“It’s good for your soul.” – Spongebob SquarepantsFrozen! The 2013 film phenomenon from Disney, directed by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee. Written by Jennifer Lee. Based on Hans Christian Andersen’s story “The Snow Queen.” Story credits to Mr. Buck, Ms. Lee, and Shane Morris. While only costing $150 million – $110 million less than Disney’s previous entry into the Princess Series, Tangled – it grossed roughly $1.3 billion. It’s Disney’s biggest hit, financially and culturally, since The Lion King, if not bigger. I have seen it five times to get the best grasp on it possible, so what did I think of it? Meh… ish. That seems kind of harsh, so let’s take a look at the best aspect, the story.

BIG SPOILERS HERE!

Elsa, a princess with ice powers, is very close with her sister Anna when they were kids. Unfortunately, one day Elsa accidentally almost kills Anna with her ice powers when they are playing. Their parents have Stone Trolls save Anna from the damage Elsa had caused, but they also wipe Anna’s memories of Elsa’s powers. Elsa becomes an introvert that hides from everyone in her life, being scared that she’ll hurt her sister or anyone else again. The parents teach Elsa to bury her powers deep down, hoping they will nullify or eventually go away. The parents die, the kids grow up, and the real story gets going on the day of Elsa’s coronation. The two siblings get into a argument over Anna’s decision to marry a prince she just met that day, and Elsa, still not able to control her powers, reveals them to everyone when their argument becomes too heated. Elsa, having now revealed her powers to everyone in the Kingdom, retreats from the castle and Anna goes on a journey to find and reconcile with her sister, and bring her home. There’s walking, some light romance, light fantasy elements, and light drama along the way. One of my original problems with the film was that all the story and plot elements seemed a little jumbled and underdeveloped. However, after sitting through the film five times, I started seeing the story elements and angles in the way the film wanted me to see them in. The updates to the Disney formula do make sense here. I originally criticized the way they handled Anna’s romance, because I couldn’t understand what the world’s expectation for the romance was. Is this a world where “Love at First Sight,” was an abnormality? It has become clear now that it is, and that I shouldn’t have been looking for the world’s expectation to be challenged, but rather just Anna and her characterization to be challenged. What made it somewhat confusing at first is that I was looking for Anna to be taught that she should fall in love at first the sight of someone – Like how it was implied that the character Fiona from Shrek was taught that she’d fall in love with her savior – but rather she developed “Love at First Sight” syndrome naturally, which ends up making this much more clever. This is deeper characterization than a character like Giselle from Enchanted, who we can assume was taught the “Love at First Sight” rule. Instead, Anna developed this syndrome naturally. Opposite to Elsa, Anna is more outgoing and easily excited by life. She is the one that wakes Elsa up during the middle of the night at the very beginning of the film because she wants to play, while Elsa just wanted to stay in bed and be patient for daylight to come. The restrictions put on Elsa by her parents also left Anna trapped inside the castle her entire life, so it’s completely understandable why she would accept the first marriage proposal given to her by a handsome man that she seemed to share a lot in common with. I was never confused about why Anna was doing the things she was doing, I was merely confused by what the film wanted me to take away from her character. I was looking for more direct commentary of the “Love at First Sight” issue that Disney is trying to update in this film. But this is something deeper than the thin (though very entertaining) characterization of Giselle in Enchanted. This is an actual 3-dimensional character, and not just a vehicle used to defy traditions. The film builds on this beautifully, having Anna’s choice of “Love at First Sight” actually being a villain using this cliche to his advantage, showing the obvious dangers of something as outdated as “Love at First Sight”. This all ends up in perfect climax where the attention is taken away from all the boys Anna’s been interested in this story, back onto the real main characters, the two sisters, showing that their love for each other was the only real love here that mattered. That twist to have Anna save Elsa in the end with her love was also Disney finally catching up with the brilliant ending to the first Shrek movie, and even surpassing it. While I would have liked a few more scenes with Anna and Elsa together, that’s actually a compliment because their relationship feels so genuine that I want to see more of it. (Then we got Frozen Fever, and I regretted that demand.)

So what could my problem be with this movie? This sounds like it has a wonderful story, wonderful characters, with really good updates and commentary on the Disney formulas. My main problem with this movie is the medium that it’s in, and particularly the animation. Everyone tells me, “This is one of the greatest looking animated movies in years,” “Disney’s finally catching up to Pixar,” and I still don’t get it. Cars one and two were more visually interesting and impressive than this effort. Tangled, this films spiritual predecessor was much more vibrant and pleasing to look at than this. In Frozen, the character designs were okay, but the environments were horribly boring. I never found anything interesting about the snow, or anything about the setting, it was one of the most dull looking mainstream animated films I may have ever seen. I could not have been more bored when Anna just walks around the most boring castle ever put in a Disney film during, “Do You Wanna Build a Snowman?” Obviously, that setting was supposed to feel empty and boring, because that was the feeling Anna was going through, being trapped in there, but even when they open the gate, it feels visually identical to when the castle was all locked up, only with more people standing around.

My biggest problem with the animation is the movement of the characters, and their blocking. They don’t move or give expressions like animated characters. It was almost like the animators were trying to make them move like real human beings as opposed to animated characters, but the designs don’t look like they’re trying to attempt any kind of grounded realistic look. The movement and energy of the animation reminds me a lot of Shrek, in how simple and grounded the characters were animated. The difference with Shrek is that that film was purposefully putting animated characters in a very laid back tone and energy for the film and the characters had more gritty and realistic designs and features about them to compliment the more grounded tone. Shrek was mostly a verbal comedy. It had it’s action moments for sure, but they all moved to the appropriate level of energy that the films world felt like it operated under. Frozen has the same character design style as Tangled, which is the type of animated film that allowed its characters to have really high energy, and really big expressions, but everything in the film is pulled back so much from reaching that same level of energy, I always feel really awkward watching it. To a certain expect, I can respect that. Not every film needs to be hopping all over the place, not every animated kids film has to have the energy level cranked up to eleven. Olaf is an comic relief character that mostly whispers most of his lines, and he was a riot to me, I would not of wanted him portrayed any other way. I just need it to be consistent. With these exaggerated and over the top designs, and goofy personalities, it doesn’t match the animation speed or style, and then when they throw in a snow monster, or the Stone Trolls, I forget what movie I’m watching. Those fantastical elements don’t go along with the more slow and grounded animation style. Everything stylistically in this movie clashes for me, and makes it impossible for me to get involved in it, even with the characters being as strong as they can be.

I heard that Disney is (of course) making Frozen into an on-stage musical, and I think that’s where this script belongs. The blocking in this film is so stagy. There aren’t any big musical numbers that could only be done in an animated film. – With the exception of “Love Is an Open Door,” but even that could be done on stage. – Most of the blocking is simply characters walking around in an environment that mostly remains still. For “Do You Wanna Build a Snowman” Anna kind of dances around a still castle, same thing for “For the First Time in Forever”, Anna kind of walks around. Their not taking advantage of the medium, and there doing things that – blocking wise – would be impressive on stage. Have Anna swing from high up on the stage in “For the First Time in Forever”. “Let it Go” was one of the most underwhelming experiences I’ve ever had in a movie theater. I like the song, I like all of the songs here, they’re all good – not amazing, but good – but they’re all being played with really simplistic and boring layouts considering the fact that we’re supposed to be watching an animated film. I’m sorry, but that little castle she makes doesn’t impress me on any level. I can never get “into” the movie, I’m never engaged in it because of it’s dull style and presentation. How much more incredible would “Let it Go” have been if it was on stage, and we had a castle rise out from under the stage. So for me, Frozen can be perfect if they put it on stage, and direct it with the proper amount of energy and an appropriate style.

So, after all of that, does Frozen have value? Yes. It had all the right intentions, it has all the right morals, it’s very a well meaning film. But this is my review, and there’s an even more important question at hand here. Would I recommend this as a film that you can sit down, watch and be entertained the whole way through. Or my usual fall back, is this a film you have to see, regardless of how boring it is at times? Honestly, I would lean toward no, which is a shame because there is so much good character in it, smart ideas, and smart developments, but the movie as a whole never clicked with me for very long every time I would sit down and watch it. I’m going to go with a general thumbs down on it, because I feel like they failed too hard at bringing this world to life on screen. Sometimes my recommends have to come down to me asking the simple question, “Was I engaged?” and because of the films style and presentation, no I wasn’t. It’s got some great potential, but was not crafted the right way at all. Let’s hope the stage version brings out this stories full potential.

5/10

Addendum:

I do want to make the point that even though I think the film isn’t super fun to watch, I’m still happy something that has so much good character and good morals was a hit at the box office, and a phenomenon in our culture. I may find it boring to watch, but I’d much rather the morals of this film be reinforced on young kids than something like Transformers, or even Transformers 4 which I’ve probably re-watched the same number of times that the kids of today have re-watched Frozen.