A Review of "The Incredibles"

erikharrison writes "Last night I caught a late showing of 'The Incredibles', Pixar's new computer animated bonanza. Here is a review, relatively spoiler free." Read on for the rest of Erik's review. I saw the movie yesterday too, and it's excellent - go check it out.

First off, this is Slashdot. You know, News for nerds, yadda yadda. So, let's start off with talking about the special effects, or more generally, Pixar showing off all that they have learned and accomplished.

The big hype in the animation sector has been the characters - real human people. Don't be fooled by the hype. Pixar has been doing humans as characters since "Toy Story". With the single exception of "A Bug's Life", human beings have featured as a major character in every Pixar film, and while the effect here is fantastic, it is evolutionary, not revolutionary. No, what stands out in terms of technical acheivement here is the movie's stunning use of light. Sure, "Finding Nemo" accomplished a lot here, but in that film, light was a tool to give depth to the water that surrounded the characters. Here in "The Incredibles" the light is a thing unto itself. Gorgeous shadows, warm red lava, sunlight against clouds, all of these things are breathtaking. The use of sunlight, especially in the jungle sequences, give objects a three dimensionality they have never possessed in a Pixar film before. It's clear that Pixar didn't have the chops prior to this film to do action sequences, because prior to this, the feeling of moving in a three dimensional space just wasn't there.

The movie itself is not just a breakthrough technically, it's a very different movie from previous Pixar productions. This is very intentional. All previous Pixar movies have been dreamed up primarily by John Lasseter and Andrew Stanton, Pixar veterans. So the story goes, these guys are looking back at Pixar history and while they see the series of wonderful made films that the rest of us have seen, apparently they also saw something else: an encroaching rut. There was a very real chance that Pixar could have become the next Disney in a very short time, making well produced and financially successful repeats of their earlier successes for years on end. They didn't want that to happen. And that takes fresh blood. Enter Brad Bird. Bird was an art student with Lasster, and had made one feature film five years ago - the sady underseen "Iron Giant". Brad Bird was challenged to make a different kind of movie, with complete creative control - he wrote and directed. This gamble paid off hugely.

This is not a kids movie. Seriously. Previous Pixar films have been consumate kids movies, movies so well made, and so funny that parents could enjoy them. And there are even a few adult gags the kids might not get. "The Incredibles" is a completely different tack. "The Incredibles" is an action movie, first and foremost, one of the best of the current crop of superhero films. Then it is a family film second, and a kids movie third, if at all.

To give you the basics: the world is full of superheros. The biggest are Mr. Incredible, super strong and invulnerable, Elastigirl, a Ms. Fantastic of sorts, and Frozone, a Silver Surfer/Iceman hybrid. Due to events that occur on Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl's wedding day, superheros wind up on the wrong end of - get this for deja vu - lawsuits. Lawsuits by the thousands. The government comes up with a relocation program, hiding the supers and pardoning them from actions performed in spandex, with the agreement that they hero no more.

Mr. Incredible becomes Bob Parr, an overweight insurance adjuster, with three kids. The symbolism is rampant. Once incredible, now he must suppress both his gifts and his insatiable need to help people, getting in trouble with his boss for actually helping their customers. From incredible, to just par. He's huge. He fills up the entirety of his cubical space, he fills up his entire car, he bends doorknobs, and cutting through his son's steak, he cuts through the table. He is too big for the small world that society wants to peg him in.

On the other hand, he's missing the one incredible part of his life - his family. His son Dash is tired of suppressing his lightning speed, and his teenage daughter Violet is tired of moving everytime the government needs to cover up her father's identity. When she can't hide behind her goth hair, she uses her powers to turn invisible. Managing the two of them and their third child, a normal baby named Jack Jack, Elastigirl is getting tired of being the only real parent.

Their marriage is strained, their kids are young and angry, his job is about to fall apart, and her patience is thin. It's a domestic situation primed to explode, and for the many of us out their who have seen couples divorce, we know exactly where it's going.

Except something happens.

And thereby hangs a tale. As you can see, this isn't some allegory about our lives from the point of view of a bug or a toy or a monster. It IS our lives. But with superpowers. Much like the also fabulous "Shaun of the Dead" the real story is a human one, but framed within spectacular events. The visuals are awesome, the special effects are fabulous, and the dialog not only funny but at times witty. I can bet that 90% of Slashdotters will see themselves on screen, most likely identifying with the daughter Violet or the villain Syndrome.

The performances are of course amazing. Pixar continues its talent of finding distinctive and expressive voices in the world of more traditional acting. Jason Lee as syndrome hints at his performance in "Dogma" and Craig T. Nelson shows us he can be so much more than just the coach from Coach. Holly Hunter shows her never ending flexibility (no pun intended), and newcomer Sarah Vowell as Violet (from National Public Radio's "This American Life") is quite delightful. And the only complaint about Samuell L. Jackson is that there isn't enough of him.

One sad difference between "The Incredibles" and Pixar's previous offerings is that it has a few minor niggles. Regardless of how you feel about Pixar's previous work, it was all carefully and consummately made. The movie's mixture of family interactions and superheros almost always works, but is slightly shakey with its villain Syndrome. He's got great lines, a good backstory, and a perfectly over the top performance from Jason Lee, but something just doesn't quite work, and that's the first time I've ever said that about a Pixar flick. But in the end it doesn't matter. So much works here, that the little stuff gets washed away.

Great movie

[Ikn]

Pixar really does seem to know what they're doing. My 2 favorite lines are somewhat spoiler-ish so I'll keep them to myself, but they definitely have the whole 'market to kids, but the parents will enjoy it' routine down. I saw it with my 22-year old SO and was laughing as much as the annoying kids behind us (quit kickin' my chair!)

Computer animation at its best

[Patik]

There are so many details in the movie it's insane. The scenes where they run through the jungle are amazing. Every single tree and plant is highly detailed even though it rushes past you in the blink of an eye. The humans are just right -- not realistic-looking, but realistic enough. Their hair and clothes are excellently textured, while their skin and faces are comic book-like. The mechanical robot they fight looks like it is made of real metal, not drawn. The lighting effects, as mentioned in the review, are perfect. The whole movie is an animation masterpiece.

Saw it last night too...

[thewiz]

And absolutely LOVED it!

It's nice to see that Pixar is sticking to it's guns on having a great story/script BEFORE they start making a movie out of it. Too bad Eisner & Co. didn't get that clue and I think Pixar will be all the better for it now that they've told Disney to get lost.

As Steve Jobs would say, the movie is "insanely great"!

Re:Don't get there late

[Ikn]

I'll second this. The short wasn't as great as some (The Birds!), but still very good. And I'll also mention there's a trailer for Pixar's next movie, 'Cars'. It definitely looks geared a bit more to kids than the usual Pixar flick, but I thought the same about Shrek, so what do I know?

Probably the Peak

[DumbSwede]

While The Incredibles is indeed incredible, I was much less impressed with the Jackalope lead in, which I'm guessing was more for the kids as an offset to the more adult story line of The Incredibles itself. Unlike previous Pixar previews, Cars left me cold. I suspect The Incredibles will be the Apex of Pixar and Disney's union. Here's to hoping Pixar going alone will continue to amaze and innovate.

Ironically, Disney's solo "Chicken Little" looks to be pretty good (previewed at The Incredibles also).

Re:wow

[wertarbyte]

it wont air here (israel) for another 3 weeks though... :(

I guess it'll take even longer here in germany. Well, it'll be coming soon to a torrent tracker near you :-)

Randism? In a world where everyone is super...

[DoorFrame]

I really enjoyed this movie, but it had a weird streak of Ayn Randism running through it. I actually rather liked that, but each time it caused to step back from the movie a little bit. There were a couple of lines thrown in like "And when everybody's super, then no one is," announced by the bad guy. Or when Dash is told by his parents that everyone is special, he retorts with "that's just a way of saying that nobody is."

This movie encouraged exceptionalism in a way that was striking for a kid's movie. It actively lobbied against the idea of everybody being unique in their own way, it argued in favor of there being Nietzchi-esque supermen among us who should be lifted up above the masses for the betterment of society.

Whether or not you like the message, it was kind of fun to see what I was expecting to be a kid's film making an arguement about philosophy. Fun stuff. Good movie.

Alan Moore "Watchmen"

[Trurl's Machine]

While I enjoyed "The Incredibles" very much, I couldn't shake the impression that the movie storyline is just a bit too close to the storyline of the classic Alan Moore graphic novel. "Watchmen" also tell the story of superheroes whose activity was banned by law - thus ending the Golden Age - and they were given new identities by the government just like in the witness protection. Even the idea of portraying the Golden Age and the contemporary narrative in different graphic styles, reflecting differences in aestethics of contemporary graphic novel and 1930's comics is present here - in "Incredibles", we have contemporary CGI animations and hilarious spoofs of "retro" cartoons of the Golden Age.

I had the opportunity to ask Brad Bird directly about this similarity on "The Incredibles" junkt in Santa Monica. He said he has never read "Watchmen". I believe him, but... it's just too close.

I almost cried

[Ballresin]

The movie was able to jerk emotions out of me much more than expected. I come from a divorced family and there's lots of kids. I somehow had a weak spot for this and it shows when I watch it. Very Very VERY well made. Gotta love Pixar. Don't know what I think about Cars yet. Looks kinda goofy and stupid. But Incredibles' trailers didn't give anything away about the content of the movie either....

Saw it last night...

[herko_cl]

...and I have to agree with the comments so far. The movie is extraordinary, one of the best I've seen so far this year. It may be an even better superhero movie than Spiderman 2, and that's saying a lot.
The effects are there to help the story along, not to shine by themselves. At lots of times I completely forgot that it was CGI; it's not animation, not live acting, but something in which you can get utterly absorbed. A must-see for any self respecting film geek, Pixar fan, CGI fan, or all of the above.

Lighting... Finally!!!!

[mughi]

Ever since the early days, one thing that has annoyed me about Pixar is their strange love of over-saturated light. From their early TV commercials on they've had it. The one part of Toy Story I didn't like was that lighting (most often in sunset scenes, etc.), especially since I had just figured out that general problem in some 3D work I had been doing myself at that time and was very attuned to the look.

However... as the review pointed out, in this picture the lighting is just beautiful. The choices are great, and the look enhances without intruding. Basically it's moved up to being a strong supporting character

Re:Great movie

[FlutterVertigo(gmail]

I've seen questions posted elsewhere asking for advice about kids. Obviously, seeing animation in a commercial attracts not on the kids but makes the parents think it's likely apparent. I've talked to several people who have taken their kids & regretted it.

Ebert & Roeper both stated it was not a movie for kids. Hopefully, the next time I see it the parents will learn to keep their kids occupied (not ooh, ahh, laughter, but chatter, chatter, chatter) or adjourn them outside of the screening room when it's far enough into the movie it would be time for a commercial were it to be on television.

Pixar + Nietzsche = The Incredibles

[Alien54]

This review on the blog Backwards City [blogspot.com] has an interesting take on the Nietzchien implications of the movie.

Which point is an interesting philosphical problem in itself: the ethical question of what do you do with the gifted in the first place?

The Incredibles are simply incredible

[MajorBlunder]

I too saw the move at a late showing last night. I found it thoroughly enjoyable in all respects. The story was great, the acting (both vocal and animated) was supurb, and the effects were spectacular. I agree with the review in that while I would have no hesitations in bringing children to see this movie, it is not a "kids movie." There are some very mature themes in this movie that deal with family dynamics, middle age crisis, and the use of force/violence.

One of my favorite parts of the movie (spoiler alert) is when Elastigirl is talking to her children while hiding from the bad guys in a cave and warning them:

"You know those Saturday morning cartoons you used to watch? Well the bad guys here are not like that. They will not exercize restraint just because you're children. They will kill you if they can."

Again, while I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I have a sinking fear that Disney is going turn this into another franchise that they will milk for all its worth. Until it has none of the spark which makes this movie so enjoyable.

Re:Man...

[bl1st3r]

"Mr. Incredible becomes Bob Parr, an overweight insurance adjuster, with two kids."

Good quote. I competely missed it. Mr. Incredible actually becomes Bob Parr, an overweight insurance adjuster, with three kids. Not two. The reviewer completely forgot about Jack Jack.

Grammar Nazism aside, this was a completely thorough and delightful read. This should stand up as a model on how to write a review.

I also missed the reviewers name. Erik Harrison. This is insanely creepy because my name is Eric Harrison. I wonder what his middle name is.

Did anyone catch the phone number?

[pspmikek]

The phone number on the Mirage business card appeared to be a real 866 number - anyone get it?

Re:Alan Moore "Watchmen"

[Quarters]

XMen features regulation of mutants by the government as a central theme. The now out of print but still excellent Wild Card series of novels deals with super-heroesque mutations and how the government and the rest of the world deals with them--including segregation and registration.

The juxtaposition of racism to superhero-ism isn't that hard to conceive...for anyone. Moore's take on it in Watchmen is as good as the rest, but it's not overly unique in any way.

Re:Don't get there late

[mog007]

That Cars movie is probably geared toward kids because it'll be Pixar's last film done under their partnership with Disney. Disney is probably exacting creative control for the first and last time.

Re:Nice Job Mr. harrison

[meburke]

Actually, if you are the same Erik Harrison who does the reviews for the Houston Chronicle, I've been pretty impressed with your ability to analyze a movie and write coherently about it. Those reviews are usually entertaining and cover more ground than simple opinions. I have a certain dislike for people who take the title "movie critic" too seriously. I believe "movie reviewer" is a better description of what you do, and I appreciate reading reviews that are seldom one-sidedly negative (or positive), and contain knowledgeable comments on the actors and presentation.

I love movies. I seldom read reviews before seeing a movie (and I usually see about 4 per week), but I don't shy away from your reviews. I'm generally interested in your point of view.

Of course, if you're NOT that Erik Harrison, then you should know that the review you wrote here is VERY good. I wish I wrote half so well.

Re:Alan Moore "Watchmen"

[MyHair]

I'm not familiar with Watchmen, but the litigation stopping superheroes and the relocation program seem fairly obvious to me. Not in a bad way.

For example since I've grown up diving boards are no longer at public pools and playgrounds went from towering slides of metal to rubberized containment rooms. (Due to litigation leading to skyrocketing liability insurance premiums.) In a way the loss of diving boards and tall slides and flying jennies has taken away some feeling of power/exhiliration that hasn't been replaced. Superheroes grounded by legislation seems a logical extension of the concept to me.

As a kid, when you're different from others you are pressured to conform often to the point of supressing who you think you are. (Actually we get this as adults, too.) The relocation program is a logical implementation of this and humurous when likened to the WPR program.

Mr. Jobs is on the ....job?

[ztirffritz]

Steve doesn't even have time to fail lately. He is the head of a computer company that is in the midst of revolutionizing the music industry, making great computers(IMHO), with soaring stock values, and record profits. He is also the majority share holder of Pixar, the company most likely to unseat Disney as the the next media monolith. "The Incredibles" was about the smartest thing that Pixar could do to jump out of the path of the rut they were about to step into. It will be a success, so will their next film. Then they are done with Disney and on their own. Suddenly all the work will PAY OFF bigtime. Steve has managed to tie each of his personal investments together into one huge monster in sheep's clothing. He sold NeXT to Apple, became Apple's CEO, then used the NeXT OS to create Mac OS X, then sold lots of OS X Macs to Pixar to make movies for Disney. Then he sells the music from the movies on iTMS. Bill Gates better watch out.

It lost me at the French proto-villian

[Fractal Dice]

Am I the only one who is getting tired of the whole "the fans are the real problem!" whining?

As amazing and fun as the animation and humour were, I was never able shake off the creepy elitism underneath it all as I was watching it.

Reminds me of An Evening With Kevin Smith

[KalvinB]

a lesbian complained that Chasing Amy made it sound as those homosexuality were just a choice and that a lesbian just needed a "deep dicking" to be converted.

Kevin Smith pointed out that the Jason Lee character said that because his character is so WRONG about everything. Kevin Smith was making a point that such a line of reasoning is WRONG.

"Syndrome" said that because the idea is WRONG. If were were coming out of Mr Incredible's mouth then it might possibly be construed that Pixar was trying to convince people that were the way things are.

What made you think that the villian in the movie was the one to pay attention to for some kind of moral lesson? Pixar had Syndrome say those lines because he's the bad guy and HE'S WRONG. Dash says it because he's young and ignorant. And he later finds out he was WRONG. His entire family has special abilities that make them unique.

All the Incredibles are unique in their own special way. The heros are like that because that is the CORRECT moral lesson Pixar was putting out there.

Seriously. I can't think of any movie where every character good and bad speaks only moral truths that the audience is supposed to take as correct. This like every other movie ever made has characters which have incorrect world views which are then demonstrated to be wrong by events of the film.

Re:Copy? no... "satire"

[datastalker]

You forgot Star Wars, notably "Return Of The Jedi". I'll let movie viewers draw their own parallels between the Jungle scene in "The Incredibles" and the Forest scene in "ROTJ".

Watch the Eyes -- very, very cool!!

[Tildedot]

Okay, I've seen it twice already, and (damn!) have to go again with my wife tonight. I simply can not believe the talent and insight that Pixar brings to the medium.

GEEK ALERT
So, the thing that really stands out for me is the slight "involuntary" movement of the eyes when Mr. Incredible is listenting to his wife. It's about half-way through the film.

It's subtle. He's looking at her. Then, there's the smallest of movements of his eyes when she speaks...and he's looking at her. Seriously, he's watching her speak.

It's just so lifelike...a tiny, delicate detail... that it absolutely blows my mind. I got a cool chill when I noticed it, like the first time I saw 'Al' the toy collector, sleeping on the couch in Toy Story 2. So very "real", extremely cool.

And as for the preview for Cars, hey, I liked it! My son will probably enjoy it, he really digs that stuff!

Very Enjoyable

[The Raven]

I was not let down. I keep waiting for the first Pixar flop or let-down... and I'm still waiting. To be honest, the car movie doesn't look all that interesting to me, but I'm perfectly willing to give it a chance.

I enjoyed how they portrayed the mothers domestic use of her powers. Elastigirl makes the best use of her powers through the movie I think, in many various ways. A superfamily trying to be normal... perhaps not the most original premise, but very well executed and hilarious nonetheless.

You can tell when someone makes excellent characters... you want to see more of them. You wish there was a longer movie, or a sequal, or something. And at the end of this movie, I was very much wanting to see Incredibles 2.

But... I am glad to say that there's a good chance we'll never see that. Pixar is very good about creating a new world with every movie... Toy Story 2 was a mandate from Disney, not a Pixar choice. And there's no real need to revisit the Incredibles... their story is done. I just loved the story, the world, and the delivery... impeccable.

I'm a Pixar fanboy, I admit. :-)

Re:Computer animation at its best

[DeepHurtn!]

Whoops, yeah, Polar Express (obviously, I'm not very interested in the movie ;)). But I don't care *how* they made Tom Hanks' character; the point is that it looks like a zombie (to me, anyways). Too real for my brain to characterize as straight up animation (like The Incredibles), but still way too fake to actually convince it that it's real. The result, for me at least, is some freaky undead effect.

Re:Wet hair rendered

[morcheeba]

Good point. I was referring to only pure-CG movies where, if it can't be realistically rendered by a computer, it'll look bad and won't be done. Star Wars and the Matrix had great effects, but they used a lot of non-CG - multiple cameras, wires, acrobatics, etc. Wet hair would be done the old fashion way (a can of water and an actor), while only the stuff that was better done by CG (light sabres) would use it.

Toy Story lacked some stuff, but the story worked around it - people, hair, and water were all missing because they're really hard to render. (Still one of my favorite movies, though)

Re:Saw it last night too...

[bencvt]

So basically what you're saying is that it's coming down to blackmail?

Disney: "Renew the contract or we'll crucify your characters by releasing a dozen straight-to-video crapfests!"

If I were a Pixar executive, I would call Disney's bluff. Disney is going to milk Pixar's previous creations for all they're worth, and then some, regardless of whether Pixar decides to play ball with Disney.

If the continued creative genius exhibited The Incredibles is any guide, Pixar continues to look forward rather than backward. I'm not worried about Disney's inevitable retaliation; Pixar will continue to innovate with or without Disney's cooperation.

Re:Very Enjoyable

[rdean400]

Toy Story 2 was a mandate from Disney

Actually, it wasn't a mandate so much as a request. However, Disney screwed Pixar on the contract by saying that TS2 couldn't count against the number of movies on the agreement. This is what really caused the wedge to form between Disney and Pixar.

Also, I think we will see a The Incredibles 2, but it will be done by Disney (as apparently is their right under contract...expect Monsters Inc 2 and Finding Nemo 2 also, along with other soulless Disney rip-offs of itself and Pixar).

Re:Please

[Anonymous Coward]

1) It's a bit too long, and shows signs of being cut from an even longer film (what happened to Mirage in the end, for instance?) The last scenes feel a bit rushed, judged by the standards of those that came before them.

2) May be too loud/scary for very young or squeamish kids 5 years of age. The MPAA's PG rating is reasonable in this case. Some reviewers have had political-correctness gripes with all the guns and violence. (Those reviewers need to get laid, but they also need to use protection so they don't accidentally reproduce.)

- It has the least-original storyline of any Pixar film. Not a serious failing, since it doesn't pretend to be stunningly-original.

- Still the best Pixar flick to date, which places it among the best films ever made. It will be as appealing fifty years from now as it is today. You really have to reach for any major gripes about this movie.

Re:Wet hair rendered

[morcheeba]

I don't agree. Nick Foster won an Academy Award for the water in Antz. article [pennnet.com] I agree with your statement on making it fit the feel of the rest of the movie. Water may be easy to model with FMA, but it'll take a lot of processing power. And I think fire is a lot harder -- we're still working on models for scientific simulation. I've rendered fractal clouds, and, sorry, they don't look too hot. You'd need a weather model, and then you'd need to make it fast.

Re:My biggest disappointment

[AKAImBatman]

And, since the new costume is custom-fitted to his paunch, there shouldn't be any problem with the belt.

His suit was NOT custom fitted to his paunch. By the time he asked Edna for a new suit (I got a real kick out of that lady!), he had already been lifting train cars to get rid of it. The scene where he measured his waist was the one that immediately preceded his visit to Edna.

Lip synching?

[MachDelta]

One thing I think Pixar has yet to perfect is speech. If you watch closely when the characters are talking, some of their lip movements seem stiff, or too simplified for what they're pronouncing. I think part of it might be under use of the tongue, or lack of depth on the lips... it's really hard to say. I know its a really difficult thing to pull off flawlessly, but I did notice it a couple times (like when Violet calls her brother a "little insect", it sounds like it was said through clenched teeth, but the character onscreen opens her jaw wide for the E). I wonder if Pixar ever records video of the actors pronouncing their lines at the recording studio... it might be handy in better matching the characters lips to the actors accents. Anyone know?

Either way though, its just a little nitpicking. Overall the movie was fabulous. I enjoyed it a lot!

Re:This movie is fantastic.

[808140]

Oh wow, you really are ignorant.

You might be able to make a sort of semi-argument when it comes to the four years spent in high school -- although that girl with the purple hair that couldn't pass math but could draw incredibly well and spent most of her junior year on acid might disagree with you -- but let's look at life later on, shall we?

I mean come on, essentially no one values art, literature, or anything like that. At least someone with a CS or Engineering degree can get a job. Don't come back with some Indian outsourcing bullshit; try living as a painter or musician for a while and see how well you fare.

In high school, unless you were a jock-type, you got pounded on. In the corporate world, unless you're a business type, you get pounded on. That's how it works.

In general, the extremely intelligent and gifted -- regardless of what field they prefer -- are intimidating to those that lack the same talents. Since life is essentially a popularity contest, only those that have the luck of both being extremely talented and extremely good at not making the less talented feel stupid are going to succeed.

When you're really smart, not making other people feel stupid is hard work, since folks generally are wont to feel inferior.

Computer geeks are particularly bad at this because they, unlike most other kinds of smart people, have a tendency to overestimate their own intelligence and believe that they are unique in the world, rather like you're doing at this very moment.

But as a mathematician, let me bat you with a cluestick: Math, Physics and CS are not inherently more complex or difficult than art or literature. The funny thing about science-geeks is they often feel like they're better than everyone else because they can do something other people can't do easily. They're rather like jocks in this respect. Someone who can draw or write well also can do something that most people don't do well, and yet he rarely starts acting arrogant about it. Funny, isn't it?

The misunderstood artist, author, or musician is just as ostracized and lonely as you are. Just because he can get laid doesn't mean society accepts him or feels that his contributions are worth supporting.

I would suggest you branch out a little bit.