Toy Story 4 (2019)

Tags

Animation, Comedy, Disney, Family, Pixar

The life that you pour into somebody else’s
Is just as much fuel as a life for one’s self is,
A reason to get up each morning, assured
That you have a purpose by which you are spurred.

But what of the time when the mission is done,
The journey completed, the races well-run?
When nobody needs you and life seems bereft,
What purpose remains here? What journeys are left?

Such crises are normal for those left behind,
But purpose is everywhere. Those who seek find.
_________________

MPAA rating: G (the highest grossing G-rated movie ever, in fact)

I’m sure I wasn’t alone in my groan when Toy Story 4 was announced. Toy Story 3 ended the series with such a definitively satisfying conclusion, being handed off from college-bound Andy to little Bonnie, that I just wanted Pixar to leave it there. A cute little short would pop up occasionally, and I kept wishing they would leave the characters alone. No more sequels, or, Lord help us, a remake! Yet Pixar has pulled off the unlikely so many times before that there was no way they were going to screw up their best franchise. Toy Story 4 still feels unnecessary, but it’s a sweet epilogue to Woody and Buzz’s story.

The Toy Story films have always thrived off their diverse cast of toy characters, and Toy Story 4 still does, joined by a collection of hilarious and welcome additions, but this particular tale is clearly meant to offer full-circle closure for Woody (Tom Hanks). The cowboy doll was always Andy’s favorite, and it’s no surprise that he’s lost that status in Bonnie’s room, yet he finds new purpose in protecting her newest friend, a googly-eyed spork she crafts and names Forky (Tony Hale). Being made of trash, Forky only sees himself as something to be thrown away, yet Woody strives to get the cobbled-together toy to see his own value, running into more than their fair share of trouble when the two are separated from Bonnie during a road trip.

In addition to new characters ranging from a Canadian stuntman plagued by self-doubt (Keanu Reeves) to a pair of plush carnival toys named Ducky and Bunny (Jordan Peele and Keegan-Michael Key), Woody is reunited with Bo Peep (Annie Potts), whom we get to learn much more about than in the first two films. The main change, which is practically a retcon, is that she’s a natural, daring leader who’s grown beyond needing the love of a single child. (I also learned she and her sheep were part of a lamp. Did I just not notice that before?) Also new to the cast is the genteel doll Gabby Gabby (Christina Hendricks), whose deep-seated neediness casts her in the role of villain, though the movie presents her with far more empathy than the other films’ antagonists, to the point of offering her redemption without so much as an apology to earn it (something I only realized after reading another review).Bo offers Woody an alternative to his desperate attempts to stay relevant, and I felt like this conflict resulted in some mixed messages. There’s a clear parallel between the toys watching their kids outgrow them and the empty-nest anxiety of parents, so it’s a worthwhile lesson that life doesn’t have to end once “the mission” is complete, that one can find another purpose. Yet with Woody’s repeated pleas throughout the series that “Andy/Bonnie needs us,” it vaguely feels by the end that he’s contradicting the loyalty he’s instilled in everyone else. My VC was more bothered by the end than I was, but it is a complication worth pointing out.

Yet for all these philosophical holes poked in the plot, the world and players of Toy Story never fail to entertain and remain as lovable now as they were back in 1995. With the spotlight so much on Woody, much of the extended cast, like Rex, Hamm, and Slinky, don’t get much screen time, but that doesn’t diminish the entertainment factor. (P.S. Ducky and Bunny are hilarious.) In some ways, the plot mishmashes elements from the other three films, yet it still bears that Pixar polish and lump-in-throat sweetness that never gets old.

I hope that Pixar has now finally gotten the need for an epilogue out of their system and can let Toy Story rest in peace. Toy Story 4 is easily the least of the bunch and not quite as good an ending as the third film, but it still satisfies, as well as dwarfs most other animated fare these days. All good things come to an end, or should, Toy Story included.

Best line: (Trixie) “I have a question. No, wait. I have all the questions.” [As someone with a reputation for asking questions ad nauseum in any class, this line spoke to me.]

 

Rank: List-Worthy (joining its forebears)

 

© 2019 S.G. Liput
655 Followers and Countin

The Incredibles 2 (2018)

Tags

Action, Animation, Comedy, Family, Pixar, Sci-fi, Superhero

Incredible is a subjective term,
As critics and colleges can confirm.
One man’s amazing and top-of-the-class
Is another’s mundane because people, alas,
See things either clearly or through rosy glass.

Incredible is a desirable word,
So rarely deserved yet so commonly heard.
At times, there’s consensus for some shining star,
But mostly we just must agree on the bar
And how we compare them decides what they are.
___________________

MPAA rating: PG

Of all the studios churning out long-awaited sequels, Pixar has arguably the best track record. Whether it’s Monsters University, Finding Dory, or Toy Story 3 (I mean 4), the decade-waiting sequelization of their canon is well underway and, with the exception of Cars 2, has turned out surprisingly well. (They’re all weaker than the originals, but they’re by no means bad, except Cars 2.) Yet strangely, Pixar has made fans wait longest for the follow-up to the one film in their oeuvre that was actively crying out for a sequel, namely The Incredibles. Perhaps due to the influx of superhero franchises since 2003, director Brad Bird finally delivered, and I’d say the fourteen-year wait was worth it.

Picking up immediately where the first film left off, The Incredibles 2 reminds us that, even after saving the world from Syndrome, the Parr family still have to deal with the fact that superheroing is illegal. After their battle with the Underminer goes south, Mr. and Mrs. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson and Holly Hunter) and Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) are approached by millionaire entrepreneurs Winston (Bob Odenkirk) and Evelyn Deavor (Catherine Keener), a brother and sister team who are actively trying to bring supers back into the spotlight. Due to her less destructive abilities, Elastigirl is the new face of their law-bending campaign, and while Bob deals with the headaches of parenting at home, Helen faces off with a mind-controlling villain called the Screenslaver.

There are certain elements borrowed from the previous film, such as the family disagreements on how to handle hiding their powers, and if you suspect their new benefactors aren’t entirely on the up-and-up, you’d be somewhat right. Yet The Incredibles 2 does an excellent job at differentiating itself from the first and from other superhero films in general. Chief among the differences is the inclusion of other supers joining the crusade for superhero legality, and their presence allows for added creativity in the battles and actual super-vs.-super fights rather than the repeated super-vs.-robot fight of the first. Anyone who wanted more Elastigirl and Frozone shouldn’t be disappointed, and while Bob seemed sidelined by suppressed egotism and Mr. Mom franticness, it wasn’t as bad as the trailers implied. Ultimately, even with some mature themes being broached, this is still a film for and about families, with Bob’s first-hand struggles with superpowered child-rearing offering a nice counterpoint to the more action-packed beats with his wife.

One thing that seemed like a retroactive change is that the Parrs apparently didn’t see baby Jack-Jack use his powers at the end of the first film, allowing for all of them to be surprised again by his multifaceted abilities. Jack-Jack even steals the show at times, whether he’s paired with an ornery raccoon or fashionista Edna Mode (Brad Bird). Likewise, Violet (Sarah Vowell) and Dash (Huck Milner, seamlessly replacing Spencer Fox) get their fair share of screen time, especially after the villain is revealed. Speaking of which, the Screenslaver may not have as compelling a backstory as Syndrome, but the philosophy spouted by the shadowy figure has a point in denouncing people’s reliance on computer/TV screens and lack of responsibility. It’s the kind of motivation that works well for a supervillain, bearing a kernel of truth but taken to a malevolent extreme, which actually offers a legitimate threat against the supers.

I’ll be honest: I intentionally had very low expectations for The Incredibles 2. Others I know have said they had enormous hopes for it, but when you’re dealing with a film as awesome as the first Incredibles, it’s going to be hard to match. Perhaps that’s why I enjoyed it so much compared with one of my disappointed coworkers, who likely had too many preconceived notions of what the perfect sequel should be, not unlike Star Wars fans of late. Yes, The Incredibles 2 doesn’t quite reach the heights of its predecessor: It lacks the meaningful character arcs of the first film, its villain mystery is semi-predictable, and it raises more thematic questions about right, wrong, and responsibility than it even tries to answer. Yet it was so enjoyable to spend time with these characters again that I didn’t mind, and it still stands head-and-shoulders above the majority of animated films nowadays.

I think I’d go so far as to call it the best Pixar sequel since Toy Story 2, at least in recapturing the spirit of the original. The action scenes are as cool and polished as anything in the MCU, and Michael Giacchino’s bombastic score is still the perfect complement to its comic book world. It’s not above some complaints, but if you compare The Incredibles 2 to Cars 2 rather than the first Incredibles, I think you’ll agree it’s an “incredible” sequel. Pixar does it again!

Best line: (Edna) “Done properly, parenting is a heroic act. [Glares at Bob’s exhaustion] “Done properly.”

 

Rank: List-Worthy (joining the first film)

 

© 2018 S.G. Liput
585 Followers and Counting

 

Coco (2017)

Tags

Animation, Comedy, Drama, Family, Fantasy, Musical, Pixar

Everybody, young and old,
Desires that their life be told
One day with fondness in past tense.
We think that we must spread our name
And earn our quarter hour of fame
To be remembered decades hence.

We need not awe the world so vain
When others close at hand remain
For us to serve and love instead.
The world may never know, it’s true,
How you have lived, but those who do
Are those who matter once we’re dead.
___________________

MPAA rating: PG

It’s nice to know that in a pretty lackluster year for American animation, Pixar can still come through. Coco was undoubtedly a risky film for the famous studio, their first musical and one delving into another country’s culture as none of their past movies have. Even dicier, it threatened to be one of Pixar’s least original stories, coming three years after The Book of Life already did the whole Day of the Dead theme in animation. Yet Pixar not only beat the odds but hit them out of the park. (Am I mixing my idioms? Anyway….)

Starting with a prologue explaining why the Rivera family has hated music for generations, Coco introduces us to Miguel Rivera (Anthony Gonzalez) and his extended family of shoemakers, including his rocking chair-bound great-grandmother Coco. Although his Abuelita (grandmother) forbids music of any kind, Miguel is an unashamed fan, particularly of the dead superstar Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt). While the rest of his family celebrates the traditional Mexican holiday of Día de Muertos or the Day of the Dead, the one day their dead relatives can visit them, Miguel’s passion for music accidentally transfers him to the Land of the Dead, and, if he doesn’t want to become a skeleton himself, he must find a way back before the end of the day, accompanied by a misfit named Héctor (Gael García Bernal).

It’s true that Coco isn’t the most exceptionally original film in Pixar’s canon. It not only reuses some elements of The Book of Life (skeletons in the Land of the Dead, musical aspirations suppressed by the family business) but will certainly remind some of Ratatouille in the way its talented protagonist dreams of emulating his dead idol against the wishes of his stern family. There are echoes of Up as well, but that might go into spoiler territory. Yet from these all too familiar ingredients, Coco still finds ways to enchant, impress, and touch in ways we haven’t seen before.

For one thing, Pixar continues to reach new heights in the quality of their CGI animation. From the semi-2D prologue told through traditional Mexican paper cuttings (papel picado) to the glory of the Land of the Dead’s fantasy metropolis and its bridge of marigold petals, the level of detail on display is spectacular. I saw Coco with my dad, and it seemed like I heard him whisper “Wow” every ten minutes or so.

Simply put, the animation is flawless, but I was glad to see that the same effort went into the story. It undoubtedly captures the traditions and culture of Mexico (it’s now the highest grossing film there), from its exclusively Hispanic cast to the exuberant gritos (the equivalent of a yahoo) to the particulars of celebrating Día de Muertos, yet it backs up that cultural specificity with themes that are universal, especially familial love and devotion. Strengthened by the Oscar-nominated song “Remember Me,” the emotions run deep toward the end, and although Pixar didn’t bring me to tears this time, I can easily see why many viewers’ hearts have melted, especially those who have lost family members.

There are a few points to maybe not object to but at least mention, which run a bit deeper than a  bizarre moment or two. Despite Mexico’s Catholic heritage, Día de Muertos does include pagan and mythological elements, and its concept of the afterlife isn’t exactly a Christian one. Despite the laudable lesson in both Coco and The Book of Life of remembering those who have died, I don’t believe that their existence in the afterlife is dependent on our memory. It’s a concept that works well for the story and its fantasy aspects but one that parents should probably discuss with their kids afterward.

That being said, Coco is still a triumph for Pixar, from its funny and poignant moments to its catchy soundtrack (I loved the final song especially). Its twists and turns may be guessable or not, but they do leave an impact. In typical Pixar fashion, it also appeals to kids and adults on different levels. Kids can root for Miguel’s love for music, but as they get older, they might pick up more on how an excess of that passion is problematic, putting him in more danger than was necessary. This may not have been intentional, but a couple parts even seemed to comment on the whole Confederate statue debate, offering a little support for both sides of the argument. Or maybe I’m just reading into it, but the point is that you don’t find such subtlety and food for thought in the majority of Western animation. It’s easily better than The Book of Life, and I’ll probably have to update my Top Twelve Pixar Movies now. As much as I’m still miffed at the Academy for spurning A Silent Voice for a Best Animated Feature nomination, I must admit that even if they had, Coco deserves to win.

Best line: (Miguel) “Although you may never forgive him, you should never forget him!”

 

Rank: List-Worthy

 

© 2018 S.G. Liput
538 Followers and Counting

 

My Top Twelve Pixar Movies

Tags

Animation, Lists, Pixar

I’ve loved growing up with Pixar movies. No other American animation studio has had such consistently marvelous output over the years and revolutionized the medium as strongly. Pixar pioneered CGI animation, and now that seems to be all U.S. studios care to work with anymore. Yet DreamWorks and Blue Sky and the rest can’t compare with the original masters, and even if Pixar’s more recent films have been overshadowed by the resurgence of Disney, Pixar is in such a class of its own that even its lesser films are better than most cartoons.

Now that I’ve reviewed all of Pixar’s films through Cars 3 (and eagerly await Coco in November), it seemed like the right time to finally count down my favorites list. Feel free to tell me which Pixar classic you prefer, and let’s hope there will be plenty more in the future.

 

12. Monsters University (2013)

After the disappointment of Cars 2, this is one Pixar sequel that I skipped entirely, not seeing much potential in its college frat storyline, but it was quite a pleasant surprise. Replete with colorful gags and throwbacks to Monsters, Inc., Monsters University proved to be a highly entertaining prequel that balanced its “dream big” message with sensitive practicality. Plus, it was just fun hearing John Goodman and Billy Crystal as younger versions of Sully and Mike.

 

11. A Bug’s Life (1998)

Let the record show: A Bug’s Life is better than Antz. There, I said it. Even if it’s clearly based on Seven Samurai (which I know now but I didn’t in elementary school), A Bug’s Life was and is still great fun. Following Toy Story, it confirmed that Pixar excels at animated ensembles full of diverse personalities. Kevin Spacey is an ideal villain as Hopper, and I saw this movie so early in my life and many times since that I can picture practically every scene in my head.

 

10. Cars (2006)

Again, the plot of Cars may be a rip-off of Doc Hollywood, but I love that movie so why wouldn’t I love Cars too? Pixar’s automotive world is just believable enough to still be relatable, and there’s nothing like seeing an arrogant hotshot brought down a peg to learn the value of small-town life. Another great voice cast (Owen Wilson, Paul Newman, Bonnie Hunt, Larry the Cable Guy) adds to the fun as well.

 

9. Toy Story 3 (2010)

I really wish Pixar didn’t have a Toy Story 4 in production because they ended this trilogy as perfectly as I can imagine. Building on the previous films’ concerns over Andy getting older and abandoning them, Toy Story 3 addresses that insecurity head-on with a prison-like daycare, a despotic teddy bear, and a frighteningly dark climax. The very end, though, is a tear-jerking beauty of a conclusion that doesn’t really need any more sequelizing.

 

8. Up (2009)

I think everyone agrees that the first twelve minutes of Up are some of the finest scenes Pixar (and animation in general) has to offer. From those lofty heights, the increasingly absurd and high-flying adventures of a crotchety old man and a young Wilderness Explorer in a balloon-floated house balance both goofy fun and heart-tugging emotion. For a movie with such a short title, Up is bound to be a long-lasting classic.

 

7. Monsters, Inc. (2001)

Pixar surely knows how to create memorable pairs: Woody and Buzz, Marlin and Dory, Carl and Russell, and of course, Sully and Mike. This imagination-packed buddy movie about monsters who power their world by harvesting the screams of human children still makes me chuckle and marvel at the door vault scene, and Billy Crystal and John Goodman have rarely been so perfectly cast.

 

6. Inside Out (2015)

After a few lackluster entries (Cars 2, Brave), Pixar returned to form marvelously with a peek inside the brain of a young girl named Riley, introducing us to the five personified emotions that rule her mental state (and everyone else’s, for that matter).  With a suitably emotional storyline that mixes Joy and Sadness and stunning visuals that changed how we viewed our own inner workings, it showed that Pixar’s best days aren’t necessarily behind them.

 

5. WALL-E (2008)

Pixar has always excelled at their wordless short films, but WALL-E was their first stab at using minimal dialogue in a feature-length film. The first half is an endearing robot love story against a post-apocalyptic backdrop, and the second half goes into the fate of the human race threatened by a rogue A.I. and their own laziness. It’s incredible how much character is lent to WALL-E and EVE by the animators and Ben Burtt’s sound effects, somehow making us care about two robots falling in love.

 

4. Ratatouille (2007)

A rat who wants to be a chef…. Only Pixar could pull off something like that and not let it devolve into pure silliness. With a careful eye to its Parisian setting and the culinary morsels that look good enough to eat, Pixar once again proved the superiority of its animation and provided a surprisingly mature “follow-your-dream” narrative worthy of it. Plus, look at Remy’s nose. It’s so cute!

 

3. The Incredibles (2004)

No matter how many movies Marvel and DC churn out, one of the best superhero movies of all time doesn’t belong to either of them. Pixar honored and poked fun at the Silver Age of superheroes with this action-packed tale of an undercover family of supers pulled into action by a vengeful villain. With its bombastic score, specialness message, and thrilling visuals, The Incredibles keeps getting better every time I see it. I sure hope the upcoming sequel doesn’t disappoint.

 

2. TIE: Toy Story (1995) and Toy Story 2 (1999)

Okay, I couldn’t decide! The first and second Toy Story movies are practically perfection, all the more incredible for being two of Pixar’s earliest works. True, the animation is rough by today’s high standards, but the plots and characters of both films are second to none. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen are Woody and Buzz, and their buddy dynamic is brilliantly developed with a good deal of humor and memorable side characters to play off them. The first film forced this odd couple to cooperate and become unlikely friends, while the second explored Woody’s identity as a classic toy and what it means to be “a child’s plaything.” It’s amazing that Pixar created such a fun and quotable series that simultaneously guilts its audience for abandoning their past toys. (I’m sorry, my old friends!)

 

1. Finding Nemo (2003)

#1 and #2 might as well be tied because Finding Nemo and Toy Story are both Pixar at its best. I’ve just always had a soft spot for fish, and at the time I first saw Finding Nemo in the theater (and cried within the first five minutes), I dreamed of being a marine biologist when I grew up. That may not have panned out, but I never get tired of Marlin’s oceanic journey, traversing the colorful and dangerous underwater world to rescue his son. It really is one of the best father-son movies, animated or not, and Dory may well be Pixar’s funniest character.

 

And here are the other Pixar films, ranked as well:

 

13. Finding Dory (2016) – Fun to revisit Finding Nemo’s characters, even if it’s not quite as fresh.
14. Cars 3 (2017) – Uneven at times, but ends the series on a strong note.
15. Brave (2012) – Derivative by Pixar standards but still stunning and emotional at times.
16. The Good Dinosaur (2015) – Lackluster for Pixar (I still don’t get the creative decision of having playdough dinos against the beautiful scenery) but still entertaining and lovely.
17. Cars 2 (2011) – Cool action but definitely Pixar’s low point as far as story and characters.

 

Now tell me, what Pixar movie entertains or moves you the most? I just found out one of my friends shockingly doesn’t like most of their movies, not even Toy Story, so feel free to chime in with different opinions. But for the record, Pixar rules!

 

Cars 3 (2017)

Tags

Animation, Comedy, Drama, Family, Pixar, Sports

The world will see you as they choose,
No matter how they may deny.
They see exteriors so well
It takes hard work to break that shell,
To prove you’re more than meets the eye
And pay the greater dues.

The world’s opinions can infect
And sap the will to prove them wrong.
You balk on whether to begin,
But those who don’t will never win.
To everyone such doubts belong,
So prove them incorrect.
_________________

MPAA rating: G

I’m sure many, like me, approached Pixar’s third Cars movie with some hesitance, unsure if it was being made as a more fitting end for the series than Cars 2 or because Disney and Pixar were just trying to cash in on one of their most profitable (and least loved) franchises. While I still wasn’t sure through the first half of the movie, I’m glad to say it’s the former. Cars 3 is far more like the original than the over-the-top sequel, returning its sights to Lightning McQueen and the racing world and totally ignoring all the spy stuff of its immediate predecessor. Thankfully, Mater is once again a mere side character too.

Early on, we’re treated to a montage of Lightning’s time in the sun as a racing champ. After years on top, though, he’s suddenly outclassed by newcomer Jackson Storm (Armie Hammer), and much as Lightning overshadowed the King in the first film, analysts and fans are suddenly enamored with Storm’s ascent and scientifically proven training. After pushing himself too far, Lightning faces a career crisis when his contract is sold to a new owner named Sterling (Nathan Fillion, who I’m glad is still finding work), and his future in racing comes down to raw performance and perhaps a new way to train with motivational coach Cruz Ramirez (Cristela Alonzo).

I will say this felt like one of Pixar’s more uneven films, making me wonder at times whether it was more like the first or the second Cars in terms of story quality and character interactions. There were times in the first half when things just felt “off” for a Pixar film, like when Bonnie Hunt’s Sally encourages Lightning in highly generic fashion, and some of the new characters take some time to get used to them.

Yet as the story develops, Cars 3 grows into a worthy conclusion for the series. It’s also a fitting farewell to two members of the original voice cast who have since died, Paul Newman as Doc Hudson and Tom Magliozzi of “Car Talk” fame as one of Lightning’s Rust-eze sponsors, both of whom are sort of resurrected via pre-recorded audio, which is underused but still touching. All of the other cast members (save for George Carlin) return as well, except for Michael Keaton as Chick Hicks, replaced by the very different-sounding Bob Peterson.

Lightning’s story is all about whether he’ll give up and ride on his fame or risk damaging his reputation by striving further than he is able, a strong yet subtle conflict with real-world parallels, such as tennis player Roger Federer for example. (My VC and I love him and have debated whether he should quit while he’s ahead, yet he keeps on eking out wins.) Lightning’s main goal is to be able to choose when he quits rather than being forced out of the game as Doc was. Yet by being constantly called a “legend,” he sees that everyone considers him past his prime, and Cruz makes it very clear that she considers him old as dirt.

Despite her initial presumptions, though, Cruz becomes something that Lightning has never had before, a protégé, one who has offered so much support to others through training that she’s never kept any of that confidence for herself. The fact that she is played by a Latina woman is no coincidence either, and she becomes a fine example for minority underdogs daring to be taken seriously. The dynamic between Lightning and Cruz isn’t without its bumps, but how it plays out by the end is a clever realization of both of their goals and a perfect way of bringing Lightning’s character full circle.

As I said, except for maybe a couple racers, Cars 3 essentially ignores Cars 2 altogether, with not a single mention of the spy plot and even casting off key details. For instance, Cars 2 mentioned that the Piston Cup had been renamed in Doc’s honor, but here it’s the Piston Cup again. Plus, I noticed a scene in my recent viewing of Cars 2 where Lightning had product endorsements and plenty of merchandise, making me wonder why he is now so reluctant to “cash in” as a brand. Personally, I think Cars 2 was all a dream or one of Mater’s tall tales because Cars 3 stays as relatively grounded as the first film and thus is a far better continuation of its story. Despite a rocky start, Cars 3 turns out to be a superior sequel than the cash grab it might have been, raising Pixar’s animation quality even higher and providing a satisfying end to the trilogy. At least until they come up with a Cars 4. Please, Pixar, this franchise is one case where you should quit while you’re ahead.

Best line: (Smokey, Doc’s former crew chief) “You’ll never be the racer you once were. You can’t turn back the clock, kid. But you can wind it up again.”

 

Rank: List-Worthy (joining the first Cars)

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
511 Followers and Counting

 

Cars 2 (2011)

Tags

Action, Animation, Comedy, Family, Pixar, Sports, Thriller

Imagine a world of living cars,
With windshields for eyes and mouths in their grills.
Now picture that some are elite racing stars,
And some are so junky, they’re fit for landfills.

Okay, so you got it? That’s good. Picture now
One racecar is cocky and needs a good lesson.
He’s stuck in a small town, which helps him somehow
Find more happiness than what he had success in.

You with me? All right, after that, visualize
A worldwide grand prix and an evil car plot,
And British car spies to take on the bad guys
And a tow truck that helps doing what he ought not
And maybe explosions and one car that flies.
The racecar’s there too, as a mere afterthought.

Wait, where are you going? No need to be cruel.
It may not be perfect, but it will look cool!
___________________

MPAA rating: G (PG would probably be better, since cars are actually killed in this one)

Before I review Cars 3, I thought I should get to the one Pixar film I haven’t covered yet, the black sheep of the Cars franchise and Pixar in general, Cars 2. Up until 2011, it seemed that Pixar could do no wrong, which I can say as someone who still greatly enjoys the first Cars, even if it is a rip-off of Doc Hollywood. Yet the first non-Toy Story sequel in Pixar’s lineup proved to be quite the mixed bag; it remains the only Pixar movie to have a “Rotten” score of 39% on Rotten Tomatoes. It follows Lightning McQueen on a worldwide racing grand prix, which is threatened (and overshadowed) by an evil cabal of lemon cars that only British secret agents and Mater can prevent from fulfilling their heinous plot. Whereas other Pixar films utilize inspiration to tell charming and relatable stories, Cars 2 is inspiration run amok and not really in a good way.

Cars established the world of sentient automobiles that has become Pixar’s biggest cash cow, and despite the outlandishness of its surface concept, the actual events of the plot were fairly down-to-earth, urging racing hotshot Lightning McQueen to slow down and enjoy the ride. By incorporating international espionage and globe-hopping plots into its world, Cars 2 is like director John Lasseter’s personal fan fiction, saying instead to speed up and enjoy the ride. The world of living cars takes a certain amount of suspension of disbelief to not ask questions like “Who builds the cars?” or “How do they do things that require hands and manual dexterity?” I was able to put such issues aside for the first film, but with James Bond-style gadgets and visits to different countries and car ethnicities, the suspension of disbelief is seriously strained here.

And that’s on top of its other issues. While Lightning and all the other characters from the first film are still present (minus Paul Newman’s Doc Hudson, who is implied to have passed away), Cars 2 puts Mater front and center. I enjoyed Larry the Cable Guy’s bumpkin tow truck in the first film as another humorous member of Radiator Springs, all of whose inhabitants served as a good-natured contrast to Lightning and his crowd. Yet there’s such a thing as too much Mater, and his oblivious ineptitude grows grating when it becomes the main course, particularly as moments of mistaken identity pile up to make the British spies assume Mater is an American secret agent. I could tell Mater’s character here would be overbearing early on, when he spends the whole day with Lightning and then acts all sullen and gloomy when Lightning wants to spend some alone time with his girlfriend.

Worse still is how Mater’s character is tied into the film’s message of not condemning one’s friends for who they are or wishing them to change. Such a moral could be good and worthwhile, but it just doesn’t work when applied to Mater, who consistently acts like a fool in public and causes Lightning to lose a race. When Lightning gets upset, he’s justified in being upset, yet he’s the one who eventually apologizes. The film doesn’t seem to recognize the difference between changing who you are and behaving properly in different circumstances. Mater even comes to realize how he looks to other people, but despite his feeling bad, it doesn’t really lead to any insight or change on his part.

Add to all that smaller problems, like the light political jab of making “big oil” the bad guys and hailing alternative fuel as the greatest of breakthroughs. Plus, there are numerous scenes that just feel rushed and poorly written, especially toward the end, like the sudden confirmation of Mater having a “girlfriend” or Lightning totally misconstruing Mater’s warnings while simultaneously forgetting that he’s right in the middle of a race.

So much negativity, but I don’t mean to bash Cars 2 like some low-rent DreamWorks movie. There’s still fantastic animation and ample imagination and humor on display, even if a lot of it consists of car-related puns. I may object to the secret agent plotline on a logical level, but it still offers some genuinely fun action sequences and eye-candy explosions. Michael Caine and Emily Mortimer are perfectly cast as the British spy cars who manage to mistake Mater for an undercover agent, and there’s cartoony amusement to be had, though the James Bond-ish elements make me hope that The Incredibles 2 works better than Cars 2 since they at least fit well into that superhero world. In conclusion, Cars 2 may not be good Pixar, but it still entertains if you don’t think about it too much. In fact, it’s probably more entertaining the less you think about it.

Best line: (Finn, played by Caine) “I never properly introduced myself: Finn McMissile, British Intelligence.”   (Mater) “Tow Mater, average intelligence.”

 

Rank: Honorable Mention

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
509 Followers and Counting

 

The Good Dinosaur (2015)

Tags

Animation, Comedy, Drama, Family, Pixar

(Today’s NaPoWriMo prompt was for a georgic, which I may have confused with a pastoral, but both have to do with agriculture or country life. It may have only a thin connection to the film reviewed, but this is what came to mind.)

 

It’s easy to forget the joy
Of life dependent on my touch,
Of plants that never would have grown,
Sprouts that might have bent to stone,
Animals safe in their zone,
Pride in lifetimes all my own,
Though they don’t know it much.

So many want adventurous
And thrilling lives at large,
For every sight to be unseen,
Nothing staid or too serene,
Changed before it feels routine,
Nothing but a glowing screen
To be within my charge.

Adventure, danger have their place,
But when the thrill is gone,
They too will wish for their homestead,
Fruitful loam and flower bed,
Trust in what yet lies ahead,
Smaller lives now comforted
By one to rely upon.
________________

MPAA rating: PG

The Good Dinosaur is quite the mixed bag for Pixar. If DreamWorks or Blue Sky had made it, I might rank it among their best work, but for Pixar, it’s a weak entry in a filmography full of instant classics. There’s nothing especially wrong with this story of a timid young Apatosaurus named Arlo who is separated from his mountain farm and forced to survive and eventually bond with a human “pet” he names Spot, but like Brave, it’s Pixar at its most unoriginal. The plot borrows heavily from the likes of The Land Before Time, The Lion King, and Ice Age, and yet it still has moments of wonder, pathos, and heartwarmth (that’s a word now) that are staples of Pixar’s brand of storytelling.

I suppose my biggest beef with the film is the creative choices of its animators. On the one hand, the scenery clearly modeled off Wyoming’s Grand Tetons and Yellowstone is absolutely stunning, perhaps some of the most gorgeous animated landscapes ever; and on the other, the dinosaurs themselves are as cartoonish and unrealistic as possible. Nothing’s wrong with the animation quality, and a closer look at the dinos reveals more detail than is seen at first glance; but their general design looks like Play-Doh next to the realism of the backgrounds. It looked suspect in the trailers, and as good as Pixar’s animation is, I feel it was just a bad creative decision, making me miss the realism of Disney’s Dinosaur.

On top of that, The Good Dinosaur really is a missed opportunity. The stated premise is that the meteor never wiped out the dinosaurs, so millions of years later, it’s dinos that have risen to the point of an agrarian/herding society. I suppose their presence is meant to explain why humans never got past the caveman stage, but is that really the best that the creative minds at Pixar could come up with? Based on the description, I was imagining a modern-day world with humans and dinosaurs living side by side in some kind of fusion civilization, but there’s nothing here that couldn’t have feasibly happened millions of years ago. I feel like the “millions of years later” aspect was included just so that Pixar could put a dinosaur and a human together without drawing the ire of evolutionist date critics. A movie can suspend the disbelief of a dinosaur family farming, so isn’t the human-dinosaur pairing within the realm of credibility for a cartoon? For the world to be like this millions of years later is kind of a letdown.

Wow, two whole paragraphs of gripes might make you think I hated this movie, but I did enjoy it. The overall story may be simple and unoriginal, but Arlo’s journey to gain courage fosters a familiar kind of inspiration. The comedy is hit-and-miss, but there are a few dramatic moments that resoundingly hit home, whether it be the beyond-words stick-figure bonding between Arlo and Spot or the ghostly dream Arlo has at a crucial juncture. I also loved some magical scenes with fireflies and Sam Elliott’s role as a T. Rex cowboy, even if the dynamics of this dino-world remain underdeveloped. By the end, The Good Dinosaur may be disappointing by Pixar’s standards, but by anyone else’s, it’s a decent animated coming-of-age story that, like Arlo, proves stronger than its failings.

Best line: (Poppa) “Sometimes you got to get through your fear to see the beauty on the other side.”

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
473 Followers and Counting

 

Finding Dory (2016)

Tags

Animation, Comedy, Family, Pixar

 

Not knowing where you’re headed
Or even where you’re from
Can lead you to frontiers remote
And thrills to keep yourself afloat
And friends you never thought you’d meet,
And yet you still feel incomplete.
You may seem empty-headed,
But none should think you dumb.

With memories returning
And hopes you can’t subdue,
You may pursue the past one day
In hopes that what you lost will stay.
The blanker slate is worry-free,
But most would fill it happily.
The answer to your yearning
Is waiting there for you.
_____________________

MPAA rating: PG

Of all the studios churning out unnecessary sequels to films widely considered untouchable, I trust Pixar the most. Finding Nemo is one of my most beloved films, animated or not, and when a sequel is announced for one of your favorites, I think most people are torn between excitement and fear of disappointment. I wanted Finding Dory to be good, but how could it compare to the original? Luckily, as they’ve proven in every case but Cars 2, Pixar isn’t content to drop the ball for sequels and managed to create a worthwhile story dedicated to everyone’s favorite forgetful fish.

From the very beginning, as the adorable short film Piper segues to an equally adorable baby Dory, Finding Dory cleverly builds a film based entirely on a single line from the first film: Dory’s brief mention of family and the quickly forgotten question “Where are they?” It seemed like a throwaway gag at the time, but Dory is no throwaway character. We see in repeated flashbacks how her parents (Diane Keaton and Eugene Levy) struggled to train and encourage her to overcome her short-term memory loss, and the separation that follows highlights what a disability it is. As hilarious as Dory’s antics are, I never really considered how vulnerable and directionless her condition made her. It’s no wonder that Marlin’s mission filled such a void in her life, and now it’s his and Nemo’s turn to help Dory find her own family, which happens to lead them to the Marine Life Institute in California.

One thing that should be said of Finding Dory is that Pixar has not limited themselves for believability. A gleeful absurdity runs through many parts and particularly during the hilarious climax, not unlike the off-the-wall creativity in Inside Out. But whereas that was inside a girl’s head, this is ostensibly the real world, and a greater suspension of disbelief is required as fish jump between every body of water in sight, big or small. Most examples can be easily overlooked, but it is odd that the first film made an epic quest out of the distance between the Great Barrier Reef and Sydney, while this one transports the characters from Australia to California within minutes. I guess the destination is more important than the journey in this case. Other questions abound, like “Do whale sharks really speak whale (when they are actual sharks, not whales)?” and “Does underwater echolocation really work outside the water too?” But if you just roll with the filmmakers’ indulgences, none of these should affect one’s enjoyment.

The animation is just as spectacular as the first film’s and greater in many cases, especially a first-person slide-away that heightens the trauma of the moment. Seeing the diversely populated exhibits at the institute reminded me of the wonder I always relished whenever I’d visit an aquarium as a kid. That was always my favorite kind of field trip, and Finding Dory reminded me how much I miss those visits, though I have an entirely new view of those innocent little touch pools. The voice cast is also superb, between the return of Ellen DeGeneres as Dory and Albert Brooks as Marlin, and the addition of a host of supporting players, from barking sea lions (Idris Elba and Dominic West) to the grumpy octopus Hank (Ed O’Neill), whose lithe acrobatics facilitate most of the out-of-water experiences. My VC can’t stand the sight of octopi, and while she has yet to see Finding Dory, I’m hoping Hank will alleviate her dislike a bit. I would have liked a little more backstory for him (Could the next movie be Finding Hank?), but he’s a welcome addition, especially on a visual level.

In a way, Finding Dory is like a much improved version of what Cars 2 attempted: giving a popular side character the spotlight to have an adventure of their own and affirm their worth. But whereas Cars 2 had little to say about Mater other than “he’s a lovable idiot so love him,” Dory’s situation has far more depth and empathy. Essentially a fish version of Leonard from Memento without the benefit of tattoos, she’s a constantly rebooting blank slate whose desire to remember is both heartbreaking and warmly resolute. Even if I don’t quite agree with her assertion that “the best things happen by chance,” Dory remains as endearing and sincere a presence as ever.

I won’t try to pretend that Finding Dory is as good as its predecessor, but I’ve seen Finding Nemo countless times. I remember crowing with laughter at Dory speaking whale, yet when you know a film practically by heart, sometimes it loses something and you wish you could see it again for the first time. Above all, Finding Dory let me laugh-out-loud with these characters again and many new ones besides. For example, I never expected Pixar to pull off such a hilarious parody of a scene from Alien and the unrelated casting of Sigourney Weaver just made it better. Finding Dory filled in gaps I didn’t think needed answering and brought me somewhat of that same feeling I had watching the first film as a ten-year-old. If a sequel had to be made, I’m glad it was this one.

Best line: (Dory) “Sigourney Weaver is going to help us!”

 

Rank: List-Worthy (joining Finding Nemo)

 

© 2016 S. G. Liput
405 Followers and Counting

 

Monsters University (2013)

Tags

Animation, Comedy, Family, Pixar

 

“When I was in college,” the old monster said,
“We didn’t use laughter but screaming instead
To power our civilization, and so
Each monster who scared was a public hero.

“And where did they go hone their scaring art,
To learn how to quicken a young child’s heart,
To grasp the best method of siphoning screams
While working alone or together as teams?

“Where did they practice their skulking and creeping
And sneaking for when their young target is sleeping
So when the time’s right for the roaring and leaping,
They know that it’s just the right scream that they’re reaping?

“Where did they go? But of course, you all know.
The campus of MU, where scarers went pro.
Those were the days,” sighed the monster named Ed.
“Yeah, what he said,” said his own second head.
____________________

MPAA rating: G

After the disappointment of Cars 2, I was wary of any further Pixar sequels, or prequels in the case of Monsters University, a recounting of Mike and Sully’s wild college days and how they became friends. Even though I enjoy Monsters, Inc., I skipped its prequel at the theater, and the college concept didn’t give me much desire to see it. When I finally did, I was pleasantly surprised. Of course, it’s Pixar. Shame on me for doubting Pixar. It may not be their very best, but it’s a rare spinoff film that surprisingly holds its own with the original. My VC, who isn’t too fond of the original, actually loved Monsters University more.

Monsters, Inc. ended with a more or less satisfying conclusion so I see why they opted for a prequel. First, we go all the way back to an elementary field trip where little Mike gets to visit the scare floor from the first film, reinforcing his hero worship and attracting him to MU, Monsters University, the premier place for the next generation of scarers. When he finally arrives to the colorful campus, there’s a pleasant wink-wink of nostalgia with the arrival of Randall and Sully; we know that Randall will end up the bad guy and Sully the devoted friend, but seeing them in opposite roles that change over time is both intriguing and entertaining. Friendships aren’t always as straightforward as “Hi, let’s be friends” and neither are enemyships (yes, it’s a fake word), and Monsters University develops both in believably gradual fashion.

Mike and Sully are polar opposites, it seems. Mike is the underdog, forced to study hard to keep up with the more natural scarers, while Sully is the carefree frat boy content to coast on his family name and obvious talent. After a disastrous run-in with Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren), the two are thrust together to reclaim their place at the school, which entails joining a loser fraternity called Oozma Kappa and competing in an intramural scaring competition.

Rarely does Pixar aim for the predictable, and this is no exception. Honestly, I highly doubt that the unexpected climax would have been the same had Dreamworks been in charge of production. All manner of animated and family films contain the message of believing in yourself and achieving your dreams with enough effort, and while Monsters University does too, there’s also the rare suggestion that not all dreams are feasible if your true talents lie elsewhere. In addition, it ignores the unspoken assumption that doing something good or impressive somehow washes away past transgressions; that’s a fairly common problem with many films (like how Captain Kirk from Star Trek has been in danger of court-martial more than once but always redeems himself with his heroics), and Monsters University doesn’t fall into it, making the result more realistic in the process.

I don’t know why I assumed Monsters University would be inferior. Perhaps the collegiate setting just didn’t interest me at the time, but it actually provided quite a bit of humor, from the various scaring studies to the madcap fraternity sports. Characters as lovable as Mike and Sully should only be revisited with a worthwhile story, and Pixar succeeded in that. It’s not a game-changer in animation like some of their best films, but it’s second-tier Pixar rather than third-tier. Compared with many of the animated movies out there, that’s certainly good enough for me.

Best line: (Art, mentioning his strengths) “I’ve got a third arm. Not with me, of course.”

 

Rank: List-Worthy (joining Monsters, Inc.)

 

© 2016 S. G. Liput
400 Followers and Counting

 

Inside Out (2015)

Tags

Animation, Comedy, Drama, Family, Pixar

Every girl and every boy
Has Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Joy
(Disgust as well) within their minds
To guide them through their days.
They form and file memories,
And inside Riley, all of these
Are touched by Joy, who always finds
The silver lining’s rays.

Though Joy insists on keeping her
As happy as they always were,
A touch of Sadness now in spots
May not be such a shame.
When Riley moves against her will,
And Sadness starts her off downhill,
The world of Riley’s inner thoughts
Will never be the same.
_____________________
While other people have been eagerly awaiting adult fare like Jurassic World, Mad Max: Fury Road, and Batman vs. Superman, I’ve been looking forward to Inside Out, hoping that it would be a return to the Pixar excellence to which moviegoers had become accustomed. I’m happy to say, it is. I’m trying to not let other critics’ positive reviews color my opinion, but I really am thrilled that Pixar has bounced back from the good-not-great status of Brave and the disappointment of Cars 2.

A movie about personified emotions in the control center of the mind—as original as it sounds, there have been similar concepts before, like the nearly forgotten ‘90s sitcom Herman’s Head, but whereas such ideas are usually reserved for comedy, Inside Out delves deeper, putting the emotion in emotional. Within the head of 12-year-old Riley Anderson, all her emotions work together most of the time—Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Anger (Lewis Black), Disgust (Mindy Kaling), and Fear (Bill Hader, in full Flint Lockwood mode)—and everyone but Sadness has a clearly defined role to play in guiding Riley’s actions. While this cast could have been one-note, epitomizing singular, often negative feelings, they all contribute to Riley’s personality and work well as characters due to their concern for her overall well-being (despite some poor decisions), not to mention the wisely chosen voice cast (many of which hail from Saturday Night Live or The Office).

While Riley’s external world involves a tempestuous move from Minnesota to San Francisco, her inner world endures even more distressing changes, worsened by the separation of leader Joy and downer Sadness from their psychological Headquarters. Having included too many spoilers in my past reviews, I want to tread lightly with this one and leave the film’s full impact for the fresh viewer. Suffice to say, Inside Out is a journey through the psyche that casual viewers can enjoy on the surface and analysts can pick apart to find ever more engaging layers of nuance and symbolism underneath.

When I first heard the film’s concept, I was a bit perplexed by the choice of five emotions because not every experience or feeling is so clear-cut. Yet children’s emotions are far simpler and more distinct than those of adults; the filmmakers know this well and use this very fact as the driving conflict in the film (there is no villain), since Riley is in the formative years of young adulthood. What is the cause of children suddenly needing “alone time” or deriving more frustration than enjoyment from past pleasures? How would mood swings, depression, dreams, or sarcasm be visualized in this uniquely Pixar mindscape? The film’s explanations for questions like these are eye-opening, as is the role of multiple emotions in shaping our deepest memories and impressions, yet much of it is metaphorical, implicit, and never heavy-handed in its interpretation. Here’s an example of one of the many questions prompted by the film’s themes: While certain crises seem cataclysmic at the time, perhaps these tragedies are merely an inevitable step toward maturity, though they’re no less regrettable. You’ll understand when you see it.

Compared with Pixar’s other classics, Inside Out can hold its ground with favorites like Ratatouille, Up, and Monsters, Inc. (the latter two also directed by Pete Docter), and even if the film doesn’t quite reach the heights of The Incredibles or Finding Nemo, it has the potential to grow in stature with further viewing. I already love it more now than right after I saw it. The animation is a modern marvel, such as the energy-infused substance of the emotions’ bodies and the orb-filled labyrinth of Long-Term Memory. One random danger in particular seemed like an excuse for the animators to indulge in some visual fun, despite the fact that no kid will understand its cerebral implications. (I’m not sure I do.) Inside Out may not be Pixar’s funniest adventure, but there are still quite a few laugh-out-loud moments and imaginative silliness, such as a few unexpected movie references and the way that seemingly random gags come together ingeniously during the climax. It’s a stunning balance of humor, head, and heart.

As many critics have stated, there’s also a good deal of poignancy, particularly for parents recalling their children’s childhoods. While I don’t fit that category, I admire the presence of a close nuclear family and was still touched deeply by a certain selfless act toward the end. I have a long and storied history of crying at animated movies, from Tarzan to Brother Bear, but few films can extract a tear from me anymore. Inside Out did, and that made it a special experience for me. After watching the film, I was left with the pensive, bittersweet glow of a film worth seeing many more times. My Joy and Sadness must have been holding hands. Thank you, Pixar. It’s good to have you back in force.

Best line: (Fear) “We didn’t die today; I call that an unqualified success!”

Rank: List-Worthy

© 2015 S. G. Liput
323 Followers and Counting