41. Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)

After Dinosaur and The Emperor’s New Groove, Disney continued their trend of releasing films that seemed to deliberately shake-up the status quo that had been established during the Renaissance with Atlantis: The Lost Empire, an action-adventure that supposedly carried the motto “Less singing, more explosions.” Unfortunately, Disney’s attempts to diverge from their traditional formula were once again met with apathy and disinterest; Atlantis did very poorly at the box-office and was blasted by critics, for lacking heart, depth and not feeling like a Disney film. While Atlantis definitely has its problems, I think it got a much worse rap than it deserves and instead of judging it on what they expected a Disney movie to be, people should have been more receptive to the different kinds of things this film had to offer.

Visually, the film stands out from all other Disney movies, as its art style – inspired by that of comic book artist Mike Mignola – is pretty much the exact opposite of Disney’s ordinary one. We’ve seen sharper, more stylised character designs before in films like Sleeping Beauty, Pocahontas, The Emperor’s New Groove and most films made using the xerographic process of animation, but never this extreme; this heavily stylised approach adds to the film’s atmosphere and sense of identity and, while I understand why some would find it distracting in a Disney movie, I personally think it works. The animation itself is incredibly smooth, in some cases, unbelievably so; the character of Milo moves so intricately and so realistically it almost looks like rotoscoping has been utilised, it’s certainly impressive. The film also makes heavy use of computer animation, but it mostly blends in comfortably with the traditional animation and doesn’t feel dated; scenes like the battle with the leviathan still look just as good today. The backgrounds are wide and large, with a good sense of scope and size on a similar level to those in The Hunchback of Notre Dame; Atlantis is one of the few Disney movies to be shot in anamorphic widescreen, which compliments these backgrounds and adds to this sense of size and theatricality. The overall design of the movie has this kind of “old-timey idea of the future” to it which is obviously inspired by the works of Jules Verne; it also deliberately encapsulates aspects of old adventure serials in the same way that something like Indiana Jones or Star Wars did. This percolates through every aspect of the picture, even down to the scene transitions, which utilise wipes in the same way George Lucas did in Star Wars – to hark back to that classic, “Golden Age of Hollywood” style of adventure movie; in my opinion, they more than succeed in their attempts.

Let’s show this prehistoric fish how we do things down town

The film is an old-fashioned, pulpy adventure in the vein of something like Doc Savage, incorporating a deliberately nostalgic attitude towards adventure, exploration, science and exoticism; in the same way that the aforementioned Star Wars and Indiana Jones are modern reconstructions of old sci-fi and adventure serials, respectively, Atlantis can be thought of as a modern reconstruction of old pulp fiction adventures and speculative fiction novels from the turn of the century. The inspiration from Jules Verne has been previously noted and Atlantis specifically draws very heavily from Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea (itself made into a Disney movie back in 1954), while incorporating aspects from similar stories and adding the traditional Disney touch. The story then is a very familiar one, an intelligent but inexperienced young man sets out on a great adventure into the unknown, in search of a brave new world and finds an ancient, lost civilisation; the film knows its plot is old hat, but rather than be cynical or dismissive about it, it takes all these old clichés and takes them as far as they can go, as if directly challenging the audience: “they might be clichés, but that doesn’t mean they can’t still be fun!” The film then plays out with a very traditional three act structure of introducing the heroes, charting their journey to Atlantis and then finally, their experiences in Atlantis, with one last battle in the end; it’s a very typical point A to point B adventure, but the animation and characters are lively enough for it to get away with not being much else. Ultimately, I think the film could have benefited from a couple more creative set-pieces, but on the whole, the action is excellent.

The film features a very large cast, comprised of a number of quirky characters which pay homage to various, classic film archetypes. Our hero, Milo, is the wide-eyed young man who yearns for adventure and in his journeys, finds his strength; he fits some of the typical Disney hero traits as a nice, but ordinary guy who starts out as an outcast before finding where he belongs and learning to be a leader, but his nerdy awkwardness and subtle wit give him enough of a personality to prevent him from just being another dull lead. Kida is the exotic, native girl who teaches the male hero about her culture and falls for him along the way; she’s basically a better version of Pocahontas and though she doesn’t get a lot of development, she’s still fun. Her and Milo’s relationship isn't really developed very much either, but to be fair it’s not like the film ends with them getting together with a big, romantic kiss, it’s just kind of implied that a relationship is probably going to develop naturally between them, once they’ve had more time to get to know one another. Vinny is a weirdly unique character, a demolitions expert obsessed with explosions, yet instead of being trigger happy and psychotic like you might expect, he’s actually calm, deadpan and mostly emotionless; this, combined with his rambling, off-the-cuff delivery, makes him really funny and fresh. Mole is the wacky weirdo who nobody else really likes, he’s closest to “The Hooter” the movie has, but isn’t nearly annoying or unhelpful enough to be one; though he is deliberately obnoxious, the fact that the other characters recognise this means that he does his job without grating on the audience’s nerves. Sweet is the nice guy, friendly, optimistic and charming; he’s so insanely positive it’s actually kind of funny. Audrey is the tomboy, a scrappy, tough mechanic with a sharp tongue; she’s a lot of fun and in my opinion should’ve had a much larger role, as honestly she has much more chemistry with Milo than Kida does. Ms. Packard is the cranky old lady, constantly making sarcastic quips and pessimistic remarks; she reminds me of Lunch Lady Doris from The Simpsons and has some of the best lines of the movie. Cookie is the dopey old redneck, completely oblivious to how out of touch he is and how much people hate his cooking; he’s a bit out of focus compared to some of the others, but has some funny moments.

The crew

The villain, Rourke, is the greedy profiteer who tries to steal from the foreign land for his own monetary gain; he’s MacLeach, he’s Ratcliffe, he’s Clayton, this is the only one of the character stereotypes in the movie that feels too tired to re-use, even deliberately. Rourke has some charisma and is well acted enough to be more interesting than Ratcliffe, at least, but as I’ve said before, a greedy mercenary whose only motivation is to make money just doesn't make for a very interesting villain; I suppose it does match the kind of stories the movie is paying homage to, but I don’t know, I feel like they could’ve come up with something better than this. Rourke’s sidekick, Helga, is a lot more interesting, she’s the classic femme fatale – seductive, deadly and morally ambiguous; she is a lot of fun and it’s a shame that she kind of takes a back seat to Rourke for most of the movie, as she probably would have worked better as the main villain. These characters all have well-defined and distinct personalities and back stories and play off one another really well; the cast could perhaps stand to be just a little smaller, but that’s only because most of these characters are so fun and interesting that you want to see more of them and it’s a shame that there’s so many that they all have to share screen time, as the film just isn’t long enough to give all these colourful characters enough time in the spotlight. Individually, they need more attention, but as a whole, these characters are the film’s greatest strength. 

I understand why Atlantis isn’t for everyone; in many ways, it doesn’t feel like a Disney movie at all, save for a few generic scenes towards the end. Nevertheless, I think the film was judged unfairly against the films of the Renaissance, when it was deliberately trying to be something different; I admit it has its issues, as the characters all fight for attention, meaning that only a couple really get the time they deserve and the story kind of runs out of steam towards the end, with a rather predictable and uninventive climax. Despite this, Atlantis does do a lot of things right – it succeeds comfortably as an homage to pulp fiction novels and an outlandish and idealistic attitude towards adventure and discovery and though there are too many characters, they’re almost all interesting and as a group their interactions are believable and entertaining. It is flawed, but of all the Disney movies, I think Atlantis: The Lost Empire is one of the most genuinely underrated; anyone who wrote this movie off back in the day should give it another look now and see how they feel, they might just be pleasantly surprised.


Other Thoughts

• Just on a side-note, the sound design is excellent; a small thing, perhaps, but I was really impressed by just how thorough they were with all the little sounds and it adds so much to the atmosphere.

7/10

Next Week: Lilo and Stitch!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

40. The Emperor’s New Groove (2000)

The Emperor’s New Groove began life as Kingdom of the Sun, a traditional Disney musical; however, the film suffered from an infamously troubled production – recorded in the fascinating documentary The Sweatbox, if you’re interested in learning more – and after a number of overhauls and rewrites, eventually became the film we know it as today. While we’ll never quite know what Kingdom of the Sun might’ve been, I think I’ll put myself forward to say that I’m glad we got something so completely different; instead of a romantic, fantastical musical, The Emperor’s New Groove is a wacky, wild ride that acts as an homage to classic buddy comedies and slapstick cartoons and is a breath of fresh air after the slow, lifeless mess that was Dinosaur.

The animation is back to 2D – thankfully Disney didn’t do another fully computer animated film for a few years – and it looks great, it’s nothing revolutionary and lacks the technical quality and attention to detail of something like Tarzan, but it serves its purpose very well; that is to say, this film is an old style comedy, having more in common with Looney Tunes than Disney and as a result, the animation is not grandiose and detailed, but rather, loud, dynamic and, well... animated. The energy here is so huge, the characters are always moving, always talking, always doing something, which fits the madcap style of humour; this is also complimented by the more simplistic character designs, which resemble Hercules in that they are more sharp and angular, but are mostly even less detailed, except perhaps for Yzma. The colours are very bold and bright, with a varied colour palette throughout the movie, again, a nice change from the visually unappealing Dinosaur; the use of space and framing in the backgrounds is also great and allows for a lot of good jokes through the use of perspective and composition. Everything about the look of this movie is geared towards its style of comedy, meaning it works in perfect tandem with the characters and story to make as many different jokes as it possibly can with the tools it has.

My Life as a Teenage Llama coming to Disney channel this fall

The plot is deliberately thin – it starts off as the story of a powerful, but selfish emperor who is transformed into a llama by his traitorous advisor and has to find a way to turn himself back to normal, teaming up with a kindly peasant along the way. However, the film doesn’t exactly chart their journey, as once we reach the second act, things mostly stay in the same place for the rest of the film, until the last fifteen minutes, where they jump straight into the climax. In any other film, this would be bad pacing, in The Emperor’s New Groove, it is not only justified, but a necessity. The film eschews the traditional Disney narrative structure, in favour of simply telling jokes; the writers aren’t as interested in charting the heroes’ journey or development as they are in just putting them in funny situations and seeing what happens. In his review, critic Roger Ebert noted that, unlike other Disney films, he found it inappropriate to refer to The Emperor’s New Groove as an “animated feature”: ‘the only word for it is “cartoon.” I mean that as a compliment.’ The film is not about fairy tales or adventure or love stories, it’s about seeing just how many different jokes they can cram into eighty minutes. The thing is, these characters work so well together that you’re happy to just watch them sit in a room and see what happens; the plot is never missed, because the comedy is just so strong.

The film’s sense of humour can kind of be considered as the next step from Aladdin and Hercules, which both had a more modernistic, irreverent attitude towards comedy than their predecessors, but while Aladdin still kept itself rooted in its setting and story and Hercules only really went half-way with its attempts at satirical, anachronistic jokes, The Emperor’s New Groove goes all the way to the point where things are just completely off the rails. Anything is fair game, here, characters use modern terminology, have briefcases and alarm clocks, they work in secret laboratories, go to diners, the film’s attitude is essentially ‘hey, if it’s funny, it doesn’t have to make sense’, if something can be used for a joke, it will be. The film also incorporates aspects of metahumour, referencing and parodying classic Disney and buddy comedy tropes, poking fun at its own lack of story and plot holes and breaking the fourth wall by having Kuzco directly address the audience and comment on the story’s events; the film never takes itself too seriously, it just wants to make you laugh. Some of Kuzco’s dialogue and mannerisms can be a bit too early 2000’s and some of the action scenes go on for a little too long, but for the most part, this approach works very well.

Throw your hands in the air if you’s a true player

With a greater focus on comedy than narrative, a lot of The Emperor’s New Groove is dependent on the characters, as if they weren’t funny, the whole structure of the movie would come tumbling down; thankfully, these characters all serve their roles well and play off one another marvellously. Kuzco is a first for a Disney protagonist, in that he’s actually a real jerk! Narcissistic, selfish and a nuisance to everyone around him, he’s kind of like “The Hooter”, but everybody KNOWS he’s “The Hooter” and isn’t afraid to let him know it; this works as a great role reversal for the typical Disney hero  and only adds to the film’s sense of unique identity. At times, David Spade’s typically smarmy delivery can be a touch too annoying, but again, it is supposed to be, so this never becomes too great a problem, as Kuzco is offset well by the other characters; he also has some good, if a little rushed character development, but again, that’s not really what the movie’s about. Pacha is the straight man, he’s bland and not as funny, but he’s not supposed to be, he’s just a nice guy who constantly has to bail Kuzco out, to his frustration. Pacha is the kind of character who would normally be the protagonist of a Disney movie, he’s kind and helpful, though not a pushover, but doesn’t have much of a personality beyond that; he would make for an uninteresting hero, similar to Aladar or Hercules, but works much better as a sidekick and foil to the more flamboyant Kuzco. Pacha’s family are a little different as well, the kids aren’t the typical Disney kids, being a lot more hyperactive and mischievous, actually acting like real kids without being too bratty and the mother is sensible and kind, but not at the cost of having no personality, as she’s quite wily and tough; they don’t do that much but have a couple of funny moments.

The villains are the ones who really steal the show, as they follow the classic Disney format of a self-absorbed schemer and their incompetent sidekick, but throw out all possibility of actually being threatening, focusing purely on their comedic potential. Yzma is like Cruella DeVille or Madame Medusa done right – an egotistical, deluded woman who is obsessed with her own glamour and beauty, even though she’s actually hideous; her obsession to kill Kuzco is matched only by her complete inability to do so. Yzma’s animation is almost hyperactive, she’s always doing something and she gets herself into a lot of great slapstick scenes, she’s kicked around, attacked by bees, beat with sticks, she’s always getting herself hurt and her haughty, arrogant attitude means it’s always funny to watch her get her comeuppance. Eartha Kitt is clearly having a ball with this performance, she goes from insane, over-the-top cackling, to awkward small talk within the space of a few seconds, Yzma is all over the place and very funny. Kronk gets a lot more attention than most villainous sidekicks and with good reason, because, like his boss, he’s a lot of fun; the way he moves between complete idiocy to sudden bursts of genius is hardly a new joke, but it’s played so well here that it doesn’t feel trite. This is helped greatly by the performance of Patrick Warburton, who seems to be capable of both sounding like a genius and a complete idiot with the exact same delivery. Less involved with the slapstick, Kronk has some of the best stand-alone lines of the movie and a great double-act with the more accident prone Yzma; together, they are the funniest part of the movie.

Of course you realise, this means war

Though not a musical, the film does contain one song, “Perfect World”, a great, latin-infused number sung by Tom Jones; this is a lot of fun and a great intro and outro to the film, with some surprisingly clever and funny lyrics. The score follows this musical style, with a lot of great pieces which compliment the setting and pacing of the film; the montage where Kuzco and Pacha race Yzma and Kronk to the palace in particular has a great piece of music with suits the visuals perfectly. Though music is obviously not as important to the film as it could’ve been if it had remained Kingdom of the Sun, what’s there is good and what was taken out obviously didn’t fit the new direction the film had taken; several of the musical numbers for Kingdom of the Sun had already been recorded and Sting had written a number of songs to go with the film, so it would’ve been easy for Disney to just shove them in because they already had them. With this in mind, I applaud them for resisting the urge and sticking to their vision of The Emperor’s New Groove as an offbeat comedy; musical numbers, particularly those in style of Sting’s music, would have surely slowed the film down, so kudos to Disney for not being lazy.

The Emperor’s New Groove might not be the kind of great, animated epic that’s going to be remembered for years to come, but it deserves its own little place in the annals of Disney history for its unique accomplishments and sensibilities. Do the jokes always work? No. Is the story undeveloped? Yes. Is it a bit lacking in the Disney charm? Maybe, but nonetheless, it achieves what it wanted to achieve and plays around a lot with expectations and film clichés to create a fresh and original product. The Emperor’s New Groove is indeed an eighty minute cartoon, no more or less, but it’s an effortlessly enjoyable one and probably the funniest of Disney’s comedies.


7.5/10

Next Week: Atlantis: The Lost Empire!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

39. Dinosaur (2000)

In 2000, Disney released Dinosaur, their first fully computer generated movie; though they had used computer animation for characters before, such as the Hydra in Hercules and the whales in Fantasia 2000, this was the first time that every character was animated using this method. The result was a mixed bag and while the ambition towards the project is admirable, the weak execution is more than a little disappointing. Though Dinosaur still did well, financially, it signalled a change in reaction to Disney pictures that had been building over the last few years and ushered in a period of greater obscurity and financial disappointment; for better or worse, the Renaissance was clearly over.

The animation is, of course, like nothing we’ve ever seen from Disney before and while it’s invigorating to see something new from them, I personally believe that they didn’t really hit the mark with what they were attempting. The animation of these dinosaurs is not bad, all things considered, but very dated; I honestly think the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park look better than this and that was released seven years earlier, but perhaps that was because the dinosaurs were only one part of that picture, while in this film, they’re constantly on screen – because these dinosaurs populate the entire film and are always out in the open, it’s easier to see the flaws. Even so, I don’t think you can really use the “well it’s fourteen years old, of course it looks dated” excuse, not only because of Jurassic Park, but because Toy Story 2, another fully computer animated film, was released the year earlier and holds up a lot better than this; on the other side of the coin, traditionally animated films such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and Pinocchio are over seventy years old and still look fantastic. This is likely because instead of utilising stylised computer animation, Dinosaur attempted to make these characters look as realistic and alive as possible; I respect this effort and it still looks quite impressive for the time, but the technology just wasn’t there yet, leaving these dinosaurs looking awkward, unfinished and boring to look at. The lack of detail in the characters’ faces make them look dead eyed and dull; this, combined with the lazy voice acting, creates a similar problem as in Pocahontas, where it’s difficult for the characters to emote visually, putting up a barrier which prevents the audience from forging a connection with them. Even characters that are more facially expressive in their animation, like Zini, just come off as weird and kind of disturbing, as the attempt at broader, cartoony expressions clashes with the more realistic character design. Perhaps this style would work in a different kind of movie, but I’ll get to that later; in this movie, I just don’t think it works.

Gah, get it away, please

The backgrounds, on the other hand, look wonderful, I was so impressed I actually wondered aloud ‘wow, these actually look real! ...Hey, wait a minute...’ My suspicions were confirmed when  I discovered that the backgrounds are indeed, actually real life locations, with the characters just animated over them; a nice idea, but I can’t exactly give the Disney animators credit for backgrounds they didn’t animate. Sometimes the characters don’t really blend in very well with the backgrounds, either, similar to the scenes in Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros which blend traditional animation and live action footage; the characters don’t quite look like they’re really there. Also, despite some beautiful early shots of luscious wildlife, most of the backgrounds in the movie are just boring shots of deserts or mountains; the colour palette is severely limited and while it makes sense for the environment, I can’t help but feel that if this were a traditional, 2D animated movie, they could’ve brightened things up a bit. As it is, the movie is a dull mix of grey, brown and white, with the characters not having much variation amongst each other, either; there’s just no escaping it, this is an ugly movie.

The story is... really boring. I mean REALLY boring, it resembles The Aristocats in that it shows a long journey wherein practically nothing interesting happens, whatsoever. We know that Disney can do this idea of dinosaurs on a long march, searching for a place to survive, as the climax of the Fantasia segment “Rite of Spring” is pretty much that exactly, but it doesn’t work here; the classic Disney style of storytelling which is employed here doesn’t fit with this kind of animation or style. The visuals and landscapes suggest that Dinosaur wants to be a grand, epic movie, that follows a race on the edge of extinction as they travel the world in search of salvation; this is a fine idea, but the generic voice acting, wacky humour, wisecracking lemurs, schmaltzy sentimentality and lines like ‘that kids is what we call a Jerkosaurus’ completely deflate this sense of grandness and severity. It seems the original concept for the movie was more in line with “Rite of Spring”, with no dialogue and a more serious and sombre tone; I wish they’d had the courage to follow through on this, because I think it would’ve made for a much more interesting story and complimented the visuals well enough to make up for the imperfect computer animation. Unfortunately, as it is, the tone of this movie is at best childish and at worst, so utterly confused that it’s very difficult to get a grasp on it.

‘Stay perfectly still, its vision is based on movement!’

The story is déjà vu, as it’s yet another tale of a child separated by his parents, raised by another race or species, then growing up to feel like an outcast who just wants to belong. We have seen this far too many times, especially in children’s movies, especially in Disney children’s movies and especially in Disney children’s movies that were barely out of theatres before Dinosaur plodded into them – this was released only a year after Tarzan, which has the exact same basic premise, as well as a similar kind of environment for certain sections of the movie and a focus on action, leaving Dinosaur feeling completely redundant. The rest of the movie is just a big walk through a desert to the end; it’s kind of like a road movie where nothing happens – perhaps even less than The Aristocats! – they never find anything interesting or meet anyone new, every stop along the way is just the same scene of the bad dinosaur asking the herd to move, the old dinosaurs looking tired and the good dinosaur saying they have to slow down. It’s just the same thing over and over again for almost an hour straight and even when they do finally reach their destination, there’s still another tedious action sequence to watch, which at this point feels like cruel torture, as you’re begging for the movie to just end already. Though Disney movies rarely have strong or complex narratives, this one is just way too simplistic, even for them – there is barely any plot progression whatsoever, it's just a single idea stretched out over eighty minutes and it gets old very fast; like the dinosaurs themselves, this idea is dead on arrival.

The characters are almost not even worth discussing, rarely have I seen ones as transparent and unimaginative as this, it almost makes Pochaontas’ cast look interesting (okay, maybe not that bad). I know I’ve said it before about others, but Aladar may very well be the most boring Disney protagonist of all time, this guy just has NO personality beyond being a nice guy; he’s worse than Hercules, or Oliver or any of the other boring heroes and unlike them, he doesn’t even have any entertaining side characters to support him. Aladar’s sidekick is voiced by Max Casella, famous for voicing Daxter from the Jak and Dakter video game series, a small, furry, wisecracking animal with an attitude. In this film, Casella plays Zini, a small, furry, wisecracking animal with an attitude. Hrmm.  Zini is “The Hooter” for sure, if that’s even possible in a movie where none of the characters are really likeable; he’s the typical wacky sidekick: annoying, goofy, constantly throwing out stupid one liners and constantly screwing up. Zini manages to be unbelievably annoying, even though he barely does anything for the whole movie, quite frankly, it’s kind of impressive. The rest of the lemur family are a dull collection of “adopted family” stereotypes – the stern, but secretly caring father, the kind and understanding mother, the sweet but mischievous sibling, they’re not worth discussing any further. Kron is a typical hot-head who wants everyone to listen to him and is threatened by Aladar; again, it’s something we’ve seen a million times before, except the film doesn’t really allow him to go all the way and be an antagonist, he’s just kind of a jerk. This could’ve been very interesting if Kron was played as a tragic villain, who has good intentions but is turned to evil, who is not necessarily “evil” but just has a different and perhaps harsher ideology than our hero, or a villain who eventually realises the error of his ways and grows as a character; all of these are pretty rare in Disney movies, so any of them would have been cool to see. Sadly, Kron is just a jerk from beginning to end, lacking in the theatrical flair of more obviously evil villains and lacking the engaging moral ambiguity of more complex villains; the writers are just too afraid to push him to any extreme, so he ends up lost in the middle, boring and forgettable.

‘I love you Simba’

‘Uh, it’s Aladar’

‘Yeah, whatever’

Neera is basically just Nala from The Lion King – her name is even kind of similar! – except, impossibly, even less developed. Like Nala, she’s nice and a little “sassy”, teasing the hero a little, but that’s all there is. Her and Aladar’s relationship has got to hold a record for the least developed in Disney history; honestly, even Snow White and the Prince had more than this, the two barely get more than one scene together before they’re suddenly having kids at the end, it’s so incredibly lazy, even for a Disney flick. Baylene and Eema are a humourless double-act, with Eema being a sassy old woman and Baylene being a dainty old woman; I suppose it’s something different to have elderly women play such central roles in a Disney movie, but this novelty quickly wears off and either way, they just aren’t funny. This is probably the weakest collection of characters in any Disney movie; I’m sorry to keep making those kinds of sweeping statements, but I don’t know how else to express it, there’s really nobody to latch on to or feel any emotional connection to here, none of them are interesting in the slightest. The film constantly tries to make you care about this big struggle for survival and want to see everyone make it out okay, but when you don’t care about any of the characters, why should you care about their struggle? When the entirety of your film is based around characters trying to make it home, failing to make the audience care about the characters is effectively the biggest mistake you could ever make.

The biggest problem with Dinosaur is that it just feels amateurish – while I’m sure the visuals were technically impressive at the time, they look ugly and unpolished now and, personally, I remember being underwhelmed by them back in 2000 as well, especially in comparison to the work of Pixar, which looked great then and still does now. The story is incredibly simplistic, almost completely lacking in meaningful conflict or any sense of variation, it’s the same boring stuff for eighty minutes. The characters are the worst in Disney history, completely undeveloped, barely utilised and just plain dull. The humour is lazy, the action is boring and the emotion is vapid and artificial, it just feels like this movie was in the hands of a bunch of people who really had no idea how to make a movie. Despite some high ambitions, Dinosaur is a failure in every sense of the word.


3/10

Next Week: The Emperor’s New Groove! 

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds
 

38. Fantasia 2000 (1999)

Walt Disney initially wanted Fantasia to be a continuing series, with new segments being added all the time; sadly, due to the initially poor reception to the original Fantasia, this idea was scrapped. Nearly sixty years later, Disney finally returned to this idea with Fantasia 2000, which took the original idea of setting pieces of classical music to animation and created a whole new set of segments out of it. While the original Fantasia was a very tough act to follow, I think Fantasia 2000 still stands on its own as another great expression of this idea.

Like the original, each segment in Fantasia 2000 is preceded by a short introduction; in the original Fantasia, these were hosted by Deems Taylor and tended to go on for a bit too long, redundantly explaining much of the segment before it had even been shown. While Fantasia 2000’s introductory segments are thankfully shorter, Deems Taylor at least had a sense of dignity to him, something that is at times lacking in his replacements. Instead of a single host, each introduction features a different celebrity cameo, which is unnecessary, distracting and, in some cases, rather obnoxious; Steve Martin’s gags, for example, hardly feel suited to a Fantasia movie. They aren’t hugely harmful, but they certainly aren’t helpful either and can put kind of a damper on your enthusiasm for the next segment. On the whole, Fantasia 2000 is much shorter than the original Fantasia, which is the longest of Disney’s animated features and though the films have about the same number of segments, the ones here tend to run a lot shorter. While this has the benefit of meaning that the segments rarely run on too long or get boring, it also means that it’s difficult for them to feel as epic and mesmerising as their counterparts from the original Fantasia; the reason something like “Rite of Spring” is so incredibly immersive and powerful is partly down to the sheer length of time it spans, a strength that few of the segments in Fantasia 2000 possess. With all that being said, let’s discuss the individual segments.

Bette Midler is scary

First is “Symphony No. 5 in C minor” by Beethoven, which acts in a similar manner to the opening segment of the original Fantasia, in that it attempts to visualise the kind of abstract imagery you might imagine while listening to music. Though a decent segment, it’s not as successful as its predecessor, which became wholly abstract in the ways it played with shape, perspective and environment; this segment becomes a little too focused on a singular idea and narrative, effectively defeating its initial purpose, to visualise a scattered and unfocused thought pattern. Nevertheless, the animation quality is incredibly crisp and clean, as are the colours and while not as interesting or experimental as the original, the segment still helps bring you into the world of Fantasia and its style. Next is “Pines of Rome” by Respighi, a decent, if a little unfulfilled segment; the idea of whales flying through the sky evokes a powerful image, but one that I think the on-screen animation can’t quite visualise as well as the animator’s imagination could. The backgrounds are very nice, but the whales themselves are mostly computer animated and while the animation is not bad, per se, it just doesn’t have the right amount of life and detail to capture the sense of majesty the segment is trying to convey; this would be fine if it was just part of the background, which is how Disney typically used computer animation at this point in their history, but here it is at the centre of segment and since Fantasia is a concept that is so focused on visuals, it does let the segment down. The use of colour is also a bit dull, there’s just too much blue; again, not necessarily a problem in most cases, but most Fantasia segments use colour in such wonderful ways that it’s just a little disappointing to see such a limited and underutilised palette here. The animation doesn’t always fit especially well with the music either and, of all the segments in the film, this is the only one that feels a little too long to me. Not a bad couple of segments, but not the best to open with, in my opinion.

Next is “Rhapsody in Blue”, by Gershwin, a lengthier segment which follows the lives of four people as they go about their day in early 20th Century New York City; this segment is amazing and bursting with passion and excitement. It’s animated in the style of Al Hirschfield’s cartoons and, as a result, feels intrinsically linked to the world and culture of New York; it’s simplistic and stylised, allowing for a lot of creativity with the characters’ movements and expressions, without having to worry about maintaining too many details – the animators can basically do whatever they want with these characters and that’s exactly what they do. The energy with which these characters move, the way they express character and personality through so little, the way they match the rhythm of the music with their movements, it’s so fast paced and creative and the physical comedy is funny and timeless. This segment is an absolute joy, I would honestly love to see Disney animate a whole movie in this style, it’s that good; this kind of stuff is what animation is all about. Next is “Piano Concerto No. 2 in F Major” by Shostakovich, which follows a narrative based on The Steadfast Tin Soldier, by Hans Christian Andersen, as a one legged tin soldier attempts to rescue a toy ballerina from an evil Jack-in-the-box. This is a nice idea and plays out kind of like a ballet, alongside the music, resembling The Nutcracker in many ways. The characters are computer animated, but I think it works better here than in “Pines of Rome”; the animation has a stylish and glossy effect that suits the living toys well, particularly the ballerina. Overall, it’s a nice segment, but I don’t really have much to say about it, it’s just okay.

The animated city that never sleeps

Next is “The Carnival of Animals, Finale” by Saint-Saëns, which follows a flamingo who’d rather play with his yo-yo than try and match the dignified routines of his peers. This is a... bizarre idea, to say the least and it kind of resembles the “Dance of the Hours” segment from the original Fantasia, in its more comical and slapstick style. The colouring is very nice, the animation is energised and at times, the art style can resemble the illustrations of a Dr. Seuss book. The segment is very brief, but fun while it lasts; it’s a goofy idea that clearly didn't have the legs to go on for very long, but I still enjoyed it. Then we have “The Sorceror’s Apprentice”, from the original Fantasia; it’s just the same segment as the original, with no changes. This reflects the original concept for the Fantasia series, where they planned to add new segments to each film, while keeping some of the classics. It’s nothing new, but I’m certainly not going to complain about its inclusion, as it’s obviously still a wonderful segment. Next is “Pomp and Circumstance”, by Elgar, which features Donald Duck as Noah’s assistant, as he tries to round up all the animals onto the ark before the flood comes. This is very obviously supposed to be Fantasia 2000’s version of “The Sorceror’s Apprentice”, made even more explicit by its placement directly afterwards; unsurprisingly, “Pomp and Circumstance” is nowhere near as good as what it’s trying to emulate. It’s certainly not bad, the animation is good, the lighting is great and Donald is, well... Donald. He’s fun to watch and the idea isn’t a bad one, but I don’t think the animators really take it as far as it could have gone and, compared to some of the other segments, this one just isn’t all that visually impressive; it focuses more on the narrative than the visuals, which is fine, but if you’re going to push aside the visuals in a Fantasia movie, you better have a darn good story to tell and this just doesn’t cut it.

Finally, we have “The Firebird Suite”, which tells the story of a Spring Sprite who accidentally restores the titular Firebird to life and must escape as he proceeds to destroy her forest. This is a wonderful, wonderful segment; the animation is nothing short of astounding, as there is so much detail in every frame and the movement is almost impossibly smooth and controlled. The Sprite’s design is great, at times she looks almost like a Studio Ghibli character; the way her whole body seems to melt into her flowing hair, the lines that constantly run through her, she looks like a creature made of silk or velvet, melting through the sky, it’s gorgeous. The Firebird also looks amazing, as do the breathtaking, pastoral backgrounds, one of Disney’s greatest strengths; the use of space, the muted colours, it’s all there. This is genuinely one of the most incredible pieces of animation I’ve ever seen, there is a real sense of unbridled joy and beauty to this segment, you can see the effort and love in every second of it; a lovely sequence and a perfect way to end the movie.

Princess Mononoke 2000

Ultimately, the question has to be asked, is Fantasia 2000 as good as the original Fantasia? Unsurprisingly, the answer is no; the same spark isn’t quite there, it doesn’t have the original’s sense of grandness or artistry and the shorts are mostly good, but not great. However, “Rhapsody in Blue” and the “Firebird Suite” are so good that they really pull the film up as a whole and the lack of any particularly bad segments means that the film’s only real problem is with its awkward celebrity appearances. Fantasia 2000 may not quite reach the heights of its predecessor, but despite a couple of hiccups, I still think it’s a worthy successor.


7.5/10

Next Week: Dinosaur!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

37. Tarzan (1999)

After ten years of (mostly) critical and financial success, the 1990’s and with them, the Disney Renaissance, finally came to an end. Rounding out this Golden Age in Disney animation history was Tarzan, a film that seems to tick pretty much every box in the Renaissance list – the story of an outsider who wants to fit in, a romance between the two main characters, wacky animal sidekicks, an over-the-top, almost campy villain; viewed as a whole, the film can seem like a bit of a laundry list of Renaissance clichés. However, when Tarzan is viewed on its individual merits, it’s clear to see just how much it has to offer and how it does some things even better than its predecessors.

Once again, the animation is great, it’s fluid and energised and everything else that was great about animation in the Renaissance; there is a slight over reliance on computer animation, but it is never too distracting and blends in well with the traditional 2D animation. Where Tarzan’s animation really shines is in the incredible action scenes, there is so much energy and non-stop movement in them; for example, the way Tarzan slides on trees, which was allegedly based on the movements of skateboarders, has so much wild choreography and complex animation, it really feels like you’re there with Tarzan. These scenes are exhilarating to watch – Tarzan’s battle with Sabor, his rescue of Jane, his final confrontation with Clayton – these are just a few of the great sequences; the way Tarzan moves through the jungle, constantly manoeuvring and making use of everything in his environment, it’s just so impressively animated. The lighting is also great and comes close to the level of The Lion King and The Hunchback of Notre Dame; the backgrounds are similarly impressive, as the world of the jungle is so well realised, with so much detail and love put into every scene, creating a truly living environment. At the time, Tarzan was the most expensive animated film ever made and you can definitely see why, these action scenes are some of the best Disney has ever done.

Tarzan Pro Skater

The story is simple and traditional and serves primarily as a link between the more grandiose action and musical sequences; Tarzan’s personal journey shares similarities with Bambi and The Lion King in his role as a prince-like figure in the animal kingdom, who must win his father’s respect and overcome his own insecurities, as well as Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Hercules, in his role as an outsider who wants to find somewhere he belongs. Clearly, the film’s main plot is a familiar one, but thankfully Tarzan seems to understand this, as, aside from a couple of mawkish scenes, this is mostly kept in the background. The thrilling action, gorgeous visuals and humorous interactions between the characters are at the forefront, while Tarzan’s story of personal discovery continues subtly in the background; it’s definitely there, as we see him change him grow, but slowly and quietly. Though this means that Tarzan can never quite establish an emotional connection on the level of Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King or The Hunchback of Notre Dame, it’s still fun to watch the story play out, predictable as it may be. The pacing can at times seem a little rushed – this is the third film in a row, after Hercules and Mulan, that uses song montages to skip over a lot of time and important plot points, so as to get to the action faster; while a little disappointing, Tarzan makes up for it in a way that the previous two films cannot, as its action is so good that you can forgive it for skipping over other areas. The comedy is a little weak early on, as the antics between the childhood versions of Tarzan and his friends are a little annoying, but it mellows out after Tarzan becomes an adult and the comedy between Tarzan and the human characters can actually be really quite funny. Overall, Tarzan is definitely a movie based more on its action and visuals than its narrative or characterisation, but that’s not such a bad thing with action and visuals like these.

Tarzan himself is a bit of a of a blank slate, character-wise, but then again that’s kind of the point, he’s supposed to be a primitive man who’s never really  developed a “human” personality. That being said, Tarzan has a delightful innocence and curiosity about him, he is so enamoured by the human world and seems to relish the opportunity to learn anything about it. A lot of this is communicated just through his animation, his wide eyes, the way he crawls around and examines everything very closely, a lot of character is shown through very little dialogue; this is both impressive and affords Tarzan an inherent charm, it’s very difficult not to like him. Jane is also very fun: she’s intelligent, but very clumsy and somewhat airheaded, constantly getting herself into trouble, often while being totally oblivious to the fact; Disney love interests and heroines in particular are usually either angelically kind and patient or sassy and tough, but good hearted, either way, they are effectively perfect, so it’s fun to have a Disney heroine who is just so ineffectual. Jane’s heart is in the right place, but she thinks faster than she acts and is so ill-suited to the world of the jungle that she often finds herself in more trouble than she bargained for; Disney had somewhat attempted this with the slightly ditzy Mulan, but kind of gave up half-way through, so this is the first time they went all the way with this new kind of heroine. Like Tarzan, Jane exudes so much personality through her animation, from her childlike expressions of wonder, to the awkward way she carries herself, to little touches like the fact that her hair always seems just a little out of place. More so than Tarzan, however, Jane’s character is expressed just as effectively through her dialogue, as Minnie Driver gives a great performance, constantly stammering, repeating herself and tripping over her words as she tries to formulate what she's trying to say; a lot of Jane’s dialogue was adlibbed, adding to the idea that Jane is thinking a mile and minute and constantly trips herself up as she tries to communicate what she’s thinking. The dialogue and animation combine to give Jane a strong and unique personality that makes her impossible not to like.

A very proper young lady

Though her romance with Tarzan isn’t developed as effectively as say, Belle and Beast’s, Jane’s fantastic animation displays pure attraction better than perhaps any other Disney movie; the way she blushes, avoids Tarzan’s gaze, plays with her fingers and hair, it’s all very sweet and endearing and suits their relationship – this isn’t a fairy tale romance about true love, it’s the story of a shy and somewhat socially awkward young woman who meets an intense, but gentle man who isn’t bothered by her typically unladylike and peculiar behaviour. Though Jane is never explicitly given a back story, we can imagine how she didn’t quite fit at home and when she talks about London, there is always a note of melancholy in her voice, supporting this idea – that we can imagine a history for Jane so easily shows just how much this movie can do with so little and how well realised Jane is as a character. As a result, Tarzan and Jane have a very sweet and somewhat understated relationship, which is more genuine and grounded than it is grandiose and romantic. Honestly, I wish Jane was in more of the film, as though she hardly disappears completely, she doesn’t get enough to do after “Strangers Like Me”; her interactions with Tarzan and her father are really the best parts of the movie. 

The side characters are kept, appropriately enough, to the side: Terk and Tantor are a very familiar Renaissance era comedic duo, most like Timon and Pumbaa, they’re pretty lazy copies. Wayne Knight and in particular Rosie O’ Donnell do put a lot of effort into the performance though, which saves them from just being carbon copies; they aren’t all that funny or anything, but they serve their purpose and though their interactions with Tarzan are somewhat limited, they work well. Kala is pretty much just Bambi’s mother as an ape; she’s kind, gentle, patient, maternal, she really only exists to serve the role of Tarzan’s mother and little more, but does a good job all the same. Similarly, Kerchak is quite similar to the Great Prince of the Forest in terms of his position and the way in which he commands fear and respect through intimidation and carefully chosen movements, rather than a lot of dialogue. He is perhaps more similar to stern, disapproving fathers such as King Triton and to a lesser extent, Chief Powhatan and doesn’t really have enough attention to be developed into anything more, but he’s not so bad. The Professor is goofy, but likeable, he doesn’t get to do very much and is basically just another bumbling father in the vein of Maurice and the Sultan, but his enthusiasm is infectious and his interactions with Jane are wonderful. 

Come at me bro

Clayton is a relatively reserved and realistic villain, for a Disney film, while still being entertaining; though his motivation to capture the gorillas for money is hardly a very exciting one, he makes up for it with his personality – Clayton is kind of like Ratcliffe done right, a traditional, snobbish British gentleman who sees it as his divine right to conquer the “uncivilised” world, in the name of England (and for his own financial benefit, of course). Brian Blessed is the perfect choice for such a role and his famously booming and exaggerated voice works wonders for animation, without going so far as to be silly, as Clayton is still quite threatening. It’s also interesting how he isn’t antagonistic for most of the movie, just a bit callous and Tarzan initially seems to hold an unspoken respect for him, viewing him as the model of manliness, as he imitates the way Clayton speaks, the way he walks and holds himself and eventually, the way he dresses, only to realise in the climax that Clayton is not the kind of man he wants to be and he should just focus on being himself. This theme of duality is explored well, through Clayton, without ever being explicitly pointed out; in this respect, Clayton is a very effective villain indeed, as he reflects the dark side in Tarzan and shows him that the world of man can be just as vicious as that of the animal kingdom.

Tarzan is not a traditional musical, as the songs are not sung by the characters, but are simply sung over the action, acting as a kind of musical narration of the film’s events, sort of like in The Resucers and The Fox and the Hound, though, mercifully, done a lot better. Though the lyricism of the songs is very lacking and it’s a shame that the characters don’t get to express their thoughts and feelings through music, the songs are still mostly nice to listen to; they are definitely a little sappy and polarising, but they’re written by Phil Collins, a very divisive artist, so at the end of the day you’re probably either going to love them or hate them. “Two Worlds” is definitely a little corny, but it’s still sweet and a good intro to the film that draws you into the world and plight of its characters very quickly. “You’ll Be in My Heart” is similar in style, but just a bit too lame, even for Phil Collins; it’s the closest to a “Whole New World Number” the film has, but really all the songs share that kind of style, so it’s kind of a redundant observation to make. The song is not especially awful, it just seems like an obvious attempt at recreating Elton John’s style from The Lion King, particularly the equally lame “Can You Feel the Love Tonight”.

Can you feel the love tonight?

In contrast, “Son of Man” is a fun, upbeat song; some of the lyrics are laughably bad – ‘with the power to be strong and the wisdom to be wise’, ‘in learning you will teach and in teaching you will learn’ – but like most of the songs in the film, the corniness is kind of charming in its own silly little way. It also acts as a good montage which shows us Tarzan’s growth from boy to man, taking inspiration from “Hakuna Matata” and “One Last Hope”, in this regard; it’s a lot of fun. “Trashing the Camp” isn’t even really a song, it’s just a cool jazz instrumental with a bit of scat thrown in, but hey, it’s great, so what’s the problem? This one DEFINITELY has that Phil Collins feel. “Strangers Like Me” is another upbeat song; again the lyrics are very basic and describe how Tarzan is feeling very simplistically, but it’s very enjoyable all the same and the sequence it describes is great in its own right. It is a shame that, like “I’ll Make a Man Out of You” in Mulan, it skips over a lot of the development between Tarzan and the other humans, which, in my opinion, should have been the focus of the movie, as it is the most interesting part, but it’s a good montage all the same.

In all honestly, Tarzan doesn’t really do anything that the earlier Renaissance films hadn’t already – the story of the outcast trapped between two worlds, who yearns for acceptance, the goofy, wisecracking sidekicks, the stern, disapproving father, the pompous, British baddie who wants to steal from the hero’s homeland – it’s not exactly original. Nevertheless, Tarzan does what it does so well that it’s hard to really criticise it all that much; the animation is fantastic and exciting, the characters are likeable, particularly the delightful Jane and the songs are enjoyable, even if the way in which they are presented is a little strange. Though it doesn’t have much new to say and its story is a little shallow, Tarzan is a highly entertaining film and, in my opinion, a worthy end to the Disney Renaissance.

Other Thoughts:

• It’s also quite violent for a Disney movie, in the opening Kala just finds Tarzan’s parents mauled to death!

Yeesh

8/10

Next Week: Fantasia 2000!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

36. Mulan (1998)

Mulan is kind of like a midway point between the styles of Aladdin and Hercules and The Lion King and The Hunchback of Notre Dame: the story is relatively serious, with some dark moments, but is mostly light-hearted, with a strong emphasis on humour. While this gives Mulan a greater sense of narrative purpose than Hercules and the moments of levity feel more appropriate than in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, it does leave it feeling a little confused as to what it really wants to be: a drama with comic elements, or a comedy with a little action thrown in. The result is a good, but somewhat uncertain movie.

As usual for the Renaissance, the animation is very good, it’s nice and smooth and energetic, but perhaps a little unremarkable; while I certainly wouldn’t wish to suggest that the animation here is lazy, as like I said it is very well done, it doesn’t really match any of the previous Renaissance films, save for Pocahontas and maybe The Little Mermaid. While there’s nothing wrong with Mulan focusing on areas other than animation, it’s just a little disappointing because before this, the animation for the Renaissance films seemed to just keep getting better and better, with Hercules not really taking any steps forward in terms of animation quality, and this debatably taking a step back. Still, it’s a small step and a small complaint, the animation is still great. The art style is also a little more simplified, it’s similar to that of Pocahontas with its sharper, less detailed character designs, softer lines and use of colour; however, Mulan’s characters are still given enough of the Disney animated style to afford them an appropriate level of personality and identity, unlike the stilted and lifeless characters of Pocahontas, who had difficulty conveying any sense of emotion or individuality. The backgrounds are decent, if nothing special, there is some good use of wide open space and some very nice natural landscapes, but they don’t really stand out. Mulan is hardly one of Disney’s greatest works of animation, but it’s good nonetheless.

SYMBOLISM SYMBOLISM SYMBOLISM
okay you guys get that?

After the rather basic and derivative narrative of Hercules, Mulan thankfully returns to what it seems was the mission statement of the earlier Renaissance films – to take traditional Disney storylines and tropes and present them in a different way. Once again, Mulan attempts to tackle some of the perceived sexism of the early Disney movies by deconstructing gender roles and reinventing the idea of the female protagonist in their films. Mulan doesn’t approach this with nearly the amount of subtlety as Beauty and the Beast, it’s a lot more obvious about what it’s trying to say and though this at times can dampen the effectiveness of its point, I suppose it was a point that had to be made. While the ideas of reinventing the idea of the Disney heroine and variations on the “don’t judge a book by its cover” and “always be yourself” morals were getting a little stale at this point, Mulan does manage to add something new to the mix. Though we have already seen Disney heroines who are more active and not simply damsels in distress, like Belle and female characters who refuse to simply be a love interest for a male character, such as Jasmine, Meg and... well, Belle, again, Mulan is the first who’s allowed to be a real action hero. While Belle takes her life into her own hands and rejects Gaston, it is Beast who must eventually defeat him and while Jasmine and Meg challenge what is expected of them and refuse to simply be a prize to be won by the male hero, they still need to be saved by their respective male heroes in the climax. In the climax of Mulan, it is Mulan and not her male counterpart who directly defeats the villain, saves the day and is rewarded with glory; though there are some issues raised in the aftermath that I’ll get to later, this is nice to see, even if Mulan herself isn’t necessarily as interesting as some of the aforementioned characters.

Though the film rubs its message in your face a little too often, it avoids suffering the same fate as Pocahontas by injecting a lot of humour into its approach, avoiding things from ever getting too preachy. The male characters’ views towards women are never explored with much depth or intelligence, but are at times portrayed as laughably arbitrary, in order to show just how ridiculous they are; compare this to Pocahontas, where the main villain’s insane racism and completely arbitrary prejudice towards Native Americans is equally as laughable, but portrayed with complete sincerity (save for one funny line) and it’s pretty clear which film works better. Personally, I think satire is often more effective when approached from a humorous stand-point than from a serious one – if you can get your audience to laugh at something, then it’s a lot easier to get them to see just how silly that something really is, deflating any power it once had. While there are of course exceptions to this rule, I certainly think that animated movies which feature talking trees and dragons voiced by Eddie Murphy are more suited to a humorous style of satire. Although Mulan doesn’t utilise this as much as it could, it’s interesting to note just how adult its humour can get; things are never explicit or inappropriate, but for Disney’s standards, some of these jokes are pretty risqué: for example, when the men are about to bathe with Mulan, who they still think is a man, Mushu laments ‘We’re doomed! There are couple of things I know they’re bound to notice!’ These moments play well with the gender politics the film is trying to discuss and honestly, some of them are actually pretty funny.

Mulan in: For Your Eyes Only

Though she plays an unfamiliar role for a Disney heroine, Mulan herself doesn’t have much of a personality besides being a bit of a klutz, but even so, there’s something very likeable about her; she means well, but isn’t really very good at many of the things she’s trying to do, but eventually she learns to grow into who she is and take advantage of the things she is good at. She can at times suffer from that familiar Disney protagonist problem of somewhat being overshadowed by her supporting cast, but it’s not nearly as bad as in say, Hercules. While not one of Disney’s great heroines, Mulan is at least not passive, as she is driven, takes charge of her life and refuses to be defined by societal norms, she’s a perfectly serviceable main character – it’s just a shame that for all her talk about how she wishes she was allowed to be herself and let her own personality shine, she doesn’t really seem to have that much of a personality to show. Shang on the other hand is a typical boring male love interest; though he is a bit sterner than his predecessors, this hardly does much to endear him to the audience. Though not necessarily unlikeable, he just doesn’t really have much to him, he is simply dull.

Mulan and Shang’s romance, if you can even call it that, is handled very shoddily; though they do spend most of the film together, you don’t really get to see them interact much, in fact, they never even have a conversation that lasts for more than a couple of lines. Most of their warming up to one another seemingly occurs off-screen, meaning that their last minute hook-up at the end of the film comes out of nowhere and kind of takes you for surprise, it seems unnecessary and ill-suited and raises some unfortunate questions; if they were simply comrades before, with no real hint of mutual attraction, why does Mulan suddenly being a woman change their entire (mostly non-existent) relationship within the space of about ten minutes? While giving Mulan a love interest doesn’t inherently negate the feminist message the film is trying to get across, the fact that their relationship is given so little attention, seems to change so vastly so suddenly and appears to be thrown in at the last minute just because every Renaissance film needed a romance, does kind of undermine the movie’s purpose. If the whole point of the film is Mulan’s journey of self-discovery, proving to both herself and all of China that women can do anything men can do and can achieve much greater things than simply being someone’s bride, then this is somewhat complicated by the fact that the end of the movie, Mulan’s greatest prize seems to be the fact that she is quite clearly going to become Shang’s bride. Yes, she saves the Emperor and earns the respect of him and her family and it’s obvious that’s what’s supposed to be most important, but even if the romance with Shang only slightly damages this point, why have it there if it’s going to damage it at all? The climax is still focused on Mulan and her achievements, thankfully, but this poorly developed and quite frankly unbelievable romance hurts the movie more than it helps it, even if only by a little.

Mulan and Shang, seen here in a scene from a Looney Tunes cartoon

By all logic Mushu should get on my nerves, as he fits a lot of qualities of “The Hooter”: he’s a goofy, non-human sidekick, he’s clumsy, he’s selfish, he’s a loudmouth, he’s ineffectual, he screws up and brings Mulan trouble more often than he helps her and his being voiced by Eddie Murphy is also a rather transparent attempt at recreating the magic of the Genie... and yet somehow I really quite like him! Maybe it’s all down to Eddie Murphy’s spirited performance, but there’s something about Mushu I just really enjoy watching, he definitely takes from a lot of other Disney sidekick characters: Sebastian, Genie, Timon, Hugo, Phil, the list goes on and he’s very obviously a mascot character designed to sell merchandise but I dunno, for some reason, he worked for me. Yao, Ping and Chien-Po are almost like The Three Stooges in the way their triple act is set up, they are pretty standard comic relief and don’t really get enough time to be much else, but they’re not obnoxious or anything so it’s not really a problem; other comic relief characters like Chi-Fu are more abrasive, but not excessively so. Shan-Yu doesn’t really have much of a personality beyond just being brutal, but to be honest, it’s kind of refreshing; Disney villains tend to be very theatrical and devious, more often than not they are rather weak and cowardly (particularly in the Renaissance era) or at least not physically imposing and rely more on their cunning and silver tongues to get what they want. It’s interesting then to have a villain who is defined so greatly by his physicality and fearlessness; Shan-Yu is like a force of nature, he doesn’t speak very often, but when he does, his words are chilling and powerful – he knows only to speak when he has something to say. He’s not a very complex villain, but Shan-Yu serves his role perfectly as an unstoppable killing machine, someone who simply cannot be matched physically, meaning only Mulan – with her guile and intellect – can defeat him.

The songs are few, but mostly memorable; their use of a deliberately Western interpretation of Asian culture and music kind of reminds me of old Gilbert and Sullivan musicals like The Mikado, though substantially less offensive. “Honour to Us All” is a decent song, if nothing special, the lyrics make an attempt at a witty jab at the concept of matchmaking, but don’t really succeed; the tune also gets a little grating and, while it might’ve worked better later on, considering this is the very first song in the film, it really should be something more grandiose. “Reflection” is the “Whole New World Number” and not a bad one; the lyrics are a little on-the-nose, but the concept is an intelligent one, the framing of the scene is excellent and the song doesn’t overstay its welcome. “I’ll Make a Man Out of You” is certainly the best of the lot, it’s a strong and confident song (appropriate, considering its subject) that wonderfully marries music, narrative, characterisation and pacing in precisely the way a musical number should and some of the rhymes are a lot of fun. The only problem is that the song skips over all of Mulan’s training, which is good in terms of pacing the story, but unfortunate considering that this could’ve been used to show Mulan’s development as a character, as well as the development of her relationships with Shang and her newfound friends; their sudden kindness and acceptance, as well as Mulan’s newfound competence, seem a little jarring considering where things started out before the song. To continue on this tangent, I personally feel that the training camp should’ve taken up the majority of the movie – this is really where we could’ve got to know Mulan and her comrades as characters, where we could’ve had her and Shang develop a romance, where we could’ve had a lot more opportunities for gags where Mulan has to hide her femininity; instead we skip over all these interesting ideas so we can rush Mulan into a big action scene. It’s disappointing, as I think this could’ve made for a much more interesting, character based film, but whatever; to get back on point, the song is great. 

‘I will play this exact same role three years later in Shrek, and there’s nothing you can do to stop me!!!’

“A Girl Worth Fighting For” sounds perhaps the most like a Gilbert and Sullivan or Rodgers and Hammerstein number, a very fun song with some funny lyrics: ‘How ‘bout a girl who’s got a brain, who always speaks her mind?’ ‘...Nah.’ Perhaps the best part of the song is the abrupt ending, which features the most awkward cut since the death of Bambi’s mother is followed by jovial birds singing. This time things are flipped around as the chirpy and light-hearted song is suddenly interrupted by the image of a entire village burned to the ground by the Huns; this is a fantastic use of the musical format to play with audience expectations and create drama, in a way I have rarely seen done elsewhere, truly a very powerful moment.

On the whole, Mulan is an enjoyable and well-constructed film, though one lacking a little in substance. It succeeds enough in what it is trying to accomplish to be considered satisfying, but not enough to be emotionally involving; the characters are decent, but underdeveloped, the story is good, but the aspects that have the potential to be the most interesting are underutilised, the songs are fun, but too few and somewhat poorly placed. Mulan is by no means a bad film, or even an average one, at any other point in Disney history I would probably consider it very good indeed, but at the tail end of the Renaissance, we’ve seen these kinds of ideas done a little too often and too often, better. 

Other Thoughts:

• When Mulan suits up to go off to war, it plays like a scene from a goofy 80’s action movie, complete with this hilariously inappropriate synth music, it’s amazing. 

‘Groovy’

• I usually don’t like “modern day anachronisms in the Ancient World” gags but I gotta admit, this one is pretty funny.

He just looks so pleased

7/10

Next Week: Tarzan!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds