The Incredibles

Not rated yet!
Director
Brad Bird
Runtime
1 h 55 min
Release Date
5 November 2004
Genres
Action, Adventure, Animation, Family
Overview
Bob Parr has given up his superhero days to log in time as an insurance adjuster and raise his three children with his formerly heroic wife in suburbia. But when he receives a mysterious assignment, it's time to get back into costume.
Staff ReviewsAround the Web ReviewsAudience Reviews

Check back soon when the reviews are out!

Or why not join our mailing list to stay up to date?

 

SIGN UP!

Box office recaps sent twice a month (maximum).

( ̄^ ̄)ゞ (☞゚ヮ゚)☞ No spam! ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)




 ✍🏻  > 🗡️   Want to join our team? Email us!  
Steve Sailer1
Taki Mag



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Review: The Incredibles 2


    What proportion of the top creative artists in Hollywood, the heavyweight auteurs,...

    ...
    (Review Source)

The Federalist Staff5
The Federalist



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • ‘The Incredibles’ Gave Us The Gift Of Family As An Answer To Meaningless Celebrity
    This weekend, ‘The Incredibles 2’ hits theaters, 14 years after the original. Before you go see the new movie, let’s talk about the original.
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • 'Tomorrowland': The Best Big-Budget Version Of Classic Disney
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Modernizing nostalgia is a tricky thing to pull off. For every “retro-futuristic” film that works, such as “Back To The Future,” there are at several half-baked flops. Think “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow,” “Mars Attacks,” or Peter Jackson’s wretched “King Kong” remake. Writer-director Brad Bird’s science fiction film “Tomorrowland,” released today onto DVD, visually basks in updated 1950s Googie architecture, at once softened and brightened by the addition of twenty-first-century CGI textures. Much of the movie’s special-effects work, from the eponymous (if never actually stated onscreen) city to a spectacular baroque spacecraft, looks consciously lifted from Walt Disney’s 1955-57 “Man In Space” TV specials, which were produced in cooperation with NASA’s Werner Von Braun. The movie is awash in Disney iconography, from a fantastic city straight out of the original designs for Epcot Center to a glorious (if, sadly, fictional) comic book and memorabilia shop touting a vinyl soundtrack album from Disney’s 1979 sci-fi bust, “The Black Hole.” Human-imitating mechanical characters take offense at being referred to as “robots,” preferring Disney’s term, “audio-animatronics,” used in our real world to describe the denizens of the Hall of Presidents and other theme park attractions. The film’s basic plot—a plucky, smart teen takes off on a wild adventure, saving the day thanks to her own ingenuity and tenacious, optimistic character—is straight out of innumerable Disney live-action movies from the 1960s and ’70s. For anyone who spent their childhoods parked in front of the set on Sunday nights (a population which surely includes one Phillip Bradley Bird, late of Kalispel, Montana), “Tomorrowland” is essentially the best, biggest-budget episode of “The Wonderful World of Disney” ever produced. A Frustrated Animating Creative Bird fell in love with Disney animation at an early age and, based on an early self-made animated short, became the teenaged protégé of Milt Kahn, one of the Disney Studio’s “Nine Old Men,” the core group of animators responsible for “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” and the rest of the studio’s classic-era cartoons. One of the last hand-animated features released by that studio, the movie later found its audience on home video and is now considered a modern classic. But by the time Bird was old enough to join the Disney company himself, the studio had lapsed into making charmless formula movies like “The Fox and The Hound.” Bird’s initial tenure there was frustrating, and brief. After leaving, he helmed the single-best episode of Steven Spielberg’s 1980s anthology series, “Amazing Stories,” a 22-minute masterpiece called “The Family Dog,” which was later spun off into a quickly-canceled weekly series. Bird enjoyed more success as a key member of the early writing and animation teams for “The Simpsons” before returning to feature-length animation for Warner Brothers in the mid-90s. Once again, the timing was bad. Bird’s brilliant feature directing debut, “The Iron Giant,” produced just before Warner dismantled its animation division, was saddled with a terrible promotion plan and vanished on arrival in theaters in 1999. One of the last hand-animated features released by that studio, the movie later found its audience on home video and is now considered a modern classic. Celebrating Individuals’ Contributions to Society Part of that audience was John Lasseter, the co-founder and creative genius behind Steve Jobs’ Pixar studio. Lasseter, a former classmate of Bird’s from the California Institute of the Arts (notably, a school Bird had attended on Disney-funded scholarship) invited Bird to pitch a new animated film for the studio. The end result was 2004’s Oscar-winning smash, “The Incredibles,” followed up by 2007’s also-Oscar-winning also-smash, “Ratatouille.” ‘Tomorrowland’ is Bird’s first produced original concept for a live-action film, and as such, it’s one that’s close to the filmmaker’s own heart and sensibilities. Bird’s live-action directing debut, 2011’s “Mission Impossible—Ghost Protocol,” was another box-office hit. “Tomorrowland” is Bird’s first produced original concept for a live-action film, and as such, it’s one that’s close to the filmmaker’s own heart and sensibilities. Bird revealed in interviews for “Tomorrowland” that he had declined the dream job of re-inventing “Star Wars” for the big screen in order to complete it. Besides his ample abilities as a visual storyteller, Bird is one of the few screenwriters for big-budget action movies who’s both willing and able to inject ideas into his scripts, and not always ideas that modern audiences would expect from big-bang Hollywood blockbusters. Like “The Incredibles” and “Ratatouille,” “Tomorrowland” carries on and amplifies Bird’s recurring theme of the impact remarkable individuals have on their society. In this case, the plot’s kickstart comes from the recruitment of two gifted young people, roughly 50 years apart, to join a secret band of (in the film’s words) “Dreamers.” The first, an eleven-year-old boy played by Thomas Robertson set in 1954 and subsequently by George Clooney as a disaffected middle-aged man in the present day, is a wunderkind inventor who was invited into but then cast out of an advanced technological society by leaders who lost interest in the creative impulse. “Tomorrowland’s” protagonist, a modern-day teenager and NASA devotee named Casey Newton (played by Britt Robertson), gives voice to Bird’s opinions about the value of personal optimism. Her dramatic arc is a familiar one, not far removed from the Alvin Fernalds and Dexter Rileys of innumerable live-action Disney movies made for children in the last century. Try the Opposite of Dystopia for a Change The late French cartoonist Jean Giraud, better known to American audiences by his pseudonym “Moebius,” often opined that it is far easier to create a fictional negative future than a positive one. Giraud preferred the latter in his own work, taking it as more of a creative challenge. Bird obviously agrees, criticizing the current spate of dystopian fiction and its detrimental effects on the broader culture via the character of David Nix, Tomorrowland’s sort-of-villain, played by Hugh Laurie. The plot is suitably dizzying, with slam-bang action set pieces neatly tied together by Bird’s earnest dialogue. Looking forward through the past in “Tomorrowland” extends beyond the fantastical technology and Disney-World-on-steroids design. Casey enjoys a level of personal freedom more familiar to the “free-range” children of the ’70s and ’80s than today’s heavily supervised teens—I suspect a deliberate choice on Bird’s part. Hers is a world where the gently-moonlit nights belong to the kids, the reality of which their parents rarely have any notion of (another theme that’s repeated in her world’s fictional extra-dimensional doppleganger). Taken as a whole, “Tomorrowland” is an archetypical summer movie for the teen and pre-teen set (again, not unlike all those Disney flicks of old) that parents and other adults can enjoy as well. The plot is suitably dizzying, with slam-bang action set pieces neatly tied together by Bird’s earnest dialogue. For all its charms, however, it has to be admitted that this is not Bird’s best film. The third act has more than a few narrative bumps. I choose (admittedly, with no evidence) to blame those on co-screenwriter and Destroyer of Fictional Worlds Damon Lindelof, but there’s no getting around the conclusion that, like its imaginary namesake, Bird’s creation in this case is something of a grand failure. Despite a huge promotional push “Tomorrowland” died at the box office last summer, earning only $95 million against a $190 million budget. Adult audiences complained, not unfairly, that the movie was neither fish nor fowl, falling somewhere in between a modern CGI extravaganza and a straight children’s film. After opening night, most moviegoers stayed away from “Tomorrowland” in droves. But, as “The Iron Giant” proved, there’s always life after the multiplex, and “Tomorrowland” will be released on home video October 13. If you have kids, nieces or nephews, or even bored neighbors pining for their next summer break, “Tomorrowland” is still close to required viewing. They’ll love the adventure and action, and along the way, they’ll be exposed to sentiments they aren’t going to hear coming out of Hollywood very often. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • 'The Little Prince' Is Very Nearly A Triumph
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    “The Little Prince” is an ode to the wonder and beauty of childhood: to the delight, whimsy, and enchantment that wind their way through a child’s imagination and everyday life. In the newly released film (available on Netflix), director Mark Osborne takes this classic tale and weaves it into a larger narrative, one that breathes new life into the simple story of a boy and his rose. Rather than merely telling the original story verbatim, this film starts in a modern urban landscape, focusing on a nameless little girl (The Little Girl) who becomes the protagonist. She dwells in a rather dystopian world—gray and austere, with a sort of uniform efficiency reminiscent of “1984” or “The Giver.” Her mother is seeking to get her admitted to a prestigious yet prim private academy. The mother is a classic helicopter parent: with a panoply of schedules and procedures constructed to help her daughter do well in school and ultimately become the perfect adult. The film here evokes important strands of story author Antoine de Saint-Exúpery’s own writing. At the beginning of the book, he notes that grown-ups care more about numbers, “geography, history, arithmetic, and grammar” than wonder and imagination. “They never ask questions about what really matters,” he writes. What Love Requires In the midst of her original enthusiasm for the academy, The Little Girl becomes distracted by her aged, eccentric neighbor: a man whose home is a quaint and whimsical mess compared to the rigid geometric homes surrounding him. With a shabby red plane in his backyard and garden exploding with color and birds, the old man (who we soon realize is The Aviator from “The Little Prince,” and our narrator throughout the film) draws this little girl into his very unscheduled, technicolor world. From him, she learns the beauty inherent in imagination and play, storytelling and stargazing. As the old aviator tells her the story of The Little Prince, she becomes a real child—a sort of Wendy who befriends an aged Peter Pan. It’s not that The Little Girl’s mother doesn’t love her. But the film draws out (very powerfully) the ways in which our “adult” world often prefers to put us in controllable boxes: to follow pattern and numbers without deviating from the norm. The Little Girl’s mother, an accountant, finds comfort in this world. But in the story of “The Little Prince,” the little girl learns that to be “tamed” (to love, and be loved) requires more than this. When The Little Prince meets a fox on earth, he asks if he can play with him. The fox replies, ‘For me you’re only a little boy just like a hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you have no need of me, either. For you I’m only a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, we’ll need each other. You’ll be the only boy in the world for me. I’ll be the only fox in the world for you…’ ‘I’m beginning to understand,’ the little prince said. ‘There’s a flower … I think she’s tamed me…’ Through his friendship with the fox, The Little Prince realizes his rose—even though it’s only one of millions in the universe—is precious, because “she’s the one I’ve watered. She’s the one I put under glass. She’s the one I sheltered behind a screen. She’s the one for whom I killed the caterpillars … She’s the one I listened to when she complained, or when she boasted, or even sometimes when she said nothing at all.” The Value of ‘Wasted’ Time The essence of the film and original book, we are told, is the line (uttered by the fox), “What is essential is invisible to the eye.” But I think the line after is just as, if not more, important—because it captures the essence of The Little Girl’s relationship with The Aviator, and what is lacking in her relationship with her mother: “It is the time you have wasted for your rose that is so important,” the fox tells the little boy. Love consists of time “wasted”: in minutes and hours and days and years poured out in service and love, in the joy and serendipity of relationship. In loving someone, we learn that time spent together is the end—not the means. The end is each other, not some ultimate “goal” (like attending a prestigious academy or becoming a perfect adult). This is what The Little Prince learns about his rose, and what The Little Girl’s mother (eventually) learns about her daughter. The first half of the film is almost pitch-perfect in its tone and development. It feels very reminiscent of Disney-Pixar’s film “Up,” with the same charming old house stuck in a modern cityscape, the same sweet friendship between young and old. Also delightful and impressive is the switch between CG animation (used in the scenes featuring the little girl and aviator), paper cutout animation (used when the story transitions to “The Little Prince” book), and stop-motion animation (used within the story of “The Little Prince” itself). It gives the story multiple dimensions, a beautiful mixture of texture and color and artistry. The soundtrack is also fantastic: reminiscent of “Ratatouille,” with the romantic old chansons of Charles Trenet and jazzy melodies by Hans Zimmer and Richard Harvey. It fits the sweet, quasi-nostalgic feel of the story. The Movie Stumbles a Little It is sad that the film, about half to three-fourths of the way through, loses its way a little. Without giving away too much, there’s a point at which The Little Girl finds herself within the old Aviator’s story, seeking out The Little Prince. Everything at this point becomes messy, convoluted, and ultimately disappointing. There are plot holes (How did the little prince get here? What happened between the end of the original tale and this point?), but more frustrating is the diversion from the original ethos and heart of the story. The emphasis rests on side characters in Saint-Exupéry’s story, while the rose gets barely any attention at all. But the movie redeems itself at the very end: for the surprise of “The Little Prince,” the film, is that it is just as sad as the book. When you read “The Little Prince,” you discover a very deep melancholy to it. This film takes that and translates it into real-world grief and sadness. That can be hard to watch (I was definitely tearing up at the end), but it also may be a very useful movie for parents to watch with their children, to help them understand the nature of loss and grief. If the movie had built out some crucial parts of the original “Little Prince” narrative (sharing more of the little prince’s relationship with his rose, for instance) while avoiding that bizarre ending twist, this film would be one of the greatest children’s classics I’ve seen. As it is, it gets very very close, and holds its ground against some of Pixar’s best films such as “Up,” “The Incredibles,” and “Finding Nemo.” You should watch it with your family this week. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • ‘The Little Prince’ Is Very Nearly A Triumph
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Director Mark Osborne takes this classic tale and weaves it into a larger narrative, one that breathes new life into the simple story of a boy and his rose.
    ...
    (Review Source)

PJ Media Staff7
PJ Media



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • 10 Disney Classics Which Deserve a Live-Action Remake
    Lifestyle var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'Cinderella Official Trailer #1 (2015) - Helena Bonham Carter, Lily James Disney Movie HD', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); Above, you can view the new trailer for Disney’s live-action remake of Cinderella. The film marks the third such reimagining, following this year’s hugely successful Maleficent and 2010's Tim Burton-directed Alice in Wonderland. If Cinderella proves successful, which seems to be a foregone conclusion, the question becomes: which other Disney classics might lend themselves to a live-action treatment?Not every old Disney film stands as an ideal candidate. Many feature talking animals as their main characters and, if you were to try to translate them into CGI within a live-action setting, wouldn’t prove that much different than their animated originals.Weeding those out, let’s rank what’s left. Here are 10 Disney classics which deserve a live-action remake. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/11/21/10-disney-classics-which-deserve-a-live-action-remake/ previous Page 1 of 11 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Despicable Me a Pleasant Watch But Not Worth Paying For
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle The other day I wrote at The Tatler about The Wife and I catching up on films we'd passed on while they were in theatres. Turns out that Tangled was one that we should've given the big-screen treatment.This past weekend we caught one that we were glad to have waited on. The Steve Carrel-starring Despicable Me is basically an imitation of Pixar's The Incredibles except with the focus being on James Bond-style villains instead of superheroes. A master thief named Gru evolves from a diabolical mastermind into a good guy who comes to love the three orphans he had adopted to help with one of his schemes.The film has some good jokes, nice eye candy visuals, and likable characters. Unlike Tangled and most Pixar movies it never really makes much of an emotional dent, though. Hence it's a B film -- pleasant and not altogether bad to watch as disposable entertainment but certainly not worth shelling out money to rent. If you're going to watch it do so on HBO -- where The Wife and I caught it and where it's now making regular rotations.This is actually a film where a sequel has the potential to be much better than the original. The big thing missing in the story is for the family to be made complete with a mother for the little girls and a wife for Gru. While it's great to see the children find a Dad they also deserve a Mom. A Despicable Me 2 in which the Gru character falls for a female supervillain and has to win her affections would allow for a more emotionally satisfying conclusion. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/7/14/despicable-me-a-pleasant-watch-but-not-worth-paying-for/ ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Pixar's Alternate Universe?
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle Everybody's a geek about something culturally. For some it's science fiction, while others may geek out over sports. For me, it's Disney culture (don't act so shocked), college sports, and Star Wars. But everybody has something that they're a geek about.Some geeks -- and I'm using the term in a cultural light, rather than referring to nerds or dorks -- go too far in their obsession. Some dress in elaborate costume for events like Comic Con or DragonCon, or even renaissance fairs. (Yes, I realize I'm stepping on some toes here.) Others show it off on their skin. Still others devote months of their time to devising theories on how a certain studio's movies are interconnected. Meet Jon Negroni.By day, Negroni manages social media and SEO for a non-profit organization, and he writes a blog for young professionals. And -- bless his heart -- he's apparently a Pixar fan. Negroni has developed an elaborate theory explaining how all the features in the Pixar canon are related.Several months ago, I watched a fun-filled video on Cracked.com that introduced the idea (at least to me) that all of the Pixar movies actually exist within the same universe. Since then, I’ve obsessed over this concept, working to complete what I call “The Pixar Theory,” a working narrative that ties all of the Pixar movies into one cohesive timeline with a main theme.Negroni's timeline runs as follows:Brave: 14-15th centuriesThe Incredibles: 1950s-60s (...thought that's up for debate, as we'll see...)Toy Story: 1997-1998Toy Story 2: 1999Finding Nemo: 2003Ratatouille: 2007Toy Story 3: 2010Up: 2011-2016Cars, Cars 2: ~2100-2200Wall-E, ~2800-2900A Bug's Life, ~2898-3000Monsters University, Monsters Inc., ~4500-5000...and all of it cycles back to Brave.class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/7/26/pixars-alternate-universe/ previous Page 1 of 6 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • All You Need is Paint: Movie FX in the Pre-Star Wars Era
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Ed Driscoll In the 1970s, Universal Studios consisted of two main divisions. The TV side cranked out endless formulaic detective shows for the networks. Colombo, McMillan, McCloud, Rockford, Kojak, they all defended the Universal backlot from evil-doers. The film division seemed to specialize in endless formulaic disaster movies: the Airport franchise, Irwin Allen’s Earthquake, Steven Spielberg’s Jaws -- all terrorized filmgoers, along with serving up plenty of epic cheese along the way.So it’s not surprising that in 1975, the studio turned to the Hindenburg disaster of 1937 as a film plot: it’s Airport set in the 1930s! Robert Wise could direct -- he knows his way around big movie projects! We could have a detective looking for saboteurs! We can produce the big explosion at the end in Sensurround!The result was a typical 1970s Universal potboiler -- but check out the special effects to bring the dead zeppelin back to life: var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': '', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); There’s a terrific book from 2002 titled The Invisible Art (I bought my copy at the local Borders a couple of years ago for the cover price after noticing it's currently going for insane money on Amazon). It's a coffee table style look at the history of matte paintings, that’s chockablock filled with large color reproductions of the classic matte paintings created throughout the history of cinema. Some shots are simply reproductions of the completed image, but many also include the original matte painting (typically painted onto a large sheet of glass), showing the area left blank for the insertion of actors, typically via rear projection.The original idea behind matte paintings of course was that it made set production much cheaper -- only a small set need be built for the actors to appear in, and the rest of the image painted around them afterward. During World War II, when government mandates forced movie studios into building sets with a minimum of raw materials, films rarely thought of as “special effects movies” such as 1944's Since You Went Away made extensive use of matte paintings to replace large, free-standing physical sets. Flipping through The Invisible Art, it's obvious that the aesthetics of old Hollywood also helped to sell matte paintings. From Gone with the Wind in 1939, to the great MGM musicals of the 1950s, films made during Hollywood's golden era typically had a softer, more painterly look in general. Contrast this more aesthetically pleasing look to the harsh gritty films that became the vogue in the 1970s after Old Hollywood collapsed.By the 1970s, thanks to his long apprenticeship to Alfred Hitchcock, matte painter Albert Whitlock was one of the unsung heroes at Universal, crafting large vistas of destroyed urban areas for films such as Irwin Allen’s Earthquake and Hitchcock’s The Birds (arguably the predecessor to the 1970s disaster movies) to be produced. Fans of a certain popular mid-1960s science fiction TV series may recognize this classic matte painting created by Whitlock for the show's second pilot episode.For Robert Wise’s production of The Hindenburg, most of the long shots of the airship consist of Whitlock’s matte paintings. While a large model of the Hindenburg was built for the movie, many of its appearances are a photograph of the model (which now hangs in the Smithsonian), with extra details painted in by Whitlock, and then glued to a piece of glass, which was then placed atop another Whitlock painting of the landscape below. Via stop motion animation (where the image of the zeppelin was moved a frame at a time) the Hindenburg was made to “fly” over a beautifully painted landscape of 1930s-era New York. (The end of the movie switches to black and white to allow stock footage of the infamous crash to used intercut with Scott and crew on sets; Ted Turner’s crayon-like film colorization techniques mercifully not yet invented.)The result was one of the last big special effects movies before George Lucas's Star Wars revitalized the moribund film industry, and revolutionized special effects. Lucas would of course create Industrial Light & Magic, his own in-house effects department, which would bring a host of new techniques to the industry during the following decade. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2010/8/18/all-you-need-is-paint/ previous Page 1 of 2 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Michelle Obama at the Oscars: Deconstructing America
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle In his often-bizarre but oh-so-brilliant analysis of the disastrous Star Wars prequels, Mike Stoklasa of Red Letter Media (video embedded below) commented on the opening sequence of A New Hope:Compare this fecal matter [the Phantom Menace plot] to the opening of the original Star Wars. You see, a guy named William Shakesman once said, "Brevity is the soul of wit." This just means "don’t waste my time." You keep it nice and simple. Without saying one word of awkward, boring political dialogue that goes on for ten minutes we know everything we need to know just by the visuals. Rebels. Empire. We get a sense of how small and ill-equipped the rebels are and how large and powerful the Empire is. The low angle implies dominance and the length of the Star Destroyer implies the long reach of the Empire. This shot says everything we need to without saying one word. In fact, this is so genius I have a feeling that George Lucas had nothing to do with it and probably fought against putting it in the movie.Having Michelle Obama, first lady of the United States, present an Academy Award was such a brilliant strategy for advancing the post-structuralist deconstruction of America, even the Obamas themselves probably didn't realize how genius it was.When the first lady’s name appeared in Oscar tweets I checked to see if they were posted by The Onion; it sounded like the perfect goofball story. My heart sank when I realized she was really participating, and though I am sometimes petty or partisan in spite of my best efforts, I know if Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan had been teleported to Hollywood, the sick feeling in the pit of my stomach would have been the same. var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'Star Wars: The Phantom Menace Review (Part 2 of 7)', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/2/27/michelle-obama-at-the-oscars-deconstructing-america/ previous Page 1 of 4 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • In Defense of Ratatouille
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'Ratatouille Trailer', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); Today my friend Chris Queen -- a fellow member with me in the pop culture cult of Disney -- unveiled his ranking of the 12 Pixar films from worst to best.For the most part his choices drew my sympathy and tolerance, except for one: Chris stuck Ratatouille at second-to-last, ranking even the dull Cars and A Bugs Life superior:Ratatouille begins with two strikes for me. First, the setting in the world of French cuisine — not exactly the most obvious setting for a family movie night. And second, scurrying around an environment you’d want spotless? The main character is a rat.Yes, that’s right: I have a problem with a rodent as the protagonist in a Disney film. Look, I’ll admit that Mickey and Minnie Mouse are cute, classic Disney characters — and it would be sacrilege to suggest anything otherwise. But I still don’t want to see them running around in a commercial kitchen [...]I suppose Ratatouille isn’t a terrible film, but at the same time, it doesn’t exactly stay with me, either. Perhaps if it had been more memorable, it would rank higher on this list. On second thought: maybe not. Not with that disgusting rodent in the kitchen.In the words of the film's antagonist: var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'Ratatouille "Highly Suspect!"', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); Chris claims two grievances that are really just his own idiosyncrasies: he rejects the French cuisine setting and finds the idea of a sewer rat protagonist distasteful.But what about those of us who love the Food Network's celebrations of high brow food and who don't suffer a wave of nausea at the thought of a cute cartoon character making our soup? class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/5/9/in-defense-of-ratatouille/ previous Page 1 of 2 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The Pixar Canon: 4 Misses And 8 Hits
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'Brave "Families Legend" Trailer', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); This June 22, Pixar will release Brave, the studio's 13th animated feature. Brave tells the story of Merida, a Scottish princess who rebels against her royal parents with dire consequences. Even though it may be a bit darker than a typical Pixar production, Brave looks to have the stunning visuals and memorable characterizations that make Pixar films so great.Over the last 26 years Pixar has transformed animation. Partnering with Disney the studio innovated the medium in a way unseen since the days of Walt Disney himself. Many people still thought of computer animation as some sort of sci-fi pipe dream in 1986, but thanks to Pixar, the medium has become the industry standard -- and the company's films now dominate both the box office and critics' yearly top 10 lists.Pixar's dozen productions have met with varying degrees of critical and box office success. I'd say there's no such thing as a bad Pixar film, but some movies have raised the bar exponentially while others have fallen a bit short of the high standards the studio has set. I've compiled a list of the twelve movies ranked from the least to the greatest. Here we go... class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/5/9/the-pixar-canon-4-misses-and-8-hits/ previous Page 1 of 13 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Christian Toto1
Hollywood In Toto



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • HiT Episode 100 Dennis Prager | • ( Incredibles 2 @ 8:00 ) • ( Incredibles 1 @ 11:00 ) • ( No Safe Spaces @ 21:40 )
    The HiT 'cast rings in the New Year AND the show's 100 episode by sharing why conservatives shouldn't thrive on just one platform and talking to 'No Safe Spaces' co-star and radio legend Dennis Prager on why 2019 could be even worse than 2018 for free speech.
    ...
    (Review Source)

Counter Currents Staff1
Counter Currents Publishing



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ EDGY 🔥 CONTENT 🔥 WARNING 🔥 (NSFW?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • The Incredibles 2
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]2,167 words

    Appreciating Pixar’s The Incredibles 2 really is all about perspective, and that perspective comes only after experiencing the giddy nirvana of watching the first Incredibles movie. Going into the sequel, I was prepared to forgive it for not quite living up to the original, but would not forgive if it did not remain true to the spirit of the original. I’m fairly easy to please in this regard given that the spirit of the original was such a unique and wonderful thing. 

    The Incredibles, in my mind, is a perfect gem of a film which transcends the artifice of merely excellent film making and enters the realm of timeless art. Yes, the plot is tight, the dialogue deft, the characters distinct, the action thrilling yet believable, and the story unpredictable yet satisfying. We expect these things in all great movies. The Incredibles however moves beyond this by creating a singular world which is both familiar and eerie, like the first ten minutes of any Twilight Zone episode. Retro-future might be a good way to describe it, and the distinctive soundtrack, with its emphasis on horns and percussion (Sinatra swing meets Batman camp?) underscores this beautifully. The multifaceted humor ranges from irony to slapstick, from the subtle to the ridiculous, and reveals a sophisticated—perhaps even meta—understanding of the superhero genre in its various incarnations. And writer/director Brad Bird never gets so full of himself not to fold what’s funny into the essence of the story. (The “No capes!” routine and how it played out in the end will always get a laugh out of me.)

    The Incredibles also imbues life into drab-yet-true hetero-normative stereotypes which, in the time since the movie’s release, have suffered a beating from the cultural Marxist bullies who have pretty much taken over the schoolyard of mainstream America. You have Bob Parr/Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson), a middle-aged man who’s getting a bit wide in the waist and constantly reliving his glory years. You have Helen Parr/Elastagirl (Holly Hunter), the wife and mother who’s being stretched too thin. You have Violet (Sarah Vowell), the shy girl who wishes she could just disappear. You have Dash (Spencer Fox), the hyperactive boy who’s always getting into trouble. And you have Lucious Best/Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson), the black man who’s as cool as ice. These stereotypes endear because we have seen them many times in life, not just in the movies. But when placed within The Incredibles universe, they take off, becoming avatars of type and bristling with life and energy.

    Each Incredible acts as an individual, but as a group they conform to a family unit, with all the bickering and emotional issues that families must deal with in order to survive. As much as anything, The Incredibles celebrates the sanctity of family and the love that keeps it all together.

    Such unabashed traditionalism was certainly edgy back in 2004 for a mainstream movie. What made it more so was how normatively white The Incredibles is. Aside from the very black yet non-threatening Frozone and the racially ambiguous Mirage (who seems to belong on the exotic island to which she lures Bob), pretty much everyone in movie is white. Among the heroes, villains, victims, authority figures, police, newscasters, bystanders, there is only a smattering of blacks (and, curiously, no one who is neither white nor black). The supporting characters are also white, for example, the family’s g-man contact Rick Dicker, Bob’s diminutive Boss Gilbert Huph, Violet’s love interest Tony, and Dash’s school principal. The only exceptions are Dash’s peevish homeroom teacher Bernie, who is quite obviously Jewish, and the stroke-of-genius costume designer Edna Mode (played by Brad Bird), who is based on mid-century Jewish fashion designer Edith Head. But Edna’s unquestioned loyalty to the Parr family enables Bird to utilize positive—or at least neutral—Jewish stereotypes (such as cloying familiarity, good-natured pushiness, arcane sophistication, and a thick urban accent) while eschewing all the negative ones. Basically, it’s a white world, and the non-whites in it really like white people.

    Another edgy aspect of The Incredibles is the movie’s since-oft-repeated leitmotif: when you say everyone is special that means no one is. This is political incorrectness incarnate and flies in the face of radical egalitarianism which is the primary weapon of the Left. Indeed, The Incredibles not only accepts that people are born with unequal abilities but it champions the few who are truly excellent. When Helen wants Dash to hide his abilities and fit in with his classmates so the family would not incur the wrath of the surrounding normies, Bob—who is the main character and heart of the movie—wants him to stand out as a ‘super.’ It’s the riskier road, yes, but it is also the only road which leads to greatness. I’m sure the ‘fit in’ versus ‘be great’ dichotomy has characterized many individuals and families throughout history and will continue to do so indefinitely.

    Then toss in a deliciously diabolical villain in Syndrome (Jason Lee), an unstoppable robot monster which brings true menace to the story, and a real slobberknocker of a climactic fight scene, and you have one of the greatest animated films of all time. I will go on to say that that fight scene, all six glorious minutes of it, is the greatest action sequence ever filmed.

    Whether the film makers realized it or not, The Incredibles struck a blow for the Right in the culture wars, and a brilliant one at that.

    Of the Pixar franchises so far, we have a mixed bag of sequels. Only Toy Story has managed so far to live up to each preceding movie while keeping the magic which made the original so great. Finding Dory, while charming in its own right, was thin gruel compared to the original, Finding Nemo, which for my money is the Citizen Kane of family movies. But at least Finding Dory basked in its predecessor’s shadow and continued the franchise’s odyssey of friendship, family, and loyalty. The same cannot be said for Cars which turned its exhaust pipes on the magic of the original as soon as it could. Cars 2 became the Mater show in the Far East with a lot of cheap gags and hackneyed action sequences, and Cars 3 was a converged mess with Lightning McQueen absurdly giving up control of his own career to a Scrappy-Doo chatterbox substitute which was as female and Hispanic as she was annoying. Absolutely none of this had anything to do with a holier-than-thou hotshot finding love in a forgotten little town off of Highway 66.

    Based on the Incredibles 2 trailers, I was hoping for Finding Dory but was bracing myself for another Cars 3.

    Well, with The Incredibles 2, I’m happy to report we get the former, more or less. This movie shares many of the technical virtues of the original (tight plot, deft dialogue, distinct characters, thrilling action, etc.). The laugh-out-loud humor is there. The retro-future world is there. The soundtrack is there. So is Edna Mode. It even surpasses the original in its use of the Parr’s infant son Jack-Jack who becomes a major player in the story despite never being seen out of diapers (his kick-down, drag-out war with a mischievous raccoon is utter genius, by the way).

    Thankfully, the sequel also retains much of the normative whiteness of the first film. The sequel’s two new major characters, billionaire Winston Devear (Bob Odenkirk) and his inventor sister Evelyn (Catherine Keener) are white. And the new non-white characters make sense, such as a vaguely Hispanic ambassador and various black and brown superheroes from around the world. None of these characters are American and so threaten the normative whiteness of the film as much as a tourist would.

    While the sequel adheres to the spirit of the original, what it lacks however is the magic. And it lacks it utterly. Brad Bird, who directed this film as well, decided to retool his story to put Helen at the center rather than Bob. By placing no direct threats to the Parrs as a family like he did in the first film, he dropped any pro-family themes. By having his characters behave so often against type (Helen losing all interest in playing it safe for her family, Bob accepting his role as second banana, Violet becoming extroverted and bossy), he strayed from his earlier hetero-normative stereotyping. He also decided to drop the everyone’s-special-then-no-one-is theme and replace it with . . . nothing. Really, beyond the story’s well-crafted beginning, middle, and end, The Incredibles 2 is about nothing.

    Or, I should say, it’s about nothing that isn’t trivial. The entire film can be summed up with the following sentence:

    “Wife and mother comes into her own outside the home.”

    Whoop-dee-doo. Apparently, Bird and whoever helped him write the script didn’t realize that such lazy-boy feminism is, well, trite. I’d even call it dorky, a beta male’s dreamy idea of an alpha female. It’s ‘You’ve come a long way, baby’ but without the ‘baby.’ Where’s the fun in that?

    When Helen has a heart-to-heart with Evelyn, they talk about what it means for a woman to take on a man’s role in a man’s world. Only, Helen forgets that when she was taking on the woman’s role as a housewife in the previous film, she had it better than Bob who was enduring soul-crushing tedium working for an insurance company. She was the happy one who resisted change, not Bob. Furthermore, when Helen became Elstagirl in the original, she pulled her weight as much as Bob did. She rescued him on Syndrome’s island, and it was her quick thinking which helped do in the killer robot as well as save Jack-Jack from Syndrome’s clutches in the end. So what’s all this business about it being a “man’s world?” This just seems like feminism for feminism’s sake, and it’s not even interesting feminism.

    So, here’s the plot (with minor spoilers). The Incredibles and Frozone make such a mess of things taking on the Underminer (the villain who appears at the end of the first film) that the government shuts down its super-hero relocation program. The Parrs are stuck in a motel for two weeks, which was the best Rick Dicker could do for them. Then, out of the blue, the Devears appear with a plan to save all supers. They plan to recruit a hero to perform some well-documented acts of heroism to get public opinion back on their side. They choose Helen since Elastagirl causes less destruction than the guys.

    From there the story writes itself. Helen has some initial successes. She encounters the film’s villain (a secret entity called the Screenslaver). She defeats the Screenslaver. She finds something weird about the Screenslaver. She gets captured by the film’s real villain. Then it is up to Bob and ‘Zone to save her, only they get captured too. Then it’s up to the kids. And Jack-Jack. Apparently, Jack-Jack is the Incredibles’ ace in the hole since up till that point the bad guys didn’t know that Jack-Jack has powers.

    Minus the part about Jack-Jack (who was hilariously terrorizing his babysitter throughout most of the first film), this resembles the story arc in the original. But where in the first film, each of the characters have their moments of strength and insight, in the sequel only Helen and Violet make any real decisions. Yes, Bob and Frozone take their marching orders from the women and are totally fine with that. When the real villain is about to escape in the end, Bob and Frozone don’t even try to do something about it. Instead, they absurdly encourage Helen to, as if The Incredibles franchise has now become nothing but a feminist coming-of-age story. In the first film Dash cleverly defeats two helicopter-like aircraft while running on water and plays an important role in defeating the robot monster. Here, other than struggling with his common core math assignments and beating up one whole bad guy, he does nothing but what he is told. In the first film, it was Bob who first conceived of how to defeat the robot monster. In the second, the only thing he manages to defeat by himself is common core.

    It should be clear to all who watch The Incredibles 2 that when the man was the center of the story the women were treated realistically and with respect. But now that the woman is the center of the story, the men get nowhere near the same level of respect and behave quite unrealistically. Furthermore, the plot is predictable. Clever audience members should be able to pick out the film’s true villain long before the official reveal. And from there, The Incredibles 2 becomes just a spirited re-hash of a thousand other super hero stories. If it’s your first superhero or Pixar film, you could do a lot worse. But if you have a few under your belt, you might as well skip it.

    Appropriately enough, The Incredibles 2 is about as much fun as kissing your sister.

    ...
    (Review Source)

Sonny Bunch1
Free Beacon



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • ‘The Incredibles 2’ Review
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    BY:

    The Incredibles is that rare Pixar movie that doesn’t feel as if it were designed to rip your heart out and devastate you. It has nothing like the opening montage of Up, during which we experience the ups and downs of a shared life full of love in just a few minutes; nothing like the moment near the end of Toy Story 3, when it seems as if our heroes are about to end up where all toys end up; nothing like Bing Bong’s self-negation in Inside Out.

    ...
    (Review Source)

VJ Morton2
Right Wing Film Geek



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)
  • Against inclusiveness
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    Against inclusiveness

    My expectations for THE NATIVITY are hereby lowered. From a commenter at Barbara’s (she was underwhelmed herself), here’s what the director said at the Vatican premiere.

    “There were some things he (Gibson) did that maybe were a little controversial. We wanted our film to be uniting and make the public see the similarities between religious instead of the differences.”

    — Director Catherine Hardwicke

    Sorry, but I prefer my religion true, which is to say sectarian (error has no rights, etc.). Further, why would anyone think that the Nativity story is a particularly good vehicle for ecumenism. If you take away Who this is … there’s nothing interesting here, except a generic tale of a family fleeing a nasty dictator or the birth of a (possibly) cute baby. Why should the Three Wise Men give gifts and pay homage to *this baby,* say, unless he’s distinguished from other babies in some unique way? What would the urgency be that *this baby* escape Herod’s wrath, etc.

    What’s so special here, in other words, if Christianity isn’t true in some privileged sense denied to other religions? And, in the words, of THE INCREDIBLES … if everyone’s special then nobody is. But if this baby is somehow different, then religions aren’t similar.

    Advertisement
    Advertisements
    Report this ad
    Report this ad

    Like this:

    Like Loading...

    Related

    November 28, 2006 - Posted by | Catherine Hardwicke, Religion in movies

    No comments yet.

    Leave a Reply Cancel reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s

    « Previous | Next »

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Top 10 of 2004
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    ...
    (Review Source)

Plugged In2
Focus on the Family



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • How Stan Lee Changed the World
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    As you’ve probably heard by now, Stan Lee died yesterday at the age of 95. Many have eulogized Lee as a “comics legend,” and that’s wholly fair. As a writer, editor, publisher and eventually chairman of Marvel Comics, he created or co-created some of the world’s most famous superheroes and helped redefine the genre itself. […]

    The post How Stan Lee Changed the World appeared first on Plugged In Blog.

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Inside Out: Will It Be One of Pixar's Best?
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Inside Out, Pixar’s newest film, is coming out tomorrow. You can read our full review later today, but the other reviews I’ve seen have been, safe to say, glowing. Not that we expect anything less of Pixar, Disney’s wildly inventive animation adjunct. Ever since the studio blasted to prominence with 1995’s Toy Story, Pixar has churned out classic after classic. And here’s the interesting thing: Almost everyone seems to have a favorite Pixar movie. During the screening of Inside Out, I asked some folks sitting around me what theirs was. “Toy Story,” one mother said. “Finding Nemo!” her daughter chimed in. I heard Cars and The Incredibles and Toy Story 3 and Up. The main takeaway, of course, is that Pixar makes some pretty good movies. They take on ticklish themes like loss and grief and turn them into compelling, freakishly enjoyable works of art. And their messages are so responsible that they even make the crankiest of Plugged In reviewers smile. Nothing lasts forever, of course, and Pixar will eventually crank out something that doesn’t engender universal squeals of glee. (Some would say Cars 2 might’ve been Pixar’s first clunker, actually.) But today—just for fun—I thought I’d give you my own Top Five list of my favorite Pixar flicks. Up. With all due respect to Brave, this might be Pixar’s bravest flick. It’s a rare studio indeed that would feature a grouchy old man as a hero for its animated “kid” flick. Or that it would try to make its audience cry in the first 15 minutes. But that’s what Up does, and it does so beautifully. (Plus, the dog Doug is a hoot.) Finding Nemo. Even after watching it a half-dozen times, this movie just doesn’t get old. This charming father-son story is taut, touching and—mainly thanks to the antics of the blue tang fish Dory—laugh-out-loud funny. When I was at Walt Disney World recently, I regularly walked past a hotel decorated with the seagulls from Nemo, and every now and then they’d all break into a cacophony of “mine!” I giggled every single time. WALL-E. Only Pixar, I think, could take a musical clip from Hello Dolly!, an overcooked and emotionless musical from 1969, and infuse it with genuine heart and melancholy—courtesy a vocabularily-impaired robot, of all things. I’ve only seen this flick once, but just writing this paragraph makes me want to watch it again. Toy Story. Some people say that its two sequels are superior, and they are both great in their own ways. But I have a soft spot for the original. This was Pixar’s introduction to most of us, I think, and it still feels pretty magical. The interplay between Woody and Buzz is priceless, and the message is surprisingly deep: Buzz’s realization that he’s “just a toy” is something that many of us can feel when we realize we might not land in the NFL or on Broadway—but can still can have a pretty awesome, and even heroic, life. Monsters, Inc. Surprised? Me too, actually. I was pretty sure I was going to wind this list with The Incredibles (being the superhero geek I am). But remembering fearsome beastie Sulley learning to care for and even love the “dangerous” little girl Boo, and thinking over the (semi-cliched but very biblical) message that love and laughter is more powerful than fear, I had to give the last slot to the blue-haired guy and his one-eyed wise-cracking pal. Will Inside Out land in this Top 5 list someday? I can’t answer that just yet. For now, I just hope I didn’t miss any of your favorites. But if I did, let me know below. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

John Podhoretz1
Commentary Magazine



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Incredibles 2: A Credible Sequel
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    ...
    (Review Source)

Conservative Film Buff1
Letterboxd



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)
  • Pixar Ranked
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    1. The Incredibles

      This is one of the best animated films ever made, one of the best superhero films ever made, and I'm putting it at the top of the list of Pixar animated features. The action is great, but it's the family moments that feel so right. This one gets better as you age, and can relate more to the relationship moments. It's full of ideas, genuine emotion, great characters, amazing art direction, and fabulously efficient filmmaking. Truly a stellar film.

    2. Toy Story

      Neck-and-neck with The Incredibles, I ultimately and reluctantly decided I had to put Toy Story at no. 2. I can't find any fault with this groundbreaking, genre defining, world-changing film, so in the end, I decided it lost to The Incredibles by a smidge because The Incredibles's plot plays out a little less formulaic. Sure, Toy Story gets extra points for defining the Pixar formula, but the formula is felt more in retrospect than it is for Incredibles. This is very subjective stuff, but that's all I got.

    3. Ratatouille

      Also neck-and-neck with the nos. 1 and 2, Ratatouille is a close third. It's a great and original story, and told expertly by Bird, whose direction here is really something. Every beat of the story hits home, leading up to a glorious finish that has the hard-of-heart food critic finding love in his work again through the least-expected, and lowliest, of means.

    4. Monsters, Inc.

      A simple but ingenious concept executed with humor and heart. Also, it put Billy Crystal and John Goodman together in starring roles, with Steve Buscemi as the villain. And the door chase sequence! What more could you want?

    5. Incredibles 2

      Not your typical Pixar sequel, this is very much a Brad Bird film first and foremost. The action scenes are extraordinarily staged and executed to the extent that this is the best action film in years. The comedy feels like Chuck Jones at parts (the raccoon and Jack-Jack). Even so, character remains at the forefront as we see Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl learning to master their new roles.  Bird builds and improvises on themes in a what like an improvisatory way, the same way that Giacchino’s jazzy score does. It’s a ride from start to finish.

    6. A Bug's Life

      Pixar's second feature film is underrated and simply not talked about enough. It takes its story beats from Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, which had already been retold by The Magnificent Seven and in other places. But what Pixar does with it is fresh, full of some of Pixar's best humor, and does an amazing job of establishing each of the characters in ways that cause us to easily relate to them. Randy Newman's score is pure Americana and adds a grand feel. As far as I'm concerned, this is the best remake of Seven Samurai.

    7. Cars

      A charming, small movie that tackles great subjects. You can feel director Lasseter's love of cars and his feeling of nostalgia for a golden age gone by. It feels personal and real.

    8. WALL·E

      Wall-E, like Ratatouille, is a strange idea for a film that I can imagine caused some discomfort among studio execs. Just think, they put big money into a movie that stars two robots that can't really talk, and don't have faces with which to emote or relate, and basically the first half of the movie is a silent film. Sounds like a great idea for a kids' movie, right? I appreciate the guts and vision that went into this, and I find myself deeply involved with the two main characters when I watch it, which is a great feat of filmmaking. Even so, the films does lose points for getting preachy and political.

    9. Coco

      The best example of world-building in the Pixar canon and a wonderful and unique story. Too predictable, but the music is fantastic and you have to love the themes of the importance of remembering family.

    10. Monsters University

      A really fun movie and an enjoyable sequel whose only major fault is its predictability, that is until the very end, which allows the main characters to experience failure. Instead of abandoning arcs from the first like other Pixar sequels, this expands on them. The best Pixar sequel after Incredibles 2.

    ...plus 10 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

    ...
    (Review Source)

Kyle Smith2
National Review



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • "Up": Funniest Pixar Movie Yet?
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lou has the scoop on the early reviews of Disney/Pixar’s “Up,” said to be another classic and the funniest Pixar movie yet. They’re showing it to New York critics next Wednesday, I think. Just to rattle Hunter’s cage, my list of favorite Pixar movies in order: 1. Ratatouille 2. Toy Story 2 3. The Incredibles 4. Finding Nemo 5. A Bug’s Life 6. Toy Story 7. Monsters, Inc. 8. Wall-E 9. Cars]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • 9/11 Joke in "Megamind"
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    My colleague Lou sees a veiled reference to 9/11 meant to get laughs in “Megamind,” a movie that sluggishly covers ground so nimbly covered in “The Incredibles” and “Despicable Me” that, after looking at my watch about 50 times, I walked out of it after 60 minutes or so. So I wasn’t there for the 9/11 bit. It might be the first cartoon movie to contain a reference to Barack Obama. After the evil-brainiac title figure (Will Ferrell) takes over Metrocity (he pronounces it to rhyme with “atrocity” several times, in one of many lame running gags), his motto pops up on placards all over town: “NO WE CAN’T!” Heh.]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

John Nolte2
Daily Wire / Breitbart



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • 'Tomorrowland' Review: Dull, Preachy, Global Warming Con Job
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    This review is late because I was on vacation. Every prediction made by the Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change hoaxers has proven to be a hoax. The planet is not warming. Hurricanes have not gotten worse. The Arctic ice is not melting away. In fact, we’re about to hit a cooling period. Climate Change is nothing more than the latest con designed by the Left to give central government, and the very few elites who control it, even more power to control our lives. Climate Change is a lie. A dirty lie. A cynical lie. An anti-science lie. And Disney and director Brad Bird and star George Clooney have poured $200-plus million into a box office bomb to spread that lie — to hector and shame the skeptical mind that dares read, think, and  question Power before slavishly handing over our liberties. Worse than that, “Tomorrowland” blames the rebellious individual-thinker for getting in the way of saving a “doomed planet.” A better title for “Tomorrowland” would have been “Submission Is Cool.” It is almost impossible to believe that the same Brad Bird, who so beautifully celebrated the dignity and right of the individual in “Rataouille” (2007) and “The Incredibles”
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • 'Toy Story 4' Review: Another Home Run
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    My Thursday night show was packed with small kids who were hypnotized for the full 100 minutes, as was I.
    ...
    (Review Source)

Mark Steyn1
Fox News



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Batman Begins
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Every culture creates heroes in its own image: it’s difficult to imagine transferring the British adventurers — Rudolf Rassendyll and Richard Hannay, the Saint and 007 — to America.
    ...
    (Review Source)

Andrew Klavan1
PJ Media



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Can Conservatives Win Back the Arts?
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    After years of declaiming against the Left’s domination of our culture, I’m startled and delighted to discover that the tide is beginning to turn. My...
    ...
    (Review Source)

Crosswalk1
Cross Walk



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • 5 Reasons Parents Will Love Toy Story 4
    (”The Incredibles” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Forky is a toy that looks, well… different. His head and body were made from a plastic spork, his arms from a pipe cleaner, and his legs from a broken-in-half popsicle stick. The Disney/Pixar film Toy Story 4 opens this weekend, picking up in the storyline where Toy Story 3 left us – with Woody and his friends under the care of a new owner, Bonnie. Here are five reasons parents will love this new addition to the franchise:
    ...
    (Review Source)

Want even more consensus?

Skip Rotten Tomatoes, they’re biased SJWs too afraid to criticize things like the Ghost Busters reboot. Avoid giving them ad revenue by using the minimalist alternative, Cinesift, for a quick aggregate:

 🗣️ Know of another conservative review that we’re missing?
Leave a link in the comments below or email us!  

What’d you think? Let us know with a video:

Record a webcam review!

Or anonymous text review:

Submit your review
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Submit
     
Cancel

Create your own review

Average rating:  
 0 reviews
Overall Hollywood Bs Average rating:  
 
Anti-patriotism Average rating:  
 
Misandry Average rating:  
 
Affirmative action Average rating:  
 
LGBTQ rstuvwxyz Average rating:  
 
Anti-God Average rating:  
 

Buy on Amazon:
⚠️  Comment freely, but please respect our young users.
👍🏻 Non PC comments/memes/vids/links 
👎🏻  Curse words / NSFW media / JQ stuff
👌🏻 Visit our 18+  free speech forum to avoid censorship.
⚠️ Keep your kids’ websurfing safe! Read this.

Share this page:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail