The Incredibles 2

While certainly one of the less outright iconic and emotionally affecting Pixar movies, I definitely think of the first Incredibles movie fondly. It's nice to see what happened next, even if after a frenetic opening with plenty of interesting character dynamics, we find out that not much has changed.

In an effort to get Supers legitimized again, Mr. and Mrs. Incredible team up with a telecommunications firm who essentially aim to improve their PR. Because Mr. Incredible is so destructive, they choose Mrs. Incredible - AKA Elastigirl - as their opening gambit, meaning Mr. Incredible is left to be a single dad for a while. That leads to some very funny and well-judged scenes of Mr. Incredible alternately struggling, seeking help and having genuinely sweet breakthroughs with his kids.

This is most likely the strongest portion of the movie. The rest of it suffers somewhat from not really seeming like anything special. Brad Bird's best movies are when there's really heavy emotional hits - The Iron Giant will likely always be his masterpiece - but there aren't really meaningful emotional stakes here. The bad guy was only ever going to be one of two possible new characters (or possibly both) so there's no weight to the reveal. Despite the fun set-up of Elastigirl getting the limelight and Mr. Incredible having to deal with his conceptions of his own superiority, that kind of gets left undeveloped when the battles kick off and everyone has to get involved. It also seems a bit weird that nobody reacts to the latest episode of the Supers causing massive damage because of a supervillain who basically exists only because Supers exist in the same way that they always did, too. Overall, the story felt too much like an episode of a spin-off TV show and honestly, it wasn't a whole lot different from Despicable Me 3. 

There were some great moments as usual. Edna has always been the best thing about The Incredibles and that remains true here. Baby Jack-Jack is adorable and a fun element of chaos in the mix. I loved the theme songs they made for the characters at the end, especially Frozone's funky one. And I liked Violet going from shrinking violet to stroppy teen. From the trailers I wasn't sure, but by the end I was won over by the new direction they took her, and her moment when her father apologises to her probably is the scene with the most heart. 

Obviously, the visuals and animation are top-notch as always, with elements like fire, ice, underwater scenes and midair battles all spectacular throughout. Wouldn't have minded a post-credits scene, though. 

Coco

Just like the Studio Ghibli films, I’ve fallen behind with Pixar’s movies and can no longer say I’ve seen them all. Not only am I a year late seeing Coco, but there are the likes of Cars 3 and The Good Dinosaur that I have to catch up on at some point. Though I can’t say either of those fill me with enthusiasm.

But Coco I definitely wanted to see. Day of the Dead imagery is always fun, and I like the idea of promoting and supporting Mexican culture at a time where there’s a tendency to look at border controversies and dehumanise people. Which is not to say I support illegal border crossings. Disney also made a pig’s ear of trying to seem culturally sensitive when they attempted to trademark “Día de los Muertos”, which you’d think somebody would have realised was a bad idea before it went public. But Mexican culture is one I have only very superficial knowledge of, so it was nice to see more – even if it took an American studio to lead me there.

The set-up is neat and tidy, the kind of plot you know went through numerous writing rooms and was tightened up until it squealed. Young Miguel is the youngest in a line of shoemakers in a family where music is banned, because his great-great-grandfather abandoned the family to pursue his dreams of being an entertainer. But music is in his blood and Miguel secretly worships Ernesto de la Cruz, seemingly the greatest star Mexico has ever produced.

After a mishap in a mausoleum on the Day of the Dead, young Miguel is cursed and his corporeal form enters the realm of spirits. Only his deceased family’s blessing can take him back to the land of the living, and there’s a problem – his family want him to renounce music. Instead he sets off looking for his great-great-grandfather, and might just uncover some skeletons in the family closet on the way – figuratively speaking.

It’s a really fun adventure that’s given extra scale by the fantastical imagery possible in the afterlife. There’s the brightly-coloured Alebrije creatures, giving a fantastical touch to the world. There’s all the usual animated movie gags with skeletons being able to take off their skulls, independently move detached limbs and suchlike. There’s the piled-up colourful houses and a spectacular party, as well as a very odd but very funny take on Frida Kahlo’s artistic output – pitched perfectly to get in references to the kind of imagery Kahlo put out while still being kid-friendly. Just the right amount of obvious.

I’ll freely admit that a lot of the subtle things went over my head. I know many of the dead guests at the big party were famous in Mexico, but I don’t know who they were. But what’s fun about a film about another culture is that you learn. Now I know what an ofrenda is and something about xolo dogs. I have a new affection for the grito, which is a little different from the kind of grito I know from capoeira songs. Though I do wonder how these beliefs sit alongside Christianity, which is almost wholly absent from this story. Not that I expected a Pxar film to go there.

There were some elements that could have been improved, in my opinion. Miguel himself could have had a bit more of an interesting design, even if he was going to have his face painted for much of the film. The way modern Disney and Pixar films (see Frozen and Moana) tend to push one song with many refrains is usually rewarded with an Oscar – as was this film’s ‘Remember Me’ – but I thought ‘Un Poco Loco’ was a much more interesting and well-performed song. I feel something of a lack of closure not knowing what happened at the end of either music competition (though we at least know who won one of them, though possibly only because Miguel ‘withdrew’), and while wrapping things up with brevity made sense, I thought there might be a little more on just how the family managed to convince the world of the truth Miguel uncovers. And honestly, compared with more iconic films in the Pixar oeuvre, I don’t think this will stand out much more than the likes of Ratatouille or Inside Out.

Nonetheless, this was an expertly-crafted, beautiful, well-written, satisfying and sometimes moving story that does a good job of introducing to kids that sometimes following a dream and staying with a family can be at odds with one another. Very much worth a watch, if not rewatching over and over.

Inside Out

I doubt Inside Out will be remembered as one of Pixar's best. Certainly I didn't see it in the cinema and unlike Wall-E or Up or Finding Dory, I barely saw it discussed on social media or amongst my friends. There was some merchandising about, but the colourful stylised designs of the film translated to some ugly toys.

Personally, I took a bit of a dislike to the concept, because it's so unoriginal. The idea of little people inside a person's head controlling them isn't new - for one example, I used to read The Numskulls first in The Beezer and later in The Beano.

But I watched this expecting Pixar to take the concept and make it into something really fantastic, and they certainly managed that. For this concept, there are some very beautiful sections of this film.

11-year-old Riley is a happy kid who loves her family and sports, until a move to the city uproots everything. Her inner life goes awry as Joy, hitherto the main driving force of her life, and Sadness, until now only seldom influential in a young life, end up on a quest through the often bizarre inner life of a young girl, finding both adventure and tragedy on the way as a difficult time threatens to change a little girl's personality forever.

While it's a staple of manga and a bit of a cliché, self-sacrifice always gets strong emotions from me, and a very fine example features here, a single moment with unlikely characters that significantly raised my impressions of this story. Joy, rather Tinkerbell-like by design and capable of a full range of emotions (who's controlling the controllers?) is a likeable central character, and especially the dream sequences have some funny moments.

The small stakes here and lack of epic scope limit the universal appeal, but like Cars and Ratatouille, this is another Pixar film that manages to be strong despite not having such a strong concept, manages to be highly entertaining.

Finding Dory (with Piper)

Finding Dory was preceded by the short film Piper, which was a characteristically cute little story of a little sandpiper who at first is traumatised by water, but then learns to innovate by following some little hermit crabs and becomes the best little hunter around. It’s a very Pixar story, extremely cute and full of heart (though of course requires us to be highly selective with what life forms we anthropomorphise), with plenty going for it technically – not just the water effects, but the clever way the simulated depth of field imitated cameras focusing on very small things. For me, though, the strangest surprise was seeing King Crimson stalwart (and recent NyX collaborator) Adrian Belew provided the music.

The movie itself was a triumph. When the sequel to Finding Nemo was announced, people were sceptical. Finding Nemo again? But the shift of the story from Marlin to Dory was a very clever one. Dory as a character centred on the quirk of her memory loss. That made her a character who was extremely amusing but shallow – what would she forget next? Her friends? Her companions? Where did she come from? What was she doing before she met Marlin?

So here we get a quest for self-discovery from a fish with short-term memory loss. And, indeed, long-term memory loss. Dory doesn’t remember her parents, until small things begin to remind her of where she grew up. Not in the ocean, but in captivity.

Like the first film, Finding Dory is primarily a journey – or two journeys, since Marlin and Dory are separated through much of the story. On this journey, numerous characters are introduced very quickly – burly, protective but fun-loving sea-lions; insecure but loveable whales; a self-centred but good-hearted octopus; a typical small role for John Ratzenburger as a little crab quietly trimming the lawn. Sigourney Weaver steals the show without actually having a character, and there’s a very satisfying mini-cameo right at the end to tie up some loose threads from the first film.

Of course, the film relies heavily on coincidence, highly unlikely feats of action and an octopus able to thrive seemingly indefinitely out of water. But those don’t impede a simple, direct and at times very moving plot. There’s a little plot device involving shells that is particularly sweet. Having this kind of ensemble cast works well in an animation, when characters can be so distinct without having to play a very large role in the story, and the humour is always gentle, affectionate and celebrates pushing yourself a little further before and thinking outside the box.

Visually, this is also triumphant, a notable improvement from the first film, and the huge central tank of the aquarium is particularly beautiful – though of course animating something designed to be beautiful is going to result in beauty, so that helps the visual impact of the film. In some ways the ending is a little messy and one wonders if there wasn’t some huge impact on how humans view marine life, but it was also a satisfying large-scale moment in a relatively small-scale film.

Sequels are often seen as a lazy cash-in, and very often detract from the original. But this kind of sequel, made 13 years later from a place of real affection for the original, filling a gap that persists from the original storyline, is exactly how a sequel should be done. And it didn’t hurt that baby Dory was just so damn cute!

Toy Story

Well, since I'd finally gotten around to getting some thoughts on A Bug's Life recorded, it seemed a good idea to finish the full circle and write about the first Toy Story. Now I have a full house of Pixar films, and this was one I'd been meaning to rewatch properly for quite some time. 

Of course, most animation fans know the story of Pixar. Formed of a chunk of Lucasfilm's animation department when a divorce-ravaged George was selling whatever he could (short of rights to Star Wars to Disney or anything crazy like that), Pixar by the mid-90s didn't seem that secure a prospect to their effective owner Steve Jobs. That is, except for that lucrative deal they had made with Disney for 3 animated feature films to showcase just what computer graphics could do. With Disney long-termer John Lasseter providing his signature big-heart style within a quirky setting, Toy Story was of course a smash hit and totally changed what was expected of an animated feature. Today, traditional cel animation is the rarity in America while CG films get churned out, and we have the success of this film to thank for that. As the first feature-length CG animation ever completed, it remains groundbreaking. 

Toy Story, aptly enough, is a story about toys, which builds upon ideas established in Lasseter's 1988 Oscar winner Tin Toy, which put Pixar on the map. Just as many children suspect, their toys come alive when nobody is around to see it, and have their own little societies in kids' bedrooms. One pleasant kid named Andy has a favourite toy, the slightly raggedy cowboy Woody. That is, until a birthday comes along and the all-new multi-functional Buzz Lightyear seems to be taking the top spot, in an inspired bit of contrast: Westerns vs Sci-Fi. A fit of jealous action sends the two on a lengthy odd-couple adventure, where the two prove perfect foils to one another and the unlikely pairing of Tom Hanks and Tim Allen proves utterly perfect. 

As the opening credits rolled to the still-familiar strains of Randy Newman's excellent songs, I reflected on how much more these names meant to me now. There's John Lasseter, who was then unknown. There's Andrew Stanton, not quite co-directing yet but clearly in a position of importance. There's Steve Jobs, many years from a household name still, and not even part of Apple any more when this film was coming out. Hey look - Lee Unkrich was just an editor! There's an example of a guy working his way up quickly. Wait, Joss Whedon is credited as one of the four writers? I had no idea! He hadn't even made Buffy by this point...I'll have to stop saying his being kept under the thumb for The Avengers was the only thing he's made that I've liked except that one episode of Firefly where they find the planet of people who worship Jayne. 

And well done Mr Whedon and others, because when it all boils down to the core, what makes Toy Story the success that it is can without hesitation be said to be its writing. Unless you're a real stickler for coincidence - yes, a Pizza Planet delivery van accessible for toys just happens to pass at the right time, and yes next door neighbour Sid just happens to be at the restaurant at the same time, and yes, a lit firework can be controlled in just that way by a simple toy - what you get is a very well-polished, well-paced and highly entertaining script. It's actually quite a feat that Woody is as likeable as he is, being at first smug, then petty, then malicious, then very belligerent, but thanks in no small part to Tom Hanks' performance but also because he is the butt of his fair share of jokes, he's very easy to root for – though apparently during a low point in production even Hanks thought him a ‘jerk’. Then there's clueless Buzz, whose utter failure to understand his position is endearing, and the fact that the two have such great chemistry as chalk and cheese types. Just having the two sparking off each other makes for good entertainment, but the pace of the adventure also works brilliantly - you have the chase dynamic of trying to get back to Andy, the brilliant surreal moment of the alien toys who are in thrall to 'the Claw', the suspense of future-garbage-guy Sid's house, then the big action finale. The humour is also spot-on, with the wisecracking Mr. Potato Head and Hamm not only getting brilliant one-liners but being part of the utterly inspired gags where they think Woody has become murderous. 

The film ticks a whole lot of boxes - pathos and then relief with Andy, romance with Bo Peep (much missed in the third film!), the foolishness of snap judgements with Sid's toys and even some horror pastiche. 

It doesn't do to think too hard about the toys' world - about how many of them must have truly miserable yet near-eternal existences, about why the rules of keeping still even exist in the first place, about the physics involved - but the film doesn't ask you to. Accepting the magical premise and simply enjoying is very easy. It is also of course a technical triumph, and while it is obviously the most primitive of Pixar's work and technically far behind even A Bug's Life, eyelids and animals in particular being noticeably less developed, but there is such joy to the animation, to making Woody's funny limbs move and Slinky the loyal dog stretch out, from the way toy soldiers have to waddle to Buzz's silly episode after he has an identity crisis, that the sheer amount of effort is demonstrable. 

One of the most important animated films in history, it could also have been a disaster, and what ensured that it was a hit was not the technical achievements or the bold new aesthetic. It was the writing, the concept and the performances, which in all mediums are the things that matter most. 

Toy Story 2: link

Toy Story 3: link

A Bug’s Life

I have seen every Pixar film as it has come out, but a few of them predate my efforts to write down my thoughts, so those have to wait for me to have a repeat viewing before I jot down any impressions. I was going to have to qualify that with a statement that I didn't actually catch Planes, but that was Lasseter working with Disneytoon, so it turns out I don't have to. One of the films I never got around to writing anything about was A Bug’s Life, which I don’t think I’ve properly watched since the early 2000s. Though it shows its age now, A Bug’s Life still thrives on its heartfelt story, likeable ensemble cast and ambition – and besides, we make allowances for 90s CG. Even if the fact is that if it came out today, it would be called badly-done, we are aware how pioneering it was at the time, how much better than contemporaneous video game intros – and, indeed, Antz – it looks, and as a result make allowances for it. Besides, vibrant older animation looks  quite a lot like some highly advanced claymation in any case.

The story of A Bug’s Life isn’t a thousand miles from Timon’s story in The Lion King, especially if you’ve heard his cut verse from ‘Hakuna Matata’. Flik works in the ant colony, paying his dues, though he doesn’t accept without question the prevailing view that not only is an ant’s life one long grind, but that their lot in life is to not only gather food for themselves but for the big, mean grasshopper gang as well – an option not explored by Aesop, I must say. When one day, just before the ‘offering’ to the grasshoppers is made, one of the crazy inventions Flik makes to try to speed up the harvesting process goes awry and knocks the entire feast the colony has prepared into the water that surrounds the ants’ little island. His carelessness makes him the outcast of the society for a while, but when he seizes on the idea of going out into the wider world to seek ‘warrior bugs’ who will fight off the grasshoppers, the elder council see it as either suicide or a very lengthy waste of time – so agree to let him go.

In the ‘city’, Flik does indeed find some big, tough-looking bugs, but what he doesn’t know is that they’re actually circus performers. They think he’s a talent scout, he sees them getting lucky enough to knock out some flies, and there’s a classic misunderstanding. However, once everyone realises the mistake, Flik still tries to cover everything up by devising a plan of his own. Meanwhile, the grasshoppers debate what’s really at the heart of this film – the fact that when a small minority oppress and effectively enslave a larger group, they end up using fear to avoid rebellion, but how long can revolution be held off? It’s a fascinating mirror to historical events, and gives thought-provoking analogies to racial conflicts of the past.

First and foremost, though, of course this is a kids’ comedy about a misunderstanding, revolving around insects. The most memorable element of the film is the collection of insects who make up the circus – personalities made to reflect or invert expectations about how a particular insect is expected to behave. There’s the beautiful butterfly girl, the rather doddery old mantis who plays a mystic, the ladybird who of course wants to be seen as a tough guy, the big fat ridiculous caterpillar and…well, Niles from Frasier in stick insect form. They work brilliantly together, and Pixar stalwart John Ratzenberger does well making his flea ringmaster likeable despite him being the one to not only fire our heroes but inadvertently messes up their more high-minded plots not just once but twice.

Perhaps the biggest problem with this ensemble is that Flik – quite intentionally – looks a lot like all the other ants (four-legged to look less freaky, I assume). Amidst such a cast neither he nor his princess love interest really stick in the mind, and the everyman hero becomes rather forgettable. But at the same time, there’s a point made there about the unremarkable one being able to be brave enough to stand up for himself…though as histories of war unfortunately show us, most invading forces wouldn’t have threatened so much killing and never managed it.

The bad guys are also well-crafted, with Kevin Spaacey having a marvellous time as the lead baddie and his dimwitted brother in the comic foil role is also not so absurd that he irritates. There’s a crazy feral grasshopper, too, who gets one of the best moments in that sadly now-gone institution of early Pixar – the fake blooper reel during the credits. This one may be the best of them all.

A Bug’s Life doesn’t quite have the universality of Toy Story, the emotional wallop of Up, the cuteness of Wall-E or the frenetic energy and beauty of Finding Nemo, but it has so much of each of them that it still comes near the top of any essential-Pixar list. 

Monsters University – plus The Blue Umbrella

The main qualm I heard about Monsters University, the newest of the Pixar follow-ups, was that without being pinned down by the cuteness of a human little girl, it would lose its emotional centre and relatability. But honestly, I don’t quite see how one relates to Boo and if Pixar can make its audience identify with cars, rats and insects, it can certainly do the same with monsters, who after all were the audience’s focal point in the original with Boo arguably one of the studio’s most alien characters in many ways.

The film is Pixar’s first prequel, and and the one with the longest gap since its original at 12 years. As with the purportedly terrible potential Toy Story 3 about Buzz’s being recalled to his Taiwanese factory, originally the Monsters Inc. sequel was to have been taken out of Pixar’s hands, until the famous Steve Jobs-Michael Eisner row over whether Toy Story 2 counted as a contracted feature film or not blew over and everyone accepted that the people to make Pixar sequels were, well, Pixar.

Before the feature came, of course, one of Pixar’s shorts, a rather mawkish story about a world of anthropomorphic faces on inanimate objects (pareidolia is always popular on the Internet, too) observing and finally helping out in the love story between two umbrellas – and of course their shadowy owners. Rather like the envelope short that accompanied Cars 2, while as a narrative and a concept it was rather lacking – the kind of sweet but ineffectual idea Pixar seems to churn out – as a technical experiment it was very interesting. With a focus on replicating shallow depth-of-field effects, surfaces affected by rainwater and distant skies in dim twilight, it managed an absolutely astounding level of realism…but sadly enough the effort felt almost wasted to me, for I knew that most wouldn’t even notice the incredible feat and that the very same film could pretty much be made in live action with a bit of CG to edit the faces in the objects and the little cartoon eyes and mouths of the umbrellas.

The main event was everything a Pixar film ought to be – big-hearted, carefully paced but with a slow final act tying up the loose ends, beautiful to look at while stylised in a tasteful way, and at times bittersweet. Sure, the concept kinda contradicts how Mike says things that suggest he’s known Sulley since they were small kids, but for the sake of a good, solid story that’s worthwhile.

And a good, solid story we get – Mike, inspired by an eventful school trip, is very excited by the prospect of becoming a Scarer. So he goes to Monsters University, meeting brash, overconfident Sulley there – who is riding on his family name and falling back in his natural talents. Of course, hard work begins to match natural ability and the two develop a rivalry – but one that gets them into deep trouble with the fearsome Dean Hardscrabble and eventually leads to them having to team up with a hopeless fraternity in order to prove themselves capable scarers. But Mike is no scary monster – only a master strategist.

There are some very interesting decisions here. Sulley, so much the centre of the second film’s narrative, is presented as so unlikeable that it takes a lot for him to be redeemed – which the writers manage to pull off, but a little late for my tastes. It’s good that dishonesty is shown as being very severely punished, and taking an absurd risk even more so, but I had some issues with that oh-so-American idea that hard workers can enter a company in a very lowly position and rapidly rise up to become its stars – though arguably there’s an element of that in the career of newest Pixar director Dan Scanlon, who has been with Pixar over a decade after storyboard work for the likes of The Little Mermaid II. I also felt like there were notable omissions – what do Sulley’s highly-respected parents think all through the second half of the film? While the fraternity are used to being teased, was there really only that much fall-out when they were mocked on a very large scale?

Once again, the cast here may seem unlikely but provide fantastic spark and are clearly having a lot of fun – though I’m quite amazed they got Steve Buscemi in for about eight lines. Then again, him and Billy Crystal don’t exactly seem overworked just now. Helen Mirren also does what she does best and steals the show over and over, though nothing can quite match up to the return of Roz. New characters don’t come over as quite so instantly memorable as the original’s ensemble, but do the job.

It’s a companion piece to a better film, let’s be clear on that. But it is still very much worth the price of admission. 

And on a side-note, an even better explanation as to why kids not being toxic is set up in the original film was proffered to me: to stop the likes of Randall setting up mass plants to torture kids and harvest their screams. Now that’s a chilling thought. 

Brave – plus La Luna

Brave doesn’t deserve the harsh appraisals I read before going to see it. It may not have the biggest emotional impacts of all Pixar’s films, but it tells its simple, old-fashioned story well, it looks striking and it does have a good pay-off. It’s not the best Pixar film ever, but it’s far from the worst – I’d rate it with The Incredibles, Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo – better than Ratatouille, A Bug’s Life and the Cars films. Which is a long way from the suggestion that this is part of Pixar’s big downfall – and Cars 2 really wasn’t as bad as is being made out.

Before I say any more about the main feature, though, something must be said about the short film preceding it in the usual Pixar fashion – usually something entertaining but throwaway like the magic show of Presto (with Wall-E) or the silly but somewhat iconic For the Birds (with Monsters, Inc.). This time it was La Luna, and I’m not exaggerating when I say it is absolutely my favourite thing that Pixar have ever done. Yes, over and above all the Toy Story films, above the superb opening of Up, above anything in Brave. I really, really liked it. I liked the simple but highly inventive imagery, the funny characters with what I now realise is a real rarity in Pixar – an incredibly cute child character – and I loved the workers in their olden-days costumes with their generalised European-ish voices. It fully deserved its Oscar nomination last year, and I could have very happily watched a whole feature-length film version..or just the short over and over for the length of Brave. I quite earnestly liked it that much. Enrico Casarosa, you make me more optimistic about The Good Dinosaur.

Anyway, in the wake of Cars 2 has come Brave, one of the few Pixar films – alongside Brad Bird’s films and Up – to have a predominantly human cast. The next Pixar release was to be Newt, but it got scrapped for similarities to Rio. Pixar’s films have a history of coming out coincidentally very close to films that are similar – Antz and A Bug’s Life caused a lot of tension and Dreamworks rushed their film out first, Finding Nemo was quickly followed by Shark Tale and Flushed Away ended up changing its title from Ratopolis to avoid confusion with Ratatouille, despite coming out six months earlier. So it’s understandable that they’d want to avoid yet another clash – and Brave sounds better anyway.

The story of the strong-willed tomboy princess of a vaguely feudal Scottish clan refusing to conform to expectations, causing a rift with her family that reaches a peak with a magical spell, which happily hadn’t been spoiled for me going into the film, despite having at some point long ago heard its working title. It’s a great way of both having a typical Pixar emotional arc and also seeming like a classic story from the period. Though Princess Merida is a good, strong protagonist whose hair makes her instantly recognisable and whose laughter is infectious, probably the main problem with the film is that this just makes her a bit bland. She learns to value those around her, which we’ve seen as the lesson learned too many times before, and it just never feels like she will be in any real danger, or won’t get what she’s hoping for – until the magical contrivance, which really makes the film in every other way, there’s never any real crisis for her, so when it comes it feels just a little artificial – which is enough to tip the balance of the film away from perfection.

The film also just doesn’t look quite as nice as Pixar’s films can. This is not because the backgrounds and textures are anything less than the very cutting edge – but that’s the least we expect from Pixar. The trouble is the character designs just look a bit…well, Dreamworks. And I never really warmed to them, as I did the Incredibles. Pixar is so good at making you care for funny toys, insects, strange little robots…but don’t quite pull it off with stroppy teenagers.

There’s also a little too much plot contrivance. The will-o’-the-wisps weren’t really needed in their first and last appearances, but in the middle one pushed the plot on in a very artificial way. The rival clans are placated a little too easily. And ultimately, it seems like the whole thing could have been resolved with a good sit down and a talk – but then, that’s rather the lesson to be learned by the two stubborn main characters.

With great voice acting, a strong cultural idea of Scotland and lovely modern music with a thin flavouring of traditional Scottish instrumentation, there’s much to admire about this film. It has a brilliant study of animal movement, and a lot of big laughs. It lacks a little spark, true, but that doesn’t stop it being an outstanding film…

Brave post-Oscars note: I have to say I don’t think this deserved its win over any of its competitors – but arguably it is the most Academy-friendly of the films. Wreck-it Ralph is too lowbrow for their pretensions, Frankenweenie and Pirates! too quirky and knowing, and Paranorman too lacking in feel-good schmaltz. Not a deserving winner, but an unsurprising one. 

Cars

After reading some pretty poor reviews, including several from disappointed Pixar fans, I wasn’t expecting much from Cars. I was led to believe I would be seeing something cliché, irritating and preachy in its condemnation of the modern world. Happily, I was pleasantly surprised, and Lasseter has served up another winner.

Let’s face it, Pixar do not write original plots. That’s not their thing. Pixar’s style of writing is to take a very traditional, predictable story format full of wholesome themes of loyalty and redemption and then to put a twist on it, usually by placing it in an unusual setting – amongst bugs, monsters, toys…and now cars. They do something that’s tried-and-tested and even purposefully old-fashioned, and they do it very, very well, all the real beauty of the stories coming from the characters. It just works.

Pixar have created a world in which all living things – people, animals, insects – are cars. Simple as that. As with books for little kids, we don’t need to know the logistics involved; that’s just how it is, and it provides some funny visual gags. Equally, everything that is a vehicle in this world...is alive.

Here, the star of the racing world is Lightning McQueen, a cocky, selfish rookie who doesn’t have a real friend in the world. His selfish actions indirectly lead to him ending up wrecking the road of a small town, and in the time it takes him to repair the damage, he learns important lessons about friendship, trust and what is really important in life. Told you it was wholesome.

Visually, we have here the pinnacle of CG animation. Beside some of the cheap, horrible animation in the trailers before the feature, Pixar’s supremacy in the field is evident. Don’t just look at the big bold surfaces of the cars’ eyes. Look at the skies, the clouds of dust and most of all, the astonishingly realistic reflections on the shiny surfaces of the cars. Breathtaking. At least, for me, a bit of a geek when it comes to CG. And the way the cars move works so well, considering how difficult it must be to make a machine like a car look and move in a way expressive enough to make people care.

Taking a tried-and-tested route also means bringing out the stock characters, and while I think the stereotypes here are harmless fun, I know plenty of people will be rolling their eyes at ‘The sassy black one’, ‘the slightly slimy Mexican one’ (played by poor old long-suffering Cheech Marin) and other broad stereotypes. At least the hillbilly was fleshed out a little and made likeable. I don’t know who ‘Larry the Cable Guy’ is, but I certainly don’t share the hatred for him most American reviewers seem possessed by, and found Mater didn’t grate like I had expected him to.

There’s much to be said for writing to a formula when it’s done well, and the emotions behind it are genuine. Cars won’t surprise you, nor change your outlook on life, even as the same happens to the protagonists. But it will lift your spirits, entertain you and make you laugh. That’s all I had hoped for.

(originally written 6.8.06. Cars 2 here)

Ratatouille

Ratatouille was a lot of fun. Mark Kermode was on The Culture Show last night saying he didn’t like the film because it was too polished, too perfect, but I disagree. Pixar are still taking risks, still pushing to get a different flavour from the last film, and the one before. Ratatouille was a familiar Pixar premise – underdog fights against adversity, with a little help from friends and family along the way – but taken to extremes. A rat wanting to be a Parisian chef? That’s as underdog as you get.

It bumbled along, checking boxes, having tensions and resolutions just where you expected, although the pacing got a bit wobbly towards the end where what seemed to be the main conflict was cleared up just in time for a new one to take over, but thanks to just the right amount of warmth and humour, it pulled through. Brad Bird’s storytelling voice is also a little different from other Pixar directors’, a little more glib and quirky, which makes for films that on the plus side are less obvious and predictable, but also seem to have a slightly greater distance between audience and storyteller, a small wall to overcome.

I didn’t like everything here – the puppeteering aspect was a bit hard to believe, and the laziest storytelling possible occasionally came out (opening voiceovers, a way to make the main character talk to himself to simplify exposition, institutions represented by individuals etc). Perhaps it’s having seen too many anime like Hikaru no Go and La Corda D’Oro in which a protagonist is given an artificial way to become a great success, only to soon realise how shallow and meaningless that is, leading to a yearning to excel with their own talent – but here we didn’t get that, and Linguini, while soon realising Rémy needed credit where it was due, never showed a desire to learned from his extremely gifted little friend. Quite strange, to see a big Hollywood film saying not, ‘With enough hard work, anyone can succeed,’ but rather, ‘Some have great innate talent, and allowances should be made for them.’

Visually, Pixar are still at the top of their game. It is the duty of animation to put in front of our eyes stories that no other visual medium can express so well, and Ratatouille is full of instances that fulfil this stipulation. Chase scenes between a diminutive man on a moped and a rat, a camera that sweeps through tiny cracks in walls and soars like a bird, a drawing in a book coming to life while always remaining that same illustration even in motion, a room shaped exactly like a coffin – moments of sheer visual excellence. And on smaller scales, too: it is well worth noticing that the depth of field is extremely shallow when the shot is of a rat’s face, as it would be were there truly a camera on something very small. Such a subtle, clever way of replicating a real lens. The Pixar animators are to be applauded.

I found it interesting to see how the writers set the film in France, yet relied so much on English-language puns and wordplay that will be hard to translate. I wonder how these elements were rendered in other regions.

On the whole, then, a clever and enjoyable film, visually stunning, but with some storytelling issues that prevent it from being quite up there with Pixar’s – and Bird’s – best. Oh, and I must say one more thing: Peter O’Toole is awesome.

(expanded from impressions, 15.10.07)

Toy Story 2

I went to see Toy Story 2 in the cinema back in the February of 2000. Seems quite bizarre now that it was so long ago – over a decade and only a few weeks into the millennium. The third in the trilogy was a long time coming!

I had started a diary not very long before, but all I jotted down on the 25th of that month was, ‘Saw Toy Story 2 today. It was REALLY good. Best committed to memory again.’

And commit it to memory I did. I haven’t seen it again since, but I still remember the plot pretty well – and I’ve moved past the days of avoiding writing down my thoughts because I can simply remember what happened. At a yard sale, Woody ends up accidentally put on display and is then stolen by a toy collector. He is, it transpires, a valuable collector’s item, and the collector can now sell a complete set of toys based on the TV show Woody’s Roundup for a handsome sum. But Woody is still Andy’s toy, and his friends are determined to rescue him – even if it must be at the last minute inside an airport.

In many ways, the expansion of the cast makes for scenes that write themselves. Woody the cowboy doll was a part of a TV show with other key members – a cowgirl, a horse and a sidekick. Buzz has a nemesis as well – but he is not rare and there are other version of Buzz Lightyear about, with the same mindset he had at the start of the first film. It’s a good way to develop a sequel to a film where there is an odd couple at the centre of the drama – reveal more of their worlds when they are separate from one another. The idea of toy collectors makes for not only obvious story progression but visual jokes (what happens to toys that are mint in the box if they come to life when nobody is looking?) and allows for some interesting questions about whether toys ought to be preserved when what they’re made for is to be played with.

The sequel wasn’t originally intended for a theatrical release. Disney sequels tend to go straight to video, courtesy of Disneytoon, and after all Pixar had never done a sequel before this. The story is that the design work was so impressive, and Tom Hanks and Tim Allen so vehement after signing on again for a small-scale video sequel, that Disney requested Pixar make it into a theatrical feature. Pixar had given the task to a secondary unit, but did not feel the work was of a quality they could be proud of, so reworked it, got Lasseter back as director and made something that was a resounding success.

It is the weakest of the three films, without the pioneering graphical quality and brilliant establishment of the concept the first film can boast, and nor does it have the penetrating emotional high notes of the third film’s theme of growing up and passing on childish things. But the fact that it cannot quite stand up to two such brilliant and successful films is no great slight, as it remains probably the best sequel to an original animated film there has ever been.

Cars 2

So here it is, Pixar’s first flop. It always seemed a very odd decision to make sequels to Cars, by far the least critically acclaimed of Pixar’s films. Toy Story’s sequels had a difficult production story, the second film originally intended as direct-to-video and later got expanded and completely rewritten, causing something of a rift between the studio and Disney bosses. The Incredibles is in consideration for a sequel, but what I think makes a crucial difference is that Cars is John Lasseter’s baby, perhaps even more so than Toy Story. Lasseter continues to be the most recognisable of Pixar’s directors, but has acted as an executive producer to most of their feature films since the last Cars film, and only now has he returned to the helm.

I thought it would be a bad idea when I saw the trailer. I had seen the Cars Toons shorts, and thought that would be enough – especially as some of the ideas (like the Japanese setting) looked like they would be rehashed. I didn’t think much of the secret agent angle and the slapstick jokes did not seem funny at all.

So I was surprised and pleased to find that Cars II was actually enjoyable – and certainly better than I had expected. And while the film lacks the nice, wistful tone and yearning for an old, semi-mythical America that made the first film more than it could have been, it also has fewer moments where the racial stereotypes really get too close to offensive, fewer moments that could be called predictably mawkish, and rather more visual spectacle.

In the first film, Lightning McQueen had discovered the good hearts and great expertise that can be hidden in small communities. Our story opens with him returning to Radiator Springs after a successful racing season. His best friend Mater, the halfwit tow truck, hears cars on television mocking McQueen for not entering a grand prix designed to promote a new biofuel and calls in to argue, with the result that McQueen himself intervenes and ends up entering himself. With his team of friends from the little town, he goes to Japan for the first race. After some of the usual culture-shock comedy, the race takes part – but Mater has managed to get himself mixed up in a conspiracy and has been mistaken for an American undercover operative by British secret agents, and confusion over his radio communication leads McQueen to lose the first race.

After the two argue, Mater means to return home, but ends up bound up with the intrigues between agents, who remain convinced his is a brilliant act so that nobody will suspect him. There are two more races – in Italy and in England, but cars are starting to blow up during the races. Can Mater and his new friends get to the bottom of it before McQueen is targeted?

If it sounds a long way from the usual small-scale Pixar set-ups with a lot of heart and nostalgia, it is. But the film is still centred on the friendship between two unlikely buddies, and how they should believe in one another. The sight gags are still clever and the visuals are still superb – the streets of London in particular look like they could be live action rather than CG. And because of the pacing, simplicity and the fact that actually, Mater isn’t that annoying and is actually quite likeable, it works.

It’s no Wall-E or Up. It’s definitely one of the weaker of Pixar’s films. But as bad as it looked, and as bad as so many reviews have made it out to be? Certainly not.

The Incredibles

When I saw it back in 2005, I found The Incredibles quite brilliant. It was, I wrote, easy, silly fluff based on a great idea – after all, what’s more modern and ironic than a world where superheroes have been totally suppressed by lawyers? It was cute, visually stunning, had some classic moments and the kids were just adorable. I loved the fun, snappy storytelling that came with a grounded, ironic vein that I often don’t overly enjoy, but here found charming. The story clearly took its cues from Watchmen, with the idea of outlawed superheroes yearning for the old days. But it never felt like a rip-off, only like a tribute, and an exploration of the concept in a different direction.

This film is really Brad Bird’s baby – and he was definitely a great addition to Pixar, even if arguably he brought with him a short period where the studio’s popularity started to wane, until Wall-E brought it all back. The film is what brought him to Pixar, and broke the Pixar mould by centring on a cast of real humans. Well, superhumans, but still fundamentally human beings. The film had been destined to be an traditionally-animated feature for Warner Bros before their theatrical animation division shut down – and it was really thanks to the fact Bird had gone to college with John Lasseter, with a little help from the artistic merits of The Iron Giant, that the move to Pixar happened. Bird also provides the voice of the scene-stealing Edna Mode, one of the film’s best characters, and was very visible in the DVD extras, and for whatever reason I felt the need when I saw these to observe he looked extremely like a grown-up Haley Joel Osment.

Bird is a bit of wild card in the current Pixar. They’ve got their first critical disappointment on their hands with Cars 2, and Bird is busily making a live-action film about the 1906 earthquake that will be the biggest change in mode for Pixar yet. I’m not sure what Pixar’s future will be, but their place in history is assured and I’m eager to see Brave.

Up

Up was, I think, a new triumph for Pixar. Now that they’ve moved on from making novel objects talk (toys, bugs, cars, fish, rats) and begun to focus their attentions on heartwarming stories, I think that they might enter a new era of sorts, which I, not yet tired of the house style, find an appealing prospect indeed.

The film centres on an old man who in order to fulfil a childhood dream decides to make his house fly, his life story told in an expository segment so that we are on his side from the start. His story is not exactly tragic, but he finds himself alone with strong links to the past, and so he takes action. The physics, fanciful contraptions and unlikely coincidences that follow as the old man meets new characters and strange creatures and gains a new sense of purpose, are not what is important beside the spectacle, the affectionate characterisation and the sheer fun of the scenario. There is much to make the audience laugh, make them sad, make them cheer and make them care. And the sheer beauty of the film, particularly when it comes to landscapes, is another layer of pleasure.

Not everything is perfect: I felt like there should have been more resolution for the family unit at the end of the film, less of a feeling that a father figure can simply sweep in, but generally everything I was unsure about, from talking dogs to men isolated for long decades failing to accomplish their goal, eventually turned out to be a positive aspect of the film and I was most impressed. It may not endure quite like Toy Story or Wall-E, but it was great stuff.

(originally written 15.10.09)

Wall-E

Considering I didn’t like the trailer, finding Wall-E’s Johnny 5-derived design bland and the premise dull, I was very pleasantly surprised by the uplifting experience of seeing the film. This is what Pixar should have been doing instead of Cars. This is their first film since Finding Nemo that feels innocent and good-hearted - The Incredibles is great but it’s smart and sassy. Wall-E is unashamedly cutesy and sentimental, as if John Lasseter and co took that thank-you from Ghibli to heart and started trying to make films like Totoro.

Balancing the Pixar strengths of fondness for the underdog and high-octane slapstick, it encapsulates all that they do best. The intro film about a magician reminds us that Pixar is great at expressive silent comedy, and most of the first act of the film reinforces that, and Wall-E himself is undeniably extremely cute. The second half has a darker tint, although it’s worth remembering that the reason given for the characters’ lifestyle is low gravity rather than laziness or escapism (not a hugely original idea): the effects of this sedentary way of living are not nearly as permanent as they ought to be, so in many ways the uplifting ending rang slightly false. But mankind is not central to this story, robots are - and bleakness has little place here. Pixar's small-scale story painted on an immense canvas cannot fail to charm.

Obvious and familiar, but then, it’s telling time-honoured stories in strange new hues that Pixar does best.

(originally written 21.7.08)

Monsters Inc.

The Oscars in March 2002 were the first to have an Academy Award for feature-length animation. In February, on the 3rd to be precise, I had a little prediction after seeing a film newly released in UK cinemas:

‘Watched the highly entertaining future animation Oscar winner (I expect!) Monsters Inc. – A great premise, great characters and some really funny gags made for a very enjoyable viewing. Boo is an unbelievably sweet little kid, I thought the characters’ names were clever and, while things still look much like plastic, CG is getting better and better, especially that Fiz-T technology. My only question would be – if they know kids aren’t really toxic, why all the security? If they are, why no effect?’

In the event, it was not to be a win for Pixar – indeed, Monsters Inc. was one of only two Pixar films not to win the award, along with Cars. In this case, I think the decision was a bad one: Shrek spawned a successful and enjoyable franchise, but that first film was not a great accomplishment – and I would have preferred to see this film win.

Monsters Inc. is another clever take on an old concept regarding childhood. Those scary monsters under the bed and lurking in the closets and cupboards of the world are real – and part of an industry. They harvest the screams of children to power their society. It all works nicely until one of the best ‘scarers’, James Sullivan (I mentioned that I thought the names were clever – and what I thought was clever about them was that they were so ordinary, rather than being fantasy monster names) accidentally brings a little girl back into his world with him. Believing the child to be toxic and dangerous, he and his best friend Mike have to work out what to do with the strange, giggling little creature.

The question about toxicity has been raised since by others: why spread a false rumour that children are toxic? The best answer I’ve seen is that it’s a psychological trick: the workers are told the kids are dangerous to motivate them to do their jobs and get out quickly. That’ll do – it’s only a minor issue in any case.

Monsters Inc. has dated well, probably better than the first Toy Story or A Bug’s Life – although neither are exactly unpleasant to watch. It’s still extremely impressive, how much work has gone into each frame, and those Fiz-T hair effects remain impressively fluid. But of course, the main thing that makes Pixar the success it is would be those strong concepts, great characters and heartwarming developments. That’s why Monsters Inc. was a great success. And that’s why the prospect of a prequel coming out in 2013 is really quite an interesting one…

Finding Nemo

‘Finding Nemo was a joy to watch, if not on a par with the Toy Story films (graphic effects excluded). Another charming, escapist buddy movie with some incredibly entertaining voice actors – the girl from Ellen as Dory was endlessly loveable, Geoffrey Rush and Dame Edna’s against-type roles hilarious and Willem DaFoe spot-on. At the forefront, though, as ever with Pixar, were charm, humour and simple but uplifting emotions.’ - Oct 16, 2003.

Those were my impressions upon seeing Nemo at the cinema, a surprisingly long time ago. Please forgive the naivety of 'The girl from Ellen'!

It has endured as one of the best of Pixar’s films – pretty high praise – and won the Oscar for best animated film, beating out The Triplets of Belleville. It started a trend for buying tropical fish, which was a little tragic for animal lovers because far fewer people than wanted to look after clownfish were very capable of looking after clownfish.

But Finding Nemo is iconic. It’s a simple idea, but all of Pixar’s best tend to be just that. Talking fish are nothing new, but the way their world looks here, and the inspired choices of species that will now forever be associated with the personality quirks they have here, this will most likely forever be the definitive underwater animated film.

Toy Story 3

It’s incredible to me that Toy Story came out in 1995. I know people who weren’t even born then. I’m probably one of very few in my London friendship group who actually remembers going to the cinema to see it on the big screen. That to me seems quite bizarre, although I’m sure there are people a little older than I am who find it just as strange that I wasn’t born for early-80s films.

In many ways, though, this film was for my age group. Not to downplay the significance of the film to younger people, but as something of a farewell to a franchise, as a film fundamentally about the changes that come about when you grow older, it works best for people around my age who were just old enough to appreciate Toy Story’s wry layer of adult-oriented gags and references at the time…and, thinking about it, perhaps even more for those just a few years younger than me, who were entirely caught up in the magic of that first excursion.

Toy Story 3 finds us back in Andy’s house when he is no longer a child. He is 17 now, and off to college. He doesn’t play with his toys any more, and clearing out his room means that it is time to put away childish things in a more definitive way than putting them in the toy box. What will happen to the toys now? Will they be donated to a daycare centre? Put in the trash? Stored away in the attic to quietly stagnate in the hopes that one day Andy will have kids of his own to give them to?
What actually happens in the film is not necessarily what Andy intended, but pretty much all of the different possibilities get explored to some degree. And Pixar as ever capitalise on their magnificent ability to give a film heart, to imbue every situation with high-octane adventure as well as characters that are highly sympathetic.

The remarkable thing about Toy Story, though, is how is well-thought-out everything is. It’s not simply something that comes of working for hundreds of hours on every beautiful frame: that is to simplify the story-writing process and to misrepresent how much work goes into a good live-action film. Pixar simply do not let their stories get sloppy. Coincidences are few and far between and palatable when they do arrive: the one who finds Woody, for example, not only being a girl who lives near the place he must return to, but also having taken home the doll who can give him information that proves invaluable later on. The baddie is more than two-dimensional, and has a fitting fate!

I left the cinema with the impression that not only had the writers thought of what would make a good, emotionally rich story, but they also thought of the impact this story would have on an impressionable young audience. Making a story in which we must feel sympathetic for toys getting thrown away could have influenced a whole generation to be hoarders of vast amounts of toys, but instead the message ends up being that it is better to give them to someone who will really value them. The film came close to making it seem like donating toys will only get them smashed up and abused, but averted that at the last minute.

But the real achievement remains the ability to encourage an audience to be emotionally invested. Betrayal, indignation, exultant relief…the sad beauty of being resigned to what seems an inevitable fate but facing it together with your friends – these are the kind of emotional points that more live-action films ought to embrace.

Pixar films are always beautiful, so I wanted to see it in the best possible way. Was slightly disappointed, then, to find that unlike Waterloo’s immense screen, the IMAX at Greenwich is about half the size, and certainly not able to fill the entire field of vision. It was simply a large and very crisp screen with a good sound system. However, once the film got going I realized I was actually getting a better experience than many I have in the full-sized IMAX. The 3D glasses worked the best of any I’ve used since polarizing methods were introduced save in the Taiwan aquarium, and I got no ghosting or blur at all, for a change. Everything was lovely and crisp and fluid. As for the size of the screen, well, sometimes in the full IMAX it’s a nuisance knowing you’re not seeing every detail, but you never are in any film in any case, and I have to say I do prefer it as large as possible!

But it is well worth seeing the film in the best possible visual format. It’s beautiful to look at: action sequences are choreographed with genius, sight gags are timed to perfection, and the pastiches of different film styles are, as ever, note-perfect, from the harsh light of a crime film police interview on Buzz’s face to Ken’s brilliant fashion parade.

My generation will undoubtedly have less prejudice against animation than any before it, and it is increasingly being taken seriously as an art form. Pixar are never going to produce something shockingly mature and adult, but that does not detract from the fact that they create some of the most important films of any currently in production. All reinforced, to my mind, by special thanks to Ghibli staff members and the surprisingly prominent role for Totoro.