Reviews

"It's like being in the eye of a hurricane...what happened?"

"Natural phenomenon....or....something from that ship?"

Yes, this movie have a lot of flaws... all of them are mentioned already by other reviewers here and i will not comment it again. And when i saw the movie again as an adult, it lost a lot of it's power that it had on me, when i saw it as a child in the theater long years ago...

But there was one thing, that lost nothing of it's power... it was not the black hole, it was not the robot Maximillian... it was this incredible ship... the "Cygnus"!

I never saw a more beautiful, eerie, menacing, gigantic, breathtaking and fascinating spaceship than the "Cygnus". It hypnotized me as a child, and it do it until today...

When the little "Palomino" discover the "Cygnus" and get closer to it, flying slowly around it, reached out with it's pale blue searchlight that slither over the massive steel-structures of this monstrous ship... then it seemed, the "Cygnus" is not longer a spaceship anymore, but a sleeping, hungry giant python, and this little tin can, the "Palomino", is only a little curious rabbit, that did not really know in what danger it is.

It was very good that the movie-makers spend a little bit more of running time for this scene. And then there was John Barry's fantastic score... slowly, menacing slithering along like a python too, that doubles the intense of this opening-scene... and when the searchlight of the "Palomino" reached out to discover one of the "sensory-domes"... and you see the light shining through this dull brownish-yellowish glass-dome, only for 1 or 2 seconds... this was one of the "rigid eyes of this giant serpent"... Dead? Perhaps... But here you can see that the designers of the "Cygnus" did really made a fantastic job: The second "sensory-dome" is installed on the underside of the ship... perfect arranged for really 3-dimensional movements in space.

You never see the complete ship in a bright light in the beginning, only the dark shadow of this monster before countless stars and some details in the pale searchlight of the "Palomino": structures of glass, steel, antennas, towers, pipes, cables... but suddenly the "python awakes"... and all the lights on the "Cygnus" was switched on and for the first time ever you see the whole translucent reticular steel lattice structure of this giant ship in all of it's eerie beauty...

I remember the surprised, gasping "Bohaaa!!" by the audience in the theater as i saw the movie long time ago... and then silence again... all of them -and me too- stared totally hypnotized on this bizarre ship... "Is there yet light enough to see?" asked Kaa in Rudyard Kiplings "The Jungle Book" the Bandar-Log... and it seemed, this ship asked the audience the same question again...!

The interior of the "Cygnus" continuing the impressions that are given by the outer style: Giant endless corridors, bridges, monstrous rooms and halls, almost empty or filled with bizarre machines... all in this red/rusty color and mostly illuminated only with a pale, yellowish light. It looks more like a cathedral than a space-ship... there was almost nothing similar compared to all the other movie-spaceships before and after. The "Cygnus" had it's own somber, unforgettable design, that had later influenced the design of the "Event Horizon" too.

Yes, in spite of all the flaws in the movie, it deserved at least 6 stars... the "Cygnus" as a "stand alone" i would give 10 stars! It is my all-time SF-spaceship favorite!

Nothing, or better, almost nothing in this movie based on the real Anaconda (except the very good design of the animatronic model)... so come on, guys, you know it, this is a "Movieconda" that has nothing in common with the real thing. I can't believe, that some guys will take this movie for real. It was all illogical and exaggerated here. It was a "monster-movie", and this is exactly what it is supposed to be...

When i was a school kid, 14 or 15 years old, we had a visit of a snake-specialist in our school and so the opportunity to touch the "real thing" and "wear" this beautiful animal over our shoulders for a photo... Okay, this one was a young specimen of a green Anaconda, only approx. 2 meters long... but no one of us was bitten, constricted or swallowed ;-) All of us (except the most girls, but all boys ;-) liked this wonderful snake!

But in spite of this experience i love this B-picture! It remembers me to the "good old times", when i saw the old Jack Arnold flicks, like "Them!" or "Tarantula". I loved them as a child and i love them until today, because they are totally unrealistic and exaggerated! I loved this monsters and i love it until today! It's like the gangster-movies like "Last Man Standing", "Miller's Crossing" or "Road to Perdition", where they shoot with Tommy-Guns (with a 4-foot long muzzle-blast of fire) for minutes (in the reality a 50-round rum is empty in 3-4 seconds), perforating 3-foot thick brick walls to dust, or shot straight through a car engine-block... this have nothing in common with the real Tommy-Gun too, but this is a "Movie-Tommy"... and exactly this is the reason, why i love this movies too... even if (or because) i own a real Tommy Gun and know the truth!

And someone other mentioned it here before in his review: The cheap, old 1950s monster-movies are declared as great classics of it's genre today. On the new DVD-editions of such 1950s monster-movies we found specials and making-of of this movies, and in interviews almost all of the movie historians admit, that they loved this movies as a child and loved it until today. The same with "Anaconda"... today it is declared as crap, totally crap... but someone will remember it in 20 or 30 years from now who saw it as ca child, and i am sure, it will be declared as a "monstermovie-classic" of the late 1990s then.

Enjoy the movie, you may make your comments in the style of MST3K, but have fun...fun...fun! I give it 7 of 10 stars. For me it was a modern made journey back to my childhood and i add my lovely new "snake girlfriend" from this movie right beside Godzilla, Tarantula, King Kong, The Beast from 20,000 fathoms etc. to my childish "monster-movie-heart" that will never grew up ;-)

When i first read the story and saw this film as a child, something happened, that was surely not intended to be happen; neither by Kipling nor by the producers of this film... Of course, the direction, how the viewer shall see this movie and for who he shall cheer up is clearly given... but damn it... i was dragged to "the dark side of the force"... i felt strong sympathy and pity for Nag and Nagaina! But why? They was supposed clearly enough to be the bad guys of the story... what forced me to cheer up for the bad guys??

Today i guess, the reason are the characters of Nag and Nagaina. Both are deeper and more interesting than the character of the hero. Both are only want to defend their home, and later, Nagaina want to revenge her husband... who would not try to do the same as Nagaina in such a desperate situation?? A similar situation was given, for example, in "Road to Perdition"... and here the audience is clearly on the side of the "bad guy" (remember, the hero was a killer!) who want to revenge his murdered wife! A final revenge, that may include the own death too... and at last Nagaina lost the final fight... but damn it, at least she had tried it! She did not run away, nobody was on her side, nobody helped her. She lost her husband, her eggs/babies... she was alone! On the other side, Rikki Tikki had a lot of friends, like Darzee, that helped him in this fight. This did not mean, that i hate Rikki Tikki, he did his job, and he did it good! But you can tell me, i am on the "wrong side", i know, that i am standing on the "wrong side", but i can't help... i always see the story through the (snake)eyes of the "wrong side"!

This little movie was really well made, it follows almost literally the book (this story is a part of "The Jungle Book" by Rudyard Kipling). The narration of Orson Welles (he made the famous radio broadcasting of H.G. Wells "The War of the Worlds" too) was very good. The story seems to be a bit too dark for younger children in some parts, but compared with a lot of crap that was made today, there was a real story behind it, and the makers did not shy away to show the darker parts too. I saw it again a few days ago on TV after many years... and yes, i am still standing on the other ssssside...! ;-)

I remember, that this movie was aired in Germany on the Christmas-holidays too (so there exist a German dubbed version). It must be in the early 1970s, but in later years, it was not aired again. This year a new animated movie about Rudolph, made in the late 1990s, was aired, but the original Rudolph never again. So the original Rudolph is "Missed in Action" in Germany. I ask myself, why? One possible answer is, that is was a little bit political incorrect, and not so "softened" as the 1990s animation movie is. In the original version all the other reindeer (and Santa too) a very mean to Rudolph, Comet the coach acts like an a...hole to Rudolph, and even his father did not defend his poor son. Then there was a snow-monster, a choleric chief of the elves, a prospector, carrying a revolver in his belt. and last but not least a island, where misfit toys was abandoned.

From 1970 to approx. 1980 was the time in Germany, when a lot of children's classic movies and shows are condemned by hysterical psychologists. A lot of older movies and TV-shows was shortened and re-dubbed to align the weird mainstream of this time; even the old fairy tales of the brothers Grimm was attacked by psychologists and teachers in this time. So i guess, the airing of the original Rudolph in Germany was canceled, while child psychologists thought, this "cruel stuff" will harm our children's souls? Was Rudolph not pedagogical enough? Or... was it too close to reality? Because if i look back and remember my childhood, Rudolphs seems in all the conflicts damn close to reality: There was bullies, that annoyed me, sport-coaches, that acts like a...holes and was extremely mean, choleric teachers, and i have played with toy-guns all the day...!

My thoughts: To hell with all the mad psychologists of the 1970s and 1980s and her lunatic tries to make the "childrens better"! This is the original Rudolph! Bring it back on the TV in Germany too! Even children of today need the original classics and not only the softened, modernized versions! At least, the German dubbing is now available on DVD again! Now, we wait for Christmas 2008 and Rudolph's return on TV!!

I first saw this short animation on youtube and it jolted me out of my seat! This shall be made in 1943 in Germany?? I did not believe it at the first time! I saw it once, twice, a dozen of times! Pure art! This will even put Pixar into shame and can easily par up to Walt Disney's golden era! They used a massive 5-layer-multiplane sequence in the beginning with zooms and forward/back and left/right movements!

This was already done by Walt Disney in 1942 with the gorgeous opening-sequence of "Bambi" with a 5 multiplane-layer sequence too, but if this not enough, in this short you will see the probably first complete and seamless 360°-turn in a multiplane-sequence! Something similar was done by Disney only first in the late 1980 and early 1990 in "The great Mouse Detective" and "The Rescuers down under"... with massive computer-support (and again in 2006 in the end-sequence of "Bambi II" with CGI too).

This short was surely 50 years ahead it's time! And it was made in the darkest era in German history. If you look closely on it, you can discover a hidden message against the Nazi-dictatorship behind the seemingly harmless, playful and funny story: A lot of different species of animals work together in peace to get the music out of the old gramophone, and a lot of music-sequences that are played is jazz!

I am rarely give 10 out of 10 stars, because IMHO only the very best, the absolutely perfect movies, deserve it. This is one of this perfect movies. Not only a gem, but a perfect diamond! Unfortunately it is forgotten today, but if you can get your hands on it, see it, you will never forget it and prepare yourself to be overwhelmed by it!

I think, one of the main reasons why many people (and critics) did not like the movie is, that it is too faithful to the book: If you read a book, you made you own "mind-movie" with your own perfect actors, places and scenes of it and you have all time in the world to read it. This are only a few of the reasons why the "book is always better than the movie". For a movie, you have a given running-time and it is almost impossible to put all the thinks of a book into a movie and to fit everyones imagination who have read the book. So the most movie adaptations of a book will be shortened in story and characters and sometimes parts of the book must be changed to fit the strengths and possibilities of a movie. The makers of "The Da Vinci Code" tried it the other way round, put a little bit too much of the book into the movie and tried to be too close to the book. They missed sometimes to retell the story with the possibilities that a movie can give; even if this means to cut out some parts of the story or to change parts of it. The storyline is often too fast (even the more than 20 minutes longer Director's Cut) so it can be confusing for someone who did not read the book to follow the plot (yes, i have read the book first). But this film is, in my humble opinion, far better than most critics said. The action is good, the flow of the story is straight, it contains a lot of riddles. It is like a modern "Indiana Jones"-story! I think, the best idea is to read the book first, and than watching the movie. Don't miss it, it is really worth to see!

I really don't know why this very good movie is so criminally underrated, but i think, many people find it boring, because there is not really a typical plot in it. Today movie-fans often need a typical storyline, a typical villain, a typical climax (and yes, of course, tons of typical special-effects too) and so on to like a movie. Nothing of this is present in "Revolution". It is only a close look on the time of the American revolution, and how a father and his son survived this difficult period of her life. And the story was told very good. It is made more the European way to tell a story, in spite of it is a American story. It is one of this seldom movies, in which you don't have to search for a plot, simply let yourself flow with the incidents that happened on the screen. How did people in this time-period see the world, the revolution and the war. The only point that i don't like in this movie is the one-side view on the British troops, but i think, this is done to show the audience why the American people rise up against the British oppressors.

Approx. only 1923 votes are registered for this movie? I Other classics from the 1940's have already 12.000 votes and more. I fear, this is one of this classics, that are unfortunately forgotten by the most people today. A destiny, that this fantastic good movie surely not deserve! It is simply a stunning and captivating story from the golden era of the cinema. Nearly perfect until today and one of my favorites. It captivated me as a child, when i was 7 or 8 years old and saw it for the first time on TV, i hide behind the sofa when Sabu fights with this awful giant spider. Until today it is the best and most frightening scene of the whole movie and predicts Frodos fight with Shelob in "The Lord of the Rings" 60 years before. The story contains all, what a good movie needs: A hero, a villain, a lot of adventures, colorful and (until today) fantastic good special effects and so many little gags, that never standing above the actors or the story... and a gorgeous happy ending!

I was lucky to get my hands on the restored DVD (Region 2 - Germany) a few days ago. Time to see it again in my new home-theater with a projector on the big screen. And it captivated me again! As the enclosed info-sheet reported, the film was a work of unlucky circumstances in an unlucky time. At least 2 directors with different ideas how the story shall be told remained to work on it. In nearly all cases such differences will end up in the canceling of a project or in a total flop, but seldom, very seldom, like it happened to this movie, the ideas of both directors fusions to a perfect combination that get the very best of both directors ideas (very similar rare circumstances happened nearly at the same time with Walt Disney and Sidney Franklin during the work on "Bambi").

If you can find it on DVD, don't miss it. It is the "blueprint" for so many scenes and plots in modern fantasy (and this including "The Lord of the Rings" too) and it lost nothing of it's power in the last 66 years!

This is one of this movies, that i first saw on TV (in Germany, it was aired with the alternate title "Torus") and awaiting nothing special than that what a movie, produced only for TV or DVD-sales, commonly is: A cheap production, full of errors, a simple and boring story, and a lot of bad special-effects... but "Epoch" aka "Torus" truly surprised me! A captivating and mysterious story with an alien artifact that was discovered. It is not a movie with a huge lot of action. The story is not so weird, tricky and twisted like "Donnie Darko", but well made. The FX are well done, in spite that you can see that it was sometimes CG-animation.

IMHO it is far better than, for example, "Sphere", because it set not on cheap shocking-effects, but, more like "2001", on a riddle, that a alien force left behind millions of years ago for mankind to discover. And beside the scientific storyline about the discovering of the artifact, the makers add a political conflict between USA and China too. I recommend it to everyone, who is interested in SF-movies, they are a little bit mysterious. Like "Thrill Seekers" it is one of this little, very good B-picture gems, that are really worth to discover and to own on DVD!

The Fans of "Star Wars - Clone Wars" may tar and feather me for my opinion, but after seeing this on TV a few months ago (aired directly after the original "Star Wars - Attack of the Clones"-Picture) i was extremely disappointed. As a "Star Wars"-Fan since 1977 i expected something, that surely will not par up to George Lucas original movies, but a least pay homage to the original movies, but after 15 Minutes i turned the TV off. The cheap animation (boldly called in another comment "state-of-the-art"...) was on the roughest level, The movings, explosions and laser-shots was always the same animation-cels reused and reused, the depicting of the actors in his animated forms was ridiculous, the dialogue was extremely stupid... i can't help, i simply did not like this film! It was an insult to George Lucas original movies for me! The next shock for me was to search here on the IMDb for it... Rating 8.1!! Come on: Ed Wood (in drunken condition) would it done better! Everyone has it's own opinion, but i did not like this film, and no power (even not "the force" :-) will force me to see the whole thing!

When i first heard that Disney making a sequel to "Bambi", i react as many other fans of the awesome original: "NOOO! This can't be true! Tar and feather this morons for this sacrilege!" ;-) I think, this reaction is normal after all the countless bad, cheap and dump Disney DTV-sequels of the last years. So the hope that this one will be done right was nil for me too. But in this one case they are really find a acceptable way, and surprisingly especially with a sequel to one of the most beloved classic movies of the 20th century!

To come up after 64 years with a sequel and trying to find a connection to the original isn't easy. This seems to be the main problem: Let's start with the background paintings: They are too clean, too softened, too muddy, too artificial for me. I missed the brush strokes, the little differences in color tones that let the originals vibrating with life and energy. The new ones look likes CGI-copies (and in fact, this is what they are) of the gorgeous original Bambi-backgrounds from 1942. The not so important parts of the background pictures was only simply smoothed and blurred with a computer-software to simulate (in vain) the ethereal feeling of the originals. They looking not bad at all, but Tyrus Wong and his fellows did a incredible job in 1942, that never can be copied with CGI. The characters are good animated and close to the originals, but the actions and gestures are often too exaggerated for me. It is more cartoon like than the more realistic original (i.e. the porcupine-scene, looks more like a Tex Avery cartoon :-) Maybe today's kids are common with non-stop-action and can't follow a movie that was not forced toward with nonstop action and a common storyline and works more with a lot of subtle and "slow" elements? Another flaw is the dialogue: Too much!! The original movie only contains approx. 900 words, and the story was told with pictures, music and colors rather than words. In the new film they talk, and talk, and talk... and some dialogues and gestures are just stupid: "A prince does not whoo, whoo!" and depicting the Great Prince as a conceited show off. The songs: They are quite good with wonderful lyrics but unfortunately they're failed to build up a connection to the original. They missed the ethereal feeling of the original songs, sung by a choir. The fitting of the new "midquel" in the original movie: I think, all of us remember the most famous scene in "Bambi", and Bambi's last look back for his poor mother when he follow his father, and both are slowly vanished in the upcoming snowstorm. It is the last take of one of the most iconic scenes in film history! It is the pivot-point of the whole story. It symbolized the end of Bambis childhood and innocence too. So it was a wise decision for Walt Disney, to cut here and let start the next chapter with adult Bambi (and Felix Salten, author of the book "Bambi" did it so in his book too). Every awkward scene between this two shots will only disturbing the integrity of the story. Modern Disney (Patrick Steward in the "Bambi II"-Trailer on the 2005 Bambi-DVD) said, "Bambi 2" based on old original ideas for "Bambi" from Walt Disney itself (this is believable) and that something was planned and later "left out" after this scene and the following spring-scene when Bambi has grown up. But no other source, like books, documentations etc., that i found mentioned that something was planned in this "gap", so this claim seems to be only a try to legitimate this sequel in the name of Walt Disney himself.

But, after all the harsh critic, take a look on other side: There a some scenes in it during i thought: This IS Bambi! Here they really got a glimpse of the spirit of the original movie! For example: The sequence of Bambi's Dream or when Bambi and his father visit the secret place... the light, the mood, very close to the spirit of the original and really a great work! "Man" was never shown again, and that's the only right way to depict this deadly menace of the forest, and when Mena shout "Run, Bambi, run, don't look back!" it is a homage to the most remembered scene of the original and it will surely send cold shivers down your spine! Bruce Broughton's orchestral score was one of the highlights of the movie too: The score was not so sophisticated and perfectly connected to the animations like they did it in 1942, but i can imagine, that Churchill & Plumb would really like it too. The growing of relationship between Bambi and his dad was overall well made too. The Great Prince in "Bambi" remembered me to Clint Eastwood: Deeds, not words! He is not the typical Disney-father, so some people don't see the subtle nuances in the connection between Bambi and his father in the 1942 original and thought "He did not much for his son". But he was always on Bambi's side, when the odds turned to harsh against him. And so he have serious problems to cope with the young fawn in the new film, but slowly both changed there minds about each other, and the Great Prince developed his fatherly side.

All in all: "Bambi" was surely Disney's pinnacle and cannot be reached again! It is a work of awesome poetry and art. The sistine chapel of feature films, and i am happy, that the makers of "Bambi II" did not tried to create a awkward copy of the gorgeous original... they followed their own way and created a far smaller and simpler, but acceptable successor of Walt Disney's own favorite movie.

I think, in 99.9% of all cases, a remake will not be turned out so good as the original. Jackson's version of the immortal classic from 1933 is an exceptional case. Many directors of remakes make the error to add too many own ideas, or trying to make a scene "better" than the original scene, but they only destroy it when they do so. (For example: Many scenes in the 2002-remake of "The Time Machine") Fortunately Jackson did not make such errors. He let the story in 1933, and did not set it to today. In 1933 this story is far more believable, same as it was, when in 1933 the original "King Kong" was released. Okay, he brushed up the special effects to the standards of today, and sometimes i think, he add too much of action and effects. IMHO some of the CGI-sequences are too long and too unbelievable. But on the other side he add a lot of silent moments, depicting Kong not only as a ferocious beast and let show the audience a little bit deeper in Kongs soul as the 1933 original movie did. This are only some minor alterations of the original, but they had a great impact, for example: Kongs facial expressions. You can see him thinking. Or the wonderful ice-skating scene. It seems to be from another world and it is a lovely reference to my all-time favorite movie "Bambi" too. With this scenes Jackson show us, that he used CGI not only for non-stop-action, but for deeper, silent moments too. Great work! And fortunately Jackson let his hands off of the many already perfect scenes of the original (except of using modern FX). He love the original "King Kong" and his version of it is a proof of his love. A perfect scene cannot be made better, and so he only retells it with his "words", for example: The climax on the Empire State Building. There is no doubt: Without the classic from 1933, Jackson's version would not turned out so good as it actually do. So the original is still a little bit higher in my reputation. I give the original "King Kong" 8/10, and while i can not vote a 7.9/10, i will give Jackson's "King Kong" 8/10 too. The best remake i saw so far. A sincere flattery to the work of the original King Kong-crew from 1933!

The fans of this movie may tar and feather me for my opinion: But i am not a fan of all the exaggerated fighting-scenes. Of course, they are well made and really beautiful (i.e. the impressionistic "Duel in the yellow forest" remembers me to the gorgeous autumn-leafs-scene in "Bambi" ;-), but they are disturbing the story of the movie for me: The fighters "dancing" on the roofs, running over the water, flying trough the air... It looks like "Matrix in China" for me, but in "Matrix" all the fighting scenes are in a logical context, because the complete world in which they fight was only a simulation. But the story of "Hero" played in the real world. And i think, that even the best swordsman can't simply ignore the gravity laws. Maybe this is the way such stories was told in China; more like the traditional Chinese theater?

On the other side: The story, the core of the movie, was very good: The story was told trough different eyes in different versions, and if you think, you got it and know the truth now, another version of the same incident comes up and all is open again. It was sophisticated and twisted like "The usual Suspects". The "good guys" and the "bad guys" are not separated. Every new point of view give you new hints... and sometimes the wrong hints.

IMHO this movie would work better with less "Matrix-like" special effects and with a closer view on the captivating and twisted story. I give him 7 out of 10.

Yes, this is my second comment on "Bambi". My first, now deleted comment was only a reaction of my surprise, how captivating, moving, and impressive this movie was for me, when i saw it again in 2005, more than 30 years after i saw it for the first time as a child. In the meantime, i saw it approx. 20-30 times again and due every seeing, it reveals more of its depth. So i started a exploration to find out more about it: The technique, art, Walt Disney and all the other man behind it... The essence of all is quite simple: It is, in every aspect, a monument of pure poetry and pure art! It contains only approx. 900 words of dialogs, in which was more said than in many books with 1000 pages, with a runtime of 70 minutes, it contains more depth and epic than almost every 3-hours film. It is a story about the life himself, with all the light and all the darkness.

It's not a fairy tale. There is no princess to be rescued, no spell to be broken, no villain to be defeated. It contains not a typical storyline. It don't need such trivial things! It was not forced toward by "what happens next" suspense, it flows like the seasons, it goes on with the power of nature. It is the first and the truest circle of life, that Walt Disney created. "Bambi" was often called the "typical Disney film", but in fact, it is the most non typical Disney film! Whoever ventured in became part of an experience so strong that neither heart nor mind could ever forget it's impact!

Disney and his crew didn't translate Felix Salten's Book literally into film. This was impossible due the huge differences between the technique of storytelling in a book and a film, but they catch the inner spirit that Salten described. It took more than 5 years of hard work to find the right way in transforming the book's soul into a film. And the way that they finally found was perhaps the only way that pay the highest homage to Salten's book.

You may be disappointed, because there is no really a plot in it (this is according to Salten's book too; it is more a collection of incidents, that enabled the young fawn to learn the profound lessons which in time made him the wisest deer in the forest). It may be boring for some people when they saw it for the first time. But if you submerge in it, you will explore a whole new world. So forget all about story lines and plots, common in almost all movies. Let delve yourself by the gorgeous opening scene into Bambi's world! Align your expectations to that of the young fawn. It may be look so mundane, when Bambi starts to discover the world around him. The flowers, the rain, the other animals, but every new discovery is a revelation. It is the same adventure, that all of us have experienced in our childhood.

Later, the world starts to reveal his somber side. The first time on the meadow, when Bambi must run away from the hunters. The first fun in the wintertime turned into the danger of starvation for the deer. And then, right after the first fresh spring grass evoke new hope, follows on of the most iconic scenes in movie history. It is a perfect off camera-scene and the turn point of the whole film, a symbol for the end of childhood and innocence for our young hero. For many young children (and for me too, when i was 5 or 6 years old and saw "Bambi" for the first time) this seminal scene was the first experience, that the world can be very cruel... it took more than a half century, before Disney dared a similar scene in "The Lion King" again.

"Bambi" was often criticized as an "anti hunting movie". But is this true? No. Felix Salten, author of the book "Bambi", was a hunter too Perhaps only a hunter that is common with all the animals around him can wrote such a penetrating and deep story. The whole story was told trough the eyes of the animals. Man was not a typical villain with a goal, i.e. to conquer the world, to be the king or something else. Man was more like a deadly force majeure, a storm, a volcano or an earthquake, and his acting was a riddle for the limited minds of the forest creatures, and when Disney decided to let Man unseen in the whole movie, he strengthen the feeling of a dark menace.

"Bambi" did not need a common plot nor need it sophisticated dialogs too. The story was primary told with music, colors, light and impressionistic color-shifting to depict Bambi's inner feelings rather than words. Bambi's forest is a powerful and truth, yet poetic and ethereal interpretation of the forests of our dreams...and sometimes of our nightmares, too. "Bambi" connecting art and poetry with reality in a way that has never seen before and never seen again. It is a movie that follows his own rules, a awesome work of art, that is comparable to Mozart's compositions or to the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci!

"Bambi" gives the most honest, gritty portrayal of the full range of art, poetry and emotion in the history of cinema. It moves you, it let you laugh, it let you cry, it let you fear, it gives you hope. It is a film about friendship and the strength of character, and about the spirit of life!

There never has and never will be another film like "Bambi", it is unique and timeless. Walt Disney himself always said, that "Bambi" is his favorite of all his movies. I'm fully agree with Walt: "Bambi" is an immortal classic and one of the most important films of all time!

This movie is another proof of the high quality of the classic Disney films. Today feature films are quite funny too... but they based mostly on simple, crude jokes and spoofing of other topical movies (remember the bullet time-spoof in "Shrek"). There is no substance to think about in it. You can see them, laughing about them...and forgot them almost completely a few years later. Who will remember, i.e., "Ice Age" or "Madagascar" in 40, 50 or 60 years? The old Disney classics are different, there are timeless! "The Sword in the Stone" contains a lot of joyful gags too, but no gag stands above the characters, no joke was made only to fill a hole in the plot. The story, the plot, and the characters are primary. And Disney add not only joyful gags. As Walt himself once said: "For every laugh, there should be a tear." Disney take children always quite seriously, and a lot of his early films contains a lesson for life, sometimes the lesson can be very sad and cruel, like in "Bambi", sometimes lesser sad, like in "The Sword in the Stone"... but can anybody forget the cute little girl squirrel, that was left by Wart, desperately crying and with a broken heart? And Merlin's closing words about love: "Well, yes, in its own way... yes, I'd say it's the most powerful force on Earth"!

This is one of the main ingredient of the famous Disney Magic: Joy and tragedy! Another is the art of hand drawn animation. The quality of the animation went downwards at Disney after WW-II too, slowly, but surely. But in 1963 cel-animation was still on a high level. Not so good as in the golden Era, when "Fantasia", "Pinocchio" or especially "Bambi" set the utmost high standards of perfectionism, but quite better than in "Hercules", "The Lion King" or "The Rescuers down under". 7 of 10 stars for "The Sword in the Stone"! It is not the best of all Disney films, but quite better and deeper than the most of the modern CGI movies!

I set not high expectations on action-movies. When i watch a movie like "Armageddon", "Die Hard", "Reign of Fire" or, in this case, "The Core", i expect only to be entertained. So a lot of plot-holes in movies likes this did not really disturbing for me. When i detect a plot hole, i say to myself a short "Come on, it is only a Hollywood entertaining movie" and it goes on. The same at "The Core". It starts with a lot of plot holes. A new matter, that withstands all temperatures, a new machine, that can reach the earth's core, a new laser-drill and so on... developed by one man living in an old hangar (perhaps is is a good idea to take a look in the garage of my old neighbor, perhaps he is working on a hyper drive-modul??). OK, i thought, this are probably the biggest plot holes in the movie, but it goes on, and on, and on. The holes got bigger and bigger, and in the last 30 min. runtime they got so big, that you can drive the whole earth through it without any problems, i.e. tuning A-bomb with the plutonium from the ships reactor! Come on, a A-bomb is not like some firecrackers, that you can tie together to get a bigger bang!

The most disturbing for me was, that not only the title, but the entire main-plot of the movie was stolen from "Deep Core". OK, "Deep Core" was only a very cheap B-Movie (made in 2000), but the idea with the A-Bombs (in "Deep Core" there was only two of them) and the separation of the Modules (in "Deep Core" it was only one module) from the ship (including the one crew-member that remaining in the separated module) was without a doubt a rip off of "Deep Core"! All in all, forget any logic and see it as pure entertainment, the FX of "The Core" are not so bad. I will give mediocre 5 out of 10 stars.

Yes, this is surely one of the better modern Disney films. The story is straight and well focused on the two main characters. We have some sidekicks here, the little dog and the raccoon. Both works very well, with loving little gags and without any tendency to crude jokes, that often seen in modern Disney-films, i.e. the stupid fart-joke in "The Lion King", which, in my opinion, disturbing this good movie too much. "Pocahontas" match the spirit of the older Disney classics well. I love especially the impressionistic, colorful sequences. It is a wonderful way to tell a story with colors, pictures and music rather than dialogue. A technique, that was first used in "Fantasia" and than pushed up to the utmost perfectionism in "Bambi", and later get lost in the most modern Disney movies. And there is another detail, that i like very much: The villain is not really a totally cruel villain. He had his own problems too, and he was more driven by the demand of his company to find gold under all circumstances. The film did not focus exactly on historical facts, but come on, it is a Disney film, and it had is dark and sad scenes too. As i know, this was only the third Disney-movie (after "Bambi" and "The Lion King") in which a important character died, which is not one of the villains. Fortunately the end of the movie is "not typical Disney". it was done very well in a wonderful closing scene, but without that the... but i will not spoil it for you! But some disappointments are here too: "Pocahontas" can't mess with the detailed Animation and deep characters of the older Disney films, especially Disney's "Big Five": "Snow White", "Pinocchio", "Fantasia", "Dumbo", and especially "Bambi" are invincible in the detailed animation and the characters. In "Pocahontas" all of this is far simpler done, perhaps to decrease the costs of the movie and not because the animators can't do it better. Overall, i give it 7 out of 10 stars and i hope, that modern Disney will come back to movies of this high quality in the future again.

It is not easy to create a animated movie in which the animals can display human feelings without losing his animal nature and will be understand by the younger audience at the same time. I have only seen three feature films, in which the idea, to tell a story only through the eyes of animals without "cartoonize" them too much, really works: "Bambi", "Watership Down", and "Spirit - Stallion of the cimarron". This movie is very underrated, it contains all the spirit (oops, good play with words ;-) that once was the realm of Walt Disney. Unfortunately modern Disney lost the ability to tell a good, straight, and heartwarming story in great pictures and symphonic music, like "Spirit - Stallion of the cimarron" do today. Unfortunately modern Disney films needing a lot of action, running gags and sidekicks to cover the weak and soulless plots. Without doubts, the primary model for "Spirit - Stallion of the cimarron" was Disney's old masterpiece "Bambi". As a great fan of "Bambi", i recognize more than a dozen references to Disney's greatest movie of all time: The opening sequence with the forest, Spirits birth, the fight with the cougar, the look to man's camp far away, the burning forest and the jump into the river, the final reunion... and a lot more. That's not wrong, because the makers of "Spirit" use this lovely references in its own context and add a lot more to bring us a great movie that will really touch you. I give him 8 out of 10 stars!