Bolt

Merry Christmas everybody! Let’s celebrate with another Disney movie about a dog, “Bolt,” released in 2008. You know what I have noticed? This is the third Disney movie I have reviewed that is about a dog. Holy cow, it looks like Disney seems to be canine lovers. I’m not complaining because I like dogs myself. Anyway, enough of that, let’s start the review.

This Disney-Pixar dog comedy is a case of a dog, but that’s nothing to bark about.

The “tail” is Pixar, the animation unknown with the Midas touch that once entirely belonged to the “dog” Disney, Pixar’s corporate boss.

Peter Howell said in his review, “Indeed, no finer compliment can be paid to Bolt than to say it looks and sounds more like an unheralded Pixar film than just another widget from the Disney factory.”

A large amount of it has to do with executive producer John Lasseter, a Pixar co-founder now with the job of animating both companies. This is his first Disney movie from the ground up, and his paw prints is all over the place.

Howell mentioned, “Mainly they're seen in regard to the story, which in Pixar fashion is brainier than it needs to be for a movie aimed at tots, pre-teens and their indulgent parents. Subplots about personal identity ("What do dogs do?") and reality vs. fantasy make this movie seem at times like a Philosophy 101 course at a very furry university.”

The offside vocal options are another factor. There are expected celebrity jobs given with John Travolta (another actor who I think is just there for girls to go crazy for) as the protagonist dog Bolt, the youthful white canine with super-sized visions, pop singer who got started on TV with “Hannah Montana,” Miley Cyrus (another singer I hate) as Penny, the dog’s master, and Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Calico, a scary villain.

Other voices hit at you straight out from left field. Susie Essman, who plays the vulgar Susie Greene in the sitcom “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” may not have been Disney’s first choice to play a cat in a children’s animated movie. However, she’s great as Mittens, the snarky stray who teaches Bolt how to be a dog. Wait, a dog and a cat are in this movie? “Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!”

Then there’s Mark Dalton, who is this movie’s greatest strength. As Rhino, a hamster who is also a huge fan of Bolt’s show and has his own personal issues, Walton gives the most Pixar-like performance of all. Howell says, “Not bad for an old Disney hand whose main gig until now has been as animator and writer (although he did voice Goosey Loosey for Chicken Little).” Walton keeps the Pixar tradition of letting technical guys join the fun, as the company did for sound effects expert Ben Burtt for “WALL-E.”

Other Disney regulars also change roles. Animators Bryon Howard and Chris Williams, whose past works include “Chicken Little” and “Mulan,” are in the director’s chair for the first time. Williams also shares a co-writer job, with Dan Fogelman (who co-penned Pixar’s “Cars”).

Now the story you could describe is “The Truman Show” meeting “The Incredible Journey,” while the 60s-style images are similar like what we saw in “The Incredibles.”

Howell said in his review, “Bolt is the star of a weekly TV adventure series, sort of like an amped-up version of The Littlest Hobo, in which he rescues mistress Penny from all manner of dire circumstances.”

Everyone who is working on the show knows that it’s a show, except for simple-minded Bolt, who is too gullible even to realize that the lightning bolt marking (hello Harry Potter) was just sprayed on.

He’s in for a dire shock when a confusion leaves him alone and sad in New York City, while Penny returns to Hollywood.

Bolt is determined to return home, along with Mittens and Rhino, but he’s going to have to look at his options before he realizes his true strengths.

“If the dog believes, the audience believes,” says the “Bolt” TV sitcom director, voiced by Dean Emeritus of Pace University and host of “Inside the Actors Studio,” James Lipton.

Belief may be in question for a lot of the movie – only for the naïve dog – but fortunately, enjoyment will be there.

So I will admit that I personally liked this movie, although at first I thought I wasn’t going to, but it’s a good movie for the whole family to watch. It’s like a kid’s version of “The Truman Show,” but only different in certain ways.

Well, Merry Christmas once again you guys. Hopefully everyone is having fun spreading the holiday joy around. Open up your presents, fill your stockings, sit by the fire with some hot chocolate, and watch some Christmas specials while listening to the great Christmas songs. Stay tuned tomorrow for more “Disney Month.”

Enchanted

Now we are really getting good for today’s review of “Disney Month,” because we are going to look at a film that is both animated and live-action, “Enchanted,” released in 2007. Roger Ebert admitted in his review, “It's no surprise to me that Amy Adams is enchanting. She won my heart in "Junebug" (2005), where she told her clueless husband: "God loves you just the way you are, but he loves you too much to let you stay that way."”

You might have seen “Junebug,” but I haven’t, but still you will not be surprised by how fresh and winning Amy Adams is in “Enchanted,” where her role completely depends on natural lovability.

In fact, she’s so lovable she starts out this film as an animated princess in a Disney-style world. The birds, flowers, chipmunks and cockroaches actually love her and do her bidding. Listen, if you could utilize the roaches of the world, you’d have quite a work force.

Ebert said, “The princess is named Giselle, she has a beautiful singing voice, and although she resists singing "Someday My Prince Will Come," I think she's always humming it to herself.”

Like all Disney princesses, one day a prince will come for her. In here, it’s Prince Edward (James Marsden), and it is love at first sight, and there are wedding bells in the air before the evil Queen Narissa (Susan Sarandon) puts the obstacle on romance by exiling Giselle to someplace as far as possible from this Disney kingdom. She ends up in Times Square. It is obviously very far that the movie changes from animation to live-action, and stays there. However, the animated opening does a good job at setting up the story, so we understand the basic rules of what will obviously be a live-action story playing by the animation rules. Ebert admits, “What results is a heart-winning musical comedy that skips lightly and sprightly from the lily pads of hope to the manhole covers of actuality, if you see what I mean. I'm not sure I do.”

Prince Edward follows her to New York, along with his manservant Nathanial, played by Timothy Spall, and her chipmunk. Now don’t rush ahead and think Giselle and Edward find love in Gotham, because there is trouble of Robert, played by Patrick Dempsey, a handsome single dad Giselle encounters. He’s raising his daughter named Morgan, played by Rachel Covey, and Morgan obviously likes Giselle immediately, when she ends up living with them as a homeless lady from a fairy tale place.

Who doesn’t like Giselle is Nancy, played by Idina Menzel, who already is Robert’s girlfriend. She’s nice enough, but can she take a stand for herself against a Disney princess? Not in a PG-rated movie. So the romance and the adventure continue on in ways that looks familiar enough in an animated comedy, but seem courageous in the real world. We first get the reality animation based on reality (Beowulf) and now reality in animation.

The movie has a sound background in Disney animation, beginning with director Kevin Lima (“Tarzan,” “A Goofy Movie”) and the music is done by Alan Menken and the lyricist is Stephen Schwartz, who did the songs for the soundtracks for “Pocahontas” and “The Hunchback of Notre Dame.” More important, it has that Disney effort to allow fantasy into life, so New York seems to be having a new playbook.

For instance, we do know that Manhattan is covered in bugs. Millions of them, in a city where the garbage is left overnight on the sidewalk must seem like an endless buffet. Ebert said, “But when Giselle recruits roaches to help her clean Robert's bathtub -- well, I was going to say, you, you'll never think of roaches the same way again, but actually, you will. I am reminded of "Joe's Apartment" (1996), which used 5,000 real roaches, and of which I wrote: "That depresses me, but not as much as the news that none of them were harmed during the production."”

As the roach part is over, and the plotting begins, much helped by Sarandon’s evil queen, who fears the presence of her son Edward marrying the pitiful Giselle. Ebert thinks, “I am not sure Robert and Morgan fully understand from whence Giselle comes, but they respond to the magic in her, and so do we.”

Overall, this is a great movie for little girls to see. I personally like that one part where Giselle tells Robert about Edward and he shockingly asks, “You were going to marry someone you had just met that day!?” It’s funny that they would put that in a Disney movie, since they have always done that, but no one in the movie was ever shocked about it as those who see Disney movies and think that same thing, because you can’t rush in love that quickly. Still, see the movie because it’s really good and you’ll feel nice after the movie is over. Just a heads up: you will see similarities in this movie to "Snow White," "Cinderella" and "Sleeping Beauty."

Look out tomorrow to see what the next review will be in “Disney Month.”

Meet the Robinsons

For a long time, Pixar and Disney were just two companies with distribution deals. When it was announced that Pixar was unloading the Disney burden, the Mouse House developed an inside division to do their own CGI movies.

Disney’s debut film was “Chicken Little,” a fun and entertaining movie. Probably the best thing about “Chicken Little” was that it cut from something completely different than the Pixar movies. I know that it did have cute and cuddly anthropomorphic animals, but it was something completely different than their usual work. This help set apart it’s style.

According to Kevin Carr, “The next non-Pixar CGI release from Disney was “The Wild,” a completely unoriginal and thoroughly annoying fare.” After Disney ended up buying Pixar, the animators inside gave the fans “Meet the Robinsons,” released in 2007. Like “Chicken Little,” this was a lot of fantasy for children, with a good amount of science fiction.

The story is about an orphan inventor kid named Lewis, voiced by Jordan Fry, who is really close to making a real mind projector. However, the evil Bowler Hat Guy, voiced by Steve Anderson, goes back in time to steal Lewis’s invention and make everything think it was his own. Lewis teams up with Wilbur Robinson, a kid from the future who is trying to make the events right, voiced by Wesley Singerman.

When Lewis time travels to the future with Wilbur, he finds an amazing and odd family (Laurie Metcalf, Steve Anderson, Ethan Sandler, Kelly Hoover, Don Hall, Adam West and Nicole Sullivan) that he wishes was his own. As we see more of Lewis’s future history revealed and the story behind the Bowler Hat Guy, the pieces to the puzzle come together that shows Lewis must struggle to save the future.

You might be wondering if “Meet the Robinsons” is as good as any of the Pixar films. Actually, it doesn’t come anywhere close, but it’s still decent. In Carr’s opinion, “It’s about as entertaining as the lower end Pixar films like “Cars,” but it’s a long way from “The Incredibles.”” He may be right, although I never compared this movie to any of the Pixar movies, but it’s still a good family movie that everyone should sit down and watch.

Carr joked that, ““Meet the Robinson” tasted like chicken – “Chicken Little,” that is.” The movie had the same visionary style and chaotic storytelling. The animation is just perfect, blending 2D methods with modern computer character design. Like “The Incredibles,” it gave a cool vision of the future, not in the way that what it would be like but what would people thought it would look like in the 1950s.

The story works for the entire family. It’s not terribly distinctive or erratic. Actually, it’s pretty easy to see where all the plot twists are going to fall in the first half hour or so. Plus, in the middle, when they introduce the Robinson family, it slows down a lot and lowers itself to cheap jokes. Carr admits, “But still, I had fun, as did my five-year-old son whom I took along for the ride.”

In the end, I actually thought this was a good movie and was actually much better than “Chicken Little.” Then again, I saw this one first before I saw “Chicken Little,” so I guess that’s probably the reason why. You could actually compare this movie to “Back to the Future” in the sense of time travelling to fix the events of the future to make sure everything is set right. However, like everyone says, our future is unwritten and we can make of it whatever we’d like it to, as long as we are happy with the way our lives have gone thus far. In the end, I definitely say sit down with the whole family and check this movie out, you will absolutely love it.

Watch out tomorrow for more entries of “Disney Month.”

Chicken Little

Alright everyone, now we’re going to look at Disney’s take on a classic children’s tale, “Chicken Little,” released in 2005. The basic story is Chicken Little, voiced by Zach Braff, has become a subject of jokes for the animal citizens of Oaky Oak after making a commotion with his bizarre claim that the sky is falling. However, this tiny chicken’s bantam’s fear eventually proves to be true.

The initial thought that whether Disney would be able to succeed commercially in changing to computer animation without Pixar being dominated with enormous relief, with “Chicken Little” easily grossing way past $100 million in America. The question regarding having succeeded artistically doesn’t have a really definite answer.

According to Empire’s review, “Disney has, of course, already dabbled in CGI with 2000’s Dinosaur, which was every bit as visually awesome and ploddingly brainless as its subjects.” However, “Chicken Little” represents the first time it challenges the same type of style as its on-off standoff. It’s not even close to having any of the imagination or brilliance that even Pixar’s early work, but then again, it’s not really trying to.

Nowhere in this spirited little movie will you find a shot designed to amaze you at the things they can do with computer animation these days. You could hate it for lack of ambition, for not trying to fight Pixar on their level. However, your children, who are the targeted audience for this type of movie, won’t be thinking about that, so it’s better to enjoy it for that Saturday-morning entertainment that it succeeds on.

The story’s main weakness is improved by the huge amount of off-the-wall twists it does to fit into its small running time (if you haven’t seen the spoiler-filled trailer, at one point you’ll be scratching your head wondering what is happening – quite a success for a Disney kids’ movie), finishing in a well-done action sequence. The solid dialogue is prepared by terrific background visual jokes and the assembled voice cast is nice.

Braff, Joan Cusack and Steve Zahn are all great for voiceover roles and also having Catherine O’Hara, Fred Willard and Patrick Warburton to the minor roles speaks of the basic value. They may not have the best script to work off of, but they do just fine with what they are given.

Empire also mentioned, “Pixar has set the standard for cartoons that offer as much, or more, to adults as children, and anything that doesn’t swell with wry wit seems to be now rejected as a failure. Judged by those criteria, Chicken Little disappoints. Judged as the children’s film it is, it punches winningly above its bantam-weight.”

In the end, beyond a juvenile, twist part of generic-playing, there’s more here for Elementary School kids, but it’s still charming, funny and energetic enough to have you enjoy the film. Give it a chance is what I say. I know this film wasn’t very well received when it came out, but I still think you should give it a chance.

Look out tomorrow for more “Disney Month.”

Home on the Range

“Home on the Range,” Disney’s 2004 animated movie, has the warm friendliness of a 1940s singing cowboy movie, and the plot possibly was borrowed from Hopalong Cassidy or Roy Rogers, despite the small detail that they aren’t cows. Roger Ebert commented, “The new songs by Alan Mencken ("The Little Mermaid," "Beauty and the Beast") are in the tradition of Western swing; I can easily imagine Gene Autry performing any of them, including the yodeling number, and wasn't too surprised to find out that the Sons of the Pioneers starred in a 1946 movie with the same name.”

The pace is up to date, however. Gene Autry and Roy Rogers always had time to sit next to a fire and sing a song, but “Home on the Range” jumps with the energy of a cartoon short special. The movie was said to be Disney’s final one in the traditional 2D animated style. The films that came after this will be the 3D look of “Finding Nemo.” This might be a loss or not depends on what the audiences relate to animation. There is an audience for those painful Saturday morning cartoon adventures, which are so cheap on animation they look more like 1.5D.

The story is set in the Patch of Heaven ranch, which is threatened with foreclosure because of the damages of the dirty cattle rustler Alameda Slim, voiced by Randy Quaid. Pearl, the owner, voiced by Carole Cook, could raise money if she sold her cows – but they’ve become a family and are so apparently they’ll be homeless really soon. Then a brilliant idea strikes the cows: Why don’t they find Slim, collect the $750 reward, pay off the bank, and save the ranch?

Each of the cows has distinctive qualities to give to this effect. Mrs. Calloway, voiced by Judi Dench, is the voice of carefulness. Grace, voiced by poker player Jennifer Tilly, is the New Age cow, who makes comments like, “This is an organic problem and needs a holistic solution.” Their method is a newcomer to the farm, Maggie, voiced by comedian Rosanne Barr (who also had her own sitcom “Roseanne”), who quickly becomes aggressive, in-your-face leader. Rounding out the team is Buck, voiced by Cuba Gooding, Jr., the stallion, who is a master of martial arts.

The voices are all quick to recognize, especially Barr’s. The idea of using the voices of familiar stars instead of nameless dubbing voice artists has added an interesting dimension to recent animated movies. For instance, listen to Randy Quaid as Slim. It’s common in Disney animation to fill the edges of the screen with the hyperactive small supporting characters, and we get Lucky Jack the jackrabbit (Charles Haid) and Audrey the chicken (Estelle Harris), who is a chicken. There are also three busy little pigs, and Steve Buscemi almost seems to be playing himself as a critter named Wesley.

Buck, by the way, has imaginations of magnificence. He thinks maybe he can capture Slim and collect the reward, especially after he becomes the horse of the famous bounty hunter Rico, voiced by Charles Dennis, who leads a dangerous competition with the cows.

Ebert said, “The plot makes pit stops at all the obligatory Western sights: saloons, mine shafts, main streets, deserts with Monument Valley landscapes, and trains. All of these locations become the backdrops of chases, in a movie that seldom stands still.”

The songs are sung by k.d. lang, Bonnie Raitt, Tim McGraw and the Bleu Sisters. None of them are likely to be asked by fans at future concerts. They sound standard and don’t have the passion of Mencken’s earlier work.

A movie like this is nice for kids: bright, fast-paced, with broad, outrageous characters. However, “Home on the Range” doesn’t have the crossover quality of the great Disney films like “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Lion King.” Also it doesn’t have the freshness and originality of a more traditional movie like “Lilo & Stitch.” Ebert speculated, “Its real future, I suspect, lies in home video.” It’s only 76 minutes long, but even though kids might like it, their parents will be constantly looking at their watches.

If you get the chance to pass this one up, do so. I don’t recommend this one at all, but if your kids want to see it, then you can let them see it because it’s good for him. Adults will not have a not good time watching this. I know I didn’t like this one at all. Well, now that I got this film out of the way (thankfully), stay tuned tomorrow for more “Disney Month.”

Brother Bear

Disney’s 2003 film, “Brother Bear,” is more spiritual and New Age than your typical animated film about animals, but it does have a couple of talking moose and a bear cub. It’s determined in its creativity, including images from prehistoric cave paintings and playing with the screen width. Roger Ebert commented, “But it doesn't have the zowie factor of "The Lion King" or "Finding Nemo," and is sweet rather than exciting.” Children and their parents can possibly relate to this on completely different levels, the adults on the transfer of souls from man to animal, while the kids will get into the adventure parts.

The story begins in a Native American colony in the Pacific Northwest, thousands of years ago. We see three brothers: the eldest is the brave Sitka (D.B. Sweeney), the middle child is the strong-willed Denahi (Jason Raize) and the youngest is the troublesome Kenai (Joaquin Phoenix). Each of them wears a totem around their necks, with an animal spirit they are identified with. Sitka has the eagle, Denahi a wolf, and Kenai is a bear, and considers himself short-changed, especially when he’s told that the bear represents love, which he thinks is way far down, so to speak, on the totem pole.

Kenai doesn’t like bears, and picks a fight with one that tries to steal the fish he caught. He carelessly chases the bear, and when Sitka tries to protect him, he gets killed and transfigures into an eagle. Kenai is advised by the tribe’s wise woman Tanana, voiced by Joan Copeland, to accept what has occurred as what the universe wanted, but Kenai has his mind set on killing the bear. He succeeds, but the universe proves it has a sense of justice, or perhaps humor, by transfiguring Kenai into a bear – so that Denahi thinks it was Bear Kenai who killed his Brother Kenai. Ebert commented, “Denahi continues the family tradition of vengeance by tracking down Bear Kenai, in an irony that is positively Shakespearean, and no wonder, since I learn that this story was originally inspired by "King Lear," although the notion of three siblings seems to be all that survived.”

The opening segments are in a straight screen ratio of 1:85 to 1, but after Kenai becomes a bear, the colors deepen and the screen widens to 2:35 to 1, so you’d better hope your projectionist is with you. Given Kenai’s hatred towards bears, he is extremely furious to be a bear, but soon he gets bear lessons from Koda, voiced by Jeremy Suarez, a cub who teaches him everything. Kenai finds out from the spirit of Tanana that he must find Eagle Sitka on a mountain where light touches the Earth, and Koda leads him to the location – maybe because he really knows where the mountain is, possibly for reasons of his own.

Ebert said in his review, “Their trek there involves many adventures, including a scary encounter with flowing lava from a volcano. Two Canadian moose named Rutt and Tuke turn up and have conversations that sound amazingly like the McKenzie Brothers from SCTV, maybe because they are voiced by Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas. The outcome of the story, which I would not dream of revealing, has Kenai making a career choice that is far from practical but certainly shows he has learned to see things from a bear's point of view.”

The movie, which is by the same Orlando animation studio that gave Disney’s “Mulan” and “Lilo & Stitch,” is very good looking, and sometimes wants burst through the boundaries of predictable animation to give a more visionary picture of its time and place. A scene involving cave drawings comes spectacularly to life. There’s also a curious early part when the animators duplicate the effects of sunlight refracting through a lens, even though animation doesn’t use lens and doesn’t refract light. Variety said this would be the last 2D animated movie from Disney in the near future. Now, they would switch to 3D style which originally started with Pixar. Both versions have their strengths. One is not better than the other, simply different.

I would definitely recommend this film and say give it a watch. If you have small kids, they will definitely fall in love with this movie. There’s a lot of family themes in this movie that I think will be really good for the whole family to sit down and watch together. Watch out for more “Disney Month” tomorrow.

Treasure Planet

Walt Disney’s 2002 flick, “Treasure Planet,” has passion and humor and some loveable supporting characters, but was this futuristic look on the classic Robert Louis Stevenson novel really needed? Eighteenth century galleons and pirate ships go sailing through the stars, and this doesn’t seem to look right. The film wants to be a pirate flick with“Star Wars” attire, but the pants are too short and the elbows stick out. For those of you who grew up watching the Disney’s 1950 “Treasure Island,” or remembers the 1934 Victor Fleming flick, this one looks like a cheat.

This is what Roger Ebert said in his review:

I am not concerned about technical matters. I do not question why space ships of the future would look like sailing ships of the past. I can believe they could be powered by both rockets and solar winds. It does not bother me that deep space turns out to be breathable. I do not wonder why swashbuckling is still in style, in an era of ray guns and laser beams. I accept all of that. It's just that I wonder why I have to. Why not make an animated version of the classic Treasure Island ? Why not challenge the kids with a version of an actual book written by a great writer, instead of catering to them with what looks like the prototype for a video game? These are, I suppose, the objections of a hidebound reactionary. I believe that one should review the movie that has been made, not the movie one wishes had been made, and here I violate my own rule. But there was something in me that ... resisted ... this movie. I hope it did not blind me to its undeniable charms.

To start off, there is a likeable protagonist named Jim Hawkins, who’s voiced by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and the singing is provided by Goo Goo Dolls member John Rzeznik. Jim is a nice enough youth (Austin Majors at age 5) when we first see him read to sleep by his mother (Laurie Metcalf) in the typical standard-issue Disney fatherless home. As a teen, he is a troublemaker, and it is only the possession of a holographic treasure map and the adventure in this movie that makes him into a fine young man.

Wishing he’ll sail away to a planet where “the treasures of a thousand worlds” have been deposited, Jim joins in as a cabin boy under the command of Captain Amelia (Emma Thompson), and soon becomes friends with the cook, John Silver (Brian Murray), a cyborg whose right arm has a handful of attachments and gadgets. Also on deck is the affluent Dr. Doppler, voiced by Dr. Niles Crane from “Frasier,” David Hyde Pierce, who is financing the ship. (His canine appearance and Amelia’s catlike nature makes us think, when a love story starts, whether their relationship will be long lasting) Ebert said, “I will not be spoiling much, I assume, to suggest that John Silver is more than a cook, and less than a friend.” He has rebellion as a plan. The troubles on the ship are backdropped by troubles in space, where a black hole is clear in view, and there is a “space storm” as dangerous as that you would see in the Caribbean.

It is mandatory in every Disney animated movies that there must be some kind of cute miniature sidekick, and the playful little being this time is Morph, a blue blob that can shape-shift into anything, is cuddly and energetic, and takes sides. Another supporting character is B.E.N., voiced by Martin Short, a cybernetic navigator who evidently has some memory boards ruined, and has a handful of one-liners. Ebert admits, “He would be obnoxious unless you liked creatures like him, which I do.”

Disney tests with its animation techniques in the movie. The foreground characters are two-dimensional in the classic animated way, but the backgrounds are 3-D and computer-generated (“painted,” the Web site tells us, but with a computer stylus rather than a brush). Ebert said, “Some may find a clash between the two styles, but the backgrounds function as, well, backgrounds, and I accepted them without question.”

Ebert went on to say, “I'm aware that many, maybe most, of the audience members for this film will never have heard of Robert Louis Stevenson.” They may find out in the opening scene that he once wrote a book titled Treasure Island, but when this book is opened by Jim’s mother, it doesn’t have the old-fashioned words, only pop-up moving images. For these people, the loss of the story’s literary birth may be pointless. They might think about what old sailing ships are doing in a futuristic time society, but then there’s a lot think about in every animated feature, isn’t there, since none of them are believable. Ebert ended his review by saying, “My guess is that most audiences will enjoy this film more than I did. I remain stubbornly convinced that pirate ships and ocean storms and real whales (as opposed to space whales) are exciting enough. Even more exciting, because they're less gimmicky. But there I go again.”

I will say that this movie is nice, but I wasn’t really excited when I saw it. I still think that if you have little kids, they’ll enjoy it. However, this is another novel adaptation that I have never read, so I can’t compare this to the book. Go ahead and see it, but I’m leaving it up to you if you want to check it out. I won’t force you, but if you see it great. If not, then it’s not a total loss. Look out tomorrow for more excitement in “Disney Month.”