The Pixar Perspective: #14 - Monsters University (2013)

The last in an ongoing series looking back at the feature films of Pixar Animation Studios

And so, we come to the end of the Pixar Perspective with prequel Monsters University. Set some years before the events of 2001/2002’s Monsters’ Inc., it follows more or less the same methods that other studios use for their prequels - how the protagonists came to be. We have Mike and Sulley (Billy Crystal and John Goodman) starting off as enemies and becoming the close friends we see in the original. However, unlike most prequels, it works. It may rely a bit too much on little cameos and lines to relate to Monsters, Inc., but it has a story which breaks usual convention. Most films tell their audience that they have the capacity to doing anything as long as they believe in themselves, but here it shows that that isn’t always the case. Mike believes that he can become a Scarer and is the hardest worker in class, but he isn’t suitable to be a scarer. But the skills that he’s learnt comes to great use as he teaches others how to be the greatest scarer - clear to see in Monsters, Inc.. It’s a great moral.

Mike and Sulley are still a lovable duo here, with Wazowski taking over as lead with great gravitas. He may come off as obnoxious during the early stages, but that doesn’t stop his great characterisation winning audience hearts. Sulley is also a good watch, with his slacker style and character growth allowing some great moments. The duologue between him and Mike by the lake in the third act is an incredibly emotional scene which wouldn’t work outside of this material. The only other returning character - at least within the story - is Randall (Steve Buscemi). Here, they give an incentive for his maniacal doings in Monsters, Inc. and he too is fun to watch. However, it does seems like they added him to rival fraternity Roar Omega Roar for the sakes of this incentive, which does detract from his appearance here.

Mike and Sulley’s fellow fraternity members of Oozma Kappa are played mainly for humour - especially in the first stages of their appearance - but they are a great band of brothers. You have mature student Don (Joel Murray), college wacko Art (Charlie Day), debative duo Terri and Terry (Sean Hayes and Dave Foley, who was previously Flik in A Bug’s Life), and incentive-less Squishy (Peter Sohn); each member given a chance to shine throughout the film with either hilarious or brilliant results. As for Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren), she is a rather menacing teacher who sadly is removed more a majority of the film; appearing in a handful of lessons and Scare Game events. But she holds the floor when she does appear, and her stern design allows much to enjoy from her. 

The animation is stunning, and clearly far away from Pixar’s origins with Toy Story. Outside of the monsters, the surroundings are incredibly lifelike, and shots of buildings and greenery brings wonder as to how the studio managed to make something look so real. Even the humans are an improvement. The girls may follow the same in terms of face structure, but that structure is miles ahead of that of Andy’s in Toy Story or Merida’s in Brave. The monsters do have a bit more originality to them, with new designs in comparison to the first film, but too follow the format of “give them a different colour”. However, they have deaged Wazowski and Sullivan successfully.

Monsters University is an improvement over Monsters, Inc., with even more likable characters, some great humour, a story which thrives in standing out from the crowd amidst its usual format, and the best animation by Pixar to date. It has an excellent third act filled with emotion following the action-packed second act and the set-up first, and a conclusion filled with tension and scares. It does waver with some characters, but it doesn’t stop being one of Pixar’s best films. 9/10

The Pixar Perspective: #13 - Brave (2012)

An ongoing series looking back at the feature films of Pixar Animation Studios

In the Pixar roster, Brave stands out by being the only one to date to have a female protagonist at its helm. Add the fact that it's their first princess for the Disney line and it was originally run by Pixar's first female director (Brenda Chapman, who left during the project due to creative disagreements), and you get a film which some of the audience were unhappy with. Its surprise Best Animated Feature win at the Oscars angered those who wanted Disney's Wreck It Ralph to win, and many were shocked when the film won. But with all these difficulties and lukewarm receptions aside, is Brave a good film, and a better film than Pixar's previous critical failure Cars 2?

Princess Merida (Kelly MacDonald) is a partially likable lead, making a great start for hopefully a long run of female protagonists. There is one scene in which she is annoying - during Elinor's (Emma Thompson) first stages of transformation, she is incredibly uncaring for her mother and constantly asks the same question over and over - but thankfully that passes by quickly and she gets distracted by Bear-Mum. Outside of that moment, she's a good watch with some superb archery skills. Elinor is also a good character, with the dynamic between mother and daughter being a brilliant story unused by both Pixar and the Disney Princess line (unless you count Mother Gothel in Tangled, but she's not a real mother). She's humourous in the first stages of Bear-Mum, and it brings forth an ending filled with emotion. Father Fergus (Billy Connolly) is hilarious, with his care for his family being a great viewing. He is very briefly a villain in the story, but once real villain Mor'du reappears, he rejoins the side of the angels. As for the mainly mute triplets, they provide some slapstick comedy  and a great chase scene, but are absent in the second act of the film. Other characters provide some humour, but not much as the contemporary family of Dunbroch. Mor'du is likely going to scare younger viewers, and he isn't the strongest enemy in Pixar's roster, but does provide some good action sequences. As for Julie Walters' witch, she is sadly underused as her presence would add more to the film.

The story, as previously mentioned, is a good one. Not the most original, as it falls for the likes of fate and curses - pretty much a staple in Disney's filmography - but a good one nevertheless. Add the parent-child dynamic, and it is enjoyable. Perhaps if there was more depth and a larger role for some characters, the story would be better. It's humour is hit and miss, but too is strong. At times, it relies on jokes about breasts and nudity, which seems rather out of character for the studio as they usually use a higher class of humour. 

The visuals are stunning, which medieval Scotland never looking so beautiful. Merida's hair is complex and luscious and the Wisps - whilst underused - are lovely little things. However, these visuals are hidden within the designs of the humans, which are a bit lacklustre. When compared to the great lands and the Archery scenes, it does pull you out of the film - especially with a main who looks like a child's doll.

Brave is a good film, with a nice story which does dip in the middle, some strong animation amongst some rather dull human designs, and humour which is a mix of good and bad. The film does get a lot of bad word of mouth despite its good quality and the break from sequels, and it does have some faults, but it's an improvement over the last Pixar film. 7/10. 

Next Time: It's my job to make great students greater, not make mediocre student less mediocre

The Pixar Perspective: #12 - Cars 2 (2011)

An ongoing series looking back at the feature films of Pixar Animation Studios

Despite many considering the first Cars film back in 2006 a speedbump for Pixar, and the strong response the films prior and following the misstep, director John Lasseter raced ahead with an unwanted sequel which focuses on global locations and new characters as opposed to story - something Disney would repeat with 2014's Muppets Most Wanted. Here, Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) takes over as main protagonist whilst Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) is going about on worldwide races, tangled up in an espionage thriller with two British spies (Michael Caine and Emily Mortimer).

Mater is not a good protagonist. His humour is just as dry as his previous appearance, and is more idiotic than ever. They do give this aspect a story within itself with his epiphany, but it quickly diminishes to make way for an action-packed finale, thus leaving the development of his character mute. McQueen is an improvement over his previous appearance, but is still as annoyingly cocky as previously, as seen when in the presence of racing rival Francesco - who is just as annoying. The original Radiator Springs gang is mainly left out, with love interest Sally (Bonnie Hunt) staying behind and Doc Hudson being laid to rest following Paul Newman's death. Those that do come along for the ride are given little to do, whether it's introduce a location or give exposition. 

As for the new crew, you have spies Finn McMissile and Holley Shiftwell. Caine is as brilliant as ever, and it's clear he's giving his all for the film, and Mortimer gives much conviction - even if she's reduced to a love interest. The characters themselves are enjoyable, but they do fall for the usual "mistaken identity" aspect which many animated films fail to use well - Cars 2 is no exception. As for the villains, they're incredibly one-note. Axelrod (Eddie Izzard) is yet another British bad guy, so a predictable mystery in that respect, whereas his henchmen are just henchmen, nothing more. McQueen's fellow racers are just as one-note, with only Francesco having any screentime due to their rivalry. Others just have a line and then get disposed of.

The story is a mix of the first one - lots of racing - and of many different films from other studios as well as Pixar themselves - mistaken identity (You can find a whole lost of them here). It does have a smart idea with its references to the energy crisis and global warming, but it is very much pushed into the film. It incorporates the worldwide audience by taking the characters across the world to various countries - mainly Europe - but too feels tacked on. 

As ever, the animation is sublime, from the bright lights of Japan to the lush lands of France. The car designs are a lot more creative this time round, ranging in variety rather than having the same car over and over again in the crowd. It does quickly die down, especially with the 'evil' lemons, as you start to notice the same designs over and over again.

Cars 2 is a minor improvement on the first film as it's a lot less dull in terms of story. But the story it has is overdone and has worked on minor cases (recent example: The LEGO Movie). Characters are still hit and miss, especially from the returning protagonist side, but the animation is just as good as before. As a film on its own, it's good. As a Pixar film, it's another dud for them. 5/10.

Next Time: If you had the chance to change your fate, would you?

Trailer Talk: X-Men, Hoffman, Gone, Rover

A Most Wanted Man
One of the last films in the late Philip Seymour Hoffman's filmography, A Most Wanted Man looks genuinely interesting as spy films go. It does pry on the usual racial and religious stereotype by making Muslims the antagonist terrorists, which is something which I personally hoped would stop following Iron Man 3's clever twist, but there are some strong performances by the likes of Hoffman and Dafoe, so it might be good to keep an eye out for this film.

The Homesman
This western starring Tommy Lee Jones looks eerily similar to True Grit, with an old man and younger woman duo going on a mission and coming across some mishaps. The film screams for an Oscar, but it has a premise which is intriguing. The plot does seem like a simple travelling story with the likes of Indians and rapists in the midst, but perhaps future trailers will give more to latch on to.

God's Pocket
Another Hoffman trailer hit this week, but this time seems to be lacking in comparison. It has a simplistic murder mystery going on with some hints to comedy - but nothing which encourages the audience to be amused - but does seem that the actors are giving it their all. The trailer might not give the film itself justice, as it has little appeal.

Gone Girl
The trailer for the highly-anticipated David Fincher adaption is shorter than the rest of the trailers on this list, and for good reason. It easily builds up the mystery of the film, with a simple opening for what the film's basic premise is alongside dozens of miniscule cuts to how the film evolves. The last shot does seem a bit like a spoiler - I'm not sure, I haven't read the book - but it does look aesthetically pleasing thanks to Fincher's direction.

Walk of Shame
Yet another raunchy comedy. Nothing humorous, nothing appealing, very much a simple premise. Next!

If I Stay
Chloe Grace Moretz stars in a rather interesting film. It starts off with the usual teen film with love and a passion, the basic stuff. But by the time the car crashes, it starts to pick up as it revolves around not only the love for Jamie Blackley but the love for her family. Not the most original premise, but an interesting one nevertheless.

X-Men: Days of Future Past
Finally! Following some rather lacklustre teasers across the past few months, X-Men: Days of Future Past is at last looking past the idea of time travel and all these mutants banding together, with a trailer which not only focuses on the story but the action it has on store. It looks like a grand spectacle from both the 70s scenes and the dystopian Earth of the now. Add that it is the final trailer for the film (supposedly), it ends that side of the marketing with a bang.

The Rover
This looks like a clean slate for Robert Pattinson, as here he and Guy Pearce look like they're in an interesting film. The trailer doesn't give much of an idea about the film's plot - seemingly a search for Pattinson's brother - but the duo do look like they have a great on-screen rapport. Clearly something to look out for.

Jersey Boys
Based on the Broadway musical, Jersey Boys does look like it has been given a merciful replication onto the big screen by Clint Eastwood, as it does look appealing. It does follow the usual "before they were...they had to..." that many films follow, but that doesn't stop the great musical numbers and good performances taking a shine. The fourth wall breaks may be a bit too much, but helps explain the plot throughout the trailer. Something to keep an eye on.

Third Person
I'm not sure how to see this trailer. On one hand, it has an interesting premise revolving around three couples in three different areas. On the other, you have what is technically three different B-grade films. Each story seems like they have been done before in some way or form, and are only special here because they intertwine. Future trailers may help, but I somewhat doubt it.

The Pixar Perspective: #11 - Toy Story 3 (2010)

An ongoing series looking back at the feature films of Pixar Animation Studios

After 11 years, Pixar returned to the franchise that started it all - Toy Story - and received high acclaim. Not only was it the highest grossing animated film of all time (beaten recently by Disney's Frozen), but earned a Best Picture nomination much like Pixar's previous success Up. As a follow-up to the 1995 original and the 1999 sequel, it builds upon the elements brought up in Toy Story 2 about Andy (John Morris) growing up and moving away. Add the great timing for the film's release, it makes up a great premise. But with these factors in mind, is it a suitable conclusion to the trilogy?

A number of the original toys return for the third film, with those unavailable sold or given away within the past decade. Woody (Tom Hanks) and Buzz (Tim Allen) still have the great friendship, with Hanks and Allen successfully rekindling their chemistry 11 years on; whereas Jessie (Joan Cusack) is expanded on with a new romantic entanglement with Buzz along with an expansion on her fear of abandonment from her first appearance; even the secondary characters from the first two are given morr spotlight. The only character out of the returning bunch which is underused is Bullseye, but understandable as it's hard to use a mainly mute character. However, he is given a sweet moment in which he follows Woody out before being stopped.

As for the new characters, they're equally charming. The villainous Lotso (Ned Beatty) is incredibly menacing, which a great backstory to boot; Ken (Michael Keaton) is extremely amusing despite the possible joking about possibly being homosexual; Bonnie's toys are very likable, easily setting up the future adventures in Bonnie's room via the Toy Story Toons; however, some toys at Sunnyside are nothing more than henchmen. They do gave some great moments, especially Big Baby, but nothing which makes them stand out from the large cast. 

The story itself is very much a prison break film mixed with references with the previous films. It ranges from the imagination of a child (brim with references with the opening to the first Toy Story) to the darkness of the daycare centre and the dump with absolute ease, and with such amusing highlights like Spanish Buzz and emotional scenes like Andy's goodbye, it brings a highly enjoyable story.

The animation is clearly an improvement on the first two, with such advancements in the past 11 years allowing a lot more for the film. It's clear just how much it's changed, and it makes the film look better than ever. It's bright, it's foreboding, it's everything the film needs to be and then some.

Toy Story 3 does lack in characterisation for its new recruits, but it has an incredibly strong story with an emotional kick within its conclusion. It's a grand tour of the trilogy's strong points. Whilst not as strong as the 1995 predecessor, it is a worthy continuation and return to the franchise that could. 9/10.

Next Time: Whoever finds a friend finds a treasure

The Pixar Perspective: #10 - Up (2009)

An ongoing series looking back at the feature films of Pixar Animation Studios

The first Pixar film not only to be released in 3D but also to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards - the second animated film to do so and one of three so far - Up has a lot to live up to. But with the huge audience love for the film, in particular the opening 10 minutes, and Certified Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes (at 98%), it's clear that it is a film great. And when you watch the film, it's obvious that the positive remarks are correct.

The characters are extremely likable, with Carl Fredricksen (Edward Asher) easily winning as the best of the multiple protagonists. Asher brings a natural grumpiness that many elderly men have and creates a lovable grump in what could have been an unlikable star. Add Russell (Jordan Nagai), Pixar's first Japanese American, with his humourous charisma and lack of racial stereotype allowing an unannoying child star. Pixar also put a spin on the talking animal malarky that many studios have been following for decades by allowing dogs such as Dug (Bob Peterson) to speak via collar translator. An ingenious idea which brings the lovable Dug to life with his unintentionally smart wittiness. The mainly mute Kevin is also highly humourous, and villain Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer) - whilst surprisingly staying alive what may be an age over 100 - is incredibly menacing, gaining the send off he truly deserved.

The story is just as imaginative and original as ever. Only with animation can such an idea revolving around a floating house work, and Pixar managed to do so with perfection. It underlies the life of love gone by with such beauty, whilst continuing the main plot revolving around Kevin and Muntz. Add some strong humour, and it creates a memorable tale.

The story once again focuses on human characters, but here is clear that it isn't trying to replicate an actual person. Carl is square in design, from head to physique, but it doesn't pull you out of the film. You see this square kid grow up into the senile old man he is for a majority of the film, and it in turn grows on the viewer. The vibrant colours make the film appealing to the younger viewers whilst character designs are for the older.

Up is an emotional rollercoaster with excellent characters, an original and superb story, and an animation style which, whilst not innovative, is strong and succeeds in bringing the story forward. 10/10

Next Time: So long...partner

The Pixar Perspective: #9 - WALL-E (2008)

An ongoing series looking back at the feature films of Pixar Animation Studios

After a brief break just to renew interest in the lookback - as well as a small bit of socialising - The Pixar Perspective returns for the last six films in Pixar's roster, starting with the 2008 hit WALL-E. The last of the ideas made following Toy Story (alongside A Bug's Life, Finding Nemo and Monsters, Inc.), WALL-E is the story of a lovable rubbish-dispensing robot who seeks companionship with a futuristic scanning robot. Add some obese humans and an environmental message, and you get a rather enjoyable film. Whilst not as appealing to younger audiences than previous Pixar calibre (it appealed to me only in who made the film rather than its story when I saw it on initial release), it won the adoration of critics. But is it as good as top critics like Roger Ebert say it is?

First of all, you have the highly enjoyable romantic couple WALL-E and EVE. The titular character (voiced by Ben Burtt) is incredibly likable; he's the lovable loser who you root for throughout the film, and you feel emotional towards him in the third act when he's severely injured by AUTO. His relationship with EVE (Elissa Knight) is a beautiful one which many can relate to, with the feeling of a first kiss, the adoration you have for someone, etc. It's all very sweet. EVE herself is also a great character, developing from a cold character to the devoted carer of her disabled partner. Other characters, such as Captain B. McCrea (Jeff Garlin), are also enjoyable and great to watch.

The story itself is very much a romantic one, taking centre stage amongst the Buy 'N' Large posters and environmentalism. Unlike most romantic films or eco messages (Happy Feet being a notable one), WALL-E doesn't push it down your throat, easily blending the two together into a nice story. Add some slapstick comedy and silent greatness such as the space dance, it makes a great film.

The animation is beautiful, with space and trash never looking so luscious. The robots do look animated, but with a sense of realism within them. However, the usage of actual people to represent the past really pulls you out of the film and shows how unreal the animated humans look in comparison. They do play on that with the slow transition between human and animated, but it's brief.

WALL-E is back to the high ranks of Toy Story 2 and The Incredibles, with a great plot, some highly lovable characters and animation to die for. Outside the real humans and the slight overindulgence of eco-friendly storytelling, it makes a near-perfect film. 9/10

Next Time: I have just met you, and I love you!

The Pixar Perspective: #8 - Ratatouille (2007)

An ongoing series looking back at the feature films of Pixar Animation Studios

After a quick pitstop with Cars, Pixar returns to form here with Ratatouille, once again directed by Brad Bird following previous success The Incredibles. Another human-centric story, it's a completely new story which is just as smart and original as his previous features. Unfortunately, whilst it is still a good film, it is lacking in some areas which The Incredibles.

Protagonist rat Remy (Patton Oswalt) is a very likable character, with his incredible cooking talents and good charm making him a character the audience is happy to follow along in his journey from food scrounger to 5 star chef. Human companion Linguini (Lou Romano) is an equally likable character, but is perhaps too much of an idiot. He has some funny moments though, so works well as the comedic touch of the film. Love interest Colette (Janeane Garofalo) is rather one-note however, playing the tough bird until she falls in love. It's same-old same-old, but allows progression in the story. As for the villains, Anton Ego (the late Peter O'Toole) is rather menacing in his brief time onscreen. He has a huge presence throughout just by his last review, and his introduction in his office brings forth a villainous path for the film. As for main antagonist Skinner (Ian Holm), he only really helps with the chase scene in the second act. He's good, but is rather lacking in villainy - he just wants to make a profit. Other characters aren't really expanded on, whether they be rat or human.

The story is a strong one, with originality bleeding through the film. Many films would copy the idea of an animal having a human job (see Turbo), but here it is at its strongest. Add some great comedy and an excellent recreation of Paris, it really brings the story to life. As for the animation, it allowed some great representations of the way food tastes, but outside of that has little increase of animation quality. It is still great animation, especially with the food, but is no different to previous Pixar films.

Ratatouille has a great story, some likable characters and a grand villain, but it does feel like it needs more of a side order with its main dish. But the dessert is high class, and like Ego leaves me hungry for more. 7/10.

Next Time: I don't want to survive, I want to live!

The Pixar Perspective: #7 - Cars (2006)

An ongoing series looking back at the feature films of Pixar Animation Studios

It's known by many that Cars was Pixar guru John Lasseter's pet project - he adored cars, and wanted to make a film about them. But to most, Cars was a misstep by Pixar; it strayed too far away from the usual winning formula of lovable characters, brilliant humour and great stories. And yet, despite being the dark horse of the Pixar filmography, Cars is one of the studio's first franchises. These days, we've got a prequel to Monsters, Inc. and upcoming sequels to Finding Nemo and The Incredibles, along with a third Cars. But in the early days of the Pixar/Disney deal (which caused the film to be delayed in 2005), Cars was a shock. It might have been due to the huge merchandising sales (heck, even I had a selection of the character diecasts), but it seems to have made a big impression with Disney. Admittedly, I loved the film on initial release (bear with me, I was only 9), but watching it here makes me realise just how off this film is. If you compare to the competition, it's about on par with How to Train Your Dragon, Happy Feet and Ice Age. It simply gets loads of rubbish thrown at it because it's a Pixar film. It does damage the film.

Let's start off with some positives. The animation is superb, with the advancements in reflections on surfaces being high in quality. Add some beautiful shots of natural America, and it does make a visually stunning film. The neon scene in the third act really gets to show off this grand animation, and it's good to see that this film was beneficial to the constant improvement of animation.

The casting is also well-chosen, with all the actors fitting their characters - you can't really see anyone else voicing them. Perhaps if the characters themselves were a lot more likable. Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) takes a long time to actually warm to, Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) is incredibly idiotic and plays on like a stereotypical hillbilly, and Sally (Bonnie Hunt) is a forced love interest who suddenly warms to McQueen. The most likable is the briefly-villainous Doc Hudson (the late Paul Newman), who has a charm with his character, and a good incentive for his initial dislike for McQueen. Yes, it paves the way for a repeat of his accident during the final race, but it leads to a great rapport which continues in the video games and acknowledged in the sequel. As for sorta-villain Chick Hicks (Michael Keaton), he is very much one-note. He's barely notable outside of the race sequences, and there he is very wooden in his role as antagonist. 

The story isn't necessarily a bad one, it's just rather basic; hotshot celebrity who doesn't have any friends learns about friendship when he gets lost. It's a simple story which allows character development for the protagonist. It's rather simple, and it does work. But the constant mix of good and bad humour and some pretty basic side cars making the film drag.

Cars was considered a favourite of mine. After watching it for this review, it made me realise how naive I was. When you consider this film highlighted that the studio was 20 years old at the beginning, it doesn't help show how great the studio has been. Cars is on par to Pixar's previous average tale A Bug's Life with similar faults and positives. 5/10

Next Time: If you are what you eat, then I only want to eat the good stuff

Trailer Talk: Dragon, Chef, Plane, Jump Street

The Expendables 3
Fun fact: I haven't seen the first two Expendables films. I've had no desire to, as they seem to be nothing more than a big bunch of outdated Hollywood action stars attempting to kickstart their careers. It's worked for some, such as Jason Statham, not so much for Arnold Schwarzenegger. And going by the teaser trailer, they aren't following a new path. They've simply replaced Bruce Willis with Harrison Ford and added another bunch of actors to the mix. Still very much a pass on this franchise.

Chef
It seems like Jon Favreau is praying on the popularity of fellow Marvel stars Robert Downey Jr and Scarlett Johannson to bring in a crowd, as what he's serving is a jumbled selection of mains and side orders. He's relying too much on Twitter and social media alongside various shots of food being grilled, fried or served. I'm not even sure if it's a comedy or not - it hints it with the dialogue but the actual plot feels more like an indie film.

Squatters
How to show off what your film is about in less than 2 minutes? Here, they decide to play the whole film in rewind, with brief play points which gives the audience an actual idea on what the film is about. Poor show, as it has a premise which actually seems interesting.

Planes: Fire and Rescue
The first Planes was given heavy fire by audiences and critics when it came out in 2013, being rerouted onto theatrical release beforehand after being scheduled for straight-to-DVD. Disney seem to think that it was a success, and willing to use the same characters in order to bring up an entirely new story. Sure, it has one or two (cringeworthy) laughs, but is still a film which is just for young kids.

Wish I Was Here
Zach Braff's second directorial film following Garden State, Wish I Was Here does seem intriguing. The teaser doesn't hint to the plot, more following the basic indie track and shows some wonderful shots. It does look promising though, especially to those who paid for his Kickstarter campaign towards this film.

22 Jump Street
Just when I was starting to like writers Chris Miller and Phil Lord with their brilliant LEGO Movie, they release this trailer. I was no fan of 2012's 21 Jump Street, nor of the Cloudy series. Here, they seem to be following in the same route which (somehow) worked for the first film and repeating it in a different educational scenario. To that I say...meh.

Dolphin Tale 2
I wasn't even aware that the first film made much money, with it being released against the 2012 Super Bowl. But apparently so, as they made a sequel which has more or less the same plot. A no-ta from me.

How to Train Your Dragon 2
I didn't like the first film. There, I said it. It seemed to have the usual kid clichés whilst trying to sound and look original. The style was a bit off, and the casting was hit and miss. This sequel seems to being going even further in the kiddie direction, merely adding a bit of puberty to the characters to appeal to the growing audience more. Add the cheesy sound effects, and it's an instant turn away for me.

The Pixar Perspective: #6 - The Incredibles (2004)

An ongoing series looking back at the feature films from Pixar Animation Studios

When I first came up with the idea of this ongoing perspective, any thoughts of a continuation on the 2004 smash hit The Incredibles was out of mind and out of sight. So it comes in good timing that, mere weeks before I get round to covering the first film, that a sequel is announced alongside a third instalment to the Cars franchise (which the first film will be discussed in tomorrow's Perspective). But onto the film itself. It's hard to come up with a worthy successor to 2003's Finding Nemo. Add director and writer Brad Bird, who brought in his old team from his 90s classic The Iron Giant into a format which they weren't familiar with - it could have gone wrong. But The Incredibles gets it right. It manages to do the things which a modern live action blockbuster can't due to its budget thanks to its animated format. 

The Incredibles manages to recreate a basic American family and add superpowers into their correctly designated characteristics. Every family at that time would say they would be *this character* because they were that age and gender. The family themselves are a joy to watch. You see each member grow in some way or form, which allows great viewing. Bob Parr (Craig T Nelson) finally realises how important family is after spending the last 15 years "reliving the glory days", Helen (Holly Hunter) , Dash (Spencer Fox) is finally allowed to do sports after begging to do so during the first act, and Violet (Sarah Vowell) is given the confidence boost that many girls her age need. As for baby Jack Jack, he is sidelined for a majority of the film, but for good reason - it wouldn't be good parenting to have a baby amongst explosions and giant robots. Superhero companion Frozone (Samuel L Jackson) is also sidelined, also for good reason, but makes a triumphant reappearance in the final battle, and is a cool character. Supervillain Syndrome (Jason Lee) is a grand nemesis for the super family, with a great incentive hidden within the first act and with possibly the biggest villainous plots in modern cinema. However, the funniest of the bunch is Edna Mode, voiced by director Brad Bird, with her great monologues discussing fashion. She's memorable to this day, with a huge following, deservingly. Other characters are good to watch, but don't bring much in comparison to the main stars.

The story is incredibly original. In most first instalments in the superhero genre, it's the character getting their powers and facing a bad guy with a simple jealousy incentive. With the likes of X-Men and The Avengers, they already have their powers but must learn to come together. Here, the team are already together - they just need the threat to show off their abilities with good measure rather than fighting one another. Add the classic tone it gives through its style and music, it makes great viewing.

Humans are always difficult to animate. If they make them too realistic a la motion capture (The Adventures of Tintin and The Polar Express being key examples; only one is getting a sequel), but too distant can make them feel too fictional. The blend between the two here - almost comic book-like, which is fitting going by the scenario - really works for the characters at hand. Add the great visuals (who doesn't love the chase scenes?) throughout, it makes the simplistic designs of objects and buildings acceptable.

The Incredibles is a film worthy of a sequel. It has great characters, a story which is new to the genre, and a blend of action, adventure and comedy which would only be successfully replicated in 2012's The Avengers. It may follow the usual "big battle finale", but it does so with immense enjoyment. 10/10.

Next Time: Turn right to go left...

The Pixar Perspective: #5 - Finding Nemo (2003)

An ongoing series looking back at the feature films from Pixar Animation Studios

Finding Nemo is a film I personally keep close to my heart. It’s my earliest cinematic memory, and it still holds up on repeat viewings over the last 11 years. It’s witty, it’s emotional, it’s imaginative, and it’s incredibly enjoyable. You understand the fear that Marlin (the superb Albert Brooks) has for the world around him, and it has character development for both Marlin and the titular Nemo (Alexander Gould), whilst companion Dory (the incredibly hilarious Ellen DeGeneres) gives the film the grand boost into enjoyment.

All the characters, whether featuring for a majority of the feature film or in minor segments, are joyous pieces of screen presence. Every actor fits the character they’re voicing; you can’t imagine anyone else voicing them. Whilst the standout stars are Brooks and DeGeneres as Marlin and Dory - another great double act for Pixar - the Fish Tank Gang are just as brilliant, thanks to the large variance of personalities between each member. Even the minimalistic characters, such as Bruce (Barry Humphries), Mr. Ray (Bob Peterson) and Crush (director Andrew Stanton) are enjoyable, filled with gags and gravitas.

The story may be a bit repetitive, with simple coming across a different species every so often, but with each meeting comes something new. The sharks bring in a niche prospect of vegetarian sharks (“Fish are friends, not food!”), the anglerfish is incredibly fearsome amongst the dark depths of the ocean abyss, the jellyfish cute and bright but dangerous with every touch, and the turtles being as free-flowing as the East Australian Current. Each segment brings something new, and the breaks to the Fish Tank Gang allow a bit of a breather from Marlin and Dory’s escapades. 

The animation is a big improvement on Monsters, Inc., with superbly designed seafloors and the likes of kelp and anemones being incredibly beautiful. Even the water particles show just how precise the animators were during the film’s production. Add the floating of the fish themselves - they don’t exactly have feet - it shows how far forward they are in comparison to the competitors in the genre. To compare it with competitor Dreamworks and their 2004 film Shark Tale, they used their back fins as legs for numerous scenes - they didn’t have the skill.

Finding Nemo is one of the all-time greats. It’s incredibly funny, it has some of the best animation seen in Pixar’s pre-Disney-ownership days, and it has characters so brilliant that I’m more than willing to see them return in 2016 sequel Finding Dory. Finding Nemo very much deserves a 10/10.

Next Time: Honey, where’s my super suit?! 

The Pixar Perspective: #4 - Monsters, Inc. (2002)

An ongoing series looking back at the feature films from Pixar Animation Studios

Monsters, Inc. is often overlooked when discussing the films released in 2001 (released in 2002 in the UK), due to mega franchises Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Shrek all being released in the same year. It was only with the release of 2013 prequel Monsters University that the original received an increase in traction by audiences. But it was Pixar's first Best Animated Feature nomination - losing to Shrek during the Oscars - and was a box office hit. However, as much as I enjoy the film, it does sadly have many faults.

Firstly, the villains are a bit problematic. Randall (Steve Buscemi) becomes more of a henchmen than an actual threat to Sulley (John Goodman) and Mike (Billy Crystal), relying on his evil appearance and treatment to others once it's revealed that Mr Waternoose (James Coburn) was behind the upcoming scream regime, who too can't seem to make up his mind whether he's bad or not. However, where the villains fail the heroes succeed. Goodman and Crystal are one of Pixar's best double acts, and so far are above Woody and Buzz of Toy Story fame. They have a great rapport, thanks to recording in the same booth behind the scenes, and whilst it's obvious that the two will patch things up after their brief tiff it's still something you hope will happen. Add their friendship with Boo, who's doesn't have a clear voice due to being voiced by a two year old, and it brings a grand protagonist duo.

With the animation, it's great to see the advancements the studio have made with hair, with Sulley having great detailing across his body. There are no stray hairs (likely due to not being fully enhanced by the studio, as they do feature in future films), but it's acceptable when working with such an extensive amount. Monster designs are great, but over time they are just variations of other monsters, in different colours. It does lose the element of originality, and prequel Monsters University will repeat this. Detailing in sets is also a bit lacklustre, but seeing as the film is set mainly in an organisation, it's acceptable.

The humour is where the film really succeeds. Whilst the story is good and original, the humour manages to carry out the entire plot. Whether it be the outtakes and the company play during the end credits, the new stories about the missing child, or just something as simple as "using mainly spoons", the film has huge levels of hilarity, thanks to the delivery by the likes of Crystal and Goodman.

Whilst the film does once again have two inadequate villains and is a backstep in terms of animation quality for the studio, there are plenty of lovable characters and brilliant laughs, with an emotional ending which can make even the hardest of stone hearts crack. 7/10

Next Time: *in whale* We neeeed to finnnd his sooooon!

The Pixar Perspective: #3 - Toy Story 2 (1999)

An ongoing series looking back at the feature films from Pixar Animation Studios

As many people may already be aware, Toy Story 2 was originally designed to be made especially for home viewing, which was all the range with Disney during that period (and would thrive in the mid 2000s). But with the change to theatrical release and an entire change to the film's plot - add to nearly losing the entire film - in a limited time span, the film should have been a complete failure. Other upgraded or troubled productions such as Planes or Men in Black 3 have been critical failures, but Toy Story 2 was, if anything, more successful than its predecessor. However, whilst the film is excellent, it isn't as good as the 1995 classic.

An improvement from the last film is the expanded story for the supporting characters, namely with Andy's other toys. In the original, they were there mainly to accuse Woody (again voiced brilliantly by Tom Hanks) for hitting Buzz (Tim Allen, also brilliant with both Buzzes) out of the window. Here, whilst a handful of them - namely Bo Peep - do stay at home, Buzz brings the likes of Hamm (the ever present John Ratzenberger) and co. in his quest for Woody, which allows the audience to know more about these characters. It allows a lot more gags and makes worthwhile viewing for the Buzz scenes. However, bar Jessie, the newer characters are a bit meh. Bullseye is mute, and only adds humour to a small handful of scenes, whilst Stinky Pete, despite being voiced by the great Kelsey Grammer, is very much sidelined until the third act. 

The humour is still on high levels of comedy, focusing less on the adult jokes from the original and more on the classic film references (Jurassic Park, Star Wars just to name a few). The references succeed by managing to blend in, whilst the original jokes are still laugh inducing. The plot itself is enjoyable, but does lag slightly in the middle as we're left with Woody discovering himself and Buzz and the gang wandering about.

Toy Story 2 is not as good as its predecessor, with new characters sadly lacking full development and a villain who only materialises in the third act. But with its every-lovable cast, high levels of humour and higher-pristine animation, it's still a great film. 9/10.

Next Time: There is nothing more dangerous than a human child...

The Pixar Perspective: #2 - A Bug's Life (1998)

An ongoing series looking back at the feature films from Pixar Animation Studios

As with numerous studios and series, second stories can often be worse than their first, and A Bug's Life is no exception, especially with the previous smash-hit Toy Story. Add the big debacle for being the best animated Ant film against Dreamworks' Antz, it might not have been the success it was. However, unlike the critics and audiences during its release, I'm not particularly fond of the film.

The animation is an improvement over their first feature, with the backgrounds being the biggest improvement. The blinking issue has been (mostly) fixed, and the added bonus of being able to animate large groups of characters helping with the idea of having an entire colony of ants and grasshoppers. However, some of the designs of the insects themselves are hit and miss, with the odd colour choice for the ants. I'm unfamiliar with blue ants, at least looking like they do here, which does occasionally pull you out of the film. Thankfully other character designs are successful - although the psychotic grasshopper is a bit too scary for younger audiences.

The story is a little more basic in comparison to Toy Story, with a simple antagonist and a love story which is pushed down your throat. It does portray the circus elements well, but sadly get squandered by the rest of the plot. The comedy does succeed though, with scenes in the city featuring laugh-a-minute one liners being the highlight of that area. Perhaps if there was more comedy in the third act, the film would do better. 

The characters themselves are good, although the ants are not the most likable. If anything, the circus bugs are the most successful, but villain Hopper is incredibly menacing. Again, his demise is rather bleak and a bit too dark for a children's film, but following the amount of trouble he's caused during his brief life span it's deserving and well-prepared.

A Bug's Life may have a handful of comedy and be an improvement with the animation style, but the story and characters are a backstep for the studio. I rewatched the film hoping for it to have improved since my last viewing, but alas it doesn't succeed. The outtakes are still hilarious though - probably the only thing which holds up with age. 5/10.

Next Time: The Toys are back in town!

The Pixar Perspective: #1 - Toy Story (1995)

The first in a daily series looking back at Pixar Animation Studios' feature films

It's hard to imagine how people responded to this, the first film to be fully animated with CGI, during its initial release due to being born just a year later. But going by its critical praise and its high box office gross, it was possibly the best strongest start a new studio could have. But does Toy Story hold up in a time where animated films like The LEGO Movie and Frozen take a big chunk of box office and critical acclaim? It's safe to say that it does.

The animation style is magnificent. Yes, the characters may blink one eye at a time and Sid's dog does look incredibly creepy (more than the usual species), but it doesn't affect the overall quality of the film's visuals. For a style which was new, it works incredibly well with setting the standards for the medium which now dominates the film industry. As time will tell by future Pixar films, the style will improve more and more, but this original look still holds up to this day.

The characters are incredibly likable, with some clear character development from both Buzz and Woody. Add the excellent casting choices and their comedic timings, it helps create the characters we grow to know and love for another two films and a dozen shorts. 

And boy, that comedy! Despite watching this film, I still find more and more to laugh about, whether it's "I'm Picasso!" or just the fact that one character is literally a hooker, it makes me laugh with every viewing. It's just how great the writing is - which resonates into the story as it's also a smart and original story.

Toy Story is a grand start for the studio, with a lot to love through its characters and comedy. There are no moments which you'd want to take out - if anything it's too short, at under 90 minutes - and it's begins what could be considered one of film's greatest trilogies. 10/10.

Next Time: It's 1998, and there be grasshoppers about! We take a look back at A Bug's Life!

Trailer Talk: Lucy, Hercules, Pat, and Sex

First of all, I want to go back to a trailer from the week before, which I forgot to mention in the previous Trailer Talk.

Hercules
That other Hercules film came out in the UK last week to a low box office gross and a ninth position on the charts. And just in time, the trailer for Dwayne Johnson's new project was released onto the internet. I was not impressed. It looks like a different version of the Clash of the Titans franchise, just with a different prospect behind it all. It'll likely earn a high box office gross, but it has nothing appealing to me.

Lucy
I wasn't expecting much for this Johansson blockbuster, with its August release usually suggesting poor quality. But Lucy has a great mix on what the superb 2011 Bradley Cooper film Limitless achieved with its original concept. This pushes it to the level of action, and with a female main star who doesn't rely on a romance or a big male star to help with the box office. It looks like a great film which I look forward to seeing.

Blended
Oh god, why do you do this to yourself Adam Sandler?! This looks like yet another low-quality comedy which attempts to appeal to those who loved the comedian in the 90s, and Drew Barrymore is doing her usual stuff. Add what looks like some possible racist remarks with the Africans (including Shaq), it looks like another nail in the coffin.

Postman Pat: The Movie
I commented on the first trailer with enormous horror, and this second trailer is no better. The animation is poor, they've humanised Jess the Cat so that the other characters understand her, even the Dalek joke is unfunny - and those usually humour me! I feel like this kills what was a strong part of my upbringing. I just hope the same doesn't happen with Peanuts or Paddington.

A Haunted House 2
Did you really commision a sequel to this pile of rubbish?

Sex Tape
Hmm, what kind of couple buys dozens of iPads to their family and friends? Jason Segel and Cameron Diaz, that's who! Another unfunny film revolving around sex and porn. It has a stupid premise, and in turn has a stupid trailer.

X-Men: Days of Future Past
I'm still unsure about the next instalment in the X-Men films. I have an on-off relationship with them, never loving a film but never hating one either. I haven't seen The Wolverine, but this looks like it has a stronger premise, and I do like that they are combing the two worlds of X-Men and First Class together. But there's nothing which really entices me. You don't get much of a charm or appeal outside of seeing these characters together. Perhaps with a future trailer, and I will see the film when it's released in May, but it looks like it relies on flagship character Wolverine (Hugh Jackman)

Shaun the Sheep: The Movie
Films based on children's television programmes don't always work (case of point: Postman Pat), but Aardman seem to have done well with their teaser trailer for an upcoming Shaun the Sheep film, with some humourous moments in just over a minute's worth of footage. Granted, it won't be in the final film, but this small insight allows us to see what humour we have in store. It might be a rather quiet film (the characters mainly grunt, bleat or bark, as seen in this trailer), but I'm sure their actions will bring hilarity.