When searching to find hidden obscurities in the media of film and animation, one will often be surprised at the wide variety. Such is the case with Twice Upon a Time, a strange yet fascinating feature from indie animator/filmmaker John Korty from the early 80s that failed financially on its original release, but soon gained a noticeable cult following for its trippy visuals and hysterical improv. What's funny is that many people who worked on this film would go on to have huge careers, like sequence director Henry Selick, special effects craftsman David Fincher, artist Harley Jessup and many more. But how does it hold up now in the modern age if it's been lost for so long?
The film is set in the dreamlike worlds of Frivoli and Din, where evil creatures attempt to stop time by taking the spring from the all-powerful Cosmic Clock, so it's up to two unlikely heroes, a magical animal named Ralph and a pantomime chap named Mumford, to retrieve the spring once and for all. Simple enough plot line, yet the film has multiple scenarios going on at the same time. In addition to the main arch of Ralph and Mum having to retrieve the clock spring, the film also showcases the villain Synonamess Botch doing evil things to characters like the aspiring actress Flora Fauna and her uncle Greensleeves, Flora having to deal with the prespiring hero Rod Rescueman, a sardonic Fairy Godmother coming in and a whole bunch of weird stuff. What should be a simple enough story to follow feels surprisingly overwhelming, not helped that the dialogue is mostly improv, so the characters feel too outspoken for their own good. Although, that does lead to some really funny word play, so the humor of the feature can give out some laughs; it's just a shame it couldn't salvage the paper thin plot.
However, what does at least save the feature from being forgettable is the impressive and even innovative usage of stop-motion animation. Known as Lumage, it was essentially cut-out animation that was made from prefabricated cut-out plastic pieces and moved around on a light table. With that said, the movie looks stunning, as the land of Din looks so gritty and macabre that it really does look like the stuff of nightmares, and the land of Frivoli appropriately resembles a dreamland filled with colorful candy and happy rainbow animals. As for the character animation, while pretty choppy in terms of motion, the fast paced energy and snappy movements add in to the charm of the movie's surreal content. Plus, the filmmakers cleverly mixed in live-action footage and still photography for the real world that gives the feature a very grand scope, even if in black & white. The special effects are another added delight, with very frantic lifework done to make the animation come off as disturbingly chaotic. The only criticism towards the visuals is that the editing can be a little too choppy to the point of making the flow a little quick for its own good.
Now the last thing to mention is the movie's major white elephant, which is that there are two specific versions of it: the producer's cut (released theatrically) and the director's cut. Although John Korty wanted the movie to be aimed at children, producer Bill Couturie secretly added in profane dialogue to give the film a bit more of an edge, specifically with Synonamess Botch's voice actor Marshall Efron letting loose on the raunchiness. In fact, Korty never realized this had happened until the film's premiere, which made him upset, down to threatening HBO over legal actions for playing that version. To this day, both the edgy PG cut and the Korty-approved cut remain together. Having seen the edgy version, I will admit that it does give somewhat of a humorous twist on what seems like a kid friendly venture, but sometimes the swears can feel too distracting. It doesn't help that there are innuendos which feel out of place for what this movie is going for. Whichever version of this movie you prefer, the movie doesn't really change that much depending on either cut, so you could either take the profanity or leave it be.
Although lacking in a cohesive narrative structure, Twice Upon a Time is still an intriguing roller coaster of experimental animation, fun characters, hit or miss improv and even some charming voice acting. If you're yet to give this film a watch, I definitely recommend giving it a chance just to see how far the filmmakers went with these bizarre concepts and their advantages of technology. The truth is a film like this is rarely ever seen nowadays, not necessarily because of the foul language, but mainly for the surreal and out there images once can only come up in their dreams. Then again, stuff like that only happens twice...upon a time.
The film is set in the dreamlike worlds of Frivoli and Din, where evil creatures attempt to stop time by taking the spring from the all-powerful Cosmic Clock, so it's up to two unlikely heroes, a magical animal named Ralph and a pantomime chap named Mumford, to retrieve the spring once and for all. Simple enough plot line, yet the film has multiple scenarios going on at the same time. In addition to the main arch of Ralph and Mum having to retrieve the clock spring, the film also showcases the villain Synonamess Botch doing evil things to characters like the aspiring actress Flora Fauna and her uncle Greensleeves, Flora having to deal with the prespiring hero Rod Rescueman, a sardonic Fairy Godmother coming in and a whole bunch of weird stuff. What should be a simple enough story to follow feels surprisingly overwhelming, not helped that the dialogue is mostly improv, so the characters feel too outspoken for their own good. Although, that does lead to some really funny word play, so the humor of the feature can give out some laughs; it's just a shame it couldn't salvage the paper thin plot.
However, what does at least save the feature from being forgettable is the impressive and even innovative usage of stop-motion animation. Known as Lumage, it was essentially cut-out animation that was made from prefabricated cut-out plastic pieces and moved around on a light table. With that said, the movie looks stunning, as the land of Din looks so gritty and macabre that it really does look like the stuff of nightmares, and the land of Frivoli appropriately resembles a dreamland filled with colorful candy and happy rainbow animals. As for the character animation, while pretty choppy in terms of motion, the fast paced energy and snappy movements add in to the charm of the movie's surreal content. Plus, the filmmakers cleverly mixed in live-action footage and still photography for the real world that gives the feature a very grand scope, even if in black & white. The special effects are another added delight, with very frantic lifework done to make the animation come off as disturbingly chaotic. The only criticism towards the visuals is that the editing can be a little too choppy to the point of making the flow a little quick for its own good.
Now the last thing to mention is the movie's major white elephant, which is that there are two specific versions of it: the producer's cut (released theatrically) and the director's cut. Although John Korty wanted the movie to be aimed at children, producer Bill Couturie secretly added in profane dialogue to give the film a bit more of an edge, specifically with Synonamess Botch's voice actor Marshall Efron letting loose on the raunchiness. In fact, Korty never realized this had happened until the film's premiere, which made him upset, down to threatening HBO over legal actions for playing that version. To this day, both the edgy PG cut and the Korty-approved cut remain together. Having seen the edgy version, I will admit that it does give somewhat of a humorous twist on what seems like a kid friendly venture, but sometimes the swears can feel too distracting. It doesn't help that there are innuendos which feel out of place for what this movie is going for. Whichever version of this movie you prefer, the movie doesn't really change that much depending on either cut, so you could either take the profanity or leave it be.
Although lacking in a cohesive narrative structure, Twice Upon a Time is still an intriguing roller coaster of experimental animation, fun characters, hit or miss improv and even some charming voice acting. If you're yet to give this film a watch, I definitely recommend giving it a chance just to see how far the filmmakers went with these bizarre concepts and their advantages of technology. The truth is a film like this is rarely ever seen nowadays, not necessarily because of the foul language, but mainly for the surreal and out there images once can only come up in their dreams. Then again, stuff like that only happens twice...upon a time.