Also, I feel like it might be a little derivative of your own threads if I was to do something similar - not to mention my order has been very scattered because I'm watching with a few people of different temperaments!
Don't feel like it's derivative -- everyone style of reviewing, after all.
As for unappetizing titles, do you mean films that you find particularly problematic or just not very good?
Just not very good. Those late '60s to early '70s comedy titles like Charlie the Lonesome Cougar, The Horse in the Grey Flannel Suit, The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes, The Barefoot Executive, The Million Dollar Duck, One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing don't exactly enjoy the highest reputation --- and some I've never even heard of at all.
Added - Strangely enough, it's marked on imdb as "Flight of the White Stallions". The name you've given is what's on the posters, though, so it's what I'll put down
"Flight of the WS" is the UK title, according to imdb. As I access imdb from a computer in the USA, the title for the movie is "Miracle of the WS." On the "AKA" list of titles, "Miracle" is listed first as "original title" as well as on the USA line.
In German and in Spanish, it appears that the title would translate as "the escape of the WS," so equivalent to "flight" in that meaning of the word. (That is, the Spanish title used in Mexico and Argentina; in Spain it was called "Operación Cowboy"!!)
Ahh, I figured it was something like that - seeing as just about everything uses the US title and might have the UK title in brackets or something, I was caught off-guard It's always interesting to hear film titles in other languages; sometimes it's just a simple change for small reasons, but I absolutely love hearing the totally different titles that come up in some languages - like Operación Cowboy! I can't help but wonder how such significant changes come about; is it because it's more likely to grab people's attention? Is it to do with general culture and expectations in the area, where one title might have more meaning to people than another? Or maybe the translators just got lazy?
It's such an interesting topic - be it small changes or large ones!
I was once part of a discussion about creating ritual to help children who are going through parental divorce, and I mockingly suggested a bonfire of copies of The Parent Trap. Not because it's a bad movie, but because it encourages the common child's fantasy of bringing the parents back together. Not to mention the fantasy of breaking up your divorced parent's relationship with a new partner. The people involved in the discussion who had been through parental divorce or who were divorced as parents all heartily and laughingly endorsed the ritual.
Very true! If memory serves me right, Mrs. Doubtfire was originally supposed to end with Daniel and Miranda getting back together, but the executives realized that it could foster unrealistic and potentially harmful expectations in children.
I think I'd heard this somewhere, but it still amazes me.
Like, you look at an ending in a film that you think is just perfect, or one that becomes iconic... and find out it was originally supposed to be something else. I'm glad that this one came around because of the higher-ups having sense; I'll never get over the ridiculous situation of Law Abiding Citizen's ending:
Also, I feel like it might be a little derivative of your own threads if I was to do something similar - not to mention my order has been very scattered because I'm watching with a few people of different temperaments!
Don't feel like it's derivative -- everyone style of reviewing, after all.
As for unappetizing titles, do you mean films that you find particularly problematic or just not very good?
Just not very good. Those late '60s to early '70s comedy titles like Charlie the Lonesome Cougar, The Horse in the Grey Flannel Suit, The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes, The Barefoot Executive, The Million Dollar Duck, One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing don't exactly enjoy the highest reputation --- and some I've never even heard of at all.
That's fair - I just don't like to step on anyone's toes or be the Family Guy to their Simpsons, so to speak In that case, I'll write up some thoughts on some of the films that I've watched so far - one of which (That I didn't mention because it doesn't actually fit the criteria of the list) will definitely elucidate how simple I am when it comes to humour
I'll be totally real on some of those titles - not knowing anything about them, I just picked a few that I had either heard of, or looked like they could be entertaining even if they weren't stellar.
The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes is one I picked because I'd heard the name a lot - I didn't even read the synopsis! I figured I should probably watch it on those grounds alone.
Charlie the Lonesome Cougar was mainly put on there as a 'Hey, that one might be interesting' - I feel like the premise of it could make for something worth watching, at least.
The Horse in the Gray Flannel Suit... I honestly don't remember my reasoning; I think I initially thought it to be something like Mr. Ed? Looking more closely, it does seem rather bland - though I'll still give it a chance at some point.
The Million Dollar Duck and One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing were actually included because of their notoriety; despite the title of the post, my initial idea for this list was for the list to encompass some of the best and the worst. Like, with the True-Life Adventures, I probably would have excluded White Wilderness if I was going for enjoyable only. MDD drew my attention because the list I was looking at specifically drew attention to it as one of Disney's worst films, and OoODiM is known for being ridiculously offensive in terms of caricatures and stereotypes. I suppose having them there goes against the actual idea of the topic, but on my personal list, they're mainly there for the purpose of seeing if they deserve their infamy - and if they do deserve it, how bad it is.
The Barefoot Executive is on there solely because it's about a chimp. Like I said, I'm simple
I suppose a better title might have been noteworthy, rather than underrated; I mainly want to watch good movies, of course, but I think it's worth putting a few stinkers on there as well. I'm having difficulty explaining my line of reasoning, but Sheev puts it better than I could have, anyway:
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
As That Duckfan pointed out, I suppose it wouldn't make much sense for me to go to the effort of putting together this list and watching these films and not sharing some thoughts on them. I'll preface this by saying that my tastes are very simple - I enjoy a great many works that others would deride or think of as idiotic. That's not to discredit my opinions or anything - mainly just a preface that my threshold for humour is pretty low, and that I'm very quick to fall for hokey emotional scenes, even if they mightn't necessarily be earned
So, to start off, a film that wasn't actually mentioned above, mainly because it wasn't released before 2000; I mentioned a few that kickstarted my interest in compiling this list, but I watched this one a week or so before all of this. It didn't push me to start watching any other films, but it did plant the seed of "Hmm... I actually had fun with that one. I wonder what other garbage movies I might enjoy?"
I'd imagine that it goes without saying that these reviews will contain spoilers.
So, without further ado...
The Country Bears (2002) The main reason I wanted to watch this one was because of the cover art:
I think it speaks for itself I was looking through films to watch, and this one grabbed my eye - I laughed just looking at it, and I had to know more. I had never heard of it - I'm guessing that either it just didn't get much notice in Ireland, or maybe my younger self had more sense than my current self.
Being totally honest, I loved it - and I still don't know if that love was ironic or not. For the most part, I was just in disbelief - from the bizarrely out of place music videos to how seriously they take such goofy concepts, and even a cameo appearance by Elton John of all people... I think, in part, my brain just couldn't comprehend what was on the screen.
I'd imagine everyone here is aware that it's based on the attraction, The Country Bear Jamboree. I'm not very familiar with the attraction (Or anything to do with Walt Disney World, unfortunately), so I can only speak for the film on its own merits, not its status as an adaptation.
The story was the typical 'getting the band back together' deal, with the usual suspects; the down-on-his luck, good-natured pal who's happy to rejoin, the one who's gotten themselves into trouble and can't come back until it's resolved, the one who has seemingly done well for themselves and doesn't need the band any more... and, of course, the fan who ties it all together and gets to gush about meeting their idols. It's nothing revolutionary, but I think it was handled decently enough. They're getting the band back together to put on one last show so they can save their old venue, Country Bear Hall, from being demolished by an evil developer. Again, not the most original of plots, but I did think they managed to do a few fun things with it -
Earlier in the film, there's a reference to an important point in the Bears' career, where they beat out a young boy who played music with armpit farts. It turns outlater on that that boy was Walken's character, who has held a grudge ever since. As stupid as the twist is, I was actually surprised - though my brain had long since turned to mush at that point, so it might be more obvious to others. Up to that point, he's mainly played as a developer who's just gleeful about the fact that he'll be getting money out of the deal - anything past that seems like no more than comedic sociopathy.
I mentioned that the film has music videos in it and... maybe it's because I'm not a music guy, but they really do drag. There are several in the film - which isn't a bad thing, seeing as it's a Disney movie - but they really do feel like they don't belong in the film. Outside of one, there's very little attempt to weave them into the story - there's a waitress who turns out to be a fan of the bears; she talks to them about an old song of theirs. When they bring up that it was incredibly basic and not really their finest work, she launches into her own take on it. It still feels out of place, but it's better than some other examples. Like, when they find Fred, he's working as a security guard for a popular musician - she pretty much just says, "You should play with us" and that's the entirety of the justification for that one. For a film that's primarily about a band, it's crazy that the music is what's most out of place.
One of the most common criticisms of the movie is that the bears look terrible - which I can agree with to an extent. The main point that I can agree with is that they look unnatural - the movements are awkward, and they often just don't sync up well with what's going on around them. However, I just don't find the suits as horrifying as everyone else seems to - I actually found them pretty endearing once I accepted how ridiculous the whole situation was. I can't really comment in any objective way on it; all I can really say is that whenever someone says that the mouths are horrifying, or the proportions are disturbing, my response would just be that it didn't bother me.
The film's humour is pretty awkward and stupid - which is right up my alley, but I can see why it would be a turn off. As you can probably imagine, Christopher Walken steals the show - there's one scene where he has several models of Country Bear Hall which he destroys with a wrecking ball; it serves no purpose other than showing him as being over-the-top evil. I can't see many other actors making it funny the way he did, though. There are a few running gags that are downright stupid, but they did make me laugh - one is the, admittedly overdone, trope where Beary's parents don't acknowledge that he's a bear, and the police officers go along with it completely seriously. While I didn't laugh at the concept itself, or Beary's brother being the only sane man, there were a few points where I laughed; when the officers are taking his name, they spell it as Barry - his mother corrects their spelling, and explains that it's either German or Greek (Can't remember which). There's also a point where the officers ask for a description of Beary, and the parents describe him as a normal child - the exasperated brother shows the officers a photo, and they don't take any notice of him being a bear, either. It's certainly not high comedy, but I did laugh here and there.
The characters are okay - most of them are decent enough, but they don't really get much time because of how big the band is. A good chunk of the film is going around and gathering each member of the band - but between Beary's story, a few plot detours and the music videos, the characters' stories are pretty simple. In fact, 'simple' describes several of the bears - which is, obviously, a Southern stereotype. Not everyone falls into that trope (Henry, Ted Bedderhead and Tennessee manage to escape it), but Fred, Zeb and Trixie are pretty blatant stereotypes. That's not to say that the other three aren't clichéd - they're just not as heavily steeped in Southern stereotypes. There's not much conflict for any of them - several basically just say 'yeah, sure' and rejoin straight away. The only one that they struggle to get on-board is Ted; he's the stock character of "I don't care about this band" and, while he comes around like you'd expect, I actually think it was a pretty interesting take on the character trope.
He legitimately doesn't want to rejoin the band, even after it turns out that he's not rich and famous like he claims. He's still blamed for the band breaking up, and doesn't have much respect for the other bears. He likes the band itself, but the lack of respect he both gives and receives is why it takes so long to get him on-board. He doesn't come around until they read Beary's note - which is, of course, clichéd as you'd expect, but the fact that they had to step back and take a look at why the band broke up in the first place was an interesting touch. In most cases that I'm familiar with, it ends up being a happy "Aww, I do love you guys!" resolution, where they reconcile their differences. I feel like Ted's conflict gives a little more credence, in my mind, to the idea that the band might actually stick together this time - because, in this scenario, they specifically addressed why they fell apart in the first place. I'd have liked to have a bit more time devoted to that discussion, but I liked it for what it was.
And, lastly, I'll comment on Beary, the main character. I recognized his voice straight away, but it took a few minutes for me to realize that it was Haley Joel Osment. As it stands, we've yet to see a Country Bears world in Kingdom Hearts, but I now have hope On the whole, he's nothing special - he's a dime a dozen character, falling into several tropes that have all been done better in other stories. He's not terrible by any means - he's just pretty generic. In the story of the bears, he's pretty much just the vehicle for getting them back together, and his personal plot is bog-standard - which results in him just being 'there' for the most part. However, there was one detail that I found surprisingly emotional on a personal level:
I know I've harped about autism before, but I found Beary shockingly relatable on a particular point. It's shown that, in school, he bases every project that he can on the Country Bears and Country Bear Hall. This isn't to the detriment of his grades, but he gets notes asking if everything has to be about the Country Bears, and is mocked by his brother for his adoration of them. For those not wholly familiar with autism, one common trait is having 'special interests' - fixating on particular topics to the point that other people find it bothersome. The main reason I found it so emotional is because Disney was a special interest for me when I was in school. For a while, it was all I'd talk about, and I got similar responses. I don't think that anyone specifically had autism in mind with the character, but they really nailed the feeling of special interests - that obsession over something, collecting information and finding a personal freedom in it that you don't really find anywhere else. Small details, like Beary's reactions and the bears coming to understand his fixations, made it feel a lot more 'real' to me.
All in all, I'd say that I legitimately enjoyed the movie. Would I recommend it? Probably not; if you don't enjoy the humour, you'll probably hate it. Plus, I got some great laughs out of how seriously the film took itself - if you don't go in with that mindset or that willingness to look past how absurdly stupid the whole thing is, I don't think it would be possible to enjoy it.
I'll be doing these in the order I've watched them in, so next up is The Rocketeer.
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
While I'm going to continue in order of what I've watched, I'll mention whenever I watch another film in the meantime. Last night, I watched Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. Have I ever mentioned that I really don't like flying insects? Yeah, that movie was traumatizing, but I'll have more to say when I get to it
To actual discussions, next up is The Rocketeer (1991)
Again, I had very limited background for this one - I wasn't going in completely blind, but I knew next to nothing about it. I had seen a few images here and there, and knew the title. I knew that the Rocketeer is playable in Disney Heroes: Battle Arena and that Family Guy states that "When stupid people need a thrill, they rent The Rocketeer." Honestly, I didn't quite know what to expect - but my expectations were similar to The Country Bears - go in expecting it to be a fun, but terrible, ride.
My expectations were, of course, surpassed easily. That's not to say that the film doesn't have any ridiculous elements in it, but it's a much more competent story all around. (Also, I'll clarify that I've never read the comic, so I can't discuss how faithful it is as an adaptation)
Significant spoilers below this point With The Country Bears, I could include spoilers in tags, but there's one that's not really possible to hide because of how prominent it is. Plus, Disney Plus spoils it in the film's description. As a result, I knew it going in, but I would have loved to have learned it by watching the movie. Neville Sinclair is not only the film's main antagonist, but he turns out to be a spy working for Hitler. ...I'm realizing that the specific word is censored on this forum, so I'll just call them HitlerSpies. I'll be mentioning it a few times, and there's no real way to hide it without hiding entire sections of discussion.
The film contains one of my favourite tropes; several different factions that are all after the same end-goal. You have the FBI, who want to retrieve the rocket. You have Sinclair, Lothar and the HitlerSpies who want to steal the rocket. You have Eddie and his men, who are crooks that work with Sinclair but aren't loyal to him. You have Cliff and Peevy, who found the rocket and are experimenting with it and using it for their own purposes.
This allows for some great dynamics and interactions; there's a lot of criss-crossing, and a lot of questioning of the morals of some groups, mainly the FBI and Eddie's crew. It's not delved into very deeply, obviously, but it's interesting to get a look into the mindsets of different groups and characters.
Honestly, I'll admit that Cliff, himself, isn't very interesting to me - I remember most of the characters pretty vividly, but I actually had to look his name up while writing this. He's not badly written or anything, but I really didn't feel like much stood out about him. He's likeable, but I just feel like I've seen his character several times before, and this character doesn't really have much about him that helps him to rise above the others. Like, the concept of 'The Rocketeer' is interesting, but the suit itself feels more interesting than the guy wearing it. Like, compare him to Jenny - she's also fairly archetypal, but she has plenty of details about her that help her to stand out as a unique character. She's a struggling film star, which is actually used in interesting ways; when Sinclair is trying to seduce her, and she's able to point out which films he's pulling his lines from... I adored that. Little details like that really help to make a character feel more 'real' - and Cliff, to my memory, just didn't have anything like that going for him.
The effects were pretty fifty-fifty; at times they were pretty solid for what they were, but others... yikes. As you can imagine, it's the flying scenes that tend to have trouble - towards the end, there's a scene where Sinclair is flying and... well, it's rough. I don't know if I'd quite say it's immersion-breaking. The movie is so cheesy that the effects don't feel too jarring - like, if the movie had been deadly serious, the greenscreen in some scenes would have ruined it altogether. Because of the film's general tone, the effects don't ruin it, but they're absolutely noticeable.
One thing I can absolutely say, though - I loved the climax of this movie. It just continues to top itself both in humour and in being outlandishly fun. The film, generally, has a campy but somewhat grounded tone. For every light-hearted gag, there's a moment where something serious brings it back down to earth. For every wacky antic, there's something grim (Like most scenes involving Lothar). It never becomes too hammy. Of course, once the characters reach the Griffith Observatory, all of that changes. Again, it starts off serious, with Sinclair holding Jenny ransom for the rocket. In one last-ditch effort, Cliff tells Eddie that Sinclair is a HitlerSpy - and once it becomes clear that Cliff is telling the truth, Eddie tells Sinclair that "I may not make an honest buck, but I'm a hundred percent American... and I don't work for no two-bit WAK." And from there, it just continues to escalate - the HitlerSpies show up to overpower Eddie's men. Then the FBI show up to overpower the HitlerSpies. Eddie's men and the FBI work together because they're all American. Sinclair begins to escape on a zeppelin, and when Cliff follows, you have the shot of Eddie looking into the camera, with a "Go get 'em, kid." At this point, all I'm doing is describing it, but... it's just nuts. Even if they do lay on the American patriotism a bit thick, it's just a lot of fun to watch - and from the moment that the characters reach the observatory to Sinclair's death, it's a wild ride that's just great to watch.
Really, cheesy is the best way to describe the movie; cheesy romance, cheesy plot, cheesy ending, and an amazingly cheesy villain played by Timothy Dalton.
It's definitely not perfect; what counts as a flaw is debatable, but the uninteresting protagonist and the occasionally rough effects were noteworthy. Still, the film's good qualities more than make up for it; the acting is great, with most of the characters being a lot of fun to watch. And even if the ending's patriotism does feel somewhat excessive - to the point that I could easily understand it turning someone off - the finale is so crazy and hilarious that I think it not only adds to the film's charm, but cements it. There's no way my words could do it justice - so, even if the film is far from perfect, I'd absolutely recommend it.
Next up is 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Also, I feel like it might be a little derivative of your own threads if I was to do something similar - not to mention my order has been very scattered because I'm watching with a few people of different temperaments!
Don't feel like it's derivative -- everyone style of reviewing, after all.
As for unappetizing titles, do you mean films that you find particularly problematic or just not very good?
Just not very good. Those late '60s to early '70s comedy titles like Charlie the Lonesome Cougar, The Horse in the Grey Flannel Suit, The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes, The Barefoot Executive, The Million Dollar Duck, One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing don't exactly enjoy the highest reputation --- and some I've never even heard of at all.
I haven't seen all of those, but The Barefoot Executive is pretty good; it has Kurt Russell in an early starring role and the likes of Joe Flynn, Harry Morgan, and John Ritter (in his big-screen debut) delivering funny supporting performances, but its most memorable feature is its entertaining satire of the network TV system (the central gimmick is that a chimpanzee is able to pick the top-rated shows better than the suits can). One of our Dinosaurs is Missing is also entertainingly off-the-wall; it was Bill Walsh's last screenplay, and it's sort of a combination of Walsh's typical surreal humor with the droll flavor of the British Ealing Studios comedies from the 1950s-1960s, with a determined British nanny (Helen Hayes) defeating a Red Chinese spy ring (led by Peter Ustinov in make-up, which may put some people off, but which to me just adds to the eccentric wackiness of it all).
On other Disney live-action films; one title I haven't seen mentioned here yet is Third Man on the Mountain from 1959, which is one of the studio's most underrated but all-time best, with strong characterizations by a superb mostly-British cast, beautiful Swiss locations, and a very compelling storyline (adapted more or less faithfully from a book by real-life mountain climber James Ramsey Ullman). Even Michael Barrier, who rarely has anything unqualifiedly positive to say about any movie, has spoken highly of this one, and for once I agree with him.
Don't feel like it's derivative -- everyone style of reviewing, after all.
Just not very good. Those late '60s to early '70s comedy titles like Charlie the Lonesome Cougar, The Horse in the Grey Flannel Suit, The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes, The Barefoot Executive, The Million Dollar Duck, One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing don't exactly enjoy the highest reputation --- and some I've never even heard of at all.
I haven't seen all of those, but The Barefoot Executive is pretty good; it has Kurt Russell in an early starring role and the likes of Joe Flynn, Harry Morgan, and John Ritter (in his big-screen debut) delivering funny supporting performances, but its most memorable feature is its entertaining satire of the network TV system (the central gimmick is that a chimpanzee is able to pick the top-rated shows better than the suits can). One of our Dinosaurs is Missing is also entertainingly off-the-wall; it was Bill Walsh's last screenplay, and it's sort of a combination of Walsh's typical surreal humor with the droll flavor of the British Ealing Studios comedies from the 1950s-1960s, with a determined British nanny (Helen Hayes) defeating a Red Chinese spy ring (led by Peter Ustinov in make-up, which may put some people off, but which to me just adds to the eccentric wackiness of it all).
On other Disney live-action films; one title I haven't seen mentioned here yet is Third Man on the Mountain from 1959, which is one of the studio's most underrated but all-time best, with strong characterizations by a superb mostly-British cast, beautiful Swiss locations, and a very compelling storyline (adapted more or less faithfully from a book by real-life mountain climber James Ramsey Ullman). Even Michael Barrier, who rarely has anything unqualifiedly positive to say about any movie, has spoken highly of this one, and for once I agree with him.
Honestly, I'm growing pretty interested in The Barefoot Executive - from what you've described, I feel like I'd love it! I'm still on the fence about One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing, though; "eccentric wackiness" is, admittedly, one of my favourite draws in a film, though. I'll have to judge when I get around to it - as well as find it, seeing as it's not on Disney Plus.
Third Man on the Mountain has been added to the list!
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
The Rocketeer is amazing. It deserved a better fate.
Most of the 1990s Disney live action output was trend following and not good.
Agreed on the Rocketeer - it's by no means perfect, but it deserved a lot better than what it got. Honestly, despite my complaints, it has one of my favourite finales in a film; it deserves more recognition for that alone!
Looking at the list, there are definitely a few from the 1990s I'm not looking forward to; several of them just seem uninspired. Still, I'll continue to keep an open mind - I've expected little from many of the films I've watched, and found something enjoyable in each one. So, here's hoping that trend continues!
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
1993 was a good year, I'd say, with both Cool Runnings and Hocus Pocus having staying power. Have to go back thirty years earlier to 1963, to get more than one live-action movie I'd be willing to watch again!
Before the film discussion - I'm considering removing the limit of being before 2000; there are a few I'm planning on watching regardless, but I've seen people discussing some films that went under my radar from past that point. Initially, I figured it was pointless, but... 1999 is pretty late anyway, isn't it? I don't know, definitely worth considering, though.
Also, my most recent watch was Davy Crockett: King of the Wild Frontier... hoo boy. The first one that had a mandatory warning for racism. That'll be a fun discussion when we get there.
At any rate, the film that I'll be looking at this time is 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954).
As with many of them, I had no idea what to expect going in; I knew that it was one of Disney's older live-action films that people still talk about and I knew that it had an attraction at one of the theme parks. I also knew that Captain Nemo was a character in it, but didn't know anything about him beyond his name. As you can imagine, I'm not familiar with the book it was adapted from - so, as per usual, I can't comment on it as an adaptation.
I'll start with the obvious - the film has some elements that don't hold up today. The scene with the cannibals is just... nasty. Not just in the sense of the racist portrayals of the island natives - which, while grim, wasn't much different to what other studios at the time would do. The reason I had issue with the scene was because of the tone of it. Due to a mix of past trauma and his distancing himself from humanity, Nemo has a very unique mindset; he holds himself to his own standards and no others. I'll come back to this later, but his attitude has a specific impact on the scene that rubs me the wrong way. When Ned and Conseil return to the Nautilus, he makes the point that "Naturally - since you invaded their privacy, they have every right to invade ours." He follows this up with electrifying the exterior of the Nautilus, which has the natives hop about, screaming and screeching before fleeing. Ned and Conseil watch with glee and laugh about it, while the crew remains stern. With Nemo's attitude, you think he's going to have a more reasonable approach - but all that entails is zapping them instead of killing them. It seems like the crew's reaction signifies that Ned and Conseil are wrong to laugh - however, Nemo doesn't say anything about it; his punishment is for disobeying orders and nothing else. The racism is bad, but you can expect that - the reason that I still had trouble looking past it was because the film looks, on these two occasions, like it's going to take a more nuanced approach, only to pull back at the last second. It actually draws attention to the fact that Ned was wrong to trespass on the natives' land, but he's not admonished in the slightest for it - he's only punished because Nemo told him not to.
On that note, however, what seemed bizarre to me was that the film isn't given a racism warning on Disney Plus. Like, it's definitely worse than some examples - far worse than the likes of Dumbo or The Aristocats. I wonder how they managed to miss this one?
The other major issue I had was the animal cruelty - which was very discomforting. One scene involves a shark attack - unless I was mistaken, a real shark is killed for the scene. The other involves the Nautilus crew gathering resources - which involves carrying a struggling turtle back by its fins, slowly. Both scenes were appalling - the turtle scene, especially, added nothing of importance to the film. It was just cruel and uncomfortable to watch in both cases.
It's also worth noting that the film contains some (typical for the time) toxic masculinity, and most of it can be attributed to Ned Land. He's introduced with two women fawning over him, his song is misogynistic and he's a very typical 'manly man' (the kind that cements his friendship with Conseil with a punch). Then, of course, there's the fact that, outside of the two women mentioned above, the film has pretty much no female characters. It's not as blatantly obvious as the racism or animal cruelty, but it wouldn't be fair not to point it out.
Now, on to the film's better qualities.
The four main characters (Professor Aronnax [Paul Lukas], Conseil [Peter Lorre], Ned Land [Kirk Douglas], Captain Nemo [James Mason]) are not only very well-acted, but their dynamics are fascinating to watch. Their relationships grow and change in very interesting ways: One of the main focuses of the film is the relationship between Aronnax and Nemo; the open-minded Aronnax listens to Nemo's stories and takes a great interest in both the Nautilus and its captain. While Ned and Conseil believe him to be brainwashed, he's simply more open to understanding Nemo than they are - and has no issue calling him out when he does things that are cruel or unjust. Because of how close Aronnax grows to Nemo, Conseil becomes disillusioned with him - to the point that he goes from revering the professor to making sarcastic comments about his relationship with Nemo. Ned doesn't trust Nemo in the slightest, which causes great friction between the two - this brings about some interesting developments for Nemo, who seemingly deems Ned to be everything wrong with mankind, yet cannot fathom why Ned would save him from the squid. The contrast between Ned and Nemo, as well as the strained relationship between Aronnax and Conseil, leads to Ned and Conseil striking up an unlikely friendship. The dynamics between the main four characters are very well fleshed-out; the relationships are given time to breathe and develop, and the way they change is simply fascinating. The actors do a fantastic job of showing these developments, and each one has a unique and distinct flair and personality - they're so different to one another that no scene feels like treading the same ground.
I mentioned above that there are problematic elements to Ned's character, but I still think he's a great one, especially with Kirk Douglas' performance. While he does have his flaws, he's a good man at heart - despite not liking or trusting Nemo, he nonetheless rushes to his rescue. When the Nautilus is sinking, he won't allow Aronnax to go back for his journals - but when he realizes that Esmerelda is trying to escape, he slows down so that they can get her to safety. My favourite relationship in the film is the one between him and Conseil - while it does carry elements of toxic masculinity, it also subverts these elements in interesting ways. For example, the scene where they seal the friendship with a punch - he encourages Conseil to hit him and even sticks his chin out. When Conseil misinterprets it and punches him in the stomach, he's obviously caught off-guard. I expected that a brawl would start, but he just laughs it off and cements their friendship. Likewise, when Ned is being chased by the natives - he screams after Conseil, asking him to wait. You'd expect that, seeing the horde of them, he'd keep on rowing - yet he actually does stop to help his friend, even though it puts him in significant danger. The whole thing felt very genuine, and it was great to see the two becoming genuinely chummy with each other.
And, of course, you can't discuss this story without discussing Captain Nemo. I love the way his character is handled - and is a genuine example of something that's left up to the viewer to form an opinion on. Oftentimes, when people say that something is open to interpretation, it really isn't - in many cases, films will spoonfeed you an opinion, only to pretend at the end like there was supposed to be some ambiguity to it. This film never really settles on how Nemo should be interpreted - again, something that is greatly helped by the distinct nature of each character.
Nemo is presented in many ways - he's shown to be quirky and eccentric (the way his seafood dishes are played for laugh, as well as his occasional dry comedy), he's shown to be cruel (risking the trio's life to see if Aronnax lives up to Nemo's expectations), he's shown to be sympathetic (in the fact that he's shown to be deeply tormented by the deaths of his wife and child)... many different aspects are explored with Nemo, and there's enough evidence for the viewer to come to many different conclusions. Plus, despite all of Nemo's stoicism and how he has apparently discarded his humanity, there are scenes (most notably the scene in which he has the Nautilus attacking a warship) in which all of his emotions - his bitterness, rage, desire for revenge... all shine through beautifully. Even the ending is somewhat ambiguous - it's made abundantly clear that Nemo was right and that the world wasn't ready for his technology, but Nemo himself is still up for debate. Ned's stance on him doesn't change (As he very much considers the decision to have the crew stay behind to be cruel, and shows little sadness for Nemo's death), and his final moments are spent alone, looking at the sea while in pain from his wounds - which would be a very upsetting end for most. I wonder myself whether or not Nemo's final moments were very reflective - did the loneliness get to him? Did he regret bringing the trio aboard? He's a very complex character, and one that's played very well.
I haven't even mentioned the effects and sets! The Nautilus itself is, of course, beautiful. Each room is visually distinct and most are intricately decorated - it actually feels like a home, not just a ship. At the same time, however, its status as a ship is clear - with a great deal of work going into showing how the ship functions. Even now, the sets hold up, and still carry that feeling of wonder and amazement.
Then, of course, there's the battle with the giant squid. When I first saw the squid, I cracked up; seeing it darting forward by the tentacles caught me off-guard. I know it's unrealistic in other ways, but that was just so unexpected that I still find it hilarious to think about. However, the fight itself is utterly phenomenal, and absolutely deserves the respect it gets. This was made in 1954! Yet, it somehow manages to look insanely real to this day - the giant tentacles are amazing to look at and the movements are just incredible.
Final comment, the score is also very fitting to the film - it's never excessive, and knows when to be evocative and when to be subdued. Plus, despite my earlier comment, I will admit that I enjoy Whale of a Tale - its lyrics aren't wholly appropriate, but I can't deny that it's a great tune.
So, all in all, I'd definitely recommend this one. It has some flaws, some of which are impossible to look past, but the overall experience is nonetheless fantastic. Amazing acting and character dynamics, stellar effects, brilliant writing... flaws or not, it deserves to be remembered.
Next up is The Apple Dumpling Gang.
Last Edit: Aug 11, 2021 1:45:12 GMT by alquackskey
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
I'm enjoying your reviews--can't comment, because I either haven't seen or don't remember the movies. I'll get three months of Disney+ this winter, so I will probably watch a few of those you recommend then, such as The Rocketeer. Have never seen Apple Dumpling Gang, either.... I did just watch Darby O'Gill, and Summer Magic is on its way to me, both from the library. Doesn't look like Summer Magic is on Disney+.
I'm enjoying your reviews--can't comment, because I either haven't seen or don't remember the movies. I'll get three months of Disney+ this winter, so I will probably watch a few of those you recommend then, such as The Rocketeer. Have never seen Apple Dumpling Gang, either.... I did just watch Darby O'Gill, and Summer Magic is on its way to me, both from the library. Doesn't look like Summer Magic is on Disney+.
I'm glad you're enjoying them!
I'll be covering The Apple Dumpling Gang later today, hopefully - it's not the most complex or anything, but I definitely had fun with it!
I'm noticing quite a few that aren't available on Disney Plus, some for more obvious reasons than others. Like, One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing, to my knowledge, is pretty much only known for being racially insensitive. White Wilderness is known for absurdly excessive animal cruelty and false information, so it being absent makes sense. The Devil and Max Devlin... yeah, I don't think Bill Cosby is a figure that Disney wants to promote these days.
I haven't seen anything on Summer Magic, though - I wonder what the issue is there?
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
I'm enjoying your reviews--can't comment, because I either haven't seen or don't remember the movies. I'll get three months of Disney+ this winter, so I will probably watch a few of those you recommend then, such as The Rocketeer. Have never seen Apple Dumpling Gang, either.... I did just watch Darby O'Gill, and Summer Magic is on its way to me, both from the library. Doesn't look like Summer Magic is on Disney+.
I'm glad you're enjoying them!
I'll be covering The Apple Dumpling Gang later today, hopefully - it's not the most complex or anything, but I definitely had fun with it!
I'm noticing quite a few that aren't available on Disney Plus, some for more obvious reasons than others. Like, One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing, to my knowledge, is pretty much only known for being racially insensitive. White Wilderness is known for absurdly excessive animal cruelty and false information, so it being absent makes sense. The Devil and Max Devlin... yeah, I don't think Bill Cosby is a figure that Disney wants to promote these days.
I haven't seen anything on Summer Magic, though - I wonder what the issue is there?
I think that there are a large number of Disney-made and -owned properties that haven’t been made available just because they haven’t gotten around to it yet, or they think it won’t be a draw and other things might be. Not because there’s anything problematic about them.
Again, practically no knowledge of this one going in; I had heard the name in a quiz years ago, and for some reason the name stuck with me. Reading the description didn't fill me with much confidence - I figured it would be dime-a-dozen, and either unmemorable or outright painful. As such, you can imagine I was blown away when I actually watched it.
As always, I haven't read the novel it was based on, so I can't speak for its faithfulness as an adaptation, only its merits as an individual work.
First off, I want to point out the theme song; it's so much fun to listen to, and will stay in your head for ages. Have a listen! I think that catchy theme-tunes are sorely missing these days; maybe it's just me, but something like this hooks you from the get-go. It's a simple way of beginning one's investment in the story and characters, but it's very effective. It gets you into the spirit of the film very early on - and while plenty of films still have musical intros, none quite have the charm captured in ones like this.
As far as problems go... admittedly, the treatment of women - Dusty in particular - is pretty dated. The film takes the time to establish her as being independent, competent in a variety of areas and an all-around solid person; it's to the point where she could easily be the heroine of her own story. And yet, she still falls into some pretty sexist tropes, two of which are particularly egregious. The first is a scene in which
she finds out that Donovan has bought the bed that she's been looking at. She instantly assumes that he bought it to "exercise his husbandly rights" and viciously attacks him in the bar. Through the entire scene, she's portrayed as hysterical and unwilling to see reason - she totals a good chunk of the bar while trying to attack him. When she eventually makes the issue clear to him, he angrily tells her that he bought it for the children, and she just tells him that he should have told her so in the first place, before leaving and ignoring the damage. It just feels as though her character was derailed for the sake of the joke - and the joke wasn't really anything beyond "Women, am I right?"
Honestly, her relationship with Donovan felt pretty forced. I think that they had chemistry, and don't think that a relationship between the two is entirely unreasonable; my main issue is with how it's actually handled. The film is very unsubtle about the fact that the two will be ending up together - however, the road to it just feels unnatural. There are scenes where it's clear that she's pining for him, but... there's never really much indication as to why. He doesn't really endear himself to her, and he makes it very clear to her that the wedding is something that he has no actual interest in. The 'good guy getting the girl' trope is strong here - again, it's not so much that the relationship can't work or has no basis, but the film doesn't really establish it in a natural way.
As far as positives go, the film's main draw is the comedy - which is surprisingly varied. The most memorable and well-known is the goofy slapstick between Theodore and Amos, two thieves played by Don Knotts and Tim Conway. The duo work amazingly well together - they always manage to convey just the right emotions when necessary. They're very pitiable characters - they're hilariously incompetent, and it's made abundantly clear that they pose no threat to anyone. Yet at the same time, there's just enough malice in them (Or in Theodore, at least) that it's never too sad to watch; you know that they deserve it when they bungle their attempted robberies. There's one scene in particular, in which they steal a ladder - it's honestly one of the highlights of the film. It showcases exactly why the two are the most recognizable part of the film; they're hilariously incompetent, but they're just competent enough to still get things done. The question is never if they'll make a mess of things, but when; I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. In many modern comedies, these gags never last too long - typically, someone does something that makes noise, but evade detection... only for them to do something minor and immediately alert the cavalry. This film doesn't do that - while you know that things will go wrong for the duo, you don't know how - and every single blunder could be the one that louses the whole thing up. The film really uses that to its advantage - I, at least, could never tell when that exact blunder would be. Every scene featuring the two was a delight to watch because of that level of unpredictability.
It shouldn't come as any real surprise that the duo are redeemed by the end of the film - when Stillwell reveals himself, it's clear that Amos and Theodore have no status as actual criminals. They're just too comical not to get some form of happy ending.
However, the film actually does a pretty decent job with other types of comedy as well. There's one scene in particular where the kids are trying to convince Donovan to marry Dusty so that they can still have a stable home life - they 'casually' speak to each other about the horrible homes they might end up in, before guilt-tripping him by being sweet to him and helping with the chores. When he cracks, he calls them out as being manipulative - I can't remember the exact line, but his tone and delivery got a laugh out of me. Then there's
the shoot-out. While everyone else is running, hiding or the like, the judge goes around helping himself to some drinks. The entire sequence is pure gold - the film never really dwells on it too much, which only adds to the humour of it.
It's stuff like that that makes the film much more enjoyable to watch - there's the blatant comedy with Amos and Theodore, but the film is willing to use different kinds of comedy on occasion.
As for the characters... they're okay? A lot of them end up falling into specific 'roles' that detract from them as fleshed-out characters. I've discussed Dusty above, but I think the kids are another example of this. I don't think that they really get enough time to stand out as individual characters, and they all end up feeling pretty one-note. Celia is adorably sweet and needs to use the bathroom constantly. "Clovis don't like to be touched." Bobby... is the oldest one? Despite the film being named for them, they just don't have much going for them - it's not even necessarily the case that they had inadequate screentime; it's just that their screentime never really tries to do much with them in the way that it does for Donovan, Dusty, Amos or Theodore.
Honestly, it's not really a film that I can comment on too much - it really is one that you have to watch for yourself. Any description I give of the comedic scenes would only be a disservice to them - everything, from their mannerisms, to the way they play off of each other to the hilarious ways that things go wrong... they're far better experienced through watching. Not to mention the fact that it would be pointless to quote the film's jokes when they're a significant reason for why you should watch it in the first place
Definitely a solid watch - it doesn't quite have the depth that 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea does, nor is it as epic as The Rocketeer, but it has its own identity as a simple bit of fun. Definitely recommend this one - it's not the kind of film that you'll be pondering for hours afterwards (Unless having the theme song force its way into the deepest recesses of your brain counts as pondering) but it's a bit of light-hearted fun; something that never goes astray.
Next up is Song of the South
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
I'll be covering The Apple Dumpling Gang later today, hopefully - it's not the most complex or anything, but I definitely had fun with it!
I'm noticing quite a few that aren't available on Disney Plus, some for more obvious reasons than others. Like, One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing, to my knowledge, is pretty much only known for being racially insensitive. White Wilderness is known for absurdly excessive animal cruelty and false information, so it being absent makes sense. The Devil and Max Devlin... yeah, I don't think Bill Cosby is a figure that Disney wants to promote these days.
I haven't seen anything on Summer Magic, though - I wonder what the issue is there?
I think that there are a large number of Disney-made and -owned properties that haven’t been made available just because they haven’t gotten around to it yet, or they think it won’t be a draw and other things might be. Not because there’s anything problematic about them.
That's the most likely scenario - it's hard for me to gauge, because I know that the American catalogue is very different to international ones; I never know when it's just the case that it's not available where I live or when it's the case that they haven't put it up anywhere. I still don't understand why we can't get Talespin over here
I suppose my point was a little tainted by my recent searches - they've all be either Fox properties with difficulties around distribution rights, or the above-mentioned problematic ones. It hadn't occurred to me that they simply hadn't gotten around to it - which does, admittedly, make the most sense
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!