Movie Review: The Pebble and the Penguin (1995): There's a really good movie in here

Well... hiatus was fun, but I want to get back to what this blog was meant to be about, exploring the vast world of animation, experiencing the weird, wonderful and creative works that such a wonderful medium can bring us. When it comes to wonderful, there are very few names to make that word synonymous with animation as Don Bluth, a former Disney animator striking off on his own in the 80s, he made movies that not only rivalled Disney, but in many cases usurped Disney's throne. The Secret of NIMH and The Land Before Time are fantastic movies that define the medium and show that not all amazing animation has to come from Disney. So what happened in the 90s? In my review of Rock-A-Doodle, I posited the idea that the movies that Don Bluth wanted to make became more passe in the Disney Renaissance and someone pushed him to adapt to the changing landscape of the 90s, and what followed was some of his... more odd film making attempts. Case in point, The Pebble and the Penguin. Why does that line sound so familiar?

The Pebble and the Penguin follows Hubie, an Adélie Penguin who falls in love with a girl named Marina, and wishes to propose to her with a pebble, however he gets tossed aside by another penguin who has eyes for Marina, a big, hulking obviously designed to be the villain penguin named Drake. Hubie must travel across miles of ocean with a new friend, a Rockhopper Penguin named Rocko, to return to the island before Drake can marry Marina, or she gets banished by law. Overall, I'd say the story is... halfway solid. There is an idea here, and it does almost work. What is the biggest flaw? I guess it would be that it's a bit too formulaic, but it's not too bad in that regard. Obvious tropes like the "friends squabbling only to make up later" and the "Fake Out Death" are here, but for a kids movie, the plot isn't all that bad. I guess it could have probably benefited from fleshing out a few things, like for the most part we completely forget about Marina and Drake save for little snippets before the climax.

Maybe it would have been nice to spend more time with the characters, because they have some charm to them. Hubie is a shy but good-hearted guy, and it might just be that I am soft for this kind of character, but I can't hate him, plus he kicks a leopard seal in the face, that's pretty awesome. Marina is kind of bland, but to be fair, they do give a little moment to explain why she likes Hubie, I love it when the unrequited crush is not actually completely unrequited, and it's clear from the get-go that Marina does actually like Hubie. Really, the worst character in the movie is sadly the villain, Drake, who is just a bland and boring entitled jerk, like come on, I don't need uncomfortably buff Penguin version of Gaston. Sadly, it does not help that he is voiced by Tim Curry, and as much as I love Tim Curry, something about this performance didn't quite work, Tim Curry works as the slimy and sinister evil, not really the pompous and arrogant evil. He is more Maleficent brand evil and less Cruella brand.

This is not to say that the voice acting is subpar, for the most part there are some good talents here. Shani Wallis is the narrator and she does have that voice for it, Jim Belushi as Rocko is pretty good casting, and Annie Golden as Marina was actually really good. Plus, there are cameo appearances by names like Will Ryan, B. J. Ward, Pat Musick, Maggie Roswell, and Scott Bullock who is known for his role as Hades in Kid Icarus: Uprising. Really, it is just Martin Short and Tim Curry who I don't fully gel with, Martin Short as Hubie does feel like good casting, he does have a voice that fits the kind of pathetic but lovable character Hubie is, I guess I just can't separate him from B.E.N. from Treasure Planet, which would come out about seven years later.

Then we have the songs, and the songs are absolutely, complete, one-hundred and ten percent okay. They're fine. I'm probably not going to be humming them, except for the Good Ship Misery song, and Tim Curry's villain song is sadly one of the less good songs in the movie, though least good might go to Martin Short and Jim Belushi's duet. I might flip flop on which one is the worst. Really, the biggest problem is just that the songs are just kind of... there. They fill their purpose and do nothing beyond that. I could imagine a soundtrack by Alan Menkin or Elton John, but instead we got Barry Mannilow. Well, I can think of worse people to get for the music of this movie.

Then we have the animation, and if you want a drinking game that will leave you with a hangover that makes you wish alcohol was banned, take a shot every time you notice an animation error in this movie. I've caught a few, characters in the background being frozen, which also happens during song sequences where they should be singing along in, in some cases you might find unfinished animation, I even think Hubie's hat was coloured incorrectly once. That being said, when the animation is actually animated it is pretty good. Don Bluth is a fantastic animator, and while I don't think this is as good as his early stuff, honestly there are times I think it gets close, like within earshot of something like Secret of NIMH. Really, I get the feeling this movie was rushed for a deadline, and if it had more time to get ironed out, this could have been Don Bluth's best movie since the 1980s instead of his least bad movie of his flop era.

Really that is the biggest problem with The Pebble and the Penguin, instead of being his best movie in a while, it's his least bad movie of a bunch, and that is a darn shame. The movie just needed some more time to iron out the wrinkles, mostly in the script and animation. I get why people can be nostalgic about this movie, I see it, I see a really good movie in here, it's just a shame we didn't get that. I'd actually really like to see an early draft script for this movie because I really do wonder what this movie could have been. Imagine a remake with rewritten songs and more time to flesh out the characters but with the same, or similar traditional animation. Still, I should focus on what we have instead of what could have been, and what we have is alright, like I wouldn't mind showing this to kids, I know the endorsement of "There are worse movies" is not a very... high endorsement, but still, I can't see this movie causing any harm.

The Christmas Tree (1991) - The Worst Animated Holiday Special Ever

You know what I haven't done in a while? A "Technically" movie. I love doing these, because if I'm ever feeling burn-out or something, I can always rely on my old standard of "This technically counts". So, the AFI and BFI, those are the American and British Film Institutes, state that a film must be a minimum of forty minutes long to qualify as "Feature Length", so I have a stipulation that any movie that runs over forty minutes but is still under an hour falls under the category of "Technically", and boy was I excited to learn that this counted as a "Technically". I think most people who are in the animation or film review circles on the internet are aware of The Christmas Tree, one of the many animated products of the 1990s that somehow feels like a product of a much earlier time in animation. This movie has a reputation, and sometimes I love watching movies like that, because sometimes, you have to see a movie to really know how bad it actually is. Plan 9 From Outer Space? Not that bad. The Room? Pretty bad. Cat in the Hat? One of the best "So Bad It's Good" movies. Now, I get to scratch another one off my list, because at forty-two minutes, The Christmas Tree does qualify as "Feature Length".

This is one of those movies that I almost guarantee that most reviewers writing about it only sit through about the first ten minutes, because that is more time than you need to figure out every single issue with this movie, honestly the tricky part is where do I start because the problems become apparent with the title and opening credits. I don't normally comment on opening credits, because if you're watching a movie for the opening credits than you're watching it for the wrong reasons. However, I have to comment on this one because, like think of other Christmas specials and their opening credits, they have things like falling snow, winter landscapes, twinkling lights, maybe some cold blues or bright reds and greens. This movie just has a black background, and the music doesn't even have any kind of festive spirit to it, frankly I think that's just a bad omen, if your Christmas special doesn't even have the least bit of Christmas in its opening credits, than how's the rest of the movie going to fare?

Here's a criticism that I don't think anyone has brought up, this special feels like a Philips CD-i game, and I don't just means it looks like one, I mean genuinely it feels like a cheap, early 90s shovel-ware CD-ROM game, the editing, the voice acting, the audio editing, here's a tip for anyone who wants to get into audio editing, always have some kind of a gap between two pieces of recorded dialogue. Does that sound like something that everyone should know even if they're just an amateur screwing around in Audacity? Well, in many cases, you can hear instances where whoever was editing the audio just smashed two takes together without any kind of natural pause. And yeah, let's talk about that animation, because it really does look as cheap as it possibly could. Movement is limited and stilted, facial expressions are weird and uncanny, and lip syncing never matches the vocal track, not that that last point really matters since the voice acting is so awful, the kids are mumbling most of their words and the adults are putting zero enthusiasm into this.

I think the most frustrating thing about this is that the designs are not completely awful. All the kids look distinct from each other, Judy is a fine woman for the most part, and honestly, the backgrounds do look nice, they are the only thing I can look at and make the connection that this movie was made outside of the seventies. It does not convince me that this special wasn't originally meant to be an interactive storybook on CD-ROM though, because the story is undoubtedly the worst part of it all to me. Not the story itself, it's a pretty decent little short story that would make for a classic holiday special, but how the story is told. We get to the Christmas season at eleven minutes into the special and everything before that is just brought up and glossed over, like they want to establish these important plot details, but not actually spend any time to introduce them naturally. It really is just the cherry on top of this crap sundae, and I hate cherries.

I mean, what other rating can I give it except for "Avoid"? It is easily one of the worst animations I have ever seen, like what else is there? Friendship is Witchcraft? 12 oz. Mouse? That SpongeBob Episode where he adopts another pet that terrorizes Gary? Okay that last one may be worse, but this is still up there. It's just so incompetent, the editing, voice acting, animation, there is no quality to this product what-so-ever. One of my favourite critics, Todd in the Shadows, says "The worst is not always the most bad, sometimes it's the least good" and I can't think of anything that is "less good" than this. I almost want it to do something offensive, just to do something that will piss me off, but no, it's just really poorly made. I've seen some really poorly made movies, but I think this is the worst of them, The Misty Green Sky at least had something behind it, I could sense some kind of ambition to it. This has nothing, except the reputation, and I just can't recommend it on any level. This movie gets an avoid.

Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island (1998) - A Perfect Halloween Feature

Scooby-Doo Movies are pretty much a dime a dozen, wow that line feels familiar. Back all the way in December of 2018, I had the itching to watch a couple movies that I was nostalgic about, that is what pretty much started this blog. The second movie I ever reviewed here was Scooby-Doo and the Ghoul School, a charming, if a little sloppy Television Film. However, it wasn't until the late 1990s and early 2000s that Scooby-Doo movies would become dominating, all starting with Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island in 1998, I'm actually not that much older than this movie. I think it's about time that I give a Scooby-Doo movie a better written review, and it should be perfect for Halloween.

The movie actually takes place in a bit of a time jump, if the Mystery Gang is high-school age in the original show, here they're all adults. Daphne, being fed up with how every mystery they solve ended up being a guy in a mask, takes on a different job as a TV Reporter, with Fred being her cameraman. While Daphne desires to find a real ghost, Fred gets the old gang back together as they explore the hauntings of New Orleans. After a montage of duds, they get a tip from a woman named Lena that a local island holds a real haunted house. I like that the plot is not too out of the ordinary for a Scooby-Doo episode, there is still a mystery and still a bunch of ghouls, only this time, they aren't guys in masks this time... well by some technicality the bad guys are people in a mask, but spoilers. The movie really is asking, "What would happen if the Mystery Gang was up against real monsters?" and I think they nailed it.

None of the characters feel out of character here, Velma is still the inquisitive one, Fred has a thing where he always tries to find logical explanations to everything, which is fitting since he's seen all of this before, so, being one of the more logical of the crew, he would try to find logic in everything. Shaggy and Scooby are still Shaggy and Scooby, and Daphne had a bit of an upgrade, going back to the original 1969 series (Yes, Scooby-Doo is that old) I really do struggle to think of what Daphne offers to the group, but in this movie she is very much taking charge, you could say that she's slipped into the leader role of the gang, it's actually kind of refreshing, and it makes sense given the trajectory of the character arcs. Daphne, going into TV hosting, would be taking more a lead role in this case. On top of that, we have some new characters, and I like that they throw red herrings our way with them, though I can't spill too much here, again spoilers.

One thing I also want to comment on is the voice cast, because this is probably as good of a voice cast for the Mystery Gang as possible, Frank Welker being the only person to reprise his role from the original show, and most of the other cast being replaced for one reason or another. Billy West steps in as Shaggy, B. J. Ward steps in as Velma, and Mary Kay Bergman might be my favourite Daphne, I'll have to do a lot of comparisons, but she is currently at the top for me. Don Messick, the original voice of Scooby-Doo, passed away in 1997, so he was the only original actor they couldn't bring back with Casey Kasem refusing to reprise the role unless they made some changes to Shaggy's character (Honestly, it sounds like he was being a bit of a diva), Heather North being replaced after only a day of recording, and Nicole Jaffe being in retirement at this period of time. Anyway, Scott Innes steps in as Scooby-Doo in this movie, and he's pretty good, I grew up with Frank Welker being Scooby, but Scott does a good job. Other voice actors like Adrienne Barbeau, Tara Strong, Cam Clarke and Jim Cummings all do great jobs, and a Mark Hamill cameo is always admired.

What is also worth admiring is the animation, done by Japanese Studio Mook Animation. I have said before that going Direct-to-Video or DVD is usually a better option for movies based on cartoons, because it allows them to keep the style they have without having to give it that "Cinematic Shine", I think this movie is a good balance of the two. It definitely looks better than any other Scooby-Doo product prior, and that is a bit of a curse as much as a blessing. The animation looks great, the zombies look wonderfully decayed, but, and I am fully aware this may just be because I've been reading Uzumaki lately, there were some scenes that did squick me out a little. I wouldn't say this movie is entirely on par with the work of Junji Ito, but there is some light body-horror in here. There were multiple times throughout this movie I just had to squirm and go "Ick!", but in this case I am willing to say that it is a good thing.

And because I know some people will be shocked if I don't mention it, the music in this movie is pretty great. Everyone goes crazy for the song "It's Terror Time Again" by Skycycle, and yeah, it is a pretty great song, though I also quite like "The Ghost Is Here", I think that one should also be put on some Halloween Playlists.

Honestly, I can list Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island as another movie that I am absolutely shocked was as good as it was, I always heard it was good, but I just figured it was good " by Scooby-Doo standards" which by this point has gotten pretty abysmal, but I'll be damned this one was actually good. A solid mystery, great animation, good amount of light-horrors, a rocking soundtrack, and the delightful characters that we've all grown to... well tolerate at this point, but loved back then. I really do think this is a great movie to put alongside stuff like Hocus Pocus or Coraline for a solid Halloween movie night. I'd say it's not as creepy as Coraline, but I'm not a good judge for that considering. Still, if you are tired of the Hocus Pocus and Corpse Bride and you haven't given this movie a chance, put it on, I think you'll be shockingly surprised.

Two Forgotten 1990s Cartoons; Calamity Jane and Sherlock Holmes

So I've talked about Tubi before, it's another streaming service, but this one specializing in... well let's call it what it is, crap. Tubi is full of stuff that would most likely be pretty cheap to acquire the rights to, and as I have said before, ease of access and quality tend not to go hand-in-hand. That being said, Tubi isn't all full of bad stuff, sure it's where I watched The Misty Green Sky, but I also watched The Point on the service, as well as two shows that have been partially forgotten, and those two shows were quite frankly, not bad at all.

A large part of my interest in media history is wondering why things turned out the way they did, and in this case, why these shows didn't become more popular. So, I wanted to give these shows a sort of review and talk about why I feel they didn't take off, and hopefully give them some more attention. These two cartoons are 1997's The Legend of Calamity Jane, and 1999's Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century.

The Legend of Calamity Jane

I'll start with The Legend of Calamity Jane because I watched that one first. I remember ages ago looking at videos from what used to be Channel Awesome, which used to be That Guy With The Glasses. I was fond of many of the creators on that platform, Todd in the Shadows, Linkara, and Suede, formerly That Dude in the Suede. I remember Suede did a video about the Top 11 American Anime Shows, or American cartoons that were heavily anime inspired, and while you had some expected entrees, Samurai Jack, Avatar: The Last Airbender, and Ben 10, there were some more obscure stuff on the list. Number eleven specifically was The Legend of Calamity Jane, and I remember looking up the show on YouTube, this was back when I believe there was a limit on how long your videos could be, and so the available episodes had to be split into parts. Good times... no they weren't.

The series was actually considered Lost Media for a longtime, but in March 2023, yes it was that recent, the entire series has been available on Tubi, all thirteen episodes, and I was excited to finally finish the series that I had started all those years ago, and I'll be honest, I had a really good time.

The show is a heavily fictionalized take on the real like Calamity Jane, and I'm just gonna say this now, if you really don't like the mythologization of the Wild West, y'know stuff like Tombstone, that kind of mythologization, this may not be the show for you, but I think it is pretty upfront with the idea that this is a fictional version, I mean I'm certain that the real Calamity Jane didn't have this long, blood red hair. Basically it's kind of your typical "villain of the week" kind of show, there's a crime Jane needs to solve, she fights the crooks, Jane wins. It's not entirely a wholly unique show, but that isn't a bad thing, especially if you're not wholly unique in the best dang decade for animation prior to the 2010s.

The Legend of Calamity Jane clearly took a lot of influence from the DC superhero shows at the time, Batman especially. That is also very much in tone, though it never got as dark as Batman did, it wasn't afraid to go into heavier places. The first episode begins with a lynching and the final episode has Jane actually coming close to death. Again, it doesn't really get as dark as Batman: The Animated Series did, but I feel a lot of that is more that they didn't have the chance to, rather than they didn't want to. However, there is something else that they took from Batman for this show, the inherent silliness of it. Batman is a silly concept, but we take it seriously because the people who work on it take it seriously, and this show also gets a little silly. Episode two has the villain literally being a Napoleon cosplayer, and the big reveal of episode four is that the villains are triplets.

That all being said, it is a much more serious show than one would anticipate, there are moments, and an entire episode, that do deal with racism, a popular topic of the 90s. Jane often corrects people on using umbrella terms for the native peoples, and episode seven has Jane try to break up a feud between the Blackfoot and a settler who is openly racist.

I feel that one of the other big influences this show took from is very clearly the anime that was starting to become more prominent in the west. I'm not the only one who thinks that the opening sequence of this show is kind of similar to Cowboy Bebop, which wouldn't reach America until a few years after. You can see this in the animation, which looks great, despite the drab colour pallet. The characters all stand-out from each other, and they're all wonderful. The voice cast is surprisingly good for this show, Barbara Scaff is probably the only "unknown" here, Frank Welker, Michael Horse, Tim Matheson and Clancy Brown are all main actors and they all give great performances. I wonder if Frank Welker has any memory of this show.

So, I really did enjoy my time watching this show, but I do have to admit, I can kind of see why it didn't take off. It really does feel like one of those shows that got lost in the shuffle, I mean why watch this show when you could watch Batman? It kind of sucks, but that's how it be sometimes. Some shows really aren't unique enough to get the attention, but don't confuse that for a lack of quality, this show is well written, well designed and all around just a quality show, I can definitely give it a High Recommendation from myself.

Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century

I had a similar introduction to this show like I did with Calamity Jane, I watched a video online about "Cartoons that shouldn't be given movies", and this was on that list. Intriguing concept, I must admit, Sherlock Holmes being resurrected into the 22nd Century is a fun idea. I was never really that curious about this show, or maybe it was just that by the time I heard of this show I had learned it was more trouble than it was worth to try and watch forgotten cartoons on YouTube. Like I said, those were not good times.

While I believe that it was simply the fact that it was like other shows at the time is the reason The Legend of Calamity Jane didn't really have the chance to get popular, I think the main reason this show didn't really become popular is because, well... It isn't bad, but I don't really think it's that great, it really did feel like one of those shows you would watch because nothing else you liked was on. It kind of, doesn't really have much of an identity to itself, it's just Sherlock Holmes, except in the 2100s, and that's is kind of the biggest problem with the show.

Each episode is predominantly based on an existing Sherlock Holmes story, and I'm not against that on principle, this show would be someone's entry point into the franchise so I could understand the episodes being adapted from existing stories. The problem is that, not one episode is a truly original mystery, and that does kind of mean that there really isn't much to truly take advantage of the setting. It's just, here's flying cars and robots, and the Hounds of the Baskervilles is now taking place on the Moon, it's not really taking advantage of the entire premise. I could imagine a cyberpunk style Sherlock Holmes, which I guess this was trying to be, but it's not very good cyberpunk.

And speaking of robots, Watson this time around is a robot with a mask, and it is uncanny and frankly kind of gross. It's tolerable when Watson has a coat on, but whenever he is coatless, it's a human head on a robot body and it just looks wrong. Futurama got away with it because their human heads are in jars, so when Nixon is on a robot body, it still looks robotic enough to not be entirely wrong. That being said, he isn't a bad character, I don't think any of the characters here are bad, though Sherlock himself is a bit of an arrogant prick, but he has the abilities to back it up, so whatever. We also have a new Lestrade, Inspector Beth Lestrade, she's hot-headed and often frustrated with Holmes, but there is mutual respect between the two, and I really only mean respect, I did not pick up any chemistry between Holmes and Lestrade beyond work-partners. I guess that is a limitation of the premise though, that we can't really see what everyone gets up to when they aren't solving mysteries.

The animation also isn't that spectacular. It doesn't look bad, most of the time, the 2D animation looks nice, but the 3D integration is pretty rough. It looks okay on the buildings and vehicles, but in other places it is really dated. Which is to be expected from a series that lasted from 1999 until... 2001? Wait, how can that be? This series lasted thirteen episodes right? Actually it lasted twenty-six, it's just that thirteen are what is available on Tubi.

So a lot of my complaints with this show do seem the stem from the limited availability of the remaining episodes, it does appear that full DVD releases of the series do exist, but I can't imagine they'd be easy to find, or cheap. The other question is if they are worth looking for and honestly, yeah, I can kind say they are. This show does have flaws, but I did really get into the mystery elements of the show, I was eager to see how all the clues and deductions would fit together, and I do think that is really the key to any great mystery. I think the main problem was that above all else, the show does have some wasted potential, but for what we do have, I can't say I disliked it. I'm gonna give this a Recommendation.

Honestly, I am kind of glad that these shows are being given the chance to earn a larger audience, even if it is on a service nobody uses. The Legend of Calamity Jane is especially one I'm glad is available to watch because I could really see it garnering the reputation of an underappreciated gem. Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century is an interesting premise that I would love to see taken advantage of more than the show did. Overall, I think both shows are worth checking out, and hopefully I'll have someone else to talk about Calamity Jane with.

Space Jam (1996) - A Very Uneven and Kind of Sloppy Mess

As an animation fan, it's pretty much impossible for me to not like the Looney Tunes, their mix of ingenious writing, expertly done animation and the occasional clever bit of commentary, the Looney Tunes has earned its place as one of the most recognizable animated properties of all time, if not the most. So many of these cartoons hold up so well that they might as well have been made in the 1980s, or the 1990s, or the 2000s, we all grew up with the classics of Bugs, Daffy, Sylvester, Coyote and Road Runner, and more, to the point where we would never have guessed these cartoons probably predated our own parents. The Looney Tunes have remained pop-culture icons through highs and lows, and those lows could get deep. Since I've opened up my doors to live-action mixes like Roger Rabbit, I figured it would be fun to give this movie a review. I remember really loving Space Jam as a kid, I used to watch the VHS I had all the time, however, as with a lot of things about childhood, it's really not as good as you remember. Seriously, your childhood probably sucked more than you're willing to admit, but I digress, let's talk about Space Jam.

After retiring from Basketball, no I will not mention everything around that event, Michael Jordon takes up Baseball, only to literally get roped into playing a basketball game with the Looney Tunes against aliens from Moron Mountain who have stolen the basketball talent from NBA icons and want to enslave the Looney Tunes characters in their amusement park. On the one hand, I get it, this is a ridiculous enough plot to warrant a ridiculously cartoony cast, and it isn't like Looney Tunes didn't do spoofs before. It's just that those spoofs were of movie genres, classic stories, operas and musicals. Looney Tunes never really did spoofs or commentaries on sports and sporting communities, not like Disney did. However, this movie literally began as an advertising campaign with Bugs Bunny and Michael Jordan. On top of that, a lot of this plot is given to the rest of the NBA stars as they deal with their stolen talent, and Wayne Knight trying to pull Michael out of the Looney Tunes world, I like Wayne Knight fine, but these segments aren't really that funny.

The sad thing about this movie is, there are some decently written bits here, one of the basketball players sits in Church praying to God and then says he'll never date Madonna again, or Bugs and Daffy talking about how they weren't getting paid for any licensed merch being sold, that stuff's funny and there are some decent visual gags, but it's pretty few and far between, especially the slapstick. You would think that a cinematic venture from the late nineties would have just as good, if not better, slapstick than theatrical shorts from the 30s and 40s, but sadly no. The best example is when one of the characters gets hit by a bull, they cut away from showing us any impact and just show us the character being thrown into the sky. Come on! That's like, the basics of slapstick. There is some good humour in this movie, but it's also got a lot of weak stuff.

Speaking of weak, let's talk about the animation. Now the actual animation itself is pretty good, the characters all move fluidly and there are not real noticeable mistakes. Honestly, the blue screening isn't the worst either, like you can easily tell that Michael Jordan and the Looney Tunes aren't really interacting, but like, on the scale of bad chromo key, I'd give this a five, mid level bad. No, the real problem is the CG integration, it is all kinds of hideous. When they put a CG coating on Michael or Wayne Knight, it looks so dated, and the alien spacecraft at the beginning of this movie doesn't even look like a cartoon in the real world, it looks like an out of place CGI effect in the real world. The CG integration is easily one of the worst things about this movie.

That being said, one of the best things about this movie does have to be the Soundtrack, genuinely it's got some good tracks on it, even the title theme it's just kind of an amalgamation of random songs you'd find on a Jock Jams CD. Honestly, most of the acting isn't that bad either, I mean yeah, the NBA stars are... clearly not actors, but Wayne Knight was fine, and the new cast they got for the Looney Tunes was fairly decent, Billy West did a good Bugs Bunny, Dee Bradley Baker as Daffy Duck was almost as good as Mel Blanc, Bob Bergen did a fantastic Porky Pig, Bill Farmer (one of my favourite Voice Actors) did a quality Sylvester, and even June Foray got to return as Granny. Of course, the big guy we have to mention is Danny DeVito, everyone loves Danny DeVito and he definitely gives one of the best performances in this movie. All in all, I'd say the acting is split, though I think there are more good performances in this movie than not.

And I think that's all that is worth mentioning. Yep, can't think of anything else worth bringing up... Okay, let's talk about Lola, and though I'd rather be talking about the song by The Kinks, Lola Bunny is worth mentioning because, she's probably the most recent addition to the Looney Tunes cast. I can't think of any new character added since Lola, and if there were any who were added, they didn't stick around. She's been added to not only the 2011 Looney Tunes Show, but prior to that she was a main character in Baby Looney Tunes, and has been pretty much a staple character since. Which is fascinating, because she's kind of boring in this movie. Yeah, everyone has already brought it up, but I'm going to mention it again, Lola's character in this movie is lacking, she's just kind of the standard tomboy girl character we've seen all throughout the nineties, and though I wouldn't mind her tomboyish side still being a thing, the 2011 iteration of the character is far more memorable.

All in all, Space Jam is kind of an even movie. It has some good animation, and some absolutely awful CG integration. It's got some good voice acting, and some lackluster on camera acting. It's got a good enough plot, but not really a Looney Tunes plot. It's not the worst movie I've watched, honestly I don't think it's that much worse than The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Movie I reviewed a while back, but much like that movie, I'd rather be watching the classic shorts, though I'll concede that this is a more original movie. Honestly, I don't know if I can really recommend this one, despite the good stuff, it's buried under mounds of not-as-good to down right awful stuff. If you're nostalgic for this movie, if you like it in that "So bad it's good" or "Dated timepiece" kind of way, I get it, but as for me, I think I'll just go back to the 1930s cartoons.

The Magic Voyage (1992/1993) - An Annoying Movie That is Too Strange for its Own Good

 

So, I originally wanted to to a review of Wonder Park last week to coincide with its four year anniversary and to see if my original opinions still held up. Unfortunately, that plan didn't quite go as anticipated, so I'm going to take a look at another movie in my collection. You never know what you'll find when you go looking for anything to add to your collections. Speaking as someone who is collection a bunch of things, if you go into second-hand shops or search online for just anything, you'll find some interesting things you never would have thought about. For example, who would ever look for a movie like The Magic Voyage? The Magic Voyage is a German animated film from 1992 that tells a fantastical version of Columbus' journey to America, and I mean fantastical in more than just, "Columbus discovered America", I mean full on talking animals and fairies. With all that said, is this movie worth checking out?

Disclosure, for this review I watched the 1993 English dub by Hemdale Film Corporation. There is, allegedly another dub out there by Atlas Film, but it's apparently rare and probably not all that better.

The story follow Christopher Columbus, as he sails across the Atlantic ocean to find passage to East Asia, along the way he encounters many fantastical creatures in a... wait... no sorry I was describing the story of this movie if it was done right. See, in this movie Columbus doesn't believe the Earth is round, he is told this by a woodworm named Pico, and before they sail off to sea, Pico falls in love with a Moon Sprite named Mairlyn, well, this dub calls her a Moon Sprite, other sources say Firefly, so I don't know, call her a Johnny for all I care. Anyway, Marilyn gets kidnapped by this Swarm Lord and taken back to their kingdom in the west, which just so happens to be where America is. So, forgetting that this movie factually inaccurate, people knew the Earth was round in the fifteenth century, the addition of Pico and Marilyn and the Swarm Lord makes me connect this movie to The Tom and Jerry movie from around the same time, where they just, for whatever reason felt the need to add in unnecessary stuff when the basic bones they have should have been enough to tell a good story.

I mean, no, a movie about Columbus would still be historically inaccurate, but adding in Pico and Marilyn and a romance between those two is exactly like adding an orphaned girl looking for her father while escaping her greedy abusive aunt to a movie about Tom and Jerry. Like, you have a good base already, you don't need to add more to it, when you do this, all you have is a stick on a baseball field. You have a decent enough base for a movie, you don't need this extra stuff. Though it also doesn't help that the movie has a lot of padding, plenty of scenes that just exist to pad out the story, and serve no purpose to the plot, like some seagulls fighting over a fish, or Pico making faces in some crystals.

However, the story is not the worst thing about this movie. That honour goes directly to the dubbing. I have to ask, were dub jobs always of a mediocre or bad quality before the late 90s and early 2000s? because this dubbing makes the Vampire Hunter D dubbing look like the English Dub of Whisper of the Heart. Characters talk when their mouths are closed, they make a whole lot of random noises that don't even sound like they're being emoted, and there is literally a scene where Christopher Columbus is supposed to be sea-sick and maybe is meant to throw up over the side of the ship? I say that because the acting is so poor that it does not come off as such at all. The real shame here is that they got some genuine talent for this dubbing, Dom Deluise, Irene Cara, Corey Feldman, they even got Mickey Rooney to narrate the movie, but none of them give a good performance, except for maybe Mickey Rooney. Easily, this is the worst part of this movie.

Then again, the performances are not the only problem with the audio, because again, like with Felix the Cat, there are very few moments of silence throughout the entire damn movie. There are some moments where the background music takes center stage, but throughout most of the movie characters have to be making noises, objects have to be making noises, characters have to be singing. Oh goodness, the musical numbers in this movie are dreadful. They are not the worst songs I've heard in a movie, but they are up there. None of these actors can sing in this movie, and I know that is ironic considering Corey Feldman went on to have a musical career, most notably the infamous album Angelic 2 The Core, but with the voice he's using and the character he's playing, it just sounds awful. The same to be said for Dom DeLuise. This is easily one of the worst movies when it comes to the audio.

The animation of this movie is... strange. The character designs are pretty cartoony, but not too bad, I can see them being somewhat appealing. Character movements look cartoony, and again the lip sync is a very noticeable problem, but as a whole the animation isn't that bad. There are times when it just looks like the animation cels are just being dragged across the camera lens, and there are a few errors here and there, but after Silver Circle, 1990s 2D hand-drawn animation, even of a mediocre quality, is very welcome. I can't say this is quality animation, but it is enough for a passing grade, sadly one passing grade does not make a good report card.

This movie was a pain to sit through, the awful dubbing and absolutely bizarre story are just the tip of the iceberg for the problems with this movie. Poor performances from some quality actors, lots of unnecessary padding, god-awful music and singing. Only the animation is of any quality, and again it's mediocre, especially compared to other movies from the same time period. Forget that this movie is historically inaccurate, if the movie is entertaining enough I can let that slide. The Greatest Showman, Bohemian Rhapsody, Anastasia, Tombstone, these movies have plenty of inaccuracies and people still love them. The problem is, this movie offers very little else, to the point where I would very much rather watch a movie about the real Christopher Columbus, I'd say this movie is as bad as the Felix the Cat movie, and since there is not the caveat that few people actually care about the subject of this movie, I can give this movie the rating I should have given Felix the Cat, just skip this movie.

Disney Live Action Trudge: 101 Dalmatians (1996)

 

There are four words that, when said in succession, can invoke the deepest feelings of hatred, sadness and tiredness in any animation fan, "Disney Live Action Remake". The reason these words make animation fans upset is because Disney is synonymous with animation. Disney was a lot of peoples introduction to the medium, and they have done so much for it, from popularizing technologies and techniques, to innovating television animation, to producing the first Computer Generated animated feature film, it really is saddening to see THE animation company remake so many of their movies into a medium that is not fit to tell certain stories. That being said, I've not actually watched that many of them, so I can't actually judge them. Are they all actually soulless attempts to make easy money without putting in much risk or effort? Or are there some movies in there that are genuinely good? Keep in mind, this is not going to be me comparing the animated originals to the live action remakes, this is predominately going to be me looking at these movies on their own, though there may be some comparisons here and there. So, let's begin my trudge through Disney's Live Action remakes... pray for me.

Okay, so I wanted to start this in February with the 1994 movie "Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book", which wasn't really a remake, but still a retelling of a story Disney already told. Unfortunately, that is not available on Disney+ for me as of yet, so I'll be starting with the next movie in the line-up, 1996's 101 Dalmatians, the first proper remake in the line-up. Immediately, there are somethings that just don't sit right with the idea of remaking 101 Dalmatians into a live-action movie, first off, that was a lot of dogs to animate, so imagine how many that would be to find and train. Secondly, the dogs talked in the original movie, which does seem like a non-issue, but then you remember that movies like Babe are actually the exception to the rule that talking animals in live action movies always look fake. So, barring those two, teeny tiny blue whale sized hurdles, how does the live-action 101 Dalmatians movie stand?

Admittedly, this movie does begin a bit slow, not that there isn't some good comedy and goofy acting, but it's mostly there to set up Roger and Anita's relationship, Roger's storyline about trying to design a video game, Anita's relationship with Cruella and where Cruella gets the idea to make a Dalmatian fur coat. It is all necessary, mostly, and I do like the idea of Anita being an employee of Cruella's, it can be a bit slow and unengaging though. Honestly, I'm quite impressed with how loyal they were in recreating scenes from the original, the midnight bark, Roger and Anita falling into the pond, those scenes are here, but they are different in their own ways.

The casting in this movie is quite excellent, Jeff Daniels and Joely Richardson do a good job as the everyfolk Roger and Anita, and Hugh Laurie and Mark Williams are superb as Jasper and Horace, I probably should have guessed Hugh Laurie was good at physical acting since his most iconic role has him limping, then again that isn't really the same as slapstick. However, the show stealer really is Glenn Close as Cruella de Vil, she just chews the scenery, she really is just the fashionable lunatic and I loved every demented minute of her on screen. My favourite scene with her was when she was just screaming at a bunch of farm animals, like at this point you can tell she's lost her mind, or what was left of it. I think she's a bit more entertaining than she is in the original movie, mostly because in the original movie she just kind of comes off as... a Karen, she's a total Karen. She's bitchy and whines about not getting her way, acting as if not getting what she wants is a personal attack, original movie Cruella is totally the kind of woman who shouted to employees and threatened having them fired. The only difference is Cruella has more fashion sense. This movie's Cruella is just a crazy lunatic and that is much more enjoyable to watch.

I also do like some of the little details this movie incorporates, like the video game Roger is making with graphics that look like the original movie's animation, I actually think there was an actual PC game that, if not based on this bit from the movie, then the bit from the movie was based around. I also always find it amusing when Disney has their characters watching their own stuff, so having the Dalmatians switch the channel from AristoCats to Homeward Bound, it made me chuckle. Speaking of which, this movie has John Hughes as a writer and producer, knowing his work on movies like National Lampoon's Vacation, Home Alone and like... dozens of classic 80s comedies, you can probably tell this movie is going for a more comedic tone, and whether or not you find this funny, will probably depend on how much you like slapstick comedy, there were bits I found funny, like Jasper and Horace over the electric fence, and Cruella in the molasses, though there are some pretty lame jokes too. At points, it does also feel like a weaker Home Alone, Hugh Laurie and Mark Williams even kinda look like Daniel Stern and Joe Pesci as Harry and Marv at points.

So, how does this movie stand up? It's not awful, in fact if you're in the mood for a dumb comedy, I'd say give this one a shot. As a movie on its own, it's watchable, and I think your enjoyment of it is really going to depend on how much you like John Hughes style of comedy, and especially slapstick comedy. If you're a big fan of the original, I can see you having some strong opinions, but if you keep in mind that these are two separate movies going for two separate ways of telling the story, I think you can find some enjoyment. It's like comparing the two versions of DuckTales, they very much are their own entities. All in all, this movie is fine, was it worth being made, eh, but I can't imagine this movie causing any harm or really upsetting anyone by existing. It has it's moments, it's a solid movie, it ain't bad.

Normally this is where I'd give this movie a recommendation rating, but since that isn't really the point of this side blog, I'll just leave it as is. Next on my list is 2010's Alice in Wonderland, not officially counted as a Live Action Remake, but still worth talking about. I will get to Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book at another time, if I find a copy or it comes out on Disney+, I will get to it then.

A Christmas Carol (1997) - A Flawed, but Serviceable Adaptation of the Holiday Ghost Story

 

Easily one of the most famous Christmas stories in pop culture is A Christmas Carol, while other stories may be more renowned or popular, A Christmas Carol has remained an iconic and memorable tale since the original publication of the Charles Dickens novella in 1843. With an almost uncountable amount of film and stage adaptations, parodies and homages, and episodes of television shows that have this as the main basis for a plot, it is safe to say that everybody is familiar with some form of the classic holiday ghost story. I've reviewed one adaptation of the story before, the 2009 Robert Zemeckis motion capture feature starring Jim Carrey. It was a movie that had a lot of really good stuff in it, but ultimately failed due to the constantly shifting tone, and the story being made too extreme. However, there is another animated Christmas Carol movie, well there is one from 1971 starring Alastair Sim which was produced by Richard Williams and Chuck Jones, but that one doesn't reach forty minutes. The one I referred to was a version from 1997 that stars Tim Curry as Scrooge, and features Ed Asner, Whoopi Goldberg, Michael York, Jodi Benson and Frank Welker. This is A Christmas Carol, 1997.

Strange to say but, there is a reason this movie has been on my list, and it's not just that I adore the story of A Christmas Carol. I remember vaguely being at my grandmother's place, around the holidays and what should be on television but this exact version of A Christmas Carol. This may have been my introduction to the classic story, and all these years later, I wanted to see if it was as... well I'll be honest I didn't really like it as a kid, but I was a kid and I had weird opinions. A part of this review is me making sure this was the version I watched on my Grandparent's TV all those years ago. Has it improved with age, or is still as weird as I remember it.

I'm not going to go over the plot this time, seeing as this is a retelling of a story I've already talk about I feel it isn't necessary. You know the story of Scrooge, the three spirits and the moral of keeping the spirit of the season in your heart. So, how good of an adaptation is this one? They do an... adequate job, but not much else. They get the basics of the story down, making it book accurate, however this does include the inherent flaw of the book. In the book, Scrooge almost immediately begins regretting his actions, and yet does not feel like he changes until the very end. You can still believe he is redeemed, but at the same time you don't really get that arc. It is quite apparent in this movie, but it is a flaw you get with most adaptations, they just hide it better I guess. That being said, I am impressed with what they managed to squeeze into just over an hour. When the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come shows Scrooge the dead body under the sheets, they cleverly combine this with people stealing from the dead man, rather than being dragged to Old Joe's. It is a serviceable adaptation, but not much else.

The same goes for book dialogue, there are lines that are from the book, but they have slight changes that make them feel different, and don't get me wrong, different is not bad. The 1984 version with George C. Scott also changed some dialogue, but this just is not the same. When we got to the point where the Ghost of Christmas Present throws one of Scrooge's lines back at him, my thought was not "Oh, the hammer's coming down", it was more "Wait, did he say that line earlier?", and yeah, I went back to the earlier scene and checked and he said the line, but it was not the same. I guess it also does not help that the tone is also a bit different in this version, toning down the darker aspects of the story and putting more emphasis on the emotional aspects. Rather than a dark and horrific scene of the dead trying in vain to aid a helpless woman, it's just two ghosts offering things to a woman who can't see them. Yes, it does get the point across, but it is a very different tone. They also add in a bit of a comedic edge, which... is fine. I didn't find it that amusing, but it did not hurt this movie. Save for how they handled Jacob Marley's face in the door knocker, it didn't upset me at all.

This is an interesting adaptation character wise. In the role of Scrooge this time is Tim Curry, definitely a good choice, he is someone I could see playing an excellent Scrooge, there are some moments where it sounds like he's channeling his interpretation of The Joker from the Batman animated series, and I'm not just saying that because that was my previous review, some of his reads sounded like that. The character is also a bit nastier in this version, going to the point of straight up attacking children and some hints that he is abusive to his dog. Oh yeah, he has a dog in this version, he doesn't add much, but is again, mostly harmless. They add a detail where Scrooge ends up relating to Tiny Tim a little bit, which is actually a kind of interesting addition to the story. In the original, and most versions of the story, Tiny Tim is less of a character and more a representation, a symbol of never-ending cheer and optimism, he's not really meant to be mourned as a character but as one would mourn the loss of innocence or faith. Having Scrooge have something to relate to with Tiny Tim makes the kid feel more like an identifiable character rather than an idea.

The ghosts were also handled interestingly. The Ghost of Christmas Past is a tricky being to really adapt properly, so design wise they went with a young child. For some reason they made him... cockney? I'm not good at identifying specific accents. The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come is done well, again they do tone down the darker scenes of the story, so when Scrooge is staring at his grave at the end, it's played a bit more emotionally than dark. Then we have The Ghost of Christmas Present, and this is going to be a tough one. So, for those of you who don't know, England had a winter figure of their own before Santa Claus, in fact he was a big influence of the modern day Santa Claus. His name was Father Christmas, he was a giant man who wore a green robe and had a wreath of holly on his head like a crown. Does that sound familiar? The Ghost of Christmas Present was literally Father Christmas. Which begs the question why they made this version of the character a black woman played by Whoopi Goldberg. So, in this decade of the two-thousand and twenties, the subject of race swapping a character has... not become touchy, it's been a touchy subject for a while, but kind of became a bigger discussion with the announcement of Halle Bailey as Ariel for the live action Little Mermaid remake. Is it right to cast a person of color in the role of a character that was originally not? This is a tough issue, especially in this case. On the one hand, Father Christmas was a cultural figure, but on the other, he has been all but replaced by the modern day Santa Claus, so I don't really know what to think. To be fair, the character mostly remains unchanged despite the race and gender swap, so... yeah... I'll leave this one up to everyone else.

On to the technicals, a much easier topic to discuss because the animation is objectively passable. It's a direct-to-video movie, so the animation is not going to be spectacular. That being said, it was definitely passable, not a lot of major mistakes. The same could be said for the backing score, it is perfectly serviceable, it does its job, and not much else. The Music was composed by Megan Cavallari and John Campbell, and I can't really find much else on these two. I found a website for a John Campbell who is a composer who did work on a version of A Christmas Carol for television, but there is not confirmation on the site that it is this version of A Christmas Carol. The songs in this movie are also not that great. They serve their purpose, they aren't awful songs, but they are pretty bland. I can't imagine anyone begging for a release of this movie's soundtrack. Overall, the animation and music are serviceable.

I think that is a best word to describe this movie; Serviceable. It wanted to be a decent retelling of A Christmas Carol and it was a decent retelling of A Christmas Carol. There really isn't much to this one, and I don't really know how to rate it. Do I condemn it for being nothing special, or to I commend it for being watchable, both just kind of feel wrong. I guess it does not hurt to compare it to other versions of the story, most notably the three big ones and the 2009 version. I have a theory that the big three adaptations of the story all worked because they each highlighted an aspect of the character of Scrooge. Alastair Sim was the self-loathing misanthrope who felt like he was beyond redemption, George C. Scott was the bitter man who was molded into something he never wanted to be and Michael Caine was the good man buried under years of pain and never saw the joy in life. I don't really get any of that with Curry's Scrooge, and I can't really argue this movie being as good a movie as those three. 2009's A Christmas Carol is a different story, as that movie was almost good, fantastic even, but the minor changes really piled up and made the movie into something the story was not. I guess it depends on what you want between these two. The 2009 version takes a lot of liberties, while this one is pretty safe and bland. I dunno, I kind feel generous to this one since it is a harmless, maybe a bit too harmless, telling of the story. No, I don't think it will really change your life, but if you find it on TV, I can think of bigger wastes of time.

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993) - A Fantastic Adventure Starring the Caped Crusader

 

On November 10, 2022, the world lost an amazing talent. Kevin Conroy, American actor and iconic voice of Batman since 1992, passed away. Kevin Conroy for many was the voice of the Caped Crusader. We argue everyday about the best live action portrayal of the Dark Knight, but when it came to the animated Batman, Kevin Conroy was the only name on everyone's lips for a good while. While many actors have stepped in the booth, none have become as synonymous with the hero as Kevin Conroy has. It is a bit difficult to write this since Kevin Conroy was, and always will be, my favourite Batman. The way he slipped between Bruce Wayne and Batman gave the performance more life and believability than most of the live action actors (Looking at you Kilmer and Clooney). Batman means a lot to a lot of people, and Kevin Conroy really got the power and pain of the character. To honor him, and his legacy, I have decided to take a look at the first animated Batman movie to reach the big screen, 1993's Batman: Mask of the Phantasm.

A new menace sweeps over the city of Gotham, and it is striking some prominent gang members. While everyone believes that Batman has gone off the deep end, Batman is trying to get to the bottom of the new mysterious being known as the Phantasm, which becomes difficult when one of the targeted gang members gets The Joker involved. Meanwhile, an old acquaintance reignites some memories in Bruce Wayne, memories that deal with becoming the Masked Vigilante. The mystery of the Phantasm is solid, and the flashbacks can be downright heartbreaking. The entire plot is suspenseful and intense, especially when The Joker gets involved. They do leave a few things unexplained, but nothing that is really essential to the overall plot of the movie, the whole plot was exciting and intriguing and really made you feel for the characters. I do feel like the crew behind the Animated Series really understood Batman better than most other people who work on Batman do.

This extends to the characters, what really makes the Animated Series Batman my favourite Batman is that they really understood batman's Lawful alignment. The episode "Trial" is one of my all-time favourites, as it is a perfect example of this. Well, this movie is the same Batman we know and love, and he, as usual, is voiced perfectly by the late Kevin Conroy. The rest of the characters are great as well, the love interest Andrea Beaumont is very much a lot like Bruce in a lot of ways, trying to hide the pain of the past. Of course, The Joker is a wonderful mix of entertaining and threatening, and Alfred also gets some good snark in once and a while. This is all emphasized by amazing voice talent, of course with Mark Hamill as The Joker, but also Dana Delany, Hart Bochner, Dick Miller, Stacy Keach, and Abe Vigoda, all turning in excellent performances. I never would have thought Abe Vigoda would translate into the booth very well, but he surprisingly did. I also really got to give kudos to the writing, not just the writing of the plot, but of the dialogue. Many characters are given small lines that a lot of movies would probably have cut out, just small little reactions to each other that makes them feel much more real. Really, this dialogue is just the icing on an already really good cake.

What really got me in this movie were the intense and thrilling action scenes. Not just because of how well they were done, but because of the music. The background score did what a good backing score should do, it emphasized the scene without distracting from it or fading into the background too much. Striking this balance can be difficult, so major props to Shirley Walker. Let's also not forget the animation, the animation for this movie is top notch. While some close-ups look odd and there is one scene where Batman uses his grappling hook that just didn't look right to me, the rest of the animation is phenomenal. Minor facial expressions are scattered around this movie which give us an idea of what the characters are thinking, the impact of physical blow can almost be felt, of course The Joker is always fantastically animated, and I really love the opening credits, panning through a stylized CG rendering of Gotham City, it is all very cool.

So of course, the question now has to be asked, where does this rank amongst the other Batman movies? Honestly, I think the answer depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for a more old school comic book movie, you have Batman '89, but a more serious crime drama would give you The Dark Knight, while The Batman 2022 is much more of a serious murder mystery, and this one has a little bit of all three. In the end, I guess it depends on what kind of Batman movie you want, do you want a comic book movie, a crime thriller, a murder mystery or something in between. I do think this movie serves as a good transition point between the milder 80s and 90s Batman movies and the much darker Nolan trilogy and 2022 movie.

Despite failing at the box office, Batman: Mask of the Phantasm has become recognized as one of the greatest superhero movies of all time, and for good reason, this movie is very well done. The animation is great, the music is stellar, the writing is believable, the action scenes are intense and thrilling, and the mystery is solid and keeps you thinking. It has a little bit of everything for a Batman fan, and if you're a fan of the animated series, well it's just a no brainer to give this a watch, but if you are a new comer, I really only recommend watching the Animated Series first because it's just a fantastic show, but you can come into this movie completely blind. It has a little bit of everything for a Batman fan. It's exciting, suspenseful and humanizes the main cast, it is easily one of the best Batman movies ever made, I can't recommend it enough. Rest in Peace Kevin Conroy, we'll all miss you.

Tom and Jerry: The Movie (1992) - A Weird Way to Make a Movie Featuring an Iconic Duo

 

When it comes to iconic cartoons of the golden age, according to Wikipedia being from 1928 until 1972, which seems way to broad because that covers the rise of theatrical animation, television animation, Computer animation and just barely reaches the release of Pong, but regardless, in the era of theatrical shorts, there were many iconic names, Walt Disney, Termite Terrace, Fleischer Studios, and probably one of the most iconic, Hanna-Barbera. Though Tom and Jerry was an MGM property, they will forever be linked to the two men who brought television animation into the mainstream. Their form of comedy was not as well written as Looney Tunes, but more cartoony than a standard Disney cartoon, making Tom and Jerry icons in animation for years to come. Like most icons in animation, it was only a matter of time before they got their own movie, but these two work best with slapstick comedy and little to no dialogue, how can a movie around these two work?

I'm actually not the biggest Tom and Jerry fan, I do enjoy the shorts but I don't really go out of my way to watch them. I think to my favourite shorts from the Looney Tunes and remember just how brilliant the writing was and how well the characters worked off each other, or Goofy cartoons and remember some of the satire on American culture, and all I can really think about Tom and Jerry is how good the slapstick is, and it is very good slapstick, but I do tend to gravitate towards the better written comedy. Then again, a movie may be what this series needed, cinematic writing could make the slapstick even funnier, so does the iconic duo work in a theatrical setting?

The plot follows Tom and Jerry as they wander the streets after being left behind as their owners move house, or is it just owner? Doesn't matter, this part of the movie is almost completely silent, has a decent background track and works alright, it's not a particularly funny segment, but once the movie gets going it should get better right? Well, then they come across a little orphaned girl who is running away from her awful Aunt, this is in a Tom and Jerry movie. Okay, giving the benefit of the doubt that this was all necessary for a Tom and Jerry movie to function, that a human character with a problem for Tom and Jerry to assist with was the only way this movie could work, a little girl trying to avoid her awful guardian and look for her lost father is probably the last thing I would think of for a Tom and Jerry movie plot, it flows alright, but the plot is just flawed from the ground level.

The biggest thing a lot of people will bring up is the fact that Tom and Jerry actually speak in this movie. This is a problem because Tom and Jerry were mostly silent characters, though Tom did have some dialogue on occasion, but when that happened it was predominately to emphasize a joke. It's not like a movie with silent characters can't be done, or even characters that speak incomprehensibly, but there is a lot of effort that needs to be put into a movie like that. On top of that I really don't think Richard Kind works as the voice of Tom, he doesn't get the screams right, and it just doesn't sound right coming out of Tom's mouth, which you think would be a problem with the fact that the characters are speaking, but Jerry's voice is a bit closer to how I would imagine Jerry would sound. This was the final film role for the late Dana Hill, and while her voice does make Jerry sound very young, it does work better than Richard King as Tom. To be fair, the rest of the voice acting is okay, my only other problem is with Tony Jay who sounds like he's doing a Vincent Price impression.

On the topic of vocal performances, this movie is also a musical. I'll be honest, the songs are not great, but they aren't the worst I've heard. A big part of that is because of the music by Henry Mancini, who also did the music for The Great Mouse Detective. While I don't really like the songs, they are memorable, and the music is well-done, it's just a shame that they aren't all sung the best, or the best written. Which is similar to what can be said about the animation, it's not the worst and does bring the classic characters into the modern age visually, it's just a shame that some of the shots look weird and the editing is not the best. On top of that, the actual slapstick in the movie just does not hit as well as it should, we never see any of the characters morph to show the impact of the hit, or the slapstick itself is just very light and basic.  This movie doesn't work as a slapstick comedy, and it doesn't really work as an exciting adventure.

On some level, I can kind of respect the choices they made for this movie. I can imagine that the idea of making a movie starring Tom and Jerry was difficult from the get-go and a lot of tough choices had to be made, but on the other hand not a lot of those choices really work. It fails as a slapstick because the actual slapstick is not very good, it fails as an exciting adventure because it's Tom and Jerry these two things just should not go together. On the one hand you have Peanut Butter, the other hand has jalapeños, I mean with the right amount of each you probably could get something good, but when you throw them together without much thought as to how it would all work, you're going to get something bad, and yeah, this movie is bad, but I would not go as far as to say it's awful, it kind of harkens back to my thoughts on the Felix the Cat movie, where if you're a big fan of Tom and Jerry, you're probably going to despise this movie a lot more, but even if you aren't it still is not a good movie, stick with the classic shorts.

Rock-A-Doodle (1991) - The Beginning of Don Bluth's Downfall

 

Don Bluth was one of the greatest directors in animation, originally coming from the Disney animation department working on films such as Sleeping Beauty, Robin Hood, Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too and The Fox and the Hound, in the early 80s he directed and produced some of the decade's greatest animated movies, beginning with The Secret of NIMH, a movie that I have previously reviewed, but a movie that is excellent and so beautiful, it may be one of my favourite movies of the 1980s. Following that was An American Tail and The Land Before Time, before he ended the 80s with All Dogs Go To Heaven. Then immediately after that, came Mr. Bluth's lesser period. What happened? Where did one of the best animation directors go wrong and begin making movies that just weren't as good? Fellow animation reviewer Animated Antic did a marathon of Don Bluth's theatrical movies, so he probably has a better answer than I, but I'm curious if I can see the signs from the movie that began his nineties descent, nine-descent, Rock-A-Doodle.

The story follows young Edmond, a live action boy turned into an animated cat by The Duke of Owls as he helps a group of animated farm animals find their lost friend, the rooster Chanticleer, so he can raise the sun and ward off the evil owls and stop the endless rain and darkness. Chanticleer however, found a new life as an R&B singer in the city, and the owls try to stop the farm animals, and keep Chanticleer in the city. The plot does not really have any major fumblings about it, it does seem like some elements are just not explained very well, like how Chanticleer's agent and the Duke of Owls know each other, and a major plot point is that, as a ploy to keep Chanticleer in the city, the agent has another act, a character named Goldie, to make him fall in love with her, ending with her actually falling in love with him, and all we get of this development is some narration, and it really does make that entire plot point come out of nowhere. Speaking of the narration, it is not terrible but it isn't great. It's no Spirit, but it certainly isn't The Thief and the Cobbler.

Plot is not where the movie falls apart, where it falls apart is the voice acting. No offense to Toby Scott-Granger, who was a little kid when they were making this movie, but his acting was terrible in this movie, half the time I couldn't understand what he was saying. He hasn't done any major roles since the 90s, and apparently he is now a rapper, so... that's cool I guess. To be fair, it isn't that Toby is the only actor that does a bad job in this movie, Christopher Plummer's Grand Duke sounds a lot like he's channeling Christopher Lloyd, Charles Nelson Reilly, I would say is another attempt to ape Robin Williams in Aladdin, but either I'm wrong, or Don Bluth has future vision because Aladdin wasn't out yet, and wouldn't be released until the following year. This was also the final film role for Phil Harris, and he does an okay performance, it just makes me wish I was watching Robin Hood instead.

Speaking of vocal talent, the movie stars the late country singer Glen Campbell, and he does alright, I guess. I'm not really a big country fan, so I can't really say much about the songs in the movie. However, I can say that the movie does one of the biggest sins a musical can commit and has the songs get interrupted constantly. Opening song? Interrupted by narration. Goldie and Chanticleer duet? Interrupted not half a minute into the song. Some of the other songs are sung by the Owls and they're bad. There's a joke about one of the songs opening with the line "Tweedle-dee-dee", but what nobody ever mentions is that the song itself is less than a minute long, maybe even less than thirty seconds. For a musical with heavy allusions to Elvis Presley, you know "allusions" may be the wrong word but I can't think of another word that qualifies and also means "Blatant", "Obvious", and "Only Meaning of One Thing", but for a musical with references to Elvis, Chanticleer even goes by "The King", having the music be this bad seems like an insult to Elvis.

That brings us to the animation, and it's okay. It is still Don Bluth animation, but it's nowhere near as good as The Secret of NIMH or The Land Before Time. It still has some nice design work, moves nicely, this is not the worst looking Don Bluth production. That being said, they have a fair amount of live-action mixing in this movie, and it just doesn't work. It worked in Roger Rabbit because everybody on that movie worked hard to make the illusion work, but here, they just have Toby wander around a blue screen at the end, and it's painfully obvious. I think if they nixed the live-action stuff, made it a jukebox musical with songs by Elvis Presley, did a rewrite or two and got a different cast, this movie could have worked, but that is a lot of work to put into a movie.

So, what happened here? How did one of the best animation directors go from a string of highly regarded works, to this? Well, I don't really know if any of you know this, but in the late 1980s, there was a little bit of a shift in animation. In 1987, DuckTales became one of the first syndicated televised cartoons that did not require a toy line to make profit, and though it was based on an existing franchise, the comics did not exist because of the cartoon, the cartoon existed because of the comics. In 1988, Who Framed Roger Rabbit was released, helping Disney get back on its feet, and they followed that with The Little Mermaid in 1989, which a lot of people will argue was the movie that kickstarted the Disney Renaissance. On top of that, the decade ended with one of the most influential cartoons ever making its way to air, a little show called The Simpsons. The late 80s and early 90s were a changing time in animation, and Don Bluth's bread and butter, kids films with darker and more serious themes but still pulled through with a happy ending, those films didn't seem like they'd stick around much longer. That was mostly an early 80s thing, and it wasn't just Bluth doing it, Disney did it with The Fox and the Hound, Rankin & Bass did it with The Last Unicorn, I think the last Non-Don Bluth film to really fall into this category was 1987's The Brave Little Toaster.

I think the kind of movies Don Bluth wanted to make, were not the kind of movies people wanted to see by the 90s, so someone tried to make him adapt, whether it was a studio thing, a market thing or a personal thing I won't begin to guess. What I can say is that, this movie is bad, but ultimately harmless, I can see children watching this movie and enjoying it, but this is something they will grow out of. Is it worth showing your kids? I wouldn't say yes, I'd show them The Secret of NIMH or The Land Before Time instead, but if you are watching over really little kids and don't want to worry about giving them something really dark to watch, I can't see this as being any harm. It was mostly just dull and boring for me, not really something to get mad about. I don't recommend it, but it's harmless.

TV Impressions: Pingu (1990-2000, 2003-2006)

 

So, people in the Animation Twitter Community have been sharing shows they've been watching recently. One is sharing their One Piece thoughts, one of my Twitter Friends is sharing her thoughts on The Owl House and Avatar, so I figured I'd share some thoughts on what I've been watching. Recently, I have gotten the entire series of the original "Scooby-Doo, Where Are You?", it's a fun if really dated bit of animation. I've been working my way through Amphibia, made a deal with a friend that I'd watch it if they watched DuckTales, so I've been chipping away at it slowly, but I'm liking what I have watched so far. I've also been casually watching The Red Green Show, that is a live-action comedy show, a big piece of Canadian pop culture, it is a bit of an acquired taste and of its time humour, so I don't know if a lot of it will go over well with modern audiences, but I find it to be a fun little blast of nostalgia. Also I've been watching a lot of Pingu, and that is surprisingly the most interesting of the four shows, also I've been sick recently so I just want to write something quick and hopefully fun.

So, why have I been watching Pingu? Well, easy answer is I got that nostalgic itch. You know the feeling, the feeling you get when you remember something from your childhood, a movie, a show, a song, a video game, and you have the urge to check it out, even just for a minute, because you desperately want to reconnect with an easier, less stressful time in your life. Be wary of this itch my friends, your favourite childhood entertainment may not actually hold up as well as you remember, we all have that one thing that we loved as children, but as adults we just cannot get past the flaws that are so intrinsic and obvious that we wonder how stupid we were as kids to accept it. For me, sad to say, that was Jak and Daxter on the PlayStation 2, the double jump mechanic is just broken and it frustrates me, and Daxter is one of the worst video game characters ever made, but I'm getting off topic. Pingu is one of those were my enjoyment has lessened, but not faded.

I mean, what really is there to hate about Pingu? It's just a simple little slice-of-life series about this little Penguin and his friends and family, and the odd adventures he gets up to. Each episode is less than ten minutes, and the language isn't even comprehensible, it's all mutterings and noises and the occasional, but frequent, "Noot Noot!". It is such a simple series, and yet it makes for really good comfort viewing. Just something to put on when you are drained, tired, sad or whatever, and just need something that isn't overly hilarious, but can still put a smile on your face. I'm venting aren't I? Regardless, Pingu is a little kids show, it is not meant to be super deep or anything. So why, after I have scratched that nostalgic itch, do I still watch it?

Well, firstly, I am a huge fan of stop-motion animation. Again, I grew up with Wallace & Gromit, but I also grew up with this show. Stop-motion animation is probably my favourite form of animation, no disrespect to traditional hand-drawn or computer generated animation, but having done all three types (Stop-motion, hand drawn and both Flash and ToonBoom) I think I know what my preference is. I think a lot of what makes Stop-motion, especially claymation, so uncanny to a lot of viewers is absent here. Stop-motion can be uncanny because we're looking at almost human puppets moving in an almost human way. Pingu has no humans, it is all penguins, a seal and the occasional other animal, and frankly the puppets are really adorable. I could watch a ten minute video of Pingu and Pinga playing and feel the same as watching a thirty second video of a kitten.

Really, that is all Pingu is. It's just this Penguin having some fun days, like going fishing and dealing with a pesky seal stealing his bait, or going to a funfair, or getting lost in an ice cave. There are big adventures, for a kid anyway, and there are small adventures, and all of them are driven by just how likeable Pingu is. Pingu is playful, curious, excitable, he's a kid. He can also be a right little pain in the butt, but clearly he never means to be a bad kid, and he often does know when he messed up, like in one episode where he shirks responsibility for incubating his mothers egg, and there are times where Pingu does actually get disciplined for his actions. Though he mostly gets scolded and made to right his wrongs, there are two episodes where Pingu's punishment is physical. One episode where his mom spanks him and he runs away, and another where his mom straight up smacks him in the face. The latter episode is infamous and some people may even cite it as one of the worst episodes of the show. I, can't agree, not that it isn't absolutely awful seeing Pingu get smacked, but because his mother clearly felt remorseful afterwards, like she knew she overstepped. That being said, this was more early season, which makes this a good opportunity to talk about this show's history.

So, Pingu originally aired from 1990 to 2000 by Trickfilmstudio in Switzerland. Then, it was acquired by HIT Entertainment and a further two seasons were produced from 2003 until 2006. This lead to some changes, mostly is the tone. The original Pingu seasons could get very negative, Penguins got angry and would threaten Pingu, Pingu's Dad had a temper on him, one episode had Pingu's dad deliver a letter to a penguin and evidence suggests that the letter was notifying of a relative passing away. There was also hints about poverty, which lead some viewers to believe the show takes place during or after a war. The HIT Era of the show has less of this edge, and even looks brighter. They apparently changed the original clay puppets to resin casts, it just gives everything a sheen to it, I do kind of prefer the grungy look of the original seasons, but I won't deny that the HIT era seasons look good. That being said, I do kind of also prefer the stories in the middle seasons, mostly three and four. They aren't as negative as the first two seasons, and aren't as bright as the last two seasons.

So, why did I do this? I don't know, I guess I just wanted to talk about Pingu. I have this weird thing where I like to talk and share information about things I like, I think it is called being a fan of something and wanting it to not be an obscure thing I can only talk to a handful of people about, or maybe it's just a neurodivergence thing, I dunno. Fandom usually doesn't seem to want the thing they like to actually have a fanbase, but anyway, I've been enjoying my time with Pingu, and learning new things about it, for example, replacing all the words in Camilla Cabello's "Havana" with Pingu noises improves the song by 100 percent, and the song "7-11" by Eskimo Disco is actually not bad, even if the band name is a bit... iffy. In all seriousness, I do think Pingu is a fine, comfortable show to watch. It is not bingeing material though, after a while the Penguinese can start to grate on you, plus, many of the episode compilations on YouTube tend to have the same episodes amongst them, so be prepared to skip over a lot of them if you chose to watch the show this way. All-in-all, Pingu has flaws, but overall, it's just a comfort watch for me, and I think it's a good show for little kids as well.

Well, that's that out of my system, movie review next Saturday on the First.