It is one of Disney's most underrated gems. Hilarious with heart.
And I agree with you on Shrek. Never cared for the picture. I am not a fan of something existing merely for the satire. It never felt like its own movie; just a mockery of Disney tropes.
And I agree with you on Shrek. Never cared for the picture. I am not a fan of something existing merely for the satire. It never felt like its own movie; just a mockery of Disney tropes.
I did go to see Shrek 2 and Shrek the Third when they came out, and they feel much more like their own thing. I watched the original only on TV later, and it doesn't fully come into its own. The second movie is the best --- arguably the only good entry in the series.
I'll be talking more about DreamWorks from here on, because they posed some serious opposition to Disney and that really changed the landscape of American animation. Every modern animated movie that features an upbeat pop song, from Illumination Studios to The LEGO Movie, that's all thanks to Smash Mouth. Even Disney themselves got in on the game: I've always thought of Tangled as more of a DreamWorks movie than a Disney movie, because its attitude toward the classic fairy tale is so heavily indebted to Shrek. But we'll cross that bridge when we get there.
And I agree with you on Shrek. Never cared for the picture. I am not a fan of something existing merely for the satire. It never felt like its own movie; just a mockery of Disney tropes.
I did go to see Shrek 2 and Shrek the Third when they came out, and they feel much more like their own thing. I watched the original only on TV later, and it doesn't fully come into its own. The second movie is the best --- arguably the only good entry in the series.
I'll be talking more about DreamWorks from here on, because they posed some serious opposition to Disney and that really changed the landscape of American animation. Every modern animated movie that features an upbeat pop song, from Illumination Studios to The LEGO Movie, that's all thanks to Smash Mouth. Even Disney themselves got in on the game: I've always thought of Tangled as more of a DreamWorks movie than a Disney movie, because its attitude toward the classic fairy tale is so heavily indebted to Shrek. But we'll cross that bridge when we get there.
That will be a fun debate. Tangled is one of my favorite Disney films and I always felt it respected the fairy tale concept. I have the The Art of Tangled book and the directors talk about trying to be respectful and not cynical.
I look forward to your coverage. I haven't agreed with all the takes but your insight is enjoyable to read.
I look forward to your coverage. I haven't agreed with all the takes but your insight is enjoyable to read.
Thanks, that's good to hear. Some entries come easier than others --- but I have rule against mentioning that in the reviews themselves. The Emperor's New Groove is one of those movies I'm almost too familiar with to get a good perspective.
Directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise Screenplay by Tab Murphy Story by Kirk Wise & Gary Trousdale, Joss Whedon, Bryce Zabel & Jackie Zabel, Tab Murphy
Featuring Michael J. Fox, James Garner, Cree Summer, Don Novello, Phil Morris, Claudia Christian, Jacqueline Obradors With Florece Stanley, David Ogden Stiers, John Mahoney, Jim Varney, Corey Burton, Leonard Nimoy, Natalie Strom Additional voices Jim Cummings, Pat Pinney, Steve Barr One genre that enjoyed a resurgence at the turn of the millennium was the semi-mystical action-adventure treasure hunt. Perhaps resurgence is the wrong word for such a specific niche, although it seem to have been kicked off by the 1999 remake of The Mummy. I'm a child of this era: Pirates of the Caribbean (2003 onwards), The Da Vinci Code (book 2003, movie 2006), National Treasure (2004, 2007), The Librarian (2004 onwards). There's a bit more to them than the Indiana Jones knockoffs of the '80s and '90s: there's a greater significance on the concept or MacGuffin and less on the rugged manly hero. In fact, the hero is often more of a book nerd than an action hero, which amplifies the humor and charm these movies have. As it happens, I really like this genre.
Disney's Atlantis is an early example of this trend, especially given the production time of an animated movie. It hooks you in with the Atlantis idea, it's got a loveable geeky protagonist voiced by Michael J. Fox, and the character dynamic is key to the movie's climax. But compared to the average Disney movie, it doesn't devote all that much time on our ragtag team of explorers. There are too many of them to establish a proper connection with, and they have such specific quirks that it's hard to see any potential spin-offs in them. Moreover, this movie is clearly too enamored with its action sequences to truly care for them. Given that this is a Trousdale-Wise production, I'm not surprised to find characters as background noise. The pair is not known for their ensemble pieces.
What's more surprising is the extent to which this movie commits to its vision. This is arguably Disney's first all-out action movie in animation, bucking a trend they themselves had set. Its visual design is based on the work of comic book artist Mike Mignola, and the whole movie has this flat comic book style that I associate more with French or Japanese animation. In that sense, I think this is one of Disney's best realized movie concepts. But it also has the same problem that we saw in previous action-oriented stories like The Black Cauldron and Sleeping Beauty. It's a tough call to balance the straightforward dynamic of an action movie with the traditional Disney-style character-based storytelling. Like The Black Cauldron, it tries to appeal to its traditional audience as well as one that would normally not go and see a Disney movie, and in the process it loses a bit of both. This was not helped by the fact that Atlantis faced stiff competition from Shrek and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider in both of its respective genres. While not a total loss, Atlantis: The Lost Empire was considerable financial hit for Disney, fueling a shift towards a more comedic tone.
It's a shame that Atlantis flew under the radar, because it clearly displays a lot of effort put into it. How many movies do you know that constructed an entirely new language for its characters? Not to say, eight years before James Cameron's Avatar! There's also a great attention to visual detail, such as in the steampunk-inspired designs for the submarines. They could have gone with regular 1914-era technology and no one would have batted an eyelid, but they went ahead and had fun with it. The blend of hand-drawn and computer animation does stand out still, but it's a far cry from the car chase in The Fox and the Hound!
Not to mention the story of Atlantis itself. At its heart, this movie is about colonialism, but doing the exact opposite of Pocahontas actually seems to have worked out well for them. What little we see of Atlantean society is thick enough to maintain the illusion of a lost civilization. As someone with a passing interest in historical linguistics, I'm overjoyed to see representation and have it be relevant to the plot. There are plenty of echoes to real-life first encounters in this story (the Aztecs spring to mind), but making it a metaphor rather than an actual historical event saves so much pain. For everyone. Casting Leonard Nimoy as the fictional culture's political representative is an inspired piece of casting.
A casting choice I'm less on board with is Michael J. Fox as Milo Thatch, the movie's adorkable protagonist. Fox's squeaky drawl is surely iconic, but the man turned 40 a week from the movie's premiere, and that is unmistakable. He doesn't attain the level of energy that I would expect from an enthusiastic twenty-something. Of course, Fox was also on medication for Parkinson's disease, which would go on to have a considerable effect on his voice. I'm glad we got at least one or two vocal performances from him after his retirement from physical acting. I can't imagine how demanding it must be, especially in his field of work.
In the years since its release, Atlantis: The Lost Empire has gained a certain cult following. I recognize that this is not a movie for everyone, so I'm glad that it has found a home with the right people. As a firm believer in the idea that animation can tell any story, I think this is one of Disney's most striking productions, even if it's not one you'd immediately associate with their brand. Atlantis: The Lost Empire is set in 1914. To be exact, the expedition sets out on October 11, 1914. Given the crew's distinctly international make-up, you'd think there'd be a reference somewhere to that other thing that happened earlier that summer. I know the United States was late to the game, but don't underestimate the era's spirit of national competition!
Atlantis is one of my favorite Disney movies. The script is sharp and it is not afraid to drop allusions that the audience might not understand. That is something that I doubt would happen today. I enjoy all the characters and I never understood the whole thing about each character doesn't receive a lot of attention. That is standard issue for most Disney movie sidekicks. The villain is great. He reminds me of Gaston (another Kirk/Trousdale villain) in how they aren't book smart but they are street smart and that enables them to outmaneuver the intelligent hero.
Oh and they do mention WW1. Milo rants about how the villain will sell the crystal to the Kaiser.
It's a pretty complex topic, so I'll avoid taking over the discussion with it - however, I definitely think that it's a discussion worth having. Should certain characters be reinterpreted to fit certain molds that wouldn't have been accepted at the time? Sometimes, it can give a voice in places that it rightfully should have been heard in the first place; other times, it can be the case that outdated stereotypes are just being given a more modern lens. Take The Rugrats for example; Betty DeVille was originally a strong-willed woman with a weak husband, and she didn't conform to gender stereotypes in the slightest. In the reboot, she has been made into a lesbian woman; would she have been interpreted as such in the original, had the times been more accepting? Or is it the case that people saw "Woman who isn't very feminine" and disrespectfully decided that she must be gay? Obviously, it's more complex than that, but the overall point comes through - why people are interpreting characters in a certain way is an important element of the topic. I'm all for people understanding characters in ways that may not have been intended, and these understandings can lead to both a deeper understanding of the characters and more nuanced discussions around certain groups. However, in some cases, the reasons for these interpretations are rooted in problematic mindsets - like, as you say, the idea that someone (particularly with villains) has flair or shows femininity, and then interpreting them as gay.
Ah, but there's a nuance to be made here. The new Rugrats seems to be made by the original creative team, which should be a +1 in the legitimacy basket. That's a distinction I started making during my time with Doctor Who: if the original actors are present, then I'll consider it 'canon' enough to cover.
I think you might need to check more closely who is making the new Rugrats series. Original creators Paul Germain, Arlene Klasky or Gábor Csupó are not in charge of it, and I'm pretty sure they're not even involved in any creative capacity. (There was talk of that when a Rugrats reboot was first mentioned five years ago, yes, but not now. The thought of these creators ever getting back together for a new Rugrats seemed far-fetched in the first place, given Germain's very public statements about his creative disagreements with Arlene during the show's original 65-episode run.)
Ah, but there's a nuance to be made here. The new Rugrats seems to be made by the original creative team, which should be a +1 in the legitimacy basket. That's a distinction I started making during my time with Doctor Who: if the original actors are present, then I'll consider it 'canon' enough to cover.
I think you might need to check more closely who is making the new Rugrats series. Original creators Paul Germain, Arlene Klasky or Gábor Csupó are not in charge of it, and I'm pretty sure they're not even involved in any creative capacity. (There was talk of that when a Rugrats reboot was first mentioned five years ago, yes, but not now. The thought of these creators ever getting back together for a new Rugrats seemed far-fetched in the first place, given Germain's very public statements about his creative disagreements with Arlene during the show's original 65-episode run.)
I'm not aware of the show as such, but Wikipedia told me that the three are credited as creators and executive producers, so I assumed they must be involved in some capacity.
Atlantis is one of my favorite Disney movies. The script is sharp and it is not afraid to drop allusions that the audience might not understand. That is something that I doubt would happen today. I enjoy all the characters and I never understood the whole thing about each character doesn't receive a lot of attention. That is standard issue for most Disney movie sidekicks. The villain is great. He reminds me of Gaston (another Kirk/Trousdale villain) in how they aren't book smart but they are street smart and that enables them to outmaneuver the intelligent hero.
It's still in my top 10. It doesn't make me feel quite as much as some movies, but it's great in what it manages to accomplish.
Oh and they do mention WW1. Milo rants about how the villain will sell the crystal to the Kaiser.
Well caught! But there was some animosity against the Kaiser before the war.
I think you might need to check more closely who is making the new Rugrats series. Original creators Paul Germain, Arlene Klasky or Gábor Csupó are not in charge of it, and I'm pretty sure they're not even involved in any creative capacity. (There was talk of that when a Rugrats reboot was first mentioned five years ago, yes, but not now. The thought of these creators ever getting back together for a new Rugrats seemed far-fetched in the first place, given Germain's very public statements about his creative disagreements with Arlene during the show's original 65-episode run.)
I'm not aware of the show as such, but Wikipedia told me that the three are credited as creators and executive producers, so I assumed they must be involved in some capacity.
In the actual credits of the new episodes, the three are listed for one thing only (at the end of the intro sequence): as the creators of the original series. They are not credited as executive producers anywhere.
I'm pretty sure Wikipedia's info about the creators returning as exec producers comes from this 2018 article, back when the reboot series was officially announced as happening. But that was three years ago... and today, i can see no info or evidence that they're involved with the series.
Atlantis is one of my favorite Disney movies. The script is sharp and it is not afraid to drop allusions that the audience might not understand. That is something that I doubt would happen today. I enjoy all the characters and I never understood the whole thing about each character doesn't receive a lot of attention. That is standard issue for most Disney movie sidekicks. The villain is great. He reminds me of Gaston (another Kirk/Trousdale villain) in how they aren't book smart but they are street smart and that enables them to outmaneuver the intelligent hero.
It's still in my top 10. It doesn't make me feel quite as much as some movies, but it's great in what it manages to accomplish.
Oh and they do mention WW1. Milo rants about how the villain will sell the crystal to the Kaiser.
Well caught! But there was some animosity against the Kaiser before the war.
There was. He was a saber rattler.
For what it is worth, Rourke's minions all wear WW1 style gas masks. I prefer subtle mentions over a ham fisted reference.
Written and directed by Chris Sanders & Dean DeBlois Based on an idea by Chris Sanders
Starring Daveigh Chase as Lilo and Christopher Michael Sanders as Stitch Featuring Tia Carrere, David Ogden Stiers, Kevin McDonald, Ving Rhames, Zoe Caldwell, Jason Scott Lee, Kevin Michael Richardson, Kunewa Mook With Susan Hegarty, Amy Hill
Best Animated Feature Film - Chris Sanders - nominated Lilo & Stitch has always had its own special place in the Disney canon. It's very popular movie in a period that is not often talked about, much like The Jungle Book in the 1960s. Even though I'm quite enjoying this era myself, I can't deny that Lilo & Stitch is a cut above the rest. It centers on that Disney-esque sweet spot, in a way that the steely action scenes of Atlantis and irreverent comedy of The Emperor's New Groove shy away from. Lilo & Stitch proved that there was still a big audience for heartfelt family movies after Shrek. Much of that is due to design and marketing campaign behind the loveable monster Stitch, who has become a Disney icon in Asia. But the movie Lilo & Stitch holds up as one of Disney's most tender and engaging stories.
A trend that I've noticed in recent movies is their willingness to decenter from the individualist stories of the 1990s by incorporated genre-inspired B-plots. The Emperor's New Groove was buddy comedy Disney, Atlantis was action-adventure Disney, Lilo & Stitch is science-fiction Disney. In fact, it's the first traditional science-fiction movie we've come across. I think this is a very clever move. Previous Disney movies have laid on the emotion very thickly, forcing the audience to see through the eyes of the protagonist. Lilo & Stitch skillfully switches between both plots to balance out and digest each part, finding a tonal variety that would be hard to pull off with just a single strand of plot. Both plots complement one another through the close relationship of the two protagonists. It works, for lack of a better term, like a sitcom.
What puts Lilo & Stitch up there in the pantheon of Disney movies is its subject matter: family relationships. Where many movies like to stir up character drama for the sake of it, or portray a happy loving family to make the audience feel good, Lilo & Stitch goes into the nitty-gritty. The Pelekai family is, according to Lilo, broken, as her and Nani's parents have passed away in their prime and the two sisters are left to fill the void with one another. Nani's attempts to make ends meet is thwarted by Lilo's psychological processing of the trauma. The intricate implications of this completely flew over my head, as someone who grew up in a loving nuclear family. I've also had people in my life who were deeply touched by the concept of 'ohana propagated by the movie, as they themselves grew up in a 'broken' family. I used to think of Lilo as just another 'quirky kid' character, when in reality she's anything but. She's the key to the whole story.
Again, the movie decentered perspective carries a lot of weight. We see the chasm between Lilo and the other girls because of Lilo's 'weird' obsession with death and rescue. We see her dragged around town by Nani, who has neither the time nor the means to deal with her own trauma as she tries to paint a facade of 'normalcy' to society, represented in particular by social worker Cobra Bubbles. We see Lilo's attraction to Stitch as a fellow lost soul, how her attempts to bond with and train Stitch contradict Jumba's language of playing God (nurture versus nature). Lilo's interactions with others never give them what they want, but always what they secretly need.
"Aliens are all about rules," remarks Cobra Bubbles. Government and society and be demanding and unbending. Lilo & Stitch makes in my opinion a case it shouldn't have to be this way. There's no grand absolutist pronouncement of justice, no deaths, just two bureaucrats promising to sort things out upstairs. It's hard to imagine sometimes, but governments and societies are supposed to be acting in people's best interests. It's an understated small-scale resolution, befitting of the movie's domestic angle and of Disney's character-based storytelling. Nani is finally cut some slack, a teenaged single parent whose pet was the object of an intergalactic bounty hunt. Stitch is accepted into the Pelekai 'ohana, having been given someone to care about. It's never pointed out implicitly, but Lilo's instincts are proven right in the end.
I often forget about Lilo & Stitch in favor of its flashier, more adventurous sequels and TV series that I grew up watching. Its reinterpretation of the family broke new ground for Disney in 2002, and continues to be as relevant as ever. The movie it reminds me most is Lady and the Tramp, another domestic social commentary about love and relationships. Both are representative of their era's outlooks on family and society, as shaped primarily by one artist. To me, they represent the core of what makes Disney tick, and why their movies are beloved by generations of families. I like the inclusion of Hawaii in this movie. It doesn't feel forced or out of place. They've clearly spent some effort getting the details right, right down to the fat tourists that so rightly fascinate Lilo. It fits the slice-of-life angle, and goes surprisingly well with the Elvis music.
Meanwhile, Previously (4) On January 1, 2002, Beauty and the Beast was re-released in IMAX theaters. For this release, a song written by Howard Ashman was reworked and fully animated. It was then released on home video in October 2002.
Beauty and the Beast - Human Again (1991) Directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise Songs by Howard Ashman and Alan Menken Featuring Paige O'Hara, Robby Benson, Jerry Orbach, David Ogden Stiers, Angela Lansbury, Jo Anne Worley, Kimmy Robertson
There's a reason why this song was cut to begin with. It's catchy, but it diverts attention away from the story. I'm treating it under the umbrella of the movie, but the animation quality suggests the work of Disney MovieToons.
Directed by John Musker and Ron Clements Screenplay by Ron Clements & John Musker and Rob Edwards Adapted from the novel "Treasure Island" by Robert Louis Stevenson
Featuring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Brian Murray, Emma Thompson, David Hyde Pierce, Martin Short, Dane A. Davis With Michael Wincott, Laurie Metcalf, Roscoe Lee Browne, Patrick McGoohan, Corey Burton, Michael McShane And Tony Jay, Austin Majors
Academy Award for Best Animated Feature Film - John Musker and Ron Clements - nominated Technical Achievement Award for the development of the Deep Canvas rendering software - Eric Daniels, George Katanics, Tasso Lappas, Chris Springfield After its first complete publication in 1883, Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island quickly became the defining standard for boy's adventure stories. So when The Great Mouse Detective directors John Musker and Ron Clements pitched their idea of an animated adaptation 102 years later, they expected to go down as a hit. Unfortunately, studio boss Jeffrey Katzenberg was not convinced, and greenlit another project of theirs: a fairy tale about a little mermaid. Undeterred, the two pitched their idea again at the end of that production. And again, after Aladdin. But their insistence outlasted Katzenberg's tenure at the studio, and in 1995 the production was given the go-ahead... after they finish Hercules, of course.
Finally, seventeen years after the initial pitch, Treasure Planet saw the light of day. And it bombed drastically. With a budget of 140 million US dollars, revenues barely passed the 100-million mark. The only reason 2002 wasn't a complete washout was because the low-budget Lilo & Stitch was doing triple duty. And ever since, Treasure Planet has served as Exhibit A for why some pet projects need to be reined in. This reputation is unfair: not only because Treasure Planet is a fine movie, but also because the technological developments that blew up the movie's budget were also used for other movies. Even if, like Bambi and Sleeping Beauty, production took so long that it ended up being the last of its kind. Technology marched on.
All that aside, is Treasure Planet any good? Yes, it is. It's a fun, adventurous romp with a good lesson at its heart. It's got nice contemporary songs, pretty all-digital backgrounds, and a couple of cool ideas. It's not perfect, but it does what it sets out to do. Sure, I might pick a bone with one or two things, but it doesn't explain why audiences stayed home for this one. You could say that Treasure Island was obsolete by the 21st century, but that the Muppet adaptation made six years earlier is still regarded as a classic. It's not Hollywood's longstanding fear of pirate movies either, as Disney would prove the following year with the release of Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Some ideas don't do well in the fridge, but I can't imagine that a 1989 version Treasure Planet would have been that more enticing.
The central emotional arc of this story is the relationship between Jim Hawkins and Long John Silver, and this adaptation gets it right. Jim may be the protagonist, but it's Silver who shows the most depth of character as he balances between his job as a cutthroat pirate and his recognition that Jim is in need of a father figure. Jim's relationship with the other characters is where the movie lets down. Especially with Captain Amelia, and the events surrounding the unfortunate death of her first mate Mr. Arrow. Amelia's stern demeanor, her relationship to Mr. Arrow, her reputation as an able commander, and Emma Thompson's excellent voice work all call out for a greater role in the story. Instead, she 'sprains her ankle' and hooks up with one of the comic reliefs. Okay. The other characters are of little substance. Martin Short, playing B.E.N., seems to think he's filling the Robin Williams slot in the movie, and is accordingly obnoxious. It's a mild case of sidekickitis, which is always to be expected, and he does represent an important character from the book. The same cannot be said of the fart alien...
As for the basic idea, Treasure Island IN SPACE isn't the highest of high concepts, but Disney aren't exactly known for their original ideas. They're famous for adapting proven successes with a memorable flourish. Treasure Planet succeeds in that regards, even if, like Peter Pan and Robin Hood, it's not the ultimate era-defining portrayal of a classic. It's also worth pointing out that, despite putting so much emphasis on the SPACE setting, Treasure Planet is not a science-fiction movie. Apart from Treasure Planet itself, this movie hinges on a mechanical gadget, a lost memory chip, and a wire-cutting scene. We had all of those things in 2002. Between Lilo & Stitch (aliens as metaphor) and Atlantis (first contact with a more advanced civilization), Treasure Planet is the least like a science-fiction story. Underneath its bright and shiny exterior, it's still just Treasure Island.
I also like the movie's conceptual design. The sci-fi elements are mostly integrated into the Napoleonic-era British aesthetic, with a few contemporary touches here and there. It's reminiscent of steampunk, a few years before that aesthetic first appeared. I wonder if it had any role in its development. That said, the integration is only skin-deep. No new languages were developed for this movie. In fact, this cozy English part of the galaxy is mostly populated by American voices, which does a lot to ruin the atmosphere it so carefully constructed. Long John Silver's accent has a nice Caribbean twang to it, but that's the exception that proves the rule. Not to mention the American-style robot police, who are completely out of place here.
Despite some missteps, Treasure Planet is a worthy homage to Robert Louis Stevenson's classic tale. It has plenty of momentum, beautiful designs, and an excellent score by James Newton Howard. Despite its reputation, it's not a bad movie by any stretch. In Dutch, this movie was titled Pirate Planet: The Treasure of Captain Flint. I used to have trouble distinguishing this title from that other early-2000s human-centric action-adventure Disney animation with a subtitle, but in retrospect I can see why the change was made. And to be fair, Pirate Planet sounds a lot cooler than Treasure Planet if you ask me.
Destino (2003) Story by Salvador Dalí & John Hench Directed by Dominique Monféry "Destino" performed by Dora Luz I called out your name In a mystic dream last night Saw that old smile that I miss It was a beautiful sight
Your kiss was a flame Not the spark that somehow died And every warm embrace Was real as all those tears I’ve cried