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.
Cancer is one of the few subjects that are hard to make funny. It’s an energy-sapping, life-taking disease that brings nothing but sadness to the victim and their loved ones. Hollywood has tackled the daunting task of livening up terminal illness before but The Bucket List possesses a very specific trajectory. Once again, trailers promise us the stars but the full-length film doesn’t provide quite the shine audiences may be expecting or hoping for.
When wealthy health care tycoon Edward Cole (Jack Nicholson) is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer he just wants to be alone. Instead, he shares a hospital room with Carter Chambers (Morgan Freeman), a former auto mechanic. At first cynically amused by Chambers’ optimism, Cole aims to help his roommate realize his ‘bucket list’- the things he would like to do before he dies. Spending Cole’s money like kids in a candy shop, the two men set out on a globetrotting road trip to make the most of life while they still can.
One thing this film has in droves is chemistry. Freeman and Nicholson are two of Hollywood’s living legends and their collective acting prowess is on display in this film. The script caters to both men’s perceived types: Nicholson is sarcastic, witty and just a wee bit angry at the world; Freeman is the likeable straight man whose honesty is endearing and sense of humor is subtle but always perfectly-timed. They feed off each other like seasoned veterans of the big screen ought to.
Looking at it from 30,000 feet, The Bucket List is a bit clichéd and convenient. It’s yet another upper-class meets lower-class buddy film in which the rich guy gains an understanding and appreciation for the ‘little guys.’ As good as Nicholson and Freeman are, you can’t hide the convenience in teaming up with a super-rich guy to live out a few dreams. If you’re of the crass and cynical sector of moviegoers, this is how you’ll probably see the film.
If you don’t mind a retooled plot now and again, the worst thing you can say about this film is that it’s not as funny as it was hyped up to be. Nicholson has the ability to leave you in stitches when he isn’t indulging himself with dark roles. Freeman has always been able to make crowds smile and laugh in the right roles as well. Perhaps it’s the subject matter or the script that does the film in.
Much of the antics look like a lot of fun but could they feel too familiar to achieve maximum effect? Or is the weight of their cancer affliction too heavy a burden to allow us to fully enjoy their embracing of life? It’s hard to put my finger on it but I think it may have something to do with knowing a downer ending looms on the horizon no matter what comedy hijinks come our way. It allows us to guard ourselves from becoming emotionally attached to these characters, a critical element of any story. Yes, I think that must be it. The Bucket List is a pretty decent movie but your conscience might prevent you from having as good a time as the filmmakers aim for.
After beating the odds quite grandly with a successful reboot of the James Bond saga with 2006’s Casino Royale, Daniel Craig is back as the world’s favorite spy. While this tale of revenge and deception travels at the speed of a bullet, it confuses more that it astounds. Certainly not the worst follow-up act in the Bond collection, but Quantum of Solace falls well short of the bar set by its predecessor.
Picking up only hours after Casino Royale left off, Bond fends off pursuers while bringing Mr. White in for interrogation. The questioning goes awry but tips off MI6 to the existence of a vast, international criminal organization called Quantum. Bond’s investigation of a Quantum mole within MI6 overlaps in his quest for vengeance for Vesper Lynd’s death. The trail leads him to a billionaire environmentalist and green resources magnate assisting with a coup in Bolivia. The clock is ticking while Bond frantically tries to connect the dots.
Daniel Craig continues to be in league with Sean Connery as one of the best James Bonds in the series multi-decade span. Bond is still very much rough around the edges. Refinement is something left for future installments to produce. That’s just fine with me, frankly. All the gadgets and cheesy lines got old after a while. It’s nice to see a Bond who is believable as a cold, calculating government assassin. The supporting cast is not as strong this time around but that may also stem from the fact that the characters involved aren’t as unique or interesting as they could have been. Power hungry billionaires and rogue generals feel a bit recycled (though the writers have quite a thankless and difficult task in keeping Bond fresh after 21 previous films).
I love the introduction of the Quantum organization. It sets up countless future missions for Bond to embark on and helps ratchet up the suspense. Who can you trust anymore when MI6 is infiltrated by a shadow organization with nearly unlimited resources? Other strengths of the film are some artful editing and cinematography. The entire Tosca sequence is marvelous, especially the chase and shootout sequence sans sound effects. The operatic overlay was a brilliant decision. The opening sequence begins beautifully, though it does descend into a barrage of quick cuts that make the progression hard to follow.
This overabundance of editing follows through much of the film. I can understand wanting Quantum to move a little quicker than Royale but the filmmakers went a little overboard in making this the shortest film in the entire Bond series. Some story elements get rushed beyond comprehension and believability, making the film hard to follow at times (especially when they use a horrid, unreadable yellow font for translation subtitles). With Bond more out for revenge than displaying his cocky swagger, Quantum occasionally feels more like a conventional action flick than a Bond film but it comes back around in the end.
Ultimately, your preference for this film will be determined by whether or not you liked Casino Royale. If you enjoyed it, as most people seemed to, this will probably come as a minor disappointment but still an enjoyable Bond film. If Royale wasn’t your taste for Bond, then you probably disliked this entry even more. As someone who holds Casino Royale as one of the best Bond flicks in the series, I find Quantum of Solace to be an underwhelming follow-up but still a modestly satisfying tale of deceit, redemption, and revenge.
With all the Oprah love heaped upon the memoir this film is based on, not to mention the fact that it stayed on The New York Times Best Seller list for nearly four straight years, one would expect this film to have something going for it. For me, many film critics, and about half of the general populous, it doesn’t. Fans of the book and Julia Roberts’ films may consider this a splendid tale of one woman’s quest for enlightenment and balance in her life. The rest will probably see Eat Pray Love as a shallow travelogue for the 1%.
Elizabeth Gilbert (Roberts), is a successful and wealthy freelance writer, contributing to magazines and newspapers across the country. Her husband is a boring man though, leaving her dissatisfied with her life. After a heated divorce settlement, and a rebound relationship that doesn’t pan out, Elizabeth uses the advance money from her next book to fund a year-long trip including stops in Italy, India, and Indonesia. Each stop along her trek is designed to guide her towards self-discovery, self-understanding, and ultimately inner peace.
It’s all a very interesting idea but the execution fails miserably. For starters, stories and movies about rich people who are unhappy with their lives going on self-discovery journeys to find purpose and meaning just don’t work anymore. Perhaps it’s a sign of these difficult economic times that we live in. Perhaps I’m just that cynical. Whatever the case may be, not enough work is done to make Roberts’ character likeable in any way. Sure, she’s the focal point of the film, but main characters do not get de facto support from audiences anymore.
Gilbert’s behavior is often times annoying because she lacks any conviction in what she does. She doesn’t even try to work on her marriage; she just leaves the man because he doesn’t want to go to all her book events and swanky parties. She only gets involved with Eastern spirituality because her post-divorce lover tells her how great it is. She doesn’t actually believe in any of it but immerses herself in it because it’s the only thing she can think of doing for the religious/spiritual leg of her journey. It takes a couple of sharp-tongued, tough-willed people to call her on her posturing and fad-hopping. Instead of this being an indictment of this modern trend, it merely spurns her on to her next destination. All this while spending more money than normal people earn in a year, mind you.
There are just two redeeming qualities about this film. First is Javier Bardem- I would easily watch his scenes again. His character has more emotional depth than Gilbert could ever hope to strive for. His genuine pain and loss is such a contrast to Gilbert’s narcissism. This is a character they should make a movie about, not Gilbert. Second, the settings are wonderful. Lots of beautiful locations were scouted for this film and the cinematographer captures their beauty quite well.
One solid performance and pretty scenery do not a winner make. Maybe the book is better than the film. I certainly hope that is the case because I don’t think I could stand to read about Elizabeth Gilbert’s life if she really was as whiny and self-indulgent as Eat Pray Love suggests. I can only envision a narrow target audience for this film if you really know what it’s about. Thanks to trailers and studio advertising, this film looks much more interesting and fulfilling in a two-minute series of clips than its agonizing two-hour plus run time. If nothing else, this film will make you feel better about yourself when you realize it takes less time, money and whining than Elizabeth Gilbert suggests to ‘find yourself.’
In a TV-comedy dream pairing come true on the big screen, funny guy Steve Carell and funny gal Tina Fey join forces in this madcap comedy. Perhaps an homage to the screwball comedies of yesteryear, Date Night has all the wit, action, and heart to please just about any willing viewer. It may not be an instant classic or live up to all the hype of its lead pair, but it’s got it where it counts.
Phil and Claire Foster (Carell and Fey) are in a bit of a rut. Married with children, approaching middle age (if not already there), and caught in a boring and repetitive suburban New Jersey routine, they are looking for a little excitement in life. When they go to a hip restaurant in New York City and steal a table from a no-show reservation, they get far more than they hoped for. In a case of mistaken identity, Phil and Claire find themselves running for their lives from gangsters and crooked cops.
It’s not so much the fact that mistaken identity comedies have been around forever that hurts this film. Rather, it’s the fact that two of the top funny people in the TV/movie business are in this film and the end result is not wall-to-wall funny. Yes, there are a lot of laughs to be had here but those laughs are not always the hearty belly-laughs that signify a great comedy. Carell and Fey are only working with the lines they’re given, so a fair amount of the blame needs to go to the scriptwriter for giving such moderately funny lines to such a dynamic duo. Still though, you would think that talented comedians would have tried a little ad-libbing to improve a scene or two.
Another attribute of the film that works both ways (good and bad) is the inclusion of so many colorful supporting characters. On one hand, it helps distract the audience from the fact that Carell and Fey aren’t being as funny as they ‘ought’ to be. Mark Wahlberg is hilarious as the shirtless security guy who repeatedly comes to the Fosters’ rescue. At the same time, it’s the kind of over-the-top stereotype character you aren’t surprised to see in a chase-comedy. A lot of the supporting roles are like this, which makes for some good initial laughs but the conceit wears out the longer you’re exposed to these folk.
What holds the film together is the likableness of the Fosters. Unless you’re deeply cynical towards middle-class, white suburban couples, it’s easy to root for them. They’re nice people who are just trying to keep life interesting- something most of us yearn for at some point in our own lives. It may help to be married, possibly with children too, to pick up some of the subtler quips and nuances. Young adults expecting something Hangover-esque will be disappointed but the rest of us will, at the very least, enjoy ourselves.
That’s the kind of movie Date Night is- one where you’re likely to enjoy yourself if nothing else. That’s certainly not a bad thing but it doesn’t make for a very memorable viewing experience. It’s a movie you wouldn’t mind tuning into if you come across it on the TV or, if you own it, one that you can pop in just about any time for a few easy laughs. While it would be nice for Hollywood to get back to making great films consistently, there’s also a need for more above-average comedies like this one.
After six and a half films in the span of a decade, what, really, is left to write about the Harry Potter series? The final installment provides the ending the series needed and deserved. For the first time in the whole series, I’m approaching a Harry Potter film the right way. I’m not concerned with its merits as an adaptation of the book. That’s a debate for another time and another website. I’m focusing on the technique, execution and realization of this story on film. With that as my starting point, I can proudly report that Harry Potter goes out with a crowd-pleasing bang.
After learning about the Deathly Hallows in Part 1, Harry, Ron, and Hermione set out to locate Lord Voldemort’s remaining horcruxes. Their journey is beset on every turn by danger. The young-adult wizard school pals stage a break-in at Gringotts Wizarding Bank and set their sights on a final good-vs.-evil throwdown with Voldemort and his army of dark wizards in the corridors of Hogwarts.
I doubt I could spoil this film for many people at this point. If you’ve read the book you know what happens. Same goes for anyone who already saw the movie. If, for some reason, you wanted to see this movie but haven’t yet, all I will say is that you are in luck. Unless you’re a purist to the books and live in a bubble where only tiringly literal adaptations like Sorcerer’s Stone and Chamber of Secrets make the grade, you will be pleased with what director David Yates fits into its 130-minute runtime.
On its own, Deathly Hallows Part 2 still comes up short simply because it is half a movie. While Part 1 was mostly build-up, Part 2 sees all of that energy released in a flurry of action, battle sequences, and hundreds of the magical spells and enchantments that we’ve come to expect. I wasn’t crazy about where the first installment left off because it lacked appropriate momentum. Part 2 makes up for that in droves. While there is still uncertainty about the location and appearance of the remaining horcruxes, gone is the sense of aimless wandering. Urgency is the theme for both sides in the looming magical war. This sense of urgency ratchets up the anticipation and the tension.
As with all the other Harry Potter flicks, Part 2 uses a bit too much CGI at times. Unlike some fantasy adventures, this film lucks out because the magical world is largely separate from the real world, making some of the less than stellar effects amenable. If your story is supposed to take place in the real world, audiences expect things to look real and interactive. Pure fictional settings are a gift and a curse because you can set your own rules. This leads to some filmmakers going overboard though. Since Harry Potter’s world is half-real and half-fictional, the filmmakers are able to blur the line of expectations quite well, giving them all the latitude they need to tell their story.
We had to wait several months for this concluding chapter in the Harry Potter film saga. It is well worth the wait and Part 2 undeniably improves upon Part 1. The truth is, though, that they are companion pieces. Neither film tells a complete story, so you have to take them both in at the same time to really get the full picture. In time I plan on re-watching all of the Potter films in order to give them objective reviews uninfluenced by my memory of the books. At that time, I plan on rating Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows- the complete version, not as a two-parter. This way I can judge it not as a sum of its parts but as the epic conclusion it was always destined to be.
What do you get when Steven Spielberg produces a sci-fi fantasy flick directed by J.J. Abrams? The answer: About as much as you’d expect- a unique fusion of all the best elements of E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Cloverfield, and Lost. Yes, despite tall odds, Super 8 is both a tender coming of age story and a riveting mystery adventure. As an added bonus, it’s all wrapped up in a delightfully nostalgic 70s setting.
A few months after his mother’s death, 14-year-old Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) is just trying to enjoy being a kid. It’s 1979 and all Joe and his friends want to do is make a zombie movie with a super 8 camera. While trying to film a night scene at an old train station, Joe and the gang witness (and record) a monstrous train wreck caused by one of their high school teachers. When strange things begin happening around town and the US Air Force starts taking over, Joe, his friends, and the adults in town all try to figure out what is going on.
Enough cannot be said about the talented group of child actors chosen for this film. Most of the boys had little professional experience on their resumes, which makes all of their performances flow with a realism that is lacking from more polished Hollywood child actors. The adult side of the story is pretty much the Kyle Chandler show, which is just fine by me. As a fan of the TV show Friday Night Lights, I think I would enjoy hearing Chandler read from a phone book.
Another triumph of this film is all the little details. I myself did not grow up in the late 70s, so I can only trust J.J. Abrams to recall correctly the sights and sounds of the era of his youth. The details I’m talking about are the nuances of childhood that transcend generations. The boys all swear around each other as if they’re showing off a shiny new toy they’ve discovered. The body language is also spot on with all the teen angst, romance, and the kind of foolhardy attitude that would lead a teen boy to rush headlong into danger.
Only a few things don’t work well for this film. First, the train crash the kids witness is utterly absurd in both its physics and duration. It looks cool but there’s no way that happens in real life. Second, Abrams cannot get away from using special effects and CGI to bring parts of his story to life. Despite all the technological advancements over the years, there’s still no way to make an overabundance of CGI look realistic. Whether it’s Abram’s choice or done to meet the demands of the movie-going public, there’s not enough Spielbergian restraint on showing us more than what subtle special effects can pull off. Anytime the illusion of reality is broken, it hurts a film in ways that can rarely be made up for, especially for a film with a real world setting.
Will Super 8 go down in history as an iconic sci-fi film? No. Did it set out to accomplish such a lofty goal? No. All Super 8 wants to do is make us feel nostalgic for more innocent times when kids were kids (and actually played outside), people were less cynical, and our minds could still be captured and held in awe by heartwarming tales of the supernatural. To that end, this film is a success.
Featuring a powerful one-two punch in the acting department and a solid supporting cast, all one needs to do is see this film to understand why it claimed Best Picture at the Oscars. While younger audiences may yearn for something more contemporary and faster-paced, The King’s Speech mirrors its subject matter with a measured pace that is both satisfying and rewarding.
The film follows Britain’s Prince Albert, Duke of York (Colin Firth) along his journey to Kinghood (as George VI) in the 1920s and 30s as he struggles to overcome his pronounced speech impediment. Helping him through his struggle to sound like the leader of his people is Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), a quirky Australian actor and speech therapist. In confronting his client’s stammer, Logue also helps Albert/George confront feelings about his brother Edward and other memories that influence and exacerbate his speaking issues.
Let’s not kid ourselves here, this film is all about Colin Firth’s performance. It is darn near flawless. People work for years to conquer speech impediments, making it difficult to accurately determine how much progress Albert/George makes as we jump through the years. The way Firth pins down the intricacies of the stammer is impressive because actors are notorious for underplaying and overplaying disabilities to movie-ruining effect. Firth’s performance makes this film, no doubt about it.
Fortunately, this film is not like many biopics in that it is not a one-star show. Geoffrey Rush is delightful as Logue, providing most of the humor opposite of Firth’s pathetic and angry straight man role. Helena Bonham Carter isn’t given much to work with as the Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother, not the current queen) but it’s a refreshing break from her usual eccentric roles. Guy Pearce is perfectly slimy as Edward, the weasel who makes Albert/George’s life miserable as a person and as a royal.
As something of a history buff, I am probably better able to appreciate this film’s sets, costumes and visual effects than some in my generation. Period details are often lost on people uninterested in things that aren’t flashy and hip. So if you can’t get into the story being told in The King’s Speech, you’ll be too bored to appreciate the subtle and intricate details the filmmakers are careful to include.
There may not be anything in the way of unique or fancy camerawork on display in this film but the story doesn’t require it, so that cannot be considered a negative. Younger audiences may be turned off by the old school approach the filmmakers are going for but if you’re over the age of 21, chances are you will be able to see this film for what it is- a great true-life story told through great performances. In short, a great film.
While waiting for this film to entertain me, the darndest thing happened- the credits rolled. That’s my cynical take on Adam Sandler’s first “comedic” offering in 2011. A more balanced approach would go something like this: Just Go with It is an uninspired film suffering from lazy writing and made worse by performances by all but one of its stars.
Adam Sandler stars as Danny, a plastic surgeon in LA. When picking up girls, he pretends to be stuck in an unhappy marriage. Lo and behold, Danny finally meets “the one”- Palmer (Brooklyn Decker). Trouble is, she doesn’t want to be any part of what she thinks is adultery. Instead of coming clean, Danny tells her he is getting divorced from his wife soon. This leads Danny to go to extremes to sell the ruse. For a fee, he enlists the services of his single-mom receptionist (Jennifer Aniston) and her kids, but gets much more than he bargained for.
The first and most critical mistake made here is Danny’s characterization. I know we live in morally ambiguous times but there’s absolutely nothing likeable about a man pretending to be unhappily married to attract women. The fact that he is willing to use a nice woman and her children to that very end is borderline reprehensible. Oh sure, there’s a good natured twist at the end of it all but that ending is so obvious from the start that the journey is hardly worthy of the final destination.
The script is full of the kind of situational gags, physical comedy and toilet humor Sandler fans have come to expect. Sandler, however, appears to run on autopilot through the entire film. It’s hard to tell if he is bored with the film or if he’s forgotten that it takes effort (not just his presence) to produce comedy. In her first film role, it is clear that Brooklyn Decker is more accustomed to strutting around in bikinis than acting. Paper-thin as her character may be, Decker fails to do more than look pretty.
Jennifer Aniston, however, saves the film. Instead of trapping herself in the confines of romantic comedies and roles too serious for audiences to accept her in, Aniston lets her hair down and seems to be having a ball here. Her character’s frustration with Sandler brings out the best from her natural sass and charm. She gets and delivers the best lines in the film.
Despite Aniston’s best efforts, Just Go with It falls flat. Having made his millions already and ventured into more challenging roles recently, it seems Sandler is content to ride the coattails of his own success here. Unfortunately for him, the fact that he is in the film does not automatically make it funny. Aniston’s solid performance cannot win out over Sandler’s weak performance and Decker’s non-performance, leaving you with only a couple of giggles and an occasional chuckle, but never any hearty laughs. This is simply not acceptable from a comedy.
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.
