Pixargust: Finding Nemo (2003)

I still remember the day I saw this movie. I was around 12 and me and my family were on one of the Disney cruise lines (appropriate setting, ain't it?). The crew decided to play it on the ship the night it was released and I mentioned to my family that I wanted to see it. So after we ate dinner, it was just me and my dad that went in the ship's theater. I still remember how big this place was. I swore almost everyone on this dang boat was there that night. So the film starts and not one minute in, I think all of us were hooked (no pun intended!). When it was over, I think we were all more than satisfied with what we all saw. We laughed. We cried. I spilled juice on my good pants. Just kidding on that last part. While me and my father were enjoying Finding Nemo on our cruise, the whole world apparently loved it as much as we did. Once again getting worldwide acclaim and breaking box-office records, Finding Nemo practically became a sensation overnight. Even to this day, it’s regarded not just as one of Pixar’s best, but one of the best animated films in the history of the medium. And it’s not very hard to see why. Let’s dive right on into today’s film, Finding Nemo.

Set in the Great Barrier Reef (a real-world location), two clownfish named Marlin (Albert Brooks) and Coral (Elizabeth Perkins) are starting a new family until a barracuda shows up. Marlin gets knocked out and awakens to find that not only was Coral killed but 99% of his eggs. In some odd act of mercy, there’s still one egg left and Marlin vows to keep his only child who he names Nemo safe. This incident causes Marlin to be a little over-protective of his son and more afraid of the outside world. Years go by as Nemo (Alexander Gould) prepares for his first day of school. During a field trip, Nemo and some of his new friends venture away from the class to find a boat. Marlin catches Nemo just before swimming out to it and gets into a heated argument with him. Nemo becomes fed up with his father’s overbearing nature and swims out to actually touch the boat and swim back, but is caught by some scuba divers. Marlin immediately swims out to try and save his son, but misses the boat. He meets up with a regal blue tang named Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) who happens to see the boat catch by only to forget it in a matter of seconds thanks to her short-term memory loss. They find a sole clue to Nemo's location: a diving mask with an address on it. It turns out Dory can read and can surprisingly remember every thing about the address. So they team up and head off to Sydney where Nemo is at. Along the way they have to pass by many different obstacles and creatures such as vegetarian sharks, anglerfish in the deep, jellyfish swarms, a school of moonfish (John Ratzenberger), surfer turtles, and more. Meanwhile Nemo is placed in a dentist's aquarium and becomes acquainted with the other fish there. This gang is lead by a moorish idle named Gill (Will DaFoe) hellbent on escape. But time is of the essence as the dentist's niece, a known fish-killer, is to receive Nemo as a birthday present. Thankfully, father and son reunite and become better people for it.

The first thing that stands out about Finding Nemo, in my mind, is the animation because this is the best computer animation in history! Even almost ten years after it premiered, it's still awe-inspiring. I love how vibrantly colorful it is, I love the expressions, I love the attention to detail, I love it, I love it, I love it! The ocean looks so real that you could swim in it. And from what I hear, they got Sydney's look down really well. It's just brilliance and beauty in every single frame.

The story itself is your basic road-trip movie. It has a simple plot, but it's more centered on everything that happens along the way. Thankfully, none of these moments are dull. I still can tell you everything that happens during the trip to P. Sherman: 42 Wallaby Way, Sydney. The vegetarian sharks: humorous and rather creative. The ocean mines and ship: cool. The anglerfish: scary. The moonfish: funny. The jellyfish forest: suspenseful. The sea turtles: gnarly. The whale: kind of sad until the end of his scene. The seagulls: annoying, but funny. The fishermen: just as suspenseful as the jellyfish forest. Even Nemo's subplot with the tank gang: memorable. I do like how the movie isn't really about story, but rather moments. Funny, clever, and heartfelt alike. Of course, none of the creatures that Marlin encounters along the way really mean any harm. They're just doing what they do. As Nigel the pelican tells Nemo at one point, "Fish gotta swim, birds gotta eat." That's perhaps the film's most interesting insight: there are no true villains, just creatures that act according to their nature, and a few that transcend it.

And yes, the film has memorable characters to go along with this wonderful fish-tale. Marlin is afraid of the outside world for a very legit reason and constantly shields Nemo from the world around him. Nemo, fed up with his father's over-protection, just wants independence. After the diver incident, the two go through some engaging developments in themselves. Marlin learns to be more adventurous, getting parenting tips from a surfer-dude turtle voiced by the film's director Andrew Stanton, while Nemo learns to be more self-reliant and that he still needs a family.

My all-time favorite character, though, is Dory. She has to be the best character Pixar ever created! We have here a fish with short-term memory loss. To give a cartoon character a real human disorder is risky, to say the least, and I'm glad the filmmakers didn't lose the nerve to include this ingenious device, which not only generates some of the film's biggest laughs, but reinforces the character interaction that is so central to the story. But it's really her optimism is what really makes us love her.

Finding Nemo, in my mind at least, is the perfect Pixar film. Why? Because it's unparalleled by any Pixar film before or after it. It has beautiful visuals, memorable characters, action-packed scenes, and seamless mixing of comedy and drama.The story between finding Nemo and Nemo's escape creates such anticipation for what's going to happen because we do want to see Marlin, Dory, and Nemo make it out alright even after the darkest of hours. And right from minute one, it never disappoints. It plays at our emotions, but it's never manipulative or calculating in its execution. If you haven't seen it yet (do you live under a rock or something?), Disney and Pixar are planning to re-release it later this year in 3D and it's going to look amazing! So go check it out if you haven't already. It's my personal favorite Pixar film and in my top ten animated films of all time. 

Pixargust: Monsters, Inc. (2001)

Remember being afraid of monsters as a child? Remember how we always had to look under the bed for them? Or how about looking for shadows in the closet? Weird sounds outside in the trees? I remember thinking there were all kinds of monsters in my room: not as much under my bed as in the closet. I think everyone was at one point terrified of monsters. That was, at least, until Pixar's newest film Monsters, Inc. came out. I think all of us were relieved that they really weren't as scary as we thought. They're just doing their jobs like mom and dad. Looking back on it, I always thought this was a neat idea and it still holds up today. From what I looked up, it managed to be just as successful as any Pixar film. Maybe even more so. It managed to rake in over $525 million at the box-office, almost beating The Lion King's record back then. It also as usual got good marks from audiences despite some lawsuits back then, but I'll leave that up for you to research. By this point, it was the most successful Pixar film to date. Let's go in our closets and into the world of monsters with Monsters, Inc. 

In a world parallel to ours, the city of Monstropolis is a lot like ours. Only it has monsters in it. And it's main source of energy is children's screams as apposed to electricity. At the Monsters, Inc. company, employees called "scarers" venture into children's bedrooms to collect these screams using closet doors as portals. There are problems with this job, though: they believe that human children are highly toxic and that they are becoming harder and harder to scare thanks to television and video games. Trying his hardest to keep up with demand, the company chairman Henry J. Waternoose (James Coburn) tries hiring new monsters but with little success. The company's top scarer, James P. Sullivan (John Goodman) or Sully as his best friend and coworker Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) calls him, has a lot of competition on his hands: namely a chameleon-like monster named Randall (Steve Buscemi) and his assistant Fungus (Frank Oz). While Mike takes his girlfriend Cecelia (Jennifer Tilly) out one night after work, Sully finds a white door with flowers is still on the scare floor. So he opens it to see if anyone is still there, but accidentally lets in a very young girl in the factory. This causes mass hysteria and mayhem as Mike and Sully try to hide the child from the notorious Child Detection Agency. They try to pass her off as a young monster at the factory the next day. It seems to work as Sully develops a bond with the child, who he now names Boo, and Randall is on to them. He reveals that he's been working on an invention that will collect screams faster, but it may literally suck the life out of the victim. As the two rush to reveal Randall, they find that Waternoose endorsed this and have Mike and Sully banished to the Himalayas where they meet the Abominable Snowman (John Ratzenberger). Now with their friendship on thin ice, Sully rushes to the nearby village to get back to the factory and save Boo, leaving Mike behind after a heated argument. Mike does come back and they make up, agreeing to help Boo and stop Randall and Waternoose. The C.D.A. eventually find out after Waternoose unintentionally reveals himself and they do get Boo back home safe. After they may have shut down the factory  for good, they found out from experience with Boo that laughter is more powerful than scream and this saves the factory. Sully finds Boo's door once again and is reunited with his dear friend on the other side.

Let's start with the concept because, honestly, it is a pretty creative one. While the idea of monsters scaring children because it's their jobs has been done before, the idea of using these screams as a power source and the children themselves being an occupational hazard was unique. It basically does for monsters what Toy Story did for toys. It opens a new perspective of something from our youth. While these were our worst nightmares, the movie mostly plays this classic fear for laughs and it does work in clever ways.

The characters are also fun. Mike and Sully are great leads and they do have a good on-screen chemistry. Boo is really, really adorable. She's cute, but not too cute. She actually behaves like a real three-year old would act. So I really like her. The rest of them are entertaining, but the character that I found the most fascinating was Randall. He really is an intimidating monster. That design is cool, his ability to perfectly camouflage himself and then pop out of nowhere is really scary, and once again the voice acting by Steve Buscemi is top-notch. Scared the bejebus out of me when I was a kid. If there is one complaint I have, it's that they're not quite as fleshed out as the Toy Story characters are. When considering the Toy Story movies, they're generally established before they set about doing things which affect the plot. Monsters, Inc.'s characters never fully engage or flesh-out. We ultimately warm-up to them a bit, but for the most part, they're just going through the motions. They're not bad at all, they could have been fleshed out more.

As expected, the animation quality has once again set standards for the future. With every character gracefully and characteristically animated, every virtual set just right and pleasing to look at, and an eye-tickling mastery of color, fantastic light and shade quality, the animation is pure eye candy. Sully's fur, the fabrics on Boo's clothes, and the further improved details on the doors and the world around them are prime examples. Speaking of characters, I really love all these designs for the monsters in this film. They're not too scary and the Pixar artists did a wonderful job making sure each design was unique.

On top of that, it's funny. Really funny. While it seems a little more frenetic than inspired at times, there's jokes for everyone. Kids will enjoy most of the physical comedy while the grown-ups will appreciate some of the in-jokes that this movie has, like one of the restaurants is called Harryhausen's, named after stop-motion animator Ray Harryhausen. The film also has a lot of heart in it too. While it is a comedy, there's still those moments where the film just tugs at your heartstrings like when Sully discovers that scaring children just might be wrong. It's not perfect, but the heart does mesh with the comedy very nicely.

I'll admit, I did get watery-eyed watching this part.

In conclusion, Monsters, Inc. has something for everyone. While it does lean more on comedy than heart and the characters could be more three-dimensional, it has an engaging narrative, beautiful animation, creative concepts, and a fast-pace to it make it a fun experience. In fact, I'm not even bothered that there's a prequel coming out next year. As long as the characters have the same sense of fun as they do here, it should do fine. For now, I am happy I got to watch this movie again. Perfectly blending humor with heart isn't easy, but this film does a decent job. But there are a few that do it better. Join me next time to see one of these.

Pixargust: Toy Story 2 (1999)

Talk about a sequel to Toy Story has been out since after the first film was released. Disney initially envisioned the film as a direct-to-video sequel and Toy Story 2 began production in a building separated from Pixar and was much smaller scale, with most of the main Pixar staff working on A Bug's Life. When story reels proved promising, Disney upgraded the film to theatrical release, but Pixar was unhappy with the quality of the film. Lasseter and the story team re-developed the entire plot in one weekend. Although most Pixar features take years to develop, the established release date could not be moved and the production schedule for Toy Story 2 was compressed into nine months. It thankfully opened as a gigantic success. Making over $485 million and getting very high marks from the critics, Toy Story 2 has been called a rare case where the sequel outshines the original. Quite the reputation. Is it the story? The ideas? The animation? The characters: both old and new? What was the magic behind this film? What made it so damn good?  And is it just as good? Well, it's time to join our old friends on a new adventure. This is Toy Story 2.

It's now been three years since the first film and all our old friends are back! Woody, Buzz, Potato Head, Slinky, Hamm, Rex, Bo Peep, all of them. We also get to meet some new friends like Mrs. Potato Head (Estelle Harris) and a squeaky penguin named Wheezy (Joe Ranft). Well, it's time for Andy to go to cowboy camp and every year, he takes Woody. But while playing with him, Andy accidentally tears Woody's arm, forcing him to leave Woody behind. He gets put on the shelf and finds out that Wheezy has been shelved the whole time with a busted squeaker and collecting dust. One day while Andy's gone, his mom collects things for a yard sale and picks up Wheezy. Woody rescues the penguin only to be stolen by a man named Al (Wayne Knight), the same Al of Al's Toy Barn, who takes Woody away to his apartment. It's up to Buzz now to save his friend since Woody did the same in the last movie. So he, Slinky, Potato, Hamm, and Rex are off to find Al's Toy Barn where they believe the cowboy is being held captive. Woody tries to escape but finds out that he was once part of a mega-hit show in the 1950's which lead to tons of merchandise  including a doll of him and the other characters on the show: Jessie the yodeling cowgirl (Joan Cusack)  Bullseye the horse (Frank Welker), and Stinky Pete the prospector (Kelsey Grammer). They're all being sent to a toy museum in Tokyo and they need Woody to complete the trip. Woody is reluctant at first due to his loyalty to Andy, but after getting his arm fixed and hearing their side of the argument that Andy will one day grow up and never play with Woody again, this leads to a big debate: return to Andy just to be abandoned eventually or go with them as children admire him through a glass box? Woody decides to go at first, but realizes that it's better to be there when Andy grows up. He wants to take the Roundup Gang with him, but the Prospector refuses. And after a really exciting climax involving an airport, Andy's toys defeat the Prospector and make it back home with Jessie and Bulleye. While the two enjoy a new home, Woody tells Buzz that even if Andy outgrows him, he'll always have his friends around for company, "to infinity and beyond".

Unlike the first film, the plot of the sequel allows for much more scope for the action to take place. Most of the original film revolved around Andy’s room with only a few other locations offering adventures for the heroes. This time around, the toys venture out into the outside world. This is a nice change of setting and allows for a lot of creative possibilities for humor and action and as expected, Pixar takes every single advantage of it.

The humor is still as sharp as it was in the first film. Most of it comes from the rescue gang: Buzz, Slinky, Rex, Hamm, and Potato Head and the situations they get into outside Andy's room and Al's Toy Barn. The humor is more irrelevant than the first and there's more pop culture references, but it never distracts from the story. They introduce another Buzz doll too that's just like Andy's Buzz in the first movie: he really thinks he's a space ranger. The gang mistake the new Buzz for theirs and follow him until near the end of the film. They also introduced his nemesis, Zurg, which leads to both an epic and hilarious battle on top of an elevator. It's just to precious to keep from you good people.

The most remarkable thing about this sequel, however, is how is expands one of the central themes of the original film and makes it more heartfelt and sincere. A toy’s purpose is to be there for its owner and while the first film explored this theme with the introduction of Buzz, a toy who didn’t know he was toy, in Toy Story 2 it is fiercely devoted Woody who questions his purpose of existence. Woody ponders the possibility that one day Andy won’t want him anymore, a prospect that is illustrated by the sad story of Jessie, who was abandoned by her child. Jessie’s story is told through the song When She Loved Me, which plays over a flashback sequence that would reduce a grown man to tears.  It’s one of the many sad aspects of growing up, when the treasured friends who you once took everywhere and experienced numerous adventures with gradually become just toys. Toy Story 2 delves into this idea from the toys perspective, just as the original film did, but the introduction of two characters, Stinky Pete and Jessie, offers two new perspectives of life as toys. 

As much as I love Toy Story, Toy Story 2 really does improve everything about the first film. The animation quality just keeps getting better and better. The humans actually do resemble people now and we also get some really fine detail from lighting and shadows to the seams in the toy's stitching. It also cleverly expands the ideas of what it's like to be a toy, with some legitimate drama, vast emotional depth, and clever humor along the way. It's a rare sequel that doesn't feel like it divided itself from the original. In fact, you could watch all of these movies back to back and swear you would be watching one movie. I really adore it and chances are I'll be watching it to infinity and beyond in the future.

Face it: we'll never outgrow these guys!

Pixargust: A Bug's Life (1998)

After Toy Story was released, it really took the world by surprise. It was fun, charming, and had a sophistication to it. So a lot of curiosity was out to see just what Pixar would do next. Turns out the next film they were working on was about insects. Coincidentally, another 3D animated film was released with it featured talking insects, but I'm not going to dwell on that just yet. Anywho, the newest Pixar film was called A Bugs Life and as expected from Pixar, it did very well when it was first released. It got good marks from critics and grossed over $360 million worldwide. But no one really was talking about it like they were Toy Story. I mean I saw and liked it when I was little, but it didn't really make as big an impact as Toy Story did. Even to this day, I rarely ever hear anyone talk about it. Does this mean it's bad? Not necessarily, it's still a good movie and all. So why is it that this movie gets overlooked so much? Let's get our magnifying glasses out to really look at A Bug's Life.

Okay, well the story is abut an ant colony where it reverses the Aesop fable of The Ants and the Grasshopper where a gang of grasshoppers demand food from a colony of ants. The colony has a quirky inventor named Flick (Dave Foley) that unfortunately causes more trouble than he intends. Meanwhile we have Princess Atta (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) who is about to be queen but fears the colony doesn't like her out of inexperience as a leader and Dot (a young Hayden Panettiere) who can't fly yet and forms a friendship with Flick because of his uniqueness. A mishap happens when Flick accidentally causes the grasshopper's food to fall in a stream. Now the ants are screwed. The leader of the grasshoppers, Hopper (Kevin Spacey), blames it on Atta instead of the queen (Phyllis Diller), order that their usual offering be doubled, and say that they'll be back at the end of autumn. Flick then gets an idea about leaving Ant Island to find bigger bugs to fend off Hopper's gang. The colony agrees to this because with Flick gone, they won't have to worry about any potential mishaps. The bugs he does find are actually a group of circus performers that recently got fired from screwing up a dangerous stunt and inflaming their flea boss (John Ratzenberger) in the process. This includes two Hungarian pillbugs, a black widow spader named Rosie (Bonnie Hunt) and her rhino beetle Dim (Brad Garrett), Slim a stick insect (David Hyde Pierce), Francis a ladybird (Dennis Leary), a hungry caterpillar named Heimlich (Joe Ranft), a praying mantis named Manny (Jonathan Harris) and a moth named Gypsy (Madeline Kahn). They think Flick is a talent scout and go with him not knowing what they're in for. They manage to fend off a bird and get the audience they deserve. Flick then gets the idea of building a fake bird to scare off the grasshoppers. It's after they finish that Flick is exposed and forced to leave with the circus bugs. The grasshoppers arrive after the land becomes barren and when they find out there isn't enough food for them, they immediately take over and plan to kill off the queen. Flick returns with the circus troupe and manages to save the colony and fend off the grasshoppers forever.

Pixar planned on A Bug's Life being more visual than Toy Story was. And in many respects, it is. Like the previous film, it creates a world foreign to us because we can't experience it first hand. It's also beautifully textured, like the shots of the forests and green leaves that puts the audience in a diminutive point of view. It's a world where raindrops are like hydrogen bombs and a single grain can provide food for a lot of ants. The animation quality has really improved since Toy Story. The special effects and lighting specifically are especially wonderful.

But it's not without problems. The characters for one are sort of a big thing for me. They're not bad but they don't feel fleshed out enough. Flick and Atta's relationship also feels a little forced to me. I get the sense they like each other, but it's not really developed enough. The circus bugs, though a good lot, don't really have distinct personalities either, unlike Toy Story where the side characters were interesting and better fleshed out. The only circus bugs that do have distinct characters are Francis, Heimlich, and Slim and they do get good lines now and then. Then again, there's so many insects in the film that it is kind of hard to keep track of them all.

After the retraining orders, she grew kind of fond of him.

The only character I found myself invested in was Hopper. God, he's awesome! He just has a really neat design and I thought he had the character to back it up. He's a pretty vile and threatening villain with some brains too. I think he's interesting because he knows that the ants outnumber him and can revolt by using numbers, so he uses intimidation and brute force to scare the ants into giving him food keeping them in check. That was a creative idea to me. That and Kevin Spacey did a tremendous job with voicing the character.

At best, A Bug's Life is just okay. It's not terrible, but it's somewhere close to the bottom of the list because it really doesn't have that much of the sophistication and heart that other Pixar films do. It doesn't really have the creativity that Toy Story had and the story does get a little bit complicated, but there's still a likability and charm to it. You do grow to like some of the characters, though not all of them since there's a lot to keep track of. Overall, it's not a bad rent but there's always a better Pixar film out there. A few good characters as well as a few creative scenarios make it worth a watch. Take it for what it's worth.

Pixargust: Toy Story (1995)

Seems appropriate to start Pixargust with the world's very first computer-animated film. Back in a time when computer animation was considered a gimmick (though it works for the special effects of Jurassic Park among others), Toy Story was definitely one of a kind when it was first released. And I can still remember when this movie was all the rage. Growing up, every single kid that didn't live under a rock adored this film. I know I did. Hell, at age 6 this was one of my favorite movies ever! I remember having a lot of the toys from back then (Makes sense. It is a movie about toys, ya know?) and enjoying my own adventures with them. Seventeen years after it's release, I still love it. It's one of the few films to have a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, it made well over $350 million  at the box office worldwide, and managed to get a hold of three Oscars. I'd say that's not a bad start for a small computer-animation. Well, time to look at what makes the film so good with the Pixar film that started it all.

The film begins in the room of a boy named Andy, where his toys come to life when there isn't anyone to see. Andy's favorite toy is a cowboy doll named Woody (Tom Hanks) and he's the one the other toys look up to  when there's an issue at hand. In this case, today is Andy's birthday party and the other toys are worried about being replaced by any new toy Andy receives every birthday or Christmas. Woody finds out the hard way that a new spaceman toy called Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) who thinks he really is a space ranger has become a new favorite of Andy. Adversity begins to take over Woody as the other toys start looking up to Buzz more. So Woody tries to get rid o Buzz one day by making him fall behind a shelf but this backfires when Buzz is instead accidentally pushed out of the window. On route to Pizza Planet, Andy takes Woody instead after the other toys ostracize him for "murdering" Buzz. However, Buzz catches up with them and after a fight with Woody, both of them are now jettisoned out of the house. They hitch a ride on a Pizza Planet truck and manage to get inside, but are found by Andy's rotten kid neighbor, Sid. They're now in deep trouble because he breaks toys for fun and Andy is moving in a few days. So now time is of the essence for Woody and Buzz to escape and for Woody to redeem himself for Andy's other toys.

For starters, the plot is simple but flowing with a good twist on the old "toys come to life when no one looks" formula. Given how often the same mix of animation, wit, jokes and kids humor has been used since Toy Story, it's easy to forget how refreshing it was when it first came out. Watching it again, it's dating a little in comparison to more recent twists on its formula and computer animation. But it is still very entertaining and remember: it's still the start of a new animation medium, so not everything is going to look 100% perfect. It was impressive back then and it the details still have merit today.

The main story is fun but the degree of character development is what really shores it up. The conflict between Buzz and Woody is genuine and it does make some good comedy (When you think about, it's q buddy comedy). You know, watching it again Woody's kind of a bastard in this movie. He can be jealous, selfish, and conniving despite being known for his leadership skills, levelheadedness, and friendly disposition by the other toys. But even so, he's not the bad guy. We still feel for him because it's a just cause: he's afraid of losing his best friend to a new toy. It's Woody's flaws that make him compelling. Buzz is also a great character. He believes he really is a space ranger and this makes for a lot of funny moments in the first half of the movie. When confronted by the truth of his status as a toy, Buzz's turmoil surprisingly is very much real. Assuming you never saw this before, you'd never guess that these two would be friends in the end. Things like that are always cool.

Despite the two strong leads there is a real depth in the support cast. They may not actually have that many lines, but they have the funniest lines. Some of the film's wit comes from Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles), Rex (Wallace Shawn), a piggy bank named Hamm (John Ratzenberger) and Slinky Dog (Jim Varney). They're all memorable and aside from the designs, you can tell them apart because they all have different personalities.

Oh, and one of these voices will be in every film this month!
Care to guess?

The songs are Randy Newman songs and to be honest, they're not bad. What's odd though is that none of the characters sing. They sort of pull like what Phil Collins did in Tarzan and have Randy sing for us about what the characters feel. I couldn't get into this idea that much in Tarzan, but I thought it was okay in this film. Even if Randy has one of the goofiest singing voices ever, he doesn't ruin the film. I can tolerate him fine.

Even if computer animation was considered a gimmick back then, Toy Story took international audiences by storm and inspired an artistic revolution. Ever since, Pixar has never looked back, as they went on to produce other successful movies later on. Fortunately, they frequently work to ensure their products contain genuine heart, style and substance; reminding us that with a slick new look and presentation, computer animation can exhibit the same qualities that made Disney's hand-drawn efforts so memorable. So yeah, I like it a lot. It's somewhere at the top of my favorite Pixar films because it remains as timeless as something as The Wizard of Oz and many of Disney's hand-drawn films. Even if the animation is a little primitive by today's standards, the attention to details, especially on lighting and shading, is still remarkable. It captures the essence of childhood and it is interesting to hear from the viewpoint of the toys. The dialogue and story appeals to both kids and adults, has creative scenarios, and I really did feel like I was a kid again watching it. Give it a watch again. It's one of my favorites. 

Pixargust Announcement

Well folks, since I finished Disneyear earlier than I thought, I've decided to go ahead and try to review all of the Pixar films. Why? Because like Disney, Pixar revolutionized the way we look at animated films. They manage to capture the spirit of Disney by appealing to both children and adults. And over the years, Pixar has sort of become family to us, too. They continue to entertain us not with fairy tales but mostly original ideas and stories, which can't be easy. So just the sheer imagination and gorgeous animation of these films is enough to warrant my attention. That, and since they're now owned by Disney, it sort of makes sense to review these films, too. So I'm going to try and do my best to cover all 12 for just this month. And like what I mentioned in Disneyear, if you happen to like or dislike any of these films, that's okay. Nothing wrong with that. This is just me getting my opinion out there again. So sit back, relax, and enjoy what I'm going to call Pixargust!

Disneyear: Winnie the Pooh (2011)

We come to the last film in Disneyear: Winnie the Pooh. I'm sure a lot of you are reading this thinking, "Didn't you already review this film?" Well, you're thinking of The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, the film you all remember growing up with. This is a very recent released film, sort of an official sequel to the 1977 film. I find it surprising that despite it being released last year, no one I talk too has seen, let alone even heard of this film! Then I remembered why: in America, this was released on the exact same weekend as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, so this poor film got little to no recognition at all. I wonder why on Earth this film wasn't released in April like it was in the U.K.? But thankfully for those that actually saw it, it got a lot of positive marks and it did make it's $30 million budget back, making it a modest success. I did catch this one lazy summer day and was pleasantly pleased with what I saw. It brought back a lot of nostalgia, for me at least, as it does capture a lot of things that made the first film endearing. Is it as great?  Well, let's return to the Hundred Acre Wood for the final film this year.

One morning, Pooh wakes up to greet the day. But he has no honey to eat, so he goes around looking for some. He bumps into Eeyore, who's tail is missing. Owl passes by and suggests some kind of reward for a new tail. The whole wood agrees that whoever finds Eeyore a new tail is rewarded with a pot of honey. Despite their best efforts, none of them really seem to work. So Pooh goes back on his search for honey as he finds a note on Christopher Robin's door. He has Owl read it for him since poor Pooh is a bear with little brain. Owl reads it and concludes that Christopher Robin has been kidnapped by a monster called the Backson. I won't dare ruin how they came to that conclusion because honestly, it's really funny! So the gang sets out to trap the Backson in a pit by making a tral of things to destroy. Meanwhile, Tigger sees Eeyore couldn't catch up with the others and decides to make him an honorary Tigger. That doesn't seem to work either and Pooh manages to fall into the trap by thinking an empty honey pot lure was full. But everyone gets stuck in the pit too except for Tigger and Piglet. They eventually get out and see Christopher Robin is okay. Everything is cleared up and Pooh once again is on the search for food. He goes to Owl's place to find that Eeyore's real tail was mistaken as a bell rope and he returns it to Eeyore to win the honey pot prize. Pooh eats to his content and the story ends.

So does this film hold up as a sequel? Well, it has many elements from the first movie, such as the fourth wall jokes and a nice atmosphere and pace that allows the characters to be themselves and let them tell the story. From what I understand, this is the first Pooh film in a while to use A.A. Milne's original stories again, which is always nice. The only thing I wish was that there were more of the stories. What made the first film so great was that there were so many stories tied into it. This film only has two. That's very odd. The film's very short. It's only an hour long and when it was over, I was wanting more. I guess that's not always a bad thing, but this film could have been longer.

Thankfully, the characters are more or less the same. There's some familiar voices here as well as a few new voices too. John Cleese is the narrator and he's just perfect for it. He's dignified, but knows how to add humor to the narration, much like how Sebastian Cabot did in the first film. Jim Cummings returns as Pooh and Tigger, having taken over the roles for well over a decade, and he as usual does a great job. Travis Oates does a surprisingly good Piglet, one of the songwriters of the film (Kristina Anderson-Lopez) voices Kanga here. That's kind of cool. Tom Kenny was an odd choice for Rabbit, but he did pretty well too. Animator Bud Luckey plays Eeyore to a tee. The oddest choice for me was Craig Ferguson as Owl. He does a good job, but they changed his character around. This guy was just obsessed with being right all the time. The original Owl was like that too, but not nearly as ego-maniacal as he is here. I suppose it's not a bad change, but wasn't Rabbit already sort of that character? Being right all the time? Oh well.

The songs are really, really good songs! They were so good I thought maybe the Sherman Brothers came back to write them. But it's in reality a new team with the same amount of talent and spirit. Fun fact here: the writers for the songs also wrote the music for Avenue Q and The Book of Mormon! I tip my hat to these folks for recreating that musical spirit of the first film.

The animation is really good here. Maybe a little too good. I noticed that the team redesigned a lot of the characters. Pooh has a slimmer body, Kanga, Roo, and Piglet have different shaped heads, and they even gave Christopher Robin those big Disney eyes. Real ones. Notable animators to watch for are Mark Henn (Pooh), Andreas Dejas (Tigger), Eric Goldberg (Rabbit, of all characters!), Bruce W. Smith (Kanga, Roo, Piglet), and Dale Baer (Owl).

Oh, and this scene cracks me up!

Winnie the Pooh is a lot like getting a bouquet of flowers: it's familiar, but you still get a nice, warm feeling from it. It has a nice atmosphere, good pacing, good animation, great characters, great songs, funny scenes, and the stories are told well. I only wish there was more stories in the film. It's Winnie the Pooh after all! You could have a ton of fun recreating these stories. But I still enjoyed it. It really felt like I was watching the original film as a kid again. It's not great, but good. If you're a fan of Winnie the Pooh or just want to see some great animation, I'd say check it out sometime.

And folks, this is the end of Disneyear. Thank you all so much for reading, subscribing, and commenting with me throughout the year. I'm sure all of you have your own opinions of these movies, so get out there and share your thoughts with the world as I did here. As I did finish ahead of schedule, I think I'll save all the Pixar films for either August or October to review. And when Wreck-it Ralph is released, I'll watch it and share my thoughts here. Until then, thanks so much and take care.

So long for now, folks! :)

Disneyear: Tangled (2010)

Unlike the other 3D animated films that Disney made this decade, Tangled is the only one that truly feels a lot like I'm watching a 2D film. It's a musical fairy tale, the animation feels like I'm watching a moving painting, the designs are reminiscent of the classic hand-drawn films, it's basically a traditionally animated film in the guise of computer-generated images. From what I hear, this is the most expensive animated film ever made, adjusting inflation, costing over $260 million to make. It made more than double back, which did far better at the box office than the last Disney fairy tale movie, The Princess and the Frog. I have an idea why that is, but I'll get to that later. I know it's not fair to compare Tangled with The Princess and the Frog, but when you think about it both films were released around the same time and one only did okay while the other did much better. So in that context, it kind of makes sense to compare the two. So I'll do that around the end of the review. And I'll admit that I was a little skeptical of the movie at first (I'll explain why later), so I originally wanted to pass it. But I got talked in into going to see it with my friend and honestly, it was not at all what I expected! I enjoyed it a lot! Well, time to see what I got wrapped up in Tangled.

Once upon a time, a magic flower that has healing powers and provides eternal youth blooms in a kingdom. An old woman named Gothel (Donna Murphy) figures out that the only way to use its powers is to sing a certain song to it and she keeps it to herself to restore her youth. But the queen falls ill, so the royal guards find the flower and grind it up to herbs to heal the queen. The flower's magic is transferred to her baby Rapunzel’s long blonde hair. Gothel finds out that the magic is still in the baby’s hair so she kidnaps her to use her hair’s flower-power keep her youth. To keep her concealed from the world, Gothel hides Rapunzel in a tower for 18 years and in order to let Gothel live longer, she grows Rapunzel . But every year, there’s a lantern ceremony that happens every time Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) has a birthday. This is held by the king and queen in the hopes that the lost princess will one day find her way home. She wants to go see it for herself but is forbidden by her “mother”. Rapunzel later finds that a thief named Flynn Ryder (Zachary Levi) has climbed up her tower to escape from the royal guards and one of the horses there. She knocks him out and later tries to get some information out of him. He agrees to take her there if she lets him go. Here on in, they set off for adventure with sword fights, epic discoveries, magic, love, and much more. That is until Flynn is framed and Gothel finds and takes Rapunzel  "home". She realizes she's the lost princess and tries to escape Gothel. Flynn arrives in time to save her, but ends up losing his life. To save Rapunzel, he cuts her hair, removing her magic powers and vanquishing the villain. They make it back to the palace, Flynn is pardoned, and the two marry eventually. 

It's rare that I ever say this, but the story to this film is brilliant. It has a fantastic setup and makes the transition to film perfectly, just like what Disney did in it's heyday. All throughout this introduction, I was shouting "Brilliant! Brilliant!" There's a reason why she's in the tower! There's a reason why the hair is so long! There's a reason to incorporate music into it! It was just wonderful! So just from this ingenious setup, you'd think this would be one of the top 5 Disney films, right? Well... not exactly.

But to be fair, it comes so close!

One issue I have is the voice acting. Not that it's bad or that the actors did a horrible job. I couldn't get invested in them. Like when I heard Rapunzel's voice I thought, "Wait.. that sounds like someone familiar". Turns out it was! The same goes for Flynn. I know he's trying too, but he shares the same problem. now to clear things up: the main characters aren't bad. They're well written, are animated nice, and have compelling back stories. I just think it's the voice work that's the issue. I'm always aware that there's just someone behind a microphone. But it doesn't destroy the movie. I'm behind it enough.

My other issue is the songs. Again, not that they're godawful, in fact it's nice to know Alan Menkin came back to write good songs again, but they feel rushed and didn't always match with the movie. With The Princess and the Frog, they fit in because that music was New Orleans jazz. It fit with the rest of the story. Here, that sort of guitar pop song/Broadway/Top 40 billboard style seem a little out of place. Those are my only two problems, but the're kind of big ones. It's funny because with The Princess and the Frog, the story was my only problem but everything else was great. In Tangled, it's the story that's great but everything else is kind of "been-done".

There are a few standout moments in the film, though. One is this horse. This guy is so friggin' hilarious! He's one of the great movie horses! I could watch him all day, he just cracks me up! The other is the animation in the entire movie. It looks fantastic, as you'd expect for Disney. It just has this style that reminds me of early Rococco paintings and it looks wonderful. The best animation in the whole film is surprisingly with Rapunzel's parents. They don;t even have a line in this movie but they convey so much. You can just feel how torn apart they are!

So why did Tangled outperform The Princess and the Frog? Is it race? Slim chance, but maybe. Is it that the music here appeals more to the general public than New Orleans ragtime? It could be. But again, I think it's because the film was animated in 3D. The advertising for this movie played it up like there were going to be more adult jokes in this movie and it felt like we were going to get a road trip comedy (which was why I was skeptical at first.). But it turned out the complete opposite. There wasn't that many adult jokes in the movie, the story was much simpler than in The Princess and the Frog, and the fact that since it was a 3D film, adults thought it was going to be for them too.

Oh, and frying pans are hilarious weapons!

 Do I like it? Yes. It's a good flick. While the voice acting and songs can be distracting, there's still fantastic backgrounds and animation, the side characters are fun, there's genuine soft moments, and like I said over and over, the story is great. One of the best alone for that setup. But personally, I think I liked the updates on the classic fairy tale in The Princess and the Frog more than I did Tangled. There's a purely brilliant movie here somewhere. I bet if you combined the characters and animation of the Princess and the Frog with the story of Tangled, we could have a film as brilliant as Beauty and the Beast! In in there, I know it! But if you want to watch a good fantasy adventure, Tangled isn't a bad choice to consider. Give it a rent and see what you can get invested in.

Disneyear: The Princess and the Frog (2009)

For a while, the Disney 2D animation studio had been shut down because many of their movies released in the 2000's weren't exactly box-office successes. Half of them weren't even critical successes! So in 2004, Disney executives permanently shut down the 2D studio. Almost. After Eisner stepped down from office, John Lassenter of Pixar was hailed as the newest executive producer of the animation department and one of his first decisions was to reopen the 2D studio again, rehire all of the artists, and try again with traditional animation. Not only that, but Lassenter wanted to go back to Disney's roots: with fairy tales, musicals, magic, and stunning visuals. This is where The Princess and the Frog comes in. Let me say that when I heard news that Disney was going to bring back traditional animation, I was excited! I was hyped to finally see another 2D animated film on the big screen after so long! And I don't mean a satire of one, I mean a real one! So when me and some of my friends went to go see it, it didn't disappoint! It still holds a spot in my personal top 10 because this is the modern Disney fairy tale done perfectly. Well, almost. Let's hop over to see if this is as good as the classics in The Princess and the Frog.

The story concerns a young African-American woman living in 1920's New Orleans named Tiana (Anika Noni Rose) who dreams of running her own restaurant by saving money from the two jobs she's working. Meanwhile, a fun-loving, laid back, but narcissistic prince named Naveen (Bruno Campos) comes to New Orleans for Mardi Gras and to meet the richest woman in N.O.: Tiana's best friend Charlotte (Jennifer Cody) One problem: his parents cut him off, so he has no money. He meets a voodoo magician, Dr. Facilier (Keith David), who claims he can fix Naveen's money problems. But he tricks him by turning him into a frog. He meets Tiana at a costume party as a frog and asks him to break the curse by kissing him. Very, and I mean very, reluctant, Tiana agrees but gets turned into a frog herself. So the two now have to put differences aside to break the curse and make their dreams come true with the help of an alligator named Louis, (Michael-Leon Wooley) a Cajun firefly named Ray (Jim Cummings), and a witch doctress named Mama Odie. (Jennifer Lewis)


Let's look at our characters first. Tiana is the best female lead since Belle. She's a fast thinker, positive, and a workaholic. (Never thought you'd see that in a Disney princess, would ya?) Prince Naveen is also a lot of fun. Easily the best Disney prince out there. He's full of himself, but there's also an innocence to him. The villain is the best one in years! He reminds me a little of Ursula, claiming he's helping people with his voodoo magic but wants to control the city of New Orleans. But he's also very eccentric, charismatic, and the fact that he practices voodoo leads to a lot of creative possibilities and the film takes advantage of them all!

The rest of the side characters are also fun and memorable. We have a trumpet playing alligator who dreams of playing jazz with the best of them, a romantic Cajun firefly who believes he's in love with a star, and an eccentric witch doctress who always has the answer to everything. Oh, and there's Charlotte, Tiana's best friend. She is hilarious! She just makes me laugh and makes me laugh hard every time she's on screen. I haven't seen a Disney character this funny in a long, long time!

The songs are also very nice. Two especially are very memorable: Almost There has a nice beat to it and Friends on the Other Side is awesome! I like the rest of them, but they're honestly nothing that memorable. There's no Be Our Guest in here. But at least the film sticks with it's musical style all the way through. It's music you're likely to hear in New Orleans: jazz, gospel, a little traditional Cajun, it's a nice attention to detail. And they all fit to the context of the setting and story, so I'll give Randy Newman credit for that. 

And speaking of New Orleans, they got the look of the city down to a tee. I've been there before since both my parents are from Louisiana, so I can clarify that they got the look and tone of the city perfectly. It's American, but has it's own identity to it. So yeah, it looks amazing!

Sounds like it's shaping to be like one of the classic Disney films right? Well, there's only one problem with it: the story. Not that it's bad, its just... a little complicated. I covered the basics, but there's more. What I didn't cover was that Dr. Facillier made a deal with the underworld so that he can rule all of New Orleans. But to do that, he needs to have someone else disguise himself to marry Charlotte because the Shadowman can't use magic for himself. But in order to do that, they constantly need the blood of Naveen as a frog to give to said guy or else the disguise fades. But there's also a glitch in the spell: to break it, Naveen needs to kiss a princess by midnight on a certain day or else he and Tiana stay as frogs forever! But it'll work on Charlotte because her father appoints himself as King of Mardi Gras, so technically that counts! On top of that, we have the main characters falling in love as well as fixing each others faults and their own! Let's also add an unnecessary death, my God... it's just too much! Is that a bad thing? I guess not, since you're always guessing what's going to happen. But the charm of movies like Beauty and the Beast and so forth is that the stories were always flowing. They knew how much detail to give to the story and characters. There's way too many details here. Again, it's not terrible or bad, it's just not as good as some of the others. 


Before I wrap up, I suppose I should mention mention some of the controversies that surrounded this film. Tiana is the first black princess and there's still talk that she was originally going to be a chambermaid. They later changed her to a waitress, but that caused uproar too. I heard comments like "It's changing history! It's changing the way things were back then!" Well, you know what? There's a talking frog in this movie! I think we'll be okay! On top of that, we're always going to have reminders of how things were back then. And it's a fairy tale. Let the kids have their fairy tale!

There's also the controversy of why the film didn't do as well as Disney was hoping for. Let me clarify: it didn't bomb, but it wasn't the success that Disney was hoping for. Is it racism? Maybe, but I have my own theory: it's not a prejudice on race, but a prejudice on 2D animation. It's been a long, long time since one has been marketed to both kids and adults and this is still a family film. Most family films coming out are either live-action or animated in 3D. To be honest, I still think a lot of adults see 2D animation as "kid stuff". It did update the fairy tale aspect very nicely and cleverly, but the problems with the story kind of hold it back. But hey, it still made money! I'd be more concerned if nobody saw it! But people did see it! Was it a lot of people? No, but a lot of people didn't see most of the other 2D films of this decade and no one made a big deal out of those. But again, it's just a theory.

I still believe there's a place and audience for traditional animation! 

But problems and controversies aside, I really love The Princess and the Frog. It captures everything that made the classic 2D films great. Maybe if the story was simpler, maybe that would make it an instant classic. But as is, it's still one of my personal favorites. It felt like I was watching Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast again! I know I'm not done watching it! Chances are if I ever want to watch a Disney film again, I'll more than likely turn to this one.

Disneyear: Bolt (2008)

For a while, Disney was trying computer animation for their films. As ambitious as the idea was, the films themselves were for the most part lackluster. Dinosaur came off as disappointing, you all know how I feel about Chicken Little, and while I think Meet the Robinsons is okay, it does seem to focus more on style over substance. So for Disney's fourth try in this medium, it seems that they finally got a hit with their computer animation: Bolt. I'll admit, when I first saw some concept art for this film on the Internet, I thought it looked cool. It had this neat idea to it and these interesting visuals. It was also supposed to be directed by Chris Sanders, the director of Lilo & Stitch. That was hook, line, and sinker. Then I heard that Sanders left and a new director changed it a lot. My heart sank. Then I saw the trailers for the final version and thought, "well, I kind of know this story already. It's The Truman Show with a dog. And big-budget action scenes." So I decided to skip it at first. That and the advertising played like mad that Miley Cyrus was going to be in this didn't help me turn. That was until a lot of my friends told me to watch it. Well, I decided to rent it one night, sat down, and... it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. I was kind of surprised when I first saw it. Kind of. Then I sat down and watched it again years later for this review. Now what do I think of it? Let's turn the channel to Disney's Bolt.

The movie begins with a little girl named Penny (Cyrus) at a pet store. She finds a White Shepard puppy and adopts him. Five years later, we see Penny and her dog Bolt (John Travolta) are the stars of their own television show. Part of what makes the show successful is that apparently the dog has never ventured outside the TV studio before and the director keeps him locked up in a trailer so that he believes that everything that happens in the show is real (including his superpowers), thus the acting from the dog seems real. One day, an episode ends in a cliffhanger and Bolt escapes to try and save Penny. He ends up in a package being sent from Hollywood to New York, still thinking his superpowers from his show are real. He finds a black cat named Mittens (Susie Essman) who thinks that the cat is an agent working for the villain from his show: Dr. Calico, who has cat minions. Confused and reluctant, Mittens is forced to help Bolt find Penny. To make sure they find her, Bolt ties Mittens to a leash on his collar so he can keep an eye on her. After getting out of a moving truck on the way to Hollywood, Bolt finds that some of his powers aren't working and that he begins to feel pain and hunger. Still thinking he's in the show, he thinks that Styrofoam packaging is what depleted his powers. So Bolt and Mittens later meet a hamster in a ball humorously named Rhino (Mark Walton) that watches Bolt's show all the time and calls himself his biggest fan. Mittens finds out that Bolt's from TV and tries to convince him that nothing he thought before is reality. After some circumstances and rescuing from a pound, Bolt begins to understand that he's just a normal dog. With Mittens' help, Bolt begins to cope with it as well as learn how to be a normal dog. Still thinking of Penny, they finally make it to Hollywood only to see that Bolt's show replaced him with a lookalike. Bolt thinks Penny's affections are for the doppelganger and leaves broken-hearted. But the it's really the opposite as Penny misses her dog and while shooting the next episode, the studio catches on fire and Bolt manages to save Penny. In the end, Penny leaves the show to live her life as a normal girl with her mom, Bolt, Mittens, and Rhino.  

Story-wise, there's nothing remarkably new about Bolt. Like I said earlier, it's basically The Truman Show mixed with Homeward Bound. By itself, this isn’t a bad thing. “Character learns that the world isn’t what he or she believed it to be” is a very broad story premise with a lot of room for different interpretations. Sadly, Bolt is a very by-the-book take on this narrative. But it still has charm and heart to it, specifically with Bolt's arch. It's entertaining, it's heart-felt, has some great characters, has some good moments, and has some nice visuals to go along with it. It sort of starts off goofy with over-the-top action sequences, but it becomes more engaging once the animals start talking, surprisingly enough.

Bolt himself is a decent character. The fact that he thinks his superpowers from his show are real leads to some good jokes, like how he comes to "realize" that Styrofoam depletes his powers. And I do like it that Mittens has to teach him all about what normal dogs do. They're great together. But John Travolta's voice is an odd choice. While he doesn't do a bad job with the character, I still feel like he's just doing a voice for an animated character. The same goes for Miley Cyrus. I can sense that the character misses Bolt after he is separated from her, but again, I'm aware Cyrus is just speaking into a microphone. She's not in the film that long, so I'll give her a pass. Mittens has a lot of funny moments, especially when teaching Bolt about the real world. But my favorite by far is Rhino. He just makes me laugh whenever he's on screen. Walton does do a great job with the character, but I can picture Jack Black voicing this character to make it more convincing. But he's still awesome!

The stuff I never look forward to in the film is everything in the TV studio. First of all, where's P.E.T.A. on this whole situation? Shouldn't there have been someone there from P.E.T.A. to make sure Bolt has a healthy life and made sure he's taken care of? Wouldn't someone had reported this method acting method long ago? Second, Penny's agent is really annoying. The guy never stops talking and always barges in on the wrong moment. At least he's not in the film that long. Third, when the studio caught on fire, didn't these stage hands have any fire extinguishers on standby? How is it that this place got a free pass when there's no friggin' fire extinguishers?!? That's really dangerous! Fourth, the scene with the fire seems kind of forced to be honest. At least it has a happy ending... Yeah, I don't like this TV studio at all. Goofy would put this studio in better hands!

Beware of the non-stop talking agent! Beware!

Despite a few shortcomings, Bolt is still an entertaining film. I just have my own issues with it. I'd love to see how the film would go if Disney allowed Chris Sanders to do his original draft (which included a one-eyed cat and a human sized radioactive rabbit), but for what I got, it's still decent, Better than what I thought I was going to get. The strength of this film comes from the comedy, characters, and some heart over it's familiar, been-done story. Even if the story is a little by-the-book, some fun characters and good comedy mixed with nice animation make it worth at least one watch. See it and come to your own conclusions.