# Incredibles 2



## Heliotrope (Jun 16, 2018)

Took my 7 year old last night. 

What I loved about it was there is really something in there for everyone. Those from the 1950’s will enjoy the nostalgia, parents will appreciate the parenting issues, kids will appreciate the action, everyone will appreciate the humour. 

From a story writing perspective, it started out slow, but I guess Pixar can get away with that. It picked up later on and had some funny (though stereotypical) stuff to say about stay at home dads, but didn’t  end off with the epic emotional moment I’ve come to expect from Pixar. 

I do love me some Disney though. I’m a sucker for a quality family film, every time. I feel like it takes a quality writer to be able to put together a great story without resorting to alcohol abuse/excessive violence. Especially in this day and age.


----------



## kennyc (Jun 18, 2018)

I almost went (I'm not a movie person) but loved the first one.


----------



## Vaporo (Jun 18, 2018)

All right, I enjoyed this one. I thought the action was well-done and the humor was usually funny. However, I can't help but compare it to the original.

As far as I'm concerned, the original is a masterpiece. It had thought-provoking commentary and philosophy, an interesting plot, and almost everything executed near-perfectly. The only real complaint I have about the first one was that it's _technically_ supposed to be a comedy, but it's  very subdued most of the time. But, even that ultimately worked in its favor. It turned into becamea family drama-cross superhero movie with some lighter moments of comedic relief.

This one is very unsubtle with its comedy. Which isn't necessarily bad; I thought most of the comedy was well-done. But this one spent five minutes on a fight scene between a baby and a raccoon. It was a lot more... cartoonish than the first.

And that brings me to another point: the baby antics. This movie relies quite a lot on Jack-Jack's superpowered baby antics for its comedy. I mean, it was well-done, and a little bit of that kind of stuff is ok, but the sheer quantity of baby antics started to test my patience.

The movie also didn't really have an overarching theme like the first one did. The entire original was centered on a key question: "Is it right to suppress the abilities of extraordinary people in order to make ordinary people more equitable?" This one though... it feels like it keeps trying to set up a theme, but never going anywhere with is. In the dining room scene at the beginning they ask the question "Should you respect the law even when the law is disrespectful?" But, it doesn't really go anywhere beyond that one conversation. The villain had a philosophy similar to the villain in the original: "Handing your life over to those more powerful than you makes you less powerful." However, nothing is done with it. The villain's philosophy doesn't really do much more than exist so that they can have a motivation.

I feel like there may have been some studio meddling here. I feel like the question about law was the centerpoint of the original script. It wouldn't take too many changes to the final plot to make it so. But, then the writers were told "No, a lot of people thought that first one was too dark for kids with all your philosophy and stuff. Add some more baby antics to lighten it up." Even though how dark it got at times was part of the reason why everyone liked the original in the first place.

And did the villain's motivation and backstory have to be so contrived? I mean... come on! I'd almost say giving them no backstory would have been better than what we got. Even a few minor tweaks would have improved it tenfold. But... whatever. They didn't have _that_ much screentime, and you honestly don't need to know too much more about them than that they're the bad guy.

Also, the design of some of the new superheroes seemed very uncanny valley-ish to me. If you think about it too hard, the heavily stylized proportions in these movies are kind of grotesque, and a couple of these new characters really exemplify it. In the first one they knew what they could get away with. All of the main characters were carefully designed to be aesthetically pleasing, the only exception being the villain, who was supposed to look a bit gross and pathetic. The new characters look ok when they're in a fight, but when they were just standing around a room during their introduction, some of them just looked kind of ugly. And did you really have to choose that _particular_ color palette for Voyd? She would have looked fine if you had just picked literally any other shade of green.

Hmmm, what else... The climax felt kind of contrived. I mean, you're telling me that Mr. Incredible, who is literally a minute later shown effortlessly bending an eight inch thick piece of steel around his waist, couldn't tear out a few pipes to get to the engine room? And how could he swim with that enormous chain around his waist? While attached to a boat traveling over at least sixty or seventy miles per hour? That's not part of his superpowers. Why didn't he just throw the chain into the propeller to stop the ship? Why didn't _he_ just swim into the propeller? Earlier in the movie he easily survives getting run over by a several-thousand-ton vehicle. That propeller probably wouldn't even scratch him. You're telling me that, on a boat full of superheroes, nobody could find a way to shut down an engine?

I think that I need to reiterate that I did enjoy this movie and still do recommend it, but I'm still kind of... disappointed. I wasn't really expecting it to be as good as the first, but I was still hoping for something a bit... more, y'know. I mean, you have thought-provoking commentary swapped out for slapstick and baby antics. It just ends up being a good superhero movie, rather than the amazing class-of-its-own work of art that was the first. Maybe I'm looking at it through my nostalgia goggles too hard, but I usually consider myself to be pretty good at avoiding those sorts of traps, so take that as you will.

As well as this film is doing, there will probably be a third one at some point, and I hold out hope that it could still recapture something of what made the original so great. There are infinite plots that could be done with these characters. What happens when the kids grow up? Could Jack-Jack be corrupted with all that power at his fingertips? What about when Mr. and Mrs. Incredible get to old to fight crime? There's so much that could be done.

However, with how well people seem to be receiving Jack-Jack's baby antics, I also worry that further films could be stunted because of it. But, I'll go to see them anyways. I mean, even if this one was trash I'd have still gone to see it. As far as I'm concerned, I'm still paying for the first one (If you haven't guessed at this point, I really like the first one).

Also, can we all agree that the short at the beginning was really weird? I mean, it was cute in the end, but still really, really weird.


----------



## Consultant_Timelord (Jun 27, 2018)

I really liked this one, but I also completely agree with your criticism Vaporo. 
That being said, I actually liked the villain in this, I feel like her message of us all being attached to screens was super meta, especially as we were sort of forced to ignore her monologue in order to watch the action that was happening with Elastagirl. I did feel like her message was sort of glossed over at the end when her goal suddenly turned from enslaving all of the human race to just enslaving superheroes, which was ok I guess because there was a good action sequence. 
My only real complaint was that it was a little long for a kids movie. Almost 2 hours is a long time especially when there are some points that seem to drag on (like the baby antics).

Personally I thought the short was great. Super weird, but I loved it. It was like having a fever dream and then I was just sobbing, it gave me that emotional point I've come to expect in ever Pixar movie.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 27, 2018)

Yeah the first one took such an original direction... excessive litigation forces governmental regulation and eventual outlawing of supers (rather libertarian and funny)... which is something many folks have wondered about after watching a city nearly destroyed in a movie. Which also brought my brain back to the Baron von Munchausen by Gilliam, where the city's great hero is toted off to execution or imprisonment (can't recall which) for being too heroic, because it made fellow soldiers feel bad that they weren't as heroic as him. heh heh. And of course #1's relationship drama between Mr. I and E and the kids was fresh and well done. Part of the issue for me might've been how Elastigirl flips from being the follow the rules character, you lose a bit of the tension between your two leads.

Incredibles 2 was entertaining, but seemed indecisive in its theme... and as mentioned, some of the extra-supers were just goofy in appearance, and well... the fire barfing dude was cheap humor. More cheap humor, but hell, that works for kids, which was really the point, LOL.

So yes, good flick, just not the classic of #1. Always good to have movies your aren't afraid to take the little ones to.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 27, 2018)

Consultant_Timelord said:


> I really liked this one, but I also completely agree with your criticism Vaporo.
> That being said, I actually liked the villain in this, I feel like her message of us all being attached to screens was super meta, especially as we were sort of forced to ignore her monologue in order to watch the action that was happening with Elastagirl. I did feel like her message was sort of glossed over at the end when her goal suddenly turned from enslaving all of the human race to just enslaving superheroes, which was ok I guess because there was a good action sequence.
> My only real complaint was that it was a little long for a kids movie. Almost 2 hours is a long time especially when there are some points that seem to drag on (like the baby antics).
> 
> Personally I thought the short was great. Super weird, but I loved it. It was like having a fever dream and then I was just sobbing, it gave me that emotional point I've come to expect in ever Pixar movie.



I agree on all points. I liked the short too. It was memorable for me. I came home and told my husband all about it. It gave me that lovely happy/sad feeling I like from Pixar.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 27, 2018)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Yeah the first one took such an original direction... excessive litigation forces governmental regulation and eventual outlawing of supers (rather libertarian and funny)... which is something many folks have wondered about after watching a city nearly destroyed in a movie. Which also brought my brain back to the Baron von Munchausen by Gilliam, where the city's great hero is toted off to execution or imprisonment (can't recall which) for being too heroic, because it made fellow soldiers feel bad that they weren't as heroic as him. heh heh. And of course #1's relationship drama between Mr. I and E and the kids was fresh and well done. Part of the issue for me might've been how Elastigirl flips from being the follow the rules character, you lose a bit of the tension between your two leads.
> 
> Incredibles 2 was entertaining, but seemed indecisive in its theme... and as mentioned, some of the extra-supers were just goofy in appearance, and well... the fire barfing dude was cheap humor. More cheap humor, but hell, that works for kids, which was really the point, LOL.
> 
> So yes, good flick, just not the classic of #1. Always good to have movies your aren't afraid to take the little ones to.



I know. I loved how at the beginning they were criticizing Mr. I for stopping the UnderMiner because "The bank had insurance." It would have been less damage to just let the guy steal the money. That is where I do love these movies. The "Meta" as put earlier, that sort of strips away what makes other super hero movies "cool" and makes you rethink it a bit. 

I felt like the other supers didn't fit the vintage vibe at all. It was distracting for me. For all the criticism of Jack Jack, he was my 7 year old's favorite part, and it is a kids movie after all.....


----------



## Consultant_Timelord (Jun 27, 2018)

Yeah JackJack made sense, and he was a cutie.


----------



## Vaporo (Jun 27, 2018)

I mean, I agree that Jack-Jack's scenes were well-done and enjoyable, and I can see a younger version of myself absolutely loving those scenes. I used to think that the "Jack-Jack Attack" short that came on the first movie's DVD was hilarious. But, today me though they were a bit tiring after a while, and today me is the one doing the reviewing, so...

I don't know. Maybe I was expecting a bit much from what is ultimately still a kids' movie, and I'm being unfair by not reviewing it as such. However, the first one is also "just a kids' movie," and I still think it's amazing. Plus, a huge portion of the audience for this movie is going to be people like myself who saw the original when they were kids and are now teenagers or in their twenties, so there's also that.


----------



## Tom (Jun 28, 2018)

Saw the movie tonight and loved it. I was about seven or eight when the original came out, so I definitely had nostalgia goggles on for the sequel.

That said, the plot was a little formulaic, and it pulled the "last person you expected to be the villain" trope that Disney/Pixar has been favoring a lot the last few years. I also found myself a little disappointed in the aesthetics--I felt they leaned too far into the 1950s angle, where the first one has more of a timeless look to it that seamlessly integrates futuristic technology with nods to midcentury modern design (younger me always thought of it as taking place in the late 90s-early 2000s, as the Y2K years shared a blocky, minimalist element with the 50s). In the new one, they asserted the 50s elements so strongly that it jolted me out of the movie every time a piece of modern-looking technology was introduced.

I'd seen the epilepsy warnings for the film going around, but I was _completely_ unprepared for that scene in the cube-like room full of strobe lights. While I don't have epilepsy, there is some faulty wiring between my brain and my eyes that predisposes me to agonizing 48-hour ocular migraines. As soon as the strobe lights started I shut my eyes and didn't open them until I couldn't see any light on the backs of my eyelids. I can say without a doubt that if I hadn't I would have walked out with a migraine.


----------



## Devor (Jun 29, 2018)

I enjoyed the movie a lot.  As a stay at home father of four, I didn't consider Jack-Jack to be humor targeted at children.  Honestly, I wasn't expecting the movie to be such a horror flick.  



Tom said:


> That said, the plot was a little formulaic, and it pulled the "last person you expected to be the villain" trope that Disney/Pixar has been favoring a lot the last few years.



Am I the only one who knew she was the villain pretty much immediately?  She was close to being Elastigirl's perfect foil - that is, a very similar person but with a different world view.  One of my very few complaints was that it felt too obvious to me.  Then again, maybe that's just because it's been over-done recently?


----------



## Penpilot (Jul 3, 2018)

Good flick, but as mentioned not quite on the same level as the first. I do think the movie had something interesting to say, and I really enjoyed the film. Hopefully, if and when they do a third, they'll be able to up their game again. 

I found it interesting that, for me, the most emotionally impactful moment from going to see the movie happened in the short that came before the movie.


----------

