2004 / 97 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Ben Heckendorn

(Wow, this is the first review I’ve written for Jones and Dale’s site since my “X-Men” review in 2000! Guess I’m behind the times)

I am going to cast the minority report on “The Incredibles” - in my opinion it’s one of the 2 least-good Pixar movies so far. The other, also in my opinion, being “Monsters, Inc”. They both failed my biggest litmus test for a movie - do I want to see it again? In both cases the answer is and was a NO.

Maybe it was too hyped on websites as being “the most awesome Pixar movie yet” or maybe I had too much faith in Brad Bird who directed and wrote the screenplay of “The Iron Giant” (1999) which I feel to be one of the best animated movies ever. In any case I felt this new movie failed on several levels and I’ll try to explain my reasoning as best I can.

First and most importantly the emotional core of the movie felt misplaced or perhaps too diluted. I used to wonder why every animated film had ONE parent and ONE child, now after seeing The Incredibles I know why. Your typical animated movie’s “dad and child” configuration provides the basic CORE of a family without all the excess fat. Example: In “Finding Nemo” all the eggs get eaten so all of Marlin’s (Dad Fish) emotions and cares get centered on one child. It’s still the same as caring for 3 kids, but a stripped-down version of it - you could call it a “microcosm” of a family. While in “The Incredibles” there’s 3 kids and 2 parents. Granted this movie is about “family” but with nearly 3 times the amount of family members of the usual animated movie it requires you to spread your emotional attachment to them 3 times thinner. I think this works with things like “The Simpsons” (another Brad Bird joint) but you also get 12 years to “bond” to those characters, rather than 2 hours. Go through your memory and see how many animated movies with both parents and more than 1 child you can name (besides this one) Maybe “An American Tail”?

My second rant is about the plot. The beginning of the movie is cool and so is the end fight (despite the lack of emotional payoff) but the middle is boring and has very little narrative flow. I think it’s because the plot just becomes too damn convoluted, especially for a kid’s movie (and despite what anyone says, an animated movie is a “kids” movie in the eyes of most of America and I predict major “squirm factor” for the young ones with this flick) Here it is: Mr Incredible pisses off some kid, who then grows up and becomes rich by building inventions with the intent of becoming a superhero himself and killing all the real superheroes. This is my first beef. In the beginning this kid is like 10, then “15 years later…” he is a multi-millionaire with his own island, an army of killer robots and guards. At age 25??? Bill Gates probably still ate Ramen noodles at age 25! Even in a “fantasy” movie this is horseshit. Anyway, yeah, this kid hires superheroes to fight a “robot” where he’s really A) trying to kill off the heroes and B) testing the robots so he can build one no superhero can defeat. Once the robot “allegedly” beats Mr. Incredible (with most of the other superheroes already dead) he feels confident to launch it at a city where it will run amok until he shows up as “Syndrome” and pretends to beat the robot by using a remote control. Then he’ll sell all his inventions to the world so everyone can be a superhero.

That was a long-ass paragraph. Now, here’s the plot of the biggest hit Pixar movie thus far: Find Nemo. See the difference? I sure do, and I bet when “The Incredibles” comes in at well under “Finding Nemo’s” take the difference will be pretty obvious to Pixar as well. They’re trying to make a more adult film but let’s face it - there movies did well enough (and probably better) when they were aimed at both kids and adults.

The villain (whom I didn’t really like a all, since he was basically there as “Geek Bait” to thrill the Kevin Smith crowd) has this annoying power. He can point his finger at a superhero and “trap” them in a force field at will. This was lame because no matter how much butt the hero family was kicking the guy could come in and stop them instantly. This is basically a plot device to allow said villain to explain the plot without getting punched in the face before he finishes.

One final thing: the music. While it had a neat “60’s vibe” at times I didn’t feel that lent anything to the movie itself. It mostly felt under whelming. I was expecting something more “heroic” from the composer who did the music to the videogames Medal of Honor and Call of Duty. It is my belief that if one specific piece of music (or theme) doesn’t stick out in a movie (especially a hero movie) than the film has failed in that department.

Pixar is about to go on the “Disney slide” Remember in the early 90’s, when every Disney film made more $ than the last and it seemed nothing could stop them? It apexed with “The Lion King” but then went downhill. There’s similarities here with Pixar… Disney started making their films centered around people rather than critters and used more mature themes. Filmed like “Pocahontas”, “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” (which I think it awesome, but I digress) each making less and less than the one before. CG movies, with their kid and marketing-friendly “objects” (such as toys, bugs and monsters) took over and now Disney 2D is, sadly, all but dead.

But I could be wrong. The preview for Pixar’s next film “Cars” looks aimed directly at the 3 year old Thomas the Tank Engine crowd and nobody else. Maybe they haven’t forgotten kids quite yet.

I know I’m not keeping on track very well but here’s another “key” (I believe) to animation: An animated movie should NEED to be animated. Living toys - yes, animated. Bugs - animated. Monsters - animated. Fish - yes, animated. People? We have a technology to do that, it’s called a MOVIE CAMERA. Even CGI movies with some people in the past have been about a 50/50 split with critters (”Ice Age”, “Shrek”) but when it’s all people it just loses some of the need.

In conclusion, Pixar has made their first movie aimed at geeks and movie critics moreso than their usual mainstream audience. Will it work out for them? Or should they stick to bugs? Only time will tell. As for me, I’m going to go watch the “The Iron Giant” again.

This entry was posted on Friday, November 5th, 2004 at 9:15 pm and is filed under Ben's Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.