Tag Archives: the little mermaid

June 30, 2023

Lego 43227 – Disney Villain Icons for Disney 100 Anniversary

By Joe
Coming to a bookshelf near you.

I do love a good Lego set. The problem is, I really don’t have much room for them when I’m done building them. For that reason, I have to be really choosey about what sets I invest in. It basically can’t be just for me, at this point, it has to be something my family likes. That basically narrows things down to Disney and occasional one-offs that everyone loves. And even with Disney, there is stuff I’ve passed on because, again, space! I’ll prioritize anything from the parks, or things that I can find a place for. And that’s what made the new villains set appealing because it’s not that big. At just 1,540 pieces, it’s a modest sized set and it’s designed to be a decorative piece when completed. And since it’s celebrating the villains it had instant appeal.

That tape pretty much steals the show.

Lego 43227 is basically a set of Lego books designed to resemble classic movies from the company with a few other pieces. It comes with 4 mini figures: Maleficent, Gaston, Jafar as a genie, and the Evil Queen as the old hag. Of the four, Maleficent is the only repeat from the mini figure waves. A standard Jafar was in wave two and wave three includes the Evil Queen so this does work with some other figures rather well. The films represented by the structures are the films associated with those characters plus Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, and The Little Mermaid (animated).

“I sleep in a drawer.”

The premise of this set is essentially this: you have a small assortment of books and they’re on a shelf in a somewhat haphazard manner. There’s Aladdin, which is on its side with Beauty and the Beast and Sleeping Beauty beside it on their end. Each one of these books is designed to celebrate its villain in both color and appearance. On the Aladdin book, there’s a Jafar (sorcerer) that you construct out of Lego. It somewhat resembles stained glass to me, but not only is it decorative, but it’s also a door that allows you to store the mini figure inside. For Sleeping Beauty, the same approach is taken on the side of the book as you construct a profile view of the villainess that also opens to reveal a slot of the figure. Gaston doesn’t get the same treatment as there’s no relief of him created in Lego. Instead, he gets a drawer to sleep in. On the top of the book, is a flip-up piece for the enchanted rose from the film. A fun touch, but not as cool as a Gaston relief.

The rose is a hidden feature in the top of the Beauty and the Beast book.

Those are just the books, there are also a couple of other items to construct as well. For the hag, we have her poisoned apple. It’s well-designed as it’s coated in green poison and it’s all done with Lego brick. It opens up to reveal a little compartment for the queen to inhabit and I really get a Star Wars/Emperor Palpatine vibe out of this one. It’s cool though. The apple can connect to the Aladdin book so it’s not just free-floating, unlike the watch. That’s just a free-floating element that’s a quick build, but looks nice when complete. It has silhouettes of Peter Pan, Wendy, and her brothers on it from when they fly past Big Ben in the film. Lego opted to play it straight with the silhouettes too and not do Lego versions of the characters. It is a bit of an odd inclusion for a villains set though. I guess this could be considered Hook’s watch? Then why does it have Peter and the kids on it?!

My favorite part of this set.
Ursula sold separately.

The other two villains represented in this set are Ursula and the Queen of Hearts. For the queen, she gets a playing card constructed out of Lego that’s pretty much the size of an actual playing card, just obviously thicker. It looks nice though as the image on the front is done with prints instead of stickers. It would be nice to get the actual queen mini figure in the set, but I guess that was just too much. The same is true for Ursula who also doesn’t get to see inclusion here, but she does have the coolest representation. For that film, there’s a Lego VHS cassette for you to build. It’s really cool when done and the top flap is articulated to reveal a fake strip of tape underneath it. Lego included some stickers of famous scenes from the film with the characters depicted as Lego figures. Definitely, my favorite part of the set. It clips onto the Aladdin book and is designed to then be tilted, but you could have it on its side if you wanted.

For some characters, this isn’t their first go at a mini figure. New Maleficent is on the right with the old on the left.

The build for this one is rather breezy. It’s 13 bags and a determined person could probably bang it out in an evening, but I spread it out doing 2-3 bags at a time. Some take longer than others, but most of them are pretty similar. There are stickers, which I do hate, but thankfully not a ton of them. Basically, aside from the playing card and the watch, everything you see on this set in pictures that could be a sticker, is. The only exception is the Disney 100 logo which is a printed piece. The movie titles and character images are all stickers though.

The figures included. They’re pretty well done, though I feel like Gaston could be better.

The mini figures are pretty typical of Lego. Jafar is essentially the Genie colored red and he does come with a black version of the magic lamp. Gaston is a standard mini figure with a hair piece and two faces: smug and yelling. I kind of wish they used the Hulk mini figure base to make Gaston impressively large or did something to alter his physique, but alas. The old hag uses a large brick for her lower half instead of legs. It’s the same approach Lego took with Maleficent, Jafar, and other robed characters. She has two portraits as well, angry and smiling, and comes with a little apple. Maleficent is basically the same figure we got before, but with a smiling face and different print job. They also dropped the cape and changed-up the staff a bit. I like the new staff and the smile, but I do miss the cape. At least it’s not a straight re-release though.

If you’ve been collecting the mini figures up until now then you should have a solid assortment afer adding this.

The last important piece to touch on with this release is the price. It’s a Target exclusive (presently sold out online, but maybe in stock at a store near you) and retails for $130. For a 1,500 piece set, that feels a little steep. I’m thinking we’re dealing with a Disney tax here and a set that would normally be 90-100 bucks is getting up-charged. I don’t love the price, I don’t hate it either as I’m used to paying hundreds of dollars for Lego just because of the sets I’m drawn to. I do think they should have just given us at least the two extra mini figures in Ursula and the Queen of Hearts. Plus, Gaston doesn’t get any items? He should at least get a sword or bow and arrow or something. I was definitely disappointed with his execution. Aside from that, I really didn’t have any other issues though. I suppose there’s a debate to be had on if Lego picked the best films for representation, but that’s pretty subjective. All of the films they did choose to represent are very popular and beloved by many so I don’t see much fault there.

If you like Lego and you love Disney then you’ve probably already made up your mind on this one. It’s a solid build experience and boasts some unique characters which is probably enough by itself to get people interested. It displays really well too and I’m left hoping that this isn’t the only set like this we get for the Disney 100 celebration. Why not a heroes version that’s essentially the same concept, but highlights different films? Pinocchio, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Fantasia, Robin Hood – all would make for fun concepts along with several others. As long as it’s not the exact same format in different colors I’d be almost guaranteed to grab it.

If you want to add this one to your collection, keep an eye on Target’s website. I’m guessing there will be a re-stock at some point so set those notifications if you can’t find it local. These Disney celebrations tend to go on for awhile so if you missed it up until now don’t go running to eBay right away. And if a sister set does get released, I guarantee you can come back here and read my thoughts on that one too.

If you like Lego and Disney then you have some options:

Lego 71044 – Disney Train and Station

Earlier this year I did a post wondering what happened to the Lego/Disney relationship that seemed so fruitful just three years prior. It was a post born out of some frustration, but mostly just disappointment. Following the release of an entire line of minifigures devoted to the Disney brand as well as the massive Cinderella’s…

Keep reading
by Joe

Disney gets the Lego Treatment

Lego is one of the most popular toy manufacturers on the planet. They’ve become known for their building block style toys that come in various shapes, sizes, and colors and can be combined to form castles, pirate ships, space crafts, and other fantastic designs. They also have struck gold with their mini figures, simplistic action…

Keep reading
by Joe

Lego: Disney’s Cinderella Castle

This past spring Lego released its third line of mini figures to be based on an official license. Following two straight years of The Simpsons, Lego turned to Disney and its cast of classic characters. Going with a mix of old school, Pixar, and movie characters not touched by the existing Lego Disney Princess line,…

Keep reading
by Joe

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in toys

May 30, 2023

The Little Mermaid (2023)

By Joe
The Little Mermaid (2023)

This past weekend, my daughter and I found ourselves with an afternoon together. This happens from time-to-time since kids often have their own social commitments necessitating one parent go with them and in this case it was my son and my wife going over to the home of one of his friends for a Memorial Day gathering. My daughter probably could have gone along, but she knew it meant that her and I would do something together. Last time this happened, we saw The Super Mario Bros. Movie (I didn’t review it, despite intending to, but it’s fine) so she wanted to go to the movies again. Despite having no interest after seeing the trailer, my daughter settled on the new version of Disney’s The Little Mermaid for a matinee viewing. I, personally, have not enjoyed any of the live-action remakes that Disney has made that I’ve seen so I wasn’t excited to see the film, but it wasn’t my choice to make. I went online, bought tickets, and…wait…this movie is two and half hours long?!?

I reviewed The Little Mermaid (1989) almost 10 years ago and it was a pretty positive review. Since then, I feel like my affection for that movie has only grown. It’s a tight story that’s wonderfully animated and has some really catchy musical numbers to put it over the top. It’s a delight and ranks rather high for me among the all-time Disney greats. Lately, Disney has found a lot of financial success with their live-action remakes of classic films. Critically, it seems few have been embraced, but movie-goers are apparently excited by them. I saw the first couple and found little to enjoy. These are almost all stories older than any of the folks working on them or seeing them, so retellings I am not against. It’s the act that they’re just remaking their movies, not reimagining them in any significant way. And since they are so similar to what came earlier, the only creative difference seems to be a desire to just add more. More backstory, more songs, more filler, which just makes them longer and more of a slog, so you can imagine my excitement when I saw how long this new remake was.

The new Flounder isn’t much to look at. With all of the wondrous creatures that exist under the sea, why not just make him something else entirely?

Disney choosing to remake these movies also has another unintended consequence in that they feel like replacements. 2D animation has been rapidly disappearing from the world over the past two decades and only recently has it started to make a comeback. And those comebacks are mostly relegated to television or streaming and are not done with ink and paint on celluloid. That’s never coming back, but at least we’re getting some variety today, though still not really when we go to the cinema. Those who love 2D animation done in a classical style feel threatened by these remakes, and it’s easy to see why. If the film is damn near perfect already, why do we need a remake? In truth, it’s not about erasure of any kind and it’s just capitalism. These movies are basically already scripted, there’s a screenplay to go off of, and they’re cheaper to make and seem to have a fantastic return on investment.

All of that being said, I watched the latest version of The Little Mermaid from Disney and it’s okay. To make this short, it’s not as good as the 1989 version and even if it was animated it still wouldn’t be nearly as good. The added length comes largely from the movie wanting to remove all subtlety from the original (and I use the term “original” loosely since the original Hans Christian Anderson tale is far older, but when I use the word I’m explicitly talking about the 1989 version). We now have to know that, yes, Ariel’s voice possesses a siren like charm, her mother was killed by humans, and Eric is essentially just like her. He’s basically imprisoned in his own castle and gets his own “I want” song so that we can see that they’re two sides of the same coin, young people yearning to find their place in the world.

The rock scene is just one example of how some things just don’t work as well in live-action.

Ariel is played by Halle Bailey, and maybe because someone noticed that The Little Mermaid features only a fraction of its running time with the main character a mermaid, there’s definitely more of that this time. This film is considered live-action, but much of the action under the sea is computer generated on a green screen. Bailey was motion-caped for these, but almost her entire body is computer generated. The same is true of her sisters with some looking more “CG’d” than others. Bailey has also been blessed with some natural curves to her physique and it looks like Disney may have even toned them down on her and her sisters. Perhaps someone got a little shy when they realized their lead would be mostly naked for large portions of the film. Other sources of criticism at the character design relies in the supporting cast with Sebastian (Daveed Diggs), Flounder (Jacob Tremblay), and Scuttle (Awkwafina) all boasting a more realistic appearance that lacks in charm. Sebastian seems to be getting the most backlash from what I’ve seen since it’s hard to make a crab look cute, though I found Flounder’s expressionless visage even less appealing.

The underwater segments mostly look fine, though they lack the color of the original. The appearance of the characters and the setting is inconsistent. The hair of mermaids all flows like its under water, while objects casually discarded by Ariel fly through the scene without any impediment. Ariel thumbs through a book that appears to be perfectly dry, which in fairness happened in the original film, but why repeat the same mistake? The mermaids also all seem to be designed as nude with their bodies only covered by scales where as King Triton (Javier Bardem) wears full armor now that just looks cold and impersonal. Ursula (Melissa McCarthy) is wearing this lacy dress for her top that looks out of place since it always looks dry. Aside from that critique, I think McCarthy’s Ursula looks the part well enough and she even got an upgrade to 8 tentacles over the 6 she had in the prior film.

The “Kiss the Girl” scene works very well and the chemistry between the leads is there, but strangely vanishes once Ariel gets her voice back.

The other half of the film takes place on land and is the domain of our prince, Eric (Jonah Hauer-King), who wants to restore the port of his island kingdom to its former glory. He’s the adopted son of the queen (Noma Dumezweni) and he came to be adopted as the result of a shipwreck. This gives the queen a distrust of the denizens of the sea while Ariel’s father conveniently hates humans. The kingdom they inhabit isn’t given a name (or I missed it), but it appears to be located somewhere in the Caribbean. It’s not particularly well-developed, but there is some effort to inject more culture into the scenery.

The plot follows the same general beats as the 1989 version. There are no vast changes to the story, and the only thing subtracted is the comical scene in the kitchen between Sebastian and the French chef. Maybe they felt it just wouldn’t work in live-action? Director Rob Marshall apparently didn’t see the wisdom in altering things further as some moments from the animated version just don’t play as well in live-action. In particular, Ariel’s iconic pose atop the rock when she declares her intentions to inhabit Eric’s world. It’s tremendously dramatic in animation, but in live-action looks about as convincing as your sister jumping out of the pool declaring the same. For me, musicals in general are harder for me to take-in when filmed in live-action. Eric’s song, in particular, was just too much for me and I would have cut the whole thing.

Which brings me to the songs. All of the classics are here, well excepting the kitchen scene, and they’re redone in a mostly faithful way. Some of the words to “Kiss the Girl” were altered for consent reasons, but the melody is still there and it’s a nothing sort of change. Ariel sings along to “Under the Sea” now, which doesn’t make a ton of sense narratively, but Bailey sounds nice alongside Daveed so I suppose that’s reason enough for it. There’s some additional songs added as well, such as Ariel singing inside her head when on land (they just couldn’t have their star say nothing for 45 minutes) and a song Scuttle gets to sing that felt forced. None of the new songs are going to hold a candle to the big four from the original, but the only one that tries is Eric’s song. Bailey is a very gifted singer, and while I still prefer Jodi Benson’s “Part of Your World” (and Benson is in this one, keep your eyes open), that’s not because Bailey’s is really inferior.

This one didn’t do much for me, but for a new generation this is the Ariel that’s going to bring them tremendous joy and pride and that’s okay.

I feel like I’m mostly complaining so let’s wrap this up. If you find yourself with a kid looking to see a movie this summer should you go see The Little Mermaid? Eh, you could do worse. The original is almost perfect, so this one was never going to be as good. The story is still there, and the actors perform well with what they’re given. The final battle has been criticized for being too dark, but I found it easy to follow. Maybe if I had never seen the original though I would have felt different. The songs will delight the young and old alike and at least the one benefit of the long running time is we get to spend more time getting to know these characters. Ariel is very likeable, and the rest of the cast performs well enough. Oddly, I felt Bailey and Hauer-King had great chemistry together when Ariel was stricken without a voice, but it all crumbled after it returned making the payoff of the film feel flat. At any rate, my daughter enjoyed it and I didn’t hate it. I’ll probably never watch it again as long as I have access to the 1989 version, but I’m not a young girl with brown skin. And considering all of the response I’ve seen from young girls (and older ones) fitting that description to Bailey’s Ariel then I think it’s safe to say that this live-action remake, more than most, has certainly justified its existence. That’s something that shouldn’t be ignored or taken away.

Care to read more of my Disney opinions?

Disney’s The Little Mermaid

Come 1989, Disney was back on top both critically and financially as a movie studio.  Oliver & Company, while not wowing many movie buffs, was a commercial success and one of Disney’s biggest in years while Who Framed Roger Rabbit? was able to secure near universal praise for its combination of animation and live-action.  Even…

Keep reading
by Joe

Disney’s Best Five Film Run

The Walt Disney Company has been producing animated features for 80 years now. In that time, the company has released 55 films with a 56th on the way later this year and others in development. I’m only talking about the animated ones, because if you add in live-action and all of the films released by…

Keep reading
by Joe

Walt Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

This past December, Walt Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs turned 80. On December 21, 1937 the world was introduced to feature-length animation. Well, maybe not the world since that date was just the premiere. It wasn’t until February 4, 1938 that the rest of the United States was introduced to the picture. The…

Keep reading
by Joe

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , | posted in Film

May 13, 2016

Disney gets the Lego Treatment

By Joe

maxresdefault-3Lego is one of the most popular toy manufacturers on the planet. They’ve become known for their building block style toys that come in various shapes, sizes, and colors and can be combined to form castles, pirate ships, space crafts, and other fantastic designs. They also have struck gold with their mini figures, simplistic action figures that embody the Lego design and make great pilots, captains, and heroes to pair with the various sets. It used to be you had to buy a construction set to get a figure or two, but for several years now Lego has capitalized on the appeal of its mini figures by releasing them individually in blind bag assortments. Even more recently, Lego has decided to apply a popular license for these blind bag releases. For the past two years, that license was The Simpsons. I was rather fond of this decision and really it got me back into Lego after not buying a set since I was a kid. The Simpsons I feel still had legs and a series three would have been welcomed by me, but Lego has apparently killed that line and decided to go with a new license:  Disney.

Theming a line of figures on the Disney license is almost as broad as creating a line of “People” figures. The Walt Disney Company has been putting out animated and live action films for nearly a century. The company has its own television station full of original programming, plus it owns Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, and ABC to name a few. And since Lego already makes Star Wars and Marvel sets, it stands to reason that their Disney themed wave of mini figures could include those franchises if it wanted to. What it really means for Lego is that its first wave of Disney mini figures is an amalgamation of a few popular Disney properties. The first set of 18 Disney figures contains popular Disney creations like Mickey Mouse and Donald, characters from classic animated films like Aladdin and Peter Pan, and also a few Pixar figures to round things out. There are likely fans out there who would have preferred it if Lego stuck to the classic animated films, or maybe even just the Mickey and friends line, but Lego opted to try to please a wide consumer base.

IMG_0256

A motley crew of Disney plastic.

As someone who likes Disney and is married to a woman who LOVES Disney, it meant i had to collect this line with the same vigor as I did with The Simpsons. The wave hit retail on May 1st, though a few lucky individuals probably found them earlier. Like other mini figure waves, this series is released in blind bags so the consumer doesn’t know what they’re buying, unless they’re willing to sit and prod at each bag to feel the figure out. As Lego did with The Simpsons, they’ve chosen to make custom head sculpts for a lot of the Disney characters, basically all of the non-humanoid ones. That means finding Mickey and Minnie when groping a plastic bag is actually pretty easy, same for Sticth as well as the ducks, Donald and Daisy. I actually found the entire wave pretty easy to feel out and went a perfect 18 for 18 with my purchases. Now, if only I had better luck at finding the figures at big box retailers. Stores like Target and Toys R Us sell each figure for 3.99 a piece, but I got stuck hitting up specialty shops that charged 6.99. The things I do for love.

 

Unlike The Simpsons, these Disney figures are not released alongside any standard Lego sets, which is a bummer. Lego does have a line of Disney centric Lego Friends sets which focus on the various princess characters. The Friends line is Lego’s girl line, because apparently girls can’t handle traditional mini figures and bricks, and it’s clear Lego avoided duplicating characters it had already released as part of that line. The set of 18 is mostly free of the princess characters, with the exception of a mermaid Ariel. Alice from Alice in Wonderland is also included, but I don’t think she’s ever been considered a “princess.” From the Mickey and Friends collection, we have Mickey, Minnie, Donald and Daisy. Any Disney fan immediately sees that list and says “Where’s Goofy?!” He’s missing in action here. The four who are included look pretty good though. Donald and Daisy even have a little duck “butt” piece which is pretty funny but also pragmatic. Mickey is kind of dull though as he comes with no unique pieces or accessories. He doesn’t even have a tail! That’s a problem I’ll address later as it’s a recurring problem. Not the tail, but the lack of accessories to go along with these figures.

IMG_0257

Ursula’s got it going on.

From the Disney animated classics group of films, there’s the following:  Alice, Cheshire Cat, Maleficent, Peter Pan, Captain Hook, Stitch, Ursula, Ariel, Aladdin, and the Genie. All are done fairly well, though characters like Aladdin and Pan suffer from being a bit too conventional and kind of boring in appearance. Genie suffers a little in that he’s fairly unique, but the efforts made to convey that don’t work so well. Instead of getting a more unique sculpt, he’s actually a standard mini figure with add-on pieces to round out his look. He does have a “ghost” lower body which is kind of neat, but he still doesn’t really look all that much like the Genie from Aladdin. Plus Lego got really cheap with his gold cuffs and only painted half of his wrist. Maleficent is unique in that she doesn’t have legs, but a triangular block for a base to simulate her robes. It works pretty well as a visual, though it’s probably not fun for kids to play with. Ursula is definitely the cream of the crop as she gets a uniquely sculpted lower body that looks great. Ariel does as well, but her tail is rather blocky and unappealing to look at. I get that Lego is supposed to be blocky, but there’s just something off with Ariel’s look.

 

IMG_0258

The piece Lego fanatics have been waiting years for:  duck butt.

Pixar is also featured, albeit in a minor way. There aren’t many Pixar characters that would work as Lego mini figures, but Lego did pick some suitable ones. From Toy Story, there’s Buzz Lightyear and the Alien, and from The Incredibles we have Mr. Incredible and his foe Syndrome. Buzz is the star of the four. While he doesn’t quite look like the Buzz we know and love, the unique pieces included give him a lot of personality. The Alien gets a unique head sculpt and looks fine, while Mr. Incredible and Syndrome look about as good as they can, though they’re a little boring. I don’t dislike any of the four, and actually really like Buzz, but I am left wishing Lego had stuck with more conventional Disney properties and gave Pixar its own wave.

 

With any release like this, it’s easy to zero in on what’s missing. Properties like Pinnochio, Snow White, and The Lion King are synonymous with Disney but not represented here. There’s also a lack of quality accessories that’s kind of disappointing. Mickey comes with none, when he should come with Pluto. He could have come with some clothing type accessories like his sorcerer’s hat, something which is better than nothing. Ursula comes with King Triton’s trident but not his crown, and Ariel comes with an oyster shell with a pink jewel in it. Maybe I need to watch The Little Mermaid again because I don’t remember that amongst her many treasures. I’d rather she come with a fork, I mean, dinglehopper, though a Flounder would have been better. Stitch, Cheshire Cat, and the Alien all come with no accessories, and Aladdin and the Genie both come with the same lamp. Couldn’t Aladdin at least have come with a black Jafar’s lamp? These figures aren’t really all that cheap, the least Lego could do is make sure each character has at least one appropriate accessory to round them out.

IMG_0259

Pan looks kind of bloodthirsty, not that Hook looks like any less of a maniac.

Criticisms aside, I do think this is a pretty solid wave of mini figures and a nice start for the Disney line. I assume there will at least be a wave two and I’m hopeful Lego will explore some Disney sets, especially if they’re based on Disney World or Disneyland. As far as a potential wave 2 is concerned, I would assume some characters are no-brainers. Goofy, Woody, and Jessie seem like locks. Near locks would include Mrs. Incredible, Frozone, and Jafar. If Lego really wants to stick with the films its already touched upon, then characters like King Triton and the Queen of Hearts certainly have a shot as well. I’m hopeful that Pinnochio and Jiminy Cricket get a look, and a Beast and Gaston would be pretty awesome. It’ll probably be nearly a year before we know what’s to come, but until then it will be fun to speculate.

UPDATE:  Well it took Lego a few months to unveil it, they did indeed confirm a Lego version of Disney World’s iconic Cinderella Castle is coming this September. It will retail for $350 (ouch!) and total over 4,000 pieces and come bundled with 5 mini figures. Making her traditional Lego debut will be Tinker Belle and she’s joined by a tuxedo-clad Mickey, a red polka-dot version of Minnie, a pink version of Daisy, and Donald, who appears to be identical to his previously released figure. It looks pretty slick, and it’s hard to argue with the character choices. The castle interior looks like it will be full of easter eggs, and possibly hints for future mini figures, and the only initial piece of criticism I could offer is the depth of the castle looks shallow. It likely would have benefitted from a hinged design to make the base at least appear bigger. Aside from that, it’s a nice piece of eye candy and something I’m going to have to buy for my Disney-obsessed wife.LEGO_71040_fi

 

5 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Film, Television, toys

August 18, 2013

Oliver & Company

By Joe

Oliver & Company (1988)

Oliver & Company (1988)

Memories are a funny thing.  What we choose to remember and forget really isn’t up to us.  The brain just kind of erases and deletes things as it sees fit without any conscious thought or action.  And when it comes to what we see and how we perceive our world, the brain has more say in that than we are often aware.  The eyes allow one to see, but it’s the brain that has to decode the feed like a receiver and actually tell the body what is there.  As a result, we can often remember things not how we saw them, but how we perceived them.  It gets really interesting when trying to recall a first memory. I have a few that could be considered my first memory and they’re all from around age 2.  The thing is though, I don’t know if these memories are real or if I’ve created them in just trying to reach back or from hearing a story.  It can be kind of wild to really think about it, and perhaps I’m better off just accepting what my brain says are my earliest memories.

One early memory I’m pretty confident in is my first trip to a movie theater.  I don’t know what went into it, where it was, or even what we did when there, but I do know that the first movie I ever saw in a theater was Disney’s Oliver & Company.  Oliver & Company came out in 1988 so I would have been around 4 years old.  Now everyone is used to films coming out on DVD or Blu Ray around six months after a film debuts in theaters.  When I was a kid this was not the case at all.  Some were released in about a year, but with Disney it was several years or not at all.  Disney spent a ton of money on its animated films and many did not turn a profit during the initial theatrical run.  Disney banked on theatrical re-releases to stay afloat so the company was very careful in what it released for the home market.  This philosophy was in place until The Little Mermaid was released and the home video market was thriving.  At that point, Disney had made a bunch of money already off the film and figured to make a whole lot more if it was available for Christmas.  The Little Mermaid was the film that followed Oliver & Company.  As such, Oliver & Company didn’t see a home video release until 1996, long after I stopped caring about Disney movies.

The film starts off like it might be a buddy flick with Oliver and Dodger before the cast is eventually expanded upon.

The film starts off like it might be a buddy flick with Oliver and Dodger before the cast is eventually expanded upon.

Because of Disney’s home video release schedule, when I sat down recently to watch my newly purchased copy of Oliver & Company on Blu Ray it was the first time I had seen the movie since I was four years old and in a theater for the first time.  It was kind of a surreal experience as I watched this film.  There were things I remembered, like Tito’s “Hey man, check it out,” line, and there were things I forgot I remembered like Dodger’s memorable “Why Should I Worry?” song.  There were also many things I had completely forgotten.  Before I sat down to watch the film a second time I could not have even begun to speculate on what the villain looked like.  I probably would not have remembered the name of the little girl (Jenny) and I certainly would not have been able to recall any of the names of the other dogs in the picture.  In many ways I felt like I was seeing the film for the first time, but there was an old familiarity there as well that created a rather warm experience.

Oliver & Company is probably not a film remembered by many.  I wasn’t even aware of the Blu Ray release and I’m someone who is pretty plugged into these kinds of things.  That’s not to say the film isn’t noteworthy for a few reasons.  Most notably, it was the film that basically laid the groundwork for all of the Disney animated features to follow.  Films that would prove to be far more successful than Oliver & Company (not that Oliver & Company wasn’t a success, it just wasn’t as big as the films to follow) like Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King.  It was the first to really utilize that Broadway format of interspersing narrative and song in a very MTV like fashion.  Sometimes the plot feels almost ancillary, as if it exists simply to move the film to the next music video.  I’m not a fan of this approach, and as a result, I tend to prefer Disney’s older films to the modern ones but there are films that are able to succeed with this approach.  Oliver & Company does, but on the most basic level.  It’s harmless entertainment and it has a good heart but there’s no deep undercurrent to the plot or there really aren’t any big visual moments.  The villain of the film is only ever lurking on the periphery.  He’s menacing, but not on the level of any of the big villains to follow.  This is partially due to the film’s short running time (74 minutes) and due to the fact that the story is a fairly simple one.

Marin's Tito ends up being the star of the film.

Marin’s Tito ends up being the star of the film.

The protagonist of the film is a small orange kitten named Oliver trying to find a place for himself in the world.  As indicated by the title, this is an adaptation of Dickens’ Oliver Twist but only loosely so.  There are quite a few celebrities on the cast for this one including a young Joey Lawrence as Oliver.  Billy Joel plays Dodger, a street-wise dog who is basically the alpha of a pack of thieving canines doing the bidding of the mostly harmless thief Fagin, played by Dom DeLuise.   Cheech Marin plays Tito, the wise-cracking chihuahua and Bette Midler is a pampered poodle named Georgette.  The cast does a good job with what they are given with Marin probably showing the best.  The music is obviously a big part of the picture and the opening number “Once Upon a Time in New York City” is performed well by Huey Lewis.  Joel’s number “Why Should I Worry?” is the star of the film.  It starts off as a smooth jazz number before the heat gets turned up.  It’s infectious.  The rest of the musical numbers fall pretty flat though.  Midler’s “Perfect Isn’t Easy” is supposed to be another big number that makes use of some early CAD technology but it just isn’t there.  The film kind of meanders along for the last half of the picture as a result.

Visually the film resembles a lot of the other Disney works that utilize the Xerox technology that debuted with One-Hundred and One Dalmatians.  The edges of the characters are rough and sketch-like.  Some of the backgrounds are as well.  It works when the film is trying to present some of the grimier locations in New York but it doesn’t work for the glitzy Times Square.  Disney’s animation, like its profits, took off after Oliver & Company and the company was willing to invest a bit more into each successive picture.  This isn’t a bad looking movie and it has its own visual charms, but it does lag behind Disney’s better works.

Oliver & Company is a really unremarkable movie but one that does hold a lot of nostalgic value for me.  If I didn’t have such a unique relationship with it I probably would not own it.  That’s not to say that it’s bad or anything.  I did enjoy watching the film for what it is, but it is mostly disposable entertainment.  For adult animation fans, this is hardly essential viewing, but if you have kids that will consume anything Disney then they will have some fun with Oliver & Company.

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , , | posted in Film