I’ll be trying something new for a while: reviewing the canon Disney films in order to find out which ones are top and bottom tier. At first I may be disoriented by an animated universe I’m not that keen on, but as we all know, animation isn’t meant for kids and is indeed very serious business.
SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS (1937)
Where the legacy began. Disney’s very first theatrical film, and is a princess tale, about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. For starters – possibly an unnecessary clarification – the animation is utterly impressive, which isn’t a surprise due to so many legends delivering sensational performance, like Art Babbitt, Dick Lundy, Les Clark, Shamus Culhane, Grim Natwick, Woolie Reithermann, Milt Kahl and many more. You know the most important animation studio wants the audience to be stunned by the overall looks, and you know Disney will succeed in leaving a strong impression, given such a terrific art direction, so accurate-looking backgrounds and the use of rotoscope for every character but the dwarfs. However, this film doesn’t appear to offer anything else, strong visuals aside, because there aren’t too many variations to the original tale, accordingly the story does come off as rather simplistic. The pacing is expectedly sluggish, every section takes a loooooot of time to develop, and worst of all, Snow White – in spite of a memorably cute design – is a boring protagonist and doesn’t actually take an active part to her own story. Obviously, for being a princess story, you already predict she’s going to fall in love with a likewise bland and boring prince, whom she barely has no interaction with at the beginning, but again, you already know she needs the prince to kiss her in order to wake her up from her poisoned fate, and again, you know it’s a very contrived narrative device, which certainly makes the film end on a rather indifferent note. The Evil Queen also leaves me indifferent, her narcissism isn’t a compelling motivation, since she wants to murder Snow White only due to her inferiority complex. Besides, the rotoscope actually manages to make her quite unexpressive in her regular form, so her envy and disdain aren’t described that thoroughly. On the other hand, the Seven dwarfs are the most entertaining characters of the film, each one owns his distinctive personality – hence the name, willing to host Snow White, the first human girl they’ve ever seen, whom they’re eager to simp, with the exception of Grumpy’s “progressive” misogyny. Regardless, not even his misogyny will leave him unperturbed by Snow White’s apparent death, which is handled fairly well thanks to a loud silence.
Overall, I do realize the undeniable importance of being the one that started it all, and Dave Hand is indeed a fairly competent director – Alpine Climbers and Thru the Mirror were classics – but due to its several structural issues, a passively boring protagonist and an uninteresting villain, I find it a 6/10. Animation is fantastic, but the story is way too simple.
PINOCCHIO (1940)
“When You Wish Upon a Star”… you wish for a better movie than Snow White, and thankfully Pinocchio features several improvements over the previous movie. Due to WWII bursting in 1939, it couldn’t hit the same box office success as Snow White, but you can tell good old Walter had really ambitious plans in his mind, for being this bold to release two films in the same year. For instance, I’m aware of the Disney adaptation not following Carlo Collodi’s original novel that accurately, since they decided to digress a little bit, like Pinocchio’s design differing considerably from the original – less elongated, more market-friendly wearing a different outfit – Jiminy Cricket not being smashed by Pinocchio, the odd absence of Mastro Ciliegia or the whale replacing the shark from the original. Nevertheless, I definitely have to give Disney credit for producing something likewise memorable, from Pinocchio to the various antagonists – Gideon and Foulfellow, Stromboli and Carnival Barker – who acts as tempters against Pinocchio’s utter naivety, by promising him fame, wealth and a lot of fun, instead of going to school to learn. As a result, the consequences of being an undisciplined child are those we already know – growing nose and/or shortening legs when you lie and playing truant makes you turn into a donkey – therefore the movie blatantly attempts to teach a virtuous moral “never skip school”. Such a moralistic attitude would normally be problematic, but the way this device is depicted is downright impressive. Once again, the animation is spectacular (the Blue Fairy is the only character animated through rotoscope), given a massive list of legends (Ward Kimball, Art Babbitt, Fred Moore, Milt Kahl, Norm Ferguson, Don Patterson…), the action segments look outstanding and absolutely succeed in leaving an impression, from the colossal scale of the whale cut (impressive even 83 years later) to Lampwick morphing into a donkey, which actually manages to be quite disturbing and intense. In fact, Disney seems to pull no punches during this era, as it allows Geppetto to keep a gun behind his pillow, lets Pinocchio calmly smoke cigars and illustrates Barker cruelly locking up the kids turned into donkeys. Such better times.
Pinocchio is already a better protagonist than Snow White, even though he becomes active only during the last third, when he goes rescuing Geppetto, since he’s the literal representation of a puppet, entirely manipulated by anyone, including his own conscience, too. Speaking of which, considering the numerous troubles Pinocchio winds up throughout the entire movie, Jiminy Cricket does terribly suck at his job. He even resigns at some point, some lifeguard he is. He’s narrowly inappropriate and unpleasant, no wonder Collodi had disposed of him rather quickly. Regardless, I do enjoy this film quite a bit, the story is already more engaging than Snow White, the antagonists are all intimidating, yet they’re never punished for their crimes. Then again, it must mean karma isn’t always a thing.
I’m surely willing to rewatch this anytime. 8/10
FANTASIA (1940)
The result of Walt Disney’s great ambitions, an indeed ambitious union between animated sequences and classical music in what’s the longest Disney theatrical film, split into several segments introduced by Elmer… I mean, Deems Taylor a real orchestra conducted by Leopold in the flesh, too. Therefore, given such pompous premises, the audience expected to witness a true masterpiece, but in actuality Disney took an unnecessary risk, since it didn’t cash in very much and his studio was on the verge of bankrupt. 83 years later, I can definitely sense his will to impress through an animation-music bond, a few segments are indeed notorious, like the Night on Bald Mountain/Ave Maria one or The Sorcerer’s Apprentice starring Mickey, but on a more concrete standpoint, I’m also sensing something’s missing, like a device that connects all or a few of these segments, or a better pacing, or to simply restrain Disney’s smugness by also including an on-screen intermission. He’s either bold or a fool.
Moreover, I do prefer full-fledged, more linear plots over anthologies, because they’re easier and more functional to develop. While I should give Fantasia credit for trying to restore some credibility to Mickey Mouse’s character upon his mundane redesign in 1939 – momentarily, even Porky Pig is better than him at this point – I still admit this two-hour-long movie kinda bored me quite a bit, because it flows too slowly, there’s clearly not a concrete story and for the record, WB and MGM would manage to mix animation with music in a much more compelling fashion than Fantasia. I kinda find this a pretentious experiment, made possible by the uncontrollable ambition of building one’s empire piece by piece, but he quickly realized his empire was gradually cracking.
Bottom line, praiseworthy enthusiasm, yet boring execution. 6/10
DUMBO (1941)
I do acknowledge this film was important for Walt Disney in order to avoid bankruptcy, and I also acknowledge Dumbo debates the theme of discrimination, which is a pretty mature topic for a children’s movie, as Dumbo is basically ostracized by the other elephants due to his massive ears, as well as being ridiculed by the audience, causing his mother to go berserk and being locked inside a cage. Unfortunately, the story doesn’t leave me a considerable impression, the characterization isn’t particularly strong, and the conflict is resolved a bit too easily during the last third, because Dumbo suddenly realizes he can fly and becomes a star.
As for the two elephants in the room, the segment of the pink elephants is indeed random, nonsensical – probably a bit irrelevant – but without a doubt takes the cake of the best scene of the entire film. So so great. Moreover, I normally criticize how Oliver Wallace’s score is treated in regular shorts, because Jack King, Jack Hannah and Charles Nichols are quite lackluster directors, but Sharpsteen’s direction is solid enough to make it sound fitting in such a context.
As for the other elephant… yes, the crows are indeed meant as black stereotypes, since they’re dressed like the cat of Clampett’s Tin Pan Alley Cats. I don’t think they’re that insensitive, or better saying, I don’t believe Disney is THAT inclined to ridiculize ethnic minorities. Bottom line, they’re not intentionally mocking, but the racial stereotype didn’t age particularly well, either.
I remember renting the videotape of this movie over 20 years ago, my memories are kinda blurry since I don’t even know if I had randomly found it or whatever, but still… I don’t have a hugely positive opinion on this film, but there isn’t even enough annoyance that drives me to dislike it. So, narrow 6/10.
BAMBI (1942)
I remember watching this film at school approximately 20 years ago, but unlike most people, I don’t actually possess strong memories of it, accordingly the famous scene of Bambi’s mother dying off-screen never traumatized me in the first place. Regardless, its execution is really effective, from the orchestration to the gunshot heard off-screen, which alters the tone of this movie considerably, especially when the sociopathic Great Prince informs him about his mother being murdered by the true villain of this film, the world’s cruellest creature, MAN. Honestly, how does this movie manage to come out without that kind of racist stain it is described as? I mean, I’m also a man and happen to be writing a review about this very movie.
Giggles aside, I appreciate how that scene is directed, as well as the last quarter leading to Bambi fighting a nameless deer over Daline (random conflict that was never anticipated to begin with, but still), Bambi facing hound dogs and MAN setting the woods on fire. Someone might not find the stylized effects that Disneyesque, especially on fire and rain, but I think they look really neat, and as you may know if you follow me on Twitter or on Youtube, I do find colorful direction extremely captivating and imaginative, so Bambi is simply no exception.
Too bad such impactful visuals feel pretty wasteful if the rest manages to be this boring. The scene everybody is mostly reminiscent of occurs after 40 MINUTES OF PLAIN NOTHINGNESS, which is exactly when the film decides to get its plot started, because the rest is just about cutesy characters being cute, and that’s pretty much it. Retrospectively, I just can’t acknowledge the importance of Bambi’s mother being murdered because she didn’t really interact with Bambi that much. The pain of loss would be illustrated in The Lion King way better, since Mufasa would partake in an active role to Simba’s growth, while Bambi’s mother doesn’t get to express her personality much, because she doesn’t have one, like every other character of this film. Even when the events fast forward to Bambi as an adult deer, the film carries on pointless and boring cutesy stuff, thus neglecting the plot that attempted to begin upon his mother’s death. The fight between Bambi and the other nameless deer is weightless, adds essentially nothing to the story, but it’s at least more engaging than the boring slice of life this movie has been fobbing us off with. The last quarter remains well-directed and well-illustrated, but the rest is just too forgettable and the fluffy designs help the characters stand out only on the surface, because they own little to no personality. 5/10
SALUDOS AMIGOS (1942)
The shortest Disney film, 40 minutes of length, whose sole purpose is flattering South America, from its morphology to the population’s habits. Throughout this featurette, a hispanic narrator eulogizes those exotic lands by exhibiting live-action footages and several shorts about a specific country or location, such as El Gaucho Goofy set in Argentina, Pedro the plane in Chile or Aquarela do Brasil in… try to guess it.
First of all, I’m not exactly a supporter of the documentary format, but I suppose it’s fine in this instance because there’s no stock gag being involved, unlike in WB shorts. Plain and simple South America apologia. Unfortunately, an artistic handover was underway in early ’40s, because Disney weren’t lonely any longer, as some other competitors did practically reach their level and would soon surpass them, such as WB with Bob Clampett, Friz Freleng, Chuck Jones and also Frank Tashlin returning in 1943, and MGM with Hanna and Barbera and Tex Avery. It seems like that apparent opulence of the ’30s was gradually thinning out, at least cartoon-wise, as though they had been taking their artistic hegemony for granted. In fact, with the sole exception of Jack Kinney – his Goofy shorts are entertaining for sure – Disney directors strongly struggled to provide some interest in their shorts, also due to some unfortunate choices, like Mickey’s charmless redesign in 1939, Huey, Dewey and Louie being bland and annoying additions before 2017, Donald entirely wasting his potential on unremarkable stories (Carl Barks is a master, but Jack King never improved at all upon his WB days) and Pluto obtaining his own series in spite of merely being a braindead dog. Fortunately, Goofy encountered a better resolution, since El Gaucho Goofy – while not the most exciting Kinney short – is easily the stronger section of Saludos Amigos.
I did watch the Aquarela do Brasil segment tons of times back then, the on-going watercolor intro looks extremely fascinating – with pretty imaginative morphing, too – but not only the story is insipid, but Wilfred Jackson doesn’t do anything to make it any better. Donald and José Carioca interact, dance and drink… no comedic timing, no substance, just characters doing average stuff. Furthermore, Jackson is no Freleng who knows how to handle musical timing, but then again we’re talking about Disney, so with such terrific animators like Paul Allen or Les Clark they can get away with it just fine. I strongly believe Saludos Amigos would be an actually great featurette if they swapped supervisors with WB. Just think about Pedro being directed by Clampett, or Lake Titicaca by Freleng.
All in all, harmless and generous concept, mild execution. By the way, why did they have Clarence Nash voice Donald in other languages, such as French and Italian??? 6/10
THE THREE CABALLEROS (1944)
There was certainly a reason why Saludos Amigos only lasted 40 minutes, but at least its segments had a common thread that connected them to each other, also through a narrator, who appears here only during the first segment. On the other hand, The Three Caballeros is more like a unrestrained mess from start to finish, in which Donald is essentially a tourist visiting Brazil and Mexico with José Carioca – from Saludos Amigos – and Panchito, who are certainly nice characters representing their respective countries, but not only the documentary format fits even less than in Saludos Amigos, but no matter how many tremendous animators appear in it – Hal King, Ward Kimball, “Disney’s Rod Scribner” Bob Carlson, Fred Moore, Don Patterson and many more – Disney doesn’t seem to handle its profusion of over-the-top moments that naturally. It seems to me like they’re desperately trying to mimic other studios, like Warner Bros or Walter Lantz’, considering the presence of the Aracuan bird trying to act like a less sophisticated version of Woody Woodpecker and screwball Daffy Duck, or to make direct callbacks to previous content, like Dumbo’s pink elephants. The musical numbers manage to be a lot more redundant and extended than in Saludos Amigos, the running gag of Donald simping over live-action ladies isn’t very funny – on the contrary, it’s asinine and annoying, because… Donald is no Daffy, as right in the same year Tashlin released The Stupid Cupid, which features countless hilarious scenes of animals simping, including Daffy, and just comparing these two products back to back doesn’t definitely make The Three Caballeros any better. Likewise, the fact the same gag is reused thrice or more doesn’t help it, either. Donald is so obnoxious here.
Of the two South America apologias, I prefer Saludos Amigos more, since it’s flawed, yet undeniably charming, whereas this one represents a randomly chaotic setup I wouldn’t expect from Disney at this point, since you can tell they still cannot handle chaos in a natural fashion. Of course, neither of them is convincing in the slightest, but I suppose availing of a narration when there’s no story might give a bit more substance to a film. Unfortunately, it’s not the case of the neverending frustration that is The Three Caballeros. 4/10
MAKE MINE MUSIC (1946)
Let’s face it, Disney had an awfully hard time during WWII, because most of his personnel was fighting in the army and the remainder had to arrange propaganda-centered films. Accordingly, this is practically another musical anthology, whose concept feels pretty old-fashioned by now, and it’s not that astounding not everyone is reminiscent of this film. I’m not saying it’s particularly appalling, but is definitely nothing too remarkable, considering that most of its segments are based upon musical numbers, which were already out of touch in the ’30s, like in The Martins and the Coys – Bugs Bunny’s square dance was better in my opinion – or in Johnnie Fedora and Alice Bluebonnet, which features a male fedora simping over a female bluebonnet, which loses track of most of the time – the inanimate objects gaining expressions and interacting skills were also a thing in the ’30s, so there’s not much creativity, either. Although, in spite of the super dated atmosphere of All the Cats Join In, they were certainly bold enough to exhibit narrow softcore female nudity, clearly a rarity in 1946.
Without a doubt, the highlight is Gerry Geronimi’s Pierre and the Wolf segment – which I do have positive memories of – with each character representing a different instrument, whose sounds seamlessly follow characters’ actions and movements. The Whale Who Wanted to Sing at the Met is also a pretty solid segment, as well as a functional finale, featuring a singing sperm whale whose dream is to sing grand opera, and seems like it’s in Tetti-Tatti’s intentions, as well. Therefore, he does the most logical thing, harpooning him and killing him in the process. A very creative setting, the sour ending note definitely elevates this segment further and of course, it’s hard to miss with singing animals, as they’re a pretty successful formula all around.
Too bad this film is a genuine mixed bag, as it’s mostly a bunch of bland music-centered shorts, beside Pierre and the Wolf and the singing whale. 5/10
FUN & FANCY FREE (1947)
I might sound unpopular, but I do believe the ’40s were quite a recession period for Disney, due to WWII obviously interfering with his business and also due to the boss’ unyielding behavior towards his staff – that caused them to go on strike in 1941, and also to leave the studios for good. Moreover, the Disney brand doesn’t compel like a decade ago, as it almost feels kinda outdated and can hardly keep up with the exponential growth of the other studios, such as WB, MGM and Walter Lantz’ – that also hired several Disney “rejects” like Emery Hawkins, Basil Davidovich, Ken Muse, Ray Patterson, Don Patterson, Ed Love, Grant Simmons and many more – which is absolutely inconceivable for the reputation of the best animation company in the entire planet.
The latest three films harshly deceived the audience’s expectations, so this one focuses on two separate stories instead of delivering another anthology, but the fact of the matter is it proposes nothing new and carries on the unfortunate leitmotif of an outdated studio incapable of reinventing itself. The first story, Bongo, features the circus bear of the same name who escapes to get his wild life back and falls for a female bear, only to attract a bullying bear’s wrath. Even though the circus setting resembles the one from Dumbo, this section doesn’t really borrow much from it, but still represents the stale and unoriginal condition Disney is enduring at this precise moment. Not even the action makes this short any better, it’s very boring, the frustrating “romantic misunderstanding” trope is also here, sadly and all in all, neither of these characters manages to do or act in an amusing way, as it’s the umpteenth heated soup Disney has been fobbing us off with for years.
The second segment, Mickey and the Beanstalk, inevitably overshadows Bongo… reasonably, since it’s basically the only short Fun & Fancy Free is recalled for. Maybe Tweety and the Beanstalk is better, but I can hardly criticize this short as it’s the second film starring Mickey, Donald and Goofy released in the ’40s, after Tugboat Mickey – as well as their last appearance together in the original era before The Prince and the Pauper (and 2000s Mickey Mouse Works) – which was one of the most successful formulas in the ’30s nobody could ever mimic back in the day, because their chemistry was sufficiently enviable. And here’s no exception, especially at the beginning, in which Mickey and Goofy have to block Donald’s outrage caused by his starvation. Though, donating Mickey as much screen time as possible sounds essentially like a desperate attempt to restore him some credibility lost upon his 1939 redesign, but let’s be fair and square: burdening him with his ancestral role of the “character that generated anything” will never gift him with the same charisma as the other main characters in western animation, such as Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck or Popeye. In any case, this segment is solid, the giant is an amazing character – dyslexic, apparently silly, yet menacing with his transformation skills – and it confirmed the pleasant memories I was keeping about this short.
Altogether, Bongo is a 5/10, Mickey and the Beanstalk is a 7/10, therefore the film is worth a 6/10 on average.
MELODY TIME (1948)
Quite sincerely, how many of these musical anthologies are there??? And how come must there be a romance being involved??? It’s not that mandatory, come on.
First of all, I’d probably be giving Make Mine Music some credit: at the very least a few segments were solid – like Pierre and the Wolf and the whale one – and exhibited female nudity at some point without hesitating one bit. Conversely, Melody Time manages to be even more forgettable and dated, as plenty of its segments is a sheer bore and fall into the same narrative tropes which have existed since the discovery of cold water. Once Upon a Wintertime is a dreadful opener that showcases some pretty hateful clichés, like the forced romance, the third-act misunderstanding, the damsels in distress and the stereotypical happy ending. Blame It on the Samba is a desperate comeback to Saludos Amigos category, with the third-rate Woody Woodpecker orchestrating the samba attended by the second-rate Daffy Duck and the ethnic minority stereotype, so uninspired and boring. On the other hand, the film closer Pecos Bill is the best segment, the most entertaining by far with an actually funny premise: a western hero raised by coyotes who achieves Ultra Instinct, thus being stronger than wild animals and nature itself, falls for a cowgirl causing his faithful horse to become very jealous of her. So, he essentially disposes of her during Bill’s wedding, how unfortunate… but that’s why I enjoy this segment so much: it’s got humorous bits like the coyote breastfeeding Bill, Bill using a lightning bolt to light his cigarette and the horse being downright sadistic towards Sue, literally causing her demise only because of his jealousy. Dark, yet ingenious segment.
As for Johnny Appleseed, it’s definitely not a bad segment, though a part of me would like to punch that Appleseed dumbass right in the nose. Don’t know why, I just dislike his blank face and his singing sounds a bit fastidious. Overall, the saving grace of this film remains the Pecos Bill finale, as the rest feels old, dry and so tedious. I truly hope it’s the last anthology. 5/10
THE ADVENTURES OF ICHABOD AND MR. TOAD (1949)
Disney’s sour ’40s end on a rather positive note, as this anthology is actually not too bad. Much like Fun & Fancy Free, it’s composed of two separate shorts, The Wind in the Willows and The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, which are equally decent – no Bongo shit, thankfully – yet the latter seems to be a step ahead because of the Headless Horseman in general: his design looks fantastic, easily one of the most terrifying Disney villains ever created, who chases Ichabod on what’s a likewise ludicrous and spectacular segment, since he demands a new head and aims for Ichabod’s.
It’s likely nobody thinks that, but this film conceals an unexpected importance, as it – unwillingly or not – introduces an artistic approach Disney would adopt for their first rebirth during the early ’50s, through less pompous and more stripped back and linear artwork, which looks less sophisticated, yet more functional to let pure movements shine for good. It works pretty well on the weasels in the first segment, and naturally on the Headless Horseman in the second. Moreover, the pacing is also top-notch, especially during crucial moments like Toad and the others trying to catch the contract, Ichabod’s dance segment and the Headless Horseman chase. Sure, they’re not the most inventive content ever produced by Disney, but at the very least allowed them to finally awake from their lethargy after nearly a decade. At long last, the most famous animation studio in the world proves to be ready to start a new decade, while secure of their unmatchable potential, and the only way is to reconsider fairy tales, given the huge success of Snow White in the ’30s. As for this film, it’s a 7/10.
CINDERELLA (1950)
Disney’s fairy tale comeback since Snow White, his supposedly last chance to save his own company – constantly running into debts upon a rather unfortunate decade, nearly on the verge of bankruptcy – which turns out to be the highest box office success since Snow White, so his company could pull it off after such a time period filled with critical bombs.
As stated in the previous paragraph, the stripped-down approach is what dominates this film visual-wise, with more linear and slimmer designs proving to be animation-friendly, which is quite an assistance for Frank Thomas, Milt Kahl, Ward Kimball, John Lounsbery and the other high-flown names to shine. Cinderella is definitely a good protagonist: polite, kind, gorgeous, eager to wish for her dreams to come true, though she comes off as a little bit too finicky. A proper main character needs FLAWS in order to start some sort of individual growth, while Cinderella is just too PERFECT, she just doesn’t feature any other flaws but being sheerly idealistic, so she doesn’t need any character development because she’s already flawless.
On the other hand, the supporting characters happen to be a lot more interesting, like the kind-hearted, yet forgetful Fairy Godmother, the King and the Grand Duke who are a pretty funny duo – I really enjoy their interaction, with the former being so ill-tempered as he wants his son to breed (him dreaming of being his grandchildren’s “horse” is funny, yet slightly weird) and the latter fearing the King’s wrath and overreacting when the Prince’s nameless fiancée is missing, or when Cinderella’s glass slipper shatters (him kissing her other glass slipper is also pretty funny), however Lady Tremaine easily steals the show: she’s just a horrible, cruel, unpleasant and manipulative villain, and she’s downright awesome: Frank Thomas handles her vicious expressions to perfection, and she’s that single-minded to ruin Cinderella’s plans no matter what. Sure, her motivation might appear as lackluster, but it’s her charisma and her hyperbolically mean behavior that make her a great villain. She does want the audience to dislike her and absolutely succeeds in it.
Unfortunately, in spite of this film being quite good, it’s not exempt from serious sins like Prince Charming’s vacuous characterization: he does nothing apart from selecting dames and falling for Cinderella WITHOUT even introducing themselves. Naturally, since we’re in a Disney movie, you realize they love each other and you also realize they’ll get married in the end, which is another massive flaw of this film – the contrived happy finale just because it’s a fairy tale. Why did they cut off some of the scenes about Prince Charming? They could’ve established some of his habits or hobbies, or even a tiny side of his personality – if he has one, instead we do get a pompous dance segment because we can’t expect anything else from Disney. As for Lucifer, the mice and the other animals in the mansion, I’m indifferent. I don’t care for them, their scenes feel more like filler quite frankly. I enjoyed the King’s overreactions way more, in fact it’s quite astounding a supporting character that is supposed to be less relevant than the damn prince… leaves me a far better impression than the prince himself.
All in all, it’s an enjoyable movie, but I wish Cinderella’s feet had toes beforehand. 7/10.
ALICE IN WONDERLAND (1951)
Considering the importance of Lewis Carroll’s classic novel, I was definitely expecting an idiosyncratic interpretation from Disney, but unfortunately I can’t do anything but express an unlikely disappointment, because I didn’t enjoy this film as much as I foresaw.
The first thing that comes to mind when I think of Wonderland is PSYCHEDELIA, unique and nonsensical imagery a la Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, which isn’t completely absent here, most of all during the final third, but if there’s one thing creativity mustn’t allow is to leave the audience bored, and this film kinda bores me. It’s not a bias of mine, since I was supposed to enjoy this content on paper, but I still believe Disney just can’t embody wacky imagery in a natural way, they simply can’t entertain this way because they have directional limits that WB is deprived of. I know it’s not the first time I bring this up, which would sound like an unfair bias since I might be comparing short films with full-length movies, but it’s an inevitable complaint at this point because not only Disney’s stylized approach doesn’t seem the right choice for such a kind of humor, but even its auditive display isn’t that suitable, from its bland sound effects to Oliver Wallace’s score, which showcases the same issues as the ’50s shorts: not as pompous and brazen as Stalling’s, or not even as overwhelming as Bradley’s. They practically mirror the difficulties of this movie to entertain properly, especially if the side characters – who are meant to be the main comedy source – happen to be a pain in the arse and not on a positive key. In fact, the way Cheshire Cat, the Mad Hatter, the White Rabbit, the March Hare and the Caterpillar are handled is absolutely incorrect, since all they do is acting absurdly, talking gibberish, running away all the time, but without the charm of the original book, or even the possibility to let them be funny by having their scenes directed as they should. Instead, what we do get is neverending muddles of annoying side characters trying so hard to entertain, especially the White Rabbit. God, I fucking hate him in this version.
On the flip side, Alice is definitely a solid protagonist: she’s polite, curious, nagging and whiny… which makes her a more relatable protagonist than Snow White and Cinderella. Okay, she’s not a princess, but at last we get a main character that has flaws, she’s imperfect and constantly proves it. Cinderella’s shameless perfection doesn’t make her as down-to-earth as Alice, which is a pity since she deserves a better setup than this one. Although, I guess the last third is handled fairly well, the “jam session” is possibly the funniest part of the movie, with the irascible Queen of Hearts ordering her army to behead Alice. Too bad the ending follows the “it was only a dream all along” trope in a compelling fashion, as it simply ends with Alice and her older sister leaving the place and that’s it. Sort of gives some incomplete feelings, the same as the rest of the movie: it had the potential, also given the sacred possibilities of Disney, but the result is so all over the place without a solid direction to render chaos captivating. 6/10.
PETER PAN (1953)
Without a doubt the best Disney film of the decade, the last of the Nine Old Men altogether (Les Clark, Marc Davis, Ollie Johnston, Milt Kahl, Ward Kimball, Eric Larson, John Lounsbery, Woolie Reithermann and Frank Thomas). Given the sluggish performance of Alice in Wonderland, Disney must’ve realized that wacky feeling doesn’t really suit them, so what’s that genre they can do with their eyes closed? Adventure stories, as this film is a total return to form, as well as a showcase of Disney taking full advantage of its environment.
Sure, it’s not a perfect movie, but remains extremely solid: Captain Hook is a formidable villain – brilliantly animated by Thomas like Lady Tremain and Queen of Hearts – able to appear as both menacing and ridiculous, ranging from his double-crossing schemes to begging Peter Pan for mercy. He’s definitely one of my favorite Disney bad guys, and his interactions with Mr. Smee are possibly the highlight of the movie, alongside the intense and tremendous action segments and the running gag of the alligator, motivated to banquet with Hook’s meat – animated by Reithermann, his sketchy outlines fit him so much – which the movie handles so well, managing to thrill and amuse at the same time. As for the other characters, Tinker Bell is such a sorehead, taking advantage of her jealousy towards Wendy to even trying to kill her… what a bitch, I really like her. Fairies are normally universally virtuous creatures, unable to feel negative sensations like rage, jealousy and revenge, and Tinker Bell manages to debunk these tropes by even accepting to help Hook on his evil plan, only for the sole purpose of hurting Wendy. Unfortunately, Peter Pan, Wendy herself and her brothers don’t leave me a strong impression, because they’re not as interesting as Hook or Tinker Bell. I suppose they’re fine overall, but their interactions are kinda hit and miss, even though their floating journey looks great, the scene of Tinker Bell risking her existence to save Pan is well-handled, but again, nothing can beat Hook’s screen time, he can hold this film on his own just fine. As a whole, it’s a pretty solid one I’m willing to rewatch anytime. 8/10.
LADY AND THE TRAMP (1955)
The Cinemascope era, which doesn’t coincide with a pretty fortunate time for animation in general. Just think about Hanna and Barbera and Tex Avery diminishing their performance in MGM, or just think about this film, which I honestly didn’t place my expectations on beforehand, as it essentially ties on with my initial thoughts. The subject leaves me indifferent, Lady’s owners must be the most negligent, frivolous and absent-minded pieces of shit in fiction, as they practically ignore Lady throughout Mrs. Lut’s pregnancy, and also go on a vacation some time after their squirt’s birth, because that’s exactly what painstaking parents do, leaving their toddler behind with Aunt Sarah babysitting him – an old bitch who hates dogs.
Nevertheless, what bothers me about this movie is the fact it cannot make me feel sufficient negative sensations that would cause me to care for a moment, in spite of that annoying character, but in the end of the day I remain downright indifferent. For example, The Three Caballeros is bad enough to let me feel some pure anger when I’m forced to witness unfunny segments of Donald simping over real life dames, whereas Lady and the Tramp is just too meek, no matter how stupid humans get to act. I wish it could annoy me more, so that I could be able to express my annoyance accurately. What do we get instead? The spaghetti scene, which I positively don’t care for. I don’t care if it’s regarded as iconic or has become a pop culture reference, because I still do not care. There’s not too many jokes, human characters are blandly idiotic – not enough for me to hate them – and not even the frustrating third act misunderstanding trope is frustrating enough to dislike it, because I just DON’T CARE.
Bottom line, I don’t care. 5/10.
SLEEPING BEAUTY (1959)
The last film of the stylized era, as well as the last Disney Princess flick up to 1989’s The Little Mermaid, in which Chuck Jones of all people worked – uncredited, yet. Their intention is pretty clear, as they took it as a warranted success since Snow White and Cinderella also received such positive feedback, so nothing better than a classic fairy tale movie that uses the typical Disney Princess formula. Unfortunately, the audience’s feedback wasn’t that captivated back in the day, and not for meaningless reasons because this film is a seamless definition of mixed bag.
Starting with its positive first, the visuals look astounding, from the animation (why, of course) to the creative use of different hues in numerous scenes, like the greenish-black environment of Maleficent’s castle, the greenish-bluish population put to sleep by the Fairy Godmothers or the compelling use of purple and black during the climax. Not only the palette looks as crisp as ever, but I just appreciate this colorful direction so much, it definitely elevates the cinematography of this film by a strong landslide. In fact, this might be the first cinematic Disney film visual-wise… clearly before the Renaissance period.
Another positive change is George Bruns replacing Oliver Wallace as a composer, which feels like a massive improvement because a full-fledged Disney product has to both look and sound Disneyesque, and Bruns’ score indeed sounds majestic and luxuriant, whose sensation narrowly lacked in Wallace’s sheepish compositions. When it comes to interpret fairy tales, they usually know how to handle them the right way, at least on the surface.
Regretfully, the generally feeble characterization diminishes the gorgeous visuals of this film: if the Fairy Godmothers are easily the best characters – the core of the entertainment and the action, all three own their distinctive personalities, I do enjoy Flora and Merryweather’s pigmentation battle over which color Aurora has to wear – the remainder is just so bland and boring. I remember complaining about Cinderella being a little bit too finicky, which I almost regret since Aurora manages to be even more forgettable than Snow White. At the very least, Snow White can be sort of justified for being the Princess that started it all, whereas Aurora has ZERO personality, as she’s unreasonably idealistic – even more than Cinderella – and falls for Prince Philip after a scarse minute of “conversation”. I get it, it’s due to the Princess formula, but it’s simply a contrived device, especially if it involves a couple of characters deprived of spine. I suppose Prince Phil gets to do more stuff than the previous princes, since he partakes in the big climax against Maleficent, but it doesn’t quite suffice because his interactions with Aurora are simply skippable compared to the more engaging bits with the Fairy Godmothers. As for Maleficent, she’s a good villain, yet a bit overrated. Both her human and dragon designs look fairly solid, and as for her motivation, I’m proceeding to stand out from the crowd once again, because I like its stupidity.
I mean it, she’s been holding a grudge for 16 straight years, literally cursing a newborn Aurora only because she wasn’t invited to her birth party. Bad people do bad things mostly due to stupid motives, so it’s quite in line with Maleficent’s evildoings. She’s evil because she’s likewise frivolous, her stupidity makes her do evil stuff, therefore she’s a total paradox since her wicked plans are based upon her plain stupidity. Deeper than expected.
All in all, this sophisticated film deserved better characterization and a better pacing. 6/10.
ONE HUNDRED AND ONE DALMATIANS (1961)
The beginning of Disney’s pencilish era in the ’60s, the box office success upon the Sleeping Beauty bomb. Art-wise, this sketchy approach might be regarded as unorthodox by purists, but I actually find it fascinating. It just looks as Disneyish as the classic and the stylized eras, and villains take further advantage of such an approach to go all-out with their extravagant expressivity. The film itself is serviceable: if you’re dog lovers, you’ll enjoy it way more than I do. As for me, the bad guys are once again the highlight, since Cruella De Vil is indeed a very iconic villain, sharing a recognizable emaciated design – further highlit by the ’60esque sketchy artwork – whose intention is to catch as many Dalmatian puppies as possible to make a spotted fur coat out of them. In actuality, though, she’s a solid villain and all, but I do find Jasper and Horace more entertaining: they’re such incapable bad guys, they ignore Cruella’s orders to skin the Dalmatians alive because they want to watch TV first, and Jasper even disdains Horace’s sensible suggestions because Jasper considers himself the smart one… but they’re such enjoyable bad guys. Again, they’re involved in the most engaging scenes of this film, during the Dalmatians’ escape or during the snowy climax, in which Cruella’s car gets gradually dismantled piece by piece – with one hell of a fierce expression – and the incapable duo just sucks at their job.
As a whole, the film isn’t that entertaining, since the more action-packed 20 minutes do make up for the quite sluggish first act, in which the good guys are mundane as ever, and do mundane things. Sargeant Tibs is the only good character who leaves me an impression, since not only he shares some neat comedy with Jasper and Horace, but also protects the Dalmatian herd from their clutches. The remainder, though, is mostly okay-ish: human characters aren’t as compelling as the villains, while the canines may feature a little bit more of personality compared to the humans, but the film doesn’t enhance their characterizations that much: the adult Dalmatians are regularly apprehensive parents and the puppies do act like average puppies. Therefore, it’s the umpteenth movie carried by villains, who sadly don’t pop up in every single scene. 6/10.
THE SWORD IN THE STONE (1963)
A more suitable title would’ve been “King Arthur’s Quest”, since the forementioned sword stuck in the stone appears within the final 5 minutes of this film.
This complaint of mine aside, there’s numerous things to appreciate about this film: for instance, Arthur’s entire apprenticeship initiated by Merlin, who transforms the rookie into various animals in order to let him taste his quest, leading to creative action scenes.
Second, Merlin is such an enjoyable character and also a great mentor for Arthur, whose submissive personality doesn’t sadly make him as interesting as Merlin. As a matter of fact, Merlin compels as a protagonist way more than Arthur, as his interactions with Archimedes are spot-on, as well as his kind of humor involving magic – like letting his powers wash dishes to Sir Ector’s dismay – and most of all, the epic magic duel between him and Madame Mim, another enjoyable villain: this is such a formidable segment, in which they don’t only stick to turn themselves into the bigger and stronger animals, but – like in Merlin’s case – they also rely on strategies and tricks, like mouse Merlin facing elephant Mim, Mim disappearing or becoming a fire-spitting dragon, whom Merlin defeats by becoming a virus, infecting her in the process. Though, this section is so great the subsequent events can’t keep up with it, also due to Merlin going on vacation, leaving Arthur and Archimedes behind, which emphasizes my issue with this movie, that is the bland main cast without Merlin’s presence. Sure enough, the last 15 minutes feel a bit too dull compared to the rest, because Arthur isn’t a terrible character, but he’s supposed to overwhelm his own events, while his weak personality literally lets him be overwhelmed by overbearing and/or more memorable characters like Merlin. He simply cannot hold the film on his own, therefore I almost feel uninterested in watching the conclusion of his journey, since his apprenticeship was overall way more engaging and creative than its actual resolution. I’m not saying the sword in the stone stuff must be omitted – after all, it’s in the title – but I just find a bit underwhelming compared to the otherwise solid performance of this film. The sketchy approach remains as unique as ever, the animation remains functional, yet a bit more conservative than the previous movies – not astonishing, since we’re entering a banter era – the scenes with Merlin are awesome, Arthur’s training is handled so well, yet its conclusion kind of leaves to be desired. All in all, it’s a downright rewatchable experience. 8/10.
THE JUNGLE BOOK (1967)
The last film produced by Walt Disney prior to his death, coinciding with the peak of the sketchy era before a long recession period. Quite frankly, the founder’s passing affecting the performance of the subsequent films is no falsehood, since his following producers won’t clearly display the same courage and ambition as Disney in person, and most of all, the animation recession of the ’70s will take a toll on each single animation studio. Accordingly, it’s not that surprising to find out why The Jungle Book and The Aristocats differ so much, since the latter would turn out to look even more conservative – even recycling clips from previous movies – and would also start the tendency of a doomed company unable to impress the audience any longer.
But for now, let’s talk about The Jungle Book, a very good movie. Much like The Sword in the Stone, the true force stands on the deuteragonists and the villain. Baloo and Bagheera are incredibly entertaining characters, whom I consider the real protagonists of this film since Mowgli manages to be even more boring than Arthur, but unlike The Sword in the Stone dipping in quality in the last quarter, this film thankfully remains consistent even without Baloo and Bagheera, because of its likewise functional supporting cast: Kaa is a quite manipulative character who hypnotizes Mowgli twice – Mowgli isn’t that bright, is he? – but a snake never gets to boss around in the jungle as long as Shere Khan is there to calmly threaten him. He’s simply what Scar should’ve been from start to finish: he’s a ferocious and sophisticated son of a bitch who doesn’t have to shout to establish his authority, because he’s aware of his strength and simply threatens his preys while speaking softly. The final interaction between Mowgli and Shere Khan is handled very well, with the beast slowly losing his cool due to the boy’s insolence, but also keeping his dignity intact at the same time, since he counts to ten to let Mowgli realize what trouble he’s gotten into.
Again, the supporting cast is what makes this film, the relationship between Mowgli and both Baloo and Bagheera is extremely notable, and even the interactions Baloo and Bagheera share are both amusing and quite mature, especially during the night scene in which Bagheera tells Baloo they have to let Mowgli live with his lookalikes. Furthermore, this might be one of the very few instances where I like listening to their songs – I don’t normally care, they’re kinda cringy bits most of the time – which isn’t that astonishing since The Bare Necessities happens to be one of the most memorable songs in animation. As a matter of fact, the musical numbers are fantastic – with some slapstick once in a while – managing to express the playful and festive mood of both Baloo and King Louie, and the sketchy art totally gives the idea of Baloo’s insane will to be struck by rhythm. Overall, Mowgli’s protagonist role is a bit puzzling, since he’s the weaker character amongst the main cast, but the film remains a gem, as well as an engaging farewell for Walt Disney. 8/10.
THE ARISTOCATS (1970)
Small true story: back at primary school, the teacher let my class choose between two films to watch, The Aristocats or 1998’s Godzilla (the one with Matthew Broderick saying ‘That’s a lot of fish’). I had watched neither of them, but someone convinced me to pick Godzilla. I don’t really remember which film won, but one thing is for sure: if Godzilla won, it’d be a fairer trade.
The fact of the matter is I don’t usually care for the romance formula, especially when it’s connected to a pet film, since Lady and the Tramp was downright unimpressive and 101 Dalmatians was mostly lethargic, yet partially saved by amusing villains. It’s an undoubted bias of mine considering that I didn’t have lots of expectations beforehand, and I have to acknowledge I was indeed right about The Aristocats, despite it’s not as awfully snooze-worthy as Lady and the Tramp. Don’t get me wrong, I still find it boring because the main cast isn’t very well-assorted, as the kittens are merely generic kittens (okay, their names have something to do with their habits, but don’t suffice to make them interesting like the Seven Dwarfs), Duchess is essentially the feline counterpart of Snow White – not a promising start – and Thomas O’Malley is a dull Pepé le Pew disguised as a horny cat. They’re not appalling, but I clearly expect something more from their characterization. Arthur and Mowgli didn’t compel much as protagonists, but at least they were supported by interesting deuteragonists, like Merlin, Bagheera and Baloo, as well as by great villains like Madame Mim and Shere Khan. On the other hand, The Aristocats cannot even take this advantage, as butler Edgar sucks as a bad guy, whose goal is to get rid of the cats in order to grab Bonfamilie’s inheritance directly. Overall, I don’t like him much, he’s not particularly charismatic or wicked, even though he appears in the only funny moment of this film, the motorbike chase, which is very well-paced and gets a few genuine chuckles through some good old slapstick humor. Let’s consider this the factor that makes this movie slightly more tolerable than Lady and the Tramp. Too bad the plot leaves to be desired, the sketchy art remains enjoyable, yet the animation feels a bit too conservative, which is to be expected given the banter era Disney has lately entered.
By the way, I undeliberately picked Godzilla. 5/10.
ROBIN HOOD (1973)
The first film to be produced upon Walt Disney’s death, and the result looks totally incontrovertible. It might be the most conservative animated media ever produced by Disney, which doesn’t make it sloppy by default – numerous animators from the Classic era provide their output here – but the recurring recycle of clips from previous movies like Snow White, The Jungle Book and The Aristocats definitely deceives our attention. The dance segment is the perfect epitome, since Little John’s dancing is basically Baloo redrawn from scratch or Maid Marian moving like Duchess or Snow White (that’s just ridiculous, lol), which is 100% filler unlike in the instance of The Jungle Book integrating the musical numbers within the story. Like I stated, this is a quite problematic film belonging to the recession era, in which the sketchy artwork starts losing its efficiency and movements are getting kinda stiff and wonky, sadly filled with pointless musical moments, like the forementioned party scene and Robin Hood and Marian’s couple moment, which completely diminish what the film accomplished previously, from the introduction of the main cast to the archery competition. As a matter of fact, the main treasure stands at its characters, illustrated as animals in this version, with each species matching their personalities: Robin Hood is smart and cunning as a fox, Little John is a faithful bear like Baloo, Lady Kluck is a hen, the Nottingham Sheriff is cruel and cocky as a wolf, Prince John being a lion fits his role as a monarch and Sir Kaa… Hiss as a snake sounds appropriate for a lackey. Robin Hood is a pretty entertaining protagonist, who steals to the rich to help the poor by tricking his opponents through clever disguises, while Prince John is by all means a funny villain, maybe not the most ferocious, since he’s a totally hysterical crybaby who likes to suck his thumb, but such a controversial attitude for a bad guys functions in this case because he’s not meant to be taken that seriously. Beside the prison segment, the very tone of this film is certainly lighthearted, so a flawed antagonist sounds like a neat choice. Unfortunately, Maid Marian is a stock romantic interest serving as a tool for Robin Hood and that’s it, as she literally disappears after the dance segment, only to be seen again marrying Hood during the finale. Even Lady Kluck and the little rabbits manage to get themselves some importance during the action segments, whereas she literally gets to do absolutely nothing, apart from drooling over the protagonist. Accordingly, it’s enough for me to dislike their romance further – which is nasty considering I don’t usually care for this unvaried trope. While I do enjoy the characters, the comedy and the action – albeit conservative – I still find this film improvable because of said sins. 7/10.
THE MANY ADVENTURES OF WINNIE THE POOH (1977)
This isn’t to be considered a full-fledged film, since it’s more like a collection of several episodes about Winnie the Pooh and his lore. As a result, the main attraction isn’t within the stories themselves, but rather on the main cast’s personalities and interactions, such as the solid friendship between Pooh and Piglet, Rabbit not standing Tigger’s energetic attitude – a subtler and way softer version of Squidward hating SpongeBob – Owl’s logohrrea and of course Eeyore’s innate catastrophism – I just like him, his “pin the tail on the donkey” design looks downright ingenious and he’s so relatably pessimistic – all portrayed as Christopher Robin’s stuffed animals brought to life. Only an assumption, but something tells me the narrator is adult Robin narrating the stories he came up with as a kid, in which he experienced fantastic adventures with some imaginary pals, and wants the audience to witness those very events he collected in his book. In fact, the leafing through pages narration is a very imaginative device to depict the main events, in which characters actually have the tendency to break the 4th wall, also by walking from a page to the next one. Regardless, the stories feel a bit too simplistic and lackluster humor-wise, because they’re likely meant for a much younger audience, which I get to a degree since animation is for any age range, therefore even adults have the right to sit down and to understand the messages the film wants to spread, especially in the last two minutes of conversation between Robin and Pooh, genuine and heartfelt, bringing the concept of fun being ephemeral and of Robin eventually needing to do something in his life. I’m never been a massive fan of Winnie the Pooh content – too lighthearted and happy-go-lucky for my taste – though I have to acknowledge his undeniable importance as one of the most famous Disney mascots, whose first ever theatrical appearance emphasizes the pros and cons of his lore: characterization is the main force, but the episodes are nothing outstanding when it comes to fundamentals like humor, pathos, pacing and pointless musical numbers. 7/10.
THE RESCUERS (1977)
40 years after the very first theatrical film, only 4 out of the Nine Old Men are still working at Disney (Reithermann, Johnston, Kahl and Thomas), since Lounsbery passed away a year prior the release of The Rescuers. The sketchy era is reaching its final stage, and the classic generation is slowly fading away in favor of the next one.
With that said, this film positively belongs to the banter era, as it’s incredibly generic from start to finish. I actually expected way worse from this movie, as a matter of fact I wanted to feel some genuine anger, but just like in Lady and the Tramp, I’m 100% indifferent. I don’t really have the purpose of being upset over this film, because it’s so indolent: the story is commonplace, as the little orphan in distress formula doesn’t sound very original to begin with (sad when you do it as sloppily as the 1992’s Tom and Jerry movie), the main cast is tiresome, as well as the non-existent humor. The film never tries to captivate comedy- or even story-wise, as though it were proud of its sheer indolence and triviality, never caring of being too mediocre. Bernard and Miss Bianca are banal and unremarkable protagonists – who fall for each other because Disney adores contrived romances, ugh – Penny is a generic orphan girl and Madame Medusa is essentially a third-rate Cruella De Vil without her charm. She may be eccentrically animated, but feels so unimpressive as a villain and her goal is simply as generic as the entire movie: she wants to retrieve the Devil’s Eye diamond only for the sake of her greed, nothing else. No further motivation, no wicked plan, only plain greedy attitude.
That’s it, I find this movie so forgettable and banal, which bothers me quite a bit since I wish it gave me some annoying stuff so that it could make me care for a minuscule moment. Again, The Three Caballeros featured the forced wack Disney cannot normally handle, the pointless Nativity segment and Donald drooling over real life ladies… all obnoxious scenes that gave me some SENSATIONS like annoyance and anger, whereas The Rescuers leaves me nothing but mediocrity. 5/10.
THE FOX AND THE HOUND (1981)
The very last film in which any of the Nine Old Men delivered their output, specifically Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston, produced by Woolie Reithermann. The true end of an era.
Regardless, I wish I were able to appreciate this movie as much as someone else does, because the way it handles emotional and/or tense moments is correct, but the remainder doesn’t live up to those very moments, as they’re treated as shallow and even pointless moments. A story between a dog and a fox’s friendship getting obstructed by their very nature demands solemn and impactful moments, and the film actually manages to handle them correctly, specifically Widow Tweed releasing Tod to the wild for his own sake – solidly executed – and the whole climax with Copper assaulting and chasing his former pal, only to be attacked by a Grizzly bear who faces him, Tod and Slade, in what’s an aggressive, intense and tense clash, that is definitely the film highlight. Having Tod deny his nature in order to save Copper isn’t far-fetched on the slightest, since it represents the results of his memories of his old companion, as Buddy Baker’s score sounds top-notch for such an occasion. Both the music and expressions function without needing any dialogue, the true force of this film. Though, Copper’s grudge would be even more impactful if they actually let Chief die instead of simply breaking his paw. Then again, it’s a relatively minor complaint.
Unfortunately, the rest of the film is completely shallow, emphasizing the issues that tend to nourish my bias towards Disney products, like the rather aleatory slapstick involving birds hunting a caterpillar and, worst of all, the guaranteed forced romance trope, because Disney cannot renounce this obnoxious formula one bit, no matter how fastidious and far-fetched its portrayal is. I just don’t give a shit about Tod and Vixey’s romance sub-plot, which makes the entire film take a nosedive after a powerful scene like Tod’s release. Moreover, I wish they killed off that fucking badger, I absolutely detest it. All in all, this film proves it can provide tension in a compelling fashion, too bad its slice of life moments feel such a downer. 6/10.
THE BLACK CAULDRON (1985)
The Black Cauldron… lots of fans rank it amongst the worst films, it’s the biggest Disney flop because gore, horror and violence aren’t that marketable in such a context. The audience demands fairy tales, fluffy puffy mascots and cheesy songs, and this film has none of this, therefore its failure sounds fairly reasonable on paper, but not for those reasons in my opinion.
While I admit I didn’t have lots of expectations given its negative reputation, I’m glad to take my responsibilities to the fullest, because I do think it is NOT the worst Disney film. Is it good, then? Far from it, although I can definitely realize why it would be considered a cult nowadays, as such several directors like Tim Burton in the flesh took inspiration from this idiosyncratic film. The most suitable term to describe this is OVERAMBITIOUS: first of all, the visuals look sublime, the effects are formidable, as well as the 2D animation by the new generation and the CGI used for the very first time at Disney. As a matter of fact, this film should receive more credit for introducing the Disneyesque physiognomy everyone knows, which would become so frequent during the forthcoming Renaissance era, as well as for the action scenes, very well-executed and more violent than expected. I mean, Taran even has a bloody mouth at some point, which displays the ambition of doing something completely different for the sole purpose of leaving massive impressions. For the most part, it actually succeeds, especially when it enjoys melting the skeleton warriors as if were being corroded by acid upon Gurgi’s sacrifice, resulting in rather morbid and gory imagery hitting their peak once Skeletor… the Horned King get sucked in the black cauldron, simply outstanding stuff, that’s how to handle a climax properly.
Nonetheless, the overambitious tone of this film gets easily overshadowed by very problematic sins, like the dreadful main cast – by far the worst. Taran and Elionwy give me the vibes of Link and Zelda from The Legend of Zelda series, which suffice for me to dislike them: I’ve never seen such a whiny, generic and unpleasant duo that – according to the Disney formula – squabble for a bit only to fall for each other in the end, because romance is apparently that mandatory even when you’re facing an abusive relationship… what an appalling message. Anyway, Taran is supposed to be the protagonist, but he’s quite annoying, lacks charisma and hardly ever makes the right choice when the plot demands it, yet again I suppose not even his unremarkable presence can top the absolute frustration that is GORGI. He’s THAT awful, whenever his so-called “friends” are in peril, he ALWAYS runs away. I do get it, his sacrifice is meant to redeem his character, but it would actually become a much more meaningful moment if he stayed dead, because life is precious and requires to be paid for sometimes. Instead, not even the more serious and spookier atmosphere of The Black Cauldron can impede Disney from getting the umpteenth happy finale… it’s supposedly predictable. As for the main villain, I can only praise the Horny King for his sinister design – he kinda looks like Skeletor from He-Man – because he’s pretty generic with a lackluster motivation, as well. He desires to grasp the Black Cauldron because he wants to revive his skeleton army in order to wreak havoc and destroy anything, which doesn’t sound like a particularly engaging scheme, yet it’s partially improved by forementioned nifty visuals.
Overall, despite some very annoying characters and a commonplace villain, I still reckon this as a misunderstood film, blinded by its own ambition so much it eventually slipped on a banana peel, that is its main cast and recurring far-fetched and irritating clichés. As far as I’m concerned, I don’t regret watching it at all, because it’s not as anger-inducing as The Three Caballeros, not as terribly lethargic as Lady and the Tramp, not as empty as Bambi and not as mediocre as The Rescuers. I’ve seen better movies, but I’ve seen far worse, as well. EXCUUUUUSE ME, PRINCESS/10.
THE GREAT MOUSE DETECTIVE (1986)
The rodent adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, resulting in a rather atypical film for Disney’s standards, because it’s fast-paced and amazingly straight-forward, enough for me to regard it as the best pre-Renaissance Disney film. It displays zero filler, even during Ratigan’s singing number, since that bit is for the sake of showing how much he’s a sorehead, by having Felicia eat up one of his sidekick for undeliberately insulting him. Upon the box office bomb of The Black Cauldron, this film sounds like the perfect breath of fresh air, an engaging plot involving endearing characters, animated to perfection with some damn serious CGI – the gear segment excels 37 years later, such stellar execution. The Clements-Musker duo is going to become a pleasant tendency in the upcoming movies, as their first direction is absolutely top-notch. Basil is a great protagonist altogether: he’s resolute, cocky with an enormous ego, which gets immediately shattered once Ratigan – another character with a likewise gargantuan ego – outsmarts him, causing him to lose all of his certainties. This weakness may sound out-of-character, which is why it works so much because his overconfidence has always been emphasized sufficiently in order to make his coming down to earth more tangible and more realistic. As for the villain, Ratigan is wicked, eccentric and very conceited sorehead, whose scheme is to dethrone the Queen in favor of his dictatorship. Not very original, yet pretty straight-forward considering the British setting of Conan Doyle’s novels. Once again, this film handles nearly everything correctly, from the comedy – especially during Dawson’s intoxication – to the visuals – super expressive artwork and fluid animation – leading to some intense action segments, which aren’t as brutal or daring as in The Black Cauldron, but still function very well in order to deliver a massively atmospheric climax set in the Big Ben. Moreover, the film never wastes any time as every on-screen scene is important to the main plot, and it’s paced so well it doesn’t even risk to leave the audience out of breath. Moreover, the fact there’s no forced romance sub-plot gives the movie bonus points. Sensational. 9/10.
OLIVER & COMPANY (1988)
First Disney film of the Eisner-Katzenberg era and the last of the banter era. Much like The Great Mouse Detective adapting Sherlock Holmer, Oliver & Company is an alternative representation of another novel, Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens, yet set in contemporary New York showing all of its facets, from its wealthier – more common – areas to the slums where Fagin and his dogs live. However, this film happens to be more in line with Disneyesque motifs and pacing unlike the previous one, as it decides to take its time through some quite cheesy musical numbers, which become a bit distracting in the long run. Overall, I’ve got nothing much to state, it’s a pretty harmless movie, the main cast is rather enjoyable, yet a bit uninteresting and flat, the antagonist is easily the most generic and commonplace encountered this far – just a casually evil moneylender who kidnaps a little girl, no unique motivation – the visuals don’t likely look as outstanding as in the latest entries, since they quite give the impression of reverting back to a more polished take of the ’60esque sketchy artwork. Nevertheless, the CGI remains as fresh and crafty as ever, though it’s not located in a likewise endearing setting. Bottom line, I don’t consider it any good, but it’s pretty much innocuous. 6/10.
THE LITTLE MERMAID (1989)
