Showing posts with label Toys. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Toys. Show all posts

Friday, November 6, 2015

Movie Review - The Great Mouse Detective

The Great Mouse Detective
Based on the books by Eve Titus
Release Date: July 2nd, 1986
Starring: Barrie Ingham, Vincent Price, Val Bettin, Candy Candido, Alan Young, Frank Welker, Diana Chesney, Eve Brenner, Melissa Manchester, Basil Rathbone, and Laurie Main
Rating: ★★★★
To Buy

Olivia Flaversham has a wonderful life, he father loves her dearly and is a talented toymaker. One night a peg-legged bat breaks into their toyshop and kidnaps her father. She determines to ask the greatest mouse detective ever, Basil of Baker Street, to find her father. Only poor Olivia is young and gets lost trying to find Baker Street, let alone trying to find Basil. Luckily for her Doctor Dawson has just returned from Afghanistan and finds the poor mite in an old boot. He hasn't heard of this Basil, but he does know where Baker Street is, so he offers to help the young mouse. When the duo meets the eccentric detective it looks as if their petty affair will not interest him until Olivia mentions the bat. The bat, Fidget, is the henchman of that most notorious of criminals, the Napoleon of Crime, Professor Ratigan! A rat with pretensions of being a mouse. But what could such a diabolical villain need with a mouse known for his clockwork creations? With the help of Sherlock Holmes's dog Toby they track down Fidget to yet another toyshop where he is looting it for uniforms and gears. Yet he is also supposed to kidnap Olivia, as extra incentive for her father's acquiescence. Their arrival at the toyshop gives the wily bat the opportunity to get the girl. Basil feels as if he has let down not just Olivia, but Dawson as well. Yet all is not lost! With his powers of deduction he will rescue Olivia and her father and put a stop to whatever plans Ratigan has! But what are Ratigan's plans? Could they be linked to that night's grand celebration, the diamond jubilee of their great Queen Victoria?

I have been reminded by my mother time and time again how hard it was for her with two small children in the eighties to take us to the movies. Not because we were ill-behaved, more on that later, but because the films we wanted to see were, oh, how can I put this nicely... shit? I don't think I will ever atone for The Care Bears Movie or My Little Pony: The Movie. My mother for years had been trying to interest us in more refined animated fare from Disney, apparently the mice in Cinderella were too much for me, and as for my brother and The Jungle Book, I never got to see the end of that film till I was in high school, and that movie had two theatrical viewing attempts made while younger. I was able to handle Peter Pan, my brother was purposefully left at home. But I'm pretty sure the success of Peter Pan was down to the fact that I knew I'd be in big trouble if I ruined my mom's favorite Disney film ever. Oddly enough all these films came out around 1986. Needless to say my mom was desperate for a movie that she could enjoy with us. That is where The Great Mouse Detective enters. I had since overcome my apparent animated mouse issues, seriously I don't remember them at all, and my mother was a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes, so this movie seemed to be the perfect remedy, not just for us but for Disney. It quickly became a favorite with all of us and the perfect way to spend a hot summer afternoon after swimming lessons while simultaneously saving Disney's animation department that would go on to make some of my favorite films ever, from Aladdin to Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid. Therefore The Great Mouse Detective holds a special place in my heart and was logically the first movie adaptation that I had to feature.

Until recently I had never read the book, Basil of Baker Street, on which this film was based. Going back to the movie after reading it's inspiration was a little jarring. The film creates more of a parallel world then a comedic homage to Holmes. In the book it's very amusing and self-deprecating with the way Basil sets out to be his hero, Sherlock Holmes. Whereas here the mice world is a reflection of the real world, with the mirroring not being humorous, just a fact of life. For every human there is a mouse counterpart, Holmes and Basil, Watson and Dawson, Queen Victoria and Queen Victoria. Excuse me? See, this is where my brain struggles with credulity. We have a Queen Victoria mouse who is celebrating her diamond jubilee... so, there's a mouse monarch who has reigned for sixty; yes that is SIXTY YEARS! A MOUSE! Who has lived a minimum of sixty years... yeah, not buying it. But more than this miraculously old mouse if they had actually wanted to stick with this parallel concept then they should have fully committed and made sure that none of the characters behaved against the type of their real world counterparts. For example, Holmes would NEVER actually accept any awards or honors. He is only in his line of work for the game. The solving of the unsolvable. He NEVER takes credit for any of his cases and to stoop to accept an honor? NEVER! If he were given a nice emerald tiepin in secret, that would be fine, but anything else, especially front page news would be unseemly! Plus Ratigan... his human counterpart Moriarty was a pillar of society, a man who studiously kept up his front of respectability in order to cover his crimes. To have Ratigan be instantly offensive to other mice, well, that didn't ring true.

As for Ratigan. The main draw for this film was that Ratigan was voiced by Vincent Price. I personally have issues with celebrities doing voices in animated films. By having a celebrity voice a character it takes you out of the story and makes it more about them. My favorite animated films are my favorites because they are one cohesive whole. I don't know who voices any of the characters in say Robin Hood and therefore that voice IS that character and therefore more believable. While I do really like newer films like Kung Fu Panda and How to Train Your Dragon, I am forever distracted by knowing Po is Jack Black or Gobber is Craig Ferguson. Therefore The Great Mouse Detective to me is the beginning of a slippery slope that forever eliminated voice actors and made all films about the star attached. But getting down off my pulpit and getting back to Vincent Price, he at once seems perfectly cast and completely ill-suited. His voice is very distinctive, not one you'd necessarily associate with someone whose main career was in horror films. Yet he brings a refined menace to any character he portrayed. In The Great Mouse Detective the disconnect is in how they decided to portray Ratigan, as more thug like, versus the cultured Napoleon of crime he really was. You can't somehow connect the voice to the image. Much like Richard E. Grant in Corpse Bride, the image of the character is just SO WRONG to the image in your head and you can't reconcile the two. I keep wondering if Vincent had projected more, actually put some rage behind his lines if it would have worked. But it wouldn't, because that wasn't him. He had menace and mocking in the quietest of lines. Which is why his genius only comes out in the musical numbers. In the song "Goodbye So Soon" by Henry Mancini you see the heights to which this film could have reach had they tinkered with it a little more, but sadly they didn't.

But in the tradition of all movies from you childhood there has to be something to traumatize you for years to come. Like The Nothing in The Neverending Story, the pan of bloody oatmeal that made me not eat oatmeal for years in The Golden Child, Large Marge in Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, the list could go on and on, this movie has it's own special horror. They might not have meant to traumatize me, but they did. Since I had gotten past my mouse phobia phase at this point, and Vincent Price was somewhat of an ill fit, I turned to Fidget, the evil bat with the broken wing and a peg leg. Now I didn't and don't have a problem with bats, unlike everyone else in my family. In fact, overall, I rather like Fidget. But there are one or two scenes that were, I think, specifically designed to terrify the audience, and in turn me. Whenever he bares his teeth and leans into the camera and his eyes go crazy red... I don't really like this at all. Yet there is one very specific scene that is very traumatic. When the gang leaves Baker Street on Toby's back and follows Fidget to the toyshop, that is when my nightmare begins. Not even taking into account the creepy dolls that are demented to such an extent that you will never want to see a porcelin doll with ringlets ever again, this scene is THE ONE. The one for nightmares. Fidget hides in a cradle and puts on a little bonnet and when Olivia looks in the cradle... there's something about, well, about everything in this scene that just gives me the wiggins. Bats in bonnets? NO THANK YOU! Fidget later repeats this gag by impersonating Olivia, but it's a far cry from this scene. I really am surprised I didn't develop a bat phobia from this...

One thing that struck me while rewatching this film so many years later is how Steampunk it is. Yes, I'm sure someone could find someway of justifying almost anything Victorian as being somehow Steampunk, but The Great Mouse Detective certainly is. Not just the overall look, or the epic Reichenbach moment in Big Ben with all the gears, but one aspect in particular. Hiram Flaversham and his clockwork creations. There's just something so Jules Verne about these creations. But taking it even further, the movie uses a true Steampunk trope, the mechanization of Queen Victoria. Usually she has done it to herself or someone has corrupted her and made her immortal, because obviously the Victorian era lasting forever is at the heart of Steampunk. Here it's Ratigan's plan to make a clockwork Queen Victoria that will be his puppet. So it's a little different than some of the takes, but I can't think of anything more Steampunk than a clockwork queen! Add to that the pomp and circumstance around the diamond jubilee, and seriously, why isn't everyone jumping on this Steampunk bandwagon. In fact, seeing as when this movie came out, I would say that author's like George Mann might have gotten their first taste of Victoriana here and it helped shape their sensibilities and therefore their work. Which brings me to an odd deduction I have never thought of before. While this film obviously helped shaped my sensibilities with regard to Sherlock Holmes and my love of all things British, is there a chance that this is what started the Steampunk germ in me? This is something I'll have to think about... in the meantime, goodbye so soon!

Friday, May 22, 2015

Movie Review - Jurassic Park

Jurassic Park
Based on the book by Michael Crichton
Starring: Sam Neill, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, Richard Attenborough, Ariana Richards, Joseph Mazzello, Bob Peck, Martin Ferrero, Wayne Knight, Samuel L. Jackson, Cameron Thor, Miguel Sandoval, Gerald R. Molen, BD Wong, Richard Kiley, and Greg Burson
Release Date: June 11th, 1993
Rating: ★★
To Buy

After the death of a worker on his theme resort on an island off the coast of Costa Rica, John Hammond has to agree to an inspection that his investors are demanding through their lawyer Gennaro. Gennaro is bringing in the mathematician Ian Malcolm as his auditor, seeing as Malcolm did projections for the project and predicted it's failure. Hammond brings in paleontologist Doctor Grant and paleobotanist Doctor Sattler, as people with a vested interest in his idea as well as being dependant on his grant money to fund their dig. The truth of Jurassic Park is that they have brought dinosaurs back from extinction to serve as the attractions in an amusement park. Hammond has also brought his grandchildren so that his "guests" can see that the park is designed with children in mind. Of course no one listens to Malcolm's dire warnings and everyone is enraptured by the novelty and majesty on display, never thinking about the risks; and for some, only the monetary rewards. But it is one person thinking about his own monetary gain that puts everyone's lives in danger and the future of the park in jeopardy.

Prior to this past weekend I had only seen Jurassic Park the once. At the one dollar budget cinema. With my mom. After I read the book for my high school biology class. What can I say? There weren't Muppets in it, teenage me wrote it off. Of course I'd catch bits and pieces over the years on TV, those "famous" and "memorable" scenes that everyone remembers, but never did I sit down and watch it in it's entirety. Unlike the book which relied a little on that adolescent knowledge of dinosaurs that still resides in us all, there is no doubt in my mind that Spielberg made this movie for eleven year old boys; as evidenced by the fact that my brother has seen this film innumerable times in the theater and I'm sure if pushed could have recited the movie word for word. Re-watching it with him I was alerted to not only when the "big scenes" were coming up, but also when the funniest ones where, ie, when Tim gets electrocuted. Overall though I was left with this impression of mystification. This was the highest grossing film until Titanic came out? Seriously!?!

I really wish I could read the script that Crichton wrote, before the exposition and violence was removed; in other words, before talking DNA cartoons took over the exposition. It was like having that stupid talking paperclip in Word pop up to annoy you, offer no good advice, and then stick around long after he'd worn out his welcome. There is no way around the fact that Jurassic Park is schlocky! Yes, I know, I was shocked by schlock! That little talking DNA cartoon is symbolic of everything that went wrong with the new script from a man most known for the unwatchable Death Becomes Her. The plot was streamlined almost into irrelevance, the characters became more stereotypical, look at Doctor Sattler mooning over children and sighing wistfully over her ticking biological clock, Hammond isn't a bad guy, he's just an old showman, not that Spielberg would be that obvious to show his hand and his simulacrum, oh yes, he would. And how can we hook those eleven-year-old boys? Add bathroom humor. Literally. Gennaro, who in the book has depth as a family man and as a lawyer really steps it up to be a hero dies ignominiously on a toilet. What The Hell Spielberg! Plus dino snot! Oh, and, heaven forbid carnivore and herbivore are too complicated, let's call them meat-o-saurus and veggie-o-saurus.

If it wasn't for the dumbing down of themes and concepts, then time itself would have destroyed this film. Yes folks, it's time to talk about CGI. Old school CGI, which is exactly what Jurassic Park is, is laughable. I've heard it said that if I were to watch it on Blu-ray it would have been worse... but it was bad enough already. The majestic scenes of the dinos grazing across the fields looks like a bad children's book illustration, but really, it's the fake lake that made me laugh out loud. The truth is technology is changing so rapidly unless it's a physical effect whatever technology was used to make it is already obsolete by the time the movie comes out and as time goes on it looks worse and worse. Thankfully, and surprisingly, there aren't that many dinosaurs in the movie and quite a fair amount of them were made as animatronic. The animatronics hold up far better then any of the CGI, but there's still a schlockiness to them. There's a jitter to the dinosaurs that made me repeatedly think of Gremlins and other low budget horror films. Not to mention the baby raptor looks like the chestburster from Alien... a franchise Stan Winston and his team worked on, so, not that unfair a comparison. Unless you have some special connection to this film you will only be able to see all that is wrong and nothing that is right.

The main aspect of the film that as a designer drove me up the wall is that while in the book they are more then a year away from the launch of the Park and haven't yet moved onto branding and merchandise, here the park is fully branded thanks to Chip Kidd's iconic logo and get your t-shirts while they're hot! It should be noted the in the movie the park isn't opening for over a year as well. I want to know if this was a subtle way to make the "Park" seem real, more like Disneyland, or if it was just to sell merchandise. I want to think it was the former, but the cynic in me knows it was the later. Re-watching Jurassic Park I realized that the entire movie was made to sell merchandise to those rapt eleven-year-olds. As certain scenes came on my brother would be saying things like, oh, you could buy that raptor enclosure as a playset, or the whole visitor's center was another playset. In fact, he pointed out that Jurassic Park was the last big movie to bother with elaborate playsets. But not to fear, it didn't just have playsets and action figures! There were video games and t-shirts and stuffed animals. You name it, Jurassic Park had it. The biggest irony being the ride at Universal Studios! Seriously?!? Do you not get the irony here?

There are two redeeming factors to the film. The first is that Doctor Grant is insufferably rude to those annoyingly precocious children and it gave me some ersatz joy to see the snark seeing as for the entirety of the book I wanted those brats dead. Secondly, and most importantly, the genius that is Jeff Goldblum. It doesn't surprise me in the least that when a sequel was thought of they wanted it to be all about Ian Malcolm. Of course it had problems canonically because Crichton killed off Malcolm at the end of the first book, but that was easily solved with some retconning and a joke from The Princess Bride. Someone on this film had the genius idea to basically let Jeff Goldblum wander around set being Jeff Goldblum. He has a natural insouciance that is needed in the film, not to mention his wardrobe. The film distinctly gets progressively worse the less screen time he has. In fact, this film might have been the start of my Goldblum obsession, and yes, I do love Transylvania 6-5000, proving that I can love and embrace schlock; just the right kind, and Jurassic Park ain't it.

Older Posts Home