Though some may know him better for his cartoons like "Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure", the 1971 animated short of "A Christmas Carol" that he produced with Chuck Jones, the opening titles to "Return of the Pink Panther" and "The Pink Panther Strikes Again", and his more recent animated film "Prologue"; we all know him best for his work on "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?". He was a well respected animator for his contribution to medium that has gained him a Primetime Emmy, a BAFTA, and 3 Oscars (including a Special Achievement Award). Long before he would become an animated giant that he’s known for today, he wanted to create a grand-scale animated film to fully exploit the use of animation with very little dialogue that would be his masterpiece where production for the project began in 1964. Williams wanted his film to be based on the tales of Nasreddin by Idries Shah (which he had helped illustrate) and worked on the project for 9 years until Shah demanded for half of the profits from the film after its completion, while Shah's sister Amina threatened to sue over legal ownership feeling that she owned the story for doing some of the translations for the Nasreddin book. This resulted with Williams abandoning the whole entire story and forcing him to write a completely different one. Williams then decided to fund the project by-himself after failing to secure funds from studios and private investors. So as he worked on the films and shorts that made him successful, as well as commercials and Saturday Morning Cartoons, he used the money that he received from those projects to fiance the film that he dreamed of making. In between projects, Williams was able to hire animators to animate parts of the film and had some of the dialogue recorded from actors including the great Vincent Price (who did his recording while dubbing his lines for "Theater of Blood"). After the success of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?”, Williams was finally able to make a deal with Warner Bros. Studios to help finance and distribute his film. Because of the funding, this lead to Williams hiring talented animators from Europe since most of his original animators were dead at this point. Now with the proper tools, Williams can finally make the masterpiece he was dreaming to make, and had three years to develop the film. But due to Williams' attitude of being a perfectionist, he began scrapping paintings and scenes he didn't like whether with how they were animated or having colors that he didn't like; created animated sequences that were needlessly long; didn't use storyboards to help direct his animation team of what he envisioned since he believed the process to be "too limiting"; and fired nearly half of his animators. Because of the production hell that went on when creating the film from Williams' poor leadership to instruct his animators of what he wanted which led to numerous delays, the film missed its due date in 1991, and with Disney's "Aladdin" being released the following year that bared a few similarities to the film that Williams was making, the studio fearing their competition with Disney hired the "Completion Bond Company" to finish the movie by 1993. Williams was kicked-off the project, and replaced with Fred Calvert to finish the film who altered the story, re-animated certain sequences, hired new voice actors, and tried to make the film similar to "Aladdin" in order to make the film more marketable. The film was released in Australia in September 1993 after the recent passing of its star Vincent Price titled...
Even though reviewing this film is on my agenda, this is NOT the cut that I will be reviewing first! I figured that it would be more appropriate for me to start with the cut that everyone was more familiar with first which was the version distributed by Miramax in 1995...
This cut changed more elements from the 1993 film by replacing some of the original voice actors from the 93 cut, and cutting out a song sequence and shortening a few animated sequences. But even the cut that changed the 1993 film, decided to change its title for its video release as...
The film holds the record for being the longest production schedule to a completed movie, and though this cut has been detested by audiences and critics, especially after with the fan-made "Recobbled Cut" being released all over the internet, if we didn't have that cut of the movie (all 4 versions of the "Recobbled Cut" to be precise) and without comparing it to the 1993 cut by Calvert, how does the film hold-up on its own? ON WITH THE REVIEW!
Taking place in a city in Arabia, a cobbler named Tack (voiced by Matthew Broderick) gets into a fight with a sly thief (voiced by Johnathan Winters) and causes the King's Grand Vizier ZigZag (voiced by Vincent Price) to step on his tack after accidentally tossing his tacks in the middle of a parade for the Vizier's arrival, resulting with him being imprisoned. Tack is brought before the King (Clive Revill) and his daughter Princess Yum-Yum (Jennifer Beals) which she and Tack begin to have an instant attachment for each other. This love at first sight causes Yum-Yum to save Tack by having him fix her shoe, instead of being locked-up and later beheaded. Meanwhile, the thief steals three golden balls atop of the palace's tallest minaret that (with no explanation ever) protects them from the evil King One-Eye and his army and eventually falls into the hands of ZigZag who wishes to marry the princess. With the gold balls removed, King One-Eye with the help of ZigZag plan to invade the city, leaving it up to Tack and the Princess to cross the desert to seek out an old ghostly witch (voiced by Toni Collette) to tell them how to defeat One-Eye.
Given that it took over 20 years to animate the film from an unsung legend in the world of animation, I have to talk about the animation first! Though I have indeed seen clips of the film here and there, including from the Nostalgia Critic's review and a trailer of it on my VHS copy of Disney's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" (where I first heard of the film as a kid), it still wasn't enough to prepare me for what was in store for me in terms of the film's animation. I was simply expecting to maybe like a few designs and perhaps one or two sequences, but right when the film began I couldn't think of one moment where I was not blown-away from its animation, even at the film's dullest or silliest. If you were to turn a "Once upon a time" fairy tale environment set in Arabia and combine it with the same surreal and trippy imagery as "Yellow Submarine" you would most likely get this. It's zany; it's colorful; it’s bizarre; its artsy; its can look dark and intense; the designs for the characters and backgrounds are unique and imaginative like no other (I know Disney took a few things from this cartoon for "Aladdin" and I promise I'll cover that topic later on); it's honestly a brilliant piece of work in animation that any fan of that medium or is looking to get into it, MUST SEE FOR THEMSELVES! The most impressive element to the animation is how the characters move. They move like how actual people do for how quick, flowing, and natural it is, and without the use of computers or rotoscoping! As much as I enjoy computer animated films, I still would be delighted to see a hand-drawn animated film from time to time, because its watching animation like this that make me miss the dying art-form that we barley (if never) see anymore for how it exploits all the possibility that this old form of animation can do. Is every single shot of the film perfect, absolutely not! At times you can spot when Calvert is animating certain scenes that look similar to Williams' work but still have a difference in terms of quality; there are portions of the film when the film decides to lazily re-use bits that were already animated; at times the movements can get a little obnoxious for how characters like the King and Yum-Yum's nurse move and get a little too close to the screen; and gradually as the film goes along, the Cobbler's design changes up to the point where he's unrecognizable in his last scene in the film. Regardless of its flaws, the animation is still unbelievably spectacular!
Everything else regarding the film on the other hand, not so much I'm afraid. The cobbler is sweet, innocent, and witty, but most of that comes from his expressions and movements, than from the actual voice acting provided by Matthew Broderick. Now I don't hate Matthew Broderick, he's been great in films like "The Lion King" and "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and he genuinely seems like a nice guy. But then when I see him in films like "Inspector Gadget", and "Godzilla" I always find myself irritated by his bland delivery that's supported by the lame script that he's been given, which is the primary reason why his performance in this film suffers! The character of the cobbler himself hardly ever speaks, which would be fine since Broderick does have a voice that matches the timid and child-like characteristics of his character. But I suppose since Miramax didn't want to pay a well-known actor a large sum of money for only saying a few lines for the main character, they decided to get their money's worth by having him narrate the film as well. Oh and I'm not talking about the beginning scene and the end, he narrates practically everything that's going on in the film, as well as things that are so obviously being shown to us, where it feels pointless and annoying. And since we hear everything from the cobbler's perspective, the moments when he does speak don't feel enchanting since at that point we're already sick of Broderick's bland voice acting.
If Broderick's constant dull narration isn't bad enough, Johnathan Winters' as the thief is just as insufferable. Unlike the cobbler who does move his lips, the thief doesn't at all! And with Miramax wanting to duplicate the success of "Aladdin" even farther since the first cut of the film did so, they hired Robin Williams' mentor Johnathan Winters' to voice the thief by having him spew out jokes that would at times relate to adult humor and pop-culture. I did get a few laughs out of him, but his presence is still pointless and infuriating. This is a character that is obviously meant to be completely silent which would have made him a little more interesting, but since we know everything that he's thinking at every single moment and discover that he has a goofy personality, it makes him just as bland as Broderick's character. And what's even more distracting about Winters’ voice acting is that I’m always aware that he is recording his lines in a booth. I can literally picture him watching the movie in the recording booth doing a "Mystery Science Theater" style commentary on everything that his character is doing and thinking as I'm listening to his voice acting in this movie. Johnathan Winters is a very funny man, but like any great comedian who does a movie, their talents aren't usually as powerful when they're given a cheesy script that limits their freedom of comedy resulting with them to forcefully work in their improve and comedy genius that would try to fit the film but usually end up failing.
Before Miramax would hire Johnathan Winters' to try to duplicate what Robin Williams brought to the Genie, Calvert would try to re-work Princess Yum-Yum to be like Princess Jasmine, who seeks for something more and wants to be independent. That's all fine and good, except that she does nothing! She expresses how much she wants to be out and about by singing and complaining about it, but in terms of actually doing it, she doesn't, which makes her more of a whiner as opposed to a strong character. Ariel didn't stay at the palace to learn about humans and encounter one, she did it herself! Jasmine left the palace after being sick of being a Princess despite coming back to the palace later on. Yum-Yum doesn't do any of that, she just waits and bickers. And when she's finally allowed to leave the palace to help save the city, rather than it just being her and Tack, she leaves with a swarm of guards and her nurse as she's comfortable inside a caravan! Calvert really did a solid job of making her a strong Princess.
We all remember how catchy, fun, and romantic the songs in "Aladdin" are, well these songs are so bland, dull, generic, and poorly written that you'll be forgetting most of them easily! There are only 3 songs in this cut of the movie that were left over from Calvert’s version, that may sound painless and are indeed short, but they move so slow that you'd swear that you've been watching each of them for 5 minutes. Yum-Yum’s "Want Song" "She Is More" is not badly sung, but has such an unappealing melody with cheaply written lyrics offering very little striking visuals to distract you from it, that it’s an utter bore to watch and listen too. The songs go from boring to laughable when we get to the film's second song "Am I Feeling Love" that tries to distract you a little with the visuals as it attempts to make it powerful from the singing from both Tack and Yum-Yum, except that it doesn't for how cheesy and half-assed the lyrics are along with a generic melody that you swear you've heard a million times before in better films. Then after the songs become humorous for how unintentionally silly they are, they become cringy when they try to be silly during the Brigands song "Bom Bom Bom Beem Bom (That's What Happens When You Don't Go to School)"! I'd say the title alone should give you the impression for how bad it is, and it truly is through its ridiculous lyrics. But I'll give it this; it has a catchy beat and offers better visuals when compared to the other songs. That doesn't make it good, its forced and has lyrics that make me wonder why Calvert would approve such bad material (I guess because he wants to finish the film as quickly as possible without showing a single care of substance), but is at least tolerable when compared to the other terrible songs in the movie.
The supporting characters outside of their designs are nothing special. The King lacks being humble and is more goofy in a highly unfunny way where the moments where we're supposed to fear with him for his kingdom are just as excessively silly; the Nurse is just as exasperating as the King is; the witch who the characters encounter only shows up in one shot as we mostly hear her annoying voice; and Zigzag’s pet vulture Phido is poorly dubbed and synced by Eric Bogosian who is trying to make his character to be as funny as Iago but fails miserably at doing so. The Brigands that Tack and Yum-Yum encounter in the desert thankfully don't reach the same levels of annoyance as the other characters I've mentioned since they are legitimately funny (with the exception of their song), but I can't say that I find them to be needed since they don't anything all that productive. Still at least they're more entertaining and less obnoxious than every character I pointed out.
There is however one character in the whole entire film who is always delight to watch every single moment he's on-screen and that's the villain.
Not the Sauron of the movie One-Eye, who looks and acts scary and threatening but doesn't really do anything except kill the King's soldiers during the opening scene of the movie.
The King's royal Grand Vizier Zigzag! I can't necessarily say that he's a good villain, because he isn't. He steals the magic balls, locks Tack away, and assists One-Eye after charming alligators that were about to devour him. However, he's not compelling, he's just a typical Saturday Morning cartoon villain who you are just waiting for our main character to defeat, for how nonthreatening and silly he is where he doesn't come close to succeeding with his plan to the point where you feel that the kingdom is doomed! He's also not a real sorcerer, and more of a magician, so he doesn't maintain any special powers! But what saves him from being such a bland villain is Vincent Price's performance, who is very sophisticated as he hams up the character’s villainy as he would with animated villains like Ratigan and Irontail, while always speaking in rhymes. Why does he speak in rhyme, I DON'T CARE because Vincent Price is just too much fun to listen to where having him rhyme just enhances how "delightfully wicked" his performance is, combined with his movements and fiendish design that in no way reminds me of...
AH DAMN IT! FINE, I'LL FINALLY ADDRESS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM!
So what did Disney exactly take from the film, aside from Zigzag's design? Well both are set in Arabia; the villain is a Grand Vizier who practices magic and wants to marry the princess (for different reasons) as he hustles the goofy king; a peasant and a princess fall in love; the antagonist locks-up the protagonist; and Zigzag has a pet bird by his side that talks. It would seem very unlikely coincidental that Disney also had similar ideas and designs, especially when Richard Williams himself was working with Disney during "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" as he was still making this film. But it seems that most of the stolen ideas came from Zigzag's character as it was used for Jafar, and the Genie. Disney may have heard about some parts of the story and used it for its bases of their film, but they both overall have completely different stories and a unique style in tone and animation (I doubt that Williams was going to make his film full of pop culture references and songs). They are similar, but "Aladdin" has more of a story with fleshed-out characters who are likable and intriguing, a focused moral, and a world that perfectly combines a fairy tale setting as it humorously nods back to the present, that is also full of thrills, action, adventure, wonder, and magic. Williams' vision seemed to have more of a "Fantasia" approach with little dialogue, little emphasis on the characters, and a basic premise where the animation comes before story so he can get more inventive and creative with the medium. That may not be the final film that we received for its theatrical release since both Calvert and Disney decided to steal from "Aladdin", where Williams true vision still remains unfinished, but regardless there is a huge difference between Disney's successfully released animated picture and what Williams had in mind, as both films (depending on which cut you see of "The Thief and the Cobbler") can still be enjoyed on their own.
OVERALL THOUGHTS
This cut of the film is easily the worst version to see since it used elements that didn't work in Calvert's version (like the songs for instance), and adds new things that make it even worse (the constant inner-monologues from Broderick and Winters, and the vulture unnaturally behaving like Iago from the awful dubbing) while attempting to cheaply cash-in on the success of "Aladdin". However if this was the only version of the film that we had, though would still be a bad movie, there are two things that make it worth viewing. Price is always a blast to listen too, and the picture contains one of the greatest pieces of animation that has to be seen regardless for how degrading the film itself is. But since there are different and better versions of the film to see, this can be fed to the alligators.
No comments:
Post a Comment