tiyusufaly Reviews

The Lion King (1994)

Hands down the most overrated Disney film, and one of the top ten most overrated films ever

[5/10 · 23 April 2003]

Best film ever? Disney at its best? Animation's crowning achievement? Well, I'm sorry to bust 99% of the world's bubble, but this is an EXCEPTIONALLY overrated film that in the past I would have thought good, but now think of as easily the worst animated "masterpiece" ever made by Disney.

It's plot is so weak, it can be summarized in at most one paragraph. Every moment is stretched as far as it can go, and more time is filled with irrevelant material, such as songs (which are some of the weakest ever created by Disney, but I'll get to that later) than with actual story. People claim this gives it an "epic" quality. The only way that this could possibly be true is through epic boredom.

The characters are shallow and unmemorable. Zazu, Timon and Pumbaa, and the Hyenas are comic relief that are sorely missing comicality (If you want a truly great example of Disney's comical relief, look at the Genie and Iago from Aladdin, or Kronk and Kuzco from The Emperor's New Groove). Simba is an unadmirable hero who I couldn't care less about, and his love with Nala is anything but inexistent. Scar is one of the weakest of the modern Disney villains, and does not make you hate him like Gaston or impress you with his evil so much that you like him like Jafar. The only characters I can pass off as even half-decent are Rafiki and Mufasa.

The music I will give merit to as being okay and somewhat enjoyable, but still, it isn't within a hundred miles of the attractive Arabian dances of Aladdin or the Broadway style melody of Beauty and the Beast or the fun Tropical tunes of The Little Mermaid. Only the Circle of Life (even I have to admit that the opening number is magnificent) is as good as any of the songs in the aforementioned films, and just barely. The rest are simply radio-friendly pop tunes.

However, one thing I will stop at no ends to give this film credit for is its animation. I will say right now that no other Disney film has backgrounds so richly detailed or characters so well designed. Indeed, the art quality is definitely the most astounding ever created Disney. But art quality alone cannot save this movie from all its other weaknesses, and besides, art quality is probably the least important of the four major aspects of an animated film (the other three being story, characters, and, in the case of Disney, music).

This movie does not deserve to be praised as if it is the best Disney can muster. The people who think this is true have probably never seen any truly great Disney films, or just can't realize one. Aladdin, for example, is in my opinion the greatest film, animated or otherwise, ever made (And I am a film buff, to those of you questioning my merits). Beauty and the Beast is in my top 10, and many others would probably crack my top 100. The Lion King, however, is depressingly mediocre, and deserves at most a 5. I give it a 2 only for the art quality.

Hercules (1997)

Below Musker and Clements standards, but still one of Disney's best.

[10/10 · 10 April 2003]

Ah, Ron Clements and John Musker...

Their 1989 flick The Little Mermaid saved Disney's motion picture franchise, and it was no surprise: the film boasted delightful characters, a feel-good story, gorgeous art, catchy tunes, and a heart to shame everything Disney had done since 1967.

Surely they couldn't top Mermaid, could they? Wrong, they could! And they did, in 1992, with Aladdin, a film that I still consider the greatest, most perfect motion picture ever created, animated or otherwise.

Musker's and Clements' next film for Disney didn't come till five years later, when they put a spin on Greek Mythology with this film, Hercules. While Hercules doesn't quite measure up to The Little Mermaid, and certainly won't challenge Aladdin, it is still my favorite of the modern Disney films save Aladdin, Mermaid, and Beauty and the Beast.

The film is one of the funniest and most energetic that Disney has ever done. Phil is a riot, but the real showstopper is Hades, who ranks as one of my top 5 Disney villains in history. There are gags, wisecracks, and all sorts of comical scenes. Arguably the cleverest script of Disney.

The story isn't the hottest of modern Disney, but that's okay because it's merely an excuse to put together one gigantic laughfest after another.

The music isn't too shabby. I like the score and the songs (especially The Gospel Truth) are catchy enough. It deserves more respect than what it's getting.

Unfortunately, since the film is on a caffiene spurge the first 2/3rds of the film, the character development that made Mermaid, Beauty, and Aladdin outstanding films is severely hindered. You really don't know too much about the personalities of the characters. Nevertheless, the characters are great fun.

Certainly not Disney's best, but definitely one of the best and maybe the most entertaining.

10/10

The Little Mermaid (1989)

The weakest of the big three, but that makes it Disney's 3rd best film ever.

[10/10 · 10 April 2003]

The big three that I am referring to are the three films that sparked the revival of Disney after a 20-year dry spell following Walt Disney's death: Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, and the very first of the Renaissance, The Little Mermaid. Mermaid is a wonderful film, with a great feel-good story, lovely artwork, fun characters, and some of the best music in Disney history.

Why then do I think it to be the weakest of the big three? There's nothing inherently wrong with it. What makes great Disney films great is that besides all their technical aspects (in which this film is perfect), they have a certain spunk, an unexplainable phenomena that makes you admire them all the more. This film definitely has that. In fact it has a lot of it. Unfortunately, as much great spunk as Mermaid has, Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast have even more.

Nevertheless, this is Disney's third best film ever. Also, I could not agree with nbachris2788 more...it is extremely irritating hearing feminists complain about Ariel. I know many girls who watched this film as children, and none of them have turned out the way these extreme feminists would like one to believe. My point being: Shut up.

A 10/10.

P.S. My New and Improved Top Ten Disney Film List (The list in my Aladdin review was ages ago, I've had time to make a more thorough analysis by now)

1)Aladdin 2)Beauty and the Beast 3)The Little Mermaid 4)The Jungle Book 5)The Sword in the Stone 6)The Fox and the Hound 7)Pinocchio 8)Robin Hood 9)Hercules 10)Dumbo

Sleeping Beauty (1959)

Eleanor Audley's performance saves Sleeping Beauty

[9/10 · 2 February 2003]

Without Maleficent, this film would be mediocre at best. But Maleficent's evil, horrifying personality elevates this film to a much higher degree, I believe only Jafar from Aladdin is a more evil Disney animated villain (others I might prefer for their comedy, complexity, etc., but in terms of pure wickedness, only Jafar can beat this witch). I consider the movie worthy of a 9/10 courtesy of Eleanor Audley.

Pocahontas (I) (1995)

Hey, it's not THAT bad....

[9/10 · 25 January 2003]

This film is by no means the best Disney film ever (that, in my opinion, is Aladdin). But it is certainly not the worst, either.

Ok, maybe it wasn't exactly historically accurate, but hey, it wasn't aiming to be so. Appreciate it for what it does have: Solid animation, great songs, and a beautiful story.

One other complaint that I feel is wrong is how Governor Ratcliffe is such a weak villain. That's wrong. He was a great villain. One person said that all he wanted to do was help Smith. That's wrong. Ratcliffe didn't go to fight the Indians to help Smith, he went to kill the Indians so he could get the gold. And personally, I don't believe he was the real big bad villain. The real villain was the concept of misunderstanding, just like the concept of temptation was the true villain in Pinocchio. Ratcliffe's no Jafar or Gaston or Scar, but he doesn't need to be.

This movie doesn't deserve to be bashed the way it is, and I'd give it a 9/10 (It's not Aladdin, but it's good enough).

Peter Pan (1953)

Wonderful

[10/10 · 25 January 2003]

Except for The Jungle Book (which I watched every day as a kid), Peter Pan was probably my favorite Disney film during my childhood. Why? Its in the story. I mean, who hasn't been a kid and wished they could fly or do something else magical at least once in a lifetime? Neverland is a place kids dream about, having adventure with Indians and mermaids and pirates. That is what makes this film so wonderful, that despite its simple plot, its less than complex characters, it is something that brings back memories. It is something that kids can relate to, and something that teenagers and adults can watch and think, "Ah, I remember when I used to wish I were like that." There's no real moral, just a simple story that is purely entertainment. And that is why I loved this and The Jungle Book so much when I was a young kid. Now older, my perspectives have changed, but not even Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, and Mulan, my three favorite Disney films, have such sentimental value to me as those two films do. Its just a shame that the sequel to Peter Pan was horrendous, I hope they don't do the same to The Jungle Book this February.

The Lion King (1994)

This isn't a message board, but...

[5/10 · 10 January 2003]

dp10:

I think when you made the comment about the TLK-Hamlet similarity, you were referring to my previous comment. I think you should know that I was not objecting to the fact that TLK adapted Hamlet, I was objecting to the fact that Disney did not properly recognize Shakespeare for giving them an adaptation (the same goes for Kimba the White Lion). They could adapt all they want, but cite it, or else its plagiarism...sucks doesn't it? If you plagiarize in college, you get expelled and earn a scar on your permanent record, but Disney did it with this and got nothing but praise...so anyways, that was my real complaint.

The Lion King (1994)

Good film but overrated

[5/10 · 20 December 2002]

I don't want to sound really negative, so let me begin by saying that this is a very good Disney film, undeniably. Probably the best thing about this film is that it has possibly the best animation of any Pre-Pixar Disney film to date. I would also place its score by Hans Zimmer and songs by Elton John/Tim Rice in the top 5 of Disney films.

However, this is OVERRATED (The only Disney animated one to be moreso than Beauty and the Beast, which is also a great film nevertheless). People call it the best Disney animated feature, but they should really look at some other of Disney's films. I would undoubtedly place this in the Top Ten, but don't immediately call it the best, because you'd be surprised what watching some other items from the Mouse Factory would do to your opinion. My biggest complaint is the story and how it is told. Does anyone besides myself realize that this is a Hamlet ripoff? First original Disney film indeed, Aladdin put much more story creativity into its adaptation of Arabian Nights. And this film can be a little slow at times. Aladdin is 90 minutes long, TLK 88, but sometimes I feel like TLK is 2 hours long, while Aladdin is maybe a 1/2 hour.

Don't let this misguide you, I love the film, and it rightfully earns a 10/10. But I do not think it deserves as much acclaim as it has received.

Beauty and the Beast (1991)

Excellent but...

[10/10 · 24 November 2002]

I most certainly agree that this is a wonderful film. Though, in my opinion, not the greatest of Disney animated features (that title goes to The Jungle Book), nor the most entertaining (that title goes to Aladdin), Beauty and the Beast still manages to have all the right parts to make a solid film.

I love the score, it is another gem from Alan Menken. Howard Ashman really does give a Beast his soul (it was the end credits if you didn't catch it) with his lyrics.

Also, the story is pretty good, with just the right amount of Disney magic in it. Its got great characters, including the house objects that add a lot of fun to the story (especially Lumiere, he's so cool, and his girlfriend feather duster is so gorgeous for an animated lady).

And the animation, well what can I say? It beats anything else that Disney has come up with, except for The Little Mermaid, The Lion King, and of course, Aladdin. Its not that the animation isn't as good as in the aforementioned movies, its just that it is not better.

However, there is one complaint that I have to make. It is not really about the movie, but about how one of its parts is treated. Though the Beast, Belle, and the castle objects are great characters, I feel that none of them deserve the title of most memorable performance in this film.

That title goes to Gaston, one of my all time favorite Disney villains. Gaston is so complex. One minute, he's just an arrogant, stuck-up bum that is reminisicent of someone we all know and find irritating. Yet, he manages to add a little humor in his attempts to woo Belle. Then, he turns into a real jerk, willing to lock Maurice up to get Belle. And finally, he becomes pure evil, ready to kill the Beast to win Belle. That mocking laugh and look he gives the Beast when he says, "What's the matter? Too kind and gentle to fight back?" is one of the greatest scenes in Disney villainry history. A rare few scenes rank up with the amount of evil emotion that this scene has, such as Scar giving Mufasa an incredibly horrifying look before murdering him, or Jafar laughing like an insane lunatic after banishing Aladdin, Abu, and Carpet to the Ends of the Earth. Great moments that illustrate just how dark a villain can be.

Richard White outdid himself with this role, and I remember his work more than Robby Benson, Paige O'Hara, David Ogden Stiers, Jerry Orbach, or Angela Lansbury. It upsets me that everyone focuses on the other roles in this film, but not so much on White's. When I read up about the great Disney villains of all time, often Gaston is not included. Though not the all-time greatest of the Disney villains, I feel he is greatly underrated and deserves more respect. Nevertheless, I love the film and give it a 10/10.

P.S. The Top Ten Animated Motion Picture Disney Villains/Villainesses of All Time

1) Jafar (Aladdin) 2) Prince John (Robin Hood) 3) Gaston (Beauty and the Beast) 4) The Wicked Queen (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs) 5) Maleficent (Sleeping Beauty) 6) Shere Khan (The Jungle Book) 7) Scar (The Lion King) 8) Captain Hook (Peter Pan) 9) Ursula (The Little Mermaid) 10) Lady Tremaine (Cinderella)

The Fox and the Hound (1981)

Hold on a second: This isn't even rated a 7 on the IMDB?!

[9/10 · 15 November 2002]

This has got to be one of the most underappreciated Disney classics yet. The Fox and the Hound is probably the most heartwarming Disney film yet. It mixes humor, action, and romance as well as any other Disney film, except for a select few such as Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, Mulan, or Tarzan. Nevertheless, I cannot believe this is rated only a 6.6. Several Disney films that are rated above this movie come nowhere near close to it in quality (i.e. Snow White, Bambi, Sleeping Beauty, etc...). I cannot comprehend how it is rated so low...9/10 (Ranks right up there with the likes of Robin Hood and Pinocchio).

Aladdin (1992)

Absolutely Amazing.....

[10/10 · 18 October 2002]

Better than even Beauty and the Beast. Though not as meaningful to me as The Jungle Book, Aladdin is still one of the greatest Disney films I've seen. Amazing music, beautiful scenery, and without competition the greatest Disney villain of all time, Jafar (He could kick Ursula's, Gaston's, or Scar's butts in a second).

Everyone talks of how funny the actors, especially Robin Williams, are. I agree, but people need to realize that Scott Weinger as Aladdin, Linda Larkin as Jasmine, and all the others were great as well. They are all just as good as Robin Williams, but in a different, more dramatic way.

As usual, the plot of beggar Aladdin and Princess Jasmine fighting for their love is incredible. I can understand how some people would complain that the same old love story is being shown over and over again, but remember, Aladdin was one of the first "modern" Disney movies that implemented the love story. Therefore, do not blame this film, blame Disney for creating the same thing year upon year after this pioneer came along (Though personally, I still enjoy some of the love story flicks). Whoever dislikes this film needs a brain scan done on them.

P.S. My Top Ten Animated Disney Movies of all time:

1)The Jungle Book 2)Aladdin 3)Beauty and the Beast 4)Peter Pan 5)Mulan 6)Tarzan 7)The Lion King 8)Pinocchio 9)Robin Hood 10)The Little Mermaid

The Jungle Book (1967)

The Best Disney Film Ever!

[10/10 · 21 September 2002]

When I was a little boy growing up in St. Louis, I loved the Jungle Book. I used to watch it every day. You hear that? EVERY SINGLE DAY!!! I have seen nearly every Disney film, and not one of them has beaten out Uncle Walt's last supervised animated motion picture. The only one that I believe comes close is Aladdin (And no, I haven't forgotten about The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King). The musical score is probably the best ever. The Bare Necessities, I Wanna Be Like You, Trust In Me, I could go on and on. I wish Disney would make films like they did in 1967 rather than today (I mean Atlantis: The Lost Empire? Please!!!). In conclusion, this is by far the best Disney film ever made, period! 1000000000000000000/10

Fargo (1996)

How this was nominated for 7 Academy Awards I will never know

[3/10 · 2 August 2002]

God, I hated this film. It was dull, dull, dull! It should be #73 in the BOTTOM 100, not the Top 250. The fact that this won Best Screenplay at the 1996 Academy Awards makes me want to vomit! I know elementary school kids who could write a better plot. And let me tell you something. My parents hated the film. My aunts and uncles hated the film. My friends hated the film. So how the heck does this receive such a high rating?

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Exemplary!

[10/10 · 29 July 2002]

"The Shawshank Redemption", like "Lord of the Rings", is an exemplary film. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The actors all do a fine job, from Morgan Freeman to Tim Robbins. The plot is outstanding, probably because it used one of Stephen King's best novels as a screenwrite. And the setting, well what can you say? Shows prison from a whole new standpoint. As of now, this film is tied with "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" for the best movie I have ever had the pleasure of viewing.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

It is unbelievable how many negative comments this film is getting

[10/10 · 26 July 2002]

I loved this movie. It was creative, and it kept my attention the whole 2.5 hours. For those of you who compare it to the book, and thus hate it, lighten up! Forget the book. You are watching a movie, and just try to enjoy that.

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

Great film, but Lord of the Rings was better

[9/10 · 22 July 2002]

First of all, I would like to say that I really enjoyed this movie. Russell Crowe's acting was top-notch, and Jennifer Connelly wasn't bad either.

However, this movie cannot compare to Lord of the Rings. For further details on why, read my IMDb comment for that film. That is why I still believe the Best Picture Oscar should have gone to LOTR. The Best Director Award is even more baffling. It is obvious that ABM is not very difficult to create in comparison to LOTR. Anyone in their right mind would know Peter Jackson deserved the award over Ron Howard.

Overall, ABM is still an amazing movie. Most years, it would be worthy of the awards it obtained. But in the year that LOTR came out, ABM should not have stood a chance.

Final Grade: 9/10

Spider-Man (2002)

Very Good

[10/10 · 18 June 2002]

This film was very well done after all the hype about it. It had neat special effects and a cool storyline. Many people compare it with Star Wars: Episode II. When asked which one is better, I cannot decide. They are both beautifully done and have great plots. I will be anticipating the sequel to Spider-Man.

10/10

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

The Greatest Film Ever Made!

[10/10 · 4 May 2002]

Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring exemplifies a perfect film. It's has an excellent setting (Middle Earth), which is boosted to an exemplary setting because of it's outstanding detail. Peter Jackson did an outstanding job, and made me feel as if I was in Middle Earth myself. The characters are also outstanding. From Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood), to Arwen, princess of Rivendell (Liv Tyler), they all exhibit an amazing amount of strength and courage. Such exhibition is shown when Gandalf the Grey bravely tries to destroy the great Orc. Though he dies in the process, he leaves behind a soul filled with astounding bravery. The plot of the film is also fantastic. This is due to the fact that the producers chose to screenwrite arguably J.R.R Tolkien's greatest work. I cannot believe it took someone so long to decide to create a film out of this masterpiece of literature. The adaptation exemplified what the book was about. It covered most of the details, from the shire in Hobbiton, all the way to the caves of Mount Doom. The acting is superb! Elijah Wood, Sir Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen, and the rest all play their roles beautifully. Peter Jackson did a fine job! If only the Academy Idiots could see what I see... Fellowship of the Ring deserved Best Picture a googol (1 with a hundred zeros) times more than A Beautiful Mind. Peter Jackson also deserved Best Director a googol times more than Ron Howard. But hey, what can you expect? The Academy is one of the most inaccurate Award groups that there is. Examples: Shawshank Redemption (#2 on the IMDB) AND Pulp Fiction (#14) lost to Forrest Gump (#144); LA Confidential (#38) AND Good Will Hunting (#183) lost to Titanic; Saving Private Ryan (#36) lost to Shakespeare in Love (#246); Goodfellas (#20) lost to Dances With Wolves; Raiders of the Lost Ark (#14) lost to Chariots of Fire, and so on and so forth. So as you can clearly see, if something comes out of the Academy, it's about as valuable as..........well how about that? I can't find anything less valuable than an Academy Award. An Academy Award should be voted for by the people, just like American Democracy. We've been doing that for over 200 years with American Presidents, and we've very rarely gone wrong. So, I hope that happens sometime soon. Anyways, in conclusion, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings is, without a doubt, the greatest film ever made!