Friday, October 24, 2014

Movie Review - The Lego Movie

The Lego Movie (2014)
Featuring the voice talents of Chris Pratt, Will Ferrell, Elizabeth Banks, Will Arnett, Charlie Day, Alison Brie, Nick Offerman, Liam Neeson, and Morgan Freeman
Directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller

So much hype may have ruined The Lego Movie for me seeing as it was greeted with glowing reviews and much love from the public upon its release in February.  To me, directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller -- who brought us the fantastic Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (and the great 21 Jump Street as well) -- are repeating their same old shtick here with less success.  Perhaps their charm has worn thin as I found much of The Lego Movie's jokes to fall flat and the overall plot to be a bit boring and bland.

The Lego Movie follows Emmet Brickowski (voiced by Chris Pratt), a Lego construction worker who does everything by the book -- he follows directions and instructions to a T.  One evening on the construction site after everyone else has gone home, Emmet falls down a hole and finds, unbeknown to him, the much fabled (in the Lego world in which he lives) "Piece of Resistance" and, after touching it and seeing prophetic visions, Emmet is knocked out.  He awakens captured by Lord Business (Will Ferrell) -- the "mayor" of this aspect of the Lego universe who, Emmet discovers, is out to eliminate free-thinking and imagination.  Emmet is rescued from Business's clutches by Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks) and taken through a portal to a whole slew of Lego lands in an attempt to hide Emmet and the "Piece of Resistance" from Lord Business.  Emmet discovers on this journey that Lego lore states that whomever uncovers the "Piece of Resistance" is the Master Builder and will bring security to all of the Lego worlds which places unimaginative Emmet in a bit of a pickle since he has never been a free thinker...but now the Lego people must put their trust in him in order to defeat Lord Business.

The Lego Movie works best when the film takes on a variety of pop culture references and brings them to the forefront.  Seeing Lego Batman (voiced brilliantly by Will Arnett) and a variety of other well-known entities interact with Emmet is the most successful aspect of the flick.  Unfortunately, when The Lego Movie focuses on Emmet -- as it does most of the first half of the film -- the jokes don't land with as much resonance and get tired and worn quicker than they should.  Admittedly, my second viewing of director Lord and Miller's Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs didn't hold up, so maybe I've tired of their weird humor, but I'd like to think this impressive team has more to offer in the future.  Unfortunately, The Lego Movie bored me and that's sometimes the worst criticism one can offer.

The RyMickey Rating:  C

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

The Disney Discussion - The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh

Over the course of the year, we'll be spending our Wednesdays with Walt, having a discussion about each of Disney's animated films...

Movie #22 of The Disney Discussion
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)
Featuring the voice talents of Sebastian Cabot, Sterling Holloway (Winnie), Paul Winchell (Tigger), Junius Matthews (Rabbit), Hal Smith (Owl), John Fiedler (Piglet), Barbara Luddy (Kanga)
Directed by John Lounsbery and Wolfgang Reitherman
***This film is currently streaming on Netflix***

Summary (in 150 words or less):
Three different shorts are merged together in The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh.  The first deals with the title character searching for honey.  The second brings a windy day to the Hundred Acre Woods with all of the residents fending for themselves against the blustery gusts.  The final tale features Tigger bouncing all over Rabbit's garden which makes some of the residents wish for him to be banished to learn his lesson.

Facts and Figures
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is the Walt Disney Company's twenty-second full-length animated feature and was released on March 11, 1977.

Box office information is unavailable for The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh.

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is a "package" feature meaning that it consists of three previously released short films pieced together by new interstitial animation.  The three previously released shorts are Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree (released in 1966), Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day (released in 1968), and Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too (released in 1974).

Because of the nature of the shorts' release dates, many say that The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is the last feature film that Walt Disney himself played a part in.  Despited being released nearly a decade after his death, Walt was certainly around for the production of the first two shorts mentioned above.

Let the Discussion Begin...
When your film is called The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, I think the ideal place to start a discussion is with your title character.  Ever the adorable dimwit whose only goal is seemingly to snag as much honey as possible (or "hunny" as it's so amusingly written throughout the flick), Sterling Holloway perfectly voices the tubby creature and creates a character that is undeniably endearing.  The animators certainly crafted a memorably cuddly bear and his popularity over the subsequent decades is obviously understandable.
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh succeeds wholeheartedly when the focus is on Pooh  It's as the film drifts to the other residents of the Hundred Acre Wood where it falters a bit. As was previously mentioned, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is a package film -- it pieced together three previously released shorts with new connecting animation and a new opening and ending in order to reach "full-length" status.  Because of this, there's no driving plot and the film is only as good as the segment you're watching at the moment.  Unfortunately, after an utterly fantastic and charmingly sweet initial segment -- Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree -- the film decreases in enjoyment with each subsequent tale.
Perhaps the biggest reason for the first short's success is its focus on Pooh.  Even when other characters are thrown into the mix -- there's a particularly hilarious scene involving Rabbit after Pooh gets stuck in Rabbit's door after imbibing on a bit too much of the "sweet stuff" -- the fact that these other characters' stories are driven by Pooh helps the segment succeed swimmingly.  There's something so gosh darn lovable about the bear and I really can't stress enough how endearingly sweet Sterling Holloway's voice acting is -- a perfect union of voice and image.
While segment one focuses solely on Pooh's hunt for honey, the second short -- Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day -- introduces us to Piglet who seemingly never wants to never cause a stir amongst his friends and is always bending over backwards to please others even if that means giving his house to Owl after a horrible wind destroys the bird's home.  While Pooh is certainly featured in this segment, his importance in it is diminished and it lessens the enjoyment of the piece.
Pooh's featured even less so in the third short -- Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too -- with our narrator even mentioning that Pooh is being pushed aside a bit in order to place the focus on Tigger.  When it comes to the jaunty, ADD-esque Tigger, a little goes a long way.  And, unfortunately, for me at least Tigger doesn't cut it as someone I want to necessarily spend a lot of time with.  It certainly doesn't help that when placed up head-to-head against the cute-as-a-button Winnie the Pooh, the excitable Tigger can't even start to compete.  So placing the focus on him and the Hundred Acre Wood's cadre of characters who feel that the tiger is a nuisance causing harm to their homes and persons isn't that interesting of a subject.

It also doesn't help the final short that the utterly whimsical songs by the Sherman Brothers peppered throughout the first two shorts are pushed a bit to the wayside.  These charming ditties effortlessly weave in and out of the stories exuding just the right essence of childhood innocence to be absolutely believable in the story's setting.  Quite frankly, while the songs themselves may not be incredibly memorable, their placement in the stories may be the best melding of story and song we've seen yet from the Disney company.
Much like the songs, there's an endearing quality to the way in which the animators pieced together the shorts.  The small interstitials between segments feature turning of animated book pages in which the various Hundred Acre Wood characters walk from page to page as they talk to the film's narrator (voiced with authority and at the same time pleasantness by Sebastian Cabot).  Particularly strong is a lovely final piece of animation added to the film's final moments in which Christopher Robin and Winnie the Pooh travel throughout the woods talking about how Christopher is growing up, but he won't leave his friends behind.  It's such a small moment, but it's a very "adult" way to bring the picture to a close.

Random Thoughts
...while watching the film...
  • Why have I always had such an averse reaction to Winnie the Pooh?  Perhaps my cynical teenage self found the cute factor too much to take in, but as I've grown older I've apparently become less jaded because the character of Winnie the Pooh is too gosh darn lovable to not enjoy.
  • Winnie the Pooh doing exercises -- too cute, I tell ya!
  • Unlike in The Aristocats where the pencil-lined outlines of some of the characters were distracting, they work here to create a sense of whimsy.
  • While most of the songs are quick little ditties, "Heffalumps and Woozles" goes on far too long and feels like a less exciting version of "Pink Elephants on Parade" from Dumbo
Final Analysis
(Does It Belong in the Revered Disney Pantheon and How Does It Stack Up to Past Films?)
Winnie the Pooh himself is a character that I'd love to spend more time with.  He's so endearing that it's tough not to be enthralled whenever his innocence is onscreen.  It's the other Hundred Acre Wood characters that don't quite match his charm.  Don't get me wrong -- as a whole, the collective cast of characters that Disney animated are certainly enjoyable -- I just wanted the focus to be more on Pooh than them.  

Admittedly, I never thought I liked Winnie the Pooh.  After watching the 2012 film Winnie the Pooh (which we'll obviously explore several months from now), I found myself questioning why I never cared for the character in my youth.  Unlike many other kids, "Winnie the Pooh" didn't really mean much to me.  I've changed my opinion on that now, but I still feel like The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh doesn't quite work as a film.  There are pieces that work okay, but the lack of a forward-moving plot throughout hurts the film as whole.  While it's certainly one of Disney's best "package" films -- remember those horrid Three Caballeros/Saludos Amigos days? -- it's still a "package" film built of previously released pieces.  

All this said, I do think that The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh belongs in the Disney Pantheon solely for the inclusion of Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree which is a splendid piece of animation -- some of the best we've seen so far in our Disney Discussion.  While the film falters a bit after that, I recognize its lasting effect on generations of young kids and for that it's rightfully earned its spot in the Pantheon.

The RyMickey Rating: B-

Join us next Wednesday for The Rescuers, the twenty-third film in The Disney Discussion.
***The Rescuers is currently streaming on Netflix.  Watch and join in on the discussion!***

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Movie Review - Divergent

Divergent (2014)
Starring Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Ashley Judd, Jai Courtney, Ray Stevenson, Zoë Kravitz, Miles Teller, Tony Goldwyn, Ansel Elgort, Maggie Q, Mekhi Phifer, and Kate Winslet
Directed by Neil Burger

I feel like it's wrong that I didn't hate Divergent.  In reality, it's a bit of a carbon copy of The Hunger Games franchise -- dystopian society in a ravaged United States, different segments of the population broken off into distinct groups, girl savior tries to take down the evil governmental figurehead.  Much to my surprise, however, I found Divergent an interesting enough start of a series of films.  Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure from this point forward how the films progress into something worth watching, but the first flick is at least moderately appealing.

As mentioned, the overarching premise of Divergent is that the residents of the United States -- or at least the residents in the walled city of Chicago -- are broken up into five groups.  Each group represents one of the following qualities -- smart, kind, honest, selfless, brave -- and when teens reach the age of sixteen they must choose which quality they will follow for the rest of their lives after taking a specially designed test that helps them hone in on where they most likely belong.  Teen sister and brother Beatrice (Shailene Woodley) and Caleb (Ansel Elgort) have grown up with parents (Ashley Judd and Tony Goldwyn) who belong to the community of Abnegation which controls the government, but at the Choosing Ceremony, Caleb joins Erudite (the "smart" clique which desires to run the government) and Beatrice joins Dauntless (the "brave" group which is essentially the law enforcement aspect of the society).  Upon joining Dauntless, Beatrice shortens her name to Tris and soon discovers that she may not be cut out for this new life.  However, once you've chosen your community, you're stuck there and if you don't fit, you'll be forced to become homeless out on the streets.

Tris is also faced with the notion that her initial test to determine which group she belonged in came back showing that she was "divergent" -- meaning that she doesn't belong to any one group.  Divergents are not looked upon in a positive light by Erudite leader Jeanine (Kate Winslet) who sees Divergents as too independently-minded and unwilling to kowtow to her wishes.  While Jeanine seemingly has everyone's best wishes at heart, her only goal is to push Erudite to the forefront of the community and she'll stop at nothing to see that happen.

Admittedly, it's all a bit ridiculous.  And it's all a bit of a rehash of The Hunger Games.  However, I did find myself intrigued by the plot.  Yes, Tris's training goes on for a bit too long and a romance with one of her fellow Dauntless colleagues seems forced and unnecessary (at least this early in the game), but I can't really say I was ever bored.  The acting is more than acceptable for a film like this -- meaning a film appealing to a youthful audience who may not care about such things -- and it elevates the flick to a higher level.

As I mentioned above, however, I can't quite see how this storyline carries on for three more films.  Quite honestly, the film concludes in a way that the story could've just ended and I'd have been fine with not discovering anything else about the community.  How they craft a tale that holds my interest in the future will be difficult and seemingly not possible.  I hope I'm proven wrong.  While Divergent isn't quite The Hunger Games in quality, it's certainly head over heels better than the Twilight saga.

The RyMickey Rating:  C+

Friday, October 17, 2014

Movie Review - The Judge

The Judge (2014)
Starring Robert Downey Jr., Robert Duvall, Vera Farmiga, Billy Bob Thornton, Vincent D'Onofrio, Jeremy Strong, Dax Shepard, Leighton Meester, and Clint Howard 
Directed by David Dobkin

How anyone was expecting The Judge to be a prestige picture seeing as how the man behind the camera brought us flicks like Fred Claus, Shanghai Knights, The Change-Up, and Wedding Crashers is befuddling to me.  Pre-release Oscar buzz and snagging the opening film slot at the Toronto Film Festival upped The Judge's aire of importance.  Admittedly, if you walk into the flick with that mindset, disappointment may set in.  However, if you erase all that talk from your mind, The Judge is a decent paint-by-numbers tale about a family coming together at a difficult moment that surprisingly holds one's interest for (surprisingly brisk) nearly two-and-a-half hours.

When his mother passes away, hotshot Chicago defense attorney Hank Palmer (Robert Downey, Jr.) returns home to a podunk small town in Indiana to attend her funeral.  Estranged from his family having not visited home in years, Hank's return is greeted with disdain from his father Joseph (Robert Duvall) -- the two obviously having had issues in the past that pushed them apart.  After the funeral, Joseph -- the small town's respected judge -- goes out for a drive to clear his mind and the next morning Hank and his two brothers Glen and Dale (Vincent D'Onofrio and Jeremy Strong) discover that their father's car has been in some kind of accident -- a thought that is confirmed as the cops pull up to take Joseph in for questioning for the death of a cyclist who died in a hit and run the night before.  Later charged with murder, Joseph and Hank must attempt to work together to acquit Joseph of the crime, but their complicated past doesn't make things easy.

You know where The Judge is heading right off the bat and you know how it's going to get there.  Script- and dialog-wise, the screenwriters have crafted something that is so incredibly by-the-book, I feel like I could've written it.  Directorially-speaking, David Dobkin didn't do a single thing worth mentioning.  So, how in the world did I find myself maintaining interest in this work?

It all comes down to the very talented ensemble, all of whom elevate the lackluster elements above into something that is able to hold interest.  Admittedly, Robert Downey, Jr., isn't doing anything we haven't seen him do before -- make smart-ass Tony Stark a lawyer and you've essentially got Hank Palmer.  Somehow, though, Downey's charm and humor captivate.  (And there's actually quite a bit of gentle humor which is surprising and welcoming.)  Robert Duvall isn't necessarily reinventing the wheel either, but his character's humility and heart play a nice counterpoint to his son's brashness.  We all know where the story's going to end up, but with Downey, Jr., and Duvall playing off one another, it becomes worth watching.  Add in some nice performances from Vincent D'Onofrio, Billy Bob Thornton (as the prosecutor trying Joseph's case), and Vera Farmiga (as Hank's high school girlfriend) and you've got a cast worth watching.

I look back on The Judge and find many faults with it -- there are so many subplots that weigh down the script that it's almost laughable -- but I also remember it fondly.  There's a simplicity to the overarching story that we often don't see in films today and while some may find it clichéd or treacly, I found it a little bit ballsy in the midst of our crazed society.  It's the kind of movie Jimmy Stewart would've been starring in were Jimmy Stewart alive today -- and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

The RyMickey Rating:  B-

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

The Disney Discussion - Robin Hood

Over the course of the year, we'll be spending our Wednesdays with Walt, having a discussion about each of Disney's animated films...

Movie #21 of The Disney Discussion
Robin Hood (1973)
Featuring the voice talents of Brian Bedford, Monica Evans, Peter Ustinov, Phil Harris, Terry-Thomas, Andy Devine, Carole Shelley, Pat Buttrum, and Roger Miller
Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman

Summary (in 150 words or less):
I think we all know this tale, but...there's this guy named Robin Hood (played as a fox in this version) who steals money from the rich to give to the poor.  This doesn't sit well with the rich Prince John (a tiger) who plots to capture Robin Hood and kill him.  Throw in a romance between Robin Hood and his childhood pal Maid Marian, a couple of humorous side characters, and some songs and Disney's version of Robin Hood is complete.

Facts and Figures
Robin Hood is the Walt Disney Company's twenty-first full-length animated feature and was released on November 8, 1973.

Robin Hood was quite the success for the Disney company -- in fact, it was one of the biggest financial successes to date up until that time.  However, it never garnered the enthusiasm and sustaining power of many of the company's other releases.  Still, on a budget of $1.5 million, the film has earned over $35 million at the box office from its multiple releases.

The song "Love" was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Song, but it did not win.

Let the Discussion Begin...
Up until this point in the Disney canon, Robin Hood is perhaps the most well-known property that the Disney company brought to the screen.  We all know the story of Robin Hood and Disney's take on it -- making its characters animals -- doesn't really add anything new to the mix.  That said, the film is decent, although it lacks excitement and vigor -- something that Robin Hood tales should seemingly have.
When looking at the character landscape of Disney's Robin Hood, it's unfortunate that the title character and his love interest Maid Marian are the most bland.  While I appreciated Robin's wily and intelligent ways of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, when he and Maid Marian are given scenes together, much of their interaction falls flat.  There's nothing pushing the audience to strongly want these two characters together.  The romance aspect of the film doesn't quite succeed as well as it should.  Perhaps the filmmakers recognized this problem and added the awkwardly placed and treacly song "Love" in order to try and emphasize the romanticism, but the song feels too stuck in the Anne Murray-soft pop-70s era to resonate today.
The star of Robin Hood is the villainous Prince John voiced by Peter Ustinov.  While he never reaches the "look at me" attention-hogging (in a good way) proportions that characters like Ursula or Cruella DeVil achieve, Prince John succeeds because of his irrational temper.  Seemingly calm and normal, he'll flip on a dime becoming angry, irritated, and humorously irrational, only to resort back to sucking his thumb reminiscing about his dearly departed mother when things don't go his way.  I longed for the character to appear onscreen as he added much life into the somewhat dull proceedings.

All the other side characters were pleasant enough, but they certainly emphasize the lack of creativity the animation department was suffering following Walt's death.  Phil Harris -- who voiced The Jungle Book's Baloo and The Aristocats' Thomas O'Malley -- returns as Little John (Robin's right-hand man) and his character is no different than either of those two Harris previously brought to the screen.  Adding to the unimaginative nature of the piece, Prince John has a snake -- Sir Hiss -- as a confidante who hypnotizes people in order to get his way.  Reminiscent of a snake we know from The Jungle Book?
Not only did the animators essentially copy characters from previous films, but they also copied animation!  Rather famously because of a small budget through a process call xerography, during a dance sequence in Robin Hood Disney animators copied previous dance sequences from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, The Jungle Book, and The Aristocats and placed Robin Hood's characters into the design.  Quite honestly, I didn't notice the issue so for the typical filmgoer this isn't an egregious slap in the face.  However, add this to the fact that those aforementioned characters of Little John and Sir Hiss are seemingly carbon copies of well-known Disney performances and the film never feels like its "own" piece.  (It should be mentioned that the song that accompanies this dance sequence feels totally unnecessary.  The only songs that work in the film are sung by a "narrator-esque" rooster character and they are very few and far between.)

While I've seemingly trashed Robin Hood above, it should be noted that I enjoyed the film.  There are several set pieces that show that the animators' creativity hadn't diminished completely with Walt's passing -- the contest to win Maid Marian's hand and the prison break are two such moments.  With the success of these moments, it's a shame that the film can't bring some heart and soul to the table.

Random Thoughts
...while watching the film...
  • Weird opening credits sequence -- felt very "70s" with some ugly yellow fonts telling us character names, the type of animal they are, and the voice actor. That said, I enjoyed the whistling score/song called "Whistle-Stop" written by Roger Miller that accompanies the opening.
  • Another hypnotizing snake?  Really?

Final Analysis
(Does It Belong in the Revered Disney Pantheon and How Does It Stack Up to Past Films?)
Robin Hood isn't particularly bad, but it isn't particularly good either.  It does feel like a rehash of several prior films, but on the positive side, those prior films are good, so at least we're borrowing from solid pictures.  Much like The Aristocats, there's not a lot that's fantastic about Robin Hood, but it doesn't fail in any areas either (except the music department).  Admittedly, part of the moderate success may stem from the fact that I hadn't seen the film in well over two decades, but I still am more than able to recognize its faults.

Unfortunately, though, Robin Hood feels overly generic.  Yes, there are some nice moments, but there's nothing about this film that screams that it was crafted by the artisans at Disney.  And therein is the issue.  Because of that, I can't place it amongst the better films in the Disney Pantheon.

The RyMickey Rating: C+

Join us next Wednesday for The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, the twenty-second film in The Disney Discussion.
***The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is streaming on Netflix.  Join in on the discussion!***

Wednesday, October 08, 2014

The Disney Discussion - The Aristocats

Over the course of the year, we'll be spending our Wednesdays with Walt, having a discussion about each of Disney's animated films...

Movie #20 of The Disney Discussion
The Aristocats (1970)
Featuring the voice talents of Phil Harris, Eva Gabor, Liz English, Dean Clark, Gary Dubin, Sterling Holloway, and Scatman Crothers
Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman
Summary (in 150 words or less):
Paris.  1910.  The feline Duchess and her three kittens Marie, Berlioz, and Toulouse are stolen from the home of their owner Madame Bonfamille by Madame's butler Edward.  The reason -- Madame is leaving her estate to her cats as opposed to Edward when she dies and this doesn't sit well with the loyal servant.  Left for dead in the countryside of France, Marie and her offspring try to find their way home, meeting unusual characters along the way including Thomas O'Malley, a slick smooth-talking alley cat who grows to care for the lost felines on their journey to Paris.

Facts and Figures
The Aristocats is the Walt Disney Company's twentieth full-length animated feature film and was released on December 24, 1970.

This was the first animated film to be produced after Walt Disney's death and although he approved the initial production, Mr. Disney was not involved in the filmmaking process.

Made for $4 million, The Aristocats proved quite successful.  With its multiple releases over the years, the film has made $55 million.

Let the Discussion Begin...
I'm sure that at some point in time in my youth I watched The Aristocats.  However, I didn't remember a darn thing about it.  It wasn't a movie staple in my household, having never owned a VHS of it and the film not really ever airing on television.  So, it was rather refreshing to be able to come to The Aristocats with a blank slate.  And I must say I was pleasantly surprised.

Here's the funny thing about The Aristocats.  As you read this discussion below, you're going to notice that I start off nearly every topic talking about how so-and-so wasn't exactly top notch or overly impressive.  While it's true that there isn't a single aspect of the film that is fantastic, everything that the flick brings to the table works.  Despite not excelling in any one area, the film doesn't disappoint in any one area either, and because of this I found The Aristocats to be successful overall.

Admittedly, the film's story isn't all that impressive.  In fact, when you look at the summary above, you'd be correct in thinking that it's a bit like a rehash of 101 Dalmatians.  Still, somehow, the tale seems fresh.  Granted, there's very little depth here.  Characters aren't really fleshed out in any great manner which leads one to feel that the story's lacking a little heart and soul.

That being said, the sly humor and the quaint voice acting help elevate this to a level above its animal counterparts Lady and the Tramp and the aforementioned 101 Dalmatians.  Yes, while both those films gave their main characters a little more backbone, I found that their stories lagged a bit.  The story behind The Aristocats -- as simple as it may be -- manages to not drag.
I think a large part of the story's success is due to the vocal talent the Disney team culled together for this piece.  Eva Gabor as Duchess is charming and her three kittens voiced by Liz English, Dean Clark, and Gary Dubin are undoubtedly cute in their vocalizations.  The animators certainly placed their focus on these four characters in the film as all exude their own individual personality traits which are quite fun to watch.

After a successful turn as Baloo in The Jungle Book, Phil Harris was brought back to play Thomas O'Malley.  Harris is essentially playing the same exact role he did in The Jungle Book -- a loose, lackadaisical, mellow guy who eventually begins to care for the creatures he's watching over and decides to help them on their path.  While there certainly wasn't a reinvention of the wheel, Thomas O'Malley as a character works, so I'm willing to let the similarities slide.
On the human side of things, I found that the small amount of time we got to spend with Madame Bonfamille and Edward the butler was quite successful.  Although neither are drawn very well -- in fact, Madame is one of the worst drawn Disney characters thus far with blurry pencil lines making up her figure -- their scenes more than adequately set the story rolling.  Edward is by no means an evil genius and he's likely one of the least villainous villains we'll see in this journey, but his bumbling nature allowed the story to take a different turn from its similarities in 101 Dalmatians where Cruella's virulent hatred towards dogs took center stage.

As far as music goes, The Aristocats isn't particularly well known for its songs.  Its title track, sung by Maurice Chevalier is pleasant enough, but its set to pencil-lined drawings which aren't all that interesting (and were perhaps a harbinger of things to come as far as Madame's poorly drawn design was concerned).  In addition to the title track, Disney regulars The Sherman Brothers also wrote the ditty "Scales and Arpeggios," but it's really a throwaway number that while cute doesn't add much to the tale.  
The showstopping number -- and the showstopping scene in the film -- comes with about ten minutes left to go in the form of "Ev'rybody Wants to Be a Cat" penned by Floyd Huddleston and Al Rinker.  As Duchess and her brethren return to Paris, O'Malley takes them to a swinging jazz joint where cats from around the world sing about why it's so great to be a feline.  As psychedelic colors take over the scene, we're treated to a fantastic jazz number that makes me wonder why the scene isn't more well known in the annals of Disney songs.

Random Thoughts
  • There's a dirtiness/grittiness to the animation.  The humans are full of pencil or pen-like lines that seem "unfinished."
  • Not only do we get drunken geese (something we'd never see today in a Disney film), but we also are treated to a Chinese cat singing lyrics like "Shanghai, Hong Kong, egg foo yong / Fortune cookie always wrong."  I miss the days where we didn't have to worry about political correctness...instead, I find myself pointing things out like this in many of these discussions.
  • "Ev'rybody Wants to Be a Cat" is a nicely rousing, very colorful number.  Definitely one of the more underrated musical numbers in the Disney Pantheon of films.
  • The two dogs that make an appearance in this film seem like exact replicas of dogs we've seen in Lady and the Tramp and 101 Dalmatians -- they weren't needed at all and their scenes really should have been nixed.
Final Analysis
(Does It Belong in the Revered Disney Pantheon and How Does It Stack Up to Past Films?)
As I've mentioned, The Aristocats doesn't ever overachieve in any aspect of filmmaking.  It cruises along, hitting everything it needs to in order to be deemed a success.  While nothing is mind-blowing, everything works well enough to make this an enjoyable romp.  Color me surprised to place this one above my rankings of Lady and the Tramp and 101 Dalmatians as The Aristocats takes a surprise place in the Disney Animated Pantheon.

The RyMickey Rating: B

Join us next Wednesday for Robin Hood, the twenty-first film in The Disney Discussion.
***Robin Hood is streaming on Netflix so join in on the discussion!***

Tuesday, October 07, 2014

Movie Review - Transcendence

Transcendence (2014)
Starring Johnny Depp, Rebecca Hall, Paul Bettany, Cillian Murphy, Kate Mara, Clifton Collins Jr., and Morgan Freeman
Directed by Wally Pfister

Conceptually, Transcendence is probably one of the more interesting films I've seen as of late.  Will Caster (Johnny Depp) is the mastermind behind a sentient computer which he hopes will outpace the human race in terms of intelligence.  While Caster and his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) see potential in such technology, there are large swaths of people who fear such work will bring an end to humankind.  One such group -- R.I.F.T., or "Revolutionary Independence From Technology" -- goes to terroristic means in order to get their point across, and after a conference in which Will Caster touts his opinions, Will is shot by a RIFT member who then kills himself.  After a few days, it's discovered the bullet shot into Will was laced with plutonium, thus causing Will's bloodstream to be contaminated with radiation leaving him with less than a month to live.  Desperate for Will's dream about sentient technology not to die with him, Evelyn thinks up the idea to place Will's entire consciousness inside the computer he's developing so that his "spirit" will never die and his intelligence can continue making technological advances.  Unfortunately, things go a bit awry with this plan, creating a bit of havoc and a battle between man and machine.

I don't know about you, but I kind of dig that Terminator-esque Man v. Computer battle being set up. Unfortunately, first-time director Wally Pfister languidly paces the film so that we can't help but be bored by what we're seeing unfold.  It certainly doesn't help matters that Johnny Depp doesn't even appear to be awake -- if he can't be bothered being interested in what he's doing, how in the world are we going to care?  After a promising start, the flick written by first-time screenwriter Jack Paglen begins to unravel and its climatic moments fail to resonate despite the captivating premise.

It's possible that in more experienced hands Transcendence may have been a success, but as it stands now with first timers behind both the lens and the scripting with neither behind-the-scenes aspect able to convince the film's leading actor to appear alive onscreen, the flick falls flat.

The RyMickey Rating:  C-

Monday, October 06, 2014

Movie Review - Gambit

Gambit (2014)
Starring Colin Firth, Cameron Diaz, Alan Rickman, and Tom Courtenay
Directed by Michael Hoffman
***This film is currently streaming on Netflix***

The fact that Gambit, a film toplined by the quite famous Colin Firth and Cameron Diaz, failed to get a theatrical release of any kind despite the celebrities attached should've keyed me in to the quality of the flick.  In addition, not only were Diaz and Firth starring, but the film was written by Joel and Ethan Coen whom are sometimes worthy of your time.  I admittedly go back and forth on my feelings towards these popular director/screenwriters, but a lot of their flicks are at least solid.  So with this big name Hollywood talent, how did Gambit not even muster a limited release in theaters?

Admittedly, Gambit is not as bad as its lack of a theatrical release of any kind would implicate.  Unfortunately, it's not very good either.  As the film opens, we meet Harry Deane (Firth) who begrudgingly works for the very rich London businessman Lionel Shahbander (Alan Rickman).  Lionel loves art and one of his favorite pieces is a work by Monet called Haystacks, part of a series of paintings focusing on the titular objects.  It's been Lionel's mission in life to get another painting in the series and Deane sees this as opportunity to pull a fast one on his boss.

A piece from Monet's Haystacks series was stolen by the Germans in WWII and, according to legend, was then taken by an American soldier after a successful attack on a German bunker.  Deane comes up with the brilliant idea to find one of this solider's descendants and, with the help of his master art forger (Tom Courtenay), convince Shahbander that a fake Haystacks is in fact the real deal.  In order to milk Shahbander of his money, Deane finds Texas cowgirl PJ Puznowski (Diaz) as the true descendant, but her rough around the edges demeanor will prove quite the challenge for Deane to reel in.

Gambit attempts to ape those classic capers of the 1960s in tone and style, but it never quite gets there.  (Gambit is actually a remake of a 1966 film.)  All the characters are rather one-dimensional, attempts at comedy are lukewarmly successful at best, and the direction doesn't have the vigor needed in order to keep the lighthearted romp briskly moving in an engaging manner.  While I've certainly seen worse direct-to-video flicks, Gambit doesn't change the stigma attached to films that forego the theatrical route.

The RyMickey Rating:  C-

Sunday, October 05, 2014

Movie Review - The Amazing Spider-Man 2

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)
Starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Dane DeHaan, Chris Cooper, Colm Feore, Felicity Jones, Paul Giamatti, Embeth Davidtz, Campbell Scott, and Sally Field
Directed by Marc Webb

While moderately better than 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man mainly because we're able to move on beyond the re-telling of Spidey's origin story, there's something about this title character that doesn't quite click with me.  If I remember correctly, there has always been some sly, comedic aspect to Peter Parker whenever he finds himself wearing the Spiderman attire and I find it oddly disconcerting.  When faced with evil villains like Electro (Jamie Foxx), a lowly worker at the Oscorp Power Company whose obsession with Spiderman takes a nasty turn, and the Green Goblin (Dane DeHaan), who was previously Harry Osborn, son of the founder of Oscorp, Spidey just makes jokes.  Because of this, any potential for suspense is oftentimes mitigated.

When compared to the Tobey Maguire/Kirsten Dunst trilogy, I still think Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone fare better in the acting department as both Garfield and Stone more believably inhabit their characters' tumultuous relationship.  With the exception of Jamie Foxx -- who, admittedly, is given a bit more of a stock character type of role than those around him -- most of the acting is solid which certainly helps matters and makes things watchable.  However, I still find myself utterly uninterested whenever Garfield's Peter Parker puts on the Spidey suit.

Perhaps it's the lack of believable special effects.  I commented on this after watching the first film as well, but there must be something about having some guy fly around in a suit like Spidey's that makes things look incredibly fake.  Unfortunately, the fx wizards didn't fix things with this second film -- you're always well aware that you're watching animation onscreen and it's irritating, removing us from the story at times.  While there have certainly been worse superhero films, this new reimagining of the Spider-Man story doesn't really have the cinematic chops to make it worth continuing.

The RyMickey Rating:  C

Saturday, October 04, 2014

Movie Review - Oculus

Oculus (2014)
Starring Karen Gillan, Brenton Thwaites, Katee Sackhoff, Rory Cochrane, Annalise Basso, and Garrett Ryan
Directed by Mike Flanagan

An evil mirror causes the members of the Russell family to fall apart and become horrible versions of themselves in Oculus, a horror film that had potential but failed to deliver any bit of scares to make it worth your time.  Bouncing back and forth between the 1990s when the Russell kids Kaylie and Tim (Annalise Basso and Garrett Ryan) were young and the current era when they're grown (played by Karen Gillan and Brenton Thwaites), Oculus begins in the modern day with Tim being released from jail and Kaylie stealing a large mirror from an auction house.  Odd, yes, but we soon discover that Tim killed his father (hence the jail time) with Karen believing that this hundreds-year old mirror changed the perspective of their parents Alan and Marie (Rory Cochrane and Katee Sackhoff), causing them to become wicked to one another and their children.  With Tim's help, Karen hopes to document the mirror's supernatural powers and destroy the glass before it harms anyone else.

While the premise is silly, I must admit that it pulled me in.  Unfortunately, after I was enticed by the lack of ghosts and blood and violence, the film never really went anywhere.  Surprisingly, tension never mounts in the "past" story as we're told almost from the beginning how that pans out, and unfortunately the "present" story wears a little thin.  Oculus attempts to blend the two tales together in a way I won't delve into here, but I found that this didn't work after the film's initial attempts.  All of the actors are of a high quality, but they can't elevate this story which just didn't scare me in the slightest.

The RyMickey Rating:  D+