Slant Magazine

Feelings on the film aside (holds up perfectly as the best of the renaissance for me, far better than the overdone Lion King and juvenile Aladdin), I must take significant issue with the final paragraph here. I have not (and have no intention of) seen this in 3D, so I don't doubt the author's feelings on this release and its appearance. What I have seen, however, is the film in both IMAX and on Blu-ray. The Blu-ray, in particular, is stunning. The animation comes off as crisp and fresh, even more beautiful than it was on DVD or (as many of us have seen the film) on VHS. To call it lousy is laughable to me. I simply cannot agree given the quality of the animation and the Blu-ray presentation. I also think a review of screen-caps from that release would back this up. The problem is not, then, some sloppy problem with the film itself but this particular release.

Hi Seldon - thanks for your comments. Going to have to agree to disagree with you on the quality of the film-as-film (as a remembered favorite of my very own, it was actually pretty shocking that I almost hated it), but in the interest of due diligence I did a spot check of our family's Blu-ray (which was strangely still in its shrink wrap) before typing up this review, and I felt the animation was just as misshapen as when I watched it at the Directors Guild Theater in Manhattan, which was where it screened for the press. Maybe I'll take you up on some kind of visual presentation someday, it might make a good video essay. Otherwise we're just kind of going back and forth.

I think it's also important to separate what's actually good - the backgrounds - from what isn't - the characters and character animation. The backgrounds are lovingly detailed, and the CGI backdrops work pretty well considering CGI was just teething at that point. All of this I mentioned in my review.

I have no desire to see this in 3D, but I wholly disagree that it was "outclassed" by movies that followed. The first time I saw this movie, I was very moved and thought it was beautiful- something that didn't happen with follow-up, Aladdin. And, I watched it on Bly-Ray recently and was similarly impressed. For me, it's a superior movie to Aladdin and not far off of the The Lion King.

I've got two words for you guys. LILO & STITCH. There's a real latter-day Disney Animation feature. Warmth, humor, intelligence - and *craftsmanship*.

I've yet to see that one but I'm more than willing to take your word on it. Since, I think, Beauty and the Beast just blows. "Sorry," Rob.

I find this "message" hypocritical and the characters awfully sketchy.

I totally agree with Jaime that one has to separate what's good in a film and what's not (even though I hate Alladin, even more)

As a film reviwer, whether or not a film is "outclassed" by future generations should be a non-factor when you review the film. Isn't the point to review the film as it is, rather than how it stacks up against other films?

"yeah well that film was good but then I saw the Lion King and that film was WAY BETTER, so now this movie sucks in my opinion" would be a good summation of your first paragraph.

Is that how you review all the movies you see? "Well that was a good drama, not as good as [enter drama] or [enter drama] but better than [enter drama]."

majician, don't take this the wrong way, but that sounds more than a little presumptuous. I don't run by construction sites and second-guess the welders. Believe it or not, film critics - and I realize this runs contrary to every single movie review comment thread in existence - actually know more about film criticism than civilians. I actually do know what I'm doing.

I enjoy free reign to exercise my judgment with regards to what I can and can't discuss when it comes to a film. Comparison/contrast with other works is fair game. Disney films, which are highly commercialized, shrewdly-crafted baubles, especially deserve to be compared/contrasted to like films in an industrial context. Disney films especially should be compared to other Disney films, and similar animated/children's films, just as one compares iPods to iPods and iPads to Galaxy tablets, etc.

"Is that how you review all the movies you see? "Well that was a good drama, not as good as [enter drama] or [enter drama] but better than [enter drama]."

Probably not the entire review that I wrote, wouldn't you agree? Let's not get carried away.

Jaime,

Sorry but comparing and contrasting to other movies because you're a reviewer and that somehow "entitles" you that right is flat wrong. iPods to iPods is one thing, and iPads to Galaxy Tablets is another, but a Film to a Film doesn't work. You're being way too general. A movie, is one experience and another movie is another experience. Toy Story 3 made me cry, Toy Story (the original) did not, yet I find the first one to be equally good, for other reasons.

I'm sure you know all the variables to a movie (characters, actors, music, design, etc etc) so you know how different they can be from movie to movie (even from disney movie to movie).

Perhaps it's considered "fair game" in the critical world but to everyone else you're just being lazy.

Majician, so far you have given me loads of opinion but no argument. I actually work hard on every piece that goes public (for Slant or elsewhere). My work goes through a vetting process before it sees the light of day, something that cannot be said for comment boxes.