Iron Man 2 Review

Iron Man 2, one of the most anticipated films of 2010, has come. The first Iron Man set the bar for the franchise, and superhero films in general, exceedingly high. There was very little chance that the sequel could live up to the ever growing hype, but even so, I held out hope. The reviews came in decidedly mixed (57 on Metacritic) and I grudgingly lowered my expectations. After seeing it twice, I feel I can weigh in with my opinion.

Iron man 2 is awesome!

It is not a perfect film, and it does not present a completely cohesive narrative compared to the first film, or storytelling technique in general. I still had a blast the whole time through on both viewings and came away impressed by what Jon Favreau and Co. have accomplished with Iron Man 2.



The story picks up right where the first film left off, then quickly jumps ahead six months. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is struggling to regulate his company and his health. Most the players from the first film are back, including Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), James Rhodes (Don Cheadle, previously Terrance Howard), Happy Hogan (director Jon Favreau), and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson, who you may have missed if you did not watch through the credits of the first film). This movie also introduces several new characters, including Justin Hammer (Sam "someone toss this dude an Oscar already" Rockwell), Ivan Vanko (Mickey "good work giving this dude an Oscar already" Rourke), Natalie Rushman (Scarlett "I'm here to make fanboys drool" Johansson), and Tony's father, Howard Stark (John Slattery). Besides juggling all these new and returning characters the film manages to tell a story about a self destructive Tony Stark cleaning up messes that he has effectively created, all the while being the lovable asshole we have come to know so well. The plot is cluttered and messy, but basically revolves around the ideas of legacy and (ir)responsibility. If this film was about three hours long and a little less precious with some segments, it could have probably juggled all the threads and told a more comprehensible story. It still works to introduce all manner of awesome into the Iron man and Marvel Studios universes.

Throughout the film, Tony is put up against a business competitor in Justin Hammer, a new super villain in Whiplash, and his own mortality as he struggles to find a different power source for the armor before it kills him. Tony's conflict with Hammer is probably the most enjoyable of these three conflicts, but Iron Man 2 stays engaging as the plot bounces around between each element. Some moments feel a little long, like watching a drunk Tony Stark abuse the Iron man armor. Some story pieces feel slightly glossed over, like the romantic tension between Tony and Pepper. Overall, the story moves fast enough that no mistakes significantly ruin the fun and momentum of the film. Watching Tony rediscover a new element is gloriously comic book-y, stopping just before the point of ridiculousness, but little moments like this also serve to add to the universe these films are building (if I am not mistaken, Tony found Vibranium, a fictional element that comes up in the comics). While it could be argued that Iron Man 2 tries to do too much, the plot serves the film well by carrying it through all the necessary character moments and action set pieces that a quality summer film should have.




The characters in Iron Man 2, just as in the first, are the most enjoyable part of the film. Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark is perfect. He is everything you could hope for in the role, and the whole franchise succeeds on his shoulders. You cannot help but like him even while he does very little to earn it. It will be interesting to see him on screen against the younger Chris Evans, as Captain America, in the Avengers Film because they have always been presented as similarly aged in the comics. Gwyneth Paltrow does a great job sharing the screen with Downey Jr. I do wish there was another beat between these two before the last scene in the film, but she gets plenty of screen time to flesh out her character into an endearing equal, and much needed balance to the out of control Tony. Don Cheadle effortlessly picks up the role of James Rhodes and fits in this universe better than Terrance Howard did, though I never did have a specific problem with Howard's performance. Jon Favreau is clearly having fun with his screen time as Happy Hogan, but some of his scenes probably could have been cut to streamline the picture. Ear biting was funny 10 years ago, less so now. I enjoy Samuel L. Jackson in most roles, even some of his most outrageous, but I am still not sold on his Nick fury, especially now that there are talks to do an entire film based on the character. I would love to see a WW2 story featuring Sergeant Fury and his Howling Commandos, but I doubt that is the direction they will take with this character now. Jackson comes across as more of a super-spy than a hardened war veteran. Clark Gregg also reprises his role as a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent with more screen time and personality than before. With all these returning cast members, it is hard to believe there was room for more, but they managed.




The new characters' casting was handled spectacularly. Sam Rockwell steals scenes throughout the film as Justin Hammer, the wannabe Tony Stark. His performance sells the lengths that his character is willing to go to compete with Stark and almost makes his actions seem more pitiable than outright evil. Ivan Venko is an occasionally ridiculous creation, that is saved by Mickey Rourke's careful portrayal. I really could have done without the agonizing scream early in the film (this kind of scene is nearly impossible to sell in any film, writers/directors take note) and the whole bird subplot later on though. Ivan is representative of all the worst things Tony could have become if his world had not been handed to him on an iron platter. I am beginning to wonder if Scarlett Johansson is only an average actress, and I was too distracted to notice because of her other attributes. She doesn't ruin any scenes, but she does not add much texture to the film either. Her character could have her own spin-off film, but she never felt attached enough to the role for me to see that happening. She does fill out one particular outfit quite well. I was pleasantly surprised to see John Slatterly (Mad Men's Roger Sterling, one of the best television characters in existence) as Howard Stark. He seems like a mix of his character from that show and a vintage Walt Disney. I would love to see more of him in future Marvel films. Gary Shandling also deserves a mention for his role as Senator Stern. His courtroom scene with Downey Jr. is one of the funnier moments in the film. The strength of this cast could compete with Dark Knight and might even come out with an edge. I'd take Jarvis in Tony's suit over growly Bruce Wayne in Batman's any day. For a film without a solid emotional core, the cast really does a lot to make you care in as the film rushes through all the ground it has to cover.



Upon first viewing, I was not sold on the action of Iron Man 2. It seemed somehow underwhelming, but again I think that is just a testament to the strength of the acting in the film. Since then, I have heard people claim each of the major action set pieces as their favorite, which implies they are all successful. There is a scene on a race track, featuring villain Whiplash, early in the film that manages to be both exciting and humorous. It also introduces Iron man's suit case armor, which is one of the bigger "Oh Shit!" moments in the movie (slightly undercut by being present in the trailer). We also get a heated Iron Man versus War Machine battle midway through that demolishes a large portion of Stark's residence. This scene is a huge success and ends up being one of the more emotionally intense conflicts throughout. The big climax is a battle between Iron Man, War Machine, a whole heap of Hammer drones, and a powered up Whiplash (possibly a reference to Crimson Dynamo?). This extended set piece is technically impressive, but for some reason the stakes never feel appropriately insurmountable. The action choreography was an improvement over the first film in many ways. Jon Favreau never struck me as an action director, even after Iron Man, but he seems to be getting it down. I never felt lost in scenes and stayed engaged in the conflict even during the extended climax. The action is made possible by some truly impressive effects work as well.

ILM did a great job on the first film. The combination of practical and CG was almost unbelievable. There were no glaring issues, but Iron man 2 easily tops that already impressive display. The suits look great in every scene and there are many moments where I could not be sure if what I was looking at was practical or CG. Something about seeing believable robotic suits in live action is so satisfying. The action does well to not overshadow the story, and the effects do not overshadow the action. Everything works to form a momentum that had me entertained and engaged completely.



After that obligatory rundown of plot, actors, and action, I feel like I still have not accurately captured what made this film so good. Iron Man 2 is a delicate balancing act. It manages to cram in so much story, character, and action, even while laying significant groundwork for the Marvel Studios universe. It builds a believable world for Iron Man that feels like it could house Thor, Captain America, Hulk, Ant-Man (directed by Edgar Wright please!), and more. Besides the variety of Easter eggs strewn about the film to appease comics fans, Iron Man 2 manages to actually feel like a comic book brought to life. It juggles multiple plot threads, soap opera drama, sharp humor, heavy action, and extensive world building at the same time. It never feels like a chore. It is a very fun time. If this was the end of Iron Man's story, I would be inclined to agree with some of the more negative opinions floating out there, but this is is just one small piece of a larger story being told. Iron Man 2 satisfies on its own, but it also succeeds in building excitement for the future of these Marvel films.



There is a lot of talk about the illusion of change in comics and how it helps and hurts the stories that are told in the medium. These characters have to stay relatively static in order to be easily marketable. In translating a comic to film, it is easy to cherry pick from the decades of continuity to come up with some earth shattering plot, but it is admirable for Favreau and Co. to craft a straight up comic book story that is optimized to have fun in the established universe. Iron Man 2 is hugely respectful to the source without being obsessed with telling another person's idea of the definitive Iron Man story. Favreau is resisting pressure to delve too heavily into the classic Demon in a Bottle storyline that finds Tony Stark up against the villain of alcoholism (cue dramatic music), and I absolutely respect his choice to portray Tony as an unapologetic dick who stubbornly displays almost no growth throughout an entire picture.

The Disney Challenge Week 3: Fantasia

Fantasia, Disney's third animated feature,came out in 1940 and brought a very different experience than their previous efforts. Fantasia is a series of shorts put to classical music. Each is very different than the other in content and style. A famous music critic of the time, Deems Taylor, pops up between animated segments to give context and explanation. Fantasia originated with the famous short, "The Sorcerer's Apprentice." This was meant to be Mickey's grand return to prominence, but when its budget exceeded anything the studio could hope to make back, Disney, along with composer Leopold Stokowski, who was scoring the short, decided to make a series of shorts set to classical music. Each short was created to stand side by side with "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" in quality and content. Though not an immediate success, Fantasia is remembered just well as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Pinocchio in importance and quality. The film was initially released as a major event, like traditional live theater. This was an occasion people dressed up for. There were only two daily screenings. Tickets cost more than regular film releases. This type of release made it hard for the movie to turn a profit early on. It also did not help that critics and viewers were not sold on the idea of Fantasia, so Disney's dream of continuing to run different shorts in theaters in this format was never fully realized. The shorts that do exist are interesting and impressive works that have withstood the years and work as a whole to provide one of the most original experiences of any Disney film.

Toccata and Fugue in D Minor: The first segment starts right up after a brief introduction by Taylor. For a while the live orchestra plays the music and the scene gradually fades to an abstract animated short. Oskar Fischinger, an abstract animator is described as a heavy influence for this short which features shapes and movement related to the music playing. This short was the first of its kind for Disney and quickly signaled to viewers the wildly different experience they were in for. While not my favorite of the shorts, this works well as an introduction to the bold concept of Fantasia, and the combination of the Disney style with such an abstract look is interesting to watch.



Nutcracker Suite: The second segment uses one of the most instantly recognizable songs in the film, though apparently The Nutcracker was rarely performed in 1940. The animation is significantly more literal this time around, but the content is unexpected for such a traditional classical song. As the seasons change from Summer to Fall, and Fall to Spring, nature seems to dance to this famous song. Fairies (which might not pass in modern Disney animation), fish (similar to Cleo in Pinocchio), flowers, leaves and the memorable mushrooms make this one of the more entertaining and beautiful segments. It is interesting to see how directly this film references skills learned in other Disney animation, and seems similar in style to future works such as Bambi.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice: Here it is, the most famous of the segments from this film, and one of the most famous Mickey Mouse shorts ever. Disney, took out all the stops to make this one and it shows in every frame. The animation is wonderfully fluid. There is so much happening onscreen. The countless brooms dumping water, the lighting effects, every element comes together making it easy to understand this shorts enduring popularity. This is one of the longest Mickey shorts ever, and one of my earliest Disney memories. I am not sure if I ever watched Fantasia in it's entirety as a child, but I know I had a VHS that included this short amongst other Disney work. For sentimental reasons this is easily one of my favorites of the lot. There is also an interesting technical moment between the animated Mickey and the real life Stokowski as they shake hands in silhouette at the end.



The Rite of Spring: This short tells the story of the origin of the earth to the extinction of the dinosaurs set to Stravinsky's classic, continuing the film's inventive subject matter for the classical music. The animation in this short is some of the most impressive work done in the whole film. The dinosaurs look intimidating and monstrous. They feel as if they have real mass and depth. The effects including lava are also eye popping. The music was rearranged and Stravinsky was apparently not to fond of the final product, even though he was supportive during the creation. Out of all of the shorts, this is probably my current favorite. I could watch cartoon dinosaurs stomp around weekly. The colors and shadows are so expressive. I imagine the non Disney feature, Land Before Time, looked back at this short for inspiration. This segment led to the intermission for the original release.

Meet the Soundtrack: This brief segment visualizes sound in the form of a line making various movements and forming various shapes. Fantasia was the first film released in stereophonic sound, a much advertised bonus to the theatrical experience so sound was a vital aspect of the experience.



The Pastoral Symphony: This short, set to Beethoven's Sixth Symphony, takes place in a mythical ancient Greece. It features unicorns, centaurs (another thing that wouldn't fly in modern Disney animation), and many other mythological creatures. There is a lot of fun color going on that set the lighter mood. While still an interesting choice of story to accompany the music, this is one of the most literal translations as most of it takes place in an actual pastoral setting, mythical creatures or not. This short is also one of the most recognizably Disney in style, featuring cute animals and a romantic story, even though it was also one of the most criticized for some of its original content, including sexy centaurs and some racial content that has since been edited out.

Dance of the Hours: This segment is one of most fun parts of the film. Animals dancing to the music is a simple concept, but it works great. The ostriches, hippos, elephants, and alligators are all well done and a amusing to watch. This short works with the music because it does not take itself too seriously, but it is also not overly goofy. This is another one that represents what the classic Disney look. The dancing and motion throughout is very complex and was probably quite a chore to animate to the music. The color of the background as the day passes add a great bit of mood and style. It is nice to see such a goofy short in the middle of a lot more experimental and serious subject matter.



Night on Bald Mountain and Ave Maria: The finale to the extravaganza is appropriately elaborate. This is the longest short of the set, and incorporates a variety of styles and effects that Disney had mastered. This episode takes place over the course of two classical pieces divided when good overcomes evil. Chernabog, the evil creature in this segment, is one of the most memorable Disney characters of all time. His design and motion are beautiful to watch. His large size overwhelms everything else present in the first part of this feature. The last half switches tone as evil is put in its place. This portion is a lot more mellow compared to the chaos and motion of the first half. It winds down nicely and works as a fitting conclusion to the entire film.

In between each segment, Taylor explains the upcoming piece and other minor musical interludes take place. It comes across like Disney was afraid the audience would not understand the feature, and preemptively went about explaining it. When the film was later distributed in more traditional channels it was heavily edited. These segments were entirely removed and many pieces were cut down to get the picture to a more reasonable run time.



Fantasia eventually found great success. It was released as a "psychedelic experience" in the 60s and has had many other popular re-releases since then. Critics have also come around to the film; it is now considered one of the best Disney features of all time. I remember thinking this was one of the worst cartoons ever when I was child, even though I am not sure whether I actually watched it or not. I am glad I have grown up enough to reevaluate that opinion, as Fantasia has become one of my favorites Disney films ever. I do not watch it as much as some of the modern classics, and it definitely requires a certain mood to enjoy, but the overall consistency from short to short and the wide variety of style and technique are definitely something to behold. It is like there was just too much imagination at Disney in the late 30s. It could not be contained in a standard animated feature. If you have never seen Fantasia before, you should definitely check it out. Whether as a "psychedelic experience" or straight, it is a beautiful piece of animation and a touchstone in the argument that animation should be considered a fine art.

If you want to read more about The Disney Challenge, click here

The Disney Challenge Week 2: Pinocchio

Before Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was even released, Disney had several other feature ideas in the pipeline. Pinocchio beat out stories like Bambi and Peter Pan to become the second Disney animated feature based on what the studio thought it could do best given the state of animation at the time. After the monumental success of Snow White, the animation team was eager to top themselves. When the film was not coming along as well as anticipated, Walt scrapped months of work to go back to the drawing board. With a few tweaks to the original Italian fable, the picture was up in running and ready for release in 1939.

Though it was not the runaway financial success of its predecessor (World War II was starting up in Europe) and cost even more to make, Pinocchio has withstood the test of time to become another classic Disney film and a benchmark for animation. It was also critically well received, winning Academy Awards for Best Original Song ("When You Wish Upon A Star") and Best Original Score. This 70 year old film pioneered effects that animation still relies upon today. It was a labor of love by animators working at the top of their game. The animators clearly learned a lot making Snow White, and were eager to show off their skills.



Even 70 years later, Pinocchio holds up incredibly well on all fronts. The basic story of the movie follows Pinocchio, a wooden puppet brought to life by a fairy, as he tries to become a real boy. He inevitably makes mistakes involving evil puppet masters and Pleasure Island, but eventually proves himself by saving his creator/father, Geppetto, from the gigantic whale Monstro. When I was a child, I had no idea I was watching a 50 year old piece of entertainment. Looking at it now, clearly it was made in a different time simply because they would not get away with saying "jackass" or having kids smoke cigars in modern Disney films. I remember thinking the scenes where the boys get turned into donkeys wer particularly scary and I had a negative association with San Francisco's Treasure Island for some reason. The story is entertaining, though it is paced much different than modern films. It is easily divided into sections: Pinocchio is created and brought to life; Pinocchio gets tricked into being part of Stromboli's puppet show; Pinocchio goes to Pleasure Island; Pinocchio rescues Geppetto and becomes a real boy. The episodic nature works as well as it does in many classic fairy tales to keep things moving. Again, this was never one of my favorites, but re-watching it recently made me love it more than ever. Overall, this is an impressive film because of how well each element stands out on its own in telling this classic story.

The character work in Pinocchio is even more ambitious than Snow White; the characters seem much more fleshed out this time around. Pinocchio is sweet, naive, and easy to root for (a marked change from the original story). Geppetto is a great father figure (and helps continue/establish the Disney tradition of the Disney lead having only one or no parent at all). His warmth can nearly be felt through the screen. Jiminy Cricket is the perfect narrator and a less than perfect conscience, yet he remains endearing enough that his reward at the end of the film is also a great moment. He is like the Genie in Aladdin, a modern character in a past setting. Figaro and Cleo continue the cute animal element in Disney animation, and they are both highly entertaining characters of their own. Honest John and Gideon are interesting characters because they are anthropomorphic animals (a fox and a cat, respectively and a first for Disney feature animation). They serve to usher Pinocchio through his various trials and they also bring some great gags to the story. How can there be a cat as a pet and as an upright character? Well, why don't you just ask Pluto and Goofy? Stromboli is one of my favorite Disney villains ever, even though he does not get too much screen time. Something about him is so fun to watch. The Coachman is also felt genuinely menacing as he lead the boys to Pleasure Island. Lampwick is also hilarious as the Pinocchio's trouble-making young friend. The Blue Fairy beautiful, and feels like one of the most direct ties to the character style of Snow White. Last but not least, is Monstro, who's final act scene steals the whole film. It seems to come out of left field when you learn that Geppetto managed to get swallowed by a whale, but it really pays off. The voice work done in this film is also impressive. Many of the voices in the film were contemporary stars of the age, but none feel out of place when taken out of that context. They bring the characters to life without drawing attention to themselves. This film was extremely ambitious with the amount of characters involved, and it really paid off particularly because of the animation standard the artists were all hitting and some very memorable voice work.



The animation in Pinocchio is clearly something different than Snow White. It is also not quite similar to most the shorts Disney was releasing. Pinocchio manages to find that perfect balance between the sort of realism Snow White offered and the caricature of many of their shorts. Geppetto and Stromboli's movement feels so alive. The way the captured the feeling of a wooden puppet coming to life is magical. There are so many great character bits that fill this film that it is almost hard to remember how impressive all the other elements of the animation are. The effects work being done in Pinocchio is insane. These animators must have been blazing new trails daily. There is one scene that zooms in on and pans around through the town that is so subtle that it might be missed, but once you notice it, it will catch your eye every time. All the underwater work is also hard to beat. The background work feels more similar to Snow White than any other element because of artists like Gustav Tenngren working on that "Old World" European style design. The detail on the backgrounds, which becomes especially apparent on Blu-Ray, is beautiful. The world really comes to life when you see things like Geppetto's wood carved clocks all going off together. The animators managed to one up themselves quite well with this one.



The music in Pinocchio is legendary, primarily because of the song, "When You Wish Upon a Star." This song has become such a cultural touchstone that I honestly thought it might have originated before the film elsewhere. There are a lot of other fun songs including my childhood favorite, "I've Got No Strings, " "Hi-Diddle-Dee-Dee (An Actor's Life for Me)," and "Give a Little Whistle." The score to the film is also well done. Disney had some of the best film musicians around in the 1930s, and Pinocchio might be the best evidence of that in existence, as well as a monument for Disney's overall supremacy in animation overall.

Watching Pinocchio recently has really awakened a love of the film inside me. Depending on my upcoming reexaminations of Fantasia, Dumbo, and Bambi, it might even be my favorite of the "Golden Age" of Disney. Though it isn't as strictly entertaining to a modern audience in some ways (judging once again by my friends reactions), it more than makes up for that gap with the startling quality of the animation, some genuinely classic characters, and one of the best finales ever in a Disney feature. Recently the characters of Pinocchio and Geppetto have been more familiar to me from the parts they play in the current comic book series, Fables, but after a few viewings I can safely say this film offers the most enduring images of these characters in my mind once again. Pinocchio is definitely a worthy successor to Snow White, and a classic in its own right.



Up next is Fantasia, Disney's ambitious animated ode to a lot of classical music

If you want to read more about The Disney Challenge, click here

You Know...For Kids! A Look at Where the Wild Things Are, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, and More.

2009 has been a strong year for all ages entertainment with such releases as Coraline, Up, and the imminent The Princess and the Frog, but two of these high profile films, The Fantastic Mr. Fox and Where the Wild Things Are seem to have started an interesting discussion on what an all ages film should be. I have heard from many people that these two films specifically are more for adults than children, but I cannot agree.



Where the Wild Things Are is an adaption of the much loved classic children's book by Maurice Sendak. When Spike Jonze (director and co-writer), Dave Eggers (co-writer), and Karen O (soundtrack) became attached, everyone with an interest in film, literature, and music outside the mainstream was paying attention. It took years to make, with rumors of all sorts of trouble. I remember hearing how awful the effects were coming out and how much trouble young Max Records was as Max, but I still had high hopes. Clearly, this was not going to be a typical kids movie cashing in on a famous kids story; it seemed like the people involved really cared about making something important. And while I am not in love with every aspect of the film, it felt like some talented people making exactly what they wanted to make. The effects were truly impressive. The emotions of Max felt exactly like being a young boy struggling to come to terms with how to process all these new feelings that are overwhelming and impossible to describe when you are that age. The pervading sense of danger was impressively managed. The adventures with the wild things didn't blow my mind the whole way through, but I was definitely engaged throughout. Many people seemed to think it was not a movie actual children would appreciate. I was even curious how kids might deal with the heavier elements of the story. I would still very much like to see the film next to a few kids, but I genuinely believe this is a great film for people of all ages.



I saw The Fantastic Mr. Fox last week as well, and it is one of my favorite Wes Anderson films in a long time, and possibly ever. I loved Rushmore when I first saw it. I was also a huge fan of Royal Tenenbaums when it came out. When The Life Aquatic arrived, I enjoyed it as well, but started to realize Anderson was essentially exploring very similar ideas in each film. His formula was apparent, and the law of diminishing returns was making each of his works less relevant simply because his other works already existed. I never even saw The Darjeeling Limited, though I still plan to. When I finally got to watching Bottle Rocket, I enjoyed it as well, but not as much as I probably would have if I had seen it before all his other directorial efforts. The Fantastic Mr. Fox, based on a book by Roald Dahl, is still very much in the same territory as Anderson's previous efforts, but the stop-motion presentation and story trappings made it feel much fresher than anything I thought he would create. The story is basically about Mr. Fox causing all sorts of trouble for his family and community as he struggles to balance his very nature and his responsibilities as a husband, father, and community member. The stop motion animation is so refreshing to see. The story is episodic, but never stops moving, and never stops being completely charming. The characters and voices are strong across the board. Jason Schwartzman is back to voice Ash, Mr. Fox's son, who is not very different than Schwartzman's character in Rushmore, one of the many parallels to be made. Again, people started questioning the story's relevance to an actual child, and again I had a hard time understanding why.

Both of these films are clearly not aimed at children; they are aimed at people. It takes a lot more talent and creativity to make a film that is meant to be enjoyed by people of all ages, but I would count both of these films as a success in that regard. Sure, there are jokes that will go over kids heads, but that is half the fun of watching these kinds of films because they will grow with you. I watched many children's films when I was a kid, and I am still a fan of many, but most of my favorite childhood films were not aimed at children directly.



Look at films like the original Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Batman, The Goonies, E.T., Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Look Who's Talking, The Sandlot, Stand By Me, the entire John Hughes catalog (including The Breakfast Club, Weird Science, Sixteen Candles, and Ferris Bueller's Day Off) until Home Alone, Back to the Future, The Lost Boys, The Wizard, The Secret of N.I.M.H, and even many Disney classics. Depending on your specific childhood, this list may also include films like Alien, Predator, Terminator, Pretty Woman, Dirty Dancing, Grease, Jurassic Park, and more. These films were not designed for kids alone, or even at all in some cases, yet I know many people of my generation grew up on them and, more importantly, with them. These kinds of films are an important part of maturing in our pop culture laden society. They act as milestones. They are safe little doses of the world, often in convenient fantasy trappings. If a young brain is not ready to comprehend all the ideas in a given film, they usually just sail right over said young brain's head without affecting the enjoyment of the movie. Have people forgotten this experience? How exciting is it to have such great films to offer young minds, knowing full well that they will revisit them years later and find whole new layers of meaning to appreciate. Children do not want entertainment to talk down to them. And I hope parents don't either. If you keep talking to a baby in baby speak, how will it ever learn to form real sentences? I am not arguing that there is no place for simple kid stories, but films like Where the Wild Things Are and The Fantastic Mr. Fox are at least equally important forms of entertainment for young minds.



Up and Coraline had some very dark and complex ideas in them as well. Sitting in the theater during Up with my friend's four year old son, I heard him ask his parents, "What happened to the grandma?" within the first 10 minutes of the film and I like that. These moments can help start a dialogue about many complex aspects of life. Feelings of entertaining terror some movies offer to young children can be valuable as well, nightmares and all. There is, of course, some judgment required on the part of the parent to decide when a child is ready for certain ideas, but generally kids are smarter than they get credit for.

We should also be thankful to have such great entry points for young people to experience these important contemporary filmmakers and artists. Sure, Adaptation, Being John Malcovich, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, or Fever to Tell, might not be great entry points for an eight year old, but now you can introduce a child to Spike Jonze, Dave Eggers, and Karen O of the Yeah, Yeah, Yeahs all with one film. How great is that? And now we have the same opportunity with Wes Anderson and The Fantastic Mr. Fox as well. When John Hughes made Home Alone, sure it was a fun way to introduce children to a great pop culture filmmaker, but it also signaled the end of his relevance, as seems to be the case with many directors who set out to make a film aimed at children. With these recent films, that does not seem to be the case at all. Spike Jonze and Wes Anderson will likely continue to direct the type of indie films they are famous for.

It is a great time to be a film lover of any age. It is often very difficult to find entertainment for all ages, and on that level 2009 has been extremely generous. Maybe it is time to give children a little more credit. We were all kids once, so it should not be that difficult to remember that many of our favorite childhood films, were not children's films at all.

The Disney Challenge Week 1: Snow White and the Seven Dwarves

In 1934, Disney was famous for animated shorts, and nobody expected anything more from Disney or animation in general. Walt Disney had a vision for something much bigger though, and despite unending resistance, he started working on the first ever animated feature, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

The story of getting the picture made is possibly as interesting as the actual film, but the final product turned out to be much more than anyone could have expected in quality and scope. Known to many as "Disney's Folly" while in production for nearly four years, Snow White cost $1.5 million to make (much more than the $250,000 budgeted at the start). Disney was in a position where the company would either fail or succeed with the film. Luckily, the release, in 1937, was an instant success.


Disney's Hyperion Ave. Studio

This film has been called the Citizen Kane of animation, in that it has influenced the way animation has been done ever since. Every Disney film made owes it's existence to Snow White. Countless other films both animated and live action have Snow White to thank as well. As a historical landmark and technical achievement, it is an easy movie to celebrate.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is now 72 years old, yet still holds up quite favorably to modern animation. Many elements used in this film have become staples of Disney and animation as a whole. Forwarding the story through song is now popular, but was unheard of at this time even in stage musicals. The inclusion and emphasis on music in animated features continues to this day. Cute, furry animals have also remained popular over the years. There are countless techniques and special effects developed by Disney that were included in this film and are still in use. Snow White stands as an achievement of one man's vision (and hundreds of animators dedication) like few other films ever made. But with all that said, is it enjoyable?

I do not remember the first time I saw Snow White, but I know it was never amongst my favorite Disney films growing up. It is rarely at the top of my list when I am in the mood for a Disney film, but especially since watching it on Blu-ray several times, I have come to appreciate much about this classic feature.



The story is fairly standard Disney fair, a somewhat watered down classic fairy tale. If you have somehow avoided this film all your life, the basic premise is that Snow White is forced into hiding in the dwarfs' forest home because the jealous queen has ordered the beautiful princess to be killed. The queen succeeds in cursing Snow White, but (spoiler!) her plan is thwarted by the kiss of a handsome prince in love.

The characters all function well in fulfilling their purpose. These are the same basic archetypes found in many animated films today. Snow White is pretty and sweet. The queen is evil. The dwarfs are amusing. The hunter is scary. The animals are cute. The prince is handsome. Everything works together well at telling a cohesive feature length story, but I have never felt any true connection to it for some reason. Two of my friends watching it with me for the purpose of this review had fallen asleep by the end. There is, however, a lot more to this film than just the basic story to keep you entertained.



This film is filled with great music. The majority of the songs are memorable, and I found myself surprised by how familiar I was with many of the lyrics even after years without seeing the film. The background music is also moving as well and is vital in setting the tone of the picture throughout.



The gags are great. Each time I have watched this film recently, I have noticed more little gags involving the forest animals or dwarfs. These really help keep you entertained, especially on repeat viewings. It seems crazy to make your first animated feature include eight title characters. Disney uses them all well. Each dwarf has his basic personality summarized in his name. I kept getting the feeling that they often seemed similar to Disney's animated short stars including Mickey, Donald, and Goofy. There is also a ridiculous number of forest creatures on the screen at the same time in many scenes that keeps things interesting. I especially enjoy the turtle.

The animation and style is beautiful. Though the characters look a little rubbery compared to later Disney films (more a stylistic choice than any kind of limitation), it is truly impressive how well the animation holds up even compared to modern work in the field. The film also brought to mind other classic animation being done around the same time, including the Fleischer Superman shorts. The color palate was kept fairly subtle which helped differentiate this from many color animated shorts. The painted backgrounds are gorgeous, with so much detail that really brings the world to life. To think that not even ten years prior, Steam Boat Willie was the peak of Disney animation is astounding.



Still, as much as I admire this movie on all these levels and respect it for the huge achievement and influence it is, it doesn't rank among my favorites on a strictly emotional level (mostly due to the spoil of riches I grew up with in the form of all the other Disney features). If I had seen it in context during its release, I have no doubt it would have blown my mind. This is a film that demands to be seen for anyone who considers them self a serious fan of animation or film. It is probably the most important animated film ever made, and one of the more important films of any kind. It is a template for countless movies made since, and stands the test of time as well as any classic. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs started the Golden Age of Disney off with a style that animators try to replicate to this day and it is not hard to see why.

Up next we have Disney's second animated feature, Pinocchio.


Rachel Weisz as Snow White

The Disney Challenge Week 0

There is going to be a (roughly) weekly feature popping up soon called The Disney Challenge. This feature will involve me watching every theatrical animated release by Disney from Snow White to the upcoming Princess and the Frog in chronological order and then commenting on each.

I have been a huge Disney fan all my life. I have already seen most of the films that I will be talking about, but there are a few that I have never gotten around to so this should be exciting. There is a lot of negativity surrounding Disney (the studio and the man) and it really makes me sad. Not every one is a classic, but Disney has easily produced at least a dozen of the best films, animated or otherwise, over the last 70 years. The quality of the animation, the storytelling technique, and the sheer imagination on display is undeniable. This is a body of work worth revisiting and celebrating. There is nothing better, on a rainy day, than laying on the couch with a blanket watching a Disney film. That is how I like to spend my winter days.


Disney's Famous Nine Old Men

I will not be covering any films that mix in live action (including Pete's Dragon and Mary Poppins, but excluding the famous story book scenes that start and end many Disney films), any sequels (Lion King 2, Cinderalla 3, etc.), any properties based on a television series (Teacher's Pet), or any straight to video releases (The Three Musketeers). I am also going to focus on the traditional 2-D animation, though that may expand. Really, I am just not interested in watching Chicken Little again and Pixar deserves it's own challenge some day. There are some nebulous releases such as The Nightmare Before Christmas which was released theatrically under the Touchstone label, though in home video, it was released under the Disney banner. I will make decisions about these films as they come up. I am also on the fence about animated features that includes Mickey, Donald, Goofy, or the like as primary characters, but my fondness for A Goofy Movie makes me hesitate to institute a rule to skip these. Basically, I will stick fairly close to this list.

Stay tuned. My commentary on the first ever animated feature, Snow White, should be up soon.