Film Review: When Marnie Was There vs. Inside Out

When Marnie Was There Publisher: Toho (JP), GKIDS / Universal (NA)  Production Company: Studio Ghibli  Genre: Drama  Release: 19 July 2014 (JP), 22 May 2015 (NA)  Director: Hiromasa Yonebayashi  Producers: Yoshiaki Nishimura, Toshio Suzuki  Writers: Masashi Andō, Keiko Niwa, Hiromasa Yonebayashi	Inside Out Publisher: Disney  Production Company: Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar Animation Studios  Genre: Comedy / Drama  Release: 19 June 2015  Directors: Pete Docter, Ronnie del Carmen  Producer: Jonas Rivera  Writers: Pete Docter, Meg LeFauve, Josh Cooley

Welp, another year, another Academy Awards ceremony. And you know what that means: they're gonna give the Best Animated Feature award to the Disney/Pixar behemoth. It happened to Frozen over The Wind Rises, it happened to Big Hero 6 over The Tale of The Princess Kaguya, and odds are it'll happen again. I've been preparing for the worst, especially since the "big one" of 2015, Pixar's Inside Out, is going up against When Marnie Was There, the last feature film Studio Ghibli may ever make. In a past article, I told you how I saw Marnie in theatres, despite its limited release, and enjoyed it. Well, in the interest of voting with my wallet, I refused to do the same for Inside Out, even when they gave it an encore run for Labor Day. Eventually I rented the movie and, I'm ashamed to say it... it was awesome. But then I realised something: both Marnie and Inside Out tackle the same basic story in different ways. Marnie focuses on the characters themselves, whereas Inside Out focuses on what's going on inside the main character's mind, with her personified emotions. So, I thought, now would be the best time to do another joint review on the two movies. That way, I can pre-empt the Academy more substantially than just a joke at the end of my last article.

In When Marnie Was There, our central character is Anna "no, not that one" Sasaki (EN: Hayley Steinfeld, JP: Sara Takatsuki), a twelve-year-old girl living in Hokkaido, who is shy but loves drawing. When she suffers an athsma attack, her foster parents send her to live out to a seaside village with her aunt and uncle. While exploring her new surroundings, she comes across a dilapidated mansion, and in the window, a blonde girl of her age named Marnie (EN: Kiernan Shipka, JP: Kasumi Arimura). Over the next few nights, she starts spending time with Marnie, building their freindship and uncovering the mysteries behind Marnie's life, as well as her own.

So yeah, Marnie sticks rather closely to the Ghibli playbook. But, as it turns out, this movie was based on a novel of the same name, written by the British author Joan G. Robinson in 1967. Studio Ghibli has adopted Western literature before; Howl's Moving Castle and The Secret World of Arietty (a.k.a. The Borrowers) spring to mind. The central plot device of Marnie, if there is one, is figuring out what the deal is with its titular character. Is she a real girl? Is she a ghost? Is she a figment of Anna's imagination? Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Without wishing to spoil, the way they explain all of this in the final act is kind of rushed. I mean, Anna doesn't even start her investigation into Marnie's past until halfway through the movie!

The feels that Marnie generates are weapons-grade.

But what the film lacks in a good overarcing plot, it makes up for in the individual moments that comprise the plot. When I was watching, I found myself lost in the emotions of the main characters: joy when they're playing together, sadness when they're sharing their darkest secrets, and bittersweet resignation when it's time for Anna to leave. (Sort of like Ghibli themselves.) To put it another way, this is what I wished Frozen was like when reviewed it: it focuses solely on its two main characters and how they develop together. And I have to give a shout-out to the foley artist, because the sound effects in this movie are amazing. For some reason, I don't normally notice this sort of thing, but when certain scenes go on without music and even dialog, you have to notice them. And from the waves lapping at the creaking wood of a rowboat, the sound effects do even more to build upon the ambience of some scenes.

Having re-watched When Marnie Was There, I seem to have enjoyed it less than I did at first. If it wanted to have the mystery of Marnie be its driving plot thread, they should have spaced out its developments more evenly across the film, rather than bunch them all up near the end. And some of Anna's behaviours are downright bizarre, although I suppose they do illustrate the gaping void in her mental state that only Marnie can fill. In conclusion, is it Studio Ghibli's best effort? Probably not, although they have set the bar so phenomenally high for themselves in the past, mind you. If you don't mind not having a strong plot to hook you from one scene to the next, and can get by on the scenes themselves, I would still recommend When Marnie Was There.

---

Meanwhile, in Inside Out, our central character is Riley Andersen (Kaitlyn Dias), an eleven-year-old girl living in Minnesota, who is goofy but honest, and loves hockey. The difference here is that much of the movie is, in fact, portrayed from the point of view of personified emotions living in her head. In order of introduction, they are Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Fear (Bill Hader), Disgust (Mindy Kaling), and Anger (Lewis Black). These emotions control Riley's actions at the appropriate moments, generating memories tied to those emotions. But then, everything changes when when her family moves to San Francisco. Due to a series of unfortunate events, Joy and Sadness get stranded together outside their headquarters and must venture back somehow.

The world of Riley's psyche is nothing short of a joy to behold. Functions of the brain are illustrated in inventive ways, such as the formation of memories, ideas, personality traits, and dreams. A highlight is when Joy and Sadness wander into a section of Riley's mind where new general ideas abstracted from specific ones. In the movie, this means that Joy and Sadness are devolved into low-polygon and eventually 2D forms as they try to escape. Sure, nothing comes about from it in practice and it is never brought up again (making it the movie's "Big Lipped Alligator Moment"), but the process they go through shows great research of psychology on the part of the writers. I mean, as far as I know about psychology. We also get to see glimpses of similar mental setups of different characters here and there, each tailored to their own personality.

Inside Out's settings look like they came straight from the mind of Willy Wonka -- almost literally.

What Inside Out has over Marnie is how it manages to create suspence to hook the viewer in. For example, in Riley's head there exist five "personality islands", depicting her interests and personality traits. Over the course of her mental breakdown, the island crumble into the bottomless pit below. We are told that whatever falls down there, i.e. memories that are no longer needed, can never return. But later on in the story, Joy falls down there herself, where said pit is decidedly non-bottomless, and of course she comes back out of it. And of course she does it with the help of someone who sacrifices himself to let her escape. So, it would seem that Inside Out isn't above employing the odd sappy cliche here and there, albeit rarely. Although I will give them credit for actually showing her eventual mode of egress falling into the pit earlier on. Let that be but one example of Pixar's attention to detail.

While I'm nitpicking, isn't it a bit lopsided for Riley to have one "positive" emotion, namely Joy, and four "negative" ones, especially when the one Joy gets stuck with, Sadness, has a bad habit of converting memories to sad ones by touching them? To the film's credit, and without wishing to spoil, they do address this. Speaking of the emotions, one of the most important things to keep in mind when assembling a cast of voice actors is for each actor to sound distinct from one another. I'm proud to say that this is another of Inside Out's strengths. Amy Poehler was perfectly cast as Joy, although I did love her on Saturday Night Live to begin with. The other emotion characters also manage to bring their titular personality traits through by their voice alone.

My prejudices against CG animation being what they are, "pleasantly surprised" doesn't begin to describe my experience with Inside Out. Mind you, Marnie managed to get those emotions across to the viewer without needing to personify them. But if you ask me, Inside Out had the better story, and getting to witness such creative sights along the way was a bonus. There are a few stupid or silly moments to nitpick, but they are rare and don't represent the film as a whole. All things considered, I would recommend both films for different reasons. If you want straight-up, weapons-grade feels, try out When Marnie Was There. If you want a gripping story to go with those feels, go with Inside Out. It's a big world out there, certainly big enough for both of them.

When Marnie Was There Positives: + Individual scenes are packed with emotion. + Deals with a number of complex themes. + Brilliant sound-effect work. Negatives: - For less patient viewers, it lacks a suspenceful hook. - Retreads more than a few story tropes covered by past Ghibli films. - The rushed conclusion. Acting: 4 emotions out of 5 Writing: 3 emotions out of 5 Design: 4 emotions out of 5 Audiovisual: 5 emotions out of 5 The Call: 80% (B)

Inside Out Positives: + Well-researched and creative interpretations of the brain's functions. + Terriffic voice-acting that complements each character's personality. Negatives: - It has a few minor plot holes. Acting: 5 emotions out of 5 Writing: 4 emotions out of 5 Design: 5 emotions out of 5 Audiovisual: 5 emotions out of 5 The Call: 95% (A)

---

In the end, I may not like to admit it, but not only do I think Inside Out is the better movie, I probably wouldn't lose sleep if it won the Best Animated Feature Oscar. But that's not the whole story. There's this thing called the Annie Awards, which has been going on since 1972, and honours animation in movies, television, and even video games. Ghibli's movies have been nominated for the Annie's Best Animated Feature awards several times over, and just like in the Oscars, failed to actually win.

But this time around, for the 43rd Annie Awards held on 6 February 2016, they added a new category: "Best Animated Feature - Independent", and I'm glad they did. This means that films with lower profiles but bigger hearts don't have to compete against our mainstream monstrosities. Not that such "mainstream monstrosities" can't also have heart, as we learned in this article. But the important thing is that now, for once, the underdogs have a more level playing field.

Oh, and for the record, the winner of the independent award was the Brazilian feature Boy and the World. It looks great, but given the fate of Studio Ghibli, I can't help but feel a little disappointed... Studio Ghibli may be dead, or just in a coma depending on whim you talk to, but another door to the wider world of animation is opening to us. Let's keep opening more doors, shall we?

This is IchigoRyu.

You are the resistance.

Film Review: Wreck-It Ralph

Previously on the SDP, I reviewed the 2010 movie Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. And it was good. Great, even. Now, in said review, I mentioned it as one of two movies that took video games culture seriously. Here is the other one I had in mind.

Wreck-It Ralph

• Publisher: Disney 
• Production Company: Walt Disney Animation Studios 
• Release: 2 November 2012 
• Director: Rich Moore 
• Producer: Clark Spencer: 
• Writers: Phil Johnston, Jennifer Lee 

Our protagonist, the titular [1] Wreck-It Ralph (John C. Reilly), is, oddly enough, the antagonist in his home, the video game Fix-It Felix Jr., starring, of course, Fix-It Felix Junior (Jack McBrayer). But this movie is not about Felix; rather, the focus is on Ralph, who's going through a sort of mid-life crisis as our story starts. Specifically, he's grown tired of being the villain in his game. Repeatedly watching Felix win pies from the townspeople while you get thrown in the mud can do that to you. So when the other characters throw a party for their game's 30th anniversary, Ralph isn't invited but shows up anyway. Suffice to say, his appearance is not taken well by the NPC townspeople, so he goes off to drown his sorrows (specifically, at the bar from Root Beer Tapper).

From there, Ralph's quest to earn their acceptance takes him through games like the rail-shooter Hero's Duty and the candy-themed kart-racer Sugar Rush, where most of the film takes place. In terms of additional characters, Hero's Duty gives us miss Calhoun (Jane Lynch), a no-nonsense sergeant prone to unusual, euphemistic expressions, and Sugar Rush gives us Vanellope von Schweetz (Susan Sarandon), who wants to participate in her game's races but is kept from doing so because of her nasty habit of "glitching". Calhoun was a lot of fun to watch, due largely to the juxtaposition of her serious attitude against the colourful, quirky backdrop of Sugar Rush. Also, she is played by Jane Lynch, who is just awesome. Vanellope, not so much. Her rude interactions with Ralph are annoying both for him and the viewer, and while she does garner sympathy as the plot moves along, it can't undo all the damage made by her first impression.

I've got to be honest, I was a little slow to experience this film at first. My major misgiving was that I was afraid they'd misrepresent gaming culture, and nerds are a terrible people to misrepresent. But the powers involved with Wreck-It Ralph know their stuff. They licenced many real video-game characters to make cameos, and background sight-gags are plentiful as well, such as graffiti messages stating things like "Aeris lives" [2] and "Sheng Long was here" [3]. Furthermore, there's a scene where the villain goes into the internal code of Sugar Rush (by entering the Konami Code [4], natch), and makes a slight alteration. The way the code is depicted, with its visual depictions of entities and attributes, is indeed true to the nature of object-oriented programming, and yet visualised in a manner accessible to the layman.

Apart from that, Wreck-It Ralph plays with the concept of heroic and villainous roles in storytelling. For starters the main character of the movie is the antagonist of his own world, only to get wrapped up in an even greater plot, thus becoming the protagonist. They even use this role-reversal for comedy as well. For example, there's a scene where Felix is locked in prison and tries to break out by smashing the window bars with his magic hammer, only to fix them further instead, like what he does in his own game. Even the product placement (and there's lots of it, mind you) gets in on the puns, such as the swamp of "Nesquik-sand", or the "Devil Dogs" owned by the police department in Sugar Rush. Normally I cast a wary eye on product placement, but in this case it's used so cleverly that I'll give it a pass. Between all the genre-busting, sight gags, and references, I dare say Wreck-It Ralph even comes close to Airplane!'s level of comedy. It doesn't match up, of course, but what does these days?

Up until now I seem to have given off the impression that I like this film too much. So let's make this review more fun and run down some plot holes!!

• If the star of Fix-It Felix, Jr. is Fix-It Felix Junior, shouldn't there be a Fix-It Felix Senior hanging about? 
• What is Zangief doing at the Bad-Anon meeting? Isn't his role in the Street Fighter series less-than-villainous? 
• For that matter, what about Bowser and Dr. Robotnik? Their respective franchises aren't associated with the arcade scene. I mean, sure, there was an arcade port of Super Mario Bros., and I've seen it more than once, so it's not exactly rare. But Sonic the Hedgehog? Less so. Maybe they've got a Genesis hooked up in the back room, but by this point I'm just being nitpicky, so let's move on. 
• If "going turbo" (read: leaving your game) is treated as such a bad thing, then why is Game Central Station (read: the surge protector all the game cabinets are hooked up to) so busy with so many characters going so many places when the arcade is closed for the night? 
• For that matter, shouldn't the arcade owner switch the power off at night? And what would happen then? Surely the characters -- even the spatially misplaced ones -- wouldn't die forever; they'd be regenerated in their own games when they boot up again?
• Ignoring the above point, if Turbo died when he invaded Road Blasters (a real game, by the way) and both it and his game were shut off and taken out of the arcade, then how did he come back as King Candy from Sugar Rush? 
• Ignoring the above point, if Vanellope finishing the qualifying race resets the world of Sugar Rush, even after King Candy gets defeated, wouldn't that regenerate him as well? 
• And why does she still have her glitch ability even after the game was reset and her connections to the code were restored? 
• And how could the citizens of Sugar Rush remember that they lost their memories? 
• Are the Cybugs from Hero's Duty supposed to eat and delete all the data they come across, within their own game or otherwise? What kind of sick programmer would do such a thing!? 

That's quite the laundry list of questionables, eh? But before you get the wrong idea, remember I took the same attitude in my review of The Wind Rises. The only reason I nitpicked it as much as I did was because it captured my interest enough to warrant that kind of further inspection. They say you only hurt the ones you love, and that being the case I must really love both films. I may have had fun in seeking out all those plot holes, but I had just as much fun actually watching the film. It's funny, well-researched, poignant, but most of all, it's innovative, taking the concepts of hero and villain for a new spin. And shattering conventions is something Disney's been doing a lot lately, as in this, The Princess and the Frog, Tangled, and to a lesser extent, Frozen. They're still a hundred years too early to compete with the Japanese anime scene at its best, but one could do far worse than hang out with The Mouse these days.

Positives:
+ A genre-busting plot.
+ Very pretty animation and character designs.
+ Jane motherfalcon Lynch.

Negatives:
- Vanellope's character and performance.
- Quite a few odd plot holes.

Acting: 4 cybugs out of 5
Writing: 4 cybugs out of 5
Animation: 5 cybugs out of 5
Visual Design: 5 cybugs out of 5
The Call: 90% (A-)

---

[1] Except in Japan, where the film is known as Sugar Rush.
[2] Refers to Aeris/Aerith from Final Fantasy VII, famous for her death scene, which one apparently does not need to spoil anymore.
[3] Refers to a victory line from Street Fighter II ("You must defeat Sheng Long to stand a chance"), which triggered a rumour about a character with that name hidden in the game. There is no such character; "Sheng Long" is merely the Chinese translation of Ryu's "Shoryuken" or "Dragon Punch" attack.
[4]The "Konami Code" is a cheat sequence built into several classic games made by the publisher Konami, such as Gradius and Contra on the NES.  It's the one that goes "Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Select, Start", or some variation thereof.

Film Review: Frozen

Previously on the SDP, I commiserated the Oscar defeat of Hayao Miyazaki's The Wind Rises to the Disney venture Frozen. Might as well be the bigger man and evaluate it on its own merits.

Frozen

• Publisher: Disney 
• Production Studio: Walt Disney Animation Studios 
• Genre: Fantasy, Musical 
• Release: 27 November 2013 
• Directors: Chris Buck, Jennifer Lee 
• Producer: Peter del Vecho 
• Writers: Chris Buck, Jennifer Lee, Shane Morris 

This article was updated on 8 December 2017.

Arendelle. A world where ice runs everything, if not in the summer. A world host to not one, but two princesses: Elsa (Idina Menzel), and her younger sister Anna (Kristen Bell). Elsa, for some reason, is a cryokinetic: she has the power to conjure up ice and snow. But one time while they were playing together with those powers, one of her ice shots hit Anna in the head. So, in fear of causing further damage, her family locks her up in the castle, and her powers are hidden from the rest of society. I'm not gonna lie, this film starts off on a really strong note. To see what I mean, check out one of the opening songs, "Do You Want To Build A Snowman", which contrasts Anna's optimism and Elsa's fears as the two sisters grow up side-by-side yet separated from each other.

Then Elsa’s coronation and 21st birthday happen, when she accidentally exposes her abilities during a party, and runs away from town. And things were going so well until then, too. Anna even found herself a strapping young marriage prospect in the form of Hans (Santino Fontana), a foreign prince. But good luck with that when you're dealing with an emotionally and magically unstable sister! Hey, Elsa! You ever thought of just explaining your powers on your own terms, when you're all cool, calm, and collected, instead of waiting for some accident to catch you off-guard, thus preventing you from thinking clearly? ...Heh, "cool". But seriously, folks, I can understand Elsa’s behaviour in this scene, as more than likely it comes from her having been forcibly cloistered for pretty much her entire childhood. The lack of social interaction, even with her own sister, has thus led to her growing her own problems out of proportion, which emphasizes the lesson to the viewer that if you’re dealing with problems of your own, you need somebody else to support you throughout it all. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

This film is at its best when it focuses on the relationship between Elsa and Anna.

Whatever. So when Elsa's instabilities force Arendelle into a permanent state of winter, Anna takes it upon herself to talk some sense into her. Along the way she meets up with Kristoff (Johnathan Groff), an down-on-his-luck ice trader, and Olaf (Josh Gad), a short snowman inadvertently turned animate by Elsa's magic. Olaf's gimmick is that he has a fondness and/or desire for warm things, blissfully unaware that they would cause him to melt. I honestly find this a funny schtick, but neither the character nor his gimmick serve any purpose in the plot to speak of. To me, he just smacks of a comic-relief mascot put into this film for the sake of having a comic-relief mascot. This is but one manifestation of the film's core problem, but I'll delve into that later on.

Anna and company make their way up to an ice castle Elsa had spontaneously built, now that there's no one around for her to hide her powers from. Anna tries to inform her sister of the plight their people are in and convince her to do something about it, only to take an ice-bolt to the heart. Okay, I'm gonna pause the review for a moment to do some nit-picking. Let's go back to the movie's intro, when the same thing happened to a younger Anna. Her parents were told that she survived the incident because the shot missed her heart. If that had been the case, her whole body apparently would have been frozen instantly. But when it does happen, the fatal freezing doesn't take effect immediately. You remember Back To The Future, where Marty had that photo of his family which faded away gradually until he set right what had become unstuck? Don't tell me you saw that and didn't think it strange. Oh well, I usually accept these sort of things because it lets the protagonists have a fighting chance against the plot, and I do like it when the good guys win. Who doesn't? But I do not like it when the movie sets up rules, only to break them later on.

So, anyway. Out of fear, Elsa chases her company off by conjuring a snow monster. When you get right down to the matter, it serves no practical purpose in the greater plot, which you may have noticed is becoming a running theme of this review. Once they reach safety, Anna and Kristoff high-tail it to some rock trolls. One pointless song later, and she learns that the freezing spell can only be undone by an act of true love. Meanwhile, Hans (remember him?) has more or less taken over the kingdom in Elsa's absence, has a couple of soldiers come over to Elsa's new digs to capture her, and upon her return, captures Anna as well. Olaf springs her, and she, Elsa, and Hans confront each other on the frozen sea. Hans goes to strike down Elsa, but Anna jumps in to block him, just as she freezes solid. But wait -- that constitutes an act of true love! So Anna is thawed, Hans is arrested and sent back to whence he came from, and Elsa learns to moderate her powers through the power of love. Now that’s just lame. Going back to my previous example, this would be like if Marty McFly was erased from time completely, only to come back after his future parents got together and kissed again. At a base level, it’s breaking your own rules again. Only this time, the rule is death which, in the real world, there is no coming back from.  Could you imagine if you’re a kid who has a loved one with a terminal illness or is otherwise close to dying, and then watching a movie like this? ...Have fun! Okay, now you are now free to turn off your TV.

So that was Frozen. If I had to pick out one specific problem which holds the film back -- and I do, because I have to present you with a decision somehow -- I would say the plot is a little scatterbrained. If the plot had been solely about the relationship between Anna and Elsa, as was set up in the beginning, then I would have been much more positively pre-disposed towards the film. Heck, I might even have been more supportive of its Oscar victory! (Or still not, considering the circumstances.) But as it stands, Frozen's attention is strained by having too many superfluous elements. As I mentioned, there’s Olaf the snowman, as well as the ice giant guarding Elsa’s castle, and the villain is… well, without wishing to spoil, that Weselton guy who is set up early on as someone who is obviously evil, promptly gets forgotten about.

Too many superfluous elements and an uneven tone drag this movie down.

With wishing to spoil, however, it turns out the real villain is Hans, that prince Anna hit on in the first act. My opinion on this development is… mixed. On the one hand, he has little development apart from his earlier appearance, giving us no indication whatsoever that he’s about to turn evil. But, on the other hand, he’s the kind of villain I wish I saw more often. None of this sneering, painfully obvious villainy, cf. Weselton. He comes across as a nice guy, even offering to help the people of Arendelle by going out to find Anna and Elsa, and then, bip, he flips the switch. You could call this a subversion of the handsome prince roles in many other Disney works, and I’ll agree that there’s merit in that argument. And given Disney’s recent tradition of being a little more genre-savvy, that very well may be right. But I prefer to look at it as lazy storytelling. Maybe it’s the story’s fault for jumping about all over the place and not giving us enough time to understand his character. So anyway, coming back to all those distractions I listed earlier, let me ask you readers a question: Do any of these affect the plot -- and by plot, I am referring specifically to the plot between Anna and Elsa -- in any way? Not the way I see it. And it's these distractions which keep Frozen from developing to its full potential.

I will say this in defence of Frozen: its animation, character, and set design are outstanding, and this matters more than you might think. First of all, the animation works on a technical level, as well, avoiding the spastic style of contemporaries like Dreamworks (especially the Madagascar franchise), and instead treating us with a smooth sense of motion. But the technical quality of animation is one thing; I can be generally counted on to opine that graphics don't make a good video game, for example, but that aesthetics do. And that goes doubly for non-interactive animated shows, because it is design which leaves an impression on the viewer. Think about it -- would Neon Genesis Evangelion, for example, have been as cool if not for the designs of the Angel monsters, the Eva robots, or the NERV base? I think not. And Frozen succeeds in this category. There's some downright beautiful set design to be had, especially in the case of the ice castle Elsa conjures up. And the characters are pleasing to look at, their faces and what-not stylised enough to steer clear of the Uncanny Valley. In fact, they even bear resemblance to the hand-drawn characters of Disney's past films. But that just begs the question: why couldn't Frozen have been a traditionally-animated film to begin with? I mean, they had to have drawn in that fashion for the concept art, storyboards, and what-not, so why not keep it that way? And would I have liked it more or less had that been the case? ...Hard to say.

The outstanding visual design makes this film fun to watch.

On the topic of aesthetic elements, the musical numbers didn't really do anything for me. It could just be me being jaded, but it seems like the types of songs presented therein are all the same styles of songs Disney's used for films past, and they're generally not catchy besides. For example, while I said some good things about "Do You Want to Build a Snowman" in terms of storytelling, it’s still very… talk-singy. And some of the other numbers, especially the one with the rock trolls, can make anyone with half a functioning brain scream, "Get on with it!" The only exception I would make is for "Let It Go", a standout number by Elsa which really accentuates the character arc she goes through at the time. Then again, the visual aspects of that scene also contributed to the positive feelings it left in me, so you could say it has an unfair advantage.

Also, there’s the acting. It’s at least pretty good across the board, but some characters, especially Kristen Bell as Anna, sound a little too… contemporary for a setting like this. She uses words like “totally” way too often for a fantasy princess, and in one scene, she and Kristoff talk about his sleigh like it was a new car! I suppose my problem with that kind of writing is that it breaks my immersion in the world they’ve created. You can be a gripping drama or be a farcical comedy, but the moment you start switching between those two modes is when things get awkward.

Oh, and by the way, do you remember when I barred "Let It Go" from the top spot of my 2014 music list, purely as an act of protest? Well, let me set the record straight: No, "Let It Go" would not have been my number 1 even if I hadn't pulled that stunt. As I said back then...

However, a good chunk of the lyrics are a little too specific to the song’s scene in the movie, so its utility as a personal anthem for those going through the same struggles as Elsa does in the movie suffers a bit.

At the same time, I wish to assuage your minds at this point and remind you that I still think "Let It Go" is a good song. It would've ranked in my top five, were the circumstances different. But even if the circumstances were different, it's still not without its flaws. ...Which is a fitting metaphor for Frozen itself.

But in the end, I tend to judge a work of art based on whether it deserves to be watched, played, read, or listened to. I mentioned that I would show Kaleido Star to my hypothetical children, as a shining example of characters overcoming adversity and what-not. Would I give Frozen the same treatment? Well, I wouldn’t hide it from them or anything. For all its moments of shallowness, it does bring up valuable life-lessons now and then, and quite subtly, too. When Doug Walker, a.k.a. the Nostalgia Critic, discussed this movie for one of his “Disneycember” specials, he pointed out Elsa as a lesson on what can happen if you shut yourself away from other people all the time, and on the flip side, Anna as a lesson on what can happen if you share yourself haphazardly with other people. Both very important lessons in today’s age of social media, I must say. Oh, and to be fair, Doug did like The Wind Rises too, so he's okay in my book.

After all I've had to deal with since Frozen's release, all the negativity I've associated with, what do I think of the movie itself? Eh, could be better, could be worse. All in all, it's just... rather safe, like a Pierce Brosnan 007 film. It's about princesses, for one, and we know how many times Disney's dipped into that wishing well. Granted, it's about two princesses, one of them's technically a queen, and they drive the plot themselves, by their own actions, but it's still all-too-familiar territory. If you want a better, more focused film about a two-girl non-lesbian relationship, I would instead recommend any number of Studio Ghibli films, but especially their last one, When Marnie Was There, which right now potentially stands as the last feature film they may ever make, so please, check it out while you can. Still, Frozen is not terrible, and it's certainly easy on the eyes, unlike that Shrek garbage. It is proof that American animation is on its way back to respectable standards after its low point in the last decade, although it’s still a hundred years too early to compete with the Japanese, if you ask me. And while I still will never forgive the Academy's voters for what they did and why they did it, I suppose the best course of action would be to love the player, and hate the game.

Positives:
+ The relationship between Anna and Elsa offers great potential for a plot.
+ Gorgeous animation and visual design.
+ Olaf’s scenes were kinda funny. Hey, I’m not made of stone.

Negatives:
- Too many extraneous elements for us to concentrate on its main plot.
- None of the musical numbers stand out, save possibly for "Let It Go".

Acting: 4 snowmen out of 5
Writing: 3 snowmen out of 5
Animation: 5 snowmen out of 5
Design: 5 snowmen out of 5
The Call: 80% (B)