Video: Top 10 Worst Animated Movies of 2020

Link:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kdkv1iS2K9_Pgj9riK4hBQUo3qT9D8BJ/view?usp=sharing

A Christmas Carol (2009) - A rather unpleasant take on the holiday classic

 

Another year has almost drawn it's final curtain, well... final thirty one curtains I guess. Anyway, last year for the Christmas movie review, I kinda cheated on technicality and reviewed the classic TV special, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, it was over 40 minutes, which by the standards of both the American Film Institute and British Film Institute, made it feature length, but I think this year, it would be a good idea to review something that is at least an hour long, and what better movie to look at than an adaptation of one of the most famous Christmas stories known to man, A Christmas Carol, specifically the 2009 movie starring Jim Carrey.

I've seen a couple adaptations of this famous story, I also have a copy of the book so this ain't my first rodeo, err... this isn't my first experience with this story. For anyone saying this story is about three ghosts bullying an old man into being less of a jerk... well, you're not wrong but that is a gross oversimplification of the story. Scrooge is given warning by the ghost of his business partner Jacob Marley that he will be visited by three spirits, the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet-to-Come. They each show him visions, each pertaining to the merry holiday and with a certain reason. The first shows him his past, and how it has affected his attitude towards others and the holiday, the second shows him the day of Christmas and the merry joys of it and how the people closest to him bare him no ill-will, and the third shows him the possible future and the potential consequences of his actions. That really is the simplest I can summarize the story. How does this movie handle the story? I'd give it a... B+, maybe an A- on a good day.

This unmistakably is A Christmas Carol, with many of the iconic scenes and lines from the book almost copy/pasted into the movie. That fact I can admonish because it really does show respect to the source material and the author, it even keeps that line that Ghost of Christmas Present has about men doing ill in his name, it's a bit that's cut out of most movies for some reason, probably because it criticizes a practice I believe has roots in one of the Christian sects, don't quote me as a source on that though. The fact the writers remembered little details like that is actually highly admirable, but what isn't admirable is everything else, specifically the stuff that wasn't from the book.

Really movie? A chase scene? Was the emotional turmoil of dealing with the possibility of people being apathetic at best to the lead character's death not investing enough? You need to add a chase scene? Why? This is the portion of the film that brings the darkest moments and emotional lows of the film, it doesn't need action scenes or thrilling transitions. Oh yeah, the transitions, you had such a great scene in the movie where Bob Cratchit walked away feigning strength for his family and just let it all out in front of Scrooge, showing him the pain and suffering he's going through, and how do we leave this scene? With the entire location being ripped away in a storm. Why why why? You were on the right track and then you derailed yourself, why why why?

On that same note, I really don't think the writers understood a lot of the story. In the opening bit, we see Scrooge walking through the town and everyone reacting to him. You get the impression people are afraid of him, which... is an interpretation sure, but it's the same kind of interpretation that makes Raphael the leader of the Ninja Turtles. People hated Scrooge, but I don't think they really feared him, he was a shrewd and jerky business man, not a street thug. However, I think my most hated change in the story was, admittedly a very small thing, you might have not even noticed it on your first or second watch, but it pisses me off on a critical level. My most hated thing about this adaptation's story is that Scrooge wasn't the one to wipe the snow off his grave. Yes, it seems small and nitpicky, but here's the thing; What is the point of this scene? That Scrooge is gonna die? Well, no duh, everyone dies. No, this is the scene where Scrooge finally realizes the consequences of his actions toward his fellow man, he dies alone, unloved and disrespected, he asks whose death brought so much joy to everybody, and the answer is on the gravestone; his own. In other adaptations of the story, him wiping the snow from his own name is the point that drives everything home. I think the difference can be best summed up in... and I can't believe I'm using this as an example but, the best way to sum up why this change pisses me off so much, is with a line from Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.

To loosely quote; "It is the difference between being dragged into the arena to face a battle to the death and walking into the arena with your head held high."

Meaning, it's one character coming to the realization by himself and the other having the realization forced upon him. The difference may not mean much at the end of it all, but to me it makes all the difference.

The movie is also really, really unpleasant, not in the Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas way where it's engrossingly unpleasant, but also not in the Vanguard way where those movies are just entirely unpleasant to watch. The story can get unpleasant and dark at times, but seriously, this far is too far. Yes, it is sad to say goodbye to the Ghost of Christmas Present, but it's not traumatic, yes Scrooge and his nephew did argue, but it didn't feel very bitter and unfriendly. Yes, Scrooge does have to see his own name on his own grave, but it wasn't during a god damn blizzard. Honestly, I think this movie is too unpleasant at times, the joyful moments don't balance things out properly. We have The Ghost of Christmas Present, but he hits scrooge over the head with his torch, we have the Cratchit dinner scene, but Mrs. Cratchit laments wanting something better, this is all really dismal and depressing, as much as I admire the loyalty to the book, when it deviates, sometimes in even just the tiniest of ways, it's really does irritate me a little.

Whew, all that just for the story wow, well, let's get a few other quick points out of the way, just to cover all the points.

The characters were fine, but I really don't think Jim Carrey was a good choice for Scrooge, this is a role that was played by Alastair Sim, George C. Scott, Patrick Stewart, Michael Caine, Reginald Owen and so many other highly regarded alumni. Not that Jim Carrey isn't a great performer, nor did he turn in a bad performance, but this just wasn't a role for him. Maybe I could see him as a Ghost of Christmas Present, but not as Scrooge.

Animation wise, it was fine, this was one of the movies by ImageMovers Digital, but I don't think the animation was too bad, it was pleasing to the eye at points and very few movements looked wrong to me. I will say though, please do not superimpose an actors face onto an animated character, that was a sloppy job and it looked horrible. Also, there was so much flying in this movie I thought I was watching a How to Train Your Dragon film without dragons.

I'm really of two minds on this one. On the one hand, the book loyalty does make it a solid adaptation, and there really isn't much wrong with the movie on a technical level. It's just the changes they did, the thrilling chases and transitions, the endless flights, the unpleasantness of it all, the minor things it feels they didn't get right. I know I really shouldn't say all that makes this movie bad, because this movie isn't, it's just... Coraline... I didn't like that movie because of the changes it made from the book, this is another example of Coraline happening. However, unlike Coraline, there are so many other adaptations of this story out there. On some level, I do have to concede to there being only one adaptation of Coraline, so whether I like the movie or not, I'll have to settle for it. However, there are so many other, and better, versions of A Christmas Carol out there. The 1950s Alastair Sim version is really good as is the 1980s George C Scott version, but my absolute favourite is the 1990s Muppets version, it is legit one of my all-time favourite movies, top twenty hands down. I don't think I can recommend this one, on some level I can, but it's the same level I can recommend the previous three that I mentioned, so no, I don't recommend this one. I highly recommend the Alastair Sim and George C Scott versions, and I ONLY recommend The Muppet version with the "When Love is Gone" scene included, find it on VHS if you must, that is the best version of the movie. As for this one, I'd recommend it once if you haven't seen it before. It isn't a bad movie, just... not one I really enjoyed.

First Impressions: The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge On The Run (2020)

2020 has been one Hell of a year, trust me it's been a ride for me as well, even as a non American, and honestly, I think one of the most sour things I had to accept was, well a lot of things, but relevant to this post is not being able to see the new SpongeBob movie in theatres.

Why does that hurt so much? Well, I have been a SpongeBob fan for literally my entire life. The first cartoon I remember watching was SpongeBob, and to this day SpongeBob is still one of my favourite shows and one of my favourite characters. I don't remember seeing the first SpongeBob movie in theatres (Though don't take my word on that one because I would have been six at the time), and I had no chance of seeing the second one in theatres on account of me being a broke high school student. In a way, it's kind of a Shakespearian tragedy of sorts that I have never officially been able to see one of my all time favourite franchises on the big screen. Yes, the movie is in theatres in Canada, where I live, but I'm not going to the theatre during the pandemic, so, no I have never been able to see any of the SpongeBob movies on the big screen with a crowd. It's sad, but that is what happens sometimes.

Well, the movie came to Netflix for other viewers so I was able to watch it and... I really want to like this movie.

Okay, so, it's almost the end of the year and I have a bunch of movies to watch for the end of the year, and some movies are still coming out so I don't really know how many I'll get done. I've seen some really bad animated movies like Pets United, Scoob! and the latest piece of garbage from that festering dumpster heap of a studio known as Vanguard, Fe@rLeSS_. So, with all of that under my belt, I can't be too hard on this movie, but... I'm sorry, it wasn't that good.

I think... I don't actually know what I think. It is often hard to pin-down what exactly makes SpongeBob good in the first place. For me, it's a really funny show that makes me feel like a young kid eagerly running for the TV again, even as an adult, a lot of the jokes and writing in SpongeBob is genuinely funny, and I'll admit there were some moments that made me laugh in this movie, I don't think they were as strong as the show's high points, but they were decently amusing. The problem is, those jokes were few and far between, not that any joke really fell hard or became cringey, but nothing really elicited much of a response from me.

The pros of this is that the movie doesn't really become unwatchable, but the downside is that the movie ends up being kinda boring. Let me explain with an example of the movie: The climax involves running through castle halls, SpongeBob and friends piloting a suit of armour like a Gundam, and said suit of armour falling out a window and the gang having to chase it down to catch it to save Squidward, I should not be thinking about skipping any part of that segment.

There is another weird scene where SpongeBob and Patrick are dreaming, they meet the head of Keanu Reeves inside of a tumbleweed, go into a saloon for pirate zombie cowboys who have a song number with Snoop Dogg, and they're being held prisoner by a demon played by Machete himself Danny Trejo. That was a more entertaining scene in the movie, but it still wasn't entertaining by that much.

The animation is kind of a mixed bag. On the one hand, it is bright and colourful and pretty to look at, for the most part. The other hand is that the CG models are not the best the characters have looked in CG, I mean, they have looked worse, but they didn't look that good, I think they looked better in the previous movie, Sponge Out of Water. Still, it wasn't the worst I've seen, after a movie like Fe@rLeSS_ any CG animation looks better... from big studios anyway, but it still didn't sit right with me.

It hurts that I don't like this movie, I actually really hate having to say all this, this movie had people who worked hard on it, and I have nothing but love and admiration for the late Stephen Hillenburg, and I have faith that the team behind this movie wanted to make something that he would have loved. I just, didn't love it myself. Could it have been worse? Yes, but it most certainly could have been better. I think at the end of the day, you're either going to enjoy it, or not, but not in the Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas kind of way where that is the entire point, more in the Hazbin Hotel kinda way where it's most likely just not going to be your cup of tea.

If you love SpongeBob even more than I do, or think it's something you might enjoy, or even just want to kill an hour and a half with something that's not super serious, hey, give it a watch, you might get more out of it than me, and that's great. Who knows, maybe I'll find more out of it upon repeated viewings, hey it's a SpongeBob movie, I'm still gonna buy it on DVD when it comes out, I just don't think I'll watch it as much as the first or second movies. Still, depending on who you are, you might get more out of it than me, so I'll give it a slight recommendation.

The Swan Princess (1994) - A forgettable Disney-Lite affair with one glaring issue

Last month I looked at the Miramax cut of the movie The Thief and the Cobbler, I called it a poor attempt to ape Disney movies and an insulting re-edit of what could have been an incredible movie. Well, it got me to thinking about other movies of that caliber, movies that are obvious attempts at aping Disney while not being as good. You know these movies, the not exactly mockbuster but still obviously some level of knock off. Honestly, I probably have less of a respect for these kind of movies than genuine mockbusters, because mockbusters at the very least don't pollute the theatre with their undiluted awfulness. Still, these films were done by big studios, with pretty good budgets and were theatrically released, so they have a bit more of a leg to stand on than a movie like "A Car's Life" or "What's Up: Balloon to the Rescue", but still, these movies were ripping off Disney, and it isn't a coincidence that these movies were coming out in the nineties, when Disney was having it's renaissance. 1994 especially was not a good year to try this stunt because Disney would end up releasing the biggest animated movie of that decade, a little movie called The Lion King.

Getting back on topic, I was curious to check out other films of this variety, and one movie just got me interested, The Swan Princess. Why? Because I have my copies of Quest for Camelot and Anastasia in other places so this was the one I had on my shelf, so I decided to put it in and... I'm gonna be honest I kind of forgotten the movie already. I'm literally writing this just after having seen it and I'm struggling to remember anything about it.

Okay so, what is the plot? Well, this movie is loosely based on the Swan Lake ballet, which I've never seen. I'm not exactly a regular of stage productions, and my city doesn't really seem to have a lot in the way of theatre as far as I know. So, barring the ballet, the film focuses on Prince Derek, and Princess Odette. After Odette gets kidnapped by the evil sorcerer Rothbart... yes, Rothbart, seriously I come up with better names for my characters, Derek goes to prove his love and rescue her. But, she is cursed to turn into a swan, until the moonlight hits the lake she lives on and she'll turn into a human once again for a brief time. Then there is Rothbart's plan to get Derek to confess his love to the wrong princess, kill him and take over the kingdom and... you can tell I'm not giving this my A Game yes? Okay, real talk, plotwise the movie is fairly solid. I noticed no major plot holes or loops in logic, I guess the villain's plan could have been better explained, I mean, I get the whole "Get Derek to confess to the wrong princess" plan, but, how does it work? How does getting him to confess his love for a princess, to a woman disguised as said princess do anything? I mean, how about a throw-away line about him confessing to an impersonator, boom, and I'm not a screen writer.

I think the characters of this movie are... I mean they aren't bad, but they're very weak. Derek is your protagonist, he is not very interesting. Odette is kind of the same, after the first act, the movie just kind of forgets that she had any potential to be more than the princess character. Yes, she does things, but is she as good as say Sally from The Nightmare Before Christmas? I shouldn't compare characters, but what happened to the Odette from the opening scene? The Odette that could outshine Derek in several areas? I kind of liked Rothbart, if only because he was kind of fun to watch. I didn't really care for the animal companions, and I think the only character I really liked was the valet character Rogers, I like dry sarcasm, I think it comes from watching British sitcoms like Blackadder and Red Dwarf. Over all, characters get a thumbs down from me.

But honestly, neither of those are what make this film bad, at the very least I'd rate this film a "Slight Recommendation" because I could see someone getting into the movie, but the one thing that took me out of the experience was the editing. The movie's editing was atrocious, some cuts were way too quick and there was one bit of pacing in particular that cemented the editing as what kills this movie. The scene where Derek meets Odette after having chased her down as a swan, they are so happy, and then in the blink of an eye it goes into "You can't stay" or "You have to leave" or whatever. They could not let the moment sink in before they had to move on to another moment. There is also a scene where one of the animals tries to pole vault over a moat, and it looks like some shots were missing there.

It is a shame because, just like with The Thief and the Cobbler, the animation isn't bad, okay it isn't as good as The Thief and the Cobbler, but it isn't terrible. It looks nice and has a nice colour palette, I noticed very few animation errors, one caught my eye but I'd have to watch the movie again to be really sure about it. I think my biggest issue with the animation is the moments where it looks too much like a Disney movie, even then the scenes still looked nice enough I could forgive someone overlooking it.

And since this is an animated movie for kids from the nineties... I'm gonna be honest the songs in this movie mostly suck. The opening song isn't bad, but it's not the best written song in the world. It's cute, and I could get behind it. The villain's song would have been fine if Rothbart's singing voice wasn't completely terrible, and the rest of the songs... God I can't even remember them. That is a big problem with this movie, it is just so forgettable. I saw it, and now I'm having trouble remembering exactly what was in the movie, quite frankly I don't even know how valid my criticisms are because this movie was just so forgettable.

The Swan Princess is a simple and mediocre Disney-Lite outing that is about as memorable as walking down the street and seeing nothing, and I have some great stories about weird things that happened while I was out walking. The songs are bland, the characters aren't anything special and the editing kills this movie like a Mortal Kombat fatality. I guess I could see some young children enjoying this movie, but if it were up to me I'd show them anything else instead, The Lion King, The Secret of NIMH, The Land Before Time, The Nightmare Before Christmas, heck, even The Thief and the Cobbler. That all being said, I don't think this movie is worth avoiding, it's not offensively awful or an insult to the medium I hold dear to my heart, it's just a bland and forgettable movie. So, I don't recommend it, but not to the level of avoiding it.

Editorial: Netflix has low standards

 

It's no big news story to many that Netflix has become one of the dominant names in the entertainment industry. It helped usher in the era of streaming, it features many originals and has been the home for many movies and shows that could not, or would not, be put into theatres or on TV. Netflix has pretty much replaced cable for many people and has a wide selection of shows, movies and specials. Quite frankly, Netflix is to movies and TV as Steam is to gaming... and there in lies the problem.

For those of you who aren't big into gaming, Steam is an online distribution platform run by video game company Valve, and is host to many games ranging from the Triple A titles to the small indie developers. It has been host to many games like The Stanley Parable, Ark: Survival Evolved and other well known indie titles. It has also been the home of such games as The Slaughtering Grounds, a first-person shooter that used prebuilt assets to cobble together a barely functioning game made by developers who tried to sue a Youtuber for libel and defamation because they didn't think his coverage of their game was fair. Steam was also the home of Day One: Gary's Incident, Air Control, Operation: Caucasus, Fur Fun and so many other badly made games made by egomaniac developers with easily damaged pride. Steam has become a dumpster fire of a service because of it's low standards and lack of will to police their storefront, and if you want more about that topic, just go to YouTube and type in "Jim Sterling Steam", you'll get enough videos to fill you in. Jim Sterling was the YouTuber that the developers of The Slaughtering Grounds tried to sue by the way.

I mention all of that because, much like Steam, Netflix seems to having similar issues. Netflix, has low standards when it comes to what they call a "Netflix Original", giving that title to anything that might give them an edge over other streaming services no matter how dreadful.

While Steam has had their titles like Air Control, or Day One: Gary's Incident, or anything published by Digital Homicide or any of the endless asset flippers who try to sell base games as their own work (Cough UnitZ Cough), and to suggest that Netflix has titles similar to that level of quality is... honestly kind of accurate.

What does Netflix have as an original from this year? Well, they have released Animal Crackers; a movie that, God bless everyone who worked on it, really, but desperately needed a rewrite.

They released The Larva Island Movie; A painful kid's movie with lousy animation and predictable jokes and situation outcomes.

They released Pets United; which I think is a generic kids movie that showcases just how low the standards Netflix has are.

They released Fe@rLeSS_; the latest turd given to us by Vanguard Entertainment, which if you anything about that studio you would know not to be proud of having their movies on your service.

Oh yeah, they also released Cuties; a movie that gained a lot of controversy because of it's subject matter which was not advertised as a commentary.

Before 2020, they released stinkers like Duck Duck Goose, Gnome Alone (Another Vanguard disaster) and Next Gen which was not a good movie so don't @ me!

Yes, they did release Klaus, which was a good movie, and they did release The Willoughbys which... I didn't really like, but it seems people enjoyed it so... However, Steam also had good games, a lot of good games, but we're not talking about those good games because Steam has a reputation of being overly generous to bad game developers. Now, I'm not saying Netflix is as bad as Steam is, Netflix hasn't decided to allow just any independent creator pick a company name and upload a movie onto their service, however, that doesn't mean Netflix isn't getting there.

At the very least, Valve doesn't seem to encourage games like The Slaughtering Grounds or Day One: Gary's Incident beyond just letting them take up shelf space on their store. They don't advertise them, they don't mark them as "Steam Originals" and they don't even seem to be really proud of them, they just have them on their service. So, maybe comparing Netflix to Steam isn't really apt, it may be more apt to compare them to Sony.

The PlayStation 4 Storefront is a mess of games that, just like Steam, are made by developers with little talent or effort and just take away views from good and more promising games. Games like Life of Black Tiger, Flowers Are Dead, Cat-lateral Damage, and Skylight Freerange 2 Gachduine (No I did not make that one up) are not only on the PS4 storefront, but also advertised on the official PlayStation YouTube Channel, meaning that Sony is proud in some capacity to have these games on their service. In a similar way, Netflix has branded movies like Cuties, like Pets United, like Duck Duck Goose and whatever Vanguard put up as "Netflix Originals", again, meaning that in some capacity, Netflix is proud to host these.

Now, I am not saying that Netflix is going to become as bad as Steam or the PS4 Storefront, it really does seem like Netflix won't let any random nobody make a movie or show for them. However, so far, it really does seem like they are already the Steam of the Streaming Services. They have a lot of good stuff but some really bad stuff they are pretty much exclusive too, they don't seem to really care about the quality of what is on the service, and the only thing that makes them not like Steam is that they actually seem proud to host a movie like Cuties or Gnome Alone. Yes, they have The Witcher, they have She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, they have Glitch Techs, and Steam has Ark: Survival Evolved, Team Fortress 2 and Passpartout, that doesn't change the games they have let pollute their storefront.

Netflix is going down a path that, if they are not careful, will lead them directly to the same end result as Steam, once a well-beloved and sacred storefront, now a punchline and one of the last places actual people making games want to end up in. If Netflix continues to put the "Netflix Originals" name on crap movies, they will be in the same place, a punchline to many people who are making their own movies, I can already hear someone saying "I'm going to put my movie on Netflix, and than I'm going to release it to the public" or something like that, and I don't want that, nobody wants that. Nobody wanted that for Steam, but that is what Steam is now, and they really only have themselves to blame.

The Thief and the Cobbler: Recobbled Cut (2013): A much better film than what was officially released

In my last review I looked at the officially released, highly edited version of The Thief and the Cobbler. I said it was one worth avoiding because there was an alternate version that was more in line with the late Richard Williams' vision. This is the Recobbled Cut, and is it overall a better film than the Miramax release?

The plot is the same, a young cobbler named Tack gets in trouble with the grand vizier named Zigzag after scuffling with a thief, which gets him taken to the palace where he meets the Princess Yum-Yum. After the thief takes some magical balls that protect the Golden City in which they live, the king panics, especially after hearing that the evil King One-Eye is coming to conquer their city. Now, Tack and the Princess must find a way to protect their city and defeat the evil King One-Eye, but the vizier Zigzag has his own plans to wed the princess and rule the city. Again, the plot is solid, nothing special but I gotta say, the inclusion of some deleted scenes make the plot so much better than a B, definite A- grade. We actually get to see the villain's demise, see what Zigzag was planning to do with the imprisoned Tack, and the Witch in the desert even tells the group what they need to do to defeat the villain. Again, this plot is nothing special, but including these scenes took the plot from a B to an A- in grade.

The characters have been improved a little bit too. First off, the narration is gone! That's right, the re-edit removed Tack's narration, in fact, the film removes Mathew Broderick completely, and now Tack no longer comes off as a generic hopeless romantic, it's really funny how removing a character's dialogue can actually improve them. Speaking of which, they also cut out Jonathan Winters from the film, and trust me when I say that makes this film a lot better. There is no more annoying dialogue that shoe-horns in modernisms and references, and so much of the Thief's thoughts are communicated through his body language, which is so much more interesting than having someone narrate everything he thinks. The other characters don't have too much drastic changes from them, but I don't think they're too bad. The characters no longer come off as generic tropes, which is a drastic improvement. While they still are not the best characters, they stand out a bit more from the Miramax version.

In some other good news, this film has no songs! Hooray! The songs really were the worst part of the Miramax cut, since they tried way too hard to be a Disney movie and it really showed in the songs, which were weak and forgettable. That being said, not everything I didn't like about the Miramax cut has been removed, the "Night on Bald Mountain" reference is still there, and some of the editing I mentioned is still here. In the case of the latter, I'm going to assume the film was going to be like that in the first place, probably not how I'd do it, but it is what it is. In the case of the former, I'm going to assume that because "Night on Bald Mountain" is a public domain piece, it really didn't matter. Oh well.

The animation is, again, superb, beyond excellent. It's so smooth and fluid and even surreal at times. The Recobbled Cut also includes some unfinished test animation, storyboards and deleted scenes, and the flux in visual quality can be a bit distracting, I never thought it was too much. There are times they cut to an unused shot that is only about half-a second long which got a bit distracting, but other than that I was not too bothered by it. I suppose it will depend on the viewer, so if the constant cutting from completed footage to incomplete storyboards will bother you, I get it, but if you can let it slide, well then I'd recommend checking out this version.

Yeah, I think this is a much better cut of the film than the Miramax cut. I'd go as far to say that this is the only version that anyone should view. The characters are better, the plot is better, it feels less like it's trying to be a Disney film. It's funny how slight improvements to the elements make this a much better film. Overall, while I can't say it's incredible or that great, it is definitely worth checking out. You can find it online if you're curious, though depending on where you live that might not be very easy to find. Still, if you're willing to search, I'd recommend it, it's a fascinating and beautiful film and a great way to honour the legacy of the late Richard Williams.

The Thief and the Cobbler (AKA: Arabian Knight) (1993) - A poor attempt at Disney-fication while tearing apart an artist's vision

If I were to bring up the name Richard Williams to any of you, what would you know that name for? Richard Williams was a British-Canadian animator whose work is highly regarded by film critics and animation fans. He is most known for being the animation director of the 1988 classic Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but he has also done a 1971 adaptation of A Christmas Carol alongside Chuck Jones, directed and animated the 1977 Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure, and did title animation for films like 1967's Casino Royale and 1975's The Return of the Pink Panther. In 1964, Richard Williams began production on what was to be his crowning achievement, the film would be released just shy of three decades later. Remember when I talked about Animal Crackers and its troubled history? The Thief and the Cobbler is a history lesson in and of itself, I do not have the time to go through the entire production of this movie, but in the end, the film was taken from Richard Williams and was re-edited and turned into something different. This is the version many people know of today, and it was released by Miramax Films. Was this movie worth the troubled production-no it wasn't... kinda sorta... let's take a look!

The plot follows a lowly cobbler named Tack in the city of Baghdad, who falls in love with the beautiful princess Yum-Yum, however, a thief steals three magical golden balls from the top of a tower, and thus plunges Baghdad into peril. The great wizard Zigzag offers to trade the balls for the princess' hand in marriage, but after the king refuses point blank, he offers them to the powerful villain King One-Eye, who lays siege upon the golden city. Tack and the princess must find a way to defeat One-Eye and save the city. Plotwise, the movie is mostly solid, it has some filler moments, some moments that drag on too long, but no real major plotholes. That being said you can see where the plot is going and which character is which and yeah, the large character dressed in black and voiced by Vincent Price is the bad guy? You don't say </sarcasm>. That being said, I can give this movie a solid B for plot, maybe an A- on a good day.

Characters are not the films strongest point, though these aren't the worst characters I've ever seen, Tack is your standard protagonist, humble, do what is right, brave, not very interesting, except that he has the worst narration I've seen in any movie yet, it never goes away and feels the need to explain everything going on in the film. To give some comparison, Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, kept the narration silent during big emotional scenes, and The Muppet Christmas Carol got rid of the narrators during the Ghost of Christmas Yet-to-Come segment, this movie does not do anything of the sort. The thief has an inner monologue that is Jonathan Winters trying to be the Robin Williams' Genie character, with the modern references and that stuff. It was charming with the Genie because it was Robin Williams and his energy is just the right level of enjoying to watch. Jonathan Winters is not as energetic, and his references come off less like Robin Williams ad libbing for comedy and more like Gex. Remember Gex? Really, none of the characters are that interesting, I'm struggling to think of one nice thing to say, the princess is bland, the villain gets no screen time, the wizard suffers from the Unicron problem of only being interesting because of the voice actor. The only character I find has anything really interesting to say is the King, who does have some moments that make him better than other father characters. Yeah, the characters were not very memorable in this movie.

The biggest problem with this film though is just how hard it tries to be a Disney movie. I know that Miramax was a subsidiary of Disney at this time, but they did distribute some other films like... Freddie as F.R.O.7... um... Bionicle: The Movie - Mask of Light?... Pokémon: Destiny Deoxys? Oh forget it. My point is that this movie fails the hardest when it does try to be a traditional Disney film. Especially in the songs category, oh goodness the songs in this movie were dreadful. They had bad lyrics and forgettable melodies, give Playmobil: The Movie some credit, that movie had one song I remembered. Not that the rest of the audio is anything special, the background music was mostly ignorable, and they at one point played a snippet of "Night on Bald Mountain", all I can say is... Rocko did the parody better.

The one thing I can praise this film for though is the animation. I mean, it is smooth, surreal and one of the trippiest visual rides I've seen since Yellow Submarine. Again, this is a case where simply explaining how good it is would do the film a disservice. In fact, the animation is so good, that I would almost recommend the film just for the animation alone. It is a very surreal and very visually pleasing style, lots of the camera work is smooth and flows with the scenes. In fact, I think the only problem I have with the animation is sometimes the editing does not work in the animations favor. There is one scene where the Thief is bouncing off of awnings, but instead of following him on every bounce the camera cuts to a new awning and only follows him on small occasions. It's kind of distracting how different the editing makes the scenes feel, and that isn't the only problem with the editing. They also removed a lot of scenes, including the end battle climax, and the villain One-Eye's demise, in fact the film does have quite a few editing issues, scenes that don't gel together, reused animation. Individually, it isn't frequent, but you do notice it when it happens.

I... don't know how to really rank this movie. On the one hand, no, it is not a very good movie. In fact it's rather bad, but the incredibly good animation really does make this film worth watching. I guess it is a good compromise since we'll never get to see Richard William's true vision for the film, since he passed away in 2019, so... wait... there is a way we can see a film closer to his true vision. Yeah, I remember now, some fans have pulled together some cut scenes, scraps of test animation and more to make a version that is closer to the version that Richard Williams was hoping for... so yeah, I guess because of this films uninteresting characters, bad attempts to ape Disney and some really poor editing choices, I guess this film really isn't worth watching in the first place. In fact, this film probably isn't worth the curiosity of checking out for the animation... Yeah, if you want to see the animation, check out the Recobbled Cut of the film, or even just watch some scenes on YouTube, you can probably find the Thief and Cobbler chase pretty easily, so... yeah, I'd recommend avoiding this film, check out the Recobbled Cut instead.

Editorial: 10 Disney remakes I would actually go and see

 

With the whole Mulan debacle happening, I think it's safe to say that many of us do not want to support Disney's endless overmilking of their nostalgic properties while ignoring stuff we might actually want to see. However, given that Disney has an extensive catalog of releases, even before taking into account all the stuff they have acquired over the years, it's safe to say that they will be remaking their movies basically until we stop giving them money to support them. Some Disney remakes however, I did choose to see in theatres, Dumbo looked like it would be pretty good (It wasn't), Aladdin was a movie I was bad mouthing on social media so I thought I'd give it a fair shake (It wasn't... awful) and The Lion King was an animated movie so I had to see it regardless. However, this got me thinking, what Disney movies would I go see their remakes in theatres?

Let's be honest, it's not that Disney is remaking their old movies that is the problem, it's the implication of their views of animation coupled with the fact that they seem to heavily be banking on the nostalgia of these movies rather than focusing on giving some movies a second chance. Also, Disney's attempt at a monopoly on entertainment, but everyone brings that up. So, if Disney were to remake some movies, yeah I'd totally go see them in theatres, and here are a few that I would see just on concept alone.

Keep in mind, these are movies I would see if they were remade into animation or live-action, so no Song of the South or Who Framed Roger Rabbit, as those movies need to have some characters and segments animated. Also, I'm not saying that all of these would be good ideas, just that I would see them and pay the fifteen or so dollars for the ticket. This is not a top ten list, this is just a list, and I'm not saying these remakes will happen, honestly I'm hoping they don't happen, but if they do, I wouldn't mind seeing them. With that said, let's begin and restate the fact that these don't have to be good ideas for me to check them out...

10. The Fox and the Hound

Case in point, The Fox and the Hound from 1981. Remaking this movie into live action would be a terrible idea, as it would just be The Lion King all over again, animated characters on a live-action setting. So, why is it on this list if I wouldn't like a live action remake, as per my own rules? Well, I want to remind you this is a list of Disney remakes I would see and... Well, I would kind of have an obligation to see a remake of this one, The Fox and the Hound is in my top three favourite of the Disney animated canon.

One part of me just wants to see how much it could be inferior to the original, but at the same time, I agree that the original movie could have been a lot stronger, and a remake would be a perfect opportunity to make the movie stronger. Of course, I don't think the movie would look as good in 3D animation, but even then, I'd still see it. I'd love to cry at how much they messed up one of my favourites.

9. Alice in Wonderland

I know that Disney already did a remake of Alice in Wonderland, in fact many will point to the 2010 film as the start of the "Live-Action Remake Trend", but is it really fair to say that was a remake? It was more akin to a sequel, and it took more from the second book, which left me confused when they announced the sequel to the sequel/remake... my head hurts.

Anyway, the point is, I think we can discount the already existing remake, I mean, Disney already did with The Jungle Book, which they did in 1994. Besides, there is so much you can do with Alice in Wonderland, I think Disney can have another go at this story, maybe make it closer to the book, or maybe have it be a feature length Fantasia segment, or do something in between. I really think that we can let the existing remake slide if another remake ends up being pretty good.

8. The Reluctant Dragon

Yeah, here's a classic Disney film right? Honestly, I'm really thinking that Disney could really make this one a proper full length feature film, like, just nix all the stuff about making a cartoon and the studio tour and just have the movie be about a dragon that's really kind and the knight who has to prove the dragon's innocence. This is the kind of movie that Disney should be remaking, as it's old enough to warrant it and has the potential to reestablish the characters to newer audiences.

7. Hercules

Hercules is one of the most visually interesting movies Disney has ever done. The visual style is a neat mix of traditional Disney art, along side Gerald Scarfe as the production designer, it is a very interesting movie in the visual sense, I'd be very interested in seeing what they could do with the visual style in 3D animation or even Live-Action.

Barring that however, the tales of Hercules are always good ones to retell, I mean, check out Overly Sarcastic Productions' video on Hercules for a good example. If Disney could do a proper retelling of Hercules, that would also be quite welcomed. This is a remake I'd see on two accounts, either the movie will be just as, or even more visually interesting, or the movie will be a more faithful telling of the Hercules legends, and I'd enjoy either honestly. Even if they don't get James Woods to do Hades again.

6. The Emperor's New Groove

Now, when I say "The Emperor's New Groove", I'm not actually talking about the early 2000s movie that I reviewed previously on this blog. You see, the movie we got is a far cry from the movie that it was intended to be. Originally planned as "Kingdom of the Sun" and more inline with "The Prince and the Pauper", the original movie seems like it would make for an interesting movie, and even one in line with the Disney Renaissance, but sadly the film had production issues and was completely overhauled into the end result which, while not bad and is really funny, not the film that could have been.

After I heard about "Kingdom of the Sun", I thought that at the very least, it would have made for an interesting stage show, but no, it seems that all we're left with is stories of what could have been, and a movie that marked the end of the Renaissance.

5. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

It's odd, you would think that the film to start it all would have been an immediate pick for remaking. I know this pick may seem a bit blasphemous, but when you hear the cut content from the original pitch, you'll see my point. Apparently, there was a big subplot about the Prince that was cut from the movie, and it explains how he knew where to find Snow White and the Dwarfs. It would be pretty cool to see this in film and not just in comic, and if you want more information about what was cut from the film, I recommend this video by Colin LooksBack.

According to the Disney Wiki, a large part as to why this movie doesn't have sequels or remakes is because Bob Iger considers this movie untouchable, so this one may or may not happen, but if it does, I would happily see it.

4. Chicken Little

This movie has a nasty reputation, many calling it the worst movie, not just animated movie, that Disney has ever put out. It's been a long time since I last saw this movie, so I can't say for myself, but I can say, you can make this movie good Disney, just try again!

3. Meet the Robinsons

Personally, I think the Disney company should really consider the theme of this movie a lot more.

That really is a large part as to why I think this movie should be remade, the theme and message are just so good and very important to learn. "Keep Moving Forward" was one of Disney's philosophies, and it took him far, sadly, the company now has seemed to forget the sentiment and are churning out blatant cash grabs pandering to nostalgia... no, the irony is not lost on me.

Still though, with a movie with a good message, and a really creative setting, I think many would be willing to give this movie a second chance if it were remade.

2. Treasure Planet

Treasure Planet is a film that a lot of people my age grew up with and have a fondness for. It's a movie that has garnered a well deserved cult following since release and I think Disney would be foolish not to tap into this fanbase at least once.

I mean, it is 17th century aesthetics in a futuristic setting, immediately an interesting combination. Plus, some really good character relationships, and some pretty great action scenes, if they fixed up a few points they might have a really great movie on their hands, and that's saying something because this movie is already pretty great. Plus, if it does well, we might get to see that sequel that got shelved... wink!

1. Atlantis: The Lost Empire

Come on, you knew this would be number one. Of all the movies Disney has made, it seems the one that everybody would like to see, or at least would understand being remade is this one, and for good reason, like Treasure Planet, it is a movie a lot of people have a fondness for, but also didn't do so well financially or critically. It is almost a crime that Disney hasn't considered remaking this movie, or even trying again with the concept. It seems like many people would be okay with this movie being remade, both to get the original some more attention, but also to have a second go and make the movie more than the original.

I think that is a large part as to why a movie should be remade, if it didn't do so hot or wasn't the best, it can be given a second chance. Maybe it just needed a few more rewrites, or maybe the cast wasn't well chosen, or the characters were too weak. I brought up the same point in my First Impressions of "Animal Crackers", I could see something good, but it just needed another rewrite, and that's why I hate Disney's refusal to remake anything other than movies like "Cinderella", "The Lion King" or "Beauty and the Beast", these films were well received, financial successes and are still loved to this day, they didn't need another rewrite, and yeah, not all of these movies need that rewrite either, but if they were remade, I'd still go see them, whether or not I would anticipate them is another story, but that wasn't what this post was about, this was just a small selection of movies that, if they happened to be remade, I'd watch and see how they turned out.

I don't expect many to agree with me, so I'd love to hear what you think, what Disney movie would you see in theatres if it got a remake? Feel free to leave a comment below, this has been The Entity of Darkness, and I'll see you next time at my humble Odeon.

Gulliver's Travels (1939) - A movie that feels like a theatrical short

The history of animation in cinema is almost as long as the history of cinema itself. However, to simplify matters, the first animated film that we know about dates back to the late 1800s, but the earliest surviving film dates back to 1900, it was a stop motion film titled "Humourous Phases of Funny Faces" and it's a really fascinating short. Following that, the story is pretty known by many people, Winsor McCay and Gertie the Dinosaur, Otto Messmer and Felix the Cat and in 1917 in Argentina the first ever animated movie was released titled "El Apostol", sadly it has become lost to time, and the oldest surviving animated feature dates ahead to 1926 with "The Adventures of Prince Achmed". Most of the films from this time have been lost, but a handful do survive, including one film from 1937 titled "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs", a major success for Disney and an inspiration for animation in the future, in fact, one studio known as Fleischer Studios was hoping to duplicate the success of Snow White by making their own feature in 1939, a movie simply known as "Gulliver's Travels".

This is probably the oldest non-Disney animated movie in my collection, so I was interested in seeing this one. A lot of people throw heaps of praise onto Snow White, and fairly so it is a wonderful movie, and people are starting to know more about Lotte Reiniger and her movie "The Adventures of Prince Achmed", but it seems nobody acknowledges this movie. Is that fair? Yes... No... Maybe... Well, let's take a look.

Plotwise, it's a telling of the sailor Gulliver and his time in the land of Lilliput. I've never really read the full Gulliver story, so I'd have to assume this is mostly accurate. The plot doesn't have any major plot holes or massive glaring issues, but I do have to wonder, this whole conflict was started because the king's could not decide on what song to sing at the wedding of the prince and princess, why didn't either of them think to sing them both, or a medley of the two, I thought of that before Gulliver woke up. Actually that is a bit of another thing, the opening of this movie is just so padded. First we see Gulliver wash up on the shore, then we see a Lilliputian walk up to him, but we see his whole walk and get a song number. We also get a dumb bit of comedy where they walk onto Gulliver and take time finding out that they're standing on the giant they we're meant to be looking for. We also get to see every last detail of how they tie Gulliver up, load him onto a cart and pull him into the city. I guess the latter could be necessary to show, it does show how these characters solve this problem, but it's just not fun to watch. Honestly that is a big problem with this movie, a lot of the scenes just aren't fun to watch.

I almost hate to do this, since I don't think this is really fair to do, but in Snow White there is a scene which serves little to the plot. It's when the dwarfs are playing music and dancing with Snow White. It leads into the song "Someday My Prince Will Come", but other than that it could be cut, but we'd miss it because it's a really entertaining scene. I don't want to compare this movie to Snow White too much, I think every movie, even response films like this, should have the chance to stand on their own. Still, I can't help but make the comparison sometimes.

Character wise... this movie doesn't have no character, but they're just not very strong. You've got one character named Gabby who is, as his name would imply, always talking. Gulliver is your standard kind soul character, not unlike Snow White, but even then the comparison isn't too apt. While Snow White is generally kind and nice, we do see her be bossy in the film, demanding the Dwarfs wash their hands before they eat. When Gulliver is scolding the kings, his tone isn't really different from the rest of the movie. I guess that's a fault with the acting and directing, but it is a good point to bring up. Even the Princess, when she speaks it's just an offhanded remark, she doesn't even sound concerned when the Prince is going to divert the gunshot away from Gulliver. One thing I do like is that the other king, King Bombo genuinely doesn't seem like he wants to go to war. You can see it in his face that he's having second thoughts, but has to keep up appearances to his men.

Speaking of that, the animation is for the most part, really good. You can see all the small details of the tension of ropes tightening around Gulliver, or the light of lanterns seeping through the gaps between the bridge boards. The rubber hose animation of the little people is energetic and really well done. I think Gulliver was done in rotoscope, but if not you can still tell that his animation style is different from the rest. I can't say it mixes particularly well, but it's not distracting so I can give it a pass. I should note that I have this movie on VHS and the tape has most likely deteriorated a bit, even then though, looking at better resolution clips online the palette is nothing special, there aren't really any moments that impressed me with the visual beauty of the scene. That said, I think this has one of the first low angle shots in an animated feature, or one of the earliest anyway, you don't see these kind of shots in animated films at this time, so I thought it was worth mentioning.

The movie also has a few song numbers, and they aren't really special. I actually think the background score is better. With all this in mind, I can't help but get the feeling this was just a theatrical short, but with a feature length run time, like they treated this movie as just a feature length theatrical short. I mean, it looks and sounds like a theatrical short, it ends like a theatrical short, it's even kind of paced like a  theatrical short. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised but then you think about it, Snow White didn't have this same feeling, it looked and sounded like it's own movie. Don't get me wrong, I love theatrical shorts, Pink Panther and Goofy cartoons are two of my favourites, but they work best at seven to ten minutes, not feature length, some would even say not twenty-one minutes like some Disney Snowmen get.

that is kinda where my feelings towards this movie stand. Is it a good movie, kinda, but at the same time not really. If you have little kids then maybe they'll enjoy it. It is kind of the same emotional storytelling of Snow White, but it looks and feels like a theatrical short. There are lots of good theatrical shorts out there to show kids who are into cartoons, again I'm really partial to Pink Panther shorts myself, and their are lots of really good movies to show. I guess this one has just aged, which is probably the reason that this film has kind of become obscure. Snow White has aged but is still mostly timeless, you can watch it today and still find some enjoyment. Gulliver's Travels has good elements, some wonderful animation, good gags and a fairly solid plot, but it's got some flaws that did hold my enjoyment back a bit. The voice acting, the forgettable songs, the bland characters. I don't think this is a bad movie per se, but it isn't particularly great. I think it's worth checking out if your curious.

First Impressions: Animal Crackers (2020... ish)

Well, it's nice to finally see this movie, kinda sorta. Yeah, you saw that "ish" in the title, and that's because, well this movie was technically a 2017 release. The history of this movie is interesting, but I don't really know all the details myself. What I do know is that this movie was released in a film festival in 2017, and according to Wikipedia in 2018 it had a release in China, but it would become a Netflix Original this year. For sake of consistency and to make this easier on myself, I will refer to this as a 2020 release, I know that isn't technically accurate, but lots of movies get weird releases, like Norm of the North 2.

There are three things you never want your movie to be, boring, offensive and disappointing. A boring movie leaves you with nothing to talk about, an offensive movie will make viewers angry, and a disappointing movie, no matter how good it is, will never be as good as it could have been. Animal Crackers in none of those, it is another category all together, a "Film that could have been good."

I'm serious, there are good elements in this movie, the animation is wonderful, good colour palette, no obvious mistakes, some nice small details as well, I think the scene where I knew that the animation of this movie was going to be this movie's strong point was in the opening where our lead character is talking to his fiancé, you can tell by the acting and facial animation that he is not thrilled about this, in fact, the acting isn't that bad either. There are LOTS of recognizable voices in this movie, Patrick Warburton, Gilbert Gottfried, Wallace Shawn, Sir Ian McKellen, Danny DeVito, but a lot of the other cast members are not too bad. Emily Blunt is of course wonderful, I think she's slowly becoming my favourite actress, John Krasinski did a good job, Tara Strong was excellent, Hell, I could barely recognize Sylvester Stallone. My props goes out to the voice director and the actors of this movie, because they did not have the best material to work with.

Honestly, when I say that this film could have been good, I do mean it. The movie has some moments that are genuinely cute. Like when the lead proposes with a clown nose, like, that was adorable. Or when he turns into a bear to protect his daughter from monsters, like there are elements of a good movie here. I've said before that good emotional scenes are the bare minimum for any movie, I think ultimately, the movie I said that about, Next Gen, another Netflix Original, had so little to offer, that even the good scenes felt lesser. With this movie, I can see some bits of quality edging through the... quite honestly awful writing.

The writing kills this movie, and not even that this movie is unfunny, though yes it is very unfunny, but there is just so much wrong with the writing. Patrick Warburton's character (Who is named Brock, making this the second Brock with monstrous pecks he's voiced), is the cringiest character I've ever seen, and a lot of that is because... well... he's kind of an... uncomfortable character, always getting up close and whispering, I felt unclean watching his scenes. Also, this movie falls under the category of "Pseudo-musicals" where, they have song numbers, but it never reaches more than three, and the two song numbers in this movie are not really good, but, I've heard worse, trust me, it's hard to top the PlayMobil movie in how bad your movie can be.

The worst thing about the writing though is, there are a lot of plot holes. I don't know if I can remember them all, but here are a couple I can remember.

1. Why is Brock trying to sabotage our lead's project? This project could literally make the company millions, and he's trying to sabotage it? Why?
2. How many people at the circus knew about the crackers? They don't appear shocked when our lead turns into animals, so they obviously knew a little about them. Why didn't they see if the blue dog and cat with the choker were the people they held the funeral for? Or was this a Dumbledore plan in the end?
3. Who the Hell is our lead's parents? He refers to the circus owners, the people that could have been his parents, as uncle and aunt, and the only relative we are aware of for either of those two that could be his parent, makes no reference to being his father, so where are they?

Honestly, the rest of the movie isn't bad, it's just the unfunny humour and sloppy story that drag this movie down. I know this movie had a troubled history, but at least one more rewrite and this movie could have been good, at least a slight recommendation. As it is, I just... I can see a good movie in here, I can see the talent that went into this movie, but as a whole, I can recommend this very much, but on the bright side, they didn't make something as bad as PlayMobil the Movie.

The Emperor's New Groove (2000) - A film that is much better than you'd think

I'll be honest, I kinda left picking a movie for this month until the last minute, so my only reason for wanting to review this movie is because it is one of my favourite animated movies ever. In my list of favourite films in the Disney animated canon, this is up their with Robin Hood, and Treasure Planet, top six material including The Nightmare Before Christmas. However, I must ask, why do I love this film so much? It can't just be nostalgia, even though this is a movie I watched a lot as a kid, but their got to be something that holds up right? Well, let's find out.

On the eve of his birthday, Emperor Kuzco tells the leader of a local village, Pacha, that he will destroy his village in order to build himself a summer home, complete with waterslide! Meanwhile, his ex-advisor, an old woman named Yzma, and her henchman Kronk, devise a plot to kill him, but to save on postage go with a plan B that ends up turning the Emperor into a llama. After he gets taken from the palace and ends up with Pacha again, he tries to get help getting back to the palace, but Pacha wants him to build his summer home elsewhere. Meanwhile, Yzma and Kronk are searching for him, trying to kill him when they see him.

I'm gonna be honest, the plot kind of flies by in this movie. That isn't a bad thing, in many ways it's a good thing, as it shows how tightly woven and solid the plot is, allowing the plot to progress without filler. I think the only problem with a fast paced plot is that the movie feels shorter than it actually is. The movie is an hour and eighteen minutes, but it kind of feels like you're only sitting down for ten minutes. My dad says that's the sign of an amazing movie, so take that as you may. Personally, I do find the plot to be really solid and simple to follow, so I'll give it marks for that, even if it is a bit paint-by-numbers.

Character wise you're mostly focusing on four characters, Pacha and Kuzco, and Yzma and Kronk. Pacha is your standard kind hearted protagonist, but he does have a temper that shows when he's pushed too far. I especially like how they don't bother to hide this until the big fall out scene, they show this pretty early in the movie, it's interesting. Kuzco is the main character, and the one that goes through the big character arc. Personally, I tend to hate really arrogant brats like Kuzco, which is why, even though I love the show Archer, I do struggle to recommend it because of just how much of a prat Archer himself is. On the Arrogant Prat Meter, I'd put Kuzco in the lower-mid tier, he's not as bad as Archer or Brian Griffen, but he's not as good as say... Squidward. However, the characters that really steal the show are Yzma and Kronk. They are up their with Prince John and The Queen of Hearts as some of Disney's most entertaining bad guys. They work off each other pretty well, have lots of funny moments and are perfectly portrayed by Eartha Kitt and Patrick Warburton.

Speaking of humour, this movie is really funny. I don't think this is one of the cleverest comedies ever written, in fact a lot of the humour is pretty dumb, but there is some subtle humour too, like in the opening where Kuzco has a massive entry way carved into a wall, complete with engravings, patterns and gold. There is also some really interesting fourth wall breaks in this movie, I'd probably say two of most famous fourth wall breaks in any movie. I don't think it's a stretch to say this movie doesn't take itself seriously, it has it's serious moments, but even they need some silly pause or a character talking with the overhead narrator in them to lighten the mood. Even the Muppets know when to make it serious for a minute, but this is a very different movie to The Muppet Movie. I think this lack of a serious attitude benefits the film anyway, as there is a lot of modern speak in this movie. I've talked about this with Klaus, but the difference is that Klaus took itself seriously, the crew behind that movie wanted to make something fantastic, where the crew behind this film, it feels like they just wanted to make a silly movie that was entertaining, so I'll let the modern talk slide.

I think this movie's strongest point is the animation. Not that this movie is as beautiful as Treasure Planet, or as aesthetically please as The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, but there is a lot of subtlety in the facial animations. You get subtle facial expressions that last less than a second, and you can read the characters thoughts just by looking at their face. One of my favourite characters is the waitress at that diner, you can tell by her face she knows there is a llama in the building, but just doesn't care. She doesn't get paid enough to deal with talking llamas. That being said though, that animation is still really good, there were not obvious animation errors, and the artstyle was clean, smooth and pleasant to look at. The movie has a lot of different shades of green, which make the jungles and fields look really lush, but the lighting also really fits the tone. When Kuzco is running for his life, the sky is a vicious red and the grounds are dark and shadowy. Disney has been making animation for around seventy-seven years by this point so if any studio would know how to do animation it would be Disney.

Overall, I would totally say that The Emperor's New Groove is one of my favourite animated movies. While it isn't groundbreaking, or even that special or noteworthy, it is very, very entertaining. The plot is solid, the characters are solid and the humour is excellent. In my top five Disney Animated Canon films, I'd put this one at number four, just below Treasure Planet, I much prefer that film for it's characters and visuals, but if you want a good laugh, you're going to find it with this movie. I'd put this film just shy of a High Recommendation, but it is still one of my favourites, if you passed this movie up, it might be worth checking out.

And no, I did not order a giant trampoline!

Beavis and Butt-head Do America (1996) - One of the weirdest, and yet strangely entertaining movies I've ever seen

Well, it is the summer, the time of great adventures, wonderful stories and just taking time to appreciate freedom for most of us... I assume, I'm writing this review in early April thanks to the current pandemic happening, so hindsight is not exactly 20/20 right now. Hopefully, by June all of this will die down, and hopefully things will return to some state that we can call normal, hopefully one better than right now. Well, since it is the summer I think it would be a good idea to look at a wacky road trip movie... full honesty, I just wanted a road trip movie but uh... this movie is weird.

After their TV gets stolen, Beavis and Butt-head end up going on a trip across the United States on a quest, to them it's to score with a hot girl, but to everyone else involved it's to smuggle a man-made virus across the country. Once a government agency gets wind of this, they start trying to chase the two boys down, but just keep missing them at every turn. Okay, plot wise it doesn't sound too weird, in fact it might be one of the more tame plots for any movie I have ever seen. However, what makes it weird is how it just keeps escalating to the point of absurdity. The movie ends with Beavis, possibly really high, doing his cornholio bit at the White House before getting in a stand-off with the FBI, ATF and SWAT. A movie that starts with the two boys trying to find their stolen TV set ends up with them getting involved in a weapons smuggling plot, wrecking the Hoover Dam and going on a cactus induced trip with Rob Zombie visuals. The way this movie escalates is really bizarre, and kinda funny since the two are painfully unaware of everything going on. I wouldn't say the escalation is as good as the South Park movie, but that movie was all about making commentary and satire, so it's kinda like comparing an apple to a computer mouse.

Being honest, the idiocy of the two does get a little painful to watch at times. I really hate dramatic irony, the trope where the audience knows something the characters don't, think romeo and Juliet where we know that Juliet isn't dead, but Romeo doesn't. Honestly, it's mostly just a personal thing, I hate watching people be dumb when I know the reality, it's kinda like watching Trump be president, like you really just want to reach into the TV and start yelling at the characters. I think it works here because, well Beavis and Butt-head probably wouldn't understand even if they were told. They kinda just go along their way, so it is less painful to watch. In fact, the whole movie is a bit of a dramatic irony since all the characters expect Beavis and Butt-head to be, well competent at anything, and we all know that the two are complete boobs. While their idiocy does get painful, it's kind of a Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas painful where it never becomes too much to watch.

Now, I am not someone who ever watched an episode of Beavis and Butt-head, so I'm coming into this movie mostly blind. That being said, the idiocy of our two leads was never aggravating. They're motivated by two things really, TV and sex. That being said, they are more like observers to the plot in this movie. They're unaware of literally anything that goes on around them, including when their names are on a sign. The side characters are more of the protagonists of this movie, they have more agency in getting the plot going, and you have a decent cast. The agent chasing them is kinda funny with how uh... intimate he can be, the smugglers are just that right amount of awful where, you don't like them, but you don't want them to get off screen to quickly, and of course, you have a whole host of colourful characters that have one or two appearances as well. I think character-wise, this movie isn't bad, they do their job decently, just not too memorable.

When it comes to the humour, it's pretty funny. I just had to laugh at how insane the end climax became, and there were some moments that made me chuckle as well. I think this would be a good movie to watch under the influence so to say. It really has that style of humour where you just sit back, mellow out and chuckle at the fact that your finger feels weird when you wiggle it in the air. Not to say this movie isn't funny for sober people, while there isn't a lot of clever wordplay and lots of awkward humour, you can be amused by some of the childish antics that go on in this movie.

While the main art style may not be appealing to some people, I do think the animation as a whole isn't bad. I am so used to shows and movies having bad art styles to get away with having bad animation, but the animation here is smooth, the lips are always in sync and I didn't see any obviously reused loops. The colour pallet is nice, not one of the best I've seen, but it always matches the mood and setting pretty well. Plus, the hallucination with Rob Zombie's artwork really is one of those segments that steals the show, it was just such an awesome scene that the movie is worth watching just for that.

That being said, this wasn't that bad of a movie. I found the escalation of the plot to be amusing, I found the two leads to be charming with their immaturity and simple mindedness, and as a whole I found the movie to be mildly funny. If you just want to sit back and check your brain at the door, maybe light up a little green if you're into that, this really is the movie for you. Even if you aren't into "Lucifer's Cabbage" there is still a mild amusement to this movie that I think you will enjoy. I give it a good recommendation... heh, heh, I said boobs in the review, heh.

First Impressions: Mortal Kombat Legends: Scorpion's Revenge (2020)

About time I did another First Impressions blog right? Yeah, I have been way behind on these and I do apologize, so to kick things off (Heh heh), let's look at the latest in the long line of Mortal Kombat pieces that are not main series fighting games. Mortal Kombat Legends: Scorpion's Revenge.

Okay so, first things first I am, kind of a fan of Mortal Kombat. I haven't really played very many of the games rather than Deception, I'm not really good at fighting games to start with, but I do love the lore and characters of the series, and of course the fatalities, but that's a given. I've been on a bit of a Mortal Kombat kick recently, so I figure, why not satisfy my blood lust with the new movie? Bonus for me is that this movie is animated so it won't look as bad as Annihilation did.

So, let's get that out of the way then, the animation is spectacular in this movie. It is very anime inspired, but it's hard to find an animated product that isn't anime inspired in some way now, it's either anime or comics that are trying to be emulated, but I digress. The animation was really good in showing off the pure carnage of the action. You can almost feel the weight and force of each punch, each kick and each body part being ripped off. They also included the X-Rays from the recent games which, in the games I'm kind of on the fence about, but in this movie, it was perfect. I think a part of it is that, the X-Rays in the recent games just look like they slow down the fighting, but I could be wrong since, again, only really played Deception, but since this is a movie, and not an interactive media like a video game, it can actually serves its purpose of emphasizing each blow much better.

So what about the plot? Well, it's kind of a retelling / retcon / complete overhaul of the first video game. A bunch of champions are brought to an island to fight in a tournament that will determine the fate of the Earthrealm, but their are a few things different. First, they changed who killed Scorpion, in the video games it was clear that Sub-Zero, Bi-Han in the first game, killed Scorpion, and that was confirmed in the spin-off Mythologies. I guess it was changed to better fit the narrative, but it isn't too big a deal. Jax also looses his arms in this movie, even though in the games he didn't have his robotic arms until Mortal Kombat III, but I don't think anyone is really going to care.

I don't think the changes are too major, I mean, the games themselves are diving into alternate timelines and the main boss is named Kronika, you know, Chronos, so this is really not that much.

I will say, as someone who knows a lot about the games, I did fanboy a little at the minor cameos they slipped in. My favourite was Nitara, she was only playable in two games, I really wish they'd do more with her, but I digress. Seeing characters that could have been Baraka and Motaro (Though probably weren't) was also really cool, and Kitana, she was just great, I hope they do another movie and really flesh out her character, they obviously set up a relationship between her and Liu Kang... yes obviously it was from the games, but still.

Actually, one random side note, but the minute I saw Shao Kahn I knew I wanted a sequel, I didn't care if this movie sucked, but I wanted a sequel to see more Shao Kahn.

On that note, this movie kicked ass, it isn't going to really wow anyone who is going in expecting something deep and philosophical, not that there aren't elements of that here, but it's more of a bloody action flick. If you're a fan of Mortal Kombat, you're going to get a kick out of this movie. If you want a satisfying action flick, you're going to get it, and if you want a good movie, I think you'll find it. This movie was entertaining and highly satisfactory, a solid recommendation from me.