Category Archives: Disney

The Three Lives of Thomasina-1963

The Three Lives of Thomasina-1963

Director Don Chaffey

Starring Patrick McGoohan, Susan Hampshire

Scott’s Review #1,367

Reviewed June 7, 2023

Grade: B

The Three Lives of Thomasina (1963) is a film in which the animal, in this case, a sleek orange tabby cat, steals the show from the humans. It’s not as if the acting by the actors is terrible but who doesn’t love a cute feline clad in a bonnet?

The film is a Disney production but not one of the top tier nor mainly well remembered and was unknown to me before I watched it.

It’s related to Mary Poppins (1963) in that the cheery tone is similar and the two child stars were signed to play the Banks children as a result of The Three Lives of Thomasina.

There are enough tender and sentimental moments to satisfy fans who may crave a deeper or darker veneer but there is some fluff and predictability to wrestle with.

With high hopes of entertaining our cats Zeus and Thora with this film the furry felines largely slept through the experience and rendered it uninteresting.

Schoolgirl Mary McDhui (Karen Dotrice) lives in a small village in Scotland with her stoic veterinarian father, Andrew (Patrick McGoohan), and her cherished cat, Thomasina.

When Thomasina is injured, Andrew has the animal euthanized, which infuriates Mary who vows never to forgive her father. Unbeknownst to everyone, Thomasina’s still-living body is rescued by Lori (Susan Hampshire), a kind animal healer who nurses the cat back to health.

The romantic intention of uniting Andrew and Lori is obvious from the start and the pair have decent chemistry. Lori is a Snow White type character, whistling and prancing through her garden befriending any animal who languishes near her.

Deemed a witch by neighborhood kids terrified by her healing powers she doesn’t look the part. With golden hair and attractive features, she is more Rapunzel than the Wicked Witch of the West.

Andrew is a masculine character we’ve seen in stories. Widowed, he has lost faith in humanity and god alike living a sad existence with his housekeeper and kids.

To nobody’s surprise, in the end, Andrew, Lori, the kids, Thomasina, and the housekeeper all ride off into the sunset as happy as clams.

Though the story is generic, other aspects of The Three Lives of Thomasina spruce things up brighter than the Scottish flowers. The landscape is magical with lush countryside sequences and cute side streets and cottages.

A fabulous sequence occurs at the midpoint when a ‘dead’ Thomasina soul goes to a feline afterlife and meets the Egyptian cat goddess Bastet. Since Thomasina still has eight lives left, Bastet returns her to her body.

The sparkling and twinkling lights and the myriad of other felines are beautiful and filled with emotion.

Hopefully, the real-life animals were treated kindly but in 1963 I’m not sure how much could be faked. Still, amazing work mimicking a wounded badger is impressive.

The thrilling finale involves a tribe of gypsies setting up camp in town and opening their traveling circus. Laden with obvious stereotypes which seem clear in 2023 but were unnoticed in 1963, the gypsies abuse their animals causing a stir among the townspeople.

A fight, fire, and justice prevails and all animals are spared.

A 1960s Disney film with family-friendly themes and compassion, The Three Lives of Thomasina (1963) will satisfy cat lovers or anyone fond of animals. The real-life Thomasina is worth the price of admission for her gorgeous good looks alone.

Encanto-2021

Encanto-2021

Director Jared Bush, Byron Howard

Voices Stephanie Beatriz, John Leguizamo

Scott’s Review #1,323

Reviewed December 16, 2022

Grade: B+

Encanto (2021) is a lovely film produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios. It’s part musical, part fantasy, and part comedy with plenty of bright, colorful, and culturally significant sequences, that are quite pleasing to the eyes.

The musical numbers are wonderfully catchy and fun, especially the standouts ‘We Don’t Talk About Bruno’ and ‘Welcome to the Family Madrigal’. Since the musical numbers are mostly created by Lin-Manuel Miranda and composed by Germaine Franco they are professional and memorable.

The film has a wholesome, upbeat yet diverse quality that makes it challenging not to enjoy.

The representation provided is a significant win for the film.

The setting of Columbia helps with this and the main character, Mirabel (Stephanie Beatriz) is darling. Her positive and forthright personality is cheerful and instantly likable and I imagine inspiring young girls everywhere.

It’s nice to see Disney branch out to an international reach in today’s world of inclusion and diversity.

The Madrigals are an extraordinary family who lives hidden in the mountains of Colombia in a charming residence called the Encanto.

The magic of Encanto is well known throughout the nearby town and its magic has blessed every child in the family with a unique gift, except Mirabel who mysteriously has no gift.

Or so it would appear.

When Mirabel discovers that the magic surrounding the Encanto is in danger of running out she may be their last hope.

The success of Encanto lies in the character of Mirabel. She is imperfect and unique but she is strong and confident, not fitting a mold. This is what Disney does well to make her relatable. You could say that Mirabel feels left out and isolated, different from her more conventional siblings.

The most important goal is to create a character that the audience can embrace and feel that they are similar to. Since the target demographic of Encanto is young females the idea is successful.

The animation is also inspiring. Challenged with replicating the mountains of Columbia in a genuine way the gorgeous, lush locales can frequently be seen in sequences. The way the family estate rests along the landscape made me want to be there with them.

The colorful pastels and psychedelic moments are dizzying in a good way. The costumes alone are evidence of this including embroidered wool with cool patterns. With pinks, purples, blues, and yellows it’s an orgy of spectacular images.

The Madrigals appear to be an affluent family revered by their community but besides having magical powers it’s unknown how they cultivate their wealth. They serve the villagers with their gifts but what does that mean exactly? Are they paid with cash?

Encanto (2021) won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature and this is no surprise. The Academy sometimes rewards creativity and diversity over mainstream fluff and this film is an example of when the academy gets it right.

The film can be enjoyed by the entire family for multiple reasons instead of a product appealing to kids whose parents are forced to tag along.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature (won), Best Original Score, Best Original Song-“Dos Oruguitas” (won)

Lightyear-2022

Lightyear-2022

Director-Angus Maclane

Voices-Chris Evans, Keke Palmer

Scott’s Review #1,322

Reviewed December 13, 2022

Grade: B

The popular Toy Story (1995-2019) franchise spawns a new child with Lightyear (2022),  the spin-off prequel film within a film. Box office receipts will determine if Lightyear has any children of its own.

It’s a pleasant and more or less conventional offering since it only focuses on one ‘toy’, the masculine Buzz Lightyear, and tells his story. The visuals are delightful and colorful and there is enough adventure to keep the whole family engaged.

Unfortunately, there isn’t much in the way of legacy or connection to the Toy Story characters, and even the voice of Buzz is replaced by Tim Allen to Chris Evans.

One’s enjoyment of the film largely depends on their preference for the franchise in general or the hero in question. Better satisfied may be now adults who were kids in 1995 harkening to a nostalgic film featuring a favorite childhood character.

As a semi-fan but not a diehard fanatic of the Toy Story films I found the overall result pretty good but not astounding.

It doesn’t explain why Lightyear went from a living and thriving action hero to becoming a suburban kid’s possession but it also doesn’t matter much, at least to me.

For fans of the series, it’s a nice trip down memory lane type of film more than anything groundbreaking or breathtaking.

Sometimes familiarity breeds comfort.

The film follows Buzz Lightyear (Evans) operating as a space ranger who, after being marooned on a hostile planet with his commander and crew, tries to find a way back home while confronting a threat to the universe’s safety.

His ambitious recruits Izzy, Mo, Darby, and his robot companion, Sox serve as new characters following Lightyear’s every move. As this motley crew tackles their toughest mission yet, they must learn to work together as a team to escape the evil Zurg and his dutiful robot army that is never far behind.

Possibly the most interesting and I’ll confess the primary reason why I saw Lightyear was the notorious same-sex kiss that unceremoniously got the film banned in some Middle Eastern countries.

It also pissed off conservatives who found the kiss too much for them and the potential damnation and ruination of young children everywhere.

In truth, the kiss is timid and a non-issue. The issue is more likely a prominent female lesbian character and her wife, and best friend Buzz. It’s like, how dare the all-American Lightyear has a black lesbian for a best friend.

Alisha (Uzo Aduba) is strong, confident, and black. She is a commanding officer and arguably the most interesting character in the film.

What an inspiration for young girls everywhere to see such representation and potential. The kicker is that she is in a relationship with a woman who produces a grandaughter named Izzy (Keke Palmer), one of Buzz’s recruits.

Despite the addition of inclusion and diversity Lightyear is nonetheless a by-the-numbers offering. The message is one of a robust adventure though I appreciate the social importance of such a good character.

Once Buzz is in flight and soaring for the stars Lightyear turns action/adventure in a hurry. The filmmakers intend to create a popcorn summer blockbuster while having our hero save the day and the intention is fulfilled.

The time travel and aging of characters are interesting because we see their lifecycle and generations to follow. For example, Buzz is close to Izzy. He cares so much for Alisha who he misses terribly because he has been far away and not aging while she has aged like a normal human.

Lightyear (2022) provides a safe flight plan despite being brave enough to include some diverse characters. It doesn’t connect to the origin of Toy Story as much as I’d like it to and feels rather like a stand-alone.

Time will tell if a sequel is made but it would be unnecessary.

The Pacifier-2005

The Pacifier-2005

Director Adam Shankman

Starring Vin Diesel, Lauren Graham

Scott’s Review #1,251

Reviewed May 1, 2022

Grade: C

The Pacifier (2005) is the kind of film that has been made for decades in one form or another. The setup is familiar and puts its macho movie star in situations that go against type or are deemed a bit feminine, and lightweight, all for the sake of a laugh.

As far back as the 1950s when Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis donned lady’s clothing in Some Like it Hot (1959), to Michael Keaton in Mr. Mom (1983), to the 1990s when Arnold Schwarzenegger entertained audiences in Kindergarten Cop (1995), there is a pattern to follow.

And those are just decent films.

In 2005, the sexy Vin Diesel was one of the highest-grossing leading men in Hollywood churning out hits like Boiler Room (2000) and The Fast and the Furious (2001) to rabid audiences.

Known primarily for his action films, someone had the bright idea to domesticate the muscular star and put him in a situation where he would comically change baby diapers or vacuum a living room.

Unfortunately, The Pacifier is juvenile in nearly every way with canned gags and predictability for miles. Diesel is terrific to look at but isn’t the best actor in the world which causes the film to lose credibility.

Despite cliche after cliche and ridiculous situations, the film occasionally will elicit a chuckle or two from anyone brave enough to watch it.

That’s mostly because Diesel is willing to emerge in one scene covered in shit.

But don’t expect much more from The Pacifier.

Shane Wolfe (Diesel) is an elite Navy SEAL with muscles and charisma for miles. He is the type of man who would run into a fire and save a baby or swim out to sea to save a drowning child.

One day he makes a grave error in judgment when he fails to keep scientist Howard Plummer (Tate Donovan) safe from assassination and the man is killed.

Riddled with guilt, he is assigned to protect Plummer’s five children when the mother played by Faith Ford needs to leave the country temporarily. The kids include rebellious Zoe (Brittany Snow), Seth (Max Thieriot), and clingy Lulu (Morgan York).

The kid’s pet duck is along for the ride pushing the seasoned veteran to his breaking point.

Predictably, when Shane is not busy tending to the kids there is a secret project contained somewhere in the household that he must uncover.

Of course, a film like The Pacifier requires some romance so the inclusion of Principal Claire Fletcher (Lauren Graham) is for the sole purpose of having someone for Shane to fall in love with.

There is not great chemistry between Diesel and Graham so I wasn’t invested in them. The casting of the children is so one-dimensional with standard characteristics that it would be easy to laugh at.

I chose not to do this but rather strove to find something enjoyable in The Pacifier.

It’s a cute film but it’s so mainstream, dull, fluffy, and whatever generic adjective one would choose to describe it that it deserves the bland grade of C I am awarding it.

Diesel is the only appealing factor to The Pacifier.

Why make the bad guys as stereotypical as possible? They are North Korean and the ‘twist’ that Shane’s boss is in cahoots with them is as surprising as realizing the two-week-old Chinese leftovers in the fridge have gone bad.

The film has a small comparison to the superior The Sound of Music (1965) which the filmmakers must have realized since they incorporate it into the story. The kids that Shane is in charge of are behaving badly and attempting to play a practical joke on him.

In the end, there is a chase sequence, a reveal, peril, and a happy ending in more or less that order.

The Pacifier (2005) is a Disney film so there is a safe, family-friendly vibe throughout. It marginally entertains largely on the strength of Diesel.

He is sexy, and macho, and provides enough charisma to forget the bevy of standard gags and silly situations that he, and the audience, must endure.

Cruella-2021

Cruella-2021

Director-Craig Gillespie

Starring Emma Stone, Emma Thompson

Scott’s Review #1,197

Reviewed November 19, 2021

Grade: A-

One of the first red carpet premiers to emerge amid the deadly Covid-19 pandemic, Cruella (2021) is a wickedly funny delight and celebrates the return of cinema to the theaters. What a fabulous choice. The makeup, hairstyling, costumes, musical score, and the title character herself make this film loud, proud, and lots of fun.

It’s not too dark for the entire family to enjoy but far from fluff either. Suspension of disbelief is mandatory since it’s pure fantasy and not to be dissected for its numerous plot holes and ridiculous antics. Dogs, people, and costumes fly around in frantic motion to fulfill their every motivation.

The film is way better than anticipated which is always a treat. It’s not that I wasn’t expecting quality but I didn’t expect to be entertained and enthralled quite as much as I was. I was carried away by the experience.

The live-action force sheds light on the backstory of Cruella de Vil made famous of course as the dastardly villain in the animated Disney feature 101 Dalmations from 1961. Her life and intentions are explored ala a story similar to Oliver Twist, 1970s style. Orphaned young she must survive the mean streets of London during the punk rock evolution. She becomes an expert pickpocket and ingenious thief while doubling as the humble fashion upstart Estella.

Estella befriends a pair of young thieves who adore her appetite for mischief, and together they construct a cozy life for themselves and their furry friends. While working as a cleaning lady Estella is discovered by the ruthless and unkind Baroness von Hellman (Emma Thompson), a fashion legend. Their complex relationship sets in motion revelations that harken back to Estella’s deceased mother and causes her to embrace her wicked side and become the fashionable and revenge-bent Cruella.

Emma Stone basks in the spotlight as Cruella with ravaging fury and a twinkle in her eye. An incredible actress having played roles in Birdman (2014), La La Land (2016), and The Favourite (2018), Stone goes full-throttle in her duel role making them as opposite as possible. She’s terrific and carries the bombastic film with seeming ease.

Thompson is just as good as the Baroness, a woman with a heart of stone and most similar to Miranda in The Devil Wears Prada (2006). With a snap of her fingers or a glance, she expects to be served and pleased, happy to take credit for other people’s work. It’s a toss-up which character I hate more.

Stone and Thompson are delicious together and chew up the scenery especially when they spar and attack each other. These scenes are wickedly delightful and a key to their past may link them forever. The Baroness is tough to like since she twice tries to kill Estella/Cruella.

The actresses make magic together.

Besides the clear parallels to Oliver Twist, Cruella also mirrors Spider-Man with the alter-ego premise. I saw her as a superhero. Traditionally, Cruella is portrayed as evil and fiendish but here she is the rooting favorite. This may turn some off but I loved this facet and complexity of the character.

To go deeper, the Baroness is more like the animated Disney character Cruella than Cruella is!

I joyously anticipated which 1970s rock song would come next as nearly every sequence has this genre of music incorporated. Bands like Blondie, Queen, and Black Sabbath appear as well as interesting, modern takes on some of the best hits of the period. This adds oodles of depth and relevancy.

What about the costumes? Oh, how gorgeous they are! Numerous dresses, gowns, and other accessories are featured. The sheer number of outfits and designs in the film is astounding. My favorite appears as Cruella unfolds a flowing dress from a limousine that goes on for miles and miles sort of like a domino effect. It’s flashy and beautiful.

Rumors abound that Stone has signed on for a sequel to Cruella (2021). As long as a more thought-out story continues to be developed the character can continue to be as complex as she is entertaining. The style, locale, and time make the film a fantastical fantasy retelling.

Oscar Nominations: Best Costume Design (won), Best Makeup and Hairstyling

Soul-2020

Soul-2020

Director-Pete Docter

Voices-Jamie Foxx, Tina Fey

Scott’s Review #1,172

Reviewed August 18, 2021

Grade: B+

It’s quite reassuring when a magical animated feature comes down the pike. Too often, the mainstream multiplex summer offerings are trite or too ‘kiddish’ for my tastes. Soul (2020) is creative, colorful, sentimental, with a terrific musical score composed by Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails).

The writing is fresh and inventive with gorgeous animation that feels magical. I did not see the film on the big screen and bet it would have made the experience even more delightful.

Soul is not too dark nor is it too trivial. It contains the perfect balance of humanism, darkness, and hope. The title can be construed with a double meaning. Based on the musical angle, the lead character is a piano player, the soul could mean rhythm, but I’m only half right. An out-of-body or celestial experience and the essence of a living being are also part of his soul.

While watching the film I kept ruminating over how lovely and inspirational a film like Soul is during a crushing pandemic. It has heart and magic.

Unfulfilled music teacher Joe Gardner (Jamie Foxx) finally lands the gig of a lifetime at the best jazz club in town supporting legendary Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett). But his excitement gets the best of him and he stumbles into a manhole on a New York City street.

Lying comatose, Joe enters a fantastical place: The Great Before. There, he teams up with soul 22 (Tina Fey), and together they find the answers to some of life’s biggest questions while embarking on a journey in the switched bodies of Joe and a therapy cat.

Set in the massive Big Apple itself the film offers so much hustle, bustle, and life. I adored the setting. The smokey jazz club with sultry set design and creative music made me immersed in the wonderful surroundings.

The story itself slightly confused me when Joe arrives in the “Great Beyond” as a soul. Assuming this meant death I was relieved when he backtracked to the “Great Before” and met with counselors all named Jerry. The counselors, I realized, prepare unborn souls for life with the help of mentor souls. This didn’t grip me as much as other characteristics of the film.

Foxx and Fey are fine doing the voices for Joe and 22 respectively but they are not the highlight either. I never really thought of either of them throughout the duration. There were better aspects to focus on.

Disney/Pixar featuring a black central character is worthy of mention and it is about time. Joe’s family is black adding a wonderful mother figure and supporting characters of ethnicity to the fold.

The music, the music, the music! This makes Soul as good a film as it is. Trent Reznor’s collaboration alone made me eager to see it. His creative use of keyboards and partnership with fellow Nine Inch Nails bandmate Atticus Ross provides proper ambiance to the metaphysical sequences. A hallucinogenic trance-like musical beat is unique and trippy.

Younger children may be perplexed or bewildered by much of the activity so I’m not sure I’d recommend that demographic but music fans and admirers of rich stories with a subtext of life will enjoy the experience and subsequent message that Soul (2020) provides.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature Film (won), Best Original Score (won), Best Sound

Onward-2020

Onward-2020

Director-Dan Scanlon

Starring Tom Holland, Chris Pratt

Scott’s Review #1,164

Reviewed July 23, 2021

Grade: B+

An emotionally satisfying adventure film that the whole family can enjoy Onward (2020) feels fresh and inventive while still employing some standard plot points. Pixar/Disney sure knows how to churn out animated features with a nice message and a family unit sensibility.

There is also plenty of diversity that delivers an inclusive feeling so hugely important in the modern age. Kids are impressionable and learn so much from the films they watch so this quality brought a smile to my face in an otherwise enjoyable experience.

The film also celebrates non-traditional families and shows that not having a traditional mother and father and pet dog doesn’t make you strange or unworthy of love and understanding.

Onward is not completely outside the box, however, and is careful to lure in the mainstream middle America audience but some progressive treats mix well with a robust brotherly adventure tale.

Though the title, Onward, doesn’t stick in my mind very long the film itself does.

I may have even shed a tear or two during the heartfelt finale.

Teenage elf brothers Ian and Barley (voiced by Tom Holland and Chris Pratt) embark on a magical quest to spend one more day with their deceased father who loved magic. Their journey is filled with cryptic maps, overwhelming obstacles, and discoveries like any good adventure.

But when their Mom (voiced by Julia Louis-Dreyfus) finds out her sons are missing, she goes into mother lion mode and teams up with the legendary manticore (voiced by Octavia Spencer) to bring her beloved boys back home.

The lead character, Ian, is a sixteen-year-old boy with growing pains and vulnerabilities that immediately make him likable. He is eager to make friends but awkward about doing so. It is suggested that he has no friends coming to his birthday party but it’s unclear why not. Ian is also a nervous driver, terrified of traversing a busy freeway.

He is an ordinary kid who the audience can see in themselves or a former self of years gone by.

His brother, Barley, is the opposite. He is afraid of nothing and cares not who he befriends or what people think of him. His outrageous vehicle, named Guinevere, is a rebuilt van. Think the mystery mobile from Scooby-Doo.

The crux of Onward is about relationships. At first, we assume that the big payoff will be between Ian/Barley and their father. While that sort of happens, a surprise blossoms along the way, and instead of a standard father/son dynamic we get a brother/brother one. This is a treat and manufactures a dual message. Never take for granted a loved one already in your life because one day they may be gone.

I enjoyed the adventures of Ian and Barley mostly because I just knew that some sort of reunion would occur between the boys and the father. Their gift of one day spent with their father was marred by only his bottom half being visible, but I suspected we would see all of the father eventually. Avoiding complete predictability, only one of the boys gets to interplay with his father as the other looks on longingly.

I enjoyed this element quite a bit as it avoided cliche and offered raw emotion.

Speaking of diversity, two gay female police officers appear in one scene and a suggestion that some of a motorcycle gang of pixies might be gay is also noticed. Again, this is important for child viewers to be exposed to.

Another win is the animation itself- just look at the cover art above for proof. With gorgeous purple and blue color, the nighttime scenes work especially well with a bright and luminous look that I adored.

A slight miss was that the boy’s mother never got to reunite with her dead husband and their relationship was treated as merely an afterthought. The featured plot was only that the brothers missed their Dad. A reunion between husband and wife would have been nice.

With a tender and emotionally satisfying conclusion, this cemented my appreciation for Onward (2020). There may be a tad too many car chase scenes and a couple of hokey plot ploys but the film has a lot of heart that shines through.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature

Hercules-1997

Hercules-1997

Director Ron Clements, John Musker

Starring Tate Donovan, James Woods, Danny DeVito

Scott’s Review #1,109

Reviewed February 7, 2021

Grade: B-

Hercules (1997) is a modern-day Walt Disney film that centers on the world of Ancient Greek mythology. The premise is one I find fascinating and the characters of Hercules, Zeus, Hades, and Pegasus are the focus.

The names alone hold intrigue and appeal but the film is only an adequate watch.

The product feels “produced” and lacks the authenticity and sincerity that is rich and seamless in beloved Disney classics like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) or Bambi (1941).

Besides the initial story intrigue, the animations are nothing particularly special and it feels too kiddie-like.

It’s like comparing The Beatles Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band historical album to a latter-day solo effort by Paul McCartney and that’s being generous. It may be fine but can’t hold a candle to the former.

And “fine” is not what I wanted from a Disney film. That’s what I felt about Hercules. It’s okay and entertaining but not up to snuff as compared with finer films.

The film is equipped with a fantastic villain though, the best part of Hercules other than the mythological elements. James Woods, who voices the character of Hades, is wonderful and I’m hardly a James Woods fan but for other reasons, like his politics.

Anyway, the rivalry and competitive edge of Hercules and Hades are unique and compelling and will hold one’s attention.

It all begins in a perfect Disney way when Hercules (Tate Donovan), a son of gods, is snatched as a baby by Hades and forced to live among mortals as a half-man, half-god. When he grows to be an adolescent, Hercules needs to perform a rite of passage on Earth to prove himself worthy of living with the gods on Mount Olympus.

With his sidekick, Philoctetes (Danny DeVito), in tow, Hercules must learn to use his strength to defeat evil creatures.

The strong message is written in Hercules to appeal to a sense of good overthrowing evil. It’s a Disney film, trust me it will.

Though predictable the story feels good in a world where far too often the bad guys get away with bad things and the good guys don’t get enough credit.

Appealing and targeted mostly to kids, the film made a ton of money which means a lot of kids saw it. A great reminder is that with any luck truth and honest will win out. So will remaining true to one’s self.

Woods makes Hades a villain with an edge rather than a generic, cookie-cutter type. Hades speaks rapidly, like a used car salesman trying to sell a customer a good deal. We can tell we are trying to be swindled but there is fun in that.

Megara (Susan Egan), the intended love-interest for Hercules, is working for Hades, which adds a level of intrigue.

Unfortunately, the romance between Hercules and Meg never gets off the ground or works well. The main issue is that there is little chemistry or rooting value for the couple. Meg isn’t my favorite Disney character. She is a sarcastic damsel whom Hercules saves from the centaur Nessus.

After Hercules and the others leave, Meg is revealed to be Hades’ servant, having sold her soul to him to save a lover who then left her. She’s had a tough life and finally does the right thing but I never felt invested in the character.

The main song from the film is okay but rather forgettable. The title of “Go the Distance” is a song of determination but also generic and unmemorable. The look of the animations has a 1990s vibe with bright, vibrant colors that look “of the time” instead of feeling classic or alive.

A decent effort, Hercules (1997) hits its mark sometimes and other times misses completely. I was enraptured with the historical and mythological gods and the trimmings that go along with that mystique, but the modern spin doesn’t work and only made me yearn for the classics from the 1940s and 1950s.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Song-“Go the Distance”

Frozen II-2019

Frozen II-2019

Director-Chris Buck, Jennifer Lee

Starring-Kristen Bell, Idina Menzel

Scott’s Review #1,043

Reviewed July 22, 2020

Grade: B

Six years after the enormous success of Frozen (2013) comes the follow-up, Frozen II (2019).

Surprising is the long gap of time between creations but the beauty of animation is that these characters do not age unless creators want them to.

The adventure story is fun, incorporating a bit of history which always creates depth, but also charts familiar territory as the first installment.

The film showcases lovely visuals and songs which usurp the other elements. Breeding so much familiarity, there seems little need for a third chapter though I’d bet my bottom dollar another will emerge.

We are re-introduced to Anna (Bell) and Elsa (Menzel) as little girls when they are tucked into bed by their father King Agnarr of Arendelle one night. He relays a story about his father (their grandfather), a treaty made with a neighboring tribe, a dam, and a magical Enchanted Forest.

As a youngster, Agnarr barely escapes alive after a fight erupts with the other tribe, causing his father’s death, and enraging the spiritual elements of the forest. There is also a key mention about Anna and Elsa’s parents lost ship, which is apparently how they died.

Fast-forward to present times, Elsa and Anna are adults, three years following the events of the first film. Elsa, the one with ice powers, runs her happy kingdom with Anna serving as Princess. They live in peace and harmony with familiar characters Olaf, the snowman created by Elsa, Kristoff, Anna’s boyfriend, and Sven, his reindeer.

When Elsa begins hearing mysterious voices calling to her from the mountains, she pursues them only to reawaken the spirits and threaten her kingdom and her people. The group must come to the rescue to retain harmony learning the reason for Elsa’s powers in the process.

Frozen II has a “nice” feel which is positive and negative. Family-friendly with a feminist, female perspective is good and crafts a positive and inspiring message for youngsters, especially females, who see the film. Anna and Elsa control their destiny, are empowered to go after what they want, and achieve results.

They also support each other, share sisterly love rather than are rivals, and treat people fairly.

The adventure that the girls and friends face will end happily, that much we know. Slight peril emerges when Anna goads and then flees from gigantic earth spirits, Olaf melts and is assumed dead, and Elsa is also thought dead in the forest, but these are aspects added for dramatic effect, and the safe feel of the film ensures that all major characters will remain in happily ever after harmony.

When Kristoff awkwardly attempts to propose to Anna throughout the film, we are certain he will eventually do the deed which he does.

I criticized Frozen for limiting diversity in its production, which is corrected in Frozen II. Mattias, leader of a group of Arendelle soldiers, is a strong and protective character and is black.

As an LGBTQ presence, one is only hinted at.

When Kristoff befriends Ryder over their love of reindeer, Ryder admits he knows nothing about girls. Mention must be made of Elsa’s barbie doll-like appearance with her bright blue eyes and long blonde hair. Does she have to look that stunning? Might impressionable girls get the idea that looks are most important?

Let’s hope not.

The best parts of the film are the musical numbers, which feel increased from the first Frozen. Using the same song composers, the tunes feel slightly less poppy. The most emotional number is “Into the Unknown”, which possesses a mysterious quality and powerful, compelling lyrics.

Its message is to go for it, which can be interpreted as conquering fears or trying something new. The sound is anthem-like and superior to “Let it Go”.

Frozen II (2019) is a predictable, fun affair ensconced with Scandinavian trimmings with mountains, fjords, and gorgeous landscape providing the necessary cold-weather aspects and magical quality. The visuals are lavish, bright, and sophisticated.

Part II is a slightly more mature affair but on par with Frozen and wisely targets the right audience. Tastes change, so if Part III is made filmmakers might want to think of a deeper plot or subsequent tidbits to retain interest.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Song-“Into the Unknown”

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil-2019

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil-2019

Director-Joachim Ronnin

Starring-Elle Fanning, Angelina Jolie

Scott’s Review #1,039

Reviewed July 14, 2020

Grade: B+

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) is the follow-up to the 2014 film, simply named Maleficent, and while not a necessary sequel, the sequel bests the original.

The intent was to create a big, studio effort that would garner lots of cash and the experiment seems to have worked.

The production is not as frightening as the title would lead one to believe and kids over the age of ten would be just fine as a target audience.

While the screenplay has traditional plot trimmings and a predictable ending, the real winner is the visual and cinematic treats, which will leave viewers gasping. The lush landscapes, odd little worlds, castles, and forests, blossom with vibrant colors and exquisite shapes and objects.

It may mostly be CGI but marvelous all the same.

To recap, the character of Maleficent debuted in the 1959 classic animated Disney film Sleeping Beauty. Maleficent is an evil fairy and the self-proclaimed “Mistress of All Evil” who, after not being invited to a christening, curses the infant Princess Aurora to “prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel and die” before the sun sets on Aurora’s sixteenth birthday.

The character has since “evolved”, now portrayed as a sympathetic character, who is misunderstood in trying to protect herself and her domain from humans.

For five years Aurora (Elle Fanning) has reigned peacefully as Queen of the Moors with Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) serving as teacher and protector. They have a rapturous relationship and flock and carry on with fairies and animals alike.

Handsome Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson) proposes to Aurora, thereby uniting her kingdom to his, which is met with caution by his parents, specifically his mother Queen Ingrid (Michelle Pfeiffer).

When the players gather for a celebratory dinner Maleficent is mocked, causing her to fly into a rage, setting off a war between humans and fairies.

A key positive, and a story shift, is that Maleficent, a legendary film villain, is written sympathetically and the plot device works. Rather than have her sparring with daughter Aurora, the duo team up to thwart the devious efforts of the evil Queen Ingrid, who is the real villain.

Jolie and Pfeiffer must have had fun playing the roles and both perform their respective parts adequately. Favorable to me is Jolie, adding just enough vulnerability to balance her fierce nature and blood-red lips. Pfeiffer plays the role straight, as a caricature, with no redeeming value.

Both roles are fun.

Keeping in mind the target audience, the characters of Maleficent and Aurora are inspiring, especially to young females everywhere. The film adds more than a hint of progressive feminism as both characters are strong and no-nonsense.

This does not take away from their sensitivity or their sense of fairness. Both could equally be role models of tough yet compassionate female characters.

In most Disney films there are heroes and villains and we all know and expect that. The standard storyline of good revolting against evil is on display and an epic climactic battle scene gives a customary ending to the film.

Likewise, the fairy tale romance between Prince and Princess is prominently featured and for my money, Dickinson and Fanning are tremendous in the roles.

The chemistry is apparent between the actors and there is a nice balance between a believable romance and strong independent characters.

Queen Ingrid, barely a mention in the original animated film, is turned into an evil shrew, all completely plot-driven. The story is what I expected it to be and not the high point of the film.

More impressive is how the viewer can easily escape into a world of make-believe and long to stay there forever. Especially for the younger viewers, the Moors is a bevy of magical creatures and fluttering fairies rich with goodness.

The comical Knotgrass, Thistlewit, and Flittle, the red fairy, green fairy, and blue fairy respectively, make a return appearance, though in a limited capacity. It would have been nice to give them a stronger presence providing more wisdom, more advice, and more humor, but they serve their comic relief purpose well.

Will there be a third incarnation of Maleficent?

The filmmakers provide a strong likelihood. After Aurora and Philip wed, Maleficent returns to the Moors with the other Dark Fey, teaching the young fairies to fly. She promises to return for Aurora and Philip’s future child’s christening.

This vow seems like an easy setup to build on the original storyline, unlocking the next chapter in this engaging saga.

Oscar Nominations: Best Makeup and Hairstyling

101 Dalmatians-1996

101 Dalmatians-1996

Director Stephen Herek

Starring Glenn Close, Jeff Daniels, Joely Richardson

Scott’s Review #989

Reviewed February 13, 2020

Grade: C+

The classic animated Disney film 101 Dalmatians (1961) is brought to life in a live-action format thirty-five years later to create a fresh spin on the revered original film.

Unfortunately, the result is nothing special save for Glenn Close’s brilliant performance as the dastardly Cruella De Vil. Otherwise, the reworking is too amateurish and largely unnecessary, especially as compared to the brilliance and charm of the original.

Thankfully not modifying the London setting, American video game designer Roger Dearly (Jeff Daniels) lives with his pet dalmatian, Pong.

Lonely, Roger trudges along through life without a love interest. During a walk, Pongo sets his eyes on a beautiful female dalmatian named Perdy. After a chase through the streets of London that ends in St. James’s Park, Roger discovers that Pongo likes Perdy.

Her owner, Anita Campbell-Green (Joely Richardson) immediately falls in love with Roger and the duo are inseparable.

They get married along with Perdy and Pongo. Anita works as a fashion designer at the House of de Vil. Her boss, the pampered and glamorous Cruella de Vil (Close), has a passion for fur.

Anita, inspired by her Dalmatian, designs a coat made with spotted fur, and Cruella is intrigued by the idea of wearing Anita’s dog. She hatches a plot to steal and kill the puppies for her lavish gain.

The scenes between the dogs are cute and work better than the intended romance relationship between the humans. A darling pursuit in the animated feature that does not shine through with real actors.

Either the chemistry between Daniels and Richardson does not exist or the scene is too forced, or perhaps both. I did not buy the love, at first sight, stars aligning moments.

I bet most audiences didn’t either. The result is a banal and stale connection between Roger and Anita, meant to be the core of the story.

Enough cannot be said for what Close brings to the role. The actress gives a tremendous performance and sinks her teeth into the most prominent and interesting part of the film.

With a sinister sneer, a flowing red and white coat, and a token cigarette holder, she infuses Cruella with dazzling menace.

Careful not to overact and result in a juvenile character, she relishes the role, providing just enough comedy without being too scary. The performance is perfect.

A negative is that, unlike the animated version, none of the animals have speaking voices. This detracts from the earnest quality of expressive, talking animals.

What pet owner does not imagine what their cat or dog would sound like if they talked?

Instead, the puppies sniff and look cute, making themselves distracted and unclear about what feelings they have. One wonders why the decision was made in this way, but it does little to provide texture.

101 Dalmatians are too cute for their good, limiting any sophistication. The original had British intelligence and a cultural voice, with small, yet important details, like falling rain, that live-action cannot mimic.

The 1996 version is kid-friendly, but brings little to the table, lacking interesting flair. Why not teach a lesson about the dalmatian dog breed rather than settle for simply an adorable slant?

Rumors abound that parents adopted dalmatians for their children after seeing the film and were forced to return them, rather than invest time in study, realizing that raising a dalmatian is hard work.

The idea to remake an adorable and cozy Walt Disney classic from the 1960s with a fresh approach is admirable. The live-action detail could add a new twist or an inventive spin that could appeal to a new generation of youngsters.

Unfortunately, 101 Dalmatians (1996) works unwell, barely rising above mediocrity, with an aura of fluff and gimmicks that feel forced and trite. The saving grace is Glenn Close, a tremendous talent who gives it her all despite sub-par material.

Stick to the original 1961 version.

Toy Story 4-2019

Toy Story 4-2019

Director-Josh Cooley

Voices-Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Annie Potts

Scott’s Review #966

Reviewed December 10, 2019

Grade: B

Toy Story 4 (2019) is the fourth installment in the Pixar/Disney-produced Toy Story series, now nearly twenty-five years old!

The glitter is beginning to fade on a once endearing franchise and hopefully, this is the last one- additional segments are not needed unless desperation develops.

After a slow start and too many retread moments, the film shows bombast and familiar heart and tenderness in the finale, presumably wrapping up the long story with a neat bow.

The animation is vivid and colorful, almost astounding, making up for an unnecessary story.

In a flashback sequence, nine years after Toy Story 2, Bo Peep (Annie Potts) is donated to a new owner, and Woody (Tom Hanks) begrudgingly decides to maintain his loyalty to the owner, Andy.

Years later and now a teenager, Andy donates a forgotten Woody to a young child named Bonnie, who lacks the affection for the toy that Andy had. When Bonnie makes and bonds with Forky, a toy made of plastic, Woody struggles to convince Forky that each is more than garbage.

When Bonnie and her parents embark on a summer road trip to an amusement park, Woody and other familiar faces are along for the ride.

The group meets other forgotten toys, some benevolent and some sinister, at the park and a nearby antique store. Woody’s dear friend and comic relief, Buzz (Tim Allen), is in the mix and helps all the toys realize that they are not forgotten and that they can still bring joy to children.

The film provides an unwieldy list of celebrities in major and minor roles. The incorporation of characters like Chairol Burnett, Bitey White, and Carl Reineroceros (voiced naturally by Carol Burnett, Betty White, and Carl Reiner) may not be necessary, but it’s fun to watch the credits roll and see who’s who from the cast.

The minor characters are little more than window dressing, but the creativity is admirable.

The main story of abandonment, loyalty, and discarding of one’s toys is ample and nice but has occurred in every segment thus far in the series.

Do we need to see this again? Yes, it is an important message for both children and adults, but why not simply watch the first three installments of Toy Story, each brilliant in their own right?

Toy Story 4 plays by the numbers with little surprises.

One glaring notice is how almost every single adult is either incompetent or played for laughs. I get that the main draw is the toys and outsmarting the adults is half the fun, but when Bonnie’s father assumes his navigation system is on the fritz, rather than catching on to the fact that one of the toys is voicing the system, one must shake his or her head.

Suspension of disbelief is required more and more in these types of films.

Toy Story 4 picks up steam in the final twenty minutes with a thrilling adventure through the amusement park and a cute romance between Woody and Bo Peep.

When the long-forgotten toy Gabby Gabby (Christina Hendricks) emotionally rescues a lost child, she is rejuvenated and breathes new life into both the child’s life and her own.

In a darling moment, Forky meets another creation named Knifey. Knifey suffers from the same existential crisis as Forky once did, and Forky immediately becomes smitten with her, both realizing that even though they are odd-looking, they still matter.

The nice lesson learned is that even toys from the 1960s and 1970s can provide warmth and comfort to a young child and are more than “of their time”. This is a clear and bold message that correlates with human beings and how advanced age does not come with an expiration date.

Everyone matters and brings importance. The overlying theme is heartwarming and central to the film, bringing it above mediocrity.

What should certainly be the final chapter in a tired franchise that continues to trudge along, the bright message and strong animations remain, but the film feels like a retread.

Given that Toy Story 3 was made in 2010, Toy Story 4 (2019) needs to bring the series to a conclusion before installments 5, 6, 7, or 8 result in dead on arrival.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature Film (won), Best Original Song-“I Can’t Let You Throw Yourself Away”

Mary Poppins-1964

Mary Poppins-1964

Director Robert Stevenson

Starring Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke

Scott’s Review #965

Reviewed December 9, 2019

Grade: A-

Mary Poppins (1964) is a lovely Walt Disney production that shines with zest and an ample supply of good, cheery tunes. A family affair, it will hardly disappoint, with sing-alongs and enchanting stories for miles.

It’s tough to knock a film that has it all, but it borders on sickeningly sweet wholesomeness at times with too much schmaltz mixed in.

This can easily be forgiven because of the robust music, dazzling visual effects, and perfect casting, making the film enjoyable entertainment for all to enjoy.

The Banks family resides in London, England, the foursome consists of George and Winifred Banks, along with children Jane and Michael. They live a comfortable and happy upper-middle-class existence.

When their nanny quits after the children run away to chase a kite, the panicked George requests a stern, no-nonsense nanny, while the children (now returned home) desire a kind, sweet one. Through magic, a young nanny (Julie Andrews) descends from the sky using her umbrella.

Mary Poppins teaches the children to enjoy chores through tunes with the help of a kindly chimney sweep, Bert (Dick Van Dyke).

Mary Poppins cheerily takes the children on several adventures teaching them valuable lessons along the way. The drama involves light situations such as the irritable George threatening to fire the nanny because she is too cheerful, or a mini-scandal at the bank where George works.

These side stories are trivial and non-threatening since the film is really about the antics of the magically odd nanny and her relationship with the children.

The film is unique because it combines live-action with animation and is magical and inventive. This is most evident during sequences that feature animals, especially the superb scene where Mary Poppins transports Bert, Jane, and Michael into a picture where they ride a carousel and stroll the day away.

The appearance of horses and a fox makes the scene beautifully crafted and filled with joy.

The casting could be no different and is flawless across the board. Standouts are Andrews and Van Dyke, the former appearing in her very first film role.

Not to be usurped by her most iconic role as Maria in the following year’s brilliant The Sound of Music (1965), Andrews possesses a benevolent and delightful spirit that works perfectly in the role, to say nothing of her powerful voice.

Van Dyke as the romantic interest is equally well-cast, and together the chemistry is easy and apparent.

Mary Poppins was met with critical acclaim when it was released when Disney ruled the roost and musicals were a dime a dozen.

It received a total of thirteen Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture – a record for any film released by Walt Disney Studios – and won five: Best Actress for Andrews, Best Film Editing, Best Original Music Score, Best Visual Effects, and Best Original Song for “Chim Chim Cher-ee”.

This was quite a feat as the film was up against My Fair Lady (1964), which won the biggest prize.

Rated G and box-office success, Mary Poppins (1964) is a legendary Walt Disney film that uses creative techniques and musical numbers to develop a finely finished product.

The song standouts are “A Spoonful of Sugar”, “Chim Chim Cher-ee”, and “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious”, as each offers candy for the ears and immeasurable fun.

The classic songs and the cohesive sentimentality make this one easy to enjoy with repeated viewings.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Robert Stevenson, Best Actress-Julie Andrews (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Song-“Chim Chim Cher-ee” (won), Best Music Score-Substantially Original (won), Best Scoring of Music-Adaptation or Treatment, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Color, Best Cinematography, Color, Best Costume Design, Color, Best Film Editing (won), Best Special Visual Effects (won)

The Sword in the Stone-1963

The Sword in the Stone-1963

Director Wolfgang Reitherman

Voices Sebastian Cabot, Rickie Sorensen, Karl Swenson

Scott’s Review #896

Reviewed May 10, 2019

Grade: B

The 1960s, while not known as the best of decades for Walt Disney productions, offers a small gem of a film in The Sword in the Stone (1963).

The film, flying marginally under the radar, is not typically well-remembered but is a solid offering. It mixes elements of magic and royalty within a cute story.

The production holds the dubious honor of being the final Disney animated film to be released before Walt Disney’s death.

While the film is not great, neither is it bad.

Engaging and innocent it does not offer the ravaging tragedy of Bambi (1942), the emotion of Dumbo (1941) nor the beauty of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937).

The Sword in the Stone offers an adventure with an appealing lead character, mildly entertaining supporting characters, and a host of fun antics enshrouded around education.

Set during ancient times, the King of England has died, leaving no heir to the throne. This elicits peril and worries since with no successor in place, the country is doomed for war.

One day a miracle occurs and an odd “Sword in the Stone” appears inside a sturdy anvil in London, with an inscription proclaiming that whoever removes it will be the new king.

Despite a myriad of attempts none of the strong townsmen succeed and England is reduced to the Dark Ages, leaving the sword and the stone forgotten.

When one day a twelve-year-old lad named Arthur appears, he teams up with his tutor, Merlin the wizard, and the adventures commence.

Inevitably Arthur can remove the sword from the stone and will go on to lead the Knights of the Round Table, accomplishing many amazing feats and becoming one of the most famous figures in history- King Arthur.

The Sword in the Stone entertains and pleases the eyes in many regards with vibrant colors and an array of bells and whistles creatively interspersed throughout a myriad of scenes.

The main villain, Madam Mim, is Merlin’s main nemesis. Haggard and dripping with black magic powers, she can turn from a pink elephant into a queen with the flick of her wrist as she giggles and prances about.

Despite being dastardly she is also fun, zany, and delights in her brief screen time.

The whimsical antics of Merlin are the best aspects of The Sword in the Stone as the senior gentleman bursts and bumbles from one oddity to another in earnest attempts to aid Arthur.

Thanks to clever writing an educational angle is robustly incorporated into the story. Merlin can see into the future, such as knowing that the world is round, not flat.

What a great learning tool the film provides for young kids to discover.

The story risks playing juvenile in some parts where I can see children under age twelve enthralled but adults finding the film too childish to take seriously.

Despite my efforts to stay tuned, I noticed tidbits of the film that seemed too cute.

When Merlin and Arthur are turned into squirrels and strike the fancy of adorable but clueless female squirrels, the scene seems best catered to very young audiences.

What would give the film some excitement would be a good solid theme song or a powerful love story. Both aspects, able to solidify a hit for Disney, are glaringly missing.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs contain the lovely “Someday My Prince Will Come” while Snow White and the Prince offer a rich love story.

While good, The Sword in the Stone can reach only the second tier of Disney classics, missing the upper echelon with only so-so musical offerings.

A slight miss is how Arthur’s voice changes back and forth from a child to a teenager going through puberty. This is drastically noticeable.

The reason, rather perplexing when analyzed, is that three different actors were used to play Arthur resulting in some consistency issues.

Why not just use one actor or age the character slowly and gradually deepen his voice? The back and forth feels sloppy.

The criticisms targeted at The Sword in the Stone (1963) are minor and forgivable as the film plays above average graded on its terms.

The film has a nice message for children about the importance of education and is a wonderful delight best served to the whole family.

Oscar Nominations: Best Scoring of Music-Adaptation or Treatment

Lady and the Tramp-1955

Lady and the Tramp-1955

Director Clyde Geronimi

Voices Peggy Lee, Barbara Luddy, Larry Roberts

Scott’s Review #894

Reviewed May 5, 2019

Grade: A-

Released mid-way through a decade of prosperity, Lady and the Tramp (1955) is a lovely production representing an innocent time that still holds up well decades later.

The Walt Disney film, the story, animations, and characters are charming with a wholesome yet sophisticated vibrancy. A year in the life of its main character (Lady) never was more richly created providing adventure, romance, and fun for the entire family.

During the turn of the twentieth century, presumed to be somewhere in the mid-western part of the United States, John Dear gives his wife Darling a Cocker Spaniel puppy that she names Lady.

The couple is immediately smitten with Lady providing her with all the comforts of warm and lavish country living.

After months the Dears become pregnant causing Lady to feel left out. When the baby arrives and the Dear’s go on a trip, their dog-hating, and incompetent Aunt Sarah arrives, leaving poor Lady at risk for her life.

Meanwhile, a stray mixed breed named Tramp prowls the streets protecting his friends and avoiding the dog catcher. He dines on Italian leftovers at Tony’s and lives his idyllic life, proud not to be owned, able to live on his terms.

He befriends Lady through mutual acquaintances Jock and Trusty who reside nearby.

When Lady faces peril the duo embark on an exciting escapade that leads them to a dog shelter and a farm as they fall in love, eventually resulting in a candlelit dinner for two at Tony’s, the highlight.

All the animals are a treasure and voiced appropriately providing Lady and the Tramp with life and good zest. Tramp is gruff yet lovable with a “footloose and collar-free” outlook, charming and bold in his determination.

The voice of Lady is the polar opposite- demure, feminine, and proper. Her voice is cultured without being too snobbish.

In supporting roles, Tramp’s fellow strays Peg (a Pekingese) and Bull (a bulldog) possess a New York street-savvy, perfect for their characters.

Besides Aunt Sarah, the dog catcher, and a hungry rat, Lady, and the Tramp contain no villains and each character is somewhat justified in their motivations. The rat wants to eat, the dog catcher is doing his job, and Aunt Sarah, a cat lover with two Siamese pets, is foolhardier and more clueless.

She can be forgiven for wanting Lady to have a muzzle because she misunderstands Lady’s intentions toward the newborn baby. These characters are more comical than deadly and Si and Am add mischievous shenanigans to further the plot.

The heart belongs to the sweet romance between Lady and Tramp. The two dogs immediately appeal to the audience with instant chemistry.

The “Footloose and Collar-Free / A Night at the Restaurant / Bella Notte” medley is the best of the song arrangements as the duo shares a delicious plate of spaghetti and meatballs.

In the film’s most iconic and recognizable scene, the pair lovingly munch on the same spaghetti noodle- if that does not love then what is?

Lady and the Tramp (1955) is a charmer containing innocence, vivid colors, and a rich, welcoming story.

Beginning on Christmas and ending exactly a year later, Lady and Tramp’s wonderful journey is topsy-turvy but culminates in the birth of a litter of puppies cheerily celebrating life.

The happy ending is a perfect bow on a Disney film that is enchanting, harmless, and inspiring.

The quintessential American love story between the pampered heiress and the spontaneous, fun-loving pup from the wrong side of the tracks — has rarely been more elegantly and entertainingly told.

Song of the South-1946

Song of the South-1946

Director Harve Foster, Wilfred Jackson

Starring James Baskett, Billy Driscoll

Scott’s Review #893

Reviewed May 4, 2019

Grade: B+

Song of the South (1946) is a Walt Disney film buried in the chambers of cinema history, reportedly an embarrassment never too soon forgotten by the legendary producer and his company.

The reason for the ruckus is the numerous overtones of racism that emerge throughout an otherwise darling film. Admittedly the film contains a racial cheeriness that cannot be interpreted as anything other than condescension to black folk and numerous stereotypes abound.

The mysterious appeal of the film during modern times is undoubted because of the surrounding controversies that hopefully can be put aside in favor of a resoundingly positive message and glimmering childlike innocence that resonates throughout the film.

The hybrid choice of live-action and animation is superlative, eliciting a progressive never before seen, an experience that would be shameful to be spoiled amid the surrounding controversies.

Taking place during the Reformation Era in Georgia, the United States of America, a period of American history shortly after the end of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, the film has quite the Southern flavor and feel.

Seven-year-old Johnny (Bobby Driscoll) is excited to visit his grandmother’s (Lucile Watson) lavish plantation outside of Atlanta along with his mother, Sally (Ruth Warrick), and father (Erik Rolf). He is soon devastated to learn that his father is to return to Atlanta for business, leaving Johnny behind.

Johnny plots to run away from the plantation and return to Atlanta but develops a special friendship with kindly Uncle Remus (James Baskett) who enchants the young boy with sentimental lesson stories about Br’er Rabbit and his foils Br’er Fox and Br’er Bear.

Drama ensues when Johnny feuds with two poor neighbor boys and develops a friendship with their sister, Ginny. He also forms a bond with Toby, a young black boy who lives on the plantation.

Thunderous applause must go to the creative minds who thought of mixing the animations with the live-action drama resulting in positive and compelling effects.

As Uncle Remus repeatedly embarks on a new story for Johnny to listen to the audience knows they will be transported into a magical land of make-believe as a clear lesson results from these stories.

Uncle Remus is an inspiring character- rare to find a black character written this way in 1946. Often black characters were reduced to maids, butlers, farmhands, or other servant roles.

While the film does not stray from the course by casting these roles aplenty, including Uncle Remus himself, his character is different because he is beloved by little Johnny respected by the grandmother, and treated as part of the family. His opinion counts for something and is not merely dismissed as rubbish.

The musical soundtrack to Song of the South is particularly cheery and easy to hum along to. The most recognizable song is “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah” which reoccurs several times throughout the feature. The best rendition is at the end when the mix of live-action and animation culminates with the sing-along.

My favorite appearance is when the “bluebird” referenced in the lyric comes into play resting on one character’s shoulder, true to the lyrical content.

The accusations of racism are justified as keen viewers will understand the condescension towards blacks in several scenes.

More than once a parade of black people is seen traipsing through the plantation, singing songs, not exactly cheerfully but not despondent either.

The scenes have eerie slavery overtones- despite the black character’s all presumably being free to come and go, the reality is they all work for white folk. The black plight and struggle are completely sugar-coated and dismissed.

The animated characters are voiced by strong ethnic voices and are presumed to be ridiculous. The usage of a Tar-Baby character, completely enshrined in black tar seems offensive almost teetering on the implication of promoting a blackface, minstrel show moment as the character, once white, is then turned black because of the tar.

Song of the South is not the only film of its time to face racist accusations- the enormous Gone with the Wind (1939) and Jezebel (1938) faced similar heat.

Song of the South (1946) is recommended for those who can recognize the racism that exists and appreciate the film’s artistic merits. Wise and resounding friendships between white and black characters are evident as is a lovely story about determination, fairness, and respect.

The film should be treasured for its nice moments and scolded for its racist overtones.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Original Song-“Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah” (won)

Dumbo-2019

Dumbo-2019

Director-Tim Burton

Starring-Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green

Scott’s Review #889

Reviewed April 24, 2019

Grade: C+

Dumbo (2019), the live-action remake of the charming and emotionally charged animated original from 1941 contains some positives but ultimately underwhelms coming up with less than a stacked deck.

The problematic and gnawing element that persisted throughout the Disney film was too much of a cute or child-leaning quality for my taste. Assuredly though for an afternoon at the theater with young children under the age of twelve the film is a recommended fun activity and utterly appropriate.

My expectation, knowing that Tim Burton was at the director’s helm, was for a darker, perhaps murkier interpretation given some in his catalog of films.

After all, Beetlejuice (1988) and Dark Shadows (2012) though flawed contain some wicked charm and naughty humor Dumbo is considerably soft as the director chooses a safe, more accessible path.

To be fair, creating magic from nearly eighty years ago is a tough task for anyone to achieve.

World War I veteran and amputee, Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) returns from the war to rejoin the financially problematic traveling circus owned by Max  Medici (Danny DeVito).

A widower, reunited with his two children Holt is assigned to oversee the pregnant elephant, Mrs. Jumbo as she gives birth to an unusual-looking elephant with giant ears who comes to be known as Dumbo.

The children discover that Dumbo can fly when aided by a feather as the evil V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton) attempts to profit from Dumbo’s talents at any cost as he adds to his fabulous creation, Dreamland.

The art direction and the look of the film are where Burton succeeds.

With dark-looking creations and windy, spider-like sets, especially in Dreamland, the film has the director’s signature stamp.  The costumes and styles are to be complimented given the year 1919 and the wardrobe and hairstyles are in match with the times.

The circus stars and characters from the fat lady to the exotic jugglers are well-cast adding good texture and multi-cultural flavor to the production.

The standout musical number is the poignant and sentimental “Baby Mine” wisely featured twice during the film. Since the song is so lovely this proves a bold move and my favorite part of an otherwise mediocre experience.

Sharon Rooney sings the version featured during a touching and painful scene between separated elephants Dumbo and Mrs. Jumbo, and the rock band Arcade Fire performs a different rendition over the end credits.

Anyone needing a good cry would be advised to check out the emotionally charged song.

While the acting among Farrell, DeVito, and Eva Green as Colette, the French trapeze artist who falls for the sexy Holt, all play their roles admirably, two performances left me with critical fire. Keaton, typically a standout performer goes full-throttle with an over-the-top and one-note performance as the villainous Vandevere.

Cartoon-like with herky-jerky head snaps and tic-like movements, the actor appears silly and ineffectual at creating any sort of robust character. Young actress, Nico Parker as Milly, Holt’s daughter, gives a dreadfully wooden performance in what could have been the film’s most likable character.

Besides one or two tender scenes the film largely goes for a cutesy vibe, not feeling fresh nor especially genuine. A Disney production, the film feels quite mainstream, lacking edginess, like the producers had dollar signs and major success on their minds over artistic merit or staying true to the original.

Other than a quick shot of the number “41” on the front of a train, a clear tribute to the animated original’s year of release, the remake strays very far from the first Dumbo with a few new characters and sadly no gossipy female elephants anywhere.

A disappointing offering, the live-action Dumbo (2019), the year’s first in a series of five expected Disney releases (Aladdin, The Lion King, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, and Lady and the Tramp being the others) lacks much more than a couple of sweet scenes, an adorable elephant, and admirable sets, feeling utterly ordinary in flavor.

This is a misfire compared to the legendary, teary 1941 version of Dumbo.

Mary Poppins Returns-2018

Mary Poppins Returns-2018

Director-Rob Marshall

Starring-Emily Blunt, Lin-Manuel Miranda

Scott’s Review #848

Reviewed December 29, 2018

Grade: A-

Mary Poppins Returns is a charming mixture of reboots and sequels to the immeasurably glorious original, Mary Poppins (1964).

Impossible to live up to the magic of that film, the 2018 version comes quite close with a delightful turn by Emily Blunt, numerous Hollywood stalwarts in small roles, and gleeful musical numbers sure to leave audiences humming upon their exit from theaters.

Events begin to percolate twenty-five years following the original story and the setting is 1935 London amid the Great Depression. His wife recently deceased, Michael Banks (Ben Wishaw) lives in the house he grew up in with his three children and housekeeper (Julie Walters) in tow. His sister Jane lives and works nearby as a labor organizer.

Faced with the dreary reality that the historic Banks house may be foreclosed, Mary Poppins (Blunt) arrives elegantly on her umbrella to resume order and save the day.

Though her character does not overtake the film, Emily Blunt is dynamic in the title role. Her prim and proper good British charm and sensibilities crackle with wit and poise. It is tough to imagine anyone but Blunt in the role as she does so well with putting her stamp on it.

With a smirk and a quick matter-of-fact tone, the character is both no-nonsense and utterly kind. The casting of Blunt is spot-on as she becomes Mary Poppins.

The London setting is both adorable and fraught with good culture and sophisticated manners. The inclusion of the storied Big Ben is meaningful to the tale in a major way and a teachable moment for children unfamiliar with London at all.

Furthermore, the inclusion of an important period in history-the inclusion of the Great Depression is immeasurably positive.

The supporting characters are rapturous and a treat for elders familiar with the original Mary Poppins film. Meryl Streep plays Topsy, Mary Poppins’s eccentric eastern European cousin to the hilt, but never teeters over the top.

Colin Firth adds snarky charm as the villainous bank president, and Angela Lansbury gives grandmotherly zest as The Balloon Lady, an ode to the original novel.

Finally, Dick Van Dyke is a delight as the heroic Mr. Dawes Jr. who comes to the rescue at the last hour.

The real winners though are the enchanting musical numbers. With the lovely London landscape in full view, Mary Poppins Returns gets off to a spectacular groove with “(Underneath The) Lovely London Sky”.

Performed by the charming Lin-Manuel Miranda in the role of Jack the Lamplighter, Mary Poppin’s sidekick, the star has what it takes to keep up with Blunt. This is evident as the duo mesmerize and entertains with a colorful number, “A Cover is Not the Book”, alongside an animated music hall.

Finally, fans will revel in the naughty and clever “Turning Turtle”, performed by Streep.

The costumes and lighting are both big hits. As Jack lights and defuses the street lights, we get to see the luminous dawn and the sunsets which give the film a nice luminous touch.

During the film’s conclusion and subsequent race against the stroke of midnight the moonlight is featured giving the film a warm glow.

The period piece costumes are lush, but not garish, adding flavor and capturing the period perfectly.

With not quite enough oomph to rival the original Mary Poppins (but really who expected that?) Mary Poppins Returns (2018) nonetheless is enchanting and inspiring in every way that a remake or sequel should be.

The film is polite, polished, and filled with an authentic zest given the mixing of humans and animations. A fine creation and splendid entertainment.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Score, Best Original Song-“The Place Where Lost Things Go”, Best Production Design, Best Costume Design

Oliver & Company-1988

Oliver & Company-1988

Director George Scribner

Voices Joey Lawrence, Billy Joel, Cheech Marin

Scott’s Review #818

Reviewed October 8, 2018

Grade: B

Oliver & Company (1988) is a darling animated film released by Walt Disney Pictures, the twenty-seventh Disney feature film to be produced.

The film is based on the Charles Dickens novel Oliver Twist, but Oliver is now a homeless kitten who joins a gang of dogs, and the setting moves from London to the dangerous streets of New York City- present times.

We meet Oliver (Joey Lawrence) as he huddles with other homeless kittens in a cardboard box, chilly from a driving New York rain. As all of the other kittens are snatched up by adoring animal lovers, Oliver is inexplicably left on his own.

He eventually meets up with Dodger (Billy Joel), a mongrel with street smarts, and the duo steals hot dogs from an abrasive food vendor.

When Dodger swindles Oliver out of his share, the kitten follows the dog to a barge, which turns out to be the hideout of Fagin (Dom DeLuise), a human pickpocket. Fagin houses a gang of assorted dogs as he is bullied by loan shark Sykes.

As Oliver bonds with the miscreants, his life suddenly takes a positive turn when he is rescued from the streets by a kindly, wealthy little girl named Jenny and her bumbling butler, Winston.

Jenny’s parents are on holiday in Europe, leaving her and Winston running the house. Along for the ride is Jenny’s sophisticated and spoiled pet poodle, Georgette (Bette Midler), who takes a dislike to Oliver.

By the 1980s Disney films were hardly the hot commodity they once were, and the small budget is evidence of that. Oliver & Company is not on par with classic, lovely offerings such as Pinocchio (1940), Fantasia (1940), or Dumbo (1941).

The film has a severe and decidedly “1980s quality”, mostly due to the upbeat soundtrack, which decades later makes the film feel rather dated.

Speaking of the soundtrack, the highlight is a treat entitled “Why Should I Worry?”, a tune sung by the ensemble cast and impossible not to hum along to.

The film features an array of famous voices that are perfectly cast. The filmmakers wisely cast plenty of native New Yorkers, which results in a huge measure of authenticity. Brazen voices like Midler’s, Joel’s, and Cheech Marin’s as feisty chihuahua Tito, give credibility to their characters.

The odd romantic pairing of Georgette and Tito, on the surface completely mismatched, gives a good dose of comic relief to the story.

The story written for Oliver & Company is the best part of the entire production.  Anyone familiar with the famous Dickens novel or Oliver! (1968), the most famous of the film incarnations knows how the story will end.

This did not hinder my enjoyment of the animated film though, a compelling and charming experience. Sykes makes a great villain, drawn with a long face and enormous chin, interesting, but not too scary to frighten young children.

One conspicuous omission is the elimination of the important character of Nancy. As fans know, Nancy played a vital role in the original story. Perplexing is the decision not to include her, but perhaps her ultimate death would have made the story too dark, so this can be overlooked.

Surely not the best in the Disney bunch, Oliver & Company (1988) is nonetheless a decent offering sadly overlooked by fans and critics alike.

The film is nearly forgotten and suffers from a dated quality if not for the widespread knowledge of the classic novel. The film is not one of the storied Disney treasures, nor should it be dismissed altogether.

The result is a darling, innocent experience meant for pure enjoyment.

A Wrinkle in Time-2018

A Wrinkle in Time-2018

Director-Ava DuVernay

Starring-Storm Reid, Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon

Scott’s Review #788

Reviewed July 16, 2018

Grade: C

A Wrinkle in Time (2018) is a film that I had high hopes for given the enormous marketing push, first-rate cast, and especially the acclaimed female director involved with the project, Ava DuVernay (Selma, 13th).

Additionally, having admired the 1962 novel I expected a rich, earthy, and mysterious experience. Sadly, whether it be a “too many cooks in the kitchen” situation given the star power involved, or some other factors leading to disconnect, this film disappointed me.

It’s not terrible but suffers from miscasting way too much CGI, and a story that is not very compelling.

Thirteen-year-old Meg Murry (Storm Reid) is having a tough time of it in school. Smack dab in the “awkward phase”, she is picked on by schoolmates because her father (Chris Pine) has disappeared- presumably having ditched the family. In reality, he is a scientist who has been transported to another world after solving the question of humanity’s existence.

After Meg and her family are visited by a strange woman named Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon), Meg, little brother Charles Wallace, and Meg’s crush, Calvin, time travel to find a way to save her father.

Fans who have read the wonderful novel written by Madeleine L’Engle will most certainly be disappointed since many details of the film are vastly different from the written page.

DuVernay certainly attempts to take the film out of the 1960s and into 2018 (I have no issue with that), but the film feels so slick and modern with the visual elements and heavy use of CGI, that the story suffers enormously.

To be clear, the film is gorgeous to look at, especially in the sweeping outdoors scenes, but in this case, too many bells and whistles spoil A Wrinkle in Time.

The three strange women characters: Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling), and Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey) are completely butchered. In the novel, each is portrayed as peculiar, mysterious, and similar to witches: frumpy, awkward, yet lovable. In the film, however, they are colorful, glamorous, empowered, but lack any real uniqueness or intrigue.

I am all for female empowerment, but the characters just felt wrong.

Kaling is fine in the smallest role, but in the case of Witherspoon and Winfrey, appears a case of “we have big stars, let’s find roles for them.” A tough sell with Mrs. Which is to think of Oprah as anyone other than….well, Oprah! Witherspoon’s attempts to be goofy and the comic relief of the film do not work.

The casting of newcomer Storm Reid is lackluster. I have no issue with the character of Meg being changed to bi-racial I feel that’s a plus in the modern age. However, the actress is not the greatest, appearing both sullen and wooden in various scenes. Nor does she have any chemistry with her love interest, Calvin.

This is a shame since the theme of young love would have been a nice addition to the film and was a coming-of-age element in the novel.

At the risk of being overly critical, A Wrinkle in Time is not a total disaster either. The progressive and heroic message of the overall film is quite inspired. If kids watch the film (and since it is Disney produced and heavily advertised I can see no reason why they wouldn’t) they will be exposed to a nice message of good conquering evil.

And on a side note, the villain is safe and hardly conjures up much fright, so no worries by parents of the film being too scary.

With heaps of buzz and anticipation regarding A Wrinkle in Time (2018), the film seemed poised to become a blockbuster hit and a great spring flick. Instead, the film has largely been derided by critics and audiences alike.

With creative genius, star power, and a huge budget involved, something ran amiss as the final product is fair to middling.

Let’s hope director Ava DuVernay gets her groove back with her next project- I expected more.

Coco-2017

Coco-2017

Director-Lee Unkrich

Voices-Anthony Gonzalez, Benjamin Bratt

Scott’s Review #737

Reviewed April 4, 2018

Grade: B+

Winner of the 2017 Best Animated Feature Academy Award, Coco is an exuberant and colorful affair filled with marvelous lights and a Mexican cultural infusion that serves the film well, making it feel robust with diversity and inclusion.

The overall theme of family, traditions, and musical celebration is apparent and makes for good razzle-dazzle with lots of upbeat song and dance.

Mixed in is a lovely inter-generational theme, where older folks are respected, something all too lacking in today’s real world.

Miguel Rivera is a twelve-year-old boy living in Mexico with his extended family, including his elderly great-grandmother, Coco- sadly suffering from intermittent dementia.

Through flashbacks, we learn that Coco’s father, (Miguel’s great-great-grandfather), was an aspiring musician who abandoned the family for greener pastures. Subsequently, all music has been banned by the Rivera clan in favor of a modest shoe-making business.

As Miguel realizes his passion for music, he comes into conflict with his family, who have other aspirations for the young man. Miguel embarks on a fantastic journey to the magical and somewhat frightening land of his deceased ancestors, coinciding with the festive Day of the Dead celebration, a tradition of Mexican culture.

There he realizes the true nature of his great-great-grandfather’s sudden departure.

Coco is a film that can really be enjoyed by all members of the family and is structured in just that way. The blatant use of multiple generations holds great appeal for blending the family unit.

Pixar successfully sets all the right elements in place for a successful film, and the well-written story only adds layers. The film is quite mainstream, yet appealing to the masses.

Perhaps very young viewers may become frightened by some of the skeleton-laced faces of Miguel’s ancestors in the other world where he visits, but these images are somewhat tame and mixed with vibrant colors and wonderful production numbers.

These images are undoubtedly meant to entertain rather than be scary and the creatures possess a friendly vibe.

Having viewed the film on an airplane traveling cross-country (admittedly not the best way to watch a film), I was entranced by the lovely and touching musical number, “Remember Me (Lullaby)”, so much so that I was moved to tears right on the plane.

How’s that for effectiveness?

The emotional level reached via this song impressed me immensely about Coco, even when the story occasionally is secondary to the visual or musical elements.

In fact, for me, the story began to lag slightly until the aforementioned big musical number came into play. The song really kicked the action into high gear in an emotional way, and I became more enamored with the characters and the connections they had to one another.

The love that Miguel and his relatives share became clearer to me and the conclusion is fine and satisfactory.

A slight miss to the film, corrected mid-way through, is the bratty and entitled nature to Miguel. Heaving sighs when he does not get his way, this seems more apparent early on and was quite the turn-off- at first, I did not care for the character, yet I knew I was supposed to.

Thankfully, the character becomes, naturally, the hero of the film and ultimately a sweet, likable character. I began to ponder,  “Is that what kids are really like these days”?

Pixar does it again as they create a family-friendly experience with a positive, yet non-cliched message of belonging, forgiveness, and the importance of family connections, that feels fresh.

In current times of divisiveness, especially with immigration and other cultures being attacked, how appropriate to experience a feel-good, yet not contrived project.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Song-“Remember Me” (won), Best Animated Feature Film (won)

Cinderella-1950

Cinderella-1950

Director Clyde Geronimi, Hamilton Luske, Wilfred Jackson

Voices Ilene Woods, Eleanor Audley

Scott’s Review #731

Reviewed March 7, 2018

Grade: A-

Cinderella is a lovely 1950 Walt Disney production that rejuvenated the animated film genre after a sluggish 1940s, thanks to the ravages of World War II.

The film glistens with goodness and bright colors, offering a charming fairy tale-based story based on hope and “happily ever after”.

Cinderella is enchanting on all levels.

Told largely in narration form especially to explain the history of the story, we learn that Cinderella’s parents have both died, leaving her an orphan and living with her wicked stepmother, Lady Tremaine.

Her stepsisters Drizella and Anastasia are jealous of Cinderella’s natural beauty. She is abused and berated regularly, forced to work as a servant in a rundown chateau- tending to the trio’s needs and demands.

Despite her unhappy life, Cinderella makes the most of it and befriends mice, birds, and many other animals she meets, singing and dancing merrily.

Life chugs along for our heroine until one day the King of the royal palace decides to throw a lavish Ball for his son, the Prince, to find his soulmate and marry her finally. The King requests that all eligible unmarried women attend.

As Cinderella excitedly requests to go, Lady Tremaine cruelly grants her request, provided all of her work is done, having no intention of making things easy on her.

In true fairy tale form, the Prince falls madly in love with Cinderella while many hurdles face the pair on their way to happiness.

Given the time when Cinderella was made (1950), the timing was excellent for a lavish production, to say nothing of the fantasy that many young girls undoubtedly experienced a handsome prince rescuing them, whisking them away from a life of doldrums to undying love.

Female empowerment had not yet taken hold during the 1950s, so the male-rescuing female message was palpable and appealing to many. Dated not the least bit, a story of true love overcoming hardship can always find an audience.

The colors and animations of the production are lush and powerful, oozing with perfection and drizzling with fantastic elements of romance and spectacular wealth.

An example of this is the lavish ball at the palace- as Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother transforms the young girl and her transportation into a magical fantasy of horses, gowns, and carriages, it is quite extravagant in its beauty.

Engaging, with a bit of humor mixed in, are the supporting characters of the three evil ladies and the bumbling Grand Duke- interestingly voiced by the same person as the King. As Drizella and Anastasia attempt to impress Prince Charming, their awkward and haphazard mannerisms and scowls perfectly counterbalance the charm and grace of Cinderella in a sometimes comical fashion.

Comparisons must be made to 1937’s masterpiece, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, and both films could easily be companion films to each other, being watched in sequence for better study and marveling about similarities.

Snow White and Cinderella are purely “good” characters, singing lovely tunes, embracing animal friends, and various forms of wildlife- they are both more or less “saved” by men.

In the present day, instead of this being offensive or “old fashioned”, it remains enchanting and a celebration of true love.

Cinderella is a treasure to be enjoyed after all these years, never aging nor becoming dated or irrelevant, which is a true testament to the power of film. Carving a story of values, honesty, hard work, and good payoff, generations of fans can appreciate this everlasting treasure.

Oscar Nominations: Best Scoring of a Musical Picture, Best Original Song-“Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo”, Best Sound Recording

Pinocchio-1940

Pinocchio-1940

Director Ben Sharpsteen, Hamilton Luske

Voices Cliff Edwards, Dickie Jones

Scott’s Review #723

Reviewed February 1, 2018

Grade: B+

As a follow-up to the marvelous 1937 Walt Disney production of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1940’s Pinocchio is a darling tale of a wooden puppet longing to become a real boy.

The film is vastly different from its predecessor in that the protagonist is male and the thematic elements are Italian (based on an Italian children’s novel), but similarly, Pinocchio is a touching experience and is magical and whimsical, telling a humanistic story about wishes and dreams coming true.

As narrated by a fantastic, cheerful little insect named Jiminy Cricket, an elderly wood-carver, Geppetto, creates a wooden puppet named Pinocchio and wishes upon a star for the puppet to be turned into a little boy.

A mysterious, yet lovely Blue Fairy arrives one night and tells Pinocchio that he must be brave and truthful for the desired effect to occur- Jiminy serves as his conscience. Throughout the remainder of the film, Pinocchio’s morals are tested by unsavory characters, who attempt to steer him down a dark path.

Certainly, Pinocchio is intended as a message film to little boys and girls everywhere regarding the importance of being honest and truthful, but with some comic elements mixed in to not make the experience too dark or scary.

This is evidenced by the, now legendary, way in which Pinocchio’s nose grows longer with each fib that he tells.  What a valuable lesson the film preaches and is the main reason the adorable story holds up so well in present times.

Some values never go out of flavor.

In wonderful Disney form, Pinocchio features an emotional, tearjerker of a scene towards the end of the film as Geppetto mourns the loss of his son.

The scene is sweet, and touching, and will fill even the hardest of hearts with feeling- regardless of age. In this way, Pinocchio becomes even more of a timeless treasure and is a film that the entire family, generations upon generations, can enjoy together.

Films of this nature are so important as a bonding form.

Enough praise cannot be given to the incredibly effective theme song of Pinocchio, “When You Wish Upon A Star”, belted out by Jiminy Cricket. The resounding tune is as emotional as it is timeless and bold, belted out at just the ideal time during the film, and is still identified with the legendary film.

In fact, over the years the song has come to be identified with the Walt Disney Company itself.

One slight oddity of the film is how Geppetto- clearly at the grandfather age- is the father of a young boy, which perhaps in 1940 might be perceived as sweet, but in 2018 may be perceived as a bit creepy or at least unusual.

Still, this is a minor flaw and easily overlooked. I have come to assume Geppetto serves as the grandfather in the story.

For those in the mood for a charming, classic animated Disney picture, 1940s Pinocchio is a mesmerizing and creative experience, and at its core is a timeless benevolent lesson in goodness and purity.

Artistically filmed and told, Pinocchio is a film that can be enjoyed by anyone regardless of age or gender.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins Best Original Score (won), Best Original Song-“When You Wish Upon a Star” (won)

Sleeping Beauty-1959

Sleeping Beauty-1959

Director Clyde Geronimi, Les Clark, Wolfgang Reitherman, Eric Larson

Voices Mary Costa, Bill Shirley

Scott’s Review #721

Reviewed January 30, 2018

Grade: B+

Sleeping Beauty is a 1959 musical fantasy film and the sixteenth animated production by Walt Disney.  By this point, Disney was a master at crafting wonderful and magical productions and Sleeping Beauty is a solid work.

However, due to mixed reviews and poor box office performance, Disney films were retired for many years. The effort achieves a lighter tone than heavies like Dumbo and Bambi but is enjoyable nonetheless.

In a magical land of royalty, fairies, both good and evil, King Stefan and Queen Leah, the benevolent leaders of the land, are finally able to conceive their first child, named Princess Aurora.

After proclaiming a special holiday and celebration, a festive scene turns dark when an evil and powerful fairy, Maleficent, jealous with rage, puts a curse on the innocent baby.

Thanks to a kindly fairy, the curse of death on Aurora’s sixteenth birthday is slightly blocked in favor of Aurora falling into a deep sleep- only to be awakened by true love’s kiss.

The characters in Sleeping Beauty are quite lovely and, by and large, sweet and kind. My favorite characters are the three fairies- Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather.  Each has her personality but wields special magical powers- all of them of good-natured variety.

While Flora and Fauna possess song and beauty, which they bestow on Aurora. Merryweather arguably saves the young girl’s life. The three women are also instrumental in being the unsung heroes of the film, while the handsome Prince Phillip gets star billing.

Compared to many other Disney films, Sleeping Beauty is quite the showing, and lush with colors as bright as stars. The sparkles that drizzle from the fairies’ wands ooze with magic that will make children giggle with delight and adults marvel with adoration.

In this regard, Sleeping Beauty is extravagant and the most expensive Disney production created up to this point.

Maleficent is a fantastic villain and when she finally turns into a lethal, fire-breathing, dragon, this is sure to scare youngsters watching the film for the first time. Sure to mention, Maleficent’s web of thorns that she uses to surround Aurora’s castle is a spectacle in and of itself.

Upon watching the film I continue to draw comparisons to another of Walt Disney’s famous films, 1937’s beautiful Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, as both films resemble each other in a sheer mass of ways.

The beautiful and innocent main female characters, both in peril from devious, older women, clearly jealous of the goodness of Snow White and Aurora are obvious.

Besides, both contain dashing princes who come to the rescue in just the nick of time and kindly little things who assist in the drama.

Perhaps it is Sleeping Beauty’s similarities to  Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs- in fact, the pair would be perfect to watch together on a rainy Saturday afternoon- that lead me to conclude that Snow White is the more charming and grabbing of the two films.

Also, Sleeping Beauty does not triumph in the important humanistic lessons that the Dumbo and Bambi (my favorites of all the Disney films) have.

Sleeping Beauty contains elements of an empathetic, feel-good animated experience. A King, a Queen, a Prince, a vicious villain, giddy fairies, and a beautiful heroine are all represented in this fine and satisfying Disney venture- not the greatest in the pack, but assuredly a good time.

Oscar Nominations: Best Scoring of a Musical Picture

Beauty and the Beast-2017

Beauty and the Beast-2017

Director-Bill Condon

Starring-Emma Watson, Dan Stevens

Scott’s Review #634

Reviewed April 18, 2017

Grade: A-

Upon going to see 2017’s spring release offering of the live-action version of the Disney animated classic, Beauty and the Beast, I was not sure what to expect.

Would it be a cheesy or amateurish retread of the 1991 animated smash only with human beings? Why the lackluster March release date? Surely this is telling, otherwise, why not release the film in the coveted fourth quarter with potential Oscar buzz?

I do not have the answers to all of these questions, but this version of Beauty and the Beast is enchanting, romantic, and lovely- a spring treat for the entire family to enjoy.

Our protagonist, Belle, (producers wisely casting Harry Potter legend Emma Watson), is a kindly farm girl living with her father, Maurice (Kevin Kline),  in a quaint village outside of Paris.

Considered a bit odd by her village mates because she loves to read, she rebuffs the advances of the dashing soldier, Gaston, because he is arrogant- the other village ladies (as well as Gaston’s gay companion LeFou) flaunt over Gaston’s good looks.

When Maurice ventures into parts unknown and stumble upon a dilapidated castle, he is locked up by a vicious beast, having once been a handsome prince, since cursed by a beggar woman.

The only way the beast can return to his former self is to find true love before a wilted rose loses all of its peddles- enter Belle to the rescue. Belle convinces the Beast to let her stay prisoner and release her father. Will Beast and Belle fall madly in love?

Of course, they will. The fated romance is part of what makes the film heartwarming and nice.

The now-legendary classic fairy tale feels fresh and energized with the Disney-produced project. Director Bill Condon carefully, and successfully, crafts an honest effort, making sure that while providing a fairy tale happy ending, not to make the film seem contrived, overblown, or overdramatized.

I fell for the film hook, line, and sinker. it is an uplifting experience. The song and dance numbers abound with gusto and good costumes- my personal favorites being the rousing “Be Our Guest” and the sentimental “Beauty and the Beast”.

The crucial romance between Watson’s Belle, and the Beast, earnestly played by Dan Stevens (Downton Abbey fame), works in spades, as their chemistry feels authentic and passionate. As Belle is at first held captive by the misunderstood bad boy instead of Maurice, the pair at first loathe each other, but this is done with innocence and no malice.

Condon wonderfully exudes the right amount of slow build to make the pair beloved by audiences with the correct amount of pacing.

The CGI is heavy in Beauty and the Beast, as is expected. The distraction of the Beast is a bit confusing. Was the Beast a complete CGI creation save for the close-ups or was Watson dancing with Stevens when filming commenced in certain scenes? I am unsure.

The controversial “gay storyline”, which helped the film be banned in the southern United States and Russia, as well as other countries, is pure and utter rubbish.

The subject is explored extremely superficially and not worthy of all the fuss.

Worthier of mention is the wonderful diversity that is featured in the film, most notably in the opening sequence. Interracial couples appear in the form of Madame de Garderobe (Audra McDonald), the opera singer turned wardrobe, and Maestro Cadenza (Stanley Tucci) turned harpsichord.

On the gay issue, how sweet that the implied gay character of LeFlou to find love with another man at the end of the film.

A minor complaint is the scattered authentic French accents by many of the household staff and village people, but Belle and Maurice speak in British tongue. Being a fairy tale, liberties must be taken and suspension of disbelief is certainly a necessity, but this was noticed.

Beauty and the Beast is a lovely experience that mixes fantastic musical numbers with romance with a side of diversity mixed in for good measure.

Since the film will undoubtedly be seen by oodles of youngsters and teens this is a wonderful aspect of the film and hopefully, a shining, positive example in film making.

Oscar Nominations: Best Production Design, Best Costume Design