criterionforum.org

Reviews are starting to trickle in for the new Pixar film, and they're mostly positive (Variety calls is "darker and more intricate than anything the studio has attempted before"), but there is a pan from the Hollywood Reporter that's already got the Rotten Tomatoes commenting set up in arms. Hopefully the silly Pixar backlash in which hipsters in their 20s and 30s decided to turn on an animation studio for making a sequel to a popular lightweight film for small children is coming to a close and I don't have to hear about Cars 2 being some sort of catastrophic misstep anymore. Brave opens wide on June 22nd.

EDIT: To clarify, I didn't post this in the Films of 2012 thread because this is the sort of film that would've been split off into its own thread upon release anyway. And now that I've said that, no one will ever comment about it on this forum ever and I will look profoundly stupid.

I'll bail you out here, mfunk, and say that I'm surprised (in a good way) if it's "dark" and "intricate" given that the trailer makes it look like garden-variety Dreamworks crap. I had been initially intrigued but very put off by the marketing so far after the first teaser trailer.

[EDIT: Paragraph redacted because I see the conversation about Cars 2 has already spun off into a different thread.]

The trailers for nearly every Pixar film suck (exempting the teasers, which are always good). The trailers for Up made it look too goofy for its own good, and Wall-E's advertising was about a wacky robot who played with junk. The terrible ads for Brave don't bother me.

Todd McCarthy's pan doesn't sound too bad. I can actually see him applying his same complaints/sentiments to the second half of Wall*E - also a "left-turn" into "well-worn territory, that of a conventionally" antagonistic ship computer ("familiar" in the wake of countless HAL knock-offs over the years). "A lot of not-so-hot slapstick," "starts off big and promising but diminishes into a rather wee thing as it chugs along, with climactic drama that is both too conveniently wrapped up," etc...I've heard people say this about Wall*E and yet it's often considered the best thing they've ever done, even topping the Village Voice/L.A. Weekly Critics Poll for best film of 2008 (easily the best placing for any Pixar film - Up's #10 rank in the 2009 poll became the second highest to date).

The reviews are barely in, but see if you can spot a pattern:

While a technical marvel, Brave is ultimately a lesser effort from a studio known for breaking new ground with such modern classics as Up, Toy Story, WALL-E and Finding Nemo.

It is a fine movie but it wasn't as witty, clever or funny as the other Pixar movies...and I wanted the lead character Mereda to be memorable like Belle from Beauty and the Beast or Ariel from the mermaid movie. and she's just not...she's forgettable.

Not of the same calibre as Wall-E, Up or The Incredibles but it's stellar entertainment harking back to the classic Disney fairytales, while adding some interesting twists.

For once, the storytelling experts at Pixar have made a movie in which the storytelling is the weakest part.

While the visual artists here should be commended for a job well done, the story artists need to get a better understanding of what made Pixar so special to begin with.

The Narrator Returns wrote:

For once, the storytelling experts at Pixar have made a movie in which the storytelling is the weakest part.

Clearly that reviewer hasn't seen Cars 1 + 2 and Bug's Life.

I saw this today. I should preface this by saying I like almost every movie I see at least enough to say it was worth watching. It's a character flaw I've given up on trying to fix.

This was not worth watching.

Aside from the hair and the horse, both of which looked marvelous, the look didn't match Pixar's normal visual splendor. Motion in the film was off. It's choppiness and weird physics reminded me of the first Spiderman.

I didn't read any reviews or this thread before I went, but I read through this thread just now before posting. I'd be interested to know what reviewers thought was "dark" about it. I would only call it dark if I also thought Finding Nemo was dark, but perhaps I missed something. It was downright perky throughout except

Spoiler

for the last 10 minutes or so.

.

The story lacked depth and maturity, but then again so did every character. As a consequence, the humor was also immature. Normally, I'd say that's a silly criticism of a movie whose demographic 3-12 year-olds. But, Pixar rarely disappoints when it comes to humor targeted at the parents who tote those 3-12 year-olds to the theatre.

The men in the film were made out to be, at best, good-hearted fools. Though, more likely, they were portrayed as arrogant and incompetent idiots.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment of all is that a none-too-subtle theme that emerges from the movie is that to be a female who is also feminine isn't good enough. To be her own woman, a girl must shun femininity and comport herself as a fratty, bratty, boy.

Finch wrote:

The Narrator Returns wrote:

For once, the storytelling experts at Pixar have made a movie in which the storytelling is the weakest part.

Clearly that reviewer hasn't seen Cars 1 + 2 and Bug's Life.

I cannot stand up for Cars (I haven't seen Cars 2), but I won't let anybody badmouth A Bug's Life! It's Seven Samurai with bugs, I don't see how anyone couldn't love it!

Anyway, I'm seeing a lot of disconnect between the reviews from critics and the reviews from regular fans. The critics lean towards "is good, just not as good as other Pixar films" while the fans lean more towards "Worst. Movie. Ever." I can't tell whether the fan reviews are actual critiques, or just fanboy bitching about how Pixar can't make a film as good as Ratatouille or WALL-E every time (or a mixture of both). I noticed something similar in the reviews of Prometheus, which while highly flawed, I ultimately found enjoyable. So, I'll still be seeing Brave, regardless of audience reaction.

The Narrator Returns wrote: while the fans lean more towards "Worst. Movie. Ever." I can't tell whether the fan reviews are actual critiques, or just fanboy bitching about how Pixar can't make a film as good as Ratatouille or WALL-E every time (or a mixture of both).

First, I'm totally with you on A Bug's Life.

Secondly, I can say that my fan review, at least, is not fanboy bitching. I like Pixar, but I have very little time to see movies and a year's worth of backlogged DVDs and BD still shrink wrapped waiting for me to get some time to watch them. Seeing Pixar films is not my first choice. I see these primarily because my children want to watch them and I want my kids to be film lovers. Brave just happened to not be very good. And, like I said above, I like almost everything (even Cars, though I didn't see Cars 2).

wattsup32 wrote:Perhaps the biggest disappointment of all is that a none-too-subtle theme that emerges from the movie is that to be a female who is also feminine isn't good enough. To be her own woman, a girl must shun femininity and comport herself as a fratty, bratty, boy.

Can you give a specific example of this? What exactly makes her a "fratty, bratty boy"? The horse riding, arrow shooting and rock climbing are the only "masculine" things she does, and they're only really masculine in the context of the film. Even then, they could hardly be considered "fratty." She rejects her arranged marriage and the constricting traditional dress her mother tries to put her in, but inasmuch as she does so it really reads to me as a defiant embrace of femininity. E.g., her hair is wild, but it's not remotely boyish, and when she lets a small, rebellious lock of it out of her headdress during the presentation of the suitors, she looks more feminine, not less. Similarly, her preferred style of dress is looser and more common, but it's nonetheless form-fitting and still very much women's clothing. Moreover,

Spoiler

when she suggests breaking tradition and allowing herself and the other clan leaders' sons to marry for love, she's inviting the other men to win her over as a woman rather than as a simple commodity or aristocratic prize. She never rejects the notions of marriage, family or love. If anything, she affirms their value.

And if you think the ways in which we see her being "bratty" are masculine, then I have to wonder whether you've ever lived with a teenage girl.

Anyway, count me as one of the "good, but not great" camp. This is an enjoyable, beautifully made film with positive but obvious lessons. It's not as well plotted or as smartly funny as Pixar's best work, but it's also not the worst thing they've done, and it's still easily better than the average Dreamworks animated film. Even a few of the jokes that come off very badly in the trailer and TV spots are actually funnier in context. The preceding short is also very charming (and it reaffirms what a tremendous asset Michael Giacchino is to Pixar and to modern filmmaking in general - such a gorgeous little score).

Incidentally, did anyone notice John Ratzenberger's requisite cameo? He's listed in the credits as the voice of "Gordon," but I have no idea who that character is, nor do I recall hearing his voice at any time. Ditto for composer Patrick Doyle, who is credited as the voice of "Martin."

Incidentally, did anyone notice John Ratzenberger's requisite cameo? He's listed in the credits as the voice of "Gordon," but I have no idea who that character is, nor do I recall hearing his voice at any time. Ditto for composer Patrick Doyle, who is credited as the voice of "Martin."

I just got back from seeing this a few hours ago. I share the less than enthusiastic reviews (though to to fair my son did interrupt the action with three bathroom breaks), but still ultimately found it to be somewhat enjoyable.

And, yes, I did notice Ratzenberger around maybe a quarter of the way in to the film as one of the castle guards. I think that he may only have had one line when he announced the arrival of a visitor, but it was unmistakably his voice underneath the faux Scottish brogue (brogues aren't just Irish, right? :-k).

The first act is fine, but after that the film is just utter garbage.

Spoiler

Turning the mother into an anthropomorphic bear is basically just an excuse for the rest of the film to be awful gags. "Look at that bear doing people stuff! Bears don't do that! That's wacky and dumb! Hyuck hyuck!"

The general dumbed-down tone of the second and third acts reduces the film to something that could only entertain children who are easily placated by jangling keys and honking clown noses. It's a pity, because the first act sets up a good story, and it gets pissed away. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised I guess. Brave is the first Pixar film I've seen since the truly awful The Incredibles, a film so bad it turned me off of Pixar until now. And with this being what they gave me when I gave them another chance, I really think they've passed me by. I loved them before The Incredibles, but now I don't get it anymore. And no, I don't care how good the films in between supposedly are, because quite frankly Incredibles got raves and sucked, and Brave got positive reviews and sucked, so I think I'll pass on the others based on the trend.

Could you explain why you thought The Incredibles was awful? Perhaps because it isn't really a Pixar film in the auteurist sense it's my second favorite (with the other Bird at number one).

CSM126 wrote:The first act is fine, but after that the film is just utter garbage.

That about sums it up for me as well with Brave becoming the first Pixar film I've out-and-out disliked (more innocuous fare like the Cars movies I can give a pass to because they more or less achieve their very limited ambitions). The first third of Brave is pleasant enough, but if you've seen the film's trailer you're pretty much caught up to that. The themes of young girls seeking individuality and mother/daughter relationships is all but abandoned for stupid animal jokes and a surprising amount of humor based on bare asses.

knives wrote:Could you explain why you thought The Incredibles was awful? Perhaps because it isn't really a Pixar film in the auteurist sense it's my second favorite (with the other Bird at number one).

I too would like to hear more about this and hope that you might check out the Pixar films from 2007-2010. These are the finest films they've produced.

I enjoyed this a lot- the actual lessons (respect your mother/daughter! Arranged marriage: not so great?) were a bit obvious, but I really enjoyed the feeling of the movie carving out a shared women's space negotiated outside questions of what men do vs. what women do, I thought the animation was gorgeous, and I liked the way that it seemed to have respect for all of its characters, even while having them do pratfalls and things.

I feel like having the mother turn into a bear, in particular, is a metaphor for something or other- unleashing the bestial, maybe, or maybe just a bear representing the least 'ladylike' thing imaginable- which I'm not quite getting, but at any rate I thought it was neat to have a movie about the importance of family relationships that wasn't horribly reactionary or about how really you should spoil the shit out of your kids.

I don't really see the bear parts as abandoning the themes in the least- it forces the mother and daughter to depend on one another outside the constraints of an environment and a context in which it had become somewhat toxic, and most of the jokes turned either on the mother and daughter learning to work together or the mother learning to cope outside of the sort of rigidly dignified queen mode in which she'd trapped herself.

knives wrote:Could you explain why you thought The Incredibles was awful? Perhaps because it isn't really a Pixar film in the auteurist sense it's my second favorite (with the other Bird at number one).

The Incredibles is awful because it's lazy. It's just a mound of cliches all thrown together without any attempt at doing something witty or fresh with them. The family interactions are the same overdone tripe you get in tv sitcoms, but the filmmakers expect us to find it new and refreshing because they happen to be superheroes. The whole comeback plot is every sports movie ever, just with superheroes. "Just with superheroes" is a good way to describe the movie actually. It's everything you've ever seen, just with superheroes. It's excruciatingly boring and, aside from the costume woman's first scene, completely unfunny. The visual design is ugly, too. I never fail to be surprised by people who say this is a beautiful-looking film. It's just not. The whole thing is just muddy colors and harsh lines and frankly kinda choppy in motion.

I do enjoy knowing that Sarah Vowell has a part in the film. There, one nice thing to say.

Is it as stupid as Brave? No but it's still an overhyped and terrible film.

CSM126 wrote:The Incredibles is awful because it's lazy. It's just a mound of cliches all thrown together without any attempt at doing something witty or fresh with them. The family interactions are the same overdone tripe you get in tv sitcoms, but the filmmakers expect us to find it new and refreshing because they happen to be superheroes. The whole comeback plot is every sports movie ever, just with superheroes. "Just with superheroes" is a good way to describe the movie actually. It's everything you've ever seen, just with superheroes. It's excruciatingly boring and, aside from the costume woman's first scene, completely unfunny. The visual design is ugly, too. I never fail to be surprised by people who say this is a beautiful-looking film. It's just not. The whole thing is just muddy colors and harsh lines and frankly kinda choppy in motion.

The Incredibles just came on TV and I've been watching the first few minutes and I still think it's a great film. Granted, you mentioned that you haven't watched a bunch of the movies since Incredibles...but I feel like you kinda hit the nail on the head regarding their films...Ratatouille is every film "just with rats" Up is environmental films with...well the guy from Short Circuit. Monsters, Inc. with Monsters.
While I haven't (and from the non-enthusiastic reviews, probably won't) see Brave, I never felt Pixar films are meant to be some original tales, but just pleasant, fun, family-friendly and enjoyable good times.

Can anyone settle a disagreement between my wife and me. I could have sworn that...

Spoiler

When Merida and her mother went back to the witch's hut, the recording said that the witch had gone to the wicker man festival, likely as an inside joke about the 1973 classic.

My wife has no recollection of it. Did anyone else catch this or did I make it up?

bamwc2 wrote:Can anyone settle a disagreement between my wife and me. I could have sworn that...

Spoiler

When Merida and her mother went back to the witch's hut, the recording said that the witch had gone to the wicker man festival, likely as an inside joke about the 1973 classic.

My wife has no recollection of it. Did anyone else catch this or did I make it up?

That was, indeed, where the message said she went. I remember because I wondered whether she went to the Nick Cage one.

"Oh, not the bears! Not the bears! Ah!!! Oh, they're in my honey!"

I saw Brave with my mother while visiting for July 4th, so maybe that colored my view, but I really liked the film. It's very Disney-ish in its lessons, but no less effective.

I don't think the lead character is masculine at all. She's active, but that only stands to contrast with the traditional roles for women that she is fighting against. She never rips off the dress and puts on masculine clothing. Her defining physical characteristic, her hair, is untamed. I find that, like her hair, she's a wild thing, which doesn't necessarily make her masculine.

I think the plot device with the mother works well to pair up the daughter and mother for cooperation/competition throughout the film. How many other films are successfully led by a daughter and mother? This film passes the Bechdel Test with flying colors. While that doesn't make it automatically a good film, it stands out from more traditional relationships found in other (even superior films) like Wall-E.

And granted, while the plot device does make the mother relationship rife for wackiness, it's way more organic to the film than the latter half of Up, which really only served to fit in all the Pixar chase sequence tropes. The mother sequences on the other hand actually dealt with the main narrative strand of the film.

Spoiler

I particularly liked the scene where the daughter has to teach her mother, as a bear, how to catch fish. It plays perfectly to their character types. It's also a classic inversion of the common trope (used earlier with the father) where the parent has to teach the child something important in order to survive when they're gone. In this case, it's also progressive in how the daughter teaches the matriarch how to survive without relying on men to catch the food.

I found it to be melancholic as well, because their split was happening because the mother would eventually turn into a beast. Yes, it played to the wackiness factor (a prim queen catching fish as a bear), but it touched on more than that. The bonding of the characters, but also the passing of wisdom and eventual departures between parent and child, whether through moving away or mortality, posed here, as in Cronenberg's The Fly, as a transmogrification.

I found the main character to be really likable, and the film unique in how it foregrounds a mother/daughter relationship. I don't feel qualified to comment on the technical aspects of these types of films, except to say that there were a lot of shots with foreground objects that made the character feel really trapped at times, and the "cinematography" seemed to work pretty well with interesting color palettes.

I'm confused by the criticisms that the lead is a boy in girl's clothing, too- Ebert headlined his review with it, but I really can't see it. If the assumption is just that any character who goes out and does things and has an independent nature is therefore automatically masculine, that's obviously offense- but even if the criticism is meant to be that the movie creates a masculine space and a feminine space and that it shows Merida as being superior to other women for preferring the masculine space, I don't think that it works. The concept seems very specifically that she chooses her own space, and she eschews the world in which her father lives as much as she does her mother's- until, of course, she is reconciled to both at the end.

I'm with Kirkinson and matrixschmatrix. The themes may not be as sophisticated as those of Ratatouille and The Incredibles, and the humor and pathos may not be as rich as that in the Toy Story films, but there is still a lot to like here. The complex relationship between mothers and daughters (and parents and their children in general) is something that I don't remember being explored to this degree in a children's film before. I liked how the queen really began to grudgingly respect her daughter for the first time when the daughter had to take care of her -- something that many adult children with aging parents have dealt with. I do not get the "unfeminine" critique at all. Merida was independent, strong-willed, and adventurous but those are qualities which I think are pretty attractive in a woman. If nothing else, this is easily Pixar's most technically accomplished and artistically beautiful film. In fact, I can't think of any animation I've found more lush and immersive. This is much more of a classical Disney fairy tale than Pixar has explored before, but it's a good one and it's well told.