Where is the Affection Coming From for Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure?

In may of 2021, I did a review of the 1977 movie Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure, a bizarre and kind of over-stimulating movie that I thought was worth watching solely for the fact that it was one of very few kinds of movies. Weirdly enough, this little cult movie has taken on quite an interesting legacy, as in 2023 a pilot was released for this internet series titled The Amazing Digital Circus, and to say that the show has obvious influences from Raggedy Ann is putting it lightly. It is interesting to me because, this show may have revived the Raggedy Ann fandom, or at least made it more visible. Everyone pointing out references and entire lines taken from the movie, it is quite clear that the movie had left an impact on Gooseworx, enough for them to sneak all the references into their own show. There definitely is a growing appreciation for this movie, and while I cannot say that it is all thanks to The Amazing Digital Circus, I think it helped to put this movie back into the spotlight. Which makes me ask, where does the affection come from?

I think it's pertinent to begin with the movie's reception at the time, because like most cult movies it did not have the smoothest start. From what is documented as a four-million dollar budget, the movie was a massive flop not even coming close to breaking even, this is of course, not the biggest budget or lowest box office returns, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within had a budget of 137-million dollars and only made up just over 85-million at the box office, but the disparity is still pretty notable. The film also did not do so hot critically, which is not to say it didn't do well critically, Roger Ebert had some positive words on the movie, and another critic even said the movie "Compares favorably with the best of Disney." This is not low praise, however there were criticisms about the story, pacing, characters, and the songs. As of right now (March 12th, 2025 as of writing) the movie has a 6.7 Rating on IMDb and 58% on Rotten Tomatoes. Clearly this is not a movie that everyone will enjoy, but those who do enjoy it absolutely enjoy it.

I must confess, I can't argue with the movie's criticisms, I think the movie does have a sloppy plot, sort of bland characters and an overabundance of songs, I also found the movie to be very overstimulating at points, but with all of that said, I still can't help but love it. I don't think I can put this highly in my list of favourite movies, but I can't think of any other movie that is this level of anything, in my review I said "It's like Yellow submarine dialed up to twelve", and I stand by that, it is a one of a kind movie that I don't think we've seen the likes of before or since, and that is why I admire the movie as much as I do like it. If there was one movie I could suggest you absolutely have to watch at least once, it would be this one, solely because it genuinely is a "You have to see it to believe it" kind of movie, and that is no guarantee you'll like it, I don't think all that many people will like it, but it's just that kind of movie where watching it is an experience, something that really showcases what is possible in animation, and I think this is what a lot of people are gravitating towards.

If I had to hazard a guess as to where the affection for this movie comes from, and I must stress this is simply assumption on my part, I think the affection comes largely from the unique identity of the movie, and the love for bizarre animation. I think people have a craving for things that are weird and more out-there, stuff like a Don't Hug Me, I'm Scared or even a Sam & Max: Freelance Police, and we shockingly get little of that in animation. Yeah, there are weird things in animation, but there is always a grounding in these weird projects that give them a sense of normalcy, and there really is not much of that here. Plus, there also has to be affection for this movie on a technical level, the animation is excellent at points, almost hypnotic, and when the songs are good, they are memorable and well put together. I think affection for this movie also comes from the same kind of affection I have for Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings movie, in that there is an ambitious project here that is not fully realized, but in this case I think it is a lot more realized than Lord of the Rings was.

Given the movie's unique identity, animation and songs, and the ambition of Richard Williams and the rest of the crew, I think the affection this movie has is more than understandable. Of course there is one aspect that has yet to be touched upon; nostalgia. Raggedy Ann & Andy are a big part of a lot of people's childhoods, and seeing as this was the only movie based on the characters, it makes sense people nostalgic about them would gravitate towards it. It also does not hurt that this is probably the best Raggedy Ann animation we currently have, with things like the Fleischer Studios cartoon being kind of sucky, the Chuck Jones shorts being alright, and the 1980s cartoon series being... a thing that exists, the only real competition the movie has are the original books, and maybe the comics. It makes sense that someone feeling nostalgic would probably find this movie, give it a watch and have the bizarre adventure stick in their mind like that annoying commercial jingle that will never go away.

I think it's nice to see this movie kind of given a second life, it's practically one of a kind so I like that it's being pulled out from the obscure abysses. I don't see this movie taking over the internet in the same way that Shrek or SpongeBob or even Bee Movie ever has, but I definitely see a growing fanbase for it. While I can't say it is a particularly great movie, the affection for it is not undeserved in the slightest. Maybe the fanbase will be vocal enough at some point for the characters to come back into popularity, but as for now we have some charming books, some delightful comics, a wild and wonderful movie, and some other animated properties that are nice to have around. Plus that Fleischer Studios short film, that one also exists. If you haven't seen this movie yet, I gave it a slight recommendation in my initial review, but that is still a recommendation, I do not want anyone to pass up the experience of this weird, bizarre, but all around lovable movie.

Analyzing The Simpsons: Is Bart Simpson Actually "Cool"?

We all know who The Simpson family members are as characters. Homer is the dimwitted but ultimately loving father, Marge is the caring but no-nonsense housewife, Lisa is the smart and principled daughter, Maggie is the surprisingly competent baby, and Bart is the cool, trouble-making son. However, is that actually true? I stand by most of what I say about Homer Simpson, I think that beneath his callousness, he is still a good person who cares deeply about his family, and I would love to make a whole analysis on as to why I believe that. However, there has been someone else in the Simpson family that absolutely mystifies me, someone who has such an established persona that I'm no entirely sure is accurate to who the character is. It's time I ask this question in earnest, let's take a page out of Super Eyepatch Wolf and TheRealJims and talk Simpsons; Is Bart Simpson inherently a cool kid?

Now, to begin with, it will be important to define the word "Cool". What is "Cool"? There are a lot of definitions for the word "Cool" which range to unfriendliness, calmness and the temperature. The "cool" definition we're going for is the aesthetic one. Described as "Being compatible with admirable social norms of society or a group of people" by the Oxford English Dictionary, or at least, by Wikipedia sourcing the Oxford English Dictionary. This definition is going to be the big point of contention for this argument, because the perception of what is "Cool" varies from not only group to group, but also person to person. So, it will be good to analyze the kind of culture that Bart Simpson wants to fit in.

First and foremost, Bart Simpson is a rebel, he is someone who likes to act different from the crowd. This is showcased especially in "Bart's Inner Child", where he finds that once everyone starts acting like he does, he is not as fond of it as he thought. This is because, at his core, Bart Simpson wants to stand out, he wants to be noticed. In "Summer of 4 Ft. 2", when Bart sees Lisa trying to make new friends, he does a whole routine to get their attention, even sabotaging Lisa out of jealousy. It's very much in Bart's character that when attention is taken away from him, he doesn't always handle it well. This is why Bart constantly has to pull bigger and more destructive pranks, because the old cherry bomb in the toilet would get old, so to keep the attention on him, he has to do more outrageous things.

On my Tumblr, I put up a poll where I asked this question. Tumblr can be a fantastic place for communities and fandoms, but it is also a total hellhole of a website, plus the poll only got nineteen votes anyway so take it with a grain of salt. On the poll, I gave three options, "Absolutely" Bart is inherently cool, "Well... Kinda" Bart isn't cool, but has his moments, and "No, he's a dork", which should be self-explanatory. Out of the nineteen votes, the majority of voters, 47.4% of them, said "Well... Kinda", falling into the middle where Bart does have his moments of being cool, but overall isn't really a cool kid. 36.8% of voters thought that Bart is inherently cool, while a minority, 15.8% of voters, voted that Bart isn't cool, and he's a dork. To be absolutely clear, I don't vote in my own polls, largely because I want the results to surprise me, and I can't really say I'm surprised by these results. Even if I had one hundred votes, or even a thousand votes, I expect the results would be rather similar, with most people taking the middle ground, but a larger majority saying that Bart is cool. The irritating part of it is that I specifically put "(Explain)" in the options because I wanted to hear people's opinions, and there were only two comments that gave one sentence explanations, and I'm pretty sure one is a role-play blog.

So it's clear that a majority of people do, on some level, think that Bart is a cool kid, and I can see why. Remember, The Simpsons was a big part of the pop culture of the 1990s, so Bart encapsulated a lot of the clichés and stereotypes of disenfranchised youths. Bart was not afraid to disrespect authority, be it his principal, his father, or whoever he sets his mind on. However, I don't think that inherently makes anyone "Cool", being a rebel is not just how you respond to something, but how you stand for something. Bart will pull pranks, do graffiti, put cherry bombs in toilets, but when push comes to shove, he still goes to Church with his family, even though he openly dislikes it and thinks it's rubbish. What I'm saying is, I don't think Bart is actually cool at all, he very clearly does what he does for attention, not for any other reason. He may take a stand for something, sometimes, but more often than not, he's doing something solely for the attention he receives from it.

This may have changed in later seasons, I'm not exactly TheRealJims or The Simpsons Theory over here, but my view of the character is that, he only causes trouble because it gets him attention that he craves. Bart is very much the kind of person who would openly mock a pop-star one minute, and then become their biggest fan the minute they become cool to like. Bart may be a rebel, but he still follows a crowd because that is where the most eyes will be on him, and I don't think that is particularly cool. I think being "cool" is a lot about being true to yourself, but also standing for principles, and being willing to stick to those despite how much others try to beat you back into conformity. When people are mocking you for being Vegetarian, or are trying to force you back into Christianity when you left, and you stand by your principles to defy them, that is what I think is genuinely cool. What I'm saying is, I think Lisa is actually cooler than Bart is.

It's kind of ironic in a sense, Bart, the bad boy rebel who skateboards and disrespects authority is the uncool kid, while Lisa, the over achieving nerd who has few regular friends and spends most of her time alone is the actual cool one. However, that is only ironic on a superficial level, if it's ironic at all, look the word "Irony" is thrown around so much in analysis that it's kind of lost any meaning. Regardless, the point I'm making here is that Bart is really only cool on a surface level.

I think that saying Bart is a "Dork" is a bit much, like I wouldn't put him in the same league as Milhouse. That being said, Bart comes off as someone who is very conscious about his image, so he'll only try something new if others encourage it. Bart is someone who could very easily slip into that "loser" role, become someone who is washed up and desperate for attention. If we were to use an analogy, I see Bart as a YouTube channel that has millions of subscribers, but the content is just kind of bland and same-y, while Lisa is a more specialized niche channel that has large gaps between uploads, but the content is engaging and gets genuine engagement. In other words, Bart is a MrBeast while Lisa is a DefunctLand.

In some respects, I don't think this revelation is really that shocking, there are lots of moments where we get a glimpse behind the curtain of Bart. I think even the writers kind of pegged Bart as a follower in a rebel's jacket from the start, as seen in "The Telltale Head", where Bart almost proudly shows that he cut the head off the Jebediah Springfield Statue, until the bully trio start saying they're going to beat up the person that did it. It makes sense that Bart does things that he thinks will get him the most attention. Really, the idea that Bart is not as cool as he thinks he is, probably isn't that new of a concept, I mean his best friend is Milhouse of all people, the ultimate follower. It kind of says something when hanging out with Martin is an upgrade. I wouldn't go so far as to call Bart a "Poser", mostly because that word is like "Irony" in that it's been thrown around so much it's lost all meaning, but also because I do think Bart does genuinely enjoy the things he does, but it seems like that is more of a perk to doing them than anything else.

Bart Simpson is not a cool kid, that is the main argument I'm making, that is the opinion I am expressing. However, I think the main takeaway here is, Bart isn't uncool because of the things he does, he's uncool because he does things for essentially the wrong reasons. It kind of reminds me of when influencers or celebrities make a statement, there is a difference between Conrad Veidt mandating in his contracts that any Nazi he portrays has to be a villain, and Madonna making the "American Life" album, one is an actor making a demand that others have to follow because of something he believes in, the other is a musician who is making claims and statements to drum up attention and controversy to keep the spotlight on them for just a little bit longer. Bart Simpson is an attention seeking kid who does things predominately for the kind of attention he would get from it, and I don't think that makes him cool. Still, he's cooler than Milhouse, so that's got to be worth something, right?

The Simpsons Movie (2007) - A Good Movie with a Bit of a Deeper Side

 

Has there been a movie that you feel is underappreciated? Not a movie that is over-hated or obscure, I'm talking about movies that generally, people are positive towards, but not necessarily favourable. Like, you bring up the movie and people will go "Yeah, that was a good movie", but not much else. For me, The Simpsons Movie is that movie, that movie I think doesn't really get the admiration it deserves, which is weird don't you think? I mean, this movie is not something like Felidae, a risky and one of a kind animated movie, nor is it like Treasure Planet, a very expertly crafted movie that can be considered a masterpiece. The Simpsons Movie seems like it would fall more into the camp of movies like The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie or DuckTales: The Movie, good movies that are entertaining, but that's all they aspire to be, and there is nothing wrong with movies that just want to be solid entertainment, but to say The Simpsons Movie is one of the most underappreciated movies, is to imply that it is more than an entertaining romp with our favourite characters. It also helps that I've been watching a bunch of Simpsons episodes recently, strike the ADHD iron while it's hot, am I right?

The plot is not wholly different from a usual Simpsons episode, it starts with one plot and then veers into another entirely. As condensed as I can make it, The Simpsons Movie follows the Simpson family as another one of Homer's screw-ups puts Springfield under a dome, but they manage to escape. It's kind of like three Simpsons episodes put together, like the first part is Lisa's plot about the lake and Homer's plot about getting a pig, then the second part is the dome, and finally it's Alaska and the plan to blow up Springfield. Despite this, each bit flows into each other nicely, we can see the progression from point A to point B to point C. Homer gets the pig, needs to dispose of it's feces, and dumps it into the lake, which was established to be heavily polluted by Lisa's plot. This prompts EPA involvement which leads to the dome, and so on and so forth. However, this plot is not the stuff I want to talk about, it's fantastically done, but there is something deeper here.

The Simpsons Movie is about how far one man will go to protect the people he loves. That statement may sound wrong, after all this is Homer Simpson we're talking about, this is like saying Family Guy is about one man learning to love his family. However, Homer is not Peter Griffin, while both of their idiotic tendencies have been amplified over the years, there are lines Homer would never cross that Peter has. Peter is callous while Homer is just thick in the head, so it doesn't feel like a stretch to say that this movie is about him and the lengths he'll go to protect his family. Listen to his excuses when the angry mob is trying to kill him, his excuse is that he's afraid for his family, obviously a cover for his real fear, but it's interesting that his first excuse was to protect his family. Him blowing off Marge as she uses his own words against him, an awful thing absolutely, but think of it from his perspective, he and his family are safe, and now Marge wants to risk everyone's life for a town that tried to kill them. Homer also does ridiculous things like dog sled, and then walk, from Alaska to Springfield, or does the motorcycle ride up the dome, this is not a man who doesn't care. He is destroyed when Marge and the kids leave to save Springfield, and his epiphany vision has features them prominently.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that this is one of the deepest character dives in cinema history. I am however, going to say that this movie might have been hiding something in plain sight. I could easily see the writers pitching ideas for how Homer goes from Alaska to Springfield, and they could have done something really silly and jokey, like Homer dog sledding to an airport or a seaport, or even managing to hitchhike with some hilarious one-off character, but they went with something that wasn't as silly, which strikes me as interesting.

Beyond the plot, the movie is pretty solid. It's comedy is a bit... 2000s, but there are a lot of jokes and gags that do make me chuckle, to straight up roar with laughter. This movie was released between Seasons between 18 and 19, which is the era of Simpsons I grew up with, so if you're fond of this era of The Simpsons, I think there should be some bits here that you'll enjoy. These are still some of our favourite characters with some good writing. Admittedly, the satire stuff, like President Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Mr. Burns claiming "For once the rich white man is in charge", have aged a bit, and one gag about Fox advertising shows during movies, I mean in the era of Streaming, that joke feels like a relic of a by-gone era, but I think there are more jokes that are still fresh, than jokes that are aged and kind of groan worthy.

Animation wise, there are a couple flaws I noticed, like Lip-Syncing not matching with dialogue, some shots where characters look out of place, and some movement animation not being complete, but overall, they really aren't obvious. I swear anyone who says that "You need to study animation to appreciate it more" really has no clue what they're talking about, because I've become way more critical of animation since learning to animate. Barring these minor flubs, The Simpsons Movie doesn't really look all that much different from modern HD era Simpsons, maybe a little bit cleaner, like you can tell the difference at a glance, but it doesn't look too different. I think it looks great, minor flubs aside.

The amusing thing is, The Simpsons 2000s run, and even their modern run, are kind of getting second looks. People are going back to these seasons and going "You know, maybe our initial reaction was a bit harsh", yet people don't seem to be doing the same for The Simpsons Movie. I feel that is a bit unfair. I think the problem is it isn't completely a fun and wacky adventure with our favourite characters, but it also isn't something that is entirely deep and emotional, it's kind of an attempt to balance the two. I don't know if audiences would prefer it skew more towards one way or another. On the one hand, a wackier plot would be funnier, but it would be reminiscent of a standard episode like "Bart on the Road" or "Kill the Alligator and Run", whereas a more serious plot would let us care more for the characters, but would ultimately leave behind what The Simpsons is, it's a comedy, not a Drama.

I think there is a lot here to admire about this movie, it is still The Simpsons, the characters and humour are still here. Plus, given a plot that is both silly and character-driven, I really do think that you should take another look at this movie. With The Simpsons modern era getting some more appreciation recently, people may look at the movie as the bridge between classic era and Modern era Simpsons, I don't think it is, "Classic" and "Modern" are descriptors that change with time. I feel like The Simpsons Movie gets lost a little, and I think it should get another chance in the spotlight. I don't think it's on par with the best Simpsons episodes, but when you have highs such as "Cape Feare", "And Maggie Makes Three" or "Last Exit to Springfield", that is a pretty high bar to reach. I say, give it a watch, and let it stand on its own merits, and I think you'll find this movie is more than you may have initially thought of it.

Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie (2017) - An Admirable Attempt at Adapting an Adolescent Favourite

 

When I was a kid, one of my all time favourite book series was The Adventures of Captain Underpants. Not only was the childish humour appealing to me... as a child, but the way the book implemented unique features made them special. They were like, a cross between a children's book, a graphic novel and an activity book. It was up there with Encyclopedia Brown and Deltora Quest as one of my favourite book series. I imagine the same things appealed to a lot of people, because it really didn't surprise me that a Captain Underpants movie was to be released in the 2010s. Imagine the fourth-wall breaking and interactivity of the books implemented into a movie! Okay, that is a bit of high expectations, but I can imagine fans of the books were pretty excited for this, and the late 2010s were the perfect era to make this movie, with animation getting some more recognition, adaptations being the most dominant form of movie and DreamWorks being on their A-Game coming right off the release of The Boss Baby... Yeah. Anyway, with all that said, how is this adaptation of a childhood classic?

The story follows George Beard and Harold Hutchins, George is the one with he flattop and the tie and is voiced by Kevin Hart, while Harold is the one with the T-Shirt and the messy hair and is voiced by Thomas Middleditch. They're two elementary school students who like to pull pranks and make silly comic books about their superhero Captain Underpants. However, their principal, Mr. Krupp catches them pulling a prank and tries to break their friendship apart, by George uses a toy hypnotizing ring to keep Mr. Krupp from breaking the two friends, and in the processes, they turn him into Captain Underpants. While trying to keep him under some control, he ends up hiring the evil scientist Professor Poopypants as the new science teacher, who plans to remove everyone's ability to laugh. I know it may... sound difficult to take a plot like that seriously, but it was all from the book, or... books, yeah this is like The Adventures of Tintin where they adapt multiple stories into one movie, it is mostly adapting the fourth book, The Perilous Plot of Professor Poopypants, with a little bit of the second book Attack of the Talking Toilets, as an adaptation I'd put this in the Coraline camp, solid work, but some changes that don't sit right with me. Like, they add in a new character named Edith, who replaces the lunch ladies from the first three books and is Mr. Krupp's love interest, and they omit the bit where Professor Poopypants' home country has everyone named a ridiculous and stupid name. I mean, there are worse adaptations, but I feel like a direct adaptation of the books would have benefitted more.

That being said, character wise it's pretty spot on from what I remember. George and Harold had good chemistry, Melvin was as annoyingly stick in the mud as I remember him from the books, and Mr. Krupp was the joyless authoritarian principal who probably should have been let go ages ago as he normally is. I do feel like they changed George and Harold a bit, I remember them doing pranks on everybody, not just teachers, like they made other students plenty miserable in the books too. This might just be a change because these kind of rule-breaking miscreant bad kids are not really that enjoyed much anymore. I dunno, but we really don't see these kinds of characters in media now. Not that the movie does a bad job of George and Harold, honestly I think I'd rather have been a classmate of these two than their book counterparts. I think my only major nitpick is the voices, this movie falls into the problem that most animation has today, in that the kids have voices that sound almost adult, but most of the other voices are fine. Ed Helms as Mr. Krupp is almost perfect casting, though I imagined him sounding a lot more Gilbert Gottfried or Bobcat Goldthwait-y, though his voice as Captain Underpants was spot-on to how I always imagined it, and then there's Kristen Schaal, who actually doesn't do a typical Kristen Schaal performance, like I recognized her voice, but I did not immediately imagine Louie Belcher or Mabel Pines, so... that's neat.

I definitely have to give praise to this movie in the animation department, I feel like this was the start to the big stylization push that 3D animated movies have been getting recently, I mean after this we had Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse and The Bad Guys, so I believe this is, if not the start than at least where the push got rolling. The characters look like three-dimensional versions of the book characters. The animation was bright, colourful and fluid. On top of that, the way they implemented different styles, from simplistic 2D to a more hand-drawn looking 2D to using sock-puppets, it was pretty hilarious. Plus the use of the famous Flip-O-Rama from the books was a nice touch and some nice fourth-wall breaking. The animation is really the best part of this movie for me. Which is honestly kind of sad.

To be fair, this isn't a bad movie, and on the scale of movies I just wasn't that into I'd rank it higher than Charlotte's Web or Bambi, but it was just kind of another Coraline for me, in that it just wasn't really the books. Is it bad? No, and I can't even say I didn't like it. I did enjoy some aspects of it, the characters were pretty spot on, the acting was solid, the animation was great, but it just wasn't the books. I guess I shouldn't be too hard on it, the books were unique and a lot of that unique-ness couldn't really be translated into a movie. It was an admirable attempt, and it really isn't one of the worst DreamWorks movies out there. Do I recommend it? Um... yeah, yeah I think I do. On some level, I do think that this is one of those animated movies that is worth seeing, and can change your perspective on animation. Yeah, Captain Underpants is the movie that can help people respect animation. Well, this was one of the first stylized 3D animated movies, which let people realize you could break away from the typical style that most 3D movies were using, and it also is an adequate adaptation of a children's book, taking a ridiculous concept as seriously as one could expect. This is kind of what I thought that DC League of Super-Pets movie was gonna end up being, but at the end of the day, I don't know if I can really recommend it to that many people. Maybe you'll get more out of it than me.

Cheech & Chong's Animated Movie! (2013) - Not great, but it's pretty chill

 

April the twentieth, otherwise known as 4/20, is upon us. To me, the day is about spreading good vibes, a kind of pleasance and joy that don't normally come with other days. It's a day to just chill, or it would be if it wasn't on a Thursday this year... but I digress. To celebrate the stoner holiday, I figured I'd look at a stoner movie, the problem is, animation and stoner movies don't seem to be that common. I mean you can make cases for movies like Yellow Submarine, Alice in Wonderland or Spirited Away, but those movies aren't really the kind of stoner comedies as something like Dazed and Confused, Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, Pineapple Express or even Tenacious D In: The Pick of Destiny, thankfully, I happened across a copy of Cheech & Chong's Animated Movie, which is just perfect.

I'm only as familiar with Cheech and Chong as anyone else who grew up when they were icons, but never had any of their records or movies. So, I know of them but I'm not as familiar with them or their bits. Stoner comedy is a very different style of comedy to other kinds, and as such it can be a difficult genre to get into. It can range from slow and monotonous to bizarre and absurd, so I think the big question for this review is ultimately, is this good for Cheech & Chong fans and is it good for newcomers?

So this is where I would usually go into the plot, what the major events are and how the plot flows together. Just one problem with that, there really is not plot to this movie, sorta. It's all just a collection of classic Cheech & Chong sketches put to animation, and I mean that literally. I can't find any evidence to this, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was literally the skits from their records put to animation. Lots of their classic skits including Sister Mary Elephant, Dave, Ralph and Herbie, Let's Make a Dope Deal, Trippin' in Court, and Earache My Eye. It's funny, not the movie itself, I'll get to that in a bit, but the fact that there aren't too many animated sketch comedy films. Yes, we have movies that are package films, but those are typically movies they can chop up and air as segments on their own, I mean movies like Monty Python's The Meaning of Life or The Kentucky Fried Movie. We don't really have the movie version of Robot Chicken or MAD or anything like that. Actually a MAD movie might be interesting. We don't really have a lot of animated sketches loosely tied together with some central plot or theme. Oh yeah, the scenes that tie this movie together follow a genital crab trying to land in Tommy Chong's beard, yeah, raunchy and toilet comedy are going to be present a lot in this movie.

Guess that should be my segue into talking about the comedy. This is a Cheech & Chong movie after all. So, is this movie funny without the need for uh... comedy enhancing psychedellic smokable plants? Well... not really. A lot of the humour is very slow moving and I just kind of wanted them to get to the point faster, but after a while I did kinda get into the pace and flow of the movie. I dunno, if you dig slower kind of laid back humour, you might get into this movie. Then again, as stated before, there is quite a lot of toilet humour, well "humour" is the wrong word, unless you find the image of a dog's anus opening up to let a giant turd out to be funny. To be fair, some of the toilet humour was somewhat amusing, Cheech urinating on his car trunk yelling to the people inside of it is kind of funny, so I think most of the humour is going to depend on your tolerance for slow comedy and toilet humour. Again, this is not my style of humour, so I wasn't super into this, but I could dig the pacing and tone after a while.

All of the voices in this movie are done by Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong, and they do good work... I think? Again, I have a hunch that they may have just taken their old recordings and put them to animation. In the Sister Mary Elephant sketch, when the Sister Mary Elephant character yells, it sounds like somebody blowing out their headset mic on Audacity, not like professional recording. That being said, I wouldn't be shocked if they did redo their skits for this movie, since Cheech Marin has done plenty of voice work in the past, such as on Oliver & Company and The Lion King, while Tommy Chong did films like FernGully and Zootopia, plus the two did a bunch of comedy albums, plus the movie had a couple of people in the sound department, according to IMDb, so it could have been either. Either way, the vocal work is solid.

What isn't very solid is the animation itself. I'd usually go into issues with the animation with any other movie, but the issue with the animation here can be summarized in one sentence; It looks like a cheap Flash production. Characters look flat, everything is coloured with solid colours, light and shading is basic, and when characters are meant to move smoothly and have some flow to their movement, it looks really off because the rest of the animation looks stiff and cheap. I don't think anyone really wanted to make this movie look spectacular, I wouldn't be surprised if they aimed for something simple looking, but this looks like something you would see for free online, not a theatrically released animation. I feel like something like this might make someone's opinions of theatrical adult animation much less positive, which is totally not fair.

So, where do I rank Cheech & Chong's Animated Movie? It's... watchable, mostly harmless, but not essential viewing. If you have the comedy albums, I'd say listen to those instead, maybe watch Up In Smoke too, but it might be interesting as a curiosity viewing. I think movies that you need to watch stoned off your butt to enjoy kind of miss the point entirely, like yes, they're funny when you're too high to remember you have hands, but they also should be funny when you're sober. That being said, I didn't have an awful time with this movie, and I did feel the vibe after a while. I'd imagine this as a decent film to put on in the background and chill. This is a very different style of movie than I am used to reviewing, so I'm glad I saw it, but I don't think I'd choose to watch it again. This movie fits very nicely in the "Slight Recommendation" category of movies. Hope you have a happy, SAFE and RESPONSIBLE 4/20 everyone.

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.

Avatar (2009) - An amazingly investing and amazingly boring movie

 

Continuing on with the Special Effects movie marathon, one of the biggest movies released in my lifetime. I remember when Avatar came out, everyone went mad over it, it was the Jurassic Park of the 2000s, one of the greatest movies ever made, and the highest grossing movie of the year, decade, and of all time before it was overtaken by Avengers: Endgame. It was a movie everybody saw, except for me. I never saw this movie until I decided to do this marathon for my blog. I never really had the desire to see this movie, so after about thirteen years after its initial release, what are my thoughts on it?

The plot is fairly standard. Ex-Marine Jake Sully is sent to the alien planet of Pandora, in an effort to study the native inhabitants and find a way to make them leave so they can mine gold... no wait that was Pocahontas... Uh it was... kill all of them to expand their city... No that was Wolfwalkers... right it was to mine Unobtanium, wow that name is spectacularly terrible. Anyway, Jake enters in an "Avatar" essentially a meat puppet he controls, and learns the ways of the Na'vi people. Of course the plot has to happen so there's gonna be conflict and you know how these stories go, the liar revealed, the war between the two people, there's not a whole lot special here. Honestly, the plot is kind of mixed for me. On the one hand, I really love watching Sully learn the ways of the Na'vi, I like seeing his video diaries about what it's like learning their ways and experiencing their culture. It goes back to what I said about The Three Caballeros movie, it is way more interesting learning about these cultures than it is just seeing them. On the other hand, the rest of the movie is pretty much a standard boring action flick. It's got all the stuff you would expect, it even has that one type of sequence I despise in movies. You know the ones, it's the sequence of shots that are slow motion of battle scenes, explosions, people caught in explosions, people getting gunned down, and this dramatic orchestral music comes in, sometimes they have a dramatic singer as well, I effectively dub these the "War is Hell Sequence", but I don't know if they are called anything else. It's just cheap emotional manipulation. I was interested in the first half, but after the military stuff came back into the picture, I just lost a lot of interest. In fact I think I was withdrawing interest from the bits I liked, because I knew that the stuff I wasn't going to like was coming. Is that a thing that people can do?

Character wise, I mean, you don't have a very unique selection, but they're palatable. Jake Sully is your typical kind of protagonist, not really too much special about him, other than the fact that he's in a wheelchair, which I guess is kind of cool. You also have the Colonel, Miles Quaritch, and yes, I did have to look up his name. As soon as he appeared on screen my immediate thought was "Oh, he's the bad guy, the General Rourke." He even kind of looks like Rourke, doesn't he? The rest of the cast are.. fine. They do the jobs they are required, the actors give fine performances, I just don't think I could tell you anything about them off the top of my head. It's a shame because Sigourney Weaver is one of my favourite actors, and she stars in Alien, one of my all-time favourite movies. I was interested in the world they set-up, but I was not as invested in the characters, I think that is the best way I can put it.

The visual effects are spectacular, too much. The visuals are beautiful, and I can imagine seeing this in IMAX in a dark room, if I did see this movie back in 2009, I probably would have loved it. The thing is though, and this is going to sound absolutely weird, but I feel like this movie should have been entirely animated. Now I am not the kind of person who says that in most cases, Marvel movies, totally fine with them being live-action, Disney live action remakes, I mean we already have animated versions of them so who cares? Other kinds of special effects movies, perfectly fine with them being partially animated. It's just that in this case, you have all these amazing looking animal and plant designs, and you put them right next to realistic looking settings and real actors, they just don't look real. Like, imagine if this movie was completely animated, wouldn't the designs mesh better in the settings they created? If it was fully animated, I genuinely believe that this could have been the movie that made animation the respected medium it deserves to be. I mean this movie made 3D films much more popular, why could it not have done the same for animation?

Honestly, I really, really wanted to like this movie. But the boring second half, the bland characters and the amazing effects that really made me wish this movie was fully animated, just really keep me from enjoying it as much as everyone else has. Maybe though, I am enjoying it as much as everyone else. Like, for a little while I kept hearing of Avatar, but around the mid to late 2010s I heard not a peep about this movie, the only Avatar that mattered to everybody was The Last Airbender, in fact the most I heard of it was when Avengers: Endgame was released and I saw people on Twitter talking about how it would soon overtake Avatar. It really does seem like this movie was big for its time, but left no impact, but then again there is that upcoming sequel slated for release this year. I am curious, because I am interested in seeing how the world building will improve and if the characters will become a bit more defined. I can't say I really like this film, but I can respect what it tried to accomplish. On top of that, I totally get why everyone went nuts over it, it is a big movie, in the sense that it just feels like an event. So, now the question is if I recommend it and... on one hand I can, I do think this is a movie you should watch at least once, even if it doesn't sound up your alley. On the other hand, it is hard for me to really say it's a must see. I guess the caveat though is that you probably already have seen it. If not, I do give this a slight recommendation, if only to form your own opinion.

First Impressions: The Bob's Burgers Movie (2022)

You know Disney, you are on pretty thin ice.

Okay that comes off as a bit harsh to the movie, so I do want to clarify I did enjoy The Bob's Burgers Movie. I thought it was decently entertaining and if you like the show you will probably like this movie fine enough. I will say, the mystery element of the movie was kind of meh, not that it wasn't entertaining to watch, it was actually my favourite part of the movie, but I think I'm just kind of tired of red herrings. To be fair the rest of the movie had some decently entertaining bits, I liked when Bob, Linda and Teddy were selling burgers at the pier, so overall I do think this is a solid movie.

It's just that going in, I had no idea what to expect, and this is not because I haven't binge watched all of Bob's Burgers, it's because the marketing was absolutely dreadful. The trailers barely showed any of the plot, and I only learned what the main plot of the movie was with the second trailer. Yeah, the key detail that Bob and Linda are gonna have their restaurant equipment foreclosed on was not revealed in the first trailer. In fact, I don't even know what the first trailer revealed, outside of the fact that there was gonna be a massive hole? Oh and another thing that both of the trailers failed to mention was that this movie is a musical. Yeah, this movie is a musical, and none of the trailers that I saw shared that little bit of information.

I really don't want to make this another Buck Wilde blog, but the marketing for this movie absolutely baffles me, with some fairly useless trailers, it really does seem like whoever was in charge of marketing this movie had no idea what to do, as if a musical mystery based off of a popular show is difficult to market. Maybe fans of Bob's Burgers wouldn't expect a musical, but then the question becomes why are you making this a musical? If you're making a movie off of an existing property and you can't sell it to fans of said property, you may want to go back to the drawing board.

But that is just marketing, as I said the movie itself is solid. It is a musical mystery comedy, and again if you are a fan of the show, you might enjoy this movie. Yeah this was a fairly short first impressions. I don't really have that much to say about this movie, if you're absolutely lost from the trailers, consider this free advertisement, and I genuinely mean free I don't even get ad revenue doing these, it's pretty much just a hobby at this point. I guess I can give this a solid recommendation, even if I'm probably not going to put this high on my favourite films of the year list, I still had a good time watching it, and who knows, I may even watch it again when it comes to Disney+. So yeah, I do recommend it, and be sure to tell Disney that the trailers where awful.

First Impressions: The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild (2022)

Disney... We need to talk.

Look, I get it, movies get scrapped for a variety of reasons, it sucks but I can overlook the canning of Nimona if something super spectacular comes along to take its place. In Nimona's place, you gave us Raya and the Last Dragon, a movie that is just fine, and nothing else. You gave us Cruella, which did not need to exist. You gave us Encanto, which almost makes up for Nimona, but then you bring a Blue Sky property back to life for... why? Why are you bringing back Ice Age? Nobody is clamoring for the return of this franchise, because the franchise started going downhill with the second movie.

On principle I don't want to watch this, because let's look at the facts. Fact number one, Disney acquired Blue Sky during the Fox acquisition. Fact two, Disney closed down Blue Sky in 2021. Fact three; Blue Sky was working on an adaptation of the graphic novel "Nimona", which a lot of people were anticipating. Fact four; Disney decided to scrap the Nimona project, along with a bunch of other promising projects that Blue Sky was working on. Fact Five; The next thing we see from a Blue Sky property is a sequel to an Ice Age movie that goes directly to Disney+ in January. The facts show that Disney cut a movie that a lot of people were anticipating and gave us a movie for a franchise a lot of people wanted to stay dead. If I wasn't giving the benefit of the doubt, I would assume that Disney only greenlit this movie as a show, to say "See, we do care about this studio and their franchises", despite giving us a garbage movie and saying "well clearly you guys don't care about the franchises, I mean look at the viewer results".

I'm giving Disney the benefit of the doubt here, despite the fact that I highly doubt they've actually earned it. Companies operate on how much money a product could make, but I have doubts that Ice Age would make more money than a movie that a lot of people were vocally excited about. I can only assume Disney either did not know about the hype surrounding Nimona, or they were aware of the hype but were afraid of pissing off some bigoted market, and let's just say, Disney is no stranger to editing movies for said bigoted countries.

Oh and let's talk about other movies that Disney is planning on releasing, like that Snow White remake that Peter Dinklage has called out for dwarfism, and also could be a movie with the Snow White tag on it. Disney's also releasing another Rio movie, that'll be fun to talk about. Oh yeah, and Turning Red is gonna be Pixar's next movie to go directly to streaming. Which leaves me wondering if Pixar is gonna be the next Blue Sky and we're gonna get a Toy Story 5 out of it, but let's not dwell on that topic anymore. Disney has been making a lot of bad decisions, and the new Ice Age and Rio movies might just be the worst of them. Well, of their recent decisions, I mean their messing up of Copyright Law and the hiring of Eisner and Katzenburg might have been worse than this one, but that is talking with the added benefit of hindsight.

Why was all of that important? Because, screw Disney!

As a huge Disney fan, I can say without any hesitation, screw Disney, and I'm keeping it there because I do want to keep my swearing to a minimum with this blog. Disney represents the very worst of the entertainment industry, at least the entertainment industry that doesn't include video games, but we'll see which company they end up acquiring. Disney is devoid of creativity, almost discouraging creativity, does not listen to their audiences, and aren't even very good at pandering or virtue signaling. Disney makes great products, on occasion. I wasn't kidding when I said Encanto was Disney's best film in years, and it sadly might be Disney's best film for another few years. Disney has and can give us a lot of the best stuff, while representing the worst of it all. That is why I can say, screw Disney.

And screw this movie too, it's dull and boring and unfunny. No disrespect to the people who worked on it, but it really does feel like a TV show that was retooled into a movie, something Disney has a shocking amount of knowledge about. Did Michael Eisner really leave Disney? Because this seems like something he would suggest. It has all the failings of a movie that was meant to be a TV series, because this movie was meant to be a TV series. Quite frankly, I'd say don't watch this movie on principle, but it's not even worth breaking those principles for, and quite frankly, I think I should be paid to watch movies like this. Screw Disney, don't watch this movie.

Raggedy Ann and Andy: A Musical Adventure (1977) - Weird, bizarre, over-stimulating... and one of a kind.

I'll be honest, for the most part I try to avoid reviewing movies I don't actually own copies of, there are exceptions of course, but generally if a blog has the "Review" tag, that typically means I own a copy. I can really only think of two instances where I decided to review something despite not owning a physical release of the movie. The first was "Duck Duck Goose" which was a Netflix original and then there was "The Thief and the Cobbler: Recobbled Cut", which I don't think has a physical release. Well, I am going to add another film onto that list, and what a coincidence that I mention The Thief and the Cobbler because this movie was also directed by Richard Williams.

I think Richard Williams is in that grey zone where people know him and his work, but he isn't a big name like Chuck Jones, Hayao Miyazaki or even Ub Iwerks. He's done a lot of fantastic stuff and I really think all of his work is worth checking out just for the animation alone. However, I do have to look beyond the animation and see if the movies have more to offer, so, for no real reason whatsoever, I just felt like it, let's take a look at the 1977 box office flop that is Raggedy Ann and Andy: A Musical Adventure.

In a small room lives a group of dolls, which include Raggedy Ann and her brother Andy, owned by a young girl named Marcella. One day, Marcella's birthday, she gets a new doll from Paris named Babette. Unfortunately, one of the denizens of Marcella's playroom, a pirate in a snow globe named The Captain, kidnaps the French doll and Ann and Andy have to rescue her, coming across bizarre and nonsensical locations and characters along the way. So yeah, this is a pretty typical animated adventure flick, and much like Yellow Submarine, it's more focused on the locations than the plot. That being said, the plot is... not exactly very clean. They kind of just randomly appear in locations, literally one character pops out and chases them into a different place, and after that we find the Captain's ship and see that Babette is now the captain and... I guess in the long run it isn't a messy plot, it is easy enough to follow and is, at its core, easy enough to understand. I guess I'll give it a C grade for plot.

Animation wise, well it's a Richard Williams production, the animation is wonderful. Now, I watched a 35mm Film transfer from YouTube, so the quality may have been affected by that. That being said though, the animation is energetic, fluid and smooth. Raggedy Andy's movements during his song number, when he is twisting himself all over was almost hypnotic to watch, and The Greedy is just beautifully animated, always morphing and melting. In fact, the animation may be too energetic. There is always something moving and it can be a bit over-stimulating. There are times when it does slow down and keep everything subdued, but lots of the song sequences and The Greedys scene have lots of movements and while it kept me interested, it was also really exhausting. It's all amazing animation, but it really can be overstimulating.

The audio can be overstimulating too. Looney Land especially is over-stimulating to the nth degree. Everything is laughing, so many sounds play out and the music is going, and it gets too much too fast. In fact, most of the audio in this movie is mixed. On the one hand, it does have some nice songs, "No Girl's Toy" is fun and a lot of people seem to like "Blue" and "Rag Dolly", which aren't bad, but this movie has the same problem, the exact same problem as the Steven Universe movie and Arlo the Alligator Boy. Too many songs that aren't spaced out enough. At least the songs aren't too bad, though a lot of them are very unnecessary. It also doesn't help that the singing voices aren't always great. While Mark Baker does an excellent job as Raggedy Andy, a performance that lots of viewers have literally fallen in love with, Didi Conn's Raggedy Ann is... Well, she can't exactly hit a lot of the notes the songs require her to hit, which is probably why people remember "Rag Dolly" over her first song "What Do I See?".

The characters are for the most part, very simple. I don't know if that is really a criticism or not because most of these characters are not really major, The Greedy is gross and a big eater, the Camel with Wrinkled Knees is lonely and miserable, Leonard Looney is unforgivingly annoying, Looney Land's King is small and angry, no character really gets a lot of... well character. Even our leads, Raggedy Ann and Andy have rather basic character. They weren't completely boring to watch, they weren't ever unengaging, so for characters I'd give this movie half marks.

In fact, I'd say this movie as a whole deserves half-marks. It's not paced very well, its plot isn't very fleshed out, the songs are too numerous and too inconsistent in quality, the animation and audio can be over stimulating, the characters aren't very complex... But this movie is one of a kind.

I know I brought up Yellow Submarine, which I do think is a better movie, but Yellow Submarine did not have this level of animation, this level of bizarre stuff happening, this level of "I don't even know what to describe". It's like Yellow Submarine dialed up to twelve. So, on some level I can recommend this movie and can even see people enjoying it. It's definitely one of a kind, and worth seeing at least once. That being said, it still has plenty of problems that can make watching it a more negative experience, so if the problems sound too much for you, I don't think you're going to miss a whole lot. So I can't fully recommend it, but I thankfully have a rating for films like this. I think this may actually be the perfect example of a "Slight Recommendation".

Once Upon a Forest (1993) - The best of garbage, which is still not good.

1993 was a very... odd time for animated movies. What were the most well known releases this year? Well there were movies like Batman: mask of the Phantasm and The Nightmare Before Christmas, but there was also Dragon Ball Z: Bojack Unbound, The Thief and the Cobbler, We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story, I think it says something that most of the releases this year that people might be fond of were Japanese films like Sailor Moon R and Yu Yu Hakusho: The Movie. I mean, does anybody remember David Copperfield or Once Upon a Forest?

This is another one of those environmental awareness movies, like the previously reviewed FernGully: The Last Rainforest. Between the two of them, I think this movie is better, if only because I didn't feel completely preached at, but this movie still wasn't "good".

During an excursion with their teacher, four young forest animals find their forest home was destroyed by a toxic gas. After one of them gets deathly sick, the others have to find another meadow to gather some herbs, and they have to find them and return within a set time before their friend expires. Along the way, they meet incredible obstacles, strange situations and a gospel choir that makes me feel more uncomfortable than I did watching Dumbo... I'm going to chalk it up to Dumbo not having Timothy Mouse talk at the crows in their slang.

It's a basic adventure movie really. The characters move from one location to the next and deal with whatever obstacle is there. I really shouldn't be to hard on movies using this plot, it's been a standard for a long time, I mean The Divine Comedy is a classic example. The appeal of this kind of adventure story for writers is easy to understand, it can allow for interesting obstacles that the characters must stand up against, can lead to interesting locations and can lead to some good character interactions. Done right, you can get a movie like Kubo and the Two Strings or The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. Of course the downside is that if you do this story type poorly, you can end up with a story where the situations and locations are more interesting than the characters. Yellow Submarine worked because the locations were bizarre and literally otherworldly, and the Beavis and Butt-Head movie worked because of the characters complete lack of understanding of what was going on.

Speaking on characters, you don't have a bad selection, just not a very interesting one. You got your headstrong tough character who does first and thinks later, you have your smart and timid but heartful nerd, and you have the big eater dum-dum. You can tell which character arcs they're gonna get, one has to learn to not lead others into danger, one has to learn to stand up for themselves and one has to have their genius idea that proves they're not an idiot. I wouldn't say the characters are awful, but much like the plot, they're really nothing special.

As an aside, it is really hard to separate modern views on subjects like this. On the one hand, I can't be too hard on movies that keep to the formula because, well there is always the chance that this will be the first time someone sees this kind of story. This is a kids movie, so simple formulas are not too unwelcome. However, it really is hard to not notice when this is getting repeated, and unless you really like this kind of thing, you're going to want to see new twists on the formula. This was a big problem I had with Klaus, which, while still a good movie, had a very formulaic plot that I could see where it was going before it got there. Whether or not this thing bothers you... well it depends on you more than anything else.

As for the technicals of this movie, the best I can say is that they're mixed. The animation is, mostly good. There were some moments that didn't sit right with me, but rather than try to explain it, I'll just say that, I can understand if someone thinks the animation is good or bad. It does look appealing, not visually stunning, but I can look at it and see that some talent was put into it. There weren't any moments that looked ugly, super bright or visually unpleasing. I can give it a pass for the animation.

Music wise, on the other hand is... a half mark. This is another example of a "pseudo-musical", a movie that only qualifies as a musical because it has more than one song in it, but no more than three. The two songs in this movie were... not good. The first song is sung by Michael Crawford, so, take that for what it's worth. Honestly I can't really decide if I disliked the song or if I just thought it was bland, and the other song was part of that scene with the gospel birds. Thankfully the background music was not too bad, but it wasn't very memorable either. I think the technicals are another aspect of this movie that are nothing special.

Really, "nothing special" perfectly summarizes the movie. The animation isn't terrible, the music isn't unlistenable, the characters aren't awful and the plot isn't a mess, but it's all nothing special. It's a harmless watch, I can see someone watching this with their kids and not hating it, or even as a morbid curiosity viewing. It's harmless, but nothing special. Even for kids, I can recommend something like Smallfoot, which is also rather safe but still offers a bit more than this movie. While I can see people watching this movie, I can't see anyone really loving it, so I can't really recommend this movie. It's better than FernGully, but that really isn't saying a whole lot.

Ferngully: The Last Rainforest (1992) - A bland and preachy slog to sit through.

Okay so, I took a couple weeks off, I have tried to write a review for a different movie but that movie was really, really annoying to sit through. I wanted to take a bit of time off to relax and enjoy the utter boiling heat my city is dealing with currently, in that time I did an animation experiment but what is important right now is that I'm back, and my movie of choice to return with is the nineties mega preach-fest before Pocahontas. FernGully: The Last Rainforest.

The Nineties were a mixed time for animation. There was a lot of good, definitely, and you don't need me to explain it all. Disney renaissance, boon of adult animation, lessened censors, CG, Anime in the west, Internet animation, the works. However, the nineties were full of issues as well, like when people thought they could make a profit by ripping off Disney, or the shows made with excessive gross-out content, or the rise in popularity of Klasky-Csupo, whose art style I am not a fan of. I mention all of this because FernGully is, in my opinion, one of the worst animated products that came out in the nineties, and this movie came out in 1992.

The plot of the movie centers around a fairy named Crysta who lives in FernGully. One day she happens across a human deforestation project and shrinks one of the people named Zak to learn more about the Human people. However, the evil pollution being Hexxus has been freed by the people and the fairies and Zak must ban together to save the rainforest and this movie is a preachy and boring slog. Yeah, plotwise it is pretty solid, I have no questions about how things ended up going the way they did, but that is not the problem with the plot. The problem is that is spends too much time showing off the majesty and wonder of the rainforest. Yes, it does give Zak and Crysta time to develop their relationship, but less time is focused on Crysta asking Zak to feel the pain of the trees and more time is focused on them swimming through a sparkly cavern. A lot of this stuff is just filler and could have been cut to make way for other and more important things.

Take Smallfoot for an example, I did not like that movie either, but when the human was introduced tot he non-human world, the Yetis were curious about him and the movie spent some time showing the Yeti folk learn about the human. Another example would be Monsters, Inc. and its human character Boo. When Boo gets introduced to the monster world, the monster world is afraid of her, but there is a scene in the movie where Sully learns a little about Boo and grows some attachment to her. Here, we don't really get either of those scenarios, the Fairies don't really want to learn about Zak, nor are they running from him. I realize both of those movies are more recent than this, but at the same time, it is a strike against this movie as well. When something has been done better, there is less of a reason to see what is not, and when Monsters, Inc. did the concept of "Human enters non-human world" better, than why should we watch FernGully?

Character-wise this movie is weak. Zak is the nineties, he is just the nineties. There is legitimately a moment when he says "Don't have a cow". Crysta is bland, she is the typical optimistic, hopeful and curious character we've seen a bunch of times. Pips is also uninteresting, and the rest of the characters... don't really have any. Even Hexxus, the main villain, we do not get any kind of characteristic outside of "Ee-vill", and Batty is just, Robin Williams. I love Robin Williams, but this is almost the same kind of character we would eventually see in Aladdin, the comic relief with all of the references and... it was amusing at points but at the end of it all I would have just preferred to watch Aladdin.

Now we get to the animation and honestly, I wasn't impressed. Full admission here, but I watched this movie on VHS so the quality probably was not the best in the world. However, even then I watched a bunch of other movies on VHS and found them to be absolutely beautiful, Prince of Egypt, Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, heck even Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Same format, all looked amazing. I guess if I did see this movie on Blu-Ray I'd be more forgiving, but if I can not enjoy something on less than the best experience, than why should I bother?

The movie really should look more amazing, since the colour palette is actually pretty good. When the scene is lush and lively, the palette is green. When it is rough and dying, it's brown. When it's surreal and other-worldly it's blue-ish black and sparkly. I guess in the end the animation is okay, a couple flaws here and there but nothing that makes it suffer, though I did feel that when the movie incorporated CG (I think it was CG anyway), it looked pretty bad. I would not say it was the worst I have ever seen, but it did not sit right with me.

I guess I also have to mention the audio of this movie. Audio is tough because, backing scores are very rarely noticed by me. The good ones do not stick out all that much from the lesser ones, and only the truly amazing or truly terrible will stand out. I personally did not notice background music, I don't even remember if there was background music, unless it was the segue into a song sequence.

As for the songs, I felt they were all really short. I guess leave them wanting more and all, but most of this movie is showing off the majesty of the rainforest and you could not spare an extra minute for the songs? Or at least make them more grand and epic. A lot of people really like Tim Curry's "Toxic Love" but I felt like it could have been more. The song is four and a half minutes long, but feels like it is less. One of my favourite songs in an animated movie is Beauty and the Beast's "Be Our Guest", and while that song is shorter, clocking in at three minutes, forty-four seconds, it builds on itself, it's full of life, even with just the audio, and it ends up being the massive song. So the songs could have been bigger or at least been catchier.

This movie was kind of an agonizing slog to get through. I was not even five minutes into the film before I felt like I was being preached at, characters were uninteresting, and the movie liked to drag on and on by showing the beauty of the rainforest. I hated this movie, I never wanted to quit watching a movie so much before, it was that boring. I get that some people have a connection with this movie, and I guess at the end of the day I'd rather kids watch this movie than watch a movie like Duck Duck Goose, but that is not an especially high standard. To anyone that likes this movie, I do apologize, but I full on hated this movie, so to anyone else, I have to give it my lowest rating.