|
Post by Vits on Nov 1, 2018 15:58:06 GMT
THE ADVENTURES OF ICHABOD AND MR. TOAD has great animation and some catchy songs, but it doesn't have a single interesting character. ICHABOD CRANE OR THE LEGEND OF SLEEPY HOLLOW has a very scary sequence, but it's hard to really praise it because: A) It happens in the last 5 minutes or so. B) It doesn't fit with the rest of the segment, which is a romantic comedy that follows a formula closer to Warner Bros than Disney (bad things happen to the villain by accident whenever he tries to do something bad to the hero). I know that modern viewers have to keep the time period in mind whenever an old movie does something questionable, but the way the female characters are treated like objects (literally!) is just offensive. MR. TOAD OR THE WIND IN THE WILLOWS doesn't have anything noteworthy bad. It's just incredibly boring. 3/10 SLEEPY HOLLOW 1999 6/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Nov 2, 2018 15:17:19 GMT
Well, obviously this is not a franchise in anyway whatsoever...
But, I love the Disney version of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. I think it's beautifully animated, I quite like the story of Ichabod vs Brom Bones, and I even enjoy the songs. It's a very faithful adaptation of the classic short story, which obviously has endured for a reason since it's early publication as probably the "first great American man of Letters' " most revered achievement. It's a simple story, certainly, but has a nice character dynamic. What's great about the adaptation, which makes it rather faithful yet its own thing, is that it includes very little, if any, of the original language of the text. The story doesn't include any dialogue at all, so that's obviously a challenge to adapt as a film, but I'd argue that this was rather successful. Apparently, Walt Disney wanted to make this into a feature, but this was the correct approach. It was kept brief and didn't really add anything to the narrative to pad the runtime. As it was, some of the sequences were stretched a little bit longer than they needed to be in favor of sight gags and physical comedy, but I think that's all fine for the tone and pace of it. It's a little goofy in the early parts, Ichabod eats a lot, Brom gets jealous and has bad luck, but I think telling this all visually is nice. And then the foreboding song by Brom Bones sets the stage for the real set piece of the entire thing quite nicely.
The PC issue is hard not to notice now, but I'd argue that Katrina, in the original story and in the cartoon version, is much more in control than any of the male characters realize. It's not a focal point of the story, but her father, Brom, and Ichabod are all being played against one another. She's making each of them jealous and nervous in order to see what they can do for her. The issue here is mostly just a throw away obese woman who is there to be an object of undesirability to make the male characters uncomfortable. That's the one that doesn't quite sit right. Although, it is handled with skill from a comedic and animation angle, the fact that she's there just as a prop is unfortunate.
I also think the fact that Bing Crosby is the voice of the film probably adds to that. He was obviously a wonderful performer, but now we know he could be a monster in his personal life. Maybe not towards women, as far as we know, but the idea of the old fashioned conservative good guy not adhering to that does kind of give an air unease to a lot of his work now...
...Especially since one of the lines that is carried over from the text is when Bing himself explains that Ichabod believed in the notion of 'spare the rod, spoil the child' which is especially dark knowing what he put his own children through.
But anyway, that last sequence, 'the midnight ride,' is a real classic piece of animation. It, too, is wonderfully adapted from the text, is visually striking, has some terrific sound design, is expertly paced, and for a cartoon for kids is fairly frightening. The whole film builds to that sequence, and it's a terrific climax. The feeling of being alone in the dark is excellently conveyed, but it all has this nice levity the whole time as well. It strikes the perfect balance between the horror aspects and the childish fun of it all.
I have not seen the Mr. Toad portion of the movie in a many years. I hardly remember anything about it other than it being forgettable. I was always so taken with The Legend of Sleepy Hollow that any time I'd see the other one after it I would be turned off or disappointed, but I haven't given it another look in a while... While on the other hand, the first part is essential October viewing for me pretty much every year.
That short is an easy 8 of 10...
... As is Burton's Sleepy Hollow. I fucking love that movie. I think of it as the perfect old fashioned, hammer-esque, Bava-influnced, ultra atmospheric horror movie of the modern era. It's stunningly gorgeous to look at. It may well be the most atmospheric horror film ever made. That Emanuelle Lubezki before he won an Oscar every year, but doing some of his best work of his career for sure. And it has an amazingly gorgeous horror score by Danny Elfman. Really the only true horror score of his career, I think. And the cast is excellent. You have this great stable of elder statesman character actors who have always done great work, but were never stars just coloring the background of this movie to perfect effect. They're all so good that it's enough to overcome the bland performance by Christina Ricci and the weak, amateurish turn by a child actor.
It doesn't follow the original story, mostly because stretching that out to feature length would be a real struggle, and instead invents its own based on the iconography of the Headless Horseman, the stoic townsfolk, and the brainy and skittish protagonist pitted against the brainless foe in a remote,, quite village (2 days journey to the North by Christopher Lee's estimation in the late 1700s, but like 25 mins North of Manhattan today).
It respects the original story, pays homage to the Disney story, but finds its inspiration mostly in Hammer and Universal classic horrors. Every scene is like a charcoal drawing or moody oil painting. The opening sequence and all subsequent set pieces are so well shot and well staged and are all there to enhance the mood of it all. This was right before CGI overtook every movie, so you have this great blend of really expertly done practical effects, real sets built for the film, sound stages made to look like Tim Burton's woods, and forced perspective props mixed with only CGI used for what was necessary to do that way. And done very well, and mostly seamlessly blending with he practical. There's a great shot toward the end of the first act where the fog from the woods creeps into the edge of town and extinguishes the torches by the watch tower. A great use of CGI enhancing what was done beautifully with the real stuff.
And it was obviously shot on film. This particular look has yet to be successfully recreated digitally.
I know people complain that the plot is too complicated, but I've never found that to be the case. One legitimate complaint is that in the end it sort of plays out too conventionally. You have a villainous character monologuing and it leads to a lengthy chase and final confrontation. I get that there are those who think of that as too typical, but I feel like if you get the tone right you can get away with that. And if anything it'd be hard to argue that this movie doesn't strike a very deliberate tone.
Plus, Christopher Walken makes a great turn.
Anyway, I love this movie. It's not perfect, but god damn it, it's got so many great strengths.
Another easy 8/10.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 6, 2018 20:14:31 GMT
Good review(s), masterofallgoons. Hope you don’t mind a few comments… First of all, the OP is on-record as saying (to me) that he doesn’t care that he calls things franchises that are not franchises. He says that English isn’t his first language, and he writes excellent English for a non-native-speaker, but then he should listen to every single native English speaker here who tells him that he is misusing the word franchise. Anyway… I completely agree with your first paragraph. I love the Sleepy Hollow segment as well—the animation, the characters, the songs. I’m opposed to political correctness in nearly all of its forms, and I don’t find anything offensive about the sketch. It’s goofy and not at all meant to be taken seriously. I’ve always been a big Bing Crosby fan, so I’m probably biased, but all I can say is that the abuse was largely claimed by one son (Gary) in his book and disputed by another son. It’s a huge stretch to call him a “monster”; all four of the sons, even Gary, said that he was not vicious, and my father’s parents did what Gary Crosby said his father did and were still good people. Does that make it right? Of course not. But a monster? Nah. Ichabod’s ride is fantastic. It’s one of the best sequences in any Disney cartoon. I’m a definite fan of Sleepy Hollow, though I admit it didn’t quite retain the same charm for me when I saw it again this last October. As you say, all the aesthetics are amazing; I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. People really claim the plot is too complicated? The central clue seems very fair, even obvious, to me; the only confusing part has to do with the “archer” clue, I think, which is more than a little opaque. I just wish Christopher Lee had a larger role.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 6, 2018 23:07:01 GMT
Well, obviously this is not a franchise in anyway whatsoever... Why do you say that? These are 2 stories that have been told through different media and have crossed over with each other. He says that English isn’t his first language I mentioned that casually; I've never used it as an excuse to not understanding something.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Nov 7, 2018 15:52:12 GMT
Well, obviously this is not a franchise in anyway whatsoever... Why do you say that? These are 2 stories that have been told through different media and have crossed over with each other. I say that because the term 'franchise' has an actual definition and the one you gave is not it. Very simple.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Nov 7, 2018 16:24:17 GMT
Good review(s), masterofallgoons . Hope you don’t mind a few comments… First of all, the OP is on-record as saying (to me) that he doesn’t care that he calls things franchises that are not franchises. He says that English isn’t his first language, and he writes excellent English for a non-native-speaker, but then he should listen to every single native English speaker here who tells him that he is misusing the word franchise. Anyway… I completely agree with your first paragraph. I love the Sleepy Hollow segment as well—the animation, the characters, the songs. I’m opposed to political correctness in nearly all of its forms, and I don’t find anything offensive about the sketch. It’s goofy and not at all meant to be taken seriously. I’ve always been a big Bing Crosby fan, so I’m probably biased, but all I can say is that the abuse was largely claimed by one son (Gary) in his book and disputed by another son. It’s a huge stretch to call him a “monster”; all four of the sons, even Gary, said that he was not vicious, and my father’s parents did what Gary Crosby said his father did and were still good people. Does that make it right? Of course not. But a monster? Nah. Ichabod’s ride is fantastic. It’s one of the best sequences in any Disney cartoon. I’m a definite fan of Sleepy Hollow, though I admit it didn’t quite retain the same charm for me when I saw it again this last October. As you say, all the aesthetics are amazing; I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. People really claim the plot is too complicated? The central clue seems very fair, even obvious, to me; the only confusing part has to do with the “archer” clue, I think, which is more than a little opaque. I just wish Christopher Lee had a larger role. Well, I sympathize with you sentiment, but disagreeing with political correctness 'in all its forms' doesn't even really make sense. In this particular case I just think that one prop of a character was nothing but an object of ridicule, and that seemed mean spirited. And that was out of place because nothing else felt mean spirited in the whole piece. Fair enough on Bing Crosby. I read up on this story many years ago, but I won't really comment further because I can't claim to really know the details. Where I will definitely agree is that as a performer Bing Crosby is supremely pleasant and likable, and his voice is very welcomed in this cartoon. He's great. To me, Burton's Sleepy Hollow has never lost its charm. I never get tired of it. Yes, the most common complaint I've heard about is that its mystery plot is too complicated. I guess they're claiming that following the family tree and all the connections of who is getting killed and why is too complex for some reason. It all fits together and falls into place pretty naturally to me. I don't get why anybody would have a hard time following it, but apparently they do somehow.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 7, 2018 17:47:27 GMT
I say that because the term 'franchise' has an actual definition and the one you gave is not it. What is it then?
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Nov 8, 2018 15:14:11 GMT
I say that because the term 'franchise' has an actual definition and the one you gave is not it. What is it then? I suspect you probably already know this, but 'franchise' is a business term. It means that multiple branches share a common ownership or are granted permission to use a template that connects it to the larger ownership, essentially. In film, it's kind of the same idea. A film series, whether direct sequels, spinoffs, remakes etc. still has to share a common ownership. Halloween is a franchise. The movies spun off from The Conjuring are part of a franchise. They are made from the same common copyrighted intellectual property and are marketed as being part of a series. Sleepy Hollow is a film adapted from The Legend of Sleepy Hollow by Washington Irving. Disney's The Legend of Sleepy Hollow is a short film also adapted from The Legend of Sleepy Hollow by Washington Irving. They are both adaptations, but they are otherwise unrelated. They are made by different studios and have no actual connection from a business perspective. That short story, from that book, is in the public domain and can be freely adapted by anybody who so chooses. Suggesting they are part of the same 'franchise' is categorically incorrect. If you were to count those as part of the same franchise, then you'd have to count all of the numerous other Sleepy Hollow adjacent projects as well, including the TV show from a few years ago. There's a reason nobody else in history has suggested that these adaptations are part of the same franchise before you posted this thread. There's a reason nobody talks about the 'Romeo and Juliet franchise' or the 'Hamlet Franchise' or the 'Les Miserables franchise' or 'Odyssey franchise' or the 'Bible franchise.' Do you also consider the asylum knockoff versions of big budget adaptations to be part of the same 'franchise?' When Spielberg made War of the Worlds, did you consider the shitty Asylum studio version part of the Spielberg War of the Worlds 'franchise?' .... The answer is; of course not. Suggesting those sorts of things are part of the same franchise is like saying McDonalds and 'Vits Burger Stand' around the corner are part of the same 'Hamburger franchise.' In the sense that they make a similar product, but by definition they are clearly not connected in a business sense.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 8, 2018 15:24:40 GMT
Thanks for giving him the explanation, masterofallgoons. Others have tried as well, unfortunately to no avail thus far. Also, I should note that vits probably would refer to a “ Romeo and Juliet franchise” et al. He has referred elsewhere to a “King Arthur franchise,” encompassing everything with the character.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Nov 8, 2018 16:14:39 GMT
Words mean things.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 8, 2018 18:29:06 GMT
masterofallgoons I think you're mistaking the idea with the concepts of continuity and canon. And I think your hamburger analogy would apply if I had said "CITIZEN KANE and GONE WITH THE WIND are part of a franchise because, as movies, they're the same product."
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Nov 8, 2018 18:56:55 GMT
masterofallgoons I think you're mistaking the idea with the concepts of continuity and canon. And I think your hamburger analogy would apply if I had said "CITIZEN KANE and GONE WITH THE WIND are part of a franchise because, as movies, they're the same product." What? 'Franchise' has a meaning and you are misusing it. I'm not sure what you think your ideas of 'canon and continuity' have to do with anything, but I never brought up anything of the sort. Again, 'franchise' is a word with a definition. These two different movies that are based on The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, absolutely and in no uncertain terms do not fit that definition. I'm not confusing anything. You definitely are, but it's unclear what you're not understanding, exactly. Refer to my previous post. I don't know that I could make it any clearer, but if you want me to clarify anything specific I can try. Although, some others seem to suggest that might be a waste of time.
|
|