Review: Elemental

Elemental
Cert: PG / 109 mins / Dir. Peter Sohn / Trailer

I must confess I’ve skipped on several recent animated offerings from Disney/Pixar after my lukewarm response to Inside Out, their psychological-explorational adventure which made several people I know act like a light had been switched on while I thought ‘wait, doesn’t everybody visualise their inner monologue this way?’. Don’t get me wrong, that’s enjoyable enough to watch, but I found it withered under the Battleship Curve™.

It was with some trepidation then, that I was treated to the mega-studio’s latest offering, Elemental, courtesy of my local Cineworld’s Secret Screening programme, whereby the film you’re going to watch is unveiled with the BBFC card after the ads and trailers. So the least I could do was give it a go, what with being already settled in to my favourite seat and half way through a coffee*¹.

SHORT

We open with a separate, five-minute short, Carl’s Date, which sees the elderly protagonist from Disney/Pixar’s Up asked out on a date by Ms Meyers from her nursing home. After initially panicking over the morality of his acceptance while still having his late wife’s picture on the mantlepiece, he’s convinced to follow this up by his dog, Dug.

What follows is an extended farcical montage as Carl realises he’s completely forgotten what he’s supposed to do on a date. This in itself is amusing enough, but the rock-solid heart of the piece comes from seeing the relationship between Carl and Dug (skewed of course by the fact that although Dug has a means of physically speaking to Carl, he still thinks like a dog).

The compacted run-time doesn’t allow for any slack, so writer/director Bob Peterson is incredibly focused on what he has to achieve and pulls the whole thing off masterfully. Carl’s Date also shows way more sincerity and comic inventiveness than the feature which it precedes, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves…

MERRY GO

And so onto Elemental. We open in Element City, a bustling metropolis peopled by anthropomorphised air, fire, earth and water. Each of these features the physical bonuses and drawbacks of their lineage, and we see how the ‘tribes’ come to settle into localised communities while still making up the cohesive city as a whole.

The story follows Ember Lumen (voiced by Leah Lewis), a fire elemental who dreams of taking over her elderly father’s ‘fire goods’ store once he retires. After a meet-cute with a city inspector who’s a water elemental (Wade Ripple, voiced by Mamoudou Athie), their frustrated lives become intertwined. But how can fire and water ever hope to mix?*²

With the setup firmly established, cue lots of scripted and visual puns (seriously, those character names are the tip of an iceberg), interspersed with Thomas Newman’s placeholder score and some of the blandest incidental pop-soundtrack you’ve ever wanted to stab biros into your own ears to stop listening to.

BONASERA

Elemental is, in its first act, a heavy-handed metaphor for the New York immigrant-experience of the Liberty Island-era; a tale about how cultural differences aren’t obstacles to divide us, but opportunities for partnership and collaboration. And admittedly this message is probably more relevant than ever, but for a film which is 80% metaphor, the script is remarkably linear.

It doesn’t help that the story gets bored exploring this idea and turns into a meet-the-parents comedy with added elements of class-divide and self-actualisation. Again, all of this is fine in itself, but Elemental’s screenplay was written by four people and feels like it. This is a diluted Inside Out, Zootropolis, and Onward, and as the film plays on the feeling quickly grows that you’ve seen it before.

FERRERA

Pixar’s visuals are solid of course, with backgrounds looking genuinely photo-realistic in certain lighting-states and physical textures exquisitely realised. The earth elementals (so usually looking like plants) are rendered as one would expect, but the visual over-engineering of air (so, clouds), fire and water elementals often feels more like an animation test-reel than the creation of properly memorable characters.

It’s also worth noting that the vocal performances are all over the shop here, even allowing for the random array of accents which are supposed to help the central premise along. Ember’s family are “Firish”, so half the time her apparently-first-generation father has a faintly Celtic twang, while in the rest he somehow sounds like a cross between Super Mario and Big Chief Sitting Bull. This undoubtedly undoes some of the good work that the movie’s setting out to bring.

Worse still, sadly, are the central turns from Lewis and Athie. Both are expressive enough as voice-performers, they just sound way too old for characters scripted like teenagers (even if they're probably supposed to be early twenties). Leah Lewis is 26, Mamoudou Athie is 34, and those years are written right into their voices. Neither feels cut out for the protagonist in a coming-of-age tale.

DRILLER KILLER

Don’t get me wrong, Elemental is an enjoyable enough hour and a half (note: there are no scenes during or after the credits) and means well to the point where its intention really cannot be faulted. It’s just the Disney-Mouse eating its own tail. It’s Pixar being so Pixar that the movie has next to no personality of its own.

The short film brought tears to my eyes. The long film did not. Elemental is still more technically accomplished and thoughtful than most other animation studios could produce, but when your self-set bar is this high, it’s no excuse for mediocrity…

CARL'S DATE:

ELEMENTAL:

*¹ Seriously, if it had been Gran Turismo I’d have bailed. You won’t be reading a review of that terrible-looking shite round these doors, summer-season or otherwise.
^{[ BACK ]}

*² Don’t worry, the film teases and teases and eventually goes on to answer this, and at the same time absolutely doesn’t.
^{[ BACK ]}

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Toy Story 4

Toy Story 4 (Spoilers. No seriously, SPOILERS.)
Cert: 12A / 100 mins / Dir. Josh Cooley / Trailer



Well, the rule of sitcoms has always been that after the difficult third series, you just make a movie where you send the characters on holiday. And since the powers-that-be have started doing that for animated movies now, who are Pixar to argue?

SHORT

Toy Story 4 picks up some short amount of time after the third entry, with young Bonnie now the custodian of the toys and about to start kindergarten. When she fashions a new pal, Forky, made from pipe cleaners and a plastic spork, he's slightly neurotic although begins to fit in with Woody, Buzz and the gang. But things go awry during a road trip when Forky becomes lost, Woody goes on an adventure to rescue him, and meets an old friend in the process...

Clocking in almost a quarter of a century after the first entry, Pixar's fourth full-length chapter in the Toy Story series can hardly be accused of being a quick cash-in. The studio's quality levels are (usually) high, and they're one of the few safe bets when it comes to animated entertainment - not only working to ensure the film takes all the time it needs to be created, but also that it tells a story worth watching.

BANG

Concentrating more on high-adventure this time rather than heart-melting nostalgia, the animation here is better than ever (even if Andy still looks weird), with the photo-realistic scenery and smoothly-moving, well sculpted and weighted models*¹ you'd expect from an industry leader. The pacing is brisk, the stakes are reliably high, Andrew Stanton and Staphany Folsom's script is tight and often laugh-out-loud funny, although it's notable that those moments usually come from the newly introduced characters (Forky, Duke Caboom, Ducky & Bunny). On that subject, it's also good to see Disney/Pixar embracing the idea of more sinister dolls*², although it feels a little Goosebumps at times.

The old gang are present, correct and on-character (as far as they're used - this is very much Woody's show), but tend to bring wry smiles rather than outright guffaws. Despite the frequent action, the film doesn't have the peril of previous adventures (although Toy Story 3 really pushed that to its limit anyway), but it's still great.

Toy Story 4 is an enormous amount of fun, but is it more that that?
More to the point, does it need to be?

CASH

Although it's been asked countless times since the film was first announced, the question isn't so much 'does the Toy Story series need a new chapter?', more 'now that two Lego movies have taken the idea of sentient toys in parallel interacting realities and moved it on a notch, is there still a story to be told with Woody and Buzz?'. The Lego movies don't have the emotional punch of the Toy Story ones, but they seem more adept at making broader, more societal points.

On an entirely smaller level, it feels a bit wrong where the toys band together to control the RV in the final act, wresting control from the human driver. The Toy Story films have always played with the 'just out of sight' motif - it's not as if the toys can't move when people are just watching, they just have the discipline not to - but the tension has previously arisen from the 'OMG will they be seen?' moments. In Toy Story 4, our heroes are pretty much running around in plain sight, and by the end almost causing a fatal traffic accident. If I want that, I'll watch Gremlins, thanks.

BRAVO

There also appear to be a couple of glaring tonal mis-steps in the final moments (even though these are thoroughly cued up by the preceding film). When Woody chooses a life as a 'lost toy' with Bo Peep and is assured by Buzz and Jessie that "Bonnie will be alright", doesn't this completely undercut the final scene in Toy Story 3? Woody was going to be the one toy that Andy kept and took to college, the lone memento of his childhood. He's been Andy's action companion throughout the years who's now earned a comfortable retirement, as adulthood beckons but with one nostalgic eye on the formative past. When Andy sees Bonnie's face light up on discovering Woody at the bottom of the box, he knows that Woody's adventures can now continue in new hands, that it's okay to let his favourite cowboy go knowing he'll be fulfilling his purpose all over again. So then we fast-forward a few months and what? Woody's picking up dustballs in the closet while Bonnie plays with plastic cutlery? Is that all Woody counts for? Is that all the affection Bonnie can manage? She got these toys for free and she treats them like trash, no wonder she makes her own ones from the bin, the entitled little shit. Bonnie deserves to play in garbage. There, I said it.

But it's not just the kid who's to blame here*⁴. With Bo Peep assuring Woody that kids lose toys every day and that Bonnie will quickly get over it, not only is Bo underlining the point above about the kid's attention span, she's also ignoring the very point of the previous three films, surely? Bo abuses the goodwill of her previous relationship with Woody to get him to gainsay his own golden rule - a toy must be there for their kid. Bo's own abandonment issues have morphed into soft-spoken nihilism over the years, and now she's passing on her blithely hedonistic manifesto to any toy she encounters. As a cowboy, Woody symbolises the hardworking optimism which forged America's early days - the truth, compassion and family values which Woody has preached throughout the series. Now Disney (of all people) are showing us how easily these can be disregarded in the 21st century, and ultimately how replaceable we all are*³.

HALLOWEEN H

Don’t get me wrong, I did enjoy Toy Story 4. But I’m happy to join the consensus on this one and be like “Great work guys, now stop”.

Although fair play to Pixar for making a movie showing a young black girl getting lost in a fairground at night then being reunited with her parents, and not having her wear a Michael Jackson's Thriller t-shirt. Don't think I'd have been able to resist, especially with Jordan Peele in the voice-cast...

Well, the Toy Story flicks.



It is.



It is.



It's not but let's be fair, that's a very high bar.



It's possible.



Not that I heard.



Level 1: The voices of Major Bren Derlin and BB-8 are in this, and it shares a writer with Star Wars Resistance.





*¹ And yes, I would totally buy a three-pack of 3¾"-scale Combat Carl figures in their different fatigues. Yes please. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Although on that subject, I don’t think that Gabby Gabby earns her redemption here. She spends more than half the movie wanting to disable the hero and is just one of those weird old toys to begin with. ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ If you think this is harsh, don't even go near my ideas on what The Boss Baby is really about… ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁴ Although it is largely the kid. ^{[ BACK ]}


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Incredibles 2

Incredibles 2
Cert: PG / 125 mins / Dir. Brad Bird / Trailer



So the house-lights went down for Cineworld's latest secret screening on Thursday evening, the BBFC card bore the words "Incredibles 2", and a cheer went up in the auditorium. I wasn't one of those cheering. I thought the first Incredibles movie was basically fine, but no more than that. This should explain the rest of the review…

Set after that first entry, we find Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl, Bob and Helen Parr, trying to balance the demands of raising a young suburban family, while being a superhero team in a city where superheroes have been banned. Billionaire tycoon Winston Deavour approaches the Parrs with a scheme to reverse the legislation through positive marketing, but super-villain The Screenslaver has other ideas, hypnotising citizens to carry out his warped will...

And y'know what? It's fine. Great fun. But no more than that.

On the plus side, the characters are likeable (where they're meant to be), the script is funny, engaging and has great pacing, while the voice-cast are all thoroughly committed to their roles. The cinematography and animation rendering is fantastic, and Michael Giacchino is having the time of his life on scoring duties.

But other than the central team whose visual style is carried over from the first movie anyway, the character design here is so bland it's shocking. They could be from any studio-animation of the last fifteen years. And the plot itself is absolutely bare-bones, just enough to cover the film, but doesn't feel like it's bringing anything new to either the ongoing story, the genre or the audience.

It used to be that an animation would be made when the events the film-makers wanted to show couldn't realistically be depicted in live-action, especially with superhero flicks. But there's very little in Incredibles 2 in terms of abilities or setpieces that we haven't seen in Marvel/Paramount, Fox and Sony's output over the last decade. Live-action has caught up, so where does that leave Mr Incredible?

Big Hero 6 tells a more interesting superhero story, while Inside Out is better at deconstructing home-life angst, and they're from this same studio. What's more, the former movies have moments of genuine, heart-wrenching emotion which Incredibles 2 is sorely lacking. I had fun with the movie, but it really feels like filler on Pixar's part.

High-grade filler, but no more than that.

Well, The Incredibles, frankly.



I guess, although it's only the scale of the action which sells that.



It is.



It's not.
Although fair play to Bob Odenkirk for making me think Steve Carell had been cast in his role. The audible-likeness is uncanny.



It's possible.



There is (buried, but I'm sure I heard one).



Level 1: The voices of Mace Windu, Kit Fisto and Bren Derlin are in this.







DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Coco

Coco (2D)
Cert: PG / 105 mins / Dir. Lee Unkrich & Adrian Molina / Trailer



Arriving on blighty's shores after what seems like an interminable wait comes Coco, the latest offering from Disney/Pixar. Taking place over the Mexican Día de Muertos holiday, the story follows a young boy named Miguel when he becomes trapped in the spirit world, trying to connect with the musical heritage of his ancestors. A family adventure in every sense, the film is brightly coloured, briskly paced and utterly, utterly gorgeous.

Under a four-strong writing team, Pixar's wizards deliver the visual goods once again, demonstrating why they're at the top of the computer-animation class, while the voice performances (mercifully free of stunt-casting) sell the characters effortlessly. In a story about music, there are musical numbers but it's not A Musical. A film full of skeletons is exciting without being scary (thinking of your little ones' reaction), funny without being silly, and full of heart without the need for schmaltz. I loved every single frame of Coco. In fact, the only slight negative here is that I don't have more to say about it after this first-pass viewing. It is perfect.

Although when you go to see the film, please make sure your cinema's air-conditioning has been serviced regularly. I shall be having words with my local as I missed several sections of Coco due to having Something In My Eye…

While there are notes from Kubo And The Two Strings in here, it certainly feels like Ian Disney came into the office one Monday morning in late 2014 and said "Right, I watched a great movie called The Book Of Life at the weekend, and I want any one of you to explain why we didn't make it, yeah?".



It is.



It is. In the meanwhile, go watch this at the cinema.



Strong work all round, that's for sure.



Well that depends on how wrong you are about it.



Not that I heard.



Level 1: The voice of Major Bren Derlin is in this.







DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Cars 3

Cars 3 (2D)
Cert: U / 109 mins / Dir. Brian Fee / Trailer



So the school Summer holidays are imminent, which means it must be time for a Pixar movie. Last year saw an time-passingly entertaining, if thoroughly unwarranted, sequel entry being released into the water, whereas 2017 brings us… yeah, you guessed it. Same*¹.

Cars 3, arriving six years after its forebear and eleven years after its originator*², follows the story of Lightning McQueen (voiced by Owen Wilson), a hotrod-red racing car who's beginning to realise he's past him prime as young up-and-coming contenders leave him crossing the finish-line in their wake. We meet old favourites from the previous movies, plus a slew of new characters, all animated and voiced in the inimitable Pixar style.

Nothing short of exquisitely animated (and I love that the sets and backdrops are now essentially photo-realistic), it's enthusiastically voiced and fairly solidly constructed for a target-audience of younger viewers. But ultimately, the whole thing is uninspiring, coming across as little more than a loosely-connected series of fast-cut track races. For a full on Disney/Pixar production, you know this should be more engaging on an emotional level. If anything, the most interesting thing about the film is how uninteresting a film which had seven writers can turn out to be. It's also a Disney movie which manages to have a tongue-in-cheek dig at saturation-merchandising, which is either very meta, or blissfully non-self-aware.

By no means Disney/Pixar's A-game, Cars 3 will keep your youngsters entertained for the duration of its run-time, at least. As a tale of mentoring, motivation and the inevitability and acceptance of ageing set in the sun-scorched desert, it's a bit like Logan for the under-10s.

Albeit with less claret. Obviously.

Cars. Cars 2.



Not unless your padawans are dragging you there.



Keep the franchise ticking over in a low-gear? Yes.



Nope.



Nope.



Nope.



Level 1: This film's got the voice of Major Derlin in it.






*¹ Although in defence of what I'm about to say in the rest of this review, beforehand I witnessed trailers for The Emoji Movie, The Nut Job 2, The My Little Pony Movie and a CGI thing where James Corden voices Peter Rabbit, all of which look fucking dreadful, so at least I wasn't sitting through one of those. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² In all fairness, 2013 and 2014 took a detour and brought us an unwarranted spinoff and its own unwarranted sequel, respectively. ^{[ BACK ]}

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.