I'm usually a soft-spoken person, except when it comes to a few topics -- such as Bruno Mars (which I covered in the last post) and Pixar movies (which I'll cover in this one). I love Pixar Studio passionately, and I always find my voice rising when I'm arguing anything Pixar-related.
So in what is bound to be my most controversial series yet, I'm doing a countdown of all the released Pixar movies from bottom up -- one, because Pixar is a subject I can expound on for days and two, I love countdowns. For this week, here are numbers 14 - 10.
14. CARS 2
Directed by: John Lasseter and Brad Lewis
So in what is bound to be my most controversial series yet, I'm doing a countdown of all the released Pixar movies from bottom up -- one, because Pixar is a subject I can expound on for days and two, I love countdowns. For this week, here are numbers 14 - 10.
14. CARS 2
Directed by: John Lasseter and Brad Lewis
What worked for it: Pixar attempted to infuse the original Cars story with new locales -- taking the intrepid main characters around the world (Japan, France, Italy) and also with a new genre -- the spy genre, giving us a new movie filled with hijinks and plots reminiscent of James Bond's world.
What didn't work: Nearly everyone that heard Cars was coming out with a sequel asked: why? Cars is far from Pixar's shining star and although I don't detest it as much as most people, I really couldn't see why they would want to do a sequel other than the potential merchandise profit...Reportedly, the Cars series has made more money from merchandising than the whole Star Wars series. This sounds ridiculously false but it IS true that Cars 2 got the green light because of merchandising potential, as you can read here.
Unfortunately, the "why" of the movie doesn't stop there. Why does this movie suddenly take an espionage turn? Other than the fact that the writers/director wanted to have a little fun...and indeed, this does feel like one of those Bond movies where the focus is more on what kind of cool gadgets they can devise. Why did we decide to take the focus away from Lightning McQueen to the bumbling sidekick Mater?
This movie was fun, but far too predictable in the bumbling protagonist caught in a sort of mistaken identity/spy identity that tastes strongly of Bill Murray's (poorly received) The Man Who Knew Too Little coupled with faithful sidekick redemption. Zero magic and derivative, which is why it's at the bottom of this list.
13. BRAVE
Directed by: Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman, Steve Purcell
What didn't work: Nearly everyone that heard Cars was coming out with a sequel asked: why? Cars is far from Pixar's shining star and although I don't detest it as much as most people, I really couldn't see why they would want to do a sequel other than the potential merchandise profit...Reportedly, the Cars series has made more money from merchandising than the whole Star Wars series. This sounds ridiculously false but it IS true that Cars 2 got the green light because of merchandising potential, as you can read here.
Unfortunately, the "why" of the movie doesn't stop there. Why does this movie suddenly take an espionage turn? Other than the fact that the writers/director wanted to have a little fun...and indeed, this does feel like one of those Bond movies where the focus is more on what kind of cool gadgets they can devise. Why did we decide to take the focus away from Lightning McQueen to the bumbling sidekick Mater?
This movie was fun, but far too predictable in the bumbling protagonist caught in a sort of mistaken identity/spy identity that tastes strongly of Bill Murray's (poorly received) The Man Who Knew Too Little coupled with faithful sidekick redemption. Zero magic and derivative, which is why it's at the bottom of this list.
13. BRAVE
Directed by: Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman, Steve Purcell
What worked for it: I know, I know. I'm listing the latest Academy Award winner for Animated Feature near the bottom of the list. What was great about it was how it looked, above all else. The scenery was breath-taking, and her hair...Great Scott, Merida (the female protagonist) had the most glorious hair ever seen in an animated feature. Furthermore, as a friend pointed out to me, Brave gets points for being one of the first Disney animated features that focuses on not only a strong, female character, but also her dynamic with her mother. Disney animations suffer from what's known as the "orphan syndrome" where most of the characters are either orphaned or have only one parent (perhaps to simplify the stories). The only exceptions that come right to mind are Sleeping Beauty (wherein the protagonist is raised by fairies away from her parents anyway) and 101 Dalmatians.
What didn't work: Where to start. None of the characters were particularly likable. You wanted to sympathize with the mother and the daughter, but couldn't quite get to it. The trailers promised a headstrong, capable female protagonist for the first time in Pixar history...but in actuality, Merida was more bratty and foolish than courageous. The movie revealed a plot nuance that the trailers were careful to hide and the climax was especially Pixar Poignant...but otherwise, this movie fell flat. The story suffered from the frequent change of directors and writers it underwent before completion. I'm sure I would have more to say about it if I remembered anything from the first and only time I saw it over a year ago...but I never had any desire to rewatch it. Wreck-It Ralph should have taken the Academy Award for that year and it's a shame that Brave won.
12. CARS
Directed by: John Lasseter and Joe Ranft
What didn't work: Where to start. None of the characters were particularly likable. You wanted to sympathize with the mother and the daughter, but couldn't quite get to it. The trailers promised a headstrong, capable female protagonist for the first time in Pixar history...but in actuality, Merida was more bratty and foolish than courageous. The movie revealed a plot nuance that the trailers were careful to hide and the climax was especially Pixar Poignant...but otherwise, this movie fell flat. The story suffered from the frequent change of directors and writers it underwent before completion. I'm sure I would have more to say about it if I remembered anything from the first and only time I saw it over a year ago...but I never had any desire to rewatch it. Wreck-It Ralph should have taken the Academy Award for that year and it's a shame that Brave won.
12. CARS
Directed by: John Lasseter and Joe Ranft
What worked for it: I don't hate this movie as much as everyone else does. It has some clever jokes in there -- (groupie cars flashing their high-beams anyone?) -- and memorable characters. Although the trope of fast-track kid discovering old-fashioned values in a backwater town while under the mentorship of an old-timer legend is overdone, Cars made it somewhat charming. Furthermore, these stories always feature a varied set cast of kooky characters and this one was no exception -- from a hippie VW Van that ran on vegetable fuel, to a tractor-tipping tow-truck, to a wide-eyed mechanic car that dreamed of serving Ferraris. Plus, drifting admittedly does not make you go faster and would therefore not work as well as it did in the movie, but McQueen learns how to drift. My Initial D-loving roots could not resist harboring a love for Cars just for that reason. And come on, you cannot lose with Paul Newman as the wise old mentor. You simply can't.
What didn't work: As I said before, the story is overdone. Cars is one of the few Pixar movies where you feel the length. The movie takes a long time to get to where it's going, ironic because it's a story about fast-moving cars. It's nothing new under the sun, which is probably why we feel the slow pace as much as we do.
11. UP
Directed by: Pete Doctor and Bob Peterson
What didn't work: As I said before, the story is overdone. Cars is one of the few Pixar movies where you feel the length. The movie takes a long time to get to where it's going, ironic because it's a story about fast-moving cars. It's nothing new under the sun, which is probably why we feel the slow pace as much as we do.
11. UP
Directed by: Pete Doctor and Bob Peterson
What worked for it: I know I'm going to get a LOT of flak for the placement of Up in my bottom five...and this may be the most controversial decision on my whole list...but this is how I feel about it. As a whole, I sometimes even put Up below Cars...but why it's placed above on this particular list is the sheer brilliance of the first ten minutes of the movie. If it had stopped right there, I think Up would have gone down in history as one of the greatest films ever. The first ten minutes, a montage of Carl's life with his girl-next-door-turned-soulmate, is one of the most beautiful openings I've ever seen. Coupled with Michael Giacchino's score (which absolutely soars in this movie), it's perfection. There are also some sparsely touching moments throughout the movie, such as when we hear Russell talk about his absent father and the simplicity of looking for cars while sitting on a corner, enjoying ice cream cones. It's truly wonderful.
What didn't work: I was heavily disappointed by this movie. The humor was juvenile (really? Dogs flying airplanes by chomping down on squeaky bone steering wheels?). I remember being dismayed that Pixar had resorted to cheap animal jokes as an excuse for humor. I also never felt settled by how they dealt with the villain of the story. His demise always seemed a bit harsh. (On a side note, how is he even alive and hopping at this point in the movie? If Carl is nearly 80 years old, and the villain Charles Muntz was about 30 years old when Carl was 8...well, you do the math). The other characters are similarly shallow -- assigned to monotonous, repetitive characterizations, I found myself annoyed at turns by all of them -- the elderly Carl, the kid Russell, the loyal though dull-witted dog Dug, and the squawking bird Kevin. The whole symbolism of Carl carrying around baggage and dragging his house around everywhere, before he learns to let go of it for the sake of someone else, is a bit heavy-handed. Overall though, the movie suffered most from having a daring, soaring, spectacular beginning and then failing to deliver for the remainder.
10. A BUG'S LIFE
Directed by: John Lasseter and Andrew Stanton
What didn't work: I was heavily disappointed by this movie. The humor was juvenile (really? Dogs flying airplanes by chomping down on squeaky bone steering wheels?). I remember being dismayed that Pixar had resorted to cheap animal jokes as an excuse for humor. I also never felt settled by how they dealt with the villain of the story. His demise always seemed a bit harsh. (On a side note, how is he even alive and hopping at this point in the movie? If Carl is nearly 80 years old, and the villain Charles Muntz was about 30 years old when Carl was 8...well, you do the math). The other characters are similarly shallow -- assigned to monotonous, repetitive characterizations, I found myself annoyed at turns by all of them -- the elderly Carl, the kid Russell, the loyal though dull-witted dog Dug, and the squawking bird Kevin. The whole symbolism of Carl carrying around baggage and dragging his house around everywhere, before he learns to let go of it for the sake of someone else, is a bit heavy-handed. Overall though, the movie suffered most from having a daring, soaring, spectacular beginning and then failing to deliver for the remainder.
10. A BUG'S LIFE
Directed by: John Lasseter and Andrew Stanton
What worked for it: A Bug's Life was Pixar's sophomore effort and it had a lot to live up to, following Toy Story. The result is a charming story a la Seven Samurai/Three Amigos style with a wonderful cast of characters. Each of them are memorable and lovable (although my favorite may be the foreign, easily misunderstood, potato bug brothers). The attention to detail is commendable. You have to love the mimebug in the city, the mosquito ordering a Bloody Mary (O-Positive), the fact that not even the grasshoppers know the lyrics to "La Cucaracha" besides the title. I love that the grasshoppers migrate to Mexico (inside a Sombrero) in a nod to the Magnificent Seven/western roots this movie evokes. Kevin Spacey is cake as the sometimes exasperated, but supremely sinister Hopper. Also, on a side note, this was the first Pixar movie to introduce the idea of Pixar Bloopers during the credits.
What didn't work: In all honesty, A Bug's Life is mostly placed low on the Pixar list because it only suffers in comparison to the other work that Pixar has done. It's a commendable follow-up to Toy Story. The story plays it safe, but there's nothing wrong with that when it produces a solid, enjoyable movie such as this one.
next week: Pixar Movies 9 to 5.
What didn't work: In all honesty, A Bug's Life is mostly placed low on the Pixar list because it only suffers in comparison to the other work that Pixar has done. It's a commendable follow-up to Toy Story. The story plays it safe, but there's nothing wrong with that when it produces a solid, enjoyable movie such as this one.
next week: Pixar Movies 9 to 5.
