 'Treasure Planet' was always a bit of an anomaly to me. Despite a release that (at least among my peers) sort of just came and went, somehow the title 'Treasure Planet' stuck with me as a curiosity. There is the part of me that enjoys the old 'Treasure Island' tale (especially when told by Muppets), so a neat, sci-fi rendering of the story seemed like a cool idea. I did review this a few years ago as well, and not a whole lot has changed.
To simplify the plot completely, it is, exactly, 'Treasure Island' in space. If you are unfamiliar with 'Treasure Island', it's an adventure tale from all the way back to 1881, involving pirates, namely Long John Silver (Brian Murray), a boy named Jim Hawkins (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and the search for the evil Captain Flint's buried treasure. I know that's extremely simplified, but hey, it's a 140+-year-old story with about a million renditions that you've likely read at some point in school. It's legendary. That said, I have to admit that it seemed to take them long enough to come up with a sci-fi version of the story, because why the hell not? It's in the public domain, go nuts! When I first reviewed this, I brought up the combination of the overall setting and how distracting it was. The idea is that the mechanics and backdrop are basically advanced technology, but the costume design is that of the pirate age along with the ship they're sailing on. And though I admit it's still a bit weird that Disney didn't go one way or the other on it (entirely traditional or entirely futuristic), it certainly takes nothing away from the film. It's interesting, given Disney's history of retelling tales that it wasn't just traditional. But I do give kudos for being creative. We can't always be purists (at least I can't). For the most part, I still enjoyed this one, although it's not like it would make the top of my list as far as Disney animation goes. It's good, but being a story we've seen so many times before, it IS unfortunately somewhat forgettable. It keeps the original story alive and well, and we do get to like these characters as we go on this adventure. The key relationship here is the one between Long John and Jim, as they have a sort of mutual respect for one another that plays through the film, even when things go awry (I mean, spoiler alert, but Long John ends up being a double-crossing pirate). It would feel wrong not to offer up a few more of the talented voices who worked on this. It's easy enough to explain that it's the plot of 'Treasure Island' in space, but several characters lend themselves to the great relationships we see forming throughout the film. Just a few of the more familiar voices include Emma Thompson as Captain Amelia, David Hyde Pierce as Doctor Doppler, Martin Short as B.E.N. and Laurie Metcalf as Sarah Hawkins. And yes, in case you are wondering, a couple of these characters are robots. Perhaps my true appreciation for the film, however, lies in the fact that it looks so beautiful, using CG to its full advantage, providing us with a sort of grand scale of things. To see this on the big screen probably would have been much more of a treat than on my standard computer screen, streaming a Disney+ feature. In the end, it's a interesting rendition of an age-old classic tale, and it's perfectly fine. The thing of it is, it doesn't stand out in any parituclar way (aside from perhaps the animation of the time), and has since been completely shrouded by the new age of Disney animation, which dates any amount of CG from 2002. 3/5
0 Comments
 Whether it's your cup of tea or not, 'Fantasia' has gone down in cinematic history as one of Disney's big gems. Despite all of the controversial issues that lie within, it does still do a fine job of combining its animation with a great selection of classical music from classical artists. I personally loved it, so I looked forward to giving its sequel my first watch for this review; nice and fresh. This launches the "Post-Renaissance" era; the 6th, and last before the present "Revival" era.
Typically, a Disney animated sequel would be sent straight to video at this point in time. It's still pretty untypical, as (correct me if I'm wrong) I think 'Frozen II' is the only one that managed to pull it off besides this. But truth be told, a sequel was in the works for quite some time, but there was some doubt about audience interest. That is until the 1991 home video release of the original 'Fantasia' started setting things back into motion for the development of this great sequel. Eventually, this would finally come along, approximately 60 years after the original. Symphony No. 5 by Ludwig van Beethoven: A similar sort of opening act to the original is introduced by Deems Taylor (musical advisor for the original) through some archived audio recordings. This one uses geometric shapes of both vibrant colours to represent butterflies, and black to represent bats, telling a basic story of light conquering the darkness. It was interesting, and I appreciated the artistic style. But it's soon overshadowed by a bunch of whales, and ends up almost being forgettable. 3/5 Pines of Rome by Ottorino Respighi: Introduced by Steve Martin and Itzhak Perlman., this one was probably my favourite of this collection. It features a family of humpback whales with the ability to fly and tells the short story of a mother's love for her calf. This is just an all-around beautiful piece and makes me think of something from a dream. I'm an absolute sucker for this kind of wondrous atmosphere, and it sort of reminds you of what Disney magic is supposed to look like. 5/5 Rhapsody in Blue by George Gershwin: Introduced by Quincy Jones and pianist Ralph Grierson, this one takes inspiration from 30's caricaturist Al Hirschfeld. The segment is also set in the 30s, in New York City. It follows four separate characters whose stories coincide, as they all wish for something "more" than what they have. I really liked the jazzy concept of this whole segment in both the music and the animation style. It's almost like a love letter to 1930s urban culture, and provides a feel-good atmosphere by its conclusion. 4/5 Piano Concerto No. 2, Allegro, Opus 102 by Dmitri Shostakovich: Introduced by Bette Midler featuring pianist Yefim Bronfman, this one features the music playing overtop of an animated rendition of Hans Christian Andersen's "The Steadfast Tin Soldier". It's fun, and the animation really sticks out, providing a neat little adventure with an ending much happier than the original story. 4/5 The Carnival of the Animals (Le Carnival des Animaux), Finale by Camille Saint-Saëns: This is far from my favourite segment, but it definitely has my favourite intro of the film by James Earl Jones. The segment portrays a flock of flamingos and the "odd duck" among them. His interest in a yo-yo distracts him from proper flock activities. It's cute, but nothing really stands out about it. 3/5 The Sorcerer's Apprentice by Paul Dukas: Introduced by Penn & Teller, this classic and most popular segment is brought back for another go. This one depicts Mickey Mouse as Sorcerer Yen Sid's apprentice. He attempts to use magic to make a clean-up job easier, but it gets completely out of hand. This is and will forever be a total classic. I gave it 5 once, and I'll give it 5 again. 5/5 Pomp and Circumstance – Marches 1, 2, 3 and 4 by Edward Elgar: Composer James Levine along with Mickey Mouse introduces this one. Donald and Daisy Duck are featured in a rendition of the 'Noah's Ark' story from the 'Book of Genesis'. Donald is tasked with gathering the animals and loading them two by two, begging the question of why Donald and Daisy don't count as the two ducks on the ark. Anyway, between the song that everyone hears at graduation, and the story about Noah's Ark, I kind of just felt like I was in class. 3/5 Firebird Suite—1919 Version by Igor Stravinsky: Angela Lansbury introduces the final and certainly one of the best segments of the film. It features an elk and a sprite who accidentally awakens a fire spirit. The segment is about the cycle of life, death and renewal, and is a pretty solid closer to this when compared to the original's 'Night on Bald Mountain', which was very similar. 5/5 The only thing I found truly a bit odd about this experience was its length. While the original clocks in at just over two hours, this is just 1 hour and 15 minutes. When Lansbury said that it was time for the final segment, I had wondered if I was watching some edited version. It doesn't really take away from the experience, but it does make it feel like more of a Disney Sunday Night Special as opposed to a full-fledged 'Fantasia' sequel. Still though, I'm very glad I watched it, because a few segments really stuck out for me, providing a pretty grand experience despite its length. , 4/5  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  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  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 was one of those titles I missed because, to be perfectly frank, I got a touch lazy. But in my defense, I was just coming back the week of its release from a three-week trip to the UK. I did, however, promise myself that it would make it into my reviews some time down the line because it seemed like something up my alley as far as it being a fun, dark, family flick as well as something I've been told makes a pretty good Halloween movie (which we probably know by now I'm a sucker for)
Upon finally viewing it, I got pretty much what I expected from it, although I might say it got a bit darker than I thought it might. Take a movie like 'Goosebumps', make it touch scarier, and this is pretty much what you get. For some, this movie will be a fun, albeit creepy family flick they enjoy every October for the spooky season. However, for others, I can just as easily see it being somewhat dismissible as, admittedly, there are several better films of its type out there. Once again, this is something I think is kind of just "fine". It didn't suck, but there wasn't much about it that truly stood out either. Taking place in 1955, New Zebedee, Michigan, our story involves 10-year-old Lewis Barnavelt (Owen Vaccaro) who moves in with his Uncle Jonathan (Jack Black) after his parents were killed in a car crash. The house is less than inviting to the fearful Lewis to begin with, but on his first night he hears a mysterious ticking coming from the walls. This leads to him finding out, perhaps the hard way, that his Uncle and a neighbor named Florence Zimmerman (Cate Blanchett) are respectively a warlock and a witch. Meanwhile, at school, Lewis lives a live of overall unpopularity as the new kid in town. He makes a friend named Tarby Corrigan (Sunny Suljic), who's running for class president. Upon his win, he then abandons Lewis like a jerk. However, Lewis convinces Jonathan to teach him magic, which he intends to use to impress Tarby and regain his friendship. This unfortunately leads to magic-gone-wrong, with the resurrection of a sinister warlock and former friend named Isaac Izard (Kyle MacLachlan). The man had a personal vendetta against Jonathan before his passing, which is a whole backstory explanation, but the clock in the walls is seemingly meant to drive Jonathan mad and now Jonathan wants to find the clock and figure out its purpose. I'd say for the most part this is a movie that gives us the old 'Spider-Man' chestnut of "with great power comes great responsibility". It certainly borrows from a few different things to create its magical world within the house (I still haven't mentioned the enchanted furniture). If I had to describe it, I'd say it's something along the lines of 'Harry Potter' meets 'Goosebumps' with perhaps a dose of 'Casper'. All in all, I enjoyed it for what it was, but I can't deny that there was an awful lot of familiarity to it. I'd aim it towards an audience of preteens, where it's family friendly, but just dark enough to have some real atmosphere to it. By far, the most interesting factor to me is the fact that this came from, director Eli Roth (one who may be considered the king of "torture porn" with his 'Hostel' movies) and writer Eric Kripke (known for the dark and suggestive superhero comedy, 'The Boys'). One might see shades of them through some of the darker parts of this, but I'm not sure it's quite dark enough to be considered "scary" for kids. Heck, it may even be a decent toe-dip into darker material for kids. It's definitely darker than 'Goosebumps', but much lighter than something like 'The Haunting'. I find the humor kind of falls flat sometimes, but again, for a younger audience, this could still be a lot of fun. 3/5  Closing the chapter of the Silver Age with 'The Jungle Book', we now begin the Bronze Age (and 4th age) of Disney animation. We begin with a title I haven't watched since I was a little kid, so this may as well be a first time for me. In fact, just about everything from the Bronze Age falls under that category except for 'The Black Cauldron', which I haven't seen at all. So this should make for an interesting era of review... when it resumes in April.
Back to the film at hand, however, this is one of those titles that starts off kind of lame and dull, and from the get-go, I wasn't expecting to be very entertained. Taking place in Paris, 1910, a retired opera singer named Madame Adelaide Bonfamille (Hermione Baddeley) lives with her butler, Edgar (Roddy Maude-Roxby), and her precious cat, Dutchess (Eva Gabor) along with her three kittens, Berlioz (Dean Clark), Marie (Liz English) and Toulouse (Gary Dubin). One day, Madame declares in her will that her entire fortune is to go to her cats. Overhearing this, Edgar plots to catnap (not in a good way) the cats and abandon them somewhere. We hate Edgar and his ideas, which include drugging three cute, innocent kittens. You'd take Jasper and Horace over this guy any day. Edgar's plan is (somewhat) foiled, however, by two hounds named Napoleon (Pat Buttram... poor guy) and Lafayette (George Lindsey). In ambushing Edgar as just a couple of hounds chasing some guy on a vehicle, Edgar loses track of the cats who all wake up only to find themselves lost. The next morning, they meet the... almost Bruce Campbell-esque Thomas O'Malley (Phil Harris) who offers to help Dutchess and her kittens get back to their home in Paris. The lot of the movie is pretty much these cats having a homeward bound adventure, and running into interesting characters along the way. Meanwhile Edgar and the two hounds have a sort of ongoing thing, as the dogs now possess whatever evidence could convict him of the crime of stealing the cats. Much as I expected, a lot of the film ended up being about two things - overall cuteness involving the kittens, and the clashing of society. When the main story involves the wealthy and comfortable cat meeting the street smart alley cat, it only brings to mind 'Lady & The Tramp', and in a way, we've kind of done this story already - at least a very similar one. Hell, this title even comes with its own dash of racism in the form of a Siamese cat, just like 'Lady & The Tramp'! Once again, Disney Plus has the forewarning about certain depictions of society before the film gets going, and once again, I credit them for that. I think it's better to get an idea of a time when certain things seemed acceptable so we can learn from our mistakes, moving forward. This may be extreme, but it's not unlike why we learn about WWII in history class. By the end of the film, I consider this movie just sort of "there". I was certainly mildly entertained by several parts of it, but so much of it hasn't aged particularly well. The primary example is when O'Malley, Dutchess and the kittens visit O'Malley's swinging cat friends. The musical number they do is a lot of fun, and well-animated, but at the cost of portraying a racial stereotype or two. Beyond that, O'Malley's constant use of the word "baby" as a term of endearment along with Dutchess being entirely uninteresting in her female role can be somewhat cringe-worthy. Their dynamic would be criticized immensely if this was released today. However, it was 1970, and a lot of this was just the way it was. I guess if I were to recommend this, it would be the same as recommending 'The Jungle Book'. Kids could check this out and have a good time with it, but it might be important to let them know things like... don't ever call a woman "baby" if you don't know already know her AND have her consent to do so. Nowadays, that's the sort of thing that can earn you a kick to the nuts, a slap to the face, or your face to your nuts because she'll find a way to make it happen. As far as this one goes, it just sort of lingers as "okay" at best. There were moments I liked, but they were few and far between, and this is only mildly entertaining at best. The hounds are probably the best part, and they're simple comic relief, so I wouldn't approach this one with super high expectations. 3/5  According to the 7 eras of Disney animation, the "Silver Age" ends with this particular title, thus ending the third age of the animation studio. For those curious, the Golden Age goes from 'Snow White' to 'Bambi'; the Wartime Era goes from 'Saludos Amigos' to 'Ichabod and Mr. Toad', and the Silver Age covers from 'Cinderella' up to this point. Here we have one of my personal favorites that strays away from the whole "Princess" thing and gives us a solid adventure aimed perhaps a touch more at us boys. Once again this is something that happens a bit more than we tend to realize.
The film tells us the tale of an orphan boy named Mowgli (Bruce Reitherman), who is found by a Panther named Bagheera (Sebastian Cabot) in the jungles of India. Bagheera delivers Mowgli to a pack of wolves, lead by Akela (John Abbott) who raises him as one of the pack. One day, Akela comes to the decision that Mowgli has to leave the pack as well as the jungle he calls home, and be returned to his own kind in what they call the "Man-Village". A threat has returned in the form of a Tiger named Shere Khan (George Sanders), and it's believed that Mowgli doesn't stand a chance of survival. While being escorted to the "Man-Village" by Bagheera, Mowgli comes across several colorful characters including a hungry python named Kaa (Sterling Holloway), a friendly, rough-and-tumble bear named Baloo (Phil Harris), an Elephant Army, lead by Col. Hathi (J. Pat O'Malley) a greedy orangutan named King Louie (Louis Prima) who happens to be the character of racial controversy in this film. I'm not gonna get too deep into this particular controversy, but once again I give Disney Plus credit for owning up to things in the beginning of the film, and instead of just deleting things, leaving them in to spark conversation among viewers... now if only they'd do something similar for the 'Simpsons' episode 'Stark Raving Dad', but that's a whole other thing. The truth of the matter is, this is another Disney title that comes from my childhood that I've always enjoyed. Although I understand the controversial elements of it, it's a title I hold close to my heart, having once been in Cubs where all of my leaders were named after 'Jungle Book' characters. I mean, this was a movie I bonded with friends over, and to be honest, I've always really enjoyed the story. Fast-forwarding to 2016, the live action remake was released, and to this day, I still consider it the best one they've done. That said, truth be told, I've never really disliked any version of this story - not even the '94 version, which a lot of people look down their noses at. This is a fun, and easily watchable adventure for the family - but be sure to give fresh young minds a bit of an education on why the 'I Wanna Be Like You' song by King Louie might be problematic to some. Otherwise, the songs are catchy, the voice acting is solid, the advancement of Disney's animated animals and natural backgrounds evolves, and above all else, it's not one I feel stuck on. In other words it's not like 'Cinderella' or 'Sleeping Beauty' where I know it's not my thing at all, but I can appreciate it for what it is. 'The Jungle Book' is something I can freely say I very much enjoy, and I think as long as one understands the controversial moments here, one can still find the overall adventure very enjoyable. 4/5  Here we have a shining example of how much opinion can change over the years, from childhood to adulthood. Back sometime in the 90s, when this came out of "The Disney Vault" for a short time, I rented it, watched it and really enjoyed it. However, one should probably also understand that this was pretty much my introduction to King Arthur's legend - a legend that really isn't done justice in this film, upon seeing it now.
This particular version begins with the death of the King of England, Uther Pendragon, leaving no heir to the throne. For whatever reason, a sword appears in London, embedded in an anvil (yes, anvil, not stone) with an inscription that states, whoever pulls it out of the anvil becomes the rightful King of England. No one ever does succeed, and that whole plot is dropped for the remainder of the movie. I'm not kidding, either. Things immediately go to the powerful Wizard, Merlin (Karl Swenson) and his meeting Arthur, commonly known in this movie as "Wart". He's the embodiment of the average underdog character, and the film generally revolves around Merlin giving Arthur an education. Throughout the film, Merlin covers such things as using brain to defeat brawn, lessons in love and heartbreak, and other general school material. That's quite honestly most of what the film actually is, just Merlin being a teacher to Arthur. Their meeting is by chance, and Merlin foresees it as a meeting with someone of great importance, but that's about all we have to go by. We further realize that Merlin can travel back and forth through time, so logic dictates he understands that Arthur is to become King, and therefore wants to make sure he's set on the right path. But I will admit that the story doesn't exactly flow; it's a chance meeting, a school lesson, a really cool climax involving a crowbarred in villain, and then about 3-5 minutes of what we actually came to see. The film does stay alive, however, providing some fun to go with the whole educational process. Usually this involves Merlin turning Arthur and himself into various animals to explore their lifestyles, and it's pretty much a land, water, air thing as said animals are a squirrel, a fish and a bird. So the magic is alive and well in this, and it all leads to that climax I referred to where Merlin has a "Wizard's Dual" with the evil Madam Mim (Martha Wentworth). She's not exactly at the top of the list of Disney villains, but for the short time she's there, she's perfectly enjoyable. It's just that she has little to nothing to do with the story; as I said, she's quite "crowbarred in". Yet, this whole fight between her and Merlin is probably the best part of the movie, so it's a strange love-hate criticism where I wish she was a bigger part of things. Along the way, we meet other likable characters like Archimedes (Junius Matthews), Merlin's stubborn, talking owl, and Arthur's foster brother, Kay (Norman Alden) who is being prepped to take over as King by his father, Sir Ector (Sebastian Cabot). Arthur, being the underdog through this, thinks it an honor to become Kay's squire, but a lot of the story involves Merlin trying to push him towards something more. I suppose the big takeaway from this one is something along the lines of "don't just settle, you can be more". The problem is, when Arthur does finally pull the sword (if that's a spoiler, you probably shouldn't be here) he does it in an attempt to arm his foster brother. He stumbles into kingship so abruptly, it happens, he questions himself, and then Merlin shows up to say "nah, you're king" and suddenly he's okay with it. I'll be honest, it feels rushed. All criticisms aside, however, I wouldn't consider this a bad movie either. It has flaws, but none so much that I feel like I'm walking on eggshells with my review ('Peter Pan', man. I'll never get over that). I would say that for young kids, this would actually make for a pretty good educational tool. But having said that, whether you enjoy this or not is gonna depend on what you're after. If you wanna see the legend of King Arthur, you're not really gonna get it. If you're the kind of kid who wants to see Arthur learn, in an almost 'Harry Potter' style, then it's perfectly fine. I think i have just seen too much of Arthur since my childhood that this doesn't really do it for me like it used to. It's interesting, but Disney's library certainly has better titles. 3/5  I can remember seeing this one a few times, growing up, and always enjoying it. It was a Disney movie that took time away from the magic of fairy tales and princesses who needed to find love with a prince. It's all well and good, but as far as this refresher goes, in its entirety, it's been quite a while since we've gotten away from the whole fantasy, fairy tale thing. I guess one could say there's something about this film that feels like a breath of fresh air.
A Dalmatian named Pongo (Rod Taylor) is a bachelor dog living with his bachelor owner, Roger Radcliffe (Ben Wright). For this particular film, the roles of pet and owner are reversed for the narration, which is a pretty neat way of doing things considering Pongo is our lead. Anyway, Pongo is determined to find Roger a partner in order to spice up their dull lives. Spotting a lovely woman across the street, walking her own Dalmatian, Pongo gets Roger to take him for a walk. He tracks down the woman, Anita (Lisa Davis) and her dog, Perdita (Cate Bauer) sparks happen, and everyone seemingly gets a "happy ever after" setup from the get-go; that is until Perdita gets pregnant. Upon hearing that Perdy is having puppies, in walks one of the most detestable Disney villains of all time, Cruella De Vil (Betty Lou Gerson). Cruella's obsession is fur, and she makes attempt after attempt to buy these puppies (of which there ends up being 15), believing that everything has its price. However, Roger stands up to her, tells her off and sends her on her way. This of course leads to her arranging a dognapping, along with her bumbling henchmen, Jasper (J. Pat O'Malley) and Horace (Frederick Worlock). Pongo, Purdy, Roger, Anita and eventually most of London (or at least the pets of London) then make every effort to locate the puppies, and try to bring them back home safely. This is one of my personal favorites of the Disney collection, if only because it does everything I already mentioned. I remember renting this one a few times, growing up. We also had a dog of our own, who we adored as a family. So there's certainly a childhood connection to it, along with that of just being a dog-owner and being able to relate. I mean, to put a morbid spin on things here, just imagine a rich and wretched woman coming to your door, offering you a sum of money to take your dog off your hands. You don't know why, but you do realize that fur is her life. I always found myself relating to Roger the most in this, as he just plain knows. Anita, in all honesty, is pretty naive when it comes down to it. While the puppies are altogether cute, and you can't help but empathize for the family through this, oddly enough, the villains are still by far the best part of the movie. It's a neat twist on a Disney movie that most of the comedy relief actually comes from then. While the puppies make you smile, along with a few side characters, these three baddies are totally off the wall. Jasper and Horace are probably funnier in the live-action version of this, but they're a bit less dumb here and a bit more like normal henchmen. It's Cruella that really gets me in this. When she loses it, she really loses it, and you can tell that Betty Lou Gerson is having a blast doing this voice. She really lets it all hang out, and is possibly the craziest villain we've seen yet. Up until now, they've mostly just been dark. For as awful as she is, she's a lot of fun to watch. This is a Disney classic I'd recommend to most people out there. It's just a lot of fun, and there's probably even further appeal to dog owners. There's a few dated things, perhaps, but in my opinion that's reaching just a little bit. This isn't like watching 'Peter Pan' and just feeling awkward about things when it's over. The truth is, this is one Disney classic I can keep coming back to (although I admit some of the barking can get irksome). I always have fun with it, there's some nostalgia attached to it, and once again, it just feels like a beath of fresh air. It's perhaps the most "realistic" story Disney Animation has done up until this point (as in taking place in the real world), and don't forget, '101 Dalmatians' did the Disney live action remake before it was cool - which, by the way, I also recommend for a fun time for the family. 4/5  Once again, we begin a month of Disney animation recapping, starting with 'Sleeping Beauty' - one of the Disney Animated films I tend to have in the back of my head somewhere, as the idea has never appealed to me much. I remember renting this a very long time ago, when Disney Vault Limited Edition VHS tapes were all the rage. I pretty well just shrugged it off as something neat, but not really my thing. I gotta say, my opinion hasn't changed a whole bunch.
Princess Aurora is born to King Stefan and Queen Leah. A holiday is proclaimed to pay homage to her, where she is betrothed to Prince Phillip at her christening in an effort to unite kingdoms with King Hubert, and is given gifts from the good fairies, Flora, Fauna and Merryweather. The fairies all come bearing gifts; Flora gifts her with beauty, Fauna with song, but Merryweather's gift is interrupted by the evil fairly, Maleficent, who's all pissed off about not being invited to the party. Maleficent curses Aurora by proclaiming that on her 16th birthday, Aurora would prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel and drop dead before sunset. This causes Merryweather to rethink her gift, and she uses her magic to make it so that instead of dying, Aurora will just fall into a deep sleep, until "true love's kiss" breaks the spell. The fairies soon take Aurora under their protection, knowing that Maleficent will not rest until Aurora is killed. The child grows up with them in a hidden forest cottage, awaiting the day she turns 16. So, the main plot of this story is a pretty weird one, considering that it's a 16-year event that all stems back from not being invited to a party. That said, it's pretty damn incredible how much of a love/hate relationship I have with this movie. For a good chunk of it, i see it pretty much the same way I see 'Cinderella' - it's not really my cup of tea, but there's nothing really wrong with it, per se. However, this does have a lot that stands out about it, starting with Maleficent. Her motivation for revenge is absolutely ridiculous, but that's kind of what makes her such a great villain. Imagine not inviting someone to a house party, and just because of that, that person plots a 16-year revenge that will lead to your first-born's eventual death. Thus far, I'd consider her the single most evil Disney villain, at least as far as I've recapped - the Queen from 'Snow White', a close second, with her motivation being jealousy over beauty. Speaking of 'Snow White', there are quite a few similarities here. This is almost like they took the very basics of 'Snow White' (as in curse causes deep sleep that can only be broken by a kiss, and the villain's motivation is just jealousy) and made it better. Among other things I really like about it include the interaction between the three fairies, the beautifully painted backgrounds, artwork and animation, and about the last half hour or so of the movie which includes a pretty awesome chase/fight between Prince Phillip and a dragon version of Maleficent where she even tells Phillip he's about to face "all the power of Hell" - pretty badass for a Disney villain, and again, she's one of the best parts about this movie, even if her motivation is laughable. Of course, I have to go back to what I said about comparing it to 'Cinderella' as far as personal taste goes. There's a lot I didn't like about this movie, and the biggest beef i have about it is that Aurora just plain doesn't allow you to give a damn. She is there to look pretty, sing with her lovely voice, and befriend woodland critters. She is the cardboard cutout version of a Disney Princess, and I can't really wrap my head around why we care about what happens to her, other than Maleficent's plan being extremely cruel. While I put the villain here up high on the villain list, Aurora's pretty damn low on the Princess list - maybe one step above Snow White, because at least Aurora wasn't dishing out terrible female stereotypes at the time... well, other than helplessness. This is pretty well balanced between what's good about it and what's bad about it, but I'd probably go out on a limb to say that the good somewhat outweighs the bad. I'd probably say there's more to like here than dislike, and if nothing else, it's sort of a perfect example of what "Disney Magic" is all about. It's very "fairy tale", takes you to a beautiful fantasy land, and uses literal magic throughout its entirety. It's my understanding that the original 'Sleeping Beauty' was a ballet production, so a lot of the music, though I find it very bland, does fit quite well. This is another Disney movie I can't help but meet in the middle. It's good for what it is, but I don't see a whole lot of repeat viewings in the future. 3/5  This is another title that goes all the way back to my early childhood, as we rented it a few times over from whatever local video stores existed at the time. Speaking for myself, I always loved this movie in my childhood. I saw it as a fun, fantasy adventure, full of imagination and frankly dream-like. Much like 'Alice in Wonderland', it helped contribute to my love of imagination in film.
Now, allow me to address the elephant in the room briefly. We all know that there are certain depictions in this film that are stereotypical and simply do not hold up. Watching this as a kid, certain things just kind of were what they were, and the internet just wasn't a thing. If we wanted any information on things, we'd have to either know someone who was personally effected by things, or have to find a book to read on the subject, which we probably wouldn't think to go out of our way to do. Since that time, however, we have been well-educated, and a lot of Disney's not-so-proud moments stand out a little bit more, somewhat tainting our childhood perception of these films, perhaps for the better. The film opens in London England in the early 1900s, where we meet the imaginative Darling children, John (Paul Collins), Michael (Tommy Luske) and their storytelling older sister, Wendy (Kathryn Beaumont). The stories Wendy tells are about Peter Pan (Bobby Driscoll), and the power behind the stories is so strong that all of the kids believe in him. Meanwhile, parents George and Mary (Hans Conried and Heather Angel, respectively) pass it all off as nonsense, and the kids imagination even sets Mr. Darling off, who seems to want these kids to be a bit more ordinary and grow up. One night, Peter Pan himself comes to the Darling household to hear stories from Wendy to bring back to his friends, the Lost Boys. However, when Wendy tells him about their need to grow up, Peter brings Wendy and the others to Neverland, where they'll never have to grow up, and Wendy can stay and tell stories to the Lost Boys. Little do the kids know that they will soon have to deal with all aspects of Neverland, including the dastardly Captain Hook (also Hans Conried) and his goofy sidekick, Smee (Bill Thompson). What unfolds is a fun, animated adventure, unfortunately now highlighted by racial overtones that just kind of make one uncomfortable nowadays. It's sadly one of the worst examples of a movie that has aged horribly by today's standards. That said, I can't really deny that most of the film does have a nostalgic tie to it, and the non-controversial parts of it are still entertaining nonetheless. For me, pretty much any scene that features Captain Hook and Smee, especially when blended with a clock-eating crocodile, are funny and still hold up. He's one of the first comedic villains I can really think of in one of these, and that's a bit of a rarity for Disney animation. I'm hard pressed to think of many examples, except perhaps Yzma from 'The Emperor's New Groove', or any number of bumbling sidekicks. And speaking of that, Smee really does have this odd charm to him. It's unfortunate how the film has a fairly strong focus on all of the things that date it, namely the Native American stereotypes. It boils right down to full on songs which, watching them play out nowadays, just have me cringing as they're basically just mockery. So the film is this crazy balance of extremes, between the fun villainous portrayal of Captain Hook and the... well, you know. It picks up, and it drops off, all the way throughout. and although part of me still enjoys it, and embraces the nostalgia it provides, the other part of me see it as a once classic throw-away at the same time. At the end of the day, it's something you just plain have to use your judgment on. For me, it's the lowest end of a pass, based on the aspects of it I enjoyed. 3/5  This is one among the Disney animation collection that I have seen, but it was long enough ago that seeing it now may as well be a first time. I actually forgot just how enjoyable this movie was for me as a kid. When certain characters in this tale of wonder popped up, I was hit with waves of nostalgia, and I concluded after seeing it again this time around that it must have been a part of where I got my imagination from. Much like Alice, I found things like schooling rather dull and had "my own little world", while in the meantime I took reality for granted.
The film opens with Alice (Kathryn Beaumont) in the middle of a history lesson from her older sister, expressing her desire for adventure to her cat, Dinah. She suddenly spots a white rabbit in a waistcoat, seemingly running late for something important. When Alice gives chase, the rabbit leads her down a large rabbit hole, which leads to a room with a tiny door that leads to Wonderland. Once she drinks a shrinking potion, she finds her way into Wonderland where she meets the likes of several strange characters like Tweedledee and Tweedledum, the Cheshire Cat, the Mad Hatter, the March Hare, the smoking Caterpillar, and of course the dreaded Queen of Hearts who doesn't even make an appearance until about 20 minutes before the film ends - admittedly a tense 20 minutes though. Personally, I found that there's a lot of similarity between this and 'The Wizard of Oz'. Both Dorothy and Alice end up in magical lands, meet some very interesting characters on a journey, and are (at least eventually) just trying to get home. Both characters also seem to realize how much they take reality for granted when they're basically overwhelmed with too much strange. This is a valuable lesson for the kids watching, but both films make sure there's plenty of fun to be had along the way. To top it all off, both are based on classic books, but the thing to note is that 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' came first. Although nowadays it's often seen as one of Disney's many masterpieces, it's funny to think that it was actually critically panned upon its release. The year was 1951, so a part of me wonders if things like having a day-dreamy imagination were a little more frowned upon; accepted, but considered a "waste of time" or something along those lines. It even bombed at the box office for its initial release, forcing Disney to write-off over a million dollars. It wouldn't take long, however, until this became a cult classic of sorts, and Disney's everlasting wish of making money would once again come true, when it was re-released in 1974. Nowadays, it's a little less about daydreaming and a little more about Alice potentially experiencing some sort of drug trip. Honestly though, either way works just fine, as long as that lesson is there at the end. Going back to the 'Wizard of Oz' comparison, I will say that final lesson is really where they differ. In "Oz', Dorothy is on a constant journey to try to get home, and in the end, it's very much a lesson about taking what you have for granted. In 'Alice', it touches on that slightly, but at the end life just kinda goes on. No twists, no turns, Alice wakes up and the movie just ends. However, in the book, upon waking up, she convinces her older sister to sit by the riverbank and experience the fantasy for herself. So that leads me to believe that while a similar lesson is in place, a part of the takeaway from 'Alice' is also to not be afraid to daydream and let your imagination run wild. I'd be curious to actually read the book for myself and see what similarities/differences there are, as this is still seen by many as the best film adaptation of the book. The follow-up story, 'Through the Looking-Glass' never saw the light of day with Disney animation, but I often wonder if that may be for the best. What I really like about this movie in particular is that any way you look at it, it's the perfect example of a film that allows you to escape; perhaps my favorite thing about movies in general. For me, this is like the film equivalent to whatever dream you experience during a light nap; when you just drift off for an hour and a half to two hours, wake up and suddenly remember where you are. It's one of those films that's actually a bit of an experience because it's so fantastical, and it's definitely a personal fave among the Disney classics. It's the very definition of a film you can freely lose your mind to. But don't mind us fans - we're all a little mad here. 5/5  As I take my journey through each and every Walt Disney Animation Studios title, I'm bound to come across a few that weren't particularly made for me. 'Cinderella' is one of these titles. While there's plenty to like about it, the overall concept isn't something that I really think about, and the character just isn't relatable to me in any real way. As a result, I have a hard time getting on board. But make no mistake, none of it has to do with it being too "girly".
For the record, I think Cinderella is a perfectly relatable character for anyone who has ever felt trapped under their parents strict, watchful eye, forbidden to do certain things, or even caught up in the wrong family. The fact of the matter is, however, this was made for an audience that doesn't involve me. However, I can respect the title for its position on the long list of Disney classics, and it IS kinda cool to see that she has to go through some crap to get to become a princess. She's not just a princess from the get-go, and that's always a good thing; to show a certain amount of struggle in order to reach such a high-class position. Cinderella (Ilene Woods) once had a loving family with her real parents. Once the mother dies, the father remarries to Lady Tremaine (Eleanor Audley) who brings her two bratty daughters along, Drizella and Anastasia (Rhoda Williams and Lucille Bliss, respectively). Eventually, Cinderella's father passes as well, and she's stuck with her Step Mother and Step Sisters who make her do everything while they live their lives. Her only real friends are the mice and birds who visit her, headed by our comic relief characters, Jaq and Gus (James MacDonald). Meanwhile, Prince Charming (William Phipps/Mike Douglas) of the nearby kingdom is all iffy about getting married and starting a family while his father (Luis Van Rooten) longs to hear the pitter-patter of little feet before his time is gone. The King issues a decree that all maidens on the village attend a Royal Ball. The step sisters and stepmother sabotage Cinderella's attempts at attending, wanting her to have nothing, and she is left alone that night. But then her Fairy Godmother (Verna Felton) shows up and grants her wish to go to the Ball, but only until midnight. Then we all know the rest with the glass slipper, and if you don't know how this ends by now, you may have been living under a rock for quite some time. Although it's not particularly for yours truly, the film still has plenty of merits to speak of. The animation is pretty solid for the time, the singing is a little more subtle than some other Disney movies, and flows rather organically, and I can't deny that one feels the tension behind Lady Tremaine. She's actually a very good villain in that she comes off as a potentially real character. Although it's a fairy tale, the villain is someone who could easily be based in reality. I'll further add that the mice are fun characters, and although she's only in it for a few moments, the Fairy Godmother is very likable. She comes in to give Cinderella a boost, but she doesn't spoil her rotten entirely, given the midnight curfew. For the kind of movie it is, it's not bad, I just have a taste that goes in another direction. 3/5  Here we go for round three of my Disney catch-up. This is one that I've seen a few times before, but I tend to stick to the latter half for several reasons. While 'The Wind in the Willows' is okay for what it is, it's 'The Legend of Sleepy Hollow' that seems to become most peoples' takeaway from it. On top of that, I'm a fiend for Halloween, and the last moments have left an impression on me that has lasted since I was a little kid. It's probably the primary source of my opinion that atmosphere outdoes blood and gore for a good scare.
But of course, I'm here to review the whole movie, so allow me to get the first part out of the way (which was pretty much how I felt watching this). On the whole, the film could be likened to an average family meal for a kid. You wanna get through the first bit and jump straight to your dessert - you may even be willing to sacrifice some of your meal to get there, too (in this case hitting skip until you get to the good parts). So fair warning, I didn't care much for the first segment, and my heart isn't really in it. But I'll give it a whirl. 'The Wind in the Willows': Based on the story by Kenneth Grahame, the story bases itself in London, England in the early 1900s. We are introduced to a variety of critter characters, including J. Thaddeus Toad, Esq. He has a passion for adventure, with no regard to cost, which eventually brings him to the brink of bankruptcy. His habit of getting into all things popular peaks when he discovers motorcars, and Toad's friend, Angus McBadger convinces other friends, Ratty and Moley to try to help curb his habit. This all gets really weird and advanced for something aimed at kids. It involves a lot of financial mumbo jumbo, and even a court case that involves Mr. Toad's reckless driving. When describing it to a friend, i claimed it as being a very boring tale, but complete with some pretty funny visuals and dialogue. For me, it's not bad for what it is, but it's definitely not something I feel like I need to re-watch annually at Christmas (it takes place around the holidays). There are certainly some laugh out loud moments though, and that was enough to at least keep me mildly entertained. 3/5 'The Legend of Sleepy Hollow': This segment couldn't have worked out much better for timing. These Disney Animation reviews are all being done in order, and taking place every month with five Thursdays until I'm done. It just so happened that 'The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad' lands on October 1st, and the last moments of the second segment here always, without fail, gets me into the Halloween spirit. Of course I refer to Washington Irving's 'The Legend of Sleepy Hollow'. The first parts of this segment are intriguing enough as a sort of twisted love triangle story. Basically, we have Ichabod Crane; a school master who looks pretty gangly and has a certain charm to him that some of the local ladies fall for. However we learn that he's a bit of a jerk as well, going after women for their riches and good cooking more than for love. His competition is local tough guy, Brom Bones, who picks on Ichabod a little bit, but nothing too harmful. In a weird way, there's a very human balance between the two, and we see that the would-be gangly geek between the wto may actually be the jerk. Of course, this all ends with Brom Bones having enough with his competition, and sacring the crap out of him with the tale of the Headless Horseman of Sleepy Hollow. If you wanna get to what makes this whole movie great, skip to the last 13 minutes or so. It begins with a catchy song as Brom Bones tells the tale, and then it cuts to the best and most memorable part of things, involving Ichabod, riding home through the dark forest. Even as a 38-year-old adult, I can say that this is still effectively creepy and a fantastic way to dip your young children into the horror pool. It works really well as a "baby step" in that direction. The segment as a whole is interesting in its execution, and it has become an annual Halloween watch for me. 5/5 If you recall last month, I went through five of the six "package films" Disney made from a bunch of unused footage (at least for a lot of it). This is the sixth and final package film Disney made during this era, and things would go back to normal until 1977 with 'The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh'. On the whole, I definitely recommend checking out the last half of this, especially since we're approaching Halloween. It might stick with you better than some actual horror movies with the atmosphere it creates. As far as the first half, I could take it or leave it. It's good for a giggle, but not something to keep coming back to. 4/5  Yet another one of Disney's package films of the 40's; second to last of them, and leans a little more towards 'Make Mine Music' in style. Once again, we're spread out with a total of seven segments, so the review will be a touch long-winded, but I'll do my best to keep it short and sweet.
Much with 'Make Mine Music', it features segments that are punctuated with musical tones and poetry, and you get to guess how much of it may have been originally intended for the almighty 'Fantasia'. The whole thing is narrated by Buddy Clark - a man known more for his soundtrack performances than acting. He is also the man who sings the title song with his delightful, crooning voice. One by one, as usual, the segments are introduced, each offering a somewhat different artistic perspective. 'Once Upon a Wintertime': Frances Langford sings the title song, and we follow two young lovers named Jenny and Joe (neither with dialogue) while a couple of rabbits imitate most of their same moves. It's bright, chipper and cute, and would probably make for a nice addition to any Christmas soundtrack. Not my favorite kinda thing, but good for what it is. 3/5 'Bumble Boogie': This one WAS my favorite; Freddy Martin and His Orchestra, along with Jack Fina on the piano crank out a very jazzy, fast and upbeat version of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov's 'Flight of the Bumblebee'. All the while, it follows this poor bumblebee as it keeps seemingly getting attacked and chased by surreal-looking instruments and musical notes. It's very artistic-looking and fun, and yes, it was originally considered for 'Fantasia'. 5/5 'The Legend of Johnny Appleseed': Dennis Day narrates a Disney retelling of American folk hero, John Chapman, otherwise, of course, known as 'Johnny Appleseed'. His nicknamed was earned after he spends most of his life planting apple trees across Mi-Western America while spreading Christianity. I'm not a fan, but that doesn't mean it's not fine for its target audience. I have this really weird bias against pioneer day stuff. I have a very hard time enjoying any of it, and find it a bit boring. We do all have our thing we'll never go out of our way to watch though. With that said, it pretty much mirrors how I feel about 'Once Upon a Wintertime'. 3/5 'Little Toot': I'm fairly certain I had this in the form of a read-along book on tape when I was a kid. One way or another, this was something I remembered from my childhood, so there was a bit of nostalgia that popped up. I pretty well forgot all about it until now. It tells of a small tugboat named 'Little Toot' who wanted to be just like his father, 'Big Toot', but couldn't stay out of trouble, and never seems to learn. It did trigger some nostalgia, but not quite enough. Once again, passable, but nothing too special. 3/5 'Trees': Joyce Kilmer's 1913 poem, 'Trees', is here performed by Fred Waring and the Pennsylvanians. For yours truly, I found the song slow, dull, boring, like... watching trees grow? The artistic style of the segment, however, is gorgeous. Each scene is essentially a nature painting brought to life, as it cycles through the seasons and the changing of the trees. All in all, it's actually a great segment if you can just get past the slow drone of the recitation. 3/5 'Blame It on the Samba': A down and out Donald Duck and José Carioca (the Brazillian parrot) meet the Aracuan Bird (who we first met in 'The Three Caballeros'), who introduces them to the Samba, whisking their sadness away with the playful, fun dance. The song is an English-dubbed version of Apanhei-te, Cavaquinho by Ernesto Nazareth, performed by the Dinning Sisters, and featuring organist Ethel Smith in a short, live-action performance. I actually find the song quite catchy, the Aracuan Bird is funny, and it was good enough to make me ignore the fact that José already introduced Donald to the Samba back in 'The Three Caballeros'. 4/5 'Pecos Bill': In the final segment, Roy Rogers (along with his horse, Trigger), Bob Nolan and the Sons of the Pioneers tell the story of Pecos Bill to Bobby Driscoll and Luana Patten (who we just saw talking to a bunch of creepy dummies in 'Fun and Fancy Free). The story tells of a child who was raised by Coyotes, later to become the world's greatest "buckaroo" (which I definitely did not hear right the first time around). Once again, due to smoking content, it was later strongly censored, but revived once it landed on Disney+. Once again, this is just okay, but I probably got a bit more out of it that 'Once Upon a Wintertime' or 'Johnny Appleseed'. It's a little more on par with 'Little Toot'. 3/5 Aside from a couple of the more surreal segments, this movie just works out to be another perfectly average film of its kind. I'm really looking forward to getting through all of these, as I find them a little more challenging to review. I can break down each segment, and work out an average rating, which makes things a touch easier. But when you get segments like this, unless it really speaks to me, it can be hard to say that anything is either terrible or awesome. These will almost always work out to be a 3 or, at best, 4, just due to how average it all works out to be. Like most of these (and it's starting to get frustrating because I want to give more), it works out to be a perfectly passable film, harmless, decent for the kids as well as the cultured (being a bit of Disney history), and something that makes for good background entertainment. It doesn't have the scope of 'Fantasia', or is particularly memorable, but there's really nothing wrong with it either. Here's thanking my lucky stars that the next and final package film, just in time for October, will be 'The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad', featuring what I can already say is my all-time favorite segment, 'The Legend of Sleepy Hollow'... so gimme a couple more months, and these will be much less boring! 3/5  This month would appear to be a somewhat repetitive one. Not to be boring, but it just so happens that a five of these are under-the-radar anthologies, often musical and/or educational, dated, and met completely in the middle with my opinion. This one tries to play a little more on the 'Fantasia'-like anthology, featuring the music and lyrics of a select group of high-ranking artists for the time. With that, it's fascinating, but like it is with a lot of Disney stuff from way-back-when, there's some dated stuff here.
For the most part, the film is totally passable and enjoyable, but it's nothing at all that particularly sticks out in Disney's library. In fact, this might be the one title I've mentioned to other people that no one at all seems to recognize. Even the segments within it are pretty obscure; the most famous probably being 'Peter and the Wolf', or 'Casey at Bat' (which, by the way, has the dated comment that really stands out). More than anything, it's the musicians we're here for, and it's pretty interesting going back to hear some of the music of the time. 'The Martins and the Coys': The King's Men, a popular vocal group, sing the 'Hatfields and McCoys' story about a wild west family feud in which two characters from opposing sides fall in love. Eventually, the segment was censored from the film's video release for its gun-use, so apparently nowadays it's a bit of a rarity. But it's not entirely special nowadays when we're familiar with too many similar stories, and the concept of a vocal group is kinda dated. It's fine for its time, but not as timeless as a lot of Disney material is. 3/5 'Blue Bayou': Another fascinating one, featuring animation originally intended for 'Fantasia', using 'Clair de Lune' from Claude Debussy. The segment is quite lovely, featuring two egrets flying around on a beautiful, moonlit night. It would have fit 'Fantasia' so well, and for my money, is probably the classiest segment of the film. It's now featured with the song 'Blue Bayou' by the Ken Darby singers. Apparently, the original cut can still be found, but this is the official version, and it's a shame it didn't make it into 'Fantasia'. 3/5 'All the Cats Join In': Benny Goodman and his Orchestra play for this segment, probably my favorite in the film. It's a really neat take on animation that I've always enjoyed, where a pencil is drawing out the art as the animation is happening - some of the earliest examples of fourth wall breaking. The segment portrays the swinging youth of the 1940's with a very catchy tune, and even once featured female nudity that has since been edited - and yeah, you can tell where it was. But that's more just an interesting fact. The real takeaway from this is the ever-moving dance animation, and a tune that will have you tapping your feet, providing you with a cool little 1940's time capsule. 5/5 'Without You': A song about lost love by Andy Russell. Though it's punctuated by some beautiful animation, it's all in all depressing, and it feels like a huge drop from the catchy rhythms of the previous segment. I wasn't a fan. 2/5 'Casey at the Bat': While the 1888 poem is a solid classic, the segment opens up with a pretty rough song that states "the ladies don't understand baseball a bit, they don't know a strike from a ball or a hit". It otherwise hits a home run for giving us the comedy we so desperately needed after the last segment, and other than the song in the beginning, provides us with the timeless poem about how cockiness can lead to disappointment. It even got a sequel with 1954's 'Casey Bats Again'. 3/5 'Two Silhouettes': I'm not sure whether or not this was another one originally meant for 'Fantasia', with a different song, but it looks like it might be. This segment features a simple and pleasant love song, sang by Dina Shore, as two silhouetted ballet dancers, David Lichine and Tania Riabouchinskaya dance against a beautifully rendered, ever-changing background. If I'm honest with myself, I can certainly appreciate it. It sets a very pleasant mood, and for as much as I dislike ballet, I appreciate dream-like sequences a lot. If you do like ballet, go look it up on YouTube and check it out. 3/5 'Peter and the Wolf': Sergei Prokofiev's musical composition comes from 1936, and ten years later was made into a classic segment for Disney. I seem to faintly remember having a "read-along" book of this as a kid (a book that came with a tape you could read along with), but it really hit me as something bigger than I thought when 'Tiny Toons' parodied it, almost more as though it was a modern remake. Sterling Holloway (who popped up in the last review) narrates for Prokofiev's piece, and it tells of a boy named Peter who hunts a wolf with the help of his animal friends - Sascha the bid, Sonia the duck and Ivan the cat. Each character is represented by different instruments - Peter, the string quartet; Sascha, the flute; Sonia, the Oboe; Ivan, the Clarinet; an the Wolf, horns and cymbals. It gets kinda dark, but it does have a happy ending, and it still holds up as a classic piece of Disney work. 4/5 'After You've Gone': Benny Goodman comes back for this one, along with his quartet. I really enjoy this one in its creativity, as it features six anthropomorphic instruments, including a piano, bass, drums, cymbal and clarinet somehow putting on a sort of dance number. Between this and 'All the Cats Join In', this film has given me a whole new appreciation for Benny Goodman. They are both easily two of the most entertaining segments in the film. 4/5 'Johnny Fedora and Alice Blue Bonnet': The romantic tale of two department store hats falling for each other. But when Alice is sold, Johnny devotes himself to finding her. All the while, The Andrews Sisters sing the story. As far as any love story goes in this film, the only one that really stuck out was 'Two Silhouettes'. This one was cute, but if I'm honest, I wasn't a fan of the song, and the whole thing felt a bit "mushy". Perhaps just not for me, once again. 2/5 'The Whale Who Wanted to Sing at the Met': It's such a solid choice to make an operatic number the finale, but the problem here is that I really do not like opera at all. I have lots of respect for what they can do, but that's kinda like saying I have respect for anyone whose voice is sharp enough to break glass - it's cool, but the sound of it is a bit much. Nelson Eddy narrates, sings and voices everything here, as we hear the story of a whale named Willie (decades before 'Free Willy') who has an incredible singing talent, and dreams of singing grand opera. Soon, though, his voice is mistaken for being three opera singers he probably ate, and the hunt is on. It ends very bittersweet, and all in all isn't bad, but the operatic singing started taking me out of it just because that's about the one form of music I just can't deal with. The film ended, and I just kinda thought to myself that something like 'Peter and the Wolf' may have made for a better finale. Oh, and the whale sings 'Shortnin' Bread' (an old plantation song) at one point, and that may make one cringe a bit. Maybe it's just me, but I was disappointed by the wrap-up. 2/5 Perhaps most interesting about this movie is how it came to be. During World War II, a lot of the Disney staff was drafted, and several who stayed behind were asked to make US propaganda films (and we all know how well that stands nowadays). The studio was then full of unfinished ideas, and in order for Disney to keep going, six "package films" were created. These began with 'Saludos Amigos' and 'The Three Cabelleros', and after this would eventually be capped with 'Fun and Fancy Free', 'Melody Time' and 'The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad' (to be reviewed in the October Edition of this series). I actually didn't realize the history until I dug into this one. That made for a very lengthy review, and if you're still here, congratulations, you made it. My closing thoughts are just that I'm glad I finally got a chance to check this out. Just bear in mind that while the segments are easy enough to find, the full-length feature is not; even D+ doesn't have it, and that's where I watched the last two films I reviewed for this month. I'm not gonna consider this one underrated, but I will say that it's worth a sit-down, as I think the good actually does outweigh the bad. I keep handing out 3/5, but I recommend going by segments, because some are very well done. 3/5  Another Disney movie with self-contained segments drowned out by 'Fantasia's success was 'The Three Caballeros'. I've been familiar with it since childhood, but never saw or even bothered with. Back then was a time when Disney movies would get video re-releases for a limited time before "going back into the vault, forever". Because of this, there were a lot of titles I was unfamiliar with. For a while, this was one of them, but I was also aware of a movie called 'The Three Amigos', so eventually I caught on. But truth be told, this was my first time watching it.
The film begins as Donald Duck (Clarence Nash) is celebrating his birthday (on Friday the 13th, but no month is mentioned). He opens up a package containing all sorts of gifts that will give him further information of the world's geography and cultures. Mainly, it takes a further look at Brazil, as José Carioca (José Oliveira) the Parrot comes back to host Donald, and Mexico, where a rooster named Panchito (Joaquin Garay) comes in to dub the American duck, Brazilian parrot and Mexican rooster "the three caballeros". It all bears very similar aspects to 'Saludos Amigos'. I'd almost call it an unofficial sequel. The Cold-Blooded Penguin: Narrated by Sterling Holloway (most commonly known as the voice of Winnie the Pooh), the segment features a cute little penguin named Pablo, who goes against all penguin logic and decides he's sick of the cold climate of Antarctica, and wants to travel to warmer climates. Before landing on the Galápagos Islands, Pablo passes by Chile, Peru and Ecuador, giving kids a little geography lesson on South America's west coast. It was cute and gave me a giggle or two, but it didn't necessarily stand out either. 3/5 The Flying Gauchito: Narrated by Fred Shields (who was also narrator on 'Saludos Amigos') tells of a cute adventure of a little boy from Uruguay and his winged donkey, named Burrito. The segment is full of cuteness, but in a good way. It pretty much matches my opinion on the first segment, but perhaps with a little more stand-out in the cuteness of the characters involved. 3/5 Baía: I rather enjoyed the concept of this one; a love letter to the Brazilian state of Baía. This is where José really enters into it, as he sings a rather beautiful song about it, and takes Donald on a tour within a pretty damn cool pop-up book. Together, they meet the locals, including the lovely singer, Aurora Miranda. A lot of it involves the Samba, and Donald pining for the beautiful Brazilian women. It combines live action with animation, and I thought it was all put together nicely. 4/5 Las Posadas: We get a glimpse of Christmas tradition in Mexico, as a group of Mexican children re-enact the journey of Mary and Joseph, searching for room an the inn. "Posada" basically translates to "Shelter", which they of course eventually find in the stable. However, Mexican tradition brings in the piñata, which the kids hit for gifts and candy. It was neat, but might be more of a bookmark for something to check out around the Christmas season. 3/5 Mexico: Pátzcuaro, Veracruz and Acapulco: Here's where Panchito kinda takes the reins, and comes in with the song about "Three Caballeros". He then takes Donald and José on a tour of Mexico on a magic carpet. Here, they learn about several traditionally cultural dances and songs. We learn here that Donald is running a gag, often pining for the local women, but kinda failing at getting return affections every time. 3/5 You Belong to My Heart and Donald's Surreal Reverie: Seemingly continuing his running gag, Donald soon falls for singer Dora Luz, who sings him the son 'You Belong to My Heart'. He also eventually dances with the lovely Carmen Molina, singing and dancing to the song 'La Zadunga'. Eventually this all leads to a sort of love-struck, drug-like atmosphere that has Panchito and José ever-interrupting, and even eventually taking over, and there's a bit of chaos before the whole thing ends in a flash of Mexican, Brazillian and American fireworks. This part of the film wasn't one i particularly enjoyed, because it just kinda gets crazy and ends somewhat abruptly. But it's not even close to enough to ruin the whole movie, either. 2/5 All in all, it's not necessarily a title I could see myself revisiting much. The whole thing is something I feel like I'd end up being made to watch in Spanish class, as it mostly serves as an educational tool about geography and other cultures. As I mentioned before, I see it as a sort of loose sequel to 'Saludos Amigos'. And, much like with 'Saludos Amigos', I'm trying to figure out how much of the film is dated with its depictions of certain cultures. Again, not trying to be culturally insensitive at all, but perhaps coming across as such. It didn't really cross my mind in this case; I felt they meant well, trying to give kids an early education on things. To make the review short, it's simply passable, not very memorable, but I'm glad I watched it. 3/5 |
RSS Feed