“Brave,” the thirteenth movie from the animation juggernaut that is Pixar, will probably go down as one of the studio’s lesser efforts. Having said that, there is still much to appreciate about this production as it gives the studio an opportunity to make their first period piece, and they give a female hero the lead for the first time ever as well. And as always they offer us brilliant animation to look at, memorably funny characters, and a good dose of John Ratzenberger thrown in for good luck.

At the center of “Brave” is Princess Merida (voiced by Kelly Macdonald), the daughter of The Scottish King Fergus and his wife Elinor. Elinor is very strict about Merida being the perfect princess, but Fergus is enthusiastic about his daughter learning how to defend herself, and we get to see how good she becomes with a bow and arrow. It’s no surprise that she enjoys hitting a bullseye on a target far more than putting on a torturously tight corset.

“Brave” soon becomes very concerned with the relationship between mother and daughter, something I don’t feel I have seen much of in movies of recent years. Merida is at that age where the rest of her life is being prepared for regardless of whether she wants it to be a certain way or not. Her natural reaction is to rebel against any intention of setting her up for some arranged marriage, and that becomes the case when three Scottish clans visit Fergus’ kingdom to offer their first born sons as her future husband.

Looking more closely at this particular princess, she’s a combination of Belle from “Beauty and the Beast,” Jasmine from “Aladdin,” and Mulan from “Mulan.” Like all those lovely ladies, she is an heir or sorts but ever so eager to follow her own path in life; in other words she is the classic Disney princess of today.

After an emotional blowout with her mother, Merida rides her trusty horse Angus (sure to be a plush toy favorite) into the forest where she runs into an elderly witch (is there any other kind?) who appears to spend her time making wood carvings. Pay close attention to this particular scene as it is bound to have many “easter eggs” for Pixar fans to take in. The animation company always loves to put in nods to their previous movies, and the ones in “Brave” make their biggest appearances here.

Anyway, the witch makes Merida a cake to give to her mother which she says will change the princess’ fate; she will not have to marry one of the suitors from the Scottish clans visiting (not to mention wreaking havoc on) her kingdom. Now we all know that dealing with witches brings nothing but trouble, but so eager is Merida to control her destiny that she is unswerving in her attempts to make her dear mother eat that delicious looking cake. But after her mother eats it, she turns into the same kind of bear her husband King Fergus lost one of his legs to and, while we’re at it, one which looks similar to those in those Charmin toilet paper commercials.

From there, the race is on to transform Elinor back into human before this change becomes forever permanent.

Pixar again continues to outdo itself in the realm of computer animation, and Scotland serves as the perfect setting for this kind of story. Scotland has always been a grand setting for characters filled with honor and passion, and it makes sense that the studio behind “Toy Story” and “The Incredibles” would want to use it for a movie. The look of the land is extraordinary in its computer animated creation, and from a distance it becomes hard to tell at times what is real and what is animated. It has been said that Pixar ended up rewriting their animation system for the first time in 25 years when making “Brave,” and the results are remarkable to see.

While Merida may not be different from the average Disney princess, actress Kelly Mcdonald does give her an appealing personality that serves to make the character unique. Having left such a memorable impression in HBO’s “Boardwalk Empire” and the Coen Brothers’ Best Picture winner “No Country For Old Men,” Mcdonald is perfectly suited to give a strong voice to this wonderfully feisty character with beautiful red hair (I’m serious).

Mcdonald is also surrounded by a voice cast which enthusiastically rises to the occasion to create such wonderful characters. Billy Connolly (“X-Files: I Want To Believe”) is a complete hoot throughout as King Fergus, and he gives Fergus a big heart on top of serving as the movie’s comic foil. Emma Thompson proves to be a wonderful match for Mcdonald as she voices Merida’s mother, Queen Elinor, and she gives Elinor a strong vulnerability as she strictly prepares her daughter for her future life as a princess.

“Brave” also has some inspired vocal performances from Kevin McKidd as Lord MacGuffin and Young MacGuffin, Craig Ferguson as Lord Macintosh, Robbie Coltrane as Lord Dingwall, Julie Walters as The Witch, and John Ratzenberger’s turn as Gordon the guard is further proof that there are no small roles, only small actors (and Ratzenberger is no small actor).

While “Brave” might seem like a bit of a letdown compared to other “groundbreaking” Pixar productions, there is still a lot to appreciate about it. Whatever the case, your children will still be dragging you by force out to the nearest movie theater showing it, and the odds of you owning it on DVD or Blu-ray are very high. You may as well make peace with the fact that your family will end up watching this movie several hundred times at home in the near future, and you are sure to memorize all the dialogue even if it’s against your will.

But even if your kids end up enjoying “Brave” more than you do, there is still much for adults to like about it. Many wonder if Pixar is starting to lose its magic touch, but they haven’t when it comes to making movies for both kids and adults alike to enjoy. And once again, even the lesser of Pixar’s cinematic endeavors tends to be better than most other movies out there. “Brave” is no exception to that.

* * * out of * * * *

I’m a little befuddled at the critical notices being hurled at “Cars 2.” It’s the first Pixar movie to ever get a rotten score on the Rotten Tomatoes scale. Granted neither this sequel nor its predecessor represent Pixar at its best or most adventurous, but even the least of their movies are infinitely better than most of what Hollywood puts out. “Cars” was essentially an animated “Doc Hollywood,” but as predictable as the story was, it was still wonderfully entertaining and had many memorable characters. Its being made was also worth it just to hear my niece say:

“Ka-chow!”

But “Cars 2” is easily more fun because the story is not as formulaic and takes the characters in a refreshingly different direction. This one has Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) going with his best friend Mater (Larry The Cable Guy) to the World Grand Prix to race against arrogant Italian Formula One car named Francesco Bernoulli (John Turturro). During that time, Mater is suspected of being a spy by British Intelligence officers Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and Holley Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer) whom he takes a liking to. What starts off as another racing movie turns into an espionage adventure that circles the globe in amazingly animated style.

Make no secret, “Cars 2” truly belongs to Mater more than anyone else. I’ve never been a huge fan of Larry The Cable Guy or his kind of humor (maybe because I don’t really listen to it), but he’s great fun here. Mater is not the brightest car in the world, but his heart shines through everything he does even as when it gets the best of him. Most of the movie’s funniest scenes come from him dealing with customs unlike those in his home country, and his mistaking wasabi for ice cream is funnier than anything I saw in “Bad Teacher.”

Pixar continues to outdo itself in the field of computer animation, and the visuals they come up with are brilliant in their design. I’ll go even further, there were times I stared at the screen wondering if certain things being shown were actually real instead of animated. Seriously, the resemblance between what’s real and what’s not disappeared for me at certain points,

Directing “Cars 2” is John Lassiter, and this marks the first full length Pixar film he’s directed since the original. His love of all things car is as evident here as it was previously. John also has race car drivers and announcers like Jeff Gordon, Lewis Hamilton, Darrell Waltrip, Brent Musburger, and David Hobbs voicing characters. You don’t even have to look (or hear) hard to discover which characters they voice as character names are not particularly subtle (Jeff Gorvette, Darrell Cartrip, Brent Mustangburger, David Hobbscap, and the most subtle of all, Lewis Hamilton).

I loved the addition of Michael Caine to this sequel as he makes Finn McMissile a cross between James Bond and the character he played in “Get Carter.” Years after his performance in that classic, Caine remains as cool as ever, and not just because his car has an endless number of gadgets that Bond could only dream of having in the real world. His cockney accent is welcome in any movie he does.

Other additions in this automotive universe include Emily Mortimer who makes Holley Shiftwell tough and sensitive in believable fashion. Emily is such a sweet presence in movies like this and “Lars and the Real Girl,” and I always look forward to seeing (let alone hearing) her in any movie she does. It’s also great to have Cheech Marin, Jenifer Lewis, Tony Shalhoub, Joe Mantegna, and Bruce Campbell among others on board, and listening to them made me believe they had a blast working on “Cars 2.”

If I had any issues with “Cars 2,” it’s in regards to the character of Fillmore. This really has to do with the fact George Carlin voiced him in the original, and he has since passed on, and that Fillmore has little to do other than to say:

“Wow man!”

Out of respect for the late Carlin (who I still miss), I wished they had retired the character for this one. This is nothing against Lloyd Sherr who has the unenviable task of replacing one of the great comedians ever, but this is one Pixar character that should have been put to rest. They retired Paul Newman’s character of Doc Hudson as he has since passed into the great beyond, and no one could have replaced him. I mean I can understand why Pixar kept Slinky Dog on board for “Toy Story 3” even though Jim Varney died long before filming started, but that character had more to do than Fillmore does here.

“Cars 2” does not equal Pixar’s artistic highs of “Up,” “Ratatouille,” or “Wall-E,” but so what? All that matters is that it’s fun, and it easily outdoes the original. While its messages like the importance of being true to yourself may seem cheesy from a distance, they are handled here with a lot of heart and genuine emotion. Whatever you thought of the first one, you have to admit that you cared about the characters, and you will care for them even more in this sequel.

You can waster your money on “Green Lantern,” or you can take the family out to this one. The kids will be restless and noisy whether we like it or not, but I’m used to that by now. I saw “Cars” at the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood, and parents were incapable of shutting their children up there. That I did not make the same mistake with this sequel may be why it’s getting a particularly high rating.

* * * ½ out of * * * *

I could never bear to give my stuffed animals away. They were a huge part of my childhood, and the thought of letting them go forever seemed so horrifying. Society expects you to give up on little dolls and stuff as you become an adult, and I honestly think that’s kind of bogus. I mean am I really supposed to stop playing with these plush friends of mine because society expects that of me? Am I supposed to permanently kill off the childlike wonder inside of me so that I look normal and hopelessly embittered like everybody else? Doesn’t that seem a bit cruel?

In the end, I didn’t need to give my prized stuffed animals away… They got eviscerated by a hideous rat that ended up tearing away at them while they sat in a trash bag in the family garage. The rat wanted their stuffing, and he (or she) left behind a lot of rat poop which had to be disposed of carefully because it spreads disease. However, all Eeyores that I have collected over the years were fine though as they had gotten preferential treatment ever since I got my first one.

It was pretty much inevitable that these cuddly friends of mine would never have the same amount of attention as the years went by. The dilemma of what to do with these things we grew up with brings about strong emotions and uncertainty, and that is what Andy faces in the latest Pixar animated extravaganza “Toy Story 3.” Coming a good 11 years after its predecessor, young Andy who had given a home and much love to these toys is now a young adult about to head off to college. His mother tells him that he can either donate his toys to a nearby daycare center, or they can just go up in the attic. Despite the fact that Andy has clearly not played with them in years, he is reluctant to let them go.

Click here to read the full review

This is a review of the 2D version of the film. I have yet to see the 3D version, but the movie will look very impressive I’m sure in either format.

Pixar has done it yet again! They have delivered another great piece of entertainment with their latest film, “Up.” While it is not quite the masterpiece that last year’s “Wall-E” was, it is heads and tails above just about any other movie that has come out so far in 2009. It is also one of the few movies of this summer season so far (“Star Trek” being the other) that made me smile as I walked out of the theater. Pixar continues to amaze not just with what they come up with visually, but in terms of story and characters as well. Other studios would do themselves and moviegoers a big favor by looking at the Pixar formula so that they could make something that is much more than just a product.

“Up” follows the character of Carl Fredricksen from when he was a young boy to the present where is a 78-year old senior citizen. We first see Carl as a child completely idolizing the adventurer Charles Muntz (voiced by Christopher Plummer), and he runs around the neighborhood with his helmet and goggles, lost in his own fantasies. During his neighborhood explorations, he ends running into a girl his age named Ellie who shares the same passions he does, and they soon become the best of friends. This leads to a truly amazing 10-minute sequence that is silent except for Michael Giacchino’s fantastic score as we watch as Carl and Ellie grow old together. Each image tells an amazing story that makes these characters seem all the more real to us, and they are infinitely fascinating as they allow us to experience the happiness and sadness of each character. It is the best piece filmmaking that I have seen in any movie so far this year, and it has been a fairly lackluster year so far.

After that sequence concludes, we catch up with Carl who is now a widower and grumpy as ever. With Ellie gone, Carl spends his days in the house the two of them bought together, and it is now the only symbol of the past as the modern age of construction lays waste to what his neighborhood once was. Carl’s house is next on the demolition derby list, and he ends up inadvertently putting himself on the path to a retirement community, something we look forward to as much as paying our taxes. But Carl ends up pulling a big trick on everyone as he has attached hundreds upon hundreds of helium filled balloons to his home, and they succeed in lifting the his house into the air and away to the adventure he and his late wife always wanted to experience. His destination? South America!

I actually wondered about that flying house in terms of the complications that would soon arise. What if Carl had to go to the bathroom? With this home no longer tied to a septic system, it would be advisable for people staring at the house as it flies by them to have an umbrella handy. A really really big umbrella! Because if Carl really took the time to “drop the kids in the pool,” surely some people would have been unfortunate targets whenever and wherever he would have done his business. Anyway, that’s just a thought I had.

But then an even bigger complication comes when Carl, his house already high up in the air, gets an unexpected knock at the door. It turns out that a young boy, an overeager Wilderness Explorer named Russell, has accidentally stowed away on the house that no mere mortgage can now contain. Carl tries to forget the little boy is there, but it is clear that he will end up having no choice but to let him inside. From there, the two of them go on adventure like no other I have seen in a long time, if ever.

“Up” functions as both a road movie as well as an odd couple story. The idea of a 78 year old octogenarian teaming up with a 7 or 8 year old boy was genius, and it makes for one of the most original pairings that I have ever withnessed at the movies. In a lot of ways, Carl could be seen as the animated version of Clint Eastwood’s character from “Gran Torino,” but who is thankfully not a racist. I loved the fact that the movie embraced an older character as Hollywood has always been ridiculously youth obsessed and continues to be. I’m sure Pixar got a lot of pressure to come up with a younger character, but I’m so glad that they didn’t. There is no reason why this character wouldn’t appeal to not only kids, but adults as well. This is proof that we need to give older actors their due. Paying attention Hollywood??

The casting of Ed Asner as the voice of Carl Fredricksen shows how Pixar doesn’t just go with big names just because of their bankability. Time after time, they always seem to find the right actors for each of their movies, and this one is no exception. Ed Asner, perhaps best known for his role on the TV show “Lou Grant,” brings a wonderful humanity to this character that more than compliments the incredible animation that captures his every facial expression. Carl could have been a stereotypical grumpy old man, but Asner’s work here (along with that amazing prologue) makes him sympathetic throughout as well as someone you root for. We know that the pain he suffers now fuels his hopes and dreams that he wanted to experience with Ellie, and Ed makes us want to see Carl succeed achieving his dreams of adventure.

The character of Russell, the Wilderness Explorer who is desperately trying to obtain his “Assisting the Elderly” badge, could have been horrendously annoying like a lot of kids I saw this movie with (they could have been worse actually). But Russell turns out to be an a very engaging character, so sincere in his efforts, and who also wants to explore adventures that would mean more if his father were a part of it. Coming from a fractured family makes Russell all the more realistic to the film’s intended audience (that would be everybody), and he thankfully does not have a high pitched voiced like all those crazy characters from Saturday morning cartoons these days. Russell is voiced by Jordan Nagai, and he has not done any movies before this one. Talk about a natural!

The great Christopher Plummer is also on hand to play his favorite kind of role: the villain. His character of the great explorer Charles Munz is a man corrupted by greed and his own delusions of grandeur. They end up becoming so great that he has exiled himself from all other humans. Muntz’s only real companions are the various dogs he has to protect him. Plummer gives the movie its strongest antagonist while also giving it some dimension you wouldn’t expect to see in a movie like this.

“Up” also features some lovable characters that are bound to sell a lot of stuffed animals. Heck, I might even buy one (yes, I am that kind of adult). One of the most memorable is Dug, a Golden Retriever voiced by the movie’s co-director Bob Peterson. Along with a dog collar that allows him to talk, Dug is really the movie’s comic highlight, and he acts the way you would expect a dog like him to act. So attentive to his master’s needs, Dug is a fantastic creation whose only chief distraction is an approaching squirrel (balls of different kinds affect his attention span too).

“Up” was directed by Pete Docter (and co-directed by Bob Peterson) who also directed one of my all time favorite Pixar movies, “Monsters, Inc.” On top of the incredible digital animation on display here, Pete takes a conventional story and keeps pulling the rug out from under us. There is one surprise after another in “Up,” and I am not about to spoil them for you in this review. Pete also gives us a movie that is as exciting as it is heartwarming. Just when you think you know where the story is going or what is going to happen, Docter pulls the rug out from under you.

This is not your typical animated universe where Wile E. Coyote can keep falling from obscenely great heights and impossibly survive them to pursue the Road Runner one more time. Pete makes you feel the danger these characters get themselves into, and of the incredible heights Carl and Russell travel to in the floating house. “Up” may exist in a heightened reality, but there is still an element of reality to it in the situations and the way the characters interact with each other.

But what I love most about “Up” most (as well as all the other Pixar movies) is the wealth of imagination that is on display. In a time where movie studios rely heavily on the same formulaic crap, Pixar dares to challenge itself with different stories and characters, and they keep taking risks they didn’t take previously. This is a studio that dares to make really great movies as opposed to just making a product (DreamWorks Animation should learn from this). That is one of the reasons why their movies reach such a wide audience; there is so much for both children and adults to take in. While other movies seriously lack creativity, Pixar continues to come up with it in spades, and “Up” is the latest example of that.

We are now halfway through 2009, and the fact that “Up” can and should be considered one of the year’s best films should give one idea of how weak a year it has been so far for motion pictures. “Up,” like many a Pixar feature before it, raises the bar high for all kinds of films, and it will be interesting to see if any of them can compare with this one. Hopefully, movies will get better and better before the year’s end.

Additional note: I saw this movie in the same theater (the AMC in Century City) where I saw “Wall-E.” For those of you who remember my review of it, I talked about those kids who were standing right over my shoulder and of how they wouldn’t shut up. While watching “Up,” I was happy to see that the parents were doing a better job in controlling their children. I guess I was a little more prepared this time to deal with those young cretins who are so very inquisitive to the point where they seem like cell phones people forgot to turn off. At the very least, none of these kids were hanging over my shoulder (thank god).

**** out of ****

“Ratatouille”
2007
**** out of ****
Director: Brad Bird
Cast: Patton Oswald, Ian Holm, Lou Romano


Last time I saw a movie that made me stand up and cheer was “V For Vendetta.” It was a full year and a quarter after that I had the pleasure of seeing “Ratatouille.” Looking back, I kind of feel like a douchebag when I wrote a column on my MySpace blog last Summer that was called “Summer 007 – The Ones Everyone Will See and the Ones That I Will Hate.” I was still mad over “Cars,” which was bland and mediocre to say the least. But I failed to look at one name in the credits before writing that very article…

His name is Brad Bird.

Bird was originally a consultant of the hit animated sitcom “The Simpsons” before coming to the film industry. After that, he did “The Iron Giant,” or the movie that I still haven’t gotten around to see. Five years later, he put out the very Pixar film that owned you and everyone around you – “The Incredibles.” It had EVERYTHING – superheroes that we all wanted to be, villains that were threatening for once, and Samuel L. Jackson. It is still one of the best animated movies that I’ve seen since “South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut.”

His next project was a movie called “Ratatouille,” an animated Pixar film that takes on the risky subject of a rat working on food in the kitchen. Lord knows how much rats make one frightened, but I can’t begin to say how much one of my biggest fears are to eat a bowl of pasta with a rat walking out with a little bit of sauce on the cheek of it’s ass-crack. I said “Ratatouille” couldn’t be done, and Bird proved me wrong. I have nothing to say but nice work… oh, and everything else in the review.

Remy the Rat (Patton Oswald) has a keen sense of smell, unlike the other rats. Most rats would dig through trash and be pleased with it, but Remy likes the taste of a good meal. His hero is Gusteau (Brad Garrett), a professional chef who owns his own restaurant in the heart of Paris. Gusteau’s famous line, “Anyone Can Cook,” helps Remy understand what he wants to be – a professional chef. There’s only one problem – he’s in the middle of country-lands where there is a gun-swinging old lady who will blow fucking heads off. Did I just use the f-word in a review for a children’s movie? Shame on me…

Anyway, Remy’s dream kind of comes true when he is separated by his family during a flood. He ends up in the sewers located in Paris, and walks right through the door of his hero’s restaurant. Apparently, Gusteau died after reading a review by the vicious food critic Anton Ego (Peter O’Toole). The restaurant, now ran by Skinner (Ian Holm), has been going through the shits. Skinner is doing frozen dinner meals and it seems like that none of the cooks are in positive moods anymore. Linguini (Lou Romano) comes walking in one day with a note saying asking for work. And he gets work, but as a janitor. When Remy messes around with some spices, Linguini receives the credit and is now works as a chef. But when Ego finds out about this, he comes knocking on the door, asking for some food.

We watch Remy and Linguini’s relationship evolve through the movie. Linguini is credited as a great chef as Remy does the cooking. It seems like Remy doesn’t even care about not being crediting half the time, because he’s living his dream. He’s introduced to all of these new spices while working at the restaurant and since Linguini doesn’t know how to do shit, they form a team. It’s a partnership that cannot be broken.

The plot of “Ratatouille” is much more complicated as it seems, especially for a children’s film. I sat there mesmerized how I could be so wide-eyed with the story of “Ratatouille.” It’s a film that should be for kids, but I’m glad that older people would get much more out of it. Out of the many scenes, I feel that the one scene that every adult will like is the scene as Anton Ego walks into the restaurant. These few moments didn’t only signal the reason why I liked the movie so damn much, but Anton Ego ended up to have the same look on his face after his meal ended as I had when the movie ended.

But the critic of Anton Ego is the most complex character here. A man like Ego was obviously inspired by the single greatest film critic of all-time, Roger Ebert. He plays around with words so that only the brightest can understand where he is coming from, which makes me stand up and applause. Only unlike Ebert, Anton Ego can be described as a critic who is respected by no one, which only adds to his personality. Restaurant owners cringe at the name whenever they hear it, and as he walks into the room of the restaurant, we cringe at the thought of what Ego will be thinking of the food.

Still, “Ratatouille” makes my heart warm the most out of all the films released in 2007, 2006, and 2005 put together. I watched “Ratatouille” thinking that I would come out as mad as I would have if I came out of a Tom Cruise flick that didn’t have him strapped to a chair with dental tools sitting next to him. But I was relatively surprised with one of the biggest aspects of the film. The Academy nominated “Ratatouille” for best screenplay, best score, best animation, best sound mixing, and best sound editing, and does it deserve in each of those categories.

I really can’t add onto anything else that has been said by others about the animation taking place in “Ratatouille,” but boy it sure looks fine. For much of the time, you don’t even realize that the film is animation and you begin to think that you’re looking at a photograph of Paris. Best part about it? They got everything right, including the Eiffel Tower.

“Ratatouille” was nominated for best animated film of 2007, but as typing this review, could it have easily been nominated for Best Picture? I left “Ratatouille,” surprised and happy, but nothing sums the movie up better than the quote used by Anton Ego at the end of the film…

“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends.”