The Jungle Book 2

Proving that Disney didn’t like to leave any movie without a sequel, DisneyToon Studios released The Jungle Book 2 in theaters early 2003. A continuation of the film instead of following Kipling’s The Second Jungle Book, the film stars Haley Joel Osment, John Goodman, Mae Whitman, Bob Joles, Tony Jay, Phil Collins, John Rhys-Davies, and Jim Cummings.

Now living in the Man Village, Mowgli (Osment) lives with the girl who lured him in, Shanti (Whitman), adopted brother Ranjan (Connor Funk) and their parents (Rhys-Davies and Veena Bidasha). But Mowgli wishes to return to the fun of the jungle. However, Shere Khan (Jay) has returned and seeks revenge.

Sometimes, a revenge plot can be pretty powerful. But the way Disney did this one isn’t all that great and doesn’t do the type of story any justice. This one is basically just a rehash of the first movie, in that Shere Khan wants to kill Mowgli. However, he’s gone through character derailment, ceasing to be the distinguished gentleman hunter. While that could be considered development it just seems too hard a shift. Plus, having the buzzards mock him the whole movie gets old.

I’ll admit though, the voices match very well in regards to replacing the people from the original movie. But they should have tried harder. All I heard is Sora as Mowgli, Sully as Baloo and Gimli as Mowgli’s adopted father.

The songs are also pretty grating, even the new version of “Bare Necessities.”

#69

The Hunchback of Notre Dame

After Pocahontas didn’t get the audience reaction Disney was hoping for, they decided to release a film based off a Victor Hugo novel. While I’m still waiting for Disney’s version of Les Miserables, their take on The Hunchback of Notre Dame was released June 21, 1996. Starring Tom Hulce, Demi Moore, Tony Jay, Kevin Kline, and Jason Alexander, it only won seven of the 24 awards it was nominated for. It also got a sequel and was featured in Dream Drop Distance.

In medieval Fance, the corrupt Judge Claude Frollo (Jay) once uncovered several gypsies entering Paris. One of them attempted to escape with an unidentified bundled object and Frollo ran her down. He realizes it’s a deformed child and tries to drown it. But he’s stopped by the archdeacon (David Ogden Stiers) and is warned that his sins must be atoned for. Frollo takes the child as his own and names him Quasimodo, making him live hidden in the bell tower of Notre Dame

Twenty years later, Quasimodo desires to leave the cathedral to see the Feast of Fools and does so after receiving encouragement from his gargyle friends (Alexander, Charles Kimbrough, and Mary Wickes). His identity is soon revealed and he is humiliated by the townspeople until he is rescued by Esmerelda (Moore). They become friends and Frollo develops an unsettling lust for her. Frollo hunts her down with the intention of having her for himself or killing her. With the entire city of Paris is at stake, Quasimodo must team up with Captain Phoebus (Kline) to stop him.

The film is tremendously complex, showing how a culture can’t be defined by the actions of a select group. The gypsies are said to be evil thieves and Frollo wants to destroy them. But there’s a celebration devoted to them and he shows up to it. Esmerelda says they’re not all crooks, but when they show up to the Court of Miracles, there’s a lot of stolen stuff. It gets complicated and can raise questions that are left for the viewer to decide. It also explores motive behind intentions. “Hellfire” being a good example for Frollo. Being unable to control his lust, he attributes it to Esmerelda and goes on a psychotic rampage to find the woman of his desire. And when she refuses him, he moves to kill her so she can’t bewitch anyone else. But here’s the thing. He knows it’s his fault, but goes through it anyway. Proof? The cloaked figures in the song sing “Mea Culpa, Mea Maximus Culpa,” Latin for “through my fault, my most grievous fault,” showing that he knows he screwed up, but since he’s convinced himself he’s so righteous, it can’t be fault. And his leitmotif happens to be “Kyrie Eleison,” Greek for “Lord have mercy,” which shows he wants mercy from God because he knows he’s truly at fault. That’s even outright stated in the song.

That brings me to say, Frollo may be one of Disney’s most human villains. He’s got his issues and does terrible things. But with every one of them, he seeks to justify it and show that he’s really doing the right thing and is actually a good person. Unlike villains like Ratigan who are aware of how evil they are, but don’t care who knows it, Frollo thinks himself to be good with everybody else on the wrong side if they don’t consider himself to be so. The only ones who really believe him stop buying into it in the end too.

Which is what makes two of the other main characters so good. Quasimodo blindly obeys Frollo because it’s really all he’s known. Also, he’s a pushover due to Frollo’s asserting dominance. Once he realizes Frollo is full of it, he stops putting up with it and starts fighting back. And it’s well done. Also Phoebus. In the beginning, he’s Frollo’s pawn. He says he’s against injustice, but never really speaks out about it, instead providing opposition under the radar. It’s only until after he saves a family from being murdered that he understands what Frollo is like without true opposition and seeks to be more overt about it.

Esmerelda also gets a small amount of development. Because of what she’s endured, she doesn’t trust and always ready to defend or attack. But after Quasimodo and Phoebus step in for her, she starts to trust them and her exterior softens. Though the ensuing romance is not as strong as it could be, not having her fall in love with Quasimodo is an interesting choice. It’s like the film is telling us that platonic relationships are just as good as a romantic relationship.  

Unfortunately though, the gargoyles stop this from being a perfect movie. For three quarters of the film, it’s implied that everything they do is in Quasimodo’s head. He imagines the song and everything they do. This would be a great way to capture the film’s comic relief. However, they take place in the final battle and it can’t be explained by Quasimodo imagining it. There’s just too much affecting the world around them.

#11

Tom and Jerry: The Movie

In 1993, The Walt Disney Company bought Miramax Films, which means that the 1993 film, Tom and Jerry: The Movie is, by proxy, an animated Disney film. You’d never find it in any lists of canon though, as it isn’t officially Disney. Starring Richard Kind, Dana Hill, Tony Jay, Anndi McAfee, and Rip Taylor, the film opened at #14 on its opening weekend, behind films like Sleepless in Seattle, Jurassic Park, Rising Sun, and Robin Hood: Men in Tights. And with a budget of $3.5 million, it barely broke even with a profit of $60,000.

Tom (Kind) and Jerry (Hill) head off on their own after their home is demolished, discovering they can talk and sing. Becoming friends, they encounter an orphan named Robyn Starling (McAfee). The duo help her find her father while evading her Aunt Figg (Charlotte Rae) and her lawyer Lickboot (Jay). There’s also a dog on a skateboard, two dog catchers in luchador masks, a performing ship captain and his puppet parrot and a doctor who kidnaps rich pets for ransom.

This film is reviled among Tom and Jerry fans, who like to pretend it doesn’t even exist. But does it actually deserve all the hatred? YES.

Tom and Jerry became famous from starring in theatrical shorts where they constantly battled each other in a very slapstick manner. Tom would create impractical devices to catch Jerry, but would often be the one harmed by them. They were basically the MGM version of Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner. And, yeah, they do talk. But they also had some speaking roles in their early 40s and 50s shorts. But it wasn’t that much. This film, however, goes way beyond too much for them. And while Hill is all right as Jerry, Kind is a terrible voice for Tom. Whose idea was it to give Paul from Spin City and Frugal Lucre from Kim Possible the role of cat?

This film is also a musical. A musical where the songs are just bad and ruin the pacing of the movie.

Anyway, with there being a film starring the duo, you’d think there would be bigger traps with more thought put into them. Not exactly. The slapstick that Tom and Jerry were known for is pretty much gone from the movie.  There’s a few scenes here and there, but they’re mostly perpetrated by the dog on a skateboard. Other than that, they’re only at the beginning and end.

And that’s another thing. There’s no character development to speak of. From anyone. Tom and Jerry become friends, but go right back to chasing each other at the end. Robyn has no character to speak of, except for being the forever optimist and that wouldn’t be such a bad thing, had she been a side character. Yes, in a film called Tom and Jerry: The Movie, the main characters are not Tom and Jerry, it’s Robyn. And again, she really doesn’t have much characterization going for her. Even PENNY, who was also optimistic that she would get away from Medusa had deterred spirits during the course of her movie. And I still don’t think she’s that great a character. But she’s better than Robyn, which is hilarious seeing as how Robyn was modeled after her.

As for the villains, Figg is annoying. Pure and simple. Lickboot though, is probably the only good thing in the movie. And that’s because he’s played by Tony Jay, who was also the asylum keeper in Beauty and the Beast.

Oh yeah, Droopy’s in the film. For about 10 seconds. But even he can’t give the film a funny moment.  

You know, despite it being so terrible, at least The Black Cauldron tried to stick to the source material. #40