101 Dalmatians (1961)

Based in a novel from 1956 of the same name, 101 Dalmatians is a man-dog love story with some cool little touches that make for a very fun and original movie. The story presents the parallel perspectives of both the dogs and their owners, only that from the dog’s point of view it is the dogs that own the people rather than the other way around. Dogs are given another leg up (get it?) in that they are aware of both what other dogs and humans are saying while the humans are forced to make guesses like an episode of Lassie. I guess you can say that the dogs of 101 Dalmatians are super-anthropomorphized. I normally don’t care much for anthropomorphized animals but this movie has enough charm and good intentions that I let it slide.

Roger and Pongo, a human and a male dalmatian respectively, are a couple of bored bachelors living together in London until a not-so-chance meeting in the park, staged by Pongo, leads to a romance with a dalmatian named Perdita and her human, named Anita. A narration moves all of this along very quickly and we see that Anita and Roger are now married and that their dogs are having puppies....a huge litter of fifteen to be exact. This news gets the attention of a strange associate of Anita’s, a haggard socialite named Cruella De Vil (get it? Cruel Devil!), who excitedly offers to buy the entire litter. For what purpose? So that she can make a coat out of their soft little puppy fur. Obviously the answer is no, but Cruela won’t take no for an answer and so she resorts to dognapping which results in a full scale animal rescue filled with charm and humor.

If the story is virtuously simple it is only bolstered by the charming if not very well developed characters. In a movie with this many characters that would be a hard thing to accomplish indeed. However, Cruella is actually a particularly brilliant character in this movie. She starts off appearing as a smiling and well “polished” friend of the family but after she reveals her cruel intentions she is shown to be increasingly and frenetically evil until she becomes, or reveals herself, to be a crazed monster who will stop at nothing to get her way. She has a huge amount of screen time and is one of the most fun and most menacing Disney villains ever. When she finally gets her comeuppance, and you know she does, you can practically taste the justice dripping in your mouth....and it tastes a little like awesome. Or is that adrenaline? Or have I been drinking coffee too late in the afternoon again?

Animation wise, this movie is an interesting mile stone for Disney. Sleeping beauty, released in the 50s, had been a painful box office bomb since in it’s stylistic splendor it had cost too much to produce the old fashioned way. Indeed, ever since the animation strikes of 1941 and the consequent increase in production costs and the loss of 50% of the animators, Disney had found it virtually impossible to replicate the visual splendor of Snow White or Pinocchio. In order to find a way to reduce the cost of animated films and increase profitability, Ub Iwerks, the co-creator and original animator of Mickey Mouse, pioneered a way to utilize xerox technology to drastically cut down on the labor of hand drawn animation. 101 Dalmatians is the first movie to ever use xerography and, in fact, probably would not have been possible without the new technology since animating 101 individual dalmatians by hand would have been entirely too cumbersome. Yes, there are in fact 101 dalmatians in the movie, if you haven’t seen it. But then I’m wasting my breath because you, who have not seen it, are still living in a monastery high in the mountains and therefore you will not read this either. Pray for me brother.

Xerography and the move toward more angular lines on characters completely overhauled the Disney animation style for the next two decades or so. You’ve probably noticed how similar the animation and look of Disney movies from the 60s are with those from the 70s and yet different from the 40s and 50s and it is specifically because of this technology. The unfortunate thing is that, while fitting for this movie, xerography is far from perfect and it tends to leave a very unpolished look to the final product. Disney himself wasn’t really worried anymore about making perfect animated movies though, especially after Sleeping Beauty. His near complete devotion from 1950 or so on was the building, maintenance and expansion of Disneyland....and we all know how that turned out. Yeah, unfreaking believably awesome.

So it’s a technological first that represents a step or two back for animation. It’s got an original and interesting take on dog movies. It’s genuinely funny and the dialogue often very clever. It has one of the best villains who has a memorable song played about her in the movie (the one musical scene). It won’t blow you away but at the very same time what’s not to like? It’s one of the most popular Disney movies ever and it deserves most of the credit it gets.

I give it 3.8 black and white puppies

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)

This is one from the dark ages of Disney animation, that awful period between Walt Disney’s death in 1966 and the brief renaissance that was initiated by the Little Mermaid in 1989. At the same time, though, it’s not quite true that this is a product of the dark ages since in fact this movie is actually just three Winnie the Pooh shorts stuck together and the first two shorts (2/3 of the movie) have their origins from a time when Disney was still alive to make sure his animators had the fear of God in them.

Based on the popular children’s stories by English author A.A. Milne this movie is by nature episodic and disjointed. There is however a clever if somewhat slapdash attempt to provide a unifying spirit by structuring the stories around the memories of Christopher Robin, who eventually must abandon his fantasies of childhood to go off to boarding school, all of which seem to be built entirely upon a deep seeded loneliness. There’s actually a hint of tragedy in the premise. I can’t be the only one who thought that it was sad and strange that Pooh Bear and friends all existed solely because they are his “imaginary friends”, right?

Anyway the movie quickly moves through a number of charming vignettes about life in the Hundred Acre Wood, where Christopher Robin played, all of which are narrated as if the audience is being read to by some great big burly Nanny. Each short is slightly less appealing than the one before it, indeed, the last portion of the movie is very bland in comparison to the first. But what makes the bulk of the stories so wonderful is how simple and disarmingly mild they are; perfect for small children or adults who have had a very stressful day. In fact, I dare anyone who puts on this movie to not be relaxed by watching Pooh fly up the honey tree on a little balloon.

While there isn’t much in the way of animation to praise the music fits the tone of the sheltered childhood fantasy perfectly and is often just as cathartic as the gentle characters in Christopher Robin’s twisted fantasy world (save for the Tigger song, which is wild in an awesome way). Also the stories and delightful characters themselves offer up quite a lot of effective humor. Everyone, for instance, remembers the story about Pooh being so fat that he has to live inside Rabbits doorway for days to lose weight right? What a riot! If it sounds silly, trust me, it’s actually pretty sweet, especially when a beaver with a speech impediment gets involved. If you see it and still disagree...well then may God have mercy on your cynical black heart.

This movie is clearly not intended to be great filmmaking, it’s just a soothing, charming taste of English childhood, which I think traditionally comes with a side of blood sausage. In it’s intended end it succeeds, for at least most of the way. Gradually, it just turns into a Saturday morning cartoon but by then you and your children might actually be fast asleep anyway.

I give it 3.8 out of 5 honey pots. A happy romp inside a small boy’s imagination... a sad, somewhat neglected, and sterile imagination.

Anastasia (1997)

Here's a non-Disney review.

I've just come back from a train wreck. The cause, I conjecture, seems to have been that there were two different trains moving in diametrically opposed directions at very high speeds. The result is this terrible, animated mess of a film.

Now, Anastasia is often remembered by most as a successful 1990's member of the in-illustrious Don Bluth canon of quasi-Disney disasters that have managed to accomplish the following: introducing horrible nightmares into the minds of countless children with their inexplicably morbid images and flashy sequences, causing mass confusion over which popular animated films are (or are not) from the Disney corporation, and (it is speculated) helping to trigger the so-called "Disney Renaissance" that gave birth to such classics as Aladdin and the Lion King (and, it should be noted, such duds as Pocahontas and The Hunchback) by providing the only viable competition in the industry.

What is however not usually recognized about this film (or the Bluth canon) is that it is not just the product of Don Bluth but rather Don Bluth and Gary Goldman, Bluth's longtime friend and collaborator. Typically Goldman has played the role of "supporting man" to Bluth's creative engine, doing work as a co-producer or co-animator, but in a significant number of Bluth's films he also co-directed. It is noteworthy that these particular films are some of Bluth's absolute worst.

The reason I mention this relationship is that it is apparent from watching this film that the dual-headed nature of this film's production is a good explanation for what may have gone wrong with it, since watching it is such an jarring and disjointed experience. In the end, it is an aesthetically pretty mess that was shoddily strung together and prematurely delivered to market and there is this odd unfinished feel to the movie throughout, in-spite of the detailed, awkward animation which itself appears to be more than complete.

This is an ahistorical tale about princess Anastasia, daughter of the last Czar of Imperial Russia, Nicholas II, who was alleged to have inexplicably disappeared sometime between the time her family was massacred by the Bolsheviks, with her included it now turns out, and the time it took for someone to take a head-count of the deceased royal family. One theory, now long discredited, which is explored by this movie, was that the princess had escaped the fate of her family members only to finally reemerge publicly many years later. Many people decry this film for abusing and even grossly distorting the historicity of these events but I am not concerned with that here. I see no reason why we couldn't just pretend that this is fantasy and enjoy the film on other merits, but in fact those other merits wound up being impossible for me to enjoy.

What really irks me about this movie is how the narrative unfolds in such as way as to make you feel crazy. One moment Anastasia is characterized as a naive, sweet peasant girl, fulfilling stock Disney princess traits "borrowed" from Disney classics like Snow White or Cinderella. The next moment, however, she's become, without proper instigation, a sarcastic harpy clawing away at the film's male love interest and then, quite suddenly, transforming back again without explanation. As if this more subtle disjointed characterization were not sufficient, in early scenes Anastasia is shown with short brown hair under a Muscovite hat only to emerge later with long reddish hair that, again, clearly "borrows" it's look from Disney's Ariel of the Little Mermaid.

Other characters fair no better. The annoying Disney-esque familiar to our Jafar-like villain, Rasputan, is an obnoxious little white bat (which channels Iago from Aladdin) who inexplicably moves from being a sinister and vindictive side-kick to an unwilling and disinterested participant to his master's evil scheme. While I am all for a villain having some kind of moral conversion in the course of a story I would at least like to have a reason given for such a change.
But there are no reasons given and it is as if there were two different people working on this film with two different ideas about what the finished product ought to look and feel like. Personalities change, physical appearances change, sequences seem like they were out of place or even done as possible mutually exclusive alternatives and then just thrown into the final mix anyway. There are countless continuity errors, non-sequiturs, garbled quick fixes and implausible conveniences smattered all over the face of this production and it is jarring to the viewer.

At first I sort of liked this movie. I like the subject matter, I like the look of the film, the soundtrack  and I even like the voice acting for the most part. But in the end I found myself getting ripped away from what I was watching by the constant distraction of absurdity and inconsistency that made me recognize all the more that I was really just watching a shoddy, overly ambitious mess.

Perhaps if there were only one captain of the ship then this movie would have been more even handed and some of the big decisions about what was to result could have been made so as to produce something more coherent and polished. As is typical with Don Bluth, there was a lot wasted potential in this film.

It's not as bad as a Troll in Central Park (what is?) but this is no Secret of Nihm either.

I give it 2.8 out of 5 horrifying zombie Rasputins 

Bambi (1942)

In 1942 Bambi was Walt Disney’s first full-length animated failure. The critic’s, who were previously ecstatic about the company’s shorts and feature length films, had changed their minds about the unapologetically popular cartoon studio and while not necessarily spurned by the general public they too ultimately failed to patronize the film in the wake of World War II. Indeed Bambi as cherished as it is today surprisingly lost the Disney studios a significant amount of money, initiating the darkest post-Mickey stretch of Walt Disney’s career (largely due to the loss of the foreign markets...which were being bombed by Hitler at the time).

Based on a popular novel of the same name by Austrian writer Felix Salten, Bambi episodically dramatizes the life-cycle of a deer living in the forest (any forest?) who, like the titles of the movie and book, bares the name...Bambi. We see Bambi the day he is born, how he survives the hardships of the wild as a youth, and finally watch him grow into adulthood where he, with the help of a doe, finally reproduces.

If this framework sounds mundane, in the high-school biology textbook sort of way, then that’s because it sort of is. As a compelling story Bambi never really flies and the characters, though beautifully rendered and probably the cutest things ever projected in a theatre, are underdeveloped. This cuts down on the impact of Bambi’s famous emotional intensity which includes the loss of a parent, an escape from a harrowing forest-fire and the thrill of young love.

The animation and soundtrack though are spectacular by any standard and for any time period. Just as good as Snow White or Pinocchio. Disney in the wake of Snow White’s explosive success (1937) had turned his cartoon-style animators into highly trained artists by encouraging them (forcing them) to take classes with traditional painters and make trips to the Zoo to study the anatomy and movement of real-life animals. Realism in animation was the goal and that goal was soundly achieved by what is probably one of if not the greatest team of animators ever assembled in history.

My favorite thing though is the music which is as sentimental and bombastic as anything...you know, perfect. Unfortunately the music from Bambi hasn’t seen nearly as much popular play as the other “classic” Disney movies (anything older than 1955) and maybe this has something to do with the melancholic tone of the whole movie. In fact, like most small children, my daughter hates this movie. It’s too drawn out, too instrumental, has limited humor or dialogue, major characters die, Bambi has to flee frightening things all of the time and even has to fight another deer for mating rights. It’s an intense and yet impersonal Disney movie. I think a good way to view it is as a lost, extended clip from Fantasia which depending on who you are might be a very good or very bad thing.
Often hauntingly beautiful and yet, somehow, at times profoundly boring.

Final verdict: 3.8/5 birrrrrds

The Three Caballeros (1944)

In 1941, before the US involvement in World War II, Walt Disney was chosen to be a good will ambassador to Latin America where Disney cartoons were popular and the political situation potentially dangerous. Ties with the Nazis in some places were uncomfortably close and it was believed that such good will tours would strengthen international relations and therefore prevent conflict. Disney was also approached by Nelson Rockafeller at this time, who as “coordinator of inter-American affairs” was to lead the tour for Team USA, about the possibility of making a film about their exploits. With the US government fitting the bill for what amounted to a 40 minute collection of Donald Duck cartoons set in Argentina and Brazil, not necessarily a bad thing, a film was indeed finally released as Saludos Amigos in 1942. Though it wasn’t exactly Disney’s best work it was a huge hit in Latin American countries that got a kick out of seeing Disney cartoons, starring popular Disney characters, set in and about their countries. The only problem was that Mexico, omitted from the film, was pleading for a sequel.

The Three Caballeros is that sequel. Released in 1944 it features Donald Duck, Jose Carioca (the Brazilian parrot from Saludos Amigos) and a new sombrero wearing, cigar chomping, gun wielding, Mexican yodeling character named Panchito Pistoles. He’s from Mexico and you’d better believe it because, if not, he’ll kill you. No joke amigo. He literally threatens Donald in like manner during the course of the movie.

Anyway, Donald’s at home and gets a package in the mail containing three separate gifts, each one providing a segway into a short cartoon or musical episode that features various Latin American countries. First is a short, quite funny, “documentary” about tropical birds (you gotta love the crazy Aracuan). This is followed by a short about a penguin who’s sick of the far south American cold and tries to escape to the equator. Third is a cute cartoon about a little Argentinian boy and his flying Donkey. Then a beautiful musical sequence about the Brazilian state of Bahia. This is followed by what amounts to a wonderful surprise for me: a Mexican Posada wherein some children reenact Joseph and Mary’s search for a place to stay so that Jesus could be born. Panchito then gives Donald a tour of Mexico on his flying serape, I shit you not, and Donald harasses some women on the beach...and finally the whole thing just goes bananas in the form of a Latin dance extravaganza.

The pace of the the Three Caballeros is frantic and highly entertaining. At the same time the animation is often ingeniously creative, just as good as the elephants on parade sequence in Dumbo or segments of Fantasia. There are also a number of interesting segments combining live action and animation, the first ever in a major film I believe. Some of the real-life footage of Latin America, however, falls a little flat. I don’t know why but Disney, as brilliant as they were with ink and paper, just couldn’t do anything with a freaking camera, at all. They would have been better off just animating the entire thing. Also some of the song and dance sequences go on too long. Oh, and Panchito threatens to KILL Donald. Seriously?

Despite it’s hilariously stereotypical representation of Mexicans, such as myself, the film opened in Mexico City and was a monster hit there. I also recommend it, if you want to see a quality piece of Disney history or are into musicals set in Latin America. Or want to see Donald get threatened at gun point. It’s much better than Saludos Amigos and it’s one of the best collections of packaged shorts produced during the period in which it was produced.

We give it 3.8 Aracuan birds

John Carter (2012)

One of the biggest bombs in disney film history is also one of the most under appreciated too.....except in Russia, where I hear it was actually a record breaking success. “In Mother Russia, box office record breaks you”.

Based on an old and hilariously outdated scifi novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the guy who created Tarzan, the narrative was destined to fail before this thing ever went into production. Why? Because we (and I mean everybody) know too much about Mars, and science, to take the premise very seriously. I guess, if you want to be positive about it, one way you can think about this story is as a 19th century version of Superman in reverse: A civil war veteran goes to another planet wherein he suddenly acquires superpowers thanks to terrestrial differences between Earth and Mars (false differences) which allows him to help save an alien world.

It’s a tall order to swallow but thankfully the director, Andrew Stanton, of notable Pixar fame, along with a couple of other talented writers with good track records, were able to generate something fun, intentionally goofy, and sufficiently self-aware of the absurd source material. Taylore Kitsch plays the role of John Carter well and in completely comic fashion, which I think is a really good move anytime you are dealing with awkward source material, which is part of how the Avenger’s worked so well. When you have something ridiculous to work with, play it like it’s funny, because it is.

The truth is, John Carter, outside of having an impossibly dumb title and ridiculous premise that’s hard to sell, really should have and could have been a majorly successful franchise. The trouble is that the story takes on too much and quickly gets bogged down in long winded political intrigue, side stories, and a vast array of important characters with too little to say or do. Except this cool CGI dog thing, that thing was amazing. In other words this movies suffers from the same disease that all other adaptations of novels suffer from: getting too much information into the form of a coherent and entertaining 2 hour movie. I still had fun watching it though and so would a lot more people if they had seen it. It’s a shame really.

I give it 3.2 little green alien babies

Victory Through Air Power (1943)

By 1941 Walt Disney was already a cherished American icon. His Mickey Mouse cartoons had earned him international fame and the acclaimed Snow White demonstrated to both critics and popular audiences just how powerful a medium animation could really be. Disney himself was lauded as a genius and his cartoons were celebrated as a crucial part of American culture. So it comes as no surprise to learn that after the US entered World War II Disney’s pervasive influence was conscripted into the armed forces by the government in order to push forward the war effort. The army literally moved into Disney studios in Burbank, regular film production came to a halt, and Walt Disney suddenly found himself in the unprofitable business of producing propaganda films. Soon soldiers in training everywhere would be watching Donald Duck mocking the Nazis and theatre patrons would be reminded by the three little pigs about the importance of being thrifty.

During this same time period there was one very strange propaganda film made by Disney that did not come in the form of a government contract but rather straight out of Walt’s own personal finances and initiative. The film is called Victory Through Air Power and it is essentially both an entertaining comedy and deadly serious infomercial pressing for the production/utilization of large, long range aircraft capable of dropping large payloads of bombs directly on top of Germany and Japan from very remote distances. A description that essentially fits the role of the not-yet-extant B-52 bomber.

Victory Through Air Power is based on what was then a recently released book of the same name by a famed Russian aviator and engineer, a naturalized US citizen, named Alexander de Seversky. Seversky himself is something of a badass. Born into a Russian noble family in 1894 he entered the Russian Naval Academy at age 14 where he earned a degree in engineering. In World War I he became a combat pilot. In 1916 Seversky was shot down and lost his leg. After successfully making it back into friendly territory he went on, with a wooden leg, to successfully fly 57 combat missions and by many accounts was Russia’s leading ace pilot. After the 1917 revolution Seversky snuck over to the US where he worked for the War Department as a test pilot and consulting engineer. It was here that he became convinced of the airplane’s tactical superiority over conventional naval and ground warfare, specifically on the grounds that planes had developed the capacity to sink ships.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, Seversky quickly compiled his arguments in favor of airpower into a book with the intention of persuading the military that unless they changed their strategy they could not win the war. In the book he called for a number of changes that are now a reality: massive long range bombers, the expansion of aircraft instead of more naval ships, and the creation of an independent “air-force”. Severskys theories, however, were not well received initially. The Navy, as you can imagine, was made livid by his emphasis on an Airforce over a traditional Navy and those who were at the top of the chain of command wanted Seversky to stay out of their affairs and mind his own business. The public on the other hand, including Disney, embraced the book and it made #1 on the New York Times best seller list.

Persuaded by Seversky’s views Disney sprung into action and invited Seversky to give a presentation of his ideas in the form of a “documentary”, knowing that the larger public might be better reached through a film rather than a cumbersome book. Disney usually a stickler for quality and detail had the film rushed out the door, utilizing a stripped down, almost textbook diagram style of presentation. The result is surprisingly engaging, organized, and persuasive. I went out and bought myself six long range bombers right after watching it!

The film begins with a humorous depiction of the history of the airplane, then it moves into a sober account of how outdated military strategies employed in Europe had been easily crushed by the Nazi’s superior tactics and massive air-power. In the meantime we meet Seversky himself who, in the form of a relaxed meeting, gives the Allies the low down on what needs to be done to win the war.

While the film is obviously not intended to be entertainment for entertainments sake it is quite engaging and the cartoons offer Disney humor and creativity at its best. Indeed, if anything, this movie has actually improved with age given how interesting and yet non-threatening the content is. We all know that the Allies win in the end and the dead serious threat of a Nazi victory or the fear of making the wrong move by actually listening to this brilliant crackpot doesn’t loom in the background. I thoroughly enjoyed watching....indeed, famously, so did FDR and Winston Churchill. When they saw Disney’s movie, which was given high praise by the press, their interest was picked enough that they actually gave it a shot, watched, and then a commitment to long range bombing actually became a major strategy for winning the war.

While it’s a stretch to conclude that Disney and Seversky won the war or that Seversky’s strategy was employed solely because of this movie, it undoubtably played a major role in all of the above. Just for it’s role in history alone then this film is remarkable, but it’s actually a good film in its own right. I’d watch it even if it turned out that Seversky was full of crap. Most everything else is, isn’t it?

I give it 3.8 flaming swastikas

Old Yeller (1957)

I avoided watching this old time favorite until recently. I thought, “how could a movie about a boy who has to shoot his rabid dog be remotely interesting?” Well I was wrong, this movie really is interesting....remotely.

I saw it this last summer when I watched it in order to compile a “greatest Disney movie list” so I’m a little hazy on exactly what happened but just know that he does in fact shoot that dog, and everyone is very sad. You’ll be sad too.

The strongest point isn’t the story, which is ok, so much as the strong performance by Tommy Kirk who appeared in a number of famous Walt E. Disney era live-action movies such as the Swiss Family Robinson. He never had much of a career but he is almost universally admired by Disney nerds, and for good reason.

If you’ve never seen it, or heard of it, then know that Tommy Kirk plays the son of a Texas cattle rancher (Fess “Davy” Parker) who must leave his family for an extended period....to sell cattle I guess. During this hard time the rancher’s son (Tommy Kirk) finds a stray dog who provides the  family some comfort.....until the dog contracts rabies and becomes a threat to everyone. It’s not really a movie about a boy and his dog as much as it is about having to do hard things, as an adult, even if they go against your latent childish inclinations.

It’s not going to change the way you view the world, it’s not going to rock you with impressive visuals or memorable music, nor is it all that interesting outside of the fact that a boy has to shoot his dog. But it does tells a decent story, with a good moral, with stunningly consistent mediocrity.

I give it  3 out of 5.... citations for animal cruelty.

Holes (2003)

Based on a popular kid’s novel of the same name Holes is a unique Disney offering that aims very high and subsequently hits somewhere in the high-middle. It’s often inspiring in terms of how hard they really tried but it isn’t always very fun to watch. 

Shia LeBeouf, hot off his Even Stevens fame, stars as a teenage boy from a cursed family who is falsely accused of a petty crime and sent to a boys camp to do hard labor. Doing what exactly? Digging holes, and as you’ve probably guessed, because it’s the first thing that crossed your mind since you aren’t stupid, there is a covert reason behind the need to have teams of teenage boys dig holes out in the Texas desert every day. Do you think it’s treasure? Then you won’t be surprised by anything here. 

The real magic in this movie are the performances by the proprietors of the labor camp played by the always excellent Jon Voight, Delmar O’Donnell (who also goes by the name Tim Blake Nelson) and, I can’t freaking believe it, Sigourney Weaver, who plays a sadistic two faced villain so incredibly badass that she wears rattlesnake venom laced nail polish. Wait until you see what she does with it too. 

So Weaver’s the granddaughter of a crazy old coot who has himself been cursed, under the most painfully hamfisted and contrived circumstances, and like Shia LeBeouf she is afflicted until the wrong done in the past is made right. Meanwhile, as fate would have, LeBeef (don't you always want to call him that?) is befriended by the quiet descendent of the, get this, very same gypsy woman (played by Cat Woman) that cursed his own family, giving him in turn the opportunity to make right what was done wrong and save his family from their constant misfortune. To explain further is hard because it’s actually all incredibly convoluted, painfully slow at times, and not a little hokey....but you got to give it to them, it’s also completely new. 

Hole’s is good, nicely produced, mildly entertaining family fair wrestling with an ambitious and overly knotted plot the leads to a few too many flashbacks for its own good. At the same time it can beautiful to look at, has a cool soundtrack, and is often very clever, except when it’s stupid. 

I give this strange, very un-Disney movie 3.1 out of 5 lizard infested holes.....filled with gold. 

Peter Pan (1953)

In the wake of the monumental success of Snow White, the studio's first feature length film, Walt had very quickly decided to make a movie based on J.M. Berrie’s constantly evolving play about Peter Pan, the magical boy who didn’t want to grow up. Unfortunately for Disney getting access to the rights to a produce a film proved difficult and the studio opted to make a movie based on Carlo Collodi’s novel, “the Adventures of Pinocchio” instead. When Disney finally acquired the rights to make a movie four years later, from a children’s hospital in London, to whom J.M Berrie had bequeathed the rights to his story in 1929, the studio was financially deeply troubled and its future thrown into uncertainty by World War II. Despite Walt Disney’s deep personal interest in the project, his film about Peter Pan wouldn’t be released until 1953.

In the meantime, however, the Disney storytellers had been hard at work attempting to find their own way to tell the oft told tale, which actually exists as many different versions since J.M. Barrie himself had changed various details and scenes in his play (and novel) over the years with each production. Similarly, the final Disney story had gone through a number of different versions before being finalized by Walt Disney himself. The result is a very well packaged if not slightly puerile story which probably stands as the version most of us know best.

Today Peter Pan is remembered as a classic and easily one of the most popular in the Disney film canon. For many years, until recently, the entire pool structure at the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim was completely Peter Pan themed. Michael Jackson has even gone on the record saying that it was his favorite movie of all time, which actually explains quite a few things for me. My wife also claims that it is her favorite Disney movie of all time. The critics generally praised it as well. Me on the other hand, I just kind of like it, but that’s all.

As I’ve said, the story telling is nicely done and imaginative. If you don’t know, Peter Pan is a brash pubescent boy who dresses in green leotards, has the ability to fly, and resides in a magical place called Neverland where children go to never grow up. At first it seems like he only exists in the bedtimes stories told by Wendy to her younger brothers until one night, after their parents are away, Peter Pan appears to them in the flesh and whisks them off on an adventure meant to keep Wendy from having to grow up (and so she can tell her stories to Pan and his L.A. street gang of boys known as the “lost boys”). However conflict emerges as Pan’s fairy companion, Tinkerbell, is intensely envious of Wendy, who has gained the constant attention of Peter Pan and to complicate matters a band of pirates led by Pan’s arch nemesis, Captain Hook, is hatching a plan to knock-off the flying boy wonder once and for all. No scene is wasted and every whimsical little moment of it somehow pushes this story forward in satisfactory fashion.

The animation itself is also quite good though cartoonish when compared to earlier Disney classics. Don’t expect the kind of work found in Cinderella or Snow White, but you still have to love the details in the flying sequence over London. The music is fun but thin. Beyond the tight storytelling if this movie has strength its in the fun characters. Captain Hook is simply one of the greatest Disney villains of all time. He’s the perfect comedic combination of a 19th century dandy with a ruthless brigand who though hilarious still retains the air of being a real threat to Wendy and her brothers. Mr Smee, Hook’s dotingly doltish first mate, is equally fun. Peter Pan on the other hand is obnoxious. I can’t imagine a more unlikable hero. He’s mean spirited, selfish, and well....a little odd. Wendy on the other hand is just sort of dull. She’s almost just a prop for Peter Pan to fly around with in order to showcase more interesting people and places. Tinkerbell on the other hand, while poorly dressed, is really great as Pan’s would be pantomime love interest....would be, if she were only a little taller, I guess. Seriously though, she’s really great, if not a cause for scandal to your eyes.

My biggest beef with this movie though comes down to a controversial issue handled poorly within the film that bothers me intensely. You probably already know what I mean, yes, that’s right, I’m referring to the stereotypical and hurtful depiction of pirates. Pirates play a central role in Berries original play, along with Native Americans, English children and fairies, so I understand why they hand to be brought into the film but couldn’t they have been added with more care to their depiction, especially in light of how they have been so often misrepresented and maligned in popular media? Not all pirates wear canvas breeches, bandannas or even an eye patch. Many don’t even live on ships at all but rather do all of their pirating from a computer at home. There’s even an entire musical sequence that mocks the pirate life, “the life of a crook”! Since when did engaging in the mere re-appropriation of wealth entail being a crook? It’s ridiculous and wholly insensitive to an entire group of people. The Somalies are probably totally pissed.

Otherwise, this is a very fun if not slightly vapid and childish Disney classic with a wholly disagreeable protagonist. I give it 3.7 half-naked pixies out of five.

Aladdin (1992)

After the release of the Little Mermaid Disney animation came back to life after decades of mediocrity and people finally began to see the upcoming summer Disney release as a big deal. The second biggest deal of the big deals to come out in this period of renewal was Aladdin. I was certainly moved by the whole affair. I would even go on to choose Aladdin sheet music for my piano lessons and dress up as Aladdin for Halloween.

Aladdin, loosely based on the Arabian Nights fairy tale of the same name, tells the story of a young “street rat” (homeless kid) who is conned into aiding Jafar the evil, plotting advisor of the local Arab-ish (not Arab) Sultan who is looking for a way to take over the kingdom for himself. The job? Going into a magical cave to retrieve a magical lamp containing a wish granting, all powerful genie...but beware, only a “diamond in the rough” may enter. So Aladdin, being that thing, I guess, goes into the cave and meets the Genie of the lamp famously voiced by Robin “look at me” Williams who grants wishes aimed at helping Aladdin get the girl of his dreams who also happens to be the Sultan’s daughter.

Unfortunately for Aladdin Princess Jasmine isn’t impressed by power or prestige but, fortunately for Aladdin, she is apparently impressed by anything else and one of the more developed (and yet lame) Disney romances thus ensues, climaxing in a magic carpet ride that promises a “whole new world”. A song so overplayed on the radio that I now reflexively burst into song myself whenever I hear it. Such is the power of cultural conditioning.

Aladdin is/was extremely popular, especially for the “funny” antics of Robin Williams and it’s excellent broadway style soundtrack provided by Howard Ashman and Alan Menken. But it is also typically quite overrated. First off, Robin Williams is more frantic than funny and his “jokes”, which are really just a100 mph string of pop-cultural references, have not aged well. Second, I don’t buy the Saved by the Bell romance between Aladdin and Jasmine that was so popular at the time. In fact, I don’t even know why this movie has to have a romance in light of the fact that no one would want to marry a girl as vindictive and snooty as Jasmine if not for the fact that she dressed like a harem girl and was impossibly rich. Wait, isn’t that precisely her problem in the movie? That those are the only reasons men wanted to marry her? You’d think the solution would be to improve her character or you’d think that Aladdin himself would see something in her other than the fact that she’s hot but this doesn’t happen. Plus how can any movie with so much talking time for Gilbert Gottfried be that good? Listening to his voice is like nursing a hang over.

On the other hand the animation at the time was the best yet for the era and Disney got all experimental on us trying out what were extremely impressive computerized special effects at the time. By today’s standards they are primitive but at the time it was great. Also the musical sequences were extremely entertaining and inventive. The story itself? It’s engaging. The characters? Better than boring. But the action is always fun to watch and you have to love the way they ended up defeating Jafar and saving the kingdom. I know it’s anathema to say this, since this is supposed to one of its strong points, but I just wish the love story wasn’t so lame.

I give it 3.6 fez wearing monkeys