While The Incredibles 2 didn't really lean heavily on story twists, there is quite a bit about it that's worth discussing from a thematic perspective, and yes, this discussion does involve spoilers.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(SPOILER ALERT)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, you've been warned. When The Incredibles 2 introduced a "mystery villain" in the form of Screenslaver, it was pretty obvious from the word "go" that he was going to be one of the two new characters introduced, either Winston Deavor or his sister Evelyn. Brad Bird managed a bit of a fake-out by revealing him to be a mind-controlled pizza delivery man, but there never was any doubt that it would have been one of the two siblings. Winston was played a bit too obvious, making Evelyn the likelier candidate for villainy, as she in fact was.
The predictability of the twist wasn't really an issue for me, though I confess I kind of rolled my eyes at the "angry at superheroes" motivation that drove Evelyn, who for some reason reminded me of Helena Bonham-Carter, to concoct her scheme to destroy them, as it felt like a variation on the motivations that drove Jason Lee's Syndrome to murder just about every known superhero except for Mr. Incredible, Elastigirl and Frozone from the first film.
I found it curious considering that neither of the "big bad guys" that the Incredibles have fought are actually "villains" per se. They're not out for world domination, or even something more mundane like grand larceny. They simply hate superheroes, for one reason or another, and set out to destroy them. That's basically their sole goal, and they're willing to inflict considerable death and destruction to achieve it.
The Incredibles 2 presents a more interesting spin on the concept than its predecessor, which simply presented a spurned fanboy. While Evelyn is similarly angry with superheroes, she's also angry with the way people have come to depend on them, which sounds like a pretty reasonable gripe with superheroes if you ask me. The argument, if I'm honest, was never fully debunked, and Evelyn's line when the police are hauling her off at the end--"just because you saved me doesn't mean you're right"--actually rings somewhat true.
I mean, there is something to be said about the argument that people shouldn't count on "heroes" to save them; it actually applies directly to our global politics right now. Countries all over the world are caught in the grip of a new wave of authoritarian rulers because voters have been embraced the ultimately false notion that these "strongmen" could "save" them from all of their problems. There's a distinct failure to realize that if anyone is to save us from our problems, it's us.
It kind of makes me wonder if The Incredibles isn't a surreptitious critique of the entire superhero storytelling genre; in this world, it's the superheroes themselves who, however inadvertently, create their biggest villains. And then, of course, there's that scene in which the Parr family are shown their new house, which suspiciously resembles a certain billionaire philanthropist playboy's former Malibu mansion, and Violet comments on how ridiculously exposed a self-confessed superhero living in such a house would be.
Of course, there have been comments on how Brad Bird's personal philosophy of Objectivism plays into the narrative, but really, neither Syndrome, who wanted to "democratize" being "super" by selling everyone high tech weapons, nor Evelyn Deavor, who wants to "cure" people of their dependency on superheroes to solve their problems, sounds like a particularly bad person; it's only their chosen means (assassination, mayhem) that ultimately make them bad. But I'll be darned if they aren't SPOT ON in their disdain for superheroes in general, at least in the context of the stories that are told.
I'd like to see Brad Bird explore this thought process further, and I'm fairly sure he'll get the chance. The thing is, even though he's presented villains with cogent arguments against the so-called heroes, he has yet to have the villains win the argument, the way Erik Killmonger did in Black Panther, and to a lesser, less-commonly-acknowledged extent, the way the Vulture did in Spider-Man: Homecoming.
I really love this world that Bird has created, and even though it's nowhere near as expansive as, say, the Marvel Cinematic Universe in its scope, thematically it's got a richness to it that the first two films have only just begun to explore.
Sunday, June 24, 2018
Sunday, June 17, 2018
Worth the Wait...Mostly: A Review of The Incredibles 2
written and directed by Brad Bird
When Pixar released The Incredibles back in 2004, it knocked my socks off. Having grown up with Marvel Comics' Fantastic Four, the original squabbling family of superheroes, I found much to love about these charming but wildly dysfunctional new animated heroes, Silver Age superheroes who'd been forced into retirement by a disillusioned populace and who found themselves grappling with middle age and suburban ennui. At a time when the superhero fare in cinemas was limited mainly to Sam Raimi's Spider-man and Bryan Singer's X-Men films, the original Incredibles provided a refreshing take on the genre that endeared it to both critics and audiences, including this particular viewer.
The Incredibles 2 arrives in a somewhat more heavily-populated cinematic superhero landscape, and while Brad Bird and Pixar still manage to deliver a quality film, one which, from a technical perspective, is leaps and bounds above its predecessor, it doesn't have quite the same impact.
The film picks up directly where the first one left off, with Bob Parr, aka Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson) his wife Helen, aka Elastigirl (Holly Hunter), their super-powered kids Violet (Sarah Vowell) and Dash (Huck Milner) and their old friend Lucius aka Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) taking on the menace of the Underminer (John Ratzenberger). While the assembled superheroes save City Hall from destruction, the chaos wrought by the Underminer (who has escaped with a bank vault full of money), coupled with the fact that superheroes in general are still illegal, causes them headaches as they are detained by the police, who let them off with a warning. The Parrs are at the end of their rope; not only was their house destroyed at the end of the last movie, but they soon learn from their old government liaison Rick Dicker (Jonathan Banks) that the government has shut down the program for keeping superheroes underground, meaning that they need to find work soon or they'll be out on the streets.
Fortunately, Lucius approaches Bob and Helen, having been contacted by the affluent Winston Deavor (Bob Odenkirk) a wealthy telecommunications magnate and fan of superheroes whose father adored them and supported them back when they were legal, and who wants more than anything to make that happen. His grand scheme, which he plans to implement with his tech-genius sister Evelyn (Catherine Keener) is simple: to put people right in the seat of what superheroes do by implanting cameras into their suits, so that they can see how hard they work to save lives. Deavor chooses Elastigirl to spearhead the program, as she has, in her career, been the least destructive of the three superheroes. This puts Bob, to his initial annoyance, on stay-at-home dad duty with Dash, Violet and their infant Jack-Jack who is about to manifest a whole host of his own superpowers.
No sooner does Helen get back into action, however, than a new threat, the mysterious Screenslaver, emerges.
From start to finish, the movie is a joy to behold. Having just re-watched the original film on DVD before taking my family to see this, I was struck by how much the technology has advanced since then. Helen has considerably softer and warmer features than her more plastic-looking previous incarnation, while Bob's hilarious transformation from superhero to sleep-deprived superdad is vividly depicted with eyebags and five o' clock shadow. The movie does a bit of gender-swapping from the last one, with Helen flexing muscles doing the superheroics, while Bob handles the challenge of looking after three kids, who consist of a lovelorn teenager, a tweener struggling with his math lessons, and a baby, who'd be challenging enough without the superpowers. In that sense, the film does feel a bit familiar after awhile. Fortunately, the antics of the multi-powered Jack-Jack infuse a bit of welcome freshness into the film, especially as the terrified Bob tries to figure out how to handle his tiny little powerhouse.
If there was any particular letdown about this film, it had to be the villain, who, upon scrutiny, is surprisingly similar in motivation and, to some degree, in method, to Jason Lee's Syndrome from the first film. I appreciate that Bird gives the bad guys nuance and a driving force beyond just the desire to rule the world or enrich one's self, but there was too much similarity between this and what came before to ignore.
I was also overjoyed to hear Michael Giacchino's familiar brassy, retro-jazzy tunes once more. He's come full circle; after kicking off his film career with the first Incredibles movie, he's since gone on to write music for not only movies from Pixar and mother company Disney but also giant film franchises like Mission Impossible, Star Trek, Star Wars, Marvel and Jurassic Park. More than just rehash his original themes, though Giacchino infuses this score with just about every trick he's picked up since the first film. It's not unlike hearing how much richer Alan Silvestri's Avengers: Infinity War score was than his original Avengers music.
As satisfying as I found the film to be, though, I really couldn't shake how familiar everything felt. Everything looked and sounded great, to be sure, but really, it's was like a shiny coat of paint on basically the same car. Don't get me wrong; I am a huge fan of sequels that basically lean on formula, like the Marvel films and even the Jason Bourne series, but considering the narrative triumph of the first film, I had somewhat high expectations of a sequel fourteen years in the making. Perhaps too high, it seems.
The good news is, it's still a rip-roaring good time at the movies. It looks to be a smash hit, too, so I know I'll be back for the almost inevitable sequel.
I just hope it doesn't take another fourteen years for them to make one, and that they try for something a little different next time.
8/10
When Pixar released The Incredibles back in 2004, it knocked my socks off. Having grown up with Marvel Comics' Fantastic Four, the original squabbling family of superheroes, I found much to love about these charming but wildly dysfunctional new animated heroes, Silver Age superheroes who'd been forced into retirement by a disillusioned populace and who found themselves grappling with middle age and suburban ennui. At a time when the superhero fare in cinemas was limited mainly to Sam Raimi's Spider-man and Bryan Singer's X-Men films, the original Incredibles provided a refreshing take on the genre that endeared it to both critics and audiences, including this particular viewer.
The Incredibles 2 arrives in a somewhat more heavily-populated cinematic superhero landscape, and while Brad Bird and Pixar still manage to deliver a quality film, one which, from a technical perspective, is leaps and bounds above its predecessor, it doesn't have quite the same impact.
The film picks up directly where the first one left off, with Bob Parr, aka Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson) his wife Helen, aka Elastigirl (Holly Hunter), their super-powered kids Violet (Sarah Vowell) and Dash (Huck Milner) and their old friend Lucius aka Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) taking on the menace of the Underminer (John Ratzenberger). While the assembled superheroes save City Hall from destruction, the chaos wrought by the Underminer (who has escaped with a bank vault full of money), coupled with the fact that superheroes in general are still illegal, causes them headaches as they are detained by the police, who let them off with a warning. The Parrs are at the end of their rope; not only was their house destroyed at the end of the last movie, but they soon learn from their old government liaison Rick Dicker (Jonathan Banks) that the government has shut down the program for keeping superheroes underground, meaning that they need to find work soon or they'll be out on the streets.
Fortunately, Lucius approaches Bob and Helen, having been contacted by the affluent Winston Deavor (Bob Odenkirk) a wealthy telecommunications magnate and fan of superheroes whose father adored them and supported them back when they were legal, and who wants more than anything to make that happen. His grand scheme, which he plans to implement with his tech-genius sister Evelyn (Catherine Keener) is simple: to put people right in the seat of what superheroes do by implanting cameras into their suits, so that they can see how hard they work to save lives. Deavor chooses Elastigirl to spearhead the program, as she has, in her career, been the least destructive of the three superheroes. This puts Bob, to his initial annoyance, on stay-at-home dad duty with Dash, Violet and their infant Jack-Jack who is about to manifest a whole host of his own superpowers.
No sooner does Helen get back into action, however, than a new threat, the mysterious Screenslaver, emerges.
From start to finish, the movie is a joy to behold. Having just re-watched the original film on DVD before taking my family to see this, I was struck by how much the technology has advanced since then. Helen has considerably softer and warmer features than her more plastic-looking previous incarnation, while Bob's hilarious transformation from superhero to sleep-deprived superdad is vividly depicted with eyebags and five o' clock shadow. The movie does a bit of gender-swapping from the last one, with Helen flexing muscles doing the superheroics, while Bob handles the challenge of looking after three kids, who consist of a lovelorn teenager, a tweener struggling with his math lessons, and a baby, who'd be challenging enough without the superpowers. In that sense, the film does feel a bit familiar after awhile. Fortunately, the antics of the multi-powered Jack-Jack infuse a bit of welcome freshness into the film, especially as the terrified Bob tries to figure out how to handle his tiny little powerhouse.
If there was any particular letdown about this film, it had to be the villain, who, upon scrutiny, is surprisingly similar in motivation and, to some degree, in method, to Jason Lee's Syndrome from the first film. I appreciate that Bird gives the bad guys nuance and a driving force beyond just the desire to rule the world or enrich one's self, but there was too much similarity between this and what came before to ignore.
I was also overjoyed to hear Michael Giacchino's familiar brassy, retro-jazzy tunes once more. He's come full circle; after kicking off his film career with the first Incredibles movie, he's since gone on to write music for not only movies from Pixar and mother company Disney but also giant film franchises like Mission Impossible, Star Trek, Star Wars, Marvel and Jurassic Park. More than just rehash his original themes, though Giacchino infuses this score with just about every trick he's picked up since the first film. It's not unlike hearing how much richer Alan Silvestri's Avengers: Infinity War score was than his original Avengers music.
As satisfying as I found the film to be, though, I really couldn't shake how familiar everything felt. Everything looked and sounded great, to be sure, but really, it's was like a shiny coat of paint on basically the same car. Don't get me wrong; I am a huge fan of sequels that basically lean on formula, like the Marvel films and even the Jason Bourne series, but considering the narrative triumph of the first film, I had somewhat high expectations of a sequel fourteen years in the making. Perhaps too high, it seems.
The good news is, it's still a rip-roaring good time at the movies. It looks to be a smash hit, too, so I know I'll be back for the almost inevitable sequel.
I just hope it doesn't take another fourteen years for them to make one, and that they try for something a little different next time.
8/10
Thursday, June 7, 2018
Thank You, Fox, for Letting Comic Book Blockbusters in 2018 Breathe a Little
At one point, we were slated to have as many as TEN comic-book based films this year, three from Disney, two from Sony/Columbia, three from Fox and two from Warner Bros. Some online pundits were predicting doom and gloom for the box office, asserting that all of these aspiring blockbusters (which, apart from comic-book movies, included sequels galore to properties ranging from the Ocean's 11 franchise to the Incredibles) would cannibalize one another.
Well, so far, the good news is that with few exceptions, the movies that were expected to succeed have done exactly that.
When the trailers for Bumblebee and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse dropped this past week, I realized, however, that they were opening within one week of each other, and that Bumblebee was actually opening against Warner Brothers/DC's Aquaman, which meant that the prognostications of doom and gloom for the overall Hollywood box office (which, let's face it, is a globally consumed product), may yet prove accurate by the end of the year.
Bearing this in mind, then, I remembered Twentieth Century Fox's decision to postpone till 2019 the release of two of its three Marvel-based movies originally scheduled for release this year namely, X-Men: Dark Phoenix and New Mutants. The decision to postpone the latter film was genuinely surprising considering that a trailer had already been released several months ago.
Now, there could have been a number of different reasons for the postponement, ranging from the old "troubled production" dilemma to poor reception by test audiences, but whether or not these films were taken off the table because they were turkeys or because Fox simply didn't want to enter too crowded a market, at the end of the day they made the right move, and did everyone, them AND us, a favor.
After all, if the movies are bad, then they'll simply add to the superhero blockbuster glut and maybe even help induce the "superhero fatigue" that pundits have been predicting for years (which has yet to happen, incidentally). Conversely, if they're good, they may simply disappear amid the crowd of "great" films peppered all throughout the year. After all, neither X-Men: Dark Phoenix nor New Mutants carries with it the "event" status of Avengers: Infinity War or cultural milestone status of Black Panther (unless Fox wants to market New Mutants as the first superhero film with a Native American lead, but given that it's an ensemble piece that's not likely to work), or even the long-awaited-sequel status of The Incredibles 2. Deadpool 2 was a much easier sell, being the follow-up to a box-office juggernaut, but after X-Men: Apocalypse underperformed and given that New Mutants is a completely unknown commodity, caution was warranted. Was it a result of the planned Disney buyout? That seems unlikely, given that there's still a fair chance that Comcast may snatch up Fox instead of Disney.
Are the movies most likely to be bad, given extensive reports of reshoots? Well, reshoots aren't always a bad thing; Rogue One: A Star Wars story underwent quite a few reshoots and turned out pretty good. Even World War Z, an infamously troubled production which had to undergo reshoots for nearly the entire third act, opened to boffo box office all around the world, so it's early to say that all is lost for Fox's non-Deadpool Marvel movies. I, for one, remain cautiously optimistic.
In the end, postponing the movies, whether it was to avoid the crowd or to undergo reshoots, was really the best thing for the movies themselves and the viewing audience. And it was gratifying to know that Fox execs didn't rush the movies into theaters just to make sure they could claim their bonuses (coughcoughJUSTICELEAGUEcoughcough). What ultimately matters is that when the movies do hit theaters, they prove to be products that were worth the wait.
Well, so far, the good news is that with few exceptions, the movies that were expected to succeed have done exactly that.
When the trailers for Bumblebee and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse dropped this past week, I realized, however, that they were opening within one week of each other, and that Bumblebee was actually opening against Warner Brothers/DC's Aquaman, which meant that the prognostications of doom and gloom for the overall Hollywood box office (which, let's face it, is a globally consumed product), may yet prove accurate by the end of the year.
Bearing this in mind, then, I remembered Twentieth Century Fox's decision to postpone till 2019 the release of two of its three Marvel-based movies originally scheduled for release this year namely, X-Men: Dark Phoenix and New Mutants. The decision to postpone the latter film was genuinely surprising considering that a trailer had already been released several months ago.
Now, there could have been a number of different reasons for the postponement, ranging from the old "troubled production" dilemma to poor reception by test audiences, but whether or not these films were taken off the table because they were turkeys or because Fox simply didn't want to enter too crowded a market, at the end of the day they made the right move, and did everyone, them AND us, a favor.
After all, if the movies are bad, then they'll simply add to the superhero blockbuster glut and maybe even help induce the "superhero fatigue" that pundits have been predicting for years (which has yet to happen, incidentally). Conversely, if they're good, they may simply disappear amid the crowd of "great" films peppered all throughout the year. After all, neither X-Men: Dark Phoenix nor New Mutants carries with it the "event" status of Avengers: Infinity War or cultural milestone status of Black Panther (unless Fox wants to market New Mutants as the first superhero film with a Native American lead, but given that it's an ensemble piece that's not likely to work), or even the long-awaited-sequel status of The Incredibles 2. Deadpool 2 was a much easier sell, being the follow-up to a box-office juggernaut, but after X-Men: Apocalypse underperformed and given that New Mutants is a completely unknown commodity, caution was warranted. Was it a result of the planned Disney buyout? That seems unlikely, given that there's still a fair chance that Comcast may snatch up Fox instead of Disney.
Are the movies most likely to be bad, given extensive reports of reshoots? Well, reshoots aren't always a bad thing; Rogue One: A Star Wars story underwent quite a few reshoots and turned out pretty good. Even World War Z, an infamously troubled production which had to undergo reshoots for nearly the entire third act, opened to boffo box office all around the world, so it's early to say that all is lost for Fox's non-Deadpool Marvel movies. I, for one, remain cautiously optimistic.
In the end, postponing the movies, whether it was to avoid the crowd or to undergo reshoots, was really the best thing for the movies themselves and the viewing audience. And it was gratifying to know that Fox execs didn't rush the movies into theaters just to make sure they could claim their bonuses (coughcoughJUSTICELEAGUEcoughcough). What ultimately matters is that when the movies do hit theaters, they prove to be products that were worth the wait.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)