Saturday, February 21, 2009

The Fox and the Hound 2

Here I am again to critique the movie The Fox and the Hound 2. I had high expectations after seeing the original, which is the only movie ever that has made me cry (honestly...a cute little fox being stranded of all family sitting by a fence? Aww...), but was thoroughly dissapointed. I must admit that I did not watch a few parts, but the whole message came across.

First off, this movie was done completely out of context of the original, based off what I saw. The characters should have been unchanged, since this is from the time Tod and Copper were still young. However, far too many other characters are included.

I have to question what the actual goal of making this was. There were no loopholes in the original, and I was proud of it. It left nothing lacking -- so why bother with a sequel if they couldn't either keep the bar or raise it?

Next, this movie completely ignores the qualities of good and bad. The original made massive distinctions between these two forces, with all due thanks to Amos and Chief. Those two were the total antagonists, and made the situations far more relatable for children. They were shown as what they really were -- the bad guys. Somehow, people have become sensitive to what bad guys really are, aside from somebody who "takes away your dreams." Explaining that'll be for another post, though. The necessity for this is that children need a basic knowledge of the differences between good and evil. Without these, they'll enter life thinkin' drugs are good an' school is bad. Perhaps I'll go over the massive list of the importances of school in yet another post. Besides -- children have a much harder time relating to a Man vs. Himself plot, as opposed to a Man vs. Man plot. That being, children have a harder time reckoning with the evils in feelings than in the evils of, well...evil.

Okay, I'm done with morals...oh, wait! One more! I've for a while now been contemplating why movies are attempting to tell us the importance of keeping friendships. I'm not saying they shouldn't -- I'm saying that that's become the focus of many movies, this one as a prime example. That used to be the side-plot in children's epics, and was also thoroughly motivated throughout the original Fox and the Hound. What is the point? Why digress from something as important as say the need for mercy and compassion for something as simple-minded as friendship? I'm not saying friendship is an idle, useless thing! I fully support all my friendships, and intend to cherish them 'til my final breath, but the importance of friendships is a terrible moral for an entire feature length film. I'll likely return to this as well in another much to do.

Okay, now I'm over morals. I'll probably return to look at this post later and decide to change some stuff, or if it's that much later re-post it altogether...but, oh, well. I've rarely been perfect the first time around. I've got some things to say over this "band" thing that's accumulated in our topic. The movie, I mean...the title is too long to keep repeating. The addition of this makes the overall story inconsistent. As earlier stated, there should have been no major side-characters to fundamentally change Tod's and Copper's knowledge throughout this. For some odd reason all my other points leave me now, but I'll come back.

Amos and the Widow have far too little spite between them in this. In the original movie, the Widow is apprehensive of her mood toward Amos, but still gets angry at him for trying to shoot Tod. Now, she almost seems to be friends with him...what? In the end, she's serving him pie, whom she held at the point of a gun!? Again, don't get me wrong -- I'm all for forgiveness, but wasn't she mad at him throughout the original film? Wasn't there emnity? *sigh*

I regret, that is all I have for now, since it is late and I must have my beauty rest, but I'll return with more...oho, you can bet on that! *fiendish grin*