I've actually been enjoying each of his reviews so far. I may not always agree with his opinions on some things, but it's just his own opinions.
To Disney Geek, he did touch on all of the characters at least once for Sleeping Beauty though he put a lot more into talking about Maleficent I think. He also briefly mentioned the animation as well so I'm rather confused on your comments about his review on the film.
To Flanger Hanger, it's largely a "Your mileage may vary" on Aurora's looks.
Mowgli was just bland, not really much character beyond "I want to stay in the jungle!".
Critics reviews for Pooh, Rescuers and Fox and the Hound are up now and I know alot of Rescuers fans here are not going to like his review for that one.
He criticises the animation, once again, in The Rescuers. His criticism is laughable to any animation lover knowing that Milt Kahl's animation of Medusa alone is a tour-de-force.
He's not really in any place to judge animation because he does not really have the knowledge. But he's entitled to his opinion and if the animation doesn't impress him, fine by me.
So far I've disagreed most with him over 101 Dalmatians and The Jungle Book. Both of those are beyond excellent in my opinion. And how could anyone not see the wonder of 101's animation. It's simply excellent and groundbreaking.
I do agree with him on Rescuers, but I know I'm in a minority. It's just not that great to me.
PatrickvD wrote:He's not really in any place to judge animation because he does not really have the knowledge. But he's entitled to his opinion and if the animation doesn't impress him, fine by me.
To be fair, there are some moments in The Rescuers where the animation is quite poor. Case in point, the opening scene in the UN building. I've only seen the film 2 or 3 times, but I recall the human animation in that scene being extremely stiff and lifeless. It looks very much like 1980s TV animation. Andreas Deja commented on this indirectly on his blog.
EDIT: Turns out Andreas was talking about the airport scene, not the opening UN building scene. Still, I think he'd agree with me on that one nonetheless.
I love his review of Pooh, but hate his review of The Rescuers. He didn't even mention the enchanting music of the latter, instead wasting time criticising the animation (which, as Julian Carter said, is laughable); also, I don't understand why he finds the likable character of Penny 'obnoxious.'
I am undecided on whether Doug is doing Disney an honor with Disneycember, or giving insult by rushing through the Disney films like this...
Anyways, I actually somewhat agree with his review of Rescuers, though I do like it a lot more than HE does. I mean, I think there are a lot of things to appreciate in it, and I would have made note of the songs. They are, to me, extremely dated, like moreso than any other Disney songs just because of the nature of the style (that particular breed of 70's music is much less generation transcending), but still hauntingly beautiful in a way, particularly "Someone's Waiting for You" and "Rescue Me". "Tomorrow is Another Day" I like less. I used to have a big record of The Rescuers, not a book and record but a big album, yet it WAS the whole story, and man, those songs are haunting on a big, crackly record like that. Most of the pre-80's Disney songs are.
Oh, and I also don't get his criticizing of the animation in a lot of these flicks.
I agree that the animation in Dalmatians is stunning (and it took the Platinum Edition transfer to make me see that- previously, the movie was visually bland in my eyes with only the red room scene which stood out). But my problem and the reason I see the film on the weaker side of Disney is because the only characters I enjoy are the human ones. Perdita is a drag (to me), Pongo is ... just there, and the puppies are flat-out annoying. The ones you remember at least, because the Disney team decided to give them characteristics like: being hungry all the time (what a thrill) and doing the typical Disney little boy thing (which is why I generally like what they did with WArthur from Sword in the Stone) of wanting to be a toughguy (and to me it only worked in The Black Cauldron). Imagine kids acting like this, you'd want to smack 'em. And these are the movie's stakes. This is what the protagonists are fighting for. Oh...dear.
The Jungle Book is better because I enjoyed almost all the characters. Even, to a degree, the likes of Col. Hathi who has no role but to stand in others' way(s). Except Mowgli, but that's okay. Because I know this is Disney, it doesn't really matter if the movie's main object of vulnerability is the least interesting thing about it. It is a drawing, after all. I actually had little affection for the movie as a kid (like The Lion King, I thought it was becoming overrated merely because it was a "boy's" movie- I disliked Cinderella to an extent for much the same reason, that it was consigned to being a "girl's" movie ...then I grew up). But since getting the VHS somewhere around 1997, I've steadily seen that it belongs in the stronger line of Disney animated films.
I actually wasn't bothered by his review of The Rescuers. He actually went into a lot of detail in his begrudging credit section. I mean, that's more than he did for Lady and the Tramp and I suspect that film fared better with him than this. I mean, I think maybe he short-changed Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh more than this movie. He actually called it not one of the better Disney films. Is he nuts? And his review of Fox and the Hound needed another minute. He ran by the music and side characters and didn't even mention any villains. Even though the movie not only has a main villain but conceptual invisible type villains as well (intolerance, hunting, boring love interests).
Honestly, I was kind of hoping he'd give his two cents on The Black Cauldron.
Really, I don't think it's a terrible movie nor is it one of Disney's bests, but come on! It's not THAT bad!
Nevertheless, I'm kind of satisfied that he's finally said something about the movie. Now to wait for his review on The Little Mermaid, The Rescuers Down Under and Beauty and the Beast.
His review of The Black Cauldron I could not bear to watch fully. I thought he missed the point regarding Taran. To be fair, its not really his fault as while TBC is not a very faithful adaptation of the Prydain Chronicles, many elements of it can only be understood having read the books.
I am mostly fine watching his harsh thoughts on superior films, though.
I actually think The Black Cauldron really is that bad. It's almost hard to watch in certain scenes. I can't really blame him for tearing it apart. There's just not much there.
I haven't seen The Black Cauldron in several years, but from what I remember, I kind of liked Gurgi and a few of the other characters, and thought the Horned King was an excellent villain, so I moderately disagree with Doug.
However, I wholeheartedly agree with him on The Great Mouse Detective, which is unequivocally the most underrated Disney film. As for Oliver & Company, I think the only good thing about it is the intimidating antagonist, but other than that, I find it rather forgettable like Doug does.
I think The Black Cauldron is pretty good but I haven't seen it in at least 2 years.
The reviews this go-round haven't bothered me but they're not as good as his reviews from Melody Time to Peter Pan. He was on a real winning streak there.
I think what bothers me a lot about critics, ESPECIALLY the new breed of online critics who play up the synicysm through synical characters, is that often they don't look for the positive aspects in a film, but rather get carried away with the negative. Not saying Doug doesn't often point out the good stuff too, but I feel like he misses a lot of it. For example, I think there are a lot of things to enjoy from Oliver and Company that he could have paid a little more attention to. The music, for one, deserved more cred I think. It's probably the best aspect of that film, and it's definitely memorable. Sure, he says it's catchy, but it's more than that. I think it's the soul of that film and what makes it so great to those who love it.
Personally, I also find it fascinating as the only Disney animated feature actually set in the 80's, and very distinctly so. Like The Rescuers, it becomes one of the most dated Disney films, but I also think that helps the film be more memorable, since, admittedly, in my opinion, though they have some great scenes, both Rescuers and Oliver and Co. can be very bland and/or forgettable.
Well, I would write more, but I have to go get groceries just now...
