Walt Whimsy

Take the razor from thy wrist, 'tis time to review...

Treasure Planet (2002)

Soundtrack/Score/Music: 4

Story/Screenplay/Narrative: 3.5

Characters/Characterization/Voice-Acting: 5

Art Direction/Design: 7.5

Themes, Archetypes, and Artistic Interpretation: 5

From Wiry:

Damn it, why am I stuck with the plot summary for this stinker? Oh well... many of you probably haven't seen this so I'll try to do it quickly. For those who are unfamiliar, Treasure Planet basically tries to shoehorn sci-fi into the pirate genre, with less-than-successful results. Rather than creating a unique world in which the original tale can be played out intergalactically, it just... pushes. Hard. Can I just say that Joseph Gordon-Levitt (voice of Jim, the lead character with a haircut straight out of a backwater 1994) is an excellent actor, and I'd like to pull out Mysterious Skin and Brick as worth seeing.

Okay so. We've got Jim, who lives with his mother (a mother? What!) in an inn she owns. When a salamander alien thing crashes with his treasure map (a golden ball), he brings the infamous pirate captain, John Silver, straight to Jim and MILF's doorstep. They flee with their family friend, Dog Hyde Pierce (Dr. Doppler), who decides to hire a crew to find the titular Treasure Planet that the map points to. Alas, his taste is poor, as the entire crew is composed of John Silver and his cronies, with the exception of the kitty captain (Emma Thompson, why?) and her First Mate. Jim is put to duty working for the cyborg cook (John Silver, natch), and they bond in a rather-cliched-song-montage-way but-still-interesting-since-it's-new-for-Disney way during their journey. A few conveniently exploding stars later, they arrive at the planet and it's mutiny time. Jim, the captain, and Dr. Dog flee to the planet, where they encounter Abomination-Bot (Martin Short), the former right-hand droid of the captain who buried his treasure somewhere on the... planet. So they find out that the map actually opens a portal to the center of the planet, with a McDuckian trove of treausre that is (of course!) booby-trapped. As the final dungeon so obediently explodes, John Silver chooses Jim over the treasure. They manage to escape through the portal, and Jim decides to let John roam free. Cue end of story, return to mom, and some horrifying kitty-dog mutants. Yay.

We knew coming into this film that it wasn't going to be good. Now, maybe it's unfair to have expectations along these lines, but let's not kid ourselves. Visually speaking, the computer animation is mostly well done, with a few "wow" moments of hand-drawn integration, but a few clunky moments as well. The score is barely worth mentioning - it flirts with a some pirate tunes (that would finally materialize in Disney's proper tackling of this subject matter in Pirates of the Caribbean), but it's mostly generic orchestral with the single annoying montage pop song.

Character-wise, I'd be hard-pressed to find a more annoyingly one-dimensional lead than Jim. He also has very bad hair. Disney seems to have been trying so hard to be "hip" be cramming as much quasi-surfing imagery alongside SPACE! and PIRATES! and DOGS DOING CATS! and stuff, but... really, it's like one of those mash-up songs where you feel like the creator didn't actually think through how "Cheri Baby" and "Thong Song" made sense for mashery. The plot has holes you could drive a solar-powered space pirate ship through, and... well, I think I've said enough. The beast is what it is.

From RM:

Treasure Planet, to its credit, took me on a roller coaster ride of emotions: confusion over the gaping plot holes; sorrow over what dark hole Emma Thomspon must have been in to agree to do this; rage, over no one properly preparing me for how lousy this film REALLY was (even though I would argue it has the worst reputation, and rightfully so); mild amusement, over the actually inspired character known as Morph (guess what IT can do?!); and finally, Pity. Pity that John Musker and Ron Clements, men who gave us The Great Mouse Detective, Aladdin, Hercules, and The Little Mermaid, will have to spend the rest of their lives living down that they also gave us... Treasure Planet.

To take you into a little bit of the backstory of how we tend to grade this, normally I end up pitching a number a little higher than maybe what the film deserves, and Wiry pragmatically, or sometimes doggedly, works us down to a more reasonable number. Not this time. I wanted to bust this film down to Fun & Fancy Free, and if it wasn't for the visuals, it'd be down there.

This film is beyond lousy. This film is horrific. When I see this, I weep for someone who, not understanding Disney in its entirety, chose to have this represent anything other than the DREGS of the DREGS of the DREEEEEGS of the darkest period in Disney history. If not for technology, this would be the worst thing ever produced by Disney, including Song of the South and The Black Hole. The score is uninspiring at some points, and insipid in others. The plot seems like poorly, POORLY done fan fiction. The animation is at times impressive at times not so much. And, other than a father son story, much of the archetypes are lousy or unnecessary (did I really NEED to see interspecies breeding, Disney? DID I?).

I'm sorry if this seems mean spirited, and Treasure Planet fan, if you're out there, please try to explain this to me. I don't want to feel this about a Disney film. I don't want to be this angry. But I am.

Update 8-26-08 (from RM): I've spent the past few days musing upon this film. Not so much that it was bad. I'm sure there will be a few more unpleasant surprises for us before this is done. But how two guys like Ron Clements and John Musker, with such phenomenal taste and instinct, could make so many slip-ups in one film. Story, music, characters, even art seem poorly done. And if this were some one shot shlub like the guy who did Black Cauldron, I might understand. But not from these two. The mathematical chances that their normally good taste could stray so far from home base just seemed too bizarre to be true.

The more I thought about it, the less it made sense.

Until, one night, an almost heretical thought came to me.

What if....what if they KNEW it would be this bad? What if, deep down in their hearts, Team RonJohn knew this was going to bomb, and made it anyway? Now I know this seems crazy, but hear me out.

The Lion King changed everything. We can all agree on that. All films since Lion King have been held up against it. Even some before it are held up against it. Because for most people (not myself) it is THE standard in Disney, past and present. It may not be the best Disney film (it isn't), but at the moment it is our highest ranked and has the distinct advantage of being the last excellent Disney film before the backwards slide of the Modern Era. Now, as we have illustrated with some films (Hunchback of Notre Dame), this system isn't always fair. And I'm sure Team RonJohn (yes, I'll be calling them that from now on) knew that Simba n' pals were the modern barometer. That every film since it would be compared to it, and no film would be allowed to stand on its own individual merits.

So what if, for the greater good, they made a film so bad, that it, in effect, purged Lion King from our collective conscience as the modern barometer?

Think about it. Though I had never seen Treasure Planet until this past weekend, I was hip enough to know that since TP, the barometer has been, "Will it be as bad as Treasure Planet?" not "Is it Lion King reborn?". We've accepted that, if another Lion King comes, it could be a while, and we shouldn't be holding our collective breath.

I think Team RonJohn knew that. And I think they took the bullet for the greater good, because they knew they could survive it. It's the only way I can justify this film in my mind.

Update 8/26/08 (from Wiry): On the other hand, Team RonJohn was trying to get this stinker made for years and some wise person at Disney clearly put it off as long as possible. Come on, I mean... even in pure concept alone it's a questionable project. There are countless examples of great artists pursuing one of their own ideas to a horrible end, given how hard it is to keep continuously topping oneself. I think it's just a natural fizzle, the inevitable career blip that will (hopefully) be no more than a dip between great works (but we'll let you know once The Princess and the Frog comes out).

Final Grade: D+

Final Rankings:

1.) The Lion King
2.) Sleeping Beauty
3.) The Hunchback of Notre Dame
4.) Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs
5.) Lady and The Tramp
6.) The Great Mouse Detective
7.) Pinocchio
8.) The Jungle Book
9.) The Black Cauldron
10.) Mulan
11.) Treasure Planet
12.) Fun and Fancy Free

Hey, what do you call a narcoleptic Belle?

Sleeping Beauty (1959)

Soundtrack/Score/Music: 8.5

Story/Screenplay/Narrative: 7

Characters/Characterization/Voice-Acting: 8.5

Art Direction/Design: 10

Themes, Archetypes, and Artistic Interpretation: 8


From RM:

Jesus Christ and all his fucking glory, this film is GORGEOUS. Like, amazingly, artistically, meticulously beautiful. I take back everything I said about The Black Cauldron. The art in this film makes Black Cauldron look like a second grader's self-portrait. It is all that is good and light in this world.

Sorry. Let me take a step back.

Plot. Sleeping Beauty is the story of Aurora, a young princess blessed with great beauty and a nice set of pipes by two fairies, Flora and Fauna, on the day of her birth and betrothal to young Prince Phillip, only to have the party crashed by Demon Lady bar-none Maleficent (of Kingdom Hearts fame). Maleficent prophesies that on her 16th birthday, she will prick her finger on a spindle, and will die. Major bummer, then exeunt Maleficent and her crow familiar. Fairy #3, Merryweather, manages to find a loophole in the system and says that Aurora will only fall asleep, and be awakened by love's fist kiss. Still, for the sake of safety, the fairies agree to whisk away Aurora to the forest, and raise her as their own (in human form) to hide her from Maleficent (despite her father's proactive choice to burn every spinning wheel in the kingdom, crippling the then booming textile industry of his realm). There she grows into a beautiful young woman, who falls in love with a strange young man (Phillip). The fairies reveal her royal lineage, and her obligation to marry a prince (again, Phillip, but only we know that). She's not happy, and cries a bit in her room when they bring her secretly back to the castle. Maleficent uses a hypnotic bouncing ball to sneak Aurora to a hidden room that still held a spinning wheel, dodging the genocide, and she pricks her finger and falls asleep. Maleficent captures Phillip. The fairies help him escape, and guide him to Aurora, who he recognizes as the girl he became infatuated with in the forest. Thanks to the fairies rocking gear, he slays Maleficent in her dragon form, awakens the princess, marriage and hilarity ensues, the end.

This film began work in 1952, and was released seven years later, in 1959. If there is any word to describe this film, it is meticulous. The art, the music, the everything is very carefully thought out. Except for maybe Aurora. Though she be gorgeous, she also be a bit boring. But also has a strong brow and gorgeous, slightly masculine features that I am attracted to and willing to forgive.

We've discussed the Disney "Rule of Three" in the past, and in comes into play marvelously here. Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather are the three good fairies who help people, and are the three most well-crafted characters in this movie, and among the better in the canon. They are the characters we spend the most time with, and thus are the characters we identify with and are given the time to appreciate the nuances of them the best.

This movie is the best of the older generation that I've seen that take it's time. It doesn't have a whole lot of plot to deal with, so they let scenes and bits go on and revel in their ability to let things go on without having to worry about what comes next. It's very refreshing.

From Wiry:

Sleeping Beauty is probably my favorite of any pre-Little Mermaid Disney film, mostly because it's, well... really, really good. We had to take the time to nitpick flaws here, because the film doesn't give you a whole lot to work with in that general department. As RM says above, the art is beyond compare. The plotting is, for the most part, very well done. Unlike Snow White, in which the melding of the source material and the zany time-filling dwarfs felt a bit clunky, Sleeping Beauty takes its time and relishes its little moments (such as the infamous cake/dress scene) without losing sight of moving things forward.

But the plotting is actually the area where I have a few problems. Two, specifically. The first. Maleficent curses Aurora at the start of the film, stating that she will prick her finger before the sun sets on her sixteenth birthday. Is this a prophecy? Or, is it a promise of a future attack that Maleficent will make? Why doesn't she just kill the baby while she's there? True, Maleficent's the sort of crazy bitch who'd prefer the king and queen enjoy the company of their daughter for 16 years while living with eternal dread, and then (of course) the rug-pulling comes and it's too late to pop out a replacement heir anyway.

Or maybe it's more a prophecy, that Aurora will (of her own free will) accidentally do herself in. And yet, this isn't the case. I would be fine with things if Maleficent laid out the curse, and then provided the spinning wheel in question even. But she has to actually pull a Plan 9 from Outer Space on Aurora and hypnotize her into a vampire zombie before the prickage occurs. In some ways this is necessary, because Aurora isn't really a well-developed character who, you know, makes choices. If we're talking (say) Ariel or Belle, I can see them maybe electing out of curiosity to poke sharp objects. This is meant as a compliment! I think... But anyway, the extent to which Maleficent must facilitate the elaborate demise makes the whole thing seem a touch silly.

Second problem. In the original tale, there's a huge time gap between the start of the big sleep and the grand awakening. I understand we couldn't do 50 years, because then we'd be in a situation as Maleficent describes where Prince Phillip is taking out his dentures before layin' on with the smoochies. But Aurora and the kingdom end up snoozing for, what, 8 hours tops? Like, any normal night? I understand that compressing the timeline amps up the adrenaline, or something, but I would have liked to have seen Phillip languish some before the fairies are able to give him the sword of Nehemiah and the shield of St. Paul or whatever they're called and fly the coop. Then, we wouldn't be dealing with the unbearable lightness of the preceding developments - they become actual big deals. Not that I'm suggesting a return to the original story, wherein Aurora gets raped while asleep by a married prince she's never met, but I want some weight to the proceedings.

Music-wise, a few more sung numbers would have been appreciated (so long as they weren't in the 50's soft choral style), but it's absurd to whine about Tchaikovsky. Character-wise, the fairies are dazzling as the characters we track through the story, the ones who make almost every plot decision and are most responsible for Maleficent's undoing. I'm disappointed that we have to sacrifice an interesting female lead in order to have a somewhat-shaded prince, and I think (as in Snow White) we'd care more about her fate if she had a personality.

Skumps? Skumps! Skumps.


Final Grade: A-

Final Rankings:

1.) The Lion King
2.) Sleeping Beauty
3.) The Hunchback of Notre Dame
4.) Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs
5.) Lady and The Tramp
6.) The Great Mouse Detective
7.) Pinocchio
8.) The Jungle Book
9.) The Black Cauldron
10.) Mulan
11.) Fun and Fancy Free

It's time for one of the big ones, the ultimate Disney black sheep....

The Black Cauldron (1985)

Soundtrack/Score/Music: 3.5

Story/Screenplay/Narrative: 7

Characters/Characterization/Voice-acting: 8

Art Direction/Design: 7.5

Themes/Archetypes/Artistic Interpretation: 6

From Wiry:

You can give The Black Cauldron a lot of flack for being so different from the book(s) upon which it is based, but I do find one major similarity between the film and The Chronicles of Prydian on the whole. I was a huge fan of the book series - my fifth grade teacher had the entire set available for borrowing (along with the Madeleine L'Engle's Time Quartet, mmm), and I was a huge fan. So, when Black Cauldron was finally released on VHS on 1998, I snapped it up and watched it right away. However, unlike the L'Engle works, and much like the books upon which it was based, I haven't ever felt the need to revisit The Black Cauldron.

And maybe I'm wrong in this. Maybe re-reading some of those Prydian tales would be an utter delight. But probably not. It's not so much that they're just second-rate fantasy that could never hold a candle to Tolkein per se... the books are excellent. But they're also rather simple and straightforward. You've seen much of what it does before, and you'll see it done again, sometimes better and sometimes worse. But, in a world where there are fantasy works that stretch so much further outside the territory one finds in The Legend of Zelda games, I wouldn't really feel comfortable recommending The Chronicles of Prydian to anyone over the age of thirteen. There's just not a lot of substance, but I must stress that they're not bad. Just pretty good.

But we're talking about the film here, not the books upon which it is based. But I have to say that, despite the differences too numerous to mention here, I have similar issues with the film. Gurgi aside (this is true of the books too), there's no character I can really call "iconic." They're all adequate and fun, with the possible exception of the cherub-faced kid fairies. Taran's sort of like Wart from The Sword and the Stone, but maybe a little less interesting. And as far as Disney women go, Eilonwy isn't the worst in the bunch. So we've got a good team of characters, with no Eddie Murphy-esque sidekick issues.

What's interesting here is how driven by the plot (that is, the quest for the titular cauldron) the story really is. Taran, the assistant pig-keeper to old man Dallben, spends his days fantasizing about action and adventure while scrubbing the most womanly swine this side of Miss Piggy. This morning, though, Hen Wen freaks and Dallben reveals to Taran her oracular piggie powers, which reveal that the Horned King is seeking the cauldron in which is sealed some evil king thing blah blah. Anyway, the dishwater shows that Horny's on his way to steal Miss Bacon, so Dallben sends Taran away with her to go into hiding. Things don't turn out so well, though, because Hen Wen is abducted by two dragons while Taran is busy playing "hide the apple" with the furry, Smeagolesque Gurgi. Taran rushes to Castle Plun-Darr to liberate Hen Wen, but ends up imprisoned. He manages to escape, meeting a spoony bard and a bauble-boasting princess along the way. They meet up again with Gurgi and some fairies, who point them in the direction of the cauldron and send grumpy gold prospector fairy to guide them. They find the cauldron in the possession of three sex-starved witches in a swamp, but of course it does them little good since Taran bargains away his magic sword to get it and the cauldron can only be destroyed by a willing living sacrifice anyway. Whoops. Looks like they lead ol' Horny to it too. Back at the castle, Horny ties up everyone except Gurgi (who ran away at the first sign of danger), and starts brewing up himself an undead army. Fortunately, Gurgi arrives to rescue everyone, and reasons that he's a better sacrifice for the cauldron than the well-liked Taran. The undead army is stopped before it can even cross the castle drawbridge, the Horned King gets sucked into the cauldron's WMDish death knells, and Gurgi is brought back to life by the witches in exchange for the defunct cauldron. There's a kiss between Taran and Eilonwy, and the friends walk away into the golden fields that suddenly appeared outta nowhere. Yay!

So, yeah. Lots of plot. But, something that may not be apparent is that we never actually meet anyone except our principals, the villains, and the witches. Who exactly is the Horned King sending the undead army out to destroy? Where's the stakes there? And, the army's put out of commission before they even get to the destruction part. There's no climactic battle with the Horned King, he just gets flushed. So, while the scene of the army being created is disturbing and superb, there's not much payoff. And everything else pretty much goes as expected - the castle is destroyed, the two get together, yadda... I know Disney films are not bastions of surprise plots, but some of the best ones at least take the time to dwell on the little moments (like the wooden objects in Geppetto's cottage, or Ratigan's death machine). The Black Cauldron marches through its plot with little whimsy (save Gurgi and some fun bits with the witches), focusing on action at the expense of any rich nuance. And that, I think, is why it feels fun but ultimately a bit hollow and unmemorable.

From RM:

Wow. So that's what everyone was talking about. Welcome to one of the three or so movies in the Disney lexicon I HADN'T seen before starting this blog. I have to say, it is very different from anything else Disney has ever done. And, not unlike how I can't shake that maybe Don Bluth was a factor in choosing Great Mouse Detective, I can't get this Hobbity smell out of my nostrils while watching this. It's not bad. Most great art is inspired by works which precede it. Let me make myself clear. Great art this is not. But this film is nowhere near as bad as the reputation that proceeds it. It's artistically solid.

The art itself has more "Wow" moments than any Disney film I've viewed for this so far, which is a shame, because much of the character animation has that sketchy, somewhat sloppy feel of the films of the decade before it, like Robin Hood or Jungle Book. So you're viewing these amazing skies and castles and really cool visuals, with these....well, the characters in the world that is created around them fall artistically short.

The Horned King would have been more effective if I had known more about him: Who is this creature? (who?) What is he? (what?) How did he come to be? (How?). Unfortunately, the movie answers none of these questions, which is a shame, because I feel that if I had known more about The Horned King, I would have liked him, because he certainly is one of the scarier looking bastards ever to roll through Disneydom.

Also, this is the first movie we saw that didn't have a traditional musical element to it in some shape or form. Which wasn't bad, I was preparing myself to ignore that and focus on the score. That was a mistake on my part. The score is repetitive and drab, and sounds like something your goth high school classmate wrote for his musical "A Love Song for Vlad the Impaler", but it ISN'T ironic. He thinks it's deep and adds something to the story. He is wrong, and so was the composer of this film.

Can't play up Gurgi enough though. He's like a cuddly, lovable Gollum. Which I think is a concept we can all get behind.

Final Grade: C+

Final Rankings:
1.) The Lion King
2.) The Hunchback of Notre Dame
3.) Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs
4.) Lady and The Tramp
5.) The Great Mouse Detective
6.) Pinocchio
7.) The Jungle Book
8.) The Black Cauldron
9.) Mulan
10.) Fun & Fancy Free

Going Old School this week, as opposed to....

Pinocchio (1940)

Who didn't go to school at all.

Soundtrack/Score/Music: 7

Story/Screenplay/Narrative: 5.5

Characters/Characterization/Voice-Acting: 7

Art Direction/Design: 9.5

Themes/Archetypes/ Artistic Interpretation: 6

From RM:

This is a hard one to grade. It's the 2nd Disney film, chronologically, and isn't complete shit, so it has enjoyed the sort of mythos that Snow White and Bambi have enjoyed. This makes it harder to look at it objectively, and delve into the problems of this film, which as you can see from above, are mostly plot based.

So, plot. Pinocchio is the story of, well, Pinocchio, the little wooden boy who is blessed with life by The Blue Fairy, and embarks on a quest to become a "real boy" (Even though he can cry, sneeze, and do everything short of bleed) to please Gepetto, his carver/father. In order to achieve the hemophilia he so desires, he is told to behave and learn right from wrong, and to this end, is appointed a shifty bum of an insect named Jiminy Cricket to be the physical manifestation of his non-existent conscience. Then Pinocchio embarks on a series of misadventures that take him through the dark underbelly of show business, the burgeoning donkey slave trade, the perils of playing pool (with a capital P and that stands for....wait), and learning how to scald the trachea of a massive whale. He then sacrifices his life to save Gepetto, and is granted Realhood, and much dancing and clockwork music ensues. Cue credits.

I have three problems with this film, which I shall call the three Ps: Plot, Pinocchio, and Pa-Jiminy Cricket. The plot, while not as deficient as it's rating may suggest, is wounded by its jarringly episodic nature. Fade to blacks, characters disappearing forever, and disjointed segues from one moment to the next make it difficult to follow anything other than our hero and his mite mate. Which brings us to problems 2 and 3. Pinocchio is about as interesting as, well, a piece of wood. He doesn't really do much, and until the very end, most of his problems are solved for him, which, if it is the point, seems to be counterintuitive to the whole "know right from wrong", concept. So, his main tool in that growth is Jiminy "Face of the Franchise" Cricket. And don't get me wrong, "When You Wish Upon A Star"deserves every bit of love it gets as an iconic song. However, Jiminy is originally created as a character who is a bit of a bum, and it seems like his growing up is just as important as Pinocchio's. But he quickly becomes Mr. Moral Absolute, and ends up relying on the help of others just as much as Pinocchio. Also, while Cliff Edwards (the voice of JC) is wonderful for the songs, his folksy tones and "Aw Shuckses" takes away from a character that could have been even more than he was.

From Wiry:

I remember, once upon a time, thinking that Pinocchio was a very scary movie. There's Monstro, of course, but I think the most terrifying bits are the ones that show the mutability of the human frame. In other words, mostly the bits with the boys turning into asses. But also, the whole nose thing would be pretty unnerving if there wasn't a vacant-eyed, transparent blonde with reality-altering powers hanging about too.

One of the things I found myself enjoying this time around was the odd sort of world in which the story takes place - there's little bits of everything. You have the Blue Fairy, who looks like Snow White gone platinum, alongside all these other human characters who are far closer to caricatures with their big, bulbous noses or buck teeth. Then you have the anthropomorphic kitties and foxes and crickets who have odd relationships with inanimate women. It's a world where magical things can happen either via straight-up magic (the fairy's) but also hard drugs (hee-haw). So, lots of fun stuff going on there.

I'm not a huge fan of the film on the whole, though. As RM touches on above, its episodic nature renders things a bit choppy. One gets the feeling the story is marching off to some new thing before the previous thing is even complete (note, for example, that none of the problems of the antagonists are ever really solved - Stromboli continues on his merry way, the Coachman absconds with all those naughty boys to the salt mines, and Monstro lives to fight another day). Sure, P manages to learn how to be an obedient, brave, ideal, blah blah boy, but he certainly doesn't learn how to finish things. On the other hand, a little boy can't really be expected to solve every issue that comes along, and maybe it's just my modern temperament that drives a desire for the plot to be wrapped up in a cute little package.

But, you know what? Oh well. It doesn't change the fact that the whole thing's pretty uneven (note the lack of any songs whatsoever in the second half - where's Monstro's rousing bass soliloquy on the lonely life of a whale?) and I really, really hate Jiminy Cricket. Maybe it's because his old-fashioned folksiness grates on me, and he also had a presence in the abomination that is Fun and Fancy Free (indeed free of both fun and fancy). Would it have been so hard to go a little further with the womanizing bum thing? Ah, well. We'll always have Honest John.


Final Grade: B

Final Rankings:
1.) The Lion King
2.) The Hunchback of Notre Dame
3.) Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs
4.) Lady and The Tramp
5.) The Great Mouse Detective
6.) Pinocchio
7.) The Jungle Book
8.) Mulan
9.) Fun & Fancy Free

In order to bring great honor to our family, we shall now discuss

Mulan (1998)

Soundtrack/Score/Music: 6

Story/Screenplay/Narrative: 7

Characters/Characterization/Voice-Acting: 5

Art Direction/Design: 7.5

Themes/Archetypes/ Artistic Interpretation: 6.5

From Wiry:

I think we can all agree that Mulan is undoubtedly the finest tale based around a drag king that Disney's ever produced. I'm still waiting for the drag queen one, but, well, we can't have everything. Mulan is often considered the "girl power" flick of the Disney canon, and with good reason. I'd argue that Disney isn't as lacking in strong women as many people think (we spent a good portion earlier today watching Esmeralda take down ten men with a tin hat), but Mulan goes deeper into confronting gender issues than any other Disney movie.

It all starts shortly after Mulan accidentally mutilates the matchmaker. No, wait. Earlier. Incensed by the mere existence of the Great Wall, the leader of the Mongolian army (Shan Yu) starts invading China. So anyway. Back to Mulan. Emperor Mister Miyagi sends out an order than one man from every family must join the army. Unfortunately, Mulan's dad is a bit worse for wear from his military days, so Mulan decides to take his armor and his place. Several montages later, Mulan successfully destroys most of the Hun army and earns the gratitude of her sexy commander, Li Shang, only to immediately lose it when he discovers she doesn't have dangly bits. Mulan then follows the remnants of the Hun army into the Imperial City, convinces some of her soldier buddies to dress as concubines, and turns Shan Yu into a very pleasant light show. Li Shang follows her home, only to be hit on by Mulan's grandma. The end.

Let's get this big gay elephant out of the room right off the bat. No, I'm not talking about the blatantly gay misogynist right-hand man to the emperor who makes Mulan's life hell for a while. No, I'm talking about Eddie Murphy. Not Mushu, Eddie Murphy. I think we all realize now that this man poisons almost anything he touches. And while I found him infuriating when I first saw the movie, he's all the more pernicious with ten years of hindsight and bad memories. The Eddie Murphy grave is only deeper now, which makes the abyss of Mushu all the more terrifying. Not only is his shtick as funny as being trapped in a room with Jim Carrey on crystal meth, he leads an unholy legion of unnecessary sidekicks that crowd this film. We have the requisite three soldiers (see the Sleeping Beauty fairies, or the Hunchback gargoyles, for disparate examples of the rule of three conscience-sidekicks). But we also have the gratuitous cricket, the silent horse, and the dopey dog. Not to mention all those hard-partying ancestors. The point is, while Mulan's arc is interesting to watch, no space is left for other characters to develop. The result is that the movie is basically filled with sidekicks.

Musically, there's not much to say. "I'll Make a Man Out of You" is a great number, and "Reflection" isn't the worst of the Disney protagonist "I Want" numbers. But singing in this movie is mostly used to propel montages, as opposed to character development. And let's not forget the score, which sounds like Top Gun sneezing. Sort of.

Overall, there's not much to satisfy in the film. I feel bad, sort of, because I don't truly hate the film at all. But I certainly won't reach for it on the shelf when I'm looking for one of the newer Disney flicks. The art's great, at least.

From RM:

The Art IS great. Or at least, it's stylized to keep with the culture it is attempting to represent, which is more than can be said for many Disney films. Wiry already touched upon Mushu, which, when all is said and done, is the thing you walk away from this film with. A searing hatred of all that Eddie Murphy stands for.

I will say this, that the Fa family in this film is profoundly satisfying. It's a whole family, not only Mommy or only Daddy, but a whole family; With a sassy Grammy to boot! And those three characters are so well crafted, for the five minutes of air they get, that it just makes Eddie Murphy all the more frustrating.

I'm sorry. I'll find something else to talk about.

Shan Yu. The villain that wasn't stoic enough to be a silently intimidating force of nature, and not important enough to the story to have anything interesting done with him. When I look up and down the canon of Disney villains, it's hard to find a villain more thoroughly unsatisfying than Shan Yu. Since the story is Mulan bringing her family honor, and the main obstacle there is the enormously poor gay joke Chi Fu, I somewhat wish he had been made more of an antagonist, and Shan Yu had just been a silent tool of wrath that needed to be dealt with. Or that they had given Shan Yu more of a reason to do anything than because he's the necessary villain. People rail against this concept when I see it in other films, yet a villain in this who is barely more than an effective thug is somehow tolerated because he's a BIG effective thug. I don't buy into it.

Also, if I were China, I'd be more than a little offended as to how my culture was represented as basically a woman-hating, fascist regime, when in reality, most of the world was that way until 1900 or so. Just saying.

Mulan is a really well-crafted protagonist though. She prevents this from being much worse than a....

Final Grade: C+


Final Rankings:
1.) The Lion King
2.) The Hunchback of Notre Dame
3.) Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
4.) Lady and The Tramp
5.) The Great Mouse Detective
6.) The Jungle Book
7.) Mulan
8.) Fun and Fancy Free

Ah, oui, La belle France. Le pays de Beauty and the Beast, Gerard Depardieu, et naturellement…

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)

Soundtrack/Score/Music: 8

Story/Screenplay/Narrative: 8.5

Characters/Characterization/Voice-acting: 7

Art Direction/Design: 8.5

Themes/Archetypes/Artistic Interpretation: 9

From RM:

This is a far more spectacular film than it is given credit for.

And it's not just the perceived bias of Wiry and I that thinks so. Our special guest viewers, Steve and PeeDee (PowerDrill), had either not seen it since its original release, or had not seen it at all, and both were wowed by the film's depth and quality.

But I'll get to why in a moment.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame is the story of Quasimodo, the deformed bell-ringer of Notre Dame Cathedral, who has, through various unspeakable actions done by others, become the young ward of Judge Claude Frollo, the most cruel and merciless judge in Paris. Quasimodo has spent all his life in seclusion in the bell-tower, accompanied only by his (shudder) three gargoyle friends, and his hobby of whittling wooden copies of the people he enviously gazes upon down below. Quasimodo's greatest wish is that he could interact with them, but he feels he is unable to because of his deformity, which is supported by Frollo's insistence that he would be rejected. The story follows his first rebellion of Frollo, leading to his unlikely friendships with the entrancing gypsy Esmeralda; the noble soldier Phoebus; his support of them in their eventual rebellion against Frollo's opressive rule, and his eventual acceptance into the community he so longed to be a part of.

There's more plot, but it's best left unsaid, because if there is any film I encourage you to go out and take another good look at, it is this one.

The only real shortcoming of this film is an unfortunate correlation to its grandiose designs. It aims so high, and, for the most part, succeeds. But also because of it's lofty goals, it falls short to a certain extent when it tries to incorporate two Disney standbys, comic relief and love stories. Disney tries and, for the most part, succeeds with dealing with its first real love triangle, even if it is a little isosceles (only two people coming from the same angle! Hunh? Hunh?). The real problem is with such dark material, they didn't know how to insert comic relief, and so the comic relief they create (the gargoyles) is bumbled through and done very poorly. As PeeDee put it, had this film not had Jason Alexander, it would have been a brighter world, both in and out of the film. But that is really the only shortcoming.

It's art design is as focused and beautiful as the building it's focused on. The score/music (by Alan Menken and Broadway stalwart Stephen Schwartz) is deep and powerful, except for the comic relief number, which feels as forced as the rest of their shtick.

My personal favorite element of this film is the titular hunchback, Quasimodo. I maintain that, over the course of this film, they manage to craft him into one of the most sympathetic and genuinely lovable characters in the whole Disney canon. Taught to live in fear of his own appearance and what it would do (and does, at first) to others, he becomes so insecure and desirous of acceptance and love that despite every setback and cruelty he is subjected to, he still maintains a spirit and a soul that is amongst the most pure and wonderful in the history of Disney film.

It should be noted that this movie, while many people believed it to be a failure, outgrossed both The Little Mermaid and Hercules and was the single best reviewed film of 1996 (still holds a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes among top critics, and an 81% overall). Another criticism of the film is how dissimilar it is to its source material. Now, to this I say two things. 1.) Remember that time that Disney WAS true to it's source material? Yeah, me neither; and 2.) This movie is BETTER than the book. It creates more sympathetic characters, and isn't gloom for gloom's sake, like the rest of Victor Hugo's oeuvre. So suck it, Hugo sycophant.

From Wiry:

So, coming into this film I knew I was in an interesting position, 'cause this is one of my favorites of the Disney canon. Its dark tone, combined with well-fleshed characters (including my favorite Disney character of all time, Clopin) and gutsy music, made it a bit of an odd Gothic child in the Disney renaissance. But just because you may have at best vague, and at worst sour, memories of this film, don't be fooled. Sure, it wasn't the return to form we were hoping for following Pocahontas (I'm speaking from my personal experience of original viewings here), but it stands up surprisingly well as its own film.

Let's start with the look of this film. This is probably the most architecture-heavy Disney films I can think of (with the exception of Beauty and the Beast), which is fitting considering how central Notre Dame itself is to the tale. It ain't The Hunchback of Eastern Park United Methodist Church here. The buildings are beautifully rendered, with supreme attention to detail and a camera that's really really good with swooping. The church is a sanctuary and a prison, the heart of the city, a home and a battleground. It also gives us the three characters who are the biggest problem with the film. Alright, let's get this out of the way: the gargoyles suck, they don't fit with the dark tone, and they deserve to be painfully excised from the film. It's not so much I take issue with the idea that, in his solitude, Quasimodo has gone a bit nutty and imagines elements of his home to be his friends. I sort of like that idea, especially if it were executed in a Calvin and Hobbes fashion - Quasimodo sees the gargoyles one way, everyone else another. But the gargoyles do participate in the world, sort of, so we're not really sure what to do with them. They bring in the comedic armpit jokes and anachronisms... which really aren't even needed since we already have plot-appropriate comic relief - Clopin.

But that said, the gargoyles aren't that important to the overall plot, which is well-paced and character-driven. And, the main characters (Quasimodo, Esmeralda, Frollo, Phoebus, Clopin) are fascinating and well-drawn - there's no throwaway, bland prince/princess among them. They guide us through a world more complicated than most in Disney - a world of duality in which religion can be used to persecute or save, a town can be cruel one day and just the next, and a villain can be motivated to action by his desire for sex clashing against his puritanical values. I know I'm getting pretty grand here, but just watch the opening number and you'll see that this film is shooting for the kind of grandness which one associates with, say, Les Miserables.

And isn't it refreshing to see a grand story told without irony, without the nudge and the wink? This kind of storytelling hasn't been seen on Broadway for years. This fear of looking anything straight-on has pervaded our culture from the high and mighty to the hipsters. Sure, Hunchback takes itself seriously, but it's also very very good.

Final Grade: A-

Final Rankings:
1.) The Lion King
2.) The Hunchback of Notre Dame
3.) Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
4.) Lady and the Tramp
5.) The Great Mouse Detective
6.) The Jungle Book
7.) Fun and Fancy Free