The fantasy racism in Zootpoia does't work for the same thing that doesn't make it in X-Men and other such plots. It gives undeniable differences between the chosen fantasy races that mean conflict with them is unavoidable. We have enough indications that predators in Zootopia's universe did predate on prey. And if we're supposed to accept that the prey are the ones keeping predators down then that raises the question how that happened considering the obvious observation that a lion is far deadlier than a bunny.
The writing surrounding Bellweather is just an example. They just needed an obvious villain to be beaten and also have another twist villain. As it stands, the fantasy racism would have held better if they chose a different dynamic like say, the Lion King's except the Hyenas are more sympathetic.
The fantasy racism in Zootpoia does't work for the same thing that doesn't make it in X-Men and other such plots. It gives undeniable differences between the chosen fantasy races that mean conflict with them is unavoidable. We have enough indications that predators in Zootopia's universe did predate on prey. And if we're supposed to accept that the prey are the ones keeping predators down then that raises the question how that happened considering the obvious observation that a lion is far deadlier than a bunny.
The writing surrounding Bellweather is just an example. They just needed an obvious villain to be beaten and also have another twist villain. As it stands, the fantasy racism would have held better if they chose a different dynamic like say, the Lion King's except the Hyenas are more sympathetic.
Has fantasy racism ever worked? I feel like there are two positions you could take here: either it never works, or you accept that an amount of fudging is necessary to tell the story. Earlier drafts of Zootopia had all the predators walk around with shock collars around their necks. I wouldn't have liked to see that movie. What we have in the finished product is sufficiently vague to imagine various ways of how the world of Zootopia developed to the point we see in the movie. Personally, Zootopia reminded me of Republic City from The Legend of Korra. Or look at the behavior of large and small countries in the European Union.
Still, a far bigger hangup for me are Judy's underhanded policing tactics, contacting and recruiting criminals to get by. Yes, I've heard the argument that minorities have an automatic handicap in liberal-democratic systems and have to resort to alternative means to achieve their goals, but you shouldn't teach that in a Disney movie. Nick gets off scoff-free because...? Never mind the endemic corruption that's holding up Mr. Big.
The fantasy racism in Zootpoia does't work for the same thing that doesn't make it in X-Men and other such plots. It gives undeniable differences between the chosen fantasy races that mean conflict with them is unavoidable. We have enough indications that predators in Zootopia's universe did predate on prey. And if we're supposed to accept that the prey are the ones keeping predators down then that raises the question how that happened considering the obvious observation that a lion is far deadlier than a bunny.
The writing surrounding Bellweather is just an example. They just needed an obvious villain to be beaten and also have another twist villain. As it stands, the fantasy racism would have held better if they chose a different dynamic like say, the Lion King's except the Hyenas are more sympathetic.
Inner Workings (2016) Director Leo Matsuda Voice Talent Tucker Gilmore, Raymond S. Persi, Terri Douglas, The Loop Troop
This short follows Paul, a Californian who passes the beach front every day to his grueling office job. Or rather, it follows a tug between his heart and his brain. It's an extremely stylized short, all the bodies are bent out of shape. Paul's constant fear of death is also extreme. What is nuance? This is not exactly Inside Out...
Directed by John Musker & Ron Clements Co-Directed by Chris Williams & Don Hall Screenplay by Jared Bush Story by Ron Clements & John Musker, Chris Williams & Don Hall, Pamela Ribon, Aaron Kandell & Jordan Kandell Original Songs by Lin-Manuel Miranda, Oretaia Foa'i, Mark Mancina
Starring Auli'i Cravalho and Louise Bush as Moana / Vaiana Featuring Dwayne Johnson, Rachel House, Temuera Morrison, Jemaine Clement, Nicole Scherzinger, Alan Tudyk, Oscar Kightly, Troy Polamalu, Puanami Cravalho
Academy Award for Best Animated Feature Film - John Musker, Ron Clements, and Osnat Shurer - nominated Academy Award for Best Original Song - Lin-Manuel Miranda - How Far I'll Go - nominated John Musker and Ron Clements have had a career at Disney like no others. Their first feature, 1986's The Great Mouse Detective was a moderate success at a crucial moment, allowing them to follow up with two famous classics, The Little Mermaid and Aladdin. But after the oft-forgotten Hercules, their next two movies, Treasure Planet and The Princess and the Frog spelled the end for traditional animation at the studio. But that wasn't the last of it. In 2016, thirty years after that initial success, their final collaboration, Moana was released in theaters.
We don't get a lot of veteran directors around here. The typical artist's lifecycle is such that most creative ideas tend to taper off by middle age, and the artist spends their twilight years working the well-honed formula they're famous for. This is not conducive to commercial art like animation, which thrives on newness and competition. When all major artists are aging gracefully into old age, you get the creative lull America experienced in the 1960s and '70s. Not counting the co-directors, Moana boasts the second-oldest directorial duo of any Disney animated feature, both aged 63. (Reitherman, Lounsbery, and Stevens were on average 65 years old when The Rescuers released.)
And boy, does Moana feel like a blast from the past. The story about the rebellious daughter of a Polynesian patriarch who just wants to go sailing is the sort of thing we haven't properly seen in 20 years. We've got legendary heroes and magical grandmothers, songs about searching and monomyths lurching. Some critics called Moana "a return to the heights of the Disney Renaissance". And I agree, except for the heights part. This is the Disney Renaissance and its tired old tropes coming back to haunt me. I would rather have stayed where we are!
Let's start with the biggest problem. Maui, the legendary demigod that accompanies Moana, behaves like a massive jerk for most of his screen time. The reason for his massively overinflated ego and complete disregard for human beings is revealed, but by that point I had long ceased to care. Disney, if your twist villains don't work, don't follow them up with a twist hero. Yes, I know he's portrayed by Dwayne Johnson. No, I do not buy into this guy's cult of personality. He's overhyped and doesn't have the makings of a voice actor. I wonder to what extent this issue can be traced back to his song, "You're Welcome". It wouldn't be first time a song changed the course of a Disney movie, and Maui's off-putting cockiness is also present in the songwriter's most famous work, Hamilton. Yes, it's Lin-Manuel Miranda. His songs here are decent, but nothing special, not reaching either the highs or lows of Hamilton. But above all, your hero shouldn't be an arrogant prick. Did nobody here watch Hercules?
The other major issue is the story. It's a boilerplate hero's journey structure whose leads have even less chemistry than in The Princess and the Frog. Some couples are kept apart by an ocean, these two literally need an ocean to keep them together. First she needs to find him, then they have to get past the pirates and get his magical fishhook, and finally they have to bring back the pounami that he stole a thousand years earlier. Moana herself is not a capable sailor because of story rewrites and gets berated by Maui for being a useless Chosen One, which is kind of right. Moana's big character trait is her determination to go to sea and do the plot thing, which isn't a whole lot to go on. We don't see much of her bond with the islanders she's trying to save.
And then there's the heritage theme, which is another '90s thing that the movie totally bungles. Moana's 'crazy grandmother', who isn't nearly as cool as Grandmother Willow or Grandmother Fa, knows all about the island's secret history. They used to be seafarers, but the sea got too rough. Moana's hydrophobic father won't as much as let her near the water, like it'll kill somebody. Moana is understandably overjoyed to learn this history, prompting her to go on her journey, and she returns a changed woman knowing who she is and where she came from. Except she knew that before she left, so in effect the big heroic character-changing event happened before the movie even happened! The hero's journey is not just a matter of execution, you know. You can fill up your princesses with all the purpose in the world, but they've still got to learn and grow.
As for the merits of following in the footsteps of your ancestors, here's the thing. I'm fairly involved in my own cultural heritage, so I get it. But also, I am white. We don't all get to claim our past with the same fervor, especially if your ancestors got involved in history. So tread with care. Mythmaking is an important part of community, but a myth is still just that, and we've lost too many boys over the frenzied fever dreams of an imagined past. (Truth be told, I was starting to hope the British would turn up by the end of the movie.) History isn't littered with heroes and villains, but with flawed, ordinary people trying to get by. I cherish my mad, mundane heritage, but I have no desire to become a small farmer in a community that will remain irrelevant until the floods come. Let your past inform you, but carve your own path.
All in all, there isn't much to recommend Moana. The story is dull, the characters are unlikeable, and all you see is sea. If you want to get lost in the ocean, go watch Life of Pi instead. Anybody familiar with Moana probably knows that the title character was translated as Vaiana or Oceania in various regions, for a number of reasons. It seems like a small thing, but it did throw me off a little while watching the movie and its bonus features (where she is referred to as Moana). This is the biggest localization change, but certainly not the first, and on Disney+ you can never be quite sure what language the titles or signs in a movie are going to be in. At first I thought they'd hired British voice actors for a special European localization, but apparently that's just Temuera Morrison's New Zealander accent.
The fantasy racism in Zootpoia does't work for the same thing that doesn't make it in X-Men and other such plots. It gives undeniable differences between the chosen fantasy races that mean conflict with them is unavoidable. We have enough indications that predators in Zootopia's universe did predate on prey. And if we're supposed to accept that the prey are the ones keeping predators down then that raises the question how that happened considering the obvious observation that a lion is far deadlier than a bunny.
The writing surrounding Bellweather is just an example. They just needed an obvious villain to be beaten and also have another twist villain. As it stands, the fantasy racism would have held better if they chose a different dynamic like say, the Lion King's except the Hyenas are more sympathetic.
Indeed.
It is understandable that the prey species in Zootopia would be fearful when the news of a predator attack spread. I recall one of the scenes shows a prey mother on a bus pulling her child along from a predator sitting nearby. The scene is supposed to make the audience feel negativity towards the mother but if that predator did suddenly go feral (as shown in the film) that kid is dead. It is not wrong for the mother to be rightly concerned for her child. Especially considering the size disadvantages.
It is the same issue with the X-Men comics. Mutants do have an advantage over humans. Unlike prejudice against skin color, there is a rational sentiment behind the fear of mutants. Especially when mutant villains threaten annihilation. Anti-mutant villains are distasteful in their rhetoric but it is not usually mindless hate. Instead, it is based around the concept that their side is at a disadvantage. I understand the allegories behind fantasy racism that most writers are trying to highlight but most of them fall apart under the lightest scrutiny.
Another issue with Zootopia. It is understandable that the Chief would take a dim view of Judy as a cop. The size differences in that world are massive. Judy might be a great detective but how would she subdue an aggressive predator?
I was glad that they didn't feel they had to pair Moana off with a romantic partner, as they did, rather unsuccessfully, with Anna. Also, I found Gramma Tala way cooler than Grandmother Willow, who just seemed like a standard-issue "wise old woman" nature-spirit. Gramma Tala is a person I'd like to know.
There are a bunch of scenes in Moana where I really loved the visuals: the waves calling toddler Moana, the reveal of the hidden boats, the hand-drawn animated tattoo, the coconut pirates, the glam-rock crab, Gramma Tala transmogrified into a ray, Te Fiti herself. The "Shiny" scene with the crab in particular only works for me, though, on a big screen in a mostly dark movie theater. Doesn't come across on the screen in my home at all. The deceptively cute coconut pirates remind me, in a good way, of Galaxy Quest. I don't think there's any other Disney animated movie where I could come up with such a long list of memorable, distinctive, effectively visualized scenes. Maybe Fantasia? Pinocchio has several memorable scenes with great visuals, but I don't love them because so much of the movie scared or disturbed child-me. In other Disney animated movies, I may like the overall aesthetic, but only a couple of scenes will stand out in my memory.
Olaf's Frozen Adventure (2017) Directed by Stevie Wermers-Skelton, Kevin Deters Screenplay by Jac Schaeffer Voice Talent Josh Gad, Idina Menzel, Kristen Bell, Jonathan Groff, Chris Williams, John de Lancie, Lauri Fraser, Benjamin Deters, Eva Bella Original Songs by Elyssa Samsel, Kate Anderson
This Frozen special was developed as another TV Christmas special, but ended up being paired with Pixar's Coco in theaters. The directors are different and the songwriters are different, but this short is a classic bit of Frozen nevertheless. When Elsa and Anna ring the yule bell for Christmas, everybody in the city goes home to their family's holiday traditions. But Elsa and Anna don't have family traditions, on account of the whole 'parents dying in a shipwreck and Elsa locking herself up in her room' business. So, Olaf sets out to collect everybody's Christmas traditions and adopt the most special ones.
I love Frozen, and this short recaptures some of its magic. Disney really hit the right balance between sincerity and silliness with Olaf, and the rest of the cast are just as great. The world of Arendelle has just the right mix between fantasy and reality, and I approve of its relative respect for historical accuracy! The songs are excellent, the jokes are on point, and the characters are just as we saw them in the original movie. I had a good laugh with Kristoff's weird troll traditions.
In the end, the short concludes that it doesn't matter what you celebrate, as long as you celebrate together. Tradition!
Directed by Rich Moore, Phil Johnston Screenplay by Phil Johnston, Pamela Ribon Story by Rich Moore, Phil Johnson and Jim Reardon, Pamela Ribon, Josie Trinidad
Starring John C. Reilly as Ralph Featuring Sarah Silverman, Gal Gadot, Taraji P. Henson, Jack McBrayer, Jane Lynch, Alan Tudyk, Alfred Molina, Ed O'Neill, and Bill Hader With Sean Giambrone, Flula Borg, Timothy Simons, Ali Wong, Hamish Blake, Glozell Green, Rebecca Wisocky, Sam Richardson, Jaboukie Young-White With Maurice LaMarche, Melissa Villaseñor, Katie Lowes, Jamie Elman, Horatio Sanz, Alex Moffat, June Squibb, Della Saba, Michaela Zee With Phil Johnston, John DiMaggio, Rich Moore, Colleen Ballinger, Dani Fernandez, Tiffany Herrera, Ana Ortiz, Dianna Argon, Jason Mantzoukas With Raymond S. Persi, Fuschia!, Roger Craig Smith, Tim Allen, Brad Garrett, Anthony Daniels, Corey Burton, Vin Diesel With Jason Hightower, Brian Curless, Ann Barry Colgin, Viveca Paulin, Michael Giacchino, Kevin Deters, Jeremy Milton, Jesse Averna With Nicole Scherzinger, Brittany Kikuchi, Olivier Bénard, Ben McKee, Daniel Platzman, Dan Reynolds, Wayne Sermon And Irene Bedard, Kristen Bell, Jodi Benson, Auli'i Cravalho, Jennifer Hale, Kate Higgins, Linda Larkin, Kelly MacDonald, Idina Menzel, Mandy Moore, Paige O'Hara, Pamela Ribon, Anika Noni Rose, Ming-Na Wen as the Princesses
Academy Award for Best Animated Feature - Rich Moore, Phil Johnston, and Clark Spencer - nominated When reviewing a movie such as Ralph Breaks the Internet, it is tempting, as some have done, to launch into some rant about the moral failings of modern capitalism. And that is a fair reaction to have, albeit some thirty years late. Rather, I think it's more interesting to look at this movie from a systemic point of view. Both this movie and its predecessor came out right before a Frozen movie, and that's not a coincidence. Both movies were developed by the same people in the same studio system. You can't have one without the other. And if you liked this one, there's at least three other studios that produced a movie with a similar aestethic and slightly different jokes. The problem with Ralph Breaks the Internet is not that it's some aberration from the sacred Disney tradition. No, this is what culture had come to by 2018. This was the industry standard.
Let's start with the beginning. In the history of the Walt Disney Animation Studio, there are very few sequels. A big reason for this is that it was never in Walt's nature to do something twice, but there's more to it than that. Animation is expensive and takes a long time to produce, which is not conducive to Hollywood's old 'quick cash grab' mentality to sequels. That's why, when Michael Eisner launches a series of Disney sequels, the task was handed off to some poor second-rate studio. On the rare occasion that a direct sequel did get produced, in The Rescuers Down Under, the results were overwhelmingly negative.
What changed?
It began in 1999, with a little movie named Toy Story 2. Over the course of the 2000s, Pixar established a reputation for making movies that were even better than their predecessors, even the sequels. Their secret lay in the Pixar Brain Trust, a group of creative leaders that would share and help each other's movies while they were in production. When John Lasseter was ported over to Disney in the late 2000s in the wake of the Disney/Pixar merger, one of the first things to change was the introduction of a similar system for Walt Disney Animation Studios. And lo and behold, the credits betray how the same elite group of about two dozen writers, directors, and producers have been involved in just about everything to hit theaters since 2010. Lasseter actually left the studio around the time Ralph Breaks the Internet was released, after accounts of misconduct around employees were raised in the #MeToo movement.
Secondly, the taboo around sequels was broken after a series of successful movie franchises made it clear that intellectual property was the way to make a lot of money. And where better to claim intellectual property than on the internet? And so we get to Ralph Breaks the Internet, a movie filled with things. Things you might recognize. Things like computer virus, Disney Princesses, and Instagram. Are they arranged in an interesting way as to provoke some idea? Of course, didn't you see the trailer? Ralph Breaks the Internet is a movie as superficial as the culture it represents. If you came to this movie with any more than the barest minimum of expectations, I can't help you. And knowing this helps to swallow the pill, in a way. It's not interesting, but still relatively family-friendly given the subject matter, and it doesn't go for the most low-hanging fruit. It's by no means good, but I can still imagine significantly worse versions of this movie.
That said, I'm not letting them off the hook. It's still Disney, and they should be held to a higher standard. But it's hard to engage with a movie that's determined to answer your criticisms upfront. There's an ongoing theme with all these Disney Revival movies, to break the fourth wall and directly address some of the 'critiques' people have with Disney tropes. It's awkward, it doesn't change a thing, and it only perpetuates a cycle of mindless fluff articles that I could well do without. Turning Vanellope into a Princess doesn't mean anything. It's also here that the movie decides to pull out some character arc out of the blue, in the course of Vanellope's parody Princess song.
Ralph Breaks the Internet is not the first sequel to invent some new character flaw for its main character. Some of the great sequels, like Back to the Future II and III have this. But this supposed flaw is introduced so late, it almost seems like an afterthought. Ralph gets clingy after he overhears Vanellope wanting to stay in the internet game Slaughter Race, and lets a virus loose that creates thousands of zombie Ralphs. Rarely have I seen such an underwhelming climax as when Ralph tries to take on a King Kong-sized mass of Ralph clones. It's hollow, derivative, and has nothing to do with the bulk of the plot, which involves making money on the internet. Whoever thought that was a good motivation for a Disney movie?
Everything about this movie, from the depiction of eBay and Instagram to Ralph's attempts to become a viral hit, is presenting in such an uninspiring way that it feels like there's no point. Wreck-It-Ralph was a pretty clever pastiche with some genuinely good worldbuilding, but Ralph Breaks the Internet doesn't even try. It's not even a parody, just a reference list of cultural things that come with the internet. Even the title is perfectly calibrated as to date instantly, referencing an embarrassing piece of self-promotion by some pointless celebrity.
Frankly, Ralph Breaks the Internet is such a period piece that I could almost see it being reappraised in a generation. But that would have required some kind of style in the first place. It's hard to imagine anyone looking back on this movie with nostalgia in the future. But maybe I'm too old to get it. I suppose you'll want me to say something about the Princess scene. I'm actually quite a big fan of crossovers, so I didn't mind this at all. It's pretty well-established that these aren't the 'real' Princesses anyway. It's a little jarring to hear the new voice actresses of Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora, who I'd rather have stayed silent, and Ariel also put on a few years. Overall, I wish they had a bigger role, then maybe they'd have had some actual lines and a bit of character. I'm not sure about some of the redesigns, but this Rapunzel is looking a lot better than the original one to me. So anyway, what are the metaphysics of the Wreck-It-Ralph universe? Do video game characters have any autonomy during gaming or not? What do you mean, "it's just a movie"? Hello?
The only thing interesting about the sequel is that they undid the first movie by more or less saying that yes, Vanellope should abadon her game. When the first movie was all about how Ralph should appreciate what he has just as how his fellow members of the game should show they appreciate him.
The only thing interesting about the sequel is that they undid the first movie by more or less saying that yes, Vanellope should abadon her game. When the first movie was all about how Ralph should appreciate what he has just as how his fellow members of the game should show they appreciate him.
Good things about Ralph Breaks the Internet:
Bill Hader is in it (uncredited)
Occasionally I check in with the reviews of the Unshaved Mouse. We disagree most of the time, but he makes quite a big deal out of how this movie goes back on all the rules set up in the original, and righly so IMO. His review for Ralph Breaks the Internet is pretty spot on.
You may have noticed a lack of activity in this thread. I seem to be suffering from writer's block with regards to Mary Poppins Returns. Service will resume... later.
Directed by Rob Marshall Animation Sequence Supervisor Jim Capobiano Screenplay by David Magee Screen Story by David Magee & Rob Marshall & John DeLuca Songs by Marc Shaiman | Lyrics by Scott Wittman and Marc Shaiman Based on the Mary Poppins stories by P. L. Travers
Starring Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins Featuring Lin-Manuel Miranda, Ben Whishaw, Emily Mortimer, Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh, Joel Dawson, Julie Walters, Meryl Streep, Colin Firth Featuring Jeremy Swift, Kobna Holdbrook-Smith, David Warner, Jim Norton, Noma Dumezweni, Tarik Frimpong, Sudha Bhuchar With Steve Nicolson, Christian Dixon, Christopher Goodwin, John Dagleish, Karen Dotrice, Ian Conningham, Billy Barratt, Felix Collar, Kate Attwell With Chris O'Dowd, Mark Addy, Edward Hibbert, Ash Special Appearance by Angela Lansbury Special Appearance by Navckid Keyd|Dick Van Dyke
Academy Award for Best Original Score - Marc Shaiman - nominated Academy Award for Best Original Song - The Place Where Lost Things Go - Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman - nominated Academy Award for Best Production Design - John Myhre and Gordon Sim - nominated Academy Award for Best Costume Design - Sandy Powell - nominated Usually, when I watch a movie, I have a pretty good idea about why I like it or not. There's always a bit of discovery in it, and a bit of storytelling, but things have their way of falling into place. Not so with Mary Poppins Returns. It's not the worst movie I've watched. It's not the most disappointing one. But I've done some serious soul searching to find why I don't like this movie. I disagree with pretty much every creative decision made for this movie, but I can also see why someone thought it would be a good idea. I don't believe it comes from a bad place, either. It's like when you watch an adaptation of your favorite book, and it's nothing like you imagined it. Except instead of a book, it's Walt Disney's Mary Poppins.
Now, I can't compare the two movies directly, since that just ends with me gushing over the beauty of the the original Mary Poppins. Besides, there's little to compare: the movies were made in different time periods with completely different approaches to movie-making. And I have a clear preference for the older one. And it seems unfair to hold Mary Poppins Returns to the same standard. At the end of the day, it's just a sequel. There's a blueprint it's expected to follow. And boy, does it ever. Mary Poppins Returns replicates pretty much every story beat from the original. Funny policeman? Funny park keeper. Crazy uncle? Crazy cousin. Evil banker? Evil banker. Animated sequence? Animated sequence. Suffragette? Labor organizer. Fly a kite? Fly a balloon. Chimney sweeps? Leeries. Bert? Jack. "Step in Time"? "Trip a Little Light Fantastic"!
That's not to say that it doesn't try to tell a story of its own. And here's where you can see one of the main differences. When Mary Poppins was made in the 1960s, it was a fantastical musical, but it was grounded in the memories of people who had actually lived through that era (or knew people who had). The emotional core of that movie is the transformation of George Banks. In contrast, the emotional core in Mary Poppins Returns is some nostalgic materialism about the Banks' family home, because apparently whoever thought of the Depression just felt that they had to do another 'evil bank forecloses on the house' story. Because they have no feeling for the time period, all they know is the 'twee British midcentury romance' genre. And I get the feeling they probably saw the Paddington movie.
The Royal Doulton Music Hall
There's an animated scene, because of course there is. Half of it is devoted to a frantic cart chase as some of the animals try to take the children's belongings, and it's decent. The parallels to the A plot are a bit on the nose, but hey.
The other half is a show-stopping musical number at the Royal Doulton Music Hall. And because it's the 1930s, we get a bit of variety theater. With some contractually obligated rapping from Lin-Manuel Miranda, and Mary Poppins herself performing a few edgy songs with lots of innuendo. Excuse me, what the WHAT? I take offense at this, not because I'm a prude, but because it's MARY POPPINS. It's completely out of character for her! Julie Andrews' Mary Poppins went to great lengths to present herself like a proper lady, constantly fussing over her appearance, always authoritative. She would never have stooped to variety!
Another thing that bothers me about this version of Mary Poppins is her liberal use of magic to steer the plot. In the original movie, magic was for fun, and the actual story was carried by character interaction. Not so here, where Mary needs to intervene in order for the plan to succeed. How about that scenario, huh? Let's take a moment to assess how credible it is. 17 Cherry Tree Lane, a detached Victorian house in the center of London, for many years the residence of the a partner of the City's most distinguished banks, is being repossessed because his son is unable to make ends meet, one year after the death of his wife. I know art is a tough career, but Michael literally came from money. Colin Firth as a mustache-twirling villain with a chip on his shoulder is hardly a justification!
Which raises another point. Mary Poppins is, to some degree, an institutional critique. The bankers are all business and no fun, representing a stuffy old Victorian world. Their role in the Mary Poppins world makes them the antagonists, at least until they are broken by a man with a wooden leg named Smith. In Mary Poppins Returns, we need more positive role models. So we get a good lawyer (who is black and fit) and a bad lawyer (who is white and fat). We get a bad banker in Colin Firth and a good banker in Navckid Keyd. (I'm sure there were plenty of black lawyers in Depression-era London, but I'll leave that aside.) This dichotomy teaches us... nothing exactly, as there are few people so simplistically evil in real life. There are no changes of heart, they just get replaced by someone nicer.
Some of the characters got carried over from Mary Poppins, but this raises more questions. We return to the Banks family (P. L. Travers never considered anything else), even if that casts a shadow on Mary Poppins' earlier success, but a time skip makes sense. But the returning characters (Admiral Boom, Mr. Binnacle, Ellen) were already quite elderly by 1910. They should be long dead by the time of the slump. Bless David Warner, but he was actually a year younger than his 1964 counterpart Reginald Owen. Poor George and Winifred Banks are thrown into an early grave, even though is Glynis Johns is still alive in 2022!
I have no kind words for the rest of the cast either, I'm afraid. Ben Whishaw plays a very sensitive Michael, which clashes with the 'children's adventure' tone. I mean, it makes sense, his character is grieving over the death of his wife. But that's not actually what the movie is about, it's just a plot point to kick off the repossessed house plot. That alone is such a red flag for this movie's priorities, but here we are. Lin-Manuel Miranda is the least convincing cockney I've ever heard, beating Dick Van Dyke by a country mile. Strangely enough, the word 'cockney' is not uttered once in the movie, being replaced by 'leery speak'. What on earth is leery speak? Was Disney afraid it sounded too much like a rude word? Boys, have you seen the music hall sequence? Emily Blunt plays a rather haughty Mary Poppins, like she's putting on a character. I don't like it. Nobody can replicate Julie Andrews, sure, but is this really the best they could do? Is Blunt always like this? Is it the director's fault? Were there no other English roses available? Well, it's always nice to see Angela Lansbury again, even if she's clearly filling in for Julie Andrews. Just like the old days, huh?
I don't like the songs, I don't like the CGI, and I don't like Meryl Streep. Call me an old-fashioned crank, but I'll stick with the original Mary Poppins movie. Sure, it's 54 years older, but at least it knew what it was about! Oh, for an ounce of authenticity... This movie has bikes! Everything's better with bikes. Although, the BMX in "Trip a Little Light Fantastic" was a bit too much for me. What's next, skateboarding? That sequence also treats us to Mary Poppins speaking cockney, something I never needed nor will need again. Mary Poppins with a working class accent? Such a blatant disregard for the time period. I can hear P. L. Travers spinning in her grave!
Directed by Chris Buck, Jennifer Lee Screenplay by Jennifer Lee Story inspired by "The Snow Queen" by Hans Christian Andersen Story by Jennifer Lee, Chris Buck, Marc E. Smith, Kristen Anderson-Lopez, Robert Lopez Original songs by Kristen Anderson-Lopez, Robert Lopez
Featuring Kristen Bell/Hadley Gannaway/Livvy Stubenrauch, Idina Menzel/Mattea Conforti/Eva Bella, Josh Gad, Jonathan Groff, Sterling K. Brown, Evan Rachel Wood With Alfred Molina, Martha Plimption, Jason Ritter, Rachel Matthews, Jeremy Sisto, Ciarán Hinds, Alan Tudyk, Hadley Gannaway, AURORA And Alan Tudyk, Santino Fontana, Maia Wilson, Stephen John Anderson, Paul Briggs, Jackson Stein, Delaney Rose Stein, Halima V. Hudson
Academy Award for Best Original Song - Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez - Into the Unknown - nominated Mirror mirror on the wall, what is the highest-grossing animated feature of all? Why, it's Frozen II, the sequel to the monster hit that flooded shelves in 2013. Don't you love sequels? I love sequels. You can never go wrong with a sequel.
Joking aside, I quite enjoyed Frozen II. If nothing else, the sheer breadth of artistry on display is nothing short of astounding. They're pulling inspiration from all corners. You can hear this especially in the songs written for the movie, which range from a lullaby to a rock opera, and sample liberally from the original Frozen. The songs in Frozen II don't quite have the same catchiness as those in Frozen, but they're still very good. It almost has the makings of a concept album.
If I had to pick out one thing that stands out about Frozen II, it would be intensity. From the very first teaser trailer, it's clear that the creators aren't joshing around with this one. The movie has an epic scope, underscored by a mything, mystical sound that is only too rare in movies. (The closest thing to this movie in Disney terms is the third act of Atlantis: The Lost Empire.) I'm a big fan, if you can't tell. There's a lot of buildup in this movie, especially with anything regarding Elsa. The flip side of that is that they ultimately have to deliver on their promised revelations... and this is where things get tough.
Look, I like Frozen II a great deal. There's a lot I can learn from it on future viewings. But it gets a little stuck in mystery box mode, and teasing out new elements of the magic system we were introduced to in Frozen. And it doesn't really deliver on that last part, partly because that's very hard to pull off within the runtime of a movie. This ain't Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure.
And for all of its dramatic weight, I think it falters a little just after the characters hit their lowest point. Because of the lack of dialogue, some of the events and actions are hard to follow, and I think they should have dwelled on Anna's grief a little longer. Ultimately, I'm not sure if either of the girls learned a lesson, partly because it's a repeat of their dynamic in the first movie. Anna is constantly following her sister, Elsa pushes her away, one of them gets frozen. Both parties come from an understandable place, but it feels like they haven't progressed from that place in what canonically have been three years. But that's how it is with sequels, I guess. They often fall into this trap of treading the same ground.
I do like the revelations about Anna and Elsa's past, but then I am a student of history. The enchanted forest is cool, and drawing on the history of the Sámi people (and indigenous people as a whole) was a smart move. Themes such as reparations and the sins of the ancestors have been touched upon by other reviewers. It's a topical topic, and it visualizes past atrocities in a way that children can digest. My own history education included watching clips from the liberation of Auschwitz and a school trip to the Flanders fields. Deeply impressive, but certainly the shock therapy type of history lesson if you're among the feint-hearted! Frozen II is a decent allegory to open this kind of conversation, especially with that explicitly familial connection. We all have our black sheep, after all, especially if you're royal.
I've also been pleasantly surprised with Olaf, who seems to have found a wonderful niche of bringing up dark and deeply philosophical ideas through his happy, cutesy manner. The combination of his G-rated demeanor and darker undertone in his thoughts makes for a memorable character, and there's an educational potential in it. I could see him becoming a kind of Jiminy Cricket of latter-day snowmen.
Kristoff is the weak link of the team. As per usual for the sequel, the romantic interest gets largely sidelined, in a B plot that is straight out of The Rescuers Down Under, complete with wedding ring complications. And again, with Frozen focusing specifically about the love between Anna and Elsa, Kristoff feels a little superfluous. Shoulda hooked him up with that cute Ryder fella. Kristoff gets a cool song, although I'm not sure how well the classic rock ballad will continue to resonate.
Finally, I would like to direct your attention to the visuals. They are, in a word, stunning. From the reds of Arendelle's fall, to Elsa's white dress, to the blue ice, to the lumenescent colors that make up the four elements, the colors in the movie are on point. But I'm even more impressed with the use of 2-D animation in certain sequences. When the screen goes black and we find ourselves in a realm of pure imagination. It's an old Disney trope to be sure, going back to the days of pink elephants on parade, but I continue to maintain that animation still hasn't unlocked the full potential of non-Euclidean space. Still, it's evident that the move to 3-D animation has brought many merits of its own.
As far as I'm concerned, Frozen II is a worthy successor to Frozen. It's got something for everyone: horses and pretty dresses, revelations about history, existential angst about aging, and jokes about leather. And female empowerment, very important. It's a pretty good watch. We've sure come a long way since Pocahontas. It was refreshing to hear that the Northuldra aren't magical, but instead make use of the magical world around them. There's been more than enough magical minorities in movies. Although the way the Northuldra frame it, it being strange that an Arendelian has magic powers, that means it should possible for there to be other individuals with elemental powers in the Frozen universe. Maybe for another day. Although I am starting to wonder, why must it always be some ethnic minority in tune with nature that has magical powers? Surely we shouldn't fetishize them. I think it's high time the colonial imperialists had a shot at magic, don't you? Oh, the humanity!