Series Report Card: Disney Animated Features (2023)

61. Wish

The older I get, the more complicated my relationship with Walt Disney Pictures gets. I was raised by a Disney adult, watching the studio's animated features over and over again as a kid. It gave me a life long love of animation and considerable nostalgia for those characters and stories. Yet, as time has gone on, I've grown exhausted by the corporation's avaricious desire to dominate every corner of the pop culture landscape. I like Disney cartoons, I like Marvel movies, but the need to replace everything else on TV and movie studios with this stuff — only to please the unending greed of stockholders — disgusts me. (Not to mention the treatment of the animators and effects artists working on these films.) So, when it was announced that the latest Disney Animated Feature, ostensibly made to celebrate the studio's 100th anniversary, would be an origin story about the wishing star — the company's logo — it was hard to get too excited. Finding out where the wishing star came from isn't really a story, it's something you'd read on the back of a company brochure. "Wish's" status as an extension of Disney's brutal cross-brand synergy is all too obvious in the messy, unsatisfying finished product. 

"Wish" is set in the Mediterranean kingdom of Rosas. There, magician king Magnifico has every citizen surrender their heart's fondest wish when they turn eighteen. He promises to protect them and, if the person is lucky, he'll make that wish come true. Asha has a chance to become Magnifico's latest assistant, hoping to convince the king to grant her 100 year old grandfather's wish. Yet Asha soon discovers that Magnifico has no intention of granting everyone's wishes. After making a heartfelt plea to the heavens, a magical Star falls from the sky and befriends her. Magnifico is disturbed by the Star's power and wishes to possess it for his own needs. Asha and her friends team up to protect the Star and free the wishes from the king as he grows increasingly unhinged. 

Before discussing "Wish," one must really discuss its animation. Despite more-or-less being the industry leader in animation, Disney has repeatedly found itself trailing behind trends in animation over the last two decades. First, their traditionally animated films were outperformed by the CGI work of the company's own subdivision, Pixar. More recently, Disney's own CGI features have been overshadowed visually by more eye-catching films like "Into the Spider-Verse." You know something is amiss when a sequel to a ten year old "Shrek" spin-off looks better than Disney's recent output. "Wish" is clearly an attempt to catch up with these competitors. The film tried something similar to the "Spider-Verse" movies and "The Mitchells Vs. the Machine" in the way it combines traditional animation and CGI. Yet the results are not always the most pleasing to the eye. When focused on the environments, which look like cel-painted backdrops, the film looks quite lush and lovely. The characters, however, can't help but look like the CGI Disney designs you expect with some sort of filter over them. "Wish" constantly attempts to show off its technical skills, with many elaborately animated and motion-filled sequences. However, the combination feels more awkward than smooth. Disney probably should've done "Wish" completely with traditional animation, as was originally pitched, or looked at Pixar's "Turning Red," which did a much better job of combining these approaches. 

Unfortunately, an uneven animation style is not where "Wish's" problems stop. The film is built around a central theme of the entire Walt Disney canon: Making a wish that you hope comes true. It's a universal theme and part of why movies like "Snow White," "Pinocchio," and "Cinderella" resonate all over the world. Unfortunately, "Wish" approaches this concept in the most literal fashion possible. Here, wishes become physical objects, depicted as ethereal, floating orbs containing wispy visions of the wisher's dream. The people's wishes have been stolen away, hoarded like a dragon's gold, and the heroes endeavor to return them, like the Grinch returning the presents to Whoville. Instead of telling a story where the audience can insert themselves into the role of the wisher — where we can sub in our own dreams and ambitions, whatever they may be, for the protagonist's hope to achieve their own seemingly impossible goal — "Wish" reduces these abstract concepts down to a generic fetch quest, MacGuffins the good guys must retrieve from the villain. It strikes me as the kind of idea a corporate big-wig, not an artist, not someone who understands themes and subtext, would come up with.

This central plot point is a sign of maybe "Wish's" biggest problem: It's a film that puts story above any other concern. Considering this is an animated movie for kids, it is shockingly heavily plotted. The storybook opening, emulated from so many Disney classics, immediately launches into explaining the movie's world and backstory. There's so much the script has to get out of the way before it can advance the story. Magnifico's wish taking abilities, how everyone in the city must surrender their wishes at the age of 18, and the yearly granting ceremony must all be set-up before the story can even start moving. This laser-focus on the magical mechanics of the plot is present in every minute of the film. Even all the songs are largely about this stuff! It leaves little room for the emotional needs of the story. 

At the same time, as lore-heavy as "Wish" regrettably is, other parts of its world are shockingly unexplained. Never once is it defined where Star comes from, where his powers originate, or what their limits even are. Magnifico just must have the Star, immediately aware that its power rivals his own. Normally, stuff like that wouldn't matter in a fairy tale-like setting. Broad strokes are accepted and we just have to go with it. Yet "Wish" focusing so heavily on the magical plot devices makes inconsistencies like this stick out far more. And here's another one: Why would anyone willingly give up their wish? Nothing about Rosas' system seems like a good idea to me! That only one person a year gets their wish granted makes it seem like a massive rip-off to me. The characters even admit this, acknowledging that people close to the king are usually the ones that get their wishes granted. If it's that obvious, why does the kingdom's entire society revolve around it? 

So many of "Wish's" story decisions feel less like something out of a classic fairy tale and more like the fuzzy plot construction of a mediocre fantasy novel or manga series. Especially once hacky devices like mind control or the villain succumbing to "dark" magic appear. This is especially apparent in the last act, when green bolts of energy are being tossed back and forth between the heroes and villain. The film also repeatedly uses the words "wish" and "star," over and over again, until the words loose both their metaphorical and literal meaning. Once again, it feels like a corporate mandate that the filmmakers had to follow, to hammer the wishing star premise as often and as obviously as possible. The result is a story that simply is not satisfying, leaving the viewer with far more questions than answers. 

The best Disney Animated Features have lovable, memorable characters that are archetypal in their desires but charming in their specifics. Kids can see themselves in protagonists as varied as Dumbo, Wendy Darling, Ariel, Aladdin, and Moana because everyone can relate to concepts like wanting acceptance, bristling against your parents, and trying to define yourself. What drives Asha? She wants to make her grandfather's dream come true, which soon becomes a quest to save the kingdom. Not as universal as fighting with your mom or dad or going out into the world for the first time, is it? Without a universal goal like that to ground the character, the filmmakers resort to making Asha "quirky." She mixes up her words, can be clumsy, and acts goofy around her friends and family sometimes. It feels like a blatant attempt to replicate recent Disney heroines like Rapunzel, "Frozen's" Anna, and "Encanto's" Maribel but completely devoid of the longing — for more in life, to reconnect with a sibling, to feel accepted in your own family — that made those heroes work. Andrea DeBois' voice work is fine but there's simply no depth to the character. 

This drive to recall past Disney icons while largely missing what made them interesting in the first place is evident all throughout the film. Let's look at the villainous King Magnifico. Disney has a great legacy of bad guys, usually defined by the stylish poise they bring to their selfish or malicious deeds. "Wish" is trying so very hard to make Magnifico equally memorable. From his DILFy character design to his swishing cape and magical staff, there's a concerted effort to make another fan favorite here. However, it doesn't work simply because Magnifico is too shallow. Aside from his aesthetics, there's nothing to latch onto. He's driven by a generic hunger for power, exacerbated by another one of the film's wonky plot devices. (In this case, an evil spell book full of dark magic.) Chris Pine's vocal performance is willfully over the top but any joy that might bring is undermined by Pine's clear lack of skill at stretching his voice. This is why you don't hire face actors to voice cartoon characters. 

Recently, a quote from Guillermo del Toro, spoken while on the promotional circuit for his "Pinocchio," was making the rounds. He was criticizing the need in many modern animated features to fill as much of the dialogue with sassy quibs as possible. Del Toro compared this tendency to sitcom writing and I've made the same complaint. I couldn't stop thinking about this quote throughout "Wish." Asha has a horde of sidekicks. There's Valentino, the talking goat, and Star — two characters tailor-made to be huggable stuffed animals — and then seven human friends that trail around her. This group is patterned after Snow White's Seven Dwarves, while also checking off the diversity needs that Disney's market driven form of half-assed corporate liberalism demands. With so many characters in such a plot-driven story, none of Asha's friends are given any actual personality. Instead, they spit out the most obnoxious sort of pithy one-liners on a constant stream. This is especially true of the goat and the friend patterned after Grumpy, both of whom I quickly came to loathe. Once again, it's this overbearing desire to please the crowd, to make the kids laugh with constant snarky jokes, that get in the way of the film actually feeling meaningful or personable. I'd say none of these guys have any depth but the constant one-liner makes it impossible to even get close enough to the characters to see if they feel real or not.

But what about the songs? In the past, otherwise underwhelming Disney features have been redeemed by strong soundtracks. "Pocahontas" and "Frozen 2" were movies that had problems but they sure as hell worked once "Colors of the Wind" or "Show Yourself" started up. Julia Michaels — a writer for pop stars like Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato, and Justin Bieber in addition to having a successful singing career herself — penned most of the songs. Michaels' Top 40 Radio background is all too obvious in "Wish."  Pop music like back beats appear in “Knowing What I Know Now,” while several of the songs feature rap-style breakdowns in the middle that are extremely distracting. Especially in “Welcomes to Rosas” – a blatant emulation of “Encanto's” “The Family Madrigal,” by the way – and “This is the Thanks I Get,” the villain song which Chris Pine's singing voice does no favors to. Michaels' writing style emphasizes lots of lyrics alongside soaring melodies that make each song seem like it's striving to be the next “Let It Go.” Each song wants to be a breakout pop hit, not so much fit the emotional needs of any given moment. “This Wish” and “I'm a Star” are the songs most shackled by this need to be as commercial as possible.

Ultimately, I simply can't escape this feeling that “Wish” was designed to be a corporate product first and an entertaining movie second. Much like the worst aspects of “Ralph Breaks the Internet” or the fucking “Chip 'N' Dale: Rescue Rangers” movie, the film makes repeated shout-outs to past Disney classics. A nod to “Snow White” or “Mary Poppins,” in a character design or a brief line of dialogue, would be one thing. Instead, “Wish” pauses to shout-out “Cinderella,” “Peter Pan,” and “Zootopia” as obviously as possible. This continues into the end credits, where starry images from almost every Disney Animated Feature appear. (Though “The Rescuers” and “Meet the Robertsons” are strangely snubbed. “The Black Cauldron” is too, which isn't surprising but becomes odd once you see other notorious flops like “Home on the Range” and “Treasure Planet” are included.) After a while, it starts to feel less like an organic celebration of the studio's contribution to the world of animation and more like Disney, as a studio, advertising all the other stuff it owns. 

In many ways, “Wish” is endemic of the problems facing Disney as a studio right now. It's too committed to commercially proven formulas, too smug in its status as the latest piece in a box office dominating game plan, all at the expense of the heart and resonance that makes these movies classics. Even “Raya and the Last Dragon,” a tangled mess of tone and convoluted writing too, felt more organic than this. The moments that shine in “Wish” are the ones that feel the most casual. Such as a scene of chickens singing and dancing, clearly included because it was fun, or an acoustic rendition of “When You Wish Upon a Star,” that is literally saved until the film's final moments. I guess what I'm saying is, this is the kind of movie you get when profits direct artistic endeavors and not the heartfelt need to tell a story. [Grade: C-]

RECENT WATCHES: Thanksgiving (2023)

In hindsight, an extended homage to the exploitation films of the seventies and eighties was never going to appeal to a wide audience. Even with popular directors like Tarantino and Rodriguez behind it, “Grindhouse” was destined to become a cult classic, not a mainstream success. A fan favorite is exactly what it became, with people demanding full length expansions of the fake trailers presented in the double feature. After Rodriguez turned “Machete” into a real movie, horror fanatics immediately started hoping Eli Roth would turn his outrageous “Thanksgiving” trailer into a full film. And Roth seemed eager to do that. We know this because, every few years, Eli would talk about how he was just about ready to start production on “Thanksgiving.” This was the state of affairs for sixteen years, most people giving up hope that the movie would actually ever arrive. Providing further evidence that we are in the end times, “Thanksgiving” would finally go before cameras last year. Now, chopping into theaters in the days leading up to Turkey Day, slasher fans can finally see if Roth could make a movie that lived up to that fantastically trashy trailer.

In the town of Plymouth, Massachusetts, Thanksgiving is a community-wide event. Teenager Jessica Wright and her friends – including baseball star boyfriend George – head to her father's department store for the Black Friday sale. That's when a huge riot breaks out, resulting in several deaths and numerous injuries, including George's arm being broken. A year later, the town is still recovering, many criticizing the Wright family holding another sale. That's when someone in a John Carver mask and a pilgrim hat begins to brutally murder those who were at the riot. As Thanksgiving approaches, Jessica and her friends start to receive threatening Instagram messages. It becomes evident that “John Carver” plans to invite them all to a Thanksgiving feast where the main course is terror. 

It's been over two and a half decades since Roth made his original “Thanksgiving” preview and five years since he last put out a movie. I guess that was enough time for me to forget what kind of stuff Roth makes. During its opening Black Friday mayhem, “Thanksgiving” features folks screaming profanity at each other in a rowdy and wild crowd. Awful people act in exaggerated manners, before dying in ways that are equal parts brutal and comically unlikely. Oh yeah, now I remember why Eli Roth's movies are so divisive. The transition from this grating opening sequence to the traditional slow first act of the slasher movie – dedicated to introducing our teen heroes and their dynamics – threw me for a bit of a loop. That gear shift takes some getting used to.

Another reason why it took me a while to find my groove with “Thanksgiving" is how different it is from the fake trailer that inspired it. The “Thanksgiving” from “Grindhouse” is beholden to the past, an over-the-top parody of the tropes and visual motifs of the eighties slasher flick. 2023's “Thanksgiving,” meanwhile, attempts to move these same tropes thoroughly into the modern age. The protagonists here carry their cell phones with them everywhere, much the way modern teens actually do. They whip them out to record events happening around them, footage within the footage that Roth revisits repeatedly. “Thanksgiving” announces its modernity early on, by goofing on the obnoxious trademarks of the shallowest, most sensationalist Youtube videos. Instagram and live-streaming are plot points in “Thanksgiving,” which the killer uses to taunt his victims and the authorities. While a number of films have attempted to update the formulas of eighties slasher films for zoomers, “Thanksgiving” actually succeeds by keeping the story structure essentially the same but pairing them with modern technology. 

Oddly enough, Roth is not paying homage to the golden age of slashers here. Perhaps because so many throwback films inspired by eighties exploitation followed in the wake of “Grindhouse” –  or simply because enough time has passed that the definition of what is retro has changed – “Thanksgiving” is clearly more indebted to the post-”Scream” wave of body count flicks from the late nineties and early 2000s. A stalking scene through an eerily empty school recalls Wes Craven's classic, as does the whodunit structure and the killer giving a big speech after being revealed. In some ways, the script plays things fairly straight. Many of the supporting characters are ridiculous, such as the gun-totting drug dealer or Jessica's cartoonish dad, and quite a few exaggerated Masshole accents are heard. Yet the primary heroes, and the scenarios they face, are treated seriously. Roth even attempts to generate some actual suspense, such as several sequences where the heroines are hiding from the lurking killer. 

“Thanksgiving's” attempts to function as something like a serious horror movie, in-between outrageous moments of gore, is probably why the movie didn't work for me as well as I'd hope. There's nothing especially unlikable about the young heroes. Nell Verlaque is serviceable as Jessica. I even liked her chemistry with Gabriel Davenport, as resident black guy Scuba, and Jalen Thomas Brooks, as Bobby. The much publicized casting of TikTok celeb Addison Rae isn't as distracting as you might fear, Rae not embarrassing herself playing a largely indistinct character. Yet I'm not sure I exactly cared about any of the heroes either. “Thanksgiving” seems a little too eager to copy films like “I Know What You Did Last Summer” or “Urban Legend,” in that the young cast is ultimately more boring than endearing. 

Roth is clearly still aware why fans of the “Thanksgiving” trailer are here. Gory murder scenes that messily subvert holiday traditions were promised. The film does deliver, with a bloody literalization of “50% off,” several spurting decapitations, a fatal meat tenderizing, and a human taking the place of a turkey inside a large oven. As satisfyingly gruesome as “Thanksgiving's” mayhem is, it can't help but fall short of Roth's original vision. Whenever the feature directly homages the original “Grindhosue” experience, the results are disappointing. As nasty as “Thanksgiving” gets, it's simply not mean enough. Several odious characters are left alive at the end and you can feel Roth easing off the throttle whenever the movie seems primed to go into full-blown mayhem. There's an unsteady push-and-pull here between an attempt to craft an outrageous experience for life-long gore hounds, the underpinnings of black comedy, and something more palatable to mainstream tastes anticipating a “normal” horror movie.

The result is a film that peaks early and never lives up to its full potential. The Thanksgiving dinner to die for is easily the highlight of the film, the fun factor quickly draining away during the exposition-heavy last act. Then again, I always hate the last act of the “Scream” movies too. “Thanksgiving” is certainly a lot of fun at times. When rolling along through a decently assembled mystery, with some solid gore gags and competently orchestrated suspense, I was compelled. It's ultimately still one of Roth's best features. And I'm not surprised that fans, who have been waiting for a proper Thanksgiving slasher their entire lives, have embraced it. Maybe it was impossible for any feature film to live up to that perfectly gross fake-trailer. I'll continue to fantasize about that “Thanksgiving” while begrudgingly accepting this as  a fairly solid adaptation. [7/10]