Fowler's Frights 2015: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)
Starring: Robert Englund, Mark Patton, Kim Myers
Directed by: Jack Sholder


For me, you can't have the month of October without including Freddy Krueger. A Nightmare on Elm Street has always been one of my favorite horror franchises, but I can't hold it up to the well-made standard that something like a Scream franchise can boast. The first film was a groundbreaking piece of film history, but the studio demands for sequels to be churned out nearly every year meant that each film deteriorated in quality film after film. This, mixed with the Halloween and Friday the 13th sequels spelled the impending doom for horror in the early '90s, which was eventually revitalized by the first Scream movie. Some sequels have some originality to them, but a lot of them are laughable to the point of parody. No film in the Nightmare films better symbolizes that than A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge. Swapping out the usual horror movie heroine for a male lead wound up becoming one of the most unintentionally homoerotic films of all-time. And again, they weren't trying. As if those problems weren't enough, the story concept took an interesting approach with Freddy that also resulted them sacrificing the one thing about Freddy that made him unique. Let's see how this colossal mess of a film has garnered such a cult following over the years.

The main characters are nothing special. Jesse, played by Mark Patton, is a unique approach for a main protagonist that doesn't really work well. The man screams like a little girl, has scenes where he's sleeping in his tighty whities, and scenes where he dances like an idiot. It doesn't mix well for something that could be taken seriously, or at least in a scary movie something that's actually scary. It's like they were going for a comedy instead of horror with a character like Jesse. His girlfriend Lisa, played by Kim Myers, is pretty generic, but at least Myers looks like Meryl Streep. Seriously, once you see it, you'll be convinced you're watching the low point of Streep's career. Don't worry, it's not her. Ron Grady, played by Ron Rusler, is your typical '80s wise guy. He's funny and whatnot, but doesn't have enough screen time or development to truly stand out. There is something else, however, that really stands out in Freddy's Revenge.

So, what about that homoerotic thing I was talking about? Well, just look at the movie to see for yourself. The film has towels snapping across a bare butt in the shower, males pantsing other males, a leather S & M bar, a main character who seems distant from both his girlfriend and his family, seems very drawn to his best friend, and the main conflict involving a grown man taking control of a young man's body (thus, him questioning and being confused about what's going on with him). Not to mention the fact that Mark Patton is gay in real life. And can you believe the cast and crew didn't notice the undertones until well after the film had been completed and released? I can't make this stuff up if I tried. How do you get all of this from a Freddy Krueger movie? That reminds me...

For a Freddy Krueger movie, the film is really lacking from a great Krueger performance from Robert Englund. Thanks to the film's concept, a lot of Freddy is seen in Jesse's dreams, but when other characters are being killed by Krueger, it's because Krueger has possessed Jesse's body. So Freddy isn't really doing the killing, Jesse is. An interesting concept, but that's not what the fans came to see. When Freddy finally does appear, it's out of the dream world and he terrorizes a pool party. Here, Freddy has been removed from the dream world (where we like him best) and assumes the role of a generic teen slasher. No one wants that. We like Freddy Krueger for his originality and how unique the dreams can look on film. We don't get any of that in the dreams, shy of a few pretty good practical effects. Every dream feels TOO grounded in reality. You always should enjoy some form of fantasy in the dream like state, at least with the Nightmare films.


Rating: 1 out of 5 stars.

Where you stand on A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge really depends on how you want to look at the film. For horror, it falls very short of living up to the original and it's a sequel you can definitely skip. If you're looking for comedy, it's one of the most unintentionally hilarious horror films you can watch from the '80s and is worth checking out at least once if you're in the proper mindset for some campy laughs.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge and movie images are copyrighted by New Line Cinema

Fowler's Frights 2015: Scream 4

Scream 4 (2011)
Starring: David Arquette, Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox
Directed by: Wes Craven


You gotta imagine my joy when I, a Scream fan, was preparing for an all new Scream film to hit theaters in 2011. My best friend and I were sitting in a packed theater on opening day to watch Scream 4, and we were at least hoping for something that would have redeemed the franchise after the lackluster finale provided by Scream 3. What we got was something that completely exceeded our expectations. It perfectly played up to the state of modern horror, with gorier deaths and a funny commentary on the amount of remakes that have plagued the genre during the new millennium. By the end of the film, we were debating whether we liked this more than the first or second film. For me, I liked it almost as much as the first one, but my thoughts on it have cooled a little bit as time has gone on. Yet, I still think it's a good horror movie that deserves a look, so that's exactly what I'm going to do.

The usual returning characters are a lot of fun, which has come to be expected. The big thing about this film is that for the first time in a while, it seemed like these characters might actually be on the chopping block. With the idea of rebooting the series, it was possible that Sidney, played by Neve Campbell, could've been killed off somewhere in the middle or near the finale. Heck, a lot of the trailers made it look like Gale, played by Courtney Cox, would be murdered. Going into the movie, you were actually afraid that the characters we've known for 15 years could be bumped off the cast list to make way for our new characters.

There's actually a lot of really good new characters in Scream 4. My favorite was Kirby, played by Hayden Panettiere. Kirby is the residential movie geek, yet she's got all the looks of a leading lady in horror. Decades ago, that character would've never existed in horror films, but nowadays it's commonplace to find a token hot geek character. We've also got Charlie and Robbie, played by Rory Culkin and Erik Knudsen, who serve as the Randy characters for the movie. Jill, played by Emma Roberts, is Sidney's cousin and serves as the potential future leading lady for the rebooted cast. The only one I really didn't like was her ex-boyfriend Trevor, played by Nico Tortorella. Something about his performance really didn't work for me. He was just obnoxious, and not even in the fun way. You just wanted him to go away and not be seen in the film again.

At the end of the day, Scream 4 has an objective when it comes to horror remakes. The rules are simple here: unexpected is the new cliche, the killer should be using modern technology to be ahead of the curve (like videotaping the murders and putting them online), virgins can die now, the only major way to survive is by being gay (although that one's more of a joke thrown in by Robbie and Charlie), and the death scenes need to obviously be more extreme. Then, Sidney throws in her own rule near the end of the film when it comes to remakes: don't f*** with the original. That line got a standing ovation in my theater, showing just how much Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson know today's horror audience. The metaphor fits strongly, and is the main reason enjoyed the film. It went out of its way to try and remake the first film, while giving enough of a twist and commentary to say why that shouldn't happen, thus turning it into a reboot and a sequel.


Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Knowing to touch base on the current state of horror films, from torture porn to remakes, Scream 4 actually tells a fun story while remaining true to the original standard set in the first film. Depending on where you stand on modern horror, this film will be something you can identify with and I recommend all horror enthusiasts check it out at least once.

Scream 4 and movie images are copyrighted by Dimension Films

Fowler's Frights 2015: Scream 3

Scream 3 (2000)
Starring: David Arquette, Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox
Directed by: Wes Craven


Every groundbreaking film series needs a proper conclusion. Scream 3 is not that kind of movie. Three years after the last film, the studios were insistent on getting a conclusion to the trilogy released before the film series lost its momentum at the box office. So, when Kevin Williamson was asking the studio to be patient while he tried to balance his rigorous schedule, they went the route of removing Williamson from the project and replacing him with a different screenwriter. Because of that, what felt like the heart and soul of the franchise (the compelling screenplay) had been removed from the final product. As if that wasn't bad enough, Neve Campbell also had a busy schedule that got her limited time to film her scenes for Scream 3. Because of that, the main character Sidney Prescott isn't utilized heavily with the rest of the cast. Most of her scenes are done by herself (and with Ghostface, obviously), and that also separates a strong dynamic these previous films had with its cast.

So with Sidney not at the forefront of the film, who's left leading the cast? You really want to know? It's Dewey and Gale, played by David Arquette and Courtney Cox. In the last two films, their chemistry and relationship banter was charming and comical when it was pushed to the side of the overall film. When it's the main source of character and plot development, it's actually really annoying to sit through. If anyone tuned in to watch the Scream movies more for Gale and Dewey than Sidney, please let me know because I just can't see it. It's like when you give a good side character a spinoff show or movie, it just never really works out, especially when their shtick gets old and tiresome. Is there anything else that can make this movie worse? Oh, yes there is.

Plain and simple, the new characters suck. The thing about Williamson's writing that really worked in the other films was that even with obnoxious and jerky characters, you were still given enough about them to care if and when they die. Here, we are introduced to maybe 2 characters that are fun to be around but that's it. Jennifer, played by Parker Posey, is a lot of fun (even if her acting is over the top) since she's the actress playing Gale in the fictional Stab movies and is basically a carbon copy of Gale, which really annoys the real Gale. I also think Detective Kincaid, played by Patrick Dempsey, is an ok character, but it's mainly because of how intentionally creepy he was written in order to be a suspect for the killer's identity. Other than that, they are just generic stock characters being lined up for a body count in a slasher movie. And with Scream, you expect the characters to be a little more than that.

Thanks to a cameo from Randy, played once again by Jamie Kennedy, the rules of a movie trilogy are established, basically explaining how third acts can jump the shark. Randy basically dictates that the killer will be indestructible, there will be some kind of convoluted backstory to tie things together with the past, and anyone can die. Scream 3 falls into the category of a great film series jumping the shark and that's largely due to Kevin Williamson not returning to write this film and Neve Campbell's limited screen time. No one wanted to see a Dewey and Gail centered film and the new characters left a LOT to be desired, so this brought the series to a slightly disappointing ending. That is, of course, if this was the ACTUAL finale to the series...


Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

Scream 3 is the installment of the franchise I'll watch the least with good reason. Thanks to the film we're gonna talk about next time, the finality of this film is completely scrapped in hindsight. It's sorely missing a script from Kevin Williamson and fans don't really care if the characters live or die in this one. Tie it in with a killer reveal that left me scratching my head trying to remember who they were, and you've got me saying that only the truest of die-hard Wes Craven fans need to check this out. Everyone else can skip this and go on to the next film.

Scream 3 and movie images are copyrighted by Dimension Films

Fowler's Frights 2015: Scream 2

Scream 2 (1997)
Starring: David Arquette, Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox
Directed by: Wes Craven


Alright guys, it's time to change things up a bit. I've been doing the same routine with my layout and it's frankly getting a bit old. I'm gonna try something new here this month, no plot summaries, shorter paragraphs, and keeping my ratings justified, yet brief. It feels appropriate for me to introduce the change in October, since it was the month where I implemented the first of my themed months. I love horror films, and reviewed a handful of the best within my first year of the blog, most notably my favorite horror film of all-time, Scream. This month, I'm looking at some of the sequels and remakes of my favorite slasher franchises, kicking it off with Scream 2. As far as sequels go, it's probably one of my favorites in the horror genre. The stakes are elevated, but it's very much contained in a way that says the original is still the better film. It's a very tongue and cheek approach to movie sequels in general, delivering in the type of meta humor that Scream popularized in the late '90s. So let's take a look at Scream 2.

Our favorite characters from the first movie return, this time with much more development from horror stereotypes to actual people. We see Sidney, played by Neve Campbell, continue to mature and grow as an adult. Her development's probably the weakest in the most extreme of terms, since she doesn't really need to change at all. The biggest growth is in Gail, played by Courtney Cox, as she grows to actually care for her friends rather than try and get a good story out of all of it. She also grows n her relationship with Dewey, played by David Arquette, as they inch their way closer and closer to being a couple. Their stuff is often a brilliant blend of sweet romance and awkward humor. Randy, played by Jamie Kennedy, also gets some subtle development in his resentment for being the stereotypical sidekick. He wants the girl (Sidney), he wants to save the day, and he wants to be taken seriously. That's some pretty compelling and often humorous stuff that often wouldn't be looked at in an average horror film. But then again, the Scream franchise aren't your average horror films. At least, to me they aren't.

We have some great new characters joining the cast, including Sidney's new boyfriend Derek, played by Jerry O'Connell, and classmate Cici, played by Sarah Michelle Gellar. Here's a great indication of how popular Scream was at the time. Gellar was one of the top young stars on the planet, and Cici isn't even that big of a role. She's in two scenes, but she's remembered due to her casting. As for Derek, he's nice and always does the right thing, but his boyfriend status makes him an obvious red herring for the killer's identity. But my favorite addition to the cast is the expanded role of Cotton Weary, played by Liev Schrieber. You can tell he's having a great time and his quips are to die for. I really love Cotton Weary, just ask my wife. It was my catchphrase while watching the film.

Scream 2 establishes the concept of movie sequels in two really memorable scenes. The first is an ongoing debate Randy has with his film class about how sequels always suck. Franchises from Alien to Terminator to Godfather to Star Wars are debated heavily, with no one really coming to an overall conclusion on whether or not a movie sequel can be better than the original. The other is a great scene between Randy and Dewey where they go over the rules. It's established that the body count is always bigger, the death scenes are more elaborate, and if you want to make sure your franchise is a success...we actually don't know that rule since Dewey interrupts Randy before he can finish. Nicely done guys. Kevin Williamson's writing and Wes Craven's directing really shine through here, and the film knows how to elevate the stakes, create more gore, and still have some fun with it. Meta humor has always been a favorite of mine, and this film has plenty of it.


Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Higher stakes, good new characters, and very self-aware, Scream 2 tries very hard to be one of the best movie sequels in film history. While I can't say it's on the level of The Empire Strikes Back or The Dark Knight, it's still a great sequel as far are horror movies are concerned and if you like Scream, you'll have just as much fun watching the sequel.

Scream 2 and movie images are copyrighted by Dimension Films

Disney Month III- The Nightmare Before Christmas

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)
Starring: Chris Sarandon, Danny Elfman, Catherine O'Hara
Directed by: Henry Selick


Plot Summary: In a forest lies many trees that lead to worlds representing our holidays. In Halloween Town, the Pumpkin King Jack Skellington is tired of the same old routine in his world and is in search of something different. He stumbles upon the trees in the forest and finds his way into Christmas Town. Inspired by the new sights he has seen, Jack plans to convert his pals in Halloween Town so they can be in control of the next Christmas.


If you go into a Disney theme park, a Hot Topic, a Spencer's Gifts, or any high school hallway, chances are you'll see kids wearing merchandise advertising the film we'll be talking about today, The Nightmare Before Christmas. Produced by Tim Burton and implementing stop-motion animation, the film brilliantly blurs the line of what makes a great Halloween movie AND a great Christmas movie. The film has obviously been a hit over the years and is considered one of the great iconic films to come from Disney. Considering that it's also relatively short, it's an easy film to get through. Yet, it's one that makes you think. The question I'm always left asking is whether I consider it a Halloween film or a Christmas film. I've even gone down the middle and considered it a Thanksgiving film, but that's not really accurate here. Is it possible for the film to be perfectly both? Or is there a holiday in the film that has more going for it than the other? Let's find out by comparing the inclusions of Christmas and Halloween in our characters, themes, music, and animation to determine if there's a true winner.

The main character of The Nightmare Before Christmas is Jack Skellington, voiced by Chris Sarandon. Jack's a very fun character because he's looked at as a town hero and icon, yet he's bored with everything Halloween. The thing he excels at has become mundane and he's looking for a change. When he finds Christmas Town, he's absolutely captivated by it, thus giving him the inspiration to try something new. We've all been there, so he's definitely a character you can get behind. Whether or not the endeavors work out is one thing, but it's the relatable quality in wanting more that was all over Disney movies during the Renaissance, so it's very welcome here. On an animation standpoint, he's just a great looking character design as well. He's visually memorable and you can see why they'd plaster his name and face on as much merchandise as possible. As I'm writing this, I'm wearing a Jack Skellington t-shirt. Need I say more?

The side characters are all a lot of fun too, each displaying a unique Halloween flavor. We've got vampires, ghosts, witches, werewolves, and a lot more. They are all fun for background stuff and blindly follow Jack into whatever he wants to do. But there are two additional characters I want to talk about. The first is the romantic interest Sally, voiced by Catherine O'Hara. Much like Jack, she's looking for more. However, unlike Jack, she knows exactly what it is (Jack and to be free from her creator). The other character is Oogie Boogie, voiced by Ken Page, the main villain of the movie. This is a fun and crazy villain with a Las Vegas gambler personality. Ironically, these are the two characters who really want nothing to do with Christmas. Sally continues to try and warn Jack that it won't be a success and Oogie Boogie actually plans on getting rid of Santa Claus permanently.

The music, composed by Danny Elfman (who also provides Jack's singing voice), is equally split from what I can tell. Sure, there's eerie tunes like "This is a Halloween," but there's also the charmingly whimsical "What's This?" Both are amazing songs, sung by fans throughout the entire year, covered by many modern rock groups from Marilyn Manson to Fall Out Boy. There isn't one that I say trumps the other, so that's a pretty good compliment. It's probably my favorite of Elfman's music, it's just so infectious.

The music also goes hand-in-hand with the stop-motion animation. The style both reflects the creepy creatures of Halloween Town and the melodious atmosphere of Christmas Town. While more time is spent in Halloween Town, Jack tries his best to bring the Christmas spirit with him, thus creating a grim blend of the two styles. You get all the charm of the Christmas holiday wrapped in a Gothic and horrific Halloween package. By the time Jack tries to go to the human world on Christmas Eve, he's assumed the role of Sandy Claws (get it?), has presents, flying reindeer, and the outfit. But something isn't right. It's just too reflective of one particular style.

Call me crazy, but I'm more prone to labeling this a Halloween film. The moral of the story is that Jack needed something a little different to remind him of what he excels at. It's not bad to want something different, in fact, it sometimes allows you to remember the good things you have, like it does for Jack. Plus, he gets that different thing he's looking for in Sally, so it ends on a happy note. It's an alternative holiday film. You can put it on at both Halloween and Christmas and it'll be appropriate. For me, there's so many Christmas specials out there that I wouldn't want this one to get lost in the shuffle. However, amidst the endless amounts of horror films and children's television specials, The Nightmare Before Christmas can easily stand out as one of the top choices the entire family can watch during the Halloween season.


Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

For a 75 minute, stop-motion animated film, it's as perfect as you can get. The Nightmare Before Christmas is one of the top money makers for Disney over the last couple of decades and it's easy to see why. It's a simple premise wrapped in complex animation and ingenious imagery. It's one of those iconic will recommend adding it to your collection immediately and watch it over and over, from Halloween to Christmas.

The Nightmare Before Christmas and movie images are copyrighted by Walt Disney Pictures

Disney Month III- Hocus Pocus

Hocus Pocus (1993)
Starring: Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, Kathy Najimi
Directed by Kenny Ortega


Plot Summary: Winnie, Sarah, and Mary Sanderson are three sister witches that are bent on sucking the lives out of the children of Salem, Massachusetts in order to make themselves younger and more beautiful. After being hanged 300 years ago, they are accidentally resurrected on Halloween night when the new kid in town Max Dennison lights the Black Flame Candle. Now, Max, his sister Dani, his crush Allison, and a talking cat named Binx must stop the Sanderson sisters from sucking the lives of the children of Salem until sunrise, when the witches will turn into dust and be gone forever.


We're nearing my favorite time of the year again: Halloween. This year, I'm going to spend the month of October reviewing the sequels of my 3 favorite horror franchises. That can get a little daunting for some and even a bit one dimensional for some to read, so I thought I'd throw in some other Halloween themed movies at the end of my Disney month. Starting things off is one of my all-time favorite movies to watch around Halloween, Hocus Pocus. The film, while nothing groundbreaking, has struck a chord with the '90s Disney crowd and has become a staple of the season. I can honestly say I've seen the movie maybe 2 or 3 times every Halloween season ever since I was a child. So what is it about the movie that stands out for so many people that it's still considered one of the most beloved modern Halloween specials?

The answer is very simple actually. It's the Sanderson Sisters. Winnie, Sarah, and Mary, played by Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Kathy Najimi. All of the sisters have different characteristics that make them differ. For example, Winnie is the brains of the operation (that's not saying much though), Mary is the the dumbest and often used for comic relief, and Sarah is the one who's boy crazy (that's the Disney way of saying slut right?). The performances really stand out here, as they are three very funny ladies who are having an absolute blast playing these bumbling sisters. They're the reason why you go to see the movie and the reason you keep coming back all these years later. They've become as big a Halloween figure for Disney as Jack Skellington (we'll get to him next time).

The human characters are fine, but again, they aren't why you're there. The only who is a little different in terms of what you normally get in movies like is Max, played by Omri Katz. Do you wanna know what that is? I'll tell you at the very end. But the other characters in his life are as generic as they come. His sister Dani, played by Thora Birch, is the generic child. Allison, played by Vinessa Shaw, is the generic love interest. We have generic parents, generic bullies, and generic extras running around the film. They aren't bad, but they're nothing we haven't seen before.

We do have some supernatural side characters though that stand out pretty well. The first is Thackery Binx, a former human turned talking cat voiced by Jason Marsen. After failing to save his sister 300 years ago, Binx vows revenge on the Sanderson Sisters by making sure that they don't succeed in sucking the lives out of the children a second time. He's actually pretty funny and it's always great to add the image of a black cat in a movie about witches. We also have a clumsy zombie named Billy Butcherson, played by Doug Jones. He's loads of fun thanks to his slapstick antics and his disdain for Winnie.

The production crew really knew how to capture the spirit of Halloween in this film. You've got scenes of the witch's roots in Salem 300 years ago, modern day trick-or-treating, black cats, zombies, tons of decorations and costumes. The whole film just looks great. I'm not surprised, since director Kenny Ortega worked with Disney to make Newsies, Descendants, and the High School Musical movies. All those films have a large scope and look to them, so it's no different here with Hocus Pocus. It's a great film visually to show the entire family about how fun Halloween can look. There may just be ONE thing wrong with it in order for you to maybe (big maybe) consider not showing to your kids. Remember when I was talking about Max earlier?

So, that thing about Max that makes him stand out is that he's a virgin. Normally, especially with Disney, it wouldn't be a bad idea to teach kids that there's nothing wrong with being a virgin. Yet, in Hocus Pocus, they go to an uncomfortable level to hammer in the idea that the entire reason our characters are in a mess is because Max is a virgin, which is then considered BAD. What the crap Disney? Talk about something that went over my head as a child. Why wasn't there some form of line or dialogue in which Max accepts that he's a virgin and acknowledges that there's nothing wrong with it. Would it have felt like an After School Special? Absolutely, but with how much they make it look and sound like a bad thing, I think it deserves some form of retribution. Heck, the virgin term is the punchline in one of the last lines in the movie. Why is Disney picking on virgins? Your main demographic is for family entertainment, so shouldn't you have that in mind when depicting a wholesome concept like virginity as a character FLAW? Moral of the film, Disney is mean to virgins. Thankfully, the rest of the movie is a lot of fun to watch that you can maybe look passed this massive flub up.


Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

Definitely campy but dripping with Halloween atmosphere, Hocus Pocus serves as some great Halloween entertainment for the whole family. If you're a Disney fanatic, add this to your collection in time for Halloween. If you're a casual moviegoer, feel free to check it out on cable. I'm sure it's bound to be on many channels during the season.

Hocus Pocus and movie images are copyrighted by Walt Disney Pictures

Disney Month III- The Princess and the Frog

The Princess and the Frog (2009)
Starring: Anika Noni Rose, Bruno Campos, Keith David
Directed by: Ron Clements and John Musker


Plot Summary: In the heart of New Orleans, an aspiring young chef named Tiana is working day and night to raise the money to open her own restaurant. Her wealthy friend Lottie La Bouff hires her to cater a masquerade ball in honor of the arrival of Prince Naveen of Maldonia. While at the party, Tiana puts on one of Lottie's princess costumes and meets a talking frog, claiming to be Prince Naveen under a curse from the local shadow man Dr. Facilier. Based on the old fairy tales, Prince Naveen asks for a kiss from the "princess" to become human again. Because Tiana is not an actual princess, the kiss backfires and turns her into a frog instead. Now, escaping the party and finding themselves in the middle of a bayou, Tiana and Naveen must find a way to reverse Dr. Facilier's curse and become their regular selves before the transformation is made permanent.


After a long string of computer animated films in the mid-2000s, Disney finally decided to return to its roots by doing a classic fairy tale in a traditional hand-drawn animation style. The Princess and the Frog was a bold move for Disney to do at the time. Pixar was dominating at the box office and the Oscars, so Disney didn't necessarily HAVE to put forth any effort on their films (and boy does it show with some of their films). Yet, the film proved to be a critical and commercial success for the company. A lot of people expected this to be a resurgence of the classic style of Disney. Yet, it's been 6 years, and people are still talking more about Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen (ugh), and Big Hero 6. Why have people forgotten The Princess and the Frog? It's still a very good movie. It has its own unique animation style, fun characters, catchy music, a great villain, and is honestly really hilarious. With computer animated films still proving to be more marketable than hand-drawn animation, should a film like The Princess and the Frog be tossed to the wayside?

Our "princess" for the film is Tiana, voiced by Anika Noni Rose. Tiana is the first African American princess in Disney history, and proof that it's a double-edged sword to create such a character. People complained for years that we didn't have one, so when Disney finally created one, they complained that she was nothing more than a stereotype. Why is this the prime example? Pocahontas and Mulan are Disney princesses that existed way before, but people don't bring them up as much. People suck. But let's not have her race be the selling point of her character traits. As a character, Tiana is a hard worker and a go-getter, so Tiana is a pretty good role model for little girls to aspire to no matter what race she is. Prince Naveen, voiced by Bruno Campos, is arrogant, but carefree. He's a very charismatic male lead and a lot of fun to be around. He often provides a lot of the best jokes in the film (more on that in a bit), which is probably because he spends most of the film as a frog, but we do see him grow as a person along the way, so that's always good to see.

The side characters add a lot to this strange journey. We have funny, if not a bit offensive, bayou critters like a trumpet playing alligator named Lewis and a Cajun firefly named Ray, voiced by Michael-Leon Wooley and Jim Cummings. They're fun characters and all, but they're not what we're here for. They're that extra garnish on this already hilarious and musical adventure. I actually thought the humans were the funnier side characters, like Big Daddy and Lottie La Bouff, voiced by John Goodman and Jennifer Cody. This father/daughter pairing do a great job of stealing the scenes they're in. They aren't even in the film a whole lot and I wish they were. Lottie is the real show stealer, but Big Daddy deserves some credit because of John Goodman. It's hard for me to NOT like a John Goodman performance.

The best character in The Princess in the Frog is the shadow man Dr. Facilier, voiced by Keith David. There are a number of parents out there that have claimed the movie is too dark and scary for their kids thanks to Dr. Facilier. Hello, THAT'S why he's the villain. I think he's fantastic. He deals in dark voodoo and works for a much higher power, but he's crafty with his words and has a shadow that is just as tricky as he is. He's certainly a Disney villain we haven't seen before, and you linger on every deal and scheme he tries to make. Plus, he does arguably one of the most diabolical things a villain has ever done in a Disney movie. It's just heartless, merciless, and cruel. But that's why he's such an effective villain.

One thing I noticed about the movie is that it's just straight up funny. With combinations of slapstick, pun gags, and punchlines, it's one of the hardest times I've laughed at a Disney animated movie in quite some time. I think the character that makes me laugh the most is definitely Naveen when he's a frog. The timing they give him seems like something out of an old Looney Tunes short, and I see nothing wrong with that when your goal is to entertain families.

In order for a Disney movie to stand out, the animation needs to reflect a unique style and The Princess and the Frog certainly has that thanks to its vibrant New Orleans flavor. Going from the daily life, to the style of a Mardi Gras party, to the swampy woods of the bayou, the film has a look and a sound that reflects New Orleans. Not everybody likes Randy Newman's music, but the guy seems to find his proper place in the Disney movies he has done. We have about 2 or 3 really good songs in the film ("Almost There," "Friends on the Other Side," and "Down in New Orleans"), but then the rest sound the same so it's kind of an "easy come, easy go" approach. But the majority of the looks and sounds in the film really work well for it and it's another important reason why this film cannot be passed over any longer.


Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

With great characters, loads of humor, catchy music, and a fun New Orleans party vibe, The Princess and the Frog is probably the most underrated Disney classic in quite some time. It doesn't deserve to be forgotten over other Disney films from the modern era and you and your family should check it out sometime soon. And all Disney lovers should definitely add this to their collection.

The Princess and the Frog and movie images are copyrighted by Walt Disney Pictures