Arguably the worst of the Disney features up until that point, part of the general trend of decreasing returns since the pre-War Golden Age of Animation. Disney’s Peter Pan opens with a deservedy ‘magical’ touch Walt was known for but gradually devolves intp a looney toon-style comedy and rather shameful stereotypical depictions of First Nation peoples.
While the spark of the Golden Age Animation was lost somewhere in the WWII years, 'Cinderella' still resonates as a marvellous example of classical Disney animation, a style and tone absolutely non-existent in today's animated films - a purity to its subject matter devoid of self-acknowledgement and no post-modern cinematic or pop-culture references whatsoever.
Cinderella (1950) dir. Clyde Geronimo, Wilfred Jackson, Hamilton Luske
Voices by: Ilene Woods, Eleanor Audley, Verna Felton, Rhoda Williams, James MacDonald
By Alan Bacchus
History could define four specific phases of Disney classical animation: the pre-war Golden Age of Animation (1937 to 1942), which included Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo and Bambi; the post-WWII films, from Cinderella (1950) to The Aristocats (1970); the post-Walt period of films conceived after his death, from Robin Hood (1973) to Oliver and Company (1988); and finally, the studio resurgence under the Jeffrey Katzenberg regime ― the pre-Pixar period, from The Little Mermaid (1989) to The Lion King (1994).
The Golden Age of Animation is still the height of Disney's artistic endeavours, a monumental creative output that put the "magic" in "the Magic Kingdom." Arguably there were lesser returns post-WWII; it took eight years after Bambi for Walt Disney to produce his next full-fledged animated feature, Cinderella, a return to the bread-and-butter subject matter. It's the well-known fairy tale about a downtrodden step-child of an abusive mother, who, with the help of the magical creatures of the land and a fairy godmother, usurp the destinies of her evil step-sisters to capture the heart of the handsome prince.
Uncle Walt always preferred the collaborative method of animation, assigning sequences to different animators, the effect of which made each film feel like a series of sequenced set pieces. In Cinderella this feeling remains. Of the memorable standalone scenes there's the action-oriented interactions of Lucifer the evil cat and the helpful mice; the dressmaking sequence, where the magical animals of the kingdom work together to craft the dress for Cinderella to wear to the ball; and, of course, the fairy godmother's transformation of Cinderella in preparation for the ball, including the memorable "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo" song.
Cinderella features some of the most striking visual compositions of any of the Disney features; it was the most baroque of the Disney films up until then. The step-mother's castle is wonderfully Roman-esque. Inspired by the Neuschwanstein Castle of Bavaria, it became the most iconic of the Disney brand imagery. Disney uses this elegant but imposing extravagance throughout the film ― look for the expressive use of long shadows and other haunting noir and Gothic imagery to create the film's unique, brooding, Germanic feeling.
The special features of the Disney Diamond Collection include an alternative opening scene, a look back at the real-life inspiration for the memorable fairy godmother character, a more comprehensive making-of featurette and a short film based on a new CGI animated feature Tangled. It's a curious addition that shows the dramatic difference of animation styles between 1950 and today.
The Adventures of Tintin
Starring: Jamie Bell, Andy Serkis, Daniel Craig, Nick Frost, Simon Pegg
****
By Alan Bacchus
International audiences embraced this film to the tune of $395 million. Sadly, American audiences did not. Perhaps people didn’t know what Tintin was. Rin Tin Tin the dog maybe? A cartoon for kids maybe? Either way, most of America missed out on one of the best films of the year, a great adventure story from an old master in a new medium.
What’s remarkable is the authorship Spielberg injects into the film. Despite working in a sterile motion capture studio without an actual camera and in animation, nothing looks fake or cartoonish. In fact, it’s arguably the most photorealistic animated film I’ve seen. Other than the faces of the characters, Tintin is a real world.
The backstory of the project is now well known, first optioned by Spielberg in the 1980s. While making Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Spielberg put the film on hold until he could find a way to shoot it without making it another Indy Jones film. And so, when Spielberg teamed up with Peter Jackson's Weta Studios, which created Gollum in Lord of the Rings, Tintin the film was born, as was the Jackson/Spielberg collaboration.
The story of the intrepid young amateur sleuth, who, through the purchase of a model ship at a local market, incites a globetrotting adventure for lost treasure is lean and mean action filmmaking. Writers Peter Moffat, Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish honour the fun in discovering the mystery of the Lost Unicorn ship and crafting delightful pot-boiler characters to support the heroes. For instance, the moustache twirling villain, Rackham, is a deliciously upper class snob out for revenge; the affable Thomson/Thompson cops feel like a comic duo plucked out of the silent era; and of course Tintin's trusty four legged partner, Snowy the dog, is part of a long tradition of cinematic dog sidekicks.
As such, despite the most advanced new millennium technology, the film still feels like old fashioned swashbuckling adventure this side of a Michael Curtiz/Errol Flynn.
The Blu-ray special features are clear to point out what separates this film from other motion capture pictures, including Avatar, Spielberg’s mise-en-scene, and they don’t get lost in the technological mumbo jumbo. Tintin looks and feels like a Steven Spielberg film, from the delightful comedic action right down to the composition, lighting and pacing that are distinct to the man.
And if you’re scared off by the thought of watching another kids’ film, I was pleasantly surprised to see as much guns, blood, violence and questionable behaviour as in any of the Indiana Jones films. Hell, Tintin is barely out of his teenage years and he carries his own pistol! Captain Haddock’s alcoholism, which serves as a major plotting device, is the main hurdle in his character arc and recalls the character traits of a politically incorrect bygone era.
In the end, Tintin still feels like an Indiana Jones film. However, it’s not a knock-off but rather a revival of that youthful energy in escapist entertainment Spielberg used to have as a young director. In the past 20 years, every one of Spielberg’s attempts at recreating the fun of Raiders, ET or Jaws has either failed or under-delivered. Films like Minority Report and War of the Worlds were failed by weak attempts at adult characterizations and adult themes. There’s nothing mature or serious about Tintin. It’s full-tilt retro action cinema at its finest.
The Adventures of Tintin is available on Blu-ray from Paramount Home Entertainment.
Dumbo (1942) dir. Various
Voices by: Sterling Holloway, Edward Brophy and James Baskett
****
By Alan Bacchus
The second last of the great 'Golden Age of Animation' Disney films, including Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Fantasia, Pinocchio, Bambi and Dumbo sparkle with a kind of cinema magic unlike any other films in history. The incredibly touching story of a ridiculed baby elephant with big ears born into a circus troupe who realizes his ears can make him fly and achieve unrivalled greatness and success resonates so strongly because of its universal message of marginalization and triumph over adversity.
The scant narrative with barely any dialogue and the artistry with movement, colour and music give this (and all Golden Age Disney films) the same kind of lyrical grace as a silent film. There isn't one credited director on Dumbo. Instead, Walt Disney created his films by assigning sequences to several animation directors who worked independently but with creative guidance from Disney himself. In today's environment, Walt Disney would have been credited as director, which makes it all so ironic that, other than the opening presentation, he doesn't even have a credit on the film.
This is one of the reasons why these Disney films feel so different and special compared to feature animation films today. Looking closely at the narrative, Dumbo is essentially a series of linked set pieces, like Fantasia but with a through line and narrative arc. Take the opening sequence, for example, during which the storks drop off the bundles of joy to the circus animals. The animation of the baby animals is impossibly cute, ending with the endearing sadness of poor Jumbo the elephant left without a newborn. The arrival of Dumbo from the late stork is its own sequence, as is the bounding preparation montage scene of the faceless humans building up the circus tents.
Of the minimal dialogue scenes, the female elephant colleagues of Dumbo's that act like a peanut gallery of sorts who bully and ridicule poor Dumbo are characterized as a group of snobby neighbourhood gossipers who resent Jumbo’s and Dumbo's assimilation with their group. Their comeuppance at the end when Dumbo shows off his ability to fly results in a truly awesome sequence. Dumbo and Timothy the mouse falling from the burning building without Dumbo's trusty magic feather is a tense sequence, climaxing when Dumbo's ears successfully pop out and help them glide overtop of the circus crowd and the awestruck elephant group.
And in between the traditional story, there's the remarkable 'parade of elephants' sequence, which sticks out like a psychedelic fantasy 25 years before people were dropping acid. Under anyone else's watch, the shear length of the sequence, which cuts into the third act of the film, might have threatened the forward flow of the film. But it's consistent with the episodic nature of all these Golden Age pictures and Uncle Walt's innate knowledge of what stimulates children's imaginations.
Remarkably, Dumbo is only a 63-minute movie and features a simplicity in both story and structure that is missing from today's 'family' pictures. Sadly, with America entering into WWII at the time, Dumbo was the penultimate picture of the pre-war period films. Bambi would be released a year later – arguably the best of the period. And, with the exception of the 'packaged features' (feature length compilations of Disney shorts), it wouldn't be until 1950's Cinderella that Disney would make another animated feature.
Cars 2 (2012) dir. John Lasseter, Brad Lewis
Featuring voice talents of: OwenWilson, Larry the Cable Guy, Michael Caine, Emily Mortimer, Eddie Izzard, John Turturro, Bonnie Hunt
**
By Alan Bacchus
The first Cars film wasn’t that great, yet after repeated viewings at the behest of my toddler I learned to appreciate the tender message about the feelings of obsolescence and being left behind in an increasingly fast-paced world. In the first film Lightning McQueen, the pre-eminent cocky race car driver, represented the exciting yet superficial life of celebrity and the aw shucks folks of Radiator Springs, a small dead town on Route 66, represented the value of growing roots and staying true to home.
Years later, after Cars arguably became one of Pixar’s most popular ancillary profit centres (after Toy Story), there arose a need for a sequel. In this film, John Lasseter (Pixar’s co-founder/creative leader and director of this film) expands the Cars world, creating an international spy story barely even related to the previous film.
The star of this picture is actually Tow Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), the rusted tow truck/country hick who loves to tag along with the fancy-pants McQueen. After seeing the revered Italian racer Francesco Bernoulli disrespect his buddy on TV, he challenges him to an all-star race of sorts with McQueen. This takes McQueen, reluctantly bringing along Mater, to far flung international locations like Japan and England.
Lasseter derives some typical fish-out-of-water hijinks exposing the country bumpkin to the extravagance of Tokyo. While gallivanting around town, Mater accidently gets recruited by a James Bond-type spy, Finn McMissile (Michael Caine), to help stop the maniacal world domination plot of a clandestine organization.
Racing is secondary to Mater’s stumbling around with the international British spies. If you enjoy Larry the Cable Guy's self-effacing white trash humour you’ll at least tolerate this film. Lightning McQueen is barely in it – same with those delightfully warm characters of Radiator Springs, including Sally and Mack.
Even the visuals leave much to be desired. Usually with each Pixar film we can see a noticeable step forward in technical achievement in computer animation. Cars 2 is a step backward, less impactful visually than any of the recent Pixar films, and even less so than the original movie. Most of the action is presented in an over-the-top hyper reality, whereas the original film was mostly photorealistic and contained in the physical geography of the Nascar racetrack, the desert highway or the small town of Radiator Springs. The opening action scene in this film, which takes place on a freighter barge, features overly produced gunfire and explosions. Most of this film is painted with this type of brush.
As such, Cars 2 feels like just a cartoon instead of a movie. In fact, it feels like simply an expanded version of the accompanying Pixar shorts, Cars Toons – Mater’s Tall Tales, bite-sized morsels of Cars-action featuring Mater and Lighting in fun adventures.
Cars 2 is the only across-the-board uniform failure from Pixar. Still, after 15 years and 12 movies, that’s a pretty good run.
Cars 2 is available on Blu-ray from Walt Disney Home Entertainment.
Pinocchio (1940) dir. Various
Voices by: Cliff Edwards, Dickie Jones, Christian Rub, Mel Blanc, Walter Catlett, Charles Judels
***1/2
By Alan Bacchus
We all remember Pinocchio for the dreamy opening music, ‘When You Wish Upon a Star,’ which became the theme song for the entire Disney Empire. But the rest of the film is a surprisingly terrifying experience, at least for parents. Looking back on the Disney animated version, the story goes like this: a humble and lonely Italian puppeteer, Geppetto, makes a wish upon the first star he sees in the sky, to have his newly created wooden stringed puppet turned into a real boy. Overnight, the blue fairy comes down and grants Geppetto his wish. Pinocchio comes to life, though he is still made of wood and without the ability to grow like a real human.
Though startled, Geppetto accepts the boy puppet as his son and sends him off to school – alone! Pinocchio never even makes it to the school, as he’s intercepted by a nefarious moustache-twirling con artist Fox who tricks him into joining the circus. In reality, the Fox takes a large sum of money from the even more maniacal circus wrangler, Stromboli, in exchange for Pinocchio’s indentured servitude. Hell, Pinocchio even gets locked up in a birdcage as a form of punishment for trying to go home. Pinocchio’s best friend and the embodiment of his ‘conscience’, Jiminy Cricket, saves the day and rescues the boy. But they both soon find out that Geppetto has been swallowed by a whale during his search for Pinocchio. The journey climaxes in the mouth of the whale and a dramatic escape literally from the jaws of death.
As a parent who is about to send his year-and-a-half old son to daycare for the first time, Pinocchio may not have been the best movie to watch. Under Walt Disney’s careful eye, he’s sure to inject all of the thought-provoking moralistic themes of life and death, good and evil. Few ‘cartoons’ had a more palpable and visceral sense of danger or threat on their characters.
Pinocchio is the embodiment of innocence. He’s as naive and inexperienced in life as a newborn child, and so Geppetto’s, and to some degree Jiminy Cricket’s, irresponsibility with Pinocchio’s care is the most grievous act in the film. Both characters let the innocent boy out into the world without any care whatsoever.
Pinocchio’s journey into the seedy underworld of life is wholly traumatic. Stromboli’s gruesome circus prison is dark and disturbing, but the mysterious Pleasure Island, which is cause for nightmares for both adults and children, is downright delirious. After a brief escape, Pinocchio is coaxed back by the Fox to a grotesque amusement park of carnality and debaucherous behaviour. We can’t help but think of what kind of abusive metaphors are at play in this sequence. Sure, we see Pinocchio pressured into gambling, smoking, drinking and engaging in destructive behaviour, but it’s when Pinocchio and the children start sprouting big ears and tails and turning into donkeys that the film starts to warp into a surreptitious drug trip metaphor.
And if there was a lesson for parents to use to educate their children about the dangers of the outside world and the need to guide them toward honesty and decency, read what you like into the creepy conversation between the Fox (aka Foulfellow) and the Coachman, who takes Pinocchio to Pleasure Island:
The Coachman: How would you blokes like to make some real money?
Foulfellow: Well! And who do we have to, eh... [Makes throat-slashing motion]
The Coachman: No, no. Nothing like that. You see...
The Coachman: I'm collecting stupid little boys.
Foulfellow: Stupid little boys?
The Coachman: You know, the disobedient ones who play hooky from school.
Foulfellow: Ohh!
The Coachman: And you see...I takes 'em to Pleasure Island.
Foulfellow: Ah, Pleasure Island. [suddenly shocked] Pleasure Island? But the law! Suppose they...
The Coachman: No, no. There is no risk. They never come back... as BOYS.
Fantasia (1940) dir. Ten people get credits, but really, it’s Walt Disney Animation
****
By Alan Bacchus
It’s kinda hard to believe that Fantasia was made in 1940, and was only Disney’s third feature film (after Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Pinocchio). And since Pinocchio was released the same year as Fantasia, 1940, we can realistically say the film was conceived and produced after only having one animated film released. Snow White, of course, was a huge hit, but it was a narrative feature based on a fairy tale, with singing and dancing, a love story, a prince and a princess!
Fantasia is a non-narrative film, without dialogue, without singing, without any traditional characters all timed with classical music. In short, an experimental film in a time when there was no such word. It was cookie-cutter studio system at it’s peak. What a gamble, and what a success. Well not initially, the film was a financial failure, and took years before audience caught up to Disney's forward thinking.
It’s actually a slow start to the picture. A live action introduction, Deems Tayler, music critic, talking to the camera tells us exactly what we’re about to see, and listening to the warming up of the orchestra. The first musical segment, Bach’s Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, features an abstract piece of animation, which to audiences used to the rambunctious qualities of Disney’s work must have been shocked, or bored or both.
In fact, the majority of the eight sequences are abstract in nature. The Rite of Spring for instance tells an ambitious and the possibly controversial 'non-creationist' history of the earth, from the planetary formation to the evolution of dinosaurs into man. It, like every thing else in the film, is a delight to watch, imaginative and intellectually stimulating. One of the most most traditional or mainstream accessible segments is the Nutcracker Suite featuring Tchaikovsky’s marvellous, foot tapping compositions, along with a series of brilliant shorts showing the ballet dancers as mushrooms, thistles, blossoms and goldfish.
The Scorceror’s Apprentice is the celebrated piece, with Mickey Mouse battling the army of wooden brooms endlessly filling his water basin with water, thus causing a biblical-worthy flood.
The Pastoral Symphony by Beethoven offers a fun and delictable showcase of Greek and Roman mythology including blatantly nude female centaurs, and..ahem... Bacchus, Roman God of Wine, partaking in his debaucherous behaviour.
The varied animation styles and changing tones from comedic to dark, brooding and heavy to light and ethereal is what makes the film so special. But there’s no doubt we can see the German expressionism influence and prevailing gothic style of the 1930’s. Especially the big finale, the first part, set to Modest Mussorgsky's Night on Bald Mountain , featuring a dark demon giant, a Chernabog, summoning up the evil creatures of the dead to roam the earth, before being turned away by the sound of a Angelus bell and a procession of torch-bearing monks. The perfect composition work combined with the Ava Maria music makes for a heavenly finale and in fine Disney fashion, the triumph of good over evil.
It’s the first time on Blu-Ray for Fantasia, packaged with the 2000 revival version Fantasia 2000, a very minor film in comparison, a noble effort to use Disney’s inspiration and create a modern version his celebration of music. Unfortunately without the real Walt Disney at the helm, the ‘magic touch’ just isn’t there. The 1940 version is the real treasure here.
“Fantasia and Fantasia 2000” is available on Blu-Ray from Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment
Toy Story 3 (2010) dir. Lee Unkrich Voices by: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger, Don Rickles
****
By Alan Bacchus
Those who read this blog might know my difficulty in reviewing these CG animated films and my often overly critical buzzkiller opinions of lauded Pixar films such as Cars, Wall-E or Ratatouille, films which admittedly are technical marvels, cleverly written, but suffered from a stale cartoonish sameness which has left me desiring more from the medium.
There's nothing new about Toy Story 3, after a 10 year hiatus from the series which started this new medium of animation. After all these other successful and critically acclained Pixar films, Toy Story is still the best of this bunch, consistently maxing out the potential of the computer animation technology.
So why does Toy Story 3 feel so much more entertaining from these adult eyes, than Up or Ratatouille, or Wall-E?
For one, human characters are kept to a minimum, something in which CG is still light years behind. As such crafting a story made almost entirely from inanimate toys render animate with the same scale, detail and articulation as they are in real life is the best way to present this medium.
The beautiful photorealism is as astonishing as it was in 1995. Even after all these years and all these CG films, I still haven’t gotten used to to the dramatic eye popping effect of seeing these pristine images flash before our eyes.
The opening is a rambunctious Western style action sequence aboard a train, a sequence not unlike the opening action of a Bond film, a scene which has no real narrative purpose other than to jumpstart us on the rollercoaster ride of fun.
The core story fits in naturally with the time elapsed since Toy Story 2. Andy, the owner of the loveable group of toys which includes Buzz Lightyear and Woody, has grown up and is off to college. Woody finds himself in Andy's dufflebag ready to go to college with him while the other toys, destined for the attic, inadvertantly get shipped to the local daycare. Woody escapes the duffle bag and hopes to save his buddies from onslaught of toy-destruction that is Sunnyside Daycare. Once there, the toys find a sinister authority figure in Lotso, a disgruntled stuffed bear that rules the other toys like Stalin.
Eventually Woody engineers an exciting escape from Lotso's clutches and back into their home at Andy's house. But without Andy do the toys have a purpose or are they obsolete?
Other than the technical action sequences, witty dialogue and stunning visual design of the Toy Story world, the film resonates warmly as a metaphor for the obsolence we all feel once we are past our prime and without need or purpose.
The characters we remember from the first two films are still the same, but we never get bored of Woody and Buzz, because as voiced by Tom Hanks and Tim Allen they are as endearing characters from serialized television (the best part of serialized television).
Lotso, the obsolete teddy bear make's a fine new adversary. His flashback which shows the origin of his self-loathing is particularly emotional. It not shows how his obsolence morphed into displaced anger, but 'humanizes' the enemy and even foreshadows the fate of Woody and Buzz if they can't make a new life without Andy fulfilling.
Lotso's gang of hoodlum toys provide great support. The ambiguously gay Ken doll for instance who has an obsession with his wardrobe is marvelous, same with the grotesque and brutish mute baby doll who assumes the silent strong man role of the group.
Every character seems to be given adequate attention and relevance to the grander world of Toy Story at large. Though I have no doubt Pixar could adequately produce more of these films with almost equal entertainment value, but the final moments of this film close out the lifecycle of these characters so perfectly, it's the absolute best way to go in style.
Toy Story 3 is available on Blu-Ray from Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment
How To Train Your Dragon (2010) dir. Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders Starring the voices of: Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, America Ferrera, Jonah Hill and Christopher Mintz-Plasse
**
By Greg Klymkiw
There's nothing especially bad about How To Train Your Dragon, but there's also nothing especially good about it.
Each time I see a new animated feature on a big screen these days, the first question that courses through the rivulets of my brain is, "Haven't I seen this somewhere before?" The second is, "Uh, like, why did they make this?" The answer to the former is a quick and resounding "Yes!" The answer to the latter comes when I look away from the screen and/or up from a rousing game of "Bejeweled" on my iPhone and realize I'm sitting amongst several hundred little nippers and their surprisingly engaged parents. It's like what James Earl Jones says in Field of Dreams: "If you build it they will come."
Parents these days seem so starved for family entertainment that the studios just keep piling on one derivative 3-D digital delight after another. It's one of my familiar rants, actually. Why do today's parents keep dragging their kids to see this crap? There are so many other movies they could be taking them to.
When I was a kid, I saw every Disney release, to be sure, but most of them were classics from the Golden Age and re-released every seven or so years to capitalize on new generations of avid viewers. But these weren't the ONLY movies my parents took me to or that, when I hit the age of seven or eight, went to by myself. I saw the original Planet of the Apes and its multitude of sequels between the ages of 7 and 13. I went to all the Sinbad movies. I saw every John Wayne and Clint Eastwood western. Dad took me to see The Wild Bunch when I was 9. I remember making a deal with my Mom that if I had to sit through Mary Poppins, she had to promise to take me to see The Battle of the Bulge. Hell, I remember going to grindhouses as a kid and sitting through Hammer Horror films, motorcycle movies, war pictures and British Carry On sex comedies. And aside from Disney, I really don't remember there being that many animated movies being made, released or re-released. Going to the movies meant going to the movies - ANY MOVIES - so long as it wasn't pornography.
It's not like there AREN'T movies today that are similar to the abovementioned titles. There's plenty of action, fantasy, comedies and even straight-up drama for families to see. Why then, must audiences keep encouraging the studios to grind out these mostly empty and derivative bowls of treacle?
How To Train Your Dragon, as uninteresting as it is, at least has dragons in it. But, God help me, the story is appallingly familiar. A young Viking lad wants to battle dragons like his Dad. Dad doesn't think his son is ready to do so. Boy Viking makes his mark by downing a dragon but not killing it. Then (barf!) he discovers dragons are nice and he turns his former quarry into a pet. And, guess what? I'm sure this will surprise you. I know it surprised me (though in fairness, my attention drifted between the movie and "Bejeweled", so anything would have surprised me). Viking boy teaches everybody that dragons are not what they seem. Aaawwww, isn't that nice?
And aside from the annoying digital 3-D animation that will never hold a candle to traditional animation and the equally maddening cutesy-pie voice work from an all-star cast, the biggest problem with this picture, and so many others of its ilk, is just how goddamn nice it is. Makes me want to sing "Everything is Beautiful (In Its Own Way)" or worse, "Cumbaya".
Critics who don't know any better (most of them these days) and even audiences, always have this moronic knee-jerk comment about classic Disney - that it's trite and treacly.
Uh, sorry to disillusion, you all - classic Disney often borders on straight-up horror. It's deliciously cruel and perverse. That whale in Pinocchio can still scare the shit out of me. Bambi still kicks me in the stomach when the kiddie deer's Mom is shot. Dumbo separated from his mother, teased mercilessly by everyone and drunkenly facing those "Pink Elephants on Parade" all continue to knock me on my ass and give me the willies. It was even more intense as a kid. And don't even get me started on Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - are we talking unrequited freak love, or what?
And what do we get now? We get mediocrities like How To Train Your Dragon - designed to make everyone feel all touchy-feely, but THAT, oh sensitive ones, is more falsely corrupt a message to shovel down our kids' throats. Classic Disney toughened the little buggers up AND entertained them, but all that this contemporary stuff does is teach lessons of conformity and understanding and getting along. And of course, that stuff is important, but it's also important for kids to know that prices are paid dearly on this Earth to even begin the process of understanding and healing, that evil and terror exists, that entertainment (and healing) should not always come easily.
When I think about the best work by Spielberg like E.T. or Joe Dante's deliciously nasty Gremlins movies, I think that THESE are the ultimate family movies. Spielberg rips your heart out and Dante microwaves gremlins until they explode. Now THAT'S entertainment! For the whole family, no less.
While some might wonder if the studios still make 'em like they used to, I can say that in the area of animation, the answer is a resounding "NO!" However, there are plenty of "adult" movies that are far better entertainment for kids than How To Train Your Dragon. I took my 9-year-old to see Vincenzo Natali's brilliant sci-fi thriller Splice. She not only loved the picture, it provided so much in the way of really intelligent and vital discourse between us. Another recent picture she saw and loved was Precious. This was perfect entertainment and of the highest order.
Look, at the end of the day, you'll see a lot worse than How To Train Your Dragon, but I'm picking on it precisely because it's so offensively inoffensive and middle of the road. It's hardly illuminating and leaves little room for any real discourse of substance with your child.
"Enough," I say. Enough with the touchy-feelie, already.
"How To Train Your Dragon" is available on homevideo in a handy Blu-Ray/DVD combo from Dreamworks, but do your kids a favour - rent or buy something like "Splice" instead.
James and the Giant Peach (1996) dir. Henry Selick Starring: Paul Terry, Joanna Lumley, Pete Postlethwaite, Miriam Margolyes
***
By Alan Bacchus
I can’t believe it’s been 14 years since this movie, and 17 years since A Nightmare Before Christmas – a remarkable double-shot of painstaking, onerous, yet thoroughly delightful stop motion animated features from Henry Selick. While the stop motion animation holds up remarkably well compared to the best animation of today, the live action sequences and in particular the musical numbers back date the film to 14 years ago.
This time ‘round Selick adapts Roald Dahl’s classic children’s book ‘James and the Giant Peach’ for the big screen. Dahl’s story features a young boy James, saddened by the death of his parents in a violent storm, who now lives an oppressed life under the guardianship of his two nasty aunts Spiker and Sponge. Then a mysterious stranger appears with a solution to his problem, a bag of crocodile tongues which have the power to make his dreams come true. This comes in the form of a giant peach which grows in his yard, and which James uses to sail to New York City and complete the unfulfilled dream of his parents.
Selick employs both live action and stop motion in this time – live action to show the world of James at home on land, and in the real world, and animation once James is inside the peach and on his journey toward the big apple – a clever cinematic pun which may or may not have been intended.
The live action world doesn’t hold as well as Selick’s glorious animation process. The opening 20mins or so before James enters his peach fantasy world is adequate but not inspired fantasy stuff. Once James is on his journey, the film comes alive. James’ new friends, Old Green Grasshopper, Mr. Centipede, Mr. Earthworm, Miss Spider, Mrs. Ladybug, and Glowworm are distinct and quirky characters reminiscent of the skewed townsfolk of Nightmare’s Halloween town - and for fun, Jack Skellington even has a cameo as the captain of a sunken pirate ship.
Like Nightmare, the narrative is peppered with a dozen or so musical numbers, most of which are unmemorable, and at least from these cynical adult viewer’s eyes, don’t add much, and maybe even detract from the enjoyment of the picture. It unfortunately dates the film badly, back to the Disney classically animated period of the 90’s when everything was animated as a song and dance movie. Now, as evidenced by Selick’s Coraline and most of the CG animated films of today, these sequences of characters digressing into song and dance are rarity.
Selick/Dahl present a number of well-constructed and resonate themes which arc throughout the action. After being subjugated by his aunt via the peach James is allowed to become a leader, be responsible and commit his boyhood rite of passage. There’s also a bit of cold revenge in the here as well, as the second act climaxes with his confrontation with the evil storm marvellously transformed into the form of a charging rhinoceros.
Overall, while Nightmare exploded with action, comedy, music and that dark edge of Tim Burton, James and the Giant Peach is light, fluffy, satisfying but no classic.
“James and the Giant Peach” is available on Blu-Ray from Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment
Despicable Me (2010) dir. Pierre Coffin, Chris Renaud Starring: (Voices of...) Steve Carrell, Jason Segal, Russell Brand and Julie Andrews
*1/2
By Greg Klymkiw
They can doll these things up all they like, but most contemporary animated films are pretty much interchangeable and in spite of inexplicably over-the-top critical orgasms and astounding boxoffice, Despicable Me falls squarely into the been-there-done-that category. I can understand why most critics are raving about the movie. Most of them aren't what I'd bother to call critics - they're mere hacks (at worst) and/or glorified studio publicists (at best). What I don't understand is all the bucket-loads of family audiences filling the theatres for mediocre crap like this. Are these families that desperate for entertainment they can enjoy together that they'll succumb to almost any familiar, over-hyped picture, or are they merely that dull, unimaginative and stupid?
Despicable Me is a pallid reversal on The Incredibles, focusing upon a network of super-villains as opposed to the latter's world of Superheroes. One of the big differences between the two is that The Incredibles is made by a director (Brad Bird) who not only has a great sense of humour and storytelling, but a real appreciation for epic sweep and a true geek's affinity for the kind of derring-do that his fellow "losers" in the audience are also imbued with. Bird's film displays originality, genuine wit and thoroughly pulse-pounding action - action that is rooted in the dramatic beats, but is also expertly designed in terms of overall geography and pace. Despicable Me, on the other hand, is full of stale gags and a ho-hum plot. Most of all, the action sequences are frenetic, chaotic and have absolutely no sense of geography and/or dramatic resonance.
The plot, such as it is, deals with Gru (Steve Carrell), the world's Super-Villain #2 and his desire to unseat the young Super-Villain #1, an upstart by the name of Vector (Jason Segal). With the help of three cute-as-a-button orphans, Gru undertakes to become the most evil, heinous villain in the world. This dastardly curmudgeon is, however, transformed into a much kinder individual thanks to the charms of the orphans and his growing (ugh!) love for them.
Sound vaguely familiar? I thought so. It's a variation on virtually every contemporary animated movie.
For me, I found the whole affair so familiar that I genuinely can't remember much more than the dull plot. None of the jokes resonated with me at all. They were strictly dullsville. The opening sight gag involving the theft of the pyramids in Egypt is decent enough, but has apparently been screened in its entirety for months as a trailer.
Even though it's a family picture, would it have been so hard to shoehorn some delightfully, nastily, almost malevolent dark humour? It is, after all, a cartoon and that's the sort of humour both adults and kids love (a la the Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner cartoons from Warners). In the film's favour, we weren't inundated with endlessly annoying contemporary pop-culture references that are supposed to be funny and which, of course, are going to date all the pathetic animated films that do.
The look of the film is not without a few shreds of merit, but many of the gadgets and characters - while serviceable for the film's running time - don't last in the memory banks.
The vocal performances - while competent - are bereft of the sort of Cliff Edwards brilliance that knocks you on your butt and stays with you forever.
The pace, due to the frenetic nature of things, actually bogs the picture down. The Incredibles, for example, is twenty minutes longer and zips by so effortlessly, that one doesn't even want it to end. Despicable Me, on the other hand, inspires endless glances at one's trusty watch.
Other than being relatively inoffensive and reasonably watchable for its 95-minute running time, those are about the only things in its favour. Again, all I can ask is this: are audiences so starved for family-friendly material that they'll gladly watch any dung shovelled down their collective gullets? Frankly, there are any number of solid movies on the big screen and available for rent to watch at home that, while not "family friendly" in terms of being machine-tooled as such, families would be doing themselves and their kids a favour to avoid stuff like Despicable Me and see something else instead.
My own 9-year-old daughter loves the highly imaginative sci-fi horror picture Splice and has seen it several times on a big screen. It thrilled her, entertained her, stayed with her, provoked numerous helpings and most importantly, stimulated the sort of mind-expanding discourse that more kids would benefit from. Recent movies she watched on video included Oliver Stone's The Doors, the tremendously moving Al Pacino-Johnny Depp crime picture Donnie Brasco, a handful of Sidney Toler Charlie Chan pictures from Monogram and the classic Paul Newman-directed adaptation of Paul Zindel's powerful play, The Effect of Gamma Rays Upon Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds. The results she derived with those pictures were equally rewarding as the pleasure Splice delivered to her.
So why drag the kids to such unimaginative fare? I don't want to believe that these parents and their progeny are equally unimaginative, but as one animated picture after another with a similar pedigree continues to rake in big dollars, I can only assume the worst.
My esteemed colleague here at Daily Film Dose has already pointed out the utter uselessness of the Real-D 3-D technology and I'm happy to do the same. All the technology really does is point to the emptiness of the work itself and worse, it actually renders mediocrity even more mediocre - due to the fact that all the picture's colours are darkened and muted to a point where one wonders what the point of the technology is? My own daughter, usually removes her 3-D glasses and she's not alone. At a recent screening of Despicable Me, I saw a ton of kids do likewise. Now, when I do bother to suggest an animated or family friendly picture to her, my daughter wants to know if it's in 3-D and if so, asks if we can see it in 2-D. The point of this technology is obvious - it has nothing to do with aesthetic considerations, but is simply a pathetic attempt to rope audiences into seeing something that's completely mediocre.
And finally, that's pretty much what Despicable Me is. It's so mediocre it doesn't even have the benefit of being dreadful enough to elicit utter hatred.
Tom and Jerry Deluxe Anniversary Collection By Alan Bacchus
Warner Bros’ newly package two-DVD set contains all the essential Tom and Jerry short films from 1940 to 1958, originally produced and released theatrically by MGM– 30 ten minute cartoon featuring those two tempestuous combatants, Tom the cat and Jerry the mouse, their predilections for torture, pain and violence, not to mention Tom’s faceless black house servant with knee high britches and screechingly high Southern plantation voice. Though the set is missing some of the more notoriously unPC entries, it’s still a treasure chest of memories for me, having grown up rewatching all these films over and over again as Saturday morning and after school cartoons.
Not having seen these films since the early 80’s it was surprising to see that the two creators were none other than William Hanna and Joseph Barbara, who as ‘Hanna-Barbara’ created the Scooby Doo/Flintstones/Jetsons/Yogi Berra institution in the 60’s. Well, years before that they created cartoons for TV they produced them as high art for the cinema. Between 1940 and 1958, Hanna/Barbara created 114 shorts which played on the big screen in front of features, of which 13 received Academy Award nominations and 5 of which won Oscars. And they’re all in the set, split off into two discs – Disc 1: Oscar Winners and Classics and Disc 2 - Through the Decades.
But before we even get to see any of them on the DVD Warners holds up a disclaimer – not so much warning the audience about the politically-incorrect insensitivity toward racial stereotypes which exist in all of these shorts, but an acknowledgement of the creators’ own failings in this department. They also admonish the fact that these shorts were a ‘product of its time’ and should be watched with that in mind.
While this is appreciated, but not all that necessary, it’s not surprisingly it’s up there. Because as a child watching Tom and Jerry and Bugs Bunny the era in which these shorts were made were completely unknown to me. And though it doesn’t make it OK, as a child I didn’t notice any of the stereotypes, nor did I ever think that violence is the way to solve my disputes nor that all African American women were like Tom’s owner.
It’s a shame that Tom and Jerry is considered unacceptable to kids now. On the back of the DVD box, there’s also another disclaimer that says this set is intended for adult collectors not children? The fact is these cartoons have been treated as contraband for some time. It all started toward the end of my cartoon-watching youth – the mid to 80’s. In my Saturday morning-watching prime Tom and Jerry was the absolute best cartoons on television – better than any of that other Hanna Barbara stuff. By the mid 80’s we started seeing ‘edited for content’ versions of Tom and Jerry less violent, less racially insensitive, safe and sanitized cartoons.
Did I know these films were not only not new, but 30-40 years old? Nope. But did I notice the sanitization and re-editing of these films? Yes.
Well finally Warner Bros have made these films available again to us children, now grown up, 25 years later. In addition to the previously mentioned disclaimer on the back, the packaging is distinctly subdued, a dull blueish/purple, as opposed to the eye-popping primary colours reserved for regular children’s fare - colours are likely designed so kids DON’T notice the box on the shelves.
I haven’t been into a retail store, but I doubt it’s even in the children’s section. It’s a shame if adults won’t allow their kids to see these films, but we could likely be the last generation to demand and appreciate these films. What will happen when we all die off? If our children never see these films, what will become of them – bound for the ‘cult’ ‘shelves in video store (if there will be video stores in the future) – or next to the porn selection, the real naughty stuff children were never supposed to see?
'Tom and Jerry Deluxe Anniversary Collection' is available on DVD from Warner Home Video
Lord of the Rings (1978) dir. Ralph Bakshi Voices by: Christopher Guard, William Squire, Michael Scholes, John Hurt, Simon Chandler, Anthony Daniels
***
By Alan Bacchus
Timed well with the Blu-Ray release of the Peter Jackson version of ‘Lord of the Rings’ is the first screen incarnation of the story, the Ralph Bakshi animated version. It runs 132mins, which is less running time than any one of Jackson’s Rings movies, and sure it ends on an unsolved cliffhanger, and sure it condenses much of the dense text of Tolkien, but for non-Tolkien devotees for such as I, it makes for a surprisingly well told ‘abridged’ (though aesthetically-dated) version of the story.
Bakshi's version represents 'Fellowship of the Ring' and 'The Two Towers' books, with the misfortune of having an unsolved cliff-hanger ending. The film was not a success and thus, the sequel and final chapter of the story was never completed.
Ralph Bakshi's unmistakable animation style, for the most part, creates a unique mood and tone for the story. And looking back at the time period when serious sci-fi and fantasy were non-existent, Bakshi’s (time-constrained) reverence to the material and his commitment to telling an adult fantasy picture is a remarkable achievement and decades ahead of his time.
To create a sense of serious realism Bakshi used rotoscoping techniques to animate his characters. Rotoscoping is a rarely used cinematic art form which involves hand drawing over top of live action footage, frame by frame. The result is a fluidity in motion difficult to achieve through traditional handdrawn cell animation. Of course, this meant that Bakshi had to film the entire movie with real actors, sets, locations, props, horses etc before animating the film. Again, a remarkable achievement.
Bakshi’s film is actually enhanced by the presence of Peter Jackson’s film. For those who haven't read the novels, we get to use Jackson’s near full text adaptation as a reference point to Bakshi’s abridged version. And so as the film clips along with a sharp pace, plot wise, we realize how little Bakshi’s version differs from Jackson’s. Credit to writers Chris Conkling and Peter Beadle who manage to squeeze in all the major set pieces of the books, and getting in and out of each scene at the right time to conserve precious running time, arguably at the expense of the ‘breathing room’ and internal reflection of the characters.
The film opens with the same voiceovered preamble to the rings forged for Men, Elves, Dwarves and of course, the one ring to rule them all. Then there’s the introduction to the Shire, Bilbo, Gandalf and Frodo. The one major difference involves the timeline of Frodo’s possession of the ring. In Bakshi’s version Bilbo gives Frodo the ring, which he holds for 17 years before Gandalf returns to send him on his way to Rivendale. Jackson’s condensing of Tolkien’s timeline creates a greater sense of urgency and instinctual action which benefits these scenes better.
Once on his way the events which befall Frodo are scene for scene exact to Jackson’s version, save for the elimination of the Arwen character who brings Frodo to Rivendale. The midpoint of the film is the Rivendale sequence and thus, the second half condenses the second half of 'Fellowship of the Ring' AND 'The Two Towers' into just over an hour of screen time. Bakshi even manages to trump the emotional gravitas of Boromir’s death. While Jackson’s overloaded this scene with exaggerated music and melodrama, Bakshi’s is arguably the more elegant and genuine of the two.
While there’s innovation in Bakshi’s style of animation, it’s also inconsistent aesthetically, and for lack of a better word dated. The characters are a mix of comic strip simplicity and the rotoscoped realism. Legolas for instance looks like he's pulled from TV Fun House, or an episode of He-Man, while the Aragon is drawn like the brooding hero he should be. What we miss most from Bakshi’s style is the details of landscape and the environment which seem glossed over likely for budgetary purposes. As such the characters often seem to be moving through matted backdrops instead of a fully realized alternate world.
Regardless of your opinion of this version, Bakshi’s cultural importance in cinematic animation is never questioned. The Blu-Ray contains a decent half hour documentary looking back at Bakshi’s bold career which up to him creating ‘Lord of the Rings’ – a rebellious career which bucked all traditions of the genre.
'Lord of the Rings' is available on Blu-Ray from Warner Home Video
Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) dir. Wes Anderson Voices by: George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwarzman, Michael Gambon, Willem Dafoe
****
By Alan Bacchus
Upon seeing this film for a second time, which makes for an experience as glorious if not more than the first, I’m convinced ‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’ is Wes Anderson’s best film. In fact, it might be my favourite animated film since the Disney Golden Era of animation in the late 30’s early 40’s.
I get frustrated every year with each new Pixar release generating near unanimous critical praise and gobbling up loads of money. Despite the clever writing and technically proficient computer animation each and every one of these films (including the other studio knock offs) are the same - the same tone, same mix of characters, and even the same visual look. Which is a shame considering the creative possibilities open to the CG medium.
This is why ‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’ makes for a marvellous experience. Since Wes Anderson brings his unique auteur live action cinema perspective to a medium primarily operated by committee than by the creative mind of a single director we get a wholly unique animated film unlike anything we’ve seen before.
As written by Anderson and co-writer Noah Boambach, who would seem as the most unlikely pair of writers to do this type of children’s story, the cinema version of Roald Dahl’s story is perfectly enhanced by the feature film medium. In the special features Anderson admits, though he loved the book as a child, as a standalone film, the story doesn’t work and so even the Dahl family themselves acknowledged bookending the original material with new first and third acts were the necessary addition to elevate the story to a feature film.
Though its Dahl’s story, Wes Anderson’s thematic fingerprints are in the every corner of the story. Outside of the rambunctious action plotting, at core the film again brings up Anderson’s career predilections with the relationship of father to son. George Clooney is perfectly cast as the swashbuckling shit-disturber who just can’t help himself from being the sly fox he was born to be. While he’s selfishly expressing his own inner desires he doesn’t realize he’s alienating his teenage son who unfortunately just doesn’t have the same guile as his father. This connection further expands on the relationship between the Tanenbaum children to the father, same with Owen Wilson to Bill Murray’s characters in “The Life Aquatic” and the three brothers on the Indian journey in “The Darjeeling Limited”. And the fun comic robbery shenanigans perpetrated by Fox's family brings us back to the silliness of the heist plans in 'Bottle Rocket'.
Wes Anderson’s visual style and idiosyncratic tone is front and centre as well, and while his immaculately-framed tableaus seemed repetitive in his last few pictures under stop motion animation it feels as fresh and inspired as his early work. So if Wes Anderson gave up live action and only made stop motion movie, I probably wouldn't complain.
The texture achieved from stop motion technology is also a marvel, the real world feeling we get from the tedious frame by frame advancement of the animator’s models, cannot be replicated by computer. The last time animation felt this invigorated is 1993’s ‘A Nightmare Before Christmas’, another stop motion film authored by a live action feature auteur.
‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’ is available on Blu-Ray and DVD from 20th Century Fox (who else) Home Entertainment
The Illusionist (2010) dir. by Sylvain Chomet Starring: An animated Jacques Tati
***1/2
By Blair Stewart
A heart-warming animated tale that had been collecting dust for a half-century, Sylvain Chomet returns long-dead film legend Jacques Tati to the cinema in "The Illusionist".
Tati and writing partner Henri Marquet ("Mr. Hulot's Holiday", "The Big Day") had collaborated in 1956 on the story of an erstwhile great magician and a young girl tagging along around Europe. The script was intended as a personal letter to Tati's abandoned daughter Helga but circumstances, shame and the immense production of "Playtime" scuppered the film. Years later Chomet, with the success of "The Triplets of Belleville," was handed the idea by Tati's family (thankfully we'd been saved the live-action sight of Roberto Benigni or Steve Martin as Tati's great creation-the stiff, bumbling galoot that is Monsieur Hulot in magician's robes).
What follows is standard for Tati's body of work; non-existent dialogue, an anachronistic character at odds with changing times with little bits of visual humour throughout. The setting was originally meant for 1950's Czechoslovakia but Chomet fell in love with Edinburgh's stones and fog and rain (having been there I'll emphasize it: tons of rain) and wisely moved the story there, it has the mystique of an animated world.
"The Illusionist" doesn't try to overwhelm with emotion and laughter like Disney's work but the breezy charm may win you over. Don't regard it as highly as Chomet's 2003 surreal spectacular "Belleville", but as a muted little film in comparison, and I might be too forgiving with my rating, but every time we see the cartoon Tati/Hulot created by lead animator Laurent Kircher on screen my heart grew three times it's size. What can I say, I'm just a big softy when it comes to Tati and Chomet. Take your kids.
Monsters Inc. (2001) dir. Pete Docter Voices by: John Goodman, Billy Crystal, Steve Buscemi,
***1/2
Alan Bacchus
Sure “Wall-E” is good, so is “Up”. I’m probably alone in the opinion that ‘Ratatouille’ was just OK, and that ‘Monsters Inc’ at least in my personal opinion is the best of the Pixar films.
Pete Docter’s alternate reality runs parallel to our own – a world inhabited entirely by monsters with the ability to move themselves into our own through doorways into children’s bedrooms. The monsters run a business of scaring little kids in the sleep, capturing their screams and using it as a source of energy. It sounds completely ludicrous and slightly sadistic, but Docter manages to make the world logical, consistent and magical.
Docter’s heroes James P. "Sulley" Sullivan (John Goodman) and Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) make a great co-protagonist pairing. Sulley is the company’s top scarer as maintained by a running scoreboard, a big burley blue beast tough on the outside but soft on the inside. His manager/business partner is a skinny runt of a monster, a giant great eyeball with arms and legs. Most of these Pixar films are essentially buddy pictures – two differing personalities clashing over the course of some kind of long journey - and on a level of physicality the shape and size of Sully and Mike make a great visual gag throughout the picture – like an animated Midnight Cowboy with Mike as Ratso Rizzo and Sully as Joe Buck.
In the Monsters' world, there’s one steadfast rule, do not bring anything over from the other side. And so when Sully accidently brings over a cute little girl from her bedroom, he and Mike find themselves on the lam and desperate not expose their rambunctious little secret. Much of the film plays out like a ‘Three Men and Baby’ dynamic as these two bumbling monsters try to coral the intrepid little baby. Along the way Sully’s nefarious rival discovers the secret and plots to use her for his own evil deeds.
For the betterment of the picture, emotional depth is kept to a minimum, with Docter concentrating on crafting the details of his doppelganger monster world. The film coasts along quite naturally on its consistently funny sight gags. Each monster is drawn with humourous detail - ie. the low level younger ladder climbing monsters with the teenaged hair cuts and braces, the CDA swat team monsters who emerge whenever there’s a security breech.
Even the little girl, who isn’t so much a character as a prop, or a maguffin for the main characters to chase after, is visual gag – a naïve innocent running amuck through tightrope situations of imminent danger. Even in these moments, the gags are about physical movements, slapstick and comedy of errors.
In the special features of new Disney Blu-Ray edition, Docter describes how he was given freedom to create 'Monsters Inc.' outside of the usual communal collaborative process under John Lasseter’s direction. As the first non-Lasseter film, “Monsters Inc.” would seem to have opened the door for filmmakers like Andrew Stanton, and Brad Bird to make even more creative films within the walls of Pixar.
“Monsters Inc” is available on Blu-Ray from Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment
Cars (2006) dir. John Lasseter Voices by: Owen Wilson, Paul Newman, Bonnie Hunt, Cheech Marin, Tony Shaloub
**1/2
By Alan Bacchus
As creative director of the company, over most of the decade John Lasseter had served as a supervisory Walt Disney-like role in the Pixar family. “Cars” was Lasseter’s first feature since 1999’s ‘Toy Story”. Unfortunately while filmmakers like Brad Bird, Andrew Stanton and Pete Docter were elevating the craft of CG animation to heights loftier than “Toy Story” the merely adequate story of “Cars” makes it an ironically disappointing film in comparison to ‘Up’, ‘Wall-E’ and ‘The Incredibles".
The opening scene is a well-choreographed, an animated Nascar car race at night. From the wide angles, the details of the event make it almost indistinguishable from an actual television broadcast. Lightning (Owen Wilson) is one of the top race cars and after his last race, there’s a tie for the championship, thus engineering a three-way race-off for ultimate victory. As Lightning is being transported by truck across the country in prep for the big race, he finds himself abandoned by accident in the middle of the desert. Of course, since Lightning is a superstar celebrity car who knows nothing of the open road life of regular cars, he’s like a fish out of water among the rural and working class bumpkins of the small town he wanders into.
As he learns to operate like a real working automobile he discovers love with one of the local gals and connects with a wily old veteran car looking to reclaim his old glory as a once great race car. The film, of course, builds to a big car race which tests Lightning skills and the advice he’s learned from his new friendships.
There are no human characters in the 2006 Pixar film "Cars", as the title suggests its just cars which happens to make it one of the most photo realistic of the Pixar films, the reflective surfaces of the vehicles producing some of the sharpest images in any of the Pixar films.
Key to any rendering characters in any animated film are its eyes and facial features. And on each vehicle Lasseter is clever to create eyelids out of windshield wipers and mouths out the grill and the ears out of the rearview mirrors..
The relation of the make and model of each car to its own personality makes it easy for Lasseter to establish the different characters, The old model T Ford, the rusty old tow truck plays the southern hick, the slick female Porsche, the two small Fiats who play the funny Italian stereotypes Luigi and Guido and the Hummer as a type-a military drill sergeant.
Even though the Pixar films are less than 15 years old, compared with the sophistication of the later pictures, “Cars” feels strangely dated. In particular the James Taylor song interlude at the end of the second act is as sickening and sappy as those hideous Randy Newman songs in Toy Story 1 and 2.
The new Disney Blu-Ray edition is packaged as a box set contain two die-cast rendered collectors toys of the ‘Cars’ characters.
Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) dir. Wes Anderson Starring George Clooney, Meryl Streep and Bill Murray
****
By Blair Stewart
Joining Tim Burton and Spike Jonze on their forays into youthful material, Wes Anderson raids the farm with Roald Dahl's "The Fantastic Mr. Fox". Featuring a knock-out cast of George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Bill Murray and Michael Gambon, Anderson takes liberties with the classic book yet still maintains the wily essence of the original.
After renouncing his status as the best thief in the valley, refined family man Mr. Fox (Clooney) pulls off one last heist from the three nastiest farmers in the land, Boggis, Bunce and Bean. His looting goes over a tad too well, with the farmers tearing up the land (and taking his tail as a prize) to get at Fox and his family in an upstairs/downstairs battle. As his fellow evicted animals come knocking in Mr. Fox's bomb shelter our hero must win the day while bonding with his wary son Ash (Jason Schwartzman).
After diminishing returns since the success of "Rushmore" and "The Royal Tenenbaums", Wes Anderson comes back with his style and pace seamlessly grafted onto the children's standard. Employing exceptional stop-motion animation from the likes of cinematographer Tristian Oliver of "Wallace and Gromit" and production designer Nelson Lowry from "The Corpse Bride", the fields of Dahl's story are uncannily realised.
"Mr. Fox's" setting is so beautifully lit in deep blues and browns that I hope the camerawork is noticed come awards season over most live-action fare. The script by Anderson and Noah Baumbach goes off on American-ized tangents that have irked British fans but the snappy chemistry of the cast breezes along, in particular Clooney with Streep as Mrs. Fox. An appearance by Willem Dafoe in an iconic role caps off a memorable year for him as well. Surprisingly, some of the humour and subject matter of the script makes this more ideal for older children and grown-ups than toddlers, mostly due to a litany of explosions and the odd knife fight.
A great autumn season surprise, and if Hayao Mizazaki or Nick Park (or both!) ever tackle Dahl's "The BFG", my head would explode. Enjoy.
Monsters Vs. Aliens (2009) dir. Rob Letterman, Conrad Vernon Voices by: Reece Witherspoon, Seth Rogan, Will Arnett, Stephen Colbert
**
By Alan Bacchus
I recently watched Shane Acker’s ‘9’ the first American feature film to tell a story outside of the Pixar aesthetic which seems to have held computer animation hostage. Ever since 'Toy Story' I've been waiting for a Hollywood filmmaker to use the medium for something other than family-friendly talking-animal Randy Newman-scored cookie cutter films. Sure, 'Up', 'Wall-E' and 'Madagascar' etc are fun and clever and even well written movies, but with seemingly endless technological possibilities these movies are all so remarkably similar.
‘Monsters vs. Aliens’ is one such film. If it were made ten years ago we might find interest in the stunning and vibrant visuals created by the computer graphic technology and forgive the film’s vacuous plotting and even more vacuous characters. Throwing a bunch of b-movie monsters into a single movie to battle it out with space aliens is a wonderful premise. Unfortunately ‘Monsters Vs. Aliens’ never even attempts to capture the tone and flavour of the b-movie experience, thus rendering the film flat and for kids only.
To open the picture young Susan Murphy (Reece Witherspoon) is about to get married when an alien ship falls to earth, releasing some toxic gas which causes her to grow into a giant woman. Immediate some kind of secret task force which had been monitoring the activity descends on Susan, ties her up like Gulliver and takes her away.
She wakes up in a secret government laboratory housing a number of other mutated monsters captured by the Feds over the past 50 years. There’s B.O.B. (Seth Rogan), an affable blue blob cyclops creature, Dr. Cockroach (Hugh Laurie), a former scientist who accidentally turned himself into a half insect-half man hybrid, Missing Link (Will Arnett), a scary reptilian creature and Insectosaurus, a giant lumbering moth creature. When an alien invasion threatens the earth the blockhead American military leaders have to unleash their monster captives to save the day.
The film relies solely on pop culture reference for its jokes and most of them are obvious and well-trodden sci-fi gags - the musical tones used for communication in 'Close Encounters', ET phone home, and even the Vulcan greeting from Star Trek for instance. In fact the entire premise plays on the famous b-movie monsters of 50’s – Susan as the 50th Foot Woman, Insectasaurus who mutated from late 40’s nuclear fallout is a disguised Mothra, B.O.B. is like the animate ooze from ‘The Blob’ and Dr. Cockroach’s man/insect hybrid is from ‘The Fly’. Only genre cinephiles will likely catch the direct references, but most people should subliminally get the joke.
Even the look of the monsters and robots are familiar recycled designs from ‘Monsters Inc’, 'Toy Story', 'The Incredibles'. Most of the supporting characters spew played out stereotyped personalities, the idiot president, the bombastic square jawed military general, science geeks who first discover the aliens, the Dr. Strangelove war room set. The filmmakers didn't seem to watch and learn why 'Mars Attacks' didn't succeed. These references are supposed to be the fun Easter eggs peppered in between plotting of the core story and character development - a strategy which worked with the Dreamworks’ Shrek franchise but fails here.
“Monsters vs. Aliens” is available on Blu-Ray from Paramount Pictures Home Entertainment.
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) dir. David Hand Voices by: Adriana Caselotti, Roy Atwell, Lucille La Verne, Moroni Olsen
****
By Alan Bacchus
For consistency I have to identify ‘David Hand’ as director of this picture, because, this is how I title all my film reviews. We all know, of course, this misrepresents the authorship of this picture, the visionary entertainer Walt Disney. In fact, other than the opening credit ‘Walt Disney Presents’ Walt’s not even listed as a producer.
So is the effect of Mr. Disney on animation, the movies, and pop culture in general - an unclassifiable artist, producer, director, writer, entrepreneur, animator and all of the above. “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” is indeed the brainchild of Disney’s desire to create the first-ever feature length animated film, a medium which up until then served only in short form to warm audiences up to the longer, more prestigious feature pictures. And so to produce a film with such a distinct assimilation of comedy and pathos the first time out of the gate, makes it one of the great milestones in cinema. The leap in technology and storytelling was so big, few milestones in cinema can compare.
Based on the Grimm’s fairytale, the story is told with same simplicity as in its literary form. The evil Queen who is so vain, looks into her magical mirror and asks ‘who is the fairest in the land’. Expecting to hear her own name repeated back, she's angered to hear it’s ‘Snow White’, a gorgeous raven-haired princess. Seething with jealousy, she sends one of her minions to kill her and to reclaim the title. But when the soldier arrives on the grounds of her estate about to stab her in the back, he catches sight of her innocent and ravishing beauty. He just can’t do the deed and tells her to flee into the woods for safety.
And so Snow White goes running away from danger into a dark, gothic and gloomy forest, alien and frightening. But the forest reveals itself to be a utopian land of cute furry animals who take to Snow White as one of their own. The princess and her mammalian followers eventually stroll into the home of the seven dwarfs, a group of happy-go-lucky, working class little people. Snow White is ingratiated into their home, a joyous occasion with much singing, dancing, and frolicking. But when the evil Queen discovers Snow White is still alive, she plots her demise via a poisoned apple which will render her asleep forever – unless her “prince” can smack with her a kiss and bring her back to life.
If this film were to be made today by Disney I doubt it would even make it past the first round of script coverage. The story is revealed to us with a seemingly unsophisticated simplicity of its fairy tale origins - very little dialogue, only a few talking characters, none of the bunnies, deer or other forest animals, and absolutely no pop culture references. This is what makes rewatching 'Snow White' the ultimate reboot. We can see how far, technically, Hollywood has come in terms of animation and the types of pop cultural referential storytelling which prevails in almost every animated film. 'Snow White' serves as the rock solid immovable foundation of everything after it.
Even before 1937, the animation rendering of 'Snow White's' characters is a result of a decade of fine-tuning the Disney style with hundreds of Mickey-related shorts. And for decades since, the fluid motion and watercolour pastel visuals are inimitable and timeless. Looking carefully, there is not much to Snow White's character visually. Her face is drawn without any detail, a flat uncountoured look which serves to play off the exuberant and highly developed and distinct personalities of the dwarfs - Dopey’s slapticky amblings, Doc’s deliberate and controlled presence, and Bashful’s adorable shy sweetness comes off only with physicality.
The most remarkable and resonating achievement of ‘Snow White’ is it’s enchanting tone and pathos. The remarkable imagery of Snow White’s funeral send what would have been considered delightful cartoon film up until this point in the film into the stratosphere of cinematic grandiosity. The expressive and art deco framing of the dwarfs surrounding Snow White’s lifeless body, with angled streams of light from the clouds is typical of that prevailed artistic movement of the 20’s and 30’s – a blend of modern futurist design with the Baroque 16th century renaissance styles.
The reverence of the mythological tone of Grimm's fairytale with the technical advancements of the new merged with unprecedented success artistically and monetarily. Upon release, 1937 ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’ was then the highest grossing film ever made, and to this day, when adjusted for inflation, sits at #10 of all time.
“Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” is available on sparkling Blu-Ray from Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment. The film is presented in two formats, 4x3 original aspect ratio, framed with the vertical black bars on widescreen television as as well as in ‘Disney-vision’ where the vertical bars are replaced with traditional watercolour hand drawn borders complimenting each scene. The reverence to the original source material with this Disney vision is admirable and work a look, but the viewing experience is arguably best seen without this distraction. The special features includes a number of well-produced interactive featurettes constructed like a puzzle. The navigation through each segment is fun at first then quickly turns frustrating for those who would prefer just to see them all sequentially and uninterrupted.
