Gamerdog's stuff

No lofty pre-amble this time, folks. Its been a while since I last wrote one of these (oops I forgor), but also because I'm adapting these reviews into videos! Yippee! But that means these new reviews may be coming a little bit slower for a while, so sorry about that. Anyways, onto the show.

Just when we thought we were safe from shitty westerns, Disney released 'Savage Sam' in June of 1963. An absolutely meh film all around, Sam hardly lives up to the savage title with a lackluster plot, weak acting, and just being boring all around.

The movie is about... honestly I'm struggling to remember, despite seeing this less than a month ago (I can remember childhood illnesses better than that). Its supposedly about a pair of brothers and a girl who are kidnapped by hostile Indigenous people, and their hunting dog tries to rescue them, but there's so much dead space in between any action that you could chew it.

Of course, since its a western released in pre-tolerance times, its pretty darn racist. The only non-white folks in the film are all portrayed as incomprehensible monsters who kidnap kids and put them through hazing rituals to become 'one of us', then possibly try to eat them later. Its movies like these that make me glad we left this stuff behind.

Then there's Sam, the titular dog with a howl like something straight out of Doom. Half of the film, he's not even there, and when he is, he's either ruining my perfectly good ears, getting beat up, or having to be carried. Some hero dog, huh?

Next, Disney released a musical comedy called 'Summer Magic' the following month. While I may have seen it during the summer, the only 'magic' to be found is how the hell I stayed awake watching it.

The film is another middling slog without much eventful happening, about a family moving to another neighborhood and getting involved with the people there. Along the way, there's some drama, and some characters get into fights, but nothing of consequence really happens.

Calling this a musical is really stretching the truth, because I can only seem to remember 1 song in the entire film, and it wasn't very good. Sure, it wasn't as insulting as Babes in Toyland, but even the slightest bit more would've made this more entertaining.

The entire movie is VERY safe on every front. Everyone is well dressed and cheery, most people get along and are kind, and the few that are even the slightest bit rude quickly change their tune when they get to know the main characters. There's hardly any conflict at all, and after a while it made me wish Godzilla showed up or something to make things really interesting.

The only other thing of note about this movie is its really creepy subplot, about the main family's teen daughter crushing on a local teacher, and competing against her cousin (or aunt?) for his affection. That girl is clearly underage, and that man is old enough to be her father. Ew.

Lastly, we have a film that's been adapted multiple times, 'The Incredible Journey' from November of 1963. Compared to the previous two, its leagues better, but that's not saying much. I'd rather eat sand than pebbles, but neither is a truly fulfilling experience.

The movie adapts the old novel, following two dogs and a cat who travel hundreds of miles to get back to their original owners in the Canadian wilderness. Compared to prior Canada films from this company, this is the least offensive.

For the most part, the movie is cute and simple. You watch the animals walk, sometimes they get into antics or trouble, and the narrator adds a bit of drama. Its similar to films like Milo and Otis, or other ones by this studio like Nikki, but with notably less bloodshed and actually dead animals.

However, the animals in this are still clearly put through some stunts. One scene has the cat nearly drown, swept down a river as the Labrador swims after him. Multiple times, you see the cat's head bob under water, and it really begs the question of what safety measures were going on behind the scenes at Disney HQ.

Still, its not the most thrilling film (which is hilarious for me to say considering the previous paragraph). A good 80% of this movie is the animals walking together, or comforting the oldest among them when he gets too tired to go on. It occasionally flips back to the humans, who try to find the animals, but for the most part, get ready for a walk not dissimilar to the one Frodo and his buddies went on.

Its a real shame that this movie isn't that great, because I was really hoping for it to be something special. I love animals, and a movie like this would've had me hooked as a kid. But now, I'd rather be watching any other film.

Its been a bit since I last posted a review to this account. You might think I forgot the password, and well, you'd be right! But also, with attending Anime North this year, cosplay work, and job hunting, I'd almost forgotten to watch the movies on my list. Don't worry, I ain't quittin' soon!

Where we last left off, Disney released the last film of the year 1962. It was another adaptation of a Jules Verne novel, which they'd had success with previously with 20 000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954). But where that film was novel for it's sheer spectacle, for it's pioneering of underwater filming, this one is just... ok.

'In Search of the Castaways' is a globe-trotting adventure movie about a pair of siblings trying to find their father, who went missing at sea. They rope several others into their quest, including a silly Frenchman and a generic teen boy, and travel all across the world to look for him.

Its an adventure movie, but is the adventure anything special? Well, for the time, I'm sure it was, but by today's standards, its quite tame. There's a noticeable difference in pacing between movies of this decade and those prior, where things seem to happen more often than characters stand around and talk about it, and you certainly see that here.

The movie takes its characters all around the world; the Andes mountains, Australia, New Zealand, and the character encounter all sorts of dangerous wildlife that's ready to pick them off one by one. If this were made today, it'd probably be 50% CGI.

Still, the fun and exciting moments are heavily outweighed by 'stand around and talk' scenes, which (I hate to sound like a child for this opinions, but) there's too darn much of. Half the time, characters aren't even talking about where they're going, or their goals, its just fluff! At times, this movie feels as padded as an anime that's waiting for the manga to catch up.

The characters aren't really anything special either, save for the Frenchman, who is mildly amusing. He turns every setback into something to celebrate, and brings some joy to otherwise boring scenes. Maybe if some other movies I've reviewed had him in it, they wouldn't be so forgettable.

Next, the Disney studio would do something they hadn't done before (up to this point in their history): a sequel.

'Son of Flubber' is the direct sequel to 'The Absent-Minded Professor', which came out only two years prior. It follows the same old possibly-neurodivergent university professor who discovered a magic substance called Flubber, now struggling with his newfound fame. Companies want him to sell it, the government wants it militarized, and he must decide what to do with it.

On the surface, the sequel sounds promising, answering the lingering questions at the end of the first. But what's left over from the first film is barely enough to support a second film, and it really, really shows.

Hardly anything really happens in this one, yet the film tries it's damndest to make it seem like it. There's a new use for Flubber discovered that causes a big accident, and more university sports shenanigans, but it all feels very rushed, like the writers just slapped something together and shouted 'Done!' so they could go home early.

The lackluster characters from the first return here, only with even less to do and less motivation for me to care. The movie tries to keep up the tension between the main character and his rival, but its hollow, because its obvious the threat of wife-stealing is gone. So the film tries to invent something for the main character to be jealous about, and it all just feels really forced.

I swear, the best thing about this movie is the dog. I couldn't tell you any characters' names, what the rival school is called, or why the government wants Flubber so badly, and I watched this recently. For the apparently Son of Flubber, maybe they should've gone to Planned Parenthood.

But finally, we come to something decent, as we leave 1962 and enter the year that follows (whatever it could be). Straight from Austria comes another movie about the life and times of a special performance troupe, and the troubles the encounter. Though this one certainly has less singing, and more casualties.

'Miracle of the White Stallions' is a war film that has less to do with gunfire and more the preservation of nature. The film is about the Spanish Riding Club, a real world organization in Vienna, Austria, which is home to a special breed of horses found nowhere else in the world. The owner of the organization, fearing a bombing, hatches a plan to smuggle his rare white horses out of the country, and later works with the Allied forces to rescue more of them.

While not the most flashy or violent, this movie offers an interesting side of real-world history, taking you behind enemy lines to focus on some folks who didn't agree with the Nazis but couldn't speak up. Its a bit of a unique experience, watching a Disney movie where the main character is an SS soldier, and he be portrayed favourably. The movie does a good job at showing that he and his comrades don't actually believe in their ideals, and are merely being forced into it because of their circumstances, and I like that.

Of course, the Americans make themselves the cool, cocky heroes, swooping in to save the day with guns blazing. Its funny how, shortly after they show up, the film switches to focus almost entirely on them. Perhaps the American studio wanted more Hollywood footage of how awesome their country is, and how they're stronger than anyone, but also kind enough to not eat horses.

And what horses they are! The specific breed shown in the movie, the Lipizzanner, are on full display here, trotting around which coats shining like snowflakes. You really grow to appreciate them by the end of the movie, and learn a lot about their history and how their coats change color with age.

There must be something in the water over there in Vienna, with how many performing groups spring up there and then get Disney movies about them. Can't wait for the third one, about a travelling circus or something.

The twentieth Disney movie review, huh? Time sure flies: it feels like it was just yesterday that I started writing these, but also so long ago at the same time. So much has happened between when I started these and now, but what remains the same is my commitment to this series. Make no mistake: my pace may be slowing a bit, but I'm still making 'em! With that out of the way, let's talk about this next trio of movies from the early 60's.

Disney hasn't had a very good track record with Canada up to this point, but that would change with their release of 'Big Red' in 1962. The film follows a Francophone boy who gets a job taking care of a purebred Irish Setter, who can't seem to listen to his owner.

Finally, a film about a dog, that doesn't have gratuitous violence towards them! You'd think at this point, Disney would be on the Humane Society's hit list, but this seems to have kept them at bay, because for all the pomp and circumstance in the movie, none of the animals are ever really in peril.

Still, its not exactly a good film for any dog lover. Yes, the film is about a glossy red dog who keeps running off, chasing things, and being silly, but there's not much that would keep attention here either. For a movie about the life and caring-for of a very valuable purebred, the movie hardly spends any time showing how the dog is cared for, beyond a few scenes of him getting walked or the opening (which shows him competing in a dog show).

Its a huge missed opportunity, I think, to have a movie all about a show dog and hardly show anything to do with the lifestyle. Where's the fur brushing, the walking practice, the attention to detail? It wouldn't have to be much, but anything more than what's in the film, which as it stands, feels more like the titular Big Red is just another farm dog than anything special.

Most of the film is just that: nothing special. Its not fun at all, there's hardly any thrills or exciting moments, and the plot is very dull. The only interesting parts of the film were about the main human, who had a thick French accent and I thought was kind of funny. Other than that, you could get your dog movie kicks anywhere else.

At this time in Disney's history, it seems like the studio was expanding, taking on more projects at once than ever before and putting out more than previously. In 1962 alone, they released 6 films, and the fourth of those was a musical about a real-world music group.

'Almost Angels' is a musical comedy/drama about the world-famous Vienna Boys Choir, a singing group of 9-13 year old boys who sing traditional Austrian and German songs. The film focuses on a young working-class boy who joins the choir after a successful audition, and tries to fit in with the other kids. Not everyone likes him, and he struggles to balance schoolwork with music lessons, all while trying to find his own voice.

After the previous one, I was ready for this to be a snooze-fest, but color me surprised, this movie's not half bad. Its a musical, and while I didn't really understand a word of it, the kids singing sure have a talent. Hell, some of them can go higher than me! It only makes sense that for the movie, kids from the real world Vienna Boys Choir were cast, and it really makes everything feel authentic, not like a big studio musical (which it is).

Sure, its no Sound of Music (which came out two years later), but for what its worth, its pretty heartwarming, and the kids are decent actors. The storyline about this poor kid with a good voice joining this elite choir group is interesting, and the movie quickly makes you want to see him succeed, with how difficult things get for him down the line.

One of the biggest sources' of strife is Peter, a rival boy in the choir who has his spotlight stolen by the new kid, and tries to mess with him in any way. I liked the dynamic there, though sometimes I think it could've been pushed further for more drama, though I understand not trying to push child actors too hard. Its also really interesting how he gets his own private moments, and gets developed to be more than just a one-note bully. Not all the boys get much development here, but Peter's arc is wonderful.

There's a sense of restraint held over the whole movie, and its clear that the filmmakers were trying their hardest not to paint the real world choir as a bunch of brats bullying each other. The banter in the movie is small, and no squabbles ever end in physical fights, but I think that if this were ever remade, they could turn that up a level. I went into this expecting kids to be pulling pranks all the time (a la Parent Trap's first 20 minutes), but its mostly relaxed, and that's fine I guess.

Soon after the release of Almost Angels, Disney would put out a movie that, when I saw the poster of, was making popcorn. What can I say, I'm a sucker for certain animals.

'The Legend of Lobo' is a Western epic about a real wolf, who eluded capture for years. The movie tells his story, from little pup to aging father, showing the ways which he survived over the years and avoided hunters.

Right away I was ready to get into this movie, and it did not disappoint. Just like Davy Crockett, Lobo has a theme song that's sung overtop footage at various points in the film (sung partly by the famous Sherman Brothers, who would make some very important music for Disney down the line), and it gives everything a sense of epic importance. Lobo isn't just a wolf; he's a frontiersman, brave and bold, who outsmarts any human who comes after him.

Without as much as a line spoken, its quick to like him. Lobo symbolizes nature's fight against human expansion, and across his adventures he learns about the ecosystems in Arizona, meeting other animals and finding new places to explore. When trouble comes, Lobo is a quick thinker, and fools even the smartest bounty hunters who're after his head. That, combined with his heavy backstory, makes him easy to root for.

The film doesn't try to force you to like him, taking a more neutral stance instead of anthropomorphizing him to make the movie more interesting. Everything is talked about in terms of survival, or how the wolf might be thinking, and makes the story easy to get into even without dialogue.

While Disney has had its fair share of live-action animal movies, there's something about Lobo that makes it stand out against the rest. Maybe I'm biased toward it's stars, but I find that it's more entertaining than the likes of Perri, or any of the True Life Adventures, because its story is very compelling. Its almost mystifying how a story like this could be filmed using wild animals, how they get in place and do everything just as the story says. Maybe they're just that smart...

Movies have an amazing power to take you anywhere. From the comfort of your own home, or a theater near you, you can be swept away to far-away lands that you might never have been to before, and stay there for a while with a colorful cast of characters. Lots of movies focus on this transportation, inviting viewers along on a ride to somewhere new, to see what's in store, and though not always complex, these movies certainly try to do so.

'Babes in Toyland' is a 1961 musical, though you might be more familiar with the remake starring a young Keanu Reeves. This one, sadly, doesn't have him in, and I doubt he was even concieved at the time of release, but after seeing this, I'm considering watching.

The film takes place in a nursery rhyme land led by Mother Goose, with characters like Mary Mary, Jack and Jill, and others living in a colorful little town. Mary Mary and some guy named Tom are set to wed, but an evil guy up on a hill wants her money, and hatches a scheme to separate the lovers. Things happen, shenanigans ensue, and a toy maker with a shrink ray also make appearances.

Right from the jump, this one is whimsical. The costumes and sets are vibrant and cartoony, and there's songs and dance numbers everywhere about how happy everyone is, and drinking lemonade. There's also a really neat talking goose puppet, which Mother Goose carries/puppets secretly using a false arm, and I love those kind of things.

Allegedly, the Disney studio wanted this to be their Wizard of Oz (1939), and they certainly accomplished it in some aspects. The world and characters are bright, silly, and campy. Some of the songs are catchy (though nothing nearly like that of Wizard of Oz), and will have you tapping your foot. Still, its hard to compare Dorothy's adventures in Oz to this movie, with how loose of a plot it has.

'And then something else happened' is probably the best way to describe this movie, because there really isn't much holding everything together. The villain's schemes happen off-screen, characters complain about problems that we rarely see on-screen, and the main cast sort of just walks from one event to the next, without much through-line to connect them. One second they're in a creepy forest, the next they're making toys for Christmas. Its got singing trees, a racist caricature drag queen performance, and a song that's basically just 'woman can't do math', but its certainly not the studio's best musical.

The very next year, Disney would release 'Moon Pilot', a film about an air force captain who is forced into flying the first manned ship around the moon. The captain dodges foreign spies, angry bosses, and meets a strange woman with information he just can't refuse.

Moon Pilot was originally greenlit for adaptation, thanks to Walt's interest in the space program during JFK's time in office. The whole film is drenched in early 50's/60's space imagination: characters react with wild eyes and surprise at the idea of astronauts, technicians use extremely old computers and switchboards to control the ship's flight, and everyone is constantly talking about 'the enemy'.

It sure makes this point in history seem fun, but in reality, it wasn't as rosy (and certainly had less aliens). There's the vague scent of the Red Scare and xenophobia here, in how characters' hackles rise at a foreign name, or someone who shows less than perfect knowledge of America. The movie hardly even shows anyone from 'the enemy' that they keep talking about at all, making it sort of seem that they're just imagining foreign powers out to get them, and it makes things a little bit silly.

It also certainly shows just how much in space technology (and science knowledge) has changed since release. The main character eats paste from a tube in preparation for launch, which makes for mildly amusing moments when he has to avoid eating solid food while under NDA about the space trip. What will he do about his mother's cooking? He *must* eat that, right?

The movie isn't incredibly interesting, which is surprising given how much passion probably went into it. The space race was still fresh at the time, so I can't imagine how they made a movie about an ordinary guy going up in a rocket into something so mediocre and forgettable. I struggle to remember much from the movie, beyond vague images and the whole paste tube food thing, and that's saying something.

Just a month later, it seems that Disney would find their footing again, with the release of 'Bon Voyage!', a comedy about an American family's trip to France.

Starring a bunch of folks from prior movies, Bon Voyage! is a pleasant romp with jokes sure to get a chuckle of out anyone whose ever vacationed with family. Kids keep running off, teen romance, conflicting itineraries, its stuff that's all too common on a real life vacation, and gets good laughs most of the time. All that, while shot on location in Paris, and it feels at times like you too are on vacation with the family.

Its super weird seeing what a vacation would've looked like at the time of filming. 60 or so years later, trips have changed, but the movie gives a look at a simpler time, when a child might actually be excited to tour a city's sewer system (which he saw in a monster movie). Everything feels explorative and down to earth, without need to make things hyped up and spectacles, and its nice.

In some ways, the movie is pretty similar to Swiss Family Robinson(1960). The family's teens (boy and girl this time instead of two boys) are preoccupied with finding a mate in this new world, and there's lots of ups and downs. To me, its not much, but maybe someone who gets more enjoyment out of romance plots would feel.

Most of the film's humor (and there is quite a bit) comes from miscommunications and regional differences. One scene has the family crammed into a taxi, and the driver swerves wildly between other cars, pedestrians leaping out of the way just in time. The father tries to get the driver to calm down, but can't understand his French, only to be told by his wife: don't yell at him, it makes him nervous. The gags are far less aggressive than what you'd find in anything post-80's (there'd be at least 1 gross-out joke), but that's part of it's charm. Its nothing jarring, and generally just good clean fun. You could easily show this to younger audiences and not have to worry about much.

As we progress through the 60's, I'm noticing a trend towards family hijinks and studio musicals. If this is what the decade is known for, well, I guess I have a good nose.

One thing I never understood as a kid was how, in movies and tv, rainy weather was always seen as a bad thing. In 'Cat in the Hat', for example, the main brother and sister are sad because its raining outside, and they can't go and play. I never quite understood why this was bad, because to me, having an excuse to stay indoors is a good thing. You can cancel plans, get cozy, and chip away at that movie backlog. With April weather rearing its ugly head, I've been blessed with that nice rainy day atmosphere, and have been getting more into the 60's Disney releases.

The first film I watched in this trio was a surprise to me, as most people would think I was talking about the 2000s version. Despite its age, it turns out that the 1961 'The Parent Trap' film is a pleasant watch, with a nice message and some good laughs.

Just like the Lindsay Lohan one, The Parent Trap is a movie about two identical girls who meet at overnight camp, and discover they're twins who were separated after a divorce. They pretend to be each other, go home to their single parents, and use shenanigans to try and get them back together.

Compared to the more well-known version, this one has a noticeably softer tone. Most characters are nice to each other, except for the occasional comical villain type, and everything has this gentle atmosphere that's easily found in films of this era. Its hard to expect any actual mischief from the twins, since they could only get away with so much in the 60's.

The highlight of the movie is the characters themselves. The movie does an excellent job at establishing their differences early on, then giving them something to bond over, bringing them together in a satisfying way. My only regret is that the movie doesn't show more of them before they become friends, because their back and forth is entertaining.

Real-world divorces aren't nearly this light-hearted and easy to fix, but that's the appeal. The movie is full of little gags that even by today's standards, hit their mark sometimes, and the whole film is quite heartwarming. It certainly isn't as mean-spirited or shocking as the 2000s remake, so I'd recommend this one over it. Plus, this was one of the only movies I've reviewed so far that even my mom approved of, so that has to mean something.

After Disney's last brush with my home country, I wasn't exactly jumping for joy when I saw that the next movie to watch takes place there too. Would they fling more animals off cliffs in this one too? Maybe larger ones, like moose, and tell the audience they were off to Mexico? Thankfully, this one had far less flying mammals.

'Nikki: Wild Dog of the North' is a 1961 movie about a Malamute dog in French Canada, who travels with his owner along the Rockies. Nikki is separated from his owner, and learns to survive in the wild with a black bear cub, who becomes his unlikely friend.

The glory of the Canadian Rockies is on full display in this movie. It was filmed on location, and scenes are set with epic backdrops of soaring mountains, lush forests, and thundering rapids. Its something straight out of a postcard, or a travel commercial. I doubt the places in the movie are still as untouched as they were during filming, but I'd like to hope that I could visit these places.

What made me a little nervous watching this movie was its stars. As I wrote about in a previous review, animal rights in Hollywood weren't exactly as prioritized as they are today, and it makes you worry about how they filmed everything. The movie takes place in the wilderness, and with things like weather, other animals, and action scenes, its easy to worry about the animal actors' safety.

The animals, for their credit, do a really good job, and convey emotion without the need for words. The dog that plays Nikki is incredibly expressive, despite how limited a dog's facial expressions can be, and he's very, very cute. Still, there's quite a few scenes in this movie that looked dangerous for the dog; specifically, any where he fights another animal had me cringing. I really, really hope the blood was fake.

The story is simple and straight-forward, but pretty entertaining. Nikki's journey to find his owner is heartwarming, and the movie makes it easy to root for him, with all the dangers he faces. His friendship with the bear cub is cute to see, and the narration helps add drama to what would normally just be scenes of two animals grunting and growling at each other. Its not the easiest watch, but this movie is certainly better than others I've seen.

Less than a year later, the Walt Disney studio released another live-action movie about a dog, but unlike Nikki, this one has it's roots in a true story.

'Greyfriar's Bobby' is a 1961 film about a Skye Terrier who belongs to an old, sickly man. The man dies, and Bobby (the dog) visits his grave every night, causing trouble in the town as residents don't know what to do with him. The movie is based on a true story, which has a statue commemorating the dog in the town where he once lived.

This movie is notably slower paced than the previous, since most of it's story takes place in a dreary small town in Scotland. Character drama is the focus, as the people of the town interact with Bobby, either sheltering and feeding him or shooing him away, and drama starts when the police are involved.

Much of the movie is talking scenes, which will be hard to understand for the first bit of watching, unless you have experience with (or have) a Scottish accent. Some scenes pass by without anything really happening, and by the halfway point, it was beginning to seem a lo like many of the movies I watched from the 50's.

The only bright spot in this middling mess is the dog himself. Bobby is cute, and steals all scenes he's in, yipping and running around with high energy. At one point in the movie, he runs in a parade, and nearly cuts off the marching band by running in front of them. Watching him, its easy to understand why the town children loved him so much.

Still, I wouldn't exactly recommend this one. Unless, of course, you're the type who prefers your movies to be without much physical action, grand storylines, or visual interest, then sure, have at it. Its the type of movie that would sucker in younger viewers with the poster (proudly featuring its canine star), then put them to sleep in the first third.

For much of Walt Disney Studio's history, their bread and butter has been adaptations of books. From their very first theatrical film, Snow White, the studio has found inspiration in novels and short stories written by authors around the world. With the exception of their documentaries, nearly all of their films I've reviewed so far are of this type, but since I don't have all the time in the world (nor the patience), you'll have to forgive me for reviewing the movies without reading their referents first.

One of those is 'Swiss Family Robinson', a retelling of the 1812 novel of the same name, about a family of five that become marooned on a tropical island and learn to fend for themselves. This was the second film adaptation of the book, the first being released by Disney's old collaborator RKO Pictures in 1940.

The film itself is interesting, though nothing that I'd call deeply compelling or worth a second watch (unless you're a really big fan of one of the actors). What initially drew me in, the whole concept of a family surviving on an island by making everything our of wood, is there in all its glory, though at times it feels glossed over in favour of subplots or happy moments. I was really excited to learn about the treehouse, which I'd visited during a trip to WDW nearly a decade ago, but was disappointed to find the film really only shows some of it, and cares more about its attempt at character drama instead.

For some reason, in the minds of the writers, getting the sons girlfriends was seen as more worthy of screentime than showing how they made a working plumbing system our of sticks and leaves. When a potential love interest is introduced, the two eldest Robinson sons suddenly become obsessed with her, fighting for her attention while the rest of the family is busy with survival. The character herself hardly does anything of significance in the movie itself, and its a bit disappointing to see her lose all agency the minute everyone realizes she's not a guy.

Still, the film is pretty to look at. Most of it was shot on-location in Tobago, with animals like tortoises and elephants shipped in from elsewhere. Its a tropical paradise to be sure, though some testimonies from cast and crew allege that behind the scenes, it was a nightmare to shoot. Bugs, quicksand, scorpions, Disney would be lucky if nobody got hurt while filming.

What's not pretty to look at is the racial stereotyping. Throughout the film, the Robinson family is stalked by South Asian pirates, and the film loves to paint them as evil and cutthroat. Some of the characters, as I've been told, were played by non-Asian actors in facepaint, which is totally not cool. The pirates' inclusion puts a bad taste in my mouth, especially considering how previous movies with pirates in them showed them to be reasonable, or at least decent enough to be bargained with. These ones, meanwhile, are 'savages' that speak another language, and try to kidnap young women for dubious purposes.

At the time of release, it seems most critics and audiences didn't notice, and the film did incredibly well at the box office both foreign and domestically. The New York Times called it a tale of "family love", and to this day, it has a high 80's score on Rotten Tomatoes. If it wasn't an obvious enough success, the company would later build a recreation of the family's treehouse in one of their theme parks, which remains to this day, between more current media franchises.

Between live-action films, Disney has always worked on what their studio was originally founded on: animation. With so many movies since the last I'd seen of their animated work, I was hankerin' to see what they'd cooked up next, and while I was pleasantly surprised, it wasn't exactly to my highest expectations.

The 1960 animated film 'One Hundred and One Dalmatians', based on a book of the same name, is about a family of two young Brits and their dogs, who welcome an unusual amount of puppies into their family. When their puppies get stolen by a jealous ex-friend, the parent dogs travel far and wide to get them back.

One thing is for certain about this film: it was done on the cheap. After their last animated movie, Sleeping Beauty, didn't do as well as they'd hoped, the studio knew they had to make movies on a tighter budget than before, and that meant cutting some corners. Xerox technology was used to make the animation and coloring process faster, and lineart was done in a sketchier, pencilwork flair that you can see pretty clearly on any of the characters.

The backgrounds, as well, are done with this slap-dash style that I'm shocked they got approval for. Colors don't always stay inside of lines, and some things in backgrounds aren't even fully outlined, making it look like an illustration in an old comic book. Still, the colours are warm, and scenes have a nice atmosphere, especially the ones inside the family's home.

But there are times where the film's budget becomes extremely noticeable. Puppies faces, and sometimes entire bodies, are copy-pasted to make crowds, and certain shots (like one of four puppies barking) are reused at different times in the movie. There's even reused assets from other Disney movies in there, which you can spot if you're looking for them. Many dogs in the Twilight Bark scene are taken directly from Lady and the Tramp, and recolored. One of them, a bulldog, is animated with his lips flapping, but isn't speaking, which is hilarious but also makes me wonder how they got away with it all.

Still, the film isn't all bad. The story is quaint and heartwarming, and the voice acting has that nice old-style charm. The movie's villain is iconic, and I'm shocked she hasn't appeared in Kingdom Hearts yet, with a goal like hers. She's so devious, so over the top about her evil persona, it makes you want to see her more on the screen, even though she's there to skin puppies for coats. I can't speak for her live-action counterpart, as I haven't seen it yet, but I will eventually.

Disney seemed to be on a high at this point, with a double-hit of good movies that did well at the box office. This time, they kept that good train rolling, with the release of 'The Absent-Minded Professor' in 1961.

The film focuses on a university chemistry professor (who today would be called neurodivergent), who accidentally discovers a new energy source which puts out more energy than it takes in. He names the substance 'flubber', and finds new ways to use it around town, while trying to win back the heart of his fiancé.

This movie is full of late 50's-60's sci fi charm: science being represented with bubbling beakers and tubes, sweatervests with your first initial on them, school sports being a town pride, flat and wide cars, its an old-school Americana that feels nice to see. At one point, a character remarks that 'only 8% of Americans buy cars', which was quite a trip.

The plot is pretty one-note, but it gets the job done in it's constraints. As soon as Professor Brainard invents Flubber, he's trying it out on everything, and each part of the film shows some new, wacky way it can be used. All the while, he tries to get the attention of his fiance, who is always conveniently led away right before he can show her his invention. It feels like a story that, these days, would get a kids show, with every episode having some new weird invention, and maybe by the final he'd propose to her.

There are moments in the movie where it drags (the beginning is quite slow), but when it gets going, its decently entertaining. Like I've said with many other movies, its not what I'd call thrilling cinema, but for the time, and considering all the snooze-fests Disney's put out before this, its really good. At times, its very funny, and the effects are cheesy, which just lends to its charm.

As it gets warmer out where I am, I hope that I'll have more free time to watch these movies, so I can get further into Disney's history. If I hustle, I can get to Walt's death in no time!

Also, for those who are keeping track, my Cry Counter is now at 8 (Once from Snow White, once from Pinnochio, once from Dumbo, twice from Bambi, twice from Lady and the Tramp, and once from One Hundred and One Dalmatians, because I legit thought the puppy died.)

When you think of the 60's, what comes to mind? The Vietnam War, the Beatles rise to popularity, Stonewall, Woodstock, JFK? Looking back as someone who wasn't even a concept back then, it sure seems like it was a busy decade for all. Many big Hollywood studios, Disney included, were hard at work putting out films that hopefully, would find an enduring audience years after initial release.

In the real world, its not always sunshine and roses. Not every movie is going to be a classic, not every movie is going to get home video release that's available years later, and not every movie is going to get the time, budget, and effort it deserves. Even for a company as wealthy and prolific as Walt Disney, they can't, realistically, all be winners. As production pace began to ramp up in this decade, we begin to see the studio release several films per year, more than previously done, and in this scattershot approach not every pellet hits home.

Such is the case with 'The Sign of Zorro', which released overseas in 1958, and 1960 in North America. Like Davy Crockett, its based on a tv series from the time, and the movie is made up of a few episodes of the show stitched together like a cohesive plot.

Where Davy Crockett is thrilling and has good messages, though, Sign of Zorro seems content to be a stock-standard superhero series, with nothing really out of the ordinary or notable about it. The masked hero Zorro goes to Spanish Los Angeles, undercover as a 'man of letters' to investigate a political plot having to do with a relative of his. When there's crime, he dons his hero persona, saves the day, then returns back as a mild-mannered poet as if nothing happened.

Calling this a 'superhero' plot feels strange, because compared to other major heroes of this time, Zorro is closer to a Turner Classic movie than anyone from Marvel or DC. He has no powers, there's no explanation given about why he does what he does, and his alter ego hardly appears in the film, only when someone is in peril. At the same time, its hard to call it a standard drama, because it tries so hard to entice the audience through the whole 'double life' angle.

They really, really want you to care about the main character and his heroics, but what's missing is that initial reason to care at all. Going back to Davy Crockett again, the movie opens with a song all about him, introducing him to the audience and showing him in his normal life, before the plot happens. You don't have to know about him already, or have seen the show to understand, because it tells you everything you need to know. Sign of Zorro, however, assumes that all viewers are diehard Zorro fans, and doesn't bother introducing him at all. Its hard to get into the plot and characters when the film doesn't even bother trying to lead you into it.

The plot is also nothing worth writing home about. I think it has something to do with a local politician who makes everyone compliment him, or he'll throw them in jail? I paid attention the whole time and I really can't remember much about it, or what of significance even happened. I get that its a patchwork of tv show episodes, and so its not going to come across as the most cohesive film in the world, but I couldn't follow anything that was happening.

As the tv series Zorro was airing, Walt Disney studios was winding down their True Life Adventures series, nature documentaries meant for all ages. So far, I've seen all but one, their very last release, and this was the day I'd finish it.

'Jungle Cat', released in the summer of 1960, is a documentary about the life of a jaguar in the jungles of South America. We see how she hunts, finds a mate, raises cubs, and how the rest of her habitat interacts.

What's there to say about this that I haven't said about the other True Life Adventures? Its good looking footage that gets real up close and personal with some neat animals, and shows their lives in a way that's easy to understand. I'm once again shocked at how they got some of this footage, considering just how deadly these animals are, and how quick to flee most animals usually are the second you pull out a camera.

Where other True Life Adventures have segments explaining the scenery and plant life, Jungle Cat is more strictly focused on animals, and I'm not complaining. The film shows a variety of animals that live in the jungle, and their little quirks throughout their day. Some even got a laugh out of me, like a little monkey who thought it was hilarious swinging a toucan around like a toy.

The jaguars themselves are the stars, and what elegant, fearsome creatures they are. The film doesn't baby them, or try to anthropomorphize them any further than necessary, and it feels, for the most part, decently respectful. For a beginner to nature documentaries, you wouldn't have a hard time with this one.

With that, we wave goodbye to the True Life Adventures, a series that has been a major part of Disney from the 40's until now. Most were pretty decent, though I hesitate to call any anything above a 'good' grade. Leaving them behind, I felt confident that Disney would also leave their fascination with Westerns too, but boy was I wrong.

'Ten Who Dared' is a Western/Historical/Adventure film that tells the story of US Army officer John Powell, who was the first to travel down the Colorado River. With his 9 buddies, they sail little rowboats, navigate rapids, sing songs, and get into drama.

Its films like these that make me question whether I actually like Westerns, or if I just claim to because of Red Dead Redemption. Ten Who Dared is just the latest (at this point in my journey) in a long line of Disney films where they try to be historical and educational, and hearken back to the wild west, but end up making something thoroughly boring and uninspired.

Yes, the story they tell is real, and from a historian standpoint, its significant, but I can't imagine that it was *this* dull in real life as it is on screen. Across the hour and a half runtime, the film tries to keep attention with scenes of the men fighting rapids, getting into arguments, and one nearly shooting a dog (WTF), but nothing bad really happens to anyone, so there's nothing to worry about.

The longer you watch this, the more you'll start to agree with critics. Many have ventured to call this one of Disney's worst, and I'm holding my tongue in case a real trashfire comes up in the near future, but until then, its certainly close. Not as bereft of enjoyment as Rob Roy, historically inaccurate as Sword and the Rose, or missed opportunity as Light in the Forest, Ten Who Dared is just...not good. You would not lose sleep if you skipped this.

After nearly two months, I have finally escaped the so-called nifty fifties, and entered the 1960's. Its been quite a challenge: 28 films released by the Walt Disney Pictures studio, with varying degrees of quality and all sorts of content. Some were signs of the studio's future success, while others have faded into obscurity. But now, with that behind me, I now take the plunge into their films from the 60's, and hope that there'll be more treasure than trash to find.

Going from western to western in the 50's has made me hungry for just about anything else, and thankfully, Disney's first film in 1960 offered just that.

'Toby Tyler or 10 Weeks with a Circus' is a live-action film, based on the 1880 book of the same name. It follows the titular character, a ten year old orphan who signs up to work for a travelling circus, and learns all about what it means to be responsible, work a job, make money, and trust others.

If there's one thing modern pop culture seems to have left behind over the years, its the old-school imagery of the circus, and that's a shame. Its films like Toby Tyler that show why the circus is so appealing in the first place: bright colors, awe-inspiring feats of acrobatics, animals in funny outfits, and this general feeling of joy that brings it all together.

Though the film is clear to show that the world of the circus is not all sunshine and rainbows, it has an old-school charm that certainly isn't done anymore. Gone are the days of the red and white striped big top, of popcorn and peanuts, and dancing animals. For folks like me, who were born decades after that type of event went out of style, the film offers a peek into what it was like, a glimpse at old-school Americana and entertainment.

Beyond its aesthetics, the film is certainly a step in the right direction for the studio, when it comes to live-action movies. Most of their live-action releases so far have been, well, less than exciting, with only the rare 6 or 7/10 to keep my hopes up. Toby Tyler is one of those few that stays above water, with an easy-to-grasp premise that gets explored decently, and an emotional core that's easy to get behind.

From the very start, the film makes you sympathize with the main character, and with everything that comes his way, you want to root for him. In the rough world of the circus, he's just an innocent little boy who has to work hard to find his place, and that actor that plays him does an excellent job making him likeable. While not a magnificent film by any means (and certainly not on Disney+ for easy viewing), Toby Tyler gives me hope that the decade won't be a total wash.

I believe that I am an optimist to a fault, but sometimes I feel like a sucker, and the next film the studio put out, just 1 month after Toby Tyler, certainly made me feel that way.

With a title like 'Kidnapped', anyone would expect something thrilling. The story of a young Scottish man who inherits an estate, and ends up tricked by a cruel uncle and sold off, its a premise that sounds interesting. Unfortunately, the execution makes it anything but.

Kidnapped feels like the grey and mushy child of Rob Roy: The Highland Rogue and Johnny Tremain: a film that has all the pomp and circumstances of the two films, talks big about revolutions and overthrowing the ruling class, but has almost no substance whatsoever.

Ironically, the son of Rob Roy appears in the film, but does nothing more than challenge someone to a bagpipe contest, insult them, and then leave. If this were a crossover with something like Davy Crockett, I'd cry foul at the poor characterization, but I could hardly care less here.

What happened in the movie, I'm not sure. Honestly, I found it a challenge to pay attention, and the thick accents made it even harder to parse the plot. I think there's a war between the king and the highlanders, but I don't know why, who won, or what happened.

Having a film with a newspaper headline-worthy title like this, and turn it into a toothless slog, has to be the biggest joke of all time. April Fools on me, I suppose.

But as a wise person once said, where there is darkness, there is always light, and thankfully, the third film in this trio made up for Kidnapped's time-wasting, and was much easier to access.

'Pollyanna', also released in 1960, is a film about an orphan girl who moves in with her fabulously wealthy aunt in a small town. Everyone in the town is generally unhappy, and Pollyanna learns about their problems, using her endless optimism to bring joy back into their lives.

On the surface, this movie looks like it would be a snooze-fest, but after films like Kidnapped and Johnny Tremain, I was pleasantly surprised. The film is pretty low-stakes, with most of its plot and conflict centering on inter-personal drama, but the entertainment value comes from its main character and how the interacts with everything. Pollyanna is a fish out of water, used to hard living and orphanages, but keeps her chin up through everything. At first, living with her aunt is strange, and the people in town aren't friendly to her, but over time she helps the people open up about their problems, and just generally help them smile.

The town is far from chaotic, but its easy to see that people are unhappy. Pollyanna's stoic aunt owns quite a lot of the town, and hardly shows sympathy to those who are struggling. The town's orphanage has a flood which they can't afford to renovate after. Every Sunday in church is a lecture about death and it's inevitability. Yet Pollyanna sees the good in everyone, lends an ear, and ends up giving sage advice to those decades her senior who would normally never listen to her.

Its incredibly satisfying watching Pollyanna, because she is a ray of light so often unseen in modern media. Hardly anything gets her down, and she's incredibly thoughtful, with her 'Glad game' that reminds her to always look on the bright side of things. In an era in pop culture where being a downer is cool, Pollyanna is so completely different, its almost shocking to see someone so nice and pure-hearted on my TV screen.

Beyond it's titular character, most of the rest of the film is pretty average. The characters are kind of forgettable, the setting isn't really explore too much, and not much about it really stands out. Truly, this is a film centered around its star, and not much beyond that.

With that, we are officially in the 1960's Disney catalogue! The good news is that hopefully, their boring Westerns are behind them, and we'll be getting more animated films in the near future.

Seems I've been slacking a bit when it comes to this challenge. march is nearly over, and I'm not even out of the 1960's yet? Let's change that today.

Years after the studio hit it big with their animated adaptation of 'Bambi', Walt Disney Studios went back to Felix Salten's works in search of something else to bring to the silver screen. In 1959, they would release a rather strange film, adapting the author's 1923 novel 'The Hound of Florence'.

'The Shaggy Dog' is a movie about a teenage boy with a father who despises dogs. One day, he finds a magic ring in a museum, which transforms him into an Old English sheepdog at inopportune times. Hilarity ensues, as the boy tries to win over the mysterious new French girl in town, and try to keep his secret under wraps.

Compared to the other films that the studio had put out around this time, this movie is really good. The Shaggy Dog is surprisingly fun, and a good laugh, especially if you are someone who likes dogs. There's a lot of silliness with the dog on screen, talking to police officers and driving a car, its hard not to laugh.

While the story is pretty average, the mechanic of switching between human and animal at random is cool, and the way its executed here (especially in comparison to the 2006 adaptation with Tim Allen) is unique. Its not often you see transformation be done through body-snatching, and especially not in such a PG way.

Still, the film is pretty limited in what it can and cannot do. The effects, for the time, are fine, but look incredibly cheap today. Sticking tufts of white hair on the lead actor's face and saying 'oh no, he's transforming!' might've been convincing in the late 50's, but today its laughable.

Make no mistake, the late 50's weren't entirely lacking wow-factor. In that same year, Disney released 'Darby O'Gill and the Little People', which really shows some risk-taking with movie technology that takes things to the next level.

The film, about an old man who meets the king of the leprechauns, is full of fun and special effects, that elevate it from a simple nothing to a film worth noting in their history. I might regret saying this later, but to me, its a hidden gem from the studio.

Sure, the story is middling, and it takes a bit to get going, but what it lacks in action and thrills, it makes up for in whimsy. Its a film that so clearly wants to be fun, and doesn't take itself too seriously, inviting the viewer in to peek at Irish folklore and the art of myth-making. Where a modern movie might spend a good chunk of time having it's characters dismiss stories of leprechauns, and have it's main character struggle to prove their reality, the people in the film believe in fairy tales, and hold them in reverence.

After all, the leprechauns (and eventually a banshee) in the film aren't monsters in need to slaying, or hazards on a quest: they're part of the local ecosystem. Their magic is just as much a part of the filmic Ireland as it's people are, right down to the historical artifacts the King keeps in his underground home (which are all from famous points in the country's history). At times, it feels a bit too stereotypical, but its light-hearted and silly enough that it doesn't feel mean-spirited.

Where the film lags, though, is in it's B plot, involving the main character's daughter and two local men who want to marry her. Compared to the wacky leprechauns, it's the mother of all nothing-burgers, and any time it gets screen time, you will wish it would go away quickly. There's nothing new or subversive about it, nothing particularly memorable or likable about any of the three characters, except that one of them is played by Sean Connery (which is the first famous name I have recognized from any of the film's I've seen on this journey so far).

For what its worth, I'd still recommend this one, though not to everyone. Its not the most thrilling, the acting is a bit stale sometimes, and despite paying attention the whole time I couldn't understand the point of the old lady character. The effects are neat though, especially one moment at the end of the film which had me really invested.

At the tail end of the decade, Disney released one final film, a live-action one which, despite being on Disney +, I doubt anyone really remembers.

'Third Man on the Mountain' is a rather boring film about a Swiss teenager who wants to climb mountains like his late father did. He sneaks off on an expedition with a famous mountaineer, and encounters hardships along the way that test his mettle against the forces of nature.

Somehow, my little summary of the movie did it more justice than the film itself, because in the hour and a half of it's runtime, it never once feels exciting. You'd think with a movie about an inexperienced person going on an expedition to climb a legendary mountain, there'd be some drama, stakes, or tension, but the film deflates any that could've been there by loading up scenes with more talking than an old-fashioned dinner party, and the briefest of mountain climbing scenes.

Never once, which watching this, did I feel afraid for the characters, or worried that they might fall. The characters hardly encounter any struggles on the mountain whatsoever, except when it finds that it needs a convenient roadblock, then something happens and the characters must stop and talk a lot more. Sometimes they even quit altogether and go back down, dashing any hopes I might've had for some actual stakes.

The characters are even more of a bore, with such lack of personality that I could barely tell them apart. Who are these other characters, why are they on the mountain? Who knows, who cares, how much runtime is left?

If I had a time machine, I'd go back in time and convince Walt Disney Studios to hold off on making this one, at least until filming technology got better. This movie could've really benefitted from some landscape shots, like the ones in their 'True Life Adventures' series. Or, maybe, the fault is the script, and this should've had more time in the writer's room. Whatever the case, don't watch this one.

With that, we are finally out of the 1950's! Looking back, you can really see the studio starting to expand, and delve into live-action movies a lot more (which eventually would become their bread and butter). At the same time, you also see the biases of the filmmakers soaking into everything they work on, leading to big chunks of the decade being hidden from streaming services. Maybe in the 60's, they'll learn to respect people who aren't white. One can dream, I suppose...

In the depths of winter, sometimes we just want to be transported to somewhere warm. Looking outside and seeing fields of snow, one might get the desire to watch things about warm, summer destinations, just to feel a semblance of its heat. Where I'm from, it may be the start of spring, but Mother Nature didn't seem to get the memo, so I too am looking for a break from snowy visuals. Ironic, considering the films I had to watch in this batch.

When you think of nature documentaries, what places come to mind? Maybe the Sahara desert, of the Amazon rainforest? Well, even Canada has its majestic vistas, and in late 1958, Disney took their camera crew to the arctic north to film just that.

'White Wilderness' is the thirteenth film in Disney's 'True Life Adventures' series, which tell the stories of different ecosystems and how the animals there survive. This film specifically focuses on the north of Canada (though some sources say Alberta and Manitoba?), showing the harsh lives of everything there in the frozen wilderness.

Like most of their other documentaries, its a decent time, provided you have the patience for it. Lots of topics are covered, like how seasons work closer to the arctic circle, and migrations of certain species. Some of the footage is really pretty, with the snowy mountains dotted with deer moving together. Its a sight to behold.

The animals, as well, are pretty interesting (though I definitely have favourites). There's a segment about walruses, and how they all flop down together in a big pile to rest, that made me laugh a lot. There's polar bear cubs playing in the snow, and wolves working together to hunt caribou, which is totally awesome. There's even a wolverine (no, not Hugh Jackman, sorry), that picks fights with all the other animals, and had me cheering for it the whole time.

But if you know anything about this movie, its not the good stuff. White Wilderness would've been any other nature documentary, if not for it being the origin of the 'lemming mass suicide' myth. In the film, we are shown groups of lemmings start migrating one day, come to a cliff face, then are told their instincts make them jump off. Lemming after lemming flings itself into the icy waters, and then a later shot shows their bodies bobbing in the tide.

If it wasn't screwed up enough to show a mass suicide of cute little animals (movies like these have shown animals dying before, but always in the context of another getting to eat), in the 80's the CBC launched an investigation into the movie, and found that the lemmings weren't actually even from that region, and were shoved off the cliff to make it seem like they jumped. Apparently that species doesn't even migrate at all! I certainly hope Disney made a statement about this, because its not something they could easily sweep under the rug. What would've been a standard animal documentary is sullied by off-screen animal cruelty, which just lead to decades of misinformation.

In the 1940s, the American Humane Society began working with Hollywood to ensure the safety of animals in movie productions. Their seal of quality, reading 'no animals were harmed in the making of this movie', is still around to this day, but with the types of films that were being made around the time it was started, its understandable why it came to be.

'Tonka' is a 1958 film about a horse that survived the Battle of the Little Big Horn, also known as Custer's Last Stand. Notably, the horse is the only one who survived, human or animal, and the film tells the horse's story from youth to after the battle.

The best way this movie can be described is a combination of How to Train Your Dragon, Spirit, and Pocahontas. A young Sioux boy captures the wild horse Tonka while trying to prove himself to his people, and trains the horse in secret. The horse is taken away from him, and ends up in the hands of the U.S Cavalry, where they try to make it into a war horse.

Just like Davy Crockett, Tonka has a theme song that sings his praises. It makes him seem like a god on earth, with hooves like thunder and eyes that sparkle, and he's a nice-looking horse, but besides his actions during the battle near the end of the film, there's not too much special about him. It would've been nice for the film to lean more into that, to make us really believe he is a special horse.

The story of the movie is pretty decent, certainly more entertaining than other Westerns by the studio around this time. There's less emphasis on painting all Indigenous people as 'savages', or trying to be a history textbook, and more on character drama. Sure, the drama that's there isn't exactly gripping, but considering its fellows, I'll give it a pass.

There's also something to be said about the actors in this movie. The main character, White Bull, is played by Sal Mineo, an Italian-American who was also in Rebel Without a Cause. While I don't exactly agree with Disney's decision to cast him as an Indigenous character, he gets the job done, and doesn't lean into stereotypes. (Mineo was also bisexual, which for the time was pretty unknown, good for him!)

But after long last, we finally come back to what the Walt Disney studio was original made for: animation. I was chomping at the bit, waiting for the next animated film to come my way, and this one certainly didn't disappoint.

'Sleeping Beauty' is the 1959 film telling the classic fairy tale of a princess who is cursed to prick her finger on her 16th birthday and die. Three kind fairies, disguised as peasants, raise her in secret, but when the princess comes of age, her secret threatens to all the kingdom's efforts in keeping her safe, and only true love's kiss can break the spell.

On the surface, you could easily hand-wave this movie away by saying its like Snow White. They're both stories about a princess who pisses off an older woman in black and purple, who curses her into a coma that is only broken when her prince kisses her. But where Snow White spends most of its time reveling in the magic of animation on screen, Sleeping Beauty tells a fleshed-out story, with twists and turns, funny moments, and good action sequences.

At the time that this movie was made, you can tell that Disney had come a long way since Snow White. It chooses expression over realism, making characters and scenes look like a fantasy, rather than a stage play. Big eyes, bigger expressions, cartoony proportions, its not tethered to the limits of hyperrealism, and makes characters feel more vivid and expressive. Even Aurora, who is beholden to having to be the 'pretty' one, has a tiny waist and dainty legs, a big eyes that make it easier for her to make bigger facial expressions. I can't imagine how weird she would've looked if Disney stuck with their realistic style...

The animation in this movie is equally exciting, and has also shown progress since the last princess movies. There's a few behind the scenes clips of the making of this movie that you can find online, that show just how much work went into getting shots and movements right. Its a testament to how hard the Disney animators worked to get everything to look their best, from something as mundane as Aurora dancing in the forest, to Prince John fighting Maleficent.

The scene of him and Maleficent is easily the highlight of the entire film (it is SO COOL!), but I'll also point out that this is the first Disney princess movie so far that had an entertaining plot throughout. For the entire runtime, there's not a single time where I felt compelled to check my phone, or do something else with it on. Every scene is important, and it hardly ever feels like it drags anywhere (which cannot be said for Snow White, where the most engaging scene happens right at the end). There's a lot going on, and there's lots of gags that made me laugh, sprinkled across the film.

As a little sidenote, Sleeping Beauty is another movie where you will get a bit more out of it if you have played Kingdom Hearts. Watch the movie, and see all the places you went with Terra, Aqua, and Ventus.

Sometimes, you don't want a fantasy. With all the films out there telling stories of far-away lands, knights and dragons, ghouls and goblins, sometimes you just want something grounded in reality. Maybe something that happened, that tells the story of an important time in a country's history. For the folks working at Walt Disney in the 50's, that seemed to be all that was on their mind. Through this decade, the studio would produce 12 live-action films with a focus on history, either telling true stories or adapting novels about history. After all, what's a better way to teach than through film?

The first film I watched this week is an adaptation of a novel, which won a Newbery Medal award in 1944. The film, which was first released theatrically in 1957, was then shown on TV in black and white in a segment titled 'Walt Disney Presents'.

'Johnny Tremain' follows the titular character, a 14 year old boy who works as an apprentice silversmith, and after an accident, gets involved with American revolutionaries known as the Sons of Liberty. Over the course of the movie, we Johnny grow into a young man, taking part in important stand-offs against the British and finding his place in society.

Now, as some of you might already know, I'm not American, so I didn't grow up learning about American history. Because of that, I had a hard time with this one, which is meant to be a semi-historical account of the events leading up to the American Revolution. In one scene, we're shown a group of stuffy old men, with their full names all listed. I can only assume they're real historical figures, and that any American kid watching at the time might recognize a few, but the rest of us it all just fades into the background.

Much like the book it's adapted from, this movie is meant to teach and show people about the exciting moments of their country's history. In some aspects, it does a good job; some scenes are a bit exciting, and show real-world events that meant something in the history of the country. The Boston Tea Party, and a fight against the British Forces show audiences what it might've looked like to stand up against British rule at that time, and are reasonably tense.

Still, a few interesting scenes aren't enough to make this a good casual watch, much less a movie to put on with the boys over a couple of beers. There are a lot of scenes of characters just standing around and talking about historical events, without really doing anything, and it gets old fast. There are plotlines which don't go anywhere, yet are treated with such gravitas, yet forgotten by the film's halfway point that its kind of laughable.

The only audience that I can see for this film is Revolutionary War buffs, and teachers, but even then I can't vouch for it's historical accuracy. After sitting through this, the only 'Sons of Liberty' I want hear about has Solid Snake in it.

Where there is darkness, there is also light, and where there are boring movies, there are also (thankfully) good ones. In 1957, Disney studios would put out an experimental little film under their 'True Life Adventures' collection, one that, unlike its fellows, wasn't a documentary.

'Perri', a film about a young squirrel and her life, is done entirely through real-world footage of woodland animals, but tells a fictional story. The original 'Perri' novel was written by Felix Salten, an Jewish man from Austria. It takes place in the same world as Bambi (which he also wrote, as well as a sequel), and there's a cameo from the character in the film.

Unlike Bambi, Perri is made using documentary footage of squirrels and other animals, filmed over three years in Utah. This concept, of using live-action footage of animals to tell a fictional story, was unique for its time, and makes the whole movie feel more believable. One could easily accept things like two animals being friends, a squirrel being 'rowdy', or a community stockpile of nuts and seeds, when accompanied by footage of it happening using real animals.

The story itself isn't anything deep or fantastical; Perri is a young squirrel who moves out (as all animals eventually do) after the death of her father, and struggles to survive on her own. Still, its easy to get into, and to feel for the young squirrel as she navigates the forest and all its dangers on her own.

The scenes of her avoiding danger are where the film becomes most thrilling. Predator animals, like the ever-present weasel, are described plainly as being Death itself. There are dozens of harrowing chase scenes, where Perri scampers from tree to tree, or across the ground trying to escape bigger animals, and they are quite tense, made even moreso by the movie's soundtrack and dramatic narration. At one point in the movie, she dodges back and forth across a log, hoping to find an opening to make a dash for a nearby river, and its difficult in moments like those not to cheer her on.

You can also see a lot of Bambi in this film (and not just in his cameo). There's a lot about the beauty of nature, and the changing of seasons, which are renamed to fit the animals' behaviors. The animals, as we're told, know about eachother and respect each other, all as part of the grand ecosystem of the forest. Even the 'bad guys' are shown to be caring parents who just want the best for their families. Compared to the other 'True Life Adventures', Perri soars with all the grace of an eagle, or perhaps a flying squirrel.

Not ever book adaptation can be as good as Perri, and Disney prove it themselves in 1958, with 'The Light in the Forest', an adaptation of the book by the same name by Conrad Richter.

The film follows a teenager boy, known as 'True-Son', who is adopted by a tribe of Indigenous people and raised as their own. After a peace treaty with the American government, he is abducted back to his birth parents, who try to integrate him back into their society.

Right off the bat, this movie is, for lack of a better word, icky. The concept of a white kid being raised Indigenous and then coming to terms with his identity as a teen is intriguing, but its completely missed by the film, instead making it a show of how 'civilized' white people are. True-Son is bathed (with a character flat out stating that Indigenous people don't wash, and therefore smell???), forced to change his name to a Christian one, and taught passages from the Bible. When he tries to share parts of his own religion, his birth-mother smiles, nods, then goes back to lecturing him.

Its just another Disney movie that makes me wish to be done with their Western phase, so I won't have to see racist stereotypes against Indigenous people again. All the characters in this movie talk about scalping people, event the teenagers, with stars in their eyes, and though I'm not sure of the historical accuracy of them talking about it, it certainly isn't making them look like a respectable group of people in this film made by white folks.

It also doesn't help that this movie is boring. Light in the Forest is the kind of movie you'd see on Turner Classic Movies, with your grandpa fast asleep on the couch in front of the TV. It might've been exciting for the time, but after decades of filmic storytelling evolution, this movie is a slog. Any big action scenes happen off-screen, making audiences imagine battles between the tribe and the settlers, and sit through ages of stand-around-and-talk scenes that don't add anything meaningful to the film.

When I set out on this journey of watching all of Disney's films, I was pretty excited to see the origins of their famous rides and attractions. Just where did famous names like the 'Mark Twain Riverboat', '20 000 Leagues Submarine Voyage', and others get their names from, and why were they so important? While I've gotten to see a few films that eventually made their way into the Disney parks, this trio of films isn't exactly what you'd call marketable. If you really squint, maybe you could say their spirit went into places like the Wonders of Life Pavilion at Epcot or something, but really, its a lot of live action stuff nobody's ever heard of.

The most famous of the trio, Davy Crockett, was lucky enough to get a few attractions at Disneyland on opening day, which I previously wrote about a bit when I reviewed the first of his movies. It makes sense that with such a popular character, Disney would make a second film, another compilation of episodes from the TV show stitched together to make a theatrical plot, and its difficult to decide which is better.

'Davy Crockett and the River Pirates', released in 1956, is a mix of two episodes of the miniseries of the same time, and shows the titular King of the Wild Frontier facing off against a new rival who claims himself King of the River. To keep his honor (and animal furs he plans to make money off of), Davy and his friends have to beat the river king in a race to New Orleans, facing turbulent waters and pirates along the way.

To fans of Fess Parker as the famous frontiersman, it certainly makes up for the dark ending of the first film. Parker is certainly suited for the role, bringing a kind of old-style American charm that makes it easy to like the character, and want to root for him. Compared to the rough, rowdy men around him, he's gentle, charismatic, and is quicker to talk things out than shoot.

When it comes to the film's quality, in comparison to the previous film, its a tough decision. There's a lot to like here, but also a lot to like about King of the Wild Frontier. Where KotWF is clearly three episodes cleaved together to make filmic runtime, River Pirates feels like one cohesive story, with parts that connect and return for later plot events. The two episodes picked to make the film go so well together, you'd almost think it was a 2-part TV special that was originally just one long episode.

The first part of the film, where Crockett is challenged by river king Mike Fink to a race down the river, sets up conflict well, introduces plot details, and is just good clean fun. The second part, where Crockett takes on the river pirates, picks up almost immediately where the first left off, moves forward with an almost effortless plot progression, and brings back everything from the first part to resolve it in a satisfying way. Its shocking how well these two TV show episodes, which probably aired separately, flow well together.

Still, I hesitate to call this the definitive Davy Crockett film, because it lacks the first film's audacity. Davy Crockett, in the Disney films, is surprisingly progressive for his time (for more on this, check out the review on that), standing up for Indigenous rights in a time where everyone assumed they were all born evil. There's less of that here, which is a bit disappointing, but at least he's not irreverently shooting them all in the back (which I can't say the same for some other films...).

With all of these historical and (sometimes) scientific films, one could imagine classrooms using these movies as educational tools. There's certainly tons of material when it comes to American history, but for the natural sciences, there's 'Secrets of Life'.

Released in 1956, this 'True Life Adventure' is all about the little parts of nature we usually just ignore in our lives, but are vital to ecosystems: plants and insects. Much like the other Disney nature documentaries, its a cute little film showing how the little creatures of nature operate, narrated by Winston Hibler, who you might remember from literally every other nature documentary by the studio ever.

It might not have the same wow factor as The African Lion (most of this movie's subjects can't move), but if you go into it with an open mind ready to learn, Secrets of Life is a pleasant time. Split into two sections, the movie shows the audience pretty much everything (well, that was known at the time) about common plants, and then about bees and ants.

With the help of timelapse cameras, Disney captures the slow bloom of hundreds of species of flowers, petals unfolding in bright displays of colours. We see corn stretch and grow, and the edible parts plump up and ripen, with microscopic footage of pollen entering the fibers to make the corn. Another part of the film shows how plants spread their seeds for maximum efficiency, like how some grains 'walk' to find a place to be buried, or how some conifers only spread seeds when the tree is on fire. Sure, the plants may not be very expressive, but its some pretty nifty stuff.

Where the film really shines is with the ants and bees. Transitioning cleverly from pollination to the lives of bees, the film gives viewers a surprisingly close look at the hive, and what bees do all day. The queen laying eggs, how wax is made, why combs are hexagonal, its all explained in a way that pretty much anyone can understand. There are some parts where the narrator is a bit vague about how something works (he refers to how the bees' bodies make wax as a mystery) which would've been nice to have a bit more explanation, but I can only assume we as a society didn't know as much back then.

I may have an aversion to certain bugs, but even I got hyped seeing newly hatched queens duke it out for the throne. Its a part of bee lives that isn't talked about much in most media, so seeing it was pretty cool. I also appreciate how the narration steers away from sensationalizing animal-on-animal violence, keeping it from being treated like a boxing match. They're real animals fighting, and rather than treating them like humans fighting for sport, the narrator steps back a bit, only popping in to explain why the fight is happening, what they're fighting with, and what happens when the final blow is struck. It feels respectful.

If bugs and plants aren't your thing, Disney released yet another Western at around the same time, once again starring Fess Parker. But where Davy Crockett shines, 'Westward Ho! The Wagons' sinks into the middling mush of mediocrity.

Based on the novel 'Children of the Covered Wagon' by Mary Jane Carr, the film follows a loose band of settlers travelling the Oregon trail, who struggled against the Pawnee people on their journey, and meet the Sioux people as well.

Anyone going into this movie would expect to see the same trials and tribulations you might find in the Oregon Trail video game, but the parts that made that game interesting are surprisingly absent here. There's no fording rivers, sicknesses, weathering storms, or anything else where the characters have to survive in the wilderness. Most, if not all the film's conflict comes from a group of Indigenous people who are hostile to the settlers, and another that just sort of doesn't like them very much.

This conflict, of course, is heavily baked in racial prejudices, painting the Pawnee people as evil thieves and kidnappers, and the Sioux people as superstitious weirdos. Today, we know that this definitely wasn't the case, and there's people alive that'll tell you that, but its movie made by white Americans who see the expulsion of Indigenous people from their ancestral lands as 'winning the West', of course they'd write themselves as the good guys.

Its the most close-up depiction of Indigenous people that we've seen so far in the studio's history (so far, as in up until 1956), and it really reveals how little the filmmakers thought of these real cultures. I can't imagine they had anyone on staff doing research beyond reading the accounts of famous settlers. Strange, given the amount of historical films the studio had already done at this point...

You may have noticed that I haven't written about the plot so far; that's because its really nothing special at all. The settlers travel, get attacked by the Pawnee people, hang out with the Sioux for a while, talk a lot about stuff, then the movie ends. For the time I'm sure people ate this up, but it really makes me grateful for modern filmmaking sensibilities.

I watched this one with a friend, and by the end of it, both of us didn't really have much to say about it. There are some famous faces here, including George Reeves, who gave his final film performance here. Fess Parker is also here, though far from his usual charm and likeability. If anything, this movie just makes me wish for more Davy Crockett, and less of whatever this is.

When you look back on the 50's, there's a lot of things that might come to mind: the Cold War, the rise of the suburbs, maybe even the space race. For Disney, there was one thing very clearly on their minds, and that's the beauty of the land. As human expansion started to gobble up remaining wild spaces, many of the studio's films from this decade are focused on, or show off, the beauty of the wilderness, and a bygone era where it was still unexplored. In this, we see the rise of the Western film, and its popularity that would stretch for a while after this decade. But even within that, not everything is all rootin' and tootin', especially these three films here.

During and after World War Two, many North Americans were first exposed to footage of the African continent, which previously hadn't been seen before. The mystery of 'Dark Africa' began to fade, and as more people were able to make their own expeditions there, some filmmakers worked together to bring the (at the time) relatively mysterious land to the folks back home.

'The African Lion' is one of such films, a documentary about the lives of lions in Africa, as well as many other animals that live there too. Filmed over the course of 30 months, audiences are taken in close to see these animals as if they were really there, and learn about them.

Much like the studio's other 'True Life Adventures' films, The African Lion is a pleasant watch for anyone whos the least bit interested in nature. Its hard not to smile, seeing little lion cubs wrestle, or a baby elephant try to keep up with it's mother.

The footage is pretty neat, especially when you consider how close the filmmakers probably had to get to these dangerous animals to get the shot. Some moments feel like you're sitting right in front of them! I can only imagine how dangerous it was, trying to film all of this, with rampaging rhinos and packs of African wild dogs roaming around.

Still, its not exactly what I'd call scientific. There's a lot of anthropomorphizing in the narration, which tries to paint the animals' behaviors like they're people. These days, we know its not true, and they all have their own social structures and instincts, so at times, the narration makes it feel a bit childish. At the end of the day, it is Disney, so I guess you can't expect too much.

On the other side of the globe, Disney would release a film in collaboration with one of Mexico's most famous directors of the time. The film, released in the same year, was a novelty, shot in both English and Spanish with a fully bilingual cast. Because of this, it was able to be released in Mexico without any extra work.

'The Littlest Outlaw' is a drama film about a young boy, who works as a stablehand for a general. When the general orders his prize show-jumper to be put down, the boy and horse run away across the country, dodging the law and looking for a place to live.

Color me surprised to see Disney doing a movie about Mexico so early in their existence as a studio. With how popular Westerns were at this time in history, anyone could assume they'd be pumping out films about American heroes fighting bandits, but this film offers a different side of the Western aesthetic that usually gets lost in the cowboy glamour.

You can really tell they filmed this on-location, with such pretty landscapes, open fields, and distant mountains. There's quite a few scenes of the boy and horse just walking in the wilderness, and you get to take in how nice everything is, before urban sprawl eventually took over. That cliff with the cross is probably a freeway now...

What I find most interesting in this movie is the culture it shows. Like any other outside-of-America production, a lot of the local culture is on screen, and it feels like you're a tourist through time and space. Big churches with stained-glass windows, bullfights, an old style tavern, you really see a lot of Mexico in this movie. It even taught me about a real-life animal festival that still happens every year.

Still, you can't help but cringe at some of the scenes with animals. I doubt they had the strict animal welfare laws we have today back then, and sometimes you can see it, in frothing mouths and bloody lips on horses. For a film about saving an animal from abuse, it's animal actors sure look stressed while on screen.

Before I continue, I'd like to preface this next review by saying that I am not American. I have never been American, do not plan on becoming one, and as such, don't know too much about American history, aside from the broad strokes. Imagine my reaction to finding out the next film on my list is one about American history.

'The Great Locomotive Chase', released in 1956, is a film based on real events that took place in the American Civil War in the early 1860's. In the film, a group of uncover Union soldiers sneak into the South, steal and train, and set off to ruin their enemies' supply lines by burning bridges and destroying tracks.

If there's one thing Americans love, its their history, and you can really tell it in this movie. This story, which probably wasn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, is played like a heist film, with all the drama, suspense, and action that you'd expect from a bank robbery. The film plays with showing the soldiers both as heroes and villains, with lots of time spent with the Confederate soldiers chasing them, or a laid-back evening in a Southern family's house for dinner. Still, in 2026, its hard to feel bad for them.

It takes a bit to get going, but when the film starts ramping up, its a decently intense ride. The characters are constantly keeping track of whos chasing them, their supplies, and trying to keep quiet while behind enemy lines, all the while being hunted down by a group that just won't quit.

At times, the film gets quite suspenseful, but it also relies heavily on your knowledge of the Civil War. Characters will report on battles to each other, bring up famous names, and if you're like me and don't know who the hell any of those are, it doesn't really mean much at all. If you learned about the Civil War in school, you might get something out of this, but to a Canadian, its almost fantasy.

Its also not the greatest when it comes to characters. With such a big cast, all crowded together, its hard to remember individual names and faces. Sure, its not as important who they are as what they did, but it sure would be nice if I could tell the soldiers apart. The only one I could remember is their leader, who is played by Fess Parker, the actor of Davy Crockett.

Some of these films, it can be a bit hard finding things to say about them. They're not terrible, not really offensive, but not stand-out either. Still, I'm sure these were somebody's favorites when they first came out. I'd say to give them a try if they sound interesting, but good luck finding them: those last two aren't on Disney+, and I had to go to some sketchy sites to see them.

The 50's were a very interesting time for Disney. In July of 1955, the company would open a theme park in Anaheim, California, the first of its kind. Once a little studio making 5 minute shorts about a funny mouse, Walt Disney Studios had grown into a household name, and would then begin drawing in tourists from all over the world to visit their 'Disney Land'. The creation of the park has had an enormous effect on culture as a whole, creating a whole new type of theme park that would soon become a multi-billion dollar industry, breeding technologic innovations like the audio animatronic, and bringing beloved characters to life for countless people of all ages.

Now, I may sound like a bit of a sap while writing this, but the Disney parks are very near and dear to my heart. It was, after all, a video series explaining the history of them that inspired me to start this project. The parks truly are a magical place, where the stuff that Disney makes comes to life, and you can really feel how much effort is put into it all. So many of the studio's iconic films are in the parks, allowing guests to step into the screen and join their favourite characters on an adventure, or take selfies with them I suppose. Three of those, which hit theaters in the 50's, have made appearances in the parks, though not all have survived over the years.

In the late 50's, Disneyland's 'Tomorrowland' section went under a major expansion, which added a ride that supposedly took guests on a submarine to explore the depth of the ocean. This ride, which didn't actually take guests underwater very much at all, was such a hit that it was brought over to Disneyworld years later, rethemed around the 1954 film 20 000 Leagues Under the Sea.

Based on the Jules Verne novel, the film focuses on a French scientist, his assistant, and a sailor companion who find themselves aboard a mysterious submarine, in search of a 'sea monster' that has been making headlines.

The wonders of underwater life are on full display, and you as viewer are invited in alongside the main characters to explore the Nautilus, a fantastic work of steampunk-y engineering brought to life in vivid detail by Disney. Its a submarine unlike any other, fully furnished with a pipe organ, bottled specimens on shelves, and shaped more or less like a aquatic creature. Watching the movie, you can totally see why Disney wanted that ship in their parks: compared to the hardened, war machine submarines of the 40's, the Nautilus is an elegant mobile home. Everything has these big chunky rivets on it, and is controlled with cranks and gauges, a far cry from sleek screen-filled modern tech, but there's a charm to it all.

You can also see how far filming technology had progressed by that point, in the underwater scenes. This movie is one of the first ever shot underwater, and its amazing to watch the actors stumble around in those big chunky metal suits, in a time where the technology was still new. Unlike Treasure Island, they actually filmed in real tropical waters too, making it feel far more lifelike than their previous offerings. Well, as lifelike as you can get in a movie with a mystery submarine and a giant squid.

What's interesting about this movie isn't just how it looks and the technology that went into it. The character drama is pretty neat, with the main trio reasoning with their captor/host, Captain Nemo, and his complicated beliefs. You could write a whole essay about that guy, whether he's justified in what he does or not, and how he makes a utopia for him and his fellows after escaping slavery. Certainly the characters pick sides, then swap them after learning new things, and its a great companion to all the wonders of undersea life.

Also I'd love to shout out all the animals that were in this, because its a lot. Sea turtles, fish, sharks, a sea lion, I'm impressed that they were able to wrangle all of them and get them to perform so well for the camera. I can only hope they got paid well.

When Disneyland first opened, it had a lot of famous rides and attractions: 'The Jungle Cruise',' 'Dumbo', 'the Mad Tea Party'. What a lot of folks don't know is that in the year it debuted, the 'Frontierland' section of the park had a shooting gallery, themed around American folk hero (and soon, movie character), Davy Crockett.

Davy Crockett: King of the Wild Frontier, released in 1955, is an edit/recut of episodes from the TV show of the same character, which aired around that time. The film follows the titular frontiersman, as he fights in the military, helps the government, and just generally does good wherever he goes.

I went into this movie very excited, after hearing tales of Davy Crockett on the wind. Not growing up in the U.S, all my knowledge of this guy was from the occasional reference in Looney Tunes, so I was both giddy with excitement and dreading the eventual 'cowboys vs indians' xenophobia. What I certainly didn't expect was the film's politics.

Turns out, Davy Crockett is a cooler guy than you'd think. He meets with the leader of an Indigenous tribe he was previously fighting to talk peace, and says he'll convince the American government to give them their land back. In real life they got their land taken away, but in the film Crockett convinces the government, and everyone is peaceful after that. Leave it to the man who killed a bear at three years old to do what a bunch of government representatives couldn't.

What's even more bizarre is that he later runs for office? The King of the Wild Frontier becomes a state representative, and eventually loses his job after barging into a congressional hearing, and ripping up a bill that would've stolen Indigenous treaty lands. He nearly kills a man who brags about chasing Indigenous farmers off their land and reselling it to white people. Yeah, he shoots quite a few of those folks in the back at the start of the film, but in a genre so steeped in othering and racism towards Indigenous people, Crockett is pretty progressive.

All the while, a chorus sings his praises, with his own theme song getting additional verses every once in a while to reflect what he does. It gives the whole film a kind of epic feel, like we're seeing a legend play out, and his stories be written in real time. Unlike Disney's previous attempts at telling the stories of famous folk heroes, there's more of a reverence towards the subject in question, and you can tell that there was love in the making of it.

While not represented through rides or walk-around characters, one of Disney's earlier animated films is still in the parks, in the form of a statue. Lady and the Tramp, released in 1955, was the studio's first to be distributed after their split from RKO Pictures, and recreation of their in-house Buena Vista Pictures, and was allegedly inspired by the puppy Walt gifted to his wife Lillian.

The movie tells the story of two dogs, who live in different circumstances, and eventually fall in love. Lady, a cocker spaniel, is raised by two humans who are only known as 'Jim Dear' and 'Darling' in a big fancy house in a posh neighborhood. Tramp, a terrier mix, is a stray who lives on the streets, avoiding dogcatchers and begging for food. The two meet, and learn to let go of their hang-ups, while bonding with eachother in a world that sometimes sees dogs as nuisances.

I'm not the first person to say this, but the film has a lot to say about social class. Lady is very obviously wealthy, from her glossy ears to the massive house she gallops around every day. When she is forced out, she is forced to see how less fortunate dogs live, and it scares her. She learns just how lucky she is to have owners that love her, and fights to protect the family baby that she initially hated. Tramp, on the other hand, has been beaten down by humans, and taught himself to live on his own. He feigns connections to others, whether its the family that feeds him on certain nights, or female dogs in the past, only to leave them when he loses interest. Its only when he meets Lady, someone who he begins to trust, does he stay by her.

If you're a dog lover, you'll absolutely enjoy this movie. The dogs in Lady and the Tramp are a weird type of anthropomorphized, where they're still animals in a realistic world, but have human-level intelligence and emotion, and have their own rules. They're treated with the same level of respect as the human characters, something which isn't all too common in movies like these (sidenote I hate you, Marmaduke movie). They're little people, but in all shaped and colors to represent real world breeds, and little personalities that aren't just 'chase the ball'. A borzoi who quotes Russian philosophers, a chunky bulldog with a lisp, a slinky Pekingese who sings a song, they're more than just dog stereotypes.

While I initially guessed that this movie would be from the 60's or 70's, you can really tell when this one was made. When Darling gives birth, its at home, with a doctor coming to help with the delivery. The phone has one of those cup-shaped ends to listen from, and another to speak into. Cars are big buggies with tall wheels running on dirt roads. You can also see it in it's worst moment, the Siamese cats. I can only imagine how Asian kids felt, watching these two shit disturbers mock them and their culture.

Still, I won't deny that its a pretty important film. The spaghetti scene is iconic, as is the song they play during it. Lady and the Tramp would be the start of Disney experimenting more in anthropomorphism, which eventually leads to The Lion King much further down the line. The animation, as well, shows a development of a style, one that would be associated with the studio for years to come.

All in all, an excellent trio of movies, coming off the heels of some less than stellar ones. I knew that this last film would be difficult for me, in the wake of my dog's passing, and I ended up crying twice during it (once at the start when they first get Lady, and then during the pound scene where they show all the dogs crying and whimpering). It was a tough watch, but hopefully in the future, the sight of dogs on screen won't bring me to tears so easily.