chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (07/28/85)
The Black Cauldron (PG, Walt Disney Productions) is the latest full length
animated film from the studio that created and defined the standards of
animation with films like 'Snow white' and 'Pinochio'. The Disney people
are declaring this to be a new classic, and while the film falls well short
of that lofty goal, it is a significant improvement from such Disney films
as 'Fox and the Hound' and '101 Dalmations'.
The storyline has a few flaws -- in general it moves well, but there are
some problems that keep it from being completely convincing. There is a
sudden appearance of a magic sword at a critical place with no real
explanation that is just TOO convenient, and the overall theme seems to be
'It doesn't matter HOW idiotic you are, if you are good, you'll end up on
top...' Not, unfortunately, very realistic.
My biggest gripes are technical, though. The animation is very uneven,
with some parts of the film jumping off the screen like the best that
Disney has ever produced, while other parts are very muddy and passive.
There are continuity problems (some of the fairies randomly change
clothing, and certain objects seem to be carried only when they are
needed). Some of the special effects, especially any time they try to
show running water, fall flat on their face. The animators have worked
very hard at creating a very dark and oppressing atmosphere,
unfortunately in many cases they cross the line and simply become
washed out and murky. It definitely isn't a classic film, but it
certainly isn't the worst Disney has produced -- I rate it somewhere
about about Alice in Wonderland or Jungle Book for technical quality --
well aboce clunkers such as Bedknobs and Broomsticks or Sword in the Stone,
but certainly not a Snow White, either.
Disney needed to work harder at the characterizations. With the exclusion
of the young boy here (also known as the Klutz with the Golden Heart) and
the funny looking thing called Gurgie (also known as the Ewok Clone -- keep
an eye on toy stores for this one, folks...) I didn't care about anyone in
the film. The 'princess' was especially bad -- she reminded me more of
Wendy or Princess Leia than anything else, and seemed badly out of place.
The evil Horned King was inked so darkly that you never got a good look at
him -- they seemed to be attempting to build the horror by inference
instead of by showing the king. Unfortunately, I don't think it worked very
well. The Horned King might just have well stayed offstage.
In general, I was disappointed with Black Cauldron, but not nearly as
disappointed as I thought I would be. It was worth seeing, but I don't
think it will have the staying power Disney thought it would have. I wonder
how it would have turned out had Don (Secret of NIHM) Bluth, who was
working on the film before he left Disney to found his own studio, had
been able to do the film.
A couple of trivia comments on the film--
Listed in the credits under 'Additional Dialogue' was the name 'Roy E.
Disney'. Roy Disney was Walt's brother, and at one time head of Walt Disney
Productions. It gives you an idea how long they have been trying to put
this film together, since he retired from the company in the 70's sometime.
One of the fairy folk, also, looked suspiciously like Peter Pan. In
general, all of the fairy folk drove me up the wall -- I kept making snide
'Wendy-bird' comments throughout every scene they were in. They were just
TOO cute for my taste -- stolen from both "Peter Pan" and "Fantasia"
simultaneously, they seem to have gotten the worst of both...
--
:From the carousel of the autumn carnival: Chuq Von Rospach
{cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA
Your fifteen minutes are up. Please step aside!friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/01/85)
In article <3037@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >Disney needed to work harder at the characterizations. With the exclusion >of the young boy here (also known as the Klutz with the Golden Heart) and >the funny looking thing called Gurgie (also known as the Ewok Clone -- keep >an eye on toy stores for this one, folks...) I didn't care about anyone in >the film. Well, not exactly a clone, since the character is in the books, which came out *long* before Star Wars.(Tho he may not have been *quite* so cute in the books) >The 'princess' was especially bad -- she reminded me more of >Wendy or Princess Leia than anything else, and seemed badly out of place. Actually, as I remember the books, the Princess *was/is* a lot like Princess Leia, so this is probably the place they remain most faithful to the books! > >One of the fairy folk, also, looked suspiciously like Peter Pan. In >general, all of the fairy folk drove me up the wall -- I kept making snide >'Wendy-bird' comments throughout every scene they were in. They were just >TOO cute for my taste -- stolen from both "Peter Pan" and "Fantasia" >simultaneously, they seem to have gotten the worst of both... > This is in fact really unfortunate since the fairie-folk in the books were more of the "little people"/"leprechaun" type rather than the cutesy winged sprite type. Oh Welll. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
rlp@cbosgd.UUCP (Bob Platt) (08/08/85)
Some random thoughts on a review by M. Leeper: >There is a serious problem with THE BLACK CAULDRON--it has too much >story. SLEEPING BEAUTY and SNOW WHITE had simple short plots you could tell >in two or three sentences. They are ideal for animated films. I agree, now thatcha mention it. I was always wondering how well the main audience --children-- was staying with the story. The comments I've heard from kids have been mostly about a funny line ("crunchy munchies") or a particularly impressive scene (graphically). >Look at an example. The hero is backed up against a wall. Evil guards are >throwing a hail of spears at him and he's clearly in trouble. Someone >realizes that he (the hero) has a magic sword that cuts through metal, so >they stop throwing spears. Why? This sword is not a shield. The magic >sword is no better than a regular sword against that sort of an attack, but >it is a good excuse for ending the sequence and getting to the next one. >There are several other escapes that are similarly senseless. Easy now... it's simple: remember that the bad guys in the scene are orc-clones. (Tolkien practically *appears* in this film.) Such beings may have some qualities, like stamina, strength, or a defective kind of cunning. But unlike the good guys, they *always* display the wrong stuff when the chips are down. In this case, it is obvious that the Horned King's men were so frightened by the sword's pyrotechnics that they gave up their attack in fear. Not logic: fear. They screwed the pooch. In fact, the first 'orc' to encounter the sword in a earlier scene behaved the same way. >Then there is a cute >creature that looks like a miniature cross between a sheepdog and Albert >Einstein. Perfect! The Shaggy Absent-Minded Professor! >In the early parts of the film it is much the usual >Disney animation, though not as complex. At other times, they do a sort of >pastel impressionistic background to save painting effort. Occasionally, the 'skimping' *added* to a scene. I liked the effect in the fairies' haunt where the background was dull, gray and nebulous, but the fairies were very bright and colorful. From a non-cynical viewpoint, I think anyone must admit that that sequence was very well done. Thanks for the informative review, Mark (I read it before seeing the film). On the whole, I agree that it is a good movie. No one should be discouraged by the animation techno-analysts on this net. (Although I do find their comments interesting and educational, I wonder whether it is a good thing to be so up on the tricks of the trade that no illusion can be maintained.) Joe Knapp