45. Home on the Range (2004)

Home on the Range single-handedly killed Disney’s 2D animation department for five years and nearly spelled the end for all traditional, western animation; to be honest, to talk about it any further seems kind of redundant. Okay, okay, to be fair “single-handedly” is a little extreme, Disney had slowly been growing disillusioned with their traditionally animated films since the end of the Renaissance and the huge disappointment of Treasure Planet is really what started pushing them towards fully computer animated movies. With the subsequent disappointment of Brother Bear, it can be argued that the similarly poor reaction to Home on the Range was simply the final nail in the coffin for Disney’s traditionally animated films, but boy, what a big nail it was.

Regardless of how much it had to do with the decline of traditional animation, the animation in Home on the Range is hardly anything all that bad; things are smooth and detailed and everything you really come to expect from Disney, there’s nothing really all that wrong with it and there are some good sequences. However, the animation really lacks any sense of life or joy, it can be very over-the-top and kooky, but it all seems hollow and awkward, you can feel through the drawings that despite the time and effort they were putting into it, the animators didn’t really care about bringing these characters to life, so they fail to do so; the screen is populated with soulless husks who simply play their parts, rather than become truly immersed in them. This is especially strange, considering that Home on the Range seems to want to be a goofy, over-the-top comedy in the style of earlier Disney films, or, to a lesser extent, a slightly cuter version of The Emperor’s New Groove; why then, if the film is supposed to be fun and zany, is the animation so dull? It’s not like there isn’t a lot of exaggerated movement or cartoony expressions, or bright colours, or stylised character designs, but it just feels like something is missing; Home on the Range is like a sad clown, it walks out on stage and puts on its act with a smile on its face, but behind the scenes, it takes no joy in what it’s doing.

Yeah, this is a cool image. Well done guys

The story follows a trio of sassy cows who have to learn to work together to save their farm by defeating a flamboyant, yodelling cattle rustler. It’s as stupid as it sounds. Like all the worst Disney movies, Home on the Range’s greatest flaw is its reliance on filler, frequently diverting attention from its main “plot” to indulge in random, pointless scenes intended purely to stretch out the already short running time, displaying an utter lack of care for its story or characters. The film is paced awfully, it drops you into things way too quickly, without taking the proper time to establish its characters or setting and since it never stops jumping all over the place, it means that it can never take the time to really establish these things later, either; as a result, you never really care about what’s going on or who’s doing what. Though the film does establish its conflict – the farm the animals live on is going to be sold, so they have to raise money to save it – quickly, perhaps a little too quickly, it spends most of its running time meandering around this point, demonstrating how little confidence it has in its own story and ability to keep the audience invested through that alone, a justified concern, considering just how terribly this flimsy attempt for a story is handled. Like The Aristocats, Dinosaur and Brother Bear, the film effectively consists of a long journey that, instead of featuring interesting characters and situations along the way, just runs a single idea into the ground for as long as it can. However, unlike those movies, which end up feeling slow and empty, this feels way too fast and overstuffed, as rather than have almost nothing happen to its characters, way too much happens; the film is packed to the brim with stuff, it’s just that none of that stuff is relevant to the story OR entertaining on any level. Honestly, half the time I had to really take a look at what I was watching and actively question what was going on, so much stuff is completely random and makes no sense, the movie is way too hyperactive, with no sense of direction or purpose, it’s just a lot of stuff happening. Home on the Range seems to be under the impression that if it’s just weird and doesn’t make sense, it will labelled as having a “quirky” or “off-the-wall” sense of humour, like The Emperor’s New Groove, however, they fail to realise that unless they actually connect these scenes properly and write them with a level of competence, they aren’t going to ironically not make sense, they’re just not going to make sense.

Similarly, the film suffers from an incredibly juvenile sense of humour, again believing that as long as it has weird and “quirky” characters it can get away with not actually writing funny jokes or genuine character traits. Home on the Range seems to want quite desperately to be a DreamWorks animated movie, most likely as an attempt by Disney to compete with DreamWorks’ more offbeat and irreverent comedies which had begun to dominate the animated film market at this point; consequently, Home on the Range populates itself with gross “adult” humour which is actually very childish, such as burping, farting and boob jokes, incredibly lazy puns and nonsensical modern references. Even the musical score seems to be making fun of its terrible jokes, with loads of goofy sound effects accompanying the punch lines, seemingly commenting on how stupid these lines are; I can almost see Alan Menken in the recording studio thinking ‘How am I supposed to write a musical cue for a cow saying “yes they’re real” about its udders? I guess I just play a wah-wah effect because it’s so dumb? ...I need a new job.’ Whether or not Disney can ever pull off this “edgier” style is a matter of opinion, but I think it’s safe to say they definitively fail to do so in this instance. This hyperactive pacing and consistently obnoxious sense of humour means that there is almost never a quiet moment, the characters are constantly riffing or doing something stupid or the music is blaring, it just never stops and this quickly becomes exhausting and frustrating; the film doesn’t seem to understand the importance of taking a quiet moment to build atmosphere, or let a joke sink in, or develop genuine relationships amongst its characters. This means that even when the movie does provide a decent joke (few that there are), it walks all over the delivery and kills its own punch line; few movies are so masochistically self-destructive and Home on the Range seems so enamoured with its own ineptitude that it sabotages itself any time it might even produce a nanosecond of entertainment.

Yosemite Sam really let himself go

The cast of Dinosaur might be Disney’s most boring and undeveloped, but the cast of Home on the Range may be its most hateful. Our heroine, Maggie is little more than an annoying braggart, without any of the comedic possibilities; everything about her, from her facial expressions to her voice, is a pure and undiluted irritant, every time she speaks it makes my skin crawl. All she does is make stupid puns, complain about the other characters and act smug, she is entirely unlikeable. There is a painfully obvious attempt to make her “tough” and “cool” and give her a no-nonsense “attitude” so that she’s down with the kids!!!! (Another attempt at aping DreamWorks, specifically the character of Shrek) Why Disney thought kids would think, of all things, a chubby cartoon cow voiced by Roseanne Barr is cool, I have no idea; she is intolerable. Mrs. Calloway is a stuffy, joyless stick in the mud, like Zazu or Sebastian except without any of the likeability; she is a bore and a nuisance, who seems intent on making things even less fun than they already are, with her only endearing attribute being that she seems to dislike Maggie as much as I do. Grace is the closest the film has to a likeable character, in that she’s just kind of friendly and nice and is voiced by Jennifer Tilly, who just possesses an inherent charm; she doesn’t have anything else to her, no, but at least she isn’t insanely annoying like the others. In most Disney movies, the dull, friendly character is the least interesting, being flanked by a group of more fun and lively side characters; the fact that Grace is the most watchable character of the movie speaks volumes to how charmless this cast is. 

Besides the main trio, there is Buck, a stupid, narcissistic horse who wants to become a hero of the frontier but proves himself completely inept at every turn; this is honestly a legitimately funny idea for a character and there are all sorts of humorous situations he could get into, parodying classic western stars like Clint Eastwood or John Wayne. Instead, Buck is, like all the other characters, an unsuccessful DreamWorks rip-off, effectively just being a meaner and impossibly, even more irritating version of Donkey from Shrek. With his performance, Cuba Gooding Jr. seems to be channelling Chris Tucker, while doing a vocal impression of Chris Rock (he almost seems to predict Rock’s terrible zebra character from the Madagascar series); Buck is a rehash of a character type that was, depressingly, all too common in the early 2000’s, in films such as the aforementioned Shrek, as well as things like the Rush Hour series. In any other movie, the goofy, yammering, little sidekick, Lucky Jack, would be “The Hooter”; in this one, he’s par for the course. Do I really need to say anymore? Alameda Slim is, surprise, surprise, an entirely unimpressive and pathetic villain, being played as deliberately silly and comical rather than threatening, but without any of the necessary qualities to you know, ACTUALLY BE FUNNY. He’s not even in the movie very much but when he is, he adds absolutely nothing of value, comedic or otherwise; plus, he kinda looks like Ratcliffe, which is never a good thing.

Samurai Buck

Following the format of the last few films, most of the songs here aren’t traditional musical numbers, they’re just songs sung over the action; unlike most of the last few films, however, the songs here feel completely unnecessary, they do not exist to actually add anything to the movie, they are just there to fill time. Unsurprisingly then, little to no care is put into any of these songs, whose very existence demonstrates how few ideas Disney had for this movie. The only legitimate musical number the movie has and the only one that ties in at all to narrative or characterisation is “Yodel-Adle-Eedle-Idle-Oo” (it hurt me to even write that), a villain song which is just... dumb. There is at least an attempt to have some clever lyricism, but this is abandoned quickly as the songwriters clearly lacked enough wit or imagination to continue; in fact, any sense of creativity is abandoned, as it stops being an original song and just becomes the villain yodelling to famous classical pieces, that’s how lazy this song is. This number comes out of nowhere, doesn’t fit the tone of the situation whatsoever and goes as soon as it came, with little acknowledgement to how bizarre and ill-fitting it was, as if it never happened at all. To cut a long story short, it stinks.

I don’t even know where to start with this one, other than to say that there is almost nothing whatsoever to like about it. The animation isn’t technically bad and some of the jokes have a good conception, but bad follow through; that’s honestly all the positivity I can muster for this strange and stupid movie. The pacing is terrible, the characters insufferable, the music superfluous, the humour nauseating; this movie is simply unpleasant. Is it quite as bad as its reputation suggests? Probably not, but at the end of the day it’s extremely easy to see why this miserable failure of a comedy did so much damage to Disney’s already waning reputation, it’s a complete mess.

2/10

Next Week: Chicken Little!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

44. Brother Bear (2003)

After the enormous disappointment of Treasure Planet, Disney desperately needed a hit, something to remind audiences who they were, what they were capable of and that their era of creativity didn’t end with the Renaissance; unfortunately, all they offer was Brother Bear. Though significantly more commercially successful than Treasure Planet, Brother Bear received an even more savage critical reception, dismissed for its lacklustre story and tendency to copy other, more successful Disney films. Though largely remembered as a bit of a joke today, Brother Bear is not a film without merit, as it does have a few good points.

The first thing to note about the visual style of the movie is that it changes about twenty-five minutes in – the first act of the movie is smaller in scale, with less complex environments, muted colours, rounded, but relatively simple character designs similar to those of the human characters in Lilo & Stitch and a more relaxed, realistic use of animation. However, once Kenai is transformed into a bear, the film shifts into anamorphic widescreen, looking much wider and grander, with very bright colours, sweeping, detailed environments and much livelier, more personable designs for the animal characters; I must say, this is an interesting move which makes sense within the context of the story and helps to show off just how much effort was put into the visuals. The colours are the film’s greatest asset, they are so vibrant and rich they practically leap off the screen and when combined with the detailed character designs and wonderful backgrounds, they make a picture that’s more than easy on the eyes. Though computer animation is present, it’s thankfully not as omnipresent as it was in Treasure Planet and much more focus is placed on the beautiful hand drawn characters and environments; Brother Bear might not do anything experimental or revolutionary with its animation, but it’s hard to deny how good it looks.

An appropriate response to being with this kid, to be honest

The story is regrettably a little lacking in comparison, especially in terms of novelty; it is effectively the story of The Emperor’s New Groove, but played seriously, rather than for comedy – an irresponsible and flawed young man learns the value of love, patience and companionship after he is transformed into an animal and forced to befriend those that he previously looked down upon, shaking his preconceived notions about the world. Additionally, the idea of nature being interconnected and everything being part of the Circle of Life has been addressed before in Pocahontas and The Lion King, as has the examination of life in nature from a different perspective and the possibility that it might be man who is the true monster, in Bambi. Most of the film’s story borrows far too liberally from previous Disney movies and it doesn’t tackle any of these ideas differently or better enough to really warrant this. It doesn’t do so with nearly the same level of delicacy or maturity either, showing nature as a perfect wonderland where all animals get along and have a good time, where bears can be friends with chipmunks and man is the only enemy, in stark contrast to the harshly realistic depiction of the natural world in Bambi; Brother Bear is too childish and unrealistic in its delivery to incorporate such complex ideas.

Other than that, the narrative is rather flimsy and uneventful, it’s just a long walk from one spot to another, like in Dinosaur (yet another earlier Disney movie it takes from) and just like in that movie, very little actually happens to our heroes along the way, so the film is full of long, boring segments with no real action. This would be forgivable if the movie took these long, quiet segments as opportunities to develop the relationship between the main characters but, as I’ll address more later, they don’t really do this either; the writers don’t really seem like they knew what they wanted to do, it seems that they had a good idea for the beginning and ending of the movie, but had no idea how to fill the middle, so just stretched a couple of scenes out for as long as they could.  Even when the film does get going and give us meaningful interactions between the characters, they can often be a little schmaltzy and overemotional; to be honest, we have seen much worse from Disney, but Brother Bear’s writing is too uninspired and its themes too obvious.

Moose goofs

With such a thin plot, this is the kind of movie that depends heavily on its characters to keep things entertaining, but the cast here is just as thin as the story which surrounds them. Kenai does have a bit more personality than some Disney protagonists, but this doesn’t make him especially likeable; the central arc of the movie is his development from an arrogant and stubborn boy who unfairly hates bears into a more mature and understanding man who realises that all living things deserve our respect and kindness. Though a perfectly reasonable concept for a central character, this means that, prior to this change in perspective, Kenai unfortunately spends a lot of the movie as a grumpy, unfriendly killjoy and since this isn’t a comedy, it can’t be over exaggerated and played for laughs in the same way that Kuzco’s personality can, meaning that for much of the movie, Kenai isn’t easy to warm up to, a big problem for a film that is so centred around its main character. Koda is annoying, granted he is supposed to be, but that doesn’t make him any less annoying; he’s a lazy child character, hyperactive, chatty, overly cutesy, there just really isn’t any substance to his character whatsoever. Koda exists purely as a plot device to guide Kenai to the mountain and, ultimately, show him that he was wrong to hate bears and that there is more to them than he thinks. The most important part of the film should be the relationship between Kenai and Koda, how they grow to care about and understand one another, despite their differences; however, as I said before, the development of this relationship is lacking, being mostly skipped over through a couple of song montages, as Kenai goes from finding Koda insufferably annoying to suddenly considering him his brother. This shift in perspective is abrupt and doesn’t feel genuine or earned, leaving Koda feeling like more of a prop than an actual character and what is supposedly the film’s most important aspect feeling hollow and incomplete.

The two Moose (Mooses? Meese? I dunno) are fairly unfunny comic relief, they are close to being “The Hooters” of the film, but aren’t quite  annoying or unhelpful enough to really qualify. They aren’t as harmful as they could be and at times Rick Moranis’ delivery can crack a smile, but they are just so disconnected from the other characters and the story; every time they have a scene, it’s just to play goofy dialogue off each other to keep the kids entertained, to put in the trailer and to drag out the running time, their scenes don’t have any connection to the story at large and they barely even interact with the other characters, so they just feel like filler. This is the third Disney film in a row to not really have a real villain, as once again, the “bad guy” is simply a normal person who finds himself in conflict with the heroes and eventually sees the error of his ways. In this case it is Kenai’s brother, Denahi, who finds himself consumed by rage and vengeance after he believes Kenai was killed by a bear and embarks on a quest to kill the bear at any cost, not knowing that the bear he is hunting is actually Kenai himself. To the film’s credit, this is handled very well; Denahi makes only a few appearances after Kenai is transformed, but every time he does, things quickly become very tense, giving him a presence which inspires genuine fear and apprehension in the characters and, to some extent, the audience. His slow descent into rage and hatred is shown nicely by the subtle changes in his animation, as he gradually grows more unkempt and dishevelled, his facial expressions become hard and cold and his eyes dark and brooding. Though by now the idea of an antagonist who is not necessarily a villain is not a novel one and the idea of man as an oblivious monster in the eyes of the animal kingdom has been explored in Bambi and, to a lesser extent, The Fox and the Hound, Brother Bear still does a perfectly fine job of it, this being one the few things it actually does really well.

Denahi looks kinda like young Shan-Yu, is this in the same universe as Mulan!?!
Someone call Buzzfeed right now this is breaking news!!!!!!!!!!!

Brother Bear is not a standard musical, as the songs are simply sung over the action to narrate what’s going on and describe the thoughts and feelings of the characters, in the same way as in Tarzan, which is unsurprising, considering Phil Collins wrote most of the songs for this film as well. The opening song, “Great Spirits”, sets the tone, as a laughably goofy and over-the-top number lacking in any sense of atmosphere or subtlety; things are basically the same from then on. “On My Way” is also corny and goofy, very much in the same style as the songs from Tarzan, but also in the same way as those, it’s charming just how silly it is; I know it’s not a very good song, but I like to listen to it anyway. “Welcome” is also lame and silly, but without any of the charm, it’s just pretty bad. Finally, “No Way Out” is similar to “You’ll Be in My Heart” from Tarzan, a slow and overly sentimental song that just pushes the level of corniness too far, even for Phil Collins; though this tone is appropriate for the scene it plays over, the song is so goofy that it draws you out of the moment and does more to take away from the film’s mood than to add to it. This is a small and weak collection of songs, but the musical score is much better and fits the tone and setting of the film perfectly, salvaging a lot of the slower moments in the story by giving you something to listen to, even if there isn’t much to look at.

Brother Bear is an okay movie, forgettable, but nothing all that bad. Stylistically, it's a strong effort, as its colours and backgrounds look gorgeous and the music (if not the actual songs) works in tandem with the visuals to create a powerful sense of setting and life. Unfortunately, it is the main substance where the film falters; its story is unoriginal and flat – when you really think about it, not much happens at all, making it very hard for it to keep you engaged – and the characters are dull and not particularly likeable, with their interactions feeling too brief and unnatural. Despite some impressive visuals and a nice message, Brother Bear is mostly a bit of a bore and certainly not the hit that Disney so greatly needed.

5.5/10

Next Week: Home on the Range!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

43. Treasure Planet (2002)

In the same year as Lilo & Stitch, Disney released their third sci-fi themed film in a row, Treasure Planet, an adaptation of the classic novel Treasure Island, which the action transplanted into space, rather than the high seas. At this point, it became clear that Disney was slipping further and further away from what had made them so universally popular again, as Treasure Planet was yet another financial disappointment, becoming the biggest box office bomb in the Disney animated canon. Though the film was not without merit, a few glaring problems make it pretty easy to see why Treasure Planet didn’t do so well.

The animation is good, though rarely anything better than that; the character designs, particularly those of the few human characters, are done in a very conventional Disney style, similar to those of the Renaissance, particularly Tarzan – the aliens do all look very different and nobody looks especially bad, but there are no stand-out designs either. One of the film’s greatest faults, unfortunately, is its huge overreliance on computer animation; Disney has proved with its last couple of films that they are more than capable of blending computer animation with traditional animation, while still keeping things looking fluid and real, but they fail to do so in this particular instance. The textures are blocky and unpolished, with little detail or definition, movement feels stilted and unnatural and the huge ships which are clearly supposed to evoke wonder as they sail through space instead look like clunky, unfinished models; when these poorly animated objects and environments are placed beside the well-animated 2D characters, it highlights just how bad they look and really takes you out of the movie. There are some skilled uses of computer animation, such as Long John Silver’s cybernetic arm, but they are few and far between, so most of the movie is just not fun to look at, which becomes a big problem considering how many of the film’s larger set-pieces rely on you being awestruck by visuals which are entirely uninspiring.

Totally... uh, slightly radical

The basic story of Treasure Island is of course, one we all know, so the intrigue comes from how well the film approaches the sci-fi theme; unfortunately, the answer is “not very well.” Though the film takes place in a futuristic, intergalactic setting, it also tries to blend this with the swashbuckling, 18^th Century setting of the original novel; this means that instead of technologically advanced space ships, we have standard naval ships complete with sails and rigging just floating through space. Though not inherently a bad idea, this kind of steampunk combination between past and future technology – clearly reminiscent of the similar setting of Atlantis: The Lost Empire – is awkwardly handled; I can’t quite explain it, but it just doesn’t feel right and I think they should have simply stuck to one idea, either tell the story of Treasure Island as it is, or set it in a fully futuristic, sci-fi world. With the film unable to decide between either idea and equally unable to find a comfortable balance between the two, it just feels schizophrenic, at one point showcasing wild intergalactic adventures with wacky aliens and hover boards and a minute later showing people unfurling sails and swabbing decks like a scene right out of Moby Dick. Instead of cutting the cord and letting one setting stand on its own, Treasure Planet greedily tries to have its cake and eat it too and as a result, both ideas suffer.

The characters are at the heart of the film, though very few of them play a big role in the action. Jim is a typical teenage hero, he’s rebellious, but isn’t a bad kid, he’s cheeky, but not arrogant, he does poorly at school, but is street smart, he’s roguish and charming, but has a sensitive side; he takes a lot of inspiration from other characters, particularly Aladdin, who he even takes specific facial expressions from. He has a degree of attitude and style, though like early Disney protagonists, he does have a tendency to kind of stand by the sidelines and let others drive the story, at least until the final act, where he gets more directly involved with what’s going on. The best part about Jim is the fact that he is given a simple, but effective back story and sense of motivation, something which is often lacking in Disney heroes; though main characters in Disney movies are often left orphans or are missing a parent, it is usually because their parents died or they were separated, never before has it been that their parent simply walked out on them, as is the case with Jim, who was abandoned by his father. This is a realistic and harsh scenario, evoking a genuine sympathy for Jim, as well as giving legitimate reasons for his need to rebel and lack of self-esteem; he clearly feels that if he’d been good enough, his father wouldn’t have left him, building a strong inferiority complex in him which we see crop up throughout the film, before finally being vanquished in the climax. Though these issues aren’t always portrayed as well as they could be in the film proper, they are in themselves a welcome change from what we’re used to.

The Iron Chef

The side characters are a strange lot, as they mostly dominate the first half of the movie, only to drop out of sight almost entirely for the second half. Dr. Doppler sways between being slightly humorous and outright annoying and in my opinion, his role as the bumbling, awkward, intellectual sidekick is a tired one that really doesn’t need to be here; the film itself almost seems to agree with this, as despite having a lot of focus early on, he practically disappears at the end of the first act. Thankfully, he’s a lot easier to handle after this point as he only appears now and again, so despite a few uncomfortably bad jokes, he’s mostly not so bad. Captain Amelia is a reasonably good, if underutilised character, she has a quick wit and a sharp tongue which works effectively when she is pitted against the other characters and she’s well voiced by Emma Thompson; though like Doppler, she falls into the background about halfway through, she is enjoyable to watch while she is around, particularly her movements and animation, which are fluid, acrobatic and, appropriately enough, feline. B.E.N, however, is a textbook example of “The Hooter”: a loud, clumsy, obnoxious, inhuman sidekick, who constantly blabbers on, is involved in painfully unfunny comedy and repeatedly screws up and causes problems for the heroes; in this regard he is probably worse than any we’ve ever seen, as his unnecessary interference almost  gets Jim killed multiple times! B.E.N really is a pain and though not as much of an irritant as he could’ve been, as he only appears in the final act, it certainly doesn’t help that he seems to be included purely from a marketing standpoint, his existence practically screams “I WAS CREATED FOR A MCDONALD’S HAPPY MEAL TOY TIE-IN”; the very core of his nature is an insult and he’s a pest whenever he’s on screen, for the characters and the audience.

Most notable is Long John Silver, who is relatively complex, for a Disney villain; though his motivation of wanting the treasure for himself initially seems rather weak, it soon becomes clear that he is not so much motivated by greed and wealth, but by a lifelong dream which has turned into a ruthless obsession, compounded by his insatiable need to win. It is obvious that Silver was once like Jim, a wide-eyed young boy who dreamed of being the first person to discover the legendary Treasure Planet, but after years of disappointment and failure, he was transformed into a selfish and bitter man who was willing to do whatever it takes to finally get what he felt he was owed; it is here that we find the most interesting part about this villain, namely, his relationship with the hero. Jim becomes like a surrogate son to Silver, who sees himself in the boy and develops a soft spot for him; as a result, the two share a lot of powerful moments which address the nature of parental abandonment, self-loathing, personal potential, free will and morality, all of which are handled maturely and humbly. Through his relationship with Jim, Silver is ultimately redeemed, something we have yet to really see from a Disney villain, who tend to either be unquestionably evil monsters, or simply mean-spirited, ineffectual bullies; Silver has a moral ambiguity to him that is entirely original amongst his peers. In terms of his direct personality, he is delightfully slimy and two-faced, constantly sucking up to and manipulating people to get what he wants, while secretly having another agenda; on the other side of the coin, when he wants to be threatening, he can be, but it is clear he always has a gentleness underneath all the bluster, especially towards Jim – everything Silver does is an act, both his goody-two shoes persona and his vicious pirate persona are façades, with his real persona as a confident, but kindly old sailor only coming out in his more tender moments with Jim. He’s not the most memorable Disney villain and he’s not the most fun, but Silver is unique and surprisingly complex, which earns him points with me; his and Jim’s relationship is the highlight of the film.

Gotta have a disgui- oh no wait, he’s actually just a robot

Treasure Planet is a movie with its heart in the right place (save for a few more cynical marketing moves) but its head is lost in the clouds; it has high ambitions, but seems unsure of exactly what those ambitions are – does it want to be a reconstruction of the traditional Disney format, in the vein of the films of the Renaissance, a darker and more action-packed adventure in the vein of something like Atlantis, or something new altogether? Ultimately, the film finds itself torn between all three, leaving it with a sense of identity crisis and a jarring lack of cohesion; there are some good ideas here, but they are too often played against other aspects which don’t follow the same tone or style. The relationship between the two central characters is capably handled, but the setting is messy; the character animation is skilful and conveys a lot of emotion, but the computer animated objects and environments almost single-handedly destroy any sense of wonder or immersion. Treasure Planet’s general attitude and new ideas make it difficult to dislike, but its numerous weaker elements prevent it from being anything all that special.


Other Thoughts:

• Forget the annoying robot, Hooter is that you!?

Could be his brother

6.5/10

Next Week: Brother Bear!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

42. Lilo & Stitch (2002)

After the disappointing performance of Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Disney bounced back with what was to be their only big success for years to come: Lilo & Stitch. One of the few Disney films to be set in the modern day, Lilo & Stitch combines extravagant, sci-fi action with a heartfelt, emotional story about family and purpose. It does tread some old ground, but for the first time in a few years and the last time for quite a few more, Disney managed to connect with audiences on an emotional level in the way only they can do.

The art style returns to Disney’s more traditional, rounded, smoother character designs, though the human characters of this movie do have a distinct look and the aliens all look very different and unique. The animation is, unsurprisingly, excellent; the character animation is excellent, sometimes kinetic and humorous, sometimes careful and used to express quiet emotion, the action scenes are excellent, the computer animation is excellent, it’s all excellent. The backgrounds are of particular note, returning to a watercolour look that Disney has not used for quite some time; the colours and painting are so soft, yet rich, the backgrounds almost seem to exist in a world of their own, independent of the characters. This style reminds me of Studio Ghibli movies, especially the later, 2009 film Ponyo, which shares a similar setting; in both these films, the backgrounds are a true work of art.

At first the story can seem rather tired, being about an alien who finds himself stranded on Earth and has to insert himself into the lives of a little girl and her sister, only to have them teach him the true meaning of family and what it means to belong. We have seen this story of the outsider who wants to find where they belong many times throughout the Disney Renaissance, but rarely is it done as well as it is here; like Beauty and the Beast, Lilo & Stitch focuses not on pushing its moral, but rather on developing its characters, allowing the audience to infer the message and themes of the film from the struggles they go through. Again, like Beauty and the Beast, the film shows us two characters that are viewed as outcasts, simply because they are different, who cannot reconcile their feelings about themselves with the role that society has decided they should play – Lilo as the weirdo and Stitch as the monster; initially, they seem to give into the roles they have been given, but slowly come to realise that they are not a good fit. Unlike something like The Hunchback of Notre Dame, the movie is not about proving this to others, but simply to themselves, they want to feel like they belong to a family, something which Stitch has never had and which Lilo has had tragically taken from her. Though the film addresses some familiar themes, it does it so expertly and with such a unique cast of characters that it probably does a better job than any of the previous Disney movies that tackle this idea, except Beauty and the Beast.

Creepy Lilo

The film’s Hawaiian setting is also of note, as not only does it make sense within the context of the story – Stitch lands on an island with no major cities and cannot swim, so he is trapped in a place where he physically cannot fulfil his destructive purpose – but also allows for some beautiful scenery, interesting uses of character and culture and great music, all of which are completely new to the Disney animated canon. The film is also well paced and well structured, with a solid character arc which remains entertaining and consistent throughout; everything that happens makes sense and each scene follows on logically from the one before. The movie is also very funny! There is a great sense of comic timing here, the animators know just how long a character should hold a stare, or pause before reacting, leading to a lot of sudden jokes which hit hard and fast, catching you off guard. There are also a lot of good character-based jokes, as all the major characters have very specific personalities which afford for humorous dialogue and equally humorous interactions with the other characters. Though it’s not as overtly comical as The Emperor’s New Groove, Lilo & Stitch is, in many ways, just as funny and as a film which is not purely a comedy, it perfectly balances the moments of brevity with the more serious, emotional scenes; from a purely structural standpoint, Lilo & Stitch is pretty much perfect.

The characters are a colourful and naturally likeable bunch; there are very few stereotypes here and the ones that at first seem to be old clichés are actually used in a way that we’re not used to seeing in Disney movies. Like Beauty and the Beast, the two title characters of Lilo & Stitch share the role of protagonist, as the movies devotes equal time to the both of them, as well as their growing friendship. Lilo is, without question, the best child character Disney has ever done; kids in Disney movies tend to either be overly cutesy and annoying, or just bland and... well, still annoying. Instead of a stereotype of a kid, Lilo actually behaves like a real kid – she can be a brat and pushes her sister in terms of what she can get away with, but it doesn't mean she’s a bad kid, she’s just acting out for attention; she’s cute, but without being too saccharine, her behaviour and mannerisms are just naturally sweet; she’s curious and insightful for her age, but is still naive and inexperienced. Most notable is how she’s a weird kid that doesn’t fit in with her peers, but not in a generic “outcast in a Disney movie” way; we are expected to accept that characters like Hercules and Pocahontas don’t fit in, for very superficial and undeveloped reasons, but Lilo’s mannerisms are so realistic and skilfully conveyed that we immediately and completely understand why she’s an outcast. Everyone knew a kid like this growing up (and if they didn’t, it’s probably because they were this kid), she’s always just a little off from everyone else – she can’t afford the same dolls that all the other girls play with, so she makes her own, but it just doesn’t look right; she starts fights with little provocation, but then tries to be friends with the very same person she just attacked, seemingly unaware of the fact that these people don’t consider her their friend; she is not a freak or a bad person, she is just a very confused little girl. There is a scene where Lilo tells Stitch that she knows that the reason he wrecks things and pushes people away is because he is lonely; she may as well be talking about herself, her character is a heartbreakingly truthful deconstruction of the idea of the “weird kid”. Lilo has a lot of personality, her weird ideas and off-kilter wit are charming and her awkward reactions and sense of timing are legitimately very funny. Daveigh Chase does a fantastic job in bringing this character to life, especially considering how young she was at the time; consequently, Lilo sounds just like a real little girl and it’s impossible not to grow to care about her.

Stitch runs afoul of Earth’s most dangerous predator 

Stitch is also very likeable, he’s just a ball of crazy energy that’s always doing weird stuff and often in very strange and inventive ways, such as moving around by sticking his legs into his mouth and rolling around like a ball. He’s such a little monster and he’s always causing trouble, but that’s why he’s so much fun to watch; even when he becomes a “good guy”, as it were, he still mocks and taunts his enemies and seems to derive an almost sadistic glee from humiliating and hurting them. He also shares a sense of awkwardness with Lilo, as well as the obvious fact that he doesn’t fit in on Earth because he’s an alien; they are both weird, misunderstood and undervalued, but do have things they are good at, even if they are a little unusual or unexpected – from Lilo’s sense of imagination and creativity, to Stitch’s skill with a guitar – and deep down they just want to be loved. Stitch also spends about half of the movie in a state of legitimate depression and existential crisis, questioning his purpose and place in the world and whether or not he should be alive at all; this is conveyed very seriously, delicately and mostly without even any dialogue, with a level of depth and honesty rarely seen in films intended for children. It never gets too heavy or melancholy, but you really feel for Stitch as you can see just how much pain and confusion he’s in; for a character who is so wild and crazy and who barely has any dialogue, Stitch is very well-rounded and both sides of his personality are equally interesting – when he’s a monster, he’s a REAL monster and a ton of fun, but when he’s more tender, he’s genuinely endearing and sympathetic and like Lilo, you really feel for him.

The side characters are also well constructed; Nani is another character that could have easily been poorly handled, but is instead presented so sincerely that she avoids becoming the very obvious and easy cliché she could have been. She can be a bit of a kill-joy and is bossy towards Lilo and Stitch, but only because she has to be; she is frustrated that Lilo seems incapable of understanding just how close her behaviour has brought them to being separated, but at the same time, she understands that it’s unfair to expect Lilo to understand – after all, she’s only a kid and she shouldn’t have to deal with this kind of stuff, yet. But of course, Nani is barely more than a kid herself and it’s implied that she’s had to skip at least part of her childhood to raise Lilo, after they lost their parents, which isn’t fair on her, either; her struggle is believable and incredibly sympathetic, as all she wants is to do what’s right for her sister, but the world just keeps putting obstacles in her way. Like Lilo and Stitch, she finds it difficult to play the role that the world has forced on her, that of a mother: as Lilo says, ‘I like you better as a sister than as a mom’; she isn’t ready for that kind of responsibility yet, but because of what happened, she has no choice. Her interactions with Lilo are also refreshingly realistic, from their sisterly quarrels to their moments of playfulness and understanding, with little quirks and reactions that we can imagine built up over the course of their lives; there is a great scene where Lilo runs away from Nani, who instantly knows that she is hiding in the tumble dryer and very carefully lays out a trap for her sister, tricking her into catching herself. Small things like this go such a long way in developing genuine relationships and back stories, I cannot stress this enough; it is such a short scene, but it tells us so much about these characters, how well they know each other and what their lives have been like before we met them. The character of the bossy older sister is so rarely done well in kid’s movies and Nani is one of the very few that is done so perfectly.

Newest candidate for most amazing shot in film history

Jumba and Pleakley are the biggest source of comic relief and are, in some ways, a pretty traditional villainous double-act, though they too break tradition by not really being bad people and eventually becoming friends with the heroes.  They play off each other well and at times function almost like an old married couple, with the more masculine, impulsive and reckless Jumba constantly being nagged by the more feminine, anxious and rational Pleakley, especially evidenced by the fact that Jumba disguises himself as a man and Pleakley as a woman. They both have good voice actors behind them, especially Pleakley, who is voiced by Kids in the Hall member Kevin McDonald, who brings a sense of fervent panic and laughable incompetence to the character. Cobra Bubbles is cool and intimidating and his serious and unflappable demeanour makes for a lot of good gags, particularly the fact that his ridiculous name is so at odds with his tough exterior that he is visibly embarrassed saying it. Despite essentially being an antagonistic force towards Nani and Lilo, as he threatens to split them apart, he is not a bad guy; again, in most kid’s movies, this guy would be a stuck-up, stuffy bureaucrat who seems obsessed with splitting up the sisters just to be mean. However, Bubbles is a reasonable and good-intentioned authority figure who is clearly upset by the idea of taking Lilo away, as he knows Nani cares about her sister, he just has legitimate concerns about her ability to take care of her; neither Bubbles nor Nani are in the wrong and neither of them are the bad guy, they’re just two good people in a bad situation trying to do what they think is right and they both have very valid points. Similarly, the Grand Councilwoman is an antagonistic force towards Stitch, but only because she is trying to protect the galaxy; like Bubbles, she is only trying to do what she thinks is right and when she is eventually convinced that Stitch has good in him and deserves to live, she allows him to do so.

Gantu is the closest the film has to a legitimate villain, but even he is not really evil, like Bubbles and the Grand Councilwoman he is just trying to do his job, though he does seem to take a little too much joy in capturing Lilo and Stitch. Unfortunately, though it is mostly interesting to have a Disney movie where the heroes are faced by antagonistic forces who are not especially villainous, in the case of Gantu, it does kind of work more to the film’s detriment than its credit, as though Stitch’s rescue of Lilo is exciting, Gantu’s lack of development as a real villain means that his defeat doesn’t really feel all that satisfying or conclusive; still, this is one of, if not the only real time that the film stumbles, so it’s very easy to forgive. The film doesn’t really need a specific villain, as one of its messages seems to be that there is no such thing as good or bad people, just good and bad situations and when people find themselves in the latter, they just have to make the most of things and do the best they can, which will sometimes bring them into conflict with others. As said before, none of the characters who oppose Lilo and Stitch are especially bad people, they’re just doing what they think is right and ultimately, are persuaded otherwise, when the titular duo prove to them that, despite what appearances might suggest, they are a part of a happy and functional family that doesn’t need outside interference.

Jumba and Pleakley, about to finally kiss

Lilo & Stitch is once again not a traditional musical, but instead features a number of songs which play over the action, some original and some pre-existing. Unlike Tarzan, for example, the songs do not exist to describe the action, but instead exist purely to evoke emotion and create atmosphere; thankfully, this means there are no goofy lyrics or redundant, simplistic narration, they’re just nice songs. The use of Hawaiian music, as well as the songs of Elvis Presley, compliment the film’s setting and style appropriately and work well for a number of montages, as well as an especially powerful section of the film where Lilo, Stitch, Nani and their friend David go surfing, a sequence which runs a gambit of emotions, from apprehension, to childlike wonder, to pained loneliness, to ecstatic joy; truly one of the movie’s best moments, which could not exist without the great song “Hawaiian Rollercoaster Ride” behind it. The score is by veteran composer Alan Silvestri and at times sounds suspiciously similar to his score from Back to the Future, but of course, this is in no way a bad thing; Silvestri is a master of his art and his music fosters empathy, hope and exhilaration as well here as in anything he’s ever done.

Lilo & Stitch is a movie at the top of its game; it knows exactly what it’s doing and practically never drops the ball. The sci-fi stuff is cool and exciting, but it knows when to give way to the more emotional stuff and the emotional stuff never gets melancholic or serious enough to bring down the fun; it’s a perfect split between adventure and heart. The story is a thoughtful and admirably realistic take on some themes Disney has explored many times before, many of which it does better than any of its predecessors. With fun characters, cool music and awesome animation, Lilo & Stitch is a movie that fires on all cylinders; it’s an absolute delight.


9/10

Next Week: Treasure Planet!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

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