Film Review - "Moana 2"

Back in the early nineties, Disney began production on a television series that would be a follow-up to their film Aladdin. The premiere of the series was going to be an hour-long special, as was common for many Disney animated series, but along the way gears were shifted and the first four (five?) episodes were strung together as a "feature-film". 

This would become The Return of Jafar, the first of (unfortunately) many direct-to-video Disney sequels. The film was not well-received by critics, but easily made back its small budget and became one of the best-selling home-video releases of all time.

Thirty years or so later, history has repeated itself...

Moana 2

Directed by David Derrick Jr, Jason Hand, and Dana Ledoux Miller

Starring Auli'i Cravallho and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson

The follow-up to 2016's Moana was initially planned as a series on Disney Plus, but then the world was surprised to find out in February of 2024 that the series had be reworked into a feature-film and that it was due for theatrical release last November, only nine months after the first teaser dropped. 

Critics were lukewarm on the final product, but Moana 2 would go on to become the fourth highest-grossing film of 2024, remaining number one at the box office for nearly a month, and smashing all sorts of records, including doubling Frozen 2's opening weekend numbers. History really does repeat itself.

Some of the more cynical critics and content creators will tell you Moana 2 is another sign of Disney's downfall, a disgrace to the brand, you know how it goes...I'm not one of them. While it doesn't reach the heights of the original, I enjoyed the film, and it doesn't (totally) feel like it was a miniseries that was reworked in the eleventh hour. I will explain...

Moana (Cravallho) now spends her days exploring the waters beyond Motunui in search of other tribes but to no avail. A vision from her ancestors say this is because the storm god Nalo once sank the island Motufetu which connected all the islands in the ocean (Like Yggdrasil The World Tree for you Norse mythology fans). Moana must embark on a deadly quest to raise the island, to reconnect the people of the ocean, and save her tribe from eventual extinction.

At its basic core, the story is pretty much following the same map as the original i.e. Moana going out on a daring voyage to a legendary island to "save the world" but the film progresses the story to a natural place. Moana is now Motunui's lead voyager. The first film was about her reconnecting her people with the ocean, now it's about her reconnecting everyone in the ocean. 

There was only one particular sequence in the film that I could identify as "an episode" of what was once the miniseries, but on future rewatches maybe others will become clearer. One returning character's role definitely seemed like it was cut down to save time, or maybe that's just the impression the editing on their first scene left. Regardless, everything flows pretty naturally from beginning to end. The climax is particularly thrilling and certainly gave the film a boost of adrenaline in its final moments, however a couple of cliche' moments sort of weighed it down (avoiding spoilers).

The film's greatest weakness is its new characters, who all are very one-note and don't offer very much to the plot. Moana's crew contains Lolo (Rose Matafeo), an eccentric inventor, Moni (Hualālai Chung) a fanboy of Maui, and Keke (David Fane), a grumpy farmer. That's pretty much all there is to these characters. I cannot think of anything significant any of them contributed. Then there's also Matangi (Awhimai Fraser) who is Nalo's enforcer and a demigod who controls bats. The first half of the film spends time setting her up like she will be a big player later on, but that never turns out to be the case (aside from singing the best song of the film). I hate to say it, but I feel like in what was once the miniseries, each of these characters were given their due.

The animation, despite not being produced in house at Disney (It was done at the Vancouver Studio) is very gorgeous. While it may not dazzle or break ground like the animation in the original, it still reaches the Disney standard. The water effects are still beautiful and make me wish I lived on an island and had a boat. 

Everybody has made some sort of joke or comment about what the loss of Lin-Manuel Miranda has done to this film and its music. First of all, Mark Mancia and Opetaia Foa'i returned to do the score so there's that. Second, I thought the songs were just fine. Again, Matangi's song, "Get Lost" is the best song of the film and I was playing it on loop on the car ride home from the theater. Maui's new song "Can I Get A Chee Hoo?" is a fun "pump-up" song but man, it sounds kind of similar to The Rock's "Its about drive, it's about power" rap in places and that's funny to me. I concede that you can't Out-Lin-Manuel Miranda Lin-Manuel Miranda but these new songs by Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear get the job done.

I don't have much to say about the voice acting. Auli'i Cravallho is still an international treasure and crushes every second of playing Moana. I will die on the hill that Maui is Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's best role. He has some really good moments in this film, but I still say his performance in the original is better. Everyone else is fine, but again, there characters really didn't have much to do or leave much of an impression.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall in the editing room, or at the very least in the meeting where they decided the miniseries was going to be retrofitted into a sequel. We may never know what really went down, but if they could give us a whole miniseries showing the behind the scenes of Frozen 2 (Streaming on Disney Plus and a worthwhile watch) I suppose anything's possible. Moana 2 is no The Return of Jafar. While it may not reach the grand heights of the original, it is a very enjoyable film that easily surprises many of Disney's direct-to-video sequels (and Ralph Breaks The Internet I'm not afraid to say it). 

It's still playing in theaters because it made all the money (and January is a crapshoot for films) but you probably wouldn't be missing out too much if you waited to watch it on Disney Plus (as God intended?).

Anyway, tune in next time when I tell you about a sequel I really did not like...or I finally do my Top 10 Lists of 2022, 2023, and now 2024. I don't know. We'll see what happens...

...Damn I didn't even touch on the fact Moana has a little sister now....She has a little sister now...cool.

 

"Hercules" - Disney's Superman

A quick Google search just told me that I am far from the first person to talk about this, but I'm going to still go for it. Maybe I can add something new to the conversation, or at least reignite it.

Sometimes you really have to sit back and admire the pipeline of Disney Animation in the nineties. The studio went from a French fairy-tale (Beauty & The Beast), to an Arabian fairy-tale (Aladdin), to Shakespeare's Hamlet with talking lions (The Lion King), to a fictitious dramatization of American history (Pocahontas), to a family-friendly but somehow still-faithful adaptation of a Victor Hugo novel (The Hunchback of Notre Dame) and then...Hercules. What range.

What is Hercules? You're probably saying "Well obviously Chris, it's an adaptation of Greek mythology." and you would be right...in a way. As I learned long ago in my high school Mythology class, Disney's Hercules is an adaptation disconnected to its source material even more so then Hunchback...but maybe not as much as Pocahontas. Seriously there's "Pocahontas & John Smith are the same age and romantically involved" inaccurate, and then there's "Zeus is a loving and loyal father figure" inaccurate...also Hades wasn't evil, Hera wasn't Hercules's mother, Hera killed Meg and Hercules' children, Hercules was born a demigod first because Zeus slept with a mortal woman, there was no Phil, the protagonist's real name isn't even Hercules. It's Heracles, but I digress...

Alright so if Hercules isn't a Greek mythology film then what is it? Easy my friends. It's a superhero film.

Obviously the film is inarguably saturated with Greek mythology. I'm not trying to do this Disney-Adult version of gaslighting on you. But when you look at the story in its base form, Hercules has more align with a classic superhero origin story. Specifically one superhero origin story in particular.

That film being Richard Donner's 1978 film, Superman, starring the late Christopher Reeve. A film that has recently come back to the forefront of my mind, thanks to a recent screening of the documentary Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story I attended (Great film by the way. Reeve really was Superman. Bring tissues.) 

It's weird how the mind works sometimes. Listening to Christopher Reeve talk in the documentary, something inside me said "His voice has a similar cadence to Tate Donovan. I think if they ever did a biopic Tate Donovan might play a good Christopher Reeve." Then I remembered Tate Donovan voiced Hercules. As Kronk in The Emperor's New Groove would say "Oh yeah. It's all coming together..."

Hercules's story starts out almost identical to Superman's. He is the descendant of these beings from another world with godlike strength, and due to unfortunate circumstances, he is left alone as a baby on Earth, and lo and behold adopted by farmers.

When Hercules and Clark Kent both start to feel like outcasts due to their extraordinary abilities, they leave home searching answers. This leads Clark to the Fortress of Solitude, and for Hercules that is the Temple of Zeus. Whereas a projection of his late father Jor-El comes to Clark/Kal-El, a projection of Zeus comes to Hercules.

Both heroes start to gain fame and notoriety through public acts of heroism, and they're is a cynical, female love-interest there to witness it all (Megara for Hercules, Lois Lane for Superman). There's not much of a comparison between Lex Luthor and Hades (They do both have cartoonishly large maps of the worlds they wish to conquer though). If anything, I'd say Pain and Panic and Otis have more in common.

The true parallel comes in the final act(s). Megara lays dying as Hercules fights to save Olympus from Hades and The Titans. Lois Lane gets trapped in her car during an earthquake, as Superman works to prevent other natural disasters. Neither hero is able to save both the world and their love...or are they?

Both Hercules and Superman defy fate to save their loves. Hercules rescues Megara from the underworld, risking his own life. Superman goes against Jor-El's teachings, and uses his powers to turn back time and save Lois. This is a critical moment for both. Hercules learns that his heart, his humanity, is what makes him a true hero. Not his godlike powers. 

Conversely, Kal-El had been instructed by his father to only inspire humans, and not to interfere with them. He even says to his son that he will be like a light to them to show them the way, almost like a God. But when the woman he loves dies, Kal-El chooses humanity over divinity, and that is what makes him a true hero. And similar to how Kal-El continues to live among humans in the guise of Clark Kent, Hercules decides to remain on Earth with Megara, declaring it's where he belongs.

Maybe it's just a bizarre coincidence that Tate Donovan was cast as Hercules, and it wasn't because the directors were looking for a "Christopher Reeve-type" to voice the character. Maybe I'm the only one who hears the similarities in the two actors' voices. But it got me here. Down this rabbit hole. A place where many others have been before. The place where we all know Hercules is Disney's Superman.

...Maybe I should do those Top Films of 2022 & 2023 now...or just go to bed...

Film Review - "Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers"

Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers

Directed by Akiva Schaffer

Starring John Mulaney, Andy Samberg, and Will Arnett

I think most of the people reading this know I'm a big Disney fan. I grew up on it, and many of my younger days in the early nineties were spent watching the many animated series that were part of the Disney Afternoon lineup (and the Disney Channel. When it was good). My favorites I think were the same as many people's...DuckTales, Darkwing Duck, and Chip n'Dale: Rescue Rangers (If I had to pick a fourth it's a coin toss between Timon & Pumbaa or The New Adventures of Winnie The Pooh).

Chip n'Dale, like DuckTales, not only had an ear-worm of a theme song, but its leads were characters of Disney legend. I loved Chip n' Dale growing up, not just in Rescue Rangers, but in the classic shorts where they made Donald Duck's life a living nightmare. So like any millennial with an attachment to a classic old property, I got a bit defensive when the Hollywood Machine wanted to reboot/reimagine/revive whatever you wanna call it, Rescue Rangers. It's just the way of the world now. Originality in Hollywood is dead, "childhood ruined" and so on...

Now here we are, and I am so proud to say I was wrong. The Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers film is one of the biggest surprises and most fun film (Non-MCU) I've seen in awhile. 

The film is not exactly a direct continuation of the original series. Much like the world of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Chip, Dale (Mulaney, Samberg) and all toons coexist with humans, and some are actors. In the nineties, Chip and Dale made a big name for themselves with aforementioned tv series, until Dale decided to leave the show to expand his career. Unfortunately, this got the series cancelled, and both chipmunks' careers took a hit. It's all very meta, and also I'm guessing in the reality of this film all the older Chip n' Dale shorts produced by Disney just didn't happen.

Cut to the present day, and Dale has had CGI-surgery (Love that bit) and living off the convention circuit, and Chip is working as an insurance salesman. A desperate call from their old friend and co-star Monterey Jack (Eric Bana) reunites the estranged friends. Turns out Monty has run afoul of a very dangerous gang that has been rumored to be kidnapping old toons, making them over, and forcing them to make bootlegs of classic animated films. Chip n' Dale reluctantly reunite to rescue Monty and crack the case, living out the glory days of The Rescue Rangers.

I'm sure the plot where estranged friends reunite on a case/quest/adventure sounds familiar. It's a plot that I think is almost tailor-made for a continuation of Rescue Rangers, decades after the original series ended. Regardless, I appreciate the film's approach to not making it a direct continuation of the series, but instead taking the Roger Rabbit angle. Really the only connections it has to the original series is its name, and the premise of "Chip and Dale solve a mystery".

The film is much more a commentary on animation, celebrity and Hollywood. The creative team definitely had a lot of fun making this. The attention to detail...you will need a second viewing just to catch all the Easter Eggs, visual gags, and cameos. So many wonderful cameos. It's unfortunate the internet was so quick to spoil the best one. The film is also incredibly funny. Not just in its sight gags there's a lot of clever, laugh-out-loud lines. You can tell this was a film made by fans, for fans. It's hard to not appreciate the sincere effort that's right on the screen.

We need to talk about the animation for a minute because it's all over the place stylistically and it's lovely. There's not just top-notch traditional animation and CGI. There's clay-mation (JK Simmons's Gumby-like detective, Officer Putty, looks amazing). There's horrific motion-capture/hyper-realistic animation in the manner of Cats and Beowulf. There's even puppets of both the Muppet and sock variety. There's so much being homaged here from every era of animation. This film deserves a Special Achievement Oscar. I will say the hand-drawn animation on some characters was a bit iffy for me at times, specifically Chip and Sweet Pete. I chop it up to 2D designs being brought into a 3D world so there's a bit of "transition period", and I could say the opposite for CGI Dale (But man that surgery bit is too good).

On paper, you wouldn't expect the voices of John Mulaney and Andy Samberg to work for classic characters like Chip n' Dale, but they really do here. They still capture the spirit and dynamic of the duo, with a modern twist, and their high-pitched voices are their "stage voices" here (Think Baby Herman). It's another fun bit. JK Simmons is amazing as Officer Putty. Will Arnett perfectly captures the spirit of Sweet Pete, who if you couldn't tell by the marketing is a bitter, aged-up Peter Pan. Kiki Layne is fine as Detective Ellie Stickler. She doesn't really add much to the film, and is sort of like the stand-in for the audience.

As much as I enjoyed this film...there are two things that just don't sit well with me. If you want to avoid any hint of spoilers I suggest you skip this next paragraph...

First, Sweet Pete's backstory is nearly identical to the real life story of child-star and original voice of Peter Pan, Bobby Driscoll. I say do your own research but, it's not exactly the nicest chapter in Disney history. This was either a very unfortunate coincidence or a very dark bit of parody. I'm not sure will ever know which. Second, while this is Chip n' Dale's films, it is sort of sad that the original supporting cast of the show is put on the back burner, and what they did story-wise with two of them...I'm not sure I'll ever recover from the trauma. If you know, you know...

Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers is not only a spiritual successor to Who Framed Roger Rabbit, it's Disney answer to the 21 Jump Street films. It's a very clever, fun, and heartwarming watch. Perhaps the biggest surprise of the year. It's an easy film to recommend, and I hope Disney, animation, and comedy fans alike give it the attention it deserves. Head on over to Disney Plus and add it to your watchlist (I wonder if they're kicking themselves for not putting it in theaters...)

...Now can we get a Darkwing Duck film please??

 

"Atlantis" & "Treasure Planet" - Disney's Unjust Failures

Last year I made the decision to rewatch all of the films produced by Walt Disney's Animation Studio, chronologically from beginning to end. So that means starting from Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs, and then going all the way to Raya & The Last Dragon Encanto. Yeah it's taken a bit longer than I expected...life, what can I say?

However I am approaching the end. So you're probably thinking "Oh so now he's going to rank them all." Lord no. That's sixty films, my guy. Some of the studio's earlier films I haven't watched in over year. Not a challenge I have the time and mental capacity for right now. 

No instead I've decided to write a couple think pieces, each focusing on a specific film or films. While I've seen many of these films numerous times, others I was watching for the first time in years, or believe it or not, for the first time ever.

Last week this House of Mouse Marathon brought me back to two films from The Experimental Era of Disney Animation (1999-2008), Atlantis - The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet. These two films are quite similar. They're both sci-fi adventure films, that blend hand-drawn and computer animation, and believe it or not, each feature a cast member from Frasier. Both films are products of their time, and in many cases are victims of it.

At the time of their respective releases, each received average-to-poor reviews from critics (Critics were nicer to Treasure than Atlantis), and turned out to be box office failures. Atlantis made very little profit, and Treasure didn't even break even. Fast forward to present day and many see both films as cult classics. 

So...what happened?

I think a lot factored into the unjust failures of Atlantis and Treasure Planet. Atlantis was released in June of 2001 and Treasure in late November of 2002, over the Thanksgiving holiday. They were some of the first films released by Disney Animation in the new millennium, and after the hot streak that would become known as The Disney Renaissance (1989-1999, so The Little Mermaid through Tarzan).

On paper, there are a lot of consistent threads throughout the films of The Disney Renaissance. They're all based on either fairy tales or classic literature, musicals, and family friendly (for the most part). Atlantis...is none of those things. It is Indiana Jones meets 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, and a lot (A LOT) of people die in the action sequences. To be a background character in Atlantis is the Disney equivalent of being a red-shirt in Star Trek or a Stormtrooper in Star Wars. Treasure Planet is based on Robert Louis Stevensons's Treasure Island (Which Disney previously adapted in live-action in 1950), but like Atlantis is much more mature and heavy in its action.

Suffice it to say, these films were a stark contrast from the ones Disney released in the prior decade. Gone were the singing teapots, magic genies, and talking lions of the nineties. Atlantis and Treasure were weren't exactly what audiences had come to expect from Disney Animation, and could be seen as unconventional choices for the studio. But then again, so were Dinosaur, The Emperor's New Groove, and Lilo & Stitch which also came out in the same three-year period. This was a time when the studio was moving away from the animated musical formula, and trying new things (Hence the name The Experimental Era).

Atlantis and Treasure were definitely the most adult-oriented films that came out during this period, and I say that well aware of the fact there is an alien in Treasure Planet that speaks in fart ("Flatua" if you wanna get technical). Animation is not specifically for kids though (Say it again with me...ANIMATION IS NOT JUST FOR KIDS. Stupid Oscars.) Disney was already experimenting with more mature themes and ideas in their animated films prior to the 2000's, see The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tarzan, and I guess Pocahontas. This was also a time when traditional hand-drawn animation was starting to decline in popularity, and computer-animation was on the rise. Disney for the longest time had become synonymous with traditional animation. As audiences became less interested in the medium, they became overshadowed by the likes of Pixar and bold new offerings like Shrek from Dreamworks, and Ice Age from Blue Sky. It is worth noting that Atlantis and Treasure both have great traditional animation that combines CGI elements beautifully. Atlantis does the blend flawlessly, while Treasure definitely has some shots where the tech hasn't aged well.

Atlantis came out the first year the Academy Awards decided to instate the Best Animated Feature category. Shrek would go on to win the Oscar, while Atlantis wasn't even get nominated. Treasure would secure a nomination alongside Lilo & Stitch, Ice Age, and Spirit - Stallion of The Cimarron, but the Oscar went to Hayao Miyazaki's Spirited Away, which is traditionally animated in the Japanese style. 

By that class of nominees alone you can see that there was still an audience for hand-drawn animation, although I wouldn't use the Oscars as the best example of it. In future years the Academy would nominate the likes of Shark Tale and...The Boss Baby.

At the box office, these two films were failures. Atlantis was released on June 3rd 2001, which sounds like a perfect release date for a film like it. Schools were getting ready to close for summer vacation, and it being a sci-fi adventure, it should have fit perfectly into the traditional blockbuster season. It came out the same weekend as Lara Croft: Tomb Raider starring Angelina Jolie, and came in second place to it. It wouldn't be fair to say they were competing for the same audience, although they are both adventure films. Atlantis also had to deal with the fact that Shrek had come out less than a month ago.Why would parents take their kids to see "another Disney cartoon" when all they've heard lately is how good Shrek is? Atlantis wouldn't have a chance to make up for lost profit over the summer, when films like Dr. Dolitte 2, The Fast & The Furious, Jurassic Park III, and Planet of the Apes came out in the following weeks. Ultimately it ended up in fifteenth place at the overall 2001 summer box office.

Now Treasure Planet...this film was set-up to fail. It released over the same Thanksgiving weekend as Die Another Day, the fourth and final film to star Pierce Brosnan. Not exactly a film it would be in direct competition with. It also had to go against another Disney film, The Santa Clause 2, which had already been out for a few weeks, delivered holiday cheer for the season, and already had an established audience because like Die Another Day it was a sequel. Speaking of sequels, what also came out earlier that month...was Harry Potter & The Chamber of Secrets...Treasure Planet had no chance.

What kills me is Disney didn't learn from this mistake and made a far worse decision nine years later when they released a new Winnie the Pooh film on the same day Deathly Hallows Part 2. But "oh no hand-drawn animation is dead! It's not our poor business decisions..."

Treasure Planet, also a sci-fi adventure like Atlantis, could've benefited from a release during summer blockbuster season. Of course these days blockbuster films get released all year round. Unfortunately, Disney also released Lilo & Stitch that year and gave it a June release. You could argue that because Lilo & Stitch came out a few months before, families might have had their fill of Disney Animation for the year. Why did they decide to release both in the same year? Who knows. Apparently Disney didn't do a lot of marketing for Treasure Planet either, which is sad when you remember the superb marketing for Lilo & Stitch. Those trailers where Stitch invaded iconic moments in other Disney films? Genius.

Did Disney even care about Treasure Planet? The story goes that legendary animation directing team Ron Musker and Jon Clements pitched the idea to Jeffrey Katzenberg after The Great Mouse Detective got the studio back on solid ground. Katzenberg pretty much went "Nah I don't care for it". Katenzberg is a sourpuss and a jerk, though to be fair Disney Animation was struggling back then, especially after the colossal failure of The Black Cauldron. Treasure Planet was probably seen of too much of a risk at the time (ironically, the film probably would have thrived in the eighties).

Over the next few years a pattern unfolded that pretty much went like this:

"Can we make Treasure Planet now?"

"No make The Little Mermaid."

*The Little Mermaid is a hit*

"Can we make Treasure Planet now??"

"No make Aladdin"

*Aladdin is also a hit*

"Can we make Treasure Planet now???"

"No BUT, if you make one more successful film (Hercules), then you can."

*Hercules does alright"

"Can we make Treasure Planet now????"

*Jeffrey Katzenberg has left the chat*

Although Katzenberg was long gone as chairman by the time Treasure Planet was made (He left in 1994, the film was released in 2002!!!), he and the studio honored his word, and Musker and Clements were finally allowed to make their passion project. We already know how it turned out. 

The fact that the man who allowed Treasure Planet to be made had already flown the coop well before its release gives you some sort of idea of how much the studio was invested in it...or does it? I mean Musker and Clements were clearly well-known and well-liked at Disney or they wouldn't have gotten this far. They even went on to make Princess & The Frog and Moana after this. Not to mention a sequel was in pre-production, and there were talks of a franchise. Willem DaFoe set to play the villain. These plans were scrapped when the film had a poor box office performance.

The crazy thing is, Disney also had similar plans for Atlantis that were canceled as well (No I didn't forget about Atlantis). A television series titled Team Atlantis was in the works, but was scrapped due to the film's poor performance. The few episodes that were produced were repurposed into a direct-to-video sequel Atlantis: Milo's Return. Here's a fun fact...both films were considered for the rebranding of the Submarine Voyage ride at Disneyland. Eventually they did find a film to rebrand it with, Finding Nemo, which seems more appropriate anyway. So Disney definitely saw franchise potential in both Atlantis and Treasure, and frankly why wouldn't they?

I've already mentioned who directed Treasure Planet and their body of work at length. They also wrote it alongside Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, who together wrote Aladdin, Shrek, and rather fittingly, the Pirates of the Caribbean films. Atlantis was directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, another iconic Disney duo. Together, Trousdale and Wise helmed Beauty & The Beast and The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and they also wrote the script with Joss Whedon (*Before* we knew he was garbage). Combine all this with the stellar animation and voice casts, each of these films had all the makings to be Disney classics, but sadly it wasn't meant to be.

Now I don't have a lot of memories of watching these films. I didn't see either of them in theaters. I was gifted Atlantis on VHS, and watched it a fair amount. Treasure Planet I didn't see until years later when kids I was babysitting had it on DVD and requested a viewing. Neither film really stuck with me through the years. Have my opinions on them changed with recent rewatches? Yes and no.

Atlantis has great animation, stellar action sequences, and a wonderful ensemble of characters. The protagonist, Milo Thatch (Micheal J. Fox), can be a little annoying at times, and Mole (Corey Burton)...he's just there for the kids I guess. Man though is Vinny (Don Novello) a riot. The voice cast is great, featuring Fox, Novello, James Garner, Cree Summer, and many more. The amount of detail that went into crafting the Atlantean culture is really impressive. I will say though that the plot and the villains, are a little cliche and predictable. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad film, but it does make it a bit less substantial. That, and like Trousdale and Wise's previous film Hunchback of Notre Dame, there's a bit of an uneven tone. It's not as bad as like the slapstick of the Gargoyles, but there is an imbalance. It's almost like how people complain when MCU films undercut a lot of serious moments with one line-OH MY GOD I FORGOT THIS FILM WAS WRITTEN BY JOSS WHEDON...Anyway, despite its flaws I think Atlantis is a solid viewing.

I never really went for Treasure Planet's "steam-punk gimmick". It's old, it's futuristic, just make up your mind. Now, I think it's pretty creative. You have to admire the detail that went into the world-building. The animation is also spectacular here, but like I said a bit dated in some shots. Some of the designs of the aliens are a little too off for me. Some are cute, some are ugly (I remind you of the one that speaks in fart), they cover all their bases. Thankfully the designs of all the main cast are appealing, and again this a wonderful ensemble of characters with a great voice cast. Young Joseph Gordon Levitt is great in the lead role of Jim Hawkins. Brian Murray is iconic as Silver. David Hyde Pierce, Emma Thompson, Laurie Metcalf are superb in their supporting roles. I hate to say it, but Martin Short as the robot B.E.N. is awful, and it's not his fault! The character just does nothing but yell and panic. It's a waste of Short's talents to cast him as Disney's version of Jar Jar Banks (Is that too harsh?). Other than that, my only real problem with Treasure Planet is the use of modern pop songs in the montage where Jim and Silver grow close, and the final scene. They just don't mesh with the rest of the film, and using "I'm Still Here" by John Rzeznik in the montage just helps gloss over important character development. It's not a non-traditional musical like Tarzan where there are songs throughout not sung by the characters. It's this one, isolated musical moment in a film that's not musical. That said, the music composed by James Newton Howard is amazing and I love the main theme.

So yeah, it took me a few years but I do enjoy and appreciate Atlantis and Treasure Planet. It took a lot of people a few years to appreciate them. Thankfully both are now part of the massive Disney Plus library, where they can find new audiences, and their part in the Disney Legacy can carry on. Do they have their flaws? Yes. Are they bad films? No, and Disney has made much worse. Forgive me for saying this but, these two are some of the very few Disney animated films that could *benefit* from a live-action remake.  

Atlantis - The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet had a lot working against them. Changes of taste in both audiences and filmmakers, poor release strategies, but it can all be summed up in one phrase: Bad Timing. They shouldn't be looked at as terrible failures of Disney, because they came out during a period when nothing that was coming out of their animation studio was really succeeding (except for Lilo & Stitch). Timing can be a B-word, but time can also have a way of working things out. Atlantis, Treasure Planet, and other Disney films from this era have thrived since their initial releases, been given second chances by audiences and achieving cult-classic status.

I wouldn't call either of these film failures...maybe just late bloomers, and as The Emperor in Mulan said "the flower that blooms in adversity, is the rarest and most beautiful of all"

...That's probably overselling it but you get it.

Film Review - "Frozen 2"

Frozen 2
Directed by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee
Starring Idina Menzel, Kristen Bell, and Josh Gad

The first Frozen was an unprecedented success turned worldwide phenomenon. It solidified a new era of high quality films from Walt Disney Animation, the likes of which hadn't been seen since the nineties. Naturally, a sequel was inevitable…questionable, but inevitable. Sequels have always been a challenge for the House of Mouse. Aside from the fact that most of them went direct-to-video, and done by their secondary animation studio DisneyToon Studios, not many of them have gone over too well with critics and fans alike.

…but that's just me being devilishly misleading (Suckers!). Frozen 2 is one of the best sequels Disney has ever produced, and while not necessarily better or worse than the first, it is certainly worthy of sharing its namesake.

Frozen 2 takes place three years after its predecessor, and finds Elsa (Menzel) ruling the kingdom of Arendelle with her sister Anna (Bell) at her side. When Elsa starts to hear a mysterious voice calling out to her, she initially tries to ignore it, but soon begins to follow it. This leads to her unintentionally awakening some unknown forces of nature, which threaten the safety of the kingdom.

Together with Anna, Olaf (Gad), Kristoff (Jonathan Groff) and Sven, Elsa ventures north to find the Enchanted Forest and the voice that is calling her. What they discover there will reveal secrets about their kingdom, their parents, and the origin of Elsa's powers…

Where Frozen was a very traditional Disney animated musical, Frozen 2 is more an epic, drama-feuled fantasy-adventure. They feel like such different films, it's hard to compare the two, but they compliment each other nicely. I don't think anyone was clamoring to know where Elsa's powers came from after seeing Frozen (Wether you watched season four of Once Upon A Time or not…) but it does make for an interesting premise of a sequel.

The film does a great job of building on the relationship of Anna & Elsa, as it should. After the first film focused on the two of them trying to rebuild their bond, this film sees that bond tested. Can these sisters retain the relationship they have as life forces them to grow, and to change? That's the big theme of the film. Growth and transformation, and if you forget don't worry, Olaf will mention it. A lot. Jokes aside, that's very powerful message that can resonate with audiences of all ages. That message is really represented well in the relationship of Anna & Elsa.

Frozen 2 also does a great deal of world-building, and creating a mythology for the kingdom of Arendelle. It's not a totally unique concept they set up for the magic in this land (It's definitely gonna draw comparisons to a popular animated series), but it works for Frozen. There's obviously a mystery to uncover, and you might be able to solve it before the third act, but it's executed well with some twists you may not see coming.

I guess if I had some criticism about the story, the method they feed information to the viewer is not as effective as I think they wanted it to be. This isn't really a spoiler, but we learn "water has memory", and Elsa can manipulate it to create ice sculptures of past events. Visually it looks cool, but as far as the golden rule of "show, not tell" they probably could have done a *liiiiittle* more "telling". Some viewers (perhaps younger children) might get a bit confused. So I guess what I'm saying is I wanted a deeper dive into the film's mythology.

Idnina Menzel is Elsa. She has a voice like no other. It's magical, it's maternal, and it commands your attention. Really no one can sing like Idina Menzel. There's a sort of "fragile strength" in her voice that I think perfectly matches Elsa's character. Her magic makes her the most powerful person in this world, but she's full of self-doubt, and longs to find her place in it. Kristen Bell delivers a truly powerful performance as Anna. Frozen was more Anna's story, and Frozen 2 is more Elsa's, but that doesn't mean Anna doesn't get her share of character development. A lot of intense, dramatic moments fall on Anna's shoulders, and Kristen Bell delivers it all. She's naive and sassy, but insecure and emotional. Anna is probably one of the more fleshed-out of the Disney Princess characters, and she's brought to life by Kristen Bell's amazing performance.

Thanks to the poor release plan of a certain holiday special, everyone now either loves or hates Olaf. Me, I like him fine, and he's got a lot of great material here. Surprise, some of the biggest laughs in the film are from Olaf, and Josh Gad brings him to life with an unrivaled comedic delivery. Olaf is naive, but he has heart, and the screenwriters know how to balance that. Combined with Gad's voice work, Olaf (wether your like it or not) is one of the best Disney sidekicks. Jonathan Groff has one of the best voices a man has ever had. That's just a fact. Kristoff in this film however, is underutilized. He's relegated to a subplot of constantly trying to propose Anna with not much success, and yeah, it's not that interesting. But Kristoff is still a great character, and Groff does great work voicing him. Plus he actually gets a song in this film, and man what a song…more on that later.

As with any animated sequel, you get some new characters. The problem is, none of them really get any attention. The one that stands out the most is Lieutenant Mattias, played by Sterling K. Brown, and that's probably why he stands out the most...because he's voiced by Sterling K. Brown. Evan Rachel Wood plays Queen Iduna, Anna & Elsa's previously unheard mother. She has some really nice moments, but overall is not a particularly memorable character.

Alright the music. The soundtrack of Frozen 2 is more consistent in quality than Frozen's, but it's not necessarily a stronger one? That probably doesn't make sense, let's just say the music is great. Elsa has two great songs in the film, "Into the Unknown" and "Show Yourself". You've definitely heard "Into the Unknown" in all the marketing, but they've kept "Show Yourself" under wraps, and there's a reason. When you hear the song and see it with the visuals, you'll realize it's this film's "Let It Go", not "Into The Unknown". I see it definitely getting a Best Orignal Song nomination at the Oscars. Olaf's song, "When I'm Older" is so damn delightful. It's "In Summer" to the next level, and I think any aging millennial will here this song and burst into nervous laughter. Ok, Kristoff's song "Lost In The Woods" is incredible. That's really all I can say. Just like "Show Yourself", when you hear the song with its visuals, you'll understand. The last song I want to touch on is Anna's second song in the film, "The Next Right Thing". It's not a song kids are going to ask you to play on repeat for the next ten years, but it's an incredibly quiet, but powerful character moment for her. Incoming Bold Statement: This scene alone should get Kristen Bell some acting nominations come awards season. That's how good it is. The stigma of animated films be damned.

Speaking of animation, why don't we talk about the animation in this animated film?? It's breathtaking. It's gorgeous. I am amazed at how much the technology had advanced in just the six years since Frozen came out. The detail on Olaf's snowman body, the realism of the water, and the way they bring Elsa's magic to life, it's well, magical. Some of the magical sequences provoke memories of the likes of Fantasia and Silly Symphonies from the early days of Disney. Frozen 2 shows why Disney still is the king of animation. The evidence is right there on the screen. The way they produce lighting and textures, I just stated how much I missed hand-drawn animation in my Klaus review, but when computer animation is this great, I can button up for a little bit.

Frozen 2 may not have been a necessary sequel to make, but it's a good one. It's mature, epic, and entertaining. It's filled with amazing vocal performances, gorgeous animation, and beautiful music, which is really the recipe of any great Disney film. But that hasn't always been the case with Disney sequels. Frozen 2 is the exception to the rule. It's worthy to stand side-by-side with the original film, ensuring that the Frozen phenomenon will continue to live on for years to come.

So, I'll see you in five years for my review of Frozen 3, and stay tuned for a lip-dub to…whichever song from this film I can't get out of my head…and that's like three of them…