Here's another one that I confess I've actually seen a few times. The thing is, it has been quite a while since I've watched it, and I had to wonder if my opinion changed. Until now, this has always been "just okay" to me. I was never as harsh on it as other critics, but I didn't think it was all that special either. The fact remains, Schwarzenegger has a lot of better titles under his belt. However, it IS those better titles that end up making this movie so good, and frankly, underappreciated. For those unfamiliar, a teenage boy named Danny (Austin O'Brien), who lives with his widowed mother, Irene (Mercedes Ruehl), seeks comfort in the cinema. He is friendly with the theater's owner, Nick (Robert Prosky), who shows some of the best action movies, including that of the 'Jack Slater' series, featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger. At one point, Nick gives Danny a golden ticket, allegedly owned by the legendary Harry Houdini, which will allow him to see 'Jack Slater IV' early. Why he needs a magical golden ticket for this is anyone's guess, but I always took it as Nick just having a bit of fun with him. But then, we learn that the ticket really is magic. While watching the film, the ticket teleports him into the film's fictional world, right in Slater's back seat, during a car chase. Slater takes Danny to LAPD HQ, and there, Danny tries very hard to convince Slater that the whole thing is a movie, but Slater just brushes him off, and accuses him of having an overactive imagination. However, perhaps with his knowledge of Slater's past, Danny can help him on his assignment to try to take down Mafia Boss, Tony Vivaldi (Anthony Quinn), along with his seemingly much smarter henchman, Mr. Benedict (Charles Dance). And with that, Lt. Dekker (Frank McRae) partners them up. Now, with this golden ticket between the movie world and the real world, there are a couple of dimensional crossover scenes here, as we do a "reality to fiction to reality" thing. In my humble opinion, the best chunk of this movie is while they are in the movie. When they come back to the real world, it does tend to get a little silly with things like Arnold talking to himself as Jack Slater, and more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at. Even Ian McKellen shows up here! Although it is interesting to see how each character reacts to each world. When Slater comes into the real world, for example, he learns he's not necessarily invincible like the action hero he believes himself to be. Going vice-versa, Danny in the movie world is more fun, pointing out a whole bunch of action tropes along the way. It's pretty fourth-wall breaking stuff for 1993, and although one could call this a "guilty pleasure" of sorts, I don't see it as all that "guilty". It's not a masterpiece or anything, but what I do like about it goes beyond it just being a fun action movie that points out tropes (which is something I'm already a sucker for, as it is). On a deeper level, I see this as a sort of metaphor for "movie magic". The golden ticket transports Danny into a movie, experiencing it first hand. Sometimes, there are those titles that we're so attached to (as Danny is with the 'Slater' flicks) we can't help but get lost in them in a very similar way. And that's kind of why I tend to like the "in-movie" stuff better. Imagine being a die hard fan of something like 'Star Wars' and being thrown in there ABLE to do something like warn of the destruction of Alderaan! Anyway, I'm just geeking out now. The bottom line is, I see this movie as a sort of love letter to cinematic escape than just a silly action movie with a silly premise. For me, it's one of Schwarzenegger's last good ones. 3/5
0 Comments
'Twins' was always one of those movies that people seemed to really like, but I never actually bothered with it for whatever reason. Every once in a while, it could come on TV, and I might catch a scene or two. But I'd just get uninterested, change the channel, and for all this time, I have not actually watched it from start to finish. Honest truth - all I really knew about this was that they were twins who weren't very "twin-like". So, how was this for my first viewing? Plot-wise, we have Julius and Vincent Benedict (Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito, respectively). The pair are the results of an experiment in which six different "fathers" donate their DNA in order to create the "perfect child". The embryo splits, creating the twins, and while Julius carries the strength, knowledge, wisdom and good manners these scientists hope for, Vincent carries a little more of the negative side of things. The results are covered up from their mother, Mary Ann Benedict (Bonnie Bartlett), however. She's never told about Vincent, and told that Julius died in the process. For decades, nothing is revealed, but when Julius learns of his brother's existence, he heads into the big city to seek him out and reunite. But while Julius is pretty much just after a friendship and peaceful brotherhood with Vincent, things don't look so great for Vincent's gambling debts. As one can probably imagine, a whole lot of the movie is Arnold playing DeVito's "guardian" through all of his criminal problems, while trying very hard to otherwise be a heartwarming story about them finding their father, and figuring out their real story. I suppose there's a bit of a charm to it, but truth be told, I didn't get a whole hell of a lot out of it. There didn't seem to be a lot that stood out in the comedy department (well, except maybe Schwarzenegger's classic one-liner, "the pavement was his enemy") But really, DeVito is just being that sleazy character we all know and love him for, and a bit of womanizing isn't out of the question with him. Although, it should be mentioned that his official love interest here is a lovely lady named Linda Mason (Chloe Webb), who happens to have a sister, Marnie (Kelly Preston) who is very much into Julius. So two brothers pair off with two sisters and... I guess take that as you will. It's something that feels weird, but at the same time, maybe it's just me? This is a bit of a difficult one to really, truly like as well, just on a personal level. When you come to find out that DeVito is basically "all the bad of the experiment", it feels very mean-spirited. Honestly, when things are being revealed to Vincent here, the "revealer" is a real dink about the whole thing. However, it all feels so heavy-handed that you have to feel sorry for him. The film doesn't even really have a message of "inner beauty" or anything, it's just "hey, you suck, that is actually scientific fact, and you have to figure out how to live with that". at the very least, however, Julius is a very likable character, albeit a bit awkward at times. So I guess I could say that this movie is a bit of a mess, at least emotionally. It's a little hard to tell exactly how to feel by the end of it, despite the idea that it does, in fact, end on a happy and uplifting note. The story is straightforward enough, but there's a lot of it that's very typical of the time. Crime comedies like this were very common in the late 80s and early 90s, so there's a good chunk of it that feels all too familiar. The idea of long lost brothers isn't exactly original either, even for the time. I'm probably an odd man out here, but this isn't something I'd rush back to anytime soon. 2/5 Here's one from the Renaissance era that I've actually never seen until this viewing. It's a fine example of a movie I would tell people I've never seen, only to have their jaws hit the floor in shock and awe. This one in particular has several reasons as to why it's a shock that I ever missed it. For one, it's Disney Renaissance animation, which may or may not be my overall favourite era. But more to the point, I enjoy Greek mythology, and it was less in the realm of something like 'Beauty and the Beast' and more in the realm of 'Aladdin'. The thing is, this was out in '97, and by then, I was sadly well into "high school thinking", and kind of over Disney animation, considering it to be "for kids". By then, I was a little more into action movies and various raunchy comedies both on TV and the big screen (not the least of which ended up being 'South Park', which aired the same year). But why I never went back to it after I grew up and realized there's more to animation than just being kid's movies is anyone's guess. It ended up on a long list of movies to see, but for whatever reason, it was never near the top. I think some of that had to do with knowing that things would just end up inaccurate as far as the mythology of Hercules went. However, I did go into this with an open mind. After all, this has been recommended to me for years now, and plenty of internet memes featuring various characters have had me curious. So, I went into this much like one would have gone into a 'Harry Potter' movie - separate the movie from the story, and treat it as its own thing. It's probably a good thing I did, but in the end, it seemed sort of 50/50 with how accurate it was. And I also give it leeway, as it needs to be a little more family friendly. I mean, it's Disney animation, and it's not like the story is inaccurate in a real sense, like it was with 'Pocahontas'. We open in Ancient Greece where we meet proud, new parents, Zeus (Rip Torn) and Hera (Samantha Eggar), along with their newborn son, Hercules. While Hercules' birth is celebrated among the Gods, Hades (James Woods) has plans to overthrow Zeus and take over Mount Olympus. Hades addresses the three fates; Lachesis (Carole Shelley), Clotho (Amanda Plummer) and Atropos (Paddi Edwards), and they tell him that he'll ultimately be successful, as in eighteen years, the planets will align, and he will be able to free the Titans who will want revenge on Zeus for trapping them in Tartarus. The catch is, if Hercules interferes, he won't be successful. A plan to kill Hercules is nearly carried out when Hades' minions, Pain and Panic (Bobcat Goldthwait and Matt Frewer, respectively) are sent to feed baby Herc a potion that will strip him of his immortality. However, the potion isn't fully drank, so Herc becomes mortal, but maintains his God-like powers of strength. He gets rid of Pain and Panic in their attempt to kill him, and he is taken in and raised by human farmers, Amphitryon (Hal Holbrook) and his wife Alcmene (Barbara Barrie). Growing up, he becomes an outcast due to his super strength (which makes no sense to me, but there it is), and can't help but wonder where it is he came from. Soon, he turns to a statue of Zeus for answers, and all is revealed. Zeus informs Hercules that in order to regain his place among the Gods, he must become a "true hero". He is then sent to train with a Satyr named Philoctetes (Danny DeVito), who sooner goes by the name "Phil", and has trained the best known heroes like Odysseus, Perseus, and Theseus. Along for his journey, Herc is also given Pegasus; his long lost childhood pet. Eventually, the pair run into Megara (Susan Egan); a woman unfortunately indebted to Hades, and whom Hades uses for his advantage against Herc, who happens to be smitten with her. If Hades plays his cards right, he may just be successful in overtaking Olympus. The question is, what does it really take for Hercules to become a "true hero" and stop hades in his tracks? In the end, I have to admit that those who recommended this to me were mostly right when it came to my enjoyment of it. There were a few things here and there I called out, but it was never enough to ruin things for me. Regardless of mythical inaccuracies, it's still a lot of fun, and I really liked Hades as a villain, although I'm not sure he quite has Jafar dethroned for yours truly. This was one where the songs didn't fully stand out to me, either. There was nothing bad about them, but they didn't stick with me for whatever reason. So, in the end, I enjoyed it, but it didn't quite have the wow factor I thought it might have. 3/5 The last time I saw this was when it was originally released on video, so truth be told, this viewing made for a whole new experience. When I was younger, watching this, I remember not liking it so much because it was "too musical". In fact, I seem to recall fast-forwarding all of the musical numbers and establishing that any non-singing sequences amounted to only about 15 minutes or so (at least, that's how I remember it). At the time, I was used to these movies being musical, but having the songs be a fun piece of things as opposed to overtaking the entire film. However, I was also just not in the right frame of mind back then. Nowadays, I have to appreciate that this is meant to be a full-on musical rendition of the tale of Quasimodo - the Hunchback of Notre Dame. What's even more interesting is that this opens up very unexplored territory for Disney animation in looking at classic "horror". I could see something very similar to this arising from 'Phantom of the Opera' or 'The Invisible Man' as they are now Public Domain. Moving on, however, 'Hunchback' begins in 1462, Paris. A group of Gypsies, carrying a deformed baby, are ambushed by Judge Claude Frollo (Tony Jay) and his band of soldiers as they are trying to sneak into the city, illegally. Frollo snatches the child, assuming it's stolen goods, and is shocked at the "monstrosity" of a baby. In the process, he manages to kill the child's mother, and as a result is made to atone for his sin by taking in the child, and caring for him. Frollo names the child "Quasimodo" (or "Half-Formed"), and hides him in Notre Dame Cathedral's bell tower. Twenty years pass, and Quasimodo (Tom Hulce) grows into a young man who lives his solitary life, making friends with the gargoyles, Victor (Charles Kimbrough), Hugo (Jason Alexander) and Laverne (Mary Wickes). The trio tries to convince Quasimodo to go to the annual Festival of Fools and have some fun for once in his life, despite Frollo's warnings of how he'd be treated. He does attend, and is even celebrated for his appearance, until a riot breaks out, started by one of Frollo's guards. Things escalate, but soon, Quasimodo is helped by the lovely Esmerelda (Demi Moore) who is probably my favourite unofficial Disney Princess. She stands up for the little guy, she can really hold her own in a fight, and she's loaded with confidence. After all this, Esmerelda and Quasimodo flee to the Cathedral together, where they are pursued by Frollo's new guard, Captain Phoebus (Kevin Kline) who is quite struck by Esmerelda and refuses to arrest her, telling Frollo she has claimed sanctuary within the church. Without going into too much further detail, we end up with three dudes who have feelings for Esmerelda. Quasimodo sees her as a wonderful person, Phoebus sees her as a love interest, and Frollo actually tries to fend off his full on lust for her. This lust drives Frollo to need to destroy her in order to "break her spell on him", on account of her being a Gypsy in the year 1482. I actually appreciate the musical that it is, as compared to the earlier Renaissance movies. It feels a bit like a Broadway deal, and each song sets the mood to great effect - especially between the opening number and 'Hellfire', Frollo's villain song. But while I can appreciate the film for what it is, I have to say that it's still not exactly in my "favourites" category. I think that there's still that part of me that thinks things are a bit too musical here, and maybe even a bit too serious for the kids. And all of that is fine, it's just not entirely my cup of tea when it comes to Disney Animation. It's a film that has my full respect for its attempt at trying something newish, but it's no 'Lion King'! 3/5 I would generally begin a lot of Disney animation reviews with fair warning that anything bordering on controversial wouldn't be paid attention to. I'm into these movies mostly for good story, solid characters, and hey, maybe even a good song or two (especially with 'Aladdin' and 'Lion King'). But this is... different. The thing about Pocahontas as that it's the first of these to be based on a true story... very loosely. I won't go into all the dirty details of everything, but let's just say this movie does real world history quite a bit of injustice. It's bothersome, because the movie's message is rather positive, and its heart is in the right place. The execution, however, teaches kids something far different than what the history books give us. I'm not gonna sit here and go paragraph after paragraph on it, but just Google the real story and you'll see what I'm talking about. This isn't like getting a fairy tale right or wrong, as Disney has done up to this point. In the Disney version, however, we open in 1607 with a group of English settlers, sailing from London to the New World aboard the ship, the Susan Constant. The crew is lead by Governor Ratcliffe (David Ogden Stiers); a greedy settler on the lookout for lots of gold and heightened status. Here, we also meet Captain John Smith (Mel Gibson) who rescues a young crewmate named Thomas (Christian Bale) from drowning during a rough storm. Soon enough, they reach the mainland, Ratcliffe claims Jamestown, and the crew get digging. Meanwhile, Smith goes off to explore, only to stumble upon the lovely local Native, Pocahontas (Irene Bedard). Pocahontas and Smith end up sharing, bonding, etc. and fall for each other. This is much to the dismay of her father, Chief Powhatan (Russell Means) and future husband of her arranged marriage, Kocoum (James Apaumut Fall) and, before you know it, tension between the settlers and natives rise very quickly and... yeah, it's 'Avatar', it's 'Dances with Wolves', it's 'Fern Gully', it's basically just Disney's execution of that particular story. It's a tale about two very different groups of people, their misunderstandings about each other, and nature vs mankind's evil ways always plays a huge part. By this time I was 12, going on 13, and 'Toy Story' was a hell of a lot more interesting that summer than this for yours truly. At this point, I had kind of hung up my Disney hat and moved onto my Pixar hat (which, let's face it, is just a different kind of Disney hat)- following them very closely to this day, ever since. Disney animation, however, took a long break from my interest level, starting here. 'The Lion King' was kind of the cherry on top of these movies for me though, and I have to admit, I still don't feel like I missed a whole lot of greatness... but we'll see. The interesting thing to note right now is that, starting with this, I have never seen the rest of the Disney Renaissance movies ('Pocahontas' to 'Tarzan') except 'Hunchback' and 'Mulan'; each of which I think I've only seen through once. So I'm going into all of the last parts of this relatively fresh. But getting back on track, I gotta say, I really just did not like this movie. It's another one, much like 'Peter Pan', where the whole time watching it, I felt awkward and cringey. It's something I really don't think they could get away with today; at least as far as an execution that tosses the word "savages" around so much there's a whole song about it. I will give the movie a bit of leeway on its overall message that it's trying to convey (again, the same as 'Avatar', 'Fern Gully' etc.), and I have to admit that the song 'Colours of the Wind' is a solid take on the things mankind takes for granted - especially in nature. I personally thing the whole "true story" idea is just a mistake for Disney to begin with, as there's just too much controversy behind it - even if 'Mulan' is still a great movie. In 'Mulan', however, she's a strong woman trying to do what's right. Pocahontas here still felt like a relatively weak character, even if her spirit was strong. In the end, it's simply not strong enough to follow 'The Lion King' or 'Aladdin'. I mean, to each their own, but I might recommend checking out the true story first. 2/5 I think if I had a favourite animated Disney movie, it would be this one, plain and simple. While a lot of it has to do with the fact that it's from my past, and therefore provides nostalgia, there's so much more to it. It's one of the first movies I can remember successfully hitting every note with me as far as emotions go. I laughed, I cried, I felt hope, I felt dread. It's really just a wonderful story that some say is more of a present-day 'Hamlet'. I went to the theater to check this out when I was 11, going on 12, and have held it close to my heart ever since. Sometimes you come across a movie that gets into your being so deeply that you honestly can't wait to see it again. This could have been the first time that really happened for me. There was a certain success Disney had with this one in delivering the magic - and it doesn't stop at the amazing animalistic animation, either. The songs are great, the characters are likable (and voiced by quite the all-star cast), and the overall story is really quite moving. The film opens with the world's most culturally significant sunrise as we see all of the animals of the Pride Lands of Africa gather to celebrate Simba (Jonathan Taylor Thomas/Matthew Broderick), the newborn lion cub of King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Queen Sirabi (Madge Sinclair). Presenting him to the kingdom in that famous scene is shaman and advisor, a mandrill named Rafiki (Robert Guillaume), who isn't in this a ton, but does end up playing an important part in Simba's development. Simba eventually grows a little, and Mufasa explains the Circle of Life to him (this is where I also learned about it) as well as his responsibilities when he becomes king. Meanwhile, Mufasa's brother, Scar (Jeremy Irons) ends up being a bit of a "Loki" about things, and wants the throne for himself. He hopes to achieve this with the help of his hyena sidekicks, Shenzi (Whoopi Goldberg), Banzai (Cheech Marin) and Ed (Jim Cummings). Of course, most know the tragedy that this leads to by now, but spoiler alert anyway; it all eventually leads to Mufasa's murder, Simba's exile, and Scar taking over the throne as next in line. Why do the hyenas help this lion? Well, he pretty much just promises them sustenance, and that's reason enough. The question is, however, will Simba come back to resume his responsibilities as rightful king? Or will he just chill with his new homies, Timon (Nathan Lane) and Pumbaa (Ernie Sabella)? And although that's the film in a nutshell, a couple more characters worth mentioning are Simba's best friend, Nala (Niketa Calame-Harris/Moira Kelly), who plays a big influence on Simba, and Mufasa's majordomo, comic relief character, Zazu the hornbill (Rowan Atkinson). Altogether, this cast makes a pretty great balance between serious and comical with their characters, and it's nice to see a variety of comedy relief rather than just one character. There's not a whole lot more to say about this one, but I think it will keep that "favourite" title for quite some time, all things considered. It's funny, but even after watching the incredibly animated remake, I thought that was actually dull in comparison to how much this one pops. Songs like 'Hakuna Matata' and 'I Just Can't Wait to Be King' are catchy and fun, but Scar also has 'Be Prepared' for something dark, and we can't leave out Elton John - most famous for his songs 'Can You Feel the Love Tonight' and 'The Circle of Life'. The film provides a wonderful balance of everything, and still totally holds up to this day. It's one I never mind checking out again. 5/5 When we last left off with my Disney Catch-Up, we were just delving into the wonderful era that I grew up with, the Disney Renaissance. We continue with one of my personal favourites, 'Aladdin'. Now, before I delve into things, let me just mention that I'm not about to get into any racial whatnot, as when I viewed this as a kid, it was all about the lovable characters and story. Back when I first saw this at the age of 10, I was happy to see what looked like it was going to be a real adventure story, rather than a lovey-dovey story. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but after 'Beauty and the Beast' and 'Little Mermaid', I was ready for another 'Rescuers Down Under'. Now, for as much as I love 'Down Under', it was 'Aladdin' that definitely became my go-to Disney adventure story. And the funny thing? They snuck in a whole new lovey-dovey story anyway! The film opens with a merchant who tells us our story, taking place in the city of Agrabah; City of mystery, enchantment, and the finest merchandise this side of the river Jordan! Royal Vizier, Jafar (Jonathan Freeman), along with his sidekick parrot, Iago (Gilbert Gottfried) seeks a magical lamp that dwells in the secret Cave of Wonders. However, the only one who can enter the cave is the "diamond in the rough", Aladdin (Scott Weinger); a homeless thief (only really stealing to eat) with mad parkour skills. In the meantime, Princess Jasmine (Linda Larkin) is upset about having an arranged marriage to a prince, rather than the idea of marrying for love. Her father, the Sultan (Douglas Seale) has to reluctantly pressure her as well, as she "must" do it by her next birthday. This makes her escape the palace to get out into the world (at least for a while) where she bumps into an instantly smitten Aladdin, and his sidekick monkey Abu (Frank Welker). Long story short, there's a misunderstanding, and Aladdin is thrown in jail where he unknowingly meets Jafar. Jafar makes a deal with Aladdin - he'll secure his freedom if Aladdin goes lamp spelunking for him. Aladdin agrees, but during the mission gets betrayed by Jafar, who thinks he manages to get the lamp. Abu manages to grab it last minute, but now, Aladdin and Abu are stuck in the cave with a magic carpet, and of course, the Genie (Robin Williams) who emerges from the lamp, and promises Aladdin three wishes, but with three simple rules - no killing, no bringing anyone back from the dead, and no making people fall in love. Aladdin's one true wish is to be with Jasmine, however, so he's gonna have to figure something out. So, while much of the story is all about Aladdin trying to get with Jasmine, that's not what I'd say highlights the movie in any way. For me, you have three big deals going on here. One, the Genie is one of the best Disney sidekicks ever, and has one of the catchiest songs ever. Two, Jafar is one of these villains who's out for pure power, and it leads to some pretty badass animation during the film's climax; also, probably my all-time fave Disney villain. And three, I fully appreciate that this is a pretty wild adventure and a love story all at once, proving Disney can make a movie for everyone (well, almost everyone). To this day, one of my personal favourites of the Disney library. 5/5 I'm gonna start this one off by putting my cards on the table (appropriately enough) and just confess that I found this to be one of those hard-to-follow movies that is, perhaps, a bit beyond me. This was also my first time watching it, so it's also a movie that I feel I'd get more out of with multiple viewings. However, at about 3 hours, it's one I need to be in the mood for. I'll do my best here, but bear with me. It won't be my best quality review. Sam "Ace" Rothstein (Robert De Niro) is sent to Las Vegas by the Chicago Mafia to run the Tangiers Casino. While Sam unofficially runs everything behind the scenes (often quite brutally), there is still a front man serving as the casino and hotel manager named Philip Green (Kevin Pollak). Sam is incredibly successful, leaving nothing to chance with any cheaters, raking in cash, and sending some to Midwest Mafia bosses. Meanwhile, Sam's childhood friend, Nicky Santoro (Joe Pesci) is also sent by Chciago boss, Remo Gaggi (Pasquale Cajano) for Sam's and the casino's protection. While Nicky does a fine job of keeping everyone in line, his own criminal activities end up catching up with him by drawing too much media attention, especially when he gets his brother, Dominick (Philip Suriano) and friend Frankie Marino (Frank Vincent) involved. This threatens getting Sam into hot water on its own, but Sam also has to contend with his drug-addled, alcoholic, former prostitute wife, Ginger McKenna (Sharon Stone) who still cares way too much about her former pimp, Lester (James Woods). So a lot of it seems to have to do with Sam being sort of caught in the middle of things. While his wife is an off-the-wall, overall unlikable drama queen of a character, Nicky ends up taking a lot of his "talents" much too far. I'm a little ashamed to end things there, but that's essentially what I got from it. Having said that, however, this is the kind of movie you have to really focus on if you want to follow it, and I did have a few distractions along the way. But once again, I do feel like I'm quite honestly just a little below this movie as far as really getting it goes. It's the kind of movie where I wish things were simplified after a long explanation. But is this something I would call a "bad" movie? Not even a little. I think I just need to view it a few more times to get more out of it. It's clear that it's cleverly written, and beyond that, I have to say I liked how "real" it got in a lot of parts. The whole ending quite honestly made me a bit uneasy, so kudos to Scorsese for his great direction. At the end of the day, it's simply not my favourite Scorsese flick, and I'm gonna end up in the 1%, I'm sure. I know this is a total classic, and I don't mean to take that away, but I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure this one was for me. It does, however, have genuine potential to grow on me over time. 3/5 For as much as I enjoyed this, I have to admit that I find many more of Scorsese's works much better. It seems in the early 90s, one of the big trends was thrillers that sort of bridged the gap between slasher horror and dramatic mysteries. The best example of such a film was probably 'Silence of the Lambs', but there were several, and this was Scorsese's take on the subgenre. As far as his movies are concerned, the only thing I've seen that would even come close in comparison is probably 'Shutter Island', which I see in the same light - enjoyable, but he's done better. For yours truly, 'Goodfellas' still has yet to be dethroned. Anyway, the story follows a North Carolina lawyer named Sam Bowden (Nick Nolte). He lives a seemingly average, upper-middle class life with his wife, Leigh (Jessica Lange) and 15-year-old daughter, Danielle (Juliette Lewis). That is until Sam's former client, Max Cady (Robert De Niro) is released from a 14-year sentence, after being tried for the sexual assault of a 16-year-old girl. What seems apparent to Max, is that Sam had further evidence that could have lightened his sentence, or secured his acquittal. However, due to Max's crime, Sam buried the evidence, but still managed to get him less than he really deserved. This leads to Max stalking Sam and his family, and being a real jerk about it. I know how that sounds, but the way he goes about it is completely legal to any onlookers, while doing terrible things behind closed doors. Eventually, Max ends up targeting those close to Sam rather than Sam, himself, in a vengeful effort to take it al away from him. The thing about this is that the big "bullseyes" are, of course, Leigh and Danielle. Neither are even remotely close to strong characters, and they really do end up playing damsels in distress. To be perfectly blunt, I even kind of despised Danielle and her naivety here. Let's just say it makes me glad I don't have a teenage daughter to worry about with certain things. Perhaps the most fun I had with this, however, was comparing it to the 'Simpsons' episode, 'Cape Feare' (S05,E02). There wasn't quite as much as I expected, but I did love catching what I did - namely the music, which I ONLY associate with Sideshow Bob these days. Sadly, I never got to see De Niro step on a rake and thwap himself in the face. But hey, he rode the underside of the car, and that was almost enough. But for as much as I did enjoy De Niro here (who earned an Oscar nomination for this), much like Scorsese, I feel like I've seen better from him. Juliette Lewis was also nominated here though, so that might say a lot about how Oscars work (her role would almost never fly these days). By the end of it, this was a lot like the first time I saw 'The Shining' or 'Elm Street' in that I saw the 'Simpsons' spoof on it far beforehand. I did enjoy the film on its own, but the most fun I had with it was picking out all the references. It was good on atmosphere, the acting is decent, and it its goal is to make you somewhat uncomfortable, it definitely succeeds. A certain scene between Lewis and De Niro actually had me squirming just a little, knowing their age separation in real life of 30 years AND the idea that she's playing a15-year-old here. So maybe I just prefer his take on other things, namely the Mafia. This is fine, but it's nothing I'd rush back to. 3/5 There's a whole slew of boxing movies that I've never seen before, simply due to it never really being my thing. In fact, sports movies in general were never really my thing unless I could find some sort of differing qualities that didn't fall under the old formula of "underdog, or underdog team works their way to the final battle and wins". Most of these made for kids would also include the token "pro" among the misfits. I leaned more towards sports movies that told an interesting story disassociated from the sport like 'The Sandlot' where the final showdown involves a giant dog, showing the token "pro" display his skills in other ways. Now that I've used such a youthful and fun example, this brings me to Scorsese's 'Raging Bull', which is definitely one of the more unique boxing movies I've ever seen. Its use of black and white, and use of years past make it something timeless, and it goes to places one wouldn't really expect. It all opens with, of all things, a comedy routine from former boxing champ Jake LaMotta (Robert De Niro), who has been aged almost unrecognizably. The film then flashes back from 1964 to 1941, where we see him lose his first boxing match to a guy named Jimmy Reeves (Floyd Anderson). He then discusses a potential shot for the middle-weight title with his brother, Joey (Joe Pesci), who has a mafia connection with someone named Salvy Batts (Frank Vincent). Without unfolding the whole plot, the film follows the career and personal life of LaMotta, largely including his brother and his significantly younger spouse, Vickie (Cathy Moriarty) and their relationships. One key thing in this movie is the idea that LaMotta is someone you really neither love nor hate. There are moments in this where you see him as a total piece of crap, but there are others that you can't help but feel for him. Behind a lot of it is a terrible jealous streak that makes him altogether abusive, often taking it out in the ring. A lot of this seems to be about the downfall as well as the uprising, which is something that can be applied to just about any career in the realm of "fame". The film is, indeed, based on the life of a real person. Perhaps the most notable moment in his boxing career was his six-fight rivalry with Sugar Ray Robinson (Johnny Barnes), which is highlighted through the film. De Niro's performance here is probably the best aspect of the movie, often making me laugh (albeit perhaps a bit inappropriately). For example when he yells at his wife for his steak near the beginning, going "BRING IT OVA HEEAAH!" But as I said, he does become a well fleshed-out character where your feelings on him are a bit mixed. It's almost like you want to want to route for him, but his reputation as a bully holds you back. I have said this before, but I definitely have a thing for movies that develop a character who isn't seen as particularly good or bad, but human. I think the movie 'Crash' has always been my favourite example of such a movie, but this certainly does do a good job of it - with everyone, not just our lead. Often viewed as one of Scorsese's best works, I would have to fully agree. This is a fine example of a film that has a generous sprinkling of everything, It does range very well, making you go from feeling apathetic for the character to sympathetic and you sort of do a back and forth with it. This one is a true work of art on Scorsese's part, and I might suggest he hasn't quite done anything like this since. 5/5 Now we're going to take a look at some of the most important film material I've missed over the years; movies directed my Martin Scorsese, featuring his old go-to, Robert De Niro. I've seen some, but missed most, and we kick things off with the film that arguably put both Scorsese and De Niro both on the map. After this, they would both go down in cinematic history as one of the all-time great duos. But the path starts here, where De Niro actually plays a secondary role, but an interesting one nonetheless. He's not quite the guy we've come to expect over the years. In fact, this one's more of his comedic side - but not a family friendly one. The film opens by introducing us to our four leads, and showing us their individual personalities; Michael (Richard Romanus), Tony (David Proval), Johnny Boy (Robert De Niro) and Charlie (Harvey Keitel). Johnny Boy is a small-time gambler, owing money to loan sharks and refusing to work to make it happen. Feeling a responsibility towards him as a good friend is Charlie, who also happens to be having an affair with Johnny Boy's epileptic cousin, Teresa (Amy Robinson).Charlie also works for the mafia, under his Uncle Giovanni (Cesare Danova), who would rather Charlie distance himself from Johnny Boy and his self-destructive behavior. Most of the movie is watching how Charlie deals with his personal divide between his devout Catholicism and his work for the mafia, which ultimately tears him between his friend, Johnny Boy, and some of the people Johnny owes money to. As for the other two characters, they are essentially a part of the group, playing side characters who own a bar, make deals in the streets, and have a fairly solid future ahead of them. They're the ones who may or may not get really hindered by Johnny's eccentric personality in the long run. But that's really about the extent of things as far as plot goes. What I really liked about this one was its overall simplicity. This wasn't another mafia movie as we've come to know them so much as a "slice of life" movie about one particular mafia character. The movie is largely just watching how these four characters act, and it's surprisingly packed with a certain sense of humor you don't always get in these kinds of movies. And the way it ends, for yours truly, is just a *chef's kiss*. Without spoiling anything, it's left open-ended, but not in the sense that you think a sequel is going to happen. Think 'Inception' or 'Thelma & Louise'. I love having to use my imagination for stuff like that because, dammit, sometimes being "spoon-fed" is just no fun. As one would probably expect from a movie from 1973, there are bound to be areas of the film that wouldn't quite fly as well today - but at the same time, when we're looking at these characters, these offenses come as no real surprise. Regardless, the film went on to be one of the all-time great "break-out" films in history. The equivalents to this for Scorsese would be along the lines of 'Jaws' for Spielberg, 'Clerks' for Kevin Smith, or 'Halloween' for John Carpenter. So it could be that this one is off the radar for some, simply due to age, but if you like a good mafia type movie with a good sense of humor, I can highly recommend this one. While it may not be my favorite Scorsese flick, I still really enjoyed it for the type of movie it turned out to be. 4/5 Okay, so it's time for me to finally put all my cards on the table when it comes to 'Beauty and the Beast'. I've been sort of back and forth on this one, but I think I've finally decided that this is another case of a solid flick that ultimately has my respect for what it is, but it has never really been one for me. It's enjoyable, sure, but of my "Renaissance Bubble" I grew up with and really paid attention to ('Little Mermaid' to 'Lion King') this was probably the one I got the least out of. To be blunt, it's simply the whole romance aspect of things. This is just the type of movie that isn't necessarily up my alley. With that said, I don't deny its history-making success. It was some of the first real use of CG in animation, we hit a mild milestone with Belle being the fifth official Disney Princess, the songs are admittedly pretty great, and the live-action version still remains a high-ranking title for box office success largely due to peoples' fondness of this original. I would probably even argue that nowadays this particular title marks the quintessential 'Beauty and the Beast' story as opposed to anything classically written or filmed - grown to have a more child-friendly tone like so many of Grimm's fairy tales. This is not to say the classic story is no good, it's just that when I say the title 'Beauty and the Beast' to you, chances are, this is the one that pops into your head first, even if it's the version you don't necessarily like. In this version, we begin with some backstory where an enchantress disguised as a beggar seeks shelter from a storm. She offers a cruel prince a rose in exchange for this, but he snubs her. This is where she reveals her true self, and puts a curse on the prince for his arrogance, transforming him into the Beast (Robby Benson) and his servants into different objects. The enchantress then casts a spell on the rose, warning the prince that the curse can only be lifted if he stops being a jerk. If he can love and be loved in return before the last petal of the rose falls, everything goes back to normal. If not, the curse remains permanent. Fast-forward several years, and in a nearby village we are introduced to the beautiful Belle (Paige O'Hara) - the book-obsessed daughter of an inventor named Maurice (Rex Everhart), who has dreams of adventure. She's ever on the avoidance of a brute named Gaston (Richard White) who is all about marrying Belle for her good looks and not a whole lot more. One day, Maurice heads into the woods towards a fair in order to show off his latest invention, but gets himself lost, and imprisoned in the Beast's castle for trespassing. This of course eventually leads to Belle seeking out her father, and eventually crossing paths with the Beast, trading herself as prisoner for her father. As a result, some might say Belle gets a mad case of Stockholm Syndrom. But the idea is that she shows the Beast what it is to love someone beyond their beauty, making Beast and Gaston contrast really quite well. Of course, Belle isn't quite about the Beast from the get-go either. She gets a little nudge from the aforementioned cursed household items; namely a teapot and a teacup respectively named Mrs. Potts (Angela Lansbury), and her son, Chip (Bradley Pierce), a clock named Cogsworth (David Ogden Stiers), and of course everyone's favourite host, the candle, Lumiere (Jerry Orbach) who performs 'Be Our Guest'; the sequence I enjoy the most on a personal level between both this and the live-action film. It does make you wanna pull up a chair and dig in - but then, maybe that's just me. Anyway, the movie is ultimately about finding the beauty within, it's a romance, and for the most part not completely for yours truly. But once again, I can't deny its success, and it has my respect. It was history-making in a few ways. Other than the use of CG (namely for the dancefloor sequence), it was also the first animated film ever to be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, and wouldn't be followed up until 'Up' in 2009'. It didn't win, but to have the nomination was quite a shocker to most. This ends up being a movie I meet very much in the middle. While it's not really for me, I still have no problem watchin it if someone else really wants to. It's not without its charm, but for me, it would be the next two titles that I'd really take away from my childhood. That, however, will have to wait until my next Disney Catch-Up series. 3/5 If there was ever a movie in Disney animation that was underrated, overlooked and even sadly forgotten about, it has to be 'The Rescuers Down Under'. While not entirely perfect, it's certainly a vast improvement from its rather dry predecessor, complete with a real sense of adventure that only a land like Australia can provide. The tone of the film is set immediately with its opening, as a great single shot soars over the Outback with a thrilling soundtrack kicking in. It's one of few openings from my childhood I remember very fondly on the big screen. We meet the young Cody (Adam Ryen), and the film hits the ground running as this kid not only rescues an eagle known as Marahute, but befriends him and gets to ride her around the breathtaking landscape. This eagle is even grateful enough to show Cody her nest, and give him one of her feathers, seemingly as a token of friendship. However, Cody soon falls into a trap and is ultimately kidnapped by the sinister poacher, Percival C. McLeach (George C. Scott), who discovers his feather, suggesting that Cody knows there Marahute is hiding. McLeach also tosses Cody's backpack to the crocs, convincing the Australian Rangers that Cody's fate went to the crocodiles. A mouse who witnesses all of this rushes to send a message to the Rescue Aid Society, located across the globe in New York City. It is there that we are reunited with our original heroes, Bernard and Miss Bianca (Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor, respectively) who ultimately accept the mission to rescue Cody, and in turn, Marahute from McLeach, even if it means constant interruption of Bernard's proposal to Bianca. A big part of this comes in the form of Jake (Tristan Rogers), a hopping mouse who is there to help, but does become infatuated with Bianca, giving Bernard some pretty stiff competition - I mean, Australian accents, am I right? It's funny when you think about the order the Renaissance films come out in. When we start from the beginning, I can think of a few people who have thought the order to be 'The Little Mermaid', 'Beauty and the Beast', 'Aladdin', etc. Almost every time I challenge people to list the order of these movies starting with 'The Little Mermaid', that's the general response. A few people will catch 'Down Under', but not many, and even then, they mistake the release order of things. Though if you remind people of it, people tend to remember it. It was unfortunately released parallel to 'Home Alone' that year, and we all know where that title stands nowadays in the category of "Christmas Classics". So this was a Disney movie that sort of got swept under the rug that year because of 'Home Alone' being the overwhelmingly successful family hit that also had a Christmas theme to it, and the release date of both was November 16, 1990. Really, when you think about it now, 'Down Under' didn't really stand a chance. But now that so much time has passed, I'd actually urge people who haven't seen this (or haven't seen it in a while) to revisit it. It may even be better to do both 'Rescuers' movies for things like character familiarity, but also to provide the contrast between the two. To watch these back to back, it's kind of like 'Down Under' is a refreshing shower after sitting in a swamp all day. I'm happy to say that even after so many years, I still feel like this one holds up. In many aspects, it may even hold up better than most of the Renaissance movies - we just have a tendency to lean towards what we know, and care about. Being that the first 'Rescuers' is just okay at best, it's no surprise that a lot of people may just brush this off as more of the same. But in many ways, it often feels like this 'Rescuers' is everything that the original 'Rescuers' should have been. The overall concept is similar enough, it's just done much better this time around. For those of you who have Disney Plus, it can be found there. In any case, I still recommend giving this a revisit (or first-time visit) in the near future. 4/5 Let me start this one off by appropriately catching my audience up on things. This is a suitable place to do it, as 'The Little Mermaid' marks the beginning of the Disney Renaissance era. One could also refer to it as the "5th Age" or, the span of films where Disney animation really became musical. Sure, there has been plenty of music up until this point. But there's something about this era that lends itself to something like Broadway - and in some cases, quite literally. For me, watching these are reminiscent of watching a stage musical a bit more than most of the films up until this point. Just to cover it all, my reviews have so far covered Disney animation through their Golden Age ('Snow White' to 'Bambi'; 1937-1942), Wartime Era ('Saludos Amigos' to 'The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad'; 1943-1949), Silver Age ('Cinderella' to 'Jungle Book'; 1950-1959), Bronze Age ('Arstocats' to 'Oliver & Company'; 1970-1988). And even though I saw 'Oliver' in theaters, it's interesting to note that even with a somewhat universally defined division between 'Oliver' and 'Mermaid', I have my own little nook of films I've always considered, shall we say, my personal peek of Disney viewing. It started here, when I was 7 years old, and I eventually grew out of the theater-going experience after 'The Lion King', when I was 11 going on 12, and it was all becoming a bit "childish". Of course, I'd eventually rekindle my appreciation for it as a grown-ass man, but that's besides the point. Our main focus is the young Ariel (Jodi Benson)- youngest of King Triton's (Kenneth Mars) daughters, and ever-eager to sneak away and plunder sunken ships with her friend, Flounder (Jason Marin). She brings items she finds to a seagull named Scuttle (Buddy Hackett) who "identifies" them, and I have to admit it's pretty funny to see what he comes up with. The most famous perhaps is the "dinglehopper", or as we know it, a fork - not for eating, but for grooming. Anyway, her curiosity gets her into trouble one day when it leads her to an exploding ship, rescuing of a man named Eric (Christopher Daniel Barnes), who Ariel falls gills over fins for. When her father disapproves of her interests (once he finds out), she is soon led to Ursula (Pat Carroll), the sea witch. Most know what happens at this point, but just in case, Ariel makes a deal to substitute her voice for some legs so she can have a chance with Eric, but has to experience the whole "kiss of true love" thing before her three days are up. This all ends up being a part of a bigger plan Ursula has to knock Triton off his throne and turn him into a sort of creepy lost soul thingy to live in her garden as a sort of slave. Quite honestly, I hadn't seen this in quite a while and forgot how dark it gets in points. I suddenly remembered the garden creatures in this freaking me out a bit when I was a kid. Of course, as a kid, you also had the catchy island rhythms of Sebastian (Samuel E. Wright) to keep the mood light, and I swear, 'Under the Sea' is actually still a pretty catchy tune. I know there's a fair share of people out there who have their problems with the film, be it the story sending the wrong message of "change to get what you want", or some pretty on-the-nose French racism. But for your truly, I must confess that this was a viewing that genuinely hit me in the nostalgias. I can certainly see that the film isn't quite as awesome as I thought it was back in the day (I honestly did), but I did consider it a fun stroll down memory lane. Of course, being the sucker for nostalgia that I am, I may have been a little more into this that I care to admit. But it did take me right back to a carefree time when my biggest problem was getting a few basic math questions right for homework. I've woken up to a few things since then, but I'd still consider it a fun flick. 3/5 When it comes to Disney animation that I fully remember seeing in theaters, it all starts with 'Oliver & Company'. This would be the film that would ultimately end the Bronze Age, which began with 'The Aristocats'. It's safe to say that the animated Disney films most familiar to me are those of the Renaissance, ranging from 'The Little Mermaid' to 'Mulan', but it might also be safe to say that it pretty much started right here (not Disney itself, but the near-annual animated movie Disney would crank out for us growing kids). Truth be told, my memories of this one were quite fond. I remember really enjoying this one when I was a kid, and I'm fairly sure it was what made me want a cat in the first place (the idea that we eventually owned orange tabby after orange tabby is pure coincidence, however). Re-watching it with the open but still adult mindset I have now though, it has certainly dwindled in quality. Although there's still plenty to like about it, the fact remains that Disney has far better titles to offer, and it's even a bit strange that this pushes everything away from fantasy. 'Oliver & Company', despite talking animals, is about as real-world as Disney animation gets, and there's something about that, that doesn't feel right for some reason. The term "Disney Magic" doesn't really apply to this. It all starts with the heart-breaking idea of a box of kittens, where every one of them gets adopted except Oliver (Joey Lawrence), who is left to wander the streets alone. Just as things are about as sad and hopeless as they can get, Oliver eventually bumps into a laid-back dog named Dodger (Billy Joel) who helps Oliver steel some hotdogs, then take off with them (this poor cat, man). Oliver, however, chases him, and gets led to a barge where he sees Dodger sharing the hotdogs with his gang; Tito the chihuahua (Cheech Marin), Einstein the Great Dane (Richard Mulligan), Rita the Saluki (Sheryl Lee Ralph), and Francis the bulldog (Roscoe Lee Browne). Long story short, they eventually take Oliver under their wing, all while being looked after by the human Fagin (Dom DeLuise). Fagin is indebted to a man named Sykes (Robert Loggia) who tells him in so many words to pay up or suffer. The dogs, along with Oliver, make an attempt to rob a limo and get some money for Fagin, but things backfire when the little girl riding the limo, Jenny Foxworth (Natalie Gregory) takes Oliver, thinking him to be a stray and wanting a companion. Oliver then has to try to adjust to a new home with the jealous poodle, Georgette (Bette Midler). Eventually everything starts to coincide with everything else, and Oliver and Jenny find themselves caught up in more danger than a little girl and kitten really need. I think I was a little more ignorant to things back when I was a kid, loving this movie. I wouldn't say that things go necessarily over the top, but there is something somewhat meanspirited about the film as a whole. It could be said, however, that this was a kid's film meant to sort of toughen kids up. It shows us some bad stuff in a tolerable way, but it's kind of crazy to see just how nasty some of the characters can actually be here. Again, not over the top, but often a bit of a surprise. It's one of the Disney titles I remember from my childhood, but it doesn't quite have that heavy nostalgic link to it where I really feel like watching it. I think the best thing I got from this movie was the song 'Why Should I Worry?', which is sort of a 'Hakuna Matata' of its time. Try looking it up, it's pretty light and catchy. Anyway, it's not quite what I remembered from my childhood, but there's nothing I'd say is bad about it either, despite it's low ratings. Considering the titles about to come, though, I can understand this getting so swept under the rug. 3/5 Released in 1986, this is one title I don't recall whether I saw in theaters or not. My earliest memory of this was a clip from a Disney special called "DTV Monster Hits" (a special which I actually recommend on my list of "20 Family Friendly Halloween Classics"), and I think said clip led to us renting it once when I was very young. It's a weird case of remembering having seen it, but as far as where, when and how, I simply can't remember. This may as well have been a first time for me, so it was cool to see it with fresh eyes, all the while dreading what Disney would get away with in the mid-80s. Luckily, the movie is generally clean, save for a mousey burlesque show where singer Miss Kitty Mouse gives us a taste of what's to come with 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit' (Melissa Manchester) and, I daresay, 'Space Jam'. I mean, honestly, the scene is pretty suggestive for a kid's movie. Just Google "Miss Kitty Mouse" and you will see what I'm talking about. Although pretty awkward, that's about the only thing that stuck out. I'd say that on the whole, this is actually a pretty sweet adventure for kids that might actually give them some appreciation for Sherlock Holmes stories. One thing I certainly do remember, be it from that 'DTV' clip or the film itself, was that I really liked the protagonist, Basil of Baker Street (Barrie Ingham). The film takes place in 1897, London, England, where a little mouse named Olivia Flaversham (Susanne Pollatschek) and her father, Hiram (Alan Young) are celebrating her birthday. However, it is interrupted by a peg-legged bat named Fidget (Candy Candido) when he breaks in, kidnapping Hiram, and leaving little Olivia on her own. She then seeks out the help of Basil - the aforementioned Sherlock Holmes of rodents, but gets herself lost. Meanwhile, a surgeon mouse who served with the Mouse Queen's 66th Regiment in Afghanistan, named Dr. David Q. Dawson (Val Bettin), comes along and finds her, soon guiding her to where she needs to go. Basil is relatively indifferent to the kidnapping, but when Olivia mentions the peg-legged bat, his attention is finally grabbed. It turns out that the bat, Fidget, is the assistant of the notorious Professor Ratigan (Vincent Price); a criminal who Basil has been chasing for years. They soon unveil that the kidnapping has to do with Ratigan's attempts at taking over England, but the solution is actually kind of funny, so I won't spoil it here - I'll just recommend checking it out instead. Despite that weird and awkward mousy striptease, the plot is nice and simple, it's funny, it doesn't talk down to kids (just look at Dawson's character's backstory), it's even somewhat charming, and Vincent Price steels the show as Ratigan - I mean, what better voice has ever existed for a villain? Altogether, I'd probably claim this as one of my personal faves from the Disney Animation collection. One thing to appreciate about it is that it doesn't take the Princess route (which is coming in full-force soon), and just wants to bring the classics to the screen for kids. In fact, it's actually based on a book series known as 'Basil of Baker Street', by Eve Titus which I'd highly recommend if they are anything like the movie (although whether they have mouse strippers, I have no clue). It's also low on musical numbers, save for two songs - one, the suggestive song Kitty sings on stage (which probably wouldn't fly these days) and the other, a villain song about Ratigan - and villain songs are always great fun. This was actually the most fun I've had with a Disney animated title in a while though. On a personal level, I loved it. 5/5 This is one of the few Disney animated films I've actually never seen until now. At first, I was kind of surprised about how under the radar this was to me, considering it was the first of these to be released after I was born (missed 'Fox and the Hound' by about a year). Disney animated features take a big jump here, from 1981 to 1985, and this late-to-the-game, very non-Disney-like feature is often considered one of the worst of the bunch. But is it really that bad? After all, this has developed a cult following over the years. I further have to admit there was a little something about this, and I can't honestly say I found it all that horrible. We meet a young boy named Taran (Grant Bardsley), an assistant pig-keeper at the home of Dallben the Enchanter (Freddie Jones) who dreams of becoming a bigshot warrior. One day, Dallben learns about the evil Horned King (John Hurt) seeking out the "Black Cauldron", which will grant him the ability to raise an invincible army of the dead. Since Dallben's pig, Hen Wen, has oracular powers, Dallben fears the king may come after Hen Wen to use him, locate the Black Cauldron, and set his plan into motion. Dallben then has Taran take Hen Wen to find a place to hide and stay safe. Taran epically fails, however, and Hen Wen is nabbed by Gwythaints - dragon-like creatures working for the Horned King. Now it's up to Taran to keep his promise to protect Hen Wen, and go after him. Along his way, Taran meets a few interesting characters, but perhaps most interesting was a dog-like creature (not a dog though) named Gurgi (John Byner). He's just a lonely critter who wants a friend, and sounds exactly like Gollum from 'Lord of the Rings'. He evn talks like him, saying things like "poor miserable Gurgi deserves fierce smackings and whackings on his poor, tender head". I even paused the movie to check to see if it was Andy Serkis before he got famous. He further meets (mainly) Princess Eilonwy (Susan Sheridan); the princess who the Disney princesses didn't seem to let into their club, and a bard named Fflewddur Fflam (Nigel Hawthorne) who is meant to be a source of comedy relief, but doesn't really deliver many laughs. Taran also comes across a sword that allows him to fight a little better - almost like a cheat code as opposed to him having to learn through trial and error on his journey. So remember way back in the opening paragraph when I said "I can't honestly say I found it all that horrible"? Well, to set the record straight, I still think this is pretty bad. I found it a little boring at times, thought a lot of the journey was sort of handed to our hero (ie the sword, and the fact that Princess Eilonwy basically walks them both out of a prison at one point) and some of the dialogue is a bit tedious. But the film does have its merits as well, like the first time Disney animation tried out that early CG, making a lot of the backgrounds look pretty awesome. Along with that, this is very Bluth-like animation, though he had little to do with this, aside from a few uncredited scenes (he also worked uncredited on 'Fox and the Hound'). It is, honestly, pretty cool to see just how dark this gets, especially for a Disney film. Now, this film does have a pretty big cult following, as I mentioned before, and I can actually understand why. If you were to ask if I recommended it, I would say it depends on the type of thing you're looking for. If you wanna see a Disney animated movie as you know them, I'd say avoid it. But if you wanna see a bit of Disney dark, and appreciate the risks that a film like this can take, then I'd say it's worth checking out. What's far more interesting than the film itself is the film's overall history, but I could be here all day dissecting it, so here's a simple link (some of this, I covered, but there's more). For yours truly, it's not making a favourites list any time soon, and I definitely felt like the bad outweighed the good here. This is similar to so many other things I've seen that have just done it a little better, and I didn't exactly fall into the cult following with it. Although if you did, I can actually understand why, and wouldn't question your choice. 3/5 It has been long enough for me since I last watched this that I had pretty well forgotten it altogether. It was definitely a treat to feel like I saw a movie like this for the first time again. I can't help but appreciate how good an example this is of how to make a story both deep and simple. Like a lot of Disney movies, one may find a concept or two a bit dated. But in my case, I found the problem overshadowed by something else that sort of saves it (which I'll get to later). Regardless, this is a particularly good story, and it leans a bit more towards the dramatic side than the comedic, which is often a breath of fresh air. It all starts in 'Bambi'-ish fashion, as we experience a pretty breathtakingly animated sequence that is robbed from us when the victim of a hunter is shot. In this case, we have a mother fox, who carries her cub to safety before things go down. He is taken under the wings (pun totally intended) of Big Mama the owl (Pearl Bailey), Dinky the finch (Richard Bakalyan), and Boomer the woodpecker (Paul Winchell). The trio drop the baby fox on the doorstep of the kindly Widow Tweed (Jeanette Nolan), who takes him in and names him Tod - short for "toddler". (Keith Coogan/Mickey Rooney). The pair develop a very friendly and loving relationship, and he helps her with her loneliness. Meanwhile, Tweed's Neighbour, Amos Slade (Jack Albertson) has adopted a new hound puppy named Copper (Corey Feldman/Kurt Russell), and his regular hunting dog, Chief (Pat Buttram) is assigned to take care of him. Eventually, as Tod's out playing and Copper is out tracking something (which ends up being Tod), the pair meet, play, become best friends, and pledge to be so forever. Soon, though, Slade takes Copper and Chief away to learn the ways of the hunt. This is after Slade finds Tod hanging out with Copper on his property, and accusing him of raiding his chicken coop. It all turns into a question of whether or not Tod and Copper will be able to be friends in the future - and that friendship really does get its fair shake of testing, often through misunderstanding. Now, to revert back to what I mentioned earlier about the "problem" and the "overshadow", it basically boils down to how Slade sees Tweed - basically as a dumb, useless female. I'm not sure he says those exact words, but the message is clear. The overshadow, however, is Tweed, herself. She's actually a rther strong female character, not afraid to stand up for herself, and able to make extremely hard decisions with Tod in the interest of Tod's safety. I think, speaking as a pet owner, she's extremely easy to relate to as well as empathise with. The guy being a jerk about things is just that - a very unlikable jerk. I might not label him as a villain, but he's definitely the everyday stubborn asshole we all know in one way or another. Setting that whole deal aside, this viewing was, again, like seeing it for the first time. Though critics tend to kind of meet this one in the middle, as there's nothing particularly ground-breaking about it, it's that simplicity that I think makes this so good. This is a story that tells valuable lessons the young watchers are learning about friendships, and the tests that they may inevitably endure one day. I know I've been to Hell and back with a few close friends, and it's something one should probably have a heads up about at an early age. To some degree, it's saying "one day, your friendships will be tested", but another way to look at it is that if things do fall apart, you can still hold on to those fond memories of that friendship. I think this is another one to be strongly considered for a Top 10 of these Disney animated films. It quickly rose up the ranks for me on this viewing, and although there's no real nostalgic attachment to it for me, it does make me think of a lot of the solid friendships of my youth. Some are still around, some have moved on, and some, I've even lost. But this film really did manage to spark a lot of those happy memories I had with these people. It definitely got deep with me, and gauged just about every emotion. It does it all with ease, but impact at the same time. For yours truly, this is one of Disney animation's better titles... and yes, I do realize how bold that statement is, but honestly, I loved this movie. 5/5 Here's another one I hadn't seen since childhood, and a find example of a Disney title that I remembered much more fondly than may have been deserved. It's not like it's a bad movie or anything, it's just... not very exciting for something called 'The Rescuers'. The characters here are kind of bland, and the saving grace that would be the villain makes me think of Cruella DeVil's drinking buddy. She's a villain you hate, but can make you laugh all the same with just how over the top she is. They might as well be sisters. The film opens as A mystery girl aboard a riverboat casts a message in a bottle out to sea, asking for help. The bottle is received by the Rescue Aid Society, located within the UN; a group of rodents who specialize in, well, rescuing people. The note is addressed to Morningside Orphanage, New York, and suggests that our mystery girl's name is Penny (Michelle Stacy), and she's in terrible danger. Hungarian representative, Bianca (Eva Gabor), volunteers for the mission. But being that this was 1977, she needs a male representative to go with, because of the dangerous possibilities the mission might hold. Of all representatives to choose from, she goes with the janitor, Bernard (Bob Newhart). The pair embark on their journey, and eventually learn of Penny's whereabouts. Bianca and Bernard follow a woman named Madame Medusa (Geraldine Page), who seems to be Penny's kidnapper, to a desolate swamp area called Devil's Bayou. There, Penny is meanwhile being held by Medusa's partner in crime, Mr. Snoops (Joe Flynn) and a couple of gators named Brutus and Nero. The reason for the kidnapping seems to have something to do with a diamond called the Devil's Eye, and the villains here need Penny's size to head down into a tight, dark and dangerous well to go looking for the diamond. Will the Rescuers be able to save Penny from these brutes before something terrible happens to Penny? Maybe it's just me, but I tend to find this chapter of 'The Rescuers' very humdrum. As mentioned before, the characters are pretty bland, and on top of that, the soundtrack is something so "lullaby" in tone, it's enough to make you nod off. Again, this isn't something I would call "bad", it's just, perhaps a bit more aimed at the youth of the time than kids today. I would imagine kids today might find this extraordinarily boring. However, things would change in the future with this film's forgotten sequel, 'The Rescuers Down Under', which basically fixes everything this movie may have been lacking. I might recommend a little background reading, then just diving into the sequel, because I don't feel like this is a Disney movie you have to see. This is another one I can't help but meet in the middle. I don't get much out of it now, but for its time, it was probably considered pretty damn good. The highlights are probably Bianca and Bernard, themselves, who are out to prove that a little mouse can make a big difference. I've always appreciated that message in a movie, and this one does it pretty well. The side characters are fine, Penny's... a touch irritating, but also fine (I mean, you can't help but feel bad for her) and on the whole, this movie is just... fine. I think a lot of that also has to do with 'Down Under' being so good, and completely overshadowing this - but that's a review coming in September, so stay tuned! Bottom line, this is passable, but it's really nothing special. 3/5 Back when I was a kid, we used to have the segments of this movie recorded from the TV, but until now, I've never seen this as a movie (although, of course, I knew it existed). These three segments would show up separately from time to time as part of Sunday's 'Wonderful World of Disney'. The movie used the three famous shorts to piece itself together, with a bit of new material to bridge the gap. This brings us back around to yet another anthology movie; the last one reviewed being 1949's 'Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad'. But this might be the most charming of them all. All segments are based on the classic children's stories by author A.A. Milne, and portray a young Christopher Robin (Bruce Reitherman/Jon Walmsley/Timothy Turner) and his stuffed animal friends, brought to life by his imagination; Eeyore the Donkey (Ralph Wright), Kanga (Barbara Luddy) and her son Roo (Clint Howard/Dori Whitaker), Rabbit (Junius Matthews), Piglet (John Fiedler), Owl (Hal Smith) and of course, a teddy bear named Winnie the Pooh (Sterling Holloway). Each of the three segments involves Christopher Robin and friends helping other friends with their problems, and that's basically all there is to it. These are nice, mild children's stories that might have a little lesson or two, but nothing so extreme as what a company like Pixar might bring to the table. Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree (1966): Perhaps most famous among the 'Pooh' stories, this one involves Pooh's insatiable appetite for honey. He really just wants to get up a honey tree and get at the honey the bees are working hard on making. After a failed attempt, he invites himself to Rabbit's house for lunch, where he eats all of Rabbit's honey, and becomes a bit too fat to fit back out the door, getting himself stuck. Of course, this would go on to become one of the first images that comes to mind when you think of 'Winnie the Pooh'. Eventually Christopher Robin and the gang have to try to get him out of there, but he's got to go a few days to slim down first. My childhood takeaway from this was always about eating too much, only to find yourself in some sort of trouble. It also has that karmic factor as he eats all of Rabbit's honey but then gets himself stuck because of it. Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day (1968): This one was always my personal favourite when I was a kid, largely because it's almost a Halloween segment. It's unofficial, but you get the sense that it's Fall, there's bad weather, and just some creepy stuff happening throughout. There's two things going on here; one involves Pooh and Piglet and how they deal with some of the troubles of what the blustery day brings with it. This includes the introduction of Tigger (Paul Winchell). Meanwhile, Eeyore searches for a new house for Owl, since his blew over in the wind. We also get introduced to the concept of "heffalumps and woozles" (elephants and weasels, as pronounced by Tigger); animals who really covet honey, which adds to Pooh's unease. They even have their own song as part of a dream sequence, right up there with 'Elephants on Parade'. Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too (1974): This one focuses primarily on Tigger, and sort of involves two stories in one. First up, we have Tigger bounce through Rabbit's garden, destroying it. This leads Rabbit to rally Pooh and Piglet to try to take to bounce out of Tigger. In the first attempt, they bring Tigger out to the woods and try to lose him. They end up lost, themselves, and Rabbit learns a thing or two about Tigger's worth. The season shifts from Fall to Winter, and Tigger eventually learns a lesson about playing too much when he bounces too high, and gets stuck up a tree. This one also brings the film's narrator (Sebastian Cabot) into play with a neat fourth-wall break. I like how this one has a sort of coin-flip lesson to teach kids. My basic takeaway is to know and understand your value, but don't get cocky about it. As a kid, seeing this all in divided segments on TV, I never actually saw it as the 1977 anthology film that this is. Having said that, I couldn't help but appreciate the additional short segments between each story, which eventually lead to a very touching end. Spoiler alert, but it involves Christopher Robin having to go off to school and perhaps grow away from his toys. It's sort of a "goodbye", but it's really more like a "see you again". Remembering the way the 2018 film 'Christopher Robin' opens (very similarly), this was even more touching to me now than it could have been back then. It's neat to know that the story will eventually continue. All in all, this is a very charming ride down memory lane, as I remembered watching all of these. I can distinctly remember moments when I watched some of them (not necessarily for the first time). I can remember watching 'Honey Tree' shortly after getting my tonsils out; I remember getting ready to go out for Halloween one year after watching 'Blustery Day' (another reason I see it as Halloween-ish); and for some reason I distinctly watching 'Tigger Too' one afternoon while home sick from school. So this all had some place in my childhood - a cheerful place I could go, however I may have felt. The sheer purity of it all is enough that I know parents who have passed it down to the next generation as something fun, safe and innocent for everyone in the house to watch. It hasn't lost its charm over the years, and this viewing really hit me in the nostalgias. It's pure comfort food! 5/5 |