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

SECOND HELPINGS: High Noon* (1952)

This is another one of the Original Eleven, the films I watched in my college class that became the foundation of this website. As an 18-year old raised on Star Wars and Indiana Jones, I thought this film was boring. Seeing it again years later, I am reminded of just how immature I was when I first got into this whole rating movies thing.

In my youth, I was completely ignorant to the uniqueness of High Noon’s concept. It probably wasn’t the first film to tell its story as it plays out in real time but that doesn’t matter. Few filmmakers go this route at all, so it is noteworthy when it is done and done as well as it is here. We are given enough time for characters to catch the audience up to speed through exposition and to let us know just how high the stakes are.

My father is a big Clint Eastwood fan, so I grew up watching and appreciating antiheroes. I think this factored heavily in my original rating, because after so many years of cheering on rogues, a dutiful and honorable sheriff doing his job seemed pretty uninteresting. I’m still not much of a cookie-cutter good guy Western fan but I understand now that High Noon is anything but cookie cutter.

Over the years Westerns have been generalized as either rowdy cowboy flicks or simplistic good-vs.-bad yarns. High Noon is a good-vs.-bad yarn but its characters are much more contemplative than characters in other films in the genre at that time. Instead of boldly standing up for justice when no one else will, Will Kane wavers on whether to defend his town or go on his honeymoon, and shows mounting frustration at the cowardice of his friends and fellow townsfolk. Kane’s Quaker bride struggles with Kane’s sense of duty and her strong devotion to pacifism.

The end result is realism that overshadows Kane’s nobility in taking on the gunman descending upon the town. It’s not pretty, and even a bit surprising for a Western, but it is still satisfying. But as much as High Noon can drive post-film conversation, is it really an all-time classic? Just like real life, the film drags on at times before getting to the point. We’re treated to all kinds of thought-provoking conversation but does that make up for what could be argued are rehashed scenes of Kane running around town getting the same disappointing result?

Now that I am older, I can appreciate the novel concept of this film and I enjoy the intelligence it tries to bring to what had largely become a brainless genre. But that’s about it for me. It’s unique and well-made but other than tricky editing to make it all flow as close to real-time as possible, I didn’t notice anything technically remarkable about the film. The acting is good but not emotionally gripping.

Let’s be honest- greatness is in the eye of the beholder. A part of me feels that this film was elevated to greatness by Hollywood and those who went on to be film theory professors because it was made as an allegory to Hollywood’s failure to stand up against Senator Joseph McCarthy and his HUAC and its blacklisting of Hollywood communist sympathizers.

I’m not suggesting that emotional resonance plays second fiddle to technical mastery, but for me to view a film as great, both need to be present in equally high amounts. A film’s greatness is determined by the sum of its parts. No one can impart or bestow greatness upon a film simply by stating that it is an allegory or metaphor for some other worthy struggle. If I came from that era, perhaps this film would mean more because I would be more familiar with its allegorical source. But I am not from that era, and the sum of High Noon’s parts that are timeless film traits (acting, cinematography, etc.) does not suggest greatness. I up my rating but I still don’t buy the hype.

Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5

New Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Independence Day (1996)

Remember the 90s? You know, when big, dumb summer movies didn’t have to be grim, gritty, or terribly realistic? Yeah, those were the days. For all its faults, Independence Day was just what the doctor ordered. It’s not high art but it’s filled with awesome special effects. Its story is completely implausible but darn if it isn’t well-written to cover up its faults. Simply put, no amount of scrutiny and nitpicking can prevent me from having a good time while watching this film.

Alien spacecraft take position over major cities across the globe. The human race’s worst fears are realized when these visitors turn out to be anything but friendly. Rising to the challenge to defeat this interstellar menace are a wise-cracking fighter pilot (Will Smith), a computer nerd (Jeff Goldblum), and the young and bold President of the United States (Bill Pullman).

This could have been just another dumb action flick where stuff blows up, feeding the need of testosterone-laden young men across the land. Thankfully, the writers created an enemy so powerful and advanced that the good guys can’t possibly win on grit, spit, and bullets alone. They need to get their geek on too. It sounds weird to say, but Jeff Goldblum’s character helps ground this film a little closer to reality. Call it a sign of the times or even ahead of its time, but Independence Day actually make warfare modern through the use of technological subterfuge. It goes well beyond the cheesy James Bond spy satellite stuff.

Let’s be realistic here for a moment. Like any action flick, this film is full of so much coincidence and lucky timing that you shouldn’t accept it. Spreading flames seem to slow down long enough to allow a dog to find safety and proceeds to not engulf a utility closet. An alien spaceship can be flown by humans, without spacesuits even. An Apple computer holds the key to conquering an alien race for crying out loud!

These sorts of things should suck us right out of a movie, yet Independence Day holds its own thanks to great writing and a wonderful cast. No one is gunning for an Oscar or fanboy cred here. Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum milk it for all its worth and Bill Pullman knows just when to switch gears from stoic and presidential to forceful and raw. Toss in some extra comedic relief with a redneck crop-duster, who claims to have been abducted by aliens, and you have nearly non-stop enjoyable fun.

The subject matter is bleak and could have been drowned in heavy brooding and violence but the story never lingers too long in despair and keeps the brutality of war at arm’s length. It’s absolutely silly but it is also slick and fun. Independence Day is what most summer action flicks aspire to be. There is a reason no one remembers it for its quality. The foundation is beyond shaky but the rest of the ingredients pack such a punch that only foreign audiences tired of Americans saving the day and anti-war leftists will dislike it.

RATING: 3.25 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