The Black Cauldron

In the 1980s, the Disney Animation Studio was having a bit of a tough time. They didn’t have many big hits like they did in the 40s and 50s and their President, Ron Miller, wasn’t very well liked by employees. It probably didn’t help that he married Disney’s only daughter. He was ousted from his position and replaced with Michael Eisner in 1984. Why is this important in a blog reviewing the animated films? Well, the first film he had control over as CEO was The Black Cauldron. Based off the first two books of Lloyd Alexander’s The Chronicles of Prydain, Eisner didn’t like the direction the film was going and stepped into perform some executive meddling. And became not only Disney’s most forgotten film, but one of their biggest failures. It nearly drove the animation studio out of business. It was the first Disney movie to warrant a PG rating, have no singing, and make use of CGI. Sierra also made it into a computer game and it was the inspiration for the Spyro the Dragon reboot in 2006. Make of that what you will.

Anyway, film tells the story of Taran (Grant Bardsley), an assistant pig keeper who wants to be a great warrior. He’s charged with hiding Hen Wen, a pig who has the power to tell the future. But the Horned King (John Hurt) wants her so she can uncover the location of the Black Cauldron so he can bring to live an army of undead warriors to conquer the world.

Along the way, he meets, the cowardly glutton Gurgi (John Byner), Princess Eilonwy (Susan Sheridan), and the minstrel Fflewddur Fflam (Nigel Hawthorne).

From my past reviews, you would probably be surprised to know that I quite enjoy dark works that fall heavily onto the cynical side of the scale. So, know I really mean it when I say I so desperately wanted to like this movie. But, aside from the wonderful animation, there is nothing in this movie worth praising. Note, I had to read a few synopses of the actual books to do this review.

First off, Disney acquired the rights to all five books. So why start smack-dab in the second one and have some of the first? The first book as a whole better establishes Eilonwy’s royalty. In this film, you don’t see her kingdom and she doesn’t do anything that would that would make you even remotely think, “Yeah, she’s a princess.” At least start off with “The Book of Three” and have them come across her destroyed castle! Taran is also one of the whiniest characters I have ever seen in fiction. And I’ve watched the Star Wars prequels multiple times. He won’t shut up nor will he get over himself. In fact, his hubris is basically the reason Hen Wen runs off and is found by the Horned King. And the end of the film has him finishing character development where he realizes he’ll never be a great warrior. Someone tell the books, where he becomes high king in the final novel.

Then there’s Gurgi, who could possibly overtake Jar Jar Binks for most annoying fictional character. This guy could have been so much more. His Wikipedia character description in the books reads that he’s a “cross between man and beast, having long arms, covered with fur and leaves and ever hungry but really just a sort of a kind of a thing.” In the movie? He’s a short puffball with an annoying voice.

The classic Disney villains who are able to pull off disturbingly terrifying  and threatening attributes are also able to be grandiose, and have some sort of charm and amicability (or at least attempt to do so), like Maleficent, Medusa, and Cruella. The Horned King does none of that. There’s nothing that adds to his villainy to make him an interesting villain. At least Tremain was a complete sociopath and the queen from Snow White had vanity to explain why she was evil. He also really doesn’t DO anything other than send his lackeys out. And when he finally starts to get involved, he immediately loses. Funny thing that he’s billed as an incredibly powerful sorcerer. I read somewhere that he’s on the short list to get an appearance in Kingdom Hearts III. I hope not.

There’s also quite a few coincidences and plot holes. Why do the witches have the cauldron in the first place? Why do the heroes just happen across the one group of people that knows where the witches are? Why does the cauldron kill the person who freely enters it? (It’s implied it’s just that evil, but that’s lazy writing).

This movie could have been so much better had Disney decided to make a film based on The Book of Three first and then gone into The Black Cauldron instead of having most of the latter and throwing in some of the former. Better yet, this should have been a live action Touchstone film. 

Final Call: Terrible on every account. Better than Victory Through Air Power, but that’s not saying much. #31. 

One Hundred and One Dalmatians

January 25, 1961 saw the release of Disney’s second dog-based animated film. Based on the novel of the same name, One Hundred and One Dalmatians, features a tale of kidnapped puppies.

 

Songwriter Rodger Radcliffe (Ben Wright) lives as a bachelor in London with his Dalmatian, Pongo (Rod Taylor). Pongo is bored as a bachelor and hatches a plan to pair him up with a woman, Anita (Lisa Davis), and her Dalmatian, Perdita (Cate Bauer). His plan works and the two couples marry.

Later, Perdita gives birth to 15 puppies and their home is visited by wealthy and materialistic Cruella De Vil (Betty Lou Gerson), who offers to buy them for a hefty sum. She is denied and weeks later, the dogs are stolen by her hired goons, Jasper and Horace Badun (Frederick Worlock and J. Pat O’Malley). Through the “Twilight Bark,” it is discovered that De Vil has captured many other puppies, which she plans to make into dog-skin fur coats. Pongo and Perdita immediately leave to rescue them.

The duo are reunited and met with all 99 other puppies, who they decide to adopt. They make their way back to London while being chased by De Vil and the Baduns.

They find their way home, where Roger and Anita are trying to celebrate Christmas. They realize there are 84 extra puppies and use the money from Roger’s first hit song to buy a large house in the country.

In my review of television series, I made the distinctions between Type A, B, C, and D plots. However, those categories simply explain the way plot or character development advance in regards to the episodes. When it comes down to the very basic element, there are two types of plot: Character-Driven, where the character’s actions define the plot, or Story-Driven, where the plot defines the character’s actions. For example, the plots of Lady and the Tramp and Song of the South are Character-Driven whereas the plots of Peter Pan and Sailor Moon are Story-Driven.

Why am I bringing all this up? Because even in Story-Driven plots, there is still a need for good characters. One Hundred and One Dalmatians is a Story Driven plot with barely any good characters. Like Sleeping Beauty before it, the best character the film has going for it, is the villain. Cruella De Vil is practically insane, but puts on a good face to convince everyone that she’s glamorous. She thinks she’s doing a good job, but everyone can see right through it. The façade is chipped away in brilliant fashion with the car chase in the end. All the other characters though are just completely uninteresting. Sure Horace and Jasper have their hilarious moments, but they’re not much more than bumbling idiots who manage to steal puppies. The one exception though is Sergeant Tibbs. He’s a longsuffering cat who really doesn’t want to be at Hell Hall.  But once he’s there, won’t leave until every puppy is gone and is almost the first to die.

Unfortunately, everything else about the film is just average. The story is good, but could have been much better had the characters been more interesting. There’s nothing really notable about the music either.

Final Call: Another average story with a great villain. It replaces Song of the South at #10.