This weekend marks the UK release of Inside Out, the fifteenth and most recent entry to the Pixar filmography and the first film since their year-long absence following 2013's Monsters University. To celebrate and recognise the studio's return while you wait for the review (delayed solely because I'm unfortunately on a two week holiday), why not do what most have done in the past and rank the studio's hits?
Cars 2 is nobody's favourite Pixar film. Whilst it's clear that director John Lasseter has some love for the material, and his approach being based on his worldwide promotion for the first film being a slightly inspired decision, but the actual content present is far from a lot of Pixar's usual fare. Its comedy is a lot more forced and its plot hanging on a shoestring in making coherent sense, the only strong highlights that can be made about this sequel is a batch of the new characters and the superb animation. Seriously, despite some of the jokes here, it's hard to deny that the film does look good.
A Bug's Life is a film that has never seemed to click with me. As the studio's second theatrical attempt, it was always going to be hard to follow on from Toy Story, and for all the added effort brought into the character animation, the advancements in crowd-building and some of the location, it can't really make up for a middling story and a handful of dull characters. Add the fact that Flik (Dave Foley) is perhaps the weakest lead in the entire Pixar back-catalogue, and you're left with a film whose only memorable aspect is the whole Antz drama that occurred at the time.
Perhaps best known as Pixar's first dud, Cars was a film that - at a younger age - first didn't appeal to me but then adored. But as time passed on Cars instead turned into a film that was running more on fumes than on the NOS that had been in the systems of Finding Nemo and The Incredibles before it. While it does have some great advancements on animating reflections and it does have plenty of good moments, it's one of the dullest films Pixar has ever made as not much really happens. You get a sequence here and there outside of the opening and closing races, but that's about it, and for younger audiences that's much harder to take in.
I know it's very early on, but this is the stage on the list where it becomes difficult to pinpoint where the films belong on the list. That may sound crazy on a list of fourteen features, but because of how good Pixar have been it makes it a right pain for ranking. So with that comes the troubled Brave at #11, whose fight against the numerous changes during production did lead to a good enjoyable film with some gorgeous landscapes and work on character hair, but with a switch to somewhat crass comedy and a mother-daughter story which, while a breath of fresh air for the Disney Princess line, feels a little forced.
Another film riddled with production issues, this ingenious concept of a rat wanting to become a chef in Paris is one filled with wonderful moments but, like with Cars, often has a number of slow moments which can begin to drag. It has a lot more on offer though, with great voice casting in Patton Oswalt and Peter O'Toole and with the Paris aesthetic being absolutely beautiful. It's a film that continues to build in quality as each act progresses, but as one of Pixar's longest films, it's filled with time spare.
As I recently reviewed this picture, there's little need to really elaborate on what I enjoy so much about Monsters, Inc. and where it falters, but its controversial placement below its later prequel will likely baffle...
Speaking of controversy, Toy Story 2 at #8! Is it a solid sequel? Yes. Is the animation better? Of course. So why this low down? Because many of the newer additions to the toy box are sadly underdeveloped (Jessie gets her moment to shine with 'When Somebody Loved Me', but the same can't be said for Bullseye, Stinky Pete and co.) while Stinky Pete's involvement as the antagonist is far too sudden to really be taken without caution.
WALL-E is a film that often split audiences. Some say it's a perfect film from start to finish, while others proclaim that the moment the titular character leaves Earth is when the film takes a bit of a stumble. For me, I'm in the middle. Of course, I love the first act, with the incredibly creative way Andrew Stanton portrays the mechanical romance being near-perfect; but that's not to say moments onboard the Axiom falter because of it. Sure, it takes the moral of being eco-friendly a little hard on the head, but my main problem is the inclusion of live-action elements which tend to stick out far too much. It's a tad too ambitious for the studio.
Okay, put your pitchforks down please - yes, I do really like Monsters University more than many Pixar films which people consider overall classics. Yes, it's a by the number retread of classic 80s college comedies and it relies a little too much on cameos and nostalgia, but at its heart is a superb story, the studio's best quality of animation to date (overall, only short film The Blue Umbrella surpasses it) and a whole batch of lovable and memorable characters. Also, it's one of the funniest films they have under their name.
Many consider this third instalment in what was supposed to be a concluding trilogy as a simple retread over the last sequel, borrowing numerous elements from its predecessor and relying on audiences feeling nostalgic towards the classic movies to see this one (and it worked, going by its $1bn worldwide gross). But where its previous failed, this sequel fixes and succeeds. Underdeveloped new characters? Most of the new ones have little spotlight, so the main new bunch have plenty of time to shine. Out-of-nowhere villain? Out there right from the get-go with a top-notch backstory to boot. Where does it fail? It is a little too manipulative to audiences' emotions and is occasionally a little too dark for younger audiences.
And from the end of the original trilogy to the beginning of an entirely new way that the animation industry should be run. Toy Story will forever be a film for the history books because of how innovative it was, and while its animation and a handful of none-toy character designs may be a little garish by the standards over the course of the last two decades, it does still have a solid feature in it. Truly a classic.
Everybody loves Up for its opening ten minutes. I love Up because what follows is a strong story with superb characters and animation. It's something new - a rarity even by today's standards - and it's something smart. What more can be said that hasn't already been said?
Brad Bird's first feature for the animation studio, The Incredibles was a superhero movie that came out long before the recent onslaught of comic book movies and was made all the better for it. I reviewed it recently to mark the release of Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, so for more information on why I love this movie so it's best to read from there.
Finding Nemo isn't just the best Pixar film, it's my favourite film period. None has ever surpassed it in charm and storytelling, and its animation is something you can just frame on a wall. It's a film whose structure should have made it its downfall but adapted and was made better because of how it's done, and every character is memorable by their name and traits. It's just a film of pure gold and is one of the few that I can ever call perfect. Because that's what Finding Nemo is - perfect.
But as for where Inside Out will place? Well, just wait and see...
In 1994, there was a lunch between four of the bigwigs of Pixar, ahead of the completion of their first feature film Toy Story. During that lunch, its directorJohn Lasseter, Finding Nemo/WALL-Edirector Andrew Stanton, Monsters, Inc./Up/Inside Outdirector Pete Docterand Carsco-director Joe Ranft discussed future films to be produced. Amongst the numerous films discussedwasMonsters, Inc. - borrowing elements from the original Toy Story of childhood beliefs being real and giving it a slight twist about it being part of a monster's employment. While the logistics of their training and the world itself was explored more in the 2013 prequel Monsters University, the scream-powered world of Monstropolis introduced audiences to a dynamic duo memorable to this day with or without a prequel while presenting the first of Pete Docter's ideas. And with Inside Out coming out fairly soon and already winning over critics worldwide, see whether his first was a scare-tacular Oscar snub or a fearfully overrated starting point.
When the lights are out and everyone is asleep, children all over the world occasionally have the fright of their life when a monster comes out of their closet and scares them. But on the other side of that door is an entire world of monsters who rely on those screams to power everything from lights to cars - a world where the population sees human kids as being toxic, and the decline in child susceptibility is leading to an energy crisis. Two such workers at Monsters, Incorporated are Mike and Sulley (Billy Crystal & John Goodman respectively), an unstoppable team aiming to break the all-time scare record and the company's hardest-working employees. But when Sulley inadvertently crosses paths with rival Randall (Steve Buscemi) and releases a human girl (Mary Gibbs) into their world, Sulley and Mike must ensure that the girl is returned to her world without suspicions from the CDA (Child Detection Agency), any of their co-workers and especially the ever-suspicious Randall and crony Fungus (Frank Oz).
The concept of monsters being employed to scare kids isn't an entirely new idea, but the way it's executed is certainly a smarter move thanks to early sequences of training, how the job is prepared and the daily lives of those monsters. Add the idea that they use children as a resource rather than 'just because', and you have a premise which is noticeably solid. Also strong is the main storyline revolving around the relationship between Mike, Sulley and Boo - leading to an emotional finale that never fails to pack a punch no matter how many times you watch it - as its growing path does lead to plenty of great moments and vocal performances by Crystal and Goodman. Alas, the plot regarding a conspiracy with Randall and Waternoose (James Coburn) does fail by comparison, as it lacks a whole lot of substance and both characters aren't all that engaging nor purposeful in their reasons as to why they're undergoing the elaborate plot. Certainly, Waternoose explains that it's due to the energy crisis at hand, but with that and the pre-explained facts about monster biology and child toxicity it still makes little sense. Meanwhile, Randall's part in it all seems more for some form of nemesis for Sulley who already has history with him. The later prequel shares light on why the two have bad blood to begin with, but within the confines of this picture there isn't much to play on outside of his more monstrous appearance.
With the animation format on a consistent path of growth since its mainstream introduction with 1995's Toy Story, Monsters, Inc. hasopted to impress with its fur animation through Sulley's appearance - and a decade and multiple animation firsts since, it's still very impressive. But it's not all just through the simple character designs and executions (although the basis for various background monsters does begin to waver over time as they become more and more repetitive), but in the work done for the scenery, with a huge amount of praise of course deserving to the door sequence in the third act. A simply beautiful-looking segment which also offers up a lot of fun and an interesting final battle between henchman-like character Randall, its logically impractical capabilities mean nothing when considering the overall aesthetic of it all. That aside, it's still all solid stuff. With the medium still being relatively new (and restricted solely by Pixar and Dreamworks at this point) what it offers is strong stuff. As the main duo on vocals, Billy Crystal and John Goodman are a dynamic duo worthy of being milked from for prequel purposes. They bounce off one another superbly, and for the characters they play no other could have done better. Goodman fits the big blue beast and Crystal is practically perfect as the smaller green eyeball. Mary Gibbsis a great voice for Boo, with her random ramblings (recorded by following her around the studio, seeing as she was only 2) cementing the pivotal child as being lovable enough for audiences. Steve Buscemiis menacing enough as Randall, but as aforementioned is a little lacking in the villainy department. However, he's also one of the more darker Pixar villains, going as far as strangling Sulley and releasing a door so he and Mike to fall to their deaths. Coburn's Waternoose is a likable enough employer but a rather iffy villain, while Frank Oz as Fungus adds very little outside of an initial crony for Randall. Jennifer Tilly is good stuff as Mike's girlfriend Celia although she does disappear for good chunks of the film, and Bob Peterson as Roz is just as hilarious as you remember it to be. And of course, there's the inevitable cameo from John Ratzenberger, this time playing a lovable Abominable Snowman. Monsters, Inc. is a hilarious feature filled with heart and soul, and with various memorable characters and moments. At times heartbreaking and at other times gut-busting, its placement as one of Pixar's best originals needs no further explanation. But with an antagonistic plotline with a less than stellar pacing, it does pack quite a punch on the film as a whole. 8/10.
Revisitations will return after a two-week hiatus.
In 1994, there was a lunch between four of the bigwigs of Pixar, ahead of the completion of their first feature film Toy Story. During that lunch, its director John Lasseter, Finding Nemo/WALL-E director Andrew Stanton, Monsters, Inc./Up/Inside Out director Pete Docter and Cars co-director Joe Ranft discussed future films to be produced. Amongst the numerous films discussed was Monsters, Inc. - borrowing elements from the original Toy Story of childhood beliefs being real and giving it a slight twist about it being part of a monster's employment. While the logistics of their training and the world itself was explored more in the 2013 prequel Monsters University, the scream-powered world of Monstropolis introduced audiences to a dynamic duo memorable to this day with or without a prequel while presenting the first of Pete Docter's ideas. And with Inside Out coming out fairly soon and already winning over critics worldwide, see whether his first was a scare-tacular Oscar snub or a fearfully overrated starting point. 