The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)

To watch “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” will mean more than just sitting do with some popcorn, a beer, and relaxing on the comfy chair. It is an experience. For a film that is 90-years old, it will mentally challenge, visually stun, and grossly entertain you for the mere 70-ish minutes that it lasts. The version watched, the “Special Collector’s Edition” streamed, also provided with comic-styled flash cards that gave us this silent film’s voice. Yet, with all this strength, the film isn’t without its flaws. The brevity means quick segments, underdeveloped plot, and a twist that seems to come from left field. Watched within the availability of a group, there was decidedly a mixed feel about this film. Many enjoyed, and applauded, the German Expressionism used to create the world, as it has been eerily used time and time again in modern cinema (i.e. Tim Burton’s “Batman”), yet others seemed to mock the unknown. They followed the film throughout the course, confused as to when it was going to wrap up, and when it did – the ending seemed more rushed than surprising. While there were both applause and nays within the group, the one element that stood out – which demonstrates the cinematic power of “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari”” – is that they all wanted to see it again.

"Caligari" introduces a new viewer to the world of German Expressionism, and the creativity doesn't stop there. With bold, "Pee-Wee's Playhouse"-like doors, Burton-esque buildings, and a dream-like town, director Robert Wiene (along with his set designer and cinematographer) was well beyond the 1900s. Their vision proved that dark can be fun, that the unknown will still scare, and the mind, well, it is a terrible thing to waste. Imagine watching this film in 1920, when the cinema was still an infant. The sheer horror that audiences would have felt ooze from the screen, it is dark, it is disturbing, and - even with standards today - it is scary. Audiences beware, this is no "Saw" or "Hostel", but the creativity behind this feature is stronger than these modern "classics". The argument could even be presented that if it weren't for this film, the horror genre wouldn't exist today. "Caligari" is that impressive. For those that haven't seen, be prepared.

This film worked because of what our group was considerably mixed on, the unknown. For me, the uniqueness of the story allowed for depth and the macabre to soak through. Couple this with the visuals, and "Caligari" transforms into more than just pioneering cinema - it becomes a grandiose story that requires several viewings in darkened rooms. The cerebral nature keeps conversation flowing and that "unknown" that I have spoken of, strong. Yet, there is a fault with this film. While I praise the story, cinematography, and the twist; the development was a bit slow at times. Perhaps it is the fast-paced nature of today's movies, but the center of this film seemed to drag and push nowhere. The pacing begins strong, with an introduction into two stranded unknowns, but as the reveal occurs, one can find themselves dozing off - questioning the reason for one scene over the other (i.e. the entire wrong murder suspect). Yes, the value of those scenes do semi-make sense, but for a 70-ish minute long film, there were moments that were difficult to enjoy. Also, perhaps it is just this special edition, but the flash-card dialogue seemed a bit too uplifting for this film. Yes, they were easy to read, yes, the first couple were fun to see, but overall, the choice of these over your typical ones created a missing sense of dread. The dark elements seemed lighter, while the light elements seemed more positive than they should have been. If there were a fault with this film, it would be these small issues. I believe that the KINO edition perhaps does a stronger job with the flash-card issues.

Due to the brevity of this film, I don't want to sound repetitive with the elements that I loved vs. those that I could have done without, so - to wrap this review up - here are two breathtaking, and innovative, scenes from this film that will go down in cinematic infamy. The use of "special effects" to show the insanity of the word "Caligari" thus into a surprising transformation. Unique for its time, it also showed that this film not only was bold visually, but also technically. The second scene that was favored was when our suspected murder walks away with our quintessential damsel in distress. The camera work, the artwork, the way the body looks real, but obviously isn't was planned precisely. These are two strong scenes from an already great film.

VIDEO: Watched via streaming, the quality and excitement was par to that of a DVD. Lacking the exciting special features, this gave a small glimpse into a larger world. Eagerly I look forward to the KINO edition of this film with it's "restored authorized edition".

VISUAL: Watching this was like watching a projector film, it was too dark in some places, not light enough in others. Yet, that is what worked. This film survives on its twisted images and haunting characters, and both come across clear as bells. Watching this film, one cannot laugh at the work created by Hollywood today, completely borrowing that of this film.

SOUND: This is where it gets tricky. Watching only one version from the streaming source, I wasn't able to fully recognize the music, that is where an actual DVD will come in handy. I plan on updating this segment as I watch from either KINO or IMAGE to see which provides the better, stronger score. Needless to say, I wasn't unimpressed with the music here - it added to the already freaky ambiance of the film.

EXTRAS: Lacking, but not by fault. Once I acquire the DVD version, I will update this. Streaming had no special features to add to the surrounding history of this film.

Overall, despite my minor setbacks when watching this, I loved "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari". The visuals (again) were stunning, the story was breathtaking, and the originality of everyone involved far surpasses that of which is released today. The closest I could come to would be Terry Gilliam, old Tim Burton, or Fritz Lang (who was originally asked to direct this film). I suggest this to everyone, horror fanatics or not - this is just a great film and a strong piece of cinematic history.

Found in my "Time Out Film Guide" and watched for FILM CLUB #101, I cannot wait to add this DVD to my growing collection. I am surprised that Criterion hasn't picked this up, but I am a fan of KINO's work, so I look forward to that. Obviously, it is going to get a green mark with blue stars. I cannot wait to watch this again and again to see what I had missed. This "C" section, despite the lousy beginning, is turning out quite interesting!

Cabin Fever (2002)

Watching “Cabin Fever” reminded me of the fun one could have while making a horror film. One could argue that modern horror is too detailed, over-produced, under talented, and quintessentially making the same mold over and over merely for cinema dollars. The argument is tired, but true. Made in 2002, and only grossing about 21 million, this was a small blip on everyone’s radar. Found randomly on DVD one October at my local video store, “Cabin Fever” was a means to merely scare a gathering of friends, or perhaps just gather some laughs. Little did we realize that this was something stronger than just your average teen-horror flick. Director Eli Roth (speaking pre-“Hostel”) knew his horror genre. Being an assistant with David Lynch for many years, he understands that spooky doesn’t mean linear, that blood does come in gallon containers and the more obscure the better. “Cabin Fever” proved that with mediocre dialogue, great horror shots, and the fear of the unknown (which was left unknown throughout the film). He tells us the fears, but not his characters – giving us tension with the horror. While “Hostel” seems too mainstream and less Lynch-ian for my standards, “Cabin Fever” complete with “pancakes”, “Denis”, the box, and the fear of this backwoods community, is that diamond in the rough. This singular film demonstrated the power behind Roth, and his missed opportunity for films to come.

There is no arguing that this is an amateur film. The edits are rough, the story is haphazard, and the characters are bland, but what is impressive is the passion behind the camera. The flux of different genres blended together proves that Roth had done his homework, that he loves horror, and wasn’t afraid of taking chances. He created a horror film without giving us a monster, the choice of a faceless virus wreaking havoc onto a group of unsuspecting teens was bold, but worked perfectly. Fear was created within the unknown, or more importantly, from what we knew but our characters did not. Cliché to the hilt, our leaders in this rag-tag group of C-actors (of which our leader is the boy from “Boy Meets World”) try to break the mold, but nothing spectacular comes of it. This, oddly, works for “Cabin Fever” because the core of the film doesn’t need popular faces, but instead a stark need for bleak realism. As horror watchers, we know that the outcome for those with cliché lines is not positive, so Roth plays with that. He builds non-existent characters to run around screaming, while we scream back. “Go out of the woods” – “Get in the cabin” – “Don’t stare at the naked woman” – “Get help!” are all things not said within the film, but instead in the audience. Roth pulls you in. Instead of being a mere spectator, “Cabin Fever” asks you to be involved.

Two big scenes (amongst many) stand out as reasons to watch this film. Whether you are a horror fan or not, these two speak volumes of what Roth learned from Lynch when working together. The first is Dennis. The child at the store that has a fascination with biting people that sit next to him, who loves pancakes, and equally enjoys karate moves – was one of those moments that proved Roth’s loyalty to the trade. The slow motion karate reminded me of “Twin Peaks” and the music that accompanied added to that feel. The entire station was pulled from a Lynch world, and I would have considered this theft if the two hadn’t worked together. Instead, it felt more like a homage, a brief “thank you” to Roth’s mentor. With that said, the second scene that speaks volumes of Roth’s talent is something that he has carried with him throughout his “Hostel” years. The unknown. Without spoiling anything, when our group of gun-toting locals arrive to the cabin, two have guns while one merely carries a box. When two fall shy of their goals, the other merely attempts to open a box as his form of defense. What was in that box? What could have protected him? This is the unknown makes “Cabin Fever” stand out stronger than others of this genre released at the same time. Sure, it’s small – but the effect and conversation that follows with your peers is sublime.

Again, “Cabin Fever” wasn’t the bee’s knees of horror films, but unlike Roth’s future endeavors it demonstrated his ability to take a small idea and blossom it into true fear. Many will probably not enjoy this film, seeing “Hostel” as his penultimate work, this will seem lackluster – but for those nay-sayers against his torture-porn, this is a throwback to a stronger era of horror moviemaking. One part David Lynch, one part “Wrong Turn”, and one part “The Stand” (that’s a lot of parts) – Roth proves that he can handle a camera, a story, and a crew whilst scaring us, grossing us out, and creating a world within a world.

VIDEO: The film is loose, an amateur outing with quite a bit of ideas that seem under developed and over exposed, but I loved it. It showed talent coupled with intrigue. Roth will forever be remembered to the mass audiences as “Hostel” maker, but for me – “Cabin Fever” ranks as more original and enjoyable.

VISUAL: Simple DVD. The woods and colors seem to blend. The sharpness of some of the scenes isn’t as focused, and it felt grainy at times – but again, this was a first film for Roth. With little money, what can you do? There were some great scenes that were filmed with strong angles and a keen eye for storytelling, but nothing spectacular. Decent transfer that could use a strong upgrade one day.

SOUND: One of the key elements to this film is the sound – and borrowing from Lynch and creating his own voice, Roth does wonders with the music chosen. From the included songs to the background theme, “Cabin Fever” has a distinct sound that makes it feel like you are being chased by a flesh eating virus in the woods.

EXTRAS: This simple disc is packed with stuff. The “Family Friendly” version of the film is hysterical. Roth hams it up for the camera, a la a Disney introduction. The “Chick-O-Vision” is a great inclusion. My personal favorites, “The Rotten Fruits” have three episodes on the disc that will make you laugh hysterically as well as see those dull Veggie Tales in a new light. Then, there is the quintessential behind the scenes footage where we learn about every aspect of this film. Lacking a strong commentary, that would be my only complaint with such strong special features.

Overall, I am not afraid to say that I like “Cabin Fever”. When I first saw it I was impressed by what little I understood and what Roth spoon-fed me. I thought he was a director to watch, and I still think he has quite a bit of potential, but to be remembered merely for “Hostel” just doesn’t cut it. “Cabin Fever” is a great entry into the world of horror, creating genuine scares and following a predesigned structure (not a bad thing for this film) – he uses his own techniques to tell his story. “Cabin Fever” remains a strong entry into the world of horror. If you are new to Roth, I say start here – if you are disappointed with his future work – go back and see this again. You will not be disappointed.

Found in my “Time Out Film Guide 2005”, I would most definitely see this film again. There is talk of a director’s cut out there that I would be eager to see what additions were made to the story. I liked this film, and would easily recommend this to friends and experimental family. Obviously, it is going to get a green mark with blue stars. Bravo on your first film Mr. Roth, I just wish you could have kept this momentum.

Cabeza de Vaca (1991)

After watching this movie, I had to do some research on it. I had learned that this was a true story, but I didn't know anything about what it may be about or who the major players were. What I did discover was that this film was somewhat factually wrong. I hated to read that because this was a very powerful film. This was one of the only films that I have ever watched that used less "known" words, and more violence to carry the message. Perhaps violence isn't the best word, but this film was filled with violent images countered with images of faith and healing. Apparently when Vaca returned to Spain, he wrote some letters to the King describing what he had seen during the eight years on the uncharted land. This was the basis for this film, but according to most, this film left out too much, and took rights to other parts of Vaca's adventure. For example, although the long sequence early in the movie showing Cabeza de Vaca's period of slavery to the Indian sorcerer and the armless dwarf is quite interesting to see, there is no corresponding incident in the explorer's writings. Vaca did report on a brief period of enslavement, but that is all. No sorcerer, no dwarf (...damn...).

This film is a transitional movie. At first, we are to feel sorry for Vaca and what is happening to him. Watching the dwarf and sorcerer make fun of him and force him to do painful duties. We are made to feel sympathetic for this man that seemingly is loosing strength and mental power daily. Then, we hit the big moment. When Vaca becomes the healer and befriends the Indian, we feel less sympathetic, and for me, more confused. Did Vaca want to leave this place? Near the end, the answer becomes even more shaded. I would think that someone that feels so strongly about a community that he has spent eight years of his life with would do more than just go back and hope that his new "family" is not captured. Vaca, in this film, took the cheap route. The final scene is a very gripping moment in our history. Vaca is forced to help bring Christianity to this natives. To demolish their world and form of religion and bring in Western civilization. Vaca sees this and cries, but then STILL does nothing. He apparently has the power to bring people to life, but destroy a church is well out of his grasp.

The last scene is of enslaved Indians carrying a Christian cross across the desert. This represent the beginning of the end of most of the Indian's beliefs that have been them for thousands of years. The beginning of the corruption and the force to bring certain beliefs to everyone. Very sad ending.

Overall, a decent film that still carries a strong message even today. While the cinematography seems choppy at times, it is worth the wait to witness the human destruction near the end. I suggest this to anyone that needs a moment to see the path of "our" people.

Found again in my "Time Out Film Guide 2005" - this is an entry, or a review per say - from 2004. Since then, the film has gone out of print, and while I was mixed then - I wasn't sure shelling out an additional $100 for a used copy was beneficial. If it comes back in print and I come across it in another book - I may give it a try. This was an old review (old format, old Andy) and I feel like a get my message across without having to be too, well, wordy. Pink mark on this one. Average, but due to my lacking knowledge of history - missed a bigger chunk of it. Maybe I will watch it again - well, maybe.

REVIEW TAKEN from ORIGINAL. WATCHED September 25th, 2004.

Cabaret (1972)

Don’t blame Bob Fosse for his direction. Don’t blame the song “Money Makes the World Go Round”. Don’t blame the incredibly spooky yet intensely real Joel Grey as the Master of Ceremonies. Whatever you do, don’t blame the choreography. So, why isn’t “Cabaret” a better film. Where should the blame fall? As a first time viewer of Liza Minnelli, an amateur young Michael York watcher, and my only experience with Bob Fosse was the dramatic experience of “Lenny”, “Cabaret” boasted big songs, big ideas, and big actors … yet it felt long, dull, and convoluted to say the least. Edging on the historical, but focusing mainly on a squabble of young love, the muddled themes of originality, independence, and sexual revolution seemed to take backstage for overacting, choppy editing, and a twisty story that begs for more but desires nothing. In the Oscar world of “The Godfather” vs. “Cabaret”, the obvious winner is Coppola’s film – but how did “Cabaret” even get in the running? As it took me nearly three viewings to conquer this behemoth, one has to question the 1972 value, and whether this musical stands up next to the others nearly 40 years later. In this reviewer’s opinion, it is an obvious “no”, but arguments will apparently follow.

Where did “Cabaret” work? If discussing this film around the cinematic water cooler, there would be no doubt Joel Grey would be discussed. His portrayal, as small as it was, as the infamous Master of Ceremonies has yet to be repeated in any film to date. In various moments “Cabaret” felt like it was directed by Terry Gilliam, complete with the flash and darkness subsequent in his features. Joel Grey brought it to the table, and will forever be a frightening, yet influential image in my mind. He made the nearly 2-hours redeemable. The excitement in his swagger coupled with his level of pizzazz completely overshadowed his co-star Minnelli whenever the two shared the screen. His performance alone, the transformation itself, is what made “Cabaret” worth a view. It was he and Minnelli’s duet of “Money Makes the World Go Round” that saved this film from utter obliteration. It was reminiscent of a modern day “Moulin Rouge”, but it was the surrounding story – without surrounding characters – that caused the pain known as “Cabaret”. One must also applaud Bob Fosse for his direction, for without him, these dark scene filmed with Grey would have just been as bland as the story. Fosse took this flimsy story of three characters that we are emotionally void for, and pulled in some great song and dance numbers to buffer the pain that was sure to follow. His work on “Lenny” was outstanding, and while this didn’t speak as greatly, you could see his influences on the script and final edit. Thank you to Fosse and Grey for transforming this drab film into cinematic mediocrity.

To bookend the positive, one must also ask “Where did ‘Cabaret’ fail?” Without wasting pages of words, “Cabaret” failed because of the sloppy editing, the poorly developed historical slant, and due to the massive disappointment from the actors. This could have been a memorable song-and-dance rooted with historical symbolism-esque film, but instead fell flat thanks mainly to the horrible nature of Liza Minnelli. Her flat voice matched well with her disassociated character, which carried no emotion, flaunted no values, yet tried to win our heart. She sang decently, but I just couldn’t stand behind her as a central focus. Her entire relationship with Michael York is flippant. Does she love him? Does she love money? What is her true background? What does she want from life? Mix these unanswered questions with the uncomfortable hint of sexuality between York and Minnelli, and you have nearly 90% of this movie. From Minnelli’s undefined character, to the passive aggressive York duel-jobbing as both language educator and African safari supporter, there just isn’t a character you can stand behind. As we get close to the middle of the film, our writer seems to realize this and the extremely vague Maximilian is introduced as a man who enjoys the company of both Minnelli and York. For “Cabaret” to work, there needed stronger characters for us to follow – ones that were defined, yet complex, not just jumping from emotion to emotion. How did Minnelli win an Oscar for this mess?

In addition to the horrid acting, the story felt rushed and unfocused as we try to keep up with the blend of music and drama. Outside the of intermittent use of Grey, our writer - Jay Presson Allen – tried to incorporate what was happening in Germany at the time with the Nazi movement, with the chaos of a cabaret show. In theory, this would be a great idea – but it failed because of again, the lack of focus with our characters. In one scene we are troubled by York’s disagreement with one of Minnelli’s haphazard choices (a big decision that was diminished by choice) and in the next, we are dissecting the idea of a German Jew. It just didn’t flow well together. In another scene, we are forced to listen to a young Nazi soldier sing a ballad that evokes singing from everyone – and our characters just drive away. For me, to best summarize this film would be one of the final scenes between York and Minnelli as she takes him to the train station. She leaves by merely waving her hand, demonstrating her care for the characters and ours as well. When this film was over, I took it out of my player, walked away waving unemotionally. “Cabaret” failed because there was nothing for the audience to hold onto. When the breakout actor was someone that didn’t speak but merely sang that should speak about how the film as a whole turned out.

VIDEO: This DVD is old. If you can say that a DVD has aged, then this would be the example. The transfer was poor, the special features were dated, and like the film itself – it left quite a bit to be desired. As an Oscar-winning film, I felt there should have been something more substantial.

VISUAL: Again, whoever put this DVD together should be fired. This was cropped on all the sides, providing a small box within your screen to watch the action unfold. There was quite a bit of graininess and lack of color that hurt the final production of this film. Beware for those who loved “Cabaret”, this is not the format in which this film, or any film, should be viewed.

SOUND: Obviously, a key element to the film – it actually sounds decent here. While the picture may be utterly distorted, the music felt vibrant and clear.

EXTRAS: What do I hate more than a poorly planned musical made in 1972, how about page flipping extras. While there is quite a bit packed into this single disc, most is page turning instead of actors talking us through the process. There are two instances where we have the opportunity to speak to York, Minnelli, and Grey (as well as a slew of producers) about their experiences, but they are double-dipped. We hear them talking in one special feature, then in the other – the reiterate the same experiences. Dud.

Overall, both with presentation and delivery, “Cabaret” failed. Minnelli’s acting and eyes told a different story, and portrayed a character that just didn’t fit for a feature film. What was attempted as original just felt stale after the first several scenes. Fosse’s direction and Grey’s performance are the only two saving qualities of this film, as the flakey York does his best as a love interest. The dual sexual roles are just too abashing for both the actors and the viewers. I was eager to witness this film, but nearly 40 years later, this film has not held up. Bravo to small part and big directors, “boo” to those that think Minnelli can carry her weight as an Oscar winning actress. (Does that hurt anyone else to say that?)

** Waves eagerly as you leave this review **

Found in my TIME OUT FILM GUIDE 2005, this was the beginning of the “C” section for me. Laugh as you must, but this was not as comfortable as it sounds. I have become an anti-Minnelli supporter, and feel that “Cabaret” was misjudged. I am eager to see what the rest of the book brings, but as a starter film – it failed. GRRR. Obviously a yellow highlight with black mark. This will not be a film watched again. Never.

Lady and the Tramp (1955)

Can you faithfully review a Disney film without being denounced for ruining memories of the youth (and past youth) of today? Can one say that a Disney film is merely “mediocre” without getting negative feedback? Well, today we shall find out. The Disney factory (using the word factory is an accurate representation) has been creating childhood favorites since the early 30s – and continue to push the boundaries of animation for children today with partnering with the hugely popular PIXAR as well as their most recent outing, “The Princess and the Frog”. There is no child growing up today that doesn’t know the name Mickey Mouse in some form or another – and that is an impressive feat for any studio. With that said, Disney’s normal focus is animating classic fairy tales like “Pinocchio” or “Cinderella” or “Snow White”, but sometimes they take a classic tale and rework it using common household animals. That is the case with “Lady and the Tramp”; my first Disney animated film to review. It is the infamous tale of young rapscallion winning the heart of a wealthy woman, but now instead of people – we have dogs. Made in 1955, this was probably another groundbreaking work for Disney, but watching it now in 2010, it has the feeling of being rushed, underdeveloped, and weak on story. So, I ask again – could Disney have created a film that was merely “mediocre”?

This reviewer will be the first to admit that the now-popular scene of Tramp and Lady eating spaghetti always pulls at the heartstrings, and was the pull-out-scene of this film, but looking at the film as a whole, it feels like it is missing that Disney magic. We begin with Lady being given to Darling as a gift one Christmas. She is an obnoxious puppy who desires the attention of her owners. Through years of gift giving and love, she finds comfort in the normality of their life. This is all about to change as our nuclear family decides to add another bundle of joy to the mix. With skepticism abound, Lady learns to love the changes and the new family. It is about this time that Tramp enters the picture. Representing the care-free, baby-less, lifestyle of living without a collar, he demonstrates the power of a small community, but also shows us (the viewers) the darkness surrounding this town. On the run from both the Pound and a sordid past, he eventually runs into Lady and one could say, “…it was love at first sight…”. As Darling and Jim Dear embark on a trip, an unknown relative comes to stay with two typecast Siamese cats. Songs, chases, and rats round out this story, that goes from light to bleak to dark again as Disney creates this seemingly dystopian world for the child audience.

I am aware that we all know the story, but the recap was needed to show a point about Disney’s use of class and status in this film. As a casual viewer, many will argue that this is just a children’s film – leave it be, but these are the images surrounding our children. Lady comes from an upper class family, with no worry of consequence; she and her friends go through the day oblivious to the world around them. Tramp, coming from the other side of the tracks (literally) represents the middle-to-lower class people. He finds friendship in the shop owners and transients of this town. What impressed me about this film was how dark and ill-created the lower part of town was, and Disney isn’t afraid to show it. The dirt roads, the black (or darkened) buildings, the fact that a storm arrives just as they head to town; it is night whenever Lady is away from her house. Let’s not forget as well, the rat comes out of a hole with a poster for the circus right above. This demonstrates another transient profession that is somehow darkened by this film. The stark use of light and dark in this film is used not only for tone, but also a world outside of the white picket fences and collars.

What is the impression handed to children with this imagery? If you want children or the house with the white picket fence, or safety – you need to be like Lady. While if you want to see the world, experience life without a collar, one would need to live like Tramp. What makes this reality odd is Tramp’s choice? To see this point clearer, look at Tramp’s “friends”. Where are they at the end of the film? Nobody comes to visit, they could be dead (Disney handed us that bleak image near the middle of the film), while the entire time they are speaking of him as a saint and great friend. Nobody came to bail Pedro, Toughy, or Peg out. Was this the happy ending we all wanted?

With the undertones exposed, how was the remainder of the film? While it carried some iconic images, the overall pacing of the film was a bit sloppy. As this is a story with two sets of eyes, we are never quite given a full story on either. Lady’s story is further developed, while Tramp just seems to be inserted for merely the “cause and effect” storyline. The voice work was decent in this film. The 76-minute run seemed nothing like a sprint. I think it was because I cared nothing for these dogs. They were beautifully drawn, but more development was needed. The “evil” rat was introduced twice, and represented the darkness creeping into suburbia, but it just wasn’t enough to pull Lady and the Tramp together. What did Lady really want in life? My ending question – why was she denied it?

VIDEO: This is a “mediocre” Disney film. It doesn’t have the power of “The Jungle Book”, it doesn’t have the imagination of “Robin Hood”, it lacks the love like your “Princess” tales. When looking for a stronger dog-Disney film, look towards “Fox and the Hound” – a stronger entry into the canine Disney world.

VISUAL: Disney’s 50^th anniversary edition claims a stronger restoration of the print, while does look good. The colors seemed very white in Lady’s world, but extra dark in Tramp’s life. The darks were a bit too dark, missing some of the action in these scenes. Also, the visuals inside of Lady’s house seemed bland. Perhaps this was another symbolic moment, but just “ho-hum” overall.

SOUND: Very Good. The songs seemed crisp, the voice work seemed bold. This was the strongest element of this disc. The restoration was above average, but the sound was dedicated.

EXTRAS: Again, missing the second disc, I didn’t have the chance to fully explore this DVD. When Disney re-releases it from the Vault, perhaps I will explore the world of “Lady and the Tramp” further, but for now – the single disc will suffice.

Overall, this wasn’t a bad Disney movie; it just wasn’t one of the greatest. I felt the symbolism was overbearing as well as the choices made to be a bit misleading for children. The characters of Lady and Tramp seemed one dimensional at times, lacking in the ability to pull me back into a second viewing. The songs were low-key and outside of the Siamese cats’ duet, forgotten. Would I recommend this to children? Maybe – there are defiantly better options. “The Lady and the Tramp” will always have spaghetti, but they will not have space on my DVD shelf.

Found in my “Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Films” book, this is the last of the “L” category. I am excited about what is to come, but also nervous. This was a good trip, with highs and mediocre hours, but I am going into the next book with no prior film experience. Let’s see how it does. For “Lady and the Tramp” I am giving it a pink mark. Good, but not great. Disney could have done better. Also, I work for the middle class – so I was semi-turned away to begin with.