I'm a huge fan of Disney/Pixar's "The Incredibles": hands down one of the finest superhero films ever produced, whether animated or live action. A sequel seemed guaranteed, but boy, what a long wait (fourteen years, to be exact). The darn thing is, sometimes long waits are worth it, and other times, well, please allow me to elaborate...
Now, don't get me wrong: Creator/writer/director Brad Bird's "Incredibles 2" hits a joyous note in simply regrouping the gang: Craig T. Nelson as Bob, Mr. Incredible; Holly Hunter as Helen, Elastigirl; Sarah Vowell as Violet, the Invisible Girl; Huck Milner as Dash the Flash; and Eli Fucile and Maeve Andrews as Jack-Jack, the shape-shifting baby. To assist the quartet, there's Samuel L. Jackson's Lucius Best, the icy Frozone and (though tardy in her appearance) super-costume designer, Edna Marie "E" Mode, voiced by magnanimous Bird, himself. Yep, a familiar, cozy ensemble, and yet...
The return of our Fantastic Five (or seven, as the case may be) should have come with a wide-range, team-playing purpose. Unfortunately, the principles' interaction is abbreviated for most of this run. Really, is this supposed to be "Incredibles 2" or a soft version of a solo "X-Men"? Why not just label it "Elastigirl" and call it a day?
As one will infer, it's the dear ol' mom who takes center stage, while her family takes the backseat, under the truncated care of relocation man, Rick Dicker (Jonathan "Better Call Saul" Banks). Meanwhile, optimistic industrialist, Winston Deavor (Bob Odenkirk--Saul, himself) and his pessimistic, inventor sister, Evelyn (Catherine Keener) promote superhero legalization, claiming the feminine mystique is the path to acceptance. This discriminating recruitment gives the movie a feminist flair, which wouldn't be so bad if it led to something substantial.
On the film's padded, flip side, we get a "Mr. Mom" simulation with humdrum, homebody gags. The fact that Mr. Parr struggles at the most rudimentary tasks is discouraging, particularly when we've seen the big lug rise so high on prior occasions. Yeah, he's still affable and all, but gee whiz! I mean, if he's meant for a challenge, then give him one with some balls attached, like maybe a world-shaking obstacle that actually meets his tenacity and brawn. (The same goes for Violet and Dash, who deserve better than sitting on their adolescent laurels.)
Though Jason Lee's anguished Syndrome dominated the first film, this time we're dealt the subliminal Screenslaver, whose actual identity boomerangs back to an aforementioned character. As a Conal Cochran knockoff (abetted by some "Outer Limits" restructuring), Screenslaver initially intrigues, but after a while the enigma's inclusion feels more like an off-the-cuff gimmick than a threat. Also, the big, identity reveal isn't so big if one only dares to pay attention and invest some basic sense. ("Wizard of Oz" fans will figure it out well in advance.)
In a sitcom (or an hour-long, adventure show), this sort of cutesy stuff might work, but in a two-hour movie, it spreads way thin. By the time the gang finally (re)assembles, the set-up feels obligatory, strained and tacked on.
If there's anything that "Incredibles 2" has going for it, it's a reluctance to stoop to today's dysfunctional, family stereotypes. I don't care if the Parrs are superheroes and possess "abnormalities". They act like a genuine family in the old-fashioned vein. Beyond a few, realistic squabbles (whether at home, in the energetic prelude or in the late-in-the-story throes of duty), they do stick by one another and their friends. Compare that to the contentious interplay of Neflix's "Lost in Space", and you'll get my drift.
Bird may have had his heart in the right place, and "Incredibles 2" is leagues better than that blasphemous "Lego Batman" bull, but it still cheats its titular characters from being all they can be. The Parrs are worthy of many great adventures. To wait this long for a spurious, lone-wolf dissertation is, quite frankly, a prodigious letdown. I'd have preferred a television series based on the folks instead, where this sequel's concept could have come and gone within the appropriate slot and from there, led to other adventures.
Because of its downsized vision, "Incredibles 2" could become a conspicuous thorn in this franchise's side, but then to be an official franchise, more than a couple entries are required. Sad thing is, I honestly don't see much chance for another chapter coming any time soon (no matter how much this entry makes), and if we do, indeed, get another sequel, can we be confident it'll reach its incredible potential?
I'll give it this much and then some: "Incredibles 2" is doing gangbusters at the box office. This proves that superhero fatigue doesn't exist.
ReplyDeleteI consider "Solo" part of the same fantastic ilk: it's a superheroic tale, yanked from a superheroic, space legacy, culled from the exploits of Flash and Buck. Therefore, it wasn't "Star Wars" fatigue (too much "Star Wars" in too little time) that hurt the film. The boycott is real, as are the lowly box-office results. Again, "Incredibles 2" should seal the deal on this matter, for anyone who might be tempted to argue the point.