The Last Wish

 2023 is almost over and, so, I've decided to wrap up this year of blogging by sharing my opinions on a movie I saw fairly recently. 

Puss in Boots 2: The Last Wish, is an animated feature from DreamWorks that came out last year. While I'm not a huge fan of DreamWorks (though they have made some movies that I do like), the positive buzz surrounding this move, piqued my interest. Having seen it, I was not disappointed.

I should point out that I have not seen the original Puss in Boots movie, that came out way back in 2011. Prior to The Last Wish, I only knew DreamWorks' (and Antonio Banderas') take on the character from his debut appearance in Shrek 2. That said, as a sequel, Puss in Boots 2 stands perfectly well on its own, so watching its predecessor is not really necessary.

Visually, the movie definitely owes a debt to 2018's Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. However, while I enjoyed Spider-Verse, between it and The Last Wish, I consider the latter to be the better film. A major reason for this being that I found Puss' existential crisis, his struggle with coming to terms with his mortality, to be more interesting than Miles' rather standard superhero origin story. Other reasons include a more engaging cast of characters and the fact that adventure stories of this type simply appeal to me more than superhero shenanigans. 

Speaking of the characters, I liked our trio of protagonists, including Perrito (there's something you don't see every day; a comic-relief character who is actually funny. Imagine that). Character-wise, the best thing about this movie though, are its villains. 

Yes, I said villains, as in plural. Unlike most animated films, Puss in Boots 2 feature not just one main villain and a group of henchmen, but a minor gallery of rogues. There are three different villain factions in this movie, each one representing a different type of antagonist for Puss & Co to contend with in their quest for the wishing star.

First up is are Goldilocks and the three bears, here portrayed as a family of cockney-accented criminals. Goldie and the bears are the movie's sympathetic villains. Actually, an argument could be made that they aren't villains, so much as antagonistic anti-heroes. Aside from stuffing an old lady in a piano and kidnapping a dog (the aforementioned Perrito), they don't do anything outright bad. Sure, they are criminals, but so are Puss and Kitty. In fact, the movie could (and in some ways it is),  just as well have been about these guys, as it is about Team Friendship.

Next, we have 'Big' Jack Horner, who is the complete opposite. A villain of the old school, Jack is fully aware that he's an irredeemable monster and revels in it, even mocking the one character who tried to reach out to and find any semblance of goodness in this pie-making crime lord. What Jack lacks in nuance, he more than makes up for in sheer entertainment value.

But the greatest threat that Puss has to face is neither of these two, but Death itself, in the shape of a wolf. Relentlessly stalking our feline protagonist, his appearances heralded by a sinister whistling tune, Death is easily the most menacing villain I've seen in an animated film since Rango's Rattlesnake Jake and rounds out the movie's rogues-gallery, perfectly.

Entertaining and genuinely poignant, Puss in Boots 2: The Last Wish definitely ranks among the best DreamWorks films that I've seen and comes highly recommended.

That's it for me. Have a Happy New Year, Dear Reader and I'll see you in 2024. 

Back to Prydain

 When I was a boy, one of my favorite authors was the American Lloyd Alexander (1924-2007). I read all the books by him that I could find at the local library, including, naturally, what must be his most famous work: The Chronicles of Prydain.

For those not in the know, The Chronicles of Prydain are a series of five YA (I'm not sure the term existed back then, but that's what they are) fantasy books inspired by Welsh mythology. They chronicle the various adventures of Taran, assistant pig-keeper of Caer Dallben and his companions in the land of Prydain.

Seeing as how it had been almost twenty-five years since I last read these books, I figured that it was high time that I revisited them, this time in their original language (last time, I read them in Swedish). 

I finished the first two books in the series (The Book of Three and The Black Cauldron) recently and was gratified to find that they've held up really well. No, they are not masterpieces of the fantasy genre, but, I wasn't really expecting them to be. They are, however, enjoyable reads, with engaging and likable (except when they aren't meant to be) characters. My only real complaint is that some of the running gags, such as the strings on Fflewddur's harp snapping whenever he tells a lie, or exaggerates his accomplishments gets old fairly quickly. 

I suppose I should write something about the Disney film. Frankly, the movie is no substitute for the books, being one of Disney's weaker efforts. I know that the movie has its fans (is there any movie that doesn't have at least one person who genuine loves it?) and that's fine, but I'm not really one of them (though I will admit that its version of the Horned King is a memorable - if not top-tier- Disney villain).

The Books are a different matter though. I'm glad that I returned to Prydain and will continue journeying with Taran, Eilonwy and the other denizens of this country for a while longer. From what I remember, the last two books: Taran Wanderer and The High King, were the best ones, so I'm looking forward to revisiting them in particular.

In a Fix, In a Bind, Call on Us Anytime

 Every once in a while, I like to go back and revisit media that I have not watched/read since childhood, in order to see if they hold up. Most recently, I did this with two of Disney's animated features: The Rescuers (1977) and its sequel, The Rescuers Down Under (1990).

Now, as a young'un, I watched these movies in the reverse order from when they were originally released (as a matter of fact, The Rescuers Down Under is one of the earliest films I can recall watching) and so, for years, my opinion was that the sequel was the better movie. As an adult, this is no longer the case.

Credit where credit is due, there are certain aspects in which Down Under outdoes its predecessor: For one, It's undeniably a much better-looking film,(though the art-style of the original The Rescuers is not without its charm), with some truly impressive flying-scenes  and as far as child-characters go, Down Under's Cody is more palatable than The Rescuer's Penny. I also kind of liked Jake, the kangaroo rat and appreciated that the writers didn't go the obvious route of making him into a complete douchebag. 

As for each film's respective main villain; Madame Medusa and Percival C. MacLeach? I'd say they're about equal in my eyes. Neither is among my favorite villains (or even favorite Disney-villains), but they both play their roles well and are entertainingly loathsome (though MacLeach has the better animal sidekick; Joanna the Goanna is easily the best character introduced in the sequel and completely steals the film).

So, why do I prefer The Rescuers to its sequel? Well, one major reason why is that, although both movies are the same length,  the original makes much better use of its runtime, with every scene advancing the plot in some way. Meanwhile, Down Under gives way too much attention to the antics of bumbling comic relief characters, who either should have had their screen-time reduced (Wilbur), or be cut from the movie altogether (Frank). 

Another reason is that, despite the movie being called The Rescuers Down Under, there isn't really that much of the two titular characters in it. Bernard and Bianca does not appear until almost half an hour into the movie (and keep in mind that we're talking about a film that runs to a grand total of 77 minutes) and throughout the film, they feel oddly inconsequential. Though at least, Bernard actually gets to do things, unlike his colleague/love-interest. Poor Bianca is just completely wasted in the sequel. It's a shame, because she was a great character in the first movie, easily the most charismatic and engaging female lead to come out of Disney up until that point and would remain so, until the Renaissance Era.

Despite what I wrote above, I must make it clear that I don't think The Rescuers Down Under is a bad movie. Certainly, I've seen far worse animated films, including worse from Disney (if you put a gun to my head and forced me to chose between watching The Rescuers Down Under or Home on the Range, I'd pick the former without any hesitation). I simply do not agree with those who think that its an underrated classic, or superior to its predecessor.

And that includes my younger self.