Reviewing - Disney's Renaissance Rivals
From 1989-1999, Disney was at the top of their game. It was a period known as "The Disney Renaissance", when the studio released hit after hit with stunning animation and unforgettable music. But Disney wasn't the only animation studio in business. History has mostly forgotten Disney's chief competitors at the turn of the century - but for those who love the artistic style of the 90s and early 00s, there are a few gems here worth revisiting.
1988 - The Land Before Time (**)
In which the king of the dinosaurs repeatedly fails to eat a handful of slow-moving infants
I should love this movie, but I just can't manage it.
I mean, come on! It's a dinosaur movie! What's not to like about dinosaurs? At least, that's what I told myself when I spotted this film on Netflix. I never owned the original movie when I was a kid, but we had at least two of its direct-to-video sequels at my house on VHS. I had fond memories of the franchise, and I figured this would be better than what I remembered seeing as it was the ORIGINAL.
Unfortunately, it turned out that not even nostalgia-fueled dinos could save this movie for me. Yes, the dinosaurs were great. The adult dinosaurs in particular were wonderfully detailed and incredibly captivating. The T-Rex was a scene stealer (because he's a T-Rex, duh), and he was a great antagonist for the movie. But I couldn't get over a few flaws in this film. Firstly, the colour scheme was so dark and uninviting. I don't think there was one shot in the movie where the sky was a crystal clear blue. It was always a grimy reddish brown or something like that. I'm colourblind, to be clear, so I can't be that specific, but it certainly wasn't a colour scheme that made you feel adventurous or fun. It was mainly foreboding and chilling, which is not the way I wanted to feel in a movie about dino children. Secondly, the plot was too basic for me to get behind. Littlefoot losing his parents was great in terms of giving us a reason to root for the character, but from that point on, it just became a movie where our characters moved slowly and uninterestingly towards their goal. I was bored, plain and simple. Whenever the T-Rex disappeared, I absolutely lost interest.
This may not have been the film's fault, but the version that I watched on Netflix was also really grainy. It looked old and worn out. Though the animation certainly wasn't bad, it was also a far cry from where Disney would prove to be just one year later with The Little Mermaid. But beyond the animation, it's mainly the fact that this was just too simple a film for me. Littlefoot wants to get to the Great Valley. It's a long trip and it's kind of hard, but he gets there. That's the movie. I really thought there was going to be a bit more ambition in the plot to match the scale of the dinosaurs.
If you love dinosaurs, I suppose you could give this a shot, but honestly if this is the best film in the franchise then I'm surprised they made so many sequels.
1994 - Thumbelina (*)
In which a little girl falls in love with the ugliest haircut you’ve ever seen
Simply put, this film is much too little to compare to any competing Disney movie of its time.
Like "The Swan Princess" which I reviewed immediately before this movie, Thumbelina was released the same year as Disney's "The Lion King". When you think about that, this film is so much poorer in comparison that it's no wonder it's barely remembered. Where The Lion King (or really any 90s Disney flick) had stunning animation, a smorgasbord of iconic songs, and a masterfully executed narrative, Thumbelina had outdated 80s-quality animation (with one or two moments of exception), no music worth remembering, and a story that suffered from a painful lack of urgency. They did one or two things right, but on the whole I wouldn’t recommend this film to a single person.
Getting Jodi Benson – the voice of The Little Mermaid – to play Thumbelina was a good call. They also got Gilbert Gottfried to play a character, who you may remember as Iago from Aladdin. Apart from that, there’s only one other thing I really liked. There were two shots in the movie (and only two) that incorporated CGI animation. I believe it was the opening shot that gave us a swooping journey over the rooftops of Thumbelina’s little town. That was pretty neat. The only other instance of CGI that I noted was a similar overhead shot, but it was just about a dumb little frog’s house or something like that. The rest of the animation throughout the film was dull, bland, and thoroughly unremarkable.
I didn’t understand what the significance of the middle of the movie was. What I mean is that I understood the beginning, and I understood the end, but everything in between was lost on me. Thumbelina wants to meet fairies at the start, and she marries a fairy at the end. That’s fine. But what was going on with the Hispanic frogs and the pervert-ish beetle and the weird mole guy? Why did I have to watch any of that? I know that in stories about journeys we usually meet weird and wonderful people along the way, but all of these guys were far more weird than wonderful – and I didn’t really see how any of them deepened or developed Thumbelina as a character.
Also – and this is a bit whiney, I know – the animation style did not seem at all consistent to me. Thumbelina looked like Cinderella, and her dog looked like Pluto. One character is lifelike and realistic, while the other is 100% cartoonish. The insects in particular looked like they were pulled from a 1930s short ahead of a feature film. Nothing matched.
Lastly, listen – we need to talk about the fairy guy’s haircut. It’s unbelievable. I mean, I know this is fantasy, but every time I look at that guy I just can’t believe any mother fairy would ever allow her son to float around looking like that.
For the love of all that is good and holy in the world, skip this.
1994 - The Swan Princess (**)
In which a man shows us how to lose a woman in five syllables or less
Although I can't mention this film without mentioning my nostalgic attachment to it, I also can't lie and tell you it's any good.
When my siblings and I were young, our grandmother owned a cottage at the campground where we spent our summers. On hot days when we were tired of sitting in the sun, she would welcome us into her living room and give us something cold to drink. She had an old tube TV with a VCR in the corner of the room, and she had a little collection of VHS tapes on a shelf in the front hall. These were movies that she had likely found at one of the hundreds of garage sales she visited. All of them were exclusive to my grandmother's cottage. We never saw them anywhere else, before or since. Although there may have been more, the only films that I remember in her collection were:
- Dennis the Menace (1993) - Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland (1989) - Benji Takes A Dive At Marineland (1981) - The Swan Princess (1994)
As a result, we watched each of these more than once - and likely more than six times. I can't consider these films without thinking of sitting on my grandma's carpet and hearing the twitter of birds just outside the window on a hot day. It was a simple and beautiful time, and I will always carry those fond memories of that cottage.
But as lovely as the memories are, this movie just isn't that great. If it had been released in the 80s, I might have given it more credit, but we have to keep in mind that this film was released the same year as The Lion King. It's like a high school athlete competing in the Olympics. Sure, the kid probably isn't bad as far as his class goes, but we all know he hasn't got a shot in this competition.
The animation isn't bad - it's just nowhere close to the quality of Disney's last FIVE films. The character design is good, but the colour and shading simply can't compete with the vibrance of its competitors. The one bit of impressive animation is whenever Odette transforms and the water swirls around her, but to be honest I think they recycled the same animation every single time she transformed. They even used it in the opening logo.
The story also doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The bad guy's kidnapped Odette, and is holding her hostage by turning her into a swan. So far, so good. But the rules of the curse he's placed on her are not only bizarre, they're explained to us at the most random times. When the moon rises, she turns temporarily into a human, which keeps her from getting far. But apparently she can break the curse if someone makes a vow of everlasting love to her. Where did she learn this? And why would the bad guy use a curse like that? And then later on, we find that if Odette's true love makes a vow to someone else, she'll die. Why on earth is that part of the curse? It's like a whole separate thing.
Here's what's really confusing. Odette's true love Derek ends up accidentally pledging his love to the bad guy's henchwoman in disguise as Odette. But the words he specifically uses are "I make a vow of everlasting love to Odette". Sure, he's not pointing at Odette, but his heart and wording are correct - so why does this kill her anyway?
There were a few sparks of goodness in this movie. A few jokes landed, and there were a number of characters who I actually liked. But even with those moments, I couldn't help comparing it to literally every other film in the Disney Renaissance. Disney was on a whole other level at this point.
The filmmakers tried. And if they had released this ten years earlier, they might have had a bit more success. But it was far too late for an animated film of this quality. As they say in "The Prince of Egypt"...you're playing with the big boys now.
1995 - Balto (***)
In which a box marked ‘fragile’ is abused horribly with no consequences whatsoever
With competitive animation and a charming story, Balto’s biggest failing is the year it came out.
I’d never seen Balto as a kid – I gave it a shot this year simply because of my love for the traditional animation style of the 90s and early 00s. Balto was produced by one of Disney’s competitors, Amblimation. Let’s face it, everyone else was racing for second place in the time of the Disney Renaissance. Or maybe even for third place, given that 1995 was the year that Pixar exploded onto the scene with Toy Story.
Therein lies the problem for Balto. Disney was riding off the success of The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and The Lion King. Their newest work “Pocahontas” was destined to overshadow our little husky. Pixar’s Toy Story also stole the spotlight that year, and even “A Goofy Movie” ended up making more than Balto ever did. What makes Balto (the movie) different from Balto (the dog) is that the dog had perfect timing, and the film did not. There was just too much competition for the film to surmount.
Judging it on its own merit, this is a competent animated film. Balto’s a likable character, and the villain Steele is just the kind of dog you love to hate. Jim Cummings (if you don’t know the name, you should - he’s Winnie the Pooh as well as dozens of other iconic characters) gives a great performance as the ‘bad dog’, but come to think of it, there really isn’t any character who doesn’t do a good job. There’s a number of zany characters in the film, but I didn’t get annoyed by any of them – and that’s saying something. The plot is simple, but it doesn’t try to be more than it is. A town is in danger, and Balto’s gotta save the day. That’s it, and that’s okay. The animation may not be able to compete with “The Lion King”, but there are a few shots that are genuinely good. Any scene where the snow is blowing was a highlight for sure – they really made those moments come alive with the quality of animation that they presented.
This movie is book-ended with live action segments. I didn’t think I’d appreciate that, but by the end of the movie I actually thought it was a nice touch. Balto’s based on a true story (sort of. Look up ‘Togo’ to see what I mean), and the live action bits serve to remind us that this actually happened, more or less. I think that’s cool, particularly for kids. Knowing the heart of the story is real makes it all hit a little bit harder.
Like the dog that really saved the day, the Balto movie is unfortunately destined for obscurity as a result of the other powerhouse films that were released at the same time. But if you’re like me and love the animation style of this period, this is a good-looking movie with a palatable plot. Might be worth a shot!
1997 - Cats Don’t Dance (****)
In which the cats dance
Funny, fast-paced, and jam-packed with terrific music, this is the forgotten gem of 90s animation that you’ll wish you’d seen sooner.
I’m not sure how this movie ended up in our collection. My dad used to record kid’s movies onto blank VHS tapes, and “Cats Don’t Dance” was one of many such tapes that ended up on our shelf unceremoniously. There were so many that he recorded from television, and I don’t remember any ever being introduced formally. The tapes would just show up on the shelves, and if we noticed them, we’d watch them.
I remember watching this one multiple times as a kid, and the main thing that kept me coming back was Darla Dimple and Max. In 1930s Hollywood, talking animals and humans coexist and make pictures together. But animals are never the stars – they’re always scrambling to get screentime wherever it pops up. Darla is a massively popular child star with a secret hatred of animals, and what’s so great about her character is watching her bounce back and forth from her lovable sweet false façade to her sinister diva interior. Standing next to two-feet-tall Darla is Max, her 60-foot-tall butler with the broadest shoulders you’ve ever seen supporting a tiny head. Intimidating and hysterical at the same time, he’s an absolute scene-stealer every second he’s onscreen.
As I grew older, I realized how much I loved the animation as well. Cats Don’t Dance came out the same year as Hercules and Anastasia, and it definitely keeps up with the competition aesthetically even if it didn’t win at the box office. The character design is really fun, embracing the toon-iness of anthropomorphic animals while maintaining a sense of real emotion. Danny, the lead cat, is probably one of the classiest onscreen cats I’ve ever seen. There are a few scenes that are just fantastic visually, and they’re paired with fantastic music – which I’ll get to in a minute. The one scene I wanted to highlight in particular is a fight sequence on top of a giant balloon version of Darla. There’s definitely some CGI work hidden beneath the traditional animation there, and the movement of the characters across the rotating balloon is really cool.
But what really makes this movie worth the watch is the music. Many people have complained that The Greatest Showman has a terrible plot (I’d beg to differ but that’s neither here nor there), but nobody can deny how great the music is. It’s kind of the same thing here. The plot of Cats Don’t Dance is paper-thin, but it’s the music that makes it succeed. Randy Newman wrote all of the songs – if you don’t know his name, he’s the guy who wrote “You’ve Got A Friend In Me” as well as the score for films like James and the Giant Peach, Monsters Inc., and The Princess and the Frog. There’s so many hits in this movie - from the animal jam session to Darla’s “Big and Loud” song (one of the greatest villain songs ever) to the triumphant concluding song “Nothing’s Gonna Stop Us Now” and then a few other songs on top of that. Anyone who says the music isn’t any good just needs to listen to any of the songs more than once. Virtually every track in this film is a blast – I’ve always been disappointed that there’s no official soundtrack to be found anywhere.
If that doesn’t convince you to track this film down, I’ll add that Gimli from Lord of the Rings plays an elephant here. And the guy who directed this also directed The Emperor’s New Groove. And there’s also some undertones about equal representation and prejudice in the entertainment industry. Look, it’s $5 to rent on YouTube, okay? It won’t kill ya. If you liked The Greatest Showman, Sing, Zootopia, and/or La La Land, give it a shot. And even if you didn’t like any of those – just do it for me. I don’t ask for much.
1997 - Anastasia (***1/2)
In which a girl hits her head and forgets literally every facet of her childhood for eighteen years despite constant reminders and hints
This is one of the best traditionally animated films of the Disney Renaissance Era that didn't come from Disney Animation Studios.
Don Bluth was a Disney animator who left the studio in 1979 to start a rival studio with ten other Disney employees. I haven't seen most of his work, but the work that I HAVE seen hasn't impressed me all that much. He made The Land Before Time and Thumbelina, both of which I've reviewed. He also did "All Dogs Go To Heaven", which I haven't seen since I was a kid. I don't remember much about that one, but I remember thinking it was kind of weird for a kid's movie to watch a dog fall into the pit of hell. After the frankly embarrassing quality of Thumbelina in 1994, I'm kind of surprised that Bluth didn't throw in the towel. Thankfully, he didn't because he really showed up for this 1997 flick.
With a budget almost double that of Thumbelina, the animation here is finally good enough to compete with what Disney was putting out in that era. With bright colours, shading, and the integration of CGI, I found myself enjoying the film purely on its aesthetic value. If I didn't know where this movie came from, I would've likely assumed it was a Disney flick. There's a scene in particular where Anastasia imagines a room full of ballroom dancers that's quite fun.
The music is pretty good too, although I can't recall the names of any of the songs. I chalk that up to the fact that I haven't seen this movie six times like I have for any Disney film of the era, but I distinctly remember enjoying the music while I watched the movie. Actually, now that I think about it, "Once Upon A December" was the main song of the movie, and it was pretty great. Bad music is harder to stomach in a movie than bad jokes, and I've heard plenty of both in earlier movies. It was nice not having to deal with that this time around.
The story wasn't bad, but there's a major element of suspending disbelief that was hard for me to swallow. Anastasia is an eight year old princess when she falls and hits her head. After this, she forgets her name, her parents, the place she grew up - everything. She forgets it all. And even when she re-enters the home she lived in for the first eight years of her life, she can't quite figure it out. The strength of Ana's amnesia in relation to the injury she sustained was just unbelievable for me - especially when it seemed so obvious at every step of the way that Ana was clearly this long-lost princess. But if you can get over that, the rest is just delightful. The romance is great, the jokes are good, and the plot moves at a good pace from beginning to end.
There aren't many traditionally animated films that I can recommend outside of Disney yet. This is one of the few.
1998 - The Prince of Egypt (*****)
In which a guy pretends to not be fazed by hordes of frogs, insects, and a hailstorm
This is a masterpiece of traditional animation’s sunset era.
In 1998, Disney was in the midst of their ‘Disney Renaissance’, and Pixar’s Toy Story was only a few years old. It wouldn’t be long before all animated films made the shift to CGI, saying farewell to the hand-drawn techniques that had created a whole new form of filmmaking. In the meantime, animators were beginning to experiment with blending traditional animation with CGI simultaneously – for me, it’s this practice that defines the pinnacle of the art form. When you see The Lion King’s wildebeest stampede, Beauty and the Beast’s ballroom dance, or Tarzan’s tree-surfing, you’re watching artists push their medium to crazy new limits.
Prince of Egypt blends CGI with hand-drawn images too – the parting of the Red Sea is an obvious example, but you might be surprised to find how many of the travelling Israelites were computer-generated. Using this kind of technique really adds to the beauty of the film – and this is already a beautiful movie. The artists went above and beyond with their lavish vision of ancient Egypt, giving us towering monuments on every street corner. The character designs are charming and evocative, and the big action scenes are thrillingly coloured. The plagues in particular are spectacular; the ways they interpret darkness covering the land or the death of the firstborn are imaginative and elegant.
Beyond the visual aesthetic of the film, it’s clear that DreamWorks Animation gave it everything they had to make this picture a success. The cast was positively star-studded with names that are still big (if not bigger) today – Sandra Bullock, Jeff Goldblum, and Patrick Stewart all lend their voices, and then there’s Michelle Pfeiffer, Ralph Fiennes, and Val Kilmer to reckon with. Even Steve Martin and Martin Short show up together as the Pharoah’s priests. The score was composed by the legendary Hans Zimmer (the man who wrote the Academy-Award winning score of The Lion King), and the songs were written by Stephen Schwartz (the guy who did the music for Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame). “When You Believe” was a show-stopping hit that won the Academy Award that year for Best Original Song, and it’s no small thing to note that they got the song sung by superstars Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston. The filmmakers went big, and they won big as a result.
As someone who holds their faith as an integral aspect of their life, I’m obviously going to appreciate the fact that this is a story from the Bible. But as a writer, I love the creative decisions that they made. Choosing to make Moses and Ramses share a bond of brotherhood really added to the depth and complexity of their relationship. Ramses is the central antagonist, but he’s also the character that Moses cares about most. That makes every “Let my people go” sound like a plea just as much as it is a command. Further, it makes every “I will not let your people go” give us the feeling of an ever-widening emotional gap between the two characters. To bring up the plagues scene again, we get this dramatic tension communicated in song as the two characters yell/sing at each other while Egypt topples around them. It’s masterful storytelling. I also liked how they introduced Zipporah early on in the film so that she could know Moses before his escape from Egypt. While the possibility of Moses and the Pharoah sharing a familial bond is likely (but never explicitly stated) in the Bible, Zipporah’s first scene in the film is purely creative license. What’s nice about it is that it gives a bit more ‘oomph’ to Moses and Zipporah’s love story. Their relationship isn’t really important in the grand scheme of the story. If Zipporah wasn’t in this film, everything would still happen exactly the same way. But in terms of showing us the development of Moses’ character, Zipporah serves as an excellent addition to the cast. She gets to see Moses at his worst before he gets to his best, and she understands his need to follow God’s commands because of her own background. It’s true that Aaron plays a much more prominent role in the actual biblical account of the Exodus story, but I get that there’s only so much screen time that a movie can take up and you want to make sure that your protagonist is moving things along themselves as often as possible.
There’s so many little touches and special moments in this film that make it incredible – but more than all of them combined, I love that this is the first DreamWorks Animation film ever. What a show-stopper to come out of the gate with! They pulled out all the stops to tell an incredible story, and they had the guts/audacity/whatever-you-want-to-call-it to kick their animation studio off with a film rooted in religion. That’s bold. And to go for a story with such insane content too...that’s a big decision to make. Disney’s first animated film was Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. What I’m about to say isn’t meant to criticize Disney’s decision, but that kind of story wasn’t likely to ruffle any feathers. This, on the other hand, is a story about the Judeo-Christian God where babies are fed to crocodiles, old men are beaten and whipped, and God smites all the firstborn children in an entire kingdom. This is no simple kid’s story. Well done, DreamWorks.
2000 - The Road To El Dorado (***)
In which a character yells “Holy Ship”
It’s beautifully animated. It’s got wonderful characters. But it is certainly not appropriate for children.
Two years after Dreamworks Animation’s The Prince of Egypt had received widespread acclaim and an Oscar for Best Original Song, Dreamworks released this picture. Animated in much the same gorgeous style as its predecessor, El Dorado takes us deep into the heart of a long-lost Mayan civilization where virtually everything is made of gold. The blend of CGI and traditional animation gives us some really dynamic shots, and there’s a giant CGI monster for our two main heroes to fight in the third act that really highlights the beauty of this era of animated filmmaking. The character designs are expressive and fun, and the City of Gold has never looked better. All in all, this is another great example of how awesome traditionally animated films can look in the 21st century.
Dreamworks knew by now how having an A-list artist be a part of your picture was a winning strategy, so they got Elton John to write the music for the film along with Tim Rice (from Aladdin and The Lion King). There’s one or two songs in here that get stuck in your bones, but “It’s Tough To Be A God” came across as a bit of misfire for me. Still, it’s not the music that draws you in as much as the two lead characters, Tulio and Miguel. They’re a terrific wisecracking duo, charismatic and scene-stealing at every moment. They’re probably the best part of the film.
Animation is a genre that’s usually reserved for family and children’s films. That’s not to say that you can’t have an adult-oriented animated flick (i.e. The Simpsons Movie, Antz, the animated Batman films), but when people think animation, they usually think ‘kids’ as well. This movie definitely set itself up to fit into the family film category. Riding off the success of “The Prince of Egypt” and following the same artistic style as many pictures of The Disney Renaissance, this movie LOOKS like it should be family friendly. And that’s my problem with it.
Firstly, our leading characters say “hell” multiple times. Sure, as ‘bad words’ go it’s not bad, but when the protagonist of a family movie does something, kids replicate it. I can’t tell you how many times I quoted Jim Carrey’s Grinch as a child – to the point where my father threatened to burn the VHS tape. If this movie weren’t for kids, I wouldn’t care – but if you’re going to market it for families, would it kill you to pick a different word?
Secondly – and I don’t see how they got away with this – the relationship between Tulio and Chel (an El Dorado-ian woman) is far more blunt than I would consider appropriate for a family film. From the beginning, it’s clear that she’s seen as an object of desire for both Tulio and Miguel. It’s certainly not a ‘love at first sight’ thing for either of our heroes. The animators and scriptwriters both made sure to communicate that our boys think she’s hot – and not much else beyond that. There’s a scene where Chel gets Tulio alone, and it’s clear she’s made this scenario possible specifically so that she can become sexually involved with him in some sense or other. This isn’t a ‘falling in love’ scene by any stretch. AND THEN, when we come back to them further on in the film, someone barges in on them being intimate. We can’t see what’s going on. But we can hear some sort of kissing sound, and Tulio makes a verbal exclamation, meaning his lips were – at that moment – free.
Sure, I could be reading too much into it – though I’m not the only one to do so. And sure, a lot of this is going to go over a kid’s head. But as far as I’m concerned, kids shouldn’t have to deal with things like that flying over their head in a family film. You can call me a prude if you’d like. But there’s plenty of stories out there for me to share with my children that don’t involve little moments like this.
In short, this was a fun movie to watch, and I loved the animation, but this just isn’t the kind of movie I’m going to show my kids. And for that, I have to dock it some points.
2002 - Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron (***1/2)
In which there are at least six different extreme long shots of a horse galloping across the screen set to dramatic music
Gorgeous, moving and relevant, this movie’s only problem is that it’s likely a bit too ambitious for its own good.
I feel like the Dreamworks Animation board room watched the “Circle of Life” sequence from The Lion King together, and then the head suit leaned in and said, “Yeah, okay. Do that.” There’s not a whole lot of dialogue in the movie. Our protagonist is a horse, and he doesn’t talk the entire movie. Not one word escapes his horse lips. He doesn’t talk to his girlfriend, or to his mother, or to any other horses. It’s all in his facial expressions and in his actions that we can figure out what he’s thinking. That, and the occasional out-of-body narration provided by Matt Damon that’s supposed to be the horse’s thinking voice, I guess. It’s a cool idea to commit to, but there were two problems with it for me. I couldn’t stand the voiceover narration, for one thing. It felt like being hit over the head by the filmmaker every time Damon stepped in – as if I was too stupid to understand what was going on onscreen without him. The other problem was that I felt it took me a while to start rooting for Spirit/Mustang/whatever the main horse’s name was. When someone doesn’t say a word, you can’t laugh at their jokes or agree with their opinions. It’s just harder to get on board. Eventually, I did, and I admire how they stuck to their guns on the matter, but part of me wishes they’d let him speak at least to the other horses.
The animation is as good as – if not better than - anything else that came out in the 2000s. Brilliant colours, detailed shading, and dynamic moving cinematography made possible by the CGI integration of that time period all worked together to give us a visually stunning movie. I don’t know how else to say it – the movie knows how good it looks, too. There’s at least six shots where we were just watching Spirit run for the sake of the shot. By the sixth shot I thought, “Okay, you’re milking it now,” but then again, the shots did look great. And the opening sequence was absolutely terrific. I’d never seen this movie before, and I’m so glad that I did.
What I really liked about this movie was the story they told. It’s a story of how the West was won – and how not all history is something to be proud of. The cowboys and American settlers of this film are pretty much all painted as antagonists. They’re disrespectful of Mother Nature – and of the First Nations people who already lived in the land they were looking to move into. I’m sure someone more qualified than I could find something wrong with the way they depicted the relationship between First Nations people and the Americans, but even so, I admire the filmmaker’s willingness to show a snapshot of some of the horrors that ensued back then. And yes, atrocities against First Nations people still persist today, but you get my point. They didn’t shy away from an ugly part of history, and that’s cool.
Back when my wife Jenna was in middle school, her dog Belle had just been put down due to a number of ongoing and worsening health problems. Belle was loved by Jenna and her sisters, and it was the first loss of that kind for the family. Needless to say, Jenna’s dad wanted to do something to help his daughters get through the day. So when he saw a poster for an animated movie about horses, he figured this would be the perfect pick-me-up. He didn’t realize that the main horse would be enslaved for the majority of the film, and that a major animal character would get shot and seemingly die. There’s just a big chunk of this film that’s all-around sad, and as a result, Jenna’s dad had to console his weeping daughters in the middle of a dark movie theatre.
When I began watching this movie, Jenna told me that story and said that “the horse died” as far as she could remember. So the whole time I watched this, I kept waiting for something horrible to happen to Spirit. His self-narration, I figured, must have come from beyond the grave. And the worse his story got, the more worried I got about the nature of his death. How are they gonna kill the main horse in a family film and get away with it? This movie is already so sad! Thankfully, by the end of the film Jenna and I realized it was a different character who had gotten shot, not Spirit. But that expectation definitely changed the way I watched the movie for sure.
This was a visually stupendous film to watch, and though the execution in parts wasn’t perfect, it was still a movie that Dreamworks poured their hearts and souls into. Just don’t pick this movie for your daughters if your dog dies.
2003 - Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (***1/2)
In which a goddess of chaos decides to keep her word because pandemonium and fairness go hand in hand apparently
Vibrant, boisterous and ridiculous, this is a forgotten gem from the last days of traditional animation.
I don’t remember how old I was when I first saw this. I don’t think we had a copy of it at home, so it’s likely that I either caught it on television one day or saw it at a friend’s house. My earliest memory of this movie is actually re-watching it with my brother on Netflix back before I got married. I remember us laughing often and throwing our hands in the air at the outrageousness of some of the action sequences. We complained a bit that the ending didn’t quite make sense, but on the whole, it was a great movie-watching experience for a couple reasons.
If you’ve read any of my other recent reviews, you’ll know I’m a sucker for the 90s-00s traditional animation because of how rich the colouring and shading was – and because this era blended CGI and hand-drawn animation seamlessly. This film is packed with that. Comparable to the animation standards of “The Prince of Egypt” or “The Lion King”, Sinbad gives us brilliantly designed characters and set pieces that are shaded and brightly coloured. Shading may seem like a little thing (I talk about it all the time), but it makes such a difference in making the characters pop off the screen. The CGI elements (like the various monsters Sinbad does battle with) are a bit less stunning in terms of their design, but they still blend in wonderfully and give us some really dynamic action sequences. There’s so many great monsters in this movie – the kraken, the sirens, and the island fish in particular each provide an additional dose of excitement. The ice-bird is probably the monster I care least about, but it’s still a fun scene.
Harry Gregson Williams provides a thrilling score – the same motif is used more than a few times, but it’s fun and exciting music that really builds on the atmosphere that the rest of the film is going for. The opening track we hear in particular is a simple little tune that has stuck with me ever since I first watched the film. It’s a villain’s piece, and I don’t know how else to describe it than to say it’s subdued and cheeky at the same time. It’s just great bad guy music.
A lot of well-known names lent their voices to this movie: I’m not usually a Brad Pitt fan, but I think he did a great job playing the title role. Catherine Zeta-Jones plays the love interest and leading lady, and together the two of them do that classic will-they-won’t-they banter over the course of the film. Michelle Pfeiffer plays the villain Eris, who’s a bit of a scene-stealer in my book. The legendary Jim Cummings also plays a few roles (as he always does), but the most surprising cast member is Kale, Sinbad’s first mate. I didn’t even realize who it was until I looked up the cast list – it’s the Allstate Insurance guy! I never would’ve guessed it was him, but now I’m never going to be able to watch the film again without imagining Kale ask Sinbad if he’s in good hands.
My favourite thing about this movie is the characters. This movie successfully did what Atlantis: The Lost Empire was trying to do – make a colourful ragtag crew who would breathe life into every setting they entered. I can’t quite put my finger on what makes this team win where Milo Thatch’s team lost. Maybe it’s the fact that everything Sinbad’s crew does is so over-the-top, and they know it. Thatch’s crew were eccentric, but maybe they didn’t have as many opportunities to flex their zaniness. For Sinbad and his crew, it seems that every five minutes they’ve found a wildly new scenario in which to bounce off of each other and adapt on the fly. Whatever the reason, I just found that the chemistry of this cast was incredible. I fell in love with all of them almost immediately. That opening battle plunges us into their world by giving us a Sinbad who’s propelling himself into the air with his blade stuck in the deck while he roundhouse kicks like six guys. It’s impossible, incredulous, and absolutely awesome. It’s moments like this that animation was made for.
Now, I can’t go and pretend that the story of this movie is anything extraordinary. The bare bones are fairly simple. A woman engaged to someone else finds herself teaming up with an unbelievably frustrating scoundrel in order to save the man she loves – but by the end, it seems that her destiny lies with someone else. We’ve seen that story and variations of that story before. That doesn’t make it a bad story – it’s just nothing new. What’s a bit frustrating is that there are moments where the plot seems a bit forced. For example, when Sinbad sets off to sea with the intention of abandoning an old friend, he remarks to Allstate that he intends to retire because they’ve got enough money. A few moments later, he agrees to change his mind because someone’s offering him money. So which one is it?
The other error is a bit more grievous. The villain Eris has framed Sinbad for stealing the Book of Peace – she’s actually the one who took it. Sinbad tracks her down to her lair, where it seems all too obvious that she could kill him with a wink of her eye. But instead of killing him and doing whatever it is she meant to do with the Book, she willingly agrees to a verbal contract that allows Sinbad a chance to get the book back. Not only does she do this, she gives him the world’s easiest challenge – tell the truth.
“If you don’t get the book back, will you go back to die?” she asks. The idea is that Sinbad is truly a scoundrel at heart, and she wants him to admit that he’ll let his friend die instead of him. But when he says “Yes,” and she replies “You’re lying,” all he needs to do is PROVE that he’s telling the truth and then she’ll be forced to give the book back. Obviously this is what ends up happening, but Sinbad kind of gets there by accident. He KNOWS that Eris is bound by her word, so he should KNOW that going back doesn’t actually pose any threat to him because it will necessitate Eris’ return.
But then again, why didn’t Eris kill Sinbad the moment he ‘lied’? Why let him live – much less escape her dominion? It seemed a miracle that he was able to enter in the first place, but we never really get a credible explanation for how he got back.
So yeah, there are some pretty glaring plot holes, but the movie is just so much fun I don’t really mind. If you’re a fan of the Disney Renaissance, give this a shot!
Comments