Inside Out 2

This movie is kind of unfair. How can the viewer watch it with a critical eye when Riley is exactly the kind of girl whom the viewer wishes could be his own daughter? It says here the scale has a thumb on it. No matter—you watch the movie they show you, and in this case, as with its predecessor, you get a pretty good one. Anyone with an ounce of human spirit has to feel sympathy for a young person suffering the pangs of puberty—we’ve all been there—so we can all laugh, cry and cringe as our girl stumbles through one particularly fraught weekend. The Emotions are back and their usual selves, though now augmented by the addition of several newcomers—perhaps even one or two too many new characters, though the story is dominated by Anxiety, so the plot doesn’t really get too crowded. Again we have some very clever visual metaphors for the inside of the human mind, many of which are highlights of the film's mostly gentle humor,  plus at least one visual pun that is, in its place, laugh out loud funny. The only real flaw may be that the characters, who are personifications of Riley’s emotions, do not always stay true throughout to their essential selves (by the end Lewis Black's Anger is uncharacteristically happy and practically gushing). I guess it’s impossible to fully carry the metaphor all the way through, but that’s really just a quibble. You will be okay if you keep this one in the front of your mind; it just might help you build a better you—something a lot of us could work on.

Elemental

Never, perhaps, has there been a movie so contrived in its concept. And that grand devotion to concept gets heavily in the way for the audience, almost to the point where the viewer is willing to give up on the thing. I say almost, because if one makes a conscientious effort to push through that superficial conceptual barrier, as well as the sense of indoctrination and being taught a lesson, you can strip things down to the story basics, which are well done and resonate with the viewer. Once you start paying attention to the characters as fundamental people, you can find the universality of the feelings and conflicts they act out, and the ham-handed metaphors for immigrants and parent-child conflict fades into the background. It helps, too, that the visuals present a certain amount of technical wonder, even in an era of an exceedingly refined state of the art in animation; you start to give credit to these characters for being real and alive and tangible, even as they are simply a highly digitized form of puppets. Distilled to its, shall we say, basic elements, this is a movie that I wanted to hate, but ultimately had to admire for its artistry and heart.

Turning Red

An under-the-radar effort, made so due to its direct-to-streaming debut caused by the pandemic, that actually has much more going for it than some other recent products of the Pixar studio. For one, the movie’s main character, Meilin, is adorable, in both of her manifestations. Another solid attribute: this flick leans heavily into the comedy, rather than trying to ladle on the sentiment or delve for deeper meanings. When the sentiment does come, it feels earned. And as befits the story’s comedic slant, the renderings of the characters, settings and action are stylized and cartoonish, rather than the usual showy and ostentatiously realistic visuals; here, the dialed back appearances serve the humor well. Also, the filmmakers made a keen decision to set this story in Toronto, where the various ethnic elements of the tale seem less like the product of relentless identitarianism and more the outgrowth of the actual facts on the ground in that most cosmopolitan of cities. Indeed, the story is presented so well that the viewer can ignore the fact that the whole thing is a rather ham-handed metaphor for a young girl reaching puberty (even given the numerous instances where that notion is made fairly explicit). I for one probably could have done without the boy band element, but given the movie’s girl focus, I suppose that’s on-point, too. Indeed, practically all of this work was done right, and the result is a surprisingly amusing and entertaining film. I say, give this bit of red a big green light.

Luca

First astonishing fact about this film: the main character’s parents aren’t dead. Second...well, there really isn’t anything else astonishing about this flick. It’s cute, reasonably entertaining—my attention did not wander at any point in its running time—visually impressive (though that hardly counts at this point, so refined is the state of the art) and at least a little bit heart-tugging. I doubt this one will ever enter into anyone’s pantheon—the somewhat similar Coco is substantially more memorable—but watching this work can hardly be considered a waste of time. And if you take it as an oblique homage to Italian cinema in general, then that adds a further dimension of pleasure to the experience. Like many a visit to the shore, this is enjoyable but ultimately ephemeral.

Soul

Depending upon who you are, and how you feel about your life, some of this story may hit a little too close to home. In a more general view, a lot of this movie may be difficult for viewers to get traction with, as a sizable part of the concept here involves characters who are abstractions, and abstraction is notoriously difficult for many people to relate to. Or perhaps that’s just this viewer trying to grasp at reasons why this film stayed somewhat at arm’s length from him, despite there being plenty of relatable emotional content herein. Maybe it’s due to the fact that I personally have never really appreciated jazz that this flick fails to completely crack my exterior. What also doesn’t help is the ending—it reeks of falsity; it seems like a decision was made to tack on a final note that was added on in order to make the ending “happier,” even though the honest ending would not have been all that sad, and is even hinted at in the earlier dialogue. I don’t know; there’s a lot of plus and minus here, all mixed up—but I’m conscious enough of my own personal failings here that I will give this work a pass, count it as a guarded MEOW, and leave it at that. Other than that, you’ll have to find this work's purpose for yourself.

Onward

From the first moments, I kinda hated this movie. And then...well, I didn’t exactly grow to like it; more like it got more tolerable as it progressed. While the film’s heart might be in the right place, there are simply too many elements that come across as grating and never really do enough to earn validation by the end. The setting of a magical world populated by fairy tale creatures seems contrived; you can’t help but wonder, while viewing early scenes, if this choice was made for any reason other than the crucial use of magic to make the story work—and that comes across as not very creative, perhaps even lazy, storytelling. Tom Holland’s voice, whiny and and annoying under the best of cinematic circumstances, is like a dentist's drill throughout much of these proceedings. Other elements that have become de rigeur in late-period Disney works only serve to elicit eye rolls here. Simply put, none of this ever truly clicks here; the viewer waits in vain for moments of actual cinematic wizardry. This work, combined with the disappointing production of Toy Story 4 immediately proceeding, marks the real beginning of a steep decline in the quality of Pixar movies, one that has yet to be reversed as of this writing, now four years after this piece made its debut. Geese do not lay golden eggs forever, I guess. Let’s see them try to scare up some movie magic like they used to make; that’s the real quest the studio needs to focus on.

Toy Story 4

I guess there’s a reason why they usually stop movie series at three entries. It becomes impossible to not experience, when watching a fourth installment of a franchise, a sense that you’ve seen all this stuff before—that you are looking at a paper or a picture that has been copied a few times too many, or copied from a copy of a copy. That’s the sense I got watching this film. The familiar characters are there, a somewhat familiar storyline is there—this series has done both new character introductions and finding a long-lost friend in prior sequels—but at this point they just don’t have the same impact as they originally did. Not surprising, really; it requires a ton of fresh creative input to keep old characters and scenarios feeling even relatively fresh, and there just isn’t a lot of vibe that the studio was up to that challenge here. Thus, it was not a surprise that my attention started to wander long before this flick reached its climax, let alone the potentially series-altering denouement. I know they’re planning yet another sequel for this series—perhaps without Hanks, though that issue probably wouldn’t be insurmountable—but I suspect the only thing that will come of the attempt will be further proof of Disney’s current creative bankruptcy. Oh, I suppose I should note that the uncritical among us—like children, the target audience here—will absorb this outing with the same level of pleasure the first three provided. But for the rest of us, I think we should expect a bit more for our time and attention. It just might be time to put away these childish things.

Incredibles 2

Kind of a weird mishmash of several films that explored the “virtues/vices of superheroes” theme—the Dark Knight movies and Watchmen immediately spring to mind—except in a kids’ version. (Some of the MCU movies cover the question as well, but they’re really already for kids.) Unlike those antecedents, this one plays it mostly for chuckles, and draws its conclusions in a largely facile fashion—nothing dark and brooding here. Ultimately, the product is enjoyable and fun, if lightweight and not particularly impactful. Incredible? Not really. Watchable? Certainly.

Coco

Sure, “exposition” does sound a bit like a Mexican word. Maybe that’s why so much of this script, in its early scenes, comes across as pure explainer. Or maybe the filmmakers felt the need to spell everything out for what would be a largely unfamiliar audience. Whatever the reason, it takes a while for the movie to shake off that sense of teaching lessons and get into the heart of telling its true story. And heart is what it’s all about: even with cultural touches that come across as somewhat weird to non-initiated, the ultimate impact of this tale comes from the universal connection we all have to family, to memories, and to the same fate we all share. Only the most churlish can fail to be touched by the movie’s message of bonded love that transcends time. And, as an added appeal, there is terrific musicianship throughout the film’s many musical moments. All in all, un buen momento para todos.

Finding Dory

There are moments, particularly early on, when you have to be a bit worried that this flick is going to be tedious and not worth your time. But then the sheer inventiveness of the storytelling—in figuring out ever more clever ways of having marine creatures get around out of the water—works its magic, and you can’t help but admire the cumulative effect of the thing. There aren’t many home runs in this tale, but there sure are a lot of singles and doubles here, enough to ensure this movie makes it home—pun/entendres intended—with more than enough scores to earn the win. Go fish.

The Good Dinosaur

Oh boy. I had a bad feeling about this one going in, and the questions immediately raised by the first few minutes only affirmed that ominous impression. Why make a film that displays, rather ostentatiously, technical mastery of hyperrealistic visuals, and then have cartoonishly rendered characters? The most likely answer is, the project was targeted towards children, and their uncritical viewing habits, from the start. That decision made it inevitable that a certain laziness of thought would be baked into the entire development. The results of that trajectory show painfully in every element of the script, where every plot point can be seen coming from the entire width of a carefully designed CGI landscape away. For instance, the main crisis, when it comes, is profoundly predictable. You know almost from the opening credits that a certain character is a goner. (You may ask yourself, is this a Disney film? Well, let’s see…dead parent? Yep. Okay, that checks out.) Little else in the movie’s circuitous story comes as a surprise, either. Some scenes and characters come across as not just predictable, but tedious and out of context, too. The whole thing is ultimately banal, formulaic and even nonsensical in key moments. (The main character, though portrayed as young, weak and scared, is apparently harder to kill than a Terminator.) Not even the title makes much sense. “Good” how? How was Arlo not good in the first place? Assuming the titular adjective is aspirational, wouldn’t “brave” or “wise” or even “not so hopeless” have made more sense? At least the flawlessly rendered scenery gives the viewer his money’s worth. It seems like that was the point of this exercise, showing off the technical wizardry while assuming that they could get away with a poorly developed story because the movie would be watched mostly by children. That’s not exactly what one should expect from the ostensible lead studio in animated cinema. Whether the dinosaur deserves the label “good” or not is debatable; but you couldn’t apply that adjective to this flick in several million years.

Inside Out

Much as with the structure of this movie itself, you have to get behind the facade to see what’s really going on here, and to find where the thing is most effective. The overarching metaphor is so prominent, so flamboyantly at center stage in how the story is presented, that the viewer must make some major effort to form a connection with the main character—in this case, the girl Riley, not the representations of her emotions. That connection is always the core of what makes an effective film. Once you find that very human link, and allow the artifice to shift more into the background where it belongs, then this story begins to have its intended impact. In this viewer's case, the connection was more than just an abstraction. I, too, moved from a cold weather location to the San Francisco area, at right about the same age, and as a big hockey fan, no less; certain parallels really hit home for me. (Alas, I never was able to adjust. Then again, I never learned to skate, either.) It goes without saying that some story elements here—particularly the loss of early memories, and even parts of one’s earliest self--can be triggers for some deep ruminations about just how one's life has worked out (or not). While some aspects of this script may be too cloying or simplistic, there is just enough humor, wit and wisdom in these scenes to lift the overall rating into something positive, entertaining, and even touching in the end. We’re all big bundles of emotions, after all, so everyone can relate with this work, at least a little bit. I’ve got a feeling … that this one is worth a look.

Cars 3

I was hesitant going in to this viewing. After watching the first two in this series, I was ready to pump the brakes, if you will. Mostly, I pressed play to get the movie out of the way and off my to-be-watched list. And early returns—the first hour or so of the story—were not promising, offering only what seemed to be a litany of sports show cliches about the veteran player on the verge of being washed up. And then...something unexpected happened: a payoff came at the climax that was surprising and turned the story into something fresh and, dare I say it, downright noble. Part of the early hang-up comes from the movie’s focus, which is much more tightly fixed upon the milieu of stock car racing in this outing versus the previous installments. That’s not my territory, personally, so the start can be a bit boring here; it gets a little too deep into the weeds, as it were. Speaking of weeds, that is actually another of this film’s strengths: the visuals are beautifully rendered, right down to the blades of grass during Lightning’s backwoods training sequences. The world of the cars has never seemed more real than in the minute details that are shown here. And while the adversaries in this plot are not especially memorable, the characters on the protagonist side are exceptionally well played, including the memories of the late Paul Newman (who voiced Lightning's mentor Doc Hudson) and Chris Cooper filling a similar role as Smokey. It’s hardly perfect, but the ending feels so right that you can’t help but appreciate it. Not exactly an epic trip, but not a wrong turn, either.

Cars 2

Look, I get it: the Mater character is the most unique and identifiable persona from the first flick. But making him the focus of the sequel? Somebody in the Disney headquarters was really desperate to corner the yokel moviegoer market. As a result, we get this wildly uneven outing that drills home the grating nature of the Larry the Cable Guy-voiced character. Mater is a seriously one-note song, practically a drone of deep boondocks stereotyping. (An aside: not only do I personally find the character grating, I am eternally baffled by the character’s name. “Mater” as in Latin for “mother”? He’s clearly a male. Or “Tow Mater” as in a hillbilly pronunciation of “tomato,” ie. “tomater”? That barely rises to the level of “single-entendre.” Gah! The stupid, it burns!) Even if the viewer, in a spirit of generosity, obliges with a laugh or two at the rustbucket’s antics, that collection of slapstick and groaners is hardly an inexhaustible source of entertainment. The bit wears thin quickly, and thus it gets more difficult, as the story moves forward, to stay engaged with the film’s more complex plot (compared with its predecessor). Also not helping, the staggeringly predictable resolution of the story’s mystery (if it deserves such a label); nobody in the audience whose wardrobe didn’t come from Gymboree can fail to figure who is ultimately behind the scheme. On the other, more positive hand, the movie does do a solid job of parodying most spy movie cliches, including the very British agents and the generically continental henchman villain, complete with ostentatious monocle (on its windshield, no less). Another aspect for which the viewer can be grateful: the shift of venue from thinly-veiled NASCAR series to thinly-veiled Formula 1 circuit raises the class level of the racing scenes—a change that incidentally precipitates one of the movie’s real strengths: the CGI location scenery of Japan, France and the UK, including a gorgeous rendering of the French Riviera. The film looks like a couple-hundred million bucks, even if the driver’s seat, so to speak, is being occupied by a ten-cent character. I guess in the end you can achieve much success by relying upon the uncritical sensibilities of children (and their simpatico parents), but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to do better. This vehicle escapes a trip to the impound lot, but just barely. 

Cars

Pixar goes full redneck. One suspects this might have originally been titled “Cars Story” in keeping with its studio forebear, but that extra term in the name might have strained its target audience’s literacy level. For sure, I avoided this movie for a very long time, as I deduced from its upfront story elements—a thinly disguised NASCAR theme served up with a high degree of local yokel hi-jinx in a lot of the plot—that much about this work would not appeal to me from a baseline perspective. On top of that, viewing the film reveals another issue: a protagonist who is so relentlessly unappealing that it is hard to believe through most of the running time that the viewer will ever come about and actually root for him. Add to that some cookie cutter characters—including a few who would today probably fall under the baleful eyes of the identity crowd—and any number of predictable story elements, and it seems like this movie was just destined not to be my cup of tea, or motor oil as the case may be. No matter—the film found a gigantic audience anyway. And, I will admit, given all the above, it comes across as something of a miracle when, in the end, even the most disinterested viewer finds some redemption (and at least a bit of surprise) in the denouement. Add to that another welcome element—the movie gets the history of the impact of the interstate highways on small-town America 100% right—and there’s enough here for this film to earn a qualified recommendation. It’s no work of genius, to be sure, and in stretches it’s even a bit boring, but you don’t have to be ashamed of watching it, either. That’s about the the maximum praise this piece can get from this decidedly citified driver.

Lightyear

Far and away the best thing about this movie? The cat. And that’s not me saying that as a well-known lover of cats—the Sox character is the source of the most original and inventive thinking in this story, plus his interactions with Buzz form the most enjoyable relationship in the movie. Conversely, Buzz’s relations with most of the other characters range from bland at best to outright annoying at worst. (The incompetence angle, a defining trait with certain characters, is taken way too far—it's something that is not all that tolerable, particularly in today’s crapified world, where profound incompetence is a regular, maddening feature.) Other aspects: the visual experience is exactly the technical marvel you would expect from a Pixar film at this point. The voice performances are okay; nothing grating, and there’s little in the way of Familiar Voice Syndrome. (Chris Evans serves as Lightyear’s voice, and even he sounds somewhat unfamiliar here. He may have been trying, and failing, to imitate Tim Allen.) And, somewhat oddly for a Disney-Pixar joint, this movie is mercifully free of cloying musical numbers. So how does this rate overall? This is a fair to middling flick—not bad, definitely entertaining in large stretches, though not really close to what its franchise predecessors achieved. Somewhat appropriately, I guess, this is a light work of film entertainment, one that flies a bit but hardly reaches orbit. That’s where the studio stands these days.

Monsters University

I watched this flick with little enthusiasm at first--I have an established bias against these later Pixar movies, for various reasons--but gradually I warmed up to this one. The story hit every college movie cliche imaginable, but the movie eventually comes out on top despite its deficiencies, mostly because of plenty of good gags and jokes, and one fairly unexpected twist towards the end that redeems a lot of the triteness.

Brave

Why isn’t this movie considered racist? Is it only because the over-the-top character portrayals feature blue-eyed people? You may ponder that enigma at your leisure as you watch this one--and you probably should watch it, since this is an effective, well-done work of cinema, one of the better recent efforts to come out of the Pixar mold. While there is a bit of that usual Disney corn pone--the stuff that always threatens to ruin anything released under their banner--the rest of the film is an involving story of family tension, fairy tale fun, and just enough comedy to keep things light. Oh, and don’t you change, Merida--you’re exactly the girl you need to be.

Toy Story 3

Yes, it is a tear-jerker. But at least it comes by its emotional impact honestly, unlike some other Pixar efforts. This presumed denouement of the series charts some of the same territory as the last chapters of The House at Pooh Corner--a rumination on growing up and leaving childhood behind, and how the echoes of those younger days stay with us while also being passed down to another generation at the same time. The movie is nuanced, complex, well-thought out and well-written, and it's hard to imagine anyone not liking this movie, or at least not finding it effective and entertaining. The hardcore cynic inside may nag at you, but his voice is weak compared with this film's loud and clear statements.

Finding Nemo

Hate to say it, but this isn't as good as you think it is. The film is technically brilliant, of course; Pixar has that template down pat now. And the vocal performances are well done. But there are a lot of elements here which seem stale and recycled (the goofy sidekick, the motley collection of friends, even the Disney staple of the dead parent). If you've been paying attention, you have to feel like you're being suckered. If you're as uncritical as a child, then sure, go ahead. But adults might have a harder time swallowing these fish sticks.