Movie Review: Dinosaur Adventure - The WORST Animated Feature Ever

So, you might have noticed I'm not doing a lot of Movie Reviews this year. Basically, I've found that I enjoy writing editorials more and they get more views so I decided to step away and take a break from movie reviews. Really, it's a good thing though because after a hundred reviews you kind of start to run out of ways to say things like "This animation is Bad" or "These characters aren't interesting", so really editorials are just easier to write as well. I mean, is there any kind of animation that is so abysmal, so poorly-constructed, so infamous that it could not only reinvigorate my need to be a critic, but also offend me on such a deep level that I can actually be pissed off at what is ultimately an inoffensive and mostly harmless movie? I mean, what kind of movie would exist that is both harmless and completely offensive? It would have to be something so cheap, so poorly made, so transparently blatant that I would have no choice but to review it, but a movie like that could never exist right? Every one who works in any artistic field has to have some amount of love and passion for what they do, even if it doesn't always end up with a good product. Anyway, this is my review of the Dingo Pictures movie Dinosaur Adventure.

And yes this movie qualifies for a review, it's a "technically" review since the movie is under an hour, but over forty minutes.

This is usually where I would recount the plot. So, a young dinosaur hatchling is forced to go to a dinosaur class where they learn that a volcano is about to erupt and destroy their homeland. Nobody believes the teacher, and then the volcano erupts and destroys their homeland, so the last half of the movie is the dinosaur hatchling, their teacher and another friend looking for dinosaur survivors, including the hatchling's parents. Pretty basic plot right? It is, and you know what else it is? So very ungodly boring. Like I was watching this movie with a friend, and I was zoning out so many times because the movie was just so boring, not that it does any good to zone out because by my friend's words, the movie is full of the characters standing around and doing nothing but talking, very little is shown to progress the plot, everything has to be explained verbally. If you are not paying any attention, or you don't have any audio because you're watching this over a Discord call, you might miss some information. Granted most of the information is absolute filler, but you might miss something.

Of course, you may also miss something because of the awful audio mixing and voice acting. I have heard awful voice acting before, but Dingo Pictures productions really take the cake. It really does sound like they pulled random people out of their offices, gave them one take to record something and didn't bother giving them any directions. It also hurts a lot that a lot of the actors speak so softly that they are almost whispering sometimes, it is not too bad in this movie, Animal Soccer World is far worse in that regard because the voice tracks absolutely get drowned out by the music track in that one, but second worst is not that much better. Speaking of Animal Soccer World, the music is lifted right out of that animation. I bet they reuse that music in other productions too, because why bother getting a cheap keyboard at a second-hand store and futzing about on it?

I will give the movie this over Animal Soccer World, it looks somewhat, maybe even partially better. The animation is horrible, some characters look traced from other properties (Cough, The Land Before Time, Cough), some character designs are just absolutely baffling, lip-sync is almost non-existent, There is a scene with a realistic dinosaur skeleton just photoshopped into the environment, movement is stilted, and sometimes the characters heads just vibrate because... animating laughter is hard. However, everything in this movie mostly looks like it belongs, you're not going to get a dalmatian and a jungle panther standing next to a duck biker gang for instance. Still, that may be a knock against this movie because it is absolutely nothing special to look at, like most of the scenes are filled with nothing and are completely barren to look at. Animal Soccer World at least, I can't believe I'm writing this, retained some interest, even if that interest was just by wondering what could be stranger than an anthropomorphic bird in a trench coat or cheerleader pigs.

I mean, you knew all this right? This movie and company are notorious thanks largely to memes. They are worse than Golden Films, WowNow Entertainment, The Asylum, arguably even worse than Vídeo Brinquedo. Is that really fair though? It's not like they're making anything that is genuinely harmful or offensive, they just make cheap kids movies right? Wrong, they make cheap, soulless, transparent cash grab kids movies. I'm fairly certain showing this movie to children counts as child abuse and a violation of the Geneva Convention, and I'm not even being facetious when I say that because watching this movie was torture. I Have never had such an unpleasant movie viewing experience in a long time, and the fact that this movie is just a transparent attempt to swindle people into buying a movie because it looks like another movie, or has something that kids might like on the cover. That is what offends me, that they could not even pretend to care about the movie they were making.

I have said it before that I have less respect for those kind of "-Lite" knock-offs, you know movies like The Swan Princess or Quest for Camelot, movies which are very clearly knock-offs but they have a budget and are released theatrically. I said that I have less respect for those movies than direct-to-video mockbusters, largely it is an elitism thing, I think that there is more meaning and prestige to a movie that gets released theatrically and putting a prettied up mockbuster in theatres is just kind a waste. The truth is I don't really have respect for either, but direct-to-video releases are easier to ignore. Still, I think this might be the least respectable movie I've ever seen, it is also the least good, least entertaining and least redeemable movie I have ever seen. The mere existence of this movie offends me, which is not something I can say about The Misty Green Sky, yes, this movie is worse than The Misty Green Sky. At least that movie had ambition, ideas, I'd even argue passion. Do I even need to say it? This movie gets the rating of "AVOID".

And I didn't even watch the Italian version with the "Yee" meme, I watched the English dub!

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.

Franklin and the Turtle Lake Treasure (2006) - A Wonderful and Respectable Adventure For Young Kids

 

Hey, It's Franklin! Yeah, I wanted to do something else that was relatively easy to review because, movie review last week, but I'm getting back on schedule, as a bonus for me it's another movie based on a property for preschoolers. I remember watching Franklin growing up, if I remember correctly I even had a Build-a-Bear turtle that I named Franklin, I think I preferred Franklin over Little Bear as a kid, but I don't actually remember too much about it now, I remember some episodes, but I think Little Bear just kind of stayed with me longer. To be fair though, Franklin had the better theme song, sung by Canadian icon, Bruce Cockburn (pronounced KOH-burn). Anyway, I wanted something familiar to review this week, so I chose Franklin, and as another bonus, this movie is available on YouTube via the officialfranklin YouTube channel and the Treehouse Direct YouTube channel.

Franklin finds his Aunt Lucy has returned to Woodland, and brought her Goddaughter, Sam along. Wanting a real adventure before the summer ends, Franklin and Sam are given an old map drawn by Franklin's Grandmother that lead to a small time capsule she buried when she was a kid. Seeing the old map causes her to remember a tragic event in her childhood. When she later falls ill, Franklin, Sam, Aunt Lucy and his friends Beaver, Bear and Snail, travel to Turtle Lake to find the time capsule, and the talisman that was inside of it. I really have to respect this movie a lot, beyond the fact that the plot is well structured with few diversions from the main plot, and even then they keep in the spirit of the theme so they aren't that big. The fact that the story does go to such a dark place, it does not hide the fact that Franklin's Great Grandparents didn't make it out of the fire. I admired The Little Bear Movie because it did not shy away from the dangers the characters could face on their journey, and similar can be said about this movie.

I feel like I should talk about things like this because, animation has a reputation amongst certain audiences as solely being for kids, unless it specifically goes out of its way to be raunchy and violent, and that does lead to a certain kind of image. I've ranted about this in the past, movies like Mummies, UglyDolls, Robinson Crusoe, Open Season, movies that are just uninterested in being anything other safe entertainment for children, stuff that doesn't stick with them as they grow up. Now, I'm not saying we should be letting children watch Felidae or anything, but there are plenty of kids movies that take risks, that go into darker places, and it always irritates me when a movie like Open Season or UglyDolls is made, because here is a movie for the same, arguably a younger demographic, and it takes more risks, it makes children experience harsher emotions, possibly more confusing ones. If Franklin the Turtle can take more risks and go darker places than your kids movie, you better hope that movie has some other strength to it, because that is frankly embarrassing.

The characters are charming, Franklin, Bear, Sam, they feel like genuine kids, and they have problems like kids too. Bear has a moment where he feels Franklin is putting someone else over their friendship, and it comes from an understandable place. I also like all the odd characters they meet, they all have their charm and even some kind of magic to them. If you are familiar with the old cartoon, I don't believe there is much difference between the characterizations. Also, Snail is just really adorable. What I can also praise this movie for is the animation. I'll be honest, I do like it when an animation style is polished for a movie, and the movie just has a warm and visually pleasing look to it. The only downside is that both official YouTube uploads are locked at low quality rates, with the Treehouse Direct upload only being 480p. So I would recommend finding this movie on DVD if possible, but if you don't mind 480p YouTube quality, the movie still looks good, just not as good as it could look.

I really was surprised by Franklin and the Turtle Lake Treasure when I first watched it, I love watching movies like this because they really do shoot the whole idea that these movies have nothing good for anyone after a certain age in the foot. Sure, kids will absolutely love the adventure and the pretty visuals, but I feel grown ups will have an appreciation for the story, the character moments, the theme, and the artistry. It really is one of those movies that I believe children that grow up watching will have an appreciation for animation afterwards. Put it up there with The Little Bear Movie and Blue's Big Musical Movie as something perfect to show really young kids. I would probably put this under Blue's Clues, but above Little Bear. All in all, Franklin and the Turtle Lake Treasure is a wonderful movie for kids, and I absolutely recommend it for kids and parents.

Garfield Gets Real (2007) - A Lousy Attempt to Bring the Comics to Life

 

So, I've been on a Garfield kick right now, not sure if that's really a surprise. I remember reading those comics as a kid, we used to have a set of those rectangular books full of the comic strips, there was also this big thing that sort of got me reacquainted with Garfield; I began my journey to read through every entry in the 1001 Comics You Must Read Before You Die book, yes I am losing my grip on sanity. Also, there is that new Garfield movie that came out, so that may have got me thinking too. I always did have a soft-spot for Garfield, so I think this is the perfect time to look at one of his direct-to-video movies from the late 2000s... as for why I chose this specific one, well it was available on YouTube, sometimes I don't need a real reason.

The plot follows Garfield as he grows tired of his job of acting in a comic strip. Y'know, I would say that this is stupid, ridiculous and asinine, but the original Roger Rabbit book, Who Censored Roger Rabbit? by Gary K. Wolf had pretty much a similar setting, comic strip characters doing the comics as their job. The difference is, in Wolf's book, the cartoons and the humans coexisted in the same world, while in this movie it's two separate worlds, which adds a layer of confusion. After Odie looses a prop in the real world by a tear in a screen that lets the comic characters see into the real world, Garfield decides to jump into it, followed by Odie. Then after a day, their strip is about to get cancelled, so they have to return to the cartoon world, but they might be replaced by two buff and muscular animals, and hold on one second, how can they find replacements for Garfield and Odie if they're in the real world. It is said in the movie that there is no way back from the real world, so why is the real world finding replacements? Call it a nitpick, but it's kind of distracting. I guess the rest of the plot works, but that one bit bothers me.

The movie does Garfield as a character alright, like at no point did I think, "Nah, this ain't Garfield". Most of the characters remain the same from the comic and other adaptations, save for two. Nermal and Arlene just kind of felt different. I think it's felt less with Arlene, but in the comic she actually could keep up with Garfield's dry wit and sarcasm, she was practically just as sarcastic as he was, and here she feels like... gosh I don't know how to describe it, she feels like the only thing that the writer knew about this character was that she was Garfield's love interest, and I know for a fact that isn't right because the sole writer credit is Jim Davis himself, so maybe he wanted to do something different here. Nermal straight up annoyed me in this movie, he always did have a little ego calling himself the "World's cutest kitty cat", but here, he's just arrogant and annoying, and Jason Marsden's voice performance does not help. That being said, the voice cast is fine overall, Frank Welker does a good job replacing the late Lorenzo Music as Garfield, he doesn't have the same voice, but the inflections are there. Wally Wingert and Gregg Berger as Jon and Odie respectively are good. I think most people agree that Wally is almost as good as Thom Huge as Jon. Of course, the two villains have to have the worst voice performances though, being muscular pets, they obviously have to have Hans and Franz accents.

As an aside, for a world of cartoon characters, most of the comic strip characters they have are not real characters from real strips. Dagwood from Blondie cameos, but he doesn't really say or do anything, I mean I doubt you could have actually gotten Snoopy to appear, and so you only had to mention him, but why not Hagar the Horrible? Pearls Before Swine? Doonesbury? What about Dilbert... Actually yeah, maybe that was a good call, but my point still stand. Heck, even have some characters from discontinued strips appear, Little Nemo is in the public domain, any of those characters could have appeared. It really does cheapen the film a bit by not including that many memorable comic strip characters. They don't even make a reference to Rube Goldberg, and they invented a character who makes inventions.

The animation of this movie is disgusting. Okay, that is a bit of hyperbole, but the 3D models and this style of animation just do not mesh at all. The movement is almost too fluid, and character designs just look ugly. It sits in that middle ground, where the animation is cheap, but not Television cheap. I'm gonna say it, the 2009 Garfield Show looks better than this movie, yeah that animation was cheaper looking, but this movie just looks hideous. I suppose compared to other movies I've reviewed this movie isn't the worst, but I just hate looking it at, I can't really think of any other movie I've reviewed that is just straight up unappealing to look at, even movies like Silver Circle or The Misty Green Sky I can excuse as not having any real budget. I know Garfield hasn't had the best looking animation in anything, with the exception of a couple Television Specials, but this may just be the worst he has ever looked. They don't even do anything visually to separate the cartoon world from the real world.

It probably wouldn't help much if the movie looked good, because the writing just isn't there. We've all made comments and jokes about how the Garfield strip has become less funny over the years, but this movie is just painfully unfunny. Each joke was predictable, and Garfield just doesn't really have that bite to him, probably because he's not working off of Jon in this movie, he's working off of new characters who aren't really interesting, and Odie, who doesn't talk. I think back to a lot of the old Garfield strips, and Garfield's wit and sarcasm was genuinely funny, even if it took a while to get the joke, his dry responses to what was around him was a big chunk of the humour, so taking that away, what are you left with? Not much really.

Really, "Not Much" is the best way to describe this movie. The writing is lousy, the plot is flawed, the art-style is terrible, really the only saving grace is Garfield himself, and even then this movie doesn't have any of his strengths as a character. If you really want a solid adaptation of the comic strip, I say keep looking, I think your best bet would be the Garfield specials like Garfield Hits the Town, Here Comes Garfield and even the Garfield Christmas special. This movie just doesn't work, and I can't really think of any reason to watch it, unless you're like a big, and I mean big, Garfield fanatic. Even then, I think this is one that is safe to skip.

The Misty Green Sky (2016) - "Amateur Hour" is a Compliment to this Thing

 

How do I even start this review? No, seriously, how do I even start it? The amount of movies out there is so vast, so numerous, that you're going to come across something that piques your curiosity, and the chances of you coming across it in the wild is slim. So, when I first heard of this movie on Letterboxd, I knew it was something I had to check out, and when I came across this movie on Tubi, I knew I had to watch it and give it a review. I do love finding obscure, under the radar, practically ignored or forgotten movies, because they're usually a special kind of bad that you just don't get from your typical mainstream blockbuster. Especially in the realm of animation, you don't need a large budget to make an animated production, but it does help quite a bit, and we've seen cases where the production just was not completely there, the Hercules & Xena movie I reviewed way back when being a very notable example, to the point where it is my benchmark for movies that I feel are "so bad they're good". I frankly did not expect anything phenomenal, or even really that good, but this movie, my goodness this movie has exceeded my expectations, it may actually be worse than that Hercules & Xena movie.

What is the plot of this movie? That is a very good question, an excellent question. From my understanding, a young woman by the name of Emma Dante wants to find some answers about the planet she lives on... maybe? At first, they build up a sort of mystery about the planet she lives on, then almost out of nowhere they start hinting that she wants to be the wife of the person that "runs" the planet, only to reveal a deeper conspiracy about the planet and it's relationship with Earth. Frankly it was difficult to follow any kind of plot in this movie because there were just so many scenes that go nowhere. There's a scene in the opening where Emma is looking through the ruins of an old village, and for no reason we cut to a dog. This dog isn't even attacking or chasing after Emma, it does not appear after it walks off screen, we just get a shot of a poorly textured dog running towards the camera because... reasons. There is an entire filler scene of a robot playing some piano program and it serves no purpose for the plot, there is a scene where Emma comforts a friend of hers that establishes something that is fairly inconsequential, really this movie might as well just be two different movies chopped up and sewn together in random places to make something that vaguely resembles a functioning plot if you squint at it.

It also doesn't help that the only character we really get is Emma, sure we have other characters, but they only exist in the movie for one scene at the most, so we're only following Emma, and she's not an interesting character, and I think on some level the writer knew that because... Well this movie is kind of sexist. Every female character is either dressed in a skin-tight outfit, or is scantily clad, Emma spends most, if not the entire second half of the movie in nothing but panties and some kind of sports bra. One character even only had nipple coverings to cover her chest. Like, I appreciate some sex appeal, but when I watch a movie I do want a little bit more than the characters to look attractive, I want them to have... y'know, actual character. Honestly, I don't even think she's that attractive, and that is entirely to do with the animation.

You know, I'll give that Hercules & Xena movie some credit, it was 2D animation, and bad 2D does not look nearly as bad as bad 3D animation. The character models all look generic, like they were made as part of a basic starter kit for some game design or 3D animation software. Outside of outfits and hair, the female characters don't really have any identifiable differences, and Emma floats to get in and out of a ship, I'm guessing it's some kind of futuristic technology, because someone does walk onto a ship at the end of the movie, but it is not established. Facial animations are the worst I've ever seen, even worse than Silver Circle, lip syncing is completely off, character actions don't always match what they're supposed to be doing, like one character is supposed to be crying, but her face does not convey that emotion at all. Also, a few scenes are literally pitch black, the stock fire effects don't mesh with the rest of the movie, and several scenes are just coated in terrible effects, like that Robot Piano scene I mentioned early, it's just filled with visual effects, and a Mighty Joe Young reference because... reasons, and towards the end there is a flashing light effect that may be too much for people with epilepsy or other light sensitivities. Frankly, there is not enough time to go over every single animation error.

If only the voice acting and music were any better, but nope. The voice acting is all amateur, and in this case I think most of it can be blamed on lack of proper direction. It really does sound like the director just got his friends to record some lines in their bedrooms, and one of the recording mics was very obviously a lower quality than the others, which says a lot because the audio equipment sounded very low quality. I'm pretty sure YouTubers at the time had better microphones. It doesn't help that the music is also very stock, like I wouldn't be shocked if the music for this movie was from Kevin MacLeod, though then again I might be because his music is actually more interesting. Music cues are also generic, and I know I've heard a lot of them in other places, plus, some of them are just misplaced. Like there some tense music cues that build-up to what should be something shocking, startling, worrying, but no they just build up to nothing. That is not how music cues work!

So, this movie is really bad, right? Without a doubt, this might actually be the worst movie I've ever had to watch for this blog, it is the perfect double whammy of a bad movie, poorly made and lacking in any good or enjoyable qualities, which kind of makes it the perfect movie to watch for a bad movie night. Honestly, I'm torn, there is a level where I can recommend this movie, I mean it is up there with Hercules & Xena or The Barbie Diaries as a movie that is perfect for a bad movie night with friends to just laugh at, but at the same time I kind of want to recommend other bad movies instead, those Goodtimes Entertainment and Video Brinquedo knock-off movies, some of the Disney direct to video sequels, there are way better movies to watch for a bad movie night, so even on that level I can't recommend it. I mean, I cannot give it any other rating than Avoid. Tubi is full of weird stuff, explore it at your leisure.

Tom Sawyer (2000) - Really bland, but mostly harmless

 

I have said before that there is a hierarchy to movie releases, that you have movies released in theatres, then major streaming releases, followed by minor streaming releases, then Direct-to-Video releases, Television movies and finally movies released onto YouTube. I suggest this hierarchy as like, levels of ignorable for critics and audiences really, not necessarily about quality or how respectable they are, lots of direct-to-video releases exist, and just by sheer volume some of them are going to be good. This is really how I observe the kinds of movies other critics talk about, that they tend to focus on movies that were given theatrical releases, or movies on streaming when they have a ton of buzz about them. I feel like I was one of the only critics who tried to watch the Larva Island Movie when it was released onto Netflix, but I know I'm not the only one who watched movies like Duck Duck Goose or Next Gen. It makes me wonder why some movies just don't get much attention, do we just have a stigma about smaller movie releases? So, I'm going to take this time to take a look at a smaller scale release, the 2000 direct-to-video Tom Sawyer movie by MGM.

The story is an adaptation of the classic Mark Twain novel. I only vaguely know of the book in the sense that it is a pop culture icon, so whether or not it is a good adaptation, I can't say. Tom Sawyer is a rambunctious young man who becomes smitten with a young girl named Becky. Also, he and his friend Huckleberry Finn are looking for buried treasure, while a criminal by name of Injurin' Joe (Nice save there guys), is also looking for said treasure, murdering a man and framing another in the process. It's mostly the scenes with Joe that I find the most interesting, because they get fairly dark and intense, but most of the first act is spent with Tom cooing over Becky, and chunks of the rest of the movie are spent with Tom's Aunt and brother, and his friends, and frankly, I just don't find any of them interesting characters. Even the scenes with Joe, they do go somewhat dark, showing him actually kill a man, but it's a tame killing (Ain't that an oxymoron), the man gets thrown into a gravestone and we don't get to see the impact, we don't even get a dark joke that he was thrown into the grave he was just mourning at. It's scenes like this that make me want to respect the movie, because it's clear they did want to tell a respectful version of the story, but the rest of it... eh.

I think a lot of that is down to the characters, because I just don't find them that interesting. Tom is Bart Simpson, he is rambunctious and trouble-making, but ultimately a decent kid beneath it all. Huckleberry Finn is sort of the idiot best friend character, Becky is the southern lady, but is also that "non-girl" girl, she's into arm wrestling and adventure, and I've seen every single one of these character types before. Honestly, Joe isn't even that interesting, he's just your standard snarling crook, and I swear any character like Tom's brother is immediately a character I will despise. I feel like a lot of this isn't really the movie's fault, Tom Sawyer was published in 1876, about one-hundred and thirteen years before The Simpsons aired their premier episode in 1989, but the trope is called "Seinfeld is unfunny" for a reason. I've seen these characters before, and this movie does not really do much different with these tropes. At least the voice acting was alright, but as much as I love Betty White and Kevin Michael Richardson, these weren't the best roles for them.

Frankly, the animation is not much better. Full disclosure, I found an uploaded version of this movie on YouTube, so the visual quality was not gonna be the highest, pro tip for anyone getting into media review, ease of access and quality tend not to go hand in hand. Regardless, the animation was... okay. Frankly, there is not a lot to comment about it, the animation is serviceable, it's... it's mid, the animation is mid. The whole movie is completely, absolutely, agonizingly mid! The characters? Mid! The story? Mid! The animation? Mid! They should have called this movie "Mid Sawyer", it's so mid I wouldn't be shocked if this was actually Illumination's first feature, everything about it is mid. The music especially, I skipped through a lot of the songs, but the opening song was repetitive, and it cut out for a brief moment to some Arabian Music, because it was for a dream sequence and that is what Tom was dreaming at the moment, I hated it when it happened in the Pink Elephants song in Dumbo, I hate it now. I'm not even really a big country music fan, actually no, I'm not a big fan of post fifties country music from male singers, and the main characters are voiced by country stars. This review was really tough to write, because what can I say about a movie that is absolutely mid?

Okay, well there is one thing I can really talk about; Is this movie a good introduction to the classic Americana story? To answer this question, I have to ask myself if I would have liked this movie as a kid, and I have to say... maybe? I can easily imagine myself fast forwarding through several of the scenes to get to parts that would have interested me a lot more. I can't say it's made me more interested in the book, but it hasn't made me any less interested either. It's harmless, just really bland. If this is something you think your kid might be into, it's better than crap like Duck Duck Goose, but as for watching it on your own, meh, I don't think I can really recommend it all that much. At the same time though, it's not really a movie I recommend avoiding on any level, it's just a movie that I feel only really gets watched by people babysitting kids. So, I don't recommend it, but if it's available to watch somewhere, I can think of worse movies. I can also think of much more interesting ones, and frankly, I need something much more interesting to review next.

Panda! Go, Panda! (1972 & 1973) - A Fun Collection of Two Cute Stories

 

Okay so, I'm kind of cheating for this review. Panda! Go, Panda!, is not a movie in a sense, it isn't even really a package film like The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, it's a 2017 DVD and Blu-Ray release of two short films, Panda Kopanda from 1972 and Panda Kopanda and the Rainy-Day Circus from 1973. I have a general rule about reviewing short films, in that I just don't review them. 40 minutes is the general accepted minimum length required for a movie to qualify as "Feature Length" according to the AFI and the BFI, and neither of these shorts reach 40 minutes. So the question is, Does this fall into my rules? Well, I decided to cheat a little bit, this is gonna review the shorts as though they are part of one big package film, because the DVD release allows you to watch both of them in one sitting, no selecting at the menu, just click play and watch. Does this mean short film packages from the likes of Disney and Pixar up for review? I'm going to say no, I'm making an exception here because, honestly I do need to talk about anime more on here.

Panda Kopanda follows a little girl named Mimiko who is left home alone when her Grandmother leaves to Nagasaki for a memorial service. She finds a baby panda sleeping on her back porch and befriends the little guy, meets his father, and the three of them quickly decide to become a family, with Mimiko becoming the little Panda's mother, and PapaPanda becoming Mimiko's father. The first short mainly follows the three of them getting along together, with the little Panda "Panny" following Mimiko to school, and Mimiko learning that the Panda's actually escaped from the Zoo. The whole short is actually really cute, and the three lead characters are all very perky and bubbly. It's a very comforting watch, and really has that Studio Ghibli vibe to it, which is entirely because this was Written by Hayao Miyazaki, and directed by Isao Takahata, both of whom would go on to found Studio Ghibli in 1985. Other staff include Yoichi Kotabe as animation director, Yasuo Otsuka as a character designer, and Yoshifumi Kondō as an animator.

The second short, Panda Kopanda and the Rainy-Day Circus follows Mimiko and the Pandas as they discover an escaped baby tiger in their house. Being a cutesy anime, the tiger quickly befriends the three, and Mimiko reunites the baby tiger with its mother at the circus. Of course it wouldn't be called the "Rainy-Day Circus" if their wasn't a rainy day, or a stormy day that floods most of the town they live in. With the circus animals stuck in the flood, Mimiko and the Pandas need to rescue them. This short is just as cute as the previous, but it was also a bit tenser, the music in the opening when the circus crew were looking for the tiger, it almost made it feel like a horror movie, which of course makes it all the funnier when Mimiko excitedly does a hand-stand on the table proclaiming that she's never seen a real burglar before, and the climax with the circus train was both fun and kind of exciting. This is admittedly a film for younger kids, but I can see them really getting into this one.

Both of these shorts have really simple designs, but it really fits the tone they were going for with these movies. The characters look cute and the stories they're put in are equally so. There really isn't a whole lot I can say on the animation side of things, it has a simpler style and doesn't do a lot of what I think most people come to expect from anime, but it wasn't meant to have any super detailed moments or extravagantly choreographed sequences, it was meant to be a cute and charming series of shorts about a girl and two pandas and that is what it is. I also watched this movie subbed, and the Japanese voice actors really did do a good job, I honestly almost dread watching it dubbed because I feel that American voice actors very rarely get "cute" down right, I can name some who do, but not a whole lot. I think my only real problem with these shorts is that... well whenever Mimiko is excited, she does a handstand, and that leads to a lot of shots where we see here underwear. I do feel like that is something I should tell people about before they give this a watch.

Other than that, Panda! Go, Panda! was a fun collection of two really cute shorts. You can draw a lot of connections from it and Hayao Miyazaki's future works, especially My Neighbor Totoro and Ponyo. If you're a big Studio Ghibli fan, I would classify this as a must see, and if you are an anime fan, I would say this is worth checking out. It's nice comfort viewing, the stakes are never very high and the whole this is just an adorable and fun watch, it would be fantastic to show for kids, and it's a cute comfortable watch for anyone else. I may be a bit biased because the Panda is my favourite animal in the world, but even looking at this objectively, it's not aiming for more than cute and fun, and I'd say it succeeds. Yeah, this was kind of a short review, but hey, it happens. I give this collection a solid recommendation.

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.

Disney Princess Enchanted Tales: Follow Your Dreams (2007) - A Forgotten Direct-to-Video Disney Movie, and For Good Reason

 

From the early 90s until the late 2000s Disney released a lot of direct-to-video animated sequels. At some point they also began to introduce more original movies with established characters, like the Mickey Mouse Christmas movies, or the Buzz Lightyear of Star Command pilot movie. One of the movies that often gets forgotten is Disney Princess Enchanted Tales: Follow Your Dreams. It does seem to be the black sheep of the Disney direct-to-video movies, first off, it's another "Technically" as this film is over 40 minutes, but less than an hour, secondly, it appears as if this movie was intended to be a franchise starter, so really this should be more remembered, but it as of right now isn't even on Disney+, so is this the worst of the direct-to-video animated movies? Is this the one that was so bad nobody remembers it? Or is it just really boring and forgettable?

Like the aforementioned Mickey Christmas movies, this movie, which I will no longer be referring to by full name because it is long and annoying, is made up of multiple small stories, in this case, two. One for Princess Aurora of Sleeping Beauty fame, and one for Jasmine of Aladdin fame. As usual for package films I'll be looking at both stories separately, starting with Princess Aurora's since her story is first, and her movie is older than Jasmine's. I can't believe I even have to justify such a thing, but here we are.

Princess Aurora's story has her taking charge of the kingdom while her father, King Stefan, is at a conference. It is your standard, "Biting off more than you can chew" story and it is just as boring to watch as it sounds. There is a small conflict where King Hubert, Prince Philip's Father, misplaced an important speech, but that's resolved, and then the conflict becomes Aurora having issues with magic because Merriweather the fairy lent her a wand. You might think she has to deal with something big, like an impending war, or an economic crisis, but she has to deal with paperwork and magical farm animals. Okay, so you don't want to tell anything big that might not be interesting to the target audiences, okay. How about a story where she has to resist the temptation to overuse and abuse magic to solve all her issues, where she learns how to solve problems on her own? They try to give the same lesson about hard work, but she literally chose to read through every piece of paperwork before she signed it, so there is a fundamental flaw in how this story is written. If I could rewrite it, maybe I'd have it so that she calls on the Fairies to do all the royal work while she focuses on the banquet, which leads to problems that she has to solve before everyone returns. So, all the paperwork is signed, and this leads to issues regarding land disputes, because the fairies didn't read the paperwork before putting a magic signature on it. That would be more engaging.

Jasmine's story is also about proving oneself. Jasmine becomes an educator to misbehaving children, and then has to find a missing horse. Okay, mystery of a missing horse, that's a good hook, and the stakes are established. If they cut the educator stuff, this could make for a really good short. It has bonus points for having the late Gilbert Gottfried as Iago essentially riffing the plot as it's happening. He's no Robin Williams, but he's not bad. This story is more interesting than the last, but not by much. The framing device for these stories is also pretty weak, it's just this big castle dedicated to a single storybook with some narration by Susanne Blakeslee. Overall, neither story was very interesting, and I can't imagine this would really engage kids for very long.

Animation wise this movie is mixed. Aurora's animation did not look right to me, probably because Aurora mostly moved in that more realistic way of the classic Disney animated features, where they had a reference for the poses and movements. Jasmine's animation looked better, but with two direct-to-video movies and a TV series, I think it is fair to say that Jasmine can survive with a smaller budget. That being said, Jasmine's story had some distractingly noticeable CG integration, so it wasn't that great either. Unfortunately, the animation was much better than the voice acting, no disrespect to any of the talent in this movie, but it didn't feel like any of them were giving their A game. Susanne Blakeslee is an amazing voice actor, but she isn't given much to do here, and though Frank Welker and Lina Larkin reprise their roles, it's not perfect either. I swear I heard Frank Welker channel Donald Duck at points as Abu. However, the worst was Erin Torpey as Princess Aurora, not that she did a bad job, she is a good voice actor, but the voice just isn't the same as Mary Costa's, and it actually really distracted me. I'm not even a big fan of the original Sleeping Beauty, I think it's just okay, but even I could pick this up.

I can see why this is the forgotten Direct-to-Video movie. It's not the worst, but it is the least. It's the least memorable, least important, probably even the least good. It has important morals, but besides that, I can't see much value in it. The DVD I have actually has a sneak peek for another one of these movies, this time featuring Cinderella and Mulan, but that was never released, and it just makes me wonder why they didn't just make this a TV series? Yes it was 2007, after the debut of Kim Possible and The Proud Family with their strong female leads. However, The Proud Family ended in 2005 and Kim Possible ended in September of 2007, besides I don't know why either of those shows would have to do with not making this a series, I mean, an anthology series about our favourite Disney Princesses telling us smaller scale stories? That could really work, imagine the framing device of them spending time in a big castle, imagine them adding characters like Alice, Maid Marian or Captain Amelia to the mix. There was actually something called "Disney Princess Academy" that was also shelved, you can find concept art online, it seems like it would be a really interesting film or short. As for this movie, it is wasted potential on a bad idea, it is forgotten for a reason, maybe we should keep it that way.

The Barbie Diaries (2006) - Almost So Bad it's Good, But So Far Off the Mark.

When my friend suggested this movie, I initially thought to put it on my list of "I'll get to it eventually" movies, the movies I don't feel much priority in finding, watching or reviewing. However, on account that this movie was A). Made for TV (Full honesty, I actually thought it was initially made to be Direct-to-Video, but after some research that does not appear to be the case) and B). According to my friend, absolute garbage, I kept it on my immediate backlog. The Barbie Diaries seemed like it would be one of those "So bad it's entertaining" movies, so, despite it being a Barbie movie, I had to have a look. Hard to believe but I am actually quite familiar with the Barbie brand, I remember playing a Demo for Barbie Explorer on the PlayStation, and I swear at least a quarter of all toy commercials I saw as a kid were for a girls toy. I am also acutely aware of the many, many movies in the Barbie franchise, but have yet to see any of them. No I am not going to marathon them. I've thought about a Dragon Ball Z movie marathon but that would take way too long and would probably get way to repetitive after a while. Anyway, my friend said this movie was really bad... were they right?

So, what is the plot of this movie? No, seriously what is the plot? Barbie and her friends are sophomores in high school now and try to achieve that dream of every character in a girls movie ever, being popular. What is the way they do it this time? School news? Befriending the popular guy? Becoming class president? Band gig? How about all of them? On top of that there are many little subplots, like one of Barbie's friends trying to admit his feelings towards her, and Raquel being really catty towards Barbie. This is like a combination of everything I hate in a plot, vain airheaded-ness, a dozen things going on at once, predictability, nothing of any real substance happening, and of course, High School culture. I guess American high school during the 2000s was different than Canadian high school during the 2010s. I talked about this in my First Impressions of the 2021 Diary of a Wimpy Kid movie, where I am just so done with the middle/high school depictions in media. It's really the same here.

Also, for whatever reason I just could not suspend my disbelief to the point where I could feasibly believe that Barbie, pop-culture icon, was the unpopular girl in school. It would be like trying to have Scrooge McDuck play in Bob Cratchit in A Christmas Carol. Granted I couldn't really see her as the catty queen bee that nobody actually likes, but like, not the unpopular kid. If Barbie qualifies as an unpopular girl, than this school would collapse if Daria walked in.

Let's get the immediate issue out of the way, the animation is awful, all caps, AWFUL! Close-ups make the characters look absolutely dead eyed, movement is stilted and stiff, lip-syncing is all off, and the models are those early 2000s CG that was out of date and aged by 2004. It looks like a cheap shovel ware PlayStation 2 or Wii game, which is actually hilarious when you consider that the actual Barbie games for the PlayStation2 and Nintendo Wii look way better than this movie. Heck, Barbie Explorer on PlayStation 1 looks better than this movie. At least the visuals here are bright and colourful, but I'd say they were too bright and colourful. It looked like someone turned up the contrast to the first season of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic at times. The animation was actually agonizing to watch

I know I have talked about animation being more than a visual medium and I have handwaved aside other visually unappealing movies like Cats, but there is something I want to talk about. Not only do previous Barbie movies look better, but TV CGI has looked way better too. ReBoot looks outdated today, but it still looks better than this. VeggieTales, Jimmy Neutron, heck even if we want to bring in little kids shows, Rolie Polie Olie. All of those shows predate this movie, so this can't just be handwaved aside as "Standards of the time", this movie was made in the early 2000s, and we've been working with computer animation since the late 50s! What we might consider as "Modern" Computer Animation dates back to the 80s, so there really is no excuse for this movie looking and moving worse than the Money for Nothing music video. One should not judge an animated movie by how it looks, but there is a point where it just becomes difficult to watch.

To be fair, the music wasn't terrible, it was very 2000s, akin to Avril Lavigne or Kelly Clarkson, not music I normally listen to, I'm very much a 90s Alt Rock person, but I do have a varied taste in music and I am somewhat nostalgic for the 2000s. That being said, I wouldn't say the music in the movie was good, especially not the background music that felt very generic and uninspired. I dunno, if Sk8er Boi is one of your absolute jams, the songs in this movie might not be that bad for you, but if you're just a bit nostalgic for the 2000s days, I think you'll just grudgingly accept it like I did. Hey, Avril Lavigne is not the worst musician of the 2000s you could emulate, that was also the decade of Hinder and Puddle of Mudd. 

I mean, do I even need to say more? Characters? What character, most of them are just your basic stereotype. We don't even get much variety in there. I mean, where are the other stereotypes that we absolutely hate? The nerd, the goth, the weirdo, the artist, the kinds of characters we see in all of these school stories. I mean it wouldn't help matters, but at the same time it would at least offer some variety so that we're not watching the same two characters with minor personality differences. This movie is an absolute mess, and it almost qualifies as so bad it's good. If I were to rank all the bad movies, I'd put this one lower than that Hercules and Xena movie I reviewed back in... wow 2019... time flies. Unfortunately, this movie is not good on an entertainment level, once the initial novelty of the animation and 2000s aesthetic wear off, it just exposes the flaws of the writing more and more. Honestly, I guarantee that there are way better Barbie movies than this, ones that feel less brain rotting and have more substance to them. If Barbie movies are candy, than this movie is one of those Popeye Sugar Sticks that we all pretended were cigarettes as kids, absolutely disgusting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Impressions: Pinocchio: A True Story (2022)

It is not very often that a direct to video movie gets any kind of attention from critics or movie-goers, it really has to be something special to warrant the attention of movie fans. Maybe it's a cross-over between two iconic franchises that also just so happens to be the final role for on of the actors involved, maybe it's the movie based on a popular video game franchise that we've been waiting for since the original movies, or maybe it has some hilariously bad voice acting displayed front and center in the trailer. Pinocchio: A True Story is the third one, the trailer that everyone got to see thanks to AniMat (If I'm not mistaken the Tweet was a while ago) showcased some of the worst voice acting in an animated feature since Jeff Bridges in The Last Unicorn. The kicker of course is that, as other Twitter users have pointed out, Pauly Shore has done voice acting before, so... what exactly is going on here?

Sad to say but everything that people were making fun of about the movie prior to release, the infamous reading by Pauly Shore and the scene where Pinocchio gets shot happen within the first twenty minutes of the film, but it is still a treasure trove of absolute awfulness, completely unwatchable.

The voice acting is just all around terrible, not a single take sounds convincing or natural, with the exception of Tom Kenny, who of course is a seasoned professional, so while he puts on a typical Tom Kenny voice, his acting is still the best in this movie. What makes it even worse is that this is a dub-job, so while you're hearing bad voice actors read these lines, you're watching lips that never sync to the dialogue. You never tend to notice this stuff with dubbed anime because the mouth movements are fairly consistent, partially because of the Japanese language, and also because that's just how lip syncing works in animation now, there are a set number of mouth shapes that are used when needed, you can probably get away with using five or six different mouth shapes on a character and make a convincing enough dialogue scene. CG animation doesn't exactly work that way. On top of that, the DVD I purchased did not give me the option to watch this in the original Russian, which would have made the lip-sync less of a problem.

The lip-syncing reminds me of one of those GoodTimes Entertainment/Golden Films Disney knock-offs, specifically a version of Aladdin that I watched a while ago. There are moments where the dialogue comes out of mouths that are closed. The rest of the animation is... odd. Not in that Richard Williams or Tool music video kind of way, it's odd because it's obviously direct to video quality, but there are moments that don't look all that bad, like fix the lip-syncing and you could probably get away with putting some of these scenes in a theatrical production.

Honestly, that's the most interesting talking point. Not a whole lot else about this movie is interesting. The plot is not very interesting, I mean it's solid enough, but that's about it. You want to know something that is more interesting? Nimona has been revived!

Nimona is coming to Netflix in 2023 after being pulled from Disney's line-up. This means that plenty of dead projects can be revived by other studios, and also means that my favourite graphic novel of all time is getting it's movie adaptation finally! Seriously I'm very excited, and I'm not the only one. Plus, we have another Pinocchio movie coming soon, helmed by Guillermo del Toro. We're also getting that Blazing Samurai move finally... I mean I didn't say the interesting stuff was gonna be ALL good.

On some level, I can see why this got some attention, unlike a movie like Ella and the Little Sorceress, but if you want all the enjoyment you can get out of it, just watch the trailer. Really the movie's biggest crime is that it's boring, the voice acting is literally the most interesting thing about it. I can't even recommend this as a "So Bad It's Good" movie, but at the same time, I can't recommend people not watch it either. It's boring, but ultimately harmless, I don't think your perception of animation, nor direct-to-video cinema will be hurt by watching this. Granted the standards for Direct-to-Video cinema is low to begin with, but that's beside the point. If you see this for like, two dollars in a discount bin and want something just absolutely dumb to kill some time, there are worse things to spend your money on. Can't recommend it, but it does not irritate me by existing.

First Impressions: Ella and the Little Sorcerer (AKA Little Sorcerer; AKA Cinderella and the Spell Binder) (2022)

 

I watch a lot of things for this blog, things I would not normally watch on my own. On the one hand, this has introduced me to movies that I loved like Isle of Dogs, The Adventures of Tintin, and Encanto. On the other hand, it means I often have to watch movies like this. I mean, what is this movie? No seriously what is it, and why was it worthy of a theatrical release?

This movie comes to us from Gold Valley Films an animation studio that is most known for... well probably this movie now. They've done a few other movies, like Academy of Magic and a Mulan movie, but I don't believe either of those got a theatrical release in my city. Did they get a theatrical release elsewhere, I'm genuinely curious, I'd love to know. Anyway, I have to wonder why this movie got a theatrical release. It doesn't look like a theatrical movie, it isn't written like one, and it's a sequel, yeah this movie is a sequel, it follows the events to Cinderella and the Secret Prince from 2018. Which is probably a good time to mention that the date in the title is not entirely accurate. See, this movie was actually released in 2021, IMDb and Letterboxd both say this. However, it is my policy that movies that get theatrical releases, or big releases on a major streaming service, in one year count as a movie for that year. This is why I consider Animal Crackers a 2020 movie and not a 2017 movie. It's initial release was 2017, but it was released onto Netflix in 2020, likewise this movie got a theatrical release in 2022.

I am half convinced this movie got a theatrical release either as a joke or a test. Like someone wanted to see if there was still a viable option for animated films that weren't Disney or DreamWorks, so they just grabbed some movie that was released last year, held onto it until the "Box Office Bomb" season was over, but didn't hold on to it for so long as to make it seem like a good movie. Hell, I barely saw any advertising for this movie, there was like a mini-trailer they played in the lobby, and there was one of those quiz-screens they show during the pre-show, and that was it. Clearly my theatre had no faith in the one, so I have to ask, why was it given a theatrical release?

The movie reminds me a lot of Arctic Dogs, because it had the look, feel and writing of a direct to video movie. At the very least Arctic Dogs had a pretty good sized cast, with the likes of Alec Baldwin, Heidi Klum, John Cleese, Anjelica Huston, James Franco and Michael Madsen. This movie doesn't even have a very recognizable cast. Then again, this movie was better than Arctic Dogs, to some extent.

The animation was just not theatrical quality. A lot of movements looked mechanical, like I could almost see the motion paths the characters and objects were following. Some of the mouth movements didn't look right, and I'm not sure if this was because they dubbed the dialogue or if it was always just that mediocre. They also made a lot of the character models to be non-human, which I feel is something that a lot of direct-to-video kids movies do, like "this character has no reason to be a tortoise, but let's make him one anyway, what else? We need someway to have the characters cross the ocean? Okay what models do we have? The Globglogabgalab? whatever make it fluffy and we'll call it a cloud!".

Then there is the writing, and seriously, there was a good amount of this movie I could just see coming. Like, they had out main characters split up, and for a while it "Looks" like one of the characters is gonna turn evil. I mean, can you guess the others are gonna go back for her and try to talk her back onto their side? I guess I should be too hard on this, because this is a movie for really little kids, and this could probably be their first exposure to this kind of conflict, but it was just so badly written. If I didn't see a plot point or a punchline coming, it was still predictable either way.

I know this movie is for really little kids, but so was the Blue's Clues movie, and that was still a good movie. It really is the difference between a show like Sesame Street and a show like Teletubbies. They're both for a similar audience, but there is a reason one has lasted  for over fifty years and the other didn't. I guess it's not an absolutely awful movie, really it's more just a whole lot of nothing, but overall, I can't recommend it. At least it's better than Adventures of Buck Wild.