“Tangled” Disney’s best since ’99

“Tangled” Disney’s best since ’99

Tangled” is Disney’s best animated movie in more than a decade. And the use of 3D in “Tangled” is so subliminally visually dynamic that the movie should be used as a standard for all others. It may be the most consistently effective use of 3D to date in a mainstream movie.

Disney appears to be set up to have two of the three most popular movies of the holiday season beginning with “Tangled” on Nov. 24, which will likely remain a favorite for kids and families right through the Christmas/New Year holidays, as “Tron: Legacy” makes it a Disney duet starting Dec. 17.

<Review continues after following video trailer…>

The studio’s take on the classic Rapunzel fairy tale of a young maiden held captive by an evil woman for years alone in a tower until being found by a handsome young man is full of laughs and charm, especially in the first half. That’s when we meet Rapunzel (voiced delightfully by Mandy Moore) with absurdly long golden hair that is seemingly the length of a football field, and her obligatory Disney critter friend who is gratefully mute but hilariously expressive.

<Review continues following brief video clip of Pascal the Chameleon…>

Rapunzel’s unknowing suitor (voiced well by Zachary Levi, star of TV’s “Chuck”) is typically Disney-dashing but also an Aladdin-like rogue who is introduced with great humor amongst his thieving pals and a palace horse that nearly steals the show with Saturday-morning cartoon-like impossible movements and gestures (see video below). Shortly after stealing a crown belonging to a long-missing princess, the young burglar called Flynn Rider (interesting to give him the name of the character in Disney’s upcoming “Tron: Legacy”) has a first encounter with that missing princess Rapunzel and her frying pan that sizzles with inspired comedic moments.

<Review continues following brief clip of palace horse Maximus…>

And, finally, someone has figured out how to use 3D to great effect in everything from these comedic scenes to the low angles of action sequences as well as the aerial shots above and swirling around waterfalls and palace towers. From the opening moments of the rather lengthy narrated set-up to the story, the Disney Digital 3D presented with the RealD system at last night’s screening in an AMC theater visually enhances and draws you into the movie. Even Rapunzel’s first footstep onto grass has added impact as her toes visibly sink into and behind blades of grass. There is almost never a moment throughout the entire production where the significant depth is not easily apparent — you’ll never be tempted to lift your glasses to see if there is much difference without them; it’s very clear. There is always something or someone prominently in the foreground separated by a great distance from objects or people in the background. And yet, the 3D is never a distraction and never feels like it’s a forced visual gimmick.

Perhaps it is easier to accomplish because it’s a digitally animated movie, but contrary to some who say it’s impossible or a distraction to create a convergence or focal point on more than one element of any shot, everything at every depth is almost always in equal focus no matter its depth in the frame.

Going in with low expectations based on trailers that made the movie look like just another irreverent, over-the-top, anachronistic spin on a familiar children’s yarn, I found that even though it was some of all of those things, I wound up being totally won over and thoroughly enjoyed it. Sure, the characters talk more like modern kids, and the filmmakers have given Rapunzel’s hair magical healing powers (in addition to her healing teardrop, in keeping with the stories of yore) and turned Rapunzel into a princess (of course, it’s Disney) — interestingly, they took away the young man’s Prince status of some of the original versions of the tale.

Although Alan Menken’s songs are serviceable and enjoyable enough, they feel a little familiar — especially the Ursula-like “Mother Knows Best” of Rapunzel’s evil eternal youth-obsessed Mother Gothel abductor and a Gaston-like number with a saloon full of thugs — and none of the songs instantly stick with you like those from the movies of Disney’s modern glory years in the 1990s such as “The Little Mermaid,” “Beauty and the Beast,” “The Lion King,” “Pocahontas,” “Mulan,” or “Tarzan.”

The only other quibble is that animators don’t seem to have been able to create convincing human skin, which looks rubbery and way too smooth here, especially in close-ups where there are no pores or wrinkles of any kind.

Although I also enjoyed Disney’s 2008 “Bolt” more than most and the 3D in the opening chase scene, after ten years of falling short of the Disney standard with ho-hum fare such as “Brother Bear,” “Home on the Range,”  “Chicken Little,” “Meet the Robinsons,” and even the recent “The Princess and the Frog,” the newest 3D computer-animated movie puts the studio back on the map (no doubt with thanks to “Tangled” executive producer and Pixar founder John Lasseter).

“Tangled” is the best in-house Disney production, excluding Pixar movies distributed by Disney, since “Tarzan” in 1999.

— By Scott Hettrick

7 comments on ““Tangled” Disney’s best since ’99Add yours →

Comments are closed. You can not add new comments.

  1. wow, well I am pleasantly surprised with this very positive review. I was semi-interested in seeing this one, and don’t think I even realized it was also in 3D, but I may just make time this weekend to catch it after all!

  2. I knew it looked cute from previews, but was up in the air after Disney’s misses with the past few animated films. I am now convinced to see this in the theatres and in 3D. Thanks for the heads up!

  3. I will definitely see it – but *not* in 3D. I have never seen a movie in 3D that I liked – I just don´t get why people watch movies in 3D – there is even a surcharge! And I do not even experience problems while watching them – 2 of my friends experienced rather strong headaches and motion sickness while we watched acatar – the next week, they went again… How crazy is that? If your brain hurts, it is telling you to stop what your just doing, there is a reason for the pain and the uncomfortable feeling. I talked to a neurologist about the subject, and about the possible effects on young children – he said that he cannot imagine that parents would take their kids to a 3D movie (!!!!). I had to inform him that the majority of all 3D movies are animated, and thus not primarily aimed at senior citizens…

    “Brightness? Sharpness? Natural colors? A clear, vivid picture? No, thanks, don´t need them, as long as there are some cheap 3D tricks….” Sorry, I will never get it….

  4. “The only other quibble is that animators don’t seem to have been able to create convincing human skin”

    – this is from variety´s review:

    “The dimming effect of the 3D eye-wear seemed especially detrimental at the screening attended, draining too much color and light from the image and causing skin tones to appear weirdly pixelated”

    So it seems possibe that the effect you mentioned is less prominent in the 2D version, I guess

  5. Wow great review. I will take the family to see this in 3D for sure. Thanks.

    And for Jones sorry you cant see the 3D effects, the new tech 3D effects are breathtaking. You must be in that 10% that has a lazy eye or just too damn old to see period. And you talk about that the 3D cuts out all the natural colors & sharpness. You must be talking @ the old 3D anaglyph(red&green glasses), because the new 3d uses polarized glasses at theaters and does not take away from the HD picture one bit. So enjoy your 2d version of the film along with the other 15% of movie goers. And a neurologist said that about 3D. Please!?!? I work in a Neurology ICU and that is complete crap. So stop me if im wrong but we see in 3D everyday. So what you should of asked the neurologist is what he can do about that lazy eye of yours.

  6. @Pete: I have no problems with my eyes whatsoever – and of course I am *not* talking about anaglyph glasses. I have checked all available modern projection methods ((RealD/Masterimage, Dolby3D, XPanD – of these, only RealD/MI uses polarized glasses,by the way) several times, and I am simply not happy with them – they *do* take away light and color, most people say that, see the Variety review. . I find Dolby 3D a bit better, since it uses interference glasses instead of polarizing glasses, but that may be just me. Active Shutterglasses are, in my opinion, the worst – there is a clearly visible flicker for me, but not everybody sees that flicker, it varies from person to person.

    Of course we see in 3D every day – but that´s got nothing to do with 3D projection at all. The problem are the rapidly alternating right/left – pictures. And some people (about 20%) can´t tolerate that, their brains react with headaches, motion sickness. That is a fact, and that fact alone makes it clear that that kind of 3D vision cannot be compared to what we do everyday when we look at the world. I have seen people leave theaters more than once because they felt uncomfortable. As somebody who works in Neurology, you should not ignore these facts completely, and find them at least interesting.

    Having said that, I never intended to ruin anybody´s fun – if people are happy with 3D, fine with me. But I have never heard anybody claim that it does not take away from the picture one bit,as you say. I have a lot of friends who think that digital 3D is the greatest invention since the wheel – and even they agree that that some brightness and clarity is lost. And i did talk to many people about the subject, because I would never trust my impression alone.