Cars (2006)

There is a significant age gap between me and the oldest of my cousins. I remember several of them and their parents absolutely adoring this movie for years after it came out. Having finally seen Cars, I am left wondering what all the fuss is about. Sure, it looks fantastic but this film feels a little too much like style over not enough substance with a bloated runtime and a story that suggests the writers put this one on cruise control.

Lightning McQueen is the hottest up-and-coming racecar in the Piston Cup circuit. He can back up all of his cocky swagger on the track but he has a hard time looking past his own greatness. After insulting his pit crew and pushing his hauler to the limit to reach Los Angeles first for a tie-breaking race for the Piston Cup championship, McQueen finds himself alone in a washed-up town called Radiator Springs. His arrival tears up the town’s street, for which the local authority sentences him to community service. While he works off his debt to the town, McQueen gets to know the colorful locals and learns a thing or two about the importance of teamwork as he preps for the big race.

From the glossy shine of Lightning McQueen to the dust and dirt of Radiator Springs, the animation in this movie represents another step forward by Pixar. At times, certain environments look almost photorealistic. The racing scenes in particular are exciting and they capture the energy and danger of the sport. The anthropomorphic characters all look good, even if they do play into stereotypes. The animators do a great job with how light reflects and bends off certain cars, while Mater really does look like he is made out of rusting metal. While most of the cars have the same textures, the filmmakers make up for it with the environments of the film.

The story, however, disappointed me. To me, the cocky-hotshot-gets-a-lesson-on-teamwork plot has been done enough times before that you can predict a lot of what’s coming. I’m okay with the winning-isn’t-everything message conveyed here because it is a valuable lesson for kids to learn. Otherwise, the overall message of Cars is be nice and work together. That’s a surprisingly simple and bland message for a Pixar film.

One serious problem with the film is its length. For a story about a racecar, Cars is anything but speedy. At almost two hours long, this is still the second-longest Disney and/or Pixar film ever made. Only Fantasia is longer. Most Disney films keep within the 80-90 minute range, though several have pushed the 100-minute mark lately. The Incredibles is only a minute shorter than Cars, but at least The Incredibles has more plot behind it and an antagonist. Cars is long on story and short on plot. There is no external antagonist. McQueen wants to get to the race and he needs to learn to get over himself. That could work in an 86-minute film. I think the lack of a true antagonist left the filmmakers to meander a little in order to bring all the story elements together in the end and that is a substantial problem.

Stories don’t always need a villain (case in point- Finding Nemo) but it is advisable to include one when your story is on the simple side. Cars could have used an active villain role, not just the other racecars he wants to beat for the championship. Introspection has worked well as an ingredient in Pixar films before but perhaps this film boasts too large a dose of it. Conflict is necessary, so making nice with the locals to get to the big race comes up very short. Several scenes are fun and exciting, and the whole film looks great but improved animation can’t save Cars from being the weakest Pixar film I’ve seen so far.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Chicken Little (2005)

After a string of underperforming flicks that garnered critical reception that was lukewarm at best, you would think that Disney’s decision to go back to the well of time-honored children’s fables would be a good thing. Let me tell you, in no uncertain terms, that we were very, very wrong. Chicken Little is not only Disney’s worst film to date, it commits a sin far worse than simply being boring or lacking quality animation. This film is obnoxious and insulting. I dreaded re-watching this film and all of my fears were justified.

As a fan of context, I’d like to provide some here. When this film came out, Disney was in heated negotiations with Pixar. Their contract was almost up and Pixar was using Disney’s lackluster performance streak as leverage to sweeten their end of any deal. Disney had yet to enter the fray of computer-animated films and interest in their traditionally-animated product waned as audiences craved the new hotness. All of this converged into Chicken Little. It was Disney’s way to say that they were still relevant and that they could compete with not only other studios but also with Pixar. It was almost as if Pixar told Disney ‘you need us’ and Disney said ‘no we don’t and we can prove it.’ Disney was dead wrong, scrapped the negotiations, and flat-out bought Pixar less than a year after this film was released.

As far as the animation goes, it’s not Pixar quality but it’s also not terrible. In fact, Disney should get a little credit for spending enough on their animation software that their end product looks better than a handful of Pixar’s imitators. Some of the characters look like they were designed to be as simple to work with as possible, which calls into question whether Disney was really ready and willing to take the full plunge on computer animation. Much of the movie is spent teetering back and forth between rich textures and few, if any, textures. It’s pretty clear that the animators used this film to work out all the bugs and to get used to the new-fangled technology.

In its push to bring the technological heat, Disney forgets one important element. The story sucks. The classic fable is only long enough for a short film, so after running through said fable in the first five minutes, the filmmakers have to make up an additional 75 minutes of story. Instead of something interesting, like a lesson against needlessly spreading fear or putting your trust in those who capitalize on it, we get a combination lecture and public service announcement on the importance of communicating with your children.

Yes, you read that correctly. Rather than a lesson about the spread of fear, Disney flips the story on its head. As it turns out, Chicken Little was right- part of the sky did fall! More random yet, it’s aliens! Once an outcast, now only Chicken Little can save his town, and Earth, from certain doom! To fill in the gap, we get sad attempts at making the juvenile characters clever, funny, and mature beyond their years. What this results in is a rehash of coming-of-age movie clichés where the kids are smart and capable but the adults are dopes who can barely get out of their own way.

The spastic antics of our tightly wound kiddie characters may entertain children on the most superficial of levels but that’s only because they won’t realize they aren’t the target audience. Chicken Little sets its sights on mom and dad. It seems like a first to me but it is also a problem. Can you imagine paying to take your kids to see a movie in the theater only to have the movie lecture you, suggesting that you’re not spending enough time with or listening to your own children? With this film, Disney is basically thanking you for buying a ticket and immediately questioning whether you really love your kid. I’m surprised there weren’t riots like you see at Chuck E Cheese.

I think one of the chief reasons that this film feels so insultingly inferior is that Finding Nemo was so great. There you had similar father-son communication issues being resolved but in a way that showed character growth. With Chicken Little all you got is a Big Dumb Parent saying, “Gosh! I guess I should have listened to and believed my own kid a little more.” The animation may be better than the average studio attempt to catch up with Pixar but that story sets up any number of puns. Is Chicken Little a bad egg, a rotten egg, a story that never fully hatched, one in need of a little more incubation, or not all it’s cracked up to be? Take your pick and please don’t watch this stain on the legacy of Disney.

ORIGINAL RATING: 2.25 out of 5

NEW RATING: 2.25 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: The Incredibles (2004)

When this film came out, I was irked by the number of people who thought that describing this film as ‘incredible’ was witty. I was still in college when I got around to watching it and, rather than seeing it as an homage to comic book teams, I viewed this film as a rip-off fusion of the Fantastic Four and the X-Men. Had I known anything about Watchmen at the time, I probably would have been screaming rip-off of that too. Now that I’m older and wiser, my opinion of this film has improved significantly. Still though, I can’t help but feel that this film is just a smidge overrated.

I still have no reason to complain about the quality of Pixar’s animation. The textures and environments that they create really make you wonder at times if all action-oriented films will be done exclusively with CGI someday. Nothing seems impossible anymore with this production company. I’m not convinced yet that Pixar is very good at animating human characters in a realistic way, but The Incredibles gets a pass because it’s a faux-comic book movie. Anyone who’s looked at a comic book knows that most take at least a few liberties with dimensions and proportions.

Teams of superheroes are nothing new and three of the four members of the Parr family suiting up have powers just like three of the Fantastic Four. The filmmakers do throw freshness into the mix pretty well through juxtaposing our main characters’ abilities and their impact on a real-world setting. Thwarting bad guys causes some very real wear and tear on the people and buildings caught in the crossfire. Some of this juxtaposition is pretty subtle while some of it is used for immediate sight gags.

Overall, I can see now how The Incredibles pays homage to comic book superheroes but there is also a lot of satire involved. It’s got to be a pretty fine tightrope walk to poke fun at comic book conventions while including a number of them in your film. The balance may be uneven at different times but this film never gets too cynical nor too fanboy rah-rah on us. Syndrome, the film’s antagonist, has a few moments where he gets very mean-spirited and dark but he is usually yanked out of full-blown maniacal villain mode in a humorous way. Whether this makes that momentary intensity acceptable is up to you.

While The Incredibles looks great and is a lot of fun to watch, it is remarkably violent for a family film. I recall docking The Black Cauldron quite a bit for being very un-Disney with its darkness and creepy imagery but I think level of violence, peril, and intensity in this film surpasses even The Black Cauldron. You can try to argue that this is a Pixar film and that my Disney branding is inaccurate, or that the nature of the film’s subject, comic book superheroes, requires a higher level of violence. The tell-tale mark that justifies my criticism is this film’s PG rating. That tells you that this film is not appropriate for the entire family.

If you have little ones, particularly boys, what will they retain from this film? What will they reenact? Will it be the wholesome lesson of family togetherness and teamwork or will it be the high-flying kicks, punches, and action sequences? I’m not condemning this film for the violence but I do think a little less of it. It’s still a fun, feel-good kind of movie but it is one that I’ll have to think long and hard about sharing with my daughter. Putting all that danger and violence in context is a tricky thing.

ORIGINAL RATING: 3 out of 5

NEW RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Home on the Range (2004)

To be completely honest, I had to look up this film online to refresh my memory of the plot points. That sentence alone should tell you loud and clear what kind of impression this film makes on its audience. This is pretty much lowest-common denominator Disney. It may satisfy visually but without memorable characters or a compelling story, there is nothing to recommend here outside of a momentary distraction.

After the rest of her herd is stolen by the dastardly Alameda Slim (Randy Quaid), Maggie (Roseanne Barr), is sold to the Patch of Heaven farm, where she butts heads with two prim and proper cows named Grace (Jennifer Tilly) and Mrs. Calloway (Judi Dench). When Patch of Heaven is threatened with foreclosure, Maggie convinces the other cows to band together and find a way to raise enough money to save the farm. Upon learning that the bounty on Alameda Slim is the exact amount needed to save their home, Maggie steers the trio headlong into an adventure that is as revealing as it is dangerous.

The basic plot of this film has been done more times than I can count. Whether it’s winning a contest, putting on a show, or (in this case) finding something to claim a reward, we’ve seen this outline too many times before to even mistake it as original. Using an archetypal story isn’t a sin, however. The real problem is that Disney fails to give Home on the Range any satisfying twists on said archetypal story. Oh sure, there are outlandish deviations from the blueprint but perhaps a yodeling cattle rustler is a little too out there to be accepted by anyone who has finished elementary school.

The timing of Home on the Range is tragic. Computer-animated films had taken over and Disney, reading the writing on the wall, decided to make one last traditional animated film for nostalgia’s sake. The animation in this film showcases the sad slide in quality that befell Disney over a half-dozen years. It’s not bad but it’s often no better than Disney’s TV cartoons (if they even still made them for afternoon and Saturday morning TV by 2004).

The characters in this film are hit or miss. Roseanne Barr’s sassy, blue-collar wit is something I grew up with, so that may explain why I’m okay with Maggie. She is a little paint-by-numbers but the personality injected by the voice actor goes a long way. I cannot say that the same goes for the rest of the cast. Grace and Mrs. Calloway fall under the typical goodie-goodie types who grow to appreciate their boisterous colleague but never really approve of her behavior. It’s more solidarity than sisterhood. Everyone else is just there to fill a role and provide their own brief moment of uniqueness but they fail to leave a mark.

When a film alternates between trying too hard and not trying hard enough, it makes it hard to know what to think. This review feels almost like a collection of incomplete thoughts but maybe that’s less of strike against me and more of a strike against the film. As far as Disney films go, Home on the Range is terrible. Fortunately, terrible for Disney is still a mostly-harmless way to kill some time if you absolutely must.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Brother Bear (2003)

The three years separating this film from The Emperor’s New Groove feels like an eternity. Other than the mildly entertaining Lilo & Stitch, Disney seems to have lost its magic. Had Pixar been a rival to Disney rather than a business partner during this time frame, the House of Mouse would have been on life support. While Brother Bear seems to check off some of the surefire ingredients that served Disney well over the years, the end result feels more like a misfire.

In a prehistoric time, a young man named Kenai (Joaquin Phoenix) is displeased with the sacred totem (a bear) bestowed upon him by his tribe. Seeming to confirm his disapproval of bears, a wild bear steals food from the tribe during the ceremony. When Kenai and his older brothers hunt the bear down, the eldest brother, Sitka (D. B. Sweeney), gives his life to save his brothers. Kenai kills the bear but the Spirits the tribe worship transform him into a bear. To regain his human form and achieve manhood in his tribe, Kenai must learn from his mistakes and help a young bear cub find his way through the wild.

I do have to give this film some credit for a little bit of trickery. When the film begins, it is presented in one aspect ratio and the art direction portrays the animals and environments very realistically. After Kenai is turned into a bear, the aspect ratio is wider and the environments and animals have a more cartoonish look. It’s not exactly Dorothy walking out into a Technicolor Munchkinland but it’s a clever trick involving a change of perspective, which Kenai needs to appreciate his totem.

Other than that, this film is forgettable. In the time that has passed since I saw Brother Bear, I completely forgot that this film even has songs in it. That’s a cardinal sing for Disney movies that use songs. My lapse in memory is probably in part because most of the songs were used during montage segments, rather than having the characters sing them movie-musical style. More often than not, this musical direction choice hasn’t worked out well for Disney.

When you have a fairly simple story, as in this film, it helps to have complex characters to make up for it. I was not engaged by any of the characters in Brother Bear. Kenai and Koda are too paint-by-numbers and the plot twist that befalls them is predictable from early on. The filmmakers even bring back the goofiness of Bob and Doug McKenzie by way of Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas voicing two sarcastic moose. This is an obvious throwaway joke for parents when the film came out but probably half the people my age don’t even remember that comedy act. Those not in the know just assume they’re a pair of stereotypical Canadian moose. I like Bob and Doug but I did not care for the moose bit.

The prehistoric setting probably helped prevent Native Americans, anthropologists, and history buffs from getting upset when this film was released. Pocahontas certainly irked a number of people but that’s because it butchered a true story. Brother Bear is fiction and I doubt it will elicit a strong response from very many people. It’s cute and colorful but it’s also low-quality Disney. That doesn’t mean it’s bad but being boring is usually worse.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Finding Nemo (2003)

This is one of those films that everyone assumes you saw. Dozens of jaws dropped over the years when friends and acquaintances found out I had not, in fact, seen this yet. Go ahead and tell me that it’s about time so you get it out of your system. I’ll wait. Ready? Okay. While a decade of hype might normally leave me feeling underwhelmed, Finding Nemo actually lives up to its reputation as a beloved and entertaining film.

After losing his wife, Marlin (Albert Brooks) grows exceedingly protective of their son Nemo (Alexander Gould). After an act of rebellion results in Nemo being taken away by humans, Marlin takes what few clues he has and sets off on a journey to rescue his son. While Nemo gets to know his new tankmates in Sidney, Australia, Marlin enlists the help of Dori (Ellen DeGeneres), a cheerful fish with short-term memory issues.

The animation in this film is just gorgeous. Pixar’s artists go to great length to capture the subtleties of aquatic environments, not to mention their mesmerizing color palettes. Very little of the underwater action looks like it defies physics. Rather than hold the various sea creatures in static positions, you see their fins moving to keep them relatively still or they bob up and down as they shift their bodies to navigate the ebb and flow of underwater currents. This attention to detail does not go unnoticed by the subconscious mind or to those of us who pay attention to that sort of thing.

Storywise, Finding Nemo is pretty simple but effective. A father’s unfailing love causes him to risk it all to find and rescue his child. What good, loving parent wouldn’t do the same? While working out father-son issues on film can easily turn cheesy, schmaltzy, and/or preachy, the writers find a way to avoid most of the pitfalls. The split storylines of Marlin’s determination and Nemo developing self-confidence show each character growing individually, which makes their relationship at the end of the film work. There’s no one-sided revelation to the resolution and that is appreciable.

Since Pixar films are not musicals, it really forces the animation, story, and characters to be that much better. Marlin starts out overprotective to the extreme, which is wince-inducing but also comical. Dori’s memory issues help jazz up her archetypal sidekick role. Marlin appreciates her eagerness (which is usually the annoying thing about sidekicks) but her constant amnesia frustrates him to no end. His loyalty and conscience prevent him from abandoning her. Nemo, on the other hand, is just a kid trying to cut the apron strings, so both father and son work really well. The misfits Nemo meets in Sidney are all very entertaining which prevents Nemo’s side of the story from growing too depressing.

I had a very difficult time rating this film. The story is very strong and the characters are all very engaging but there are a few minor quibbles with content that goes way over the heads of children. Reformed sharks holding an intervention to prevent a peer from falling off the wagon and eating a fish? That’s a bit much. Also, while it blows my mind how Pixar manages to improve their animation quality film after film, I felt as though I couldn’t rate this film higher than Toy Story. Sure, Nemo looks better and nails all the other ingredients but should Toy Story hold a higher place for coming first? It’s a similar struggle that I have with Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. Perhaps additional viewings will help me sort it out.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Treasure Planet (2002)

File this latest Disney misfire under the all-too-familiar category of a well-intentioned and potentially neat idea that just doesn’t execute. In many ways, the end result of this film is something of a companion piece to Atlantis: The Lost Empire. The two exceptions to this comparison are that Treasure Planet adapts its story from a literary classic and it is easier to follow.

This film is a sci-fi version of Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island, where the architecture and clothing resembles that of the 18th century and spaceships look like old-time sailing vessels with rockets. It focuses on a teenager named Jim Hawkins (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who comes into possession of a map to the hidden Treasure Planet. A friend of the family commissions a spaceship to go in search of Treasure Planet and the crew is a hodge-podge to say the least. Along the way the explorers face many dangers, including a mutiny at the hands of their cyborg cook, John Silver, who wants the treasure for himself.

I read Treasure Island when I was a kid and I recall enjoying it very much. I do not know if it was the full version or the children’s edition but it was exciting nonetheless. The heart of Treasure Island is still very much alive in Treasure Planet and the film could have worked if it had not been adapted so literally. In my mind, there is no reason for the spaceships too look like the sailing vessels of yore. At times that gimmick just doesn’t work. Maybe the science nerd in me is being too picky, but I cannot swallow travelling through deep space without an enclosed spaceship. Give it a Star Wars-esque worn-future look and it just might work.

Some of the animation in this film is pretty spectacular, with 2-D characters worked into 3-D environments. Unfortunately, for every scene where things look spectacular there is a scene where the animation is either unremarkable or the blending doesn’t quite work. That falls far short from the lofty standards set by Disney’s finest films. To top it off, only one song is even memorable from the film and it is not sung by any of the characters. It’s a fine tune by the Goo Goo Dolls but its status as the only noteworthy tune is an indictment upon Disney’s music department.

It’s clear that the Disney Renaissance is a thing of the past. I don’t know if they are just running out of ideas or if their ability to express their ideas is stuck in a lower gear. I appreciate that they try to push the envelope but either Disney is trying to push the wrong envelope or they need to push harder. Too many more films like Treasure Planet and Disney will find itself smack in the middle of a new Dark Age. At least their relationship with Pixar helps even things out.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Lilo & Stitch (2002)

Modern, real world settings seem to work for Pixar but Disney’s track record with them is spotty. Lilo & Stitch does not improve that assessment at all. While it has a fresh setting for a Disney flick and a few decent elements, the film largely misses the mark.

In another part of the galaxy, a dangerous experimental creature escapes custody and hijacks a spaceship. Crash landing on earth, the creature winds up in an animal shelter and is adopted by Lilo (Daveigh Chase) and her older sister Nani (Tia Carrere). Nani tries hard to take care of her sister but struggles to satisfy the disapproving social worker Cobra Bubbles (Ving Rhames). The creature, now named Stitch, doesn’t make life any easier on anyone between his wild antics and a team of aliens trying to hunt him down.

I don’t come from a broken home or one that was monitored by social services, so I cannot relate at all to Nani’s struggles. While I understand that her role as a caretaker eliminates the need for parents in the film, it’s a bit of a drag. In some ways it feels too modern, as if Disney let in a little too much of the ugly side of the real world into their end product. It certainly helps balance out the ADHD, kid-centric zaniness that erupts whenever Stitch gets going.

Stitch himself is a pretty interesting character and very funny but he alone is not enough to carry a film that features some real downer elements. While the animation is adequate and quite colorful at times, it is pretty much on par with Disney’s TV cartoons of the day. There’s not enough dynamism and magic in all the pretty colors. The same goes for the music. The Hawaiian setting isn’t taken advantage of enough (though I did enjoy Lilo’s affection for Elvis). Just with the animation, there are no memorable original songs or music sequences.

I still maintain that Disney movies live and die by the story, the animation, and the music. While Pixar has had luck with bypassing the movie-musical format, Disney seems to falter when they veer away from it. Heck, they even hit a rough patch with the format in the latter half of the Renaissance. Lilo & Stitch has enough wacky action to keep the kids content for an hour and a half but Disney’s secret sauce is missing. Until they get back that right balance for all members of the family, I will continue to shrug my shoulders. This feels more like Disney spinning the tires and trying to use their past products to score some easy money than an attempt to create something lasting and meaningful.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Monsters University (2013)

Every successful movie leads to a film studio at least entertaining the notion of a sequel, but what do you do when the first film wrapped things up so well that a new adventure just doesn’t seem possible? Why, you make a prequel of course! As fun and enjoyable as it is to revisit the colorful and unique monster world, Monster’s University falls victim to a number of issues that should have been apparent from the get-go.

Ever since he was a little boy, Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) has dreamed of being a scarer for Monsters, Inc. Entering his freshman year at Monsters University, however, places several obstacles in his path. Few, if any, of his scare major peers think Mike is even scary and, while Mike studies his heart out, a cocky slacker named James P. “Sulley” Sullivan (John Goodman) coasts his way through classes on his family name and natural but raw talent. When an argument between Mike and Sulley breaks a professor’s prized Scream Container, they are initially kicked out of the Scare program. Then, a chance at redemption- if Mike and Sulley can help the team from the über-nerd fraternity Oozma Kappa win the annual Scare Games, they will be readmitted to the program.

There are three key roadblocks to this film matching the success of Monsters, Inc. First, its nature as a prequel automatically eliminates any lasting concern for Mike and Sulley, because we already know that they turn out to be a successful Scare Team later on in life. An event late in the film took me by surprise because it smashes the assumed cookie cutter ending to pieces. A pre-credits montage clues audiences in to Mike and Sulley’s rise to prominence within Monsters, Inc., showing that their hard work did not end with the Scare Games.

As with most films that are the second in a series, audience familiarity with returning characters presents a major problem. How do you make the same characters feel fresh all over again? Half the fun of watching a movie is getting to know the characters. If you don’t try new things, you’re just rehashing the same characters. If you try too many new things, you risk audiences not going along with your new direction for a character.

In Monsters University, Mike is still Mike but we are treated to a different Sulley. It takes a while to get used to rude, slacker Sulley but you see him start to grow into the character we met in the original film. Most of the supporting characters are throwaways that are funny while you’re watching but fail to stick in your memory later on. Our characters never branch out beyond what we saw from them in Monsters, Inc. because they have to grow into those characters. Because of this, character development is stifled. Starting in a new place and ending in a familiar one rather than the other way around leaves the film feeling inessential in the grand scheme of things.

The third and final aspect of Monsters University lacking freshness is the college setting. While college movies seem to have been around forever, I had the misfortune of growing up in the 90s and early 2000s, when most college movies were pretty lame. MU offers a few cute moments of spoofing college stereotypes in the monster world but the film feels confined by its attempt to pump as many references and spoofs as possible. Besides, a fair number of the scenes, gags, and lines alluded to are from films that little kids should never be allowed to see until they’ve outgrown Disney flicks.

Despite being held back conceptually, Monsters University is still a pretty fun movie to watch. Kids will love the crazy character antics while adults will snicker at the college movie references. Pixar’s animators continue to wow me in how much more detail they can put into their work. The group setting treats us to even more unique monsters of all shapes and sizes. The problem lies in the fact that this film tries to answer a question that nobody asked very seriously. Perhaps seeing how Mike and Sulley met as the first film in this series would make this film feel more essential. It’s certainly better than a number of other Disney films but if given a choice between the two, I would watch the first one again in a heartbeat.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Blue Umbrella (2013)

This computer animated short ran before Monster’s University when I saw it at the drive-in. Pixar has a solid track record with their full-length and short films, so I was surprised to feel very neutral about this one. It looks great but due to my film journey of watching every Disney (and thereby Pixar) animated film ever made, I quickly noticed that this short is lacking in originality storywise.

A blue umbrella and his owner are walking down a bustling city street on what seems to be a rainy evening. When they stop to wait at a crosswalk, the blue umbrella notices a pretty, red, female umbrella next to him and they trade awkward but interested glances. Presumably, the umbrellas’ owners are doing the same thing. A change of direction leaves the blue umbrella struggling against his owner to follow the object of his affection.

The fact that everything in this short film is computer generated speaks volumes for the commitment that Pixar’s programmers and animators have for their craft. You could swear that many parts of this film look real. This is not just blurring the lines between CGI and live action; here CGI completely supplants live action. Does this mean we’re heading toward the end of live action cinema? No. Many of the shots in Umbrella look so good because they are largely static shots of inanimate objects. Seeing faces on familiar objects is cute but there are no humans on display. Pixar, in my opinion, has struggled up to this point with making human characters look convincing. This short enables them to sidestep the issues completely.

So as amazing as this short looks, why do I rate it so low? Because it is little more than an update of Johnny Fedora and Alice Bluebonnet, an animated short from Disney’s Make Mine Music about a men’s hat who goes to great lengths to meet up with a women’s hat that he is smitten with. No credit is given to what precedes Umbrella by almost 60 years. You would think that someone under the Disney umbrella (pardon the pun) would have said something about this.

RATING: 3 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Monsters, Inc. (2001)

The first time I saw this film, when it got its original rating, I was in college and did not appreciate the finer points of Disney and Pixar films. I liked what I grew up watching and cast a cynical gaze upon everything that came after the point at which I stopped watching kid flicks. As a parent, and as someone who better understands how movies are made, I now have a completely different viewpoint on this film.

The concept alone is brilliant. Pixar gets back to thinking outside the box and it pays off big time. The writers had to have had a firm outline in mind before pitching this film to the Disney execs because I can’t imagine anyone jumping right on board with a movie about monsters, creatures that have scared children silly for ages. The monster world is created so fully and carefully that you have no problem suspending disbelief. The story quickly gives a purpose for scaring children and provides a world of personalities that mirrors our own. All this, along with the fact that monsters are actually terrified of making physical contact with humans, softens the monster characters and makes it easy to slip into their world.

Just like the toys in Toy Story, Monsters, Inc. puts forth the illusion that monsters are just as quirky and flaky as we are. In true buddy flick fashion, Mike and Sulley are very different from each other but those differences help them complement and supplement each other. The film wouldn’t be as enjoyable if our protagonists were both like Sulley or both like Mike. The interplay between them and the way they interact with the supporting cast feels so effortless and right.

The animation in this film is gorgeous. Pixar continues to expand the possibilities of CGI animation with lush details and, in this films case, new and realistic looking textures. Somebody had a lot of fun designing all the monsters in this film and everyone in the animation department should be proud of the final product. Sulley’s fur is one of the standouts of the animation. Instead of matted down hair, each strand seems to have volume and life. I don’t know what kind of programming it takes to make all of Sulley’s fur look and behave like it does but the fact that Pixar can do it at all is a marvel.

I only have two minor quibbles with this film, neither of which are deal breakers. Both concern the film’s villain, Randall Boggs. First, Randall gets pretty creepy at times and that might scare younger viewers but that’s really only a concern for parents with kids four and under. Second, even though Randall’s secret scaring device is the very thing that necessitates the entire story, it’s easy to forget about. All I remembered from my first viewing was that Randall left the door on the scaring floor and was trying to cover his tracks for his role in letting a human through. Despite this, Monsters, Inc. is really about Mike and Sulley trying to do the right thing and get Boo home. Randall’s plot may be forgettable, but his character is antagonistic enough to make up for this minor story fault.

Disney may have the market on princesses and fairy tales but Monsters, Inc. cements Pixar as one of the most original and creative production companies in the business. Think about it- four films in and A Bug’s Life is your low point? That’s not bad at all. My original rating was way too low and future viewings may reveal that even this revised rating is a notch or two too low. Pixar’s story department may need to retool every now and again to tighten up the details but the animation department shows no signs of slacking off.

ORIGINAL RATING: 3.25 out of 5

NEW RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)

Here is Disney’s first true post-Renaissance misfire. While it has plenty of promising elements and interesting ideas to its credit, Atlantis: The Lost Empire is not a well-oiled machine. For some strange reason its components do not play well together. It may sound like I am about to come down harsh on this film but please know that I was left disappointed after rooting for it to right itself for most of its runtime.

In 1914, millennia after Atlantis sank into the ocean, Milo Thatch (Michael J. Fox), an overzealous Atlantis researcher at the Smithsonian Institution, believes he has discovered an ancient manuscript that will point the way to the lost civilization. Enter an eccentric millionaire friend of Milo’s grandfather who already has the manuscript and needs Milo to interpret the ancient Atlantean language to lead a crew, already waiting in port no less, for a grand adventure. While Milo is going purely for scientific discovery, upon arriving at the fabled kingdom, he learns that others have ulterior motives for making the trek.

Maybe I’m finally being too nitpicky with a children’s movie but there are a number of things that just don’t make sense in this film. The Atlantean people, culture, and history is interesting but do you really expect me to believe that Kida and her people can understand English because it shares a common root with the Atlantean language? That would be like expecting me to be able to understand Hindi because it stems from the Indo-European language tree. Also, how are some of the characters such renowned explorers if they are so prone to making bad decisions? How exactly have the Atlanteans survived with little to no air filtration in their subterranean rock bubble? And who built the robotic lobster that guards the entrance to Atlantis anyway? It couldn’t have been the Atlanteans.

Perhaps it’s the specific mixture of fantasy and realism attempted by the filmmakers that holds me up. Perhaps if this had been a book written in the 19th or early 20th century it would be easier to swallow. But this is an original tale gushing with rich fantasy elements that totally overpower the lost-world fantasy sub-genre construct. We’re used to the discoverers being more advanced than the lost civilization. I don’t mind turning the tables on convention (and legend almost requires Atlantis to be advanced) but I think Disney’s team went a little too far with it to the point that it’s hard to buy into.

A clunky and muddled story don’t help matters much either. After growing up on Indiana Jones, the whole scientific idealism vs. greed/power conflict doesn’t feel fresh. Atlantis also plays its cards close to the vest for too long. Secrets about Atlantis’s power, technology, and history are kept from audiences and the film’s characters until the eleventh hour and only in order to prevent calamity. Don’t ask your audience to process a huge amount of information late in the game like this. Had the filmmakers revealed a little bit at a time throughout the film, then a lot of things would have made more sense and would have actually added more tension to unfolding events because we would know at least a little about the stakes involved.

For all the good things at work in Atlantis: The Lost Empire, there are an equal amount of things that either work too hard or not hard enough. This results in the film feeling unbalanced. If you can keep everything straight in your head until all the secrets are revealed, you probably think my review is silly. Otherwise, you are probably like me and see a lot of potential for an old-school discovery adventure. It’s a shame that this film couldn’t hold it together because it could have marked a bold new direction for Disney to explore.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

The Emperor’s New Groove (2000)

The so-called Disney Renaissance supposedly runs from The Little Mermaid to Tarzan, yet here is a film that turns out to be Disney’s best non-Pixar venture since The Lion King. Perhaps it is because The Emperor’s New Groove was followed by several Disney misfires that was lost in the shuffle. Granted, it spawned a cartoon TV series for the House of Mouse but I don’t hear many people talking about this film like they do the Pixar products of the same general time frame. That, I am afraid, is a shame.

Kuzco (David Spade) is the spoiled, self-absorbed emperor of the Incan Empire. To celebrate his upcoming birthday, he plans to build a huge palace in a nearby village but things go awry when he fires his advisor Yzma (Eartha Kitt) and her lackey Kronk (Patrick Wharburton). The duo attempt to kill the young emperor but only turned him into a llama. Before they can dispatch the transformed Kuzco, they lose him. Kuzco winds up in a village and teams up with Pacha (John Goodman), whose home is threatened by the emperor’s palatial plans, to get him back to the palace. Meanwhile, Yzma and Kronk search desperately for Kuzco to clean up a very wooly loose end.

Maybe the folks at Disney decided to take a page out of the Pixar playbook with this film. That would explain the flurry of wit, references, and even a splash of sarcasm here and there. What is surprising is that Disney takes those tools and runs with them in a way not seen since Aladdin. Nothing is sacred in The Emperor’s New Groove and that is refreshing considering Disney’s recent non-Pixar flicks and their tendency to stay between the lines. This is not safe Disney. I wouldn’t call it edgy Disney either though. This film is more like Disney with its hair let down.

The story is predictable and the foreground animation may not be as lush as Disney’s best, but the characters and background animation really keep this film engaging. Kuzco’s wry narration is a fun take on a Hollywood cliché, especially when he interrupts the flow of the film in an attempt to make sure that we are focused on him and not Pacha, who is a far more worthy of our empathy. David Spade is exactly the right person to bring Kuzco to life. Spade’s tone and timing fit the mindset of our haughty protagonist and John Goodman’s deep, warm voice is perfect for a caring sidekick. The setting for this unlikely buddy flick is the Andes Mountains of South America. Disney’s animators wowed me with the colors and architecture used to bring the Incan Empire to life.

Despite a few structural flaws, The Emperor’s New Groove wins you over with its ability to entertain. Some of the things I can find fault with in this movie I have complained about in other Disney products. So how can I rate this film so much higher than latter-half Renaissance flicks? Unlike Hunchback, Mulan, and Tarzan, this movie never gets boring. After the success of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, Disney swung deeper into the dramatic end of the spectrum and it backfired.

Without the formula-friendly musical numbers, the filmmakers have to craft a lean, tight film that stays on target. They pull off this difficult task seemingly with ease, using a brisk pace and snappy rapid-fire dialogue keep you smiling for the duration of the film if not chuckling and laughing hysterically. Its screwball comedy tactics may come off as stale to anyone coming in with specific expectations. If you don’t have expectations (or are quickly able to let go of them) you will find yourself enjoying a funny little film. Its artistic merits may be suspect but Groove stands tall as one of Disney’s most non-stop entertaining films to date.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Dinosaur (2000)

If you ever wondered what the adult dinosaurs were doing during The Land Before Time, here’s your answer. A massive and expensive undertaking that features real backgrounds and CGI dinosaurs, this film aimed to be something of an industry game changer. It may have hit pay dirt, but this film understandably lands with something between a thud and a flop on Disney’s all-time best list.

A family of Cretaceous-era lemurs adopt an Iguanodon hatchling abandoned during a Carnotaurus attack. As an adult, Aladar and his adopted family flee extinction when an asteroid collides with the Earth, causing widespread devastation. Herbivores of all species band together in a quest to find the Nesting Place, a valley unscathed by the recent cataclysm. Romance and conflict arises between the different personalities in the make-shift herd as they struggle for survival against the elements as well as roaming carnivores.

Survival, a mix of dinosaurs, and a rumored safe haven- that is the exact same framework as The Land Before Time, leaving Dinosaur with quite the uphill climb. The folks at Disney also don’t do themselves any favors by cramming this film full of cuteness, cheesy jokes, and a whole lot of clichéd ‘together we can do this’ rhetoric. Predictable as the film may be, it is not a total lost cause.

At times, the visuals in this film blew me away. After doing some digging, I found out that Disney filmed many exotic real world locales for backgrounds and superimposed their CGI dinosaurs into it. That explains why some sequences looked so impressive for a CGI film- it wasn’t all CGI. The blending of the two works very well for long shots (aka wide shots) with not a lot of action. When there is a lot going on or a shot is framed pretty tight, the visuals really show their age. I think Disney was onto something pretty cutting edge and it is a shame that it still had some kinks.

There are some curiosities with this film that make me wonder how much better it could have been. Only the herbivores have voices and personalities. The carnivores are just angry monsters on a rampage. Could the film be more effective if the carnivores talked as well, or if the herbivores also lacked voices? Also, the dinosaur nerd in me can’t help but wonder if different species of herbivorous dinosaurs really lived in tandem as the pre-cataclysm scenes depict. The dino-geek in me does, however, commend the film for keeping non-Cretaceous animals out of the film. An Iguanodon makes for a very vanilla protagonist, but at least he is surrounded by era-accurate dinosaurs.

Dinosaur is a difficult film to place amongst Disney’s other animated features because it is so very different. It completely splits away from any of the Disney formulas, which should make it refreshing. All of Disney’s other PG-rated films have suffered for one reason or another but Dinosaur feels like its biggest flaw is that it came too soon. With all the advancements in CGI imagery even within the five years following its release, Dinosaur could have been the spectacle its filmmakers were hoping for. It would take a few re-writes and tweaks, but the potential is in there for something great.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Fantasia 2000 (1999)

Can this film really be considered a sequel? If so, it probably marks the longest time between a film and its sequel in film history. The original Fantasia was conceived by Walt Disney to showcase how animation really could achieve high-art status. With no need to doubt those lofty goals anymore, Fantasia 2000 feels more like a recycled idea that fails to build on its predecessor.

Of the eight shorts that comprise Fantasia 2000, only four of them are clearly memorable to me. One of these is “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” or the one short from the original Fantasia that people still recognize today. It’s the exact same short that appeared in 1940, so I have to completely disregard its presence in order to grade the film’s new contributions. It only makes sense to me to base my rating on the merits of what is new. “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” is a masterpiece of a short but its inclusion almost feels lazy to me. It’s as if Disney threw it in to give people a reason to see the film in the first place.

The animation to George Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue” is the standout. It depicts a bustling Depression-era day in New York City and the animation is styled after Al Hirschfield’s cartoons of that time. This is the one short that lives up to what the original Fantasia set out to do- blend animation and music to artistically express life and emotion.

Donald Duck shows up toward the end of the film as Noah in “Pomp and Circumstance.” It’s amusing to watch him struggle with the ark and all the animals on board but it lacks the wow factor of “Rhapsody in Blue.” The only other notable short is “Pines of Rome.” It features a family of humpback whales who end up being able to fly. This piece was used heavily in marketing the film but all it really amounts to is “oh, and there were some flying whales.”

It is interesting that Disney went on to have much more success in the new millennium with computer animated tales (the most successful of which coming from Pixar). Could Fantasia 2000 be seen as traditional animation's last gasping attempt to assert its relevance? Yes, but I don’t think that’s entirely fair. Traditional animation is far from dead; it just fails to wow the eyes and minds of today’s audiences like CGI can.

Fantasia 2000 is every bit the risky experiment that Fantasia was in 1940. It is a bold proposition to ask audiences to sit through some arty shorts. This time around, there is no urgency in the mission. Fantasia 2000 functions more as nostalgia for the original and other Disney shorts of yesteryear. This film runs much shorter than its predecessor but it still feels as if time drags while you watch it. The animation is crisp but there is no big draw here. It may be far from pointless, but this feels like a film without much of a purpose. I recommend it only for the most hard-core Disney fans.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Tarzan (1999)

Having never read any of Edgar Rice Burroughs’s Tarzan books doesn’t really matter, because most people have a general understanding about what the Ape Man is about. Often times people compare books and movies (I myself am guilty of this from time to time), which defeats the purpose of both mediums. Books and movies exist to tell stories through their own unique elements. We can try to infer what a book might be like based on a movie and we can imagine what we think a movie should be like while we read the book. You can only objectively compare books with other books and movies with other movies. With that in mind, Disney’s Tarzan calls to my mind Lady and the Tramp with sex appeal.

In the 1800s, a British couple and their baby son crash on the shores of the African jungle. After building a shelter, the parents are killed by a leopard but the boy is saved and adopted by a family of gorillas. As a young man, Tarzan saves the life of Jane, the daughter of a British explorer who has anchored offshore. With them is an aggressive game hunter named Clayton, who sets his sights on adding members of Tarzan’s gorilla family to his collection.

How do you make a pacifistic, anti-hunting story cool to your target demographic of rowdy young boys? By having Tarzan glide and slide through the jungle branches like he’s on rollerblades or a skateboard. Maybe I shouldn’t find fault with this but I can’t help myself. I don’t care how callused his feet are or how much moss covers the jungle bark; there’s no way this is remotely possible. Maybe it looks cool at first, but by the end of the movie, Tarzan does it more than enough times for the trick to get old. That’s quite an accomplishment for a movie clocking in at just under 90 minutes!

Tarzan himself is a pretty thin character, so the film really leans on its supporting cast to make the film something special. Jane looks like your typical damsel-in-distress (skinny waist accentuating her developed upper half) but she has brains, wit, and some toughness to help satisfy feminists and cynics alike. The other human characters are generic. Jane’s father feels like a retread of the scatter-brained Maurice and Clayton an oversimplified version of Gaston (both from Beauty and the Beast). Tarzan’s animal friends, for all their modern wit and dialogue, feel like a weak attempt to recreate the magic of The Jungle Book.

As for the usual Disney elements, Tarzan comes up about even. The animation shows signs of progress in blending CGI and traditional animation, but some shots are overdone. Without a big musical hit in a couple of years, Disney pulled out all the stops and signed Phil Collins to write the music. Some of the songs are used as background tracks, rather than being sung by the characters. It sets a mood but the music never really grips you. I hope that is an objective observation and not my indifference for Phil Collins surfacing. The music may have won awards, but I don’t view any of the tunes as among Disney’s best.

As you may suspect, I am wholly indifferent to this film. There is nothing wrong with it per se; it just doesn’t do it for me. It’s loud, colorful, and perfectly fine for entertaining the kids but Disney magic seems to be in short supply in Tarzan. It’s hard to say who is at fault for this. It could be the source material or it could be the Disney treatment of said source material. In the end, it is a tolerable, largely well-made animated film that I will probably watch with my daughter only if she suggests it.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Mulan (1998)

Technically The Jungle Book was Disney’s first full-length animated film set on the continent of Asia, but Mulan is the animation giant’s first full-length visit to the Far East. As with many of Disney’s other ‘first visits,’ this film features unique and exotic visuals. Another unfortunate similarity to some of Disney’s recent films is a story that just doesn’t make the grade.

The Han dynasty is under siege by the vicious Hun tribes from the north. The Han emperor commands every family within the kingdom send forth one male in order to assemble a grand army to resist the invaders. Fa Mulan, a young woman, bucks social norms and risks her family’s honor by disguising herself as a man to take her aging father’s place on the field of battle. The spirits of her ancestors send Mushu, a wise-cracking tiny dragon, to guide Mulan on her quest of honor and bravery.

The ancient Chinese setting brings with it some lovely scenery, backdrops, and architecture. The animators even go to great lengths to animate certain characters, animals, and objects in a style similar to ancient Chinese art- lean, sharp angles, and vivid color contrast. Disney really learned their lesson from Oliver & Company; the quality of their 2-D animation has not disappointed me since. Yet, here again I must complain about the failings of the CAPS 2-D/3-D hybrid system. The scenes where it is used still do not look right.

Upon Mulan’s release, Disney hadn’t had a musical powerhouse since The Lion King. As a casual fan of Asian instrumental music, I had hope that Mulan’s songs and score might be a breath of fresh air. Instead, we’ve got zero memorable songs and minimal effort to make the incidental music new or invigorating. In fact, an early song where girls were dressing up to impress potential suitors is just weird. The girls are singing about being beautiful and marrying a man of stature to bring honor to their families. Maybe this was done to set up Mulan as different from the sheep-like mentality of her peers, but the song turned me off and even creeps me out to think that any young girl might find it catchy and sing it while playing with her dolls.

The character of Mulan has a lot in common with Ariel from The Little Mermaid. She’s spunky and isn’t satisfied with the status quo. Her story arc will likely earn the ire of diehard feminists much in the same way Ariel did, but this is a kid’s movie after all. The villain is intimidating and powerful but he lacks presence. All he does is ride his horse, wield a big sword, and growl a lot. Flat villains are weak villains. Mushu is like a sarcastic blend of Jiminy Cricket and the Genie from Aladdin, but nowhere near as endearing as either of them. The rest of the cast is forgettable, as the heavy drama of invasion and war drown out most of the humor.

Mulan’s rise against the sexism of ancient Chinese culture relates well to the modern Western world post-women’s lib. The Chinese devotion (some would call it obsession) to honor and family spirits does not translate well, which means roughly a third of Mulan’s story arc won’t faze audiences. Coupled with a lackluster cast and a no-luster soundtrack, Mulan suffers a fate similar to The Hunchback of Notre Dame and the live-action film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; they’re all pretty to look at but ultimately boring to watch.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Hercules (1997)

At this point I have to wonder if the films in the latter half of the Disney Renaissance are considered as such more for their box office returns than for their artistic achievement. Once again, Disney cranks out a film that does a few things right and gets a few things wrong. The difference between this film and its two immediate traditionally animated predecessors is this: Hercules is pretty fun to watch.

The vile and treacherous Hades discovers a way to release the destructive Titans from their ocean prison and overthrow his brother Zeus. The only hang-up? His nephew Hercules needs to be out of the picture. Hades succeeds in banishing the infant to Earth and reducing him to demigod status but his minions fail to kill him. Years later, Hercules learns that he can join his parents on Mount Olympus if he becomes a true hero. As Hades’ plot draws nearer to fruition, plenty of opportunities arise for the young demigod to reach his full potential.

The highlight of this film is James Woods as Hades. His über-aware personality and self-deprecating sense of humor is a breath of fresh air. He is maniacal and powerful but also approachable. He is not consumed by evil, just bitter and carrying the mother of all chips on his shoulders. It’s usually a bad thing when the bad guy is a movie’s best character, but Hades will certainly make the film easier to sit through for any parents with a sense of humor.

The plot is pretty thin but it was a losing battle from the get-go. The mythological Hercules only featured in a series of short tales displaying his awesomeness. The character development and backstory feels understandably forced. Nice try Disney, but it didn’t work out so well this time. On top of it all, sticklers like myself are sure to get hung up on the many mythological liberties taken throughout.

The animation is inconsistent in quality at several times. For much of the film, the animation looks on par with Disney’s TV cartoon shows of the time- very flat, just about everything in focus, but very little by way of fine detail. Every now and again (mostly in epic battle sequences) Disney’s animators throw a little CGI into the mix. After all these years, they still don’t blend well. Is it nit-picky? Maybe a little bit but animated films are Disney’s bread and butter. You’d think they’d have solved this problem with a little R&D by now.

Hercules lags a bit in places and it’s not very engaging for adults (outside of Hades and the flirtatious, suggestive Megara). For the kids though? There is plenty of colorful action and screwball antics from the supporting cast to keep them entertained. It’s not quite good enough to be middle-of-the-pack Disney, but Hercules rises above many of the near-misses in the Disney Vault.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)

To date I have met zero people who hold this as their favorite Disney film and I do not think I will ever meet anyone who does. It is very hard to create an animated film that is less than ‘okay’ on my rating scale. There is always talent and craft evident in any animated feature. Sadly, that is about all I can say for The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

In 1482 Claude Frollo, a powerful Parisian judge, has a gypsy woman murdered in the streets but is stopped by the archdeacon of Notre Dame before he can kill the woman’s deformed child as well. Frollo agrees to care for the child, calling him Quasimodo, but keeps him secluded in the bell tower of the cathedral. Years later, Quasimodo falls in love with Esmeralda, a gypsy street performer he watches from above. This puts him at odds with Frollo, who is determined to eliminate the gypsy presence in Paris.

This is exactly what it sounds like- bold, dramatic stuff. There are plenty of heavy religious and emotional undertones at play and they drag the film down at times. The ultimate goal of this film was to return to the glory of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King- lush animation and a powerful dramatic story. For the most part, Disney accomplishes both of these goals. What they fail to do, however, is make the film enjoyable to watch.

The animation does hearken back to the quality of Beauty and the Beast. There is a vibrant color pallet for the people of Paris, especially the gypsies, juxtaposed against the drab colors of some of the architecture and the religious zealot bad guys. There is a fair amount of detail in the background and a few attempts at camera trickery. Some of the CGI works but the grandest uses of it (including Quasimodo swinging from the bell tower down to the crowd below) shows that Disney still hasn’t figured out how to blend the two styles together convincingly all the time.

One of the chief problems is that the characters of Hunchback do not translate well to a family-friendly film. Quasimodo is a fairly vanilla protagonist, more of a curious and awestruck man-child than a tormented soul longing for acceptance. Esmeralda fits the spirited norm-challenging outsider well but adds a dash of sexuality not normally found in a Disney film.

Finally, the film suffers from a weak villain. Frollo himself is spooky looking but is not inherently intimidating or threatening. His power comes from his position. He can make things happen because of his stature. Take all that away, and I could probably take him in a fight. His internal conflict over Esmeralda is poorly developed and rushed over.

Essentially, The Hunchback of Notre Dame tries too hard. It has the feel of a Broadway musical drama but it gets forced into the confines of a children’s movie. It’s dark and feels far from appropriate for kids at times. As a musical, it bombs- I cannot recall a single song from this film. Add on top of this the fact that the comic relief falls largely flat on its face and you are left with The Black Cauldron: Redux. It’s got its game on in the animation department but the other ingredients weren’t added in the proper proportions.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Pocahontas (1995)

After six years and five films, the Disney Renaissance finally hits a pothole. I’m sure Disney had the best of intentions with its first film adaptation of historical figures. It’s colorful and contains a pair of memorable songs, but the rest of it is underwhelming at best.

The greedy Governor John Ratcliffe sets sail with a team of British men to settle the New World and dig unheard of riches in the gold he believes they will find there. Upon reaching Jamestown Colony, Captain John Smith encounters the beautiful Pocahontas, daughter of the Powhatan tribe. Pocahontas is coming of age and trying to determine what she wants from life. A suitable warrior from her tribes makes his intentions known but she finds herself drawn to the English invaders, Smith especially. An uneasy coexistence between the tribe and the settlers quickly dissolves into violence, thrusting Pocahontas and Smith into dangerous situations.

I’ll start with the good, because it will be brief and anyone out there who is a die-hard fan of this film can stop reading after this paragraph. There are two moderately memorable songs in this film- “Just Around the Riverbend” (of which I can only remember the title words being sung) and “Colors of the Wind” (which I vaguely remember from my childhood, but barely). It’s also got a few cute animal characters that provide comic relief. There is also some sweet romance thrown in to boot.

Now for the problems. I noticed in Aladdin that Disney was simplifying portions of the animation, characters in particular. The animation in Pocahontas more often than not looks closer in quality to Disney’s television cartoon shows than recent big-screen offerings. Often times there is very little depth to what audiences are looking at. This results in less of an immersive experience and may have left some leaving the theaters feeling a bit cheater. Then again, it might have looked fine on the big screen. On my 27” CRT? Not so much.

The characters are also problematic. Pocahontas doesn’t seem to carry the film as much as John Smith does, rendering her the weakest Disney Renaissance female lead to date. The comic relief comes in the form of cute animals that chase each other around but lack personality. Finally, John Ratcliffe is one of the weakest villains Disney ever put on screen. His only claims to power are his nobility and stature attained in England. In the New World, these qualities are meaningless. He is a fat, greedy, pompous jerk with a superiority complex. He exhibits no actual power or threat to anyone. The more subtle villain here is colonialism.

This brings me to the elephant in the room: Pocahontas is jarringly inaccurate in its portrayal of most of the Pocahontas legend. Usually, the ‘Disney Treatment’ means lightening things up and adding an overabundance of heart-warming moments. Between the revisionist history that portrays the Native Americans as largely innocent victims to the colonialist machine, and the goofy pseudo-spiritual elements even Native Americans complained about, it’s a wonder this film was allowed to proceed.

Overall, Pocahontas is a film of extremes. A few rich songs collide with TV-quality animation. Aspects of the story are oversimplified, exaggerated, and completely made up seemingly at will. I hope my daughter never wants to watch this film because I shudder to think that she might believe it is in any way accurate. As entertainment, Pocahontas is probably Disney’s equivalent of a lowest-common-denominator popcorn flick. The story sucks if you know your history but the rest of it is candy-coated so well that the kids won’t really care.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5