Originally Posted By Dlmusic Let me start this by saying I only have seen Enchanted one time, and I am planning on seeing it again at some point although not neccesarily in theaters. I was really excited about the movie when the trailers first came out, I honestly thought it was one of the most funny and tightly edited comedic trailers I had ever seen. Then when the movie came out and the positive reviews came in I got super excited. Unfortunately, in the end I feel that Enchanted is merly a good film when it could have been a great film. There was just a lot of decisions made in the movie I thought were poor and kept it from being something truly exceptional. Plot - Let's start with the plot since that is essentially what determines the fate of the entire movie. Enchanted's plot came across to me as a fairly below average romantic comedy once you removed the unusual character of Giselle. Guy is supposed to be marrying a girl, girl drops in his lap, guy dumps more boring girl for more exciting girl. Now don't get me wrong, this plotline has seen plenty of success and I love a good screwball comedy, but Enchanted didn't use this plotline to create any memorable situations so much as a skeleton to hang it's many gags on. Now mixed into this plot is the villain, who I'll get to later. The problems I had with the plot stemmed more from the way it was executed than anything. There didn't seem to be any reason for Giselle to be interested in Phillip besides his good looks. If the film was attempting to explore the idea that he was introducing her to modern concepts like the idea of respecting women, it did it very clumsily and the whole idea was tossed out at the end anyway. A good example of how I thought the film's plotting did not work was in the song "How Does She Know." (By the way, this and the "Working Song" number were definte highlights and will deserve to be lumped in with some of the best of Disney's repitoire.) The problem with the song "How Does She Know" is that in the end it has little to do with the movie whatsoever. Giselle basically sings a song that reveals as juvenile as it seems that fairy tale characters have "happily ever afters", that it really comes down to the fact that in those stories the characters due geuninely love each other and constantly are performing acts and deeds that reiterate this fact. In the real world men can't slay dragons, but there are plenty of ways for them to show their love and become a quasi knight in shining armor. Personally, I love this thought and yet again the movie completely tossed this out. Why? Because it's explained the reason the relationship went sour was because his wife abandoned him. There is no impression that he took advantage of her, considering that he seemed devistated from the loss and it made him into a hard bitten cynic. The movie further reiterates the same message when Giselle helps the divorced couple get back together, but again, it has little to do with the main story and is frustratingly out of place. It's not fair to say that if you try hard you can succeed and then show proof positive than it doesn't matter how hard you try you'll still get dumped anyway. And in the end, Phillip doesn't have to do anything to prove his love to Giselle besides kiss her when she's completely vunerable. Villain - Why oh why did they even bother to have a villain if they were going to create one so bland and unimaginative. Narissa has got to be one of the worst villains in Disney history. Now usually the villain is crucial in Disney animated films because in a black and white story you have to make the character from the dark side a threat so that the audience is interested in the story. This movie did not need such an obvious dark character, and it certainly shouldn't have been so deriviative. Narissa neither conjurs up fear as Maleficent, nor humor as Cruella De Vil nor cold elegance as The Queen in Snow White. What many people have seen as inspired or as a cute nod to animated films I saw as a direct rip-off and a slap in the face of creativity. I mean come on, posion apples? It doesn't even make sense within the logic of the film because Giselle seems very aware of princesses from other kingdoms and therefore should have known that apples=bad. In fact, the movie could have made this into a funny gag and made Giselle freak out when offered an apple. I also thought that the witch's henchmen being another typical looking character to be quite dull. A movie that did this much better was Emperor's New Groove with Izma and Kronk. While that movie was too self aware for my tastes it at least knew that if you are going to parody a formula you can't just copy it. Wasted, wasted opportunity that only becomes more pronounced in the film's highly flawed third act. Third act - This gets a category onto itself because as much as the middle of the film finds itself thrashing around different concepts among repetitive gags the film could have still rallied in the final third and come out brilliant. Instead the third act becomes a paint-by-numbers Disney animated ending that is probably also the worst. The dragon sequence was a complete waste of time and felt much more like a Goodtimes ripoff of Sleeping Beauty than a legitimate action sequence. Once the dragon is defeated the movie really nosedives. After all the setup with Giselle dating and reading the book of famous women she opens a dress shop? What?? Why isn't she helping couples as a counselor or doing some good for society? Why stay behind in the real world if she can't bring a piece of the optimism from her world? I fail to see how dress making is a satisfactory ending. The way the prince is resolved is incredibly silly, but at least it's somewhat fun and clever. Humor - This is a huge problem for me and one that I wish Disney would fix. There is way too much bathroom humor/crass humor in this movie. I'm sorry, but Disney does not need to have gags where characters are so frightened that they deficate, or other characters being urinated on etc, etc. I also was not pleased with the gay innuendo gag used in the apartment complex. Not so much that it was gay innuendo, so much as that sexual humor did not belong in a movie where the heroic character is so blissfully unaware that she considers kissing akin to intercourse. Of course, the first scene with the towel was also ridiculous and not necessary. There were also so many missed opportunities in this movie for much better material than what was presented. The whole charades with the chipmunk always ended with a really stupid guess from the Prince that was not funny, just wrong. The glass shoe fitting could have included a comment about the odds of wearing the same size shoe, a common complaint about the Cinderella story. There were also much more opportunities for the whole fairy tale in the real world that was so wonderfully explored in the two big production numbers but neglected the rest of the film. As you can see most of complaints involve a desire to see more depth in the movie. In the end I felt that while Enchanted was seemingly making fun of the shallow nature of Disney animated films, in many ways I found it to be more shallow that most of them. I don't expect almost anyone to agree with these thoughts considering the highly positive response the film has gotten. I just felt like sharing my thoughts in the hope that I can read responses and perhaps soften my opinion on the film.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror DL, all I can say is, I think you're just thinking wrong... at least on some of these points. I hate message boards, because it would be so much easier to just have a give and take in a chat-type forum, or vocally. But your example of why the "HOW DOES SHE KNOW" piece doesn't work, and how the themes you wish were evoked were maintained - they ARE, but the song and the thematic unity of the film do this much more SUBVERSIVELY than I think you realize. The film IS simultaneously saying: 1)People CAN'T fall in love in a day AND 2)There IS such a thing as Love at First Sight that can last forever. It's saying BOTH of those things. But what Giselle and Robert come to realize, is that while BOTH of those can be true, both can also NOT apply - what's important is not the HOW, but the WHO. Fall in love with the WRONG person, and love isn't true. It doesn't endure. They both find this out. Fall in love with the RIGHT person, and love is magical, and lasts forever. They both find this out. They both find out a lot more. Very subversive, very subtle, and wonderful the way they build this into the slow evolution of the film. You are CORRECT in that without Giselle, you have a pretty standard "Fish out of water" story. But DL, MOST movies can say that. SPLASH is a "fish out of water" story. With a pretty standard romantic love story. LITTLE MERMAID is a "fish out of water" story. With a strong love story. BIG is a "fish out of water" story. With a strong dose of love story - both in romance and in friendship. ELF is a "fish out of water" story. But all of these are pretty wonderful. We've all heard the maxim that there's seven basic plots. That's kind of oversimplifying, but there are maybe a few DOZEN story templates used over and over again - it's how you dress them up. And ENCHANTED dresses things up really well. I'm just gonna stop on that point because we could go on and on. I think the movie holds up for repeated viewings (I've seen it once, but I soak in a lot - I do this for a living) and on repeated viewings, I believe you're going to discover just how smart this movie is. Here's another place where we disagree, where frankly I think you missed something: >>>There were also so many missed opportunities in this movie for much better material than what was presented. The whole charades with the chipmunk always ended with a really stupid guess from the Prince that was not funny, just wrong.<<< You missed something here - something BIG that reveals CHARACTER. The Prince doesn't just guess WRONG, he guesses wrong because ALL OF HIS ANSWERS are about "himself". They reveal his utter narcissicism, albeit a rather innocent narcissicism. This shows us he is NOT ready, nor WORTHY to be a paramour for Giselle. If he just guessed WRONG, in a funnier way, we'd get a laugh, but all we'd learn is that he's kind of a handsome dolt. EVERYTIME he guesses wrong, he does so because he's pretty utterly self-absorbed. And that's ultimately TRUER to his character. He's courageous, he's strong, he's resourceful, but he's essentially got a very simple, superior self-image, and that helps fortify a foundation for the audience that ultimately, he's not right for Giselle. It doesn't keep him from being likeable, but it DOES help us "divorce" from the image of he and Giselle "belonging" together. And that's very, very important for the emotional lyricism of the movie. As for the "slipper always fits" line not being dropped... That's ALSO smart. It would have been only TOO easy to do that. They certainly would have done it in a SHREK type film. But the moment wasn't about cynicism or irony. It was about MAGIC, about a connection. It would have been wrong to ruin that little moment (with the "B" characters and B plot) with an all-too-easy smug punchline. Believe me, Bill Kelley almost certainly had it in an early draft. They pared this stuff down - it's a distillation process. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they even SHOT the line. But thankfully, it wasn't there. That shows restraint, and to me, that's smart. I wish we could go on and on - I'd love to... but I hate writing this much on a message board... it's kind of misplaced creative energy. But my wish is not to insult (and I sincerely apologize if I've done so) but to perhaps get you to open up to the possibility that this film was thought through VERY carefully, with many "underlayers" in the telling. Maybe on repeat viewings, just as on subsequent rides on PIRATES, you'll discover all those rich details, and will appreciate it in a whole new way.
Originally Posted By Dlmusic <<You missed something here - something BIG that reveals CHARACTER. The Prince doesn't just guess WRONG, he guesses wrong because ALL OF HIS ANSWERS are about "himself". They reveal his utter narcissicism, albeit a rather innocent narcissicism.>> I did get that it revealed character, but I felt that the prince character was annoying as he was yet again a weak character much like the animated films this movie seems to be ribbing. The princes in Disney animated films never were self obssesed, in fact it was quite the opposite. There life was seemingly unimportant in comparison to the life of the woman they loved. You don't find them checking out their hair as they dash to the maiden's rescue. Now do they always look picture perfect? Yes, but that is not because of the character it's simply because they represent a perfect image. To lump Disney princes in with this guy only cements the idea that Disney princes are to effeminate. Weak decision and a rather easy one to make. Essentially they make Prince Edward into a Gaston type so that the audience can easily root for the lawyer instead. Snooze. Why not create a solid character that is still wrong for Giselle in another way. For example, you could have made the prince be so interested in her and so needy that she realizes that she needs a man who belives in himself as well. That would have been a much more mature thought than anything this film came up with. And I still maintain that How Does She Know has nothing to do with the storyline. Because your point is that as long as you find the right person, love conquers all. That's not what the song says, the song says it takes effort to keep love alive. And how can the film be saying there is such a thing as love at first sight when the two main characters are compeltly indifferent to each other on their first meeting. Not that I wanted the film to say that, but I just totally disagree that the message that love at first sight exists was certainly not presented in the movie I saw. My guess of the ultimate point of the movie I saw was that regardless of how crummy your life gets, you can't stop wishing for something better. Which is not a bad thought, but it (nor any thought) was well stated by the film, instead the film chose the shallow path in order to hang it's somewhat repetitive gags. <<That shows restraint, and to me, that's smart.>> I wish they had more restraint, but poop jokes to me are not restrained. I don't understand how you can say the film is not ironic when most of the humor is definately ironic. The whole cleaning song for example among others are the irony of how fairy tale logic just doesn't fit into real life.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>For example, you could have made the prince be so interested in her and so needy that she realizes that she needs a man who belives in himself as well. That would have been a much more mature thought than anything this film came up with.<<< But... they did this. He's not needy, no, but he does FEEL that he "needs her" to complete what's expected, what's natural (for them) and traditional. He's also putting himself out on the line, courageously, to win her back and save her, which is in accord with the animated princes preceding him. They make him MORE dimensional by adding the preening and tacit narcissicism. He's actually pretty well developed as a character. And they are SPOOFING the rather undeveloped princes in previous Disney animated films, by showing him to be a bit superficial. >>>And I still maintain that How Does She Know has nothing to do with the storyline. Because your point is that as long as you find the right person, love conquers all. That's not what the song says, the song says it takes effort to keep love alive. And how can the film be saying there is such a thing as love at first sight when the two main characters are compeltly indifferent to each other on their first meeting. Not that I wanted the film to say that, but I just totally disagree that the message that love at first sight exists was certainly not presented in the movie I saw.<<< See, that's my point... I think you missed a lot. The film DOES show that love takes effort. It does do this in spades, but it's ALSO establishing the possibility that this love CAN begin with magical, unexpected encounters. ENCHANTED accomplishes many things on many layers. It's all there, and not that tough to see. I think you either got a little too offended, perhaps, at some of the poop or (to you) unsavory (gay, etc.) elements, to maybe see some of this. But this movie is smart precisely because it does NOT neglect its core themes, running in parallel tracks. Some great writing here. Subversive, smart, thematically harmonious, and great character dimensionality where it counts. >>>I wish they had more restraint, but poop jokes to me are not restrained. I don't understand how you can say the film is not ironic when most of the humor is definately ironic.<<< When did I say the film is not ironic? I said it wasn't SHREK. Shrek is simply a whole different animal. TWILIGHT ZONE is all about irony, for example. That's the central theme of the Twilight Zone stories - irony. SHREK is about ridicule for ridicule sake, at whatever cost. It's about farce. There's a big difference. ENCHANTED went very gentle with its poking and its sense of irony. Its strongest "jab" at the milieu is a pigeon eating a cockroach. I didn't like the chipmunk's poop thing either, but c'est la vie. A small sin in a movie with many, many graces.
Originally Posted By Dlmusic <<Its strongest "jab" at the milieu is a pigeon eating a cockroach.>> A moment that was completely out of character with the rest of the film and another example of the uneveness the film presents. As much as I dislike Shrek I was very dissapointed to see some of that mean spirited attitude in a Disney film. <<And they are SPOOFING the rather undeveloped princes in previous Disney animated films, by showing him to be a bit superficial.>> But it's such an over the top spoof in a movie that attempts to have itself taken seriously at other times. It also has no baring on reality as I never thought of any Disney prince as superficial. Sure they are attracted to girls because of their beauty, but the girls seem to be attracted to the princes for equally shallow reasons so it's rather annoying to see a movie allow a princess to become such a fleshed out character without giving the same attention the prince. <<ENCHANTED accomplishes many things on many layers. It's all there, and not that tough to see. >> I guess the problem is that while you saw many layers that fit together into a nice 7 layer cake, for me the layers were more like a house of cards that came down as more layers were added on. I really dislike this modern trend that if you lump enough issues into a product and stir them around a little bit that it can all blend together. I can't blame the writers since it seems to work for audiences in general, but for me the movies come across less like a well texture meal with lots of flavors than an overspiced disjointed dish. In the end I think there were just a lot of choices in the movie that bothered me because I thought it made it a poorer film than the movie that I was hoping for. At some point I do want to see the movie again and try to see it without any expectations (or at least lower expectations since I was disappointed the first time). I think I'm also coming across a bit more extreme in my opinions than I really feel. I don't think the movie was bad, and the audience response certainly dictates that the movie is accomplishing it's goals. I was just sharing the elements of the movie that I did not care for in the hopes that I could understand more why others enjoyed the movie much more than I did. This conversation (and others on the board) have helped me relate more toward those in the "I loved it" column and I do appreciate the time of those involved to share their thoughts.
Originally Posted By DlandDug What made this movie work for me is that it was very much un-ironic. Rather, it was completely true to its premise. A two dimensional princess enters the three dimensional world, and becomes the three dimensional version of herself. In doing so, her innate goodness acts upon those around her, effecting positive change. I did not see Prince Edward as a narcissist, or particularly thick. He is a two dimensional Disney prince. He simply is so fixed on his mission-- to save the girl-- that he fails, initially, to see anything else. As each animated character spends time in "our" world, they become more fully dimensional. The evil queen's failing is mostly due to the fact that she spends too little time in New York, thus remaining a two-dimensional paradigm of fairy tale evil. This may seem like too much analysis for a simple film-- but then this is, as far as I am concerned, more than just a simple film.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror That's pretty good, DLandDug. Not too much analysis. But you're right - it's not a simple film. That's the great thing about the movie... it's very well-designed, and very layered, and a lot of people are simply missing the cohesiveness and parallel constructs that are very intentional. >>>But it's such an over the top spoof in a movie that attempts to have itself taken seriously at other times. It also has no baring on reality as I never thought of any Disney prince as superficial.<<< Well, you'd definitely not be in the company of a lot of Disney's senior animators from the Golden Age. Many of them are on record as saying that some of those Disney princes were ONLY superficially developed - and that Prince Phillip was a (happy) aberration from the norm. As Sherry's said - I think there's no convincing you - and I'm sorry if we've butted heads - but I think you've kind of decided something about this film... Given the 93% positive on Rottentomatoes... you might want to give it a second look without getting offended by the chipmunk poop and the gay leather guy. You're missing many of the strengths of a splendidly consistent, extremely well-conceived and executed Disney film.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: So sorry to hear you weren't as 'enchanted' with ENCHANTED as so many of the rest of us were, Dlmusic, duckling. I suppose it's impossible to please everyone at the same time where motion pictures are concerned. ORWEN: I know some ducklings who never even like THE WIZARD OF OZ or SNOW WHITE, believe it or not! ORDDU: I'm not really a fan of bathroom humor in family type films, either, so it's easy enough to concede on those particular points. ORWEN: But--overall--ENCHANTED is just the right movie most ducklings world wide really need right now. ORDDU: The rest of the world is so dreary and unhappy--what with all the political unrest and greed. So, when a lovely musical--like this one--comes along to inspire and uplift, it's hard to find much fault with it. We just hope you find something else to make you glad to be alive. ORWEN: Maybe RAPUNZEL will do it for you. We hope so anyway.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By jdub I'd react to that, except that my vocabulary--and my dictionary--do not seem to contain the word "receinved."
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>All this thread does for me, is enforce the premise that there is no expression of art so well receinved and aclaimed that some cretin won't tool in and spend two hours pontificating on how it is the travesty of western civilization.<<< 1) DLmusic never claimed it was the travesty of western civilization, or anything close to that. He simply said he didn't feel the movie worked. It clearly doesn't work for HIM. 2) DLmusic is NOT a cretin, he's not displayed anything worthy of that label, and he deserves an apology. 3) He expressed an opinion. Just because he didn't like a movie that you or I (or most of the critics, granted) enjoyed, doesn't merit flaming or attacking him.
Originally Posted By DlandDug ^^^ What he said. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>>All this thread does for me, is enforce the premise that there is no expression of art so well receinved and aclaimed that some cretin won't tool in and spend two hours pontificating on how it is the travesty of western civilization.<<< I've been known to react like this when someone disses a movie that I think is the greatest thing since sliced cheese. Hopefully I've matured enough to not do it again. ;-)
Originally Posted By BrnardM I beleive that I'm in the same boat with you, DLmusic. From concept to trailer I was really looking forward to Enchanted. I enjoyed the movie, but I really wanted to love it. While there was a nice dose of wit (the "working song" takes the gold), and some awesome performances (Amy Adams and James Mardsen were perfect) it just didn't really satisfy me. I was looking for a bit more contrast between the real world and the fantasy world. Because of the nature of the world Giselle came from, there is a lot of unexplored comic territory in the movie. I was hoping that the writers would have gone there and included a more adult twist on the situation. Nothing innappropriate of course, but some of the best moments in Enchanted toyed with this idea. My expectations were probably a bit high, but following the pirates films it's hard to know what maturity level to expect from live action disney. They shot younger with this one, a well played decision, but there is more to the material than the movie covered. That said, I will say that it's an entertaining flik, but ironic in that the real world is just as disney as the one Giselle came from. Also, I just want to say that including the film's major action sequence (dragon) after the climax was resolved is a sloppy plot move.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I would have to say that my biggest disappointment in Enchanted was that they got Edina Menzel in it, but didn't let her sing. I assume it's because she is supposed to be the stereotypical real world person, but we all know that she has the pipes to pull it off. Maybe even just something little at the end when she's in the animated world? And the dragon sequence seemed sloppy to me too. She was too busy having a conversation to be imposing, and it looked like a bad take off on King Kong.
Originally Posted By labretbear Menzel & Marsden had a duet that was cut from the release print. Sadly it doesn't seem to be on the CD release either.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I recall reading that Idina Menzel and James Marsden recorded a number, but it was cut from the film. Incidently, the complete soundtrack is available for listening at the Enchanted page on myspace: <a href="http://www.myspace.com/enchantedmovie" target="_blank">http://www.myspace.com/enchant edmovie</a>
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: All flaws aside, this movie is so inspirational on so many levels that it seems a shame to criticize it--not that the ducklings who do so don't have valid points. But it can be such a dreary world out there that when something bright and shiny comes along my sisters and I tend to let ourselves go with the flow and just enjoy it. ORWEN: I still wanna' dress just like Giselle's white one!! ORGOCH: An' I still wanna' plate a FROG legs--but I ain't gonna' git one 'til I git up off my butt and start huntin' fer FROGS!!!
Originally Posted By Dlmusic <<I was looking for a bit more contrast between the real world and the fantasy world. Because of the nature of the world Giselle came from, there is a lot of unexplored comic territory in the movie.>> It's nice to see that somebody else also though this. BTW, I did manage to see Enchanted again and I thought it played better the second time. For me, the movie is quite good until they get to the Bella Notte restaurant. It's at this juncture that the plot takes some silly turns, most of the lame jokes are found and the whole movie leads up to the less than worthy ending. Overall I still think the movie is pretty good, but I think the more I'll get attached to the first two thirds, the more I'll get irritated about the last third. Oh well, two thirds is still better than most films these days. There is one moment in Enchanted that to me really stands out above the rest of the movie and reveals a wonderful heart. It's when Giselle finds out that the couple is getting a divorce. That scene is absolutely brilliant. At first you want to laugh at Giselle's naive reaction, but then you almost want to cry. The idea that divorce is taken so for granted in this world that the idea that someone would be shocked is laughable. But that idea is also very depressing at the same time. That is the movie that I wish Disney would have made if they were going to do something beyond a silly gag fest. Right now I think the movie ackwardly toes the middle ground and doesn't do justice to either concept. Still though, on a rating scale I think I would give it something like a B- But I wish that it could have been an A movie.
Originally Posted By NJ AP We saw it this weekend, too. I cannot remember the last time we went to see a movie on opening weekend. By "we" I mean my husband, 5 year old princess, and I. At least our daughter should have been Disney's target audience, but even she left with an "eh" feeling. It has grown on me over the past few days, but I agree there was room for improvement. I feel the movie should have been toned down to a G rating. The towel scene was unnecessary. All Nancy needed to see was that Giselle was sitting at the breakfast table wearing Robert's bathrobe. Talk of sex could have been taken out to make the movie more age appropriate. I would have taken out the bathroom humor, too. I felt this was Disney's attempt to have a little something for everyone -- bathroom humor for the boys, princess for the girls, sex talk for the adults, etc. I agree with one poster who said we needed to see the Queen more. She comes in too late to be any real threat to anyone. All she needed to see in her water was that Giselle was in love with Robert and that she would not marry the prince, therefore she is not a threat to Narcissa. End of story. Why bother coming to NYC? Too many rats and cockroaches for my taste, but I do get the gag -- not all furry critters are cute. Felt it was overdone. I think the point of her opening her own dress shop was to show she does not need a man to be whole. She is an independent woman -- the opposite of how she was at the beginning of the movie. Nice contrast! We already knew she had amazing talent to whip up those clothes in mere moments each morning. BTW, if she could not get into the apartment, how did she get into the building or in the taxi? Would have loved to have seen her try to tackle the revolving door in that dress!
