Walt Disney Animation Studios is considered to be at the
very top of the animated feature film ladder. With classics such as Bambi (1942), The Lion King (1994) and Beauty
and the Beast (1991), the animated Disney movie has essentially become
synonymous with the term ‘animation’ and cartoons generally. But they can’t all
be golden. Here’s a list of what I, personally, consider to be the most
disappointing features released as part of Disney’s animated feature film
canon. This excludes any films produced by DisneyToon Studios, Television
Animation, or any other subsidiaries. This list refers solely to theatrical
releases under the Walt Disney Animation Studios label. Just as a side note,
while some films on this list are almost universally considered to be
contenders for the worst ever Disney movies, some are actually still pretty
decent, so it’s completely understandable if your opinions don’t sit right with
mine. Heck, even I find myself watching these films repeatedly – even the ones
I consider the worst aren’t quite as bad as critics and audiences have made
them out to be. So, with that in mind, let’s get started!
10. Winnie the Pooh (2011)
 |
| Disney, 2011 |
I must admit, I’m not hugely familiar with A.A. Milne’s ‘Winnie
the Pooh’ stories, but judging by this offering, it seems as though the best
stories had already been adapted for the original 1977 classic The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh.
Of course, that ‘film’ was comprised of pre-existing short films, which
probably explains why the 2011 sequel feels somewhat rushed and uninspired.
It’s not bad, by any means, but it lacks the wit and charm characteristic of
the original 1977 classic.
This film isn’t actually too bad. It’s a decent effort, and
it’s a wonderful throwback to the old days of traditional animation. It’s
conveyed in the same basic style as the original, and it’s clear that a great
deal of effort was invested in its presentation. In fact, it’s rather nice that
this, as of yet, marks the end of Disney’s traditionally animated efforts,
albeit a rather low-key affair. That said, it nonetheless pales in comparison
to the original, and the stories aren’t quite so engaging or memorable. One
major issue I have is the humour. At times it’s too acerbic, and out of
character; Owl comes across as particularly mean-spirited, and Rabbit isn’t his
old sensible self. It feels as though they attempted to integrate snappy,
modern humour into an old-fashioned, child-friendly setting, and it simply
doesn’t work. Finally, I’ve always felt as though the original movie ended on
such a ‘final’ note, that a sequel seemed unnecessary. The original concluded
with Christopher Robin’s leaving for school, and so hinted at a progression
into maturity that the sequel seems to overlook entirely.
That isn’t to say that this film is bad – it really isn’t.
It’s well worth a look and, if one wasn’t so tempted to draw comparisons with
the original feature film, I probably wouldn’t be so critical. The voices are
mostly very close to the original voice actors, but they are indeed lacking
something. Jim Cummings does a brilliant job as both Pooh and Tigger, but the
fact is he’s no Sterling Holloway. Younger audiences probably won’t notice a
difference though. At a run-time of just about an hour, the film certainly
isn’t a snooze-fest, and Tigger does indeed have some bounce left in him.
9. The Sword in the Stone (1963)
 |
| Disney, 1963 |
Based on the novel by T.H. White, Disney’s 18th
animated feature follows ‘Wart’, a young boy destined for great things. On his
way to retrieve his brother’s arrow, he stumbles upon Merlin the magician, who
informs him that he is to be his tutor. Overall, it’s a decent adaptation, even
if it does stray quite severely from the book. It’s enjoyable, funny and
charming in its own way. So what’s the problem?
The Sword in the Stone
sadly suffers from some very familiar problems of this era, with its
overuse of rehashed audio and visuals. Due to some choppy editing, Wart’s voice
even breaks and reverts back to boyish repeatedly throughout. Story-wise, too,
the film is very episodic. There’s not much of a build to it, and it feels more
like a series of events unfolding, which isn’t a bad thing – but for a feature
film it can feel a tad underwhelming. Consequently, the film’s ending feels
fairly abrupt and unsatisfying.
But it’s certainly not all bad. Merlin and Archimedes
provide some very entertaining comedy relief, and Madam Mim is one of the most
underrated and funniest Disney villains to ever grace the screen. The wizard’s
duel scene is particularly memorable and cleverly conceived, and despite the
use of Xerox, the film’s visuals are bright and appealing. In a sense, it’s
underrated on the whole, but in another it could also be considered one of
Disney’s lesser efforts. It’s not bad, but it’s not one of Disney’s best by any
means.
8. Robin Hood (1973)
 |
| Disney, 1973 |
Some of my choices are going to be controversial in some
way. So let me start by reminding you, this is all down to personal opinion,
and I do have my reasons to justify this choice. That said, Robin Hood isn’t *too* bad in my
opinion; it’s still very watchable. But it suffers from some major flaws. You
all know the story. Robin Hood (a fox, in this case) robs from the rich and
gives to the poor, aided by his trusted associate Little John (a bear),
avoiding confrontation with the Sheriff of Nottingham (a wolf) and ridding the
townsfolk of the overbearing Prince John (a lion).
So what’s my problem with this film? Well, in my opinion, it
lacks originality in some parts. Little John is voiced by Phil Harris, making
him painfully similar in appearance and character to Baloo from Jungle Book (1967). Sir Hiss, Prince
John’s assistant, also bears some similarity to Kaa the snake. In addition,
there are numerous scenes that are evidently recycled from previous features,
including Jungle Book, The Aristocats (1971) and even Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937).
Reusing old animation was certainly nothing new by this point, but the
difference between this feature and any other is that the scenes are jarringly
obvious. Prince John, voiced by Peter Ustinov, is also rather tame for a Disney
villain, and presents no real threat. Ultimately, this makes the narrative
rather bland and uninteresting, which isn’t helped by a rather drab and
depressing soundtrack.
Ultimately, this film, for me, is very
Disney-by-the-numbers: a classic work of fiction is turned into an animated
feature performed by anthropomorphic animals. Such a familiar premise leads to
an equally familiar film, with little to no surprises. It’s hardly the worst
thing you’ll ever see, but it’s rather average by Disney’s standards.
7. The Three Caballeros (1944)
 |
| Disney, 1944 |
I’m not sure where to begin with this one. From a technical
standpoint, it’s astounding, but as a result it’s one of Disney’s most dated.
It succeeds 1942’s Saludos Amigos as
a package movie, produced to aid relations with Latin America in the war era.
The major difference between the two films is that Saludos Amigos is presented as a travelogue documentary, providing
justification for its patchy construct and lack of story. The Three Caballeros, meanwhile, is just as (if not more)
meandering, and is completely devoid of story altogether, besides the basic
premise that sees Donald Duck’s friends from Latin America presenting him with
various gifts, each of which permit him the exploration of a particular region
of their homeland.
In context, this film is visually impressive, but otherwise
it bears little merit. It has historical value in the sense that it was
probably once considered a technical accomplishment, and that it was one of
several wartime films that had a particular agenda – in this case to educate
and facilitate relations overseas. But the segments presented are not cohesive
in the slightest. The viewer is dragged wearily from one manic scene to
another, while Donald and his friends lust after beautiful Latino women and
numerous narrators tell stories on subjects ranging from flying donkeys to
penguins. It’s just insane, and becomes very tiresome after a short while,
despite the immense visual creativity.
 |
| Disney, 1944 |
It’s worth seeing in a retrospective sense, and it’s
incredibly experimental, but it sometimes borders on unbearable. By the end of
the movie, you’ll probably still be seeing kaleidoscopic colours and beautiful
Latino women bursting out of flowers long after the movie has concluded. It
presents a very idealistic and somewhat surreal (and at times slightly scary)
view of Latin America, and casual sexism is rife. It’s not as though no effort
was invested in this film. Technically it is a marvel; some might even say it’s
ahead of its time in that respect. Otherwise, this is what I imagine hell looks
like.
6. The Black Cauldron (1985)
 |
| Disney, 1985 |
Based on Lloyd Alexander’s The Chronicles of Prydain, Disney’s 25th animated
classic has often been shunned for almost being responsible for the demise of
the company. The film, which follows pig-keeper Taran in his quest to find the
cauldron before the dreaded Horned King does, was a major box office flop. The
question is, is this response justified?
In some ways, yes. The visuals and characterisation appeal
to a more mature audience than traditional Disney fare, but its plot is too
simplistic to be engaging to the same audience. Ultimately, this leads to a
rather bland and forgettable adventure, which is a real shame considering the
impressive visuals. Taran and Princess Eilonwy also hint towards some kind of
blossoming romance that never comes to fruition. One or two scenes of dialogue
don’t actually serve any purpose to the narrative, and the voice acting is a
little off. Taran’s voice is excruciatingly dull and devoid of passion, which
is a major problem for a film’s protagonist. The Horned King, voiced by John
Hurt, is one of the most sinister-looking villains of all time, but he moves
around so slowly that, without the overblown intensity of the soundtrack, he
poses no real threat at all.
Is it all bad? No. As said before, visuals are fantastic.
One thing people always neglect to mention is that this feature was the first
to incorporate computer animation – an achievement that is most often
erroneously attributed to subsequent feature The
Great Mouse Detective (1986). But the characters aren’t as well-developed
as in some of Disney’s better releases, and story-wise it comes across as a bit
muddled and flat. Another reason for this is a distinct lack of explanation as
to the goings-on that the audience is expected to accept at face value. Why,
for example, can Hen-wen the pig see the future? Why does the princess have a
magic bauble? And why is the Horned King ‘swallowed’ by the cauldron? The film
is littered with unanswered questions, and its dark tone will not appeal to
everybody. Seriously, however, I would certainly recommend it, if only for a
single viewing. It’s an interesting experiment, if a little flawed, and
beautiful to look at.
Read my full review of The Black Cauldron here.
5. Fun and Fancy Free (1947)
 |
| Disney, 1947 |
Surprisingly, many of the 1940s package films actually hold
up despite the threat of age. Films such as Saludos
Amigos (1942) and The Three
Caballeros (1944) make more sense in context, but the likes of Make Mine Music (1946) and Melody Time (1948) remain decently
enjoyable. Fun and Fancy Free,
however, is one of my least favourites, mostly because there’s no real logic to
its construction. It follows Jiminy Cricket as he presents two stories – one of
Bongo the bear and the other of ‘Mickey and the Beanstalk’, dictated by Edgar
Bergen and Mortimer Snerd.
This film isn’t really a film. It’s basically comprised of
two cartoons, similar to the later release The
Adventures of Ichabod and Mr Toad (1949). The difference with this feature,
however, is that the stories aren’t really connected in any way, making it feel
a lot more laboured. It’s a complete mystery to me, too, as to why they thought
Jiminy Cricket to be an appropriate host. I mean, it’s not bad, but it’s quite
out of the blue. What dates this film significantly is the live action scenes
with Edgar Bergen, which come across as rather irritating as they constantly
interrupt what is otherwise a decent outing for Mickey Mouse.
In all, it’s hardly terrible, just plain odd. The two
stories, in and of themselves, are perfectly fine. They’re not the greatest
stories ever told but they’re decent efforts. Putting them together was a
peculiar choice, however, and the film ultimately peters out without making a
point or much of an impression.
Read my full review of Fun and Fancy Free here.
4. Home on the Range (2004)
 |
| Disney, 2004 |
In 2004, Disney officially ceased production of
traditionally animated features… That is until 2009 when they returned to the
technique with the vastly underrated The
Princess and the Frog (2009). Until then, however, their final entry in
their traditionally animated canon was… this. An interesting choice to signify
the end of an era, Home on the Range is
surprisingly low-key considering its significance. It focuses on three cows’
attempts to thwart a cattle rustler in order to win a reward that will save
their ailing farm.
Whoever came up with the genius idea to incarnate Roseanne
Barr in the form of a cow deserves some form of recognition for it being one of
the crudest, most uninspired concepts Disney have ever presented. In any
case, the story is… fine. There’s nothing especially *wrong* with it as such,
but it’s very bland and simplistic. The humour, too, is less than inspired, and
at times somewhat juvenile. There are still a fair few laughs, but it’s mostly
cheap and throwaway. The animation is nothing special either, and the character
designs sometimes rather odd (Maggie’s rear end looks as though it could have
your eye out).
It’s not wholly unenjoyable. In fact, I actually like to
praise the movie when I can in defence of the seemingly relentless hatred the
film gets from filmgoers and Disney fans the world over. It’s really not as bad
as the above criticisms make it sound, and it does have some redeeming
features. One thing worthy of a mention is the soundtrack, which is awesome.
The songs are very catchy and memorable – it’s just a shame they’re used in
such a distinctly unmemorable film. The voice acting is also commendable. Barr
pulls off a decent performance without becoming too irritating, and Cuba
Gooding Jr and Judi Dench give life to some otherwise rather flat characters.
Read my full review of Home on the Range here.
3. Frozen (2013)
 |
| Disney, 2013 |
Okay, so I’ve been putting this film down for nearly three
years now, but I had to mention it sooner or later. I don’t care what anybody
else says – this film is a complete shambles. The story, (very) loosely based
on Hans Christian Andersen’s The Snow
Queen, follows princess sisters Elsa and Anna. After Elsa’s power to
randomly conjure ice and snow puts her sister in danger, she is concealed from
society, hiding not only her powers but herself. At her coronation, she
unwittingly wreaks havoc on the kingdom of Arendelle, and retires to an ice
fortress in the mountains. Responsibility turns to Anna to find her and put an
end to Elsa’s winter.
Story-wise, Frozen makes
no sense. Elsa’s powers are never given any formal explanation, and the
resolution is unsettlingly flawed. As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, the
twist involving Prince Hans also makes little sense as he reveals himself to be
‘evil’ even after helping our protagonists. Kristoff is given no real
backstory, meaning there are many unanswered questions concerning his
character. Was he an orphan? Why does he have a reindeer? Why is he even there?
On top of all this, there’s a rather irritating and pointless side character in
Olaf, and canine-like reindeer Sven is essentially a rehash of Tangled’s (2010) Maximus. In fact, even
the faux-modish one-word title seems to be equally as derivative. Without a
doubt, the most iconic scene from the movie is the ‘Let It Go’ sequence, which
also makes no sense. Elsa sings about letting go of her worries, without caring
what others think, about setting herself free. But while she sings this, she
practically imprisons herself in an ice fortress, isolating herself from
society. It’s simply illogical.
On the plus side, there are plenty of awesome visuals, and
the voice acting is fine. But the film itself is terrible, with what is perhaps
one of the absolute worst narratives that has ever been told in a Disney movie.
The integration of modern colloquial language is also painfully jarring, and
the songs, regardless of what many people seem to think, are not all that
memorable, and some of them serve little purpose to the narrative. I could go
on, but I won’t. Suffice to say, I hate this movie, and the attention it’s
garnered.
Read my full analysis of Frozen here.
2. Fantasia 2000 (1999)
 |
| Disney, 1999 |
Fantasia’s
millennial reboot incited great expectations. The original 1940 classic is
considered by many to constitute not only a Disney masterpiece but one of the
greatest filmic pieces of all time, and by the late 1990s animation
capabilities had evolved in such a way that allowed for visual improvement.
With this in mind, the long-awaited sequel is inarguably a bitter
disappointment, and pales miserably in comparison to its predecessor.
So what’s the problem? Well, firstly the sequences are not
nearly as high quality, with some bordering on the surreal. Respighi’s Pines of Rome is bizarrely visualised as
a family of flying humpback whales. Seriously, what were they on when they
conceived this? Throughout, you just get the sense that, conceptually, they
struggled, and consequently tried a bit too hard to be original. Another
(brief) sequence sees a flock of flamingos come into contact with a yo-yo,
accompanied by Saint-Saens’ Carnival of
the Animals, which just conveys itself as pointless and juvenile compared
to the mastery of the original. Speaking of which, this film cheats by
integrating The Sorcerer’s Apprentice from
the original 1940 movie, which is inexcusably lazy, no matter how iconic the
sequence. Another major issue I have is that the animation seems rather
slapdash in comparison to the original. There are scenes that don’t always time
well with the classical pieces, with more of a focus on delivering generic
story than on impressive visualisation of audio.
 |
| Disney, 1999 |
There are some decent sequences, the best of which is the
final one, based on Stravinsky’s Firebird
Suite, which follows a narrative of life, death and renewal through the
actions of a forest sprite and its interaction with nature. It’s clever and
reminiscent of the Renaissance era that preceded this film, although it
nonetheless pales in comparison to even the lesser efforts of the original.
Needless celebrity cameos, lazy writing and animation sadly punctuate what is a
distinctively modern era, and with it the official end of Disney’s 1990s
winning streak. A poor effort indeed.
1. Chicken Little (2005)
 |
| Disney, 2005 |
Disney’s foray into the CG animated world was sadly somewhat
underwhelming. Based on the popular fable, Chicken
Little follows our eponymous protagonist as he is lampooned for believing
the sky is falling. Convinced Little was actually hit on the head by an acorn,
the townsfolk of Oakey Oaks relentlessly deride him – that is until it turns
out he was really onto something, leading to a surreal sci-fi comedy adventure
to save the world, along with his misfit friends Abby Mallard, Runt Of The
Litter and Fish Out Of Water.
So what are the issues with this movie? Well, to begin with,
the narrative is a little meandering. It jumps from plot point to plot point
very sporadically, conveying the sense that, behind the scenes, the film’s
production was a little troubled. On the one hand, we’ve a slightly juvenile
college-movie-esque baseball comedy, and on the other we’ve an all-too-serious
side-story about parental neglect. Throw in an alien invasion, and the film
becomes a bit too muddled to be engaging. And the ending is inarguably the most
anticlimactic of any film on this list.
Thankfully, there are some redeeming qualities. Most of the
time I prefer contemporary film to shy away from making pop culture references,
but in some cases the humour is sharp and on point. The characters are also
heavily marketable and quite clever, in the sense that they’re based solely on
traditional phrases alluding to social pariahs. Overall, however, the animation
is rather average, and there’s not much memorable. Despite its pros, there are
probably about as many cons, which just makes it an average experience. This
film has garnered a lot of hatred, and it’s understandable considering the
standard we’re accustomed to from Disney, but it’s not a complete catastrophe.
I mean, you could still do far worse. Of all the films in the canon, however, I
have to admit I, too, rate it the lowest. It is, in my opinion, the worst
Disney animated feature, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a bad egg.
 |
| Disney, 2005 |
Read my full retrospective of Chicken Little here.
