Animation in Obscurity: Quest For Camelot

This animated film was made by Warner Brothers Animation back in 1998, around the time the Disney Renaissance was coming to an end which had movies like Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King and The Little Mermaid. It would be the second film for Gary Oldman that year, with Lost in Space being the second one where he played another obvious bad guy. Now, Warner Brothers were  considered around the time to be making Disney knock-offs which proved to be box office bombs like Ferngully or Cats Don't Dance. It's important to point out production only took a year and it proved to be difficult for the animators and started to give up on the movie, even have the head layout department being laid off and some of the animators admitted the problems were from working around the clock and that trying to copy Disney was a bad idea. Anyway, can the magic of Excalibur show Disney and King Arthur in another animation studio can work together, or were the animators right and this shows the flaws of copying Disney? Let's find out!

Story: The plot is a complete mess from the very start. It's about a woman named Kayley, who dreams of becoming a knight like her deceased father and goes off on an adventure to save Camelot with a blind hermit named Garrett and a two headed dragon, after the sword Excalibur is stolen by Ruber, a rebel knight of the round table who wants to take over the kingdom just because he's evil. Although it's loosely based on a spin off book to the King Arthur legend called The King's Damosel, clearly Warner Brothers took some 'inspiration' from the films of the Disney Renaissance when writing it! I just want to point out that this movie is completely different from the book and if you're expecting something like Disney's The Sword in the Stone for an animated King Arthur movie, that is not what you're going to get with this movie! It utilises every Disney cliche possible at the time including a Disney Princess-esque character wanting more despite society not letting her, the snarky love interest who doesn't get along with her at first but then start to fall in love, the 'funny' though really annoying animal sidekicks, the adventure where they have to find the deus ex machina which will of course show good wins over evil and the compulsory musical numbers! It's predictable and actually really boring because you immediately know what's going to happen. But the biggest problem I have with the story is the lack of logic. Nothing is explained in the movie because they couldn't be bothered to explain the concept of Camelot or what the characters do because they don't have as much screen time as they should. It's just as bad as having little exposition rather than too much of it, Warner Brothers!

Animation: if there's something that Warner Brothers did right, it's how they handled the animation. Although the character designs can be argued to be taken from Disney, in particular Kayley for Belle, they still manage to have a distinct style which can be recognisable. The character animation is also really well done, going for a more realistic approach, even if it's not as fluid as other 2D animated films like Disney or Don Bluth. It's more the non human characters which impressed me in terms of character animation, in particular the different magical plants in the forest Garret lives in and the weapon/rock minions Ruber creates. The backgrounds of Camelot look a bit generic, but they still manage to make it look grand with the giant landscapes surrounding it. What impressed me with the background animation was the forest, being very colourful and creative. If I had one criticism, it would be how they handle the computer animation on the Rock Biter rip off. It sticks out like a sore thumb and it's not very well integrated with the 2D environment. However, I have seen worse versions of this, but it still bothers me. Also, at time it would range from a bit cheap in scenes which aren't that important and there doesn't seem to be much lighting in some parts, making the movie look completely flat. The animation may not be as good as other Warner Brothers animated films like The Iron Giant, but it still manages to have a distinct style in itself.

The main character Kayley, voiced by Jessalyn Gilsig (Terri from Glee) is just boring! They make her out to be an independent brave heroine just because of her dream to become a knight like her father, when in reality, she's constantly rescued and does nothing! Garrett, a blind hermit voiced by Cary Elwes, is the only developed and remotely likeable character in the movie, but unfortunately, he's nothing new. Ruber is just awful as a villain, and I feel sorry for Gary Oldman with the clumsy dialogue he's given and how nonsensical and over the top he is! Oh yeah, and he has no motives for being evil whatsoever, he's just evil for being evil and wants to take over Camelot. But at least he's not as bad as Cornwall and Devon, voiced by Don Rickles and Eric Idle, who annoyed the hell out of me! They're the compulsory comedy relief sidekicks like the Genie from Aladdin, except not funny! Then there's the chicken axe...yeah! Pointless, one dimensional and not funny! The big guy himself, King Arthur, voiced by Pierce Brosnan, is entirely useless besides the movie having Camelot in the title and same goes for Merlin! It shows they could make great characters if they wanted to, but they didn't put enough effort in because of the fact they want to try and copy Disney.

Songs: Yeah, of course this is an animated musical if they try to rip off every Disney cliche! Some I actually liked, but others were just pointless and annoying! On My Father's Wings, despite being a Disney Princess-esque song is actually pretty enjoyable and I like the Celtic vibe to it, but I don't like the lyrics. I Stand Alone isn't that bad, but it's entirely pointless with the scene following it. The villain's song has no tune whatsoever and the lyrics are just bad! Yes, it may explain what he wants to do, albeit very vaguely, but the singer is just so over the top and poorly executes it (it's not Gary Oldman, it's an uncredited singer & I can understand why he didn't want his name in the movie)! If I Didn't Have You is essentially a Big Lipped Alligator song: it has completely different tone to the rest of the movie, is never ever mentioned again and comes right out of nowhere. And it's awful and annoying, clearly trying to be like Friend Like Me from Aladdin with the pop culture references and Don Rickles and Eric Idle are bad singers! For those who don't know, the famous Celine Dion song The Prayer came from this movie! In here, it's just really downgraded with the visuals, and they don't even match to what Juliana is singing about! Another problem I have is that the singing voices of the characters don't sound like the speaking actors, especially Garret, and it can be very distracting when trying to listen to the song.

Quest For Camelot is essentially Warner Brothers attempt of Disney gone wrong with a dull and underdevleoped story, very nice animation, boring characters and a mix of good & pointless songs! I'd only recommend this to people who like non-Disney animated musicals like Anastasia, Thumbelina and The Prince of Egypt, even if this is a weaker edition. I can see why this has been put into obscurity, but it's a shame the actual good Warner Brothers animated films were bombs like Cats Don't Dance and The Iron Giant, both of which I will eventually review! And if you really want to watch an animated film starring Gary Oldman as an over the top yet intimidating villain, just go and watch Kung Fu Panda 2, he's awesome!
Story: 2/10
Animation: 7/10
Characters: 2/10
Songs: 5/10
Overall: 3/10

Epic review!

Now, before I go into a little behind the scenes info about this movie before reviewing it, I was going to review this film first when I started this blog because I saw it around the time, but when I saw Despicable Me 2, I thought it was more sufficient as a starting review, and I had more to say. I always had Epic on my mind because after rewatching it after renting it on DVD, I found that I actually have more to say. Anyway, Blue Sky's most recent film, Epic, is based on the book The Leaf Men and the Brave Good Bugs by William Joyce, who's also an executive producer for this adaptation, and was also supervisor of Dreamwork's Rise of the the Guardians, which also happens to be another adaptation of one of his book series. I would also like to point out that the movie's protagonist is named after Joyce's daughter, Mary Katherine Joyce who died at the age of 18 from brain cancer and that the rights to make an adaptation of the book were originally given to Pixar, but were given to Fox, who distributes Blue Sky's movies. So is this movie as epic as the pretentious title, or is there actually a reason behind why Blue Sky called it that? Let's find out!

Story: if there's anything epic about this movie, it's most definitely not the story! I've heard people compare it to Ferngully and Avatar, and they were right! What do they have in common? Well, someone is transported/shrunk to a new world where they have to save the environment from the bad guy because they're evil and there's a huge war with nature while the protagonist is pretty much inadvertently double crossing them as they get to know the people of the new world. Yeah...I'll give it credit  that Epic doesn't make the environmental message as preachy as the other movies I mentioned and there are pretty cool action scenes, but they throw in way too many subplots added in! It's as if the writers thought the main plot wouldn't interest the kids enough, so they decided to add in other cliches and comedy relief so they can Nod's story about being a rebellious Leafman goes nowhere and is predictable, the romance between MK and Nod is pretty bad because it's underdeveloped and they have no chemistry whatsoever and the relationship between MK and her estranged dad is really underdeveloped. I mean, the situation sounds good, but it wasn't handled well and there isn't any time for it to be properly discussed. I mean, the loss of a parent at an age where it's easy to get emotional is a very serious subject and the movie should've spent time to actually see how it affects Mary Katherine and her dad never seems to think about it until he realizes what an idiot he's been and how he lost everything, only until he discovers everything he's been obsessing over is true and goes back to being his idiotic self! So, pretty much, the movie wasted a perfectly good subject matter! Even Lilo and Stitch did it better even with the relatively kid friendly main plot! Sorry, about that, had to get it off my chest! So is there anything good about any of the subplots? Well, there's one with Ronin being in love with Tara, but that's only in the beginning and the end of the movie, and like I mentioned, the environmental message is less preachy, but it's replaced with a very basic good vs. evil plot!

Animation: now here's the part which surprised everyone when the trailer was first shown and discovered it was made by the same guys who did the Ice Age and Rio movies! The style is far different than the cartoony style that Blue Sky normally does, and it looks amazing! The character designs are more realistic and thee attention to detail on the skin is perfect. The environments are very innovative where the Leafmen and the Boggans live with the contrasting colour schemes, as well as the. The attention to detail of everything is perfect from the textures of the clothes, the armour of the Leafmen & the fur of the animals. The fact everything is to scale makes it even more amazing to watch, and the scene which really shows this was when MK, Nodd & Ronin go to her dad's house. What impressed me the most was the character animation, being very creative with the theory that when you're the size of a bugger, they would appear to move much faster from a human's perspective, with scenes like Ozzie the dog moving very slow from MK's perspective being great to look at, and is probably the highlight of the film. With beautiful animation like this, I feel like this shows Blue Sky can do much more, even though we have to be bombarded with bad Ice Age movies with generic animation!

Characters: This movie clearly shows the flaws with Blue Sky when it comes to their characters: there are too many for us to care about and most are just there to get celebrity voice actors. MK was just OK. I didn't like Amanda Seyfried's acting (I like her as an actress, but she failed to impress me here) but I liked how MK dealt with everything around her like her mother's death and trying to save the pod. Nod just annoyed me. I don't know whether it was how he was written or Josh Hutcherson, but he was just too cocky for me to care about and his plot was predictable. Mandrake, the villain, is probably one of the most forgettable villains I have ever seen. He's just too cliched and reminded me way too much of Hades from Hercules, even though Christoph Waltz does a pretty good job. As for Mub and Grub, I expected to be really annoyed by them going in with all the advertising & trailers, but I unexpectedly found them funny. OK, they're not the funniest sidekicks ever and they're clearly trying to be like Disney animal sidekicks, but they made me chuckle a bit, thanks to Aziz Ansari and Chris O'Dowd's voice acting!

Noticing a pattern here?

Anyway, there's also Professor Bomba, who I found annoying and a bit of a dick to begin with ignoring his daughter whose mother just died, but what got me confused with him was whether or not he was meant to be a comedy relief because of his clumsiness, but at other times, he goes all serious when he realizes how stupid he's been for years obsessing over tiny people which cost him his marriage! Anyway, there's Queen Tara, who is pretty important to the plot, but I thought she was just there to get Beyonce's name on their ads! And she can't act! Yes, I know she was in other movies like Dreamgirls and The Pink Panther, but I never really thought she was cut out to be an actress, she should just stick to singing (which she thankfully is!) There's Bufo, who was entirely pointless besides Blue Sky having Pitbull's name on their ads and Nim Gallu, who's kind of helpful with the plot, but it's messed up with Aerosmith singer Steven Tyler's casting and obviously, he gets an entirely pointless musical number (I'll admit, it's pretty catchy)! Then there's the only character worth caring about, Ronin! Seriously, why wasn't the movie about him? He's a stoic Leafman warrior who's too serious about his job, but he's shown to be caring and is in love with Queen Tara. And Colin Farrell is probably the best out of the celebrities they got for this film!

Despite everything I've criticized, this movie is probably one of the better Blue Sky films with their best animation, and I'll give them credit that they tried to do a more serious story like Dreamworks did with Rise of the Guardians, and not just because of William Joyce's involvement. They show they can make some good characters, but they didn't put in enough effort for the ones we need to care about because they mostly focused on the celebrity voice actors and there are too many underdeveloped subplots and relationships which were unnecessary and took us away from the main plot. I'd recommend this for fans of Rise of the Guardians or Ferngully because the movie has the same pros and cons and it did leave me invested in the first 20 minutes.
Story: 4/10
Animation: 10/10
Characters: 5/10
Overall: 6/10

Top 7 Good/Less Awful Disney Sequels

Now, I thought I could get 10 sequels to counteract the worst list, but most of them are only OK, and I could only find 7 direct to DVD sequels which were actually good! So, here are my best ones and these are the ones actually worth watching when it comes to Disney sequels!

7) Lilo & Stitch 2. This sequel is like the original when it comes to the story. It has that one element which is so good, it overshadows the rest. The subplot with Stitch malfunctioning/dying is exactly that. Although the hula plot isn't as compelling, the subplot is interesting and the humour is actually pretty good. The animation is really pretty and looks just like the first movie and the characters are still their same likeable selves, with Stitch being the most developed, still being cute and fluffy. Jumbaa and Pleakley are still funny and the subplot with David and Nani wasn't so interesting. The only really big issue I have is the ending being cliched, but the positive elements of the plot still make it good enough to make it on the good list, as well as being jam packed with Elvis songs!

6) The Lion King 1 1/2 (The Lion King 3: Hakuna Matata where I'm from) This one is based on a spin-off Shakespeare play Rosencraft and Guildenstern are Dead, revealing the play Hamlet from their perspective. This is what the Lion King 3 is like, showing the first film from Timon & Pumbaa's perspective. The comedy is of course, funny, but I loved how it expanded their friendship between Timon & Pumbaa & that we got to see Timon's old life, introducing Ma & Uncle Max, who are both funny! The animation looks amazing and is on par with the first film, which is no surprise since it's meant to be during the movie. The songs are fun and I love the characters. If I had one problem, it would be the tone, since it would be funny from Timon & Pumbaa's perspective, but saddening in the film, particularly during the wildebeest stampede. Despite that, I enjoy this midquel for the humour!

5) Bambi 2. While the first film was a bit more of a biography about the life of a fawn, this one is a bit more developed as it reveals what Bambi's relationship with his dad was and it takes place straight after his mother died. I love the voice acting, especially from Patrick Stewart as The Great Prince, and he's not portrayed as just stoic and cold hearted, he just doesn't know how to raise a child. The animation is also gorgeous, highly respecting the original being very calm and the woods are beautiful to look at. The only problems I have are the subplots involving Thumper, his sisters and Flower, which can be very distracting from the main focus and I'm guessing they put it in to make kids laugh so it's not too dark. The songs are OK, but they can easily be glossed over. Even if some scenes and humour aren't that good, the main plot is still heartwarming and the animation is gorgeous which I love about this midquel!

4) Brother Bear 2! Unlike other sequels, this one didn't have much of a hard act to follow. Actually, if anything, I prefer this to the first movie! Kenai, now voiced by Patrick Dempsey, and his childhood friend, Nita, voiced by Mandy Moore have to go and burn an amulet which binded them as children at an Equinox so she can marry someone else, all while falling back in love in the process. The romance is probably the best compared to Hunchback 2 and is the best in the character from movie 1 finding a love interest type of sequel. Koda still annoyed me, but he's not the focus since it's about the lovers and all he really does is whine, complain and get in the way. Even the moose have a bigger purpose in this rather than just being comedy reliefs and I'm glad that they're not as annoying! The music is nice, the animation is really good and I like this better to the first film.

3) Aladdin & The King of Thieves. This serves as the finale to the Aladdin series & franchise, and it's actually really good! It shows Aladdin & Jasmine's wedding getting crashed by the Forty Thieves, and discovering it's lead by his father Cassim, voiced by John Rhys Davies. I love how it shows the relationship between Aladdin and his dad, with the ending being satisfying! It's action packed, there's comedy from the Genie, with Robin Williams returning, there's romance, emotional stakes and this is better because of Aladdin's story, not Iago's like in Return of afar. The songs are also really good, and I love the one Jerry Orbach sings as Saluk! The only issue I have is the animation, it's pretty crappy compared to the first film, and nothing can stop Aladdin being a classic! Despite that, I'd really recommend this for Aladdin fans and it's way better than The Return of Jafar!

2) The Lion King II: Simba's Pride. Now, while films like The Little Mermaid 2 botched up the child learning the same lesson their parents learned the the last movie type of Disney sequel, this one shows how to do it right. How? Because the plot isn't exactly the same & it actually respects the original by being based on another Shakespeare play, which is Romeo & Juliet in this case. The romance is also well done & you can relate to Simba wanting to be a good king and father to protect his pride from Zira. I surprisingly liked Zira & she's probably the best Disney sequel villain, even if she's not really on par with Scar. The music is wonderful & I like that they took a song from the Broadway show for the movie! Overall, I enjoy this and I love the message of it and Lion King fans will really like this.

1) Cinderella III: A Twist In Time. This sequel really surprised me when I watched it! While the second one had no effort put in, this one is the complete opposite! The animation is quite close to theatrical quality compared to others, probably because of the budget and actually being intended for cinemas! The music is also as improvement from the second film, with the exception of the first song. But what I loved most was the plot being more self aware compared to others, as well as the character development from Anastasia. And Cinderella has to work for her happy ending, which I was genuinely surprised at since she's normally known for not doing much, and the romance is more believable compared to the first film. Overall, I recommend this one the best out of the Disney sequels and it's worth a watch!