The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949) - Two Classic Stories Paired with Classic Animation

 

I'm gonna level with you guys here, I kind of chose this movie last minute. I wanted something properly in keeping with the month of Spooky that is October, and I had some good choices. That being said, my September was pretty full on a personal level, so I didn't really have much time to sit and ruminate on one movie. So, as I usually do when I don't have anything planned, I rummage through Disney's package films. You know, I should be a bit more nostalgic for these, since I grew up with Melody Time and The Three Caballeros and my first movie review on this blog was Fun and Fancy Free, heck one of my favourite Disney movies, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, is a package film. Honestly, I think I look at a lot of these movies as more a fascinating relic. A moment when Disney, and by and large the entire United States, were struggling. The Great Depression, followed by the second world war meant that many studios did not have the money, material, nor staff that they could put towards anything really major, which meant that Disney had to rely on making short films and packaging them together in one movie to make a feature. The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad is often cited as the best of the package films of this era, and mostly for one segment, but we'll get there when we get there. Well, let's see how it holds up.

The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, easily on the longest tiles of any movie in the Disney Animated Canon, tells two short versions of iconic literary characters, Ichabod Crane of Washington Irving's The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, and J. Thaddeus Toad of Kenneth Grahame's The Wind in the Willows. Like I do with most other Package films, I'm gonna go over each segment individually, I do this because, there is no real point to doing them both together as if they're one movie. They are two different stories, so I'm going talk about them as two different stories. I've never read either story originally, but I am vaguely familiar with them both, Tim Burton's 1999 film version of Sleepy Hollow is one of my favourite movies, and I've heard about Wind in the Willows before, though this will be my first real exposure to that story.

The movie's first story is The Wind in the Willows, following the story of Mr. Toad as he becomes obsessed with Motorcars and gets accused of stealing one. I must say, this is a really cute story, Mr. Toad and his friends are charming characters, and I did quite enjoy seeing them go through this ordeal. It can be a bit weird that Toad can somehow manage to disguise himself convincingly as an old woman, but this is a world where toads and rats and moles and badgers and horses can talk, so I can suspend my disbelief a bit further here. I really do have to make a special mention of the soundtrack for this story, it perfectly captured the energy and mood of the scenes, when the scene was quiet and tense, the score matched it. When the scene was chaotic and frantic, the score matched it. Honestly, I'm kind of sad that this short doesn't get as much attention as the Sleepy Hollow segment, I think The Wind in the Willows was a really excellent segment, and it's a shame that the only recognition this segment gets is for the dark ride at Disneyland. Though weasels have appeared in other Disney properties, you can just as easily associate them with Mickey and Friends instead of Mr. Toad.

A lot of people will mostly recognize this movie for the Sleepy Hollow segment, it's pretty much a staple of Halloween. It is a good story, and I really love Ichabod's design, scrawny and lanky, very unassuming looking. I didn't get as much into this story as the last one, mostly because this segment was just really goofy, like almost Looney Tunes level of goofy. The first half of it has a lot of cartoonish slapstick and shenanigans, which is fine, this is a cartoon, and it offers a nice contrast with the second half, or it would if it also wasn't full of similar antics. After Brom Bones tells the story of the Headless Horseman, and another creepy forest scene, the actual chase with the Horseman is a lot sillier than people have said. Everyone brings up how this scene was super scary to them as kids, and it's still one of the best scary moments from classic Disney, and my biggest thought was, replace Ichabod with Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck and not a whole lot really changes. I don't want to say that this story was bad, it was still pleasant, but I think I preferred The Wind in the Willows.

Both stories are narrated, with The Wind in the Willows being narrated by Basil Rathbone, and Sleepy Hollow being narrated by Bing Crosby. I liked Basil Rathbone's narration quite a lot, British accents are typically used to add some kind of dignity or grandiosity to a story, but they don't forget that this is a children's story, and I think Basil meets in the middle very well. I can definitely get into Bing Crosby as the narrator for Sleepy Hollow, he definitely has that odd voice that does lend itself to something a bit darker, which is probably why I prefer his version of "Do You Here What I Hear?", since that is also a dark song. I think they mostly went with Big Crosby because they wanted to make some musical numbers, and Bing Crosby was one of the most popular singers at the time. I guess I would have preferred someone with a more sinister voice for this story, but Vincent Price wouldn't be a horror icon until the late 50s, so this is probably a hindsight criticism.

Honestly, this is another case where I'd rather watch both shorts separately, but to be fair to the movie, they do work together. I could imagine this being a series where Disney animators take a classic story and tell a condensed version through animation and a famous celebrity narrating. I think this film works predominately because both shorts are well done. It isn't that much different from Fun and Fancy Free, with the exception that the framing device can still work if you separate these shorts, which I think adds to them. I think all in all, you're probably better off watching both shorts as separate shorts, especially if you only want to watch one for Christmas and the other for Halloween, but if you do have an hour to kill, I mean, it's a lot better than Fun and Fancy Free, small victory, but a victory none the less. I think I can give this movie a solid recommendation, both shorts are worth watching and the convenience of them being together does help if you want to cross out two short films from your list. I don't think I'll personally come back to this one very often, but I may watch the shorts every now and again.

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.

The Three Caballeros (1944) - A wild, but not wholly engaging collection

 

The 1940s were an odd time period for the Walt Disney company, Bambi did not do financially well upon its initial release and World War II in full swing. The company did not have the material nor funds to really do much outside of a collection of package films, shorter segments sewn together to make a feature length production. However, at the start of the "Package Film Era" of the Animated Canon, or "The Wartime Era" (Which actually extends beyond 1945 but... whatever, I guess), the American government wanted to combat the ties Latin America had with Nazi Germany, something called the "Good Neighbor Policy". The end result of that was Saludos Amigos in 1942. It was apparently popular enough to warrant a sequel, yes a sequel. The Three Caballeros is one of the rare sequels in the Animated Canon, and is the first of all of them. That all being considered, the one question that needs to be asked remains; Is this film any good?

The Three Caballeros stands out from the rest of the package film era because it actually does have a central plot, although it does end up being like the "Central Plot" of Fun and Fancy Free, where it just serves as a vehicle to bring us to all the different segments of the movie. It's Donald Duck's birthday, and he gets a bunch of gifts from his friends in Latin America, and that's pretty much it. I think rather than go through each segment individually, I'll talk about them in chunks because there aren't any really major jumps or dips in quality.

We start with a film projector with two shorts, "The Cold-Blooded Penguin" and "The Flying Gauchito", over all these shorts are cute, not really hilarious, but cute none the less. I remember really liking the Cold-Blooded Penguin segment a lot as a kid, although if I do have one criticism it's that, as much as I love Sterling Holloway (Come on, he was the voice of Winnie the Pooh), he really didn't seem like a good fit for this short. I could imagine someone with a punchier voice doing it and making the deliveries funnier, but for what we got, Sterling did a good job as the narrator of this segment. Afterwards, we meet José Carioca, and we get a segment about Bahia, which leads to some songs, some live action mixing and some really wacky animation. Honestly the same can be said about the segments with Panchito Pistoles, it's a collection of songs, the characters interacting with live action footage, and wacky animation.

I guess that kind of is the biggest problem with the movie, that's just kind of all it is, outside of the two shorts at the start, we get a bunch of songs, a lot of live-action mixing and a lot of wacky animation, and it's just not really engaging. Even as a kid I remember fast forwarding through a lot of the movie to get to the parts I liked. I think the best example of this is during one of the moments of live-action footage. We see a bunch of people dancing, and that's it. We don't get anything about how the dance is performed, we don't get the history or cultural significance of the dance, all we're told is that it's "Panchito's favourite dance" and we just watch it. Believe it or not, learning about other cultures is very fascinating, and I would have been way more interested in talking about this dance than watching it, especially because... well I'm not taking part in the dance, I'm sitting down watching a movie on my couch, so I can't really get into the excitement of the moment.

Really, after a while I just found myself getting bored of some scenes. I'm sure to some they'd be impressive examples of film and animation, but it's like going to a party. It's fun at first, and kind of neat, but after a while you're just drained and you want to go, but your ride wants to stay and hang out, so you just sit in the bathroom and try to rejuvenate but then you go back out and you just drain even faster. At that point, I don't really care how pretty the décor is, or how nice the music selection is, I'm bored and I'd rather be doing something else.

Speaking of Décor and Music, I must say this film is... okay. Animation wise I do think it's on par with the rest of Disney's output at the time. They do have a lot of wackier and more cartoony bits, and they're fine. I'd say music is pretty fair, they use a lot of more traditional songs rather than writing their own songs, and they're fine songs. With the exception of maybe two songs, one of them being the memorable "The Three Caballeros" which is genuinely one of my favourite Disney songs. I think this scene is a perfect summary of what the film was intended to be like, it has the more energized animation and the fun song, but I guess it was never going to be easy to make an entire movie like this one segment.

Honestly, as much as this movie failed to engage me, I am kind of glad it became kind of a popular franchise. The Three Caballeros have made their way to multiple comics, with two being written by Don Rosa himself. José cameos in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, there was the mini-series Legend of the Three Caballeros, and they even appeared in DuckTales 2017. I'm gad they're popular within the Disney world, I do like these characters. Still, the movie is not very interesting. I feel like if they took these characters and had them explore different aspects of their cultures, or meeting other characters and exploring their cultures, that it would be more interesting than this movie. On some level, I can kind of recommend it, it is an odd curiosity in the Animated Canon. But unlike something like Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure, I don't think this is a movie that is a must watch. I don't think you really need to watch this movie unless you're a huge Disney fan. It is on Disney+, and you can probably find individual segments here and there so, I can't stop you if you want, but I can't really recommend this one.

Fantasia (1940) - Let's see how this review turns out

 

It's so fascinating to see the directions Disney went in their theatrical features. First they did a fairy-tale, then they did a book, then they did a full on artistic experiment. From two very structured, story based features, it's very interesting to see that Disney would full on ditch all of that for their third original feature. Keep in mind, this was also in 1940, it's not that the art film didn't exist at this time, but it wasn't as common as now. In fact, at the time Fantasia was hated by many, some viewing it as pretentious, and one critic even comparing it to Nazism. Of course, since then, and even at the time, the film had many fans and admirers, and has garnered the status of both a classic and a masterpiece. So... which side do I fall on?

I'll admit, sometimes you get a stupid idea in your head and you want to humour yourself. "Can I make it through art college?", "How many songs will it take to make me hate Nostalgia Critic's The Wall?", and the most recent thought, "Can I write a review on Fantasia?". Like a Saiyan warrior staring at death, the challenge excited me. Of course, March is usually the month I reserve for Disney movies as well, so this worked out perfectly. The problem is that, Fantasia is not a traditional film in the slightest. Even some of the more "out there" films I looked at like The Little Prince, Yellow Submarine or Night is Short, Walk on Girl, they all had a central plot and main characters. Fantasia has none of those, the only reoccurring character is the host, and the movie has several segments, all of which are based around classical music. It's not that they don't have a story or characters, but that really isn't the focus. I think the closest I've ever come to reviewing this kind of movie is, oddly enough my first ever review on this blog, Fun and Fancy Free. That movie was a package film of two shorts with wrap-around segments, whereas this film is seven segments and the host introducing each one. So, I'm going to look at the segments individually, so forgive me if this review is a bit longer than usual.

Toccata and Fugue in D Minor opens the program. It's more or less a collection of abstract images that may come to one's head when hearing the music. It does take a while to get into the animated segment of the piece, but when it does get there, it's really cool. It starts with the parts of the instruments moving to the music, and it goes on into something even cooler, and I'm not even left wondering how we transitioned from one image to another, I guess that is how you know the abstract theme was done properly. I think this is a great way to open the movie, and if I were to nitpick, I would say they should have gotten to the animation quicker, but I'm not watching this in 1940, so that is probably hindsight and modern understanding talking.

The Nutcracker suite is next and, this one is more or less six separate segments on its own. It begins with fairies placing the morning dew on the plants and a spiderweb. I think this segment is beautifully done, and the timing that has to have gone into this bit is crazy, putting the movements of the fairies in sync with the music could not have been easy. Following this are the Dancing Mushrooms and... I'm gonna be honest they make me a little uncomfortable. I mean, kids probably won't notice it, but I can't really disassociate the images from racist caricatures of Asian people. Maybe that's just me, and the modern day sensitivities, but I found it really hard to enjoy this bit, despite the really good animation. Next, we get some twirling flowers down a river, honestly I think the segment could have ended here and been fine. This bit is okay, nice animation and timing, but it's not very interesting. Full honesty, this is usually the segment I find myself falling asleep at, so I usually forget about the next bit in the piece, the fish. It's just fish swimming around to the music. Granted it does have some classic animation foolery, like you think you're looking at some piece of aquatic plant life, but then it's revealed to be two fish, that's nice. Otherwise, it's just fish swimming around, and I like fish don't get me wrong, but again, this bit really isn't interesting.

I think the most memorable bits of this segment come in at the ending, because we get some more dancing flowers with the most iconic part of the piece, barring the opening, and then we get some more fairies changing the seasons to autumn and winter. The dancing flowers were kind of strange for me to watch, the animation on some of them didn't look quite right to me, but it was still a fun bit. The final bit was probably my favourite though, the timing, the animation and the music were all just perfect. Overall, this bit does run a bit long, and it does have some lesser moments, but it's still pretty solid.

Next we have the iconic piece The Sorcerer's Apprentice. This is what everyone knows Fantasia for, the image of the sorcerer and his red robed apprentice, played by Mickey Mouse, which would make this the first ever feature film that features the mouse in a prominent role. Which is funny, you would think they'd have one of his shorts in the Academy Award Review movie, there's a lot to explain there. Anyway, this segment feels a lot like a classic theatrical short, the kind that Disney was good at making, the shorts like The Old Mill and The Skeleton Dance. Unlike the previously reviewed movie Gulliver's Travels, this segment feeling like a theatrical short is actually a positive aspect since, well this is already a short segment. I think this segment has become iconic for good reason, it's pretty good, though I will warn you all now, there are some rapid flashing moments so be cautious if you are sensitive to that kind of thing.

Following that is the Rite of Spring, the segment that features the dinosaurs. I'm gonna be honest, this is my least favourite segment. I'm not a fan of the music and the visuals are... mostly unpleasant to look at. It's not bad on an objective level, but I found myself wanting to skip over this segment.

Before the next segment, we get a little look at the "Soundtrack" the part of the film reel where the sound is recorded. This bit is cute and charming, but I think Norman McLaren had a better look at the soundtrack. That man actually drew on the soundtrack, and it's very fascinating. The actual next segment is the Pastoral Symphony, and it is amazing. From the first image in all the bright and beautiful colours I was in love with this bit. Of course, there was some controversy because of a certain character design, but ultimately, the scene was cut. To avoid a long discussion about preservation of art and cultural sensitivity, I'll just quote The Critic and say "Nothing of value was lost."

The Dance of the Hours is a... weird segment to me. I don't know, I just don't really get why it had to be animals for this bit, but whatever. The bit as a whole isn't really bad, I think they get the theme across fairly well, and the music is brilliant. I guess there did have to be a more cartoony segment in this movie. It isn't my favourite, but I thought it was more entertaining than the Rite of Spring segment.

The final piece is the Night on Bald Mountain and Ave Maria bit. I just love this segment, big surprise I'm sure. My favourite kind of classical music is the more intense kind, so pieces like Night on Bald Mountain, the 1812 Overture, but I also like more energetic pieces like Entry of the Gladiators, or my personal favourite, Orpheus in the Underworld. So, immediately I'm going to be drawn to the more intense music of the segment, but barring that, I love the animation. I love how Chernabog's shadow distorts whatever looms over it. Close-ups of the demon's face and the intense music make this a much darker and scarier segment than the rest. Some of the lighting and characters look more like they were drawn with charcoal, and some of the ghosts in the beginning look more like photographs placed in rather than drawn in. The segment also doesn't stay with the dark black colours, it has some blues and oranges and other colours, and they still look sinister.

The Ave Maria bit is nice, I like how the backgrounds almost look like stained glass windows at times, and it is nice to have something like this to calm down after the intense climax of the Night on Bald Mountain. I'm just not a huge fan of the piece. The animation is beautiful though.

The whole film is structured like a live orchestral show, complete with the host introducing each piece, the band warming up, and an intermission. I like this, and I do wish more movies did something like this. The host was also alright, not a show stealer, but he fit in nicely.

Fantasia is not a movie for everyone. It will probably not be as interesting to a lot of kids watching, but then again they might get into the segments like The Sorcerer's Apprentice, or The Pastoral Symphony, or even The Night on Bald Mountain. Then again, this movie wasn't made for kids, it was for adults who could appreciate the art of music and the art of animation coming together. That being said, it does often come across like sitting through a string of music videos to songs that you're mixed on. Honestly, I don't think I can get as into Fantasia as others, but I think it's still really good. The good segments can be really good, great even, and even the segments I wasn't fond of weren't terrible. Your mileage is going to vary with this movie, it's not going to be a film you're gonna love or hate only like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. That all being said, I can definitely agree with this film being a must watch for any film or animation lover. I don't think there's been a film like this since, well there was Fantasia 2000, but I'll save that for a later day. As for the original Fantasia, I can recommend it, I don't think I got into it enough for a High Recommendation, but I can say it's worth checking out.

Bambi (1942) - I uhh... I don't think I'll be making friends with this one

You know, when I talk about a well loved movie with a differing tone, I usually try to be a bit lenient because, I know that these movies do strike a chord with people and not just will strike a chord. I know that movies like this, Coraline and Charlotte's Web are beloved for good reason and me being the contrarian won't change anything. The thing is, on some level I understand why a movie like Coraline is loved by so many people, even if I personally don't like it, I get the appeal. A film like Coraline is a high quality movie with a few personal gripes that I can't get passed. A film like Bambi is a film where I don't really understand the appeal.

Since it is Spring by the time of this reviews posting, I decided to take a look at another Disney movie, as Spring usually makes me think of Disney movies, and let's just say that, I had a feeling that Bambi would make for an interesting review.

Bambi is, at it's core, a slice of life film. We follow Bambi from childhood to adulthood and see as he tries out new experiences and how he deals with common dangers. Unlike a movie like Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, we aren't looking at one major part of the life of our lead, rather a couple major moments, with smaller moments mixed in. Things like Bambi meeting a new Doe, meeting new friends, his first experience with hunters, the loss of his mother, fighting for dominance you get the idea. Now, by this point a slice of life story is nothing new, we've seen this genre tackled in TV shows like Hey, Arnold! in movies like Clerks and in comics like Erma or Calvin and Hobbes, while yes these did focus on larger plots, at their cores, they, and Bambi, are all basically dealing with major events in these characters lives, well, except for Calvin and Hobbes which is more a look at childhood as a whole.

Now, I have no problems with Slice of Life as a genre, and I will say that as slice of life movies go I do think Bambi's plot is pretty solid, for the most part. I can't be too hard on the time skip because, well, there is only so much life you can show in just over an hour, but there is one pretty notorious bit of time skip. If you are familiar with the movie, you know the scene I'm talking about, and I don't really want to spoil it for anyone who doesn't know the movie, but for those of you who don't know, there is a very emotional scene that takes place in the winter, and when it fades to spring it's all bright colours and cheerful singing. The tonal whiplash is so insane that it legitimately ruins what could have been an amazing scene.

Speaking of which, I think it's time to rip the bandage off, I think this movie is boring. Unlike FernGully, and another movie with a review coming up *Cough revealed on my Twitter Cough*, this isn't a movie that is full of filler. Contrary, I think making a movie like this a slice of life is a perfect way to excuse scenes that go nowhere, as... well technically that is life, it does have its moments that don't seem to leave an impression, or even go anywhere. The problem is that we still have to identify with the character in this movie in some way, and, honestly there are many other child characters that are more interesting and relatable than Bambi is. Take for example, one of my favourite child characters, Calvin. Like I said before, Calvin and Hobbes is mostly about exploring childhood, and I'm fairly certain you also had a few experiences in life similar to Calvin did, heck I personally remember having a dream similar to Calvin where I thought I was getting up and doing my daily routine, only to find that I was still in bed.

Of course, it is worth remembering that Calvin does have an actual character and Bambi doesn't really. The main trapping of the slice of life genre is that the leads are usually blank slates for us to project our feelings and experiences on. On paper this is a really good idea, it means that everyone's experience watching the movie will be different, some children will remember what it was like to slip and fall on ice while skating, and some kids will not. The problem is that some kids will not, and I think that is where the idea falls in execution. Sure, some kids, maybe a lot of kids, will remember slipping and sliding on the ice, but what about the kids that never went skating? What about the kids that hated skating because they kept slipping and falling on the ice? What about the kids that hurt themselves slipping and falling on this ice? Yes, I realize this movie was made in the 1940s when that stuff was not really a concern. I dunno, maybe I'm just looking to deep into that, and I do get that I did use a bit of a cherry picked example but, it does kind of show you why blank slate slice of life characters don't work. This is why many people would prefer to watch something like As Told By Ginger instead of watching Doug.

I will say though that there are points when the plot gets good, and that is when the stakes are raised. I really do love how they handled the hunters in this movie. You never see them, but the tension does escalate each time they appear. The first time, we don't see anything, we hear a gunshot, but see no evidence that they shot anything. The second time, we don't see it happening, but we hear that one character did get shot, and an important character too. In the final time, we actually see a dead body, and see gun shots just barely miss hitting someone. These moments work because, well first off, we all know the feeling of being afraid, especially of something that is out of our control. These scenes also work because we know the stakes, we know a character that is important can leave at any point, and when we see that bird fall out of the sky, we are aware of just how high the stakes are, not to mention the whole forest fire does get pretty tense as well.

While I'm being complimentary, I really do like the art style here. While Disney didn't invent the Multi-plane camera, they certainly knew how to utilize it, and Bambi is one of the best in that regard. On top of that the forest is just a nice place to look at, and the colour palette is a varied one too with blues and whites in the winter to match the cold and unforgiving season and a lot of warm colours in autumn. While I don't think Bambi is one of the best looking Disney films, I still think it looks incredible. Of course the animation itself is classic Disney theatrical animation so it is high quality with little to no errors.

If I had to sum up Bambi in one word it would be "Watchable", and that really is because it didn't leave much of an impact on me. That being said, it does have it's good moments, and unlike other movies I reviewed that I didn't like, there is something I can admire here. That being said, there are better Slice of Life stories out there. Should I look at this from the time it was made? No, I think that is an argument that should only be used for stuff that was influential at one point, and I can't really see Bambi as being hugely influential to the medium. Maybe it inspired some animators, but it isn't the same as pioneering an entirely different animation style. Maybe I'm missing something in my history, so feel free to let me know how influential Bambi actually was.

That being said, it's a movie that lost my interest more frequently than it gained it, so I can't really recommend it personally. If you're a big Disney fan and want to say you've seen them all, or you genuinely think it's a good movie, there are genuinely worse things out there, and it isn't like this movie is terrible, it's just not very interesting to me. So, I can safely say that I do slightly recommend it, only slightly.

Dumbo (1941) - A product of it's time, but still a fine film

In 1940, Disney released one of their riskiest movies ever made, a cinematic experiment to mix classical music with animation that would be known as "Fantasia". It was a break from the norm for Disney, and wouldn't be replicated until their package film era, the reason for that is often a subject for debate, but after the release of Fantasia, Disney returned to their classic story based, character narrative with their fourth ever theatrical animated motion picture, "Dumbo". Also, with the remake coming out soon, I thought it would be a good time to take a look at this film. Can't blame the opportunist, can you?

Dumbo mostly follows the titular baby elephant as he gets pushed around the circus and made fun of for his large ears. After his mother gets taken away for harming a patron in attempt to protect her child, Dumbo befriends a circus mouse that tries to make him more loved at the circus. After a disastrous performance, Dumbo gets put with the clowns, which leads to more misery for the young elephant. After accidentally ingesting alcohol and ending up in a tree, a group of crows give Dumbo a magic feather which convinces him he's able to fly. Story wise, it's a cohesive narrative, at no point do I ever question how one scene lead to another, and by the end I had few questions concerning the film's narrative.

Character wise, there really only are two characters the movie focuses on, Dumbo and the Circus Mouse. As a character, Dumbo is great, he's playful and has his moments of joy, but he's also emotional. The animation gives him great expressions that almost perfectly communicate what he's feeling, which keeps him from becoming a blank slate. The Circus Mouse is also a good character, as he tries to help Dumbo in whatever ways he can. He's gentle and kind, but when he gets angry he will set things right, whether it's spooking some bully elephants, or talking some sense into some crows.

Side characters are abundant in this film, and all are mostly memorable. The other elephants are stuck-up and snooty, to the perfect level of dislikable. The clowns are all energetic, and it's interesting how we never see them outside of their outfits, only in silhouettes.

And yeah, it is time we discuss the elephant in the room (Come on, you knew that pun was coming), the crows. In some respects, yes, the crows can be seen as racist, and they kind of are. They use a lot of slang and are based off of black stereotypes. It can be seen as kind of racist, and yeah, I am glad that we've moved ahead from characters like this. That being said, the characters aren't stigmatized or vilified in any way. When they get scolded by the Circus Mouse, they immediately try to right their wrongs. I can see how they might come off as a little racist, but I wouldn't put this movie up their with the likes of "Birth of a Nation".

The audio of the film is mixed. On one hand, the background music is great, often fitting the mood and setting perfectly, but then again, not a lot of the music is very memorable. I really only remember two songs in the entire movie. In fact, when I wrote the first draft of this review, I forgot to write anything about the music, that's how forgettable it was. I also can't help but notice that some sound effects seemed to be missing, or at least, not used when they could've been. I also couldn't help but notice an odd moment where the Circus master was turning red and getting angrier, and the sound they played did not match the visuals at all. I don't think Dumbo is really one of Disney's best films when it comes to the audio department.

When it comes to the animation however, this movie looks spectacular. Disney animators really knew how to capture size and weight. Objects get morphed and squashed under the weight of the elephants, it's actually really neat to see how the art of animation can capture things like this, even in a time like the 40s. I also must applaud the use of shadows in this movie, making things more surreal, more disturbing and more atmospheric. The Pink Elephants scene is a standout example of this, as the black backgrounds not only emphasizes the colours, but also the surrealism of the scene. I'd also be scolded for not bringing up the scene where Dumbo get's to hug his mother, and how the shadows really help make this scene more powerful. I think this is one of Disney's best animated movies to date.

While I can't say Dumbo is one of Disney's better classics, I think it's still a decent movie. The story was cohesive, the characters were great, and the animation and artistry were top-notch. With that said, the movie isn't particularly funny, and while it has its sad and depressing moments, I don't think it has enough humour to really balance it out. The music is forgettable, some of the audio editing was weird and the movie does have some kinda racist tones to it. Still though, I think Dumbo has enough good elements in it to make it more than a slight recommendation, but I don't think it's good enough to be a high recommendation.

Fun and Fancy Free (1947) - Not one of Disney's better classics

Between the release of Bambi in 1942 and Cinderella in 1950, the Walt Disney company was releasing many movies that were simple collections of other shorts. These were known as the package films and included films such as Melody Time from 1948 and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad the following year. Of these package films, the two that I remember growing up with the most were Melody Time and Fun and Fancy Free.

Fun and Fancy Free was released in 1947 and contained two shorts with bridge segments starring Jimney Cricket. These bridge segments are not very entertaining to watch, and that sadly sets the tone for the movie. The opening segment with Jimney Cricket is only watchable because it features the only decent song in the entire movie. Then it transitions into the first story, before going back to Jimney Cricket going to a party hosted by Edgar Bergen. These segments with Edgar Bergen are the most entertaining part of the movie, as Edgar and his puppets often make humorous quips towards each other and the story they're telling.

The two stories in this movie are "Bongo" and the infamous short "Mickey and the Beanstalk". Neither story is really entertaining. I remember skipping over the Bongo short a lot as a kid, even now I really didn't like it. I did not find Bongo to be engaging a character, the world to be engaging, outside of another horrifying forest scene, and I find the songs to be, like much else in this story, not great. I don't even remember any of the songs, outside of one, and when I say I remember that song, I mean that I remember it existed. It's like that ugly sweater you have in your closet, you remember it exists, but you don't really remember what's on it. You put it on and then you remember why it wasn't worth remembering. Bongo is not a really entertaining short and it kind of makes sense that most VHS covers of this movie leave him off the front cover and focus on Mickey and Jimney.

"Mickey and the Beanstalk" is also not highly entertaining, but it becomes the most entertaining part of the movie because of Edgar Bergen and his puppets. The narration becomes one of the only amusing parts of the movie, but without the narration I can not really see this short staying in anyone's mind for very long. The only scene that I think people remember this short for is when Donald goes crazy and tries to kill a cow with an axe. It is a well done scene, but I personally felt as though the forest at night from the Bongo segment was creepier. Disney has a thing for making their most horrific scenes take place in a forest or woodland. Other than that, the short isn't really memorable outside of Willie the Giant, a character that I don't believe has been used since Mickey's Christmas Carol in 1983.

Fun and Fancy Free is not a terrible movie, it's not ungodly boring like The Black Cauldron was or as bad as any of the direct-to-video sequels. The movie's biggest crime is simply not being very entertaining to watch. While Edgar Bergen brings some entertainment value to this movie, there isn't a whole lot else to enjoy with this movie. The shorts that they put into this movie are not entertaining on their own, and the bridge segments aren't that entertaining either. I would personally skip this movie unless you really want to say that you've seen them all.