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.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
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.
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.
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.
Monday, April 2, 2012
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!
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.
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.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)