Film Review #111: Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron

There's a lot I should enjoy about this film.  After all, I was once quoted as saying this film was "Bambi done right".  I love films that take the time to create a breathtaking view on a time or world we have likely never explored (such as in Africa for The Lion King or medieval Scotland in Brave).  I also love films that do not have anthropomorphic animals singing and dancing their way through things.  Not every film has to be The Lion King, so I should be happy with that.  And I'm also happy that this film goes out of it's way to not glorify the Westward expansion of America and making the US soldiers look like good guys and Native Americans look like bad guys.  Oh, and the fact that it's traditionally animated also should give this film a big boost, right?

So...why have I been unable to sit through this film in one sitting?  I'm dead serious.  I have fallen asleep at some point when watching this every single time.  This included when I saw this in theaters with my cousin Amanda in 2002.  The film does have it's moments, but it's very slow and takes it's time getting from one plot point to another.  In many ways, that's a good thing, because the only other animated film it's taken me a long time to stay awake for that I've given a positive review is Fantasia.  But in many ways, it can hinder the film for audiences and maybe for younger kids as well.  Unless your kids are into horses and the wild, chances are, they'll try to find out if they have a copy of a better film...but let's get on with the review.

Plot: Spirit is a free mustang who leads his herd of free horses and protects them from the many dangers of the wild, including mountain lions.  But his curiosity often gets the better of him, and he is ultimately captured by US Cavalrymen and tried desperately to be tamed.  While that's going on, a Lakota tribesman is captured during the Native American wars of the 1870's-1890's, and manages to help Spirit and other captured wild horses escape the patrol and return to the wild.  But Spirit is still mistrusting of people and most other creatures, that is until he comes across another horse by the name of Rain.

The two horses start to fall in love, though the Native American boy is unwilling to keep Spirit as his wild personality keeps him from being tamed by anyone.  But before anything can be made of it, the Cavalrymen arrive and attack the Lakota villages and capture Spirit again, injuring Rain.  Believing her to be dead, Spirit becomes determined to stop the soldiers from building a railroad to carry people westward and destroy the horse's homeland.

What's Wrong?: The only conceivable way to rate and compare this film properly is to compare it to the three animated films it's related to the closest: Bambi, The Land Before Time, and The Lion King.

There are a few things I can point to that can be problematic, at least they were for me.  The first is one I've already mentioned: the pacing.  While I do love the amount of atmosphere the animators give to this world, it does start to get a little tiring of seeing all this wonder with not much happening in the story.  Bambi at least kept the animation focused on Bambi and his interactions with the world around him.  The Lion King also kept the story moving at a pace so that despite all of the fragility and beauty of the Pride Lands and what it endures under Scar's reign, the focus keeps itself on Simba and his decisions and reactions to things that come to life in him.  This film seems to want to tell a nature documentary more than it does tell a story.  And that's not bad at all, but I wish they would choose one or the other.  The animation is beautiful enough to not be the forefront of the film.  But it seems the animators either didn't understand that or didn't have enough faith in the plot...

The second is the musical choices made for the film.  Most of the music in this film is made up of songs from the 1980's, such as songs by Bryan Adams and Sarah McLachlan.  This too, is a bit grating on me.  The Land Before Time did not even feel the need to make the film a musical.  It told the story of Little Foot and his friends as they tried to find their way to the Great Valley without the need of much music outside of a great score.  As for Bambi, the film uses softer songs, less operatic than Snow White, and has and omnipotent person singing the songs.  While it's similar to that of this film, at the very least, these were songs that could fit the mood of the film and were popular at the time.  I highly doubt Bryan Adams was seriously popular in 2002.  And need I even bring up The Lion King's songs?

What's Good?: It took me a very, and I mean VERY long time to process that Matt Damon was the one who was providing the inner monologue for Spirit.  Not only does his voice fit really well for the role, but it doesn't even sound too much that it was him.  Most DreamWorks films ignore the fact that we know who the person is and will not hesitate to flaunt the stars out in front of the film (like Katzenberg did to Robin Williams).  But here, this is really refreshing.

This may surprise you, but I'm not the biggest fan of anthropomorphic animals singing and dancing and talking in movies.  Unless the movie requires it, DON'T DO IT!  Many Disney films can get passes on this for me, but some (namely Brother Bear) do not get passes.  I cannot stand modern talk in these kind of movies.  Spirit is a movie that avoids many of these Disney-esque cliches and stands on it's own.  It doesn't need overly cutesy moments and doesn't rely on pop cultural references and allows me to immerse myself in the world.  This is one of the few DreamWorks films that does not rely on that kind of humor and it gets serious points from me for that.

The animation is absolutely beautiful.  I mean, it's on par with some of the best animated films of all time with it's beauty and it's attention to detail, like Tangled, Frozen, Sleeping Beauty, Pinocchio, and The Lion King.  The animators take the time to detail the amount of scope and awe that is necessary to introduce us to a world we're not familiar with.

Overall: Spirit is a film that will definitely impress the more artsy animated fans and maybe some people who enjoy Bryan Adams.  But aside from that, you're kids will more than likely be bored of this film.  I personally enjoy this film and will reccomend it, but only to the hardcore animation fans out there.  It's good, but DreamWorks can do better,

Final Grade: 88 or B+

Film Review #110: Shrek

NOTE: Joseph: King of Dreams will be reviewed following my review of Home, because I still have yet to find a copy of it and it was not theatrically released, so it does not get precedence over other theatrically released films.

When people think of Shrek, their opinions are very mixed.  Some think of it as a great comedy that launched DreamWorks into the same breath as Pixar and booted Disney out of the "Good Quality" animation game.  Others, think it's an overrated cliche filled film that offers nothing but fart jokes and an endless supply of acting stars playing animated characters.  To be honest, both are a bit right.  Shrek is a great comedy, released in a time when such great animated comedies were really rare and often left us either slamming our heads against walls or just wishing the film would go away.  On the other hand, I'd be lying if I said the film was devoid of flaws and did not grate on me in some areas.  It's definitely one of DreamWorks best films, but it launched animation into an era we're still trying desperately to escape from...

Plot: Shrek (Mike Myers) is an ogre who lives on his own in a huge swamp, enjoying his solitude and occasionally torments men coming to slay him.  But his life is changed forever when he unwillingly protects a donkey (Eddie Murphy) from being locked up for being a Fairy Tale creature.  Shrek tries to lose Donkey, but his new acquaintance is so eager to be friends that he forgoes most natural fears of ogres to hang out with Shrek.  Shrek allows Donkey to stay in his swamp for the night, but is rudely interrupted by a host of Fairy Tale creatures coming to his swamp, after the evil Lord Farquaad (John Lithgow) banishes them from his realm.  Shrek and Donkey quest to the kingdom of Duloc to confront Farquaad, but the Lord (Not a King yet), tasks the ogre with a quest to rescue his bride to be, Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz) from the fiery keep of a dragon, in exchange for Shrek's swamp to be cleared of it's new inhabitants.

Shrek and Donkey rescue the princess in a series of comedic adventures, but Fiona refuses to travel with Shrek, believing she was supposed to be saved by her Prince Charming.  But as the trio makes the long way back to Duloc, the ogre and the princess do start to warm up to each other and even form a romance.  But Fiona hides a terrible secret from Shrek and Donkey, until it is revealed at night.  Fiona was cursed as a baby to turn into an ogre every night when the sun sets, until her true love kisses her.  A misunderstanding causes Shrek to think Fiona thinks he is repulsive, causing the bitter ogre to to bring Lord Farquaad to sweep Fiona off her feet, and forces the trio to part ways coldly.  But when Shrek and Donkey reconcile, Shrek realizes he loves Fiona and the two must hurry to stop the wedding no matter what.

What's Wrong?: The great comedic genius Mel Brooks once said:

"You cannot have fun with anything that you don't love or admire or respect"

Throughout the bulk of the run time of Shrek, I don't think of it as a comedy with great fourth wall appeal, but more of Jeffery Katzenberg unleashing his bile against the Disney Company for their bitter end.

Let's talk about that aspect first.  On Easter Sunday, 1994, Disney COO Frank Wells died in a helicopter accident in Nevada's Ruby Mountains.  Following his death, Jeffery Katzenberg (then president of the studio), was not only lobbying for theaters to buy up The Lion King, but also to assume the position Wells' death vacated.  This caused intense friction between Jeffery, Roy Disney and Michael Eisner, and resulted in Michael telling Jeffery he could not have the job.  Later, Eisner would explain that had Jeffery not pushed for the job himself, he would have gotten it, but Eisner was rubbed the wrong way by his lack of care for the Wells incident.  This resulted in Katzenberg leaving the company after The Lion King premiered and caused him, David Geffen, and Steven Spielberg to create DreamWorks SKG.

Most of the humor in Shrek seems to stem from this unmediated hatred Katzenberg still had for Disney and really comes off as uncomfortable now that I watch it again.  Most of the jokes aren't even subtle, such as the "It's a Small World" parody, the constant references to past Disney works (Pinocchio, the Three Little Pigs, the Seven Dwarfs, etc.), and this entire need for one man to control things in his world (most likely a jab at either Eisner or Roy Disney).  When the humor in DreamWorks films relies too much on this kind of unrelenting humor, I can't help but cringe.

Another thing in this film I cannot stand is the use of the "misunderstanding" cliche.  GOD I HATE THIS DAMN CLICHE!  It's such a stupid time wasting story point.  What ever happened to people being in love and not needing some stupid bullshit separating them?  Why does every romance have to have this pigshit?  GOD THAT FREAKING IRRITATES ME!

Lastly, this is a big one, I cannot stand these "Product of the Times" movies.  They do not age well, at all.  In something like Aladdin, where the care and effort is put into the characters and the story as well as the humor Robin Williams unleashed on the film, the world created can be seen occurring not just in the 1990's, but even to this day.  Most of the pop culture references made in Shrek are not that relevant today (Smash Mouth songs, and referencing many movies and crazes pop culture has forgotten since 2001).  While this is not too grating an issue, it will get MUCH WORSE for this company as time goes on...

What's Good?: With that said, let me get into the good aspects of the humor.  While not a ton of the jokes hit bullseyes, the ones that do are extremely memorable.  The film took advantage of the comedic stylings of both Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy without restricting them to the basest of their comedy (like Mulan did for Murphy).  Even John Lithgow gets a few good lines in this film, though he is the butt of more jokes than he is the champion of it.

The animation is also really good.  Not only the comedic moments, but also the softer, more sincere moments in the film.  There's this one scene while they're camping out in the woods and Shrek and Donkey are looking out at the moon, which is enormous and beautifully detailed.  This is what I would call: "Taking advantage of the medium".

While many other animated romances are handled better, I do see the chemistry between Shrek and Fiona.  It doesn't seem forced to me.  They both begin to see that there is more to the characters beyond their physical appearances and initial attitudes.  It's nothing like Belle and the Beast, but it works out okay.

Overall: Shrek may not be the best animated film DreamWorks has done, but it is certainly leaps and bounds better than a fair amount of the competition being released at the time.  It was funny when it needed to be, awkward in other moments, but still was enjoyable throughout the duration of it's run time.  And that's got to count for something...

Final Grade: 87 or B+

A Look Ahead to Phase III

WARNING: THE POST BELOW IS ENTIRELY SPECULATIVE AND IS NOT BASED ON ANY KNOWN FACTS OR PLOTLINES REGARDING THE FILMS IN THIS PHASE OF THE MCU.  HOWEVER, THERE WILL BE SPOILERS FOR EVENTS IN AGE OF ULTRON AND MANY OTHER MCU FILMS.  YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED...

Well, with Age of Ultron out and making mountains of money and Ant-Man on the horizon, it's safe to say that Phase II of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is complete.  While it did not contain the best Marvel movies, it was certainly a roller coaster ride of both joy and misery, which included the absolute character botching of one of Iron Man's greatest villains, a very dreary and unlikable Dark World, the revelation of Hydra's infiltration of S.H.I.E.L.D., the odd yet epic team known only as the Guardians, and how Tony Stark almost brought doom upon the people of Earth again.  

Phase III seems fully prepared to bring about two of the greatest stories in Marvel Comics history to the big screen: Civil War and the Infinity War with Thanos and the gauntlet.  It will include an assortment of disastrous scenarios that can play out for many of the Avengers, along with adding almost an entirely new team to the group of superheros added to the MCU, including Dr. Strange, Captain Marvel, Spider Man, and Black Panther.  We may very well see many of our beloved heroes lose their lives and die in battle, some may not even make it to the final battle (more on that later).  

In this post, I will be looking closely at some of the most important films in this lineup, along with some character studies and potential events to happen within Phase III (I'm looking at them solely as films and not as the comics), and what might happen in order to make the MCU once again leaps and bounds ahead of DC (which while it may need to step up their movie game, they better not botch a run at the Justice League).  This is an in depth look at a few of the most important films coming in for the MCU...

1. Captain America: Civil War

This is one of the darkest, most controversial comics in the history of Marvel.  The central conflict in the comics, from what I've gathered, is a registration act for the superheros that have lost control of the many situations and have caused major damage to the public and civilians.  It pitted the two leaders of the Avengers against one another (Tony Stark and Steve Rogers), and ended with a grim reminder of not only how much power and control corrupts people, but how there is nothing in the world that can be directly placed in the black or in the white.  It resulted in many famous moments, such as Spider Man unmasking himself in public and Captain America getting gunned down while on his way to prison.  

This movie version is going to be very interesting.  I don't see a registration act being the problem for the rise of Civil War, but more of a control problem.  What I mean, is that the film will likely tackle directly either a disastrous event caused or further enhanced by the Avengers during the film itself (such as a major civilian casualty list or someone major dying), or directly based off of the events of Age of Ultron.  The public will likely be growing sick and tired of the Avengers and their disastrous attempts to keep peace and the consequences of all of their actions (Hulk running amok in Africa, Stark creating Ultron, Romanov's dark past, Thor's inaction towards the creatures running amok during the actions of The Dark World, etc.) and may want the government to control these "god like" characters.  Stark, fearing that his actions will still cause the destruction of the Earth (thanks to Scarlet Witch's powers), will likely agree to it and be the driving force for this, while Captain America (sick of the covert government actions in The Winter Soldier), will oppose it along with many of his allies (likely Vision, Scarlet Witch, and Falcon).  

A rumor floating around points to Bucky Barnes (AKA The Winter Soldier) being linked to a major event in the history of the MCU (such as the assassination of Howard Stark) which could further dampen the mood between Tony and Steve.  Tony would likely want revenge on Barnes for his father's death, while Steve would want to protect his friend and save him from all of Hydra's plans.  

Speaking of Hydra, considering this is a Captain America film, it will likely bring Hydra back for one final go around.  But with Red Skull MIA and Baron Von Strucker dead thanks to Ultron, this likely brings the main villain role in this film down to the infamous Baron Zemo, who alongside Thanos, Ultron, Magneto, the Green Goblin, and Loki are some of Marvel's biggest villains.  Zemo is likely the one pulling strings in many of the events of this film and could likely be the driving force behind many dark events leading up to Infinity War.  

The conflict surrounding these characters will likely bring many new superheros into the mix.  Instead of giving every new character in the MCU an origin story (like how Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, and the Hulk got), these new characters will get standalone movies, but not origin stories (Vision and the Maximoffs did not get origin stories, so I guess it's okay).  The heroes most likely coming are Black Panther, Dr. Strange, and Spider Man (though Spidey might have to wait and may actually be the one who gets an origin story.).  There are many ways in which these characters can get their intros (one idea stems from Tony Stark wanting to keep the vibranium supply in Wakanda from falling into enemy hands and causing him to come into conflict with Black Panther).  The film will also have to keep building the characters of Scarlet Witch and Vision, who I believe had a romance between them.  

But this leads into the biggest question the film will bring up: will Steve Rogers die in this film?  Are either Anthony Mackie or Sebastian Stan being set up to take on the role of Captain America?  It's a very likely scenario, as Chris Evans' contract wears off earlier than any of his other MCU acting friends (Downey, Ruffalo, and Hemsworth have at least three more films), and he has shown very little interest in continuing past his contract's expiration (a la Harrison Ford in Return of the Jedi).  But will Marvel kill off one of it's faces?  Some doubt it, but I think eventually, Sebastian Stan (Bucky), will take up the role and be the new Captain.  This could lead to more conflict with Tony Stark, but I think they'll patch things up by the time.

2. Spider Man 

While I am indeed excited that Spider Man will be joining the MCU with his own movie and role in the Infinity War, I will not deny I am hesitant to be overjoyed at this.  After the debacle of SpiderMan 3 and the equally bad Amazing Spider Man 2, I think people are starting to get a little tired of seeing the same origin story for Peter Parker keep coming up again and again.  I'm all for them just jumping into Spider Man, but I do think he at least needs some set up as a character, be it in Civil War or his own film.  But will they lean more towards the comic book, or the more recent movies?  Will he be with Gwen Stacy or MJ?  Will Norman Osborn be introduced as a potential super villain again?  Will they set up classic villains like Doc Ock, Venom, or the Sandman, or will they bring forth newer villains?  This is the only one that can be really speculative in it's inception, as Marvel has only recently acquired the rights to portray Spider Man in their films (while they wait patiently for X Men Apocalypse to end the X Men saga and for the next Fantastic Four film to bomb).  But I do think that Spider Man will have a much bigger role in the MCU than other heroes, such as the Guardians of the Galaxy.  Speaking of which...

3. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 

The sequel to the original Guardians of the Galaxy film will likely be one of the two biggest films setting up Infinity War in this Phase, but this film will likely set up the battle ground for both the Avengers and the Guardians to rise together to team up against Thanos.  It's most likely that Thanos will be the main villain in this film, as they have set him up in both Avengers films and Guardians.  With four of the six infinity stones already found, it is likely that one will be found in this film to make the total five.  While I cannot say exactly what the plot will be, I;m thinking this will most certainly be a direct line to Infinity War.  But one of the fan theories I will buy into for this film is the fact that Mark Ruffalo (Hulk) could appear in this film as a potential ally/adversary to the team as they try to keep the galaxy safe from the forces of evil.  I like that, because Mark Ruffalo has an enormous slate of films left on his contract, so he will likely be in many more films to come.  This is one I think he'd appear in likely prior to Infinity War.  

4. Thor: Ragnarok

This is likely going to be the biggest connection piece to Infinity War.  With Thor not appearing in Civil War, it is likely that he will be a driving force in setting up the Avengers next meeting.  The plot of this film is foreshadowed in Age of Ultron, when Scarlet Witch warps Thor's mind into seeing that he will likely lead Asgard to ruin and brought to Thor's attention the number of Infinity Stones found in the last several years (the Tesseract, the Aether, etc.) and has brought him back to Asgard.  It is at this time that he will find out that Loki is alive and has taken over his kingdom and will likely learn that Odin has died during his time on Earth.  This will bring the two brother's war to full drive, and could bring about an apocalypse the Nine Realms cannot contain.  

The first major question for this film is who the villain will be.  There are two paths that Kenneth Branagh can take for his film: the first is to take the literal comic line of Ragnarok, which had a major war brew between Asgard and the Fire Giant, Surtur, who's conflict ultimately caused the destruction and subsequent rebirth of Asgard and all of the other Nine Realms.  

But the one I think is most likely to happen is that Thanos will be the main villain of this film.  With Thor already suspicious of the emergence of the Infinity Stones, it would come as a surprise to me if he did not have an interaction with Thanos prior to Infinity War.  This could also set up Thanos coming to claim his revenge on Loki for his failed attempt to bring him the Tesseract and the massive failure of the invasion of Earth with his Chitauri army.  I do seem to remember the Other warning Loki that his failure would result in his demise...

One other question for Thor is his love life.  It is unknown if Natalie Portman will return for a third movie, considering her lukewarm reception from The Dark World.  It's also unlikely, because most of the plot will likely happen in Asgard and may not involve Jane at all.  Plus, with Jane Foster's character wrapped up in her studies, it did not seem at all that she and Thor were on the best of terms in Age of Ultron.  This could open the door to Sif, who is probably Thor's best compatible option.  But that will lead me to my biggest point...

And that is being will Thor and all of Asgard actually follow the scripted role that the comics and Norse Mythology have for the epic end of all things that Ragnarok promises?  It is unlikely that if Thor dies, it will be for good.  Not only was Thor a major player in the Infinity War crisis, but Chris Hemsworth has two more films (Both Infinity Wars films) on his contract, so it is unlikely that he would give up early on that contract, since he has both been praised and loved by fans as Thor.  But in all likely hood, Sif, the Warriors Three, and Loki could very well die in the film.  Although they'll be reborn in the film, I think Thor will be left out of the whole "death of Asgard" thing.  Since Ragnarok is coming out a few months prior to Infinity War part I, he may be forced to come down to Earth following the devastation Thanos brings to Asgard.  

5. Black Panther 

Not many of the superheros being introduced have much buildup before Phase III, but some of Black Panther's storyline was built up during Age of Ultron and another fair amount should be built up leading into Civil War.  The buildup began with the introduction to one of Black Panther's most infamous villains, Ulysses Klaue, who had been the one stealing vibranium in Wakanda and ultimately sold it to Ultron for his world destroying plan.  Klaue loses his arm after comparing Ultron to Tony Stark and is likely still hunting more vibranium to help build the mechanical arm he had in the comics.  With all of that vibranium up for grabs in Wakanda, it is likely that outside parties will seek to utilize the Black Panther's resources for their own purposes (Baron Zemo in Civil War) but especially Klaue, who will almost certainly be seeking more following his shrewd deal with Ultron.  

Panther will likely have a small Vision-sized role in Civil War, only to be expanded upon in his own film.  It is currently unknown how major a role he will have in the Infinity War, I want him to be awesome, as I have started to appreciate his comic role a bit more with each issue I read...

6. The Avengers: Infinity War Parts 1 and 2  

And finally, we come to Infinity War.  Everything that the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been building up to since Iron Man burst onto the screen in 2008 is finally coming...in two parts...in 2018...and 2019.  The ultimate battle of the forces of good (The Avengers, Ant Man, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Black Panther, etc.) vs Thanos and his Chitauri army.  There are a few things that interest me right off the bat.  In order for Thanos to fully assemble the Infinity Gauntlet, he will require all of the Infinity Stones.  This will include him getting his hands on those in Asgard, but more importantly, the Mind Stone within the head of Vision.  There are two big things that worry me about that fact: one is the fact that no matter what happens, Vision is doomed to fall at the hands of Thanos, which is sad because I actually really liked Paul Bettany as Vision.  The second thing, which is even scarier from a fan standpoint (but an awesome thing to think of as a fan of the MCU) is that if the Mind Gem is removed from Vision's head, this could potentially revive Ultron, considering the Vision is technically a part of Ultron and that most of his consciousness was uploaded into the body.  Anything to bring back the awesome villains in the MCU...I will be happy.  

But in order for Infinity War to truly happen, the conflicts in Civil War and Ragnarok have to be completely resolved in order for the Avengers to truly come together to battle Thanos.  I cannot see Steve and Tony overcoming their differences and becoming friends after what happens in Civil War, that is if Rogers even survives.  Thor may be the one who rallies them together, as not only can he tell them of Thanos's schemes, but his actions also stopped Tony and Steve from killing each other during Age of Ultron.  He too, will likely change through the actions of Thanos and Loki in Ragnarok, potentially thinking of himself as the last Asgardian and out for blood against he who wiped out his species.  

Exactly who will be in this epic war has yet to be determined.  Hulk, Thor, Iron Man, the Guardians, Black Panther, and perhaps a few others are likely, but some of the older actors, like Evans and Renner, along with Scarlet Johansson, could perhaps sit out the war, not having the kind of power to fight alongside the others, although they do play key roles in the fight.  

Film Review #109: Chicken Run

I didn't see much of Wallace and Gromit growing up to really know just what to make of the animation done for this film.  I thought it was weird but it worked well in the environment they were creating.  That's pretty much all I can say about the film, as well.  Chicken Run was a very odd film, but for some reason the oddness and humor paid off really well and has made it, for me, one of DreamWorks finer films.  While I will admit, once again, the star power is kind of distracting, but not for the same reason.  Nevertheless, I most certainly enjoyed this film at a different rate than I did The Road to El Dorado (mostly because I didn't want to slam my head into a wall with all of the missed opportunity), but I still did enjoy this one.

Plot: There is a farm in England where a middle aged couple struggles to keep the farm afloat.  When the owners see fit to slaughter the chickens in order to make a profit, the chickens begin to plan multiple failed escape attempts.  About to give up all hope, the chickens are greeted by a rooster who "flew" over the fence and broke his wing.  A chicken named Ginger agrees to keep the rooster named Rocky (Mel Gibson), on the condition that he teaches the chickens how to fly so they could escape with him.  The only downside is that he's nothing more than a circus act, only getting shot out of cannons.  Nevertheless, Rocky and Ginger continue to help the chickens "learn" how to fly, all while hoping to avoid an inevitable end.

What's Bad?: While I'm certain a lot of these voice actors were big in Britain (the only person I recognized was Miranda Richardson), the one voice that really grates on me is Mel Gibson as Rocky.  I know this was before Mel Gibson was labeled as Hollywood's Biggest Jew Hating Psychopath, but he was a special brand of annoying to me.  It's like listening to a more cocky version of Peter Griffin from Family Guy.  And it annoys me more because I thought he was tolerable as John Smith in Pocahontas, but I guess Katzenberg thought this would be amusing.  Guess what?  It wasn't.

What's Good?: The rest of the film is pretty enjoyable.  I love the humor in this film, which is the reason I started watching Wallace and Gromit in the first place.  Even Mel Gibson gets a few decent jokes.

Miranda Richardson is freaking awesome as this sort of dominatrix who has this sick lust for killing chickens and making the money off of it.  Unlike other cartoon villains at the time, she wasn't into magic or just obsessed with the monetary aspect of this.  She actually reminds me a lot of Cruella De Vil from 101 Dalmatians.

I also appreciate how dark this film was willing to get when it was needed.  To even talk about a character who gets beheaded is pretty damn dark for a kids film, but this was needed since Disney was currently sliding down into the "kids only" mantra they love to roll out every 30 years or so...

The animation is what draws me to watch this film again and again.  One thing you have to give Peter Lord and Nick Park credit for is making their stop motion animation look almost nothing like Henry Sellicks and actually makes it look more like an animated film than most of what Sellick has done.  These characters do get wide-eyed moments and actually look like a film like Toy Story or one of the older Disney films.  It's not too restrictive.  And that's what makes it awesome.

Overall: Aside from Mel Gibson being, for lack of a better term, Mel Gibson, this film is actually pretty damn good.  It's got great animation, good characters, a great villain, and pleasant charm.  Good for DreamWorks trying something out of the box, because this wouldn't happen again for another 10 years...

Final Grade: 89 or B+

Film Review #108: The Road to El Dorado

I now know that there are two ways to say the phrase: "This movie annoys me!"  The original version of this phrase meant that a film reaches levels of arrogance and impotence that it makes a Michael Bay film tolerable.  This can be films that keep shoving some really bad element at you, like Jar Jar Binks, the Minions from Despicable Me, the songs in The Lorax, or every movie Dane Cook, Larry the Cable Guy, and many other annoying yet somehow profitable actors that exist just to spite me.

And then I watched The Road to El Dorado for the first time since I was a little kid.  In this film, I watched a film that was both one of the most entertaining animated films I've ever seen and one of the few films to make me have a major psychotic rant in the middle of watching it.  There is now officially a new version of a classic phrase and I haven't been this pissed coming away from an animated film in a long time, yet I somehow feel it was a bit unwarranted.  I don't know...

Plot: In 16th century Spain, two con men win the map to the lost city of gold, El Dorado in a fixed gambling match.  The con men (Kevin Kline and Kenneth Branagh) are discovered and hunted through the streets of Spain by guards and ultimately stow on the boat of the conquistador Hernan Cortez (Jim Cummings).  After escaping Cortez's clutches, the two arrive in Mexico and follow the map to the lost city of El Dorado, where they and a young woman named Chel (Rosie Perez) are taken to the Lost City, which is surprisingly inhabited by people.  The locals mistake the con men, Tulio and Miguel as Gods and begin worshiping them.

Although the two are enamored with the mountains of gold being given to them and cannot wait to pull off a con of this kind of magnitude, Miguel begins to really enjoy his time in El Dorado and even begins to grow second doubts about hurting these people who seem very much to enjoy the presence of these deities.  But an evil high priest seeks to prove that the two are not gods and assume his own place of power in El Dorado, while Cortez slowly begins to lurk nearby.

What's Bad?: From 2000 to about 2004, film animation departments in America hit snags.  While a few good films would be released in theaters during that time, most of the animated films released in this era would be very mediocre and more often than not would bomb at the box office.  They often either missed the mark in certain areas (more often than not critical areas of an animated film), or were just not good enough to warrant as much praise as the 1990's gave to animation.

The Road to El Dorado is the perfect example of one of these films that misses the mark.  There are definitely a few things that do not work for this film's advantage.  And oddly enough, I have to start with the musical structure.  Almost the entire musical team behind one of my all time favorite movies (The Lion King) is behind the music in this film, as Elton John, Tim Rice, and Hans Zimmer collaborate once more to make the music in this film.  But unlike in The Lion King, where the characters are the ones who sing the songs, only one song in this film is sung by the characters (and it's ironically the best song).  The rest of the music follows in Tarzan's footsteps and has Elton John sing the songs.  And although Elton John is 100x the singer Phil Collins will ever be, having the outside singer in a universe like this is very odd and unravels the movie for me the same way Collins did in Brother Bear.  But "It's Tough to Be a God" is a very catchy song.  I like the songs, I just wish they weren't in this movie. 

Actually, I don't think this film should have had songs at all.  This seems like one of those adventures that did not need to have songs in it to be good.  I know The Prince of Egypt's songs were great, but musical animated films were out of touch by 2000 and were probably doomed to failure.

There was also way too much going on in this world.  I wouldn't have minded if the film kept us focused on Tulio and Miguel and their enjoyment of both their newfound riches and this magnificent city.  But we still cut away to this evil High Priest and Cortez and all this other stuff that makes the film less than enjoyable to me because these villains just aren't interesting to me.  The leads are definitely engaging, but not these villains.

But my biggest gripe with this film is the film's tone shifts throughout the film.  It goes from an adventure story, to an epic Atlantis styled discovery movie, to a Cars/Slumdog Millionaire story and then back to the big sprawling musical numbers.  For animation that is this beautiful and up to snuff with Disney's at the same time (maybe even better), the best movie should have been made.  Instead, we get a clustered film with moments of decent comedy and fun action and discovery, but none of it is consistent enough.

What's Good?: And yet this film managed to surprise me with how engaging Kline and Branagh are in these roles.  While I can clearly tell that Tulio and Miguel are being portrayed by star actors, they actually do take on the roles of these characters, a lot like how James Woods and Robin Williams take over the characters they did for Disney.  These two are hilarious and do have some of the best lines in the whole movie.  The sheer enjoyment they get out of conning the people out of their gold is quite refreshing from all of the goody goody heroes Disney has given us.

The animation is also some of the best of the era.  While not quite in the same vein as something like The Prince of Egypt or The Lion King, it does still manage to give me an epic and unique retelling of the historical lost city of El Dorado and even gives us the same animation style as The Prince of Egypt, which you all know I loved.  The colors and fast paced timing of the animation is almost as good as Aladdin's and it really did open my eyes to a film that I haven't seen in years.

Overall: Like the Disney films of old, what's good about this film is really really good.  I just don't get into the villains, the music, or the constant tone shifts that bugged the living crap out of me.  I love this film almost as much as I hate it.  This was animation at it's highest quality at one of it's lowest times.  It was definitely good, but not anything too special to brag about.  Go see it for yourselves, but bring some tranquilizers.  You may need it.

Final Grade: 84 or B

Next Review: Chicken Run
Then: Joseph: The King of Dreams
Later: Shrek
Finally: Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron