Film Review #63: Waking Sleeping Beauty

Waking Sleeping Beauty is a film that dissects what to the outside seemed to be the greatest era in the history of the Walt Disney Company.  It doesn't glorify what was going on, to my initial surprise.  Don Hahn (Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King) takes a daring and bold look at the time, without any sugarcoating, highlighting the good, the bad, and the ugly that occurred in the era that began in 1984 and ended in 1994.  This is a film that not only showed people what no one knew about the era, but also told the cold hard truths about the hard times of the 80's and the bitter struggle for power between Jeffery Katzenberg and Roy Disney.

Plot: As the 1980's rolled along, Disney was facing absolute turmoil.  The movie studio was in turmoil, animation was becoming too expensive, the parks weren't doing well, teenagers and young adults wouldn't be caught dead near Disney films, and the company was facing hostile takeover attempts from outsiders.  Naturally, things had to change.  Ron Miller and the Old Guard began to get ousted, and were replaced by Michael Eisner, Frank Wells, Roy Disney, and Jeffery Katzenberg.  These men set out to restore the Disney name in the world of movies, and bring the company back into the glory days.  But the toughest problem was the animation department, which was being led by bitter old men who refused to give up their power and were forcing the young animators to act as they want.  Art Stevens, Joe Hale, Rick Rich, and several others were dispatched, while younger fertile minds like John Musker, Ron Clements, Don Hahn, and Roger Allers were granted the chance to create their own animated films.

Of course, success doesn't come without failure and trials.  The animators were moved off the Disney Lot and into a warehouse in Glendale.  Then, the studio was passed over to animate on the experimental masterpiece, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?.  But, after building the foundation, Disney began pumping out marvelous films, such as The Little Mermaid and Roger Rabbit.  But the success brought about a series of struggles, which dealt with losing a great musician, tightening budgets and release dates, constant drives for perfection, and the conquest for credit and jubilation from the media.  In the end, after the tragic death of Frank Wells in the Spring of 1994, the steamboat of success began to fall apart.  And despite the phenomenal success of The Lion King in the summer, Katzenberg left the company to form his own studio, Eisner was forced to have quadruple bypass surgery, and Roy Disney began to resent Eisner's success as the CEO.

What's Bad?: My only flaw with the film is a personal dislike for me.  And that is the fact that Disney pretty much steps over the production of Aladdin and The Nightmare Before Christmas, the only two major films that didn't receive a legitimate amount of time in the film.  While Aladdin does have it's own deleted scene, I think they could have kept it in the film.

What's Good?: Disney was known mostly for only telling the significantly bad events in studio history prior to this film.  They never talked about the power struggle between Katzenberg and Roy Disney, or Don Bluth's departure and success.  The fact that Disney is willing to tell the dark side of success for the film, is a serious and dramatic improvement from the earlier 10 to 12 years.

I love all of the things that the film covers over the 90 minute duration of the film.  It covers not just the success the animated film had, but also covered the return to form for the live action department, the extreme success of home video, and the booming success in the theme parks.

I also love all of the stories and sessions that the animators talk about.  One of my personal favorite scenes was a story about the making of Beauty and the Beast.  During one of the story sessions, Howard Ashman had had the idea that maybe the film should begin the film with the Beast as a naughty little boy when he was born.  When director Kirk Wise said it could be a "cheap shot", Howard went ballistic on him.

An interesting idea of the film's director Don Hahn, was not to have talking heads.  The movie has the people who were alive at the time's audio interviews, or used audio and visual interviews for the most important people, like Ashman and Katzenberg.

The film also takes a lot of risks.  It tells the flat out truth about these events, from the near war Katzenberg fought with several animators over the editing of The Black Cauldron, to the events that occurred after the tragic death of Frank Wells, and all the way to Katzenberg finally coming clean about the idea for the story of The Lion King.

For a die hard animation fan like myself, to hear about the special events that occurred during the creation of some of my all time favorite films.  But also, Hahn chose to back some of the things that were happening with legitimate facts.  The first example of this is a Jeopardy clip of a bonus category called "In Other Words".  After the marketing department changed the name of "Basil of Baker Street" to The Great Mouse Detective, an animator sent out a fake memo that said they were changing the names of all of the original films to simpler titles, such as:

"Seven Little Men Help a Girl"
"The Girl with the See Through Shoes"
"Color and Music"
"The Little Deer Who Grew Up"

among others.  The second is a literal scene during the premiere of The Lion King of Jeffery Katzenberg waving off reporters and photographers, as he knew he wasn't going to remain in his post as president of the studio for much longer.

Overall: The film is the perfect balance of success and failure, and light and darkness.  It doesn't sugarcoat anything and much like Saving Mr. Banks, it is willing to show the dark side of success for all of the heads of the studio.  The legacy of the Disney Renaissance is finally perfect.  I only hope the success Disney is having now with the box office smash Frozen, that we can have another film as good as this.  This is the perfect documentary for a Disney Fan.  See it, you won't regret it.

Rating: A+ or 98

Film Review #62: The Lion King 1 1/2

The general public seems to really like this movie.  They like the expanded roles given to Timon and Pumbaa, they all laugh at the vulgarity and sheer oddness of the script and the jokes have to offer, and they really get behind Timon and his journey to find a home away from the meerkat colony.  To be quite frank, I didn't.  I didn't like this movie when it first came out, and I don't like it now.  I guess, to me, The Lion King is one of those movies that should never be screwed with, or at least not screwed with by Disney.  If this was an Animaniacs cartoon or a Cartoon Network spoof, then I would probably like it, but to have Disney mock their own film like this is just insulting to me.  Nevertheless, I do understand why people like it.  It's outrageous and hilarious at points, but I feel that to give The Lion King this kind of sequel is a bit odd.

Plot: Timon and Pumbaa, who after arguing about where to start the original film, decide to tell the audience their side of the story.

Timon grew up and lived in a meerkat colony on the far outskirts of the Pridelands.  The meerkat colony was a neurotic group that kept digging tunnels in the ground to avoid being eaten by hyenas.  Timon (being the quirky guy that no one understands or appreciates because he is a constant screw up *cough* Flik *cough*), realizes he doesn't fit in with his family and leaves home to find his perfect dream home, much to his mother's chagrin.  He comes across Rafiki, who tells him about a life of carefree souls like Timon is the life of Hakuna Matata.

While searching for his "Hakuna Matata", Timon meets with Pumbaa, and the two begin looking at Pride Rock, but find a much better home for them behind it.  The next few agonizing moments are with them ruining several scenes in the original film (such as the opening scene, "I Just Can't Wait To Be King", and of course the Wildebeest Stampede).  Finally, the duo finds their dream home and begin crafting paradise, but not before they come across the body of Simba, whom they raise as their own son for a while.

Naturally, Simba grows up and becomes part of the family, but Nala's arrival hinders the trios good times.  Timon and Pumbaa try to break the young lovers up, and think they succeed despite really doing nothing.  The next morning, Timon and Pumbaa wake up to Nala telling them Simba returned to Pride Rock to confront his Uncle Scar and the hyenas.  Timon, showing an extremely selfish and bitchy attitude I wasn't expecting (in a bad way), refuses to help Simba, claiming he felt betrayed, but Pumbaa and Nala go off after him.  Naturally, Timon realizes he was being a douche and races off to help Simba save the Pride Lands however he can.

What's Bad?: While I was expecting the whole cast to receive expanded roles, the only three characters who get the time to develop their characters in this movie are Timon, Pumbaa, and Simba.  The hyenas didn't really have the chance to expand their roles, while Mufasa and Scar didn't even get a single line in.

The fact that this film had the gall to crap all over the elements that made the first film good, still mindblows me to this day.  Almost every famous scene in the first movie gets shit on, from Pumbaa farting to make everyone "bow" to Simba, to Timon knocking the pyramid of animals over in "Can't Wait To Be King", and to the numerous plot holes the film makes in the original.  Here are just a few of them that I observed:

1. If Timon and Rafiki have met prior to the original film, why does Timon not know who Rafiki is in the original?  But he's quick to remember him throughout the movie?

2. How do the hyenas not recognize Timon from their earlier attack on the Meerkat Colony?

3. Does it even make sense that Timon and Pumbaa would attempt to make a home in the Elephant Graveyard, which is KNOWN HYENA TERRITORY?

4. In all the scenes that Timon and Pumbaa are involved in from the original film, how does Simba not notice them?

5. How are the hyenas able to witness Scar selling them out when they are seen clearly chasing after Timon and Pumbaa?  And how do the Hyenas not hear or feel the digging under their feet?

6. How are the hyenas able to escape from the tunnels that Ma and Uncle Max dig to finish off Scar?

7. How does Simba have the time to relax and take time off with Timon and Pumbaa at the end of the movie, when we clearly see him returning to power in the final scenes?

But the biggest fault the movie has is Timon.  His arrogance is very apparent and makes me despise his character each time I see the original.  Timon not only chooses to be lazy and live a life of luxury, but also steps all over Pumbaa the whole movie, seeks to ruin Simba and Nala's relationship to protect his interests, and even says he doesn't care if Simba gets killed in his return to fight Scar and the Hyenas.  That is not a good protagonist for a children's movie.

What's Good?: At least a few elements from the first movie appear in this film...

Overall: The film most famously known for crapping over a good film is, BIG SHOCK, a bad film.  I do know why people like it, but I hold the original in much highers esteem than them I guess.

Report Card:

Hero:                            F
Heroine:                     N/A
Villains:                       D
Side Characters:         B 
Songs:                          C
Musical Score:            D
Animation:                   A
Story:                           F
Theme:                         B-

Does the Film hold up to the Original?:    NO!  Ha ha ha, NO!

Film Review #61: The Jungle Book 2

The sequel to one of my all time favorite movies was released in 2003 and I went to the theater with a lot of optimism.  I left thinking I had been ripped off.  A sequel that recycled virtually the entire storyline and characters as the first one, The Jungle Book 2 has very little to offer entertainment wise.  To me, it's basically watching a bad stage version of the original film, with some elements work surprisingly well, but the rest is very mediocre.

Plot: Mowgli, who now lives in the Man Village with a gentle mother and a domineering yet devoted father (John Rhys Davies).  But his heart still belongs to the Jungle, where he strongly desires to run away to.  After getting caught trying to return, a crestfallen Mowgli turns on his best friend/ girl friend Shanti.

Meanwhile, in the Jungle, Baloo (John Goodman) decides to rescue Mowgli from the Village and take him back to live in the Jungle once more.  After a mix up, Shanti and Mowgli's little brother go off in pursuit of Mowgli, who is also being pursued by Bagheera, his father, Kaa (Jim Cummings), and of course the wicked Shere Khan (Tony Jay).  However, Mowgli begins to realize that the Jungle isn't as fun and exciting as it used to be, and decides to go off and look for his friends.  Naturally, they come across Shere Khan and the kids must escape from the tiger before he gets his vengeance.

What's Wrong?: Like The Little Mermaid 2, this film has WAY too many characters in it.  Some of them, like Colonel Hathi and the Vultures, do absolutely nothing in the plot and are there just for fan service.  The only two animals in the plot that serve any purpose are Shere Khan and Baloo.

The songs aren't very good.  But what did I expect?

Also, John Goodman seemed really out of place as Baloo.

There's also this really annoying Vulture played by Phil Collins that I wanted to shoot with a crossbow.

What's Good?: Giving yet another marvelous performance, Tony Jay is able to match George Sanders as the wicked and cruel tiger.  Also worth noting is John Rhys Davies performance as Mowgli's father.  I think that was a very interesting performance to come out of a sequel character, which usually range from annoying kids, to bland and forgettable characters, or even rehashes of the original.  But Davies really tries in this role, showing that even a mediocre film is worth giving 100% for.

Mowgli's girlfriend also has an expanded role in this film, acting not only as a friend to Mowgli, but also as a mediator between him and the jungle.

Overall: The film as a whole is fairly weak.  While some elements are solid, the film falls into a weak category of Disney Films that were being made at the time.  This is a decent film to skip.

Report Card:

Hero:                        C
Heroine:                   B-
Villain:                      A-
Side Characters:      D-
Songs:                       D
Musical Score:         C
Animation:                B
Story:                        F
Theme:                      F

Does this film hold up to the original?:      NOT ON YOUR LIFE, SPORT

Film Review #60: Return to Neverland

What do you get when you add about $2,000,000 more to a Disney Sequel's budget and put it out in theaters?  Nothing too bad, but nothing to brag about.  As a sequel to a film that I couldn't put into the Top 20 List, Return to Neverland at least makes an attempt to match the first film in things.  But the film flops miserably due to it's overuse of elements from the first movie, underdeveloped emotional connections between characters, and an overly foppish Captain Hook (If it's at all possible).  And yet, the film does better at trying to bring something new to a classic Disney film than any of the direct to video films made around the same time.

Plot: An adult Wendy (who apparently kicked her mother, father, and brothers out of their house in London) is raising a family of her own.  But as the Germans threaten Britain with war, not only is the father forced to leave for the front lines, but her children Jane and Danny are being forced to evacuate to the countryside.  Jane, who grew past the stories of Peter Pan and Neverland, is quick to lash out when her mother tells her what is going on.

That night, Jane is kidnapped by Captain Hook and the Pirates (who mistake her for Wendy), and is shanghaied to Neverland to be used as bait for Trap # 36,853 for Peter.  Naturally, Peter rescues her, but Jane refuses to believe in it and searches for ways to get home, even making Tinker Bell's light start to go out.  It isn't until Hook tricks Jane into recovering his treasure in exchange for passage back to London, that Jane realizes that she has grown to care for both Peter and the Lost Boys.  But Hook captures Peter and his boys, leaving Jane and a weakened Tinker Bell to stop him however they can.

What's Wrong?: It's okay to draw on the original film for some elements, but this film goes well past the mark of acceptance.  The film got rid of the Crocodile, but added in an octopus that pops?  WHAT?

Another thing that bugs me about this movie is the lack of people showing emotion.  Other than Jane, we are forced to sit through overly happy, or overly dramatic moments between everyone else, from Wendy to Peter.  Peter takes the biggest hit, not developing his character at all from the first film.  I know he's just a kid, but c'mon.

As for James Hook, he also suffers.  In what could have been a much more menacing role, Hook resorts to his old bag of tricks and tricks these idiots into doing more of his crap.  That may be the fault of Peter, but Hook needs to take some blame.

What's Good?: I do like the issues the film addresses.  It addresses more about faith than growing up.  Jane has given up on having a childhood, but is still happy to go around Neverland and see the things as her mother had described them.  And it actually has the main lead learn something, as opposed to Wendy who just got jealous and needy of Peter in the first movie.

Overall: While this is one of two Disney Sequels to earn a theatrical release (I'M NOT DOING THE OTHER WINNIE THE POOH MOVIES), it didn't deserve it.  It isn't particularly bad, but it doesn't really offer anything special.  Overall, it's blah.

Report Card:

Hero:                          C-
Heroine:                     B
Villain:                        C-
Side Characters:        F
Songs:                         F
Musical Score:           D
Animation:                  B
Story:                          D-
Themes:                      B

Does this film hold up to the original?: Close, but no cigar

Film Review #59: Cinderella 2: Dreams Come True

Oh boy, just what my sanity needs.  Another shitty sequel to another cherished movie from my childhood.  But not only is this a bad movie, it is also a pointless movie.  Nothing changes in the movie, no special statements are made, and nothing really happens.  When Disney usually screws up, it's at least a memorable screw up (a la Hunchback 2).  But I think I had to watch this movie 6 or 7 times just to realize just how pointless and worthless this movie is.  Cinderella 2 is the prime example of Disney selling out on an old product and failing miserably.  Didn't Disney sum it up best when the film ended with "...and they all live happily ever after"?  Nope.  Fuck that shit!  We need to redeem Cinderella's character in the eyes of the female fans.  Too bad no one saw this.  Shitheads.

Plot: The mice complain that the original story has become so predictable.  So, they convince the Fairy Godmother to create a book telling about what happened after the wedding for both Cinderella (bland and stereotypical as usual) and Prince Charming (bland and stereotypical as usual).

1. Cinderella decides to establish a Royal Banquet and does her best to bring her commoner instincts and beliefs onto life in the palace, which goes against a snobby bitch named "Snooty Von Persnicketty Bitch" (or Prudence I can't seem to remember).

2. Feeling he is unable to help Cinderella like he could back at the chateau, Jaq asks the Fairy Godmother to turn him into a human.  Hi-jinks insue.

3. Anastasia Tremaine falls in love with a baker in town, which angers the other Persnickity Bitch, Lady Tremaine, who insists her daughter can do much better.  Cinderella convinces her stepsister to follow her heart instead of her mothers will.

What's Bad?: Beyond the total forgettableness of the story, we get to witness just how bad Disney's character writing is in the early 2000's.  With the exception of one character (we'll get to that later), every single character in this movie is bland and forgettable.  At least they're keeping with tradition.

What's Good?: With the exception of one character: Anastasia.  Much like Iago in the Aladdin sequels, Anastasia has a character arc in this story, no longer just the selfish little bitch like in the first movie.  She is the only character we grow to care for, or even tolerate.  To bad they botch her love story for a cheesy rushed piece of nothing in the third one, but we're not there yet.

Overall: If you throw away the bland and forgettable characters, story, animation, and music, Cinderella 2 is just a weak film.  It may not be absolutely inside rupturing, but I  wasn't offended by Cinderella's character in the first film.  Kids from 2-6 will like it, beyond that, I doubt anybody with a functioning brain will find this movie engaging.

Report Card:

Hero:                                 F
Heroine:                            B-
Villains:                             B
Side Characters:               C+
Story:                                 D
Themes:                             D
Songs:                                F
Musical Score:                  F

Does this film hold up to the original?:           Not really

Film Review #58: The Hunchback of Notre Dame 2

Every once in a while, you come across a film that can surprise you.  One that can make you laugh, cry, and even gush with emotion over what kind of an experience it can give you.  The Hunchback of Notre Dame 2 is that kind of film for me.  It is rich in such quality and such happiness that it fills me up every time I watch it.  Oh, do you guys think I liked this film?  Well...

I HATED IT!  I HATED EVERY SINGLE GODFORSAKEN SECOND OF THIS STEAMING PILE OF DONKEY SHIT!  NOTHING IN THIS FILM IS REDEEMABLE!  NOTHING IN THIS FILM IS ACCEPTABLE EVEN BY DISNEY SEQUEL STANDARDS!  THIS FILM DESERVES TO BE STUDIED FOR HOW AWFUL A FILM CAN BE AND HOW IT CAN MAKE EVEN SOMETHING LIKE THE ROOM ENJOYABLE!  THIS FILM SHOULD BE DESTROYED, AND EVERYONE WHO WORKED ON THIS FILM, THE ACTORS INCLUDED, SHOULD ALL BE SMACKED IN THE FACE WITH A METAL POLE!

Plot: It's Paris's equivalent of Valentines Day!  Everyone has to find someone to love and they'll profess their love for each other while the bell "La Fidele" rings on.  While now accepted by the people, Quasimodo still lives in the Bell Tower, occasionally visited by Phoebus and Esmeralda's son Zephyr.  

The Circus comes to town, led by the con artist Sarouche and his beautiful assistant Madeleine.  Quasimodo is immediately smitten with the girl, while it naturally takes time for the girl to get past his gruff exterior ( a whole two scenes).  Sarouche sees this as a golden opportunity to steal the bell, because it is apparently worth a fortune.  Naturally, every romantic cliche ensues, from the date in the rain to the misunderstanding.  But the couple pulls together to save the day.  Joy.  Just F#$#ING DANDY!

What's Wrong?: Remember when I said that every act in The Little Mermaid 2 needed to be questioned?  Here, it's every solitary second.  The opening of the film (Walt Disney Pictures logo and everything) opens like some cheesy Christmas Special with happy bells of joy ringing.  DOES THAT SOUND AT ALL LIKE THE ORIGINAL FILM OPENED?

While Quasimodo is accepted by the public now, WHY THE HELL DOES HE REMAIN IN THE BELL TOWER?  LIVE YOUR LIFE, DUDE!

(In order to save time and lives, here's a list of things that I hate and despise about this movie:

1. Why the hell is Demi Moore reprising her role?

2. Why is Phoebus, the only person who uses his head in this film, the only person who gets called a racist and thickheaded jerk?

3. Why the hell is Jennifer Love-Hewitt in this movie?

4. Does Tom Hulce or Haley Joel Osmont put this on their resume?

5. The animation makes Scooby Doo look like Howl's Moving Castle

6. The songs make me want to spew blood.

7. Why is the villain of this movie a downgrade from most villains in Adam Sandler movies?

8. Why is this villain allowed to exist?

9. Why isn't Frollo or somebody like Frollo in this movie?

10. When Phoebus and the Guards surround Sarouche and the dude shows that Zephyr is his hostage, why doesn't Phoebus or Esmeralda attack Sarouche, beat the crap out of him, and save their son?  Is Frollo the only person who deserved their effort?

11. Why the Hell is Jennifer Love-Hewitt in this movie (not a mistake)

12. Why is the city of Paris suddenly downgraded to about 20 or 25 people?

13. How the hell does Sarouche and his men steal the bell anyway?

14. Why does Esmeralda only speak in metaphors and recounting what happened in the first film?  Why does she try to make her husband sound like a racist prick and a new Frollo?

15. Haley Joel Osmont isn't saying "He sees Dead People" or anything Kingdom Hearts related

16. Where is Frollo when you need him?

17. Why is Quasimodo so quick to forgive Madeleine?

18. What about Quasimodo's kindness immediately makes Madeleine fall in love with him and I wish every freaking hot girl I knew had that power?

19. Why can I buy this movie but not Song of the South?

20. The gargoyles suck even more out of this movie than I thought possible

21. No epic Hellfire moment!

What's Good?: If you don't buy this DVD, you can save yourself from $10 to $20 dollars!

Overall: This movie...I can't even...I'm sorry...there is just so much putrid shit in this movie that I may not even be able to finish this...

Report Card

Hero:                         F

Heroine:                    F

Villain:                      F- - - - 

Side Characters:       F

Animation:                F

Music:                       F

Story:                        F

Theme:                     F-

DO I EVEN HAVE TO ASK?  

Film Review #57: Lady and the Tramp 2: Scamp's Adventure

Great.  Just great.  It's bad enough that Disney is making sequels to the movies made AFTER Walt died, but now their making them for movies made when he was alive?  I was not happy when I first heard that this movie existed.  Let's see how they botched one of Disney's great films.

I found this film at my local library on video.  With my low expectations,  I sat down and expected something on par with Little Mermaid 2.  I'm happy to say that my lowered expectations actually paid off for this film, because it wasn't as bad as I feared.  It's certainly nothing special, but I can't put it in the same category as Little Mermaid 2 or The Enchanted Christmas.

Plot: Sometime after the events of the first movie, Lady and Tramp are raising their puppies in Jim Dear and Darling's house.  The only boy puppy, Scamp, acts like a puppy should and rolls in the dirt, plays in the mud, and runs around trying to have fun.  Often scolded for this, Scamp reveals that he wants to be a free dog, despite his father telling him it's not a good idea.  Nevertheless, Scamp runs away and encounters a group of junkyard dogs, led by a dog named Buster, who was a protege of his father, and a girl dog named Angel.  When Buster finds out that Scamp is the Tramp's son, he goes to incredible lengths to get the vengeance out on his old friend who he believed betrayed them by running off to live with Lady, while Scamp tries to prove that he can be a wild dog like his father.

What's Bad?: The Lion King 2 and the Aladdin sequels at least had music that matched the kind of music the original films had.  This film opens up with this big Broadway style musical number that really threw me off.  Naturally, to refresh my memory, I watched the original film before the sequel.  Peggy Lee's songs, while not classics, had their own beat to them and were at least enjoyable.  These just follow the bland and forgettable musical formula that was driving Disney Fans crazy at this point.

For a movie called Lady and the Tramp 2, there was also hardly any Lady or Tramp in this movie.  Lady falls back into a sort of Nala supportive role in this film, and although the Tramp has a bigger role in the overall plot, he isn't in the movie much.

What's Good?: I really liked the characters.  Scamp is a bit annoying, but Buster and Angel are really good written characters with actual motivations.  Buster felt betrayed that Tramp had abandoned the Junkyard Dogs in the first movie and sought revenge on him anyway he could.  As for Angel, she actually wishes she could have an owner and live a life not on the run.  To have side characters with legitimate emotions and backstories, I have to give credit where it is due.

Overall: As a film, it's pretty okay.  There isn't anything in it that could ruin anyone's childhood, but I could see if you don't like it.  I was at least content that I had seen it at least once.  Nothing special, but nothing awful.  See for yourself.

Report Card

Hero:                           C
Heroine:                      B
Villain:                         B
Side Characters:         C
Songs:                          C
Musical Score:            C
Animation:                   B
Themes:                      C
Story:                          B-

Does it hold up to the Original?:         No

Eight Things I Wanna See In Kingdom Hearts 3

It's coming.  We don't know when or for what systems, but we do know the third platform Kingdom Hearts game is coming.  All of the loose ends established in the games will finally be answered.  What happened to Terra, Ventus, and Aqua?  What role will Xion and Roxas play?  Will a major non-villain character finally get axed?  Will Sora and Kairi ever have a deeper romantic relationship?  And what role will the various Disney Worlds play?

Kingdom Hearts is one of the most polarizing game series ever created, much like Call of Duty.  People either view it as the bible of fantasy RPG's, or unenlightened halfwits think it's a series made only to please children and Final Fantasy/ Disney fans.  But no one can argue the lasting impact this series has had on pop culture.  Even if we hate the 3DS or the PSP, we're still gonna pick up the system to at least give the next game a try.  And with the next Kingdom Hearts game being 2.5 Remix, that leaves only the finale for Square Enix to create.

Fans have what they want to see or experience for Kingdom Hearts III.  I have my own list, and some of my ideas may be similar to what others want.  Some may go against conventional wisdom.  I own every Kingdom Hearts game except for re: Coded and Dream Drop Distance, but I have played every one at least once.  So I think I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this franchise.  But I know the game will not completely please me, so here are eight things I want the game I'm gonna shell out $350 dollars for(whichever system it comes out for and the game) to give me.

1. Disneyland

This one may be coming out of left field, but I had a sweet idea for the next major "hub" for where Sora and Co. have to go to other worlds.  Instead of tedious Gummi Ship missions (I never really liked them anyway), you can have Sora take part in several mini games to unlock the various worlds that you would see.  But it would take place in one central world, like Peach's Castle in Super Mario 64.  Only here it would be Disneyland!  It would give Disney and Square the excuse to add more Disney Worlds into the game (Frozen or The Jungle Book/), and it would give us a place where we could just let loose and have fun while not just fighting Heartless, Unversed, or Nobodies.




2. A Balanced Pace

Kingdom Hearts II had a great pacing, using the first half of the story to have Sora and Co. go up against each world's Disney Villains and cover more Disney oriented stories, while leaving the second half of the game to dealing with the Organization.  Birth By Sleep and the original game both tried to juggle the main plot with the various Disney Plots, which would get very confusing for a first time player.  Instead, the game should feel more like an actual movie.  The first act has Sora and his friends dealing with the various Disney Villains, the second act would have them encounter Xehanort and his henchmen, and the third act would be the Keyblade War itself.  It would allow the player to learn more about each world or each character without jumping head on into the plot.  Kind of a nitpick, but it's what makes the second platform game my all time favorite.

3. More of a role for Disney Characters (Villains and Heroes)

The best thing about going to the Disney Themed worlds is having the World's Character team up with you.  While Donald and Goofy are good characters, Donald's magic isn't as effective as Jack Skellington's and Goofy's strength doesn't even come close to matching the Beast's.  But when you leave the world, the characters don't join you.  The game invented this rule that the key bearers must protect the world order, but with Xehanort running amok and with several of the other characters (Aladdin, Ariel, Beast, Simba, Tron, ALL OF THE PRINCESSES) already knowing about the other worlds, is there any reason not to have them have a larger role in the story?  Now, I know that a lot of them wouldn't appear in this game, but we know Aladdin and the Beast are going to appear.  I'd rather go to war with Beast at my side over Goofy.


The same could be said for the Disney Villains, but in a different way.  I love to fight the Disney Villains in these games.  Unfortunately, a good portion of their fights tend to be on the easier side, where you actually have a harder time fighting the normal Heartless than the boss.  Also, though it is Xehanort's story, I think the Disney Villains should still keep up their schemes, and NOT JUST MALEFICENT!  I'm not saying Oogie Boogie or Scar should come back, but I think it would alleviate the people who just play for the Disney aspects to be able to fight a good portion of Disney Bosses.

4. More Secret Bosses

Sometimes, the game is just too easy for some players.  Those players would like to be challenged once in a while.  Enter Sephiroth.  Enter Lingering Sentiment.  Enter Kurt Zisa.  These secret bosses show players just how good they really are and no one has beaten them all without dying at least once.  We overestimate these foes and get our butts kicked pretty early without damaging them much.

But we want more challenges.  Less of those easy boss fights and more fights where every second we are being tested by some new enemy or assailant.  We want to have to die once in a while, so we can get back up and deliver the ultimate beat down on this chump who thinks he's better than us.  In essence, there should be about one secret boss every other world you go to.  That would really through players for a loop.  No mercy!

My personal idea would be to have an archive mode that would allow you to fight some of the old Disney Villains, but this time, they're a serious pain in the ass to fight.  For example, Jafar could use a few more devastating spells or Hades could actually make it rain fireballs for the whole match.

5. More Disney World...but Less Disney Worlds


Kinda confusing?  Well, what I mean, is that I would like to see more Disney Worlds explored.  People are getting sick of having to go and rescue Tinker Bell from Captain Hook and talking about signing up for the next cup at the Olympus Coliseum.  Some worlds, like Agrabah, Beast's Castle, and Dwarf Woodlands are going to be unavoidable due to their importance with regards to the plot.  After finally seeing The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Fantasia, and Tron in these games, I'd like to see Square tackle some new grounds, such as Arendelle (which has been rumored), Prydain (The Black Cauldron), or maybe a world that keeps getting aborted (like The Jungle Book world).  Or maybe even a world themed off of Toy Story or Monsters Inc.  But I am personally sick of seeing Pinocchio's obnoxious face every other game, I'm sick of being told their's a new cup at the Coliseum, and I'm sick of having to learn how to fly in Neverland.

Some of the worlds have an opportunity to be explored more.  For example, we could have Sora and Co. return to the Pridelands and help Simba deal with Zira, or have the plot with Agrabah surround the plot of Aladdin and the King of Thieves.  Or, you can surprise me and add a world I would believe would have zero potential and it would blow me away (such as the Lilo and Stitch world).  A story like Pocahontas or Emperor's New Groove at least deserve some recognition.  But again, I'm tired of having to hear Donald sing in Atlantica, tired of missions regarding us protecting Agrabah from Jafar, and I'm tired of the reptetitve Olympus Cups.

6. Deeper Character Interactions (SORA ND KAIRI/ ROXAS ND XION/ TERRA/ AQUA)

The only people who kiss in these games are the Disney Characters who come together, such as Aladdin and Jasmine or Ariel and Eric.  But in all seven games (minus the re-releases), the closest bit of romance we get are from fangirls and fanboys writing fan fiction online.  Kairi and Sora both know how they feel about each other, but the two only blush and laugh when in each other's presence.

This could be the same with Roxas and Xion/ Namine or Terra and Aqua.  These guys only have relationships within the twisted minds of us fans online or they are loosely implied.  People who play these games will react to a well written romance with joy and happiness.  But so far, we have gotten only Paopu Fruits, blushes, and hugs.  SO STIFLING!




7. Darker Storyline/ Gameplay

Disney now owns The Empire Strikes Back, one of the darkest and most twisted films ever created.  Every character is put into some kind of distress, the main character learns a devastating truth, and the future is left in doubt.  Though we don't need a Darth Vader revelation, Kingdom Hearts III could use some darkness and some challenging stuff in it's plot.  Precisely, it needs some characters to die.  It doesn't have to be Sora or Riku, but someone other than a villain needs to die.  The plot really needs to have a sense of anguish and despair surrounding it, or else the game really could qualify as a kiddie game.

8. MULTIPLAYER!!!!!!!!!

 Every Tuesday, my cousins come over to hang out.  Often, when we're not playing baseball or football outside, we're playing video games.  And our mutual favorite video game series is Kingdom Hearts.  But with the exceptions of utilizing the Game boy connectors to fight in Chain or Memories or going online to fight with our PSP, we cannot enjoy our games together.  This is something that I think Square should at least consider, especially if the game is going to be released on the Xbox One.  I think they should do something along the lines of Subspace Emissary in Super Smash Bros. Brawl.  While you don't need the second character, it would help out a lot.  You can also have a mode like in Birth By Sleep that you can fight an opponent.  That would be AWESOME!  I'd rather fight with my cousins over which character I'd want to be over who gets to play what world.

Top 20 Disney Villains!!!!

How do you measure the strength of a hero or heroine?  Easy, you size up the villain.  If a villains is especially cruel and evil, the hero must be especially good to defeat them.  And no company knows how to create better villains that Disney.  In fact, most of the time, the villain is the one who steals the spotlight from the heroes and the princesses.  Here is a list of MY Top 20 Disney Villains.

I judge Disney Villains based on Five Categories:

1. Vocal Performance- A Disney Villains needs to have an especially good vocal artist to size up against the good heroes.  If a vocal performance is hammy, overused, or dry, the character is most likely not going to match the qualities needed for a good villain.

2. Entertainment Value- What makes a performance like Ian McDiarmid as Palpatine or Ian McKellan as Magneto so entertaining?  It's because they seem to be having fun with their role.  A villain needs to be comic, frightening, or spontaneous, or I'll get really bored really fast.

3. How far they got- A villain should also be based on how much they got done, and how far along in their plan they get before they get foiled.  Then again, if the character's turmoil in his failures is funny (like with Prince John or Captain Hook), they won't be hit too harshly with this bug.  I also judge them on how they're defeated and what their fate is.

4. Plan A?- What exactly was their plan?  Was it to make a fur coat out of puppies, murder your brother and take the throne, or simply act evil for the pure fun of it?  Or was it something really stupid and easily thwartable?

5. Sidekicks or Solo?- Does the villain have any sidekicks?  BIG POINTS for a memorable sidekick (Like Kronk of Iago), and even more points for those who have to act on their own or choose to act on their own.  

Honorable Mentions

Clayton

Pete

Mother Gothel

Madame Medusa

Governor Ratcliffe

Horned King

Evil Queen 




20. Percival C. McLeach (George C. Scott) (The Rescuers Down Under)

                                                                                                   

This poacher spends the entire movie on a bloodthirsty manhunt for the last Golden Eagle in Australia.  Not only that, he kidnaps young Cody when the boy refuses to tell him where the eagle is, throws the boy's backpack into the lake filled with crocodiles to lead the rangers off his trail, tricks the boy into leading him to the eagles nest and even sends his giant lizard sidekick Joanna to devour the rest of the bird's eggs.

Throw in a healthy dose of George C. Scott with a sadistic sense of humor, and mix it together with the rest of the outbacks fear of this hunter, and you have a recipe for an especially sinister villain.  If it weren't for that pesky Rescue Aid Society, McLeach would have made off with a HUGE payday.  My question is, what happens to the animals locked away in his compound after he plummets to his death off a waterfall.  Adios amigo.

#19. Prince John (Peter Ustinov) (Robin Hood)

 I still don't know how this egocentric "Mama's Boy" became King of anything.  Every time I watch this movie, it still baffles me that these two morons and the Sheriff of Nottingham were able to fool King Richard into leaving on the Crusades.  Nevertheless, Prince John is one of the examples of foppish Disney Villains done right.  With every scheme he concocts and every plan he hatches, we already know he's going to fail, but it's so comedic in how Robin Hood and Little John are able to defeat are so entertaining that it doesn't matter.  And the punishment Richard inflicts on John are just what a villain like him deserves.

#18. The Mad Madame Mim (Martha Wentworth) (The Sword in the Stone)

Though much more of a side character than a villain, this psychotic sorceress could give The Queen of Hearts a run for her money in the realms of insanity.  With little to no course of action or planning with her actions, Mim spends most of her time showing off her powers to Arthur and Merlin while also displaying a rare sense of insanity that only the best criminal minds are capable of showing.  As for her defeat, let's just say Mim isn't the only wizard who can fight dirty in a wizard's duel.

Though a delight every second she's on screen, Mim suffers from being another Wonderland-esque character who only makes her one and only cameo.

 #17: Stromboli (Charles Judels) (Pinocchio)

I thought about making a number for all of the villains and rogues Pinocchio encounters on his long and difficult journey to boyhood, but I decided that the only villain that poses a serious threat to Pinocchio's well-being is Stromboli the Italian puppeteer.  Stromboli literally announces his intentions of cruel evil to the boy, who is far too naive to understand any of it.  That is, until Stromboli decides to inform his "little wooden gold mine" that once he's lost his luster, he'd chop him into firewood (pretty standard pimp protocol).  The most interesting thing about Stromboli's storyline, as well as the rest of the Pinocchio villains, is what happened to them when they realized Pinocchio escaped?  How pissed must Stromboli have been when he realized Pinocchio had escaped?

#16: Prince Hans (Santino Fontana) (Frozen)

The cold and merciless Prince of the Southern Isles has turned an entire generation of people who love the Disney Villain archetype into people who hate villains.  Hans starts out as the "love" of the naive and love-starved Princess Anna of Arendelle, who represents the one true love Anna had craved.  Hans had many opportunities to reveal his evil, including when Anna left him in charge when she left after Elsa.  Or, when a captured Elsa told him she couldn't change summer.  But he chose just the most horrible and unexpected moment, with Anna dying in his arms, that this villain revealed his true disposition.  He had motivation: as the thirteenth youngest in line, he had to marry into the throne somewhere, and though he initially wanted Elsa, it was Anna's starvation for attention and love that ultimately convinced this power hungry Prince to manipulate the Princess to fall in love with him and "stage and accident" for Elsa.  While I consider him a more ruthless version of another villain who will appear on this list, Hans still makes this list for the amount of hatred he has spawned from fans all around the world.  Kudos, you scumbag!

#15: The Queen of Hearts (Verna Felton) (Alice in Wonderland (1951))

I'm sure I'd have my head chopped off for putting this murderous raving lunatic this low on the list, but much like Stromboli or Madame Mim, Alice poses no serious threat to the Queen of Hearts, and she doesn't appear until the last act.  In many respects, though, the less of her is the better.  She leaves such an impact on audiences in the 10 minutes of screen time she has that if she had had more, it would have ruined her character. Verna Felton's surprisingly spot-on performance after portraying the ditzy Fairy Godmother in Cinderella, is an especially rich reward.  A stubborn, merciless, fatally short-tempered woman, who somehow has a ton of power and whines and cries like a mad child, the Queen of all of Wonderland has a lot of anger, power, and selfishness, but ironically, no heart.


#14: Dr Facilier (Keith David) (The Princess and the Frog)

After creating the last legitimate villain Disney had had with their film Hercules, John Musker and Ron Clements come out with the first sensational villain performance from a Disney Film in a very long time.  A sendoff to Jafar and many other villains done by Disney, Dr Facilier is a shadow man, who uses his voodoo connections to con people out of money.  His biggest jackpot comes at the expense of Prince Naveen, whom the evil sorcerer transforms into a frog whilst trying to get all of the money and fortune out of Naveen's "betrothed" beauty Charlotte's father.  A suave businessman who is quick to deceive his adversaries, Facilier has become a cult icon as a villain among Disney fans, and even gets sucked into Hell in one of the coolest death scenes from a Disney Villain ever.

#13: Lady Tremaine (Eleanor Audley) (Cinderella)

No, she didn't have the evil magic like Maleficent or Jafar have.  What Lady Tremaine makes up for in her lack of weapons or magic powers is her psychological hold on poor Cinderella's mind.  She has complete and utter control over her stepdaughters life and wastes no time in scolding her, punishing her, lying to her, or ruining the girl's life if she has the chance to.  The cold and ruthless efficiency with which she runs the chateau has her daughters and obese cat Lucifer run amok and mess up any hopes and dreams Cinderella and her animal friends had.  Her one shining moment of cruelty is simply pointing out that Cinderella's ballgown is made of old unwanted clothing of her daughters, and smiles on as they rip apart her dress.  Evil, despicable, and yet she loves every minute of it.  Bitch.

 #12: Captain Hook (Hans Conreid) (Peter Pan)

The foppish and vengeance driven pirate from Neverland, Captain Hook's drive for the murder of Peter Pan is only met by his extreme cowardice when facing off against the crocodile.  Every plan Hook seems to concoct attracts the attention of not only his lifelong enemy, but also the reptile that licks his chops for the rest of him.  Hook's not the most intimidating villain, but his comic and delightfully wicked performance as the salty sea dog makes for a far more interesting pirate captain than the eariler versions and has been duplicated various times by actors, such as Dustin Hoffman and Jason Issacs.  Plus, this is some of the best Villain related slapstick Disney has ever done.

#11: Yzma (Eartha Kitt) (The Emperor's New Groove)

Living proof that dinosaurs once roamed the earth, this psychotic ex-councilor of Emperor Kuzco is best known for her secret lab, her wrong lever, her buffoon of a henchman, and her endless supply of magic potions that can kill, maim and transform into many animals, ranging from Whale to Kitten.  Despite being such an odd casting decision, Eartha Kitt does a very good job at making us love her and pity just how many idiots she has to work with.  The most slapsticky of all of the villains, every gag and joke is a delight, from the Yzma pinata to the evil kitten in the climax.  I'm happy she had her own story in the film's direct to video sequel, but her role in the TV show was a bit overly-reused.  Nevertheless, this sneaky and conniving old hag makes for one incredibly ugly and troubling world down in South America.
                                                                                                           

#10: Shere Khan (George Sanders) (The Jungle Book)

In one of his final casting choices made in his lifetime, boy did Walt Disney pick a gem for the portrayal of this deadly and murderous feline.  George Sanders really hits this performance out of the ballpark, portraying the infamous tiger as a supreme and all powerful entity within the jungles of India, who poses a severely dangerous threat to Mowgli and his friends.  There is so much buildup for this character that even when someone mentions the name "Shere Khan", you can't help but be intimidated.  And the buildup gives us an even more rewarding payoff, as Khan shows no need or desire to flaunt and showoff his power, because he has no need to. All of the jungle fears him, and he fears nothing.  Well, almost nothing...



#9: Cruella De Vil (Betty Lou Gerson) (One Hundred and One Dalmatians)

Who else on this list plans mass murder of something so cute and innocent?  No one.  This psychotic fur-minded individual with an over-excess in fur coats plots to turn 99 dalmatian puppies into fur coats.  Talk about animal cruelty.  Combine this mad drive for fur with a duo of bumbling henchmen and a classy Rolls Royce to fit, this in human beast aughta be locked up and never released.  This performance was further immortalized by her role in the live action film, when she was played by Glenn Close, who also manages to convey that sick thrill for murdering puppies for their fur.  Don't worry, Cruella doesn't even come close to her goal, ending with a crash and a burn on the side of the streets in the English Countryside.


8. Gaston (Richard White) (Beauty and the Beast)

Here's where the list got REALLY HARD to make.  Every villain from here forward has the potential to be number one, but there can be only one number one.  And no matter how many times this ego-maniacal scumbag says it, Gaston is not number one.  Yet I don't think I've loved to hate any villain more than I love to hate Gaston.  This guy even starts out appearing like the guy who would be the hero of an older fairy tale, like Snow White or Sleeping Beauty.  But his self-centered attitude, his dismal proposal skills, and his plan to blackmail Belle into marrying him by locking her father in an insane asylum, only cement Gaston as one of the finest villains ever crafted.  The parallel paths he and the Beast go down in the movie which leads to their violent fight atop the castle in the climax also make Gaston a worthy candidate as Best Disney Douchebag!  Which other character's villain song is just about professing how great they are?

 #7: Professor Ratigan (Vincent Price) (The Great Mouse Detective)

The great Vincent Price gives us the performance he loved the most in his career as the great crime boss stationed in the sewers of London.  A villain who loves ever second he commits some sort of evil crime or evil deed, Ratigan's wit and wonderful criminal mind is only matched by that of his adversary Basil of Baker Street.  Even though his primary evil plot doesn't make complete sense, the delight and sheer joy he gets out of feeding the Queen to his pet cat Felicia and showing off his perfectly designed death trap for Basil and Dawson make up for it.  It isn't until we watch his plans unravel that we are able to witness just how much of a monster this fiendish rodent is.  Nevertheless, Ratigan is in fact the World's Greatest Criminal Mind.  Just don't call him a rat.

#6: Ursula (Pat Carroll) (The Little Mermaid)

This sassy and sinister witch of the oceans is almost a female version of Ratigan.  But, where Ratigan needs to rely on his mind alone, Ursula has her devious mind, her scintillating singing voice, and her magic powers to trick the innocent Ariel into doing whatever she wants, simply by promising the young girl the opportunity to be human to be with her true love.  Her scheme to reconquer the oceans from King Triton is almost foolproof, although it takes a great deal of skulduggery and underhanded tactics to get her way, as the mute mermaid almost kisses her Prince on multiple occasions.  Ursula is a wicked and ruthless cheater, who will stop at nothing to acquire the power she craves, even threatening to turn Triton's beloved daughter into a polyp and transforming into a gigantic monster.  Luckily, this witch is put in her place for good.

 #5: Hades (James Woods) (Hercules)

Who would have guessed that the evil Lord of the Underworld acted just like a sleazy Hollywood agent?  This performance is so out of left field for Disney, and yet, is not only refreshing, but one of the finest performances ever.  Motivated by his anger towards his brother for giving him a full time job caring for the dead, Hades schemes to have Zeus's son Hercules murdered before he could stop him from taking over Mount Olympus in the future.  Not only is Hades the only truly enjoyable part of an otherwise disappointing movie, but many people who watch this film still pray that Hades is still going to win over the heroes.  He even keeps his word in deals he makes with the good guys.  Guess which hero doesn't keep their end of the bargain with the Lord of the Dead?

#4: Maleficent (Eleanor Audley) (Sleeping Beauty)

This "mistress of all evil" has perhaps the best case to be ranked number one.  After all, almost every person on the internet has her ranked as perhaps the greatest villain in all of cinematic history.  And yet, the most evil Disney Woman in the world suffers from having the most bogus way a villain of her caliber has ever gone out!  At least Jafar gets a sequel for revenge.  Nevertheless, Maleficent is the epitome of a Disney Villain.  In her second villain performance, Eleanor Audley blows away her performance as Lady Tremaine.  Although Maleficent has little to no other competent characters to bounce her ideas off of, she may not need them.  With the exception of her raven Diablo, she has no need to interact with anyone except those she intends to torment.  The fact that she goes after an infant in her plot for revenge further intensifies her cruelty as a villain.  This is one crazy witch you better invite to every birthday party you have, or else she may curse your baby to die.


#3: Jafar (Jonathan Freeman) (Aladdin)

Although very similar in design and attitude, the royal vizier of Agrabah has a bit more going for him than Maleficent.  First, he has a wide variety of characters to bounce off of, from his feathered partner in crime Iago (Gilbert Gottfried), to the bumbling and childish Sultan he is forced to serve, and even the big blue Genie.  Second, although his plan isn't the most original, Jafar is able to be so entertaining as the fiend of the story that you don't even care.  Though not as feared as Maleficent, Jafar shows off his wide variety of tricks he keeps up his sleeves, from his hypnotic snake staff, his alchemy, his disguises, and eventually his magical prowess.  But it's Jonathan Freeman's  brilliant ability to range from a deadpan delivery to a psychotic James Bond villain, and his ability to act off of Gilbert and Robin Williams' psychotic natures that make Jafar a huge favorite of mine.  Motivated by power, he is one of the few villains that gets everything he wants with one sole flaw, eternal imprisonment in a magic lamp when he wishes to become the most powerful genie in the world.  And to be stuck in a lamp for eternity with Iago?  Gotta feel pity for him.

#2: Scar (Jeremy Irons) (The Lion King)

This conniving kitty is almost the perfect villain.  Motivated by his strong urge to be king, Scar is willing to do anything to acquire the power he believes he was entitled to, even have his hyena lackeys kill his nephew Simba.  But after his brother interferes, Scar decides to take matters into his own hands and murder King Mufasa, pin the blame onto Simba, and exile the cub to the outskirts of the kingdom.  But perhaps Scar's biggest crime is the defamation and destruction he and the hyenas cause the Pridelands to suffer through.  With no food and no water, the thickheaded lion refuses to allow anyone to leave Pride Rock.  It isn't until Simba returns as an adult that this sneaky murderer is uprooted and the rightful monarchy restored.  Nevertheless, Jeremy Irons gives us one of the most chilling performances Disney has ever had, allowing Scar's every word to ooze with disgusting evil.  He is also the only character on this list to successfully murder a main character.  But with a few choice words about the hyenas when begging his enraged nephew mercy, Scar seals his own fate and the fate of his kingdom.


#1: Judge Claude Frollo (Tony Jay) (The Hunchback of Notre Dame)

Naturally, if Disney was going to pull off one of the darkest adult books ever written as a children's film, they needed a chilling villain performance.  And by God did they get one.  Not only is Tony Jay the most well rounded of all of the villains, he is also the only villain that believes what he is doing is a service he is doing for God and for the Catholic Church.  He is also the only Disney Villain that has a prejudice and actually attempts to act on it, going on a murderous hunt for all of the gypsies in Paris.  Frollo goes as far as to say that their deeds are inhuman and bring about the devil.

But Frollo's character enters the realm of a true paradigm, when he becomes filled with lust for the gypsy woman Esmeralda.  Torn between his duty to the city, his desire to wipe the gypsies out, and his lust for Esmeralda, Frollo begins to fear that he is being thoroughly tempted by Satan and fears the retribution he would receive, but can also not fight off his desire to have Esmeralda to his own.  Further darkening his character is his absolutely bitter approach to parenting Quasimodo, going as far as telling the poor Hunchback that he is a deformed abomination.  Frollo is the single darkest character Disney has ever managed, and easily the greatest Disney Villain ever.

Who is your favorite Disney Villain?  Feel free to leave a comment below telling me your favorite villain.

Film Review #56: The Little Mermaid 2 Return to the Sea

Well, Disney had totally botched the sequel to Beauty and the Beast, but had done reasonably well for the sequels to Aladdin, Pocahontas, and The Lion King.  So, logic dictated that the next big Disney Sequel should be for one of Disney's most successful franchises: The Little Mermaid.  But how could a sequel be done that would be different from the other films, but still be a cheap corporate tie-in.  The result was an absolute disgrace and unholy abomination that prevented me from watching the first movie for six years.

I loved The Little Mermaid growing up.  It was one of my all time favorite movies and is still to an extent.  And it pained me to not be able to watch the original until I got it on DVD in 2006.  But that is what Disney Sequels do to you; they rip out your feelings and stomp on them while counting the money they conned you out of.  By no means at all is The Little Mermaid 2 a watchable film, nor is it a film that tests new boundaries or creates a brand new world to venture into.  It remains locked and bound by the laws of a Disney Sequel and replicates the original film's plot (minus a love interest, to an extent) so brilliantly, that it is flat out astonishing that the film wasn't marketed as the original one with a brunette lead now.  There is no depth, no reasonable way of trying to make this good in any degree, with no foreseeable way that Disney would be able to recover from the blow they'd given themselves in the credibility department.

PLOT: At first, the film seems relatively passable.  The first song isn't good at all, but still, it could have been MUCH worse.  The people of Eric's Kingdom (I guess he still isn't King?) all go out to sea to celebrate the birth of his and Ariel's daughter, Melody.  Even the merpeople from Atlantica come to honor the Princess.  King Triton gives his granddaughter a magic locket that shows Atlantica and all of the merpeople.  But the movie and the celebration plummet into murky waters when Morgana the sea witch kidnaps the child and threatens to kill her in honor of her deceased sister, Ursula (LAZY!!!!!!!).  Though Melody is rescued, Morgana flees and without her captured, Ariel begins to fear for her daughter's safety in the sea and orders a sea wall to be built.  Heartbroken, Triton asks Sebastian to watch over her.

Several years later, Melody (JUST LIKE HER F***ING MOTHER!) disobeys her mother to go swimming in the ocean.  Melody finds Triton's gift to her underwater and keeps it.  That night, Ariel discovers it and yells at her daughter for disobeying her (JUST LIKE TRITON DID!), which makes Melody run away from home and out into the ocean.  There, she meets up with Morgana's henchmen who take her to Morgana's icy fortress.  Morgana puts on her best Ursula impression and turns Melody into a mermaid, but tells her the spell is only temporary and that she needs her magic trident to make it permanent, telling her Triton stole it many years ago.  Melody resolves to find it while coming across Timon and Pumbaa in Little Mermaid form, and the three go to Atlantica and recover the trident.

As Melody is about to hand over the trident, Ariel and Flounder find her and try to convince her of Morgana's evil.  But, since Ariel could have done it at any time in the past and that Melody has almost as much poor judgement as her mother did, she hands over the trident to Morgana, who reveals her true ways.  She seals Melody and Flounder in a huge block of ice and captures Ariel with her tentacles, taking her hostage to the surface.  With the trident at her enemy's command, her mother a prisoner, and her mermaid abilities quickly wearing off, it is up to Melody to rescue her mother and save the ocean from Morgana once and for all.

What's Bad?: It's a really bad sign when every single decision made by virtually every character in the movie needs to be questioned.  King Triton had a pretty reasonable excuse for his attitude towards humans in the first film, because most of the terrible and despicable things he believed humans do, we actually do.  And Triton was willing to accept that what he had done was a terrible idea and was able to accept that his daughter was growing up and needed to follow her heart.  In this abomination, the only excuse for Ariel to keep her daughter from the sea is a vague threat made by the most incompetent Disney Villain since Edgar the Butler.  Instead of being a better parent than her father was, and actually telling her what kind of evils were out there, she simply barricades her family from the sea and her from her home.  WHAT?  IN WHAT REALM OF LOGIC DOES THAT MAKE AN IOTA OF SENSE?  Ariel deserves every shitty thing that happens to her in this stupid movie.

One could argue that Melody was just like her mother in this movie, but I didn't see it that way.  For starters, not only was she always being honored by her parents and friends (again to an extent).  Then, you should also see that Ariel was still given a choice by Ursula in the first movie, which cemented the girl's faith in the sea witch despite initial doubts.  Melody?  She instantly trusts the first thing she meets, even though I've never met anything that looked like Morgana and was good.

As for Morgana, even Pat Carroll couldn't save this shitty character.  Disney f'd up so badly with this character, that they couldn't even duplicate Ursula's mannerisms.  If you're going to copy a film, at least make a god damn effort!  Even the Disney Villain's logic needs to be questioned.  For instance, why not start gloating about having your way after you actually get it?  She begins gloating to Triton before she had even acquired the trident.  Then, we learn that she has a bottle of Ursula's magic!  WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST USE THAT TO GET THE TRIDENT?  NO?  NO!  Then, after she actually gets the trident, she kidnaps Ariel.  Why?  If you have a magic trident that has been shown to have the power to vaporize eels and destroy treasure troves, what is the point of kidnapping Ariel?  What threat to Ursula did Ariel pose after she had the trident?  None.  It was Eric and his ship ramming skills that defeated Ursula!  Ariel did nothing!  So, instead of focusing your wrath on Eric or Triton first, you kidnap Ariel!  Good move, moron!

There is a disease out there that many films suffer from.  It's called Sidekick-itus.  It's a very fatal disease that makes the movie have way too many sidekicks that do nothing but show up to have a toy made out of them.  The only two sidekicks that do anything in the movie that is worth mentioning is Sebastian, who resumes his babysitting days, and the shark, who actually helps Morgana manipulate Melody.  Morgana's eels do nothing, Flounder and Scuttle do nothing, Eric does nothing but have his ship destroyed, the dog does nothing, the seahorse guy does nothing, and the carbon copy Timon and Pumbaa guys do nothing.  If you have characters do nothing, WHAT"S THE F***ING POINT OF HAVING THEM IN YOUR F***ING MOVIE?!?!?!?!?!?!

What's Good?: The DVD is easy to destroy.

Overall: A film that was so putrid and unwatchable that it kept the original classic off store shelves until 2006.  I couldn't even listen to the original films music during this time.  I actually gave the VHS to my sister the day after unwrapping it on Christmas.  She chucked it out the window.  Unless you are a really self-mutilating person who likes to make yourself suffer by watching piss poor movies, this is a movie that should be sterilized, vaccinated, and destroyed!  This movie is so bad, I had to watch The Phantom Menace just to feel clean again.

Report Card:

Hero:                           N/A
Heroines:                     F
Villain:                         F
Side Characters:         F
Songs:                          F
Musical Score:            F
Animation:                   D
Themes:                       F
Story:                           F

Does the film hold up with the original?: