Tarzan, The Ape Man

Usually I just end the year with a review of "A Christmas Carol", but this year marks something special upon my years of critiquing films and TV programs. This is my tenth anniversary! I know I have had this blog for eight years, but my blog isn't the focus. For ten long years since I was a freshman in High School, I found a way to devote my love and passion for film by writing reviews and discussing a bit about its history through my Facebook to eventually running my own blog. I didn't think at first I would commit to this for so long, but I have and am still making time to write reviews through my busy schedule, regardless how the number of reviews I write each year have decreased. The problem is I don't remember the exact date when I started writing reviews (my reviews on Facebook have been deleted and moved to this blog). I remember it happening in the Middle of my freshman year, but I can't remember so much as the month I began. Therefore, I figured it would be best to celebrate my ten-year anniversary for reviewing films on New Year’s Eve.

I began wondering what I should review or discuss to celebrate this occasion on my blog. Until I turned my memory back to the moment of my life when I realized that film was going to be my life devotion after riding Disney World' former attraction "The Great Movie Ride". Over the years, I've seen all the movies on the ride, as well as reviewed some of them for my blog loving each and every one of them for different reasons. But there was one movie I have yet to see that was featured on the ride through its display of audio animatronics, and that was...

It's funny how it took me so many years to finally see it. Not for being part of a life changing experience, but for how I knew about the film since I was a child.

My earliest obsession that I had involving films as a kid was "George of the Jungle". I heavily admired the show and the movie for its humor, characters, jungle setting, and above all its catchy theme song that I could sing forever and ever at that age. I always had a blast seeing this muscular hero be so cool, and yet so foolishly clumsy as he'd swing like on a vine like a pro to suddenly crashing into a tree like an amateur. It made me laugh while also encouraging me to do similar activities like him such as climbing trees, exploring nature, and swinging on ropes (and mildly crash into a few trees occasionally).

While I was in my "George of the Jungle" phase as a child, my Mom took me to her job at "AMC" one day as I was exposed to Johnny Weissmuller's famous portrayal of Tarzan through a promo poster, and an action figure that made his famous jungle call. I thought he was cool, but I still refereed to the character as "George of the Jungle" completely disregarding the character's name, due to how used I was to his parody counterpart, and that I was never shown any of the Tarzan films.

It wasn't until Disney's version of the character came out when I started to understand the basis of the character, therefore acknowledging the fact that my hero was a joke on a popular hero. During this point as I was discovering this, I was already out of my obsessions with "George of the Jungle", as I had little to no interest in Tarzan's character.

I later changed my tune when I went on "The Great Movie Ride" a second time, this time having the knowledge who the character really is than thinking it’s an older version of "George of the Jungle". I was having the same amount awe at watching the Johnny Weissmuller animatronic swing across the jungle as I did as a child, while also taking an interest in...

his monkey companion Cheeta...



and admiring the beauty and sophistication of Jane sitting on top of an elephant.

I then tried to see it, only I had trouble finding it at Blockbuster and my local library. The worst part was, as I began searching I realized that this wasn't a stand-alone movie but a long running movie series. This turned off my interest a bit because I didn't feel like watching every film in the series since the character didn't wow me as other heroes with an ongoing franchise like James Bond and Batman. On top of it, the films looked boring, silly, and racially offensive, so I didn't push myself as hard as I would with the other films.

After leaving High School and got into the full swing of reviewing films, I wanted to watch and review them, only I didn't want to feel obligated to cover the whole franchise since the film's weren't exactly my cup of tea. After so many years of debating to watch these films and review them, I feel like I owe at least the first film a review since the character was practically part of my nostalgia and inspiration. And as a special treat since my DVD copy came with its successful sequel following after the first film "Tarzan and his Mate", I will make that my first review for next year! Is the first Tarzan movie something that I regret missing out on? ON WITH THE REVIEW!

Jane joins her father (C. Aubrey Smith) and explorer Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton) on an expedition in the jungles of Africa to find the legendary elephant graveyard. After coming across a few obstacles on the journey, Jane is taken away by the wild Tarzan. The two gradually form a love connection through their fascinations of how different they are from each other, as Tarzan fights against wild animals and native tribes. It's your traditional classic A to Z adventure plot, that's more based on the experience and interaction with the characters, than it is a character driven story. In many ways it shares a similar formula to the groundbreaking giant monster film that would be released the following year "King Kong". We quickly get acquainted with our characters learning enough about their personalities before they go on their journey through the Jungle. At about the halfway point of the movie we meet the film's title character whose origins remain a mystery. And he falls in love with a girl who's afraid of him as he fights to protect her. All that's missing is for Tarzan to be taken to a different land where he runs a muck after being shown to be people for entertainment.

We may not be given any depth to Tarzan's history before Jane crosses his path, however this is one of those cases where the less we know about him the more fascinating he becomes. We don't know why this man lives in the jungle, how he was raised by apes, or what exactly he did to become practically "King of the jungle". It would be interesting to know, but at the same time, it's not required. Much like how "King Kong" and Tim Burton's "Batman" would put us through the perspectives of the supporting characters interactions with the title character, we're following Jane through pretty much the entirety of the film. Therefore, when Tarzan shows up we relate to Jane's fear and fascination with him, given how little knowledge we have about him in terms of background and personality. He acts savage, yet he has a child-like personality. He'll defend Jane from wild beasts, but then he'll start attacking the people in her group after one of them kills one of his ape friends. Tarzan looks heroic and we know he's going to do right in the end, however he still comes off as a bit intimidating for how unpredictably wild he is, whether it would be acting violent or getting a little too touchy with Jane (I know he's curious about her, but some moments do get uncomfortably rapey).

What makes these characters work so well is the performances from Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O'Sullivan. Weissmuller barely says a word in this movie, and he tremendously sells out the emotions we're supposed to feel from this character. His body language, mannerisms, expressions, and awkward delivery of pronouncing English words all contribute to the believability that he's a wild jungle man with animal instincts who’s been isolated from society, despite looking so unbelievably clean and handsome. Apart from being emotionally confused like a curious child, he has tons of moments that make him out to be such a badass. The number one ingredient of why Johnny Weissmuller's portrayal of Tarzan would be considered the best by many film historians is his iconic Jungle call. A sound that is so inhuman that many have questioned if Weissmuller did the call himself. Even with the conformation through O'Hara and Weissmuller's son that he did the call himself without any technical assistance, people are still skeptical if the information is true or false.

Going into this film, I expected Jane to be a typical damsel in distress who is beautiful and has a charming personality. She does have all those traits. There are many times where she needs to be saved while screaming nearly as much as Fay Wray does in "King Kong". But similar to the character Vicki Vale in Tim Burton's "Batman", while finding herself in trouble, she's still an interesting character with her strong points. She's the kind of character who's sick of living in a civilized society yearning to live somewhere where's there's adventure and freedom. People disprove her involvement on the safari, but she doesn't listen to any of that by remaining headstrong through her stubborn attitude. She doesn't care what others want from her, she chooses her own destiny and goes right for it. Sure, there are many times when she must be saved, but she's still knowledgeable, shows her limitations, takes part in the some of the action, and rescues Tarzan at one point. Furthermore, it would seem believable that a person who has never experienced the jungle before would be this vulnerable. If she suddenly acted tough and didn't need any kind of saving, she would be cool but not interesting as a character for being too perfect. Does that mean that I wish there were fewer times of her screaming and getting into trouble? Absolutely. But for the time she was a strong female character, who’s still admirable to watch for the amount of passion O'Hara gives to her personality by being kind, aggressive, innocent, flirty, and confident.

The cast of supporting characters is thankfully small (without including the escorts and tribe they come across). The only animal in the film the character's bond with is Tarzan's monkey sidekick Cheeta, who's cute though isn't given much to do until the climax. C. Aubrey Smith suits the role of Jane's Father for giving his character a humble presence while containing a passion for discovery. These characters are enjoyable, but it's Neil Hamilton's character who's the most entertaining out of the supporting characters. Seeing a young Commissioner Gordon from the 60s Batman show act as a daring hero who has an interest in Jane is cool to see, especially given how modern audience associate Hamilton for a comedic portrayal of one of Batman's allies. As cool as he is, the film tries to make him a bit of an antagonist for being another suitor for Jane who is willing to kill Tarzan based on his dangerous nature. I like that this character isn't necessarily a villain, but there's so little tension surrounding this love triangle that placing him as another suitor for Jane just feels like a pointless afterthought in the long run given that he doesn't want to kill Tarzan to be with Jane.

With the fear of the film boring me as opposed to entertaining me, this is indeed an old school adventure film that doesn't get dull. At first, the film felt like it wasn't going to be all that amusing. The characters all seemed fine, however during their introduction we get some rather forced humor, and very unimpressive use of a projector screen effect for how obvious they're standing in-front of stock footage (even by early 30's standards it looks bad). But once they set out on their expedition we're presented with all kinds of different adventurous scenarios, such as crossing dangerous cliffs, fighting against hungry hippos, Tarzan fighting wild animals, and a climax involving the characters being captured by a tribe. And when the action comes to a halt, we still find ourselves intrigued with the relationships that the characters have to keep them from being boring, especially the scenes with Tarzan and Jane.

From a special effects stand-point the results are rather mixed. The film has an impressive variety of special effects such as the use of costumes, puppets, real life animals, and green screen effects. The creativity when inventing these effects are admirable but that doesn't mean that every single trick works. As we enjoy seeing Tarzan and Jane interact with live animals, we get people dressed up in Gorilla costumes with cheesy looking masks. The jungle sets are cool, but some of the rear projector screens are laughable (particularly in the opening). Sometimes the film would even cut to obvious stock footage from the film "Trader Horn" for how different the quality is. Thankfully, what saves half of the bad effects from being off-putting isn't just because we get so many good ones as well, but because the action scenes are directed extremely well. During the Hippo attack it's easy to tell which Hippo is stock footage and which one's a puppet, however through solid direction the scene becomes exciting and intense. Another example is how poorly hidden the trapezes used to create the illusion of Tarzan swinging through the jungle. Yet as much this should shatter the illusion, the stunts performed are highly remarkable to watch. Regardless how well these special effects hold-up or how good they are judged by 30's standards, the action scenes that we get are exciting enough to get through the ones that don't work.

Part of what helps makes the film such an adventure is that the film was made during Pre-Code era to help give it an edge. Sex and violence were always considered a controversial matter at the time. Hollywood for instance was not comfortable with showing too much skin from their stars, especially on women, and the star of the movie is a half-naked man wearing a leopard skin, as the film tries to get as much up-skirt shots of him as possible. Let’s not forget that there are many scenes of Tarzan touching Jane due to his curiosity. At one point, he shockingly disrobes her by force with the intention to have sex with her, only to stop when he sees her upset by this action. That is rarely something that you saw in a film at the time, let alone an adventure film aimed for all ages. The violence in the film doesn’t hold back for what it could get away with at the time. I was surprised to see such a high body count of animals and people being killed in this film. Similar to how the 1932 film "Scarface" would contain left and right killings with the use of a machine gun, this film contains plenty of scenes of stabbings that a slasher film would be happy to have. There are even scenes that show some blood, which is still kind of shocking to see now for how old the film is.

All this stuff would be considered nothing by today's standards but at the time, it was heavy stuff, making the film a bit ahead of its time. Unfortunately, as impressive as the film is there are still elements that are very dated that wouldn't sit well at all with modern viewers. I wasn't wrong when fearing that the film would be racially offensive. During the course of Jane's expedition with James and her father, aiding them are African men. It makes sense why they are with them since they know this land better than the main characters do. But all they do is act like slaves, right to the point where we watch them get whipped when acting out of line. In fact, they mostly take up the film's body count. The reason why most of them die is to provide an example of how dangerous the jungles are to our trio, because after all the film isn't going to kill the few supporting characters, it has. Even the film's title hero viciously kills a few of them. When they are not dropping like the pygmies in "Pocket God", they're portrayed as cold-blooded savages when we get to the climax. Unlike how black actors were hired to play the escorts, what we have instead for the tribe are little people in blackface. And just when you think the film can't get any more dated with its racism, Jane tries to defend Tarzan's savagery by claiming that he's like them because "he's white." Oh yeah, if a strange half-naked wild man living in the jungle who acts like an animal is white, he must be civilized. But if he's of color, well he's automatically labeled as a savage!

Overall Thoughts

Some of my predictions when going into this movie were indeed true. A few of the effects (particularly the gorilla masks and some of the projector effects) look silly. Its politics and portrayal of Africans can be insufferably racist. And sometimes Tarzan's behaviors towards Jane would get a little too uncomfortable. With that said, as far as classic adventure films go, this was tons of fun. Weissmuller and O'Hara give top-notch performances to iconic characters who are almost opposite from how you would think they are. Tarzan while being a brave daring hero, he is also very vicious towards the characters who intrude on his territory (including Jane) as we know nothing about his background, which makes him fascinating. Jane though she gets in trouble numerous times in the film, it's her headstrong attitude and love for adventure that makes her one of the strong female leads at the time, who has her badass and helpful moments. The few supporting characters the film has are pleasant to watch. There is tons of action and danger to keep the film entertaining. Despite how dated many of the effects are, and awful they can look at times, they are still impressive for their time for the amount of variety that was brought when creating them, where even some of them still hold-up now. And to see how ahead of the time this film is with story and conducting action scenes are part of what makes this film a classic worth remembering. If there's one thing, I was wrong about the movie, is it doesn't bore.

Have a Happy New Decade everyone, and join me this January for my review of the sequel to get the reviews for this new one started!

A CHRISTMAS CAROL 1938

When it came to picking to review an adaptation of "A Christmas Carol", I was originally going to review the film starring Alistair Sims since that is the version that many people would consider the ultimate film telling of the story. Just as I was getting ready to start watching it, I remembered the film adaptation that came out in 1938.



Since there were very few full-length film versions of the film with sound prior to it, I have decided to cover the 1938 film first before talking about the film that many would argue to be the best version of the story. As always, there are tons of things to cover when dissecting "A Christmas Carol" adaptation, so let’s jump right into the first part of the story.

EBENEEZER SCROOGE

The actor who was originally set to portray Ebenezer Scrooge was the late great Lionel Barrymore, who was popular for playing the miserable miser every holiday season on the radio. Barrymore was committed to playing his famous radio role on the big screen; however, life had other plans for him. With arthritis taking a toll on him, he had to step down from the role. Fortunately, he was still able to help with the film by recommending his friend Reginald Owen to play the role (who you may know him as Admiral Boom from "Mary Poppins"). Barrymore chose not to play Scrooge on the radio fearing that it would hurt the success of the film, so he decided to promote the film in the film's trailer. It's a real shame that he couldn't play the part, because it would have been fantastic to see such a grand actor play this famous character on the big screen. But I suppose this was something that was meant to be regarding Barrymore's career. 8 years later he would play a miser who is much worse than Scrooge, who is non-other than Mr. Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life". I can only believe that if he were to play Scrooge in the film, and then play Mr. Potter, he would probably be less seen as one of the great villains in cinema and more as Barrymore in a type casted role for how similar he is to a famous Christmas character he would have played, just without redemption.

Now that Owen is in the lead, he in this portion does make for a good grouchy bitter-old Scrooge. He hits all the right notes when conducting Scrooge's hatred for Christmas, from his sour face, and commanding voice (though the scene when he gives Cratchit off for Christmas was too quickly paced). His interaction with his Nephew Fred (Barry MacKay) and the two Portly Gentlemen are carried out traditionally well, but his best moments is how he handles his employee Bob Cratchit (Gene Lockhart). Some of the things he says to him are so hurtfully demeaning that you can only imagine what kind of other terrible things that Scrooge says to him to keep his spirits low. For instance, when Bob Cratchit tells him that he was working a half hour overtime, Scrooge demands him to "close up" before he "makes something of himself". Scrooge later on states that he can easily "find a man more capable" than him, which is something he's clearly told him before. I know that the versions of Cratchit have had it rough, but my goodness I would be going into a deep depression if I had to keep on being told I am worthless as I work in a freezing environment with little pay. It rather amazes me how Cratchit has to put up with this for so long.

Despite that we know so much about Scrooge's hatred for Christmas, most of this is portion is focused on Fred and Cratchit. Right from the very start of the film, rather than seeing Scrooge walking, or the film going directly to his place of business after looking at the winter scenery in London, for the first few minutes we follow Fred as he strolls off to see his Uncle. And through those few minutes we see him slide on the ice with the kids where he meets Bob's son Tiny Tim (Terry Kilburn), who he places him on his shoulders as he slides on the ice. It's a nice moment, although it does replace a moment that Cratchit usually takes part in that just doesn't feel appropriate to switch him off with another character. Still the dialogue he exchanges with Tim about how he knows Scrooge, does give some nice build-up to leads nasty personality for how the kids fear him. The most interesting part about Fred in this version is unlike most versions when he enters the office with Scrooge present, he arrives when Scrooge is away with only Cratchit present. Noticing how Cratchit must be miserable working under these conditions he decides to spread a little Christmas joy to him, at the cost of breaking a few rules, such as adding coal to the fire, and taking one of Scrooge's glasses for a sip of wine he has brought. Though Fred only means well, his interference nearly causes Cratchit to be fired when Scrooge finally enters the screen. It's not a bad change of having a character who's always so perfect make a few careless mistakes for how consumed he is with sharing the joys of Christmas. Sometimes people in reality do find themselves making foolish decisions based on their blind love for the holidays without realizing that there could be repercussions to the people around them, if not just for them self. In terms of performance, MacKay is a little more grounded compared to other performances of the character. As most actors almost seem like their phoning in Fred's kind nature, MacKay though just as upbeat as the other actors who played Fred, seems more dignified. He is sophisticated, but he still does not shy away from his enthusiasm for Christmas.

Lockhart isn't a bad Cratchit either. His nervous bumbling personality for whenever he's around Scrooge does sell that his boss is not a man to be tried with. You always feel that he's walking on egg shells for how much he fears his boss, knowing that he could be fired at any time. While capturing the characters frightened side, he manages to pull off his fun child-like personality just as well (however, his sudden joy when he sees a goose is kind of creepy). In an interesting change of events, Cratchit gets dismissed from his position. Due to his child-like love for Christmas as he's showing kids how to make a better snowball to get a better hit at their target, the hat he throws the snowball at belongs to his employer. We all know in the end he's going to get his job back, however this new idea of creating tension between Cratchit and Scrooge does seem a little more engaging. Scrooge this time isn't going to see the present with Bob Cratchit still working for his business. He is going to be witnessing a Christmas without having a job to go back to after the holiday, which will no doubt lead to a grim future because of his action. I don't want to talk too much about it since there is much more to see, all I'm going to say is this change puts Scrooge in a more direct position with handling Tim's death than he did in the original story, which I find to be twice as heartbreaking of a concept.

If you read my review on the first sound film of the storywith Seymour Hicks in the leading role, I talked about how dreary and unpleasant most of London looked during Christmas time. I get that it wasn't the most cheerful environment back where the story takes place, but that doesn't mean they didn't have to make it not look festive given that it's a fantasy Christmas story. Well this version certainly improves upon the last adaptation. Right after the opening credits as we hear a beautiful rendition of "Hark the Herald", we view the city at night covered in snow that looks as lovely as a Christmas card, as opposed to feeling ominous to the point where there is little cheer to be felt. Watching the kids slide on the ice and throw around snowballs, as people walk the town to shop for tasty Christmas treats sets up the film's holiday mood on the right track for how festive it is but not to the point where everything is perfect, (there are kid Christmas Carolers singing out of key). Appropriately, the only gloomy looking place that we see in the city is the street where Scrooge works looking as unwelcoming as the very person who runs it.

MARLEY'S GHOST

The film visually so far looks better than the previous film; however, there are times when the film can look too pretty, where it loses the terror that a scene is supposed to have. For instance, before Jacob Marley appears there is always some kind of tension building-up to his full reveal. Scrooge's home looks run-down for how empty and covered in cobwebs the interiors are, as if he's living a haunted house. The music played in the background sounds otherworldly, as there is a feeling that something is following Scrooge for how the music would stop when Scrooge stops walking, to resuming when he does. Just as Scrooge is going to call it day, he goes from hearing his doorbell ringing to suddenly hearing all kinds of bells ringing loudly in his ear. The set and sounds are all perfect for this build-up, except that the lighting is excessively bright. Unlike how most versions use shadows and little lighting to create a sense of fear for when Marley is to appear, this version looks as if Scrooge is searching his house with the lights on, which isn't scary. Perhaps if the pacing was slower and the cinematography brought a little more weight with the visuals, the lighting wouldn't be as distracting. But those elements are just as off. The cinematography is very standard, as the pacing for Scrooge walking through his house moves so fast that it feels that the film just wants to show Marley as quickly as possible. The scene when Scrooge sees Marley on his doorknocker hardly takes its time for it to be creepy. Marley face quickly appears (through a decent effect), and Scrooge exclaims his name so quickly that he seems annoyed by him being on his door, than fearing that he's a ghost.

As weak as the build-up is, we at least get to see Marley on-screen, as opposed to seeing him invisible, making this the first sound version of the story to have Marley on-screen. The effects for Marley's ghostly appearance along with his make-up are good, but the performance from Hitchcock actor Leo G. Carroll I would say appears almost as bored as Ed Asner was with Tim Curry. I say almost because his supernatural voice is creepy, his cold-stare is chilling, and when showing regret for his actions when he was alive does feel melancholy. But for the most part, unlike how most portrayals of Marley's ghost are either intimidating for how aggressive he is towards Scrooge, constantly in agonizing pain, or both, Carroll doesn't seem to be giving much in his performance. He for the most part carries no emotion when helping his former partner from the terrible fate he suffers, who doesn't change his tone or expressions. Even his moaning from this endless pain sounds non-nonchalant. Scrooge at one point shuts him up because of it, when Marley should be the one who is overpowering him. Owen's frighten delivery doesn't help much either for how rehearsed it sounds. And just so the film can throw something new for the sake of it, the scene stops dead in its tracks when Scrooge summons the authorities in to arrest Marley, only for them to laugh at Scrooge since they can't see him.

GHOST OF CHRISTMAS PAST

In the previous sound film, we saw nothing of the Ghost of Christmas Past. There was a silhouette of the spirit taking the form of a man in its first reveal, but after that, it was just a blurry light. Well this version doesn't make the same mistake again, it makes a new one. Playing the ghost is Ann Rutherford, who does a fine job of capturing the spirit's humble personality. It's just unlike how Marley appeared ghostly, the ghost's appearance is pretty underwhelming. Apart from how she and Scrooge fly, there are no special effects supporting the fact that she is a spirit. Not to say that special effects that involve us seeing through them is always needed. But it looks like Rutherford's doing a local live stage show as opposed to a theatrical film since her costume looks like something that would be worn at a Christmas pageant. I am just always aware that someone in a tacky costume is playing the ghost, which is very distracting considering how nice everyone else looks in the film.

If you once again remember my review on the first sound version of the story, I expressed great disappointment that the film skipped many details involving Scrooge's past. Here, we see Scrooge's humble beginnings before he turned into a miser, starting with his childhood. Owen's portrayal of Scrooge's loving nostalgia when visiting the past feels very warm for how pleasantly excited and sentimental he is. At times, it gets a little too exaggerated but you still feel the sweetness in his performance. The whole childhood sequence takes place at the schoolhouse where young Scrooge stays during Christmas at the demand of his Father, until his little sister Fan tells him that the plans have changed. The scene visually showing young Scrooge's isolation after seeing everyone leaving is handled effectively for how empty and downbeat the school appears with Scrooge walking alone to suddenly crying after behaving as if he is fine with it before his friends leave. The downside is the kid playing Scrooge is very off with his delivery, who gives a awkward performance. To be fair, it's not just him because the other kids he talks to are as wooden as him. That is with the exception of Fan, who is a little over the top cutesy, but since that is usually Fan's personality; I can't say that it's out of place.

The first sound actor to portray Fezziwig is Forrester Harvey who has previously appeared in small roles in horror classics such as "The Invisible Man" and "Frankenstein". His portrayal of Fezziwig stays true to the character's jolly fun loving personality. Adding to the sweetness of Scrooge's visit to this part of his past is we're watching Fezziwig interact with Scrooge when he's still a teen as opposed to a young adult. It is just very heartwarming to see a kid who has had a miserable childhood regain some of it as he is still growing-up with a boss who treats him like family instead of a regular employee. The scene is then followed by a great scene of Scrooge expressing his conflicts to the spirit of being a good boss and a cold businessman.

Fezziwig's Christmas party is not shown in this version, which isn't as much of loss when compared to what happens next. The ghost informs Scrooge that she is about to show him the black years of his life when he descended into the selfish businessman he has become. Scrooge grows terrified for what he's about to see wishing for the spirit not to show him that part of his past. When it doesn't seem that she will listen, Scrooge covers the ghost's head with her cloak, and finds himself waking up holding a pillow in his grasp. This is just as stupid as cutting out Scrooge's childhood! This is the point of the story where Scrooge must reflect on what has happened to him in the past both good and bad, before thinking about what he can do in the present to assure himself a better path than the one that is leading him. And the fact that the film decides to jump passed the times in his life that have changed him for the worst (after giving such intense build-up to it mind you) is an absolute disgrace! It doesn't matter how well people the know the story, Scrooge gaining love and losing it from greed is an essential part of the story that should never ever be left out!

GHOST OF CHRISTMAS PRESENT

An example of a ghost that can still appear as unusual without the need of effects to see through them is the Ghost of Christmas Present. From his costume design, to his make-up, you look at him and you'd buy that he's not a man from this world in the same way one would view Santa Claus. Beyond that, Lionel Braham sells this role. Unlike how the first sound actor playing the character was giving half a performance, Braham fully embraces the role! The amount of energy and passion he brings to this performance feels just as big and grand as the character is written. I barely see an actor hamming it up. I only see the character. An interesting new feature that the ghost wields is a magic horn that sprinkle magic to give sour people on the holiday Christmas joy. The idea is cool. It fits the character's gleeful personality and it is delightful seeing Scrooge willing aid the spirit after finding himself amazed by it. But ignoring how obvious that there's a flashlight underneath this festive looking prop when he uses it, this idea does indeed lead to a ton of questions. Why can’t the ghost make Scrooge happy with his magic? If he has tried it on him what prevents the powers from working? What are the lengths that these powers go too? Is the Christmas cheer that it brings mostly comes from brainwashing people's minds? But oh details, details, details. I guess if we can overlook the details involving Santa, I think we can tolerate a magical horn that brings good feelings.

Before Scrooge visits the homes of Bob and Fred, there's a scene where he watches them all singing together in a church, to then sliding on frozen ice in front of the church. There are some nice moments here, like how Scrooge acknowledges the love between Fred and his fiancé Bess (Lynne Carver) when they sing together, only for the spirit to challenge scrooge's emotions by reminding him of what he said about love earlier. It's a nice scene, though it isn't as effective as it should be with Scrooge's relationship with Belle being cut. Shortly after, Fred tries to convince Bess to slide on the ice with him, though a bit corny, it's still cute to see the two interacting outside of the scene when Fred hosts his Christmas party. Moreover, the party scene that's shown before Scrooge meets the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come is handled well, as they toast to pity Scrooge and play a game involving a blindfold. The real highlight of the scene is Scrooge's delight to watching all of this just as the ghost is about to leave telling him he is a fool for loving Christmas, which Scrooge fully denies. Owen sounds authentic when he wants to stay, and his love and excitement for the holiday is joyful. The only thing odd is his laughter coming off as more sinister than it is out of pure love.

Going back to the church scene, as much as I would expect Bob and Tim to be there, it does feel a little early for Scrooge to feel sorry for the boy without really getting a feel of his personality. Don't get me wrong, I'd pity any child I'd see living in a terrible condition. Yet for someone as sour as Scrooge is, he is not the kind of man will instantly look at a kid and feel bad for him or her. It takes Scrooge to see what a sweet and genuine child Tiny Tim is before appearing concerned, which we see neither before this change in his character. The scene at the Cratchit's home is played as happily as one would expect (with the exception of Tim awkwardly wanting to stroke the turkey), but even there are a few alterations that are not needed. Earlier in the film, we already meet Cratchit's family when he brings home the food, thus taking away the emotions we are supposed to have with Scrooge when he sees that Bob has a family and loves spending time with them since we already get a scene showing it just without him. The family themselves don't appear to be doing bad financially either. I don't know what Bob does with the little he makes from his job, but it seems he's living better than most versions of the character given how nice his home is. The added subplot of Bob being sacked does come back when he tells his oldest daughter about it, who only feels worse about telling her knowing that the family finding out won't be make him feel any better. And instead of Bob toasting Scrooge's health, it's his wife (Kathleen Lockhart) who proposes it as Bob stands there looking uncomfortable. This reverse in the role does seem appropriate. It would seem out of character if Bob defended Scrooge if his Wife protests against it after being fired. And as we're enjoying this nice Christmas dinner, I do like it has a bit of an edge that Bob's family will soon be evicted from his house that will lead to Tiny Tim's demise. As questionable as how they live may seem, Scrooge firing Cratchit does make-up for it now that they have no source of income.

THE GHOST OF CHRISTMAS YET-TO-COME

Transitioning to the appearance of the Ghost of Christmas Yet-to-Come, we watch the events that we saw from the past and present appear in front of Scrooge's mind as he sleeps. Scrooge still laughing with joy (then why show him sleeping if he's not going to wake up) stops when he finds himself up on a mountain near sprawl trees as the Ghost slowly walks towards him. The atmosphere for this scene is appropriately gothic for having a set resembling something you'd see from a German Expressionism film, that's carried by eerie sound effects and an unsettling score to make it feel foreboding. It would be perfect if it didn't look so bright because shadows and darkness don't play a big factor with setting the mood. The only dark image is the Ghost itself who this time is a person in a costume as opposed to being a shadow on the wall. There is not too much to say about the Ghost's presence or design since it sticks to its traditional grim reaper design as it says nothing and just points the way.

As usual, Scrooge is taken to see a couple of businessmen discussing about his demise showing no sympathy. Like I can say for many of the other versions of the scene, its acted well as it follows the material faithfully. The only amusing change is when one of the men is disappointed that he wasn't left with anything making him realize that Scrooge was never his friend after the many conversations they would share together. It's a pity we never see a scene showing it prior to what's revealed, but then again in most versions, Scrooge is not usually seen chatting with any of them. Scrooge is then shown a dead body that it is hidden underneath the covers of the bed that it lies on. The scene only happens briefly with little to no thrill with playing on Scrooge's fear of who is underneath the sheets (unknown that he is dead in the future due to his name never being mentioned). Owen's reactions to this are off too as he at first feels shaky to then acting unfazed by it.

  

So with Bob out of the job while dealing with the loss of Tiny Tim, how is he and his family surviving? Are they in a workhouse, out on the street, gathering in Church, living in a small shack? For the film giving Bob a fear of his future without any work and how he'll family will respond to it, surely this will greatly ruin his future. Actually, apart from Tim dying, he seems to be fine financially. He's somehow still living in the same fancy home and nowhere in the scene is there a mention of how his family felt about him losing his job. The scene itself is still incredibly depressing from the performances of Gene Lockhart and Reginald Owen. I only wish the film would follow-up on Bob Cratchit's added subplot of losing his support for his family. This could have been an interesting new take on Bob's future, and the fact that it builds-up to nothing is as infuriatingly disappointing as not seeing the dark years of Scrooge's past.

Scrooge learns that his future self is dead when he's taken to the cemetery where his grave is. Once again, the set fits the grim depressing tone that we're supposed to feel for Scrooge as he enters, but it forgot to be dark because of the inappropriate use of lighting. It's not as bright as when Scrooge first met the ghost, however there are still rays of bright light shining through almost as if the light of heavens are above him. I guess it is supposed to symbolize his chance for redemption in this land of darkness, however since it has been used before Scrooge approaches his grave it looks out of place. Scrooge pleading to the spirit that he will change does overcome the lack of darkness that's supposed to be present. Owen isn't only portraying Scrooge as sad and fearful in this scene, he gives him some dignity as he promises the spirit that he will honor Christmas. The way he delivers his promise backed up with patriotic music comes across that he is proud to pledge his honor to Christmas. Yet while being prideful he is still vulnerable by coming across as shaky and distressed of if he still has a chance to set things right.

CHRISTMAS DAY

The Christmas day portion of the film showing Scrooge's redemption is handled as sweet and heartwarming as one would love to see. Owen gives a lively and sentimental performance when portraying a reformed Scrooge. His interactions with the boy on the street, the Portly Gentlemen and Fred are nice gentle scenes with a little bit of humor that are exchanged extremely well by each actor. The best part of the sequence is the last scene. If you remember in the end of the Seymour Hicks film, Scrooge is never shown to be bonding with Cratchit's family or Tiny Tim. It just ends with him and Bob singing in church together. In this version, we get our first sound portrayal of Scrooge visiting the Cratchit household, only this is played a little more with laughs. When Scrooge drops by, he does not pretend to be his old-self, he enters with excitement carrying goodies scaring Bob and his wife. As they're in another room discussing Scrooge's odd behavior, they hear the sound of their children screaming thinking their being hurt, only for Bob to discover that they're playing with a beautiful toy carousel that Scrooge brought. As funny the scene it is, it does not lose track of the emotional connection that we are supposed to have from it. The film ends on a perfect note with everyone raising a glass (including Fred and Bess), Tiny Tim saying the most iconic Christmas quote of all time, and hearing the song "Silent Night" to close-out the film.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

The film is an improvement over the Seymour Hicks film, but it's just as hit and miss. The use of bright lights is overused. As great as it is to see the ghosts, the first two are disappointing from either an acting standpoint, or not looking the role. The added subplot of Bob Cratchit being sacked is incredibly pointless. And the removal of the dark years in Scrooge's past are unforgivable. With that said, the film is more visually pleasing than the previous one. Reginald Owen aside from a few awkward moments is a great fit for Scrooge. Most of the casting is spot-on! And plenty of the new scenes and ideas are nice little touches to get you into the Christmas spirit as Scrooge is. Neither one of the first two sound films are one of the best versions to offer. Nevertheless, this one hits a little closer to home than the first one. Let me put it this way. I will most likely be re-watching the 1938 film more times before choosing to sit in near total darkness seeing almost nothing with Seymour Hicks.

HAVE A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A THIRD HAPPY NIGHT OF CHANUKAH!!

MICKEY'S ONCE UPON A CHRISTMAS

So I reviewed a few short Christmas films that I never seen before that were mostly related to Disney, well I'm now going to review a straight to video anthology film from Disney that I grew up watching as a kid, but haven't seen in a very long time, which is...



THE  NARRATOR



There are three shorts total in the anthology, and what ties them all together are three toys under a Christmas tree that represent each story, as the narration done by (Sideshow Bob himself) Kelsey Grammer helps takes us in and out of each of them. I admire the concept of having three Christmas toys under a Christmas tree that represent three shorts in this magical living room, as we have an off-screen narrator. It reminds me of how we enter the two stories in a strange and yet magical library from the underrated Disney classic "The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr.Toad". Moreover, for a straight to video animated Disney film, the animation doesn't look or feel half-baked, or that it looks that it was originally meant to be a Christmas Special meant for the Disney channel. It's not spectacular, but it does look well detailed compared to most straight to video Disney films and sequels. Right when you see a magical shooting star, and see the tree, decorations, and presents materialize in an empty living room you're enchanted by it for how mystical and Christmassy it looks. The only thing that I find corny in these sequences is the narration from Kelsey Grammer. I don't think it’s awful or dull, but man is it too corny for how much he's phoning in the whimsical and laid-back tone. I just find it a little too over the top to take it seriously, in fact I actually found it funny. Even as a kid, I thought his tone in narration was a bit much. But aside from that, these scenes still do a nice job transitioning to each short as you feel yourself getting sucked into the Christmas atmosphere.

DONALD DUCK STUCK ON CHRISTMAS

 

Donald's nephews Huey, Dewey, and Louie love celebrating Christmas so much that they wish they can do it forever, and after making their wish upon a shooting star their wishes are granted. As you probably know where the story is going, they go from loving it, to hating it realizing that Christmas should only be celebrated once a year. The story is obviously nothing new, but in the long run I think it does a better job executing the moral compared to most versions of the story, particularly "Elmo Saves Christmas". Instead of the kids celebrating Christmas as the month goes by, while others around them question it (when they could've all this time, just went on with their daily lives and celebrated Christmas on the day that it's supposed to be celebrated on); this version smartly takes the "Groundhog Day" route, by having them relive the same day on a constant loop. Much like “Groundhog Day”, the short ends with the nephews learning what they should do for others on Christmas, while also understanding why it should be celebrated once a year. Yeah, it follows pretty much the same plot-line as the Ramis film that it prevents it from being new and fresh, but to see the same outline done by Disney characters and on a holiday that's perfect for a story like this that ties into another old classic moral is just as fun and charming as it sounds.

What's wonderful about watching the characters in this short is they don't feel like that they have to resort to being cool and hip just to appeal to kids and fit the modern standards for audiences like they do on say the TV show "The House Of Mouse". They feel like the classic characters that we know. Huey, Dewey, and Louie are the innocent but fun loving trio that love to cause trouble, as Donald would find himself constantly losing his cool in front of a disapproving but loving Daisy. We also get appearances from the two adorable chipmunks Chip and Dale, and Scrooge McDuck, which I will admit it feels kind of a bit odd to see him not obsessing over gold since that is a big part of his identity. I mean the characters could have at least given him a gold coin for a Christmas present. The only new character that we meet is Aunt Gertie who is this fat jolly duck that loves to hug and kiss the nephews, who I found to be so funny and lovable that I wish that Disney would use her in other cartoons involving Donald and his nephews. The humor is as fun as you would think it would be, especially during the abuse that Donald Duck has to suffer who is trying hard to keep his cool since it's Christmas time. But the real highlight in terms of laugh out scenes is when the nephews decide to liven things up by literally trying to sabotage Christmas. The best part is when they replace a turkey with a live turkey that ends with a gag that is so random and yet so warranted that I find myself bursting with laughter every time I see it. And when the short does get to its heavy emotional material after laughing at the misery that the nephews have created, it does legitimately feel a bit depressing for how gloomy the imagery is and how emotionally torn all the characters are.

 If there are any nitpicks that I have with it, I will admit that the nephews getting tired and sick of Christmas did feel a little bit rushed, as if we didn't get enough scenes of them enjoying their wish before they despise it. But given the run time, and that there are two other shorts that follow after this one, it makes sense why it had to be cut short where you can already assume that enough time has went by for them to be sick of it. I also felt like the constant bits of the nephews leaving their Christmas card from Donald and Daisy behind was obviously going to play an important role in the story. If it was done once, it would pass perfectly as a throwaway gag that would shock you to find out the purpose it serves in the story. But since them ditching the card with close-up shots of it falling is shown so many times, it's almost as if the short is constantly telling the viewer that it will be important later on. As for the animation, like the opening it's not huge, but it's not cheap looking either. The characters look great, the slapstick is timed and edited well, and the Christmas colors and imagery is enchanting. The only piece of animation that looks noticeably cheap is Dale's design for when he's sweeping for how sketchy and awkward it looks with that unnatural smile.

As standard as the story is, I think it's by far the best version of "The Christmas Everyday" tale I've seen, that's supported by lovable and funny characters, some good laughs, nice animation, and a heartfelt climax.

A VERY GOOFY CHRISTMAS



Goofy's son Max is hoping that Santa will get him the snowboard that he always wanted. But when his nasty next neighbor Pete tells him that there is no Santa, he starts doubting his beliefs in him. After discovering that his Dad was dressing up Santa Claus as they were helping a family in need, Max’s spirits are broken who has lost all hope. Feeling bad for ruining his son's faith, Goofy decides to prove to Max that there is a Santa by staying up Christmas Eve until Santa show's-up.

The short takes place in the "Goof Troop" universe, and while you get your funny slapstick from Goofy, Max acting cool by skateboarding and wanting a snowboard, and Pete being the comical jerk that you love to hate and laugh at, the real charm to it is seeing Goofy interact with his son Max before he even reached his pre-teens. It's just adorable seeing an innocent and curious Max whose losing faith in his beliefs, as his father tries so hard to cheer him up, even if it gets him hurt in the process. Without giving too much away, after getting the best joke in the whole entire movie, I love how the tables turn when Max has to try to cheer up his father that adds an extra layer of sweetness to their relationship. The animation is still just as good as it was in the previous short, that has some nice Christmas colors and designs, as well as good timing and creative set-ups for the slapstick involving Goofy that do bring a good chuckle every now and then, as well as one or two priceless surprises. I also enjoy the little in-jokes, Easter eggs, and references to other films. For example, the name of the toy store that Goofy goes into to get Max's letter that hilariously parodies scenes from the "Indiana Jones" movies is called "CEO Shorts", that's a fun little knock-off of the famous toy store "FAO Schwarz". And the snowboard that Max wants badly has a very long name, just like how the B.B. gun that Ralphie wanted in "A Christmas Story" has a really long name.

As cute and entertaining as the short is, there are two issues that I have with it. The first one is that we never see Pete's family at all, not even so much as Max's best friend P.J. when he was younger. I can understand why the writers didn't feel the need to put them in there. I mean after all the story is mainly about Max and Goofy, with Pete being the killjoy, and just adding his family in there would be pointless, as you wonder if he tells his own kids that there's no Santa. But if you know the "Goof Troop" universe, this (at least for me) absence will come off as a bit distraction where you find yourself being puzzled about where they are, and what they're doing all this time, especially when being one of the main characters in the show. Could we at least get a cameo, or some kind of mention of them, just anything? But in reality that's just a nitpick compared to the real problem I have with it, which is the same complaint that Doug Walker pointed out in his review of the film for Disneycember, and that’s the ending being a complete cop-out. I won't give it away, but I do feel like the ending would've been stronger if the answer was left ambiguous and leaving the viewers to decide for themselves, instead of directly revealing if Santa is real or not. It's not an unsatisfying ending, it does provide a good laugh from Pete, and I felt like Max deciding to help his poor neighbors just like what his father did for them is cute and inspiring. But I thought the ending would've been stronger if it didn't give us such a clear-cut answer thus giving the viewer more of a reason to revisit it.

 Aside from the ending, and the absence of Pete's family, the second segment overall is very charming and entertaining that brings a few big laughs, and offers us a different chapter in Goofy's relationship with his son.

MICKEY AND MINNIE'S GIFT OF THE MAGI



It's Christmas Eve and Mickey wants to get Minnie a chain for her watch for a present, as Minnie wants to get Mickey a case for his gold harmonica. But none of them can afford a gift to get for each other, annnnnnd I'll be nice and not spoil the rest for the very few of you who haven't heard this kind of story before. For a timeless romantic Christmas tale, Mickey and Minnie are indeed the perfect characters to cast when doing an adaptation of it through their trademark characters. The scenes of them together are as cute and romantic as you would expect them to be (especially the ending), and their determination to get each other a gift is very sweet to watch. You also have Mickey's dog Pluto helping him out and needless to say it is as adorable was watching Mickey interact with him in all the other cartoons that they've been in together.

From an animation standpoint it still looks as good as the other shorts and I admire the use of warm colors used for the climax. But there are indeed a few things regarding the animation that I do find awfully distracting, and that's the designs for some of the characters. Characters such as Daisy and Pete who we've seen in the other segments for some strange reason look completely different here. In the Donald cartoon Daisy had black eye pupils, but here they are big and bright blue. And in the cartoon with Goofy Pete's fur was brown, now it’s his traditional black color. If these were released as separate shorts, I wouldn't mind these changes as much, but since they are technically tied-together because of the ending of the film, it's very distracting.

Things get a little weirder when considering the universe that Mickey lives in. Every character we see is either one of the trademark characters of the Disney cartoons, or completely original. Then we discover that Figaro from "Pinocchio" is Minnie's cat for some reason, and that Owl from "Winnie the Pooh" is there. I wouldn't mind seeing these characters in the world if it was swamped with other Disney characters that existed outside of their cartoons like in the show "The House Of Mouse" or more appropriately "Mickey's Christmas Carol" for example, but since we see like two of them, it to me just feels random. Even as Easter Eggs they feel out of place within the cartoons world. Come to think of it, if all these worlds connect to each other, then why is there a town with nothing but talking dogs when we find out that the "Goof Troop" universe is part of this world? In addition, if Goofy can talk, why can't Pluto, why does Pluto act like a dog, when Goofy does not? Oh and did I mention that in the first short we see Donald and his family eat turkey, now I'm no professional with animals, but I'm pretty sure that's considered to be cannibalism. And...ok now I'm really over analyzing the logic in this universe, and being a cartoon that’s clearly not intended to be logical with it's environment I shouldn't be so critical with it, since it's the characters and what they go through that's the real focus. But with that said, I do feel like that it's a bit of waste to only give us two cameos of Disney characters from the animated movies, instead of a few more. In terms of comedy, I don't think the segment is as funny as the other ones. They're mostly just cute little gags that are meant to entertain you instead of making you laugh. The only real best gag that we get in the whole short is when Pete accidentally sets his business on fire that had me laughing hard. I will say that the short does have nicer music compared to the others, but to be fair it's not really the score but the scenes with Mickey playing his gold harmonica that's also carried through his emotions and the situations that he’s in, whether he's playing with a firehouse band, or playing it out of depression.

This retelling of a classic Christmas story with Mickey and Minnie is truly what makes the short so endearing, but everything else regarding it's animation, humor, music, and world is good, but nothing special and at times weird.

THE CHRISTMAS MEDLEY



In the film's finale after when the toys and decorations in the living room vanish, and Grammer gives his closing narration, we see all the leads from each story join together for a Christmas medley to close out the film. Nothing much I can really say about except that it's the perfect way to close out the film for how adorable and uplifting it is!

CLOSING THOUGHTS ON THE FILM ITSELF

The film is overall nothing new, and nothing incredible, but it's still a sweet and simple Christmas film that kids and Disney fans will admire. Seeing the characters in timeless Christmas stories works beautifully. The humor is fun, and at times will provide a big laugh. And the animation though not spectacular is definitely not cheap or unpleasant to look at either. If you're looking for an alternative option of spending Christmas with Mickey and his friends after watching "Mickey's Christmas Carol" so many times, then look no further!

DISNEY'S THE LITTLE MATCHGIRL

Based on a story by Hans Christian Andersen (who wrote classics that Disney has tackled on before such as "The Little Mermaid" and "The Steadfast Tin Soldier") a homeless little girl (who kind of looks like a young Mulan) wanders around the snowy streets during Christmas time trying to sell matches to people who don't need them. As she huddles in an alley trying to warm herself from the brutal cold after having no luck with selling the matches, she decides to keep herself warm by lighting them where she envisions herself in a warm house full of food and toys with her deceased Grandmother. Unlike the last Disney Christmas short I reviewed that was a half hour long, this is under 10 minutes so expect this review to be brief.

Much like how I felt about seeing "The Small One", I was wondering if the short's magic was going to bring that emotional impact that people say was so powerful, and to my surprise it not only did just as solid of a job, but I found it be more emotionally scarring in comparison. The story of a homeless girl shivering on the streets and imagining what it'd be like to not be homeless was a very sad but yet cute tale that keeps bringing you on a roller coaster of emotions. When we're in the real world everything is dark and depressing where it's mostly consumed with the colors black, white, and grey. When we enter her fantasy world after she lights each match, everything looks so magical and pleasant as it's supported by beautiful warm colors that you want to stay in this alternate reality just as badly as the girl does, since everything in the real world is so gloomy. Although the film is mostly done with hand-drawn animation, it still has a few uses of CG that flow with this stylized world fine. The short was originally going to be part of a third "Fantasia" movie before the idea was scrapped, and you can tell that this was meant to be part of a "Fantasia" related project since the story is expressed through the animation flowing to the movement of a classical score without any dialogue or sound. And it works just as perfectly as you would expect from a segment of a "Fantasia" film. As for the ending, well without giving too much away, let's just say that the endings that Disney usually does when adapting a Hans Christian Andersen story is not carried out here.

"The Little Matchgirl" is in my opinion one of Disney's masterpieces in terms of animated shorts. It tells a bittersweet story through gorgeous animation and wonderful music that will have you moved to tears from start to finish. If you haven't seen it, well now's a good time to give it a watch!

DISNEY'S THE SMALL ONE

In 1978 as Disney re-released their animated classic "Pinocchio" to the big screen, Disney premiered an underrated Christmas short to give audiences something fresh and new on the big screen before the feature film began titled...



The film was legendary animator Don Bluth’ directorial debut and the last project he would do with the Disney Company before doing films of his own (such as “An American Tail” and “The Land Before Time”). Despite that I've never seen the film, I remember hearing the title of it during the previews for Disney Christmas films being released on VHS that was played right after the video "Very Merry Christmas Songs". Many years later I would, he hear about the film from Walker Brothers, which led to my curiosity from hearing how good it was. The film itself is not a household Christmas title as many other Christmas films, nor is it ever played on TV. Seeing how it has such a low profile I began to wonder if its underrated gem that should be brought out this time of year, or is it forgotten for a reason; ON WITH THE REVIEW!

A young boy, who lives outside the city of Nazareth, is close friends with the smallest and oldest of his father’s four donkeys who he calls him Small One. When Small One becomes too old to carry heavy loads, the boy's father regrettably has to sell him, but decides to give his son a chance to find a suitable owner for the donkey in the city of Nazareth before night fall. The kid takes Small One to the city only to find that nobody wants to buy him for how small and weak he is.

Going into this short as interested I was in seeing it, I was pretty much thinking to myself, all right cartoon warm my heart, make me emotional; make me feel the spirit of Christmas. Once it began, I was completely sucked in by it. It is more than obvious of how the short is going to end, and how it connects to Christmas, just by its setting alone. Nevertheless, the emotions of the short are so strong, that I really didn't care about how predictable it was. The relationship between the boy and his donkey feels completely genuine. You feel the kids attachment to his pet and his determination to find him a person who will love him just as much as he does and find him useful. The journey itself may not be as dark or intense as the films that Don Bluth would later do in his career, but it's still enough to make the boy's journey feel like hell. Everyone the kid meets in Nazareth are selfish, cruel, and mean that are always insulting the donkey, threatening him, and even abusing the poor little fellow just for laughs. And like in any good Don Bluth movie, after going through all this drama the ending would be so emotionally gripping and up lifting that it feels rewarding, even if you do know how it ends. What I also admire about the movie is how the film is both a Christian and Jewish film. It has characters that are Jewish, but the story and its morals are very reminiscent to the stories we would hear during Christmas time. And instead of the message coming off as preachy or direct, it's actually delivered as subtle and laid back as how "A Charlie Brown Christmas" delivered its message.

Now even though the film is a Disney film, this is practically Don Bluth's film. Yes there are plenty of Disney style animation where you'll know right off the bat that this is a Disney film (such as the design for the boy almost looking like Mowgli from "The Jungle Book", or the auctioneer looking like a mix between Stromboli from "Pinocchio" and Tony from "Lady And The Tramp".) But if you're familiar with Don Bluth's work, then you'll catch on to Don Bluth's animation style as well from the way the characters move, how they're designed, and how certain scenes and backgrounds are animated, colored and lit. The combination of both styles of animation is just as gorgeous as it sounds, especially when it involves Christmas. The short even has a few songs that bring the warmth that Disney and Don Bluth bring in their other works.The opening credits song "Small One" gets you into the Christmas feeling the same way that the opening credits song "Oh, What A Merry Christmas Day" did in "Mickey's Christmas Carol". And the song "Friendly Face" that the kid (who's by the way, voiced by the same kid who played Pete in "Pete's Dragon") sings to Small One is just as touching as hearing Fievel and Tanya sing in "An American Tail". The one song that pales in comparison with the other songs is "The Merchant Song". It does move the story forward, the Merchants are fun to watch and listen too, and the parts where the kid sings as he tries to sell Small One to people who don't want him (including one voiced by the late and great Thurl Ravenscroft) do keep to the short's emotional core. But the problem I have with it is, the parts that the Merchant sings, and the parts that the kid sings sound like totally separate songs badly edited together. This is mainly due from how it just keeps going back and fourth from between comical and sad, that it almost keeps you off-guard for how bio-polar the change of tone is, unlike how Don Bluth would successfully balance out both emotions for the song "There Are No Cats In America" in "An American Tail".'

"The Small One" is without a doubt in my mind an underrated Christmas classic that should get more recognition. The two leads are cute. The songs, while a mess on one occasion, are still beautifully sung. The overall journey and lessons plays on levels of emotions very authentically, despite how predictable the story is. And the combination of Don Bluth's animation style with Disney's gives us one of the most beautiful short animated pieces that Disney has ever created. If you haven't seen it yet, be sure to check it out this holiday season. It's 25 minutes that I'm sure you won't wish to get back!