Cruella (2021) review

We’ve seen plenty of iconic Disney villains throughout the studio’s extensive filmography, and yet, there are arguably none who are more famous than the villainess of Disney Animation’s 1961 outing, One Hundred and One Dalmatians: the fashion-obsessed heiress turned sinister dognapper Cruella de Vil. Ever since the original film’s release, Cruella has been regarded as one of the most famous villains in cinematic history and this status was thoroughly maintained in 1996 when 101 Dalmatians became one of the first Disney animated films to get a live-action remake. In said film, Cruella was portrayed by the legendary Glenn Close, and while the film itself wasn’t as well-received as its animated counterpart, Close’s performance was widely regarded as its greatest highlight, promptly earning her a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress in a Comedy/Musical. She then proceeded to reprise the role in the film’s 2000 sequel, 102 Dalmatians, and while that would basically be it for the 101 Dalmatians live-action film franchise at the time, plans were set into place for a prequel film based entirely around Cruella herself in 2013. And while this did mean that Close wasn’t going to be reprising her iconic role, she still ended up being involved with the project as an executive producer. Thus, Emma Stone took on the role for this new film, which is the latest from director Craig Gillespie who, like previous directors of the live-action 101 Dalmatians films (Stephen Herek and Kevin Lima), has done a bunch of films for Disney in the past such as 2014’s Million Dollar Arm and 2016’s The Finest Hours. And thanks to his strong direction and a top-notch lead performance from Emma Stone, Cruella is a strikingly stylish and edgy new take on the story of its titular villainess.

Growing up, Estella Miller (Emma Stone) was known for being quite the troublemaker which, in her eyes, may have made her responsible for the death of her mother Catherine (Emily Beecham) at a luxurious party hosted by ‘The Baroness’ (Emma Thompson), the owner of one of the top fashion houses in London. Now orphaned, Estella ends up taking on a life of thievery alongside her newfound friends, Jasper (Joel Fry) and Horace (Paul Walter Hauser) Badun. Eventually, her creative sensibilities manage to attract the attention of the Baroness, who promptly hires her as one of her new designers. But while Estella steadily works her way up into being one of the Baroness’ key assistants, she soon discovers that the Baroness has come into possession of a necklace that had been given to her by her mother but had been lost on the night of her death. Now realizing that the Baroness was the one responsible for her mother’s death, Estella, with the aid of Horace and Jasper, promptly embarks on a plot of revenge. Adopting an old persona of hers from childhood, she becomes the rebellious Cruella de Vil and begins to pull off a series of publicity stunts to one-up the Baroness, thus locking the two of them into an intense rivalry that only proceeds to get more complicated once Estella uncovers the Baroness’ darkest secret.

Cruella very much follows in the footsteps of 2014’s Maleficent by presenting a story where the main antagonist of one of Disney’s classic animated films is portrayed in a more sympathetic light as they enact their revenge against those who wronged them. Granted, it’s not like the film makes her a full-on protagonist or anything; in fact, I’d even argue that this one gives its title character more opportunities to be a devious renegade. But overall, the version of Cruella seen in this film doesn’t seem like she’s destined to become as villainous as she’s known for being in other films. Thus, just like Maleficent, I think it’s safe to say that this take on the character hasn’t gone over well with everybody, namely due to the attempt of trying to humanize a character who, at least in other films, wanted to kidnap puppies and kill them for their coats. However, given the context of how this story plays out, it isn’t too big of an issue in the long run because turning Cruella into a rebellious antihero fits perfectly with this story’s 1970’s London setting. And thanks to Craig Gillespie's visually-driven direction, the film excellently captures the punk rock aesthetic of the time, which is only strengthened further by other great elements such as the incredible costume design done by two-time Oscar winner Jenny Beavan and a rocking soundtrack full of classic tunes. Really, the only things that hold this film back are relatively minor at best such as it being perhaps a bit overlong at a little over two hours and some rather predictable final plot twists that reveal the true connection between Cruella and the Baroness.

As noted in the intro, Glenn Close’s performance as Cruella in the 1996 live-action 101 Dalmatians film and its 2000 sequel, 102 Dalmatians, is so iconic that she’s arguably the definitive incarnation of the character for at least one or two generations. As such, one can only imagine the pressure that Emma Stone was under to deliver a version of the character that was just as memorable by comparison… and yet, she fully succeeds in doing so thanks in large part to her indisputable on-screen charisma. She also works incredibly well with Emma Thompson, who basically serves as this film’s version of the kind of villain that Cruella is in other films as the Baroness, a role that Thompson gleefully revels in. And really, it’s simply a delight to see these two go to war with one another over the course of the film’s proceedings. The two Emmas are then backed by some terrific supporting turns from Joel Fry and Paul Walter Hauser as Cruella’s famously bumbling sidekicks, Jasper and Horace. The laid-back persona that Fry brings to Jasper makes him the most grounded member of the group and the one who keeps Cruella from going too far with her actions while Paul Walter Hauser, as is basically expected from him at this point, makes Horace one of the film’s best sources of comedic relief. And while they admittedly don’t have as much to work with by comparison, Mark Strong and Kirby Howell-Baptiste turn in solid work as well as John, the Baroness’ valet, and this film’s interpretation of the 101 Dalmatians franchise’s primary matriarch, Anita Darling.  

As we conclude this review, I should probably preface this final section of it by admitting that, regardless of my overall thoughts on the film, Cruella will always be in my good graces since it was the first film that I was able to see in a theatrical setting in more than a year after everything that happened due to the COVID-19 pandemic. That said, though, this is not just a case where I’m simply being sentimental about how I first viewed it as the film itself is a highly entertaining comedic crime adventure that prides itself on its incredibly stylish visuals and costuming and then proceeds to back it all up with a genuinely unique way of reimagining the story of one of Disney’s most iconic antagonists. Sure, it may go against the traditional ways in which Cruella de Vil has been portrayed on film before, but thanks to Emma Stone’s outstanding performance in the title role (not to mention an equally terrific supporting cast), it still works in a way that doesn’t end up betraying the source material. Simply put, the enthusiasm that the cast and crew clearly must have had for this material couldn’t be more apparent in a film that also manages to have the kind of edge to it that you normally wouldn’t get from a Disney production. With all that in mind, it’s easy to see why this has managed to be the very definition of a crowd-pleaser that was recently confirmed to be getting a sequel. And while it’s currently unclear as to what route it’ll end up taking, perhaps they can go with the suggestion that was made during an interview that the two Emmas had with Rotten Tomatoes and make it a Godfather II-style prequel/sequel that could potentially see Glenn Close returning to play an older Cruella.

Rating: 4.5/5

And don’t forget to vote for your favorite theatrically released film from the summer of 2021 by going to the link below. Voting ends September 15^th!

Click Here to Vote in the 2021 installment of Rhode Island Movie Corner's Annual End of Summer Fan Vote

101 Dalmatians - Live-Action Film Series Retrospective

Over the past few years, I’ve spent a lot of time discussing Disney’s recent line of live-action remakes of their iconic animated films. However, what some Disney fans might not realize is that while 2010’s Alice in Wonderland is generally considered to be the film that started this current trend for the studio, it technically wasn’t the first time that a live-action Disney remake was made. Instead, that honor goes to 1994’s Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book, which was released 22 years before Jon Favreau’s big-budget reimagining of Disney’s 1967 animated classic in 2016. However, for the purpose of today’s retrospective, we’ll be focusing on the other major live-action Disney remake that was made in the ’90s, 101 Dalmatians. It all began, of course, with Disney’s 1961 adaptation of author Dodie Smith’s The Hundred and One Dalmatians. Upon its release, the film proved to be the much-needed hit that the studio needed after 1959’s Sleeping Beauty ended up being a bit of a commercial dud for them. Part of the reason why was due to One Hundred and One Dalmatians sporting a much smaller budget by comparison thanks in large part to a new animation process known as xerography. Developed by Walt Disney’s long-time collaborator Ub Iwerks, this system allowed for the direct transfer of the animators’ drawings to animation cels, thus avoiding the inking step of the classic ink-and-paint process, and while this method did result in the film’s animation not being as polished as other Disney films, it was exactly what the studio needed to keep production costs down. And with an overall lifetime gross of around $303 million worldwide (a total that skyrockets up to over $936 million when adjusted for inflation) and strong reviews from critics, One Hundred and One Dalmatians still stands as one of Disney Animation’s most highly acclaimed films.

But for many people, one of the biggest reasons for the film’s success was its legendary main antagonist, Cruella de Vil, a sinister heiress who kidnaps all but two of the titular 101 Dalmatians so that she can use their fur for coats. Since then, Cruella has easily been one of Disney’s most iconic villains, and sure enough, when it comes to the original film’s live-action remake, many would agree that the best thing about it is Cruella herself, portrayed by the legendary Glenn Close. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that for an entire generation or two, Glenn Close’s take on Cruella de Vil is generally regarded as the definitive interpretation of the character. But this week, we have ourselves a new spin on the iconic villainess as Emma Stone takes on the role in Disney’s latest live-action reimagining, Cruella, a prequel-style story that delves into the events that made Cruella de Vil… well, Cruella de Vil. Glenn Close will still be involved, however, as an executive producer, and so, in honor of the new film’s release, today we’ll be looking at the two films that gave us just one of the numerous iconic performances in Close’s career; the 1996 live-action remake of 101 Dalmatians and its 2000 sequel, 102 Dalmatians. Now, as per usual with these franchise-based retrospectives that I do, we’ll only be focusing on theatrically released films, which means that we won’t be covering any other installments of the 101 Dalmatians franchise. This includes both of its animated TV shows (the 90’s series created by Doug creator Jim Jinkins and the newer 101 Dalmatian Street), the direct-to-video sequel 101 Dalmatians II: Patch’s London Adventure, or Cruella’s appearances in shows like Once Upon a Time and the first Descendants film. And so, without further ado, it’s time to start playing Roger Radcliffe’s classic song that reminds us that “if she doesn’t scare you, no evil thing will” as we look at one of Disney’s initial attempts at making a live-action remake out of their animated filmography.

But first, just for fun, let’s go over the original…

ONE HUNDRED AND ONE DALMATIANS (ANIMATED – 1961)

As longtime visitors of this site will no doubt recall, I covered this film back in 2016 in the 1960s/1970s installment of my Disney Retrospective series. Back then, I noted that I found the film to be solidly entertaining even though I admittedly found its second half, when Pongo and Perdita head out to rescue their puppies, to be better than its first half. And when I ranked all 55 of the then-currently released films made by Walt Disney Animation Studios (this was right before the release of Moana, for the record), I ended up placing it right around the middle of the list at #34. Upon my most recent re-watch of the film for the purposes of this retrospective, I found that my thoughts on it hadn’t changed too much. That said, though, while I still think that the film’s best moments come in its second half since that’s where many of the best humorous bits occur thanks in large part to Cruella and her bumbling henchmen Horace and Jasper, I’m a lot more positive about the first half of the film than I was a few years ago. At the very least, it does have its moments and it does a nice job of setting everything up (the relationships of both Roger and Anita and their dogs Pongo and Perdita, building up Cruella and her evil plans, etc.). And despite the whole thing about the xerography method of animation producing much less refined visuals compared to other Disney films, I think that this film’s animation is still quite good, for the most part, as it helps give it a charmingly old-fashioned look that fits in nicely with the story’s London setting. With all this in mind, it’s easy to see why the original Hundred and One Dalmatians is still widely considered to be one of Disney’s most beloved films. While it may not be one of my ‘top’ favorite Disney films, there’s no denying that it’s a delightful comedic romp headlined by an unforgettable villain and that indisputable Disney charm.

Rating: 4/5

101 DALMATIANS (LIVE-ACTION – 1996)

Looking at this film in 2021 after all the other live-action Disney remakes that have been made since then, one of the first things that comes to mind is how relatively modest it is as a remake. Basically, just like what the remakes of Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin did, this one presents a straightforward retelling of the original where the biggest changes are cosmetic in nature, such as Roger being a video game designer instead of a musician and Cruella being Anita’s boss rather than her old schoolmate. And unlike nowadays where it’s more common to see filmmakers using CGI animals to avoid getting into any situations that could put real animals in harm’s way, this film utilized as many real dogs as it could with only a few instances of CGI and some animatronics from Jim Henson’s Creature Shop. Really, it’s sort of more interesting to note some of the folks who worked on this film behind the scenes such as director Stephen Herek, who made the first Bill and Ted film and had become a regular director at Disney at that point with films like The Mighty Ducks and Mr. Holland’s Opus, and writer/producer John Hughes. Yes, this was one of many projects that Hughes worked on in the ’90s, although admittedly, this was at a point where many critics felt that his work was starting to delve into more juvenile territory given the overly slapsticky nature of most of them. And yet, while this film certainly has some of those moments, I don’t think they’re as apparent as they are in some of his other 90’s films. In short, the live-action 101 Dalmatians is a lot like its animated counterpart. The second half is better than the first, Cruella is still a delightfully over-the-top villainess, and Jasper and Horace (played here by Hugh Laurie and Mark Williams, respectively) are just as hilariously bumbling as ever. Overall, I consider this to be one of the weaker live-action Disney remakes because it doesn’t do as much as some of the others to truly differentiate itself from the original, but it’s still a solid watch, especially if you’re amongst the crowd that grew up with it in the late ’90s.  

Rating: 3.5/5

102 DALMATIANS (2000)

Despite its mixed reception, the live-action remake of 101 Dalmatians was a major success at the box office, grossing over $320.7 million worldwide. Thus, a sequel was put into development soon after with most of the primary production crew returning save for John Hughes since the studio that he formed with Disney, Great Oaks Entertainment, ended up shutting down in 1997. It also saw a notable change in director since, just like Stephen Herek, Kevin Lima is another filmmaker who’s done quite a lot of films with Disney over the years. This is, after all, the same director who made one of the biggest cult classics of the ’90s, A Goofy Movie, co-directed the final ‘Disney Renaissance’ film, Tarzan, with Frozen’s Chris Buck, and helmed 2007’s live-action/animated smash hit Enchanted. And yet, while John Hughes may not have been involved with this film, 102 Dalmatians is, ironically, the much sillier of the two, thus tying into the whole thing that I mentioned earlier about Hughes’ work taking on a campier tone in the ’90s. Simply put, a film that includes, among other things, a talking bird named Waddlesworth (voiced by Eric Idle) that believes he’s a dog can get incredibly damn goofy at times. But while this does mean that the film is basically geared more towards younger audiences, it’s still a decently entertaining family flick that has its charming moments. Plus, whereas the first film’s strict structural adherence to the plot of the original animated film meant that Glenn Close had a more limited screen-time than those who haven’t seen it might expect, this one gives Cruella a more prominent role in the story, thus giving us more of Close’s delightfully over-the-top antics.

But to me, one of the most unique aspects of this film… is the fact that I have more of a history with it than I do with its predecessor. A few years back when I did a retrospective on Disney’s Honey, I Shrunk the Kids franchise, I noted that I technically had more experience with that franchise’s direct-to-video sequel Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves than I did the original Honey I Shrunk the Kids since the former frequently aired on Disney Channel. As for the original, my first proper viewing of it… was when I watched it for that retrospective. And yes, folks, we have an eerily similar situation with these live-action Dalmatians films. While I do believe that there’s a strong possibility that I did watch the first film when I was younger (even though I honestly can’t remember at this point), I watched 102 Dalmatians quite a lot back then. Granted, I don’t exactly recall seeing it in theaters (again, maybe I did, I don’t know…) but it was one of the first films that I distinctly remember owning on DVD along with its video game tie-in for the Game Boy Color, 102 Dalmatians: Puppies to the Rescue. So, with that in mind, I’ll admit that there may be some nostalgia-based bias when it comes to my thoughts on this film given everything that I just talked about, but overall, I think that 102 Dalmatians is a genuinely harmless follow-up that’s largely on par with its predecessor. Like I said before, though, this is also one of those instances where younger audiences will most likely get more enjoyment out of it than adults.

Rating: 3.5/5

And that concludes Rhode Island Movie Corner’s retrospective on the live-action 101 Dalmatians films (plus a quick reappraisal of the 1961 animated classic). Admittedly, it will be a little while before I publish my review of Cruella given the current backlog of posts that I’m working on, but I promise that it will come eventually. Until then, thanks for following along and be sure to sound off in the comments below with your own personal memories of these films.

TODAY'S RETROSPECTIVE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU BY KANINE KRUNCHIES!

Disney Retrospective: The 60's and 70's

For Disney Animation, the 60’s marked the sad end of an era with the passing of the man who started it all. 1967’s The Jungle Book was the last official Disney animated film to be produced by Walt Disney himself, who died in 1966, 10 months prior to the film’s release, due to lung cancer. But thankfully Disney Animation managed to move on despite the loss of the man who was responsible for getting the studio to where it is today. Things weren’t always easy, but the company managed to endure during these years, at least as far as their animated features were concerned, even amidst all sorts of corporate changes behind-the-scenes. And while it may not seem like it to some, there are plenty of noteworthy films from this initial ‘post-Walt’ era. So today on Rhode Island Movie Corner, I am continuing my ‘Disney Retrospective’ series with a special double-header post as I’ll be covering the Disney animated films from both the 60’s and 70’s. The main reason why I’m doing it this way instead of just doing one post for each decade is simply because there were only 3-4 films that were released during each of these two decades. So with that in mind, I decided to do just one post covering both. And I’ll also admit that one of the reasons why this particular post is being released earlier than anticipated is because this post is in direct response to three recent videos from Screen Junkies’ Honest Trailers series, CinemaSins, and HISHE that harshly bashed the original Jungle Book prior to the release of its recent remake. I mean it’s bad enough to have one of these videos tarnish the legacy of this animated classic but all 3 were released on the same frigging day. So because of that, I immediately decided to fast-track this ‘Disney Retrospective’ in order to give the original a much more positive evaluation. So let’s not waste any more time and delve into the Disney animated films of the 60’s and 70’s.

ONE HUNDRED AND ONE DALMATIANS (1961)

When it comes to One Hundred and One Dalmatians, the most iconic part of this particular Disney feature is its main villain, Cruella de Vil. This film, as well as the two live-action Dalmatians films starring Glenn Close in the role of Cruella, has turned the character into one of Disney’s most iconic villains and rightfully so. Her madcap demeanor and villainous plot to skin puppies for their fur make her quite the diabolical baddie that we love to hate and also mock by singing that catchy melody that is named after her. Aside from her, the main protagonists (in other words, the duos of Pongo and Perdita and their owners Roger and Anita) are very likable and the film also has its fair share of memorable side characters, most notably Cruella’s bumbling henchmen Jasper and Horace. These characters, as well as plenty of humorous moments during the second half of the film, make up for its admittedly rather dull first half. For the record, I don’t ‘dislike’ this part but even with that said, my favorite part of the film is the second half in which Pongo and Perdita head out into the country to save their puppies with the help of their fellow London dogs. This film was also the first of the Disney animated features to utilize the style known as xerography, developed by longtime Disney collaborator Ub Iwerks. Basically this meant that the animators’ drawings were transferred directly to animation cels with the use of a Xerox camera without having to go through the inking process, which proved to be quite a cost-effective technique for the studio following the commercial under-performance of Sleeping Beauty two years prior. And while it does result in the animation being a little less polished compared to previous Disney films, it’s still pretty solid for the time and does a really nice job in regards to bringing the city of London to life in animated form. All in all, 101 Dalmatians is a very enjoyable flick, especially for dog-lovers, featuring one of the company’s most iconic villainesses.

Rating: 4/5

THE SWORD IN THE STONE (1963)

Despite what the title might suggest, The Sword in the Stone is not full medieval swordplay. Instead, one could say that the tale of how a young lad named Arthur became the ‘King Arthur’ of legend by pulling the sword Excalibur from a stone is more ‘educational-based’ than other Disney films. A lot of the film consists of Arthur learning various lessons from his ‘tutor’, the wise wizard Merlin. And while some may argue that this means that the film feels a bit too much like schoolwork, as someone who grew up with the Harry Potter franchise I think that the film is quite enjoyable in regards to all of the magical scenarios that Arthur and Merlin, a likable lead duo, get into, from avoiding a carnivorous pike while as fish to turning into squirrels and attracting the attention of a pair of female squirrels. Oh and by the way, Arthur is voiced by three different actors in this film, which results in so many damn voice shifts, sometimes even in the middle of a line of dialogue, that you’d swear he was going in and of puberty. There’s no real ‘villain’ in the film save for a rival magician of Merlin’s named Madam Mim. However, she’s more or less an afterthought due to the fact that she doesn’t appear until the final third and isn’t even really connected that much to the main plot of Arthur’s kingship. Still, the fight between her and Merlin, where the two continuously transform into different animals, is definitely a highlight. So in short, The Sword in the Stone is admittedly a more straight-forward affair compared to other Disney films and the fact that the film focuses more on ‘learning’ may result in some finding it to be rather boring. However, with a great lead duo in Arthur and Merlin and some fun and zany sequences involving magic, this is still a pretty darn enjoyable entry in the Disney canon.

Rating: 3.5/5

THE JUNGLE BOOK (1967)

As noted earlier, The Jungle Book was the last official Disney animated film to be produced by Walt Disney, who died ten months prior to the film’s release. But even with that in mind, this film is a very entertaining adaptation of Rudyard Kipling’s classic tale of the man-cub Mowgli and his adventures in the jungle. The animation is pretty darn good and definitely does its job of immersing you into the world of the jungle. And yes, I’m well aware that this is one of those Disney films that re-uses a lot of its animation in multiple sequences; heck, certain shots were even used in other Disney films like Robin Hood. I’ve never been too bothered by this, for the record. The film is full of memorable characters, from the lovable bear Baloo to the wise panther Bagheera to the sinister snake Kaa to the zany ape King Louie to the film’s intimidating villain, Shere Khan. But probably the best part of the entire film is its soundtrack, with the majority of the songs written by the Sherman Brothers*. This includes King Louie’s toe-tapping dance number “I Wanna Be Like You” and Baloo’s iconic theme “The Bare Necessities”, which was actually written by a different musician, Terry Gilkyson. In short, The Jungle Book is a very fun installment in the Disney canon. This is mainly due to the film’s fun cast of characters and a soundtrack that adds a fun sense of theatricality to it all. So while it may be the last Disney animated film that Walt Disney ever produced, and one that he unfortunately never saw completed, I believe that this film is an excellent swan song for one of the greatest visionaries of all-time.

And hey, the remake was pretty darn excellent as well.

Rating: 4.5/5

(*I very much disagree with the film’s Honest Trailer which claims that “Bare Necessities” is the only noteworthy song in the entire film.)

THE ARISTOCATS (1970)

The Aristocats was the first official Disney animated film released in the post-Walt era, though it was actually the last one that he ‘approved’ prior to his death… and it’s one of the weakest installments of the Disney canon. I hate to say it, but I really didn’t get much out of this film. It’s one of the duller entries in the canon and the characters are fairly bland, despite having a solid voice cast that includes a few Disney regulars like Phil Harris (Baloo from The Jungle Book and Little John from Robin Hood) as O’Malley, Eva Gabor (Bianca from The Rescuers) as Duchess, and Sterling Holloway (the original Winnie-the-Pooh and Kaa from The Jungle Book) as Roquefort. It also has one of the weakest Disney villains of all-time in the form of the cats’ owner’s butler Edgar, who’s basically just a bumbling moron who constantly finds himself getting into slapstick situations because he’s so gosh-darn inept. Actually, it really feels like this screenplay was severely underwritten. There’s not much of a plot and none of the characters go through any major arcs. Like what if Duchess and her kittens were forced to step out of their comfort zone when they are taken from their life of luxury and are stranded out in the countryside? Or what if O’Malley’s alley cat status was more prominent in the story to the point where it strained his relationship with Duchess and her kittens but he eventually decides to leave that kind of lifestyle all behind because he has come to care about them? Well too bad because there’s none of that kind of character development here whatsoever. I mean if you’re one of those who has fond memories of this film as a result of watching it a lot growing up, all the power to you. But aside from one decent song (“Ev’rybody Wants to Be a Cat”), decent animation, and a pretty funny and meta ending tag, this is definitely one of my least favorite Disney animated features.

Rating: 2/5

ROBIN HOOD (1973)

Out of all of the Disney animated films that were rather ‘notorious’ for re-using animation from other Disney films, Robin Hood is probably the most ‘infamous’ of the bunch due to the fact that the film had a small budget of only $1.5 million. The musical sequence ‘Phony King of England’ features numerous re-used shots from films like The Jungle Book, The Aristocats, and even Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. But even with that in mind, Robin Hood is still a very fun medieval adventure complete with some zany action sequences. There’s literally one scene where Maid Marian’s attendant Lady Kluck takes on a whole bunch of soldiers set to the USC and University of Wisconsin fight songs. Ultimately though, the best part of this film are its characters. Robin Hood and Little John are both likable and charismatic leads and Robin Hood (voiced excellently by Brian Bedford, who sadly passed away recently) has a sweet romantic relationship with Maid Marian, even though the film kind of forgets about her during the climax. The real stars of the show, however, are the main villains; Prince John, the tyrannical but cowardly ruler who constantly sucks his thumb when things don’t go his way, and his assistant Sir Hiss the Snake. These two are like an old married couple, constantly bickering with each other, and as a result, they’re definitely one of the funniest villain duos in Disney history, up there with duos like Yzma and Kronk and Captain Hook and Smee. In short, Robin Hood may not be as ‘complex’ in story as some of the other Disney films but that’s not much of a problem in my book thanks to the film’s fun cast of characters and its overall light-hearted and zany atmosphere that will have you humming “Oo De Lally, Oo De Lally” the whole time.

Rating: 4/5

THE MANY ADVENTURES OF WINNIE THE POOH (1977)

Who doesn’t love A.A. Milne’s iconic character Winnie the Pooh? He’s one of the most lovable characters in pop culture history. A month ago when I did my retrospective on Disney Animation’s post-2000 filmography, which included the new Winnie the Pooh film from 2011, I mentioned the many ways in which this franchise played a big part of my childhood, from watching episodes of the animated series The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh on VHS back when that was still a thing to a particularly fond childhood memory of mine of getting to ride the ‘Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh’ ride at Walt Disney World with Pooh himself in 2002. To reiterate what I had said in that post, I strongly believe that this franchise should play a key part in every kid’s childhood. Part of that, of course, should come in the form of Pooh’s 1977 feature film debut, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. Actually the film is a series of featurettes that Disney had produced back in the late 60’s and early 70’s. They are, in order of how they are played during the film, 1966’s Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree, 1968’s Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day (notably the last animated Disney short that Walt Disney himself ever produced), and 1974’s Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too. These three segments were followed by an additional featurette, 1983’s Winnie the Pooh and a Day for Eeyore, which ran before that year’s re-release of The Sword in the Stone. But as for the first three featurettes, they were packaged together into a feature-length film in 1977.  

This film is just as great as it was when I was a kid. One of the biggest reasons why, of course, is because the characters are so iconic and lovable; the small-minded but cheerful Pooh, the timid Piglet who does try to be brave whenever he can, the caring but occasionally temperamental Rabbit, the gloomy donkey Eeyore, and the kooky and bouncy tiger Tigger (T-I-double-guh-er) just to name a few. The film may not have much of a cohesive ‘plot’ but that’s totally fine because you just love spending time with these characters. And then there’s also the film’s memorable collection of songs from who else but the legendary Disney duo that is the Sherman Brothers. There’s the classic title song, Tigger’s zany anthem ‘The Wonderful Thing About Tiggers’, and the song about those scary creatures known as ‘Heffalumps and Woozles’ which, in true Disney fashion, serves as the basis for one truly trippy as hell sequence where Pooh comes across them while dreaming. I mean I could go on and on about this film but I’ll just say this. I love this franchise, I love its characters, and I love this film. Some may not consider The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh to be one of Disney’s best films but as for me, this is definitely one of my personal favorites in the Disney library and is most certainly a must-see for kids that adults will no doubt enjoy as well.

Rating: 5/5!

THE RESCUERS (1977)

Back when I did my ‘Disney Renaissance’ retrospective back in November 2013 before the release of Frozen, one of the films that I had covered in that post was this film’s sequel, The Rescuers Down Under, in which I noted that not only was it one of the best animated sequels of all-time but also a highly underrated entry in the Disney canon due to it being a severe underperformer at the box-office. I only briefly mentioned the first Rescuers there so now here’s a more in-depth review of what I feel to be a ‘solid’ but not ‘terrific’ Disney animated film. Like I said before when I reviewed the sequel, one of the biggest strengths of these films is the lead duo of Bernard and Miss Bianca. They’re such a likable duo and are excellently voiced by Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor, respectively. This film also has a pretty memorable nut of a villain in the wicked Madame Medusa and some noteworthy henchmen of hers as well, including her bumbling lackey Mr. Snoops and her alligators Brutus and Nero. My only real complaints with the film are that, especially when compared to the sequel, this film’s story is rather ‘uneventful’ and the animation is a bit too drab as it is primarily set in the Bayou. Sure it’s an interesting locale for an animated film but it still results in a pretty darn gloomy-looking film, especially when compared to the other Louisiana set Disney film, The Princess and the Frog, which was released more than three decades late. So in short, I do think that this film is good but I can’t really list it as one of Disney’s best as ultimately I prefer its, to be perfectly frank, much better sequel.

And yes, the original cut of the film had an infamous still of a topless woman in it… Just goes to show how weird animation can get sometimes.

Rating: 3.5/5

So that’s the end of this Retrospective on the Disney Animated films of the 60’s and 70’s. Like I said in the intro, admittedly this one came out earlier than expected and that’s because I was quite angry at all of the videos that brutally bashed the original Jungle Book a little over a week ago. So in response to all of those videos, I decided to get this post completed so that I could paint the animated classic in a much more positive light. But as a result, that means that I went out-of-order with these remaining Retrospectives. I originally intended to start from the beginning of the Disney canon and end at the 80’s, which would’ve been the last one to do seeing how I’ve already covered every major Disney animated film since 1990. So with that in mind, expect the next Disney Retrospective to be on the studio’s films from the 80’s. After that, I’ll go back and start at the beginning with the Disney films of the 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s. Until then, what are your thoughts on the Disney films discussed in this post? Be sure to sound off in the comments below.