percussion heavy score feels very natural in this environment.
Speaking of the environment, can we say lush? Wow. I disagree with Kevin here in that I don't think the computer generated imagery was poorly done. Perhaps the roller coastering was a bit gimicky, but it did make sense in the context of the Baboon chase. There were a few moments when Kevin said "Oh well, that's done by computers!" and if he hadn't said it, I probably wouldn't have noticed. But computery or not, it's very lush, very deep, and truly beautiful.
Tarzan himself is incredibly likable. He's strong, curious, playful, good to his mother, challenging and yet still respectful to his father, and has the depth of character that allows him to carry the story far better than any of the other male Disney Headliners so far. He's a strong guy like Hercules, but he's just trying to live a normal life instead of aiming for glory. He's a self-sufficient guy like Aladdin, but he's not a lying, cocky, dreamer whose life isn't good enough for him. Tarzan, to me, is a slice of life in which the slice happens to have a lot of unexpected ingredients.
New information: I'm not a mutant freak, I'm a different species.
New acquaintances: Not everyone has the same goals (mere survival) as I do.
New emotions: My mother whom I love, betrayed my trust by withholding information. My new friend is a woman and I know nothing of how to court her. My father whom I respect is preventing me from easily and thoroughly exploring my newly learned heritage.
New environments: I simply don't understand how to maneuver through this ship full of smooth steel and polished wood.
In the end, it really becomes a Nature versus Nurture story and as seems to be the case in every situation, there is no victor because the two always find some balance between them. Tarzan was born a man, but raised an ape and there's no changing that identity, there is only coming to terms with it. In truth aren't we all a little bit happier and more complete when we are able to commune in some way with our wild ancestry?
If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go farm in my back yard for a while.
Favorite character: Boy those Pocahontas Owls sure were funny! Seriously though, all the characters here are so fleshed out that it's hard to choose one to be a favorite. I think I'm heavily influenced by Kevin's praise in selecting Kala. She's a really heavy character and the fact that she's a "Disney Mom" is quite an acheivement, let alone her being amazing at it.
Least necessary Character: The captain. He sure was heavily designed for a character that we barely talk to and only serves the purpose of being a ticking clock. The ship looming in the background seemed like it would have been enough.
Overall: I like this movie and I did when I first saw it too. Except for that silly shoo be doo sequence, everything has a purpose and while not completely faithful to the book, it's still one of the deepest thinking Disney Movies thus far. Except for that silly shoo be doo sequence, it might have been a little too heavy for most kids. Darn it all you silly shoo be doo sequence!
-----------
It's one thing to watch a movie based on a book before reading the book. It's another thing to see the movie after reading the book. But it's yet another thing to watch the movie in the middle (well, less than a third) of reading its book! It did affect me such that it distracts me into constantly comparing. "Well this was different but I wonder if this will be in the book?" ""Well if they did this part then how will they..." and so forth. But so far I can already tell that the character himself is presented VERY differently between the two versions. Wouldn't you know, it turns out the Disney version is less dark and much more light-hearted than the source material! How about that? Which isn't a good or bad thing, really. Print Tarzan so far is more gripping than I was expecting, but it is hard to like the character. He's borderline sadistic. Disney Tarzan is more endearing, and he's funny, but - and this separates him from other humorous Disney princes* - he isn't consciously trying to be funny. Just, a lot of things he does happen to come off comedically. His face looking an awfully lot like (current) 'Weird Al' Yankovic does have an affect, too. Even Jane is funnier than the average Disney princess**, what with her kookiness. She's certainly more fun than I was expecting her to be, anyway. And while we're going through the cast of characters, Clayton is played by Brian Blessed, and that's just cool. Terk and Tantor? I got too much of a Timon and Pumbaa vibe from them. What did they do anyway? They grew up with the main character in the jungle, the smart-mouthed one got angrily jealous when the main character started to fall in love, and the two contribute a bit in saving the day near the end with brute force. But Kala is definitely in the running for Best Disney Mother. Most other Disney moms are either: 1) Non-existent, 2) Killed off early in the picture, 3) Evil, or 4) Bland. Hopefully the minor technicality of not having actually given birth to Tarzan doesn't disqualify her. Kerchak is even a memorable Disney dad-type, in that he has a character flaw to work through, but it's one that doesn't make him an outright villain.
So the cast of characters is pretty well fleshed out, and they serve the story well. Granted a lot of the story is told through montages, but...well, as far as montages go they're very good montages. The opening montage is one of my favorite parts of the movie. It's possible I may have liked it less if I didn't already know what was going on before being bombarded by that much information at once, but since I did it's great stuff.
What do I not like about this feature? Having to hear Phil Collin's voice. I don't have an issue with his music, since I can see (hear?) it working in that sort of idyllic environment, but I find his vocals so unwelcome. Here I am, watching a rather good Tarzan adaptation, with this wonderfully created atmosphere, and the denizens of the jungle undergoing complex emotional issues, and then Phil Collins has to speak up about it. Or, sing up about it, rather. Oh well. Should I be thankful it wasn't Randy Newman?
Though I do like the overall look it seems rather a shame that so much of the jungle had to be rendered computer-wise, considering the process wasn't near perfected at that time. Maybe back then it seemed impressive, and I'm sure the creators were all excited about using those new techniques to make scenes like those roller coaster rides through the treetops, but looking back I can't help but think how much nicer everything would've looked painted. Painted flora does have a longer track record of looking pretty, after all.
Oh, and hey. Speaking of beautiful imagery that's pleasing to look at. (to be continued....)
Favorite character: Tarzan strikes me as the kind of character that Aladdin should've been.
Least necessary: Normally someone like Mr. Porter would be the comic relief of the movie, but since Jane herself is comic-reliefy, his role seems redundant. It would've been weird if Clayton and Jane were traveling by themselves, but Archimedes doesn't get to actually do much of anything.
Overall: Since I'd always dismissed the Tarzan story as I understood it (before having actually read or seen any Tarzan stories) as uninteresting, I was pleasantly surprised to be as captivated by Disney's Tarzan as I was, and it would be worth watching again.
*Of course Tarzan is a prince. He ends up becoming King of the Jungle? So surely as a youngster he is Prince of the Jungle.
**Let's say that jungle law dictates that when Tarzan and Jane became an item, at the time that Tarzan was "Prince of the Jungle," that made Jane "Princess of the Jungle."
Me Amanda:
--------------
Curse you, Kevin! Why did you have to mention Weird Al? Now I can't unsee! Bah.
Anyway, I too am feeling the effects of having only partly read the book before watching the movie. It almost gives the feeling that you're right there with the story team making decisions. Had I been with the story boarders, I'm not sure there is too much I would do differently. It's true that this movie is very montage heavy, but we have to consider the fact that the story intends to cover nearly two decades over the course of 80ish minutes. To be fair, they are very well done montages. Each montage seems to have been built to last exactly the length of one Phil Collins song and thus have the feeling of a music video with a strong plot. While I don't share the same animosity towards Phil's singing voice as Kevin does, I do think some of his lyrics are a bit poorly spun. One in particular bothers me the most: "The wisdom to be wise." What does that mean? If you have wisdom, then you are wise. There are others, and I won't list them all, but to Phil Collins, it seems that the rhythm of the words is more important than the lines making sense. In his defense, the percussion heavy score feels very natural in this environment.
Speaking of the environment, can we say lush? Wow. I disagree with Kevin here in that I don't think the computer generated imagery was poorly done. Perhaps the roller coastering was a bit gimicky, but it did make sense in the context of the Baboon chase. There were a few moments when Kevin said "Oh well, that's done by computers!" and if he hadn't said it, I probably wouldn't have noticed. But computery or not, it's very lush, very deep, and truly beautiful.
Tarzan himself is incredibly likable. He's strong, curious, playful, good to his mother, challenging and yet still respectful to his father, and has the depth of character that allows him to carry the story far better than any of the other male Disney Headliners so far. He's a strong guy like Hercules, but he's just trying to live a normal life instead of aiming for glory. He's a self-sufficient guy like Aladdin, but he's not a lying, cocky, dreamer whose life isn't good enough for him. Tarzan, to me, is a slice of life in which the slice happens to have a lot of unexpected ingredients.
New information: I'm not a mutant freak, I'm a different species.
New acquaintances: Not everyone has the same goals (mere survival) as I do.
New emotions: My mother whom I love, betrayed my trust by withholding information. My new friend is a woman and I know nothing of how to court her. My father whom I respect is preventing me from easily and thoroughly exploring my newly learned heritage.
New environments: I simply don't understand how to maneuver through this ship full of smooth steel and polished wood.
In the end, it really becomes a Nature versus Nurture story and as seems to be the case in every situation, there is no victor because the two always find some balance between them. Tarzan was born a man, but raised an ape and there's no changing that identity, there is only coming to terms with it. In truth aren't we all a little bit happier and more complete when we are able to commune in some way with our wild ancestry?
If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go farm in my back yard for a while.
Favorite character: Boy those Pocahontas Owls sure were funny! Seriously though, all the characters here are so fleshed out that it's hard to choose one to be a favorite. I think I'm heavily influenced by Kevin's praise in selecting Kala. She's a really heavy character and the fact that she's a "Disney Mom" is quite an acheivement, let alone her being amazing at it.
Least necessary Character: The captain. He sure was heavily designed for a character that we barely talk to and only serves the purpose of being a ticking clock. The ship looming in the background seemed like it would have been enough.
Overall: I like this movie and I did when I first saw it too. Except for that silly shoo be doo sequence, everything has a purpose and while not completely faithful to the book, it's still one of the deepest thinking Disney Movies thus far. Except for that silly shoo be doo sequence, it might have been a little too heavy for most kids. Darn it all you silly shoo be doo sequence!
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 25, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)