Dream Factory: Into the Woods

Into the Woods
Director: Rob Marshall
Original release date: Disney 2014
Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy 2015 nominee
Rating: PG
Grade: B

Summary from Rotten Tomatoes: Into the Woods is a modern twist on several of the beloved Brothers Grimm fairy tales, intertwining the plots of a few choice stories and exploring the consequences of the characters' wishes and quests. This humorous and heartfelt musical follows the classic tales of Cinderella, Little Red Riding Hood, Jack and the Beanstalk, and Rapunzel -all tied together by an original story involving a baker and his wife, their wish to begin a family and their interaction with the witch who has put a curse on them.

As an aficionado of both fairy tales and musicals, I had been anticipating the release of the film version of Into the Woods for some time, especially since it's an adaptation of a Stephen Sondheim musical.  Of course, I knew that there would be changes since Disney was marketing it as a family film, but there were still more than I expected.

A number of songs have been truncated or excised completely to shorten the length of the show, which I feel is to its detriment.  Some of the songs that were removed included "Ever After" and "No More,"  which both appear only as instrumentals.  The reprise of "Agony" has also been removed and with it the subplot of the Princes' respective affairs with Snow White and Sleeping Beauty.  I suppose it was to be expected that the "adult" subject matter would be removed or significantly toned down given Disney's involvement, but it muddled the plot in regard to Cinderella's decision to leave her prince.  It should be noted that the violence has been altered, as well.

I appreciated that this version of Cinderella's story used her dead mother's spirit instead of the fairy godmother that has become so iconic. I had worried that it would be changed for the film.  It's worth noting that Rapunzel's prince is still blinded, but Rapunzel neither bears a child nor dies in this version.  

As for production values, the costumes and sets are all fairly detailed and the effects, such as the bean stalks and the Witch's transformation, are pretty impressive.  There's also a good mix of celebrities and stage performers who all do a good job performing the songs.  I don't think Meryl Streep deserves awards nominations for her role here, but considering the shoes she had to fill, I still enjoyed her performance.  

All in all, Into the Woods is a good film that may serve as a great introduction to Sondheim.  It can't replace a live performance, however.

Dream Factory: How to Train Your Dragon 2

How to Train Your Dragon 2
Director: Dean DeBlois
Original release date: DreamWorks Pictures 2014
Rating: PG
A

Summary from IMDB: When Hiccup and Toothless discover an ice cave that is home to hundreds of new wild dragons and the mysterious Dragon Rider, the two friends find themselves at the center of a battle to protect the peace.

Five years have past since the events that transpired in the first film.  As the story begins, Stoick is grooming Hiccup to replace him as chief of the village, but Hiccup focuses instead on traveling with Toothless to create an expanded map of the area.  He has also been tinkering with a set of wings for himself, although each practice attempt has resulted in a crash landing thus far. 

On one of their journeys, the duo encounters dragon poachers, but are rescued by a mysterious masked dragon rider.  Once Hiccup learns more about the poachers, he must rally his friends before the poachers capture all of Berk's dragons.

Those who are fans of the first film shouldn't be disappointed with this installment.  While the film has a number of serious moments, the trademark humor is still present in the side characters, such as Ruffnut and Fishlegs.  And the animation quality has only been improved since 2010.

What I most appreciated was the attention dedicated to a major secondary character's death.  Many family-oriented films will skim over such death sequences, but the writers here respect their audience and the scene they've created.  The scene in question is one of the most emotional in either of the films, not only because of the death, but because of how the death affects the relationship between Hiccup and Toothless.  Even though attentive viewers will see the foreshadowing of the death in earlier scenes in the film, it still stirs the emotions, which is a sign of how strong the writing is here.

My only real complaint with the film is that Hiccup is the only character who is given time to develop over the course of the film.  Astrid and his friends are very much side characters here, and the relationship between Hiccup and Astrid seems tacked on.  I haven't watched the TV show, so maybe it was developed more there?  If not, I hope the next film allots some time for other characters to mature and change.

I'm not sure why this film hasn't been doing better at the box office, as it's a solid, well-animated installment.  Fans of the franchise and of animation in general should definitely see it at the cinema.

Dream Factory: Maleficent

Maleficent
Director: Robert Stromberg
Original release date: Walt Disney Pictures 2014 
Rating: PG
B

Summary from Rotten Tomatoes: Maleficent explores the untold story of Disney's most iconic villain from the classic Sleeping Beauty and the elements of her betrayal that ultimately turn her pure heart to stone. Driven by revenge and a fierce desire to protect the moors over which she presides, Maleficent cruelly places an irrevocable curse upon the human king's newborn infant Aurora. As the child grows, Aurora is caught in the middle of the seething conflict between the forest kingdom she has grown to love and the human kingdom that holds her legacy. Maleficent realizes that Aurora may hold the key to peace in the land and is forced to take drastic actions that will change both worlds forever.

As both a fan of fairy tales and Disney villains, I was excited when Maleficent was first announced a few years ago, albeit apprehensive given the last few live-action films released by Disney.  And while the critics have given mostly mixed reviews to Maleficent, I thought there were some great elements in it that just needed to be elaborated upon.

One of my major concerns, other than the story itself, was the special effects.  In recent years, there has been an increasingly apparent shift away from practical effects towards CG ones.  Sometimes those CG effects blend seamlessly with the live-action shots, while more frequently they are obvious and seem hollow.  The effects here are somewhere in the middle ground.  They're not perfect, but they're also not shoddy.  Being a practical effects enthusiast, I would have preferred to see the faerie realm as depicted by Jim Henson's Creature Shop, but considering that the majority of creatures were CG, they still managed to convey themselves as creatures with souls.

Fans of Eleanor Audley's portrayal may be a bit disappointed, as Angelina Jolie creates her own interpretation of the character for the most part.  The only Audley-esque scene is the christening of Aurora, which replicates much of the dialogue from the 1959 film.  Those expecting a rehash of the animated film from Maleficent's perspective will be surprised, as much of the latter half of the film is completely different, rather than just presented from a different viewpoint.

Some things worked well, while others did not, though at the risk of spoiling things for those who haven't seen the film, I won't elaborate.  Maleficent's motivation for revenge was justified, but in her rage, she harmed those who were innocent of the betrayal.  I thought this was portrayed very realistically and greatly enjoyed Maleficent's quest for redemption through her role as "fairy godmother."  Both she and Aurora were much more complex characters here than in the 1959 film, while the three "good fairies" were relegated to the role of comic relief.

While I applaud the attempt at not only introducing feminist themes to the work, but also the parallelism of the sleeping victims (Maleficent and Aurora), I found some of the narrative problematic.  Namely, the lack of positive male characters.  It's important that when empowering female characters, we don't villainize the male ones, but that's what happened here.  I'm not trying to excuse the actions of Stefan, as they were abhorrent.  I'm just pointing out that the film would have been more balanced if there were a good male to balance out Stefan's evil.  I think they attempted that with Philip (attempted being the operative word), but he's barely in the film so he doesn't do much to counteract Stefan.  I should note that I'm also not calling for Philip (or another male) to be the hero.  Aurora and Maleficent do a fine job of thwarting the king themselves.  I just want balance in the portrayals of characters of both sexes.

All in all, an enjoyable attempt to retell a classic fairy tale from a different perspective, even if it has its flaws.

Dream Factory: Fire and Ice

Fire and Ice

Director: Ralph Bakshi

Original release date: 20th Century Fox 1983

DVD release: Blue Underground Entertainment 2005

Streaming: Netflix

Rated PG

C-

Summary from Seen That: "In this animated tale, a tiny village is destroyed by a surging glacier, which serves as the deadly domain for the evil Ice Lord, Nekron. The only survivor is a young warrior, Larn, who vows to avenge this act of destruction. The evil continues, however, as Nekron's palace of ice heads straight towards Fire Keep, the great fortress ruled by the good King Jarol. When Jarol's beautiful daughter, Teegra, is abducted by Nekron's sub-human ape-like creatures, Larn begins a daring search for her. What results is a tense battle between good and evil, surrounded by the mystical elements of the ancient past."

The 80's were full of forgettable fantasy fare, and were it not for the ability to MST3K, Fire and Ice would probably be on that list.  It begins with an info dump attempting to convince the audience that the film will be far more epic than it actually is, then segues to a fight with Nekron, who seems to be having ice-gasms while fighting the tribe of warriors of which Larn is a member.  For me, it was the unintentional homoeroticism that made Fire and Ice enjoyable, so if you aren't amused by that sort of thing, you probably just want to avoid this film.

The rotoscoping is pretty decent, especially compared to Mr. Bakshi's Lord of the Rings, though there are some scenes where the footage seems to be deliberately slowed.  The costume "designs" are terribly lacking, with nearly every character parading around in loin cloths and string bikinis, even though the majority of the film takes place in the glacier where Nekron dwells.  I suppose we're meant to suspend our disbelief when no one dies from hypothermia.

The hero, Larn, is pretty lame.  Darkwolf (the dude with the ax in the above photo) is the one who actually fights and defeats Nekron.  Larn seems to only be included so that the audience has a young novice character to identify with, but Larn does nothing in this film but get into trouble.  Don't even get me started on Teegra.

In addition to the obvious wish fulfilment elements, the film is problematic in its name and design of Nekron's henchmen.  Rather than orcs or goblins, Nekron has "sub-humans," which have similar builds and facial structures to Alaskan Natives. I understand that this is a fantasy world, but I think the creators should have put much more thought into their portrayal of this particular group.  The best way would have been to create a fantasy race, but since they didn't, they could have at least given them a more suitable name and made them more intelligent.  The "sub-humans" here are basically depicted as Neanderthals who repeatedly try to kidnap and rape Teegra.  Yeah...it's pretty offensive.

All in all, unless you are looking for an unintentionally bad film to mock with your friends or are really interested in rotoscoping, I'd avoid Fire and Ice.

The Dream Factory: Frankenweenie

Frankenweenie directed by Tim Burton
Walt Disney Pictures 2012
Rated PG
Academy Award for Best Animated Feature Nominee 2013
BAFTA Award for Best Animated Film Nominee 2013
Golden Globe Award for Best Animated Feature Film Nominee 2013
Annie Award for Best Animated Feature Nominee 2013
A-

I can clearly remember being seven and first seeing advertisements for The Nightmare Before Christmas in my Disney Adventures magazine.  Mr. Burton's ghoulish ink illustrations, used as promotional art, captured my imagination and I began to entreat my parents to take me to the film, though no one else in the family was particularly interested in going to see it.  The film, my first experience with stop motion animation, ignited a lifelong love for the art form, as well as for the story's writer, Mr. Burton.

Since 1993, Mr. Burton has both inspired me and disappointed me, but as I sat in the cinema waiting for his latest creation to begin, I had high hopes that Frankenweenie would belong to the former group and I was not disappointed.

The film follows the same storyline as that of the 1984 short (which I have fond childhood memories of watching every Halloween on the Disney Channel).  When Victor Frankenstein's dog is hit by a car, he attempts to resurrect him with electricity on a stormy night and succeeds.  The film, needing to flesh out the plot, introduces a science fair at Victor's school, and discovering Victor's project, the other students (all of them parodies of some horror figure or other), resurrect their own pets.  But, their motivations being quite different than Victor's, the pets rampage through the town and Victor must devise a way to stop them.

I wasn't expecting this film to be a comedy, but I found myself laughing aloud quite frequently at the numerous horror references sprinkled throughout the film.  Most of these jokes went over the heads of the children in attendance, and I think my husband and I were the only ones laughing most of the time due to the demographics of our particular screening.  But the relationship between Victor and Sparky, his dog, are something all people with pets can relate to, so the references shouldn't prevent non-horror fans from enjoying the film.

Aside from what felt, to me, like a mixed message about science and the failure to teach younger viewers a valuable lesson about letting go, the film hit all the right notes.  This is Mr. Burton as himself, filled with whimsical nostalgia and none of the soulless commercialism of his last few films.