Series Report Card: Disney Animated Features (2024)

62. Moana 2

The Disney Corporation's quest for absolute cultural dominance has been on-going for a long time now. When I was a kid, the studio sought to extend the awareness and popularity of their hit films through spin-offs on other platforms. This took the form of mountains of merchandise, direct-to-video sequels of mostly unremarkable quality but also television shows. "The Little Mermaid: The Series," "Aladdin," "Hercules" and a few others are recalled with some degree of fondness. Getting to see the characters you loved in the movies every week on TV is, admittedly, a fun idea. Even if these shows never quite lived up to the source material. That kind of continuation has mostly fallen out of favor lately, as Disney has shifted focus to big-budget, theatrically released sequels and remakes... At least until they launched their own streaming services a few years back, eager to attract subscribers with programs set in their beloved Marvel, "Star Wars," and animated universes. 

That was the form a follow-up to "Moana" was initially planned to take. The original film's storyboard artist, David Derrick Jr., would direct "Moana: The Series" with most of the cast from the movie coming back. Notably absent was songwriter Lin Manual-Miranda, replaced with a duo whose previous successes include an unofficial "Bridgerton" musical, a gag musical for Taco Bell, and popular TikTok videos. Not to devalue the talent of any of the above artisans, nor certainly the animators and designers who would work on the series, but it seemed like the kind of step-down in talent you would expect from a straight-to-streaming spin-off. That "Moana: The Series" managed to secure the involvement of Dwayne Johnson – also starring in the inexplicable live action remake of "Moana," entering development at the exact same time – was honestly surprising and, perhaps, a reflection of his own dwindling box office cred. But if a TV continuation didn't quite live up to the movie it spawned from, that would not be a massive shock, right? Film and TV are different mediums with different expectations. 

Maybe the Disney producers don't realize that though. Back in February, it was announced that the already well underway "Moana: The Series" would instead be coming to theaters as "Moana 2," the streaming series shifting into a movie. CEO Bob Iger explained that this decision was made after execs were supposedly impressed with the footage they had seen for the show. That Disney has had several high-profile flops recently, like "The Marvels" and "Wish," surely had nothing to do with this seemingly last minute decision to rush a sequel to a previous success into theaters. Jason Hand and Dana Ledoux Miller would join the directing team, presumably to further along this change in direction. Only ten months after the announcement of its existence, "Moana 2" is in theaters and viewers everywhere can judge whether it measures up to the original or if its origins as a TV show are all-too-evident. 

A few years after leaving her island home Motunui, meeting the demi-god Maui, and restoring balance to the ocean, young adventurer Moana has turned her attention towards another goal: Exploring near-by island systems in hopes of discovering other cultures and communities, out of a fear that her village is too isolated. When she finds a relic on such an island, it's proof to her that such a quest isn't fruitless. This is when Moana receives a vision from an ancestor. Centuries ago, storm god Nalo separated the different cultures by sinking the island Motufetu to the bottom of the sea. Moana assembles a team – mechanic Loto, artist Moni, and farmer Keke – as she sets out on this perilous new journey to Motufetu and raise it back to the surface, opening the cultures back up to each other. Along the way, she will encounter Maui again plus new faces that seek to help and hinder her.

Many of the Disney Animated Features have become generational classics because they tell fundamentally simple stories. This is why the company has so often returned to fairy tales, mythology, and classic literature for source material. The ideas communicated in these tales are universal and will resonate with anyone, despite contexts as far flung as medieval China or African pridelands. Simplicity, however, does not always lend itself to the kind of long-form storytelling and world-building that entertainment conglomerates like Disney are now obsessed with. The sequels that Disney is increasingly focused on these days – as well as films like "Wish," which attempt to establish some sort of shared universe between the classic films – have all suffered from the same problem: This feeling of desperation to build an expansive lore, not dissimilar to what "Star Wars" or Marvel already has, around characters meant to carry much more universal themes. Thus, Wreck-It Ralph is now connected to the entire internet, Elsa is now part of an elemental quartet of magical deities, and the wishing star from "Pinocchio" is at the center of a tapestry of connected back stories.

Being set in the world of Polynesian and Māori mythology, “Moana 2” ostensibly has a rich source of characters and stories to pull from. Which it sort of does. A period of time in Polynesian history known as the Long Pause, wherein no seafaring discoveries took place for two centuries, inspired the premise. The antagonistic storm god Nalo and his sidekick, flying fox goddess Matangi, are loosely inspired by figures from actual myths. However, the other concepts in the sequel appear to be the invention of Disney writers. And they are underwhelming. Far too much of “Moana 2's” plot hinges on magical visions with the spirits of ancestors, glowing vortexes that take our heroes to other dimensions, and magical plot devices with loosely defined rules. Coming shortly after “Wish's” plot full of similarly fantasy novel nonsense like this, it's hard to avoid the suspicion that Disney is using A.I. writing programs. Your story being a mishmash of plagiarized bullshit randomly spit out by a robot is not a feeling you want your big budget sequel to have. 

“Moana 2's” underwhelming story may be a result of it being originally intended as a streaming series. There are other signs that a story meant to be much longer was cut down to 100 minutes. Namely, the primary villain of Nola never actually appears on-screen throughout the film proper, existing only as an angry face within a giant storm. This leaves the sequel entirely without a proper antagonist, making the plot feel increasingly shapeless as it goes on. Other elements of the god's scheme, such as the reason he resents humanity so much, are never elaborated on. The climax depends on a sloppy deus ex machina, with many story elements being explained through bloated expositionary dialogue. A Marvel-style, mid-credit teaser – something else we'd expect to see leading into a second season – does more to expand on the villains than anything in the actual movie. It feels like connecting scenes and episodes, that would've filled out a streaming season, got left on the cutting room floor.

Another sign that “Moana 2” hastily cut together a set of scripts intended for serialized television into a feature film is the lack of development for tis new characters. Moana gets a whole host of sidekicks for this journey. She has a little sister, which stays back on the island. Moni is an enthusiastic Maui fanboy – leading to the first utterance of the word “fanfic” in a Disney cartoon – that mostly exists to provide comic relief. This is the same purpose Keke, the grumpy old farmer, brings. These are characters defined by single gimmicks and lacking actual personalities. Loto, the tomboy engineer that builds the raft, has more potential but there simply aren't enough scenes to truly expand on her. When the film already has enough characters, it introduces a speedy coconut friend. Matangi is introduced with a big musical number that contributes very little to the story, also not given any definition beyond her affinity for bats. A series would have provided a lot more screen time to develop this raft full of new characters, which a movie simply lacks.

That “Moana 2” loads its story down with so many new companions for its heroine is frustrating, as the first movie had entirely too many of those already. Any fans of Pua the pig or Heihei the chicken or little tattoo Maui or the anthromorphized ocean itself will be disappointed. All of them are reduced to a handful of scenes. Maui himself, despite the Rock's prominent placement in all the advertising, is only in about half the film. Part of what made the first movie work was watching the young heroine bounce off all these other characters. The chemistry between her and Maui, the vainglorious hero who learned a valuable lesson from his time with the girl, especially drove the first film. Maui is here to provide the muscle during the climatic action scenes, which inexplicably involve cutting lightning bolts in half. Having difficult finding anything else for him to do, the film throws in a pep talk between the demigod and the adventurer, a sweaty attempt to justify why this guy is in the story at all. When paired with repeating center jokes from the first movie and call-backs to previous events – such as those cocoanut guys showing up again - “Moana 2” increasingly feels like a sequel designed mostly to remind the viewer of what they liked about the first one.

Where does that leave Moana herself? Disney Princesses and pseudo-princesses like Moana – which is joked about here – are defined by a simple to understand purpose, usually laid out in their “I Want” Song. Moana got what she want in the first film, exploring past the reef and defining herself. In the sequel, she's given the goal of wanting to reach out to other cultures, while also juggling the responsibility of having far more to lose this time. That is the intended purpose of the little sister. (Aside from a new little girl Disney can sell baby dolls of, of course.) This weight of responsibility is never truly felt. With so many new characters to introduce and old elements to revisit, Moana's arc feels rushed through and half-finished. She is pushed around by the plot, not a protagonist that directs it.

While I've heard many reports that the animation in the sequel is a visible stepdown from the original, another consequence of being a Disney+ upgrade, I don't think “Moana 2” looks all that bad. The film does presents some decently engineered action sequences. A confrontation set inside an enormous clam, something that actually does have a basis in Oceania folklore, is one of sequel's highlights. While the finale is far too heavy on twirling storms and flashing lights, a chase involving the raft and a sail is well done. While “Moana 2” does a decent job on the spectacle side of things, it's seriously lacking in the chuckles. The sequel has a disappointing reliance on gross-out gags, attempting to draw laughs from characters being covered in slime, sneezed on, or even a fart joke. Such desperate comedy stylings does little to dissuade the notion that “Moana 2” exists more as an extensions of Disney's brand name than as a story that actually needs to be told.

You could have criticized the first “Moana” for being overly reliant on the Disney fairy tale formula. However, at least those songs were incredibly catchy and memorable. I have my own problems with Lin-Manuel Miranda's Broadway stylings, not yet having discovered what so many other people see in “Hamilton.” However, Miranda knows how to write an unforgettable hook and remembers that songs in a musical most always flesh out the characters or move the story forward. The new team of Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear do not give me the same impression. “Beyond” is the new ballad for Moana and it's okay. “Can I Get a Chee Hoo?” is Maui's new number, a clear attempt to repeat the success of “You're Welcome,” that never captures the same energy or catchy rhythm. “What Could be Better Than This?,” which helps establish Moana's new friends, has a similar stop-and-start fashion to it that keeps a clear melody from forming. “Get Lost,” Matangi's introductory song, is trying hard to be a break-out pop hit but is similarly forgettable. The sequel simply can't form many emotional melodies or a memorable lyrics, the songs mostly falling flat.

This is the sad case with much of “Moana 2.” The circumstances of its production, being a rush job conversion of a straight-to-streaming mini-series to a full-blown movie, are difficult to overlook. It lacks the songs, the jokes, and the memorable characters that made the first one good. While there's some decently executed animation or one or two clever idea, the sequel simply never comes to life in its own right. The unfortunate feeling, that Disney's animated features exist more to raise stock numbers and sell toys and theme park memberships, is getting increasingly difficult to dismiss. “Moana 2” has cleaned up at the box office, meaning Disney shareholders and executives got exactly what they wanted. I imagine that superfluous live action remake, which has even less of a reason to exist than this sequel, will pull in the dollars too. Will anyone remember them in a decade? Will their songs become standards sung by kids across the generations? It's hard to say but, in the case of “Moana 2,” I seriously doubt it. [Grade: C]

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-]

Series Report Card: Disney Animated Features (2022)

60. Strange World

In the early 2000s, emboldened by the popularity of anime in the states, three big budget, sci-fi/action animated features would be released in America by major studios. They were "Titan A.E." – a Don Bluth/Fox production – "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" and "Treasure Planet," which were both Disney productions. All three were box office failures, signaling the end of traditional animation as a popular medium in U.S. cinema. It also suggested that mainstream audiences didn't have much interest in science fiction cartoons. (Cult audiences, meanwhile, quickly embraced all three.) It's been twenty-two years and, despite these past failures, Disney seemed ready to try a similar experiment again. "Strange World," a CGI animated film, would see the world's most famous animation studio trying their hand at telling another expansive science fiction story.

Jaeger Clade is the most celebrated explorer in all of Avalonia, a country surrounded by an impenetrable wall of mountains. Jaeger is determined to make it to the other side of the mountains, much to the chagrin of his meek son, Searcher. During the same mountainous expedition Jaeger disappears, Searcher discovers an electricity-producing plant he names Pando. Twenty years later, Pando has made Avalonia a technologically advanced utopia. Yet Searcher notices that the plant is losing its effectiveness. The President of Avalonia soon arrives to tell him that Pando is dying at its root, deep within the earth. Searcher joins an expedition into the planet's heart to reverse the problem before it's too late. His rebellious teenage son, Ethan, stowaways on the vessel as it descends into the bizarre world under the surface. Along the way, Searcher is reunited with his father.

"Strange World" draws inspiration from the pulp science-fiction magazines of the early 20th century. It features a lot of the same themes and ideas present in those old stories. The time period for the story is never specified, with many modern touches existing alongside a vaguely 1920s style aesthetic. Jaeger Clade is exactly the kind of stout-chinned, two-fisted hero that was common place in such stories. The premise of a fantastical world within the earth, that the heroes uncover from inside amazing flying machines, obviously recalls the works of Jules Verne. The same sense of classical adventure and discovery that inspired those works clearly drove the filmmakers behind "Strange World."

Visually, "Strange World" also pulls from the colorful, elaborate paintings that would adorn the covers of those same pulp magazines and novels. The otherworldly creature designs, full of tentacles and strange protuberances that replace eyes and ears, would not look out of place on the covers of "Amazing Stories" or "Weird Science." There are several moments when the film intentionally pauses on an image. Such as during the opening montage that establishes Jaeger and Searcher's relationship or a single shot of Ethan standing on a vehicle and overlooking the inner world. These shots have a depth and color to them that clearly recalls painted illustrations.

What maybe impressed me the most about "Strange World" is the imaginative world building on display. There's so much cool stuff packed into this film. The society that thrives on the planet's surface is really clever. The invention of Pando produces a number of miraculous machines and technologies that take the place of modern conveniences, like airplanes and automobiles. There's flying machines that hover along the skyline, powered by these little glowing Brussels sprouts. While not meeting the definition of "steampunk" or "dieselpunk," it feels drawn from a similar vein. The film imagined a world that is set in the past but pushed forward into the future by technology unavailable in our time.

Once the trip into the planet's interior begins, "Strange World" gleefully lives up to its title. You can tell the designers and animators really had fun cooking up increasingly odd alien life forms. Some of the creatures are clearly inspired by animals that live on our world. The antagonistic "Reapers" resemble pterodactyls made of swirling, red fabric like matter. There are creatures that move around like gazelles but have a mass of twitching tentacles in place of heads. Others are stranger yet, resembling floating nudibranches or ambulatory landscapes. There's lots of polyps and blob-like membranes. I never expected to see a big budget Disney movie so obviously influenced by "Fantastic Planet" and yet here we are.

A film so clearly interested in natural life forms and creating its own biosphere, unsurprisingly, brings with it an environmental message. Without going too far into spoiler territory, it's eventually discovered that the goals the characters have run counter to what is best for their civilization in the long term. The message boils down to all of us being part of a massive, living system. And we all owe a responsibility to that system, to take care of it and ensure that it lives on for future generations. This moral includes an evident anti-fossil fuel statement. It comes close to being too obvious at times – a card game Ethan plays presents the theme of peacefully co-existing with the world outwardly – but I think the point is well organized and timely.

Yet even this is not what "Strange World" is really about, at least not singularly. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a lot of Disney movies over the years have focused on the relationships between parents and their children. The studio's Marvel superhero flicks have especially foregrounded conflicts with fathers. "Strange World" similarly wears its Daddy Issues right on its sleeves. Jaeger and Searcher never really bonded, as the son felt inadequate in his boisterous father's shadow. A boy more interested in science and agriculture didn't find a lot of common ground with this proud adventurer. When his single-minded focus on reaching the other side of the mountain led to him disappearing for two decades, Searcher felt truly abandoned by his dad. It confirmed all his worst fears about his dad. Their reunion inevitably has them putting their differences to rest and learning to appreciate one another.

This subplot is at its most compelling when illustrating the ways that, no matter how divided Searcher feels from his dad, they are similar people. Both have single-minded visions for their own sons, Searcher hoping Ethan grows up to be a farmer like him despite the boy having more in common with his explorer grandfather. This is illustrated in an amusing scene that shows the two men unknowingly mirroring each other's movements. As someone who has sometimes struggled with his own father, and accepting that he's part of me no matter how much he's let me down, I can't help but be a little touched by this. It has a tidy Disney movie resolution but I appreciate "Strange World" even touching on the idea. Maybe we should all be a little more forgiving of our bad dads. 

Something that Ethan doesn't bristle with his father or granddad about is his sexuality. After Disney promoted a number of minor instances of vaguely queer characters in the past as big deals (that could be easily excised from international releases), "Strange World" is the first film from the Mouse Factory that actually features a prominent gay character. Ethan has a crush on a boy he knows. The other boy probably likes him too and they are working through their teenage awkwardness together. The topic is brought up repeatedly and without any judgement. The movie doesn't draw a lot of attention to Ethan's queer status, simply letting a gay teenager exist in its narrative as a normal thing that requires no further trumpeting. It's surprising and unexpected, to see a big budget family movie allow a main character to be gay, outwardly and openly, to exist and live and love the way it would any heterosexual character.

As much as I liked "Strange World," there is one issue facing the film. As soon as I saw the trailer, I noted a number of distracting one-liners and quips. This, unfortunately, was not just the trailer overemphasizing the pithy dialogue. "Strange World" has jokes in and they are mostly pretty lame. It's the kind of lazy, sitcom-level dialogue that feels desperate to get the audience to laugh. This is what you expect from the lesser Dreamworks movies and it makes the film seem insecure about its sci-fi story and family drama. The only moment in the film that really got me to laugh was a sequence where the three-legged dog – one of two adorable animal sidekicks – is called upon to help the heroes escape a situation. 

The voice cast do an admirable job though. Jake Gyllenhaal has a likably nervous quality as Searcher, a man certain about many things but constantly forced out of his comfort zone. He has strong chemistry with Dennis Quaid as Jaeger, who does a suitable job summoning the classic adventurer hero energy, and Gabrielle Union as his resourceful wife. Jakoubie Young-White is also nicely suited to the role of Ethan, definitely bringing the right youthful quality to the part. Lucy Liu plays the President of Avalonia who, in a lesser film, would be the antagonist of the story. Instead, she's simply someone working from her own preconceived notions that are challenged throughout the narrative. 

Much like the sci-fi action/adventure Disney cartoons that proceeded, "Strange World" was doomed to die a lonely death at the box office. I'm not sure we can blame any disinterest America's youth has in sci-fi animation on this though. Instead, "Strange World" flopped because the studio didn't do a very good job of promoting it. I've seen countless complaints from people that they didn't even know the movie existed and Disney barely produced any merchandise for it. Whether this was because of a change in studio leadership, the film being released between bigger Disney productions "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever" and "Avatar 2," or a strange modern disinterest from Disney in animation, I don't know. (There have also been conspiracy theories that the studio intentionally buried the movie because of its gay lead, which seem sadly believable.) I think "Strange World" will be rediscovered on streaming though, as it's an imaginative and entertaining motion picture that deserves to be seen. [Grade: B]

Series Report Card: Disney Animated Features (2021) - Part Two

59. Encanto

The partnership Lin-Miranda Manuel formed with Disney has clearly been fruitful. “Moana” was a success, with the soundtrack being especially acclaimed. It made perfect sense for the studio to re-team with the mega-popular song smith again. While “Moana” drew from Hawaiian mythology, their next collaboration would be an almost entirely original story. When premiering in theaters last autumn, “Encanto” would not make much of an impression. After appearing on Disney's streaming service, soon afterwards, it would become a viral hit on social media. It has easily overshadowed the other Disney Animated Feature in 2021, seeming to be the studio's biggest hit since “Frozen.” With the film on the path to winning the Animated Feature Oscar in a few weeks, the question must be asked of whether “Encanto” deserves its success or if it's overrated.

For three generations now, the Madrigal family has lived in an enchanted home in a valley situated in the Colombian rain forest. The mystical powers of the house spring from a magical candle gifted to the family's grandmother years ago. Every new child in the family is given a magical ability and a corresponding enchanted room in the building... Except for Mirabel, the youngest daughter of Abuela's youngest daughter. Mirabel has always felt like an outsider in her family, without a power. As she has a vision of the family's miraculous candle burning out, and the encanto crumbling, Mirabel goes on a journey to save her home. Which also has her uncovering the secrets and origins of her family. 

Whether it's out of a genuine desire to represent people and places previously unseen in animation, or simply a cynical attempt to exploit new markets, Disney has continued to explore diverse cultures in their animated features. After “Raya and the Last Dragon” drew extensive inspiration from Southern Asian countries, “Encanto” is rooted in the specific culture of Colombia. South American and Afro-Latino faces and skin colors are on display all throughout the film. The food, fashion, and architecture of the area is in every frame of the movie. The rain forest setting allows the unique wildlife of the era – like tapirs, jaguars, capybara, and coati – to put in numerous appearances. The music draws from different Latin music genres, like salsa, tango, and Spanish rock. The film is a joyous celebration of this country and culture. 

With “Moana,” Lin-Miranda Manuel adapted his style to the typical Disney Animated Feature tropes. In “Encanto,” almost the reserve is true, as the movie feels a lot like a Broadway music at times. While most Disney musicals explore all over a magical land – this was definitely true of “Moana” – almost all of “Encanto” is confined to the Madrigal's magical home. It's easy to imagine the house being rendered as an elaborate stage set. The musical structure of the film recalls Broadway more than your typical Disney cartoon as well. The opening number, “The Family Madrigal,” feels very Broadway in the method it introduces the cast of characters. Meanwhile, the last numbers “All of You,” combines many of the film's previous songs in the manner of a stage musical's grand finale.

That structure gives “Encanto” a distinctly different feel from your typical Disney Animated Feature. In some ways, this is representative of how the movie breaks from the studio's traditions. “Encanto” lacks the expected Disney villain, the conflict arising more out of misunderstandings in the family than a clearly defined antagonist. The cute animal sidekicks and wacky comic relief often occupy the margins of the story, instead of taking focus. Yet “Encanto” respects other expected aspects of the Disney formula. Such as “Waiting for the Miracle,” Mirabel's stirring I Want song that hits all the beats you expect from that premise. “Encanto” nicely respects tradition while challenging some other long-held ideas. 

It's twin fidelity to Broadway aesthetics and Disney musical tradition means “Encanto” is full of showstoppers. The film often pairs its explosive musical numbers with elaborate visuals, that take full advantage of the limitless potential of animation. As Mirabel belts it out to the heavens during “Waiting for the Miracle,” she dances around her family and home as it's frozen in time. The scene climaxes with fire works. “Surface Pressure,” the super-strong Luisa's number, revolves around a number of involved visual metaphors. The sisters dance around a number of gags that illustrates Luisa's feelings and anxieties. “We Don't Talk About Bruno” has characters moving in and out of the story, via expertly choreographed dance numbers, among exaggerated fantasies. “Encanto” wants its songs to be as visually catchy as they are lyrically.

And, boy, they are catchy. Lin-Manuel Miranda came to fame for the way he combined pop radio-friendly hooks with the expected structure of a stage musical. He does something similar here, making nearly every song in “Encanto” as big and expressive as possible. “Surface Pressure” is packed full of crowd-pleasing catchiness, seemingly designed to be a breakout radio hit. It has been but “We Don't Talk About Bruno” has been the real pop culture phenomenon to come out of the movie. And it's not too surprising as, in addition to being insanely catchy, that song also effortlessly combines elements of tango and hip-hop beats. The movie is so packed with bangers that the more low-key numbers, like the thematically significant “Dos Orugitas,” stand out. That's a sweet, quiet number that nicely weaves in and out of the story. 

Allowing the musical numbers to explode into such fantastical images was a wise way to get around the movie's limited location. Even the more grounded sequences, at least by the standards of this film, are loaded with visual spectacle. “What Else Can I Do” is packed full of color and includes its heroines zipping through the air around the house. Yet even when people aren't singing, “Encanto” is happy to include big set pieces. Mirabel's climb into Bruno's tower is the film's most traditionally action-adventure scene and it's a good one. Later, Bruno's vision is also full of interesting, bright color choices. If Disney is in the business of making movies that operate as much like theme park rides as motion pictures, “Encanto” fully embraces this philosophy. 

If you think a film packed so full of ear worms and stunning visuals is thematically empty, “Encanto” is actually a little more complicated than that. By abandoning the traditional Disney villain idea, the film is allowed to explored more nuanced ideas. Abuela wants the best for everyone. She wants to protect her family because she understands too keenly what it feels like to loose someone you love. She's so determined to protect her family, to hold what they have together, that she's smothering them. She's passing her issues onto her grandchildren, who are shaking up under the pressure to be what Abuela wants them to be all the time. Yes, “Encanto” is a kids movie about intergenerational trauma and how neurosis in the family can pile up. They have to sing out their problems because therapists don't exist in Disney cartoons.

Struggles within the family, and the weird hang-ups of parents being unknowingly passed onto their kids, is really a universal theme. That's not the only idea within “Encanto” that is easily related too. A story of family naturally brings with it other ideas. Mirabel is the outcast in her family, her lack of magical powers making her the odd girl out. She's always had to struggle to prove herself. Her sister Isabela, meanwhile, has seemingly a perfect life. She was gifted with the photogenic ability to create flowers, along with beauty and natural grace. Mirabel can't help but resent her sister, who everything seems to come to so easily. Without getting too personal, I relate a lot to this. I think anyone with an overachieving older sibling, that you've always been in the shadow of, might feel similarly. It definitely added another layer to the movie for me.

Ultimately, Disney movies are most successful when they bring with them a number of memorable characters. “Encanto's” extra large cast makes room for a number of colorful supporting players. The parade of aunts, uncles, and cousins here are all pretty endearing. The jittery weather-controlling Pepa shares a wonderful love with the passionate Felix. Dolores' super-hearing lends itself to a number of amusing gags. As does Camilo's mischievous shape-shifting. Obviously, neurotic Bruno – with his alternate personalities and rat friends – ends up walking away with a big portion of the movie. Not all of these characters are given a lot of depth but their obvious eccentricities only intrigues the audience further. I'm not surprised “Encanto” has developed a faithful fan-following based on this. 

It helps that the voice cast is pretty strong too. Stephanie Beatriz will hopefully become a bigger star based on the strength of her performance here, as Mirabel. She nails al the singing without loosing any of the character's endearing nerdiness or personality. John Leguizamo is allowed to be goofy and awkward as Bruno, a nice side of the beloved performer we don't see often enough. Maria Cecilia Botero is perfectly attuned to Aubela, a stern matriarch that doesn't mean to be as cruel as she comes off at times. Jessica Darrow affects a maybe goofy gruff voice as Luisa but that sets up a pretty good reveal later, when her veneer of toughness cracks up. And, really, those are just the highlights. “Encanto” is full of good vocal performances.

”Encanto” came pre-packaged with all the usual Disney cartoon merchandising and tie-ins. There's plenty of highly marketable cute animals in the film, that can be turned into adorable stuffed toys. The magical house, which has a personality of its own that it expresses in many amusing ways, is custom made for a doll's play set. Yet I still think the movie pulls off some surprising challenges. It tackles family-friendly themes like love and acceptance but also more complex ideas, like neurosis and resentment. I think that makes it a cut above a lot of other big budget animated movies and even a few of Disney's other offerings. Whether the Mouse Factory will market it to death in the coming years remains to be seen but I have enjoyed revisiting this one. [Grade: B+]

Series Report Card: Disney Animated Features (2021) - Part One

58. Raya and the Last Dragon

I am, and I suppose always will be, a fan of when Disney puts its own stamp on classic fairy tales or stories. I grew up on the Disney Renaissance, so I guess it’s a nostalgic connection for me. Disney has mostly stuck to more modern stories in recent times, with "Frozen" and "Moana" merely taking inspiration from classic stories and folklore. The same is true of their most recent attempt to create a new Disney Princess. "Raya and the Last Dragon" is inspired by the culture and mythology of Southeast Asia, such as Thailand and Vietnam. Whether this is progressive pop culture representation or a mega-corp cynically looking for a new market to exploit is, ya know, up for debate. Either way, I think it's sort of neat that the world's leading animation studio continues to find ways to blend new stories with older traditions. 

The setting for our story is Kumundra, a collection of countries that used to be united under the rule of benevolent dragons. Following the appearance of soul-sucking monsters called Druun, the dragons would sacrifice themselves to save the world. Their remaining power was sealed inside the Dragon Gem, which the nations have warred over for years. During an attempt to foster peace by Chief Benja, ruler of the nation of Heart, the gem would be shattered. The Druun were released and Kumundra plunged into chaos. Five years later, Benja's daughter Raya travels Kumundra to gather the pieces of the Gem and restore the world. Along the way, she resurrects Sisu, the last of the dragons. 

Like I said, "Raya and the Last Dragon" is a new story by Disney, created by its writers, directors, and animators. Yet the film feels a lot like an adaptation of a long-running series of books or manga... One of those adaptations that tries to squeeze the entire story into one movie. From the beginning, the film is overwhelming the viewer with exposition. The history of Kumundra, the Druun, and the dragons is dropped on us through an info-heavy, opening montage. The film then goes into an extensive flashback, setting up Raya's role in all this, her personal connection to the latest apocalypse, and the rivalry between the different nations. It's a lot of world-building to do right out of the gate. Maybe if the audience needs to know this much backstory before you can even tell the story we're here to see, you should've just told a different story. 

And yet, the film's front loading with a ton of exposition and lore is not it's most distracting aspect. With "Raya and the Last Dragon," Disney had a chance to create their own fantasy universe, akin to Middle-earth or Narnia. Any attempt to transport the viewer to another world is often undermined by the movie filling every characters' mouth with snarky, sub-Whedon-esque dialogue. There are references to modern pop culture, with mentions of cat ladies and popping-and-locking. People make fun of the Marvel movies, for taking the suspense out of their action scenes with constant sarcastic dialogue. But "Raya" is a movie where that actually happens, the viewer's immersion in this fantasy world being broken by someone saying "boom goes the dynamite."

The movie's comic relief is often distracting. Did the pickpocket baby character really need to weaponize its diaper at one point? No source of humor in the movie is more distracting than Sisu herself. Awkwafina's gravelly voice is a non-stop source of half-baked jokes and quibs. It takes the purpose of characters like Genie or Mushu, an energetic and lovable sidekick for the hero to bounce off of, to its outermost extreme. Raya is the straight man, Sisu is the never-ending jokester, and the movie hammers that note as hard as possible. What should've been the movie's most endearing character — who doesn't love a dragon? — instead nearly destroys it. 

Walt Disney Animation Studio taking inspiration from its sibling Marvel Studios does provide some novelty to "Raya." This is an animated fantasy for kids that also happens to be an action movie. Not just any action movie but a martial arts movie. You can tell the animators did their research to, as each nation is given a different style of melee combat. Muay Thai, pencak Silat, and eskrima are utilized throughout. When Raya has to come to blows with her rival, arrogant warrior Princess Namaari, the fights are actually pretty well done. That's not something you expect to see in a Disney movie, especially one of their big budget cartoons. So that's pretty cool. 

Still, every step forward that "Raya" takes is another step back as well. Ultimately, the film is defined by the theme of different cultures and people putting aside their differences to work together for a greater good. This is represented by Kumundra being made up of nations named for different parts of a dragon. You also see it in the visual symbolism of Raya assembling a broken gem or the way she collects a new friend from other segment of the continent. The movie really focuses on this idea during its climax, where everyone works together against a hopeless situation. "Raya and the Last Dragon" is very much a motion picture about unity in the face of global catastrophe. (Which, weirdly, makes it an ideal story to tell in our modern age.)

It never quite works though. That's simply because we never really care about the different characters. Raya gathers multiple sidekicks over the course of the story, from shrimp boat cook Boun, to burly tough guy Tong, to the aforementioned con-baby. And that's in addition to the adorable animal sidekick she starts the movie off with, the pill bug like Tuk-Tuk. "Raya" is long for an animated movie, running close to two hours. Yet even all that time isn't enough to develop all of these characters in a meaningful way. Instead, they remain as vague ideas, easily understood gimmicks that never develop any real depth. This makes the idea of them coming together to work for a better tomorrow hard to take seriously. Once again, it makes the movie feel like the condensed version of a bigger, longer story. 

The movie tries. All the characters are united by having lost a loved one to the Druun. Raya is haunted by the loss of her dad, Sisu by the loss of her dragon siblings. Boun and the baby's parents are gone. It's heavily implied that Tong lost his own family. In its best moments, "The Last Dragon"  slows down and allows its characters to just hang out together. This often happens — in what is yet another metaphor for disparate ingredients working together in harmony — around the dinner table. A scene of Tong revealing the baby's name while everyone chats is one of the highlights of the movie. So is a comedic scene where Sisu distracts a whimsical solution to their current dilemma. The movie can't make its cast come to life but it's still works best when suggesting that might be possible. 

As "Raya" goes on, the stakes get higher and the scenario gets grimmer. The seeming death of a major character is when the film reaches its darkest point, the Druun becoming even more unstoppable than before. But what about the Druun? The best Disney Animated Features have colorful, unforgettable villains. This is something "Raya and the Last Dragon" completely lacks. The Druun have no personality. They are clouds of amorphous, purple mist that turn people to stone. They are warded off by water and the power of the Dragon Gem but otherwise show no attributes. I'd compare them to zombies but even zombies are more distinct than this. Namaari is the story's human antagonist and, even though she's debatably the film's most complex character, she still doesn't rise to the levels we expect from colorful Disney villains. The lack of a real antagonist leaves “Raya” feeling directionless at times.

It's not really the fault of the voice cast. Even Awkwafina, distracting as her humor is, does a decent job playing Sisu. The dragon's quieter moments aren't bad. Everyone does their best. Kelly Marie Tran is solid as Raya. Daniel Dae Kim gets some cute moments as her dad. Benedict Wong – who has quickly become one of the best character actors in the modern Disney pantheon –  probably gives my favorite performance as Tong, a blustery tough guy with a secret soft spot. Sandra Oh has some nice sinister energy as Namaari's deceptive mother, who still has a good reason for what she does. If the movie had been smarter, she would've been developed into the villain. 

Of course, the movie is gorgeous too. The misty rain forests and softly babbling streams look beautiful. Several fantasy sequences feature even more stylized action sequences, the colors and eye-popping visuals getting cranked up even more. As the story progresses, Sisu gains the various powers of her dragon siblings. This results in striking sequences, such as when she goes stepping through the air on platforms made from raindrops. You can criticized the sameness of the Disney house style, when it comes to character designs. I too prefer the quirkier prototype version of Sisu. But the massive animation team still are capable of creating beautiful motion pictures.

”Raya and the Last Dragon” was, of course, originally intended for release in 2020. The pandemic would hit while the movie was late in production, forcing the film to be finished remotely. When it was finally released, back in March, theaters were only just starting to open up again. This meant to movie itself was largely overshadowed by Disney's controversial decision to give a same-day-and-date release on their streaming service, at an additional cost. (Alongside the usual controversies that arise anytime a giant movie studio attempts to tell a story in a different cultural landscape.) Maybe if “Raya” had been a better movie, it would've been able to overcome this discussion and stand on its own. Instead, the movie did just okay at the box office and the merchandise didn't seem to fly off the shelves, in my experience. In some ways a bold experiment, “Raya and the Last Dragon” is also a disappointing attempt at trying something new. [Grade: C+]

Series Report Card: Disney Animated Features (2019)

57. Frozen II

As I noted the last time this happened, direct sequels used to be rare within the Disney Animated Features canon. Now, the Mouse Factory has produced two sequels in a row with the likelihood of more coming seeming strong. However, the first “Frozen” was such a cultural phenomenon that a sequel of some sort almost always seemed assured. The series of periodically released short films was simply not going to sate the public's demand for more Anna and Elsa. “Frozen II” was such a sure deal that, in an odd way, the finished project seemed to generate little hype. The film was a predictably huge box office success, grossing over a billion dollars, becoming the third highest grossing film of 2019 and currently sitting at the tenth highest grossing film of all time. Yet I never heard anyone talk about “Frozen II” the way they did the first. The level of sustained excitement didn't seem to be there. “Frozen II's” lack of a lasting pop culture presence is perhaps best represented by it not earning an Academy Award nomination for Best Animated Feature, practically unheard of for a tent pole Disney animated release.

Three years have passed since the events of the first “Frozen.” Elsa rules Arendelle as queen. Anna and Kristoff are happy together. Things seem fine... But Elsa is haunted by lingering questions from her childhood, of where her powers came from. Specifically, a fairy tale her mother told her about a magic forest haunts her. At this time, she begins to hear a strange siren song. She unwittingly unleashes the elemental spirits of Fire, Water, Air, and Earth. This threatens Arendelle, forcing Elsa, Anna, Kristoff, and Olaf to journey to the Magical Forest. There, they encounter a hidden society, the truth about their past, and the origins of Elsa's powers.

“Frozen” told a mostly complete story. While the question did remain of where exactly Elsa's super-powers came from, things ended on a fairly satisfying note last time. However, the demand for a sequel was based more in fans wanting to spend more time with these characters than to wrap up any lingering mysteries. Indeed, just getting to see these characters again is kind of fun. A stand-out moment in the film is a simple game of charades between the principal cast. Kristoff and Sven the reindeer's amusing way of communicating is revisited. There's a lot of heart already built into Anna and Elsa's relationship, giving a sequel plenty to build upon. We even see the rock trolls again, even if nobody was asking to.

However, sequels also bring with them a desire to create a bigger, more elaborate story. And that's  where “Frozen II” starts to falter. The first film's plot was a simple and straight-forward, of sisterly love and self-acceptance. “Frozen II” is often bogged down in its own mythology. Introducing magical Elemental creatures into the plot leads to a lot of awkward exposition, usually in form of stories told by other characters or entities.  Ultimately, it is revealed that a mystical force has been directing things from the very beginning. Eventually, a major character's life is threatened by some sort of magical set-up I don't even entirely understand. It's the kind of hooey-heavy storytelling that makes me dislike a lot of fantasy writing.

Yet “Frozen II” is an improvement over the first in one major way. The sequel has far more exciting action set pieces. An extended, very exciting sequence has Elsa teaming the temperamental Water Nokk, while running across the surface of the ocean. That's a dynamic and thrilling episode that the movie never quite tops. It tries, however, with a scene of Anna fleeing from a pair of angry rock giants. The animation does a good job of establishing just how massive the creatures are and just how perilous our heroine is in this moment. The sequel's focus on action scenes does betray it occasionally, such as in a scene where Elsa freezes a tornado somehow, which feels like a less-than-memorable moment from a Marvel film.

Perhaps that scene of Elsa utilizing her superpowers against an antagonistic force doesn't entirely work because “Frozen II” is another Disney Animated Feature that foregoes a proper villain. There's no bad guy, plotting things and motivating the story. Instead, Elsa and Anna seek out natural forces that are ostensibly neutral. They are sometimes destructive, such as when the fire entity sets a forest ablaze, but can be befriend and understood easily. The residents of the magic forest, Arendelle guards who were locked in years ago and aboriginal residents, are in conflict that is largely based in a misunderstanding. While it's admirable for “Frozen II” to have a more complex moral world, where few people are truly bad, I do sort of wish we had a neat villain in here somewhere.

The conflict in “Frozen II” is about something else too. A theme is repeatedly stated, frequently by the newly verbose Olaf. The sequel is about the unavoidable change that comes with maturity. Nearly everyone is content with life in Arendelle at story's beginning. However, change has to come if healthy grow is expected to happen. While “Frozen II” spends a lot of time talking about this stuff, it ultimately can't commit to it. The film has Elsa re-visiting her parent's legacy. Yet it never once acknowledges how cruelly they treated her by locking her away for most of her early life. The former king and queen are treated like beloved figures, the sequel never once grappling with the fact that they were pretty big assholes to their child.

This is not the only way the sequel seriously wimps out with its themes of change and maturity. Once the elemental forces reveal themselves, the city of Arendelle is threatened. Everyone is evacuated. Elsa and Anna's quest has them revealing the kingdom's imperialistic past, as their grandfather attempting to wipe out the native population. By acknowledging this and righting wrongs that happened decades ago, a huge tidal wave is sent careening towards Arendelle. If the city – which had no one in it by this point, mind you – was destroyed, that would have been a real example of change. Instead, “Frozen II” stops just shy of really shaking up the status quo. Presumably because Disney didn't want to tear down the cozy, merchandise-friendly fairy tale setting. The film is reluctant to commit to the ideas it repeatedly talks about.

Yet perhaps thematic consistency is not what most people are looking to get out of a Disney cartoon. Kids, after all, are still the primary target of these films. Yes, “Frozen II” does feature some amusing comedic gags. Throughout the film, Olaf is acting in a more mature manner... Though it's still Olaf's idea of maturity, so he's still fairly clownish. The best gag has the little snowman re-enacting the events of the original film, which is taken amusingly serious by the observers. Being a Disney film, “Frozen II” also introduces some cute new characters that can be made into toys. My favorite of which is a cuddly little fire salamander, though the film most also be praised for turning the literal wind into a cutesy side kick. That was pulled off surprisingly well.

Looking at “Frozen II” as strictly a work of animation, it is, of course, lovely. The environments in big budget cartoons like this are nearly photorealistic. Seeing the Scandinavian-inspired locations in the autumn provides lots of gorgeous visuals. The images of crashing waves, deep seas, and billowing mists are impressive. Yet “Frozen II's” animation impresses the most the more playful it becomes. During “Into the Unknown,” Elsa paints the night with flickering ice images of characters we'll meet soon enough. During another musical number, the Ice Queen continues to summon brightly colored snow sculptures all around her. This scenes nearly bend towards the expressionistic. I wish Disney experimented like this a little more but I guess that's not what audiences have come to expect.

The songs are obviously a big attraction with these films. Generally speaking, I'm not the biggest fan of the Lopez's songwriting. Their lyrics are conversational and frequently awkward. This is most evident in “Something's Never Change,” the first major musical number and among the movie's least memorable songs. “Into the Unknown,” despite being placed as the sequel's big showstopper, also suffers from weirdly uneven writing. “Frozen II” is desperately eager to create the next “Let It Go.” Every single song in the movie, practically, is straining to be the next big crowd pleaser, to have as much bombastic emotion and stirring music as possible. The only number that actually succeeds at being better than “Let It Go” is “Show Yourself,” Elsa's next self-actualization ballad. I don't know why Disney didn't push that one for the Oscar nomination.

Another problem with the songs in “Frozen II” is something the sequel shares with the original. Several of them commit the biggest sin a musical can be guilty of: They don't advance the plot any. Olaf's “When I Am Older” brings the pace to a halting stop and isn't even that funny or cute a number to begin with. Yet I guess I'm guilty of enjoying some of “Frozen II's” excesses. Kristoff's sole song, “Lost in the Woods,” does not move the story forward in anyway. Yet I love it anyway. It's a big goofy homage to Jim Steinman and eighties love ballads, even including the guitar power riffs. This is even reflected in the accompanying visuals, which moves and feels like an eighties music video. So I guess it's sometimes okay if not every song pushes the plot forward.

Speaking as someone who merely liked, not loved, the first “Frozen,” I'd rank the sequel on about the same level. It lacks the elegant plotting of the original, in favor of a much more bloated story. It lacks the proper convictions to back up the ideas it is presenting. Some of the songs blow. Yet the set pieces are exciting and beautifully brought to life. The songs that are good are extremely good. The cast is still having a good time. The sequel, if nothing else, should be applauded for not just being a retrend of the original. In some regards, it is better than the first. In others, it is weaker. Over all, I liked it though I definitely hope Disney takes a break from sequels for a while. [Grade: B]