BABES IN TOYLAND (1997)

In the past I've looked at two popular film adaptations of Victor Herbert's "Babes In Toyland" which are the 1934 film starring Laurel and Hardy (better known as "March of the Wooden Soldiers"), and the 1961 live action Disney film. This year I'm going to look at one of the more obscure film adaptations that I grew-up watching (long after I've seen the 34 film) which was the animated version released straight-to-video from MGM in 1997.

The first time I ever saw an image of the movie was when I dined at Nathan's at around the age of 4 or 5. Apparently there were toys of the characters from the movie that were being given to kids who get a meal, I didn't get one (and was disappointed because I really wanted the Humpty Dumpty toy). At the time I didn't know the toys were a film tie-in until I saw clips of it being featured during the previews for "MGM/UA Family Entertainment" on my VHS copy of "Chitty Chittty, Bang Bang". The film looked colorful, imaginative, and fun, which caught a bit of my interest.

It wasn't until I played the Computer game based on the film with my brother Jesse that made me impatiently eager to see it. Hearing the instrumental version of "Toyland", gazing at its interactive nursery rhyme environment, and discovering that Barnaby is the game’s main villain. I realized that the game and the film that it spun-off from is an animated re-imagining of the 1934 classic that I loved so much (unknowing to the fact that there were other versions of the operetta, including the Disney film). I wasn't sold in seeing the movie until I was shown the dark parts of "Toyland" like Baranby's house, and the Goblin forest, that had me with such awe for how much I was into scary imagery as a kid. After discovering that the film promises to have a bit of an edge like the original film I knew based on the game, for a few years I kept asking my Dad to find it for me. He seemed to have no luck finding a copy, as I couldn't find it anywhere at "Blockbuster" or my local library. This only caused me to grow more impatient for being so hard to find. Then during the Christmas of 2004, I finally received a copy of the film as a Christmas present that had me roaring with cheer. The first time I saw it; I loved the opening but was desperate to see Baranby and his dark mansion so I fast-forwarded through the first couple of minutes. I then a few days later watched it in full, and thoroughly enjoyed it, but wasn't amazed by it as much I hoped. Like a lot of films that I had (especially the obscure ones) I'd find myself watching it constantly and singing and quoting the film in school, to eventually forgetting about it as I reached Middle School where my horizons towards film were beginning to expand wider than I ever thought they would. Over the years, I have heard that the film has mostly been getting a negative reception, and my reaction to it based on my memory of the film was "yeah, it wasn't anything special". Even now, I still feel that way, but being in a nostalgia mood and expressing my thoughts on the better known "Babes in Toyland" films in the past, I might as well take a closer look at the version that I was once so anxious to watch, to see if it has gotten any worse or slightly better. ON WITH THE REVIEW!

Jack and Jill are on their way to Toyland to stay with the only living relative they have left, who unfortunately happens to be the crooked Barnaby, the nastiest resident in all of Toyland. They escape from their uncle’s attic where the children are confined to secretly visit the famous Toy Factory after being previously invited by the chief executive toy-maker Tom-Tom, and his boss Mary during their trip to Toyland. Tom creates a giant toy soldier that impresses the residents of Toyland, and reveals to Mary that Santa is requesting to have a thousand of them by Christmas, that is only two days away. As the kids help Mary and Tom, Barnaby plans to destroy the factory with the help of two crooks named Gonzargo and Rodrigo, and the goblins.

In the previous versions I reviewed, our protagonists were adults who already lived in this fantasyland which isn't as wondrous as seeing a kid visiting it for the first time. Though this is certainly not the first time a film adaption of the operetta has made children the focus, it's still a welcoming idea to bring kids into its fairy-tale environment, especially if your stars are nursery rhyme characters. The actors they hired to voice Jack and Jill are not a bad casting choice either since they have e voiced characters that any kid who watched Nickelodeon in the late 90s and early 2000s would know. Lacey Chabert (best known for voicing Eliza Thornberry from "The Wild Thornberrys") provides the voice Jill, as Joseph Ashton (Otto Rocket from "Rocket Power") voices Jack. Comparing these characters, to the children from the Disney film, they without question are memorable for how Jack and Jill have opposite personalities. Jill is always sweet and optimistic, as Jack is a hot-headed realist! That’s definitely much more interesting than the kids from the Disney film since they all have the same annoyingly perfect and cutesy personality that makes them incredibly bland. That is not to say that Jack and Jill are not annoying and bland either. Jill's constant sweetness does become as unbearably bland as the kids from the 61 film, as Jack's constant whining and complaining gets so aggravating that you're just waiting for one of the characters to put him in his place. In addition, aside from one scene when their personalities swift when they seem to have reached their doom, they are stuck with their one personality trait for the entirety of the film.

I don't think that Jack and Jill are one of the most annoying child characters out there, they're just very boring for how one-note they are, I mean they're not as bad as Mary and Tom are. It seems that usually in film adaptations of "Babes in Toyland" Tom and Mary (sometimes Bo-Peep) are usually the least interesting characters. They were charming in the Laurel and Hardy film if not intriguing, were incredibly dull in the Disney film, and in this film, they're highly annoying. They are nothing more than a bland rip-off of the Disney couple stereotype that other animation studios were trying to cash-in at the time through their gorgeous looks and perfect personalities. Every moment they appear on-screen acting all glamorous it feels like they're rubbing it in my face, almost as they're trying hard to prove that they can be just as beautiful as the Disney Princes' and Princesses', which they don't because they lack personality and depth. The only other thing they have outside of their pretentious perfect personalities is that they don't get along, which I can say is slightly more interesting than the previous versions of the characters, but that's played as an irritating constant tease! Both of them clearly express that they contain feelings and interest in each other, and yet they act as if they don’t by teasing each other in a matter similar to how High School teenagers would when they deny that they're in love. Resulting with their unbearable whimsical personalities shifting to childishly snooty and stuck-up. Exactly like how I feel about the couple in the Disney movie, Tom and Mary here are easily the worst part of this movie! I'd even go as far to argue (at least out of the three films that I've reviewed) that they're the worst romantic couple that these films have to offer for how insufferably obnoxious they are (making me glad that they weren't featured in the game).

The film may have the worst Mary and Tom, but it does have the darkest version of Barnaby to exist. I know that sounds odd that a straight-to-video animated film has a version of a villain that is nastier and more twisted than Henry Brandon's famous portrayal of Barnaby, but let me explain why. The motive for Brandon's Barnaby was to force Bo-Peep to be his wife by going through such ugly lengths by trying to foreclose the shoe where Bo-Peep lives in, frame her lover for murder, and lead the Bogeyman in an attack on Toyland to abduct her. He was the equivalent of an old and ugly version Gaston from "Beauty & the Beast". Bolger in the Disney film had the same motivation only he tried to murder Tom, steal the sheep to cut Mary off from her finical support, and later shrinks Tom to the size of a toy threatening to blast him to kingdom come. Barnaby's motivation here is to not wed Mary, but instead take control of the Toyland Toy Factory that her late Father owned, who plans to destroy it so no child can ever have toys on Christmas since that's the place where Santa is getting toys (I guess the elves were given the year off). Though not as disturbing as an old man trying to wed a young girl, is still a much more dastardly plan considering that he plans to ruin Christmas (at least the giving part of it). Moreover, the lengths he go to are indeed extreme. He tries to murder Tom to prevent him from bringing back Santa's order; uses first degree murder to steal the key to the factory; and has the goblins burn it to the down to the ground as well as Toyland itself. Let us not forget that Barnaby also has poor Jack and Jill at his mercy when he isn't trying to demolish the Toy Factory. He locks them away in the attic full of rats until they starve, takes away all their fun, abuses them (in a cartoony fashion), and threatens to feed them to the goblins if they shall ever annoy him. In many ways Barnaby is like Count Olaf before the character ever existed. Beyond that, if Barnaby sees an opportunity to make someone miserable for no reason, he'll just do it, for how little he cares. Barnaby’s design is not half-bad either, I enjoy his crooked body structure attached to his villainous Scrooge like face. And to top it all off, the voice work from the extraordinary Christopher Plummer is joyfully devious as this crooked old man, only he doesn't feel the need to play it as silly as Ray Bolger did. He is bitter and nasty to the core like a cranky old man, and yet he can sound sophisticated and articulate as a full himself aristocrat who will only laugh and gloat when he bestows misery upon others. This is an excellent take on the villain for how deranged they made him, but I can't go far to say that this is the best Barnaby. The reason why I admired Brandon's portrayal so much was that he was better rounded. He can be insane, cold, and slimy, but he was also charming and graceful despite that his reasons were always out of pure selfishness. Plummer's, though not bad, is pretty much just your Saturday Morning Cartoon grump of a villain, that's just not as interesting or memorable when compared to Brandon. Yet thankfully is not as silly and bland as Bolger's (though to be fair, I have been able to get a bit more laughs out of Bolger after watching the film a few more times). Still I can't say that he's not darker than the others, so in that regard Plummer’s Baranby comes off as the most sadistic of the three.

But if you're looking for an aspect of the film that's darker than Barnaby. And I'm talking about being so intense, horrific, and nightmare inducing that it's shocking how the film outdoes itself, it's the goblins! It's funny because as a kid I don't remember being all that frightened of them for cool and monstrous they looked, much like how I felt about the Headless Horseman, "JAWS", the Devil from "Fantasia", and the Bogeymen from "March of the Wooden Soldiers". I found them threatening, just not scary enough for me to back-away from the film. I still don't personally feel that way now, but my god I can picture almost any child being petrified of them. They look more a lot like the kind of devils you'd picture from hell for how satanic they appear, with their gargoyle wings, glowing red eyes, sharp teeth, and eerie cackling. Just make them red instead of purple, give them a pointy tail, and they would easily pass as devils. Even their leader would make for a great Satan, for how big and muscular he is with a godly voice and otherworldly roar that will cause kids to wet their pants in a second. They're so horrifying that they make the Bogeymen look like goofy wimps! I mean these spawns of Satan who like to eat innocents, take the extra mile to burn down the homes of the citizens of Toyland; too bad the Bogeymen didn't use their torches for arson than just lighting the way. But with that said, though the goblins don't become comical as the savage Bogeymen were for whenever they were attacked, there are still enough stupid moments that make them silly. When the goblin King sees that he has four tasty morsels to feast upon, he doesn't try to eat any of them, he goes after Jill's toy dog in a playful matter that feels a bit childish. He has actual meat in front of them; a toy dog should be the last thing for him to snack on. The goblins themselves don't give Tom much of a fight, they just trample over him when they all can easily eat his flesh. But the stupidest part of the goblins is the logic of how they fear light. Light is the only means of killing a goblin and I am not just talking about sunlight, I mean any kind of bright light. In the climax when we see them carry torches, as intense as the scene can be, it's hard to fully take in the suspense since what they're using will make their faces melt as horrifically as the Nazis did when they opened the lost ark just by looking at it. And after when turning Toyland into nearly a sea of flames, they're somehow not all eliminated at once. That is a huge stretch to take when contradicting the film’s logic.

The two henchmen that Barnaby hired in the Disney film though looking like a poor-man's version of Penn and Teller as if they were doing a bad Laurel and Hardy impression, were still a ball to watch for how hilariously stereotypical these two are. Gonzargo and Rodrigo in this version are pirates instead of thieves, who get a few laughs through some of the dialogue and slapstick but aren't nowhere as endlessly funny as the pair I mentioned. Most of the best bits come from the big dim-witted henchmen voiced by Jim Belushi who seems to have more personality and humor when compared to his boss Rodrigo. I guess you would expect the dumb one to be funnier than the brains to these kind of criminal archetypes, the only problem is Rodrigo has a boring personality with an annoying phoned-in accent, and a design that makes him look like a rejected design of Disney's Captain Hook for how obnoxiously silly it is. The only time I ever laughed at both of them is when they hide from the Goblins during the climax and are then discovered where they are about to be cooked like a goose on a spit. Without the assistant from the goblins and Gonzargo and Rodrigo, Barnaby has a pet cat named Scat, who is so forgettable for how minor of a role she plays in the overall story that she makes Scrooge's dog Debit in the animated Christmas Carol with Tim Curry have as much purpose as Max from "How the Grinch Stole Christmas". Scat does not help Barnaby in anyway, or show true redemption when we are supposed to see her change of heart at the end. All she does is get injured through unfunny slapstick; what's so memorable about that? There's not much to say about the citizens of Toyland since all of them are just fairy tale and nursey rhyme characters making cameos, all except for Mr. Dumpty (voiced by Charles Nelson Reilly aka "CNR"). The character is nothing special, he's just simply there as comic relief, who gets a few funny lines delivered by CNR, and is played out as excessively nervous and snarky as one would expect from him when voicing animated characters. The only real thing memorable about the character is his design that is actually quite creepy looking at it again. It's not the scariest thing I’ve ever seen or anything, it’s just he can look quite sinister half of the time, as if he was originally going to be working for Barnaby. His introduction (which is also the first scene of the movie) even comes off as a bit awkward. We see him bathing inside his hat singing on top of a half-moon with a face that weirdly gets excited for when he's about to leave the hat naked to then becoming disappointed when he still stays inside causing Dumpty to force the moon to close his eyes as he changes in front of us. It's not at all as whimsical and funny as when I first saw the scene as a kid. And please don't get me started with the logic of his fragile egg shell because according to the film, if the scene is played out for comedy he'll be fine, even if he's being dropped off the Great Wall of China. If the scene plays out for intense drama however, well he's doomed no matter what the circumstances are (and in the film's case, its smaller when compared to him falling out of the clock tower, that's taller than any of the buildings in toy-land). I almost forgot Santa makes an appearance in the film too. He only shows up at the end, and nothing stands-out about his appearance. His design is average, he only says one sentence, and aside from shrinking the toys he's given to fit inside his bag, he doesn't do anything else that's special or heartwarming. It's a downer because with all this talk about him, you expect him to do more or leave an impact. The Santa in the Laurel & Hardy film appeared in one scene, and he was memorable through his jolly personality, big laughter, and love and care for the children and people around him.

Given that the film's source material is an operetta, it would seem a bit naked if it didn't have any musical numbers. We do get 7 songs (counting the famous instrumental piece "March of the Toys"), unfortunately we only get two songs from its source, as the others are pretty much the generic songs that you would most likely get out of animated films at the time that were trying to be like Disney. The song "Toyland" is sung three times in the film. It's first sung in the opening by (an obviously dubbed) Mr. Dumpty where we then ride with "The little engine that could" to Toyland, while hearing a whimsical children's choir with some opera added to it when the choir of male adults join in, to set its child-like wonder. Then after the ride, when Jack and Jill enter Toyland, Mr. Dumpty sings it again. The scene starts out enchanting, until we get an out of nowhere short wacky chase, to then seeing for no rhyme or reason Jack and Jill high above the clouds in a slow moving sequence as the song is now sung by a soft choir. The changes of tone and pacing during this second version of the song is so disoriented that it's like that the filmmakers took three separate sequences and edited them together to create one of the messiest musical sequences to appear in an animated film. Given that "Toyland" is sung two times in the film, it seem most likely to hear it in the last scene of the movie that makes for a decent closing. The "March of the Toys" music used the climax, sounds nice, but when comparing it to the previous two versions I reviewed it's very weak. The great versions of this piece get you excited that the cavalry has arrived as you are pumped to see them march in and kick butt for how big, loud, and triumphed the music sounds. This version of the piece is very soft and mellow where the only loud part of it is the sound of the soldiers marching. It's not bad, it just lacks energy to get you emotionally involved in what's taking place.



I can't say there isn't some kind of emotion in the piece, because at least it doesn't feel as lacking when you compare it to some of the original songs in the movie. Like the song, "Dream" sung by Tom, Mary, Jack, and Jill for instance. This song is supposed to be an emotional moment for these characters where they all sing about what they desire as things aren't looking the greatest for them (especially for Jack and Jill). However, it's sung so pleasantly as the visuals surrounding the scene look so whimsical that it feels pretentious and corny, making you forget that they are sad or upset. Not to mention that the melody is very forgettable for how bland it is. But to give it credit, at least it's not as painfully bland and slow as Tom and Mary's love song "I Know It's You". The song is so boringly generic with very little visual appeal and no emotional investment, that it feels like that it goes on for 5 minutes. The love ballets that Tom and Mary sang in the Disney film were more entertaining than this. The only song from Mary and Tom that I enjoyed from the movie was the "Factory Song". I can't say that it's a good song because aside from Tom and Mary acting insufferably happy when singing, the song gets as disjointed as the second time that "Toyland" is sung from the different tempos and styles of music that each nursery rhyme character sings. Mid-way through the song, it completely stops dead in its tracks to show a dramatic surreal sequence of Tom creating a life-sized wooden soldier. The only enjoyment I get out of the song is the chorus parts for how incredibly upbeat and catchy it is. I could listen and sing-along to that bit for hours if I had to make toys. Another song that shares a similar problem to the "Factory Song" is the song that follows it, which is Barnaby’s song. The choir of singing hipster candles give the song a playfully eerie vibe, but the rest of the song is a bland mess. Plummer talk sings throughout the song, and half of the time it's hard to tell when he's actually singing while talking or when he's actually talking. I can't completely fault Plummer because the melody and tempo is always constantly changing back and forth from calm and dull, to loud and intense. The only original song that I find fully enjoyable is "The Worst is Yet to Come" that's sung by Gonzargo and Rodrigo when they take the kids to the “Goblin Forrest”. It fails at what it tries to do by building up terror and suspense when entering the forest for being excessively goofy and lively, but at least I can sing-along to it without feeling that the song is either going to randomly change its tune or come to a halt for a needlessly drawn-out visual sequence.



The style that the film has is just as big of a mess as the songs themselves are. Sometimes it feels that the film is trying to rip-off Disney for its romantic leads, musical numbers, and sidekicks. Then it would feel like watching a Don Bluth film for whenever we see wide-eyed innocents being constantly abused by wicked and monstrous beings. And other times it would be too reminiscent to an old 30s cartoon for how some of the props and buildings would have faces. All these different styles attached to a famous fairy-tale operetta with its straight-to-video quality makes the tone and environment completely all over the map, since it can never decide to pick a style of its own. With that said, though the animation at times looks like an animated film that "HBO" or "PBS" would probably air at the time, is still decent. The timing for the movements of the characters has enough energy to prevent them from looking stiff and awkward. Half of the designs for the fairy-tale characters, goblins, and locations like Toyland and Barnaby's house are visually fun, imaginative, and interesting. And there does seem to be a bit of a theatrical scale to the feature when compared to other low budget animated films during the 90s (most likely because the film was originally going to be released theatrically if it wasn't for the failure of "All Dogs Go to Heaven 2"). As for the climax involving the toy soldiers, as strong as the tension was before they start marching, the whole battle between the toys and the goblins, is pretty lackluster for how unexciting and little the stakes are when they start fighting. The toy soldiers just use whatever convenient gadget they have to save the day as if they were all wearing the utility belt that Adam West wore as Batman. The presence of these life-sized toy soldiers don't make any sense here either. In the 34 film, they were made by a foolish mistake, which caused Santa to dismiss them for being too big and dangerous for kids. The Santa in this film however, endorses he idea showing no concern for the children's safety at how lethal they are.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

The 1997 "Babes in Toyland" is a generic mess. It's style and tone is as inconsistent as the Disney film only worse for having more than just two styles that it’s trying to combine into one; most of the songs are bland and disjointed; Jack and Jill are very unamusing; the supporting characters are nothing that special; and Tom and Mary are so god-awfully glamorous and immature that I'd much rather sit through the dry chemistry that Annette Funicello and Tommy Sands had in the Disney film. It's bad, but after looking and hearing about other versions of the operetta I don't think I could call it the worst. It can be imaginative at times with its world; the animation is not bad; parts of these messy songs can be catchy; and there are some laughs to be had if not many. The elements to the film that I truly admire is the stuff involving Barnaby and goblins for giving the film an edge for how demonic the goblins, and witnessing the sadistic lengths that Barnaby goes through to ruin Christmas as Christopher Plummer completely steals the show for whenever he’s on-screen. For a film that could very easily play itself safe, it makes me glad that it decided to take some dark turns to prevent it from being too happy and silly. As entertainment for little kids its fine, but for adults who are looking for an alternative option regarding the two most well-known "Babes In Toyland" films, with the exception of Barnaby and the goblins, it’s a very average kids movie. For me personally it's a guilty pleasure, but I'll admit that I get more nostalgia, joy, and enchantment out of the simplistic computer game than I do the actual film that it's based on.