FernGully the Last Rainforest - A black and white view of an important subject

I'm just going to come right out and admit that I've never liked FernGully the Last Rainforest. Even back in 1992 - when the film was first released - I found the sanctimonious, black and white message incredibly insulting. It didn't help that Captain Planet - another heavy handed environmentalist cartoon - had already jaded me to many of the ideas being used in FernGully either. Now these comments probably make me sound like a nature hating, right wing prick. But that's the funny thing, I'm a conscientious liberal. That's right, I recycle every week, I replaced all the light bulbs in my house with energy efficient alternatives years ago and I think Al Gore is telling the truth about Global Warming! Yet I still hate FernGully, Captain Planet and James Cameron's Avatar for being dumbed down, one-sided pieces of propaganda.

Whew. Okay, with that little rant out of my system I would like to just step back and say that despite my obvious anger towards FernGully, I am going to do my best to write as fair a review as possible. After all, it's not the films overall message I disagree with, it's the way that message is delivered I found frustrating.

The story of FernGully starts with a recounting of an age long past when fairies and humans lived in harmony with nature. Unfortunately Hexxus, an evil creature personifying destruction and the pollution of nature, ended all that when he tried to burn down the magical forest housing this idyllic setting. Only by calling upon all the powers of nature was Magi (the fairy people’s sort of spiritual leader) able to trap Hexxus in a tree and save FernGully. Unfortunately, all the humans who once lived there fled during the chaos and now fairies believe humans to only be a myth. Cue the discontent and inquisitive fairy girl Crysta. Though in training to replace Magi, Crysta (much like Ariel of the Little Mermaid) wants to see the world above the canopy (a place no sane fairy dare venture) and would like nothing more than to meet one of these fabled humans. Eventually this happens when Crysta encounters Zak, a teenage boy helping clear cut the rainforest FernGully resides in (a fact Crysta fails to realize). Through a series of unfortunate events, Crysta is forced to shrink Zak down to fairy size to save his life. Before this happens, however, Zak accidently marks the tree Hexxus is trapped in for removal, a mistake that eventually leads to Hexxus' escape. Unable to return Zak to normal size, Crysta and her new human friend must seek the aid of Magi, all the while Hexxus' specter draws closer and closer to FernGully.

Being that the mythology of FernGully is so tightly connected to the films environmental themes, it's difficult to judge one without the other. That said, I don't think the story of FernGully's is horrible, just really, really, really, really, really contrived. Overly romanticized ideas like "living as one with nature", or the perfect balance found in nature and how harming any tree causes pain, is insanely idealized and unnecessarily biased. Meanwhile, the force threatening this environmental serenity is an evil, uncompromising plume of black smoke that wants nothing but destruction. This coercive message is fine for guilting kids into felling bad about deforestation, but in my opinion the subject is much more complex and deserving of intelligent and honest writing. Telling your audience (especially children) that carving your name in a tree is “bad” reeks of excessive tree-hugging hippy fanaticism. If, however, you were to focus on the destruction of ecosystems - and the need to preserve them - go for it. Just don't make the antagonist some mustache twirling cliché, maliciously trying to poison the environment. Put a more honest face on the problem and challenge the viewer to think for themselves.

For an example of what I'm talking about, I would like to just take a moment and mention my two favorite environmentally themed films; Wall-e and the Princess Mononoke. In Wall-e we are shown a future where our throw away culture has literally turned earth into a garbage dump, and humans have been forced to leave the planet while robots "clean up" the mess. Additionally, the connectivity brought about by technology has resulted in a complete disconnect in terms of human interaction. Now reliant upon machines for survival, humans have become overweight, lethargic and complacent. At the root of all this isn't some sinister evil force though. It's just a really successful company trying to give people what they want. Unfortunately, the careless means used to achieve this end has resulted in the near destruction of our planet, and the human spirit. Conversely, the Princess Mononoke doesn't depict a world where commercialism and technology have run amok. But instead creates an alternate reality - similar to our own - where animal and forest spirits roam the wild. With the advent of guns, however, the spirits of nature find their habitat under attack and set out to fight back against the humans responsible for this plight. What really makes this movie brilliant though, is that Hayao Miyazaki (the film's director) crafts a story where there are no villains, just people with different agendas. Tragically, these agendas can be very destructive and harmful to nature, but the people behind them are not really evil, with some actually being quite noble. This is intelligent filmmaking. The way that Wall-e and the Princess Mononoke caution their audience without preaching to them makes for thought provoking entertainment, not preachy propaganda. Admittedly, it would be unrealistic to expect every film promoting the environment to be as good as these masterpieces, but some subtext isn't all that much to ask either.

As for FernGully's characters, they're decidedly bland. Crysta is just too archetypical. Whether it be her relationship as apprentice to Magi, her need to challenge conventional thinking or her romance with Zak, Crysta comes across feeling very trite and overly familiar. Zak is ridiculously predictable and transparent with his path to enlightenment - as well as his affection for Crysta - being painfully cliché. Batty ... well he's the comedic relief that never manages to be funny. His back-story involves animal experimentation by humans (Batty is a bat), so naturally he's very distrustful of Zak while reinforcing the films theme that humans are evil. Other than that, Battys only purpose is to try and generate laughs, something he fails to do 99% of the time he's on screen.

It's not all bad though (even if I make it sound that way). The stories pacing and structure are solid. Plus I liked the world building, though it really needed some more fleshing out. With some better characters - and a lot less sermonizing - FernGully could have been a respectable little film. Instead, the writer oversimplifies the subject matter to myopic notions like "man cut down tree ... bad, noble savage living at one with nature ... good". Personally I find this kind of guilt inducing environmental dogma offensive, even if I'm sympathetic to the cause.

On a more positive note, the animation and overall production value of FernGully is pretty solid. While not on the same level as the Disney features being released during the early 1990s (this movie was released the same year as Disney's Beauty and the Beast), FernGully's visuals were definitely feature film worthy.

The animation itself is very fluid, and appears to be twenty-four frames per second. The design work on the natural, supernatural and even man-made elements from the movie is also quite nice. The character designs (much like the characters themselves) are a little on the bland side unfortunately. Still, the color palette - which was primarily made up of warm colors - looks very good on screen, and the backgrounds are well rendered.

In short, FernGully is a relatively pleasant film to look at. There's a nice Don Bluth sensibility - both in terms of the character and background styling - that I found very appropriate and appealing given the stories setting. Once again, the visuals fall short of being exceptional, with numerous studios doing far superior animation at this time. That said, the quality and craftsmanship put into this film is undeniable, and it looks like a lot of love went into creating it.

The actors working on FernGully all do a pretty decent job as well. The biggest name of the bunch is obviously Robin Williams, who does the voice of Batty. As one would expect, the character has all the energetic, fast talking cadence Williams brings to most of his comedic rolls. Unfortunately, none of the jokes - or even the improv - really hits the mark despite Williams’s best efforts. Other than that, the only thing that bugged me was the lack of Australian accents for characters like Zak. I mean the kid’s driver’s license actually says he's from Australia. Why not give him a "down under" accent? Maybe this was done to help make the film more universal to English speaking audiences, but I honestly see no reason for Zak to not speak like an Aussie.

Musically speaking, FernGully is pretty weak. Like Disney, this film uses a number of songs to illustrate the emotions, desires etc. of its characters. Unlike Disney, the songs for FernGully are either egregiously bad or completely forgettable. The worst - by far - was the Batty Rap. In a pathetic attempt to make the character seem "cool" and "hip", the film's creators actually have Batty rap about his experiences as a test subject for humans. The end result of this musical mishap is neither “fresh” nor "dope" however, just incredibly sad, kind of like a rapping granny ... but less funny.

Despite how important the subject matter is, I just can't bring myself to recommend FernGully the Last Rainforest. While the film has lots of good intentions, the story is in no way profound, eye-opening or thought provoking. Rather, the movie comes across as a sanctimonious, bleeding-heart piece of propaganda. That said, I must also admit that the things I find offensive about FernGully are not things everyone will take umbrage with. Some people like these types of stories. Heck, James Cameron's Avatar (a movie that was heavily influenced by FernGully) is the highest grossing film in history, despite being the most contrived and derivative environmental film I've seen in the last decade. So I guess the only real advice I can give (keeping in mind that I'm a no nothing cartoon geek) is to be aware of what you like. If you're a fan of Captain Planet and other rah-rah nature films, FernGully is right up your alley. If, however, you do not enjoy one-sided Hollywood features telling you how to feel, it's best to stay away.

Thundarr the Barbarian - Lords of Light, this is still a fun show.

Have you ever asked yourself "What would happen if Conan the Barbarian was given a lightsaber and forced to fight evil in a post-apocalyptic future"? Who am I kidding, of course you have. Thankfully, the answer to this question can be found in the Ruby-Spears show Thundarr the Barbarian. Premiering in 1980, Thundarr the Barbarian was a half-hour long action-adventure program that took some of the more popular ideas of its time and merged them into a simple minded, yet enjoyable show.

I was definitely a fan of Thundarr back in the early 1980s. Naturally the biggest reason for this was the "Sunsword" wielded by Thundarr himself. Being a huge Star Wars fan, I pretty much fell in love with any weapon resembling a lightsaber back then, and this show took full advantage of that fandom. While only 21 episodes in length, Thundarr has still managed to keep himself relevant with channels like Cartoon Network and Boomerang airing repeats regularly. Now, some 30 years after its premiere, the entire series has been collected in a four-disc manufacture-on-demand DVD set available at the Warner Brothers Archive. Having had a chance to re-watch this childhood favorite for the first time in over a decade, I am pleased to say that Thundarr - though cheaply produced and completely devoid of substance - is still a very entertaining show.

There is no real overriding story to Thundarr the Barbarian, just the setup introduced in the show's title sequence. Basically, a runaway planet (I blame the parents) hurtled between the earth and the moon causing catastrophic destruction. The resulting natural disasters cast human civilization into ruin, and mankind was all but wiped out. Two-thousand years later, earth has been reborn as a strange and savage world where both super-science and sorcery now reign supreme. No longer the dominate life form of the planet, humans find themselves constantly under attack from evil forces that seek to either enslave or destroy them. Fortunately Thundarr and his companions - Ukla the Moc and Princess Ariel - have chosen to wander the desolate wastelands of earth and fight for truth and justice.

With a premise like that, it should be no surprise that Thundarr was an episodic cartoon series. The stories were all self contained and usually followed the same recognizable pattern. Thundarr, Ariel and Uklah ride out of the wilderness and discover a group of people (usually humans) being attacked/captured. Our heroes then intervene - with varying degrees of success - and eventually chase off the attackers. Realizing that the only way their new friends will ever be free of tyranny, Thundarr and his comrades then set out to rescue any captured victims and defeat the evil creature(s) responsible. Of course it would be an exaggeration for me to say that all of Thundarr's 21 episodes followed this same formula, but at the same time I wouldn't be all that far off either. Yet despite these paper thin plots, I found the repetitive storytelling in Thundarr strangely entertaining.

One of the reasons I liked this show's writing is because Thundarr - unlike the other action-adventure cartoons that followed it - doesn't dumb itself down for the audience. Sure, there's no substance to the story, or clever subtext with layered meanings, but at the same time there's also no "cute" animal sidekicks or public service morals either. Violence was tame of course, but nowhere near as bad as the other 1980's action-adventure programs. Additionally, the small number of episodes created for each of Thundarr's two seasons helps keep the series from becoming stale. In short, Thundarr the Barbarian doesn't wear out its welcome and rarely panders to its audience - or their parents - while trying to be something that it isn't. Cartoons like GI Joe, Transformers, He-Man and Thundercats would have been much better off had they been able to display a similar brand of integrity.

The show's characters - much like its plot - manage to be both one dimensional and fun at the same time. Thundarr himself is every bit the barbarian the show's title implies. He's loud, boastful and thinks every problem should be solved with either his sunsword or his fists. His flippant disregard of female opinions with a roll of the eyes while muttering "women” is also hilariously chauvinistic and backwards. Princess Ariel would be the beauty and brains of the outfit. Besides her good looks, the young sorceress possesses extensive knowledge and insight into the world prior to the "Great Cataclysm", and uses that information to both educate her companions and reward us - the audience - for knowing what is happening before the exposition kicks in. Ariel is also the obligatory magic user/supernaturally sensitive member of the group, an action-adventure tradition that has only grown over the years (seriously, just off the top of my head there's Ariel, Jedda from Defenders of the Earth, Niko from Galaxy Rangers, Cheetara from Thundercats, Tula from Pirates of Darkwater and - more recently - Gwen Tennyson from Ben 10). Ukla is a Chewbacca knockoff, both in appearance and purpose. He's incredibly big and strong, loses his temper easily and communicates with a series of strange growls. Ukla also serves up a good portion of the show's comedic relief by falling into funny situations resulting from his diminished intelligence, brutish strength or fear of water. As I said before, none of these characters have any depth or dimension to them. They take nothing away from their journeys, the interpersonal dynamics never change and the characters don't evolve as the series progresses. That said I never felt frustrated by Thundarr and his friends. The show's episodic format - along with the character's charm - helped me to just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Obviously there's nothing brilliant about Thundarr (whether it be the character, or his show). The cartoon was insanely formulaic and used convenient deus ex machinas far too often. The characters were similarly one dimensional and the stories completely devoid of substance. Compare this to the action-adventure standards that would come about in the early 1990s, and you would be justified in calling this show bad. Yet, when you consider the time period this show was created in - as well as the egregiously bad cartoons that would follow it - I can't help but cut Thundarr some slack. Though neither clever nor original, I still found this program both fun and easy to watch, like reading an old 1960s comic book.

Probably the biggest reason Thundarr succeeds, however, is the visuals. While the animation itself is very low budget - with minimal movement and recycled animation sequence being the norm - the background and production design for this series is phenomenal.

I mentioned before that watching Thundarr the Barbarian is like reading a good 1960s comic book. Well a big reason for this is because the bulk of the series design was done by the great Jack "King" Kirby. Now I'm not old enough to have enjoyed Jack's work when it was first published, but like any good comic fan, I spent much of my youth reading reprints and old torn up copies of Kirby's great runs on Fantastic Four, Captain America, The Avengers and X-Men. That being the case, it was an absolute treat to see all the great "Kirby Tech" (an endearing nickname given to the way Jack would render advanced technology) and character design work this legendary artist did for the various wizards, mutants and other creatures permeating the show. To be clear, the main character designs for Thundarr, Ariel and Uklah were NOT done by Kirby, but instead by Alex Toth. Toth was another veteran comic book artist, but while his work in that medium was impressive, he is best known for the Hanna-Barbera animation designs he did on shows like Space Ghost, Birdman, and the Herculoids. Like Kirby, Alex Toth was a master of his craft and it was a real pleasure to see his work on display here.

Besides the series design, Thundarr's backgrounds also provide a feast for the eyes rarely seen during this time. Being that the show was set in a post-apocalyptic future; crumbling cities, overgrown vegetation and overturned vehicles make up much of the show's landscape. This desolate, deteriorating reality is so well designed and rendered that it practically becomes a character all its own. True, the quality of these illustrations do vary - with some clearly showing their budgetary limitations - but the strength of the design always shines through, and the show looks great because of it.

Without question, the animation of Thundarr the Barbarian's is poor. Movement was sparse and stiff, there was a ton of recycled scenes (especially the ones where they're riding their horses) and animation glitches were not uncommon (keep an eye out for whenever Thundarr loses his sword hilt, you'll almost always see it show up on his wristband, even though it shouldn't be there). Still, the masterfully designed characters - and world - make this show's visuals a resounding success. Compared to the work coming out of Hanna-Barbera and even Warner Bros. at this time, I'm very impressed with the presentation and creative talent Ruby-Spears gave Thundarr.

Unfortunately, the voice acting in Thundarr is very much a product of its era. Outside of the solid work by Robert Ridgely (Thundarr) and Nelie Beliflower (Ariel), most of the voices in this show were either generic or repetitive (sometimes both). The villains were especially bad since many of them shared the same raspy, echoey voice found far too often in this genre. Equally bad was the in show music which was very recycled and unimpressive in its execution. So basically, the audio portion of Thundarr falls pretty flat. It's not horrible mind you, but doesn't rise above its peers and is often surpassed by them.

Thundarr the Barbarian is not a show I recommend for everyone. Unlike other cartoons of this time period, however, I do whole heartedly suggest that fans of the program pickup this MOD set. While many people have found themselves frustrated with the action-adventure shows of their youth, I think the potential for disappointment is far less likely here. The DVDs themselves are completely barebones - with absolutely zero extras - and the packaging/presentation is decidedly manufacture-on-demand. Still, the video quality is good - though clearly not restored - and the content more than makes up for the lack of extras.

Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman is better suited for primetime

Of all the feature length Batman cartoons to take place within the DC Animated Universe, Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman is by far the least impressive. While on the surface this may appear to be a declaration of failure, the truth is Batman's DCAU films are just too good for Mystery of the Batwoman to live up to. There's Batman Mask of the Phantasm, considered by many (myself included) to be THE quintessential Batman movie, Batman Subzero, an amazingly touching film where the villain is practically the star, Batman/Superman World's Finest, the greatest cartoon superhero team-up ever (despite being a television crossover) and Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker, a beautifully animated DTV that somehow managed to resurrect the original Joker without being cheesy about it (truth be told, it's pretty darn twisted). Compared to these films, Mystery of the Batwoman just doesn't measure up with its unambitious story and TV quality animation. Even the involvement of Alan Burnett - the man responsible for writing Batman Mask of the Phantasm - isn't enough to make this film anything more than average.

The story of Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman is a simple enough one. Gotham city has a new crime fighter, and she's sporting the same symbol as the city's most famous vigilante Batman. With a reckless disregard for human life, this Batwoman is dead set on taking down the villainous trio of Rupert Thorne, Carlton Duquesne and the Penguin at any cost. Unhappy with the methods employed by this new "hero", Batman begins to investigate the identity of Batwoman while himself trying to stop the Penguin and his partners. Every time Batman thinks he's close to uncovering the truth about Batwoman, however, his suspect is cleared of involvement and the Dark Knight must start his investigation anew.

On a technical level, the story done by Alan Burnett for Mystery of the Batwoman is pretty well constructed. Burnett cleverly crafts a tale that keeps the audience guessing about the identity of Batwoman up until the third act where the big reveal finally takes place. Unfortunately, the actual impact of this unveiling just doesn't feel all that substantial. It's hard for me to discuss the reasons why this reveal doesn't work without spoiling the surprise, so I'll just say that this mystery - though well hidden - doesn't have the emotional impact that Batman Mask of the Phantasm had, even though Burnett was clearly trying to channel the success he had with that earlier story. Still, there's some nice subtly to the stories writing with lots of details becoming more obvious upon second viewing.

Unfortunately, the scope and emotion in this movie just doesn't feel DTV worthy. Between the unimpressive weapons manufacturing mcguffin and the poor characterization, I just don't see why this story warranted a feature film video release. One example of this can be found in Burnett's attempts to give back-story to the numerous suspects and new characters used in Mystery of the Batwoman. Though admirable in effort, far too many of  these characters either end up being underdeveloped (Sonia) or uninteresting (Kathy). In fact, the only person I had any emotional sympathy for was Roxanne, everybody else felt like a cipher. Characters outside of the Batwoman mystery don't get any better either. The criminal team of Penguin, Thorne and Duquesne just isn't all that impressive, and their nefarious scheme to manufacture and smuggle hi-tech weapons is exceedingly generic. Even the latter inclusion of Bane into this story does little to help these lackluster antagonists. If this were just a two-part TV story, I wouldn't have a problem with the scope of this plot. But turning something like this into a feature length film doesn't feel appropriate. DTV stories need to be more visceral, the villains more threatening and characters more engaging. Such was not the case with Mystery of the Batwoman.

Another thing that bugged me was the awkwardly romantic conversation between Barbara Gordon (Batgirl) and Bruce Wayne (Batman) early in the film. Why was this even in the movie? Besides the fact that a Bruce and Barbara hookup is exceedingly creepy (after all she was dating Bruce's former ward Dick Grayson - the original Robin - in Batman Subzero), it serves no purpose to the rest of the story, and - given the movies ending - feels very out of place. Now, I'm guessing the reason this scene was included was to tie this movie into the Batman Beyond timeline (Bruce and Barbara are former lovers in that show ... which I find disturbing), and thus solidify the continuity between Batman the Animated Series, Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman and Batman Beyond. Though this would make sense, I still feel this exchange was an unnecessary interruption in the story (Barbara doesn't even show up throughout the rest of the film) and ultimately takes away from the character dynamics being created for the movie.

So clearly I had some issues with the writing of this film. A lot of these problems stem from an overabundance of characters, others from the scope of the plot and some are just personal (I have no idea why I'm so hung up on Batman and Batgirl's romance; I just can't stand it for some reason). All that said, I still admire a lot of the craftsmanship put into this story; the pacing is solid, the mystery is well hidden and the humor is pretty good. As I said before, this would have made a great two-part story for Batman the Animated Series, but it's not nearly meaty enough to warrant a DTV.

My avouchment that Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman is better suited for TV doesn't end with the story though. I also feel that the visuals in this film would look more at home in an animated series than they do on a direct-to-video feature. It's not that the film looks bad or anything (because it doesn't), it just isn't very theatrical. Compared to other Batman DTV's, and even the Batman/Superman TV crossover, the animation and staging found here looks very pedestrian. Though generally stronger than your average episode of Batman the Animated Series, I can remember numerous episodes from that same show with better visuals than Mystery of the Batwoman.

Another unimpressive area of the film would be in its design. Batwoman's silver costume just doesn't quite fit into the Batman universe, the hi-tech weapons are too sci-fi (like something out of Superman) and the backgrounds - though well rendered - lack ambition. This is doubly disappointing since the film was created in 2003 when DTV quality was supposed to be on the rise. Heck, Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker was released four years earlier and its character design and backgrounds were much stronger than this.

It's not that the visuals in Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman are bad, they're just not good enough to warrant their medium. Not only is the films animation eclipsed by all of the previous Batman DTVs, but also by numerous Batman the Animated Series episodes and plenty of other DTV features outside of the DCAU. Normally I wouldn't make such a fuss over a movie that technically looks solid, but when you're a part of the Batman franchise, expectations can run rather high.

Fortunately, the voice acting in Mystery of the Batwoman does live up to its predecessors. Being that the story takes place within the DC Animated Universe, almost all the voice actors from the original Batman cartoon showed up to reprise their roles. In fact, the only disappointment I had with the voice over work in this movie was with the Penguin. Instead of Paul Williams (the original voice actor for the Penguin) we got David Ogden Stiers, a significant step down in my opinion. To be fair, Stiers does give a pretty decent performance, but Williams had such a unique voice one cannot help but notice his absence. Other than that, this films cast is excellent.

Musically I thought the score for Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman was pretty good too. It definitely had a sound all its own, and the Batwoman theme music was a nice touch. While I wouldn't rank it above the other Batman DTVs, the audio portion of this film holds its own rather nicely.

Taken as a whole, Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman is a decent film. The production value isn't what it should be considering when it was made, but the writing - while a tab unambitious - does have some nice touches and is well refined. When compared to the animated Batman features that came before it, however, this film comes up very wanting. Things like the animation, character selection, and story just scream TV, as does the full frame aspect ratio (which really should've been widescreen considering it was released post 2000). Additionally, the DVD itself has some compression issues, with banding occurring more than once during the course of the film. If you're a fan of Batman the Animated Series (or more specifically the New Batman Adventures), Mystery of the Batwoman is worth a watch (though I probably wouldn't recommend buying it). If, however, you are just looking for a really good animated Batman feature, I would suggest going with any of the aforementioned DTVs I listed throughout this review before bothering with Batwoman.

Greek tragedy. Hercules and Xena: The Battle for Mount Olympus.

Hercules and Xena: The Battle for Mount Olympus is a movie I should have never watched. Not only is this 1998 film the worst direct-to-video feature I've ever seen (and I mean that), but I'm not even a fan of the original syndicated shows that spawned this ham-fisted cash grab.

Now, I don't begrudge fans their enjoyment of the popular 1990s programs Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess, I just never found anything of worth in them. True, I have an affinity for Greek Mythology, but I just can't get past the cheesy humor, poor acting and laughable action that permeated these shows. That said, I'm always happy to see the fantasy genre find mainstream success, and the idea of taking Hercules - who has superhuman strength - and Xena - who has metahuman fighting skills - and putting them into animation (which lends itself well to that sort of action) is a good one. Unfortunately, the horrible execution of this worthwhile endeavor fails on every possible level, and what we're left with is a film so bad, it should be reclassified as a new form of corporal punishment.

Since any attempt I make to recount the plot of Hercules and Xena, would end up sounding incoherent, I'll simply forego the effort and give you incoherent highlights instead. In a nut shell, Hercules sets out on a quest to save his mother who's been "kidnapped" by Zeus, a jealous Hera frees the Titans from Tartarus with a powerful object called the Chronostone, Xena is forced to help fight the Titans when her sidekick Gabrielle gets turned into a giant bird and the gods of Olympus are transformed into woodland creatures when they fail to defeat Hera's Titans. The end result of all this tomfoolery is that Hercules and Xena must join forces, defeat the Titans themselves, and return the Chronostone to Zeus. Got all that? Good, now let me tell you why this story sucks so bad.

First off, the tone of this movie is far too childish. Obviously the cartoon was aimed at youngsters, but when you have two popular shows whose core audience is between 12-24 years of age, you might want to consider using a story that will appeal to people over the age of 4. That massive foundational mistake aside, the writing of this movie is horribly callow. The motivations are superficial, the characters simpleminded and the narrative one dimensional. Seriously, if Nickelodeon ever made Dora the Explorer: The Battle for Mount Olympus, it would probably look something like this.

Additional writing miscues include; an unnecessary apology by Xena to Gabrielle, a woefully misguided attempt to make Aphrodite into a hippy slacker, the complete absence of a dozen or more Greek Gods including Poseidon and Hades, an egregiously underpowered Ares (who Xena can beat up for some reason) and a line of dialog so bad, it's almost good. What is this baffling piece of awful, yet brilliant dialog you ask? Well, after Zeus is defeated by the Titans (and remember Zeus is supposed to be the proud king of all Greek Gods), he travels to the home of Hercules' mother, knocks on the door with as much dignity as he can muster, and gruffly proclaims "Open up. It's me ... Zeus". Now that may not be funny to read, but trust me, when spoken aloud in a cartoon setting, that phrase is one of the most unintentionally hilarious things you will ever hear.

Compounding the struggles of this film are a number of pacing problems as well. The stories second act in particular felt oddly climatic, with all the main characters coming together in one big fight. This led me to believe the film (i.e. nightmare) was coming to an end, but then things just fell apart and our heroes were forced to retreat. Another pacing problem occurs at the start of the third act when we are treated to back-to-back songs by the Titans and Xena. This was especially odd because outside of the opening credit song (which tells the basic story of Hercules and the Greek Gods) there was no singing for like 50 minutes in this movie. Then - out of nowhere - we get two completely unnecessary numbers which do nothing to advance the story. To be clear, I'm not upset that they included songs in this film. With everyone aping Disney's animated features at the time, I kind of expect it. But why did they play them one after another? Wouldn't it make more sense to spread out the music so that the film has some semblance of balance? I guess the movies producers weren't big on planning.

So if the writing of Hercules and Xena: The Battle for Mount Olympus is an unmitigated disaster, one would think the animation couldn't possibly be worse ... right? (sigh) Well it is. In fact, the visuals in this movie are so bad I will unequivocally declare that this is - by far - the worst looking DTV I've ever seen.

To start, the animation is decidedly cheap. Movement is sparse, the in-betweens are minimal and the staging awkward. Character designs are no better, with Zeus sporting ridiculously pedestrian attire (completely unbefitting a god), and the Titans looking egregiously generic. Then there's the backgrounds (oh god the backgrounds). Instead of creating the numerous settings of this film with paintings or even pen and ink illustrations, the producers of this movie used - what appear to be - pastel and color pencil backgrounds. These horribly under designed images are so poorly rendered it looks like a first year art student did them over the weekend to make a couple extra bucks. Take Olympus for example. This is supposed to be the home of the gods, a place of extravagance and grandeur. Yet the Olympus shown in Hercules and Xena is nothing more than an unassuming brown castle with an under decorated throne room. Of course, there is something to be said about using highly stylized and minimalist backgrounds correctly. Take Genndy Tartakovsky's show Samurai Jack, or even the old Looney Tunes as an example. These shows had very simplistic settings, but they were exceedingly creative and brilliant in design. The backgrounds in Hercules and Xena, however, are unimaginative, amateurish and completely unacceptable by comparison.

Honestly, the only word I can think to describe these movie visuals is cheap. No effort was put into the character designs past Xena and Hercules. The animation was obviously done on a less than shoe string budget. And the backgrounds are pure garbage. I don't know what kind of budget this film had, but judging from the final product it must have barely been six digits.

I mentioned earlier that there are three songs played during the course of this movie. The first one plays with the opening credits, and the other two run back-to-back at the start of the third act. Of these, the first and third songs would be considered passable. Neither is any good mind you, but at least they are competently written and performed. I'll even take it one step further and say that Lucy Lawless (who performs the Xena song) does an excellent job with her number. That said, whoever wrote the film's second song "We are the Titans" - is either a brilliant prankster, or the worst cartoon song writer in history. My favorite part was when the Titans would sing their chorus which includes the horribly funny verse "Boom Shaka Laka, Boom Shaka Laka, Boom". Not since the Rankin-Bass debacle "Return of the King" have I heard such an awful piece of music (BTW if you're curios, the "Return of the King" cartoon I'm referring to has a song titled "Where there's a whip, there's a way". I kid you not.). Anyway, the musical numbers in this movie do nothing to improve the already dismal situation brought about by the terrible story and animation.

On a less negative note, both Kevin Sorbo and Lucy Lawless do some decent voice acting in this film. Though nothing could save Hercules and Xena: The Battle for Mount Olympus from its own absurdly bad production, I'm glad the title actors tried their best. Unfortunately, the secondary characters - like Zeus - were voiced by actors completely unfit for the parts, and ultimately the films vocal performances are ruined because of it.

Taken as a whole, I don't think Hercules and Xena: The Battle for Mount Olympus managed to do one thing right. The story is terrible, both in tone and structure. The animation looks like it was done by a bunch of art school dropouts. The songs are poorly planned, with one of them being completely laughable. And whatever good came from the main character voice acting was roundly ruined by the secondary actors. I don't know how else I can say it, this is a very, very, very, very bad movie. In fact, the only thing good about it is the poster (shown along with this review). Had this film been able to deliver the excitement and promise found in this advertisement, we could have been looking at the start of a new animation franchise. Instead, Hercules and Xena turned out to be nothing more than a forgettable cash grab, a pathetic attempt to make a quick buck off the popularity of its title characters. Though it's available on DVD, this film should not be viewed by anyone, not even fans of the original shows. Sad when you consider how good a fit both of these franchises are for animation, what a waste.


Footnote: I find it very funny that the poster for this movie included the tag line "The REAL Hercules". This was an obvious attempt to distinguish the Kevin Sorbo version of this character from the Disney animated feature "Hercules" that was released in 1997. This makes me laugh for two reasons. One, Disney's animated Hercules - which was a theatrical release - is about a billion times better than the Hercules and Xena direct-to-video feature sporting this presumptuous statement. Two, there have been dozens of incarnations of the Hercules character in various medias over the years, and the very idea that Kevin Sorbo's Hercules is the only "Real" one is just arrogant and asinine.

All Star Superman rises to the occasion

Adaptations can be a tricky thing when it comes to feature films, whether it be live action or animation. Selecting the right source material and figuring out how to capture the "essence" of that story onscreen - while at the same time cutting out anything extraneous - is an art unto itself, one that - more often than not - leads to unsatisfactory conclusions. Take, for example, the Ultimate Avengers movie by Marvel. Despite having excellent source material, this film was an absolute wreck and failed miserably on almost every level. Superman Doomsday was better, but considering how bloated and tepid the original story was, the best one could expect from this animated adaptation was mediocrity. Yet, it's not all doom and gloom. Personally I loved the DTV versions of both Batman: Under the Red Hood and Planet Hulk, stories that were adapted from existing comics. With such a mixed track record, however, I found myself very concerned for All Star Superman.

All Star Superman is an Eisner Award winning, 12-issue, series that teamed up "All Star" writer Grant Morrison with "All Star" artist Frank Quitely. To say the story is a masterpiece is almost an understatement. Expertly crafted on every level, All Star Superman chronicles the final great deeds performed by a dying Superman. With a perfect mix of emotion, action and intelligence, this is the ultimate love letter to the iconic Superman of the 1940's and 1950's. Obviously adapting such a universally praised series would be a tall order for any filmmaker, yet Bruce Timm and company have sought to do just that with their latest animated DTV, the conveniently titled All Star Superman.

I had a number of concerns coming into this film, but the greatest among them was the quasi-episodic format of the original All Star Superman comic book. Though the story has an overriding plot involving Lex Luthor, the bulk of the 12-issue series is made up of self contained stories. Taking these stories and creating a single narrative seemed like a very daunting task to me, one that I feared was impossible. Fortunately the film's writer, Dwayne McDuffie, understood this and focused his adaptation on the core elements of the story while sprinkling in as much of the stand alone plot points as he could. This will, of course, lead to a lot of fans and critics complaining about how their favorite parts of the source material were either glossed over or cut from the film entirely. But while this may be true, I feel that McDuffie did exactly what was needed. The truth is you can't include everything from the comic book, to try and do so would wreck the movies pacing and story structure. Starting with the core theme, however, and choosing the plot points that best support that theme, was the correct course of action. Better yet, McDuffie stayed very true to everything that was included in the film, so it's not like he took a bunch of liberties with the material, he just couldn't include it all.

Personally, I was very impressed by the animated story adaptation for All Star Superman. Only the Kryptonian Astronauts sequence felt out of place, and that was only slightly. Sure, the original story will always be better, but that shouldn't take away from what this movie did right. Overall, I think this is an excellent representation of the source material, and one of the best animated DTVs I've seen of late.

Visually speaking, All Star Superman looks superb. Given the unique art style of Frank Quitely, I was - once again - concerned that the animated version of this story would not be able to adapt successfully from the source material. Thankfully, the films creators were up to the challenge, and did an excellent job recreating Quitely's work in animation. True, they'll never get as close to the original artwork as one would like, but the movies animators - much like its writer - found a really good balance. I was especially impressed with the way All Star Superman captured the posture of characters like Clark Kent. Unlike other artists, Frank Quitely wanted to contrast Superman and Kent by making the latter a fumbling, disheveled slouch. Fortunately, the films creators understood how important this contrast was and kept the idea intact. In fact, the only complaint I had regarding the films style was that Lois Lane doesn't look enough like her comic book counterpart. I'm guessing this is because of the very odd way Quitely draws women's faces (some even accuse him of drawing ugly women), and the animators wanted to do something a little more traditional. Other than that, I thought the style of this movie matched its source material nicely.

On a technical level, the actual animation itself is admirable. Movement is always smooth; staging is solid and the action powerful. Admittedly, the fight choreography found here isn't as good as other DC direct-to-video features. For example, films like Batman: Under the Red Hood and Batman/Superman Apocalypse have much better action. But I suspect this is because All Star Superman was trying to stay true to its roots. Sure, Bruce Timm and crew could have come up with some amazing battle sequences, but doing so might have compromised the style of the film. Considering how hard the movies creators worked to keep All Star Superman in line with the source material, I won't hold this against them.

Overall, I loved the look of All Star Superman. The animation, backgrounds and design are all fantastic, and the CGI wasn't half bad either (especially by DTV standards). Though the film isn't visually groundbreaking in any way, it still ranks in the upper echelon of direct-to-video animated offerings.

Rounding out the impressive production of All Star Superman is some respectable voice acting. While I don't feel that any one person stood out in the cast, everybody turned in a solid performance. If I had one complaint it would be that some of the secondary character voices sounded the same (even though they were performed by different actors). Still, this was an incredibly small issue, and does absolutely nothing to hurt the film.

There will be those who feel that All Star Superman should have never been made into an animated feature. While I don't share this sentiment, I do understand the reasons behind it. Regardless of your personal feelings, however, All Star Superman is a really good movie. Though it may have had a couple small hiccups - and could never approach the brilliance of its source material - this film's story, animation and overall execution is both respectful and impressive. True, the title "All Star Superman" makes no sense being that the phrase "All Star" was in reference to the creative team of the original comic book (DC created their All Star line to compete with Marvel's Ultimate line). But that little oddity aside I really enjoyed this movie and give it a full recommendation. Home video options include a bare-bone DVD with no special features, a two-disc DVD with a featurette and sneak peak of Green Lantern: Emerald Knight and a Blu-ray edition containing numerous special features including a featurette, audio commentary, sneak peak at Green Lantern: Emerald Knight and virtual comic book.

Gen-13 - a lost film that needs to stay lost

Gen-13 is a source of mixed emotions for me. Though I loved the original comic book in my late teens and early twenties, I now realize the story was ridiculously derivative and immature. The first Gen-13 mini-series was released at the same time I was finishing up high school and for some reason I found the inane story absolutely compelling. Maybe it was because the characters age was the same as my own, or perhaps the idea of trading mundane student life for superpowers and government conspiracies appealed to me, heck it could've just been Jeffery Scott Campbell's titillating artwork ... whatever the reason, I was hooked on the series after just one issue. Following its release, Gen-13 rocketed up the sales charts and become one of the most popular comic books on the market, before long an animated adaptation was in the works.

Produced by Buena Vista (Disney), Gen-13 the animated movie is based on the original five issue mini-series that started it all. Directed by Kevin Altieri (of Batman the Animated series fame) this planned DTV seemed to have everything going for it; popular source material, an experienced director and a good studio. Then ... nothing happened, the movie just never came out. According to Wikipedia, the reason Gen-13 never made it into stores was because DC acquired Wildstorm Studios (the publisher of the comic book) while the film was still in production. Being that Warner Brothers (the owner of DC) is a rival studio of Disney, the idea that the latter studio would be releasing a film starring the property of the former was an unappealing one for Buena Vista. So instead Disney shelved the movie and fans were left with nothing. Now, over ten years later, I've finally gotten to watch this lost film and I have to say ... it was in NO way worth the wait.

The story of Gen-13 begins with Caitlin Fairchild, an 18 year old college freshmen who doesn't "fit in". You see, Caitlin wears big glasses and doesn't dress well and is real smart and awkward and ... well let's just call her what she is, an archetypal bookworm. One day - out of the blue - Caitlin is offered a full scholarship to the government run program called Project Genesis. Realizing that her life at college is anything but desirable, Caitlin accepts the offer and quickly finds herself living at a secret military facility in the middle of the desert. Despite her surreal environment, Caitlin actually starts to fit in and even makes a couple of friends by the name of Roxy and Grunge. Like just about everything else in this story Roxy and Grunge are cliches. Roxy is the classic "tough chick" who always talks trash and tries to sneak a smoke. Grunge, on the other hand, is one of those typical "slacker surfers" who suffer from both mild retardation and bad hygiene. Along with Caitlin, this mismatched band of stereotypes soon discover the real goal of Project Genesis isn't to hand out college credit, but instead to find the children of super-powered soldiers and turn them Gen Active (basically that means turn on their powers). It all begins one night with Caitlin suffering a severe headache. While trying to make her way to the infirmary, Caitlin comes across an open door to a restricted area complete with a computer terminal revealing classified information about her father. Naturally(?) Roxy and Grunge stumble into the same room and before you know it the trio is discovered by the base's security. Her head now pounding uncontrollably, Caitlin becomes angry with the abusive guard who is threatening both her and her friends and decides to do something about the situation ... she punches him through a wall (actually I think it was glass, but whatever). After this display of superhuman strength, Caitlin realizes she has grown almost seven feet tall and her body ... well let's just say it "filled out". From there our story becomes one of escape as our heroes (Roxy and Grunge go Gen Active as well) try to flee Project Genesis and its evil wardens Ivana and Threshold (who himself is a Gen Active).

Surprisingly, the story of Gen-13 the animated movie doesn't stray all that far from the original comic book mini-series I enjoyed in my youth. The biggest change is probably the removal of two central characters from the source material; Burnout and Rainmaker. Though it's true that Caitlin, Roxy and Grunge received more focus in the original mini-series, I was disappointed with the exclusion of both Burnout and Rainmaker, even if they weren't instrumental to the story. That said, I can certainly understand why the films creators wanted to streamline the cast to just pivotal characters. Sadly, the focus gained from the absence of Burnout and Rainmaker does nothing to make this story more intelligent or classy.

When I say the writing of Gen-13 lacks intelligence, what I really mean is that the story is incredibly generic and overly familiar. Seriously, it's just a mishmash of tired ideas, settings and archetypes with no surprises and plenty of deja vu. Secret government experiments on soldiers, nefarious plots to unlock hidden superpowers, sadistic bad guys with their own agenda, cliche teenage superheroes ... my god, this story is so unoriginal it makes the latest NCIS show seem fresh by comparison. Even worse, the crass humor and gratuitous near nudity that may have appealed to me as a young man, now seems incredibly patronizing and unsophisticated. Fart jokes, swearing, vulgar hand gestures, steamy shower scenes, countless pantie shots and the ridiculous transformation of Caitlin into a fanboy wet dream, does nothing but expose Gen-13 for the lowbrow T&A that it is. Now these comments may seem a little prudish or even conservative in nature, but therein lays real kicker. I'm not a prude or a conservative! Yet, still I find the mindless writing of Gen-13 incredibly annoying and immature, not insulting per se, but definitely grating.

Exacerbating Gen-13's numerous problems is an excessively long run time. Clocking in at a staggering 90 minutes, this film takes way too long to tell a story with such little depth. In particular, the desert battle of Caitlin could have completely been cut from the film. Looking back at it now, I'm actually a little ashamed to admit that I - in my younger years - enjoyed Gen-13's tasteless antics and derivative story. Sure, most of us have enjoyed stories that pander to our less intelligent fantasies of youth (how else do you explain Twilight?), but I still have to judge this film on its own merits, and as an adult. That being the case, I'll just say that Gen-13 offers little to nothing of substance in the writing or storytelling department.

Visually speaking, Gen-13 looks ... well it looks terrible. Everything about this film - from the animation to the character designs - screams low budget DTV. I'll start with the character design. Stylistically, Gen-13 uses the popular "streamlined" look that Bruce Timm developed for Batman the Animated Series. Unlike Batman, however, Gen-13's characters appear to have been designed for a kids cartoon. Ironic when you consider that Batman's target demographic was children (yet the show was very visually mature) and Gen-13's audience was supposed to be teenagers. Anyway, the original artist of Gen-13 was Jeffery Scott Campbell, a very talented individual whose body of work is sadly small. Campbell's art was clearly based on the Jim Lee school of comic books, and despite his penchant for objectifying the female form, I was impressed with the detailed characters and environment that Campbell created. Absolutely none of this visual styling makes it into the animated adaptation of Gen-13 however. Where Campbell used curves the film used sharp edges, where Campbell emphasized detail the film went minimalist. In short, the source material and the movie look nothing alike. Of course, you can't expect to see a direct visual adaption of Campbell's style, but something along the lines of X-Men Evolution would have worked far better than the generic style used here.

The uninspired look of Gen-13's animated world also undermines any effort by the film's writers to establish a dark tone. While the movie has plenty of blood and violence, none of the sequences involving this subject matter feel right. This is because the look of the film is so childish and immature that scenes of death and destruction appear out of place in it. It would be like Dora the Explorer gaining psychic powers, then using them to blow up Diego's head. Unless you're trying to purposefully juxtaposition the extreme violence and innocent character appearance for comedic effect, it just doesn't work.

Besides my aversion to the film's visual style, Gen-13's designs just look lazy. Caitlin is supposed to be mousy and thin when the story starts, but in no way does she appear to be frail prior to her transformation. Heck, her body type doesn't even look all that different from any of the movies other female characters before going Gen Active. Then we have Threshold's hair. I know it may seem like an odd thing to complain about, but if you saw the laughable mane sported by this guy, you would understand why I had to call it out. All in all, I found the design work done on Gen-13 to be uninspired, inappropriate and apathetic.

As for the animation itself, it is decidedly cheap looking, even for a DTV. With boring staging, awkward movement and crappy fight choreography being the norm, I have a hard time believing anyone put much effort into Gen-13. Though I really don't know why this would be the case, I'd like to offer up two theories regarding the poor craftsmanship of the film. The first is simply that not enough money was put into Gen-13. If Wildstorm was trying to get a 90 minute movie made on a shoestring budget, then it is very possible that too many corners were cut and the end result was this. My second theory hinges on the sale of Wildstorm studios to DC. If indeed this film was still in the process of being made when the sale of Wildstorm went down, a lot of uncertainty regarding the productions future could've come about. In the end the film's creative staff may have just been "getting it done" instead of trying to craft something worthwhile. Of course I have no insider knowledge regarding Gen-13's production, so this is all just speculation. Regardless of the cause, the half-hearted effort being put into this movie was obvious, shocking when you consider Kevin Altieri was directing.

What's not so shocking is the abysmal voice acting of Gen-13. Outside of Mark Hamill's work on Threshold, none of the performances in this film worked. Caitlin's voice was droning, Lynch was off the mark and Grunge ... well let's just take a minute and talk about Grunge. Performed by Flea (that's right, the guitarist from Red Hot Chili Peppers), the voice of Grunge personifies every surfer stereotype I've come to hate. To give you some idea of what I'm talking about, imagine if Keanu Reeves' "Ted" character from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure had a child with Sean Penn's "Spicoli" character from Fast Times at Ridgemont High ... that's Grunge. Fortunately the film tries to keep Grunge's dialog minimal whenever possible. I'm guessing the producers edited out anything that wasn't completely necessary to help reduce the number of brain aneurisms brought on by Flea's egregious acting. Like I said before, the only voice acting in this film that holds water is Hamill's. Though his work on Threshold doesn't even approach his quintessential Joker performances from BTAS, it still holds up pretty well.

I had originally planned to comment on the lackluster musical score of Gen-13, but at this point I don't see the need. When it's all said and done this film is - simply put - a mess. Poorly written, cheaply animated and horribly acted, I can honestly say that I found nothing of worth in Gen-13. Even if you're a fan of the original comic book I would not recommend watching this film. Thankfully Gen-13 has never been released here in the US (a merciful act we should all be grateful for), so steering clear of it really isn't all that difficult.

Transformers - a surprisingly enduring franchise with so-so beginnings

When you talk about Transformers these days everyone (understandably) assumes you're talking about the blockbuster movies from the last couple years. But before Michael Bay brought us humping dogs, racist ghetto robots, mechanical testicles and - of course - more humping dogs, there was actually a child friendly version of these famous robots in disguise. Premiering in 1984, the Transformers cartoon was an instant hit with children of my generation, and went on to sell millions of dollars worth of toys, comics and other paraphernalia. The show itself was awful of course (like most cartoons of the time), but despite its typically terrible origins the Transformers franchise continues to endure the fickle mistress that is pop culture better than any of its peers.

Growing up, Transformers was one of two shows that consumed the imagination of me and my friends (the other being GI Joe). I watched it every day after school, and probably saw most of - if not all of - the episodes as a kid. Of course, who could blame me? You had giant robots fighting other giant robots, and they could all transform into cars, trucks, airplanes, guns, cassette decks and even a microscope! For whatever reason, this fascination with shape changing mechanical warriors has endured the test of time surprisingly well. Besides the original Transformers cartoon - which lasted 98 episodes - there have been numerous reboots and re-imaginings of the franchise over the last 25 years. From the Michael Bay movies to Transformers Beast Machines to Transformers Armada to Transformers Animated and most recently Transformers Prime, there have been a half-dozen versions of Optimus Prime and pals ready to enlist new fans for parent company Hasbro. Still, it all started with that cartoon in 1984, and that's what I'm here to review. Or at least the first 65 episodes anyway (I'm saving the movie and the final 33 episodes for later).

Given the popularity of this series, I don't feel that an involved synopsis is necessary. Basically there's a planet called Cybertron where two factions of warring robots have been doing battle for millions of years. The good guys are referred to as Autobots and are led by Optimus Primes, the bad guys are Decepticons and their leader is Megatron. Given the enormous amount of natural resources necessary to wage this seemingly endless war, the planet Cybertron finally ran out of energy and groups of both Decepticons and Autobots were forced to leave their home in search of new fuel sources. While battling one another in space, these Transformers crash land on earth where they lay dormant for millions of years. Upon their reawakening, the Decepticons (in typical bully fashion) set out to steal earth's energy from us weak humans. At the same time Optimus Prime and the Autobots set out to protect humanity from Megatron and his evil cohorts.

Conceptually, this is a pretty solid idea for an 80s action-adventure cartoon. The parallels between our own energy crisis and the situation faced by the Transformers is surprisingly relevant for the time, and remains so today. Equally impressive is the fact that the whole premise behind Transformers was written around an existing toy line. For those who don't know, the Transformers started life as Japanese toys with no background story whatsoever. When Hasbro decided that they wanted to repackage these playthings for American consumers, they thought it would be best to create an overriding mythology to get kids interested, thus Transformers was born. Despite this solid premise, however, the overall writing for this series is about what you would expect from the time period, insulting to its audience and merchandise driven. I was especially amazed by the overwhelming number of new characters introduced during the initial 65 episodes in this series. Within just the first 13 installments you not only had a relatively large cast of Autobots and Decepticons to keep track of, but you got Dinobots, Insecticons, Starfire and then more Dinobots almost right away. After that things only got worse with Constructicons, Stunticons, Aerobots, Combaticons, Omega Supreme and plenty of other robots being shoved down your throat. This was - of course - a sales driven decision, and just one more example of how cartoons of this time were ultimately controlled by people whose passion was selling toys, and not telling good stories. Still, the fact that Transformers was probably the worst when it came to introducing new characters for the sake of merchandise (GI Joe would be a close second), this was not an uncommon practice, and I try to only compare properties of the 1980s to one another, and not to the current standard. So, with that said I'll move on and start discussing the writing of Transformers, as related to its peers.

I've reviewed a couple 1980s action-adventure cartoons, and one of the side effects of this (besides the massive loss of brain cells) is that I find myself saying the same things over and over. While this is personally frustrating, it's also unavoidable since most of these shows used the same writers and followed the same formula as their contemporaries. So, like GI Joe, Thundercats and others, the stories from Transformers have very little good, mostly bad and far too much ugly writing.

Let's start things off with the ugly. One obvious problem with Transformers is continuity. Early in the series all of the robots (Autobot and Decepticon) were able to fly, regardless of what vehicle/object they could transform into. As the show progressed, however, it was revealed that Autobots could fly, but not very well. Finally, by the time season two got going none of the Autobots could apparently fly unless they were capable of transforming into an airplane or spaceship. Basically, the writers just couldn't seem to collectively make up their minds about when Autobots could, and could not take to the air until they were half way through the series. Another example of bad continuity can be found in the building of the Dinobots. During season one Optimus Prime okays the creation of Dinobots, Transformers whose physical appearance and strength stems from the dinosaurs who roamed earth millions of years ago. Later, during season two, Megatron decides to create Stunticons, Decepticons who could transform into cars and thus challenge the Autobots domination of the roads. When it came time for Megatron to give the Stunticons life, however, he had to travel to Cybertron and petition Vector Sigma, a long dormant piece of mysterious technology to give his creations personalities (or souls I suppose). The reason for this is that all Transformers were given life by Vector Sigma, and without its help the Stunticons would never be anything except mindless automatons. Unfortunately, this little bit of mythology completely ignores the fact that the aforementioned Dinobots somehow received unique personalities without the aid of Vector Sigma. Like I said, inconsistent continuity.

Equally ugly were the episodes that just should've never been made (even by 1980s standards). Like GI Joe and Thundercats, Transformers has a handful of stories that are just so bad it's insulting to audiences of all ages. The worst offenders were City of Steel (a story were Optimus Prime is cut into pieces, and his body parts turned into weapons against the Autobots), Attack of the Autobots (which features the insanely overused plot device of mind control) and Kremzeek (an episode so surreal, I can't even describe it). I'll spare you any further details concerning the plots of these animated abominations, but take my word for it, these are some of the worst cartoons of the 1980s.

As for the "good" episodes of Transformers, I found that almost all of them had the same thing in common, they didn’t take place on earth. Though a little strange given the strength of the energy crisis premise, I found episodes like "The Search for Alpha Trion", and "The Secret Of Omega Supreme" far more enjoyable than any of the stories based around earth and the show's central themes. I can't say for sure, but I think that the writers of this series enjoyed doing stories set on alien worlds and plots delving into the history of the Transformers more than they liked the show's primary mythology. Of course, this could just be my own personal bias as well. Either way, I think this show was better suited for fantastical outer space science fiction than urban street gangs and worldwide car races.

Another positive thing about the writing of Transformers is that the violence - though hideously tame - did have more intensity than most of its contemporaries. This was apparently the result of the main characters being robots. For whatever reason, the idea of robots punching, kicking and shooting one another didn't bother censors - or parent watchdog groups - back in the 1980s, so the writers of Transformers were able to take things a little further than other cartoons of the time. Speaking of parent watchdog groups, I'm shocked (in a good way) that the episode Microbots slipped by these ever diligent and overprotective outfits. I say this because the second act of Microbots featured a group of Decepticons getting drunk on Energon Cubes (Energon is the fuel used by Transformers) and clearly stumbling around intoxicated before passing out! Though showing inebriated individuals was done in other 1980s action-adventure cartoons, the act was primarily reserved to show the negative consequences of drinking underage, or drinking and driving. Such was not the case here, so I guess the writers slipped one by, good for them.

At the end of the day though, the writing of Transformers was - more often than not - mediocre (which would be considered bad by today's standards). The stories had tons of bad science and logic gaps (how do the Autobots manage to drive almost anywhere in the world within a matter of minutes?), plenty of preachy PSAs (don't steal, be nice to others etc.) and a plethora of awful one-liners. I wish I could get excited - or even angry - about the work done by the writers of this show. The first 65 episodes are just so typical, however, I'm stuck with the meek acknowledgement that Transformers is simply "par for the course". It's kind of like the Ben 10 of the 1980s, haphazardly written, shamelessly geared at merchandising and lacking substance, yet somehow not completely evil.

Visually speaking, Transformers - once again - has some good points, bad points and a whole lot of in-between. On the positive side, a handful of episodes in this series looked really good. Notables include, Atlantis Arise, Microbots and Megatron's Master Plan. Each of these stories had some really impressive and ambitious animation, the kind I wish we saw more of during this time.

Another excellent aspect of Transformers would be the design work. I really liked how Cybertron was built entirely out of metal, with seemingly endless corridors and buildings stretching clear down into the bowels of the planet. Also impressive were the general Autobot and Decepticon designs done for the show. Though based on the Japanese toys, the actual animated versions of all the Transformers were changed a lot for the cartoon. True, they still resembled the toys themselves, but anyone who actually owned Megatron or Optimus Prime knows that the cartoon renditions of these characters looked a lot better than the toys themselves (to be fair the cartoons didn't actually have to transform in three-dimensions though). The thing I liked most about the design of Transformers, however, were the "classic" Cybertron Transformer designs. Characters like Alpha Trion, Aleta-1 and Devcon all had cylindrical styling and rounded corners that were fantastically alien and nothing like the boxy designs of the earth based Transformers. It was just so different looking (probably Japanese) and original I would have personally liked to seen more. Fortunately the remaining 33 episodes of Transformers - along with the movie - use this style a lot, so I have that to look forward to at least.

Negatively speaking, Transformers has more animation glitches than any action-adventure show I've ever seen. Things like the wrong character talking, or a character that wasn't supposed to be in a scene showing up in the background are omnipresent throughout the first 65 episodes. This usually happened with Transformers that were near identical in appearance to other robots in the show. For example, Starscream looks just like Thundercracker, the only real difference is the accent colors for each character. Given this similarity, it's very common to find scenes where the individual being shown was supposed to be Starscream, but the studio accidently used the color scheme for Thundercracker. Though I imagine it must have been very difficult for the producers and directors of these cartoons to keep track of this sort of thing - especially given the demanding schedule of the show - one cannot ignore the fact that Transformers has far too many of these animation mistakes.

Another issue I had with the visuals from this series was the background looping. Anybody who's ever watched the old Hanna-Barbera cartoons has probably noticed the way HB looped backgrounds while characters were walking, running or driving. This technique is used to save money and it involves having the same background go by over and over again. As you can probably imagine, this cost cutting trick was also popular in many of the action-adventure cartoon of the 1980's as well. Its effectiveness, however, varied depending on the execution. Sadly, the use of looping backgrounds in Transformers was not good. The biggest problem was that the beginning and end of the loop just didn't match up very often, thus the film appeared to "jump" every time the background began a new cycle. Though other shows of the time may have had the same problem, this issue was only exacerbated by the fact that a large percentage of the cast was made up of cars that spent a lot of time - shockingly enough - driving around in settings were backgrounds could easily be looped.

Poorly looped animation wasn't the only problem stemming from the Transformers general nature though. Radical shifts in scaling were also commonplace thanks to the Transformers ability to ... well, transform. I'll give you an example, Megatron (the leader of the Decepticons) is one of the larger robots in the show. He stands several stories tall, and very few of his minions can equal his stature. Yet, when Megatron transforms into a handgun, anyone of his soldiers could hold and fire him like a normal weapon. Now I'm no expert in physics, but even I know that a machine as large as Megatron can't just shirk himself down to an object 1/100th of his original size, not unless there's magic in those Energon Cubes they drink. This same problem shows up with characters like Astrotrain as well. Despite being the same general size as other Decepticons, Astrotrain could transform into a space shuttle and easily transport a number of his evil comrades with room to spare. Now, to be fair the producers of Transformers really didn't have many options outside of "magically" scaling robots. Since the characters in Transformers could change into such a wide variety of objects, making those objects exist in the same space with one another required a "leap of faith" by the audience. Unfortunately, this unusual variance in proportion - coupled with poorly executed cost cutting techniques and constant animation mistakes - take away greatly from anything Transformers did right visually.

When it's all said and done, the visuals from Transformers standup okay for the time period in which they were created. The show had a couple of standout episodes (though very few), and some of the styling and character design was pretty good. Sadly, the overall presentation of the series does suffer greatly thanks to the very nature of the show itself. I suppose it's a little ironic that the thing that has helped keep this franchise popular the last 25 years (transforming robots) is the same thing that made the execution of the original cartoon so frustrating and distracting.

In terms of Audio, Transformers has very solid voice acting. The show was recorded with an ensemble cast (which is a good thing), and veterans like Peter Cullen and Frank Welker gave distinct personalities to the characters they voiced. Cullen in particular was so iconic as Optimus Prime that Michael Bay was forced to cast the actor for the same role in his live action movies.

Musically speaking, Transformers was - at best - average. The opening theme was pretty weak, and the in show music was typically redundant and overused. The show also shared some music with its "cousin" program GI Joe (both shows were produced by the same outfits for Hasbro), so originality wasn't a strong point either. Interestingly enough, the considerable amount of "sharing" that took place between Transformers and GI Joe led to a pretty funny mistake in the Transformers episode "The Autobot Run". Every time this story went to commercial, the bumpers (that's the lead out and lead in sequences) used the GI Joe music with the Transformers animation. At first I was confused and had to rerun the commercial bumper, but upon further review this was indeed a production mistake, funny stuff.

If it sounds like I was disinterested when writing this review, that's because I was ... and for that I apologize. The truth is I've gotten a little burned out on the 1980s action-adventure shows, and I need to recharge my batteries with something a little less ... well, crappy. So for the foreseeable future I'm going to be watching cartoons that came before, or after 1980 (I'm actually watching some classic Popeye and Looney Tunes right now). As for Transformers, it's a decent 1980s action-adventure show. Though mostly average in execution, the show did have a couple bright spots, and the premise is one that continues to find new fans, even today. Still, the negative aspects of this cartoon are glaring, especially when viewed with older eyes. If you're a big fan of this show, pickup one of the slim pack sets and give it a watch. They’re pretty cheap and have some fun extras including: original commercials, PSAs and interviews. People who have never seen this show - or don't have a strong sense of nostalgia for it - should stay away, nothing about this show has aged well.