A Review of Bolt

I had the pleasure of seeing Disney's latest animated feature, Bolt in 3-D, completely free. With the economy today and being a college student, free stuff is good. Also, if it was bad, I wouldn't feel like I wasted my money. (This happens more often that I wish).

Bolt is the latest Disney animated feature about a Hollywood star named Bolt (John Travolta). He believes that the television show in which he plays a superdog with super speed, super strength, and super bark, is real. Penny (Miley Cyrus), his costar, wishes to treat him like a regular dog but the director and her agent refuse. To try to boost ratings, Penny is “kidnapped”, but Bolt takes it too far and escapes to try to rescue his person. Through an unseen event, he ends up in New York City where he meets up with a cat named Mittens and a hamster named Rhino and all three of them travel across the land to return back to Hollywood and to Bolt's owner.

The good news is I didn't walk out of the theater. The bad news is I had to suspend so much disbelief. In some Disney movies, you have to shut off your brain. This is one of them. And it was hard. It could be because I'm so much older than the aimed audience, but it bothered me how much I had to ignore. Not the dog crossing the land to return back to his owner, but the fact that the director and agent both tried to suppress Bolt into this fantasy to make his acting skills better. It was difficult for me. And of course, the whole fact that a dog, a cat, and a hamster got along but that is a bit easier to believe.

Another problem with this movie was the pacing. We can guess that at some important moment, Bolt realizes that he has no super powers, he feels depress and helpless, something happens that forces him to be a hero, despite not having powers, then ends happily. This is the expected. At least, this is what I expected. What I got was not this. Bolt goes from having super powers to realizing that he doesn't. There is no transition. He instantly accepts it. If I thought I had super powers all my life then suddenly not have them anymore, I would be a little more upset than just “oh, I have no powers, I still have to go save my friend though”. It emotionally didn't make sense. Although there was the big, “just because you have no powers doesn't mean you're helpless” speech, it went unheard by Bolt who had his own mental epiphany without telling anyone.

The 3-D aspect was interesting though. I say interesting because throughout the whole movie, I kept waiting for the overuse of the effect with things flying at me constantly but in all honestly, it wasn't abused. I barely remembered the 3-D aspect. It anything, it just enhanced the experience. All movies will probably use 3-D in the future and I hope they follow Bolt's example of not overusing it.

It was on the predicable side. I feel like this is an overdone idea. Someone plays a hero on television, believes that it is true, is forced into situations where it isn't true, has a big epiphany, and uses his own abilities to be a hero. This was Bolt completely with a little side story about Penny. But what was interesting was the fact that the moral of the story (which sometimes Disney bangs you over the head with) was hidden. Bolt was the hero at the end, but they weren't like “oh yay! You used your inner strength.” It was very subtle. And that made me walk out of the theater smiling.

This was funny too. I did laugh. It was humorous. It wasn't top notice humor. There were times when I laughed because I was suppose to laugh and not because I thought it was funny. This is one of those films that would be best to wait to rent. It's not terrible. It's not Cinderella II (different blog). But it's not a classic. I would rent it, test it out first or go to a dollar theater and see it. I was glad that I didn't have to spend ten dollars watching that film, no matter how cool those 3-D glasses were.

Sidekicks should be on the SIDE!

For Christmas, I had the pleasure of receiving Sleeping Beauty on DVD. I always loved this movie. It is such a visual piece. The artists for this movie took about six years, making it the longest animated movie that Disney ever made. When watching it, is obvious why it took so longs. Not only is it beautiful visually but the music was based off one of the greatest ballet composers, Tchaikovsky. Look up the Sleeping Beauty ballet on Youtube and you can see that the music between the two are inseparable at times. The reason the movie took so long to create was the art. Walt Disney wanted a “moving tapestry” so medieval art was used as inspiration for the movie. This is obvious in the beginning scene of the movie with everyone celebrating Aurora's birth in the street with bright colors and sharp shapes.

Going deeper into the story, it is beautiful but a big hole is missing. If I asked you what is Aurora like, could you tell me? You could tell me about her physical features, the gifts that the fairies gave her, but you couldn't tell me what she was like. The closest you could get would be describing a teenager in love. But that is so generic. Despite having a whole song sung just about her, the movie does not focus on Aurora herself but is geared towards the fairies. In other words, the sidekicks.

Yes, the three fairies. I'm sure you can tell me what they are like, all three of them. The three Disney princesses we are familiar with before Walt Disney's death, Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora, all had sidekicks that took up much of the film with silly antics, despite the princess's name in the title!

I have to give props to Sleeping Beauty though on plot. The plot moved! It separated from Snow White's dwarf antics of washing hands and Cinderella's mice trying to get food. There was not really any superfluous scenes, yes there was the whole seen preparing for Aurora's birthday with the color fight, but that was an important plot point since that was how Maleficent found Aurora in the first place. So it all was relevant oppose to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.*

Sidekicks seemed to suck the life of princesses. Which is why I disliked Cinderella. The mice overtook her rolein the movie. The only time I saw her in her true form was in Cinderella III but that is a different blog. It was the same genetic personality for Cinderella, Snow White, and Aurora: modest, polite, gentle, everything a princess should be. A perfect example of this same personality is Enchanted which gave me a good laugh because I saw the three original princesses in Giselle. So it seemed that all princesses were doomed to the two dimensional frame.

Then in 1989, we see a change and her name was Ariel from The Little Mermaid. Now the princess movie was actually about the princess. Not only that, but the control was put into the princess. Before, the princess lived then because of certain circumstances, they are put into danger and then rescued, all of it being out of their control. With Snow White, she was forced to run away and was protected by seven dwarfs. Aurora, she fell asleep and had to wait for someone else to save her. For the first time ever in a Disney movie, the princess took control. Ariel was the one that signed Ursula deal, she was the one that went off to search for her prince, she was the one that took affirmed action.

After that, came a wave of tough, determined, beautiful women with personality that would not fade away. Perhaps it was because the feminism movement in the 60's. And the sidekicks aren't the focus anymore. It is actually about the princess. Not to say that there weren't sidekicks. Jasmine had Rajah but he was only on screen for about ten minutes total. We got to know the princess, got to see them angry, and got to see them fight for their man. We even saw women that fought for no man or at least it wasn't the main focus, like Kida from Atlantis (she was a princess) and Mulan (not a princess).

Maybe I had to wait until Disney decides to vomit out a Sleeping Beauty sequel before seeing some personality in Aurora or decide to actually watch the movie shorts made for younger children. The art and the music is stunning in Sleeping Beauty, but if you want to see Aurora, look somewhere else because all you get is the generic princess.

*Random fact: On the original poster for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, “dwarves” was spelled “dwarfs” because the word, “dwarves” actually derives more from J.R. Tolkin's idea of dwarves. Both spellings are acceptable.

The Hunchback of Notra Dame

The Hunchback of Notre Dame- a novel by Victor Huge, but also a Disney movie from 1996. It's a pretty interesting watch, lots of symbolism and a very dark motif. Of course, compared to the novel, it's all sunshine and roses. 

I have seen the movie and read the abridged version of Victor Huge (I don't recommend it, every other chapter is about Paris's architecture, which gets boring really quickly). In any case, it's not a Disney movie. Let me tell you what happens in this novel, warning: it's a spoiler so just skip to the next paragraph. This spoiler can be applied to pretty much anything Victor Huge writes so if you ever plan reading him, this is the most important information. Everyone dies. Esmeralda is not saved by Quasimodo and Phoebes is definitely not the knight and shining armor. He's the only character that doesn't die!

So here's my question. Who came up to the Disney company and told the executives "I got a great idea for our next big hit. How about The Hunchback of Notre Dame?" We are well aware that Disney could have thought of something better.  Yet, they choose this dark tale to try to portray. We could argue that all the other stories that they have taken are actually much darker (Ariel cuts out her tongue in the real story, etc) Yet, they have been lost in translation. Unfortunately, Hugo's novel is recent enough to ask questions. 

Was this some man's attempt to bring classical literature to our little kiddies? In an age when all stories, even the most simplest ones (Horton Hears a Who) are being transversed onto the screen, do we really need that? I choose not to compare the novel and the movie since both are too different to compare. The theme of both of them are too different and when the theme of the book does not match the movie, then that movie has failed to reflect the intention of the author. And it doesn't. 

Don't get me wrong, it's one of my favorite Disney movies. Great actors, witty dialogue, classic Disney, despite what people may say and the gargoyle's name give tribune to Victor Huge himself. (Huge: the fat one and Victor, the skinny one, Laverne, the woman gargoyle, was named after one of the Andrews sister. I don't know why). But, it doesn't make up for the lack of despair and utter,  soul-crushing feeling that Victor Huge can convey. But I suppose a children's movie shouldn't be that depressing.

Sorry Disney, I don't know what you were trying to prove with Hunchback of Notre Dame. If it was trying to do a children's adaptation of it, then I wish you put my favorite characters in it, Gringorie, (poor sap, got caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time) and Jehan Frollo (he makes a perfect foil for his older brother). But I digress. If you want the true experience of Victor Hugo's intention, go read his book. The movie is a good, but can't compare the emotion conveyed in the novel.