“Frozen II” should be left out in the cold


When “Frozen” came out, it was the coolest thing since sl-’iced” bread, and it seemed like only days after the premiere that people began speculating on when the sequel would come out. After years of waiting, it started to seem like Disney may have gotten cold feet. Our hopes were then reunited when the trailer for “Frozen II” arrived, leaving many to wonder if it could live up to the hype surrounding the original that took the world by storm.
Admittedly, I’m somewhat biased against the “Frozen” movies, as when the first one came out I was an edgy middle-schooler who hated anything that I perceived as popular, so Frozen was the bane of my existence based purely on principle.
That being said, I recently re-watched the original in preparation for the sequel and found that while I didn’t think it was that bad, I didn’t quite enjoy it.
At first the movie seemed to have potential; the characters were solid, the music was decent, and even the overly matured Olaf was less grating than his original attitude during the previous movie. But, as the movie went on, the characters became less interesting, the songs even more forgettable, and the jokes are less funny.
One major problem with the movie is its villain, or rather, its lack of one. In a previous article I had said I expected the character Captain Mathias to be the obligatory secret bad guy that gets shoehorned into every Disney movie. While the captain was not evil, my prediction was thrown off by the fact that I assumed Disney had enough dignity at least to have a villain who appeared in more than just two flashbacks, and did more than kill one off-screen. As contentious as the villain in “Frozen” is, at this he wasn’t this bad.
Another problem “Frozen II” inherits from its predecessor is its meddling message. I am not someone who is overly concerned with the messages movies send, but I am concerned with theming and the messages in “Frozen II” are all over the place. The movie has themes involving trusting nature and the truth, but this falls through when the characterizations of nature, “the spirits” attack and inhibit the characters’ progress. How can “the spirits” expect Elsa to uncover the truth if they try to burn her or drown her every five seconds?
Another wrongdoing with the movie is characterization. Characters suddenly change personalities from their usual selves to fit the whims of unfunny jokes, hurting their believability as people. For example, during the first part of the second movie, Anna acts as this goofy character who takes most things like a joke. Yet once Elsa freezes, Anna starts to become emotional, and acts as a different character and isn’t her usual funny self. The lack of comedy in the second half also could have been Elsa’s lack of humor, as she’s this very serious queen who only cares about herself.
Although the ending was very dramatic and touching, it still doesn’t make sense why the two separated. Elsa goes away to rule the enchanted forest, while Anna becomes the new queen of Arendelle. Although this is something Elsa has been waiting for her whole life, I don’t see Anna responsible enough to rule Arendelle by herself with the daunting tasks the kingdom has faced before. I think because of her goofy attitude, she won’t have the ability to run the kingdom, and with Elsa being in the forest, something terrible could happen.
If I could rewrite the “Frozen” franchise, I would start the movie with Elsa allowing Anna to take over as queen as she goes off in search of what happened to their parents at sea, then Elsa should return with the hints about their parents. This would allow the plot to stay mostly the same, save for a few details, but would make Elsa’s place as the spirit of ice a more satisfying end.
To be honest I have been a little disappointed in Disney’s recent releases, and I hope they will break that trend with their next release “Onward”, which is about two teenage elf brothers taking a journey to save their heritage.