Re: A Christmas Carol--Yeah, not a standout among the many adaptations. But I will say in its defense that when I was watching the scene with the Ghost of Christmas Present I thought, "Boy, I really wish Dickens were alive to see this visualization of his scene!" And in all the other adaptations of the story I've seen, I've never once thought that.
Jim Carrey is not alone in flubbing his portrayal of the converted Scrooge. This is why I think Alastair Sim's Scrooge is the best: lots of people (General Patton, Captain Picard...) can play the pre-conversion Scrooge believably, but I contend that Sim is the only actor who plays the lightened spirit, humble self-awareness and childlike joy of the post-conversion Scrooge equally believably.
Directed by Simon Wells Screenplay by Simon Wells & Wendy Wells Based on the book by Berkeley Breathed
Featuring Seth Green/Seth Dusky, Dan Fogler, Elisabeth Harnois, Mindy Sterling, Kevin Cahoon, and Joan Cusack Cast Tom Everett Scott, Jacquie Barnbrook, Matthew Henerson, Adam Jennings, Stephen Kearin, Amber Gainey Meade, Aaron Rapke, Julene Renee, Kirsten Severson, Matt Wolf, Raymond Ochoa, Robert Ochoa, Ryan Ochoa, Meredith Wells, Teagan Wells Voice Performers Marianne Bennett, Jo McGinley, Daniel James O'Connor, Edi Patterson Puppeteers Erik Schaper, April Warren And this is the movie that killed ImageMovers Digital. In asking around about Mars Needs Moms, what struck me the most is that nobody remembers this movie even exists. There may be a reason for that, as I found when I was digging around a little. Several of the cast members have come out publicly in saying that Disney intentionally tanked this movie due to office politics. I can believe this, as I've accused them of doing something similar before (see Treasure Planet). This movie is not some forgotten gem or anything of the kind, but it's not studio-endingly bad.
Mars Needs Moms was directed by Simon Wells, who was also one of the directors on The Prince of Egypt, so clearly a man who knows his stuff. His comments on the special bonus features certainly sound like those of an intelligent creative, albeit one who was not completely in control of the project he was commissioned to lead. And therein lies the main problem with this movie.
Mars Needs Moms is a story that has a lot going on. The main character, Milo, stows away on a rocket ship, because his mother has been abducted by Martians to extract her essential mom-ness for their nanny robots. Martians do not have families; instead, they live in a strictly segregated society where a martial dictatorship of women rules the upper world, while tribes of male Martians gather in the trash piles below. Milo has to save his mom from disintegration before sunrise, disrupting the system and causing a revolution in the progress.
The central conflict between Milo and his mother is that he can't look after himself, and she has to constantly watch his chores. This interpretation of motherhood is one that comes off to me as extremely narrow, but it's only at the end of the movie that we find that's exactly what it is. Along the way, Milo is forced to take responsibility and accountability for his actions. Here to help (and to serve as a contrast) is Gribble, or George Ribble, a middle-aged manchild who got stuck on Mars after failing to rescue his mother a generation earlier. Gribble serves as a reminder of what Milo could turn into if he doesn't shape up, but it's not pushed too badly. I dislike the manchild archetype, but that's more because of the excessive use of that stereotype in 2010s media than anything relating to this particular movie.
Rounding out our trio is Ki, a native Martian who likes to paint flower graffiti after watching a snippet of an old Earth sitcom. This makes her a public nuisance in the sterile Martian environment. I like Ki, she plays the role of the revolutionary but is almost completely unaware of her role. She just likes painting graffiti. The Martian dictatorship is where this movie starts to falter, however, as there's no real depth to the society. Consequently, once the villain takes a tumble, there's very little needed to set off a revolution. It's cardboard cut-out Star Wars. The movie is stuck between pretending that this strict matriarchy could be a real thing, and tearing it down the moment everybody realizes they kind of forgot about love. Yes, somehow love returned. Hooray.
That's not to say that there isn't a story underneath it all. I'm intrigued by the Supervisor's drive for a clean and orderly world, and her deep hatred of men. I know some feminist extremists in my life who claim they would love to live in a world where there are no men, so clearly this is a discussion worth having. But to suggest that a fascist feminist society would lead to the Empire is a failure of the imagination, simply because women have entirely different strategies of political domination than men. Anybody who's seen Mean Girls knows about that. (Note: I haven't seen Mean Girls.)
Regardless, the way this movie is set up is means that we spend a lot of time with the wrong ideas about motherhood and family, and very little time thinking about the right ideas, and I do think that's a major flaw. Postponing Milo's reconciliation with his mother until the end of the movie makes technical sense, but I think it muddies the waters. Milo knows what's right from the beginning: the movie isn't about learning, but about proving it. I would've liked to see more time spent on working the motivations of the villain, a character with real potential. In a world where anti-natalism is gaining ground, the case for the family can no longer be taken as a given.
Quite how a story about motherhood manages to completely avoid talking about the birds and the bees, I'll never know. Never mind the exclusion of father! But it's not all bad. Just a movie that happened to come out at the wrong time. My favorite moment is when Gribble saves the day, digging up the space helmet he had intended for his mom in order to save Milo's mom. Not only is this an expert piece of plotting, it also ties up his character arc in a really neat way. Exactly how these helmets work, after lying around in the open air for decades, is something I probably shouldn't think about too hard. Rating 7.00
The Small One (1978) Directed by Don Bluth Cast Sean Marshall, William Woodson, Olan Soule, Hal Smith, Joe Higgins, Gordon Jump
One of the only two shorts Disney released during the 1970s, The Small One tells the story of a boy who is forced to sell his donkey at the market. Today, it's pretty much forgotten. In fact, despite owning it on DVD, I don't remember ever having watched this one.
Well, I get it now. The Small One has all the hallmarks of the Dark Age of animation: terrible pacing, bad sound mixing, kid actors. There's not a lot to like here, and plenty to dislike. The tone is maudlin, and the animation is third-rate. Some characters, like the boy's father, are drawn like they they stepped out of a different studio entirely. Most of the 'real' Disney stuff is traced from 1960s features, which coincidentally explains why the boy looks so much like Mowgli.
In the final reveal, the donkey who's been treated so badly throughout the story is revealed to be the donkey from the nativity. I usually like these kinds of reveals that tie into a larger narrative, but I feel that religious stories should be off-limits somehow. The way they hide it is kind of irksome too, like they're tricking me into watching Christian propaganda. Knowing in advance where the story was leading up to didn't help in this respect. It's not that I'm against Abrahamic narratives. The Prince of Egypt is great. But everything about this feels like it belongs on an obscure VHS tape from the 1980s, not something worthy of the name Disney.
Mickey, Donald, Goofy: The Three Musketeers (2004)
Directed by Donovan Cook Screenplay by Evan Spilotopoulos, David Mickey Evans
Starring Wayne Allwine, Tony Anselmo, Bill Farmer Cast Russi Taylor, Tress MacNeille, Jim Cummings, April Winchell, Jeff Bennett, Maurice LaMarche, Rob Paulsen Growing up surrounded by Disney comics, I always assumed that Disney's movies must be in a similar vein. An early exposure to movies like The Three Caballeros and A Goofy Movie sustained this illusion for a while, but in fact there are only a handful of Disney movies with a direct link to the comics.
One of these, however, is the subject of this review: 2004's Mickey, Donald, Goofy: The Three Musketeers. Loosely based on Alexandre Dumas' famous novel, it tells the story of three bumbling musketeers saving Princess Minnie from the clutches of Captain Pete. But before we get there, there's a framing device, some singing, and a lot of comic relief.
Mickey, Donald, and Goofy had never carried a feature-length story before, but the movie remains more or less true to their characters. Donald's irascibility gets exchanged for cowardice, so he isn't too eager to fight the bad guys, but it still fits well within the realm of his personality. They all get some character development in the end, and it feels like a real movie.
This is also a movie that's obsessed with breaking the fourth wall. The story is ostensibly an imagining of a comic, narrated by a troubadour to a TV audience. The art in this comic looks like something you'd actually find in a Disney comic, which is a nice touch. The story itself is nominally set in 17th century France, but more modern appliances are used for a gag, from air horns to indoor plumbing. The movie is constantly breaking its own logic, which is a trope that I adore. The use of classical music also shares a link with the old theatrical shorts, and helped cement my love for the genre when I was a kid. Not to mention the opera: Gilbert and Sullivan are always a welcome touch!
However, as much as the movie revels in topsy-turvydom, it balances this out with some old-fashioned Disney romance. It's easy to cross the line here and do something un-Disney-like. For your information, this movie came out the same year as Home on the Range, but it steers well clear of the childishness and cynicism of that kind.
There's a love story for all three of our heroes as well. Mickey ends up with Minnie, and Donald with Daisy, while Goofy gets hooked on Clarabelle Cow. One must imagine Horace Horsecollar and Mrs. Goof steaming behind the scenes, but I guess it wouldn't be a Disney movie otherwise! To be perfectly honest, the romance bit was always a bit too saccharine and superficial for my tastes. It seems a bit forced, even if it leads to some pretty funny gags. It doesn't really say or add anything. This is not a problem unique to this movie, but something Disney struggles with generally.
Apart from the classic characters, there's also a surprise appearance by the Beagle Boys. I say surprise, because it's rare to see them in an environment without Scrooge McDuck. But they act like the real deal here, more so than in DuckTales, even if one of them is shorter than the others and their skins are strangely gray. They make for some good comic relief, proving themselves adept foils to Mickey, Donald and Goofy in sword fighting as well as in cluelessness!
Ultimately, while there's a lot to like about this movie, it's still clearly a low-budget movie from one of Disney's lesser studios. I don't expect this movie will ever be more than a cult classic among Disney fans, but this is one cult I'm happy to be a part of! With cat-like tread, upon our prey we steal! In silence dread, our cautious way we feel! No sound at all! We never speak a word! A fly's footfall would be distinctly heard! Come friends, who plough the sea! Truce to navigation! Take another station! Let's very piracy with a little burglary!
Come friends, who plough the sea! Truce to navigation! Take another station! Let's very piracy with a little burglary!
Directed by Jugal Hanraj Story, Screenplay, Dialogues Jugal Hanraj Music Salim-Sulaiman Lyrics Jaideep Sahni
Starring Saif Ali Khan as Romeo Featuring Kareena Kapoor, Jaaved Jaaferi, Vrajesh Hirjee, Suresh N. Menon, Kiku Sharda, Sanjay Mishra When asked about Disney animation, people first think of the ones made by Walt Disney Television Studios. They may think of some Pixar movies or of Walt Disney Television Animation. Some will remember Disneytoon Studios and its many direct-to-home video sequels. Then there are the Frankenweenie and the Mars Needs Moms of this world. And then finally, far away from the main canon, you will find the likes of Roadside Romeo.
Disney India is a subsidiary of the company that has been active in the subcontinent since the early 1990s. They produce movies and TV series, often working together with other studios. One of these movies is Roadside Romeo, produced by Yash Raj Films and animated by Tata Elxsi VCL. Disney had only peripheral involvement in the movie, but the sheer obscurity of the movie piqued my interest and here we are.
Roadside Romeo tells the story of Romeo, a pampered pooch who finds himself on the streets of Mumbai after his family moves abroad. He soon comes across a gang of street dogs, Guru, Interval, Hero English, and a street cat named Mini, and wins them over giving them a make-over. Romeo's skills as a hair stylist prompts them to go into business as a hair salon, but they soon find themselves at the ire of the local mob boss, a surly bulldog named Charlie Anna. Romeo falls in love with a dancer named Laila, but Charlie Anna intends her to be his own, and now Romeo has to set up a date between them to save his own neck. Failing this, the gang comes close to losing their lives at the hands of Charlie Anna's cronies, but when Romeo saves Charlie Anna from being saved by dogcatchers, all's well that ends well.
I want to give this movie a fair assessment. It would be easy to either disparage or patronize a movie because it comes from a non-Western country with a less-developed animation industry. That last thing is definitely on display here: the texture of some of the models is pretty lacking in some places, for one. but the movie probably had a fraction of the budget of what a regular Disney release would have at this time, so you can't be too harsh.
The worst offender in the visual effects department are the character models, however. This is more of a matter of design over finance, with the human-looking legs given to the female dogs putting them firmly in the uncanny valley range. Romeo and Laila look just a bit too much like furries, which is a style that I don't much care for. This isn't helped by bipedalism and the overall lack of clothing. Of course, these designs were plastered all over marketing, and they make the movie look much worse than it really is.
But with that out of the way, I didn't think this was such a bad movie. While I can't vouch for every gag, especially Interval's Bollywood impersonations, it's decently funny. There's slapstick animation, which I always appreciate. The movie is light and jokey without being overly sarcastic of self-referential, and it doesn't overestimate its own abilities. But I could have done without the fart jokes... The voice actors do a good job of bringing their characters to life, even if I could only understand about half of what they were saying, and the music was pretty good as well. I have no idea how it measures up to other Bollywood fare, but don't come to this movie expecting the like of "Be Our Guest"!
In terms of characterization, I can't deny that it's all a bit stereotypical. Especially its handling of gender roles, which isn't revolutionary. Laila is one of only two female characters with speaking roles (alongside Mini the cat), and she has no real personality. She exists only as a story vehicle for Romeo and Charlie Anna. Romeo has a set of female back-up dancers whose only role is to serve as attractive-looking accessories, and Charlie Anna has a trio of female assistants named Charlie's Angels that serve roughly the same role. The men aren't much better, to be honest. Romeo's voice actor is decently charismatic, but he makes the best out of a cookie-cutter role. The others are one-note comic relief characters, including Guru's and Charlie Anna's gang. Although I do like that mouse that occasionally shows up!
Charlie Anna is the only one who can really be described as having any depth. As much as the story presents him as a fearsome kingpin with a trigger finger, he's fairly ineffective. His affable demeanor, malapropisms, bad jokes, complete lack of style, and occasional farting show him in a different light. When Romeo saves him from the dog pound, Charlie Anna has a change of heart. Not only does he save Romeo in turn, he even makes sure Romeo and Laila patch things up at the end, which is a bro move all around. I can't think of a lot of movies that end with the villain giving a pep talk to the hero!
Roadside Romeo is low stakes, low reward compared to your typical Disney movie. It's a movie mainly concerned with good vibes, but there's nothing wrong with that. It's certainly made this reviewer a happy chappy! The DVD release is chock full of bonus features, with teaser trailers featuring unique animated sequences, animated bloopers (remember those?), and a director's commentary. There's also a video of the press release, featuring dancers with costumes of Romeo and Laila. It's clear a lot of passion went into this production! Rating 7.00
Directed by Arnab Chaudhuri Written by Rajesh Devraj Dialogue R. D. Tailang Music Vishal & Shekar Lyrics Piyush Mishra
Starring Yudhveer Bakoliya as Arjun Cast Ashok Banthia, Ravi Khanwilkar, Vijay Kashyap, Ila Arun, Sachin Khedekar, Vishnu Sharma, Rajeshwari Sachdev, Aanjaan Srivastav, Hemant Mahaur Cast Brijesh Jha, Niraj Shah, Achyut Potdar, Asmit Kaushik, Varinder Sharma, Anupam Shyam, Sitaram Panchal, Mithilesh Chaturvedi, Imran Khan, P. D. Varma Cast Ashima Chaudhuri, Sanjeev Vats, Dev Khubnani, Avinash Deshpande, Shis Khan, Praveen Baby, Vikrant Mishra This, then, is the other animated outing by Disney India. Arjun: The Warrior Prince was produced by UTV Motion Pictures, which was subsequently merged into Disney, and was also animated by Tata Elxsi's Visual Computing Labs. The animation is distinctly different from Roadside Romeo, however, with excellent lighting and backgrounds. The character models are reminiscent of 2D animation, which is a nice way of integrating 3D animation without drawing undue attention to it. That said, the frame rate of the animation is a little choppy, which makes for a somewhat frustrating viewing experience. It's never quite fast enough for the brain to smooth it all together.
But then, this movie is such a tonal whiplash after Roadside Romeo in many ways, from a light-hearted spoof right into a bloody historical epic. Arjun adapts the first part of the Mahabharata, the Classical Indian epic about the battle between Pandava and Kaurava princely clans. This sort of thing is right up my alley: I love historical dramas, and I like to immerse myself in classic works of literature in every way that doesn't involve actually reading them. When the marketing for this movie raised links to movies like The Prince of Egypt and Mulan, my expectations were raised even higher. I was ready to be blown away.
...So, what about Arjun: The Warrior Prince? Well, it's certainly an adaptation. I have difficulty making out whether the narrative structure of this movie was created with the original epic in mind, or if this is just how Indian movies roll. In fact, I have a lot of difficulty with this movie altogether. This is in part because I watched the movie in the original Hindi, with subtitles in French, and my French isn't that good, as it turns out. but even then, a lot of things don't add up in the way I'd expect them to.
Arjun tells of the early life of Prince Arjun, an eager apprentice warrior of the Pandava family. They live in Hastinapur, together with their distant cousins the Kauravas. The king is getting on in age, and everybody can feel the power bases shifting. It's clear the king favors Arjun's brother Yudhishthira, but the king's son Duryodhana will do anything to claim the throne for himself. He allies himself with an unruly tribe, who begin to inflict acts of terrorism on the Pandavas, and puts pressure on the king. He also puts the kibosh on a tournament where Arjun was getting ready to show off his amazing warrior skills. Eventually, the king splits the kingdom in two, and exiles Yudhishthira and his family to rule in Indraprastha. Arjun wins a royal tournament abroad by catching a fish with his crossbow, and receives the hand of the local princess.
The evil Duryodhana and his scheming uncle pay a visit to Indraprastha, where he plays a game of dice with Yudhishtira. The dice are loaded, with the result that Yudhishtira loses everything he owns, including his kingdom. Duryodhana then exiles the family for 12 years, and they are forced to go into hiding. Arjun goes on a hermitage into the mountains, where he experiences several visions. At the end of this time, Duryodhana assembles an army to wipe out the Kauravas once and for all, but is thwarted when it turns out the narrator of the story, a nursemaid, was Arjun all along. He takes the young prince Uttar with him onto the battlefield, and proceeds to wipe out a good chuck of Duryodhana's army. However, at the end of the story, although he's himself he does have the heart of a killer, he lets Duryodhana live.
From the perspective of someone who is used to Disney animation, this narrative raises a lot of questions. The character arc, as far as I can make it out, shows how Arjun turns from an apprentice to a fighter. There's a scene in the movie where Arjun is threatened by his master, to show him the difference between a controlled study environment and the real world. That it takes him 12 years of exile, the despotic rule of Duryodhana, and the direct threat to his life and that of his loved ones to reach this state is, I suppose, a mark of his impeccable virtue. As is the fact that Yudhishtira gives away his entire kingdom over a game of dice, I think.
But as someone who is used to watching movies with relatable characters, who have flaws they need to work through, I spent much of this movie bored out of my mind! The Pandavas are so passive throughout the movie, they don't do anything! They just submit themselves to the abuse and the iniquities of the Kauravas, leaving the rest of the population to suffer with them. Tellingly, when they actually do rule in Indraprastha, the movie immediately cuts to their demise!
When Arjun finally commits a political act at the end of the movie, it consists of murdering a bunch of unnamed warriors and letting Duryodhana live. I'm sure there are reasons for this that have to do with the source material, but at least The Lion King had the decency to kill Scar off, after the kingdom suffered so much by his misrule! I understand this text reflects the Bronze Age, when only a select caste of warriors were considered the only people that mattered, but from a modern lens it seems downright bizarre. Sure, the people at the top often escape justice, but usually not on the battlefield. Also, I have to point out that he takes a literal child with him to man the chariot. I'm sure Prince Uttar is an important character, but heroes generally don't enlist child soldiers!
But that's my view on Arjun: The Warrior Prince. I have to admit to a defeat here. This is one foreign film that proved too foreign for me. Women hardly feature here. Princess Draupadi is little more than a pawn between powerful men. After she is threatened by one of the Kauravas, Arjun abandons her for 12 years... Rating 2.75