I wonder why just this episode has such a (relatively) low rating, in my opinion it's the best episode from season 3 so far. I was a bit disappointet by the season so far because of its incoherency, but this episode was really special. The design of the planet is a nice change from the usual desert-character of most of the other planets; the technology seems believable, compared to Coruscant, and the political system a nice change from the militaristic character of the show. I have to admit, the mystery about the droids was rather simple, but obviously it was not the center of the plot. More important: There is a bit of humor here, and of course it is nice to see Jack Black and Chrisopher Lloyd again.
Reviews
11 Reviews
The Magic Flute
(2022)
Good looks, bad singing
19 November 2022
Since there is no review of this movie so far, I will try to do the first one. Unfortunately, it won't be a very nice review.
Let's start with the good parts: The look of the movie is quite okay. There are nice shots from Austria, and some parts I even know. Also the fantasy-sequences (i.e. The part where the plot of the opera is set) are nice to look at. Sure, it's not "Lord of the Rings", but the effects are okay and the sets are, well, not really lavish, but convincing. Also the connection between the parts in the reality and the fantasy-parts was well done, without giving away too much. Yes, there is a bit of cliché regarding the pupils in the 'Mozart-school', but that's okay; it's not more than usual in a High school movie, and to a certain degree this is a High school movie.
The parts I can live with: Not surprisingly, there is a lot of political correctness: Monostatos, who in the opera is a slave from Africa, is now some old white guy (very white indeed!); instead, Sarastro, 'the good guy', is now a person of colour. Okay, why not! Having a boarding school in an old castle is a big cliché: All important music schools in Austria are, of course, at places where you have ample opportunities to stay on stage, i.e. In the big cities, i.e. In Vienna and in Salzburg. But okay; the castle is a nice location.
The bad parts: Well, there is one thing which wasn't as bad as I thought: After having seen the trailer, I was afraid that they would try to 'update' Mozart's music somehow. Fortunately, they didn't: When we hear Mozart in this movie, it is the original, classical music. (Or more or less; I am no expert on that. The music we get is basically a 'Best Of' of the opera.) There is also some additional, modern score by Martin Stock, but separated from Mozart's music. So far, so good - as long as there is no singing! Because this is by far the biggest problem of this movie: The voices of the actors might be okay for a musical, but not for Mozart. Clearly, they are no trained singers, and this is a big issue for a movie which is mostly about classical music! The only exception seems to be Sabine Devieilhe, who is doing the Queen of the night; it is just impossible to do her part in an un-ridiculous way without some training. Otherwise, the singing is more or less embarrassing. Why haven't they chosen some young singers? There should be enough of them, who are also good looking, and probably even some, who also can act on the screen. Pity ...
Let's start with the good parts: The look of the movie is quite okay. There are nice shots from Austria, and some parts I even know. Also the fantasy-sequences (i.e. The part where the plot of the opera is set) are nice to look at. Sure, it's not "Lord of the Rings", but the effects are okay and the sets are, well, not really lavish, but convincing. Also the connection between the parts in the reality and the fantasy-parts was well done, without giving away too much. Yes, there is a bit of cliché regarding the pupils in the 'Mozart-school', but that's okay; it's not more than usual in a High school movie, and to a certain degree this is a High school movie.
The parts I can live with: Not surprisingly, there is a lot of political correctness: Monostatos, who in the opera is a slave from Africa, is now some old white guy (very white indeed!); instead, Sarastro, 'the good guy', is now a person of colour. Okay, why not! Having a boarding school in an old castle is a big cliché: All important music schools in Austria are, of course, at places where you have ample opportunities to stay on stage, i.e. In the big cities, i.e. In Vienna and in Salzburg. But okay; the castle is a nice location.
The bad parts: Well, there is one thing which wasn't as bad as I thought: After having seen the trailer, I was afraid that they would try to 'update' Mozart's music somehow. Fortunately, they didn't: When we hear Mozart in this movie, it is the original, classical music. (Or more or less; I am no expert on that. The music we get is basically a 'Best Of' of the opera.) There is also some additional, modern score by Martin Stock, but separated from Mozart's music. So far, so good - as long as there is no singing! Because this is by far the biggest problem of this movie: The voices of the actors might be okay for a musical, but not for Mozart. Clearly, they are no trained singers, and this is a big issue for a movie which is mostly about classical music! The only exception seems to be Sabine Devieilhe, who is doing the Queen of the night; it is just impossible to do her part in an un-ridiculous way without some training. Otherwise, the singing is more or less embarrassing. Why haven't they chosen some young singers? There should be enough of them, who are also good looking, and probably even some, who also can act on the screen. Pity ...
The Bad Guys
(2022)
Surprisingly good
18 March 2022
I completely agree with the first reviewer: I had low expectation after seeing the trailer, too. But "The Bad Guys" turned out to be a very clever movie, well-made, with a sophisticated script, and fast-moving. Most importantly: It's not taking itself too seriously. I mean: A shark as a master of disguise!?
I don't know (yet) the books on which this movie is based. Oviously the story is also inspired by the various Ocean's 8/ 11/ 12/ whatever-movies, but it is definitely an over-the-top-version of these caper movies. These movies always tried to be believable; "the bad guys" tries to be fun. And it succeeded in that!
I don't know (yet) the books on which this movie is based. Oviously the story is also inspired by the various Ocean's 8/ 11/ 12/ whatever-movies, but it is definitely an over-the-top-version of these caper movies. These movies always tried to be believable; "the bad guys" tries to be fun. And it succeeded in that!
Raya and the Last Dragon
(2021)
Great spectacle - and yet ...
4 June 2021
After having seen the trailers for this movie, I was really looking forward to see it, like to no other Disney movie since "Aladin". By now I have seen it twice in the theater (actually, as the first movie after the pandemic over here in Vienna) and once on Blu Ray. While I have some critical comments - see below, "Raya ..." for sure was no disappointment for me. Therefore, all these negative comments here are quite a surprise for me.
First about the positive aspects in my view: Obviously, the optics of "Raya ..." are just gorgeous. The landscapes, the costumes, the architecture, the people, the animals ... Just gorgeous, and what a variety! The animation is flawless; the fighting sequences looked more real like in some live-action move, and the design of the humans were not as exaggerated as in many other 'cartoons'. With a length of close to 2 h, the movie has the epic feeling, which, for example, was missing in "Mulan". (And I still hope, someday I might be able to see it in 3D!) The characters are multifaceted; nobody is just good, just evil. The plot is well-constructed, it has suspense and wit.
Yet, that brings me already to the not-that-great aspects of this movie. Well, the plot ... Obviously, it's a fantasy story, inspired by many influences from Southeast Asia, which is a nice alternation to all these pseudo-European-middle-age-fantasy-stories. I am not a big expert on fantasy, yet even I was able to see parallels to other fantasy stories, like "The dark crystal", "The last unicorn", or, of course "The lord of the rings". Regarding originality, "Zootopia" or "Coco" (to stay within the Disney-company) were superior. But this is acceptable; not every movie can define a new genre! More irritating to me was the just too obvious attempt of the filmmakers to fulfill every single dictate of political correctness. Okay, it is not as bad as in "Everest" (not a Disney movie; I know!), where the good guys are all Chinese and the evil guys are all Westerners. But in "Raya", the woman's quota is obviously overfulfilled, and, as far as I can see, all main characters are voiced by actors with ancestors from Asia. But what's the point? What we hear is always American English! Would have, let's say, Scarlett Johannsen made a worse job of voicing Raya than Kelly Marie Tran? I don't think so! (Don't get me wrong: I liked Trans job on this movie!) The ancestry of the actors would have been relevant for a live-action movie, but for a CGI movie? Not at all! And the attempt of the filmmakers to avoid any scandalization is that obvious, it's just embarrassing. It's a pity; the movie doesn't need this overcautiousness.
First about the positive aspects in my view: Obviously, the optics of "Raya ..." are just gorgeous. The landscapes, the costumes, the architecture, the people, the animals ... Just gorgeous, and what a variety! The animation is flawless; the fighting sequences looked more real like in some live-action move, and the design of the humans were not as exaggerated as in many other 'cartoons'. With a length of close to 2 h, the movie has the epic feeling, which, for example, was missing in "Mulan". (And I still hope, someday I might be able to see it in 3D!) The characters are multifaceted; nobody is just good, just evil. The plot is well-constructed, it has suspense and wit.
Yet, that brings me already to the not-that-great aspects of this movie. Well, the plot ... Obviously, it's a fantasy story, inspired by many influences from Southeast Asia, which is a nice alternation to all these pseudo-European-middle-age-fantasy-stories. I am not a big expert on fantasy, yet even I was able to see parallels to other fantasy stories, like "The dark crystal", "The last unicorn", or, of course "The lord of the rings". Regarding originality, "Zootopia" or "Coco" (to stay within the Disney-company) were superior. But this is acceptable; not every movie can define a new genre! More irritating to me was the just too obvious attempt of the filmmakers to fulfill every single dictate of political correctness. Okay, it is not as bad as in "Everest" (not a Disney movie; I know!), where the good guys are all Chinese and the evil guys are all Westerners. But in "Raya", the woman's quota is obviously overfulfilled, and, as far as I can see, all main characters are voiced by actors with ancestors from Asia. But what's the point? What we hear is always American English! Would have, let's say, Scarlett Johannsen made a worse job of voicing Raya than Kelly Marie Tran? I don't think so! (Don't get me wrong: I liked Trans job on this movie!) The ancestry of the actors would have been relevant for a live-action movie, but for a CGI movie? Not at all! And the attempt of the filmmakers to avoid any scandalization is that obvious, it's just embarrassing. It's a pity; the movie doesn't need this overcautiousness.
Coming 2 America
(2021)
Fairy-Tale-Sequel
14 March 2021
This weekend I have seen this movie, and right before that also "Coming to America", which I have never seen before. After that, I was quite surprised to find out that there are many people, who like the first movie, but obviously hate the second one: Surprised, because both movies are quite similar in nearly every aspect, even though the sequel was made 33 years after the first movie. In my humble opinion, "Coming to America" is no masterpiece, but a quite entertaining movie. What most people doesn't seem to understand is that it is essentially a Fairy Tale, not unlike "Cinderella". This is also the sole justification for the flatness, the one-dimensionality of ALL the characters. I don't think they are supposed to be realistic, lifelike. It's the same in both movies, and also "Coming 2 America" has the Fairy-Tale-style. Part of this style is that the characters are somehow ageless. It is remarkable (and somehow enviable) how well the actors have aged. More important: Their character hasn't changed a bit, too.
Of course, there are a lot of ironic twists of this Fairy-Tale-style, but generally it is kept up from the beginning to the very end. I think it is just this combination of Fairy Tale and ironic twists which made the first movie so successful.
Basically, the same recipe was used for "Coming 2 America". In many aspects, this sequel reminds me of some of the Disney-sequels, like "The little mermaid 2" or "Lady and the tramp 2", where basically the plot from the first movie was reused, just for the next generation of characters. Quite unoriginal, but somehow and to a certain extend it worked. Of course, every element of surprise will be gone for such sequels. I guess this is also the main problem of "Coming 2 America": While it is - successfully! - reusing the recipe of the first movie, the result will and can not by as surprising as 33 years ago. What may be even more important is that the taste has changed meanwhile.
Onward
(I) (2020)
Mediocre Pixar movie
2 March 2020
After seeing "Onward", I do hope this movie is no indicator for the quality of Pixar's productions after the departure of John Lasseter. In my opinion, "Onward" is the least inventive and entertaining Pixar movie since "The good dinosaur".
Yet, the basic idea has potential: Once there was magic, but by and by it was replaced by civilization. This civilized world looks a lot like some random US provincial town - except that it is populated by magical, mythical creatures like Elves, Fairies, Centaurs, Dwarfs, Trolls and so on. No humans! This has the potential for a lot of gags, e.g., a Centaur (named "Bronco"!) as police officer - in a car. On the other hand: This is no new idea; similar parodies on Smalltown America has been seen in "Chicken Little", "Planet 51", "Antz" or "Bee movie", to name only a few CGI movies. There is nothing really new and inventive here as, e.g., the land of the Dead in "Coco".
Most obvious would be a comparison with "Shrek", which features also a world of magical, mythical creatures. Yet while "Shrek" has a satirical, cheeky approach to its world and its 'people', "Onward" shows a more sentimental, sometimes even corny approach. The 'magical' times are introduced as some kind of lost, yet golden age - which is strange somehow, since all the ingredients of this magic age are still there.
Another problem of "Onward" are its main characters, the brothers Lightfoot: Elves with blue skin and pointy ears, yet otherwise completely just like some average teenagers of 16 (Ian) and 18 (?, Barley). Great, two more moody teenagers! And there is another stereotype: They are half-orphans, since their father has died even before Ian's birth; since then, Ian seems to long for his lost father. His brother, on the other hand, is shown as a screw-up, role-playing and driving an ancient bus. The most likable person in the family is their hands-on mother.
As in "Coco", "Onward" tackles the contact to the hereafter. But while in "Coco" Mexican traditions and myths are used, in "Onward" it just feels creepy: In the beginning, Ian summons (more or less by accident) his father - but only up to the waistline! Does that mean that the rest of him is still somewhere in the afterworld?
Anyway: Barley and Ian have to hit the road to summon also the rest of their father, since for some reason they have only 24 h for that. This way, we also get a road trip, and while this is probably the most entertaining part of the movie, it is also no new, inventive idea; far from it.
Don't get me wrong: "Onward" is not a bad movie; is has a lot of funny moments, and the visuals are great. But in my view, it is not very memorable.
Yet, the basic idea has potential: Once there was magic, but by and by it was replaced by civilization. This civilized world looks a lot like some random US provincial town - except that it is populated by magical, mythical creatures like Elves, Fairies, Centaurs, Dwarfs, Trolls and so on. No humans! This has the potential for a lot of gags, e.g., a Centaur (named "Bronco"!) as police officer - in a car. On the other hand: This is no new idea; similar parodies on Smalltown America has been seen in "Chicken Little", "Planet 51", "Antz" or "Bee movie", to name only a few CGI movies. There is nothing really new and inventive here as, e.g., the land of the Dead in "Coco".
Most obvious would be a comparison with "Shrek", which features also a world of magical, mythical creatures. Yet while "Shrek" has a satirical, cheeky approach to its world and its 'people', "Onward" shows a more sentimental, sometimes even corny approach. The 'magical' times are introduced as some kind of lost, yet golden age - which is strange somehow, since all the ingredients of this magic age are still there.
Another problem of "Onward" are its main characters, the brothers Lightfoot: Elves with blue skin and pointy ears, yet otherwise completely just like some average teenagers of 16 (Ian) and 18 (?, Barley). Great, two more moody teenagers! And there is another stereotype: They are half-orphans, since their father has died even before Ian's birth; since then, Ian seems to long for his lost father. His brother, on the other hand, is shown as a screw-up, role-playing and driving an ancient bus. The most likable person in the family is their hands-on mother.
As in "Coco", "Onward" tackles the contact to the hereafter. But while in "Coco" Mexican traditions and myths are used, in "Onward" it just feels creepy: In the beginning, Ian summons (more or less by accident) his father - but only up to the waistline! Does that mean that the rest of him is still somewhere in the afterworld?
Anyway: Barley and Ian have to hit the road to summon also the rest of their father, since for some reason they have only 24 h for that. This way, we also get a road trip, and while this is probably the most entertaining part of the movie, it is also no new, inventive idea; far from it.
Don't get me wrong: "Onward" is not a bad movie; is has a lot of funny moments, and the visuals are great. But in my view, it is not very memorable.
The Jungle Book
(2016)
Disney, Kipling, or what?
16 April 2016
One thing in advance: I am a big fan of the Disney movie of 1967, titled "Jungle Book", directed by Wolfgang Reitherman. But since I am also a big fan of Kipling's Jungle Books, I know that Reitherman's Cartoon is (at best) inspired by the books; basically, the movie uses only the setting and the names; the characters are completely different.
So far, only Korda's "Jungle Book" of 1942 is a relatively faithful adaption of (some of) the Mowgli-Stories in the Jungle Books. Based on the trailers, I hoped Jon Favreau's new adaption would be at least a bit closer to the books than Reitherman's movie. Even more hope I drew from the first 10 minutes of the movie: The optics are wonderful, and there are elements in the new movie, which were taken from the books, not the Cartoon: Especially the scenes with the peace rock and the buffalo stampede. After that, though, the plot is (more or less) based on Reitherman's movie. The mood is darker, yes, but this change is not consistent: There is also some comic relief, delivered especially by Baloo.
But this is – in my opinion – not the worst mistake of Favreau and his author Justin Marks. They have even included three of the songs from Reitherman's movie! Of course, these songs are great, and they worked wonderfully in the cartoon. In this movie, they are hopelessly out of place – they would still be out of place, if the performances would be good, but they are not! Bill Murray, Christopher Walken & Scarlett Johannson might be great actors; they are definitely no great singers.
This brings me to the casting: Obviously, the filmmakers have preferred great names to great voices. Only Idris Elba did a good job; Ben Kingsley and Christopher Walken (apart from the singing!) were okay; Johansson's performance was poor. What a tiny voice for a 30-feet-Python! Bottom line: It seems to me that Favreau & Marks wanted to do a movie closer to the mood of the books, but also wanted to keep certain elements from Reitherman's movie. At least this would explain the inconsistencies of this movie. What a pity, especially since there is a good template for a "Jungle Book"-movie, based on Kipling: The so-called "Jungle Play".
So far, only Korda's "Jungle Book" of 1942 is a relatively faithful adaption of (some of) the Mowgli-Stories in the Jungle Books. Based on the trailers, I hoped Jon Favreau's new adaption would be at least a bit closer to the books than Reitherman's movie. Even more hope I drew from the first 10 minutes of the movie: The optics are wonderful, and there are elements in the new movie, which were taken from the books, not the Cartoon: Especially the scenes with the peace rock and the buffalo stampede. After that, though, the plot is (more or less) based on Reitherman's movie. The mood is darker, yes, but this change is not consistent: There is also some comic relief, delivered especially by Baloo.
But this is – in my opinion – not the worst mistake of Favreau and his author Justin Marks. They have even included three of the songs from Reitherman's movie! Of course, these songs are great, and they worked wonderfully in the cartoon. In this movie, they are hopelessly out of place – they would still be out of place, if the performances would be good, but they are not! Bill Murray, Christopher Walken & Scarlett Johannson might be great actors; they are definitely no great singers.
This brings me to the casting: Obviously, the filmmakers have preferred great names to great voices. Only Idris Elba did a good job; Ben Kingsley and Christopher Walken (apart from the singing!) were okay; Johansson's performance was poor. What a tiny voice for a 30-feet-Python! Bottom line: It seems to me that Favreau & Marks wanted to do a movie closer to the mood of the books, but also wanted to keep certain elements from Reitherman's movie. At least this would explain the inconsistencies of this movie. What a pity, especially since there is a good template for a "Jungle Book"-movie, based on Kipling: The so-called "Jungle Play".
The Wind Rises
(2013)
Brilliant - and naïve?
2 September 2014
First of all: I really enjoyed this movie; sometimes I was even amazed – but at some points also a bit irritated, to say the least. Since there is already enough praise for this movie, I will focus on the other aspects. The plot of the movie is set between 1918 and 1945, i.e. between the ends of both world wars, and during most of the plot there is a war going on: First in China, then in the rest of Asia, and at the end also in Japan itself. From time to time the viewer is reminded of these facts by short scenes or just remarks, but it is easy to forget this: The war hardly affects the lives of the main characters; especially Jiro does not seem to care about politics; he only cares about planes, constructing and building planes – even though he knows they would be used in war eventually, killing thousands and thousands of people. Well, in reality there certainly were many people like Jiro, who have seen themselves as nonpolitical, as mere experts, doing their jobs, which they enjoyed. Understandable! But is it feasible, is it acceptable to do a movie TODAY, which is basically praising these people, presenting them as totally innocent? Being from Germany, I think I can say for sure that it is unthinkable to do a movie in Germany today about (for example) Willy Messerschmitt without stressing his role in the war, without stressing his guilt. (Messerschmitt was probably the most important aircraft designer in Nazi Germany and from the same generation as Jiro. Hugo Junkers, mentioned in "The Wind rises", died already in 1935 and was no friend of the Nazis.) Without people like Jiro, the attack on Pearl Harbor would not have been possible! Showing him as a nice, naïve, sometimes even childish guy is, well, a bit irritating to me, and maybe a bit naïve by Miyazaki himself. In this point I agree with some of the earliest reviewers for this movie.
I am aware of a certain reactionary tendency in Anime: Sometimes Japanese directors and authors try to do win the lost war in retrospect, like James Braddock, John Rambo & Company in Vietnam. In Japanese Anime, for example, they have the "Space Battleship Yamamoto"; in "Grave of the Fireflies", the Japanese are mere victims, and so on. Until now, I thought Miyazaki would be different, but it seems he is at least influenced to a certain degree by this tendency. Based on his other movies, I am sure he is much more of a pacifist than a militarist, but he must be aware of the doubtful morality of Jiro's work, in spite of all his fascination for planes.
But I want to close with a bit of praise, because this aspect hasn't been mentioned here, as far as I know: There are a couple of references to the novel "Der Zauberberg" (The magic mountain) by Thomas Mann, which is quite remarkable for a movie of this genre. Hans Castorp, the guy who Jiro meets in the Hotel, is actually one of the main characters from the novel, though it seems that in "The Wind rises" he has also some characteristics of Mann himself, who was probably the best-known German voice in the exile. This adds a bit more of magic to this movie – which I am judging probably as too realistic.
I am aware of a certain reactionary tendency in Anime: Sometimes Japanese directors and authors try to do win the lost war in retrospect, like James Braddock, John Rambo & Company in Vietnam. In Japanese Anime, for example, they have the "Space Battleship Yamamoto"; in "Grave of the Fireflies", the Japanese are mere victims, and so on. Until now, I thought Miyazaki would be different, but it seems he is at least influenced to a certain degree by this tendency. Based on his other movies, I am sure he is much more of a pacifist than a militarist, but he must be aware of the doubtful morality of Jiro's work, in spite of all his fascination for planes.
But I want to close with a bit of praise, because this aspect hasn't been mentioned here, as far as I know: There are a couple of references to the novel "Der Zauberberg" (The magic mountain) by Thomas Mann, which is quite remarkable for a movie of this genre. Hans Castorp, the guy who Jiro meets in the Hotel, is actually one of the main characters from the novel, though it seems that in "The Wind rises" he has also some characteristics of Mann himself, who was probably the best-known German voice in the exile. This adds a bit more of magic to this movie – which I am judging probably as too realistic.
The Book Thief
(2013)
Wonderful story - with some strange aspects
16 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
While I agree with most of the positive reviews, there are some weird aspects about this movie:
The last question has his answer probably in the fact that many of the actors are German and the (english-speaking) stars more or less adapted their style. I suppose that the other points have their cause in the fact that director and author had some problems with the conversion of a book of 500-something pages into a movie of 2 hours. Perhaps I have to read the book ...
- It starts in 1938, when Liesel is brought to her new foster parents by her real mother; she herself isn't able to take care of her anymore, because she is a communist. Obviously everybody knows about that, and yet she is moving freely across the country, 5 years after Hitler's "Machtergreifung"? Is she on KZ leave? Or taking a holiday from the underground?
- There is a book burning in the little town, where Liesel is living now, at the end of 1938. But the book burnings in Germany were 1933! Did they store the unwanted books for nearly 6 years, just to have a nice warm fire in the winter?
- At the beginning, Liesel can't read or write, though she is about 12 years old! Why? She is able to do it, as we see later on. There was compulsory education in Germany, even for kids of communists!
- Why is the Jew Max sleeping with a copy of Hitler's infamous "Mein Kampf" in his hands?
- From where gets a poor family as the Hubermanns real coffee in 1941? This was pure luxury at that time!
- And why are most people speaking English with a German accent, interspersed with German words like "Saukerl", while other people speak German?
The last question has his answer probably in the fact that many of the actors are German and the (english-speaking) stars more or less adapted their style. I suppose that the other points have their cause in the fact that director and author had some problems with the conversion of a book of 500-something pages into a movie of 2 hours. Perhaps I have to read the book ...
Tarzan
(2013)
Solid Entertainment
22 February 2014
I have seen this movie today (the German version), and, honestly, I can't understand why this movie is getting such a poor rating on IMDb. Probably it's a misunderstanding: Many reviewers compare it to the Disney-version, and this is obviously nonsense: As it is the case with Disney's "Jungle Book", Disney's "Tarzan" has hardly any in common with the literary template. Disney's "Tarzan" is a movie for kids! This new version ... Well, I am afraid the director & author wasn't quite sure if he wanted to make a movie for kids or for grown-ups; this is one of the problems of this new version. It is certainly a more grown-up-version: There are no talking animals; there are people dying (offscreen, of course), and the mood is generally more somber. Okay, the SciFi-elements were not really necessary, and the evil corporation, yes, that's quite cliché. But all in all this version is much closer to the spirit of the books than the Disney-Version, and having a bit of nonsense in the plot, I think this is okay: There is a lot of nonsense in the books, too. And the animation is quite good; the 3D-effects are well done. If you don't take the plot too serious, you can have fun watching this movie!
Frozen
(I) (2013)
A feast for the eyes
24 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I have seen this movie yesterday in a preview in Vienna, and since there aren't much comments yet on IMDb.com, I would like to share my thoughts.
First of all: For the second time (following "Tangled"), the filmmakers managed to transfer the charm of the old Disney-movies to an up-to-date-CGI-picture. This movie has "Disney" written all over it; the technical perfection is remarkable and certainly one level higher than in the "Ice Age"-movies.
"Frozen" is inspired by H.C. Andersens "Snow Queen", in a similar way as Disney's "Jungle Book" is inspired by Kipling's book; i.e. there isn't much left of the original story. In the centre of "Frozen" there are two sisters, Elsa and Anna, princesses in the small kingdom of Erindell (?). The scenery is inspired by Norway, as we are told on the Disney-homepage, and, as I may add, Finland and perhaps a bit of Switzerland. The time may be somewhere between 1600 and 1800. Anyway, the scenery is gorgeous and done with much love for the detail.
The movie starts with an a-capella-choir, mixing Indian and modern style, and after that, we have a work song of guys cutting and storing ice for the summer. And much more singing and dancing will follow. I suppose there hasn't been that much singing in a Disney movie since "Beauty and the Beast". For my taste, it's a bit too much, and the songs are not always adequate; but the tunes are catchy, and the songs are quite well done and sung.
But now to my main objection: Living in Vienna, and being an avid reader of Sigmund Freud, the plot of "The Snow Queen" could have been a great chance to explore the psyche of the main characters much more penetratively than usual. And while Anna is basically the typical, feisty, charming Disney heroine (well done, but nothing new here), it's quite a different story with her sister Elsa. There has hardly ever been such a character in a Disney movie, though there are some parallels to the Beast in "Beauty and the Beast". Elsa is born with the gift (or curse?) to produce ice and snow at will, but only her parents and her sister know of that. After nearly killing Anna, when they were about 5, she is traumatised and basically closed away in the castle. Her parents die in a storm; therefore she has to take over as queen, and therefore the coronation is imminent, when Elsa is coming of age. Anna is beaming with joy, since the castle gates are opened again at last, and since she has forgotten that incident with her sister. Elsa, on the other hand, is frightened, because she has big trouble controlling her powers. And of course the coronation ends in a disaster; Elsa flees the castle and leaves Erindell in eternal winter. Of course, Anna will try to find her and to bring her back
I won't retell the rest of the plot. Some parts are predictable; others come as a surprise, but I had the impression that the first draft of the script might have been much darker; at least it should have been! There is so much potential in a character like Elsa, traumatised, with powers which are controlled more by her subconsciousness than by the consciousness, disappointed, disillusioned, but at the same time craving for love and affection There are rudiments of that in Elsa, but there could have been much more! This is also causing problems for the plot: There is one point in the showdown, where everything seems to be too late (again, a bit as in "Beauty and the Beast"); here I asked myself: How will they resolve this? How will they reach the Happy Ending? Well, the solution comes surprisingly quick and seamless; it's too easy in my opinion, and you might ask yourself: If it was that simple, why all the fuss?
One last point: In many Disney movies there are annoying sidekicks, and this one is no exception. Here it's Olaf, the talking snowman. Being an Olaf myself, I felt a bit offended. But, well, I can live this that, and since "Frozen" is especially a feast for the eyes (especially in 3D), I will certainly see it again!
First of all: For the second time (following "Tangled"), the filmmakers managed to transfer the charm of the old Disney-movies to an up-to-date-CGI-picture. This movie has "Disney" written all over it; the technical perfection is remarkable and certainly one level higher than in the "Ice Age"-movies.
"Frozen" is inspired by H.C. Andersens "Snow Queen", in a similar way as Disney's "Jungle Book" is inspired by Kipling's book; i.e. there isn't much left of the original story. In the centre of "Frozen" there are two sisters, Elsa and Anna, princesses in the small kingdom of Erindell (?). The scenery is inspired by Norway, as we are told on the Disney-homepage, and, as I may add, Finland and perhaps a bit of Switzerland. The time may be somewhere between 1600 and 1800. Anyway, the scenery is gorgeous and done with much love for the detail.
The movie starts with an a-capella-choir, mixing Indian and modern style, and after that, we have a work song of guys cutting and storing ice for the summer. And much more singing and dancing will follow. I suppose there hasn't been that much singing in a Disney movie since "Beauty and the Beast". For my taste, it's a bit too much, and the songs are not always adequate; but the tunes are catchy, and the songs are quite well done and sung.
But now to my main objection: Living in Vienna, and being an avid reader of Sigmund Freud, the plot of "The Snow Queen" could have been a great chance to explore the psyche of the main characters much more penetratively than usual. And while Anna is basically the typical, feisty, charming Disney heroine (well done, but nothing new here), it's quite a different story with her sister Elsa. There has hardly ever been such a character in a Disney movie, though there are some parallels to the Beast in "Beauty and the Beast". Elsa is born with the gift (or curse?) to produce ice and snow at will, but only her parents and her sister know of that. After nearly killing Anna, when they were about 5, she is traumatised and basically closed away in the castle. Her parents die in a storm; therefore she has to take over as queen, and therefore the coronation is imminent, when Elsa is coming of age. Anna is beaming with joy, since the castle gates are opened again at last, and since she has forgotten that incident with her sister. Elsa, on the other hand, is frightened, because she has big trouble controlling her powers. And of course the coronation ends in a disaster; Elsa flees the castle and leaves Erindell in eternal winter. Of course, Anna will try to find her and to bring her back
I won't retell the rest of the plot. Some parts are predictable; others come as a surprise, but I had the impression that the first draft of the script might have been much darker; at least it should have been! There is so much potential in a character like Elsa, traumatised, with powers which are controlled more by her subconsciousness than by the consciousness, disappointed, disillusioned, but at the same time craving for love and affection There are rudiments of that in Elsa, but there could have been much more! This is also causing problems for the plot: There is one point in the showdown, where everything seems to be too late (again, a bit as in "Beauty and the Beast"); here I asked myself: How will they resolve this? How will they reach the Happy Ending? Well, the solution comes surprisingly quick and seamless; it's too easy in my opinion, and you might ask yourself: If it was that simple, why all the fuss?
One last point: In many Disney movies there are annoying sidekicks, and this one is no exception. Here it's Olaf, the talking snowman. Being an Olaf myself, I felt a bit offended. But, well, I can live this that, and since "Frozen" is especially a feast for the eyes (especially in 3D), I will certainly see it again!
Tell Your Friends