Frozen 2 Reactions: SPOILERS

[SJN1279]

I loved the first half hour, but once they got to the Forrest, I feel the movie lost its way. It was dark, dull, and depressing.

Give me the original any day, but the sequel was a huge disappointment for me.

 

[Mike S]

Wow I loved it.

Some don’t seem to care for it here I guess but “Lost in the Woods” is exactly the kind of corny ballad I love (thanks Mom). Olaf was freaking hysterical and I feel it was a very worthy sequel, music and all. Sad thing is it makes me even more disappointed in Wreck It Ralph 2 for not being better than it was.

Edit: the movie didn’t address it but I guess Kristoff is now King as well. Pretty good for a guy raised by Trolls

 

[Fox&Hound]

Wow I loved it.

Some don’t seem to care for it here I guess but “Lost in the Woods” is exactly the kind of corny ballad I love (thanks Mom). Olaf was freaking hysterical and I feel it was a very worthy sequel, music and all. Sad thing is it makes me even more disappointed in Wreck It Ralph 2 for not being better than it was.

Edit: the movie didn’t address it but I guess Kristoff is now King as well. Pretty good for a guy raised by Trolls

Bro, don't even get me started on how disappointing WR2 was as a film. Totally missed opportunity that destroyed all the rules of the first film (apparently Vanelope can leave Sugar Rush with no consequences now). While I didn't think Frozen 2 was as good as the original, it is a worthy successor and moved the story forward in surprising ways...

 

[No Name]

How did Frozen 2 move the story forward in a way pertinent to the themes of the series?

Maybe it's a sign of our culture constantly releasing superhero origin stories, but I never understood the obsession and frustration with not know the full details of where Elsa got her powers.

It's not important to the first movie. The first movie is about how Elsa feels and is treated for having powers at all. It's a metaphor for being different and worrying about rejection. That's what is important, not the superficial details of a fairy tale universe.

Nobody asks where did the Fairy Godmother get her powers. Or The Blue Fairy. Or Merlin. Or Genie. They just have them and as an audience we used to be able to accept that without question.

Extremely well said.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Haven’t read this thread. In theatre now about to see the film. Pretty much full theatre (except that evil front section of course). My thoughts coming up afterward. Excited to see this film!

 

[Disney Analyst]

Oh wow. I loved that. Holy. My expectations were lower due to hearing some people say it was good but not as good as the first, and the music not being as good.

I disagree. I think this movie may be stronger then the first; but may need a repeat showing to fully determine. Loved the animation, story was mature
and exciting. I honestly didn’t know what to expect story wise: but really interesting.

For me this was a far stronger musical piece, with music evenly place throughout, and all interesting and strong songs. Kristoffs ballad was hilarious but thoughtful. Anna’s song in the 2nd act heartbreaking. Both of Elsa’s songs powerful anthems. Just great. I always disliked how the music just sort of vanished in the first film, they fixed that with this one.

All in all, I had a great time. Oh and that Olaf reenactment scene killed me and the entire audience. So hilarious.

 

[HairyChest]

Wow. I LOVED this movie. The songs, the visuals which were stunning especially the dress transformation and the water horse, the story. I balled during show yourself. This was made for the adults that are young at heart, not the kids. I also got lord of the rings vibes. I've seen it multiple times now. On the way home from the first showing i put on the music and fell in love with the soundtrack. I really liked the first one after i saw it a couple times (it grew on me) but this one blew me away.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Perfect cover video with the perfect cameo...

 

[Prince-1]

Exceptionally average.

 

[Princess Leia]

3/5
It was fine. I think I had hyped up positive reviews in my head and was kind of let down in the end.

The good:

• Into the Unknown is such an ear worm, but it’s a really good ear worm. Show Yourself is a song I plan on listening to again, because I remember it being a pretty solid tune. I liked All is Found as well
• Fantastic animation and design, really gorgeous
• The inclusion of the Sami people
• The majority of the voice cast
• Olaf (and his song). I was very concerned that he was going to be too much in this film, but Disney surprised me again
• The salamander. Absolutely adorable, I want one.
• Having Elsa be the fifth spirit really helps justify her powers in the shorts after the first film, things make more sense now.
• I enjoyed the tone of the film and the adventurous setting
• The ending felt right. I don’t think they’ll make another full length feature, but I 100% expect a short about Anna & Kristoff’s wedding

The okay:

• Sterling K. Brown. I love him, but there were a few moments that it felt like his voice acting was for a funnier version of Frozen II that I wasn’t currently watching
• “Are you okay?” “Are you okay?” “I’m okay.” “ELSA! Are you okay?” I get it. You’re checking on each other. But 10% of the dialogue was filled with ‘okay’
• Kristoff’s song. Groff got a song! Good! But it went on way too long with that concept, and my first okay point, felt like it was for a funnier version of what I was watching. I know Kristoff’s a goofy guy, but that song didn’t fit.
• The Northoldra guy who helped Kristoff seemed like he had a subplot that was cut.
• Wouldn’t the amount of water coming back to the sea create a rising water level that would cause a little bit of flooding anyways? I’m just guessing here
• Olaf dying would have had more of an effect on me if Infinity War hadn’t used a similar plot point 18 months previously. It’s possible that these two movies created by Disney had no idea what they were developing, but the only thing I could think of during the whole scene was ‘Mr. Stark, I don’t feel so good.’

The bad:

• They retold the story of the first film at least 3 times. Olaf doing it was funny. But then the Kristoff/Anna scenes were shown again during his song, and Elsa recreated the film out of ice. It just felt like filler to me.
• The Hans callbacks felt forced
• Anna’s song in the cave was really not good
• In relation to my previous note, this is where the multitude of children in my very packed theater got restless. And hearing all of the kids get restless (and seeing the one in the seat next to me start pacing) made me restless
• I’m sure it’s a coincidence, but I kept thinking about Avatar: the Last Airbender during the film
• That one review I read (from a professional critic) last month that said something along the lines of ‘It’s not so much of a spoiler about Elsa’s grandfather trying to colonize the Northoldra as it was so obvious and you would figure it out within five minutes’. Well excuse you, Mr Reporter, but that was kind of a major spoiler.

 

[Peace Love Disney]

I loved it. It was much more than I expected it to be and I actually feel and I never say this that I think it slightly out did the first. The music in my opinion was outstanding. Olaf who I loved in the first movie just picked right up and was completely hilarious again. I felt Kristoff had a more major role and I liked that. Anna and Elsa was brilliant as expected. Iduna song sung by Evan Rachel Wood I thought was amazing. In some way I was surprised by how great it was. Of course the animation was out of the world and yes it was a bit more mature than the first movie and this is coming from a 16 year old who saw the movie when she was 15. All in all I would give it a solid 4 out of 5.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Maybe it's a sign of our culture constantly releasing superhero origin stories, but I never understood the obsession and frustration with not know the full details of where Elsa got her powers.

It's not important to the first movie. The first movie is about how Elsa feels and is treated for having powers at all. It's a metaphor for being different and worrying about rejection. That's what is important, not the superficial details of a fairy tale universe.

Nobody asks where did the Fairy Godmother get her powers. Or The Blue Fairy. Or Merlin. Or Genie. They just have them and as an audience we used to be able to accept that without question.

Thanks for this. I feel normal again, the look of utter bewilderment gone from my face.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Frozen II was at times visually stunning. Especially the abstract sequences.

The storyline felt like a 90s direct-to-video. Redundant.

The songs were underwhelming. Perhaps they felt the weigh of Let it Go, which they at once had to emulate, top, and avoid similarity to.

I liked Frozen I. I was fatigued by its hype but enjoyed the movie. But Frozen is a one-of, not a franchise, which merely weakens the characters and themes.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

I disliked the imperialist, racist aspect of Frozen II. If Frozen is set in 19th century Nordic Europe, then let the people look indigenous. Not like 21st century Americans.

I'm sure the next Pocahontas movie will not feature White and Hispanic members of her tribe. The upcoming Mulan movie will not portray a classical China inhabited by Africans and Papoeans. So why is this erasure of European history tolerated?

 

[MisterPenguin]

I disliked the imperialist, racist aspect of Frozen II. If Frozen is set in 19th century Nordic Europe, then let the people look indigenous. Not like 21st century Americans.

Love how you just continue to make stuff up to get your anti-Disney zingers in. Great going there, super chief.

Disney's 'Frozen 2' thrills Sámi people in northern Europe

The sequel to Walt Disney Co's 2013 hit animated musical "Frozen" is generating excitement among indigenous Sámi people in northern Europe, whose culture the movie has taken inspiration from.

www.reuters.com

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Love how you just continue to make stuff up to get your anti-Disney zingers in. Great going there, super chief.

Disney's 'Frozen 2' thrills Sámi people in northern Europe

The sequel to Walt Disney Co's 2013 hit animated musical "Frozen" is generating excitement among indigenous Sámi people in northern Europe, whose culture the movie has taken inspiration from.

www.reuters.com

Anti-Disney? No. I just went to a Disney movie to be entertained. Or else I would've gone seen another movie, silly.

I think you missed the point, judging by the Sami article. I did have some issues with this aspect of Frozen II too: an exercise in post-colonial studies 101, Noble Savage syndrome, American-centric projection of the traumas of American colonial history. But none of that was at all my point.

No, the problem is, Frozen portrays the Sami as looking like Sami. Now imagine if the portrayed Sami had consisted of Swedes, Norwegians, Russians....
Can you imagine the outrage?

But the indigenous Norwegians/Nordics of the movie are not granted the same courtesy. They are portrayed as Africans, as Hispanics, as non-indigenous. This is a shameful erasure of the Nordic peoples from the history books. They have a history too, a land, are a people.

Let me ask you plain and simple: Pocahontas II - should her pre-Columbian tribe be portrayed as consisting of natives, Blacks and Europeans? Or as indigenous? If the former, fine. If not, why the difference in treatment of indigenous Norwegians?

 

[Animaniac93-98]

The storyline felt like a 90s direct-to-video. Redundant.

There was never a real need for a Frozen 2. Frozen 1 ended its story in a satisfactory manner without sequel baiting its audience. The shorts that followed (Fever and Olaf) expanded the story without short changing the message and prominence of the original.

The only reason Frozen 2 exists is a corporate desire for low risk profits, and the company was sadly rewarded in a big way. Much like in 1994 when consumers made Return of Jafar one of the top 10 selling home video titles of all time.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

Let me ask you plain and simple: Pocahontas II - should her pre-Columbian tribe be portrayed as consisting of natives, Blacks and Europeans? Or as indigenous? If the former, fine. If not, why the difference in treatment of indigenous Norwegians?

Pocahontas is/was a real person. Arrendelle is a fictional land, populated by fictional people, with a fictional history.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Pocahontas is/was a real person. Arrendelle is a fictional land, populated by fictional people, with a fictional history.

Yes, Frozen is fiction. The inhabitants could've looked like six-limbed green koala bears.

Also, I'm of the thought that any actor can portray anybody. An eighty year old Cambodian man can be cast as Anne Frank.
Likewise, a Bollywood production of a story set in medieval Europe can feature just Indian actors. That's normal.

The issue arises because of the combination of two factors: Disney made a big point of setting Frozen II in an authentic Lapland. They placed Frozen/Arendelle in Norway in EPCOT. Have always made a big fuzz about Frozen being Norwegian inspired. Frozen is set in Nordic Europe, not a fictional place.
The second factor is that modern Disney takes great effort to make their stories ethnically sensitive and correct: the Sami look like Sami (well like Native Americans, but that's for another time), the Pacific Islanders of Moana look like Pacific Islanders, the Chinese and Mongolians of Mulan look respectively Chinese and Mongolian. All characters in Coco are Hispanic, Mexican. All indigenous peoples are accurately portrayed. This is the Disney standard. Culturally sensitive.

All indigenous peoples. Except the indigenous European ones. We are apparently not worthy of accurate, culturally sensitive portrayal. Characters in Frozen look nothing like indigenous Norwegians.

Can you assume the outrage if a story set in pre-Columbian America features Whites living in the Americas? The movie theaters would be burned down. Imagine a story set in modern Brazil, and no characters are Black or Brown?

Yet Disney stories set in Europe denies us
indigenous Europeans, the same courtesy of accurate portrayal. BatB live action looked like modern LA, not pre-settler 18th century France. The Little Mermaid is no longer Danish. Mary Poppins' London is inhabited by Hispanics instead of Britons. Norway is inhabited by Africans - except the Sami, who Disney apparantly confuses for non-Europeans and who are therefore ethnically correctly displayed.

My history, my ancestors are deliberately inaccurately portrayed, and there is no reason why Disney shouldn't hold them in the same regard as all the other peoples and cultures it portrays.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Yes, Frozen is fiction. The inhabitants could've looked like six-limbed green koala bears.

Also, I'm of the thought that any actor can portray anybody. An eighty year old Cambodian man can be cast as Anne Frank.
Likewise, a Bollywood production of a story set in medieval Europe can feature just Indian actors. That's normal.

The issue arises because of the combination of two factors: Disney made a big point of setting Frozen II in an authentic Lapland. They placed Frozen/Arendelle in Norway in EPCOT. Have always made a big fuzz about Frozen being Norwegian inspired. Frozen is set in Nordic Europe, not a fictional place.
The second factor is that modern Disney takes great effort to make their stories ethnically sensitive and correct: the Sami look like Sami (well like Native Americans, but that's for another time), the Pacific Islanders of Moana look like Pacific Islanders, the Chinese and Mongolians of Mulan look respectively Chinese and Mongolian. All characters in Coco are Hispanic, Mexican. All indigenous peoples are accurately portrayed. This is the Disney standard. Culturally sensitive.

All indigenous peoples. Except the indigenous European ones. We are apparently not worthy of accurate, culturally sensitive portrayal. Characters in Frozen look nothing like indigenous Norwegians.

Can you assume the outrage if a story set in pre-Columbian America features Whites living in the Americas? The movie theaters would be burned down. Imagine a story set in modern Brazil, and no characters are Black or Brown?

Yet Disney stories set in Europe denies us
indigenous Europeans, the same courtesy of accurate portrayal. BatB live action looked like modern LA, not pre-settler 18th century France. The Little Mermaid is no longer Danish. Mary Poppins' London is inhabited by Hispanics instead of Britons. Norway is inhabited by Africans - except the Sami, who Disney apparantly confuses for non-Europeans and who are therefore ethnically correctly displayed.

My history, my ancestors are deliberately inaccurately portrayed, and there is no reason why Disney shouldn't hold them in the same regard as all the other peoples and cultures it portrays.

Disney's Barbarian Sack of Rome will be out in 2021.