Search This Blog

Showing posts with label craig t. nelson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label craig t. nelson. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

The Incredibles 2 (5/5 Stars)



 A benefit of animation is the ability to stop time. Bart Simpson has been the same age since 1989. Here, the time between original movie and sequel was a full fourteen years. However, thanks to the wonders of technology, The Incredibles 2 starts immediately after the first film ended. Now, you will know exactly what happened when the villain Underminer (looks like a mole) burrowed beneath the city with a big drill to rob several banks. The human actors certainly look older but all they lend here are their voices and those are the same. Actually, there was a casualty. The young boy who voiced Dash in the earlier movie had to be be replaced by a different young boy. Still everyone else is back. Craig T. Nelson voices Bob Parr/Mr. Incredible, Holly Hunter voices Helen Parr/Elastigirl, Samuel L. Jackson voices Lucius Best/Frozone, Sarah Vowell voices Violet Parr (the author Sarah Vowell did not turn the ingenious bit of casting that landed her this part, and her first role in a movie, fourteen years ago into a voice career, The Incredibles 2 is her second role), and the Director Brad Bird again voices Edna Mode that tribute to old Hollywood costume design.

The Incredibles 2 is above all an action film. The superheroes fight villains and do so at regular intervals. At the beginning of the movie, they fight the Underminer together. The collateral damage from this fight has superheroes banned again (the bank after all was insured, so if the Incredibles had done nothing, things would have turned out better). As the government program is terminated, a billionaire philanthropist steps into the void. This man is voiced by the incorrigible excitement of Bob Odenkirk, perfect. The billionaire believes that superheroes have an image problem. He proposes that they wear cameras on their clothes and present their best sides first. By that he means, only Elastigirl and not Mr. Incredible because she wrecks less things while saving them. Mr. Incredible comically fights to hold onto his dignity and Elastigirl goes on to save runaway trains and fight villains every twenty minutes or so in spectacular display.

Meanwhile, Mr. Incredible is relegated to taking care of his family. Never has such a task been presented in such a heroic light. Those who are old enough will remember when American education “changed math” much to the chagrin of old men trying to help their sons with their homework. And can you really help a teenage girl deal with anything? The most pressing problem however is the toddler Jack Jack who is budding with new random and frightening superpowers. The movie’s best moment has to be when Jack Jack fights a raccoon, who starts the fight with way too much confidence and is continually surprised by the toddler’s more and more dangerous capabilities. Jack Jack is taken at one point to Edna Mode who goes crazy with the creative possibilities of a super-suit for such a superbaby.

The Incredibles franchise is notable in its slightly conservative tone. The first movie took swipes at bureaucracy and personal injury attorneys. The Incredibles 2 continues on this thread. This can be seen first in the billionaire’s modern liberal idea to present superheroes in a more favorable light by not highlighting the white man (I say that this discrimination is from a conservative point of view because it presupposes that the movie’s world would find a woman to be more acceptable than the white man. We all tend to see ourselves as the victim). That poor white man, it really hurts to not be wanted. At another point, the villain of the story, the Screenslaver, presents a very compelling reason for why it wants superheroes to remain illegal. Screenslaver posits that when there are superheroes around, normal people become complacent about their place and situation. Why should they try to better themselves or fight back when they can just call on superheroes to save the day? Superheroes, this villain reasons, make people weak. This is essentially an argument against patriarchal, i.e. big, government. The movie is not completely about this point. It is very funny and action-packed, but it is notable that a kid’s movie would so articulately make this point (even if, you know, the villain is ultimately vanquished). Pixar is a company that contains a multitude of voices.

Pixar has unfortunately gotten so successful they feel compelled to make sequels for their best films, i.e. most of them. If they were a less successful company, this movie may have been made ten years ago. (Instead it had to first wait for sequels of Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc., Toy Story, and Cars (twice) to be made). The Incredibles 2 is notable in that it is better than the first one. It is as funny and action-packed (perhaps more so) but also has a better villain and a better point to it. After fourteen years, and a stupid amount of other super-hero movies produced in the meantime by other studios, this sequel had much more to say about the genre than it had before. Give Pixar another Oscar. I most likely won’t see a better animated movie this year.

p.s. Samuel L. Jackson currently has the record for most box office receipts for movies he has acted in, $5.589 billion dollars to be exact as of now. He just reswiped this record from Harrison Ford, $4.963 billion dollars. How did he do it? Well, apart from being a reliable work-a-holic, he is also a big team player. He added substantially to his record this year with supporting roles, first in Avengers: Infinity War and now as Frozone in Incredibles 2.


Sunday, October 24, 2010

Blades of Glory 06/22/07

A comforting, unambitious, solid comedy from people who are venturing into well known waters. This has to be Will Ferrel's third sports movie (following KIcking and Screaming, and Talladega Nights) and the umpteenth time he played a droll, unmitigating badass. Again he knocks it out of the park. Why? Because like a very good Broadway star he manages to keep basically the same performance looking fresh and new. He's definitely the heart of the comedy, although another great part of this movie is the number of small parts that are given to well known faces. This movie has enough second tier comedians to rank it with a Christopher Guest film. In supporting roles we have Rob Corddry, Luke Wilson, Craig T. Nelson, Andy Richter, that gay guy from Reno 911, various skating stars (including an inspired cameo by Sasha Coen), the duo of Will Arnett and Amy Poehler who are perfect sister and brother villains, and Jen Fishcer, from the Office, as the shy love interest. All of them are playing roles they've played a thousand times before, but all of them play them well. So it's no surprise that the movie doesn't suck. Then again it's no surprise the movie is good. There you have it: no surprises period.

The one part of the movie that could have been better was Jon Heder. The main problem with this guy is that his acting conflicts with the part he's playing. He's supposed to be an infemminite, graceful, figure skating star. Instead Heder plays the guy like he's Napolean Dynamite's cousin. He's not graceful, he's clumsy and stupid. It doesn't fit well. and since the main love interest is between him and Jen Fischer I would have liked a guy that deserved to have someone fall in love with. Jen likes this guy because of the script, not because he's in anyway good looking or interesting. The role would have been better cast with a Topher Grace or maybe even a Jason Schwartzman.

But I'm getting carried away. The movie works and to it's credit it's not all gay jokes which was a relief. Some of it is clever wordplay. Notice a banter that takes place when the kids realize they have to spend the night in the same room. Ferrel objects and says deeply "Nights are a dark time for me." Which Heder retorts with "Nights' are a dark time for everyone." Ferrel shoots right back "Not for those living in Alaska and Men with night vision goggles." Very true, this movie relies on snappy lines like that. The movie's climatic scene is climatic and I was apprehensive and caught in the moment. The movie ends on a note that in a lesser comedy would have been bonehead ridiculous, but since I liked the movie I let the filmmakers get away with it and enjoyed it instead. 

The best part is a new twist on the old movie cliche "the nervous first telephone conversation," between Jen and Jon. What's great about is that both are receiving insane advice from Will Ferrel and Amy Poehler respectively. They both awkwardly throw heavily weighted innuendo at each other and are pleasantly surprised when the other responds positively even though they aren't really talking to each other and they're sages have completely different agendas. Those are good ingredients in any comedy, convenient complications.