IanTheCool
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,493
Likes: 2,864
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 19:04:47 GMT -5
|
Post by IanTheCool on Aug 30, 2020 9:17:20 GMT -5
Coming soon: videos about The Last Jedi and Joker I have considered doing a Last Jedi video a couple of times but I doubt I ever will. Talking about Star Wars on the internet sucks. Can I guest star?
|
|
IanTheCool
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,493
Likes: 2,864
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 19:04:47 GMT -5
|
Post by IanTheCool on Aug 30, 2020 9:21:46 GMT -5
Show us where Mary Poppins touched you. Let's vote off Sound of Music from the AFI and replace it with Mary Poppins I would actually be okay with this.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,773
Likes: 8,647
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 18:30:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Aug 30, 2020 9:31:05 GMT -5
the 70s were generally kind of a terrible decade for Disney, in part because there simply weren’t as many kids as their used to be. The baby boomers had grown up, so that population spike was no longer in Disney’s demo and the next population spike (the millennials) had not come along yet. Generation X: The Forgotten Generation
|
|
Deexan
CS! Silver
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,196
Likes: 2,995
Location:
Last Online Nov 13, 2021 19:23:59 GMT -5
|
Post by Deexan on Aug 31, 2020 2:51:57 GMT -5
Pete's Dragon?
lol
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 19:36:00 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Sept 1, 2020 12:27:43 GMT -5
Enchanted (2007)
After Pete’s Dragon Disney wouldn’t make another major live/animation hybrid for another thirty years until the release of the 2007 film Enchanted, and admittedly calling Enchanted a live action/animation hybrid is a bit of a stretch. The film does begin with a scene of traditional animation and briefly has another such scene but 95% of the film is either live action (or CGI effects) and the animated segments are more or less pure animation that doesn’t incorporate live action actors. Having said that the movie doesn’t really fit well in any of the studios other usual trends but is nonetheless kind of an important release by them. It came out right when Disney was in the process of switching from making traditionally animated films of their own separate from Pixar and at the time their live action family movies were pretty disconnected from the studio’s legacy and branding. This however was extremely connected to the Disney brand, in fact it was a sort of parody of their signature style and their first three “princess” movies in particular and it predated their upcoming attempts to revive that old style by a good three years. The film begins in an animated sequence that is essentially an exaggerated version of what we saw in Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. This ends in the our princess (well, soon-to-be-princess) being sent through a portal by the villainess (who probably could have saved herself a lot of trouble by just killing her) and winds up being transported from the animated universe into modern day Time Square, at which point it becomes a live action fish out of water story along the lines of Splash. In this Amy Adams deserves a lot of credit for really committing to this performance as a hyper-wholesome lady with naïve Disney notions of love at first sight and the like. She also needs to sing as the film is also a musical of sorts, one that doesn’t have a ton of songs but does have at least two rather notable numbers both written by Disney veteran Alan Menken the lyricist Stephen Schwartz and she acquits herself well on that front. There are some other performances here that stand out; James Marsden is also strong as the dimwitted prince who chases Adams into the real world and if nothing else it’s amusing to see Timothy Spall show up in a movie like this as the henchman. So there are some amusing things in the movie but I must say that as a parody of Disney movies I found the movie to be toothless to the point of just being a rather pointless piece of work. The film’s screenplay was written in the 90s and was not necessarily meant to be produced by Disney itself and was meant to be a more adult oriented satire and you can pretty easily see the roots of that in the movie. The basic concept of this G-rated heroine being dropped into the real world is kind of undercut by the fact that the New York she’s dropped into is itself rather cleaned up and PG rather than being the mean streets that would really clash with her aura. Even without the more adult humor this could have still been a lot better if it had simply had more of a philosophy to it but Disney never really lets it. It basically sets up this satire about everything wrong with their old princess movies and why they’re sexist and nonsensical but then it never really goes in for the kill shot and instead just transitions into some silliness where they fight a CGI dragon. The movie also doesn’t really put a lot of effort into arguing the opposite, that this person’s innocence is admirable and replicable, so it’s really kind of a pointless movie about nothing albeit one with some fun moments along the way. **1/2 out of FiveCollecting Some Thoughts
Well, I think that’s the most negative I’ve ever been on one of these Disneyology things, not a single positive score in the bunch. Even at the darkest periods of their fully animated run Disney would usually had at least one winner in each bunch but not here. Clearly I’m not very receptive to what the Mouse House was going for with these movies, but I still feel like this was worth doing. Having an informed opinion on Song of the South has been on my “to do” list for a while, I’ve also been meaning to make sure that I have actually seen Mary Poppins and thinking Bedknobs and Broomsticks is superior to it will be a fun hot take to trot out from time to time. Enchanted is also a somewhat important movie in Disney’s recent history that is worth knowing about and even Pete’s Dragon had a couple of slightly charming elements worth knowing about… probably could have gone without seeing So Dear to My Heart though, that thing was dull.
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,647
Likes: 4,062
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 19:34:30 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Sept 1, 2020 13:30:14 GMT -5
This series is what Neverending described your Pixar series as being.
Not a bad thing mind you. Could have fun to see the skeptic win out completely.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 19:36:00 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Sept 3, 2020 14:07:01 GMT -5
Not sure how interested people are going to be in this but... Disney’s Live Action Greatest Hits (1950-1960)
The more I’ve learned about the Walt Disney Company the more it’s become clear to me that you can’t truly understand their history just by looking at their animated movies. Starting in the 1950s they began investing heavily into making live action films that also fit into their overall brand and would continue to make them simultaneously with their animated productions right up to this day. Disney’s live action work (and here I’m talking about the official Disney stuff with the castle logo, not their recent run of movies based on Marvel and Star Wars) has often been a sort of parallel Hollywood universe that existed alongside the other studios but which would generally use homegrown actors and directors rather than the stars that would be traded liberally between the other studios. The films in question generally don’t cross my path and tend not to stream and air from my usual classic movie sources and my hope is that looking into them will generally give me a richer idea of what the movie going landscape was like during various eras. Now, Disney made a TON of these movies and no one but the most devoted fanboys will watch all of them so my goal is to just look into their work during the 50s, 60s, and 70s and pick out some of their most notable films. I’m not planning to dig too deep into what they were doing during my own lifetime, and I’m probably not going to track down much of anything that’s not easily accessible on Disney+. Treasure Island (1950)
The effects of World War II on Disney have been pretty well documented and they were largely wound up in the effect it had on the European markets that had made Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs one of the biggest hits in cinema history up to that point. Weirdly enough these headaches persisted after the war ended and played a big role in pushing Disney into making its first live action films. Apparently after the war the UK was in some kind of complicated economic bind and had passed laws which imposed a gigantic tariff on films imported into the country and this essentially froze up a bunch of Disney’s funds in the country in such a way that required them to spend the money on films made in the country. Since their animation studio was in Los Angeles and there was no practical way to set up a new one elsewhere, the solution was to produce a series of live action films in the UK so they could be exporters rather than importers in the country and use those assets rather than having them sit there indefinitely. They chose as their first project an adaptation of Robert Lewis Stevenson’s youth adventure classic “Treasure Island” and also used it as another vehicle for their Song of the South and So Dear to My Heart star Bobby Driscoll, who they cast as Jim Hawkins. The film pretty closely follows the plot outline of the original novel; this wasn’t the first adaptation and certainly wouldn’t be the last. For that matter it wouldn’t even be the last Disney adaptation as they did some versions for TV and would eventually bring it to space for Treasure Planet. It is, however, I think one of the more notable adaptations and solidified a lot of the pirate archetypes. Robert Newton’s performance as Long John Silver. Newton was a hard drinking man’s man who had a long resume of playing tough guys in British film and in this performance he used an exaggerated West Country accent which almost certainly played a major role in establishing what we now consider “pirate speak” of the “Avast ye mateys” variety. The rest of the cast was also decent, even Bobby Driscoll has grown a bit as an actor and is less annoying than in his other two big films. The film doesn’t exactly have epic production values but it doesn’t look cheap and I was also interested to see that the film didn’t feel as sanitized as they might in some of Disney’s animated films. The movie is not any more violent than the average western of the era but there was no hesitation here to have characters get shot and killed over the course of the adventure. In general I wouldn’t say that the movie is a major accomplishment or anything but as an old school adventure matinee it mostly holds up as good fun. ***1/2 out of Five
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,298
Likes: 6,764
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Doomsday on Sept 3, 2020 14:27:56 GMT -5
You kidding? They used to play the shit out of that on the Disney Channel in the late 80s/early 90s. I don't remember most of it except for when Hawkins shoots the guy in the face from the crow's nest which I thought was awesome. So does this mean we have Swiss Family Robinson, Old Yeller and Follow Me Boys coming down the pipe?
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 19:36:00 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Sept 3, 2020 14:32:18 GMT -5
You kidding? They used to play the shit out of that on the Disney Channel in the late 80s/early 90s. I don't remember most of it except for when Hawkins shoots the guy in the face from the crow's nest which I thought was awesome. So does this mean we have Swiss Family Robinson, Old Yeller and Follow Me Boys coming down the pipe? Old Yeller, yes. The other two are from the 60s so they may be in a future installment (which will be in the distant future). I'm open to suggestions though, I have certain titles in mind but might be overlooking some.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 19:36:00 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Sept 5, 2020 10:01:43 GMT -5
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954)
After having made a handful of adventure movies in England with varying degrees of box office success Disney found itself making something that was a lot more ambitious than what they had been doing in the live action world with their Jules Verne adaptation 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Of all the live action films that Disney made this in many ways feels the list like a “Disney movie” in part because of the presence of big stars from other studios like Kirk Douglas, James Mason, and Peter Lorre and it was directed by Richard Fleischer, a journeyman filmmaker who made a pretty solid career making large scale is perhaps slightly bland films like Tora! Tora! Tora! for other studios. It’s one of the first movies of any kind to use the cinemascope format and it’s generally made on a much larger scale and with a much larger budget than most of Disney’s live action films. You get the impression that Disney would normally save a story with fantastical elements like this for their animation department, but for whatever reason they opted not to this time and instead tried to compete with the other studios on their own turf for once. As a production there’s a lot to appreciate in the film. The Nautilus set looks pretty sharp, and does a good job of feeling both Victorian and modern at the same time. The underwater photography is also very impressive considering that this was made a full ten years before Thunderball, which is my usual standard for this sort of thing. The film’s famous fight with a giant squid has perhaps aged a bit less gracefully and now works more on the level of camp than spectacle, but it is charming in its own way. Also rather dated are the depictions of black tribal islanders during one section, which definitely feels like it’s of the same era as the “What Made the Red Man Red” song from Peter Pan. The cast is also a bit of a mixed bag. James Mason is pretty great as Nemo and Paul Lukas is good as his counterpart. Kirk Douglas on the other hand feels a tad miscast as he’s a bit too much of an action hero to be playing what is actually kind of an impulsive ass of a character and Peter Lorre just generally seems a bit out of place as a sidekick/non bad guy. It’s also generally a rather talky movie and doesn’t really have that pacing you might expect from a family action movie, but usually in interesting ways. Overall the movie is about what you’d expect from a big budget Hollywood adaptation of this book during this era but perhaps not a definitive and unmissable one. ***1/2 out of Five
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 19:36:00 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Sept 7, 2020 7:31:02 GMT -5
Old Yeller (1957)
After the budget for 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea went way over and the movie ended up just breaking even despite being a hit Disney clearly decided to scale back and make their live action films on more of a modest budget and targeted more specifically to kids and families. One of those films was Old Yeller an adaptation of the young adult novel of the same name by Fred Gipson which had only just been published a year before the film came out so clearly it built its reputation quickly. I never read that book (my elementary school’s dead redneck dog book of choice was Where the Red Fern Grows) but its reputation proceeded it… or at least the reputation of the film and book’s ending proceeded it. Basically every generation has their own little list of movies that traumatized them as children whether its Gen Xers scared that E.T. was going to die or Silent Generation kids being sad for Bambi’s mother or the kids today who got to see Thanos wipe half their favorite superheroes out of existence. For boomers a major cinematic trauma seems to have been the scene at the end of this when Travis has to shoot his now rabid dog to put it out of its misery and prevent it from biting and infecting anyone. This scene has so eclipsed the rest of the movie in the minds of the public that there are major parts of the movie (like the fact that it’s set in post-Civil War Texas) that I knew next to nothing about. The movie essentially concerns an interesting twist on the western genre as it shows what goes on at a ranch while the family patriarch is away on a cattle drive and also sort of falls under the “the one summer that changed my life” genre of coming of age stories. If follows some of the usual beats of a “boy raises dog” story with the twist that the protagonist actively dislikes the dog for a while in the film for seemingly no reason before finally coming around. The production values here are, well they’re average. The frontier scenery is decent but hardly breathtaking and the film is pretty good at utilizing trained animals to get through its story. The performances aren’t terribly good and a lot of them employ questionable Southern accents but they’re not terrible either. If there’s any real sin here it’s just that the whole story is kind of uneventful beyond what now (and probably then) seemed like pretty standard coming of age clichés. The film’s ending certainly didn’t make me cry but it was less wildly manipulative than I expected it to be and the film’s epilogue with Travis’ father essentially debriefing him on his pooch assassination to be pretty respectable in its own traditionally corny kind of way. The whole movie is generally very much a product of the 1950s; the nuclear family is very much the default, parents are always right, and child rearing is heavily focused on instilling responsibility over personal development. Overall it’s not poorly made for what it is but it’s pretty far removed from my personal sensibilities. **1/2 out of Five
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 19:36:00 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Sept 9, 2020 10:06:20 GMT -5
The Shaggy Dog (1959)
More than any other golden age studio I associate Disney with “living color.” They did of course have a history of black and white shorts in their very early days like “Steamboat Willie” but even their earliest animated features were in color as were almost all of their live action films. Hell, they even had a T.V. show called “Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color” all about how awesome it is to broadcast things in color. There were, however, apparently some exceptions and their 1959 film The Shaggy Dog was one of them. This is not one of those Disney movies that people have heartfelt memories of; there might be some boomers who have some nostalgia for it but most people kind of view it as a bit of 50s kitsch that was one of Disney’s dumber efforts and I’d say it lives up to that. The film is set in the most suburban of suburbs and has the exact same aesthetic as the 50s family sitcoms like “Father Knows Best” that would become rather loaded in the years after for their rather plastic depiction of bland white Americana. Fred MacMurray stars as a slightly silly family patriarch, which is a bit different from the darker roles I was used to seeing him in in Billy Wilder movies, but I think this is more representative of the kind of stuff he did for most of his career. Old Yeller star Tommy Kirk plays the lead here. Kirk was another one of the kid stars that Disney scooped up and then abandoned, in this case because they found out he was gay and possibly a barbiturate addict, and he would spend the rest of his career making moribund beach blanket movies like the MST3K film Catalina Caper. Here he’s a pretty all-American wholesome teen character though. The film’s rather dopey premise is that the Tommy Kirk character stumbles upon a magic ring which makes him randomly turn into a sheepdog owned by one of his neighbors (he doesn’t switch roles with the pooch, the real dog just disappears when this happens) and then deals with that while going through his mundane suburban issues. While in dog form the boy still has full consciousness and is able to speak English but needs to avoid giving himself away because his dad is allergic to canines and is generally hostile toward them. The effect of him talking while in dog form is done with some sort of animatronic puppet and I suspect the film was shot in black and white in order to make that visual effect look better. The whole thing pretty much goes how you’d expect it to… until the protagonist finds out that his neighbors are spies not unlike Julius and Ethel Rosenberg who are plotting to steal government secrets from a nearby rocket facility in order to sell them to the Russians… didn’t really see that coming. But even with this development the film doesn’t take itself too seriously and instead maintains its comedic tone… but it’s not very funny, or at least it’s not any more funny than those bad “Leave it to Beaver” sitcoms that it was modeled after and the whole transforming dog bit doesn’t really do enough to make this feel like actual cinema rather than a glorified TV show. Not recommended as anything other than a historical curiosity. ** out of Five
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,773
Likes: 8,647
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 18:30:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Sept 9, 2020 10:16:12 GMT -5
The Shaggy Dog isn’t the dad? The Tim Allen movie lied to me.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 19:36:00 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Sept 9, 2020 10:20:34 GMT -5
The Shaggy Dog isn’t the dad? The Tim Allen movie lied to me. Correct. The sequel, The Shaggy D.A. (which was made almost twenty years later for some reason) has the dynamic where the father is the one turning into the dog because that one stars the same character from the original (played by a different actor) now as an adult.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,773
Likes: 8,647
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 18:30:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Sept 9, 2020 10:47:52 GMT -5
20 years as in 1979? I can see that.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 19:36:00 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Sept 9, 2020 10:54:40 GMT -5
20 years as in 1979? I can see that. 1976 ("almost twenty years") but yeah.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,773
Likes: 8,647
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 18:30:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Sept 9, 2020 11:01:59 GMT -5
We got a Herbie movie in the 90‘s and one in the 2000’s with Lindsay Lohan’s boobs. Don’t know why you surprised.
|
|
IanTheCool
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,493
Likes: 2,864
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 19:04:47 GMT -5
|
Post by IanTheCool on Sept 9, 2020 19:44:04 GMT -5
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 19:36:00 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Sept 11, 2020 7:10:31 GMT -5
Darby O’Gill and the Little People (1959)
My knowledge about this movie consisted of exactly one piece of trivia: it was Sean Connery’s one big role before he became a superstar as James Bond. Saying it’s “his” movie is probably an exaggeration, he’s billed third here but it’s a factoid that comes up from time to time in discussions of the actor’s career and were it not for that there’s a pretty good chance I never would have selected this movie for this marathon through Disney’s live action films of the 50s. The film was based on short stories by Herminie Templeton Kavanagh, a late 19th/early 20th century woman of Irish descent who lived in America for most of her life. The film is set in Ireland and is meant to be a big celebration of that country that would appeal to Irish Americans who felt warmth for “the homeland” but perhaps not much of a desire to actually go there. The movie depicts the country in the most stereotypical Disneyfied way imaginable. Half the cast is speaking in an exaggerated “oirish” accents and everything’s green and filled with shamrocks and all the rest of the touristy shit that actual Irish people hate and make fun of. Most prominently the “little people” in the title are full on leprechauns. Much of the plot concerns Darby O’Gill, an old groundskeeper at a local mansion owned by some local lord, who spends most of the movie trying to capture the king of the local leprechauns who continually fucks with the old man. Darby is a strange choice of protagonist for a family movie given that he is a septuagenarian that kids are unlikely to relate to, which is something that could be made to work in theory but doesn’t here. Sean Connery plays a young Dubliner who has recently moved to the town and has been hired as Darby’s replacement. He’s fine. I doubt the locals were much impressed by his accent but that’s the least of what they’ll be offended by here. He eventually becomes a love interest for Darby’s daughter, which is a little odd given his future star persona as a sleazy womanizer and some of his real life statements about domestic violence, but I’m sure it would seem like a reasonably sweet romance to people in 1959. Really the movie is just overwhelmingly lame and kind of pointless. They seemingly had no real goal here except to make the most Irish movie to ever Irish and give them something to play on TV every St. Patrick’s Day. *1/2 out of Five
|
|
Deexan
CS! Silver
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,196
Likes: 2,995
Location:
Last Online Nov 13, 2021 19:23:59 GMT -5
|
Post by Deexan on Sept 11, 2020 21:12:29 GMT -5
WE WANT MULAN.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 19:36:00 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Sept 13, 2020 13:14:17 GMT -5
Pollyanna (1960)
“Pollyanna” was a novel written by Eleanor H. Porter in 1913 and became a pretty famous work and sort of sits with books like “Little Women” and “Heidi” as books that are traditionally given to preteen girls. The book has kind of gained a reputation for being cringingly saccharine, not just from cynical shits like me but from normal people to. In fact the very name “Pollyanna” has become something of a byword for a sort of unproductive naiveté with people routinely being accused of being “Pollyannaish” which the dictionary defines as a person or idea that is “unreasonably or illogically optimistic.” Still, it’s considered a classic of American wholesomeness so it was probably not too much of a surprise that Walt Disney would get his mits on it and in 1960 the Walt Disney Company released what was the second major adaptation of the book after a popular 1920 adaptation with Mary Pickford. To make it they brought in a guy named David Swift, who had been an office boy at Disney in the 1930s but left during World War II and after the war began working in television during the 1950s and was brought back to Disney for this project which he really made it his baby; he wrote the script, co-produced it, and directed the film and got to work with some decently famous actors from outside the Disney stable like Jane Wyman, Karl Malden, and Agnes Moorehead. For the title character they brought in thirteen year old Hayley Mills, the daughter of the veteran British character actor John Mills, who generally seems to have had a healthier career and life than most of the other child stars that went through this studio. The plot here is that the titular girl is an orphan who arrives in a small town called Harrington to live at an orphanage owned by her aunt, who is a part of a fairly prominent family in the town. The film essentially depicts here attempts to establish herself in this town and how the town affects her and how she affects the town. Given the book’s reputation for sickly sweetness attempts were made to adjust the material to be a little more grounded. In fact Swift was quoted as saying “in the book Pollyanna was so filled with happiness and light that I wanted to kick her… Now she is shy.” In theory this is exactly what I’d want to hear from someone making a version of this book and Hayley Mills does make the character a bit more believable. However, there’s really only so much you can do to make this story non-saccharine and “Pollyanna” even at a 50% dosage is still too much for my tastes, and there’s a good chance that the people who actually like that shit might find it a bit light on the corniness. I almost wonder if they would have been better off just going all in and making the most sickening movie possible, I still wouldn’t have liked it but I might have at least found it memorable. Instead what we get feels like a pretty standard period drama/literary adaptation and one that comes to really wear out its welcome at two hours and fifteen minutes. Not a movie to be hated, but not one I’ll be thinking about much in a week. ** out of FiveCollecting Some Thoughts
Well, that started pretty promising but sort of went downhill from there. Treasure Island and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea were both pretty cool adventure stories that were made on impressive budgets and were generally a lot of fun but then things got a lot more modest and a lot less distinctive. Old Yeller at least had a certain gravitas but The Shaggy Dog and Darby O’Gill and the Little People were just dumb and Pollyanna was forgettable. Still, most of these movies had reference points that were worth knowing about and I don’t regret checking them out while they were freely available to me.
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,647
Likes: 4,062
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 19:34:30 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Sept 13, 2020 19:33:58 GMT -5
Hmm, maybe I'll check out Treasure Island and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea at least.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,773
Likes: 8,647
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 18:30:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Sept 13, 2020 19:44:30 GMT -5
Hmm, maybe I'll check out Treasure Island and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea at least. And Zorro
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,773
Likes: 8,647
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 18:30:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Sept 14, 2020 0:36:53 GMT -5
Doomsday, when you and Jon Favreau gonna reboot this bad boy?
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 19:36:00 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Apr 4, 2021 18:45:57 GMT -5
Disneyology 201: The “Package” Films
When I did my “Disneyology 101” marathon I had one simple goal: see every one of Disney’s feature length animated films. That was pretty ambitious, especially in the days before Disney+ when I had to track down all those movies (including some in “the vault”) mostly on physical media. Though I did watch 42 movies for that I did make some concessions to keep things going, namely that I did not watch any of the “features” Disney made between 1942 and 1950, which were a collection of rather compromised works that are often dubbed “the package films.” These movies were made at a difficult time for Disney when they were financially decimated by not being able to release their expensive post-Snow White features in Europe because of the war and also lost a lot of employees to the draft and on top of all that were just coming off rather demoralizing strike that left a lot of bitter feelings for all involved. With all this going on they wouldn’t be able to make any more huge productions like Pinocchio, or Bambi, or even Dumbo. Instead they focused on making short films which they could then “package” together into features which would at least keep the division alive. When doing “Disneyology 101” I opted to skip these movies because they didn’t sound like true features and frankly watching them seemed like it would be a bit of a speed bump to getting to the more famous works that I really wanted to learn about. However, most canonical lists of Disney’s features does include them so if I was going to say “I’ve seen every animated Disney feature” with true credibility I was going to have to watch them… and that’s what I intend to do with this installment of Disneyology 201 Saludos Amigos (1942)/ The Three Caballeros (1944)
During World War II Disney was widely involved in the making educational films for the armed forces as well as propaganda films for the general public. Wartime propaganda efforts were also the genesis for the first two of Disney’s “package” films: 1942’s Saludos Amigos and 1944’s The Three Caballeros, two movies that have similar origins and can probably be talked about together. These movies were the result of an attempt by the State Department to get Walt Disney involved in their “Good Neighbor” initiative, which was an attempt to increase soft power in Latin America (after years of being very bad neighbors, both before and after) so as to keep them on the side of the allies during a time when Nazi Germany was doing a lot of outreach themselves. As part of this effort they had Walt Disney himself along with a cadre of other animators and Disney employees go on a good will tour of South America where he’d visit the sights, speak at schools, and generally act as a positive example of American culture. This tour is said to have gone very well for most involved and while there they shot some documentary footage and took a lot of notes that would then be used for a film when they got back to Los Angeles which would also be aimed at encouraging Western hemisphere unity. The first film they made when they got home was Saludos Amigos, which only runs about 43 minutes, which only barely qualifies it as a feature under Academy definitions and is the shortest “feature” the studio ever made. The film uses Disney’s real life tour of Latin America as a sort of framing story and uses footage of their trip interspersed between the animated segments. The whole film has kind of a faux documentary motif with a fairly deadpan narrator talking over most of the film and explaining the various cultural aspects that the film is riffing on. There are four main sequences: The first features Donald Duck messing around with a lama near Lake Titicaca in Peru. The next segment looks at the Chilean air mail service (which film fans may recognize from the 1939 film Only Angels Have Wings), which is depicted by these sentient airplanes (which are oddly similar to the cars from Cars) and in particular a junior plane named Pedro who goes on his first flight when his parents are “sick.” Next we go to Argentina for a short where Goofy is playing a cowboy who is transported to South America and becomes a Gaucho. Finally we end on a sequence in Brazil which introduces José Carioca, an anthropomorphized parrot who dances through Rio de Janeiro with Donald Duck. That last segment is almost certainly the most notable and incorporates some really nice looking watercolors and generally makes 1940s Rio look really cool. The other segments have their charms as well; Pedro is a cute little story and the gaucho story does a good job of incorporating more traditional cartoon gags into this cultural milieu. Having said that, this is a movie which is by its nature a bunch of white Americans depicting foreign countries and it’s not hard to see how that could go spectacularly wrong. The film is certainly a tourist-eye view of these countries, something the film makes no bones about, and it generally looks for the aspects of these countries that are exotic and arguably stereotypical. What’s more there is kind of something kind of condescending about the hole framing story of this thing in that the film essentially has American animators “mansplaining” these country’s cultures to them by a narrator. On the other hand, they do seem to have done a decent amount of research while on their trip and get a lot of visual detail right and are careful to frame everything as positively as possible, this is after all a film that was commissioned by the state department to be as flattering to the Latin American world as possible and it reportedly proved to be fairly educational to American audiences who previously weren’t aware of how urban and developed parts of South America could be. Personally I found Saludos Amigos to be an interesting, albeit rather inessential, curio. It’s so short that it hardly really feels like you could call it a real feature film, but it also means that the film never really wears out its welcome. The same cannot be said by the studio’s follow-up The Three Caballeros, which runs about 71 minutes and which I frankly lost patience with pretty quickly. The film drops the faux-documentary framing and instead starts with a framing narrative about Donald Duck getting things sent to him that transition into shorts but then it kind of drops this and instead takes more of a stream of conscious approach with Donald, José, and a new avian ambassador: a Mexican rooster named Panchito Pistoles. There are a number of sequences here which juxtapose these animated characters against live action, a technique that would eventually be used again in the infamous Song of the South, and the animators really go nuts with this to the point where a whole lot of the film is just these birds fucking around in front of b-roll of Brazilians on the beach; it’s an oddly horny film at times with Donald frequently ogling human women all over the place. None of these characters are really conversationalists and there’s no narrator so it’s a pretty visual experience, but not really in much of an elegant way. Frankly I found it all kind of tiresome after not too long, but on some level this film might work a bit better for the original “good neighbor” aims of the whole project. Instead of condescendingly explaining these cultures like Saludos Amigos did it simply lets its multicultural cartoon characters act wackily in harmony without too much of a language barrier to overcome... but that doesn’t mean I actually enjoyed it and for someone trying to look back on these for scholarly purposes in 2021 The Three Caballeros was definitely the less enjoyable viewing experience. Saludos Amigos: **1/2 out of Five The Three Caballeros: *1/2 out of Five
|
|