Ghost Mike's Movie Review Roundup #4 · 7:01pm September 17th
Best turn away if legacy Disney Animation isn’t your thing This roundup is mostly dedicated to the remaining Disney100 rereleases I saw last year, though there is a surprise or two to round out the lot to seven.
It’s kind of funny how the first five films of the Disney100 reissues last week only covered a 24-year span, while the five today cover a much longer 46 years. Even more eyebrow-raising is how, despite slotting into the same “a pair of films from the same era, and one a half of the one from the first half”, they’re all pretty different. Another 60’s xerography flick, a Disney Renaissance masterpiece, Pixar’s first flick thrown in (I guess off some pressure from someone to not have these rereleases be all Disney Animation), Disney’s attempted return to 2D animation, and their biggest CG breakout hit that codified what they would get up to for the next ten years. In particular, having The Princess and the Frog and Frozen back-to-back, despite only coming out four years apart, they feel from different generations. Sometimes things change gradually over decades, sometimes it happens in the blink of an eye.
I won’t dwell further on the sadness of Disney Animation’s abandonment of the artistic medium of 2D animation for shrill, factory-made, heavy-in-audience-contemp CG animated films. Even if this marathon leading into the film made to celebrate their 100th anniversary, which turned out to be possibly their worst ever, makes it very tempting. No, instead I’ll just savour the joy of oldies and (mostly) goodies. And I often still find mixed films interesting – I was largely able to keep myself distant from the Frozen hype, for one, and thus both at the time and now, I can look at it as just a film, without letting its infamy influence me either way. Especially off its then-rather-public frantic scramble to retool the film for its release date, something most folks have forgotten (see also: that it was 2D until Disney forced it otherwise after The Princess and the Frog underperformed and Tangled did very well), but which gives me a lot that’s valuable to mull ou. Just click below into any of these to get similar insight. Or a justified royal bashing, in the case of Wish – I know some people find that more fun to read than a balanced appraisal or gushing.
On top of that sextet of animation, we also have Steven Spielberg’s medium-transforming creature feature that isn’t on the ocean (it got a 30th anniversary rerelease last September, and way a joy to see in a nearly-full cinema on National Cinema Day), which though I never saw as a child to have nostalgia for, will never not be a delight, warts and all. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a lot more response to that then any of the other six here, being honest.
- The Jungle Book (★★★1/2) – An easy, amicable watch: absolutely a fun time, but a rather broad, slack one, more a mixed effort leaning good. Thus, a trend-setter for the following two-decade slump at Disney Animation, though it shines compared to nearly all that period. September 16th 2023, rewatch, Disney100 reissue.
- Beauty and the Beast (★★★★★) – I may personally prefer some other Disney Renaissance flicks, but this is its crown jewel. It doesn't feel corporate the way even the best studio American animation often does: it unabashedly loves its audience and wants to treat them. September 24th 2023, rewatch, Disney100 reissue.
- Toy Story (★★★★★) – Arguably Pixar's best script after their late-2000s largely-for-adults trilogy, well-adapted to the tech's then-limits. Still one of The masterpieces of cinema, ambitious and assured in one fell stroke. Totally deserves its success and adoration. October 3rd 2023, rewatch, Disney100 reissue.
- The Princess and the Frog (★★★★) – Being a showcase of the best of Disney-style 2D animation does leave it a little structurally shaggy and broad. Otherwise, great characters, so expressive and playful, and it's got a visual unification like no other in "modern" Disney. October 8th 2023, rewatch, Disney100 reissue.
- Frozen (★★★) – On balance, the film does work, and the highlights are every bit as strong as in Tangled and Moana. Though what's around it is a lot dicier than those two flicks, and the strengths here often feel closer to accidents than the product of a coherent vision. October 15th 2023, rewatch, Disney100 reissue.
- Wish (★) – Fitting for Disney’s 100th that this showcases the sins with none of the merits, representing how a decade-plus of craven corporatisation and misguided everything has stripped one of cinema’s biggest art forms and brands of everything that made it worthwhile. November 26nd 2023.
- Jurassic Park (★★★★) – Even when it’s largely just surface-level stuff, and plenty flawed, it’s an iconic movie through and through that never ceases to entertain. The CG landscape it contributed to, nor its five-mixed-to-terrible sequels, don’t take away from that. September 2ndth 2023, rewatch, 30th Anniversary Rerelease (2D).
Something to keep in mind is that Disney's main purpose isn't to make films or run theme parks. Its critical mission is to make money. Lots and lots of filthy lucre!
Yeah, like Inside Out 2 and the "live" action The Lion King. Median, soulless, and derivative? Undeniably! But also the two top-grossing animated films of all time.
When they try something original like Frozen or Wish they get either a giant hit or a giant flop (more commonly the latter) and the execs have no idea why. So I suppose their take-away is that a Michelin-starred restaurant is far harder to pull off than a McDonald's franchise store, and they go for pushing french fries over confit de canard.
For me (in this current age of general enshittification), small-screen animation is where it's at. Yep, we may get a stunner of a movie every once in a while, but it seems to me that there's more fun and artistry to be found in online and streaming series.*
But a lot of the old classics do hold up rather well, and thanks for reminding me (and everyone else) that they're still there and enjoyable.
---------------
* Just got back onto Regular Show, BTW. It continues to amuse.
5804866
Yes, I am well aware of the ways of the modern studio conglomerate. You know that, man.
It is a small miracle that the latter is no longer on top. And for what it's worth, as much of a conceptual wreck as it was and that it doesn't bear thinking, I wouldn't describe I02 as soulless. It sucks to have a "it's, like, fine" film at the top of that chart, but better that than a crime against cinema, amirite?
Or the "more or less breaks even, but we can't really turn it into further merch and licensing profits" result. Which, yes, is common enough to count as a third result, and also still a reason for them to favour franchises.
I was reading an IGN article yesterday that anonymously interviewed some Pixar people who got laid off earlier this year – before Inside Out 2 released, thereby denying them the bonuses may of them rely on to get by as it's not a union studio. But among all the descriptions of the crunch and such, one bit in there was that, two years on, Disney leadership still puts down a large part of Lightyear's failure to the blink-and-you'll-miss-it same-sex kiss (and thereby animators continuously got notes to remove any potentially gay subtext in IO2). Just another example of them refusing to ever admit that a movie's quality or clarity in concept is the reason for its failure. See also: Pixar recently citing a move away from the personal director-led stories of the early 2020s back to "everyone can relate to" stories.
Even as someghost whose storytelling instincts lean more towards the narrative structure of a film over a tv series, either episodic or longform, I can agree on that.
Of course, tv/streaming has a boost in that there's a lot more of it, and when you find a quality show, it can last you longer. So I think if you were to throw a dart at a row of animated movies and tv shows in the last two years, you'd likely get better quality from the former, but if you get to choose, the quantity of the latter (and, yes, the lower budgets affording greater creative freedom) give it a major boost.
Being honest, though, these days, both in movies and tv, I mostly just get my fix unearthing older stuff I never watched/haven't watched in a long time. I've kinda given up on Hollywood and such, unless something with a strong trusted endorsement or which I have a good feeling worth trusting comes along.
Amuse is the perfect word for it too. One contemporary review once described it more as "pleasingly weird" than laugh-out-loud funny. But it has a certain magnetic allure in that low-key vibe that I just dug, even as most other Cartoon Network shows of that era failed to strike a spark with me, even when they were good.
Here's a rather churning stat: the last time I updated my Disney Animated Canon ranking (of course I have one, what do you expect?), I also checked not just the average, but the average of the traditional and CG movies if I split them up. The 46 traditional movies were 0.4 (on a scoring system out of ten) higher than the combined average. The 16 CG ones? A whole 1.125 lower.
But in this days and age where everything is always about what's current, and once it's out it's yesterday's news, I think it's more valuable than ever to consider stuff from yesteryear. Or yesterdecade, as the case may often be.
Agreed on the five star rating for Beauty and the Beast, though I think I would go so far as to call that my favorite Disney animated film without much of a contest (live-action is a coin toss between Mary Poppins and The Love Bug). Ashman and Menken's score for the film is a delight, and Angela Lansbury's rendition of the title track is spectacular and far superior to all the others.
Jungle Book is a fine first half but it gets a bit saggy in the later parts, it's a like-but-not-love film for me. I like Toy Story plenty, though you can still see Katzenberg's fingerprints on it (Woody is a bit of a dick still despite their toning down of that from the version he demanded). Haven't seen Princess & the Frog, thought Frozen was just 'eh', and, well, do I need to explain why I passed on Wish?
Jurassic Park is what I point to as an encapsulation of the 1990s (and Crichton's style in general). The central conceit works in the time capsule of the era because things did feel science-plausible/science-near-future given the rapid advances that were coming practically day after day, plus it's just a fun film overall.
5805112
Among those looking at the films more objectively rather than going by gut feelings, BatB does seem to be the most common consensus for best Disney Animated film, at least if really old films aren't to those people's tastes (for those that are, the Golden Age films get up there, and especially Fantasia for the artistically minded). As well it should, given how sound and stable it is in every aspect of its filmmaking.
I know The Love Bug is pretty well-regarded, but that is not a toss-up you hear frequently!
Of course, most live-action Disney films are either mildewy (especially before the 80's takeover, where they were juvenile and catered to a non-existent idea of a platonic young child), or aren't what we associate with them (the first Pirates of the Caribbean is a great film, but even its fans largely wouldn't think of it when asked to name a favourite). Hence why Mary Poppins takes the spot for most people.
Even as a huge Menken fan, I can admit his scores can be a little light outside of hearing the song melodies, at least to the point where the song are superior (sure, I have the score of Aladdin memorised, but I still wouldn't recommend it as a listening experience to those outside of movie score aficionados). This and Hunchback are easily his two highlights where they are every bit as crucial as the quality songs (in the latter, arguably more so).
Honestly, forgetting remakes and such, you can count the number of times with a Disney film where the pop song rendition in the end credits is superior to the in-film one on one hand (for me, "Go the Distance" in Hercules is the only outright winner, while "Reflection" from Mulan could go either way). Hay, I still remember when the Demi Lovato version of "Let it Go" was released two months ahead of the film to get some charts buzz going, and then the in-film version did so much better.
Similar results for opposite reasons! [I cite in the full review how there basically isn't a plot until Shere Khan shows up two-thirds in as rather a detriment.] But I can for sure see that, if the film succeeds for one primarily just for hanging out with the characters. Even my "yes, but…" stance on that doesn't invalidate that they are fun to hang around with, by and large.
When rewatching it last year here, I did think that Tom Hanks' performance was a lifesaver there, making Woody's remaining rough edges not come off as abrasive in an off-putting way the most actors surely would have.
It's worth noting that John Lasseter (yes, yes, I know ) seems/seemed to have a thing for jerk-protagonists who redeem themselves in the flicks he directs. Woody having that kind of arc was his idea, it just got pushed way too far off executive notes before they were able to bring it back. Lightning McQueen mellowing out from being a city prick in Cars is an equally telling example. And the early drafts of A Bug's Life had the protagonists be a red ant in the circus who fabricated them being warrior bugs to the colony's scouts so he and the others could leech off the free support and scarper before the grasshoppers arrived, before of course they grew to like the ants proper.
No, and neither do all those people who snuffed it to not even an Encanto-level box office, after three years of cinema attendance recovering a lot more from COVID. Doesn't get more telling than that! Honestly, despite my completionism, I am getting pretty darn close to not bothering with future Disney Animation films.
Interesting read. I don't think modern audiences have any trouble accepting the base concept, though perhaps it's hard to tell if that's just because it's an established pop culture mainstay. But you are right, science and technology were progressing fast then.
I haven't read the book, but I've read a lot about the numerous changes the film makes, especially in tone and outlook, so you quoting that as feeling more or less the same between both is curious too.
You know, I was wondering if all the negativity around Wish was more actual poor quality or just the feeding frenzy that seems to perpetually exist around modern Disney as people from all political views and opinions relish in finding something to hate. Your vote seems to put it squarely in the former, and yours is the only internet movie review I particularly trust.
5805115
It's worth remembering that apart from being an M.D. and a highly accomplished author, Crichton was also a moderately successful director and a highly accomplished screenwriter - the first drafts of the screenplay for Jurassic Park were also written by him, with David Koepp doing the final revisions to get it into the form it was filmed. I suspect that's the reason that, while being different from the book, the film still succeeds on its own merits - the same writer was behind both.
It is perhaps not a coincidence that both films star David Tomlinson in a key role. :D
Really though, The Love Bug may be a little bit of Disney schmaltz, but it's a thoroughly fun movie for me with a lot of heart. The sequels...well, we'll ignore those.
5805116
Wish was more or less the end result of a 4 year period in which seemingly nearly everything Disney released, be it animated, live action, television, etc, underwhelmed, underperformed, and underdelivered. While there are certainly other issues at play with the decline of the Disney brand at the moment, the core products have all decayed enough that audience trust has been lost, and with a weakening economy, 'meh' or 'okay' isn't enough to get families to spend money at the movies.
Disney is responding to this by running back to more sequels and remakes, because they realize that they have a creative problem, but they're unwilling to fully confront how deeply it runs. That's beyond the scope of this blog though. :)
5804866
In defense of greed, compare Disney films to the novels published these days by literary publishers, like DeLillo's White Noise, Philip Roth's "American trilogy", and Saramajo's The Cave. These books, most award-winning literary novels, and 95% of literary short stories published in The New Yorker or Tin House, are... well, let me refer you to BZ Meyers, who's Reader's Manifesto makes the case against 21st century literary fiction better than I could. The situation has not improved since he wrote it 23 years ago.
The problem is that literary publishers aren't in it for the money. So they don't give a damn that the public doesn't like what they publish. They got into publishing for the social status. If you look at the novels shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize, you'll usually find that none of them sold more than 5000 copies unless they won the prize; and those that won, didn't sell more than 5000 copies until after they won the prize. A book usually needs to sell 10,000 copies to break even.
In Manhattan, if you write books or make art that lots of people like, you're called lowbrow. Bourgeois. (Ignoring the inconvenient fact that it is mostly the bourgeois who pretend not to like things that they call "bourgeois".)
I have read that about 85%? of people who work in literary publishing are women who don't need a paying job. This is because there are enough well-off women who want the status of working in literary publishing that literary publishers can require them to work 1 or more years as an unpaid intern (while living in Manhattan!) before promoting them to a real job.
Fun fact: According to a poll a few years ago, 80% of new hires into literary publishers entered the field specifically to help ensure that fewer novels written by men would be published. That takes precedence over making money.
(I'm using the term "literary publishers" to mean "the people at an imprint who work with new authors." It doesn't map cleanly onto, say, the Viking imprint of Penguin Random House, because most of that imprint's money comes from publishing classic novels that lots of people still want to buy.)
That isn't how it used to be. F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote for the money. Max Perkins, his editor (who almost co-wrote The Great Gatsby), who also edited Ernest Hemingway, Zora Neale Hurston, and Thomas Wolfe, was definitely interested in money. Part of his job was getting Scribners to survive financially thru both Wars and the Depression (As Ever Yours: The Letters of Max Perkins and Elizabeth Lemmon, edited by Rodger L. Tarr).
You can see the difference clearly if you compare books and interviews on writing written by literary novelists, and compare them to books on writing written by screenwriters. Screenwriters have an actual craft, a tested science of how to keep the audience in their seats. It is formulaic, but it results in movies that lots of people want to see. Literary authors drone on about "finding your voice", "expressing yourself", and are about as specific and as helpful as an astrologer. This usually results in plotless novels with contemptible, unremarkable, emotionally numb bourgeois consumerist protagonists who don't know what they want and wander lost through their privileged upper-middle-class lives. This is all because movie studios must make money, while literary novels don't have to.