‘Sausage Party’ Trailer: Adult Animation Cooked to Perfection, or the ‘Wurst’ Movie of 2016?

Considering the primary target market for the genre, mainstream animation seldom bears any ground-breaking shock value. Only every once in a while does something alternative and daring draw in an audience, and even then its success is often marred by the stigma attached to animation; a stigma which unfortunately overlooks the genre as one that is accessible to more mature audiences. Seth Rogen’s Sausage Party (2016), while hardly making itself out to be anything uniquely ground-breaking, subverts this oft-enforced stigmatism by littering its feature with f-bombs and sex jokes galore, which is indeed a bold, if unoriginal, venture.

Sony Pictures Imageworks, 2016

As I’ve established previously, I wholeheartedly endorse the transference of the animated flick into adult territory, mostly because I’ve always felt as though the predominant alignment of animation with children’s entertainment to be somewhat contrived and narrow-minded. That said, this isn’t quite what I had in mind. Sausage Party, as evidenced by the uncensored trailer, is a crude and vulgar parody of animation as we know it; a subversive, almost twisted take on the standard Disney or Pixar formula. Which is fine – it’s clear that this is indeed what the movie sets out to achieve. Most notably we can identify a similarity to Pixar’s feature film debut Toy Story (1995), in the sense that the food yearns to be purchased by a human and loved, the difference being, of course, that the food undergoes an horrific maltreatment (from their perspective) which obviously results in their being peeled, cooked, boiled and ‘eaten alive’. The concept is funny, undoubtedly. However, it’s likely not going to be to everybody’s taste, so to speak.

Sony Pictures Imageworks, 2016

As with many other ‘adult’ animations, Sausage Party’s adult appeal is more so in its coarseness than in its themes. Sure, the idea of processed meat being, er, ‘slaughtered’ isn’t exactly what you’d consider child-friendly, but it would hardly constitute an R rating. Rather, what makes this movie adult, as one might gather from the trailer, is its strong language, sex and drug references. And don’t get me wrong, this is a fun, alternative approach to animated film, but it’s not one we haven’t seen before. The biggest appeal of the film is that such adult animations are infrequent, and offer subversive humour that no other medium can equal. It’s just such a shame that there’s no middle ground – a mature animated feature aimed at those who do not identify with the appeal of the vulgar.

Regardless, it’s refreshing to see adult animation continue to appeal to the masses, even if it is purely for its ironic crudity. Initial responses seem to be generally encouraging, and while it does run the risk of rehashing what we’ve already grown accustomed to with adult animation, it might prove effective in propelling the animated film to new ground in general. The trailer implies this is nothing revolutionary, but if lowbrow vulgarity helps to break the stigma, this movie could prove to be a real ‘wiener’.

Click to view the trailer below.

WARNING: Contains strong language and suggestive themes:

 

BBC Waters Down ‘Watership Down’

It seems it’s remake season. Not only are the big screen blockbusters at it – even the BBC are resorting to recreating Watership Down, based on the classic adventure novel by Richard Adams, and no doubt also partly inspired by Martin Rosen’s 1978 animated adaptation of the same name. The BBC are collaborating with Netflix to produce what is to be one of the most expensive animated TV miniseries ever made for television. The finished product will air as four one-hour episodes in late 2017. Sounds promising, doesn’t it? But there’s a catch.

Adapting the novel in the form of a television drama has potential to exceed the capabilities of the feature film. With four episodes, the series has the ability to convey aspects of the novel that previously went unexplored. But there’s uncertainty as to whether this new adaptation will meet the standards of the feature film. The film is iconic, in that it doesn’t shy away from presenting the events of the novel in brutal and oftentimes graphic fashion. But it seems as though the BBC are burying (or is that burrowing?) their heads in the sand. Executive producer Rory Aitken states that the new adaptation will be toned down, at least in the visual sense, claiming that graphic visuals detract from the overall essence of the novel.

Nepenthe Productions, 1978

On the one hand, one might argue that the BBC are attempting not to misrepresent the novel based solely on the 1978 film’s iconic imagery. On the other hand, one might conversely argue that this new adaptation is representative of the tame and oversimplified programming presently affluent in children’s television. And, call me cynical, but I’ve a feeling the latter may be the case. This opinion is further propelled by their clear focus on pandering to politically correct standards by heightening the significance of the story’s female leads. I’ve no issue with promoting and enhancing gender equality – in fact, I’m a firm advocate of it – but it becomes recognisably strained, almost tokenistic, when alterations are made in retellings of classic works of fiction for the purposes of conformity.

Even so, the BBC are generally known for creating high quality drama for television, so it could be the case that these concerns are not necessary, and while I believe imagery and visuals are capable of being very powerful, story is paramount. Aitken acknowledges the dark tone of the novel, and confirms that they will not shy away from conveying the true intent of the narrative. With an all-star voice cast, including James McAvoy, Sir Ben Kingsley and Olivia Colman, this latest retelling incites great expectations. Only time will tell whether the BBC will pull a rabbit out of a hat, or plunge down the rabbit hole.

Sources:

The Guardian -  'BBC and Netflix team up for new Watership Down production'
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/28/bbc-and-netflix-team-up-for-new-watership-down-production
Accessed 15/05/16

The Telegraph - 'BBC remake Watership Down with less violence to avoid 'scarring' children': 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/27/bbc-remake-watership-down-with-less-violence-to-avoid-scarring-c/
Accessed 15/05/16

Off the Rails: Has ‘Thomas & Friends’ reached the end of the line?

Thomas and Friends steams into cinemas later this month with animated special The Great Race (2016). HiT Entertainment has announced that the film will feature an array of multicultural new characters as the engines of the Island of Sodor go global. Indeed, what started in 1984 as a low-key, budget kids’ show about the misadventures of a cheeky little tank engine on the Fat Controller’s railway has evolved into something much bigger. But, with criticisms of a major decline in quality since the show’s heyday, and accusations of their having pandered to political correctness in this latest outing, is it time Thomas reached the end of the line?

Since HiT Entertainment’s acquisition of the programme in 2003, the quality of the show rapidly declined. The first thing I noticed (besides the dumbed-down abbreviation of the show’s title) was a slower pace, and Michael Angelis’ narration went from being exciting and imbued with character to bland, patronising and simplistic. I’ve a sneaky suspicion Angelis was actually instructed to ‘tone it down’ in order to appeal to a specifically younger audience. Compare the episodes of the sixth season (2002) to those of the seventh (2003) and the difference is very noticeable. And the narration isn’t the only noticeable alteration – the writing, too, is lacking. Early seasons of Thomas were derived from The Railway Series books, and so were not so ‘dumbed down’ in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Every now and again, complex terminology was utilised without fear of going over kids’ heads. And it had a significant effect on me, who, by the age of about three or four, had incorporated words such as ‘revolutionary’ and ‘sagacious’ into my otherwise rudimentary vocabulary. There’s no such appeal in later episodes, and the grammar applied is much more basic by comparison.

The Classic Series, 1995

One clear aspect of the original series is a firm focus on societal hierarchy, exemplified by the clever use of language and vocal intonations. The big tender engines regularly taunt and deride the smaller tank engines, and the diesels pose the threat of an impending obsolescence, accurately reflecting not only historical context, but also more general prejudices. Such drive is no longer felt in the new series. The patronisingly labelled ‘Steamies’ and diesels are still occasionally at loggerheads, but are reduced to exchanging petty insults, not to mention the fact that they are now capable of maintaining friendships. And that’s a problem: there’s simply no conflict, and the storylines are therefore less engaging, no matter how old you are. Everything is formally resolved by the episode’s conclusion - everybody makes up and morals are learned, only for them to forget them by the next episode.

HiT Entertainment, 2009

 Earlier episodes were also not quite so formulaic. The narratives were somewhat less conventional, and sometimes incidents occurred with unbalanced consequence. Take the series three episode ‘Percy, James and the Fruitful Day’, based on a pre-existing magazine story: The opening sees James waiting at a junction for Percy to arrive with some trucks. He scolds Percy, complaining that engines should always run to time. Percy dismisses James as bossy. After boasting about his reliability, and denouncing Percy, James’ brakes jam, meaning Percy has to help out. Ordinarily this might serve as a balanced retribution – but the story takes an unexpected twist as Percy winds up having an accident and caked in fruit. The link between the two engine’s stories here is the ambiguity of the word ‘jam’. Rather than resolve conflict within a preachy, moralistic frame, the episode takes a quirky, more realistic approach; accidents happen all the time, no matter what your moral standpoint – an important, original and oft-neglected life lesson. That’s not to say that morals were not integrated into the show, but they were not nearly as blatant and repetitious as in later series, nor were they necessarily integral to the plot.

Britt Allcroft, 1995

So, what changed exactly? The first series (1984) was based entirely on Reverend Awdry’s The Railway Series, while the second (1986) incorporated efforts by his son, Christopher Awdry. Both of these series were infamously narrated by Ringo Starr. The third series (1991-1992) was narrated by Michael Angelis, and for the first time incorporated episodes based on magazine stories and original episodes by the television production crew. Despite complaints by Awdry concerning realism, these episodes, by comparison to today’s fare, are golden, to the point at which the casual viewer would barely be able to distinguish the original stories from the book stories. The fourth and arguably the best series (1994-1995) returned to form with the vast majority of episodes being based on The Railway Series. The fifth series (1998), meanwhile, took an entirely different direction, as for the first time none of the episodes in the series were based on preconceived stories. The episodes were instead conceived and written by David Mitton and Britt Allcroft, in conjunction with a railway consultant, and were, for the most part, based loosely on actual events. This series was focussed on dramatic storylines, rather than on remaining truthful to the original stories, but, despite some melodramatic episodes and ridiculous incidents, series five was nonetheless fairly consistent. By series six (2002), the show now had its own writing staff, making the consistency a little muddled. While there were some decent plots, it was clear the writers knew next to nothing about trains, opting for a more comical approach to life on the rails, as opposed to the realism that had been conveyed previously. In addition, characters such as Percy and especially Edward underwent a complete character alteration. Percy was severely dumbed down, while Edward was no longer the old, wise engine he used to be. By series seven, the show had become watered down and repetitive, and became even worse as HiT Entertainment’s takeover meant a complete overhaul of the show. David Mitton, Britt Allcroft, and the rest of the original crew departed, not to mention the loss of the show’s former composers Mike O’Donnell and Junior Campbell, whose absence has never been redeemed.

HiT Entertainment, 2009

My main issue with HiT’s version of Thomas and Friends is that it’s a cheap carbon copy of every other animated kids’ show on television. And, as much as I normally love animation, the animation itself is detrimental to the programme too. Since 2008, animation production by Nitrogen Studios, and then by Arc Productions from 2013 onwards, has replaced the familiar utilisation of model O Gauge trains. It’s not as though the quality of the animation is especially *bad*, but its slickness detracts from the show’s industrial, smog-enveloped setting, which is ironic for a medium usually employed to convey realism. Now, some of you might be thinking “So what? Big deal. It’s a kids’ show”, but a television programme does not need to be demeaning in order to appeal to kids. In fact, the opposite is true. Since Andrew Brenner’s takeover as head writer in 2013, the show has improved somewhat, with the reintroduction of some long-dormant characters, and even some characters previously only seen in Railway Series stories. But the fact remains that the programme pales in comparison to its former glory. The pretentious, moralistic undertones of the programme as it is currently are frankly mind-numbing, and its continual success both confuses and frustrates me. Say what you will about the original Britt Allcroft series (1984-2003) but HiT have drastically altered the show, so much so that it’s barely recognisable. Inarguably, the Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends programme I know and love has disappeared in a cloud of steam.

Disney at its Direst: Top Ten Most Disappointing Disney Films

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 18^th 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 25^th 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.