WARNING: This blog contains spoilers. All opinions and conclusions in this review are my own
Wow! I really have given this film a lot of attention over the past few weeks haven’t I? I guess that’s the “Frozen Effect!” XD
Anyway, if you’re reading this, chances are you already read my honest review (and probably even my Aprils Fool Day) review of Frozen. My general view on the film was, it was overrated, but still a good film. And I was prepared to leave it at that – given that some people may have been a little upset by the views I put across (although, according to the feedback I’ve had, the general consensus was it was a fair review – even if I did get a couple threatening to get their pitchforks out whilst singing Let it Go! XD). However, after posting that review – something was still bothering me about that movie. I couldn’t quite put my finger on it at the time, so I let it go (haha, I made a funny! XD).
But the nagging feeling just wouldn’t leave me and I couldn’t help but wonder that I left out something important in the last review. So, I gave the film the second chance, thinking that maybe I’d change my mind. And whilst my opinions expressed in my last review didn’t change – I did notice something the second time round that I missed before.
On second viewing, I discovered, what I consider to be, a gapping plot hole.
Before writing this post, I did speak to some of my friends on Facebook, who are all fans of Frozen in some way or another, to get their views. On the whole, they agreed with me – but did also offer counter arguments to it, which I’m going to use in this post for the sake of fairness. I dunno if this has been raised or not as I haven’t read any other reviews of Frozen (in fact for the longest time I was deliberately avoiding anything Frozen related), so if this has been raised already, I apologise in advance.
Near the end of the film, Anna’s heart accidentally gets zapped by Elsa – which means her heart will freeze and she will die. At the beginning of the film, Anna was hit in the head, but thanks to troll magic, she was cured. Kristoff, who grew up with the trolls, then took Anna to the trolls to cure her – but the troll priest (or whatever his role was) said that only an act of love can cure a frozen heart. That’s fine, it was established earlier that attacks to the heart were dangerous so I have no problem with this. So then Kristoff takes Anna back to Hans, believing that he is Anna’s true love – only for him to reveal his true colours. Then in the final scene, Anna saves Elsa from Hans, is frozen, Elsa cries and this acts of sisterly love unfreezes Anna. Like I said in my last review, I respect this ending.
Here’s where I believe the plot hole comes in.
It’s clear that Kristoff is in love with Anna, or cares for her. He even has a conversation with Sven about this after dropping her off back to Hans. So, if that was the case – why didn’t he just say to Anna THERE AND THEN. he had already been told that an act of love could save her, all he had to do was tell Anna “I love you” or “I care about you” or something to that effect. It wasn’t specified WHAT the act of love had to be, so I’m guessing that he just had to make Anna feel loved.
BOOM! Curse removed! Now they can go and save Elsa.
Now, some of my Facebook friends pointed out that Kristoff believed that Anna was in love with Hans, and that he believed that he wasn’t worthy of Anna’s love. True, but here’s my point. In taking her back to Hans, he had to travel from one end of Arendelle to the other, traveling an unspecified amount of distance to get there. How did he know that she would survive the journey? She could have died before they were anywhere NEAR Hans. If he had even a slightest chance to save her, and if he really cared for her, why not take a risk and say he loved her there and then? And if that didn’t work (or only partly worked as Kristoff’s love wasn’t strong enough to completely cure her), that at least would have justified Kristoff getting her to Hans as quickly as possible.
I mean, think about it – if you’re a doctor and someone is brought in with a fatal injury, and you have all the necessary tools to save them, you don’t just faff around – you get onto it straight away and try to save their lives before they die. If anything, this was a little cruel to Anna as she had to suffer more.
Another argument that was raised against this was that if Kristoff HAD cured the curse, then it wouldn’t have ended the way it did. This I disagree with. Even if they had removed the curse, they still needed to save Elsa. They could have cured Anna, then gone after Elsa. Then at the end, Anna could have still saved Elsa from Hans, Hans could have tried to hurt Anna, then Elsa (in a moment of awesomeness) could have used her powers to totally own Hans. This would STILL count as an act of love (as she was trying to save her sister) and therefore still help her unfreeze everything.
Not only that, but Kristoff curing the curse would actually give him a POINT in the story, rather than just being in there for the sake of having a pretty boy. As I said in my previous review, Kristoff could have easily been cut out the film and it would just have been as good. Had he done this, he actually would have had a proper role in the story.
You may think that I’m being unnecessarily harsh in me saying this, but, in my opinion, this was a flaw in the story that could have been thought out a lot better. Maybe there is a deleted scene or an early draft that addressed this – but I am basing this opinion purely on the theatrical release on the film, not on extras released on a DVD.
Now, just to be clear on this, I am NOT writing this with the intention of discrediting this film, or tell the writers how to do their job. I am just giving my honest opinion on what I feel to be a glaring hole in the narrative – or at the very least lazy writing.
To be fair, Frozen isn’t the only critically acclaimed movie to have a major plot hole in it. The Lord of the Rings movies had the eagles for example. Yes – even I, a fan of the movie have to raise the question that, if they could summon eagles – why did they walk to Mount Doom? And before any of you cry out “Nazgul” and their flying beasts – let’s not forget that the eagles did easily beat them in the final battle. Oh, and remember the remake of King Kong? That character constantly changes sizes throughout the film as if he has magical size reduction/growth powers (sorry, Peter Jackson – I didn’t mean to pick on you). And then of course there is the fake regeneration scene in Doctor Who. Don't even get me STARTED on that!
What do you think guys? Is this a glaring error, or am I reading too much into this? Please leave me a comment below to let me know what you think. Hopefully you guys don’t think I’m picking on the movie for the sake of it. This is just my opinion – and the writer in me just had to put his views forward.
And... how many Oscar nominated films have YOU written?
Oh piss off, Hans! You’re lucky I don’t bitchslap you for what you tried to do to Elsa! >:(