In the beginning (of movie animation that is), there was a guy by the name of Disney who created a short piece of film (after cutting his teeth on more than seventy other short films) about a rodent piloting a steamboat. Crudely drawn and certainly not as cuddly as kids are used to him today, the little fella named Mickey heralded in a new form of big screen entertainment. Later color was added and the many films that followed become more lavish and full-length. The Disney studio became synonymous with animated features and would dominate that genre for decades. As time passed by, however, they stopped making those lavish productions, and while they continued to produce animated features, they didn't look as good or do as well financially as their forbearers.
Along the way other studios and animators tried their hand at animated features. Ralph Bakshi did an infamous adult cartoon, "Fritz the Cat," as well as tamer fare such as "Wizards." Don Bluth, a former Disney animator ("Pete's Dragon," "Robin Hood"), left the studios in the late 1970's to make his own pictures and created films such as "The Secret of NIMH," "The Land Before Time," and "All Dogs Go To Heaven" -- all decent pictures, but not up to the old animation standards.
Then in 1989 along came "The Little Mermaid" and suddenly animation was hot again. It was followed by "Beauty & the Beast" that not only ushered in new standards for the genre, but was also nominated for Best Picture of the year. Then came "The Lion King" that not only upped the animation ante, but also broke box office records and is still one of the highest grossing pictures of all time. Suddenly everyone wanted to make such films, and although Disney's subsequent efforts have continued to make less and less money, the fever is still hot.
All of which brings us to "Anastasia," 20th Century Fox's first high-dollar, big screen attempt to steal some of Disney's thunder. Helmed by none other than Don Bluth, this was the first big legitimate contender Disney has faced. The question is how does "Anastasia" compare to the latest and greatest of Disney's efforts. The answer is that this film raises the bar for animation standards as it contains some of the most elaborately drawn (albeit sometimes computer enhanced) sequences ever seen in an animated film.
What makes this film stand out is the complexity of many of its scenes. Their depth is often utterly amazing, with so many layers of animated activity occurring on screen that it takes on a somewhat realistic feel. Some of that also comes from making parts of the scenes out of focus, and while this film isn't the first to use such material, it certainly does it the best.
Little touches enhance the production, such as the most realistic -- and again dimensional -- snowfall seen yet. One of the most amazing bits, that initially makes one think it's a flaw, involves what turns out to be sunlight and shade alternately striking the characters under a tree. The computer animation is outstanding and provides for some wonderfully detailed backgrounds as well as a quite realistic train sequence.
The human movements are occasionally so good that they nearly appear to have been rotoscoped (where the filmed image of a real person is used as an outline to draw an animated character). However, when superimposed on the computer generated backgrounds they suffer from what appears to be a lack of gravity. Their feet never quite look like their contacting the floor, but in the traditionally drawn backgrounds, this problem fortunately disappears.
Regarding the story, the writers were careful in sticking with a Disney tradition where the main character is motherless, and they also included the now obligatory humorously cute, talking animal. There are some plot problems that kids won't catch, but may trouble adults. Obviously there's the film's take on the real life story of the Russian revolution and the later appearance of Anastasia, who may or may not have been an imposter. The film's interpretation of historical events -- like many other movies -- is loosely based and older kids should be told that it wasn't Rasputin's magical spell that crumbled the Czar's regime.
The plot also has a few inexplicable, but key elements. It's never fully or convincingly explained why Anya can't remember her childhood (she was eight-years-old, after all, when the revolution took place), beyond what we assume was an amnesia inducing fall at a train station. Likewise, it seems odd that Rasputin would assume that Anastasia died during the revolution when his last glimpse of her was as he slid underwater to his death. With the ability to mystically see other places, one would expect that he would earlier have known that both Anastasia and the Empress Marie were still alive (and he inexplicably never goes after the grandmother despite his pledge to kill off the entire family). Those are small concerns, but they do somewhat distract from the overall experience.
On the musical side, the selection of talent to voice the characters is quite good and realistically believable, and their substitute singing voices (all but Kelsey Grammar who did his own) are not only superb, but also sound enough like the leads to make the talking to singing transition seamless. The musical numbers (by Lynn Ahrens and Stephen Flaherty) are very similar to what you'd hear on Broadway (which isn't a surprise since those two are also behind the numbers in "Ragtime"). Much more akin to what you'd hear in "Les Miserables" than "Aladdin" or "The Lion King," the scores and songs are very entertaining for adults, but many kids might find them boring.
That's where this film surprisingly falls short. For not only are there no real "fun" songs for kids (as in the Disney films), the overall scope of the movie seems more geared for parents than for their Disney weaned offspring. That's not to say that the subject matter isn't suitable for younger viewers. It's just that many younger kids might get bored with this production. Little girls who are into princess stories will probably be able to sit through it with no problem, but many young boys at our screening were rather restless.
Part of that lies with the fact that the film makers opted not to go with many cute, talking animals -- there's just one here -- and thus there's not as much of that attraction for the kids. Granted, the simple fact that this is a very colorful animated film will hold their attention for a while, but your kids may get restless after some time. That, in addition to the lack of sing-along songs for the kids, and the film definitely feels aimed more for the adults than the youngsters.
Of course one shouldn't fault a film for that. Just because it's animated and rated G doesn't mean it has to forgo the adult viewer -- or even be aimed at kids at all. Unlike Disney's "Beauty & The Beast (which is still their best overall effort to date), however, this film doesn't make that wonderful balance of equally entertaining all age groups. Nevertheless, by featuring Broadway-like songs and some of the best animation ever seen on the screen, this 1997 release was and still is an impressive freshman effort in the animation field.
As far the DVD itself, both the picture and aural elements are topnotch, and it contains enough supplemental materials - including a decent "making of" featurette and some fun, interactive jigsaw puzzles for the kids - to make this a "must have" DVD for fans of the film.
![[Logo]](/images/screenit_logo2.jpg){kind=logo}
