Movie Review: Tangled

"Tangled" / Rated PG / Disney / 92 min. / Dir. by Nathan Greno and Bryon Howard

It is my happy duty to report that Disney is back. Yes, I'm aware that the conglomerate super-entity known as The Walt Disney Company never left. However, there has been an oddness about their animated output for roughly the last decade. An oddness that has made even their best films seem strangely "un-Disney". They've been trying to play catch up with the other big boys. "Chicken Little" was clearly an attempt as a DreamWorks style action-comedy. "Meet the Robinsons" tried to add a little Pixar-style sentimentality. However, none of it came naturally. Most of these films smacked of desperation mixed with committee thinking.

Last year, when I heard that the film "Rapunzel" was being renamed "Tangled", so it would appeal to both little boys and girls, I was worried that this movie would be one more example of how the corporate heads of the company can demographic a good story to nothing. However, this is far from the truth. "Tangled" is a sheer delight. It's bright, funny, tuneful and a visual feast. Again, with "Tangled", Disney, or rather the Disney magic, is back.

The story of "Tangled" is roughly the traditional story of Rapunzel, however, the prince has been swapped out for a thief and she has a chameleon companion to get her through the days. Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) has grown-up believing that the world is a wicked and frightening place and that her mother (the fantastic Donna Murphy) has been protecting her by steeling her away in a tower. In actuality her mother isn't her mother at all, rather an old hag who kidnapped her shortly after her birth in order to use the magical restorative power of her hair. That's why she never cuts it. It her hair gets cut, it loses it's magic. Therefore, life for Rapunzel is a never-ending schedule of various indoor activities (reading, cooking, painting and, of course, brushing her hair). That is until a thief by the name of Flynn Rider (Zachary Levi) stumbles upon her tower and changes her life forever.

Being the Disney nerd that I am, I actually purchased the soundtrack to "Tangled" last week and have been listening to the songs, getting every little nuance and plot detail. I really enjoyed the music, but it works even better in the context of the story. Melodies that were merely enjoyable are transporting in the narrative and many of them are so memorably staged that they immediately draw ones mind to the early 90's Disney heyday of "Beauty and the Beast" and "Aladdin".

Visually, this is truly a stunning movie. Plus, it's the first movie I've seen since last year's "Avatar" that uses the 3D presentation as an immersing and enhancing story element as opposed to a cheap "gotcha" gimmick. The colors are bright and warm, the backgrounds lush and the character animation is superb.

The only depressing thing about this movie was the opening trailers. Normally, I'm the biggest fan of movie trailers. I push to get there in time to see them all and relish in the ones that I love. However, the upcoming onslaught of horrible looking "family" entertainment (including next month's "Yogi Bear" and the next Disney/motion-capture film "Mars Needs Moms") just reminds me of how much producers talk down, not only to children, but to their families. If you want to experience something truly special with your children, take them to "Tangled" this week. If you want to see something at Christmas time that's truly special, skip "Yogi Bear" and see "Tangled" again. If quality films make a mint, we just might get more of them. And, if "Tangled" makes a mint, we might just see the completion of that return-to-Disney-magic that we've all been hoping for.

Grade: A

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I" / Dir. by David Yates / Rated PG-13 / 146 min. / Warner Bros.

Has there ever been a book series and, by nature, a film series more evolving than the Harry Potter series? Among the many strokes of brilliance executed by J.K. Rowling in creating the series, one of the most impressive is choosing to have the central characters evolve in such a natural way that the shifts in tone from light and wide-eyed to foreboding and unsure seem less like a narrative decision and more like an inevitable fact of life. As we grow older, our problems get more and more complex. So it is for all of us, including those Hogwarts-attending magic-doers. Although, I do admit that as I've matured, my problems have never approached the level of sheer weight as those of Harry Potter.

The new film (part 1 of 2) is the darkest of the lot. Not only is Voldemort, Harry's arch-nemesis, back and in full power, but he's also completely infiltrated the Ministry of Magic, which basically means that the list of people Harry and his friends can trust just got a heck of a lot shorter. With the exception of his stalwart pals Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint), Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) is more on his own in this edition than any previous installment. For the first time since the story began, he has no mentor. They've all either been killed or otherwise taken out of the picture. The trio are adrift in the real world, having forgone their final year of studies at Hogwart's in order to fulfill a very dangerous and rather cryptic mission given to Harry by Dumbledore. Since Dumbledore is not available to consult, the three are left to figure out how to find and destroy several Horcrux's, magical items that contain pieces of Voldemort's soul. Once the Horcrux's are destroyed, the dark wizard will finally be mortal and tactically vulnerable.

One of the most notable things about "Deathly Hallows" is that it immediately departs from the formula of the other stories (i.e. - Harry goes to school, he and his friend try to solve a mystery while studying for exams and playing Quiddich, they all fall in awkward teenage love, etc.) Taking the characters away from the safety of Hogwart's not only allows the plot to move into new and unforeseen directions, it also seems to give the lead actors permission to really own their parts. The casting for the Harry Potter films has been uniformly excellent (this is the best contribution made by initial director, Christ Columbus). However, up to this point, I wasn't really convinced that the central trio were actually actors, as opposed to children who grew up with the characters for long enough that they instinctively knew how to approach them. No, these performances are sure and masterful. In fact, that's the word that describes the entire film the best. Masterful.

The artistic choices made by the director? Masterful. The screenplay that is a paragon of "show, don't tell" virtues? Masterful. The engaging and virtually seamless special effects? Masterful. The musical score that may not be melodically memorable, but creates a mood perfectly balanced between menace and whimsy? Masterful.

In fact, the story is so masterfully done that the only complaint is that the whole audience would be perfectly happy to sit for another 2 1/2 hours and finish the story. I know that we have to wait until July, but this film is so engaging and beautiful that the months can't fly by fast enough.

Grade: A