 It's sort of interesting to think that there was a point in time when this was the last traditionally animated Disney Animation Studios film until 2009, when 'The Princess and the Frog' revived it, and revived it quite well. But more on that when we get there. I think I'm going to take an opportunity here, however, to recap where we are in the grand scheme of the Disney animation eras. We have gone through the "Golden Age", "Wartime Era", "Silver Age", "Bronze Age" and "Renaissance", thus covering five of the known seven.
With 'Home on the Range', we find ourselves ending this Disney month-long marathon in the midst of the "Post-Renaissance" era, which indeed, includes some of Disney's weakest animated titles. I've discovered that it sort of does a 'Star Trek' think up until this point. 'Fantastia 2000', good, 'Dinosaur', meh, 'New Groove', good, 'Atlantis', meh, and it goes on like that, at least up until this point, which ends us on not only a "meh" title, but one I might actually say is just bad altogether. With most Disney animated movies that I'm not big on, I still give the film the benefit of the doubt, knowing that there might be something about it I'm not getting. But truth told this is one of the lowest-ranked Disney movies of all time. And I have to say, I can see why, but more on that in a bit. Plot-wise, we go back to 1889, where, on the Dixon Ranch, a wanted cattle rustler named Alameda Slim (Randy Quaid) has successfully stolen all of Mr. Dixon's cattle, save for one, Maggie (Roseanne Barr). As a result, Dixon has to sell Maggie to a kindly old woman named Pearl Gesner (Carole Cook) who owns a patch of farmland known as "Patch of Heaven". Now that Maggie's safe and all, Sheriff Sam Brown (Richard Riehle) arrives to inform Pearl that she has three days to pay the bank her debt of $750, or the farm goes up for auction. Overhearing, Maggie suggests that she and the other two cows, the strictly proper Mrs. Calloway (Judi Dench) and Grace (Jennifer Tilly) head into town to try to win the money to save the farm. Once there, the cows discover that there may be a better way to obtain the exact amount they need. They notice a bounty hunter named Rico (Charles Dennis) drop a criminal off, collect his bounty and bring his horse for a rest while he takes a new horse named Buck (Cuba Gooding Jr.), who actually idolizes him. Here is where they find out that the bounty on Slim is exactly $750, so the cows figure it would be a good idea to try to get the bounty, themselves, in order to save Patch of Heaven. It sort of ends up becoming a 'Rat Race' type movie between the cows, Rico and honestly, eventually Buck as well. The whole thing might be just fine for any kids to enjoy, but this is not something that crosses into the realm of imagination and creativity that I can appreciate. The only thing that really holds this movie together for me in any regard is its talented voice cast (although personally, I could always do without Roseanne's voice). We have characters here I haven't mentioned yet like Slim's lackey, Wesley (Steve Buscemi), Jebb the Goat (Joe Flaherty), Audrey the Chicken (Estelle Harris) and quite a few more. Even Patrick Warburton is back here, last seen as Kronk in 'Emperor's New Groove', and arguably one of the best parts about that movie. But alas, a great voice cast is no match for weak writing and a snooze of a plot. But I'm going to be fair enough to mention that the whole Western thing has never really spoken to me, so there will be bias against this one for me, regardless (although I have seen a few that I've enjoyed) Really though, the overall story is just bland to me, and the film lacks the imagination that has been put into the other films that preceded it, even in this era. I don't know how else to say it but there's just something so extremely basic about this one. It doesn't really seem to gauge any emotions of any sort, and by the end it almost felt like it was representative of Disney almost giving up on their once epic storytelling. A stretch, sure, but by 2004, Pixar had really taken things over in the animation department. So there's always the thought that they just weren't trying because Pixar was doing well enough for them. Soon, such things would eventually get mended... but perhaps not before the next title on the list. 2/5
0 Comments
 Here, Disney takes another shot at the Native American side of story-telling brought to us by a couple of white dudes from Burlington, Vermont and Toronto, Ontario. Having said that, I can't help but feel that this is, at the very least, more respectful than 'Pocahontas' was. Cards on the table, I have no idea if this is offensive or not when it comes to things like tradition and lack of homework. I do want to be on the right side of things, so feel free to educate me in the comments below. Otherwise, on with the show.
Local tribes in Alaska hold the traditional belief that all creatures, great and small, are created through the Great Spirits, who appear as an aurora (Northern Lights effect) Here, we meet a trio of brothers; the eldest, Sitka (D.B. Sweeney); the middle brother, Denahi (Jason Raize), and youngest and hero of this tale, Kenai (Joaquin Phoenix). The time has come for Kenai to receive his totem. In this tribe, they come in the form of a necklace, with a wooden-carved pendant resembling an animal. Each totem represents what they need to achieve to become men - Kenai's is the Bear of Love. He's a little upset about this, and the others poke fun at him for it (only fooling around, not so much bullying), but soon, none of that matters. When a brown bear steals a basket of salmon, the three brothers pursue her, only to have Sitka meet a dramatic fate. Then, at Sitka's funeral, the other two swear vengeance on the bear. During the hunt, Kenai has a face-to-face encounter with the same bear from earlier. When Kenai just barely manages the kill, however, Sitka's spirit comes along and transforms Kenai into a bear. After this, Kenai is instructed by the tribe shaman, Tanana (Joan Copeland) to find his brother, Sitka in order to be changed back to a human. However, on his journey, he must atone for his actions. Potential atonement comes in the form of a bear cub name Koda (Jeremy Suarez) who frees him from a trap. The two make a deal that Koda will lead Kenai to where he needs to go as long as Kenai takes Koda to the annual salmon run. As their journey continues, the pair form a brotherly friendship. Soon enough, Kenai begins to learn what it means to be a bear, and a part of that includes humankind being the Boogeyman. It's very much a shoe-on-the-other-foot movie that doesn't entirely teach that killing is wrong, but it allows you to see the other perspective. It's good for people to learn empathy - especially impressionable children. I really think the message of this movie is well laid out. The execution is something I'm a bit iffy on. Let me make it perfectly clear that I LIKED this movie. I'm only out to try to forewarn of anything that may offend other viewers. As far as this one goes, I'd probably say its the lack of female characters and the almost completely non-native cast of voices (although a huge kudos to bringing Dave Thomas and Rick Moranis in as two extremely Canadian moose reminiscent of their original MacKenzie Brothers skits). For me, my only real criticism is that it does get a little bit preachy with its message, even if it is a good one to teach. It's certainly not gonna be for everyone, but I quite honestly enjoyed myself with this - bearing in mind that I look at things pretty deeply most of the time. 3/5  This one falls under the ongoing category of "feel-good" movies in my life. It's one that I haven't seen for a few years prior to this viewing, but it's safe to say that I forgot how much I loved it. This one comes to us from a couple of rather decent names in the realm of animation; Dean DeBlois, heavily responsible for the 'How to Train Your Dragon' series, and Chris Sanders who worked on the stories for 'The Lion King' and 'Aladdin' (both worked on 'Mulan' as well).
'Lilo & Stitch' is a good place for any fans of such titles to see where the roots started, so to speak. As we well know by now, this was the beginning of things, but there would be three sequels to follow, marketing, an animated series, more marketing, and also, marketing. That said, I am a fan of Stitch, and would proudly own something like a Stitch plushie. Of course, Disney's no stranger to that side of things, and it should be known that I've come to accept their mass marketing techniques as long as the stories keep on being good! This is a great example of such a thing where it just works on all sides. Taking place in Kauaʻi, Hawaii (I have been. If you haven't, you've gotta check it out. It's absolutely beautiful!), we meet a couple of sisters who have been left on their own after their parents were killed in a car crash cliche. Nani Pelekai (Tia Carrere) is a near-20-year-old waitress who struggles to take care of her little sister, Lilo (Daveigh Chase), who lives in her own little world of eccentricity and Elvis music. Lilo's classmates end up ostracizing her, which leads to Nani allowing her to get a dog for herself. While searching the animal shelter, Lilo falls for a rather interesting-looking dog who happens to be Stitch (Chris Sanders). What the audience knows from the beginning, however, is that Stich is really better known as Experiment 626; a sentient alien "criminal" who's ultimately quite intelligent, but also embraces chaos... like if the Joker was adorable. The creature was created by Dr. Jumba Jookiba (David Ogden Stiers) who eventually comes to Earth looking for him, with the help of his assistant, Earth "expert", Agent Wendell Pleakley (Kevin McDonald). Between Stitch dodging his own capture and causing a mess everywhere he goes, and a social worker named Cobra Bubbles (Ving Rhames), Nani finds herself in the midst of it all. As for Lilo, she's kind of the naive, fun child along for the ride - but that doesn't mean she doesn't learn a thing or two in the process. Personally speaking, I'd probably put this one up there with 'Emperor's New Groove' as far as its quality. It's pretty laugh-out-loud funny, relying more on being silly and fun than the drama these Disney animated features usually tend to be. I wouldn't say it's my favourite animated Disney film, but it's definitely somewhere well within my "Top 10" (a list I should probably actually make one of these days). It has some fun ideas going for it along with a solid sense of humour, original creature designs, a solid story, and lovable characters. It's a fine example of fun for the whole family, and a new title to seek out for feeling down in the dumps. 4/5  For as popular as this film seems to be, I probably never would have heard of it if it wasn't for a Chris Farley sketch on SNL where he dubs it an "awesome flick" while "interviewing" Jeff Daniels, who plays the starring role here. Despite Farley's opinion, It was never really on my list of things to do. However, recently, someone in my life recommended it for my "romantic comedy" catch-up theme, so I finally decided to check it out.
The film really hits the ground running, as it introduces us to Charlie Driggs (Daniels); an uptight investment banker who skips out on a restaurant bill. Catching him in the act is the free-spirited Audrey Hankel (Melanie Griffith), calling herself "Lulu". Their confrontation ends on a friendly note, however, as she offers him a ride downtown. Instead of going downtown, though, she throws his beeper out of the car and heads for New Jersey while openly drinking and driving. While hesitant about all of this at first, Charlie soon finds himself falling for the free spirit, all culminating towards her taking him to her high school reunion, posing as her husband for the evening. Things start to take a turn when Audrey's old flame Ray (Ray Liotta) runs into them at the reunion and isn't too keen on giving up what he once had with her. The whole thing sort of turns into loser vs bully for the woman's hand. As with most stories like this, the "loser" has to try to learn to be a bit more confident through trial and error as the woman takes him by the hand. Meanwhile, the bully is ultimately possessive, even if he acts kind of friendly to begin with. So, in my mind, I just feel like I've seen this sort of thing before. Whether or not it's been done better though; perhaps, but I have to admit that I still enjoyed this for what it was. If nothing else, I had fun with it. I think what really helps this movie stand out from others like it is the somewhat surprising dark turn it takes towards the end. I might not consider this film as much a comedy as a light drama with comedic elements, but that part of it is the first two acts. When we get to the third act, it does sort of turn into a thriller of sorts, and the climax isn't entirely something one would expect. With that said, I can't say the surprise twists and turns were very shocking as we've pretty much come to expect Ray Liotta's face to be that of someone who will kick your ass into your own face if you so much as look at him the wrong way. I mostly know him as something of a "tough guy", so it's no surprise to me to see him "Goodfella" things up here. About the only other thing I have to say about this is that it is very hard to find. This is one of those titles that may very well be fading into actual extinction, as according to 'JustWatch', you can find this on Hoopla (which I'm unfamiliar with), Tubi (with ads) and the Criterion Channel (which I didn't know was a thing). I managed with Tubi, but ads are SO annoying when they cut in so randomly. In saying that, I might not recommend looking too hard for this one, unless you're genuinely curious. I feel like it was something far more special for its time than for now. While I did have fun with it, it stands out as very "80s R" - sex, drugs, language and violence all there, but toned way down from what we have these days. If you have a Sunday afternoon to kill, check it out, you could have a good time. 3/5  Truth be told, I always knew 'Annie Hall' to be one of the most famous rom-coms of all time. However, I never realized that it seems to have reached such legendary status as a film, let alone a romantic comedy film. The list of this thing's accolades is extensive. But even if we ignore the Oscars or any other awards, it's widely seen as Woody Allen's (possibly) best film, holds a Rotten Tomato average of a whopping 94.5%, and happens to be one of the first fourth-wall-breaking movies.
In taking a look at that fourth wall that 'Deadpool' has since perfected, this is only really predated by various whacky comedies that include skits from 'Monty Python' and 'Laurel & Hardy' and a 1918 silent film called 'Men Who Have Made Love to Me'. It could be said that before 'Deadpool', this was the big 4th Wall movie (if not 'Ferris Bueller', which 'Deadpool' delightfully parodies... but enough about 'Deadpool', already). Another fun fact is the idea that the role of Annie Hall was actually written specifically for Diane Keaton. That alone seems like it gives a certain authenticity to things. As far as plot goes, it's really quite simple. Annie Hall (Keaton) ended a relationship with Comedian Alvy Singer (Allen) a year ago, and Alvy spends the film trying to wrap his head around why. The story is generally told in a (once again) fourth-wall-breaking flashback of their relationship, and in many, many ways reminds me of '500 Days of Summer'. I suppose I could say this is the '500 Days' of its time. The thing is, however, there's nothing about this that feels "old" or "outdated", and I'd say '500 Days' owes a lot to it. That said, I do love both in their own ways, and would recommend both for different reasons. However, 'Annie Hall' might be the one a touch more relatable on a personal level. Part of what makes this film so good is Allen's honest performance as a somewhat nervous wreck of a man. The question is constantly "why did this happen?" when we see, almost from the get-go, exactly what the problem is. It's a good example of a movie that might make someone asking the same questions take a good look at themselves. I mean, I can admit to being "that guy" in the past, so this ended up being pretty relatable. There was a lot here that made me laugh off some of my past insecurities, and ultimately, it was sort of healing. Maybe that sounds weird, but maybe it's another thing that makes this movie so legendarily good - it can serve as a personal eye-opener. 'Annie Hall' takes on everything that sucks about breaking up with someone, and everything leading to the breakup, giving it a great comedic edge. The thing is, there's no real side to choose from here. There's something ultimately realistic about this in that the main protagonist just so happens to be the problem. Allen's role here reflects that perspective of considering yourself to be the star in your own movie that is your life, but not taking into account the others around you who are starring in their own movie. Maybe that's a little deep for what this really is, but it was kind of my takeaway from things here; the idea that maybe the relationship fell apart because of you. Again though, the film doesn't send its message in such a harsh manner. Instead of making it almost insulting, it acts as more of a reflective story, and I'd recommend it pretty highly to people even today. You could do this and '500 Days' back to back, and it would make for a really solid night of good break-up movies. I know how bad that might sound, but sometimes, us perpetually single guys need a good movie like this to remind us of how things really are as opposed to how we really want them. I think I'll be adding this one to my list of things to watch upon heartbreak. It speaks truth, but it's also pretty hilarious, and being that this is my first viewing of it, I might say timeless as well. 4/5  For a very long time, I never really considered romantic comedies to be my cup of tea. While the fact remains that I still see them as almost all the same (the generalized version being "unlikely couple get together in the end"), there are a few that stand out as famous titles under the category. So, I decided to take a look at some of the titles best known as classic romantic comedies that I've honestly never actually seen before now (at least not all the way through).
One of the all-time greats, according to audiences, is 'When Harry Met Sally'. I've gone all these years assuming that the movie was essentially what the title says "these two meet, fall in love, the end", so I've foolishly deemed it to be ultimately predictable, and certainly not the type of movie I'd ever seek out. However, I'm happy to admit that I definitely see why this has its staying power. It's a pretty interesting story of how chance can bring two people together, it tells its story in a matter of 5-year gaps, and two of the most charmingly funny leads of the time are its headliners. We begin in 1977, when Harry Burns (Billy Crystal) meets Sally Albright (Meg Ryan) through his girlfriend, Amanda (Michelle Nicastro). Upon graduation from the University of Chicago, Harry and Sally drive together for convenience purposes to New York City, where she plans on starting school for journalism and he plans on starting a new career. They eventually part ways on somewhat bitter terms, mostly based on their differing ideas of relationships; namely the idea that men and women can't be friends because the "sex thing" gets in the way (in other words, one ALWAYS has sexual feelings for the other, despite any current relationship status). I'm not gonna drag it all out, but through the years; once in 1982, and once again in 1987, their paths keep crossing. Eventually, their friendship leads them to have feelings for one another, despite the fact that they both seem to want to just be friends. Because of the stubbornness on both their parts, there can be times that the movie gets frustrating. But I also believe that's all part of it - it wants you to feel what these characters are feeling, which is this insane amount of pressure between maintaining a friendship, forming a relationship, and which is the right move. One thing I really enjoyed about this movie (aside from that great, famous scene everyone knows and loves) was the overall charm it put forth. Not only do we get the likes of Crystal and Ryan (and Carrie Fisher as NOT Princess Leia), but we have a pretty solid soundtrack, consisting of classy music, and elderly couples reminiscing about how and when they met. You follow along with these stories with a grin on your face because you can't help but fall in love with all these couples, even if they are putting forth their little quirks that can make the relationship tough. My favourite was a couple that kept talking over each other, only to sort of land on the same conclusion to the story. There is something SO lovable about an elderly couple reminiscing on their love life, and this film has it in buckets. At times, perhaps it's a bit sappy, but I can't help but take these sweet stories to heart. This was a movie I'm glad I finally checked out for myself. Although I probably won't rush back to watch it again, it was entertaining, charming, sweet, and it just hits the right spot. One thing to know going into this is that it's really not raunchy by any means, so don't go looking for it. If anything, I'd say this is a near-perfect date movie for a nice night in. 3/5  After the laggy, somewhat disappointing 'Dinosaur', Disney managed to come back strong with a film that reminds us of how fun Disney can still be. Unfortunately for yours truly, I was still in a bit of a phase of not caring too much about animation, so this was one of the bunch of Disney flicks I missed out on in theaters.
It wasn't until a few friends started throwing quotes around from it in high school that I got curious. These quotes were always giving me a good chuckle, so I finally decided to rent it when it was fresh on video, and check it out (back when you could still do that). Lo and behold, I actually loved it, and I was kind of surprised at how much I did. It was refreshing to see Disney put its magic in the background and bring its comedy forward. We meet a selfish, spoiled, power-abusing brat named Kuzco (David Spade), who happens to be the Incan Emperor. He spends his days talking down to people and being an overall egotistical jerk. He calls on the village leader, Pacha (John Goodman), to tell him that he plans to build a summer mansion in his village called "Kuzcotopia". He also fires his advisor, Yzma (Eartha Kitt) and her bumbling assistant, Kronk (Patrick Warburton). Yzma plans to revenge kill him with some poison, but, Kronk manages to mess up the mixture, turning Kuzco into a llama instead. Eventually, Kuzco ends up in Pacha's care, mistaken for one of his llamas. Demanding to be led back to his palace, Pacha agrees to escort him, under the condition that he doesn't follow through with his summer home plans. Meanwhile, Yzma finds out that the assassination on Kuzco didn't go as planned, so she and Kronk set out to find him and finish the job. The big takeaway from this seems to be the aspect of teamwork, whether you're looking at Kuzco's dealings with Pacha or Yzma's dealings with Kronk. While Kuzco and Pacha have to learn to work together to some pretty comedic results, for me, the best laughs come from Yzma and Kronk. Yzma just seems to try too hard, but Kronk's idiotic ways always result in her suffering somehow - be it cartoonish physical assault ("WRONG LEVEERR!") or just pure inconvenience ("It's called a 'cruel irony', like my dependence on you"). It's so very refreshing to see the villain be comedic again for the first time in a long time. It's almost like they gave Cruella DeVille a long-lost sister... or at least a distant relative, considering time frames. I was very happy to see that this time around, the comedy didn't really wear thin like I thought it might. It has been quite a few years since I last saw it, so this viewing brought a bit of nostalgia to the table as well. It remains one of my Disney animation studio favourites, but in a different sort of way. This is one of few examples I can think of that just brings pure fun to the table, and there's nothing all too serious going on here. It's a comedy far before it's a drama of any kind, and that's, to say it yet again, refreshing! 4/5  Here we have the final title of the Renaissance era, and I'm happy to say that this particular era does end on a strong note. This is one of the few films on my Disney Catch-Up list that I haven't seen before now as well. One thing I appreciate with titles like these as opposed to something like 'Mulan' or 'Pocahontas' is that it's a Disney take on a work of fiction, and not something based on a true story.
I went into this expecting something a sort of cross, in atmosphere between 'The Jungle Book' and 'The Lion King' and... well, I have to admit that I pretty well got what I expected. I'm not sure this would land on an all-time favourites list, but I definitely enjoyed it for what it was, and I can't say that critically, I had any real problems with it. I thought it was charming and that there was even a bit more maturity to it than some other titles in the era. It's definitely a good way for Disney to cap off the century, as we are now in good old 1999. The film opens a little over a century ago, where we see tragedy befall two separate families, both at the hands of a leopard known as Sabor. The first family is a British couple and their baby son, who get shipwrecked and forced to go all Swiss Family Robinson. Off-screen, the parents are killed, leaving the baby all alone. If that's not enough, not too far away, a mother gorilla named Kala (Glenn Close) ends up losing her baby as well. Eventually, Kala happens on the treehouse built by the human couple and finds the infant, only to bring it back to the troop and raise it as her own. Yeah, the opening is a lot. But it does get much better. As Tarzan (Tony Goldwyn/Alex D. Linz) grows up, he befriends various other animals; namely Terk (Rosie O'Donnell), a young female gorilla with a bit of attitude, and Tantor (Wayne Knight), an elephant that walks on the worried side. He's otherwise picked on for being different, even by the troop's leader, Kerchak (Lance Henriksen). There's a bit of a spoiler if I get into how, but eventually, Tarzan does earn the respect of his troop just before a trio of humans come waltzing in - Professor Archimedes Q. Porter (Nigel Hawthorne), his daughter, Jane (Minnie Driver), and their escort and pro hunter, Clayton (Brian Blessed). The humans are there to study gorillas in their natural habitat, but soon enough, Jane stumbles across Tarzan, and the rest is relatively predictable. as Clayton eventually takes interest in Tarzan for the wrong reasons, whereas Porter is interested in him on a scientific level. As for Jane, she finds him fascinating, and it probably also helps that the dude is as buff as all hell. I make it sound like it's some sort of par for the course story, and in some ways it is. But one can appreciate some of the execution of this all the same. For example, I appreciated that it didn't make Tarzan out to be some dummy so much as he's just a stranger to the world. I also appreciated some of the musical selections throughout the film, making it both fun and heartwarming - even if 'You'll be in My Heart' has been played out. I can't help but feel, upon leaving this, that it's something I would have loved if it was somewhere closer to 'Aladdin' in its timing. By 1999 I was kind of ignorant to the whole Disney animation thing, and it was "kids stuff" - as opposed to now, where I'm damn near 40 and appreciating the stories animation can tell, and the characters it can develop. Like I said earlier, this was a pretty solid title to cap the century off with, considering it's a story that goes back as far as 1912! Something about that just feels right. I'm glad I finally checked it out, and might not mind a re-watch or two in the future. 4/5  Although I pretty well consider the Disney Renaissance era "my era" (especially between 'Little Mermaid' and 'Lion King'), the latter part of it wasn't something I paid much attention to. I had simply outgrown it and moved on with other things. It wouldn't be until much later that I'd finally watch 'Mulan' for this very site just a couple of years ago. So this is a bit of a rewrite, as I think my opinion has changed on it quite a bit.
Plot-wise, we are introduced to a young lady named Fa Mulan (Ming-Na Wen). As a woman of the time, she gets stuck with old traditions and is brought up to be "proper". However, she's not quite into it, and she longs for something more. In a somewhat refreshing change of pace from other Disney movies, however, a man isn't really part of her "something more". She wants to find her life's purpose and fulfill it, and that's really all there is to it. In that case, this is a stand-out for Disney, making their female protagonist much more about herself than "finding true love". Back to the story, after the Huns, led by our story's villain, Shan Yu (Miguel Ferrer) breach the Great Wall of China, the Chinese Emperor (Pat Morita) calls on one man from each family to join the Chinese army. When the Fa family is called upon, Mulan's father, Zhou (Soon-Tek Oh) volunteers. However, he's a little on the elderly side, and Mulan protests to him going into battle, being as frail as he is. She then takes matters into her own hands, and sets out on her own, dressed as a boy, so as not to bring "shame" on her family. In other words, yeah, women going to war was unheard of here. Along her journey, Mulan befriends a helpful dragon named Mushu (Eddie Murphy) and a band of soldiers, who provide a lot of comedy relief throughout the film. In my opinion, they are the best part of it. As far as Mulan's character, I give credit to Disney giving us a stronger female character, and she's all in all likable. I criticized her character a bit for sinking into the background a little too much on my last review. But now I wonder if that lends itself more to the whole concept of her being the underdog here. After watching the live-action version and then coming back to this, I have to say that it's now confirmed that I like her overall journey here a bit more. Going back to what I said in the 'Mulan 2020' review, I suggest that this feels like a story about someone trying to prove themselves in a society that won't have it. In this case, Mulan is a woman out to prove herself in a man's world, but the story could potentially appeal to anyone of any sort of "minority" status. It's about proving one's self. The live-action version leans a little more towards the equal rights aspect of things and feels a little more heavy-leaning on Mulan's role as a woman. In fairness, both are decently told, and you get what you need to out of them both. However, there's not much of an "underdog" feel to the live-action film in comparison to this, so I tend to lean towards this a bit more. I do appreciate that, especially for the time, they gave us a genuine heroine instead of just another princess. Here we have a girl who breaks the rules of her society and goes to war so that her father can continue living. The love here is for her father and her family name, not some sort of Prince Charming character, and it's honestly pretty refreshing. When you really think about it, this was pretty powerful stuff for the time, and I'm pretty happy to say that over the years it has grown on me (especially after the live-action wasn't quite as good). The animation is nice, the sets are nice, the "suit-up" montage is pretty damn sweet, and the songs take a sort of a different step from the typical mix. I know there's some controversy in certain songs like "I'll Make a Man Out of You", and some historical inaccuracies, much like with 'Pocahontas'. But for whatever reason, I find these things more forgivable here - possibly because the point to the story overshadows these things. That said, there could always be a thing or two that I'm missing. So I'll take the animated over the live-action here, but at the end of the day, while still good, neither are movies I rush back to for a re-watch. 3/5  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  '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  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  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  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  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  It is my humble opinion that, if any Disney animated film was just made for a lazy Sunday, it's got to go to 'Robin Hood'. It's a hard thing to explain, but there's something about the ever-pleasant atmosphere of this film that makes it a sort of "comfort food" movie. It's one I can remember 'Wonderful World of Disney' (every Sunday at 6:00) airing at some point in my childhood, and it's one I haven't seen a lot, but it's one I definitely really like.
With a Disney animated take on things, one can probably imagine that this is a very simplified version of the 'Robin Hood' story. For those unfamiliar, in this version, we follow Robin Hood - a Fox (Brian Bedford) and Little John - a Bear (Phil Harris); two outlaws who dwell in Sherwood Forest. Their M.O. is to rob from the rich, and give to the poor. Being that they interfere with Prince John - a Lion (Peter Ustinov), and his taxation of the townsfolk, they are constantly pursued by the Sherriff of Nottingham - a Wolf (Pat Buttram) in an effort to arrest them, but they outsmart him at every turn. Robin and Little John are two characters you instantly like, as they "stick it to the man", but also have a sweet side to them - which is Robin Hood in a nutshell. Unlike many different versions of this story, we actually see a little something from a kid's perspective. Robin helps out a young rabbit named Skippy (Billy Whitaker) and gives the kid a bow and arrow and his signature hat. While playing with sharp objects outside, he launches an arrow into the grounds of Maid Marian - a Vixen's (Monica Evans) castle. While going in after it, Marian and her attendant, Lady Kluck - a Chicken (Carole Shelley) meet Skippy (and his friends), and it's here that we learn about a romantic history between Marian and Robin, leading to an archery contest Robin knows he can win; the big prize being a kiss from Marian. Without spoiling the entire movie, much of what ensues involves the relationship between Robin and Marian while Prince John keeps trying to thwart him. It might bear mentioning a few other characters, like Sir-Hiss - a Snake (Terry-Thomas); Prince John's assistant. PJ and Hiss play very well off each other, and I find it interesting that Hiss is more the straight role while PJ is the comedy relief. We've also got the old favourite, Friar Tuck - a Badger (Andy Devine) who, while part of the church, decidedly helps Robin and Little John under the radar. The there's the folk-singing, story-telling rooster, Allan-a-Dale (Roger Miller) who comes in and out of the film, but is essentially meant to be the film's narrator. They all bring a little something of their own to the film, and deserve the credit for providing us with some rather likable but much lesser known (or not at all known) characters, adding to the fun of it all. One might watch this version of 'Robin Hood' and suggest that it's far too simplistic. It's often seen in films as somewhat epic, and with a bit of a dark side. However, there's no real sense of any sort of dark side of this. Even our primary antagonist constantly cries for his mommy and sucks his thumb. However, some may not know that this could have been seen as a sort of "quick fix"; and it you ask me, a successful one. This was the first film to start production after Walt Disney's death, so imagine being stuck with that "first project" after the guy who founded the entire juggernaut company just died. So, the story is a simple take on something very familiar, and it takes elements from an abandoned project called 'Reynard the Fox'. Nowadays, we have different and even more modern takes on the tale; each one with a more or less different take on things. For example, in this version, the concept of Robin's "Merry Men" just doesn't exist. It has, over the years, become akin to something like 'Dracula' or 'James Bond' or even 'Batman' in as much as we all have our select favourite, or one version we consider the best. Although this one wasn't met with a whole whack of positive critical reception, it is very clearly beloved by the masses; often seen as one of the all-time best versions of the story. This is the kind of movie I'm doing this site for (other than it being a hobby of sorts); reviewing it as a general audience member more than a critic. I could get critical, but why? This is so well done, completely inoffensive, and a fun little jaunt for the family. It's one that leaves you with a smile. 4/5  Unlike the other movies I have reviewed this month, '48 Hrs.' is a title that I remember once seeing, but this particular viewing may very well have been my first. In other words, I didn't remember a damn thing. Having said that, it's unfortunately a bit easier nowadays to claim this as a pretty dated piece of work they may not be able to get away with these days - much of it having to do with race. So fair warning before going into this, it is another one of those 80s flicks that's sort of stuck in its time.
As the film opens, we are introduced to convicted criminal Albert Ganz (James Remar) as part of a road gang. He meets up with a Native American man named Billy Bear (Sonny Landham) who stages a fight with him, and in the process, eventually escape the situation, killing a few cops in the process. Meanwhile, Inspector Jack Cates (Nick Nolte) is sent with two other detectives to investigate a man by the name of G.P. Polson. This results in a shootout that kills the two associate detectives, reveals Polson to really be Ganz, and makes things a touch more personal for Cates. This is when fellow cop, Ben Kehoe (Brion James) informs Jack about Ganz former partner in crime, Reggie Hammond (Eddie Murphy); a criminal serving three years for armed robbery with just six months left. With the cooperation of the department, Jack gets Reggie out of prison on a 48-hour release so that he can assist in taking down his former partner. What results is what is widely recognized as the first in a long line of buddy cop movies. Being 1982, it predates pretty much anything else I can think of in the category. Although the technicality here is that Reggie really isn't a cop, providing us with another "tomayto/tomahto" situation, like 'Die Hard' being a Christmas movie (don't argue, we see it as we see it, and I am of the Christmas mind). Anyway, the first in a subgenre (whether one agrees or not, it is highly credited as such) is a pretty big deal, as it sets the bar for something new. The problem in going back to this, and having it be so fresh in my head, is that I've seen so much more I would deem a lot better, a lot funnier, and the bar has really just been set higher in the years since. When we think of buddy cop movies now, the first ones to spring to mind are titles like 'Lethal Weapon' or 'Rush Hour', where this may not even really be in the game anymore. That said, it still makes for an interesting bit of cinematic history, all things considered. This is another one of those titles I remember being looked at very fondly back in the 80s. I can still remember a lot of grownups talking about it (this came out the year I was born, so the memories are definitely very hazy), and I can still remember a lot of laughter associated with it. I admit to a few giggles here and there, but not a whole lot stood out to me in any way. By the ends, one thing remained very clear - that this is most definitely a product of its time, and we've come a very long way since. But here I am, making it sound like it's probably not worth the watch anymore. On the contrary, I think it makes for a decent viewing with the right frame of mind. Before you enter into this, you might want to take the Disney+ disclaimer into consideration. Basically something that says "certain things were said and/or done here that aren't allowed anymore, and have since been deemed offensive". Then you can go into it, seeing it as a little piece of history. You can educate yourself on what we used to be able to get away with, and how far we've come. You can see it as the buddy cop movie that started it all (again, debatable), and do it all with the understanding that this was once a big hit. If nothing else, it was definitely an interesting title to look back on. But unfortunately for yours truly, I don't think it holds up enough to want to revisit it any time soon... the sequel on the other hand, at least has me mildly curious... 3/5 |
RSS Feed