A good old cartoon with a good drawing, funny in places, scary in places. Its main advantage is that there is no insidious villain, and all the characters are essentially good, just appeared on opposite sides of the barricades. I can't think of a second cartoon with a similar arrangement taken so long ago. A good picture and the absence
more
A good old cartoon with a good drawing, funny in places, scary in places. Its main advantage is that there is no insidious villain, and all the characters are essentially good, just appeared on opposite sides of the barricades. I can't think of a second cartoon with a similar arrangement taken so long ago. A good picture and the absence of modern hypocrisy "children can not show this, can not show it" - all these are undoubted advantages. But there are pluses. An inescapable disadvantage has always considered and will consider the presence of any song inserts - ridiculous, unjustified plot, completely destroying all the action and the viewer's faith in him. Characters live, communicate, suffer something of their own and suddenly on an even place begin to crack off choreographic numbers, pick up a leg ... Ever since I was a kid, I couldn't watch it without putting my hand to my face. Garbage. Sneak right away. In the song of the old woman sounded rhyme "Again - love". Twice... Contract... If you don't know what's wrong with that, I'll explain. You can never rhyme the word love. Never. Because there are essentially only 3 words that rhyme with it, which makes it a bayan rhyme to the 10th degree. Anyone who understands poetry will instantly reject a poem with such a rhyme as mediocrity and tastelessness. From this rhyme warn philologists in the 1st year, but good students learn about this common mistake even earlier. And all of a sudden I hear it in the official dubbing of a Disney cartoon... Guys, it's bottom. Traditionally, any American cartoon should have a pair of idiot characters. Here it is a woodpecker and a sparrow that fly south in the middle of winter under snowfall (normal birds fly away in early autumn). I don’t know if there’s ever been a survey of viewers, whether they really like idiot characters. I don't. They do absolutely nothing on the plot, they interfere, they are often executed in a worse drawing than the rest of the cartoon. They're not even funny! That's when Chief went off with the barrel -- that was funny, and those two weren't. Personally, I only know one example where two idiots really had a plot meaning in their cartoon: Timon and Pumba. Not even close to this example. About Chief. The scene with the train showed him dead. He was struck by a train, fell from a great height, wearily lowered his face into the water, and his eyes closed, Copper promised revenge for him. It's beautiful, strong, dramatic. And after 5 minutes, it turns out that Chief is not dead, and his paw is just broken! And this completely eliminates all the drama, all the motivation to take revenge and then hunt in the reserve, cancels all the development of the characters. The dog is alive, the fox is banished, so rejoice. The whole action of the final scenes for this reason is as emotional as it is meaningless. Reading in Wikipedia, confirmed his guess: at the beginning it was planned that he would die, but the cartoon was created for 4 years, during this time the team changed, and one of the directors decided not to bring darkness to the children. It's very stupid, the kids survived Bambi and Dumbo and the Lion King where there was death. In my opinion, it was at this point that the entire world animation transitioned from an ancient, serious, dramatic, moderately gloomy to a modern one. Intimidated, liberal, protecting children from every sneeze, dare not in any case talk to children about serious. Right there, in the middle of one particular cartoon, there was this line between the two scenes next to it.
|