Toy Story 4: In a Theater Near You in 2017

Of course the announcement of Toy Story 4's eminent release came during an earnings call by Bob Iger. Because, as we all now know, Pixar is nothing more these day's than Disney's ATM.

We all knew it was going to happen, even though Toy Story 3 ended on such a perfect note. Those Toy Story Toons kept the characters alive, and now that the new and old toys all have a young owner for a new generation to grow up with, who's to say this won't be a sort of franchise reboot, introducing the children of the first generation to the amazing (yet to be determined) series.

John Lasster will direct, which is a good thing? I don't know, he's not the John Lasster that made the first Toy Story. He's now the John Lasster that made Cars 2 and forced Luigi's Flying tires on unsuspecting victims in Anaheim, and he's not getting any younger or more creative (and I guess "Frozen" and "Wreck It Ralph" and stuff).

Admittedly, the Toy Story franchise is the only Pixar franchise that has worked. Monsters and Cars both were eh features with an eh-ier sequel in MU's case, and a terrible film that made "Planes 2" look like Citizen Kane in "Cars 2's" case.

As someone who answers "Toy Story" to the question "What is one of your favorite movies?" this announcement is bittersweet. I'm a big fan of not fixing broken things, and this seems like breaking further something that is showing a lot of cracks (Pixar, especially compared to Disney Animation's renaissance, led by none other than John Lasster.)

What do you think? Are you happy MSM is back? What's your favorite type of holiday coffee product? Let me know in the comments and on Twitter!

The Average and Incapable Oz

Disney's "Oz the Great and Powerful" opened with a strong weekend, making upwards of $80 million. That's the important thing, really. Not if it was a quality film or if it stunk, not any of the politics behind it, just if it makes money. A quality film would indeed be a good thing, but a film that makes money is the best thing, or else we might not see any investment in the parks for a while.

As a Disney die-hard, hopefully you enjoyed some aspect of "Oz", because it's going to be around for a while (and it's probably going to be the thing in the parks they invest money in). Disney's strategy is to put tons of money into a select few films that it can then turn into brands and make gazillions off of in synergy, from rides, to toys, to sequels and more. They wanted to do that with "John Carter." It didn't work.

"Oz" didn't break the coveted $100 million mark, but it did have the "best release of 2013," as the headlines say (a title that fits into the category I like to call "the tallest midget awards").

As things go, that which is popular is rarely high in quality (Cars 2). Thus is the case with "Oz." You can feel the attempt to appeal to the masses at every turn with the movie trying to be many things at once. When you try to please everyone, you dissapoint all.

"Oz" has its moments. I audibly laughed just once, but that's pretty good, considering I'm jaded in that department. I saw it in IMAX 3D (so, anyone want to pitch in a couple bucks for my rent this month?), and thought paying the extra for 3D was worth it (not the "IMAX" though. They need to have universal standards on screen size). This movie actually used the 3D to both add depth and pop things out at you like spears and hats and such. Sometimes it was gimicky, but it overall wasn't too distracting.

James Franco, who plays the title chracter, does an OK job, but you can feel that his heart isn't into it. Rachel Weiz as Evanora is OK, until she tries to be dramatic about something, and it doesn't quite come off the right way. Mila Kunis as Theodora is great at the beginning, but then, something happens to her character, and her whole performance would seem corny even on a daytime soap. The witch that truly shines is Michelle Willams as Glinda the Good Witch, who immediately sees through Oz's shenanigans, yet keeps her faith in him. Her performance is engaging and she's pulls off being convincing and cute at the same time.

Just like in the original film adaptation of the L. Frank Baum novels, the characters that exist in Kansas also inhabit Oz. Glinda is the lost love of Oz from back home and Zach Braff, who plays Oz's under-loved assistant in Kansas, shows up as a flying monkey (sans fangs and bloodlust) in a bellhop uniform, whom Oz learns to love. He provides some comic relief by keeping Oz honest, and didn't bother me much. The other character that goes along the for the journey with Oz and appears in Kansas as a crippled girl who asks Oz to grant her the ability to walk, is the China Girl. She's cute enough for being a completely CG'ed character, but does little to advance the plot beside helping Oz to realize his faults.

The movie is no doubt gorgeous, but some odd casting decisions as well as an uneven script leaves one wanting. Disney put itself in a tough place in terms of critical acceptance, as its predecessor is one of the most beloved films. They did an OK job with this one, with its greatest weakness being uneveness. That's OK though, because they'll get the chance to make it better with the second, third, fourth, fifth and six itterations. Because "Cars 2" and "Pirates 4" were such critical darilings. Right...

Posted with Blogsy

Wrecking Windows, Fixing Films

The best animated movie to have anything to do with Disney this year? "Tinker Bell: Secret of the Wings." I was going to say "Mars Needs Moms," but that came out in 2011.

THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH WAS A JOKE. Don't stop reading because of it. Also, because I'm a 21-year-old male, I didn't see "Tinker Bell: Secret of the Wings," and because I'm a human being with taste, I didn't see "Mars Needs Moms," so I can't actually tell you if those are good or bad. And with that, I will start saying things I actually mean.



I know it might be Brave of me to say this, but 2012 will be known as the year Walt Disney Animation Studios put out a better movie than Pixar did. That's better than 2011, known as the year that I filmed a better movie on my iPhone of me eating a cheeseburger than the movie Pixar studios released.

That's right, "Wreck It Ralph" was by far a better film than Pixar's "Brave," and honestly, it had more of a Pixar feel to it, too. "Brave" was a fairytale with a princess, "Wreck It Ralph" was "Toy Story" set within the world of video games. I think that's all I need to say to back up that argument.

I've always loved "secret world of" films, like "Toy Story" and now "Wreck It Ralph," where part of the premise is exploring what things do when we humans aren't paying attention to them. "Ralph" is by no means as groundbreaking, funny, or as entertaining as "Toy Story," but I dare say it's the best animated Disney film since "Toy Story 3."

These kind of films create a world within a world, using their own sort of slang, taking the familiar and connecting it all together with a little creativity, and a little ingenuity. Instead of feeling things in her "bones," the character Vanellope Vvon Schweetz feels it in her "code" that she's meant to be a racer in the Mario Kart-esque game "Sugar Rush." I love this kind of thing, and "Wreck It Ralph" is full of it.

Brace yourself, it's time for some plot summary: The film focuses on Ralph, voiced by John C. Reilly, the villain who wrecks things, so Fix It Felix Jr. can then fix things in the 8-bit arcade game named after Felix. Ralph gets tired of sleeping in a literal dump, and ventures off into two other video games, first a Call of Duty-esque first-person-shooter modern 3D game "Hero's Duty," then to Vanellope's "Sugar Rush." Here, in the land of Sugar Rush, Vanellope, a "glitch" in the game, steals Ralph's medal, and the two become enemies that quickly turn into friends. From there, all that character development and plot stuff happens like in most all movies, except for the Indie ones made by artists who are too hip to use a story arch. If you're reading this blog, you'll probably see the movie anyways, and probably already know all of that stuff you just read, anyways. Moving on...


What made this film so great was a mix of character development, gags, humor, and a nice twist at the end that brings everything together. The characters all have their flaws and their strengths, and we get to see them exhibit all parts of their personality, while enjoying some good jokes, and a dedication the the details of the world of video games that does not waiver in thoroughness throughout. The movie modifies a world we're already familiar with, and exploring it with Ralph, Felix, Venellope and Calhoun, the female commander from "Hero's Duty" voiced by Jane Lynch, is a hilarious, fun and at times emotional journey that amounts to one darn good film.

It's no "Up" or "Finding Nemo," but for a film whose only connection to Pixar is John Lasseter, the chief creative officer at both Pixar and the Walt Disney Animation Studios, it will fool those unaware of the separation between the two companies.

Walt as a Character

Ever since French Artist Pascal Witaszek posted his faux-film poster of a Walt Disney biopic, the inter web has been ablaze with praise over how real the poster looked, and how people really wanted it to be real. For real.

I am one of those people, with Ryan Gosling being one of my favorite contemporary actors, and Walt Disney being just about my favorite person of all time and with film being one of my favorite things to watch, it would combine a lot of my scattered favorites into one lovely thing. One of my other favorite things: run on sentences.

But 'twas a fake, and the Disney studios have not announced any plans to release a feature about their founder. Yet. It will happen. No icon makes it this long without a biopic.

But much like Marilyn Monroe in "My Week With Marilyn," Walt may show up in a movie that's focuses on a part of his life instead of the whole thing.

The film, which will be titled "Saving Mr. Banks," is proposed to follow Walt through his 14-year long struggle to turn the pages of Mary Poppins into a motion picture. It's a little-known story that should make for a well-reviewed film. The Australian author of the Mary Poppins series, PL Travers, will be likely be played by Emma Thompson. Travers was unhappy with the outcome of the Academy Award winning film adaption of her book. She was about the only one.

So, it's not Ryan Gosling. Walt was too old during this time of his life to be played by Gosling (who, later in life from the aged make-up job he had in "All Good Things," doesn't quite look like Walt). The actor rumored to be playing Mr. Disney: Tom Hanks: my favorite actor. So I guess it will work out for my preferences.

Hanks, the voice of Woody in the three Toy Story films and yet-to-be-determined-number of shorts, will do Walt quite a justice. He's a two-time best picture winner, and seems to be just a great all around, funny guy.

But this doesn't satiate my desire for the Gosling-as-Walt biopic to be made. Get on that, Disney.

Cars 2: My Belated Thoughts

Pixar means many things. Most obviously it's the name of the pioneering film studio in Emeryville, Ca.

 For me, Pixar means much more: quality, excitement, entertainment, wonder, thrill, joy.

And, for the first time ever, it means disappointment. It had to happen, the law of averages tells me. To be fair, I saw it coming, but now that it's here, my acute foresight does not make the pain of seeing an average film that is of the Pixar brand any less searing.

The motifs, the morals and the jokes of the film lead me to believe that the movie is more Disney than it is Pixar. The $10 billion in projected merchandise sales also leads me to this conclusion, as does the special toy sections in Target and Ride Makerz, or anywhere else where money be be exchanged for goods.

Pixar's productions, as with most Disney related films, are about overcoming a difference or obstacle. In "UP," Carl faced living a life without his wife and an unfulfilled dream weighing down on him, "Ratatoullie," a rat that loved to cook; "WALL-E," a robot that could love. With "Cars 2," it’s a red neck truck that gets mistaken as a spy, and in the process, gets rejected by his friend, who wants him to change.

I wanted Mater to change, too. Next time, be a little less of a push over, Lightning! I'm not endorsing rejecting who you are, but if who you are is as unfunny and bland as Tow Mater, change might not be a bad thing. Especially if you're that kind of person/car and you happen to be starring in a movie produced by my favorite studio. In that case, change, and change quickly, preferably into a new, original character that has nothing to do with a sequel. Like say, a red-headed scottish girl. That sounds like a good idea. A one eyed green walking sphere? Don't change into that.

"Cars 2" could have been made by any studio. That emotion that Pixar films elicit, that connection that is made with the characters, the excitement the plots bring, it's always magical. None of that exists in "Cars 2." It's just one stupid, fart/red-neck/ignorant joke after another. There are some hints of humor that remind you that what you're watching, at one point (the PS, and the PPS from Mater, that was funny), had The Business’s most original minds behind it, but the rest of it makes apparent you that they had to hand their baby over at some point to Rumpel Stiltsken. Those 11 films of spun gold had to be paid for. "Toy Story 2" took the necklace, "3" the ring.            

It's a movie made for a specific audience, something that has not been done by Pixar: that's how I see it. Obviously, Lasseter and Co. want to make movies that people enjoy, and have been successful in doing so.  But the secret to that success is that the movies were made for self satisfaction.They're huge film fans making movies that they would like, which seems like an obvious way to make a film. And it's what they did, until Disney took over, made them release the film a year early, and slowly stripped them of their artistic integrity. When I visited the studios late last year, I was informed that the people in the rooms around me were a little peeved, having been forced to put the film out a year early. Their frustration shows. It also lives in me and all others who truly and devotedly love what they do at Pixar.

Here's to waiting for their next original film, "Brave."

Seeing Old Movies in New Way: The Commentary

Christmas is the time of giving and receiving, and I did a bit of both. What I gave isn't that important. I could mention how my gifts are all practical yet thoughtful and fun, but I don't want to brag. Plus, this post is more about what I received.

The "Toy Story" Box Set

Specifically, it's about the trio of "Toy Story" Blu-Ray's I got. Now, I've seen all three films about as many times and as many ways as possible. In 3D, in 2D, on DVD, Sneak Previews, re-releases. Just about every format they've released the films in, I've seen it in. So, the Blu-Ray format was great, but I've seen the films so many times, I could act out just about every scene at this point. But, I had these new shiny discs in this fancy format, so I had to find a way to watch these classic, familiar films that would excite me. 

Now, I know I'm not the first to discover the new-fangled director's commentary bonus feature, yet I've found something new in something old.

Like I said, I've seen each of the "Toy Story" films enough to have memorized most of the lines from all three films. I'm not someone who typically likes to view a movie multiple times. So, when getting these new Blu-Ray copies of the movies, I decided to turn on the commentary for the first time and see what the people who made the films have to say about them. 

Well, it turns out they have quite a bit to say, and all of it is superbly fascinating. On the orignal "Toy Story," the commentary features not just the Director John Lasster, but also Co-Writer Andrew Stanton, Supervising Animator Pete Docter, Art Director Ralph Eggleston, Supervising Technical Director Bill Reeves and Producers Ralph Guggenheim and Bonnie Arnold. That may seem like one too many cooks in the kitchen, but the group makes it work. Having been the first feature length film from Pixar, its brightest minds worked on the film, and it's a real treat listening to them discuss the obstacles overcome to making the first full length computer animated film. Think of if we could watch "Snow White" with a commentary by Walt Disney. It's not the same, but it's close. 

With "Toy Story 2," the commentary is provided by Director John Lasseter, Co-Directors Lee Unkrich & Ash Bannon and Co-Writer Andrew Stanton, once again giving you insight from the top talent at Pixar. Since "Toy Story 2" was the studios third film, they often discuses the different computer models their recycled from "A Bug's Life" and the original "Toy Story." Pixar is also known for its easter eggs, many of which are pointed out in the commentary. 

"Toy Story 3" takes a different approach, leaving out Director Lee Unkrich, this time featuring Supervising Animator Bobby Podesta, Supervising Animator Mike Venturini, Production Designer

Bob Pauley,  Head of Story Jason Katz and Supervising Technical Director Guido Quaroni. And, with the Blu-Ray, it's on the Bonus Features disk, instead of accompanying the film on the feature disk. That took a couple of Google searches and a argument (Which I lost) with my mom to find out. After watching the first two films with relatively the same people talking about similar things, it was great getting a different perspective on how the film is made. Being the most modern Pixar film,  and having come 11ish years after "Toy Story 2," the advancements in technology have been tremendous, and there's really no one better to talk about that occurrence than the people so heavily involved. Despite being people who work in front of computers fulltime, they've all got a great sense of humor, and are a joy to listen to.

Overall, all three of the films have a very unique commentary, and all three are very enlightening. They probably aren't very interesting to someone who is only watching the films for the second or third time, but for a Pixar veteran, they're a great way to give new light to a classic film.  

Next up: The "WALL-E" Blu-Ray coming from Netfilx, so I can get the commentary on Blu-Ray without having to make my mom buy it. I can't wait!

Revisiting "Beauty and the Beast" and its Diamond Edition Extras

Confession: it's been a long time since I've seen "Beauty and the Beast." By a long while, I mean at least five years, probably more. I never remember loving it as a kid (it's not the most appealing story to a young boy), so there was not a whole lot of motivation for me to see it again.

Now that I'm on vacation, free time is abundant and lucky for me, we had the new Blu-Ray Diamond Edition Super Spectacular, soon-to-be-back-in-Disney's vault version of the film waiting to be opened and watched. I figured I'd pop it in and see what it looks like on our beautiful semi-new HDTV, especially now that "Beauty" has been remastered.

All I have to say is: "Damn!" I have been missing out on a lot. I know that "Beauty and the Beast" was the first animated feature to get a best picture Oscar nomination, and it won a handful of other awards, including the Golden Globe for best picture, but I guess I just took it all for granted.

The animation itself was gorgeous. Having just seen "Tangled," which was made 19 years after "Beauty," I felt that the older film held its own and then some concerning the art department. You can definitely tell how much using computers enhanced the beauty of animation. That was then though, and only Pixar and Disney's Animation Studios use computers to make things better, everyone else just uses them to make money.

On the BluRay, there is a great little featurette about how the film nearly never made it to the public.  It was a great little documentary, exploring the different obstacles that were overcome to make the film. From getting kicked off the Burbank lot and out of the building Walt built specifically for animation, to how the film had it's original first 20 minutes, which were already fully animated, scrapped. It discusses the issue of Katzenberg and the attitude that eventually got him booted, leading him to create the inferior-to-Pixar Dreamworks SKG.



A couple days later, I received "Waking Sleeping Beauty," which chronicles the animation rejuvenation at the Walt Disney Studios that started with "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and "Making Beauty and the Beast" was very much like a companion piece to the film, focussing on just one of the films mentioned in "Waking." Some sound bytes were used in both films, but both are fascinating and educational in their own right. I recommend viewing both; you can never learn too much about Disney's history.

Music: the Backbone of Disney, and a Fascinating Story

It's been a good year if you're someone who's fascinated by the history and lore of the Walt Disney company. Three films were released for home viewing in 2010: "The Boys: The Sherman Brothers' Story," "Waking Sleeping Beauty" and "Walt and El Grupo," two of which I have had the privilege of seeing so far. "Waking Sleeping Beauty" is next on my Netlfix que.

"The Boys," lucky for me (and anyone else with a Netflix subscription), is available instantly via Netflix's online service, a surprise I discovered and then immediately took advantage of.

"The Boys," a great documentary, made by the sons of Bob and Richard in hopes of getting their fathers back together, tells the gripping story of two of the most iconic songwriters of all time. Their works include the score for "Mary Poppins," the "it's a small world after all" theme, the "Winnie the Pooh" score, and many other songs, who sheer volume and notoriety is surprising even to someone familiar with their work.

Even more intriguing is the brothers' story itself. Robert, the older brother, served in WWII and was one of one of the first American soldiers to discvoer the Dachau concentration camp, and was wounded in the knee during his service. His temperament proved to be, as Roy E. Disney put it, the "Feed the Birds" to his younger brother, Richard's "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious." The two contrasting personalities proved to be extremely different, and that contrast helped create some of the most memorable music that has ever been written.

The pair also proved to be one of Walt's closer acquaintances, having written Walt's favorite song, "Feed the Birds," in their first film score for "Marry Poppins." "The Boys" provides a unique view of Mr. Disney, one where he his not the focal point, but seen through the eyes of two friends who worked for him.

It's both an intriguing story and a great history lesson on the Walt Disney Company and the United States. But most of all, it's a great look into two of the most fascinating, and contrasting, personalities behind some great music. Even more so because they were behind it all, their work being much more famous than themselves.

So if you've got a Netflix subscription, pull up "The Boys: The Sherman Brothers' Story," and enlighten yourself, then maybe go fly a kite, sweep a chimney, or explore the Hundred Acre Wood.

Tron: Legacy, and Why Big Box Office is Important

So the numbers are in, and it looks like "TRON: Legacy" will win this weekend's box office. It is projected to beat "Yogi Bear," and "How Do You Know," which really isn't that surprising. Those two films didn't even try to compete with "TRON's" boisterous ad campaign, and even if they had tried, they would have failed.

E-Ticket Light Cycle Attraction? Let's hope so!

People who know things that I don't predict that TRON will take in north of $40 million this weekend, which is a good amount of money, but not spectacular. Good money is really all that matters though, and it's not just this weekend that's impoartant. The long run will really prove how strong the film is, hopefully making upwards of $100 million domestically.

So what does this mean for us Disney enthusiasts? Quite a bit. First off, there will almost definitely be a sequel, which we'll only know to be a good or bad thing when that film comes out. It also means that Disney has a new successful franchise on their hands, meaning more merchandise sales and money for the film studios.

That's not the most important part to us Disney devotees. It's another successful movie, good for Disney. But how will this effect our beloved parks? Now that it's a fact the movie is popular and no longer speculation, Disney will hopefully start putting more money into research and development for a TRON: Legacy E-Ticket attraction. There's been some here-say about Disney doing putting some Imagineers on the job of developing an attraction, and now there's TRON's popularity as a motivator.

The ride will no doubt be based on some sort of light-cycle experience. What I hope they do at Disneyland is finally put the money into banking the curbs of the old People Mover (which itself used to have a TRON section when it was running the in 80's) and design a radical new light-cycle vehicle that gives the feeling of riding a motorcycle while it zips around the old track. But I doubt that's what will happen. I'm sure they will start from scratch, building another warehouse-type attraction, like Space Mountain or Indiana Jones.

Speculation aside, one thing is fact: now that TRON: Legacy has proven to be a success, its presence will be much more prevalent at the Disney parks. Hopefully will one day have an attraction that brings the amazing visuals of the film to life. If Disney is smart, they won't ignore an epic concept with TRON's light cycles like they did with "Monster's Inc.'s"door labyrinth.

Tron: Legacy: Fun for Your Eyes, Lackluster for Your Brain

After months of extreme hype, December 17 is finally here. What happens on this day of days? You should know, but I’ll tell you anyway. "TRON: Legacy" comes out, and you should probably see it within the week, both because it’s a good movie, and because I own stock in Disney, so the better the box office, the better the stock price. Mostly for the first reason though. 

The film as a film is slightly above average. It’s riddled with cliche lines and the pacing leaves something to be desired. As a visual, it’s fantastic. When the rebellious, motorcycle driving Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund) goes into the grid after he’s provoked by a page coming from his long lost father’s (Jeff Bridges) abandoned office, the movie goes from 2D to 3D, that third dimension adding more than just visual gimmicks.   

The decision to not make the entire film in 3D was a brave one, and the right one. Tim Burton with “Alice In Wonderland” wanted to do a similar thing, only having the part of the film taking place down the rabbit hole be in 3D, separating the real world from the imaginary one. “TRON” had the courage to actually do this, and it’s one of the small details that make this film stand out. 

It takes a while for Sam to get into the grid, with all the explaining having to be done so the audience can know exactly why he needs to go into the grid. One becomes a tad bit restless waiting for the visuals to start, that part of the film that was so heavily advertised and got their butt in the seat.  

Once Sam gets in, the action immediately starts. He must fend for his life gladiator style, because every futuristic film is inspired by the Romans. Sam gets to grips with what’s happening to him quickly, not running around whining about how he doesn’t know what’s going on, a convention in films where the scenery changes drastically. Eventually, he’s saved by Quorra (Olivid Wilde), who takes him to his father living in the hills of the city, and doing nothing. 

At this point, the film again becomes a little monotonous, the action screeching to a halt and uninspired dialogue taking its place. Every good film needs a fascinating story, and action is not the best storytelling device. Breaks are needed to give the film purpose, just not as many breaks as Tron’s director, Joseph Kosinski, thought there needed to be. 

Then the gang is off The End of the Line nightclub, where the DJ’s are none other than Daft Punk themselves, the duo that wrote the original music for the film. On a side note, the score the duo wrote works perfectly for the film. It aids to the visual in a fantastic way, melding both Daft Punk’s electronic style with a traditional orchestra in a way that harmoniously compliments the film. 

At The End of the Line, they meet Castor, a David Bowie inspired, extremely pale man-with-all-the-hookups, played against type by Michael Sheen. Then the action starts again and everything feels as it should. There’s a high speed chase, physical quarrels, explosions, and then a scene eluding to fascism, where Clu (the young version of Jeff Bridges, who looks creepy, but in the right way) rallies his thousands of re-programed programs (people in the grid are called “programs”). 

The acting in the film is so-so. Olivia Wilde does the best job, giving life to a role that so easily could have gotten to job done with a corny performance. Hedlund was hired for his looks, not his acting. Sheen is a ton of fun as the Bowie-esque Castor, and the computer programers did an ok job with Clu, except when he opens his mouth and it’s obvious he’s brought to life by CGI. 

With the “TRON: Legacy,”, your eyes and your ears will be stimulated to the maximum level with, but your brain will be left a little underwhelmed. Go into the film knowing this, and you’ll have a great time. 

Product of the '90's: A Goofy Movie

It's not a film that gets mentioned often lately, but "A Goofy Movie" is one of the most memorable films for my the people of my generation that were born in the early '90's.

Rotten Tomatoes currently has the movie at a 57 percent approval rating, making it "rotten." That means nothing to my 5-year-old self.

Variety's Todd McCarthy criticized the film's score, calling the six featured songs "unmemorable." Mr. Todd McCarthy, I'd like to disagree with you on that account. Some of the songs are not the most catchy of tunes to come out of a Disney musical in the nineties, but "On the Open Road" is a classic. I still sing along to it today, 15 years later. Looks like time has proven you wrong. Although I do admit, the flagship song of the film, "Stand Up," failed for the most part to stick in my memory.

But as a young kid, the adventure of the film really grasped me. Going across the country like that, running into Bigfoot, those crazy chase scenes and the "perfect cast." You just can't beat that. The relationship between Max and Goofy was heartwarming and frustrating at the same time. Max's pursuit of Roxanne. The shenanigans they got themselves into were always cringe inducing (What fork to choose?!) but they always made it in the end.

Maybe to a lot of people, "A Goofy Movie" was a flop. I'm glad I'm not one of those people, because "A Goofy Movie" will always remain a staple of my childhood, not matter what the critics say, or how many people have forgotten about it 15 years later.

"An Extremely Goofy Movie," its direct to DVD sequel, that one was definitely a stinker. Hands down.

Cars 2 and Pixar's Perfect Record

Prior to every Pixar movie's release, all the critics speculate on if that movie will put an end to Pixar's perfect 11-11 record. What Pixar has done is unprecedented, creating 11 films that have mass approval from both critics and normal folk like you and me, many of them simultaneously winning awards and breaking box office records. It's unparalleled in the film industry, and it's not something that can last.

Cars 2: 12 for 12?

I mean, it could last, I don't doubt Pixar one bit, but the way things are going on the business side, with Disney pushing for franchises like "Cars," "Toy Story" and "Monsters Inc." (which, all coincidentally, have very appealing merchandise), I don't know how much longer Pixar will be able to do the things they want to do.

Look at the second "Cars" film for example. Pixar was on track to release summer of 2012. Then Disney decided that they wanted the film a year earlier, forcing everyone at Pixar to try and speed up an extremely slow, tedious process. Pixar didn't get to do what they wanted to. It's not fact, but I would dare to say that Disney wanted the film a year earlier to build up hype for California Adventure's new Cars Land, set to open sometime in 2012.

Now, I know that Lasseter and Co. over in Emeryville have a strict standard of "If the stories not there, we won't make the movie." I doubted him a little with "Toy Story 3," just because, coming off such great original stories like "Up" and WALL-E," releasing a sequel seemed like Pixar was taking a break. I was dead wrong. But "Toy Story" has always been Pixar's flagship franchise. "Cars," not so much.

Disney has officially released a full length trailer for the new "Cars" film, and I'm not going to be a naysayer and say I didn't like it for the sake of my argument. It looked pretty good. It's got the classic characters of Mater and Lighting McQueen back, and the news ones, one of them an english James Bond style car voiced by Michael Caine.

Yet, as Pixar gets bigger and bigger, and Disney relies on them more heavily to be the one consistently good part of their film department, they will try to exert more control. There's no doubt Pixar's people know what they're doing, and will go one spinning cinematic perfection. It's just a countdown to when Disney's greed usurps Pixar's control and maims their golden goose.

Whimsy returns to Winnie the Pooh

A lot has been floating around the blogosphere about the new "Winnie the Pooh" film. At first, I thought nothing of it. With the last "Pooh" inspired film, 2005's "Pooh's Heffalump Movie," a film I didn't even bother to see, I assumed that this new film would be more of the same: thoughtless material released to sell some merchandise and appease Disney's younger audience. Any Disney film that is worth mentioning appeals to every age group, whether those age groups want to admit it or not.

Then, last night, I watched the first trailer for the new "Winnie the Pooh" film, and I ate my words like a pot of golden honey.

As a child, I was a huge fan of 1977's "The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh," watching the series of vignettes repeatedly. Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day would have to be my favorite, but all three combined to be one my favorite childhood Disney films. Since that film, it's been downhill for Pooh, Christopher Robin and the other inhabitant of the 100 Acre wood. Exhibit A and B: The Tigger Movie and Piglet's Big Movie. I'm sure there are reasons to be fond of the films, but they failed to capture the magic of "The Many Adventures."

But the magic has been recaptured with the the new "Winnie the Pooh" film, set to be released in 2011. They've brought back the classic look, with 2D animation and a glow that brings back fond memories of the classic original. Best of all, they brought in the best thing to ever happen to the modern Disney film studios: John Lasseter. He'll be overseeing production, meaning he doesn't have a huge influence, but he's got some, and that counts.

According to Fused Film, the new film will feature voices of Craig Ferguson, Tom Kenny (“SpongeBob SquarePants”) and Bud Luckey. Actress/musician/singer/songwriter Zooey Deschanel will provide the vocals for a special rendition of the beloved “Winnie the Pooh” theme song. I don't know how I feel about that last part: modern renditions of classic Disney songs by currently popular artists generally fall flat and are frustratingly annoying.

The trailer was masterfully done, with the perfect musical choice of Keane's "Somewhere Only We Know," whose lyrics perfectly depict the story of the trailer. It really grasp your emotions, a great marketing tool, because there is now way anyone who loved "The Many Adventures" will not want to see this film.

And now the countdown to July 15, 2011 begins.