50. Tangled (2010)

After the golden age of the Renaissance, Disney just couldn’t seem to get back to the top, no matter what they tried; despite a couple of successes, namely Lilo and Stitch, the next ten years of films just failed to live up to audience expectations. Though The Princess and the Frog did manage to recapture the feeling of the Renaissance to a degree and was a moderate financial success, it still seemed to be missing something; then came Tangled, the film which finally brought back that feeling 100% and became Disney’s biggest hit in years. After ten long years of struggling with how to update the Disney formula, how to move on from the Renaissance while still keeping what was best about it and how to make computer animation work for them, Disney succeeded at last, as well as proving that it was more than worth the time and effort.

The film returns to computer animation, but for once I don’t say that with disappointment, as with Tangled Disney finally found a way to translate the style and personality of their 2D animation into 3D, combining new and old techniques to create something entirely original; it might not be like watching Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Fantasia for the first time, but Tangled does push the boundaries of animation more than anything we’ve seen from Disney in a long time. The film takes advantage of the unique attributes afforded by computer animation, allowing for highly realistic and detailed textures and lighting, the animation of the hair – particularly Rapunzel’s, obviously – is especially impressive; this makes Tangled so much more than just a regular Disney movie in 3D, it’s an entirely different animal with its own, unique strengths. The characters are perhaps the biggest improvement in terms of computer animation, they have great facial expressions, so much movement and energy, a lot of subtle touches to them that help strengthen their personalities; this is the kind of stuff that always sets apart a good Disney movie from a great one and sadly, it seemed to have been lost in their move to computer animation, so it’s truly satisfying to see it back. Tangled is the first computer animated movie from Disney that actually looks and feels like a real Disney movie and, as is the case with all the best Disney movies, you can really sense the effort and love put into every frame.

They just can’t get his nose right 

The story takes a lot of things we’ve come to expect from Disney, but utilises them at the highest level and combines them to create a story that still seems refreshing and new, a trend we will see in most facets of the film. Things are very well paced, opening up with a classic Disney introduction which sets up the story very quickly and then jumping into the action almost immediately and never really slowing down, except when it’s appropriate. Obviously it’s a matter of opinion, but I think the film goes by so quickly, especially considering this is one of Disney’s longer movies, not a single moment feels wasted, unnecessary, or even remotely boring, it’s non-stop fun from beginning to end. The movie combines action, adventure, comedy and romance in a perfect balance, debatably even better than Aladdin, which set the benchmark for this style of Disney film; the film isn’t lacking in any of these areas and is at the top of its game in absolutely all of them, never neglecting one aspect of the story or spending too much time on another, everything is just right. The action scenes are excellent and genuinely exciting, with some surprisingly good fight choreography for a Disney movie, the more emotional scenes are touching and the comedy is really strong – the physical humour is funny, the character interactions are funny, the dialogue is funny it’s just funny and without being cynical or sarcastic; much like Rapunzel herself, the film derives joy and humour simply from a pure and genuine desire to have fun.

If The Princess and the Frog was a return to the style of the Renaissance films, Tangled is for the Renaissance films what they themselves were for the early Disney classics – it takes what was good and, most importantly, timeless, about them and repurposes those aspects for a new time, while adding a few of its own new ideas for good measure; the result is a film that recaptures many of Disney’s most charming traditions and tropes, but still feels completely original. Tangled oozes with creativity and imagination and is never lazy or derivative with its ideas, in what other movie would you see a man sword fighting with a horse, using a frying pan? The film is able to acknowledge these quirks and eccentricities, but without being overly self-indulgent, which means that even in the most ridiculous of scenarios, the world of the film and the behaviour of its characters still feels totally real – it sucks you in right from the start and never lets you go.

The most dangerous game

Rapunzel is Disney’s best female protagonist since Belle and, even I have to admit, she may very well be an even better one. Rapunzel is brimming with personality, she’s sweet, optimistic, curious, adventurous, anxious and immensely likeable; practically every character in the movie warms to her after just a few minutes and it’s impossible to not do the same yourself. Though drawing on the “sheltered young girl who dreams of something more” character type common in the Renaissance, Rapunzel is not only given a better reason for these ambitions than most of her predecessors, but this is also only a single aspect to her personality; her dreams of exploration outside her tower serve only as the initial spark to her adventure and, despite her joy at finally realising her dream of seeing the lanterns, it quickly becomes clear that the journey is much more important than the destination. She also undergoes genuine character development, going from an overly cautious and jumpy young girl who has been browbeaten by her abusive mother into thinking that she’s worthless, to a strong and confident young woman who realises the necessity of taking charge of one’s own life. Though the circumstances of Rapunzel’s life are of course, fantastical, her having to grown up under the rule of a selfish and belittling parent is a very real problem for young people and, while the repercussions of this kind of parental abuse are not explored as fully as they could be – it is ultimately, a light-hearted film – it’s still exhilarating to see Rapunzel finally triumph over her controlling mother, in the same way that it is to see Quasimodo stand up to Frollo, a relationship that very much resembles this one. Determined, energetic and adorable, Rapunzel is one of Disney’s best protagonists.

Similarly, Flynn is one of Disney’s best love interests, so much so in fact, that it’s reductive to refer to him as such, as he exists as a great hero in his own right, with a personality and character arc entirely independent of his relationship with Rapunzel. Like Rapunzel, Flynn draws inspiration from a classic Disney character type, in this case, the “cheeky, loveable rogue”, such as Aladdin, Tramp, Baloo and even Naveen from the previous year’s The Princess and the Frog. However, like everything else in the movie, he transcends simply being a newer model of an old idea, by just how well his character is realised and how fun he is to watch. He’s daring, shallow, witty, loves to brag (though he’s always swiftly punished for doing so), but secretly has a sensitive side and suffers from insecurity issues and low self-esteem. We’ve seen this all before in some way or another, but everything about Flynn (or, Eugene Fitzherbert, which we learn to be his real name) from his animation, to his voice acting, to his exceptionally well written and funny dialogue is presented at such a high level that it hardly matters. Rapunzel and Flynn’s relationship is very possibly the best of any Disney movie, except for Belle and Beast; like those two, they start off at odds with one another, forced into a partnership that neither of them really feels comfortable with and somewhat unwilling to work together. As they get to know each other, however, they realise they have more in common than they thought and learn to bring out the best in one another, eventually falling in love. Again, this is classic stuff, but done so well that there’s nothing to complain about; I can’t even really put my finger on why it works so well, perhaps it’s simply because these two are so likeable on their own and for such similar reasons that they naturally go perfectly together, perhaps it’s because the moments the two are given together are so well written and paced and feel so down-to-earth and real, perhaps it’s some entirely independent and unidentifiable quality, I don’t know. What I do know is that, for whatever reason, it works and it works splendidly.

The happy couple

Maximus is a very strange and interesting idea for a character, a serious, determined horse that chases down Flynn with all the unstoppable tenacity of Tommy Lee Jones’ character in The Fugitive. Disney have proven time and again their natural skill at physical humour with silent characters and Maximus is no exception, his sharp and sudden movements and great facial expressions allow for a lot of great jokes and his interactions with Flynn in particular are very funny. Pascal works in the same kind of way, but is more calm and easygoing than the hot-blooded Maximus, though no less ruthless when it comes to defending Rapunzel. These two characters are fun and enjoyably cartoony in nature, but never upstage Rapunzel and Flynn, who rightfully remain the centre of attention. Mother Gothel is a fantastic villain that resembles aspects of many others, such as Frollo, the Evil Queen, Lady Tremaine and so on, but again, manages to also be a completely unique character. A narcissist who constantly throws passive aggressive swipes at her adopted (or rather, kidnapped) daughter to lower her self-esteem, obsessed with her own youth and beauty, incredibly over-dramatic, incapable of accepting responsibility or viewing herself in the wrong, she’s a great and actually realistically psychologically troubled villain, with a well constructed relationship with the hero. She has a strong and clear motivation, she’s always involved in the action, she’s fantastically animated, by the end of the movie Mother Gothel already feels like one of Disney’s classic villains. The side characters aren’t as prominent so that the film can focus on developing its core cast, but the ones that do appear, namely the thugs from the Snuggly Duckling, are at least relatively interesting and memorable.

The Princess and the Frog brought back the traditional musical format, but despite some very fun songs, they were a bit samey and the lyrics were not especially creative; Tangled brings back that delightful lyricism and while it doesn’t have as many songs, they are all very well written, distinct and memorable. “When Will my Life Begin” is a fun, poppy, song and a classic “I want” song for the protagonist in the vein of “Belle”, “Part of Your World” or “Out There”; it’s a good intro to Rapunzel’s character and the life she has led until now and quickly gets you into the upbeat mood and spirit of the film.  “Mother Knows Best” is by far the film’s best number, a classic Disney villain song and arguably one of the very best, with a catchy tune, really funny and clever lyrics and rhymes, great visuals, it’s a delight.  “I’ve Got a Dream” is a fun, upbeat and somewhat sudden and unexpected song which showcase’s the films kooky sense of humour. Again, it’s catchy, with good rhymes and serves as an appropriate introduction to the thugs of the Snuggly Duckling; effectively, this is the film’s big showstopper and while it doesn’t quite have the energy to match up to something like “Under the Sea” or “Be Our Guest”, it’s still enjoyable. “I See the Light” is the “Whole New World Number” and, without trying to sound like a broken record, it is one of Disney’s very best; unlike most “Whole New World Numbers”, it doesn’t feel out of place or inappropriate, it doesn’t kill the film’s energy or grind it to a halt and it isn’t goofy or overly sentimental. The song is touching and sweet, partially because, like “Beauty and the Beast”, we have grown to care so much for these characters and their relationship, so a song like this feels not only earned, but satisfying. While many of Disney’s love songs feel like they’re there just to fill a quota, even some of the better ones, this is one of the rare ones that is just as strong as the rest of the soundtrack; though the lyrics aren’t anything all that special, it’s a very nice song all the same.

Mother Gothel is very easygoing and down-to-earth

Fun, original, exciting and effortlessly endearing, Tangled is one of those rare treats, a Disney movie that just gets it. It gets exactly why the world fell in love with Disney in the first place and, rather than trying to soullessly replicate that success or move away from it in search of another demographic, it makes us feel like we’re experiencing that joy for the very first time; it’s a movie that manages to somehow feel both comfortably familiar and refreshingly new. The story is one of Disney’s best, the main characters and their relationship are some of Disney’s best, the villain is one of Disney’s best; add to that some great songs and a triumphant and long-awaited realisation of exactly how to represent their classic animation style with computer animation and you have a movie that is simply one of Disney’s best.


9.5/10

Next Week: Winnie the Pooh!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

49. The Princess and the Frog (2009)

After years of struggling to reconnect with audiences in a way that they did during the Renaissance, Disney decided to go back to basics with a traditionally animated musical based on a fairytale, The Princess and the Frog. The result is a film which feels so at home with the other Renaissance classics that it’s like no time has passed at all, as The Princess and the Frog avoids trying to be needlessly hip and instead plays to Disney’s strengths, doing all the things that they know how to do best.

Disney returns to 2D animation here and after the last few features, it’s certainly a sight for sore eyes; even Bolt and to a lesser extent Meet the Robinsons, which were decently animated, are light years behind the quality of Disney’s traditional animation, a fact that audiences were pleasantly reminded of with this feature. Because there had been a reasonably large gap between this and Disney’s last traditionally animated film, the increase in quality between the two looks huge; the film looks incredibly crisp and clear, with a gorgeous and varied colour palette which practically leaps off the screen. The animation is back to Disney’s best, lively and expressive with lots of little touches and examples of the animators going the extra mile to add as much life to the film and its characters as they can. Some of the characters’ movements are so fast and frantic that all you can really do is marvel in awe of how expertly they are animated and how things never get out of the animators’ control, a feeling that has been missing from Disney pictures for some time, at this point; evidently, The Princess and the Frog not only revitalised the Disney formula, but also the passion and interest of its animators, a passion which definitely comes across in this wonderfully animated film.

Prince Naveen, fabulous he

Just as the stories and characters of the Renaissance harked back to those of the early Disney films, (although with a modern twist) The Princess and the Frog harks back to those of the Renaissance itself, attempting to recapture the way those movies told classic myths and fairytales in a timeless, but still modern and relevant way; on top of this rather broad point of reference, the film takes more direct inspiration from The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and Hercules, but never feels like it’s copying or cheating, it just takes different elements from these films and combines them together to make a strong narrative and setting of its own. The film is very well structured and paced and with the exception of a single scene where the heroes encounter some hunters, there are really no wasted scenes or pointless moments, everything serves to develop the story and the characters, but is paced well enough that scenes are still given time to breathe and play out without being rushed. This is a relief considering that the majority of the movie is kind of a road movie, with the heroes trying to get through the bayou and then back to New Orleans and Disney road movies have a tradition of being boring and not really going anywhere COUGH The Aristocats COUGH, so it’s a welcome surprise to have one so full of fun, but relevant moments. The film also borrows another of the Renaissance’s typical aims, to approach an aspect of the early Disney movies with a modern perspective, in this instance, the idea of wishing on a star and believing in magic and the power of hope to make your dreams come true. The Princess and the Frog pushes the idea that, although hope is important and you should never give up on it, you can’t just sit around and wait for the world to give you what you want either, you have to go out there and work for your dreams, a good moral which tackles some of the issues people have with Disney films, which they suggest encourage children to wish upon a star and then expect everything to turn out alright; here, Disney reminds us that while we should never lose our optimism, there is no substitute for hard work. 

The characters are a lively and colourful bunch, with the slight of exception of the more low-key Tiana, who can be a bit shaky as a protagonist; on the one hand, she is hard-working and determined, with a lot of agency and attitude for a Disney princess, which is a refreshing change from their typical, overly sweet, pushover personas. On the other hand, this can at times lead to her being, as Naveen himself says, a bit of a killjoy; the point of her character IS that she learns to not always be so serious and that it’s okay to loosen up and have a little fun, but her attitude towards Naveen and Louis can come off as a little holier-than-thou. A little over half-way through she becomes a lot more easygoing and likeable however, so I’d still say she’s one of Disney’s better female protagonists. Naveen is a rarity, a Disney prince with an actual personality and a very likeable one at that! He’s a lazy, free-spirited kind of guy who just wants to have fun and avoids hard work and responsibility whenever he can. This means that he is a bit of a spoiled brat, but it is played in an oblivious and extreme way so that Naveen always comes off as humorously unaware of his own selfishness, rather than deliberately spiteful; he is funny and charming. Though his and Tiana’s relationship is a little rushed, they do have a natural chemistry between them which is bolstered by their individual character development and the fact that they help one another to overcome their flaws and become better people – Tiana teaches Naveen the value of hard work and personal accomplishment, while Naveen teaches Tiana the importance of fun and companionship, as well as professional success. Louis is the comic relief, a big, goofy, cowardly alligator who dreams of being human so he can become a famous jazz musician. While very silly and a little useless, he never moves into “The Hooter” territory, his anxiousness, incompetence and loud personality being used just enough to be funny without going too far and causing him to overstay his welcome. Ray plays a similar role, though he’s more of a fast-talking, easily distracted airhead than a big, loud goofball; he too is funny and likeable, but never takes too much attention away from the main characters.

The Prince and the Cougar

Charlotte is one of the best animated characters in the movie, her movements are so sudden and energetic and her facial expressions so extreme and full of personality that there’s never a dull moment when she’s on screen. She’s a spoiled, materialistic Daddy’s girl, but like Naveen, isn’t malicious, she’s just oblivious to how less privileged people live; she’s very sweet and very funny. Her father, “Big Daddy” La Bouff is just as sweet, a kindly Southern gentleman who lives in his own little world; he doesn’t appear as much as his daughter, but they work well together when they’re both onscreen. Dr. Facilier takes a lot of inspiration from previous Disney villains, particularly those of the Renaissance, but manages to combine a bunch of their different attributes to become a great one in his own right. Like most of those from the Renaissance, Facilier is a weak and somewhat cowardly villain, who relies on cunning and manipulation to defeat his opponents, rather than brute strength; he is also devious, witty and all around charming. Facilier most resembles a kind of fusion of Jafar, Scar and Hades, though with his own individual quirks and personality traits; I think he can stand quite comfortably alongside some of Disney’s best villains. Lawrence is also a fairy traditional villainous sidekick – bumbling, ineffectual and utterly terrified of his boss; he doesn’t have as strong a relationship with the villain as his predecessors, but he works well all the same.

As with everything else, The Princess and the Frog’s music resembles the Renaissance, as it returns to a traditional musical format which we haven’t seen Mulan. To fit the New Orleans setting, the film is full of big, jazzy numbers, starting off with the appropriately titled “Down in New Orleans”, which introduces the audience to the setting and tone of the film adequately. Next is “Almost There”, a fun chirpy number with a very catchy rhythm; this segment is well animated, with a really cool look and design. “Friends on the Other Side” is a classic Disney villain song and a fantastic number in its own right; it takes inspiration from a number of others, particularly “Poor Unfortunate Souls”, but ramps the rhythm and animation up to an even more frantic pace than that. This song is a lot of fun, a great introduction to Dr. Facilier and overall, the best sequence in the film. “When We’re Human” is another fun, jazzy song; not much else to say, it’s just a good time. “Gonna Take You There” is also fun, though a bit brief; of all the songs it feels the least necessary and honestly doesn’t really need to be there, but it’s certainly not anything bad. “Dig a Little Deeper” is a big, show stopping, gospel number; again, it’s full of fun and energy. Clearly, the film is full of a lot of upbeat numbers; in fact, the only slow song it really has is “Ma Belle Evangeline”, which is effectively the film’s “Whole New World Number”, but I don’t mean that disparagingly, as it’s a nice song and takes the necessary time to slow things down for a moment in such a fast-paced, high energy movie. Though most of the songs are a little simplistic, with basic lyricism and a single musical style running through them, they are still very enjoyable and honestly, after so many years of not having a real Disney musical, it’s just nice to have them at all.

Shadow Man is freaky deeky

The Princess and the Frog is a great return to the style of the Renaissance, resulting in Disney’s best movie in years. It has no cynicism, no marketing ploys, no attempts to be “cool” or “edgy” and no efforts to disguise what it is – a Disney movie and this sincerity and openness is really what helps it shine so brightly. Beautiful animation, fun songs, likeable characters, an enjoyable story and most of all, a genuine desire to make its audience smile makes The Princess and the Frog a return to form for Disney and one hell of a good time for its audience.


8/10

Next Week: Tangled!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

48. Bolt (2008)

With John Lasseter’s increased involvement, Bolt continued Meet the Robinson’s attempts to revitalise the struggling Disney formula, further improving on the computer animation quality and storytelling techniques. However, while Lasseter’s involvement is not inherently a bad thing, I’m not sure it does that many favours for Bolt, which ultimately ends up feeling a lot more like somebody trying to remake a Pixar movie than it does its own, unique film.

The computer animation here is much, much better than anything we’ve seen from Disney before, in fact, it’s such a jump from the previous year’s Meet the Robinsons alone that it’s kind of astounding. The quality and attention to detail, particularly in the background and the textures and the character designs are all very nice and finally start to feel like Disney’s 2D animation has been transferred into the third dimension, unlike something like Chicken Little or Dinosaur, which just felt like ugly or unappealing computer models which didn’t look like Disney characters at all. The Disney animators still haven’t fully perfected their style of a computer animated movie – as, amongst other things, the visual style of Bolt owes a little too much to Pixar – but it’s definitely a big step up from their initial attempts and you can see they’re very close to developing an approach that totally works for them.

‘You are a DOG! 

You are a child’s PLAYTHING!’ 

The film has a basic, but interesting concept, following the eponymous Bolt, a dog who plays the role of a superhero on a TV show, but thinks it’s all real, who has to get home to Hollywood to “rescue” his owner, Penny, after he is accidentally shipped to New York. This is not a bad idea, but it has been done better, before, particularly in Toy Story, showing yet another debt to Pixar; this isn’t that noticeable at first, but honestly, the longer the movie goes on, the more and more it feels like you’re just watching Toy Story with animals. I don’t know what it is but I just can’t get into Bolt; it’s a decent idea, the pacing is good, it has an emotional core and it hits all the appropriate story points, but it just never really feels like it gets off the ground for me, even though it seems to do everything it should. Maybe that’s the problem, that it’s too predictable, too by-the-book, too generic, it does things exactly how you would expect this kind of story to do them and never surprises you; the film doesn’t do anything wrong, per se, but it does so little with its initially strong concept that it leaves you feeling disappointed. Honestly, as deliberately cheesy and over-the-top as it is, I think I would have rather seen the film follow the plot of Bolt’s TV show, with the story of a teenager and her super dog fighting an evil terrorist organisation, than this rather simplistic road trip story; there, they could have parodied the nature of such shows like Johnny Quest, alongside typical superhero and action movie tropes, whilst having fun with seeing just how over-the-top and silly they could make things, but still maintaining an emotional connection between Penny and Bolt. As it is, Bolt just has nothing to sink its teeth into.

But first, let me take a selfie

The characters are also generic and distinctly Pixar in their designs and personalities – Bolt himself is pretty boring; as the arrogant, oblivious blowhard who thinks he’s a superhero but is really just a normal guy, he’s a lot like Buzz Lightyear, except with much less personality. There’s nothing unlikeable about him, but the writers do so little with this idea that he ends up left to do very little himself; even when he discovers he’s just an actor and doesn’t have super powers, in comparison to Buzz’s mental and emotional breakdown, Bolt just kind of shrugs and says ‘eh whatever’, which sums up his character pretty effectively. Penny is a sweet, friendly girl, but not much else, though she does fall out of focus early on, only occasionally being seen to be sad that Bolt is missing; in these respects she’s a lot like Andy, the benevolent owner that Woody/Bolt is so desperate to get back to, but they start to worry if they truly care about them at all, only to be rewarded for their faith in the end when they are welcomed back with open arms. She’s a plot device, something for Bolt to get back to, nothing more. 

Mittens the cat is a typical snarky sidekick – cynical, sarcastic, cunning, she plays the straight man to the other two main characters and calls them out on their wacky behaviour. Her role is a necessary one for the kind of jokes the movies wants to tell and some of her interactions with the other characters do have good, humorous set-ups, but somehow the joke never really works its way all the way through, at least for me anyway. This aspect of her character resembles Woody in the first Toy Story, where he plays the sarcastic, neurotic straight man to Buzz, while her softer side resembles Jessie from Toy Story 2, as we learn she was once a housecat, but was abandoned by her human owners and has since come to believe that any love a human shows for its pet is superficial and temporary, just as Jessie believes that all children will ultimately forget about their toys, like her owner Emily did with her. Again, not a bad idea for a character, but clearly not a very original one either. Rhino the hamster is the goofy comic relief; he’s an eccentric, obsessive fan of Bolt who wants to be a hero too and is constantly hamming it up in his attempts to do so. He’s a bit more annoying than funny, but not excessively so and he does get a couple of funny lines; he’s a good representative for the film’s sense of humour as a whole – you can see what the writers are going for and technically it should work, but somehow, you rarely find yourself laughing. Similarly, there’s nothing wrong with these characters, but there’s nothing all that right about them either; I didn’t dislike them, but never found myself really caring about them, they are just another part of the film which is objectively done well, but never really excels beyond doing what it’s supposed to do.

‘You are a sad, strange little cat and you have my pity’

Bolt is a perfectly decent movie and at times quite a fun one, with some exciting action sequences, but ultimately it feels lacking in identity. It borrows too liberally from Pixar movies, particularly Toy Story and seems to exist solely to tick off a bunch of boxes in respect to its narrative and characterisation, rather than to tell a story it seemed especially interested in telling. It’s okay and mostly a step in the right direction compared to some of Disney’s last few films, being technically better made and much better animated than Meet the Robinsons – if not quite as creative – but Bolt is, ironically enough, missing the spark necessary to take it any further than just being okay.


5.5/10

Next Week: The Princess and the Frog!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

47. Meet the Robinsons (2007)

Despite the appalling failure of Chicken Little, Disney stuck to their plan to develop only computer animated films, continuing in 2007 with Meet the Robinsons. Though Disney had not yet mastered computer animation and was still unsure of how to reconcile their old style with the attitudes of the new millennium, the film does benefit from the fact that John Lasseter had recently become chief creative officer of Walt Disney Animation Studios, bringing with him his experience in computer animated films and a sense of creativity that Disney desperately needed. Consequently, Meet the Robinsons is a shaky movie of ups and downs, but at the end of the day, it’s hard to dislike it.

The computer animation is a definite step-up from Chicken Little, but of course, that’s not really saying much. The character designs are more in line with Disney’s style, much rounder and softer than the jagged, awkward ones of Chicken Little and the textures and backgrounds in particular are much more detailed. Initially, the animation still feels stilted and lifeless in comparison to Disney’s traditionally animated movies, but once the movie makes the move to the future, things get a lot crazier and, as a result, the animation is allowed to be a lot more exaggerated and energised. The overall design of the future has a kind of 50’s, retro-futuristic look to it that is really cool and suits the film’s tone well; as I said, the animation of the characters is better here, particularly non-human characters such as Carl, the robot, who are allowed to move in very imaginative ways. This creates a distinct difference between the past and future settings, which actually serves the film quite well in the long run, as the rather drab and weakly animated opening gives way to a much better animated second and third act, similar to the shift to anamorphic widescreen and brighter colours that appears in Brother Bear. The film is still lacking in the quality of Disney’s 2D animation, but it does manage to recreate some of its joy and charm. 

Froggy Valli and the Four Seasons

Similarly, the film opens with a weak plot, a simple story about a misunderstood orphan who simply wants a family and decides to seek out his long-lost mother; the dialogue is incredibly weak and sappy and any attempts at humour are equally poor, resulting in a very boring first act. However, the story, like the animation, gets a lot better once the main characters travel to the future, due to the fact that things just kind of take a back-seat to the Robinson family and all the jokes one can squeeze out of them. The second act is basically just a lot of goofing around, with the third act bringing back the plot as our hero, Lewis, has to defeat the villain, fix the timeline and save his newfound family; it never returns to the dullness of the first act, however and when things do become emotional again, they no longer feel too sappy. Despite these emotional moments, the film is essentially a comedy and a very wacky one at that; it’s constantly throwing all different kinds of jokes at you, from visual gags, to physical humour, to adult jokes, to character based stuff, to weirdly specific references and while admittedly, many of them miss the mark, some of them really are funny and even the misses never flop too bad. Though not as funny as it wants to be, you have to admire the film’s almost constant efforts to get you to laugh, as they feel honest, rather than the cynical, phoned-in attempts at humour scattered throughout Chicken Little and Home on the Range. 

Robinson P.I.

The characters are mostly shallow, one-note personalities, but intentionally so, for the sake of comedy, so you can cut the film some slack for not really having a very well developed cast. Lewis is a fairly typical Disney kid hero, he lost his family and feels like an outcast, searching for a place to belong, he has great ideas, but they are considered unconventional and ignored by others, he is a nice, ordinary guy who is capable of greater things than he expected yada yada it’s the same old stuff. He can be a bit bratty at times, but isn’t too bad and despite being a bit of a cliché, you do feel for him when it counts. Wilbur is cocky, mischievous and reckless, but isn’t quite as fun as he should be, he’s just a little too obnoxious and doesn’t always gel well with the rest of the cast; still, he never gets too irritating or anything and he definitely takes a step back in the second act to let the rest of his family shine. Bowler Hat Guy is a comically pathetic villain, but he works a lot better than recent examples such as Alameda Slim from Home on the Range. He has foundations in characters like Captain Hook, constantly scheming from the shadows and thinking highly of himself, but being outwitted by the heroes without even any visible effort, but I personally find him more enjoyable. Though he can at times be a little too much, I do think he’s pretty funny; he has a great design which looks like Dick Dastardly on meth and his movements are so gangly and awkward that it makes for some good visual humour. He actually has a back story too and while it is a simple one, it’s nice to see the actual reason a villain does what he does, rather than just because he’s evil and to have him redeemed in the end; his motivations and back story tie in well with the film’s message and central themes as well, strengthening his antagonistic role and relationship with the hero. 

Sick Dastardly and Hattley 

Doris is a good villainous sidekick and one of the type we don’t see very often from Disney: the much more competent partner who has no choice but to put up with their bumbling “leader”.Though she never talks and doesn’t have any facial expressions, the animators still manage to project a lot of personality through Doris, allowing for some impressive silent, physical humour and good interactions with Bowler Hat Guy; they make a good team. Carl is anxious, neurotic and a little sarcastic, kind of like a slightly more positive C-3PO; he doesn’t do that much and is a bit too loud, but is mostly a lot of fun when he’s on screen. As for the rest of the titular Robinsons, there’s a few too many for me to really go into them all in detail, so I’ll just say that they all have very distinct designs and personalities, with their own little quirks and comic attributes; they are shallow as individuals, but work well as a group of wacky, fun characters to bounce different jokes off of and the film’s energy jumps 100% when they’re around. Overall, not an especially interesting cast, but an enjoyable one.

Subtlety

Meet the Robinsons is hardly a great film and it stumbles a lot along the way, particularly in its tedious opening act, but it is much more likeable than the last couple of cynical, effortless pieces of drivel Disney had put out at the time. Unlike the soulless Home on the Range and the mean-spirited Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons is positive, optimistic and eccentric, throwing out a lot of jokes that are overly wacky, but with some real gems hidden in there, alongside a moral that can at times be a bit too obvious and sentimental, but ultimately feels earned and even a little touching; even through all the weaker parts, I truly feel that the film believes in its own message - “Keep Moving Forward”. It’s nothing all that special, but overall I find it very sweet, good-natured and thankfully, entertaining. 


5.5/10

Next Week: Bolt!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

46. Chicken Little (2005)

After the embarrassing Home on the Range, Disney decided that traditional, hand-drawn animation had run its course and it was time to focus on fully computer animated features from now on; the first of these was Chicken Little, an attempt to modernise and spice-up the Disney formula. Chicken Little is probably the worst Disney movie ever made. There is so little to like about this movie and so much to hate that I scarcely know where to start; as always, I’ll do my best to approach the film’s animation, story, characters and music individually, but forgive me if this review begins to break down a little structurally, as Chicken Little is so mind-bogglingly bad that it is very difficult to stay calm and controlled when discussing it. With that in mind, let’s take a look!

Being Disney’s first fully computer animated movie since Dinosaur, you’d think Chicken Little would look a lot better, as the Disney animators had five years to improve their software, their techniques and realise what they did wrong with Dinosaur and how they could do things better. Somehow, Chicken Little looks a million times worse; Dinosaur’s animation was dull and dated, but at least still technically impressive for the time, Chicken Little’s animation is so inherently and definitively visually unappealing that I find it legitimately astounding that these animators were able to look at it so long without ever thinking ‘Hang on a minute THIS LOOKS FUCKING AWFUL.’ Some of the major characters have decent designs, but those of the townspeople are practically identical, to the point where it looks like the animators probably just palette swapped all the different models, like the programmers of a lazy video game. The characters have very sharp, sudden movements that do not fit Disney’s usual smooth and controlled style, a choice which betrays the nature of the entire film, which so obviously wants to be “edgier” than the usual Disney fare, in terms of animation and attitude, but is completely incompetent in its attempts to do so. The backgrounds are incredibly lazy, there is no accuracy, no attention to detail, no life or richness to the textures, it looks more like concept art than the finished product; it seems like the animators thought that if they just made the backgrounds jagged and stylised that would speak for itself and again, present a sense of “edginess”, but they are so unpolished that the characters look completely alien wandering around in them. Even the direction displays this bizarre attitude, with examples of shaky cam and sudden zooms which seem more at home in a Zack Snyder movie than a Disney one; everything about Chicken Little’s visual style wants to be hip and cool, but it all comes off as embarrassing and unprofessional.

This guy is called Morkubine Porcupine. 

That’s honestly probably the best the joke the movie has.
He is still not hip or cool.

Similarly, the film’s story desires to be edgy, clearly trying to copy the then-more successful DreamWorks, even more obviously than Home on the Range did; this is made clear straight from the opening, which mocks the traditional “Once Upon a Time” opening of fairytales, the storybook openings of early Disney films and even specifically the opening to The Lion King. Chicken Little shouts out from its first scene ‘Look at us! We’re different! We’re shaking things up!’ But its desperate attempts to distance itself from the classic Disney formula comes off as a mean-spirited dig at early Disney movies, as if to say they’re not cool or relevant anymore and Chicken Little is going to be something new and original that kids today will appreciate; the irony that this is so obviously copying DreamWorks – particularly Shrek, the opening scene of which is practically IDENTICAL to this one – is either completely lost on the writers, or, more likely, they just didn’t care. The entire film is plagued with this cancerous desire, resulting in an attitude towards humour which makes Home on the Range look like This is Spinal Tap; the movie is full of the worst kinds of pop-cultural references, where there is no joke, it’s literally just a reference and they expect the audience to be satisfied just because they can say ‘hey I get that!’ The sheer amount of contemporary pop songs alone is staggering, many of which are again, not thrown in for an appropriate joke, they just appear with no context, just because it’s a song they know the audience has heard. Not only that, but it really damages the setting and atmosphere, as these references feel completely out of place in this fantastical cartoon world; do the Spice Girls exist in the world of Chicken Little? Clearly, they must, which raises a lot of weird questions, makes no sense and, most importantly, severely dates the movie, in a way that classic and timeless Disney films like Bambi and Beauty and the Beast will never be. As well as relying too much on pop-culture references, the film’s sense of humour is just kind of nasty and mean-spirited, I’ll get into this more later when I talk about the characters, but so many of the film’s jokes come from making fun of Chicken Little and his friends and making them feel pathetic; it doesn’t feel like laughing with them, either, it genuinely feels like the writers are pointing and laughing at the unpopular heroes and encouraging you to join in and that’s something that absolutely doesn’t belong in a Disney movie.

The story and pacing are all over the place; the first five or so minutes introduce the initial conflict, that Chicken Little claims the sky is falling and no-one believes him, turning him into a laughing stock within the town. However, the next twenty-five minutes, which show Chicken Little’s attempts to regain popularity by becoming a baseball star, end up being almost completely inconsequential; half an hour in, when Chicken Little wins the big game and becomes the town hero, feels like the climax of an ordinary movie, but Chicken Little just keeps on going, with an entirely different plot about an alien invasion that comes out of nowhere. It quickly becomes very clear that the writers of this film had no idea how to adapt their initial concept into a full-length feature, so they just tack this story about Chicken Little playing baseball on to fill up time; even within this sub-plot, there are a number of montages, to fill even more time, displaying how hollow the central idea for Chicken Little really is, it feels so much more at home as a short than a full-length feature.

Oh come on that is literally just Donkey from Shrek LOOK AT HIM

Having never seen Chicken Little before now, I perhaps spoke a little prematurely last week when I said that Home on the Range’s cast is the most hateful in Disney history, as this one is truly reprehensible. The townspeople of Oakey Oaks are like those of Springfield in The Simpsons, constantly complaining, blaming others for their problems, scapegoating people, forming angry mobs or mass panic over trivial issues and generally just acting selfish and mean towards their fellow man. However, Chicken Little lacks any of the subtle irony, intellect or sense of humour necessary to make such an idea work without things becoming too cruel and to be honest, even if it did, I still don’t know that it should have; this isn’t The Simpsons, or South Park, it’s a kids’ movie and a Disney movie at that! Why are all these characters, who aren’t villains, but just normal people, so cruel and spiteful, especially towards Chicken Little, who they constantly treat like garbage? This is yet another one of the film’s attempts to be less like classic Disney, with darker and edgier humour and characterisation, but these characters are just TOO mean; it’s not funny, it’s sad. 

Chicken Little himself is the standard Disney hero archetype, a nice, ordinary guy who finds he has potential for great things, but with little else to him; there’s not much more to really say. Chicken Little’s father, Buck, is AWFUL; he’s embarrassed and completely unsupportive of his son and never defends him from the cruel mockery of the townspeople, repeatedly refusing to believe Chicken Little and clearly showing that the doesn’t care for the kind of person his son has grown into. Yes, he has character development and realises that he was wrong not to trust his son and to appreciate him for who he is, but he just starts off too gutless and distant to ever really redeem himself; the way he constantly puts his son down and shows disappointment in him is just depressing to watch and adds to the entirely negative attitude of the film. I almost admire Disney’s choice to tackle a difficult father-son relationship and to admit that family units are rarely perfect and often require hard work and communication, but that kind of storyline belongs in a much more mature and intelligent movie than this. Abby Mallard is the most generic female sidekick of all time – she’s smarter and more sensitive than the male characters, has a crush on the hero and exists to be his support and eventual love interest, that’s it; she and everything she represents is lazy and insulting. Runt is so annoying, he’s dumb and fat, that’s basically it, are you sensing a pattern here? They make the same gag with him over and over again and it’s never funny, he’s worthless. The alien characters are, admittedly, not too bad, with some interesting designs and a somewhat humorous dynamic, but they are not around nearly long enough to help the movie out in the long run. Some of these characters are just boring, most of them are despicable; I don’t want to see Chicken Little win the approval of these people like in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, they don’t deserve it, I want to see the aliens vaporise them permanently, they’re horrible.

‘Hey Dad, don’t you think the nature of our relationship is a little too depressing for this kind of movie?’

‘Not now son, I’m just thinking about how I’ll never forgive you for killing your mother in childbirth’

Like the last few Disney movies, Chicken Little employs standalone songs which play over the action rather than traditional musical numbers and if I wasn’t over it in Home on the Range (I was) then I am definitely over it now; so rarely does this idea work, I don’t understand why Disney did it so many times. They didn’t want to do musicals anymore? Fine, don’t do them, but why do this half-way bullshit, pick one or the other; instead, we have to listen to a number of laughably cookie cutter pop songs which have nothing to do with anything and are just there to waste time. Also, as I mentioned already, the film repeatedly inserts existing pop music, sometimes for a stupid joke but sometimes, again, JUST TO WASTE TIME; there is a scene where, for literally no reason whatsoever, Chicken Little’s friends sing karaoke to “Wannabe” by the Spice Girls. Why!? It has no bearing on what’s going on, no relation to the characters or the setting, no lyrical themes which reflect similar ones in the movie, it’s not even a good song! I honestly can’t even wrap my brain around these decisions, even when the songs are marginally better they do more harm than good; at the end of the movie they play “Aint’ no Mountain High Enough”, but that just made me think that I’d rather be watching Bridget Jones’ Diary than this – AND THAT’S SAYING SOMETHING.

Chicken Little is a film that’s as ugly on the inside as it is on the outside; it is mean-spirited, childish, disrespectful and lazy with a completely unwarranted sense of arrogance and complacency. If I had a gun to my head and had to say one nice thing about the film, it’d be that it gets a little more tolerable towards the end, but really, not by very much. None of the jokes feel genuine, it is clear that none of the writers actually cared about making people laugh, they just wanted to copy DreamWorks as much as they possibly could. The cast is fantastically unlikeable, the story utterly pointless, the music not even worth discussing and the animation impressively bad for a Disney movie; appropriate, considering that this film in no way feels like a Disney movie – not in style or tone, not in presentation, not in the amount of effort or care put in and not in attitude, as the film completely shits on its own company and its history of far, far superior movies that exist in an entirely different solar system of quality. That Chicken Little has the balls to make fun of The Lion King and Pinocchio is laughably pathetic and misguided; it’s like watching a 2ft quadruped threaten to beat up Mike Tyson, or that time Uwe Boll said that Postal would make more money in its opening weekend than Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Crystal Skull – all you can do is laugh. While I freely admit I’ve yet to see Meet the Robinsons or Bolt and Big Hero 6 has yet to be released, I find it very hard to believe that any of them will be as bad as this; Chicken Little constantly shouts about how new and interesting it is, but like its title character, nobody is buying what it has to say. 

1/10

Next Week: Meet the Robinsons!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

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