That's 2 cveler by half and 2x2 clever 4 me. Thanks!

Opps!
What I ment to say is that if it’s a story that could be done by stick figures on a paper background and I'm still moved by it, it's good!

Sorry for the mess!

Wow! I guess I never heard too much about armature critics because I frankly don't listen to many (if any) critics at all.

I always try seeing a film on its own merits (given my understanding of the art in question) and not build my hopes (or opinions) on what others say about it! I think that a good student of art first takes in the experience, then discus or compares it with opinions from other professionals to compare and contrast and maybe learn. By the way, I've been practicing my art of media for over 20 years and I still call my self a student - you can never learn enough about it!

Without getting into a longer speech then this, I’ll tell you what I mostly look for in animation. It is not how it is done or how well the cells are drawn. It can be in 2D CG or 3D, I don’t care! It can be done by Disney, or by some lonely student in Japan using his Mac.

In animation, what I look for is a good story! Basically the measure that I use is, if it’s a story that could be done by stick figures on a paper background and still be move to me, it's good!

Yes, Princess and the Frog had its flaws, but I think if it was done by stick figures, I would still be drawn to it! Parden the Pun!

I have to agree with Mr Goodman in the incredulity at the mentioned critiques, although within five minutes of the start of the movie I knew there would be an uproar about the voodoo practiced throughout, even though "evil magic" and magic in general is a common element in most children's stories and animations. As for a logical reason why Tiana did not go to the Catholic church for assistance... she was a frog! I just could not see the Holy Father at St Louis Cathedral stopping during high mass to speak with a frog. This one is almost as rediculous as the outrage the Right felt at the movie Happy Feet for being pro-environment.

As for the history of New Orleans and the authenticity of the depiction of life in the city during the time portrayed, many animated films and other children's films and stories take place in alternate realities and I believe that children understand this. I do not believe that children expect to go to London and have to dodge people flying on broomsticks and avoiding Voldemort. I believe it is the adult's job in the household to clarify the difference between make believe and truth and I can see only benefit in instilling a desire for all races to live harmoniously together in today's children. At least this movie is clearly fantasy, where movies like Pocahontas were not so clear and could be taken as true history. I remember when that movie was released how angered some Native Americans were by the falsification of the storyline. Let's face it, children want to be entertained when going to these movies and they want to have fun. We can teach them about past inequalities, hardships and horrors outside of the movie theater.

I personally thought the animation in The Princess Frog was lovely for the most part. The scenes of magic were clearly reworked versions of The Little Mermaid's magic (especially when transformations occur) in fact Naveen looked disturbingly a lot like Prince Eric with a tan and contact lenses.

While this may not have been the first production Disney has done featuring an African American girl as the heroine it was the first animated major motion picture that they have made with that distinction. I still do not understand why it has taken them so long to do it, proud that they finally have but dissapointed that it didn't happen years ago. I am very happy though that Tiana was a strong woman that worked hard to pull herself up and was not really looking for a prince to come along and save her. While I realize that traditional fairy tales are written to where the main heroine is weak and needs men to fix her problems for her.

I was disappointed with the score in this movie, I did not think the music was quite jazzy enough for New Orleans, there was something off about it and this is one of the first Disney animations in a long time that did not produce a billboard hit from even one of the songs. The songs did not really capture my interest and while some of the music was ok, none of it was outstanding.

I agree with those that said the story was weak in areas, I think they tried to cram too much inconsequential music in that a lot of the story was just glazed over.

Well, I think overall you are right.
But anyone have the right to express their comment (however they shouln't call themselves critics).
If viewer didn't recall the motivation of the villain, it's probably because they were not strong enough and explain well enough despite the scenes you mentioned (but as you write further on, the reason for that is the lack of a strong backstory and I guess here you prove the fundamental difference between a professionnal and anyone which is to pinpoint the right flaw or quality). As a screen writer I would take note on that. If, as a teacher my students don't understand the course, it's because I wasn't clear enough not because they are all dumb.
As for the history I'm part of those viewers that can't stand to see it wrongly displayed. Simply because (especially in animation) children are watching and they will take the seemingly real background of the story for reality. If you present a real place in our history time it has to be rightly presented. Even for old tales reuse in today's movie, I think of movies like "clash of the Titans" where they take the greek legends and change everything to suit hollywood fantasy. They should change the names, places and all references to those legends.
You can't compare the gross figures of movies like Persepolis, Waltz with Bashir, and The Triplets of Belleville which are small budget movie, screen in very few places and were considered commercial succes by France standard for that type of movie, with big budget Disney's movie or hollywood movie with lot of marketing and distributed pretty much everywhere in the world. I understand your point and it's a good point (to not judge by the sales).
Eventually, I just want to say anyone have the right to write a critic but the reader should be aware that it is an amateur and not a professional and read it as such.

DR TOON REPLIES:

To Gareth: Nice observations! It's obvious that you combed over this film carefully and gave it some critical thought, a must if you intend to critique films. We may have had a misunderstanding; it was not my intent to nitpick the film, just to point out some inconsistencies. I don't really care wheteher Dr. Facilier's title was self-conferred or not. What I wanted to express was that the character's delineation was woefully inadequate for the weight he had to carry in this film. Just one well-written verse in his showstopper number could have rectified this. Nice work on the arrest of Lawrence; upon further review I have to admit that your explanation was entirely possible. As to Lottie kissing the frog, the great film critic John Simon once said that "If a ghost can not walk across water in the first reel, he should not be able to do so in the third reel" In other words, consistency within a film is vital. If Tiana was turned into a frog because she wasn't a princess, then the same should have happened to Lotte.
Overall,your thoughts were greatly appreciated and fun to read. I love fans like you, Gareth. BTW: Always loved the R&H Cinderella. "Lovely, Lovely Night" was my fave song from the original TV production.

To InkAndPixelClub: Great idea for a column!I have some thoughts and recommendations and will be presenting them in the future. Just stay tooned and keep reading your old buddy Dr. Toon.

A few more thoughts:

Because it was a fast-moving film, Princess and the Frog could appear to have unexplained elements or inconsistencies upon closer scrutiny, but there appears to be an answer to each of the instances you mentioned so far.

First, it seemed obvious to me from Dr. Facilier's character that 'Dr.' was a self-appointed title. When Lawrence was taken to prison he was no doubt under suspicion for the murder or kidnapping of the real Prince Naveen, who was understood to be missing at this point. When Lottie kisses the frog prince after her time as Mardi Gras princess is over and does not herself turn into a frog, that question doesn't really bother except on very close scrutiny, because that cause-and-effect reason for Tiana being turned into a frog was never established, but was presented more as a twist of fate (and the backfired magic as not-always-predictable). Also, it was clear that Louis the Alligator had become accepted as Tiana and Naveen's friend or 'pet', as we see him accompanying them as they pay for the building they want to renovate for their restaurant. The realtors do not run in terror as in the Mardi Gras incident, but tremble when Louis snorts at them for delaying handing over the deed. But furthermore, in the Mardi Gras incident, Louis was roaring and charging into the crowd to pursue Dr. Facilier's spook squad, unlike at the end where he's once again happily playing his trumpet on stage.

An interesting side note- Princess and the Frog including African Americans in the princess genre is not a new phenomena. The theme appears to have come from Disney's made-for-TV adaptation of Rogers & Hammerstein's Cinderella, released a decade before production was started for Princess and the Frog (1997).

Do you have any recommended reading for beginning critics. I'm trying to improve my writing and would definitely prefer to be on the right side of the line between insightful criticism and uninformed drivel - negative or positive.

No film's perfect, but this one exceeded my expectations and was simply the best movie I've seen in awhile.

Constructive criticism: thinner, darker outlines for the character animation.

To me, hand drawn has more aesthetic appeal for character animation and I love the 'deep canvas' 2D/3D backgrounds and prefer that to CG-only, too.

With regard to certain conventions being 'a part' of (particularly Disney) animated films, I think it is fair for a critic to find fault with how an animated film is made, whether it is their expertise or not. An animated film is a film as much as a motion picture is, and defending itself of criticism with saying 'it is animation' is a complete cop-out.

This is almost as bad as evaluating an animated film as part of a 'genre', one with conventions that are to be expected. I think this is the biggest problem with the Princess and the Frog; it does nothing to separate itself from the idea that animation is a genre, and subsequently seemed able to get away with being wholly unoriginal and for the most part unimaginative and dull. You went in with expectations, and they were met, but not surpassed or surprised.

Although there are things that can't be done in '2D' or drawn animated films, I don't think directors should be so happy to accept limitations and not try to break through them, as is constantly happening in the field of CG.

Because they were the apparent catalysts for Disney's late 80s/90s 'renaissance', Ron Clements and Jon Musker were asked to direct this film. In almost all of the reviews I read their names weren't mentioned, apart from director credit nods. Flat characters are no excuse, as is the confused and vague sense of space not helped by unimaginative story-boarding, something that feels as though it is really holding back some truly excited and talented artists.

That is perhaps the biggest flaw in all of the reviews I read, that is was reviewed wholly as a Disney film that came into being by magic, and without trying to criticise the creators and artists as motion picture directors/editors/cinematographers. The praise was there for visual elements, but without the expertise needed to evaluate the film visually. I would have liked to have seen reviews giving interesting points about how the film was directed or handled visually overall.