ZOOTOPIA Is Thematically-Ambitious Animation That Deals In Messy Metaphors

ZOOTOPIA Review:

- ZOOTOPIA is one of the most thematically-ambitious animated Disney movies ever made. It's a dense film with *a lot* to unpack from its narrative. Some will watch it only on a very surface level, ignoring the socio-political overtones and choosing to simply enjoy the film as standard-issue Disney fare. And certainly, many (kids in particular) will be too busy admiring the film's eye-popping, colorful world and fantastically-designed characters to read too much into the text. At the same time, the movie's social commentary is pretty overt and hard to miss. The film exists in a fantasy world filled with anthropomorphic animals - but the parallels to our world are very much apparent. In theory, I want to give a lot of credit to a movie bold enough to have this much on its mind. And in many ways, ZOOTOPIA works. The movie feels "important" in a way that your average Disney movie doesn't. But I also came away unsure that the movie's message entirely makes sense or holds up when looked at through a real-world lens. By trying to tackle so many issues, themes, genres, and narrative threads ... I couldn't help but wonder if perhaps Zootopia, for all its strengths, bites off a bit more than it can chew.

What works best about ZOOTOPIA is its core narrative - the story of plucky Judy Hopps - a young rabbit who decides to leave her small-town farm life to try to make it in the big city of Zootopia - becoming the first ever rabbit cop. Judy is diminutive as compared to most of the rest of the police force, but what she lacks in size she makes up for in drive, determination, and can-do attitude. Judy grew up in an environment where there were still residual tensions between the two dominant types of animals: predators and prey. Even though predators had long stopped hunting and eating other animals, there was still tension between the two groups. However, Zootopia was supposed to be a place where those tensions evaporated - lost in a big-city melting pot where anyone can be anything. But when Judy finally arrives there, she realizes that the city is not quite the tension-free paradise she'd imagined. Other animals still prejudge her for being a rabbit, constantly calling her "cute." Bigger animals still prejudge her for being a smaller animal. And all the while, tensions mount between predators and prey. A new drug on the streets has been causing some predators to "go savage" and attack prey.

So yeah - there's *a lot* going on here. Even just genre-wise, ZOOTOPIA is in turn a small-town/big-city fable, a police drama, a neo-noir crime story (yes, really!), an action movie, and a parable about racism and prejudice.

But through it all, the likability of Judy Hopps keeps the movie's momentum strong. And again, when the film focuses on Judy's personal journey, it really soars. Ginnifer Goodwin provides Judy's voice, and she's great - helping to make Judy really come to life. Ultimately, what makes Judy so interesting is that she isn't just a perfect protagonist. She falls prey (no pun intended) to some of the same prejudices and misconceptions as other characters in the movie. As her arc progresses, Judy has to learn some hard lessons about her own misguided preconceptions about other animals.

Where things become strange though is in the way the movie tries to have its cake and eat it too. Aside from Judy, the other main character here is Nick Wilde - a sly fox voiced by Jason Bateman. When Judy first meets Nick, he's revealed to be a con-artist criminal running various scams around Zootopia. In other words, he's exactly what one would expect a fox to be. But Nick's arc is about overcoming the limitations of what you were always told you were supposed to be, and becoming something more. Nick was always told that foxes behaved a certain way, and so he did. Only with Judy's urging does he realize that he can be more than just a con-man and scam-artist. As he helps her solve the mystery of what's happening to Zootopia's predators, he becomes a better person. What strikes me as a little off though is how, on one hand, the movie is about these animals transcending the stereotypes that they conform to - but on the other hand, having a lot of fun with showing animals 100% playing out those stereotypes. Even as the movie takes pains to show us how there's more to Judy and Nick then just being, respectively, a rabbit and a fox, it also gets a lot of jokes out of animals acting exactly according to preconceptions. Wolves being wolves, mice being mice, sloths being sloths, and even a gang of animal mobsters ripped straight out of The Godfather. ZOOTOPIA really is an anything-goes salad bowl of made-up, real-life, and pop-culture stereotypes. But at times, the movie is having too much fun playing *to* those stereotypes to remember that it's supposed to be about characters defying them.

The film also drops in a lot of moments clearly meant to invoke real-life instances of racial and cultural tension. There are moments that evoke prejudice against African-Americans, against Muslims - and moments that similarly evoke the ways politicians play on those kinds of fears of the "other" to amass supporters and power. It's pretty remarkable that this sort of stuff made it into a Disney movie. And again, I give ZOOTOPIA a huge amount of credit for daring to take on this kind of weighty stuff head-on. But the desire to mix all of these sorts of real-life examples of prejudice together, and to do so inside a fantasy world with its own backstories and "rules," can make things very messy. Without harping on this too much, the clearest example of this messiness is in the film's central conflict between predators and prey. On one hand, the film clearly and visibly will equate this conflict to the kinds of real-world cultural conflicts that are visible today in American society (and Zootopia itself, no question, is a fantasy version of America and its melting-pot ideals). But on the other hand, in Zootopia's universe, there was a time when predators did in fact hunt and kill and eat prey. So as much as predators in the present have disavowed this behavior ... is it really that unreasonable, if you're prey, to fear animals that at one time were genetically programmed to hunt and eat you? It makes for a dicey metaphor. Now, I don't think the animals of ZOOTOPIA are meant to have a one-to-one correlation with any particular real-world races or religions. But the inclusion of so many moments that do evoke our reality muddy the waters.

So does ZOOTOPIA work simply as a movie about following your passion and not listening to artificial limitations that people might place on you? Yes. But there is more on the movie's mind than just that, and the more layers it adds, the more muddied the message becomes.

Thematic issues aside though, ZOOTOPIA is sort of amazing in terms of how far it strays, genre-wise, from a typical Disney adventure story. The movie, on the whole, is pretty dark. It's got plenty of scenes that will potentially scare the crap out of young kids - a nightmarish moment that shows captured predators being experimented on in a prison-like lab. Moments where animals go savage to horrifying effect. Not to mention, the movie's got lots of pretty adult references - a direct nod to Walter and Jesse's meth-cooking on Breaking Bad, the aforementioned mafia-movie call-backs, and an extended scene at a hippie commune (led by a stoner yak voiced by Tommy Chong) where clothes are discouraged and the animals proudly flaunt their nakedness. As Judy and Nick work their case, the movie takes on the trappings of a classic film noir - with the two encountering one shady character after another. It's like a mix of Inherent Vice and a 90's-era LucasArts adventure game. The movie relentlessly genre-blends. There are big, gorgeously-directed set-piece action sequences - which range from Judy pursuing a crook through various parts of Zootopia to her and Nick evading bad guys through a lush rainforest. There are moments of police procedural, moments of slapstick comedy, pop-culture references and parodies aplenty, and moments that take the form of a storming-town hall social-justice passion play. Like I said, this movie is nothing if not ambitious.

It also looks amazing. The animation is some of the most vibrant and detailed I've yet seen, and the character design is top-to-bottom awesome. The diversity of the movie's various environments is also pretty mind-blowing, and they all, in their own way, look fantastic. There's the gleaming cityscape of Zootopia, the sprawling fields and open sky of Judy's farm-town, the overgrown vegetation of the rainforest district, and the list goes on.

ZOOTOPIA is so jam-packed with characters, ideas, and ambition that it's easy to lose sight of the movie's (very well-done) core. Like I said, it works extremely well at its most basic level - as an eye-poppingly colorful parable about how anyone can be anything. That basic message resonates, and it's a simple yet powerful one for kids and adults alike. And Judy Hopps is the perfect combination of likable, capable, and flawed to deliver it. But I do think that the movie shoots for the moon, but misses the mark. It's a very good movie that badly wants to be *great.* It just doesn't have the clarity of vision to get there. Still, you've got to give ZOOTOPIA props for aiming high.

My Grade: B+

BIG HERO 6 Delivers Big Action, Big Heart, Big Fun

BIG HERO 6 Review:

- Disney's animation studio is on a creative roll of late, and the streak continues with BIG HERO 6. It might just be the studio's best CG-animated film yet - a visually-stunning, action packed superhero story that also packs an emotional punch. The movie is just flat-out fun. It one-ups The Incredibles in terms of paying homage to classic superhero and sci-fi tropes, and it delivers a story rich with positive messages that also never lacks for kick-ass action. The film is bound to be a favorite for kids and adults alike.

The key to BIG HERO 6's endearing nature has got to be lovable robot Baymax. Voiced by Scott Adsit of 30 Rock fame, Baymax is a balloon-like medical 'bot that is the lasting legacy of the late older brother of the movie's protagonist, Hiro. Hiro's college-student brother Tadashi created Baymax to help people in need. But after Tadashi is tragically killed, budding robo-expert Hiro attempts to re-purpose Baymax into an anime-esque android superhero. Hiro's motivation is to find the mysterious masked villain who he believes stole his special nanobot tech and may have used it to kill his brother. Joining Hiro on his crusade are Tadashi's science-lab pals: badass bruiser Go Go, geeky genius Honey Lemon, steadfast and strong Wasabi, and goofy fanboy Fred. The friends join hero to form a makeshift superhero team, and they use their science-smarts to create all sorts of cool gadgets, armor, and weapons to aid them in their quest.

All of the characters in the movie are a blast. But the real star of the film is the relationship between Hiro and Baymax. In some ways, it's typical boy-and-his-dog (er, robot) stuff - familiar ground if you've seen the likes of E.T., The Iron Giant, How To Train Your Dragon, etc. But it's all done so well here, and Baymax is such a cool character design - that it feels fresh. In fact, the movie uses Baymax to examine some pretty interesting issues about superheroes, violence, and vengeance. There's a legitimately unnerving sequence in the film in which Hiro reprograms Baymax to ignore his medical-aide protocol and simply be an unfeeling warrior with a single-minded mandate to wreak havoc. Seeing the lovable Baymax suddenly go God of War on some baddies is genuinely disturbing, and it serves as a smartly-handled commentary on superhero fiction. In an age in which so many big-screen heroes think fists-firsts, collateral-damage second, it's fascinating and admirable to see a movie like this that makes it seem tragic when a robot designed to heal gets reprogrammed to destroy. We tend to glamorize weapons and violence, so to see that trope turned on its head is pretty interesting.

For an animated superhero action film, BIG HERO 6 has a lot on its mind. The movie deals with death and loss in a poignant, affecting manner. Tadashi's death kickstarts the film's plot, sure, but it's also really sad and somewhat shocking in its bluntness. The movie, in general, just has a raw, emotional honesty that is rare to see in a kid-oriented film. But the way it deals with a very tough, very difficult topic of coping with a family member's death is skillfully handled and ultimately quite cathartic. The film is also relentlessly pro-science. Hiro is a science-whiz, and so are all of his friends and teammates. While yes, this is a superhero fantasy, the movie isn't afraid to let its characters talk in geek-speak and use real scientific and computing principles in its script. The movie is damn smart, and it takes pride in the fact that its characters are too. The scientists in this movie are smart and geeky, but they're also funny, cool, and badass. This is the kind of film that will legitimately get kids interested in science and robotics.

This is also a film that's downright overflowing with geeky awesomeness. Fred, voiced by T.J. Miller, acts as the fanboy surrogate here, and his enthusiasm for all the cool stuff that happens in the movie was echoed by me. Whether it's Baymax's robotic rocket-fist, Hiro's deceptively-meek robot fighting-'bot, or what might just be Stan Lee's greatest Marvel/Disney cameo yet ... BIG HERO 6 knows all the right nerd-buttons to push. And I'll say again: the movie's visuals really are gorgeous. The level of detail in the animation is obscenely high, and there are some beautifully-framed sequences in the film - both in terms of some epically huge action set-pieces and quieter moments that can be funny, sad, reflective, and picturesque. The voice work in the film is also universally excellent - though again, I have to give the biggest props to Adsit as Baymax - as he somehow makes a monotone robot one of the year's most lovable and memorable cinematic creations.

My only real complaint with the film is that the late-game reveals feel a bit rushed, with some of the twists - in particular the revelation of the masked villain's true identity - feeling slightly contrived. Ultimately though, the heart and soul of the movie is the Hiro-Baymax relationship, so the third-act story beats are, in some ways, secondary considerations. Still, would have been nice if the plot twists felt a bit more organically set-up and less forced.

That said, BIG HERO 6 is serious fun and surprisingly resonant on an emotional level. Baymax is the best animated robot since Wall-E, and the rest of the movie's main characters are some of the most refreshingly diverse and likable heroes we've yet seen in a modern Disney animated film. This is a movie that just plain delivers on its potential - so jam-packed with science-is-awesome coolness, giant-sized superhero adventure, humor, and heart that it feels like the complete and total package. BIG HERO 6 is a heroic effort indeed from Disney.

My Grade: A-

MALEFICENT Afraid to Embrace Its Evil

MALEFICENT Review:

- As a kid, I loved Halloween (still do), and I loved Halloween TV. I guess I grew up in a golden age of Halloween TV specials, where every October all of the networks would unveil kid-friendly programming that was delightfully spooky. One of the specials that I still think of with nostalgic affection was the Disney Halloween Special, that aired each year on ABC and The Disney Channel. In this special (hosted by The Magic Mirror), spooky shorts were intermixed with segments that highlighted all of the classic Disney villains, shining a spotlight on their most depraved acts of evil. The best of these segments was the one devoted to Maleficent, the iconic big bad from Sleeping Beauty. Even as a kid, it was clear: Maleficent was the bilest of villains, the queen of evil, the horn-hatted she-devil who you most definitely did *not* want to mess with. It's funny - Disney is known for kid-friendly fairy tales, but there has always been a real dark side to their animated classics. Disney villains have a long history of upstaging Disney heroes. And a lot of us, I think - myself certainly included - became Disney fans less so because of the whimsy and wonder, but more so because of Disney's dark side: evil queens, dastardly pirates, witches, ghosts, beasts, monsters, magic, and yes, Maleficent.

And so, I was actually really looking forward to the MALEFICENT movie. One of Disney's most iconic villains in her own movie? Perfectly cast, with Angelina Jolie in the title role? This could have, should have, been awesome. As it stands, the movie has its moments. There are glimpses of greatness, and some fantastic visuals. But something seriously got lost along the way. The same Disney that once gleefully corrupted my young mind with its Halloween Special is now, it seems, afraid to walk on the dark side.

What I mean is - and I say this without spoilers - is that Maleficent is at its best, predictably, when Jolie is allowed to go full-evil and just tear the house down. But oddly, surprisingly, the film only goes there on precious few occasions. Mostly, it seems intent on recasting the character as a hero, as someone who takes a brief detour to the dark side, but who is ultimately a force for good rather than evil.

That central disconnect - the desire to both have fun with Maleficent's villainy but also never truly let her be the villain - pretty much tears the movie apart at the seams. And the glimpses that we do get of the character at her worst (aka her best), make their fleetingness that much more frustrating. Why take one of the coolest and most flat-out evil-seeming Disney villains and make her a hero?

Again, the movie has a couple of things going for it that really do make this one a frustrating example of a movie that could-have-been-great. Like I said, Jolie is great. No one else could have played this part as well. She's got the look (her already severe features augmented with CGI - hello, razor-sharp cheekbones), she's got the voice down, she nails the dark humor in the script. And what's interesting is that Jolie manages to make Maleficent an interesting and even quasi-sympathetic character *even when she's clearly playing the part of the villain.*

I also think that MALEFICENT has some really, really impressive visuals at various points in the movie. Director Robert Stromberg has spent much of his career as a matte artist, and it shows. The best moments in this film, visually, are those that essentially function as living, breathing matte paintings. Scenes of the fairy kingdom from which Maleficent hails, populated with all manner of flora and fauna, are often stunning. Where Stromberg falters a bit is with the big action. The big army vs. army scenes, lifted wholesale from films like Lord of the Rings, feel choppy and a bit unnecessary. And a lot of the action just feels a bit flat. Stromberg's direction, for whatever reason, seems most effective in the smaller and quieter moments. The scenes meant to be big and epic don't quite pop as much as they should, nor do they always seem to convey the proper sense of scale that the movie is going for.

But really, the biggest issues lie with the script. The story gets off to a promising and intriguing start - showing us a young Maleficent in her magical realm, and revealing her first encounter with a human boy, who's wandered over from the much less-magical neighboring kingdom. We watch as the two form a bond, and then see that bond severed as the two grow older. The boy, trying to make a name for himself, takes advantage of Maleficent's trust in him, and betrays her in order to impress his king and grab power for himself. It's not a bad way to kick things off, but things get messier from there.

Eventually, the boy himself becomes king, and as an adult he's played by District 9's Sharlto Copley - who seems woefully miscast. I'm a big fan of Copley, but he excels at playing offbeat characters with a screw loose. His character seems to demand a sort of grim gravitas that Copley doesn't really pull off. In turn, the story eventually gets to the plot of Sleeping Beauty, with some great sequences in which a scorned Maleficent curses Copley's newborn daughter to fall into an eternal sleep when she gets older. All of that is cool - it's the Maleficent we know and want from the classic animated film. But then, things start to go off the rails a bit. We flash-forward as the now-teenaged princess, Aurora - played solidly by Elle Fanning - lives in isolation with her "aunts," three fairies who have pledged to help the King and his daughter, and to keep her away from harm. The fairies, played by Lesley Manville, Imelda Staunton, and Juno Temple, provide occasional bouts of whimsy and comic relief, but there's a little too much of them, and they're a little too one-note (especially considering the talented actresses playing them). We never truly care about them as more than window-dressing. Additionally, the f/x used to make them seem diminutive are a bit questionable, with their heads looking glued-on to CGI bodies. In any case, this is where the movie seems to wholly forsake the idea of Maleficent as villain. She becomes less menacing by the minute. She forms a motherly relationship with young Aurora, and basically, she goes soft. The jarring transition is sort of augmented by Sam Riley as magical crow/human creature Diaval. Diaval, acting as Maleficent's sidekick, is basically a totally good dude. By virtue of him spending time with Maleficent, it's like a big fat signpost that reads "the badass has been watered down."

I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop, and for the increasingly benevolent Maleficent to again break bad. But oddly, it never happens, and the movie just sort of limps along with its title character as a generic do-gooder, who just happens to wear devilish black horns and bears a name that screams "evil."  I'm not totally sure how a Maleficent movie would work in which she's all-out evil. But I think there's a way to make her sympathetic and more fully fleshed-out without also making her into the hero of the film. I also don't buy the argument that, because this is *her* version of the story, we must take the events of the film, as told by Maleficent, with a heavy grain of Rashomon-style salt. The movie does nothing to imply that the version of events we're hearing may not be the "true" version.

MALEFICENT is an enjoyable film - parts of it looks fantastic, and Jolie crushes it. Flaws aside, it's a perfectly serviceable fantasy film and a nice movie to watch in order to escape from reality for a bit. But it is, ultimately, flat and somewhat lifeless, and I've got to think that the root cause is a script that refuses to embrace the character's true darkness - intent on subverting the iconography to little gain, rather than truly having fun with it. Has Disney lost its bite? Is the studio that so often, somewhat subversively, touts the evilness of its villains afraid to give its biggest and baddest a true showpiece? MALEFICENT seems like a spoil-sport, a movie that won't let us fully enjoy taking a detour to the dark side.

My Grade: B-

FROZEN Is Very-Nearly Magical

FROZEN Review:

- There's so much to like about Disney's latest animated musical. It has all the trappings of vintage Disney animation, but the characters and story feel fresh and modern. The music is mostly fantastic, and from a visual perspective, the look and feel of the film is positively stunning. This is very nearly a new Disney classic. What's frustrating about Frozen is that it's got all the ingredients to be a home run, but it just misses the mark due to an overall feeling of incompleteness. The movie is packed with fantastic moments, but as a whole, it feels loosely-sketched. Still, Frozen's high points make it a must-see for animation fans young and old. And at it's best, the film summons that old-school Disney magic in a way that reminds you of what put Disney animation on the map in the first place.

I give Frozen credit for giving us a different sort of story than we're used to in a Disney fairy tale. This is a tale of two sisters - two very strong, well-developed female characters who have full-fledged personalities independent of any star-crossed romances. In a year when there's been a lot of talk about movies failing the so-called Bechdel Test, Frozen passes with flying colors. In princesses Elsa and Anna, Frozen presents two iconic-yet-relatable characters who both radiate personality. Elsa (voiced by Idina Menzel) is the eldest of the two sisters - she was born with magical powers, able to create ice and snow from her hands. But those powers made her a danger, since she could not fully control them. After accidentally injuring her younger sister, Elsa is isolated by her parents - the king and queen of an ice-covered kingdom - and kept away from her sister, and from the rest of the world. Years later, when Elsa comes of age, it's her time to be anointed as Queen - she finally emerges from her isolation and nervously presents herself to her very curious subjects. Over the years, she's become a mystery and object of fascination. However, during the coronation festivities, Elsa's powers go haywire, and the people deem her a monster and a freak. Elsa retreats to an ice-palace far away in the mountains, and blankets the kingdom in a deep, unnatural freeze. It's up to Elsa's plucky sister Anna (voiced by Kristen Bell) to find the Snow Queen and convince her to come home. Anna, too, spent years isolated from the rest of the kingdom. But while Elsa locked herself away with a grim and steadfast determination, Anna yearned to go outside and explore and interact with others (shades of Tangled). Now, Anna is out in the big wide world, on her first adventure, on a quest to find her sister.

Anna, really, is the star here. Kristen Bell makes her utterly likable - funny, brave, determined, dorky, and just a bit naive about the way the world works. Bell's singing is wonderful, but her overall performance is even more winning. This is probably the best the fan-favorite actress has been since her Veronica Mars heyday, and a reminder of just how talented Bell really is. What's more, the heart and soul of the film is likely Anna's relationship with rough-and-tumble Kristoff (Jonathan Groff). It's a relationship that works so well in part because, like I said, neither character seems defined by it. We spend a lot of time with Anna before she even meets Kristoff, and even then, there's nothing star-crossed about them. Just as Anna is an atypical Disney princess, Kristoff is an atypical Disney male lead. He's shaggy, schlubby, and occasionally prickly. That's what makes the song "Fixer Upper" a true highlight of the movie - it dresses down these characters to make them seem less like fairy-tale heroes and more like just a couple of crazy kids who might just have a certain spark between them, flaws and all. And yet, that ordinariness makes their eventual acts of heroism that much more resonant. Rarely have Disney characters had this much real-feeling personality.

Elsa, however, is much more of an enigma. And it's with Elsa that the movie seems unsure of what story, exactly, it wants to tell. Elsa's story starts as a familiar one for those who have watched any number of superhero movies in recent years: a child finds out that they're different, a "freak", because they have some sort of strange power, and hides away, keeping their ability a secret - until they eventually learn to control, master, and embrace it. It's a story we've seen before, but also one that is an undeniably effective storytelling device - a perfect metaphor for real issues of identity, individuality, and coming-of-age. And when Elsa does have her big moment where she embraces her true nature - singing the defiantly powerful "Let It Go" as she goes all glam-rock amidst her newly-erected ice-fortress - it's a transcendent moment - absolutely an instant classic and a defining moment for Disney in the modern era. But after the high of "Let It Go," the movie disappointingly seems to drop the ball on Elsa. She is finally comfortable with who she is, and yet ... she remains isolated in her remote palace, and seems to increasingly grow colder and less human. In a weird way, "Let It Go" is both the film's hero song and its villain song. The movie can't seem to decide which Elsa is. We barely get into Elsa's headspace after that moment. But we do see her attack her own sister via a hulking Abominable Snowman construct, and then mortally wound her sister with her powers.

Elsa is a fascinating character because of how completely she breaks the mold for a Disney animated film. But she's also a problematic character because the movie gives her this tragic - but ultimately inspirational - origin story, only to make her less and less sympathetic as the movie progresses. Instead, our attention increasingly turns to girl-next-door Anna and her sweetly-scripted relationship with Kristoff. All the while, I kept waiting for some kind of twist to occur with Elsa. Would the movie go full-villain with her, and make her into the film's true antagonist? Or would it be revealed that she was being manipulated by some as-yet-unrevealed uber-villain, whispering in her ear and making her turn against her sister? Ultimately, Elsa gets exactly one half of a great story. Frustrating, because the build-up through "Let It Go" is so incredibly well-done.

Frozen, therefore, ends up conspicuously lacking a great villain. Sure, there's some sleazy scheming from deceptively charming nobleman Hans. And there's some politically-motivated skulduggery from weaselly Duke of Weselton (voiced amusingly by Alan Tudyk). But the movie has no equivalent of an Ursula, or Jafar. Hans is sort of like a wannabe Gaston, I guess. But as a character, he's a bit flimsy and unmemorable. And his true motivations are revealed so late in the film that it all feels a bit rushed. In general, the movie seems to have a number of things mysteriously missing. We get hints of an intriguing origin for Kristoff - raised by Trolls, away from other people - but we never get the full story. Olaf - the wacky Snowman who becomes Anna's companion - is interesting, and thankfully non-annoying, but it feels like a major story beat between him and Elsa is missing from the movie. It definitely feels like we're getting a chopped-up version of what was once a longer and more complete (and presumably more satisfying) story.

Back to Olaf for a second. As voiced by Josh Gad, he's a funny and fun comedy-relief character. I will say though - Olaf's big song, "In Summer," is a bit weak, in my opinion. Definitely not a classic on the level of other Disney-musical "fun" songs like Hakuna Matata or Under the Sea.

The music as a whole though is quite good. The high points are really, really good, with the standouts being the aforementioned "Fixer Upper" and "Let It Go." I'm also partial to the mood-setting opening number "Frozen Heart," which has a folk-chant ominous quality that reminded me a bit of The Little Mermaid's "Fathoms Below."

And visually, it can't be understated just how eye-popping the animation is in Frozen. The majestically ice and snow-covered landscapes give the film a dark-fantasy fairy-tale look that I really dug. And when the movie cranks up its visual fireworks - like during the "Let It Go" number - it really becomes total eye-candy. I also continue to be blown away by just how expressive Disney's CGI characters are these days. Similar to Tangled, Frozen's characters are slick, ultra-fluid computer-animated figures that nonetheless have facial animation deliberately designed to evoke the kind of expressive hand-drawn animation of the older Disney classics. It really does feel like an evolution of the old Disney style. Overall, Frozen's visuals are truly epic - some of the best yet in an animated CGI film.

Frozen feels like only 3/4 of a classic, but I think that fans will really embrace it despite its faults. For one thing, there's the stunning animation. For another, there's the strong female characters and progressive-seeming storyline - big picture, Frozen rather brilliantly combines classic fairy-tale trappings with very modern themes and characters. On top of that, while the music isn't as consistently great as in some of Disney's best, the movie's best songs are undeniably fantastic, catchy, and bound to be beloved by kids and adults alike. Frozen's complex themes have and will provide a lot of interesting discussion fodder, but I'm also not sure if the movie will hold up as an all-time Disney classic. There's just a lack of coherency to the plot, and a feeling that the movie isn't quite sure what to do with its theoretical lead character, Elsa. For that reason, the movie's lasting impression is that of a film with a handful of magical moments, but one whose parts are stronger than its whole.

My Grade: B+

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY Pits Monster Geeks Vs. Greeks

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY Review:

- Is PIXAR slumping? I don't know. I hope not. Is this one of those late-period Simpsons things, where the argument is brought up that they're not as good as the glory days, but that a only-okay-for-Pixar movie is still better than most of the competition? Maybe. Pixar was so good for so long, churning out original hits like Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, and Wall-E, that everyone sort of wondered when the other shoe would drop. When Toy Story 3 came along and was (improbably) actually the best Toy Story yet (and one of Pixar's best), it was cemented: Pixar really could do no wrong. But lately, the momentum seems to have shifted a bit. Cars 2 was solid, but many were less than impressed. Brave didn't live up to its pre-release hype. And now, Monsters University is, of all things, a prequel. A prequel?! Aren't prequels where good franchises go to die? Isn't a prequel - that most hackneyed and cliched of Hollywood franchise-building tactics - a bit below the high standards of excellence that Pixar is known for? The very idea of it was off-putting.

On paper, Monsters University if not exactly a riveting concept. Was anyone really demanding the "secret origins" of Mike and Sulley from Monsters Inc., told as a send-up of 80's-style geeks vs. greeks college comedies? Not so much. But Pixar does tend to do these things well, and with Pixar you can expect a love and care put into the movie that other studios wouldn't bother with. You can also expect a level of thematic depth that most animated films don't possess. As familiar as the setting and conventions of Monsters U may be, the story undoubtedly takes some unexpected and thematically-complex turns. In short: I don't know that MU's jokey, cutesy, prequel premise was ever going to lend itself to cinematic greatness - but damned if Pixar doesn't aim high.

As mentioned, the movie's plot details the first meeting of Mike and Sulley, when both are just starting out as students at the prestigious MU. Mike is the classic monster underdog - not inherently good at being scary, but determined to succeed anyway thanks to a combination of perseverance, doggedness, hard work, and heart. He's convinced that if he studies hard enough and gives it his all, he'll overcome his deficiencies as a scarer, and become one of the greats. Meanwhile, Sulley arrives at MU with a rep as a gifted scarer, thanks to his family name, and the fact that his dad was a legend. Sulley is practically destined to be a great scarer - a second-generation blue-chipper who may not be much for studying and technique, but who makes up for it with good genetics and natural talent. Mike and Sully start out as rivals, but after getting into some trouble together and facing the wrath of MU's intimidating Dean Hardscrabble, both get kicked out of the scare program, and become desperate for a way back in. Enter the Scare Games - MU's annual inter-fraternity scaring competition. Mike and Sully make a deal with Hardscrabble to let them back into the scare program if they manage to win the games - though they'll face expulsion from MU if they lose. The Dean agrees, but that means that the unlikely pair has to join a fraternity. The only one that will have them is Oozma Kappa (OK!) - a motley crew of losers and rejects. Their chief competition is Roar Omega Roar - a bunch of big-shot frat-monsters with designs on winning the games.

What I quickly realized about Monsters U is that it's really a comedy, and maybe the most overtly comedic movie that Pixar has made. The movie has its roots in things like Animal House and Revenge of the Nerds. There's lots of homage to other college comedy classics, and there are a lot of winking references that movie fans will enjoy. What's more, the script from Dan Scanlon, Daniel Gerson, and Robert Baird is typical Pixar goodness. The dialogue is clever, the jokes (both verbal and visual) are snappy and at times hilarious, and the characters - even the side ones - are sharply defined and creatively conceived.

I'll focus in for a minute on those visuals. While MU doesn't have the scope or scale of Pixar classics like The Incredibles or Wall-E, its comedic elements allow Pixar's crack team of animators to really have some fun. There's all sorts of brilliant little Looney Tunes-esque visual gags (including a great one that pays off in a hilarious post-credits scene). And while there is an old-school, Saturday morning cartoon-style charm to some of the characters and jokes, there are also some undeniably cool action scenes (primarily the competitions from the Scare Games) that have a sleek, videogame-esque sense of dynamism. Finally, there are some moments of unexpected visual beauty in the movie that really wowed me. In particular, scenes in which the monsters travel into the "real" world - where us humans live - have a stunning look and feel to them, as the textures of the animation become grittier and darker, and the cartoonish monsters take on a legitmately-monstrous heft and weight. The character designs, overall, are are really cool. From the winged, demonic Dean Hardscrabble to the oddball members of Oozma Kappa, MU is overflowing with cool characters (loved the punk rock riot grrrls of the HSS sorority). So even if MU doesn't have the big, dazzling, jaw-dropping moments of a Wall-E, it's still got visual flair to spare.

Of course, the voice actors are another big reason as to why the movie succeeds. While it's a little hard to imagine the aging voices of Billy Crystal and John Goodman as belonging to fresh-faced college students, both (particularly the amazing Goodman) are so good in general that that initial weirdness factor soon dissipates. The movie overall though is loaded with smartly-cast voice actors. Helen Mirren shines as Dean Hardscrabble. Steve Buscemi is a lot of fun as Mike's geeky roommate Randy. And Aubrey Plaza has some of the movie's funniest moments as deadpan Scare Games ringleader Claire.

And what's interesting about the movie is that while much of its structure follows the usual college comedy template, it takes an interesting left turn towards the end. It doesn't get uber-dark or anything like that, but things also aren't *quite* as awesome-happy-everyone-is-amazing as you might expect. In the world of Disney, dreams always come true. But in the slightly-more-complex world of Pixar, sometimes it's less about dreams and more about making the best of what you have. It's a unique message - especially for a kids movie. A message that maybe not everyone is going to be a movie star, or a pro basketball player, or President. But maybe there are other things that are just as good, even if they're a little less reach-for-the-stars huge. In an age where kids and teens are constantly made to believe that they are one YouTube viral video away from being a TV star, it's a refreshing, if humbling, message from Pixar.

So what doesn't work? Well, for one thing, there's the line between paying homage and repeating what's come before. Sure, for kids the whole college setting and geeks/greeks rivalry may seem new, but there is something that's at times a little numbing about seeing a movie like this revisit so many tried-and-true genre conventions. Again, some of it may be the whole holding-Pixar-to-a-higher-standard thing. But it does feel a little disappointing to go from such a wholly original and imaginative idea in Monsters Inc. to a much less original and imaginative premise for its prequel. The comedy helps, and like I said, the movie is very sharp and funny. But it also feels relatively lightweight and fluffy as compared to the usual Pixar fare. I'd also chalk that up to the movie's rather mundane college campus setting. Pixar has fun with it, by subverting things to fit the whole monsters motif, but personally I don't think they go far enough. It seems like there is more opportunity for world-building, that isn't fully taken advantage of. And then there's just the usual case of prequelitis. You can't help but feel like it's sort of a stretch to shoehorn in this whole backstory to the world of Monsters Inc.

Overall though, I really enjoyed the film, and I think it will pleasantly surprise those who may have dismissed it offhand. It's funny, clever, a fun remix of college comedy films from back in the day, and has some really eye-popping character art and animation. Not a Pixar classic, but a positive sign that, hey, even when these guys don't hit a home run, they're still among the best in the biz.

My Grade: B+

WRECK-IT RALPH Has Got Game

WRECK-IT RALPH Review:

- There's something that's just inherently awesome about the fact that Wreck-It Ralph even exists. I mean, within the insular world of videogaming, there's no shortage of nostalgia for the medium's 80's and 90's glory years. But within the larger pop-culture universe, it's not exactly common to see the likes of Bowser, Chun-Li, Dig-Dug, and Q-Bert treated with the same kind of iconic status as their film and TV contemporaries. And yet, whole generations have now grown up with these digital characters as omnipresent and as revered as were the great screen icons or TV personalities of days gone by. Where gaming has often felt trivialized in pop-culture has often been misguided attempts to translate interactive games into non-interactive narratives. Yes, games have become more and more story-driven in recent years, but still ... they are games, and the narrative exists as part of a larger world or experience. And that's why Wreck-It Ralph is so cool - it's not a Pac-Man movie or a Dig-Dug movie ... the film skips over any attempt to bring a complex storyline to relatively simplistic characters. Instead, it goes the meta route - going inside the world of videogames and imagining the inner-workings of how this world functions - a brilliant melding of Toy Story and Tron. And so ... old-school gamers will be thrilled to see a movie that reverently calls out and gives props to so many touchstones of gaming culture (in doing so, acknowledging that this is now truly mainstream, pop-culture).

Still, unlike some of the older-skewing Pixar films that tell stories aimed as much as adults as they are kids, Wreck-It Ralph - from Disney proper - is much more a traditional Disney flick ... it's even got a princess (albeit a pretty nontraditional one). Perhaps that's where I found the movie just a bit frustrating - finding out that a lot of the call-outs to old-school games were more of a surface-level thing. Because even as many of us will love the shout-outs to the Konami code and Metal Gear Solid, the tone of the film is, nonetheless, decidedly kid-centric. That's not necessarily a knock, but I did feel that too often the movie felt overly simplistic and, well, kiddie. Maybe the outward similarities to the Toy Story series raised my expectations, or maybe all the old-school references made me think that this would be tonally more aimed at adults. But whatever the case, there's still a lot to like in Wreck-It Ralph. Visually appealing and filled with memorable and funny characters, kids are guaranteed to love it. But its saccharine-tinged sweetness may grate, just a bit, on those old enough to actually know what the Konami code is.

WRECK-IT RALPH paints a picture of videogame characters as blue-collar clock-punchers. By day, the characters dutifully go about their pre-programmed roles - whether that involves fighting off alien hordes, racing go-karts through candy-coated fantasy lands, or, in the case of Ralph, smashing an 8-bit building so that the user-controlled Fix-It Felix can strive to repair it. Essentially, Ralph is a nice guy, despite the fact that he's long filled the role of videogame villain, and has been programmed with a penchant for reckless destruction and Hulk-esque smashing. But because of his villain status, Ralph is a pariah among the other denizens of his videogame. His nemesis Felix is revered as a do-gooding hero, worshiped by all of the other non-playable characters in the game. Felix goes to parties and is cheered when he enters a room. Ralph lives in a dump (literally), and his only refuge is a support-group for videogame villains, where he commiserates with the likes of M. Bison and Bowser. Therein lies the most brilliant conceit of Wreck-It Ralph - that all videogame worlds are connected through a Grand Central Station-esque hub, and that during off hours, the various characters - from 8-bit pixel-blobs to realistically-rendered next-gen warriors - co-mingle.

That idea is where, to me, Wreck-It Ralph is most captivating. On a quest for medals that might change his status from villain to hero, Ralph violates videogame taboo, and leaves his game in search of new adventures and opportunities. Seeing Ralph explore the inter-game hub-world is visual eye-candy, and a fun game of Where's Waldo-style spot-the-character. Even better is when Ralph ventures into a modern Halo/Gears of War-esque game, where he encounters Calhoun - a badass woman warrior who shows him the ropes. This is the most exciting sequence of the film - a breathtaking series of action set-pieces that are also thrilling in how they juxtapose Ralph - a simple, 8-bit character - with the sleek, grim n' gritty world and complex gameplay of that typifies the modern era of games. Ultimately though, this section of the movie is sort of a tease. The next game-world that Ralph journeys to - the fruity-pebble world of Sugar Rush - is where the remainder of the movie is set. And so suddenly, the movie that promised to be some sort of mad-genius meta-analysis of the evolution of videogaming becomes a pretty standard-issue Disney story.

Once in Sugar Rush - a kart-racing game that's like Mario Kart high on pixie-stix - Ralph meets one of the movie's breakout stars, Vanellope. Vanellope is a "glitch" - she fades in and out of existence and is, like Ralph, a bit of an outcast in her own game. But while Ralph was a vital part of his game - albeit the villain - Vanellope's glitch status prevents her from even properly participating in her game's races. Eventually, we learn more about why that is, and how this fate befell Vanellope. But once introduced, she and her big brother/little sister relationship with Ralph sort of takes over the movie.

At this point, I'll mention the voice-acting in the film - because it's hard to talk about Vanellope without mentioning the fantastic voicework of Sarah Silverman. Silverman helps make Vanellope one of the most distinct female leads ever in a Disney flick - quirky, witty, smart-assed, and packing some serious 'tude. I like the Vanellope character a ton, and I suspect that girls and women are quickly going to embrace her as sort of a cult-favorite - because she is so different from what we typically get in a Disney movie. There are so many things about Vanellope that are a bold choice - from the choice of Silverman to voice her, to the semi-sadistic glee she takes in getting back at those who've belittled her and kept her down. Vanellope is, in many ways, sort of awesome. And yet ... she makes bathroom jokes. Lots of them. And rides a very, very fine line between being endearing and just plain annoying. Maybe part of that lies in how her story takes over the movie at the expense of the chance to see more cool videogame worlds or characters. Maybe part of it is that it's sometimes hard to feel overly sentimental - as the movie wants you to - about such a smart-alecky character. Whatever the case, I'll profess that over the course of Wreck-It Ralph, I kept going back and forth between admiring Vanellope's moxy and wondering if/when she might be gobbled up by a flashing-blue ghost. I guess I felt similarly about Sugar Rush itself. I loved it as a sort of parody of overly-cutesy and whimsical game worlds. But as a setting for over half the movie to take place in, with a neverending stream of candy and sugar puns in tow? After a while, I was desperate to see what other worlds were out there in videoland.

But back to the voicework in the film - it's pretty excellent overall. John C. Reilly is right in his sweet spot as lovable lug Ralph. Jack McBrayer could play Fix-It Felix in his sleep, but he does the part to perfection. I actually think that perhaps Jane Lynch was a bit miscast - her distinct voice evokes more stern school principal than badass space marine, but as always, Lynch gives the part her all. Meanwhile, Alan Tudyk channels golden age comedy icon Ed Wynn in his portrayal of the affably evil King Candy. It's another part that is highly entertaining, but borders a bit on annoying in certain segments - although what Tudyk does from a purely vocal perspective is pretty remarkable. There are all sorts of other impressive vocal turns here (my favorite was a cameo from 24's Dennis Haysbert as a space-marine commander). But I'll go back and give Reilly even more credit, because he really does carry the film and make Ralph into a sympathetic, all-too-human character.

Wreck-It Ralph opens strong - with its eye-popping look inside this imaginary, virtual world of intermixing videogame characters and concepts. But Ralph's overarching premise eventually takes a backseat to the saga of Vanellope and Sugar Rush, and loses some momentum. The film itself takes on some of the characteristics of the Sugar Rush world - losing a bit of its bite and satirical edge in the process. But I was pleased that the movie pulled itself together for an exciting finale, that combined action, humor, and heart to end on a crowd-pleasing yet still-slightly-subversive note. And throughout the film, there are so many great little visual touches - the distinct way in which the 8-bit characters move as opposed to the more modern ones, for example - that shows the level of care and thought that was put into this universe. At the same time, a lot of issues were sort of touched on that I would have liked to have seen explored more. How does an 8-bit character feel in a world where he's now outdated? How do the arcade characters (and their real-world owner) feel about a world where arcades are quickly becoming extinct? Again, some of these story points are touched upon, but the movie does sometimes seem content to do that Where's Waldo thing I mentioned earlier. As cool as it is, it can be a little distracting at times. Especially given that Disney got permission to use some of the iconic characters (Pac-Man, Sonic), but not all (no Mario, for example). It gives a slight feeling of randomness to the movie - like there was a lot of last-minute scrambling to make adjustments based on who was or wasn't licensed to use (and on a sidenote, I'll admit I was slightly bothered by the fact that so many non-arcade game characters and concepts - things that have their roots in home game consoles - appeared in a world that was supposed to be linked to a physical video arcade - anyone else bothered by this?). That said, yes, I got a huge kick out of a lot of the references, and all of the visual and aesthetic tributes in the film. The ending credits alone are a gorgeously-rendered homage to classic videogames that will make even the most hardened geek crack an appreciative smile.

Wreck-It-Ralph is a fine effort from Disney - it's got visual sparks, great characters, and a heaping helping of heart. It may suffer a bit from trying to be all things to all people, rather than a completely unfiltered creative vision. There is that sense that this one, perhaps, suffers from needing to appeal to the Disney-kid demographic and be a cross-platform franchise hit, rather than just a great movie. But hey, it's funny to think we're now living in a world where today's kids need to be taught videogame appreciation, and that a movie like this one might familiarize them with the greats. I'll say again that Wreck-It-Ralph is a great kids movie - but it doesn't do quite enough to transcend its genre or its Disney trappings, to advance to that proverbial next-level of awesome.

My Grade: B+

BRAVE: Can Pixar Stay On-Target?

BRAVE Review:

- Brave has inevitably been discussed in terms of its place in the Pixar pantheon, and, given the knack for quality that Pixar has displayed over the years, that comparison to the company's previous efforts is likely inevitable. On the surface, Brave doesn't set off any warning signals to the naysayers who fear Pixar's track-record is at risk. It's not a sequel, it's not a cynical-feeling film. In fact, Brave had been touted as all sorts of things: the first Pixar film with a female lead, a feel-good film about empowerment, a bold, original vision. Oddly, while Brave has many good, and many Pixar-ish qualities, it also felt like the least Pixar-y Pixar film to date. In fact, its princess-in-peril storyline is more classic Disney than anything else. And the very traditional, fairy-tale esque story makes Brave a little more kiddie, a little less thematically-sophisticated, than the likes of Wall-E, Cars, or Ratatouille. Maybe it's unfair that we've come to expect Pixar films to be equally-appealling to adults and kids alike. But regardless, the level of storytelling and depth here simply doesn't hit the best-in-class level that I expected.

Set in a vaguely medieval Scottish kingdom, BRAVE tells the story of teenage princess Merida, who hates the rigidly-structured and thoroughly predetermined life that her station entails. Merida is a free spirit. She'd much rather be off exploring the woods, caves, and waterfalls of her kingdom, and practing her archery skills, than attending ceremonies and royal functions. So Merida is especially beside herself with anger when her parents inform her that it's time for her to start thinking about marriage. Specifically, they've arranged an event during which princes from three neighboring kingdoms will compete in various physical challenges in order to win Merida's hand. The uniting of kingdoms is politically a big deal, and so there's added pressure for Merida to get married - not just as a way of fully entering into womanhood, but also as a means of solidifying political alliances.

The fundamental problem here is that Brave sets up a pretty intriguing main character in Merida - who has the potential to be a fun and pretty kickass leading lady - but then, very quickly, the film devolves from more realistic, epic-seeming adventure to dumbed-down Disney stuff. Point being: Brave sets up Merida as an epic hero, but then places her in a story that's decidely less-than-epic. Without spoiling too much, Merida's reluctance to pick a suitor for marriage leads her into an angry conflict with her well-meaning but backwards-thinking mother. Merida storms off and, in the dark forest, is led by ghostly will-o-wisps to the cottage of an old witch. In classic fairytale fashion, Merida asks the witch for a spell that will change her mother. But of course, the spell doesn't work as Merida assumed it would, and suddenly, Merida finds herself in the midst of a very ugly mess of her own making - a mess that could put her, her mother, and the kingdom in jeopardy.

Again, without spoiling ... the somewhat silly results of the witch's spell never seem to gel with the more sweeping, lyrical tone established at the movie's outset. And I'll admit, given the relative lack of story info in the movie's marketing / trailers, I found myself pretty surprised and somewhat disappointed with the direction the plotline took. Brave turns out not to be an epic adventure movie as hinted at, but instead a coming-of-age romp with all sorts of cartoonish shenanigans driving its main plot - mistaken identity, magical hijinks, and many a moment of "seriously, you guys, this is all one big misunderstanding!".

Now, I sort of see what the movie is going for in its second act. It reverses the roles of Merida and her queen mother, putting them into a situation where the Queen's regal, proper manner is rendered useless, and Merida's survival skills, adventurous spirit, bravery, and quick-thinking are what keeps them safe. But this segment of the film sort of drags, and without a truly great villain or source of conflict, the characters seem to meander. Sure, the fearsome bear Mord'u - the monstrous beast that long ago took the leg of Merida's father - lurks in the shadows, threatening to strike. And I give the movie credit - some of the scenes with Mord'u are really exhillerating, dark, and intense. But the movie's mythology is too sketchy to give the bear - or many other elements of the film's backstory - the weight they need to really resonate.

To that end, I was surprised at how relatively one-note a lot of the characters in Brave turned out to be. Like I said, Merida has all the elements to be a great new character (even if the free-spirited female archer thing now seems a bit played out post-Hunger Games). But to me, the number-one most important relationship in the film was the one between Merida and her mother Elinor, the queen. But Elinor felt flat as a character. Some shred of backstory might have helped us understand her, but as presented she's just the typical stern-mom-with-a-stick-up-her-bum. To be honest, the movie tries for something very, very tricky. Because the way it's set up, Merida is presented as the rebellious teen who needs to learn a lesson in responsibility and growing up. But, the twist here is ... even though Merida acts out and rebels, she's also basically right about everything she says. She's rebellious, but in a way that makes her seem - to us, the modern audience - less like an obnoxious teen and more like a perfectly-in-the-right modern, empowered woman fighting against an oppressive society that treats objects like women, man (sorry, obligatory Big Lebowski reference). But what I'm getting at is: the movie makes it very difficult to know who to root for. We root for Merida, of course, but the movie's structure keeps making it seem like Merida's the one who needs to learn a lesson, not her mom. Afterall, Merida is the one who ran off and made a deal-with-the-devil and ended up endangering her family in the process. And yet, anyone with an ounce of liberalism in their veins will hate Elinor and sort of hope she gets what's coming - it is she, afterall, who's keeping her daughter from being all-she-can-be.

And that's the weird thing about BRAVE that left me with mixed emotions. On the surface, it's got a positive message for young girls - you can be whatever you want, you can be kickass, you can be brave, and a hero, and don't have to conform to outdated gender roles. All of that is great, and I support it 100%. But Brave presents this message awkwardly. Like I said, Merida is both a fight-the-power feminist and sort of a punk teen. We're never quite sure how much of her behavior is true equal-rights liberalism and how much is just brattiness. What's more, the movie's girl-power message is pretty on-the-nose. It's so spelled out, that it almost feels outdated. Like, it's 2012, shouldn't an animated kids' movie now just, you know, take it for granted that a girl can kick ass and be smart and tough and independent? I don't remember, say, Hunger Games sermonizing about how Katniss could be a badass despite being a girl - she just was. You know? Now sure, I recognize that a.) Brave is aimed at younger kids, and b.) it's set vaguely in the past, at a time when presumably women had less independence (though *that* is never really spelled out). Still, the message of the movie, to me, was delivered in a somewhat awkward, and maybe even outdated fashion.

All that said, BRAVE is a gorgeous film. The Scottish highlands and landscapes are breathtaking to behold, and the quality of the backdrops is incredible. Similarly, the character animaiton is wonderful - full of life and personality, and ultra-expressive. From a purely aesthetic standpoint, I loved the look and feel of Brave. When it wants to be dark and scary (i.e. the parts with Mord'u), it oozes spookiness and shadow. When it wants to make us feel like we're there with Merida, exploring caves and waterfalls, the camera pulls back and sweeps us away in almost overpoweringly epic fashion. And when the film first introduces the ghostly blue will-o-wisps, the effect is understated yet haunting. As Merida follows the trail of wisps, each evaporating as she passes, there's an immersiveness to the action that was positively Nintendo-esque in its whimsical sense of discovery, mystery, and wonder. I also loved the very-Scottish soundtrack, thunderously boistrous at times and hautingly low-key at others. Again, Brave is quite simply an audio-visual marvel.

I also really loved the voice-cast. I've beocme a big fan of Kelly MacDonald from Boardwalk Empire, and she is fantastic as Merida. Emma Thompson is quite good as Elinor, and Billy Connelly is a hoot as the loud, mirth-making, revenge-seeking King Fergus. There are a number of other Scotts in the mix as well - Craig Ferguson, Kevin McKidd ... if only some of the other supporting characters really jumped out. As it is, the suitors and their families are all sort of one-joke characters. There's the nerdy suitor, the douchebag suitor, and the weird suitor who talks in an unintelligible mumble. None really gets a great moment to shine or to develop or change. But look, Kelly MacDonald is the star here, and no complaints about her great and memorable turn in the lead role.

BRAVE had a lot of fun moments. And at times - as in the harrowing final confrontation with Mord'u - it was downright riveting. But it just didn't wow me as I hoped and expected it might. A big part of that is that Pixar films tend to be seamlessly-realized animated universes. Characters, aesthetics, and narratives super-integrated to tell a very specific story in a very specific way - a way that tends to work on multiple levels for kids and for adults. Brave seems like more of a mash-up. Elements of classic Disney-style fairytales, elements of Pixar's more progressive aesthetics and thematics. In that way, it doesn't feel as visionairy, thematically cohesive, or as impactful as Pixar's best, and it also lacks the pure magic and sense of wonder of the timeless Disney animated films. There's a lot to admire in BRAVE, but it feels like a well-intentioned, yet flawed film from Pixar - perhaps the closest they've come to a misfire in a long while.

My Grade: B