Treasure Planet Review
by Tim Wick
I wonder what it is with Disney animated features these days that makes the mouse incapable of recognizing the true quality films. Case in point, Lilo & Stitch was a truly enjoyable romp that made money despite extremely poor marketing. The Emperor's New Groove was a terrific film that made very little money because the marketing was virtually nonexistent (if you relly want me to rant, ask me about the complete lack of New Groove merchandise at Walt Disney World). Conversely, Disney has been marketing the hell out of last year's Atlantis and the newly released Treasure Planet.
So why is it that Disney keeps overmarketing it's lesser works and under marketing the stuff that people should really want to see?
Now let me make clear that this lead in question is not meant to suggest I didn't like Treasure Planet because I liked it qite a bit. I certainly think it's better than Atlantis I just don't understand why this is the film that has been Disney's marquis offering of the year.
One thing that this film undeniably has in it's favor is the terrific animation. The movie works to blend traditional and computer animation in a way similar to Titan A.E. but is far more successful. I suppose that good animation is the least we should expect from Disney but if an animated film can't even get that part right - it's not really worth it to talk about anything else.
But if good animation is a common Disney trademark, so is much of the film. We have a young man who is coming of age and goes on an adventure for some reason but ends up finding himself in the process. I like this particular story line but in order for me to really love a film, there needs to be something new.
What ends up being new is taking something old (Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island) and setting it in space.
Now I would be dishonest if I said I didn't like this particular twist on the story. Heck, I loved it. The idea of tall ships sailing through space and weathering storms caused by super novas just made me happy. I loved it completely. When the movie was dealing with the whole concept of sailing ships in space, it was gauranteeing that I would at least like the movie.
Hey, we all have our weaknesses.
One must, of course, accept that the laws of physics have undergone severe adjustment to make this particular innovation possible but anyone unwilling to make such a step never should have entered the theatre.
So conceptually I was right there, ready to love the movie. Then Disney threw in the regular cast of characters and made something that could have been truly terrific into something that was a safe bet. Specifically, I refer to the Martin Short voiced robot, B.E.N.
B.E.N. has a counterpart in just about every modern Disney film and they are all better. He is the Genie, Mushu, Timon, Gargoyle character. I note that I liked most of the characters I mentioned and they were, for the most part, appropriate to the stories they were in. That character has become a stock character in Disney films and it is a character that does not fit every film. In this case, B.E.N. is out of place and annoying.
Not coincidentally, it was similar characters that were the most marked failure in Atlantis. The problem, as near as I can tell, is that Disney is making adult stories but still wants to sell them to children. As a result, they add characters like the Mole and B.E.N. to more mature films as a way to bridge the gap between the thematic content of the movie and the audience they are trying to reach.
Oddly, they are completely mistaken. Take my three year old son. He went to the movie twice in two days - once with his mother and once with me. The film is about 90 minutes long and he can typically sit still for about 60 minutes. This will usually make the last 30 minutes of any film something of an adventure for his parents.
He shifted a little during both movies but his eyes remained fixed on the screen. Now given that B.E.N. does not appear until late in the film, it can be assumed that my son was not intently watching the screen in anticipation of his arrival.
The movie is compelling and enjoyable to kids at least as young as three without the addition of "cute" and "funny" characters. The story stands on it's own and can appeal to the younger generation. I refer to Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets as a film that is most certainly a movie for kids but not a movie that looks for opportunities to populate itself with "kid friendly" characters.
Now I'm ranting and making it seem like I would not recommend this movie. On the basis of my son's enjoyment alone, I would have to say it is worth watching. I simply would like to see Disney learn that there is more than one way to make an animated feature. One would think that Pixar had taught them that much already.
Treasure Planet is not a failure. My issues stem from the fact that it lacks the amibition required to be anything more than the most basic of good films. Disney spent the early part of the 1990's making animated features viable again. They, more than anyone, are responsible for the success of Pixar and the proliferation of truly great films like The Iron Giant and Chicken Run.
It is time for Disney to raise the bar again. They are no longer the leader of the pack but the continue to behave as if they were.
|
