Gamerdog's stuff

24, she/they, Canadian. Film critic from Toronto with a passion for anime, video games, film and television!

[gamerdog1]

So I just saw Spider-Man: Brand New Day, and omg I loved it.

Tom Holland is still *the* best Spider-Man, and this movie just continues to prove it. His character gets put through the wringer in this, and his performance is more of that wonderful youthful energy we've come to know and love, but now with a little bit of wrath and angst. The effects were on point, and seeing it in 3-D made swinging scenes so, so cool. I highly recommend it to anyone thinking of seeing it in theaters. I'm really happy to see where they're taking the character, going from the devastating ending of the previous film to this one, where Peter has to learn to navigate life on his own. Its another welcome addition to this overarching 'growing up' story they've got with him, and I think there's parts here that'll definitely hit home with younger audiences. Plus, I'm extremely happy to see the MCU finally tying characters together again (something that's been my main gripe with them lately). The Punisher is a slightly unexpected, but welcomed addition to the film, and its great to see him lifted out of the dumpster that is the Netflix Marvel shows. I doubt Marvel's gonna pull anyone else out of there soon (besides the one that already got a new show), so I'm happy its him at the least. He plays very well with Spidey, and I'd love to see more of them working together in the future.

I won't spoil much, but this movie is clearly setting things up for future movies that get me really, really excited. Big things are coming in the future for this franchise, and I will be there opening night to see it all.

8.5-9/10

[carrionwayward]

The trials experience

[gamerdog1]

An amazing time! Those Homestuck questions were PUNISHING, but it was so much fun. Neat seeing myself in a Pic too.

[gamerdog1]

Greetings from Dashcon 2!

Such an amazing time! The panels were very informative, and I met so many wonderful, talented people. Can't wait for next year, I gotta step up my cosplay game!

If any of y'all saw a Nick Wilde on Sunday, that was me!

[its-murderous-business]

“You should be at the club” wrong YOU should be at the dashcon dance circle

[asleep-or-d3ad]

who up dashing they con

[gamerdog1]

[gamerdog1]

Disney Back Catalogue Reviews #22: Marvelously Mediocre

No lofty pre-amble this time, folks. Its been a while since I last wrote one of these (oops I forgor), but also because I'm adapting these reviews into videos! Yippee! But that means these new reviews may be coming a little bit slower for a while, so sorry about that. Anyways, onto the show.

Just when we thought we were safe from shitty westerns, Disney released 'Savage Sam' in June of 1963. An absolutely meh film all around, Sam hardly lives up to the savage title with a lackluster plot, weak acting, and just being boring all around.

The movie is about... honestly I'm struggling to remember, despite seeing this less than a month ago (I can remember childhood illnesses better than that). Its supposedly about a pair of brothers and a girl who are kidnapped by hostile Indigenous people, and their hunting dog tries to rescue them, but there's so much dead space in between any action that you could chew it.

Of course, since its a western released in pre-tolerance times, its pretty darn racist. The only non-white folks in the film are all portrayed as incomprehensible monsters who kidnap kids and put them through hazing rituals to become 'one of us', then possibly try to eat them later. Its movies like these that make me glad we left this stuff behind.

Then there's Sam, the titular dog with a howl like something straight out of Doom. Half of the film, he's not even there, and when he is, he's either ruining my perfectly good ears, getting beat up, or having to be carried. Some hero dog, huh?

Next, Disney released a musical comedy called 'Summer Magic' the following month. While I may have seen it during the summer, the only 'magic' to be found is how the hell I stayed awake watching it.

The film is another middling slog without much eventful happening, about a family moving to another neighborhood and getting involved with the people there. Along the way, there's some drama, and some characters get into fights, but nothing of consequence really happens.

Calling this a musical is really stretching the truth, because I can only seem to remember 1 song in the entire film, and it wasn't very good. Sure, it wasn't as insulting as Babes in Toyland, but even the slightest bit more would've made this more entertaining.

The entire movie is VERY safe on every front. Everyone is well dressed and cheery, most people get along and are kind, and the few that are even the slightest bit rude quickly change their tune when they get to know the main characters. There's hardly any conflict at all, and after a while it made me wish Godzilla showed up or something to make things really interesting.

The only other thing of note about this movie is its really creepy subplot, about the main family's teen daughter crushing on a local teacher, and competing against her cousin (or aunt?) for his affection. That girl is clearly underage, and that man is old enough to be her father. Ew.

Lastly, we have a film that's been adapted multiple times, 'The Incredible Journey' from November of 1963. Compared to the previous two, its leagues better, but that's not saying much. I'd rather eat sand than pebbles, but neither is a truly fulfilling experience.

The movie adapts the old novel, following two dogs and a cat who travel hundreds of miles to get back to their original owners in the Canadian wilderness. Compared to prior Canada films from this company, this is the least offensive.

For the most part, the movie is cute and simple. You watch the animals walk, sometimes they get into antics or trouble, and the narrator adds a bit of drama. Its similar to films like Milo and Otis, or other ones by this studio like Nikki, but with notably less bloodshed and actually dead animals.

However, the animals in this are still clearly put through some stunts. One scene has the cat nearly drown, swept down a river as the Labrador swims after him. Multiple times, you see the cat's head bob under water, and it really begs the question of what safety measures were going on behind the scenes at Disney HQ.

Still, its not the most thrilling film (which is hilarious for me to say considering the previous paragraph). A good 80% of this movie is the animals walking together, or comforting the oldest among them when he gets too tired to go on. It occasionally flips back to the humans, who try to find the animals, but for the most part, get ready for a walk not dissimilar to the one Frodo and his buddies went on.

Its a real shame that this movie isn't that great, because I was really hoping for it to be something special. I love animals, and a movie like this would've had me hooked as a kid. But now, I'd rather be watching any other film.

Looking at the next films on my list, we've got a big name coming up, and some more unknowns with interesting titles, so stay tuned!

[asleep-or-d3ad]

I competed in the dashcon 2 trials and all I got was a fear of clowns

[sidewalk-cracks]

go watch Masters of the Universe PLEASE oh my god. You don't need to have previous experience with He-Man to watch it. I didn't and I loved it. Whoever's talking shit about it online is a liar. It's funny. The action sequences are BADASS. Adam is hot as fuck. Like that man is thicker than Chris Hemsworth's Thor. He could crush your skull like a watermelon with his biceps OR his thighs. Oh my god his thighs. The skirt and loincloth. The dramatic blonde curtain bangs. The midriff showing off the thickass six-pack. Nicholas Galitzine is a BRICKSHIT HOUSE. not to mention Jared Leto finally found the one role he's good at. His voice acting is dramatic and theatrical and goofy AND intimidating and menacing and powerful. All the side characters were great. The costumes were awesome. The VFX looked beautiful. Adam was beautiful. The amount of pathetic whumpy sounds he made had my fanfic writer heart POUNDING. they made him a cringefail wet cat himbo and every second was glorious. He got to mow through a crowd of npcs like a shounen protagonist. He beat the shit out of Skeletor with his bare fists.

It's not the end-all be-all of films, and that's okay because it wasn't meant to be in the first place. It's silly and goofy and hype af. It's a lighthearted good time with some genuinely good moral reflection sprinkled in. If nothing else please just watch it for the sexual crisis He-Man himself will give you

(within the end credits there are multiple extra scenes that pay homage to the og so stick around!)

[gamerdog1]

Honestly I think this sums it up for me too. Pretty solid movie, a lot of fun. Went into it only knowing the memes from Vargskeletor Joel, had a great time.

[gamerdog1]

Disney Back Catalogue Reviews #21: In Search of Horses

Its been a bit since I last posted a review to this account. You might think I forgot the password, and well, you'd be right! But also, with attending Anime North this year, cosplay work, and job hunting, I'd almost forgotten to watch the movies on my list. Don't worry, I ain't quittin' soon!

Where we last left off, Disney released the last film of the year 1962. It was another adaptation of a Jules Verne novel, which they'd had success with previously with 20 000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954). But where that film was novel for it's sheer spectacle, for it's pioneering of underwater filming, this one is just... ok.

'In Search of the Castaways' is a globe-trotting adventure movie about a pair of siblings trying to find their father, who went missing at sea. They rope several others into their quest, including a silly Frenchman and a generic teen boy, and travel all across the world to look for him.

Its an adventure movie, but is the adventure anything special? Well, for the time, I'm sure it was, but by today's standards, its quite tame. There's a noticeable difference in pacing between movies of this decade and those prior, where things seem to happen more often than characters stand around and talk about it, and you certainly see that here.

The movie takes its characters all around the world; the Andes mountains, Australia, New Zealand, and the character encounter all sorts of dangerous wildlife that's ready to pick them off one by one. If this were made today, it'd probably be 50% CGI.

Still, the fun and exciting moments are heavily outweighed by 'stand around and talk' scenes, which (I hate to sound like a child for this opinions, but) there's too darn much of. Half the time, characters aren't even talking about where they're going, or their goals, its just fluff! At times, this movie feels as padded as an anime that's waiting for the manga to catch up.

The characters aren't really anything special either, save for the Frenchman, who is mildly amusing. He turns every setback into something to celebrate, and brings some joy to otherwise boring scenes. Maybe if some other movies I've reviewed had him in it, they wouldn't be so forgettable.

Next, the Disney studio would do something they hadn't done before (up to this point in their history): a sequel.

'Son of Flubber' is the direct sequel to 'The Absent-Minded Professor', which came out only two years prior. It follows the same old possibly-neurodivergent university professor who discovered a magic substance called Flubber, now struggling with his newfound fame. Companies want him to sell it, the government wants it militarized, and he must decide what to do with it.

On the surface, the sequel sounds promising, answering the lingering questions at the end of the first. But what's left over from the first film is barely enough to support a second film, and it really, really shows.

Hardly anything really happens in this one, yet the film tries it's damndest to make it seem like it. There's a new use for Flubber discovered that causes a big accident, and more university sports shenanigans, but it all feels very rushed, like the writers just slapped something together and shouted 'Done!' so they could go home early.

The lackluster characters from the first return here, only with even less to do and less motivation for me to care. The movie tries to keep up the tension between the main character and his rival, but its hollow, because its obvious the threat of wife-stealing is gone. So the film tries to invent something for the main character to be jealous about, and it all just feels really forced.

I swear, the best thing about this movie is the dog. I couldn't tell you any characters' names, what the rival school is called, or why the government wants Flubber so badly, and I watched this recently. For the apparently Son of Flubber, maybe they should've gone to Planned Parenthood.

But finally, we come to something decent, as we leave 1962 and enter the year that follows (whatever it could be). Straight from Austria comes another movie about the life and times of a special performance troupe, and the troubles the encounter. Though this one certainly has less singing, and more casualties.

'Miracle of the White Stallions' is a war film that has less to do with gunfire and more the preservation of nature. The film is about the Spanish Riding Club, a real world organization in Vienna, Austria, which is home to a special breed of horses found nowhere else in the world. The owner of the organization, fearing a bombing, hatches a plan to smuggle his rare white horses out of the country, and later works with the Allied forces to rescue more of them.

While not the most flashy or violent, this movie offers an interesting side of real-world history, taking you behind enemy lines to focus on some folks who didn't agree with the Nazis but couldn't speak up. Its a bit of a unique experience, watching a Disney movie where the main character is an SS soldier, and he be portrayed favourably. The movie does a good job at showing that he and his comrades don't actually believe in their ideals, and are merely being forced into it because of their circumstances, and I like that.

Of course, the Americans make themselves the cool, cocky heroes, swooping in to save the day with guns blazing. Its funny how, shortly after they show up, the film switches to focus almost entirely on them. Perhaps the American studio wanted more Hollywood footage of how awesome their country is, and how they're stronger than anyone, but also kind enough to not eat horses.

And what horses they are! The specific breed shown in the movie, the Lipizzanner, are on full display here, trotting around which coats shining like snowflakes. You really grow to appreciate them by the end of the movie, and learn a lot about their history and how their coats change color with age.

There must be something in the water over there in Vienna, with how many performing groups spring up there and then get Disney movies about them. Can't wait for the third one, about a travelling circus or something.

[gamerdog1]

Disney Back Catalogue Reviews #20: Vienna Boys Howl

The twentieth Disney movie review, huh? Time sure flies: it feels like it was just yesterday that I started writing these, but also so long ago at the same time. So much has happened between when I started these and now, but what remains the same is my commitment to this series. Make no mistake: my pace may be slowing a bit, but I'm still making 'em! With that out of the way, let's talk about this next trio of movies from the early 60's.

Disney hasn't had a very good track record with Canada up to this point, but that would change with their release of 'Big Red' in 1962. The film follows a Francophone boy who gets a job taking care of a purebred Irish Setter, who can't seem to listen to his owner.

Finally, a film about a dog, that doesn't have gratuitous violence towards them! You'd think at this point, Disney would be on the Humane Society's hit list, but this seems to have kept them at bay, because for all the pomp and circumstance in the movie, none of the animals are ever really in peril.

Still, its not exactly a good film for any dog lover. Yes, the film is about a glossy red dog who keeps running off, chasing things, and being silly, but there's not much that would keep attention here either. For a movie about the life and caring-for of a very valuable purebred, the movie hardly spends any time showing how the dog is cared for, beyond a few scenes of him getting walked or the opening (which shows him competing in a dog show).

Its a huge missed opportunity, I think, to have a movie all about a show dog and hardly show anything to do with the lifestyle. Where's the fur brushing, the walking practice, the attention to detail? It wouldn't have to be much, but anything more than what's in the film, which as it stands, feels more like the titular Big Red is just another farm dog than anything special.

Most of the film is just that: nothing special. Its not fun at all, there's hardly any thrills or exciting moments, and the plot is very dull. The only interesting parts of the film were about the main human, who had a thick French accent and I thought was kind of funny. Other than that, you could get your dog movie kicks anywhere else.

At this time in Disney's history, it seems like the studio was expanding, taking on more projects at once than ever before and putting out more than previously. In 1962 alone, they released 6 films, and the fourth of those was a musical about a real-world music group.

'Almost Angels' is a musical comedy/drama about the world-famous Vienna Boys Choir, a singing group of 9-13 year old boys who sing traditional Austrian and German songs. The film focuses on a young working-class boy who joins the choir after a successful audition, and tries to fit in with the other kids. Not everyone likes him, and he struggles to balance schoolwork with music lessons, all while trying to find his own voice.

After the previous one, I was ready for this to be a snooze-fest, but color me surprised, this movie's not half bad. Its a musical, and while I didn't really understand a word of it, the kids singing sure have a talent. Hell, some of them can go higher than me! It only makes sense that for the movie, kids from the real world Vienna Boys Choir were cast, and it really makes everything feel authentic, not like a big studio musical (which it is).

Sure, its no Sound of Music (which came out two years later), but for what its worth, its pretty heartwarming, and the kids are decent actors. The storyline about this poor kid with a good voice joining this elite choir group is interesting, and the movie quickly makes you want to see him succeed, with how difficult things get for him down the line.

One of the biggest sources' of strife is Peter, a rival boy in the choir who has his spotlight stolen by the new kid, and tries to mess with him in any way. I liked the dynamic there, though sometimes I think it could've been pushed further for more drama, though I understand not trying to push child actors too hard. Its also really interesting how he gets his own private moments, and gets developed to be more than just a one-note bully. Not all the boys get much development here, but Peter's arc is wonderful.

There's a sense of restraint held over the whole movie, and its clear that the filmmakers were trying their hardest not to paint the real world choir as a bunch of brats bullying each other. The banter in the movie is small, and no squabbles ever end in physical fights, but I think that if this were ever remade, they could turn that up a level. I went into this expecting kids to be pulling pranks all the time (a la Parent Trap's first 20 minutes), but its mostly relaxed, and that's fine I guess.

Soon after the release of Almost Angels, Disney would put out a movie that, when I saw the poster of, was making popcorn. What can I say, I'm a sucker for certain animals.

'The Legend of Lobo' is a Western epic about a real wolf, who eluded capture for years. The movie tells his story, from little pup to aging father, showing the ways which he survived over the years and avoided hunters.

Right away I was ready to get into this movie, and it did not disappoint. Just like Davy Crockett, Lobo has a theme song that's sung overtop footage at various points in the film (sung partly by the famous Sherman Brothers, who would make some very important music for Disney down the line), and it gives everything a sense of epic importance. Lobo isn't just a wolf; he's a frontiersman, brave and bold, who outsmarts any human who comes after him.

Without as much as a line spoken, its quick to like him. Lobo symbolizes nature's fight against human expansion, and across his adventures he learns about the ecosystems in Arizona, meeting other animals and finding new places to explore. When trouble comes, Lobo is a quick thinker, and fools even the smartest bounty hunters who're after his head. That, combined with his heavy backstory, makes him easy to root for.

The film doesn't try to force you to like him, taking a more neutral stance instead of anthropomorphizing him to make the movie more interesting. Everything is talked about in terms of survival, or how the wolf might be thinking, and makes the story easy to get into even without dialogue.

While Disney has had its fair share of live-action animal movies, there's something about Lobo that makes it stand out against the rest. Maybe I'm biased toward it's stars, but I find that it's more entertaining than the likes of Perri, or any of the True Life Adventures, because its story is very compelling. Its almost mystifying how a story like this could be filmed using wild animals, how they get in place and do everything just as the story says. Maybe they're just that smart...

But with all that's good that's coming out of this decade, I'm starting to wonder just how many more movies are in the 60's? How long will it take me to even leave 1962? We'll have to see...

[gamerdog1]

Disney Back Catalogue Reviews #19: Fancy New Places

Movies have an amazing power to take you anywhere. From the comfort of your own home, or a theater near you, you can be swept away to far-away lands that you might never have been to before, and stay there for a while with a colorful cast of characters. Lots of movies focus on this transportation, inviting viewers along on a ride to somewhere new, to see what's in store, and though not always complex, these movies certainly try to do so.

'Babes in Toyland' is a 1961 musical, though you might be more familiar with the remake starring a young Keanu Reeves. This one, sadly, doesn't have him in, and I doubt he was even concieved at the time of release, but after seeing this, I'm considering watching.

The film takes place in a nursery rhyme land led by Mother Goose, with characters like Mary Mary, Jack and Jill, and others living in a colorful little town. Mary Mary and some guy named Tom are set to wed, but an evil guy up on a hill wants her money, and hatches a scheme to separate the lovers. Things happen, shenanigans ensue, and a toy maker with a shrink ray also make appearances.

Right from the jump, this one is whimsical. The costumes and sets are vibrant and cartoony, and there's songs and dance numbers everywhere about how happy everyone is, and drinking lemonade. There's also a really neat talking goose puppet, which Mother Goose carries/puppets secretly using a false arm, and I love those kind of things.

Allegedly, the Disney studio wanted this to be their Wizard of Oz (1939), and they certainly accomplished it in some aspects. The world and characters are bright, silly, and campy. Some of the songs are catchy (though nothing nearly like that of Wizard of Oz), and will have you tapping your foot. Still, its hard to compare Dorothy's adventures in Oz to this movie, with how loose of a plot it has.

'And then something else happened' is probably the best way to describe this movie, because there really isn't much holding everything together. The villain's schemes happen off-screen, characters complain about problems that we rarely see on-screen, and the main cast sort of just walks from one event to the next, without much through-line to connect them. One second they're in a creepy forest, the next they're making toys for Christmas. Its got singing trees, a racist caricature drag queen performance, and a song that's basically just 'woman can't do math', but its certainly not the studio's best musical.

The very next year, Disney would release 'Moon Pilot', a film about an air force captain who is forced into flying the first manned ship around the moon. The captain dodges foreign spies, angry bosses, and meets a strange woman with information he just can't refuse.

Moon Pilot was originally greenlit for adaptation, thanks to Walt's interest in the space program during JFK's time in office. The whole film is drenched in early 50's/60's space imagination: characters react with wild eyes and surprise at the idea of astronauts, technicians use extremely old computers and switchboards to control the ship's flight, and everyone is constantly talking about 'the enemy'.

It sure makes this point in history seem fun, but in reality, it wasn't as rosy (and certainly had less aliens). There's the vague scent of the Red Scare and xenophobia here, in how characters' hackles rise at a foreign name, or someone who shows less than perfect knowledge of America. The movie hardly even shows anyone from 'the enemy' that they keep talking about at all, making it sort of seem that they're just imagining foreign powers out to get them, and it makes things a little bit silly.

It also certainly shows just how much in space technology (and science knowledge) has changed since release. The main character eats paste from a tube in preparation for launch, which makes for mildly amusing moments when he has to avoid eating solid food while under NDA about the space trip. What will he do about his mother's cooking? He *must* eat that, right?

The movie isn't incredibly interesting, which is surprising given how much passion probably went into it. The space race was still fresh at the time, so I can't imagine how they made a movie about an ordinary guy going up in a rocket into something so mediocre and forgettable. I struggle to remember much from the movie, beyond vague images and the whole paste tube food thing, and that's saying something.

Just a month later, it seems that Disney would find their footing again, with the release of 'Bon Voyage!', a comedy about an American family's trip to France.

Starring a bunch of folks from prior movies, Bon Voyage! is a pleasant romp with jokes sure to get a chuckle of out anyone whose ever vacationed with family. Kids keep running off, teen romance, conflicting itineraries, its stuff that's all too common on a real life vacation, and gets good laughs most of the time. All that, while shot on location in Paris, and it feels at times like you too are on vacation with the family.

Its super weird seeing what a vacation would've looked like at the time of filming. 60 or so years later, trips have changed, but the movie gives a look at a simpler time, when a child might actually be excited to tour a city's sewer system (which he saw in a monster movie). Everything feels explorative and down to earth, without need to make things hyped up and spectacles, and its nice.

In some ways, the movie is pretty similar to Swiss Family Robinson(1960). The family's teens (boy and girl this time instead of two boys) are preoccupied with finding a mate in this new world, and there's lots of ups and downs. To me, its not much, but maybe someone who gets more enjoyment out of romance plots would feel.

Most of the film's humor (and there is quite a bit) comes from miscommunications and regional differences. One scene has the family crammed into a taxi, and the driver swerves wildly between other cars, pedestrians leaping out of the way just in time. The father tries to get the driver to calm down, but can't understand his French, only to be told by his wife: don't yell at him, it makes him nervous. The gags are far less aggressive than what you'd find in anything post-80's (there'd be at least 1 gross-out joke), but that's part of it's charm. Its nothing jarring, and generally just good clean fun. You could easily show this to younger audiences and not have to worry about much.

As we progress through the 60's, I'm noticing a trend towards family hijinks and studio musicals. If this is what the decade is known for, well, I guess I have a good nose.

[gamerdog1]

Disney Back Catalogue Reviews #18: Double Dog Dare

One thing I never understood as a kid was how, in movies and tv, rainy weather was always seen as a bad thing. In 'Cat in the Hat', for example, the main brother and sister are sad because its raining outside, and they can't go and play. I never quite understood why this was bad, because to me, having an excuse to stay indoors is a good thing. You can cancel plans, get cozy, and chip away at that movie backlog. With April weather rearing its ugly head, I've been blessed with that nice rainy day atmosphere, and have been getting more into the 60's Disney releases.

The first film I watched in this trio was a surprise to me, as most people would think I was talking about the 2000s version. Despite its age, it turns out that the 1961 'The Parent Trap' film is a pleasant watch, with a nice message and some good laughs.

Just like the Lindsay Lohan one, The Parent Trap is a movie about two identical girls who meet at overnight camp, and discover they're twins who were separated after a divorce. They pretend to be each other, go home to their single parents, and use shenanigans to try and get them back together.

Compared to the more well-known version, this one has a noticeably softer tone. Most characters are nice to each other, except for the occasional comical villain type, and everything has this gentle atmosphere that's easily found in films of this era. Its hard to expect any actual mischief from the twins, since they could only get away with so much in the 60's.

The highlight of the movie is the characters themselves. The movie does an excellent job at establishing their differences early on, then giving them something to bond over, bringing them together in a satisfying way. My only regret is that the movie doesn't show more of them before they become friends, because their back and forth is entertaining.

Real-world divorces aren't nearly this light-hearted and easy to fix, but that's the appeal. The movie is full of little gags that even by today's standards, hit their mark sometimes, and the whole film is quite heartwarming. It certainly isn't as mean-spirited or shocking as the 2000s remake, so I'd recommend this one over it. Plus, this was one of the only movies I've reviewed so far that even my mom approved of, so that has to mean something.

After Disney's last brush with my home country, I wasn't exactly jumping for joy when I saw that the next movie to watch takes place there too. Would they fling more animals off cliffs in this one too? Maybe larger ones, like moose, and tell the audience they were off to Mexico? Thankfully, this one had far less flying mammals.

'Nikki: Wild Dog of the North' is a 1961 movie about a Malamute dog in French Canada, who travels with his owner along the Rockies. Nikki is separated from his owner, and learns to survive in the wild with a black bear cub, who becomes his unlikely friend.

The glory of the Canadian Rockies is on full display in this movie. It was filmed on location, and scenes are set with epic backdrops of soaring mountains, lush forests, and thundering rapids. Its something straight out of a postcard, or a travel commercial. I doubt the places in the movie are still as untouched as they were during filming, but I'd like to hope that I could visit these places.

What made me a little nervous watching this movie was its stars. As I wrote about in a previous review, animal rights in Hollywood weren't exactly as prioritized as they are today, and it makes you worry about how they filmed everything. The movie takes place in the wilderness, and with things like weather, other animals, and action scenes, its easy to worry about the animal actors' safety.

The animals, for their credit, do a really good job, and convey emotion without the need for words. The dog that plays Nikki is incredibly expressive, despite how limited a dog's facial expressions can be, and he's very, very cute. Still, there's quite a few scenes in this movie that looked dangerous for the dog; specifically, any where he fights another animal had me cringing. I really, really hope the blood was fake.

The story is simple and straight-forward, but pretty entertaining. Nikki's journey to find his owner is heartwarming, and the movie makes it easy to root for him, with all the dangers he faces. His friendship with the bear cub is cute to see, and the narration helps add drama to what would normally just be scenes of two animals grunting and growling at each other. Its not the easiest watch, but this movie is certainly better than others I've seen.

Less than a year later, the Walt Disney studio released another live-action movie about a dog, but unlike Nikki, this one has it's roots in a true story.

'Greyfriar's Bobby' is a 1961 film about a Skye Terrier who belongs to an old, sickly man. The man dies, and Bobby (the dog) visits his grave every night, causing trouble in the town as residents don't know what to do with him. The movie is based on a true story, which has a statue commemorating the dog in the town where he once lived.

This movie is notably slower paced than the previous, since most of it's story takes place in a dreary small town in Scotland. Character drama is the focus, as the people of the town interact with Bobby, either sheltering and feeding him or shooing him away, and drama starts when the police are involved.

Much of the movie is talking scenes, which will be hard to understand for the first bit of watching, unless you have experience with (or have) a Scottish accent. Some scenes pass by without anything really happening, and by the halfway point, it was beginning to seem a lo like many of the movies I watched from the 50's.

The only bright spot in this middling mess is the dog himself. Bobby is cute, and steals all scenes he's in, yipping and running around with high energy. At one point in the movie, he runs in a parade, and nearly cuts off the marching band by running in front of them. Watching him, its easy to understand why the town children loved him so much.

Still, I wouldn't exactly recommend this one. Unless, of course, you're the type who prefers your movies to be without much physical action, grand storylines, or visual interest, then sure, have at it. Its the type of movie that would sucker in younger viewers with the poster (proudly featuring its canine star), then put them to sleep in the first third.

This trio has left me optimistic about this decade. Surely, the next movies I have to watch won't nearly be as dull and uninspired as the slog I had to endure in the 1950's, right?

[gamerdog1]

Disney Back Catalogue Reviews #17: Flubber Puppies

For much of Walt Disney Studio's history, their bread and butter has been adaptations of books. From their very first theatrical film, Snow White, the studio has found inspiration in novels and short stories written by authors around the world. With the exception of their documentaries, nearly all of their films I've reviewed so far are of this type, but since I don't have all the time in the world (nor the patience), you'll have to forgive me for reviewing the movies without reading their referents first.

One of those is 'Swiss Family Robinson', a retelling of the 1812 novel of the same name, about a family of five that become marooned on a tropical island and learn to fend for themselves. This was the second film adaptation of the book, the first being released by Disney's old collaborator RKO Pictures in 1940.

The film itself is interesting, though nothing that I'd call deeply compelling or worth a second watch (unless you're a really big fan of one of the actors). What initially drew me in, the whole concept of a family surviving on an island by making everything our of wood, is there in all its glory, though at times it feels glossed over in favour of subplots or happy moments. I was really excited to learn about the treehouse, which I'd visited during a trip to WDW nearly a decade ago, but was disappointed to find the film really only shows some of it, and cares more about its attempt at character drama instead.

For some reason, in the minds of the writers, getting the sons girlfriends was seen as more worthy of screentime than showing how they made a working plumbing system our of sticks and leaves. When a potential love interest is introduced, the two eldest Robinson sons suddenly become obsessed with her, fighting for her attention while the rest of the family is busy with survival. The character herself hardly does anything of significance in the movie itself, and its a bit disappointing to see her lose all agency the minute everyone realizes she's not a guy.

Still, the film is pretty to look at. Most of it was shot on-location in Tobago, with animals like tortoises and elephants shipped in from elsewhere. Its a tropical paradise to be sure, though some testimonies from cast and crew allege that behind the scenes, it was a nightmare to shoot. Bugs, quicksand, scorpions, Disney would be lucky if nobody got hurt while filming.

What's not pretty to look at is the racial stereotyping. Throughout the film, the Robinson family is stalked by South Asian pirates, and the film loves to paint them as evil and cutthroat. Some of the characters, as I've been told, were played by non-Asian actors in facepaint, which is totally not cool. The pirates' inclusion puts a bad taste in my mouth, especially considering how previous movies with pirates in them showed them to be reasonable, or at least decent enough to be bargained with. These ones, meanwhile, are 'savages' that speak another language, and try to kidnap young women for dubious purposes.

At the time of release, it seems most critics and audiences didn't notice, and the film did incredibly well at the box office both foreign and domestically. The New York Times called it a tale of "family love", and to this day, it has a high 80's score on Rotten Tomatoes. If it wasn't an obvious enough success, the company would later build a recreation of the family's treehouse in one of their theme parks, which remains to this day, between more current media franchises.

Between live-action films, Disney has always worked on what their studio was originally founded on: animation. With so many movies since the last I'd seen of their animated work, I was hankerin' to see what they'd cooked up next, and while I was pleasantly surprised, it wasn't exactly to my highest expectations.

The 1960 animated film 'One Hundred and One Dalmatians', based on a book of the same name, is about a family of two young Brits and their dogs, who welcome an unusual amount of puppies into their family. When their puppies get stolen by a jealous ex-friend, the parent dogs travel far and wide to get them back.

One thing is for certain about this film: it was done on the cheap. After their last animated movie, Sleeping Beauty, didn't do as well as they'd hoped, the studio knew they had to make movies on a tighter budget than before, and that meant cutting some corners. Xerox technology was used to make the animation and coloring process faster, and lineart was done in a sketchier, pencilwork flair that you can see pretty clearly on any of the characters.

The backgrounds, as well, are done with this slap-dash style that I'm shocked they got approval for. Colors don't always stay inside of lines, and some things in backgrounds aren't even fully outlined, making it look like an illustration in an old comic book. Still, the colours are warm, and scenes have a nice atmosphere, especially the ones inside the family's home.

But there are times where the film's budget becomes extremely noticeable. Puppies faces, and sometimes entire bodies, are copy-pasted to make crowds, and certain shots (like one of four puppies barking) are reused at different times in the movie. There's even reused assets from other Disney movies in there, which you can spot if you're looking for them. Many dogs in the Twilight Bark scene are taken directly from Lady and the Tramp, and recolored. One of them, a bulldog, is animated with his lips flapping, but isn't speaking, which is hilarious but also makes me wonder how they got away with it all.

Still, the film isn't all bad. The story is quaint and heartwarming, and the voice acting has that nice old-style charm. The movie's villain is iconic, and I'm shocked she hasn't appeared in Kingdom Hearts yet, with a goal like hers. She's so devious, so over the top about her evil persona, it makes you want to see her more on the screen, even though she's there to skin puppies for coats. I can't speak for her live-action counterpart, as I haven't seen it yet, but I will eventually.

Disney seemed to be on a high at this point, with a double-hit of good movies that did well at the box office. This time, they kept that good train rolling, with the release of 'The Absent-Minded Professor' in 1961.

The film focuses on a university chemistry professor (who today would be called neurodivergent), who accidentally discovers a new energy source which puts out more energy than it takes in. He names the substance 'flubber', and finds new ways to use it around town, while trying to win back the heart of his fiancé.

This movie is full of late 50's-60's sci fi charm: science being represented with bubbling beakers and tubes, sweatervests with your first initial on them, school sports being a town pride, flat and wide cars, its an old-school Americana that feels nice to see. At one point, a character remarks that 'only 8% of Americans buy cars', which was quite a trip.

The plot is pretty one-note, but it gets the job done in it's constraints. As soon as Professor Brainard invents Flubber, he's trying it out on everything, and each part of the film shows some new, wacky way it can be used. All the while, he tries to get the attention of his fiance, who is always conveniently led away right before he can show her his invention. It feels like a story that, these days, would get a kids show, with every episode having some new weird invention, and maybe by the final he'd propose to her.

There are moments in the movie where it drags (the beginning is quite slow), but when it gets going, its decently entertaining. Like I've said with many other movies, its not what I'd call thrilling cinema, but for the time, and considering all the snooze-fests Disney's put out before this, its really good. At times, its very funny, and the effects are cheesy, which just lends to its charm.

As it gets warmer out where I am, I hope that I'll have more free time to watch these movies, so I can get further into Disney's history. If I hustle, I can get to Walt's death in no time!

Also, for those who are keeping track, my Cry Counter is now at 8 (Once from Snow White, once from Pinnochio, once from Dumbo, twice from Bambi, twice from Lady and the Tramp, and once from One Hundred and One Dalmatians, because I legit thought the puppy died.)

[gamerdog1]

Disney Back Catalogue Reviews #16: Just Okay

When you think of the 60's, what comes to mind? The Vietnam War, the Beatles rise to popularity, Stonewall, Woodstock, JFK? Looking back as someone who wasn't even a concept back then, it sure seems like it was a busy decade for all. Many big Hollywood studios, Disney included, were hard at work putting out films that hopefully, would find an enduring audience years after initial release.

In the real world, its not always sunshine and roses. Not every movie is going to be a classic, not every movie is going to get home video release that's available years later, and not every movie is going to get the time, budget, and effort it deserves. Even for a company as wealthy and prolific as Walt Disney, they can't, realistically, all be winners. As production pace began to ramp up in this decade, we begin to see the studio release several films per year, more than previously done, and in this scattershot approach not every pellet hits home.

Such is the case with 'The Sign of Zorro', which released overseas in 1958, and 1960 in North America. Like Davy Crockett, its based on a tv series from the time, and the movie is made up of a few episodes of the show stitched together like a cohesive plot.

Where Davy Crockett is thrilling and has good messages, though, Sign of Zorro seems content to be a stock-standard superhero series, with nothing really out of the ordinary or notable about it. The masked hero Zorro goes to Spanish Los Angeles, undercover as a 'man of letters' to investigate a political plot having to do with a relative of his. When there's crime, he dons his hero persona, saves the day, then returns back as a mild-mannered poet as if nothing happened.

Calling this a 'superhero' plot feels strange, because compared to other major heroes of this time, Zorro is closer to a Turner Classic movie than anyone from Marvel or DC. He has no powers, there's no explanation given about why he does what he does, and his alter ego hardly appears in the film, only when someone is in peril. At the same time, its hard to call it a standard drama, because it tries so hard to entice the audience through the whole 'double life' angle.

They really, really want you to care about the main character and his heroics, but what's missing is that initial reason to care at all. Going back to Davy Crockett again, the movie opens with a song all about him, introducing him to the audience and showing him in his normal life, before the plot happens. You don't have to know about him already, or have seen the show to understand, because it tells you everything you need to know. Sign of Zorro, however, assumes that all viewers are diehard Zorro fans, and doesn't bother introducing him at all. Its hard to get into the plot and characters when the film doesn't even bother trying to lead you into it.

The plot is also nothing worth writing home about. I think it has something to do with a local politician who makes everyone compliment him, or he'll throw them in jail? I paid attention the whole time and I really can't remember much about it, or what of significance even happened. I get that its a patchwork of tv show episodes, and so its not going to come across as the most cohesive film in the world, but I couldn't follow anything that was happening.

As the tv series Zorro was airing, Walt Disney studios was winding down their True Life Adventures series, nature documentaries meant for all ages. So far, I've seen all but one, their very last release, and this was the day I'd finish it.

'Jungle Cat', released in the summer of 1960, is a documentary about the life of a jaguar in the jungles of South America. We see how she hunts, finds a mate, raises cubs, and how the rest of her habitat interacts.

What's there to say about this that I haven't said about the other True Life Adventures? Its good looking footage that gets real up close and personal with some neat animals, and shows their lives in a way that's easy to understand. I'm once again shocked at how they got some of this footage, considering just how deadly these animals are, and how quick to flee most animals usually are the second you pull out a camera.

Where other True Life Adventures have segments explaining the scenery and plant life, Jungle Cat is more strictly focused on animals, and I'm not complaining. The film shows a variety of animals that live in the jungle, and their little quirks throughout their day. Some even got a laugh out of me, like a little monkey who thought it was hilarious swinging a toucan around like a toy.

The jaguars themselves are the stars, and what elegant, fearsome creatures they are. The film doesn't baby them, or try to anthropomorphize them any further than necessary, and it feels, for the most part, decently respectful. For a beginner to nature documentaries, you wouldn't have a hard time with this one.

With that, we wave goodbye to the True Life Adventures, a series that has been a major part of Disney from the 40's until now. Most were pretty decent, though I hesitate to call any anything above a 'good' grade. Leaving them behind, I felt confident that Disney would also leave their fascination with Westerns too, but boy was I wrong.

'Ten Who Dared' is a Western/Historical/Adventure film that tells the story of US Army officer John Powell, who was the first to travel down the Colorado River. With his 9 buddies, they sail little rowboats, navigate rapids, sing songs, and get into drama.

Its films like these that make me question whether I actually like Westerns, or if I just claim to because of Red Dead Redemption. Ten Who Dared is just the latest (at this point in my journey) in a long line of Disney films where they try to be historical and educational, and hearken back to the wild west, but end up making something thoroughly boring and uninspired.

Yes, the story they tell is real, and from a historian standpoint, its significant, but I can't imagine that it was *this* dull in real life as it is on screen. Across the hour and a half runtime, the film tries to keep attention with scenes of the men fighting rapids, getting into arguments, and one nearly shooting a dog (WTF), but nothing bad really happens to anyone, so there's nothing to worry about.

The longer you watch this, the more you'll start to agree with critics. Many have ventured to call this one of Disney's worst, and I'm holding my tongue in case a real trashfire comes up in the near future, but until then, its certainly close. Not as bereft of enjoyment as Rob Roy, historically inaccurate as Sword and the Rose, or missed opportunity as Light in the Forest, Ten Who Dared is just...not good. You would not lose sleep if you skipped this.

This trio has certainly made me less optimistic about the 60's releases. I assumed that when I left the 50's, the movies would get better, but maybe I was wrong. Perhaps, change takes more than just a few years, and I'll have to wait a bit to see Hollywood's style of writing get closer to modern sensibilities. Until next time...

[gamerdog1]

Disney Back Catalogue Reviews #15: The Swinging Sixties

After nearly two months, I have finally escaped the so-called nifty fifties, and entered the 1960's. Its been quite a challenge: 28 films released by the Walt Disney Pictures studio, with varying degrees of quality and all sorts of content. Some were signs of the studio's future success, while others have faded into obscurity. But now, with that behind me, I now take the plunge into their films from the 60's, and hope that there'll be more treasure than trash to find.

Going from western to western in the 50's has made me hungry for just about anything else, and thankfully, Disney's first film in 1960 offered just that.

'Toby Tyler or 10 Weeks with a Circus' is a live-action film, based on the 1880 book of the same name. It follows the titular character, a ten year old orphan who signs up to work for a travelling circus, and learns all about what it means to be responsible, work a job, make money, and trust others.

If there's one thing modern pop culture seems to have left behind over the years, its the old-school imagery of the circus, and that's a shame. Its films like Toby Tyler that show why the circus is so appealing in the first place: bright colors, awe-inspiring feats of acrobatics, animals in funny outfits, and this general feeling of joy that brings it all together.

Though the film is clear to show that the world of the circus is not all sunshine and rainbows, it has an old-school charm that certainly isn't done anymore. Gone are the days of the red and white striped big top, of popcorn and peanuts, and dancing animals. For folks like me, who were born decades after that type of event went out of style, the film offers a peek into what it was like, a glimpse at old-school Americana and entertainment.

Beyond its aesthetics, the film is certainly a step in the right direction for the studio, when it comes to live-action movies. Most of their live-action releases so far have been, well, less than exciting, with only the rare 6 or 7/10 to keep my hopes up. Toby Tyler is one of those few that stays above water, with an easy-to-grasp premise that gets explored decently, and an emotional core that's easy to get behind.

From the very start, the film makes you sympathize with the main character, and with everything that comes his way, you want to root for him. In the rough world of the circus, he's just an innocent little boy who has to work hard to find his place, and that actor that plays him does an excellent job making him likeable. While not a magnificent film by any means (and certainly not on Disney+ for easy viewing), Toby Tyler gives me hope that the decade won't be a total wash.

I believe that I am an optimist to a fault, but sometimes I feel like a sucker, and the next film the studio put out, just 1 month after Toby Tyler, certainly made me feel that way.

With a title like 'Kidnapped', anyone would expect something thrilling. The story of a young Scottish man who inherits an estate, and ends up tricked by a cruel uncle and sold off, its a premise that sounds interesting. Unfortunately, the execution makes it anything but.

Kidnapped feels like the grey and mushy child of Rob Roy: The Highland Rogue and Johnny Tremain: a film that has all the pomp and circumstances of the two films, talks big about revolutions and overthrowing the ruling class, but has almost no substance whatsoever.

Ironically, the son of Rob Roy appears in the film, but does nothing more than challenge someone to a bagpipe contest, insult them, and then leave. If this were a crossover with something like Davy Crockett, I'd cry foul at the poor characterization, but I could hardly care less here.

What happened in the movie, I'm not sure. Honestly, I found it a challenge to pay attention, and the thick accents made it even harder to parse the plot. I think there's a war between the king and the highlanders, but I don't know why, who won, or what happened.

Having a film with a newspaper headline-worthy title like this, and turn it into a toothless slog, has to be the biggest joke of all time. April Fools on me, I suppose.

But as a wise person once said, where there is darkness, there is always light, and thankfully, the third film in this trio made up for Kidnapped's time-wasting, and was much easier to access.

'Pollyanna', also released in 1960, is a film about an orphan girl who moves in with her fabulously wealthy aunt in a small town. Everyone in the town is generally unhappy, and Pollyanna learns about their problems, using her endless optimism to bring joy back into their lives.

On the surface, this movie looks like it would be a snooze-fest, but after films like Kidnapped and Johnny Tremain, I was pleasantly surprised. The film is pretty low-stakes, with most of its plot and conflict centering on inter-personal drama, but the entertainment value comes from its main character and how the interacts with everything. Pollyanna is a fish out of water, used to hard living and orphanages, but keeps her chin up through everything. At first, living with her aunt is strange, and the people in town aren't friendly to her, but over time she helps the people open up about their problems, and just generally help them smile.

The town is far from chaotic, but its easy to see that people are unhappy. Pollyanna's stoic aunt owns quite a lot of the town, and hardly shows sympathy to those who are struggling. The town's orphanage has a flood which they can't afford to renovate after. Every Sunday in church is a lecture about death and it's inevitability. Yet Pollyanna sees the good in everyone, lends an ear, and ends up giving sage advice to those decades her senior who would normally never listen to her.

Its incredibly satisfying watching Pollyanna, because she is a ray of light so often unseen in modern media. Hardly anything gets her down, and she's incredibly thoughtful, with her 'Glad game' that reminds her to always look on the bright side of things. In an era in pop culture where being a downer is cool, Pollyanna is so completely different, its almost shocking to see someone so nice and pure-hearted on my TV screen.

Beyond it's titular character, most of the rest of the film is pretty average. The characters are kind of forgettable, the setting isn't really explore too much, and not much about it really stands out. Truly, this is a film centered around its star, and not much beyond that.

With that, we are officially in the 1960's Disney catalogue! The good news is that hopefully, their boring Westerns are behind them, and we'll be getting more animated films in the near future.

The bad news? They released around 50 films this decade. 7 alone were released in 1960. Getting through this decade is going to take longer than the previous, but I have the willpower, and I want to see what's next. So stay tuned, and join me again for more movies.

[gamerdog1]

Disney Back Catalogue Reviews #14: Small Town Hijinks

Seems I've been slacking a bit when it comes to this challenge. march is nearly over, and I'm not even out of the 1960's yet? Let's change that today.

Years after the studio hit it big with their animated adaptation of 'Bambi', Walt Disney Studios went back to Felix Salten's works in search of something else to bring to the silver screen. In 1959, they would release a rather strange film, adapting the author's 1923 novel 'The Hound of Florence'.

'The Shaggy Dog' is a movie about a teenage boy with a father who despises dogs. One day, he finds a magic ring in a museum, which transforms him into an Old English sheepdog at inopportune times. Hilarity ensues, as the boy tries to win over the mysterious new French girl in town, and try to keep his secret under wraps.

Compared to the other films that the studio had put out around this time, this movie is really good. The Shaggy Dog is surprisingly fun, and a good laugh, especially if you are someone who likes dogs. There's a lot of silliness with the dog on screen, talking to police officers and driving a car, its hard not to laugh.

While the story is pretty average, the mechanic of switching between human and animal at random is cool, and the way its executed here (especially in comparison to the 2006 adaptation with Tim Allen) is unique. Its not often you see transformation be done through body-snatching, and especially not in such a PG way.

Still, the film is pretty limited in what it can and cannot do. The effects, for the time, are fine, but look incredibly cheap today. Sticking tufts of white hair on the lead actor's face and saying 'oh no, he's transforming!' might've been convincing in the late 50's, but today its laughable.

Make no mistake, the late 50's weren't entirely lacking wow-factor. In that same year, Disney released 'Darby O'Gill and the Little People', which really shows some risk-taking with movie technology that takes things to the next level.

The film, about an old man who meets the king of the leprechauns, is full of fun and special effects, that elevate it from a simple nothing to a film worth noting in their history. I might regret saying this later, but to me, its a hidden gem from the studio.

Sure, the story is middling, and it takes a bit to get going, but what it lacks in action and thrills, it makes up for in whimsy. Its a film that so clearly wants to be fun, and doesn't take itself too seriously, inviting the viewer in to peek at Irish folklore and the art of myth-making. Where a modern movie might spend a good chunk of time having it's characters dismiss stories of leprechauns, and have it's main character struggle to prove their reality, the people in the film believe in fairy tales, and hold them in reverence.

After all, the leprechauns (and eventually a banshee) in the film aren't monsters in need to slaying, or hazards on a quest: they're part of the local ecosystem. Their magic is just as much a part of the filmic Ireland as it's people are, right down to the historical artifacts the King keeps in his underground home (which are all from famous points in the country's history). At times, it feels a bit too stereotypical, but its light-hearted and silly enough that it doesn't feel mean-spirited.

Where the film lags, though, is in it's B plot, involving the main character's daughter and two local men who want to marry her. Compared to the wacky leprechauns, it's the mother of all nothing-burgers, and any time it gets screen time, you will wish it would go away quickly. There's nothing new or subversive about it, nothing particularly memorable or likable about any of the three characters, except that one of them is played by Sean Connery (which is the first famous name I have recognized from any of the film's I've seen on this journey so far).

For what its worth, I'd still recommend this one, though not to everyone. Its not the most thrilling, the acting is a bit stale sometimes, and despite paying attention the whole time I couldn't understand the point of the old lady character. The effects are neat though, especially one moment at the end of the film which had me really invested.

At the tail end of the decade, Disney released one final film, a live-action one which, despite being on Disney +, I doubt anyone really remembers.

'Third Man on the Mountain' is a rather boring film about a Swiss teenager who wants to climb mountains like his late father did. He sneaks off on an expedition with a famous mountaineer, and encounters hardships along the way that test his mettle against the forces of nature.

Somehow, my little summary of the movie did it more justice than the film itself, because in the hour and a half of it's runtime, it never once feels exciting. You'd think with a movie about an inexperienced person going on an expedition to climb a legendary mountain, there'd be some drama, stakes, or tension, but the film deflates any that could've been there by loading up scenes with more talking than an old-fashioned dinner party, and the briefest of mountain climbing scenes.

Never once, which watching this, did I feel afraid for the characters, or worried that they might fall. The characters hardly encounter any struggles on the mountain whatsoever, except when it finds that it needs a convenient roadblock, then something happens and the characters must stop and talk a lot more. Sometimes they even quit altogether and go back down, dashing any hopes I might've had for some actual stakes.

The characters are even more of a bore, with such lack of personality that I could barely tell them apart. Who are these other characters, why are they on the mountain? Who knows, who cares, how much runtime is left?

If I had a time machine, I'd go back in time and convince Walt Disney Studios to hold off on making this one, at least until filming technology got better. This movie could've really benefitted from some landscape shots, like the ones in their 'True Life Adventures' series. Or, maybe, the fault is the script, and this should've had more time in the writer's room. Whatever the case, don't watch this one.

With that, we are finally out of the 1950's! Looking back, you can really see the studio starting to expand, and delve into live-action movies a lot more (which eventually would become their bread and butter). At the same time, you also see the biases of the filmmakers soaking into everything they work on, leading to big chunks of the decade being hidden from streaming services. Maybe in the 60's, they'll learn to respect people who aren't white. One can dream, I suppose...