Film Reviews Comments turned off

Year One (Movie Review)

By Andrew on April 26th, 2010

Originally written and posted on June 19, 2009.

Year One

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother looking forward to comedy movies. The trap these films set… it’s so predictable, yet I keep falling for it time and time again. It starts with word of the casting, then the teasers hit, and before you know it, the television ads start rolling a few weeks before it hits screens. Suddenly an hour and a half of Jack Black’s unfounded exuberance and Michael Cera’s muttering shuffle seems like a solid prospect, and I’m lined up for tickets behind a pack of fourteen-year-olds convinced that this is still a good idea. I sit down in the dark theatre, sipping at my anomalously large fountain drink, and the movie begins. In no short order, the jokes the film so proudly advertised tumble over almost rhythmically, and barely twenty minutes into the film, a dreary path empty of amusement is all that lay before me. O happy day…

Actually, the dreary path is likely a result of the movie’s outstandingly abysmal lighting, costume, and set design, but still the fact remains: Year One is one terribly joyless affair.

As far as foundations for comedy are concerned, Year One is actually pretty decent. My enthusiasm for this film wasn’t based on the actors (Frankly, I wish Bear Grylls took Jack Black out into the desert in order to promote this film and left in there to rot like he should’ve done with Will Ferrell), but it certainly sounds like an easy win on paper. There’s a whole bunch of wacky stuff in the ancient world ripe for humour, it’s just a matter of choosing the best bits and running with it. But instead of taking the slightly more authentic route of parodying the ancient world as it was, Year One opts not only to go biblical, but wildly anachronistic too.

While no attempt is made by way of identifying precisely what year the film takes place in, assuming that it’s 1AD seems like a solid bet considering the title. So why exactly are heroes Zed and Oh (Black and Cera respectively) quite clearly stone age era hunter/gatherer tribesmen when the rest of the world was busy bowing down to Roman Emperor Augustus? Fine, so maybe there are pockets of tribes who managed to maintain freedom from Romanization and slavery, but it’s 1 bloody AD, the wheel is not that big of a deal. If a caveman is going to pick something to marvel at, it should probably be bronze, iron, or textiles. Trust me, I could go on, but then I’d be missing the point.

Year One is not concerned with historical authenticity so much as it’s concerned with sloppily applying out modern mindset onto bible stories through the eyes of a pair of anachronistic idiots. It’s about throwing two numbskulls into a blender with Cain, Abel, Isaac, Abraham, and then flinging the chunky mess along the streets of Sodom. Admittedly it’s a fairly novel comedic concept coming two weeks after an odyssey in Sin City, but the problem is that our heroes don’t drive the film so much as they merely drift into a particularly stout nugget of the aforementioned mess. Here they spend about ten minutes attempting to regain composure before slipping into another puddle and doing it all again.

It’s just insipid. Sure, you’ll get the odd chuckle out of it, but Year One has an awful habit of playing the same joke to exhaustion and death. The best example of this is when Zed and Oh meet Cain and Abel (David Cross and Paul Rudd, respectively). Just like in Genesis, they’re bickering brothers, and it elicits a decent laugh when they start taking swings at each other. Sadly, Year One doesn’t know when to move on, and the joke just keeps going. Cain murders Abel with a stone, and cries out, “What have I done?!” Then Abel regains consciousness, and Cain smacks him a few more times screaming, “What have I continued doing?!” The joke died the first time Cain cried out, the second time is just pathetic.

And no, the joke does not mimic Abel’s tenacity by becoming funnier the third and fourth time.

And Cain just doesn’t go away.

But in the end, I have to be honest and ask myself the only question that really matters with a film like Year One: “Is the movie consistently funny?” No. No it is not consistently funny. It is not even intermittently funny. Like any crappy comedy worth its salt, Year One throws away all its best material in the trailers and commercials, luring prospective audiences into the theatre on the tired charms of its lead actors, Michael Cera and Jack Black. Let’s face it: we know exactly why we want to see Year One, and the film knows why too. We want to see Jack Black dart around the screen with an energy not exactly abundant in a man of his stature, and we want to see Michael Cera dribble punchlines from the corner of his mouth like he’s been doing in every film since his tenure on Arrested Development.

And I can’t really blame them for that. They’re doing what’s expected of them, and we’re paying them well for it. Being disappointed by this is more or less the same as being disappointed by a shiny knick-knack that was bought for the temporary novelty it offers. If $12 for 90 minutes of dull, predictable jokes seems like a bargain to you, then knock yourselves out. Just be aware that watching the trailer forty times in a row offers the exact same experience with the added benefit of not having to spend money on it.

Film Reviews Comments turned off

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Movie Review)

By Andrew on April 26th, 2010

Originally written and posted on May 1, 2009.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

The first question that ought to be asked by the prospective audience of X-Men Origins: Wolverine is, “can the lead actor carry the film?” If the answer is yes, then all that’s left to ask of the film is that it goes through the list of requisite action/superhero clichés in a neat and orderly fashion. If the answer is no, then prepare some blunt nails and a wooden cross ’cause it’s crucifixion time!

Actually Origins narrowly escapes a critical thrashing because Hugh Jackman as Wolverine is perhaps the most compelling and charismatic bit of adamantium-lined cardboard to ever grace the silver screen. Though despite having two hours to focus on the origin of a highly revered superhero, Wolverine is just as flat and monotonous a character as when he was merely first among the X-Men. More, in fact. At least the trilogy films had Wolverine coping with teamwork, friendship, and responsibility (the first two films anyway) as the mutants were searching for their place in the world. Wolverine’s back story is all about revenge and violence as a brainless montage of uninformative war scenes over the opening credits quickly sets the tone for the rest of the film. Besides, tracing Wolverine’s back story isn’t all too difficult proving you’re aware of how the first X-Men film nine years ago established amnesia as a key aspect of his character.

I was under the impression that Wolverine deserved a film dedicated to the character’s history because it was an engaging tale worth telling. Sadly, this isn’t the case. Apparently Logan’s childhood was a domestically troubled one (beginning 150+ years ago, oddly) followed by stints in all the major world battles with his brother Victor (Liev Schreiber) at his back. They kill a lot of people, growl a fair bit, murder a few of their comrades, get sentenced to death by firing squad (which apparently tickles), whereupon they are recruited into a secret special operations team with other mutants. All goes smoothly for a while, that is of course until Logan gets a crippling case of the morals and abandons the team for a life of peace and solitude. Six years later, the old gang has dissolved and are being picked off one by one by Victor, except it seems that it’s not Victor’s doing alone.

The purpose of this film is to explain the origins of the X-Men characters, particularly Wolverine, which is why I’m amazed that the film does a rather lame job at doing so. Logan is characterized as a revenge driven animal after his sweetheart dies, which admittedly is all he really needs, but that’s only half the story. What about Victor, the antagonist? Why has he gone kill crazy and turned on his brother? The proposed answer fails to satisfy this and other questions, such as what the root reason for his abandonment of fraternal obligations he so heavily espoused earlier, and what his overreaching ambition or goal is. Without a strong and defined antagonist, the hero has very little reason for being. I understand the desire to chiefly focus on the character for which the film is named after, but a little attention to detail with regards to the motley mutant crew would be nice. Without it, the stench of fan service overwhelms and characters feel interchangeable, relying on powers and not personas to colour them.

But the main cast is likable, despite my lack of concern for characters I don’t immediately recognize. I didn’t grow up reading comic books or watching the X-Men animated series, so truth be told I only knew a handful of the mutants. Wolverine, Sabertooth, Gambit, and a young Cyclops are the only ones I can identify. I have no idea who Agent Zero, Wade, Deadpool, the Blob, and countless others are, though they are appreciably well presented. Frankly, I find the main failing to be that the film wants to capture too much, and ends up coming up short in the process. A narrower scope more focused on a handful as opposed to a massive entourage would’ve satisfied both crowds that the film must cater too. The diehards would get their faithfully adapted beloved back-story (presumably), and the rest of us would get a solid and engaging action flick. As it stands, Wolverine starts off promisingly before getting tangled in a muddy mess of fan service.

Film Reviews Comments turned off

Watchmen (Movie Review)

By Andrew on April 26th, 2010

Originally written and posted on March 6, 2009.

Watchmen

Watchmen is a peculiar movie in that it has a large part of the film going community somewhat divided. There is the nerdy purist faction who hails the Watchmen as a sort of counter culture bible, the oblivious common film goers who are looking for a good time and see the Watchmen as being a viable source of entertainment, and then there are the people like me who only have a passing knowledge of the graphic novel and its raving fanbase and is mostly curious without any predilection or expectation one way or the other. The lack of any prior connection to the material coupled with the absence of any hope for the film only means that the film needs to work a bit harder at being engaging for me. But let it be known that once I was into it, I must say that I was quite impressed.

Even though I’ve never read the graphic novel, I can definitely tell that the film adheres to its source rather obstinately, for better or for worse. The narrative is so thick and cluttered that while fans will surely be satisfied by the film’s fidelity, newcomers like me are for the most part left in the dust. Zack Snyder essentially anticipates two types of customers for the Watchmen: the diehards who want to see a cut for cut adaptation of their beloved comic, and the dullards who walk into the theatre expecting a boom-fest. Both are adequately catered to, unfortunately leaving the precious middle ground so precariously uncultivated. Luckily, you can still enjoy the film without ever managing to tap into the “members only” plot. The characters are well rounded enough that you might actually begin to feel sympathetic towards them, and the scope and panache is definitely appreciable for anyone.

The context of the film is so incomprehensible that a brief plot synopsis is either impossible or laughable. The year is 1985 in an alternate history where the possibility of nuclear war between the US and the USSR is ever looming, and the world has turned to Dr. Manhattan as either the stalemate’s catalyst or deterrent. Dr. Manhattan is a superhero who is a god amongst men with nary a concern for any human, except for his girlfriend, Silk Spectre. The two of them used to belong to a clique of caped crusaders known as the Watchmen, a group that appears to be being dismantled mask by mask. When one of their own is thrown out of a window to his death, a chain of events is set in motion that might trigger the end of the world.

As I mentioned earlier, I thoroughly enjoyed most of the costumed characters, particularly The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) who was absolutely spectacular. While this might reflect poorly on me, I must confess that I love sexist, misogynistic, and ultra-violent behaviour, and The Comedian has this in spades. It was around the time that he kicked a pregnant Vietnamese woman in the stomach before shooting her that I fully appreciated how awesome he was, a trait further enhanced when he jumps into a violent mob and starts picking of citizens like a mad sniper short of a clock tower. The charisma and conviction he brings to the table is so welcome that it’s truly a shame his character is dead not ten minutes into the film (however there are flashbacks aplenty). He is not the only crass character teetering on the edge of tasteless though, as there are liberal amounts of reprehensible pleasure scattered between the frames. A notable example of which is when a character’s mother yells, “I should’ve had that abortion!” before slapping her child and slamming the door. Unfortunately I was the only one in a particularly crowded theatre to laugh at this comic gem, which elicited many condescending looks.

It goes without saying then that the Watchmen earns its 18A rating with no apprehension whatsoever. There is coarse language, violence, and sex (not of the most gratuitous variety though) and by Jove is it glorious, largely because it’s underscored so effectively by the character’s attributes and ethics. The philosophy it plugs isn’t ground breaking or particularly in depth, but it does match the overall atmosphere quite nicely, and keeps the whole film chugging along even if it pauses for a quandary more frequently than many would like it to.

Overall though, Watchmen does have one crippling defect: the pace. The film was substantially cropped in order to meet a reasonable running length, and the result is a movie that spends the first two thirds meandering about indulging itself and the folks who have spent over twenty years clamouring for this adaptation. The final third of the film beings a hasty and generally dissatisfying denouement, which while sufficiently wrapping things up, neglects to do so in a notably elegant fashion. Watchmen peculiarly overstays its welcome (by running too long) while at the same time ending too quickly (by rushing the final act). The director’s cut will almost certainly remedy this, but the theatrical release is ultimately flawed. Regardless, it’s still time well spent at the theatre and definitely worth a look. It certainly won me over, enough so that I might pick up the original text.

Film Reviews Comments turned off

Up In The Air (Movie Review)

By Andrew on April 26th, 2010

Originally written and posted on December 11, 2009.

Up In The Air

Having only directed three feature films so far in his career, Jason Reitman is a relatively new name in Hollywood. Most people likely know him as the director of Juno from 2007, and even still may not be all too aware of him since most of the accolades for that particular film went towards Diablo Cody’s barbed hipster garbage writing. Rewind your memory by one year farther, and you may perhaps recognize him as both the camera and scribe behind the underappreciated Thank You For Smoking in 2006, in which he was able to make the world sympathize with a man whose company is responsible for deaths of tens of millions of people by cigarettes. If both of those movies are beyond you, though, then it’s very likely that his third feature, Up in the Air, will be too. Only being released in limited theatres last Friday (December 4th), the public reception thus far has been quite small and it’s difficult to say exactly what will happen with this film come the Oscar race. However given the calibre of the writing and acting, it’s hard not to imagine this film receiving multiple Academy Awards nominations, perhaps even in the newly expanded Best Picture category.

To be unjustly brief, Up in the Air is a film about the peculiar job of Ryan Bingham (George Clooney). Bingham is a man with no traditional home, although he does own a largely unfurnished and nondescript studio apartment for the rare days when he isn’t travelling around America on business. He is a man whose job requires him to be in the air perpetually, flying to companies that are in need of downsizing, but which lack managers with the confidence needed to terminate redundant employees. So Bingham is dispatched to offer severance packages and booklets full of career changing advice to the people he fires (though he often stresses that the gentler term is “let go”). While it might seem like it’s the glamorous jet-setting lifestyle being weighed against a job which many might find ethically reprehensible, the dilemma here is not the work but whether a person can truly live lacking genuine human connections.

In many ways, one could see Up in the Air as the evolution of Thank You For Smoking (if one were familiar with it). There’s the satiric edge of Bingham’s character thriving off the destruction of other people’s lives, much in the same way as how Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) made his living as a spin doctor. The only real difference here is that Bingham’s charisma isn’t terribly necessary for his profession. Naylor’s job wasn’t only charming the fictional public, but also charming the audience so that they could root for a character who built his career on the pain that families suffer from cigarettes and tobacco. Bingham is much more aloof and disaffected, fully aware that he will never see or hear from those he crushes (unless in the most extreme of circumstances). His job doesn’t need any measure of persuasive prowess, and quite frankly he isn’t even required to sell the manufactured opportunities of forceful termination. No matter what he says, no matter how the terminated contest, and no matter how eloquent either party is, the unlucky chap gets fired and Ryan hops on another plane to another city to do it all again. He is a trigger man, put into action to do what the people who summon him can’t.

Drama comes into play when Bingham’s superior, Craig Gregory (Jason Bateman), takes on an ambitious Cornell grad student with designs to revolutionise his industry. The young Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) has been working on developing a program that dramatically cuts company expenditure by grounding Bingham and his 22 peers and having them perform their jobs through webcams. Without the financial burden of keeping two dozen men in the air hopping around North America, Gregory eagerly moves forward with accepting the plan. While it can be safely assumed that Bingham’s 22 contemporaries would be eager to stay on the ground with their lives and families, Bingham himself is immediately shaken: his life is in the air, and his family are the thousands of anonymous airport patrons around him.

In a meeting with Gregory, Bingham stresses that personality and immediacy are what allows him to be as successful at his job as he is, and that no colloquial flow chart and list of responses will be able to supplant the face to face meeting. Personally demonstrating Keener’s inexperience to undermine Gregory’s confidence in the plan, Gregory puts them both in the air so that Keener can better understand what exactly it is she’s trying to revolutionise, and Bingham can stay at home for a little while longer.

The forced companionship of Bingham and Keener would at first seem like a logical setup for a typical romantic comedy, especially since the insertion of Keener into his peculiar no-strings attached affair with fellow jetsetter Alex (Vera Farmiga) would be exploited to no worthwhile merit by a lesser writer/director (the young ingénue falls for her sagely mentor who himself is hung up with his globetrotting call girl). Thankfully, the satire and romance never mix and become a muddy diluted mess. Reitman devotes equal time to each element, first satire and then romance, and ensures that the loose ends are tied off neatly before moving on. When Bingham and Keener are flying around the country performing their duties, we’re only occasionally reminded that Alex still exists living her life more or less the same way that Bingham does. When Keener is dismissed, Bingham becomes free to pursue Alex and reconnect with the family from which he has been essentially estranged in time for his sister’s wedding. The only instance where the three leads are together is during a stint in Miami. A recently devastated Keener is largely preoccupied with her own taste of Bingham’s lifestyle, while Bingham and Alex continue their affair.

Eventually, however, that pesky predominant romantic comedy cliché of the male lead risking it all does rear its ugly head as Bingham decides to ruin a good thing with Alex by yearning for something more. Such a manoeuvre would typically be a deathblow severely undermining all the meticulous characterization that had come before it, but in one of the most inspired moments of writing/directing that I’ve witnessed, Reitman manages to have it work in the film’s favour. “Why does Bingham suddenly long for Alex so strongly when he’s been perfectly content to be in that strange limbo of living completely isolated yet surrounded on all sides?” is the question that needs to be asked. It’s easy to forget that as Bingham and Keener trot around America jovially terminating 1/10th of its white collar workforce, Bingham himself is facing extinction. He knows that his livelihood is in danger and he dreads having to spend more than “43 miserable days a year at home” in his dreary and bland studio apartment. Should that come to pass, as seems inevitable thanks to Keener’s meddling, what better person to fix such a predicament than a woman who describes herself as “[just think of me as] you, but with a vagina.” And thus Up in the Air is, at its heart, the simple story of Bingham’s own unique midlife crisis. Challenged by the sharp yet ineloquent Keener and Alex’s own secrets, Bingham is potentially forced to adjust to life down on the ground.

Being a character driven drama, Up in the Air‘s success has very little that relies on it’s technical merits. As long as the shots are competently framed and the dialogue is audible, not much else needs to be demanded. When Reitman opts to pace the movie with a sense of symmetry, however, he certainly is going above and beyond the call of duty. The opening and closing shots from the sky combined with testimonies from the soon-to-be and recently unemployed bit players create a comfortable balance between the film’s introduction and conclusion, and the slick camera pans during movement coupled with the quick-cut condensation of trivial acts such as packing luggage add flourish without becoming distracting. Brief moments like a darkened room of worn office chairs and wide open floors dotted with boxes of trinkets and the occasional cubicle also remind the audience of the impact and destruction Bingham’s job can create.

No, sharp writing and strong performances are what lets Up in the Air succeed. While for a normal film, the strength of either the writing or the acting would compensate for the deficiency of the other, Up in the Air needed Reitman to nail both elements for the sake of the satiric edge, lest a pretentious failure result. Make no mistake; the writing is nothing short of stellar. A well paced plot and deftly delivered natural dialogue define the three leads so well that their interplay never feels arbitrary and forced. Keener’s naivety despite the Ivy League education isn’t contradicted because she needs to keep up with Bingham; that’s what Alex is for. Alex, meanwhile, has enough confidence and conviction to mirror Bingham, while Bingham’s own philosophy never suffers even when he appears to be acting against it.

Up in the Air is a fantastic film, and I’m not using that phrase lightly. All of 2009 has been largely underwhelming so far, thanks to the inability of any blockbuster to measure up to either the hype surrounding it or my personal expectations. Most of the surprises came from the lower budget films which were able to wring higher production values from such modest means, notably The Hurt Locker and Moon, offering tense and memorable experiences that films with ten times their budget failed miserably to achieve. Up in the Air continues in that same vein, offering far superior experiences at a meagre fraction of traditionally expected production costs. Everything about Up in the Air is fresh, airplane sealed or otherwise.

Film Reviews Comments turned off

Up (Movie Review)

By Andrew on April 26th, 2010

Originally written and posted on May 29, 2009.

Up

Pixar is widely regarded as the best animation company around. They’ve made nine animated films over the past fourteen years, and every single one of them ranges from great to excellent. Up is their tenth film, and it really pains me to say that it’s not their best. Not because I was expecting it to be their greatest, but because up until the final movement, I was convinced that it very well would’ve been.

Up tells the story of Carl Fredrickson (Ed Asner), an elderly balloon salesman who was once happily married to his childhood sweetheart, Ellie. They both grew up together and shared the same spirit and longing for a life of adventure. They also shared admiration for Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer), a world famous adventurer who disappeared in South America after the scientific community debated one of his discoveries. In the meantime, Carl and Ellie grew up, married, and made plans to visit a remote Venezuelan Eden called Paradise Falls. Sadly, their plans were never fulfilled and Ellie passed away comfortably of old age (Presumably. Remember, this is technically a kid’s film). Carl now lives alone in his dusty house, with nothing but memories of his deceased wife and the sounds of adjacent construction sites to keep him company.

With time taking its toll on the poor lonesome man and the thought of entering an old age home ever present, he ties thousands of balloons to his fireplace and takes off for Venezuela. Not so much for adventure – he thinks he’s too old for that – so much as for peace and quite in the world he’s been dreaming of. Naturally, these plans are foiled by an overeager well-to-do wilderness scout (a trait that must compensate for some incredible thickness) named Russell, who was under Carl’s porch searching for a pest during lift-off. What escapades will our intrepid heroes endeavour upon? Sadly, not quite the variety I had in mind.

Don’t get me wrong, the preliminary journeys through the new environments are all well and good. Splendid even. Up begins leisurely and enjoyably, not concerned with speed or urgency, and this laid back and casual approach to adventure is great fun to experience. Watching Carl and Russell deal with an eccentric and colourful wild bird is hilarious. Carl wants nothing more than to get to Paradise Falls (they landed a few miles off), and Russell is determined to keep the creature around as a companion. The fun ramps up considerably when a strange dog with a gadget laden collar that allows him to speak joins the trio on their adventure. Up ticks along at a perfect pace and everything thus far has been fantastic. Then the third act hits, and things take a sharp turn for the questionable.

Before I move on, let me take a brief moment to praise the music. Michael Giacchino returns as composer and delivers some of his best work to date. He’s written excellent scores for Ratatouille, The Incredibles, and recently Abrams’ Star Trek, but what he’s done with Up is simply the best. This is largely due to Ellie and Carl’s theme, which provides surprising weight for the entire film and is remarkably affecting.

Normally, Pixar films are a happy marriage of subtext and entertainment. However with Up, Pixar have rested a bit too comfortably on the three act formula. They dive for the heartstrings (an instrument they’ve become virtuosos with I might add), explore and meander in adventure rather joyously, and then the necessity of an antagonist slaps the audience in the face and the entire film is brought down to a level almost common. Perhaps I should explain…

Having a villain is fine, but Up, much like Wall-E, is a film that doesn’t exactly need one. Many Pixar films have their evils to overcome such as Chick Hicks in Cars and Skinner in Ratatouille, but those characters were antagonists out of a character deficiency and not in the “evil for the sake of evil” idea (Chick Hicks wanted to win a bit too much and Skinner wanted control of his restaurant. These are understandable). Muntz, however, is evil for the sake of evil. At the risk of spoiling too much, there is a scene towards the end of the movie where Muntz not only proves to be terrible, but flat out sadistic.

It should go without saying that a fair bit goes wrong in the third act. Not so much in the requisite problem/solution mould, but in the poorly executed villain and some less than stellar plot choices. Actually, as much as Pixar is famous for building fantastic beginnings, I can’t help but notice that they’re starting to struggle with their endings. Take, for example, the three most recent Pixar films: Ratatouille began to drag, Wall-E traded in subtlety for flash and noise, and Up decided to create a character ripped from Roger Moore era Bond. In the first two instances, they’re far more forgivable, owing more to a matter of personal preference and not so much anything wrong with the film as a whole. However with Up, it really feels as though it’s something fundamentally wrong in the core of the story. There’s a distinct moment where Carl realizes that his childhood hero is a big game hunter just a teensy bit on the evil side. The screen darkens, the music becomes ominous, the antagonist narrows his eyes, and it’s at that precise moment you realize that Up has shifted into the wrong gear. Pixar masterfully danced on the fence between seemingly kiddie fare and weighty plots and characterizations. If only for the time being, they’ve fallen off and landed on the wrong side.

But much like how Carl Fredrickson manages to pick himself up and dust off his clothes, so too does the film redeem itself in the final moments. It’s thankfully a very fitting ending, but sadly the film is still undermined by some rather glaring missteps.

Though despite the disappointing developments in the third act, I am inclined to be sparing in my criticism towards the film. Not so much because Pixar is the only thing good and righteous left in this world and I will defend the company to the death (though I’d be lying if I said that weren’t a factor), but because it must be understood what Pixar is trying to accomplish. As far back as Finding Nemo, and most certainly with Wall-E, Pixar has moved beyond the need to cater to children alone. However Pixar will always make films with that audience in mind and fill them with the necessary subtext to keep more mature audiences entertained. It’s a juggling act, really. Cutting edge animation and appreciable nuance wrapped in a kid friendly package. Occasionally they stumble, and sadly Up is an example, but they’re still narrative masters and the best at what they do.

And if nothing else, we’ll always have the animated shorts.