Revisiting: The Princess and the Frog (DVD)

Shame on you America. Shame shame same. It's a shame more of you didn't see this movie. "The Princess and the Frog" was heralded as Disney's triumphant return to its roots of hand drawn animation, an art form that has all but died, and this was the movie that was going to change that. Well it's a shame that more people did not see this movie,  because it failed to live up to its promise. And not because it wasn't very good, because it was, but because I worry now that it didn't gross 100 billion dollars at the box office when it was released last November that the future of the return of hand drawn animation is in flux.

"The Princess and the Frog" really is quite a fantastic movie. Sure it's not as good as the classic classic Disney films like "Snow White" or "Pinnochio" or the newer second Golden Age films like "The Lion King" or "Beauty and the Beast" but it holds its own among animated films, and is pretty high up on the list of Disney animated features, in my opinion. And it's miles better than some of the animated dreck that has been shoved out by studios the past few years. 

If you don't know Disney and all things Disney hold a special place in my heart, and I can confidently say I'm obsessed with it. So when I heard about this film back when it was called "The Frog Princess" my expectations were high. I knew it was going to be fantastic. And when I saw it in theaters last November, it lived up to all my expectations and then some. I loved the modern fairy tale setting in 1920s jazzy New Orleans, and maybe wish that more of the movie takes place there than in a swamp, but it's all forgiveable. The characters blew me away. I loved the "princess" of the film, Tiana. Voiced by Anika Noni Rose (from "Dreamgirls"!) she is probably the sassiest and rivals Belle as the most flushed out princess of them all. I adored the "prince" Naveen, who is by far the best prince from a Disney film, not counting Aladdin. He had charisma and a personality and wasn't just a lovey dovey sap as other Disney princes are. Supporting characters Louis the trumpet playing alligator and Ray the Cajun firefly also add quite a bit of humor to the movie, and the delightful Mama Odie (which has to be said like MomMA OHdee to be said correctly) is one of the best cameo characters. 

Seeing the film again for the first time on DVD since its theatrical release I loved it just as much. It's beautiful to watch and funny and charming - everything a Disney film should be. I just can't wrap my head around why it didn't do very well in theaters. If only it weren't for those wretched Chipmunks and their lame Squeakqual than maybe "The Princess and the Frog" would've done better. 

Watching this movie on DVD also begins my attempt at watching and reviewing every Disney animated film before their new animated film, "Tangled" comes out this fall. That will be the 50th in their official canon, believe it or not, and I will attempt to revisit all of them including the elusive one I have never actually seen.

Patrick Approval Rating: 10/10

"The Princess and the Frog" @ imdb

Review: Alice in Wonderland (Theatrical)

I'll start this review off discussing my stance on this 3-D craze that has attacked movie theaters (and America's wallets) as of late. I want to remind everybody of the 50s, during a time that I feel like everybody has forgotten, when all movies seemed to be in 3-D. Not that I was alive back then, but doesn't anybody remember those pictures of conservative 1950s audiences wearing 3-D glasses at the movies and being shocked at the giant bugs popping off the screen? Remember how the movie version of "Kiss Me Kate" was awkwardly in 3-D? And remember how that fad ended? And remember that it became a joke or theme park novelty (thanks Muppet Vision!)? So then why is it a big deal all of a sudden again? Sure I appreciate the novelty of 3-D, but I'm just waiting for this to all blow over in a couple of years. I don't particularly like it or think that it even adds anything to a movie and it hurts my eyes when things move around the screen quickly. The true test for me is when I see "Avatar" on DVD. Whereas I thought the 3-D aided that movie in placing the audience in a completely different world, I feel like now it's just being thrown on any movie, and that bothers me.

I could have liked "Alice in Wonderland" in 2-D, I'm sure. Perhaps I would have liked it even more than I did, as I felt like it was a generally blah movie altogether. I definitely feel like it didn't add anything to the story or the movie going experience except for having all the kids in the theater comment on how they could touch everything. Which also brings me to the awful movie going experience we had seeing this. I couldn't believe the young children who came, never mind the idiot family who showed up (a group of like 7, in a sold out showing) five minutes before the movie started, WITH A BALLOON AND AN INFANT. WHYYYYY. That angered me so much. So the balloon waved in the corner and the baby cried a lot and then I punched them all in the face.

OK, so back to the movie itself. I couldn't believe it was a Tim Burton movie, because it lacked a lot of...something. Creativity? It just seemed like a watered down Burton, or a commercialized Burton. Which I guess it was. A Disney-fied Tim Burton. Maybe he's lost the knack he was known for - that quirky off beat dark movies that actually had some heart and imagination. This movie seemed like it was just created in the vein of his other movies, to make someone some money because they knew Tim Burton and Wonderland would be a good match. Sure the movie looked like a Burton film, with the twisted greenery and the pale complexions and the general lack of eyebrows (except Anne Hathaway's White Queen) but maybe it just didn't live up to the expectations I had for what the movie could've been.

I thought the plot was way too contrived, with Alice going back to Wonderland and everybody there kept telling her she has been brought back to save them but she keeps denying this saying "they've got the wrong Alice" for no reason except to make the plot longer until Alice realizes she is that Alice. Le duh. I even found Johnny Depp to be oddly disappointing. I wanted him to be more...well, a tad more "mad" as the Mad Hatter and especially as compared to his cartoon counterpart he was kind of boring. And let's talk about the awkward hip hop dance he does which seems totally incongruous to the rest of the movie, but it's as if Depp said "I want to do a crazy dance at the end" and everybody was like, "You're Johnny Depp. Do what you want." I am not sure what the kid sitting next to me said when the dance started, but I choose to believe he did say "Hella Awkward." Which it was.

Maybe it was all the CGI of the movie that let me down a little. I didn't think it would bother me, and it kind of threw me back to the brilliant sequences of "Mary Poppins" or "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" with the live action characters cohabitating with animated characters on screen. But whereas those movies made those scenes feel magical, "Alice" left me with the sense of the CGI being a copout. It might as well has been an entirely animated movie. Oh wait, didn't that already happen once in 1951? And even though that "Alice in Wonderland" may not be one of my all time favorite Disney movies (it's still one of the best, but just not one of the top 10 favorites), this "Alice in Wonderland" pales in comparison.

I just think this was a case of a movie not living up to the expectations I had going into it because of the movie's premise, concept, director and cast. "Alice" should have been everything I thought it would've been, but it wasn't. I was entertained, sure, but I was also bored, unimpressed, and wished it wasn't in 3-D.

Please stop the 3-D trend. K-thanks.

Patrick Approval Rating: 6/10

"Alice in Wonderland" @ imdb