Frozen 2
It’s pretty bad. It’s like a direct-to-video Disney sequel of old, except with a full theatrical release budget.
Tangled
First I want to talk about how much “Frozen 2” ripped from “Tangled” and how disrespectfully it was done before I talk about anything else, just to get it out of the way, because it’s what I feel most strongly about but it’s also the least relevant to actually evaluating the movie. If you don’t care about passion you can just skip to the next part.
A relevant name caught my eye when the credits started rolling so I did a little digging and, for what it’s worth, it turns out that Byron Howard, one of the two directors of “Tangled,” was a new producer for “Frozen 2.” He was not involved with the previous “Frozen” at all. I don’t really know what to make of it, but we can infer that he gave his blessing to use the likenesses of Pascal and Maximus. Whether he thought he would be getting such thin mimicry as the Fire and Water spirits we have no way of knowing, but I doubt he approved of the finished product; I know I didn’t.
“Tangled” is my favorite Disney movie from the current “era” of Disney, and to see such pale imitations, such shallow knockoffs of Pascal and Maximus in “Frozen 2” as the Fire and Water spirits respectively felt insulting. To make such a mockery of Pascal and Maximus to absolutely no effect other than “yeah this is the movie where Elsa really comes into her own and goes from awkward queen to real Disney Princess™ so uh let’s just give her the same two animal sidekicks as Rapunzel but they won’t have anywhere near the charm or character because they’re just there to visually legitimize Elsa so whatever who cares lol” is not at all a flattering tribute or a paid homage. To those who saw the familiar shapes of Pascal and Maximus in the Fire and Water spirits, devoid of all depth and charm, and gasped with recognition and delight, I say to you fake fans, pour a little more Splenda into your coffee since you’re so easily satisfied by utterly tasteless callbacks and references. True fans would not applaud such blatant strokes of plagiarism. Oh and they named the one lame Northuldra dude Ryder. Like c’mon. How dare you stand where he stood?
What’s that? You should let people just enjoy the things they enjoy? Why don’t you run along and tell Queen Anna that I don’t give a fuck. The gates to Arendelle may be open, but these gates I’m going to keep until I die.
Visuals
Disney does it again. Elsa, Anna, Arendelle, ice, water, everything looks even more spectacular and jaw-dropping than before, if only I were able to stop gritting my teeth and clenching my jaw long enough to drop it. Even watching through a scowl for almost the full duration of the movie, I cannot deny that “Frozen 2” looks stunning. The hair physics, cloth physics, the different hairstyles and outfits that the characters wear were all so good to look at that it makes the rest of the movie all the more disappointing.
Animation and Cinematography
In the face of such visual beauty, it’s a wonder why the cinematography and animation weren’t more dynamic. I’m specifically criticizing the lack of dynamic movement, because the character animation and body language is as convincing as it’s always been: slight shifts in weight, a tilt of the head, a telltale sideways glance, these things all read loud and clear.
What’s missing is dynamic movement, which is something that the original did really well. I’m talking about when Anna and Elsa smell chocolate in the original and their noses are pulled upwards as if by strings, their backs arched, extending towards the unseen aroma. I’m talking about the squash and stretch when Anna punches Hans in the face at the end and he falls off the boat in an arc and lands with a satisfying plop into the sea. I’m talking about the 12 fucking principles of animation, which Disney legends Ollie Johnston and Frank Thomas wrote a book on in 1981!
The cinematography did nothing to alleviate this and instead further crippled what little life this movie had to offer in terms of motion. Too many still shots. Beautiful, but static. You could argue that the enchanted forest covered by a thick, stagnant mist and a dam stopping the flow of its magic river makes these kinds of still shots thematically fitting, but that’s no excuse for how boring they are. Good cinematography delivers visual information while also being entertaining to watch. A character’s motion is its animation, which informs and entertains, while a viewer’s motion is the cinematography, which should aim do the same. The cinematography in “Frozen 2” just felt rigid and mechanical, doing nothing more than deliver visual information. Think of “Love is an Open Door” from the first “Frozen.” They race down the halls, the camera moves close as they dance and twirl, the camera pulls far back as they traipse along the rooftops, the camera then hangs languidly as they gaze at the stars. There was a real bounce and pep to the camera itself that breathed so much life into the original “Frozen” that I still remember them. I literally watched “Frozen 2” today and I don’t vividly remember a single scene. Elsa riding the Water spirit horse to save Arendelle comes close, but that’s pitiful considering that I just watched it. How the camera moves is how we follow the action, and how we follow the action is crucial to how a scene is experienced, and my experience with the motion of “Frozen 2” was overwhelmingly mundane. It’s such a shame that an animated movie that looks as good as “Frozen 2” moves so stiffly. It’s like a dolled up mannequin of a movie. For a film about finding four elemental spirits, it couldn’t find its own spirit.
I could dissect this movie and talk about this forever, combing through frame by frame, picking apart scene after scene, but for the sake of brevity, we’ll move on. Besides, that sort of thing is more suited for a video essay. Maybe one day.
Dialogue, and Lyrics
Anna: Arendelle‘s okay.
Lt. Mattias: What?
The scene then cuts immediately away to something else.
What the fuck? That transition away was so jarring and so rude that I just couldn’t help but burst into laughter in disbelief. Seriously, who fucking wrote this?
This poor soldier has been trapped in an enchanted forest covered in impenetrable mist surrounded by enemies for 34 years, 5 months, and 23 days (they’ve been counting), yearning as much as a human heart can yearn to go home, to see the streets of Arendelle, and he thinks he’s finally going to be able to when Elsa and Anna show up, but suddenly, the younger princess of his nation tells him that they must destroy the dam, which would destroy his home, but he is ultimately convinced by his loyalty to the crown and his duty as a soldier to sacrifice his country in order to rescue the princesses and save the forest, so he relinquishes all hope to see his home, hope that’s been building up for over three whole decades, and commits, but then it’s just casually revealed in an almost offhand remark by Anna that there actually was no sacrifice and Arendelle is totally fine with no further explanation, and all he can manage to say in the meager amount of screentime granted to him is “WHAT?” They did this man so dirty it’s crazy. All he could eek out was a singular “What?” of absolute confusion before they abruptly cut away from him. If this were Looney Tunes or some other crazy show where 4th wall breaks were commonplace, he would’ve been entirely in the right to pop out, drag his frame back onto the screen and DEMAND an explanation. “What in the goddamn FUCK do you mean Arendelle is okay, explain yourself! I made peace with the fact that I would never see my home again and we broke that dam and now you’re just gonna walk up nonchalantly and tell me it’s actually fine like you’re tossing me a fucking nickel? EXPLAIN.”
That’s the problem that affects practically every character in “Frozen 2.” None of the new characters are given enough screentime to develop or matter, and so the plot, which revolves around saving them and all their grief, woe, hopes, and dreams, don’t weigh much to us at all. On the other hand, the established relationships between Elsa, Anna, and Kristoff are tested, but the dialogue is so awkward and awful that it was impossible for me to connect.
I felt identically about the lyrics in “Frozen 2.” What happened? Say what you will about “Let it Go” but its lyrics and melody were supremely catchy, too catchy, considering how quickly it rose and fell from grace from being overplayed. We were all sick of it, bitching and moaning, but the reason why is because it was just that much of an earworm. Straightforward melody you could belt, lyrics you didn’t have to even think about to remember. Literally unforgettable. Meanwhile, in the sequel, I don’t remember a single line from a single song. To say that “Frozen 2” was musically weaker than its predecessor is a gross understatement. Looking for answers, I dug deeper into researching the production crew.
The screenplay credit goes to Jennifer Lee, who also wrote the screenplay for the original “Frozen,” but I simply can’t believe that the same person could display such a sharp decline in quality in the six years between “Frozen” and “Frozen 2.” It couldn’t have been a lack of budget or time, so the only available explanation left is that there was a lack of passion or focus for this movie. What’s noteworthy is that Kristen-Anderson Lopez and her husband, Robert Lopez, who you’ll remember as the lyricists for “Frozen,” return as lyricists for “Frozen 2” but this time, also as writers for the story. I don’t know if they made it worse but it’s possible, because it’s worse. Both the dialogue and the lyrics were significantly and noticeably and I just don’t know why.
Conclusion
Nothing else about “Frozen 2” lives up to its visuals. Basically every single aspect of “Frozen 2” except the technical visuals was just not good, which is a huge letdown considering how hyped I was from back when we knew only of Elsa trying to run across the sea from the first teaser trailer and nothing else. If this movie didn’t have the budget to make hair, water, ice, and fabric look so good, it would’ve been on the same level as old direct-to-video Disney sequels, which were overwhelmingly bad.
Kristoff’s cheesy Phil Collins-esque ballad in the middle of the movie was really good and really funny though. They went all in with that gag and it paid off. Almost worth watching the whole movie for.
