# Disney Movie Marathon Challenge



## RSandRS

Disney Movie Marathon Challenge

Hi

I've lurked on the boards for a while now and am an avid listener to the Disunplugged. I live in the UK and have only been to Disney World twice and never to Disneyland in California :/ I'd go yearly if I could afford it! I really love Disneyland Paris (DLP) which is much easier to get to for us on this side of the pond and have been countless times. I love preparing for a Disney trip by watching Disney movies and we just booked a Halloween trip to DLP for the first time! I've never been to DLP during October or for the Halloween party so this will be loads of fun. 

In any case, to prepare for the trip I suggested to my sis that we had a Disney movie marathon of the animated classics starting with Snow White. Loads of these films, like Fantasia, Pinocchio etc I haven't watched since I was a (renaissance) kid so this should be interesting. Then I thought, why not challenge ourselves to watch ALL of the feature length animated films (including potentially Pixar), including many of the older ones which I have never seen before (The Three Caballeros I'm looking at you!). Of course, it may not be possible to access every single one, but we will do our best! 

I thought I might write our thoughts on here and people can share their views on the films (and at the same time get excited about a forthcoming Disney trip). Hope that sounds like a nice idea? 

Lets see how far we get! Please join in watching if you are interested in a trip down nostalgia lane!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_theatrical_animated_features 

Day: 1 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
So Disney's first animated feature film: We watched this as a children but didn't appreciate how revolutionary it is in terms of all its doing with music and animation. 

Such high quality considering it's the first feature length animated film EVER! The backgrounds are very detailed and the animators were equally good at portraying the soft and romantic and the dark and scary aspects of the film. The animation is breath taking and the characters (apart from Prince Charming) are all fantastic. Its proper dark and scary, but humorous as well. 

I remember not taking to Snow White as a child because basically she was no Belle, but actually she's kind of awesome.  I don't subscribe to the view that she's wet and useless - she's actually just nice and maybe a bit naive, but perfectly capable of molding her environment and the people around her to be how she wants them to be. She just does it with charm rather than by force. 

Love the relationships they develop between Snow White and all the dwarfs - especially Grumpy. Her 'Oh, and you must be Grumpy!' said in that adorable voice is one of the best moments in the film. This is also what I'm going to say to misogynists if they step to me from now on. 

The evil queen is perhaps unnecessarily evil considering they give her almost no motivation - definitely didn't clock the bit where she walks past the skeleton and kicks it in the face when I was a kid, but I don't think such a dark moment would appear in a Disney movie nowadays.

It's definitely the dwarves movie rather than Snow White's and in places it does feel like a very weak story tacked onto some quite good comic shorts.

However, re-watching has given both of us a new found appreciation for Disney's first princess as well as being awed by the talented artistry!

How do others feel about Snow White? Does it rank high on your list of Disney favs?

Nest stop Pinocchio...


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> The evil queen is perhaps unnecessarily evil considering they give her almost no motivation - definitely didn't clock the bit where she walks past the skeleton and kicks it in the face when I was a kid, but I don't think such a dark moment would appear in a Disney movie nowadays.



That scene is quite dark indeed. Notice that the skeleton is reaching for water that is just out of reach, which is likely why they died. It shows the Queen's cruelty.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> That scene is quite dark indeed. Notice that the skeleton is reaching for water that is just out of reach, which is likely why they died. It shows the Queen's cruelty.


Hi, I had not noticed that! Thanks!  Adds a further dimension to the scene!


----------



## RSandRS

Day 2: Pinocchio (1940)

Hi All, Disney movie number 2! I can appreciate the art work in this film is lovely, but I have always found it the most difficult Disney film to watch and it doesn’t get any easier as an adult. The music is iconic, ‘When You Wish upon a Star’ is a gorgeous song especially when Jiminy Cricket sings it. However, the whole boys turning into donkeys never gets easier to handle. 

I watched the National Theatre in the UK’s production of Pinocchio with Disney’s music this year and interestingly the producers clearly felt the original story was not disturbing enough so made the music creepier sounding. The puppets were played by people and the human characters by puppets, which was kind of cool though. 

I’ve watched this movie many times and I can understand why it was a critical success, but I just cannot like it, because the message, as far as everyone but Pinocchio is concerned, seems to be unforgiving.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the film?

Tomorrow Fantasia, which we haven't seen in years!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> Day 2: Pinocchio (1940)
> 
> Hi All, Disney movie number 2! I can appreciate the art work in this film is lovely, but I have always found it the most difficult Disney film to watch and it doesn’t get any easier as an adult. The music is iconic, ‘When You Wish upon a Star’ is a gorgeous song especially when Jiminy Cricket sings it. However, the whole boys turning into donkeys never gets easier to handle.
> 
> I watched the National Theatre in the UK’s production of Pinocchio with Disney’s music this year and interestingly the producers clearly felt the original story was not disturbing enough so made the music creepier sounding. The puppets were played by people and the human characters by puppets, which was kind of cool though.
> 
> I’ve watched this movie many times and I can understand why it was a critical success, but I just cannot like it, because the message, as far as everyone but Pinocchio is concerned, seems to be unforgiving.
> 
> Does anyone have any thoughts on the film?
> 
> Tomorrow Fantasia, which we haven't seen in years!



So, I recently bought the Signature Edition of Pinocchio and watched the movie for the first time in a long time (since I was a kid). I had forgotten how genuinely messed up the Pleasure Island scenes are. It's so demented! In some of the special features, it is mentioned that some of the creators started out making it just like a land of candy and junk food, but it was Walt himself who said that it needed to be more violent, and that little boys, if given a chance to run rampant unsupervised, would just go nuts. Certainly that is seen in Lampwick, who is just an unrepentant little snot (chewing tobacco and smoking a cigar at the same time ). But, therein lies the moral of the story. Pinocchio was remorseful, and he learned and grew throughout the story, thus earning his reward. The others not so much, and they get what they deserve as well. It's a typical morality play.

It's not my favorite of the classic Disney films, but I do appreciate it. I particularly like the underwater effects, which were cutting edge for the time. Also, the music of course is spectacular. When You Wish Upon a Star was a number one hit and recorded by many standards artists at the time. It's a true classic!


----------



## RSandRS

Really interesting! The original story is from 1883 so maybe a time when kids had to earn forgiveness rather than just getting a free pass because they were kids? 

Never get tired of When You Wish Upon a Star!


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 3: Fantasia (1940)*

We both really enjoyed watching this! This is definitely one of the best of the early Disney films – it is just a bit episodic. It needed a theme running through it (other than 'music = inspirational') that could tie it all together.

The highlights are the dinosaurs and the Sorcerer's Apprentice, in which Mickey is really cute and his iconic self. Interested at the inclusion of the dinosaurs, given its making a strong statement about evolution, which I did wonder if would go down with all audiences at the time. Checked this though and apparently, the sequence was ok’d as long as it did not feature human evolution. Fun fact of the day!

Some of it is a bit saccharine, but as a little girl I loved those bits, and you've got to put something in there for the little girls. Especially as this film doesn't seem like it's really for kids at all. It's very experimental (which I LOVE as an adult) with lots of bits that aren't the least bit kiddy (night on bald mountain) juxtaposed a bit jarringly with bits that are obviously more aimed at kids (dance of the hours). I’m still not sure what is going on between the crocs and the hippos????

Definitely, a really beautiful film and I wish they had done more such films as intended, but maybe sticking to one kind of animation or musical theme throughout?

New film for us tomorrow: The Reluctant Dragon!


----------



## BrianL

Fantasia is cool but uneven. My favorite sequences are Night on Bald Mountain and The Sorcerer's Apprentice. One issue with his film was that it used a very advanced sound system that most theaters in the country were incapable of utilizing, so the theatrical runs were limited, which limited the box-office take. It was the Dolby Atmos of it's day. Still, much of the movie is quite beautiful with great animation.

The Reluctant Dragon is a great movie! You will enjoy it.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Fantasia is cool but uneven. My favorite sequences are Night on Bald Mountain and The Sorcerer's Apprentice. One issue with his film was that it used a very advanced sound system that most theaters in the country were incapable of utilizing, so the theatrical runs were limited, which limited the box-office take. It was the Dolby Atmos of it's day. Still, much of the movie is quite beautiful with great animation.
> 
> The Reluctant Dragon is a great movie! You will enjoy it.


Totally right, The Reluctant Dragon is awesome!


----------



## RSandRS

Day 4: The Reluctant Dragon (1941)

Ended up loving this one! Weirdly, as I'm such a fan of animation, I preferred the filmed sections. For those who haven't seen it, after a nudge from his wife the main character sets out to the Disney Studios to pitch a story idea to Walt and ends up getting a tour. The main character was a pillock (can see why his wife was trying to get him out from under her feet for a few hours) and didn't seem to understand that he'd stumbled on the chance of a lifetime, but all the other 'characters' were great. Watching it we also got a bit of a thrill every time we recognised a piece of artwork or a model or something from one of the well-known films. You'd never get to see that kind of thing now, even if you did get a chance to go 'backstage' at the Disney Studios. (One day when I win the lottery I will ABD Backstage Magic)!

A really interesting film about the making of films, but done with a lot of charm. The mixture of animations and film didn't feel clunky - bits like Donald Duck coming to life to tell the main character off showed how well this concept could work.

The reluctant dragon itself was quite funny, but definitely not my favourite bit. Of all the filmed sections my favourite bit was the lovely foley lady showing Benchley how they made the sounds, like Casy Junior. My favourite 'animated' bit was Baby Weems - don't ask me why, the concept just really appealed to me and I was emotionally invested in his poor parents getting him back!


----------



## BrianL

You are dead-on about The Reluctant Dragon. The live-action parts are the best, though the Baby Weems sequence is amazing as well. It's a great look at the cutting edge stuff that was going on at Walt Disney Studios back then! If anything, the actual Reluctant Dragon cartoon is probably the least interesting part.


----------



## RSandRS

Day 5: Dumbo (1941)

I still find this film almost too painful to watch - I know it's supposed to be one of the more light-hearted ones, but it is so sad from about five minutes in until five minutes before the end. And the payoff of Dumbo realising his flying powers and being reunited with his mum isn't enough to make up for it. He needs to escape the circus!

The animation does not seem to be as strong as Fantasia but Dumbo is a great example of how to give human emotions to animal characters - you really feel for him because he is so fully realised as a character.

I don't find any of the circus bits funny or entertaining - they seem quite dark to me as well. Quite a difficult thing for them to balance in the film - to suggest heavily that animal cruelty is wrong, but also to try and get us to laugh at animal cruelty.

Pink elephants sequence is baffling - only word for it. Again treading the line between menacing and funny - an odd choice for a children's film. Some of the editing and transitions are amazing, but the sequence is definitely too long considering it adds nothing to the story. Apparently, they were experimenting with Cubism! Why 'pink elephants' though? Why not build the sequence around 'flying elephants' being a weird thing to see? It is interesting that we tend to think of Disney as 'safe', 'fluffy' and somewhat 'conservative' and not one of these early films is. 

The crows are really great. I do have problems with the choice to have the lead crow played by a white guy and have him definitely impersonating black musicians, but in general I don't find them racist. They're enormously charismatic and the only ones that believe in Dumbo and help him find his flying powers. Plus their song is easily the best in the whole movie - whoever wrote that song was having as much fun with language as the crows seem to be having singing it.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> You are dead-on about The Reluctant Dragon. The live-action parts are the best, though the Baby Weems sequence is amazing as well. It's a great look at the cutting edge stuff that was going on at Walt Disney Studios back then! If anything, the actual Reluctant Dragon cartoon is probably the least interesting part.


Disney should do a sequel so we can get an insight into their current animation department!


----------



## BrianL

I am really enjoying our back and forth on these movies. We're about to get into some I haven't seen in a *long* time, but I'll try to keep up.

For Dumbo, I agree that parts of it are dark. I don't see the circus as a whole as evil, but the ringmaster definitely is. I love Casey Jr., the character and the sequence with the song, and it has a feeling of excitement as the circus arrives. There is in fact a dark side to it, though many of the animals seem content, if a little on the tough side (I am thinking about the other elephants who make fun of Dumbo and the baby.

A few things to note - Dumbo is not really a "children's film." Walt didn't see his pictures that way. They're for everyone, including children, but they're not the only audience. He also didn't believe in dumbing-down material for kids or patronizing them in any way. Animation only became "for kids" much later when Saturday Morning Cartoon became the norm. Pink Elephants certainly is an interesting sequence. The term is actually a very old term for a drunkard, "oh, he's seeing pink elephants" someone might say. The term predates Dumbo and would have been a known euphemism to audiences at the time. Considering that's exactly what's going on in the scene, it's a good choice.

Overall, Dumbo isn't one of my top-tier films, but I do like what it's trying to say. It has it's moments for sure, and Dumbo himself sure is a lovable little guy in that Disney style.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> Disney should do a sequel so we can get an insight into their current animation department!



Oh yeah. They could get one of their stars with a comedic penchant, like Paul Rudd or maybe even Dwayne The Rock Johnson to come in, and tour around, meeting the creatives and getting a demo of the Hyperion Engine for computer animation. It'd be fun if they did it right.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Oh yeah. They could get one of their stars with a comedic penchant, like Paul Rudd or maybe even Dwayne The Rock Johnson to come in, and tour around, meeting the creatives and getting a demo of the Hyperion Engine for computer animation. It'd be fun if they did it right.


Totally! The Rock would bring the charisma, which was lacking in the original main protagonist.


----------



## RSandRS

I guess I'm just not sure why they are drunk at all? How did it serve the story? And if they had to get drunk why didn't they make it serve the story by having Dumbo have weird psychaedelic dreams about flying rather than about pink elephants? The sequence comes out of nowhere and goes nowhere - it looks pretty spectacular but it doesn't really have any place in the film.

And the marathon continues...Really hope you manage to keep up!  Thanks for commenting!

Day 6: Bambi (1942)

Definitely my favourite of the early ones - We really haven't watched this one since the nineties so we were both very surprised by how good it is.

The most obvious highlight is the artistry of this film - you could pause it at any moment and have a gorgeous work of art to hang on your wall. Being a fan of impressionist painting I love the style they've gone for to portray the backgrounds, which are very evocative and use a lovely colour palette. I also really appreciate the time and detail that went into the characters in the foreground and things like Bambi's movement. I'm actually not sure if, apart from the lion king, there has been such a gorgeous Disney animated film - which is pretty amazing considering it's 1942 and we've got another 76 years of Disney animated films to get through.

I'd also forgotten how delightful some of the characters in this movie were; in particular Thumper! They must have realised they'd struck gold when they found the kid who voices Thumper - he has so much personality. Other characters who surprised me were Bambi's mother and father. I'd pretty much forgotten he even had a father, but both parents are actually quite interesting characters and I found myself wanting to know more about their relationship. F

The music is Bambi is nice but not very memorable. It's a bit safe and there's no standout song really. I feel like they needed a dark, mournful song for after Bambi's mum dies.

Next films are all firsts for us-films produced during WW2 and Disney's contribution to the propaganda effort...


----------



## BrianL

I did get the Bambi Signature Edition as well and watched it recently. It's when we get into the package pictures where it'll be hard for me to remember, and they're not that readily available for viewing.

Bambi is indeed *beautiful!* It's just so gorgeous, especially the backgrounds (I think Sleeping Beauty can give it a run for its money in the background department, but not many others.). The story is simple, and maybe a little slow. I too had forgotten about his father, the great king of the forest. He's so majestic! There is a similarity to the Lion King in how Bambi is eventually shown with his mate and the promise of a new legacy.

"Man is in the forest," is what Disney employees used to say when Walt was coming down the hall to check on the work.

I don't know if I'll have any memory of the actual WWII propaganda films. I enjoy your insights though.


----------



## RSandRS

Day 7: Saludos Amigos (1942)

Couple of days break, although I thought I had uploaded this on Saturday...anyway here goes!

Never watched this one before, but we thought it wasn't great. Again it's episodic so some sequences are naturally better than others, but none of them is particularly memorable. It doesn't seem to be able to get past being a film to educate the public about South America. Nowadays, as with movies like Moana, Disney 'educates' us about other cultures by weaving them into a story, but back then they seemed to think the only way was to hold things up one by one and say 'This is a thing. This thing is from Peru. Here's some images of people using the thing etc.'

Jose Carioca is a cool dude and really deserves a proper movie/tv series to show off what a fun character he is - particularly when not dragged down by Donald, who doesn't manage to be anything other than annoying in this movie.

The best sequence is the one with Pedro the little aeroplane. It includes some of the best animation (the animation in this movie is a bit disappointing considering what they were doing with Bambi at the time and considering the beauty of the landscapes they had to work with) and Pedro is a cute character.


----------



## BrianL

So, I can't speak for this one as I haven't seen it in a while. I do remember Pedro and Gaucho Goofy existing (probably saw them as independent shorts. I do adore the Three Caballeros though. I know the next one has more of that. I really would like to rewatch these at some point.


----------



## RSandRS

This one's a bit different because it is not like the package films, which preceded it and came after. Here goes! have you seen it?

Day 8: Victory Through Air Power (1943)

We were a bit apprehensive about this one. What stereotypes were we going to encounter? For anyone who has not had the joy, its a case made through animation for the US using more airpower during the war. It's very diagrammatic. Apparently, it was a success at the time and persuaded Roosevelt to change strategy (this may or may not be an exaggeration by wiki). But I don’t think it will have persuaded the general public to watch more animated films.

The last 2 minutes the film changes approach, and instead of animation showing the movements of planes and the Nazi incursion into France etc we have a massive US eagle attacking Japan represented as an octopus. This is out of keeping with the approach of the rest of the film and creates tension, but is also obviously highly problematic.

I actually study the intersection of propaganda and popular culture (comics) (although not in the US or WW2 context) so it was interesting to see the company’s approach to making the case they wanted at the time. Definitely not a fun watch though.

Tomorrow its back to The Three Caballeros!


----------



## BrianL

I feel like I may have watched this one in school. It's been a long time though. I am familiar with the context and what it tried to do. It might be neat to see it again, but I'm not sure I'd know where I could find it.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> I feel like I may have watched this one in school. It's been a long time though. I am familiar with the context and what it tried to do. It might be neat to see it again, but I'm not sure I'd know where I could find it.



By coincidence, last week DisneyLife had a deal for three months subscription for 99p if bought through the amazon fire stick so that how we are watching most things. However, VTAP we watched on youtube. This is the version we watched. It has a commentary in front (which we skipped) and the film starts at 22 min and 50 secs.


----------



## BrianL

Thanks for that link. I watched it this evening. As propaganda goes, it's not too terrible, at least in an insulting sort of way. It was trying to present it's case pretyt scientifficaly, though I'm sure it's not waht one would call 100% realistic. It was neat to watch though and had cool animation of some iconic planes, which I appreciated. The part at the end with the eagle is actually my favorite part.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Thanks for that link. I watched it this evening. As propaganda goes, it's not too terrible, at least in an insulting sort of way. It was trying to present it's case pretyt scientifficaly, though I'm sure it's not waht one would call 100% realistic. It was neat to watch though and had cool animation of some iconic planes, which I appreciated. The part at the end with the eagle is actually my favorite part.


Glad you got a chance to watch it!


----------



## RSandRS

Day 9: Three Caballeros (1944)

A welcome return for Jose Carioca! - he's a lot more fun than Donald. Actually not sure why they're friends because Donald is kind of a numpty and doesn't deserve to have such cool friends. I'm also not sure that the Three Caballeros, in general, have earned a sequel at this point!

Donald Duck extremely unlikeable in this movie - spends most of it with eyes literally on stalks chasing woman around. Male gaze fixed beadily on Central and South America throughout this whole movie. A lot of introducing people to the culture of the area seems to consist of showing woman in exotic outfits or swimming costumes.

Some of the music is quite nice but gets a bit lost in all the 'comedy'.

The animated sections are pretty forgettable and you struggle to find a unifying theme - the one about the flying gauchito is probably the best.

Most successful new element of The Three Caballeros (because it is essentially Saludos Amigos 2: The Sequel Nobody Asked For) is the Aracuan Bird, who is actually genuinely funny . Or maybe I just feel this because he makes fun of Donald?



Definitely my least fave of the package films (we are actually a few films ahead so I can legitimately say this!)


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> Day 9: Three Caballeros (1944)
> 
> A welcome return for Jose Carioca! - he's a lot more fun than Donald. Actually not sure why they're friends because Donald is kind of a numpty and doesn't deserve to have such cool friends. I'm also not sure that the Three Caballeros, in general, have earned a sequel at this point!
> 
> Donald Duck extremely unlikeable in this movie - spends most of it with eyes literally on stalks chasing woman around. Male gaze fixed beadily on Central and South America throughout this whole movie. A lot of introducing people to the culture of the area seems to consist of showing woman in exotic outfits or swimming costumes.
> 
> Some of the music is quite nice but gets a bit lost in all the 'comedy'.
> 
> The animated sections are pretty forgettable and you struggle to find a unifying theme - the one about the flying gauchito is probably the best.
> 
> Most successful new element of The Three Caballeros (because it is essentially Saludos Amigos 2: The Sequel Nobody Asked For) is the Aracuan Bird, who is actually genuinely funny . Or maybe I just feel this because he makes fun of Donald?
> 
> View attachment 340882
> 
> Definitely my least fave of the package films (we are actually a few films ahead so I can legitimately say this!)



Not sure I remember much about this other than the song, which is great. I love Donald, Jose, and Panchito though (and they have a new show, Legend of the Three Caballeros!). You're pretty harsh on Donald - that's just who he is.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Not sure I remember much about this other than the song, which is great. I love Donald, Jose, and Panchito though (and they have a new show, Legend of the Three Caballeros!). You're pretty harsh on Donald - that's just who he is.


I'll ease up on the duck  I don't think I was very aware of his personality before this. He'll never be one of my favs though!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> I'll ease up on the duck  I don't think I was very aware of his personality before this. He'll never be one of my favs though!



Donald is kind of simple-minded and dumb, like a Homer Simpson. He thinks he can scheme well, but he really can't and it always backfires. He's quick to anger as well. Showing him leering at women at the time would have been pretty normal for cartoons in general. Donald was kind of "that guy" for Disney, as opposed to Mickey or the others.


----------



## kpd6901

This is a neat idea. Perhaps I missed this, but is this leading up to a trip you are planning, or not quite? We are going to WDW over the Thanksgiving holiday for 12 days. But we are keeping it a surprise from our kids, and the goal is to only let them figure it out on their own when we arrive at the airport. All that they know is that we are  spending Thanksgiving with my parents, who they only get to see once or twice a year. What they don't know is that my parents are joining us at WDW.  We are offering subtle hints, though. All of the music in both of our vehicles are rotating various albums of Disney music, but most ambitiously, our middle son is completing his summer break home-homework. It is a movie project where we make up a list of movies for him to watch over the course of the summer. It started out with 94 movies. He is about 76 deep right now. But as he goes, he watches some not on the list but we ok the substitute and add it as an approved addition. So his list has now grown from 94 to 143! But, just as long as he gets to the 94 he passes. We might just extend his time to see if he can complete all of it by Halloween, or leading up to the week before we leave, but obviously once school starts in a few weeks, he will be slowing down tremendously. Of course, every movie on the list or approved for addition, is a Disney or Disney-owned movie...plus Spiderman Homecoming simply because of it's place in the Disney-run MCU.  On his down time, he is putting on performances and making posters for his performances of classic Disney films. His own stage productions of [insert name] LIVE! ...And he's constantly watching YouTube videos of new happenings, construction, and changes in the Disney parks....all while having no clue that we're going! He even designs ride queues and ride elements featuring Disney properties, characters, and movies that he feels are under-represented. He's our little Imagineer who wants to move to Florida and work there.


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 10: Make Mine Music (1946)*

This movie had a really lovely start with the Blue Bayou sequence! It is very relaxing and the animation is beautiful. The rest of the film is bit uneven and some of the stories are very strange. One of the weirdest of the package films in general, though with some really nice sequences included.

The Peter and the Wolf sequence is quite good and is probably helped by the fact that the music is so iconic.

There is a reference to this sequence on one of the rides in Disneyland Paris, so it was nice to find out where that story fitted into the Disney canon.

The final section, about Willie the Whale who dreams of singing at the Met but is ultimately harpooned  is some of the most unusual storytelling I've ever experienced, but is probably the most successful part of the film. I found myself genuinely engaged in Willie's story and rooting for him, and there's no denying that the guy who does all the voices and the singing is amazingly talented.


----------



## RSandRS

kpd6901 said:


> This is a neat idea. Perhaps I missed this, but is this leading up to a trip you are planning, or not quite? We are going to WDW over the Thanksgiving holiday for 12 days. But we are keeping it a surprise from our kids, and the goal is to only let them figure it out on their own when we arrive at the airport. All that they know is that we are  spending Thanksgiving with my parents, who they only get to see once or twice a year. What they don't know is that my parents are joining us at WDW.  We are offering subtle hints, though. All of the music in both of our vehicles are rotating various albums of Disney music, but most ambitiously, our middle son is completing his summer break home-homework. It is a movie project where we make up a list of movies for him to watch over the course of the summer. It started out with 94 movies. He is about 76 deep right now. But as he goes, he watches some not on the list but we ok the substitute and add it as an approved addition. So his list has now grown from 94 to 143! But, just as long as he gets to the 94 he passes. We might just extend his time to see if he can complete all of it by Halloween, or leading up to the week before we leave, but obviously once school starts in a few weeks, he will be slowing down tremendously. Of course, every movie on the list or approved for addition, is a Disney or Disney-owned movie...plus Spiderman Homecoming simply because of it's place in the Disney-run MCU.  On his down time, he is putting on performances and making posters for his performances of classic Disney films. His own stage productions of [insert name] LIVE! ...And he's constantly watching YouTube videos of new happenings, construction, and changes in the Disney parks....all while having no clue that we're going! He even designs ride queues and ride elements featuring Disney properties, characters, and movies that he feels are under-represented. He's our little Imagineer who wants to move to Florida and work there.



Wow your son's project sounds amazing and a great preparation for the trip! A career as an imagineer would be a dream! 

Yes, we are watching all the disney animated classics starting with Snow White in preparation for our trip to Disneyland Paris for Halloween  Its great fun and so far we have watched some I have never seen before. Its also given us a new appreciation for the early ones like Bambi and Fantasia.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Day 10: Make Mine Music (1946)*
> 
> This movie had a really lovely start with the Blue Bayou sequence! It is very relaxing and the animation is beautiful. The rest of the film is bit uneven and some of the stories are very strange. One of the weirdest of the package films in general, though with some really nice sequences included.
> 
> The Peter and the Wolf sequence is quite good and is probably helped by the fact that the music is so iconic.
> 
> There is a reference to this sequence on one of the rides in Disneyland Paris, so it was nice to find out where that story fitted into the Disney canon.
> 
> The final section, about Willie the Whale who dreams of singing at the Met but is ultimately harpooned  is some of the most unusual storytelling I've ever experienced, but is probably the most successful part of the film. I found myself genuinely engaged in Willie's story and rooting for him, and there's no denying that the guy who does all the voices and the singing is amazingly talented.



Okay, can't say I've seen this, but I do remember the Peter and the Wolf sequence by Disney as it was often shown on its own. It's good. Where is it referenced at DLP?  I do love the music to this film and have the Blue Bayou song on my playlist. It's quite lovely.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Okay, can't say I've seen this, but I do remember the Peter and the Wolf sequence by Disney as it was often shown on its own. It's good. Where is it referenced at DLP?  I do love the music to this film and have the Blue Bayou song on my playlist. It's quite lovely.



Its referenced on the storybook boat ride. 

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...9jcAhWqC8AKHfKpApoQMwhFKA0wDQ&iact=mrc&uact=8
I believe this ride is also in California (never visited), but I don't know if that scene is included?


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> Its referenced on the storybook boat ride.
> View attachment 341765
> I believe this ride is also in California (never visited), but I don't know if that scene is included?



Ah, that makes sense. No, I don't believe the DLR version has that particular scene.


----------



## RSandRS

So the next film is actually Song of the South, which we have never seen. Unsurprisingly, I was not able to obtain a copy. We are not too sad about this given its rep. 

Hopefully, overall, this will be the only one we have to miss out however.
*
Day 11: Fun and Fancy Free (1947)*

This one is very strange. I seem to be saying that allot! It includes two short stories Little Bear Bongo and Mickey and the Beanstalk. Mickey and the Beanstalk is probably stronger overall, although Little Bear Bongo felt more promising at the start. Bongo actually achieved what Dumbo didn’t manage which was to escape the circus! But then he meets his girlfriend called Lulubell!? And they introduce the problematic concept that bears slap each other to show that they are in love. This does not age well.

Mickey is a sweetie in the second story, but Donald goes crazy from hunger at the start of the story and attempts to axe Friend Cow and then chomp down on his tail while still alive. Poor Donald! I really like the singing harp. Her song is very early Disney Princess.

The second story is better but the framing device is creepy. It's a ventriloquist guy (who was famous at the time) telling Mickey’s story to a little girl at a party, while his two puppets make interjections. Very strange! The giant turning out to be 'real' and lifting the roof of the ventriloquist's house at the end, was a good twist though! 

These two longer stories are definitely more memorable though!


----------



## BrianL

The title song for this one is pretty great. "Fun, fun, fun and fancy freeee!" I can't say I remember the first sequence, but Mickey and the Beanstalk is a classic and was shown on it's own many times over the years. I never even knew it was part of a feature until I was really studying Disney history. Anyway, it's a fun short with beautiful scenery. Yup, that's Donald too. He's a lunatic! It's been a while since I watched it, but I do remember the harp but can't place the song.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> The title song for this one is pretty great. "Fun, fun, fun and fancy freeee!" I can't say I remember the first sequence, but Mickey and the Beanstalk is a classic and was shown on it's own many times over the years. I never even knew it was part of a feature until I was really studying Disney history. Anyway, it's a fun short with beautiful scenery. Yup, that's Donald too. He's a lunatic! It's been a while since I watched it, but I do remember the harp but can't place the song.



The Harp sings two I think: My What A Happy Day and My Favourite Dream :


----------



## kpd6901

RSandRS said:


> So the next film is actually Song of the South, which we have never seen. Unsurprisingly, I was not able to obtain a copy. We are not too sad about this given its rep.
> 
> Hopefully, overall, this will be the only one we have to miss out however.



I don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers, but I do wish that Disney would release this simply for the historical value. It doesn't need a grand promotional campaign or anything like that. I have a graduate degree in American history, and I have to say that there really isn't anything wrong with the film itself. It is generally historically accurate. The film is based off African American literature and is based after the abolition of slavery, during a time when many former slaves still remained living and working on plantations although free. The uncomfortable part is that there were a fair minority of situations where the relationship between the whites and blacks were loving, peaceful, and mutually respectful historically, and this is depicted in the film. The problem is that by depicting a minority setting in a film, it presents this situation (whether intentionally or unintentionally) as idyllic or as an accurate general/majority representation. So, I do wish it would be available to a degree, although Disney would be wise to not market it, and since it is an uncomfortable subject is exactly why it is not available. Oprah Winfrey and others in the African American community, however, are also petitioning for a historical perspective of the film.


----------



## RSandRS

kpd6901 said:


> I don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers, but I do wish that Disney would release this simply for the historical value. It doesn't need a grand promotional campaign or anything like that. I have a graduate degree in American history, and I have to say that there really isn't anything wrong with the film itself. It is generally historically accurate. The film is based off African American literature and is based after the abolition of slavery, during a time when many former slaves still remained living and working on plantations although free. The uncomfortable part is that there were a fair minority of situations where the relationship between the whites and blacks were loving, peaceful, and mutually respectful historically, and this is depicted in the film. The problem is that by depicting a minority setting in a film, it presents this situation (whether intentionally or unintentionally) as idyllic or as an accurate general/majority representation. So, I do wish it would be available to a degree, although Disney would be wise to not market it, and since it is an uncomfortable subject is exactly why it is not available. Oprah Winfrey and others in the African American community, however, are also petitioning for a historical perspective of the film.


I agree I do feel it would be better for Disney to acknowledge the movie instead of pretending it never happened. They should re-release it with a commentary and include a proper discussion, which does not make excuses but discusses the issues raised.


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 12: Melody Time (1948)*

Melody Time may be the least interesting of all the package films - We both really struggled to remember any sequences in particular once it was over.

However, I did really like the very stylised animation in one of the sequences (I think it’s the first one), which is about a couple skating in winter. Apparently, Mary Blair worked on this sequence, which you can see from the color palette and style of the figures. One of my favourite aspects was the fact that the climax of the ‘story’ happened at an inevitable waterfall - how did the water freeze enough to skate on if it was that close to a waterfall? And why do these things always end up at waterfalls?

The second story about Johnny Appleseed contains allusions to heaven and god, and religious symbology, which I don’t think we have really come across. As a Brit I didn’t really know much about this historical character and I can’t say I feel much more informed having watched this movie. This seems to me to be the type of subject matter which Disney might have tried to tackle with a feature-length film in the 90s, when they didn't play things as safe as they do now, if it didn't already exist.

Incidentally, the Three Caballeros also return in this movie for those who are fans.


----------



## BrianL

Again, I don't know that I have seen this whole, but some of the segments are familiar to me. I am pretty sure we watched Johnny Appleseed and Pecos Bill in school. I'm not sure why as I doubt they're terribly historically accurate, but still. I don't know that I could say to much about them. They're entertaining enough I guess. I think I also remember the tugboat one, which is quaint and cute.

You're about to get into the better ones and ones that I'll know much more about!


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Again, I don't know that I have seen this whole, but some of the segments are familiar to me. I am pretty sure we watched Johnny Appleseed and Pecos Bill in school. I'm not sure why as I doubt they're terribly historically accurate, but still. I don't know that I could say to much about them. They're entertaining enough I guess. I think I also remember the tugboat one, which is quaint and cute.
> 
> You're about to get into the better ones and ones that I'll know much more about!


Very excited for the start of the 50s films!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> Very excited for the start of the 50s films!



And Icabod & Mr. Toad is no slouch and the best of the package stuff. I love the Sleepy Hollow one! But, yeah, once you get into the 50's you go through a string of classic hits.


----------



## RSandRS

Ok so we are skipping back a couple. My sister actually managed to watch Song of the South on her computer yesterday and these are her thoughts:

*Song of the South (1946)*

So I finally got round to watching Song of the South (it was fairly easy to find online) and I am still working out how I feel about it. I’d be very interested to hear other people’s thoughts, but here are mine, for what they’re worth.

In terms of story and being engaged with the characters I certainly enjoyed this movie a lot more than some of the package films. Some of the animated sequences are pretty good and the way that animation and film are combined is truly brilliant. There's a really wonderful moment where Uncle Remus lights Brer Frog's pipe for him that made me smile. There's also no denying that Uncle Remus is a delightful character (the actor playing him is great and has a beautiful voice for both singing and speaking) and leaves you with the warmest and fuzziest of warm and fuzzies.

That having been said, the mere fact that you get this warm and fuzzy feeling from the character may be part of the problem. The problems with this movie are not with the attitudes of the characters themselves (there’s no overt racism in it), but with the attitude of the movie itself. There are lots of African American characters in the movie, some of them as well-drawn as the white characters, but they seem to be there for one reason only: to give white people the warm and fuzzies. Let's all watch a movie where the post-civil war South is presented as idyllic and good. Everybody has good intentions and is the best of friends. The slaves have been freed are now just friends of the family (who they order around and treat as second-call citizens, but let's gloss over that bit) there to enrich the white people's lives with their simple wisdom. It's how white people at the time - including the guy who wrote the original Uncle Remus stories and probably Walt Disney too - wished slavery could be remembered.

It's problematic. The fact that the movie assumes we'll be OK with the idea of a former slave having nothing better to do than try to make the lonely grandson of his former mistress feel better is very much the problem. Johnny (the little boy in the story) has problems, sure. He's lonely and he misses his dad, and his mum makes him wear girly outfits, but...that's it. Eventually, he gets gored by a bull (which seems to give him...a fever? For some reason?) which I will admit is a legitimate problem, but it literally happens in the last 5 minutes. Perhaps if the kid’s problems had been a bit less trivial the movie might have seemed more balanced (probably not though), but as it is you just find yourself wincing as this boy's issues become the centre of the plot, and Uncle Remus a plot point to bring them to a conclusion.

As far as the tar baby bit goes, I'm not sure what to make of it. I genuinely don't think it comes from a racist place. The phrase 'tar baby' seems to have gathered racist connotations since the release of the movie and probably rightly so. In the movie and original stories, however, the phrase tar baby simply refers to a sticky situation that the more you try to get out of it, the more you stuck you get.

Overall I don't want to suggest that my opinion of this movie is the correct one - there is a lot to unpack here and I don't know much about most of it. I think this movie should be released on dvd with proper commentary from people who will properly be able to examine the history and context. I think it's time that Disney faced up to this, because it is offensive and demeaning, but not perhaps in the way people think. It should be talked about. That's my opinion (just an opinion) anyway!

....

Tomorrow back to The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad....


----------



## BrianL

I think that's a good reading of the film, though it has been a long time since I've seen it.

One note - Back then any kind of serious wound could and would often lead to fever as the science of sanitizing bandages and such wasn't quite perfected. They could wrap or even sew up a wound to stop the bleeding, but they didn't have antiseptic spray or anything to keep bacteria out. They likely didn't even really understand the concept of microbes and such, hence a serious infection was very likely to happen.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> I think that's a good reading of the film, though it has been a long time since I've seen it.
> 
> One note - Back then any kind of serious could and would often lead to fever as the science of sanitizing bandages and such wasn't quite perfected. They could wrap or even sew up a wound to stop the bleeding, but they didn't have antiseptic spray or anything to keep bacteria out. They likely didn't even really understand the concept of microbes and such, hence a serious infection was very likely to happen.


Thanks, I'll let her know!


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 13: The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949)*

I must have watched Mr Toad before as I swear I remember the bit with the weasels in Toad Hall, but certainly, never Ichabod and I’ve actually never come across the character in any other medium either. The Wind in the Willows is all over the place if you grow up in the UK, but not Sleepy Hollow. In any case, we really thought these two stories were an improvement. All the characters are very well devised. Toad is incorrigible but also quite likeable and they manage to capture the feeling of the original story (although that focuses a bit more on mole at times). They also introduced a non-book character, the horse, who seems to fit in really well and is a great addition.

I’m looking forward to going into Toad Hall at Disneyland Paris when we go there. It is a quick service restaurant serving fish and chips. Not quite sure why fish and chips? Maybe because it's typically English? Maybe one day we will get out to see the Toad ride in California, which as I understand it has a dark narrative, with references to hell?

Ichabod was a less likeable chap. Even the movie didn't seem to be sure whether we were supposed to root for him or just think the big-nosed skeeze deserved what he got. The part where he was being chased by the headless horseman was really great though - both darkly funny and visually striking. As was the song that preceded it - I don't know why you never hear this one, it's hilarious!


----------



## BrianL

So I think that's a difference between the US and UK there as The Legend of Sleepy hollow is what one might consider "Americana." The Wind in the Willows is definitely somewhat well known here, but probably not as much as the other story. These are both really well done animated segments. Mr. Toad is fun and boisterous. The ride is similar and does have references to hell and other dark things. Most of the classic Disney dark rides do, owing to their "ghost train" roots. The Ichabod segment is obviously beautifully done and the song/narration by Bing Crosby is just fantastic. I'm not sure you are supposed to root for anyone in this town, as while Ichabod is a bit haughty and superior, the other townies are pretty mean and boorish. It's still a pretty great film.


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 14: Cinderella (1950)*

Now getting back to the really famous classics!

Cinderella is the ultimate Disney film with the ultimate Disney princess, and I can 100% see why it was so popular when it came out, but it will never be my favourite.

As with Snow White, poor Cinderella has to surrender what should be her story to a lot of side characters - in this case, the mice. Although the comic business with Lucifer and the mice is amusing (Lucifer is a fabulous character - he should be an official Disney villain), it does take up time that might be better spent developing the central characters.

The prince, in particular, is possibly the least developed character in the history of Disney. He has about two lines, both of which are 'Don't go!' Not quite enough to build a marriage on, but there we go. Disney seems to have felt we needed to know more about his dad's motivation for him to get married than his, and in trying to make the king a quirky, humorous character they go too far down the route of kooky and into deranged territory. Out of the frying pan into the fire I think, Cinders.

The film looks sumptuous and colourful, though perhaps not as pretty as Snow White. I like the soft colour palette and it is really visually interesting, even though so much of it takes place in the Tremaine Chateau.


----------



## BrianL

Okay, now we're talkin'!

Of course Cinderella is a beautiful movie, with bright colors and some great character designs. Lucifer is a standout, as is Lady Tremane and the Step-Sisters. Those animators love designing villains, don't they? I will admit that it's not my favorite of the classic pincess tales, but it's still a lot of fun. The transformation squennce is among the best parts with amazing and imaginitive designs that really come to life, alond with the race back home as the magic runs out. Cinderella is classic Disney, but we need a few more movies before we get to my favorite!

Here's some thoughts about the development of relationships in these old movies. Certainly through today's lens, much of the princess-style "romance" seems pretty haphazard, but take them in the time in which they were written (not the movies, the fairy-tales). It's not really so bad if you consider that the characters are archetypes who are 100% that thing they represent. Maybe she's rushing into marriage with this guy she barely knows, but that guy is a good guy who will be good to her and for her. She is good as well and a perfect match. He is the man of her dreams, and she is the woman of his. The cynical side of us knows that in real life that may not be the case, even when it seems like it is, but for the purposes of these stories, it can be accepted. They do, after all, live *happily ever after*.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Okay, now we're talkin'!
> 
> Of course Cinderella is a beautiful movie, with bright colors and some great character designs. Lucifer is a standout, as is Lady Tremane and the Step-Sisters. Those animators love designing villains, don't they? I will admit that it's not my favorite of the classic pincess tales, but it's still a lot of fun. The transformation squennce is among the best parts with amazing and imaginitive designs that really come to life, alond with the race back home as the magic runs out. Cinderella is classic Disney, but we need a few more movies before we get to my favorite!
> 
> Here's some thoughts about the development of relationships in these old movies. Certainly through today's lens, much of the princess-style "romance" seems pretty haphazard, but take them in the time in which they were written (not the movies, the fairy-tales). It's not really so bad if you consider that the characters are archetypes who are 100% that thing they represent. Maybe she's rushing into marriage with this guy she barely knows, but that guy is a good guy who will be good to her and for her. She is good as well and a perfect match. He is the man of her dreams, and she is the woman of his. The cynical side of us knows that in real life that may not be the case, even when it seem slike it is, but for the purposes of these stories, it can ba accepted. They do, after all, live *happily ever after*.



I am all for the Happily Ever Ever , but the cynical/poke a hole in everything British side of me still has a bit of a problem with the plot. I want to know a bit more about the Prince and Cinders romance


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 15: Alice in Wonderland*

What we both liked:

It looks wonderful! The colors, the slightly off-kilter backgrounds and the weird camera angles create a beautiful and very unsettling world. The characters are odd-looking and larger than life, which is a fantastic design choice. It's not the soft, perfect-looking world of Bambi or Snow White - this is a slightly dangerous place where you can never predict what's going to happen next. In fact, it's almost too good in this respect as it's so unpredictable and unsettling that it becomes hard to like.

The other big selling point of this movie is Alice herself. The girl who voices her is just so perfect. She sounds like perfect little English lady, but is also feisty, curious, airheaded, emotional and hopeful. I think the character is extremely well-written but mad props to Kathryn Beaumont for her performance. The moment where she sits and sings that she gives herself very good advice, but very seldom follows it (don’t we all!), is one of the moments in the film where the filmmakers actually get their audience to feel something. She delivers this big emotional moment for her character so well.

Many of the other performances in the movie are excellent too, being funny or scary or weird  (in fact, they're usually all three, for which Disney gets big adaptation points as I'm sure this is what Lewis Carroll was going for) but never managing to be sympathetic.

And so we turn to what we didn't like:

The flip side of this is that I couldn't really feel for any of the characters (and this is probably intentional). I haven't read the original books since I was a kid so I don't know whether this is something that's carried over from them or not, though I suspect it must be. 

The story is also very episodic and the different incidents seem to have very little to do with one another. In fact, given what they were working with (two surreal episodic books), the writers have actually done quite a good job of working an emotional arc in there for the main character. Also, while this adaptation may not have a coherent storyline, I have to remind myself that in the Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland the story was a much more ordinary 'hero's quest' type of story, with a beginning, a middle and a big climactic ending, and I don't feel it worked at all. So I'm conflicted!

All in all I'd say there's a lot to like in this film. It will never be one of our favourites because it does not seem to have as strong an emotional arc. However, it is fabulous to look at and really great at retaining the tone of the original stories.


----------



## Micca

Geez I'm so late to this, but Pinocchio is my #1 Disney animated movie.  The backgrounds!  The music, the characters--Jiminy Cricket is my all-time favorite sidekick.  This movie is PERFECT!

Fantasia and The Reluctant Dragon are wonderful, the Sorcerer's Apprentice is drop dead genius!

Dumbo is a masterpiece and it's just over an hour long.  The emotion is incredible.

Bambi is friggin' beautiful!

Saludos Amigos--the history behind this with Walt & co going to South America on a goodwill tour is very interesting.  I'm a sucker for 3 Caballeros too

Alice In Wonderland is another favorite. The music is fantastic and the characters are among my favorites--the Mad Hatter, The White Rabbit especially.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Day 15: Alice in Wonderland*
> 
> What we both liked:
> 
> It looks wonderful! The colors, the slightly off-kilter backgrounds and the weird camera angles create a beautiful and very unsettling world. The characters are odd-looking and larger than life, which is a fantastic design choice. It's not the soft, perfect-looking world of Bambi or Snow White - this is a slightly dangerous place where you can never predict what's going to happen next. In fact, it's almost too good in this respect as it's so unpredictable and unsettling that it becomes hard to like.
> 
> The other big selling point of this movie is Alice herself. The girl who voices her is just so perfect. She sounds like perfect little English lady, but is also feisty, curious, airheaded, emotional and hopeful. I think the character is extremely well-written but mad props to Kathryn Beaumont for her performance. The moment where she sits and sings that she gives herself very good advice, but very seldom follows it (don’t we all!), is one of the moments in the film where the filmmakers actually get their audience to feel something. She delivers this big emotional moment for her character so well.
> 
> Many of the other performances in the movie are excellent too, being funny or scary or weird  (in fact, they're usually all three, for which Disney gets big adaptation points as I'm sure this is what Lewis Carroll was going for) but never managing to be sympathetic.
> 
> And so we turn to what we didn't like:
> 
> The flip side of this is that I couldn't really feel for any of the characters (and this is probably intentional). I haven't read the original books since I was a kid so I don't know whether this is something that's carried over from them or not, though I suspect it must be.
> 
> The story is also very episodic and the different incidents seem to have very little to do with one another. In fact, given what they were working with (two surreal episodic books), the writers have actually done quite a good job of working an emotional arc in there for the main character. Also, while this adaptation may not have a coherent storyline, I have to remind myself that in the Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland the story was a much more ordinary 'hero's quest' type of story, with a beginning, a middle and a big climactic ending, and I don't feel it worked at all. So I'm conflicted!
> 
> All in all I'd say there's a lot to like in this film. It will never be one of our favourites because it does not seem to have as strong an emotional arc. However, it is fabulous to look at and really great at retaining the tone of the original stories.



Alice is indeed a weird movie, but then again that's probably appropriate considering the original material. I do agree that it doesn't flow, but it has some stunning visuals. It was unappreciated in it's time, but found popularity in the...ahem...60's. Personally, I actually liked the live action version, though the sequel lesss so. I love the ride at Disneyland though!


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Alice is indeed a weird movie, but then again that's probably appropriate considering the original material. I do agree that it doesn't flow, but it has some stunning visuals. It was unappreciated in it's time, but found popularity in the...ahem...60's. Personally, I actually liked the live action version, though the sequel lesss so. I love the ride at Disneyland though!


I'd love to go on that ride. DLP's labyrinth is showing its age a bit now and needs a bit of TLC, but it's still a stunning attraction to walk through and especially lovely in summer with all the jumping fountains etc.


----------



## RSandRS

Micca said:


> Geez I'm so late to this, but Pinocchio is my #1 Disney animated movie.  The backgrounds!  The music, the characters--Jiminy Cricket is my all-time favorite sidekick.  This movie is PERFECT!
> 
> Fantasia and The Reluctant Dragon are wonderful, the Sorcerer's Apprentice is drop dead genius!
> 
> Dumbo is a masterpiece and it's just over an hour long.  The emotion is incredible.
> 
> Bambi is friggin' beautiful!
> 
> Saludos Amigos--the history behind this with Walt & co going to South America on a goodwill tour is very interesting.  I'm a sucker for 3 Caballeros too
> 
> Alice In Wonderland is another favorite. The music is fantastic and the characters are among my favorites--the Mad Hatter, The White Rabbit especially.



Its been fantastic rewatching them/discovering new ones! My fav discovery being The Reluctant Dragon! We've still got a long long way to go so so you are not late at all! 

Next up Peter Pan...


----------



## Micca

I have a fairly complete set (just under a hundred titles) of all the Disney classics on dvd & blu-ray.   I was an early adopter of dvds so I snagged a number of titles that have disappeared like the Disney Treasures sets.  I watch the whole collection once per year, so these titles are all pretty fresh in my mind.

Peter Pan is a favorite but there's some pretty questionable stuff in there that would never see the light of day in this century, but the 50s were a different time.  There are so many great characters in Peter Pan--Capt. Hook, Smee, Tinkerbell.  I also love the music in Peter Pan.  Oddly Peter Pan doesn't shine as much as the aforementioned, which is the same thing with Alice (In Wonderland)  I have a couple of little granddaughters who love Disney movies but they haven't made it through Peter Pan.  The beginning with the scene in the nursery and the parents getting ready to go out is just too slow for them.  Watch Pan and compare it to the movies made more recently and you'll see what I mean.  

Quick anecdote re Alice:  My wife and I were on our honeymoon when a mid-70s re-release of Alice was in theaters and we decided we'd enjoy seeing it.  About 20 years later, DD is in the CP at WDW and gets assigned to "entertainment."  Her role?  Let's just say she became well acquainted with this Hatter dude and spent a lot of time hangin out by the teacups in Fantasyland.


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 16: Peter Pan (1953)*

We both very much enjoyed watching Peter Pan. Again the visuals are wonderful, especially the shots of them flying over London, Neverland from the air and the beautiful floating pirate ship at the end! I always wonder why this ride is so mobbed in the parks (although I love it myself) and these visuals are the reason why!  Additionally, the songs are really memorable.

After some discussion, we both agreed Hook is definitely the best villain up to this point in the watching marathon (although Lady Tremaine, the Evil Queen and Lucifer are all iconic). He actually has a motivation and manages to be funny and scary at the same time. The other characters are good too. I love the way Michael keeps repeating what John has said using other words. I had not noticed that before. Disneylife has some great documentaries about the film (as it does for most of the classics-highly recommended) and one of them tried to suggest Tink was a feminist icon, which given her motivations for doing most things in the film (jealousy of other female characters) I take a bit of an issue with. She's a great character, but I'm not buying that interpretation Disney! 

The film is very dated in certain respects and again it brings up the question of how Disney deals with problematic elements of its historical filmmaking and why films such as Song of the South are banned entirely, but the treatment of Native American peoples in this film is unaddressed.

Next stop Lady and the Tramp!


----------



## RSandRS

Micca said:


> I have a fairly complete set (just under a hundred titles) of all the Disney classics on dvd & blu-ray.   I was an early adopter of dvds so I snagged a number of titles that have disappeared like the Disney Treasures sets.  I watch the whole collection once per year, so these titles are all pretty fresh in my mind.
> 
> Peter Pan is a favorite but there's some pretty questionable stuff in there that would never see the light of day in this century, but the 50s were a different time.  There are so many great characters in Peter Pan--Capt. Hook, Smee, Tinkerbell.  I also love the music in Peter Pan.  Oddly Peter Pan doesn't shine as much as the aforementioned, which is the same thing with Alice (In Wonderland)  I have a couple of little granddaughters who love Disney movies but they haven't made it through Peter Pan.  The beginning with the scene in the nursery and the parents getting ready to go out is just too slow for them.  Watch Pan and compare it to the movies made more recently and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> Quick anecdote re Alice:  My wife and I were on our honeymoon when a mid-70s re-release of Alice was in theaters and we decided we'd enjoy seeing it.  About 20 years later, DD is in the CP at WDW and gets assigned to "entertainment."  Her role?  Let's just say she became well acquainted with this Hatter dude and spent a lot of time hangin out by the teacups in Fantasyland.


Ah how wonderful for her! Must be a fantastic part to play, lots of great interactions!

I agree the opening scene is quite long and as a child, I was eager for them to get flying. I now appreciate the humor in the interactions allot more (especially the way they all ignore the trials Mr Darling), but again its not a fave! Got to hit the 90s before both our favs start popping up!

I would never have thought a project like this would have been possible as we only own a few Disney films, its just lucky Disney life or youtube has most. I would love to have a collection


----------



## kpd6901

RSandRS said:


> Ah how wonderful for her! Must be a fantastic part to play, lots of great interactions!
> 
> I agree the opening scene is quite long and as a child, I was eager for them to get flying. I now appreciate the humor in the interactions allot more (especially the way they all ignore the trials Mr Darling), but again its not a fave! Got to hit the 90s before both our favs start popping up!
> 
> I would never have thought a project like this would have been possible as we only own a few Disney films, its just lucky Disney life or youtube has most. I would love to have a collection


When I was a kid growing up in the 80s, we only had Lady and the Tramp and Peter Pan on VHS, that I recall. We began our Disney movie collection (both hard copy and digital if at all possible) in earnest a few years ago (I mean, of course we would pick up the new releases as they came out), and dealing with the Disney vault is frustrating (understandable, but frustrating), especially when you want to make sure that there is a proper digital collection. I just knew that Peter Pan would be a hit with our two youngest kids. Once it was re-released earlier this year, I snagged it, along with Return to Neverland, and boy oh boy was I right. My youngest begs to watch at least one of them every day. He jumps all over the furniture trying to fly. We keep reminding him that he needs pixie dust in order to fly. So we need to make sure that he does NOT meet Tinkerbell on our upcoming trip. We fear he will grab her, shake her, and drag her all over in order to get some pixie dust so he can properly fly....and not just "the Buzz Light-year kind" of falling with style that he's been doing!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Day 16: Peter Pan (1953)*
> 
> We both very much enjoyed watching Peter Pan. Again the visuals are wonderful, especially the shots of them flying over London, Neverland from the air and the beautiful floating pirate ship at the end! I always wonder why this ride is so mobbed in the parks (although I love it myself) and these visuals are the reason why!  Additionally, the songs are really memorable.
> 
> After some discussion, we both agreed Hook is definitely the best villain up to this point in the watching marathon (although Lady Tremaine, the Evil Queen and Lucifer are all iconic). He actually has a motivation and manages to be funny and scary at the same time. The other characters are good too. I love the way Michael keeps repeating what John has said using other words. I had not noticed that before. Disneylife has some great documentaries about the film (as it does for most of the classics-highly recommended) and one of them tried to suggest Tink was a feminist icon, which given her motivations for doing most things in the film (jealousy of other female characters) I take a bit of an issue with. She's a great character, but I'm not buying that interpretation Disney!
> 
> The film is very dated in certain respects and again it brings up the question of how Disney deals with problematic elements of its historical filmmaking and why films such as Song of the South are banned entirely, but the treatment of Native American peoples in this film is unaddressed.
> 
> Next stop Lady and the Tramp!



Peter Pan is definitely a great movie, despite the fact that I don't much care for the titular character. He's petulant, selfish, and practically a sociopath. He's fun to watch, but I'm not sympathetic. I can imagine that Hook may even have been some kind of respectable sailor before Pan literally drove him insane. He abducts children and plays his friends off of one another. The movie is practically a farce, but in a good way. The only character in the whole thing who acts any kind of responsibly is Nana. Poor Nana!

Anyway, the songs are great, the colors pop, and overall it's a fun ride through a fun world. Personally, I'm just not that sensitive to some of the outdated depictions. I mean, yeah, they're pretty on the nose, but I don't think it was meant to be insulting. I mean, I see how it *is* insulting, but I don't think that was the intent. I can take it for what it is from the time in which it was made.


----------



## Micca

RSandRS said:


> We both very much enjoyed watching Peter Pan. Again the visuals are wonderful, especially the shots of them flying over London, Neverland from the air and the beautiful floating pirate ship at the end!


Great post, and yes the visuals you mentioned are pretty much iconic.  When they're flying over London and land on the hands of the clock on Big Ben practically makes the whole movie for me.  

Lady and the Tramp is not a big favorite of mine but it does have a lot going for it.  Obviously the Bella Notte scene with the spaghetti is among the most famous scenes in any movie.  You could reference that scene in a conversation and 90 percent of people would get the reference.  My favorite character is the chef who calls Tramp "Butch."  I think they also captured "first night with a new puppy" very well.  I also enjoy that L&TT is filmed in Cinemascope, I believe it was the first animated feature utilizing the techonology.


----------



## RSandRS

kpd6901 said:


> When I was a kid growing up in the 80s, we only had Lady and the Tramp and Peter Pan on VHS, that I recall. We began our Disney movie collection (both hard copy and digital if at all possible) in earnest a few years ago (I mean, of course we would pick up the new releases as they came out), and dealing with the Disney vault is frustrating (understandable, but frustrating), especially when you want to make sure that there is a proper digital collection. I just knew that Peter Pan would be a hit with our two youngest kids. Once it was re-released earlier this year, I snagged it, along with Return to Neverland, and boy oh boy was I right. My youngest begs to watch at least one of them every day. He jumps all over the furniture trying to fly. We keep reminding him that he needs pixie dust in order to fly. So we need to make sure that he does NOT meet Tinkerbell on our upcoming trip. We fear he will grab her, shake her, and drag her all over in order to get some pixie dust so he can properly fly....and not just "the Buzz Light-year kind" of falling with style that he's been doing!



Haha I wish him all the luck with his flying! Tink flying above the castle will be an epic moment for him (luckily she's too high for him to grab! 

Never watched Return to Neverland, will have to check it out.


----------



## kpd6901

RSandRS said:


> Never watched Return to Neverland, will have to check it out.



As with almost all the direct-to-video sequels, it leaves a lot to be desired....so go into it with that type of mentality. 

I must say, though, that I thoroughly enjoyed Lion King 1&half. Very, very well done.


----------



## RSandRS

Agree about Peter Pan and Nana! Poor Nana!

Its part of our review process to look at these movies through a 21st century and female lens because that's who we are. We're in no way offended - these are just cartoons - and Disney's failings of various kinds over the years haven't made us love them any less, but we want to look at the whole picture. 

Tink is a great example of this. I don't think anyone at the time she was designed would have suggested that she was a feminist character. She's sexy, feisty and naughty. Not to mention an attempted murderer. She then became Walt's symbol for his TV specials, a symbol of magic and the Disney brand and eventually ended up looking like butter-wouldn't-melt on every bit of merchandise they could slap her face on, aimed at everybody from babies to adults. And then some time in the early 2000s someone felt she needed a bit of a rebrand, so they decided she was a feminist. This for me makes the character, and how perceptions of her have changed over the years, even more interesting.

We love happily ever after and princesses and fairies and talking animals and brilliant characters making their dreams come true. However, there's always a lot going on in the world when Disney films are being created and looking at that context and the effects that it had, both good and bad, is important and fun too!


----------



## BrianL

kpd6901 said:


> As with almost all the direct-to-video sequels, it leaves a lot to be desired....so go into it with that type of mentality.
> 
> I must say, though, that I thoroughly enjoyed Lion King 1&half. Very, very well done.



_Return to Neverland_ was not direct-to-video and was released to theaters in 2002. The production was not led by the production studio fro the DTV sequel films, though they did contribute. It was given a theatrical budget as well. I've never seen it, so I can't really speak about it's quality on the whole, but it was indeed a theatrical release.


----------



## kpd6901

BrianL said:


> _Return to Neverland_ was not direct-to-video and was released to theaters in 2002. The production was not led by the production studio fro the DTV sequel films, though they did contribute. It was given a theatrical budget as well. I've never seen it, so I can't really speak about it's quality on the whole, but it was indeed a theatrical release.


Well. Huh. Yes, you're right...then again, it was apparently originally going to be DTV, and the reviews are similar.


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 17: Lady and the Tramp (1955)*

Lady and the Tramp is a really lovely movie. It seems a shame that it gets a bit overlooked sometimes because there's loads about it that's really good. Everyone knows that one scene with the spaghetti, but I think a lot of people don't remember much about the rest of the movie. 

As an adult I really liked the beginning of the movie, which establishes the characters of Lady, Jim Dear and Darling and the two next door neighbour dogs really effectively. I think I didn't really pay much attention to the humans when I was a kid, but seeing Jim Dear going out in a blizzard to get watermelon and chop suey for his pregnant wife some time around the turn of the century makes me like him a lot. I have a suspicion though that a child watching this movie would find it a bit slow to start off with. The dramatic events don't really start until Aunt Sarah turns up with the Siamese cats which is a good 20-25 minutes or so into the movie. 

As I said though, as an adult I don't mind that they take things quite slow. I like that this movie spends time on establishing the relationships between its characters, and not just between Lady and the Tramp, but between Lady and her two friends as well. And these four characters are all very likeable and cute, which is nice to see after Alice and Peter Pan, where many of the characters are difficult to like. I also really liked all the stray dog characters that Lady meets in the pound. The song that Peg sings is absolutely brilliant - one of the best we've heard so far I think.

Although we placed the movie somewhere in what we call the Edwardian period in the UK (not sure what it's called in the US) we had a bit of trouble working out where it was taking place. Does anybody know? Wherever it was it looked very idyllic and pretty and as usual was wonderfully designed by the Disney artists.

My one criticism might be that the movie is a bit too nice and maybe a bit safe. Everything is pretty and there's no villain except for the slightly underdeveloped rat and Aunt Sarah who is just a bit annoying because her villainy comes from misunderstanding situations. There's also no standout comedy moments - though the beaver and the log puller had us chuckling. As a result of being a bit safe, the movie doesn't make a huge impression, which is maybe why it gets overlooked. This is a very mild criticism though, because it's a lovely film, which we really enjoyed watching.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Day 17: Lady and the Tramp (1955)*
> 
> Lady and the Tramp is a really lovely movie. It seems a shame that it gets a bit overlooked sometimes because there's loads about it that's really good. Everyone knows that one scene with the spaghetti, but I think a lot of people don't remember much about the rest of the movie.
> 
> As an adult I really liked the beginning of the movie, which establishes the characters of Lady, Jim Dear and Darling and the two next door neighbour dogs really effectively. I think I didn't really pay much attention to the humans when I was a kid, but seeing Jim Dear going out in a blizzard to get watermelon and chop suey for his pregnant wife some time around the turn of the century makes me like him a lot. I have a suspicion though that a child watching this movie would find it a bit slow to start off with. The dramatic events don't really start until Aunt Sarah turns up with the Siamese cats which is a good 20-25 minutes or so into the movie.
> 
> As I said though, as an adult I don't mind that they take things quite slow. I like that this movie spends time on establishing the relationships between its characters, and not just between Lady and the Tramp, but between Lady and her two friends as well. And these four characters are all very likeable and cute, which is nice to see after Alice and Peter Pan, where many of the characters are difficult to like. I also really liked all the stray dog characters that Lady meets in the pound. The song that Peg sings is absolutely brilliant - one of the best we've heard so far I think.
> 
> Although we placed the movie somewhere in what we call the Edwardian period in the UK (not sure what it's called in the US) we had a bit of trouble working out where it was taking place. Does anybody know? Wherever it was it looked very idyllic and pretty and as usual was wonderfully designed by the Disney artists.
> 
> My one criticism might be that the movie is a bit too nice and maybe a bit safe. Everything is pretty and there's no villain except for the slightly underdeveloped rat and Aunt Sarah who is just a bit annoying because her villainy comes from misunderstanding situations. There's also no standout comedy moments - though the beaver and the log puller had us chuckling. As a result of being a bit safe, the movie doesn't make a huge impression, which is maybe why it gets overlooked. This is a very mild criticism though, because it's a lovely film, which we really enjoyed watching.



I haven't seen this one in quite some time. I really should pick up that Signature Edition that is in stores now (same for Peter Pan). I remember really liking the Siamese cats though and their creepy singing. You've gotta love that Disney Naming: Darling and Jim Dear! Lady and the Tramp takes place in 1909, so about the same time as the Aristocats. It's pretty easy to see these two taking place in the same world. Anyway, I wish I had more to say about it, but I just don't remember the details.


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 18: Sleeping Beauty (1959)*

I did not watch this film for years as Maleficent really scared me as a child. I don’t think any other character in any other medium terrified me so much. The scene with the green spot was particularly unsettling, as a child I could not understand what was happening to Sleeping Beauty. Sadly, I also could not listen to that particular piece of  Tchaikovsky music for ages as it brought back memories of the scene.

Thankfully, and finally, as an adult, I can watch this movie for the first time and really enjoy it. While the story is incredibly thin on the ground, it is undoubtedly an artistic masterpiece. You could freeze any frame and have an incredible piece of art.

As far as criticism goes, the main characters are once again a little underdeveloped and poor Aurora suffers the same fate as Snow White and Cinderella - her movie is wrestled away from her by second-tier characters, in this case the three good fairies. However, the fairies are really cute so I don’t mind too much. Basically, this movie has to be appreciated in a different way, as it’s more a work of art than a children’s fairytale. So on to what we liked!

We both adored the way they drew on inspiration from medieval artwork and tapestries. The whole aesthetic of the film is so unique and really sets it apart from other Disney classics. The backgrounds are just stunning, I love the box trees in the forest! And there are some really iconic scenes; Prince Philip (with the fairies help) fighting the dragon being my personal favourite!

This piece has a lot fewer comedy sketches than films such as Snow White, but there are some excellent moments, e.g. the drunk bard and more famously the fairies fighting over the colour of the dress. Additionally, the decision not to go with a 'Disneyfied' score and to use the ballet music was genius. However ‘Once Upon a Dream’ is a beautiful addition and Aurora sings it beautifully.

The scene with the green spot may have terrified me as a kid, but the way they marry the animation and the score is excellent, no wonder it had such an impact. Wow, just realised I used a lot of superlatives (and this is not even a Renaissance film, where will we be when I get to my actual faves), can you tell we liked this one?  

Again Sleeping Beauty will never be either of our favourites, but I am so glad I can watch it now and enjoy it as a fantastic piece of art (and kind of the end of an era in animation)!


----------



## BrianL

Now, Sleeping Beauty *is* probably my favroite of the classic Disney films, and I've watched it recently too. You are right in that is is just plain gorgeous, and the backgrounds among the best of any animated film ever made. I love this film, and yeah, it's thin, but it has that high fantasy vibe. Prince Philip is so great too! He handles his business like a boss, but never comes off as arrogant. The action sequences are spectacular! This is one for the ages and one of the best Disney classics.


----------



## RSandRS

[Prince Philip is so great too! He handles his business like a boss, but never comes off as arrogant]

Totally agree, he definitely the best of the Disney heroes so far. I love how he simply ignores his father when told he is to marry a woman he has not met. I also like the fact that when he battles the dragon, they make it look like an effort and he's not jumping around the place unrealistically. Plus he is not above getting help!

We shall definitely be visiting the sleeping dragon under DLP castle when we go. Maybe on Halloween night would be a good time!


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 19: One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961)*

We both really enjoyed watching this one again (it has been a while). I love the modern aesthetic and the fact that the film was set at the time it was made. This makes it kind of unique in regard to the films we have seen up till now.

I adore the original story and they did a really good job of getting all the key moments of Dodie Smith's book into the Disney version. The twilight bark is a wonderful idea taken from the book, which works really well here (with characters from Lady and the Tramp participating). It is probably the best sequence in the movie, although the dalmations covered in soot and escaping under the Horace, Jasper and Cruella’s noses and Roger delivering the ‘bluesy’ Cruella De Vil and dancing his wife round the living room are highlights too This really is the ultimate song about a Disney villain!  In general, the film is well paced with all the action serving the story and as we've seen that wasn't always the case with these movies.

The characters and the relationships between them are also well developed. I love the relationship between Roger and Anita and the fact that they have the same silly sense of humour. I wish Perdita could have a tiny bit more agency, but the dalmations, in general, are well characterised. Cruella and her minions are of course great. She’s iconic!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Day 19: One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961)*
> 
> We both really enjoyed watching this one again (it has been a while). I love the modern aesthetic and the fact that the film was set at the time it was made. This makes it kind of unique in regard to the films we have seen up till now.
> 
> I adore the original story and they did a really good job of getting all the key moments of Dodie Smith's book into the Disney version. The twilight bark is a wonderful idea taken from the book, which works really well here (with characters from Lady and the Tramp participating). It is probably the best sequence in the movie, although the dalmations covered in soot and escaping under the Horace, Jasper and Cruella’s noses and Roger delivering the ‘bluesy’ Cruella De Vil and dancing his wife round the living room are highlights too This really is the ultimate song about a Disney villain!  In general, the film is well paced with all the action serving the story and as we've seen that wasn't always the case with these movies.
> 
> The characters and the relationships between them are also well developed. I love the relationship between Roger and Anita and the fact that they have the same silly sense of humour. I wish Perdita could have a tiny bit more agency, but the dalmations, in general, are well characterised. Cruella and her minions are of course great. She’s iconic!



So, haven't seen 101 in so long that I doubt I could even comment on the content beyond the Cruella De Vil song, which is really great, and it's funny that a character in the movie actually made it up and there is worry that he'll get caught making fun of Cruella. In my and my friends 'opinion, Cruella wins the title for *most evil* Disney villain. I mean, sure there are the conquer-the-kingdom types, the evil sorceresses, even the great demon Chernabog. Honestly though, I think even they draw the line at killing a bunch of puppies for a coat! I mean, man, that's all kinds of wrong.


----------



## RSandRS

[In my and my friends 'opinion, Cruella wins the title for *most evil* Disney villain. I mean, sure there are the conquer-the-kingdom types, the evil sorceresses, even the great demon Chernabog. Honestly though, I think even they draw the line at killing a bunch of puppies for a coat! I mean, man, that's all kinds of wrong.[/QUOTE]

She is evil, though I think for me Scar wins. Fratricide and then makes his nephew think he is to blame!

Cruella and McLeish from rescuers down under would get on well...


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 20: The Sword and The Stone (1963)*

I’ve never really liked this one and both of us found this to be the case this time around as well. Its strange really because you would think the story of King Arthur’s boyhood would be really interesting and exciting.

Part of the problem, I think is the actual trajectory of the story itself, which seems very episodic and not actually serving the greater narrative in the way Dalmations does so well. When Arthur does pull the sword from the stone it is an accident and he does not seem any better prepared or willing then he was before Merlin’s teaching. The filmmakers seem to be wanting to make some philosophical statement about education for education's sake which is great and I am all for, but attempts to make this point keep getting hijacked by ‘comedy’ moments and songs, which don’t seem to fit.

What is with the wolf that keeps following Merlin and Arthur around? Is he supposed to represent the strong preying on the weak? Because if so, the design of the character doesn’t suit the theme at all, as he’s so weedy and pathetic.

Archimedes and Merlin are great characters. I am not sure how Madame Mim really serves the story, but she is fun to have around as well.

I believe Merlin’s statements at the end about the advantages of TV and full films is the first instance of Disney obviously adopting a ‘self aware’ approach. Good try guys, I chuckled, but you didn't quite pull it off.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> [In my and my friends 'opinion, Cruella wins the title for *most evil* Disney villain. I mean, sure there are the conquer-the-kingdom types, the evil sorceresses, even the great demon Chernabog. Honestly though, I think even they draw the line at killing a bunch of puppies for a coat! I mean, man, that's all kinds of wrong.



She is evil, though I think for me Scar wins. Fratricide and then makes his nephew think he is to blame!

Cruella and McLeish from rescuers down under would get on well...[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but at least Scar had an agenda - to rule and to feed his hyena friends. I mean, yeah, it's pretty bad, but Cruella's only motive was fashion. That's just wrong!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Day 20: The Sword and The Stone (1963)*
> 
> I’ve never really liked this one and both of us found this to be the case this time around as well. Its strange really because you would think the story of King Arthur’s boyhood would be really interesting and exciting.
> 
> Part of the problem, I think is the actual trajectory of the story itself, which seems very episodic and not actually serving the greater narrative in the way Dalmations does so well. When Arthur does pull the sword from the stone it is an accident and he does not seem any better prepared or willing then he was before Merlin’s teaching. The filmmakers seem to be wanting to make some philosophical statement about education for education's sake which is great and I am all for, but attempts to make this point keep getting hijacked by ‘comedy’ moments and songs, which don’t seem to fit.
> 
> What is with the wolf that keeps following Merlin and Arthur around? Is he supposed to represent the strong preying on the weak? Because if so, the design of the character doesn’t suit the theme at all, as he’s so weedy and pathetic.
> 
> Archimedes and Merlin are great characters. I am not sure how Madame Mim really serves the story, but she is fun to have around as well.
> 
> I believe Merlin’s statements at the end about the advantages of TV and full films is the first instance of Disney obviously adopting a ‘self aware’ approach. Good try guys, I chuckled, but you didn't quite pull it off.



This is one that I agree could have been so much more. It actually feels like one of the package pictures with its episodic nature, and some episodes are better than others. The magic battle with Madame Mim would be a highlight, though I agree that it really serves no purpose in the overall narrative. Still, there are some very nice characters here and iconic Disney imagery, but as a whole the story falls flat.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> This is one that I agree could have been so much more. It actually feels like one of the package pictures with it's episodic nature, and some episodes are better than others. The magic battle with Madame Mim would be a highlight, though I agree that it really serves no purpose in the overall narrative. Still, there are some very nice characters here and iconic Disney imagery, but as a whole the story falls flat.



It's actually the first one that I have thought really needs the live-action remake.


----------



## Micca

Oops, gotta catch up quickly!

Sleeping Beauty:  This was the first of the Disney classics to be released on bluray and it is STUNNING.  The story and the characters are fine, but it's the stylized artwork that really makes it great for me (square trees!)

101 Dalmatians:  I think this was the first Disney movie I saw as a new release in theaters way back when.  It might have been the first animated VHS home release Disney did, it also seems that it was among the very first Disney DVDs.  Fun to note that when the puppies are all gathered round watching tv that the animated clip "airing" on the tv is one of the Silly Symphonies (I think it's "Flowers & Trees.")

Sword In the Stone:  One of the weakest titles up to that point.  I do love Merlin, but the rest...


----------



## RSandRS

*Mary Poppins (1964)*

So we cheated a little bit on this one and deviated from the list of Disney animated films we've been following in order to watch...Mary Poppins! We're not cheating that badly though, as there is quite a lot of animation in Mary Poppins. I would say almost as much as in Song of The South, which was on the list. There's also lots more animation in Mary Poppins than you think there is, as there's a few bits where they sort of trick your eye by using a more photorealistic style.

Also we just really wanted to watch Mary Poppins as its been ages.

This was probably my sisters favourite of the movies we've watched so far in terms of story and songs. Even though it's a pretty long film at 2 hours 20 minutes, it feels really well paced. There's time for lots of moments of sheer unadulterated joy but also quiet contemplative moments; even some moments that pretty much had her welling up! (she’s a softie!)

The songs all encapsulate these moments beautifully. The Sherman bros killed it with all of the songs in this movie. And of course, the actors, in particular, Julie Andrews (
	

	
	
		
		

		
			
		
		
	


	




), perform them brilliantly.

Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke are of course the standouts in this movie. Although his accent is truly dreadful, you don't mind a bit because in every other way his performance is so perfect. He can sing, dance, act and just exudes charm in every way. He is delightful and moments like Supercalifragilous (never tried spelling that before) just wouldn't work without him.

Julie Andrews is just perfection. She has one of the most beautiful singing voices I've ever heard but also has superb comic timing and can kick it in the big dance numbers too. It's hard to overstate how good she is in this movie! The character she creates is very different from the Mary Poppins of the books, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, as from what I remember, the books are quite dark and Mary Poppins a much less likeable character.

All the other actors are great too. As is the set design and the animated sections. There is nothing compared to some of the animation we’ve seen up to this point, but the way animation and film are blended together is gorgeous.

Basically I could go on and on about how much we enjoyed this movie. So I'll stop there.

...

We’ll be on a break for a couple of weeks now as we are off on holiday with no access to TV/film  Will be back with more reviews in early September! I think its the Jungle Book next!

Many thanks to anyone following along!


----------



## BrianL

Well, what is there to say about Mary Poppins? The word masterpiece comes to mind. _*It's practically perfect in every way!*_ Also, what's wrong with Dick Van Dyke's accent? Don't all you Brits talk like that? 

If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend the film Saving Mr. Banks. It seems these days that nobody can mention Mary Poppins without bringing this movie up, but it really is terrific. Now, I just hope this sequel they are cooking up lives up to the legacy.

Have fun on your holiday. I'll miss checking for the reviews. I've really been enjoying this thread and it reminds me of a few films that I need to catch up on myself.


----------



## RSandRS

<a href="http://distickers.com/ticker/"><img src="http://distickers.com/ticker/tickers/e6rufltoxw5wj8cd.png" alt="DIStickers.com Ticker" border="0"/></a>
[Also, what's wrong with Dick Van Dyke's accent? Don't all you Brits talk like that? ]

Hehe, not one single Brit talks like that! He invented his own American cockney sound! 
I did really enjoy Saving Mr Banks, and this made me want to rewatch it
Till September!


----------



## Micca

Mary Poppins really is just about perfect, in its genre I think it's the best movie ever made just edging out Wizard Of Oz.  The actors are so well-cast and for Julie Andrews it's the role of a lifetime.  Dick Van Dyke is brilliant even though the accent is a mess--I can live with that.  The music is the pinnacle of the Sherman Bros and the matte paintings for backgrounds are like something out of a dream.  Just for fun I checked the critic's score for MP on Rotten Tomatoes:  It's 100%.

Sidebar on Saving Mr. Banks:  I didn't care for this movie.  I loved the parts depicting Walt and Disneyland, but the backstory on Travers was just a bummer.  I saw it one time in the theater, should I give it another shot?


----------



## BrianL

Micca said:


> Mary Poppins really is just about perfect, in its genre I think it's the best movie ever made just edging out Wizard Of Oz.  The actors are so well-cast and for Julie Andrews it's the role of a lifetime.  Dick Van Dyke is brilliant even though the accent is a mess--I can live with that.  The music is the pinnacle of the Sherman Bros and the matte paintings for backgrounds are like something out of a dream.  Just for fun I checked the critic's score for MP on Rotten Tomatoes:  It's 100%.
> 
> Sidebar on Saving Mr. Banks:  I didn't care for this movie.  I loved the parts depicting Walt and Disneyland, but the backstory on Travers was just a bummer.  I saw it one time in the theater, should I give it another shot?



Well, the parts that show the backstory on Travers are a bit slow. They are also pretty sad. She had a sad life with her Father's issues. It would have been easy for the movie to make Walt the "bad guy" but it really doesn't do that. It does create some sympathy for Travers through the driver character. I do feel like they could have trimmed a bit of the Australia parts, but the rest is just so good it keeps it afloat for me


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 21: The Jungle Book (1967)*

Back and ready for more reviews!...I think its actually more like day 23 because we had to extras, Song of the South and Mary Poppins so maybe I will start with 24 next time...anyway...

We definitely enjoyed this one - it would be hard not to as it’s so fun. It’s definitely more of a comedic crowd pleaser, in the style of Robin Hood or The Aristocats, than one of the heavy, artistic pieces, or the romantic Disney princess films. It’s never been one of my favourites, but there’s certainly lots of enjoy here.

Of course the most enjoyable aspect is the music. Bare Necessities is a classic by any standards and Phil Harris sings it wonderfully, and so is I Wanna Be Like You - we were wondering how much of it is improvised. They’re the type of songs that get stuck in your head and you’re humming them for days - and still know all the words 25 years after hearing them for the first time! I don’t think I really paid much attention to the incidental background music when I was a kid, but it’s very beautiful. It's very different from the songs and they maybe don’t quite belong in the same movie, but I think it just about works.

The cast are all really good, in particular Phil Harris. I also couldn’t help noticing that Shere Khan has quite a sexy voice...just me? OK then, moving on. The decision to have the vultures as the Beatles sort of works. Their song is a bit like British invasion music and one or two of them seem to be trying to do Liverpool accents. It feels little bit half-arsed though.

I think it’s maybe the plot that lets the movie down a little bit. It’s again quite episodic (which I think is down to the original novel, though I haven’t read it) and doesn’t completely hang together as a complete story. There’s some great standout moments (mostly centred around the songs), but also a fair amount of filler. The ending is also a bit weird, with the girl popping up at the last minute and changing Mowgli’s mind about going to the man-village - something he’s been pretty certain he’s not going to do throughout the whole of the rest of the movie, even after being attacked by a tiger. The live action version changed the ending and had Mowgli stay in the jungle, which I think was a really good choice. I actually thought the live action Jungle Book was pretty great all round.

Overall not an amazing film - it didn’t have me on the edge of my seat - but it definitely had me giggling and tapping my toes, which I think is what it set out to do.


----------



## Micca

Were we going to discuss Song Of The South?  I think I missed that discussion.  If you decide to go there, I have thoughts.

As for Jungle Book, I love the music but I don't think the animation is peak Disney.  One of my favorite things about Disney animation is the attention paid to the background art, it's very intricate in some cases, and the color palette makes the scenes really come alive.  In The Jungle Book there is quite a bit of empty space/sky backgrounds which leave the scene somewhat lifeless.  I do agree that the voicework is good and there are a couple of classic Disney songs in it.
I'm glad you mentioned The Beatles impression with the buzzards.  As a fan of the  Beatles I've always been intrigued with the "what if?" scenario where they had agreed to do the voices.  I don't think the music from that sequence is Brit invasion influenced though, I'd say it's more Barbershop.


----------



## RSandRS

Micca said:


> Were we going to discuss Song Of The South?  I think I missed that discussion.  If you decide to go there, I have thoughts.
> 
> [In The Jungle Book there is quite a bit of empty space/sky backgrounds which leave the scene somewhat lifeless]
> 
> I did discuss Song of the South a bit further back-We initially could not get hold of it, so the watching of it was a bit out of sequence, but I did talk a bit about it. It certainly throws up some issues about how Disney chooses to deal with problematic elements of its past.
> 
> -Yes, I totally agree. There is a lovely bit with the moon on the river, but apart from that the backgrounds are a bit still and do not really capture a jungle feel.
> 
> -Barbershop is def in there too


----------



## BrianL

Yeah, Jungle Book is a classic, even if the animation quality is not quite as high as previous films. The songs make up for that, as there are quite a few great ones. I haven't seen the original cartoon in a while, but I do remember it. It's not a favorite other than the music, but I do appreciate it. I also appreciate that it gave us TaleSpin, which will forever cement its legacy of greatness!


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Yeah, Jungle Book is a classic, even if the animation quality is not quite as high as previous films. The songs make up for that, as there are quite a few great ones. I haven't seen the original cartoon in a while, but I do remember it. It's not a favorite other than the music, but I do appreciate it. I also appreciate that it gave us TaleSpin, which will forever cement its legacy of greatness!



Actually never watched TaleSpin, I did not realise its characters were from The Jungle Book!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> Actually never watched TaleSpin, I did not realise its characters were from The Jungle Book!



Oh, my! TaleSpin is brilliant!

The premise of the show is that they used the characters from The Jungle Book, however they turned it into a 1920's adventure universe focusing on airplanes and piloting. It's a little Indiana Jones, a little African Queen, and a little Only Angels Have Wings. Baloo is a cargo pilot, but is flat broke, so his new investor becomes his boss, Ms. Rebecca. She was a new character for the show, along with Kit, the spunky young sidekick. King Louie runs the local watering hole/club, and Shere Khan is the ruthless kingpin. The world is kinda incredible, a bit over kids' heads, and overall kind of amazingly brave. I haven't watched it in quite some time, but just take a look at the character designs, and you can see they had something really special there. I always loved it!


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 24: The Aristocats (1970)*


I was definitely still humming the theme tune to this one this morning.  The Aristocats is a highly enjoyable film. It's not up there with Disney’s greats, but nevertheless, it's really likeable.


The story is decent and doesn’t fall into the trap of feeling too episodic, although that is the nature of the plot if you really think about it. I would say the sections with Edgar and the dogs really let the rest of the plot down though. They have nothing to do with anything else that’s happening in the story and only serve to further undermine Edgar, a possible nominee for title of Disney’s Worst Villain Ever?


Edgar’s motivations are possibly even sillier than those of the Evil Queen from Snow White - why not just wait for the cats to die of natural causes meanwhile spending all their cash? It’s not like they could argue. And what self-respecting villain gets outwitted by a bunch of cats? Oh Edgar, smh.


Apart from Edgar the characters are pretty great. Duchess and Thomas have very cute repartee and both of those voice actors are extremely likeable. Can’t wait to see Eva Gabor back for The Rescuers! The kittens are also great fun, in particular, Marie. I think I may have internalised the lesson ‘Ladies don’t start fights but they can finish them’ at some point in my childhood and have been living by it ever since, tee hee.


The second tier characters are a mixed bunch, but the alley cats are truly awesome. Yes, I know there are some culturally questionable ones in there, but they are just so likeable! Ev’rybody Wants to Be a Cat is a fantastic song and that whole sequence is definitely the best part of the film. The rest of the songs fade into the background a little bit when compared to other Disney songs, unfortunately. Not that they’re not enjoyable, they just don’t especially stand out.


The animation seems weaker. The characters look a little scruffy and the backgrounds flat and a bit uninteresting, without the cool stylistic notes that made 101 Dalmatians work. The Ev’rybody Wants to Be a Cat sequence is an exception however and the use of colours throughout the song is part of what makes it such a standout part of the film.


Overall an OK film; some great characters and witty dialogue and one fabulous song. *Starts singing Ev’rybody Wants to Be a Cat to self*


----------



## BrianL

Well, I am a big fan of the Aristocats! Yeah, it's not a top-tier Disney movie, but it has great music and great heart. The animation is from the xerography era, and that has its flaws. Still, I enjoy this one quite a bit. Maurice Chevalier came out of retirement to record the title song, and of course Everybody Wants to be a Cat is pretty amazing. You can look at Scat Cat's crew as an attempt at cultural diversity, though every one of them is the epitome of the stereotype for that region. Apparently, there are cut scenes where Edgar had a love interest (the maid of course) and that was part of his motivation to take the money, but they cut that pretty much. There was even a song.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Well, I am a big fan of the Aristocats! Yeah, it's not a top-tier Disney movie, but it has great music and great heart. The animation is from the xerography era, and that has it's flaws. Still, I enjoy this one quite a bit. Maurice Chevalier came out of retirement to record the title song, and of course Everybody Wants to be a Cat is pretty amazing. You can look at Scat Cat's crew as an attempt at cultural diversity, though every one of them is the epitome of the stereotype for that region. Apparently, there are cut scenes where Edgar had a love interest (the maid of course) and that was part of his motivation to take the money, but they cut that pretty much. There was even a song.


Ha I'd like to see that song! Poor Edgar, he has a point, the cats inheriting is crazy (I'd be annoyed), but his plan is not well thought out!


----------



## Micca

I've never seen this movie, it looked weak to me.  Maybe I'll catch it with the grandkids some time.


----------



## RSandRS

Micca said:


> I've never seen this movie, it looked weak to me.  Maybe I'll catch it with the grandkids some time.


Its definitely worth a watch!


----------



## RSandRS

*Robin Hood (1973)*

Although I’ve seen it many many times before I was really looking forward to this one coming round. It is one of my sisters favourite Disney movies of all time. Probably in her top four or five and one I really really enjoy as well. It is one of Disney’s funniest films - which when you think about the Aladdins, Zootopias and Incredibles of this world is really quite a feat. It’s also easily the best Robin Hood film there’s ever been. I love Prince of Thieves as much as the next person, but even that doesn’t find the perfect balance of comedy, action and romance that this one manages.

Cards on the table: we are from Nottingham, so perhaps Robin Hood holds a special place in our hearts, but I still think this movie would appeal to me even if I wasn’t from there.

So let’s get the criticism out of the way first, so I can get on with gushing: the animation is nothing to write home about. It’s scruffy, there’s lots of fairly noticeable bits of repetition and the backgrounds are very lazily done. Even though the animation isn't great through, they’ve still managed to bring so much life and personality to the characters that overall the movie is still a success visually. The songs in the movie also are not standouts. I enjoy them immensely, but objectively speaking they’re not up there with the greats from this period. I really like the country sound and I think it was a good choice for this movie however, especially since the narrator is supposed to be a minstrel.

So, on to what I liked, which is...everything else. These characters are some of the best we’ve seen so far and there isn’t a dud among them. Robin is sooo charismatic and exactly what you want Robin Hood to be; brave, cocky, hilarious, romantic and effortlessly cool. Phil Harris plays the straight man to Brian Bedford in this movie, which is nice to see after seeing him as the more broadly funny Baloo and Thomas O’Malley. He is just as good in this role as he was in the previous two.

The villains are fabulous too. The Sheriff is no Alan Rickman but he is still pretty funny and Peter Ustinov as Prince John just makes the film. He’s quite an unusual sort of Disney villain, being childish and scheming, and less proactive than the villains usually are. But he gives the performance everything and is totally hilarious.

I could pretty much mention every other character in the movie at this point (Marian! So lovely! Clucky! What a badass!) but I won’t because we’ll be here forever.

In terms of plotting this movie is really well paced. Every incident tells us something about the characters and there’s none of the ‘comic business’ that seem to exist independently of the story and take you out of it, like with the mice in Cinderella and the dogs in Aristocats. The comedy sequences all advance the story and feel truthful both to the characters involved and to the overall tone of the film. My sister thinks this might be Disney’s funniest film, I’m still voting for Zootopia! But the humour here definitely appeals to me more as an adult than it did when I was a child, and the sheer irreverence of it really tickles me.

Basically, I really like this movie. I’ve watched it hundreds of times before and will watch it hundreds of times again, because this is how a Robin Hood movie should be done. Stop remaking and rebooting this story, Hollywood, Disney already nailed it.


----------



## BrianL

You know, it's funny, Robin Hood is a very funny film, but it's also quite dark. There is a real sense of suffering for the people of Nottingham and it conveys great sadness. This really is a great Disney movie, despite the xerography animation. It's pretty fantastic all around. The songs are memorable as well and I think Pat Buttram is pretty great as the Sheriff. That's an iconic Disney voice!


----------



## Micca

I've never seen this one either, I think we had a VHS of this for the kids.  I'm pretty much out until Roger Rabbit.  I'm afraid this just wasn't a good run of Disney movies for me through this era.


----------



## RSandRS

Micca said:


> I've never seen this one either, I think we had a VHS of this for the kids.  I'm pretty much out until Roger Rabbit.  I'm afraid this just wasn't a good run of Disney movies for me through this era.



These generally are definitely not up there with the 'Renaissance' films, but Robin Hood is fantastic!


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 26: The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)*

This was a first for us! I’ve always wondered how Pooh fit into the Disney cannon so this was an interesting watch. Incidentally, the ride at Disney World follows the plot so it turns out we were a bit familiar with the stories. I know I read The House at Pooh Corner as a kid, but I’m not sure any of those stories are included in the film.

I did like the way the animation followed the book and actually showed Pooh and friends jumping from page to page, in and out of pictures, and sliding up and down text. The text being used to illustrate the action (like flying around on the blustery day etc.) was also a clever idea. And Pooh’s back and forth with the narrator was also very charming: “Pooh, we have to get on to the next chapter!” “Am I in it?” These ideas were all quite novel and not something we have seen before, and they all really worked.

Of course, the stories are a bit episodic and while I was very into it at the start I did feel my interest waning towards the end. Winnie the Pooh is aimed at slightly younger children I think, so while it’s very sweet it’s a tiny bit boring as an adult.

I love the voice of Pooh bear. He is such a sweetie! We did notice Christopher Robin’s voice changed quite a bit so I assume they had issues with actors’ voices breaking (like Arthur on The Sword in the Stone).

I guess maybe watching the new Christopher Robin film might be a good idea, although the reviews for that seem mixed. I also don’t want to encourage all the nostalgia films that Disney keeps making as I want them to make original, creative content and take a few risks.


----------



## Micca

RSandRS said:


> These generally are definitely not up there with the 'Renaissance' films, but Robin Hood is fantastic!


I do like one of the Roger Miller songs from the movie, with your enthusiastic review I will check this out.


----------



## BrianL

So, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is actually a package picture, like those from the 1940's, but also it is a package picture made up mostly of previously released shorts. They are sewn together with some new material, but the major episodes had been seen before. This is why it feels episodic. Personally, for me, while I like Winnie the Pooh, generally, a little goes a long way, so I preferred them as shorts. I feel like a full feature is a lot with these characters, who are a bit too simple to hold up for too long (not that they aren't delightful). Tigger at least brings some energy, and the music is great, including of course the Winnie the Pooh theme by the Sherman Brothers. This isn't a film I will go-to all that often, but it is definitely an important part of the Disney canon.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> So, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is actually a package picture, like those from the 1940's, but also it is a package picture made up mostly of previously released shorts. They are sewn together with some new material, but the major episodes had been seen before. This is why it feels episodic. Personally, for me, while I like Winnie the Pooh, generally, a little goes a long way, so I preferred them as shorts. I feel like a full feature is a lot with these characters, who are a bit too simple to hold up for too long (not that they aren't delightful). Tigger at least brings some energy, and the music is great, including of course the Winnie the Pooh theme by the Sherman Brothers. This isn't a film I will go-to all that often, but it is definitely an important part of the Disney canon.


I'm glad I've seen it and appreciate how its fits into the canon, but as you said a little goes a long way


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 27: The Rescuers (1977)*


The Rescuers seems to have been extremely popular when it was first released, but has fallen by the wayside a bit since. You certainly don’t see much mention of The Rescuers or The Rescuers Down Under in the parks, or much merchandise. I think this is a shame, because I really like these two movies. They’re not favourites, and the fact that we watched them a lot as children probably contributes to the warm and fuzzy feelings I have towards them, but I think they are great stories and have some wonderful characters that often get overlooked.


As a child, of course it was the characters that resonated with me. I adored Miss Bianca and used to tie my blanket round my head and say that I was her. She wears a headscarf - I’m not just insane. As an adult...I just want to be her even more! She’s funny and impulsive, and the perfect match for the level-headed Bernard, who is also very cute. One of the joys of this movie is how well-matched these two characters are, and how equal, and how we get to watch their relationship develop in a way that never seems forced. From the very beginning, you can see they’re perfect for each other and bring out the best in each other.


As far as the other characters are concerned, they are a fun and colourful bunch. There’s no standouts though apart, of course, from Medusa. Medusa is cruelly overlooked as a Disney villain! She’s delightfully wicked and insane and must be one of the meanest villains there is. The animation of the character is also masterful - all her mannerisms suit her perfectly and little moments like when she pulls of her eyelashes are a joy to watch, and really show the Disney animators’ commitment to quality.


Watching as an adult I started to appreciate the background animation as well. There is a noticeable improvement in the animation from movies such as Aristocats and Robin Hood. This is really a beautiful movie. Although a lot of the backgrounds seem very static and removed from the foregrounds, they’re so pretty that you don’t really mind. I love the way you can see the brush strokes in some of the background paintings and the sombre colours really reflect the tone of the movie.


Overall, for a comedy adventure, this movie could be said to be a little bit depressing. It’s nice to see Disney going for the slightly heavier themes, rather than just light-hearted comedies, but is this movie a bit too serious for young kids? I definitely wiped away a tear or two during the ‘Someone’s Waiting for You’ sequence. All of the songs are sort of wistful and weepy, but that one especially - especially for a big soppy girl like me! Overall, I like the sombre tone and the fact that there are real emotional stakes here - after all, the movie revolves around the kidnap of a little girl, it shouldn’t be all alligators playing the organ and people saying ‘Suffering Sassafras!’


NB - I noted that there was quite a lot of brilliant child-friendly, olde-worlde cussing and expostulating in this movie, which I am all for. We should have more movies where the characters say ‘Landagotion!’ and ‘Suffering Sassafras!’ 


I don’t know why The Rescuers has fallen out of fashion over the years, because it really is great. The character of Miss Bianca is one of my absolute faves and in Medusa the movie has a very engaging villain. Perhaps the fact that it’s not really a musical has meant that it was overshadowed by the more flamboyant 90s movies, or maybe the movie’s darker tone puts people off, or maybe it’s just the fact that is comes from the dreaded DISNEY DARK AGES and gets written off. Whatever the reason, it doesn’t deserve it and it’s time to bring it back!


----------



## BrianL

I adore the Rescuers! I had a Disney storybook with them in it and I may have even weirdly crushed on Ms. Bianca when I was 4 years old. It's the voice of course! And speaking of voices, Eva Gabor returns from Aristocats, joined by none other than Bob Newhart - how can that be beat! Also, Ms. Bianca is wearing a pill-box hat I believe.

Yes, this movie is rather dark. Medusa is definitely one of the most evil villains, right up there with Cruella DevVil! I mean, what did she do with those orphans once she was done with them. Nothing good I would imagine! Fortunately, the Rescue Aid Society is there to save the day. Dark themes were big in movies around this time, and I'm not sure Disney ever really excelled at it, but still, the films in which they tried it are very interesting. In the 1970s, Disney was still mostly churning out the live-action family-friendly adventure films that had fallen out of fashion. Animation tried to capture a little of that verve, but possibly too late. The Rescuers is still great and one of the few movies to get a sequel, the first of the canon actually!

I met Ms. Bianca and Bernard at Tokyo DisneySea! Yes, the Tokyo parks still respect the old-school characters, and they were both out and about. I loved it!


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> I adore the Rescuers! I had a Disney storybook with them in it and I may have even weirdly crushed on Ms. Bianca when I was 4 years old. It's the voice of course! And speaking of voices, Eva Gabor returns from Aristocats, joined by none other than Bob Newhart - how can that be beat! Also, Ms. Bianca is wearing a pill-box hat I believe.
> 
> Yes, this movie is rather dark. Medusa is definitely one of the most evil villains, right up there with Cruella DevVil! I mean, what did she do with those orphans once she was done with them. Nothing good I would imagine! Fortunately, the Rescue Aid Society is there to save the day. Dark themes were big in movies around this time, and I'm not sure Disney ever really excelled at it, but still, the films in which they tried it are very interesting. In the 1970s, Disney was still mostly churning out the live-action family-friendly adventure films that had fallen out of fashion. Animation tried to capture a little of that verve, but possibly too late. The Rescuers is still great and one of the few movies to get a sequel, the first of the canon actually!
> 
> I met Ms. Bianca and Bernard at Tokyo DisneySea! Yes, the Tokyo parks still respect the old-school characters, and they were both out and about. I loved it!



Oh amazing! I'd love to meet Ms. Bianca and Bernard! Maybe one day I'll get over there. I'm reckoning it might end up being Shanghai of the Asia parks first for various reasons though.

I'm very much looking forward to The Rescuers Down Under, when we get to that. That was a family absolute favourite. My dad is not mad on Disney, but even he quotes Mcleish (Not sure why this particular villain appeals ) or references the film.

Again we have a very dark one with The Fox and the Hound next, but the rescuers manages the comedy and dark balance allot better.


----------



## RSandRS

The Fox and the Hound (1981)

I’ve only watched this once before and it depressed me so much I never watched it again. It actually ended on a slightly lighter note then I remembered with both the fox and the hound protecting each other. Although, I am sorry but there is no way the hound’s owner should be forgiven for his terrible behaviour and get an ending in which he is taken care of by the women whose fox he tried to shoot! Anyway...

We really liked the overall message of this film about prejudice being something which gets learned from society. However, I don’t think the film really hangs together in relaying this theme. There are again these oddly disjoined ‘comedy’ bits, which don’t really fit with the tone of the film (the birds chasing the caterpillar), which is really quite dark.

The main characters are quite well realised and I like the relationship between Copper and the old dog, who feels he is being usurped. Big Momma the owl is delightful, except when she randomly changes her tune for a minute or two to disabuse Todd of the fact that he and Copper can be friends. This feels like an opportunity for a song but does not match the message she has been conveying in the film. While there are much stronger theme songs for films, I do generally like the score of this movie. I think its because the music reminds me of the music you hear in Frontierland though 

It is apparently the last film on which Walt’s original animators worked and the one in which the great animators of the 90s etc all trained. End of an era and the beginning of something new! Except now it is the infamous Black Cauldron, which I have never watched!


----------



## BrianL

I feel like you do about The Fox and the Hound. I saw it once long ago and never really wanted to watch it again. I know it turns out okay, but it is like harrowing and sad throughout. I haven't seen it recently enough to comment on it really.

The 80's were a weird time for Disney. Times were ready to change out of the depressing 70's, but it took Disney a little time to catch up. They lost tons of animators like Don Bluth who would go on to make better and more popular movies. I like the 80's movies because I am an 80's kid, but I know they don't technically hold a candle to the golden era, or the upcomming Renaissance.


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 29: The Black Cauldron (1985)*

So. The Black Cauldron. What to say about The Black Cauldron? What thoughts do I have to share from this, my first viewing of Disney’s the Black Cauldron?

This movie sucks.

From the studio that brought you Snow White and Sleeping Beauty comes an incoherent, ugly mess, which will leave you scratching your head and saying “Clement and Musker were involved in this movie? John Hurt is in this movie? What happened? What happened Disney???”

So, yeah the Black Cauldron is terrible. It’s so terrible that I can’t even be bothered to structure this review into a proper critique or pretend that there are any parts of it that are not terrible. So here’s a list of complaints:


The story is woeful - I don’t know if this is down to story elements being really annoying or the characters just being pathetic, though I suspect it is the latter. It’s not the worst idea for a movie, just the worst delivered.


The main characters are pathetic. The main guy (can’t be bothered to google his name) is just stupid - were they trying to make him adorkable? It didn’t work. Princess Eilonwy (I got her name memorised because most of her dialogue seemed to be “I’m Princess Eilonwy” said in a squeaky voice) is useless and has zero chemistry with the main guy. Like none. Like I wish they would stop talking to each other. Or stop talking altogether.


The Horned King is the WORST villain we’ve had so far. What a waste of John hurt. He looks like skeletor and spends most of his time sitting on his a*se failing to get anything done. I feel like Scar, Ursula and Madame Medusa are all examples of how important the movement of a villain is, and this one is completely static. Or so slow-moving that he fails to be scary. At one point he sort of creeps up behind the main guy (I still haven’t bothered to google this kid’s name, that’s how little I care) and you have time to lazily say “Yo dude, he’s behind you” about three times before anything happens. And even then the kid gets out of the way in time. He also does that annoying thing of announcing his evil plan, saying “My evil plan is evil! My evil plan will...happen! And then! And then! I will...have power?” He has zero motivation is what I’m getting at and his plan sucks.


There are too many sidekicks. Waaaay too many. Pig, poor man’s Gollum, harp guy, magic sword, fair folk and specific fair folk character Doli who is grumpy (and essentially Grumpy because why come up with a new character when you can rehash on old trope?). Step one in fixing this movie would be to combine all these into ONE character. And then give that character a personality.


The voice acting. How am I about to complain about the voice acting in a Disney movie?? Even in movies where we had problems with the animation or the story the characters still felt real and alive thanks to the voice actors, but not in The Black Cauldron! All of the actors sound like they’re just reading from the page, delivering every line in the same way with no consideration of pacing or context. Consequently I hate all the characters. Except Hen Wen the pig. She has no dialogue.


It’s inappropriate. Seriously, that witch and her boobs? And at one point she says, “Oh I do love a forceful man!” I suspect it’s probably too frightening for children as well, though I didn’t find it scary due to the villain being the absolute worst.


It’s not funny. I’m not even sure if it’s trying to be funny at any point, that’s how not funny it is. This movie sucks.


It’s ugly. Don't tell me it’s not because it is. Muddy, sludgy backgrounds that keep hitting you over the head with the fact this is trying to be a ‘darker’ Disney movie. And flat, uninteresting characters who all look like versions of characters we’ve already seen: Whatsisname (definitely not googling at this point) is a sort of slightly older Wart/Mowgli type, Princess Eilonwy is a generic blonde, harp guy Fflewdur is so forgettable that I couldn’t even tell you what sort of age he’s supposed to be etc. etc.


WHO WROTE THIS?? They are the worst. It’s all their fault. Seriously, guards, seize him! Off with his head! It is so shockingly written it makes Victory Through Air Power look like Lord of the Rings. Bad, clunky exposition. Bad characters talking to themselves and not in a way that works (like with a song). Bad villain speechifying. Bad boy and girl arguing so you can tell they like each other. Bad Jar Jar/Gollum sidekick who talks in stupid voice. Bad bad bad bad.

I seem to have taken the dreadfulness of this movie extremely personally, but the fact is I’ve been spoilt. For a couple of months now I’ve been watching some of the best movies that have ever been created, made by creative artists with a total dedication to quality. And then this movie comes round, ruins my night, and makes me wish for the halcyon days of The Three Caballeros.

This move sucks.

But on a positive note, it can only get better from here


----------



## BrianL

WOW! That's a lot of hate for The Black Cauldron. I don't know what to even say. Generally, I like the movie, though it has it's problems. I enjoy the high-fantasy setting and the general darker style. The animation isn't the best because we're still in the do-it-on-the-cheap era (Disney was close to bankruptcy as this was being produced). Still, the cool, dark colors are welcome and give it a little atmosphere. Taran is pretty basic. I always think of him as the same kid from Sword in the Stone. Gurgie though, what a great voice! And how can you not feel for him when he's dead?

This movie is based on a series of fantasy novels, The Chronicles of Prydain by Lloyd Alexander. Something that happened during the making of this movie was that Disney Leadership was changing, and the new boss, Jeffery Katzenberg I believe, felt it was too dark and scary, especially with it's original ending where the undead army ransacks the village. This was cut entirely per Katzenberg, and it definitely weakens the movie. So really, while I think the movie is okay, the weakened ending is almost insurmountable. It really, really hurts the story.

Disney gets another chance though. Currently they still posses the rights to the Chronicles of Prydain and plan to make a live-action film series based on it. I haven't heard anything about it in a while, but hopefully it's a chance for Disney to redeem the missteps they made regarding the ending. Based on your review, I'm sure you'll be first in line!


----------



## Micca

@RSandRS Well at least your review is entertaining.

@BrianL  Love your optimism.  I think most of the live-action remakes of animated classics are mis-fires, maybe this is a case where they could actually improve on an original.


----------



## BrianL

Micca said:


> @RSandRS Well at least your review is entertaining.
> 
> @BrianL  Love your optimism.  I think most of the live-action remakes of animated classics are mis-fires, maybe this is a case where they could actually improve on an original.



Well, I don't like the ones where they have tried to basically remake it exactly, but I do like the ones where they try to do a different take on it. In most cases we have ended up with a perfectly fine movie, but there is no reason why I would ever choose to watch the live-action version over the animated original.

For Black Cauldron, or The Chronicles of Prydain, they were wanting to create a series based more on the books. The animated film wasn't quite on-point in that regard. It's been a while since I've heard any news of it, so it may be stuck in development.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Well, I don't like the ones where they have tried to basically remake it exactly, but I do like the ones where they try to do a different take on it. In most cases we have ended up with a perfectly fine movie, but there is no reason why I would ever choose to watch the live-action version over the animated original.
> 
> For Black Cauldron, or The Chronicles of Prydain, they were wanting to create a series based more on the books. The animated film wasn't quite on-point in that regard. It's been a while since I've heard any news of it, so it may be stuck in development.





BrianL said:


> WOW! That's a lot of hate for The Black Cauldron. I don't know what to even say. Generally, I like the movie, though it has it's problems. I enjoy the high-fantasy setting and the general darker style. The animation isn't the best because we're still in the do-it-on-the-cheap era (Disney was close to bankruptcy as this was being produced). Still, the cool, dark colors are welcome and give it a little atmosphere. Taran is pretty basic. I always think of him as the same kid from Sword in the Stone. Gurgie though, what a great voice! And how can you not feel for him when he's dead?
> 
> This movie is based on a series of fantasy novels, The Chronicles of Prydain by Lloyd Alexander. Something that happened during the making of this movie was that Disney Leadership was changing, and the new boss, Jeffery Katzenberg I believe, felt it was too dark and scary, especially with it's original ending where the undead army ransacks the village. This was cut entirely per Katzenberg, and it definitely weakens the movie. So really, while I think the movie is okay, the weakened ending is almost insurmountable. It really, really hurts the story.
> 
> Disney gets another chance though. Currently they still posses the rights to the Chronicles of Prydain and plan to make a live-action film series based on it. I haven't heard anything about it in a while, but hopefully it's a chance for Disney to redeem the missteps they made regarding the ending. Based on your review, I'm sure you'll be first in line!



Actually, I think the idea might work quite well in a series. The whole fantasy/alternative history/mythology aspect appeals, it just needs MUCH better execution 

I'm reading all about the Eisner/Katzenberg takeover at the moment in The Disney War, makes for a great read!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> Actually, I think the idea might work quite well in a series. The whole fantasy/alternative history/mythology aspect appeals, it just needs MUCH better execution
> 
> I'm reading all about the Eisner/Katzenberg takeover at the moment in The Disney War, makes for a great read!



Oh, no doubt that Eisner and Katzenberg saved the company, there were just some growing pains along the way.


----------



## RSandRS

RSandRS said:


> Actually, I think the idea might work quite well in a series. The whole fantasy/alternative history/mythology aspect appeals, it just needs MUCH better execution
> 
> I'm reading all about the Eisner/Katzenberg takeover at the moment in The Disney War, makes for a great read!



Definitely getting that angle from the book


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 30: The Great Mouse Detective (1986)*

The Great Mouse Detective is a solid idea - a detective mouse living below Sherlock Holmes and solving crimes should make for a fun adventure story. And it pretty much does. This movie is...OK. It’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with it.

I can remember seeing this film when I was a child, though I’m not sure I’ve seen it since. Somewhere along the way it got mixed up with An American Tail in my head and I wrote it off as fine, but not really worth a rewatch. And watching it again now, my initial reaction seems to be justified, though I still can't exactly put my finger on why. I think it might be that there’s a general lack of creativity around the look of the film and the treatment of the initial idea. Sherlock Holmes with mice is a fun idea, but this movie never moves beyond that.

“It’s Sherlock Holmes with mice!”

“OK - what else?”

“It’s Sherlock Holmes. But he’s a mouse. That’s it.”

So not much creativity went into adapting Sherlock Holmes with mice, meaning that it ends up feeling more like plagiarism than something inspired by Holmes and then developed in a Disneyfied way.

The characters feel so close to their Holmes counterparts that it feels like nothing new. Basil is kind of a d-bag, and towards the end I started to feel that they might have made things a bit easier on themselves by making him more like a traditional hero. He has some cool moments where he does some sleuthing and puzzle-solving, and even some straight-up hero moments, and I wish they’d had more of those, rather than concentrating on the arrogant smarta*se routine that made Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock so insufferable.

During Basil’s final showdown with Rattigan, which is probably the most memorable part of the film, they seem to have put a lot of thought into the visuals in order to create a suitable amount of tension and drama. Although it does look quite spectacular (seriously, this must be one of the best end of movie fights we’ve seen so far), you sort of feel that they could have saved themselves some time and effort by just making us care more about Basil as a character in the first place. Then we would be properly invested in his story and would care how the showdown turned out.

This having been said Rattigan is a great character and played with a lot of gusto by Vincent Price. We had a brief discussion about whether he is our first queer-coded Disney villain (in the style of Scar and Governor Ratcliffe), but of course he isn’t, because Captain Hook started that somewhat dodgy tradition.

The animation doesn't make a huge impression, apart from the brilliant denouement, and the music is equally meh. It’s maybe the most half-a*sed of the half-a*sed Disney musicals of the 70s and 80s; it’s only really got one song, which is Rattigan’s villain number and a couple of throwaway tunes. Although Rattigan’s song is fun and catchy, it doesn’t really tell us anything about him, apart from ‘he’s evil’, which we knew already, and certainly doesn’t do anything for the plot. My sisters comment was a mournful, “We really need some Menken”.

Having ranted about how inappropriate I found the witch and her boobs in The Black Cauldron, I feel bound to point out that there is a similar moment in this movie, involving a stripper and a bar fight. So there’s that.

Overall, this is one of the most meh movies we’ve watched so far. I didn’t dislike it (which may be hard to tell from this review), but I certainly didn't love it either. A solid 2 and a half stars. I’d also like to note that this is my opinion, and that my sister liked the film a lot less than I did, calling it her second least favourite after the Black Cauldron.


----------



## BrianL

Well, again, this is one of it's time, and while I fondly remember it (though I also conflated it with An American Tail) it has weaknesses as well. Vincent Price is a saving grace here, and his character is one of the darkest Disney villains. He feeds that other mouse to the cat. He doesn't come out all bruised and bandaged. He doesn't come out. At all. He is dead. The reaction of the other goons is spot on too. They feel kinda bad and awkward about it, but can't really do anything. It's brutal. Otherwise, I like how there is just this like mouse society under human society. Rattigan isn't trying to capture teh Queen of England, but the MOUSE Queen of England - who lives in a hole in the wall of Buckingham Palace! What? Basil lives in a hole in the wall at Sherlock Holmes' brownstone. It's like, is there a little mouse version of me living my life under my house? I dunno. Still, it's a pretty fun movie, sketchy animation and all. I love the bar scene personally, and while the static backgrounds kind of work for the gritty look, it was certainly only done to save money.

What can I say? I'm a child of the 80's! The next one is a big favorite of mine, though problems? Yes, it has many!


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Well, again, this is one of it's time, and while I fondly remember it (though I also conflated it with An American Tail) it has weaknesses as well. Vincent Price is a saving grace here, and his character is one of the darkest Disney villains. He feeds that other mouse to the cat. He doesn't come out all bruised and bandaged. He doesn't come out. At all. He is dead. The reaction of the other goons is spot on too. They feel kinda bad and awkward about it, but can't really do anything. It's brutal. Otherwise, I like how there is just this like mouse society under human society. Rattigan isn't trying to Queen of England, but the MOUSE Queen of England - who lives in a hole in the wall of Buckingham Palace! What? Basil lives in a hole in the wall at Sherlock Holmes' brownstone. It's like, is there a little mouse version of me living my life under my house? I dunno. Still, it's a pretty fun movie, sketchy animation and all. I love the bar scene personally, and while the static backgrounds kind of work for the gritty look, it was certainly only done to save money.
> 
> What can I say? I'm a child of the 80's! The next one is a big favorite of mine, though problems? Yes, it has many!



Now I'm wondering if there is a mouse version of me running around under the floorboards writing reviews!


----------



## RSandRS

Day 31: Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

I’m not sure if this counts as part of the challenge, but as with Mary Poppins who cares when it is this good 

We both LOVED this movie and this was both our first time watching it.  I might have caught a few moments of it when I was a kid, but this was the first time properly seeing it. I love when you watch a movie for the first time and you think ‘Where has this been all my life?’ and just know you're going to watch it again and again. What more could you wish for from a Zemeckis/Spielberg collab!

The whole idea of the film is completely brilliant! - parodying everything from film noir and cartoons, but very affectionately. They could have gotten away with a great idea, with all the fun visual jokes and recognisable characters popping up every few minutes, but they didn't rest on their laurels. Everything else about the movie is brilliant too.

I loved the film from the first few minutes of the opening sequence - that brilliant subversion of your expectations as the director appears shouting ‘Cut!’ and you’re thrown out of the cartoon world you thought you were in and into an entirely new one, is just one example of how the writing and visual storytelling work together so beautifully in this movie. Even though you’re expecting it, it’s still a thrill. A few minutes later superimposed text appears telling you this is Hollywood in the 1940s, but that almost felt disappointing to me. You're telling me it’s Hollywood in the 1940s loud and clear without words, don’t doubt yourself movie or your audience!

The story line is great, with twists and turns, but also quite touching and sweet at its core. Roger could have been annoying but definitely isn’t. It is nice to see a character who can be vulnerable and hilarious and whose goal in life is just to make other people laugh.

Bob Hoskins performance is great - just one example of how this movie could be just good and goes for great instead. He could have just been the hard-drinking, disillusioned cop, but they gave him a tragic backstory and he really plays that sorrowful side beautifully. His accent isn’t perfect and his cockney comes through every now and then. Only mentioning this because I had a go at Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins - seems to me like this accent matters as little as Van Dyke’s did to the performance. Who cares about accent when they have so much fun and bring so much depth!

That tone is actually carried throughout the movie and it’s beautiful. There are moments where you laugh out loud at a line or a moment (for example ‘A toon killed his brother. Dropped a piano on him’), but then those moments have real implications in the story. It’s completely brilliant writing - tight plot, every line of dialogue perfect for the tone of the movie. ‘I’m not bad, I’m just drawn that way’ has to be one of the best lines there’s ever been in a movie.

The music is also seriously cool and really captures the mood.

The effects are great, even the bits where the toons and humans are interacting, which must have been so tough to do. Of course, it’s not perfect, but the animation and film seemed to come together almost as well as computer-generated effects and characters do these days. The animation is also great - the characters have depth and weight as well as looking fantastic. Amazing how they’ve managed to make it look like they’re interacting with the world in a very real way, even though everything about it is so cartoonish. Your brain tells you that this is how cartoons would interact with the real world, even while it’s telling you that could never happen. This is a hard concept to explain, but basically, the visuals are on point!

I love the bit in Toontown and completely forgot I was watching a real actor interacting with cartoons, loved seeing all the recognisable characters living and interacting in the same place. We had so much fun throughout the movie exclaiming to one another ‘Did you see Dumbo! Did you see Mickey! Did you see the broomsticks from Fantasia!”

I really liked the whole movie, but my sister felt the last ten-fifteen minutes could have been stronger. She said the descent into pure cartoon caper didn’t seem satisfying and didn’t fit so well with film noir style of the rest of movie. I did wish Roger and Jessica had a bit more to do though watching them almost get dipped time and time again was tense and funny.

Altogether this is a great movie and the best we have seen for ages!!!


----------



## BrianL

Well, that one was out of left field. It's not one I would have thought would be on the list but you are right, it is a good one! It's a really fun movie, and it's great that Toon Town has cartoons form various companies, not just Disney! The sort of hard-boiled detective story just fits in so smoothly with all of the zany antics going on. "Dropped a piano on him!" Indeed! That's sharp writing. This film just has so much character. Bob Hoskin's somewhat bad American accent is a staple of his work, and in this case, payback for Dick Van Dyke! Ha!


----------



## Micca

This is one of my favorite movies of all time.  So many cool in-jokes and visual references("Walt sent me".)  The various Roger Rabbit shorts are terrific as well, I think they are all bonus features on the blu-ray edition.


----------



## BrianL

What happened? Just can't deal with Oliver and Company? It's a favorite of mine for nostalgic reasons. It's got Billy Joel too!


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 32: Oliver and Company (1988)*

Reviews are a comin! A couple of weeks ago, I started commuting to a different city for part of the week for a new job, so it's getting a bit more challenging to keep on top of watching/reviewing!

Oops, we’re now three movies ahead of ourselves. Time for some ultra-fast reviewing over the next couple of days while in once place!

So Oliver and Company is one we’ve watched a few times over the years. It’s an enjoyable watch, even if it’s not a movie that’s really going to stick around in your mind for aesthetic or story reasons. I think it’s possibly the most supremely 80s of the the 80s movies - with a soundtrack by people like Billy Joel and Huey Lewis and its slightly grubby look this movie is so 80s it should be wearing shoulder pads. So it's got that going for it.

Let’s talk about the music first, and address the other thing this movie has going for it: Why Should I Worry? This movie would be completely meh and forgettable if it weren’t for that fabulous song! Come on, you’ve started singing it in your head already haven’t you? Billy Joel kills it with that song, but also with his performance as Dodger, who is so icy cool that he could be unlikeable in other hands.

As for the other characters, they’re...OK. The dog characters are quite well-realised, which I think has quite a lot to do with the great voice acting. Each of them manages to have a distinctive personality so that, even though some of them don’t get a lot of time to shine, you still feel like you know them. The human characters are not so well developed; the little girl is cute but never really goes beyond that, Fagin is...weird and the villain Sykes is one of the most disappointing we’ve had. Oliver himself is fine. As far as child characters go he’s no Wart, but he’s no Simba either.

The look and feel of the movie isn’t particularly striking. As far as memorable sequence go, there’s a good bit at the beginning where, for a good long time, the whole thing is ‘shot’ from Oliver’s perspective. This means that you only see people’s ankles and other things at cat-height, and see for yourself the dangers of being that small. This is really creative and works really well at establishing Oliver’s situation and vulnerability.

Another memorable sequence is the car chase at the end, though not for the right reasons. They are obviously trying to bring some jeopardy and action to the story (which has been largely focusing on developing character relationships up until this point) but the car chase just ends up being silly. Why are there no other cars on the road? Or trains on the subway? It becomes very obvious that the whole thing was done on a budget.

So overall we enjoyed this one, but it’s not really surprising that it fades into the background a bit. Except for one thing of course...all together now!

_Why should I worry?
Why should I ca-a-re?
I may not have a dime..._


----------



## RSandRS

Micca said:


> This is one of my favorite movies of all time.  So many cool in-jokes and visual references("Walt sent me".)  The various Roger Rabbit shorts are terrific as well, I think they are all bonus features on the blu-ray edition.



Did not know about extras. I will have to see if they are on Disney Life, which is where we are accessing most of the movies and awesome extras like documentaries.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> What happened? Just can't deal with Oliver and Company? It's a favorite of mine for nostalgic reasons. It's got Billy Joel too!



After The Black Cauldron_, _we can deal with anything


----------



## BrianL

Well, Oliver was definitely a favorite of mine as a kid, and the soundtrack is mainly why! The opening number by Huey Lewis still makes me a little teary, and I don't think you can discount Ruth Pointer's "Streets of Gold" either. Of course "Why Should I Worry?" is the standout track. Yes, this thing is definitely 80's as heck! It still has that grittiness of the era, but it is brighter and more colorful, so you can see them turning the corner. That's a great observation about the scene at cat-level. I don't think I ever actively acknowledged that. Anyway, it's a pretty fun one, even if not a true classic.

Strap in everyone, they're about to get *REALLY GOOD!*


----------



## Micca

I think I've only seen bits & pieces of O&C, inexplicably I have the soundtrack on CD.  I go way back with Billy Joel but I don't even know this song you're referencing, I guess I'll dig it out and give it a spin.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Well, Oliver was definitely a favorite of mine as a kid, and the soundtrack is mainly why! The opening number by Huey Lewis still makes me a little teary, and I don't think you can discount Ruth Pointer's "Streets of Gold" either. Of course "Why Should I Worry?" is the standout track. Yes, this thing is definitely 80's as heck! It still has that grittiness of the era, but it is brighter and more colorful, so you can see them turning the corner. That's a great observation about the scene at cat-level. I don't think I ever actively acknowledged that. Anyway, it's a pretty fun one, even if not a true classic.
> 
> Strap in everyone, they're about to get *REALLY GOOD!*


Indeed they are! Yippee!


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 33: The Little Mermaid (1989)*

What a movie! We both LOVE this film so much and can totally see why it made such a splash (geddit) when it came out. This is the best movie so far without a doubt! It’s also, as I remember it, the first Disney I ever watched and also my first memory of the cinema. We definitely watched it at the cinema in the winter of 1990 (I only know this because my littlest sis was a month old and slept through most of it), so it must have been on in cinemas for ages!

Ariel is a really delightful heroine. Waaaay too young to be getting married, but that’s Disney for ya. It is nice to have a heroine who acts on her instincts and has such a well-defined personality. She’s not just generically nice and good like Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty before her. Jodi Benson’s performance is gorgeous. Of course she has the most lovely singing voice, but she also brings a lot of personality to the character, playing her as young and naive, but definitely no fool, and vulnerable but also brave and ballsy.

From watching one of the Disney Life documentaries, it seems like the animators based a lot of Ariel’s traits on the actor playing her live-action reference. They brought back the practice of shooting some scenes in live action first so the animators would have something to work from, just like Walt did back in the old days with Sleeping Beauty and Alice! The woman they based Ariel on was a comedian and was great at emphasising the comedy and physicality of the character.

Ursula is probably both of our favourite Disney villain (although Scar is up there for me too!) - she’s so deliciously evil, funny and smart. The voice and the animation of the character are brilliant, creating the right mix of sinister and charismatic.

Eric is also decently fleshed out as a Disney prince - he’s no Aladdin but he’s definitely got more going for him (like...a name) than Cinderella’s or Snow White’s princes.

Sebastian is also a big part of why this movie is so great - a very likeable and funny character, with of course some of the best songs known to Disney. With him, Flounder and Scuttle that is quite a lot of sidekicks for Ariel. Maybe they could have lost Scuttle without losing anything - I don't find Scuttle that funny. But I am loathed to criticise this movie in any way because it’s as damn near perfect as a kids movie can be. And to think they followed it up with movies that are even more perfect!

The animation is gorgeous. There is lots of thought given to the way things should move underwater. That opening sequence is dreamlike! I also love the storm where Eric’s ship goes down - the way they animated the lightning and the ship being tossed on the sea is so dramatic. The characters are the real standouts though, and not just the human ones. All of the fish and other animals come to life too and are so colourful and full of personality.

The music is easily the best we’ve had so far. It seems crazy now to think that Disney movies weren’t always Broadway-style musicals as this approach now defines them so strongly. I’m not sure if I love musicals because of growing up with the Disney renaissance or if I love the Disney renaissance because I love musicals.

Under the Sea is quite possibly the best Disney song there has ever been - quite a claim, I know, but it’s definitely waaaay up there. Part of Your World is my sister’s favourite Disney song for nostalgic reasons, though she reckons it’s not objectively the best. It is up there for me too!

Really though this movie is just perfect!


----------



## RSandRS

Micca said:


> I think I've only seen bits & pieces of O&C, inexplicably I have the soundtrack on CD.  I go way back with Billy Joel but I don't even know this song you're referencing, I guess I'll dig it out and give it a spin.



Why should I worry


----------



## BrianL

Walt Disney Animation returns from exile with a shot across the bow to the upstarts that were having their fun in the 80's - The Little Mermaid is the return to the true Disney Masterpiece. It's hard to critique a movie that's this good, and you pretty much said everything that can be said. I will make the proclamation that the very underrated "Fathom's Below" is the best song in this movie and it's a shame that they cut it down from the original version. I love sea shanties though! Anyway, this was the movie that launched the Renaissance, even if the next one is a small blip for scheduling reasons (not bad, just not quite in tune with the string of true Renaissance films). I'm not sure that the Little Mermaid is the best to-date, but it is certainly a strong candidate.


----------



## Micca

OK, NOW we're striking gold.  TLM is classic stuff--great characters, great story, and the music is just phenomenal.   While the animation is streets above its 80s predecessors, it was just the beginning of the improvements that would follow with the next several films.  TLM is my DDs Disney foundation, it's the film they watched repeatedly growing up in our home.


----------



## RSandRS

Second review of the day, on a roll!!!!

Predicting this may come a bit out of left field...its...

*Day 34: DuckTales the Movie (1990)*

We’ve never seen either iteration of the TV show so the characters of DuckTales were totally new characters for us. I suspect that the movie assumes you have seen the TV show, else why would you be watching a low budget offering from MovieToons (on our list though-thanks wiki!)? This is also apparent in the plot of the movie (which is a bit rambling and feels like material for three or four episodes somewhat unsuccessfully woven into a three-act movie structure) and characters who appear but have no impact whatsoever on the plot (including Launchpad and Scrooge’s various employees) because people would know them from the show.

The movie is only a little over an hour but already feels too long. The plot is thick with incident but thin on character development. For the first 20 minutes or so something is ‘happening’ every 30 seconds (it’s almost difficult to keep up) but so little of it has anything to do with any of the characters that I didn’t even learn anyone’s name until I googled it later. The various comedy antics with Webby making dumb wishes are not very funny and go on for too long and also add almost nothing to the plot - come on, Disney, I thought we were past this sort of thing. Wait what am I saying we still have direct to video sequels to go (most of which are not on the list however-it seems to be quite a random list)!

However, once the movie stopped hopping about from location to location and settled into the characters a bit more, however, it improved immensely.

The bits with the kids and the genie are also probably the best bits of the film as they are such likeable characters and also get all the best dialogue. They’re actually very similar to 80s kids like from ET or Stand By Me, always cracking wise and showing much more emotional intelligence than their adult counterparts. The genie is also quite a fun character - no Robin Williams, but an interesting forerunner. Actually, Aladdin ripped quite a lot of this movie off - shows that reusing old ideas can work extremely well sometimes. I genuinely felt for the genie’s situation in this film, in the same way, I do with the genie in Aladdin. 

The only other character you learn anything about is Scrooge McDuck, who I quite enjoyed. He is also the only character, apart from the genie, with anything resembling an arc, which worked pretty well.

The villain is rubbish! Very disappointing considering who’s playing him - Christopher Flippin Lloyd!

The music, in general, is forgettable but the theme tune is very 80s and fun. A bit of an earworm.

Conclusion: this movie is by no means a complete write-off. I won't be in a hurry to watch again, but I might at some point


----------



## BrianL

There you go again with the curve balls. DuckTales: Treasure of the Lost Lamp is basically an extended episode of the TV show, though the few DisneyToon theatrical releases did have bigger budgets. I love DuckTales, and while this movie is fine, there are better "5 part movie events" that were part of the series, like the very first 5 episodes, "Treasure of the Golden Suns." DuckTales channels the old Carl Barks duck comics and have such a classic sense of adventure, and the voice work is impeccable. This movie isn't that special though.

Every time I talk about "the next one" you throw an extra one in. I was referring to The Rescuers Down Under as a blip in the Disney Renaissance. If you made time for this one, do yourself a favor and toss in A Goofy Movie. It is also from DisneyToon and is most definitely the greatest movie ever made.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> There you go again with the curve balls. DuckTales: Treasure of the Lost Lamp is basically an extended episode of the TV show, though the few DisneyToon theatrical releases did have bigger budgets. I love DuckTales, and while this movie is fine, there are better "5 part movie events" that were part of the series, like the very first 5 episodes, "Treasure of the Golden Suns." DuckTales channels the old Carl Barks duck comics and have such a classic sense of adventure, and the voice work is impeccable. This movie isn't that special though.
> 
> Every time I talk about "the next one" you throw an extra one in. I was referring to The Rescuers Down Under as a blip in the Disney Renaissance. If you made time for this one, do yourself a favor and toss in A Goofy Movie. It is also from DisneyToon and is most definitely the greatest movie ever made.



Is the new DuckTales any good?

I must admit this list has more extras then I knew about, but occasionally we get films I've never heard of (The Reluctant Dragon) or seen (Roger Rabbit), that I'll be watching for years to come  

A Goofy Movie is definitely on the list and a new one for us!

The Rescuers Down Under (an old family fav) up next...


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> Is the new DuckTales any good?
> 
> I must admit this list has more extras then I knew about, but occasionally we get films I've never heard of (The Reluctant Dragon) or seen (Roger Rabbit), that I'll be watching for years to come
> 
> A Goofy Movie is definitely on the list and a new one for us!
> 
> The Rescuers Down Under (an old family fav) up next...



I like the new DuckTales but it is a bit different. It has that more modern, snappy banter style, but is still generally very good. It doesn't quite measure up to the original though (and trust me, Treasure of the Lost Lamp isn't the best example of the series).

A Goofy Movie ROCKS! It is a transcendent experience. Warning: The soundtrack will be with you forever. It is the soundtrack to LIFE!

RDU's all right. If you want to add a  bonus and have access, watch Mickey in "The Prince and the Pauper" first as it was paired with it in theaters.


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 35: The Rescuers Down Under (1990)*

Our first sequel! Its very oddly timed considering how many years had gone by since the previous movie. Were people clamouring for a sequel? If so, why was the movie conisdered a failure?

This movie seems to have disappeared even more completely than The Rescuers over the years - apart from playing the music in Epcot sometimes. As with The Rescuers I haven’t seen a reference to it in any of the parks I’ve been to - such as shame because there are some really fab characters in this one too!

While The Little Mermaid is my earliest memory of the cinema, this film is my sister’s and holds a really special place in both our hearts. While our parents tolerated Disney for our sake and liked Disneyland Paris, they were never massive fans of the films, except for this one. We watched this time and time again together, usually with takeout pizza or something.

When I was a kid I preferred this film to The Rescuers as I found The Rescuers a bit boring - Down Under is very action-packed and less emotional than The Rescuers, but still anchored by the characters so it works really well.

The animation in the film is lovely; they really make the most of the setting and you can see that no expense has been spared to bring the world to life. Sequences like Bernard and Bianca in the restaurant (anyone for ‘pea soup’?) and the opening sequence have stayed with me for life. It would also be wrong not to mention the sequences where Cody flies on Marahute’s back - these are a complete triumph!

We also get some of their first attempts at computer animation - I don't know if they really hold up so well now, but at the time I barely noticed them, which is what should happen with good computer-generated effects. The opening bit where you race across the outback towards Cody’s house is extremely effective. This may be because of the music rather than the animation but who cares? In fact, for me it is one of the most memorable movie starts there is.

The music is one of the best things about the movie - how do you not hear it more often? As far as scores for non-musical Disney movies go it’s way up there. The Pixar movies could be said to be in a class of their own when it comes to music, but as far as the other Disney Studios movies go, Rescuers Down Under probably has one of the best scores. We wondered if perhaps the movie didn't do so well was because it isn’t a musical and doesn’t even have any songs as the original Rescuers did. But Pixar movies seem to do OK, so this is still a mystery.

Most of the main characters are pretty great - Bernard and Miss Bianca continue to be wonderful, especially Bernard, who goes on even more of a journey than in the first movie. Jake is a great addition - my sister had a bit of a thing for him when she was little! I’m not so sure about Wilbur, I don’t really find his bits that funny and I think he gets too much time allotted to him considering he doesn’t really advance the plot that much.

Cody is a good child character, if slightly unbelievable. One of the things that makes Penny such a well-rounded character is that Medusa’s cruelty has a real effect on her, whereas Cody nearly dies from falling off a cliff, then gets kidnapped and threatened with death every few minutes, then goes over a waterfall but somehow still remains feisty and unbothered. He also nearly falls to his death an unreasonable number of times in the movie. His mum should really think about keeping him in more; the kid is a magnet for trouble.

McLeach is an interesting choice for a villain. He might be the most unpleasant villain we’ve had so far as he seems to take a lot of pleasure in hurting not only animals, but also small children. He’s not really funny or delightful in the way some of the other villains are - he’s just horrible, and his delight in hurting defenceless creatures is a bit tasteless. This may have led some parents to decide that the movie wasn’t suitable for small children. As someone who did watch it when she was very small I can confirm McLeach was a scary villain - definitely not the most scary, but scary and extremely unlikeable.

This all having been said Joanna is a really good villain’s sidekick. I love that she survives at the end as McLeach goes over the waterfall - it seems like such a perfect ending both for him and for her. He deserves a violent end (we don't often see Disney villains just straight up die) and she deserves to carry on as the opportunistic little bottom-feeder that she is.

I have mixed feelings about the plot. Overall I think it works really well; all the main characters get a satisfactory arc and there’s plenty of action. I think the problem may be the pacing. I don’t know how much time goes by in the movie before Bernard and Miss Bianca are introduced, but it’s probably about 20 minutes, and then the story concentrates on them for a really long time, giving us lots of time to forget what’s been going on with Cody. Basically, the movie seems to have difficulty stringing together its two main storylines, and since the mice don’t catch up with Cody until well into the final act these problems persist throughout most of the movie. There is also the aforementioned problem that too much time is spent on Wilbur and his various antics, which even as a kid I remember fidgeting through.

And so to the big questions: How does Down Under, our very first sequel, stack up against The Rescuers? I’m inclined to think it’s marginally better, though both of them are very good. This movie is a bit more exciting and although the villain isn't as good, Jake is a really fantastic addition. Most importantly there are some bits of animation that are completely breathtaking and the score is gorgeous. Second question: Is this the best Disney sequel ever (not including Pixar, b/c we are not ready for the Toy Story 1, 2, 3 debate yet!)? My thinking is yes, yes it is! Frozen 2 you have a lot to live up to in more ways than one! Or maybe Ralph Breaks the Internet will win out!

In conclusion, I really really like this movie. It may not be a favourite, but it’s definitely criminally underrated and may even be better than the original.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> I like the new DuckTales but it is a bit different. It has that more modern, snappy banter style, but is still generally very good. It doesn't quite measure up to the original though (and trust me, Treasure of the Lost Lamp isn't the best example of the series).
> 
> A Goofy Movie ROCKS! It is a transcendent experience. Warning: The soundtrack will be with you forever. It is the soundtrack to LIFE!
> 
> RDU's all right. If you want to add a  bonus and have access, watch Mickey in "The Prince and the Pauper" first as it was paired with it in theaters.



Thanks for recommending "The Prince and the Pauper", funny and fun addition to the watching! 

Randomly this one was not on DisneyLife (all the other films and most shorts are!). As I understand it though, the US does not have a Disneylife equivalent yet anyway. This is very strange to me! We never get things first in the UK!


----------



## BrianL

Yes, the Rescuers Down Under is a pretty good movie, if nothing special. It sits in a weird place as The Little Mermaid began the Disney Renaissance with full force, but this one feels like one of the 80's movies, though it would probably be the best of them. It does have more action than the original, though maybe a little less gravitas. I do wish they had payed more of the Rescue Aid Society anthem. If you listen closely you can hear it as the distress call makes it to New York, but why not play that up more? Still, Down Under is a solid flick and lots of fun!

The string of hits keeps coming - I doubt there'll be a bad thing to say about the next four or five films!  Perfection is on display.


----------



## RSandRS

Day 36: Beauty and the Beast (1991)

You may have worked out somewhere along the way that Beauty and the Beast is one of my favourite Disney movies of all time - definitely in the top 2 or 3. That being the case it’s quite difficult to review this movie as so many aspects of it are so completely perfect - the animation, the characterisation, the music, the pacing - all are superlative examples of the animated film genre. So instead of rhapsodising about every minute of this movie and going on for hours and hours (and believe me, I could - while we were watching the film we kept having to pause it so we could describe to each other why a particular seemingly throwaway moment was so damn perfect!) I am instead going to highlight a few key things about the movie and describe why they are so right. The significance of these things will hopefully become clear as I go along.

Fact 1: Beauty and the Beast is 84 minutes long - it's the perfect length. Every second of the movie serves the plot or theme in some way. To add in more story, or to labour over points that are made deftly and succinctly would be a disservice to the movie as a whole. Yes there are things that aren't entirely made clear (how old the beast was when he was cursed, whether every piece of furniture in the castle is an enchanted person etc.) but who cares? These are questions that mean nothing to the story that is being told and to try to explain them would slow things down and detract from the storytelling.

Fact 2: Gaston is a big, mean bully with no backstory to explain why - why? Because we don't need to know his backstory. It’s all there in the movie. It’s another example of the movie’s lightness of touch - Gaston is a big, mean bully because he is a good-looking ‘alpha male’ in a village full of people who idolise him. It’s made him believe he is entitled to anything he wants. We can see all this within a few seconds of him appearing on the screen from the way he acts and the way others react to him. We don't need anything more than what we’re given.

Fact 3: The Beast is a nice person. This is kind of fundamental to the story. We are supposed to compare Gaston and the Beast. In a way they could be said to start the story in the same place - but it’s where they end up that’s so important. And the movie indicates to us over and over again that the Beast is fundamentally a good person. Yes, he has a temper problem, but every time he lashes out we see him immediately regret it. And (again, fundamentally) this isn’t because of coaching by Belle. She doesn’t set out to make herself a prince from a beast, or to teach the Beast to be a good person - she treats him (and Gaston) exactly as he deserves to be treated. When the Beast is being a bad-tempered a*se she wants nothing to do with him; when he’s saving her life and giving her libraries she becomes his friend; when he opens his heart to her she falls for him. This is a relationship that develops as a relationship should and will clearly be a marriage of true equals.

It’s kind of important also to note that, even though this is a Disney Princess story and is always talked about as if it is one, the real story isn’t Belle’s, it’s the Beast’s. She is kind of perfect from the get-go and doesn’t really have an arc. It’s pretty clear that Belle doesn't have to try and look past the Beast’s ugliness to see the beauty within - she sees past Gaston’s beauty to see the ugliness within in the first few minutes of the movie. She just wants someone to talk to about her books and to appreciate her for who she is - she doesn’t care if that’s a Baker or a Beast. No, the real arc is the Beast’s. He is the one who has to learn and change in order to get what he wants.

Fact 4: Nobody tells Belle about the rose - this is so so fundamental to the story that it’s amazing they don't draw more attention to it. Nobody tells her that if she doesn't fall for the Beast she’s condemning him and his servants for life. Nobody tells her they’re on the clock. It’s all allowed to be her choice. And yes, I mean her choice. Yes, she’s imprisoned by the Beast, but as soon as he shouts at her over the rose she immediately leaves - and this is later that same night. And nobody tries to stop her, even though her leaving is the end of the only spark of hope they’ve had in years. When she returns after the Beast saves her life his behaviour changes towards her completely. She doesn’t just stay out of gratitude because he saved her, she stays because she likes him, because he treats her well.

Fact 5: This movie’s screenplay was written by a woman. This may seem like a small and insubstantial point, and I may be wrong, but I think there’s a reason Belle is so many girls’ and women’s favourite Disney Princess. I think it’s not an accident that the only Disney Princess movie to be written solely by a woman is also the one that gives its female protagonist the most agency and a personality that immediately resonates with so many women. We’ve all been Belle trying to politely reject Gaston, or geeking out over our favourite book, or feeling like we didn’t fit in somehow, wanting adventure, or just to be seen and loved for who we are. Of course these aren’t exclusively female traits, and I think that's part of what makes Belle such a well-written character. She has a lot of very feminine characteristics, but she’s also just a great character, and would be whatever gender she was.

It may be that you have now spotted the thing that all of these facts about Beauty and the Beast have in common, but here it is just in case you didn’t: these are all things that are true of the original Beauty and the Beast but not of the 2017 live action remake. Let’s look at them again.

Fact 1: The remake of Beauty and the Beast is 129 minutes long. And what do we learn or experience in those extra 45 minutes that deepens our understanding or appreciation of this already perfectly-told story? Nothing. We learn that not everything in the castle is an enchanted person. Er, great.
Fact 2: Gaston is given a backstory which is something to do with the war for some reason. Are we supposed to infer that he’s traumatised and that’s why he’s such an awful person? Or is it that he’s not such a bad guy after all and if Belle just became his life coach he’d shape up like the Beast does? Either way, it’s a terrible decision. He also starts out not that bad - he’s a bit of a dummy but not actively dreadful the way he is the in animated version - then half way through he straight up decides to murder Maurice out of nowhere. 

Fact 3: The Beast is no longer a nice person. Not content with him being a buffalo-man with a terrible temper, they decided he should also be a dreadful snob, who sneers at Belle for her taste in books and for being a commoner. Good choice, guys.

Fact 4: Belle knows about the rose. This is terrible for two equally important reasons; 1) because it takes away some of her agency as a character and suggests she might be staying in the castle out of guilt, and 2) when she does leave the castle, she knows that she’s abandoning its inhabitants to their deaths. This is because, in another spectacularly bad decision on the part of the filmmakers, it's now the case that when the last petal falls, Lumiere, Mrs Potts, Cogsworth and all the rest of them turn into inanimate objects forever. This is left deliberately ambiguous in the original movie and for very good reason. When the Beast sets Belle free (the moment in the original movie where his character arc reaches its zenith, when he has proved he can be selfless and truly good), he knows that he is not only condemning himself to be a beast forever, but also that all of his servants will now die. So that Belle can go be with her dad when he has a cough. And she goes. Probably condemning them all to die. Nice.

Fact 5: This movie is written by a man. And there’s lots in that is supposed to be feminist or whatever, but it’s all cosmetic, goes nowhere and adds nothing to the story. There’s lots of us being told how ‘ahead of her time’ Belle is, and the townsfolk are certainly very unkind to her, but none of it impacts on the story in a meaningful way. Does Belle being ‘ahead of her time’ factor into how she interacts with the other characters? Do the townsfolk learn to be more accepting? Nope. 

In pointing these things out my aim is to show how fundamentally the makers of the live action movie misunderstood what made the original great, and undermined many of its perfections.

But maybe I’m being unfair. I mean the live action movie does have Evermore, which is a completely brilliant song. And it has the plague. And I know what I thought when I first watched Beauty and the Beast at the age of about 6: ‘You know what this movie needs? More plague.’

Smh.

So I think I’ll stop there, as I’ve already gone on and on a bit. I hope you don’t hate this slightly different approach to reviewing the movie too much. As you can probably tell I have a bit of an axe to grind with the live action Beauty and the Beast, but nothing but love and appreciation for the original. It should have won the best picture oscar.


----------



## BrianL

Well, you are right about Beauty and the Beast being perfect and one of the best Disney animated films, if not *the best*. It has brilliant songs, a beautiful score, and beautiful animation. This is the first movie where we see CAPS in full swing, and man, does it show. Even compared to The Little Mermaid, the animation has made a huge leap. This is the gold standard

One thing to note in your review, and this is not to downplay the contribution that Linda Wolverton made to the project as she was definitely a defining voice for it, however it's just the way screenplay credits are handled in Hollywood that can be misleading. Most movies are written by committee and go through several if not dozens of script rewrites. The credited writers are determined by WGA, so while the 2017 movie is "written by men" that is probably not exclusively the case. I certainly don't think they tried to downplay any of the feminism from the original, but I do think they were trying to add depth and detail, which I 100% agree with you in the end added nothing. To me the live action movie was fine, good even - *if* the animated version never existed. It is superfluous and practically identical in most regards. For me, I'll watch the animated one every time.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Well, you are right about Beauty and the Beast being perfect and one of the best Disney animated films, if not *the best*. It has brilliant songs, a beautiful score, and beautiful animation. This is the first movie where we see CAPS in full swing, and man, does it show. Even compared to The Little Mermaid, the animation has made a huge leap. This is the gold standard
> 
> One thing to note in your review, and this is not to downplay the contribution that Linda Wolverton made to the project as she was definitely a defining voice for it, however it's just the way screenplay credits are handled in Hollywood that can be misleading. Most movies are written by committee and go through several if not dozens of script rewrites. The credited writers are determined by WGA, so while the 2017 movie is "written by men" that is probably not exclusively the case. I certainly don't think they tried to downplay any of the feminism from the original, but I do think they were trying to add depth and detail, which I 100% agree with you in the end added nothing. To me the live action movie was fine, good even - *if* the animated version never existed. It is superfluous and practically identical in most regards. For me, I'll watch the animated one every time.



It's clear there were many voices involved. Ashmen and Menken, for example, effected the story of The Little Mermaid and how characters were realised and I bet it was the same for this too. (Genuises!  It is interesting that the original is the only Disney princess movie credited exclusively to a woman though.

I don't think they are downplaying feminism with the live action, I just don't think the live action movie 'gets it' or what made the original so special in what it was saying.

If anything the live-action tries to hamm it up, in a 'paint by numbers way'. Belle is actually scorned for teaching a kid to read. I think its more interesting that the villages just don't get her for even wanting to read


----------



## RSandRS

*Day 37: Aladdin (1992)
*
Aladdin is a really fun, witty and likeable film which, though it may be slightly overshadowed by Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, is one of the highlights of the Renaissance era. It’s nicely animated with colourful characters, beautiful backgrounds and great songs. I like this movie a LOT!

The plot is good, with a well-established romance between the central couple and then the three wishes device to structure the rest of the movie around. They also do a great job of developing both Aladdin’s and the genie’s character arcs - it’s nice to have two central characters to root for, and not just one.

The songs are also used to great effect as songs should be in a musical. Apart, perhaps, from Prince Ali, they all move the story along in some significant way or tell us something significant that we didn't know. You could even argue Prince Ali does this, and it’s such a fab song that who cares anyway? My favourite song is of course A Whole New World - I mean who wouldn’t fall for a guy after a magic carpet ride and a song like that? Shoutout to Lea Salonga in her first Disney Princess role - damn that woman can sing!

As for the characters they’re for the most part really likeable. Al is a liar and a thief, but the movie still makes you really root for him. Loveable rogue about covers it! It's nice to have a main character in a Disney movie who isn’t a paragon of virtue and needs to learn an important lesson before the end of the movie. Jasmine is a fun and sexy heroine, though the forced marriage plotline could maybe be dealt with a bit more sensitively. In fact Jasmine’s dad is probably the worst character in the film. The fact that he’s a bumbling idiot doesn’t excuse the fact that he’s forcing his daughter into marriage, or the fact that he’s allowing Jafar to manipulate him. He should also do something about the homelessness problem in Agrabah.

Jafar is a really good villain - you just love to hate him. I wish he could have a proper villain song as the actor absolutely kills it in that reprise of Prince Ali. He seems to be one of those evil-for-the-love-of-it Disney villains that you barely ever get nowadays and which are so satisfying. Though you could suggest that the sultan is such a terrible sultan that Jafar is justified in trying to remove him! We also both agreed that Iago was one of our favourite villain sidekicks. (Mad props to whoever decided on that name!) He’s not just there to be useless or snipe from the sidelines, he actually has ideas and makes things happen - though he does a fair amount of sniping from the sidelines too. This having been said the decision to build a whole sequel around an Iago redemption arc is a mystifying one. 

Most of all however, this movie belongs to Robin Williams. It’s the first and possibly only Disney movie to be so completely stolen by one character, especially a second-tier character. And although a significant amount of the credit must go to Robin Williams for creating the character, you’ve got to give Disney props too for having confidence in him and letting him do whatever he wanted with the character. Though not of course for the way they treated him afterwards! The genie is a piece of unique, unconventional genius that could never be repeated. Though, Disney being Disney, they tried to replicate the success of the character unsuccessfully, as evidenced by the two limp sequels to Aladdin (though the second one is much better than the first since Robin Williams is actually in it). 

Genie doesn’t actually appear until a good way into the film (maybe 40 minutes?) but his personality is so much a part of the film that it feels like he’s there all the way through. He also gets two fantastic songs which Robin Williams delivers perfectly. Friend Like Me must be one of the best ‘sidekick songs’ and that whole section is animated so exuberantly that it’s one of the highlights of the film. It feels like a big celebratory broadway number, which is possible why it was the only good bit of the stage show (so surprising we were soooo excited to see it), which we saw in London a couple of years ago.

This is a slightly shorter review than they have been of late, but this is basically you probably need a break! You shouldn’t read into it that I like this movie a lot less than The Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast. It’s maybe not quite as special to me, but it was still a big part of my childhood and is a movie I’ve adored for most of my life.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Day 37: Aladdin (1992)
> *
> Aladdin is a really fun, witty and likeable film which, though it may be slightly overshadowed by Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, is one of the highlights of the Renaissance era. It’s nicely animated with colourful characters, beautiful backgrounds and great songs. I like this movie a LOT!
> 
> The plot is good, with a well-established romance between the central couple and then the three wishes device to structure the rest of the movie around. They also do a great job of developing both Aladdin’s and the genie’s character arcs - it’s nice to have two central characters to root for, and not just one.
> 
> The songs are also used to great effect as songs should be in a musical. Apart, perhaps, from Prince Ali, they all move the story along in some significant way or tell us something significant that we didn't know. You could even argue Prince Ali does this, and it’s such a fab song that who cares anyway? My favourite song is of course A Whole New World - I mean who wouldn’t fall for a guy after a magic carpet ride and a song like that? Shoutout to Lea Salonga in her first Disney Princess role - damn that woman can sing!
> 
> As for the characters they’re for the most part really likeable. Al is a liar and a thief, but the movie still makes you really root for him. Loveable rogue about covers it! It's nice to have a main character in a Disney movie who isn’t a paragon of virtue and needs to learn an important lesson before the end of the movie. Jasmine is a fun and sexy heroine, though the forced marriage plotline could maybe be dealt with a bit more sensitively. In fact Jasmine’s dad is probably the worst character in the film. The fact that he’s a bumbling idiot doesn’t excuse the fact that he’s forcing his daughter into marriage, or the fact that he’s allowing Jafar to manipulate him. He should also do something about the homelessness problem in Agrabah.
> 
> Jafar is a really good villain - you just love to hate him. I wish he could have a proper villain song as the actor absolutely kills it in that reprise of Prince Ali. He seems to be one of those evil-for-the-love-of-it Disney villains that you barely ever get nowadays and which are so satisfying. Though you could suggest that the sultan is such a terrible sultan that Jafar is justified in trying to remove him! We also both agreed that Iago was one of our favourite villain sidekicks. (Mad props to whoever decided on that name!) He’s not just there to be useless or snipe from the sidelines, he actually has ideas and makes things happen - though he does a fair amount of sniping from the sidelines too. This having been said the decision to build a whole sequel around an Iago redemption arc is a mystifying one.
> 
> Most of all however, this movie belongs to Robin Williams. It’s the first and possibly only Disney movie to be so completely stolen by one character, especially a second-tier character. And although a significant amount of the credit must go to Robin Williams for creating the character, you’ve got to give Disney props too for having confidence in him and letting him do whatever he wanted with the character. Though not of course for the way they treated him afterwards! The genie is a piece of unique, unconventional genius that could never be repeated. Though, Disney being Disney, they tried to replicate the success of the character unsuccessfully, as evidenced by the two limp sequels to Aladdin (though the second one is much better than the first since Robin Williams is actually in it).
> 
> Genie doesn’t actually appear until a good way into the film (maybe 40 minutes?) but his personality is so much a part of the film that it feels like he’s there all the way through. He also gets two fantastic songs which Robin Williams delivers perfectly. Friend Like Me must be one of the best ‘sidekick songs’ and that whole section is animated so exuberantly that it’s one of the highlights of the film. It feels like a big celebratory broadway number, which is possible why it was the only good bit of the stage show (so surprising we were soooo excited to see it), which we saw in London a couple of years ago.
> 
> This is a slightly shorter review than they have been of late, but this is basically you probably need a break! You shouldn’t read into it that I like this movie a lot less than The Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast. It’s maybe not quite as special to me, but it was still a big part of my childhood and is a movie I’ve adored for most of my life.



Oh, yes, another spot-on hit, Aladdin, and yeah, it is pretty much thanks to Genie and Robin Williams. It's a great movie with great songs and great visuals. CAPS muscle is on display in the Cave of Wonders - NOBODY else was doing stuff like this in animation! It would come into vogue later, but this was what was making Disney once again a cut above the rest.


----------



## Micca

BATB Homerun, Aladdin Homerun.  Great music and as Brian mentioned, the animation has taken a huge jump, which is why TLM looks a bit weak comparatively.  Anecdote:  I attended a community premier of BATB with Richard White, the voice of Gaston.  He made a few remarks just before the movie started and I think he mentioned how much improvement there was in the animation.  He mentioned the chandelier in the ballroom scene and how it looked almost 3D.  When that scene came on the screen there was a noticeable gasp from the audience.


----------



## BrianL

Micca said:


> BATB Homerun, Aladdin Homerun.  Great music and as Brian mentioned, the animation has taken a huge jump, which is why TLM looks a bit weak comparatively.  Anecdote:  I attended a community premier of BATB with Richard White, the voice of Gaston.  He made a few remarks just before the movie started and I think he mentioned how much improvement there was in the animation.  He mentioned the chandelier in the ballroom scene and how it looked almost 3D.  When that scene came on the screen there was a noticeable gasp from the audience.



That is a gasp that was recreated from the Snow White and The 7 Dwarfs premiere. Nobody had ever really seen "realistic" animation and when the picture opens and starts zooming in on the castle, the audience gasped. That multi-plane camera was doing the work then, and it was leaps beyond what anyone else was doing. CAPS did it in the 90's. Today, the Hyperion Engine powers Disney Feature Animation projects, and it earns it's keep as Disney has once again become the leader in animated visuals. The render work for Moana's hair and water effects is jaw-dropping!


----------



## Micca

BrianL said:


> That multi-plane camera was doing the work then, and it was leaps beyond what anyone else was doing.


The multiplane camera was awesome.  One of my favorite multiplane sequences in the opening of Pinocchio.  It's similar to the Snow White opening but the camera moves around the village and the perception of depth is fantastic.  The multiplane camera was a beast too, the thing was huge.


----------



## RSandRS

We saw the use of the multiplane way back in The Reluctant Dragon, so interesting! 

Unfortunately, no reviews this week as we just have not had an opportunity to watch anything...Work will get in the way of Disney sometimes! 

Hoping for more chances to watch stuff next week!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> We saw the use of the multiplane way back in The Reluctant Dragon, so interesting!
> 
> Unfortunately, no reviews this week as we just have not had an opportunity to watch anything...Work will get in the way of Disney sometimes!
> 
> Hoping for more chances to watch stuff next week!



I understand. We miss the reviews though. It's always fun. You're right in the middle of the good stuff too!


----------



## kpd6901

RSandRS said:


> Day 36: Beauty and the Beast (1991)
> 
> You may have worked out somewhere along the way that Beauty and the Beast is one of my favourite Disney movies of all time - definitely in the top 2 or 3. That being the case it’s quite difficult to review this movie as so many aspects of it are so completely perfect - the animation, the characterisation, the music, the pacing - all are superlative examples of the animated film genre. So instead of rhapsodising about every minute of this movie and going on for hours and hours (and believe me, I could - while we were watching the film we kept having to pause it so we could describe to each other why a particular seemingly throwaway moment was so damn perfect!) I am instead going to highlight a few key things about the movie and describe why they are so right. The significance of these things will hopefully become clear as I go along.
> 
> Fact 1: Beauty and the Beast is 84 minutes long - it's the perfect length. Every second of the movie serves the plot or theme in some way. To add in more story, or to labour over points that are made deftly and succinctly would be a disservice to the movie as a whole. Yes there are things that aren't entirely made clear (how old the beast was when he was cursed, whether every piece of furniture in the castle is an enchanted person etc.) but who cares? These are questions that mean nothing to the story that is being told and to try to explain them would slow things down and detract from the storytelling.
> 
> Fact 2: Gaston is a big, mean bully with no backstory to explain why - why? Because we don't need to know his backstory. It’s all there in the movie. It’s another example of the movie’s lightness of touch - Gaston is a big, mean bully because he is a good-looking ‘alpha male’ in a village full of people who idolise him. It’s made him believe he is entitled to anything he wants. We can see all this within a few seconds of him appearing on the screen from the way he acts and the way others react to him. We don't need anything more than what we’re given.
> 
> Fact 3: The Beast is a nice person. This is kind of fundamental to the story. We are supposed to compare Gaston and the Beast. In a way they could be said to start the story in the same place - but it’s where they end up that’s so important. And the movie indicates to us over and over again that the Beast is fundamentally a good person. Yes, he has a temper problem, but every time he lashes out we see him immediately regret it. And (again, fundamentally) this isn’t because of coaching by Belle. She doesn’t set out to make herself a prince from a beast, or to teach the Beast to be a good person - she treats him (and Gaston) exactly as he deserves to be treated. When the Beast is being a bad-tempered a*se she wants nothing to do with him; when he’s saving her life and giving her libraries she becomes his friend; when he opens his heart to her she falls for him. This is a relationship that develops as a relationship should and will clearly be a marriage of true equals.
> 
> It’s kind of important also to note that, even though this is a Disney Princess story and is always talked about as if it is one, the real story isn’t Belle’s, it’s the Beast’s. She is kind of perfect from the get-go and doesn’t really have an arc. It’s pretty clear that Belle doesn't have to try and look past the Beast’s ugliness to see the beauty within - she sees past Gaston’s beauty to see the ugliness within in the first few minutes of the movie. She just wants someone to talk to about her books and to appreciate her for who she is - she doesn’t care if that’s a Baker or a Beast. No, the real arc is the Beast’s. He is the one who has to learn and change in order to get what he wants.
> 
> Fact 4: Nobody tells Belle about the rose - this is so so fundamental to the story that it’s amazing they don't draw more attention to it. Nobody tells her that if she doesn't fall for the Beast she’s condemning him and his servants for life. Nobody tells her they’re on the clock. It’s all allowed to be her choice. And yes, I mean her choice. Yes, she’s imprisoned by the Beast, but as soon as he shouts at her over the rose she immediately leaves - and this is later that same night. And nobody tries to stop her, even though her leaving is the end of the only spark of hope they’ve had in years. When she returns after the Beast saves her life his behaviour changes towards her completely. She doesn’t just stay out of gratitude because he saved her, she stays because she likes him, because he treats her well.
> 
> Fact 5: This movie’s screenplay was written by a woman. This may seem like a small and insubstantial point, and I may be wrong, but I think there’s a reason Belle is so many girls’ and women’s favourite Disney Princess. I think it’s not an accident that the only Disney Princess movie to be written solely by a woman is also the one that gives its female protagonist the most agency and a personality that immediately resonates with so many women. We’ve all been Belle trying to politely reject Gaston, or geeking out over our favourite book, or feeling like we didn’t fit in somehow, wanting adventure, or just to be seen and loved for who we are. Of course these aren’t exclusively female traits, and I think that's part of what makes Belle such a well-written character. She has a lot of very feminine characteristics, but she’s also just a great character, and would be whatever gender she was.
> 
> It may be that you have now spotted the thing that all of these facts about Beauty and the Beast have in common, but here it is just in case you didn’t: these are all things that are true of the original Beauty and the Beast but not of the 2017 live action remake. Let’s look at them again.
> 
> Fact 1: The remake of Beauty and the Beast is 129 minutes long. And what do we learn or experience in those extra 45 minutes that deepens our understanding or appreciation of this already perfectly-told story? Nothing. We learn that not everything in the castle is an enchanted person. Er, great.
> Fact 2: Gaston is given a backstory which is something to do with the war for some reason. Are we supposed to infer that he’s traumatised and that’s why he’s such an awful person? Or is it that he’s not such a bad guy after all and if Belle just became his life coach he’d shape up like the Beast does? Either way, it’s a terrible decision. He also starts out not that bad - he’s a bit of a dummy but not actively dreadful the way he is the in animated version - then half way through he straight up decides to murder Maurice out of nowhere.
> 
> Fact 3: The Beast is no longer a nice person. Not content with him being a buffalo-man with a terrible temper, they decided he should also be a dreadful snob, who sneers at Belle for her taste in books and for being a commoner. Good choice, guys.
> 
> Fact 4: Belle knows about the rose. This is terrible for two equally important reasons; 1) because it takes away some of her agency as a character and suggests she might be staying in the castle out of guilt, and 2) when she does leave the castle, she knows that she’s abandoning its inhabitants to their deaths. This is because, in another spectacularly bad decision on the part of the filmmakers, it's now the case that when the last petal falls, Lumiere, Mrs Potts, Cogsworth and all the rest of them turn into inanimate objects forever. This is left deliberately ambiguous in the original movie and for very good reason. When the Beast sets Belle free (the moment in the original movie where his character arc reaches its zenith, when he has proved he can be selfless and truly good), he knows that he is not only condemning himself to be a beast forever, but also that all of his servants will now die. So that Belle can go be with her dad when he has a cough. And she goes. Probably condemning them all to die. Nice.
> 
> Fact 5: This movie is written by a man. And there’s lots in that is supposed to be feminist or whatever, but it’s all cosmetic, goes nowhere and adds nothing to the story. There’s lots of us being told how ‘ahead of her time’ Belle is, and the townsfolk are certainly very unkind to her, but none of it impacts on the story in a meaningful way. Does Belle being ‘ahead of her time’ factor into how she interacts with the other characters? Do the townsfolk learn to be more accepting? Nope.
> 
> In pointing these things out my aim is to show how fundamentally the makers of the live action movie misunderstood what made the original great, and undermined many of its perfections.
> 
> But maybe I’m being unfair. I mean the live action movie does have Evermore, which is a completely brilliant song. And it has the plague. And I know what I thought when I first watched Beauty and the Beast at the age of about 6: ‘You know what this movie needs? More plague.’
> 
> Smh.
> 
> So I think I’ll stop there, as I’ve already gone on and on a bit. I hope you don’t hate this slightly different approach to reviewing the movie too much. As you can probably tell I have a bit of an axe to grind with the live action Beauty and the Beast, but nothing but love and appreciation for the original. It should have won the best picture oscar.


I'm a little behind. But as we have Disney songs pumping through the car, it hit me. I would love to hear a psychologist's take on this. As the Beast first gets transformed, and over time, he is angry and disgusted at himself and his appearance. Deep down, he obviously knows he is human, and would refer to his anatomy in human terms.  Then, May Be Something There starts playing. You hear the line, "she didn't shudder at MY PAW". So, at some point, angry, disgusted Beast comes to grips with his condition enough to the point where he refers to his own appendage as his paw, not his hand or arm. Sure, it rhymes in song, but that seems to indicate a very significant psychological turn, especially when at this point, with Belle there, he clearly anticipates at least the possibility of becoming human again. Just a thought.


----------



## RSandRS

*The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)*

This one is a bit of an outlier in this string of peerless Disney classics. It’s not bad by any means and is really very creative and unique, it just doesn’t fit in somehow. I must also admit that it’s not one of my favourites. This was actually the first time I watched it all the way through. I can totally see why it appealed to a whole generation of children and young people who maybe thought they were ‘edgy’? but its just not really for me. I do like some Tim Burton films. Edward Scissorhands is awesome, but I really dislike the new Alice films, so its swings and roundabouts with his movies for me.

But as I said you cannot argue it’s a bad movie, and there are positives and negatives, so let’s start with what we liked.

The look of this movie is spectacular. In terms of transporting you into an entirely new world, this may be one of the most successful Disney films ever. There are haunting images in the film that really stick with you. They embrace the grotesque and spooky aesthetic so fully that I think I might have found the film frightening if I’d watched in as a little kid. This is quite a ballsy move on the part of Disney (although not under their own name at the time I believe), for which they get props from me. I also respect the fact that the movie plops you down in the middle of Halloween Town and just lets you get on with it, not trying to over-explain anything. It respects the intelligence of its audience, believing that if the fantasy world is created effectively enough it won’t require lots of exposition. I think kids respond to this unpatronising approach well, so I’m all for it. All in all a lot of care and attention, not to mention creativity, has gone into the creation of every aspect of this movie and it really works. It must have taken them ages!

The music is also brilliant. It’s far more successful as a complete musical piece than some other movies because the songs all sound like they come from the same movie. They are very consistent and create an overall sound for the movie that contributes to the atmosphere created by the visuals. The songs are beautiful and weird and unsettling and just work extremely well.

In terms of what we didn’t like it’s a bit harder to put my finger on. It may come down to this just not really being my sort of thing. I can appreciate it, but maybe I just can’t like it very much. The characters, without exception, seem to be fairly horrible. And I guess they’re meant to be, but it makes them quite difficult to identify with. Some of them are also a little underdeveloped. However, this again could be explained away by saying that they’re archetypes, or that they’re meant to be larger than life - it may just come down to it not being my thing again!

My other issue is that I don’t really know what this movie is trying to tell me. I’d like to believe that Jack learns something from his escapade, but if he does it’s hard to put your finger on what it is. And that being the case it’s also hard to put your finger on what the message of the movie is. Is it stay in your lane and don’t try new things? Or the true spirit of Christmas is love? Or Halloween is better than Christmas anyway? Or simply, don’t mess with Christmas? The fact that I don’t know makes me question whether this movie might be style over substance.

And finally, where do I fall on the big ‘Is It A Halloween Movie Or A Christmas Movie’ debate? My answer is...I don’t care. Feels more like a Halloween movie to me but I genuinely don’t care. The debate seems slightly manufactured anyway, as it means Disney can legitimately sell Nightmare Before Christmas merch at Halloween and Christmas, while hapless shoppers shop 

So, in summary, although I can totally see why The Nightmare Before Christmas is viewed as a masterpiece by so many people it unfortunately just isn’t for me. And It certainly won’t be making it onto my must-watch Christmas movies list. It does not even compare to the likes of the Muppet Christmas Carol for me


----------



## RSandRS

kpd6901 said:


> I'm a little behind. But as we have Disney songs pumping through the car, it hit me. I would love to hear a psychologist's take on this. As the Beast first gets transformed, and over time, he is angry and disgusted at himself and his appearance. Deep down, he obviously knows he is human, and would refer to his anatomy in human terms.  Then, May Be Something There starts playing. You hear the line, "she didn't shudder at MY PAW". So, at some point, angry, disgusted Beast comes to grips with his condition enough to the point where he refers to his own appendage as his paw, not his hand or arm. Sure, it rhymes in song, but that seems to indicate a very significant psychological turn, especially when at this point, with Belle there, he clearly anticipates at least the possibility of becoming human again. Just a thought.



I hadn't thought of himself thinking he's a beast and experiencing real contact as being the turning point in becoming human-interesting! Definitely in need a psychologist's input!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)*
> 
> This one is a bit of an outlier in this string of peerless Disney classics. It’s not bad by any means and is really very creative and unique, it just doesn’t fit in somehow. I must also admit that it’s not one of my favourites. This was actually the first time I watched it all the way through. I can totally see why it appealed to a whole generation of children and young people who maybe thought they were ‘edgy’? but its just not really for me. I do like some Tim Burton films. Edward Scissorhands is awesome, but I really dislike the new Alice films, so its swings and roundabouts with his movies for me.
> 
> But as I said you cannot argue it’s a bad movie, and there are positives and negatives, so let’s start with what we liked.
> 
> The look of this movie is spectacular. In terms of transporting you into an entirely new world, this may be one of the most successful Disney films ever. There are haunting images in the film that really stick with you. They embrace the grotesque and spooky aesthetic so fully that I think I might have found the film frightening if I’d watched in as a little kid. This is quite a ballsy move on the part of Disney (although not under their own name at the time I believe), for which they get props from me. I also respect the fact that the movie plops you down in the middle of Halloween Town and just lets you get on with it, not trying to over-explain anything. It respects the intelligence of its audience, believing that if the fantasy world is created effectively enough it won’t require lots of exposition. I think kids respond to this unpatronising approach well, so I’m all for it. All in all a lot of care and attention, not to mention creativity, has gone into the creation of every aspect of this movie and it really works. It must have taken them ages!
> 
> The music is also brilliant. It’s far more successful as a complete musical piece than some other movies because the songs all sound like they come from the same movie. They are very consistent and create an overall sound for the movie that contributes to the atmosphere created by the visuals. The songs are beautiful and weird and unsettling and just work extremely well.
> 
> In terms of what we didn’t like it’s a bit harder to put my finger on. It may come down to this just not really being my sort of thing. I can appreciate it, but maybe I just can’t like it very much. The characters, without exception, seem to be fairly horrible. And I guess they’re meant to be, but it makes them quite difficult to identify with. Some of them are also a little underdeveloped. However, this again could be explained away by saying that they’re archetypes, or that they’re meant to be larger than life - it may just come down to it not being my thing again!
> 
> My other issue is that I don’t really know what this movie is trying to tell me. I’d like to believe that Jack learns something from his escapade, but if he does it’s hard to put your finger on what it is. And that being the case it’s also hard to put your finger on what the message of the movie is. Is it stay in your lane and don’t try new things? Or the true spirit of Christmas is love? Or Halloween is better than Christmas anyway? Or simply, don’t mess with Christmas? The fact that I don’t know makes me question whether this movie might be style over substance.
> 
> And finally, where do I fall on the big ‘Is It A Halloween Movie Or A Christmas Movie’ debate? My answer is...I don’t care. Feels more like a Halloween movie to me but I genuinely don’t care. The debate seems slightly manufactured anyway, as it means Disney can legitimately sell Nightmare Before Christmas merch at Halloween and Christmas, while hapless shoppers shop
> 
> So, in summary, although I can totally see why The Nightmare Before Christmas is viewed as a masterpiece by so many people it unfortunately just isn’t for me. And It certainly won’t be making it onto my must-watch Christmas movies list. It does not even compare to the likes of the Muppet Christmas Carol for me



I love when you throw in a curve-ball!

Anyway, I kinda feel the same way about this movie to an extent. As a film it has a lot of flaws and is "just okay." However, I *LOVE* the music! The songs are spectacular and, you're right, they tell the story all on their own and form a cohesive musical suite. I love Danny Elfman, form Oingo Boingo to his composing work, and this is one of his masterpieces. Yeah, the film is a bit muddled and clunky (looks gorgeous though!) and yeah, what is the journey? Did Jack learn anything? The characters are all kind of vile, at least those from Halloween Town. Then again, they are some ghoulish things, so, yeah. At any rate, you can see that it is a great film on it's merits, and the lovely stop motion by Henry Selick, but yeah, it's not a favorite of mine aside from the music.

Will you toss in another Henry Selick & Disney work, James and the Giant Peach?


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> I love when you throw in a curve-ball!
> 
> Anyway, I kinda feel the same way about this movie to an extent. As a film it has a lot of flaws and is "just okay." However, I *LOVE* the music! The songs are spectacular and, you're right, they tell the story all on their own and form a cohesive musical suite. I love Danny Elfman, form Oingo Boingo to his composing work, and this is one of his masterpieces. Yeah, the film is a bit muddled and clunky (looks gorgeous though!) and yeah, what is the journey? Did Jack learn anything? The characters are all kind of vile, at least those from Halloween Town. Then again, they are some ghoulish things, so, yeah. At any rate, you can see that it is a great film on it's merits, and the lovely stop motion by Henry Selick, but yeah, it's not a favorite of mine aside from the music.
> 
> Will you toss in another Henry Selick & Disney work, James and the Giant Peach?



Who knows! The wiki list reigns supreme here, we never know what its going to throw at us next! Although it also has Studio Ghibli and I really don't see how that counts!


----------



## RSandRS

*The Lion King (1994)*

So, cards on the table, this is one of my two 'favourite' Disney movies OF ALL TIME and it is the unarguably the best! (I love the other not because its the best, but because I LOVE it) To me, it is absolutely perfect - the characters, the music, the idea behind it all, the villain and my God the animation! There simply aren't enough superlatives in the world to describe how awesome I think this movie is. I know it’s a fairly common opinion, but it seems to me that that’s for a very good reason. This is everything an animated movie should be, managing to be supremely entertaining and heart-warming but also transcend the medium to become a work of art in and of itself.

In fact, I love this movie so much that reviewing it is quite difficult. Please take it as read that I adore everything in the movie, but I will now take one or two key elements that I think make The Lion King stand out as Disney’s most glorious achievement. If I try to talk about everything we’ll be here for hours, and I will run out of synonyms for the phrase ‘bloody brilliant’.

The villain Wow Scar is a brilliant villain. He is one of those villains who is so attractive as a character that you become certain if he was a tad less murdery you’d definitely be on his side. The design of the character is amazing. We’ve seen the mastery of the Disney animators when portraying human emotions of animals’ faces grow over the years since Dumbo and it reaches its pinnacle here (Fight me Zootopia! I’m just kidding I ADORE Zootopia!). Scar just makes evil look so cool! There’s something a bit rock-starish about how dishevelled and skinny he is and he's so visually different from Mufassa. The voice work by Jeremy Irons is also amazing. I know it’s a bit of a cliche in Hollywood to always have the villain played by a Brit (I guess we just sound like we’re planning world domination...which we are mwahahaha!) but it was a perfect choice here. He has so many super-quotable lines too - ‘I’m surrounded by idiots’ is my personal fave. One of my sister's fav people watching moments in Disney World was seeing a mum with a t-shirt stating this striding along and surrounded by five oblivious kids!

The sidekicks Like Aladdin, The Lion King’s side characters elevate it rather than just being there to make up the numbers. I’m looking at you Fox and the Hound! Timon and Pumbaa are just fantastic and really make an impression considering they're only in half the film. Timon, in particular, I’ve loved since I was little; I think Nathan Lane does fantastic work bringing the character to life. He also sings the songs brilliantly. Sitting here thinking about it I realise they actually give him quite a lot of singing to do, but I almost feel like he deserved more because he does such a great job. Honourable mention also to the hyenas - the design of them is soooo ugly and fantastic, and of course they’re voiced superbly.

The way they handle bereavement Now you can't watch more than a handful of Disney films before you start to notice there’s quite a few dead parents, but this is easily the best treatment of bereavement, and the only one I can think of where a character actually dies on screen. Especially such an important character. It makes Scar all the more effective as a villain that you see him straight up murder his brother. The way ‘the great circle of life’ is handled in this movie is nothing short of beautiful. I can remember being quite shocked and almost not quite believing my eyes when I witnessed Mufasa’s death for the first time as a child. They couldn’t be have actually killed him off could they? Not Mufasa! He’s such a well realised character (warm, wise, funny) and you fall in love with him so completely that his death, though you can feel that it’s necessary for the story, seems extremely cruel. That scene where Simba discovers his father dead and just calls out for help hopelessly never fails to bring a lump to my throat.

The depiction of Africa Part of the reason that I love The Lion King so much is that it recreates East Africa, the part of the world where I did quite a lot of my growing up. I think they also took inspiration from South Africa, but the big open plains of The Pride Lands look very East Africa to me. And what can I say? They had plenty to work with - this to me is the most beautiful place in the whole world - but man, did they do it justice! You can’t help getting caught up in the brilliant story, but whenever you pause the movie you realise that every damn frame is a perfect work of art. The Circle of Life opening sequence (Nyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - sorry, I couldn't help myself) is the best in all of Disney, largely because of the stunning visuals. And they aren't content with just making a beautiful place with beautiful animals look beautiful, they choose brilliant camera angles that synch up with the music and lyrics and add to the sense of scale and wonder. You blink along with the baby giraffe as it steps into the sun, and you flinch when the elephant’s giant foot comes down towards you. This is next-level animation.

I could go on and on about every aspect of The Lion King - I haven’t even touched on the music, which is absolutely glorious - but I have run out of time and need to stop there. I’ll just finish by saying that this movie has been special to me since I was very young. I watch it at least once a year and though Disney and Pixar have knocked it out the park on many occasions since, it’s never been knocked off top spot for me. I feel very lucky to have grown up where I did and to have grown up during the Disney Renaissance years!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *The Lion King (1994)*
> 
> So, cards on the table, this is one of my two 'favourite' Disney movies OF ALL TIME and it is the unarguably the best! (I love the other not because its the best, but because I LOVE it) To me, it is absolutely perfect - the characters, the music, the idea behind it all, the villain and my God the animation! There simply aren't enough superlatives in the world to describe how awesome I think this movie is. I know it’s a fairly common opinion, but it seems to me that that’s for a very good reason. This is everything an animated movie should be, managing to be supremely entertaining and heart-warming but also transcend the medium to become a work of art in and of itself.
> 
> In fact, I love this movie so much that reviewing it is quite difficult. Please take it as read that I adore everything in the movie, but I will now take one or two key elements that I think make The Lion King stand out as Disney’s most glorious achievement. If I try to talk about everything we’ll be here for hours, and I will run out of synonyms for the phrase ‘bloody brilliant’.
> 
> The villain Wow Scar is a brilliant villain. He is one of those villains who is so attractive as a character that you become certain if he was a tad less murdery you’d definitely be on his side. The design of the character is amazing. We’ve seen the mastery of the Disney animators when portraying human emotions of animals’ faces grow over the years since Dumbo and it reaches its pinnacle here (Fight me Zootopia! I’m just kidding I ADORE Zootopia!). Scar just makes evil look so cool! There’s something a bit rock-starish about how dishevelled and skinny he is and he's so visually different from Mufassa. The voice work by Jeremy Irons is also amazing. I know it’s a bit of a cliche in Hollywood to always have the villain played by a Brit (I guess we just sound like we’re planning world domination...which we are mwahahaha!) but it was a perfect choice here. He has so many super-quotable lines too - ‘I’m surrounded by idiots’ is my personal fave. One of my sister's fav people watching moments in Disney World was seeing a mum with a t-shirt stating this striding along and surrounded by five oblivious kids!
> 
> The sidekicks Like Aladdin, The Lion King’s side characters elevate it rather than just being there to make up the numbers. I’m looking at you Fox and the Hound! Timon and Pumbaa are just fantastic and really make an impression considering they're only in half the film. Timon, in particular, I’ve loved since I was little; I think Nathan Lane does fantastic work bringing the character to life. He also sings the songs brilliantly. Sitting here thinking about it I realise they actually give him quite a lot of singing to do, but I almost feel like he deserved more because he does such a great job. Honourable mention also to the hyenas - the design of them is soooo ugly and fantastic, and of course they’re voiced superbly.
> 
> The way they handle bereavement Now you can't watch more than a handful of Disney films before you start to notice there’s quite a few dead parents, but this is easily the best treatment of bereavement, and the only one I can think of where a character actually dies on screen. Especially such an important character. It makes Scar all the more effective as a villain that you see him straight up murder his brother. The way ‘the great circle of life’ is handled in this movie is nothing short of beautiful. I can remember being quite shocked and almost not quite believing my eyes when I witnessed Mufasa’s death for the first time as a child. They couldn’t be have actually killed him off could they? Not Mufasa! He’s such a well realised character (warm, wise, funny) and you fall in love with him so completely that his death, though you can feel that it’s necessary for the story, seems extremely cruel. That scene where Simba discovers his father dead and just calls out for help hopelessly never fails to bring a lump to my throat.
> 
> The depiction of Africa Part of the reason that I love The Lion King so much is that it recreates East Africa, the part of the world where I did quite a lot of my growing up. I think they also took inspiration from South Africa, but the big open plains of The Pride Lands look very East Africa to me. And what can I say? They had plenty to work with - this to me is the most beautiful place in the whole world - but man, did they do it justice! You can’t help getting caught up in the brilliant story, but whenever you pause the movie you realise that every damn frame is a perfect work of art. The Circle of Life opening sequence (Nyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - sorry, I couldn't help myself) is the best in all of Disney, largely because of the stunning visuals. And they aren't content with just making a beautiful place with beautiful animals look beautiful, they choose brilliant camera angles that synch up with the music and lyrics and add to the sense of scale and wonder. You blink along with the baby giraffe as it steps into the sun, and you flinch when the elephant’s giant foot comes down towards you. This is next-level animation.
> 
> I could go on and on about every aspect of The Lion King - I haven’t even touched on the music, which is absolutely glorious - but I have run out of time and need to stop there. I’ll just finish by saying that this movie has been special to me since I was very young. I watch it at least once a year and though Disney and Pixar have knocked it out the park on many occasions since, it’s never been knocked off top spot for me. I feel very lucky to have grown up where I did and to have grown up during the Disney Renaissance years!



Well, there's no question that Lion King is a masterpiece! It is "bloody brilliant" in almost every regard. It's not necessarily my favorite personally, but certainly it is one of the best. I love the opening scene with the Circle of Life music and the presentation of Simba. It sets such an amazing tone. And, yes, the music! It's all so good, including the versions in the film and the Elton John versions as well. I think you said what needs to be said about it.


----------



## RSandRS

*A Goofy Movie (1995)*

This was a new one for both of us, and we thoroughly enjoyed it!

The relationship between father and son is fantastic, both Max and Goofy have really lovely arcs, and this really works as a road trip movie. Goofy’s caring and trusting approach to fatherhood is really great-even if he is a little too quick to believe his son has the propensity to end up in ‘the electric chair’ in later life (Disney what were you thinking?) after he hijacks a school assembly to do some sweet moves.

All of the self-aware references are really fun! Ariel, Zero from Nightmare Before Christmas and the Country Bears, are all in here (my favourite reference). I did comment while watching this that Max’s disgruntled expression at having to sit through the Country Bears substitute was very similar to both my sisters’ when forced into the Carousel of Progress and the Tikki Room at Disney World - they flat out refuse to do the Country Bears. We also really liked the trappings of the environment in which the characters live, complete with exploding cassette tapes, waterbeds with actual fish inside, and hot tubs. Is this the 90s nostalgic for the 80s?

The songs are also great. I can see why they have nostalgic value for so many people.

Ok, some queries, about things which we were still not sure about when the movie was finished. 1) Is Goofy their surname? Nickname? Goofy gets called Mr Goof at one point and Max gets called the Goof boy. Is it Max Goof and Goofy Goof? The Goofys? 2) What kind of animals are they? I mean I appreciate Max and Goofy are dogs, but what about the female characters? Are they hybrid human/dogs? Maybe this is best left unknown...

The only thing about the film, and it’s not really a negative, is that when you watch them chronologically as we are, it seems really out of place where it is. It looks like such a throwback to the 80s, which I suppose it was, but it seems to have been an odd time for Disney to make a movie like this bang in the middle of the Renaissance. It really has echoes of Roger Rabbit with all its references and self-awareness, while the artwork is more Oliver and Company and Basil: The Great Mouse Detective.

For all it’s out of place, I am so glad it exists and will definitely watch it again sometime!


----------



## Micca

I'm a little behind so I'll be brief...

NBC- I didn't like this movie at all until I saw the NBC overlay of HM at DLR (did I squeeze in enough acronyms there?)  The movie is not a favorite but it's very well done and the music is excellent.
TLK- It's absolutely brilliant though I'm a bit "Lion Kinged Out."  The movie, the theatrical presentation, the FOTLK at AK and then the more recent Lion King animated spinoff (big with the grandkids.)  ENOUGH!  Elton really knocked it out of the park on the music for this one.
AGM-I don't think I've seen this one.  The old school Goofy shorts are among Disney's best, I just don't think I can see this in the same light.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *A Goofy Movie (1995)*
> 
> This was a new one for both of us, and we thoroughly enjoyed it!
> 
> The relationship between father and son is fantastic, both Max and Goofy have really lovely arcs, and this really works as a road trip movie. Goofy’s caring and trusting approach to fatherhood is really great-even if he is a little too quick to believe his son has the propensity to end up in ‘the electric chair’ in later life (Disney what were you thinking?) after he hijacks a school assembly to do some sweet moves.
> 
> All of the self-aware references are really fun! Ariel, Zero from Nightmare Before Christmas and the Country Bears, are all in here (my favourite reference). I did comment while watching this that Max’s disgruntled expression at having to sit through the Country Bears substitute was very similar to both my sisters’ when forced into the Carousel of Progress and the Tikki Room at Disney World - they flat out refuse to do the Country Bears. We also really liked the trappings of the environment in which the characters live, complete with exploding cassette tapes, waterbeds with actual fish inside, and hot tubs. Is this the 90s nostalgic for the 80s?
> 
> The songs are also great. I can see why they have nostalgic value for so many people.
> 
> Ok, some queries, about things which we were still not sure about when the movie was finished. 1) Is Goofy their surname? Nickname? Goofy gets called Mr Goof at one point and Max gets called the Goof boy. Is it Max Goof and Goofy Goof? The Goofys? 2) What kind of animals are they? I mean I appreciate Max and Goofy are dogs, but what about the female characters? Are they hybrid human/dogs? Maybe this is best left unknown...
> 
> The only thing about the film, and it’s not really a negative, is that when you watch them chronologically as we are, it seems really out of place where it is. It looks like such a throwback to the 80s, which I suppose it was, but it seems to have been an odd time for Disney to make a movie like this bang in the middle of the Renaissance. It really has echoes of Roger Rabbit with all its references and self-awareness, while the artwork is more Oliver and Company and Basil: The Great Mouse Detective.
> 
> For all it’s out of place, I am so glad it exists and will definitely watch it again sometime!



Awwww yeah! It's the *GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE* - Ladies and Gentlemen, it's time to *STAND OUT *and hit *THE OPEN ROAD* with...*A GOOFY MOVIE! 
*
Do you think I like this movie? Yeah. Yeah I do!

This movie not only has obviously great music, but it also has so much heart! The relationship between Goofy and Max is just the kind of family love and strife that we all go through, especially as moody teenagers. I mean, yeah, Goofy is, well, goofy, and Pete really makes him panic. At the end of the day though it is all motivated by love and only Goofy would crash a Powerline concert and pull off the perfect dance to impress the crowd. The music is just so catchy, so energizing, so fun. As much as I love Powerline, _The Open Road_ may actually be the best song. Its so perfect and it has Mickey for half a second! This movie just speaks to me. It is amazing!

I will try to answer your questions since I am an expert on all things _A Goofy Movie_.

1. This movie is based on the Disney Afternoon cartoon _Goof Troop_. Max was aged slightly because the voice actor who played him in the show actually passed away, so they made him a teen to explain the voice change. In the show they are Goofy and Max Goof. Now, Goofy may just be a nickname based on his last name, like "Sully", but it's his only name ever, so I mean, yeah.

2. The populace of this world are generally dogs, but not always. In fact, classically Big Pete is a *cat*. No kidding! That's why he was a Mickey Mouse villain - what do mice run from? Anyway, I think dog is a good baseline, but like _DuckTales_, where there are anthropomorphic ducks, various other waterfowl, and also dogs, but sometimes another creature sneaks in there. They are what they are I guess - cartoons.

3. This movie was not made by Walt Disney Animation Studios, but rather DisneyToon (or whatever it was called at the time), the company that made television animation and many of the direct-to-video movies. This movie shows what they can do when given a theatrical budget! They also did _DuckTales The Movie_ since that was also a Disney Afternoon spin-off. This doesn't really count as a "Renaissance" film in that regard, despite the fact that it is better than all of them combined! 

So, on your scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being _The Black Cauldron_ and 10 being _The Lion King_, I give _A Goofy Movie_ a 1,000,000 for being an absolute delight and as I once told _the actual_ Goofy at Tusker House, "The _Citizen Kane_ of movies." Goofy did not react, but his handler sure did!


----------



## RSandRS

*Pocahontas (1995)*

Pocahontas was always going to be a difficult subject matter for a Disney film, but as we know Disney doesn't always shy away from dealing with difficult topics, especially in the 90s (Hunchback of Notre Dame coming up!??). But trying to make a coming-of-age/love story with a neat beginning, middle and end, set in early colonial America, with the necessary comical sidekicks and musical numbers, that also tries to tackle racism a legacy of oppression was always going to be...well, impossible.

And Pocahontas really does try - it’s a film that’s trying so hard that it’s almost not that fun to watch; certainly a lot less fun than films that are seemingly so effortless, like Robin Hood or Who Framed Roger Rabbit, although obviously dealing with allot less serious subject matter. It doesn't have a lack of drama - it just has to keep pointing out to you how dramatic it is. And it’s so earnest. Which it probably should be, as it’s dealing with a complex period of history, one in which there are few ‘heroes and villains’ and instead a big nameless system of oppression. But that earnestness when juxtaposed with the frankly irritating antics of Meeko, Flit and Percy makes for a bit of a tone problem.

I don't want to be too hard on Pocahontas, because I don’t hate it by any means, and as a child I absolutely loved it. I also think Disney should be given credit for not shying away from the difficult topics. The films they make these days are often so safe (except Zootopia, but we will get to that!), that they don’t really leave much of an impression, and there’s definitely merit in making something beautiful and flawed, even if it doesn't end up aging too well.

So, after that lengthy introduction, here are some thoughts on Pocahontas.

The animation is somewhat mixed for me. The backgrounds are very beautiful - maybe too beautiful. None of it looks very real. I think the native American characters look great. The white characters are mostly flat and cartoony, apart from John Smith and Ratcliffe. This is probably on purpose, and it works pretty well. There’s some very beautiful imagery in this film, and you get the sense they were going for a very artistic approach, like in Sleeping Beauty, which works OK. I think my main problem with the visuals (and the rest of the movie too kinda) is the mystical, dreamy quality of everything; the sense that the native Americans are ‘in touch with nature’ and therefore a bit magic and able to talk to trees and stuff. This seems a bit problematic to me.

I don’t have any favourite characters really, except maybe Nakoma. Pocahontas is designed beautifully - seriously, she might be the hottest Disney princess - but she’s again a bit earnest. Maybe this is unfair though - she calls John Smith on his nonsense after all, and refuses to be patronised. Pocahontas is OK.

John Smith on the other hand, I am not a big fan of. They set up him at the beginning of the movie as someone who has travelled to ‘hundreds of new worlds’ and is therefore world-weary and cynical, and sees any native people as ‘savages’. Seriously? You travelled all over the world and didn't manage to view anyone as more than a savage until you met Pocahontas? Guess none of those ‘savages’ were hot enough. Also he plans to kill her on sight and only doesn't because she’s so pretty. A woman less good looking would have been dead. Still, he learns his lesson and tries to change things so...yey for him.

Ratcliffe is awful. Worst villain since Sykes in Oliver and Company. He’s irritating and ineffectual; I don't even like the design of the character. He also just shouldn't be there. He is a stand in for a big, ugly colonialist strategy that has and is going to cost thousands of people their lives and freedoms - this shouldn't be represented by one, slightly stupid, greedy guy. It’s Disney’s way of giving the movie an ending - Ratcliffe is ‘hilariously’ clapped in irons at the end of the movie and we’re supposed to consider that settled. Villain defeated, all friends now. Yey, we solved colonialism. Oh wait…

The music suffers from the same problem as the animation I think. It's beautiful - man, it’s beautiful, and I’ve been singing along with Pocahontas since I was a kid, but they’re still not really suited to the subject matter. Colours of the Wind is easily the best song in the movie, and I do love it, but it does present native American beliefs in a slightly stereotypical way. Savages is just a deeply misguided song. I get that they were trying to go for a balanced view, but a 3 minute song is not enough time to get into the complexities of racism, and what you end up with is two sides yelling ‘Savages!’ at each other as if they are both equally wrong its highly problematic. The Powhatan's should not be cast as in the same light as the colonisers, just no!

I think that’s all I have to say about Pocahontas for now. And I got through the whole thing without using the word ‘problematic’ too many times. This movie hasn't aged well for me. As a kid I loved it, especially Pocahontas because she was so pretty and did that cool dive off the cliff, but as an adult, with the legacy of British colonialism still all around us, it’s more difficult to enjoy films like this. That isn't to say they shouldn’t exist, just that it’s harder to love them unconditionally.


----------



## RSandRS

[1. This movie is based on the Disney Afternoon cartoon _Goof Troop_. Max was aged slightly because the voice actor who played him in the show actually passed away, so they made him a teen to explain the voice change. In the show they are Goofy and Max Goof. Now, Goofy may just be a nickname based on his last name, like "Sully", but it's his only name ever, so I mean, yeah.

2. The populace of this world are generally dogs, but not always. In fact, classically Big Pete is a *cat*. No kidding! That's why he was a Mickey Mouse villain - what do mice run from? Anyway, I think dog is a good baseline, but like _DuckTales_, where there are anthropomorphic ducks, various other waterfowl, and also dogs, but sometimes another creature sneaks in there. They are what they are I guess - cartoons.

3. This movie was not made by Walt Disney Animation Studios, but rather DisneyToon (or whatever it was called at the time), the company that made television animation and many of the direct-to-video movies. This movie shows what they can do when given a theatrical budget! They also did _DuckTales The Movie_ since that was also a Disney Afternoon spin-off. This doesn't really count as a "Renaissance" film in that regard, despite the fact that it is better than all of them combined! 

So, on your scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being _The Black Cauldron_ and 10 being _The Lion King_, I give _A Goofy Movie_ a 1,000,000 for being an absolute delight and as I once told _the actual_ Goofy at Tusker House, "The _Citizen Kane_ of movies." Goofy did not react, but his handler sure did![/QUOTE]

1) Thanks mystery solved!
2) A cat? a cat???? Not buying that  I love the idea of a dog basline, with the animators slipping in other animals in there!
3) I also seem to remember reading this film was made in France? by a French contingent of animators, but I could be wrong on that.

Actually, The Black Cauldron is -1,000,000 

_The Lion King_  is 1,000,000!

Will def be watching Goofy and Max Goof again though!


----------



## Micca

Enjoyed your take on Pocahontas RS, I think I'm pretty much in agreement with you.  Looking forward to Hunchback.


----------



## BrianL

Okay, just got back from WDW, but looks like I didn't miss much.

First, yes, Pete, Big Pete, Peg-Leg Pete, is in fact a cat. He was originally some kind of bear but that was short-lived and he became a cat when he became Mickey's nemesis. Why he is in Goof Troop in a slightly more dog-like appearance, I don't know. His wife is clearly a dog. Anyway....

Pocahontas. Well, while it's certainly not my favorite of the Disney Cannon, I agree that it's beautifully animated from backgrounds to characters. I don't really think of it as "problematic" either, but I think you know I just don't read the the politics into most of these movies. It's just a story. Ratcliffe is clesaly the bad-guy and I don't think the movie purports to "solve" anything other than espousing's Pocahontas's perspective. There is a sequel to this, though I wouldn't call it high art. It does explain some of the next happenstances though, but it is not 100% historically accurate, not that it needs to be.

Anyway, yeah, the songs are good, the animation beautiful, and overall it's a solid movie.


----------



## RSandRS

Been awhile! I actually wrote this ages ago but had real problems uploading before our Halloween trip to DLP and Paris! This is now very sadly over. I do wonder whether we will have our next trip to a Disney park planned before this is done. So many more films to go!

*Toy Story (1995)*
And so we reach yet another landmark film in this string of absolute classics: Toy Story! Toy Story is almost like the Snow White of the 90s because, although it’s not my favourite, it is so ridiculously good that it managed to reinvent the genre and the change the face of children’s movies forever. As with Snow White you find yourself wondering what would have happened if Toy Story had been a failure, and thanking your lucky stars that it wasn’t.


We will at some point have to have the conversation about which of the Toy Story trilogy is the best one, but let’s wait until a bit further on before we do that. However, I think for me it’s probably _not_ this one - not because it’s not good (_man_ it is good) - but just because there is a bit of a sense of them finding their feet with this movie, whereas Toy Stories 2 and 3 are a bit more relaxed and confident. This is understandable of course, and maybe has a bit to do with the slightly tortuous journey the Pixar guys went on to make the movie.


All that having been said Toy Story is an immensely enjoyable film and sets up a lot of what we love so much about Pixar. It maybe doesn’t hit the big emotional notes that become Pixar’s trademark in the years to come, but it already has the knowing humour meant to appeal to adults as much as children, the imperfect, complex and recognisable main characters, the great use of music and of course the groundbreaking animation.


Woody is _such_ an unusual main character, especially for Disney at this time. He’s almost a bit of an a**hole at the beginning of the movie, and I think he’s definitely a character that adults would identify with perhaps more than children. He’s the big man on campus, or that guy in the office who is great at his job and who everyone is a bit jealous of. Buzz too is an unusual choice for a main character, because although he is more ‘pure of heart’ (more like Hercules or other Disney heroes), he’s so single-minded that you can understand why Woody finds him irritating.


I think as a child this slightly affected my enjoyment of Toy Story. I was more used to the Disney Princesses, who were beautiful and good and who I could look up to, but as an adult I think it makes me like the film even more. Whereas something like Pocahontas I adored as a kid and now have problems with.


Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot for kids to love in this movie - just the idea of your toys coming to life when you left the room was so awesome that, even though I was quite a rational kid, I couldn’t help thinking ‘Well it _could _happen. I wouldn’t know if it was happening, would I?’ The movie is also hilarious whether you’re a child or an adult, and if a movie can grow with its audience, so that every rewatch brings something new to enjoy (whether it’s a joke you didn’t previously get, or a new appreciation of an emotional moment), I think you’ve got a masterpiece on your hands.


Though I did like Toy Story when I was a kid, I found Sid very frightening. This is weird because while everyone knows a boy like Sid when they’re growing up, they rarely know any insane octopus witches or regicidal lions; and yet Sid was far scarier to me than Ursula or Scar. I think this is another way in which Toy Story exemplifies one of the tropes that makes Pixar films stand out and feel like such a breath of fresh air in the years to come. The characters in Pixar films are often trying to reconcile themselves to living with a system or an aspect of life that seems unfair. Pixar deals with things like aging, bereavement, growing up and family relationships, rather than with heroic people defeating evil in the form of an evil person. Sid is not an evil person (he’s certainly a little psycho, but he’s not evil) but he represents the toys’ powerlessness. Woody has no control over being replaced as Andy’s favourite toy; Buzz has no control over being a toy rather than a space hero. Both of them have to learn to be OK with this and learn to live in the system they’re in, which is not as easy a concept for a children’s film as defeating an evil witch.


I have no idea whether this is why I found Sid so scary when I was a kid though. It might have just been that he’s such a little psycho.


There’s obviously a lot to say about Toy Story, but I don’t want to go on forever. Let me just finish by talking briefly about the animation. As I said at the top, this is an experiment that _totally _paid off. A lot of hard work must have gone into making this film look as spectacular as it does. Obviously when you compare it so some of Pixar’s (and Disney’s) computer animated films from the last ten years or so, you can definitely see improvement, but Toy Story definitely holds up. This is particularly true of the characters. The texture of the toys and the way they move is fantastic, and so much thought and creativity has gone into thinking about how characters like that _would _move. The backgrounds obviously were amazing for the time, but are noticeably less detailed and organic-looking than what can be achieved these days. Nonetheless the film looks wonderful and for being the first of its kind is a bit of a marvel.


So yeah, Pixar seems to have crushed it on their first round - I predict big things to come from this plucky young studio. Watch this space!


----------



## BrianL

Welcome back!

This will be a long road indeed now that you're peppering in the Pixar stuff.

Okay, so yeah, Toy Story - what an immense achievement. It was truly revolutionary, setting the standard for computer animation. It's also just a flat-out enjoyable movie. It was never a favorite of mine either, however, that doesn't mean that there's not just everything to like about it. I saw it in theaters of course, but then I didn't actually ever watch it again until very recently - and I had never seen the sequels until this year! There's something about it that makes them not my favorite Pixar movies, though I'm not sure I could explain what that is exactly. I guess sometimes we just have the ones that speak to us more. Toy Story is an absolute masterpiece though and an unquestionable game-changer for the industry. Remember when the audience gasped at the premier of Snow White? Yeah, that's what Toy Story brought to the table, and that doesn't come along that often.


----------



## RSandRS

And its a double bill to make up for the break ...!
*
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)*

Ah the Hunchback of Notre Dame. Hunchback, Hunchback, what are we going to do with you, eh? Damn, this movie is frustrating. 

It had the potential to be one of the greats. The music and the visuals mark it out as exceptionally high quality; up there with The Lion King, Sleeping Beauty and Fantasia for sheer artistry...and then they had to go and add those damn gargoyles!

Hunchback of Notre Dame was another really ballsy move on the part of Disney, and although their adaptation of the book isn’t a faithful one, they chose to go a very interesting direction with it, and I think made mostly very good decisions along the way. I haven’t read the full book so I can’t go into this in detail, but it seems to me that the message of the film is very powerful and its characters are rich and complex, even if that message and those characters are nothing like the source material. 

No, poor adaptation is not my problem with The Hunchback of Notre Dame. It would be disingenuous of me to pretend that it was, as I haven’t read it. My problem is that the movie looked like doing something extremely powerful and unusual for a children’s animated film, and then somebody panicked. Somebody said, ‘Oops, this is too dark for a kids’ movie, we better add some dumb gargoyles.’ 

I admire this film so much in spite of the gargoyles (or the problem that the gargoyles represent anyway), that I think I’ll get them out the way first, so I can get on with what is so brilliant about the film. So, yeah, the gargoyles are AWFUL! And you really do get the sense that they were a hasty insertion. Maybe they weren’t, but if so why do they have nothing whatsoever to do with the film? Why do they impact on nothing in the story? And why, most importantly, are they tonally so wrong? This teeth-clenching tone problem is exemplified best, I think, by this line, sung by Hugo (the most irritating one), while Quasimodo is worried Esmerelda may be dead and Frollo is setting the whole city on fire trying to find her: _Paris, the city of lovers/ Is glowing this evening./ True, that's because it's on fire/ But still, there's l'amour_. The city is on fire, we just watched Frollo nearly murder an entire family and they decide to stick a comedy song in? Ouch. And it’s like that with pretty much every scene the gargoyles are in. 

This, along with some extremely irritating comedy sound effects (seriously, listen out for them, they are so inappropriate), somewhat destroys what could have been a masterpiece.. I think movies should have a direction and a tone and stick to them. The excuse that it’s a children’s film just isn’t good enough. Disney manage to tackle complex and difficult themes in other films, and include songs and lighthearted moments, why could they not do that here? You don’t make a film about hypocrisy, oppression, abuse and marginalisation more ‘a kids’ movie’ (or I guess less _not _a kids’ movie) by adding in some silly gargoyles. Yes, removing the gargoyles would make this more obviously an_ older_ children's film, but Walt pushed those boundaries with Fantasia. Someone was scared of losing money and the genre as a whole is the poorer for it.

However!!! I really really do like this film. It has so much about it that is beautiful and unique and dark and brave. I don’t want this review to end up being way too long, and I think I could go on and on about everything that makes Hunchback so awesome, so I’ll try and put a few points here to sum it up:

The music, overall, may be the finest soundtrack to a Disney film. _May be_. I know it’s a helluva claim, but Alan and Stephen really did amazing work here. _Out There_ must be the best song for a male soloist in a Disney film, though it faces _serious _competition from Hellfire. The religious and spiritual themes of the music and lyrics are just perfect and manage to create extremely dramatic moments, both dark and light.
The artwork is soooo gorgeous. We actually went to Notre Dame over the weekend and the Disney artists really do an incredible job of recreating the atmosphere and the beauty, ah the Rose window! (and yes I did sing a bit of Disney very very quietly as I sashayed under the gargoyles, whats a woman to do!?). The cathedral really becomes a character in the story. 
The four central characters are superb. They are so rich and complex. Quasimodo is presented as almost like a Disney Princess at the beginning of the film - he’s sweet and good and talks to birds and sings like an angel. But the way they go into his abusive relationship with Frollo makes his journey so much more interesting, and the emotional payoff when he finally realises how cruel his master is all the more powerful. Frollo is...well he’s an amazing villain, but a Disney movie about sexual obsession? Also, though he’s not a priest, he is associated very strongly with religion and the church throughout the film and yet is one of the most evil Disney villains there is. He starts the movie by nearly killing a baby. This was extremely daring for Disney! The romantic couple are also pretty fantastic. Esmerelda is very sexy for a Disney heroine, but also good, wise and brave. She saves herself and others as much as she is saved and it’s nice to see a heroine who is a grown up, who very much knows her own mind. Phoebus is just very cute. He’s a traditional handsome hero sure, but he’s a very self-effacing one and he has some of the best and appropriate comedy lines in the film.

Hunchback of Notre Dame is definitely a more grown up film than some of its neighbours, which might explain why it wasn’t among my favourites when I was a kid. As an adult there are moments when it’s so good, when the music, the themes and the dark beauty all come together, that I get honest-to-God chills. These are then ruined by a moment of ill-judged ‘humour’, leaving me frustrated and unsatisfied. But I still think this is a truly remarkable film.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Okay, just got back from WDW, but looks like I didn't miss much.
> 
> First, yes, Pete, Big Pete, Peg-Leg Pete, is in fact a cat. He was originally some kind of bear but that was short-lived and he became a cat when he became Mickey's nemesis. Why he is in Goof Troop in a slightly more dog-like appearance, I don't know. His wife is clearly a dog. Anyway....
> 
> Pocahontas. Well, while it's certainly not my favorite of the Disney Cannon, I agree that it's beautifully animated from backgrounds to characters. I don't really think of it as "problematic" either, but I think you know I just don't read the the politics into most of these movies. It's just a story. Ratcliffe is clesaly the bad-guy and I don't think the movie purports to "solve" anything other than espousing's Pocahontas's perspective. There is a sequel to this, though I wouldn't call it high art. It does explain some of the next happenstances though, but it is not 100% historically accurate, not that it needs to be.
> 
> Anyway, yeah, the songs are good, the animation beautiful, and overall it's a solid movie.



Will check out Pocahontas II...its strange some of the sequals seem to be on 'the list' and others not!

Incidentally, my sister flat out refused to believe Pete was a cat


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> Will check out Pocahontas II...its strange some of the sequals seem to be on 'the list' and others not!
> 
> Incidentally, my sister flat out refused to believe Pete was a cat



It is one of the better sequels I would say and is interesting to an extent. They actually introduce the man that Pocahontas married in real-life, so that's a little odd for a Disney PRincess asn she and John Smith don't get a "Happily Ever After" though it is all very amicable.

Pete was originally a bear, then he became a cat when he became Mickey's nemesis. I actually never realized that in Goof Troop, his wife is named Peg, as in "Peg-Leg Pete!"


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> And its a double bill to make up for the break ...!
> *
> The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)*
> 
> Ah the Hunchback of Notre Dame. Hunchback, Hunchback, what are we going to do with you, eh? Damn, this movie is frustrating.
> 
> It had the potential to be one of the greats. The music and the visuals mark it out as exceptionally high quality; up there with The Lion King, Sleeping Beauty and Fantasia for sheer artistry...and then they had to go and add those damn gargoyles!
> 
> Hunchback of Notre Dame was another really ballsy move on the part of Disney, and although their adaptation of the book isn’t a faithful one, they chose to go a very interesting direction with it, and I think made mostly very good decisions along the way. I haven’t read the full book so I can’t go into this in detail, but it seems to me that the message of the film is very powerful and its characters are rich and complex, even if that message and those characters are nothing like the source material.
> 
> No, poor adaptation is not my problem with The Hunchback of Notre Dame. It would be disingenuous of me to pretend that it was, as I haven’t read it. My problem is that the movie looked like doing something extremely powerful and unusual for a children’s animated film, and then somebody panicked. Somebody said, ‘Oops, this is too dark for a kids’ movie, we better add some dumb gargoyles.’
> 
> I admire this film so much in spite of the gargoyles (or the problem that the gargoyles represent anyway), that I think I’ll get them out the way first, so I can get on with what is so brilliant about the film. So, yeah, the gargoyles are AWFUL! And you really do get the sense that they were a hasty insertion. Maybe they weren’t, but if so why do they have nothing whatsoever to do with the film? Why do they impact on nothing in the story? And why, most importantly, are they tonally so wrong? This teeth-clenching tone problem is exemplified best, I think, by this line, sung by Hugo (the most irritating one), while Quasimodo is worried Esmerelda may be dead and Frollo is setting the whole city on fire trying to find her: _Paris, the city of lovers/ Is glowing this evening./ True, that's because it's on fire/ But still, there's l'amour_. The city is on fire, we just watched Frollo nearly murder an entire family and they decide to stick a comedy song in? Ouch. And it’s like that with pretty much every scene the gargoyles are in.
> 
> This, along with some extremely irritating comedy sound effects (seriously, listen out for them, they are so inappropriate), somewhat destroys what could have been a masterpiece.. I think movies should have a direction and a tone and stick to them. The excuse that it’s a children’s film just isn’t good enough. Disney manage to tackle complex and difficult themes in other films, and include songs and lighthearted moments, why could they not do that here? You don’t make a film about hypocrisy, oppression, abuse and marginalisation more ‘a kids’ movie’ (or I guess less _not _a kids’ movie) by adding in some silly gargoyles. Yes, removing the gargoyles would make this more obviously an_ older_ children's film, but Walt pushed those boundaries with Fantasia. Someone was scared of losing money and the genre as a whole is the poorer for it.
> 
> However!!! I really really do like this film. It has so much about it that is beautiful and unique and dark and brave. I don’t want this review to end up being way too long, and I think I could go on and on about everything that makes Hunchback so awesome, so I’ll try and put a few points here to sum it up:
> 
> The music, overall, may be the finest soundtrack to a Disney film. _May be_. I know it’s a helluva claim, but Alan and Stephen really did amazing work here. _Out There_ must be the best song for a male soloist in a Disney film, though it faces _serious _competition from Hellfire. The religious and spiritual themes of the music and lyrics are just perfect and manage to create extremely dramatic moments, both dark and light.
> The artwork is soooo gorgeous. We actually went to Notre Dame over the weekend and the Disney artists really do an incredible job of recreating the atmosphere and the beauty, ah the Rose window! (and yes I did sing a bit of Disney very very quietly as I sashayed under the gargoyles, whats a woman to do!?). The cathedral really becomes a character in the story.
> The four central characters are superb. They are so rich and complex. Quasimodo is presented as almost like a Disney Princess at the beginning of the film - he’s sweet and good and talks to birds and sings like an angel. But the way they go into his abusive relationship with Frollo makes his journey so much more interesting, and the emotional payoff when he finally realises how cruel his master is all the more powerful. Frollo is...well he’s an amazing villain, but a Disney movie about sexual obsession? Also, though he’s not a priest, he is associated very strongly with religion and the church throughout the film and yet is one of the most evil Disney villains there is. He starts the movie by nearly killing a baby. This was extremely daring for Disney! The romantic couple are also pretty fantastic. Esmerelda is very sexy for a Disney heroine, but also good, wise and brave. She saves herself and others as much as she is saved and it’s nice to see a heroine who is a grown up, who very much knows her own mind. Phoebus is just very cute. He’s a traditional handsome hero sure, but he’s a very self-effacing one and he has some of the best and appropriate comedy lines in the film.
> 
> Hunchback of Notre Dame is definitely a more grown up film than some of its neighbours, which might explain why it wasn’t among my favourites when I was a kid. As an adult there are moments when it’s so good, when the music, the themes and the dark beauty all come together, that I get honest-to-God chills. These are then ruined by a moment of ill-judged ‘humour’, leaving me frustrated and unsatisfied. But I still think this is a truly remarkable film.



So, Hunchback certianly has its problems, and it was something I appreciated less then than I do now. I actually think The Bells of Notre Dame is a tour-de-force of a song and a great and haunting introduction to the movie. This movie is dark though, and honestly, I think that without the Gargoyles might have been too dark. There isn't much to laugh at and lots of people die. I mean, in the siege of the church they dump boiling oil on the attackers! I don't really mind that they make some levity of the darkness, but I have a sense of humor that can be dark like that. I also love George Costanza, so, there  we go. Frollo is a super interesting villain though and so conflicted and complex. I appreciate that he's having difficulties with the human condition. This may have been a diamond in the rough, but it really is a good film.


----------



## Micca

Catching up after my WDW trip   Toy Story:  Very strong movie, some of the best ever voice acting in an animated film.  Agree that the technology wasn't quite there when the film was produced but it holds up very well.  I hope I'm not jumping the gun by saying the second TS movie is my favorite and I hope they aren't spreading themselves too thin on TS4.

Hunchback:  It's good, it's pretty dark and yeah the gargoyles are problematic.  The music is very good and what Brian said about "Bells Of Notre Dame" is spot on.
Did either of you ever see the live Hunchback production at DHS?  It was phenomenal, I'm told that CMs still regard it as the best live production ever at the park.
I first saw it with a regular Broadway theater goer from NYC who was shocked at the quality of performance, it was that good.


----------



## BrianL

Micca said:


> Catching up after my WDW trip   Toy Story:  Very strong movie, some of the best ever voice acting in an animated film.  Agree that the technology wasn't quite there when the film was produced but it holds up very well.  I hope I'm not jumping the gun by saying the second TS movie is my favorite and I hope they aren't spreading themselves too thin on TS4.
> 
> Hunchback:  It's good, it's pretty dark and yeah the gargoyles are problematic.  The music is very good and what Brian said about "Bells Of Notre Dame" is spot on.
> Did either of you ever see the live Hunchback production at DHS?  It was phenomenal, I'm told that CMs still regard it as the best live production ever at the park.
> I first saw it with a regular Broadway theater goer from NYC who was shocked at the quality of performance, it was that good.



I never saw the in-park production, but I am not surprised. They are very capable of doing great shows. The Aladdin at DCA and now Frozen there are top-notch, Broadwya-esque productions.


----------



## RSandRS

Micca said:


> Catching up after my WDW trip   Toy Story:  Very strong movie, some of the best ever voice acting in an animated film.  Agree that the technology wasn't quite there when the film was produced but it holds up very well.  I hope I'm not jumping the gun by saying the second TS movie is my favorite and I hope they aren't spreading themselves too thin on TS4.
> 
> Hunchback:  It's good, it's pretty dark and yeah the gargoyles are problematic.  The music is very good and what Brian said about "Bells Of Notre Dame" is spot on.
> Did either of you ever see the live Hunchback production at DHS?  It was phenomenal, I'm told that CMs still regard it as the best live production ever at the park.
> I first saw it with a regular Broadway theater goer from NYC who was shocked at the quality of performance, it was that good.



I didn't see that production, that would have been great! I do think the off-Broadway production of Hunchback from a few years ago has a fantastic score (slightly adapted), though obviously I never did see it in person. I assume it never made it actually onto Broadway b/c of the themes. Out There still does not beat the original though. Tom Hulce sings like an angel!


----------



## Micca

BrianL said:


> The Aladdin at DCA and now Frozen there are top-notch, Broadwya-esque productions.


I really hate that I never got to see the Aladdin show.   FWIW the Frozen Singalong at DHS is not of the same caliber but it's very funny and well worth catching.


----------



## BrianL

Micca said:


> I really hate that I never got to see the Aladdin show.   FWIW the Frozen Singalong at DHS is not of the same caliber but it's very funny and well worth catching.



Oh yes. It's a simpler show, but the Historians are great! The Aladdin show was amazing! The Genie and the carpet stole the show. When I went to it, I had no idea what an elaborate production it was! We were blown away. The Frozen one is pretty great too. I think the closest at WDW is probably Finding Nemo, which is also pretty good, if not quite on that level.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Oh yes. It's a simpler show, but the Historians are great! The Aladdin show was amazing! The Genie and the carpet stole the show. When I went to it, I had no idea what an elaborate production it was! We were blown away. The Frozen one is pretty great too. I think the closest at WDW is probably Finding Nemo, which is also pretty good, if not quite on that level.



I do love Finding Nemo The Musical, its amazing that they even came up with a unique score for it!


----------



## RSandRS

*Hercules (1997)*

Hercules is another movie I remember very vividly from my childhood. Me and my friends used to quote it at each other (particularly Meg’s and Hades’ lines) constantly. It was never my favourite of the 90s Disneys, but I accepted it as the latest in a long line of completely awesome films for which we owned all the merchandise, sang all the songs and which became the basis for many imaginative games and stories. Hercules was as expected. It was good. I’m not going to say bad things about it because it doesn’t deserve them.

Hercules is far more successful as a whole movie than Hunchback of Notre Dame is, in that it picks a tone and style and sticks to it. However, if you asked me to choose I would say I prefer Hunchback. Hercules is fine. It’s good even. It just doesn’t reach the daring, glorious heights of Hunchback or Toy Story or The Lion King.

For me the two greatest strengths of this movie, the things that are most memorable and exciting, are Meg and Hades. Hades is really very very funny. He’s a bit like a less sinister version of Scar, skipping over the brother-killing and gaslighting of small children and sticking to the scheming, quipping and intensely likeable sides of that character. He’s another villain who you kind of want to win in the end (or at least nothing too bad to happen to him) because he’s super fun and cuts through the naivete and sweetness of the movie’s main character. This is all because of Hades’ personality though, not because we’re really invested in his evil plan. The plan is a bit ill-formed - we’re told he’s going to take over the cosmos and this is a bad thing, but mostly Hades just jokes about it, so it’s hard to form any opinions about it. Maybe he’s not evil enough. Who cares though, when he’s this much fun?

In many films, the female character takes the moral high ground in the relationship, shaking her head over the male character’s failings, and gradually coaching him into reaching his full potential. The male character in these scenarios is usually allowed to be a lot more morally grey and sarcastic, plus gets all the best lines, and is usually a lot more interesting and likeable for these reasons. (If you need examples here’s a few from the Disney animated films that we’ve watched so far in the marathon - but trust me this trope exists in many many films - Wendy, Lady, Duchess, Rita, Sally, Nala and Pocahontas). In Hercules, this dynamic is turned on its head, with the woman taking the wise-cracking, amoral role in the relationship and is ultimately saved by the love of a good man as male characters are usually saved by the love of a good woman. She’s extremely witty and funny, but also fragile, emotional and complex, in fact completely the opposite of most traditional Disney heroines, making her an extremely engaging character.

All in all the rest of the movie succeeds too. There’s some fantastic design (I particularly like the evil characters like Hades and the Fates and their environments), the music is fabulous and the jokes for the most part land really well. The movie is really really good. There may be one or two underdeveloped themes and ideas in it that lead to it not being excellent in the way that The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast are excellent, but it’s still a brilliant kids’ movie.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Hercules (1997)*
> 
> Hercules is another movie I remember very vividly from my childhood. Me and my friends used to quote it at each other (particularly Meg’s and Hades’ lines) constantly. It was never my favourite of the 90s Disneys, but I accepted it as the latest in a long line of completely awesome films for which we owned all the merchandise, sang all the songs and which became the basis for many imaginative games and stories. Hercules was as expected. It was good. I’m not going to say bad things about it because it doesn’t deserve them.
> 
> Hercules is far more successful as a whole movie than Hunchback of Notre Dame is, in that it picks a tone and style and sticks to it. However, if you asked me to choose I would say I prefer Hunchback. Hercules is fine. It’s good even. It just doesn’t reach the daring, glorious heights of Hunchback or Toy Story or The Lion King.
> 
> For me the two greatest strengths of this movie, the things that are most memorable and exciting, are Meg and Hades. Hades is really very very funny. He’s a bit like a less sinister version of Scar, skipping over the brother-killing and gaslighting of small children and sticking to the scheming, quipping and intensely likeable sides of that character. He’s another villain who you kind of want to win in the end (or at least nothing too bad to happen to him) because he’s super fun and cuts through the naivete and sweetness of the movie’s main character. This is all because of Hades’ personality though, not because we’re really invested in his evil plan. The plan is a bit ill-formed - we’re told he’s going to take over the cosmos and this is a bad thing, but mostly Hades just jokes about it, so it’s hard to form any opinions about it. Maybe he’s not evil enough. Who cares though, when he’s this much fun?
> 
> In many films, the female character takes the moral high ground in the relationship, shaking her head over the male character’s failings, and gradually coaching him into reaching his full potential. The male character in these scenarios is usually allowed to be a lot more morally grey and sarcastic, plus gets all the best lines, and is usually a lot more interesting and likeable for these reasons. (If you need examples here’s a few from the Disney animated films that we’ve watched so far in the marathon - but trust me this trope exists in many many films - Wendy, Lady, Duchess, Rita, Sally, Nala and Pocahontas). In Hercules, this dynamic is turned on its head, with the woman taking the wise-cracking, amoral role in the relationship and is ultimately saved by the love of a good man as male characters are usually saved by the love of a good woman. She’s extremely witty and funny, but also fragile, emotional and complex, in fact completely the opposite of most traditional Disney heroines, making her an extremely engaging character.
> 
> All in all the rest of the movie succeeds too. There’s some fantastic design (I particularly like the evil characters like Hades and the Fates and their environments), the music is fabulous and the jokes for the most part land really well. The movie is really really good. There may be one or two underdeveloped themes and ideas in it that lead to it not being excellent in the way that The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast are excellent, but it’s still a brilliant kids’ movie.



Yeah, Hercules is pretty good, though never quite reaches the heights of greatness. I agree that Hades and Meg are great, and Meg's song _I Won't Say I'm In Love_ is the highlight of the film. There kinda isn't that much else to be said about this one. Like you say, it's good, perfectly fine in all regards, generally fun, but also a bit forgettable. It doesn't maintain that status as one of the big-time classics, especially when considering the string that came just before it.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Yeah, Hercules is pretty good, though never quite reaches the heights of greatness. I agree that Hades and Meg are great, and Meg's song _I Won't Say I'm In Love_ is the highlight of the film. There kinda isn't that much else to be said about this one. Like you say, it's good, perfectly fine in all regards, generally fun, but also a bit forgettable. It doesn't maintain that status as one of the big-time classics, especially when considering the string that came just before it.



Ah forgot to mention, _I Won't Say I'm In Love, _yep I love it! It's a reverse Disney Princess "I want' song!


----------



## Micca

Herc isn't bad, there are a few truly funny moments in the movie.  I own the movie and have seen it quite a few times but I can't say I have any recollection of the songs.


----------



## RSandRS

*Mulan (1998)*

On to Mulan...First things first, I do like this film. I don’t think it is one of Disney’s ‘greats’, but the fantastic heroine definitely makes for a memorable film.

A background in Chinese history, means I am more familiar with some of the aesthetic choices and source material in this instance than I am with some of Disney's other tales (remember my lack of knowledge of Ichabod?). While I think the way they have approached the look of 'China' in the movie (China did not actually exist as a concept at the time the movie is set), is a bit confused, it does give us an idea of some of the iconic landscapes and some of the architectural styles. I certainly don't think its a problem for Disney to take license with this kind of thing, I just know I notice it more in this case. There are some stunning and memorable visual moments, e.g. when Mulan is preparing to leave, and we see her face half in shadow. These are instances though, rather than the norm.

The key strength of the movie is undoubtedly the heroine herself. She is very a multi-dimensional character and both extremely likeable and relatable, and her attempts to 'behave like a man' make for the most comedic moments in the movie. I also really like Mulan's relationship with her parents.

The other characters in the movie are a lot less memorable, although I reckon Li Shang probably wins for the Disney's most attractive male hero (after Robin Hood-if we count actual foxes!). He is a bit poe-faced though. The villain is entirely forgettable - what even is his name? I’m just kidding, but seriously, I know Hades is a tough act to follow and maybe they were trying something different but...nah.

We had a discussion the other day about sidekicks you could ditch from Disney movies without impacting the plot, Meeko and Flit being high up on that list. When you think about it, while the Princess sidekicks are great merchandising devices in most cases they are not strictly necessary to the plot. Mushu, however, is essential. While he is certainly looking out for himself, he is a driver in the narrative, and his interactions with Mulan are necessary so we can get a sense of what she feels as she strives to be a soldier. Also, he is genuinely funny in places (no Genie though!).

The movie’s pacing is also slightly off. By the end of the first half (essentially, the end of ‘Man Out of You’) Mulan has reached her potential and embraced the person that she’s been holding herself back from being from the beginning. And since as viewers we’ve been so caught up in that part of story, we’re not really interested in the rest of it. What needs to happen at that point is for the villain to be defeated (and he’s not in the least bit interesting so we don’t care about that) and for Mulan and Shang to get together. And it’s been made pretty clear to us that she doesn’t need him to complete her story, in the way that Ariel or Belle need their man to complete their story. Basically what I’m saying is that the first half is much stronger than the second half.

The score is ok. The section when Mulan prepares to leave home has an incredible soundtrack but also doesn’t really fit in with the rest of the movie’s soundtrack. It does raise goosebumps though, which is what you want. Most of the soundtrack is pretty meh. The other key strength of the movie is 'Man Out of You' - that song is so awesome. Most of the songs, like the score, are pretty forgettable, but this song and its accompanying visuals are the BEST TRAINING MONTAGE IN ANY MOVIE EVER!

So to conclude, I like Mulan. It is never going to be a favourite, but it is a fun watch, mainly for the heroine herself and the few moments of excellence. This is one of the very few (alongside Sword in the Stone) which I can see possibly benefitting from a live-action remake. Although China itself has loads of versions which in this instance could be imported instead .


----------



## BrianL

Mulan is a favorite of mine, and a movie that I just love! It has an intensity to it. "Bow to me!" "No matter how the wind howls, the mountain must never bow to it." Mr. Miyagi is one tough emperor! I do also love the music in this movie with, of course, "Make a Man Out of You" being the standout. I do like "Girl Worth Fighting For" and it's abrupt and chilling end. Again, intensity. I do think what makes the second half a little less memorable is that the songs kind of stop at about that point, though I get that it is probably on purpose to show how serious Shan Yu is. Shang does make for one of the tougher love interests for a "Disney Princess" though maybe not quite up to Prince Phillip levels.

Anyway, this is definitely a good one, especially as we slide out of the Renaissance era. There's still some good ones peppered in, but some will be pretty rough for a bit as we head into the 21st century.


----------



## Micca

I like Mulan more than I thought I would.  When it was in the preview stage I didn't think it would appeal to me but it's well done and enjoyable.  I'll second Brian's acknowledgement of a couple great song (Man Out Of You and Worth Fighting For.)  I remember seeing some use of the tech developed for TLK used again in Mulan.  The technique for the wildebeest stampede was used to illustrate soldiers coming over a hill.  I like Mushu quite a bit as the sidekick, Eddie Murphy was a good choice for the character.  I believe some of the work for Mulan was done at WDW at Studios.


----------



## RSandRS

*A Bug’s Life (1998)*

When you look at a list of Pixar movies it’s such a string of classics that it’s sometimes easy to forget that there are any bad Pixar movies, but unfortunately this is one of the few. Pixar’s second movie does not reach the heights of its first.

The movie was released on vhs around the time I was for a period growing out of Disney, so unless the movie was exceptional I tended not to hear about it - and I didn’t hear much about this one. I remember watching part of it at a friend’s house, not really following it and then forgetting all about it. Disgracefully, for a Disney film, A Bug’s Life is boring!

Let’s talk about the good first. Computer animation has taken a big step forward since Toy Story as the backgrounds are now as good as the characters. They were also working with much more challenging environments, as it’s all outdoors and involves lots of plantlife, plus fire and water. The bird in particular is pretty spectacular. The way it moves is suitably terrifying and the fact that old-school computer animation sometimes has that ‘uncanny valley’ look to it really works for the bird.

Overall it looks really good, although something about the slightly plasticky-looking ants is not as convincing as the characters in Toy Story. Understandable, since they are toys and therefore the plasticky look is entirely appropriate.

The plot is a bit of a weird mix between predictable and inexplicable. Flik is the unappreciated genius/hero who is sent away to later return and rescue the family who didn’t believe in him - this is a familiar trope, but the twist here is that he is genuinely annoying and I would have sent him away too. The circus troupe are the really inexplicable bit as they take up a lot of the runtime and have almost no real impact on the plot. Throw in the royal family’s tribulations, a one-dimensional villain and the fact that nearly all the characters (including the goodies) are quite mean and constantly trying to undermine one another and you’re left with a bit of a mess.

The main problem with the movie is that its characters are all uninteresting or annoying. There are way too many characters too, with all of the members of the circus troupe fighting for recognition and none of them really managing it, apart from the fat caterpillar. Then there’s the four main ants, the main villain and a few secondary villains and load and loads of side characters. A lot of these characters should have been combined in order to give them a fighting chance.

You don't really root for the main character, Flik. Most of the mistakes he makes are just mistakes, but they happen just a few times too often and you start to find him as irritating as his potential love interest, Princess Atta, does. She’s not really a nice character either; her lack of confidence in herself seems to make her a bit petty and she really doesn’t want Flik to succeed. This is understandable as he is quite annoying and I found myself not really wanting him to succeed either, but it does make the fact that Princess Atta eventually falls for him a bit unconvincing.

The villain is just a bully. A lot of Disney villains are bullies of course, but there’s usually another aspect to their characters which makes them fun to watch, whether that’s humour, charisma or an interesting back story. Hopper is just unpleasant. He shouts a lot and threatens people without really following through enough to be truly frightening.

Pixar seem to have felt that they hit the sweet spot in Toy Story when it came to the humour, and they lean into the ‘jokes for adults, slapstick for the kids’ thing here even more. Unfortunately the jokes aren't really funny and often come from a slightly mean place. Others rely on kids knowing about things like old-fashioned circus tropes, which I just don’t think 90s kids would have done really. I certainly didn’t. Perhaps the Pixar guys were making a movie for themselves, where they could experiment with computer animation and include lots of things they found hilarious, rather than making it for kids.

It’s worth mentioning that the music in A Bug’s Life is pretty spectacular. It’s got quite an epic fairytale feel and lovely melodies. Unfortunately, it doesn't really go with the story that’s being told at all. The characters aren’t brave or heroic, so the music really doesn’t work.

All in all a rare misstep for the mighty Pixar; it’s not a mystery why this movie has disappeared into obscurity a bit. I still think there’s great things to come for them though!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *A Bug’s Life (1998)*



I only recently actually sat down and watch this movie. I had seen it in bits and pieces before, but never really took it in as a whole. The idea never grabbed me too much, but int he interest of seeing all of the Pixar movies I gave it a watch. I didn't think it was that bad, but it certainly isn't at Toy Story levels. I think the voice cast was pretty strong. I really like Dave Foley though, so I can see a lot of him in Flik, so I don't think that he's that annoying to me. What is annoying is how the others dismiss him constantly. Honestly, He should've just left a long time ago. His colony is pretty mean, except for Dot and the little scout troop. Anyway, the movie is just fine though unremarkable. The plastic look, which worked for Toy Story, does not work as well here, but some of the character designs are cool, Hopper in particular.

Anyway, this is definitely on the lower end of the Pixar oeuvre, but, hey, it could've been worse. It' could've been Antz!


----------



## Micca

I think ABL is underrated, agree with Brian that the voice cast is very good--Jonathan Harris & Phyllis Diller?  Not to mention Kevin Spacey, Madeline Kahn, Ratzenberger, Julia Louis Dreyfus, the list goes on!  That's a superstar lineup of voice talent!  OK it's not Toy Story but that's a very high bar.  They took something a lot of people are repulsed by (insects) and made them into empathetic characters.  That's quite an achievement.

ETA:  Watched the movie again this afternoon and really enjoyed it.  I thought about the plastic-like characters and I see what you mean.  OTOH, I don't know what bugs look like magnified by that much, nor do I want to. Plastic-y is fine.  Also I enjoy the scenery from the perspective of the tiny insects.  

Do you guys enjoy the ITTAB attraction at AK?  I like it but it's doesn't really hold up to repeated viewings.  Except the part at the...let's just say "end."


----------



## RSandRS

[Do you guys enjoy the ITTAB attraction at AK?  I like it but it's doesn't really hold up to repeated viewings.  Except the part at the...let's just say "end."[/QUOTE]

I actually really love that attraction  but I have learnt to half stand up early


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> I only recently actually sat down and watch this movie. I had seen it in bits and pieces before, but never really took it in as a whole. The idea never grabbed me too much, but int he interest of seeing all of the Pixar movies I gave it a watch. I didn't think it was that bad, but it certainly isn't at Toy Story levels. I think the voice cast was pretty strong. I really like Dave Foley though, so I can see a lot of him in Flik, so I don't think that he's that annoying to me. What is annoying is how the others dismiss him constantly. Honestly, He should've just left a long time ago. His colony is pretty mean, except for Dot and the little scout troop. Anyway, the movie is just fine though unremarkable. The plastic look, which worked for Toy Story, does not work as well here, but some of the character designs are cool, Hopper in particular.
> 
> Anyway, this is definitely on the lower end of the Pixar oeuvre, but, hey, it could've been worse. It' could've been Antz!



Actually never watched Antz all the way through! It has to be said A Bugs Life is not my least favour Pixar. Although I have only watched The Good Dinosaur once, so may be I will change my mind on the rewatch and I will find it to be wonderful 

I do love Dot and her gang!


----------



## BrianL

Micca said:


> Do you guys enjoy the ITTAB attraction at AK?  I like it but it's doesn't really hold up to repeated viewings.  Except the part at the...let's just say "end."



I like the attraction too. As with many cases, I like the attraction more than the movie. I think it holds up fine for as often as I actually get to see it. I skip it sometimes.


----------



## TheStarscream759

I quite like A Bugs Life, it's not the best of Pixar's library of films yes but I must say it was something I watched a lot of when I was younger owing a lot to me playing the PS1/PC game and even quoting the film a lot. The animation is nice and crisp, and hearing John Ratzenburger as PT Flea is always a delight. Not usually a film I would always go for but it's defintely worth watching at least once.


----------



## Micca

While we are waiting to continue with the animated films, have you ever seen The Black Hole?  I DVR'd this on TCM's "Disney Treasures" night and holy schmoly it sucks.  This movie was released a couple of years after Star Wars and how anyone would think this was a good idea is beyond me.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Micca said:


> While we are waiting to continue with the animated films, have you ever seen The Black Hole?  I DVR'd this on TCM's "Disney Treasures" night and holy schmoly it sucks.  This movie was released a couple of years after Star Wars and how anyone would think this was a good idea is beyond me.


 I personally haven't seen it so I couldn't say if it was good or bad.


----------



## BrianL

Micca said:


> While we are waiting to continue with the animated films, have you ever seen The Black Hole?  I DVR'd this on TCM's "Disney Treasures" night and holy schmoly it sucks.  This movie was released a couple of years after Star Wars and how anyone would think this was a good idea is beyond me.



Aww, come on now, The Black Hole is pretty good. It has the dubious distinction of being pre-Star Wars sci-fi in a post-Star Wars world, but I still enjoy it. It does have a weird ending though. Still, the ships and the space station are beautiful, and Maximillian Schnell as Reinhardt is perfect. It's cheesy, but fun!


----------



## RSandRS

*Tarzan (1999)*

So so sorry for the lateness again, chums. Work. Has. Been. Crazy! Thankfully term finishes in a few weeks (I work at a University) and things should quieten down!


Tarzan was one we looked forward to watching a lot when it first came out on home video (we never got to see these movies at the cinema). I remember us all grouping together on my parents’ bed to watch the movie and then quoting Tantor at each other for weeks afterwards. I also remember a really good Tarzan show at DLP which involved lots of trampolinists dressed as gorillas! Over the years I definitely haven’t watched Tarzan as often as some of the others however, and found when I watched it the other day that I’d forgotten quite a lot of it. It’s certainly not a bad film, but we’re certainly getting into the dodgy territory of turn of the century Disney.


There’s some good solid animation here, including nice use of computer animation for the swinging through the trees bits. This works very well for Tarzan and makes him look suitably impressive and the environments look rich and almost 3D in places. This is miles better than the computer animation in Hercules (the hydra) or Mulan (the Hun army) which were only a few years prior to this. It also holds up pretty well I think and is still better than some of the live-action computer generated effects that you see, if that Tarzan movie from a few years ago is anything to go by.

The characters are fine, if a bit forgettable. The highlight is definitely Jane who is genuinely funny. I know I’ve been saying that a lot about the Disney heroines recently (with Meg and Mulan being prime examples), but it’s so nice to see them being given some good comedy lines over the last few films, as they can be a bit poe-faced sometimes. Also Jane’s reactions to the situations she finds herself in are extremely English (“Yes, yes, good wildman. You stay there. Very nice.”) and probably similar to what my reactions would be, which makes me warm to her.

Tarzan is quite a good character, though it seems like more thought went into the look of him than the writing. He looks spectacular, all of his movements are great and he also has a very expressive face. This is obviously more important for the character of Tarzan than the writing so we’ll chalk that one up as a win.They also manage to pull off having their main character be more than half-naked throughout the whole movie without it getting weird.

Tarzan’s sidekicks are pretty good when they’re children (especially Tantor, that bit about piranhas and the water being ‘questionable’ is one of my favourite bits of the movie) if slightly less so when they’re older. Still, Rosie O’Donnell’s character Terk is an unusual Disney character, being an extroverted tomboy, and she has bags of personality so is always fun to watch. The trashing the camp bit is brilliant.

The movie does suffer for want of a decent villain though, as it doesn't really take the time to develop the ones that it introduces. The villain for the first 20 minutes or so is the leopard, who is presented as just a leopard (like he’s not an evil leopard, he’s just doing what nature dictates) so you can't really blame him for anything he does.

Then there’s Kerchak, Tarzan’s adopted father (sort of) who isn't really a villain, but is an antagonist for Tarzan due to him being unnecessarily harsh to the poor kid. This adds a level of complication that the plot doesn't really need. Tarzan spends his childhood trying not to be eaten by the leopard and earn the intractable Kerchak’s approval, which he is still trying to do when the main villain, Clayton, turns up. Then Clayton is introduced, but is a bit underdeveloped. He’s not a terrible villain, but he doesn’t have enough personality to stand out among other Disney villains. He does get one of the grizzliest endings for a Disney villain though - that one stuck with me when I was kid! In general the plot moves along at quite a pace (with a lot of really awesome montages), not giving one conflict time to resolved before the next thing pops up.

The music is the most obvious highlight of the film; Phil Collins crushed it! The songs and instrumental sections merge together very effectively, which creates one ‘sound’ for the whole piece rather than the songs sounding distinctly different from the incidental music as they do in some Disneys. I listen to this soundtrack all the time, including during my morning swim! It’s more pop-y and less experimental than the really incredible Disney soundtracks (such as the Lion King and some of the Pixars) but it’s still pretty darn good.

For me, Tarzan is not as good as Hercules or Mulan. I don’t think it’s a less well made film, but it’s just less my thing. It’s saved from being forgettable by a truly brilliant soundtrack. However, something tells me we have some lean years ahead of us as far as Disney Animation Studios goes, so maybe I should savour Tarzan while I have the chance


----------



## RSandRS

Micca said:


> While we are waiting to continue with the animated films, have you ever seen The Black Hole?  I DVR'd this on TCM's "Disney Treasures" night and holy schmoly it sucks.  This movie was released a couple of years after Star Wars and how anyone would think this was a good idea is beyond me.



Never heard of This Black Hole! I shall have to check it out!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Tarzan (1999)*
> 
> So so sorry for the lateness again, chums. Work. Has. Been. Crazy! Thankfully term finishes in a few weeks (I work at a University) and things should quieten down!
> 
> 
> Tarzan was one we looked forward to watching a lot when it first came out on home video (we never got to see these movies at the cinema). I remember us all grouping together on my parents’ bed to watch the movie and then quoting Tantor at each other for weeks afterwards. I also remember a really good Tarzan show at DLP which involved lots of trampolinists dressed as gorillas! Over the years I definitely haven’t watched Tarzan as often as some of the others however, and found when I watched it the other day that I’d forgotten quite a lot of it. It’s certainly not a bad film, but we’re certainly getting into the dodgy territory of turn of the century Disney.
> 
> 
> There’s some good solid animation here, including nice use of computer animation for the swinging through the trees bits. This works very well for Tarzan and makes him look suitably impressive and the environments look rich and almost 3D in places. This is miles better than the computer animation in Hercules (the hydra) or Mulan (the Hun army) which were only a few years prior to this. It also holds up pretty well I think and is still better than some of the live-action computer generated effects that you see, if that Tarzan movie from a few years ago is anything to go by.
> 
> The characters are fine, if a bit forgettable. The highlight is definitely Jane who is genuinely funny. I know I’ve been saying that a lot about the Disney heroines recently (with Meg and Mulan being prime examples), but it’s so nice to see them being given some good comedy lines over the last few films, as they can be a bit poe-faced sometimes. Also Jane’s reactions to the situations she finds herself in are extremely English (“Yes, yes, good wildman. You stay there. Very nice.”) and probably similar to what my reactions would be, which makes me warm to her.
> 
> Tarzan is quite a good character, though it seems like more thought went into the look of him than the writing. He looks spectacular, all of his movements are great and he also has a very expressive face. This is obviously more important for the character of Tarzan than the writing so we’ll chalk that one up as a win.They also manage to pull off having their main character be more than half-naked throughout the whole movie without it getting weird.
> 
> Tarzan’s sidekicks are pretty good when they’re children (especially Tantor, that bit about piranhas and the water being ‘questionable’ is one of my favourite bits of the movie) if slightly less so when they’re older. Still, Rosie O’Donnell’s character Terk is an unusual Disney character, being an extroverted tomboy, and she has bags of personality so is always fun to watch. The trashing the camp bit is brilliant.
> 
> The movie does suffer for want of a decent villain though, as it doesn't really take the time to develop the ones that it introduces. The villain for the first 20 minutes or so is the leopard, who is presented as just a leopard (like he’s not an evil leopard, he’s just doing what nature dictates) so you can't really blame him for anything he does.
> 
> Then there’s Kerchak, Tarzan’s adopted father (sort of) who isn't really a villain, but is an antagonist for Tarzan due to him being unnecessarily harsh to the poor kid. This adds a level of complication that the plot doesn't really need. Tarzan spends his childhood trying not to be eaten by the leopard and earn the intractable Kerchak’s approval, which he is still trying to do when the main villain, Clayton, turns up. Then Clayton is introduced, but is a bit underdeveloped. He’s not a terrible villain, but he doesn’t have enough personality to stand out among other Disney villains. He does get one of the grizzliest endings for a Disney villain though - that one stuck with me when I was kid! In general the plot moves along at quite a pace (with a lot of really awesome montages), not giving one conflict time to resolved before the next thing pops up.
> 
> The music is the most obvious highlight of the film; Phil Collins crushed it! The songs and instrumental sections merge together very effectively, which creates one ‘sound’ for the whole piece rather than the songs sounding distinctly different from the incidental music as they do in some Disneys. I listen to this soundtrack all the time, including during my morning swim! It’s more pop-y and less experimental than the really incredible Disney soundtracks (such as the Lion King and some of the Pixars) but it’s still pretty darn good.
> 
> For me, Tarzan is not as good as Hercules or Mulan. I don’t think it’s a less well made film, but it’s just less my thing. It’s saved from being forgettable by a truly brilliant soundtrack. However, something tells me we have some lean years ahead of us as far as Disney Animation Studios goes, so maybe I should savour Tarzan while I have the chance



First of all, you are right, the music is the biggest win for this movie. Phil Collins did a tremendous job with the songs and the overall sound of the film. It does indeed mesh very well. The soundtrack is probably stronger than the movie, though that's not to say that the movie is bad. Its pretty good, with quite beautiful animation. I love the way the sun shines through the trees and creates shadows. That really adds to the look of the film. The story is a bit all over the place, but it's still fun. I also really like Jane. I love the line, "Daddy, they took my *boot*!" Good stuff. What I really appreciate is the Adventureland vibe that the world has going on. Fun Fact: I actually watched one of the follow-up movies to this, which I think is just some episodes of the TV show thrown together, but in it they have a trading post/port and it is pretty much The Jungle Cruise, with boats right out of the ride (or right out of The African Queen, but whatever). How fun!


----------



## Micca

I loved the old Tarzan movies when I was a kid.  They were already outdated by the time I was watching them, they are pretty much unwatchable now. The Disney Tarzan doesn't do much for me.  It is well-made for the time and I agree Phil Collins did nice work with the music (although Phil really wore out his welcome with me between the Disney and the pop/rock stuff.)  The movie just doesn't move me, I have the original DVD set but it's not a movie that I watch any more.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Ah Tarzan, one of the last films of the renaissance era and one I have seen in the cinema when I was younger. Phil Collins definetly was on top form with the music in this, while Clayton isn't the strongest Disney villain and it's not something I always go back but it's still a pretty good film, stellar animation, the scene with Jane first meeting Tarzan is pretty iconic and I would be lying if I didn't say that this was a part of my childhood. Plus Terk and Tantor are pretty funny themselves.


----------



## BrianL

TheStarscream759 said:


> Ah Tarzan, one of the last films of the renaissance era and one I have seen in the cinema when I was younger. Phil Collins definetly was on top form with the music in this, while Clayton isn't the strongest Disney villain and it's not something I always go back but it's still a pretty good film, stellar animation, the scene with Jane first meeting Tarzan is pretty iconic and I would be lying if I didn't say that this was a part of my childhood. Plus Terk and Tantor are pretty funny themselves.



Glad to see you on this thread Starscream. It needs more attention! RSandRS set the pace as they are watching *every* Disney animated film in order of release, including Pixar and the occasional one-off if it had a theatrical release. That's dedication!


----------



## TheStarscream759

BrianL said:


> Glad to see you on this thread Starscream. It needs more attention! RSandRS set the pace as they are watching *every* Disney animated film in order of release, including Pixar and the occasional one-off if it had a theatrical release. That's dedication!


 The pleasure's all mine, Brian. I managed to catch up with this thread and now here I am.


----------



## RSandRS

*Toy Story 2 (1999)*

Pixar’s third movie is already it’s first sequel - it took Disney over 50 years to bring out a sequel but Pixar pretty much starts as they mean to go on. Of course this isn’t really a criticism, as anyone could see there was still life in the brilliant idea of toys coming to life. Whether there still is, after two sequels and who knows how many shorts, remains to be seen - definitely a conversation for the future!

Toy Story 2 comes near the top of a lot of people’s list of favourite Pixars, including mine. It’s one of my many second or third favourites! It’s a pure joy from start to finish and probably my favourite Toy Story of the three we currently have.

The computer animation technology seems to be pretty much there by this point - in fact I barely noticed the improvements in the animation (though it definitely looks better than the first Toy Story). This means they can just settle in and focus on story, theme and, in particular, character for their second outing.

One thing you notice is that the characters are all a bit nicer to each other since the first movie. This makes sense character-wise, as the events of the first movie would probably have taught them not to be so judgey. It also makes them much easier to like and support as characters. This is very true of Woody and Buzz (and let me just take a second to say how completely wonderful Tom Hanks and Tim Allen are in these roles again) but also of the supporting toys such as Hamm and Potato Head. You now see them as a team and don’t want to the team to fail, rather than just wanting individual characters to make it.

The new characters, in particular Jessie, are also fantastic. We loved the way whenever Jessie says something she says it with her whole body. She almost makes Woody look shy and reserved in contrast!

The main human character, Al, is also really fantastic. The voice actor gives a really great performance, creating one of those characters you just love to hate. And the animated character looks just like the actor in real life, which is hilarious!

In fact this is definitely the funniest Pixar movie so far and probably one of their funniest overall - maybe only surpassed by The Incredibles. I seem to remember this is was one of my first experiences of watching a Disney film with more of an adult mindset (for the first time, I mean) as I was probably about thirteen when I first saw it, and naturally thought myself too old for cartoons. However, being slightly older I suddenly got all the jokes that were meant for adults and found myself enjoying the movie much more than I had expected. The ‘outtakes’ at the end of the film are really fantastic. They took possibly the only funny bit of A Bug’s Life and made it work a thousand times better for this movie.

Nowadays I’m pretty much giggling all the way through the film, apart, of course, from during ‘When She Loved Me’, when I am bawling like a small child. That sequence would have been gorgeous without the song, but add in the song and I...just...can’t…

One of the most masterful things about the three Toy Story films is the way they develop the main themes from film to film. When you look at the Cars movies, they might as well be three separate films, as the second one in particular doesn’t really have much to do with the themes that were introduced in the first. With Toy Story, however, the central theme of the toys’ powerlessness and the need to accept life’s limitations is developed beautifully from film to film. In this movie we begin to see how the passage of time and Andy’s growing up is going to affect the toys, and how powerless they are to stop it, but that as long as they are with the people they love, it will all be worthwhile. This theme, of course, culminates at the end of Toy Story 3 when the toys knowingly accept their fate in the incinerator and join hands to ‘die’ together.

Accepting your limitations and striving to be happy and reach your potential anyway is a theme that Pixar films return to often - think of Dory, Mike, Remy, Carl etc. It’s quite an adult theme, and about as different from Wish Upon A Star And Your Dreams Will Come True as a philosophy could be, but I think it’s nonetheless a positive and important one for people of all ages to hear.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> First of all, you are right, the music is the biggest win for this movie. Phil Collins did a tremendous job with the songs and the overall sound of the film. It does indeed mesh very well. The soundtrack is probably stronger than the movie, though that's not to say that the movie is bad. Its pretty good, with quite beautiful animation. I love the way the sun shines through the trees and creates shadows. That really adds to the look of the film. The story is a bit all over the place, but it's still fun. I also really like Jane. I love the line, "Daddy, they took my *boot*!" Good stuff. What I really appreciate is the Adventureland vibe that the world has going on. Fun Fact: I actually watched one of the follow-up movies to this, which I think is just some episodes of the TV show thrown together, but in it they have a trading post/port and it is pretty much The Jungle Cruise, with boats right out of the ride (or right out of The African Queen, but whatever). How fun!



I like the Adventureland vibe too! Never watched any of the sequels. I wonder if they come up on this list. I think this film is only really represented in California? Is that right? They need an extension of a family-friendly coaster (take the pressure off mine train!) in which you experience what its like to be Tarzan swinging through the trees!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> I like the Adventureland vibe too! Never watched any of the sequels. I wonder if they come up on this list. I think this film is only really represented in California? Is that right? They need an extension of a family-friendly coaster (take the pressure off mine train!) in which you experience what its like to be Tarzan swinging through the trees!



They only have Tarzan's Treehouse in DL, which is just a retheme of the Swiss Family Robinson treehouse, or as I like to call it, "Stairs: The Ride."

The sequels to Tarzan were all driect-to-video- and there were a couple seasons of a TV series, so I don't think they would hit your list. This one wasn't bad though if you grade it along with TV animation.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Toy Story 2, what can you say about it? Beautifully crafted, memorable characters and one of my absolute favourites and something I watched endlessly on VHS repeatedly when I was younger. Toy Story in general just goes with the idea of toys accepting their lot in life and just seamlessly just develop it over the course of the movies and still be regarded as a brilliant message for children.

Fun fact: Wayne Knight who play Al in the movie who I also know from Jurassic Park and Space Jam, actually voiced Zurg in the animated series Buzz Lightyear of Star Command.

Highly recommend Toy Story 2 for those who haven't seen it.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Toy Story 2 (1999)*
> 
> Pixar’s third movie is already it’s first sequel - it took Disney over 50 years to bring out a sequel but Pixar pretty much starts as they mean to go on. Of course this isn’t really a criticism, as anyone could see there was still life in the brilliant idea of toys coming to life. Whether there still is, after two sequels and who knows how many shorts, remains to be seen - definitely a conversation for the future!
> 
> Toy Story 2 comes near the top of a lot of people’s list of favourite Pixars, including mine. It’s one of my many second or third favourites! It’s a pure joy from start to finish and probably my favourite Toy Story of the three we currently have.
> 
> The computer animation technology seems to be pretty much there by this point - in fact I barely noticed the improvements in the animation (though it definitely looks better than the first Toy Story). This means they can just settle in and focus on story, theme and, in particular, character for their second outing.
> 
> One thing you notice is that the characters are all a bit nicer to each other since the first movie. This makes sense character-wise, as the events of the first movie would probably have taught them not to be so judgey. It also makes them much easier to like and support as characters. This is very true of Woody and Buzz (and let me just take a second to say how completely wonderful Tom Hanks and Tim Allen are in these roles again) but also of the supporting toys such as Hamm and Potato Head. You now see them as a team and don’t want to the team to fail, rather than just wanting individual characters to make it.
> 
> The new characters, in particular Jessie, are also fantastic. We loved the way whenever Jessie says something she says it with her whole body. She almost makes Woody look shy and reserved in contrast!
> 
> The main human character, Al, is also really fantastic. The voice actor gives a really great performance, creating one of those characters you just love to hate. And the animated character looks just like the actor in real life, which is hilarious!
> 
> In fact this is definitely the funniest Pixar movie so far and probably one of their funniest overall - maybe only surpassed by The Incredibles. I seem to remember this is was one of my first experiences of watching a Disney film with more of an adult mindset (for the first time, I mean) as I was probably about thirteen when I first saw it, and naturally thought myself too old for cartoons. However, being slightly older I suddenly got all the jokes that were meant for adults and found myself enjoying the movie much more than I had expected. The ‘outtakes’ at the end of the film are really fantastic. They took possibly the only funny bit of A Bug’s Life and made it work a thousand times better for this movie.
> 
> Nowadays I’m pretty much giggling all the way through the film, apart, of course, from during ‘When She Loved Me’, when I am bawling like a small child. That sequence would have been gorgeous without the song, but add in the song and I...just...can’t…
> 
> One of the most masterful things about the three Toy Story films is the way they develop the main themes from film to film. When you look at the Cars movies, they might as well be three separate films, as the second one in particular doesn’t really have much to do with the themes that were introduced in the first. With Toy Story, however, the central theme of the toys’ powerlessness and the need to accept life’s limitations is developed beautifully from film to film. In this movie we begin to see how the passage of time and Andy’s growing up is going to affect the toys, and how powerless they are to stop it, but that as long as they are with the people they love, it will all be worthwhile. This theme, of course, culminates at the end of Toy Story 3 when the toys knowingly accept their fate in the incinerator and join hands to ‘die’ together.
> 
> Accepting your limitations and striving to be happy and reach your potential anyway is a theme that Pixar films return to often - think of Dory, Mike, Remy, Carl etc. It’s quite an adult theme, and about as different from Wish Upon A Star And Your Dreams Will Come True as a philosophy could be, but I think it’s nonetheless a positive and important one for people of all ages to hear.



I had never seen Toy Story 2 until fairly recently as I was trying to fill in a lot of gaps. For me, Toy Story wasn't one that grabbed me despite it obviously being great. They're just not my favorite Pixar franchise. That said, Toy Story 2 is my favorite of the bunch, which I know is a less popular opinion. I really loved the concept, being that I have been know to collect toys. One of my biggest rules is to *always open them!* There is no point in keeping them in plastic forever. The toy collector in this movie is like my opposite, though it hits close to home (nerds! ) I also love Spanish Language Buzz and the whole Zurg thing. Maybe this one is a little silly, but I like it!


----------



## BrianL

TheStarscream759 said:


> Wayne Knight who play Al in the movie who I also know from Jurassic Park and Space Jam...



Not from Seinfeld?

*NEWMAN!*


----------



## TheStarscream759

BrianL said:


> Not from Seinfeld?
> 
> *NEWMAN!*


 The same.


----------



## BrianL

TheStarscream759 said:


> The same.



Yeah, I guess I jsut think of Newman as his most famous role. He's always great in anything though.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> They only have Tarzan's Treehouse in DL, which is just a retheme of the Swiss Family Robinson treehouse, or as I like to call it, "Stairs: The Ride."
> 
> The sequels to Tarzan were all driect-to-video- and there were a couple seasons of a TV series, so I don't think they would hit your list. This one wasn't bad though if you grade it along with TV animation.



Right from no on this will have to be "Stairs: The Ride". I had not actually been up one of the Stairs Rides in years till our last Halloween trip to DLP and was suitably impressed with the number of stairs!


----------



## RSandRS

*Fantasia 2000 (2000)*


Fun fact, this movie was actually released on 1 January 2000, which is quite a nice thought.

This was my first time watching Fantasia 2000 all the way through and basically it’s OK. It’s not a must-watch in itself, but I’m glad I’ve watched it for the purposes of my Disney education.

Fantasia 2000 was apparently Roy (the son) Disney’s pet project, and it is a very nice idea. It was never going to be hugely successful (Fantasia wasn’t either) as a film for kids, but unfortunately it probably fails to reach Fantasia’s artistic heights too

My sisters favourite sequence was the Rhapsody in Blue one. She liked the animation style and it’s one of the best pieces of music they use as well. My favourite was the flying whales. This bit was very pretty and the music matches well too. It’s a very nice idea, but they were definitely going more for spectacle than for story.

I didn’t really like the Pomp and Circumstance bit as I’m not a big Elgar fan and nothing about it seemed very creative to me. That having been said it’s nice to see Donald Duck not skeeving on human women and actually being a productive member of society for once. Regular readers will know my feelings about Donald.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice is just copied and pasted straight from Fantasia! Why?? They couldn’t have done a different story with Mickey and Yen Sid? Or developed the themes from the first movie in some other way? It’s obviously the best sequence in the film, but I’m not sure it counts.

We both agreed the worst bit was the bit with the flamingos - in fact we chatted through the whole thing and when we looked up it was finished. It made zero impression and didn’t seem to fit with the rest of movie at all. If they had to have a ‘comic interlude’ they could have at least made it a bit more subtle and less jarring in tone.

The interludes where famous people introduced the different pieces of music were, in my opinion, a failure. They looked like the actors who have to read out the categories at the Baftas or Oscars, who are obviously seeing the text for the first time. You can see their eyes moving and there’s that awkward joviality, with jokes that just make everyone feel uncomfortable. They also seem to have picked the people they got to do it totally at random - which made it look like it was just whoever they could get at short notice!

Overall I think the reason I don’t like this one as much as Fantasia (despite the fact that the animation is often lovely and there’s some beautiful pieces of music) is that it felt safe and a bit saccharine. Comparing the Rite of Spring from Fantasia with The Firebird (same composer) from Fantasia 2000 demonstrates what I mean. With The Rite of Spring you get a viceral, grimey look at earth’s beginnings and the fight for survival, while with The Firebird you get an airy-fairy story with a kawaii-looking main character that is altogether too nice. Fantasia was Walt’s third film and he was willing to risk it all to do something truly innovative. In wartime! But the Disney of the year 2000 (and the year 2018 I’m sure) wasn’t willing to risk a penny of their billions.

Which all sounds as if I didn’t like Fantasia 2000, which isn’t true. I did like it. It was OK. I was whatever is between underwhelmed and overwhelmed. I was whelmed. But Disney, I know you can do so much better!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Fantasia 2000 (2000)*
> 
> 
> Fun fact, this movie was actually released on 1 January 2000, which is quite a nice thought.
> 
> This was my first time watching Fantasia 2000 all the way through and basically it’s OK. It’s not a must-watch in itself, but I’m glad I’ve watched it for the purposes of my Disney education.
> 
> Fantasia 2000 was apparently Roy (the son) Disney’s pet project, and it is a very nice idea. It was never going to be hugely successful (Fantasia wasn’t either) as a film for kids, but unfortunately it probably fails to reach Fantasia’s artistic heights too
> 
> My sisters favourite sequence was the Rhapsody in Blue one. She liked the animation style and it’s one of the best pieces of music they use as well. My favourite was the flying whales. This bit was very pretty and the music matches well too. It’s a very nice idea, but they were definitely going more for spectacle than for story.
> 
> I didn’t really like the Pomp and Circumstance bit as I’m not a big Elgar fan and nothing about it seemed very creative to me. That having been said it’s nice to see Donald Duck not skeeving on human women and actually being a productive member of society for once. Regular readers will know my feelings about Donald.
> 
> The Sorcerer's Apprentice is just copied and pasted straight from Fantasia! Why?? They couldn’t have done a different story with Mickey and Yen Sid? Or developed the themes from the first movie in some other way? It’s obviously the best sequence in the film, but I’m not sure it counts.
> 
> We both agreed the worst bit was the bit with the flamingos - in fact we chatted through the whole thing and when we looked up it was finished. It made zero impression and didn’t seem to fit with the rest of movie at all. If they had to have a ‘comic interlude’ they could have at least made it a bit more subtle and less jarring in tone.
> 
> The interludes where famous people introduced the different pieces of music were, in my opinion, a failure. They looked like the actors who have to read out the categories at the Baftas or Oscars, who are obviously seeing the text for the first time. You can see their eyes moving and there’s that awkward joviality, with jokes that just make everyone feel uncomfortable. They also seem to have picked the people they got to do it totally at random - which made it look like it was just whoever they could get at short notice!
> 
> Overall I think the reason I don’t like this one as much as Fantasia (despite the fact that the animation is often lovely and there’s some beautiful pieces of music) is that it felt safe and a bit saccharine. Comparing the Rite of Spring from Fantasia with The Firebird (same composer) from Fantasia 2000 demonstrates what I mean. With The Rite of Spring you get a viceral, grimey look at earth’s beginnings and the fight for survival, while with The Firebird you get an airy-fairy story with a kawaii-looking main character that is altogether too nice. Fantasia was Walt’s third film and he was willing to risk it all to do something truly innovative. In wartime! But the Disney of the year 2000 (and the year 2018 I’m sure) wasn’t willing to risk a penny of their billions.
> 
> Which all sounds as if I didn’t like Fantasia 2000, which isn’t true. I did like it. It was OK. I was whatever is between underwhelmed and overwhelmed. I was whelmed. But Disney, I know you can do so much better!



I have actually never seen this. The original Fantasia has some great parts, but works better in small doses. I just never got around to this one. I have heard about the infamous Flamingo's scene. As for the Sorcerer's Apprentice, it was a change to see that again on the big screen. If they had done an original segment, would it even have been as good?


----------



## TheStarscream759

Before I say anything about Fantasia 2000 let me say this about the original first. It's such a masterpiece the way how every piece of music goes seamlessly with the animation in the segments and how it beautifully paints pictures in our minds when we listen to these classical pieces. My favourite segments from Fantasia are The Sorcerers Apprentice and Night on Bald Mountain and overall its one of my favourites when it comes to the classic era of Disney. Now that I've got that out the way I can talk about the sequel....which is not as good as the first one.

It's not by any means a bad film, I liked it but I do agree it's a little too light hearted and it's a bit of a far cry from what the original was serious whilst being entertaining at the same time. I'll basically summarise each segment in order to tell you what I'd liked and what I didn't like.

First of Symphony No 5: It's pretty much the Tocatta in D Fugue segment if this movie but with butterflies. Not much to say other than its not as memorable as the other segments and it's pretty much there to start the film off.

The Pines of Rome segment on the other hand was just breathtaking, its an unusual of flying whales but for some reason it works and its one of the best segments this sequel has to offer. So okay things are looking good so far. 

Rhapsody in Blue another one of my favourites, love the animation in this, its very jazzy and stylish and there's a lot of things going on and such a visual delight. 

Piano Concerto No 2 in F Major, okay its adapting the steadfast tin soldier only it's got a happy ending. Good not as enjoyable as the previous two segments but good. Like how they adapted another Hans Christian Anderson story again otherwise a bit slow but definitely worth seeing once. 

Annnnnd the tone changes from serious to light hearted in the blink of an eye and gives me time to talk about the celebrities they brought to host the segments. Why is Penn and Teller here? What's the voice of Darth Vader doing in a Fantasia movie? Steve Martin? Bette Milder? Why are they all here? It just baffles me that Disney chose them specifically to do this film I honestly wish they didn't include and I would've been happy to just have the Composer hosting the segments like Leopold Stowoski in the original which is all you really need.

Anyways next segment...dear lord...it's Carnival of Animals. Do I even need to say anything about this segment? It's about a flamingo playing with a yo-yo....that's it. It's easily the worst segment mainly because it comes out of nowhere, its over the top and so slapstick ridden that almost belongs in a cartoon show rather a sequel to Fantasia and the music just doesn't fit the overly cartoony segment. No...just no.

Thank god after that we get a better segment in the form of The Sorcerer's Apprentice which is always good to see, I've already said what I need to say about this segment, it's fantastic and one of my favourites and it's one of Mickey Mouse's biggest highlights of his career.

Pomp and Circumstance it's okay as a segment its basically Donald Duck in a retelling of Noah's Ark. It's bearable than Carnival of Animals in terms of its lighter tone but I still don't know why they decided to include two contrasting segments that feel really out of place here. There's too much of: "Where's Daisy, where's Daisy?" and it feels again like a cartoon that would be aired in a TV show. If I were given a choice between seeing Carnival of Animals or this segment again I'd probably go with the latter because at least it has Donald and Daisy in there.

Last but not least is The Firebird Suite, it's a very underrated segment and not many people praise this one. Like Pines of Rome it's beautifully animated, the spring sprite looks very cute and I will not lie I did jump when the Firebird awoke and started swooping at the Spring Sprite was genuinely threatening.

All in all, its a good film but again not as good as the original. And it's not really something I'll come back to but it was worth seeing at the very least.


----------



## RSandRS

Agree-Not really worth a second go, but good to have seen it! I would say ppl should see it once...Its certainly by no means bad...not like the next one on the list!


----------



## RSandRS

*The Tigger Movie (2000)*

Wow this one was utterly TERRIBLE. It’s currently tied for worst we’ve seen with The Black Cauldron. In fact, if I had to choose to watch one of them again I’d probably choose Black Cauldron. That’s how bad this movie was.

Now I know what you're thinking, you're clearly not the target audience for this movie’ and you’re right, but that didn't stop us being charmed by _The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh _and on some level nearly every film to date. We didn’t have high expectations, we just didn’t expect to actually hate the thing.

We were in separate cities while we watched _The Tigger Movie_ and reading back over our WhatsApp convo to get ideas for the review it struck me that just copy-pasting the whole thing in here would be the best demonstration of how we felt about this film. Its also undeserving of a proper, considered review  .- so here it is, as a special Day 50 (Day 50! (actually, its been far more days than that timewise!) treat, for your amusement!


B: We can chat through it…starting now!

R: Ok go.

B: I realize the problem with this already…Tigger is always annoying.

R: Wow it’s long!

B: It's only been going for 2 minutes!

R: I know but check out how long it is…It’s like over an hour.

B: Tigger said ‘Ta Ta For now’

R: What's wrong with that?

B: Just feels wrong time period wise???

R: Haven’t people been saying that for decades?

B: Probably…oh he (_Tigger_) sings! Arghhh!

R: I can’t sympathize with Tigger. There is a guy like Tigger in my office and I basically loathe him…. (I_n reference to the fact that Tigger over enthusiastic and always wants someone to bounce with_) - Why can’t he bounce with the kangaroos? They’re pretty bouncy.

B: B/c he is a nine.

R: What? I’d say he was more like a 2 if we are rating Tigger on looks.

B: Wrong word, I meant he is a numpty.

R: Oh

B: He is def the sorest character in hundred acre wood.

R: Sorest? Use normal words.

B: Argh wrong word again…worst. He is the worst character!

R: This does not have the charm of _The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh._

B: In that film Pooh is silly, but cute and so is his singing…I maintain even very small children would not like this movie.

R: Yeah Tigger’s singing in this is not good and does not fit. It feels like a movie made out of a picture book.

B: Yep

R: It's one of those repetitive picture books where the main character keeps going ‘will you be my friend’? or something to loads of characters one after another and it's all very charming but you are ready for it to be over in five minutes.

B: It’s no _Bye Bye Baby_ (_excellent children's book_!).

R: Why are we now getting a bee subplot? (_Pooh attempts to get honey from some bees while singing a song. The whole thing is copy pasted from The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh_) It has nothing to do with anything. Did they think we forgot that Pooh’s likes honey?

B: I have no idea.

R: It couldn’t be that they had a song left over from _The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh_ and just thought they would chuck it in because the movie wasn’t long enough, COULD IT???

B: They got chased by bees last time too! I call BS!

R: Another waste of John Hurt. What does Disney have against John Hurt that they keep sticking him in their worst movies?

B: Is Tigger older than Roo? Cos he certainly doesn't act it.

R: It's hard to say.

B: Argh Tigger as Marilyn Monroe during ‘the skirt moment’. This movie took a turn for the adult. Who is this for?

R: Not only do I hate this song but it completely takes you out of the Pooh literary/cinematic universe into an alternative 1950s.

B: With synchronized swimming!

R: And Marilyn Tigger. What is the message of this movie?

B: Never watch this movie again? We’ve left the renaissance far behind?

R: Not to mention the immortal prose of AA Milne. Who wrote these songs? How can there still be so much of this movie to go?

B: It’s tough - This is _Black Cauldron_ bad but in a totally different way. I could not say what would be worse to sit through again.

R: I think this…but that’s because I am sitting through it right now.

B: Wow Tigger is a ..(_term for not a nice gentleman_)

R: I’m never watching either of them again…Now this movie is depressing too.

B: I feel for Roo….I maintain Tigger is a… (_term for a not nice gentleman_)

R: Yeah, ingrate.Take a hint moron, Tiggers are not a thing.

B: Push him off a cliff! Push him off a cliff!…

R: Push him off a cliff!..Uh oh!

B: Oh haha the cliff took my advice (_in reference to an avalanche that fells Tigger and co_)…That’s hilarious!

R: One of the most unlikeable characters we have encountered. The Hundred Acre Wood lot do not need this…And now they nearly all died and it’s Tigger’s fault. I. HATE. THIS. MOVIE. They also haven’t earned any of these emotional moments

B: AWFUL, AWFULLY AWFUL.

R: DREADFULLY DREADFUL…The Shermans wrote those awful song’s??!!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *The Tigger Movie (2000)*
> 
> Wow this one was utterly TERRIBLE. It’s currently tied for worst we’ve seen with The Black Cauldron. In fact, if I had to choose to watch one of them again I’d probably choose Black Cauldron. That’s how bad this movie was.
> 
> Now I know what you're thinking, you're clearly not the target audience for this movie’ and you’re right, but that didn't stop us being charmed by _The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh _and on some level nearly every film to date. We didn’t have high expectations, we just didn’t expect to actually hate the thing.
> 
> We were in separate cities while we watched _The Tigger Movie_ and reading back over our WhatsApp convo to get ideas for the review it struck me that just copy-pasting the whole thing in here would be the best demonstration of how we felt about this film. Its also undeserving of a proper, considered review  .- so here it is, as a special Day 50 (Day 50! (actually, its been far more days than that timewise!) treat, for your amusement!
> 
> 
> B: We can chat through it…starting now!
> 
> R: Ok go.
> 
> B: I realize the problem with this already…Tigger is always annoying.
> 
> R: Wow it’s long!
> 
> B: It's only been going for 2 minutes!
> 
> R: I know but check out how long it is…It’s like over an hour.
> 
> B: Tigger said ‘Ta Ta For now’
> 
> R: What's wrong with that?
> 
> B: Just feels wrong time period wise???
> 
> R: Haven’t people been saying that for decades?
> 
> B: Probably…oh he (_Tigger_) sings! Arghhh!
> 
> R: I can’t sympathize with Tigger. There is a guy like Tigger in my office and I basically loathe him…. (I_n reference to the fact that Tigger over enthusiastic and always wants someone to bounce with_) - Why can’t he bounce with the kangaroos? They’re pretty bouncy.
> 
> B: B/c he is a nine.
> 
> R: What? I’d say he was more like a 2 if we are rating Tigger on looks.
> 
> B: Wrong word, I meant he is a numpty.
> 
> R: Oh
> 
> B: He is def the sorest character in hundred acre wood.
> 
> R: Sorest? Use normal words.
> 
> B: Argh wrong word again…worst. He is the worst character!
> 
> R: This does not have the charm of _The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh._
> 
> B: In that film Pooh is silly, but cute and so is his singing…I maintain even very small children would not like this movie.
> 
> R: Yeah Tigger’s singing in this is not good and does not fit. It feels like a movie made out of a picture book.
> 
> B: Yep
> 
> R: It's one of those repetitive picture books where the main character keeps going ‘will you be my friend’? or something to loads of characters one after another and it's all very charming but you are ready for it to be over in five minutes.
> 
> B: It’s no _Bye Bye Baby_ (_excellent children's book_!).
> 
> R: Why are we now getting a bee subplot? (_Pooh attempts to get honey from some bees while singing a song. The whole thing is copy pasted from The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh_) It has nothing to do with anything. Did they think we forgot that Pooh’s likes honey?
> 
> B: I have no idea.
> 
> R: It couldn’t be that they had a song left over from _The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh_ and just thought they would chuck it in because the movie wasn’t long enough, COULD IT???
> 
> B: They got chased by bees last time too! I call BS!
> 
> R: Another waste of John Hurt. What does Disney have against John Hurt that they keep sticking him in their worst movies?
> 
> B: Is Tigger older than Roo? Cos he certainly doesn't act it.
> 
> R: It's hard to say.
> 
> B: Argh Tigger as Marilyn Monroe during ‘the skirt moment’. This movie took a turn for the adult. Who is this for?
> 
> R: Not only do I hate this song but it completely takes you out of the Pooh literary/cinematic universe into an alternative 1950s.
> 
> B: With synchronized swimming!
> 
> R: And Marilyn Tigger. What is the message of this movie?
> 
> B: Never watch this movie again? We’ve left the renaissance far behind?
> 
> R: Not to mention the immortal prose of AA Milne. Who wrote these songs? How can there still be so much of this movie to go?
> 
> B: It’s tough - This is _Black Cauldron_ bad but in a totally different way. I could not say what would be worse to sit through again.
> 
> R: I think this…but that’s because I am sitting through it right now.
> 
> B: Wow Tigger is a ..(_term for not a nice gentleman_)
> 
> R: I’m never watching either of them again…Now this movie is depressing too.
> 
> B: I feel for Roo….I maintain Tigger is a… (_term for a not nice gentleman_)
> 
> R: Yeah, ingrate.Take a hint moron, Tiggers are not a thing.
> 
> B: Push him off a cliff! Push him off a cliff!…
> 
> R: Push him off a cliff!..Uh oh!
> 
> B: Oh haha the cliff took my advice (_in reference to an avalanche that fells Tigger and co_)…That’s hilarious!
> 
> R: One of the most unlikeable characters we have encountered. The Hundred Acre Wood lot do not need this…And now they nearly all died and it’s Tigger’s fault. I. HATE. THIS. MOVIE. They also haven’t earned any of these emotional moments
> 
> B: AWFUL, AWFULLY AWFUL.
> 
> R: DREADFULLY DREADFUL…The Shermans wrote those awful song’s??!!



Wow, another left field one. Just so you are aware this movie was *not* produced at Walt Disney Animation Studios, but rather the Television Animation arm and the aforementioned DisneyToon Studios. This does not count as a part of the "Disney Renaissance" or as an indicator of it's end, as that only applies to Walt Disney Animation Studios (then called Walt Disney Feature Animation). This would have been direct-to-video but was changed to release theatrically because of the songs by The Sherman Brothers. I have not seen the movie and cannot attest to their quality, but, hey, Sherman Brothers!

Apparently this movie was fairly well received, even without a theatrical budget. I am not the biggest Winnie the Pooh fan, so I never was too interested. I am a little surprised at how much you hate it. Be warned if you are doing *every* theatrical movie, this had two follow-ups, Piglet's Big Movie, and Pooh's Hefalump Movie, both by the same production group.


----------



## RSandRS

*Dinosaur (2000)*

Here’s something that surprised me this week: Dinosaur is really good! I’m sure I watched this movie many many moons ago and was firmly of the opinion that it was ‘one of the rubbish turn of the century ones’, so I’ve never even tried to watch it again. Big mistake! It’s actually really great and I will definitely be watching it again.


I decided to call it ‘the find of the 90-00s’, in the way Roger Rabbit was the find of the 80s for us. It’s not quite Roger Rabbit, but it’s a good solid Disney movie with lots to enjoy. And it’s not boring, safe or saccharine, which makes it a win in my book!


The opening of the film is fantastic, with really beautiful animation and all built around the innovative idea of seeing it all through the eyes of an unborn baby. Yes, it’s not very realistic, but it’s fun and a great way of getting us to like the character before he’s even spoken a word. They make use of dramatic scenery and music to give a sense of the world the story is happening in. It’s almost a Lion-Kingesque opening.


The animation as a whole is really innovative and great. They made the interesting choice to have the backgrounds as live action and then to superimpose animated characters into them. This is a brilliant idea and one I’ve never seen before. The backgrounds are of course shown off to their best advantage in the opening with all that lush scenery and waterfalls and things, but they also manage to get lots of drama out of the dry wastelands that make up most of the rest of the movie (a meteor shower has a fairly dramatic impact on the landscape).


The character animation is also very good. Not quite Pixar now, but at least as good as Pixar at the time. It’s quite a difficult challenge to make dinosaurs that are realistic and can show human emotions on their faces but they manage it.


The characters themselves are a nice group. Aladar and his family are especially cute, with Aladar being a genuinely nice guy and someone you can root for throughout. The two old lady dinosaurs are possibly my favourite characters - it’s nice to have older characters as central to the story for once, and both of them are relatable and funny.


The villain character is OK. He’s interesting because at first you sort of think ‘Well he’s got a hard job and someone’s got to do it - all the dinos will die if he doesn’t keep on at them to keep moving’, but then he takes it too far and just becomes a bully. You start to realise his ethos isn’t ‘Only the strong are going to survive this’ but ‘I’m going to make sure it’s only the strong that survive this’, which is interesting in the context of the film’s themes.


Those themes are good and are communicated clearly. It’s also a nice message for a film: survival of the fittest is a fact of life, but working together is better for everyone. The movie is actually quite brutal in some ways, with quite a few characters dying, but it’s also life-affirming.


Side note: The movie needed a better title though - ‘Dinosaur’ does it no favours.


For such a little-known film it’s actually reasonably well represented in the parks. Seeing the movie gives the Animal Kingdom ride a bit of context (like why they have a carnotaur at the end rather than a t-rex like any self-respecting dinosaur attraction) - though really the two have almost nothing to do with one another. The earnest, ‘family is everything’ message of the film is certainly not carried through to the ride, which is quite tongue-in-cheek, so it really could be any film about dinosaurs that inspired the ride. I can’t criticise it though as Dinosaur is one of my favourite rides in all of Disney World. I think we rode it about four times in a row on our last visit!


In terms of the other Disney park I’ve been too, Dinosaur is there too! There are still lots of posters up for Dinosaur in the Studios at DLP, which must have been there when it opened. Wow that park needs some updating.


----------



## RSandRS

*The Emperor’s New Groove (2000)*

This one split us! While we can sometimes disagree about individual bits of the films, we usually agree overall, so this is highly unusual. Basically my sis really really enjoyed it and was giggling throughout, but I felt it did not have quite enough heart.

The plot to this film is paper-thin - there is really nothing to it. Basically man is selfish; gets turned into llama; continues to be selfish; is a bit more selfish; is selfish and then finally becomes basically OK human being. It’s very simple, but that’s OK.

It’s joke after joke after joke and there’s pretty much something for everybody. If you didn’t really laugh at the first joke, don’t worry there’ll be another one along in about 30 seconds. Some of the jokes in fact are delivered completely without context (e.g. the trampoline that catches Yzma the cat) but that kind of works. You are constantly surprised!

My favourite bit was the bit in the diner with Kronk taking orders and all the farcical opening and closing of doors by Yzma and Cuzco. This is not the type of comedy you usually see in a Disney. Also Kronk’s angel and devil are hilarious. Admittedly not the most original comedic idea, but it really worked! Basically, Yzma and Kronk make this film. They are funny and have loads of quotable lines.

Pacha and his family are also delightful and hilarious. Pacha is the heart of the film and probably would come off as pathetic if played by anybody other than John Goodman. But luckily he just seems sweet and dryly funny. The weak point is Kuzco (though even he has some good moments) because he is just so awful, almost until the very end. This is one of the main reasons I don’t warm to the movie that much. Since it’s Kuzco’s story, I feel we should be able to root for him a bit more/

The animation is almost unnecessarily good. For a paper-thin comedy it’s a surprise to see such high-quality animation with such a cool and stylish look. It’s interesting though that they decided to set the movie in South America and really lean into that when it came to the visuals, but then not address it even a little bit in the story. The story could have happened anywhere - just swap out a llama for a similarly amusing local animal. This is very unlike the approach they took in some of the movies leading up to this, e.g. Pocahontas, Mulan and is probably a symptom of the fact that they were trying to make an entirely different film at first and had to do a 180 in the middle of making it.

The music is nothing special. The bits that Tom Jones sings he, of course, sings brilliantly, and they are mildly amusing, but the rest of the music is highly forgettable.

My sis really loves a movie that can make her laugh out loud and so naturally loved this movie. I tend to need a bit more heart and soul, so couldn’t really warm to it. Zootopia for me has the perfect balance of both! I’d be interested to hear everyone’s thoughts on it!

Incidentally, we found the banned documentary about the making of this film on youtube (Sweatbox). I cannot recommend this highly enough for an insight rarely seen into the Disney creative process and it explains a lot why the movie ended up the way it did!


----------



## Micca

Somehow I've fallen behind, I'll hurry to catch up:
Toy Story 2--It's my favorite of the 3.  I can relate to the collector mentality, the restoration of a rare item, and selling it for big bucks in Japan.

Fantasia 2000--Fun for eye-candy.  Actually saw this at an Imax theater, can't recall where--maybe Vegas?  

The Tigger Movie--Never saw it, looked bad.  I was actually a kid when Disney co-opted the Pooh brand.  I remember they used it extensively(and exclusively) to market infant and toddler merch through Sears stores.  I know Pooh & friends are beloved by some folks, I was just too old for it by the time Disney came along.

Dinosaur--Never saw it.  I don't like reptiles, big scaly things, etc.  Not for me.  Honestly this is why I struggle with Avatar.  Blue lizard people?

Emperor's New Groove--Love it!  It's very funny, there are some classic moments in this movie. I'll call this one underrated.  The voice work is strong and Patrick Warburton just makes me laugh every time I hear his voice. (Hey--another Seinfeld connection too.)



RSandRS said:


> Incidentally, we found the banned documentary about the making of this film on youtube (Sweatbox). I cannot recommend this highly enough for an insight rarely seen into the Disney creative process and it explains a lot why the movie ended up the way it did!


This is the story of Sting writing the music and then Disney revised the story so much that they dumped his material?  It's a shame, I like Sting...a lot more than Tom Jones.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Dinosaur (2000)*
> 
> Here’s something that surprised me this week: Dinosaur is really good! I’m sure I watched this movie many many moons ago and was firmly of the opinion that it was ‘one of the rubbish turn of the century ones’, so I’ve never even tried to watch it again. Big mistake! It’s actually really great and I will definitely be watching it again.
> 
> 
> I decided to call it ‘the find of the 90-00s’, in the way Roger Rabbit was the find of the 80s for us. It’s not quite Roger Rabbit, but it’s a good solid Disney movie with lots to enjoy. And it’s not boring, safe or saccharine, which makes it a win in my book!
> 
> 
> The opening of the film is fantastic, with really beautiful animation and all built around the innovative idea of seeing it all through the eyes of an unborn baby. Yes, it’s not very realistic, but it’s fun and a great way of getting us to like the character before he’s even spoken a word. They make use of dramatic scenery and music to give a sense of the world the story is happening in. It’s almost a Lion-Kingesque opening.
> 
> 
> The animation as a whole is really innovative and great. They made the interesting choice to have the backgrounds as live action and then to superimpose animated characters into them. This is a brilliant idea and one I’ve never seen before. The backgrounds are of course shown off to their best advantage in the opening with all that lush scenery and waterfalls and things, but they also manage to get lots of drama out of the dry wastelands that make up most of the rest of the movie (a meteor shower has a fairly dramatic impact on the landscape).
> 
> 
> The character animation is also very good. Not quite Pixar now, but at least as good as Pixar at the time. It’s quite a difficult challenge to make dinosaurs that are realistic and can show human emotions on their faces but they manage it.
> 
> 
> The characters themselves are a nice group. Aladar and his family are especially cute, with Aladar being a genuinely nice guy and someone you can root for throughout. The two old lady dinosaurs are possibly my favourite characters - it’s nice to have older characters as central to the story for once, and both of them are relatable and funny.
> 
> 
> The villain character is OK. He’s interesting because at first you sort of think ‘Well he’s got a hard job and someone’s got to do it - all the dinos will die if he doesn’t keep on at them to keep moving’, but then he takes it too far and just becomes a bully. You start to realise his ethos isn’t ‘Only the strong are going to survive this’ but ‘I’m going to make sure it’s only the strong that survive this’, which is interesting in the context of the film’s themes.
> 
> 
> Those themes are good and are communicated clearly. It’s also a nice message for a film: survival of the fittest is a fact of life, but working together is better for everyone. The movie is actually quite brutal in some ways, with quite a few characters dying, but it’s also life-affirming.
> 
> 
> Side note: The movie needed a better title though - ‘Dinosaur’ does it no favours.
> 
> 
> For such a little-known film it’s actually reasonably well represented in the parks. Seeing the movie gives the Animal Kingdom ride a bit of context (like why they have a carnotaur at the end rather than a t-rex like any self-respecting dinosaur attraction) - though really the two have almost nothing to do with one another. The earnest, ‘family is everything’ message of the film is certainly not carried through to the ride, which is quite tongue-in-cheek, so it really could be any film about dinosaurs that inspired the ride. I can’t criticise it though as Dinosaur is one of my favourite rides in all of Disney World. I think we rode it about four times in a row on our last visit!
> 
> 
> In terms of the other Disney park I’ve been too, Dinosaur is there too! There are still lots of posters up for Dinosaur in the Studios at DLP, which must have been there when it opened. Wow that park needs some updating.



I have only seen Dinosaur once (on my flight to Tokyo Disney). I had never seen it. I too thought it was better than its reputation. I didn't love it, but it is pretty good, and the backgrounds look really nice. I can't say much else, but I did enjoy it.



RSandRS said:


> *The Emperor’s New Groove (2000)*
> 
> This one split us! While we can sometimes disagree about individual bits of the films, we usually agree overall, so this is highly unusual. Basically my sis really really enjoyed it and was giggling throughout, but I felt it did not have quite enough heart.
> 
> The plot to this film is paper-thin - there is really nothing to it. Basically man is selfish; gets turned into llama; continues to be selfish; is a bit more selfish; is selfish and then finally becomes basically OK human being. It’s very simple, but that’s OK.
> 
> It’s joke after joke after joke and there’s pretty much something for everybody. If you didn’t really laugh at the first joke, don’t worry there’ll be another one along in about 30 seconds. Some of the jokes in fact are delivered completely without context (e.g. the trampoline that catches Yzma the cat) but that kind of works. You are constantly surprised!
> 
> My favourite bit was the bit in the diner with Kronk taking orders and all the farcical opening and closing of doors by Yzma and Cuzco. This is not the type of comedy you usually see in a Disney. Also Kronk’s angel and devil are hilarious. Admittedly not the most original comedic idea, but it really worked! Basically, Yzma and Kronk make this film. They are funny and have loads of quotable lines.
> 
> Pacha and his family are also delightful and hilarious. Pacha is the heart of the film and probably would come off as pathetic if played by anybody other than John Goodman. But luckily he just seems sweet and dryly funny. The weak point is Kuzco (though even he has some good moments) because he is just so awful, almost until the very end. This is one of the main reasons I don’t warm to the movie that much. Since it’s Kuzco’s story, I feel we should be able to root for him a bit more/
> 
> The animation is almost unnecessarily good. For a paper-thin comedy it’s a surprise to see such high-quality animation with such a cool and stylish look. It’s interesting though that they decided to set the movie in South America and really lean into that when it came to the visuals, but then not address it even a little bit in the story. The story could have happened anywhere - just swap out a llama for a similarly amusing local animal. This is very unlike the approach they took in some of the movies leading up to this, e.g. Pocahontas, Mulan and is probably a symptom of the fact that they were trying to make an entirely different film at first and had to do a 180 in the middle of making it.
> 
> The music is nothing special. The bits that Tom Jones sings he, of course, sings brilliantly, and they are mildly amusing, but the rest of the music is highly forgettable.
> 
> My sis really loves a movie that can make her laugh out loud and so naturally loved this movie. I tend to need a bit more heart and soul, so couldn’t really warm to it. Zootopia for me has the perfect balance of both! I’d be interested to hear everyone’s thoughts on it!
> 
> Incidentally, we found the banned documentary about the making of this film on youtube (Sweatbox). I cannot recommend this highly enough for an insight rarely seen into the Disney creative process and it explains a lot why the movie ended up the way it did!



I think New Groove is pretty good, if not great. There are some fun songs, but the story is a little weird. I always kinda like that South American style though so I lean toward liking it. I do agree that it is very stylish.


----------



## RSandRS

*Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)*

This one is very strange! Watching it was a first for both of us and it is another one (perhaps even more so than The Emperor’s New Groove) which tends to get forgotten! For those that haven’t seen the film, it’s unsurprisingly about the search for Atlantis, but there is some pretty weird stuff that goes alongside this.

Milo a would-be explorer/academic/linguist/archaeologist (as usual in pop culture, academics can do everything!) joins a gang who are determined to find the lost city. Spoiler: we later find out the rest of gang are in it for monetary purposes.

There is some OK world building here. The bugs/creatures they see on the way to Atlantis, the steampunk/Jules Verne tech, and the look of the city itself are really cool. However, the real issue is that there is just too much going on. There are lots of good ideas, but also too much plot, so you are bombarded without having time to take it all in.

This starts with the opening sequence, where so much action is packed into about two minutes that we initially weren’t sure if Atlantis was being attacked by aliens or what was going on. ‘Maybe they’re going with alien invasion as the reason for Atlantis disappearing into the sea,’ we thought, ‘interesting twist.’ Later developments seemed to suggest this was not the case, though what actually did happen I am still somewhat fuzzy about.

The movie continued in this mystifying vein, never really bothering to explain anything, and finally culminating in the inexplicable appearance of some ‘iron giant’-looking chaps to protect the city at then end. This looked pretty spectacular, but again was completely unexplained! This is not to mention, the whole crystal consuming Kida and her mother element, which apparently provided the force of the city!? It was never clear whether the crystal was conscious or what the heck was going on. You definitely don’t need explanations for everything in movies (see my thoughts on the live action Beauty and the Beast for more on this ), but this felt like too many ideas. Children would certainly find it difficult to follow I think. I certainly did!

Because of the complicated plot, you don't get enough time to get to know the characters, who, when the film pauses for half a second, turn out to be really worth getting to know. The gang Milo goes in search of Atlantis with are an interesting diverse group and I wanted more time with them. Dr Joshua Sweet and Audrey Ramirez in particular are great characters. The Atlanteans, on the other hand, are less developed and only the heroine Kida gets a bit of a personality. I do like the fact that Michael J Fox is in this movie. He deserved a better film though! More Michael J Fox in Disney movies, please!

For me, ultimately, if you want an animation about the search for a lost city you are better sticking with The Road to Eldorado.

I’m glad we watched it, but won’t return in a hurry!


----------



## RSandRS

Micca said:


> This is the story of Sting writing the music and then Disney revised the story so much that they dumped his material?  It's a shame, I like Sting...a lot more than Tom Jones.



Yep that's the one! The songs Sting seems to have come up with look interesting but only one or to made the final cut! The original story was basically completely different though and he seems to have written the songs for that film.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)*
> 
> This one is very strange! Watching it was a first for both of us and it is another one (perhaps even more so than The Emperor’s New Groove) which tends to get forgotten! For those that haven’t seen the film, it’s unsurprisingly about the search for Atlantis, but there is some pretty weird stuff that goes alongside this.
> 
> Milo a would-be explorer/academic/linguist/archaeologist (as usual in pop culture, academics can do everything!) joins a gang who are determined to find the lost city. Spoiler: we later find out the rest of gang are in it for monetary purposes.
> 
> There is some OK world building here. The bugs/creatures they see on the way to Atlantis, the steampunk/Jules Verne tech, and the look of the city itself are really cool. However, the real issue is that there is just too much going on. There are lots of good ideas, but also too much plot, so you are bombarded without having time to take it all in.
> 
> This starts with the opening sequence, where so much action is packed into about two minutes that we initially weren’t sure if Atlantis was being attacked by aliens or what was going on. ‘Maybe they’re going with alien invasion as the reason for Atlantis disappearing into the sea,’ we thought, ‘interesting twist.’ Later developments seemed to suggest this was not the case, though what actually did happen I am still somewhat fuzzy about.
> 
> The movie continued in this mystifying vein, never really bothering to explain anything, and finally culminating in the inexplicable appearance of some ‘iron giant’-looking chaps to protect the city at then end. This looked pretty spectacular, but again was completely unexplained! This is not to mention, the whole crystal consuming Kida and her mother element, which apparently provided the force of the city!? It was never clear whether the crystal was conscious or what the heck was going on. You definitely don’t need explanations for everything in movies (see my thoughts on the live action Beauty and the Beast for more on this ), but this felt like too many ideas. Children would certainly find it difficult to follow I think. I certainly did!
> 
> Because of the complicated plot, you don't get enough time to get to know the characters, who, when the film pauses for half a second, turn out to be really worth getting to know. The gang Milo goes in search of Atlantis with are an interesting diverse group and I wanted more time with them. Dr Joshua Sweet and Audrey Ramirez in particular are great characters. The Atlanteans, on the other hand, are less developed and only the heroine Kida gets a bit of a personality. I do like the fact that Michael J Fox is in this movie. He deserved a better film though! More Michael J Fox in Disney movies, please!
> 
> For me, ultimately, if you want an animation about the search for a lost city you are better sticking with The Road to Eldorado.
> 
> I’m glad we watched it, but won’t return in a hurry!



Atlantis is a favorite of mine. I absolutely love the animation style (character designs by comic book artist Mike Mignola - widely known for the Hellboy series), and I love this era of movies that use some CG backgrounds blended with traditional animation. I love the spirit of adventure, the characters, the music, the whole vibe. I was so disappointed when this one did not do well and became a footnote in Disney history.

I think you might want to re-watch the opening again. The plot points regarding Atlantis are not inexplicable, and are shown. Atlantis developed a technology beyond all others, and this led to them feeling superior. Their hubris led to their own downfall as they were punished. It is a tad vague as to what happened, but it was either a cataclysmic accident (i.e. trying to use too much of the crystal's power) or direct punishment by the gods (which are wholly intertwined with the crystals, so maybe both). Their ancestors/gods took mercy upon them and saved the people, though condemning them to life in ruins, trapped below.

Anyway, I still love this movie. I love the team and the ships. My only complaint is that the Ulysses gets about a minute of good screen time before it is unceremoniously destroyed. Boo! I love that thing! Not since Harper Goff's Nautilus has a more beautiful submersible been designed. That was unfortunate.


----------



## Micca

I really like Atlantis but I can understand why it wasn't a huge hit.  Lots of celeb voices in this one that make it a lot of fun. There are funny bits that might be just a touch subtle, and it has some weird sci-fi elements that I liked, but again, understandably not a warm/fuzzy Disney movie.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Alantis is a pretty underrated film in my opinion and I honestly think Disney was trying to make a gamble on not making it a musical like their past films have been but I think there's a lot of reasons why Disney just wants to disown it when really there was nothing wrong with the film itself, yeah sure it's a bit clichéd but I liked the side characters that Milo meets especially Vinne and Mole who I thought were the highlights of the film.

Animation is really nice, like the steam punk angle they went with here, it's got enough action here and I really wish they do more with Alantis personally. Its great regardless. 

Also I freaking love Emperor's New Groove it's still a funny film every time I rewatch it as well having a lot of memorable characters in there. My favourite scene would defintaly be the: "I'll turn him into a flea!"scene with Yzma and I still quote that scene to this very day.


----------



## BrianL

Speaking of the side characters on team Atlantis, I think my favorite is Florence Stanley as Mrs. Packard. "We're all gonna die." Her acerbic with and unflappable demeanor just make the character. "Commander...Commander...Commander. Commander." She just never let's the fact that nobody is listening to her effect a change in her tone, no matter how dangerously important her news is. She is such a subtle addition that adds so much!


----------



## TheStarscream759

BrianL said:


> Speaking of the side characters on team Atlantis, I think my favorite is Florence Stanley as Mrs. Packard. "We're all gonna die." Her acerbic with and unflappable demeanor just make the character. "Commander...Commander...Commander. Commander." She just never let's the fact that nobody is listening to her effect a change in her tone, no matter how dangerously important her news is. She is such a subtle addition that adds so much!


 I forgot about Mrs Packard until tonight. I have a personal favourite line from her I might be paraphrashing: "Whoever took the L from the Motor Pool sign. Haha we are all amused."


----------



## BrianL

TheStarscream759 said:


> I forgot about Mrs Packard until tonight. I have a personal favourite line from her I might be paraphrashing: "Whoever took the L from the Motor Pool sign. Haha we are all amused."



I think that's actually spot on. It's a great line that is just delivered in the background. It adds so much character to the film.


----------



## BrianL

Well, @RSandRS are taking the holidays off and I hope everyone has had a wonderful Christmas. My Christmas included a couple of Walt Disney Signature Editions, one I had recently seen, Peter Pan, and the other I haven't seen since I was a kid, Lady and the Tramp. They both look like a million bucks in their very well done Blu-ray releases, but I was struck by how amazing Lady & the Tramp looked. The Cinemascope presentation really makes ot a quantum leap beyond Peter Pan, and it ws the first animated feature to use it. Having not remembered much about the movie before, I found I was delighted by it. For some reason I remember the Siamese cats being in it more, but they are only in one scene. They're jerks anyway! One thing I didn't know, and it's super sweet, came from the special features. Walt once gave Lillian a puppy in a hatbox for Christmas! That's right, that whole scene was inspired directly by Walt's life. Lillian actually didn't want a dog, but Walt discovered that a Chow didn't shed, so she said if she had to have a dog, it was the only kind of dog she would want. The two became inseperable!

Anyway, I have yet again been educated by the Walt Disney Signature Edition releases (Peter Pan was cool too - they interviewed the actors who did the kids voices and showed lots of pictures of them doing the live-action reference). They are well worth it! We should be headed into a _Hawaiian Roller Coaster Ride_ whenever we resume, but here's wishing everyone a Happy New Year!


----------



## Micca

Yeah that Lady & The Tramp disc is outstanding for video quality.  Disney artwork on the wide screen is a great match.  Peter Pan has such iconic characters--Tinker Bell and Capt Hook among them.  There's some interesting crossover among the voice talent: Bobby Driscoll(Peter Pan) was also in Disney's Treasure Island and Song Of The South.  Kathryn Beaumont (Wendy) also voiced Alice In Wonderland, and Bill Thompson(Mr. Smee) was the White Rabbit in AIW.


----------



## RSandRS

Happy Christmas and Happy New Year and everything. We’ve definitely fallen behind a bit with the reviewing, for which I apologise. I’ve got a few to catch up with, so I will try and get them out quickly - they may not be as detailed as other ones have been.

*Monsters, Inc. (2001)*


So...Monsters, Inc. What a lovely film this is. It’s a great mix of heart and humour and works for people of all ages. 

The music is really nice - it really embodies the spirit of the film and is equally good for the comedic and the tense bits of the film. Mike and Sully’s duet over the credits is a delight.

Mike and Sully are of course what makes this film such a success. They’re a great duo, managing to balance each other out really nicely. Mike stops Sully from being too sentimental and Sully stops Mike from coming across as a pain. It’s also great to see a male friendship portrayed so positively in a movie. They are really good friends and not afraid to call each other out; they also communicate very well, even after their fight. One of my favourite bits is Mike trying to explain how Sully hurt his feelings while Sully is being beaten up by the invisible Randall.

Boo is also very cute. It’s really a fantastic achievement for Pixar that they’ve created such a dynamic character who doesn’t really speak. Her dialogue is actually all the better for not really being dialogue and the way she doesn’t ever stay where she’s been put is adorable.

The movie is also a great example of one of the things Pixar does extremely well - creating a world that is completely new and original and then filling it with characters and tropes that you do recognise. The animators clearly had huge amounts of fun creating all those different kinds of monsters and then a city that would accommodate them all, going as wacky as they could with the designs, and then gave them names like James and Henry, with real-world issues like climbing the ladder at work, and dealing with a toddler. It’s just delightful is what I’m trying to say!

I’m sure there’s lots more to say about Monsters, Inc. but I am back to work and super busy (plus I have to write two more of these), so I’m going to leave it there. Basically, this is a really great one!


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Well, @RSandRS are taking the holidays off and I hope everyone has had a wonderful Christmas. My Christmas included a couple of Walt Disney Signature Editions, one I had recently seen, Peter Pan, and the other I haven't seen since I was a kid, Lady and the Tramp. They both look like a million bucks in their very well done Blu-ray releases, but I was struck by how amazing Lady & the Tramp looked. The Cinemascope presentation really makes ot a quantum leap beyond Peter Pan, and it ws the first animated feature to use it. Having not remembered much about the movie before, I found I was delighted by it. For some reason I remember the Siamese cats being in it more, but they are only in one scene. They're jerks anyway! One thing I didn't know, and it's super sweet, came from the special features. Walt once gave Lillian a puppy in a hatbox for Christmas! That's right, that whole scene was inspired directly by Walt's life. Lillian actually didn't want a dog, but Walt discovered that a Chow didn't shed, so she said if she had to have a dog, it was the only kind of dog she would want. The two became inseperable!
> 
> Anyway, I have yet again been educated by the Walt Disney Signature Edition releases (Peter Pan was cool too - they interviewed the actors who did the kids voices and showed lots of pictures of them doing the live-action reference). They are well worth it! We should be headed into a _Hawaiian Roller Coaster Ride_ whenever we resume, but here's wishing everyone a Happy New Year!



Ah wow thats a lovely story about the puppy! And Lady and the Tramp is a beautiful movie!

We have found watching things about the live action reference really interesting aswell. They have loads of documentaries on Disney's streaming service, which I think has yet to reach the US? Very strange we got a practise one first! I cannot recommend it highly enough though!

Our lead up to Christmas involved giving each other very small Disney gifts based on the movies we have watched. We only tackled the films pre-renaissance and even then had to be choosy!


----------



## RSandRS

*Return to Never Land (2002)*

Hello again! Again, this will be a quick one because I’m racing through them!

This was new one for both of us. We’re not really as ‘up’ on our second-tier-Disney-sequels-that-for-some-reason-got-a-theatrical-release as we perhaps should be. Tee hee.

Unfortunately, but perhaps unsurprisingly, this film does not do the original justice!

Return to Never Land follows the time honoured tradition of making the main character the offspring of one of the main characters from the original movie - in this case Wendy’s daughter Jane. Jane is possibly the saving grace of this film because, despite the fact that the film is indifferently written, plotted, animated and even performed, you do end up feeling for her a bit. I suspect this isn’t really because she’s a well drawn character, however, and more just because everyone in the film is really mean to her. She commits the cardinal sin of being quite a grown up and independent kid, which leads to her mum and brother, and later the lost boys and Peter Pan, all being horrible to her and trying to make her act more like a child. But it is the Blitz and her mum is terrible at parenting, so you can’t blame the kid for trying to be the adult.

The rest of the characters leave little to no impression. They are mostly just a bit annoying. Wendy is a very slapdash parent for someone who was being called ‘mother’ when she was about 12.  Also, which is very strange, they filmed all the dialogue with the wonderful Kathryn Beaumont and then decided to scrap it and use another actor. Why? oh why Disney? Peter is...well...the way he was in the first movie, and the lost boys are just OK. Captain Hook is pretty good, but not as good as he was in the first film.

I believe there are a handful of songs in this film, but I can’t remember anything about them. I think they might be ‘modern’ songs, rather than ones that fit in with the time period of the film. This is fine and can often work quite nicely, but only if the songs are actually any good, which they were not.

Basically, as an adult, I would suggest giving this one a miss if you haven’t seen it, though kids would probably think it was fine. It’s not the worst Disney sequel but it’s certainly not the best either.

P.S. What are people’s thoughts on the worst Disney sequels? Mulan II? Pocahontas II?


----------



## RSandRS

*Treasure Planet (2002)*

We watched this one out of order - I can’t remember why we didn’t fancy watching Lilo and Stitch at that particular moment, but I’m looking forward to watching it now. Treasure Planet was new to me, but sis watched it years ago when at university. We both know of its reputation as one of Disney’s biggest box office bombs. This is still a mystery however, because Treasure Planet is good. Really good. Here’s why…


It’s innovative

The mixture of traditional animation and new computer animation techniques is possibly the best I’ve seen in any movie. They took the cool 3D environments effect that they created for the tree-swinging sequences in Tarzan and applied it to about half the movie. They also tend to use traditional animation (which looks old-school) for the people and the costumes and then use computer animation for the tech, which adds to the steampunk look of the movie. It’s very cool.


It’s beautiful

The aforementioned steampunky look of the film is very well realised. We were literally saying ‘Wow’ a lot of the time as we watched the film, and were constantly impressed at how much care and attention seemed to have gone into every frame.


The story is good

I’ve never read Treasure Island, so I don’t know how closely this movie sticks to the source material, but I suspect it’s not too far off. Anyway, it’s exciting and creative, but gives a lot of time to character development - my favourite kind of plot. It also takes place in a very well-realised fantasy world, but is not overly complicated as some fantasy/sci fi can be (*cough* Atlantis *cough*). The characters don’t waste time explaining things that don’t need explaining, but let the visuals do the work, meaning that you happily accept things like the characters being able to breathe in space, space whales, and everyone wearing Victorian clothes without question.

The characters are mostly excellent

Of course I’m particularly talking about Jim and Silver here. Both are very well developed and likeable and are also performed very well. The time and care that’s given to the development of Jim’s character is really excellent. It’s nice that he’s allowed to be more than just the traditional punky hero, who starts off angry at the world and grows through adversity. He has some properly emotional moments and you really feel for him.

Silver too is a brilliant character. They get the balance right between him being bad and good. I’m glad they didn’t feel the need to dilute his badness, by introducing a bigger, badder villain than him to make him seem tame by comparison, so we’d forgive him for his crimes. This would have been the easy way out. As it is he remains the big bad until the end and is never completely redeemed, but the relationship between him and Jim is the driving force behind a lot of his decisions and, since that’s so well-drawn, the fact that he gets quite a happy ending is very satisfying.

The reason I say ‘mostly excellent’ is that the film’s only downside (that I can see) is the character of B.E.N. the mad robot. This character was clearly popped in at the last minute to provide some humour, but he unfortunately isn't funny. He’s one of those characters who capers about bumping into things when the other characters are trying to be stealthy, and you just want to tell the other characters to leave him behind. He’s a bit Jar Jarish basically.

So yeah, Treasure Planet is a seriously good film; why it failed is a mystery to me. If you haven’t seen it, I would urge you to give it a try.

Next up it’s Lilo and Stitch - see you then! Hopefully, we get a chance to eatch that this weekend!


----------



## Micca

Welcome back RS(and RS!)  
Monsters Inc is a really good movie--with John Goodman and Billy Crystal as the lead voices you really can't miss.  For me this may be the funniest Pixar of all.  The attraction at WDW is also very entertaining.

I'll also agree on Treasure Planet, it is very good.  Disney just didn't resonate with their sci-fi/steampunk films like this one and Atlantis(another feast for the eyes.)

Never saw the Pan sequel (or most of the other sequels.)  No need to waste time on those when I can watch the originals in the same amount of time and enjoy them all over again.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> Happy Christmas and Happy New Year and everything. We’ve definitely fallen behind a bit with the reviewing, for which I apologise. I’ve got a few to catch up with, so I will try and get them out quickly - they may not be as detailed as other ones have been.
> 
> *Monsters, Inc. (2001)*
> 
> 
> So...Monsters, Inc. What a lovely film this is. It’s a great mix of heart and humour and works for people of all ages.
> 
> The music is really nice - it really embodies the spirit of the film and is equally good for the comedic and the tense bits of the film. Mike and Sully’s duet over the credits is a delight.
> 
> Mike and Sully are of course what makes this film such a success. They’re a great duo, managing to balance each other out really nicely. Mike stops Sully from being too sentimental and Sully stops Mike from coming across as a pain. It’s also great to see a male friendship portrayed so positively in a movie. They are really good friends and not afraid to call each other out; they also communicate very well, even after their fight. One of my favourite bits is Mike trying to explain how Sully hurt his feelings while Sully is being beaten up by the invisible Randall.
> 
> Boo is also very cute. It’s really a fantastic achievement for Pixar that they’ve created such a dynamic character who doesn’t really speak. Her dialogue is actually all the better for not really being dialogue and the way she doesn’t ever stay where she’s been put is adorable.
> 
> The movie is also a great example of one of the things Pixar does extremely well - creating a world that is completely new and original and then filling it with characters and tropes that you do recognise. The animators clearly had huge amounts of fun creating all those different kinds of monsters and then a city that would accommodate them all, going as wacky as they could with the designs, and then gave them names like James and Henry, with real-world issues like climbing the ladder at work, and dealing with a toddler. It’s just delightful is what I’m trying to say!
> 
> I’m sure there’s lots more to say about Monsters, Inc. but I am back to work and super busy (plus I have to write two more of these), so I’m going to leave it there. Basically, this is a really great one!



Welcome back!

Yes, I adore Monsters, Inc. and think it is one of Pixar's best. Visually it was yet another leap (look at Sully's hair!) and the movie just has a ton of heart. Boo is fantastic, and the entire concept is just kind of amazing. The monster in your closet is real, and he collects your fear to power a city! It's amazing. Of course, John Goodman and Billy Crystal knock it out of the park, though I really love Roz as well. I generally prefer the Monsters to Toy Story, which is probably an unusual opinion, but that's my take on it.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Return to Never Land (2002)*
> 
> Hello again! Again, this will be a quick one because I’m racing through them!
> 
> This was new one for both of us. We’re not really as ‘up’ on our second-tier-Disney-sequels-that-for-some-reason-got-a-theatrical-release as we perhaps should be. Tee hee.
> 
> Unfortunately, but perhaps unsurprisingly, this film does not do the original justice!
> 
> Return to Never Land follows the time honoured tradition of making the main character the offspring of one of the main characters from the original movie - in this case Wendy’s daughter Jane. Jane is possibly the saving grace of this film because, despite the fact that the film is indifferently written, plotted, animated and even performed, you do end up feeling for her a bit. I suspect this isn’t really because she’s a well drawn character, however, and more just because everyone in the film is really mean to her. She commits the cardinal sin of being quite a grown up and independent kid, which leads to her mum and brother, and later the lost boys and Peter Pan, all being horrible to her and trying to make her act more like a child. But it is the Blitz and her mum is terrible at parenting, so you can’t blame the kid for trying to be the adult.
> 
> The rest of the characters leave little to no impression. They are mostly just a bit annoying. Wendy is a very slapdash parent for someone who was being called ‘mother’ when she was about 12.  Also, which is very strange, they filmed all the dialogue with the wonderful Kathryn Beaumont and then decided to scrap it and use another actor. Why? oh why Disney? Peter is...well...the way he was in the first movie, and the lost boys are just OK. Captain Hook is pretty good, but not as good as he was in the first film.
> 
> I believe there are a handful of songs in this film, but I can’t remember anything about them. I think they might be ‘modern’ songs, rather than ones that fit in with the time period of the film. This is fine and can often work quite nicely, but only if the songs are actually any good, which they were not.
> 
> Basically, as an adult, I would suggest giving this one a miss if you haven’t seen it, though kids would probably think it was fine. It’s not the worst Disney sequel but it’s certainly not the best either.
> 
> P.S. What are people’s thoughts on the worst Disney sequels? Mulan II? Pocahontas II?



I would love to see this as I never have. I had a friend back when it came out who was obsessed with it and saw it a bunch of times. She had a tendency to do that with movies she really liked, and this was one of them. I always assumed it was a bit better than the typical straight-to-video Disney sequels as it was done by different studios. I can't say much about it, but I'd like to give it a watch sometime.

The Disney sequels fascinate me, though I haven't seen that many of them. They seem like they're not worth paying much for, so I kinda see them when I can. I have a few blu-rays that will have the sequel, and they didn't cost much so it's basically a bonus feature. I have seen both Mulan II and Pocahontas II. They are not that bad. They come off as television animation, which, if you take it for what it is, they're fine, not great. The music definitely suffers the most. Mulan has a follow-up song to "Girl Worth Fighting For" which is reasonably fun. Otherwise, they are more like codas or side-stories, and as such, they work ok. Pocahontas is weird because it draws from real life where she meets her actual husband, so it's strange that she doesn't "end up" with John Smith (in the context of the movie, not real life). Anyway, I think the sequels get more hate than they deserve, though they're not amazing or anything. I saw a Tarzan one which was basically a long version of the TV series, and that TV series wasn't bad or anything.

I still want to see Return to Neverland.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Treasure Planet (2002)*
> 
> We watched this one out of order - I can’t remember why we didn’t fancy watching Lilo and Stitch at that particular moment, but I’m looking forward to watching it now. Treasure Planet was new to me, but sis watched it years ago when at university. We both know of its reputation as one of Disney’s biggest box office bombs. This is still a mystery however, because Treasure Planet is good. Really good. Here’s why…
> 
> 
> It’s innovative
> 
> The mixture of traditional animation and new computer animation techniques is possibly the best I’ve seen in any movie. They took the cool 3D environments effect that they created for the tree-swinging sequences in Tarzan and applied it to about half the movie. They also tend to use traditional animation (which looks old-school) for the people and the costumes and then use computer animation for the tech, which adds to the steampunk look of the movie. It’s very cool.
> 
> 
> It’s beautiful
> 
> The aforementioned steampunky look of the film is very well realised. We were literally saying ‘Wow’ a lot of the time as we watched the film, and were constantly impressed at how much care and attention seemed to have gone into every frame.
> 
> 
> The story is good
> 
> I’ve never read Treasure Island, so I don’t know how closely this movie sticks to the source material, but I suspect it’s not too far off. Anyway, it’s exciting and creative, but gives a lot of time to character development - my favourite kind of plot. It also takes place in a very well-realised fantasy world, but is not overly complicated as some fantasy/sci fi can be (*cough* Atlantis *cough*). The characters don’t waste time explaining things that don’t need explaining, but let the visuals do the work, meaning that you happily accept things like the characters being able to breathe in space, space whales, and everyone wearing Victorian clothes without question.
> 
> The characters are mostly excellent
> 
> Of course I’m particularly talking about Jim and Silver here. Both are very well developed and likeable and are also performed very well. The time and care that’s given to the development of Jim’s character is really excellent. It’s nice that he’s allowed to be more than just the traditional punky hero, who starts off angry at the world and grows through adversity. He has some properly emotional moments and you really feel for him.
> 
> Silver too is a brilliant character. They get the balance right between him being bad and good. I’m glad they didn’t feel the need to dilute his badness, by introducing a bigger, badder villain than him to make him seem tame by comparison, so we’d forgive him for his crimes. This would have been the easy way out. As it is he remains the big bad until the end and is never completely redeemed, but the relationship between him and Jim is the driving force behind a lot of his decisions and, since that’s so well-drawn, the fact that he gets quite a happy ending is very satisfying.
> 
> The reason I say ‘mostly excellent’ is that the film’s only downside (that I can see) is the character of B.E.N. the mad robot. This character was clearly popped in at the last minute to provide some humour, but he unfortunately isn't funny. He’s one of those characters who capers about bumping into things when the other characters are trying to be stealthy, and you just want to tell the other characters to leave him behind. He’s a bit Jar Jarish basically.
> 
> So yeah, Treasure Planet is a seriously good film; why it failed is a mystery to me. If you haven’t seen it, I would urge you to give it a try.
> 
> Next up it’s Lilo and Stitch - see you then! Hopefully, we get a chance to eatch that this weekend!



Okay, I'm going to get nitpicky here, but Treasure Planet is not Steampunk. Steampunk is generally based on the idea of highly advanced steam engine technology. TP (unfortunate initials) is from the time of sails and oars. It's more like "pirate-punk." Anyway....

I have always really liked this movie, even though I feel the story is not the strongest. First of all, IT IS BEAUTIFUL! My oh my do those ships look amazing! I also love the character designs, particularly the Captain and Mr. Arrow. The crescent moon spaceport is also brilliant. I love this era of the early CG mixed with 2D animation, and it seems like most of these movies failed, which is too bad.

For the story, I don't really think it comes off that strong. It's good, but I feel like they "montage" a lot of stuff and the song for the montage isn't even all that good (it seems out of place). As for how closely it resembles the book, well, kinda, but kinda not. The character of B.E.N. is based on Ben in the book, who was a marooned sailor who had gone crazy, so I think his presence was always intended. But, hey, it's Martin Short!

If you're unfamiliar with Treasure Island, Disney did a pretty good live-action version of it in 1950. It takes some liberties too, but is overall a good watch.

Also, Treasure Planet fun fact: The ship they use is called the _R.L.S. Legacy_ - R.L.S. stands for Robert Louis Stevenson, the author of Treasure Island.


----------



## Kaleidodad

So I just came across this, what a great thread...  I wish I had been able to follow along in real time, as you folks have had some excellent commentary going and I'm really a huge fan of everything in here, but anyway I'll be following along now, and @BrianL @RSandRS @Micca can be expecting a bunch of retroactive "likes" as I read back through in reverse-chronological order.  Keep up the good work!


----------



## BrianL

Kaleidodad said:


> So I just came across this, what a great thread...  I wish I had been able to follow along in real time, as you folks have had some excellent commentary going and I'm really a huge fan of everything in here, but anyway I'll be following along now, and @BrianL @RSandRS @Micca can be expecting a bunch of retroactive "likes" as I read back through in reverse-chronological order.  Keep up the good work!



Welcome to the thread!


----------



## Micca

Kaleidodad said:


> So I just came across this, what a great thread...  I wish I had been able to follow along in real time, as you folks have had some excellent commentary going and I'm really a huge fan of everything in here, but anyway I'll be following along now, and @BrianL @RSandRS @Micca can be expecting a bunch of retroactive "likes" as I read back through in reverse-chronological order.  Keep up the good work!


Welcome to thread!  We've sorta been the 3 Mouseketeers(!) but it's a pleasure to see another Disney movie fan.


----------



## BrianL

Micca said:


> Welcome to thread!  We've sorta been the 3 Mouseketeers(!) but it's a pleasure to see another Disney movie fan.



@TheStarscream759 has also joined in. Always good to have more in the discussion.


----------



## RSandRS

*Lilo and Stitch (2002)*

Lilo and Stitch is a sweet and heartwarming 2002 movie about two sisters, young adult Nani and little sister Lilo, and their attempts to build a family after the death of their parents. The relationship between the two sisters, both of whom are strong-willed, grief-stricken and fiercely loyal and loving toward one another, is beautifully rendered and developed in the film, and has you both laughing and crying throughout. The film is also set on a Hawaiian island and has some wry and humorous commentary on the island’s tourism and the way that tourists engage, and fail to engage, with the native culture.

And there’s also this alien, but the less said about that the better.

I joke, obviously, but Lilo and Stitch is a weird one. I really do like this movie; it affects me emotionally in the way the really good Disneys do, but I can’t help being frustrated by it. If the movie had just been called Lilo, or had been called Lilo and Nani, I’d probably love it, but as far as I’m concerned Stitch doesn’t belong and doesn’t earn his place.

Although the innovative and cool design of the film attempts to bring the alien-world and the human world together, and does so to a certain extent, it never really bridges the gap. This is perhaps most noticeable with the (very long) opening sequence. People walking into the cinema for the first time must have wondered whether they’d gone into the correct theatre. Expecting a film set in Hawaii they’re instead plunged into a weird alien world with spaceships and illegal genetic experiments, and the credits don’t roll until 10 minutes or so into the film. This opening really jars with the rest of the film, and the continued presence of the two aliens, Jookiba and Pleakley, unfortunately continues to jar.

The main problem with the movie that I can see, however, is Stitch himself. I think they got the balance between annoying and cute wrong for this character, and if this had been different I might have been more willing to accept the weird juxtaposition of action-packed alien adventure and bittersweet examination of a family in crisis. But Stitch is just mean. I genuinely don’t find him or his destructive ways funny. If he had been a bit less destructive, and a bit more willing to accept Lilo’s love, or if there had been more of a sense that the family needed someone like him in it, I think the movie would have been stronger. It would have helped to ground the story in the little family of Lilo, Nani and Stitch a bit more. As it is I find myself wishing Stitch would get lost and stop messing things up for the two sisters, who have already been through enough.

As I said though, this all doesn’t make me dislike the film. I love Lilo and Nani - they are both such charismatic characters. I think Lilo would have been funny enough as a character by herself; there was no need to add in the madcap Stitch. I also love the design of the film, particularly the characters, who look different from characters in any other Disney movie, and the soundtrack which mixes musical styles really well.

This is all (even more than most of my reviews I think) very much a personal opinion however. I watched Lilo and Stitch for the first time as an adult and I have no idea how a child would react to Stitch. His prevalence in the parks and the mountains of Stitch-related merch (plus the sequels and the TV show) suggest...pretty well.  But the movie seems like a movie of two parts to me - one part is for kids and the other part is for adults, and they haven’t managed to marry the two together as smoothly as with other Disney films. I’m just left, at the end of the film, wishing I’d spent more time with Lilo and Nani and less time chasing Stitch.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> I would love to see this as I never have. I had a friend back when it came out who was obsessed with it and saw it a bunch of times. She had a tendency to do that with movies she really liked, and this was one of them. I always assumed it was a bit better than the typical straight-to-video Disney sequels as it was done by different studios. I can't say much about it, but I'd like to give it a watch sometime.
> 
> The Disney sequels fascinate me, though I haven't seen that many of them. They seem like they're not worth paying much for, so I kinda see them when I can. I have a few blu-rays that will have the sequel, and they didn't cost much so it's basically a bonus feature. I have seen both Mulan II and Pocahontas II. They are not that bad. They come off as television animation, which, if you take it for what it is, they're fine, not great. The music definitely suffers the most. Mulan has a follow-up song to "Girl Worth Fighting For" which is reasonably fun. Otherwise, they are more like codas or side-stories, and as such, they work ok. Pocahontas is weird because it draws from real life where she meets her actual husband, so it's strange that she doesn't "end up" with John Smith (in the context of the movie, not real life). Anyway, I think the sequels get more hate than they deserve, though they're not amazing or anything. I saw a Tarzan one which was basically a long version of the TV series, and that TV series wasn't bad or anything.
> 
> I still want to see Return to Neverland.



I've not watched Mulan II or Pocahontas II, I guess they were straight to DVD/VHS? Although Mulan II is later in the 2000s so it may appear on this list. Our next review is actually Jungle Book II (which-spolier alert! WE LIKED!) I cannot recommend Return to Neverland, its not a good movie, but for the purposes of Disney education maybe worth a watch!


----------



## RSandRS

Kaleidodad said:


> So I just came across this, what a great thread...  I wish I had been able to follow along in real time, as you folks have had some excellent commentary going and I'm really a huge fan of everything in here, but anyway I'll be following along now, and @BrianL @RSandRS @Micca can be expecting a bunch of retroactive "likes" as I read back through in reverse-chronological order.  Keep up the good work!



Great to have another contributor!  Hope you enjoy the further reviews!

Jungle Book II up next!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> I've not watched Mulan II or Pocahontas II, I guess they were straight to DVD/VHS? Although Mulan II is later in the 2000s so it may appear on this list. Our next review is actually Jungle Book II (which-spolier alert! WE LIKED!) I cannot recommend Return to Neverland, its not a good movie, but for the purposes of Disney education maybe worth a watch!



They were indeed straight-to-video. Jungle Book 2 was theatrical, and usually DisneyToon studios did better when they had a theatrical budget. Many people don't realize that animation is *very *expensive and the quality can definitely suffer when the money isn't there. I always feel like DisneyToon did the best with what they were given, but obviously that is why the quality of the straight-to-video releases is criticized. They also can't afford to produce songs that are of the caliber of the Theatrical films, and that can put a damper on them. Still, of the few I have seen I have found them to be mostly fun if you consider them more like a TV series than a movie (some of them were intended to be TV series and are stitched together from elements produced for such). Here's a quick rundown of the D-Toon straight-to-video movies that I have seen:

*Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World:* Not that bad. It has some nice action sequences but is nothing special. I can't believe they showed a bear baiting!
*
The Hunchback of Notre Dame II:* This one is pretty wacky. I don't even know what to think about it, but Quasi gets a girlfriend. It's short too, but it's fine because it's really just a bonus feature on my Blu-ray disc.
*
Atlantis: Milo's Return:* From a movie I love to a TV series that would have been a mediocre Scooby-Doo type of thing apparently, this one isn't that great. The TV series was scrapped when the movie bombed. It could have been interesting but it takes place mostly on dry land. What?
*
Mulan II:* This is probably the best that I've seen. It follows the characters forward and even has decent music.

*Tarzan & Jane:* This is also stitched from some unaired episodes of an actually released TV series. It's actually pretty decent and it seems that the show probably was as well. It expands the world and even has nods to The Jungle Cruise in it, which I appreciate. Obviously, the animation is of a lower caliber and the voices are different, but it's not bad. It has a *great* song, _The Song of Life_, for the finale and end credits!


----------



## Micca

Lilo & Stitch: I have seen it several times, I even own a copy.  I will no longer watch it because Stitch creeps me out.  I recognize some nice animation and love the tropical setting, I can't get past how gross Stitch is.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Lilo and Stitch (2002)*
> 
> Lilo and Stitch is a sweet and heartwarming 2002 movie about two sisters, young adult Nani and little sister Lilo, and their attempts to build a family after the death of their parents. The relationship between the two sisters, both of whom are strong-willed, grief-stricken and fiercely loyal and loving toward one another, is beautifully rendered and developed in the film, and has you both laughing and crying throughout. The film is also set on a Hawaiian island and has some wry and humorous commentary on the island’s tourism and the way that tourists engage, and fail to engage, with the native culture.
> 
> And there’s also this alien, but the less said about that the better.
> 
> I joke, obviously, but Lilo and Stitch is a weird one. I really do like this movie; it affects me emotionally in the way the really good Disneys do, but I can’t help being frustrated by it. If the movie had just been called Lilo, or had been called Lilo and Nani, I’d probably love it, but as far as I’m concerned Stitch doesn’t belong and doesn’t earn his place.
> 
> Although the innovative and cool design of the film attempts to bring the alien-world and the human world together, and does so to a certain extent, it never really bridges the gap. This is perhaps most noticeable with the (very long) opening sequence. People walking into the cinema for the first time must have wondered whether they’d gone into the correct theatre. Expecting a film set in Hawaii they’re instead plunged into a weird alien world with spaceships and illegal genetic experiments, and the credits don’t roll until 10 minutes or so into the film. This opening really jars with the rest of the film, and the continued presence of the two aliens, Jookiba and Pleakley, unfortunately continues to jar.
> 
> The main problem with the movie that I can see, however, is Stitch himself. I think they got the balance between annoying and cute wrong for this character, and if this had been different I might have been more willing to accept the weird juxtaposition of action-packed alien adventure and bittersweet examination of a family in crisis. But Stitch is just mean. I genuinely don’t find him or his destructive ways funny. If he had been a bit less destructive, and a bit more willing to accept Lilo’s love, or if there had been more of a sense that the family needed someone like him in it, I think the movie would have been stronger. It would have helped to ground the story in the little family of Lilo, Nani and Stitch a bit more. As it is I find myself wishing Stitch would get lost and stop messing things up for the two sisters, who have already been through enough.
> 
> As I said though, this all doesn’t make me dislike the film. I love Lilo and Nani - they are both such charismatic characters. I think Lilo would have been funny enough as a character by herself; there was no need to add in the madcap Stitch. I also love the design of the film, particularly the characters, who look different from characters in any other Disney movie, and the soundtrack which mixes musical styles really well.
> 
> This is all (even more than most of my reviews I think) very much a personal opinion however. I watched Lilo and Stitch for the first time as an adult and I have no idea how a child would react to Stitch. His prevalence in the parks and the mountains of Stitch-related merch (plus the sequels and the TV show) suggest...pretty well.  But the movie seems like a movie of two parts to me - one part is for kids and the other part is for adults, and they haven’t managed to marry the two together as smoothly as with other Disney films. I’m just left, at the end of the film, wishing I’d spent more time with Lilo and Nani and less time chasing Stitch.



Lilo and Stitch is pretty good, though Stitch never really spoke to me too much as a character. I don't really find him annoying, but I just don't really engage with him. Honestly, I don't engage much with Lilo either, so that's why this one has never been a favorite of mine. I certainly don't hate it of anything, but it's not a top-tier one for me. What is top-tier, and not mentioned in your review, is the great music by Mark Keali'i Ho'omalu. "Hawaiian Roller Coaster Ride" is tremendous! I could have done with more songs like that and "He Mele no Lilo" than the Elvis stuff. Stitch was immensely popular though, probably because he makes a pretty cute plush toy, but he's not a favorite of mine.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Hello everyone! Sorry I haven't been on in a while I hope you guys had a good christmas and enjoyed the New Year's celebrations and all that. Anyways things I've missed: 

Monsters Inc - I wouldn't say this one is my favourite when it comes to Pixar but my god is it good. I definitely agree that the dynamic between Mike and Sulley is well done, the animation isn't completely there with the humans since this was 2001 when it came but the animation in general does look stunning and it's definitely something I've appreciated it more with age. For some reason I didn't think too much of Monsters Inc when I was a kid but nowadays I regard as one of the better films that Pixar ever made.

Disney Direct to Video Sequels - Ooh where to start? There are Disney Direct to Video Sequels that people like, some that people don't like, some that people are just indifferent about and pretty much some people just saying that these in particular weren't needed at all. I could go on about them but hey we would be here all day talking about them. 

*Stitch the Movie! -* I do remember watching this one it's not really a Disney "Sequel" per say but more of a pilot episode to the TV series that I watch quite a bit when I was younger. It was fairly OK from what I remember, animation is obviously not as amazing as the original movie but does the job just fine, there's not really that much of a plot other than Lilo and Stitch go searching for Sparky or Experiment 221 that they accidentally unleashed onto Hawaii and have to get him back before Gantu and Dr Hamsterviel can get their mitts on the electric experiment. Otherwise this is far from the worst I've seen.

*Aladdin: Return of Jafar -* This is definitely one of the proper sequels that everyone thinks of when you talk about Direct to Disney Sequels. I have no idea why I kept on watching this one when I was younger. As much as I love Dan Castellaneta as a voice actor, he really is no Robin Williams when it comes to the Genie. But I can forgive him a bit more seeing as this sequel was a way to lead in to the Aladdin TV series at the time and I think after he did Return of Jafar I feel he took the role of the Genie and made it his own over time but here? Ehhh the humour is a bit on the forced side of things with the Genie. Animation feels too much like it belongs in a Saturday morning cartoon. Is it a terrible sequel? Well yes and no. Yes it's not good but it's not terrible either. I just feel like it, it just missed the mark and it's more tolerable than dreadful honestly. 

*Aladdin: The King of Thieves - *King of Thieves on the other hand? Definitely an improvement over Return of Jafar. The animation is loads better and I would be lying if I didn't say the story between Aladdin and Cassim kept me invested throughout, Saluk's definitely a good villain and kind of reminds me a lot of Wolverine with his claw gauntlet. Though I must say it's a little weird to hear Lumiere's voice coming out of him when he talks. I definitely find the songs in this really catchy especially Welcome to the Forty Thieves. I really think it adds to the world of Aladdin and the quest to seek out the Hand of Midas is a great payoff. I really enjoyed this one.

*Beauty and the Beauty: The Enchanted Christmas - *I do remember owning not only Return of Jafar on VHS but the Beauty and the Beast christmas one as well. I really feel this one kind of just shoved the message of: "Christmas is great, festive cheer and good tidings to all, blah,blah,blah." so much that it feels really hamfisted and really pales in comparison to the original film in particular. I think the best part of the movie is probably Tim Curry as Forte but other than that, I dunno I really don't think I would want to return to this one any time soon.

Again I'd be here all day with this but I honestly feel that Disney did focus way too much on the Direct to Video sequels and they were more concerned with quantity over quality for some of them. Not all of them are bad but they probably the worst thing that ever come out of Disney.

Lilo and Stitch - Speaking of Lilo and Stitch this is definitely something I grew up watching. Stitch is one of my favourite Disney characters because he's so mischievous and cute and I've always wanted to have a Stitch plushie in my room but never have. I love that the lesson of Ohana is an important thing and that you should never ever forget what's important, I adore the soundtrack to no end, the animation is so crisp and remember watching it a lot.

Treasure Planet - I really don't understand why it was considered a bomb at the box office as I consider it an underrated film at most. And I agree the animation is very steampunk-ish, I feel like Jim and Long John Silver kind of drove the story and their chemistry was believable. And yes...B.E.N was annoying in that film, I have nothing against Martin Short but really every time B.E.N spoke it was just so grating to my ears. It's like they were trying to go with The Genie from Aladdin but they ended up more like Jar Jar Binks and plus he was just useless and just made the situation worse when he was around. If you were to take him out of the movie, the plot would've continued just fine without him. Otherwise I quite like this one.


----------



## RSandRS

RS 2 wanted me to add the following: _Just wanted to pop up to say I totally agree about the Aladdin sequels. Return of Jafar is watchable but a bit weird - who thought it was a good idea for the story to revolve around Iago's redemption arc? Still, it's quite funny. King of Thieves I remember enjoying a lot as a kid and it's definitely a step up from Return of Jafar. Having Robin Williams back is of course great and the songs are pretty good too.

I have seen Mulan II and Pocahontas II and they were both...meh. Mulan II is probably a bit less forgettable. I've also watch the Little Mermaid sequel about Ariel's daughter which is about as average as a movie could be.

Also wanted to throw another one into the mix: Lion King II: Simba's Pride, which I adored as a kid. I still think it's one of the better ones and I'm actually surprised it didn't get a theatrical release. The songs are waaaay better than in any of the other direct-to-video sequels. I think it suffers by having such big shoes to fill.

I really want to watch Beauty and the Beast The Enchanted Christmas because I've heard it's truly dreadful, and the Hunchback sequel for the same reason. Maybe we'll need to do another marathon.._


----------



## RSandRS

*The Jungle Book 2 (2003)*


The Jungle Book 2 is certainly unimaginatively named, and the plot is hardly Inside Out in terms of creativity but that’s kind of where the bad points end. This was another example (along with Dinosaur, Treasure Planet etc.) where we were pleasantly surprised. It may be that our expectations were low and that’s why we came away with such a favourable impression, but overall I’d say this is definitely worth a watch.

The animation is of a decent quality, certainly as good as the original, with some pretty backgrounds and nice use of CGI when it comes to things like animating the river. The characters look very similar to how they did in the Jungle Book, with maybe a bit of improvement in how human characters appear.

And there are a lot more human characters in this film. Mowgli has a whole family and friends in the man-village, including the little girl he meets at the end of the original film. You might remember that we found Mowgli’s going to the man-village at the end of The Jungle Book a little unconvincing after his insistence throughout the film that he wasn’t going, and the little girl (who is called Shanti) who lures him in a little...um...problematic.  These issues are explored very sweetly and effectively by The Jungle Book 2. The issue of ‘Shanti’s big brown eyes’ is dealt with via a good-natured joke, and though it’s clear Mowgli has a crush on her, it doesn't seem quite so age-inappropriate, especially since they are now friends and their relationship develops throughout the movie. Plus, Shanti is awesome.

Mowgli’s continued love for the jungle is the main theme of the film, which seems a wise choice considering the somewhat abrupt ending of The Jungle Book. The plot obviously involves his going back to the jungle and having some shenanigans, before having to make a (more informed) choice about whether to go back to the man-village. It’s obviously a thinly-veiled excuse for Disney to trot out well known characters and rehash a lot of the plot points from the original film, but they do it with a lot of charm, and manage to shape the events into more of a proper story than in the Jungle Book, while exploring a central conflict for the main character.

The characters are mostly the same as they were in the original film and have the same charm; Baloo especially, as he is now voiced by John Goodman, who of course does great work. The guy who voices Shere Khan (who is Frollo in Hunchback) is also a great replacement for the original. In terms of new characters the best addition is probably a new member of the vultures group, who is a fan of puns and voiced (who knows why) by Phil Collins.

The new songs sound in-keeping with the music from the original film and are reasonably catchy, but of course don’t come near to capturing the brilliance of the Sherman bros.

When compared with the straight-to-video sequels that we grew up with (the Aladdin sequels, Lion King 2 etc.) this is definitely a step up. I would recommend it to people, with the obvious caveat that it’s a sequel and so not to expect the earth. It’s definitely 10 times better than Return to Never Land!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *The Jungle Book 2 (2003)*
> 
> 
> The Jungle Book 2 is certainly unimaginatively named, and the plot is hardly Inside Out in terms of creativity but that’s kind of where the bad points end. This was another example (along with Dinosaur, Treasure Planet etc.) where we were pleasantly surprised. It may be that our expectations were low and that’s why we came away with such a favourable impression, but overall I’d say this is definitely worth a watch.
> 
> The animation is of a decent quality, certainly as good as the original, with some pretty backgrounds and nice use of CGI when it comes to things like animating the river. The characters look very similar to how they did in the Jungle Book, with maybe a bit of improvement in how human characters appear.
> 
> And there are a lot more human characters in this film. Mowgli has a whole family and friends in the man-village, including the little girl he meets at the end of the original film. You might remember that we found Mowgli’s going to the man-village at the end of The Jungle Book a little unconvincing after his insistence throughout the film that he wasn’t going, and the little girl (who is called Shanti) who lures him in a little...um...problematic.  These issues are explored very sweetly and effectively by The Jungle Book 2. The issue of ‘Shanti’s big brown eyes’ is dealt with via a good-natured joke, and though it’s clear Mowgli has a crush on her, it doesn't seem quite so age-inappropriate, especially since they are now friends and their relationship develops throughout the movie. Plus, Shanti is awesome.
> 
> Mowgli’s continued love for the jungle is the main theme of the film, which seems a wise choice considering the somewhat abrupt ending of The Jungle Book. The plot obviously involves his going back to the jungle and having some shenanigans, before having to make a (more informed) choice about whether to go back to the man-village. It’s obviously a thinly-veiled excuse for Disney to trot out well known characters and rehash a lot of the plot points from the original film, but they do it with a lot of charm, and manage to shape the events into more of a proper story than in the Jungle Book, while exploring a central conflict for the main character.
> 
> The characters are mostly the same as they were in the original film and have the same charm; Baloo especially, as he is now voiced by John Goodman, who of course does great work. The guy who voices Shere Khan (who is Frollo in Hunchback) is also a great replacement for the original. In terms of new characters the best addition is probably a new member of the vultures group, who is a fan of puns and voiced (who knows why) by Phil Collins.
> 
> The new songs sound in-keeping with the music from the original film and are reasonably catchy, but of course don’t come near to capturing the brilliance of the Sherman bros.
> 
> When compared with the straight-to-video sequels that we grew up with (the Aladdin sequels, Lion King 2 etc.) this is definitely a step up. I would recommend it to people, with the obvious caveat that it’s a sequel and so not to expect the earth. It’s definitely 10 times better than Return to Never Land!



I haven't seen this one, but regarding the animation, that's what a theatrical budget'll get ya! Good to know that this one is pretty solid.


----------



## RSandRS

*Piglet’s Big Movie (2003)*

The second surprise in a row! This third sally into the Poohniverse is...really not bad. We were somewhat dreading yet another ‘sequel’, especially after the disaster that was The Tigger Movie, but this one was certainly an improvement. The film is still definitely for a much younger audience, but Piglet has proved that that doesn’t have to equal a terrible, childish plot and annoying characters. Mentioning no names (TIGGER!).

Piglet’s Big Movie is mostly made up of mini-stories within the bigger story, where Piglet’s friends remember times he’s been helpful or brave. Disney made the wise choice in this movie to refer back to the original source material - the Pooh books - and though it’s many many years since we read those books, both of us remembered some of the stories about Piglet from them.

There’s a really cute one where Rabbit replaces Roo with Piglet and Kanga pretends not to notice and gives him a bath. In the film this is because Rabbit is planning to hold Roo hostage until Kanga agrees to leave the Hundred Acre Wood, because he’s terrified of her. I’m not sure if this is the reason in the book, but Rabbit is definitely a bit Brexity! :/

In my opinion, the return to the source material is a very good decision. Where Tigger’s film seemed contrived, childish and over the top, Piglet’s is (mostly) grounded and sweet, without being too saccharine.

Piglet is of course a much less irritating central character than Tigger, who is luckily used somewhat sparingly in this movie. The other main character is Winnie the Pooh, which again seems like a wise decision, because he’s endlessly adorable. The other characters are all quite well established at this point, so if you don't like them you’re stuck with them (mentioning no names - TIGGER!), and the voice acting is all of a good standard.

The most obvious negative aspect of the film is definitely the music; it may be the weirdest of any of the films we’ve seen so far. For some reason they chose to have Carly Simon write the songs and though this isn’t a bad idea on paper, the end result is just too weird. It doesn’t gel with either of the other Poohniverse movies (not that The Tigger Movie was any pattern to follow) and the folk-rocky sound doesn’t work for the plot or the setting. The worst song is ‘Mother’s Intuition’, sung when Kanga is giving Piglet a bath - the lyrics are genuinely revolting and it almost ruins one of the cutest bits of the movie. The film also ends with a sort of music video for one of the songs (‘With a Few Good Friends’), where clips of Pooh and friends are intercut with clips of Carly rocking out to an acoustic guitar that she conspicuously isn’t playing. It. Is. WEIRD!

Overall however, I am happy to give a positive review to Piglet’s Big Movie. It’s for younger children and is definitely wholesome and bit sentimental, but it isn’t silly, has some genuinely funny moments and pays good homage to the original Winnie the Pooh stories.


----------



## Micca

I'm sorry, can't do the sequels or spinoffs.


----------



## RSandRS

*Finding Nemo (2003)*

So we’re way behind with reviewing - I’m really sorry. Usually I find time to dash off something about the movies during the day, but there’s been a lot going on lately. We’re four movies behind so it’s time for some quick reviewing!


First up is Finding Nemo, which obviously we’ve both watched many many times. Maybe too many at this point - although I love it and think it’s a beautiful film, it’s not as special to me as some of the other Pixars. However, it is very sweet and unbelievably beautiful. Pixar seem to set themselves challenge after challenge and each time they meet and exceed expectations. Their challenge this time was animating water; under it, on it, both at the same time...we’re a long way from the waxy-looking ants in A Bug’s Life at this point! Some of the shots of water are so realistic you could swear it was real. The ocean is a completely different world that most of us don’t get to experience much of the time, and Pixar really bring that to life in Finding Nemo.


As far as characters go, this is another great ensemble. Pixar’s other tough challenge on this movie was to anthropomorphise fish - I mean, bugs must have been hard but at least they have legs! They totally pull it off though, of course, with the characters coming to life through their eyes and mouths. Marlin is another of Pixar’s unusual main characters, being a mixture of likeable and unlikeable. Dory is maybe a tiny bit annoying, but mostly she’s really great and voiced very well. The other characters are very funny, though there may be one or two too many for them all to make a strong impression. Clearly a lot of people had a lot of great ideas for this movie and they didn’t want to sacrifice anything! My favourites are probably the sharks, as that sequence is completely hilarious. Overall the movie is very funny, though perhaps not quite as sharp and canny as Toy Story or Toy Story 2.


This is yet another Pixar where we’re reminded that ‘following your dreams’ is more complicated than it sounds, especially if you happen to be disabled or disadvantaged. It’s a great message, though it could maybe be dwelt on a little bit more in the film. Nonetheless this is yet another Pixar classic and deserves all the love it gets; it’s just not my personal favourite.


This having been said, I do love some of the Finding Nemo representations in the parks. I love the Animal Kingdom musical version (of course I do), which takes all the funniest moments and turns them into super-catchy songs. Go With the Flow sung by Crush is my favourite song and is on my swimming playlist on my underwater mp3 player! The Seas with Nemo and Friends is a cute and relaxing ride, but the best Nemo-themed ride is in Disney Studios at DLP - the fantastic Crush’s Coaster!


----------



## RSandRS

Micca said:


> I'm sorry, can't do the sequels or spinoffs.


Very understandable!


----------



## RSandRS

*Brother Bear (2003)*

Brother Bear is not a terrible film, but it’s certainly not a good one either. It’s best described as ‘uneven’, but oddly it feels like only a few simple changes could have saved it. Sort of.

Good things first: the music is pretty good. This is Phil Collins again, pulling out most of the tricks we saw in Tarzan, though a bit less successfully. Nonetheless, the music is probably the best thing about the movie. The only other positive I can think of is that the movie does take the risk of not depicting a traditional man and woman love relationship - Frozen gets a lot of credit for depicting a relationship between siblings (which I’m not sure it entirely deserves), but this movie did it first and that’s good and interesting.

Or would be if we were in any way invested in the relationship of these brothers.

One of the biggest problems of Brother Bear is that the main character, Kenai, is irredeemably awful. At the beginning of the film he basically causes his own brother’s death due to childishness. This would be a hard enough thing to forgive, but he learns nothing from it, and having been a total jerk to his real brothers, then proceeds to be mean to his ‘brother bear’ for most of the rest of the film. This isn't helped by the fact that the wee bear is possibly the only nice character in the whole thing and is extremely cute. Anyone who could be mean to poor little Koda is not fit to be the main character of a movie.

The unpleasant Kenai and his brothers are not the only problem in the film though. Attempts at offbeat humour (e.g. the two moose) fall a bit flat and the sniping between the two ‘brother bears’ is too mean-spirited to really be funny. The film suffers a bit from the problem in older Disney films, where the comic business felt separate from the main plot and didn’t add much to it.

A lot of the film feels recycled from other, better films; comic sidekicks that add nothing, pretty backgrounds and boringly rendered characters, the main character going on a ‘journey’ (seriously, does no one ever learn anything by just staying in the same location in movies?), music that’s supposed to be stirring and epic when the movie hasn’t really earned it etc. It’s also interesting how many plot points revolved around people and animals falling to their deaths from cliffs, or nearly doing so. The movie even recycles within itself! And none of the falling off of stuff is played for laughs - we’re meant to take it all completely seriously. In fact the movie in general took itself a bit too seriously; pretending to be engaging with the Inuit culture by talking about ‘great spirits’ and ‘totems’ and things, without really trying to understand them, but just using them as paper-thin plot devices.

At the beginning of the review I said that a few changes might have saved the film - maybe elevated it from actively bad to just forgettable. The changes I would make would be first to make Kenai’s older brother’s death an accident that appeared to be the bear’s fault and had nothing to do with him at all, so he would have a more valid reason for his crappy behaviour and attitude, and secondly to make Kenai’s relationships with all his brothers (especially the bear one) less based on being mean and bickering. Just in general make him less of a ****ty main character so I didn’t actually want him to fall off a cliff.

Next up, Home on the Range. :/


----------



## RSandRS

*Home on the Range (2004)
*
Yikes, this is not a good time for Disney animation. Seriously, we gave Jungle Book 2 a positive review, that’s how starved we are for good Disney movies at this point. And Home on the Range is no respite from the terrible. In fact this movie is credited by some as being what killed off traditional 2D animation at Disney (though it isn’t the last traditionally animated film before The Princess and the Frog, you’ll be happy to hear). Riiiight, sure. It’s because 2D animation is dead that this movie failed, not because it thoroughly sucks.

I’d never seen Home on the Range before last weekend and I honestly think I was a happier, more well-balanced woman back then. This is one of the worst movies we’ve had so far - up there with Tigger and Black Cauldron - though maybe not quite as bad as those two.

There is so little to recommend this film that I barely even know where to begin. The one thing, I think, that saves Home on the Range from the bottom two of Disney movies is that the animation is occasionally pretty stunning. I’m talking backgrounds here, not the characters themselves, though they’re not bad. If the movie was any good otherwise I might be raving about the brave artistic choices that were made for the character animation, but it isn’t so I’m not. I’m tough - I play for keeps. 

And while we’re talking animation I must have a brief whinge about the awful use of computer animation in the film. It’s almost like the film had too high a budget, or that Disney wanted to remind us that they could do computer animation too, just like Pixar (or probably more accurately, Dreamworks). 

‘We’re not just 2D animation, guys - we know what all the cool kids are into these days!’ -  Disney c. 2004 (probably) 

So there are several completely out of place moments where computer animation has been shoved in. Their choice of what to render in 3D (things like the unadorned interior of a house??) is bizarre and adds nothing to the realism or depth of the visuals. In fact, the computer animated environments often end up looking like environments in a cheap computer game. From 2004.

And the story and characters are no better. Much like in Brother Bear these characters again spend most of the movie griping and bickering, meaning it’s impossible to like any of them. The main three cows are all annoying, each for her own special reason (Roseanne Barr is brash and crude, Judi Dench is unnecessarily mean and judgemental and the other one is just stupid); the horse adds nothing to the plot except to make it longer, and the rest of the characters fail to make even the slightest impression. 

And the villain? Oh dear oh dear. Alameda Slim is right up there (down there) with poor Edgar vying for the Worst Disney Villain award. And Edgar couldn’t wait a few years for some cats to die of natural causes! Slim is underdeveloped with almost non-existent motivations and his superpower is...wait for it...yodelling. He is never invited to villain parties. If he shows up uninvited Maleficent and Ursula pretend to be having a really important discussion and Scar pretends to be looking for a bottle opener so they don’t have to talk to him.

Here’s an interesting fact about this movie: the songs are by Alan Flippin Menken! And they’re terrible! I can find no excuse for this other than that nobody else involved in making the film seemed to care how it turned out, so maybe Alan thought this wasn’t a real movie or something.

I actually can’t begin to tell you all the things that are wrong with this film, so I will just try to communicate why it failed, which is really for the simple reason that it didn't do what it set out to do. This was no Pocahontas or Atlantis - a movie with lofty ambitions that ultimately overshot itself - no, this was supposed to be a simple, funny film about learning to get along. And that’s where it failed. The film is simple alright, but it is NOT funny, and the characters do NOT learn to get along. Apart from the OK sequence where the cows are following the yodelling villain while he sings (which is ripped straight from Dumbo - Disney, don’t remind us of your better movies during the really bad ones, it’s not going to work in your favour) the attempts at ‘humour’ in the film consist of the characters being mean and trying to tear each other down for no reason at all. And as for learning to get along, well, yes the cows do end up friends at the end, but since they’ve been sniping at each other up until five minutes before, it’s a little unconvincing.

If you haven’t watched Home on the Range, just don’t. Your Disney education will not suffer; and trust me, you don’t want to remember Disney 2D animation this way.

At least we know the next film is AMAZING!


----------



## TheStarscream759

Oh my god Home on the Range....God this movie sucks. Why did I watch this one in the cinema when I was a little boy? To quote Roger Ebert: I hated this movie, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. Hated it, hated every stupid simpering moment of it. It's insipid, it feels like if Barney the Dinosaur were to smoke crack and then give us this abomination.

Why does Alameda Slim yodel? Why is it a power that he possesses? Why is Dame Judy Dench in this? And what was the point of that not Pink Elephants sequence?! So many questions and yet none of them will be answered. Never again just never again.


----------



## BrianL

Welcome back!
*
Finding Nemo* - I only saw this for the first time recently. I had seen the stage show at Animal Kingdom, but never the actual movie. Something about it never really spoke to me. It's okay, but not a favorite. I think the performances are strong though, especially Albert Brooks. The movie is beautiful. I don't have much else to say about it. I have not seen Finding Dory either and it stands as one of two Pixar movies I have not watched.

*Brother Bear* - I've seen this once. I generally agree with your assessment. The movie is not great, but it does have some pretty animation and the music is really good. The opening song by Tina Turner - magnificent! I understand the point about the main character messing up early on, but the point of the movie is that he is not irredeemable. your mileage may vary on that of course.

*Home on the Range* - This is also one of the few WDAS movies that I have never seen. It sounds like I shouldn't be in a hurry. One day I'll watch it out of sheer curiosity.


----------



## RSandRS

TheStarscream759 said:


> Oh my god Home on the Range....God this movie sucks. Why did I watch this one in the cinema when I was a little boy? To quote Roger Ebert: I hated this movie, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. Hated it, hated every stupid simpering moment of it. It's insipid, it feels like if Barney the Dinosaur were to smoke crack and then give us this abomination.
> 
> Why does Alameda Slim yodel? Why is it a power that he possesses? Why is Dame Judy Dench in this? And what was the point of that not Pink Elephants sequence?! So many questions and yet none of them will be answered. Never again just never again.



I entirely agree!!! Never Again! I cannot even say I am happy I watched it for Disney education purposes. Why is Dame Judy in this!?


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Welcome back!
> *
> Finding Nemo* - I only saw this for the first time recently. I had seen the stage show at Animal Kingdom, but never the actual movie. Something about it never really spoke to me. It's okay, but not a favorite. I think the performances are strong though, especially Albert Brooks. The movie is beautiful. I don't have much else to say about it. I have not seen Finding Dory either and it stands as one of two Pixar movies I have not watched.
> 
> *Brother Bear* - I've seen this once. I generally agree with your assessment. The movie is not great, but it does have some pretty animation and the music is really good. The opening song by Tina Turner - magnificent! I understand the point about the main character messing up early on, but the point of the movie is that he is not irredeemable. your mileage may vary on that of course.
> 
> *Home on the Range* - This is also one of the few WDAS movies that I have never seen. It sounds like I shouldn't be in a hurry. One day I'll watch it out of sheer curiosity.



Don't hurry!

Whats the other Pixar you haven't seen? The only one I haven't seen I think is Wallee? Not sure how its spelt.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> Don't hurry!
> 
> Whats the other Pixar you haven't seen? The only one I haven't seen I think is Wallee? Not sure how its spelt.



Finding Dory and Wall-E are the only two I haven't watched as of now. I do have them on my DVR to watch at my discretion.


----------



## RSandRS

*The Incredibles (2004)*

This is my sisters fav Pixar because of the sheer, unadulterated delight! Although its not my fav I love it too! Everything about it from the artistic design, to the bombastic score, to the twists and turns of the plot, to, perhaps most of all, the fantastic characters, is a complete joy to experience.

So how to go about reviewing a movie that is so close to perfect? Well, since we’re still a movie behind in reviewing right now (and I want to watch the next Disney this evening without feeling guilty), I’m not going to go on and on. I totally could, but for now I will just focus on one aspect of the film that, to me, makes it so special, and you can just assume that whatever else you love about this movie, I probably love too and could write a sonnet about, but won’t just now. The thing I will focus on, however, is how The Incredibles manages to seem both new and old at the same time.

Exciting, but comfortable; futuristic, but nostalgic; familiar, but totally original - these are all adjectives you could apply to The Incredibles. This was an action adventure superhero movie before that genre (or the most recent iteration) really took off - Iron Man didn’t kick off the obsession with superheroes until four years after The Incredibles was released - and yet there’s already a hilarious amount of self-awareness in the film, of which the ‘No Capes’ rant and Syndrome chastising himself for ‘monologuing’ are probably the best examples. 

And Pixar achieves this feat of making you comfortable in a world you didn’t even realise you needed until now, in every aspect of the film. The art design is ‘The-Future-but-how-we-wished-it-could-be-in-the-60s’ - so, better in every way than the real future. The music is brilliantly over-the-top, sounding in some ways like a Bond movie and in others like the theme tune to an old TV thriller, but with a sense of humour about itself.

The characters also continue this theme - they’re ‘supers’, yes, but washed up supers. There is something about having the characters already past their glory days that anchors you in the world so much more effectively than the endless ‘origin stories’ that Marvel and DC churn out. And there’s a sprinkle of Pixar-dust in there too. Even though Mr Incredible and Elastigirl are superheroes, they’re battling everyday mum and dad issues, just like you! I mean, she’s a mum whose superpower is flexibility! How beautiful is that?! This is what I mean when I say the movie fits in beautifully to the Pixar way of doing things, and the Disney way too. Because although the film is quite plot-heavy and endlessly exciting, it’s still grounded in the Parr family and in the recognisable themes of getting older, balancing family and work, and living up to your potential.

So yeah, I love The Incredibles. The self-aware tone, stunning visuals, exciting plot and heartwarming themes come together perfectly in this movie. It’s got all the elements you need for a great Disney movie (lovable characters, fabulous music, stylish animation, outrageous, likeable villain) and something more that’s a little bit special: the power to make you nostalgic for something you never even knew about (Walt would love this!).

P.S. It also has Edna - nuff said.


----------



## TheStarscream759

RSandRS said:


> Don't hurry!
> y
> Whats the other Pixar you haven't seen? The only one I haven't seen I think is Wallee? Not sure how its spelt.


 You've NEVER seen WALL-E?! (Jaw drops in a cartoon fashion) What's the matter with you? 

Anyways, Finding Nemo is an awesome movie, Brother Bear I vaguely recall watching that one a lot when I was a kid...for some reason otherwise I can't remember what happens in it. Well I do kinda remember the music from Phil Collins, and that one musical piece with that Bulgarian Choir basically the Transformation theme other than that nothing's coming to mind.

Also besides the Toy Story films, The Incredibles is one of my favourites from Pixar, used to have a lot of the merch when I was a kid, rewatched the DVD endlessly and it definitely deserved a sequel.


----------



## RSandRS

TheStarscream759 said:


> You've NEVER seen WALL-E?! (Jaw drops in a cartoon fashion) What's the matter with you?
> 
> Anyways, Finding Nemo is an awesome movie, Brother Bear I vaguely recall watching that one a lot when I was a kid...for some reason otherwise I can't remember what happens in it. Well I do kinda remember the music from Phil Collins, and that one musical piece with that Bulgarian Choir basically the Transformation theme other than that nothing's coming to mind.



Before this there were quite a few Disney's (not the famous ones!) I had not watched! I am becoming a more rounded person day by day  (although perhaps watching Victory Through Air Power back in the 40s was overkill). 

Looking forward to WALL-E!

Hmm that Bulgarian choir is interesting. I watched a youtuber talk about it.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Though to be fair, I haven't seen all of the package films. Saludos Amigos is one of them, but otherwise I've seen the majority of the Animated Canon.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *The Incredibles (2004)*
> 
> This is my sisters fav Pixar because of the sheer, unadulterated delight! Although its not my fav I love it too! Everything about it from the artistic design, to the bombastic score, to the twists and turns of the plot, to, perhaps most of all, the fantastic characters, is a complete joy to experience.
> 
> So how to go about reviewing a movie that is so close to perfect? Well, since we’re still a movie behind in reviewing right now (and I want to watch the next Disney this evening without feeling guilty), I’m not going to go on and on. I totally could, but for now I will just focus on one aspect of the film that, to me, makes it so special, and you can just assume that whatever else you love about this movie, I probably love too and could write a sonnet about, but won’t just now. The thing I will focus on, however, is how The Incredibles manages to seem both new and old at the same time.
> 
> Exciting, but comfortable; futuristic, but nostalgic; familiar, but totally original - these are all adjectives you could apply to The Incredibles. This was an action adventure superhero movie before that genre (or the most recent iteration) really took off - Iron Man didn’t kick off the obsession with superheroes until four years after The Incredibles was released - and yet there’s already a hilarious amount of self-awareness in the film, of which the ‘No Capes’ rant and Syndrome chastising himself for ‘monologuing’ are probably the best examples.
> 
> And Pixar achieves this feat of making you comfortable in a world you didn’t even realise you needed until now, in every aspect of the film. The art design is ‘The-Future-but-how-we-wished-it-could-be-in-the-60s’ - so, better in every way than the real future. The music is brilliantly over-the-top, sounding in some ways like a Bond movie and in others like the theme tune to an old TV thriller, but with a sense of humour about itself.
> 
> The characters also continue this theme - they’re ‘supers’, yes, but washed up supers. There is something about having the characters already past their glory days that anchors you in the world so much more effectively than the endless ‘origin stories’ that Marvel and DC churn out. And there’s a sprinkle of Pixar-dust in there too. Even though Mr Incredible and Elastigirl are superheroes, they’re battling everyday mum and dad issues, just like you! I mean, she’s a mum whose superpower is flexibility! How beautiful is that?! This is what I mean when I say the movie fits in beautifully to the Pixar way of doing things, and the Disney way too. Because although the film is quite plot-heavy and endlessly exciting, it’s still grounded in the Parr family and in the recognisable themes of getting older, balancing family and work, and living up to your potential.
> 
> So yeah, I love The Incredibles. The self-aware tone, stunning visuals, exciting plot and heartwarming themes come together perfectly in this movie. It’s got all the elements you need for a great Disney movie (lovable characters, fabulous music, stylish animation, outrageous, likeable villain) and something more that’s a little bit special: the power to make you nostalgic for something you never even knew about (Walt would love this!).
> 
> P.S. It also has Edna - nuff said.



The Incredibles is pretty great indeed. I love Brad Bird! Amazingly enough, while this movie ticks all of my boxes as a comics and superhero fan, it's not my favorite Pixar film (nor my favorite Brad Bird film). Anyway, it's still really good! I love that it takes place in the past, in a vaguely 1960's/early 70's with all the style that includes (this is even more apparent in the sequel). Of course, I also love Edna! This is a great one for sure.


----------



## RSandRS

*Pooh’s Heffalump Movie (2005)*

In my opinion Pooh’s Heffalump Movie should really be called Roo’s Heffalump Movie, because it’s very much Roo’s story, and in fact Pooh does not cover himself in glory.

We both agreed that Pooh’s Heffalump Movie was our favourite from the Poohniverse so far (there’s still at least one more to go). It’s very sweet and has an actual plot which is even sort of engaging. I’m not going to go into a huge amount of detail, but this film probably manages to achieve the best balance between modern storytelling and the gentle, whimsical ideas in the Winnie the Pooh books. It’s still for younger kids, but there’s probably the most for older people to enjoy of all the ones we’ve watched so far.

Sadly the inhabitants of the 100 Acre Wood (in particular, Rabbit) have not learned the important lesson about xenophobia from their previous experiences with Tigger and Kanga and Roo. They therefore once again react with fear and anger to the evidence of heffalumps in their ‘hood. Of course Roo ends up making friends with the heffalump in question, whose name is Lumpy (it’s not a great name but he is adoooooorable!) and eventually helps him find him mum and acceptance from Rabbit and the other meanies, but not before they have tried to trap and capture Lumpy, and scared the living daylights out of the little cutey. They do not behave as Christopher Robin would want them to in this movie. I blame Rabbit.

In terms of its good points, the movie has some nice bits of old-school animation and the music isn’t terrible. It’s unfortunately an unwelcome return for Carly Simon, whose songs are still not great, though much less revolting than they were in Piglet’s Big Movie. The main strength of the movie, however, is quite easy to define: Lumpy. This character is so cute and the little boy voicing him does such a lovely job that I am now determined to buy a heffalump cuddly toy when I am next in one of the Disney Parks.

The downside to the film is that it doesn't really know what it’s about. It delivers quite a strong message about accepting those who are different to you and not being frightened of change, but it also seems to be trying to cram in a message about growing up. Kanga has a speech to Roo about how growing up takes time and also sings to him about it, and there’s also a running theme about Lumpy needing to find his call, because that will mean he has grown up. Unfortunately, this theme is undermined by the actual events of the story, as Roo and Lumpy are by far the most mature characters in the film. It’s Rabbit, Pooh, Tigger and Piglet who need to grow up!

We were dreading another terrible sequel, but instead we got a nice, gentle film, with a very cute little heffalump in it. If you're going to watch one of the Pooh movies, make it this one!

P.S. The climax of this movie revolves around one of the main characters nearly falling to their death and we’ve started to notice that this is a bit of theme in Disney movies during this period. The Tigger Movie, Piglet’s Big Movie, Brother Bear and Dinosaur shared this plotpoint - were they running out of ideas?


----------



## BrianL

I've never seen that one, but I'm a little surprised to hear about the Heffalump being sympathetic. They are generally portrayed as bad guys (actually I was always under the impression that they weren't real, just something dreamed up to scare Pooh). They include the _Heffalumps & Woozles_ song in villain segments of Disney fireworks shows! In this context, it's kind of messed up.


----------



## TheStarscream759

I have seen this one it's good as Winnie the Pooh movies go, it's cute, sentimental and makes you think of your childhood. As I recall Lumpy was in quite few other things besides this movie. So much so that he ended as a regular of the cast for awhile in a few of the TV shows. I have possibly the weirdest connection to Heffalumps and Woozles in general. I think it stems from a Winnie the Pooh called: Piglet's Big Game where in that game has to go inside his friends' dreams and fight Heffalumps and Woozles by scaring them with scary faces. And there was a particular Woozle in game called a Hide and Seek Woozle, it wore like magician's clothing and as the name implies hides from scary faces and for the longest these breed of enemies became reoccurring figures in my dreams....for some reason. They weren't very nightmarish to me but it was so bizarre how I kept having dreams of them. It even got to the point where I made a character out of that type enemy. And the crazy thing is, it's all true.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> I've never seen that one, but I'm a little surprised to hear about the Heffalump being sympathetic. They are generally portrayed as bad guys (actually I was always under the impression that they weren't real, just something dreamed up to scare Pooh). They include the _Heffalumps & Woozles_ song in villain segments of Disney fireworks shows! In this context, it's kind of messed up.



Yes, I thought they were the bad guys aswell before watching this film. Especially, given the titular song's resemblance to Pink Elephants on Parade, which is one of Disney's unsettling numbers!


----------



## RSandRS

TheStarscream759 said:


> I have seen this one it's good as Winnie the Pooh movies go, it's cute, sentimental and makes you think of your childhood. As I recall Lumpy was in quite few other things besides this movie. So much so that he ended as a regular of the cast for awhile in a few of the TV shows. I have possibly the weirdest connection to Heffalumps and Woozles in general. I think it stems from a Winnie the Pooh called: Piglet's Big Game where in that game has to go inside his friends' dreams and fight Heffalumps and Woozles by scaring them with scary faces. And there was a particular Woozle in game called a Hide and Seek Woozle, it wore like magician's clothing and as the name implies hides from scary faces and for the longest these breed of enemies became reoccurring figures in my dreams....for some reason. They weren't very nightmarish to me but it was so bizarre how I kept having dreams of them. It even got to the point where I made a character out of that type enemy. And the crazy thing is, it's all true.



I can totally identify with this! Sounds like the kind of thing which would give me nightmares as well! What does a Woozle look like btw?


----------



## TheStarscream759

RSandRS said:


> I can totally identify with this! Sounds like the kind of thing which would give me nightmares as well! What does a Woozle look like btw?


 What the game or the fact that I had bizarro dreams about 'em? 

In all seriousness, that particular Woozle looked like this: 



It shows up at the 46:53 mark. I honestly am not creeped out by them, I assure you they were far from creepy in the dreams I had about them. And the fact that they appeared in my dreams so much that it sort of became ridiculous over time. The character I made out of this enemy was called Zamboza, he's far from what from what a typical Woozle is usually depicted in the Winnie the Pooh universe, and in fact he isn't even from the same universe as them or is even a petty thief, he is however a god-like entity that prowls around various dimensions trying to find someone unlucky enough to fall in his clutches and send them to his private domain where he likes to play his messed up games on them. He's very deranged and very arrogant and prideful about himself, he considers mortals to be beneath him most of the time. He can shape shift, he can bend the rules of reality and is quite a dangerous individual to be around. 

Yes I really have made an entire backstory because of this thing.


----------



## Micca

Yikes, I’ve fallen behind!  I’ll be quick so we’re all caught up:

Finding Nemo – I think this is a really good movie, I recall seeing the trailer for this and thinking it looked really lame, but now I think it’s top notch.  I enjoy the humor in the movie, Dory is pretty funny—“I speak whale.”

Brother Bear – It’s ok, the highlight for me are the moose played by Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas, they are comedy gold.

Home On The Range – It isn’t very good but I enjoyed the villain song "Yodel-Adle-Eedle-Idle-Oo.  Also the dumb sidekick to Alameda Slim has a couple of moments. 

Incredibles – This is terrific, so many clever moments, an homage to 007 in several scenes, and a terrific score.  Edna Mode is hysterical.

Heffalump – I don’t think I’ve ever even heard of this movie, it falls under the sequels or spinoffs category so I’ll pass on this.

@BrianL  -  You’ve never seen Wall-E??? Dude!   I don’t know if I’d say it’s a favorite but it is VERY well done.  It’s very different than the other Pixar films but still enjoyable.


----------



## RSandRS

*Chicken Little (2005)*

*Sigh* Another slightly rubbish offering from Disney Animation Studios - oh dear oh dear. We’re slowly starting to realise why this era of Disney animation has such a poor reputation and why we’ve seen so few of the films.

*Goes to wikipedia article about this movie trying to come up with some positive things to say about it* Holy sh… Patrick Stewart is in this movie?!

So, good points of Chicken Little...let’s think...

...Chicken Little and his friend Abby aren’t terrible characters, though he isn’t particularly well voiced...the little alien is cute...it’s not Home on the Range?? I’m really struggling here.

Basically this movie isn't terrible, it’s just not particularly good in any way. One of its big failings is that it’s desperately trying to be Shrek (with attempts at the same kind of humour and similar music) and to be cool, but sadly fails.

The constant references are somewhat wearisome. There are references to other films during the movie, which is a big mistake (don't remind us of good films during your bad ones, Disney, we’ve talked about this), and references to songs that kids watching the movie would not know or care about, and lots of ‘popular culture’ references which will have dated the film the minute it came out and which now, watching it more than fourteen years after it came out, feel painfully old hat.

For the most part I can see where they were going with the humour, but it just doesn’t land for me, for some reason. There’s some solid silliness that I quite enjoy, with Chicken Little’s fish friend being the best example, but the film also seems to have trouble letting a joke go once it’s introduced it - see: the endless ‘Look, the pig is fat!’ jokes.

The film is also oddly paced and structured. The set up is so poorly explained that I was still asking what happened an hour into the movie; this is followed by an extremely long and boring baseball scene, which then has very little to do with the rest of the movie. The plot doesn't actually show up until nearly half way through, meaning we don’t get enough time with the aliens for us to really give a damn. And in general the story is all a bit depressing, as it revolves around the relationship between Chicken Little and his dad and it’s not a good relationship. The dad fails to ‘believe in’ Little one too many times, so you lose what little interest you had in the relationship to begin with.

And, perhaps worst of all for Disney’s first 3D animated film, the animation is not good. It all looks fake and plasticky, loads of the characters look like copies of each other, and when you compare it to Finding Nemo (which came out two years earlier) it’s all a bit embarrassing.

I must say, people call the seventies and eighties Disney’s Dark Age, but this seems to be the real Dark Age to me. At least some of the seventies and eighties films felt like people who worked on them were having fun!


----------



## RSandRS

TheStarscream759 said:


> What the game or the fact that I had bizarro dreams about 'em?
> 
> In all seriousness, that particular Woozle looked like this:
> 
> 
> 
> It shows up at the 46:53 mark. I honestly am not creeped out by them, I assure you they were far from creepy in the dreams I had about them. And the fact that they appeared in my dreams so much that it sort of became ridiculous over time. The character I made out of this enemy was called Zamboza, he's far from what from what a typical Woozle is usually depicted in the Winnie the Pooh universe, and in fact he isn't even from the same universe as them or is even a petty thief, he is however a god-like entity that prowls around various dimensions trying to find someone unlucky enough to fall in his clutches and send them to his private domain where he likes to play his messed up games on them. He's very deranged and very arrogant and prideful about himself, he considers mortals to be beneath him most of the time. He can shape shift, he can bend the rules of reality and is quite a dangerous individual to be around.
> 
> Yes I really have made an entire backstory because of this thing.


 
This is genius! Disney should be paying you to come up with either alternative plots for the Poohniverse featuring mutant woozles or there should be a spin-off series centred around the villain Zamboza and his mega skills!


----------



## Micca

Chicken Little -- Yeah...this is...really weak, and that's being generous.  My grandkids pulled our copy recently and I was reminded just how lame it is.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Chicken Little (2005)*
> 
> *Sigh* Another slightly rubbish offering from Disney Animation Studios - oh dear oh dear. We’re slowly starting to realise why this era of Disney animation has such a poor reputation and why we’ve seen so few of the films.
> 
> *Goes to wikipedia article about this movie trying to come up with some positive things to say about it* Holy sh… Patrick Stewart is in this movie?!
> 
> So, good points of Chicken Little...let’s think...
> 
> ...Chicken Little and his friend Abby aren’t terrible characters, though he isn’t particularly well voiced...the little alien is cute...it’s not Home on the Range?? I’m really struggling here.
> 
> Basically this movie isn't terrible, it’s just not particularly good in any way. One of its big failings is that it’s desperately trying to be Shrek (with attempts at the same kind of humour and similar music) and to be cool, but sadly fails.
> 
> The constant references are somewhat wearisome. There are references to other films during the movie, which is a big mistake (don't remind us of good films during your bad ones, Disney, we’ve talked about this), and references to songs that kids watching the movie would not know or care about, and lots of ‘popular culture’ references which will have dated the film the minute it came out and which now, watching it more than fourteen years after it came out, feel painfully old hat.
> 
> For the most part I can see where they were going with the humour, but it just doesn’t land for me, for some reason. There’s some solid silliness that I quite enjoy, with Chicken Little’s fish friend being the best example, but the film also seems to have trouble letting a joke go once it’s introduced it - see: the endless ‘Look, the pig is fat!’ jokes.
> 
> The film is also oddly paced and structured. The set up is so poorly explained that I was still asking what happened an hour into the movie; this is followed by an extremely long and boring baseball scene, which then has very little to do with the rest of the movie. The plot doesn't actually show up until nearly half way through, meaning we don’t get enough time with the aliens for us to really give a damn. And in general the story is all a bit depressing, as it revolves around the relationship between Chicken Little and his dad and it’s not a good relationship. The dad fails to ‘believe in’ Little one too many times, so you lose what little interest you had in the relationship to begin with.
> 
> And, perhaps worst of all for Disney’s first 3D animated film, the animation is not good. It all looks fake and plasticky, loads of the characters look like copies of each other, and when you compare it to Finding Nemo (which came out two years earlier) it’s all a bit embarrassing.
> 
> I must say, people call the seventies and eighties Disney’s Dark Age, but this seems to be the real Dark Age to me. At least some of the seventies and eighties films felt like people who worked on them were having fun!



I saw Chicken Little because of the new 3D technology that I wanted to check out. So, the 3D works really well, and, well, that's about the only good thing I could say. The movie is just not good. It has a Spice Girls song in it for crying out loud! I think you're right in that it was trying to be subversive like Shrek, but it just lacked the charm. Shrek doesn't particularly age well due to the pop-culture references, but it was at least successful at the time. The Spice Girls weren't even relevant with Chicken Little came out! Dark Ages indeed.

Well, they're about to turn a corner though. Get ready for a string of good ones!


----------



## TheStarscream759

RSandRS said:


> This is genius! Disney should be paying you to come up with either alternative plots for the Poohniverse featuring mutant woozles or there should be a spin-off series centred around the villain Zamboza and his mega skills!


 I wish they had done now.  It's not bad game Piglet's Big Game, it's simple but definitely a game that's worth playing at the very least. Anyways what's the next movie we are do-oh dear lord why? It had to be this rancid mess? Oh whatever here are my thoughts:

Chicken Little - God help me this movie SUUUUUHHHCKS! If it's not the fact that it's trying to be like Shrek as a movie then the fact that it's such an unpleasant and horrible flick to watch will. The movie is filled to the brim with pop cultural references so much so that it could make even Deadpool just vomit in disgust, I mean first of all, they don't make any sense to be in this movie, second of all why is Indiana Jones being played in a cinema in a town where the population is mostly anthropomorphic animals, why are Abby Mallard and Runt of the Litter singing a freaking Spice Girls song when the Spice Girls haven't been popular since the 1990s? And also why is this film mocking older Disney films at the very beginning? So many questions and yet I have no answers to any of them at all. I think it might be a lot worse than Home on the Range, it's so cynical, the story is an absolute mess, the characters who aren't Chicken Little, Abby, or that Porcupine that just seems to say only a few words of dialogue are just complete and utter jerks and I hate, hate, hate, HATE the fact that Bucky, CL's father is just an abusive and neglectful to his own son and won't even defend him from the town's accusations and just helps him if it benefits him. He's a terrible father, a disgrace to parenting in general. Otherwise the characters are either rather forgettable or just plain unlikable. 

The animation might as well look like a PS2 game and it's just not on the standards of Pixar movies. And I find it so tragic that we are getting great films from Pixar during this part of my childhood and yet I'm getting stuff like Home on the Range and Chicken Little from the main company. Why? Just why? And yes it's another movie I saw as a kid and ya know what? I never want to see Chicken Little ever again, I've only seen it once and that's all that movie's getting. 

It's so ironic that the Leader of Dreamworks: Jeffrey Katzenberg was actually somebody who worked for Disney and yet because of Shrek that film is the very reason why Chicken Little exists anyway. Disney knew they were struggling at the time with their films so they caved in and decided to copy their rivals and even then it's nowhere what a Disney film should be. This movie can go die in a fire, I hate this film.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> I saw Chicken Little because of the new 3D technology that I wanted to check out. So, the 3D works really well, and, well, that's about the only good thing I could say. The movie is just not good. It has a Spice Girls song in it for crying out loud! I think you're right in that it was trying to be subversive like Shrek, but it just lacked the charm. Shrek doesn't particularly age well due to the pop-culture references, but it was at least successful at the time. The Spice Girls weren't even relevant with Chicken Little came out! Dark Ages indeed.
> 
> Well, they're about to turn a corner though. Get ready for a string of good ones!



I thought we were heading for a string of Tinkerbell movies next!? Are they good? All I know about the new Tink is that they may have retconned the character...This should be interesting


----------



## TheStarscream759

Wait the Tinker Bell movies? Well this is gonna be interesting for me.


----------



## RSandRS

*Bambi II (2006)*

Not Tinkerbell quite yet...so here we go!

It may be that we’re going through a dry spell when it comes to Disney animation, but we both really liked Bambi II. It’s probably the best of the recent sequels we’ve seen (apart from obviously Rescuers Down Under), even topping The Jungle Book 2 and, though it’s nothing extra special, it does fit in nicely with the tone of the original and explore part of the story that arguably did need exploring.

Bambi II explores the relationship between Bambi and his deadbeat dad, the Great Prince of the Forest, who, it turns out, wasn't such a deadbeat after all. In the same way that The Jungle Book II took an aspect from the original film that bore closer inspection (Mowgli’s decision to up and leave the jungle even though he’d been insisting he wouldn’t for the whole film), Bambi II focuses on the bit that we don't get to see in the original movie - the period between Bambi losing his mum and emerging as a gawky adult. And it turns out this was a good decision, as there’s still plenty of japes to be had between Bambi, Thumper and Flower and, of course, the development of his relationship with his dad.

The artistry of the film isn't quite up to the original, but is very nice all the same. They take the same approach to backgrounds as in the original, giving them a dreamlike, impressionist quality that is very pretty indeed. The voice acting is all pretty good, with Patrick Stewart standing out as the Great Prince. Thumper is also pretty great, though he doesn’t quite have the brilliance of the kid in the original movie. They also attempt the same tonal balance that made Bambi so special, with moments of extreme cuteness, moments of drama and even downright creepy bits all coming together. They probably don't manage this quite as successfully as the 1942 team did, but they have a good stab at it.

In general the approach to Bambi II seems to have been ‘You know Bambi? Well, more of that please.’ The film has a similar structure, look, themes and sound. Not so similar that it seems like a cheap knock-off (even though this film didn’t get a theatrical release in every country, and is a Disneytoon Studios feature rather than Disney Animation Studios, it doesn’t look cheap and nasty like the direct-to-dvd sequels), but similar enough that it seems to come from the same family.

One of the things that stood out to both of us from this film was the message, which is a really nice one. Bambi’s conflict with his dad comes from his dad’s having only one view on how a boy should grow up, which Bambi (who is sweet and affectionate, and used to playing) doesn't quite fit into. The movie takes the time to nicely explore the idea that there is more than one way for a boy to grow into a man, with ideas of masculinity, aggression (represented by Bambi’s new acquaintance Ronno), the importance of communication (represented by Thumper) and the different ways of demonstrating bravery explored gently and effectively through Bambi’s interactions with his father and the other animals in the forest. Bambi's father is also pretty adamant at the start that ultimately Bambi will be brought up by a surrogate mother and this is also obviously challenged, with the two of them developing a close and loving relationship over the course of the movie. I like really these themes a lot and thought the handling of it was very effective.

All in all I would recommend people give this a go. It’s well worth your time.

P.S. It must be admitted that the climax of this movie does involve one of the characters nearly falling to his death from a cliff. Again. There are other ways to end a movie, Disney!


----------



## TheStarscream759

Bambi 2 huh? I hear that one is supposed to be another one of the good ones. As far as Disney Direct to DVD movies I haven't seen this one really. But it has at least sparked my interest in it.


----------



## Micca

Sorry, this is too much like a cover band, it's just a knockoff of the real thing.  Appreciate your comments though.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> I thought we were heading for a string of Tinkerbell movies next!? Are they good? All I know about the new Tink is that they may have retconned the character...This should be interesting



All right, you guys really are throwing in everything. Bambi II was theatrically released in the UK so I guess it counts. I have never seen it or the Tinkerbell movies, though those do generally have a good reputation. They came out after Lasseter re-tasked DisneyToon from sequels to original work.

Anyway, by "string of good ones" I pretty much meant Bolt, Princess and the Frog, Tangled, etc. You know, the second Disney Renaissance!


----------



## RSandRS

*Cars (2006)*

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Main character is successful in their chosen career but feels something is missing from his/her life. Is also a bit of a d***. Circumstances beyond his/her control force him/her to spend time in a small town with a cast of ‘colourful’ characters, where he/she will learn how to not be a d***. Said cast may or may not include a grizzled, older dude/woman from whom the main character can learn valuable life lessons. Cast will definitely include a good-looking local barkeep/hotel owner/artisanal craftsperson, who will begin by patronising and being patronised by our hero/heroine for being a ‘big city type’, but will eventually fall for them (because reasons) and be a nice reward for the hard work of no longer being a d***. The stakes are as low as they can be, so we can feel comfy and cosy throughout the viewing experience, and come away with the heart-warming confirmation that there is nothing worth learning about life, that can’t be learned from small town America.

Congratulations, you have now experienced the plot of every Hallmark movie ever and a large proportion of romantic comedies. And also, the movie Cars.

Of course, I am both exaggerating and being facetious (I do that), but you get my point? Cars is not a bad movie, definitely not, but it’s not the completely original, jaw-dropping, emotionally-draining experience that most Pixar movies are. Although it’s a perfectly fine film to watch, and design-wise is an exuberant success, when you start to compare Cars to something like Up, you, unfortunately, notice that it suffers from a distinct lack of originality. And when you think about all the ‘big city type goes to small town to learn about the true meaning of whatever’ movies that there are, you realise you can predict every plot beat.

I’ve often wondered why Cars was quite as successful as it was, and presumably it was successful, since it’s had two sequels plus the two Planes movies (which we’ll also have to watch - sigh); but let’s face it, Disney wasn’t putting out films anything like as good as Cars around this time, and nor was Dreamworks. So perhaps it was just in the right place at the right time?

And there’s certainly a lot to like in Cars, most especially the artwork and the music. The backgrounds are breathtaking and the car characters are a huge success - who ever thought you could make relatable characters from cars?? The soundtrack is also really nice, especially the James Taylor song, capturing the nostalgic tone that the movie is going for and managing to remain melancholy, without being sentimental. And Pixar have had their usual fun with creating an immersive world for these characters, complete with lots of satisfying car puns and great sense of humour.

And the characters are pretty good too, but again they’re like archetypes from this genre of film, rather than characters in their own right. McQueen is probably a bit too objectionable at the beginning of the film, and his change of heart does happen rather suddenly, but Owen Wilson is such a likeable actor that he pulls it off. Mater is also a good character. He could be annoying, but in smallish doses he is pretty funny. And though he is the hilarious ‘village idiot’ character, the movie wisely gives him something to teach McQueen, so he isn’t just the butt of all the jokes. Apart from these two, the rest of characters are sadly unoriginal. There’s one or two too many of the ‘colourful small town’ characters, so they blend into the background, and the love interest could be pulled from the movie without it having any impact whatsoever. Doc Hudson is OK, but we’ve seen his type so many times before that he fails to make much of an impression.

I don’t think this film was a cash-grab, by any means - though its sequels may have been. A lot of heart went into the making of Cars, and you do end up rooting for the main characters and happily going along for the ride. Of course you do, it’s Pixar. It’s just maybe a ride you’ve been on before.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> All right, you guys really are throwing in everything. Bambi II was theatrically released in the UK so I guess it counts. I have never seen it or the Tinkerbell movies, though those do generally have a good reputation. They came out after Lasseter re-tasked DisneyToon from sequels to original work.
> 
> Anyway, by "string of good ones" I pretty much meant Bolt, Princess and the Frog, Tangled, etc. You know, the second Disney Renaissance!



Now we are here, we are going all the way!


----------



## RSandRS

I seem to have thought Tinkerbell was next but there are actually quite a few more in front!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Cars (2006)*
> 
> Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Main character is successful in their chosen career but feels something is missing from his/her life. Is also a bit of a d***. Circumstances beyond his/her control force him/her to spend time in a small town with a cast of ‘colourful’ characters, where he/she will learn how to not be a d***. Said cast may or may not include a grizzled, older dude/woman from whom the main character can learn valuable life lessons. Cast will definitely include a good-looking local barkeep/hotel owner/artisanal craftsperson, who will begin by patronising and being patronised by our hero/heroine for being a ‘big city type’, but will eventually fall for them (because reasons) and be a nice reward for the hard work of no longer being a d***. The stakes are as low as they can be, so we can feel comfy and cosy throughout the viewing experience, and come away with the heart-warming confirmation that there is nothing worth learning about life, that can’t be learned from small town America.
> 
> Congratulations, you have now experienced the plot of every Hallmark movie ever and a large proportion of romantic comedies. And also, the movie Cars.
> 
> Of course, I am both exaggerating and being facetious (I do that), but you get my point? Cars is not a bad movie, definitely not, but it’s not the completely original, jaw-dropping, emotionally-draining experience that most Pixar movies are. Although it’s a perfectly fine film to watch, and design-wise is an exuberant success, when you start to compare Cars to something like Up, you, unfortunately, notice that it suffers from a distinct lack of originality. And when you think about all the ‘big city type goes to small town to learn about the true meaning of whatever’ movies that there are, you realise you can predict every plot beat.
> 
> I’ve often wondered why Cars was quite as successful as it was, and presumably it was successful, since it’s had two sequels plus the two Planes movies (which we’ll also have to watch - sigh); but let’s face it, Disney wasn’t putting out films anything like as good as Cars around this time, and nor was Dreamworks. So perhaps it was just in the right place at the right time?
> 
> And there’s certainly a lot to like in Cars, most especially the artwork and the music. The backgrounds are breathtaking and the car characters are a huge success - who ever thought you could make relatable characters from cars?? The soundtrack is also really nice, especially the James Taylor song, capturing the nostalgic tone that the movie is going for and managing to remain melancholy, without being sentimental. And Pixar have had their usual fun with creating an immersive world for these characters, complete with lots of satisfying car puns and great sense of humour.
> 
> And the characters are pretty good too, but again they’re like archetypes from this genre of film, rather than characters in their own right. McQueen is probably a bit too objectionable at the beginning of the film, and his change of heart does happen rather suddenly, but Owen Wilson is such a likeable actor that he pulls it off. Mater is also a good character. He could be annoying, but in smallish doses he is pretty funny. And though he is the hilarious ‘village idiot’ character, the movie wisely gives him something to teach McQueen, so he isn’t just the butt of all the jokes. Apart from these two, the rest of characters are sadly unoriginal. There’s one or two too many of the ‘colourful small town’ characters, so they blend into the background, and the love interest could be pulled from the movie without it having any impact whatsoever. Doc Hudson is OK, but we’ve seen his type so many times before that he fails to make much of an impression.
> 
> I don’t think this film was a cash-grab, by any means - though its sequels may have been. A lot of heart went into the making of Cars, and you do end up rooting for the main characters and happily going along for the ride. Of course you do, it’s Pixar. It’s just maybe a ride you’ve been on before.



I only recently saw cars after I became enthralled with the trailers for Cars 3. Anyway, it's a pretty good movie, but not ground-breaking or anything. I think you pretty much nailed what there is to say about it, though I do like some of the clever things, like the blinking light gag. Also, I just love Doc Hudson!

If you really want to know what made Cars a huge success, it has to do with the fact that is is pretty much the most merchandise-able, "toy-etic" thing Disney ever made! It's toy cars for crying out loud. They can be huge and they can be tiny. They can be cheap or expensive. They can be things you ride in, or things you race on a table. Either way, they make the kids go "vroom-vroom!" and kids love going "vroom-vroom!" It's as simple as that.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Sorry guys I'm going to buck the trend by saying: I really can't stand Cars. I mean I just don't get the idea of a world that's populated by talking cars can be so popular with a younger audience. The plot is very unoriginal, Lightning is just a douche, Mater is really obnoxious and unfortunately I really feel like it's a series that's there to make toys really. It's a franchise I just can't get into no matter what.

And I'm sorry but this movie came after The Incredibles and I feel like Cars pales in comparison to the predecessor film in general. I don't mind if you like Cars and personally I won't get on your case for liking this film but I just don't like Cars as a franchise or as a film overall.


----------



## RSandRS

TheStarscream759 said:


> Sorry guys I'm going to buck the trend by saying: I really can't stand Cars. I mean I just don't get the idea of a world that's populated by talking cars can be so popular with a younger audience. The plot is very unoriginal, Lightning is just a douche, Mater is really obnoxious and unfortunately I really feel like it's a series that's there to make toys really. It's a franchise I just can't get into no matter what.
> 
> And I'm sorry but this movie came after The Incredibles and I feel like Cars pales in comparison to the predecessor film in general. I don't mind if you like Cars and personally I won't get on your case for liking this film but I just don't like Cars as a franchise or as a film overall.



Generally, I feel Cars is an ok film, inoffensive, unoriginal. Its one of my least fav Pixars (they are usually all of such great quality). I can only actually think of one actively bad Pixar movie-and we have yet to get to that one!

To be honest though, the 'appreciative' review of Cars also has something to do with the fact that the Disney films we are watching at the moment are pretty dreadful! The next one being a case in point!


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> I only recently saw cars after I became enthralled with the trailers for Cars 3. Anyway, it's a pretty good movie, but not ground-breaking or anything. I think you pretty much nailed what there is to say about it, though I do like some of the clever things, like the blinking light gag. Also, I just love Doc Hudson!
> 
> If you really want to know what made Cars a huge success, it has to do with the fact that is is pretty much the most merchandise-able, "toy-etic" thing Disney ever made! It's toy cars for crying out loud. They can be huge and they can be tiny. They can be cheap or expensive. They can be things you ride in, or things you race on a table. Either way, they make the kids go "vroom-vroom!" and kids love going "vroom-vroom!" It's as simple as that.



"Vroom-vroom"-Point taken! 

Actually, I would be interested to know what (if any) Disney merchandise ppl played with as kids? For us growing up in the 90s it was plastic figures (great for the beach-we had a massive tub!) and Princess Barbie dolls.


----------



## RSandRS

*Meet the Robinsons (2007)*

Hello, Rock Bottom - we have reached you. (I really hope so anyway!)

Meet the Robinsons is a terrible, terrible film. I’m sad to have to report that it may be worse than Black Cauldron. In fact it has many of the same issues of incoherent plot and unlikeable characters, but without the saving grace of decent animation or a novel premise. Oh dear oh dear. I am thoroughly worn out by how crap these movies are at the moment - and we can't even blame Michael Eisner at this point, as he was long gone

There were a few points during Meet the Robinsons (in between asking what the bloody heck was going on) when we would turn to each other and acknowledge a flash of what the film could have been. It could have been a family-friendly Back to the Future, with a heartwarming theme about an orphan visiting the future and creating his own family - it would have been derivative but still fun to watch. As it was the plot was horrendous; moving along far too quickly for you to give a crap about any of the characters and relying on ‘twists’ (which we saw coming a mile off) rather than proper character development to keep you watching. This was definitely a case of the plot dragging the characters along (like Marty behind Mad Dog Tannen’s horse in BttF3) rather than being driven by any meaningful character development.

Meet the Robinsons is one of those annoying films that relies on a paper thin premise (like a character mishearing what another character said, or a convenient misunderstanding) to give reasoning to the whole thing. It shares this trait with another of our favourites, The Tigger Movie, but since it’s a) aimed at older children and b) supposed to be by the Disney A Team, there is very little excuse for it.

In this case the annoying plot catalyst is the main character Lewis misinterpreting something his carer says and becoming obsessed with reading his own memory so he can see what his birth mum looked like. If you even glance at this premise for a moment you can see how stupid it is (what was seeing his mum’s face supposed to be going to tell him?), but the movie relies on you not doing that. It actually relies on you never thinking too much about anything a lot, as there are quite a number of plot points throughout the film that have you scratching your head saying ‘Wait what? How did…?’ but the movie doesn’t want you to look too closely at them, so rushes on without a pause, urging you to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

The characters are just the worst. I know I hated Tarrin and Princess Ennuie, but the Robinsons might actually be worse. They’re what passes for ‘wacky’ if you have the sense of humour of a five-year-old and have given your characters almost no thought whatsoever. All but three of them could be easily replaced by an inanimate object (like a novelty squeaker that makes an annoying noise or something) with literally no impact on the plot or the main character. They’re just there to distract you so you don't look too closely at the stupid plot. Who cares about meaningful character interactions when one of your characters is married to a puppet? Look at him, isn’t he funny? And that guy has a face on the back of his head! What a card, eh? What a character! Look, singing frogs!

Of course ‘wacky’ would be an annoying enough personality trait for practically every character in the film to have, but actually a lot of them bypass wacky and enter the territory of the downright insane, which means that not only can you as an audience member not identify or engage with them, but you begin to wonder if Lewis should be either.

And the villain! Gah, don't get me started! The villain deserves an essay, no a flippin PhD thesis on how rubbish he is! He will definitely be entered into the Worst Villain category (Alameda Slim (note my sister would also *** Edgar, but I think he is a vast improvement on these two)) and at the moment is pretty much a shoo-in to win it. He is awful. Stupid, unfunny, pathetic, ineffectual. His identity is ‘a mystery’ throughout much of the film, and actually finding out who he is only makes him worse, as it gives a depressing and distasteful trajectory to one of the few characters you had actually somewhat sympathised with.

With the madcap pace of crazy characters, it’s clear this movie is attempting to be a comedy, but it sadly unfunny. It must have been written by people with an unbelievably childish sense of humour. They also clearly thought they were being incredibly clever with all the twists and reveals, but those things are no substitute for characters you actually care about.

The motto of the Robinson family (based on something Walt said - yes, they dared to use a Walt quotation in this mess of a film that disgraces his name) is ‘Keep moving forward’. What this means in the context of the film is that you have to fail a lot in order to succeed. This leads to the main character Lewis inventing a lot of extremely rubbish inventions before he finally creates something that works. Having watched Meet the Robinsons and several of the films leading up to it, I have started to wonder whether this was perhaps also the motto of Disney Animation Studios, and whether they were employing a similar spaghetti and wall strategy during the early years of this century. It would explain a lot.

Thank goodness, we move to Pixar perfection next!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> "Vroom-vroom"-Point taken!
> 
> Actually, I would be interested to know what (if any) Disney merchandise ppl played with as kids? For us growing up in the 90s it was plastic figures (great for the beach-we had a massive tub!) and Princess Barbie dolls.



I had this Mickey Mouse riverboat toy - it was on wheels and there was a Mickey figure that when placed on the slot on top turned it on and it would move and make noise and play music. That's the only very Disney thing I can remember. I did have this great old storybook though that had a lot of Disney stories, including the story of Lady and the Tramp's puppies, well before they ever made a movie about it (Scamp's Adventure or something like that).


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Meet the Robinsons (2007)*
> 
> Hello, Rock Bottom - we have reached you. (I really hope so anyway!)
> 
> Meet the Robinsons is a terrible, terrible film. I’m sad to have to report that it may be worse than Black Cauldron. In fact it has many of the same issues of incoherent plot and unlikeable characters, but without the saving grace of decent animation or a novel premise. Oh dear oh dear. I am thoroughly worn out by how crap these movies are at the moment - and we can't even blame Michael Eisner at this point, as he was long gone
> 
> There were a few points during Meet the Robinsons (in between asking what the bloody heck was going on) when we would turn to each other and acknowledge a flash of what the film could have been. It could have been a family-friendly Back to the Future, with a heartwarming theme about an orphan visiting the future and creating his own family - it would have been derivative but still fun to watch. As it was the plot was horrendous; moving along far too quickly for you to give a crap about any of the characters and relying on ‘twists’ (which we saw coming a mile off) rather than proper character development to keep you watching. This was definitely a case of the plot dragging the characters along (like Marty behind Mad Dog Tannen’s horse in BttF3) rather than being driven by any meaningful character development.
> 
> Meet the Robinsons is one of those annoying films that relies on a paper thin premise (like a character mishearing what another character said, or a convenient misunderstanding) to give reasoning to the whole thing. It shares this trait with another of our favourites, The Tigger Movie, but since it’s a) aimed at older children and b) supposed to be by the Disney A Team, there is very little excuse for it.
> 
> In this case the annoying plot catalyst is the main character Lewis misinterpreting something his carer says and becoming obsessed with reading his own memory so he can see what his birth mum looked like. If you even glance at this premise for a moment you can see how stupid it is (what was seeing his mum’s face supposed to be going to tell him?), but the movie relies on you not doing that. It actually relies on you never thinking too much about anything a lot, as there are quite a number of plot points throughout the film that have you scratching your head saying ‘Wait what? How did…?’ but the movie doesn’t want you to look too closely at them, so rushes on without a pause, urging you to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
> 
> The characters are just the worst. I know I hated Tarrin and Princess Ennuie, but the Robinsons might actually be worse. They’re what passes for ‘wacky’ if you have the sense of humour of a five-year-old and have given your characters almost no thought whatsoever. All but three of them could be easily replaced by an inanimate object (like a novelty squeaker that makes an annoying noise or something) with literally no impact on the plot or the main character. They’re just there to distract you so you don't look too closely at the stupid plot. Who cares about meaningful character interactions when one of your characters is married to a puppet? Look at him, isn’t he funny? And that guy has a face on the back of his head! What a card, eh? What a character! Look, singing frogs!
> 
> Of course ‘wacky’ would be an annoying enough personality trait for practically every character in the film to have, but actually a lot of them bypass wacky and enter the territory of the downright insane, which means that not only can you as an audience member not identify or engage with them, but you begin to wonder if Lewis should be either.
> 
> And the villain! Gah, don't get me started! The villain deserves an essay, no a flippin PhD thesis on how rubbish he is! He will definitely be entered into the Worst Villain category (Alameda Slim (note my sister would also *** Edgar, but I think he is a vast improvement on these two)) and at the moment is pretty much a shoo-in to win it. He is awful. Stupid, unfunny, pathetic, ineffectual. His identity is ‘a mystery’ throughout much of the film, and actually finding out who he is only makes him worse, as it gives a depressing and distasteful trajectory to one of the few characters you had actually somewhat sympathised with.
> 
> With the madcap pace of crazy characters, it’s clear this movie is attempting to be a comedy, but it sadly unfunny. It must have been written by people with an unbelievably childish sense of humour. They also clearly thought they were being incredibly clever with all the twists and reveals, but those things are no substitute for characters you actually care about.
> 
> The motto of the Robinson family (based on something Walt said - yes, they dared to use a Walt quotation in this mess of a film that disgraces his name) is ‘Keep moving forward’. What this means in the context of the film is that you have to fail a lot in order to succeed. This leads to the main character Lewis inventing a lot of extremely rubbish inventions before he finally creates something that works. Having watched Meet the Robinsons and several of the films leading up to it, I have started to wonder whether this was perhaps also the motto of Disney Animation Studios, and whether they were employing a similar spaghetti and wall strategy during the early years of this century. It would explain a lot.
> 
> Thank goodness, we move to Pixar perfection next!



Wow. I don't think it's all that bad. Sure, it's not one of the greats, but I've always thought it was pretty decent. I actually like the way it looks, the world anyway. The characters are a bit all over the place, but the world of the future is very retro-cool, like Tomorrowland. I love how Space Mountian and the Rocket Jets are featured in "Todayland." I also like the Sinatra styled gangster frogs. Actually, that stuff is more interesting than the A Plot, so I get where some disappointment could set in. Like I said, it's okay, but rock bottom? I mean, we're already heading up from Chicken Little!


----------



## TheStarscream759

Yeah I really have to agree with Brian here, your been too hard on this movie. I personally think it's alright, I liked parts of it but it feels a bit disoriented in terms of the plot and there's way too much going on for my liking. Animation is pretty good it's CERTAINLY ALOT BETTER than Chicken Little's. I'd say it's not the best they ever made but it was the movie that was getting the company back on track. "Rock Bottom"? Really? Again it's ten times better than Chicken Little or Home on the Range put together. I honestly think The Bowler Hat Guy was the best bit of that movie and did make me a laugh quite a few times. Also he's got one of the notable quotes that he has in the movie that retroactively predicted Frozen's success: "Everyone will tell you to let it go and move on, but don't! Instead, let it fester and boil inside of you! Take these feelings and lock them away. Let them fuel your actions. Let hate be your ally, and you will be capable of wonderful, horrid things. Heed my words, Goob: don't let it go." or at least that's what I'd like to think anyway. 

Meet the Robinsons as a whole has kind of a pretty out there concept of an orphan time travelling back to the future with his future son and then meeting his future family in the process is definitely not something we've seen before and it's kind of interesting at the same time. Problem I have with the film is that there are way too many characters to keep track of, and can get quite weird even by the standards of a Disney movie, plus I feel like it's just couldn't decide on what it wanted to be as a movie. And it's more it tried to overdo the whole aspect of the family is strange than anything. It's not brilliant nor is it terrible I just feel like it's an average Disney movie that had it's moments and had heart to it but it fell a bit short of the mark for me but at the very least it's a movie I'd probably watch over Home on the Range and Chicken Little any day.


----------



## Micca

Cars- I'm not a "car guy" in general so this movie doesn't resonate with me like it would for many.  I do appreciate the artwork though, the backgrounds are fantastic.  If you aren't to put off by the on-screen persona of John Lasseter, there's a bonus feature on the disc where he talks about capturing the essence of Route 66 and the era of exploring the country by automobile stopping at diners and sites of interest.  This feature made me enjoy the movie more than I had initially.  FWIW comedian Adam Carolla, who is also a race car driver and owns several Paul Newman racing cars, has remarked that Cars is among the greatest auto racing movies ever. 

Meet The Robinsons- Here's another film I own and have watched a few times.  I think it's ok  but not having seen it for a few years I really couldn't tell you anything about it.  Do they use some kind of Jetson's vehicle to travel in?  That's all I got

Toys- I had quite a few Disney items in the 50s & 60s, many of them Mickey related.  One favorite was a metal bank that replicated the look of the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse from the original series.


----------



## BrianL

I'm gonna jump back a little and chime in on a movie that didn't make your list that I saw this weekend for the first time (at least that I can remember), *Bedknobs & Brooksticks*. This is live action, but with animated sequences, like Mary Poppins. In fact, it was the backup plan in case Walt never got that approval for Mary Poppins from P.L. Travers.

Anyway, it's an interesting movie, also directed by Robert Stevenson, but it doesn't raise to the heights of Mary Poppins (I mean, what does?). The animated sequence, which in and of itself is rather good, developed by Ward Kimball, just slows the movie down as it's a bit too long and inconsequential to the plot, though there is voice acting by the wonderful Lenny Weinrib. David Tomlinson also appears in the movie, though he may have been miscast as the shady con-man as I usually find him to be such an upstanding British gentleman, or maybe I just always see George Banks. Angela Lansbury is delightful as usual, and the kids give a surprisingly strong performance. The Sherman Brothers did the music, so there's nothing not to like there, even if the songs aren't as memorable as Mary Poppins.

Okay, okay, so actually if Mary Poppins never existed, this would be a really good movie that is fondly remembered by Disney fans everywhere. It's just...not Mary Poppins. That's the worst thing I can say about it other than the pacing issues. This was the 117 minute cut too (Blu-ray edition), and I understand there are a few different cuts of this movie out there (it's the Blade Runner of Disney). I still had fun watching it.

It also introduced me to my new favorite Disney cat, Cosmic Creepers! He's just amazing! If a cat can act, he's doing it. There were times I'd think he was an animatronic puppet, but then he'd lick his lips. It's kind of a surreal performance from an animal actor!


----------



## Micca

I agree with your thoughts on Bedknobs And Broomsticks 100% @BrianL   It''s worthwhile, but it just seems like a failed attempt at making another Poppins.  Not that it's bad but (as you noted) MP is a tough act to follow...probably impossible.  There are just so many similarities between the two films but B&B just can't match the excellence of MP.

I read an extensive article on the various edits of the movie in a now defunct Disney fanzine many years ago.  I too have the bluray but there is still some missing content because it literally has not been found.  It's plenty long anyway

I think the shots with Cosmic Creepers are a blend of live action cat and some kind of mechanical or puppet cat.  Glad you circled back to this one!


----------



## BrianL

Micca said:


> I agree with your thoughts on Bedknobs And Broomsticks 100% @BrianL   It''s worthwhile, but it just seems like a failed attempt at making another Poppins.  Not that it's bad but (as you noted) MP is a tough act to follow...probably impossible.  There are just so many similarities between the two films but B&B just can't match the excellence of MP.
> 
> I read an extensive article on the various edits of the movie in a now defunct Disney fanzine many years ago.  I too have the bluray but there is still some missing content because it literally has not been found.  It's plenty long anyway
> 
> I think the shots with Cosmic Creepers are a blend of live action cat and some kind of mechanical or puppet cat.  Glad you circled back to this one!



There really is an interesting history to that movie apparently. I do wish the Blu-ray was the "restored cut" as that sounds like the best one, but you're right, it's pretty long anyway. Apparently there is a 90 minute cut that excises almost all of the songs. What?

My favorite line in the film is, "I don't believe in giving animals silly names. I call him _Cosmic Creepers_." That's just a little bit of that subtle humor like Mary Poppins has, like when the policeman is on the phone. "They found him, sir. _No, alive_." That stuff is brilliant!


----------



## Micca

BrianL said:


> Apparently there is a 90 minute cut that excises almost all of the songs. What?


That's crazy talk!  You do NOT cut Sherman Bros songs!


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Wow. I don't think it's all that bad. Sure, it's not one of the greats, but I've always thought it was pretty decent. I actually like the way it looks, the world anyway. The characters are a bit all over the place, but the world of the future is very retro-cool, like Tomorrowland. I love how Space Mountian and the Rocket Jets are featured in "Todayland." I also like the Sinatra styled gangster frogs. Actually, that stuff is more interesting than the A Plot, so I get where some disappointment could set in. Like I said, it's okay, but rock bottom? I mean, we're already heading up from Chicken Little!



Not at all sure about this  I did like the fish in Chicken Little!


----------



## RSandRS

Micca said:


> Cars- I'm not a "car guy" in general so this movie doesn't resonate with me like it would for many.  I do appreciate the artwork though, the backgrounds are fantastic.  If you aren't to put off by the on-screen persona of John Lasseter, there's a bonus feature on the disc where he talks about capturing the essence of Route 66 and the era of exploring the country by automobile stopping at diners and sites of interest.  This feature made me enjoy the movie more than I had initially.  FWIW comedian Adam Carolla, who is also a race car driver and owns several Paul Newman racing cars, has remarked that Cars is among the greatest auto racing movies ever.
> 
> Meet The Robinsons- Here's another film I own and have watched a few times.  I think it's ok  but not having seen it for a few years I really couldn't tell you anything about it.  Do they use some kind of Jetson's vehicle to travel in?  That's all I got
> 
> Toys- I had quite a few Disney items in the 50s & 60s, many of them Mickey related.  One favorite was a metal bank that replicated the look of the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse from the original series.


This is AWESOME!


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> I'm gonna jump back a little and chime in on a movie that didn't make your list that I saw this weekend for the first time (at least that I can remember), *Bedknobs & Brooksticks*. This is live action, but with animated sequences, like Mary Poppins. In fact, it was the backup plan in case Walt never got that approval for Mary Poppins from P.L. Travers.
> 
> Anyway, it's an interesting movie, also directed by Robert Stevenson, but it doesn't raise to the heights of Mary Poppins (I mean, what does?). The animated sequence, which in and of itself is rather good, developed by Ward Kimball, just slows the movie down as it's a bit too long and inconsequential to the plot, though there is voice acting by the wonderful Lenny Weinrib. David Tomlinson also appears in the movie, though he may have been miscast as the shady con-man as I usually find him to be such an upstanding British gentleman, or maybe I just always see George Banks. Angela Lansbury is delightful as usual, and the kids give a surprisingly strong performance. The Sherman Brothers did the music, so there's nothing not to like there, even if the songs aren't as memorable as Mary Poppins.
> 
> Okay, okay, so actually if Mary Poppins never existed, this would be a really good movie that is fondly remembered by Disney fans everywhere. It's just...not Mary Poppins. That's the worst thing I can say about it other than the pacing issues. This was the 117 minute cut too (Blu-ray edition), and I understand there are a few different cuts of this movie out there (it's the Blade Runner of Disney). I still had fun watching it.
> 
> It also introduced me to my new favorite Disney cat, Cosmic Creepers! He's just amazing! If a cat can act, he's doing it. There were times I'd think he was an animatronic puppet, but then he'd lick his lips. It's kind of a surreal performance from an animal actor!



We love Bednobs and Broomsticks and its disappointing it's not on the 'official list'-or the one we are working from on wiki! Thanks for bringing it back in .I probably watched this far more then Mary Poppins as a kid because my youngest sister LOVED it. This may have had something to do with the fact that the film either is? or feels very long? and she could just chill and watch it for ages. The characters are really likeable and come on what other film includes animated singing ballroom fish and enchanted armour which chases off a Nazi invasion? Plus Angela Lansbury! Its not perfect, but its loads of fun and the songs are great!


----------



## RSandRS

*Ratatouille (2007)*

Yey back to great Pixar! 

Ratatouille is not my fav Pixar but its a very joyful and fantastic movie, with lots of humour and zany action to keep you entertained. Its attention to detail and perfect tone are what make it special.

There’s something extremely satisfying about every aspect of this movie, from the score to the animation, to quirky-looking, lovable characters - it’s like a big cuddle of a movie that you can just snuggle into. especially when it comes to the food. A good example of this is the sequence where Remy can’t help but transform the soup that Linguini has ruined. He throws vegetables and herbs into the soup in a sort of food ballet and it feels like you can almost smell it! You’re laughing because it’s funny, excited for Remy as this is a big character moment (his first chance to do some real cooking), marvelling at the beautiful animation, nodding along to that brilliant music. And of course you’re hungry. Damn that movie makes me hungry!

Remy is probably a more likeable hero than the usual Pixar protagonist. He is a rat so I guess he’s an unlikely hero in that respect, but he’s more like traditional idealistic Disney hero with hopes and dreams than other Pixar heroes. He almost needs an ‘I Want’ song. Through Remy we explore what it means to be an artist in a gentle, good-humoured way. Remy doesn’t just want to be a cook, he has to be a cook, and we watch him struggle between following his art and meeting his family’s expectations, before finally being able to find acceptance for who he is. Not only that, but we also get an insight into the frustrations of being a great artist, as there’s so few people around who are able to appreciate him.

In fact all the characters in Ratatouille are wonderfully fleshed out. Remy and Linguini are of course very well realised, and compliment each other beautifully, but many of the side characters are given complexity too. Skinner could have been a bit of a forgettable villain if he wasn’t voiced by Ian Holm or animated so brilliantly. I love the way everything he does is so overly dramatic. There’s a brilliant moment where he eats Remy’s ratatouille for the first time and he obviously wants to hate it, but it’s so wonderful that he has to clutch the table cloth and lets out a little moan. Details like that make this movie the work of art that it is.

One of the characters I love most is Colette. We learned in one of the little Disney Life documentaries that Brad Bird had only female animators work on Colette’s animation, which is really nice. I love to see the conflict between her determination to remain ‘the toughest cook in the kitchen’ versus her feelings for Linguini. There’s also some moments of real frailty, like when she comes into the kitchen the morning after Linguini has been called into the Chef’s office because his dish went down well. You can see on her face that she’s determined not to resent him for his success, because he’s her friend, but she’s also completely vulnerable. The attention to detail in every aspect of this film is spectacular!

The score is fantastic - I love the way Michael Giacchino’s scores are so witty and full of flavour. He picks one or two brilliant themes and then plays about with them for the whole movie, meaning that you always feel very grounded in the place and tone of the movie. Is it too stereotypically French? Who cares! It’s beautiful and fun and is the musical equivalent of a big glass of red wine.

Again, I’m not going to go into every aspect of the Ratatouille because it’s too yummy to cover everything. One last thing I’ll say, however, is that this is an example of how to do pacing correctly - take heed Meet the Robinsons! The movie is fast-paced and action-packed, but never confusing. It’s a perfect three-act structure, with key plot points driven by decisions that Remy makes, and not just by things happening to him.

Ratatouille is pretty well represented in the Disney parks, but of course best at DLP. The Ratatouille area is altogether too beautiful for Disney Studios, as it puts all the other areas to shame. The Ratatouille ride is also really nice, as it keeps the humour and madcap action of the movie and then opens out into Bistro Chez Remy, which is also gorgeous. One of the few places in DLP you can get a decent meal!

Cheers guys, see you next time!


----------



## TheStarscream759

Ratatouille: Is it wrong for me to admit that I'm obsessed with Ratatouille as a movie? Is it because I'm more intrigued with French culture? Or the fact that I'm a Disneyland Paris fan? Who knows. But I feel this one is on the underrated side of things when it comes to Pixar movies because not that many people talk about Ratatouille, Remy I do feel is a likeable character and there's a lot of real struggles of being who he wants to be and that he's determined about his ambitions. Skinner is probably my favourite parts of the movie I swear to you I've quoted Skinner a lot more recently even to the point where I've recorded a silly video on my laptop where I'm just quoting the entire "Phantom Rat" scene, he's that good of a character and having him played by Ian Holms or old man Bilbo Baggins to me is also a delight. 

They captured the essence of Paris as a city and it looks so beautiful, from the rooftops of the buildings to the Eiffel Tower itself, it's a sight to behold and a lot of detail had been into this film like most Pixar films do. I will admit when I was at Chez Remy's for the first time it did make me want to see Ratatouille again and like you say the are at Walt Disney Studios is just amazing and it does help that the French actually do like the film in question as they've actually said that Pixar had done a great job of representing their country and honestly they are not wrong there.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Ratatouille (2007)*
> 
> Yey back to great Pixar!
> 
> Ratatouille is not my fav Pixar but its a very joyful and fantastic movie, with lots of humour and zany action to keep you entertained. Its attention to detail and perfect tone are what make it special.
> 
> There’s something extremely satisfying about every aspect of this movie, from the score to the animation, to quirky-looking, lovable characters - it’s like a big cuddle of a movie that you can just snuggle into. especially when it comes to the food. A good example of this is the sequence where Remy can’t help but transform the soup that Linguini has ruined. He throws vegetables and herbs into the soup in a sort of food ballet and it feels like you can almost smell it! You’re laughing because it’s funny, excited for Remy as this is a big character moment (his first chance to do some real cooking), marvelling at the beautiful animation, nodding along to that brilliant music. And of course you’re hungry. Damn that movie makes me hungry!
> 
> Remy is probably a more likeable hero than the usual Pixar protagonist. He is a rat so I guess he’s an unlikely hero in that respect, but he’s more like traditional idealistic Disney hero with hopes and dreams than other Pixar heroes. He almost needs an ‘I Want’ song. Through Remy we explore what it means to be an artist in a gentle, good-humoured way. Remy doesn’t just want to be a cook, he has to be a cook, and we watch him struggle between following his art and meeting his family’s expectations, before finally being able to find acceptance for who he is. Not only that, but we also get an insight into the frustrations of being a great artist, as there’s so few people around who are able to appreciate him.
> 
> In fact all the characters in Ratatouille are wonderfully fleshed out. Remy and Linguini are of course very well realised, and compliment each other beautifully, but many of the side characters are given complexity too. Skinner could have been a bit of a forgettable villain if he wasn’t voiced by Ian Holm or animated so brilliantly. I love the way everything he does is so overly dramatic. There’s a brilliant moment where he eats Remy’s ratatouille for the first time and he obviously wants to hate it, but it’s so wonderful that he has to clutch the table cloth and lets out a little moan. Details like that make this movie the work of art that it is.
> 
> One of the characters I love most is Colette. We learned in one of the little Disney Life documentaries that Brad Bird had only female animators work on Colette’s animation, which is really nice. I love to see the conflict between her determination to remain ‘the toughest cook in the kitchen’ versus her feelings for Linguini. There’s also some moments of real frailty, like when she comes into the kitchen the morning after Linguini has been called into the Chef’s office because his dish went down well. You can see on her face that she’s determined not to resent him for his success, because he’s her friend, but she’s also completely vulnerable. The attention to detail in every aspect of this film is spectacular!
> 
> The score is fantastic - I love the way Michael Giacchino’s scores are so witty and full of flavour. He picks one or two brilliant themes and then plays about with them for the whole movie, meaning that you always feel very grounded in the place and tone of the movie. Is it too stereotypically French? Who cares! It’s beautiful and fun and is the musical equivalent of a big glass of red wine.
> 
> Again, I’m not going to go into every aspect of the Ratatouille because it’s too yummy to cover everything. One last thing I’ll say, however, is that this is an example of how to do pacing correctly - take heed Meet the Robinsons! The movie is fast-paced and action-packed, but never confusing. It’s a perfect three-act structure, with key plot points driven by decisions that Remy makes, and not just by things happening to him.
> 
> Ratatouille is pretty well represented in the Disney parks, but of course best at DLP. The Ratatouille area is altogether too beautiful for Disney Studios, as it puts all the other areas to shame. The Ratatouille ride is also really nice, as it keeps the humour and madcap action of the movie and then opens out into Bistro Chez Remy, which is also gorgeous. One of the few places in DLP you can get a decent meal!
> 
> Cheers guys, see you next time!



Ratatouille probably *is* my favorite Pixar movie. It just has so much heart. There are great characters and the pacing is snappy. I appreciate the funny moments, like when the health inspector opens the door to see hundreds of rats! 

Anyway, it's an unlikely number one for me considering other great Pixar (and Brad Bird) movies, but there it is. I love it! I have not gotten to Disneyland Paris yet, though it is on my list. I can't wait for the Ratatouille ride to open at Epcot though as that will be much closer to home.


----------



## Micca

BrianL said:


> I appreciate the funny moments, like when the health inspector opens the door to see hundreds of rats!


I gotta admit, that skeeved me out.  I don't have a great fear of rodents, I've had hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs as pets as kid, but placing them inside a restaurant kitchen is problematic for me.  I can't deny that it's very well done and the points made by others in this thread are well taken.  I'll watch the movie again somewhere down the road, and perhaps I'll be a bigger fan when the Epcot attraction opens.  (I didn't like Nightmare Before Christmas until I saw the overlay at DLR)


----------



## RSandRS

*WALL-E (2008)*

WALL-E is one of those rare Disney movies that is openly trying to transcend the limits of a mere kids cartoon into the realms of true art. Which sounds like I’m suggesting it’s not all that fun, but for the most part WALL-E gets the tone pretty spot on. It does, however, make the movie a bit difficult to review, if you’re a bit shallow like me. Nonetheless, let’s give it a go.

The most obvious difference between WALL-E and many of Pixar’s other films is how dark and bleak it is. It’s also probably Pixar’s most political film, commenting on current society and warning against the dangers of corporate monopolies and the implications of the way we treat the planet. Yes, it ends on a hopeful note, but the grim dystopia has been so effectively created up to that point that it’s almost a bit unconvincing. The end credits soften it a bit, but without them you’d be left with a grim outlook for humanity. I’m by no means against this, and if anyone can pull it off it’s Pixar, but it was a very interesting and bold move.

The movie looks fantastic, with both the bleak, inhospitable earth and the creepy cruiseship/spaceship both beautifully created, giving a sense of scope and detail. The design of the characters is brilliant too, particularly WALL-E himself. He looks like he could really function as a robot, but also looks like a cross between a child and a puppy. Pixar have set themselves another crazy challenge, this time to make us root for characters who don’t speak, and it’s all done through tiny details. The way WALL-E’s eyes telescope, or the way EVE holds something in her hand tell us so much.

We need to be invested in WALL-E and EVE’s relationship as it’s the driving force for the monumental change that has occured by the end of the film. Luckily it’s presented as very believable and organic, and because the characters are so well animated, they feel like real people. Like with Miss Bianca and Bernard, you can see how WALL-E and EVE complement one another. A driven career woman like EVE needs someone a bit more free-wheeling like WALL-E!

The design of the human characters is a cross between cute and chilling - they look like innocent babies and that’s really what they are - so it’s hard to know how to feel about them. You like them because they’re so innocent and have such a sense of wonder (kind of like WALL-E himself), but they’re also unsettling. Everything that’s happened to make them the way they are is both something that’s been done to them, and something they’ve done to themselves. It leaves me with an unsettled feeling, that no amount of adorable trundling about by WALL-E, or reminders of the good things the human race has contributed, can quite displace.

Pixar made a wise choice not to include a ‘villain’ as such in this movie. Ratcliffe in Pocahontas showed us that adding a stereotypical villain where the issues being explored are so much more complicated than one person, can be a mistake and cheapen the film. In WALL-E the villain is something too complex to put your finger on. Although AUTO seems to be trying to destroy humanity, he’s only doing what he’s been programmed to do. And you can’t simply say that the villain is ‘Technology’ either; the humans are what they have made themselves, so they are the architects of the their own destruction. That having been said, you can’t really blame the humans either, as they’re like children and have never known anything different. And, though it is ultimately technology, in the form of WALL-E and EVE that rescues humanity, the driving forces behind their actions are very human ones, such as love, curiosity and nostalgia.

Music obviously plays a big part in creating that perfect tonal balance and encapsulating all the themes that the movie tries to bring together. The define dancing theme is one of my favourites in all of Pixar. They also make great use of music from other sources, which heightens the sense of nostalgia. Even among the other amazing Pixar soundtracks, this has got to be one of the best.

Overall WALL-E is definitely a bit of a tonal balancing act. It sets out to be entertaining and funny (it is still nominally a kids’ movie after all) but also thought-provoking and moving, and definitely ends up leaning more to the latter, making it a more sober watch than other Pixars. This is not at all a bad thing, and there’s still moments that have you chuckling (and going awwww!), but this is maybe not the one to choose if you’re feeling a bit down about the world. Which would be understandable!

I’m definitely not saying that this film is too earnest to really love, or that it’s only the kind of film you can appreciate and never really enjoy - in many ways the film is a total delight, and as full of enchanting and original ideas as every Pixar movie - all I’m saying is it’s not a film for every mood.

P.S. Also, don't try to watch the first 30 minutes while you’re eating - it requires too much concentration. Pro tip for ya.


----------



## TheStarscream759

WALL-E - God I love this one, it's possibly one of my favourites when it comes to Pixar alongside the Toy Story films, The Incredibles and even Inside Out. It's such a beautifully crafted movie, the relationship that Eve has with WALL-E is adorable and it really is a film that tucks at your heartstrings. And I agree Define Dancing is probably one of the best tunes from the movie and I always seem to come back to that song in particular when it comes to WALL-E in general and just keep thinking of the scene where WALL-E and EVE flying around the Axiom while that song is playing in the background. They achieved so much with almost little to no dialogue with those two. Such a beautiful film.


----------



## BrianL

Okay, I haven't seen WALL-E. I DO have it on my DVR, though it was recorded off of Disney Channel and will have commercials and maybe some edits (though I don't think they pare them down too much usually). I will try to watch it, maybe this weekend. It just never grabbed me, but I am willing to give it a shot.


----------



## Micca

Wall-E is a seriously good movie.  What they pulled-off here is pretty phenomenal--an entertaining movie with a message and heart.  It's not as fun for funny as many other of the films we've discussed but still entertaining and clever.  It's probably a bit sluggish for the very youngest viewers, there is little dialogue in the opening minutes.  Nice music too (Peter Gabriel)


----------



## BrianL

So, I watched that copy of WALL-E on my DVR. It was surprisingly good, though a challenging watch. It feels like two different movies, one on Earth and one on the ship. There is this pervasive sadness for a while but that eventually gives way to heroics. There was also more talking than I was led to believe, which I think is a good thing, though the emotion they were able to convey just using the robots is astounding. It really is a great movie.


----------



## RSandRS

So we all knew it was coming...Its the start of the Tinker Franchise!

*Tinker Bell (2008)*

*So within a few seconds of the opening of 2008’s Tinker Bell it becomes clear that the target audience of the movie is 7-year-old girls. This being the case I decided to invite my 7-year old self along to help me with the review. Say hello to the nice people!.*


_Hello._

*Cool, so Tinker Bell is definitely the most shameless cash grab of a movie we’ve experienced so far. Basically there is no story to be told here, just a range of fairy dolls to be sold.*


_What? Shut up, it’s a great story. It’s all about the fairies and they’re so pretty and they can talk to animals and stuff like that._


*Didn’t you also like the Care Bears movie?*


_So?_


*Nothing. So this movie should come with a disclaimer: Anyone who is not a 7-year-old girl is advised to rethink their decision to watch it. The story is boring, formulaic and predictable. The dialogue is a mix of terrible, childish jokes and clunky exposition. Still, it’s for younger children, so I guess...*


_Nah, you actually have a point. Those two boy fairies who were supposed to be funny were just annoying._


*It’s also kind of hilarious that the movie so doggedly hits you over the head with a ‘to your own self be true’ message that we actually end up getting a rather confusing message about how you shouldn’t try to better yourself or climb the social ladder in life, you should be contented with what you were born with. Tell that to Remy, guys!*


_If I was a fairy, I would want to be garden fairy so I could, like, talk to flowers and things._


*Are you going to contribute anything helpful at any point?*


_Fairies are pretty!_


*OK. So one thing we couldn’t help noticing was that there are way too many characters. And I couldn’t tell you a single one’s name apart from Tinker Bell and Fairy Mary (and that’s just because that one is so dumb it got stuck in my head)...*


_I know their names! There was Iridessa and Silvermist and Juniper and Flutterby…_


*You’re making those up. Anyway they were all underdeveloped apart from Tink, who herself was one of those irritating characters who is genuinely useless and annoying, but because the movie requires it, all the other characters are fascinated by her and think she’s fabulous. She’s also been totally retconned from her previous outings (tbf she was a would-be murderer, so it’s probably a good thing), to make her more 7-year-old girl friendly*.


_I liked her. It was funny when she tried to do what the other fairies could do and she kept being rubbish at it._


*Alright, I will be generous and say that they were trying to do something ‘new’ and make Tinker Bell the anti-Disney Princess - birds and little fuzzy creatures hate her and she’s **** at everything. It’s quite refreshing in that way. What else did you like about it?*


_I liked the lady who sang the song at the beginning._


*Oh yeah, Loreena Mckenitt, she was lovely. My dad is a fan of Loreena and we have seen her live - it was a bit of a surprise to see her turning up in a second-tier Disney movie. Nonetheless, that woman can make any song, even the somewhat saccharine one they gave her, sound gorgeous. In general however, the music was thoroughly forgettable. They needed to give the characters songs really - I mean they had Kristin Chenoweth right there, why waste her?*


_Yes! I like when Disney movies have songs! *Starts singing Part of Your World very loud*_


*FURTHERMORE...The animation is OK, but very cutesy and flowery. All the fairies had the exact same features, just different coloured hair and outfits.*


_Yey! I can’t wait till I can collect all of the Pixie Hollow barbies, and then I’ll have lots of different outfits to try on them all._


*Like I said: 7-year-old girls. Shameless cash grab.*


_What?_


*Nothing. Overall I didn’t hate the movie, I just didn't like anything about it. It’s an obvious and unoriginal idea and they decided to do something obvious and unoriginal with it, in a transparent attempt to sell things to 7-year-old girls.*


_Ooh cool! There’s like another five Tinker Bell movies!_


*Wait what? :0*


----------



## RSandRS

*Bolt (2008)*

I haven’t really got masses of time at the moment, so I’m just going to dash off this next couple of reviews as quickly as I can. They’re not going to be as detailed but I hope you’ll all bear with me. We actually watched these movies last weekend, but I haven’t been able to write anything up because I’ve been too busy. And I don't want us to watch any more movies until I’ve caught up!


This was my first time watching Bolt and sisters second. I thought it was going to be terrible but was pleasantly surprised. Bolt is...really not bad. It’s definitely the best we’ve seen from Disney Animated Studios for a bit and though I don’t think we’ll be in a mad hurry to watch it again, we probably will at some point.


Bolt’s strength is the road movie, odd-threesome story that makes up the middle part of the film. Either through discovering their original genius or just good luck, Disney seems to have finally remembered how friendship and humour work, and how they should be portrayed in a movie so as to make you care. Bolt himself is a little dull, but his two friends Mittens and Rhino are completely brilliant. Both of them are very funny, particularly Rhino, and you believe in the relationship between the three characters. There are also a few incidental characters, such as the pigeons, which are hilarious too.


The other strength of Bolt is the visuals, which have come on leaps and bounds. They take the approach in this movie of using soft, sometimes 2D backgrounds, which the 3D characters appear on, and it works really well. Since it’s a road movie the movie needs to give a sense of place, and reflect the characters through use of landscapes, and the visual approach really achieves this. It’s a very pretty movie in a lot of places.


I think the downside of Bolt is that it’s maybe a bit unconvincing. We’re sort of given the impression that it takes place in the real world, in our time, which is sometimes a bit hard to swallow as too many questions pop into your head for you to really enjoy it. Why does the TV show require Bolt to believe he really is a super dog? Why does Rhino believe it BUT Mittens doesn’t? How did they ever manage to get all those shots in one take? How does a TV show have such a high budget anyway? Why, when the studio is on fire, is the star of the show the one everyone forgets about, leaving her to burn to death? Why is Penny’s mum such a terrible parent? I don’t know why this plot fails to convince, where other more outlandish ones have been just fine with me, but it is unfortunately the case.


As you can see, most of my problems with Bolt are with the TV show plotline, as I feel it doesn’t really add much to the story. I love the Homeward Bound-esque middle of the film, and I feel like that could have been enough to make a story out of. The strength of this movie isn’t Bolt learning about life without super powers, or even him finding his way back to Penny, it’s his unlikely friendships with Mittens and Rhino.


If you haven’t seen Bolt yet, I’d definitely give it a go. It’s not going to knock your socks off, but it will probably keep the kids happy for a couple of hours. On a scale of Meet the Robinsons to The Lion King, I’d say it was a solid Hundred and One Dalmatians.


----------



## Micca

That might be your best post yet RS!  Yeah this falls under the "not gonna watch this" I'll watch another bonafide Disney classic again before I spend time on this.  I do have two granddaughters who are 6 & 7, they might enjoy it.  I'll keep an eye out to see if it's streaming or pops up on the Disney channel.

ETA:  I was replying while you were posting your Bolt review.  I think it's good, generally underrated.  I guess I could go along with you "101 Dalmatians" rating...it might be a notch or two higher.

Sidebar note:  This afternoon I'm watching "Walt & El Grupo" a documentary about the time Walt & his crew spent several months in South America in the 40s.  Anyone interested in Disney history would enjoy this.  The world was such a different place but they loved having Disney visit.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> So we all knew it was coming...Its the start of the Tinker Franchise!
> 
> *Tinker Bell (2008)*
> 
> *So within a few seconds of the opening of 2008’s Tinker Bell it becomes clear that the target audience of the movie is 7-year-old girls. This being the case I decided to invite my 7-year old self along to help me with the review. Say hello to the nice people!.*
> 
> 
> _Hello._
> 
> *Cool, so Tinker Bell is definitely the most shameless cash grab of a movie we’ve experienced so far. Basically there is no story to be told here, just a range of fairy dolls to be sold.*
> 
> 
> _What? Shut up, it’s a great story. It’s all about the fairies and they’re so pretty and they can talk to animals and stuff like that._
> 
> 
> *Didn’t you also like the Care Bears movie?*
> 
> 
> _So?_
> 
> 
> *Nothing. So this movie should come with a disclaimer: Anyone who is not a 7-year-old girl is advised to rethink their decision to watch it. The story is boring, formulaic and predictable. The dialogue is a mix of terrible, childish jokes and clunky exposition. Still, it’s for younger children, so I guess...*
> 
> 
> _Nah, you actually have a point. Those two boy fairies who were supposed to be funny were just annoying._
> 
> 
> *It’s also kind of hilarious that the movie so doggedly hits you over the head with a ‘to your own self be true’ message that we actually end up getting a rather confusing message about how you shouldn’t try to better yourself or climb the social ladder in life, you should be contented with what you were born with. Tell that to Remy, guys!*
> 
> 
> _If I was a fairy, I would want to be garden fairy so I could, like, talk to flowers and things._
> 
> 
> *Are you going to contribute anything helpful at any point?*
> 
> 
> _Fairies are pretty!_
> 
> 
> *OK. So one thing we couldn’t help noticing was that there are way too many characters. And I couldn’t tell you a single one’s name apart from Tinker Bell and Fairy Mary (and that’s just because that one is so dumb it got stuck in my head)...*
> 
> 
> _I know their names! There was Iridessa and Silvermist and Juniper and Flutterby…_
> 
> 
> *You’re making those up. Anyway they were all underdeveloped apart from Tink, who herself was one of those irritating characters who is genuinely useless and annoying, but because the movie requires it, all the other characters are fascinated by her and think she’s fabulous. She’s also been totally retconned from her previous outings (tbf she was a would-be murderer, so it’s probably a good thing), to make her more 7-year-old girl friendly*.
> 
> 
> _I liked her. It was funny when she tried to do what the other fairies could do and she kept being rubbish at it._
> 
> 
> *Alright, I will be generous and say that they were trying to do something ‘new’ and make Tinker Bell the anti-Disney Princess - birds and little fuzzy creatures hate her and she’s **** at everything. It’s quite refreshing in that way. What else did you like about it?*
> 
> 
> _I liked the lady who sang the song at the beginning._
> 
> 
> *Oh yeah, Loreena Mckenitt, she was lovely. My dad is a fan of Loreena and we have seen her live - it was a bit of a surprise to see her turning up in a second-tier Disney movie. Nonetheless, that woman can make any song, even the somewhat saccharine one they gave her, sound gorgeous. In general however, the music was thoroughly forgettable. They needed to give the characters songs really - I mean they had Kristin Chenoweth right there, why waste her?*
> 
> 
> _Yes! I like when Disney movies have songs! *Starts singing Part of Your World very loud*_
> 
> 
> *FURTHERMORE...The animation is OK, but very cutesy and flowery. All the fairies had the exact same features, just different coloured hair and outfits.*
> 
> 
> _Yey! I can’t wait till I can collect all of the Pixie Hollow barbies, and then I’ll have lots of different outfits to try on them all._
> 
> 
> *Like I said: 7-year-old girls. Shameless cash grab.*
> 
> 
> _What?_
> 
> 
> *Nothing. Overall I didn’t hate the movie, I just didn't like anything about it. It’s an obvious and unoriginal idea and they decided to do something obvious and unoriginal with it, in a transparent attempt to sell things to 7-year-old girls.*
> 
> 
> _Ooh cool! There’s like another five Tinker Bell movies!_
> 
> 
> *Wait what? :0*



Well, I think your "7 year-old" has the right attitude with this. It's just something fun for kids. It was not released theatrically, so that usually wouldn't make your cut for these reviews (it had a limited engagement at the El Capitan, but it was not a wide release). Anyway, I've never seen it, and have no opinion on the film. I will say the animation is pretty decent for direct-to-video fare and I think it was a good decision to task DisneyToon toward unique franchises like Tinkerbell and Planes as opposed to the often poorly received sequels. If you're planning to do them all, well, best wishes to you!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Bolt (2008)*
> 
> I haven’t really got masses of time at the moment, so I’m just going to dash off this next couple of reviews as quickly as I can. They’re not going to be as detailed but I hope you’ll all bear with me. We actually watched these movies last weekend, but I haven’t been able to write anything up because I’ve been too busy. And I don't want us to watch any more movies until I’ve caught up!
> 
> 
> This was my first time watching Bolt and sisters second. I thought it was going to be terrible but was pleasantly surprised. Bolt is...really not bad. It’s definitely the best we’ve seen from Disney Animated Studios for a bit and though I don’t think we’ll be in a mad hurry to watch it again, we probably will at some point.
> 
> 
> Bolt’s strength is the road movie, odd-threesome story that makes up the middle part of the film. Either through discovering their original genius or just good luck, Disney seems to have finally remembered how friendship and humour work, and how they should be portrayed in a movie so as to make you care. Bolt himself is a little dull, but his two friends Mittens and Rhino are completely brilliant. Both of them are very funny, particularly Rhino, and you believe in the relationship between the three characters. There are also a few incidental characters, such as the pigeons, which are hilarious too.
> 
> 
> The other strength of Bolt is the visuals, which have come on leaps and bounds. They take the approach in this movie of using soft, sometimes 2D backgrounds, which the 3D characters appear on, and it works really well. Since it’s a road movie the movie needs to give a sense of place, and reflect the characters through use of landscapes, and the visual approach really achieves this. It’s a very pretty movie in a lot of places.
> 
> 
> I think the downside of Bolt is that it’s maybe a bit unconvincing. We’re sort of given the impression that it takes place in the real world, in our time, which is sometimes a bit hard to swallow as too many questions pop into your head for you to really enjoy it. Why does the TV show require Bolt to believe he really is a super dog? Why does Rhino believe it BUT Mittens doesn’t? How did they ever manage to get all those shots in one take? How does a TV show have such a high budget anyway? Why, when the studio is on fire, is the star of the show the one everyone forgets about, leaving her to burn to death? Why is Penny’s mum such a terrible parent? I don’t know why this plot fails to convince, where other more outlandish ones have been just fine with me, but it is unfortunately the case.
> 
> 
> As you can see, most of my problems with Bolt are with the TV show plotline, as I feel it doesn’t really add much to the story. I love the Homeward Bound-esque middle of the film, and I feel like that could have been enough to make a story out of. The strength of this movie isn’t Bolt learning about life without super powers, or even him finding his way back to Penny, it’s his unlikely friendships with Mittens and Rhino.
> 
> 
> If you haven’t seen Bolt yet, I’d definitely give it a go. It’s not going to knock your socks off, but it will probably keep the kids happy for a couple of hours. On a scale of Meet the Robinsons to The Lion King, I’d say it was a solid Hundred and One Dalmatians.



Bolt is pretty decent and the sings of a real upswing for Disney! Yeah, it's not great as Bolt himself is a little flat, but still, the world is fun and the friend characters are awesome, especially poor, declawed Mittens! I think a few things that you point out as not reflective of the real world don't matter much, such as how an animal actor is used and the budget of a TV show, however the point of the parental failure is all too true for many child stars. That disengagement and her agent are some of my favorite parts of the movie. Bolt also has Disney's best computer animation yet as things are starting to look more on-par with Pixar.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Should I be worried when I say the next thing I'm about to say on this thread? 

I actually do like the Tinker Bell movies. And I'M A GUY for crying out loud! A man who has recently turned 26 as of today anyway. I think the animation is beautiful to look at for the first movie, and it's got quite a lot of likeable characters and it's a cute story. The music is a bit on the cheesy side of things but that's sort of the charm really. I even have three of the other Tinker Bell movies on DVD and it's even gotten to the point where I actually went to Adventureland in the Magic Kingdom in Disney World back in 2011 in the dead of night while everyone else was watching Wishes I went off and met Tinker Bell and Rosetta in their ol' Pixie Hollow meet and greet spot that they used to have there. 

I'll say it's not everyone's cup of tea but I will say it's a lot better than Planes and some of the Direct to Video Disney Sequels. Moving back onto to the animated canon itself: Bolt.

Ah now this was when Disney finally got an animated film in CGI right, it's not on the same level as other classic films but it's still enjoyable I do feel. Rhino is hilarious as well as Mittens being a fun and relatable character. The only thing I would quibble about the film is that Miley Cyrus as a younger girl. I'm sorry but I don't believe she can be convincing as Penny and she sounds waaaaaay too old for her. Otherwise an underrated film and a bit better than Meet the Robinsons but certainly ALOT better than Chicken Little undeniably on that one.


----------



## Micca

TheStarscream759 said:


> I actually do like the Tinker Bell movies. And I'M A GUY for crying out loud! A man who has recently turned 26 as of today anyway.


Happy Birthday!  Hey if you're a Tinker Bell fan, so be it!


----------



## TheStarscream759

Micca said:


> Happy Birthday!  Hey if you're a Tinker Bell fan, so be it!


 Though technically my birthday was only just yesterday but thank you all the same. And yeah I've gotten to the point in my life where I just don't care what people think where something like: "Oh YOU like this?" or "For god sakes your a man watch something that's manly!" doesn't really do anything to me cuz I generally just don't care what they think. Yeah I like the Tinker Bell movies, so what? I'm allowed to like girly stuff if I want, it's my choice and that's my general response to anybody who just think guys should like guys stuff and girls should like girls stuff only.


----------



## Micca

TheStarscream759 said:


> Though technically my birthday was only just yesterday but thank you all the same. And yeah* I've gotten to the point in my life where I just don't care what people think *where something like: "Oh YOU like this?" or "For god sakes your a man watch something that's manly!" doesn't really do anything to me cuz I generally just don't care what they think. Yeah I like the Tinker Bell movies, so what? I'm allowed to like girly stuff if I want, it's my choice and that's my general response to anybody who just think guys should like guys stuff and girls should like girls stuff only.


I'd say that's pretty mature thinking for someone in their 20s.  After all we are discussing art here, pretty sure that's open to any gender/age.


----------



## BrianL

As I said I've never watched the Tinkerbell movies, but they seem like they are pretty good, at least from a quality standpoint. The animation is very nice looking and they seem to be made with a lot of care. I always figured if I did see them I'd probably enjoy them. I like tons of stuff I "shouldn't like" so that's fine with me.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Micca said:


> I'd say that's pretty mature thinking for someone in their 20s.  After all we are discussing art here, pretty sure that's open to any gender/age.


 So true, my friend, so true.


----------



## RSandRS

*Up (2009)*

I love Up. I love it sooooooo much! It’s definitely one of the best Pixars and completely embodies what Pixar is about as a studio. The story and characters are completely unique, the music is insanely good, and some of the imagery just sticks with you forever.

Of course I could go into everything that makes Up so amazing, but I think the most striking thing is how unusual it is. The main characters are an old guy and a little Asian kid, which is unusual in itself (it definitely shouldn’t be, but it is). The movie also features all of the following things: bereavement, a coming of age story, talking dogs, a damning portrayal of the treatment of the elderly in our society, a floating house, a damning portrayal of our treatment of the environment and endangered species, a dirigible...did I mention the talking dogs? They also fly planes. And as you watch it part of you is wondering, ‘How the heck did they come up with this stuff?’ but the rest is marvelling at how beautifully it all comes together. Yes, Up is weird, but you’re not overcome by its weirdness. You are overcome by how beautiful, funny, heartfelt and exciting it is.

Up is the film I credit with really getting me back into Disney as an adult. I’d watched a lot of the 90s films while at university for nostalgia’s sake, but still firmly thought of Disney as ‘for kids’. It was something I liked, but not something I was going to go around telling people I liked.

We saw Up together for the first time, soon after it was released on DVD, when we were staying at our friend's house. We decided to randomly rent a movie and, having heard that Up was good, we decided to give it a go. Of course the first ten minutes of that film are some of the most perfect in all of cinema and they hit all three of us right in the solar plexus. We just weren’t expecting it. And when I finally turned to look at sis I had tears streaming out of my eyes and nose, only to find that she was crying too, as was our friend. We all burst out laughing. We’d never cried like that at a Disney movie before. All three of us now openly adore Disney and watch and discuss every new movie that comes out over and over again. We also all went to DLP together last Halloween-which started this whole thread if you might remember! Up is something really really special. One of the best movies I have ever seen generally.


----------



## RSandRS

Micca said:


> Happy Birthday!  Hey if you're a Tinker Bell fan, so be it!



And so say I, and my 7-year-old self is very happy as well!  

People should watch what they want. We often watch the terrible Disney TV movies with the catchy soundtracks!!!-High School Musical I am looking at you!!! 

Life's too short to worry what people think about you watch and this is a space for sharing Disney loves!!!!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Up (2009)*
> 
> I love Up. I love it sooooooo much! It’s definitely one of the best Pixars and completely embodies what Pixar is about as a studio. The story and characters are completely unique, the music is insanely good, and some of the imagery just sticks with you forever.
> 
> Of course I could go into everything that makes Up so amazing, but I think the most striking thing is how unusual it is. The main characters are an old guy and a little Asian kid, which is unusual in itself (it definitely shouldn’t be, but it is). The movie also features all of the following things: bereavement, a coming of age story, talking dogs, a damning portrayal of the treatment of the elderly in our society, a floating house, a damning portrayal of our treatment of the environment and endangered species, a dirigible...did I mention the talking dogs? They also fly planes. And as you watch it part of you is wondering, ‘How the heck did they come up with this stuff?’ but the rest is marvelling at how beautifully it all comes together. Yes, Up is weird, but you’re not overcome by its weirdness. You are overcome by how beautiful, funny, heartfelt and exciting it is.
> 
> Up is the film I credit with really getting me back into Disney as an adult. I’d watched a lot of the 90s films while at university for nostalgia’s sake, but still firmly thought of Disney as ‘for kids’. It was something I liked, but not something I was going to go around telling people I liked.
> 
> We saw Up together for the first time, soon after it was released on DVD, when we were staying at our friend's house. We decided to randomly rent a movie and, having heard that Up was good, we decided to give it a go. Of course the first ten minutes of that film are some of the most perfect in all of cinema and they hit all three of us right in the solar plexus. We just weren’t expecting it. And when I finally turned to look at sis I had tears streaming out of my eyes and nose, only to find that she was crying too, as was our friend. We all burst out laughing. We’d never cried like that at a Disney movie before. All three of us now openly adore Disney and watch and discuss every new movie that comes out over and over again. We also all went to DLP together last Halloween-which started this whole thread if you might remember! Up is something really really special. One of the best movies I have ever seen generally.



There can be no doubt, Up is a masterpiece. It is so emotional - heart-wrenching and uplifting at the same time. I saw this very shortly after my Grandmother had passed. Yeah, it got to me. It's not always the first movie I go-to on a rainy day because it can be so sad, but it certainly is also great. I'm glad Carl finally got to go see the world without leaving his house behind. Adventure is out there!


----------



## Micca

I think RSandRS pretty much nailed it in the "Up" post.  That opening sequence...good grief, what a wallop that packs.  This is where my ability to maintain objectivity comes into play.  I agree that "Up" excels in almost every way, it just isn't a favorite for me, it's probably just a little too weird for my tastes.  At the same time I'd highly recommend "Up" to almost anyone.  

As it relates to the parks, do we know how the bird show is doing at AK?  I saw the old version just one time before it changed and I really enjoyed it.  The initial reviews on the new version were less than stellar.  Any updates?


----------



## RSandRS

*Tinkerbell and the Lost Treasure (2009)*

It’s a not particularly welcome return for Tink-unless you are a fan!!!! who continues her antics from the previous movie. The film is of very similar quality. At least they’ve got consistency I suppose.

They have removed one of the classiest aspects of the first movie (Loreena McKennitt) and replaced her with someone more generic, and the film is still crying out for some songs. I think it would take someone an afternoon to write the following songs and in the process vastly improve the movie: Autumn Harvest, Friends Are Very Annoying (But You Love Them Anyway), Macguffin (You Drive the Plot Along), and Friends Are Very Annoying (But You Love Them Anyway) Reprise. Just sayin!

Tink continues to be a deeply annoying heroine. She is genuinely useless and effs up everything she does, making the plot extremely predictable. ‘Oh look, an extremely fragile object that for some reason is the cornerstone of fairy survival and that Tink has been put in sole charge of...I hope nothing happens to it.’ Facepalm.

Tink is also not very nice to her friends, which makes her even less likeable. Though in her defence I would also find Terence extremely irritating and was rooting for Tink to get rid of him (he could def be accused of mansplaing her job to her ), but the movie is trying to convince me that he was the good guy.

There’s some OK animation, but in general it still looks too pretty to be very interesting. The fairies all look the same as each other and have pretty much the same personalities, making it extremely difficult to tell them apart, or to recognise characters from movie to movie. I have started calling them ‘The Bratz fairies’. But hey, Tink got a new outfit in this one so…

_Oh goodie, some new outfits for my Tink Barbie!_

Pipe down, you.

All in all...not the best. 2 down, 3 to go. Part of me worries I will eventually become absorbed in these fairies lives just by sheer force of repetition!

Yey, a wonderful outing for Disney's animation department next!!!


----------



## RSandRS

Micca said:


> I think RSandRS pretty much nailed it in the "Up" post.  That opening sequence...good grief, what a wallop that packs.  This is where my ability to maintain objectivity comes into play.  I agree that "Up" excels in almost every way, it just isn't a favorite for me, it's probably just a little too weird for my tastes.  At the same time I'd highly recommend "Up" to almost anyone.
> 
> As it relates to the parks, do we know how the bird show is doing at AK?  I saw the old version just one time before it changed and I really enjoyed it.  The initial reviews on the new version were less than stellar.  Any updates?



I really enjoyed that show, but I seem to remember ppl did not rate it that highly. Whenever we go back to Florida (third trip)-fingers crossed its not too long, look forward to see the new one!


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> There can be no doubt, Up is a masterpiece. It is so emotional - heart-wrenching and uplifting at the same time. I saw this very shortly after my Grandmother had passed. Yeah, it got to me. It's not always the first movie I go-to on a rainy day because it can be so sad, but it certainly is also great. I'm glad Carl finally got to go see the world without leaving his house behind. Adventure is out there!



I adore the moment when he opens the book and realises that Ellie never had to have an adventure beyond the walls of their home as just being with him was one! Tears me up even thinking about it...Masterpiece indeed!


----------



## Micca

I'll pass on the Tinker Bell comments to allow @TheStarscream759 extra space to express his views.


----------



## TheStarscream759

You didn't enjoy this one, RS? Well...the plot thins. 

Anyways another Tinker Bell movie and more thoughts on the matter. I honestly think Lost Treasure is not my personal favourite but I do like Terrence but maybe that's just because he's played by Jesse McCartney? Maybe because he plays Roxas in the Kingdom Hearts series maybe there is another reason for liking him but whatever the case, I like his dynamic with Tink. I do think when she got mad at him it kind of reminded me of her original self from Peter Pan because remember Tink wasn't a goodie two shoes to begin with and was the same fairy who tried to kill Wendy. So it kind of adds to her character, the way I look at it, Tinker Bell is with her own kind and she acts differently around them than how we saw her in Peter Pan mainly because her relationship with Peter and she viewed him as a long time friend whilst Wendy she had only known for a short time and felt Peter was spending more time with her hence why she was jealous of Wendy in the first place. So I am to assume that Tink's friends in Pixie Hollow are people she's known for quite some time so I get the sense of why she'd act nicer. 

Not a fan of the music in this one but like I said it's cheesiness is it's charm. Visuals are amazing once again, not as good as the original maybe but still enjoyable regardless.


----------



## RSandRS

*The Princess and the Frog (2009)*

We’re back eith the good stuff! Walt Disney Animation Studios, how I’ve missed you, but you’re back back back!

Princess and the Frog is a gorgeous film! I have so missed 2D animation, both in this marathon and in real life. I wish this wasn't Disney’s last 2D animated film, but if it is, it’s a banger to go out on. Overall it feels old-school; it feels like what Disney does best. It feels like a little bit of nostalgia for my childhood - which as you all know by now, is a big plus for me!

First, the story. Maybe it’s not Disney’s most exciting one, and it does take a bit of time to get going, but it’s got all the ingredients that make that Disney magic: romance, humour, literal magic and some brilliant dark elements too. It’s maybe the voodoo aspects that really bring Princess and the Frog to life and make it stand out. Dr Facilier is a fantastically charismatic villain and the animation of him, his shadow and his ‘friends on the other side’ is probably the best in the whole film. I love when Disney really leans into the dark side - they do it so well! The animation overall is stellar in The Princess and the Frog - it really makes me want to visit New Orleans!

Tiana is a great heroine, and really holds her own among the other Disney princesses - she’s certainly the best dressed! She is a lovely role model to be Disney’s first African-American princess being a bit more of a grown up and a realist than some of the other princesses. And although there are other Disney princesses of colour, Tiana is maybe the first to be less obviously sexualised in the way she looks. 

The other characters are good too, though apart from Ray they don’t massively stand out. Ray is adorable and so well-performed! If you want to make your character likeable have them voiced by Jim Cummings - he is the Tom Hanks of voice actors. Lottie is also great fun, and again, it’s the performance that makes her what she is. Come to think of it, the rest of the supporting characters are all pretty great!

The songs are pretty good and help to anchor the film in its setting - which is so important in this movie - but are maybe not up there with the real greats from Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast et al. I like Almost There, Down in New Orleans and Friends on the Other Side, but When We’re Human and Gonna Take You There are less strong. I also think the singers really help to elevate some of the songs - in particular Jim Cummings and Jenifer Lewis (who voices Mama Odie) - and combined with the animation, make middling songs seem really magical and cool.

Overall, I really like The Princess and the Frog. Maybe if it had come out in the 90s it wouldn’t seem quite so special to me, but it wouldn’t be out of place either. Maybe at the time people thought the movie was old-fashioned, because it felt so old-school, and that’s why it didn’t do spectacularly well. The fact that it didn't do all that well seems to have effectively killed off 2D animation, which is a total tragedy and, I believe, a mistake. There’s no denying the importance of ‘the nostalgia factor’ in a lot of popular media these days, but maybe Disney could take inspiration from this to start producing some top quality Princess and the Frog-style 2D-animated films...rather than just remaking the already-perfect 90s films using 3D animation. Just a thought.


----------



## RSandRS

*Toy Story 3 (2010)*

When Toy Story 3 came out, every damn thing was getting a franchise. Lord of the Rings had made everyone think that if you could split your idea into several bits, and hopefully keep it going forever, you were bound to make more money out of it. Harry Potter was split into 8 films from 7 books, Twilight was split into lord knows how many (12?) films, Pirates of the Caribbean was due its fourth doomed attempt, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe was really getting underway. Nobody seemed to want things to just end any more. And then Toy Story 3 came along and taught us that endings are necessary and beautiful, and nothing to be afraid of.

The first time I saw Toy Story 3 I was with my little sis (not the one who has been watching these movies with me) and we had been drinking for several hours leading up to going to the cinema. We also took a bottle of red wine into the cinema and proceeded to play the Toy Story 3 Drinking Game, which we had found online and which seemed like an excellent idea at the time.

There were three things that really ruined our evening that day:

The first was Rule 1: Drink whenever a character mentions the name Andy - if you haven't played this game you might not have noticed it, but during the first third of the movie people are mentioning Andy pretty much every three sentences or so. “Come on, guys, we have to be there for Andy!” “Andy’s all grown up and going to college.” “Andy was throwing us away!” Andy, Andy, Andy. It wasn't pretty.

The second was Rule 4: You had to drink every time Big Baby came on screen, and keep drinking the whole time he was in the shot. Oh boy.

The third was that for the first time I, a grown *** woman, not only cried at the cinema, but stumbled from said cinema tears still streaming from my eyes, leaning on my sister, choking and sobbing. It. Was. Not. Pretty.

So, yeah. Toy Story 3 gets me in the feels.

And one of the things that made Toy Story 3 so great when it first came out was just the timing of it. They aimed the movie squarely at people who had loved the movies as children and had since grown up, maybe gone to university like Andy, chucked out their old toys and developed a (possibly unhealthy) level of nostalgia for their childhoods. It meant that, perhaps even more than most Pixar films, Toy Story 3 appealed to adults as much as children (and obviously I was one of those hapless adults). It told us, ‘It’s OK that you still love movies like this. You’ve grown up and moved on, but your childhood memories should be loved and celebrated.’

Everything in Toy Story 3 points you towards this being the end of a story. Not only do the characters all but turn to the camera and tell you, ‘We all have to grow up and move on’, but the film also contains callouts to things that happened in the first two films, riffs on old jokes, pathos and sentimentality in quantities not present in the first two Toy Stories, and an almost Lord of the Rings-length ‘goodbye’ scene. This is the end of this story, and it’s pretty much perfect.

Toy Story 3 takes the themes that 1 and 2 examined (growing up, friendship, loss) and brings them to their emotional conclusion. There could hardly be a more literal realisation of the themes of loss, acceptance and moving on than the character of Lotso, or the toys literally joining hands to accept their fate in the incinerator. Our boy Woody has gone from the selfish, jealous toy he was at the beginning of Toy Story, to a guy who is willing to accept anything, even death, so long as he’s side by side with his friends, because his life was worth something and is complete. The film is a long, emotional goodbye, which I love and which punches me in the gut every time I watch it. It’s a perfect ending.

Hang on...there’s going to be a Toy Story 4??


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *The Princess and the Frog (2009)*
> 
> We’re back eith the good stuff! Walt Disney Animation Studios, how I’ve missed you, but you’re back back back!
> 
> Princess and the Frog is a gorgeous film! I have so missed 2D animation, both in this marathon and in real life. I wish this wasn't Disney’s last 2D animated film, but if it is, it’s a banger to go out on. Overall it feels old-school; it feels like what Disney does best. It feels like a little bit of nostalgia for my childhood - which as you all know by now, is a big plus for me!
> 
> First, the story. Maybe it’s not Disney’s most exciting one, and it does take a bit of time to get going, but it’s got all the ingredients that make that Disney magic: romance, humour, literal magic and some brilliant dark elements too. It’s maybe the voodoo aspects that really bring Princess and the Frog to life and make it stand out. Dr Facilier is a fantastically charismatic villain and the animation of him, his shadow and his ‘friends on the other side’ is probably the best in the whole film. I love when Disney really leans into the dark side - they do it so well! The animation overall is stellar in The Princess and the Frog - it really makes me want to visit New Orleans!
> 
> Tiana is a great heroine, and really holds her own among the other Disney princesses - she’s certainly the best dressed! She is a lovely role model to be Disney’s first African-American princess being a bit more of a grown up and a realist than some of the other princesses. And although there are other Disney princesses of colour, Tiana is maybe the first to be less obviously sexualised in the way she looks.
> 
> The other characters are good too, though apart from Ray they don’t massively stand out. Ray is adorable and so well-performed! If you want to make your character likeable have them voiced by Jim Cummings - he is the Tom Hanks of voice actors. Lottie is also great fun, and again, it’s the performance that makes her what she is. Come to think of it, the rest of the supporting characters are all pretty great!
> 
> The songs are pretty good and help to anchor the film in its setting - which is so important in this movie - but are maybe not up there with the real greats from Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast et al. I like Almost There, Down in New Orleans and Friends on the Other Side, but When We’re Human and Gonna Take You There are less strong. I also think the singers really help to elevate some of the songs - in particular Jim Cummings and Jenifer Lewis (who voices Mama Odie) - and combined with the animation, make middling songs seem really magical and cool.
> 
> Overall, I really like The Princess and the Frog. Maybe if it had come out in the 90s it wouldn’t seem quite so special to me, but it wouldn’t be out of place either. Maybe at the time people thought the movie was old-fashioned, because it felt so old-school, and that’s why it didn’t do spectacularly well. The fact that it didn't do all that well seems to have effectively killed off 2D animation, which is a total tragedy and, I believe, a mistake. There’s no denying the importance of ‘the nostalgia factor’ in a lot of popular media these days, but maybe Disney could take inspiration from this to start producing some top quality Princess and the Frog-style 2D-animated films...rather than just remaking the already-perfect 90s films using 3D animation. Just a thought.



Princess and the Frog is a pretty good movie, getting back to that "Dinsey Formula" while also using a bit of a different setting. It's fun, and very beautiful. I've actually only seen this one once, but it is good. It has some great musical performances, evne if a lot of the music isn't quite to my tastes. It does seem that this was the swan song for theatrical 2-D animation, but at least it went out on a high!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Toy Story 3 (2010)*
> 
> When Toy Story 3 came out, every damn thing was getting a franchise. Lord of the Rings had made everyone think that if you could split your idea into several bits, and hopefully keep it going forever, you were bound to make more money out of it. Harry Potter was split into 8 films from 7 books, Twilight was split into lord knows how many (12?) films, Pirates of the Caribbean was due its fourth doomed attempt, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe was really getting underway. Nobody seemed to want things to just end any more. And then Toy Story 3 came along and taught us that endings are necessary and beautiful, and nothing to be afraid of.
> 
> The first time I saw Toy Story 3 I was with my little sis (not the one who has been watching these movies with me) and we had been drinking for several hours leading up to going to the cinema. We also took a bottle of red wine into the cinema and proceeded to play the Toy Story 3 Drinking Game, which we had found online and which seemed like an excellent idea at the time.
> 
> There were three things that really ruined our evening that day:
> 
> The first was Rule 1: Drink whenever a character mentions the name Andy - if you haven't played this game you might not have noticed it, but during the first third of the movie people are mentioning Andy pretty much every three sentences or so. “Come on, guys, we have to be there for Andy!” “Andy’s all grown up and going to college.” “Andy was throwing us away!” Andy, Andy, Andy. It wasn't pretty.
> 
> The second was Rule 4: You had to drink every time Big Baby came on screen, and keep drinking the whole time he was in the shot. Oh boy.
> 
> The third was that for the first time I, a grown *** woman, not only cried at the cinema, but stumbled from said cinema tears still streaming from my eyes, leaning on my sister, choking and sobbing. It. Was. Not. Pretty.
> 
> So, yeah. Toy Story 3 gets me in the feels.
> 
> And one of the things that made Toy Story 3 so great when it first came out was just the timing of it. They aimed the movie squarely at people who had loved the movies as children and had since grown up, maybe gone to university like Andy, chucked out their old toys and developed a (possibly unhealthy) level of nostalgia for their childhoods. It meant that, perhaps even more than most Pixar films, Toy Story 3 appealed to adults as much as children (and obviously I was one of those hapless adults). It told us, ‘It’s OK that you still love movies like this. You’ve grown up and moved on, but your childhood memories should be loved and celebrated.’
> 
> Everything in Toy Story 3 points you towards this being the end of a story. Not only do the characters all but turn to the camera and tell you, ‘We all have to grow up and move on’, but the film also contains callouts to things that happened in the first two films, riffs on old jokes, pathos and sentimentality in quantities not present in the first two Toy Stories, and an almost Lord of the Rings-length ‘goodbye’ scene. This is the end of this story, and it’s pretty much perfect.
> 
> Toy Story 3 takes the themes that 1 and 2 examined (growing up, friendship, loss) and brings them to their emotional conclusion. There could hardly be a more literal realisation of the themes of loss, acceptance and moving on than the character of Lotso, or the toys literally joining hands to accept their fate in the incinerator. Our boy Woody has gone from the selfish, jealous toy he was at the beginning of Toy Story, to a guy who is willing to accept anything, even death, so long as he’s side by side with his friends, because his life was worth something and is complete. The film is a long, emotional goodbye, which I love and which punches me in the gut every time I watch it. It’s a perfect ending.
> 
> Hang on...there’s going to be a Toy Story 4??



I only saw this recently, along with Toy Story 2. It is in fact really good, and a bit harrowing at the end. It will definitely stir up the feelings! Toy Story is always solid, so I don't know that there is all the much to add here. It's just brilliant work from the team at Pixar.


----------



## Micca

Princess & The Frog -- Yay for old school animation, especially when it's this well done.   I also have only seen this once, but I own it and will watch it again at some point.

TS3 -- It's very good but TS2 remains my favorite.  It's a beloved franchise for sure, let's hope TS4 doesn't tarnish it.


----------



## TheStarscream759

The Princess and the Frog - Oh my god the return of traditionally hand drawn animation, brilliant story, relatable characters and an awesome villain! I swear it must Princess and the Frog appreciation week for me because not only did I see this when it first came out in 2009 but I've also had an event centered around this movie for Disney Magic Kingdoms! This is a great hit from start to finish, Dr Facilier is probably one of the better villains of the late 2000s, Tiana is a strong character that I think she could a good role model for little girls. It's fun, so vibrant and it makes me wanna go to New Orleans. Its that good I'll probably order a DVD copy of it on Amazon.

Toy Story 3 - Possibly the darkest out of all the Toy Story films and I will not lie was kind of sad at the end. Its probably the best in the series and I'm really 4 does good in the cinemas.


----------



## RSandRS

*Tangled (2010)*

So we watched Tangled last night, and I thought I might grab a few minutes to write about it this morning, as it’s unlikely to happen during the week. The end is almost in sight with these reviews now, and I don’t want us to run out of steam too much!

Tangled is a nice film. It’s fine. Erm...that’s kind of it. You need more? OK.

As far as story goes, it’s very traditional, holding all the familiar beats of a Disney-style coming-of-age story. Rapunzel is the traditional naive Disney heroine (in the style of Ariel or Cinderella or whoever) who wants something ‘more’, sings about it, and then meets up with plot (in the form of a handsome man) in order to be ushered along to her happy ending in the form of love and marriage, defeating the villain along the way. They certainly weren’t trying anything new here, and though they made some interesting choices that make the film very watchable, it’s too by-the-numbers and unambitious to really stand out among Disney’s greats.

The main three characters of the film are good, but let’s deal with them in a second. The second-tier characters of Tangled are very forgettable indeed. Although the idea of the Snuggly duckling ruffians is a fun one, none of them makes much of an impression - they are just a group of ugly people who are useful to our good-looking heroes. Pascal is maybe the least interesting Disney sidekick yet - he doesn’t even really have a personality. He’s just there to sell accessories. Maximus is a bit better, but he’s not enough. Of course Tangled is a very simple story, and maybe doesn’t need loads of interesting characters, but it does contribute to the overall lack of ambition about this film.

The three main characters are much better. Rapunzel is cute and certainly isn’t a damsel in distress - she’s very likeable, though that may be it in terms of her personality. Flynn Rider and Mother Gothel are the really good characters in this movie. Flynn is one of the hottest Disney princes (apart from Li Shang because dayummm) and provides the acerbic humour the movie needs to stop it from being too nicey-nicey. Mother Gothel is interesting because she’s an altogether evil, traditional Disney villain, like Ursula or Maleficent, but doesn’t have powers or grand ambitions like them. She doesn’t want to rule the Kingdom or kill anybody, she just wants to stay young and hers is a much more grounded and believable type of evil, based on manipulation of a child. And although the woman who voices her makes her delightfully evil (especially in Mother Knows Best, which is a fantastic song), she also gives her moments of chilling believability that make her really quite scary.

The animation of the film is probably one of the most bla things about it. Disney seems to have more trouble creating an individual look and feel for computer animated films than it did for its 2D animated ones. When you think about how much character The Princess and the Frog’s artwork has when compared to Tangled, the bland prettiness of it stands out even more. Tangled could easily take place in the same universe as Frozen (and does according to many internet theories) or even How to Train Your Dragon - which isn’t even from the same studio! It’s good animation, and worlds away from what they achieved only a few years before in Meet the Robinsons, but it’s nothing to rave about.

In terms of the music, this is a pretty good one. Alan is once again in charge and comes up with a clutch of great songs, that move the story along, help us understand the characters, and just feel so...Disney! It’s very satisfying. Again these songs could maybe be accused of being a tiny bit safe, but they suit the tone of the film perfectly and the cast perform them very well. Or am I just allowing my love of musicals to run away with me? The soundtrack music is far better than it needed to be - that sequence where they dance in the town square is absolutely gorgeous!

Overall Tangled is a nice and very sweet movie. I’ve watched it quite a few times and will probably watch it again. It requires nothing from me, except to enjoy it, to sing along and to go ‘aww’. Definitely a successful Disney film, but not one of their masterpieces.


----------



## RSandRS

TheStarscream759 said:


> The Princess and the Frog - Oh my god the return of traditionally hand drawn animation, brilliant story, relatable characters and an awesome villain! I swear it must Princess and the Frog appreciation week for me because not only did I see this when it first came out in 2009 but I've also had an event centered around this movie for Disney Magic Kingdoms! This is a great hit from start to finish, Dr Facilier is probably one of the better villains of the late 2000s, Tiana is a strong character that I think she could a good role model for little girls. It's fun, so vibrant and it makes me wanna go to New Orleans. Its that good I'll probably order a DVD copy of it on Amazon.
> 
> Toy Story 3 - Possibly the darkest out of all the Toy Story films and I will not lie was kind of sad at the end. Its probably the best in the series and I'm really 4 does good in the cinemas.



With Toy Story 4 (if they have to do it!) I really hope they go down the route of questioning, what actually is a toy? and when does something become a toy? as suggested by the trailers-Pixar can do the philosophical and make it understandable like nobody else!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Tangled (2010)*
> 
> So we watched Tangled last night, and I thought I might grab a few minutes to write about it this morning, as it’s unlikely to happen during the week. The end is almost in sight with these reviews now, and I don’t want us to run out of steam too much!
> 
> Tangled is a nice film. It’s fine. Erm...that’s kind of it. You need more? OK.
> 
> As far as story goes, it’s very traditional, holding all the familiar beats of a Disney-style coming-of-age story. Rapunzel is the traditional naive Disney heroine (in the style of Ariel or Cinderella or whoever) who wants something ‘more’, sings about it, and then meets up with plot (in the form of a handsome man) in order to be ushered along to her happy ending in the form of love and marriage, defeating the villain along the way. They certainly weren’t trying anything new here, and though they made some interesting choices that make the film very watchable, it’s too by-the-numbers and unambitious to really stand out among Disney’s greats.
> 
> The main three characters of the film are good, but let’s deal with them in a second. The second-tier characters of Tangled are very forgettable indeed. Although the idea of the Snuggly duckling ruffians is a fun one, none of them makes much of an impression - they are just a group of ugly people who are useful to our good-looking heroes. Pascal is maybe the least interesting Disney sidekick yet - he doesn’t even really have a personality. He’s just there to sell accessories. Maximus is a bit better, but he’s not enough. Of course Tangled is a very simple story, and maybe doesn’t need loads of interesting characters, but it does contribute to the overall lack of ambition about this film.
> 
> The three main characters are much better. Rapunzel is cute and certainly isn’t a damsel in distress - she’s very likeable, though that may be it in terms of her personality. Flynn Rider and Mother Gothel are the really good characters in this movie. Flynn is one of the hottest Disney princes (apart from Li Shang because dayummm) and provides the acerbic humour the movie needs to stop it from being too nicey-nicey. Mother Gothel is interesting because she’s an altogether evil, traditional Disney villain, like Ursula or Maleficent, but doesn’t have powers or grand ambitions like them. She doesn’t want to rule the Kingdom or kill anybody, she just wants to stay young and hers is a much more grounded and believable type of evil, based on manipulation of a child. And although the woman who voices her makes her delightfully evil (especially in Mother Knows Best, which is a fantastic song), she also gives her moments of chilling believability that make her really quite scary.
> 
> The animation of the film is probably one of the most bla things about it. Disney seems to have more trouble creating an individual look and feel for computer animated films than it did for its 2D animated ones. When you think about how much character The Princess and the Frog’s artwork has when compared to Tangled, the bland prettiness of it stands out even more. Tangled could easily take place in the same universe as Frozen (and does according to many internet theories) or even How to Train Your Dragon - which isn’t even from the same studio! It’s good animation, and worlds away from what they achieved only a few years before in Meet the Robinsons, but it’s nothing to rave about.
> 
> In terms of the music, this is a pretty good one. Alan is once again in charge and comes up with a clutch of great songs, that move the story along, help us understand the characters, and just feel so...Disney! It’s very satisfying. Again these songs could maybe be accused of being a tiny bit safe, but they suit the tone of the film perfectly and the cast perform them very well. Or am I just allowing my love of musicals to run away with me? The soundtrack music is far better than it needed to be - that sequence where they dance in the town square is absolutely gorgeous!
> 
> Overall Tangled is a nice and very sweet movie. I’ve watched it quite a few times and will probably watch it again. It requires nothing from me, except to enjoy it, to sing along and to go ‘aww’. Definitely a successful Disney film, but not one of their masterpieces.



I'm a little taken aback by your review of Tangled here? "Bla?" "Unambitious?" I can't even believe we're talking about the same movie. Yes, the Disney formula is in full swing, but that's a *good* thing after the recent slate. The movie looks absolutely beautiful, with it's watercolor palette and soft edges. The fact that they took the plot and "tangled" it into more of a crowd-pleaser, and that it came out so strong, is a testament to the heart that went into the movie. Of course, the return of Alan Menkin brings the strongest suite of songs in a while (in fact quite brilliant ones), and they help the movie move along with a verve and energy rarely seen in animation at that point. Tangled is a revolutionary film for both Disney and animation in general. If Princess and the Frog was the official start to the "Second Disney Renaissance" then Tangled is solid proof of that continued resurgence.

In a side note, Tangled: The Series is absolutely fabulous. If you don't watch it, you should.


----------



## Micca

RSandRS said:


> Tangled is a nice film. It’s fine


That's sort of my feeling too, I have the disc and kind of half watched it a couple of times, I wasn't enamored with it.


BrianL said:


> The movie looks absolutely beautiful, with it's watercolor palette and soft edges. The fact that they took the plot and "tangled" it into more of a crowd-pleaser, and that it came out so strong, is a testament to the heart that went into the movie.


Well I'm going to watch it again with fresh eyes


----------



## TheStarscream759

Tangled is a great film, beautiful animation, Rapunzel is adorable, Flynn Rider is one of my favourite Disney characters, and it's a film I wish I saw in cinemas because I ended up seeing it on rented DVD in my own home and it was so good I even got my own copy of it.


----------



## BrianL

TheStarscream759 said:


> Tangled is a great film, beautiful animation, Rapunzel is adorable, Flynn Rider is one of my favourite Disney characters, and it's a film I wish I saw in cinemas because I ended up seeing it on rented DVD in my own home and it was so good I even got my own copy of it.



I missed this in theaters too. I wasn't quite the Disney Maniac I am today. In fact, I credit this movie with helping to reignite that spark. A friend had told me it was a great movie. I ended up with a rare weekend evening with no friends wanting to hang out. I rented the movie (blu-ray at least) and watched it. I was blown away! I had been unsure about the CG, and after Disney's previous attempts who can blame me? This is the movie where they surpassed Dreamworks and even Pixar, and they haven't looked back!


----------



## TheStarscream759

BrianL said:


> I missed this in theaters too. I wasn't quite the Disney Maniac I am today. In fact, I credit this movie with helping to reignite that spark. A friend had told me it was a great movie. I ended up with a rare weekend evening with no friends wanting to hang out. I rented the movie (blu-ray at least) and watched it. I was blown away! I had been unsure about the CG, and after Disney's previous attempts who can blame me? This is the movie where they surpassed Dreamworks and even Pixar, and they haven't looked back!


 The funny thing is I was still into Disney movies I went to see Tron Legacy and that trailer where it just featured Flynn and Maximus for the most part was actually shown before the film. And it was in the same year that both films came out.


----------



## RSandRS

Tangled is really good. I guess it's just not special for me. Its got a lot of good ingredients and nice characters, but I guess it doesn't wow me like I know Disney can wow me!


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> I'm a little taken aback by your review of Tangled here? "Bla?" "Unambitious?" I can't even believe we're talking about the same movie. Yes, the Disney formula is in full swing, but that's a *good* thing after the recent slate. The movie looks absolutely beautiful, with it's watercolor palette and soft edges. The fact that they took the plot and "tangled" it into more of a crowd-pleaser, and that it came out so strong, is a testament to the heart that went into the movie. Of course, the return of Alan Menkin brings the strongest suite of songs in a while (in fact quite brilliant ones), and they help the movie move along with a verve and energy rarely seen in animation at that point. Tangled is a revolutionary film for both Disney and animation in general. If Princess and the Frog was the official start to the "Second Disney Renaissance" then Tangled is solid proof of that continued resurgence.
> 
> In a side note, Tangled: The Series is absolutely fabulous. If you don't watch it, you should.



Never watched this! I think I heard the theme song once and thought it was great so will have to give it a shot! I know its on DisneyLife.


----------



## RSandRS

*Cars 2 (2011)*

Clearly Tangled split opinion between nice/good and excellent! Lets see where we are with Pixar's latest!

Cars 2 is not that great. Not that I was expecting much from a Cars sequel, as Cars itself is so average, but any film that is so underwhelming and ill-thought out from such a brilliant studio as Pixar is extremely disappointing.

In terms of positives, there’s really only one that I can think of: the movie looks spectacular. The backgrounds are gorgeous, and setting the film in various visually-exciting cities is a great opportunity for Pixar to really show off what they can do. There’s lots of big wide shots that linger just a moment or two too long, as if to say, ‘Look how clever we are!’ And they are very very clever, so thats all good! Love the allusion to Ratatouille!

Not so much in terms of story or character for this movie, however. Cars 2 definitely bucks the Pixar trend of creating a grounded, realistic dilemma that people can identify with and then making it about fish or something, and not in a good way. One of the biggest crimes of Cars 2 is that you could replace the cars with literally anything else and the film would be exactly the same. Cars 1 used the metaphor of Route 66 to discuss themes like the decline of small-town living and dealing with the pace of change.

We also certainly didn’t need to involve any of the characters from the first film. Or motor racing. Honestly Cars 2 has nothing to do with Cars. It doesn’t develop the themes of the first one, it doesn’t take the characters on new journeys and challenge their views...in fact it’s quite difficult to put your finger on what Cars 2 is about at all. A massive amount happens, but none of it seems to be in service of any particular message. Someone wanted to make a spy caper. That’s it. In itself this is not a problem, but its not always a fun caper!

Another big mistake of the film is to base it around Mater. Mater is a bit irritating in the first movie, but not overly, he actually proves to be cannier than he appears. This is not the case in Cars 2. Not only is he even more prone to mishap than in Cars throughout the whole movie (meaning that the joke really wears thin), but he lucks into a lot of solutions to problems, and the other characters are constantly telling him how brilliant he is. The movie really wants us to think he’s great, and that Lightning McQueen is a d-bag for trying to get rid of him, but the truth is that he’s just very annoying, and if he were your friend you’d want to get rid of him too.

And not to keep going on and on about the Mater problem, but the two main additional characters that have been added for this movie, the two British spies, unfortunately only end up making him even more irritating. They infuriatingly keep thinking he’s lying when he says he’s just a tow-truck, and not a spy, just because the plot requires it, and of course his simple wisdom ends up saving the day, because  Mater can apparently do things that British Intelligence isn’t capable of. It means that the film ends up becoming one of those annoying narratives where a free-spirited American comes and rescues the Brits from our stiff upper lips and teaches us all how to see the world in a way that had never occurred to us before. This is a common theme in movies! We are either the genius bad guys (bad guys is totally true-although we are not so genius!) or need to be taught to loosen up! This is not actually an issue Brits have we are all completely bonkers, its just a different sense of humour!

So yeah, Cars 2: not amazing. Pixar, we expect better. See me after class.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> Never watched this! I think I heard the theme song once and thought it was great so will have to give it a shot! I know its on DisneyLife.



Alan Menkin did the theme song and several other songs that crop up throughout the run of the series. It is really well done.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Cars 2 (2011)*
> 
> Clearly Tangled split opinion between nice/good and excellent! Lets see where we are with Pixar's latest!
> 
> Cars 2 is not that great. Not that I was expecting much from a Cars sequel, as Cars itself is so average, but any film that is so underwhelming and ill-thought out from such a brilliant studio as Pixar is extremely disappointing.
> 
> In terms of positives, there’s really only one that I can think of: the movie looks spectacular. The backgrounds are gorgeous, and setting the film in various visually-exciting cities is a great opportunity for Pixar to really show off what they can do. There’s lots of big wide shots that linger just a moment or two too long, as if to say, ‘Look how clever we are!’ And they are very very clever, so thats all good! Love the allusion to Ratatouille!
> 
> Not so much in terms of story or character for this movie, however. Cars 2 definitely bucks the Pixar trend of creating a grounded, realistic dilemma that people can identify with and then making it about fish or something, and not in a good way. One of the biggest crimes of Cars 2 is that you could replace the cars with literally anything else and the film would be exactly the same. Cars 1 used the metaphor of Route 66 to discuss themes like the decline of small-town living and dealing with the pace of change.
> 
> We also certainly didn’t need to involve any of the characters from the first film. Or motor racing. Honestly Cars 2 has nothing to do with Cars. It doesn’t develop the themes of the first one, it doesn’t take the characters on new journeys and challenge their views...in fact it’s quite difficult to put your finger on what Cars 2 is about at all. A massive amount happens, but none of it seems to be in service of any particular message. Someone wanted to make a spy caper. That’s it. In itself this is not a problem, but its not always a fun caper!
> 
> Another big mistake of the film is to base it around Mater. Mater is a bit irritating in the first movie, but not overly, he actually proves to be cannier than he appears. This is not the case in Cars 2. Not only is he even more prone to mishap than in Cars throughout the whole movie (meaning that the joke really wears thin), but he lucks into a lot of solutions to problems, and the other characters are constantly telling him how brilliant he is. The movie really wants us to think he’s great, and that Lightning McQueen is a d-bag for trying to get rid of him, but the truth is that he’s just very annoying, and if he were your friend you’d want to get rid of him too.
> 
> And not to keep going on and on about the Mater problem, but the two main additional characters that have been added for this movie, the two British spies, unfortunately only end up making him even more irritating. They infuriatingly keep thinking he’s lying when he says he’s just a tow-truck, and not a spy, just because the plot requires it, and of course his simple wisdom ends up saving the day, because  Mater can apparently do things that British Intelligence isn’t capable of. It means that the film ends up becoming one of those annoying narratives where a free-spirited American comes and rescues the Brits from our stiff upper lips and teaches us all how to see the world in a way that had never occurred to us before. This is a common theme in movies! We are either the genius bad guys (bad guys is totally true-although we are not so genius!) or need to be taught to loosen up! This is not actually an issue Brits have we are all completely bonkers, its just a different sense of humour!
> 
> So yeah, Cars 2: not amazing. Pixar, we expect better. See me after class.



I can agree somewhat. Cars 2 does have a theme though, and that is about friendship. Mater feels slighted by Lightning, though he deals with it in a pretty immature manner. That said, the general antics of Mater wear thin. He's great in small doses, but he can't carry an entire movie. The world they created is cool. I love the "James Bond" car and such, but the story doesn't really come together all that well. I think it's an okay movie, especially for kids, but it doesn't even raise to the heights of Cars 1, which isn't really all that special either. It's pretty mediocre.


----------



## Micca

In keeping with my policy of "no sequels" I haven't seen Cars 2 or 3.  I think the motivation for these films was "move more merch" which I'm sure paid-off handsomely.


----------



## BrianL

Micca said:


> In keeping with my policy of "no sequels" I haven't seen Cars 2 or 3.  I think the motivation for these films was "move more merch" which I'm sure paid-off handsomely.



Cars 3 is actually much better than 2. It has more heart and is more like the first one. I don't think sequels are automatically a bad thing, but in the case of Cars 2, it wasn't the best. It feels a bit like one of the direct-to-video efforts from a story perspective. It's okay, just not great.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Cars 2,the black sheep of Pixar movies, and the one that put Pixar on a bit of low streak for a time. Well...not low but the following films were definitely not as good as the previous ones. Why did they make this a spy flick? It has no reason to be here, intrusive and just feels nothing like Cars. I don't like Mater as a character and in this movie he's at his worst here. It's a good thing the third move doesn't even acknowledge this because this angle of Mater being a super spy does not work with the idea of Cars.

When I saw teasers for this I was like: "They can't be serious with this premise, this has got to be a joke." It's just not worth seeing.


----------



## RSandRS

Micca said:


> In keeping with my policy of "no sequels" I haven't seen Cars 2 or 3.  I think the motivation for these films was "move more merch" which I'm sure paid-off handsomely.



Just rechecking, does this also apply to Toy Story? Those are the only sequels where you could argue the sequels were better, I would think. Although I do have a soft spot for Rescuers Down Under and thats a fav. Not sure that there are others though which beat the original. Cannot think of any off the top of my head.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Cars 3 is actually much better than 2. It has more heart and is more like the first one. I don't think sequels are automatically a bad thing, but in the case of Cars 2, it wasn't the best. It feels a bit like one of the direct-to-video efforts from a story perspective. It's okay, just not great.



Agree Cars 3 is more fun and has more heart. That one (whenever we get to it) will be a good watch.


----------



## RSandRS

Will have to get round to watching more this weekend...No idea whats next...


----------



## Micca

RSandRS said:


> Just rechecking, does this also apply to Toy Story?


Well, no it doesn't   I guess when I think sequels I'm thinking more of the direct-to-video things and sequels that come decades after the original (lookin' at you Bambi II)  But I haven't seen Wreck It Ralph 2 because I thought I'd get around to watching the first one at some point.  I haven't seen Incredibles 2 but I loved the first one.  I'm guess my policy is inconsistent.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Micca said:


> Well, no it doesn't   I guess when I think sequels I'm thinking more of the direct-to-video things and sequels that come decades after the original (lookin' at you Bambi II)  But I haven't seen Wreck It Ralph 2 because I thought I'd get around to watching the first one at some point.  I haven't seen Incredibles 2 but I loved the first one.  I'm guess my policy is inconsistent.


 If your talking about Direct to Disney sequels, I'd say Aladdin and the King of Thieves is pretty good. Animation is almost on level with the original, they got Robin Williams to voice the Genie again, Sa'luk is a pretty threatening opponent for Aladdin and Co and the plot involving Cassim and the Hand of Midas is very interesting and develops Aladdin as a character for me.


----------



## RSandRS

TheStarscream759 said:


> If your talking about Direct to Disney sequels, I'd say Aladdin and the King of Thieves is pretty good. Animation is almost on level with the original, they got Robin Williams to voice the Genie again, Sa'luk is a pretty threatening opponent for Aladdin and Co and the plot involving Cassim and the Hand of Midas is very interesting and develops Aladdin as a character for me.



Yeah that one is definitely good!


----------



## RSandRS

Micca said:


> Well, no it doesn't   I guess when I think sequels I'm thinking more of the direct-to-video things and sequels that come decades after the original (lookin' at you Bambi II)  But I haven't seen Wreck It Ralph 2 because I thought I'd get around to watching the first one at some point.  I haven't seen Incredibles 2 but I loved the first one.  I'm guess my policy is inconsistent.



Avoiding in general is a good policy...We had probably the 5th Winnie the Pooh movie this weekend and it might hve grated  Review to come...


----------



## Micca

TheStarscream759 said:


> If your talking about Direct to Disney sequels, I'd say Aladdin and the King of Thieves is pretty good. Animation is almost on level with the original, they got Robin Williams to voice the Genie again,


Funny you'd mention that one, I owned both of the Aladdin sequels on laserdisc  and thought King Of Thieves was good.  Haven't seen either of the sequels in many years but I recall the animation was clearly inferior to the Aladdin movie.  

Are we getting a re-release of Aladdin anytime soon?  Those direct-to-video features would be nice bonus material.


----------



## TheStarscream759

I still can't believe I had Lady and the Tramp 2 on VHS when I was younger. Same with Belle's Enchanted Christmas and yet I kept on watching them.


----------



## Micca

TheStarscream759 said:


> Belle's Enchanted Christmas


Going by memory, Belle's Enchanted Christmas was among the first DVDs issued by Disney.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Micca said:


> Going by memory, Belle's Enchanted Christmas was among the first DVDs issued by Disney.


 Huh, is that right?


----------



## RSandRS

*Winnie the Pooh (2011)*

Well term is finally over! So I should be able to keep this up better!

Yes, there is another movie in the Poohniverse, and yes it is animated using traditional 2D animation, making this officially Disney’s last 2D animated film SO FAR!

This is the Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban of the Poohniverse movies though because...this is the one where things gets dark! Pooh and friends...kill a guy.

Nah I’m just kidding. Tbh we didn’t watch this one all the way through because it was just too boring. Note! This is the first time we have done this in I don't know how many films at this point! Remember we even sat through 'Victory Through Air Power'... It’s still probably not as bad as The Tigger Movie, but I think we’re just a bit fed up with these by now, as they have become very formulaic. The formula is thus: pull a couple of stories from the original books for B plot material (so parents can have a nostalgic sigh or two) and then pad out the rest of the runtime with a repetitive story where the characters become unreasonably terrified by the prospect of change, in the form of some kind of foreign element. They then hatch a plan to capture the offending foreigner, which inevitably goes wrong. In previous movies this immigrant backlash was directed against Kanga and Roo and then the heffalump; in this movie it’s the ‘backson’. The climax of the story is always that the terrifying foreigner turns out to be nice, so we can all learn a valuable lesson about xenophobia. And there’s usually a bit where Pooh gets into some hijinks with a beehive. I am definitely in favour of this message being given to kids, but it needs a shakeup here in terms of plotting and character. It's also a bit difficult to like the Pooh gang when they are repeatedly against change and outsiders.

As I said, we didn’t watch this Winnie the Pooh all the way through and skipped bits (could be misjudging this!), but I’d be willing to bet decent amounts of cash that the plot is pretty much the same as the one I’ve outlined above.

The only difference in this movie is that you don’t actually see the ‘backson’, and assume that it is something that owl has invented (owl takes the place of rabbit in this movie as chief xenophobe), until the post-credits sequence, where the backson appears and falls into the trap that the 100-Acre-Wood gang have created, where he will likely starve and die. So TWIST! Maybe they do kill a guy!...Apologies I could not help myself I had to go dark with this


----------



## RSandRS

*Brave (2012)*

On the same evening that we decisively failed to watch Winnie the Pooh, we watched Brave. Both of us had watched it a few times before, and as usual we felt that, while it’s a stunning film in a lot of ways, there’s something lacking about Brave that you can’t quite put your finger on.

Of course the film is stunning to look at. It really captures the beauty of Scotland, including what must be some real locations, or at least inspired by them. The movie really leans into this, with various montages accompanied by stirring folk-inspired music to help you appreciate them. The look of the film is its defining feature, which makes me wonder if perhaps this movie is more of a technical exercise, showcasing what can be done with 3D animation, than an organic, holistic whole, comprising story, visuals, music etc.

This having been said, the two main characters are extremely well realised. I have a soft spot for Merida because I also have an uncontrollable mane of long hair, and she certainly is an interesting character, her mum too. Both are extremely self-reliant and strong-willed but in opposite ways, which is a nice touch. It’s good to see truly flawed and complex female characters, representing real-world issues that women face. It’s also quite unusual to have a mother-daughter relationship be the central focus of a movie, especially in a kid’s movie. I think maybe they made Merida a smidge too young, as her mum trying to persuade her to get married at 16 does seem a bit crazy, but the movie seems to be set some time before the Norman Conquest, so it’s probably historically accurate. I’m never sure whether Disney films are trying to be historically accurate or not, and I think this might be Pixar’s first specifically historical film. It’s one of the ways the film sometimes feel a bit more like a Disney than a Pixar.

The music is pretty good and hits all the right beats. I really like folk music, so this should thoroughly appeal to me, and for the most part really does.

The issue for me is the story - it’s just too weird. I’m not sure where the bear idea came from - is it a metaphor? There is a powerful message in there somewhere about not forgetting to communicate, or we’ll stop being able to understand each other, but the bear thing is maybe a bit too extreme. We slightly lose the communication message when the ferocity of the Elinor-bear starts taking over. Is she turning savage because she’s a bear, or for some other reason?  

I also feel that apart from the Merida-Elinor relationship, the movie doesn’t really have much going for it. The comedy antics of the clan chiefs are not very funny, the joke mostly boiling down to: ‘Look they’re Scottish! Isn’t that hilarious? Haggis! Kilts! Funny accents! Billy Connolly shouting!’ Some of it lands, but some of it’s just silly, and none of it has very much to do with the central conflict. The three brothers are definitely funnier, but again don’t have much to do with the story. 

Overall I really like Brave, but I can’t bring myself to love it. The message of the film doesn’t quite land, and it feels like a bit of a missed opportunity or, ironically, a failure to communicate. The story about mothers and daughters is one that resonates with me, and I’m sure with a lot of girls and women and is actually a 'brave' choice for a film, but the waters have been muddied by somewhat undercooked and confused ideas.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Winnie the Pooh - Really have no idea why you needed to be "dark" there because honestly I don't think there's much to say about this movie from Pooh, it's simple and pretty much what you'd expect a Winnie the Pooh movie to be. It's enjoyable as a movie but it really doesn't have that much to offer for an adult. It's a shame it was paired up with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows when it was released because it ultimately destroyed Winnie the Pooh at the box office and afterwards there were no more traditional animated films afterwards. The plot is basically Pooh and the gang mistake a note from Christopher Robin as a message that he got captured by a creature that doesn't exist and they go on an adventure to stop said creature and oh Pooh wants honey as well. That's basically it. Not much to say like I say, it's a good movie, not a meaty one for the Disney canon but if you like Winnie the Pooh then you'll enjoy it if not then there's always other films in the animated canon. 

Brave - This was eh. What a waste of potential this film was. I really do like Merida, King Fergus and the Chief of the three clans they were always good for a laugh, I enjoyed the first half of this movie but once it got to the bear plot then it just became a generic kids movie and the tone shift is very jarring at most. My problem with Brave is that it's not the fact that it's a bad movie again I did like some of it but it's the problem that it's reusing ideas that have already been in Disney movies most of the Princess films and Brother Bear come to mind for me as well as the fact that they wasted some much potential with what they had with the plot of Brave and not fully expanding on ideas that they establish earlier on like the Wisps which were quite mysterious at first but then later become a convienet plot device for later on.

There are people that are pretty split on who was in the right and who was in the wrong when it comes to down to Merida and Queen Elinor and I'm really not gonna go into that because I'll probably be here all day about this. I think the idea of a Mother and Sister relationship is an interesting concept for a movie but I feel like that's the thing they focused on way too much as the film goes on. I mean I'm more interested in the lore of the world they live in and seeing as this is Scotland we are talking about you could've gone to great lengths to make this film epic at least that's how I thought this movie was gonna be, just a strong independent Scottish princess using a bow and arrows going into battle and kicking butt but no it's the same "I don't wanna be married" or "I don't need a man to solve my problems." Look I'm all for strong independent female characters here but I feel like the message of the film got lost in translation was promptly beating me over the head with it and just got ridiculous over time. 

As it stands Brave is an okay movie for me, not terrible, not great but just okay for me. It's a movie that had so much potential and it could've been so much more but ultimately just missed the mark and it's just in the middle in terms of where I rank Pixar movies. Again I liked some of it but I really wish they had gone with more original ideas rather than just recycling other plot points that have already existed in the Disney Animation Canon.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Brave (2012)*
> 
> On the same evening that we decisively failed to watch Winnie the Pooh, we watched Brave. Both of us had watched it a few times before, and as usual we felt that, while it’s a stunning film in a lot of ways, there’s something lacking about Brave that you can’t quite put your finger on.
> 
> Of course the film is stunning to look at. It really captures the beauty of Scotland, including what must be some real locations, or at least inspired by them. The movie really leans into this, with various montages accompanied by stirring folk-inspired music to help you appreciate them. The look of the film is its defining feature, which makes me wonder if perhaps this movie is more of a technical exercise, showcasing what can be done with 3D animation, than an organic, holistic whole, comprising story, visuals, music etc.
> 
> This having been said, the two main characters are extremely well realised. I have a soft spot for Merida because I also have an uncontrollable mane of long hair, and she certainly is an interesting character, her mum too. Both are extremely self-reliant and strong-willed but in opposite ways, which is a nice touch. It’s good to see truly flawed and complex female characters, representing real-world issues that women face. It’s also quite unusual to have a mother-daughter relationship be the central focus of a movie, especially in a kid’s movie. I think maybe they made Merida a smidge too young, as her mum trying to persuade her to get married at 16 does seem a bit crazy, but the movie seems to be set some time before the Norman Conquest, so it’s probably historically accurate. I’m never sure whether Disney films are trying to be historically accurate or not, and I think this might be Pixar’s first specifically historical film. It’s one of the ways the film sometimes feel a bit more like a Disney than a Pixar.
> 
> The music is pretty good and hits all the right beats. I really like folk music, so this should thoroughly appeal to me, and for the most part really does.
> 
> The issue for me is the story - it’s just too weird. I’m not sure where the bear idea came from - is it a metaphor? There is a powerful message in there somewhere about not forgetting to communicate, or we’ll stop being able to understand each other, but the bear thing is maybe a bit too extreme. We slightly lose the communication message when the ferocity of the Elinor-bear starts taking over. Is she turning savage because she’s a bear, or for some other reason?
> 
> I also feel that apart from the Merida-Elinor relationship, the movie doesn’t really have much going for it. The comedy antics of the clan chiefs are not very funny, the joke mostly boiling down to: ‘Look they’re Scottish! Isn’t that hilarious? Haggis! Kilts! Funny accents! Billy Connolly shouting!’ Some of it lands, but some of it’s just silly, and none of it has very much to do with the central conflict. The three brothers are definitely funnier, but again don’t have much to do with the story.
> 
> Overall I really like Brave, but I can’t bring myself to love it. The message of the film doesn’t quite land, and it feels like a bit of a missed opportunity or, ironically, a failure to communicate. The story about mothers and daughters is one that resonates with me, and I’m sure with a lot of girls and women and is actually a 'brave' choice for a film, but the waters have been muddied by somewhat undercooked and confused ideas.




I have not seen the second Winnie the Pooh film, so I really have no comment. I've just never been that into Pooh, so I don't make them a priority.

Anyway, on to Brave. I think I agree with the assessments given that it's a good movie, but not great, though I think I may feel that way for different reasons. I do not really have a problem with the general plot, the mother/dauthger relationship,  of the bear transformations. It your typical "deal with the devil" in that you get what you want, but with unforeseen consequences. It's always funny to me when you notice how young the princesses are to be getting married. Just realize that the settings are medieval times for the most part and that was very common (in fact a 16 year old marrying was quite common until the early 20th Century). Anyway, the movie has it's strong points too. Fergus is pretty great and I particularly enjoy the mischief that her brothers get into. Still, there's something "flat" about this movie. The plot progression is a bit routine I think. There aren't really any surprises. Taking it for what it is, a typical Disney Princess movie, then it's definitely fine. I do really like the song "Touch the Sky." It feels like there may have been more to tell with Brave, though I doubt it's popular enough for a sequel. I did like how Merida's accent was so thick that they couldn't understand her in Ralph Breaks the Internet - nice gag!


----------



## TheStarscream759

BrianL said:


> I have not seen the second Winnie the Pooh film, so I really have no comment. I've just never been that into Pooh, so I don't make them a priority.
> 
> Anyway, on to Brave. I think I agree with the assessments given that it's a good movie, but not great, though I think I may feel that way for different reasons. I do not really have a problem with the general plot, the mother/dauthger relationship,  of the bear transformations. It your typical "deal with the devil" in that you get what you want, but with unforeseen consequences. It's always funny to me when you notice how young the princesses are to be getting married. Just realize that the settings are medieval times for the most part and that was very common (in fact a 16 year old marrying was quite common. Anyway, the movie has it's strong points too. Fergus is pretty great and I particularly enjoy the mischief that her brothers get into. Still, there's something "flat" about this movie. The plot progression is a bit routine I think. There aren't really any surprises. Taking it for what it is, a typical Disney Princess movie, then it's definitely fine. I do really like the song "Touch the Sky." It feels like there may have been more to tell with Brave, though I doubt it's popular enough for a sequel. I did like how Merida's accent was so thick that they couldn't understand her in Ralph Breaks the Internet - nice gag!


 And the funny thing is Kelly MacDonald actually came back to voice Merida in Wreck-It-Ralph 2. Even if it was just a few lines anyway.


----------



## RSandRS

My Dad is Scottish and has a strong accent (makes me half and half!-although from experience it is living in Scotland that makes you count as a 'true Scott'!) and quite a few of the words said in Brave are new to me!


----------



## RSandRS

*The Secret of the Wings (2012)*

We’re back with (a slightly less irritating) Tink again for The Secret of the Wings, which is a somewhat bizarre title. Yes, there’s wings in the movie, but...I dunno, I would have gone with The Secret of Winter, or The One Where Tink Has a Sister, or something.

The quality of the animation takes a noticeable dip in this film. The backgrounds in The Lost Treasure weren’t half bad, but they are a lot less detailed in secret of the Wings. And the characters all look like dollies rather than actual people, which, as we all know, is their ultimate destiny anyway! 7-year-old me is excited to add some winter fairies to my barbie collection.

The big improvement in this movie is Tink herself. She has stopped messing everything up and then being told how wonderful she is for once, and actually has quite a nice, relatable character arc. Her sister is quite sweet too. The other characters are basically cardboard cutouts so there is nothing to say about them. Apart from sexy-Timothy-Dalton-voiced Lord Milori, who is performed by Timothy Dalton and therefore has a sexy voice. (That’s it - the character is still boring, I just thought I’d mention his sexy voice.)

The story is unfortunately a MESS! At least Tinkerbell and the Lost Treasure was coherent. The main problem is the ending, where a big storm appears out of nowhere, promising to be a cause of drama and conflict, but then disappears as suddenly as it appeared for no apparent reason, because who wants drama and conflict in a movie? I’d probably complain about this a bit more, but I didn't really expect much in the first place, and also I probably liked this one best out of the three TinkerBells we’ve watched so far.

You know where you are with a TinkerBell movie, I guess. If you’re hoping for something to keep the kids occupied for a bit while you make the tea (or if you’re looking for ideas on what toys to get your 7-year-old for her birthday), I’d choose Secret of the Wings over the other two we’ve watched, but if you’re looking for quality animated film-making...look elsewhere.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Secret of the Wings - I feel like this one should been after the first movie because as I remember there were Winter Fairies at the very beginning of the first movie as well at Tinker Bell's arrival to Pixie Hollow, plus the fact that Tink herself as well as Clank and Bobble flying over the Winter Woods implies that she's been there before does mean it's a weird sense of being retconned in terms of what happens in the movie. Anyways not really a whole lot happens in this one apart from the whole thing that happens at the end, this one was just OK for me. Wasn't good, wasn't bad just in the middle. I wonder what was going through Timothy Dalton's mind when he decided to voice in this movie, I guess maybe for his kids? I mean he was already in Toy Story 3 as Mr Pricklepants so makes sense. A little retroactive recognition for me nowadays is: Matt Lanter who played Sled, Rosetta's love interest for this one is actually the voice of Anakin Skywalker in the CGI Star Wars Clone Wars series. So yeah it's kind of weird hearing Anakin's voice coming out of Sled. Even as a fan, this was average I did like Periwinkle though and yes she does remind me of Elsa, just a tiny little bit, there were moments I did like about this but I do think it was just average.


----------



## Micca

Well you all know my take on the Tink & Pooh movies--I haven't seen them.  I've only seen parts of Brave and what I saw didn't make me want to watch all of it.   I may get around to seeing it with the grandkids some day--I think it's on the DVR.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Ahhh we are up to Wreck-It-Ralph in the Animated Canon. Hell yeah.


----------



## RSandRS

*Wreck it Ralph (2012)*

Sorry guys - it’s been ages since I posted, and ages since I watched Wreck it Ralph (and the other two movies I’m going to be posting) too. I will try and do better - I really want to get to the end of this marathon now!


So...onto Wreck it Ralph.


Oh hey Disney!! We missed you, where you been, grrrrl?? It doesn’t matter because you are back with a bang!


Wreck it Ralph is really really good. It’s everything a Disney movie ought to be and has so seldom been over the decade or so preceding it: funny, cool, sweet and most of all creative! There is creativity oozing out of every pore of this movie, from the way the different environments look, to the story, to the score to the excellent punnage (seriously, this movie’s pun game is on point)...it’s just all so innovative and brilliant.


I love the way Wreck it Ralph handles the nostalgia factor too. Yes, the movie has lots of references to old video and arcade games, which would probably people growing up in certain decades sighing wistfully, but it doesn’t rely on those references for humour or story beats. They take this idea and make something new and cool out of it (familiar and unfamiliar at the same time), with Fix it Felix Jr and the other games feeling like games you might have played as a kid, but also like totally new worlds. This is also a very joyful version of nostalgia; not the sometimes heart-wrenching version that you see in Pixar movies. Not that that’s a bad thing, but it is nice to have some guilt-free nostalgia every now and then - as I’m sure people on this thread would agree!


I can’t bang on for ages about this because, basically, I haven’t got ages, but let me say that the final thing I love about Wreck it Ralph is the attention to detail. This is something that’s always set Disney apart in everything it does, from Snow White up until the present day, and it’s nice to see we haven’t lost it in the move to computer animation. Little things like the brilliant names for the racers in Sugar Rush, the fact that everything in the Fix it Felix Jr world is made up of squares, the fact that King Candy’s cops are made of donuts, the puns (man, I love a pun)...there’s so much to enjoy, and it means you can watch Wreck it Ralph over and over again, and find something new to enjoy every time.


I think that’s it for me on Wreck it Ralph. I’d love to spend longer and talk about how much I love the two main characters etc. but I need to move on.


----------



## RSandRS

*Monsters University (2013)*

Monsters University is a tricky one, because as a film I think it’s real good, but it doesn't unfortunately match up to the brilliance of Monsters Inc. which I think affects my enjoyment of it. I don’t dislike it, by any means, but I’m not sure if it’s entirely necessary.


This having been said, it’s always nice to see more of characters I like so much as Mike and Sully. The development of their friendship in this story is believable and extremely well done. I like that the characters are already very much the guys we know from Monsters Inc. but with the kind of insecurities that tend to turn us into idiots when we’re around that age. Their friendship develops very organically too, meaning that by the time they start their life-long partnership, you are totally onboard. Of course this is helped by the fact that John Goodman and Billy Crystal are so brilliant and likeable in those roles - they probably save the film from being a bit forgettable.

The rest of the characters are really good too, especially the members of Oozma Kappa. Squishy (who is the voiced by the guy who voices Emile in Ratatouille interestingly) is adorable, and probably my favourite.

As far as plot goes, I feel like we’ve seen this underdog story before, so it’s not super original, but it has a splash of Pixariness that makes it more interesting. Where other movies (especially Disney movies) would have had the school losers win the final competition and become the big men on campus and live happily ever after, this movie wants you to know that you have limits, and that’s OK - sometimes happily ever after looks different than you thought it would.

The animation of the film is of course brilliant, but not anything we haven’t seen before from Pixar. The score is again good, but not as memorable as the first movie’s score. It feels unfair to gripe at small things like this, and as I say, it doesn't mean I don’t really like Monsters University, but when Pixar churns out innovative, inspiring hit after innovative, inspiring hit, when they present something that’s merely very good, you find yourself a bit less lin love with it.

Overall Monsters University is a funny, heart-warming film with brilliant central characters that you could enjoy at any age. Pixar might not have broken any new ground with this one, and it may not be their best, but sometimes it’s OK to be OK.

P.S. See what I did there with the OK? Because OK is the Oozma Kappa symbol...I’ll just go.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Wreck it Ralph (2012)*
> 
> Sorry guys - it’s been ages since I posted, and ages since I watched Wreck it Ralph (and the other two movies I’m going to be posting) too. I will try and do better - I really want to get to the end of this marathon now!
> 
> 
> So...onto Wreck it Ralph.
> 
> 
> Oh hey Disney!! We missed you, where you been, grrrrl?? It doesn’t matter because you are back with a bang!
> 
> 
> Wreck it Ralph is really really good. It’s everything a Disney movie ought to be and has so seldom been over the decade or so preceding it: funny, cool, sweet and most of all creative! There is creativity oozing out of every pore of this movie, from the way the different environments look, to the story, to the score to the excellent punnage (seriously, this movie’s pun game is on point)...it’s just all so innovative and brilliant.
> 
> 
> I love the way Wreck it Ralph handles the nostalgia factor too. Yes, the movie has lots of references to old video and arcade games, which would probably people growing up in certain decades sighing wistfully, but it doesn’t rely on those references for humour or story beats. They take this idea and make something new and cool out of it (familiar and unfamiliar at the same time), with Fix it Felix Jr and the other games feeling like games you might have played as a kid, but also like totally new worlds. This is also a very joyful version of nostalgia; not the sometimes heart-wrenching version that you see in Pixar movies. Not that that’s a bad thing, but it is nice to have some guilt-free nostalgia every now and then - as I’m sure people on this thread would agree!
> 
> 
> I can’t bang on for ages about this because, basically, I haven’t got ages, but let me say that the final thing I love about Wreck it Ralph is the attention to detail. This is something that’s always set Disney apart in everything it does, from Snow White up until the present day, and it’s nice to see we haven’t lost it in the move to computer animation. Little things like the brilliant names for the racers in Sugar Rush, the fact that everything in the Fix it Felix Jr world is made up of squares, the fact that King Candy’s cops are made of donuts, the puns (man, I love a pun)...there’s so much to enjoy, and it means you can watch Wreck it Ralph over and over again, and find something new to enjoy every time.
> 
> 
> I think that’s it for me on Wreck it Ralph. I’d love to spend longer and talk about how much I love the two main characters etc. but I need to move on.



I too love Wreck-It Ralph! As someone who grew up in arcades like that one, it really hit home for me. I appreciated that there were some real games mixed in with the ones made up for the movie. Using original characters let them explore more and have more freedom. I love how emotional it gets too, and I remember seeing it for the first time when it's been established that Vanelope is a glitch, then Ralph catches a glimpse of her on the side of the machine. It was such a great moment! I'll always toss a quarter at Wreck-It Ralph.

Also, did you know they actually made the Fix-It Felix arcade game? It was playable at DisneyQuest for a while. They sell a little mini-version of it now. It's actually pretty fun and fits right in with games of the era.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Monsters University (2013)*
> 
> Monsters University is a tricky one, because as a film I think it’s real good, but it doesn't unfortunately match up to the brilliance of Monsters Inc. which I think affects my enjoyment of it. I don’t dislike it, by any means, but I’m not sure if it’s entirely necessary.
> 
> 
> This having been said, it’s always nice to see more of characters I like so much as Mike and Sully. The development of their friendship in this story is believable and extremely well done. I like that the characters are already very much the guys we know from Monsters Inc. but with the kind of insecurities that tend to turn us into idiots when we’re around that age. Their friendship develops very organically too, meaning that by the time they start their life-long partnership, you are totally onboard. Of course this is helped by the fact that John Goodman and Billy Crystal are so brilliant and likeable in those roles - they probably save the film from being a bit forgettable.
> 
> The rest of the characters are really good too, especially the members of Oozma Kappa. Squishy (who is the voiced by the guy who voices Emile in Ratatouille interestingly) is adorable, and probably my favourite.
> 
> As far as plot goes, I feel like we’ve seen this underdog story before, so it’s not super original, but it has a splash of Pixariness that makes it more interesting. Where other movies (especially Disney movies) would have had the school losers win the final competition and become the big men on campus and live happily ever after, this movie wants you to know that you have limits, and that’s OK - sometimes happily ever after looks different than you thought it would.
> 
> The animation of the film is of course brilliant, but not anything we haven’t seen before from Pixar. The score is again good, but not as memorable as the first movie’s score. It feels unfair to gripe at small things like this, and as I say, it doesn't mean I don’t really like Monsters University, but when Pixar churns out innovative, inspiring hit after innovative, inspiring hit, when they present something that’s merely very good, you find yourself a bit less lin love with it.
> 
> Overall Monsters University is a funny, heart-warming film with brilliant central characters that you could enjoy at any age. Pixar might not have broken any new ground with this one, and it may not be their best, but sometimes it’s OK to be OK.
> 
> P.S. See what I did there with the OK? Because OK is the Oozma Kappa symbol...I’ll just go.



I think you summed this one up pretty well. It's a great movie...but it just didn't have the resonance of the first one. It's still really fun, if a bit or a retread of like every college movie ever. It has the scariest dean ever though! It's interesting that Sully is such a good "scarer" when he's actually pretty cute compared to some of the creatures living in their world. Boo thought Sully was a "kitty" but if Dean Hardscrabble came out of my closet - . My favorite scene is when she first appears, blotting out the light with her wings. Anyway, it's a pretty likable movie, though nothing special in the Pixar body of work.


----------



## Micca

Well I need to watch Wreck It Ralph.  I've seen parts of it and wasn't moved but reading your reviews I need to seriously watch it.  Monsters University is ok but it's not even close to Monsters Inc(which is among my favorite of the Pixar titles.)


----------



## BrianL

Micca said:


> Well I need to watch Wreck It Ralph.  I've seen parts of it and wasn't moved but reading your reviews I need to seriously watch it.  Monsters University is ok but it's not even close to Monsters Inc(which is among my favorite of the Pixar titles.)



You should definitely check out Wreck-It Ralph. It's a good one with a heart warming story. The recent sequel was just okay though. It's not bad, but it's a bit all over the place.


----------



## Micca

BrianL said:


> You should definitely check out Wreck-It Ralph. It's a good one with a heart warming story


I don't have to jump through too many hoops to see it--It's been on the DVR for like two years.  The grandkids watch it sometimes so that's how I've seen bits & pieces of it.  I think our little review panel agrees on the Disney movies more than we disagree, so when I see praise from the others on this thread it def has some cred.


----------



## TheStarscream759

God its been a while since I've posted on here. But looks like we are finally on Wreck It Ralph and...Monsters University. Isn't that the weirdest combination but here we go.

Wreck-It-Ralph - This one is one of my favourite movies from the modern era of Disney films for many reasons. 1, It has so much heart and charm to it and it is a movie that has a whole lot that I love. 2 Vanellope. 3 It's a love letter to video games in general, it resonates with me a lot because I am a massive gamer and I like how they didn't shoehorn references to real video games in there and hammer us over the head with it...like a certain Sony animated movie that forced in references just for the sake of references. Rather it's more or less a part of the world that Ralph lives in. 4 Vanellope. 5 I love the dymanic that Ralph and Vanellope have in the film its so sweet. And 6 did I not mention how much I love Vanellope as a character?

I could go and on about this film I can't recommend it enough.

Monsters University - I will defiantly say this was a good film but it was not really needed. Its one of those films you don't feel like you could return to multiple times but your glad to have seen it sort of things. Its not really original with the whole high school we've got here. It's good to see Mike and Sulley, glad they got Billy Crystal and John Goodman back to voice their respective characters, liked the Ozoma Kappa gang as well as Dean Hardscabble but really it's a story we've seen before, its not really an original concept like I've said but it was certainly a decent enough Pixar flick. 

And while this isn't really anything to do with this Marathon but I would really like you guys to check out my trip report on my solo trip to Disneyland Paris last May. I honestly would love to hear your feedback on that. 

https://www.disboards.com/threads/a-brits-return-to-the-magic-kingdom-14-17th-may-2018.3731994/


----------



## BrianL

TheStarscream759 said:


> And while this isn't really anything to do with this Marathon but I would really like you guys to check out my trip report on my solo trip to Disneyland Paris last May. I honestly would love to hear your feedback on that.
> 
> https://www.disboards.com/threads/a-brits-return-to-the-magic-kingdom-14-17th-may-2018.3731994/



Oh, man. I am currently planning to go to DLP. I'll definitely be checking out your report.


----------



## RSandRS

*Planes (2013)*

Apologies! its been a while! We have watched a few more so must get cracking!


So, having presented us with pretty pretty fairies for the 7-year-old girls, Disneytoon Studios now presents us with zoom zoom planes for the 7-year-old boys. Not being a 7-year-old boy, I must admit I did not like Planes, but I think that’s probably to be expected. It’s a perfectly fine film. It’s fine. It’s totally fine.


It’s also probably the most forgettable film we’ve watched (and that includes five Winnie the Pooh movies), which means my recollections of it aren’t the best. We watched it nearly two weeks ago now and I was struggling to remember the plot the following day. I spent quite a bit of the runtime on her laptop and my sis was on her phone...so this isn't going to be a great review, in any sense of the word.


Planes is essentially Cars but with less story and theme. It follows the well-trodden underdog wins the big race story and will be easy for children to follow and/or fall asleep in front of on a rainy Sunday afternoon. You don’t need to know anything about the characters because they don’t have personalities or character arcs and you don’t need to worry about the plot because you can see it coming a mile off.

The animation of Planes probably wouldn’t seem half bad if it didn’t so obviously take place in the same world as Cars. Whatever you say about Cars (and even Cars 2) the animation is spectacular, and the texture-free cars and planes in this movie, with their limited expressions and lack of personality is a big step down. If it had only been released on DVD this wouldn’t be a problem, but this movie had a theatrical release.

Overall Planes is definitely a miss. I will probably never watch it again...and if I do, I probably won't remember it.

We did wonder is this world a democracy? Who rules cars or planes? My bet is the Cars!


*Frozen (2013)*

I really love Frozen. It’s entertaining and heartwarming and contains some absolutely bangin tunes! 

First, the story. I wouldn’t say this plot was such a massive subversion of the boy-meets-girl trope, as the majority of the film is still dedicated to Anna and Kristoff, who are also the most developed characters in the film. Turning Elsa into a misunderstood young woman rather than a villain was a really really good idea though. I think this is an interesting way of acknowledging that good and bad are a bit more complicated than we sometimes see in Disney movies. 

The characters, and the performances of them, are definitely one of the real high points of this film. Anna, in particular, is a really well-realised character. She is completely delightful and adorkable and I think is a lovely role-model for little girls. Kristoff is also completely brilliant, managing to be very likeable, even when he’s being a grumpy git. Both of them were extremely well-cast - how can you not love these two? Elsa is really great too, and you can’t help feeling sorry for her. That is until she lets rip with Let It Go and you just want to be her! I also think that Olaf is a big part of the reason Frozen is so good. He’s a bit like the genie in Aladdin, in that he saves the film from being just another Disney fairytale.

The other big standout in Frozen is of course the music. The songs are all beautiful and Let It Go is iconic, and for good reason. I thinks it’s better than Part of Your World - my sis does not agree, but it’s probably just the nostalgia talking. Of course Idina Menzel is a big part of why that song became such a moment in popular culture - that woman might have the most spectacular singing voice I have ever heard and she throws everything at that song. The whole sequence, including the animation, is a real turning point in the story and completely blows you away.

This all having been said I don’t unreservedly love the Frozen soundtrack. Yes, it’s got some real bangers, but not every song is amazing. Vuelie and the Frozen Heart song are both alright, but have nothing to do with the story, and it's a crime they never gave Jonathan Groff a proper song. Fixer Upper is a really fun song, but not very suitable at the moment it appears, which is when things are really starting to get serious. We need to build the tension at that moment, not break it. I think the main problem isn’t necessarily the songs themselves, however, but their placement in the film. Nearly all of the songs happen in the first half hour of the movie, and there are none in the third act. We are absolutely crying out for another Elsa song when she has been captured by Hans, and Anna and Kristoff need a love song of their own - these are somewhat glaring gaps in the movie and their absence leaves the film feeling lopsided.

The move is certainly not without a few minor flaws, and however much I enjoy, but I do very much enjoy it and I am thoroughly jazzed for the sequel. You’ve kept us waiting for 6 years, Disney, this had better be good!

P.S. Frozen the Musical is coming to London next year and I am very excited for it. I have listened to the cast album from the broadway version a lot of times and it’s sooooooo good!

P.S.S. For what it’s worth, my theories as to why Frozen is the most successful animated film of all time are as follows:


We got two Disney princesses instead of just one.


Let It Go


Memes


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> You should definitely check out Wreck-It Ralph. It's a good one with a heart warming story. The recent sequel was just okay though. It's not bad, but it's a bit all over the place.



Totally agree. The Sequal (I guess we will be reviewing it in 12 or so movies!!!) is good, but not amazing


----------



## RSandRS

TheStarscream759 said:


> God its been a while since I've posted on here. But looks like we are finally on Wreck It Ralph and...Monsters University. Isn't that the weirdest combination but here we go.
> 
> 
> https://www.disboards.com/threads/a-brits-return-to-the-magic-kingdom-14-17th-may-2018.3731994/



Reading the trippie, adore DLP! 

I've never done a trip to a Disney Park on my lonesome! Trying to psych myself up for a day in Shanghai in June!

The reason I haven't posted in a while is work has gotten crazy and work now involves a trip to China  Slipping in a cheeky holiday to Japan from there! I mean it would be rude not to  Tokyo Disney here we come!!! Never been before. Has anyone? Brian L maybe? Lucky this part won't be on my own as never been to Japan!


----------



## TheStarscream759

Planes - Really couldn't care about Planes. Spinoff of Cars not really worth my time, next.
Frozen - Oh THIS film. And yes I am aware that Frozen is a phenomenon, its everywhere, people won't stop complaining about it, fans defend it, nonstop. Well you know what? I like it, yes I like it unironically and I honestly consider a good film. Now I'm not a super hyper fanboy when it comes to this film but I just think the whole: "I love/hate it" is getting a bit for my sake. I'm aware people would love this and I'm aware that haters would hate this. I'm honestly the neutral camp in this. I like it as a film but it's just not my cup of tea most of the time. I have been known to sing Love is an Open Door but it's only on occasion I do it.

I still think Anna and Elsa are decently crafted characters though and yes I agree Johnathon Groff should've gotten a better song than what he was given personally. However Hans as a villain just comes out of nowhere for me when most of the time we just see him as a nice guy and its not really established that something was amiss with him. Honestly the whole villain twist thing was done better in Wreck-It-Ralph personally. King Candy anyone?

Overall I do like Frozen but I just wish people would just end the debate of which is better Tangled or Frozen. Or the whole "We need to say we hate this movie because its everywhere." And considering we are getting nothing but live action remakes lately? I'd rather take Frozen 2 then The Lion King or Aladdin remakes.


----------



## RSandRS

*The Pirate Fairy (2014)*

We’re on our fourth Tinkerbell movie at this point... I didn’t hate The Pirate Fairy. The storyline was mildly diverting and there were some good points to weigh out the forgettable and the bad.

The good points were mostly centred around Tinkerbell’s group of fairy friends and the new character, Zarina. Before this movie the gang were barely given personalities, let alone character arcs, and were patently just there to expand the collectable plastic figures collection. In this movie, however, they are allowed to be a bit more involved, which does lead to some quite funny moments. Of course, it would have been better if the pirate fairy role had been given to one of the original group, rather than a new character being created from thin air, but it’s not a massive deal. Rosetta, in particular, is fun in this movie, which is a shame - she finally becomes a role worthy of Kristin Chenoweth when Kristin Chenoweth is not playing her anymore. We get cut-price Cheno in this movie, but she’s actually really good.

The bad of this movie is, unfortunately, Tom Hiddleston. It’s sad to have to admit it, because Tom Hiddleston is a brilliant actor, but his young Captain Hook might be the most phoned-in performance of all the Disney movies we’ve watched so far. If it turned out he’d recorded all his lines on his phone in the pub I would not be surprised. This is a poor showing from the best villain in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, playing one of Disney’s most iconic villains!

Another slightly weird aspect of this movie is that they actually include a song. You know what I said a few Tinkerbells ago about how there were moments that cried out for a song? Yep, this is my fault, guys, I did this, and I can only apologise. JK, it’s actually not all that bad, and it turns out Hiddleston might not be much of a voice-actor but he can certainly really sing. The song stands out like a sore thumb because it is the only narrative song, not only in this movie but in any of the Tinkerbell movies so far, and so in terms of consistency is all wrong, but it’s not the worst song in the world.

Overall The Pirate Fairy is OK. The animation and voice-acting are of the required standard (apart from Hiddleston) and the plot is much more satisfying and complete than the Tinkerbell movies we’ve watched so far.

Can’t believe we haven’t finished with Tink yet! Maybe 1 more to go!


----------



## RSandRS

TheStarscream759 said:


> Planes - Really couldn't care about Planes. Spinoff of Cars not really worth my time, next.
> Frozen - Oh THIS film. And yes I am aware that Frozen is a phenomenon, its everywhere, people won't stop complaining about it, fans defend it, nonstop. Well you know what? I like it, yes I like it unironically and I honestly consider a good film. Now I'm not a super hyper fanboy when it comes to this film but I just think the whole: "I love/hate it" is getting a bit for my sake. I'm aware people would love this and I'm aware that haters would hate this. I'm honestly the neutral camp in this. I like it as a film but it's just not my cup of tea most of the time. I have been known to sing Love is an Open Door but it's only on occasion I do it.
> 
> I still think Anna and Elsa are decently crafted characters though and yes I agree Johnathon Groff should've gotten a better song than what he was given personally. However Hans as a villain just comes out of nowhere for me when most of the time we just see him as a nice guy and its not really established that something was amiss with him. Honestly the whole villain twist thing was done better in Wreck-It-Ralph personally. King Candy anyone?
> 
> Overall I do like Frozen but I just wish people would just end the debate of which is better Tangled or Frozen. Or the whole "We need to say we hate this movie because its everywhere." And considering we are getting nothing but live action remakes lately? I'd rather take Frozen 2 then The Lion King or Aladdin remakes.



Did not realise people were having these debates! Frozen 2 everytime over the remakes!


----------



## TheStarscream759

Tinker Bell and the Pirate Fairy - This is actually one of the better movies from the Tinker Bell movies and another one I own. I do like Zarnia as a character she has got an off putting design because she's a lot more realistic compared to Tink and the others. I swear if you were to superimpose on a poster for a different movie you'd think she was a character from a different series. And....whats with the weird love thing she had with Hook? The answer to that particular question I don't wanna know cuz it probably involves Deviantart or something.

Anyways I like the idea that.Tink and the gang as well as the reformed Vidia have switched their talents. And the part where Tink is just soaking her friends with the waterfall? Not is it funny to me but it also makes me laugh for a different reason and just makes me think of Katara from Avatar the Last Airbender which Mae Whitman actually played before she played Tinker Bell and Katara was a character who could control water herself.

And yeah I think Vidia was probably regretting all the things she said about Tinker Fairies when she got her talent switched with Tink's. I honestly didn't think Tom Hiddleston was playing Hook until I looked up the cast list on Wikipedia before I saw the movie.

He's not what I picture a young Hook to be. But he does a good enough job voicing him. Interesting how the crocodile started getting a taste for the ol' cod fish though. I really don't know the reason why Kristin Chenoweth didn't come back for the other films. But my guess is that she probably had other commitments and just didn't have the time to do them anymore. Anyways I really like this and I do think it's a bit better than Secret Wings. At least in my opinion.


----------



## BrianL

Planes is okay, nothing special, but not at all bad. I caught it on TV one day.

Frozen is indeed pretty great, but I don't love all of the songs. I think I missed Alan Menkin! I do think Let It Go is a masterpeice though and the animation in Frozen is just gorgeous. I love the story despite how much it changed from The Snow Queen, which was a childhood favorite story of mine (interestingly I think it was depicted in this Disney Storybook that we had - Disney had wanted to make it for decades). Anyway, there's a lot to like in Frozen.

For the record, I like Tangled better than Frozen, but I like them both a lot. They are beautiful movies!


----------



## RSandRS

*Planes: Fire and Rescue (2014)*

Like Planes, Planes: Fire and Rescue is very forgettable. It’s also quite a lot like Cars 2, in that it doesn’t have anything at all to do with the movie that came before it. The idea of Dusty as a racer is abandoned so we can explore the exciting world of underfunded public services. I think this movie would be boring to anybody, even the 7-year-old boys it’s aimed at. There’s loads of really talky bits where the characters discuss the Fire and Rescue department’s thin budget - you know how kids love a good budget-crunching sesh - and Dusty crashes almost as many times as he did in the first film. Seriously, this guy is one of the worst planes ever.

The animation is really pretty good, maybe even a bit better than Planes. The lush backgrounds are shown off to their best advantages through lots of wide shots of countryside (and forest fires), but characters are still pretty devoid of personality.

The movie is also very unimaginative, recycling lots of character tropes from better movies - the crusty old mentor (from every Cars and Planes movie so far as well as many many others), the kooky sidekicks (ditto), the ‘spiritual’ Native American character (wow, can’t believe that’s still a thing here in 2014) etc. - and failing to do anything interesting with them. In general the movie would be vastly improved by giving the main character a personality (even a recycled one) and some kind of agency - as it is things sort of happen to him and he weakly reacts. He’s sort of Lightning Lite.

In fact our main topic of conversation while we were watching (we tend to talk all the way through movies) wasn’t really about the characters or the plot at all - it was about how confounding the Cars world is and how many questions it raises. Questions like: cars planes and some boats are people in this universe - so are bicycles people too? How about skateboards? Some cars seem to be cows and some planes seem to be birds - are there any organic creatures in this world? Plus, cars seem to get old and talk about being old as if that means they’re near to death - so what is death in this society? And what is life? Also, the planes and cars seem to have mums and dads, but also to have been made in factories, so what’s going on there? And if you have to be made in a factory, how did the cars and planes of this world evolve? How did the factories get there? Were there originally people-people in this world but then the cars took over in a horrific apocalypse, with man and machine fighting it out to the death in a war to end all wars???

Ahem. It’s possible I’m reading too much into this.

In conclusion, Planes: Fire and Rescue is probably better than Planes, but that’s really not saying much.


----------



## RSandRS

*Big Hero Six (2014)*

To sum up my feelings about Big Hero Six: good film, definitely very creative and original if not as memorable as Wreck-It Ralph. There, now you don't have to read the whole review if you don’t want. 

The most stunning aspect of Big Hero Six is definitely its look and feel. Disney are definitely getting into their stride when it comes to 3D animation now and managing to create films as uniquely different from each other as their 2D animated films always were. Tangled and Frozen might look pretty similar to each other, but Wreck-It Ralph and Big Hero Six are totally new. Setting the film in the fictional San Fransokyo was a brilliant idea and of course Disney crushes it with the design of the architecture and the mise-en-scene. They create an entire city, and every detail is perfect! The flying scene where you’re able to take in the full scope of what they’re achieved feels a bit like a victory lap by the graphics department, but hey they earned it.

The characters are another strength of the movie. The good characters all manage to make an impression, which is an achievement considering there’s so many of them. Hiro is a great main character; since he’s a kid, his more outrageous actions seem understandable and he manages to be adorable at the same time as being a cocky little ****. The movie gives him good motivations for everything he does - plus his relationship with Baymax is so damn cute.

I also like the rest of the Big Hero 6 - none of them is a cliche and they all have strong personalities. It would have been good to see their characters develop a bit more in a sequel to the film, though I suppose that’s unlikely to happen now. I particularly like the little touches that make the characters more interesting than your average superhero team; like the way Go Go tells people to ‘woman up’ and the way Honey Lemon over-pronounces Hiro’s name.

The film suffers from the same curse as a lot of Marvel films in that it doesn’t have a good villain, which isn’t a problem Disney films have traditionally had. Perhaps a more bombastic villain would have drawn focus from the heart of the story, which is Hiro and Baymax, but I don’t know if the solution they’ve gone for entirely works either. Perhaps the film would have been stronger without a villain at all.

The thing that really makes the movie is Baymax - without him it would be a much less good film. He’s a truly original robot, which is something you don’t often see, and he’s impossible not to love. It’s also great to see the direct line drawn from Baymax’s creator to Baymax, so that the character of Tadashi is present throughout the whole film, even though he dies. But I also think this is may be where the film trips up. Turning Baymax from a nurse-bot to a flying, karate-chopping superhero definitely leads to some funny and entertaining moments, but doesn’t it slightly undercut the point of Baymax, and the message of the film itself?

The other slight problem with this film is that it very much feels like an origin story, in the traditional of Marvel origin stories - complete with the main character losing someone close to them, a limp villain and an ending with a big light-thing in the sky that destroys various buildings. Of course we might end up getting a sequel to Big Hero 6 (I mean, it took them six years to do the Frozen sequel) but I think it’s unlikely. 

I do really like Big Hero 6. I think it’s not quite as successful or memorable as Wreck-It Ralph, and certainly not as funny, but it’s got a lot of heart and some great characters, and is set in a city I would really like to live in! We’re in the middle of a renaissance, people - Disney Animation Studios is doing what they do best and I am loving it; can’t wait to see what they come up with next. Spoilers: It’s one of their BEST!

P.S. Did anybody see the Big Hero 6 lazer based show in DLP? I did and was very confused by it. If anybody could explain it to me I would be very grateful!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Big Hero Six (2014)*
> 
> To sum up my feelings about Big Hero Six: good film, definitely very creative and original if not as memorable as Wreck-It Ralph. There, now you don't have to read the whole review if you don’t want.
> 
> The most stunning aspect of Big Hero Six is definitely its look and feel. Disney are definitely getting into their stride when it comes to 3D animation now and managing to create films as uniquely different from each other as their 2D animated films always were. Tangled and Frozen might look pretty similar to each other, but Wreck-It Ralph and Big Hero Six are totally new. Setting the film in the fictional San Fransokyo was a brilliant idea and of course Disney crushes it with the design of the architecture and the mise-en-scene. They create an entire city, and every detail is perfect! The flying scene where you’re able to take in the full scope of what they’re achieved feels a bit like a victory lap by the graphics department, but hey they earned it.
> 
> The characters are another strength of the movie. The good characters all manage to make an impression, which is an achievement considering there’s so many of them. Hiro is a great main character; since he’s a kid, his more outrageous actions seem understandable and he manages to be adorable at the same time as being a cocky little ****. The movie gives him good motivations for everything he does - plus his relationship with Baymax is so damn cute.
> 
> I also like the rest of the Big Hero 6 - none of them is a cliche and they all have strong personalities. It would have been good to see their characters develop a bit more in a sequel to the film, though I suppose that’s unlikely to happen now. I particularly like the little touches that make the characters more interesting than your average superhero team; like the way Go Go tells people to ‘woman up’ and the way Honey Lemon over-pronounces Hiro’s name.
> 
> The film suffers from the same curse as a lot of Marvel films in that it doesn’t have a good villain, which isn’t a problem Disney films have traditionally had. Perhaps a more bombastic villain would have drawn focus from the heart of the story, which is Hiro and Baymax, but I don’t know if the solution they’ve gone for entirely works either. Perhaps the film would have been stronger without a villain at all.
> 
> The thing that really makes the movie is Baymax - without him it would be a much less good film. He’s a truly original robot, which is something you don’t often see, and he’s impossible not to love. It’s also great to see the direct line drawn from Baymax’s creator to Baymax, so that the character of Tadashi is present throughout the whole film, even though he dies. But I also think this is may be where the film trips up. Turning Baymax from a nurse-bot to a flying, karate-chopping superhero definitely leads to some funny and entertaining moments, but doesn’t it slightly undercut the point of Baymax, and the message of the film itself?
> 
> The other slight problem with this film is that it very much feels like an origin story, in the traditional of Marvel origin stories - complete with the main character losing someone close to them, a limp villain and an ending with a big light-thing in the sky that destroys various buildings. Of course we might end up getting a sequel to Big Hero 6 (I mean, it took them six years to do the Frozen sequel) but I think it’s unlikely.
> 
> I do really like Big Hero 6. I think it’s not quite as successful or memorable as Wreck-It Ralph, and certainly not as funny, but it’s got a lot of heart and some great characters, and is set in a city I would really like to live in! We’re in the middle of a renaissance, people - Disney Animation Studios is doing what they do best and I am loving it; can’t wait to see what they come up with next. Spoilers: It’s one of their BEST!
> 
> P.S. Did anybody see the Big Hero 6 lazer based show in DLP? I did and was very confused by it. If anybody could explain it to me I would be very grateful!



I love BH6 - the movie and the series (just renewed for a third season and the second hasn't even begun!). This was an awesome take on a mediocre Marvel comic. As you said, the city is really cool and the animation is top-notch. The characters all have personality and their niche. I think the point of the subversion of Baymax from healer to fighter is a big theme in the movie. Tadashi probably wouldn't have approved - but Hiro is not Tadashi. Still, they have to find a balance. The ending is a bit like some other movies, like The Iron Giant, but I absolutely got misty when you see what was in Baymax's fist! This is one of the great ones and a good part of this second renaissance.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Big Hero 6 - I really do like Big Hero 6, I do think that Frozen's popularity kind of overshadowed it a bit but at the very least it was still success. And it's interesting that Big Hero 6 is now recognised as a Disney film nowadays because originally it was a Marvel comic, a rather obscure Marvel comic at that. There's a lot of things that Disney changed from the comic series for example: Hiro never participated in illegal bot-fighting in the comics and was more mature than how he's portrayed in the movie as an arrogant super genius who came up with the nanobots. But seeing as Marvel was bought by Disney, Marvel seeing that Big Hero 6 was no use to them so they handed Disney the rights in general and just rebuild the story from the ground up. The animation is so stunning and the city of San Fransokyo looks so incredible that it makes you want to visit it. 

Really? Yet another villain twist? I honestly couldn't really tell you who Yokai is because of A Spoilers and B He's not really that memorable in my books. Baymax is certainly adorable and I do like the idea of a healthcare robot being there to help people who have been injured and it's certainly an original concept in general. I really do like the ensemble team of Hiro, Honey Lemon, Go-Go, Wasabi and Fred they all have their own distinct personalities and their own quirks about them. I really do like this but again just because it's under appreciated doesn't mean it's a bad film altogether.


----------



## RSandRS

*Tinkerbell and the Legend of the Neverbeast (2015)*

I am running out of things to say about Tinkerbell movies at this stage - so I am handing over to 7-year-old me again for her thoughts. I accept no responsibility....


_Ooooh I loved this movie so much - it was definitely the best Tinkerbell movie yet. It was about one of Tink’s friends called Fawn who talks to animals, and she finds a fluffy thingummy called Gruff and he has lightning powers! Fawn was my favourite character because she is pretty and was nice to all the animals. She is quite a lot like Tink actually…_

Translation: They forgot to give her a personality and had to give her Tink’s at the last minute.

_You shush, this is my review. I like that Fawn got her own movie for herself, and now I hope they do one for Rosetta and Irridessa and...the other one...and the mean one as well. Maybe not the mean one, but I hope they do lots more of these!_

I don’t.

_And also there were cool new warrior fairies in this one, which was awesome. I like when they have new talents for the fairies. If I was a fairy I would be…_

An easily-pleased fairy? It’s very lazy the way they keep inventing new talents for the fairies and retrofitting the world to fit in with whatever story they’re trying to tell. I mean, it’s their world and they can do what they want, but I see you Disney!


_*Rolls eyes* This was a very pretty movie and Pixie Hollow looks like a really nice place to live. And I liked Gruff too, he was really cool-looking._


Yeah, the animation was actually not bad. Disneytoon Studios is really starting to produce some nice work. Hey, did we just agree on something?


_Yes! We agree that Tinkerbell and the Neverbeast is the best Tinkerbell movie and is awesome and…_


Woah woah woah. It’s probably the best one in that it has a beginning, a middle and an end and makes an attempt at developing some of its characters. That’s as far as I’ll go.


_When I’m old, I’m not going to be boring like you._

...


----------



## RSandRS

*Inside Out (2015)*

Inside Out is maybe the most Pixar Pixar film. It is peak Pixar. If you had one film with which to explain the Pixar approach to film-making, this is the one you would pick. It’s thought-provoking, funny, sad, full of completely original ideas, slightly wacky, exciting and if you’re not in tears by the end of it you have a heart of stone. There’s no denying how wonderful this film is. It is my personal favourite by miles!

As has sometimes been the case with these reviews, it’s actually too difficult to list all the amazing things about Inside Out, so I’m just going to talk about one aspect of the film, its message, which is so intrinsic to every aspect of it (from the characters to the music to the animation) and which makes the film the unique experience that it is.

Let’s start with the message itself, because it’s not one you come across all that often, especially in a children’s film: it’s OK to be sad; it’s OK to grow up; it’s OK if growing up makes you sad. Whenever I watch Inside Out I’m filled with envy for kids who have this movie to help them with the growing up process. How nice would it have been to have someone tell you, as a child or a teenager, that it’s OK not to always understand your emotions, or to let them overwhelm you? In creating this film, Pixar have given children a literal language and framework for handling emotions that become overwhelming. “Sadness has taken the wheel for a bit,” they can say, “but that’s OK. She’s helping me communicate and make sense of my feelings.” Lucky kids today! This having been said, I’d be interested to hear from people with kids or grandchildren about their experiences of this film? Inside Out came out in 2015, and I’ve only ever watched it as an adult with other adults. 

As an adult, of course, there’s no aspect of this film that you can’t relate to. Alongside the big, more developed ideas, there are lots of wonderful little touches (such as the facts and opinions getting mixed up, deja vu, the tripledent gum tune etc, abstract thought!.) You recognise every emotion that Riley goes through and laugh or cry as every aspect of your personality is deconstructed (in the nicest way possible) and literally turned inside out. 

And one of the movie’s most effective ways of doing this is through the characters of Joy and Sadness. They achieve so much with just those two characters and get the balance exactly right. Through the animation and the gorgeous performances, they pull it off. And people just love these characters. We found this out when my sis cosplayed as Sadness at DLP last Halloween; most people were dressed up in some way but a lot of people (both adults and children) came up to her, not just to get a picture, but to tell her how much they loved her, or to reassure her that everything was going to be OK. She’s a very popular character and evokes a lot of feelings in people, and if that’s not Pixar doing their job right, I don’t know what is!

As someone who works in education, the movie is also interesting from a learning perspective. The relationship between emotion and learning isn’t something that’s often explored but, as we see in Inside Out, the strongest memories are those that we have a powerful emotional connection to, and experiencing those emotions is part of the process of understanding ourselves. This isn’t really apropos of anything - it’s just one of many many many interesting ideas that this movie raises, as part of its mission to get you thinking about how you think.

Inside Out is one (if not the most) original children’s films I’ve ever seen and could only come from Pixar. It is perfect...except for making me cry like a helpless baby (pretty much all the way through!) every time I watch it. Thanks, Pixar!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Inside Out (2015)*
> 
> Inside Out is maybe the most Pixar Pixar film. It is peak Pixar. If you had one film with which to explain the Pixar approach to film-making, this is the one you would pick. It’s thought-provoking, funny, sad, full of completely original ideas, slightly wacky, exciting and if you’re not in tears by the end of it you have a heart of stone. There’s no denying how wonderful this film is. It is my personal favourite by miles!
> 
> As has sometimes been the case with these reviews, it’s actually too difficult to list all the amazing things about Inside Out, so I’m just going to talk about one aspect of the film, its message, which is so intrinsic to every aspect of it (from the characters to the music to the animation) and which makes the film the unique experience that it is.
> 
> Let’s start with the message itself, because it’s not one you come across all that often, especially in a children’s film: it’s OK to be sad; it’s OK to grow up; it’s OK if growing up makes you sad. Whenever I watch Inside Out I’m filled with envy for kids who have this movie to help them with the growing up process. How nice would it have been to have someone tell you, as a child or a teenager, that it’s OK not to always understand your emotions, or to let them overwhelm you? In creating this film, Pixar have given children a literal language and framework for handling emotions that become overwhelming. “Sadness has taken the wheel for a bit,” they can say, “but that’s OK. She’s helping me communicate and make sense of my feelings.” Lucky kids today! This having been said, I’d be interested to hear from people with kids or grandchildren about their experiences of this film? Inside Out came out in 2015, and I’ve only ever watched it as an adult with other adults.
> 
> As an adult, of course, there’s no aspect of this film that you can’t relate to. Alongside the big, more developed ideas, there are lots of wonderful little touches (such as the facts and opinions getting mixed up, deja vu, the tripledent gum tune etc, abstract thought!.) You recognise every emotion that Riley goes through and laugh or cry as every aspect of your personality is deconstructed (in the nicest way possible) and literally turned inside out.
> 
> And one of the movie’s most effective ways of doing this is through the characters of Joy and Sadness. They achieve so much with just those two characters and get the balance exactly right. Through the animation and the gorgeous performances, they pull it off. And people just love these characters. We found this out when my sis cosplayed as Sadness at DLP last Halloween; most people were dressed up in some way but a lot of people (both adults and children) came up to her, not just to get a picture, but to tell her how much they loved her, or to reassure her that everything was going to be OK. She’s a very popular character and evokes a lot of feelings in people, and if that’s not Pixar doing their job right, I don’t know what is!
> 
> As someone who works in education, the movie is also interesting from a learning perspective. The relationship between emotion and learning isn’t something that’s often explored but, as we see in Inside Out, the strongest memories are those that we have a powerful emotional connection to, and experiencing those emotions is part of the process of understanding ourselves. This isn’t really apropos of anything - it’s just one of many many many interesting ideas that this movie raises, as part of its mission to get you thinking about how you think.
> 
> Inside Out is one (if not the most) original children’s films I’ve ever seen and could only come from Pixar. It is perfect...except for making me cry like a helpless baby (pretty much all the way through!) every time I watch it. Thanks, Pixar!



You nailed it. Inside Out is a masterpiece, plain and simple. It is probably my second favorite Pixar movie behind Ratatouille. This movie exudes charm, and has such a powerful message and lesson. Some have labeled Joy as "the villain" of the movie, but I disagree. All of the emotion characters are just aspects of Riley and are beholden to their environment (Riley's brain). Some say Joy is suppressing the other emotions, but really, Riley has just been a very happy kid for a long time and now she's at a delicate age and facing a big change in her life. All of the emotions are simply trying to figure out how to re-stabilize their environment, but all of it is Riley just doing it, figuring it out, and finally having an epiphany about what she really wants. It really is quite beautiful.

Of course, my favorite little Easter egg in any Pixar movie is when Riley imagines the haunted house - got a little Haunted Mansion music right there! Nice.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Tinker Bell and the Legend of the Never east - No this was the last one in the series!  

I don't know why Fawn needed a new design to fit with her book counterpart as well as a new voice especially if she has the same voice as Judy Hopps. I like that they gave Fawn a movie of her own and I liked her dynamic with Gruff but it was noticeably darker than the other films I mean Fawn almost dies at the end. Nyx was an interesting character and upon me saying this I really do miss those movies. Sure they look girly but they have been far from it in my opinion. 

Another good one and again I really wish this one wasn't the end for Tink and her friends but it was sadly for me. Poor doll sales meant they got canned which is a shame cuz I really wish they had one where Tink met Peter Pan to at least tie in with the original film but it wasn't to be. 

Inside Out - This one surprised me. I don't know what I was expecting from Inside Out but it was so impressive how it tackled the emotional of our childhood down to a tie. Riley is so relatable and we all have probably gone through a similar moment when we had to move from our old home to our new home. Very funny, very creative and one great thing about this is that the emotion characters are all just extensions of Riley herself. 

My favourite line from it is probably Anger's line of:"Congratulations San Francisco, you ruined Pizza! First the Hawaiians and now YOU!" Always makes me laugh that one. 

Overall I'd say Inside Out is one of the better Pixar movies of the late 2010s but unfortunately the same can't be said about the next one however.


----------



## Micca

Where have I been???  Sorry to lag so far behind but I'll keep it short and just comment on the few of these titles I've seen (no Tinkerbell for me.)  I saw Planes on a Disney cruise, pretty lame.  I didn't like Frozen at first, but it turned out to be "The movie" for my little granddaughters.  Like their mother was for The Little Mermaid, Frozen was the movie that was basically on a loop for about 18 months around here.  The more bits of it I saw, the more I liked it.  Also as a lifelong Disney fan it was good to see the whole world fall head over heels for a Disney movie again.  Inside Out is excellent of course.  BH6 is another one that's been lurking on my DVR for a couple of years, need to see it


----------



## disneydreamer781

I really liked Wreck It Ralph until Vanellope showed up. If there is a more annoying Disney character than Vanellope Von Schweetz, (even the name is annoying) then I've yet to come across them! The only good thing is the other characters area so good that they sort of make up for her. Sort of! On the movie front I must have at least 15 movies that I own and have yet to watch. I may be the only one not to see the last Avengers. So I really need to do that before I even consider paying to see Endgame. I'm not a huge proponent of Live Action remakes ever since I saw Alice in Wonderland LA. Since that debacle, I've been very hesitant about dipping my toe into that trend. On that front though, I'm very surprised that Disney didn't take advantage of Snow White's 80th Anniversary by doing a LA remake. It has such creative potential just with the 7 Dwarfs alone.


----------



## BrianL

disneydreamer781 said:


> I really liked Wreck It Ralph until Vanellope showed up. If there is a more annoying Disney character than Vanellope Von Schweetz, (even the name is annoying) then I've yet to come across them! The only good thing is the other characters area so good that they sort of make up for her. Sort of! On the movie front I must have at least 15 movies that I own and have yet to watch. I may be the only one not to see the last Avengers. So I really need to do that before I even consider paying to see Endgame. I'm not a huge proponent of Live Action remakes ever since I saw Alice in Wonderland LA. Since that debacle, I've been very hesitant about dipping my toe into that trend. On that front though, I'm very surprised that Disney didn't take advantage of Snow White's 80th Anniversary by doing a LA remake. It has such creative potential just with the 7 Dwarfs alone.



Hey, welcome to the thread Disneydreamer! This thing's been going a while and there has only been a handful of us participating. We let RS&RS set the pace as they have been working through *every* Disney animated film ever, but feel free to read through the backlog and post thoughts if you want. I certainly didn't see all the ones they have, but it's been fun to follow along. Were actually pretty close to the end now. Maybe live-action movies are next!


----------



## TheStarscream759

Hey welcome. As BrianL says, we haven't seen everything that RS has seen thus far but we can tell you that we have now on Zootopia and The Good Dinosaur right now. I already know what I gotta say for the former but Good Dinosaur? I dunno personally.


----------



## disneydreamer781

BrianL said:


> Hey, welcome to the thread Disneydreamer! This thing's been going a while and there has only been a handful of us participating. We let RS&RS set the pace as they have been working through *every* Disney animated film ever, but feel free to read through the backlog and post thoughts if you want. I certainly didn't see all the ones they have, but it's been fun to follow along. Were actually pretty close to the end now. Maybe live-action movies are next!



Thanks for the  BrianL! Yes, I'll be sure to check back from the beginning! Interesting thread!


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> You nailed it. Inside Out is a masterpiece, plain and simple. It is probably my second favorite Pixar movie behind Ratatouille. This movie exudes charm, and has such a powerful message and lesson. Some have labeled Joy as "the villain" of the movie, but I disagree. All of the emotion characters are just aspects of Riley and are beholden to their environment (Riley's brain). Some say Joy is suppressing the other emotions, but really, Riley has just been a very happy kid for a long time and now she's at a delicate age and facing a big change in her life. All of the emotions are simply trying to figure out how to re-stabilize their environment, but all of it is Riley just doing it, figuring it out, and finally having an epiphany about what she really wants. It really is quite beautiful.
> 
> Of course, my favorite little Easter egg in any Pixar movie is when Riley imagines the haunted house - got a little Haunted Mansion music right there! Nice.



I never heard the Haunted Mansion music! Will be looking out for that! I can guarantee I will rewatch this film within the year!


----------



## RSandRS

TheStarscream759 said:


> Hey welcome. As BrianL says, we haven't seen everything that RS has seen thus far but we can tell you that we have now on Zootopia and The Good Dinosaur right now. I already know what I gotta say for the former but Good Dinosaur? I dunno personally.



Coming up now...


----------



## RSandRS

*The Good Dinosaur (2015)*

Got to admit, I've watched this once before and was not enthusiastic for a rewatch

If I could choose one word to describe my overall impression of The Good Dinosaur it would be mystifying. This making of this movie involved a series of very weird decisions that I cannot for the life of me understand, and which have resulted in a weird, disjointed and for me unlikable film. I will list the decisions I find so weird here and you can draw whatever inferences you like from the list (though I would encourage you to infer that I think this movie is a depressing mess and that I can’t understand how it got made the way it was).


*The decision to make the dinosaurs - particularly Arlo - look cartoony and blobby while the background looks almost ridiculously photorealistic*. This is the most glaringly weird decision in the whole movie. It's the first thing you notice. What was the thinking behind it? The backgrounds are SO beautiful that it makes you literally catch your breath sometimes, and then Arlo is almost comically unrealistic in the way he looks and moves. He climbs up things that he shouldn’t be physically capable of climbing; he’s constantly falling from great heights and getting serious head injuries, which he just bounces back from; his weird close together eyes and featureless face are weirdly unexpressive - it’s just so jarring!


*The decision to make Arlo so unlikeable and to do so many things that double-down on his unlikeableness.* Arlo is a cowardly kid, and that’s very understandable - he’s small and weedy and, most of all, he’s a kid. But as he gets older, the things that scare him are so stupid (the weird chickens etc) that you stop sympathising with his being small and just start to find him a bit irritating. Then throughout the film he continues to be a coward and to be unlikeable, and uses Spot for protection when Spot is smaller and more vulnerable than him. You definitely feel he doesn’t deserve Spot, who is cute as hell. Spot is the saving grace of this movie. The final instance of Arlo’s unlikeableness is when he stops Spot from joining the other neanderthals when they first see them. This indirectly leads to Spot nearly being eaten and is just very bad form in general. Arlo, you suck.


*The decision to have Arlo’s dad die through drowning and then literally about two minutes later, Arlo falls into the same river and is swept away and nearly drowns, thereby kicking off the plot*. This is just terrible plotting! I mean it’s pretty cliche at this point to have a dad dying be the start of the ‘hero’s’ adventure anyway, but why on earth did they both get swept away by separate instances of fast-moving water? Why didn’t they have Arlo be swept away by the first wave, instead of a second plot-convenient one two minutes later? And the way it happens is so clunky too - he literally just isn’t looking where he’s going, hits his head (as per) and falls into the river. Why? How was this plotpoint signed off by the higher-ups, did no one notice how painful it is?


*The decision to have a series of weird bit-part characters who make very little impression and then disappear. *Seriously, name me a character in The Good Dinosaur other than Arlo or Spot. *Waits* *Hums tum tee tum* Don't feel bad, I can't do it either and I watched the film a couple of days ago. The only character you get to know is Arlo, and you don’t like him so…*shrug* The t-rexes are alright I suppose, but they’re more stereotypes there to deliver unsubtle messages while being ‘quirky’ than actual characters. The overall plot has the same problem in fact. It’s just a weird set of vignettes rather than a proper plot where everything that happens is tied back to a central theme or idea (something that Inside Out does so incredibly well). Maybe this could have been one story of several set in this alternate timeline where the dinosaurs survived. That’s quite a good idea - it’s just what they did with it that doesn’t work.


*The decision not to bring down the wall.* The overall feeling of the movie is so negative and depressing, an unlikeable main character meeting quirky characters and going through harrowing situations, in order to learn how to be brave...so far so Pixar I guess...but this is brave in a very traditional sense of the word. Brave as in physically strong and willing to do things that are dangerous - superhero brave. Marvel brave, not Pixar brave. In Pixar films, characters are brave in that they’ve learned how to face up to their own limitations, how to live in a hard world and how to make their lives mean something. You may remember that one of the recurring themes in the film is that Arlo’s dad measures his children against each other by only allowing them to put their pawprint on the wall when they’ve ‘proved themselves’ in some way. And the aim of the Pixar film should be to force Arlo’s dad to realise that the wall is wrong and you shouldn’t measure people by their physical strength, or measure them against each other. He should be forced to see that we all have our limitations and that that’s OK. The aim of the Pixar film should be to bring that wall down, but that’s not what happens. Instead, in a somewhat rushed ending, we see Arlo’s pawprint up there with the rest of his family - and he only had to risk his life a dozen times to earn it. What is this movie trying to tell me??


So yeah, I do not like this one. I can’t believe it came out the same year as Inside Out. I don’t understand how it happened and I don’t understand the message of the film. Hard pass.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *The Good Dinosaur (2015)*
> 
> Got to admit, I've watched this once before and was not enthusiastic for a rewatch
> 
> If I could choose one word to describe my overall impression of The Good Dinosaur it would be mystifying. This making of this movie involved a series of very weird decisions that I cannot for the life of me understand, and which have resulted in a weird, disjointed and for me unlikable film. I will list the decisions I find so weird here and you can draw whatever inferences you like from the list (though I would encourage you to infer that I think this movie is a depressing mess and that I can’t understand how it got made the way it was).
> 
> 
> *The decision to make the dinosaurs - particularly Arlo - look cartoony and blobby while the background looks almost ridiculously photorealistic*. This is the most glaringly weird decision in the whole movie. It's the first thing you notice. What was the thinking behind it? The backgrounds are SO beautiful that it makes you literally catch your breath sometimes, and then Arlo is almost comically unrealistic in the way he looks and moves. He climbs up things that he shouldn’t be physically capable of climbing; he’s constantly falling from great heights and getting serious head injuries, which he just bounces back from; his weird close together eyes and featureless face are weirdly unexpressive - it’s just so jarring!
> 
> 
> *The decision to make Arlo so unlikeable and to do so many things that double-down on his unlikeableness.* Arlo is a cowardly kid, and that’s very understandable - he’s small and weedy and, most of all, he’s a kid. But as he gets older, the things that scare him are so stupid (the weird chickens etc) that you stop sympathising with his being small and just start to find him a bit irritating. Then throughout the film he continues to be a coward and to be unlikeable, and uses Spot for protection when Spot is smaller and more vulnerable than him. You definitely feel he doesn’t deserve Spot, who is cute as hell. Spot is the saving grace of this movie. The final instance of Arlo’s unlikeableness is when he stops Spot from joining the other neanderthals when they first see them. This indirectly leads to Spot nearly being eaten and is just very bad form in general. Arlo, you suck.
> 
> 
> *The decision to have Arlo’s dad die through drowning and then literally about two minutes later, Arlo falls into the same river and is swept away and nearly drowns, thereby kicking off the plot*. This is just terrible plotting! I mean it’s pretty cliche at this point to have a dad dying be the start of the ‘hero’s’ adventure anyway, but why on earth did they both get swept away by separate instances of fast-moving water? Why didn’t they have Arlo be swept away by the first wave, instead of a second plot-convenient one two minutes later? And the way it happens is so clunky too - he literally just isn’t looking where he’s going, hits his head (as per) and falls into the river. Why? How was this plotpoint signed off by the higher-ups, did no one notice how painful it is?
> 
> 
> *The decision to have a series of weird bit-part characters who make very little impression and then disappear. *Seriously, name me a character in The Good Dinosaur other than Arlo or Spot. *Waits* *Hums tum tee tum* Don't feel bad, I can't do it either and I watched the film a couple of days ago. The only character you get to know is Arlo, and you don’t like him so…*shrug* The t-rexes are alright I suppose, but they’re more stereotypes there to deliver unsubtle messages while being ‘quirky’ than actual characters. The overall plot has the same problem in fact. It’s just a weird set of vignettes rather than a proper plot where everything that happens is tied back to a central theme or idea (something that Inside Out does so incredibly well). Maybe this could have been one story of several set in this alternate timeline where the dinosaurs survived. That’s quite a good idea - it’s just what they did with it that doesn’t work.
> 
> 
> *The decision not to bring down the wall.* The overall feeling of the movie is so negative and depressing, an unlikeable main character meeting quirky characters and going through harrowing situations, in order to learn how to be brave...so far so Pixar I guess...but this is brave in a very traditional sense of the word. Brave as in physically strong and willing to do things that are dangerous - superhero brave. Marvel brave, not Pixar brave. In Pixar films, characters are brave in that they’ve learned how to face up to their own limitations, how to live in a hard world and how to make their lives mean something. You may remember that one of the recurring themes in the film is that Arlo’s dad measures his children against each other by only allowing them to put their pawprint on the wall when they’ve ‘proved themselves’ in some way. And the aim of the Pixar film should be to force Arlo’s dad to realise that the wall is wrong and you shouldn’t measure people by their physical strength, or measure them against each other. He should be forced to see that we all have our limitations and that that’s OK. The aim of the Pixar film should be to bring that wall down, but that’s not what happens. Instead, in a somewhat rushed ending, we see Arlo’s pawprint up there with the rest of his family - and he only had to risk his life a dozen times to earn it. What is this movie trying to tell me??
> 
> So yeah, I do not like this one. I can’t believe it came out the same year as Inside Out. I don’t understand how it happened and I don’t understand the message of the film. Hard pass.



Yeah, The Good Dinosaur is a bit of a mess and probably the weakest of all Pixar movies. To start with the positives, yeah, the backgrounds are astonishingly beautiful, nearly photo-realistic. They are gorgeous! Now, I actually get what they were _trying_ to do by juxtaposing the cartoonish characters over the realistic backgrounds, but the design for Arlo just doesn't work. I don't think it's because he clashes with the backgrounds, I think it's just a too bland, simple, and slightly-off design. The cartoonishness isn't the real problem as I have loved lots of movies that had 2-D animated characters over more realistic backgrounds. Even Spot works better than Arlo - it's just him. He's just off-putting, and that pretty much ruins the whole thing. The story beats are pretty by-the-numbers, and nothing interesting happens, but I think if Arlo were more visually appealing, we would probably think of this movie as "just okay" rather than a train wreck.


----------



## Micca

Never saw TGD because I don't like dinosaurs.  All the dino craze, Jurassic Park, etc. is lost on me.  I know that kids do like it and that's fine, I don't even like Dinoland at AK. As always the thoughtful comments by others are appreciated.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Micca said:


> Never saw TGD because I don't like dinosaurs.  All the dino craze, Jurassic Park, etc. is lost on me.  I know that kids do like it and that's fine, I don't even like Dinoland at AK. As always the thoughtful comments by others are appreciated.


I like dinosaurs how dare you.


----------



## RSandRS

*Zootopia (2016)*

This is my favourite Disney movie EVER! I can appreciate its probably not the best Disney movie, that medal for me probably goes to The Lion King, but I absolutely adore this film. It’s an absolute blinder of a film and I love it to pieces. 


Overall I love the message of this film. It was brave and awesome of Disney to make a film about racism and discrimination, and even more powerful when it’s such a gentle and understanding message. Even the best of us can find ourselves making assumptions about others because they are different, even someone as wonderful as Judy Hopps! It is subtle, complex and not a common theme, and is explored beautifully through the characters and the narrative. I love the way it is introduced early on through Judy’s school play and then through her parents’ well-meaning but ignorant remarks about sly foxes. There are continual references throughout the film, focusing on all the ways, small and big, that we tend to discriminate and make assumptions about one another, until the final reveal and Assistant Mayor Bellweather’s pronouncement that ’Fear always works!’ The movie makes the wise choice to not portray people with prejudices as ‘evil’, but as products of the environment they live in; even though I’m laughing out loud all the way through, I still find myself thinking what a wise film this is.


I love the characters. All of them. Judy and Nick especially are truly fantastic creations, and their friendship is built up believably and sweetly throughout the film. Judy is the ultimate Disney heroine: brave, kind, clever, a fount of positivity...but also capable of making mistakes. Her superpower is being able to learn from her mistakes and do better and I love that! Nick is instantly lovable because he’s so cool, and then becomes more so when you see his vulnerability. And the way both of them have something so important to teach one another makes their relationship so much stronger and more believable. This is how to do C-H-A-R-A-C-T-E-R-D-E-V-E-L-O-P-M-E-N-T, y’all! The two of them together... solid gold! I know they are friends, but I am sure there is some chemistry there too - just look at how flirty they are!. I totally like the idea of a Zootopia 2 where those two are figuring out how to be in a mixed relationship. The rest of the characters (Chief Bogo, Assistant Mayor Bellweather, Clawhauser, Jude-the dude’s parents) are also really well realised and all contribute to the humour of the film, but they’re always something more than just funny side characters. They’re all trying to break out of the roles that society has set down for them - Chief Bogo feels like he has to be such a ******* all the time, Clawhauser doesn’t fit the normal profile of a cop and is a predator as well and Assistant Mayor Bellweather...well, she’s got issues for sure - they’re all experiencing prejudice but also reflecting that prejudice back on other people. It is one of the film’s strongest elements that every word and action by every character reaffirms the overriding message.


Of course one of the strongest aspects of Zootopia is the humour; it’s completely hilarious. I remember I wasn't very excited to watch it at the cinema until I saw the Dash trailer and then thought 'great that looks fun, but it is probably the only really funny joke in the movie'. Boy was I wrong! From naked Yaks to 'It’s called a hustle, sweetheart' to the whole sequence with Mr Big this movie has me genuinely roaring with laughter all the way through.


It may not be the strongest aspect of the film, or the strongest song in the Disney canon, but damn I love Try Everything. The best Disney movies have amazing songs and so you would think with only one song Zootopia would lose out, but no way. From the first time we see Judy put on her earphones and listen to her music to psyche herself up for her new life (such a girl/woman thing to do - who’s not listened to a Disney tune on the way to a new adventure!) it’s a total hit! Songs come and go on my swimming playlist, but Try Everything has been on there for years, and it always gets me pumped.


Because of the humor, I feel Zootopia is probably more ‘edgy’ than other recent Disney flicks, such as Big Hero 6, Frozen and Wreck-It Ralph, and probably more adult, which is perhaps why it appeals so much. It is still a film for all the family though. Most of all I love this film because of Disney’s more daring approach and choice of topic, and I hope the success of the movie encourages them do more films like this in the future. And I don't mean sequels, Disney (though I wouldn’t say no to a sequel)! I mean thoughtful, hilarious films with likeable characters and an important message. And bangin theme tunes. I would much rather see a Zootopia every four years than a live action remake every 3 months..oh wait..isn’t it like a month between Aladdin and The Lion King? 

Try harder, Disney, we know you've got it in you. When you do it like Zootopia, you are making not just the best animated films ever, but the BEST films ever!


----------



## RSandRS

Micca said:


> Never saw TGD because I don't like dinosaurs.  All the dino craze, Jurassic Park, etc. is lost on me.  I know that kids do like it and that's fine, I don't even like Dinoland at AK. As always the thoughtful comments by others are appreciated.


I get Dinoland might not feature highly (although Dinosaur the ride is AMAZING) but what no love for Jurassic Park!!!


----------



## RSandRS

*Finding Dory (2016)*


Can definitely see what they were going for. I like Finding Dory, but I don’t love it. It’s definitely a really good film, thoughtful, funny, sweet, but not as blindingly creative as some of Pixar’s others.


The film is strongest when they’re sticking to their original theme (growing up with a disability or a disabled person) - The bits with young Dory and her parents are really successful


Overall I think the film is too much like the previous one - maybe we could have examined Dory’s difficulties in some other way than through her going on a journey of discovery that is too similar to Finding Nemo


Characters like Bailey, Destiny and the seals are cute but a bit forgettable - they are there to help move the plot along and, in the case of Bailey and Destiny, to be examples of people living with disabilities, but not well-developed examples. New characters don’t make much of an impression and in some cases seem to be quirky for the sake of being quirky and not because it has anything to do with the theme.


Hank is definitely the most interesting new character and is very likeable, though they maybe could have gone a bit deeper into his issues to make you understand him more?


The animation is of course spectacular...there’s not much more to say. This is Pixar, nobody does it better, and their ability to bring so much life and personality to their non-human characters is amazing.


Another example of Pixar shooting itself in the foot by being too damn good - from another studio this would be one of their best, but Pixar has already made this movie and made it better


----------



## Micca

RSandRS said:


> I get Dinoland might not feature highly (although Dinosaur the ride is AMAZING) but what no love for Jurassic Park!!!


No love for Dinosaur (the ride or JP.)  I've experienced them both several times, just not my cuppa tea

Totally agree about Zootopia, a most excellent piece of work.  Finding Dory, it's another one on the DVR waiting to be watched.  Nemo was terrific, I can't really get into watching a movie that's sort of same-y, but not as good.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Zootopia (2016)*
> 
> This is my favourite Disney movie EVER! I can appreciate its probably not the best Disney movie, that medal for me probably goes to The Lion King, but I absolutely adore this film. It’s an absolute blinder of a film and I love it to pieces.
> 
> 
> Overall I love the message of this film. It was brave and awesome of Disney to make a film about racism and discrimination, and even more powerful when it’s such a gentle and understanding message. Even the best of us can find ourselves making assumptions about others because they are different, even someone as wonderful as Judy Hopps! It is subtle, complex and not a common theme, and is explored beautifully through the characters and the narrative. I love the way it is introduced early on through Judy’s school play and then through her parents’ well-meaning but ignorant remarks about sly foxes. There are continual references throughout the film, focusing on all the ways, small and big, that we tend to discriminate and make assumptions about one another, until the final reveal and Assistant Mayor Bellweather’s pronouncement that ’Fear always works!’ The movie makes the wise choice to not portray people with prejudices as ‘evil’, but as products of the environment they live in; even though I’m laughing out loud all the way through, I still find myself thinking what a wise film this is.
> 
> 
> I love the characters. All of them. Judy and Nick especially are truly fantastic creations, and their friendship is built up believably and sweetly throughout the film. Judy is the ultimate Disney heroine: brave, kind, clever, a fount of positivity...but also capable of making mistakes. Her superpower is being able to learn from her mistakes and do better and I love that! Nick is instantly lovable because he’s so cool, and then becomes more so when you see his vulnerability. And the way both of them have something so important to teach one another makes their relationship so much stronger and more believable. This is how to do C-H-A-R-A-C-T-E-R-D-E-V-E-L-O-P-M-E-N-T, y’all! The two of them together... solid gold! I know they are friends, but I am sure there is some chemistry there too - just look at how flirty they are!. I totally like the idea of a Zootopia 2 where those two are figuring out how to be in a mixed relationship. The rest of the characters (Chief Bogo, Assistant Mayor Bellweather, Clawhauser, Jude-the dude’s parents) are also really well realised and all contribute to the humour of the film, but they’re always something more than just funny side characters. They’re all trying to break out of the roles that society has set down for them - Chief Bogo feels like he has to be such a ******* all the time, Clawhauser doesn’t fit the normal profile of a cop and is a predator as well and Assistant Mayor Bellweather...well, she’s got issues for sure - they’re all experiencing prejudice but also reflecting that prejudice back on other people. It is one of the film’s strongest elements that every word and action by every character reaffirms the overriding message.
> 
> 
> Of course one of the strongest aspects of Zootopia is the humour; it’s completely hilarious. I remember I wasn't very excited to watch it at the cinema until I saw the Dash trailer and then thought 'great that looks fun, but it is probably the only really funny joke in the movie'. Boy was I wrong! From naked Yaks to 'It’s called a hustle, sweetheart' to the whole sequence with Mr Big this movie has me genuinely roaring with laughter all the way through.
> 
> 
> It may not be the strongest aspect of the film, or the strongest song in the Disney canon, but damn I love Try Everything. The best Disney movies have amazing songs and so you would think with only one song Zootopia would lose out, but no way. From the first time we see Judy put on her earphones and listen to her music to psyche herself up for her new life (such a girl/woman thing to do - who’s not listened to a Disney tune on the way to a new adventure!) it’s a total hit! Songs come and go on my swimming playlist, but Try Everything has been on there for years, and it always gets me pumped.
> 
> 
> Because of the humor, I feel Zootopia is probably more ‘edgy’ than other recent Disney flicks, such as Big Hero 6, Frozen and Wreck-It Ralph, and probably more adult, which is perhaps why it appeals so much. It is still a film for all the family though. Most of all I love this film because of Disney’s more daring approach and choice of topic, and I hope the success of the movie encourages them do more films like this in the future. And I don't mean sequels, Disney (though I wouldn’t say no to a sequel)! I mean thoughtful, hilarious films with likeable characters and an important message. And bangin theme tunes. I would much rather see a Zootopia every four years than a live action remake every 3 months..oh wait..isn’t it like a month between Aladdin and The Lion King?
> 
> Try harder, Disney, we know you've got it in you. When you do it like Zootopia, you are making not just the best animated films ever, but the BEST films ever!



Zootopia is indeed another great entry in this Disney "second renaissance." It really does handle a complex topic with uncommon subtlety, and it never comes off as preachy. You hit on most of the story points, but I would also like to point out the gorgeous animation. The scene in the jungle with the rain? That is some next-level stuff right there! Two things are tough in CG animation - water and hair. Zootopia's furry critters make for a lot of hair. Of course, this is just laying the groundwork for Moana. Disney's Hyeprion Engine is working overtime!

I also really like Try Everything, despite never being a huge Shakira fan. It's funny how the right association can give one a different perspective.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Finding Dory (2016)*
> 
> 
> Can definitely see what they were going for. I like Finding Dory, but I don’t love it. It’s definitely a really good film, thoughtful, funny, sweet, but not as blindingly creative as some of Pixar’s others.
> 
> 
> The film is strongest when they’re sticking to their original theme (growing up with a disability or a disabled person) - The bits with young Dory and her parents are really successful
> 
> 
> Overall I think the film is too much like the previous one - maybe we could have examined Dory’s difficulties in some other way than through her going on a journey of discovery that is too similar to Finding Nemo
> 
> 
> Characters like Bailey, Destiny and the seals are cute but a bit forgettable - they are there to help move the plot along and, in the case of Bailey and Destiny, to be examples of people living with disabilities, but not well-developed examples. New characters don’t make much of an impression and in some cases seem to be quirky for the sake of being quirky and not because it has anything to do with the theme.
> 
> 
> Hank is definitely the most interesting new character and is very likeable, though they maybe could have gone a bit deeper into his issues to make you understand him more?
> 
> 
> The animation is of course spectacular...there’s not much more to say. This is Pixar, nobody does it better, and their ability to bring so much life and personality to their non-human characters is amazing.
> 
> 
> Another example of Pixar shooting itself in the foot by being too damn good - from another studio this would be one of their best, but Pixar has already made this movie and made it better



I haven't actually watched Finding Dory yet. I have it on my DVR. I never quite realized that Dory was mentally deficient. I always thought she was a play on the myth that "a fish only has a 3 second memory" and assumed all of her kind of fish were like that. Anyway, this is one I hope to check out sometime, even though Nemo isn't one of my favorites.


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Zootopia is indeed another great entry in this Disney "second renaissance." It really does handle a complex topic with uncommon subtlety, and it never comes off as preachy. You hit on most of the story points, but I would also like ot point out the gorgeous animation. The scene in the jungle with the rain? That is some next-level stuff right there! Two things are tough in CG animation - water and hair. Zootopias furry critters make for a lot of hair. Of course, this is just laying the groundwork for Moana. Disney's Hyeprion Engine is working overtime!
> 
> I also really like Try Everything, despite never being a huge Shakira fan. It's funny how the right association can give one a different perspective.



I really love the articulations of the environments. It will be amazing to see what the animators do with it at Shanghai Disney...

Incidentally, just watched a short doc on the making of Moana's hair last night!

Moana up soon...


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> I really love the articulations of the environments. It will be amazing to see what the animators do with it at Shanghai Disney...
> 
> Incidentally, just watched a short doc on the making of Moana's hair last night!
> 
> Moana up soon...



Yeah, just watch the credits for Moana and see the number of animators dedicated to working just on the hair and also the water effects for that movie. It's amazing!


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> I haven't actually watched Finding Dory yet. I have it on my DVR. I never quite realized that Dory was mentally deficient. I always thought she was a play on the myth that "a fish only has a 3 second memory" and assumed all of her kind of fish were like that. Anyway, this is one I hope to check out sometime, even though Nemo isn't one of my favorites.



It's just about living with a disability, which impacts aspects of your life and relationships. Reflecting on this more, my feeling is they just could have explored it without her having the grant narrative be her having to find her parents as that's too similar to Finding Nemo. 

It is definitely worth a watch though!


----------



## TheStarscream759

Zootopia - I love this film! One of my favourite films of the modern age, I love its message of Life can be unpleasant at times but it doesn't mean you should give up on your dream. Judy is such a strong character, kind, compassionate and I think makes a great role model in general to any kid that want to follow their dreams. Nick serves as a great to her and maybe one of my favourite characters from Disney alongside, Buzz Lightyear, Stitch, Genie, Flynn Rider and even Donald Duck. Such a beautiful, beautiful and now I'm solely tempted to listen to Try Everything again.

Finding Dory - It's not as good as the original but it's still a pretty good film. I like that Dory got her a time in the limelight and it's good they fleshed out her character. Yeah it does feel a little too much like the original but it's fresh enough to make it different from its predecessor. And young Dory is so cute. The scenes with her parents were definitely highlights for me. Not gonna be up there with the other films but it's definitely worth seeing.


----------



## RSandRS

*Moana (2016)*

I can see why Moana was so popular - it’s easy to watch, is led by a really charismatic pair of characters and has good music. You’re not going to be weeping at the end of Moana (well, I don’t), but you will be happy and thoroughly Disneyfied. Basically, it’s not my favourite, it just doesn’t connect with me for some reason, but I do think it’s really great.

Moana is an awesome character - definitely a lovely role model for young girls. I like that Maui doesn’t get all the best lines, and Moana is able to be a bit of a goofball as well as brave and kind and a wonderful singer and one with the nature and the critters the way a Disney Princess should be. I also like the design of the character - she’s strong and moves like a real person, and I like the way her hair constantly gets in her face.

Maui is a brilliant creation - they introduce him way too late! This is another example of Disney’s genius for casting voice actors - if not played by The Rock Maui could have been quite unlikeable.

I think there are some slight pacing issues in the plot, as it doesn't get going for a long time. You know Moana’s going to set off across the sea at some point, and by about 30 minutes in you’re wondering why she hasn't done it yet. There are three songs before Moana leaves Motonui, all exploring similar themes, meaning that the soundtrack is a bit lopsided, in the same way that it is for Frozen. I also think the bit with the kakamora could have been ditched in favour of more time in the Realm of Monsters. The kakamora don’t add anything, whereas Tamatoa is excellent and feels a bit wasted.

On that subject, my sis thinks the movie suffers a bit by not having a proper villain. This hasn't been a problem in other Disneys and Pixars we’ve watched, and she feels the need for an iconic villain because so much else about Moana feels like the Golden Age of the 90s (where the villain was as important as the good guys), but overall the film feels a bit too nice for her. I don't necessarily agree on this. 

It is def one of the strengths of the film that so much time and thought went into making it representative and respectful of Polynesian culture (while at the same time sticking to the Disney formula).

The music is really good It doesn't quite achieve the brilliance of Alan Menken at his best, but Lin Manuel Miranda’s songs are lovely and the way he plays about with the lyrics is fantastic. You’re Welcome is an absolute choon (again, I can see why it’s so popular)  and We Know the Way is perfect for the movie.

Overall the movie is really nice and I like watching it, though it’s not my favourite of the recent ‘princess movies’. It feels a bit similar to movies that Disney has made in the past: the heroine is a princess; she wants to be/do more than her society’s current expectations allow, but at the same time needs to know and understand herself through a journey of discovery; she feels connected to a body of water as some kind of representation of her uncontainable spirit and sings about it ('water is the metaphor' ; she sets out on a journey after the death of a close family member and then saves the world etc. It feels a bit like they chose the setting first, took elements of other Disney films and bolted them together, and then tried to make them fit into the setting they’d chosen. For the most part they’re successful, but they haven’t ended up with such an original film as their last few (Zootopia, Big Hero 6 etc.). Nonetheless, Moana is a fab film and Disney animation seems to be on a roll right now...I hope they don’t get distracted making live action films. Oh no, too late...


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Moana (2016)*
> 
> I can see why Moana was so popular - it’s easy to watch, is led by a really charismatic pair of characters and has good music. You’re not going to be weeping at the end of Moana (well, I don’t), but you will be happy and thoroughly Disneyfied. Basically, it’s not my favourite, it just doesn’t connect with me for some reason, but I do think it’s really great.
> 
> Moana is an awesome character - definitely a lovely role model for young girls. I like that Maui doesn’t get all the best lines, and Moana is able to be a bit of a goofball as well as brave and kind and a wonderful singer and one with the nature and the critters the way a Disney Princess should be. I also like the design of the character - she’s strong and moves like a real person, and I like the way her hair constantly gets in her face.
> 
> Maui is a brilliant creation - they introduce him way too late! This is another example of Disney’s genius for casting voice actors - if not played by The Rock Maui could have been quite unlikeable.
> 
> I think there are some slight pacing issues in the plot, as it doesn't get going for a long time. You know Moana’s going to set off across the sea at some point, and by about 30 minutes in you’re wondering why she hasn't done it yet. There are three songs before Moana leaves Motonui, all exploring similar themes, meaning that the soundtrack is a bit lopsided, in the same way that it is for Frozen. I also think the bit with the kakamora could have been ditched in favour of more time in the Realm of Monsters. The kakamora don’t add anything, whereas Tamatoa is excellent and feels a bit wasted.
> 
> On that subject, my sis thinks the movie suffers a bit by not having a proper villain. This hasn't been a problem in other Disneys and Pixars we’ve watched, and she feels the need for an iconic villain because so much else about Moana feels like the Golden Age of the 90s (where the villain was as important as the good guys), but overall the film feels a bit too nice for her. I don't necessarily agree on this.
> 
> It is def one of the strengths of the film that so much time and thought went into making it representative and respectful of Polynesian culture (while at the same time sticking to the Disney formula).
> 
> The music is really good It doesn't quite achieve the brilliance of Alan Menken at his best, but Lin Manuel Miranda’s songs are lovely and the way he plays about with the lyrics is fantastic. You’re Welcome is an absolute choon (again, I can see why it’s so popular)  and We Know the Way is perfect for the movie.
> 
> Overall the movie is really nice and I like watching it, though it’s not my favourite of the recent ‘princess movies’. It feels a bit similar to movies that Disney has made in the past: the heroine is a princess; she wants to be/do more than her society’s current expectations allow, but at the same time needs to know and understand herself through a journey of discovery; she feels connected to a body of water as some kind of representation of her uncontainable spirit and sings about it ('water is the metaphor' ; she sets out on a journey after the death of a close family member and then saves the world etc. It feels a bit like they chose the setting first, took elements of other Disney films and bolted them together, and then tried to make them fit into the setting they’d chosen. For the most part they’re successful, but they haven’t ended up with such an original film as their last few (Zootopia, Big Hero 6 etc.). Nonetheless, Moana is a fab film and Disney animation seems to be on a roll right now...I hope they don’t get distracted making live action films. Oh no, too late...



I also really like Moana, though I do feel it didn't quite match it's potential. It sure is beautiful though. You know I am into the animation technology, and wow-oh-wow is this one pretty! They are putting on an animation clinic and solidifying the studio at the very top of the animation game. Even Pixar was lagging behind at this point. Water. Hair. Need I say more? Oh yeah, I do need to mention Maui's tattoos as they were done with traditional hand-drawn animation! They just nailed the look of this movie in all aspects. Nobody can touch it!

On the story front, I am always a sucker for sea-faring stories, so I really love what's going on here. "We Know the Way" is such a great song and I just love the boats. I actually also loved the Kakamora and their big floating fortress and wish they had been used more instead of being insignificant. They should have cropped back up near the end to harass the heroes as they make their final push. The pacing is a bit lopsided, but nothing that ruins the movie, it just could have been smoother. Still, Moana and Maui have a great dynamic, they both have a hero's journey and learn lessons, and they are both just so likable and fun. It works and I think Moana will be well regarded in years to come.


----------



## Micca

I'll echo RS and Brian on Moana: It's very good but not all the way to great.  Very nicely done and a visual feast.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Moana - One of my favourite movies of the modern era, beautiful animation, Your Welcome is probably my favourite from the movie, The Rock is very good as Maui you wouldn't think an action star like him would be able to act in a Disney movie but he does and he conveys Maui's sadness when he talks about his past to Moana and even when he gets mad at her. It is the mark of good acting right there. Moana herself is a strong character and takes no nonsense when Maui is bragging about himself, kind of wish that Tamatoa because we only see him for one scene and then we never see him for the rest of the film apart from the stinger. The songs that Lin Miranda Manuel wrote are just stunning, probably the best we've heard from a Disney movie in a while and it's definitely worth a watch.

Also on a side note I have updated my Trip report for DLP.


----------



## RSandRS

Apologies for the delay! Preparing for brief Shanghai Disney and Tokyo and its all got so busy!

*Cars 3 (2017)*

Cars 3 really isn't bad. It’s certainly a marked improvement on Cars 2 and is possibly the best of the Cars movies. There’s less of a perfunctory, ‘we had to do a sequel’, straight-to-dvd feel, and more of a connection to the themes of the first movie. This having been said, Cars is a weird one to get ‘a franchise’ - it’s not like it’s Toy Story. These movies must have been more successful than I thought.

The movie is pretty slow to start. There’s a very long build up at the beginning as we watch McQueen’s career fall apart. It’s also a bit depressing. The demolition derby bit is a bit long and ultimately goes nowhere. That bit feels a bit like an attempt to shove in some of the ‘folksy charm’ that we mercifully get a bit less of this time with the much-reduced presence of Mater. I think the plot isn’t the strong point of this movie basically.

The strong point of the movie is probably its characters. Cars 3 strips out a lot of the over-reliance on ‘quirky characters’ that make the first movie feel like a Hallmark Christmas movie and go instead for focusing on two characters and developing them. McQueen and Cruz Ramirez are both very well-realised characters and the movie really comes alive when Cruz shows up. She’s an interesting and quite an unusual character. She’s not perfect, and actually is quite insensitive in her handling of other people, but is still very likeable. There’s maybe a slightly underdeveloped story to be told here about minorities and the difficulties faced in realising their dreams. They touch on it, but perhaps they think going into it in too much detail would pull focus from McQueen’s story. I think it could have been interesting to contrast the upbringing and route into racing of McQueen and Cruz, but that’s not the story Pixar chose to tell.

Although there’s not such a strong sense of place and time as Cars 1, the animation is still stellar. It’s maybe not as flashy as in the first two movies, but it’s still very pretty.

Overall the film maintains the slightly mournful, nostalgic tone of the first movie (and pretends the second one never happened, thank goodness). It doesn’t have the big emotional moments you get in some Pixars, but does have a thoughtful, bittersweet tone which it sticks to throughout. It could perhaps be accused of being a bit less fun that some of the other Pixar movies. The ‘wacky hijinks’ bits (like the demolition derby) definitely take a backseat to a sober examination of legacy and growing old. This isn't a bad thing for me, as an adult, but maybe would make the film a bit of a slog for young children.

Overall, a surprisingly good film. Certainly not up there with the greats, but if you need to watch one Cars movie, I’d make it this one.

P.S. A small and picky point, but I think the way Cruz wins the big race is actually a bit of a cheat. If you can just switch out cars at any point for a team, why not just bring a whole team of them, so none of them get tired?

P.P.S As with the Planes movies, I continued to torture myself throughout this movie with questions about the world in which it takes place. Like, the brand name Dinoco refers to petrol coming from dinosaur fossils, right? So they did have dinosaurs in this reality? And those two guys Rusty and Dusty - are they really brothers? And if so, why aren't they the same type of car? What makes them brothers? Everyone goes on about McQueen being old now, but what does that mean? Doc Hudson seems to be dead (although no one uses that word), but how does a car die? Etc. etc.


----------



## RSandRS

*Coco (2017)*

It’s hard for me to believe but this was actually only the second time we’d watched Coco. We saw it at the cinema when it came out, but then started this marathon shortly before it came out on dvd; so we weren’t ‘allowed’ to watch it until now. Needless to say it was totally worth the wait and as good as I had remembered  - it’s a glorious visual and emotional feast and it may be one of Pixar’s best.

The visuals might be the strongest in any Pixar movie. I know, that’s saying a lot, but I love the way they mix the macabre and the beautiful and the weird together. Moments like seeing the marigold bridge and the land of the dead quite literally take your breath away. What a wonderful way for children to possibly visualise the idea of the afterlife for the first time; a gorgeous early exposure to the idea of death and losing loved ones for children.

This is the closest thing Pixar has to a musical, and it’s a fantastic one. Remember Me is a perfect song for this movie - you hear it over and over in lots of different ways throughout the film and it never gets old, and always manages to fit perfectly into the situation. It’s not the only great song in the movie though. They’re all wonderful, but I have a soft spot for Un Poco Loco because it’s sung with such utter joy. All the singing is totally brilliant; especially the little chap who plays Miguel - what star!

Coco is also a perfectly balanced film, with no aspect that’s less than perfect. In fact it reaches the heights of Inside Out and Up in terms of being a visually gorgeous, wonderfully acted, completely original and perfectly told story. It’s also another film where the themes are built into every aspect from the characters, to the setting, to the visuals, to the magic, to the music. I really appreciate this as someone who loves good writing, because it means that not a second ends up being wasted.

In terms of cultural representation, this is probably the best achievement so far in any Disney movie. It does what Moana was trying to do by taking local myths and traditions and adding a creative spin, but in my opinion does it so much better. It pays tribute to Mexican culture and manages to tell a Disneyfied story about family and love without straying into cliche.

Overall it’s a wonderful treatment of the theme of death and remembrance - another challenging subject for Pixar to address. As usual with Pixar I think this film is probably for slightly older children - not that it’s frightening or anything, there’s just some quite complex and dark ideas in it. Of course it’s not the first Disney movie to deal with this theme; it would take longer than it perhaps should to reel off the number of characters who have lost one or both of their parents in a Disney movie. But the way Disney deals with death ranges from ‘something that happens offscreen which we don’t really talk about, a la Cinderella’, ‘a convenient plot point perhaps with a song or a sad reprise to make sure it registers, a la Frozen’ to ‘a significant main character dies and thereby shapes the rest of the story and the way the characters around them develop, a la The Lion King’. 

Coco might be the best and most thoughtful treatment of the theme of death in the whole Disney canon, however, and is a surprisingly positive one. It reminds us that people die, but we should remember them and ‘keep them alive’ by talking and telling stories about them. It’s a message you hear quite a lot, but not one that always registers, especially if you’re a lucky kid like me, who didn't lose too many significant loved ones during my formative years. Like Inside Out, this movie gives kids a language and a frame of reference for something big and difficult and important. It achieves the difficult task of making kids feel less afraid of death while at the same time helping them to understand the significance of grief and remembrance, essentially giving the control back to the viewer - which I love.

Who am I kidding? I loved everything about this movie. I laughed, I cried, I gasped in wonder over and over again - A perfect perfect movie.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> Apologies for the delay! Preparing for brief Shanghai Disney and Tokyo and its all got so busy!
> 
> *Cars 3 (2017)*
> 
> Cars 3 really isn't bad. It’s certainly a marked improvement on Cars 2 and is possibly the best of the Cars movies. There’s less of a perfunctory, ‘we had to do a sequel’, straight-to-dvd feel, and more of a connection to the themes of the first movie. This having been said, Cars is a weird one to get ‘a franchise’ - it’s not like it’s Toy Story. These movies must have been more successful than I thought.
> 
> The movie is pretty slow to start. There’s a very long build up at the beginning as we watch McQueen’s career fall apart. It’s also a bit depressing. The demolition derby bit is a bit long and ultimately goes nowhere. That bit feels a bit like an attempt to shove in some of the ‘folksy charm’ that we mercifully get a bit less of this time with the much-reduced presence of Mater. I think the plot isn’t the strong point of this movie basically.
> 
> The strong point of the movie is probably its characters. Cars 3 strips out a lot of the over-reliance on ‘quirky characters’ that make the first movie feel like a Hallmark Christmas movie and go instead for focusing on two characters and developing them. McQueen and Cruz Ramirez are both very well-realised characters and the movie really comes alive when Cruz shows up. She’s an interesting and quite an unusual character. She’s not perfect, and actually is quite insensitive in her handling of other people, but is still very likeable. There’s maybe a slightly underdeveloped story to be told here about minorities and the difficulties faced in realising their dreams. They touch on it, but perhaps they think going into it in too much detail would pull focus from McQueen’s story. I think it could have been interesting to contrast the upbringing and route into racing of McQueen and Cruz, but that’s not the story Pixar chose to tell.
> 
> Although there’s not such a strong sense of place and time as Cars 1, the animation is still stellar. It’s maybe not as flashy as in the first two movies, but it’s still very pretty.
> 
> Overall the film maintains the slightly mournful, nostalgic tone of the first movie (and pretends the second one never happened, thank goodness). It doesn’t have the big emotional moments you get in some Pixars, but does have a thoughtful, bittersweet tone which it sticks to throughout. It could perhaps be accused of being a bit less fun that some of the other Pixar movies. The ‘wacky hijinks’ bits (like the demolition derby) definitely take a backseat to a sober examination of legacy and growing old. This isn't a bad thing for me, as an adult, but maybe would make the film a bit of a slog for young children.
> 
> Overall, a surprisingly good film. Certainly not up there with the greats, but if you need to watch one Cars movie, I’d make it this one.
> 
> P.S. A small and picky point, but I think the way Cruz wins the big race is actually a bit of a cheat. If you can just switch out cars at any point for a team, why not just bring a whole team of them, so none of them get tired?
> 
> P.P.S As with the Planes movies, I continued to torture myself throughout this movie with questions about the world in which it takes place. Like, the brand name Dinoco refers to petrol coming from dinosaur fossils, right? So they did have dinosaurs in this reality? And those two guys Rusty and Dusty - are they really brothers? And if so, why aren't they the same type of car? What makes them brothers? Everyone goes on about McQueen being old now, but what does that mean? Doc Hudson seems to be dead (although no one uses that word), but how does a car die? Etc. etc.



The trailer for Cars 3 was the first time I became interested in the franchise. I had never even seen the first two, but I made it a point to watch them so I could check out 3. Something about Lightning in that big crash...it got to me. Anyway, it is definitely much better than Cars 2 (though I still say Cars 2 wasn't bad, just unnecessary - it does have that straight-to-video feel), and 3 is more of a follow-up to the first one. I missed Doc for sure, as he was my favorite character. I love how he was honored at the end, and I even have a little care of Lightning in his "Hudson Hornet" paint job (and a Doc to sit by his side). That was wonderful, and overall I really enjoyed Cars 3!

Don't worry too much about their world. As Milhouse once said, "if gasoline is their food, why do they have teeth?" It's just a cartoon. Also, yes, the movies were incredibly successful and sell merchandise by the boat load!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Coco (2017)*
> 
> It’s hard for me to believe but this was actually only the second time we’d watched Coco. We saw it at the cinema when it came out, but then started this marathon shortly before it came out on dvd; so we weren’t ‘allowed’ to watch it until now. Needless to say it was totally worth the wait and as good as I had remembered  - it’s a glorious visual and emotional feast and it may be one of Pixar’s best.
> 
> The visuals might be the strongest in any Pixar movie. I know, that’s saying a lot, but I love the way they mix the macabre and the beautiful and the weird together. Moments like seeing the marigold bridge and the land of the dead quite literally take your breath away. What a wonderful way for children to possibly visualise the idea of the afterlife for the first time; a gorgeous early exposure to the idea of death and losing loved ones for children.
> 
> This is the closest thing Pixar has to a musical, and it’s a fantastic one. Remember Me is a perfect song for this movie - you hear it over and over in lots of different ways throughout the film and it never gets old, and always manages to fit perfectly into the situation. It’s not the only great song in the movie though. They’re all wonderful, but I have a soft spot for Un Poco Loco because it’s sung with such utter joy. All the singing is totally brilliant; especially the little chap who plays Miguel - what star!
> 
> Coco is also a perfectly balanced film, with no aspect that’s less than perfect. In fact it reaches the heights of Inside Out and Up in terms of being a visually gorgeous, wonderfully acted, completely original and perfectly told story. It’s also another film where the themes are built into every aspect from the characters, to the setting, to the visuals, to the magic, to the music. I really appreciate this as someone who loves good writing, because it means that not a second ends up being wasted.
> 
> In terms of cultural representation, this is probably the best achievement so far in any Disney movie. It does what Moana was trying to do by taking local myths and traditions and adding a creative spin, but in my opinion does it so much better. It pays tribute to Mexican culture and manages to tell a Disneyfied story about family and love without straying into cliche.
> 
> Overall it’s a wonderful treatment of the theme of death and remembrance - another challenging subject for Pixar to address. As usual with Pixar I think this film is probably for slightly older children - not that it’s frightening or anything, there’s just some quite complex and dark ideas in it. Of course it’s not the first Disney movie to deal with this theme; it would take longer than it perhaps should to reel off the number of characters who have lost one or both of their parents in a Disney movie. But the way Disney deals with death ranges from ‘something that happens offscreen which we don’t really talk about, a la Cinderella’, ‘a convenient plot point perhaps with a song or a sad reprise to make sure it registers, a la Frozen’ to ‘a significant main character dies and thereby shapes the rest of the story and the way the characters around them develop, a la The Lion King’.
> 
> Coco might be the best and most thoughtful treatment of the theme of death in the whole Disney canon, however, and is a surprisingly positive one. It reminds us that people die, but we should remember them and ‘keep them alive’ by talking and telling stories about them. It’s a message you hear quite a lot, but not one that always registers, especially if you’re a lucky kid like me, who didn't lose too many significant loved ones during my formative years. Like Inside Out, this movie gives kids a language and a frame of reference for something big and difficult and important. It achieves the difficult task of making kids feel less afraid of death while at the same time helping them to understand the significance of grief and remembrance, essentially giving the control back to the viewer - which I love.
> 
> Who am I kidding? I loved everything about this movie. I laughed, I cried, I gasped in wonder over and over again - A perfect perfect movie.



Man, Coco - what a great one! First of all, you are right, it is *beautiful*, especially in the land of the dead! This one brings all of the usual Pixar feels, especially toward the end with Ernesto. "My Coco." Whaaaa.... That'll do it! At the same time it manages to be a super-fun movie with lots of great characters. I particularly love the spirit animals, who are so wonderfully designed. I am a fan of the macabre, and this movie hits those notes. It's up there with Pixar's best.


----------



## Micca

RSandRS said:


> Cars is a weird one to get ‘a franchise’ - it’s not like it’s Toy Story. These movies must have been more successful than I thought.


Cars was (is) a merchandising bonanza, pretty sure that explains the sequels.


RSandRS said:


> the brand name Dinoco refers to petrol coming from dinosaur fossils, right?


Yes but there might also be some further nuance.  In the heyday of Route 66, two of the major service stations were Sinclair and Texaco.  Sinclair's logo was a simple dinosaur graphic.  I think the writers did a clever take combining the two to create a gas station brand for the movies.

Coco is brilliant!  Need to see it again soon


----------



## kpd6901

RSandRS said:


> Apologies for the delay! Preparing for brief Shanghai Disney and Tokyo and its all got so busy!
> 
> *Cars 3 (2017)*
> 
> Cars 3 really isn't bad. It’s certainly a marked improvement on Cars 2 and is possibly the best of the Cars movies. There’s less of a perfunctory, ‘we had to do a sequel’, straight-to-dvd feel, and more of a connection to the themes of the first movie. This having been said, Cars is a weird one to get ‘a franchise’ - it’s not like it’s Toy Story. These movies must have been more successful than I thought.
> 
> The movie is pretty slow to start. There’s a very long build up at the beginning as we watch McQueen’s career fall apart. It’s also a bit depressing. The demolition derby bit is a bit long and ultimately goes nowhere. That bit feels a bit like an attempt to shove in some of the ‘folksy charm’ that we mercifully get a bit less of this time with the much-reduced presence of Mater. I think the plot isn’t the strong point of this movie basically.
> 
> The strong point of the movie is probably its characters. Cars 3 strips out a lot of the over-reliance on ‘quirky characters’ that make the first movie feel like a Hallmark Christmas movie and go instead for focusing on two characters and developing them. McQueen and Cruz Ramirez are both very well-realised characters and the movie really comes alive when Cruz shows up. She’s an interesting and quite an unusual character. She’s not perfect, and actually is quite insensitive in her handling of other people, but is still very likeable. There’s maybe a slightly underdeveloped story to be told here about minorities and the difficulties faced in realising their dreams. They touch on it, but perhaps they think going into it in too much detail would pull focus from McQueen’s story. I think it could have been interesting to contrast the upbringing and route into racing of McQueen and Cruz, but that’s not the story Pixar chose to tell.
> 
> Although there’s not such a strong sense of place and time as Cars 1, the animation is still stellar. It’s maybe not as flashy as in the first two movies, but it’s still very pretty.
> 
> Overall the film maintains the slightly mournful, nostalgic tone of the first movie (and pretends the second one never happened, thank goodness). It doesn’t have the big emotional moments you get in some Pixars, but does have a thoughtful, bittersweet tone which it sticks to throughout. It could perhaps be accused of being a bit less fun that some of the other Pixar movies. The ‘wacky hijinks’ bits (like the demolition derby) definitely take a backseat to a sober examination of legacy and growing old. This isn't a bad thing for me, as an adult, but maybe would make the film a bit of a slog for young children.
> 
> Overall, a surprisingly good film. Certainly not up there with the greats, but if you need to watch one Cars movie, I’d make it this one.
> 
> P.S. A small and picky point, but I think the way Cruz wins the big race is actually a bit of a cheat. If you can just switch out cars at any point for a team, why not just bring a whole team of them, so none of them get tired?
> 
> P.P.S As with the Planes movies, I continued to torture myself throughout this movie with questions about the world in which it takes place. Like, the brand name Dinoco refers to petrol coming from dinosaur fossils, right? So they did have dinosaurs in this reality? And those two guys Rusty and Dusty - are they really brothers? And if so, why aren't they the same type of car? What makes them brothers? Everyone goes on about McQueen being old now, but what does that mean? Doc Hudson seems to be dead (although no one uses that word), but how does a car die? Etc. etc.


The entire Cars franchise is targeted toward the folksy charm and rural, redneck racing fans of NASCAR racing here in the US. In the American south, Midwest, and other rural, country places, NASCAR is life, and it throws back to their childhood. Plus many of these fans are gear heads and really into that culture. My in-laws and their community greatly appreciate these films and although it is not my personal background, it seems that these folks feel appreciated by it.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Don't really anything to say about Cars 3 so next. 

*Coco*
Oh my god is this one amazing. Its such a gorgeous film to look at, it has a lot of memorable characters and songs and it's one of the inspirations for me to learn Spanish. No really, I'm not kidding with that last one, it's that good. I honestly didn't know what they were going to do with the Day of the Dead concept seeing as The Book of Life already did this sort thing before but as a film it doesn't feel clichéd or done before, it feels so original. Hector is probably one of my new fave Pixar characters as of writing. And I agree, Un Poco Loco is such a joyous song and I find myself singing it. 

One of the better films from Pixar and certainly one of the best for me.


----------



## RSandRS

*Incredibles 2 (2018)*

So we’re on to our penultimate movie (can you believe that?). It’s the sequel to a fantastic Pixar, it’s got lots of great characters and truly hilarious moments, it’s got Edna Mode...and yet I still can’t quite work out how I feel about it. So let’s dig into that a bit shall we?

Incredibles 2 is definitely good. It’s extremely funny, and though it perhaps doesn’t go as deep as many of the other Pixars, it’s still got a lot of heart. Ratatouille is a fairly fluffy film and still manages to be extremely high quality - a movie doesn't need to be Inside Out to be excellent.

So...the good things first.

The OG Characters are amazing.They were amazing in The Incredibles and they continue to be amazing - we are lucky just to be able to spend more time in their fantastic presence. Especially Elastigirl. And Edna. Edna is so fun and I love her relationship with Jack-Jack. Jack-Jack is sort of a new character because he comes into his own in this movie (and boy does he!) and is the source of some of the most hilarious bits in the film. It’s also great that Frozone gets a bit of an expanded part in this movie - he’s such a cool character and played to perfection by Samuel L Jackson.

The voice acting is also wonderful from the core characters, of course. The returning family members are all hilarious and great, and Holly Hunter especially is wonderful at providing the heart as well as the humour. Edna of course is a standout. Have you noticed I love Edna?

As in the first movie I love the retro-future tech. The Incredibile and the Elasticycle are great inventions and the floating monorail is also pretty awesome. There’s just so much creativity on show here, and despite it being fantastical, it still feels believable.

One of my favourite things about Incredibles 2 has got to be the score. It was already one of my favourite things from the first movie (it just fits so perfectly with the plot and tone of the piece) and with the added treats of the theme tunes for Mr Incredible, Elastigirl and Frozone...well, Michael Giaccino is nothing short of a genius. It also feels like him and Brad Bird must have had a bit of a mind-meld on these two movies, for him to create a score that so perfectly captures the spirit of what Brad Bird is trying to do.

The plot is a bit of a mixture. I don't dislike it, though it does have some problems. It’s fun and whips along at a pace, and includes some great set pieces, including the monorail chase and Jack-Jack and the raccoon. But there are some puzzling bits and some things I would go so far as to call missteps.

So, on to the less good things.

I think the new characters let the movie down a bit. The new supers are a bit lacklustre and don’t make much of an impression, but the real letdown is the villain. Evelyn’s motivations are weird and unconvincing and she has so little personality. She doesn’t like supers, so she brings them out of hiding just when they were about to be gone for good...in order to make sure they’re gone for good. Huh? This evil plan is less developed than the Horned King’s. I also don't know why they gave her a brother. He does nothing and contributes nothing either to the plot or the themes. 

The movie tries to help us understand Evelyn’s motivations a bit better through her conversations with Elastigirl. Unfortunately these are stiff and weird and go on for ages. We should get ample insight into her as a character, but we don’t. Syndrome was part of what made The Incredibles the brilliant bit of campy, escapist fun that it was, and, unfortunately, Evelyn is no comparison.

My final gripe is with the messages that the movie is trying to deliver; they feel just a little bit clunky and confused to me. Mr Incredible’s lack of support for Elastigirl feels oddly out of character. The movie feels a bit like it’s trying to jump on the #metoo bandwagon by punishing Mr Incredible for not wholeheartedly supporting his wife, just because she’s a woman. This doesn't seem to me like something the Mr Incredible from the first movie would have done though. Yes, I could see him being resentful that Elastigirl is the one who gets to go out and do the heroics, but more because he’s keen to reclaim his glory days that because she’s a woman and he’s a man. Also, isn’t this message a bit dated and overdone at this point?

I’m also not sure what this movie is trying to tell me about ordinary people’s role in society. The philosophy of it seems ill-formed. The movie (through Evelyn) seems to be trying to tell us we’re all lazy buggers and should get up off our butts and do something about the world; but at the same time it punishes Evelyn for doing just that (trying to make herself and her family independent from supers); as it also punished Syndrome in the first movie for trying to be like a super. So, ‘Stop being lazy and do something, but also, don't because you should leave it to the special people or you’ll end up looking like an idiot like Syndrome, or end up evil and resentful like Evelyn?’ I’m a tad confused.

Overall Incredibles 2 is perhaps not the sequel I would have hoped for for one of my favourite Pixar movies, but it is still a really good one. It’s very funny and creative and allows me to spend more time with the coolest family in the world, which is pretty incredible.


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Incredibles 2 (2018)*
> 
> So we’re on to our penultimate movie (can you believe that?). It’s the sequel to a fantastic Pixar, it’s got lots of great characters and truly hilarious moments, it’s got Edna Mode...and yet I still can’t quite work out how I feel about it. So let’s dig into that a bit shall we?
> 
> Incredibles 2 is definitely good. It’s extremely funny, and though it perhaps doesn’t go as deep as many of the other Pixars, it’s still got a lot of heart. Ratatouille is a fairly fluffy film and still manages to be extremely high quality - a movie doesn't need to be Inside Out to be excellent.
> 
> So...the good things first.
> 
> The OG Characters are amazing.They were amazing in The Incredibles and they continue to be amazing - we are lucky just to be able to spend more time in their fantastic presence. Especially Elastigirl. And Edna. Edna is so fun and I love her relationship with Jack-Jack. Jack-Jack is sort of a new character because he comes into his own in this movie (and boy does he!) and is the source of some of the most hilarious bits in the film. It’s also great that Frozone gets a bit of an expanded part in this movie - he’s such a cool character and played to perfection by Samuel L Jackson.
> 
> The voice acting is also wonderful from the core characters, of course. The returning family members are all hilarious and great, and Holly Hunter especially is wonderful at providing the heart as well as the humour. Edna of course is a standout. Have you noticed I love Edna?
> 
> As in the first movie I love the retro-future tech. The Incredibile and the Elasticycle are great inventions and the floating monorail is also pretty awesome. There’s just so much creativity on show here, and despite it being fantastical, it still feels believable.
> 
> One of my favourite things about Incredibles 2 has got to be the score. It was already one of my favourite things from the first movie (it just fits so perfectly with the plot and tone of the piece) and with the added treats of the theme tunes for Mr Incredible, Elastigirl and Frozone...well, Michael Giaccino is nothing short of a genius. It also feels like him and Brad Bird must have had a bit of a mind-meld on these two movies, for him to create a score that so perfectly captures the spirit of what Brad Bird is trying to do.
> 
> The plot is a bit of a mixture. I don't dislike it, though it does have some problems. It’s fun and whips along at a pace, and includes some great set pieces, including the monorail chase and Jack-Jack and the raccoon. But there are some puzzling bits and some things I would go so far as to call missteps.
> 
> So, on to the less good things.
> 
> I think the new characters let the movie down a bit. The new supers are a bit lacklustre and don’t make much of an impression, but the real letdown is the villain. Evelyn’s motivations are weird and unconvincing and she has so little personality. She doesn’t like supers, so she brings them out of hiding just when they were about to be gone for good...in order to make sure they’re gone for good. Huh? This evil plan is less developed than the Horned King’s. I also don't know why they gave her a brother. He does nothing and contributes nothing either to the plot or the themes.
> 
> The movie tries to help us understand Evelyn’s motivations a bit better through her conversations with Elastigirl. Unfortunately these are stiff and weird and go on for ages. We should get ample insight into her as a character, but we don’t. Syndrome was part of what made The Incredibles the brilliant bit of campy, escapist fun that it was, and, unfortunately, Evelyn is no comparison.
> 
> My final gripe is with the messages that the movie is trying to deliver; they feel just a little bit clunky and confused to me. Mr Incredible’s lack of support for Elastigirl feels oddly out of character. The movie feels a bit like it’s trying to jump on the #metoo bandwagon by punishing Mr Incredible for not wholeheartedly supporting his wife, just because she’s a woman. This doesn't seem to me like something the Mr Incredible from the first movie would have done though. Yes, I could see him being resentful that Elastigirl is the one who gets to go out and do the heroics, but more because he’s keen to reclaim his glory days that because she’s a woman and he’s a man. Also, isn’t this message a bit dated and overdone at this point?
> 
> I’m also not sure what this movie is trying to tell me about ordinary people’s role in society. The philosophy of it seems ill-formed. The movie (through Evelyn) seems to be trying to tell us we’re all lazy buggers and should get up off our butts and do something about the world; but at the same time it punishes Evelyn for doing just that (trying to make herself and her family independent from supers); as it also punished Syndrome in the first movie for trying to be like a super. So, ‘Stop being lazy and do something, but also, don't because you should leave it to the special people or you’ll end up looking like an idiot like Syndrome, or end up evil and resentful like Evelyn?’ I’m a tad confused.
> 
> Overall Incredibles 2 is perhaps not the sequel I would have hoped for for one of my favourite Pixar movies, but it is still a really good one. It’s very funny and creative and allows me to spend more time with the coolest family in the world, which is pretty incredible.



Incredibles 2 certainly is great! It plays more like a superhero blockbuster than an animated movie, which is reflected in it's run-time and the way the movie is put together. It's interesting to watch both back to back just to see how far computer animation has increased since the original. It's striking!

I get some of your concerns, though I feel that Evelyn's motivations make sense. I don't think she would have pursued her plan at all had the Supers not re-emerged in the first movie. I think that ws a breaking point for her since she blames them for the death of her parents. Alos, one thing to note about Brad Bird is that he does believe in exceptionalism and that the exceptional shouldn't be kept down. It's not necessarily that everyone can't be special, but they they do indeed have to make themselves special and that in doing so must act responsibly, something Syndrome an dScreen Slaver failed at. Watch Tomorrowland for a little more insight into this. It's an interesting philosophy, though it's not necessarily 100% fleshed out in The Incredibles.

Regarding Mr. Incredible, I agreee that his feelings aren't rooted in mysogeny, but more in his own faded glory. Remember thought htat the Incredibles is set in the 1960s when the man was definitely expected to be the bread-winner. That said, he does support his wife, if a bit reluctantly and crankily, but he doesn't try to sabotage her. He does what he has to do, learns how to care for the family, and does a great job as a Dad over all.


----------



## RSandRS

*Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018)*

Last one! Here we go…

It was our second time watching this after watching it at the cinema. I remember enjoying it when we saw it before, but even then I could immediately see the problems with it. 

But let’s start by talking about the great things in Ralph Breaks the Internet. It seems to me that the great things in this movie are really really great. The movie is a visual masterpiece. It’s creative and fun just as the first one was and the depiction of the internet is exciting, funny, clever and satisfying. I say satisfying because the internet has become such a core part of most people’s lives, and to see it portrayed in this way is a complete delight. There are in-jokes and things to enjoy for any user of the internet.

Vanellope’s story is also really good, and she continues to be both adorable and awesome. It’s really nice to see her story continue and develop and for her to go to a more emotional place than she did in Wreck-It Ralph. I also continue to love Fix-It Felix and Calhoun - I wish there was more of them in this movie. I would have loved to see them working out the parenting thing.

I also think this movie’s theme is strong and comes across really well. Although the internet (both in real life and as portrayed so successfully in this movie) is full of exciting things, you don’t have to use it for long before you notice the way everything online is more extreme, enhanced and lacking in nuance, and how the internet can quickly end up making monsters of perfectly reasonable people. This is an interesting angle for a children’s film and I think they pull it off; and it’s also a theme that both adults and children can identify with.

Despite all those good things I don't love this movie. I don't feel that insecurity was really Ralph’s greatest flaw, and in the first movie he certainly wasn't insecure about his relationship with Vanellope. Their friendship becomes a bit weird and one-sided in the second film. Ralph in the first movie wanted to break out of the norm and try new things, but in this movie he just wants to do the same things over and over again and to hold Vanellope back. I could maybe have forgiven all this, but I feel like him going to the dark web to find a virus to destroy the game she loves is just a step too far and was a mistake on the part of the film makers. Even though it all worked out for the best by the end of the film, I still felt like I’d been beaten over the head by the message about ‘supporting your friends’ so thoroughly that I wasn’t really enjoying myself any more. And I also didn't like Ralph, which is quite an achievement by the movie, since he’s one of Disney’s most likeable main characters of the past decade.

My sis likes the movie less then me as she thinks its a tad too self aware. I don't agree I really like the self-referential humour, the bits at Oh My Disney etc. Although, I don't think Disney needed to 'subvert' the trope of the princesses being thought of as needing to be saved is by a man. We haven't had a princess like that since Ariel and she was what only princess number 4 at that point! Sis also reckons that this movie will quickly become dated because of all the references. ‘Breaking the internet’ is already not really a thing anymore. 

I cannot give this movie a stella review which is a shame as its the last one! We’re up to date with movie number 99 (how annoying is that? I would have loved a round 100)! 

I’m very happy to have got it all finished before our Japan trip, though it did end up taking longer than we thought it would. 

I will probably write a bit of a summing up post in a bit, and maybe have a little awards ceremony to celebrate the best and worst of Disney. 

For now though let me say thanks so much to everyone who has read along and most especially to the people who have commented and shared their memories and their thoughts on the movies as well! 

I reckon when Disney's streaming service goes live everyone will be watching from beginning to end! Its an incredible movie journey!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> *Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018)*
> 
> Last one! Here we go…
> 
> It was our second time watching this after watching it at the cinema. I remember enjoying it when we saw it before, but even then I could immediately see the problems with it.
> 
> But let’s start by talking about the great things in Ralph Breaks the Internet. It seems to me that the great things in this movie are really really great. The movie is a visual masterpiece. It’s creative and fun just as the first one was and the depiction of the internet is exciting, funny, clever and satisfying. I say satisfying because the internet has become such a core part of most people’s lives, and to see it portrayed in this way is a complete delight. There are in-jokes and things to enjoy for any user of the internet.
> 
> Vanellope’s story is also really good, and she continues to be both adorable and awesome. It’s really nice to see her story continue and develop and for her to go to a more emotional place than she did in Wreck-It Ralph. I also continue to love Fix-It Felix and Calhoun - I wish there was more of them in this movie. I would have loved to see them working out the parenting thing.
> 
> I also think this movie’s theme is strong and comes across really well. Although the internet (both in real life and as portrayed so successfully in this movie) is full of exciting things, you don’t have to use it for long before you notice the way everything online is more extreme, enhanced and lacking in nuance, and how the internet can quickly end up making monsters of perfectly reasonable people. This is an interesting angle for a children’s film and I think they pull it off; and it’s also a theme that both adults and children can identify with.
> 
> Despite all those good things I don't love this movie. I don't feel that insecurity was really Ralph’s greatest flaw, and in the first movie he certainly wasn't insecure about his relationship with Vanellope. Their friendship becomes a bit weird and one-sided in the second film. Ralph in the first movie wanted to break out of the norm and try new things, but in this movie he just wants to do the same things over and over again and to hold Vanellope back. I could maybe have forgiven all this, but I feel like him going to the dark web to find a virus to destroy the game she loves is just a step too far and was a mistake on the part of the film makers. Even though it all worked out for the best by the end of the film, I still felt like I’d been beaten over the head by the message about ‘supporting your friends’ so thoroughly that I wasn’t really enjoying myself any more. And I also didn't like Ralph, which is quite an achievement by the movie, since he’s one of Disney’s most likeable main characters of the past decade.
> 
> My sis likes the movie less then me as she thinks its a tad too self aware. I don't agree I really like the self-referential humour, the bits at Oh My Disney etc. Although, I don't think Disney needed to 'subvert' the trope of the princesses being thought of as needing to be saved is by a man. We haven't had a princess like that since Ariel and she was what only princess number 4 at that point! Sis also reckons that this movie will quickly become dated because of all the references. ‘Breaking the internet’ is already not really a thing anymore.
> 
> I cannot give this movie a stella review which is a shame as its the last one! We’re up to date with movie number 99 (how annoying is that? I would have loved a round 100)!
> 
> I’m very happy to have got it all finished before our Japan trip, though it did end up taking longer than we thought it would.
> 
> I will probably write a bit of a summing up post in a bit, and maybe have a little awards ceremony to celebrate the best and worst of Disney.
> 
> For now though let me say thanks so much to everyone who has read along and most especially to the people who have commented and shared their memories and their thoughts on the movies as well!
> 
> I reckon when Disney's streaming service goes live everyone will be watching from beginning to end! Its an incredible movie journey!



Last one? Toy Story 4 is out in like 2 weeks! 

I pretty much agree 100% with your assessment. Ralph 2 was good, but not great. I appreciated the self-referential stuff and loved the cameos. I didn't love Ralph's arc, though I thought Vanelope was handled better. My biggest complaint is that there was very little of Felix and Calhoun, my favorite characters from the first one. I kept expecting them to show up to help save the day, but they were just relegated to the framing sequence basically. That's a shame. Otherwise, I still enjoyed the movie, but it doesn't hold up to the first one.


----------



## Micca

Need to see both Incredibles 2 and WIR sequel, I'm way behind.


----------



## TheStarscream759

Funny for us to end the marathon on two sequels no less but here goes:

*The Incredibles 2*
I think the movie is just as good as the original and there's definitely a lot of great action and comedy to be had and I like how there was a bit focus on Elastigirl as well as the kids so that was good. I do wish that Screenslaver was a bit better as a villain especially who it is. It does feel a bit weird that she wanted heroes to back into the public eye only have them gone again? Yeaaah...Syndrome she ain't. And how in God's name does she end up looking like Roxanne from Megamind, albeit a more scruffier and more frassled version of her? No joke, I kept on expecting her to speak with Tina Fey's voice when I was watching the movie for the first time even though it wasn't the same character I was thinking of. It was just crazy. 

Anyways it's not as good as the original but it still pretty good as a film itself. 

*Ralph Breaks the Internet*
While I did like this film I do feel that Ralph was a little bit out of character and felt like they just gave Vanellope and Ralph for the sake of conflict. While we do get some nice character development from the two, it's entertaining a lot of the time but I feel like we should've just focused more on Vanellope if I'm honest. With said, I love what they did for the Internet and having sites like Ebay run like actual bidding auctions or the fact that Knowsmore actually guesses what you want to look for online because of his auto filter are neat things in the film. In some ways it's the movie that the emoj movie SHOULD'VE been but at the same time it could've been so much more. Its a good film that has a some greats but ultimately it just gets bogged down with a conflict that doesn't really fit with the theme of the entire movie and just suffers a bit because of it. Not gonna beat the original but it's gonna be worth a watch at the very least.


----------



## RSandRS

So after the long marathon of Disney movies-took nearly a year!

Here's what I thought were the best of the best and the lowest of the lows!!!! 4 in each category because I had to limit it somehow! 

Best Song
*Under the Sea-This choice actually, came as a surprise to me. But I had a think about what song I could not do without for the rest of my life and its this one! It personifies Disney for me!*
Circle of Life
Out There
Let it Go

Best Score
The Lion King
Up
Beauty and the Beast
*Hunchback of Notre Dame-This choice caused an epic battle with my youngest sis who said I was crazy and it should be The Lion King all the way (which let's be honest could win top billing in almost all categories)-but I think the Hunch Back's score is so epic and ties into the setting and themes. The recurring melodies are amazing.*

Best Female Character
Belle
Miss Bianca
*Judy Hopps-Up until a few years ago Belle would have been my choice every time-but now there is a new leading lady/bunny for me!*
Ariel

Best Male Character
Robin Hood
The Beast
Aladdin
*Woody-This was again surprise to me, but he probably is the most iconic of the four and he goes on one heck of a journey.*

Best Villain
Ursula
*Scar-I have seen this twice on the stage and Scar was awful both times so I think a lot of why he works so well in the film is Jeremy Irons walking the narrow line of slightly camp and genuinely threatening-plus he is animated incredibly well)*
Hades
Gaston

Worst Villain
Ratcliffe
Edgar
*Goob-Wow I did not like this guy!)*
The Horned King

Most Evil
*Frollo-(This is close b/c they are all dreadful-but Frollo burns ppl alive so we will go with that. Plus of all these, he is probably terrifyingly the most realistically evil*
The Coachman from Pinocchio
McLeach
The Evil Queen

Best 2D Animation
*The Lion King- in a word Incredible!*
Beauty and the Beast
Sleeping Beauty
Bambi

Best Computer Animation
The Incredibles
*Inside Out-I cry all the way through this, but this film depicts what it is to be human and in a wholly imaginative and original way*
Coco
Finding Nemo

Best Sidekick(s)
*The Genie-Robin Williams-a masterclass in bringing a character to life! (Not watched the new one yet)*
Timon and Pumbaa
Lumiere and Cogsworth
Olaf

Worst Sidekick(s)
Pascal
Gurgi
*The Gargoyles-Really Gurgi is more annoying-but it has to go to the Gargoyles as they otherwise spoil a film which had the potential to be a true classic*
Pua

Best Art Design
*Sleeping Beauty-This movie was a surprise. I did not like it as a kid as it terrified me but as an adult I can newly appreciate how stunning it is*
Bambi
Up
Hunchback of Notre Dame

Funniest
*Zootopia-No other film really comes close for me*
Robin Hood
The Incredibles
The Emperor's New Groove

Worst Overall
Meet the Robinsons
The Black Cauldron
The Good Dinosaur
*Home on the Range-I will never ever watch this film again!*

Best Overall
*The Lion King-A masterclass in storytelling and animation!*
Zootopia
Inside Out
Beauty and the Beast

What do you guys think???? Favs? Least Favs?


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Last one? Toy Story 4 is out in like 2 weeks!
> 
> I pretty much agree 100% with your assessment. Ralph 2 was good, but not great. I appreciated the self-referential stuff and loved the cameos. I didn't love Ralph's arc, though I thought Vanelope was handled better. My biggest complaint is that there was very little of Felix and Calhoun, my favorite characters from the first one. I kept expecting them to show up to help save the day, but they were just relegated to the framing sequence basically. That's a shame. Otherwise, I still enjoyed the movie, but it doesn't hold up to the first one.



Just realised and yes...I think Toy Story 4 has to happen. We won't get to watch it immediately as in Japan but will be seeing it as soon as we get back. Thats something to look forward to while experiencing post-Disney Blues!!! ...Maybe this thread will keep getting updated (if it does not die?-not sure how long they are open for?) Its Frozen 2 next I assume?


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> Just realised and yes...I think Toy Story 4 has to happen. We won't get to watch it immediately as in Japan but will be seeing it as soon as we get back. Thats something to look forward to while experiencing post-Disney Blues!!! ...Maybe this thread will keep getting updated (if it does not die?-not sure how long they are open for?) Its Frozen 2 next I assume?



Threads are open pretty much forever unless they are closed for a reason. It can always come back. Toy Story 4 opens today! Enjoy Japan. I hope you are checking out Tokyo Disney - it is amazing!


----------



## BrianL

I'll try to give my favorites too:

Best Song
Wow - so hard! Were we counting Mary Poppins? Let's say not for the sake of fairness. I'll go with *Son of Man - Tarzan* or anything from *A Goofy Movie*!

Best Score
Hmm, *Beauty and the Beast* or *The Little Mermaid* for sure. Both Alan Menkin.

Best Female Character
*Rapunzel*

Best Male Character
*Prince Philip*

Best Villain
*Maleficent!*

Worst Villain
*Madame Medusa*

Most Evil
There is only one clear choice, *Cruela DeVille *- she wanted to murder puppies...for a coat. That's just sick.

Best 2D Animation
Now that's a hard one! Probably actually *Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs*

Best Computer Animation
Based solely on technical merit - *Moana*!

Best Sidekick(s)
*Mushu*

Worst Sidekick(s)
I'm not sure that I dislike any of them. They are usually the bright spot even in the questionable movies.

Best Art Design
*Sleeping Beauty* - no arguments there!

Funniest
*Wreck it Ralph*

Worst Overall
*Chicken Little*

Best Overall
*Sleeping Beauty *or *The Little Mermaid*


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Threads are open pretty much forever unless they are closed for a reason. It can always come back. Toy Story 4 opens today! Enjoy Japan. I hope you are checking out Tokyo Disney - it is amazing!



Oh yes definitely! I actually visited Shanghai Disney yesterday as well as here on work. The rides are incredible and the theming is amazing, but it was not an easy experience!


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> I'll try to give my favorites too:
> 
> Best Song
> Wow - so hard! Were we counting Mary Poppins? Let's say not for the sake of fairness. I'll go with *Son of Man - Tarzan* or anything from *A Goofy Movie*!
> 
> Best Score
> Hmm, *Beauty and the Beast* or *The Little Mermaid* for sure. Both Alan Menkin.
> 
> Best Female Character
> *Rapunzel*
> 
> Best Male Character
> *Prince Philip*
> 
> Best Villain
> *Maleficent!*
> 
> Worst Villain
> *Madame Medusa*
> 
> Most Evil
> There is only one clear choice, *Cruela DeVille *- she wanted to murder puppies...for a coat. That's just sick.
> 
> Best 2D Animation
> Now that's a hard one! Probably actually *Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs*
> 
> Best Computer Animation
> Based solely on technical merit - *Moana*!
> 
> Best Sidekick(s)
> *Mushu*
> 
> Worst Sidekick(s)
> I'm not sure that I dislike any of them. They are usually the bright spot even in the questionable movies.
> 
> Best Art Design
> *Sleeping Beauty* - no arguments there!
> 
> Funniest
> *Wreck it Ralph*
> 
> Worst Overall
> *Chicken Little*
> 
> Best Overall
> *Sleeping Beauty *or *The Little Mermaid*



Despite my own choices, I agree with all these too! Thanks Disney for giving us so many epic films!

...I forgot Son of Man, which is crazy, I adore that song! I saw the Tarzan show yesterday at Shanghai Disney and if anyone goes I think this is something you have to do. Its one of the best (if not the best) in park show I have ever seen. The talent of the CM's is insane!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> Despite my own choices, I agree with all these too! Thanks Disney for giving us so many epic films!
> 
> ...I forgot Son of Man, which is crazy, I adore that song! I saw the Tarzan show yesterday at Shanghai Disney and if anyone goes I think this is something you have to do. Its one of the best (if not the best) in park show I have ever seen. The talent of the CM's is insane!



Oh, I'd love to check out Shanghai too! THe Pirates is supposed to be amazing!


----------



## RSandRS

BrianL said:


> Oh, I'd love to check out Shanghai too! THe Pirates is supposed to be amazing!


Yes, its definitely the best Pirates-the animatronics, the story and the effects are incredible! Not an easy park to visit, but some super rides. Tron is fantastic as well!


----------



## BrianL

RSandRS said:


> Yes, its definitely the best Pirates-the animatronics, the story and the effects are incredible! Not an easy park to visit, but some super rides. Tron is fantastic as well!



Well, at least we're getting TRON at Magic Kingdom so that'll be nice!


----------



## TheStarscream759

Hey guys I know it's been ages since I posted on this thread but I thought I'd give my final round up of thoughts for this marathon so here goes:

Best Song
This is a tough one because like BrianL, I have so many that I could consider my favourite. I'd say anything from Aladdin or Beauty and the Beast is my personal pick for Best song.

Best Score
Alan Menken. No doubt about that.

Best Female Character
This one is also tough but I have narrowed it down to Rapuznel and Moana respectively.

Best Male Character
Buzz Lightyear

Best Villain
It's tie between Jafar and Maleficent for me.

Worst Villain
Madame Medusa from The Rescuers as well as Alameda Slim from Home on the Range.

Most Evil
The Coachman from Pinocchio and Frollo.

Best 2D Animation
Fantasia, Aladdin, Sleeping Beauty and maybe Beauty and the Beast.

Best Computer Animation
Coco, Zootopia and Moana

Best Sidekick(s)
Genie from Aladdin and Hector from Coco.

Worst Sidekick(s)
Definitely B.E.N from Treasure Planet as well as the Gargoyles from The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

Best Art Design
Sleeping Beauty. Such a gorgeous looking film.

Funniest
The Emperor's New Groove

Worst Overall
Chicken Little and Home on the Range

Best Overall
Moana, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Wreck It Ralph,so many.


----------

