Change Your Image
smilefumble
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Disenchanted (2022)
Decent...but less enchanting than it's predecessor
When I first saw Disney's Enchanted back in 2007, it was an instant classic for me! The story of the fairy tale princess-to-be who is thrust into the real world where she meets a cynical divorce lawyer and they help each other to find the perfect balance between dreams and reality was a heartwarming, funny, energetic and all around magical movie!
So, when I heard there was going to be a sequel, I had mixed feelings. On the one hand, I felt that the film ended on a perfect note thus there was no need to continue the story. However, with that said, each character was so likeable and enjoyable to watch that I was more than willing to see their further adventures!
I saw the sequel and...it's okay. Was it bad? No, but did it measure up to the high standards set by the original? The answer is also no.
The film picks up in a natural way from where the story left off. Five years in modern-day Manhattan has left Giselle (Amy Adams) longing for a taste of the whimsical and fantastical of the fairy tale world she used to know. In an effort to bring some of that back into her life, she moves her family to a neighbourhood that looks straight out of a storybook.
However, between dealing with her now-teenage stepdaughter Morgan (Gabriella Baldacchino) who isn't on board with the plan and an egotistical homeowners association president (Maya Rudolph) Giselle soon surmises that the only way to bring the two worlds together is with magic. With the use of a wand, wishes for our world to be like a fairy tale. Although, will it be everything she hoped?
From that summary, I would have thought that the sequel would be as good at lovingly parodying tropes from classic stories as the original was. In some ways it is; there is a hilarious sequence where when Giselle wakes up the morning after making her wish, the household appliances start singing to her! Although, apart from a few scenes like that we don't get a lot of the other real-world characters reacting to the now-magical elements that they have to deal with. When Giselle leaves her house, everyone is just suddenly wearing medieval clothes and selling things from market stalls; it would have been really funny to see how everyone dealt with the changes happening around them but the movie never shows it.
On top of that, it does one of the worst things that a sequel can do: bring back characters from the original and barely give them anything to do. Patrick Dempsey and James Marsden reprise their roles as Giselle's husband, Robert and the charming Prince Edward, respectively. However, nether of their characters are given much screentime. Robert, who in the original showed Giselle how to embrace reality, while at the same time, learning to not dismiss the idea of dreams entirely is given what could have been a very interesting subplot where he finds himself becoming the typical Prince Charming but it lasts all of two scenes. Similarly, Edward, who once tried to be the dashing hero he was in his own world in ours with hilariously disastrous results pops in now and again but is kept offscreen for most of the movie.
What's more, the musical numbers, which were one the most memorable elements of the original are one of the weaker aspects here. The first film's songs were all distinct, catchy and memorable, whereas here, they all sound alike and are not as long as their predecessors.
With all that said, that's not to say that there aren't some good things here, too. Amy Adams' performance is every bit as marvelous as it was once was and the aesthetics herein are very visually pleasing. With a little more rewriting, I truly believe that this could have been a worthy follow-up to the story that spawned it. Sadly, in the end, my verdict is watch it but if you loved the first movie like I did, you'll find yourself wanting more.
The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018)
The Nutcracker and the "Bore" Realms
Having been a fan of the Tchaikovsky ballet since I was a boy, I got excited when I learned that they were doing a new live-action adaptation of it.
However, upon seeing the first trailer, while the visuals looked pleasing, it seemed to me that the film was going to do that clichéd plot where the "chosen one" has to save a magical land from a wicked tyrant. Disney has done that story TWICE already with Alice and Wonderland (2010) and Oz the Great and Powerful (2013) but I still went to see it on the grounds that perhaps they would bring something new to the table.
Although, I can now say that if you have seen the two films I previously mentioned, you don't need to see this one because there won't be any suspense as you will know everything that will happen.
Not only that but in getting through all the clichéd plot points, the filmmakers left some holes. The villain got everyone under her thumb by making one of her fellow rulers the scapegoat but it is never explained how she convinced everybody that the other regent was evil. Also, why does she need a larger army if she has soldiers from three of the realms on her side?
Additionally, while the costumes are beautifully designed, the eye-popping visuals that the trailer promised are few and far between. Having four different lands in the story was utterly pointless as the montage of Clara touring them lasted all of about ten seconds. 90% of the movie is set in the destroyed fourth realm which is shrouded in tones of black and grey. Seriously, they had magical realms of flower, snow and sweets in the story and THAT is what they focus on?
Worst of all, the "Nutcracker" part of the title could easily be removed and it would make no difference whatsoever. The character to whom they gave that title was never cursed to be made of wood nor did he crack any nuts; he was just a normal human being. Tchaikovsky's music was scattered throughout the film in places where they could have used any other waltz and there was only a few seconds of ballet.
I suppose children might enjoy this movie but those who go to it excepting a stunning, creative new take on the Christmas classic will leave sorely disappointed.
Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World (1998)
The Worst of the Disney Sequels
It appears that a recurring theme in the Disney sequels is drastic changes to character traits established in the first movie so that the writers don't have to think too hard in putting together their half-baked little cash grab. In the first Pocahontas, John Smith wanted to do all he could to help bring peace between his and Pocahontas' people and was even willing to die to save his best friend's life. Here, he doesn't care about anyone except himself and tries to make Pocahontas' decisions for her.
They do this so they can justify Pocahontas leaving him so she can end up with the newly-introduced John Rolfe who became her husband historically but guess what? I don't watch Disney Movies to get a history lesson; I watch them to see happy endings where couples are able to get together despite unfortunate circumstances at the end of the last movie.
Also, if John Rolfe was introduced to bring historical accuracy into the mix, he did a very poor job because everything else about the movie is historically inaccurate from Pocahontas not being married to him before she left for London to the undergarments depicted herein being those of the 19th century, not the 17th where the movie is set.
All John Rolfe's introduction manages to do is retcon the tragedy of Pocahontas and Smith not being together as like I said, the writers make it so that it ends up being a good thing.
Do yourself a favour and stick with the original Pocahontas while making up an ending where Smith returns to Virginia to be with her.
Cinderella (1950)
A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes...
After having adapted Snow White for the screen in 1937, I don't think there was a better way for Disney to return to the fairy tale genre than with the world's second most famous tale that takes place once upon a time.
At the time of its' release, Cinderella was the company's first full-length feature film after a six-year hiatus due to all of the financial straits that were brought on by WWII. So, in crafting the film, Walt and his staff had to out all the stops and nearly bankrupted themselves in the process. Fortunately for them, Cinderella was a smash hit with audiences and critics alike, ensuring that Disney made enough money off of the film for them to produce many more animated films.
However, the question is: Does Cinderella still hold up to this day? Is it truly the masterpiece it was hailed as in 1950? The answer to both is definitely yes!
The film had many of Disney's top men working on it and it really does show. The backgrounds which were designed by the renowned female artist Mary Blair are not only beautiful to look at but are drawn in a way that gives them a breathtaking air of grandeur.
The musical numbers by Mack David, Al Hoffman and Jerry Livingston are endearing, catchy and will no doubt find their way into your head after you've watched the film.
Cinderella (gorgeously voiced by Ilene Woods) is a strong-willed, optimistic and independent young woman who you'll be rooting for the whole time as she manages to get all of the work her evil stepmother mercilessly piles on her without a complaint.
Her mouse friends (voiced by James MacDonald, who also voiced Mickey Mouse) unfortunately get a lot of hate as many say that they take up too much screen time. However, I think that they are given just enough so that they do not overshadow the main heroine. Plus, with all the ways that they help Cinderella, I'd say that they are more likable and much better integrated into the plot than some of the comic-relief in today's Disney films (e.g. Olaf from Frozen, the Gargoyles from Hunchback.)
The only thing that I would change about this film is the amount of screen time given to the Prince. Instead of having another scene where the King/Duke argue following the Ball, there should've been a scene where the Prince discusses his feelings for the girl he met.
Other than that, Disney's 1950 adaptation of Cinderella is one that delights me as much as it did movie-going audiences of the 20th- century and will continue to have a special place in my heart for years to come.
Cinderella (2015)
Stop it Disney!!!!
Two years ago, when I heard that Disney was going to focus their energy on making live-action re-imaginings of many of their classic animated films, I rolled my eyes and thought "Why would they waste their resources telling us stories that we already know? Considering some of the really smart and creative animated films that they've turned out in the past decade, such as Tangled (2010) and Wreck-it-Ralph (2012), it seems like they should be working on more of those.
On top of that, I was quite disappointed with last year's spin-off of Sleeping Beauty, Maleficent. So, when I heard that they were indeed planning to keep the trend going with Cinderella, I was like "and so it continues *sigh*. However, when the trailer came out, except for some obvious over-the-top CGI effects, It didn't look too bad, so I decided to make the trip to the theatre yesterday and see it.
What's the final verdict? Well, apart from some quite nice-looking sets and costumes, Disney has once again made another CGI-laden cash-grab where it's obvious they spent more time and money on how the film looks rather than how the story is executed!
It seems pointless to summarize the story, seeing as it's one everybody knows, so I'll just get right to talking about where the film falls flat. Its biggest flaw is that while it's clear that the writers tried to give some development to the characters by extending their roles and/or giving them more interaction with each other, but none of it ever lasts for more than a few minutes.
For example, they have Cinderella and the Prince meet in the forest before the Ball in order to try and give them some believable chemistry, but the conversation they have only lasts for about ten minutes, so it comes off as rather odd when the Prince is raving about her and insisting that she come to the Ball the next scene.
Similarly, we get a subplot near the end that involves the Wicked Stepmother making a deal with the Grand Duke that if he keeps quiet about Cinderella and raises both her and her daughters statuses, she will reward him. However, the Duke almost never speaks in any of his previous scenes, so we never get any indication as to why he would betray the Prince as he does.
Also, there is something that happens near the end of the film, which I will not reveal in case you haven't seen the movie, but it's something major that comes completely out of left field and doesn't move the plot forward in any way, so it's completely pointless!
The movie also fails in how it constantly tries to show off the lavishly-decorated sets and expensive CGI effects at every turn. While, they do look nice as I already said, they often shove their CGI creatures right into the camera and even have some shots where they zoom in on specific pieces of the set when really they should be focusing on the characters!
Cinderella has really turned me off to all future live-action re-imaginings that Disney may come out with. If I have to, I'll get down on my hands and knees and say "Please, please, pleeeeease go back to making original content again!"
Babes in Toyland (1961)
Disney's forgotten classic...with a reason
While watching a short documentary on Disney's association with L. Frank Baum's world of Oz, I heard that while experimenting with the possibility of doing a live-action musical film featuring its characters in the late 1950s, this film was what he ultimately made instead.
Upon seeing the clips from Babes in Toyland that they had included in it, as a long-time Disney fan I thought "Hey, why have I never heard of this before.
So, I quickly went out and bought the movie and within just minutes of sitting down to watch it, I saw exactly why I'd never heard of it before.
Throughout the entire film, you get the feeling that the major concern of everyone involved in the production was how it looked because it appears that they spent more time on that than anything else, but there are even times where that isn't very good.
It's springtime in Mother Goose Village and sweethearts Tom Piper and Mary Contrary (Tommy Sands and Annette Funicello) have named their wedding day. However, unbeknownst to Mary, she will inherit a fortune upon getting married (from whom we are never told) that the miserly Barnaby (Ray Bolger) wants for himself. So, he instructs his two bumbling henchmen (Henry Calvin and Gene Sheldon) to kill Tom. However, the two decide that they want a little extra money, so after kidnapping him, they sell him to some gypsies that eventually return him to his beloved.
However, all is not yet well as Mary's five children...wait no, they can't be her children, she's too young...brothers and sisters...wait no, she wouldn't be left to take care of them by herself... foster children...wait no, how does a 25-something-year-old woman get those...ah, forget it! Anyway, five children go wandering into The Forest of No Return and Tom and Mary go to try and retrieve them. However, some menacing-looking singing trees who work for a neighbouring toymaker, played by Ed Wynn (why?) send them off to his workshop where they agree to help him make toys because he has only one assistant (again, why?)
So, as you can tell from that summary, there are some major plot holes, but that is not the film's only shortcoming.
Many of the characters are so underdeveloped that as you watch, you find yourself very uninvested in what is happening to them. Mary only takes a stand once in the climax of the film. The rest of her screen time is spent either crying, being confused or singing dull romantic duets with her lover. Speaking of Tom, he does get a delightfully goofy number in which he re-enters the town dressed in gypsy drag, but other than that, we see nothing of his personality, other than the fact that he's suave and handsome. As for the kids, the fact that they are what they are is all we know about them.
Barnaby is always fun to watch as he twirls his cape and tap dances his way through his scenes, but the problem is that by doing so, he does not present himself as much of a threat when he's supposed to be the main villain of the piece. His two henchmen get a giggle here and there, but not too often. The Toymaker should be really enjoyable, considering who plays him, but he comes across as extremely unlikeable, because he always insists on doing everything himself, making a huge mess in the process.
Although, as previously stated there is a lot of creativity to be seen in this movie. The various storybook-like houses featured herein look really imaginative, as do the costumes and several of the effects look very convincing. However, there are exceptions to that statement, as there are times where the visual elements look like they could have been worked on a little more and other effects look really fake. For example there is a scene where one of the henchmen magically disappears underneath a puddle but the movements of the stop-motion toy soldiers used in the climax look extremely choppy.
As for the music, Babes in Toyland's numbers range from extremely catchy (Castle In Spain, I Can't Do the Sum) to totally bland and/or forgettable (Just a Toy, Toyland.) On a final note, the choreography looks as though it were lazily thought out, what with the dancers repeatedly jumping from left to right and vice versa.
All that said, I feel profuse pity for this film as it had capable actors, great visuals, a previously wildly successful operetta to adapt itself from...all the ingredients that could have made it a masterpiece. Sadly though, in the end my final verdict is "watch only if you're a hardcore Disney fan like me."
Paddington (2014)
Thoroughly enjoyable for all...but it feels like it's missing something
In December of 1956, a man named Micheal Bond noticed a lone bear on the shelf of a toy store in Paddington Station, London and decided to buy it as a Christmas present for his wife. She loved the little stuffed toy so much, that Bond decided to make it the star of his first book and in 1958, "A Bear Called Paddington" about a refuge bear from the jungles of darkest Peru who made his way to London where he got taken in by the kindly Brown family was published.
Since then, Paddington has spawned an entire book series of more than ten volumes, thousands of stuffed fact-similes and most recently, a 1997 animated TV-series by Cinar Entertainment.
In fact, it was Cinar's offering in the world of Paddington that first introduced me to the character. Every Saturday morning I would have great fun watching the adventures of the bear in the red rain hat and blue duffle coat who was always well-intentioned, but always ended up in some kind of mess. However, he'd always find a way out and be rewarded for his kindness in the end.
So, I was very curious to see if Hollywood could do justice to this super-lovable-in-every-way character. The answer is...mostly yes...but no on some other levels.
Unlike recent cartoon-adapted live-action films such as "Garfield" and "Scooby Doo" where the CGI on the main characters is laughable, Paddington looks super cuddly, like something you want to hug. On top of that, the actor who voices him does an excellent job of capturing the polite, but still "determined to make things right...no matter what it takes" demean or the television character had.
The antics that he gets into, such as flooding the bathroom or zipping through crowded streets on a kite while chasing a burglar are a treat to watch and will have you ooing-ahing and laughing every time they take place.
Of course, just Paddington's antics alone are not enough to carry the movie, so they need some sort of antagonist to create more tension. We get one, in the form of a greedy museum curator who wants to make some major moolah by adding the rare Paddington to her collection, played by Nicole Kidman. Her character isn't very interesting; she's your run-of- the-mill greedy villain that we've seen in nearly every other movie. However, she continuously chews up the scenery with her bob-haircut, skin-tight dresses, flaming pink lips and silken voice every time she makes an appearance, making her enjoyable to watch.
As for the other actors, they were all very fitting casting choices and make their characters into ones you really want to spend time with. Particularly good performances come from Mr. and Mrs. Brown (Hugh Bonneville and Sally Hawkins) and their two children (Samuel Joslin and Madeliene Harris.)
However, and this is my only gripe, some of the actors get little to no screen time, so that their characters end up very under-developed as a result.
Julie Walters, who plays the housekeeper Mrs. Bird, does get a little bit of development in the end when she has to play shots to distract a security guard, but for most of the film, we don't know anything about her, outside of the fact that she's the housekeeper.
Peter Capaldi, who plays the Brown's pompous neighbour Mr. Curry serves no purpose other than to be a brief plot device in Kidman's story arc, which is a real shame because the man who always shouted "BEAR" when Paddington broke something of his that he was trying to fix was one of the best parts of the show.
I really do feel that the movie could've benefited from being about 30- 40 minutes longer in order to give the virtually wasted actors something to do.
However, that aside, if you're looking for a good, clean movie to take your whole family to, or even just your significant other to, this is it! Fans of the show or the books like me may be a little disappointed that they cast aside some of the original characters, but will be pleased otherwise.
Happily N'Ever After (2006)
Could have been so much better
The concept of fairy tales turned on their heads is absolutely nothing new. We saw it time and time again in the 70s and 80s, mostly on Saturday Morning cartoons (Rocky and Bullwinkle) or in children's books (Sesame street.) However, it was 2001's Shrek that brought that concept into mainstream movies as since its' release, we've seen lots of other "fractured fairy tale" films come out; some good (Hoodwinked) and others, not so much (Tortoise vs. Hare.)
Vanguard Animation's offering in this genre is known as Happily N'Ever After where when the wizard who looks after all fairy tales and makes sure they go by the book leaves on vacation, all the fairy tale villains, led by Cinderella's conniving and power-hungry stepmother, here called Freida seize control. Now it's up to Cinderella, or as her friends know her, Ella and her friend Rick, the palace dishwasher to save the day.
This is one of those films that while it has some things working for it, many of the choices the filmmakers made work against it.
What works for it is the animation, which is very nice and colourful and looks like something you'd see on a stained-glass window or tapestry, as well as the voice acting, especially Sigourney Weaver as Freida and Patrick Warburton as the not-so-charming Prince.
What works against it is, sadly, everything else. There are plot numerous plot holes throughout, such as the fact that Ella has never been to the palace before the ball, yet somehow knows Rick, or the fact that after the stepsisters angrily leave the ball when the Prince decides to dance with Ella instead of them, they are never seen or mentioned again. The animation is also reused many times, with the fairy tale book that opens and closes the story always flipping past the same pages. Furthermore, almost all of the jokes were clearly put in just for the kids ("we had to call it something and Canada was already taken", "Monk is a bossy know-it-all with a butt the size of a shopping mall.")
If those above problems were fixed, we would've had something just as good as Shrek.
You could say that this film is my guilty pleasure. You probably won't want to see it again after watching it, but I've seen it more than once, the reason being that I like to look at what we got and dream of the great film that we could've had.
Wreck-It Ralph (2012)
A "modern" Disney classic
That's what director Rich Moore said he wanted to create when he was assigned to direct Wreck it Ralph: "a film that is like the classic Disney movies, but takes a hit off of something more modern and contemporary." Watching this film, I can see without a doubt that he did just that!
The story takes place in an arcade (don't think I've ever seen one of those in a Disney film before) where the characters of each game have their own individual lives after the arcade closes. Enter Ralph: a hulk- sized hobo who as the villain of his game, has to smash apartments every day so that his hero counterpart, Felix can repair them and is shunned and by the game's denizens as a result.
Wanting something better in life, Ralph proceeds to find another video game (the characters can travel to other consoles via the cords and power strips connecting them) where he can win a medal, just like always Felix does, so he can be hailed as a hero for once. He eventually finds one, but through a series of misadventures, ends up in a candy-themed racing game where he meets Vanellope: an impish street urchin who, as it turns out, needs the medal as much as Ralph does because, due to her tendency to glitch now and again, is an outcast herself.
So, as you can tell, this film has all the elements you'd expect a classic Disney film to have; yet takes place in a modern day world.
The worlds that they created for this movie blew me away; you could tell that the animators pulled out all the stops with this one! In Ralph's game a classic, retro, 8-bit one everything, including the characters' bodies are square and the backgrounds are almost non-existent. In Vanellope's game, called Sugar Rush, little candy-themed touches that really stand out, such as the grandstands being candy boxes and Vanellope's bed being a sponge cake are everywhere.
The characters are pretty good too, if a little stock. We've seen the story of "misfit meets another misfit" in lots of other films (Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, anyone?) However, Ralph and Vanellope are just so innocent and so willing to go the distance for their dreams, you can't help but like them. Felix is very likable too, as he will always do what is required of him without complaint. Heck, he goes as far as to let himself get punched in the face because it will eventually lead to him finding Ralph; you've got to admire someone like that!
If I did have a complaint with this movie, it would be that the way the characters and/or objects thrive in their video game environments raises a few questions. The movie establishes that if a game is unplugged the characters within it die, yet what if there is a power outage at the arcade, do they not regenerate if the power comes back?
However, that aside, I think that Wreck it Ralph will be enjoyed for many a generation to come, just like the rest of the classic Disney movies because it's right up there with them!
Frozen (2013)
You were doing so well Disney; What happened?
In the last 4 years or so, after releasing some duds for the first half of this decade (Atlantis, Brother Bear, Chicken Little,) Disney has finally returned to its' roots, releasing films that are on par with the classics (Princess and the Frog, Tangled, Wreck-it-Ralph.)
So naturally, I had high hopes for this year's spring release of Frozen. I sat down to watch it and couldn't believe my eyes!
Plot holes, contradictions, mostly forgettable musical numbers and bad jokes abound in this film that is SOMEHOW being hailed as "the best Disney movie in years!" but makes me feel like the creators were more concerned about how many dolls they'd sell, rather than putting together a good story!
The story is about this princess named Elsa, who is, for some reason never explained, born with the ability to create ice and snow out of thin air. After she accidentally throws ice at her sister, Anna her parents, after being told by a bunch of trolls that "fear will be her enemy" LOCK HER IN HER ROOM HER ENTIRE CHILDHOOD, no doubt giving the fear that she's supposed to learn to let go of every opportunity to rise.
Fast forward to three years later and Elsa is about to be crowned queen; surprising as no one's seen her for years; why would they want her to rule them? However, after a falling out with Anna, her powers are exposed and she runs away to the mountains to build an ice palace where she declares she will live on her own forever more so that everyone, especially her sister can be safe from her. Did I mention that she accidentally freezes her entire kingdom and won't try to figure out how to unfreeze it, or that she sets a giant snow monster (she apparently can create sentient beings now) on her sister when she follows her?
Okay, it's one thing if the plot makes no sense but what about the characters? I've already given my take on Elsa, so I'll go through the rest of them individually.
Anna is easily my favorite character in this film. I love how for once instead of making their princess practically perfect in every way, they made her someone who is clumsy and gets into messes that she has to get out of. Anna's klutzy moves, such as when she accidentally squashes her sister's coronation cake with a bust make me laugh out loud. On top of that, I really applaud the unending determination she has to be with her sister again and cheer for her all the way through.
My second favorite character would have to be Hans, a foreign prince who comes to the kingdom for Elsa's coronation and ends up becoming Anna's love interest, due to the fact that his older brothers have treated him the same way Elsa has treated her. He also acts in a refreshingly fun and goofy way and on top of that, he has such an admirable level of competence, taking it upon himself to look after the whole kingdom when Anna goes to find Elsa.
Apart from those two however, I find myself really disliking the remaining characters and even question their inclusion in the film. Olaf, the comic-relief snowman continuously makes jokes that are completely irrelevant to the plot and really feels like he was just stuck in there so that the Disney Store could get a cuddly stuffed toy on their shelves. Meanwhile, Kristoff, the mountain guide who replaces Hans as Anna's beau is hands down one of the most BORING Disney characters ever. He never makes any mistakes, constantly does everything right and makes me cry a little inside because he ends up with Anna instead of the far more interesting prince.
The songs, well actually...some of them are alright; "Do You Want to Build a Snowman", a song sung by young Anna about how lonely she gets without her sister is cute enough, while "Love is An Open Door", a duet for Anna and Hans, while perhaps a little corny is nice, upbeat and does leave you happy for the two of them.
On the other hand songs like "Let it Go" and "Fixer Upper" have very weird contexts that leave you confused. The latter is sung by the trolls to Anna about how Kristoff is no Prince Charming, but could be with a little fixing; who in the world says that about their child? The former is supposed to be empowering...I think, as Elsa sings about how she finally doesn't have to worry about her powers hurting anyone and can now use them freely in isolation, but what, I ask you is so empowering about being cut off from the rest of the world?
I should mention as well that the songs are very unevenly placed throughout the movie, with there being about 4 in the first 20 minutes and then none happening again, until the last third.
In addition to the above problems, the story feels like it's ripping off a number of others. The plot plays out in a fashion eerily similar to Stephen Schwartz's Wicked and Olaf , while cute in design, is basically Ice Age's Sid in snow form.
The one star that I give this movie is simply for the animation, because being Disney, it's still very pretty.
Hopefully this movie isn't the start of a downward spiral in the hits that Disney has been producing in the last little while. Those three films I mentioned earlier are ones that I've added to my DVD collection, have re-watched and will be watching again. This one, however, is not.
I wish that I could turn back the clock and live in a world where Frozen did not exist.