Don't be afraid of the word "princess"

Disney's return to traditional, hand-drawn animation did open at No. 1 this weekend, but the Mouse House can't be happy about how much money "The Princess and the Frog" actually grossed at the box office: $24.2 million, according to the industry-watchers at Box Office Mojo. That's a terrible total for a film as expensive and as hyped as this -- not to mention a film as good as this. The weekend total pales in comparison to other animated films this year, like "Up" ($68.1 million opening), "Monsters Vs. Aliens" ($59.3 million opening), "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" ($41.7 million opening), and even "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs" ($30.1 million opening).

Why did this happen? An obvious answer would be that everyone is too busy with their Christmas shopping to take the kids to the movies. And I'm sure that's true to some degree. But I suspect it all comes down to this:

The movie has the word "princess" in the title.

Disney has built a miniature industry within its industry dedicated to its lineup of animated princesses, and many of the princess films appeal to both girls and boys. But "The Princess and the Frog" is the first to explicitly have the word "princess" right there in the title, and I'm guessing there are lots of little boys -- not to mention grown boyfriends and husbands -- who have absolutely no interest in seeing a dumb girl movie about a princess.

Now, far be it from me to question the marketing savvy of the largest entertainment conglomerate in the world, but I really have to wonder how easier a sell the movie would have been without that word in the title. I'm pretty sure I know why the movie is called what it is -- Disney wanted to hammer home the fact that this movie stars the studio's very first black princess character -- but I would be interested to know if how a princess movie would sell to males figured largely into Disney's marketing strategy, or if they were just banking on the female and/or black audience to carry the film.

All of this should be irrelevant, because "The Princess and the Frog" is a darn good movie, maybe the best of its kind since 1994's "The Lion King." It plays a bit like Disney's greatest hits, and has lots of references and in-jokes that hardcore fans will dig. Its fast-paced comedy makes stuff like "Mulan," "Hercules" and "Pocahontas" look like long-winded, joyless bores.

And it looks like a (hundred) million bucks. The shiny, saturated depiction of New Orleans instantly reminds of Disneyland's New Orleans Square, the gorgeous section of the Anaheim park that was reportedly Uncle Walt's favorite; the end-credits sequence contains a subtle tip of the cap to the New Orleans Square version of the Pirates of the Caribbean attraction.

The musical sequences are uniformly spectacular, even if some of the Randy Newman songs are pedestrian. Tiana's inspiring, "Part of Your World"-type number has the animators shifting styles, going for an angular, art-deco feel, and the villain's "Poor Unfortunate Souls"-type number is creepy and clever. (Yes, directors John Musker and Ron Clements clearly aspire to recapture the magic of their 1989 film that "saved" Disney animation, "The Little Mermaid," and they pretty much succeed.)

Business-wise, "Princess" has this going for it: Movies released at this time of year seem to depend less on huge opening weekends and more on word of mouth and family get-togethers. The film could be the No. 1 choice for families on Christmas Day in a marketplace that will be flooded with options like "Avatar," "Sherlock Holmes" and "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel." If you consider yourself any kind of a Disney fan, it should be.