20. The Aristocats (1970)

The Aristocats was the first Disney animated movie to be released after Walt Disney’s death and his absence is definitely felt in this confused, awkward and disappointing feature. The Aristocats is a film that seems to be built entirely on a pun, with an attitude of ‘Eh, we’ll just make up the rest along the way’; it fills the rest of the movie out with pointless filler, while borrowing heavily from any previous Disney film it can along the way, focusing especially on two or three. The result is a confusing mess lacking any sense of heart, drive, or purpose, an empty shell of a movie propped up with unfunny slapstick and boring character stereotypes. And besides, the pun wasn’t even that good to begin with.

Once again, the xerography technique of animation is used (like I said, it lasted a while) and by this point, it’s really getting boring to look at; the first use of it in 101 Dalmatians was so new and visually striking that it worked, it got along alright for the next two films but by this point, I’m growing kind of sick of looking at it. On top of that, this may very well be the roughest the animation has looked yet, perhaps even moreso than in its debut in 101 Dalmatians; the lines are so thick and scratchy it frequently looks as if we’re just looking at the animator’s most basic of sketches that simply haven’t been cleaned up at all. Like I said, the first appearance of this technique may have looked new and interesting, but Disney knew it couldn’t ride on that novelty and had to clean things up a bit and at least make it look a little more professional, there are slip ups and rough lines in The Sword in the Stone and The Jungle Book but nothing on the level we see here. The animation for The Aristocats just comes off as lazy and stagnant, as it seems to get worse than what we’ve seen before, rather than better; some of the characters look better than others, Duchess in particular is quite well animated, but for the most part things are rather weak.

The character designs go hand in hand with the animation style, they’re the same kind of angular, more stylised models etc. etc. we’ve seen this enough by this point too, there really is no creativity to them, they look exactly like the casts of 101 Dalmatians and, to a lesser extent, The Jungle Book, really nothing new; honestly, I think some of them, particularly O’Malley, Edgar, Roquefort and the two dogs, are borderline ugly. Once again the backgrounds are rather nice – though to be honest, it’s pretty hard to make Paris look ugly – but they don’t really gel with the character models, on more than one occasion you can very clearly see the separation between the characters and the backgrounds, which looks distracting and amateurish. The colours are all kind of dull and washed out, everything looks like it’s been put through a dark filter or had a large shadow cast over it, leaving its colours without any zest or vibrancy and making the whole film rather visually unappealing. At the end of the day, it’s Disney, so the animation is rarely going to be objectively terrible and there are some nice aspects to it here, but it’s certainly below their standard of quality.

‘Now my pets, let’s try and pretend I have a real family so that I can cover up my crushing loneliness and ignore the fact that I’ve wasted my entire life.’

The story is one of the laziest and poorly structured we’ve seen yet, it can’t seem to decide if it wants to be Lady and the Tramp with cats or 101 Dalmatians with cats, but it certainly wants to be one of them; the setting of the movie, in early 20^th Century Paris, is far too similar in look and feel to the settings in these previous films, being American suburbia and London, in the same timeframe, respectively. It borrows liberally from both film’s stories, from 101 Dalmatians it takes the group of lost animals trying to find their way home from the country side, while getting help from a cast of other kooky animals along the way and from Lady and the Tramp the budding romance between a pampered house pet from a rich family and a tough, streetwise stray. By trying to cram these two stories together, along with a number of pointless subplots, the film has no time to properly develop either one; though there is a clear plotline – O’Malley is trying to get Duchess and the kittens back to Paris – this story is never well developed in and of itself, it never becomes an exciting adventure or a fun road movie, things are just constantly sidetracked by other characters, so as to ensure the cats don’t reach Paris before the film has hit the eighty minute mark. 

I mean really think about it, what is the point of this movie? What is its narrative arc? Well let’s look at the kinds of things you might expect from this kind of story, considering what we’ve seen in films like the aforementioned 101 Dalmatians or Lady and the Tramp, as well as other films that use this kind of formula; perhaps the main arc of the movie belongs to Duchess and the kittens, whose experiences in the country side, where they must fend for themselves, cause them to grow from pampered and naive house pets into more independent and fully rounded characters who are able to take care of themselves and get a new perspective on life? No, the characters are guided and constantly rescued by O’Malley from day one, they never learn to take care of themselves, they never gain any new skills or opinions, they are helpless and naive right up until the climax, where they are once again captured by Edgar and need O’Malley’s help; the closest any of them come to character development is that Duchess learns to call O’Malley’s home a “pad” and likes jazz. Brilliant. Well, what about O’Malley? Maybe the movie is all about him learning to care about others, to go from a selfish loner, who drifts from place to place, to a caring and mature father figure, with a definite home. Again, no, because all this development seems to take place completely within O’Malley’s very first scene – he hits on Duchess, gets a little scared off when he finds out she has kids, but then realises he should help her out anyway and immediately makes the switch from loner alley cat to caring family man, with no room for any further development. There is a point late in the film where O’Malley says ‘All those little kids Duchess, I love ‘em’ to which I had to ask, why? They never seem to have any meaningful interactions, there is no development of their relationship, he just seems to show up and love the kids within his first couple of minutes on screen; character development is a dirty word in The Aristocats, here, everyone ends up exactly how they started off.

Stand by Meow

Even most of the subplots are entirely pointless, halfway through the movie the cats bump into a couple of geese called Abigail and Amelia, who take complete control of the film for a while, as their quest to find their Uncle Waldo takes centre stage. Where does this lead? NOWHERE, they get to Paris, there’s Uncle Waldo, the geese go off with him and we never see them again (except as part of the big dance party between all the characters at the end) what was the point of this? That’s a question I found myself asking a lot throughout the film as it became steadily more and more apparent that very few scenes are actually important or necessary, and that most of them serve no purpose other than to pad the film out – it’s just filler. Even worse than the geese’s is a subplot about Edgar trying to get back his umbrella and hat from the two dogs who stole them, (don’t ask) Napoleon and Lafayette, because he fears the police will catch on that he’s the cat burglar if they find them; what is the point of this? You guessed it, NOTHING, this one really takes the cake as it is of absolutely no consequence to the main story – at least those two geese spent time with the main characters, even if they didn’t really help them or add anything to the situation and then just left, at least they were part of the main action, but this is just completely meaningless. Edgar doesn’t end up getting caught because of his hat and umbrella, the dogs don’t come back to fight him or help the cats, absolutely nothing about this subplot comes back in any way, making the scenes entirely pointless. Honestly, it’s like the writers of this film knew absolutely nothing about the fundamentals of screen writing or even basic storytelling; this is not the work of seasoned veterans, these are the most basic and elementary mistakes you can make.

The only subplot that even comes close to having a purpose is the one where Roquefort the mouse and Frou-Frou the horse learn that Edgar was the one who kidnapped the cats – well, learn is probably too generous, considering Edgar just tells them – and then Roquefort goes on a quest to find the cats. Roquefort does eventually end up helping the cats by getting O’Malley and his friends to help out, but that’s just because Duchess asks him to, it has nothing to do with his previous storyline – he doesn’t find the cats, he doesn’t do anything to hinder Edgar, there’s even one scene where he stows away on the back of Edgar’s motorbike in an attempt to follow him to the cats... but then he just falls off. Why put him on the motorbike in the first place if he’s not going to do anything!? It’s mind-boggling how poorly written this film is, there are so many scenes and character stories that just go absolutely nowhere, it’s just nothing but filler. I’m not asking for Hamlet, but my God, SOMETHING would be nice, the film just has no purpose whatsoever. This film is entirely lacking in not only direction, but meaningful conflict; oh sure, there’s conflict, but it’s always resolved almost immediately and then the characters go back to dicking around and doing nothing important, where is the threat? Where is the driving force for the story? For that matter, where is the story to begin with? The pacing is equally bad, things take way too long to get started and then, when the plot is finally in motion, things go absolutely nowhere and the film continually passes the baton to other characters who have little to no bearing on the situation whatsoever; to call this film a mess would be a compliment, it’s a complete disaster.

Pretty much how I ended up after this movie finished

The characters are as flat and tasteless as communion wafers, there is just nothing to them – at best they’re completely defined by a singular, one-dimensional stereotype, at worst they just seem to have no personality at all. The only characters that come close to being any good are Duchess and O’Malley, Duchess is very well voice acted by Eva Gabor who is energetic and spirited in her delivery and really brings life to the character, which is matched well by some nice, subtle touches in Duchess’ animation. Phil Harris tries his best with O’Malley and manages some good moments, but he is just not given enough to work with; O’Malley is such a lazy attempt at recreating the charm of Tramp and Baloo that he ends up with no real personality of his own, his traits are just on loan from his predecessors, to the point that they even slap Baloo’s voice on him, hoping that things will work themselves out. That sums up a lot of this movie really, just throwing stuff together and hoping things will work themselves out, but unfortunately for Disney, nothing really does. 

All the other characters are awful, not just boring, but legitimately really bad: okay, the kittens aren’t nearly as annoying as kid characters can be, but they’re still a pain and I’m sorry but these kids, the little girl in particular, just cannot act, they are very difficult to listen to. Frou-Frou barely does anything at all and Roquefort is just annoying, he won’t stop yammering on and has no interesting quirks; Scat Cat and his crew don’t really get much time, except for Scat Cat himself who is okay I suppose, but all we get from the rest of his group is one or two lines which sum up which ethnic stereotype they represent. While most of them aren’t really too bad, the Chinese cat is really quite offensive – it always seems to be the Chinese in Disney movies, huh? – Honestly, I know racial inequality was hardly stamped out in 1970, but I really think it’s too late to vindicate the kind of stuff going on with this character: huge buck teeth, slanty eyes, broken English, saying l’s as r’s, playing the piano with chopsticks and singing about fortune cookies, it’s really unacceptable, even for the time and is probably one of, if not the worst racial stereotype in a Disney animated feature. I hate Abigail and Amelia, they are so obnoxious, they just won’t stop talking or cackling like idiots, they are incredibly frustrating to watch and listen to; similarly annoying are Napoleon and Lafayette who yammer on in a grating southern twang and constantly play out the same tired comic routine like a couple of Abbott and Costello wannabes. Seriously, they have this stupid bit where Napoleon says he hears something really complex, then Lafayette will say it’s just something simple, Napoleon insists that he’s the leader and therefore decides what they’re hearing, before conceding that it is indeed what Lafayette heard. Disney evidently thought this was hilarious, as they use it FOUR times over the course of the movie, this quickly becomes insufferable, as it wasn’t even funny the first time; inexplicably, this is the note that they choose to end the movie on, because the bit was just SOOOO funny, that they had to cram another one in before the ending, it’s just insane how blind they seem to be as to what works and what doesn’t, as they fill the entire movie with the things that don’t work and leave the very few things that do by the wayside.

Playing Chopsticks with chopsticks

The villain, Edgar, is just the worst, if you can even call him a villain, he is pathetic; not threatening, not charming, not cool, not interesting, not funny, not enjoyable, simply not good on any conceivable level, not in this world, or in any other world, galaxy, universe or parallel dimension. He’s not even really evil, he’s just kind of a jerk, but not in an interesting or understated way either, he’s just a frustrated guy and, to be honest, with good reason; his boss - who he has seemingly served loyally for many years, putting up with her weird obsession with her cats and her refusal to discipline them or stop them from walking all over his face while he’s trying to steer a carriage - decides to bequeath all her living possessions to her cats before him. Edgar is pretty justified in thinking this is unfair and INCREDIBLY STUPID, cats do not need money, jewels or a mansion, it makes no sense; of course kidnapping the cats is still reprehensible, but with this in mind, you almost forgive Edgar for doing it, he’s not a dick about it or anything and continually refuses to kill the cats even though it would clearly make his life easier, is he really supposed to be a villain? Yet, he’s not really likeable either because, like the rest of the characters, he is annoying and tiresome, constantly tumbling around, stumbling over his words, getting involved in goofy slapstick with animals and just generally failing to entertain. It’s like watching a clown at the circus, it’s not funny it’s just embarrassing – hit yourself in the face with a pie or trip over your own shoelaces if you want, but I’m not going to laugh, I’m just going to feel sorry for you, it’s pathetic.

There are only three songs in the film, not including “The Aristocats” which plays during the opening titles and to be honest, is decent. As for the songs in the film proper, “Thomas O’Malley Cat” is lame and fundamentally stupid, who just walks around singing their name? Is this supposed to be charming, or funny? Is it supposed to give us an insight into O’Malley’s character? I don’t get it, it’s just bad and really awkward. “Scales and Arpeggios” is crappy and, I’m sorry to pick on the child actors again, but the girl who plays the female kitten, Marie, just cannot sing; the only good song and, really, the only thing anyone ever really remembers about this movie is “Ev’rybody Wants to Be a Cat” which wasn’t quite as good as I remember it, but at that point I was so sick of the film I might have been in too bad a mood to really enjoy it, so I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. It’s a good, jazzy song, it’s very catchy and it has some fun, if not very clever, lyrics; it is undoubtedly the best part of the movie and one of the few scenes that doesn’t bore you to death, even though, like most of the others, it still has nothing to do with the story.

‘Now what do you say we go eat some spaghetti?’

The Aristocats is an embarrassingly hollow film, one without any sense of life, purpose, fun or creativity; it starts nowhere and goes nowhere, has nothing to say and brings nothing new to the table. It’s a movie comprised almost entirely of filler, a huge amount of the scenes don't service the story or progress the plot in any way, but are simply transparent attempts to pad out a movie which is based around a fundamentally weak idea. Clearly, Disney just had nothing to work with here, they should have just acknowledged that and either retooled the idea or scrapped it entirely and started from scratch, instead they lazily try to surround it with an array of subplots that go nowhere and loud, but empty characters, like covering up a crack in a wall with an ugly painting. Unlike Cinderella, I do feel a little bad attacking The Aristocats so fiercely, as it’s mostly harmless, it’s kind of like picking on the disabled kid at school, it’s just sad; nevertheless, it’s really impossible to ignore the fact that this is just a bad movie and a dreadful bore.



Other Thoughts:

• At least it has the decency to tell you when it’s finally over

Sweet release

3/10

Next Week: Robin Hood!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

19. The Jungle Book (1967)

Next up is The Jungle Book, a spirited romp through the jungle with a cast of classically wild and crazy Disney characters. Released in 1967, this film definitely has the feel of its time – it’s dominated by jazz music and hip, “groovy” character types from the culture of the 60’s and late 50’s, this film definitely exists in a very clear time and place. That’s not to say the film is dated however, but is rather one of its strengths; by combining the seemingly polar opposite worlds of the swinging 60’s, with its revolutionary new cultural changes and rebellious attitudes and the Indian jungle of the 18^th century, an uptight and jingoistic age of British imperialism, the movie develops a very strange and interesting setting – one that, honestly, is probably as far away from Rudyard Kipling’s original stories as you could imagine. Along with an interesting cast of characters and a straightforward and direct storyline, The Jungle Book makes for not only an interesting piece of 60’s culture, but a very enjoyable film in its own right.

Once again, there’s not much new to say the animation, which continues to utilise the xerography method first seen in One Hundred and One Dalmatians. Again, things have been cleaned up a bit and the lines are less rough and sketchy, but I’m not sure how much of a good thing that is; while the animation of One Hundred and One Dalmatians was undoubtedly very rough, there was a charm and freshness to how different and almost primitive it looked, which fit well with the style of the film. In The Jungle Book, that novelty has worn off a little and some of the more traditionally rounded character designs of Mowgli and the little girl from the end of the film don’t suit this style as much as the heavily stylised and angular characters of One Hundred and One Dalmatians. Still, there’s nothing else much wrong with it and there are some really nice character designs for the animal characters, who are very expressive and great at conveying emotion through facial expressions. The backgrounds are very nice, the jungle is certainly painted quite well and there is a lot of detail, adding greatly to the film’s atmosphere and effectively establishing a solid setting; if anything, the backgrounds are perhaps a little too detailed for the more comparatively simplistic and rough animation style – the two don’t gel together as well as in One Hundred and One Dalmatians, which had equally stylised and simplistic backgrounds, rather than these traditionally painted ones you might see in Fantasia. Still, it seems silly to complain about the backgrounds being too nice and they definitely stay as the background, never becoming too distracting, they always serve their inherent purpose of being an environment for the characters to explore and that’s it. The animation continues to only make baby steps forward, but it still manages to capture a lot of fun and energy and be fun enough to watch.

Kaa creepin’

The story is clear, if a little thin; again, it really has nothing whatsoever to do with the original stories, even less so than usual from Disney – infamously, Walt Disney gave the head writer a copy of Rudyard Kipling’s original The Jungle Book novel and immediately told him ‘The first thing I want you to do is not to read it’ and that definitely shows, but it’s not a bad thing, as Disney manages to take the basic idea of Kipling’s world and cast and put their own, fun spin on things, as they so often do. The storyline isn’t exactly strong, nor does it really build from scene to scene; like Alice in Wonderland, it’s more about the setting than it is about any specific plot and it uses its setting to jump from scene to scene of Mowgli interacting with a different, eccentric animal character and though certainly a lot more subdued than Alice in Wonderland, the film definitely reflects that basic structure. Still, like Alice’s quest to find the white rabbit, the movie has a clear aim from day one: Bagheera wants to get Mowgli to the man village, while Mowgli wants to stay in the jungle and they must avoid Shere Khan along the way; while this is brushed aside at times to accommodate the different animal’s antics, it is never really forgotten, unlike Alice’s search for the white rabbit and remains the driving force for the movie all throughout. The plot isn’t complex or well developed and certainly takes a back seat to the characters and various set pieces, but it’s at least well defined and always present, if a little underplayed. Most of the set pieces are really fun too, one of the best being the escape from the ancient ruins – Mowgli is thrown back and forth between Baloo, Bagheera, King Louie and his monkeys, as the ruins slowly crumble around them; things are constantly jumping all over the place, making for a crazy, action-packed and exciting chase. This is just one of the great scenes from the film. 

Like The Sword in the Stone before it, The Jungle Book is really well paced; it gets started very fast and then moves the plot along quickly, without ever rushing or omitting important details. The film really does a lot in a small amount of time, by the time Mowgli has been kidnapped by the monkeys Baloo and him have only known each other for about ten minutes, yet Baloo is already furious at the monkeys and desperate to get Mowgli back and we totally believe it. In just a couple of scenes, Disney build such a strong relationship between the two that we feel like they have known each other for way longer, nothing about Baloo’s feelings for Mowgli comes off as phony or unearned, even though the two have barely spent any time together at all; Disney really packed as much as they could into every minute of the film, without making it seem bloated or messy. Things do slow down a little in the middle and the film could probably stand to be about ten minutes shorter, but it makes sense considering where the story is at that point and things do pick up again quickly and lead into an exciting climax, so this brief lull can be forgiven. As well as a sense of time, the film does a great job of creating a sense of place and a very strong and realised world in, again, such a short amount of time. You really feel like this jungle is a real, living, breathing place with its own sense of history; you get a good idea of how its society functions, how all the animals know one another, what their relationships are and what their history with one another is. All this is achieved so effectively just through the use of a few lines and brief touches in the characters’ interactions – the animal characters could all be meeting for the first time and the film would be pretty much the same, but by adding this subtle, downplayed sense of familiarity between them, it really helps legitimatise the idea that this jungle is a real place that existed before Mowgli and the audience entered it and this adds so much to the setting and atmosphere of the film. I left the film so enamoured with the world of the jungle that I honestly wanted to see more of it, I wanted know more about the animals’ pasts and how they first came to know each other... but then I remembered the short lived Disney channel show Jungle Cubs and decided maybe that some things are best left unknown.

Why is Shere Khan their friend it makes NO SENSE

The film employs a colourful cast of characters that includes arguably some of the most memorable and beloved in the entire Disney canon; understandable, as most them are great fun to watch, though some are admittedly a little weak. Mowgli is probably the weakest, as the protagonist of Disney movies so often are, as he’s mostly just a wide-eyed innocent who exists as an audience surrogate that pays witness to all the wacky animal hijinks, he doesn’t do much himself. To be fair, Mowgli is at least not a pushover like so many of his predecessors, he stands up for himself, he wants what he wants and does his best to get it and at times he can be very bold and firm, even to the point of arrogance; however, he can’t really back this up, being rather weak and ineffectual and in constant need of rescue - in the aforementioned chase through the ancient ruins, he is literally just passed from character to character and does nothing to help his own situation, he is pretty much just a prop - but at least he has the right attitude. Colonel Hathi is a bit of a bore, he’s a very generic character type of the stuffy old man who thinks he’s in the army, takes his self-appointed leadership role too seriously and isn’t really very good at what he does; he’s pretty identical to the similarly named Colonel from One Hundred and One Dalmatians and isn’t that fun, but he’s not in the film much so it’s not too bad. Then there are the vultures which are supposed to be the Beatles...? I dunno, one has the mop top haircut and sounds like someone doing a Ringo impression, but the others don’t really seem like the Beatles at all, I don’t really get it; they’re okay, I guess.

The other characters are mostly good though, Kaa is laughably pathetic and ineffectual and delivers some good physical comedy, King Louie is wild, eccentric and great fun, Bagheera is good in his constant attempts to be responsible and give good advice to Mowgli, only to be defied and then almost immediately proven right. Best of all is Baloo, he’s cool, fun, relaxed and delivers some of the best lines of the movie, such as his protestation against bringing Mowgli to the man village: ‘They’ll ruin him! They’ll make a man out of him!’ Baloo and Bagheera have a great dynamic acting as Mowgli’s two father figures and playing off one another, from the more serious, irritable and long-suffering Bagheera, who seems to get all the bad luck, to the more fun-loving, irresponsible and mellow Baloo, who seems to glide through life and get by with few troubles. They make a really good, classic double-act that unfortunately can get a little pushed aside at times for the other animal characters, which is a shame because their relationship is so strong that it really should be at the centre of the movie.

Then of course, there’s the villain, Shere Khan, one of the best parts of the movie; though only appearing in the last third, Shere Khan’s presence is felt all through the first hour of the movie and when he finally makes his appearance he proceeds to totally steal the show. He has such a fantastic personality, from his lazy, disinterested design, to the slow and deliberate movements in his animation and the way he talks – he is almost Shakespearean in his cadence, always speaking slowly and carefully, politely, but with a layer of threat, he is in complete control of every scene he’s in. While generally polite and reasonable, when this calm geniality is offset with his ruthless pragmatism, it makes Shere Khan seem genuinely threatening and dangerous, rather than just silly like Captain Hook or laughably evil like Maleficent or the Evil Queen. Shere Khan is very fun to watch, but he’s not a joke, he’s also a legitimately dangerous villain with a goal that is not ridiculously petty or cartoonishly evil, but frighteningly cruel and realistic – he’s not a monster and is mostly pretty easygoing, but he’ll remove anything that’s a threat to him, even a child.

‘Look on my works ye Mighty and despair’ – King Louie

Though the film has a strong setting and a good cast of characters, it is the music which is really at the heart of the picture; the songs of The Jungle Book are almost all good and, along with the musical score, they solidify the atmosphere the film is trying to create and bring the whole thing together. The background music is always fantastic, the overture and main theme of the movie is a beautiful, mysterious piece that effortlessly captures the dark beauty, mystery and danger of the jungle; the sounds of the bass flute (I believe that’s what it is, but perhaps it’s a different woodwind instrument) in particular evoke a sense of exoticism that fits India and its environment so perfectly, it’s almost like an audible representation of a snake, slowly slithering through the jungle under moonlight. It really is just a wonderful, wonderful piece of music from composer George Bruns. Then there’s the songs, though they’re not all fantastic, even some of the weaker ones like the chirpy “Colonel Hathi’s March” or rather slow “Trust in Me” are still very good and the other few are really top notch. The music to “My Own Home” is heard throughout the film whenever the characters discuss the fact that Mowgli is, no matter how long he’s spent in the jungle, still a human, foreshadowing the importance the song will have in his discovery and acceptance of this fact he has resisted for so long; when the song finally plays in full, it has so much more impact. The song itself is, like the main theme, haunting and mysterious, with a dark sense of beauty; it’s like a siren song that slowly draws the listener in, perfectly capturing Mowgli’s feelings – his sense of curiosity, the mystery of the young girl and the unexplainable pull she has on him which finally brings him to accept his role as a man. 

To speak on a less pretentious level, “I Wan’na Be Like You” is just an awesome jazz song; high energy, upbeat, insanely catchy and while a little lacking in lyrics – most of it is just Louie and Baloo scatting – the few that are in there are mostly really good, the powerful imagery of fire as ‘man’s red flower’ in particular, stands out. Though a little slower, but just as catchy, “The Bare Necessities” is another hit which, for quite possibly the first time since “When I See an Elephant Fly”, shows that wonderful Disney wit and playfulness in its lyricism which will be perfected over the next twenty or so years. From the basic, but joyful pun of the title to the fast paced, tongue-twister verse which jumps between ‘paw’, ‘raw’, ‘claw’ and ‘pawpaw’, you can really tell how much fun they were having with this one and the audience surely is too; how can you dislike a song which rhymes ‘necessities’ with ‘rest at ease’ IT’S JUST SO GOOD. On a side note, The Lion King really owes quite a lot to The Jungle Book, the way young Simba draws from Mowgli, Zazu from Bagheera, Timon and Puumba from Baloo, the hyenas from King Louie and the other monkeys, Scar from Shere Khan and most notably, “Hakuna Matata” from “Bare Necessities”; in fact, there’s a whole part of “Bare Necessities” (a song about being carefree, easygoing and taking whatever comes your way in life GEE SOUNDS FAMILIAR) where Baloo teaches Mowgli about eating bugs by lifting up a rock and showing him the bugs underneath GEE SOUNDS FAMILIAR. Not to say The Lion King is lazy or bad, far from it and we’ll get to that when we get to it, but it’s weird to see how often it’s praised and called one of the best and many people’s favourite, when people so rarely seem to acknowledge how heavily it drew from The Jungle Book, but whatever. Either way, the music in this film is really good.

Junglebait

The Jungle Book is a great time, it’s hip, it’s fun and it always keeps you entertained; the world of the jungle is so well realised through the interactions of the characters and the atmospheric effect of the music that it really feels like a real place – more importantly, it feels like a real place that I’d want to go to and that really says a lot for this movie’s charm. The characters range from a little boring to a lot of fun, the villain is dripping with style and charisma and is incredibly enjoyable to watch and the songs practically explode off the screen with their energetic choreography and upbeat rhythm. Unfortunately, while a few weaker characters might not usually be a big problem, they do become a bit of a wrench in the works for this very character based film and, while the pacing is always good, their scenes can slow things down a bit. The plot is also a little too thin, though the film doesn’t suffer from a lack of direction, it doesn’t exactly develop the story into much else and uses it more as an excuse for tangentially related side-stories, though they’re mostly entertaining ones, so it’s not much of a problem. Artistically, the animation is at times very good and the backgrounds are nice, but the general artistry of the film is a little lacking; it’s definitely not bad, but from Disney I expect a little more. Still, these problems certainly don’t stop The Jungle Book from being a really good film and a clear source of inspiration for things to come; sadly, this was the last film in the animated canon that Walt Disney himself worked on, but all things considered, it’s a pretty  damn good one to go out on.

Other Thoughts:

• Best moment in the movie:
  
  Bagheera: ‘This will take brains, not brawn’
  Baloo: ‘You better believe it and I’m loaded with both!’
  
  Baloo is the man

Is he supposed to be in drag...?

• 10 Things You Never Knew About Disney: You guys, Shere Khan killed Bambi’s mother!!!!!!!!!!!

It’s a deer in a Disney movie, so it must be the same character!!!!!!!!!!!!

Somebody send this to Buzzfeed right now!!!!!!!!!!

• Finally, some vultures that don’t look like messengers from hell

Everybody’s got something to hide except for me and my vultures

7/10

Next Week: The Aristocats!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

18. The Sword in the Stone (1963)

One of my favourites from when I was a kid, The Sword in the Stone is a film often forgotten by many, but just as fondly remembered by some, there seems to be some sense of inherent nostalgia to it, as if it naturally elicits feelings of ‘Oh yeah, I remember that one!’ at least in my experience, anyway. It’s not one of Disney’s strongest efforts, but this energetic and humorous retelling of Arthurian legend manages to not only keep you entertained all the way through, but also make some surprisingly subtle points about maturity, responsibility and personal development... but mostly just the entertaining thing.

There’s not much new to say about the animation style, as it is almost identical to the one used in One Hundred and One Dalmatians, once again employing the Xerox photography method to save time and cut costs. It looks fine, I don’t think the style suits this film quite as well as it did in One Hundred and One Dalmatians, which had an equally stylised, modern setting, while this film takes place in a more traditional Disney medieval fantasy world, but it works well enough and the style has been cleaned up a bit, with the lines a little less rough and scratchy and the animation a little more smooth and controlled. The backgrounds are good, most of them are just pretty decent but some, such as those featured in the London scenes, are really very nice, featuring a lot of bright colours and crowd shots that are highly reminiscent of the castle scenes in Sleeping Beauty, though not quite to the same level of detail, of course. In fact, the film makes frequent and heavy use of colour, from the bright and vibrant banners and robes of the London scenes to the way in which some of the bigger characters are identified with a single colour – Arthur with orange, Merlin with blue, Madam Mim with pink; colour is very important to the film and while that seems to go without saying in an animated picture, the impact and effectiveness of colour can often be forgotten in less imaginative films, so it’s nice to see it used in such a prominent way. On a general level, the animation is nothing revolutionary, even if it does clean up the new style a bit, but it works well for the energised, comic atmosphere that the film is trying to create.

‘And lo, thou shalt writeth lots of tiny letters on the sword that one can barely even read unless the camera zooms in really close...eth’

The Sword in the Stone is probably Disney’s most down-to-Earth, standard comedy yet, a little odd considering it’s set in medieval England and features wizards, talking owls and giant purple (NOT pink) dragons, but whatever, it’s a cartoon. Though pretty much all Disney films have some comic relief, few are primarily comedies and the few of those that we have seen so far have been diluted by things that normally take centre stage – Peter Pan and One Hundred and One Dalmatians try to maintain a sense of action and adventure, while Dumbo tries to juggle its comedy with a heartfelt emotional journey. Alice in Wonderland is the closest we’ve had so far to an out and out comedy, but even that has some sense of adventure and its humour is very absurd and extreme; while The Sword in the Stone is by all means fantastical, it is a lot more grounded. This lets the film work quite effectively as a light hearted comedy, with few distractions; an odd choice for a movie about Arthurian legend, which usually focuses on adventure and high-fantasy with an epic sense of scale. That said, seeing a lighter, sillier take on these usually dense and serious myths and characters is quite refreshing and sweet, it’s genuinely quite an inspired and interesting idea. The movie might not be a laugh riot comedy – it’s a Disney movie, what do you expect? – but the humour is still fun and enjoyable and, in my opinion, never becomes too goofy or obnoxious, like some of Disney’s other attempts.

The movie’s strongest point, however, is its pacing and sense of time – while the comedy is cute, but not hilarious, it is helped along tremendously by the film’s fast pace and high energy. The film just does not stop, it’s always throwing something new at you, a visual gag, some physical humour, some more character based stuff, a complete change of venue and situation, it’s just constant energy and while none of the jokes really knock it out of the park, it throws so many at the wall and so many of them stick that the movie really comes together as a whole. That’s not to say things are rushed either, as the movie definitely knows when to take its time, to slow things down a little and let you take in the whole scene, or to take a little more time with some sequences over others (The ones where Arthur and Merlin transform into animals are given a bit more time and attention than most others), but it never drags or wears an idea out; the film slows, but never stops, there’s always something going on. The story is very thin; ostensibly the film is about Merlin educating young Arthur about the world, effectively preparing him to be a good King, which he becomes at the end of the film and, while this is always in the background, it’s pretty irrelevant in the foreground, which is focused pretty squarely on Merlin’s bumbling antics and his relationship with his owl, Archimedes. 

Help I’m a Fish! 

(If you get this joke please let me know because I don’t believe you exist)

The film wanders from scene to scene without much of a greater purpose for a long time, then suddenly, out of nowhere and with absolutely no build up, a villain shows up in the form of Madam Mim for about ten minutes and then the last ten minutes of the film have nothing to do with her! Mim’s inclusion is completely random and pointless, has nothing to do with the primary plot and only barely ties into the film’s thematic and moral message – ‘knowledge and wisdom is the real power’ – she’s really just there for fun. But none of this is a problem really, because she is fun! The wizard’s duel between her and Merlin, where the two constantly change from one animal to another in order to outwit each other, is very fast paced, energised, imaginatively animated and, most importantly, really fun to watch; it’s undoubtedly the best sequence in the film. Though the film might eschew story and significant character development (although there is a little) in favour of just having fun, it achieves its goal of... well, just having fun, pretty consistently, so all in all I’d call it a success.

The characters are few, but a memorable few: first we have our “protagonist” of sorts, Arthur, yet another Disney protagonist who is sweet and innocent, but dull and lacking in much of a character; certainly, this archetype has grown terribly tired by this point, but to be fair, it is a lot more appropriate and necessary here, as a straight man is required to react to the more lively and ridiculous Merlin and Archimedes and Arthur fills the role well enough. Oddly, Arthur actually seems to have a bit more of a personality when he’s transformed into animals than he does as a human, being less of a pushover and more firm with Merlin. Either way, Arthur is only really there because the film is, supposedly, about him learning how to be a King and based on his legends; though Arthur may have been the hero of those stories, Merlin is the real protagonist of The Sword in the Stone and the film focuses much more on his frustrations with medieval society and his difficulty in teaching Arthur to focus on mind over muscle than it does on how Arthur learns from him. This is good, because Merlin is pretty great, he manages to both be impressively capable and intimidating when he needs to be, while also being hilariously incompetent and unimpressive for most of the time. He works so much better than say, the bumbling Captain Hook, who screws up absolutely everything and slips and slides about everywhere, never missing an opportunity for slapstick and preventing you from ever taking seriously. With Merlin, you KNOW he’s a powerful wizard, you KNOW he knows what he’s doing and he sometimes pulls off some very impressive feats, but you also know that, inevitably, the second he manages to do something right, he’s immediately going to get too arrogant and let his pride slip him up, immediately eradicating any respect he may have just earned. Watching a character who you know has all the power to succeed in any way he wants constantly fail purely because of his own hubris is much funnier than watching one who seems inherently incapable of doing anything right, constantly battered by everything in the universe and purely unlucky; the bigger they are, the harder they fall and the harder they fall, the bigger you laugh. 

Behold, the great Wizard, Teabeard

Archimedes is good too, he acts kind of like a straight man at times, mocking Merlin’s constant missteps, but will also get involved in the antics and make a fool of as well; he and Merlin have a great dynamic, constantly switching roles in the double act to be the mocked target of misfortune and then the smug onlooker doing the mocking. Arthur’s adopted father, Ector, is not bad either, he’s quite reminiscent of the overbearing Kings from Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty in design and personality, but is quite a bit funnier and more memorable than those two; third time’s a charm! I actually found Arthur’s adopted brother and bully, Kay, to be quite funny too; he’s just such a callous jerk who doesn’t give a damn about anything around him. A really funny moment comes when Merlin summons a blizzard inside the castle to prove that he is a magician to Ector, who, covered in show and shivering madly, calls out to his son to look at what’s happening. Kay, completely disinterested by this impossible display just says ‘So what?’ in a bored tone and continues eating; he’s so unimpressed by something so impressive, I love that. I kind of wish they’d use Kay in this way more often, as he doesn’t appear much throughout the film and is usually just there to be a bully to Arthur, rather than as a comic device, but whatever, I’ll take that one scene. The only other prominent character is the “villain” (if you can even really call her that) of Madam Mim, who, as said before, appears very briefly and has no real importance to what little story there is; she seems to have no motivation other than simply being a bad witch and apparently just wants to screw with Merlin because it’s funny. Again, this might be goofy in a more serious movie, but for a comedy, it works well; Mim is a bit too over-the-top and silly for my tastes, but she more than makes up for it with the crazy energy she brings to her scenes and her involvement in the fantastic wizard’s duel.

The music starts off strong, but lulls into a bit of a disappointment – the film returns to a more traditional musical format after the last couple, with longer and more prominent songs. There’s an introductory song which starts off the movie called, fittingly enough, “The Sword in the Stone” which is perfectly fine, but things really kick off with the next song, “Higitus Figitus”, which is great. Like the rest of the movie, it’s super energetic and upbeat, constantly ramping up the pace and speed; it utilises Merlin’s absent-minded brilliantness to great comedic effect, employs very fun and memorable nonsense lyrics in the form of a rhythmic chant – it’s essentially “Bibidi Bobidi Boo” perfected – and ties together with rapid, lively animation and some great editing to form a hectic, madcap and very memorable song. It’s a shame then that the rest are such a bore; there’s about three or four other songs but none of them are really worth talking about, I suppose “That’s What Makes the World Go Round” kind of gets stuck in your head, but that’s only really because they sing that chorus so often that it’s inevitable. The songs aren’t awful, it’s just a shame that none of them could match the energy and chaos of “Higitus Figitus”; seriously, you’d think a song called “Mad Madam Mim” would be a lot more fun and lively, but oh well.

This film was released the same year as “Puff the Magic Dragon” Coincidence!?!? (Yes)

The Sword in the Stone is a very good natured family comedy that can be enjoyed by anyone, I honestly find it hard to imagine anyone hating this, it’s just got so much heart and spirit. It’s energetic, bouncy and never stops moving and its bright colours and fun animation helps the movie to jog along at a healthy pace and never lose momentum – I think this might be the first time so far where the movie ended and I thought “Wait, it’s over already?” The characters are fun, the jokes are fun, the visuals are fun, it’s just fun; not groundbreaking, or artistically exciting or especially imaginative (except for a few great moments like the wizard’s duel and “Higitus Figitus”) but it’s fun and that’s all it really needs to be, for what it is. For a film that’s sometimes brushed aside or forgotten, The Sword in the Stone is a real good time; if you’ve never seen it or just maybe forgot you had, check it out, it’s not going to blow your mind, but it’ll make you smile. 

Other Thoughts

• This is a pretty funny image.

‘If you like Pina Coladas...’

• Early on they have this really weird shot of Arthur drinking tea and looking high out of his mind that they cut to three times. I have no idea why this image exists because it never seems to appear in context, it’s really odd.

I think uh... I think Merlin might have put something in that tea

6.5/10


Next Week: The Jungle Book!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

17. One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961)

One Hundred and One Dalmatians is a cheerful film of originality and ambition, if not fantastic quality; after the failure of the highly expensive Sleeping Beauty, Disney’s animation studio was in danger of being shut down completely, causing them to have to take some cost cutting measures in regards to their animation style, starting with this film. While it’s debatable whether this ended up being a good or a bad thing in the long run, it definitely makes One Hundred and One Dalmatians stand out from the previous Disney films and while it does have some familiar aspects, such as a focus on talking animals, the movie itself has a pretty different story and general style to what we’ve seen so far as well, making it a refreshingly new experience, even if it doesn’t quite match up to some of Disney’s better works.

The aforementioned cost cutting measures consisted of using Xerox photography to transform the rough drawings of the animators straight into animation cels, removing the need for hand painting, which is extremely costly and time consuming. This had a pretty drastic effect on the animation style of the film, which looks unlike anything we’ve seen from Disney before; as a result of being transfers of the animator’s basic drawings, the lines are very hard, rough and scratchy, as opposed to the soft, rounded look we have grown accustomed to. Sometimes the lines get so rough and thick that it can actually appear as if you’re watching an animatic, rather than the finished product. The character designs are also a lot more angular and stylised, rather than rounded and cutesy; we saw the beginnings of this new style in Sleeping Beauty, but the characters still had the familiar Disney touch, whereas One Hundred and One Dalmatians goes so far with these new designs that, when combined with the rough and scratchy animation style, it barely resembles Disney at all.

 ‘And kids, that’s how I met your mother... and her dog’

The backgrounds are similarly stylised, they are more simplistic than previous ones, with a lot less detail and none of the subtle, watercolour-like colouring of films such as Pinocchio, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, or Bambi; buildings and structures are heavily angular and rough, filled with blocks of solid colours that at times even spill out of the lines of the drawing. This gives the whole film a very different, more modernised kind of look which really helps set it apart from its predecessors – Disney continued to use this style for a number of its future films and while I feel like it may have grown a bit tiresome eventually and when it comes down to it, I do prefer their classic style, I like how it’s used here. After so many done in the same style, to the point where Disney was starting to rehash previous ideas all too frequently, with the similar character designs of Snow White, Cinderella and, to an extent, Sleeping Beauty and the fact that for a while they had remained relatively stagnant and made little to no progression or changes with their style, it’s nice to see something so radically different from them; the animation is still smooth and impressive, as well, so overall this new approach is a breath of fresh air. The best sequence of the film is the opening, which animates the Dalmatian’s spots in a very creative and energised way, pairing the animation with upbeat jazz music which helps create a really fun and high energy atmosphere that draws you into the film right from the start.

The story is a little different for Disney as well, it doesn’t ascribe to the fairy tale format of Snow White, Pinocchio, Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty, nor the collection of somewhat loosely connected set pieces seen in Dumbo, Bambi, Alice in Wonderland or Peter Pan. After a brief introduction which follows the meeting of the two adult Dalmatians and their human owners, the plot is pretty quickly established when Cruella De Vil kidnaps their puppies and the rest of the film is a continuing rescue attempt. Though the film does shift between a number of different characters, the main plot is always present and rarely deviated from and the film never loses focus; considering Disney’s tendency to go off on tangents in order to facilitate musical numbers, bizarre animated sequences or goofy slapstick scenes, it’s nice to see them stay on point and follow the story all the way through. The story isn’t incredibly engaging, but it works well for what it is and never really gets boring, it’s an interesting idea that’s followed through to its natural conclusion; there aren’t really any twists and turns along the way, it’s a fairly standard line from point A to point B, but there’s no real harm in that. I do like how they kept the film from ever getting too silly or too sweet; so many previous Disney films, even some of the better ones, felt the need to insert overly cutesy “heartwarming” moments, or over-the-top, ridiculous slapstick moments into stories that didn’t really need them. While there is some level of cutesiness in the form of the puppies and Jasper, Horace and to a lesser extent, Cruella do engage in a little slapstick, the film keeps things relatively low-key and never goes too far, it’s a relatively serious and self-assured film that, thankfully, doesn’t feel the need to cheapen itself.

She drives like crazy

The characters are mostly fine, but not really very interesting, the main two human characters of Roger and Anita disappear for most of the film and don’t really have much to do, though when Roger is around he’s a pretty fun and likeable guy – he’s nice and friendly, but isn’t a pushover and doesn’t fall for Cruella’s nice act, for a male Disney “hero”, he’s rather intelligent and realistic. Anita on the other hand is a bit of a bore and absolutely does fall for Cruella’s act, scolding Roger for accusing her of stealing the puppies and being evil when it’s incredibly obvious to anyone with a brain that both of those things are 100% true; still, you don’t see her much, so no harm done. Nanny is the only character I didn’t especially like, again, she isn’t in it much, but when she is she’s constantly screeching something and really, she just got on my nerves, I didn’t want to hear her talk. 

Pongo and Perdita are, to a degree, pretty much just dog versions of their owners, Pongo’s a fun and likeable guy and Perdita is nice but a bit boring, though she is admittedly less blind and trusting than her human counterpart (Really, who in their right mind would be friends with Cruella De Vil, what does she get out of that relationship?) They are absent for a decent portion of the film as well, but are still in it enough to be thought of as the protagonists and they fill their roles adequately, though hardly bring much personality to the table; they’re kind of like Lady and the Tramp, but with less to do and thus, fewer opportunities to show us their personalities. The puppies are more like props than characters but most of the original fifteen do get at least a line or two and they all have a little quirk to their characters – Rolly is always hungry, Lucky has a tendency to stand up in front of the TV, Patch is scrappy and acts like a tough guy, they’re all very one-note and reminiscent of the Dwarves from Snow White. Like their parents, the puppies serve their role in the plot appropriately and only really exist to be kidnapped and subsequently rescued, but it’s probably better that they have a degree of personality, even if they’re simply defined by one attribute, as opposed to simply being blank slates that exist only as props, at least they have some semblance of a character.

 ‘FRESHEN YA DRINK GUVNA?’

There are a slew of other animal characters that appear, usually only for one or two scenes, some exist only to have brief conversations about the puppies’ kidnapping, before sending the message on and others exist  to actively assist Pongo and Perdita in the rescue. The most prominent of these are the Colonel and Sergeant Tibbs, a stuffy, absent-minded old dog and his more competent, but anxious feline sidekick; Colonel is a classically goofy archetype, a leader who thinks he’s smarter than he is and has to rely on his subordinates, who he gives no credit – it’s a type we’ll see used again later down the line in films such as The Jungle Book – he’s just okay. I quite liked Sergeant Tibbs though, you expect him to be kind of incompetent, because he’s so nervous and seemingly hesitant, yet he’s surprisingly capable and heroic; something about him is very likeable and makes you really root for him, his scenes were some of my favourites. As for the villains, Jasper and Horace are a pretty classic villainous double-act: the two incompetent bad guys, one fat and short and one tall and thin, one who’s a little more dim and one who’s a little smarter, but thinks he’s a lot smarter; it’s been done before in films like Pinocchio and Peter Pan and will be done again in films like Song of the South and Home Alone, it’s hardly a particularly creative idea, even if it hadn’t been utilised as much at this point. Still, they can be rather fun to watch and though their dynamic is very predictable, it still produces some funny results; like I said, it would be easy to just make them vehicles for extreme slapstick, like Captain Hook and Smee, but the film thankfully keeps this to a relative minimum. 

The big villain of course is Cruella De Vil, a character I have practically no opinion of beyond a fundamental lack of understanding as to her popularity; she’s got an interestingly bizarre design and she can say some funny lines, but on the whole... I just don’t get it. She really doesn’t have any unique nuances or interesting quirks to her character, except that she’s obsessed with fur, but you don’t really get a feel for that and the film doesn’t really take advantage of it much, partially because Cruella isn’t really in the film for very long. She’s just kind of silly and ridiculously evil, she literally wants to murder puppies for coats and suggests that Jasper and Horace ‘poison them, drown them, bash them in the head’ in a laughably cavalier and nonchalant manner, it’s very hard to take her seriously. Though the Evil Queen and Maleficent are also insanely evil for petty reasons, they also manage to be threatening and forceful, taking command of any scene they’re in; they are also so absorbed and seemingly thrilled with their own villainy that you can’t help but be drawn in to having fun with them. Cruella on the other hand, is not threatening at all and never really has the power or energy to take control of a scene, you always get the feeling that none of the characters are really taking her seriously and so, neither do you; unlike the Evil Queen and Maleficent, who you laugh maniacally alongside as their villainous plans unfold, you simply laugh at Cruella, who never stops being a bad joke, making for a pretty ineffectual villain.

 ‘It’s our calling card! All the great ones leave their mark, we’re the spotted bandits!’

 ‘You’re sick, you know that?’

It’s difficult to call One Hundred and One Dalmatians a musical as there’s only two songs in the whole film, “Cruella De Vil” and “Dalmatian Plantation”, the latter of which only has a couple of lines and the songs are literally spaced as far apart as possible, being very near the beginning and in the very last scene, respectively. Though this is perhaps evidence that Disney were indeed becoming tired of musicals or at least, lacking in the creativity to continue to make effective ones, at least the film isn’t populated with lazy or annoying songs that shouldn’t have been there in the first place, like some of their previous efforts – if they could only come up with two good songs, then fine, I’m glad they only used those two. Indeed, the two songs they use are really quite good, “Cruella De Vil” is of course very memorable and powerful, much more so than the actual character it’s named for, in my opinion and “Dalmatian Plantation” is a fast paced, energetic song which sends the film out on a high note. The general music of the film follows a rather jazzy, upbeat style, which fits the more stylised art design and gives the film a more contemporary feel – indeed, One Hundred and One Dalmatians was the first Disney film to be set in the modern day, rather than the past or some fantasy, fairy tale world. The music works well with the animation and general art design to help lock this feeling down and create a newer style that really lets you believe the film takes place in the early 60’s.

‘They call me MISTER Tibbs!’

One Hundred and One Dalmatians isn’t a masterpiece, but it also isn’t a bore and most importantly, it isn’t lazy. How much their financial issues contributed to how this film turned out and how much of it was due to actual conscious decisions and creativity, I don’t know, but regardless of the reason, One Hundred and One Dalmatians has a fresh, new feel quite unlike any of the Disney films that came before it. Though sketchy and unrefined, the new art style has a distinct charm to it and is a welcome change from Disney’s traditional style; the contemporary setting and use of jazz music also helps set the film apart as a newer kind of work. Appropriately, the film also avoids going back to the well for ideas, forgoing familiar fairy tale plots or happy-go-lucky adventures with a lot of silly, physical humour and not very much direction – the film has a clear story and goal that it sets up early on and follows for the duration of the picture; the characters are unfortunately a little bland, but they work well enough as tools to service the more concrete and defined plot. The music is fun and well constructed and, thank goodness, the film knows only to use the best songs at its disposal and not try to pad the film out with weaker musical numbers. One Hundred and One Dalmatians isn’t groundbreaking like Snow White or Fantasia and despite its new style, it definitely hasn’t escaped some of the lingering problems we’ve seen throughout Disney’s films so far, but it’s a nice start; it might not be a great film, but I admire and appreciate it for trying something different and, at least to some degree, succeeding.


Other Thoughts

• Some pretty heavily re-used character models from Lady and the Tramp show up here and there

Oh, hello Jock you’re looking... exactly the same

• Look at the size of this guy’s teeth

Teeth look like CHALK

6/10

Next Week: The Sword in the Stone!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds