Change Your Image
Ostrumation
http://www.youtube.com/user/Imaxination1980
http://twitter.com/ostrumation92
https://plus.google.com/110574672448449016308/posts?tab=XX
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Lion King II: Simba's Pride (1998)
Some Interesting Ideas, But It's Your Typical DTV Schlock
There's a reason why the direct-to-video Disney animated sequels are often frowned upon: They were only made to cash in on their predecessors for half the budget and double the profits. This was the dodgy trend that picked up during the Michael Eisner era at the Disney studios, and the most successful of these films came in the form of "The Lion King II: Simba's Pride".
Unlike most of the direct-to-video sequels, this one actually attempts to at least expand on the universe of the first film and introduce us to characters that could work, had the script been better. The whole Romeo & Juliet plot (as opposed to the original's Hamlet-inspired story) could've been great too, but...
Again, like the other direct-to-video sequels, it is made with tykes in mind unlike the true Disney animated films which aim for a wide family audience. "The Lion King II" is kiddie fare compared to the original, and its more climactic moments are much less intense than the ones in its predecessor. There's lots of childish dialogue, supporting characters like Nukka and Vitani only crack one-liners or make the kids laugh. The songs? They're alright, nothing special, though the "Exile" song is passable. It actually would've worked if this film wasn't a cheap cash- in with a by-the-numbers story and a kid-centric script. The animation? It's a direct-to-video sequel, it's not impressive.
Anyways, "The Lion King II: Simba's Pride" works great as a kiddie sequel to the original. Otherwise, it's like every other direct-to-video sequel from Disney, an embarrassment to the original.
Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted (2012)
Lots and Lots of Fun
"Madagascar" and "Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa" were decent entries in DreamWorks' animated line-up. The first one had good ideas, nice slapstick and stylized animation but a story that quickly lost steam halfway through and a had screenplay that just wouldn't keep quiet. The second one was more story-oriented and had better character development, but a lot of the fun that defined the first film felt absent. I could only imagine what a third "Madagascar" was going to do with these characters and such. From the trailers, I thought it looked like a disaster in the making. Just a safe, harmless money-maker for DreamWorks so they could support the more ambitious works like "How to Train Your Dragon" and the upcoming "Rise of the Guardians".
Fortunately, I was proved wrong. "Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted" knows exactly what it wants to be: A crazy, over-the-top, colorful comedy for both kids and adults. What was actually surprising was that this was almost devoid of the mean-spirited humor and pop culture references that dominated a lot of the older DreamWorks' computer animated films and the first two "Madagascar" films. This one focuses more on the story, even though the story may not be spectacular by any means. It's your basic get back home story, and the animals join a European circus to get there. They pull a nice big lie, you know the deal. The character development is good too, in fact I thought the zoo gang was far more interesting in this film than they were in the first two. I also enjoyed the new characters, as the second film's new batch of characters were bland and forgettable. The circus gang is just as likable as the zoo gang, if not more interesting.
"Madagascar 3", like its predecessors, also has very good animation. This time, the writers take the silliness and launch it over the top. This is essentially the whole idea of the franchise realized. All the rules are thrown out the window: There's crazy antics from the film's villain running through walls like a wrecking ball to the characters hanging off of the chimpanzees on a makeshift helicopter. The first 20 minutes alone are some of the wildest, craziest stuff you'll see in an animated film this year. It's all handled well too, the animators probably had a load of fun with this film.
Even more satisfying is the screenplay, which Noah Baumbach (Wes Anderson's protégé) spiced up. As I said earlier, this one balances both the story and the fun without having one overshadow. There are a few problems, and the movie isn't great by any means. It's basically a fun animated film. It's certainly not Pixar or something else, and it knows it. It just wants the audience have a good time. I sure did.
Cars 2 (2011)
It's an average film at best, but it's hard not to be disappointed
Make no mistake, Pixar has arguably had a perfect track record. They have produced eleven films, all of which were critically and commercially successful. Would this studio ever make a disappointment? After outdoing themselves several times over in the last few years ("Ratatouille", "WALL-E" and "Up" in particular), Pixar finally made a film that was below par. Another studio could get away with a film like this, but coming from Pixar, who have set the bar so high in the animated medium, it's almost unacceptable. "Cars 2" had a lot of potential. The brilliant opening scene should be an indicator of that. Director Brad Lewis (before John Lasseter had to come in and save the sinking ship) had a project on his hands with so many possibilities. They did one thing right, they showed us the world of "Cars". We saw Italy, Japan, England and France. However, "Cars 2" could've been a great around-the-world adventure. What holds it back from being an international thrill ride?
The story. Of course, Pixar is all about great storytelling. Story is king. "Cars 2" has a story that's so flimsy and so inconsistent, it's a real shame. "Cars 2" should've been about an entirely different cast of characters. It would've been risky, since the characters from the first wouldn't return, but isn't Pixar all about taking risks? The "Cars" world is open to so many possibilities, but yet they stick to a story about Lightning McQueen competing in an international race while Mater is mistaken for a spy. What? Unfortunately, the writing hurts what could've been an okay story. It comes off like a contrived direct-to-video storyline. McQueen and Mater are pretty much out of character in this film. The rest of the characters from the first film are decoration, along with McQueen's World Grand Prix competitors. The film is pretty much "Mater's Spy Adventure". Mater, Finn and Holley dominate the film. Everyone else takes a back seat to the spy story. What else hurts the story? The absence of Doc Hudson. Paul Newman passed away before production on the film began, thus the writers found it necessary to write Doc out of the film, but yet they kept Fillmore even though George Carlin passed away before production began. (There's a small tribute to Doc at the beginning, which felt contrived and tasteless) Pixar should've given the project to the DTV studio so they could do a cheap DTV sequel and start a franchise. Pixar wouldn't be involved, and thus it wouldn't stain their track record. Disney would gain, and so would Pixar. How come this route wasn't taken?
So the story is a mess and the product feels like a toy commercial. What does work? Fortunately, the film aims to be a mindless summer blockbuster-like film and it succeeds at that for the most part. It may not be a good film, but it's not insulting like your usual Hollywood blockbuster garbage. The action scenes are exciting, and the comic relief works for the most part. Even though Mater's antics get tiring after the while, there's still a lot of funny moments. The screenplay is shallow, but it isn't extremely bad either. The animation is dazzling, although the film goes by so fast that we don't get to savor these visuals. The story, despite its extreme flaws, has no problem getting from start to finish. That was the fastest 2 hours I've ever seen.
Final Thoughts: "Cars 2" is definitely Pixar's first mishap. It's a run-of-the-mill action story that has great moments, but the story is so flawed and a lot of potential was wasted. It also lacks heart and sincerity, a Pixar staple. Not a terrible film, not even mediocre. But it isn't good, it's just a fun, average film. It's nothing special, which is a first coming from Pixar.
Grade: C
Tangled (2010)
Disney's 50th: An All-Around Good Film
For years, Disney was always the leader in animated entertainment ever since Walt Disney produced the groundbreaking "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs". Instead of repeating himself, Walt made more films that always tried something new. After Walt's passing in 1966, the studio has never really been the same. There have been ups (particularly the late 1980s and early 1990s) and downs (the early-to-mid 1980s, 2001-2005), and they have fallen behind studios like Pixar, DreamWorks and even smaller studios like Blue Sky. With "Tangled", and "The Princess and the Frog" before it, Walt Disney Animation Studios is now fighting their way up back up the animation mountain.
"Tangled" isn't perfect, but it's an indicator that Disney knows what they are doing. With talent like John Lasseter behind the animation division, the films have gotten better. "Tangled" is a wonderful mix of great storytelling, heart, humor and fun. It's what a good Disney film should be. The characters are very appealing and likable, the story is interesting and it has its fair share of dramatic moments, and the musical numbers are essential to the story. This is what made "The Princess and the Frog" succeed. While "Meet the Robinsons" and "Bolt" suffered from some inconsistent writing and dialogue, they still had heart and great storytelling. You can't say the same about the Disney films made under Eisner's final years, films that are a mix of weak storytelling, poor dialogue and lowbrow humor shackled to great animation and production values. The film has some flaws. The first half of the film is inconsistent, with dialogue that feels too much like "Shrek" or something from DreamWorks. It's fun, but the film gets progressively better as the second half rolls in. When the second half begins, there's more heart and the story gets more interesting.
The story is well-done while the dialogue could've been a bit better ("The Princess and the Frog" didn't suffer from this, though many will disagree), and the characters are wonderful. They're appealing, they're likable and they're never annoying. The non-speaking animals steal the show, Rapunzel's chameleon Pascal and the palace guard horse Maximus. They supply most of the film's comic relief, along with Flynn Ryder himself. Mother Gothel is a wonderful villain, one who is a lot like Judge Clause Frollo from "The Hunchback of Notre Dame". She protects Rapunzel, while also manipulating her and using her for her magical hair. The songs are good, but they aren't great, with the exception of the brilliant love song, "I See The Light". Still, "Mother Knows Best" says a lot about Mother Gothel's character and her relationship with Rapunzel and "I Have a Dream" is very enjoyable.
"Tangled" is basically an entertaining Disney film. It isn't an earth-shattering film that's worthy of Walt Disney's greatest films, but it's a little better than the repetitive films under the Michael Eisner era. It's bright, it's fun and it has heart. The first half is a bit flimsy, but the second half feels like a Pixar film with its heartfelt moments and the storytelling. Out of the four post-Eisner Disney films, I wouldn't say it's the best. Most people didn't care for "The Princess and the Frog", but I felt that "Princess" had better dialogue and storytelling than this film, and better music. I know many will disagree, but at times, "Tangled" felt very flimsy. Still, it's an all-around good film that is perfect for the young and old.
Family Guy: Jerome Is the New Black (2009)
One of the Show's Weakest Episodes
Many will argue that "Family Guy" has never been the same since its revival in 2005. Others will say that it has gone downhill recently. If you ask me, seasons 6 and 7 had signs that show could've possibly been losing its steam. Season 8 pretty much sealed the deal for me, especially this episode. Without Cleveland, Peter, Joe and Quagmire don't have a fourth friend. They find this cool guy named Jerome, and he's immediately part of the group. Peter and Jerome become great friends, but then Peter finds out that Jerome used to date Lois. This is where Peter makes a complete moron of himself. He nearly kills Jerome by burning his house, but this goes awry and Jerome ends up living with Peter. In this episode, Peter is a complete idiot and he's mean-spirited throughout to Jerome. He even goes as far as coming off as a KKK member, getting Jerome to leave. When Lois gets on him for it, Peter than realizes how much of a jerk he was.
The episode's subplot is good, and it saves the episode from being a complete and total misfire. Brian offers to be part of Peter's group after Cleveland's departure, but Peter tells Brian that Quagmire hates him. (Comes out of nowhere, really) Brian does his best to be friends with Quagmire, but he ultimately screws things up by mistaking Quagmire's abused sister for a date.
Brian sends him a fake letter from Quagmire's long-lost love Cheryl Teigs to go out to dinner. Quagmire finds out that he has to spend the night with Brian, and he reluctantly does so. Brian earnestly wants to know why Quagmire hates him, and Quagmire tells him. He rants about Brian being a total sponge, a pretentious diluted person who thinks he's a great author, being a horrible companion to Peter and the fact that's he's arrogant liberal and an atheist.
Most see that scene as an apology to the conservative viewers of the show, since the show has become one-sided in its political humor lately. However, why choose Quagmire to put Brian in his place? He's a bigger idiot than Brian. It's this episode that establishes Quagmire's hatred of Brian. (Brian gets back at him in "Quagmire's Dad") Quagmire does have some valid points (Brian does have a "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality that is beyond annoying, and he is very self-indulgent about his novel), the rest seem to be malicious attacks.
Overall, a mediocre episode saved by a decent subplot. Between Peter's mean-spirited behavior towards Jerome and the unfunny jokes, "Jerome is the New Black" is one of the worst "Family Guy" episodes I've ever seen. The jokes mostly misfire as well.
How to Train Your Dragon (2010)
A Surprisingly Great Effort from DreamWorks
This is a DreamWorks film? Wow, impressive. "How to Train Your Dragon" is a real shocker, it's a film that was made by DreamWorks Animation but it didn't really feel like a DreamWorks animated film. It felt like it was more in line with a good Disney film or any of Pixar's films. I've always had my doubts about DreamWorks after "Shrek 2", as they began sinking into a formula that is now annoying and irritating. "How to Train Your Dragon" is a refreshing effort that tries its hardest to break free from the formula.
Based on Cressida Cowell's children's book of the same name, "How to Train Your Dragon" is a satisfying action-adventure that mostly fires on all cylinders. The characters are likable, and you can root for them, unlike most DreamWorks films where the characters are obnoxious or annoying. The dragon, Toothless, is easily the best character despite being a non-speaking character. Like the most appealing animated characters, he's instantly likable. Hiccup and Toothless' friendship is believable and not contrived. It's a winning effort.
Aside from the storytelling, the animation was really good. The art direction and character animation were fabulous, more in line with Pixar's visuals than anything else DreamWorks has done. Prior to "Dragon", DreamWorks' films were questionable in terms of character animation. "Dragon"'s art direction is great, from high seas to detailed forests to the elusive dragons' nest. The crew working on this film knocked themselves out, and it puts everything else from DreamWorks (with the slight exceptions of "Shrek" and some of their traditional hand-drawn efforts) to shame.
The screenplay wasn't great, but it was certainly much better than the obnoxious DreamWorks films before it. It's not constant pop culture jokes and toilet humor being shot at you. However, the writing was still a little weak because of the modern-slang slant to it. Otherwise, it was not cringe-worthy or anything. I also thought that some of the dramatic moments were a little downplayed, but it was nice to see moments like that in a DW film. The film was also devoid of using some pop song in the middle of the film.
So DreamWorks scored a near-home run. It feels more sincere than the other films, it isn't the usual sitcom-dialogue, pop culture joke-laden romp from DreamWorks. It was a fine adventure story with some knock-out moments and easily DreamWorks' most appealing creation, Toothless. Maybe it was great because Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois directed it, being the two behind Disney's "Lilo & Stitch", and of course Toothless somewhat resembles Stitch and Sanders' drawing style.
A real winner. Highly recommended. 8.5 out of 10.
Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)
A Bit Rough Around the Edges, But Ambitious
When the 90s ended, Disney seemed to be getting out of their formula. The mid-to-late 90s Disney films after "The Lion King" were the same old story: Big adventure, big epic battle at the end, show stopping musical numbers and borderline-annoying sidekicks. Granted, some films were great ("The Hunchback of Notre Dame" and "Tarzan"), others weren't all that great.
After the disappointing "Fantasia/2000" and the disastrous "Dinosaur", Disney put out the cheap but great "The Emperor's New Groove", and decided to cut down costs for the next couple of films. You can easily see this in "Atlantis: The Lost Empire", a film that Disney finally got off the ground. In the 1950s, Walt Disney had looked at the Atlantis legends and considered working on it, but it was one of those projects that never made it. So how did the modern Disney do it? "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" at finest is a mess with "a lot" of redeeming qualities. For starters, this film was very ambitious. Disney went into a more action-packed territory (previously seen in "Tarzan") and the film was decidedly a little more violent than most other Disney films. It was actually the first one to get a PG rating since 1985's "The Black Cauldron". Also, "Atlantis" is a visual effects showcase. For 2001, these effects were great. Lots of computer animation throughout.
The action scenes deliver. The Leviathan scene is a thrill, and various fight scenes and battle scenes were great. This was also a Disney film without songs. Not a bad thing, but it was nice to see do their first non-musical film since "The Rescuers Down Under". So what didn't work? The story is a bit of a muddle. The first act is rushed. The way a majority of the film was edited seems a bit jarring. The characters were "alright" for the most part. While Milo was a great lead (played brilliantly by Michael J. Fox) and Rourke was pretty good villain, the other characters were a mixed bag. The other characters either blurted sarcastic humor (Vinny, Packard) or were completely odd (Mole, Cookie).
Still, I like the fact that Disney tried to do something a little more action-oriented (although it could've been a lot more epic) and a little more violent. But what brings the film down is the often-weak story and narrative, along with the not-so-stellar screenplay. If this film had been very successful, Disney would've been heading in a different direction. This, "Lilo & Stitch" and "Treasure Planet" prove it. Disney was starting to get into the more action-science fiction style, but what they needed for this film was a better story and screenplay. Perhaps it was "too many cooks" who did the writing for this film. It's also a bit disappointing to see Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale go from "Beauty and the Beast" to "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" to this.
Anyway, "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" is not stellar, but it's ambitious and tried to be something a little different. But the story, screenplay and other flaws hold it back from being great. An 8.2 out of 10.
Aladdin (1992)
An Outrageously Funny and Highly Entertaining Disney Film
Disney was on a roll when "Aladdin" was on its way out, with a string of successes behind them ("Who Framed Roger Rabbit", "Oliver & Company", "The Little Mermaid" and "Beauty and the Beast"), creativity was coming back to the Disney studios and entertaining films were once again coming out. These films mostly soared above the efforts from the 70s and 80s ("The Aristocats", "Robin Hood" and "The Black Cauldron" in particular) and they showed that animation could be very successful. Happy times for animation fans and Disney fans.
"Aladdin" keeps that tradition going. Adapting the Arabian Nights tales, "Aladdin" depicts the title characters' attempts to win the heart of Princess Jasmine, who must only marry a prince. Aladdin gets the help of an outrageous Genie in a lamp that evil Sorcerer Jafar is in pursuit of.
In terms of animation, "Aladdin" has some stunning use computer animation. Otherwise, the film is rushed. Of course, back in the early 90s, these films were rushed to meet the release date, as Eisner & Katzenberg wanted to crank out one animated feature a year. Because of this (along with "The Little Mermaid" and "Beauty and the Beast"), "Aladdin"'s animation is rather sloppy on some scenes. It is miles above most other animated features, but it can't come close to the best of Disney animation. (see Walt Disney's first five films, "The Lion King" and "Tarzan") The songs are great. The Genie steals the show with "Friend Like Me". "A Whole New World" is a classic Disney love song. "Arabian Nights" is good, and "Prince Ali" is a celebration song (much like "Be Our Guest" from "Beast" or "Festival of Fools" from "Hunchback"). The film is very funny, although a lot of the jokes are dated. This may explain why DVD sales weren't so hot in 2004. Who knows? One other complaint I have is the similarities to Richard Williams' long-in-production, but never finished "The Thief and the Cobbler". Both plots are similar: Evil Grand Vizier who is also a Sorcerer (Zig-Zag to Jafar) wants to take over and marry the Princess. Also, Jafar looks like Zig Zag, and so does the Genie. Williams' film was in production at the same time and was stopped because of this film. However, Disney was not the thief, because the idea was started back in the late 80s because lyricist Howard Ashman suggested Disney to adapt the story. It might have been the animators Williams' fired that went on to work for Disney.
But whatever the flaws may be, "Aladdin" has a good story, great characters and it's also very entertaining. A 9.5 out of 10.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
The Darkest Disney Film in Years
If you look back on the classic Walt Disney films from the Golden Age (1937-1942), you'll notice that these films were not afraid of being dark or even downright horrifying. No matter how many charges Disney got from parents, the company didn't listen to them. Flash forward to the 1990s, where political correctness was causing Disney executives to tone down the films. "Beauty and the Beast", "Aladdin" and "The Lion King", great films they are, but they are inferior to the level of quality set by Walt in his first five classics.
Thankfully, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" tries to come closer to the classic Disney films and it actually goes into levels of darkness that seemed unthinkable at the time. In the film, you have a deformed main character who is treated horribly. The villain is a bigot who is also perverted and murderous. The dramatic scenes are as effective as ever.
It's almost perfect, except for a couple flaws. Disney executives began to have their say after "The Lion King". In a way to pander to children who would usually be bored with the film, three comic gargoyles are thrown in for relief from the drama. It makes the film uneven at times. The gargoyles are sometimes funny ("Eh, go scare a nun!"), and sometimes they're flat out unfunny.
The film boasts a great selection of songs. "Hellfire" is indeed one of Disney's darkest and most frightening moments. "Festival of Fools" is a colorful extravaganza of laughter and antics. "God Help the Outcasts" is an emotional moment. "The Bells of Notre Dame" is a spectacular introduction to the film. The only weak song is "A Guy Like You", obviously thrown in to please children when the story is reaching its dramatic heights.
The film works on several levels, and it has the guts to be dark and frightening. Some parts are even downright violent by Disney standards. How it got a G rating is beyond me (there were edits done to the "Hellfire" scene because the MPAA suggested revisions), yet a lot juvenile animated films get a PG rating for crude humor. Well, the problem is, many might think the G-rating equaled "just for kids", thus legendary Disney animation gets the "kid's stuff" stereotype.
In terms of character development, "Hunchback" is strong. The villain, Judge Claude Frollo, is hateful towards gypsies, but yet he lusts over Esmerelda. In the "Hellfire" scene, he realizes that he himself is going against his beliefs. Very powerful scene. Frollo's religious hypocrisy might even be stab at modern religious hypocrisy. Like Dumbo, Quasimodo is an outcast that you care about, and the animators altered his appearance to make him not so hideous. But he still has a deformed figure, but yet the animators succeed in making him appealing. There's a scene between Quasi and Esmerelda where they talk about being outcasts, and it's rather emotional. The animation is great. After "The Lion King", the Disney animators were no longer rushed to complete films (see "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast" and "Aladdin") to meet the release date. The animation is great, especially the character animation, along with the great use of computer animation. It ranks up there with "The Lion King", "Tarzan" and the Golden Age Disney films as one of the best-looking animated films.
However, the film seems to be more of a remake of the 1939 film adaptation, rather than the Victor Hugo's novel. Several shots and scenes resemble the 1939 film adaptation (an excellent film by the way) and the film comes off as a bit unoriginal in terms of the production. Otherwise, Disney did a fine production. It divides split opinions among literary critics, animation fans and film fans. It may take several liberties with the book, but it's a fine film that has a fair share of flaws.
A 9.6 out of 10.
Bambi (1942)
The End of The First Golden Age of Disney Animation
In the works for several years at the Disney studios, "Bambi" finally debuted in 1942, at a bad time for the studio. America had entered World War II the previous year, and financial returns for Disney films were disastrous (except for "Dumbo", which was relatively cheap to produce). "Bambi" would be the last film by Walt Disney until "Alice in Wonderland" to display big ambitions. It was actually less elaborate than planned.
"Bambi" is a film that has a small amount of dialogue, and because of this, it soars. The film's animation is beautiful and among the best you'll ever see in any animated film. Disney outdid himself once more on this film, and it shows, from the opening multiplane shot all the way to the final frame of the film. "Bambi" tells a wonderful story, of a young fawn's journey to become the Great Prince of the Forest. Throughout his life, his mother is taken from him at the hands of an unseen hunter, he makes several friends and he makes an enemy later on in life, and then he finds love.
"Bambi" might not seem special if one hasn't seen it, because the modern Disney advertises the film poorly. From the ads, it looks like happy deer and jumping around with cute critters. They never show the dramatic act of the story with the death of Bambi's mother, adult Bambi's fight with a rival buck, the attack on the forest by a lot of hunters leading up to the terrifying forest fire.
"Bambi" succeeds because of the drama, and it also succeeds because of the beautiful art direction and the stunning character animation. A lot of work was put into getting the anatomy and movement of deer right, and they succeeded. The soundtrack is also strong, "Little April Shower" starts off as lightweight pitter-patter and then it becomes a loud, booming thunderstorm of drums, crashing and loud choruses. "Love is a Song" and "Looking for a Song" work as love songs. The rest compliment the visuals. "Spring Song" might abruptly come after the somber aftermath of Bambi's mother's death, but it shows that Disney doesn't spend any extra minutes on melancholy and moves on in order to progress the story.
A 10 out of 10. After this film did poorly when it was released, no Disney animated feature afterwards showed this level of ambition and artistry, with the exceptions of "Alice in Wonderland" and "Sleeping Beauty" (which both did poorly when they were first released). The Disney films that followed are tame in comparison, but most of the 1950s Disney animated features succeed because of their stories and characters.
Oliver & Company (1988)
Extremely Dated and It Lacks a Great Story, But It Has Some Qualities
Not-so-spectacular animation, a rather shoddy plot and hardly any character development, "Oliver & Company" is a weak link in the Disney canon. It was a big thing when it hit theaters in 1988, but now, it's either a shoddy film or a nostalgic joy (If you loved it as a kid).
"Oliver & Company" takes "Oliver Twist" and modernizes it to be more hip for the 80s and for animation-hating teens at the time. Likewise, it was big because of the older crowd. The film is more of a training exercise for the young Disney animators, but fortunately, it is a fun film to watch.
Seeing Billy Joel doing a voice in an animated film is priceless, and he sings in it too, and the song is actually good (Well, Disney films always have good songs). The rest of the cast was fine. The dialogue is very 80s-esque, but tolerable. The rest of the soundtrack is 80s pop & rock. It's not bad.
Flaws include the plot, screenplay, unexciting animation and the fact that the film is dated. This is why it was a flop on its re-release and its debut on video. The animation is not bad, but it's been-there done-that when you put it next to the older Disney films and even a majority of the newer ones. The sames goes for "The Great Mouse Detective", which fortunately had a lot of redeeming qualities. There is one excellent moment in this film, the use of computer animation for a chaotic subway chase sequence. This is probably the best thing about the film, and it shows ambition in Disney animation. This would lead up to stunning use of computer animation in "Beauty and the Beast", "Aladdin" and "The Lion King".
Otherwise, "Oliver & Company" one of Disney's weakest animated features. A 7.7 out of 10.
Toy Story 3 (2010)
A Grand Finale and Another Masterpiece from Pixar
"Toy Story 3", if anything, shows why Pixar is consistent and amazing. Sequels usually fall flat from time to time, and sometimes we get a sequel that's a masterpiece. "Toy Story 2" was that rare sequel that was just as good as the original, or possibly better. "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2" seem hard to top. "Toy Story 3" is just as good as the first two. It is a phenomenal finale to the trilogy, and it did not disappoint in any way.
Taking place 10 years after the last one, Andy is now going to college in a couple of days. The toys are worried about what will happen to them. They desperately want to get played with, but garbage day comes and after some screw-ups, they end up on the curb as the garbage truck is on the way down the street. This sequence was beyond exciting, it had me on the edge of my seat.
After that debacle, the toys are convinced that Andy doesn't want them anymore. Woody knows that Andy was really trying to put them in the attic. Woody was supposed to go to college with Andy. The toys think it's a good idea to go to a daycare named Sunnyside. Woody objects to it, but he has no other choice when yet another incident happens.
At the daycare, Woody is not impressed. The new toys at the daycare, and their leader, Lotso-Huggin' Bear (Lotso for short), all seem like a welcoming bunch. Woody gets out and ends up with a little girl named Bonnie who goes to Sunnyside. The other toys realize that Sunnyside is not that great and they decide to leave. Excitement ensues.
The daycare escape scene is incredible, along with the following climax. There are several other great scenes in the film: The toys' experience with the daycare's rough little tykes, Woody's attempts at escaping Sunnyside and the daycare toys having a secret poker game in a vending machine. The film's opening sequence is a reminiscent of the opening scenes of the first two films, and awesome to top it off.
As for the humor, Ken definitely made this film funny. The film's humor is very witty like the first two films. A lot of jokes center on Mr. Potato Head, which worked well. The Buzz going Spanish thing was hilarious and it definitely worked. As for complaints over some toilet humor, well I thought it was subtle and not unnecessary. (I'm looking at you, DreamWorks) One other thing, there are several references to the first two films, a great reminder of the first two films.
Aside from "Toy Story 3" ultimately being a comedy-adventure, it was also a heartfelt film. The ending might have you in tears. But I will say that the ending was perfect for the series and I don't think it could've ended any better. This is film that will make you laugh, cry and be excited all at the same time. In all, "Toy Story 3" is a grand finale with great new characters, a very exciting plot with a lot unexpected twists and some teary elements. Don't let the "3" turn you off, it's one of the very rare "3" films that's actually great, if not phenomenal.
10 out of 10.
The Simpsons Movie (2007)
Very Good, Hilarious Throughout
The toughest thing about making a movie based on "The Simspons" is that the filmmakers would have to come up with something that will ultimately surprise fans of the series and also be a hit with non-fans. "The Simpsons Movie" may have had split opinions upon release and to this day, but as an animated film, it succeeds.
I'm not a big fan of "The Simpsons", I'll watch the show once and a while, and it is one of the finest animated shows out there. Many Simpsons fans love the movie, and many Simpsons fans absolutely hate it. For me, not being a big Simpsons fan, I thought it was good as an animated film on its own. For one thing, the film tried very hard to revive traditional animations, an art form that is sadly dying and trying to come back. Traditional animation has been confined to television over the past few years, while computer animated extravaganzas get released theatrically. (This goes for all the non-Pixar animated films that come and go)
"The Simpsons Movie" opens with a bang. The Itchy and Scratchy cartoon and the movie theater joke at the beginning set the tone of the film. We get a blown-up version of the show's opening and then Green Day performing the theme song. (Not a fan of Green Day)
Springfield has been facing many issues with pollution, a satire of what was going on back in 2006 and 2007 and what is going on now. In years from now, this will probably be dated, unfortunately, but at the time and even now, it's pretty funny. It advances the plot that tries very hard to be more than just a 90-minute episode of "The Simpsons", and I think it succeeds fairly well.
So the first twenty minutes is basically the usual antics. Homer and Bart have a dare contest, which leads to Bart skateboarding naked to Krusty Burger. Lisa falls in love with an Irish boy named Colin (Who didn't have much purpose in the story, unfortunately), Marge pieces together what Grandpa said in church, which later ties into the story. Bart then starts to feel neglected by Homer and turns to Flanders. Homer starts showing attention to a pig that nearly gets killed at the Krusty Burger. Pretty soon, Homer is obsessed with the pig, naming him "Spider-Pig" and "Harry Plopper". (Of course, since those series' then-new installments came out that year) Unfortunately, Homer puts the pigs' waste (and his) in Springfield Lake, which was packed into a makeshift silo. Springfield Lake has now become hazardous. A dome is put over Springfield by the head of the EPA, Russ Cargill, who turns out to be the film's villain.
Once the news reveals that Homer dumped the silo into the lake, an angry mob drives the family (with the exception of Grandpa) out of Springfield. From there, they live in a new life in Alaska. The second act begins, but unfortunately, it isn't as well structured as the first act.
The second act shows that a lot of content was deleted. I am well aware that there was enough content to make "two more films", so they had to cut it down to make a consistent 87-minute film. 87 minutes is a bit too short, I think a 100-110 minute runtime would've been better with a slightly longer second act. I felt the film was shorter by the time the third act was reached, as it breezed through the second act. The first act was quick, but the second act was too quick despite the script and the story.
Thus I felt the middle of the film was a bit forced. The third act is perfectly paced. The climax is a thrill and the film got a bit epic in scope towards the end. Once all ends happily, then it feels like a regular non-epic film. While its structure was still good, the very fast second act could've been improved along with a few other things.
"The Simpsons Movie" is a very funny film, without a doubt. The jokes are well-timed, and since the series gets past the TV censors and onto the big screen, dirtier jokes were pushed for this film. In terms of the animation, "The Simpsons Movie" is nice to look at. The computer animated effects are subtle and the animation looks a little bit more polished than the show. It has the feel of an animated film, rather than a blown-up TV episode. Some people felt that way about this film, I did not.
As an animated film, "The Simpsons Movie" is a fast, funny and often exciting film that can appeal to non-fans of the show. As a "Simpsons" movie, it'll either please fans or disappoint them. Depends on what kind of fans they are. The U.S. box office intake might prove this. A well-made animated film. As a "Simspons" movie, it isn't the greatest. They did what they could do, and I thought they did pretty good.
A 8.5 out of 10.
The Rescuers (1977)
Back In 1977, This Was A Return To Form For Disney
You have to consider that back in the mid-1970s, animation was either dying or being neglected. Disney efforts did well at the box office but received mediocre critical reception. Adult-oriented animation like the Ralph Bakshi films took off. Other films came and went. It seemed that the Disney films were losing their "charm" (as Don Bluth would put it) and that animation in America was doomed.
"The Rescuers" was being worked on in the mid-1970s, when Disney's new young animators (Many of which would later leave with Don Bluth to form Don Bluth Productions, enter the Disney Vs. Bluth in the 80s) were starting to show their talent. "Robin Hood" and "Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too!" were only training vehicles for them, "The Rescuers" seemed like a good, but safe project for them to do. This was because the Disney management was "play-it-safe" at the time thanks to then-CEO Ron Miller. Some of that can been seen in the film.
But "The Rescuers" is the strongest Disney animated film from the 1970s. "The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh" felt like the 1940s package features. "The Aristocats" and "Robin Hood" were entertaining, but they lacked strong narratives. "The Rescuers" has a story. The film actually has emotional moments. Very surprising, since the films after "The Jungle Book" and before this lacked emotional moments.
"The Rescuers" begins where the orphan Penny sends a message in a bottle out. The opening credits are very nice, as they might be concept art. But they tell a story. The Rescue Aid Society, a team of mice that rescue people, gets the message, and sends the timid Bernard and the adventurous Bianca out to find Penny.
Penny is held captive by Madam Medusa, a rather outrageous villain who makes the child search a pirate's cave for a diamond called the Devil's Eye. She was a terrific villain because of how cruel she was to Penny, especially when she tells her, "Who would ever want to adopt you?" That's possibly one of the meanest things I've heard coming out of a Disney villain.
Anyway, the adventure kicks off when Orville the albatross takes them to the Devil's Bayou. From there, "The Rescuers" turns into one of the more exciting pre-Renaissance Disney animated features. The Disney classics always featured moments of great action, "The Rescuers" had a lot of action for a Disney film back in the day.
Unfortunately, the film is let down by some sloppy use of recycled animation. It's not as jarring as the use of recycled animation in "Robin Hood", but it's noticeable. (Bambi's mother in the "Someone's Waiting for You" scene) The songs weren't the strongest bunch in a Disney film (With the exception of "Someone's Waiting"), but the score was good and it had a 70s feels to it. This might cause the film to be slightly dated, although there are no cloying 70s pop culture references, thankfully. The animation is good, although some roto-scoping was obviously used for some effects. (Fireworks, the swamp-mobile, possibly)
"The Rescuers"' biggest strength is the ambition. The film tries to capture the feel of the older Disney films, while mixing humor and action, and for the most part, it works very well. Perhaps you can say Don Bluth was behind this, after all, he was hoping to become the next Walt Disney. (he had the chance, but he blew it if you ask me) "The Rescuers" is the strongest Disney animated feature from the 70s, at a time when Disney trying to find their place after the death of Walt Disney.
An 8.9 out of 10.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
A Triumph In Film-making
So much has been said about "2001: A Space Odyssey" and how revolutionary it is. To this day, it's still considered one of the greatest films of all time. It deserves this honor, as I was blown away by it. I was expecting something completely different, and that's what I got. "2001" is a film that challenges you, it's not a film that caters to the masses and it's not a film that talks down to its audience. It's a film that challenges you and asks you to accept scenes that most people would normally write off as "amateur" or "boring".
The opening twenty minutes, the "Dawn of Man" scenes, are marvelous. The cinematography is already great, and the film hasn't gone into space yet. Prior to these scenes are the opening credits and the overture. The overture alone got me excited as the film began. "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", despite the fact that it was cemented in many people's brains, was perfectly used in the film.
I see the film as a perception on evolution. The Dawn of Man shows us the early evolution with the apes. At the end of the film, I see it as "Even in the future, we are still evolving". The opening sequence with the apes was all great. Many might write it off as boring, but I was intrigued by it, if you get the meaning of these scenes.
Once we get into outer space and the future, lengthy sequences of spacecraft and groundbreaking special effects appear before our eyes set to classical music, in a beautiful and grand manner. "The Blue Danube" was perfect for this film.
Now for me, I think a good film needs a story and characters. "2001" definitely had one. While we have the entire story of the monolith, the film becomes more intriguing once we get into the HAL 9000 act. HAL 9000 might be one of the best antagonists in film history. Is he really a villain? It was a malfunction. What he did was a result of a computer malfunction. For me, a villain must be truly evil with evil intentions, but I personally see HAL 9000 as more of an obstacle for the five astronauts, especially David Bowman.
After the climatic scene where David disconnects HAL, the film then shifts to one of the most amazing scenes in film history, the "Star Gate" sequence. What comes before you is an extravaganza of color and visual effects. Finally, we see David getting older, which was probably one of my favorite scenes in the film. Then David becomes the "Star-Child". A spectacular ending. I see the monolith as an object that somewhat inspires evolution, as it ties the entire film together.
According to those who have read the novel version released simultaneously with the film, there was more of a story and a narrative. But the film is more of an experience than anything, a film that challenges audiences and to this day, it still confuses many. There are some out there who say they just didn't get it or they were bored by it. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is triumphant film that asks a lot out of you. You are asked to accept lengthy scenes of apes, long scenes of spacecraft and classical music, and many other drawn-out sequences. I loved every second of it.
A 10 out of 10.
Bolt (2008)
Surprisingly Good, A Return to Form for Disney
I had my doubts. In the recent years, Disney feature animation has had hits and misses. "Bolt" sounded like a very interesting concept four year before its 2008 release, when it was to be directed by Chris Sanders ("Lilo & Stitch") and to be titled "American Dog". The idea had potential, but it was eventually scrapped. When I saw the trailer for "Bolt", I felt both satisfied and disappointed. I take it back...
If anything, "Bolt" shows that Disney is going in the right direction in terms of storytelling. It's too bad that Disney threw it out against big blockbusters and it couldn't make a massive amount of money at the box office. It's a shame, because this probably Disney's most Pixar- ish film. You could almost say it was as good as Pixar. "Bolt" sported a great story, fine performances and some great action scenes, along with some emotional content in the story.
TV superstar Bolt believes he is actually a superhero, until he sees the world for the first time outside of his trailer and the studio. His adventures pair him with a sarcastic cat named Mittens and the obnoxious hamster named Rhino, who is a huge fan of Bolt. Bolt goes on a cross-country trip to find his owner Penny, and on the way, he realizes he's not really a superhero, as it was all a television show.
The entire set-up for that was perfectly done. That's what made "Bolt" different from the other Disney films, it was unique and it was unpredictable at times. It had a different storyline. What also worked was the action sequences. The film was very fast-paced, it started up with a short intro and a thrilling action scene and throughout the film, it was an action-packed adventure. Aside from that, there was a good narrative and great characters. The comedic bits were very funny for a modern Disney film.
"Bolt" felt very Pixar-ish. "Meet the Robinsons" also felt like a Pixar effort, as Disney seems to be going their direction in storytelling. If Disney keeps this up and their attempts to revive traditional animation, they can be a top dog in the animation industry. It has some small flaws that keep from being a perfect 10, but it's definitely a Disney film worth watching. To this day, I wish I had seen it in theaters.
A 9.6 out of 10.
Up (2009)
"Up" Is Another Animated Masterpiece from The Geniuses at Pixar
One of the more surprising things about Disney-Pixar's "Up" is that it shows how Pixar is closer to the old Walt Disney classics than the modern Disney animation films could ever be. "Up", being Pixar's 10th film, pretty much shows how Pixar manages to stay consistent with top-notch storytelling, great characters and wonderful visuals. They're a far cry from most modern animation, as they care about the story and the characters. "Up" proves this once more. The sky was the limit once Pixar released "Ratatouille" and "WALL-E". Those two films proved that Pixar could take any concept and make it work.
"Up" tells a story in its first five minutes. If you were to take the first five minutes of "Up" and release it as a short, it would've taken home numerous Oscars. It's one of the best opening sequences to an animated feature. It immediately draws you into the story and the character of Carl Fredericksen, and his motivation for turning his house into a makeshift aircraft. From there, "Up" becomes a rollicking and fun-filled adventure, but the emotional side of the film remains there throughout.
If anything, "Up" is a fantasy film that has a lot of imagination feel. Who wouldn't marvel at an adventure in the South American jungles with plane-flying dogs, giant colorful birds, paranoid 100-year-old explorers and flying houses? It shows that Pete Doctor (the director) and Pixar's writers have an imagination, and that's much better than anything DreamWorks has churned out over the past 10 years or any other "big" animation studios.
"Up" soars when it comes to action sequences. Otherwise, the film is hilarious. Dug was probably my favorite character, as he stole the show. The emotional side was beautiful. When I saw this in theaters on its opening weekend, I really connected with the opening (Since my grandfather died two months before the film came out), and I also could connect with the scene where Russell implies to Carl that his parents are divorced and his father is a dead- beat. I like when animated films use these themes. It shows that Pixar makes films that can appeal to anyone of all ages.
The animation in this film was great as well, very stylized. It had a more cartoon-y feel to it, and it worked. The artwork and design was beautiful, especially with the South American Tepui. The film has the feel of a really good action film.
The film breezed through its 96-minute runtime. I thought it could've been longer, but I think the film was supposed to be an emotional but fun-filled adventure. I remember when "Up" was announced, they said it was about a 78-year-old and an 8-year-old fighting exotic beasts in the wilderness. That idea intrigued me, but I think it was used just gear people up. The film turned out just fine. Just a thought, though.
In conclusion, "Up" is one of Pixar's darker films and it definitely works with its strong story and characters, and its sense of imagination and fun. It's a great mix of all kinds of things. The great Walt Disney once said, "For every laugh, there should be a tear," and "Up" perfectly fits that quote. This is why I'm a devoted Pixar fan.
A 10 out of 10.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
It Suffers The Sequel Curse, A Lot, But It Has A Few Redeeming Qualities
Michael Bay may not be a great director, but "Transformers" was surprisingly a decent movie. That movie did pander to the masses, but it had enough action, effects and a decent plot to keep it going through its two-hour runtime. Unfortunately, "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" doesn't do this very successfully.
The main flaw that ruined this movie was the story. Okay, not every movie has to have a big, complex meaning-of-life story, but the story still could've been halfway decent or consistent. From the opening sequence to Sam going to college, it was already a big mess. The idea of The Fallen getting revenge was a good idea, it's just too bad that the movie wasn't good enough. The unnecessary humor brought it down even more. The first movie had its funny moments, but some of the jokes fell flat. In this film, they're even worse. Wheelie humping Megan Fox's leg was out of place and flat out unfunny. Oh yeah, the twins. They were out of place and the filmmakers obviously made them out to be "hip" or whatever. I bet it's even worse if you're a big Transformers fan. Most of the jokes are now dated, all 2009 jokes. On the positive side, the action sequences were great. Every one of them. The final battle was dragged out, but still exciting. It was actually a movie where I was waiting for the ending.
Great special effects don't always make a great movie, and "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" proves it. Sure it outdid the first movie, but that shows that the filmmakers only care about the money instead of making a great movie. "Transformers" is great material for a big budget blockbuster, but instead, the movie gets screwed up and its made to cater to the masses instead of being faithful to its source material while being audience-friendly.
The movie was basically action scene after action scene with weak and rather boring dialogue-driven scenes in-between. There's no real character development and the story is a giant mess. I went in expecting the filmmakers to deliver a sequel that made improvements to the flaws present in the original "Transformers". Instead, they delivered a giant, profitable mess. It's a shame, because the action sequences were the high points.
A 6.1 out of 10.
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Despite Some Flaws, "Iron Man 2" Is A Worthy Sequel and a Fun Summer Blockbuster
"Iron Man 2", being a long-awaited sequel, is ready for either great praise or a lot of negative criticism. First, I don't think this was any "Dark Knight", and I don't think it was intending to be another "Dark Knight". I thought "Iron Man 2" was just as good as its predecessor, a fun ride at the movies.
"Iron Man 2" has a lot of strengths. The plot was consistent, I had no problem with it. I wasn't expecting a big complex plot, so I was fine with it. I liked the subplot concerning Tony's problems with drinking. Ivan Vanko was an awesome villain. I liked Rhodes/War Machine, he made a good sidekick (Even though that only lasts for so long in the movie) and the pacing was very fast. To top it off, awesome action scenes and special effects. The fight scene between Tony and Vanko was probably the best scene in the whole film if you ask me. Also, Robert Downey Jr. was just as good in this movie as he was in the first one.
Unfortunately, there were a couple of flaws. The story wasn't as exciting as the original "Iron Man", nor was it as compelling. After the first few scenes, "Iron Man 2" becomes a dialogue- driven film with action scenes inbetween. While the action scenes were awesome, they didn't live up to the very first fight scene between Tony and Ivan Vanko. Also, some of the intelligence in the original was lost. I thought the climax was a bit of letdown. It was a little too short. There was all this build-up to a big showdown between Iron Man, War Machine and Vanko, but I felt the final battle was too short. Otherwise, the climax was still exciting. Also, Nick Fury could've seen a little more character development. Otherwise, well-acted on Samuel L. Jackson's part. There were some other small flaws, but they didn't have much affect on the movie.
In short, "Iron Man 2" is a great superhero film with some flaws. It can come off as a big disappointment if one sets their expectations too high. It was no "Dark Knight" in my opinion. "Iron Man 2" lives up to its predecessor, but it feels more like a bridge between the first film and "The Avengers".
8.3 out of 10.
Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (2008)
A Surprisingly Good Sequel
"Madagascar" was sort of a take it or leave it film. It was a box office hit in 2005, of course, and it received mixed reviews. DreamWorks gave it a sequel because it made money, which is why we have the "Shrek" sequels and the upcoming "Kung Fu Panda" sequel. I remember when DreamWorks actually had a "Shark Tale 2" planned and a possible "Over the Hedge 2". A sequel to every movie they made would be a bit of a nightmare.
Like "Shrek The Third", a sequel to "Madagascar" might've been seen as unnecessary. Before I see a sequel, I go in with reasonable expectations: "It better be good, that's all." I was pleasantly surprised. "Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa" is a sequel that's actually better than its predecessor. "Shrek 2" and "Shrek The Third" couldn't come close to "Shrek", so I had some doubts before seeing it.
"Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa" shows us Alex the Lion's childhood and where he came from. We are then shown how he got to New York City and then it showed the events of the first "Madagascar", and then onto the present. The gang is ready to leave Madagascar on a plane they constructed out of the crashed plane in the first film and all different things, along with King Julien, Maurice, the chimps (who were pretty funny in the first film) and the penguins. The plane crashes in Africa's savannas.
There, Alex reunites himself with his family, but he is not liked by Makunga. Makunga is basically a Scar-type character who wants to be the king lion and replace Alex's father, Zuba. Meanwhile, Marty becomes friends with a herd of zebras. Gloria falls in love with a hippo named Moto Moto. Melman becomes a witchdoctor. Everyone else works on fixing the plane.
Despite some "Lion King" similarities in Alex's scenes, the story worked well and there was more character development than the original. Also, the humor was funnier and it was almost devoid of the pop culture jokes that plagued DreamWorks' 2004-2005 films. There were some surprises along the way, like scenes with Mort being chased by a shark. The film's climax actually delivered and it was more exciting than the first film's climax.
Overall, an 8.9 out of 10. A good sequel that's actually an improvement over the original. It still has some flaws, but it didn't have some the bigger flaws that the original had. Good sequel, great fun.
One more thing: The title! "Escape 2 Africa" is definitely not a great title. "The Crate Escape" was no spectacular title either. They didn't want it to simply be "Madagascar 2", as they thought they were being unique with "Shrek The Third". They should've just kept it as "Madagascar 2", or come up with a much better sequel title.
Shark Tale (2004)
It Has Its Moments, But It's A Weak Effort From DreamWorks
DreamWorks Animation had its glory when "Shrek 2" became the highest grossing animated film back in 2004. They had topped the previous record set by "Finding Nemo", which was released a year before that. DreamWorks pretty much assumed that "Shrek 2" was going to outdo the record set by "Nemo". From what I've heard, this fish film only took around 2 years to make. "Shark Tale" might've obviously been conjured up to see if it can be huge since "Nemo" was huge, being something like a cash-in. Before "Finding Nemo" hit theaters, it was expected to be a disappointment due to tepid test screenings. When this film began pre- production, the title was going to be "Sharkslayer", and this was prior to Nemo's release date. Now DreamWorks spent 3 years on "Shrek", and it was a great film. DreamWorks spent more than 2 1/2 years working on "Shrek 2" and it turned out to be a good sequel (Not as good as the first in my opinion). If "Shark Tale" took only 2 years to make, then something tells me this film was obviously rushed. Perhaps DreamWorks' Jeffrey Katzenberg saw that their big rival scored a massive hit with "Nemo", so thus "Shark Tale" was rushed to meet a release date not too long after "Nemo". According to some sources, animation production took only 7 months. "Finding Nemo" took 3 years. Recent Pixar films take about a year of animation production. This shows that "Shark Tale" was definitely rushed during production and it was probably altered to be potential box office gold. (The all-star cast prove this and 2003-2004 pop culture jokes prove this)
Don't get me wrong, "Shark Tale" is not the worst thing ever. It's not a rip-off of "Nemo" either. It's not very good, definitely. It has it's moments. The story is a muddle. Basically Oscar, the main fish, is a nobody and he wants to be seen as someone important. Oscar starts a big white lie that he is a shark slayer after his encounter with Lenny, a vegetarian shark ("Finding Nemo"'s sharks, anyone?) from a mafioso-like family of sharks. Throughout the film, we basically see how long he keeps that lie. It all leads up to a somewhat absurd climax. But hey, I don't think this was intended to be some animated classic like "Nemo" was.
On the positive side, "Shark Tale" has some funny moments. However, a lot of it is dated. All of these pop culture jokes and parodies of real-life products were obviously thrown in because "Shrek 2" had them. Now, most of jokes are now dated. "Shark Tale" comes off as very formulaic, which would seem to plague a lot of DreamWorks Animation's films. The animation is nice and colorful, and I thought the underwater city was kind of unique. I thought the two jellyfish characters were pretty funny, as well as some other scenes. It's basically a fun animated comedy flick. I remember disliking it when I first saw it, but I gave it another chance I somewhat enjoyed it. It's no "Nemo", and it's no animated masterpiece, not at all. But compared to some later DreamWorks efforts like "Madagascar" and "Kung Fu Panda", it's a weak effort.
Shrek the Third (2007)
Not Horrible, But A Weak Third Entry
"Shrek 2" was box office gold and it became the highest grossing animated film to date. DreamWorks obviously got "Shrek The Third" fired up. Now "Shrek 2" was no winner, it was a formulaic sequel with constant pop culture jokes fired at the audience. It was good, if you were a middle schooler in 2004 that usually avoided animated films. But if you're an animation buff or someone who knows what makes a good animated film, it's ultimately a misfire. It wasn't extremely bad though. "Shrek the Third" is significantly worse.
"Shrek The Third" begins where the King of Far Far Away dies and the next king in line is supposed to be his nephew Arthur. Shrek, Donkey and Puss in Boots go to find Arthur. They to go the academy he attends, as he is a teenage boy that's picked on by everyone. From there, the story is a muddle. Meanwhile, Fiona is pregnant and Artie turns out to be rather difficult. Also, Prince Charming is back with a vengeance and wants to get rid of "happily ever after" by joining forces with all the fairy tale villains.
Despite its constant jokes, the film falls flat. Nice animation also can't save it. To make a good animated film, you need a great story and a great script. Shrek himself was way different in this film. It basically took the big flaws out of "Shrek 2" and had little redeeming values. The jokes are all pop-culture references and what-not, therefore you have a movie that panders to the masses.
It may have not been necessary, but "Shrek The Third" was still a halfway-fun diversion to watch if you have kids, but it is a big disappointment compared to its predecessors. Of course, it was a big success (though it couldn't top "Shrek 2" and a few other big animated films) and the "Shrek" series will keep going as long as it makes money (That's DreamWorks for you). Of course a fourth one is coming despite the fact that people might be a little sick of Shrek by now. A 5.9 out of 10.
The Thief and the Cobbler (1993)
An Unfortunate Animated Film
Richard Williams started work on his magnum opus, "The Thief and the Cobbler" in 1964 as an adaptation of "Nasruddin". In the 1970s, it was switched to an original story based on the "1001 Arabian Nights" tales. This film was self-funded, and thus he had worked on for over 20 years by the time he got the funding to finish the film in 1988. Missing a deadline in 1991, Warner Bros. (who were going to distribute the film) backed out and the film was taken away from Williams and finished (and re-cut) by Fred Calvert.
The film itself displays very elaborate, even stunning animation that wasn't even done on computers. That's what make the film all the more amazing. Several scenes are mindblowing. The artwork of the film (based on Persian miniatures) is beautiful, and works well with the theme of the film. The climax, the War Machine sequence, is probably the most stunning scene I've ever seen in classic animation. Unfortunately, the film's story quality is a bit weak. The story was a bit of a muddle, and the action didn't really take off until The Thief unintentionally causes trouble for the Golden City, removing the Golden Balls that protect the city from its minaret. A love story between Tack the Cobbler and Princess Yum-Yum is established early on in the story, and it's also established that the Grand Vizier Zig Zag (Voiced masterfully by Vincent Price) wants to marry Yum-Yum to rule the Golden City.
So about the released versions? They're definitely inferior to Williams' unfinished film (That's not what the money people thought). Fred Calvert was given the task to finish the film, and he believed that he was making the unfinished film into a "watchable" or "passable" film. What he did was mess it up.
It is obvious that Calvert was trying to make it more commercial, but I'm not sure if this was Williams' intention. It was more of a "Fantasia"-like project, as that film wasn't very commercial when released. Instead of finishing the unfinished 15 minutes, Calvert put new animation in (That looks very sub-par), redubbed a lot of the voices, and... songs! Why? I guess Calvert thought they advanced the plot. Instead, they don't work. Even worse, Tack, a mute character, was given a voice. Horrible. That would be like giving Tom and Jerry voices (Well, it did happen with 1992's "Tom and Jerry: The Movie"). Also, adult content and violence was toned down. Calvert's edit was released as "The Princess and the Cobbler" in South Africa in 1993 and in Australia in 1994, although it was going to be titled "The Thief and the Cobbler" (as evidenced by an earlier trailer for Calvert's edit). In total, Calvert's version is inferior to Williams' film. Calvert's version is a mess, with unnecessary songs. Tack talking just doesn't work, it eliminates the whole idea that Tack is a character whose tacks make a mouth for him, and it ruins that deep voice gag at the end of the film.
Calvert's edit was not a success where it was released. Miramax then bought the rights to it in December 1994, planning to release the Calvert version in theaters in the U.S. Instead, they recut the film even more. The Thief is given a voice, along with the character Phido (Zig Zag's vulture). It made the damaged film even worse. It was released in 1995 as "Arabian Knight", obviously trying to cash in on Disney's very similar "Aladdin". This leads some to believe that "Aladdin" took ideas from "Thief". However, that doesn't mean we have to go anti-Disney. "Aladdin" is still a good film, despite the fact that it does borrow "a lot" from "Thief". Was it intended to rip-off "Thief"? Who knows. After all, it was Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenberg who were head of the company at the time. They steered Disney into big money in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Maybe it was because Richard Williams himself supposedly said he wasn't happy with "Roger Rabbit" (he directed the animation, which was what got "The Thief" funded). But remember, Williams missed the deadline, so we can't say the disaster is all the money people's fault (Though a lot of it is). Williams fired 100 animators during production because they didn't meet his standards, many of these animators went onto Disney and worked on "Aladdin". Williams has missed deadlines before, once with "A Christmas Carol" and again with "Raggedy Ann and Andy: A Musical Adventure". The latter of the two was a box office failure (though it featured elaborate animation) that's sadly not on DVD.
It's a horrible story. What if Williams didn't miss the 1991 deadline and "The Thief and the Cobbler" hit theaters on time? It might've done well, or it might've failed (The concept was deemed unreleasable years ago). But Calvert shouldn't have tinkered with the film, he should've finished it the way Williams wanted it. Instead, he went for the money and wanted to a more commercial, more audience-friendly picture. Miramax, I can only imagine why they did what they did. The Thief's inner thoughts don't work, and it comes off as a professionally edited parody / comedic re-dub.
"The Thief and the Cobbler" is a stunning animated film, but it does lack a strong story. A 9.0 out of 10. The re-cuts. Well... they're inferior. Calvert's film is a mess. The Miramax version is poor.
Heavy Metal (1981)
Highly Enjoyable with Superb Soundtrack
"Heavy Metal" is a legendary animated film, and it was quite a film at the time of its release in 1981. Unlike most animated films at the time, "Heavy Metal" combined heavy metal music, blood-n-guts and nudity in an animated feature. The result was a somewhat daring film. While adult animation had been done before (Ralph Bakshi films like "Fritz the Cat" and "Heavy Traffic"), "Heavy Metal" took things to a whole new level.
Based on the magazine of the same name, "Heavy Metal" is an anthology film. It has six different segments, all strung together with a plot. A green orb that is all evil in the universe called the Loc-Nar tells these six stories to a young girl.
The first of these stories, "Harry Canyon", is an original story that is not adapted from the magazine. However, it does draw inspiration from some other stories from the magazine. The "Harry Canyon" segment is well-told and has a touch of film noir in it. The portrayal of New York in 2031 was rather grim. A lot of music is used in different scenes.
"Den", based on Richard Corben's character, is the story of a 14-year-old who becomes a muscular man in a place called Neverwhere, due to an experiment he conducted one night. This segment was pure fantasy, with fight scenes and fantastic artwork throughout. In this story, the Loc-Nar is worshiped. "Captain Sternn" is a more comedic segment in the film. Captain Sternn's pleads "not guilty" during his trial. His "angle", Hanover Fiste, is there to praise him, as he will be paid to do this. However, with the Loc-Nar in his hands, he begins to reveal the truth about Sternn and becomes a giant and chases Sternn throughout the space station.
"B-17" is probably my favorite segment in the film, based on the story by Dan O'Bannon. During WWII, the Loc-Nar hunts down a severely damaged B-17 bomber and turns the dead crew into zombies. This segment was truly creepy, and unlike most of today's horror films, it gets to the point and ends in a freaky "Twilight Zone"-style ending.
"So Beautiful, So Dangerous" is not a strong segment story-wise, but it's one of the funniest segments in the film. Some of the best songs on the soundtrack are on this scene as well, and the animation is very colorful and detailed here. The two stoner aliens are the best. The film concludes with the epic "Taarna" segment, an original story that is somewhat lengthy in its structure. With its epic fight scenes, amazing backgrounds and its grand scope, "Taarna" is a great finale.
The soundtrack is the best thing about the film. There's nearly twenty different songs from many different artists, ranging from Black Sabbath to Sammy Hagar to even bands like Grand Funk Railroad and Journey. It's a very diverse mix and the songs on here are all very good. Black Sabbath's "The Mob Rules" goes great with the barbarians' invasion of the peaceful village in "Taarna", and Don Felder's "Heavy Metal (Takin' A Ride)" makes the beginning of the "B-17" segment pure excitement.
The animation is one thing I get a bit cynical with. Despite some great effects (particularly on the "Taarna" segment), some of the character animation seemed a bit poor. There was a lot of rotoscoping used in the film, but some of the character animation wasn't very subtle.
Aside from a few flaws in the animation and the story, "Heavy Metal" is still an enjoyable film. Even though some critics look back on it and called it dated and juvenile, it doesn't seem to effect the quality of the film. Some say it hasn't aged well, but to me, it's still fine. It is a bit juvenile, yes, but the film is still great. What this film did show was what the animation medium was capable of doing. Setting animation to heavy metal is quite an achievement, with compelling storytelling and epic moments to boot. This film proves that animation can do anything.
A 9.6 out of 10.
The Black Cauldron (1985)
The forgotten Disney animated classic
"The Black Cauldron" can be best described as Disney's most enigmatic film. Based on "The Chronicles of Prydain" by Lloyd Alexander, this Disney animated fantasy attempted to adapt the first two books of the series ("The Book of Three" and "The Black Cauldron") and make a grand film. The film has an infamous production history, as pre-production started as far back as 1971. The newly recruited Disney artists who were working on "Robin Hood" and "The Rescuers" (including Don Bluth) were hoping that this film would eventually become a Disney film that Walt would have never dreamed of, an epic fantasy. Unfortunately, the executives were very "play it safe" at the time, so the project was put on hold. Finally, in 1980, full production began on the project and it was aiming to be a very dark fantasy film aimed at teenagers. At the time, anything with the Disney name on it was avoided by teens and adults, and thus Disney hid their names on the theatrical posters for PG-rated films like "Tron", "Tex" and "Something Wicked this Way Comes".
The resulting film is a mess, but it's not a horrible film. In fact, the ambition alone makes it worth watching. Seeing Disney at least try to do a dark fantasy film is a miracle. The first problem is the muddled storyline. The film takes many liberties with the books and takes various sections of the first two books and tries to make a plot out of them to fit an 80-minute film.
The story, in the land of Prydain is a Black Cauldron. Whoever gets the Cauldron can rule the world or destroy it. A young boy named Taran on the farm of Caer Dallben dreams of being a warrior and getting respect, rather than being an assistant pig keeper. What the young boy doesn't know is that the pig, Hen Wen, is psychic and can read visions. She knows the location of The Black Cauldron. Unfortunately, a terrifying warlord known as The Horned King knows about the pig and is searching for the cauldron. The Horned King plans to resurrect an army of dead soldiers and destroy everything in the land of Prydain. The enchanter Taran is working for, Dallben, tells Taran to take Hen Wen and hide her in a hidden cottage in the forest. Taran begins his journey into the forest with the pig, but he daydreams of becoming a warrior. The pig runs off and is captured by The Horned King's flying beasts, the Gwythaints. Taran goes into The Horned King's castle to rescue Hen Wen. All goes wrong, Hen Wen escapes and Taran is locked in the dungeon. There he meets Princess Eilonwy (stolen by the Horned King) and an old bard named Fflewddur Fflam. Together, with the small creature Gurgi, the team go on a quest to get The Black Cauldron before The Horned King finds it.
While the plot sounds alright, the way its executed is a mess. The first half is great, but once Taran meets Eilonwy and Fflewddur, all seems to get muddled. All leads up to a very exciting climax. On the bright side, it has some very good animation and impressive background artwork (Although some may disagree). It is also the first Disney animated film to use computer generated imagery (not "The Great Mouse Detective").
One big flaw is the editing, but don't blame the makers of this film, blame Jeffrey Katzenberg. He saw the completed film and being inexperienced and thinking that you can "edit" animated films, he edited out a lot of violent scenes that would've gotten the film a PG-13 or R rating. That was Disney's intention, to make a film for mature audiences and not having it being called "just for kids". Katzenberg made the film an even bigger mess. Hopefully some day we can see the uncut version.
Unfortunately, the film did not do very well. It grossed $21 million against a record $25 million budget. Because of this, Disney did not theatrically re-release the film in the U.S. (There was a re-release in Europe in 1990 under the title "Taran and the Magic Cauldron").
Why did it flop? Maybe because the film's dark content? Maybe because the film received mixed reviews? Or maybe it was because the film lacked heart? Anyway, they finally released it on home video in 1998 after fans asked for it and it sold $100 million in video sales, so it has a bit of a following.
It's definitely worth a watch. You may love it or you may hate it. Not a bad film, it just could've been something grand, something to save animation from the state it was in at the time. But the good animation, the exciting action sequences and the score by Elmer Bernstein make up for the flaws.
8.8 out of 10.