Momotaro: Sacred Sailors (AKA Momotaro's Divine Sea Warriors) (1945) - Propagandistic in Nature, But Watchable

 

Anime did not take off in the west until the late eighties and early nineties, with big name cinematic releases like Akira, and some Studio Ghibli releases, and the premiere of Japanese animated series in the west, such as DragonBall Z and Sailor Moon. During the late 90s and early 2000s, it began to explode in popularity, though unless it was a major franchise like Pokémon, Yu-Gi-Oh or something similar, it was still a pretty niche thing in the west until the 2010s. I feel as though we here in the west have a very skewed perception of anime, especially considering a lot of people know very little about the history of anime. Most early anime has been lost due to natural disasters, and a lot of anime has been heavily inspired by western comics and cartoons, which brings it around full circle since a lot of American cartoons are now inspired by Japanese comics and cartoons. Being someone who loves media history, I have had Momotaro: Sacred Sailors, the first feature length Japanese animated film that we know of, on my watchlist for some time. I happened upon a copy at a mixed media store, and like I did with The Thief and the Cobbler, I took it as a sign to review this movie as soon as I could. I enjoy having the chance to watch historically significant movies, but the question I always have to ask is, outside of the significance, is it any good?

Momotaro: Sacred Sailors is, and I feel I must stress this first, largely propaganda. I don't know if this movie was meant to entice kids to consider joining the Japanese Navy, or if it was just to invoke a feeling of nationalistic pride, but the movie is largely propagandistic. Momotaro was commissioned by the Japanese Naval Ministry, That is going to be the first major hurdle to overcome watching this movie. Propaganda has a reputation, and frankly a deserved reputation. The other major hurdle is that this movie doesn't really have much in the way of plot or characters. There is a plot, it follows four young men as they join the Japanese navy and are sent on a special mission, we see them say goodbye to there families, we see the construction of headquarters, we get some backstory about the mission and the island they're landing on, and we see the final battle. It all goes by quite quickly, and rather abruptly. Scenes change sporadically without much transition. One scene can be a character sitting quietly and then suddenly it's a loud crowd of people bustling about, then it's some form of educational style film that just feels spliced into the movie. The plot does also move slowly at points, I don't want to say it has a lot of filler, but I do think a lot of the scenes, if this movie was made today, would have been rewritten or cut entirely.

Character wise, we don't actually have that many. We start this movie with four young men, who are anthropomorphic animals, we get to see their family life and possibly some inside look into one of them, one of the characters watches some dandelions float off in the air and he imagines military commands, I was honestly kind of anticipating the dandelion seeds morphing into parachutes, but I digress. Besides that, we get a lot of time with minor background characters, there's this captain we also spend a good amount of time with, and that's about it. It's kind of tough to really talk about this aspect of the movie, since it is hardly an aspect of the movie. I could see this as the crew leaving the characters as blank slates so the audience could see themselves joining the naval forces, but that would be conspiratorial of me to say that.

I think a big part as to why the characters are such non-entities is because at least eighty percent of the dialogue is background singing. Of all the singing in the movie, only one song is actually sung by the characters on screen, and it's an alphabet song. Honestly that would have come in super handy when I was learning Japanese in High School. I can't say the songs are bad, they definitely feel like propaganda songs though, it's like, "We are strong, we are hard workers!" like, I can see that in a less iffy context, but knowing that this movie is propaganda, I mean. Now would probably be a good time to mention that yes, the companies who own rights to this movie do not hold the views of this movie, or from this time period. Likewise, I do not hold any grudges to the Japanese people, I'm just reviewing this movie as it is, and it being propaganda is a major part of it, so that is going to hang over this movie like an annoying bee that just won't go away.

That being said, the animation has its charm. The characters are definitely designed rather cute, and when we see the western soldiers they are drawn more like a traditional American rubber hose cartoon. One of the soldiers is literally Popeye, not even a character that looks like Popeye, literally Popeye. Popeye was also used as propaganda so it makes some sense. He even drops an empty can of spinach, like how is that imagery not on the nose? That being said, the animation is rather flawed. Some of the expressions and designs didn't look right to me, but I figure that's just a taste thing. Some animation didn't look right either, like a really choppy GIF, but what I really noticed were the moments of some characters being unfinished and disappearing for a split second. In regards to the former, I feel this is just an upscaling issue, like the characters didn't need to be drawn fully because the part of them that was missing wasn't meant to be on camera, and as for the characters vanishing for a frame or so, I imagine this is partly because our visual senses are used to higher frame rates than film in the forties, so a vanishing character or object might not have been noticeable at the time. However, I'm not watching this in 1945, I'm watching this in 2022, and it makes me wonder why they didn't fix these issues? The back of the box says "Restored" so I can assume there was some clean-up done for the film. A part of me wants to shout lazy, but at the same time it could also be a cost and materials thing, like these issues don't happen often enough to warrant the cost of fixing them, or the materials just weren't available for whatever reason.

So, what is my final verdict on this movie? I mean, it isn't terrible. However, I feel like you're really only going to get any enjoyment out of this movie if you are into film or animation history. Otherwise, you're probably not going to like it that much, it's like that Gulliver's Travels movie from 1939, I would only recommend watching it if you are into media history. There is some value to saying you've watched the oldest movie in whatever category. That being said, I really can't say this movie was terrible, at no point was I ever appalled or infuriated by the images on the screen. I guess because we are so far removed from 1945 as of now, it's kind of hard for me to feel uncomfortable watching this kind of movie. It isn't really good, I can't say it's harmless, but if film and/or animation history is your thing, or you really just want to be the hipster weeb amongst your friends, hey, check it out.

First Impressions: Luck (2022)

 

Plenty of movies get released directly to streaming services. I'm behind on a few myself, "The Sea Beast" from Netflix, "Beavis and Butt-Head Do The Universe" on Paramount+, and a Marmaduke movie... also on Netflix. These movies don't usually get a lot of attention, but as of now it has kind of been blowing up. I think in part due to the pandemic, more people are willing to wait for a movie to come to streaming than watch it in theatres, so a movie that skips theatres directly will probably get more attention now than before, even if it isn't a big release. Which is another thing to consider, Turning Red and Chip 'n Dale were released straight to Disney+, Netflix recently released a Rise of the TMNT movie, (Which No I am not going to talk about on here) and AppleTV+ recently released John Lasseter's first production outside of Pixar, Luck.

John Lasseter has been in some controversy recently, with allegations about indecent behavior towards female staff, the allegations don't seem as bad as John K's but they are still pretty bad, causing him to step down (or be fired I can't remember which) from Pixar in 2018. However, Skydance Media picked him up, and allowed him to be a producer on, what I believe to be their first animated production. Now let me be clear, this is all John Lasseter is on this production, a producer, and not even the only one. The director of this movie is Peggy Holmes who directed The Littler Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning and a couple Tinkerbell movies before this and has a large amount of Choreography credits for both animated and live-action movies. It's just that Lasseter is a bigger, and more controversial, name so that is going to be the name most associated with this movie.

I'm starting to worry that The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wilde was less a one off and more of an omen of sorts, because so many of these movies I would rather talk about this things going on around them rather than the movie themselves. Yep, Luck is another entry in the "Fantastically boring" category, one thing I will say is that I am absolutely infuriated by the plot. Here's a question, why is it whenever a human, or mortal or whatever, enters some weird fantastical world, they are always never meant to be there? Yes, we had Oz and Narnia but those stories are old, The Wizard of Oz was first published in 1900 and the first Narnia book was in 1950, in most other stories it's always the human needs to be hidden, needs to keep a low profile, why? Here is this amazing fantastical world and we got to creep around it for some dumb reason. Let's get a fantastical world that a human accidentally falls into and isn't told to keep hidden and creep around.

On top of that, most of the movie is watching this character endure through her bad luck, and I guess it's meant to be inspiring, like she can overcome this and learn from it, but I just found it a little annoying to sit through. Good characters going through awful scenarios can work in some cases, SpongeBob being targeted by a bully isn't funny because he's getting targeted by a bully, it's funny because of his reactions to everything around him, and the reactions to him. When someone like Donald Duck or Harold Green gets in a bad spot, you can't feel bad for them because they usually brought it on themselves, Sam, the lead character in this movie, isn't reacting to her scenarios in an out there way, and she isn't bringing these situations onto herself, and the bad luck isn't fantastical either, in many ways it's actually depressing. She was at an adoption center until she aged out. I guess this builds sympathy, but you need more than sympathy in a character.

As for everything else, I mean the animation is nice, but it looks absolutely unspectacular, you know how Pixar movies and Disney movies and DreamWorks movies all have amazingly vibrant colours and lighting? Luck doesn't really have any of that, it looks like an Illumination production, it looks like it's just here to get a job done and nothing more. The Land of Luck, I was expecting a very lush environment with a lot of greens and golds and coppers, but instead there was a lot of white and it looked very, corporate futuristic. It's not an unappealing movie to watch, but it's not one of the prettiest movies ever, it's better than Buck Wilde or Paws of Fury, but it's no Bob's Burgers or Bad Guys.

I don't honestly know what anyone was expecting here, I think this movie only got notoriety because of the association with John Lasseter, maybe someone was expecting this to be what "The Visit" was to M. Night Shyamalan, or "Hardwired... to Self-Destruct" was for Metallica, the one project that pulled them out of their doldrums, and if not saved, at least improved their reputation. Unfortunately, if this project is anything for Lasseter, it's more akin to John K's Cans Without Labels or Keiji Inafune's Mighty No. 9, the project that only proved to be the final nail in the coffin of their reputations. The sad thing is, those projects were actually better nails than this one, because Lasseter wasn't majorly involved in this movie, again he was a producer and not the only one. This project really makes me akin John Lasseter not to John K, but more to Butch Hartman. Everyone associates him with a few major pieces and then he attached his name to something, all the ego slips through. Butch Hartman created your childhood, John Lasseter was the greatest creative force at Pixar, and yet one went on to scam people with Oaxis, the other had a minor part and major credit in bringing the world yet another generically bad animated movie. Even if you are going to handwave away the allegations, this movie is not worth it.

The Little Bear Movie (2001) - A Perfect Movie for Young Kids

I think I was part of the last generation to have really good programming for very little kids. I mean, yeah we had Caillou, but there was also Blue's Clues, Arthur, Franklin, and of course Little Bear. While I grew up with Little Bear, it didn't really stay with me like Blue's Clues did, but then again I had Blue's Clues VHS Tapes around me for a long time, so I always had something Blue's Clues sticking around. However, a friend of mine, who also suggested another movie for this blog which I'll get to later, recommended we watch an episode of Little Bear, I went with it. It was related to what we were doing at the time, and when my friend recently suggested we watch The Little Bear Movie, I figured, why not? Even if it is not good, it will be cute, something charming to enjoy. So, we watched it on YouTube and, if I'm being one hundred percent honest, I kind of love this movie.

While on a camping trip with Father Bear, Little Bear meets a wild bear named Cub, and the two become quick friends. After learning that Cub lost his parents, Little Bear and his friends, Duck, Hen, Owl, and Cat, set out to find Cub's parents in the wilderness, encountering friends, as well as lots of troubles along the way. What I really love about this is that it doesn't shy away from any of the dangers in the wilderness. There are chances for rock slides, harsh rivers and rapids, there are even predators. We meet a Mountain Lion early on in the movie and he shows up again at the end. The great thing is though, they don't shove the Mountain Lion in the story that much, he appears like three times in the movie. They could have thrown him in and have him stalking the main cast, but no, they just keep it to the two major appearances and one minor one, and I am really happy they made that choice because nature is enough, getting separated from your group is enough, being lost is enough. Don't get me wrong, I love a good villain, but sometimes you don't need a Maleficent, a Magica De Spell or even a Lady Tremaine, sometimes the best obstacles are the ones found in the environment.

On top of that the characters are very likable. Little Bear is naïve, but optimistic. A nice contrast to Cub, who is a bit more cynical due to his circumstances. Depending on who you are you may find Duck to be a bit annoying, but to be fair I do see a little of myself in Duck, so I found her to be somewhat charming, though they maybe do have her on screen more than one would probably like. The rest of the cast aren't really in this for much, but you still get the kind of characters they are, even if you're not familiar with the original show, you get Owl's personality, Cat's personality, you do get to know most of these characters. It's kind of a shame that Emily didn't even get a cameo appearance in this movie because she is a major character in the show, but then again I don't really know where you would put her in this story. Then we have the Mountain Lion, known as Trouble. Again, he does not appear that much, but when he does it's actually kind of intimidating. I wouldn't say he's one of the scariest kids movie antagonists, but the way he speaks and his presence would probably unease some kids.

I really do want to state that this movie is meant for little kids, like preschool age, but even then this movie is actually very respectful of its audience. There is a lot of quiet moments, moments of the group just having fun, even a lot of more emotionally taxing moments. They do have some songs, but they aren't pop songs made to sell a soundtrack, they are songs that actually fit the mood and tone of Little Bear, and I think they're beautiful. Some people might not be into the pacing, it is a bit of a slow movie, but I just kind of respect that a bit more because, well this is a movie for little kids, and I like that it's not cutting away every shot to make the pacing more exciting, it is very respectful of the audience. We don't really see this in kids films anymore, they all seem to need high energy and lots of pop songs, and maybe one or two more emotional moments. I mean, there are still some recent kids movies I did enjoy, The Bad Guys and Angry Birds 2 are very high energy but I thought were still really fun, but you do kind of notice to formula. I feel like it really needs to be said, you don't need energy to be engaging, you need to be engaging to be engaging, and I found this movie to be engaging.

Is this movie perfect? No. Will you get a lot out of it as an older kid, or even an adult? Well I don't want to say no, but probably not. Again, this movie is for little kids, and if you have little kids, I would highly recommend this movie. You can find it on YouTube on the Little Bear - Official channel. Would I recommend this movie to anyone outside of that demographic though? Well, that is a tough call. I have said I recommended the Blue's Clues Movie despite the fact that it was also meant for little kids, and looking back I probably should have just kept it at a Slight Recommendation. That being said, I think this movie is too good to keep it at a Slight Recommendation. Rating movies that are really good, but also obviously not for a general audience (outside of the MPAA rating) can be tricky because giving it a Slight Recommendation puts it in the same general area of movies I don't really like, but giving it anything higher will probably give the wrong impression, as some movies are obviously made for specific audiences or have content that some audiences might not get into. It's tricky because I don't want someone to pass a movie off because my rating says "Ehh, I only slightly recommend it", which is why I'm really regretting giving that rating to Felidae, but at the same time, yeah this is a movie for little kids and if you're not a little kid or don't have little kids you're probably not going to get a lot out of it. However, this movie is very respectful to its audience, really well made and I think it's perfect for little kids. So, you know what, if you do have little kids, put this movie on. If not, well, maybe give it a look anyway. You might actually find it alright.