Chicken Little (2005)

Film: Chicken Little (2005)
Stars: Zach Braff, Joan Cusack, Steve Zahn, Garry Marshall, Don Knotts
Director: Mark Dindal
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

As I mentioned last week, despite having more-pressing movie-watching problems I could be doing (like, say, getting the OVP to a milestone number in the next few weeks that I've been shooting for for years), I am for some reason going through the B-Catalog of Disney's 58 Animated Feature Films, perhaps sending off this list first in a time of great chaos.  After all, what's better than cozying up with the Mouse House pictures while trying to stay inside at any cost (social distance yourself people-it's the only way we get out of this, and the more often you break, the longer this goes on)?  So I have been catching some truly random movies from Disney's catalog, mostly trying to polish through the Aughts, arguably Disney's lowest creative period, to see if there are perhaps some hidden gems before the studio rebounded with The Princess and the Frog.  While I still have a couple of titles left, rest assured that Chicken Little is not one of those "hidden gems."

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is about Chicken Little (Braff) a rooster who is known for his crazy theories that the sky is falling, which caused a town panic a year prior to most of the events of the picture.  He has a respected father who used to be a baseball star, Ace (Marshall), with whom he has a tense relationship, and has some cooky friends like Abby Mallard (Cusack), an "Ugly Duckling" with whom they both have a secret crush, and Runt of the Litter (Zahn), a big pig whose size is used as a bit of a joke against him (his pig relatives are much bigger than him, even though he is large compared to his poultry pals).  Of course, when Chicken Little and his friends are the only people to see alien invaders, and understand their mission on the planet, no one believes them, and so they are forced to save the day for the townspeople who misjudge them & thus eventually be considered heroes.

This is all fairly-standard Disney fare.  A plucky animal hero who must overcome the odds and show that our differences should be celebrated, and we are better as a unit...this is the plot of dozens of other classic films from Dumbo to Frozen.  So why is Chicken Little so heinous?  It starts with the comedy.  The film is reliant on pop culture gags that feel more at-home in the Shrek franchise than in a Disney classic (fifteen years later, almost all of these gags fall flat).  Timeless stories (and surely the tale of "Chicken Little," which goes back at least two centuries, would qualify under that umbrella) shouldn't need you to insert a lot of modern references that will age the film horribly, and honestly wouldn't have been that funny at the time.  Movies are better as a timeless medium, and this movie aged particularly badly by investing in such measures.

But that alone doesn't sink it.  The characters are two-dimensional (literally and figuratively), with everyone stuck in the same trope for the whole of the movie, leaning into their lack of depth for jokes.  Even someone as gifted as Joan Cusack can't find a way to make this movie sparkle (she's funnier at the Oscars presenting than she is in the entirety of Chicken Little).  It's hard to see the film as anything more than a Shrek knockoff even when it comes to the non-pop culture humor, reliant on body humor & stereotypes for easy, vacant comedy.

But worst of all-it's a really ugly movie.  This was Disney's first fully-computer animated movie (Dinosaur, which we'll get to sometime in April, was both live-action and computer-animated), and it shows.  The sequences read more like what you'd expect from an animated kids show on morning cable than something timeless from Disney.  It'd be easy to call this growing pains, but compare it to what kid brother Pixar was doing with computer animation, and you have to just say Disney whiffed. At this point Pixar had already made the beautiful Monsters Inc and Finding Nemo, and Cars was about to wrap (say what you will about the movie, which is one of Pixar's bigger story whiffs, but the naturalism in the landscapes is glorious).  Chicken Little can't compete-when Madagascar (also out in 2005) is a better motif than you've created, you've done something wrong.

OVP: Klaus (2019)

Film: Klaus (2019)
Stars: Jason Schwartzman, JK Simmons, Rashida Jones, Joan Cusack, Will Sasso, Norm Macdonald
Director: Sergio Pablos
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Animated Feature Film)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

As promised, not only did we hit Breakthrough and The Lion King this week, but I found time to get to a third missing Oscar nominee.  I make no promises for a fourth picture(though I have hopes for one-we'll see how the rest of real life goes for me), but for now we have Klaus, arguably one of the more obscure nominees this year, but one that it's entirely possible was well-viewed over the holidays (who knows how many people actually tune in for Netflix-don't you wish they'd release the numbers?).  This is the streaming platform's first foray into this category, and with a relatively weak nominations field (you could make a decent case that this is the rare five-way race), it's possible Klaus could score a trophy for the movie.  But before you start giving it that statue, let's decide if it's any good.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is sort of a strange premise, as it's kind of an origin story for Santa Claus (strange because the real-life Santa Claus was based in part on an actual person, Saint Nicholas, a fourth-century bishop, but it's entirely fictional).  Here we have Jasper (Schwartzman), a spoiled son of a postman who is forced to go into the far north.  His father says that he can come back to his old life if he can post 6000 letters in a year, which seems impossible as everyone in the town is split in half, with no schools (to teach writing) and a centuries-long feud between two families.  By circumstance, Jasper accidentally convinces the young children of the city to start writing letters to Klaus (Simmons), a lonely old woodsman who used to make toys, and so he is able to start reaching his scheme by genuinely improving the village and ending the feud.  However, the town elders want the feud to continue, and expose his scheme, just at the same time that he was genuinely starting to like the city and his new life (ain't that always the case).  He comes back, stops the town elders, ends the truce, and watches as his friend Klaus becomes Santa Claus (through magic).

The film was probably cited by Oscar due to its unusual animation style.  Pablos was actually a key animator at Disney during the 1990's (he was integral to the creation of Hunchback of Notre Dame's Frollo and Hercules' Hades) and with this film hearkens back to that era's traditionally-animated feel (rather than computer-animated style).  However, they alter the lighting in this film to make it seem as if those sequences are computer animated, so it looks hand-drawn while also having the luminous quality that would hallmark much of the 21st Century's more significant animated films.  It's really cool, and gorgeous.  I didn't love the character design that much (all of it feels "been there, done that"), but the lighting is fantastic, as are some of the larger scenic sequences, and certainly worth admittance if you're an animation nerd.

That said, the film itself is a bit of a bore.  Jasper has few redeeming qualities, and while we learn he has a heart, we've seen this story so many times (and he's just particularly plodding) that I didn't care that much about what happened to him.  In many ways this is The Emperor's New Groove, but without the humor and site gags.  The plot is mean-spirited, without enough heart, and the gross-out animation  of the villagers isn't particularly inviting.  I left feeling relatively hollow by the story, and wanting to find something to cling to in this movie, but the characters that felt the most authentic or unique (like Rashida Jones' cynical school teacher) change personality the second the script needs them to without any sort of foresight.  The film itself is only intriguing from a visual perspective, and while that's worth checking out, it's not worth putting it alongside Coco, Spirited Away, and Frozen on Sunday.

OVP: Broadcast News (1987)

Film: Broadcast News (1987)
Stars: William Hurt, Albert Brooks, Holly Hunter, Robert Prosky, Lois Chiles, Joan Cusack
Director: James L. Brooks
Oscar History: 7 nominations (Best Picture, Actor-William Hurt, Actress-Holly Hunter, Supporting Actor-Albert Brooks, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Film Editing)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

The 1980's will probably always be my least favorite decade of cinema.  The most lasting films of the era are in genres I don't gravitate toward (teen comedies, action flicks, biopics), and the decade seems to have become obsessed with its own nostalgia.  Perhaps it's partially this-the worst of modern-day cinema clearly stems from people still not over the 1980's (look at a film like Ready Player One for Exhibit A in such indulgences).  Whatever the reason, when I saw at a recent "Secret Cinema" night that Broadcast News was playing, I was like "well, at least I need to see it for the OVP" rather than getting genuinely excited about what was in store.  That's a pity, because Broadcast News is the 1980's at their very best-adult, funny, ruthless, but still knowing, and weirdly psychic about the future.  Examining the intricacies of a TV newsroom at the cutting edge of the cable revolution, the film shows the way that our lives revolve around work, and the unintended side effects of letting all of our personal lives slide in pursuit of success.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie's main focus is on Jane Craig (Hunter), a woman who, to quote John Mulaney, "is a busy businesswoman who only likes business."  Her entire persona and life are based around her successful work at a DC news station, where she works with her best friend Aaron (Brooks), a man who clearly views her as more-than-a-friend even though she doesn't see him that way.  They are forced to work with Tom (Hurt), a sports reporter who was hired not because he's a talented journalist, but instead because he's handsome & charming, a sign that the news is becoming less about the facts on the page and more about how pretty the people reading the cue cards are.  This upsets Aaron, who wants the news anchor job for himself, and feels he's earned it through years of solid reporting.  Unfortunately for Aaron, not only does his eventual on-air reporting go terribly, but also he starts to lose Jane to Tom, whom she falls in love with despite not really respecting him.  This all takes place in the backdrop of looming layoffs at the company, which means that many of the people that we see in the background (like Cusack's Blair), will lose their jobs, another sign of the impending downsizing of the news industry.  The film ends with Jane realizing that Tom staged himself crying in an interview with a rape victim to make for better television, and this is a bridge too far for her journalistic ethics.  The three meet years later, with Aaron now a father and Tom a considerably more successful news anchor (and Jane largely where she was, loving her career), watching as time has mended their past grievances with each other, but ultimately acted as a separator as they'll never feel a "part" of each other's lives again in the same way.

Like I said above, this film exhibits the best aspects of 1980's cinema, particularly since the characters are flawed, and don't necessarily need to be likable (even though they are).  This movie pretty much put Holly Hunter on the map (it was her first Oscar nomination, and along with Raising Arizona, made her a household name), and there's a reason for that-Hunter is magnificent as Jane.  The neuroticism feels authentic, the way that she stands by her principles, bending them occasionally, but never breaking them-Jane is the sort of figure you imagine is disgusted by today's news, the rare person who will continue working for smaller-and-smaller outlets just to continue to drive journalism's ethics into future generations, however fruitlessly.  Hurt & Brooks are both fun in her support, but it's Hunter who steals this show (real talk-Albert Brooks is way more a third lead than a supporting player here in a very early sign of category fraud so that the two male leads don't have to compete with each other in the top category).  Even in a year like 1987, it's going to be difficult for me to imagine her not making a serious play for the OVP statue come that year.

But the best part of Broadcast News other than Hunter is in fact its script.  The movie is funny, wry, and knowing, and omnipresent in the way that it treats news as simply another scripted television show rather than a public rite.  It's also telling about the way that the people we work with rarely become part of our actual lives.  I loved the bittersweet nature of the ending, where Jane, Aaron, & Tom all meet, old friends but that's it-just ready to discuss old times, but not really connected to each other's lives.  So often in film and television we get the fiction that close friends will be a part of our existences eternally, rather than just passing ships that meant something to us, but aren't there forever.  Jane has the option of making Tom or Aaron a part of her life forever, and chooses (correctly?) not to include them in her future because she doesn't think they fit...and director Brooks doesn't give us a hint that this will change.  Decisions have consequences, and Broadcast News gives us the reality of this when it separates these three people into their own paths.  Broadcast News is a loving film with a cynical bite, but it's at its best when it shows that we rely upon people for a time, and love them, but ultimately only a few (if any) stay with us for long swaths of time.  This is a smart movie, and one of the best the decade has had to offer in my cinematic sojourns.

OVP: Toy Story 4 (2019)

Film: Toy Story 4 (2019)
Stars: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Annie Potts, Tony Hale, Christina Hendricks, Joan Cusack, Keanu Reeves
Director: Josh Cooley
Oscar History: 2 nominations/1 win (Best Animated Feature Film*, Original Song-"I Can't Let You Throw Yourself Away")
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I swore a few years ago that I would be boycotting Pixar's Toy Story 4 when it came out because it seemed completely and totally unnecessary, and for nearly a month after its release, I stuck to that pledge.  I feel we are seeing the effects of this franchise fatigue this year, with sluggish box office and repeated disappointments in the theaters (unless you're Marvel, in which case you can just keep printing money).  However, I skipped Aladdin and have every intention of waiting until it's released on video (if ever) to watch The Lion King, so I feel like Disney was getting my message; plus, I've had a rough few weeks in my real life and am making a point of hitting a few movies to catch up (I'm a bit behind my theater total compared to previous years), so I figured of the three this one felt the least objectionable considering the reviews.  After watching, I get where critics are coming from, but I also feel like I was right in the boycott-this is fine, might even say pretty good, but a totally unnecessary coda to a story that ended so beautifully nine years ago.

(Spoilers Ahead) We pick up roughly where we left off last time, but first with an introduction telling us the story of how Bo Peep (Potts) who wasn't in our last installment, disappeared from Andy's world and nearly brought Woody (Hanks) with her.  Bo was discarded by Andy's little sister Molly in a "child dismissing her old toys situation," and Bo asked Woody to go with her, but seeing that Andy needed him still, he stayed with his best pal.  Years later, we rejoin Woody with Bonnie who got him from Andy in the last film, who has relegated him to the closet, a toy that she doesn't find useful.  Woody, after years of being Andy's favorite, isn't adjusting well to not being in charge and the toy that everyone wants, and when Bonnie can't bring a toy to school, he sneaks away with her anyway, and in the process helps her to make a craft project of a spork and some googly eyes who becomes Forky (Hale), a neurotic creature that knows he's supposed to be trash, and doesn't want to be a toy.  As Bonnie & her family set off on an a road trip, Woody tries to keep Forky safe, seeing it as his only way to serve Bonnie who doesn't want him like she wants Forky & the other toys.  Along the way, he meets up with Bo, and has to take on a toy named Gabby Gabby (Hendricks) who lives in an antique shop and is trying to steal his voice box in hopes of finally getting noticed by the antique shop owner's granddaughter.

The film is considerably funnier in a "laugh out loud" sort of way than previous entries in the series, with a marked tone of physical comedy and zippy one-liners that wasn't present in particular in Toy Story 2 and 3, with most of their power coming from a tug on the heartstrings.  This is probably for the best, as it makes comparisons to the other installments harder to make-this is more a happy adventure than growing up parable.  The movie features not only Hale as an amusing Forky, but also Keanu Reeves (Pixar, always brilliant with voice casting, choosing well an actor-having-a-moment right now) as a Canadian action toy whose previous owner didn't want him.  Reeves is perfect as the noble but dimwitted Duke Caboom, and basically steals the movie when he's onscreen.

And the film does do a solid job of trying to prove its existence.  The film frames up well with the last picture as both an extension but also a tangible sequel, making the argument that the fourth installment was needed to prove that this was not Andy's story, but Woody's all along.  This is seen in the movie's final moments, when Woody chooses to not go back to Bonnie & his friends, staying in the attic while they are looked after, but instead going out with Bo on the open road, becoming the favorite of new kids and having his own life/adventure.  It's a sad ending (you'll cry) watching Woody give up forever the likes of Buzz, Jessie, & the gang in hopes of finding a purpose that is his, and not some arbitrary child, and it almost works.

Except it's hard to compare this movie to the other films without saying it's "good, but not good enough."  The final moments are beautiful, and it's easy to praise a film like this as being fun, but save for the goodbye (which feels more triggered by 24 years of movies at this point than just the 2019 edition), it doesn't have the emotional depths of the first three films, and frequently borrows from other stories, particularly with the villain once again being a discarded toy, a retread of the second & third movies.  There isn't enough new things to say, and the separation of a character to live their lives already happened.  It's repetitive, and while it might make more sense to frame this as Woody's story than Andy's (he is, after all, the main character), it also isn't as elegant of Pixar to frame it around a toy rather than a lost childhood, considering the audience can more easily relate to the Andy onscreen than Woody.  It's unnecessary.  A good movie, and a fine enough coda, but it does take away from the shockingly compact nature of the last three films (considering that the two sequels were never planned, they fit together brilliantly), and takes away the power of Toy Story 3's finale, which is a shame as that's a decidedly better film.