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

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

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

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

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

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

The Point! (1971) - A Fascinating Piece of Seventies Animation

The 1970s has kind of a reputation when it comes to animation. See, American animation wasn't doing so well this decade for a number of factors including television censorship and Disney was still trying to figure out what to do after Walt Disney himself died. This isn't to say that the decade was devoid of good, or even great American animation, and this decade did give us a lot of unique pieces, like Ralph Bakshi's take on The Lord of the Rings or Richard Williams' Raggedy Ann & Andy movie. However, the decade had plenty of low-points, I won't deny that, but I think it is fair to also point out some of the higher points in animation... uh, no pun intended. Anyway, this time I'm looking at the 1971 Television Movie, The Point, because... I think it's an interesting piece of animation, and it's available on Tubi.

The story is read by a father to his son, the father serves as our narrator for the story of Oblio, a kid born in the land where everything has a point, literally, everything is pointed, except for Oblio. After he beats the Count's Son at a game, the Count calls upon a tribunal to exile Oblio to the Pointless Forest, but as Oblio explores the forest, he finds that it might not be as pointless as it's named. The film is an adaptation of the 1970 studio album of the same name by Harry Nilsson, and the plot is not all the dissimilar to Yellow Submarine, in that a lot of it is mostly just there to take you from one musical segment to the next. It ain't bad though, I also really like the themes of the story, Oblio ascribing a point to everything even when he's told it's pointless, and there are even some underlying themes at the beginning, with Oblio being exiled for how he was born, one could make the connection between this film and the struggles that people in minority communities, ethnic minorities, disabled and LGBTQIA+ groups especially, have to endure.

I also have to comment on the musical sequences, because they are very unique. This film was done in the early seventies, so the sixties wasn't completely over yet, in a cultural sense really, so you get a lot of bizarre, trippy almost avant-garde musical sequences. That Yellow Submarine comparison wasn't just made for no reason, there was a point to it (Pun intended), because this movie is kind of Yellow Submarine-Lite, and you can see that in the animation. While I love the musical sequences, the animation is very obviously seventies quality, flat colours are everywhere, character designs are pretty basic, lip sync is more like lip-stuttering, basically it looks like what you would imagine a made-for-TV movie from the 1970s would look like. I can't say it's ugly though, on the one hand, I've seen ugly, but on the other hand, it doesn't look unappealing, I never wanted to look away or hated looking at this movie at any point. I dunno, I guess it's middle ground, not great animation, but I have seen way worse.

The characters are pretty charming. Oblio does feel like a real kid, he's curious, kind and interested in the world around him. Seeing as he is the character we spend the most time with, it is good that he has some personality. The other oddities Oblio meets are interesting too, a Rock Man, a Leaf Man who produces leaves to sell, and The Pointed Man, all of their scenes are fascinating. I also should give credit to the voice actors, and a lot of these voice actors are iconic names, golden age voices like Paul Frees, June Foray, Lennie Weinrib and Joan Gerber, these are definitely names that any fans of animation and animation history would, or at least should know, and they are all excellent in their roles, even if Paul Frees has nearly half of the entire cast of characters to voice. Plus, Ringo Starr narrating this version of the movie is a treat, there are other broadcast versions narrated by folks like Dustin Hoffman and Alan Thicke, but Starr's narration is what is available on the Home Release version.

The Point really is a fascinating film, it's one of those productions that you don't really see to often, a unique specimen of music and animation. I can't say it's as strong as Yellow Submarine, but I think it is a much more digestible version, something that kids could watch without being too weirded out. It's another movie that really has a lot of charm to it, charming characters, animation, and plot, but it's really the themes of the story that I think hold this movie together the best. I do think this is something that any animation fan really needs to see, the themes of having a point, I feel, can also reach people on a deeper level, something more philosophical, and beyond that, it's available on Tubi, and probably elsewhere online, so the only real cost is about an hour and fourteen minutes of your time. I can definitely recommend this movie, I think it absolutely deserves to be looked at as more than a curio from the lesser era of American Animation.

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.

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.

Monster High: 13 Wishes (2013) - Nothing special, but harmless

Well, it's the October month, and that means spooky scary fun and also spooky silly fun. Last year I didn't end up reviewing any kind of spooky movie, I got a copy of The Thief and the Cobbler earlier and I really wanted to talk about it, and I also looked at the Recobbled Cut that same month. So, this year I thought I'd make up for the lack of a spooky review by taking a look at a Monster High movie... Goodie. Well, hey I enjoyed My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, I have a soft spot for Jem and the Holograms, and I've watched Ruby Gloom growing up, so maybe this won't be so bad. Also, if you're wondering, I chose 13 Wishes because it is the one I am the most familiar with, in the sense that it was the only one I knew existed and vaguely what it was about. Thanks online internet video game reviewers!

Plotwise it is about the younger sister of Clawdeen Wolf, Howleen (As an aside, I hate these names) finding a magic lantern and summoning a Genie, who gives her thirteen wishes. You can  probably tell where this goes, but to the movie's credit, they do twist your expectations a little bit. First off, this genie has an evil shadow doppelgänger, which is not a part of genies that I have seen before, but also is that while Howleen does begin to make selfish wishes, she actually does start by trying to make others happy. It isn't until she gets bullied by others that the shadow genie begins to manipulate her into using the wishes selfishly. It's actually kind of clever, or it would be if the bullying was more than two sentences. Otherwise, you know what you're going to get with this plot, character gets ultimate power, uses it unwisely and almost puts a great evil in power. The plot is nothing that special.

I think that is my biggest problem with the movie, or should I say, special. Yeah, this would be another "Technically" review, but the movie is over an hour long. Despite that, it really is not written or edited like a movie. Most movies would hold on shots or let scenes linger to really let the weight of the scene take hold, they can do this because they have a rather lengthy time limit to really experiment with. A television show does not have this time to play around with, so emotional scenes have to be done differently. The ending conversation between Pearl and Amethyst in the Steven Universe episode "On The Run" would probably have been written differently if it was for a movie. This movie is not really written or edited like a movie and more like an extended television episode, which I'll be honest, is only a problem if that is not what you're expecting. I hear people complain that some movies based on shows are "Just an extended episode" and I usually never see that, well, now I think I know why, those movies are still written and edited like movies.

Character wise, well... I mean they aren't bad. The main cast are friendly and want to help people, which is nice, Clawdeen is very much the "Big sister", but she doesn't really remind me of my brother like the sister in "Whisper of the Heart" did, in that she doesn't come off like she's trying to be a controlling figure in her younger sibling's life. Gigi the genie is kind of bland, honestly so is the villain Whisp, she's just kind of your basic villain. Howleen is a high school girl, probably freshman, maybe sophomore, I'm sure some Monster High fan is gonna correct me on that one. I dunno, the characters to me never seem to go beyond the basic characteristics that we expect of characters like these. I will say, I do like one of the background characters, just a dude with an eyeball as his head, it's like if someone from The Residents was a cartoon character, and I adore it.

I also have a few criticisms with the voices. For the most part the actors do fine, I never heard a flat read or a bad take in there, but a few of them out on rather generic accents, and Draculaura's voice is clearly pitched up a little, like other people noticed that right? I just found it really distracting. Otherwise, again the voice acting was fine. That is also my opinion of the animation, it isn't bad, it's smooth and has some appeal to it, but television quality 3D animation is never going to look as good as it could.

Really that is the best thing to take away from this review, this is a television movie, and it feels like it. On some level I do have to admire the fact that they didn't try to emulate a theatrical experience. I think if you go into this movie knowing what you're gonna get, you might have a good time. Nothing about this movie is that special, but it isn't terrible, as a whole I can recommend this is a certain type of audience. Hey, there is nothing wrong with a movie that is made for specific audiences. If you want a silly spooky something to put on this Halloween, well I'd recommend other things first, but if you want to try something new, I don't see the harm in this one. I may only slightly recommend it, but it's still a recommendation.

Storybook Classics: The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1986) - A poor and really dull telling of the famous gothic story

You know, I haven't done a "Technically" in a while. The last time I did that was looking at the 1960s Christmas classic, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. A "Technically" is a review where the movie is less than an hour long, but is more than 40 minutes. 40 Minutes is the minimum time required by both the American and British Film Institute for a film to be considered "Feature Length", so it's the minimum requirement I use for these blogs. I tend not to review these movies often because, well they're usually more television specials, but sometimes, they're just to much of a curiosity to pass up. Case in point, this adaptation of The Hunchback of Notre Dame from 1986. Literally I just found the DVD in a sales bin and thought, "This looks like it would be an interesting watch.", and then I bought it. The question is, if you find the DVD somewhere, is it worth it?

I'm actually very unfamiliar with the source material since, unlike the last review, this is my first exposure to the hunchback story, I never read the book, and I never saw the Disney adaptation from 1996. So I am not going to comment on this as an adaptation, though I personally doubt that being a good adaptation would really change matters.

I really couldn't tell you the plot of this movie, but I'll try. Frollo is an archdeacon at Notre Dame who becomes infatuated with the... hmm... well in less PC times we would have said Gypsy, Esmerelda. He sends the hunchback bell ringer, Quasimodo, to kidnap her I think, which gets him arrested by the guard Phoebus, and most of the movie is focused on Esmerelda and Phoebus's relationship. Esmerelda gets put on trial for the murder of Phoebus and Quasimodo has to save her, honestly I do not really care. This movie is super boring. Overall I guess the plot doesn't flow too badly, but that doesn't really mean anything when the viewer is nodding off every couple of minutes.

The characters are not very deep. I mean it would be very tough for this movie to copy the deep and complex character of Disney's Frollo, especially in the 1980s, but at least do something a bit more than make him a lying jerk. His ultimate plan is to have Esmerelda in the cathedral to purify her, which I guess could be metaphor, but this Frollo is so flat that I do believe he just wants to convert her to Catholicism. They try to flesh him out by giving him the interest in alchemy, but it doesn't really amount to much. Quasimodo is your basic henchman good guy, Esmerelda is your basic pretty girl damsel, Phoebus is your basic good looking good guy. Yeah, this was probably made for TV in the late 80s, but it isn't like cartoon characters of the 80s were devoid of personality and quirks. I found myself not really caring about these characters.

Although, the voice work might have also played a part in that. The voice actors for Quasimodo and Frollo put on these really annoying voices, and the voice actress for Esmerelda was kind of dry and emotionless, just kind of "Reading the lines" sort of feel to the performance. Every other voice is mostly just a generic sounding voice, so it really doesn't sound like the actors are giving this their A game.

The art style in this movie is, legit, not that bad. It looks detailed and gothic, but not in that German Expressionist sort of way, like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, and a lot of that is helped thanks to the duller and more muted colour palette, which really does add to the visuals. That being said, the visual quality of the movie is pretty bad, and I have no clue as to why, no seriously I am baffled because I have never encountered this problem before. See, I watched the DVD release from Genius Entertainment and the quality looked on par with a typical VHS tape. I'm not kidding, it even has that white noise sound that most VHS tapes have. I have no idea why this is the case, my best guess is that the master reel was lost and they resorted to a back-up or recording of the program, and that is my most generous guess, I haven't ruled out the possibility that the original master was junked (For those of you who don't know, "junking" is why a lot of classic Dr. Who episodes are completely lost) or even that the original master was this low quality in the first place. The one thing the movie had going for it, and it's still ruined by something.

Yeah, I kind of just phoned this review in. Really, this movie is just really boring, with poor voice work, bland characters, a rather generic musical score, and it's also just really unfunny, and it tried to be funny. While the art style is really good, it really is not enough to save this movie. If you do end up finding it in a discount bin somewhere, I say leave it be, I can not recommend this film at all, and I'd say it's so boring, that you might as well just avoid it all together.

Well, it's my fiftieth proper review next month, I should do something special for the occasion.

Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer (1964) - Yes, this counts as a movie

To get this out of the way, the AFI and BFI do classify the minimum running length of a feature film has to be 40 minutes, so yeah, this counts. Plus, I really do want to look at more older animated movies, so I would have probably stretched my rules anyway for this one.

That being said, since it is the month of winter festivals, most notably Christmas, I figured I had to look at a holiday film this month, and you know what, I'll be damned if I let another Christmas go by without watching this one, this was one of the specials I used to watch a lot as a child, this and Frost the Snowman and of course the classic How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Of course, having become much older, and watching this with a more critical view, how does it hold up?

The plot of the movie is well known, Rudolph is born with a glowing red nose and becomes an outcast amongst other reindeer. Meanwhile, one of Santa's elves named Hermey is also outcasted because he doesn't like to make toys and instead wants to be a dentist. When the two meet, they decide to run away and come across a prospector named Yukon Cornelius. After being chased by the Abominable Snowmonster, the trio find themselves on the island of misfit toys, where they wish to stay. The king of the island however, says they cannot, but allows them to stay one night on the promise that when they return to Christmas Town, they tell Santa about the island so he can find homes for the toys. Rudolph strikes out on his own during the night to avoid getting his friends hurt by the snowmonster, and realizes he can not run from his problems and goes home, to find that his family and friend left to look for him. He finds them, but is attacked by the snowmonster, but they're all saved by Hermey and Cornelius, who then head back to Santa's workshop, they all make-up, and then learn of a bad storm that might cancel Christmas, but then Santa has the bright idea (Pun intended), that Rudolph's glowing nose might help guide them.

Man, the plot is a lot longer than the film made it seem. Overall, I am going to be more lenient towards the plot of this one. While I would typically comment on the use of time skip and narrator, I do have to concede that this is a Television special, and those usually only go up to an hour, and there is only so much you can do in an hour. Even so, while some important things did get rushed, the plot is still mostly solid, and even when something big was glanced over like Rudolph coming to the realization he can't run from his problems, while it would have been nice if it was a scene of cinematic quality, I will concede that, a throw-away, blink and you'll miss it explanation is better than no explanation. So, while the plot is not of cinematic quality, it is still a solid and easy to follow plot, even if my explanation makes it seem complicated.

I do think the characters are charming as well. They aren't exactly complex, but they have a goal and they have their own thoughts. Rudolph doesn't want to put his friends in danger, Yukon Cornelius welcomes others alongside him with joy, again the characters are not of cinematic quality, but they are still identifiable, and charming enough that I never disliked watching them. Even the side characters I kind of liked, I especially like Donner, and how he does realize that he was too hard on his son.

Speaking of which, yeah, this film has garnered a bit of a reputation recently, and not a very positive one. Some say that it says that differences will be mocked until they can be used to serve one's purpose.

Stop that.

If you actually watch the special, you will know that it wasn't the storm that made everyone change their minds about Rudolph, it was the bravery he displayed trying to save his family and friends. Again, something that might have been better explained by the plot being more detailed, but what can we do? We need not forget that Donner went out to find his son way before the storm began. Of course, people also say that the special kind of encourages bullying, but I think that might be an over exaggeration, it's like saying SpongeBob promotes working for exposure. Even if you actually think that, the other reindeer are kind of supposed to be seen as jerks, and we are meant to sympathize with Rudolph.

But now let's talk about the animation. Being a stop motion animator myself, yeah, this special doesn't have great animation. Even for the time I would have to assume it looked choppy and basic. Keep in mind, some of our first filmed animations were stop motion, look up J. Stuart Blackton. On top of that, I noticed a few small errors here and there like mouths not syncing properly and repetitive movements. Despite that, the animation is not actually terrible, scenes like the wind storm blowing things away, that is actually quite impressive and a lot of the movement itself is actually pretty smooth. Yeah, some of it is jerky and some of the models look sparse and cheap, but I never found myself overly critical of the animation or visuals.

And I think there is one reason why, the special is not great on a critical point of view. Characters are simple, the plot glances over important moments and the animation is a bit crude. That being said, it still is a lot better than other hour long films I've seen in all of those aspects. Characters do have a goal they wish to obtain, the plot is simple and flows well and the animation does have it's moments. However, none of that is why this special is well loved, it's well loved because it is just so charming.

It's simple, but that helps many viewers get attached to it. It's cheap, but they still put effort into it. It is a special that I enjoy watching every year, and I am sure that many other do to. It is a charming special, and it has some good elements that keep it from faltering on a critical level. Honestly, I think the only problem I really have with this special, is a small one but still; How cool would it be to have a cowboy that rides an ostrich? Ostriches are cool, why is the cowboy on the ostrich a misfit toy? I would love to have a toy cowboy on an ostrich.

Anyway, this is a classic special and one that you're probably watching every year.

First Impressions: Steven Universe: The Movie (2019)

So... what can I say about Steven Universe? Well, unlike Rocko's Modern Life, I actually did watch a lot of this show before the movie was announced. Though I still did binge watch most of it to catch up as I've kinda fell out of it. Watching it again though, I gotta say it really is great. That being said, it is flawed, and there are some things I do not think the writers really thought through, but hey, it has great characters, great animation, some great songs, I like it. I was pretty excited when the movie was announced, though I sadly did not see it as it aired, not really a Television watcher. So, I watched it online, admittedly not the best thing, but still. So, what are my thoughts on this movie?

I didn't like it.

I like the concept, a new villain comes in and reverts the gems to their original selves and begins to destroy the Earth. Plotwise, it is a fine movie, it flows well together, it's just that... well...

Can this movie go ten minutes without going into another song number?

Look, I get this is a musical, but even Disney has restraint when it comes to their song numbers. I'm not sure if they wanted to make their own "Power Puff Girls See Me, Feel Me, Gnomey" like thing but, that was like, a regular length episode and it was meant to be a rock opera like Tommy. They could have also wanted to make something like The Wall, but really The Wall worked better as an album, or maybe that is because the film cut songs out. I know the songs are a well loved aspect of the show, and don't get me wrong "Stronger Than You" and "Here Comes a Thought" are two of my favourite songs in animation, but some of these songs just appear to fast. Even ones that, if given a second listen to I'd probably enjoy, I just wanted them to end so I could get back to what I like the show for, the characters.

When it comes to characters, I want to say this movie is wonderful because it is the show characters, but a few years older, but no. While Steven is still a good character, Garnet, Amethyst and Pearl are turned into their original selves (i.e. before the show began) so the characters we know and love don't really appear until towards the end. Lapis and Peridot are the same though, and that is great because I love them both, and most of the laughs I got out of this movie were from them. I, have yet to see Bismuth's return episode, but I do kind of like her character here. Connie is out of the film completely until the third act which sucks, and the new character of Spinel is... I don't really like her.

Spinel is that clingy friend people don't like to hang around with, even in her original form, she is kind of annoying. This may be because I am an introvert, but then again I would be lying if I said I didn't see a bit of myself in her. We do both love fun and do get emotional, but the difference is, I do worry that I annoy my friends sometimes... a lot... and a character like Spinel doesn't.

"But don't you like SpongeBob and Patrick? Aren't they similar characters?"

Yes and no, SpongeBob and Patrick are both fun loving and can be ignorant to the annoyance of the people around them, and the episode where that gets out of control are some of the worst episode of the show. The episodes where it's SpongeBob and Patrick working off of each other, or off of just Squidward, or where the town gets in on their antics, those are the episodes where they shine.

"But Spinel's backstory, and how she has trust and abandonment issues."

Yes, Spinel's backstory is really sad, but ultimately, I don't think a character having a trauma makes them good characters from the get-go. Also remember that she spends a good chunk of the movie as her original self anyway, Steven hit her with that, admittedly cool scythe weapon. So, I can assume that this is the character she was with Pink Diamond.

Yeah, at the end we do see the full trauma she deals with, which also hit close to home for me, but when I have to get through the stuff I don't like to get to the parts I do, that isn't fun, or entertaining, it's boring, and frustrating. Even Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, for as tedious, uncomfortable and insane as that movie got, it still had all the funny, engaging and creative moments. At the end of the day, I don't think someone should use their trauma to justify being a horrible friend, but hey, Spinel changes in the end, and for the better. Like Peridot... and Lapis... and Bismuth... and apparently the Diamonds... Yeah, just... following the formula... nothing wrong with that.

Actually that is harsh, Spinel is kind of like Tempest Shadow from the MLP movie. Though, even then, that movie did turn the main baddie into a stone statue and let him fall of a balcony and shatter on the ground. I do like the idea of using non-violent and peaceful ways to overcome your enemies, but I also think that not everyone can be won over that way. Some people are just to arrogant, to prideful, to savage or just to stupid to think that way.

I don't want to say this movie is completely bad, I did find myself laughing at some moments, I liked the concept of the movie, the animation was gorgeous, and I never really hated any of it, but I found myself not liking a lot of it either. Seriously, there were way too many songs in this movie, a Disney sing-along has less singing. I'm not sure if this needed to be reworked from the ground up, or just needed an extra re-write, or maybe if the whole thing would have been better if it was more like The Wall instead where it was all music and told a story through it all. As a whole, if you like Steven Universe, you might like it, but even then that is a big "MIGHT", there are some fans that didn't like this movie, and I can see why. Still, I don't think this is one to skip over, but it isn't one I really recommend either, you know what that means!

Oh yeah, there were also some comments that Rebecca Sugar made involving Spinel, but in these cases I like to invoke the "Death of the Author".

Also, updates to this blog may be coming infrequently for a while, here's a previous post explaining why: https://darkanimatedodeon.blogspot.com/2019/09/update-it-has-been-couple-weeks-whats.html

Scooby-Doo and the Ghoul School (1988) - Not really great, but enjoyable for what it is

Scooby-Doo movies are pretty much a dime a dozen. There have been so many that it's kind of sickening. That is not to say that all of them are bad, but even Scooby-doo fans can admit that a lot of them are soulless, and pointless, cash-grabs that bank on the nostalgia of a long over-milked franchise. However, even so not all the direct-to-video Scooby-Doo movies are terrible, and I'd say Ghoul School is one of those exceptions.

Released in 1988, Scooby-Doo and the Ghoul School was a made-for-television movie that clocks in at one hour and thirty-two minutes. It was the fourth Television Film, preceded by Scooby-Doo Meets the Boo Brothers. Even though this was a made for TV movie and released in the late 80s, it seems to have a fair-sized following online, but is it worth the following?

The plot focuses on Shaggy, Scooby-Doo and the little runt Scrappy as they take up a new job at a girl school as gym teachers. However, when they get there, it turns out that it's also a ghoul school, hence the title. The trio help the girls get in shape for a volleyball tournament, but all the while, an evil witch is watching them and plotting something evil.

The movie let's you know from the get-go that this isn't really going to be that serous. It opens with a fourth wall break. It's not really funny, and that sets the tone for the movie honestly. Most of the humour in this movie is bad puns and cartoony shenanigans. I personally enjoy me some bad pun-ishment, but the wordplay in the movie wasn't clever. The vampire girl, Sibella, keeps making bat puns and saying "Fang-tastic", and only a handful of the bat puns were cute. The little Mummy girl, Tanis, is the center of a lot of wrapping puns for another example. This is most of the humourous dialogue, there's no real clever wordplay or punchlines, and the puns get old fast.

As for the cartoony shenanigans, well, this is a late 80s production. While the artstyle is well detailed, a lot of the psychical impact is left out of the film, making a lot of these more a set-up without a punchline.

The animation itself is fine for this time period. I think a few shots and cels might have been reused, but I couldn't name them off the top of my head.

Character is another thing that isn't done great with this movie. Outside of a couple characters, I couldn't really name a personality trait of any of the characters. Shaggy and Scooby are typical Shaggy and Scooby, they're cowardly and silly, but they ultimately end up doing the right thing in the end. Scrappy is Scrappy and that's all I can say about him, outside of his little rap at the end of the film, yes, I'm not joking. The only characters I can really say have personality is the mummy girl, Tanis, and the ghost girl Phantasma. Tanis actually has a goal in the movie, but that gets resolved quickly, and Phantasma... well, Phantasma is a lot of fun. It's clear she's having fun with what she does, as most of what she does is laugh and run around. I think she's become a fan favourite character, and it's not hard to see why. It's funny because I remember having a crush on Sibella when I was a child.

The villains are pathetic, Revolta and Creeper have a decent plan, and are threatening at first, but at the end of the movie, they stand around while the girls escape, and when they chase after them, some rogue spell shoots them out of the air. The one thing I hate more than a pathetic villain is a decent villain that goes out like a chump. There is also this cadet school, but lord help me if I could remember them. They really only serve to made the volleyball subplot function and come back in the climax to save the day.

With that said, at no point did I ever end up hating the movie. I found the girls to be charming, the backgrounds well detailed and the scenarios to be enjoyable. Outside of the ending with Scrappy's rap song, there was very little to really dislike about this movie. It had an interesting set-up, charming characters and scenarios and a fairly decent villain to start.

I guess I am giving it some leeway because this is a late eighties production, and it would be a few years before Animaniacs would come out to give the finger to the strict censors. Still though, I would love to see this get remade. Maybe as a spin-off show where Shaggy and Scooby still coach the girls, and maybe add in a few more, like maybe a zombie girl, a demon girl. There is a lot of potential for something pretty great here, but as is, the movie isn't bad. It's enjoyable for what it is, and I do think that it has earned some kind of following, although considering what would come of the Scooby-Doo movies, there have been a lot worse.