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

SECOND HELPINGS: How Green Was My Valley** (1941)

Does anyone really believe that this film deserved Best Picture anymore? The Academy needed a fallback film because they were too scared to recognize the masterpiece that was Citizen Kane. What gets the award instead? An emotional tale of poor Welsh coal miners that band together to fight for the right to work for a decent wage.

I must admit that this film is well made if you look at the technical aspects. It is also a very emotional film, as we watch a young boy named Huw grow up in the midst of the Industrial Revolution. The coal mines change his town and his family forever. There is also a subplot involving a new pastor in town who takes a liking to Huw’s sister and speaks controversially in support of unionizing the town’s coal miners.

How Green Was My Valley is far from pro-union propaganda, but it certainly wears its liberal-leaning heart on it sleeve. The Industrial Revolution was a time when unions were actually desperately needed to help laborers get fair wages but this sentiment is laid on thick enough to the point where it is obvious that the story also advocates for the urgency for unionization in the present. Through this and other early films, it seems clear to me that it took decades for much of Hollywood to master subtlety as a filmmaking tool.

Maybe I am jaded, having grown up thinking films like this are cliché-ridden. It’s got emotional manipulation through focusing on a child, advocacy for social change, a David v. Goliath tale, and a largely negative portrayal of Christianity. Pretty standard old-school Hollywood stuff, really. Maybe in some circles How Green Was My Valley was considered important. You’ll have a hard time justifying it as great though.

Through re-watching some of these old films, some of which I was overly harsh on as an 18 and 19-year old, I have had a kind of epiphany. There are great films, there are important films, and then there are those rare few that are both great and important. These categories are still largely subjective but, for the most part, consensus builds and opinions are collected.

Maybe the vote was split widely in the Academy. Maybe this film rode the wave of being a safe and uncontroversial pick. How Green Was My Valley may not be the weakest Best Picture winner in Oscar History but it certainly doesn’t make much of an impression. If nothing else, watch it for the curiosity that it is- a mostly harmless, well-made film that beat one of the greatest American films ever made on Oscar night.

Original Rating: 3.5 out of 5

New Rating: 3.5 out of 5

The Artist** (2011)

If it sounds weird to hear me describe a film as adorable, please know that it feels just as weird for me to make such a proclamation. Yet that is the best word I can come up with to describe this love letter to Hollywood’s silent film era. It has charm, heart, and it stays very true to the qualities and craftsmanship of the films that inspired it.

It’s 1927 in Hollywood and George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is the star of the silent silver screen and helps discover a talented newcomer named Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo). Two years later, Valentin’s studio tells him they are through with silent films. Valentin’s reluctance to convert to talkies (and the stock market crash of 1929) leaves him in professional and financial ruin. While Peppy’s career takes off, George struggles to cope with his new-found has-been status.

Save for a few shots and a handful of well-known supporting characters, The Artist looks like it could have come from the silent film era. That fact alone is a testament to the attention to detail behind this film. Silent films demand attention to detail because there is no sound supplementing or distracting from the visuals. The pacing, the cinematography, and the expressiveness of the cast make this movie a success. It lags at times, but there is so much imagery and sophistication built into the composition of some shots that I found myself giddy with excitement for noticing them.

The duo of Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo are a treat to behold. They’re expressiveness is so true to silent films. With no sound to convey emotion in the voice, actors had to over-emote with their posture, gestures, and facial expressions. In their attempt to replicate what we would now call over-doing it, there was a fine line between nailing the nonverbal communication of silent films and parodying it. The Artist never slips into parody.

Writer-director Michael Hazanavicius chose to fashion his silent movie after the melodramas of the 1920s. This was the right choice because an all-out silent drama would feel too self-important and a full-on comedy wouldn’t seem as special. With a story arc that is far from unique, The Artist is admittedly a success because it is style over substance.

But why make a silent film just for the sake of making a silent film? The filmmakers appreciate the artistry that has been lost for more than 80 years of talkies. Something about silent films speak to them and, as it turns out, they still speak to us too. This is the kind of cheery, nostalgic fare that makes me fall in love with cinema all over again.

RATING: 4 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

SECOND HELPINGS: Gone with the Wind** (1939)

I am well aware that this film presents a woefully inaccurate depiction of blacks in the antebellum and post-war south. That doesn’t stop me from loving this film and still holding it to be the greatest film I have ever seen. It will take quite a film to knock Gone with the Wind from my top spot.

The scope of this film is incredible. The filmmakers spared no expense to bring this tale to life. It’s a nearly four hour long period piece, in Technicolor, and utilized studio and on-location filming. The cost of production was historic but worth every penny. Some scenes may come across as a little stagey, but the world looks believable thanks to all the immaculate set details.

Some people criticize the writing and characters of this film. I’ll grant them that Butterfly McQueen’s Prissy is more caricature than character, but everyone else in the cast nails their performances and the writing is old school Hollywood at its best. Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh ooze with sex appeal and light up the screen every time they are on it, together or individually. They bring Rhett and Scarlett to life, realizing the characters’ true potential and power.

On their own, neither is particularly likeable. Scarlett is a manipulative little tramp who uses her playful sexuality and beauty to get what she wants. Rhett is an opportunistic scoundrel who thinks he has it all figured out and takes what he wants when it comes down to it. A movie about either character would fail but they somehow form the basis for one of the greatest love stories of all time. These two are just made for each other. They’re beautiful, egotistical, and drive each other mad. It’s so perfect yet unlikely an arrangement that you can’t help but want them to be together.

The film does lag a little bit in the third hour, as Scarlett skanks her way up the societal ladder. This is usually where people trail off on enjoying Gone with the Wind. The first half is exciting, powerful, and has just about everything you could ask for in an epic period piece romance. That third hour is necessary though because it makes the sparks fly even hotter when Rhett comes back into the picture.

Others will complain about the ending but you’ll get no such complaints out of me. Things end badly for Scarlett and Rhett but you know that it is not really the end. Scarlett’s stubbornness got her from destitute to affluent after the war. How could she not end up with Rhett again now that she knows in her heart that they were always meant to be together?

The ending may not tie things up in a nice neat bow, but it doesn’t have to. By the end of the film you know the passion and determination these characters share for each other. You know how this cliffhanger is going to end, which makes Gone with the Wind something special. It leaves you hanging narratively but not emotionally.

Gone with the Wind has sass, attitude, romance, drama, thrills, chills, and laughs. For my money, it is the complete package because it is delivered so smoothly by its leads. This film proved to be one for both the record books and the history books. Who am I to disagree? Since the first time I saw it, this film was, and still is, at the top of my list.

Original Rating: 4.75 out of 5

New Rating: 4.75 out of 5

Mary Poppins* (1964)

Those who know me well know that I do, in fact, have a soft spot for cheerful good fun. It’s hard to get more cheerful than Mary Poppins. It’s vibrant, playful, and even a little daring in the filmmaking. Some films lose their luster over time as special effects become more dated and obvious. This does not hold Mary Poppins back at all. Full of sass and wit, this one charms its way almost to the top of my rating scale.

The Banks children are quite a handful, going through nanny after nanny. They have a no-nonsense father and a flighty mother who seems more interested in women’s suffrage than child-rearing. Enter Mary Poppins- a lady-like young woman who insists on proper behavior from children but also knows when to throw the rule book away (and how!). She introduces the Banks children to etiquette, manners, and brand new ways of having fun that are sure to make their parents freak out.

Let’s get the few and largely meaningless quibbles out first. Some of the special effects (like when Mary has the kids cleaning their room) do show their age and may look hokey. Many of the prim and proper adults set bad examples for their kids- a workaholic father and an absentee mother? Where’s child services? Finally, Dick Van Dyke delivers a noticeably poor Cockney accent.

But who cares? Julie Andrews is delightful as the spirited, firm-but-fun Mary Poppins. Dick Van Dyke’s Bert is warm and inviting. The kids aren’t even very annoying. All the principle characters are a perfect fit and help the story unfold naturally.

Other than a handful of dated special effects, the filmmaking is remarkable in every way. The songs are great, the hybrid live action and animated sequences are darn near perfect, and there are plenty of other practical and special effects shots that still look great. This film is nothing short of a textbook example of how to make a family movie. All the ingredients complement each other in just the right ways. It is a time-honored classic that still pleases children and parents alike. Naysayers be darned, Mary Poppins is a classic.

RATING: 4.5 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

SECOND HELPINGS: Citizen Kane* (1941)

Is this film really the granddaddy of them all? For me the answer is no, but Citizen Kane did elevate its stature on my ratings list this latest time through. I’ve seen it three or four times now but this is the first I’ve taken it in for quite some time. There is a lot of excellent stuff in this film to lend credence to its unofficial status as the greatest American film of all time but I can pinpoint at least one thing that holds it back.

Technically speaking, this film is a masterpiece. Music, cinematography, direction, structure- it’s all there and it all works astoundingly well. The acting is sharp and a testament to Orson Welles’s attention to detail. He demands daring shots, scandalous content, and an edginess rarely seen in cinema. In short, Citizen Kane is on a completely separate level from just about everything that came before it.

The only problem with the film? Partway through the film, Charles Foster Kane becomes a very unlikeable man. He is corrupted and consumed by the very things he set out to defy. As masterful as it all is, it is hard to continue caring about someone who pulls such a harsh 180. There is no final-reel turnaround which, while possibly being more realistic, saps the fun out of what was building up to be a through-and-through triumph of good. Maybe it’s all intentional and just part of the unparalleled genius of Orson Welles. Perhaps future viewings will elucidate that for me.

Hollywood was too cowardly to embrace Citizen Kane when it came out because it was loosely based on the life of William Randolph Hearst. At the time of its release, Hearst was still the most powerful name in print media and was prepared to ruin anyone who came out in support of the film. After Hearst died and Citizen Kane ran on television in the 1950s, its stature was raised.

I think that some of the gushing fervor for Kane was initially a release of pent-up admiration by those who were too afraid of Hearst to get behind the film upon its release. Over time, this love became institutionalized among film historians and teachers of motion picture making. That’s not to say it wasn’t warranted. Orson Welles (in his early years at least) was a national treasure. He was a powerful force in theatre and radio. That Citizen Kane was Welles’s first film boggles the mind because he was an outsider and didn’t know much about how to make a film, yet he created something unlike anything the world had ever seen.

Maybe I’m just being ornery and trying not to jump on the Kane bandwagon. Or maybe I still don’t fully appreciate just how revolutionary this film was. I know it was groundbreaking because it defied Hollywood convention. Welles was not content to fit the mold. He was an experimenter, a tinkerer, an iconoclast. Citizen Kane is technically majestic, bold beyond all measure for going after Hearst, and stunning when you realize that Welles was only 25 years old when the film was shot.

The unlikeable turn of Kane still bugs me to this day and I cannot shake the thought that its hype is slightly false because Hollywood wanted to make up for past indiscretions. I have to wonder what is really being praised with Citizen Kane-is it the film or the filmmaker? I respect both immensely but I can’t elevate it to my highest rating just yet. Maybe it will get there someday.

Original Rating: 4.25 out of 5

New Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Magic Mike (2012)

Yes, I watched this movie. As I will tell anyone, I will watch anything once. I even saw this flick in the theater because my wife and I had a date night and this was the only movie playing that I knew received decent reviews. Save for an obnoxious middle-aged woman cackling behind me and shoving her knee into the back of my seat the entire movie to prevent me from reclining even the slightest bit, I actually had somewhat of a good time taking in Magic Mike.

Mike (Channing Tatum) wants to start his own small business making custom furniture but no one wants to give him a small business loan. Thus he gets by on a number of odd jobs, including performing at the Xquisite Strip Club in Tampa. At his daytime construction job, he befriends Adam (Alex Pettyfer) and eventually gets him a job at Xquisite. The club’s owner (Matthew McConaughey) and the rest of the club performers take a liking to the new guy. As Adam plunges deeper into the world of excess at his fingertips, Mike does his best to watch over him while constantly trying to smooth things over with Adam’s disapproving sister.

As if you had to guess, this film is almost purely a guilty pleasure. Yes, there are plenty of rowdy scenes where buff men spin, strut, and shed themselves of clothing, but this sort of thing can be easily found on the internet for free. In order to get these sorts of antics to the big screen, the filmmakers try to wrap some kind of plot around these moments of debauchery. It’s a fictionalized and (hopefully) sensationalized version of Channing Tatum’s experiences as a male stripper before he made it as an actor.

If I were a betting man, I would be willing to make a very large wager that most of the women who went to see this film went for the strip club scenes. Those women did not go home disappointed, as every scene inside the club possesses tremendous amounts of energy and silly fun. All the ‘story’ elements outside the strip club fall flat because they are both poorly written and acted. It’s easy for a bunch of men to get silly and prance around in their skivvies (though major kudos the actors and choreographers for the ‘dance’ numbers). Acting like a real, convincing human being is hard work.

Even though the story is about Adam and Mike, Matthew McConaughey’s frenetic club owner character steals the show every time he turns up. He is a ruthless businessman, intent on getting rich off bigger and better strip clubs. His obsession with physique, training, and the rules of the game contrast starkly with his cocky ringleader shtick during show time. Here is the only fully formed character in the film. Mike is basically a lunkhead who lacks the ambition to really go out on his own, and Adam is just a brat who finds a way to make life a non-stop party. McConaughey’s Dallas is so real, yet so over the top that you are mesmerized by him.

Having no experience in strip clubs (male or female) myself, one element was an eye-opener. Everyone knows that strip clubs for men serve one purpose: cheap sexual thrills where a man can sink deep into a sea of lust. Interestingly enough, it seems that women go to male strip clubs because it’s a silly bunch of fun. It’s not for the sexuality, but for the social experience. This comes through even with the routines and intentions of the male ‘dancers.’ I’ve seen Showgirls and the difference between the ‘dancing’ at the respective strip clubs cannot be anymore stark. While I find any aspect of the sex industry to be immoral and unnecessary to society, I can take some solace in knowing that the patrons of male strip clubs aren’t likely to be as depraved as those attending so-called “gentlemen’s” clubs.

As for the movie, feel free to watch the whole thing. There is nothing remarkable about any of the technical aspects outside of the performance numbers and the romance sub-plot is boring. You could save yourself some time and fast-forward through these slow parts and have a great time. Forget the forced plot and just imagine that it’s Channing Tatum, Matthew McConaughey, and a bunch of other actors getting silly and mostly naked. It’s lewd and crude, but it’s not a sausage fest, which makes it perfectly acceptable for straight men to watch Magic Mike with their significant other.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Toy Story (1995)

A lot of times, animated films are either popular or high in quality. Heck, that can be said about a lot of live-action films too. Disney has been lucky over the years to repeatedly create animated flicks that are both high in quality and popularity. Toy Story continues that magic, be it luck or something else. The first full-length feature computer animated film is not only a crowd-pleaser, but it is also a technical marvel.

Sheriff Woody is Andy’s favorite toy. When his owner is out of the room, Woody and his fellow toys come to life. Being a toy and playing with children is serious business for these toys and every year brings new challenges. On Andy’s birthday, a new toy arrives. Buzz Lightyear is bold, flashy, and quickly replaces Woody as Andy’s favorite. Jealous of being relegated to the toy box instead of Andy’s bedside, Woody takes drastic measures to regain his position in the pecking order. His actions, however, lead Woody on a quest for rescue, survival, and redemption.

Some of you may already be harping on me about how this is a Pixar movie, not a Disney movie. Let me address this first and foremost. Yes, Pixar handled the computer animation, which means they were responsible for all the technical details- animation (colors and textures), direction (“camera” movement and cinematography), and all the special effects (audio and visual). Pixar did a fantastic job in all of these arenas. But, to me, it’s still a Disney film because Disney commissioned it and they held strict supervisory rights over the story. So now, I don’t and will not discuss the Pixar movies as if they exist in their own realm. They are a Disney product.

Let’s heap some love on this film, shall we? The computer animation shows its age only because Pixar and other animation studios have made massive amounts of progress in adding more intricate textures, patterns, and camera techniques to their arsenal over the years. This takes away none of Toy Story’s magic or beauty.

For a film marketed primarily toward children, this is a remarkably deep and mature story. Jealousy, replacement, and fear of abandonment are heavyweight issues to throw at kids. Presenting these themes through the actions and emotions of toys makes it approachable for kids and palatable for adults. Think about it- would you or your kids want to line up to see a movie about kids dealing with these issues? They tried that with Where the Wild Things Are and audiences were split over it.

Essentially, the filmmakers found a way to transmit these ideas to children and families so as to not overwhelm them with a case of the heavies. It’s brilliant, even though Toy Story’s success ruined animated films for a while. Everyone tried to pump kid flicks with moral lessons for all ages, albeit less effectively. To my knowledge, they’re still doing it.

The characters are flat-out terrific. Tom Hanks gives Woody exactly the right maturity and straight-man factor. Tim Allen’s funny-man shtick works flawlessly when it’s played seriously by Buzz Lightyear. The combination of these two characters alone is comedy gold. Buzz and Woody are surrounded by one of the all-time greatest group of supporting characters for an animated film. A sarcastic piggy bank, an abrasive Mr. Potato Head, a loyal Slinky Dog, a neurotic T-Rex, and a troop of super-serious plastic Army men round out a supporting cast that makes this film a treat for all ages. Is there some non-contextual humor? Yes. Does it bug me this go around? Not so much. The toy characters have an adult-like seriousness that makes it acceptable.

Toy Story is a breezy tale full of sentimentality, heart, and fun. It never lingers over certain themes and never spins the tires on pace. While many imitators followed in its wake, none so far have managed to tell their story with such effortless ease as this film. Clichéd as it sounds, Toy Story is the real deal and has something for the whole family to enjoy.

RATING: 4 out of 5