I am going to blab on and on, as I always do, but the only review you really need to hear about this terrible movie comes from my 3-year-old son, Luke:
“Daddy, can we leave?” he said in the middle of the endless movie. When I shook my head, he added the death blow: “I never, ever want to see this show again.”
This from the kid who can watch the same episode of Special Agent Oso four times in a row.
If not for the reinforcement by my offspring, I might have cut Tangled more slack out of concern that maybe the problem was more mine than the movie’s. The trailers made the movie out to be an irreverent, Shrek-like deconstruction of a famous fable, oozing with snark and in-jokes. The actual product packs about as much subversive punch as a Hallmark card.
Maybe the problem rests with the Grimm brothers story itself. There are only so many ways you can go in a tale about a girl with long hair stuck in a tower, and this Disney take seems like a bitter Pictionary player who’s stuck with a clue that’s too hard to describe so he ends up drawing a character that looks like a hybrid between a turtle and a question mark, then stares ashamedly at the ground until the timer runs out.
Mandy Moore voices Princess Rapunzel, who was kidnapped as a baby by a cruel old woman who uses the girl’s magical hair to replenish her youth. The king and queen miss Rapunzel so much that they set off an annual display of floating lamps to commemorate her birthday, but don’t yearn for her return so much that they have a search committee check all the towers in the region in which locked-away girls stare out the windows with longing abandon.
Zachary Levi voices Flynn Rider, the con artist adventurer who happens upon Rapunzel’s tower as a hideout, then through a twist of contrivance ends up agreeing to take her to see the floating lamps on her birthday if she’ll hand over a stolen artifact that she stole from him after knocking him out with a frying pan.
Yes, the movie proves that it is possible to get a brain freeze without eating ice cream.
No matter how silly and overly complicated the story, the movie would have been fine had it managed to generate any sense of rhythm – comedic, dramatic or otherwise. The film lacks any soul or purpose, much like a Jersey Shore castmember. But unlike a Jersey Shore castmember, it’s incapable of punching people in the face at random for your entertainment.
When I got home from the movie and put my son to bed, I just had to tell someone about the horrors I’d experienced. So I dialed up my dad, and told him “I never, ever want to watch this show again.”
Starring the voices of Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi. Written by Dan Fogelman, based on the fairy tale by Jacob Grimm and Wilhelm Grimm. Directed by Nathan Greno and Byron Howard. 100 minutes. Rated PG.
The fact that your three year old couldn't sit still doesn't prove this is a bad movie. If you left half-way through, how can you even review this movie completely?
@Stephen Stayed the whole time. Reread the review.
This is the worst review I've ever read, in fact, I'm sure a 3 year old who actually watched the movie could have written a better review.
I wish I would have walked out of this review half way through.
Part of your review is that the parents didn't check all the towers? ITS A FAIRY TAIL, did you think you were watching a documentary? Who is this guy?
Using a comparison to Jersey Shore in a review of a Children's movie made my mom laugh at the absurdity. Good job sir at being inappropriate.
Protip: Post took me one minute to read and told me nothing about the actual merits or the movie. Failure at blabbing. Unless you mean talking without substance in which case, my apologies.
Well my 3 year old didn't like Megamind but me and my wife enjoyed it a lot! So you should try to enjoy the movie a little betterand write a better review!
And Megamind was not that violent or ofensive!
I like Disney films and two days after Tangled premiere I said "Let's read the reviews". Yesterday I found Tangled had 100% of possitive reviews in Rotten Tomatoes, and today I found a 90%, so, I said, I have to read the negative. The other one negative review is from a supposed "Smart Critic of the world", so I have doubts how a guy that gave a possitive review to 2002 film Ken Park and a positive review, and to 2010 to Toy Story 3 a negative one, I think his review sucks, so, I write a comment in his page, so don't worry, I'm doing the same in yours.
Let's see.... You gave a possitive review to 2009 "Nine" and 3/4 stars, "Invictus" a negative review and 2/4 stars, "2012" a positive review and 2/4, "Jennifer's Body" a positive review and 4/4...
NINE - POSITIVE
INVICTUS - NEGATIVE
2012 - POSITIVE
JENNIFER'S BODY - POSITIVE
YOU HAVE PROBLEMS GUY!!! You cannot figure what is a good movie? Are you sure of your job in this business stuff??? Perhaps you have to admit that your son needs more attention, "watching four times "Special Agent Oso in a row", really guy, you have to spend more time with your son instead of keeping him in front of the TV, and I'm agree with Travis that a 3 year old boy could have written a better review, no doubt.
I'm very sorry to hear that your three year old didn't find the film to be subversive and cynical enough. It's alright though; you made up for it with your hilariously edgy review. Ha ha ha, you set up a "it's like X, except X can at least Y!" formula joke about the Jersey Shore, and then you brought in that line your son said again at the end, ha ha, hoo boy, you are just so precociously clever! You're just like Roger Ebert, except I don't want to punch Roger Ebert in the face!!! Ha ha ha! Protip: Review movies you actually watch.
Ya know, I think that I'm one of few that actually agrees with the fact that this is a truly horrible kids movie.
Did anyone know before they blabbed about how "good" this movie was, that Disney has decided to stop making princess movies --- why? BECUS THEY ARE IRRELEVANT TO TODAY'S KIDS PAST THE AGE OF 3. Perhaps the author's kid is beyond that type of movie - and besides, it only showed a little boy n one scene - and kids want to see themselves in characters at that young age.
Also - every single character was completely flat or stereotypical (take your pick). There was also nothing "new" in the movie. It was a bunch of plots from a whole bunch of other movies and any toddler knows them all from every other Disney movie.
It also kills 30 years of feminist action with how the female characters act... using beauty to tempt men, the " evil old hag" act, the ditsy blond teenager ect...
In all, it's a money-grab not a master-piece like so many people call it.
@Sarah- Do you even know what ditzy means? Rapunzel shows throughout the entire film that's she's smarter and more physically strong than the male lead. I'm guessing you're only calling her ditzy because she's blond and is the only Disney princess to dress in a feminine color. She may not know everything about the outside world, but keep in mind that she's never been outside before, so it makes sense.
And as for uninteresting characters... lesse, we get natural character development, something TPATF tried to force in our faces, and what about the thugs? They could have been your typical tough guys but the writers actually put effort into making them interesting. While not a necessity, it takes a lot of care to make a side-character the least bit intriguing.
The only point you make that's somewhat true is how the story isn't all that original as it is borrowing from the Walt Disney classics... a lot.
As for Disney giving up on Princess movies, that's a bs excuse they came up with based off of results they themselves don't understand. The reason for this is the same reason they chose to can some of their upcoming hand-drawn works: The Princess and the Frog didn't make as much as they wanted it to and they blamed all the wrong stuff for it. (And were also too selfish to realize that almost $300,000,000 at the box office is definately a success!)
As for this guy's review... seeing his taste in movies, it's obvious this is a guy who prefers stupidity in his movies as opposed to actual heart.
Okay, one last little bit I wanna add... what do you mean there's only one little boy in the village? I counted 6.
Post a Comment