What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Older Films)

[A24 4,378]

I don't see it. What is it offering for me? It's meant for the very youngest viewers.

[Jay 37,613]

Well those are 3 films I haven't seen since I was single digits in age if at all.

And yea, I'm not really complaining about the 90s Disney films I have recently watched - I wasn't expecting much out of them, and wasn't let down at all. They are way worse ways I could spend 80 minutes.

[Muad'Dib 1,803]

These examples are very old films btw. 90's Disney is far lighter in tone.

On that I agree. The only Disney movie I like from the 90's is Lion King, which is basically Bambi all over again but with a more modern touch.

[Quintus 5,400]

The problem with the Disney cartoons I've seen as an adult is they never have faith the story will carry itself, and rely on all these cutaways to their sidekick raccoons, crabs, dragons, or gargoyles to make children laugh when they could have used that time to tell a more enriching story.

Indeed, but actually, the thing that stood out to me about Tangled (Rapunzel) was that it refreshingly refrained from any of that nonsense, pop culture references and the like. It was a pure fairytale and the darkest Disney I've seen in a while. I wasn't surprised to see a PG certificate on the box.

That's not to say it isn't without its laughs, because I found it frequently witty. Some great deadpan in there, too.

[KK 3,307]

Indeed, overrated film if there ever was one. And both its score and songs personify the word disjointed.

It's the only Disney song score I can think of where the songs themselves actually contain leitmotifs that are used in several of the other songs. The score, even though written by a different composer than the songs, occasionally picks up the song themes (unlike Lion King for example) and is solidly built on recurring motifs, even if they're mostly not big themes of the Menken kind.

I wasn't referring to the songs in context of the score. The songs compared to each other are rather disjointed, playing on random styles that don't really work well in the film. And they aren't particularly original either. The score suffers from the same issue. While it uses the song themes, never are its renditions particualrly impressive, and stylistically its a bit all over the place too (ex. the wailing/chanting gimmick at the beginning, just there for the moment, never used as a consistent colour element in the score). Both are average/mediocre.

[Marian Schedenig 8,332]

These examples are very old films btw. 90's Disney is far lighter in tone.

The finale of Frozen, at its more dramatic moments, is similar in darkness to Snow White's escape into the woods. And that would probably have given me nightmares, had I seen it as a child.

[nightscape94 965]

I've heard some of the Frozen songs and the lyrics are probably the worst I've ever heard in a Disney musical.

And of course the majority of Disney films are geared towards children. The stories are mostly about princes and princesses in fairytale settings. Although these can be enjoyed by adults on some level, I don't think Disney is operating under the delusion that children are not their target audience.

[Mr. Brown 91]

HITCHCOCK

A dry, shallow little film. The scene that included Herrmann was absolutely pathetic. If they hadn't had called him Benny, then I wouldn't have known who the fuck the character was.

[mrbellamy 6,374]

Never seen Beauty and the Beast before. Only saw Aladdin, Lion King, Hunchback, Mulan, Little Mermaid and Pocohontas within the last 3 years because of Marcy.

All those other old ones I might have seen when I was a little kid, but I remember absolutely no details about any of them. I know I saw Pinnochio and Dumbo in the theater in whatever 1980's theatrical re-release they had.

I did not grow up loving Disney movies or musicals of any kind

Take a look at Beauty and the Beast and some of the films before Walt's death (1966) sometime. I think you may find a lot of your issues with the 90s-present stuff resolved. Less (if any) emphasis on pop culture references, slapstick humor, contemporary slang, and flashy, frenetic animation tricks, and more on patiently realizing a simple story through some rather elegant, even downright sophisticated filmmaking. Having also recently rewatched the films you mentioned, I came away a little disappointed myself, whereas my appreciation has only deepened upon revisiting movies like Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Alice in Wonderland, and Lady and the Tramp.

I mean, for example, compare this strange, quiet scene where Alice falls down the rabbit hole with Tim Burton's positively insistent live action version for the same company 60 years later...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHte24GGHD4

[filmmusic 1,924]

I don't see it. What is it offering for me? It's meant for the very youngest viewers.

Alex, if you don't see it then I guess you won't even if someone explains it.

If you stand on the surface and judge the script, yes, you won't see anything (although by analyzing, deeper stuff would come out, I'm sure).

But as I've said these are sheer works of beauty.

Some scenes on Bambi especially, that fight, the fire etc.. are masterfully conceived! The direction, the music, the lightings, the colors... This is undoubtedly high art!

i can't understand how someone doesn't see it. Especially since he can understand art in other films.

Is it a matter of lack of education in animation? a psychological matter? a more logical and practical character in place of a more romantic and emotional character? A forgetfullness of his/her own childhood magic?

i haven't really understood with all those people that dismiss all of animation saying, "it's for kids".

have you seen The Rite of Spring from Fantasia? Do you still think this is aimed for kids?

here's another gorgeous scene from Bambi:

Such kind of animation goes waaaaaaaaay beyond a simple cartoon for kids.

This is ART as Mona Lisa is..

And there is a reason these have remained classics for so many years.

These aren't just kids stuff.

Noone will remember the Barbie movies in 50 years from now, but Snowwhite, Bambi, Fantasia and such will still be included in the best movies of all time lists.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

This is Alex, best let it go

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,282]

Are Alex and me the only adults here today?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

This is ART as Mona Lisa is..

Now you're taking this a bit too far...

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yeah the Mona Lisa don't got shit on Bambi!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Indeed!

[Jay 37,613]

Blackfish

I kind of struggle to recommend this one. One the one hand, the message is good, and it's a well produced, slickly edited documentary about it. But on the other hand, 5 minutes into the film you know everything the film has to offer - that SeaWorld keeping Orcas is bad, they live longer and happier lives in the ocean, and if they keep them in captivity they will keep killing trainers every so often - and the next 75 minutes is just more and more of the same stuff over and over again. There are many sad parts, such as seeing the collapsed dorsal fins of the males in captivity (which only happens to 1% of males in the ocean but 100% of ones in captivity), learning about how they have higher emotional capabilities than most creatures on earth, etc. I think the detriments of the film are made up for by the fact that the film is only 80 minutes long, so I guess it eeks out a recommendation at the end. Just don't watch if you aren't OK with being depressed a little once it's done.

[Wojo 2,453]

The fine print on the bottom of my Looney Tunes Golden Collection says it is intended for the adult collector and may not be suitable for children.

I would get that for a Simpsons or South Park box set, but Looney Tunes? Love it

[Jay 37,613]

Disney should release Song of the South with that fine print on it

[Wojo 2,453]

They don't have the balls.

[Muad'Dib 1,803]

What for? It's fucking boring as hell.

[A24 4,378]

I don't see it. What is it offering for me? It's meant for the very youngest viewers.

Alex, if you don't see it then I guess you won't even if someone explains it.

If you stand on the surface and judge the script, yes, you won't see anything (although by analyzing, deeper stuff would come out, I'm sure).

But as I've said these are sheer works of beauty.

Some scenes on Bambi especially, that fight, the fire etc.. are masterfully conceived! The direction, the music, the lightings, the colors... This is undoubtedly high art!

i can't understand how someone doesn't see it. Especially since he can understand art in other films.

Is it a matter of lack of education in animation? a psychological matter? a more logical and practical character in place of a more romantic and emotional character? A forgetfullness of his/her own childhood magic?

i haven't really understood with all those people that dismiss all of animation saying, "it's for kids".

have you seen The Rite of Spring from Fantasia? Do you still think this is aimed for kids?

here's another gorgeous scene from Bambi:

Such kind of animation goes waaaaaaaaay beyond a simple cartoon for kids.

This is ART as Mona Lisa is..

And there is a reason these have remained classics for so many years.

These aren't just kids stuff.

Noone will remember the Barbie movies in 50 years from now, but Snowwhite, Bambi, Fantasia and such will still be included in the best movies of all time lists.

I don't hear the people here talking about "deeper stuff", and to be honest, I don't think they are interested in that at all. Do I see beauty in Disney? I did, when I was 5. Now I think Disney is kitsch.

Kitsch

Art

[BloodBoal 7,538]

=

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Humourless kitsch.

Art.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Oh sheeeeet it's on!

[filmmusic 1,924]

Yeah the Mona Lisa don't got shit on Bambi!

Ok, I admit I shouldn't have compared to a Renaissance painting but to impressionistic paintings.

here's some backgrounds from Bambi:

[A24 4,378]

Those backgrounds are good, filmmusic, especially the third one.

For Sharky (the most humourless poster on JW) to put on his wall:

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Huh?

[Quintus 5,400]

Don't fuck with Sharky, he's got Dillon as his avatar.

Lol

[Muad'Dib 1,803]

From that same era:

I would SO hang these proudly on my wall. For me the backgrounds in Jungle Book are little masterpieces of their own. The whole movie is a pinnacle for Disney, in my opinion in terms of art.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Jay 37,613]

The twist would have been way better if they fully committed to it

My review

http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20559&p=986624

And why did you put "voice cast" in quotes?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Jay 37,613]

Of course it does

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Jay 37,613]

Yea, we both mentioned the ADHD editing

[Marian Schedenig 8,332]

Do I see beauty in Disney? I did, when I was 5. Now I think Disney is kitsch.

Puccini's operas are kitsch. Does that mean they're not art?

In my view, one of Disney's strongest qualities is that, most of the time (talking about their main releases here, not the endless direct-to-video sequels) they don't cross the limit from good/reasonable kitsch to bad kitsch.

[A24 4,378]

Puccini's operas are kitsch.

I wouldn't know. I don't like opera.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Don't fuck with Sharky, he's got Dillon as his avatar.

Ian Hendry, not Dillon. Legendary Brit character actor. Ever seen GET CARTER or THE HILL?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,282]

Puccini's operas are kitsch. Does that mean they're not art?

It depends. What is art?

[crocodile 8,138]

What is life? What is time?

Karol

[A24 4,378]

It depends. What is art?

Let's not lure Koray to the party.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

We need a metaphysics thread.

[Bilbo 3,710]

The LEGO Movie (aka The ADHD Movie)

This movie is basically a sped up acid trip. You've got something happening at every second on every corner on the screen, things exploding, lots of colors everywhere, quick cuts, characters talking very quickly, etc. This is a visual orgy. Visually, the film is impressive, there is no denying. These are computer-generated LEGOs (if I'm not mistaken), yet they look like real LEGOs that would have been filmed in stop-motion. That is mostly due to extremely detailed textures and great lighting.

Yep, visually, it is extremely well-made. But damn, the rest is not really good. Most of the jokes fall flat (the ironic thing is that the main character is watching this show "Where Are My Pants?" which has this really dumb humor and I suppose that's the writers' way of telling us "This is the kind of shitty stuff that keeps on being aired on TV these days!", yet the humor in this film is basically on the same level), basic information is repeated ad nauseam in case the kids forgot what was told 5 minutes earlier because of all the shit that happened on screen inbetween, the message of the film is heavily handed and the twist at the end just makes the movie insufferable because of its corniness.

I decided to watch it, because it got some really good reviews, even from movie critics, so I didn't expect it to find it so dull. There is some fun stuff in there for sure (thank god for Batman!), the "voice cast" is really good and I like the completely crazy atmosphere of the film (with franchises being mixed up and all that shit), but it's not enough to make it enjoyable.

Everything is not awesome. Far from it.

The twist would have been way better if they fully committed to it

My review

http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20559&p=986624

And why did you put "voice cast" in quotes?

Guys, the plural of LEGO is LEGO. There's no such thing as LEGOs. I won't warn you again.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Since LEGO stands for Lethally Edged Gaming Object, then the plural of LEGO is LEGOs.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,807]

We need a metaphysics thread.

In high school, I falied my metaphysics exam by looking within the soul of the person sitting next to me.

Don't fuck with Sharky, he's got Dillon as his avatar.

Ian Hendry, not Dillon. Legendary Brit character actor. Ever seen GET CARTER or THE HILL?

(disbelieving) "Carl!" Or even the TV show "The Lotus Eaters".

So...the shot of "Blade Runner" is humourless kitch? Isn't that what it is meant to be? Take a good look at any modern city: it's "BR" all over. And anyway, who said humourless kitch can't be beautiful?

[Bilbo 3,710]

Since LEGO stands for Lethally Edged Gaming Object, then the plural of LEGO is LEGOs.

No.

[A24 4,378]

So it's like Ewok then?

[Bilbo 3,710]

So it's like Ewok then?

Feel like I'm missing the joke but the plural of Ewok is Ewoks.

[A24 4,378]

I mean, so it's like Jedi then?

[Bilbo 3,710]