Interesting review of The Secret of NIMH

http://inkandpixelclub.livejournal.com/1094.html

I haven't done more than skim through it, but it looks interesting. The main reason I know about it is because the author asked me if they could use some of my screenshots.

I'll probably post a followup with my comments later.

He brings up a lot of narrative problems (something some other critics bring up), but I don't see this problem. Disney films have had a lot more narrative problems yet that's never brought up because: Hey! Its Disney!

He criticizes the use of magic, little rat back story, and Jener having no connection / conflict with Mrs. Brisby.
The first time I watched I was engrossed in the film and got it 100%. Its very easy to follow.
Why no more rats of NIMH back story? Because if they had more then people complain the movie is too long. Ok, so lets concentrate on Mrs. Brisby. Wait, there's little explanation of the rats. See? Can't please everyone. Its a fine line.
Mrs. Frisby, being a book, goes into great detail about how the rats built the colony. SON, being a film, has to keep the narrative going so it only briefly goes over the rats' history. Once again people complain that there's too little or too much.
Another common complaint is magic. I can't tell the amount of people I've heard complaining that its not like the book. The book has a very anti-climatic ending but its excused because its a book. I had no problem with magic. Also people keep saying: HER NAME'S FRISBY, NOT BRISBY!!
In my opinion: Brisby sounds better.
Books and films are different media and have to be treated as such.
Films can't be books and books can't be films.

Lastly Jenner. While Jenner didn't have a connection directly with Mrs. Brisby but used her situation to benefit himself. Its where the subplot (NIMH/Thorn Valley plan) meets with the main plot. That's all there is too it.

Overall, narrative flaws? No. Why is Timmy barely in the film? Because nothing is going with him besides he's sick. Do we have cut to him every few minutes to see how he is? Besides, if you want to see more Timmy watch... "that other film".

Side note: I'll be away for a week. So I'll see you all later =)

I agree completely with ChrisS.

What Jenner does is something called the "Xanatos Gambit", AKA using another character to accomplish your goals for you, and then stepping in to deliver the finishing blow. I thought Jenner was a fairly good villain with a realistic motive/plan.

It's also too true about the "Films can't be books" line, this is the primary challenge of converting a novel into a film. You have to compress a potentially several-hundred-page book into around a 1-and-a-half to 2 hour long motion picture. We cannot have an elaborate scene involving the initial construction of the colony, the complete origin of the Rats, or an encompassing history of all characters involved, it just can't be done.

And as for the "Timmy is minor here" complaint, ChrisS. summed it up nicely, you just cannot do much with a bedridden character. Besides, doesn't Pneumonia leave someone very weak and virtually unable to speak anyway?

For the record, I also think "Brisby" sounds better than "Frisby", especially if you tack "Elizabeth" in front of it.

The name change is due to the phonetic similarity between 'Frisby' and a certain trademarked product name, IIRC.

As far as Jenner having no conflict with Mrs. Brisby, well, one can imagine that Jonathan spent a lot of time obstructing his plans in the council. He seems like the sort to hold a grudge...

Stopping the story for even more backstory on the Rats probably would have just ruined the pacing of the film. It's a lot easier to get away with that in novels than on film, I think.

The addition of Magic to the storyline is fine, since it gives Brisby a CMoA[=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/SugarWiki/CrowningMomentOfAwesome]CMoA. As far as I'm concerned, letting her save her family herself is totally worth the changes as compared to having the Rats do it for her. Adds a lot to her character.

The name change is due to the phonetic similarity between 'Frisby' and a certain trademarked product name, IIRC.

As far as Jenner having no conflict with Mrs. Brisby, well, one can imagine that Jonathan spent a lot of time obstructing his plans in the council. He seems like the sort to hold a grudge...

Stopping the story for even more backstory on the Rats probably would have just ruined the pacing of the film. It's a lot easier to get away with that in novels than on film, I think.

The addition of Magic to the storyline is fine, since it gives Brisby a CMoA[=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/SugarWiki/CrowningMomentOfAwesome]CMoA. As far as I'm concerned, letting her save her family herself is totally worth the changes as compared to having the Rats do it for her. Adds a lot to her character.

You're quite right on the name change, as yes, they did have conflict with the Frisbee Disk over it, just as I think you're quite right on the additions to her character being tasteful ones. And yay! A fellow troper!

Hello. I am the author of the "NIMH" review in question. First of all, I would like to thank you for posting your responses. You can feel free to post your thoughts directly on my blog if you would like. Though you may not agree with what I have to say, I still appreciate you taking the time to read my article and state your opinions.

I'm not looking to get into a debate about the merits of the film. You have your feelings about it and I have mine. I would, however, like to address a few statements made about my article which I feel are not entirely accurate.

Perhaps there are other critics who have pointed out the narrative flaws in "NIMH" but seem to ignore the ones in Disney films. My blog is just starting and I have posted two articles so far: the "NIMH" one and one about a Disney short. I've been working on an analysis of "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" where I point out that Snow White is an extremely passive character who never really does anything to try to achieve her goals or improve her situation in life. So while you may have a legitimate gripe with other critics who chide "NIMH" for it's story flaws but let worse ones slide in other films, please don't lump me in with them until I've had a chance to write more.

The only additional back story I would have liked to see on the the rats is some kind of explanation of how Nicodemus - and possibly Jonathan - learned to use magic and a few answers to some of the questions the film raises. I read the book as a child and did a little research on it for this article and I certainly didn't expect the filmmakers to go over the whole story of the rats time at NIMH, their escape, the discovery of the Toy Tinker, and so on. I think it was a very good idea to focus more on Mrs. Brisby and her family for the purposes of the movie. I just wanted aspects of the story that the film itself brings up to be adequately explained.

You keep referring to these other people, the ones who let Disney's story issues slide, complain that magic was not in the original book, and are annoyed that the main character's name was changed to "Brisby." I try to make it clear in my article that my issues with the use of magic in the film are not that it isn't it the book, but that I think it doesn't fit into the story very well. I mention that it's not in the book, but I go on to say that it's not the reason I have a problem with it. I also never complain about the main character's name being changed from "Frisby" to "Brisby." I mention that, as DariusGreywind correctly points out, the name was changed because the Wham-O toy company thought it was too close to their "Frisbee" toy. I think it was a very silly complaint on Wham-O's part, but i like both names just fine and I never say otherwise in the article.

Also, I'm a she, not a he.

I am fine with people disagreeing with what I write. I just want to make sure that when other people write about my articles, they give an accurate picture of what is in them. I don't completely bash the film and I do spend time discussing aspects of it that I like, such as the animation itself and the development of Mrs. Brisby's character. I hope you will consider reading it for yourself if you haven't yet and letting me know what you think, however you feel about what I wrote.

I'm not trying to lump you at all. Oh, and sorry about the she/he thing =)
I'm addressing problems that you and also other people (reviews on other websites, Amazon, etc.) brought up.
I'm remember reading a Roger Ebert review of the film and he gave it (I believe) 3 1/2 stars out of 4. He praised the film for its mature story and its brilliant animation, but cited its character development as weak.
Well Mrs. Brisby is really the only character who goes through a change throughout the film.
I think a lot of questions raised by reviewers about the magic could be explained if only NIMH had a decent sequel instead of.... that "other film".
Another change you could cite is Justin on how he rises to the occasion to lead his fellow rats to safety. He was already Captain of the Guard and thus in charge of nightly operations outside and inside the Fitzgibbons house, but to run the Thorn Valley community and make larger decisions is quite a step up. But sadly we never had a sequel to show this.
Maybe Don and company maybe planned to do another NIMH film that more back story on the magic and the amulet.
So for now the magic element is unknown. But that shouldn't stop someone enjoy this movie. The little back story did not take me away from the story. I just accepted it. I think stressing over the back story of the magic/amulet really takes one out of the film.
The very nature of magic is that it can't be explained. Its supposed to be unknown. Some movies try and describe how magic is created but they usually fall flat.
I kinda like think Nicodemus' magic is kinda like the "Force" from Star Wars and how it is energy from nature.

The very nature of magic is that it can't be explained. Its supposed to be unknown. Some movies try and describe how magic is created but they usually fall flat.
I kinda like think Nicodemus' magic is kinda like the "Force" from Star Wars and how it is energy from nature.

I myself like to think of the "Magic" more along the lines of "Psionics", or psychic powers. Nicodemus is using Telekinesis, as does Mrs. Brisby at the end. But even Psychic powers are difficult to explain, and get into very sketchy theories and hypotheses.

The magic element adds an element of mysticism and wonder, without having the need to explain it. Even the most magic-centered books (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings) make little to no attempt to explain these forces because it is, quite frankly, unnecessary and it would be confusing to do so.

I could easily, however, see anyone's problem with the Amulet, which does come out of nowhere and is never explained. Again, I think ChrisS hit it; A proper, well-done sequel would have put all of it to rest and more.

No worries about the gender thing. I haven't gotten around to mentioning it anywhere on the site yet so you couldn't have known.

I just wanted to make it clear which things I do and don't talk about in the article I wrote, as opposed to what other critics might have said about the film.

A proper sequel might have answered some of the questions that the film does not address, but I've never read anything that indicates that Don Bluth and his crew were planning a sequel and I think a first movie has to stand on its own whether there's a sequel in the works or not. You never know how a film will do financially and if it flops, the questions that were going to be answered in the sequel don't get answered. All I can really review is the movie that's there and it left me with some questions.

I have not seen "that other film" yet, though I am considering watching it for a possible article about direct to video/DVD sequels. My expectations for it are not high. I remember seeing it in stores for the first time and feeling slightly ill at the whole idea.

I have not seen "that other film" yet, though I am considering watching it for a possible article about direct to video/DVD sequels. My expectations for it are not high. I remember seeing it in stores for the first time and feeling slightly ill at the whole idea.

Let's just say that if you think NIMH suffers from narrative flaws, your gonna have a field day with NIMH 2.

A proper sequel might have answered some of the questions that the film does not address, but I've never read anything that indicates that Don Bluth and his crew were planning a sequel and I think a first movie has to stand on its own whether there's a sequel in the works or not. You never know how a film will do financially and if it flops, the questions that were going to be answered in the sequel don't get answered. All I can really review is the movie that's there and it left me with some questions.

I definitely agree there; honestly, that's where the whole inclusion of magic into the storyline rubbed me wrong. It's just dropped in without much explanation; the only small clue is given by Nicodemus when he says that it is somehow tied to the "power of the heart". That's still a lot of disbelief to suspend, though, when you're talking about something that pretty much causes the climax of the film to happen; it's essentially a deus ex machina as it stands, even if the power comes from Mrs. Brisby herself.

If they had spent a bit more time explaining the origins of their magical powers, I would've been more okay with it--it appears to be assumed that the NIMH treatment seemed to awaken them, but it is nowhere made explicit what it is or how it works or what the limits of it is. Otherwise, I feel it would be better storytelling to drop it.

Of course, that leaves the problem: how do you make Mrs. Brisby the heroine of the story? With the setup they heaped upon her moments before the climax, it seems like a deus ex machina is just about the only way out. Though, perhaps if the film was rewound a bit, and she was able to return before Jenner had carried out his deed, perhaps the ending could've involved her announcement to the rats disrupting Jenner's plot--after all, Nicodemus likely would want to hear it and might need to get away from the machinery, and perhaps an interesting confrontation with Jenner and Mrs. B occurs at that point. Hmm... It needs work, but I could see an ending along those lines.

Anyway... I like both Frisby and Brisby, though I'll admit the second seems to flow better. :)

If I had to make sense of it - like if I was tapped to write a good "NIMH" sequel for some odd reason - I would say that Nicodemus used his newfound intelligence to study magic. Maybe humans used to know magic as well, but have long since forgotten the skill and now consider it nothing but the stuff of fairy tales. Jonathan studied under Nicodemus and while he wasn't nearly as powerful, he was able to craft the stone and imbue it with magical powers. Or maybe special injections were given only to Nicodemus and Jonathan, which ended up giving them strange powers.

I think the film's core story is about Mrs. Brisby becoming more self-reliant. I actually think that having her new found courage be the catalyst that activates the stone's power is a good idea and does give her more of an opportunity to be the hero. I just don't think the connection is quite strong enough. I kind of wonder if the movie would have worked better if the stone had been in Mrs. Brisby's possession from the beginning, given to her by Jonathan before he died. She would initially think it was just a beautiful piece of jewelry and a memento of her husband. Then when Nicodemus tells her that the stone has magical abilities, she sees it as a possible solution to her problems. She tries to figure out how to use it, but it doesn't work. Only when she has become a courageous individual is she able to use the stone to save her family. Maybe before that, Jenner could even get the stone away from her briefly and try to use it, but nothing happens, driving home that it's less about the stone itself and more about the individual using it. Then when she give the stone to Justin, it's her saying that she doesn't need any kind of outside protection anymore, that she's strong enough to take care of herself and her family.

That's my take on it anyway.

Very interesting review, I must say you did raise some good points about the movie.

I can appreciate his critisisms, but they do seem misguided, in particular his views on opposition. But I'll get to that later...

All other criticisms seem to focus on perceived inconsistencies that don't really have any direct bearing on the story. How long the rats have lived there or how they came to be associated with the Owl doesn't change Mrs. Brisby's story in any fashion. I'll admit the dialog regarding the length of time is a snafu, but it hardly derails the film. Fact is, there's much bigger plot holes that cause this movie trouble which he never even mentions. In fact, I only found one worth talking about cause it's, simply put, flat out wrong: The owl.

It seems odd to be me he wouldn't expect the viewpoints of so many different characters to be...well, different. This isn't a tightly knit group we're talking about here and the owl is not someone either side has a lot of heavy contact with (so far as I know). The comments by Ages and the shrew give off the heavy scent of superstition for one, while only the rats have been confirmed to have had direct contact with the guy and that doesn't seem to be all to common. There's also a clear rift between the field dwellers and the rats that further enhances the mystery surrounding the guy and what the truth really is, which was the whole point in the first place.

But my biggest issue with him is his misinterpretation of the concept of opposition. I simply can't understand how he believes that the opposition Mrs. Brisby faces and overcomes are somehow made less viable by the fact that they are not directly aware of her. They don't have to be because it's not about them, it's about her. He clearly thinks this should be a man vs. man story, when it's quite obviously a man vs. himself story. If he doesn't like those kinds of stories fine, but saying this movie is weaker because it's not told the way he prefers is...well, it's not good criticism. :?

I can understand his view that Jenner was tacked on, since he was. But he also wasn't Brisby's rival and the danger he posed was never lessened by his non-connection with her. He wasn't the challenge she needed to over come anyway, so why he complain when she doesn't fight him. NIMH isn't a story about the good guy beating the bad guy. It's about a mother overcoming her fears and facing insurmountable odds. The fact they were willing to acknowledge that after years of Disney good guys beating the villains (which would continue ad nauseum for damn near every animated flick released right unto this day) is nothing less than a triumph.

Everybody has a right to an opinion. This review will certainly not change any of your minds and you can agree or disagree with it. I think the review brings up some good points. I've found that one of the most common criticisms of The Secret of NIMH is that the story sometimes takes a back seat to the visuals, as the review itself even points out.

Some of us may see it differently but this is still a good review in my opinion.

I appreciate that everyone has their own opinions about the film and that my comments are unlikely to sway anyone's strongly held views. I don't really expect to change anyone's mind and I like hearing points of view that are different from my own.

However, I can't really agree that my assessment of the various characters viewd of the owl is "falt out wrong." You present an interesting theory as to why there are all of these conflicting opinions of the owl, but it just doesn't work for me. As I recall, the first time the owl is mentioned is when Martin is trying to demonstrate how brave he is by rattling off a list of things he is not afraid of, culminating with the owl. So the owl is something to be feared, at least by mouse children. Then after Mrs. Brisby and the shrew stop the plow, the shrew suggests that the owl would probably know what to do about this, at which point we also learn that Mrs. Brisby herself is terrified of the owl. So far, I don't have any problem with these differences of opinion. You are correct in pointing out that it's likely that none of these characters have ever had any direct contact with the owl and may not have a very clear picture of what sort of creature he really is. And I like the idea that the owl is not exactly "good" or "evil," that he is very wise and the creatures of the field go to him for advice, but only in the direst of circumstances because there is always the chance that he will turn on them and devour them. There do appear to be small animals bones littering the floor of the owl's tree, so I don't know that he lives entirely on a diet of insects. It's the next few comments about the owl that start to confuse things for me, Mr. Ages claiming that no one has ever been to see the owl and lived to return followed by Nicodemus calling him "a dear comrade." You'll note that it's Auntie Shrew, a character who believes she knows everything and is constantly jumping to the wrong conclusions about creatures she doesn't know like Jeremy and the rats, who considers the owl to be a reliable source of wisdom. Mr. Ages is otherwise shown to be a smart, knowledgeable and trustworthy character and is very close to the rats who do seem to know the owl, yet he is the one who claims that the owl has killed every creature who ever went to see him. For me, it comes off less like an attempt to show that the field creatures don't really know much about the owl and more like a confusing muddle of contradictory ideas.

I guess my biggest issue is that Nicodemus telling Mrs. Brisby that the owl is a friend of his doesn't really lead to anything or explain anything. It's not like we later learn that the owl was another prisoner at NIMH who aided the rats in their escape or something like that. It doesn't answer any questions, but it raises a few. That and I can't understand why Nicodemus would wish/magically encourage Mrs. Brisby to go ad consult the owl rather than sending a rat - or better yet, Mr. Ages who she knows already - to offer the rats' services to her, unless he was hoping the owl would suggest some solution that didn't involve the rats so that they could concentrate on bringing the plan to fruition, or he couldn't figure out what the rats might do to help the Brisbys until the owl came up with a plan.

As I said in the article, I don't think it's necessary for a movie to give its protagonist a villain who is in direct conflict with the protagonist for the protagonist to defeat in order to be satisfying. You can have films where the threat is a force of nature of the main character really cannot do anything but survive or help other character to survive and still have it feel like a triumph. It isn't always easy, but it can be done. My problem is that the filmmakers had smartly decided that the focus of the story had to be Mrs. Brisby, her problem, and how she changes as a character (as noted in this article[=http://www.cataroo.com/DBnimh.html]this article, under "The Key is a Good Story"), but then went ahead and took a character who was not a villain in the books and made him into a villain who takes the focus away from Mrs. Brisby and her problem and brings it back over to the secondary story of the rats and there issues. If you're going to create a new villain, and a pretty major one at that, why not have him relate more closely to the main character instead of making him into more of a foe for Nicodemus and Justin?

Speaking of Justin, the same article mentions that the screewriters' rationale for killing Nicodemus (who is alive and well at the end of the book) was so that so that Justin could become the leader of the rats and "grow and change in the film." The problem is that Justin goes through more of a change of position than a change of character. This would only be a character arc for him if he was not cut out to be leader at the start of the film and had to mature in some way in order to become a capable leader. As is, he's pretty much Nicodemus's heir apparent from the get-go. It's kind of a moot point though, since I think Nicodemus's death does serve the purpose of robbing Mrs. Brisby of a powerful, protective figure she could rely on to solve her problems, forcing her to look to her own strength instead.

I'd be curious to hear what plot holes you think I missed. I am under know illusion that I made every point there is to make about the film. And I'm still a she, not a her, which still isn't a big deal, but I did mention it already.

I agree that the core of "NIMH" is a mother overcoming her fears and facing insurmountable odds to save her family. I think the movie is at its strongest when it is most focused on that and at its weakest when it meanders off onto other subjects.

And I'm still a she, not a her, which still isn't a big deal, but I did mention it already.

THERE ARE NO GIRLS ON THE INTERNETS!!!!!111

...

Except the Twilight Fan Forums! :D

I keed! I keed! But about the plot holes, I was referring to me-haaasive one about what the hell happened to the Timmy during that big ole hadoo with moving the block. Actually, pretty much everything having to do with moving the block was a big 'hold on a minute'.

1: Timmy! Where are you? Did you fall down a well?

2: Well it's okay, you're better off. Nicodemus decided to move the place with the kids still inside the damn thing! But they...got you out...somehow? :?: Uh...hey look! Rats in a swordfight! Cool!

Soo yeah, that's what I was referring to.

By the by, I realize now I misread what you were saying about opposition. I read this sentence:

But it can be hard to show the hero as heroic when all of his or her foes are unaware of the hero, completely beyond reasoning with, and ultimately undefeatable.

and took it to mean that's how you viewed the film. I'm assuming now you were just giving what you believe is the reason for why the filmmakers made the choices they did regarding Jenner. Which makes sense.

I like to think Timmy's bed was able to float on top of the mud pouring into the house like the table Martin, Teresa, and Cynthia stand on.

Sparkly vampires make my head hurt. :D

But about the plot holes, I was referring to me-haaasive one about what the hell happened to the Timmy during that big ole hadoo with moving the block. Actually, pretty much everything having to do with moving the block was a big 'hold on a minute'.

1: Timmy! Where are you? Did you fall down a well?

2: Well it's okay, you're better off. Nicodemus decided to move the place with the kids still inside the damn thing! But they...got you out...somehow? :?: Uh...hey look! Rats in a swordfight! Cool!

Soo yeah, that's what I was referring to.

I completely agree and I did make some reference to Timmy's bizarre absence from the latter half of the film , though not that specific scene:

Timothy in particular should be a tremendously sympathetic character, but his actual role is so small that he might as well just be called “Sick Kid.” He has no lines until the very end of the story and is curiously absent from the movie after the first half hour.

I probably should have pointed out that he is nowhere to be found during the house move, which I find mind boggling both because Timothy is the entire reason that the move is happening and we're seeing the other three Brisby kids struggling to keep their heads above...mud but we're supposed to assume that the bedridden kid is just fine? I can buy his bed floating on the muck, but unless I see it, I don't have any way of knowing that it's happening. "Timmy's life is in danger" is the whole central problem of the film, so why does Timmy get completely ignored in the climactic scene, leaving the other three children to carry the drama?

Again, I probably should have pointed this out. I try to self-edit so these articles don't end up being 50 pages long, but I might have erred too much on the side of brevity here.

I feel like there's a scene mising where the shrew bars the door to the Brisby home and refuses to let the rats in, leaving them no choice but to move the house with everyone - not just Timmy - still inside since they're on a timeline. I seem to remember a scene from the book where Mrs. Frisby comes home to find the shrew "protecting" her home and kids from the rats and the movie does have a brief scene showing the kids getting excited about the impending move and the shrew continuing to insist that she won't let any rat near the Brisby home. But since there's no follow-up scene where the shrew carries out her threats, there is no obvious reason why the rats didn't remove everyone but Timmy from the house before they started moving it.

Don and Gary talk about the amulet on the DVD commentary.
I transcribed this as best I could. Don and Gary overlap each other time to time.
Gary: A lot of people ask the question, because the amulet is not in the book, they don't understand why we inserted the amulet and the magic in the end and I think you might want to talk about that.
Don: I always felt with... There's a lot of people in our society who look for their church or charitable organization to bail them out of their problems. And with Brisby we ran up against that. Is she going to run around screaming "Help me! Help me!" until someone does her job for her? Or are you going to make her strong enough to where she solves her own problem, which I would like more. I think the amulet was something... where you give her... its like the Dumbo feather. Give Dumbo a feather and now he can fly. Take it away and he can't. The amulet is not necessary magic I think, anymore than Nicodemus is magic but the amulet is something for her to hold, to believe in. Cause she has to believe she can solver her problem. Up to this point of the movie everyone she's gone to has not solved it.
Gary: Yeah but there is magic at the end, she uses it to show that she has the courage and the strength to do it but the amulet basically comes alive, remember when it lifts the block out.
Don: But you may say "Maybe that's her." You know like the woman who lifts the car off her child. Where she'd get that strength?

Later in the DVD

Don: When he gave her the amulet, Nicodemus says "It has a power..."
Gary: Within.
Don: Pardon?
Gary: Within.
Don: Yeah, there's a power that lies within but you have to believe so. It has to do with you. So this amulet can't come to life until she clicks some switch inside her. She's the trigger.
Gary: So it had a power within when she actually grabbed it...
Don: That thing could never have done what its doing right now unless she had wanted it to. So its just another tool but its a very very sophisticated one.
Gary: My favorite line in the whole movie is "You can unlock any door if only you had the key."
Don: And that's what she's got.

The DVD I rented was a bare bones version, so I hadn't heard the commentary track.

I agree in principle with the idea that Mrs. Brisby has to learn to face her fears and solve her own problems being the main message of the movie and I think the film is strongest when it is focused on that concept. But I just don't feel like there's enough in there to really make it feel like the amulet is really just a conduit for something within Mrs. Brisby. Since they bring up "Dumbo," that's a movie where it's made entirely clear what the "magic" object in that film is. The feather is just a placebo, a confidence booster to help Dumbo believe that he can fly. How do we know this? Well, we see the lead crow pluck a perfectly ordinary feather from one of his buddies and hand it to Timothy Mouse (not to be confused with Timothy Brisby) with a big wink. (I think that's how it went. It's been along time since I've seen it.) And Dumbo actually loses his grip on the feather at the critical moment, forcing Timothy to rapidly explain to him that the feather doesn't really do anything and that he can fly with or without it. And sure enough, Dumbo flies. I realize that the amulet isn't exactly the same deal, but the way the film portrays it, it's very hard not to feel like Mrs. Brisby was very lucky to have a magical amulet in her possession or her kids would be dead. I don't get the feeling that the key to using the amulet is her newfound courage because I never see any other character or Mrs. Brisby before she had fully turned from a timid character to a courageous one try to use the amulet and fail and I don't feel like there's that one last action on Mrs. Brisby's part that makes her enough of a changed person (or mouse) to activate the stone.

The more I think about it, the more I wish that the climax of the film had been Mrs. Brisby breaking free of Justin's grip, grabbing the rope, and getting dragged into the mud with her house, after which she resurfaces with the stone and is able to levitate her house out of the muck. It still wouldn't be perfect, but then I would have been able to say, "Mrs. Brisby was able to use the stone because she found her courage at that exact moment when she wouldn't stop trying to save her children, even at the possible cost of her own life. As is, it feels like the she is able to use the stone through desperation as much as anything. She's helpless to save her kids and the stone comes and saves the day.

Or, if the message is that "magic" is really just the inner strength that we all possess and can call on when we need it so long as we believe in ourselves, then maybe the stone isn't magical at all. Put Mrs. Brisby in a desperate situation after she gets the stone where she is suddenly able to use magic. She thinks it's the stone and is overjoyed that she has this wonderful magical artifact that will help her to solve her problems. But then she loses it. Maybe Jenner actually gets a hold of it, discovers he can't use it, and throws it into the mud in disgust before he is killed. But Mrs. Brisby doesn't give up, even though she doesn't have her magic stone. She is not going to let her home sink and her children drown without trying everything she possibly can. And lo and behold, she finds that she is able to use magic. And we'll know it's not just that she is inherently magical because Justin, who prior to this could never perform magic despite all the time he spent with Nicodemus and has come to believe that magic is something only a few select individuals have, sees Mrs. Brisby lifting her home out of the mud, is inspired to try again, and is finally able to use magic and help Mrs. Brisby lift her home. (Not thatshe couldn't do it herself, but it is very heavy and that task is taking every ounce of strength she has.) And the other rats see this and decide to try as well. Some are better at it than others and none seem quite as strong in magic as Mrs. Brisby, but eventually, they are all able to aid Mrs. Brisby in saving her home and family. Again, it wouldn't be perfect, particularly because it takes away from the idea of Mrs. Brisby solving her problem on her own, but it does reinforce the concept that she is able to save her family because of a power she has inside her, not because she got a magic amulet from Nicodemus. The stone in this case would be meant simply as a reminder that Mrs. Brisby has the power within herself to do what she has to.

But girls can't resist a sparkly vampire!
Sorry, couldn't resist. Mainly I wanted to comment on points already raised. I've always pictured a missing scene where Auntie Shrew, getting her courage up, tells Justin or whichever rat is first at the door that while she's on the job no one is leaving the house, and in Mrs. B's absence the Rats have little other choice but to proceed with the move. Don't have much on the discrepancies about the Owl, but I figured Ages' "no one has ever seen the Owl!" was mostly hyperbole on his part, stemming from his lingering disbelief that Brisby had gotten this far into the rat colony on her own. As for where was Timothy while the house was filling up, that has always baffled me. Could the bed have floated on top of the mud? I seriously doubt it; can anything float on mud?