I just saw Tangled. I know my review is a little bit late (and that I haven't posted anything for awhile), but I was out of town (at Disneyland!) and have been unable to post this past week.
Anyways,
Tangled, directed by
Nathan Greno and
Byron Howard (
Bolt), was superb. As with any film, story is the most important part, and
Tangled really delivered. The plot was filled with conflict, intrigue, and suspense; there was a very good balance between fast, action-packed scenes and those of deep emotion.
Although, the story did suffer slightly due to an inevitable fact: it's a fairytale. I have nothing against fairytales and I think that they can make a wonderful basis for a story, but I think that this fact made
Tangled suffer. While it was really funny and engaging, it was predictable and was restricted by the classic form of the fairytale. While I realize that
every story is more or less predictable and restrained by a common plot outline (
Hero's Journey!), fairytales suffer the most, especially since the majority of Disney's past films have been in this same genre. Still, it did a decent job of pushing the boundaries of the fairytale further than I thought they could. And I don't think it
really hurt the movie, unless you over-analyze it like I am. (But I am very glad that Ed Catmull has
announced that Walt Disney Animation Studios will never make another fairytale.)
Combined with the importance of story is the importance of character.
Tangled didn't fail us here, either. The villain was very evil (and excellently voiced), which is a necessity for any good story, and the audience really cheered for the main characters. One thing that is always missing from a bad movie is that there isn't a forseeable goal or adequate motivation for the hero or villain--
Tangled, however, had an achievable goal and lots of motivation for every character. And that made for quite interesting characters.
However, one problem is that the audience tended to root more for the adventurous rogue of Flynn Rider (most likely due to his unparalleled charisma, classic good looks, and spot-on humor), rather than the real hero of the story, Rapunzel. This is due to the fact that the character of Rapunzel was rather flat and uninteresting; she seemed to act as more of a catalyst for action than a thinking being (think Hitchcock's
MacGuffin). Perhaps it's the fact that all she seemed to talk about were those darn flying lanterns. Maybe it's just that she was overshadowed by far more interesting characters. But I think the real reason is that I couldn't relate to her. I can sympathize with Flynn's back-story of rejection and longing, but how could I ever empathize with somebody who's been trapped in a tower for 18 years? I can't. Still, the strength of the other characters easily made up for this minor flaw in Rapunzel.
My favorite character of the movie, however, was the valiant steed, Maximus. He managed to get across so much emotion and humor without ever saying a word--he was really, really funny and well-animated. Whoever managed to animate that horse with such flamboyant and exaggerated emotion deserves an Oscar. And a Golden Globe.
And a Nobel Peace Prize.
Similarly, I appreciated how Pascal the Chameleon was just pantomime; it is so much more interesting and fun to watch a character convey emotion through good acting instead of fast-talking dialogue (I'm looking at you, Donkey of
Shrek and every character ever voiced by Wanda Sykes...).
The animation of the whole thing was excellent. Each frame could be framed as a piece of art in its own right--the vibrant colors and excellent art direction made for truly remarkable visuals. I also appreciated how the animators made the chase scenes and characters and gags more "cartoony" by adding classic animation techniques like the
squash-and-stretch--it is so entertaining to watch. This nod to the traditional forms of animation, most likely inspired by animation legend
Glen Keane, has been missed from a lot of CG films, but is welcome back with open arms. Also, the medieval village and vibrant forest backgrounds are very reminiscent of the gorgeous hand-drawn Disney classics. Glen Keane has done it again!
One negative thing, though, were the songs. While I loved the European-inspired instrumental score, the soundtrack left a lot to be desired. Alan Menken, who wrote the songs for classics like
Beauty and the Beast and
Aladdin, didn't write one great song for
Tangled. I was expecting a
Whole New World or
Under the Sea, but was left with a generally uninteresting set of melodies. You know it's a good song when you can remember the melody and hum it...and I can't even remember one line from a single tune. It's too bad, really. Disney fairytales are known for their beautiful and catchy soundtracks.
A hot topic that's been surrounding
Tangled is whether it is geared towards boys or girls. After the flop that was
The Princess and the Frog, Disney's marketing department did a major overhaul of
Rapunzel, retitling it, adding pop music to the trailer, and up-playing their male lead and humor. While I think that this marketing technique was an unclassy move for Disney, it seems to have worked, since
Tangled is doing fairly well at the
Box Office (it didn't beat
Potter, but it was the second biggest Thanksgiving opening ever). Back to the issue at hand: I don't think
Tangled is aimed at male or female audiences. Like all Disney movies, this movie is for everybody; there are things for the parents, the boys, and the girls. If you enjoy good cinema and have a good sense of humor, you'll enjoy
Tangled.
It ain't no
Bolt or
Toy Story 3 or
Lion King, but the great animation, spot-on humor, interesting plot, and overall flow of the story and jokes more than made up for its "fairytale-ness," somewhat weak main character, and lack of decent song-writing.
Tangled, Walt Disney Animation Studio's 50th animated feature, is a winner.
9 out of 10.
Read More...
