I saw Incredibles II and it was fun but not outstanding

[drwex]

The core question of movie is nothing to do with its plot or characters. It's "given that it took 14 years to make; is it really new and revolutionary?" To which, sadly, the answer is "no". It's not bad in any way, and the state of animation art has advanced enough that at several places I thought to myself "wow, that's realistic" despite the obvious 'jetsons' aesthetic. But the fact that I'm stopping to notice the quality of the animation is an indication of just how much room there was for my attention to wander. 3/5 stars would probably watch again but don't feel compelled.

The movie telegraphs pretty much everything so everyone over the age of 12 will know what's going to happen if they care to pay attention. That's not necessarily bad, but it further disengages (at least the adult) viewer. As a sequel it can't rest of the "this is new and different" that powered so much of the first movie.

That said, I liked how the film balanced the superhero bits with the family segments and yay more Edna. Everyone gets decent screen time, including Frozone, and they pull together a cast of other "supers" that likely have sequel potential. All good fun but nothing ground-breaking and no, sorry Sam Jackson, not worth 14 years' wait.

The movie is showing with an unrelated animated short beforehand that is well done and... a little disturbing.

Comments

[corylea]

Norman and I saw the first one, and we remember that we really liked it, but it's been so long since then that we no longer remember why we liked it so much.

I haven't been following any of the background material on II; did they say why it took FOURTEEN YEARS to get a sequel off the ground?

[drwex]

To my knowledge there hasn't been an official story. They got the same voice cast, some of whom have busy schedules, and Disney/Pixar have not exactly been idle.

14 years ago there wasn't really such a thing as a "superhero" movie the way there is now. Incredibles I was ground-breaking in that regard, as well as in its repurposing of the previously hacky Jetson's aesthetic. The script was smart and snappy and overall it was a jolly good romp like we'd never seen before. I think if Incredibles I had not existed, we'd (I would) have a much more positive response to II. It's a fine movie on its own merits but it's not the sort of ground-breaking I was hoping for.

[ahf]

I agree on the short being disturbing.

[c1]

that likely have sequel potential.

Meaning Pixar is currently tripping over themselves, figuring out how to follow in Marvel's footsteps? Is this a good thing? Do we need less original content at the movies?

[fenicedautun]

Most of the sequels I could see with the new characters would probably be more classic "how do I balance superheroing and life", "what does it mean to be a hero", and (most interesting if they can go there) "what if I don't want to be a superhero"

[fenicedautun]

I'm right with you on the full review, except I loved the short (and one of the problems I had with the movie was how emotional and resonant the short was highlighted the lack of emotional core in the movie)

[jducoeur]

Yeah, pretty much entirely agreed. I think I would have enjoyed it significantly more if they didn't have the "yes, it's been 14 years but trust us -- it's worth the wait!" at the beginning. That over-inflated expectations, unhelpfully.

I really liked the "family" aspects of the movie in a lot of ways, especially the dynamic between our two super-parents (it was a lovely metaphor for modern issues of gender, parenting, and work), whereas the superhero aspect was strictly meh. Totally with you on the telegraphing -- I saw pretty much every beat a *mile* off. They were practically reveling in how closely they were following the cliched tropes.

Overall, there really wasn't anything I *disliked* about the movie. It just didn't quite live up to its potential...