Olaf's Frozen Adventure

Given Elsa's snow powers and Arendelle's winter setting, it's about time Disney released a Christmas special. And I think as everyone knows, it was intended to be a special that would air on ABC, but somehow wound up being shown in front of Pixar's Coco (sadly leaving us without a heartwarming Pixar short), but was pulled after two weeks because of massive backlash and went back to being the special it was intended to be. I guess Frozen Fever finally made the public crack on top of the Broadway show (which I got to see). However, in my native UK, we got the short on Sky Cinema and in front of the annual Frozen cinema re-releases. So I managed to watch it last Christmas and...let's get on with the review before I think of any cheesy ice or Let it Go puns.

Story: The story follows Olaf searching for a Christmas tradition for Anna and Elsa after they reveal they don't have one because of their years of separation. Going through various holidays and musical numbers, I think it's safe to say a happy ending through sisterly love is inevitable in anything Frozen related at this point. I can't really say it's predictable because some of it was surprising considering Olaf is the lead, but the message of family love feels like it's been overdone after the movie and Frozen Fever short that it makes you feel like screaming "I GET IT, OKAY?!". The humour is also a mix, with some of Olaf's quips being funny, while others feeling a bit forced and immature. I'll get to the characters in a minute, but the story honestly didn't make me feel invested in their relationships as it felt disjointed in focusing on Anna, Elsa and Olaf while characters who I feel deserve more screen time were wasted for a one-off joke. And for a 20 minute short, it's safe to say it felt like a chore to watch. How people managed to before a 90 minute film and after 30 minute trailers surprises me because I was on the verge of falling asleep just from watching this special. And to say that about a Frozen short just shows how souless it feels. I don't think it's worth all the hate with being released with Coco, but this one just felt like a meh, which is honestly a shame considering how beloved Frozen is to me.

Animation: Still as beautiful as the film, the animation is easily the best part of this short. With Christmas decor and blue colour scheme adding to the winter feeling. The textures have also improved, with the backgrounds of Arendelle cottages giving a cozy feeling with their thatched wooden interiors, forests and castle filled with Christmas trees. The character designs also remain consistent with the movie's appearance, but seeing other animals around the kingdom and diverse holidays being celebrated by the Arendelle denizens shows how much effort the animators put in to make holidays like Hanukkah feel authentic. And of course Elsa's powers shine from a technical standpoint along with the snow, fire and Oaken's sauna steam. While the musical numbers showcase the best animation, I will say some parts looked creepy, especially during an odd moment in That Time of Year when it suddenly shifts into knitted Nordic style. It's honestly better than I was expecting, so if you're looking for something amazing in this short, you'll have to thank the animators who really made an effort.

Characters: While I love the characters, the problem is they feel like they're reduced to their stereotypes. Anna is still the eccentric free spirit who loves her sister, and...has no development. Elsa on the other hand feels like she's regressed to her self doubting when it comes to the holidays and her sister, but. Kristoff is pretty much useless besides being Anna's boyfriend and spouting exposition about his troll holiday traditions (even if it finally takes advantage of Jonathan Groff's beautiful singing). And as for the central character, Olaf, his shift from comedic sidekick just shows how he isn't strong enough to carry his own special. However, I'll admit his determination to find a tradition for Anna and Elsa is pretty sweet as it's the primary catalyst, and seeing how much he means to everyone in Arendelle during the climax adds to the heartwarming, even if his arc felt a bit confusing. Sven doesn't appear as much besides being Olaf's comic sidekick and being Kristoff's best friend, but I think it's safe to say I'd rather watch a short featuring him than Olaf. Oh yeah, and Oaken appears in a cameo to do a nude joke and queerbait everyone again. It's almost ironic in a short that drags on too long than necessary that none of these characters are given any development.

Songs: Oh boy, Kristen and Robert are missed in this one. You can clearly tell these songs aren't because they felt like they dragged on with cheesy melodies and lyrics which do too much telling and not enough showing. Ring The Season is the opening number Anna and Elsa sing while preparing for their Christmas party which felt pointless and annoying (and wasted Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel's singing talents). I'd say Elsa's reprise was better, even if it just repeats her self doubt from the other Frozen related specials. The Ballad of Flemmingrad is also pointless and superfluous as Kristoff explains an annual troll tradition which is never brought up again despite showing off Jonathan Groff's singing. That Time of Year is probably the best song as it highlights Josh Gad's singing and comedic timing ("So you cut down a tree and then you dress its corpse with candles?" cracked me up) while Olaf learns about other holiday traditions. When We're Together is the cheesiest of the lot as everyone in Arendelle celebrates Christmas with their loved ones. I know I don't have much to say on these numbers, but that's only because they were so dull and lifeless.

If I had to pick the metaphor for,my feelings towards this special it would be when the sled full of Christmas decor caught on fire while Olaf remained oblivious. It's not terrible, what with its beautiful animation and a few funny and sweet moments, but to say I cringed at something Frozen related was probably. Forced and inauthentic, I'd only recommend this if you've been dying to see a Frozen short before the sequel comes out next year. As for the rest, just stick to the film over the holidays in case you're not sick of seeing it all year round.
Story: 4/10
Animation: 9/10
Characters: 5/10
Songs: 4/10
Overall: 5/10

Monster Family

Happy Halloween folks! Before you ask where the hell this thing came from, the only way I know of this film was the constant tie-in advertisements promoting Sky Broadband. And because I couldn't be arsed paying to watch in cinemas or Sky Store, I decided to wait and inbetween that time I got into an exchange programme in New York and managed to watch it on US Netflix. Yes, that's why I've been putting my blog off, but believe me when I say that I have more time to review (mostly awful) animated flicks that I'm trying to also segue into crappy live action films with increasingly ludicrous reasons...so can the Wishbone family add a dash of happiness to Halloween, or will they be the family local treat-or-treaters egg and TP?

Story: I want to start by saying the plot's catalyst is possibly the creepiest I've ever seen for any film. What if I told you that it's freaking Dracula wanting to marry the first woman who speaks to him via a phone call and curses her to be her Halloween costume so he can kidnap her to his realm? Now, let's list the obvious plot holes surrounding that. How did he get her number? Does he consider the possibility that she's already married (which she is and with kids)? Why didn't he bother looking for a wife after needlessly brooding for centuries? Who knows because this movie runs on an "it's just for kids" logic where we shouldn't ask questions! If that wasn't bad enough, the plot loses any semblance of structure when the cursed Wishbone family splitting up to learn their predictable arcs, with pacing so slow that the number of times I looked at my watch gave me whiplash. What doesn't help is the tools used to slam into their arcs come out of nowhere and don't have any effect until the inevitable climax. And of course, this all leads up to them realizing the importance of family and working together while trying to defeat Dracula.  And no, it's not like The Incredibles where they bring humanity into the stereotypical family unit with fun action sequences and heart because they argue 90% of the time. Oh yeah, and a quick note for the writers: sexually predatory actions in a children's film in light of the Me Too movement is horrendously misguided no matter how much charisma and unfunny sidekicks you give said predator.

Animation: For a low budget movie, the animation is decent, if not bland. The character designs attempt to emulate a mix of Disney and cartoony, but given the under-defined textures and over the top expressions, they can be off-putting to look at (with the extras looking too creepy). Also not helping is the character animation being too cartoony for the more realistic looking humans while looking too restrained during the "action scenes". The backgrounds for the most part are admittedly good, with Brooklyn, the pyramids in Egypt and London scenes surprisingly being well detailed despite their lack of screen time. While it may look nice on the surface, there are quite a few times where, including the lip synching being off (I know it's a German made animated film, but it was supposedly made with the English track), Dracula's lair looking like every generic evil lair and uncomfortable moments where the camera work can make it feel nauseating. Oh yeah, and Frank's farting running gag coming with green gas and stink lines like something out of a Looney Tunes cartoon. I know it seems like I don't have much to say on the animation, it's just that it barely offered me anything that makes it unique.

Characters: Dracula (Jason Isaacs. Yes, really.) is an inconsistent villain where one minute we're supposed to feel sorry for him because of his loneliness and suave demeanour, but then the next root against him when he tries to destroy the world after being rejected by a woman (very unfortunate implications given recent events). While Isaacs' performance gives Dracula some charisma, his predatory actions towards Emma make him lose any form of likeability. And speaking of, Emma (Emily Watson) is just the nagging mum stereotype prone to changing her mind every two minutes encouraging her family to work together before suddenly deciding to leave them for Dracula after stupid arguments she causes because of her complaining. Oh yeah, and she's needlessly horrible to her husband for apparently being a deadbeat. Guess what her arc will be. Fay (Jessica Brown Findlay) is every cliched rebellious teen worried about her appearance and boys while abusing her newfound powers as a mummy. Guess what her arc will be. Max is an irritating little twerp who wants to stand up to his bullies and be alone. Guess what his arc will be. Frank (Nick Frost) is an overtired workaholic who wants to spend time with his family despite his boss threatening termination and has an unfunny running gag involving farting. Guess what his arc will be. Baba Yaga (Catherine Tate) is the witch who Dracula sends to curse the family before quickly turning to the good side after he threatens to destroy the world. Oh yeah, and Celia Imrie appears as Emma's hippie best friend and Imhotep to benefit Fay's mummy arc. Another thing I want to add is the voice acting is terrible. In case the cast didn't indicate part of the problem, what if I told you that they're supposed to be from Brooklyn? And no, they don't say they moved from England because they fly to London and act as if they've never been there before! It's the same problem as Justin and the Knights of Valour: they feel like they did their lines in one take for a bad foreign dub with no direction. With that, it's safe to say the characters really are monstrocities, but not in the way the filmmakers intended.

In a world filled with crap, I can safely say this movie is just a waste of time. Monster Family has nothing to make it funny, unique or interesting. Its story rips off other films with uncomfortable subtext, the animation offers nothing new and the characters are as likeable as finding sugarless candy in your treat or treat bag. I can safely say skip this for Halloween and watch any of Laika's films, The Addams Family, The Munsters or any Tim Burton film. I'm not a horror movie fan, but I'd honestly rather watch one than this because then I'd get some sort of emotional reaction out of it.
Story: 2/10
Animation: 5/10
Characters: 2/10
Overall: 3/10

Animation in Obscurity: The Trumpet of the Swan

Given the low budget and being made by a relatively unknown animation studio, you'd honestly be surprised by the amount of actors involved in this little film. Based on the book by EB White (responsible for Charlotte's Web and Stuart Little) and directed by Richard Rich (responsible for The Swan Princess and its sequels, Alpha and Omega and its sequels and the animated version of The King and I.), was given a limited release in 2001, which ended up bombing mostly because of a certain animated flick from Dreamworks that was a middle finger to Disney and became a massive franchise. So can live up to Richard Rich's other animated feature focusing on swans, or will it be as embarrassingly ugly as Bjork's swan dress? Let's take a look!

Story: While the film takes basic elements from the book, everything else surrounding it ends up leaving you confused, bored or annoyed. With no narrative structure or originality, the writers refuse to answer basic questions on story or character to the point where I made a list of plot holes: How did Louie understand English? What made him think writing his thoughts would make the other swans accept him when they didn't know how to read? How did he know the songs he performed? How did he read the music? Did he ever rehearse? How did the music shop owner know Louie's dad was the same swan who took the trumpet when Serena's father has the same character model? Why did Serena go through with the wedding despite her obvious sarcasm at Boyd's proposal? Why is this movie making me ask so many questions? As you can tell, nothing is explained or expanded in this sixty-five minute film and ends up feeling trite despite lots of plot points and contrivances being brought up. Most go nowhere and are introduced too late to have any impact on the characters, with the rest being cliched while offering nothing new. The most egregious of these would be Louie's fifteen minutes of fame in Boston which is frustratingly forgotten after Louie does the cliched rushing to the wedding and a pathetically dull climax and "villain defeat" that makes no sense. With the low running time and numerous ideas and subplots, is it any wonder the writing is a mess?

Animation: While the animation is your generic direct to video quality, it's OK for the most part, if not cheap.The designs have the same issue as the other Richard Rich films, in that they're trying to emulate Disney but end up looking off-model and bland with the only way of distinguishing the swans is the garish feather colours and styles on the top of their heads. This still doesn't help matters because there are moments where they copy character models which ended up confusing me with who was who. Another odd part is the rotoscoping on the people, making them look more restrained compared to the cartoonier animals and people we see. While some of the backgrounds look nice with the watercolours and vibrant pallette, they don't offer much in scope or personality. What makes this worse is the attempts at portraying real locations, with Billings, Montana being a hopelessly generic small town and Boston being a generic city with skyscrapers (believe me, I went to Boston a few months ago and it's one of the most beautiful cities I've visited). There's also no lighting or shadowing making the film feel flat and lifeless. It may not be the worst animation I've seen, but some of the design and technical choices don't do much to create a sense of wonder.

Characters: Louie (Dee Bradley Baker), the mute trumpeter swan, is your generic underdog shunned by his peers because of his abnormality, and would've been interesting and complex if the writers didn't rely on his internal dialogue that plagues the film. It ends up feeling redundant after he learns how to play his trumpet alongside reading and writing and we don't know anything about him because the writers think his abnormality is the only thing that should make us care about him. Serena (Reese Witherspoon) is Louie's romantic prize and the object of Boyd's affections despite not wanting to and has no personality. Instead of Serena and Louis falling in love by her own accord, we now have conflict in the form of the generic jerkass Boyd (Seth Green) who may as well be swan Gaston right down to three pens gushing over him like the three Blonde Bimbos. Louie's parents (they're not given names and are voiced by Jason Alexander and Mary Steenbergen) would have been interesting if it weren't for his mother being useless (she doesn't even have the token "he's not strange, he's special" trait) and his father being utterly annoying trying to fix his son while favouring his daughters and worrying about stealing the trumpet when it was actually thrown at him. This is partly due to Alexander's gratingly hammy performance, and is probably the character I hated the most. Sam Beaver is the generic "cool and hip" kid who inspires Louie to read and write while turning up at random times to move the plot along yet doesn't appear to age when the average trumpeter swan's life span ranges from 20-30 years. Sweets (Gary Anthony Williams) is a squirrel also turns up as random to motivate and follow Louie, but he has so little impact and is quickly forgotten after meeting a squirrel politician in Boston (yes, really). Monty (Fat Tony himself, Joe Mantegna) is Louie's human manager in Boston is such a useless and obvious villain, that taking him out the film would have no effect on the plot. sisters Ella and Billie (subtle shout-outs to Ella Fitzgerald and Billie Holliday) are useless except for their father having a reason to neglect Louie. And Mrs Hammerbotham is Sam's teacher who has no reason to exist other than to teach Louie to read and write via montage and get Carol Burnett to act as crazy as possible. With numerous subplots cramming for attention, is it any surprise these characters have the same dimension as a pile of swan crap?

Songs: This is a case of the songs having no purpose besides filling the running time. While the trumpet music jazz is beautiful to listen to by itself, the sudden shifts into modern pop score are distracting and date the film. This isn't hrn the genres are all over the place. Spittin' Image is the opening number about Father Swan expecting his unborn children to be perfect despite the obvious irony. Hey, Hey, Hey is just a filler pop/jazz song by the pens that's all about music and having fun while not revealing anything about their characters. Louie, Louie, Louie is the obligatory crowd number when he immediately gains fame for his trumpeting skills with lackluster choreography and uninspired animation. Touch The Sky (mercifully not wasting Reese Witherspoon's singing talents) is Serena's pop ballad declaring her love for Louie despite barely sharing any screen time or explaining why she loves him. They're easily some of the dullest songs I've ever heard and would literally make no difference to the story if they were removed.

What else did you expect from this mess? The Trumpet of the Swan may have some mediocre animation, it the paint by numbers script with numerous plot holes and contrivances, one-note and useless characters and equally as useless songs. I think it's safe to say a majority of the budget went into getting celebrities for the voices instead of saving it for good animation and storytelling. If you need your fix of an animated version of an E.B White book, then check out the 1973 Charlotte's Web by Hannah Barnera. Heck, check out the live action Charlotte's Web (the one with Dakota Fanning & Julia Roberts) and Stuart Little movies because they still respect the source material and have interesting characters unlike this crap. And...I just realized this movie's the plot of Happy Feet! Seriously, a male bird is born with an abnormality in a music loving society and is shunned for it by everyone except for a girl who'd later become his love interest. After growing up isolated, he runs away and realizes he can embrace his talents after performing for humans, so eventually returns home and ends up with said love interest while his parents, particularly the father, learn to love their son for the way they are...except Happy Feet had amazing photorealistic animation, fun dance and musical numbers, sympathetic and funny characters, gut busting comedy and Elijah Wood, Brittany Murphy, Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman, Robin Williams and Hugo Weaving, all of whom are talented people. Other than that, totally the same.
Story: 2/10
Animation: 4/10
Characters: 2/10
Songs: 2/10
Overall: 3/10

Anastasia: Musical vs Film

Six years ago, I reviewed Anastasia on one of my other blogs and wrote my dream cast if it was ever adapted into a Broadway musical. Well, after begging for one ever since the workshops featuring Aaron Tveit and Angela Lansbury, that dream finally came true. And wouldn't you know it, I happened to get into an exchange programme with my university and studied in New York for five months. What was the first Broadway show I saw over there? Anastasia, of course! And I also happened to see Frozen shortly after opening night, but that's for another post. With no involvement from Don Bluth (who surprisingly hasn't expressed his opinion on it from any of the research I could find). And given society's tendency to pit anything against each other, why not compare the two and see which is the victor of a Russian urban legend that captivated everyone until the sad truth was revealed in 2007? As always, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so please. Oh yeah, and to make it an odd number so there's no tie, I won't be adding a side characters section because Vlad, Dmitry, the Dowager Empress and Sophie/Lily are pretty much identical in either adaptation and there's nothing wrong with either variation (even if the musical admittedly dives into more of their backstories, I'm not the biggest fan of Bartok and Vlad & Lily are fucking hilarious).
A story

Story

Now, story is a bit difficult because the film was made when the Anastasia legend was still around as a source of mystery and intrigue for people. So what did Don Bluth decide to do with a politically complex tale about a royal family who wasn't really well liked despite their horrendous execution and arguably worse political aftermath for Russia? Turn it into part Disney princess flick (because Disney Renaissance) and part My Fair Lady (which Don Bluth had to choose between doing an animated adaptation of with Anastasia). On paper, it sounds like a plan for disaster, but it oddly works. The writers know the urban legend is somewhat of a real life fairytale, so why not turn it into a full blown rags to riches fairytale devoid of history? What makes the plot engaging is how character driven it is, with not only the obligatory romance working well (even if it resorts to some 90s rom-com cliches), but also the relationships between the side characters and family. However, I do have a big criticism with the story: because it follows a formula similar to Disney, it ends up feeling a bit too paint by numbers. It's also a detriment because some of it ends up feeling inappropriate for the story it's trying to tell, with the biggest problems being the villain and comic relief sidekicks. I'll expand on this more when I look at the villains, but it can hurt the narrative when the main plot of Anya finding her family was fine on its own because it carries the emotional weight the film needs.
With recent history on its side, the show takes the basic concept of Dimitri and Vlad passing an amnesic Anya off as the Grand Duchess and taking her to Paris while the villain is out to kill her. However, there are two massive differences: the tone and villain. It instead takes a historical route by diving deep into the politics as Communist Russia wouldn't have been too kind to a royal still being alive. This immediately means the conflict fits seamlessly into the narrative compared to Rasputin's intrusive attempts to thwart Anya which stop the film's plot dead. However, it's still easy to follow because it focuses on the universal themes of identity and family, still meaning the characters are worth caring about. It blends its humour, emotion and suspense without feeling jarring, making it feel less formulaic than the film. However, the best element to the urban legend it's based on is the ending. It's aware that the show's events aren't what actually happened, but it understands why the Anastasia legend lasted for decades: it was a symbol of hope during a tragic event and for many, a real life fairytale. This honestly is why I consider the musical's story a bit better than the movie. I'm definitely not saying the film's story is bad, but the show's shift in tone makes it feel a bit less cliched and predictable, while the magical aspects feel more intrusive for the film. Point goes to the musical!
Winner: Musical

With Stephen Aherns and Lynn Flaherty composing both the film and musical's songs (which must've been a blessing for them given their disappointment at the fairytale shift for the film), their hauntingly beautiful tunes still remain close to many people's hearts. But can the musical's songs live up to them? This is Best Music/Songs!
Music/Songs

Now, this is also hard because the film and show feature the same composing team and songs, so this will mostly be about the show's musical numbers and whether or not they work well with the movie's. This is often a massive risk in screen to stage musicals because new songs are either written around the film's script and end up pointless (*coughs* Shrek, Legally Blonde, Ghost, Aladdin, Frozen *coughs*) or don't fit with the rest of the score (again, looking at you Shrek). The songs which are kept have seamless lyrical changes to fit the historically grounded tone (Rumour is St Petersburg probably does that the best) while remaining fun, engaging and emotional, even when switched around to better fit the narrative. The most notable switch would be Learn To Do It (taking full advantage of the My Fair Lady set-up with hilarious results) and Journey to the Past, now as the act one finale when Anya is at her most determined to discover her past when finally reaching Paris. The biggest omission is In The Dark of the Night for obvious reasons, but it's still weaved into the score through Stay I Pray You in one of the show's most emotional scenes as everyone prepares to leave Russia while knowing they can't return.
Thankfully, the new songs stand well with the film's. They can either be fun like We'll Go From There (God, that's been stuck in my head every time I've been on a train) and Land of Yesterday or reveal more about the characters like My Petersberg, In My Dreams (which admittedly got me teary eyed), The Neva Flows, Close The Door and In A Crowd of Thousands. However, the Quartet at the Swan Lake ballet is where the score is at its most creative, seamlessly shifting from Tchaikovsky's diagetic score with the non-diagetic Once Upon A December melody as the characters express their inner conflicts leading to the climax. The only songs I'd have to criticize in the show would probably be Cross the Bridge and Everything To Win as filler, but they're infinitely better than distracting. However,. I'd be lying if I didn't say that the musical's songs have more impact for me on top of the classics. Believe me when I say listening to the Broadway soundtrack while writing this long-winded post was the best motivator. Point goes to the musical!
Winner: Musical

No fairytale musical can do without a villain to sweeten the stakes. But who holds the biggest threat to Anastasia? The biggest change in adaptations, and the person who hinges on which version is better, this is the Best Villain!
Villain

Rasputin, voiced by the ever hammy Christopher Lloyd, is a sorcerer who wanted revenge on the Romanovs after Tsar Nicolas accused him of being a traitor...except that was true which means he's just unwilling to swallow his ego. Besides his admittedly creepy design and animation, I don't think there's much to him. The times he appears onscreen feel intrusive when the main plot of Anya finding her family was fine on its own, with the Russian government and Dimitri's con being enough conflict. This is especially noticeable because he's never mentioned by any of the other characters, so his influence feels more like an afterthought than a real threat. While the writers try to imply that he caused the revolution at the beginning, it still doesn't convince me that he's a lasting threat because later scenes also indicate the Communist rule have caused discord to Russia, and his minions are the ones who actually do his dirty work until the climax (not the best idea when he's easily defeated by an 18 year old woman stomping on his magic relic).
In the musical, we have officer Gleb (Max von Essen in the performance I watched who is definitely a worthy successor to Ramin Karimloo), who is actually a smart change in hindsight because a police officer pursuing Anastasia was the original plan for the film. While he seems like a copy of Javert from Les Miserables, I have to admit that I find his morally grey persona more interesting than Rasputin. His inner conflict of wanting to live up to his Bolshevik father's legacy while growing feelings for Anya can lead to moments where his intimidating persona breaks down in his attempts to comfort her due to the danger of posing as Anastasia could do to her and his cause. He feels more like a villain who believes the Bolshevik cause he follows will unite people despite the pain it's actually causing who call out on the hypocrisy surrounding it. Even if he's still running a turbulent communist Russia by the end, his redemption and compromise with Anya is ultimately what saves him from becoming a monster.
I think it's without a doubt that I prefer Gleb. Rapsutin just feels too weak and ineffective as a villain for me to have any impact. Oh, and any morally grey character previously played by Ramin Karimloo immediately wins in my books. Point goes to Gleb!
Winner: Musical

Possibly one of the memorable elements of the film is Don Bluth's signature animation. But can the musical live up to, or even exceed them? This is Best Visuals!
Visuals

Don Bluth's signature animation is possibly at its most stunning in Anastasia (and most likely why it's often confused for a Disney film). The vibrant colours and attention to detail in the backgrounds give Russia and Paris a whimsical edge while large in scale and historically accurate. The smooth rotoscoped character animation gives them a grounded edge while the characters have that signature Don Bluth look where they're more realistic looking while still being expressive. However, the musical numbers are where Bluth's animation shines, from the ghosts dancing around the ballroom in Once Upon a December to the shift into Van Gough painting backgrounds and overall 20's glitz of Paris Holds the Key to Your Heart. Other sequences help provide a mix of action and suspense like the whimsically macabre nightmare sequence and the battle at Pont Alexandre III (oh, that's why the musical uses it as a plot point!). While the CGI looks dated by today's standards and the squash and stretch on Rasputin can feel out of place compared to the more restrained human characters, the effort put into the animation is nothing short of incredible.
The musical on the other hand decides not to replicate the film, with a few exceptions in the costumes. Not only does this help create its own identity outside of the film, but it also provides a new experience for the audience. From the ghostly dancers projected around the theatre in Once Upon a December, the malevolent red lighting when the soldiers invade the palace and the train revolving with the video background, the transition from screen to stage is really impressive. The projected backgrounds give the show a cinematic quality. However, my biggest praise must be the  costumes, capturing the opulence and elegance of the royal family, while subtly showing the oppressive post-revolution Russia and free spirited Paris in the colour pallette. The choreography also helps with this, especially during the aforementioned Swan Lake ballet metaphorically indicating Anya, Dmitry and Gleb's pseudo-love triangle during the quartet (and is honestly so beautiful to watch, that it would make an amazing Swan Lake production on its own). Seeing the changes made from the Hartford tryouts to Broadway prove that the production team are more than willing to give the material the grand scale and beauty it deserves, so I must commend them for their efforts. This is honestly such a difficult decision, but I'd be lying if I didn't say the film's magical visuals stick with me more. The efforts put into the musical are undoubtedly amazing, but when watching a stage performance is mostly a once in a lifetime experience (for God's sake, bring it to London!), the film you've probably seen many times is going to have more impact. Again, I want to avoid a tie in this post, so the point goes to the film by a margin.
Winner: Film

Both versions of Anastasia/ Anya (I'll just call her Anya for the next section as it's much quicker to say & that's what she's called for a majority of the show) remain the same: an amnesic women wishing to find their family through going to Paris and discovering they're the Grand Duchess Anastasia. But whose journey to the past is worth following more? This is the best Anastasia!
Anastasia

Meg Ryan and Liz Callaway's speaking and singing performances as Anya bring the sass and determination she needs to be engaging. What makes Anya a good role model is her independence and determination to discover her family, with nothing stopping her to reach that goal. Not Rapsutin's numerous murder attempts, Dimitri and Vlad's con, the Dowager Empress' cold heart, or even herself. And when she is one of the only princess characters to actively defeat the villain without any fear, you know she's a force not to be reckoned with. Seriously, for 1997, she was pretty cutting edge for animated heroines. I guess my only criticism with Anya is the times where she can feel too perfect (the Learn To Do It sequence, anyone?). What doesn't help this is the movie never shows or explains her time in the orphanage, leading question her capability to look after herself. However, these are admittedly nitpicks because Anya is still worth caring about, and her non-romantic goal is pretty relateable.
Because every stage actor's performance is going to be different, my opinion on the musical's version will be based on personality and development (even if Broadway Anastasia Christy Altomore is still in the show as of 2018 and was in the performance I watched, who is perfection). Anya still has the same spunk and sass from the film, but the show expands on something which the film briefly acknowledges: her PTSD from her family's execution. This adds a complexity to Anya as despite her optimism to find her family, these flashes throw her off to almost deadly consequences. The show also gives us moments where she gets overwhelmed while learning decades of information about her family gives her a vulnerability unlike her film counterpart where she picked everything up almost immediately. Further helping this is the fact she remembers her identity before meeting the Dowager Empress, which adds to her determination when the time finally comes. Her decision to remain in hiding with Dmitry feels less like abandoning her family for a man, but keeping them safe from the potential dangers and pressures in a turbulent Russia.
It goes down to devlopment and for me. While both versions mostly remain the same , the musical's version of Anya feels like she's evolving, partly thanks to the psychological issues the film mostly ignores. Point goes to the musical!
Winner: Musical

Overall winner: Musical
I like both versions in their own rights, rather it be the fantastical elements of the film or the musical's more serious set-up but still mystical aspects. While it may be too Disney-esque at point, there's clearly a reason why the film's gained a cult classic over the years. Whether you can afford a ticket on your next trip to New York or need to sneakily find a bootleg online (which I admittedly did with the Hartford tryout before seeing it on Broadway), I recommend you check the musical out if you love the film. Or just wait until the US tour and German and Spanish productions are in your area, and hopefully a London production!

The Stolen Princess

Loosely based on the 19th century epic poem Ruslan and Ludmila by Alexander Pushkin, this movie was produced in Ukraine since 2013 and was planned to be hand drawn animated. Made by Animagrad and featuring local Ukranian talent in the cast, the English version was released in March 2018 while it was presented and distributed around Europe and Asia during various animation festivals. And given that it was made in Ukraine, it proved quite a success in its home country, opening second at the box office behind the recent Lara Croft: Tomb Raider reboot. So with all of that said, can this new animated fairytale flick steal our hearts, or should it be fed to the dragons and burn to a crisp?  Let's take a look!

Story: Taking the basic elements of the poem, the writers instead decided to take what could have been an epic fairytale and turn it into a Disney rip-off, most taking elements from Aladdin, The Little Mermaid and Tangled right down to plagiarised dialogue. While I understand that adapting a six verse long poem would be difficult to translate to the screen, this movie decides to throw all structure out of the window and never takes time to establish the characters, world and a sense of pacing. Scenes start and end just as quickly without forwarding the story and instead feels mechanical with random fight scenes, cliches and abrupt openings and endings. While there are interesting concepts with the princess legend, world and adventure aspects, they are quickly squandered because Ruslan and Mila's romance isn't worth caring about. I'm not joking when I say their obligatory romance montage at the 20 minute mark (yes, really) takes place straight after their fight scene meet cute and before she's kidnapped by Chornomor. It says a lot when Ruslan falls for an obvious glamour spell which causes the obligatory hopeless moment before the climax. Oh, and them ending up engaged which will likely end in an insanely expensive divorce because they knew each other for around 8 hours and they're still stuck at Choromor's castle. The only things which made me grateful throughout this mess was that there was no liar revealed and the ninety minute running time felt mercifully short. So it's safe to say the plot, structure, are stolen of any common sense or intrigue despite its admittedly interesting source material.

I'm surprised Dreamworks, Disney and DC haven't filed lawsuits for this magazine cover alone.

Animation: With a budget of $5 million, it's safe to say the animation won't be as high quality as Disney, Dreamworks or Illumination. It's clear the animators are working with what, so I guess I can be a bit more forgiving for the effects, textures and character animation looking more like a PlayStation 3 cut-scene. The character designs are a mix of the generic Disney look with the big eyes and exaggerated body types, but their dead eyes and under-defined texturing end up making them look creepy. The character animation also applies to this, especially during the numerous fight scenes where the psychics are inconsistent and slowly edited and choreographed. While some of the backgrounds admittedly look interesting mostly due to the Russian influenced architecture and vast scale, it can feel a bit dull after a while because the characters barely spend time in the locations which mostly comprise of libraries, cliffs and swamps. Also, while it may look nice on the surface, some of the design and editing choices can leads to some strange questions i.e. why does Ruslan's chest plate have six-pack markings? Why was Ruslan's sword fight test all in a motion sickness inducing point of view shot with slow and jerky movement? Why did it show Cat's fight with Farlaf, Rogday and Ratmir via shadows when we already know he can turn into a lion monster? It's questions like this which end up making the animation feel like a wasted opportunity.

Characters: I guess the writers never learned the show don't tell rule in characterization because everyone either spouts out their traits or act as caricatured as possible with no development. Mila is your typical badass & rebellious princess who wants adventure (but no end goal) and not to get married when she's really an aggressive and arrogant damsel in distress who wants to marry the first man she meets and can't even defeat an army of alive food (yes, really). Ruslan (who distractingly sounds like but isn't voiced by Justin Long) is a down-on-his-end actor who pretends he's a knight, goes on a (mostly glossed over) quest to save Mila & falls for the oldest tricks in the book. Nestor is Ruslan's friend and acting partner who just for banter, is responsible and be an annoying despite one snarky line during the dull climax which admittedly made me chuckle. Cat is responsible for the only funny lines and the exposition before Ruslan moves onto the next conflict and is quickly forgotten. The villain Chornomor would have been threatening if he wasn't screeching every five minutes, had no motivation to turn princesses into stone & destroy love and had a weakness that wasn't his Kenneth-Branagh-Poirot mustache getting cut off (again, yes really!). Finn is a wizard who lost his love Naina to Chornomor in the opening and becomes a crazy hermit with his character model being taken right out of Lord of the Rings . Farlaf, Rogday and Ratmir are three brothers for who end up in wacky situations while following Ruslan to save Mila and turn up at the most random times that I almost forgot they were in the film. Another part of the problem with these characters is the terrible voice acting. Despite first being recorded and animated in English, they all sound like they were dubbed in ADR and just received their lines with no context to their scenes, so  decided to go over the top. With their lack of traits or development which are as thin as tissue paper, it's safe to say nobody is worth getting to know, let alone caring about in this,

This movie just confused me. A predictable story that squanders its source material to cash in on Hollywood trends, a romance with nothing unique, animation that may look nice at first but then shows it's creepy true colours and characters whose sole traits are either to act as over the top as possible or  be as hopelessly cliched as possible. It may not be as anger inducing as other low budget animated knock-offs I've seen, but that's not saying it didn't annoy me with every cliche in the book. I can only say to skip this movie and watch the Disney movies that clearly influenced it. They may follow a certain formula, but have plots which are different when looked at closer and have romances worth investing in because of the chemistry and development.
Story: 2/10
Animation: 5/10
Characters: 2/10
Overall: 3/10