starlac

With Yogi off the show, doing his own thing, something, or someone had to replace him on Huckleberry, that someone being Hokey Wolf, Hanna-Barbera’s second wolf after Loopy and likely the more famous of their two lupines (generally due to him appearing more often in re-runs).

Hokey is a con-artist in the style of Phil Silver’s Bilko character, and pulls various cons with his younger assistant/tagalong Ding-a-Ling to coax and purloin food and/or shelter from various people, the majority being farmers, but sometimes fairytale characters like the three little pigs.

Hanna-Barbera was never a company for great animation (mostly due to the limits of TV budgets), and had a tendency to copy others and themselves in their cartoons, and Hokey Wolf had a simple concept, use Phil's Silver con-artist persona using talking animals. Hanna-Barbera would use the Phil Silvers plot again, to better affect, with their cat-centric primetime series Top Cat.

Hokey is Daws Butler, doing a fine job of impersonating Phil Silvers – well Phil’s most famous creation Sergeant Bilko – and the rest of the cast are on par with expectations, though I not sure whose voice Ding-a-Ling is based on.

It's decent, given the time period, or at least as much as anything else that the company behind it made. And, like much of Hanna Barbera’s early work, it won’t bear up to repeated viewings, or be much discernable from other HB 60’s stuff.

This was supposedly going to be a reboot or "re-imagining" of Winnie the Pooh. In truth, it’s a case of here's the new, same as the old. With the exception of a new outfit for Christopher Robin that looks something like a traditional turn-of-the-century schoolboy uniform. Everything else is as it ever was in the Hundred Ache Woods and maybe that not such a bad thing.

With one of the most truncated titles in the franchise’s long history, Winnie the Pooh is pretty standard fare for the cast. Pooh is hungry for honey, and finding none at home decides that he must go find some, or better yet, borrow some from a friend. Meanwhile Eeyore has lost his tail and once the crew all get together; they set about finding a suitable replacement, and guess what the prize is (and guess who suggested it).

During this search the group come across a note written by Christopher Robin and, with apprehension, decide to brave the tedium of visiting Owl, who is currently trying to read his memoirs to anyone daft enough to pay him a visit. While Owl is generally able to read it he mistakes the words “Back Soon” for Backson, which he interprets as a terrible beast. When probed about the nature of the beast, he does a reversal - through song naturally - to get them to decide what they’re be up against. The majority of the movie is concerned with their efforts to catch this mythical beast, led by the possibly post-traumatic Rabbit, at least after his ego’s buttered up by the others.

Pooh likes honey, Eeyore complains, Tigger likes bouncing, Rabbit seems like he’s two hops away from starring in some sort of Vietnam movie (this gets really pronounced in a few scenes), Piglet would rather be someplace else as long as it’s not in range of either danger or Owl’s monologues. The film is read by a narrator, the characters are aware of the fourth wall, jumping from page and talking back at the narrator; the text gets used as a plot device several times, it feels much like any other Pooh film between the TV series and today.

And, depending on the viewer that could be the film’s ultimate undoing, because it really isn’t treading any ground that the numerous films, direct-to-videos and various TV series’ haven’t. The film's plot level is about on par with the Tigger Movie and a tad better than Piglet’s Big Movie, which is to say it’s okay in the grand scheme of Pooh films, but is not something that will stick in your memory long after it’s over.

Animated by Disney home studio team, Winnie the Pooh is certainly not lacking in polish, though, it should be said that the art style possibly doesn’t warrant such talent as andreas deja, but two stand out scenes, one where Pooh is having a 40’s musical inspired dream about a land of honey, and another where the chalk drawings of the imagined Backson during their discussions with Owl come to life* certainly help to add a bit of sparkle to the movie's visuals.

Winnie the Pooh is nothing to write home about, it’s a decent entry in the Winnie the Pooh cannon, but not much else, and while not distinct enough, will probably keep the little ones happy and sate fans of the bear with little brains.

6/10

*Which would have better if Piglet’s Big Movie hadn’t done a similar thing.
BTW: There’s some mid-credit scenes and general credit playfulness.

NB: I watched the film during its UK theatrical run back in April, I will probably buy/rent the DVD, if the film is better/worse than I remember, I'll adjust the review as needed.

The first thing to say is that Daffy plays the Superman parody snick somewhat more convincingly than Bugs did in Super Rabbit; that said Stupor Duck is a one trick pony whose trick isn’t that engaging to begin with.

The basic premise is cute enough, Cluck Trent - Daffy playing a role rather than himself like in Duck Dodgers and The Scarlet Pumpernickel* - overhears a televised soap opera and mistakes it as reality. Changing costume, with the seemingly obligatorily wrong costume gag that had already been used in another, aforementioned cartoon, the duckster goes after his perceived enemy Aardvark Ratnick.

What follows is a stem of drawn out blackout gags involving Daffy misconstruing various happenings around town and elsewhere as the work of his fiendish foe. The joke wears a bit thin after a while, playing like a weak version of the Bugs vs. Daffy cartoons, minus the dialogue between them.

Worth a watch, but the duck’s been in much, much better stuff.

*Both much better shorts than this BTW.

Talking about Dead Leaves could be problematic; on the one hand it looks like nothing else from a purely aesthetic point of view, and is extremely hectic and fast paced. On the other hand, it has a basic, uninteresting plot, continually aims for the lowest common denominator and the entire cast is either uninteresting, soon to be dead or totally unlikeable.

It is also very, very short.

The plot is straightforward in essence, though it tries to throw in superfluous things like amnesia, revenge and the like, it is in essence a prison breakout movie with sci-fi overtones. Once in the prison we are shown how brutal and sadistic the place is before the two amnesia suffering protagonists are able to break everyone out - to tell you how would spoil what little plot there is - and attempt an escape, the prison defence systems close by.

I'll give the film its credit, if you want manic action it certainly delivers above and beyond. Bullets and fists fly, blood is spilt, and the destruction of something new is only mere seconds away at any given time. It’s a mad trip to be sure and as long as you think of it as a ride and nothing else, you’ll likely enjoy it. However if you want something that will stay with you and has something meaningful to say, stay away from here as you’ll be disappointed.

It looks unique certainly, and outside of a few graphic novels I can’t recall seeing anything like the style it uses, especially in animation, it also moves smoothly, at least for anime direct-to-video. The soundtrack is a mix of trance, techno and other music which you’d find at rave joints and it fits with the package. The dialogue is merely there, trying to fill in exposition and such, but it’s so forgettable and add nothing to the film of any meaning, the whole thing might as well free of dialogue altogether.

I’m sure many teenagers will think that Dead Leaves is the best thing ever, for those a bit more mature, it’s probably worth a watch just to see such onscreen mayhem; and then you can take it back to the rental store and forget about it.

To be honest this is the first of Disney’s CGI films that I’ve seen,* as I kind of decided to skip pass Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, etc. I just didn’t feel the need to watch any of them, not even as a rental (although at the time of writing, I have brought a copy of the former).

It doesn’t look like I’ve been missing all that much.

When I first heard of the problems this film had concerning its original creator Chris Sanders and conflicts with John Lasseter over the film’s direction I mentally put it down as a film with a troubled creation. While some films have managed to pull through their difficult production without a hitch, many more bear the scars of such internal conflict; as clear as the marking on Bolt’s side.

The opening minutes are very watchable, in much the same way as the beginning of a James Bond film, the kinetic action of a chase sequence plus some cheesy – but tongue in cheek – dialogue make a fun few minutes. It also provided me with the one laugh I had in the whole film. It’s too bad the rest of the film wasn’t like this, because thereafter we get into territory that been done before and done better.

Bolt’s biggest problem is that the basic premise of a character – in the case the titular canine – not knowing that his or her perceived life is nothing more than an illusion. It’s a plot device that has been done to death in both of Pixar’s Toy Story films, and other films as diverse as The Truman Show and the original Matrix, all films which found an original route for the narrative. Bolt is an altogether predictable film which holds no surprises, leaving a viewer to wonder what the point of it all was.

The analogy with Toy Story is quite appropriate, both Bolt and Buzz suffer from the same illusion – or delusion in Buzz’s case – of grandeur, though admittedly in Bolt’s case it was induced into him – like err, Truman – through deliberate manipulation. Same goes with Mittens, she’s a recycle of Jessie from Toy Story 2; it’s almost as if John Lasseter decided to remake Toy Story with animals.

The other film it borrows elements from is Homeward Bound, as Bolt ends ups in New York and wants to get back to his master, enlisting the help of a unwilling cat named Mittens; end up with a kinetic hamster who seems to be on a constant sugar high, blah, blah, blah; none of this is incredibly enticing on its own, it an attempt to add a physical journey on top of a psychological one.

The characters mildly survive, but even they could be perceived as recycled…

Bolt is noble and true to himself – at least his perception of himself – and while his learning of reality is a little endearing, his refusal to believe in the evidence of his own pain borders on self-delusional at times. Mittens is at once an interesting and yet uninteresting character, her pessimism and cynicism is nice and dandy and all that, but the audience is bound to figure out why she feels such things long before the 'revelation'. Rhino is an annoying, totally unfunny character who adds nothing at all to the film other than make me flinch every time he said anything, leaving me wishing he either died or was never created to begin with.

Technically, there’s nothing wrong here, the animation is superb; the animals behave like their respective species, with enough anthropomorphism added as was needed. However, this is Disney and as such I expect animation of the highest calibre, so the production values are something of a mute point. The art direction is soft plush all the way, with Bolt, Mittens and Rhino definitely being overly adorable, the better to sell toys with. I can’t remember too much about the soundtrack to be honest, it sort of fits and is in the background, but it’s nothing too memorable.

It cute and cuddly and safe, in fact it’s too safe, with almost no true dramatic conflict throughout, it kind of not to care about the characters, the lack of original plot, or even original ideas doesn’t help in this regard either. Don’t get me wrong, there is fun to have with Bolt and it certainly is worth a watch or two, but there is little real meat on these old recycled bones.

6/10

*As opposed to Pixar’s