With a few previous films using British folklore and fiction proving successful, Walt Disney Studios get its anglophilia on once more. In an unconventional but kid-friendly approach, the Disney crew tells the tale of Robin Hood and his merry men with anthropomorphic animal characters. With a solid story as its backbone and a little musical flair, this film gets an extra boost in my book from a little thing called childhood nostalgia.
The vain and money-hungry Prince John is taxing the people of England to no end. In the village of Nottingham, two men (or in this case, animals) dare to stand up against tyranny. Robin Hood and Little John find ways to steal from Prince John and give back to the poor what was taken from them. Their mission ruffles the feathers of the cruel sheriff of Nottingham and gains the support of many of the village’s denizens.
I have to be honest- I’m pretty sure that I rated this film higher than it deserves. I grew up watching this film and I have quite the sizable soft spot in my heart for it. I try to avoid subjectivity when rating a film but every once in a while I just can’t help myself.
There are a few things that Robin Hood has going for it. First, it’s anchored by a classic tale of fighting injustice. Second, it’s got a stellar soundtrack. Even after 20 animated films, Disney still boils down to animation and music. Most moviegoers don’t focus too heavily on the quality of the animation, so the music really matters. Which Disney films are the least well-remembered? By jove, it would be the ones that lack memorable songs! Coincidence? I think not.
While most moviegoers don’t consider the animation quality, I do. This is where I fear nostalgia has given this film a boost. The animation quality is better than The Aristocats in that there are fewer distracting sketch lines from the xerographic technique, but it may also be a bit worse in that there is little to no richness in background detail. It looks very much like a flat world, but not enough like a storybook to suggest an intentional creative artistic direction.
One thing that can go either way (depending on how picky you are with your Disney films) is the character of Little John. He’s drawn almost exactly like Baloo from The Jungle Book and is voiced by the same actor. This fails to bother me at all because I grew up loving this film. Perhaps that is the key to your opinion on his film. If you grew up with it, you’ll probably be more forgiving like me. If not, you might think I’ve rated it a notch too high. I fear the latter may be the case but I’m not entirely sure.
It’s hard to say what the Disney studio was going for with this film. Handpicked by Walt Disney before he died, The Aristocats probably should have been better than it turns out to be. With The Jungle Book as its predecessor, I was prepared to cut this film a little slack; the studio always struggled to put together back-to-back great films. All the Disney hallmarks are present, but the total package leaves me feeling like a victim of re-gifting.
Duchess and her three kittens live in the lap of early 20th Century Parisian luxury. Their owner, Madame Adelaide, loves them so much that she makes them her main heirs in her will. Enraged at her decision, Edgar (her butler) hatches a plan to dispose of the cats, leaving him to inherit Madame’s fortune. Waking up in the middle of the French countryside, Duchess and her kittens rely on the kindness of strangers to find their way home. Along the way they encounter a number of colorful cats who call the streets of Paris their playground.
Let’s not mince words- several times during this film I felt like I was watching One Hundred and One Dalmatians with cats. The urban European setting, the jazz music score, the human bad guy trying to kill the animal good guys plot, and the other animals helping to save the day. It honestly has a lot of similar components. Is it a complete retread? No. There are plot differences and a variety of unique and different characters. That subtle sense of the familiar creeps in on you throughout the film though, reducing the enjoyment slightly.
Another aspect that’s all too familiar here is the dirty looking xerographic system used to generate the final animation cells. Seeing the sketch and source lines inside what should be a solid object is getting old and I’m surprised that Disney couldn’t figure out a way to improve upon this in 10 years. The art direction compounds the problem. There’s more definition to objects than there was in One Hundred and One Dalmatians but much of the background elements can be reduced to a few choice shades from one color group or another. Maybe it was considered a smart, modernist look for Disney in the post-Beat and mid-counterculture era. Nowadays it just looks sloppy and leaves me yearning for the lush visuals of Disney’s first golden era.
Lest this review sound exceedingly negative for the rating given, The Aristocats is not a bad film. I think it plays to younger audiences more so than to general audiences, which creates problems. Sure, kids will love watching the playful antics of Duchess’s kittens but I think the adults in the crowd will be bothered by the subtle and not-so-subtle similarities with an older and better film, technically speaking.
If nothing else, The Aristocats has a cute, albeit familiar, story and some fun music. Two songs (“Thomas O’Malley Cat” and “Ev’rybody Wants to Be a Cat”) are memorable, which isn’t bad following The Jungle Book’s jam-packed soundtrack of hits. It’s not the best product Disney’s ever produced but it’s also not much better than some of the package films from the 40s. That is definitely a setback for the House of Mouse.
Despite premiering two years after his death, this was the final animated film that Walt Disney had direct involvement with. His presence is felt quite heavily, leaving this film a combination of Walt Disney’s last stand for his artistic vision and his last will and testament to the art form that he helped create.
Using Rudyard Kipling’s story collection of the same name as a launching point, The Jungle Book focuses on a young human named Mowgli. Lost in the jungles of India as a baby, Mowgli is raised by wolves. When his adoptive family learns that the human-hating tiger Shere Khan has come back into the region, they decide that Mowgli must be taken to the nearby human village for his own safety.
A very wise panther named Bagheera is tasked with getting the boy to safety. Mowgli does not understand why he can no longer stay in the jungle with all of his friends and rebels. This leads to a string of encounters with a number of colorful characters: Baloo the bear, “Colonel” Hathi and his elephant herd, “King” Louie and his ape friends, the treacherous python Kaa, and even Shere Khan himself.
If you’ve been following my recent reviews, you know all about my complaints against Disney’s switch to the Xerox technique to streamline the animation process. I’d like to think that Disney himself wasn’t impressed with the end result either and called for something different to be done with this film. Perhaps this is why the Xerox use is kept to a minimum, allowing The Jungle Book to use all of Disney’s techniques to maximum effectiveness.
An overwhelming amount of this film is animated in the old Disney way- artists make their animation sketches and then re-drawers trace over the best lines to produce a crisp and consistent product. The Xerox technique does rear its head occasionally but its sparse use only comes about in scenes where the technique actually helps the film look good. Specifically, scenes involving Colonel Hathi and the elephants make good use of the Xerox technique. Elephants are wrinkly creatures to begin with, so guide lines merely look like wrinkles. During scenes with lots of cuts and lots of quick motion, the Xerox technique works great. When a scene calls for a static shot or slow fluidity, the traditional process is used.
Another issue I had with the last two Disney films is the use of loosely defined blobs of colors instead of a wide swath of detail. The Disney team manages to hit the best of both worlds at all the right moments. In the depth of the jungle, it makes sense for line and form to blend together with the myriad of colors. Lots of greens, yellows and tans run together and actually help give the jungle its vague sense of depth and thickness.
The story in this Disney version has been criticized for being little more than vignettes but I disagree. Each story segment teaches the reluctant Mowgli a lesson or two about why it’s dangerous for him in the jungle. Try as he might to fit in, he finds that he just doesn’t belong there after all. There is maturity and character development involved here for both Mowgli and his animal friends, and each segment moves him one step closer to joining the other humans in the nearby village.
I would be remiss if I were to ignore one of this film’s biggest highlights- the songs! As with the best of Disney’s hits, The Jungle Book features a terrific score and plenty of toe-tapping tunes. I’m not talking one or two good songs. There are at least four songs that will stick with you. Half of that is due to the magic in the music itself and the other half is in the presentation. The Jungle Book also features one of Disney’s best casts of characters in the studio’s history.
My only reservation with this film is the fact that I watched the 40th anniversary DVD edition. The colors were remarkable for a 40+ year old film. This leads me to wonder if a little touch-up work took place. Baloo the bear looks remarkably light grey but he is more a dark grey in older promotional posters. This potential tinkering with the product doesn’t take anything away from the film’s merits though.
Looking ahead in the chronology of Disney animated films, it seems clear to me that this is the last truly great Disney film for quite some time. Everything comes together in all the right ways. Lots of color, great songs, loveable characters- it’s everything you want in a Disney film. The story may not be as heartwarming as the masterpiece fairy tales but The Jungle Book was the right film at the right time. With Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs as its counterpart, this film stands as a splendid bookend to Walt Disney’s career and his genius imagination.
With a few previous films using British folklore and fiction proving successful, Walt Disney Studios get its anglophilia on once more. In an unconventional but kid-friendly approach, the Disney crew tells the tale of Robin Hood and his merry men with anthropomorphic animal characters. With a solid story as its backbone and a little musical flair, this film gets an extra boost in my book from a little thing called childhood nostalgia.
It’s hard to say what the Disney studio was going for with this film. Handpicked by Walt Disney before he died, The Aristocats probably should have been better than it turns out to be. With The Jungle Book as its predecessor, I was prepared to cut this film a little slack; the studio always struggled to put together back-to-back great films. All the Disney hallmarks are present, but the total package leaves me feeling like a victim of re-gifting.
Despite premiering two years after his death, this was the final animated film that Walt Disney had direct involvement with. His presence is felt quite heavily, leaving this film a combination of Walt Disney’s last stand for his artistic vision and his last will and testament to the art form that he helped create.
