DAC 49: The Princess and the Frog

The Princess and the Frog - 9.0/10

A fairy tale musical from Disney? Yes, please. This is what they do best, and they've nailed it again this time. I also truly enjoyed the return to 2D animation; it gives the whole thing a much more timeless feel.

What did I like about this movie? Well, where to start? I love the music. It was jazzy, it was catchy, it was fun...it was New Orleans. And that's another thing: the setting itself was beautiful and set a great tone. The art on the city was really elaborate and I loved the colors.

The characters. Well, I'll get to Tiana in a second, but let's start with the support. Louis and Ray, the gator and firefly, were lots of fun. Among other things, I just loved hearing them talk - Ray in particular with his Cajun twang was a ton of fun. Mama Odie was fun too, and had a really good song to boot. Tiana's friend Charlotte is sweet, funny, caring, and absolutely crazy - in a good way. The villain, Dr. Facilier, was creepy and spooky but not very well-defined. And of course he just wants money and power. If the movie has a weakness, I'd say that was it, though he's still menacing and effective. And to be honest he's also really cool (and has a great song) so I don't mind those weaknesses too much at all.

The prince, Naveen, was fun too. Like the sidekicks, I enjoyed hearing him talk. And of all the characters in the film, he definitely grows the most. He goes from being a lazy, entitled, spoiled rich boy to a man who is willing to work two jobs to give the woman he loves what she wants. Now that's growth.

Okay, Tiana. I love this character. I really, really do. Remember when I said I admired Cinderella for her ability to endure, even though she didn't do much to better her situation? Well Tiana is pretty much the opposite of that. In fact, the whole "wish on a star and your dreams come true" philosophy of Cinderella and Pinocchio is quite literally deconstructed in the first ten minutes of the film. There is nothing wrong with wishing, we learn, but "It'll only get you halfway." You need to make the rest of it happen yourself, and that is exactly what Tiana does. She works hard for what she wants and doesn't lose sight of her goal. At the same time, she is able to recognize (again, through character growth) that there are other things that are important, and there are certain means by which it is unacceptable to achieve a goal. I definitely admire her more than any other Disney character.

The plot actually worked well, too. There are more than a couple of moments that seem pretty predictable before they are turned on their heads, and just when you start thinking that was predictable too, it'll surprise you again. It was nice.

My absolute favorite thing about this movie, as I mentioned briefly above, is its timelessness. Quite aside from the standard computer 3D, there are a lot of conventions that are showing up in all the animated movies made these days, and very few if any of them appear here. In another thirty years or so, if you didn't know when this movie was made, you probably couldn't guess.

DAC 48: Bolt

Bolt - 8.6/10

Another hit, and the first Disney film I actually saw in theaters since Dinosaur and The Emperor's New Groove. In 3D, too! This is the first time I've watched it since, and I enjoyed it just as much as I did the first time.

First off, the animation is as much improved over Meet the Robinsons as that film was over Chicken Little. They're really getting good at this. The focus this time is on a dog who thinks he's a superhero because that's what the production crew of his television show want him to think. Apparently they feel the dog's performance is more authentic if he thinks everything in the show is real, including the danger posed to his young human girl companion. If you can get past the absurdity of this, and the impracticality (in order to rig special effects to mimic the dog's powers, they would have to accurately predict the dog's every move and reaction in every scenario 100% of the time), it actually makes for a neat premise. And it leads to a lot of moments reminiscent of Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story which were, let's face it, the best part of that film.

Unfortunately, all this forced realism comes back to bite them in the ass when an episode wraps with the girl still in jeopardy and Bolt is unallowed to save her. Despite the girl telling them the dog is going to freak out, they just put him away for the night, and predictably - he freaks out. And runs away, of course. What follows is basically a road movie wherein he picks up a pair of companions - a world-weary, jaded alley cat and a fanboy hamster in a ball - and inevitably learns the truth about himself and learns how to be a real dog. There is a travel montage set to some really nice music as all of this is happening, and the friendships he develops - particularly with the cat - are Disney magic at work.

In the end he is reunited with his girl and has to save her from a burning building after his replacement actor dog freaked out at a stunt and accidentally set everything on fire. You've seen it before: he is not a hero because of his powers, but because of his character. And it's done really well here and his relationship with his owner is very touching. It's also quite satisfying when the whole family quits the show and throws the annoying agent out the back of an ambulance.

There weren't many major side characters, though there was a running gag of the gang running into groups of pigeons wherever they went, each of which reacted to Bolt differently based on regional stereotypes. These pigeons were usually pretty funny and they weren't onscreen long enough for me to get tired of them. All told a nice source of humor in an otherwise more emotionally-themed adventure.

DAC 47: Meet the Robinsons

Meet The Robinsons - 8.8/10

Wow. Okay, if there's one thing I've learned, it's that I need to stop making assumptions. Like Chicken Little, I had never seen this one, nor had I any interest in seeing it. I assumed it was gimmicky, pandering, marketable mediocrity - in other words, another sell-out. Since I was pretty much right about the previous film, my hopes were not high. And damn, was I ever wrong.

This film was so much fun. That's the best word I can think of to describe it. The basic premise was familiar but what they did with it was fresh and entertaining. The cast of characters were all quirky and hilarious and I loved them all. There was so much randomness, but unlike so many other films, none of it felt forced and it was so easy to just settle in and go along for the ride. It didn't hurt that the main character was also really likable. Five minutes in and I already knew I was going to love him, and I was right. And that helps so much when he gets his hard-earned happy ending, because when he's happy, we're happy.

The villain was a hoot, too. Completely incompetent, out of his mind, and comically evil in a Snidely Whiplash sort of way. And in truth it's a villain duo, with the true mastermind behind everything being his hat. I know, right? Madness. And I love it.

Another thing I spotted right off was the improved animation. This film is to Chicken Little what Pinocchio was to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. In the first film they were trying something new, working out the kinks and just sort of testing the water. In the second they knew what they were doing and really got a chance to stretch their legs and flex their muscles, so to speak. The style and quality were on par with some of the things I've seen Pixar do. Not surprising, considering it was a lot of the same people, but considering their previous debacle, it was still nice to see.

The plot twist, if you can call it that, I saw coming a mile away. I don't count that against them though, as the foreshadowing was done well and wasn't too blatant. I'm never good at gauging how well other people pick up on these things, but to me it was just enough to figure it out and then grin smugly when the reveal happens. I always enjoy that.

I have a feeling I'll be watching this one again in the not-too-distant future.

DAC 46: Chicken Little

Chicken Little - 6.9/10

Okay, what was this movie? One minute it's a story of a kid trying to fit in at school, then it's a story of a dysfunctional relationship with his father, then there's aliens, and wtf is happening? I'm not saying all these elements cannot all go together in a movie, but here it was very clunky. In addition, the animation did not impress me at all. I've seen better stuff in weekly TV cartoons.

So what else was wrong with this movie? Well, aside from the annoying characters (I thought I liked Chicken Little himself until about 3/4 through), it's a complete wash in terms of originality. It wasn't completely phoned in likeThe Aristocats, but it was almost as bad. Judging by this and Home on the Range, Disney seems to have completely sold out. Where's the magic? Where's the creativity? Where's the assurance that audiences don't need to be pandered to? I mean, Spice Girls songs? Really?

To be fair, there would a handful of jokes that were really funny. Unfortunately most of them were either in the background or quick, momentary things. I did laugh my ass off at the finale, but that was mostly due to Adam West and the whole absurdity of it all, which I'm sure is what they were going for so I have to at least give them points for that. All in all though, I rate this as a failure of a movie, especially by Disney standards.

DAC 45: Home on the Range

Home on the Range - 6.9/10

I've never seen this one, and honestly never really had any interest in seeing it. And for once, I wasn't wrong. Was it a terrible movie? No, but I expect better from Disney.

The story has been done a thousand times: we gotta save the farm! Let's catch a bad guy! Ooh, what a zany cast of characters, a bunch of animals with kooky personalities. It seemed more like a cartoon than a feature film. And some parts of it were just weird - the villain's song, for instance, could give Pink Elephants a run for its money.

I think the most telling thing about this film is that I couldn't get invested in any of the characters. I was more interested in trying to figure out the actors portraying them than I was in anything that was going on. Also, some of it was just kind of dumb. The ranch owner refuses to sell any of her animals to save her farm because they're "family", and yet she has pigs on her farm. Tell me, for what reason would any farm keep pigs, and is that something you would do to your family?

The animation was decent, but the art style didn't really grab me. Again, it was pretty cartoony. I will say some of the humor played well, though on occasion it seemed kind of forced. This is the kind of bland, formulaic, lack of effort that made The Aristocats so dull. The only thing keeping this one above that film was that it at least had some style, and moved along at a decent pace.

I probably would have enjoyed it a little more as a kid, since that was clearly the target audience (though they do have a few hidden "for the folks" jokes in there - again, pretty forced), but as it stands now, it's probably not one I'll ever watch again.

DAC 44: Brother Bear

Brother Bear - 7.6/10

As far as I know, this is only the second original story - as in, not based on anything - that Disney has ever done (the first being Lilo and Stitch). Needless to say, it doesn't quite live up to the quality of the first one. That's not to say it's a bad movie. It isn't. It's merely...okay. Much like Treasure Planet, there just isn't really much about it that's memorable. The main character is pretty blah, the cub is mildly annoying but not too bad, the two moose (the comic relief) were amusing but not hilarious...you get the idea.

I did like the setting. Prehistoric life has been done before in animation, but rarely do they portray it with such sincerity. The animation was pretty good, though again nothing to write home about. They took their lead from Tarzan in that instead of the characters singing, songs relating to their thoughts and the current situations were overlaid. This style can work well, but the songs were nowhere near the level of Phil Collins's work in the other film.

They did do one of my favorite things: once again there was no villain. All conflict in the movie came from misunderstandings and misconceptions rather than antagonism. It was a nice touch and it kind of took the "Who's the monster?" theme from Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame and put it into a different light. Kind of like those movies mixed with Dances With Wolves. Er, Dances With Bears?

All in all, another good diversionary film, but nothing particularly special. I do remember enjoying it when I saw it the first time, back as a counselor at YMCA Summer Camp, so it at least left me with positive feelings.

DAC 43: Treasure Planet

Treasure Planet - 7.9/10

Why is this in space? I mean, Treasure Island is easy enough to make an adaptation of, so why in space? It's not that it made the movie bad or anything, I just can't think of a reason why it was necessary. I will say this: the stylistic choices they made, while mind-boggling in their anachronisity, were not bad. They went all out giving the universe of this film its own feel, and I definitely prefer it over what could have been had they gone with just straight-up spaceships and the like. The space-sailing thing with 17th century-looking future tech was very schizo and it saved this movie from total mediocrity, I think. But when the most interesting parts of a film are the aspects of its imagery, it's only going to carry so far.

The animation was good too, I'll give it that. Everything was crisp and clear, very smooth movements, and the CGI was blended pretty well. In particular I liked the frantic pacing of various chase-like scenes when the camera tracked the characters around bends, up and over obstacles, etc.. Very exciting and fun to watch.

The characters themselves were...okay. An interesting dynamic with the antagonist here in that the hero defeats him not by killing him or tricking him into something, but by befriending him and softening his heart. A different take for Disney and I only wish they'd done more with it. There was so much potential here in the Jim/Silver relationship that was touched on but never fully explored. Perhaps more than any other Disney film I felt like I was looking at something good that could have been great if they'd just tried a little harder.

Emma Thompson was clever and funny as the captain, and actually very reminiscent of Minnie Driver's Jane. Too bad she didn't have a very big role. The only really annoying character was a broken down robot, but thankfully he doesn't show up until the third act and he's not in it much, either. Most of the other characters were pretty forgettable. In fact, that pretty much sums up this movie as a whole: forgettable. It was fun and entertaining I guess, but I'm not gonna remember much about it tomorrow. I know I certainly didn't remember much of anything about it (save the really cool designs) from the only other time I watched it, several years ago now. It was neither good enough nor bad enough to stand out in my memory in any way. It's just kind of...there. And that's the biggest shame of all, because they could have done so much more with it.

DAC 42: Lilo and Stitch

Lilo and Stitch - 9.1/10

Beautiful. Let me start by saying I have never seen this movie before. I always meant to, but never really got around to it. People always told me it was good, and I believed them, but no one ever bothered to say that it was brilliant. This is gonna jumble my top ten list all to hell.

First off, I love that we finally have a kid character who actually acts like a kid. I saw in Lilo so many of the kids I've worked with over the years it's not even funny. It hit something inside me, at any rate. Also, once again I got the feeling I was watching two movies in one, but unlike The Hunchback of Notre Dame, they're actually blended together very well here AND...wait for it...they're both actually interesting. On the one hand, you've got the story of Stitch, created to destroy, condemned merely for his existence, and trying to find his place in the world. Along with this you've got the various aliens who are trying to track him down (all of whom were entertaining characters) and some well placed gags regarding his rather unique anatomy.

On the other hand, you have the much more human (er, sorry) story of a rambunctious little girl with an overactive imagination, poor social skills, and her older sister who loves her and is trying her best to raise her but is clearly in over her head. There are several emotional scenes between the two of them, with both positive and negative emotions portrayed with such humanity that you really become invested in their lives and their hardships. Add in a reluctant social worker who is doing his job even though he feels bad for the girls, and you have a very compelling story that could have easily been a movie all its own.

Where these two stories intersect is the quest for family. All the main characters want it, and what they learn about each other and their familial bonds is the true strength of this film. A lot of the lines very easily could have been really corny but they were executed with such heartfelt sincerity that only the most jaded among us would dare to scoff. There was some decent comedy too, sprinkled lightly throughout and never overstepping itself as it has in certain other films. There was no villain, either. The circumstances were the only adversity anybody needed and were difficult enough. This is what I wish they had done with Tarzan.

The art and animation is another feature of this movie I really like. The character designs are unique and the artists came up with a very distinct style for this film. In addition, some of the more modern animation techniques were eschewed in favor of the more old-fashion, softer and smoother methods. The result is a very...friendly look. I can't think of any other word to describe it except to say that the mood of the film combined with the artistry gives off a warm and inviting feeling as you watch. It's also packed full of Elvis music, which gets points in my book any day. In closing then, I guess the only thing I can say is that I'm sorry it took so long for me to see this. I've been missing out.

Manly tears were shed.

DAC 41: Atlantis: The Lost Empire

Atlantis: The Lost Empire - 8.2/10

Of all the Disney movies I've seen, this one felt the least like a Disney movie. Even the other ones with mature themes like The Lion King, The Hunchback of Notre Dame or The Emperor's New Groove don't compare to this one on that level. This is an adventure/expedition flick, complete with huge body count and live ammunition/actual violence. It's not rated PG for nothing. As a film in that genre it worked pretty well, though less time was spent on adventuring and more on what they did when they actually got there. That may have been to give the obligatory princess more screen time, and as eye-rolly as I can get about fanservice, I can't say I was really complaining all that much if you know what I mean. This movie plays like National Treasure if all the clues had been solved for them before the start of the film and all they had to do was go down there - and then discovered the immortal founding fathers just sort of chilling out in the cave

I like this kind of film, and so naturally I liked this one. I didn't see it when it first came out but rather a few years later and it instantly rocketed to the top of my favorites list. Top five, easy. Watching it again, I still enjoy it but there are a couple of things that didn't bother me the first time that kind of bug me now. First off, the language thing. I'm just going to state the obvious: languages do not work that way. At least in Pocahontas they just sort of hand-waved it away with magic, or "listening with your heart", or whatever. Here though, they try to play it off with some mumbo-jumbo about all current languages being derivative of Atlantean. I'm sorry, but no. This must be what engineers and physicists feel like whenever they listen to the techno babble on Star Trek. I don't know how they can stand it.

Second, the Atlanteans themselves. I can accept them being immortal (or just really long-lived, that wasn't quite clear), and I can accept them having forgotten their past and their culture and their written language...but not both. What, did everybody just wake up one day and forget all the stuff they could do the day before? And amazingly some guy from outside comes in and figures out in a day what they couldn't suss out for themselves in nearly 9000 years. That's just pathetic.

Third, the clues were contrived. There's a book that tells a firsthand account of a journey to Atlantis...written in Atlantean. This means several things: A.) the person who wrote it was Atlantean yet on the surface when the city sank. B.) Said person was able to somehow travel to the ocean floor over 8000 years before the technology to do so was even theoretically possible, and C.) This person then apparently decided to return to the surface via the same unknowable means and write a journal that he proceeds to tell no one about.

After that, there was the clue that led to the journal. A medieval manuscript that says it was somewhere in Iceland. This raises further questions: A.) How did the person writing this know about the journal, let alone where it was, and why did they feel the need to write about it? B.) Why did they leave the journal there instead of taking it with them? C.) Given that this manuscript was written centuries ago, what guarantee is there that no one else has found and removed the journal in the intervening period? After all, this manuscript was apparently just lying around ready to guide anyone interested right to it. After all, the lead character's grandpa beat him to it. I said before that the lack of time spent on the hunt might have been to give the princess more screen time, but now I think it may have been even more deliberate than that. The less emphasis the movie places on these incredibly contrived clues, the better.

What works in this film though really does work. The rest of the story is fun and exciting, the animation is excellent and the art is simply breathtaking. I've already said that I'm a huge fan of Princess Kida's design, though I wish they'd given her a bit more characterization. The only character I didn't really like was the lead. He was so dorky and awkward, which I've seen a million times, especially in Disney. Couldn't they change it up for once and have someone competent yet maligned by his peers for his crazy ideas running the show? After all, that's what real expeditionary scholars are like. And the sad part is, they really did have a character like that in the grandfather, who was dead before the movie even began. Again, a sigh to what could have been.

All the above considered, I still did really enjoy this film. The cast as a whole was interesting, the art and animation were great and it was nice to see Disney trying something so new and different and doing a relatively good job of it.

DAC 40: The Emperor's New Groove

The Emperor's New Groove - 8.9/10

Oh my god, I love this movie. I laugh my ass off every time I see it. It's completely unlike anything Disney's ever done, even their other comedies. The anachronisms of Hercules are here but not overdone, and the pop-culture references are gone. In their place are a lot of fourth wall jokes, and good-natured ribbing at the expense of just about every story convention you can imagine. And it. Is. Hilarious. If Mel Brooks ever made a Disney film, it would look a lot like this.

The greatest strength of this movie is that it never for a second takes itself seriously. Even at the few times when it looks like it might, it surprises you with something completely random or ridiculous and you're laughing again. The humor is all over the place, and the writers knew just how far to go before pulling back to avoid trying too hard. And like James Woods before him, Patrick Warburton alone is enough to make this movie brilliant. Unlike Mr. Woods, he doesn't have to do it on his own. Eartha Kitt is also amazing and hamming it up with the best of them. Her character, Yzma, together with Warburton's Kronk, are easily the funniest villain pair in the canon, ousting Hook and Smee by a considerable margin.

Even minor characters like the wife portrayed by Wendy Malik are well done and funny. The kids are adorable and amusing at the same time, and the entire premise is just too ridiculous not to laugh at. And many people give this film crap because of David Spade, but in my opinion that's just being petty. I thought he did a good job. And when I say the writing was good, I don't just mean the dialogue - everything about this movie was funny from the situations they found themselves in to the way they reacted to just the sound effects that were used. There was a very manic feel to it all and the humor never really let up. And all the movie cliches that are made fun of are done so in a very "affectionate parody" sort of way.

I loved this movie when it came out and always found something to laugh at. I still quote it today without even thinking about it, though I haven't seen it for a while and I guess I forgot about just how funny it was. I was howling.

DAC 39: Dinosaur

Dinosaur - 7.0/10

I remember when the extended trailer (really just the opening scene) for this film played in theaters. It looked amazing, and everyone was excited to see it. The animation was stellar, and seamlessly superimposed onto real world locations and backgrounds. Funnily enough, I didn't even realize it was a Disney film at the time, and didn't find out until years later. When I went to see it, it was just like the trailer, and it looked like we were going to be seeing something truly amazing and unique. Then the monkey started talking, and I knew it was going to be the same as everything else.

It really is the same old thing, too. I've seen this same story with the same character archetypes a thousand times, and they don't really do anything different with it here. I was so disappointed, because at the beginning all the animals were behaving as animals would, and it seemed like we were going to see a truly natural story and experience. It would have been really special. But once the dialogue kicked in, they all started exhibiting more human-like behavior and any chance of this film standing out died. And even as I was bemoaning the use of a standard formula to tell the story, I started noticing that I had seen this particular take on it before, too. Only that time it was called The Land Before Time. So this one uses adults instead of kids. Still the same basic premise.

One thing I did like was the portrayal of the different characters' motivations. The primary antagonist to our "hero" is the herd leader Kron, who states plainly that anyone who cannot keep up will be left behind. This is to prevent them from slowing the others down and also to delay any predators following them. It is presented as a cold and horrible philosophy, but they funny thing is that's how real herds work. If you slow down to let the old folks keep up, everyone's going to die before you get across the desert. If you wait for someone who's injured, the predators following you will catch up and you'll all be in danger. So while the main character's new approach is presented in the better light and he does eventually get everyone safely to the Great Valley...er, the "Nesting Ground", the antagonist was just trying to look out for the herd as a whole like a real animal would. He is not a villain and I don't think he was portrayed as such. I admire the film for this, at least.

And you know, it really was gorgeous to look at.

DAC 38: Fantasia 2000

Fantasia 2000 - 8.1/10

Much like The Rescuers Down Under, it is impossible to talk about this film without comparing it to its predecessor, so that's exactly what I'm going to do. Let me say right away that I did like this film. As I mentioned before, the original Fantasia was a favorite of mine growing up, so when I heard about this film I was really excited. But while I did like it, as I said, I couldn't help but feel a little disappointed. Maybe it has something to do with the old one being all hand-drawn. With that film, you constantly had this sense that you were witnessing something amazing and wonderful. With this one, it's more like "Oh, animation set to music? Cool. Just like everything else I've ever seen." It feels less unique. Also, it's much shorter than the original as well about half the length - and so are the segments, which are also fewer in number.

Let's talk about those segments, shall we? The intro with Beethoven's 5th was great, and the sole example of the "abstract" style used in this film. It's a shame too; I like it when they do that. Pines of Rome with the whales never did anything for me honestly, though I can tell they at least put some effort into it. Rhapsody in Blue is one of my all-time favorite pieces of music, so I'm pretty much obligated to like that segment. I do, too. It's just that it feels more like something out of Melody Time than Fantasia. Not that that's a bad thing; I liked Melody Time. It just has a different atmosphere than what I imagine Fantasia should have.

The Steadfast Tin Soldier segment is another one I really enjoy, though again that's largely in part to really liking the music. I have to admit, they fit the story to the music extremely well. Carnival of the Animals was fun, but ridiculously short and felt more like a goofy cartoon than a Fantasia segment. I really, really liked Pomp and Circumstance. Again they managed to fit the story to the music really well, and there were a lot of really funny gags that had me laughing. To name a few: Donald's double-take when he notices a pair of ducks boarding the arc, the dragons and unicorns laughing at everyone, Donald telling off the woodpeckers for putting holes in the arc, and the rabbits disembarking with a huge family following them.

The final segment, The Firebird, was the one that felt most like Fantasia to me. The animation was simply gorgeous, the themes of life, death and rebirth were just the right blend of subtle and overt, and the colors were extraordinary. It was very reminiscent of The Nutcracker Suite in many places. For the first time since the intro, I really felt like I was watching Fantasia. Too bad that was the end. And even it was pretty short.

Having celebrities introduce the various segments instead of a single host was an interesting choice, and I personally liked it. It was cool to learn about the history of some of these pieces in a more fun, relaxed setting than the almost academic vibe provided by the original. That's the one area where you will hear me express preference toward the newer film. The original host was just a little too stiff for my tastes.

Please note that none of the above comments make this a bad film, just not quite on the level of its predecessor. Few things are though, so it's not really fair to hold that against them.

DAC 37: Tarzan

Tarzan - 8.8/10

When this movie came out I was a freshman in high school, and though I never considered myself "too old" for animated movies (shocker, eh?) I remember thinking that this one looked stupid and I wanted nothing to do with it. I didn't end up watching it until I was an adult in my twenties, and boy was I missing out. First off, say what you want about Phil Collins, but his soundtrack for this movie was excellent. I really liked it, and it also gave the movie a somewhat different feel to have the characters not sing.

The story was pretty basic, but that's not what I love about this movie at all. I love the attention to detail. Tarzan's behavior, even in small things like investigating a spent shell, are so very ape-like and they took great care in that. The animation and background art are simply stunning; I haven't seen this quality of animation since Beauty and the Beast. The movement scenes, chase or otherwise, were always a joy to watch and incredibly well constructed. Also, the various montage scenes are well done too, and interesting in their contrast: the first shows Tarzan growing up and learning to be an ape, while the second shows him learning to be a man. And of course they are both accompanied by fantastic music.

May I also say that I really liked Minnie Driver's performance as Jane. It was natural, nuanced, and she infused the character with such a likable personality. One of my favorite vocal performances in all the Disney films. The only thing I will question about this film is this: was a villain really necessary? I mean, not that it took anything away from the film, and he was after all voiced by BRIAN BLESSED, but was it needed? The circumstances alone could very easily have provided the conflict required. They've shown before that they can do this in films like Bambi and Lady and the Tramp, after all. But I digress. As I said, it didn't take anything away from the film, and they managed to foreshadow it enough so that it didn't feel tacked on. I just wonder what could have been.

I think my younger self would have really enjoyed this. Too bad he was such a dumbass.

DAC 36: Mulan

Mulan - 8.3/10

Tee hee hee! Men are gross! That seems to be the prevailing source of "humor" in this film, and while some of it is genuinely funny, it does get old. There's also Eddie Murphy's anachronisms, and while he's certainly no Robin Williams, he pulls it off better than a lot of other attempts I've seen. What I mean to say is, the comic relief is nothing spectacular, but it's relatively enjoyable and I didn't hate it. I loved this movie as a kid and I still do. It doesn't have any glaring flaws like some films I could name (that I just watched), but its good points are just strong enough to make it a "good" movie and not quite a "great" movie.

Most of the songs are pretty blah, but I do really like "Be a Man". Or "Make a Man Out of You". Or whatever it's called. The misogynistic, patriarchal society wasn't played down nearly as much as you would expect in a Disney film; in fact they were pretty up front about it. Also, the ravages of war weren't glossed over quite as much as one might expect, either. At one instance we are treated to a field of corpses, albeit only for a moment. The villain, while being threatening and actually kind of badass, is pretty forgettable. It's actually justifiable in this case though as he's only really there to drive the plot. The real villain is the societal conventions of China itself. Mulan's victory comes not when she vanquishes the enemy leader, but when the Emperor bows to her and she is accepted for who she is, despite traditional prejudices. It's played well, since the conventions are so strong throughout the movie that even Mulan herself buys into them, so it is a very satisfying conclusion all around.

Okay, I lied. There was one thing that bugged me: the size of Mulan's army group keeps changing. When they're in the camp and during the training montage it seems like there might be a hundred or so of them. Then later when they're marching off to battle and singing about chicks, there might be a couple dozen. Once they're marching through the mountains that gets cut again to maybe a little more than one dozen, and by the time they're cowering from the avalanche there's maybe six or seven of them. What the hell, animators? But yeah, that one flaw, while kind of annoying, wasn't near enough to bring down the film, though I think it is something worth mentioning.

So while this film didn't wow me like Beauty and the Beast or Hunchback of Notre Dame, it was still a lot of fun and I really enjoyed watching it again.

DAC 35: Hercules

Hercules - 8.0/10

This is an interesting case. I've been studying Greek Mythology since I was eight years old, so I had a lot of the same issues as I had with Pocahontas when this came out. And unlike that film, which liberally applies an artist's interpretation upon historical events, this one takes classical mythology, shits on it, rolls it all up into a burrito, eats it and then shits it back out. So why does it bother me so much less?

First off, just like Pocahontas, it's much easier to enjoy if you just ignore the "loosely based on" aspect of it and just take it for what it is. You pretty much have to, because if you try to keep track of all the atrocities they've committed in the name of adaptation you'll want to murder someone with a shattered table leg three minutes in. And anyway, what it is actually turned out pretty good. They took a lot of really original choices that I never would have thought of, let alone associated with the myth of Hercules, but they made them work. The musical score is some kind of eclectic hybrid of gospel and Vegas, which is a lot of fun. The movie itself seems to run on the premise of "What if ancient Grecian society was exactly like ours?". It's kind of like the Flinstones with sandals and urns.

The story itself is nothing special. Standard coming of age/hero's journey that we've all seen a million times before. The decision to make it a comedy, something I didn't agree with when I heard about it, really makes it all fresh and entertaining. And I will say this: James Woods singlehandedly saves and carries this movie. I'm serious; the rest of it could be like the gargoyles from Hunchback of Notre Dame and I'd still love it just for his performance alone. Danny Devito's not bad, but honestly aside from Hades none of the other characters are particularly memorable.

If there's one choice I could never really get behind, it was the transformation of Hercules, the mythical paragon of manliness, into an stammering, awkward farmboy everydude. It wasn't enough to make me hate the character, and honestly everything else was so unlike the Hercules story that after a while you just sort of forget about it and learn to like the character for who he is, not who he was based on. Just like the rest of the movie. And there are several jokes that you would need a cursory knowledge of mythology to get, so I did appreciate that and had a few laughs.

Seriously, though. James Woods. Why is he not in everything?

DAC 34: The Hunchback of Notre Dame

The Hunchback of Notre Dame - 8.6/10

Holy shit, this movie was awesome. God damn, this movie was shit. Why does it sound like I watched two different movies? Because that's honestly what it felt like. On the one hand you have a really awesome, very heavy story of relative morality, acceptance and human emotion. On the other, a lame cartoon with talking gargoyles that are supposed to be funny but aren't and a lot of really misplaced and poorly timed comedy. I don't know which was worse: the comic relief itself or the fact that it kept trying to ruin what could have otherwise been Disney's strongest film to date.

I never took much interest in this one as a kid. In fact, I don't know that I've ever watched it all the way through in one sitting before. I don't really regret it, because i doubt I could have appreciated it as much if I had. That's one thing about this movie: it is not geared towards kids no matter how much it tries to pretend it is. There are so many adult concepts involved, from the stated theme of what makes a man a man and what makes a monster, right down to the villain wanting to have sex with the heroine. It isn't even like Gaston in Beauty and the Beast where he wants her because he things it will validate him somehow. No, he pretty much just wants to bone her. It is pure sexual desire and his resulting self-loathing that drive him. Add on that Esmerelda is probably the sexiest animated character since Jessica Rabbit (and was intended to be), it just doesn't feel like a kid movie.

It is this perhaps more than anything that makes the comedy so out of place. First off, what was up with the gargoyles? Why were they alive? I accept their function - someone for Quasimodo to interact with during his solo scenes in the tower - but the same function could have been performed by nuns, alter boys, or any number of more reasonable things. Or hell, do the talking gargoyle bit, but make them fit in tone with the rest of the movie. They were the goofy side characters with all the lame jokes that would have been at home on a Saturday morning cartoon, but not in a serious movie like this one. And their musical number was full of anachronisms and pop-culture gags and basically all the other stuff that only Robin Williams's Genie can get away with. I hated them. And I hated them so much more than other lame comic relief characters in other movies because they kept interrupting such an incredible film with their bullshit.

What works with this movie? Quite literally everything else. The main character isn't a paragon of virtue; he struggles with doing the right thing and at times even turns away from it out of pain or humiliation. The villain is the most realistic in all Disney's films in that people like him truly did and do exist. The themes of damnation, sexual desire, sin and corruption - all of it were exceptionally well done. And though it was watered down from the source material (obviously), I applaud Disney for not sugarcoating it too much, especially in their decision not to let Quasimodo have the girl. They went as faithful as they could without making it too dark and the result is a film that is not inappropriate for children yet not really geared toward them, either. In fact I think the gargoyles' sole function was to keep the kids entertained between all the stuff they wouldn't understand.

I love this songs in this movie, too. The villain song is astonishingly powerful and frightening, and the intro song is my favorite of Disney's by far. Yes, even better than Circle of Life. If you can put up with annoying, out-of-place comedy, then you should definitely give this film a go. You won't regret it.

DAC 33: Pocahontas

Pocahontas - 7.6/10

I'm giving this film a much higher score than I thought I would beforehand, but let me explain. Yes, this film is wildly inaccurate historically. Even as a kid (I was 11), I knew that. I remember being all "It wasn't anything like that at all! This is bullcrap!" And that was just from the trailers and secondhand accounts from my friends. I even refused to see it on principle and didn't end up actually watching it until years later. So yes, the characters and events in this movie are nothing like their real life historical counterparts. But then, it also has a talking tree in it. The way I figure it, if you just imagine this is a completely original story instead of a bastardization of history then it suddenly becomes much easier to enjoy. If nothing else, not ripping it a new one every forty seconds or so certainly saves time.

In addition to making history teachers cry, this film had another deck stacked against it: most of the things 90s Disney movies usually had going for them don't work here. The songs are forgettable, save "Savages", which I really enjoyed (though talk about a lack of subtlety, check this action out:

 "They're not like you and me, that means they must be evil!" 

Yeesh). Additionally, the side characters are practically non-existent. I don't remember a single character's name besides the two leads, the villain, and that one loser kid off the ship who shoots that other guy. I also know the chief's name, but from history class, not the movie. The upside to this is that the two leads do get more development time. I've heard people say that they were flat, uninteresting characters, but I disagree. I found myself invested in their struggles and their relationship, though that's purely my own personal tastes at work. And I do concede that some of their romantic dialogue was hideously sappy.

The villain was pretty one-dimensional and actually quite lame, as villains go. He wants gold, and nothing is going to deter him. There, you now understand every facet of his character. Though he does have one useful function: kicking off the one good song of the movie. Don't even get me started on the quirky animal comic relief. Kill it with fire.

How can I score a movie so high and then spend 2 and something paragraphs ripping it a new asshole? Simple: I love the message. Oh, not the message that it was trying to send (at least overtly), but the underlying one. Think about the dynamics of this movie: the natives are clearly the side of good, living in peace with nature and nervous about these new invaders in their land who do not respect it as it deserves. The English, by contrast, are the vile aggressors, driven by greed and unable to accept that any people unlike themselves could be worth anything. Of course the racism angle eventually gets played both ways, which is something else I really love (and the song is just so cool), and really goes to show how hatred and fear can infect us all. But my main point is this: had this film been made fifty years earlier, the heroes would have been on the other side of the ship. That is, it would have been exactly what the settlers in the film imagined it to be: a heroic tale of brave and adventurous pioneers setting out to a new land, defending themselves against the lawless savages who inhabit it and eventually taming and befriending them. This is how far our society has come, and for that I love this film, even if it gets a little anvilicious with its messages at times.

And I really did think John Smith and Pocahontas had chemistry. Nice to see in an animated film.

DAC 32: The Lion King

The Lion King - 9.1/10

In many ways, this is the most mature of Disney's films. The themes and characters are relatively sophisticated, there's a lot of symbolism that kids probably won't get, and oh yeah, two onscreen murders. They even talk about murdering when usually that sort of thing is just kind of glossed over. It is perhaps due to all of this that the wacky antics of Timon and Puumba (particularly during the climax) feel out of place. Clearly they're there for the kids, as I remember loving them when I first saw this film when I was young. I also remember crying when Mufasa died and seeing the film frequently enough to be able to recite the entire thing line for line, songs included, from start to finish. But enough about that.

This film also plays host to the most impressive opening sequence I can ever recall seeing in an animated film. Right from the start you know you're in for something epic, and for the most part the movie maintains that feeling throughout, though there are a few moments where they seem to be pandering to younger audiences. The musical score is incredibly beautiful, and while none of the characters' songs really stand out (okay, Be Prepared was pretty cool), the ambiance provided by the score is so amazing that I just spent about thirty seconds trying to come up with something to say after "so amazing that" and came up short. It's just that great.

One element of this film that I just kind of went with as a kid but notice much more now as an adult is the symbolism. They may as well have called this movie "The Lion Fisher King" or some variant thereof. So many things happen that make no sense beyond their symbolic nature: a drought comes while Scar is king and everything turns dusty and grey, with bones everywhere (even though there is no food). When Simba is being taunted by Scar and looks like he may falter, lightning strikes and starts a fire. When Simba defeats Scar, rains come, simultaneously putting out the fire and ending the drought. We are then shown that after a time with Simba as king, the plant and animal life have returned, and also all those bones are gone. Amazing!

Scar is a truly great villain, both in his ambitions and his methods. He kills his own brother in cold blood (while taunting him about it), manipulates the feelings of a child who trusts him to further his goals, and then, coldly as possible, orders his henchmen, "Kill him." The fact that he was voice by Jeromy Irons doesn't hurt, either. The hyenas were also pretty cool, and a much better comic relief than Timon and Puumba. Also, though Cheech Marin voiced one of them, he didn't bother me at all like he did in Oliver and Company.

There's a reason everyone knows about this movie, and why it became a big Broadway show, yadda yadda yadda. If you haven't ever seen it, what the hell have you been doing?

DAC 31: Aladdin

Aladdin - 8.8/10

You know all of those really annoying clichés that are in every animated movie made in the last 15 years? Anachronisms, pop-culture references and celebrities used in place of genuine, professional voice actors? Well this is the film you have to blame for all of that. On the flip side, the results here were really good; it was pulled off like no other film besides Shrek has ever been able to. It makes sense in a way; the reason everyone wanted to copy that formula was because it worked so well here. Of course, the fact that it was Robin Williams may have also had something to do with it.

The music in this film is great, as if that's a surprise. And it's not just the songs (another couple of my top ten are in here). To be honest, one of my favorite parts about this movie is the score - that is, the music that's playing when nobody's singing anything. The exciting escape music in particular has always been a favorite of mine. The animation is also pretty good, though it's a step down from Beauty and the Beast (though to be fair, what isn't?).

We get some interesting character dynamics in this one, too. This is the first fairy tale/princess movie that has focused on the male protagonist rather than the female. And he's a good, likeable character too. A decent young man with a few character flaws that he improves upon throughout the film and ultimately overcomes. I love the villains too, and their relationship is interesting. They seem to honestly be friends, even though Jafar is clearly the senior partner. Iago is completely loyal to him and Jafar doesn't treat him as expendable help but rather actually enjoys conspiring with him. A rather unique take - especially for a Disney film. Also a new take for villain motive: megalomania. I suppose you could argue that fits Ursula as well, but she always seemed more the revenge type to me.

I'll be humming these songs for a while, but I won't mind in the slightest. Another gem from the Disney Renaissance team.

DAC 30: Beauty and the Beast

Beauty and the Beast - 9.4/10

Wow. Just...wow. I haven't seen animation this crisp, clear and beautiful since Pinocchio, and this even outdoes that one at times. They knew they were making something special here, and they put every ounce of care into it that they possibly could. While The Little Mermaid may outrank it on the list of my personal favorites, as a cinema enthusiast I have to concede that this is the superior film.

For one thing, the source material just lends itself so well to good storytelling. And all the analysis - the juxtaposition of Gaston and the Beast, their physical characteristics contrasted with their inner personalities - has been done before, so I'm not really going to go into it again save to say I thought it was awesome and really well done. One thing I will touch on: a lot of people are quick to shout "Stockholm Syndrome", but I disagree for several reasons - the first of which being she wasn't there long enough for it to fully set in before their attitudes started to change. The second is that they didn't start getting along until after she tried to escape, and then later actually stood up to him. Finally, if Stockholm syndrome is triggered by perceived kindness on the part of a jailer or captor, then she should have fallen in love with Lumiere or one of the servants. They were the ones being nice to her from the start, despite her status as a prisoner. No, I think this film portrays exactly what it sets out to: two strong-willed people learning to deal with each other in less-than-ideal circumstances, then later developing actual feelings for each other. And the best part is, it happens over an indeterminate amount of time. Depending on how one wants to interpret things, it happened over the course of a few days, or the course of a season. It is never explicitly said either way, and that not only leaves it open to interpretation but grants a little more credibility, even if it's illusory.

I will say that if there is anything this film is lacking, it's subtlety. The obvious contrasts between Beast and Gaston are so obvious a child could spot them. And I guess that's sort of the point, given that it's targeted at "all ages". To be honest the lack of subtlety didn't even really bother me; they made their message loud and clear without hitting you over the head with it, and they were subtle about their lack of subtlety...if that makes any sense. At one time, Gaston identifies Belle as the "most beautiful girl in the village", and then declares, "and that makes her the best". Folks who aren't thinking too hard about it will still get the message that Gaston doesn't understand things like inner beauty, but there's a whole other layer there for those of us who want to delve deeper. Gaston is so fixated upon appearances because he truly, honestly believe they equate to one's value. He is such an egomaniac that he cannot even conceive the idea of Belle wanting to choose another over him, even after he kills that other person with his own hands. What's more, the rest of the town buys into this too. I did get one chuckle at one song lyric during the storming the castle scene that might have been hitting us over the head a little too hard: 

"We don't like what we don't understand, in fact it scares us...".

As the Robot Devil said, "Your lyrics lack subtlety! You can't have your characters just announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!" Aside from that one instance though, the overt nature of the message, combined with its multiple levels of interpretation, really worked for me in this film.

The music is great too, but what really got me with that was not the songs themselves, but the entire musical numbers. The choreography and animation was simply spectacular, especially for the big number. You all know the one. Of all Disney's films, this is the only one save perhaps Pinocchio that I would have no hesitation in describing as a masterpiece.

DAC 29: The Rescuers Down Under

The Rescuers Down Under - 7.1/10

Okay, even as a kid I was cynical about sequels. I remember seeing ads for this film and thinking to myself, "Why would they do that? It's not going to be as good as the original." Also something along the lines of "They're just trying to continue it because the first one was popular," though with that part I wasn't even really old enough to understand what I was upset about yet. I did see the film anyway, but didn't like it as much as the original, even though I didn't dislike it like I thought I would.

It's hard to judge this movie on its own merits because you inevitably have to compare it to the first installment. I think a lot of the charm that was there the first time around was lost on this one. They focused on the comic relief characters a lot more, and nothing against John Candy (of whom I am a fan), but he was way over the top in this and it was distracting. Also, Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor were getting old, and it showed in their performances. Just not as much energy as before. The new character, Jake, seemed like sort of a jerk at first, which was intentional I'm sure, but you warm up to him as time goes on.

Shifting gears, the music was all right, and combined with the atmosphere it was clear they were trying to make this an adventure movie, but there just wasn't enough actual adventure to pull it off. The flying scenes were great, and sure there was a death by waterfall, but that's not sufficient for an adventure movie. I like the calmer, spookier feel of the first one much more, and the subtler, softer music that went with it - as well as the darker overall atmosphere.

And, can I just say I was bothered way more than I should have been that the boy spoke with an American accent? What the hell? They always manage to get all the British accents they need, but they can't find any Australian actors? Half the characters in this movie sounded either American or British. More than half. It was actually less common to have one that sounded Australian. The only one who could get away with it was George C. Scott, who like Vincent Price before him was clearly enjoying every minute of his character, and we get a great villain as a result. Much like Medusa, his primary motivation is greed, and also like her we are shown just how despicable he is through his treatment of an innocent child. Good lord, Medusa would have let Penny die, but at least she never tried to actively murder the girl.

Another of my favorite parts of the original film - Bernard and Bianca's relationship - was barely touched on at all here. There was a running gag about Bernard trying to propose and always being misunderstood or interrupted, and we do get a nice, satisfying payoff to that at the end of the film, but that was it. The movie barely even paid any attention to them, despite them being the eponymous characters.

Finally, there were just a lot of inconsistencies. As one example, I was amazed in the first few minutes of the film at how badass the boy character was when he scaled a cliff sans gear that would give Spider-man himself trouble - with his bare hands, and wasn't even winded when he got to the top. I thought, "Damn, this kid is the shit. Who cares if he has an American accent? He could probably kill you with his toe." Then two scenes later he falls into a hole and can't climb out. Wtf? Another one: when captured by the villain, he befriends a bunch of animals that have also been captured, and they make a couple of failed escape attempts. When the villain lets the kid go (all part of his plan), he says something like "Say goodbye to your new friends. It'll be the last time you ever see 'em." And he's right. None of those characters are ever seen or even mentioned again. What happened to them? Are we not supposed to care? It feels lazy and unfinished and I don't like it.

One thing I did really like was the background animation. The Australian outback is pretty much a supporting character in this film, and they spared no expense making it look absolutely breathtaking. Still, if pretty things were all it took to make a good movie, Michael Bay would have an Oscar by now.

So okay, maybe I would have liked this film a little more if I hadn't seen the first one. But all the problems I mentioned like accents, low energy, overuse of comedy and general inconsistencies would still be there, and they'd still bring it down. And I did see the first one, and it's reasonable to assume both that A.)most others who watch this will have as well, and B.)anyone who has will compare the two. As a kid and again as an adult I was underwhelmed and kind of disappointed.

DAC 28: The Little Mermaid

The Little Mermaid - 9.2/10

Holy crap, have I been looking forward to this one like nobody's business. I grew up at exactly the right time for this movie. Among other things, it was the very first film I ever saw in a cinema. Imagine if I'd been born just a few years earlier - with Basil or Oliver instead of Ariel being my introduction to modern Disney, how different would my life be now? Anyway, enough with waxing nostalgic; how was the movie?

The music is absolutely incredible. I think everyone knows this. In fact, a good 3 or 4 of my top ten favorite Disney songs are in this movie, including numbers 1 and 2. And unlike most musicals that have a few good ones and a few duds, there wasn't a single song in this that I didn't like. They've come a long way out of the dark ages with their animation, and absolutely no corners were cut with it or the art here. What's more, the voice cast was perfectly fit to the various characters and everyone fit into the story greatly. All of the side characters were fun and again there weren't any at all that I didn't like. The villain was fantastic - hammy but definitely evil and scary without being too scary for kids. Everything fit right.

There was a lot of humor in this too, and very little was of the slapstick or over-the-top variety that is so relied upon these days. Some of the best moments come during the portion of the film when Ariel can't talk and we have to rely on her body language and facial expressions, as well as others' reactions to her for the humor. It was at different places both subtle and overt and the effect was genuine laughter as opposed to the cheap kind.

This film also takes its lead from Sleeping Beauty in having the romantic leads spend some time together to build up their relationship, which I love, and it took it to a much greater degree than the former ever did. Sure, it was only three days, but that's half a lifetime in fairy tale time, and a big improvement over nothing at all, or most of an afternoon.

The character of Ariel is an interesting one. She collects all kinds of junk and stores it in a vast room, meticulously sorted and has an almost obsessive need to gather more. We have a word for those type of people: hoarders. On the other hand, she collects them because of her fascination with the culture they originate from, and her fondest wish is to learn more about them and even join them. We have a word for this kind of people too: anthropologists. So I guess your interpretation of Ariel's character depends heavily on how cynical you want to be.

On that note also, I have heard some people say that they don't like the ending because Ariel gets what she wanted anyway without learning anything. I disagree. She did learn her lesson, and almost paid for it with her life and the life of everyone she cared about. I interpret the ending as Triton also learning his lesson that he cannot expect to control every aspect of his children's lives, and he needs to let them do what makes them happy.

So yeah, if you haven't figured it out yet, I pretty much love everything about this movie.

DAC 27: Oliver and Company

Oliver and Company - 7.5/10

Oh my god, this was the most '80s thing I have ever seen. Seriously, everything about it from the music to the animation style to the character types to even the way they splashed the film's title all scream the 1980s. The fact that it takes place in 1980s New York probably had something to do with it too. Please note that none of this necessarily makes it bad, per se, just very noticeable. It's probably the only Disney film that so clearly takes place in a specific time period. Even the other contemporary films (interestingly enough also centered around talking animals) had some level of ambiguity in their settings. But enough about that.

I have never seen this movie before. I'm not kidding; even as a kid the trailers looked too 80s for me and I wasn't interested in it. And this from a kid who loved Fern Gully. Was I missing out? Maybe a little, but I have no regrets. There was nothing to really dislike about this film outside of Cheech Marin being incomparably annoying, and one or two of the musical numbers were actually pretty good. Yes, it was Oliver Twist with animals, but they adapted it pretty well and I found it more interesting than the original Dickens, though to be honest that's not difficult. The villain was menacing and scary, and Fagin was a generally nice guy who truly cares for his pets, much like Amos Slade in The Fox and the Hound, only without the latter's psychotic temper. A lot of the character arcs like the tough guy with a heart of gold, and the upper class snooty girl getting soft for a smooth talker from the street were going around in that decade, so I've seen them a million times before. They were handled well enough though, so it at least didn't have me rolling my eyes or anything.

The animation quality was on par with the last couple of films, though much brighter and more colorful than either of them. The whole film was much more lively and upbeat, while simultaneously playing host to one of Disney's darker villains, who at one point can actually be heard instructing his goons on how exactly to murder someone.

Will I end up watching it again and again? Probably not, but it's not something I'll actively avoid either (like a few I could name).

DAC 26: The Great Mouse Detective

The Great Mouse Detective - 7.7/10

And now I give you...Sherlock Holmes. WITH MICE! Another one I learned of through re-release trailers, I first saw this only a year and a half ago. It was actually quite entertaining, and not the usual Disney fare. One random scene with a burlesque show was all I needed to confirm that.

The characters were charming and likable, though I didn't much care for the little girl's voice actor. And of course the villain, Professor Ratigan, was tons of fun. Voiced excellently by Vincent Price (who was clearly loving every minute of it), Ratigan is the type of high class villain who'll speak to you in polite tones while dangling you over a cliff. And when he loses it, he loses it. One scene in particular has he and his henchmen singing about how nasty he is (seriously), only to be interrupted when one of them inadvertently insults him. He stops the song, has the man murdered in front of everyone, then forces them to continue singing on threat of the same to them. Now that's mean.

The animation was crisp and clear, and the use of CGI in the clocktower was very impressive, even by today's standards.

I wouldn't go as far as to say this is one of their classics, but it was definitely a good one.

DAC 25: The Black Cauldron

The Black Cauldron - 6.7/10

Okay, this one is hard to talk about. Another one I never knew existed until I saw it on one of their re-release trailers, I first saw it about four or five years ago and wasn't very fond of it. Watching it again now, it wasn't nearly as bad as I remember (better than The Aristocats, anyway), but still wasn't all that good.

One thing I will say: they really stepped up the animation in this one. It all looked pretty top-notch for the time (except, weirdly, for close-ups of the villain's face). That's my only real compliment though, and while it's not a film I want to rip to pieces like the above mentioned, there is a lot of "blah" here.

I think the thing that got me the most about this film was the characters. None of them were particularly bad, but none of them were very interesting, either. You've got a peasant boy who wants to be a warrior, which is an archetype done a million times and nothing new is added here. Although again, weirdly, they break the Disney mold a bit in having his resolution be a realization that dreams of grandeur are not as important as being content with who you are. Also in attendance are a a minstrel who adds nothing to the story or the plot, a weird monkey thing with an annoying voice, a villain with no backstory or any kind of explanation whatsoever with a very vague motive, and a female lead who also happens to be a princess for reasons of convention moreso than it actually making any sense. What bugs me most about all of them though is that except for the villain who wants to raise an army of the dead, none of them drive or really affect the plot in any way. It just sort of happens around them. The entire movie could take place without any of the main characters present and it wouldn't change a thing. In fact, the only thing the protagonists actually accomplish in the film is finding the titular object of evil for the villain, saving him the trouble. Well done, guys.

In addition to that, there's a whole bunch of other stuff that wasn't explained and was clearly thrown in just because it was in the source material (which I have never read, so I don't even know how good a job they did with that). There's a magic sword the hero randomly finds that does all his work for him (the princess actually comments on this), a pig who can see the future for some reason, a floating, glowing bauble that...floats and glows, a harp whose strings snap every time its owner lies (then miraculously repairs itself seconds later), and a trio of witches who keep the most evil object in the known world, sought by an evil dictator and everything, just sort of lying around. And then trade it away to the first people who ask for it. No background checks or anything. None of this stuff was explained or even commented on, and we the viewers are pretty much expected to just go with it.


So yeah, not a horrible film or anything, just sort of a confusing mess that didn't ask anything of its characters and didn't really go anywhere.

DAC 24: The Fox and the Hound

The Fox and the Hound -7.3/10

I don't really have a lot to say about this one. Yeah, I liked it as a kid, but it was never one of my favorites or anything. There isn't anything particularly great or particularly bad about it. One thing I do kind of like is that there isn't really any clearly defined "villain". Both sides can be considered the "good guys" from their own point of view, and while the hunter definitely has some temper issues, he's not a bad guy and has the kind of relationship with his dogs that the hero characters usually have in similar films. One part that always felt awkward to me was the sad goodbye number, which they chose to do mostly in the spoken word. While I don't disagree with that choice in and of itself, I don't think it was executed nearly as well as it could have been.

Tod's first night in the forest reminded me a lot of Bongo from Fun and Fancy Free, and it was a nice scene. His meeting with Vixie the vixen was fun, and while in any other film I would have said their scenes together were too few and brief, they aren't the focus here so I have no problem with it. Vixie's character worked for what she needed to be.

The one scene that everyone of course remembers is the one at the end right after the climax, and it was a good, powerful scene. Probably the movie's strongest single moment. The side story with the two birds trying to catch the caterpillar was pretty forgettable though, by which I mean I quite literally forgot all about it until I saw it again just now.

A pretty good flick, especially considering it came out during Disney's dark age. Not their best by any means, but enjoyable.

DAC 23: The Rescuers

The Rescuers - 7.7/10

I loved this movie as a kid, but for whatever reason I never watched it as often as some of the others. In a way that kept it fresh; it was always kind of a treat to sit down and watch it, and for that same reason I've been really looking forward to it.

How does it stack up? Well, for starters, it has a cold open, which is a first. The background art is a bit lackluster though, and they skimped on the background animation. Also, the human characters seemed kind of weird - especially in the New York scenes, the combination of the backdrops and the weird human animation, I felt like I was watching the old Spider-man cartoon.

The story itself is an interesting one. A group of mice that travel around the world helping those in need? Neat. And the little girl they help in this one is really likable, too. She has almost no control over her situation, but she is brave and doesn't take crap from anybody, including two alligators (!) employed by the villain to keep her in line. The villain herself kind of screams "Cruella Deville wannabe" in her eccentricities and wild driving habits, not to mention her pure selfishness. However she has to be one of the single most despicable Disney villains simply in what she does to achieve her goal: that is, kidnapping a young girl and forcing her to risk her life in a tidal cave in pursuit of a legendary diamond, even to the exclusion of all the other myriad treasures the kid manages to find. And just in case it wasn't clear what an awful person she is, at one point she tells the girl flat-out (in a sickeningly sweet tone) that no one would ever want to adopt someone like her.

That last bit leads to a real tearjerker moment that is unfortunately kind of ruined by a random Bambi cameo that made me snort with laughter when I should have been tearing up. They did have one other pretty sad moment, so it wasn't a complete wash in that department.

The rest of the supporting characters are mostly forgettable, but the two leads are likable and I enjoyed their interactions. This film managed to avoid both common cliches of the male character bumblingly attempting to woo the high-class woman who's way out of his league, and of the two characters from radically different backgrounds rubbing each other the wrong way for the entire movie, building sexual tension that inevitably explodes during the climax. Instead, Bianca is a very sweet-natured high class woman with a sense of adventure who, while being quite taken with Bernard, is not above giving him a hard time now and again. Similarly, Bernard is a working class gentleman who knows Bianca is above his station and does his best to treat her right, but does not shirk from rebuking her if he thinks it's called for. All around one of the most realistic portrayals of a budding relationship I've ever seen in an animated film, even if they did rush it a bit. I'll grant them artistic license on that one.

DAC 22: The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh - 7.1/10

Never have I seen a film that can be more perfectly described with, "No plot, just a bunch of stuff that happened." That's all this movie really is. and though that's not necessarily a bad thing if done well with good characters, it's generally not exceptionally interesting, either.

This is a very low-key film. The entire thing is very relaxed, the problems are very simple, and there isn't anything particularly exciting or engaging. In fact, it felt a lot more like watching something on TV than a movie. That said, the characters are likable and rather memorable, so it's not horrible. There were a couple of catchy songs, and the way the film is done as sort of a medium-interactive book is intriguing and occasionally clever. Also, as it's meant to seem like reading a children's book, this is one time when the "sketchy" art style actually works in the movie's favor. In fact, seeing as I know they can clean it up more having seen the evidence in the previous film, I'd say that the style was mostly intentional with this one, and as a stylistic choice I have to approve.

There isn't anything else I can say. The whole thing was just kind of...okay.

DAC 21: Robin Hood

Robin Hood - 7.9/10

Yes, this movie has a lot of recycled animation - just getting that out of the way - and at times it is incredibly obvious. That, however, is the only real complaint I have. This was another favorite of mine growing up, and there are a number of reasons I preferred it to other attempts like say, The Jungle Book.

First of all, the sketchy art style is all but gone here and they're really cleaned up their animation process too. Minus the recycled bits, it looks like they were really putting in some effort again on those kinds of things. For another, every character actually had a part to play in the story, and all of them were interesting. In the case of Prince John, he is definitely one of the most amusing villains while still maintaining credibility as an antagonist. The music was catchy and fun, the chase scenes (especially the one at the tournament) were exciting and funny, and there were a couple of moments that were downright touching as well.

Additionally, unlike their previous installment, Disney went for some real solid source material with this one. You'd have to try really hard to make the story of Robin Hood boring, especially in an animated film. This also helped the voice cast; even though several are recycled from the last couple of films, it is far less noticeable than in The Aristocats because the characters are so well-established already.

Is this one of the best films Disney has ever made? Probably not. Is it a good one, and definitely one of the best in a while? I think so.

DAC 20: The Aristocats

The Aristocats - 6.2/10

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you 101 Dalmations - with cats! (Complete with Lady and the Tramp ending.) This is another one I never watched as a kid. In fact I never even heard of it until in my teens; I saw it on one of those re-release trailers they do on their videos. It was many years more until I actually got around to watching it. Probably around four years ago now. Anyway, it's nothing special. In fact, I gotta tell ya, of all the Disney films I've seen so far, this one is by far the most phoned-in. The animation is lazy, the art is average at best, the writing is formulaic and takes no risks, the voice cast is dull (and in the case of the male lead, recycled from The Jungle Book), and to top it all off, with the exception of the two dogs, who don't even have much screen time, there isn't a single interesting character in the mix. There are, however, several annoying ones, the most prominent of which being a pair (later trio) of geese, who pull double-duty in the bad character arena by also being completely pointless and irrelevant to the plot. There were also several pointless musical numbers, which wouldn't have been so bad in and of itself if they were at least catchy, which they are not. There was precisely one part of the movie that actually made me laugh, and I'll admit it was legitimately funny. But one moment in an hour and fifteen minutes is pathetic.

All that I could excuse. After all, even Disney is allowed a dud here and there. But the part that makes this movie pretty much completely unsalvagable is the utterly ineffective villain. First of all, in terms of motive, I'm totally on his side. I mean, she's leaving everything to her freaking cats instead of him? WTF, lady? I'd be pretty pissed off too. Second, and even more important, he's an absolute effing moron. He learns about the cats' inheritance, and decides they need to be done away with right then and there. You know, completely ignoring the fact that A.) the woman in question is still alive and perfectly healthy, B.) he gets everything after the cats anyway, and would be taking care of them while they're alive which amounts to the same thing, and C.) cats don't actually have nine lives and he would easily outlive them naturally. The whole plot was contrived, formulaic and yes, pointless. I don't know if I would have enjoyed it more as a kid, but as an adult it just doesn't work.

I am not a fan of this movie.

DAC 18-19: The Sword in the Stone & The Jungle Book

The Sword in the Stone - 7.1/10

It was...okay. Much like Alice in Wonderland, I have seen this before, but it was so long ago that I never officially counted it among my seen movies. There was a whole bunch of stuff about this film that I didn't remember, if I ever knew it in the first place.

First off, all of Merlin's anachronisms. They were mildly amusing I guess, and at least a reason is given for them rather than just being cheap jokes like some of the more modern films have been doing. But really, this movie doesn't seem to be about anything. It's just a bunch of stuff that happens. Merlin transforms Arthur/Wart into things and attempts to teach him stuff. That's about it. And none of the things being taught are ever really explored in-depth either, so it can't claim to be an educational film. The art and animation follows the sketchy look of 101 Dalmations, though they've managed to clean it up a little bit. On the flip side, they seem to have gotten really lazy with their backgrounds.

Nothing much else to say about this one, really (save that Arthur's voice actor was clearly going through puberty during production). It was amusing at times, but nothing special.


EDIT: I have just learned that Arthur was in fact voiced by three different boys. For some reason. Well that would explain it.


The Jungle Book - 7.7/10

This one was interesting. I did see it as a kid, but it wasn't one I watched very often (Kaa creeped me out). The sketchy style is still in effect, but isn't quite as obvious here, and they were putting a little more effort into their backgrounds. I did notice a couple blatant instances of recycled animation, though.

The film itself kind of feels like a road movie. It just moves from one wacky encounter to the next, and occasionally a character from earlier on will reappear. The villain, Shere Khan, is like a Bond villain - upper class accent, refined and superior, and willing to give his prey a "sporting chance" for showing "spirit - and it's awesome. He also has very little actual screen time - easily the least of any I have seen so far. The threat of him drives much of the movie, more than his actual presence. The main character, however, was really annoying and reminiscent of Scrappy Doo in his "I'm not scared!" followed by "HELP!" behavior.

The music was catchy. There were a couple of cool songs in it, along with one or two duds. Also, they got some Beatles impersonators to play a gang of vultures, or whatever.

Not one of my favorites, but altogether not bad. 

DAC 17: 101 Dalmations

101 Dalmations - 8.2/10

This movie holds a special place in my heart. It was my flu movie. As a kid, whenever I was home sick from school and laid out on the couch, this was the movie I would watch. Dunno why it got that way, but there you have it.

This film also marks a huge turn for Disney in several ways: the choir is gone (and I'm so sad about it), a creative opening title sequence, the painstaking animation of the past has given way to the new cheaper and easier methods including Xeroxed cels, and the art has shifted to a much more "sketchy" style. Also, the story itself is far more complex than anything they had attempted before. The first and last changes I like, the others I'm not so sure of.

As for the movie itself, it definitely relies on the supporting cast. Nothing against the main characters or anything, but my favorites were always Roger, the gruff yet screwy old colonel, the brave and valiant Sgt. Tibbs, and of course the villains. Cruella Deville is definitely top ten material for Disney villains. I mean, her car alone is amazing. Jasper and Horace, much like Hook and Smee, are bumbling and funny while still being a legitimate threat to the protagonists. And of course let's not forget that Cruella has what is quite possibly the most iconic villain song ever.

The music in general was pretty good in this. A lot of jazzy numbers, and the climax's bgm was pretty exciting, as were the visuals.

There were some technical flaws that I even noticed as a kid - mostly just inconsistent animation. You'll be looking at one dog, and then in the next frame it's a completely different dog, even though it's clearly supposed to be the same one (sometimes this happens while the dog in question is talking, leaving no room for doubt). Stuff like that. I think the animators were just careless in a few places, and it goes back to those cheaper animation methods I was talking about.

Part of my love for this film might simply be from nostalgia, but I've done as good a job as I can to remain as objective as possible. This was a good movie.






One long howl, two short, one yip and a woof!

DAC 16: Sleeping Beauty

Sleeping Beauty - 7.9/10

I only ever saw this one maybe once or twice as a kid, largely due to the fact that Maleficent scared the flipping bejeezus out of me. I honestly think she is the greatest Disney villain of all time, and it says a lot that she was voiced by Eleanor Audley, the same woman who did the Lady Tremaine in Cinderella.

I saw this once again in high school with some friends, and though I still don't remember much about it from then, I do recall thinking that the art was cheap and lazy. Watching it again now, I can't believe I never noticed before that it was a stylistic decision - the art looks almost like it came right out of a medieval European tapestry. I love it.

Compared to the previous two princess films, Snow White and Cinderella, the prince gets a ton more development in this one, and the princess much less. They do, however, get to spend a little time together before riding off at the end, which is kind of interesting. I suppose Snow White's prince met her once very briefly at the beginning, and Cinderella did dance with hers a bit at the ball, but this was the first time that the two characters actually met and interacted somewhat early on in the film. I thought that was kind of a nice change of pace.

Neither the princess nor the prince who awakens her are the main characters, though. That title, along with being the heroes of the film, goes to the Three Good Fairies. They get far more screen time than anyone else, the story is told mostly from their perspective, and they're even the ones who infiltrate the evil lair and eventually save the day. Kind of breaking from the norm, and I gotta say, I like that too.

Where this one falls a little short of Cinderella, in my opinion, is the story itself. It just isn't really very interesting, and while it was well executed (what there was of it), there just really wasn't much meat there. Even the villain's motivation - being snubbed at a party - was a tad lame (though interestingly it is one of the elements that makes her such an awesome villain in the first place, that she would go so far to avenge such a slight, so I guess it works both ways there). Also, I didn't buy for one second that Briar Rose/Aurora's voice actress was anywhere near 16, but I suppose license has to be taken in order to get the type of singing voice they wanted. Still, they could have tried a little bit harder.

All around, I enjoyed this flick far more than I ever remember doing in the past, and had a few good laughs along the way. Definitely another classic.

DAC 15: Lady and the Tramp

Lady and the Tramp - 8.0/10

Another childhood favorite, though I'd forgotten about the bit at the beginning with Lady as a puppy. This is another one that, like Bambi, doesn't really have a villain, unless you count the dog-hating Aunt Sarah, or maybe the cats or the rat. In any case, it's just a love story of two dogs, but also like Bambi it's very stylistic. Everything is done from the point of view of the dogs, to the point that we barely ever see any human faces, and the Lady's owners are literally known only by their pet names for each other. I think that was a very good choice, as it takes what is otherwise a very simple story and gives a new layer to it.

A couple of scenes that hit really hard as a kid still held up pretty strongly today. The pound was always a huge tearjerker, and though no manly tears were shed now as an adult, it was still really freaking sad. Also, the climax was really exciting and the scene right after was even more powerful than the pound. It would be up there with Mufasa and Bambi's mom if we didn't see him get better in the very next scene.

All in all a fun movie that puts a new spin on an old formula with a unique perspective and solid execution.

One final note is that they seem to be scaling back the 40s-style choir with this one. They still did one song during the film and also the finale, but were conspicuously absent from the opening. That's a first.