I thought we were heading for a string of Tinkerbell movies next!? Are they good? All I know about the new Tink is that they may have retconned the character...This should be interesting
Disney Movie Marathon Challenge
- Thread starter RSandRS
- Start date
I thought we were heading for a string of Tinkerbell movies next!? Are they good? All I know about the new Tink is that they may have retconned the character...This should be interesting
TheStarscream759
Mouseketeer
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2018
Wait the Tinker Bell movies? Well this is gonna be interesting for me.
Bambi II (2006)
Not Tinkerbell quite yet...so here we go!
It may be that we’re going through a dry spell when it comes to Disney animation, but we both really liked Bambi II. It’s probably the best of the recent sequels we’ve seen (apart from obviously Rescuers Down Under), even topping The Jungle Book 2 and, though it’s nothing extra special, it does fit in nicely with the tone of the original and explore part of the story that arguably did need exploring.
Bambi II explores the relationship between Bambi and his deadbeat dad, the Great Prince of the Forest, who, it turns out, wasn't such a deadbeat after all. In the same way that The Jungle Book II took an aspect from the original film that bore closer inspection (Mowgli’s decision to up and leave the jungle even though he’d been insisting he wouldn’t for the whole film), Bambi II focuses on the bit that we don't get to see in the original movie - the period between Bambi losing his mum and emerging as a gawky adult. And it turns out this was a good decision, as there’s still plenty of japes to be had between Bambi, Thumper and Flower and, of course, the development of his relationship with his dad.
The artistry of the film isn't quite up to the original, but is very nice all the same. They take the same approach to backgrounds as in the original, giving them a dreamlike, impressionist quality that is very pretty indeed. The voice acting is all pretty good, with Patrick Stewart standing out as the Great Prince. Thumper is also pretty great, though he doesn’t quite have the brilliance of the kid in the original movie. They also attempt the same tonal balance that made Bambi so special, with moments of extreme cuteness, moments of drama and even downright creepy bits all coming together. They probably don't manage this quite as successfully as the 1942 team did, but they have a good stab at it.
In general the approach to Bambi II seems to have been ‘You know Bambi? Well, more of that please.’ The film has a similar structure, look, themes and sound. Not so similar that it seems like a cheap knock-off (even though this film didn’t get a theatrical release in every country, and is a Disneytoon Studios feature rather than Disney Animation Studios, it doesn’t look cheap and nasty like the direct-to-dvd sequels), but similar enough that it seems to come from the same family.
One of the things that stood out to both of us from this film was the message, which is a really nice one. Bambi’s conflict with his dad comes from his dad’s having only one view on how a boy should grow up, which Bambi (who is sweet and affectionate, and used to playing) doesn't quite fit into. The movie takes the time to nicely explore the idea that there is more than one way for a boy to grow into a man, with ideas of masculinity, aggression (represented by Bambi’s new acquaintance Ronno), the importance of communication (represented by Thumper) and the different ways of demonstrating bravery explored gently and effectively through Bambi’s interactions with his father and the other animals in the forest. Bambi's father is also pretty adamant at the start that ultimately Bambi will be brought up by a surrogate mother and this is also obviously challenged, with the two of them developing a close and loving relationship over the course of the movie. I like really these themes a lot and thought the handling of it was very effective.
All in all I would recommend people give this a go. It’s well worth your time.
P.S. It must be admitted that the climax of this movie does involve one of the characters nearly falling to his death from a cliff. Again. There are other ways to end a movie, Disney!
Not Tinkerbell quite yet...so here we go!
It may be that we’re going through a dry spell when it comes to Disney animation, but we both really liked Bambi II. It’s probably the best of the recent sequels we’ve seen (apart from obviously Rescuers Down Under), even topping The Jungle Book 2 and, though it’s nothing extra special, it does fit in nicely with the tone of the original and explore part of the story that arguably did need exploring.
Bambi II explores the relationship between Bambi and his deadbeat dad, the Great Prince of the Forest, who, it turns out, wasn't such a deadbeat after all. In the same way that The Jungle Book II took an aspect from the original film that bore closer inspection (Mowgli’s decision to up and leave the jungle even though he’d been insisting he wouldn’t for the whole film), Bambi II focuses on the bit that we don't get to see in the original movie - the period between Bambi losing his mum and emerging as a gawky adult. And it turns out this was a good decision, as there’s still plenty of japes to be had between Bambi, Thumper and Flower and, of course, the development of his relationship with his dad.
The artistry of the film isn't quite up to the original, but is very nice all the same. They take the same approach to backgrounds as in the original, giving them a dreamlike, impressionist quality that is very pretty indeed. The voice acting is all pretty good, with Patrick Stewart standing out as the Great Prince. Thumper is also pretty great, though he doesn’t quite have the brilliance of the kid in the original movie. They also attempt the same tonal balance that made Bambi so special, with moments of extreme cuteness, moments of drama and even downright creepy bits all coming together. They probably don't manage this quite as successfully as the 1942 team did, but they have a good stab at it.
In general the approach to Bambi II seems to have been ‘You know Bambi? Well, more of that please.’ The film has a similar structure, look, themes and sound. Not so similar that it seems like a cheap knock-off (even though this film didn’t get a theatrical release in every country, and is a Disneytoon Studios feature rather than Disney Animation Studios, it doesn’t look cheap and nasty like the direct-to-dvd sequels), but similar enough that it seems to come from the same family.
One of the things that stood out to both of us from this film was the message, which is a really nice one. Bambi’s conflict with his dad comes from his dad’s having only one view on how a boy should grow up, which Bambi (who is sweet and affectionate, and used to playing) doesn't quite fit into. The movie takes the time to nicely explore the idea that there is more than one way for a boy to grow into a man, with ideas of masculinity, aggression (represented by Bambi’s new acquaintance Ronno), the importance of communication (represented by Thumper) and the different ways of demonstrating bravery explored gently and effectively through Bambi’s interactions with his father and the other animals in the forest. Bambi's father is also pretty adamant at the start that ultimately Bambi will be brought up by a surrogate mother and this is also obviously challenged, with the two of them developing a close and loving relationship over the course of the movie. I like really these themes a lot and thought the handling of it was very effective.
All in all I would recommend people give this a go. It’s well worth your time.
P.S. It must be admitted that the climax of this movie does involve one of the characters nearly falling to his death from a cliff. Again. There are other ways to end a movie, Disney!
TheStarscream759
Mouseketeer
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2018
Bambi 2 huh? I hear that one is supposed to be another one of the good ones. As far as Disney Direct to DVD movies I haven't seen this one really. But it has at least sparked my interest in it.
BrianL
Doom Buggy Driver
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2013
I thought we were heading for a string of Tinkerbell movies next!? Are they good? All I know about the new Tink is that they may have retconned the character...This should be interesting
All right, you guys really are throwing in everything. Bambi II was theatrically released in the UK so I guess it counts. I have never seen it or the Tinkerbell movies, though those do generally have a good reputation. They came out after Lasseter re-tasked DisneyToon from sequels to original work.
Anyway, by "string of good ones" I pretty much meant Bolt, Princess and the Frog, Tangled, etc. You know, the second Disney Renaissance!
Cars (2006)
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Main character is successful in their chosen career but feels something is missing from his/her life. Is also a bit of a d***. Circumstances beyond his/her control force him/her to spend time in a small town with a cast of ‘colourful’ characters, where he/she will learn how to not be a d***. Said cast may or may not include a grizzled, older dude/woman from whom the main character can learn valuable life lessons. Cast will definitely include a good-looking local barkeep/hotel owner/artisanal craftsperson, who will begin by patronising and being patronised by our hero/heroine for being a ‘big city type’, but will eventually fall for them (because reasons) and be a nice reward for the hard work of no longer being a d***. The stakes are as low as they can be, so we can feel comfy and cosy throughout the viewing experience, and come away with the heart-warming confirmation that there is nothing worth learning about life, that can’t be learned from small town America.
Congratulations, you have now experienced the plot of every Hallmark movie ever and a large proportion of romantic comedies. And also, the movie Cars.
Of course, I am both exaggerating and being facetious (I do that), but you get my point? Cars is not a bad movie, definitely not, but it’s not the completely original, jaw-dropping, emotionally-draining experience that most Pixar movies are. Although it’s a perfectly fine film to watch, and design-wise is an exuberant success, when you start to compare Cars to something like Up, you, unfortunately, notice that it suffers from a distinct lack of originality. And when you think about all the ‘big city type goes to small town to learn about the true meaning of whatever’ movies that there are, you realise you can predict every plot beat.
I’ve often wondered why Cars was quite as successful as it was, and presumably it was successful, since it’s had two sequels plus the two Planes movies (which we’ll also have to watch - sigh); but let’s face it, Disney wasn’t putting out films anything like as good as Cars around this time, and nor was Dreamworks. So perhaps it was just in the right place at the right time?
And there’s certainly a lot to like in Cars, most especially the artwork and the music. The backgrounds are breathtaking and the car characters are a huge success - who ever thought you could make relatable characters from cars?? The soundtrack is also really nice, especially the James Taylor song, capturing the nostalgic tone that the movie is going for and managing to remain melancholy, without being sentimental. And Pixar have had their usual fun with creating an immersive world for these characters, complete with lots of satisfying car puns and great sense of humour.
And the characters are pretty good too, but again they’re like archetypes from this genre of film, rather than characters in their own right. McQueen is probably a bit too objectionable at the beginning of the film, and his change of heart does happen rather suddenly, but Owen Wilson is such a likeable actor that he pulls it off. Mater is also a good character. He could be annoying, but in smallish doses he is pretty funny. And though he is the hilarious ‘village idiot’ character, the movie wisely gives him something to teach McQueen, so he isn’t just the butt of all the jokes. Apart from these two, the rest of characters are sadly unoriginal. There’s one or two too many of the ‘colourful small town’ characters, so they blend into the background, and the love interest could be pulled from the movie without it having any impact whatsoever. Doc Hudson is OK, but we’ve seen his type so many times before that he fails to make much of an impression.
I don’t think this film was a cash-grab, by any means - though its sequels may have been. A lot of heart went into the making of Cars, and you do end up rooting for the main characters and happily going along for the ride. Of course you do, it’s Pixar. It’s just maybe a ride you’ve been on before.
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Main character is successful in their chosen career but feels something is missing from his/her life. Is also a bit of a d***. Circumstances beyond his/her control force him/her to spend time in a small town with a cast of ‘colourful’ characters, where he/she will learn how to not be a d***. Said cast may or may not include a grizzled, older dude/woman from whom the main character can learn valuable life lessons. Cast will definitely include a good-looking local barkeep/hotel owner/artisanal craftsperson, who will begin by patronising and being patronised by our hero/heroine for being a ‘big city type’, but will eventually fall for them (because reasons) and be a nice reward for the hard work of no longer being a d***. The stakes are as low as they can be, so we can feel comfy and cosy throughout the viewing experience, and come away with the heart-warming confirmation that there is nothing worth learning about life, that can’t be learned from small town America.
Congratulations, you have now experienced the plot of every Hallmark movie ever and a large proportion of romantic comedies. And also, the movie Cars.
Of course, I am both exaggerating and being facetious (I do that), but you get my point? Cars is not a bad movie, definitely not, but it’s not the completely original, jaw-dropping, emotionally-draining experience that most Pixar movies are. Although it’s a perfectly fine film to watch, and design-wise is an exuberant success, when you start to compare Cars to something like Up, you, unfortunately, notice that it suffers from a distinct lack of originality. And when you think about all the ‘big city type goes to small town to learn about the true meaning of whatever’ movies that there are, you realise you can predict every plot beat.
I’ve often wondered why Cars was quite as successful as it was, and presumably it was successful, since it’s had two sequels plus the two Planes movies (which we’ll also have to watch - sigh); but let’s face it, Disney wasn’t putting out films anything like as good as Cars around this time, and nor was Dreamworks. So perhaps it was just in the right place at the right time?
And there’s certainly a lot to like in Cars, most especially the artwork and the music. The backgrounds are breathtaking and the car characters are a huge success - who ever thought you could make relatable characters from cars?? The soundtrack is also really nice, especially the James Taylor song, capturing the nostalgic tone that the movie is going for and managing to remain melancholy, without being sentimental. And Pixar have had their usual fun with creating an immersive world for these characters, complete with lots of satisfying car puns and great sense of humour.
And the characters are pretty good too, but again they’re like archetypes from this genre of film, rather than characters in their own right. McQueen is probably a bit too objectionable at the beginning of the film, and his change of heart does happen rather suddenly, but Owen Wilson is such a likeable actor that he pulls it off. Mater is also a good character. He could be annoying, but in smallish doses he is pretty funny. And though he is the hilarious ‘village idiot’ character, the movie wisely gives him something to teach McQueen, so he isn’t just the butt of all the jokes. Apart from these two, the rest of characters are sadly unoriginal. There’s one or two too many of the ‘colourful small town’ characters, so they blend into the background, and the love interest could be pulled from the movie without it having any impact whatsoever. Doc Hudson is OK, but we’ve seen his type so many times before that he fails to make much of an impression.
I don’t think this film was a cash-grab, by any means - though its sequels may have been. A lot of heart went into the making of Cars, and you do end up rooting for the main characters and happily going along for the ride. Of course you do, it’s Pixar. It’s just maybe a ride you’ve been on before.
BrianL
Doom Buggy Driver
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2013
I only recently saw cars after I became enthralled with the trailers for Cars 3. Anyway, it's a pretty good movie, but not ground-breaking or anything. I think you pretty much nailed what there is to say about it, though I do like some of the clever things, like the blinking light gag. Also, I just love Doc Hudson!
If you really want to know what made Cars a huge success, it has to do with the fact that is is pretty much the most merchandise-able, "toy-etic" thing Disney ever made! It's toy cars for crying out loud. They can be huge and they can be tiny. They can be cheap or expensive. They can be things you ride in, or things you race on a table. Either way, they make the kids go "vroom-vroom!" and kids love going "vroom-vroom!" It's as simple as that.
TheStarscream759
Mouseketeer
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2018
Sorry guys I'm going to buck the trend by saying: I really can't stand Cars. I mean I just don't get the idea of a world that's populated by talking cars can be so popular with a younger audience. The plot is very unoriginal, Lightning is just a douche, Mater is really obnoxious and unfortunately I really feel like it's a series that's there to make toys really. It's a franchise I just can't get into no matter what.
And I'm sorry but this movie came after The Incredibles and I feel like Cars pales in comparison to the predecessor film in general. I don't mind if you like Cars and personally I won't get on your case for liking this film but I just don't like Cars as a franchise or as a film overall.
And I'm sorry but this movie came after The Incredibles and I feel like Cars pales in comparison to the predecessor film in general. I don't mind if you like Cars and personally I won't get on your case for liking this film but I just don't like Cars as a franchise or as a film overall.
Generally, I feel Cars is an ok film, inoffensive, unoriginal. Its one of my least fav Pixars (they are usually all of such great quality). I can only actually think of one actively bad Pixar movie-and we have yet to get to that one!
To be honest though, the 'appreciative' review of Cars also has something to do with the fact that the Disney films we are watching at the moment are pretty dreadful! The next one being a case in point!
"Vroom-vroom"-Point taken!
Actually, I would be interested to know what (if any) Disney merchandise ppl played with as kids? For us growing up in the 90s it was plastic figures (great for the beach-we had a massive tub!) and Princess Barbie dolls.
Meet the Robinsons (2007)
Hello, Rock Bottom - we have reached you. (I really hope so anyway!)
Meet the Robinsons is a terrible, terrible film. I’m sad to have to report that it may be worse than Black Cauldron. In fact it has many of the same issues of incoherent plot and unlikeable characters, but without the saving grace of decent animation or a novel premise. Oh dear oh dear. I am thoroughly worn out by how crap these movies are at the moment - and we can't even blame Michael Eisner at this point, as he was long gone
There were a few points during Meet the Robinsons (in between asking what the bloody heck was going on) when we would turn to each other and acknowledge a flash of what the film could have been. It could have been a family-friendly Back to the Future, with a heartwarming theme about an orphan visiting the future and creating his own family - it would have been derivative but still fun to watch. As it was the plot was horrendous; moving along far too quickly for you to give a crap about any of the characters and relying on ‘twists’ (which we saw coming a mile off) rather than proper character development to keep you watching. This was definitely a case of the plot dragging the characters along (like Marty behind Mad Dog Tannen’s horse in BttF3) rather than being driven by any meaningful character development.
Meet the Robinsons is one of those annoying films that relies on a paper thin premise (like a character mishearing what another character said, or a convenient misunderstanding) to give reasoning to the whole thing. It shares this trait with another of our favourites, The Tigger Movie, but since it’s a) aimed at older children and b) supposed to be by the Disney A Team, there is very little excuse for it.
In this case the annoying plot catalyst is the main character Lewis misinterpreting something his carer says and becoming obsessed with reading his own memory so he can see what his birth mum looked like. If you even glance at this premise for a moment you can see how stupid it is (what was seeing his mum’s face supposed to be going to tell him?), but the movie relies on you not doing that. It actually relies on you never thinking too much about anything a lot, as there are quite a number of plot points throughout the film that have you scratching your head saying ‘Wait what? How did…?’ but the movie doesn’t want you to look too closely at them, so rushes on without a pause, urging you to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
The characters are just the worst. I know I hated Tarrin and Princess Ennuie, but the Robinsons might actually be worse. They’re what passes for ‘wacky’ if you have the sense of humour of a five-year-old and have given your characters almost no thought whatsoever. All but three of them could be easily replaced by an inanimate object (like a novelty squeaker that makes an annoying noise or something) with literally no impact on the plot or the main character. They’re just there to distract you so you don't look too closely at the stupid plot. Who cares about meaningful character interactions when one of your characters is married to a puppet? Look at him, isn’t he funny? And that guy has a face on the back of his head! What a card, eh? What a character! Look, singing frogs!
Of course ‘wacky’ would be an annoying enough personality trait for practically every character in the film to have, but actually a lot of them bypass wacky and enter the territory of the downright insane, which means that not only can you as an audience member not identify or engage with them, but you begin to wonder if Lewis should be either.
And the villain! Gah, don't get me started! The villain deserves an essay, no a flippin PhD thesis on how rubbish he is! He will definitely be entered into the Worst Villain category (Alameda Slim (note my sister would also *** Edgar, but I think he is a vast improvement on these two)) and at the moment is pretty much a shoo-in to win it. He is awful. Stupid, unfunny, pathetic, ineffectual. His identity is ‘a mystery’ throughout much of the film, and actually finding out who he is only makes him worse, as it gives a depressing and distasteful trajectory to one of the few characters you had actually somewhat sympathised with.
With the madcap pace of crazy characters, it’s clear this movie is attempting to be a comedy, but it sadly unfunny. It must have been written by people with an unbelievably childish sense of humour. They also clearly thought they were being incredibly clever with all the twists and reveals, but those things are no substitute for characters you actually care about.
The motto of the Robinson family (based on something Walt said - yes, they dared to use a Walt quotation in this mess of a film that disgraces his name) is ‘Keep moving forward’. What this means in the context of the film is that you have to fail a lot in order to succeed. This leads to the main character Lewis inventing a lot of extremely rubbish inventions before he finally creates something that works. Having watched Meet the Robinsons and several of the films leading up to it, I have started to wonder whether this was perhaps also the motto of Disney Animation Studios, and whether they were employing a similar spaghetti and wall strategy during the early years of this century. It would explain a lot.
Thank goodness, we move to Pixar perfection next!
Hello, Rock Bottom - we have reached you. (I really hope so anyway!)
Meet the Robinsons is a terrible, terrible film. I’m sad to have to report that it may be worse than Black Cauldron. In fact it has many of the same issues of incoherent plot and unlikeable characters, but without the saving grace of decent animation or a novel premise. Oh dear oh dear. I am thoroughly worn out by how crap these movies are at the moment - and we can't even blame Michael Eisner at this point, as he was long gone
There were a few points during Meet the Robinsons (in between asking what the bloody heck was going on) when we would turn to each other and acknowledge a flash of what the film could have been. It could have been a family-friendly Back to the Future, with a heartwarming theme about an orphan visiting the future and creating his own family - it would have been derivative but still fun to watch. As it was the plot was horrendous; moving along far too quickly for you to give a crap about any of the characters and relying on ‘twists’ (which we saw coming a mile off) rather than proper character development to keep you watching. This was definitely a case of the plot dragging the characters along (like Marty behind Mad Dog Tannen’s horse in BttF3) rather than being driven by any meaningful character development.
Meet the Robinsons is one of those annoying films that relies on a paper thin premise (like a character mishearing what another character said, or a convenient misunderstanding) to give reasoning to the whole thing. It shares this trait with another of our favourites, The Tigger Movie, but since it’s a) aimed at older children and b) supposed to be by the Disney A Team, there is very little excuse for it.
In this case the annoying plot catalyst is the main character Lewis misinterpreting something his carer says and becoming obsessed with reading his own memory so he can see what his birth mum looked like. If you even glance at this premise for a moment you can see how stupid it is (what was seeing his mum’s face supposed to be going to tell him?), but the movie relies on you not doing that. It actually relies on you never thinking too much about anything a lot, as there are quite a number of plot points throughout the film that have you scratching your head saying ‘Wait what? How did…?’ but the movie doesn’t want you to look too closely at them, so rushes on without a pause, urging you to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
The characters are just the worst. I know I hated Tarrin and Princess Ennuie, but the Robinsons might actually be worse. They’re what passes for ‘wacky’ if you have the sense of humour of a five-year-old and have given your characters almost no thought whatsoever. All but three of them could be easily replaced by an inanimate object (like a novelty squeaker that makes an annoying noise or something) with literally no impact on the plot or the main character. They’re just there to distract you so you don't look too closely at the stupid plot. Who cares about meaningful character interactions when one of your characters is married to a puppet? Look at him, isn’t he funny? And that guy has a face on the back of his head! What a card, eh? What a character! Look, singing frogs!
Of course ‘wacky’ would be an annoying enough personality trait for practically every character in the film to have, but actually a lot of them bypass wacky and enter the territory of the downright insane, which means that not only can you as an audience member not identify or engage with them, but you begin to wonder if Lewis should be either.
And the villain! Gah, don't get me started! The villain deserves an essay, no a flippin PhD thesis on how rubbish he is! He will definitely be entered into the Worst Villain category (Alameda Slim (note my sister would also *** Edgar, but I think he is a vast improvement on these two)) and at the moment is pretty much a shoo-in to win it. He is awful. Stupid, unfunny, pathetic, ineffectual. His identity is ‘a mystery’ throughout much of the film, and actually finding out who he is only makes him worse, as it gives a depressing and distasteful trajectory to one of the few characters you had actually somewhat sympathised with.
With the madcap pace of crazy characters, it’s clear this movie is attempting to be a comedy, but it sadly unfunny. It must have been written by people with an unbelievably childish sense of humour. They also clearly thought they were being incredibly clever with all the twists and reveals, but those things are no substitute for characters you actually care about.
The motto of the Robinson family (based on something Walt said - yes, they dared to use a Walt quotation in this mess of a film that disgraces his name) is ‘Keep moving forward’. What this means in the context of the film is that you have to fail a lot in order to succeed. This leads to the main character Lewis inventing a lot of extremely rubbish inventions before he finally creates something that works. Having watched Meet the Robinsons and several of the films leading up to it, I have started to wonder whether this was perhaps also the motto of Disney Animation Studios, and whether they were employing a similar spaghetti and wall strategy during the early years of this century. It would explain a lot.
Thank goodness, we move to Pixar perfection next!
BrianL
Doom Buggy Driver
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2013
I had this Mickey Mouse riverboat toy - it was on wheels and there was a Mickey figure that when placed on the slot on top turned it on and it would move and make noise and play music. That's the only very Disney thing I can remember. I did have this great old storybook though that had a lot of Disney stories, including the story of Lady and the Tramp's puppies, well before they ever made a movie about it (Scamp's Adventure or something like that).
BrianL
Doom Buggy Driver
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2013
Wow. I don't think it's all that bad. Sure, it's not one of the greats, but I've always thought it was pretty decent. I actually like the way it looks, the world anyway. The characters are a bit all over the place, but the world of the future is very retro-cool, like Tomorrowland. I love how Space Mountian and the Rocket Jets are featured in "Todayland." I also like the Sinatra styled gangster frogs. Actually, that stuff is more interesting than the A Plot, so I get where some disappointment could set in. Like I said, it's okay, but rock bottom? I mean, we're already heading up from Chicken Little!
TheStarscream759
Mouseketeer
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2018
Yeah I really have to agree with Brian here, your been too hard on this movie. I personally think it's alright, I liked parts of it but it feels a bit disoriented in terms of the plot and there's way too much going on for my liking. Animation is pretty good it's CERTAINLY ALOT BETTER than Chicken Little's. I'd say it's not the best they ever made but it was the movie that was getting the company back on track. "Rock Bottom"? Really? Again it's ten times better than Chicken Little or Home on the Range put together. I honestly think The Bowler Hat Guy was the best bit of that movie and did make me a laugh quite a few times. Also he's got one of the notable quotes that he has in the movie that retroactively predicted Frozen's success: "Everyone will tell you to let it go and move on, but don't! Instead, let it fester and boil inside of you! Take these feelings and lock them away. Let them fuel your actions. Let hate be your ally, and you will be capable of wonderful, horrid things. Heed my words, Goob: don't let it go." or at least that's what I'd like to think anyway.
Meet the Robinsons as a whole has kind of a pretty out there concept of an orphan time travelling back to the future with his future son and then meeting his future family in the process is definitely not something we've seen before and it's kind of interesting at the same time. Problem I have with the film is that there are way too many characters to keep track of, and can get quite weird even by the standards of a Disney movie, plus I feel like it's just couldn't decide on what it wanted to be as a movie. And it's more it tried to overdo the whole aspect of the family is strange than anything. It's not brilliant nor is it terrible I just feel like it's an average Disney movie that had it's moments and had heart to it but it fell a bit short of the mark for me but at the very least it's a movie I'd probably watch over Home on the Range and Chicken Little any day.
Meet the Robinsons as a whole has kind of a pretty out there concept of an orphan time travelling back to the future with his future son and then meeting his future family in the process is definitely not something we've seen before and it's kind of interesting at the same time. Problem I have with the film is that there are way too many characters to keep track of, and can get quite weird even by the standards of a Disney movie, plus I feel like it's just couldn't decide on what it wanted to be as a movie. And it's more it tried to overdo the whole aspect of the family is strange than anything. It's not brilliant nor is it terrible I just feel like it's an average Disney movie that had it's moments and had heart to it but it fell a bit short of the mark for me but at the very least it's a movie I'd probably watch over Home on the Range and Chicken Little any day.
Micca
SAHG: Stay At Home Grandfather
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2000
Cars- I'm not a "car guy" in general so this movie doesn't resonate with me like it would for many. I do appreciate the artwork though, the backgrounds are fantastic. If you aren't to put off by the on-screen persona of John Lasseter, there's a bonus feature on the disc where he talks about capturing the essence of Route 66 and the era of exploring the country by automobile stopping at diners and sites of interest. This feature made me enjoy the movie more than I had initially. FWIW comedian Adam Carolla, who is also a race car driver and owns several Paul Newman racing cars, has remarked that Cars is among the greatest auto racing movies ever.
Meet The Robinsons- Here's another film I own and have watched a few times. I think it's ok but not having seen it for a few years I really couldn't tell you anything about it.
Do they use some kind of Jetson's vehicle to travel in? That's all I got
Toys- I had quite a few Disney items in the 50s & 60s, many of them Mickey related. One favorite was a metal bank that replicated the look of the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse from the original series.
Meet The Robinsons- Here's another film I own and have watched a few times. I think it's ok but not having seen it for a few years I really couldn't tell you anything about it.
Do they use some kind of Jetson's vehicle to travel in? That's all I gotToys- I had quite a few Disney items in the 50s & 60s, many of them Mickey related. One favorite was a metal bank that replicated the look of the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse from the original series.
BrianL
Doom Buggy Driver
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2013
I'm gonna jump back a little and chime in on a movie that didn't make your list that I saw this weekend for the first time (at least that I can remember), Bedknobs & Brooksticks. This is live action, but with animated sequences, like Mary Poppins. In fact, it was the backup plan in case Walt never got that approval for Mary Poppins from P.L. Travers.
Anyway, it's an interesting movie, also directed by Robert Stevenson, but it doesn't raise to the heights of Mary Poppins (I mean, what does?). The animated sequence, which in and of itself is rather good, developed by Ward Kimball, just slows the movie down as it's a bit too long and inconsequential to the plot, though there is voice acting by the wonderful Lenny Weinrib. David Tomlinson also appears in the movie, though he may have been miscast as the shady con-man as I usually find him to be such an upstanding British gentleman, or maybe I just always see George Banks. Angela Lansbury is delightful as usual, and the kids give a surprisingly strong performance. The Sherman Brothers did the music, so there's nothing not to like there, even if the songs aren't as memorable as Mary Poppins.
Okay, okay, so actually if Mary Poppins never existed, this would be a really good movie that is fondly remembered by Disney fans everywhere. It's just...not Mary Poppins. That's the worst thing I can say about it other than the pacing issues. This was the 117 minute cut too (Blu-ray edition), and I understand there are a few different cuts of this movie out there (it's the Blade Runner of Disney). I still had fun watching it.
It also introduced me to my new favorite Disney cat, Cosmic Creepers! He's just amazing! If a cat can act, he's doing it. There were times I'd think he was an animatronic puppet, but then he'd lick his lips. It's kind of a surreal performance from an animal actor!
Anyway, it's an interesting movie, also directed by Robert Stevenson, but it doesn't raise to the heights of Mary Poppins (I mean, what does?). The animated sequence, which in and of itself is rather good, developed by Ward Kimball, just slows the movie down as it's a bit too long and inconsequential to the plot, though there is voice acting by the wonderful Lenny Weinrib. David Tomlinson also appears in the movie, though he may have been miscast as the shady con-man as I usually find him to be such an upstanding British gentleman, or maybe I just always see George Banks. Angela Lansbury is delightful as usual, and the kids give a surprisingly strong performance. The Sherman Brothers did the music, so there's nothing not to like there, even if the songs aren't as memorable as Mary Poppins.
Okay, okay, so actually if Mary Poppins never existed, this would be a really good movie that is fondly remembered by Disney fans everywhere. It's just...not Mary Poppins. That's the worst thing I can say about it other than the pacing issues. This was the 117 minute cut too (Blu-ray edition), and I understand there are a few different cuts of this movie out there (it's the Blade Runner of Disney). I still had fun watching it.
It also introduced me to my new favorite Disney cat, Cosmic Creepers! He's just amazing! If a cat can act, he's doing it. There were times I'd think he was an animatronic puppet, but then he'd lick his lips. It's kind of a surreal performance from an animal actor!
Last edited:
Micca
SAHG: Stay At Home Grandfather
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2000
I agree with your thoughts on Bedknobs And Broomsticks 100% @BrianL It''s worthwhile, but it just seems like a failed attempt at making another Poppins. Not that it's bad but (as you noted) MP is a tough act to follow...probably impossible. There are just so many similarities between the two films but B&B just can't match the excellence of MP.
I read an extensive article on the various edits of the movie in a now defunct Disney fanzine many years ago. I too have the bluray but there is still some missing content because it literally has not been found. It's plenty long anyway
I think the shots with Cosmic Creepers are a blend of live action cat and some kind of mechanical or puppet cat. Glad you circled back to this one!
It''s worthwhile, but it just seems like a failed attempt at making another Poppins. Not that it's bad but (as you noted) MP is a tough act to follow...probably impossible. There are just so many similarities between the two films but B&B just can't match the excellence of MP.I read an extensive article on the various edits of the movie in a now defunct Disney fanzine many years ago. I too have the bluray but there is still some missing content because it literally has not been found. It's plenty long anyway
I think the shots with Cosmic Creepers are a blend of live action cat and some kind of mechanical or puppet cat. Glad you circled back to this one!
Share this page
GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE
Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.
Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!
Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.
Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!
