Once again, we have a month of 5 Thursdays, so once again, it's time to visit the deep, dark reaches of the Disney Vault. And man, oh man, do we have some obscurities this month. This may be the only Disney Month that consists entirely of films I could just as easily do an 'Under the Radar' month on. First up, we have the Disney Animation Studios record-holder for shortest film; the 42-minute 'Saludos Amigos'. Though this is part of the DAS collection, in truth, it plays much more like a Disney Special I'd have seen one Sunday evening. The film is short, and consists of sketches, sometimes featuring old Disney favorites like Donald Duck and Goofy. In fact, it's probably safe to say that Donald is the main character in this, acting as a tourist as he travels to different destinations, but not in every sketch. Much like I did with 'Fantasia', I'll break it down bit by bit. The brief synopsis of the full film has to do with representative animators from Disney Studios travelling to exotic locations, and finding inspiration for their animation. Of course, as we all know, that has the potential to be a bit controversial. It's fun, but I often wondered if it bordered on insensitive. It stands as educational for its time, but I do wonder how much they got wrong. It's very much a product of its time. Lake Titicaca: This is one of the segments featuring Donald Duck as a tourist. For this one, he visits Lake Titicaca, and learns about some of the local culture, which includes riding a very stubborn llama - which is by far the best part of the sketch. 3/5 Pedro: While flying high above the mountains, one animator is inspired to create a story about an anthropomorphic plane who is engaging in his first mail retrieval flight, from Santiago, Chile to Mendoza. It's cute, but mildly entertaining at best, seemingly very aimed towards children (which is fine). 3/5 El Gaucho Goofy: Here we take a look at cowboy life, the way only Goofy can do it. It places Goofy, as an American cowboy, in the Argentinian pampas (lowlands) so he can learn the ways of the gaucho (South American cowboy). The scene pictured above of Goofy smoking a cigarette was later removed for the Gold Classic Collection, the Classic Cabelleros Collection, and even on Disney+, despite it being advertised as "unedited". Despite perhaps some dated cultural depictions, it still got a good laugh. 3/5 Aquarela do Brazil: In Portuguese, this means "Watercolor of Brazil", and it's probably my favorite of the sketches. In this finale, Donald returns as a tourist, this time in Brazil. He meets José Carioca; a Portuguese speaking, cigar smoking parrot from Rio, who shows him around, introducing him to the samba, and cachaça - a distilled spirit created from fermented sugarcane juice. This one's stylish, has catchy music to go with it, and even teeters on being a bit adult with the drink. For whatever reason, that wasn't as controversial as Goofy's cigarette. 4/5 I'm a bit torn on this one because there's something about it that I'm not quite getting. So much about it is saying that I should find the conroversy in it, as it does depict different nationalities in what is perhaps a dated way. But at the same time, nothing about it felt overtly racist, like jive-talking crows, or a certain centaur from 'Fantasia'. I really felt like this was trying to be cultured, and educational, and it never truly felt insensitive to me. But honestly, if I need my eyes opened, please do educate me. I can only speak personally, and I can say that in many ways this one took me back to childhood. Particularly, seeing a couple of old Donald and Goofy skits that were new to my eyes was a fun, nostalgic treat. I think one could look at this film as completely dated, and maybe even a bit insensitive if they look hard enough. But for myself, nothing really made me cringe or reel, it was just always on that edge where it could have crossed a line, but just did enough not to. It's a quick, easy watch, and just kinda there. I woudln't even really count it as a movie, myself, but it is on the list, so here we are. 3/5
0 Comments
Growing up, there was this trend of film that spoke to our generation involving kids and sports. 'The Mighty Ducks', 'The Sandlot', 'Little Giants', 'Rookie of the Year', 'Little Big League', 'Angels in the Outfield' (man, baseball was a real go-to, wasn't it?) the list goes on. I liked a bunch of them okay at the time, but there was a very different one that spoke to me, personally; 'Heavyweights'. The film portrays 11-year-old Gerry Garner (Aaron Schwartz) who comes home to his parents intervening with his lifestyle with ads for a "fat camp" called Camp Hope. Though skeptical at first, the ad actually shows cool things like go-karting and "The Blob" (a massive inflatable raft used to launch kids into the air and into the lake) which quickly gains his curiosity. He then meets the other kids, headed by Josh (Shaun Weiss) and Roy (Kenan Thompson), and the counselors; which primarily include a big softy named Pat (Tom McGowan), who has his own development story as he has an interest in a sweet nurse named Julie (Leah Lail) and all seems to be going well. However, when the camp owners, the Bushkins (Jerry Stiller and Anne Meara) have to file for bankruptcy, the camp is suddenly taken over by maniacal meathead, Tony Perkis (Ben Stiller) and his crew of enforcers. They have come to essentially abuse these kids into losing weight. For an idea on his character, think White Goodman from 'Dodgeball' coaching a bunch of kids. As if that isn't enough, they also have to deal with their rival camp; essentially a group of typical bully jocks. In the end, it's a question of how far the kids and counselors are willing to take things to regain control of their camp. To be frank, there is a lot about this movie that isn't as great as I remember. I find the humor to be oddly balanced; where some gags get a giggle, others will have you rolling your eyes. A lot of the lame humor comes from the kids and counselors, but and as one can imagine, a lot of the good stuff comes from Ben Stiller. There's something about him playing an overtly cocky guy that just cracks me up. The dialogue comes to us from an interesting team though; Steven Brill ('The Mighty Ducks', 'Ready to Rumble' and 'Little Nicky') and Judd Apatow ('The 40-Year-Old Virgin', 'Knocked Up' and the legendary 'Freaks and Geeks'), so one can imagine an odd balance. The film as a whole is pretty off-the-wall ridiculous in what it wants us to buy into sometimes; for instance a video that has you asking "whose camera is that?", and the whole general idea that, while perhaps not to his extreme, Perkis is one of those villains you realize is kinda right in what he's doing. Right from the get-go, you see how insanely easily these kids get hold of junk food to cheat with. In such a situation, it does make sense to bring in someone who will lock it down, as the whole idea of the camp is to lose weight. Again, maybe not him, but someone more strict was probably pretty necessary, if I'm being honest. At the end of the day, however, this IS a movie aimed at kids, so I'm not gonna just sit here and pick it apart little by little. As I mentioned, this was something that spoke to a chubby, out of shape me, back in the day. I have to appreciate that it took the bonding concept that other early 90's kids sports movies had and incorporated it into something for all the other kids who sucked at gym class. Even with that, it still features a game of baseball, so it did try to reach a range of kids - perhaps to show them that kids like me didn't necessarily suck at everything. This one might not hit the same chords it did back then. It's no last string of childhood, like 'Space Jam', nor does it represent some obscure life event like puberty. It was just a fun film that spoke to me a little more than it spoke to others back then. A lot of it is kinda tough to watch nowadays as an adult, and there's no real nostalgic tie to it. However, if you are curious about some of Stiller's early work, it might be worth checking out. Bringing up 'Dodgeball' again, you could even fan-theorize that Tony Perkins and White Goodman are perhaps one and the same? 3/5 Originally released when I was 12, going on 13, 'Casper' actually ended up being a sort of landmark film for yours truly. At the time of its release, I wasn't exactly popular, so there was a big part of me that related to Casper's loneliness. I also developed my first celeb crush on Christina Ricci with this, at the time, so it fit pretty well 12-year-old me. Watching it nowadays though, interestingly enough, I actually found it to be a bit deeper than I remember. 'Casper' is, of course, based on those old Harvey Entertainment cartoons (funnily enough the name of the father and daughter in this), and it more or less plays out the same way. Casper (Malachi Pearson) is just a lonely ghost looking for a friend. The problem is that his uncles, Stretch (Joe Nipote), Fatso (Brad Garrett) and Stinky (Joe Alaskey) constantly scare and drive off any potential candidates. That is until one day, while watching TV, Casper stumbles on a news report that tells of a paranormal psychologist, Dr. James Harvey (Bill Pullman) and his daughter, Kat (Ricci). Harvey reveals that all he wants to do is help ghosts in need; seeing their unfinished business through so they can cross over. Combining that with a little instant crush of his own on Kat, Casper works his magic to bring it to the attention of the latest inheritor of Whipstaff Manor (the house the ghosts haunt), Carrigan Crittenden (Cathy Moriarty), who, along with her assistant, Dibbs (Eric Idle), has recently discovered that the manor is haunted, and she want the ghosts out of the house in order to find a mysterious treasure that was revealed in her late Father's will - the same will that left her the property. Casper's plan works, and eventually he gets to meet and befriend Kat while Dr. Harvey makes the effort to counsel the three uncles - though pretty much none of that is ever seen, as these ghosts take great enjoyment in messing around with him. Will the ghosts leave, an give Carrigan access to this treasure? Or will Dr. Harvey and Kat discover that they have enough in common with these ghosts to let the stick around? Before I get into it all, let me get some of the negative out of the way. Opinions on this one are very 50/50, and it's not exactly regarded as a good movie. I managed to pick out a lot of what people might see bad about it, like some of the humor (a lot of it can get pretty crude), or often the writing not making a whole lot of sense (Why does Carrigan inherit the manor from her father when it's clearly revealed that Casper's father lived there? Why do Casper and Kat run upstairs to keep the Lazarus potion from falling into the wrong hands only to answer a door and just go right back down to where they were?) But the truth is, even as an adult, this one isn't lost on me. And not even in that "guilty pleasure" context, like 'Space Jam'. A lot of the good in this comes from learning a little something about Casper, and developing his character much more than he was ever developed in the cartoons. The film takes a few moments to have some good conversation between Casper and Kat, and we learn things like how Casper originally died, but without having to do a whole flashback scene. I also still really enjoy the whole scene between the two involving the lighthouse, and later in Kat's room. The whole idea that Casper can't remember his life is interesting, and it's subtle, but when he remembers he doesn't have a reflection you can kinda see this realization on his face that he hasn't seen his own face in who knows how long. Then of course there's the famous line "can I keep you?" which I always used to think was a bit corny. Now, I'm seeing this as not so much a romantic notion, but illustrating the fact that all of these people have come into his... afterlife?... only to be scared off by very his presence. It's kinda his way of saying "can you stay with me, and not run away?" Admittedly, that tugs on my heartstrings, as I DO know what it's like to be looked at with the "ew, get away from me" gaze. It has even been vocalized, which is nasty, but that's more 12-year-old me than now... exactly the same age as Casper and Kat, and the age I was when I first saw the film. I do have this one on my Halloween 2017 list of Family Friendly Halloween Classics, and the perspective I had on it a few years ago was pretty much the same as now. It might be kinda silly, sloppy and even kinda stupid in parts, but there's really nothing incredibly wrong with it - save for maybe a few prime time curses like "for Christ's sake" and using the word "bitch" a coupe of times. The overall reality is that one can still gather the family around to watch it, and it actually holds up fairly well. You may even get a bit more from it, like I did this time around. While it's not exactly a gem to a lot of people out there, it's perfectly passable for what it is, and I feel like despite its flaws, it gets a bad rap. Don't take it too seriously - its target audience is preteens, after all. 3/5 This one, for me, actually makes for a good conversation piece. It is not by any stretch of the imagination among my favourite of Disney's classic animated films, but at the same time, I can't help but praise it for some of the things it does. It makes for a few first-times for Disney animation, and is actually kinda revolutionary in its own right. Not only is this the first time they've tried to pull off a coming-of-age story, it's also the first time they've gone full-tilt animals. It's our first real glimpse into the world of nature, and I have to say it does it beautifully. All of this would later lend itself to movies like 'The Lion King'. The artwork here is amazing, and the film invites us into the beauty of the forest. Being a nature guy, myself, I can really appreciate it. And that's really what this movie is all about. It's a very on-the-nose environmental message when you get right down to it. Basically, this movie is about a young deer Prince named Bambi (Hardie Albright/Donnie Dunagan/John Sutherland) and his growing up in the forest. Here, we cover things like his friendships with a rabbit named Thumper (Tim Davis/Peter Behn/Sam Edwards) and a skunk named Flower (also Tim Davis/Stan Alexander/Sterling Holloway); a romantic interest in a fawn named Faline (Cammie King Conlon/Ann Gillis); what hibernation is all about; and his relationship with his mother along with the dangers of "man". Of course, we all know what happens there. I can appreciate that it's offering a slice-of-life story from the perspective of forest-dwelling critters. Really, the film's simplicity is what makes it good. We're just watching a deer grow up in his environment and learn about new things every day - much like a human kid has to do in real life. It does a decent job when it comes to tackling certain subject matter, but I do have one big criticism and people might not take it so well. Hopefully at this point in the game we all know the fate of Bambi's mother. If there was ever anything famous to come from this film, it's the teachings of death and loss it gives its younger audience. It's a harsh bit of film for any kid to see, and has been deem traumatic by many. But here's the thing - there's no mourning period for Bambi's Mom. His Dad just tells him she can't be with him anymore, Bambi looks sad, and the next scene is the brightest, happiest most WTF transition ever. Bambi's Mom is never mentioned again. The film might as well say to its audience "hey, shit happens, move on". It's no wonder kids had a problem with this. But I digress. As I mentioned before, this isn't something I can just throw on and enjoy any old time. It's a very cutesy movie that also offers a heavy hand, and there's seldom any real middle ground. Though its simplicity is what makes it good, it's also often too simplistic when it comes to any story or characters. There's not a whole lot of dimension to anyone here. I do, however, see this one as more of a work of art than a family movie. So much of its appeal is in the artwork, and it's still awesome by today's standards. Not great for family movie night, but it does make for a decent escape into the Disney forest. 3/5 Here's another one I've actually seen a few times throughout my childhood, but it has been long enough that I've forgotten most of it. I always kinda set this one to the side though, as I remember it being kinda hard to sit through. For many, this one gave them a tough time due to a combination of pink elephants on parade and the idea that Dumbo gets separated from his mother. For me though, the bothersome part of this comes from how incredibly harsh it is, altogether. The stork opens things up by delivering all sorts of baby animals to their respective parents of a circus. Just when we think the elephant Mrs. Jumbo (Verna Felton) is forgotten about, the stork finally manages to come through, and you wonder why they bothered with the first few minutes of the film (filler is my guess). The other lady elephants are very excited to see the little guy who Mrs. Jumbo names "Jumbo Junior". However, upon seeing that he has enormous, floppy ears, they becomes disgusted with him and nickname him "Dumbo". These other lady elephants are some of the worst characters, saying things that suggest little Jumbo Jr. should be ashamed of his differences. As mentioned before, Dumbo is also separated from his mother after some asshole kid starts tormenting Dumbo, and she comes to his aid. She is labeled a "mad elephant" and locked away, leaving Dumbo alone, and making matters even worse with the other elephants than they were before. Keeping in mind that this is just a baby elephant, it makes you wanna throw something at the screen, especially if you're watching it having been ridiculed in your past for your own physical differences that can't be helped. But this movie isn't without its savior, either. A circus mouse named Timothy Q Mouse (Edward Brophy) quickly becomes a personal favorite as he sees Dumbo for much more than just a set of floppy, shameful ears. Timothy helps the heartbroken Dumbo out however he can, cheering him up, and helping him realize that his deformities could be something special. The general idea behind this one is to show us that we're much more than what people make fun of us for, and eventually we can learn to own it. Impossible spoiler alert, but Dumbo finds out he can fly with his ears. Again, this one isn't my favourite of Disney's classic library due to how mean-spirited it is, but I do appreciate the takeaway from it all the same. Now, addressing the elephant in the room that isn't actually an elephant, there's more than makes this one a little awkward to watch by today's standards - it's a touch racially insensitive. On top of the well-known jive-talking crows, there's also the "Song Of The Roustabouts". A roustabout is defined as an unskilled or casual laborer, but let's face it, all of them here are people of colour, and the lyrics speak for themselves. Go ahead a Google it. The thing that makes this endure the test of time is a combination of things. For starters, the moral of the story is timeless. It's a great lesson to be teaching kids, especially if they are having any sort of hard time with their peers. Secondly, there's a fascination with the 'Elephants on Parade' scene, which has gone down as easily one of the biggest WTF moments in Disney history, and great for stoners of all kinds. But lastly, and something I really only realized this time around, it also shows us that no matter how bad things get for you, all it takes is that one person to be at your side to cheer you on and help you through. If it wasn't for Tomithy Q. Mouse, I'd probably just hate this movie. Shame they really didn't make him part of the remake. 3/5 This review might take a little while, as this isn't just your average, old school Disney animated film. What we have here instead is a classical musical that lasts just over two hours, and it speaks to our inner artists in a way that allows us to really appreciate what it is to be a little cultured... even if there are racist moments within it. The idea is to have a bunch of pieces of classical music blend together with animated, visual interpretations of what the music was trying to say (to a degree). It's hosted by Mast of Ceremonies, American composer, Deems Taylor, and he takes us through the film, introducing each piece as we go. However, I do find that he introduces each piece by telling us a little too much about what we're about to see. There's not much left to the imagination because of this, but it doesn't make the pieces any less enjoyable either. Really, this is pretty timeless stuff - all save for one piece in particular, but we'll get to that. For this review, I'm breaking it into pieces, as I see it being the only really fair way to tackle it. Toccata and Fugue in D Minor by Johann Sebastian Bach: An enjoyable, abstract piece of work that combines silhouettes of the orchestra with animation reflecting the instruments and the music they play. It's simple, and it sets the mood for everything we're about to see. 4/5 The Nutcracker Suite by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky: Very little to do with the Christmas classic tune, this piece covers songs 'Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy', 'Chinese Dance', 'Arabian Dance', 'Russian Dance', 'Dance of the Flutes' and 'Waltz of the Flowers', each featuring a variety of animated dances, depicting the changing of the seasons. 3/5 The Sorcerer's Apprentice by Paul Dukas: When people think of 'Fantasia', their minds will automatically leap to one of tow pieces. This one is the first, which 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. I still find this one to be the most entertaining of the pieces, personally. 5/5 Rite of Spring by Igor Stravinsky: Through selected pieces of the ballet score, this one depicts Earth's beginnings. Another one I find very entertaining, it goes from Earth's formation through to the extinction of the dinosaurs. This one might be considered to be a little controversial for people with a creationism history, but seeing as I personally lean towards science, it really does it for me, as this stuff fascinates me. 4/5 Intermission/Soundtrack: 'Fantasia' is very much represented as a concert show, as opposed to an actual movie. As such, it is complete with a slight intermission, a fun jam session, and a humorous introduction to the film's soundtrack, in which we see a line imitating various instruments with waves. Much like a real intermission, I can take or leave this part, and it won't be included in my ratings. It's sole purpose is to be filler. The Pastoral Symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven: This is the big one that really stirred up the controversy. The piece portrays tidbits of Greek/Roman culture, giving us a variety of mythological figures which include one particular racially insensitive centaur named Sunflower. Just Google it, and you'll see how it's an unfortunate fly in the ointment of an otherwise beautiful film, let alone the piece itself. 2/5 Dance of the Hours by Amilcare Ponchielli: A fun piece that depicts the stages of the 24 hour day. Morning is represented by Madame Upanova and her ostriches; afternoon is represented by Hyacinth Hippo and her servants; evening is represented by Elephanchine and her bubble-blowing elephant troupe; night is represented by Ben Ali Gator and his troop of alligators. 3/5 Night on Bald Mountain by Modest Mussorgsky / Ave Maria by Franz Schubert: Going back to that I said about 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice', this is the other piece that tends to pop into people's heads when 'Fantasia' is brought up. also, much like 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice', this is a personal favorite bit of the film. 'Night on Bald Mountain' shows us midnight where a demon named Chernabog (or for all intents and purposes, Satan). he summons evil, restless spirits from their graves to essentially party for a while until 'Ave Maria' comes along, vanquishing the darkness, and showing us the dawn of a new day. 5/5 To close it off, it can be said with all honesty that this isn't just something I'd be able to throw on whenever I felt like it. It's very much something one needs to be in the mood for, especially as a full 2 hours plus. That may be fairly average movie running time, but not for Disney animation. With that said, however, this does add a touch of culture and class to Disney's library (again, taking Sunflower out of the equation). Pieces like 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice' and 'Night on Bald Mountain' have since become far better known due to this film, and are both great instrumental tunes to listen to around Halloween. For the most part, it has aged nicely, despite its glaring problems. 4/5 This one comes from a children's novel called 'The Adventures of Pinocchio', written by Italian author, Carlo Collodi, and released in 1883. Through the years in between the book and the film, Pinocchio had already become a pretty famous hero of sorts, with his story having largely to do with being a jerk, going through a sort of "Hell", and finalizing it with a rebirth. And honestly, it's pretty spot on with the subject matter. One nice thing about this title is that it's pretty well timeless, as opposed to something like 'Snow White', which hasn't aged all that well. This one has all the right ingredients for kids to take a few valuable life lessons from it. To this day, it remains one of my top picks for classic Disney, even if it does reach points of being truly disturbing. We open things up with Jiminy Cricket (Cliff Edwards) who tells the story, which begins with him stumbling on an old inventor's home named Gepetto (Christian Rub). He lives among a variety of knickknacks, clocks, toys, etc. But what really catches Jiminy's eye is a marionette puppet, who Gepetto has named Pinocchio (Dickie Jones). Being a lonely old man, that night, Gepetto makes a "wish upon a star" (Oscar winner for Best Original Song) that his puppet comes to life, and gives him a son to take care of. Enter the Blue Fairy (Evelyn Venable), who brings Pinocchio to life. She tells him that he can become a real boy if he follows his conscience in the right direction. In one aspect of the movie I really enjoy, she ends up making Jiminy Cricket his official conscience. He's to guide Pinocchio in the right direction, leading him away from the path of temptation. The thing is, much like with any real human being, sometimes that little voice just isn't there, and sometimes we even ignore it with our curiosity. As things unfold, Pinocchio does, indeed, find himself heading down that wrong path, largely guided by a fox named Foulfellow, or "Honest John" (Walter Catlett) and a cat named Gidean (Mel Blanc) who for whatever reason live among humans without being noticed. My take is that they're characters represented by these animals, especially the fox being known for being so sly. This also ties into all the disturbing stuff that happens later on involving bad little boys transforming into donkeys - a scene that may very well just scare your kids into being good. Even watching it now, I kinda wondered how I sat through those scenes in my youth. Of course, as the adventure continues, Pinocchio learns a lot about what it means to be selfless, brave, and honest, especially when he discovers that lying makes his nose grow... which happens far less than I remember. The whole climax of the movie is very impressive with its animation as well as tension, as it tosses us into the ocean where we come face to face with a whale. The film has a happy ending, of course, but for a little while there it gets pretty crazy - a far cry from the black and white simplicity of 'Snow White'. So here's one I might recommend for the whole family. There are some pretty freaky sequences here, but the lessons embedded within the film are nothing to ignore, and it does a good job of getting them through. It's pretty basic stuff, but it's done fairly subtly, and it doesn't preach the issue. It might just make your kids think twice before they invite that bad influence of a friend over, and I can honestly say that I wish I sat down to watch it more throughout my childhood because of that. 4/5 Ever since I got Disney Plus, I thought it would be a good idea to take a time-travelling journey through Disney's vault. But instead of making it another tedious project that I can't keep up with, I figured I'd try to squeeze it into any month that has 5 Thursdays, meaning the next set of these will be set for July, October, December, and so on, until I go through all of Disney's animated features. So yeah, this is just gonna be a thing now. Today, we start with 1937's 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarves'. A couple of things to cover first and foremost - for one, I find this to be a product of its time, and it simply hasn't aged well when it comes to certain aspects. At the time, this was the world's first full-length animated feature, and it was unprecedented technology done without the handiness of a computer. I won't go into full detail, but the process of animation in the late 1930's was something to be admired. It was hard work, and animation has come a very long way since then, but one can't really deny that animation as a whole has its roots in this film. Getting into the story, it's the classic fairy tale, brought to us from the Brothers Grimm back in 1812, but tidied up just a bit. A vane and evil queen (Lucille La Verne) is all pissed off about apparently not being the "fairest in the land", according to her magic mirror (Moroni Olsen). As it turns out, the mirror sees the princess, Snow White (Adriana Caselotti) as "the fairest one of all", which prompts the queen to send out a huntsman (Stuart Buchanan) to assassinate her. When the huntsman manages to catch up to Snow White, he can't go through with it, and sends her running into the woods where she has a nervous breakdown, and is then comforted by a bunch of woodland critters. The critters lead her to a little cottage in the woods where she can rest up, but not before *cringe* cleaning up the house with the help of all these woodland critters. The little cottage ends up being home to seven dwarves; Doc (Roy Atwell), Dopey (Eddie Collins), Sleepy, Grumpy (both Pinto Colvig), Sneezy (Billy Gilbert), Happy (Otis Harlan) and Bashful (Scotty Mattraw). They all hit it off as soon as the dwarves find out she can *cringe* cook. She then plays a bit of a mother figure to them, and finds them ultimately cute, which brings me to her character - yeah, she kinda sucks. Aside from the abilities to cook, clean, sing and pick wildflowers, she's pretty much helpless, and far too cutesy. It's pretty cringe-worthy stuff, for the most part. Going back to the story, however, we ALL know what happens. At this point, it really shouldn't be a spoiler, but the queen disguises herself, gives Snow White a poisoned apple, and she accepts and takes a bite like an idiot. To me, this has always been a lesson for kids simply not to accept things that strangers offer, or they'll put you in a potential coma that only "love's first kiss" can get you out of (you thought of 'Shrek' just now, right? Not 'Snow White'?) This kinda turns the film on its head, because now here's a girl who's been drugged, and only someone who wants to kiss her passed out body can revive her - so yeah, I get why this maybe isn't the best thing to show your kids nowadays in order to send a message. In closing, I'm not here to start a whole thing with this movie. We all have an opinion, and at the end of the day, if you don't wanna watch it, just don't watch it. However, I think that despite how its viewed nowadays, I can still admire the film for what it managed to do, technically. Most people my age, or a bit younger, remember when 'Toy Story' came out in 1995, changing the face of animated cinema forever. Well, this was essentially that for 1937, and it's pretty well the title that sparked it all. To my amazement, it still looks really good by today's standards, right down to character expression, and beautiful backgrounds. So, I definitely see it as a solid technical achievement. As far as the film itself goes, however, it's a little difficult for me to brush it off as a simple, harmless, fairy tale. But I can say that what the problems boil down to is just that it's extremely dated. We're much more woke now in today's society, so if you wanna show your kids, go ahead and show them - just do it with caution, is all. On the other hand, if you'd rather not expose your kids to dated gender roles, just skip it 'cause nowadays there's better out there. For me, it has a place in history, and does still get some of my respect. 3/5 Wrapping up my month of catching up on 2017, we come across another title that, for my money, ends up being one of the best feel-good films of 2017. There's a lot of sad stuff to this, and it is a bit depressing, but it's altogether inspiring to see young Auggie (Jacob Tremblay) overcome adversity, especially when he's been stuck with a pretty rough facial deformity for these ten years of his life. At the age of ten, Auggie is made to check out what it might be like in a regular school, as opposed to being homeschooled by his mother (Julia Roberts). Though nervous as all hell, Auggie tries it out, and his parents (along with father played by Owen Wilson) and sister, Via (Izabela Vidovic) encourage him, offering kind words and advice for his first day. As one might imagine, though, that first day doesn't exactly go well, as he becomes the subject of some harsh verbal bullying. However, this whole thing is about overcoming adversity, and letting people know who you are as a person, as opposed to what's on the outside. As the story continues, we develop a few interestingly developed characters. The school bully, Julian (Bryce Gheisar), Auggie's new best friend, Jack Will (Noah Jupe) and a girl named Summer (Millie Davis), who thankfully provides living proof that a film doesn't have to have a love interest are among them. Tied in with all of this are his extremely likable principal, Mr. Tushman (Mandy Patinkin) and equally likable teachers, Mr. Browne (Daveed Diggs), who really seems to look out for Auggie, and Ms. Petosa (Ali Liebert) who encourages Auggie's gift for science. There's one brilliant twist to this movie that I had no idea was coming, but it brings a whole new formula to the film, making it one of my favorites of the year. Though the early parts of the film, are narrated by Auggie, we also get differing perspectives to the story. Characters develop through their own narrations, offering their perspectives on Auggie. These are all characters who you don't particularly like at some point, because they say or do something cruel. But upon hearing their narrations, we learn that there's more to them then just being assholes. They also show their empathy towards Auggie, and their understanding that there's more there than meets the eye. It's a very good, feel-good family movie, and it's even a little nostalgic, making you think back to your elementary days. They did a fantastic job here in making these kids appropriate kids. There's one girl who stands out like a sore thumb as kinda fake, but right from the get-go, we kinda get that its just her character, while the other kids are pretty much normal. There are no real extremes here, and I'm thankful to say that young Mr. Tremblay isn't picked on by Stephen King bullies until he shows up in 'Doctor Sleep' - by this I mean that King bullies are generally very extreme, out for blood, ready to kill, and more than likely the victim of a rough home life. Anyway, I can admit that there is a handful of movies out there that one might wanna watch for a good cry, but with mostly positive tears. For me, this quickly became one of them. I love that this movie offers different perspectives on the story, developing the surrounding characters just as much as Auggie, and letting us know that we might wanna double check something before leaping to horrible conclusions. The whole matter ended up developing the friend, Jack Will, into probably my favorite character of the film. He's probably the best example of a back and forth character, as we like him, hate him, then almost love him. Not standing alone, though, these characters are very well fleshed out, and it helps provide us with a charming, simple family story, with basic life lessons at its core, well worth the run-through at least once. It's a great play on the heart strings. 5/5 Here we have a film with a bit of an interesting history. Produced by Roger Corman and eventual big-budget 'Fantastic 4' producer, Bernd Eichinger, this film was never officially released. Eventually, however, it gained steam under the radar as a sort of cult "so-good-it'-bad" movie, and it's currently easy enough to find somewhere online. Nowadays, with Disney making that Fox purchase, a lot of people are wondering if they can ever make the Fantastic Four into something good and not so cheesetacular. But while this adaptation IS by all means a rough movie to sit through, many argue that so far, this is the truest adaptation, between various 'F4' comics. The plot is simply enough the origin of the Fantastic Four; when Reed Richards (Alex Hyde-White), Sue (Rebecca Staab) and Johnny Storm (Jay Underwood), and Ben Grimm (Michael Bailey Smith) get hit by cosmic rays on an experimental mission and turn into Mr. Fantastic (with the ability to stretch), The Invisible Woman (powers obvious), The Human Torch (again, powers obvious), and The Thing (a big rock guy with super strength), respectively. Before all that happens, however, Victor Von Doom is the victim of a horrible lab accident and becomes Doctor Doom. He's after the Fantastic Four upon learning of their newfound abilities in order to harness their powers for himself and get more powerful, or something along those lines. The whole story is simple, it does a decent job at adaptation as far as the characters and origin go, but sadly enough, none of it is good enough to save it from the painful dialogue, bad, low-budget effects, and way too many areas where it's funny, but not really supposed to be. It is, indeed, a "so bad, it's good" film. But the same could be said about any 'F4' film. At the very least, this one's something one can have a lot of fun with. If you're into these classic comics, and have an itching curiosity to see a decent but horrible 'F4' film all at once, then I highly recommend checking this out. Keeping in mind that it's unreleased, you won't have much luck with honesty on this one, and paying for your very own copy. But again, it's easy enough to seek out online. It's worth the watch, if nothing else, for a good laugh. I actually had quite a lot of fun with it. 2/5 Somehow I get the feeling that everyone has at least one big Christmas movie that everyone seems to talk about that they managed to miss. I suppose in the grand scheme of things, 'Jingle All the Way' is the one people seem the most shocked by. I would have to say that's mostly because it's about Schwarzenegger taking on the holiday rush. It ought to be good fun, just like 'Kindergarten Cop'. But is it? I mean, reviews are pretty terrible on this thing. But don't worry, I found myself giving it some lenience in the end. But more on that in a bit. Our basic story involves matress salesman, Howard Langston (Schwarzenegger), your far too typical, too-busy-for-the-kid father figure. He manages to miss his son Anaki-- sorry, Jamie's (Jake Lloyd) karate graduation, but promises to make it up to him by doing something nice. Jamie asks for a 'Turbo Man' doll for Christmas. Howard forgets all about it until the last minute, and soon finds himself hitting up anywhere he can in order to get his hands on this Turbo Man doll - essentially the "Tickle-Me Elmo" of this movie. Throughout the rush, Howard ends up rivaling with two people, consistently adding to his stress. The first, a post office worker named Myron (Sinbad), who is also after a Turbo Man doll for his own son. These two get into scuffles, and most of the comedy comes from Arnold's reactions as opposed to Sinbad's humor. Although I have to admit that he managed to get a few good lines in there, I kinda just found him obnoxious and annoying. But then we have the real villain of the film. So help me God, I loved to hate this dink of a neighbor Howard has named Ted (Phil Hartman). He is your divorce, neighborhood handyman, who all the single ladies seem to love for... God knows what reason. I guess because he's helpful, but he's such a wiener at the same time. It doesn't help that he's rich, spoils his family, brags about it, and worst of all, has feelings towards Howard's wife, Liz (Rita Wilson), that he acts on. He's just one of those interfering assholes you wanna pop in the face - and for that, I completely commend Hartman on his performance. He pulls off "slimeball" incredibly well. And nothing in this movie is quite as good as the now famous "cookie" scene. So, honestly, I'd be lying if I said the movie didn't make me laugh at how ridiculous it all got. The funniest thing about that is, for as ridiculous as things got, so much of what went on throughout the movie is all too real. For example, a scene depicting a cheaply made Spanish Turbo Man doll, being sold on the black market - totally a real deal when it comes to the toy of the year. I think nowadays we call it Kijiji, but this was 1996. Then, of course, the madness and even violence of the rush, which we've seen in all too many YouTube videos about Black Friday sales. It might sound weird to say about a movie that's so recognizably bad, but that kinda makes it timeless. That mad Christmas rush will always be a thing, as long as Malls and chains remain open and don't go the way of the Internet (which may actually be an inevitability). So, the movie is a bit dated by today's standards, sure, but there's a certain something about this movie that I can't quite put my finger on. It's not quite in the realm of "so bad it's good", but it's still pretty ridiculous in parts, with so much of it actually giving me a genuine chuckle. Arnold getting sprayed in the eyes and reacting is one of the funniest Arnold moments I never knew about. So, it's strange, but I have no idea how I feel about this movie. A part of me hates it for how bad it is, overall. But a part of me loves it for how it portrayed things, and of course, Arnoldisms. I'll just have to chalk it up to "guilty pleasure". 3/5 Here's one of those titles from my past that I might have actually seen before. That said, I can say with all honesty that if I have, that particular memory escapes me because there was nothing at all familiar about it. A responsible teenager named Chris (Elisabeth Shue) is asked to look after some kids while the parents are out to a party. The kids are teenage a brother, Brad (Kieth Coogan), and his little sister, Sara (Maia Brewton). Brad's like, 14 in this, so why he can't look after things is completely beyond me, but there you have it. He's got a bit of a thing for Chris, who, to be fair, is only a couple of years older than him. He's accompanied in this film by his best friend, and total love-to-hate weasel, Daryl (Anthony Rapp). No really. I know he's the comedy relief in this and everything, but this kid annoyed me. As for Sara, well, she's the "cuteness" to the movie, being a girl who's totally obsessed with Thor, and that almost bratty kid who has to show the grown ups what's what. Chris gets a call from her friend Brenda (Penelope Ann Miller) who tells her she's run away from home, and is currently stuck in the heart of the Chicago at a bus station, asking to be picked up. Being her only hope, Chris leaves with the kids, with an alibi of "we went for ice cream". The rest of the movie is Chris fighting her way through the big rough city, facing all sorts of fun scary stuff. I was pretty lukewarm with this movie. Moments were cute or fun, but I think it's another one I was just too late on. Some of the dialogue could be considered not quite PC these days, and that was a part of what took me out of it. Not so much that any of it offended me, personally, but in reviewing it, I have to consider others as well. Take for example big brother teasing little sister, saying that Thor's a "homo". For some, nowadays, that might not be so cool. Otherwise, it was just another goofy family adventure to me, and nothing about it really and truly stuck out for me. But I will say this, I enjoyed it for what it was for the most part. I know it seems like I'm ready to give this one a bad rating, but this brought some sort of weird nostalgia up for me as well in the sense that it's almost an iconic thing from my past that I constantly looked at, but never rented. Again, if it ever did get rented, I sure as hell didn't remember it. In the end, I'm glad I finally saw it, and for the most part, it's a decent family film for it's time. I would just say that it hasn't aged particularly well. It's interesting to see that this is actually Chris Columbus' directorial debut movie. This is the guy who would go on to direct titles like 'Home Alone', 'Mrs. Doubtfire', and the first two 'Harry Potter' movies among others. Of course, this is also the 'Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief' guy; a film which I was immensely disappointed in. He's one of those mid-level directors who gives his movies certain charm, but you like some better than others. This one is often considered one of his better films, but I see it as something of a middle-ground film for him. 3/5 'Tangled' is another one of those movies where it genuinely surprises me that people are so shocked when I tell them I haven't seen it. Truth be told, my only genuine curiosity for this came along recently. Apparently, this one is the "coin-flip" for best new Disney princess movie against 'Frozen'. I saw 'Frozen', I quite liked 'Frozen' (although that song got way too out of hand), so finally I decided to check this out. Of course, here we have a Disney take on the story of Rapunzel (Mandy Moore). She is held captive by Mother Gothel (Donna Murphy) who plays nice so that she can harness Rapunzel's hair's healing powers, and stay young, youthful and pretty. But then, along comes Flynn Rider (Zachary Levi), and the two make a deal that involves taking her to her old home town to see the lanterns the townspeople release on Rapunzel's birthday in hopes that she returns, although, she doesn't know what these lanterns are all about, and the journey is based on her curiosity. That's also not a spoiler, because it covers this in the opening credits. I won't deny being entertained by this. The characters were definitely likable, the animation was beautiful, the songs were catchy and none of them got out of control on all sorts of media, and there was quite a bit of solid humor to it. However, in the end, unlike 'Frozen', I can't say that anything came as any sort of a surprise. I felt that for as much as 'Tangled' does have going for it, the overall story was relatively basic, and not far from the "usual". I felt like 'Frozen' had elements of that too, but it still did newer and more interesting things when it came to the plot. But don't get the wrong idea, the two are rather evenly matched. I'd say watch 'Frozen' if you're looking for something a little more epic with an intriguing story, but watch 'Tangled' if you're looking for a bit more of a mild, fun time with some fun characters. To compare, I'd probably say 'Frozen' is to 'Lord of the Rings' as 'Tangled' is 'Harry Potter'. But hey, when all said and done, both are Disney animation, so either way you'll be supporting the same mouse. I enjoy both films for what they are - modern Disney princess movies, which, let's face it, isn't exactly at the top of my genres list. But that doesn't mean I'm close-minded either, and I'm honestly glad that I finally gave this one the time of day. While I may like 'Frozen' better as an all-around movie, this one had a sense of humor that I would probably say outweighs it, and for that reason, I can walk away satisfied. 3/5 So, here we have a title where I'm surprised that so many people were surprised that I just kinda bypassed this movie. Well, to tell you the truth, I bypassed Roald Dahl stories pretty much entirely as a kid. As you might recall, I began this section with 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory', and guess who STILL hasn't seen 'James and the Giant Peach' either! The only one I did manage to see on-time was 'BFG'. Anyway, this was no exception. It came out in August of '96 as well. I had just turned 14. So you've gotta understand that a young man just about to go into high school might have felt a little weird about watching a movie about a little girl with telekinetic abilities, where I could turn to my 'X-Men' comics and get Jean Grey doing the same thing, plus way more. And yet, the people continue to be shocked that somehow I've never managed to sit down and watch 'Matilda'. Well, for March, I'm gonna be focused on some family favorites that I've missed out on over the years, and I figured this was a good place to start. For anyone else who hasn't seen it yet, we've basically got a story about a 6-year-old girl named Matilda (Mara Wilson). Her parents (Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman), along with her brother, Michael (Brian Levinson) mistreat her, ignoring her rapid development. She finds a friend in the books that she reads to escape from her harsh, everyday life, and blossoms into a genius, also acquiring telekinetic abilities she has yet to tap into. The parents drop her at a school, ran by an over-the-top cruel principal named Trunchbull (Pam Ferris) who just kinda throws kids around, locks them into chambers, dangles them upside-down for pocket change, and admittedly despises children altogether. However, Matilda also befriends her sweet-as-apple-pie teacher, Miss. Honey (Embeth Davidtz) who encourages and nurtures the children's development. I have to admit that I kinda sorta enjoyed this movie as a film for kids. Despite so much mean-spirited dialogue and, let's face it, straight up child abuse (what else would you call swinging a girl around by the pigtails?), this movie has a certain type of heart to it that I can't help but admire. Dahl is no stranger to over-the-top WTF moments, and I think that's how he best gets his messages across. In a way, these things are scary for kids. For example, if you're a kid watching 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory', tunnel scene aside, you've gotta wonder what ever happens to the kids who disappear - presumed dead. To a lesser extent, 'BFG' has the whole idea of giants eating children. Here, it's the authority figures, which is something we've pretty much all taken issue with some way or another, so it works. The thing I like about it is that Miss Honey kinda plays that ray of hope for Matilda, who clearly has one hell of a special gift, super powers aside. Her parents treat her like nothing, her brother's a bully, and Trunchbull is pretty much female Hitler, but Honey and Matilda's friendship is admirable. These were the teachers I loved in elementary school when I, myself, was struggling a lot through various subjects. Some teachers wanted to give me pills, but some were very sweet, patient, and encouraging. Honey reminded me of the teachers from my past who encouraged me and pushed me while I felt ignored or even useless in so many other aspects. I got where Matilda was coming from here, and I think that's really the full charm of the movie. It's over the top, sure, but the right message is there. If this was just released a few years earlier, when I was still well into kid's movies, it probably would have done me some good. I can recognize that and see that I may have had a certain rapport with this as a kid, and I don't think I'd necessarily shield my own children from it either. Matilda has to overcome some pretty nasty stuff here, and it manages to make the good of the film shine a bit brighter for the kids who are watching. 4/5 Tuesday night, I took the liberty of viewing both of the 'Paddington' movies out of sheer curiosity based on both of their ratings. And, if you've already read my Now Playing review of 'Paddington 2', you'll note that I hold both of these movies in very high regard as something both children and adults can like and enjoy very much. The first 'Paddington' here is much more of a sort of "fish-out-of-water" story in which Paddington (Ben Whishaw) is taken out of darkest Peru from his Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton) after a natural disaster, and delivered to a ship that will take him to London. There, he is found and taken in by the Brown family until they can find him a home. In the meantime, every movie needs a villain. This one is a nasty huntress named Millicent (Nicole Kidman) who's mission is simple; kill and stuff Paddington, putting him on display. Their encounters end up being a bit of silly fun, as it's one of those cartoonish matters of hero defeating villain completely by accident. But I have to say that in comparison to the villain in 'Paddington 2', this one seems just a little more off the wall harsh for an otherwise fun-filled family fantasy. Not to say that she's unwatchable, but her motives aren't really revealed until near the end. One might compare her to a Cruella DeVille, but even she had the desire to make a coat. Millicent just wants to stuff and mount this bear who can speak perfect English and is overly kind and polite to people. Some of the things to touch on here that the second film carries through nicely have to do with they overall style and feel of everything. There are neat little set pieces some of these characters walk through that are all sort of in the mind of Paddington. For example, when he writes his Aunt, he describes the Brown family, and we're shown everyone walking around a sort of doll house. Or when he's watching a home movie, and walks up and through the screen, giving way to the concept of his imagination at work. Or the tree in the stairwell that changes it's leaves based on the overall mood of the film. A bit artsy for some, but I think it makes things pop. The second film does a lot of very similar things as well. Otherwise, there's not much more to say. I would highly recommend checking these movies out, back to back, either with the family or even just by yourself if you need a bit of cheering up. They both add a little bit of sunshine to your day, and much like 'The Peanuts Movie', they REFRAIN from trying to make things look "cool". You get pretty much what you might expect from a Paddington Bear movie, nothing more, nothing less. Check it out, and bring a smile to your face. 4/5 If you're in the mood for some classic, clean humor from back in the day, you may wanna check out this film. Sometimes the crude humor I love so much just needs to take a back seat, so I decided to see this for myself, understanding that Don Knotts is capable of providing some nice, goofy humor instead. As Luthor Heggs drives along during the opening credits, he appears to witness a murder taking place in front of the supposedly haunted Simmons mansion. He heads straight to the police station o report the crime in a pretty hilarious overexcited manner. Honestly, if there's a classic actor who does overexcited well, it's gotta be Knotts. He's like a big kid. Anyway, during this, the would-be victim comes in with his wife. It is revealed that it wasn't a murder so much as just an angry wife who popped him over the head out of anger. She arrived to jail her husband. The next morning at his typesetting job, Luthor overhears his coworkers making fun of him. In an effort to increase the paper's sales, Luthor's coworkers get him to stay overnight at the Simmons mansion on the 20th anniversary of the murders that have taken place there in the past. Not to be bested by his asshole coworkers, Luthor goes for it. As one might imagine, the night doesn't go well for Luthor, and is chock full of classic spook house elements. The film seems to mainly serve as a lovable loser story after this. As we route for Luthor, he has to face a whole bunch of skeptics who don't believe any of the experiences that Luthor had while he was in that house. He even brings people back to the house to prove himself, but the house goes Michigan J. Frog on him (goes silent and does nothing special). It's got a lot of funny slapstick moments, and it's a lovely light comedy for those looking for a decent classic. Being that we're approaching Halloween, it can be seen as a fun thing to watch with the family for the occasion. It focuses far more on the comedy than it does the spook house stuff, but for 1966, it doesn't do a bad job at the horror/comedy elements at all when it gets the chance. What more can be said but "Atta boy, Luthor!" (a running gag throughout the film) 3/5 So, being that this is my first one of these, I'll need to make a few things clear about my format. What I do here is see one of the many titles I've never seen before, OR don't remember at all, so it's like watching it for the first time again. Instead of going into what the movie is about like a normal review, I just go into what I liked and/or didn't like about the movie. So fair warning for all of these; potential spoilers ahead! This one seems to amaze just about anyone when I say I haven't seen it. I do have a love for candy, and I do have a love for imagination and good story-telling. Most would tell me the same, that it's a movie right up my alley and that I'd love it. I'm not entirely sure what has taken so long for me to check it out. If I had to guess, though, it probably has something to do with the load of farces on it that are out there in a lot of the shows I watch. 'Futurama' and 'Family Guy' have both done outright episodes, while shows like 'The Simpsons' would just cover one of the songs. Before going into it, I was pretty much familiar with most of what happened in it already. Surprisingly, however, I never knew how it all actually ended. With that thought in mind, I ventured forth and checked it out for myself. All in all, I was very pleased. My friends and family were just about 100% accurate in their predictions that I'd enjoy it. It all starts off pretty light, and with a delightful twinge of humour. But then, the first kid wins his ticket. During the interview scene, the kid's father just straight up takes a bite out of the microphone, and I had a good, loud laugh. That scene alone made me wish I could have gone into the whole thing a little more blind. A lot of what happens to the other kids, I already knew about, but this is one area that I had a problem with. You never DO find out whatever happens to them. Wonka just kind of assures us all that they'll be just fine. That's all well and good, but sometimes leaving it all to imagination isn't great. I love open concepts, but when it comes to the potential killing-off of children, I feel like something's gotta give. Even if Wonka does say they're fine, he plays a pretty creepy dude throughout the movie. He's a character I don't feel I could really take the word of. The ONLY other thing I have to sort of complain about is that tunnel scene. It's just so out of nowhere, dark, nightmarish and creepy. BUT with that said, this is of course a famous scene now for that very reason, and I knew about it going in. I can't act like I'm shocked about it, but again, if I was going in blind, I feel like that scene would have messed with my head a little too much. Not that it would have scared me, but it would have confused the living hell out of me. With that out of the way though, the film was overall great for it's time in 1971. Other magical movies were made like it, but nothing quite had the feel of this. While other films would take place in otherwise normal everyday places, this takes place inside a sort of fun house factory. It feels closer to a 'Wizard of Oz' than a 'Mary Poppins'. So, in closing, I can finally say that I have seen 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory', enjoyed it, and will certainly give it more viewings in the future. If not, maybe just that microphone-munching scene on a constant loop. 4/5 |