The Land Before Time (1988)

In 1979, Don Bluth quit his job at Disney and convinced a number of animators to come with him to start their own animated film production company. Their first two films garnered critical acclaim and success at the box office while Disney was seemingly stuck in a rut of films that failed to connect with audiences. Disney had to be sweating bullets when Oliver & Company opened against The Land Before Time and for good reason. Bluth’s liberation allowed him to tap into everything that Disney was lacking in the 80s until The Little Mermaid came along.

As water and food become scarce, a young Apatosaurus named Littlefoot and his family head out in search of the Great Valley- a land rumored to be untouched by the growing drought. Along the way, Littlefoot and his family are separated by a massive earthquake. Though dealing with grief, loneliness, and fear, Littlefoot commits himself to reuniting with his family. He soon picks up a hodge-podge of other young dinosaurs, forming a unique caravan. As the youths wander the wastelands for clues leading to the Great Valley, a dangerous predator is hot on their tails.

This film continues the success of Don Bluth’s animation team. Most of this film is full of crisp animation, rich colors, and a style that bests most of what Disney produced in the 80s. Each of the young dinosaurs is animated with just the right amount of anthropomorphism in that their dinosaur nature is never truly betrayed. The blend of two-legged, four-legged, and a winged dinosaur injects a nice sense of variety. There are a few moments of less sophisticated animation, where dimension lines are drawn over a splotch of one color. This was used during Bluth’s time at Disney in the 70s and, though I cannot blame him for falling back on a familiar technique, it still bugs me a little as it did with those Disney flicks.

The story is sweet and provides a good message to the target audience. The band-of-misfits-accomplishing-something-amazing storyline was used to death in children’s and young adult films in the 80s and is now terribly cliché but The Land Before Time rises above. Perhaps it is because our main characters are not people. Perhaps it is also because the only great thing the young dinosaurs do is fight to survive. Sure, they get creative in scaring off a group of aggressive pachycephalosaurids and come up with a plan to take on a T-Rex, but it’s never anything that seems too over the top.

Back in the day, The Land Before Time was a heartwarming tale of persistence and innocence. Millennials born after 1990 may not see much magic in the story but for those of us 80s babies, this is a joyful romp in childhood nostalgia. It may not be the masterpiece I grew up thinking it was but this film is still a winner and helped show other studios that Disney did not control the market on quality animated films.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Lilo & Stitch (2002)

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

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

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

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

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

RATING: 3 out of 5

Short Circuit (1986)

This film is a classic. By classic I mean that it was on weekend movie marathons often enough while I was growing up for me to fall in love with it. This was, however, my first time watching the film in its entirety and uncensored. It’s still a loveable little flick and worth popping in for purely nostalgic purposes but even I have to admit that Short Circuit is little more than a fun guilty pleasure.

When a bolt of lightning scrambles the programming of a secret military robot, Number 5 becomes self-aware and escapes his military home base in a quest for knowledge. Upon meeting Number 5, Stephanie Speck (Ally Sheedy) thinks he’s an alien and feeds his request for input by allowing Number 5 to go on an all-night information bender of encyclopedias and late-night TV. When the military comes looking to find and destroy Number 5, Stephanie teams up with two of Number 5’s sympathetic creators (Steve Guttenberg and Fisher Stevens) to save the robot and help him find his place in the world.

This film has 80s guilty pleasure written all over it. Steve Guttenberg? Check. Humorous science-fiction? Check. Subtle anti-Reaganist sentiment? Check. I do have to say though that more than a few elements of Short Circuit just wouldn’t be tolerable anymore. Hollywood probably wouldn’t dare make a comedy about weaponized technology these days. That’s best left to doomsday-cautioning anti-military industrial flicks with bad acting and spooky music. And let’s be honest- it’s a wonder that Fisher Stevens’ (a white Jewish guy) portrayal of an Indian guy (with tan makeup no less) wasn’t decried back in the 80s.

Short Circuit spins a yarn that is cute but not very believable. Who in their right mind would hide and protect a lethal government robot? Why wouldn’t the government have an internal tracking mechanism on the unit rather than one that can be removed? On top of it all are action-comedy clichés like the good guy disappearing at the right moments to sneak up perfectly on the bad guys. If not for the sass and spunk of Number 5, this film would have been dead on arrival.

But Number 5 looks awesome and has the right blend of innocence and sarcasm to his personality to make him endearing. Once his circuits fry, he ceases to seem dangerous or threatening to our protagonists. You never truly believe that he is alive but he certainly puts himself on the line of potential sentience. Number 5’s construction also helps blur the line between human and machine, with features that mimic eyelids and movements oftentimes precise enough to almost be human.

As flawed as this film really is, the character of Number 5 carries the whole thing on his mechanical back effortlessly. Steve Guttenberg’s presence tells you the film will be corny but it also turns out to be a lot of fun. Hitting the right blend of one part drama and two parts comedy makes this film work. Too much drama and it would seem ridiculous and stupid. Too much comedy and it would be too cheesy even for a guilty pleasure. Dated as just about everything is in this film, I will always have a soft spot in my heart for Short Circuit.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol (2011)

Just when you thought this film series was dead yet again, Tom Cruise comes storming back with a new team of special ops experts to make saving the world look super cool. While there is no shortage of death-defying antics, Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol passes on labyrinthine plots for a straight-forward action-heist flick with a few surprises along the way. In what may be an unprecedented turn of events, this- the fourth M:I film- is the best entry to date.

After a botched attempt to intercept top-secret Russian nuclear weapon launch codes, IMF breaks Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) out of a Russian prison to steal files that identify a dangerous person of interest code-named ‘Cobalt.’ Ethan and his team (Simon Pegg and Paula Patton) are outted during the attempt and the Kremlin is bombed, forcing the US government to initiate Ghost Protocol- disavowing any knowledge of IMF agents or operations. Now hot on the trail of Cobalt, Hunt and his team must clear their names, stop Cobalt from launching nuclear weapons, and diffusing the tension the USA and Russia, who blame the US for the Kremlin attack.

This film hearkens back to the original Mission: Impossible film while simultaneously moving the series forward. Just like in the first film, Ethan Hunt is trying to clear his name while also stopping the bad guy. As an added bonus, he gets to save the world too. While some might complain about Ghost Protocol’s straightforward approach, it actually helps to make the film’s spectacle action sequences a little more believable.

The film as a whole is less intelligent than the first and third films but it is also far less confusing. The filmmakers craft a tale that doesn’t need a final-reel exposition dump to explain key twists. We are treated to a complete story develop before our eyes that makes sense and is easy to digest. Perhaps this is why Ghost Protocol became the most popular installment of the franchise.

One of my peeves with the other three M:I films is that they don’t feature dynamic support teams for Ethan Hunt. Through three films, only Ving Rhames appeared more than once, rendering the rest of Hunt’s crews to be throwaway co-stars. Thankfully, M:I-GP features great chemistry between Ethan’s team members. Simon Pegg returns to add just the right touch of quirky awkwardness, Paula Patton is a great femme fatale, and Jeremy Renner’s caught-up-in-it-all character makes a great sidekick capable of standing toe-to-toe with Hunt. For once, everyone involved seems as lethal, smart, and daring as an M:I team ought to be. It would be a mistake not to bring all of these characters back for M:I 5.

Like any action/spy flick, M:I-GP has its moments of outlandishness and even silliness. The bit near the end where Jeremy Renner’s character wears a magnetic suit to access a server room is pretty absurd, and there are probably a number of action sequences that fly in the face of physics. None of this bothers me too much because this film is end-to-end fun. A few minor quibbles aside, M:I-GP has the right balance of danger, excitement, and spectacle to make it an undisputed winner. To watch an action film that doesn’t insult your intelligence and is fun to watch? We’ve been longing for summer flicks like this for quite some time.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Monsters University (2013)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Blue Umbrella (2013)

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

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

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

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

RATING: 3 out of 5

Les Misérables* (2012)

Even though I was involved with my college’s student theatre group for four years, I have never considered myself a theatre person. I have no burning desire to see a Broadway show and I do not have enough experience with stage productions to form any preconceived notions of what a good movie-musical should look or sound like. I think the absence any personal stylistic biases helps me enjoy Les Misérables more objectively and fully than some of its critics.

This story is far too long and complex to summarize in one paragraph but I will do my best. After a moral conviction, parolee Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) reforms his life but, in doing so, violates his parole. An act of mercy exposes Valjean’s identity to the ruthlessly legalistic lawman Javert (Russell Crowe), who makes it his personal mission to hunt Valjean down. Years later, Valjean and the prostitute’s daughter in his care are caught up in the clamor of proposed revolution. Try as Valjean might, the lovely Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) falls in love with a charming wannabe revolutionary. Between protests in the streets and Javert hot on their heels, Valjean tries his best to maintain his freedom while providing a life of opportunity for his adoptive daughter.

Even at two and a half hours, cramming this much story together makes things feel more than a little rushed at times. Because of this, a lot of character development is either stunted or missing altogether. I would have particularly appreciated a little more focus on Javert. I get the stereotypical hardcore lawman bit but we could use a little more time to see his conflict growing as he considers how Jean Valjean’s selfless acts conflict with his beliefs that law and morality are equivalent.

Unlike some, I love the decision to have the cast singing live to the camera rather than lip syncing over a pre-recorded track. Les Misérables takes the audience into the gritty, dirty streets of impoverished 19th Century Paris. Using raw vocals fits the raw setting we find our characters in. It also lets the actors and actresses act through their singing instead of trying to make their expressions match the tone of voice on a recording. This is effective on pretty much all of Hugh Jackman’s songs and also very powerful for Anne Hathaway’s solo number “I Dreamed a Dream.” These pretty Broadway songs are made far more moving this way, helping this film stand out amongst its movie-musical peers for me.

I haven’t exactly followed Hugh Jackman’s career outside of the X-Men films but from all that he does here, I have to assume this is the performance of his career to date. This story requires a strong performance out of Valjean and that is precisely what Jackman delivers. We see anger, fear, determination, and tenderness that suck you in and break your heart by the end of it all. You get the sense that this role is something of a dream come true for him because he clearly gives it his all.

As supporting characters, Anne Hathaway delivers a powerful performance of desperation and Amanda Seyfried performs admirably as the love-struck Cosette. Russell Crowe is certainly the film’s weakest link in terms of singing ability but the man does play a good villain. Les Mis feels the most disjointed during the scenes featuring Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as the Thénardiers. Everything about them feels like it belongs in a separate world from the rest of the film. A tremendous amount of drama and realism abounds in Les Mis but the Thénardiers are just so wacky and bizarre that it feels very obviously like a comic relief sideshow. These characters serve an important purpose to the overall story but it is clear that Broadway yukked these folks up a little too much from the source material.

Combine this largely talented cast with beautiful but not showy costumes and splendid location and studio sets and it really is like you are there. In addition to the live singing, director Tom Hooper lets the camera follow characters through sets more, avoiding the stagy feel of most movie-musicals. Despite a few visual effects that fail to impress, Les Misérables has more than enough going right for it to make it a film that commands a large screen. If you did not catch this one in theaters, it is your loss. I went to see it because my wife loves the musical but I left the theater a fan.

RATING: 4 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Monsters, Inc. (2001)

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORIGINAL RATING: 3.25 out of 5

NEW RATING: 3.75 out of 5

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Over a decade after bringing the first Lord of the Rings film to life, director Peter Jackson finally brings us the first part of the first tale set in Middle Earth, that of Bilbo Baggins and his epic quest. Those anticipating a viewing experience on par with the quality of the award-winning trilogy will undoubtedly think my rating is too generous. Knowing the differences between the two as books, I got only slightly less than what I hoped for.

Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) lives the quiet life of a Hobbit until the wandering wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) volunteers him to host a gathering for a band of dwarves on a quest to reclaim their homeland from a dragon. The otherwise careful hobbit lets curiosity get the best of him and he sets out across Middle Earth into places and dangers he never imagined. Surrounded by orcs, elves, trolls, and the forces of darkness, Bilbo tries his best to earn the respect of his dwarf companions while keeping himself alive.

Having read The Hobbit several times, I was fully prepared for the lighter story being told. While The Lord of the Rings is an epic drama with sprinkles of humor and wit, The Hobbit has always been more popcorn friendly. Bilbo is setting out on a treasure hunt, not to save the world. Sure, the quest means everything to the dwarves he travels with but to him and to the audience, the journey to the Lonely Mountain is but a wide-eyed adventure. For the most part, that is exactly what you get with this film. It looks pretty good, it’s exciting, and it’s quite a good bit of fun.

So what holds this film back? More than a little, sadly. For starters, The Hobbit is a much shorter book than The Lord of the Rings, so Jackson runs the risk of spreading this tale far too thin over the planned three films. As all first films must, An Unexpected Journey introduces the main characters and sets the wheels in motion. We start out with a prologue narrated by an older Bilbo (Ian Holm from the LOTR series), which seems to run a tad long but also frees up a lot of time later on by dumping a pile of exposition on you first thing.

Two critical story elements throw a perpetual wrench into the film’s narrative. Even in the book, I felt there were too many dwarves in Thorin’s company. It is cumbersome to try to differentiate and involve that many characters in one story. The fact that they are all dwarves doesn’t help much either. Kudos to Jackson for trying to make them all look different but the end result is remembering only three or four out of the thirteen of them by name.

In an attempt to spread out the story, Jackson pumps quite a bit of expository filler and tangential scenes that form as a loose bridge to the events of The Lord of the Rings. I can understand the desire to throw some foreshadowing into the mix but because most people saw the LOTR trilogy first, much of the foreshadowing feels unnecessary. Perhaps future generations that watch the Hobbit trilogy first will think more highly of those tangents but to me it feels forced. It is wholly unrelated to the story being told and slows the film down. Tolkien fanatics may disagree but to casual observers, it’s a bit of a drag at times.

The biggest filmmaking flaw is the overuse of CGI. The Lord of the Rings flicks crossed the line occasionally but The Hobbit seems to ignore the fact that there is a line at all. Wide shots look pretty good for the most part but when Jackson launches the camera through the action to follow characters around or spin and pan between characters instead of cutting, sequences begin to look almost like a video game instead of a movie. Case in point, much of the scenes involving the Goblins inside the Misty Mountains don’t cut it.

Overall, I was pretty pleased with how An Unexpected Journey turned out. I didn’t mind the songs (a major turnoff for a number of people for some reason), Middle Earth still looks pretty spectacular, and the film sets things up pretty well for the rest of trilogy. The problems with this film largely stem from Jackson’s indulgence. He had some tight budget restrictions on The Lord of the Rings films but takes full advantage of budgetary carte blanche here. I would have been happy with fewer LOTR allusions, quite a bit less CGI, the total absence of Radagast the Brown, and a better ending point (they should have ended with Thorin’s company entering Mirkwood), but I can live with what we got.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Babe* (1995)

Here is one of those rare children’s / family films that just nails it. It’s cute but not sappy, simple but not stupid, and heartwarming without inducing your gag reflex. I don’t know that it deserved to be nominated for Best Picture, but Babe is a charming little puff piece that hasn’t lost much, if any, of its magic over the last two decades.

The runt of the litter and unwanted by his pork farm owners, he is offered up as the prize for a weight-guessing game at a local carnival. After guessing correctly, Farmer Hoggett (James Cromwell) brings him home to his small countryside farm. Some of the barnyard and household animals embrace him while others want nothing to do with him. Adopted by a family of sheep dogs, Babe’s spunk and desire to take up the “family” business catches the eye of Farmer Hoggett, leading him to defy convention and risk humiliation by registering Babe in a sheep-herding contest.

Live-action movies with talking animals strike me as risky business. You can do anything you want with animation, and there is a lot of leeway when the film is just about talking animals. Films like Babe, which set talking animals against a very real-world setting including humans have to be done just right. The animals have to act like animals and they can’t be too smart or the humans too dumb. Credit is due both the filmmakers and undoubtedly the author of the book the film is based on for fashioning a slate of animal and human characters that walk this tightrope act with ease.

Plain and simple, films like this live and die by the animal performances. To bring this film to life, the director, cinematographer, and animal trainers all have to be on the same page. The animals hit their marks (though I can imagine multiple takes required for each scene) and the cinematography captures the animal movements from angles and in lighting that complete the illusion.

Praise is also due to the people behind giving voices to the animal characters. All of the voice characterizations are terrific because the voice textures blend with the animal actions in such a way that you have no problem believing that these animals actually possess the personalities being expressed. The visual effects department also does a flawless job of making each animal look as if it is actually delivering the lines without defying animal anatomy. Between subtle mouth movements via animatronics in production and computer effects in post-production, the filmmakers make talking animals look plausible, eliminating most of the objections our brains would normally raise.

I think the only thing in this film that dates it is when Farmer Hoggett and his wife receive a fax machine as a gift to help keep in touch with their city-dwelling children and grandkids. Otherwise the film exists within a world insulated from changes in fashion and culture. You can watch Babe today and still presume it to be set at a modern quaint off-the-beaten-path English farm whose owners eschew fancy technology. Its setting is as close to timeless as you can hope for in a family friendly film and it comes with a whole lot of charm. This will be one to share with the kids and grandkids someday.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5