Archive for category Film
CHILDHOOD REVISITED – THE RESCUERS
Posted by kjohnson1585 in Animation, Childhood Revisited, Film, Uncategorized on June 14, 2009
Don't tell me you aren't turned on, too. This is the internet, after all.
THE RESCUERS – (1977)
Director: John Lounsbery, Wolfgang Reitherman, Art Stevens
Starring: Bob Newhart, Eva Gabor, Geraldine Page
Screenplay by: Larry Clemmons, Ken Anderson, Frank Thomas, et. al
We do so love it when little critters try to do big things. Whether it’s mice saving children, rodents taking over the world, or chipmunks stopping evil scientists, there is an almost universal appeal of the underdog (undermouse?) success story, especially in animated, anthropomorphic form. I need not say that stories like these give us faith and hope for ourselves when, within our lives, we are faced with insurmountable odds. And in times like these, with a faltering economy and dangerous global landscape all around us, maybe faith in the little guy is exactly what we need.
The Rescuers was the first posthumous-Walt Disney animated film to be released, and was a huge success, even outselling Star Wars in some parts of Europe. At this time, many original Disney animators were growing old and soon to be moving on, while a young, bright-eyed Don Bluth arrived to learn a thing or two about that drawing thingamajig. Combined original and re-release returns total 48 million dollars at the box office. Surely with that much talent and critical acclaim, this movie still holds up. Right?
NOSTALGIC LENS: I remember the Rescue Aid Society song, and even began singing the song last week. I remember the ending involving a wacky fireworks display, and the flying via a seagull. Overall, I remember enjoying it, but never really loved the movie as much as my nostalgic lens would have me believe. In other words, I have no inclination to say, “Remember when animated movies used to be GOOD?” in reference to movies like this.
DOES IT HOLD UP: YES. And yet, no. Hmm, this requires some explanation.
Cinema from the late sixties and seventies is a unique breed; more geared toward strong, stylistic aesthetics and visual impact (Panned zooms! Muted colors!) over tightly coherent stories and intricate character development. Now, it may be asking a bit much to receive a strong story from an animated film and nine different writers, but compared to other Disney films, the story here seems to be more a means to an end—a beautifully animated film—over making a tight screenplay. The celluloid beat the written page.
That makes me sound harsh, but I truly mean that in the nicest way possible. As great as this movie gets (and at times this movie is GREAT), minor flaws here and there stand out so much, storywise. I feel like a coach trying to get one hundred percent talent out of potential player only giving ninety percent. You love what you’re getting, but you know you could have gotten much more.
First, the good: the animation is gorgeous. Lush, detailed backgrounds; excellent human models; smooth, tight animation and fluid movements—the great Disney animators really went all out with this one, and it shows. It’s like watching a famous painting by Da Vinci in motion. The voice work is pretty excellent, too: Bob Newhart’s stuttering and stammering as Bernard the janitor mouse and Eva Gabor’s sultry but determined line readings as Miss Bianca are complete opposites but complement each other so well. Even the side characters are excellent: Orville the seagull, Rufus the cat, Penny the orphan girl, Medusa the villain—clearly the actors and actresses really enjoyed their work.
And the music is, quite possibly, the best music from any animated film, ever. It hasn’t been pop-culturally destroyed like “A Whole New World” and it doesn’t pander itself better than it actually is like “Colors of the Wind”. Instead, it perfectly balances the lush animations and filmic moments, fitting together like the perfect puzzle. The flight sequence with Orville as “Tomorrow is Another Day” plays is hypnotically exquisite (Note this isn’t the actual clip from the movie, just an mp3 of the song played over the scene): The Song (sorry, the youtube poster disabled embedded videos).
The incredible intro scene is amazing as well, foregoing the smooth animations and concentrating on a montage of chalk-like pictures as “The Journey” plays:
Now, watch that opening scene again. Penny runs out and drops the bottle into the water. But…. Where did that bottle come from? She clearly is not holding it a few seconds earlier.
That’s where my nit-picks come from (and yes, I fully admit they are nit-picks). The movie has a number of these awkward moments. They are small, slight, and most likely wholly forgettable, but they are there. Early in the film, for example, Miss Bianca and Bernard try to take a shortcut through the zoo, but due to scary lions, end up taking the long way. Other than a tiny (har-har) character moment, the scene seems superfluous. Other “meh” moments include The Swamp Brigade, who pretty much appear from thin air and rush in to save the day, which is something that might as well have been played against “Yakety-Sax”. Evinrude, the dragonfly engine and clear precursor to Zipper in “”Rescue Rangers” has a random flight encounter with bats, which is not really tense… just there. Interesting and wonderful animation, but it seems shoehorned in to me. Again, I don’t mean this as a bad thing. Just merely to point it out.
I REALLY hate over-thinking the intricate plot details of the movie, which involves an evil pawn shop owner named Madame Medusa, who kidnaps an orphan girl from New York and sends her down to what I assume is Louisiana, to find a special jewel in a pirate cave (I mean, Florida is closer). Miss Bianca, bless her bleeding, Hungarian heart, opts to save her, and because she likes her men clumsy and superstitious, chooses Bernard to go with her. It’s interesting to see the subtle growth of Bernard, who seems to push past his bouts of paranoia and do some pretty brave things. Bianca, however, is what us black folk would call a “trick”: she would talk crazy shit in a bar and antagonize everyone, and then send her “boyfriend” to take care of it. And, sadly, women like that never change.
One more point: I do like the implied social elements of the missing children dilemma, in how some missing children from well-to-do families are plastered all over the news, while the missing poor children are essentially shrugged off. An upset Penny cries over not being adopted because she wasn’t pretty enough; Rufus tries to reassure her, but I can’t help but think that there’s an air of truth to this very sad statement the creators wanted to convey (also, the implication that Penny can understand the animals is a nice touch—a poignant reflection of her state by giving her the ability to only befriend animals). It’s only AFTER Penny returns with an expensive diamond and becomes newsworthy is she adopted. It’s suspect, and maybe not intentional; but with Bluth involved, you never know.
IN A NUTSHELL: Please don’t get the wrong idea. I LOVED watching this movie. It looked great, sounded great, and almost made me cry. The little things that I pointed will not take you out the movie at all. (If you said I pointed those things out to fill two-and-a-half pages, I probably wouldn’t argue!) But, again, with all the wonderful experiences this movie musters, you just wish, deep down inside, that they tightened the bolts on a beautifully made ship.
June 22nd: The Rescuers Down Under
June 29th: The Adventures of the American Rabbit
CHILDHOOD REVISITED – BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM
Posted by kjohnson1585 in Animation, Childhood Revisited, Comics, Film, Television, Uncategorized on June 8, 2009
This shot is too epic for witty words.
BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM – (1993)
Director: Eric Radomski, Bruce W. Timm
Starring: Kevin Conroy, Dana Delany, Mark Hamill
Screenplay by: Alan Burnett
Tell all the modern Batman Begins and Dark Knight fans to go jump off a cliff, since us “real” fans knew how awesome Batman already was via “Batman: The Animated Series”. Christian Bale and (RIP) Heath Ledger are nothing compared to the Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill voices that showcased the airwaves for three seasons (1992-1995). And, truth be told, Conroy’s Batman voice is a hell of a lot better than that raspy, sandpaper noise that emerged from Bale’s mouth when he donned the black mask.
Of course, I’m exaggerating. I certainly enjoyed Batman Begins and The Dark Knight a whole heck of a lot. But the rich, deep, dark Batman everyone knows and loves now was fighting crime back in 1992 every afternoon. In retrospect, it certainly was an excellent show, but other than a few awards and a die-hard fan base, I don’t think anyone watched it. The series debuted Mask of the Phantasm to theaters in 1993, and pretty much broke even at the box office. Gee, I sure wonder how the show/movie would perform now…
NOSTALGIC LENS: I remember little about this movie. I vaguely remember the flashbacks and I do remember (SPOILERS) that the Joker was the one who managed to solve the identity of the Phantasm before Batman did. I was pretty young, so to be honest, I don’t remember much about the animated series other than being enamored by it, and Batman whipping some series ass. Also, I do remember hearing that the show was animated on black backgrounds to really bring out the dark aesthetic. The specifics, however, are gone from my memory.
DOES IT HOLD UP: This movie is fantastic.
Now, granted, I fully understand why the movie failed at the box office. First, there was little to no marketing of the movie prior to its release. Secondly, the story engages in a lot of tropes and ideas that stem directly from the TV show. In other words, if you didn’t watch the series, you were a few steps behind. It’s not that the plot is too complicated; it’s more that the overall style doesn’t quite cater itself to the movie-going audience, especially those hard-bent on Tim Burton’s vision or delighted more in campier versions of the masked vigilante. To say nothing of those misguided souls that automatically peg animation as “kids fair”.
That final point is more significant than you may think, since the movie is rated PG. A number of Netflix and IMDB reviews seem to be disappointed by this “kiddie” rating, expecting, perhaps, a PG-13. Well let’s just say in this day and age, it would have certainly received that rating—but the real wonder of the film is how it delves into such strength, drama, action, and danger without dropping curse words or ramping up the blood.
As a new masked vigilante starts killing mob bosses, Batman is wrongly implicated for their murders, which has the police on his tail. Meanwhile, former lover Andrea Beaumont returns to town, which causes Bruce Wayne to relive some painful memories of his past. It seems Wayne and Beaumont were lovers, which left Bruce stuck between giving in to the love of his life or the vow to his parents. (By the way, the exact nature of this vow—to fight for vengeance in terms of righteousness—is never quite explained. I can’t even say for sure it’s implied, either. So it’s bit tricky to expect audiences to know what exactly is troubling Wayne, unless, again, you’re keen on to the TV show.)
But even if you’re not aware of the details, the movie really drives in some serious emotions:
The story is intriguing enough that it works perfectly for the elements that the film tries to convey, even though it’s really just a prolonged episode of the TV show. But the conflicts are full blown (Batman’s escape from the police is a tour-de-force in animated action) and all the ideas we know now about the Batman oeuvre are present here. An early scene of pre-Batman-Wayne fighting criminals near a warehouse perfectly compliments a similar moment in Batman Begins. Regarding The Dark Knight’s theme of people going over the edge of sanity? Why, the Joker (Mark Hamill is on top of his GAME) here delights in the idea that Batman may have finally snapped, too!
Again, the story isn’t too complex, which involves some vague, past mob threats and a unique (if not too original) plot-twist. But for PG movie with a short running time (76 minutes), there’s a lot of subtle drama with dark edges and overtones, making this a great and satisfying way to kill an hour with absolutely no regrets. Also, the animation is gorgeous. Who ever said it doesn’t date well is severely mistaken.
IN A NUTSHELL: Excellent movie, despite a few minor flaws here and there (some specific voice readings are kinda awkward, and there seems to be a misstep, plot-wise or timing-wise, in a few early scenes). Otherwise, though, it works in so many ways, and the animation is quite good—Batman was doing hardcore art-deco before Bioshock made it COOL. Check out this dramatically powerful yet understated ending sequence:
I want a full, HD poster of the shot at 0:41.
June 15th: The Rescuers
June 22nd: The Rescuers Down Under
CHILDHOOD REVISITED – TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES: THE MOVIE
Posted by kjohnson1585 in Childhood Revisited, Comics, Film, Television, Uncategorized on June 1, 2009
Think Four Brothers, but with mutant turtles. Also, if that movie was enjoyable.
TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES: THE MOVIE – (1990)
Director: Steve Barron
Starring: Judith Hoag, Elias Kotaea
Screenplay by: Bobby Herbeck, Todd Langen
Say what you will about the 80s and early 90s animated television scene: it was pretty shameless (not as shameless as “Gotta Catch ‘Em All” though; think of it as a precursor). Completely geared to market the “cool” and “radical” onslaught of toys, video games, action figures, posters and merchandise to young, pubescent pre-teens, the excessive number of action-mutants that filled my Saturday morning and weekday afternoon was, to say the least, overwhelming. (Don’t believe me? Just look here and here.)
Still, for all the horrible shows (“Sonic the Hedgehog,” “Battletoads,” “Super Mario Bros.”), there were some gems (the OTHER “Sonic the Hedgehog,” “Transformers,” “Biker Mice from Mars,” I guess). And no other one made more headway than “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.” The show was a “kiddie-fied” version of Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird’s darker-toned comic, but it was so popular that inevitably an independently-funded (!) movie was made. So, what of it?
NOSTALGIC LENS: I didn’t love TMNT. I liked the show a lot. I liked the characters a lot. I enjoyed “TMNT: The Arcade Game” and ADORED “TMNT: Turtles in Time” (that first NES game can lick my goddamn taint). But I never grew attached to the fandom behind it. So it’s really no surprise that I don’t remember too much about the movie, other than it being darker than the cartoon (in more ways than one) and being confused by the pacing for some reason. A couple of lines stick out in my mind (“Can we keep her?”), but other than that, nothing much else.
DOES IT HOLD UP: I came to a disturbing realization while watching this movie. After dealing with the TMNT in some form or another over countless years, via gaming or toys or television or their various film exploits, it is only now that it finally dawned on me that there is one, incredible, astronomical concept central to the entire meaning behind this group that defines the essence of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
They’re goddamn teenagers.
Laugh all you want, but I seriously doubt most TMNT watchers realized that those four brothers were somewhere between the ages of fifteen and eighteen. That’s probably because 90s teenagers were saying “phat” and “psyche!” and not so much “gnarly” and “radical”. The slang was off by ten years. Which make the Ninja Turtles in some sort of timeless trap, forever clung to late 70s/early 80s vernacular, a realm completely foreign to a 90s kid like myself. (That being said—I wonder if it was done on purpose. Like, Laird and Eastman were aware of 80s-ooze-born mutant turtles would be forever tarnished by their wacky, out-of-date terminology. It would be damn clever of them.)
Color me surprised, then, when I realized that a lot of this film comments on teenage angst and attitudes, the alienated youth of the early 90s, and the discordance between parent and their adolescent offspring. Of course, it’s simplistic, exaggerated, and over the top. Check out the beginning of this scene:
SMOKING, GAMBLING, VIDYA GAMES, SKATEBOARDING, THINLY-VEILED HOMOSEXUALITY! It’s all connected.
Even in its obvious lameness, there’s a sense of understanding, or an attempt to understand, the lost, complex teenage mind, and the ease to which frustrated teenagers can fall into the wrong and dangerous crowd. In an alternate world, this could be a decent critique on the influence of the gang-mentality. But this is all a washed in the days of “Say No to Drugs” and “Are you a bad enough dude to rescue the president?” (Believe me, I am.). Also, we just want to see some goddamn turtles kicking some ass.
And we get that. Many long, proactive scenes of the four brothers whipping some Foot Clan butt fill this movie, with some rather impressive moves for people stuck in animatronic rubber suits. (Props to the Jim Henson crew, but you can clearly see where the mechanical head meets the neck.) These fight sequences don’t date too well, though. After seeing the one hundred Agent Smith fight in Matrix: Reloaded, the one hundred Foot Clan fight just falters in Thug Cliché #41; that is, at most only two clan members can fight the turtles at anytime.
The turtles themselves are just as young as the teenagers in the clip, and just as lost. When Splinter, their mentor, teacher, and “father,” is kidnapped, the ninja-experts appear at April’s doorstep like helpless orphans. Leo and Ralph bicker like brothers wont to do (but JESUS, is there any TMNT story that doesn’t involve emo-loner Ralph bitching with his leadership-lacking brother? Is Donny too much of a nerd to be given a story? Is Mikey regulated to comic relief forever?). But in a surprisingly well-shot and somewhat-artsy set of scenes, the brothers, after escaping a rush of Foot Soldiers with a wounded Ralph, heal, bond and grow up a little out at April’s farmhouse. (She and universal cutie Casey Jones get closer too, but no one really cares about that).
They return, fight some Shredder, save Splinter, and free ALL the teenage runaways in the process. It’s all way too cheesy to be given any more credit than what you get, and wraps up too nicely. But, again, in that alternate world theory, Danny’s plea to his father to just call him Dan at the end speaks volumes, so you can’t really fault the filmmakers for not trying to be at least a little deep. But, then again, between the hokey dialogue, mediocre plot, awkward fight scenes, and the COUNTLESS shots of product placement, maybe you can.
IN A NUTSHELL: What can I say? It is what it is. It’s kind of disappointing that for all the rich stuff the film does touch upon, it doesn’t really go anywhere with it. As for a movie about turtles kicking tail: well, like I said, its impressive, but you can get a lot more exciting stuff via the comics/cartoons/video games. This may have been the coolest thing ever in 1990, but nowadays, it’s hard not to be harsh on it. At least it’s fun for the most part, and tries to say something, unlike, say, Batman & Robin.
June 8th: Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
June 15th: The Rescuers