About Those "Frozen" and "Maleficent" Sequels

There is no reason for there to be sequels to "Frozen" or "Maleficent," but they now exist because those original movies made oodles of money. And because these sequels are part of Disney franchises, they have to be big, epic spectacles to be viewed on IMAX screens and in 3D. And I, being a parent of small children, found myself unable to escape the gravitational pull of these heavily marketed cinematic, uh, events.

Now, I wasn't entirely opposed to sequels at the outset. I felt that "Frozen" was clumsily executed, and felt hurriedly slapped together. The pieces were great, but the assemblage was pretty rough. So, I was looking forward to a more elegantly put together sequel. Surely after the massive success of the first film, the Disney creatives would be more aware of expectations and more primed to deliver something polished and perfected. And that's more or less the case - "Frozen II" is one of the most beautiful animated films ever made, full of gorgeous effects and environments. Every character has been redesigned and re-outfitted. There are new magical creatures to gape over, an enchanted wood, and a glacial realm full of wonders. However, all this care and effort is put in service of a story that, frankly, isn't all that interesting.

To the credit of Jennifer Lee and the rest of the film's crew, clearly they made great efforts to deliver a story that pushed their characters forward without falling into retreads of the first movie or soap opera developments. Elsa's arc here is all about accepting change and not being afraid of the unknown. Other big themes include righting past wrongs, and being open to new ways of thinking. However, none of the material is really as interesting or relatable as the first "Frozen," and it's difficult to get away from a sense that certain things were included out of obligation - Elsa gets two new anthems to belt, there's another outfit-changing transformation sequence, and Kristoff's subplot is all about trying to propose to an oblivious Anna. However, what's missing are larger personal stakes. Elsa's impetus for going adventuring is a sudden wanderlust and a vague external threat. Anna only tags along to protect Elsa.

I do like that the filmmakers aren't afraid to get darker and gloomier. There's mist and murk in abundance. Olaf, amusingly, goes through an existential crisis, and later Anna battles a more serious emotional low point. There are some intense action sequences, sad moments, and downright spooky encounters. This probably isn't a film for the very youngest children, but I expect that existing "Frozen" fans should like it fine. The songs are memorable, the animation is jawdropping at times, and there are some lovely new magic critters to fuss over. On the other hand, there's also no shortage of filler. Yes, it's nice that Kristoff finally got a full song number in this movie, but his '80s power ballad spoof went on for way too long.

Now on to "Maleficent: Mistress of Evil," which I was hoping would allow the famous Disney villainess to be more properly evil this time out. Remember the freaky castle and all the minions from "Sleeping Beauty"? Alas, the "Maleficent" sequel is even tamer than the first one. Maleficent doesn't do anything remotely villainous, and all the wrongdoing attributed to her is entirely due to misunderstandings and the real villain's treachery. I could almost give the first hour a pass for being a fairy tale version of "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" but then it turns into a mess of CGI battles and and disaster sequences that are all too common in Disney's revisionist fairy tales.

Not all the elements here are bad. Aurora getting engaged to Phillip (Harris Dickinson) and having to contend with his magic hating mother Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer) has some promise. There's a lot of campy flexing from both future mother-in-laws, and Sam Riley's Diaval the Raven is very good comic relief. Maleficent discovering the remnants of her people, the Dark Fae, is interesting for a few scenes, and it introduces characters like Conall (Chiwetal Ejiofor) and Borra (Ed Skrein), Maleficent's new potential love interests. Of course, it quickly becomes apparent that the Fae are just convenient fodder for the big war sequence the film is building up to.

Elle Fanning continues to demonstrate that she's being utterly wasted in this franchise and deserves better. She has a big, emotional breakdown scene that she really put some effort into, and I felt very sorry for her that it wasn't for a better movie. The rest of the cast look like they're enjoying themselves at least, being dressed up in elaborate costumes, prosthetics, and make-up, but they might as well be full CGI characters considering how little they're given to do. I have no idea why anyone thought it was a good idea to spend $185 million on this, especially after the similar trainwreck of "Alice Through the Looking Glass." At least I can rest easy that there won't be a "Maleficent: 3."

"Frozen," on the other hand...

---