There is, perhaps, no film in the Disney animated canon simultaneously as popular and as divisive as the 2013 return to musical form, “Frozen”. On one hand, critics and audiences adored the film upon its initial release for its revival (and mild subversion) of the animated musical Disney movie, its infectious, well-performed songs, and its impressively animated cast of now-iconic characters. Over the years, however, there’s been noticeable backlash against the film (or more accurately, the film’s over-saturated presence in merchandise and Disney branding), and one can find no shortage of amateur video essays or professional critiques lambasting “Frozen” as an overrated entry in the Disney filmography. Given this, it goes without saying that a sequel to “Frozen” and the necessity thereof would be a polarizing, borderline contentious topic among critics and audiences alike, since one could easily chalk up the reason for the sequel’s existence to simple brand maintenance. What makes the sequel so hard to meaningfully evaluate, however, is the sheer amount of ground to cover on both ends of the critical spectrum, and this is only in reference to its predecessor.
I’m of the mind that the original “Frozen”, while flawed in its characterization and distribution of screen time, is still a fun, enjoyable musical that evokes the “Disney Renaissance” era of animated musicals in a visually appealing way, and that appeal was bolstered by a decent soundtrack, some wonderfully animated winter visuals, and a memorable cast of characters. Still, I did take enough umbrage with those aforementioned pacing and characterization flaws that I hoped the sequel would tie up the loose ends of the original, which led me to seeing the movie and hitting the aforementioned critical rut that I currently find myself in. On one hand, the movie is just as superfluous and average as some of the naysayers predicted it would be, while on the other hand, I can’t entirely feel like my time was wasted just by virtue of the fact that “Frozen II” is still entertaining and interesting enough of a movie to discuss.
Set three years after the first film, “Frozen II” continues the story of Elsa of Arendelle (Idina Menzel), the ruler of the icy kingdom, who, along with her sister Anna (Kristen Bell), ice harvester Kristoff (Jonathan Groff), and the sentient snowman Olaf (Josh Gad), is celebrating the relative peace of autumn when she begins hearing a mysterious voice calling out to her in song from beyond the seas. Convinced that this voice has something to do with a story their father once told them about the enchanted forest beyond Arendelle’s seas, Elsa attempts following it, only to awaken elemental spirits that consequentially force the kingdom’s citizens to evacuate. Upon learning that this forest and the kingdom of Arendelle share a resurfacing history with one another, Elsa sets out with her sister and their friends to set things right, all while questions surrounding Anna and Kristoff’s relationship, the kingdom’s dealings with the druidic forest-folk, and the origins of Elsa’s icy powers are raised along the way.
For the first time in awhile, I’m inclined to be more traditionally balanced in addressing “Frozen II’s” pros and cons, since my thoughts on the film are as mixed as they are. Still, in the interest of that balance, I’ll start off by saying there are genuine achievements present in this sequel that I felt expanded on things done well in the first film. As expected, the animation is top-notch, and the “Frozen” series’ utilization of snow and lighting effects continues to astound me. Snow and ice-based visual effects are as pretty and encapsulating here as they were back in 2013, and they’ve expanded on the spectacle of the seasonal atmosphere in little ways, such as the tossing of leaves through the wind and the permafrost on Olaf’s body. What really grabbed my attention about the film’s visuals, however, were the atmospheric effects present in the enchanted forest. Once the journey properly begins, the cast enters into a visually arresting realm of untamed nature, where fire, earth and water are animated with as much luxurious depth as the ice and snow in this and the previous movie. While not revolutionary, “Frozen II” at least succeeds in having its animation be evolutionary.
Also much like the first film is the soundtrack, which is continues to be grandiose, sweeping, and infectiously catchy. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say I liked the music better here than in the first “Frozen”, at least in some ways. While “Let it Go”, “For the First Time in Forever”, and “Love is an Open Door” were well-written and well-orchestrated songs, I personally found the rest of the first film’s soundtrack to be alright at best and gratingly dull at worst, with songs like “In Summer” and especially “Fixer Upper” dragging the whole score down for me. While not quite as memorable as the last movie’s signature songs, though, the “Frozen II” soundtrack makes up for that lack of staying power in cohesive consistency, with songs that more directly flow through the narrative and maintain the tonal consistency that was much more muddled in the last movie’s song list. “Into the Unknown” is a sweeping call to adventure and a worthy spiritual successor to “Let it Go”, and even the more comedic musical numbers benefit from their orchestration in ways that the comic relief songs in the first “Frozen” did not. Keeping in the spirit of “evolution over revolution”, Frozen II’s soundtrack is one I’d call satisfactory.
It’s in the narrative, however, that my overall thoughts become a little harder to define, for while this sequel does deserve some praise for taking some risks and attempting some meaningful exploration of its main characters, it loses some of that praise (at least, on my end), for some of the pacing and writing problems those present. For one thing, I’m of the mind that this should have primarily been Elsa’s movie, since the subplots only serve to divert attention away from her investigation of the voice and the enchanted forest. While Anna’s story tying into this main plot is fine, the other characters border on superfluous, with the worst of the subplots being Kristoff’s struggle to propose to Anna. His is a tried and true romantic struggle, by which I mean it’s the kind of “propose to the girlfriend” plot point that thrives on contrived miscommunication and will not be resolved until late into the story, which plays into the bigger problem with the film’s narrative- its predictability. While the discoveries present in the film’s second act do make for some worthwhile world building for Arendelle and the world beyond it, “Frozen II’s” story completely face-plants once the third act draws near, as if the creative team struggled under the weight of the aforementioned raised questions. It becomes very telegraphed by the end, and I ended up leaving the theater with no idea what my final verdict was.
All in all, I’d describe “Frozen II” as “not quite ambitious enough.” Those who enjoyed the first movie will still find plenty to like about it, but the telegraphed, sophomoric narrative turns and the over-familiarity of this movie’s tone may end up detracting from that entertainment quite a bit. Take this one with a considerable grain of salt.
Rich Reviews 