18 replies to this topic

[Kamau]

So, Puffin and I have decided that we want to watch all the Disney movies! And we have decided, in order to make this benefit the forum in some way as well, that we will share our thoughts with you as we go! The original plan was to review all the movies by order of release date, but we cheated because I didn't have Snow White on DVD and didn't want to get out the VHS player. So first we bring you...!

Movie: Pinocchio
Disney Movie: #2
Original Release Date: 1940

Puffin:
Right, so, we decided that since the movie was originally released in 1940, that it deserves some concessions to the time period. We don't think that if the movie were released today that it would have gotten as high of scores by modern standards. We have four categories (categories are subject to change based on the movie), characterization, plot, music and art. At the end, we'll give the movie an over all score (Kamau: Yes, scores out of ten are overrated, but we're doing it anyway).

Characterization: We felt that main characters like Pinocchio and Jiminy did not actually fulfill their roles as characters. Jiminy was, let's face it, the worst conscience ever. He routinely abandons Pinocchio whenever he faces any semblance of failure (even if only for a minute or two, it's the fact that this thought process never goes away that's a problem). He's only appears to be in it for his own greed (getting the gold badge) and his ego, and he's a freeloader! Just walkin' all up into Geppetto's house like he owns it. Really, what kind of conscience can give good advice if he has so many flaws of his own? Not to say that flaws are bad, but it just never seems like he gets better. And yet he still gets the badge in the end!
Pinocchio was allowed to become a real boy if he fulfilled the three qualities of being brave, truthful and unselfish. He did fulfill being brave and he was unselfish throughout the movie, but he never really was...truthful. He has that one moment in the movie where his nose grows and he swears never to lie again, which would be fine, except he never truthfully tells the full story to anyone else after that point. The closest you get is when Geppetto asks him where he's been and Pinocchio kind of stutters before his father says 'oh, never mind!' Had they shown he was actually going to be truthful from then on, I would've said he earned that one, but it just seems like Pinocchio got off easy.

Plot: It... essentially fulfills its requirements for the 1940's. You have a steady, consistent narrative throughout the movie, the only problem is that everything happens just so fast. It feels as if Pinocchio's barely been sentient for two whole days by the time he, Geppetto Jiminy, Figaro and Cleo return home at the end. When it was going a bit more slow, it was whenever they were pausing to show something that, by today's standards, seemed inane. Like showing eight clocks in a row going off (I understand that this was to show off the animation, which makes sense for the time period, but it made things drag on sometimes).

Music: For music that wasn't meant to tell the story or show characterization of any kind, it wasn't all that bad. The movie was good with keeping the music consistent, nothing felt out of place. The memorable songs were well done. (Kamau: My down side was when the music got annoying, like whenever Gepetto would just sing and make up words as he went along, it would have been better if I could make out the words more often).

Art: When they wanted to do well with this, they did really, really well. The problem was that often times, you'd be able to easily notice when they were taking short cuts. Like repeating the same animation for the fish in one scene, or showing people first as blobs, then suddenly detailed, then blobs again in one scene. It's understood they may not have had the budget at this time, which is why we still think the animation and art was really good. It was just mildly irksome (but mostly ignorable).

In the end, we took everything into consideration and decided to score the movie as follows...

Characterization: 6/10
Plot: 7/10
Music: 7/10
Art: 8/10

Overall Score: 7/10

[Stars]

Are you going to do any more of these reviews? I can't remember why I failed to comment on this earlier, but I did read the whole thing, and I enjoyed it.

[Kamau]

Yeah, whenever we get the chance to hang out we're hoping to include a Disney movie in there. =) It's just difficult to find times to hangout, since Puffin has class all week and this month, I work weekends...

[Kamau]

Onward to review #2!

Movie: Fantasia
Disney Movie: #3
Original Release Date: 1940

We've determined that this movie cannot be scored on characterization or plot due to its nonlinear storyline and lack of constant characters. (Puffin: Well...duh. Everyone knows this.) Yeah, well, I'm just spelling it out, like how the narrator would have said it! That was one of the things I wanted to point out about this movie, so thanks for the easy transition. (Puffin: No, no! If you were actually going mimic the narrator, you would have explained exactly how we were going to score everything, before giving the actual reasoning or scores!) Aaaanyway. One thing I had noticed about this movie was the way the narrator explained everything, as Puffin mentioned. It was necessary for the time, and we understood why it was done, but when watching it with the mindset of the current generation it was difficult to maintain focus on what was being said, since we felt most of it was self-explanatory. The audience of the 40s, however, would have needed the extra prompting due to the unfamiliarity of the the subject matter.

On a side note, one other thing I noticed that really represented the time period was the fact that all of the musicians were male - except for the two females playing the harps. (Puffin: How predictable...) Oh shush, you didn't even notice until I pointed it out to you. (Puffin: I did too!! D: ) Whatever you say.... (PuffIn: I DID TOO.)

Anyway, moving on. Another thing that really intrigued me (and Puffin, once I pointed it out to him...) (Puffin: D: I noticed...! It's just...I... didn't register it quite as quickly. It's Friday- I'm tired- shut up!) was the future influence that this movie must have had on the animators of later Disney films. In the opening "act", there were a number of things that we were able to recognize. For instance, the dust coming off of the fairies was the same method of animation used for Tinkerbell's fairy dust in Peter Pan. The stars and clouds in the night sky were reminiscent of the moment when Mufasa appears to Simba. The swirls of light were similar to the lights appearing around Cinderella when her maid's outfit was transformed into a gown. There was also the flowers that danced in almost the same formation as the feather dusters in "Be Our Guest" from Beauty and the Beast. I thought it was incredibly neat and interesting, and definitely helped me keep my focus on the movie.

*Puffin steals the keyboard*
I also liked the transitions in the beginning of the movie. How it went from showing the conductor and the musicians playing, to the abstract animation that had hints of instrumental visualizations, like the strings of an instrument or the tops of the bows. Then how that leads into more surreal animation, and eventually segways into the more structured animations, like The Sorcerer's Apprentice. It just seemed like a good build up to those well-structured vignettes that you see.
It was also interesting to see the art change, even just slightly, over the course of the art. There were times where it did feel much different from the rest of the movie, but not so much that it felt out of place. Such as the village you see in the shadow of Bald Mountain. It has an eerie, angular look to it, contrasting a lot in comparison to the soft, round shaped you see throughout the movie, yet it doesn't seem out of place in that segment.

*Kamau resumes control of the keyboard*
Concerning music, we decided to look more at how well the animation went with the music it was supposed to represent. Overall, there wasn't anything to complain about. (Puffin: Though we might not have noticed it because, at least in my case, I've seen the movie a hundred billion times, so I wouldn't see anything out of place in it...I mean, it's just... the movie to me.) Yeah, and I've seen it...twice. But even from a...less biased opinion, I didn't see much wrong. The animation and content was chosen specifically to prove to the audience that pictures could be put to music and both could be individually represented while blending with the other. So from that standpoint, the film did its job fantastically.

*Puffin steals keyboard again*
Kamau did grumble about how the conducting didn't match the instrumentation correctly at times, but admits it might just be 'im nitpicking there. There were also a couple of times the animation didn't match up exactly to the music, but this may have been on purpose and really doesn't even matter. Kamau also pointed out that at least once or twice animation was reused. A lot of times the colors got skewed as well, but it wasn't often noticeable (Kamau: How about the time the ponies changed color? You should mention that, cuz that BUGGED ME.)

*Kamau resolves the whole thing*

In the end, we took everything into consideration and decided to score the movie as follows...

Music: In the end, we had to give this a 10/10 because the music was not created for the film, it was a series of well-known pieces by famous composers. We, at least, don't think we have the ability or experience to critique them. (They made much more money than I will ever see in my life.) (Puffin: ...If we're going by that, then we really can't touch this film at all.) ...Fair point.

Art: (Puffin: Ten out of ten! Because it was fantastic!) ...Well, I don't know, I think I would give it- (Puffin: Ten out of ten! Because it was fantastic!) ...Puffin, I think you're being a little bit biased- (Puffin: TEN. OUT. OF. TEN. GOD. DAMN. IT. ...Because it was maybe not completely fantastic, but it didn't score low enough to be a nine!)

Overall Score: (PuffIn: *narrows eyes at Kamau*) ... 10/10.

Edit: Also, I know we said we'd do Snow White next, but Kamau didn't want to get out his VHS player and, uh... we kind of wanted to put off that one a bit longer. XD (Kamau: I HATE THAT MOVIE.) Yeah, not one of my favorites either. We're saving that one for a weekend.

[Monkeydog]

There is no bias in giving Fantasia 10/10 for art. It's amazing and beautiful.

[toysintheattic]

Pinocchio is one of my favorites, but that might just be because it's the first Disney movie I ever saw, and I understand why some people don't like it as much as other Disney films. But I love how creepy some of the scenes are, like when the kids turn into donkeys, or the stuff with the whale, and I think the animation is beautiful. And When You Wish Upon a Star!

But very agreed on Fantasia.

[Monkeydog]

Are you going in order?

Since after Bambi it's mostly ehhhh Disney movies. And a lot of them that are just ugh. Like Saludos Amigos. You don't get into good stuff until Cinderella.

I just watched Aladdin. My review:

Damn it's good. Damn Good/Great.

The end.

[Kamau]

We're attempting to go in order, but as I keep mentioning, I'm super lazy and don't ever feel like going through the hassle of digging out the VHS player... XD I have a number of Disney movies on DVD, but not nearly as many as I have on VHS... The goal is to continue skipping Snow White for now, then watch them as closely in order as we can (which will mean setting up the VHS player, but ehhh I'll have to do it eventually).

I agree that the good stuff doesn't come for a while. ): But the whole reason behind this was we realized how long it's been since we've watched some of the Disney movies. (You'd be surprised how many Puffin hasn't seen at all [and how many more he's only seen recently for the first time because I own them].)

Also, excellent review on Aladdin!

[Monkeydog]

Why thank you.

I had a hard time deciding on whether or not to give it a Great rating...but I decided since there are movies I prefer to it (Beauty and the Beast, The Great Mouse Detective, Fox and the Hound, Little Mermaid, Fantasia...) I couldn't really consider it "great". But it's probably the funniest one without going too wacky (The Emperor's New Groove)

I am thinking of going back and rewatching a lot of Disney movies. I did that kinda with Studio Ghibli recently.
I am a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge Disney junkie. I used to just watch Disney movies on repeat all the time, I've probably seen Little Mermaid/Great Mouse Detective/Aladdin/Beauty and the Beast over a hundred times each. Especially Beauty and the Beast. I kind of gotten in the mood since I recently played Disney Scene-It with my family and basically outclassed them in the game.

Although I admit I've not seen every Disney Animated Movie. I've seen everything up to Lilo And Stich (minus Dinosaur) and then Bolt. And that's all. But all the newerish movies are just ugh. Although I do have interest in seeing Winnie the Pooh, The Princess and the Frog, Treasure Planet, and Tangled. Just not enough to care. I guess. But maybe I'll watch everything in my little urge of Disneyness.

This post is now longer than my review.

The end.

[Kamau]

You should definitely watch The Princess and the Frog and Tangled. =) (Oh, the amount of times Puffin and I have hosted drinking games to those movies...) I haven't seen Treasure Planet yet, either.

Beauty and the Beast is one of my favorites! Same with Tarzan.

[Puffin]

(Oh, the amount of times Puffin and I have hosted drinking games to those movies...)

To those movies? We've only done those once each. XD Though we certainly have watched them enough. (<3 Tangled)

[Kamau]

Feels like more than once. XD (And yes. <3 Tangled.)

[Hyperlisk]

/>

(Oh, the amount of times Puffin and I have hosted drinking games to those movies...)

To those movies? We've only done those once each. XD Though we certainly have watched them enough. (<3 Tangled)

And how do these work? I've always wanted to watch Tangled.

[Kamau]

Well, we made up the rules at the beginning of each movie. Usually, we assigned a minimum of one rule per major character...along with any particular moments we knew were epic enough to drink to (from watching them so many times). XD

Let's see...some of ours for Tangled that I remember...
-Any time Rapunzel's hair is mentioned
-Any time Rapunzel's mom is a b****
-The Smolder
-Any time Pascal changes colors

To name a few. It's a fun time. =)

[Puffin]

So, remember when we said we were going to go in order and stuff? Well, we lied. Review #3!

Movie: Tarzan
Disney Movie: #37
Original Release Date: 1999

So, we have two totally different perspectives on this movie. Kamau has seen this movie a bajillion times and loves it, I saw it once when I was little, didn't really care and never bothered watching it again. That's not to say I disliked this movie, just that it never drew my interest much.

*Kamau attempts to start, messing up consistently due to Puffin's small-a** computer*

Art: I wanted to start off with the art style. The art style isn't necessarily consistent here, but I like the fact that there are a specific styles for specific things that Disney is portraying. For instance, whenever we were taken to the tree house that Tarzan's parents built, we see the painted backdrops come out. It's another way of showing the stark difference from the "two worlds" (the gorillas, and man). Whenever things get dramatic, out come the different shades of light streaming through the trees, creating deeper contrast in the entire setting.
Puffin: So, clearly, we skipped through a lot of movies and while this movie isn't the start of it, it makes a pretty good example of the 'Disney Style'. What I find interesting about this movie is that it's not quite alike with movies like, say, Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast, although it could fit in with those. It actually reminds me a lot of Lilo and Stitch and Hercules (though a less stylized version of the latter).
But over all, the art is pretty amazing. Smoothly animated, which is highly impressive for all of the action scenes we see almost constantly throughout. Granted, we were seeing a remastered version of the movie, so in the case of all 3D animated objects (like those trees Tarzan surface across), I dunno how good that might've looked when it was first released.

Plot: Tarzan is Beauty and the Beast. A wild man who is tamed by a intellectual girl, accompanied by her father who is search of new discoveries (also, the father in this kinda even looks like Belle's father), then finally, there's the arrogant, gun toting, wide-jawed dude who hates the protagonist (too bad he didn't have a small side kick, though). Then of course, there was the zoom in on the Missus Pots and Chip teaset in the camp. So, yeah, obviously a revamp of Beauty and the Beast, and it knows it.

Kamau: Even the overlying theme of both movies is basically the same. The point in BatB was the thought that everyone is, and should be viewed as, equal, no matter how you look. In Tarzan, the focus is that being different doesn't mean you shouldn't be accepted. (Do you see what I did there? I changed the words to synonyms to at least try to make the movies different.)

We talked about it for a while, and really, the only big difference we came up with was the ending of both movies. In BatB, the Beast is "tamed" and made into a human again. In Tarzan, he does come kind of close, but in the end he reembraces his wild side (with Jane and her father learning to embrace it as well). In a way, it's kind of a complete reversal.

Characterization:
Puffin: What I get from it is that everything is shown through montages. Which... I personally, don't know how to feel about. I mean, the storyline, from start to finish, is huge. We follow Tarzan throughout his life, basically, and see him change from just a little kid who doesn't know what to do, to a clever wild man, then see him meet Jane and so on. And of course, with the introduction of Jane, we're bound to have even more characterization to prepare us for the ending. So, they obviously couldn't fit that all in gradually.

Kamau: I agree with the fact that montages are clearly used to enhance characterization in this movie. But it definitely happens outside of it as well. For instance, the intimate moments between Tarzan and his mother, and Tarzan and Jane. I feel these moments outline the basics of what the montages show us afterward (akin to "fast forwarding").

A sub-point that I want to get to is the time period of the movie, and how this affects the characters themselves. Throughout a majority of the movie (I'd say up until Tarzan actually makes an appearance at camp), the men of the camp were very much "superior" to Jane. Not in the sense of her being treated differently (she was a crucial part of their expedition), but in that she was given less credit for what she came up with until it was confirmed by one of the men. A huge example of this is when Jane is first telling her father about Tarzan. Clayton outright announces that she couldn't have seen something like that. Her father believes it could be possible, but thinks she's highly exaggerating ("she takes after her mother, you know. Telling stories like that.") Neither man takes her seriously until they've seen Tarzan with their own eyes. (This is also a stark contrast to Disney's tendency to show women who aren't questioned for being independent. Jane has a very strong personality for a woman of her time period, but she is still treated as 'a woman'.)

The time period also explains the absurdity of her outfit when she first arrives. I mean, seriously, that poof is ridiculously unsuitable for walking around in the jungle. And she clearly proves she has other outfits with her...yet wears it arriving AND departing, when in the company of all the other "civilized" people (note: all men.)

Music: After a long, long discussion... We agreed to disagree.

Puffin: I don't like the music. Like, instrumental stuff? Awesome. But I don't like Phil Collins (and I'll admit that might be a bit of a bias), but I just don't like how the Phil Collins music just sort of... takes over. And that's what I feel like it does. It kinda feels like it doesn't really fit the movie (the setting or time period, that is). So, it's just there for me. Which just seems like a loss, since I ordinarily love Disney music. But I guess that's the problem for me, it just doesn't actually feel like Disney music at all. It's just 'hey, Phil Collins, when did you walk into the movie?'

Kamau: (It's okay, I'm a bit biased too...because I like Phil Collins. ...But only for his music in this movie.) See, I think the music fits well. Yeah, it might take over at times but when it does, it moves the story along with it (see: montages). The lyrics were made for the movie (like all others), and so what's on screen follows the storyline well. If anything, I think the music enhances what we're seeing. Collins is like the narrator of the movie (a neat tie if you dig deep and point out that it's based off a book). He (but particularly the background music that comes with him) is able to vocalize the feelings portrayed by the characters, and I love that. Yeah, it's weird sometimes, like when the focus is on a female character...but I really like that in this movie, Disney stuck with one vocalist (rather than getting different artists for each character, like in movies where the characters themselves are the ones singing). Having just one artist makes all the different parts of the movie feel connected.

Taking all that into consideration, these are our final scores.

Art: 10/10
Plot: 8/10
Characterization: 8/10
Music: We agreed to disagree.


Overall Score: 9/10

[Stars]

I was just thinking of asking about this a few days ago. Glad to see another review~

I need to go watch some old Disney movies again sometime...

[Weiss]

Nice review's it's also made me want to watch a Disney film again..

Keep up the good work!

[Puffin]

Movie: Hercules
Disney Movie: #35
Original Release Date: 1997

 

So, here our impressions of the movie- originally, back in 1997- were somewhat similar. Neither of us were huge fans of this movie when it first came out. Though, for two different reasons. For Kamau, it was just for-get-uh-bul. For me... Well............................. (sorry, we got distracted talking about Greek mythology for a minute there- which, speaking of) for me, it was the......... (sorry, had an argument about grammatical errors- I'M right, Kamau, bug off!) *ahem* IT WAS. the fact that the movie strayed so heinously from the original myth that I just refused to like it. Because even at the tender age of eight, I knew mah mythology! (or at least enough to know it wasn't entirely accurate)

 

Nowadays, we're both a bit easier on this movie. I've learned to just not care about complete and total accuracy to ancient myths and history (most of the time) and Kamau likes the movie, even if he doesn't love the movie. And we both agree, the songs are good (even if we can't always remember the words).

 

Art

 

Puffin: I like the art of Hercules, particularly that it's reminiscent of ancient Greek styles- plus all those swirly, curvy lines. I'm a sucker of swirly, curvy lines. But that aside, I love how bright the movie is. We were watching the remastered version, so it's even brighter, but I do remember as a kid grudgingly kind of liking how bright and shiny all the gods were.

 

Kamau: I also really enjoyed the art of Hercules and how it did its best to take after the era it was based on. But I'll also admit that art isn't as big my thing as Puffin (nor is Greek style) so the biggest thing I wanted to mention was the fight with the Hydra and Disney's use of their 'new and amazingly advanced' (key word being: at the time) 3D animation techniques. I thought this was really cool, and even though it looks kind of corny to today's standards, I can give props to Disney for having the guts to throw it into their movie. The only thing I didn't like about it was that it only came up once; I'm not sure why they didn't, say, utilize it again in the final battle or such. Wasted talent.

(Puffin: Personally, I'm glad they didn't, I always found it jarring to include that stuff in a middle of a 2D animation. It can blend well now, but back then the 3D technology was way too far behind for it work seamlessly- though I'm pretty sure that in the remastered version the Hydra is much improved. Can't be certain without comparing the two ((we tried to look for footage from the unremastered movie, but to no avail)).

 

Plot

 

Puffin: Okay... let me get this out of the way now... It still bothers me that they don't follow the myth. I get why they did it- introducing infidelity and jealous wives are some pretty iffy topics with kids- or the parents, at the very least- but it still bugs me. Hades definitely has his faults and can be a real jerk- at the very least.............................. (sorry, got distracted by reading Greek myth, whoops)- but ah... he's not, like, "I'mma murder yo' son!" evil. But eh, gods of the underworld being turned into devilish characters, what's new?

In any case, myth aside, I don't think the storyline of Hercules is terrible. Really, Hercules' quest is... well, kind of normal. It's just the outsider who strives to be accepted, but now he's a demigod striving to be accepted not only by everyone around him, but the gods.

 

Kamau: At the hesitance of it becoming a trend, I have to say, I don't care as much as Puffin does about movies being historically accurate. Especially Disney movies. :p I enjoyed the storyline of Hercules, though my biggest reasons for liking it fall into characterization things that'll be mentioned later. Hercules' quest is, as Puffin put it, common, at least until you consider the fact that, as the child of the gods, he has a much higher chance of success. I know Disney enjoys focusing on the loners and the outcasts, but I really liked Hercules' tale because...You know what? I keep trying to avoid characterization but that really is why I liked the plot, so I'ma utilize my own godlike abilities for a second.

 

This section is now Plot and Characterization Combined!

 

Kamau: There. So as I was saying, I really liked Hercules' tale. It was a common one of someone struggling to be accepted, but it was interesting and different because, well, he was the child of the gods. Through means completely out of his control, he really was different. He had super strength and couldn't control it. He wanted to be friends with everyone and just wanted to help, and if he wasn't so clumsy (character depth! Yay!) then he could have actually been really well liked in his community. People didn't fear him or reject him for his differences...but because he was a walking disaster. (That being said, I enjoy the contrast of how in the beginning of the movie, he was destroying the economy, but by the middle/end of it he was boosting it single-handedly.) ... (Puffin is complaining that I'm taking too long. *eye roll* You have something to add? Go right ahead.)

 

Puffin: That is a fair point- though I dunno if I was say he was destroying the economy in the beginning there. The most we see is that he single-handedly destroys some kind of town center, where the only building was that one pottery guy's shop and.... Kamau is giving me such a disappointed face for bursting her little economy bubble....

...Anyway, onto characters other than Hercules! Do we want to talk about Phil first?

Kamau: *looking at her phone* What about Phil?

Puffin: ...Eh...

Kamau: He wants to get some protege up in the stars or whatever. That's cool. Kind of Selfless.

Puffin: And he's a perv.

Kamau: Yeah,

Puffin: Hm.

Kamau: Hm.

Puffin:.... Megara!

Kamau: Yes!

Puffin: She's, like, the best character in the movie.

Kamau: The. best.

Puffin: And you know, Hercules may have giant pecs- but damn those hips don't lie.

Kamau: Except when they do.

Puffin: Yeah. All the time.

Kamau: Like, the entire movie. But damn those hips can lie to me any time.

Puffin: I think anyone would be cool with that. But hotness aside, where to begin? She has a great attitude, though I am kind of a sucker for girls with bad attitude problems, so I might be biased.

Kamau: No, her attitude is great. I love that she can act, too. Like, not act that great, but well enough to trick Hercules. Cuz he's a lovesick puppy and all. I also love that she stands up for herself, even to Hades. Technically,he could kill her at any point, but she still tells him off.

Puffin: Even if it's kind of to no avail, but sometimes that's good enough. Not really a lot someone can do to a god, anyway. Though, really, we both like how she's basically working for the bad guy the entire movie. It's not just at first and then she turns on Hades, it's basically right up until the end, when she dies.

Kamau: Speaking of which, can we talk about how she has the most legitimate reason to stay away from love for the rest of her life? The first guy she loved, she sells her soul to save him. The second guy, she gives her life for him! They aren't even dating!

Puffin: Yeah, which... I have to say, this isn't really a compliant, but I did find it kind of bittersweet whenever Hercules promised he'd never hurt her and even more so when she believed it. Mostly because in mythology, Hercules does kill Megara, as well as all of their children after being thrown into a delusional rage by Hera. In some myths, she manages to escape and gets remarried, but her children still die either way. So, a part of me can't help, but I can't help but imagine that the Disney version can't end too happily- though to be fair, Hera isn't psychobitch in this, so maybe it would. (Kamau: Aw... Stop being such a history nerd, you're making this really sad. :( ) Right- mythology course is ending there. Anyways, can we talk about how she totally should have been counted a real hero?

Kamau: Yes. Like, she was a real hero before Hercules was. She gave her life for him without a second thought, but when it came for Hercules to save her, the first thing he tries to do is just intimidate Hades into fixing her. Like he hasn't learned a thing.

Puffin: True, though he does quickly get to being clever and then does his whole, "I'll trade places with her" thing. But all the same! Hercules shouldn't have had to give up his immortality to be with Meg, cuz galdarnit, she shoulda been glowing, too.

Kamau: Yes. End discussion.

 

Music

 

Puffin: Uhhh, it's awesome.

Kamau: I wish I knew the words better. :( Then I could singalong without a cheat sheet.

Puffin: My favorite without a doubt is "I Won't Say I'm in Love". Really, can we just have a prequel all about Megara where she sings constantly? Cuz that would be dandy. Just give us the story of what her ex did that she had to sell her soul, I'm sure we'd get a movie out of that.

Kamau: Yes.

Puffin: Indeed.

Kamau: Conclusion?

Puffin: Yes, but before, an afterthought. I will say that while I love all of the lyrical songs, I really don't remember any of the instrumentals. Literally, can not remember any of them except for the tune we hear that introduces Mt Olympus and the gods.

Kamau: The music of us mere mortals pales in comparison.

 

Art: 9/10
Plot: 7/10
Characterization: 10/10
Music: 7/10


Overall Score: 8/10

[Puffin]

Movie: Hunchback of Notre Dame
Disney Movie: #34
Original Release Date: 1996

 

Whelp. We did a double feature. It's now 4 in the morning, but we're opting to give you highlights composed primarily of the things we discussed over the3 course of the movie. Literally, throughout the movie- as in, we weren't watching the movie all that much because we were too busy talking about the movie. I think we seriously just paused our discussion only to watch "Hellfire" and "Court of Miracles" (we enjoy public humiliation via gypsies) and then resumed.

 

This is the closest Disney has ever come to crossing the line of blatantly putting in sex. We have pole dancing (Esmerelda swinging on the spear), lust (ughgughghguhhhh. Frollo is a creep), sexual harrassment and so on... (Kamau: "Hellfire" is the closest that Frollo will ever get to masturbation. Just saying.) It's basically the deepest Disney has ever delved into some very non-Disney themes.

 

We also went into the paralells between Hunchback and Tangled. We basically missed the beginning of the movie because we were too busy talking about how Frollo is a douchebag, and then talking about the intricacies of emotional abuse and how it's done differently in the two movies. Also, both of the main characters desperately want to go to a festival.

 

Then of course, we griped about how utterly annoying the gargoyles are, but everyone does, so no surprise there.

 

But this is all nothing, in comparison to our favorite topic of discussion. You know how Megara's hips don't lie? Well, Esmerelda's hotness goes off the charts. Like, fo' real. And not even just her as a woman, oh no, we delved into the depths of genderbending. Primarily sparked by this gorgeous picture. Then we discussed how different the movie would be if Esmerelda was genderbent.

Basically, our synopsis goes as follows: Frollo is tempted to sin by the male!Esmerelda, but it's not merely lust, it's homosexuality. Movie goes as follows, but wait, Phoebus is not really a man, either. Phoebus is actually Phoebe, a woman disguising herself as a man to be in service to the military. m!Esmerelda only learns of this after he attempts to help Phoebe with her arrow wound. At which point Phoebe confesses that she actually loves him. We didn't figure how Quasimodo would fit in. We did briefly talk about genderbending him, too, but mostly while debating whether a deformed woman would be any more accepted by society than a a deformed man (we basically agreed that it'd be the same, if not worse).

 

(Kamau: Btw, music gets a 10.)

As for animation, all great except for where the 3d just was blegh. Like, malformed faces on the crowds. So that gets a 9, at most. (Kamau: They copped out on the large crowds.)

Plot is cool and all, I don't know the source material so no nitpicking here. 10/10.

Characterization is rushed, with the exception of Frollo's. Like, y' blink and Esmerelda and Phoebe are in love. (Kamau: I will say, they were consistent with their characters. Each person had a key element that they stayed true to.) Yeahhh, though I don't know if that makes it better, because consistency in a character is a basic expectation. It's good that they don't just 'forget' to keep to the characters for the ease of moving the plot along or anything, but I don't think they get special points when they didn't really do much else with the characters. 8/10, since Kamau still thinks I'm not giving them credit enough (we'll say Esmerelda makes up for the deficit that the gargoyles provide...)