I spent some time with friends this week and we decided to put in a movie, that movie was Hercules. Hercules was one of Disney's films that came out of the Disney Renaissance of the 90's. Hercules was among the last of the movies released during this period of growth, which are often classified as being weaker and having lower box office numbers than movies released earlier. So let's see how Hercules fares on it's own.
The Film Itself...
Hercules can be summarized quickly as the rise of a hero, Hercules. There are other elements in there, like the romance between Hercules and sassy Meg, along with the torment Meg faces. The basic story mostly focuses on Hercules rise to becoming a hero with secondary focus on the romance. Now both of these parts are handled adequately and are fine and good, but I find the Meg backstory way more interesting and stronger than the main plot.
The animation is okay at best. There are some very interesting character designs, like Meg and Hades, that are very distinctive and interesting. However there are some characters that are very bland, the biggest example being our main hero Hercules. The background art is very similar as it can be very distinctive at certain times and bland at other times. However, there is enough distinctness in the animation to give the animation an average rating.
The music is okay, most of the tunes are nice but there are only maybe one or two songs that are really noteworthy ("Go the Distance" and "I Won't Say (I'm in Love)"), but the voice-acting is quite impressive and is probably the greatest strength of this movie. Danny Devito provides his distinctive voice for Phil, which fits perfectly. Susan Egan is able to play off both Meg's wit and make Meg such a sympathetic character for audiences to fall in love with, but the best performance is given by Mr. James Woods. He plays this villain more like a used car salesman, slick and conniving, but it really works and makes Hades such a unique villain.
Final Word
So is Hercules a hero or a zero? In my opinion, neither. Almost everything in this movie is average, from the plot to the animation to the music. The only thing that makes it rise above the fray is the voice-acting. Nothing about this movie is bad, it just doesn't really do anything extraordinary. It's a movie that's fun to watch for a night, but not one to seek out for your movie collection.
Hercules- RENT
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Alice in Wonderland Review
Before Tim Burton and Johnny Depp came along and made their version of Alice, Disney first tackled the Alice story in 1951 as the 13th animated feature released. While it was a box office and critical disappointment when Alice was initially released, but in the 60's and 70's gained new popularity. What about this movie made it so unlikable in the 50's yet only a couple of decades later made it so likable? Let's get to the bottom of this in this review.
Background
Walt Disney has had a long history with Alice. His first animated features were his Alice Comedies series of silent shorts. While not directly relating to the works of Lewis Carroll, it was the important first step to beginning of the Disney Animated Legacy. Walt kept playing around with doing a feature-length Alice, eventually releasing it in 1951. After going through several different artistic styles, the Art Direction of Mary Blair brought a modern aspect.
When released, many of the criticisms came from fans of Carroll's, saying how it did not relate to the books. After the disappointment of it's release, it was later shown heavily edited for the second episode of the Disneyland television show. It didn't gain until popularity until the release of the animated feature Yellow Submarine. It's style and story fit in much better with the more psychedelic times, and as been considered a Disney classic ever since.
The Film Itself...
Now what does all this mean for the movie itself? Is Alice a literary disaster, or is it a delightful trip? The plot of Alice, follows our hapless heroine, Alice, as she wishes for a world of nonsense to escape the boredom of reality. But when she ends up chasing a white rabbit, she ends up in a nightmarish wonderland with a cast full of oddballs. The story is where Alice comes up short in most aspects, it is mainly a series of vignettes with Alice running around serving as the thread tying them together. While the various characters Alice runs across are very delightful, Alice does not pop as much. Walt said that one of the main weaknesses of this film was how Alice is a very unsympathetic character, I have to disagree on this point however. The problem is Alice is not very well-developed, especially in the beginning. Alice may only seem unsympathetic because we do not get know her as well. I only started to feel for her in the last third of the movie, so I think Alice should have been more developed earlier on.
The individual scenes themselves are very well-done. They are all delightfully kooky, and they never over-stay their welcome. They are perfectly timed, and can be hilarious at times. The Mad Tea Party being a highlight in this aspect. The songs are also very strong there are no truly weak songs in this movie.
The animation though, is where the true praise goes. It is a marvelous beauty to look at. It is so colorful and full. It looks like a true fantasy-land, as opposed to a dark nightmare. The animation especially pops on Blu-ray, the colors really stand out more and show it's true beauty. It boasts some of the most impressive animation in this time period.
Final Word
Now, I'll admit here, that I've never read the original Lewis Carroll classics, so I can't judge on how close it is to the books. But movies are always a different kind of creature anyways... But the main plot and the main character of Alice are the strongest weaknesses of the movie. However with the strong soundtrack, plot elements and especially the animation: this movie proves itself to be a Disney classic. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone, especially to Disney animation enthusiasts and animation buffs. Those people in the 50's who criticized this movie didn't know what they were talking about!
Alice in Wonderland- BUY
I know it's been a while since I put a review up, but school has basically stolen all my time. Hopefully next time I can review something in a more reasonable time-frame... XO
Background
Walt Disney has had a long history with Alice. His first animated features were his Alice Comedies series of silent shorts. While not directly relating to the works of Lewis Carroll, it was the important first step to beginning of the Disney Animated Legacy. Walt kept playing around with doing a feature-length Alice, eventually releasing it in 1951. After going through several different artistic styles, the Art Direction of Mary Blair brought a modern aspect.
When released, many of the criticisms came from fans of Carroll's, saying how it did not relate to the books. After the disappointment of it's release, it was later shown heavily edited for the second episode of the Disneyland television show. It didn't gain until popularity until the release of the animated feature Yellow Submarine. It's style and story fit in much better with the more psychedelic times, and as been considered a Disney classic ever since.
The Film Itself...
Now what does all this mean for the movie itself? Is Alice a literary disaster, or is it a delightful trip? The plot of Alice, follows our hapless heroine, Alice, as she wishes for a world of nonsense to escape the boredom of reality. But when she ends up chasing a white rabbit, she ends up in a nightmarish wonderland with a cast full of oddballs. The story is where Alice comes up short in most aspects, it is mainly a series of vignettes with Alice running around serving as the thread tying them together. While the various characters Alice runs across are very delightful, Alice does not pop as much. Walt said that one of the main weaknesses of this film was how Alice is a very unsympathetic character, I have to disagree on this point however. The problem is Alice is not very well-developed, especially in the beginning. Alice may only seem unsympathetic because we do not get know her as well. I only started to feel for her in the last third of the movie, so I think Alice should have been more developed earlier on.
The individual scenes themselves are very well-done. They are all delightfully kooky, and they never over-stay their welcome. They are perfectly timed, and can be hilarious at times. The Mad Tea Party being a highlight in this aspect. The songs are also very strong there are no truly weak songs in this movie.
The animation though, is where the true praise goes. It is a marvelous beauty to look at. It is so colorful and full. It looks like a true fantasy-land, as opposed to a dark nightmare. The animation especially pops on Blu-ray, the colors really stand out more and show it's true beauty. It boasts some of the most impressive animation in this time period.
Final Word
Now, I'll admit here, that I've never read the original Lewis Carroll classics, so I can't judge on how close it is to the books. But movies are always a different kind of creature anyways... But the main plot and the main character of Alice are the strongest weaknesses of the movie. However with the strong soundtrack, plot elements and especially the animation: this movie proves itself to be a Disney classic. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone, especially to Disney animation enthusiasts and animation buffs. Those people in the 50's who criticized this movie didn't know what they were talking about!
Alice in Wonderland- BUY
I know it's been a while since I put a review up, but school has basically stolen all my time. Hopefully next time I can review something in a more reasonable time-frame... XO
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Fantasia/Fantasia 2000 Review
Hello! I'm going to keep greetings short and just go into my first review: Fantasia and it's sequel Fantasia 2000.
Fantasia
Fantasia was the third animated feature to be released by Disney in 1940. Fantasia started out with the plan to revive Mickey's faltering career in 1937. But one of Walt's friends conductor Leopold Stokowski convinced Walt to make it part of a full-length feature with various shorts being set to classical musical pieces. It was meant to played every few years with different segments being added or removed. It's a very unique movie in Disney's library and a good representation of the artistic capabilities Disney had. However Fantasia is a very conceptual movie and lacks narrative in many of the segments.
Fantasia is basically an animated concert experience so it better have an amazing soundtrack. Thankfully The Philadelphia Orchestra provides excellent music to go along with the animation. Speaking of which, the animation is also pretty good. There are some fantastic visuals in some of the segments with lots of details and beautiful special effects.
There are some problems with Fantasia. Many of the segments lack a narrative and are basically a series vignettes with an exception to a couple. While this doesn't hurt some of the segments, it can lead to some being incredibly dull. Some of these segments also are hindered by going on too long, however I'll cut Fantasia a little slack as the segments are set to a particular piece of music.
Fantasia 2000
Fantasia was not the huge success, so that coupled with World War II causing a huge loss in the international market that made getting any feature film released difficult. However in 1990 Disney decided to give Fantasia another shot. Fantasia 2000 was a movie I like to think from a period in time when Disney became re-interested in it's past. Destino, a short that Disney collaborated on with Salvador Dali but went uncompleted for many years, went back into production, the Disney Treasures series was started to be released, it was a period of getting back to Disney's roots and it started with Fantasia 2000, which was released in 1999. Fantasia 2000 is also very beautiful, really taking advantage of the technology Disney had developed since the first Fantasia. The celebrity guests may not be to everyone's liking though.
The segments in Fantasia 2000 are a beauty to look at. It has a huge advantage with the technology that has developed since the 1930's and it shows. There are some very impressive segments which boast some of the most impressive animation ever put to film. It's segments are also more cohesive on the whole and pretty much all of them have a plot to push them along and generally almost all of them are interesting. The Chicago Symphony Orchestra also does a fairly good job matching the Philadelphia orchestra, the music is no better or no worst.
But I can't let Fantasia 2000 get by without any criticism though. One of the biggest complaints most people have with this movie is the Celebrity guests introducing all the various segments. Many say that they are annoying and don't add anything. I don't mind them that much, some do a wonderful job like James Earl Jones and Angela Lansbury, most of them are okay, with maybe the exception of Bette Midler who really didn't seem to care about the interesting history she was telling and just wanted to make it sound funny. It really depends on your opinion though. Anyways, Fantasia 2000 really has trouble making it's own identity. It relies on nostalgia from the first Fantasia and even uses the Sorcerer's Apprentice segment from the first movie.
Final Word
Both of these films are based on a concept of putting short animations to music but they take different approaches to this idea. Fantasia is an original, it views itself more as a high class original work, it is much more conceptual and less narrative, however that works against the film as it sometimes the shorts can become dull and go on for too long. Fantasia 2000 relies more on the tradition of the original Fantasia rather than it's own message. But the shorts are more narrative which makes all the individual shorts easier to follow and almost all of them enjoyable.
Now I know one of the big questions you might be asking is which movie I prefer. I'd have to say Fantasia 2000. I know it's a bit weird, but I like the more narrative approach the shorts carry and find all of them as a whole much more enjoyable to watch then the original Fantasia. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't see the first Fantasia, just realize that it may not be to everyone's cup of tea.
Both movies are well-worth your time, but should buy them or rent them? Fantasia 2000 I think is worthy enough on it's own to buy, the original Fantasia I'm hesitant to declare a buy. I think you should rent it and if you enjoy it enough, you should buy it as it really depends on the person's tastes.
Fantasia- RENT
Fantasia 2000- BUY
See you all next time!
Fantasia
Fantasia was the third animated feature to be released by Disney in 1940. Fantasia started out with the plan to revive Mickey's faltering career in 1937. But one of Walt's friends conductor Leopold Stokowski convinced Walt to make it part of a full-length feature with various shorts being set to classical musical pieces. It was meant to played every few years with different segments being added or removed. It's a very unique movie in Disney's library and a good representation of the artistic capabilities Disney had. However Fantasia is a very conceptual movie and lacks narrative in many of the segments.
Fantasia is basically an animated concert experience so it better have an amazing soundtrack. Thankfully The Philadelphia Orchestra provides excellent music to go along with the animation. Speaking of which, the animation is also pretty good. There are some fantastic visuals in some of the segments with lots of details and beautiful special effects.
There are some problems with Fantasia. Many of the segments lack a narrative and are basically a series vignettes with an exception to a couple. While this doesn't hurt some of the segments, it can lead to some being incredibly dull. Some of these segments also are hindered by going on too long, however I'll cut Fantasia a little slack as the segments are set to a particular piece of music.
Fantasia 2000
Fantasia was not the huge success, so that coupled with World War II causing a huge loss in the international market that made getting any feature film released difficult. However in 1990 Disney decided to give Fantasia another shot. Fantasia 2000 was a movie I like to think from a period in time when Disney became re-interested in it's past. Destino, a short that Disney collaborated on with Salvador Dali but went uncompleted for many years, went back into production, the Disney Treasures series was started to be released, it was a period of getting back to Disney's roots and it started with Fantasia 2000, which was released in 1999. Fantasia 2000 is also very beautiful, really taking advantage of the technology Disney had developed since the first Fantasia. The celebrity guests may not be to everyone's liking though.
The segments in Fantasia 2000 are a beauty to look at. It has a huge advantage with the technology that has developed since the 1930's and it shows. There are some very impressive segments which boast some of the most impressive animation ever put to film. It's segments are also more cohesive on the whole and pretty much all of them have a plot to push them along and generally almost all of them are interesting. The Chicago Symphony Orchestra also does a fairly good job matching the Philadelphia orchestra, the music is no better or no worst.
But I can't let Fantasia 2000 get by without any criticism though. One of the biggest complaints most people have with this movie is the Celebrity guests introducing all the various segments. Many say that they are annoying and don't add anything. I don't mind them that much, some do a wonderful job like James Earl Jones and Angela Lansbury, most of them are okay, with maybe the exception of Bette Midler who really didn't seem to care about the interesting history she was telling and just wanted to make it sound funny. It really depends on your opinion though. Anyways, Fantasia 2000 really has trouble making it's own identity. It relies on nostalgia from the first Fantasia and even uses the Sorcerer's Apprentice segment from the first movie.
Final Word
Both of these films are based on a concept of putting short animations to music but they take different approaches to this idea. Fantasia is an original, it views itself more as a high class original work, it is much more conceptual and less narrative, however that works against the film as it sometimes the shorts can become dull and go on for too long. Fantasia 2000 relies more on the tradition of the original Fantasia rather than it's own message. But the shorts are more narrative which makes all the individual shorts easier to follow and almost all of them enjoyable.
Now I know one of the big questions you might be asking is which movie I prefer. I'd have to say Fantasia 2000. I know it's a bit weird, but I like the more narrative approach the shorts carry and find all of them as a whole much more enjoyable to watch then the original Fantasia. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't see the first Fantasia, just realize that it may not be to everyone's cup of tea.
Both movies are well-worth your time, but should buy them or rent them? Fantasia 2000 I think is worthy enough on it's own to buy, the original Fantasia I'm hesitant to declare a buy. I think you should rent it and if you enjoy it enough, you should buy it as it really depends on the person's tastes.
Fantasia- RENT
Fantasia 2000- BUY
See you all next time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)