Today's Review: Inside Out

Look at little me turning Pixar's Inside Out inside out! Or as much as you can in a general review of under a thousands words in length.

Inside Out - recensie

This may be a turning point for Pixar. The naysayers who wrote off the studio ever since Disney took over often seemed right in their sweeping generalizations that Pixar's truly creative days of imaginary wonder where done. Sequels, that's what was in store for the audience ad nauseam. It worked well on Toy Story 3, few will deny. Not so much on Cars 2 though, or even Monsters University. So a new original project was definitely desperately needed to show Pixar has lost none of its dreaming potency, and this is it. Inside Out is as emotional and beautiful, not to mention innovative and soulful an animated movie as they come, and especially as they used to come in this company's own case.

It's not as perfect as the likes of Wall-E or Toy Story 3, I'll have you know, since it has some little flaws. Like Monsters, Inc. and Up, that makes it a classic Peter Docter movie. Those films, too, featured the occasional emotional highs that went coupled with some whimsical additions that had a bit of a trouble fitting in the whole. It was especially vexing in the case of Up, where the movie just never got as powerful as it proved to be in its first act. Inside Out equally knows a few moments where the magic diminishes, most notably when it concerns the elaborate logistics of the brain (though personally I found the forgotten imaginary friend rather an obnoxious sort as well, though I appreciated the notion). Docter has learned something from Up's experience though, saving the emotional climax for the end of the film. And it packs quite a punch, as Docter delivers his message that it's okay to be sad. Quite a rebellious act, since the movie still flies the banner of the Mouse House which usually tells us the exact opposite. While still an undeniably happy end, it's unlikely anybody will restrain their tears. As Docter says they shouldn't.

So is this a definite comeback for Pixar? The list of upcoming projects still consists mostly of sequels, with the only original tale for the foreseeable future presented by The Good Dinosaur. I'm more than a bit skeptical about that one, judging from the first teaser and its overly retro dinosaurs parading through near photo-real landscapes. I doubt an Inside Out 2 is out of the question, considering the film is doing fine at the boxoffice. Still, I like to think the naysayers remain in the wrong, and there's still a few tears of joy to be spilled over Pixar's films in the next few years.

And otherwise we'll still have the shorts preceding the main events. Hopefully they'll be as delightful as Inside Out's Lava, which also gets those eyes wet and thus perfectly warms us up for the main course to follow.

Today's News: catching up with lots of trailers

Not done just yet with the news of last week. Let's get that out of the way fast, since this week's news begs attention as well.

Titel eerste Star Wars solofilm bekend

I suppose this was last week's bit of 'breaking news' (insert exclamation mark or two). Even though the Star Wars spin-off films aren't nearly as hugely anticipated as the upcoming Episodes proper, they're still Star Wars movies. The title of the first solo feature, as directed by Monsters Man Gareth Edwards, is now revealed to be Rogue One. Still no plot synopsis, but if the name is any indication, it will undoubtedly involve the famous Rogue Squadron pilots, of which Luke Skywalker was once a member in the Rebel Alliance, before his status as a Jedi Knight took precedence. Rogue One is generally the call sign of the X-Wing Squadron's leader, so could it be about that? With Felicity Jones as the protagonist, will she play a tough female fighter pilot kicking some Imperial ass all over that galaxy far, far away? Sounds a bit like Starbuck on Battlestar Galactica, but hey, that show took a hint or two from Star Wars itself. Maybe the title is simply a huge misdirect and the movie will actually be about something entirely different. Could be, considering the persistence of those bounty hunter plot rumours. But maybe they keep on popping up because people want a bounty hunter movie, as nearly everyone had hoped this first solo feature to be a Boba Fett flick. Doesn't mean that project is off the table if Rogue One is really about Rogue's pilots, since this certainly won't be the last Star Wars spin-off. From the talented Edwards, I'll take any Force filled Fighter fest I can get, rather than facing the inevitable letdown that's gonna be Abrams' Episode VII...

Nieuwe trailer San Andreas

Speaking of letdowns and things resembling other things, this trailer just screams 2012. The plot looks very much like that of Earthquake, except with one main character rather than multiple. I just can't understand why this hugely expensive project was greenlit so soon after 2012's release. Do studio execs really think Dwayne Johnson's presence and lots of visual effects are enough to entice audiences to go see it in theaters? Though I like rampant destruction as much as the next man, to my mind there simply seems little appeal to this film. The devastation scenes are gonna be fun at best, but never original or inspired, while the rest of it just seems utterly dull. Maybe someone in Hollywood knows something the general audience doesn't at this point, and the long expected big bang is finally imminent on the American West-Coast. A big earthquake with lots of property damage and huge numbers of fatalities won't be fun, but would make the film a hot current event at least. But other than that, I can only see this movie being shattered and crushed by the success of others at the box office.

Nieuwe trailer Inside Out

In terms of originality and box office success, I have more hope for this film, Pixar's latest. First of all, it has the Pixar name going for it. It may have taken a dent or two lately because of the lack of inspired projects, but it's still strong enough to stand out amidst a crowd of animation competitors. Second of all, the plot seems much more thoughtful than in the case of most animated features of late, and finally hails another Pixar original rather than a dreaded sequel or spin-off. Lastly, considering the success of characters like the Smurfs and the Minions, clearly colour coded little entities with distinctly different personalities are sure to appeal to kids everywhere en masse, so positive box office results are more or less guaranteed. The only thing in that regard I would have done differently is push the release date back a few more weeks, to stay clear more of the Minions movie and avoid animation competition, but otherwise Inside Out will do just fine. Will it be on the same creative level as the Pixar greats of the previous decade? I dare not speculate. It sure has a unique premise it seems, but whether it will connect to audiences without degenerating into a mindfuck? Probably, but certainly not a given as of yet.

Eerste trailer Hotel Transylvania 2

And here's a less original animated feature for you. An unavoidable sequel from a lesser studio, it's hard to deny. Doesn't mean it will be bad, per se. After all, everybody loves monsters, animated or otherwise. The success of the first film clearly established that, otherwise this sequel would not exist. So far, Hotel Transylvania seems to stick to relatable events, family squabbles and such. No creatures secretly controlling our minds, evil characters hellbent on taking over the world, or other grandiose plot points in this franchise. The plethora of strange and spooky creatures ensures the visual impact needed, while the plot keeps it much more down to Earth. Dracula's daughter has married an outsider (an everyday human) and spawned a halfbreed kid, and now his family, including his overly oldfashioned and conservative father, must learn to cope with current events. Hardly an unrecognizable problem. Just with unusual characters, vampires and werewolves and stuff. I like that notion of turning things upside down. Hopefully Hotel Transylvania 2 will acknowledge the potential of this emotional plot and not let the monstrous take priority over the human aspect.

Meer character posters Avengers: Age of Ultron

Speaking of inhuman characters, here's two of them. Mutants really, though that term is taboo in Marvel Studios's canon. Obviously the new Avengers were the last ones to get their own character posters, since the studio considers the popular returning characters the big audience draw, while these two still have to prove themselves. Quicksilver already turned out a great character in X-Men: Days of Future Past, but that of course wasn't 'Marvel's' Quicksilver. It's gonna be a challenge starting from scratch with the same powers and adding a distinct separate personality on the same creatively enjoyable level. Hopefully the sibling relationship with Scarlet Witch is utilized to maximum effect to make this Quicksilver a decidedly different and original take on the same character. Considering the simultaneous release of these character posters, it seems to be what Marvel is aiming for. After all, they could have mixed things up and paired either one of these with the posters for other newbies like Ultron or Vision (the latter still unaccounted for), but they didn't. Of course, the big question then is, will Olsen and Taylor-Johnson show the necessary chemistry between them to make us like these siblings? I saw the new Godzilla again this week, in which these actors played husband and wife. Can't say they did a particularly compelling job in that role. Hopefully brother and sister suits them better...

Today's Double News: ascending inside out

Time is often against me, and so it proved this second half of the week. This is all the news I could muster:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158313/nieuwe_trailer_inside_out

This is getting somewhere, conceptually. Though there's still a lot of questions to be answered. I had a tough time visualizing how this whole interplay between the voices and the characters they control would work. I guess I got my answer. It does seem a somewhat static concept though. Are these voices really gonna stay confined to being simple talking heads in a conference room playing off each other as they suggest the actions of their subject? That has a tendency to get boring. I assume it's gonna be more visually interesting that that, somehow. I like the little details, like each set of voices taking on the characteristics (moustache, glasses, hairstyle and the like) of their host. I do believe limiting the voices to a set of five does sell the human psyche a bit short, but at least it makes for coherent storytelling, not plagued by an abundance of different emotional characters. Would have made more sense if some other emotions popped up in the minds of other characters, as everybody has some more strongly developed emotions defining their personality. Maybe that will still be the case, but we just don't see it from this trailer (which is basically more a clip of the film than an actual trailer, it must be noted). For now, the concept still isn't worked out as much to get me really excited about this film, but at least it proves intriguing and - as far as I'm aware - inspired.These days, that's as much as you could hope for in a Pixar movie.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158314/nieuwe_posters_jupiter_ascending

Yay, character posters! No big budget Hollywood flick's promotional campaign would be complete without them. Typical set-up of archetypal characters here. You've got your lead, a female for a change; her love-interest; the villain; and the wiser, older gentleman whose services will mostly consist of providing expositionary dialogue, to help both the protagonist and the audience get acquainted with this new world. Interesting to see Sean Bean is by now considered old and wise enough to play the part of the latter. But hey, any excuse to get him (and an excruciating death scene on his part) in your film is well worth the effort. I still wish the leading couple would have seen different casting, as the acting of neither Kunis nor Tatum appeals to me. But hey, it's not about their acting (or about me, sadly), it's about their popularity with the audience, and both stars are undeniably hot at the moment in that regard. I won't deny that despite the dull leads, this movie has very much peaked my interest. Even though in many ways it seems like it's copying Dune a bit too much, the notion of humanity being just a resource of vastly superior extraterrestrial life to exploit at will is a nice change of pace. Though no doubt the plot will devolve into the typical 'chosen one' routine of old. The set-up may prove fascinating (and the visual effects, too, naturally), the execution likely less so. Oh well, we didn't expect the ingenuity of the original Matrix come again from the Wachowskis, now did we?

Today's News: still behind schedule

It's gonna take me a while longer to get back on track in regard to commenting on the bits of news I posted. As usual, time is against me:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157503/nieuwe_character_posters_hobbit_3

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157522/meer_characters_posters_hobbit_3

Wow, those are some bland posters. Just the faces of some of the protagonists, that's all we have to work with. Rather disappointing, as this is the last Hobbit movie, if not the final Middle-Earth movie (ever?), so you would think they'd go out with as much of a bang as the movie itself (though I may be assuming a little too much here, I doubt this trilogy will end on a boring note). We already know what the characters look like, so we would have liked to have seen a bit more of the environment they inhabit. A grand and elaborate banner (think the Bayeux Tapestry, but its Tolkien equivalent) was released last month that did a far better job of promoting the movie, capturing our imagination and firing our desire to see this film than this dull posters would ever do. The advertising art for both predecessors too looked much more appealing by comparison. Guess the promotional execs think it's all a matter of the little things. Assumptions from the characters' facial expressions are all we are left with, which is a pointless guessing game for those who have read the book. Why does Gandalf look so disheveled? What's up with Galadriel's determined gaze? And is Bilbo finally going to go berserk with that little sword of his? We'll have to watch the movie to find out. But then, we were planning to do so anyway, and these posters at the very least won't discourage us from doing so.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157443/eerste_teaser_pixars_inside_out

Finally, a new Pixar movie that's not a sequel! I'm not entirely sold on the concept though. It's intriguing, but hardly novel. However, Pixar usually tends to make such outlandish premises work just fine, and I'm hoping post-Brave Pixar won't do any different. You won't get any clear indication of the story just from watching this teaser, which only hints at the overall story (not that much info on that has been released so far, anyway). Not to mention it does a solid but sentimental job referencing all the Pixar greats - and some less great, too - we remember oh so fondly. This teaser is playing mostly on the past emotions of pleasure we experienced watching all the company's classics, as well as stimulating a strong emotion not characterized in the film: curiosity. But there's also plenty of room left for doubt, make no mistake. Which begs the issue, how come there's only five emotions in the girl's head? What happened to the rest of them? A philosophical debate about the nature of emotions and the way they rule our mind seems to be in short order. Though it's likely Pixar still has some surprises left on Inside Out's plot and the questions this teaser throws in our path about the logic of it all.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157465/logo_daredevil_serie_onthuld

Well, at least they got the logo right. That's straight off the comic books' covers, that is. Though the usual subtitle 'The Man Without Fear' is absent, but this works equally well. A return to the comics' greatness (on-again/off-again, honestly) is sure in order after the Ben Affleck version, which showed little of that. Currently, New York Comic-Con is in full swing and so far the Daredevil panel was by far the most fascinating occurrence. The concept art looked pretty neat, the first released pictures gave some pretty sweet glimpses, except maybe for the titular character's costume. Though I have a sense it's not the final piece, but more like Daredevil's initial stab at a costume (á la Spider-Man's ludicrous wrestling attire in Sam Raimi's first movie). It would be a bit of a downer if this series' superhero ran around with a black handkerchief for a mask for the whole show. I guess Marvel has to find ways to cut the budget somewhere...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157499/toch_een_iron_man_4

And one reason the studio has to do just that involves the exorbitant pay cheques demanded by its star performers these days. Robert Downey Jr. is by far the most expensive of the lot of them, as his salary for Iron Man 3 amounted to no less than 50 million (!) dollars, reportedly. So small wonder Marvel is looking for way to dodge such excessive costs on future projects. One way to get rid of Downey Jr. would be to quit making Iron Man films. The man is still contractually obliged to assume the character's mantle for two more Avengers flicks, but they could end it there by using those films to find a narrative way to replace him with another character to fill his iron shoes. It's not like that sort of thing isn't constantly happening in the source material. Remember Thor is currently a female in the comics? Which would only entice audiences more strongly to find out what the heck is going on. Of course, that would mean spectators will have to get used to an Iron Man without Tony Stark (no way they are gonna recast that character, considering how beloved Downey Jr.'s take on him is). I have no qualms with that. The Marvel Universe is so much larger than just one popular guy, and the movies have still barely scratched the surface. I'm all for a new Iron Character if it saves Marvel from bankruptcy so they can keep on making highly enjoyable superhero movies. I doubt we're going to see an Iron Man 4 with Robert Downey Jr. in the starring role again (and he himself apparently doubts it very much as well, considering his conflicted reponses to the 50 million dollar question), and if that be the case, I don't mind. There's various ways to deal with that in compelling storytelling (in fact, the matter has already been explored in both Iron Man 2 and 3), and I have confidence that the House of Ideas will pull it off once more. Iron Woman sounds like a wonderful notion, so bring it on!

Today's News: dumb dinosaurs and jungle automata

 http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156944/pixars_good_dinosaur_opnieuw_aangepast

I have a bad feeling about this one. And not just because there's talking dinosaurs present, though that's never a good sign (eh, WWD3D?). The Good Dinosaur has been reported to feature its fair share of production difficulties, and now it appears the whole thing needed to be started largely from scratch, even though the majority of the voice acting had already been recorded. Of course, major restructuring of Pixar films is part of their routine by now. Toy Story, too, had to be started all over again, and few will argue that final result didn't work out as well as the first concept would have done. Then again, the last Pixar movie to experience severe production diffulcties was Brave, and that finished film wasn't among Pixar's best efforts. It really can go both ways. Of course Lithgow says it's gonna be even better than before, but that's not a very reliable statement; he's not likely to say the opposite before the movie has hit theaters. Actors and other assorted crewmen always come clean about disappointing work after the audience has had to experience their failures for themselves. Replacing the original director, who did the wonderful Up, by someone who thus far has only directed a single Pixar short by comparison, doesn't bode well. But then, there's talking dinosaurs in here, so for me the project was going awry from the get-go.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156960/blanchett_en_bale_in_jungle_book_origins

The Jungle Book war is on! You'd think Disney's The Jungle Book would have an edge, with a grand cast including the likes of Scarlett Johansson, Ben Kingsley and Bill Murray, but Warner's Jungle Book: Origins, too, has assembled a stellar cast to stay in the competition. Cate Blanchett, Christian Bale, Benedict Cumberbatch?! Suck on that, Disney! Considering both movies deal with the same subject matter in a very similar way, combining live-action with digital animals, and now both include a top-notch cast of seasoned and popular voice actors, the question is which of the pair has the edge. I think I'll have to say it's Warner's Origins, based on their choice of director. Andy Serkis just has much more experience with both animals and motion capture, and that's key. He understands the technology, plus he understands the biology. Jon Favreau, who directs Disney's take on the story, doesn't have the amount of experience with the natural world Serkis does. Also, Serkis has a whole extra year getting things right and working out the technical aspects. Not to mention he gets to see the competitor beat him to theaters so he can witness its pitfalls and carefully avoid them to make for a superior film. Time is not on Favreau's side. However, he has the directing experience, as this is Serkis' true feature film directing debut (not counting his job as Second Unit Director on the Hobbit movies). I guess both movies are relatively even matched. It sure as heck won't be a matter of casting in both cases.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156923/eerste_posters_dumb_and_dumber_to

Oh wow, a mindless Hollywood comedy making fun of another film in its promotional campaign. Like that's never been done. I gotta say, this choice of poster post-modernism is a no-brainer (pun, duh!). And considering the general reception of Lucy (despite its financial success) by both critics and audience - both parties agreed it made little sense and was utterly devoid of logic - I think the similarities won't end there. But maybe that's just because I care naught for Dumb and Dumber To and don't have any particularly positive hopes for this one. I didn't see the original, which by now is twenty fucking years old, so I won't bother with this excessively late and therefore unwarranted sequel. At least it's safe to say only the marketing campaign will rip off other Hollywood films, unlike most brainless Hollywood comedies whose sole plot seems to be based around that single notion.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156959/eerste_trailer_automata

I think it's safe to say everybody's first reaction to this trailer will be 'I, Robot much?' Both from a plot perspective and from a design point of view the similarities between both pictures are remarkable. Even though Asimov's 'Three Laws of Robotics' are standard fare in many Sci-Fi works in film and literature these days, this movie seems to take more than a few pages from Asimov. The trailer also hints there's many a character trait Will Smith's and Antonio Banderas' characters from both movies share. Can't say Banderas looks much like an insurance fraud investigator, though in the future, who knows what changes to their image they made? Still, I'm intrigued. It's a Spanish/American co-production starring an international cast and helmed by a relatively rookie Spanish director, so it's bound to be something other than your average Hollywood action flick, which is basically what I, Robot was, though it was a good one at that. The trailer suggests these robots are evolving more or less on their own accord rather than because of outside interference in their programming, which is also an appealing notion bound to raise some juicy existential questions if adequately explored. Other than that I remain on the fence for this one. You just can't judge a film like this based on a single trailer, they're too deceiving. I won't be programmed by a trailer to believe a movie is something when there's a good chance the final product will prove to turn out to be something else entirely.

Today's Review: Monsters University

Here's my latest review for MovieScene, of a certain recent Pixar movie no less:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/148393/monsters_university_-_recensie

The review basically says it all. If you're too lazy to go through 900 words, here's as good a summary as I can ever give you: Monsters University is a fun Pixar movie, but it's not a particularly good Pixar movie. Though the movie looks great and is filled with all kinds of likeable little details as well as good jokes for both adults and kids, the story leaves much to be desired, as it's filled with every kind of college cliché imaginable, simultaneously being all too predictable. It's not a sheer work of genius as Pixar used to deliver (the predecessor Monsters, Inc. among those), but it's just a damn entertaining piece of work regardless. I guess that's all we can hope for from Pixar from now on, now that Disney's dominion and its tight creative grip is choking the originality out of the animation studio, thus having ended its golden age. But hey, we'll always have Monsters, Inc.! And The Incredibles, and Finding Nemo. Plus Ratatouille. And let's not forget the Toy Story trilogy. Or Up, or Wall-E. There's a lasting legacy for ya. Too bad about all the upcoming sequels to those...

Today's News: Finding Nemo 2 is happening for realsies

Look what the cat dragged in on MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/145938/finding_nemo_2_wordt_finding_dory

So Finding Nemo 2 at last has gotten a definite go. Too bad...

Don't get me wrong, I love Finding Nemo. In fact, I love it so much that I don't need a sequel to remind me why I love it so much ten years later. Fact is, Finding Dory is just another sad case of Pixar suffering from that most dreaded disease known as sequelitis grandis, a severe creative condition that causes a studio to regurgitate its own age old "excrements" and produce much less healthy appearing shit. For the longest time, Pixar seemed not to be swayed by this illness, unlike its competitors DreamWorks and Blue Sky, which produced more sequels than they did original projects. For a while, Pixar was the absolute pinnacle of originality and inspiredness in the department of computer animation, its only exception being Toy Story 2 and 3, which turned out surprisingly good against all odds. But now, the studio is drowning itself in recycling past glory. Like Ellen DeGeneres said regarding the prospect of doing more voice work for Dory: 'I’m not mad it took this long. I know the people at Pixar were busy creating ‘Toy Story 16’. One cannot help but sense an awkward bit of sarcasm in this quote, one that applies as much to Finding Nemo as it does to the Toy Story franchise. DeGeneres of course has little reason to complain since she can do what she likes again and gets payed for it. But what about the audience? Cars 2, Monsters University, Planes, Toy Story 4 and now Finding Nemo 2, where will it end? Is there no more place for unique stories any more at Pixar?
Then again, with Brave, Pixar's last original piece of work, it was already evident a quality decline had set in. All good things must come to an end, it's a natural law. It seems Pixar has stopped producing good things. Then again, maybe there's a few more miracles a la Toy Story 2 and 3 in the works...

Pixar finally fully Disneyfied

Brave: ***/*****, or 6/10

It was a given Pixar's long running winning streak of top movies had to come to an end sooner or later, and judging from the quality of the latest addition to the Pixar oeuvre, Brave, that time has now finally come. After two years of releasing sequels only – one very good (Toy Story 3 (2010)), the other not so much (Cars 2 (2011)) – and with the studio focusing on similar milking dry of past glory (for example, next year's Monsters University and the already announced Toy Story 4 and even Finding Nemo 2...), Brave was supposed to have been the last apparent vestige of Pixar's once supreme creative ingenuity, but unfortunately the final product feels lacking in almost every respect and thus only endorses the fact Pixar's days of making original animation of the highest quality, unsurpassed by its various competitors in the industry (Blue Sky and Dreamworks Animation its closest rivals, this year entering the field with Ice Age 4 and Madagascar 3 respectively), are now truly behind them. It was feared this would happen ever since Disney officially took over the fledgling studio back in 2006, but several fabulous Pixar projects already in the making (including Ratatouille (2007) and Wall·E (2008) held off this imminent quality deterioration for a few years. Whatever deals Pixar and Disney have officially stated to have made concerning Pixar's creative control, judging from Brave and the upcoming slate of sequel abundance, Disney has finally managed to get Pixar in line with its own creative agenda. Unfortunately, the audience turns out to be the biggest loser in the process.

Like so many of Disney's classic (and less classic) animated films, Brave revolves around a young princess and her struggle to fulfill her dreams and life ambitions despite the wishes of her parents/guardians who would instead see her become someone she never wanted to be. The princess in question is named Merida (voiced by Kelly Macdonald) and is the eldest child and only daughter of the Scottish monarchs King Fergus (performed with audible joy by Billy Connolly) and Queen Elinor (played by Emma Thompson), ruling over several clans in the ancient Scottish highlands in an unspecified period in history, or put otherwise, in the typical magic kingdom Disney does best, though this kind of fantasy setting is new to Pixar. While Elinor is a genuinely regal lady of royal blood, the boorish loudmouth Fergus obsessed with bear hunting – especially the huge demon bear Mor'Du that once took his leg – seems her exact opposite, though the pair of them is deeply in love regardless: Merida has inherited the best of both worlds, and has grown into a beautiful and intelligent but adventurous and overly independent young woman who does not take kindly to being told what to do and much prefers typical male occupations like hunting, hiking and horse riding over the feminine arts like poetry and embroidery her mother would prefer to see her spend her time with. In fact, the strict and stern Elinor tries hard to shape her daughter into the perfect princess, at all times directing her attention to the social graces of the Scottish nobility, but much to her chagrin (and to Fergus' enjoyment, as well as our own) Merida's tomboyish nature always wins out. Merida herself has little qualms over being told what to do by her dominant mother, until the day she learns the clan leaders are visiting the royal castle to have their firstborn sons compete for the princess' hand in marriage.

Unlike the Disney princesses of old, who usually couldn't wait to marry any number of interchangeable charming princes, Merida does not take kindly to be auctioned off and means to take her destiny into her own hands. One could argue the whole notion of a princess fighting her imminent wedlock instead of willfully embracing it could be taken as a narrative role-reversal in an attempt by Pixar to pay homage to the age-old Disney tradition. However, the solution to Merida's marital issues ultimately fail to feel like any sort of intertextual nod: in fact, it feels more like the marriage of the formerly free spirited Pixar and the proudly traditional Disney has reigned in the creative temperament of the former to keep it more in line with the boringly conservative ideological policy of the latter. Whereas Merida might win the freedom to choose her own partner, Pixar apparently is only allowed to produce fully Disneyesque movies, at least for the foreseeable future.

In the case of Brave, the combination of princess and marriage is hardly the only element present in the plot to remind us of past Disney films. The film goes so far as to incorporate a number of songs, much like the ones that used to dominate the soundtrack of many a Disney classic (think Pocahontas (1995), Beauty and the Beast (1991) and The Little Mermaid (1989)), except you shouldn't expect to see these songs win any Academy Awards anytime soon, considering their rather poor and forgetful quality (which fortunately does mean they won't get stuck in your head for many days to come as they used to do). The lyrics literally enter one ear only to immediately exit the other, but they go a little like 'I'm a Scottish lass, hair all red – Firing arrows makes me glad – But now my mom wants me to wed – I wannae, so now I'm sad – Oooh, I wish my mom were dead'; the usual Disney stuff really, except far from catchy, all for the best.

Warning! Spoilers! Of course, a headstrong teenage girl like Merida doesn't mean to get suckered into holy matrimony so easily and tries to get out of it by proving her superiority in archery over her prospected suitors. Despite her remarkable skills at shooting arrows this attempt fails because she breaks clan rules by competing in this wholly male tournament, much to the dismay of the clan leaders. When she gets into a huge argument with her outraged mother over her conduct unbecoming a princess of the realm, she simply makes a run for it and flees into the forest, where she encounters a strange elderly woman masquerading as a wood carver, but of course an obvious witch, though not as stereotypically evil or sinister as Disney witches once tended to be, opting instead for the routine of the bumbling old lady impaired by memory loss. Merida agrees to buy all her carvings if the aged sorceress supplies her with a single spell to change her mother's mind, but like all princesses making deals with magic hags, she doesn't quite get what she hoped for, as she sees her mother transformed into a bear. This unfortunate metamorphosis is made even more unfortunate by reminding us of the much maligned Disney feature Brother Bear (2003), a movie not deserving the title of 'Disney Classic' at all, and Brave does an equally adequate job at making us wish we had forgotten all about that film by also making the plot of a human transforming into a bear feel wholesomely underwhelming.

Since Fergus has little love for bears, especially in his own castle, Merida must smuggle her now furry mother out to the safety of the woods in a scene devoid of suspense and filled with silly gags instead. Afterwards, Merida sets out to reverse the spell with her mother, a human in the body of a bear, in tow, learning that if she does not break the curse within two days her mother will become a real bear permanently. In a few all too brief scenes Elinor demonstrates a loss of her human faculties in favor of bear instincts, threatening Merida's plight to save her (and in fact, her very life), but for most of this mother-daughter bonding experience, director Mark Andrews opts for levity instead, making the bear feel less like Merida's queen mum and more like a hairy sidekick the likes of Chewbacca (except less funny). Most of their time in the forest is spent showing Merida's ability to survive in the wild as opposed to her stiff mother's total inexperience with outdoor activities, bear instincts not withstanding, which leads to various scenes intended as comedy, but feeling too forced to be truly comically successful. In the long run, a cure against the bear spell is the objective and when Merida finds a method she must smuggle her mother back into the castle, keeping her out of her father's spear, while she herself must take care not to fall prey to Mor'Du, who also turns out to be royalty cursed to be a bear for all eternity (seems like it was the witch's answer to any problem). Eventually she succeeds in the nick of time and all's well that ends well: Elinor is human again and Merida is no longer forced to marry, all because of – or in spite of? – Merida's bravery to rebel against traditions but her willingness to accept responsibility when things go awry. Plot wise, it's clear Pixar didn't turn out very brave.

In fact, Brave is most fun when its characters don't act particularly brave at all. Merida's rebellious shenanigans in the first half of the film are far more enjoyable than her tiresome and predictable efforts to set things right in the second half. King Fergus steals the show not by being brave (though he's certainly shown to be capable of heroism when protecting his clan from the terrifying Mor'Du on several occasions), but by being a somewhat childish ruler apt at telling compelling tall tales, drinking and fighting his fellow clan leaders in an overall devil-may-care attitude that makes it clear where Merida gets it from. Similarly, the rulers of clans Macintosh (only one of many little Steve Jobs tributes in this film), MacGuffin (cute Hitchcock reference there) and Dingwall are most convincing and most appreciable when they're shown engaging in petty bickering and arguing as they're overly proudly introducing they're equally not so brave sons to Fergus' court. It's the first half of the movie, when the various zany Scotsmen and their families are introduced and compete over Merida's affections, where Brave witnesses its strongest moments. As soon as the movie enters a more serious tone, at least as much as it can with a bear acting like a human being, spectator's interest in the overall plot starts to wane. Still, there's something to enjoy for everybody in Brave. However, it's just much less than we're used to from a supposedly original Pixar product. For adults, especially those that have seen their fair share of both Disney and Pixar films, it's certainly not the worn out story. They'll have to make due with several good jokes in the first 45 minutes, and the excellent visual look throughout (after all, the technological prowess of computer animation continues to deliver staggering results, and at least Brave makes ample uses of these). Such impressive visuals are however hindered by unnecessary 3-D effects, which add little moments of true depth but make a rather dark film look even more colourless.

In conclusion, Brave is the definite proof for the growing numbers of naysayers who predicted the end of the Age of Pixar at the hands of insidious Disneyfication from within years ago. There's simply nothing brave about mindlessly copying Disney's style, which by itself hasn't yielded a truly good film since the late nineties. For the moment, with the plethora of sequels in store for us, a further loss of quality seems inevitable for Pixar. Hopefully they'll pull yet another miraculous Toy Story 3 out of their hat, but this seems wishful thinking. In the meantime, until another non-sequel is produced, Brave will be lamented as Pixar's last original film, one that simply didn't prove to contain much originality. In the current Disney/Pixar mindset, Brave 2 seems a more likely thing to happen...

And watch the trailer here:

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/disney/brave/

Toy Story 3

Rating: *****/*****, or 10/10

Opnieuw geen ontsnapping aan Pixars hoge kwaliteit

Tot dusverre heerste in Hollywood de situatie dat een filmtrilogie begint met het beste deel uit de reeks, waarna de ideeën en daardoor ook de kwaliteit geleidelijk afneemt en het derde deel het niet haalt bij het niveau van de voorgangers. Het aantal uitzonderingen op deze regel was praktisch nihil, tot nu toe. Pixar, keer op keer geroemd en gelauwerd vanwege het uitzonderlijke vakmanschap in haar animatiefilms die zowel jong en oud hartelijk bekoren, breekt definitief met deze ongeschreven regel en levert een derde Toy Story af die zich niet alleen zonder moeite kan meten met beide voorgangers, maar hen beide zelfs ruimschoots overtreft. Bovendien blijft Pixar zodoende haar 'winning streak', die nu al sinds 2003 (het jaar van Finding Nemo) voortduurt, behouden. De hoeveelheid gewonnen (en terecht verdiende) Oscars stapelt zich op, en het lijkt zeer aannemelijk dat Toy Story 3 daar geen verandering in zal brengen.

John Lasseter, de regisseur van beide voorgaande delen, heeft de regiestoel dit keer overgedragen aan Lee Unkrich, die optrad als co-regisseur van Monsters Inc. en Finding Nemo, maar dit keer alleen de touwtjes in handen heeft. Met Toy Story 3 als zijn solo-debuut toont Unkrich aan de kunst van de meester goed afgekeken te hebben en een geslaagd leerling te zijn. Meer nog dan in de voorgaande delen is de balans tussen humor en ontroering op elk front geslaagd.

Woody, Buzz en ons andere favoriete speelgoed hebben het er niet makkelijker op gekregen sinds Toy Story 2. De jaren zijn voorbij gegaan, hun baasje Andy is opgegroeid en staat op het punt naar de universiteit te gaan. Een onzeker lot wacht het speelgoed: zal Andy aan hen denken en mogen ze met hem mee, worden ze op zolder opgeslagen, of wacht hen – o, gruwel! – de afvalbak? Door een samenloop van omstandigheden, waaronder een zeer nabije ontmoeting met een vuilniswagen, belandt het groepje op kinderdagverblijf Sunnyside, waar ze met open armen ontvangen worden door het daar al aanwezige speelgoed en hun leider, de roze knuffel Lots-o'-huggin'-Bear en diens aalgladde handlanger Ken, Barbie's mannelijke tegenhanger, die het in een zeer komische scène meteen aanlegt met de Barbiepop van Andy's zusje. Lotso en Ken presenteren het verblijf als een waar paradijs waar het oude speelgoed alles krijgt wat het nodig heeft, inclusief permanente aandacht van enthousiaste koters. Woody vertrouwt het niet en bedankt voor de eer, waarop hij plichtsgetrouw probeert naar zijn baasje terug te gaan, want Andy is en blijft de rechtmatige eigenaar. Uiteraard weigeren zijn vrienden zijn voorbeeld te volgen, jaloers door het feit dat Andy alleen Woody mee naar de universiteit genomen zou hebben en Andy's moeder onopzettelijk de rest bij het afval gedeponeerd heeft.

Al snel blijkt echter dat Woody's wantrouwen gegrond was. Lotso en het andere ervaren speelgoed blijkt Woody's vrienden naar de peuterspeelzaal verbannen te hebben, wat voor speelgoed de hel op aarde is. De peuters onderwerpen hun nieuwe speelkameraden aan de meest afschuwelijke folteringen denkbaar voor speelgoed. Woody belandt tijdens zijn queeste bij het meisje Bonnie dat wel op de juiste manier met speelgoed omgaat. Zijn nieuwe collegae vertellen hem van de wreedheden die in Sunnyside begaan worden, waarop Woody een reddingsoperatie voor zijn vrienden op touw zet. Uiteraard laten Lotso en zijn onderdanen de nieuwe slachtoffers niet zonder slag of stoot gaan, wat leidt tot een aaneenschakeling van inventieve achtervolgingen en confrontaties met de nare teddybeer en zijn schattig aandoende maar gluiperige handlangers.

Laat het aan Pixar over om zelfs bij het derde deel van een trilogie nog met voldoende fascinerende invalshoeken en geslaagde grappen op de proppen te komen om een uitstekende bioscoopervaring op te leveren. Uiteraard is het opgroeien van kinderen een voor de hand liggende fase in het bestaan van elk stuk speelgoed. Pixar weet dit gegeven om te zetten in een film die niet alleen onderhoudend maar ook daadwerkelijk – niet eens leeftijdsgebonden – aangrijpend is. Het gedwongen afscheid tussen Andy en zijn trouwe speelkameraadjes zal zelfs bij de meest zure toeschouwer nog een brok in de keel vormen: het wordt aangeraden genoeg zakdoeken bij de hand te houden. De realisatie dat Woody en zijn vrienden hun beste tijd gehad hebben en weinig plaats in de wereld meer lijken te hebben wordt serieus behandeld maar nooit op een manier dat het voor kinderen of volwassenen te prekerig wordt om naar te kijken. Zoals elke ervaren regisseur op Pixars loonlijst weet Unkrich de juiste verhoudingen te leggen tussen dit serieuze onderwerp en een luchtige maar daardoor niet minder ontroerende uitwerking van de getoonde strijd om te overleven die Woody, Buzz en de rest moeten voeren om eens temeer in handen van een eigenaar te komen die van hen houdt en met hen speelt, zoals de droom van al het speelgoed is.

En naast de perfect uitgewerkte ernst spat ook de humor zoals vanouds van het scherm op de gebruikelijke geslaagde wijze die we van Pixar onderhand gewend zijn en ten volle weten te appreciëren. De absolute hoogschieters zijn de scènes tussen Barbie en haar nieuwe vriend Ken die zich tot een sinistere gastheer met een imposante collectie vintage-kleding ontpopt. Ook de taferelen rond een geresette Buzz Lightyear en zijn nieuwe Spaanse identiteit zijn van een hoog niveau en zullen zowel het jonge als het oude publiek ten volle doen genieten.

Pixar haalt met Toy Story 3 een ongeëvenaarde stunt uit: een derde deel in een sowieso al hoogstaande cyclus die iets wezenlijks toevoegt aan het al geleverde materiaal en daar bovendien nog een schepje bovenop doet, resulterend in het beste speelgoedverhaal denkbaar, en het beste deel van de trilogie. En daarnaast de zoveelste vijfsterrenfilm op Pixars conto. De vraag hoe lang Pixar zichzelf nog weet te overtreffen dient zich elk jaar weer aan, maar kan zonder twijfel nog lange tijd gesteld worden, want na het fantastische Up legt ook Toy Story 3 de lat weer net een stukje hoger.

Ratatouille

 

Rating: *****/*****, or 9/10

Pixars portie rat blijkt niet te versmaden

In een tijd waarin Hollywood geobsedeerd is door remakes and sequels is het goed te weten dat er tenminste nog één filmstudio is die zich liever bezighoudt met het uitwerken van originele ideeën dan schaamteloos recyclen, en daar bovendien elke keer opnieuw met vlag en wimpel in slaagt. Als geen ander doet Pixar een frisse wind van creativiteit door de filmindustrie waaien. De lijst met Pixars successen groeit terecht gestaag en het einde van de triomftocht lijkt nog lang niet in zicht. Ook Ratatouille, Pixars nieuwste, mag zich zonder schaamte meten met de klassiekers van het animatiegenre, inclusief de grootheden die Pixars producent Disney in vroeger tijden maakte. Gezien het simpele maar merkwaardige uitgangspunt van de film, een rat die kan koken, is dat zeker een tour-de-force.

Rémy (stem van Patton Oswalt), een rat van het platteland, voelt zich niet thuis onder zijn soortgenoten. Terwijl zijn familieleden eten wat ze te pakken kunnen krijgen gaat hij alleen voor hoogwaardig voedsel, het liefst zelf bereid. De rol van ongedierte bevalt hem helemaal niet, aangezien hij hierin zijn culinaire talenten niet kan uiten. Bovendien loopt hij liever op twee poten zoals de mensen die hij benijdt. Rémy droomt ervan een grote chef-kok te worden, ook al lijkt een dergelijke positie niet weggelegd voor een parasitair knaagdier als hijzelf. Echter, in Pixars wereld is alles mogelijk, hoe onwaarschijnlijk ook. Dat Rémy zijn droom in vervulling zal zien gaan is al direct te voorspellen, maar het is de lange weg naar dit doel waar de film om draait dat Pixar ons zo geniaal voorschotelt.

Door een samenloop van omstandigheden belandt Rémy in Parijs, de stad der steden in culinaire kringen, bij het voormalig vijfsterren-restaurant Gusteau's, dat haar vroegere glorie lang geleden verloren heeft wegens de dood van haar chef-kok en het commerciëel uitputtende wanbeleid van de nieuwe baas Skinner (met verve ingesproken door Ian Holm, die zich hoorbaar van harte uitleeft in zijn rol als schurk). Skinner verdient bakken geld door Gusteau's gerechten als diepvriesmaaltijden te verkopen in plaats van nieuwe recepten te ontwikkelen (onbewust of niet, een fraaie parallel met Pixars cinematische kunst ten tijde van Hollywoods grote commerciele uitverkoop). Rémy komt net op tijd om Gusteau's zoon Linguini (Pixars vaste stemtalent Lou Romano) terzijde te staan: de klungelige jongen heeft een hart van goud maar kan volstrekt niet koken. Ondanks de enorme verschillen tussen beiden sluiten jongen en rat een verbond: door op een bepaalde wijze aan zijn haren te trekken bestuurt Rémy zijn vriend als een marionet en klimt de jongen op naar de top. Samen creëert het duo de heerlijkste gerechten en trekt Skinner aan het kortste eind, want ware kunst overwint de commercie altijd, ongeacht de aard van het talent. Alleen Pixar komt ongegeneerd weg met een dergelijk verhaal, zonder een greintje storend moralisme.

Regisseur Brad Bird, die eerder furore maakte met het al even briljante The Incredibles, over de beslommeringen van een gezin superhelden, weet ook van deze onwaarschijnlijke premisse een modern meesterwerk te maken dat niet alleen een feest is voor de kleintjes maar, zoals het Pixar betaamt, ook voor volwassenen een uitstekend avondje uit vormt. Met een flinke dosis humor en een hoogwaardige animatiestijl houdt Bird de vaart erin, maar verliest daarbij de personages geen moment uit het oog, waardoor we ten allen tijde meeleven met de rat, de jongen, en het gezelschap aan kleurrijke figuren (zowel ratten als mensen) dat hun wereld bevolkt.

Bird weet in een enkele korte scène een personage zo compleet mogelijk uit te diepen en een volkomen geloofwaardige hoeveelheid karakterontwikkeling mee te geven: mede hierin ligt het genie achter Ratatouille, zo niet Pixar an sich. Een voortreffelijk voorbeeld vormt de flashback van de starre culinaire criticus Anton Ego (Oscarwinnaar Peter O'Toole leeft zich vol genoegen uit als diens stem) die er een levensdoel van heeft gemaakt talentvolle chefs de grond in te boren. Na slechts een klein hapje ratatouille (want het gerecht zelf ontbreekt uiteraard niet) duiken we ver zijn verleden in en zien we hoe hij als kleine jongen van zijn liefdevolle moeder hetzelfde eten voorgeschoteld kreeg, na van zijn fiets gevallen te zijn en zijn knie te hebben geschaafd. Zoals de ijskoude recensent smelt na een hap van Rémy's kookkunst, kan zelfs de meest cynische kijker de film dankzij dergelijke briljante scènes niet versmaden.

Ratatouille kan direct geschaard worden onder het beste dat Pixar vervaardigd heeft, alsmede onder de beste films van het jaar (de Oscar voor beste animatie hebben ze zonder twijfel al in hun zak). De film smaakt simpelweg naar meer, en hopelijk zijn ook de volgende maaltijden die Pixar ons serveert van dezelfde uitmuntende kwaliteit.