Iron Man 3 Review - OR - Tony Starkspeare

Plot

Following the explosive events at New York, Tony Stark (Robert Downy Jr.) finds himself bereft with anxiety and a sense of purposelessness. Unable to sleep, he buries himself amongst his fabled iconic iron suits, threatening his relationship with long-suffering carer-come-girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). All the while, enigmatic terrorist codenamed The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) is wreaking havoc across the States with bomb-attacks and hacked TV spots. Against his wishes, The Man in The Can is thrown into potentially the most dangerous – and certainly the most personal – fight of his life.

 

Because it ain't cool if you don't punch the floor.

Review

If it wasn’t for Iron Man – with it’s pitch-perfectly cast Robert Downy Jr., endearing comedic tone and barnstorming critical & financial success – it’s fair to say that the whole Marvel’s Avengerscinema arc would never have got off the ground. Marvel supremo Kevin Fiege said as much. It’s more than fitting then that Iron Man 3 should stand as the opening of Marvel’s Phase 2 along the road to global domination.

Taking the reigns from Jon Favreau, director Shane Black kicks off Phase 2 in more ways than just numerically. Heralding a darker tone but with no let up to the series characteristically cutting sense of humour and a narrative with a finger pressed firmly against the pulse of modernity, Iron Man 3 is a complete reinvention of the Marvel-ian comic book caper.

RDJ is as charismatic and endearing as ever while Paltrow’s Potts develops in interestingly genre-busting directions, following the route pioneered by Joss Whedon’s Avengers. While some of the new characters feel like little more than farts in the wind– botanist Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall) most notably – others fit right in. Guy Pearce is fascinating as the mysterious Aldrich Killian but it’s Ben Kingsley who steals the show, putting in a remarkable performance as the surprisingly complex – and twisty – Mandarin, keeping a character that could easily have gone sprinting all bandy-legged in to ridiculous territory pleasantly grounded and believable.

'Tony, I want you inside of me.'

Naturally, action is often the order of the day and yet Iron Man 3 is far from the prototypical ‘action’ film. The first Act is, in fact, almost bereft of any explosions whatsoever save a magic brain plant (what the what!?) and instead focuses entirely on Stark the man, tracking his development from semi-dead nuke hero in space to obsessive insomniac. It makes for an often surprising and uniquely compelling character exploration perhaps never before seen in anything remotely ‘comic book-y’ on the big screen. It also grants RDJ the chance to flex his acting chops outside of pop-culture jabs, on several instances traipsing into remarkably intimate soliloquys on his life. There’s always the expectation for a joke or a gurn to camera, a casual brush-off followed by a hectic back track to the blasé, and when it doesn’t come it’s…weird. But in the right way.

But have no fear! There are still quips galore, from ol' Shellhead and the rest of the merry cast, riffing on topics that range from Downton Abbey to Croydon. Black’s characteristica razor-wit style is present and accounted for by the spade full, characters always on the ready for a dash of non-sequitur humour even when faced by a wall of fire, an unkillable man, a free-fall from 30,000 feet or a thousand thousand explosions.

It’s the writing that’s the major highlight here. Visual effects are good but nothing special, the standard crisp fare for any film of the Marvel canon. The writing however is something else. While a few newcomer characters feel emptier than a bag of crisps, most are astutely constructed (and cast) to fit around a deceptively illuminating narrative. Early reviews have been quick to call out the narrative as a slobby hack-job, a collection of disparate ideas flung together before being thrown in front of the camera. This reviewer however hopes for a more favourable retrospective approach.

'You came to the wrong neighbourhood, mother-'...memes.

While by no means perfect – and sometimes confusing in a ‘what’s the point?’ kind of way rather than ‘what the hell?’ – Iron Man 3 is one of the few films of it’s ilk – big budget, big name, big market – to embrace a narrative that gleefully toys with the post-modern sensibility and even satire. Whether or not it has performed well in this respect will be proven in time, but with villains that are far from what they seem to be, a focus on anonymity and the dissonance inherent in a modern day cyber-world and metaphor galore, Iron Man 3 has – for want of a much much better and more descriptive word – legitimate depth.

What’s even more impressive however is how it juggles these tentative notions with the classic Iron Man/ Marvel style, ensuring that it doesn’t alienate old fans while simultaneously maybe drawing in a new crowd. For every Machiavellian unveiling, there’s a classic buddy-cop moment between Tony and his best friend (and now Presidential Guard) Rhodey (Don Cheadle) aka War Machine…aka The Iron Patriot. The climactic set piece – a ludicrously OTT, hugely entertaining skirmish on an oil drill – is full of moments of subtle (and not so subtle) humour in the face of adversity, a potentially alienating aesthetic that works because of the character’s chemistry.

Ultimately, while noticeably over-long and sometime sufferer of over-indulgence (some conversations are irritatingly snappy; some of the technological showboating needlessly grandiloquent, a virtual ‘who’s bigger?’ competition) Iron Man 3 concludes as a boisterously entertaining chapter in Marvel’s every-growing library. Though still not as good as the first Iron Man, it has surely set robust foundations for the next few years of Marvel magic.

And as for the whole ‘where are the other Avengers while Tony’s off fighting? argument: ‘this is not superhero business, it’s American business’ which, despite pretty much every comic ever written taking place almost entirely in the States, are two different things apparently.

What's more impressive: the table ornament or that the sofa doesn't sag despite the IRON suit?

Verdict

With a much greater focus on Stark the man than Stark the Suit, Iron Man 3 is an entirely different beast to its predecessors. Though the plot may sag under its own crisscrossing weight on occasion, Iron Man 3 is a triumph for the ever-burgeoning comic book genre: it manages to reinvent its hero (from Bear Grylls survivor to one-man army) and its own mythos along an explosive journey from start to fanboy credits sting. One for the fans and newcomers alike.

4/5

The closest thing to Captain America that you'll be getting:

You see that little button down there, it's kind of blue and says 'like'? It's really fun to click, honest it is. Apparently, if you enjoy reading something and click on it magical things happen. Guess there's only one way to find out...

Read More

Olympus Has Fallen Review - OR - HOO HA 'MURICA

Plot

18 months after the tragic death of the First Lady, all-American boy wonder President Asher (Aaron Eckhart) is preparing to meet the Prime Minister of South Korea to discuss the growing tensions in North Korea. However, a plane attack and lawn invasion later and the President finds himself and his cabinet held hostage in the White House’s bunker by elusive terrorist Kang (Rick Yune). With the security slaughtered, it’s up to disgraced former Presidential guard Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) to save his Commander-in-Chief and help avert a nuclear war.

Always be careful with fireworks.

Review

You would swear that Americans actually don’t like their White House. Or any of their presidents for that matter. The amount of films - from Independence Dayto Air Force One to 2012 and a million others – that glorify its destruction is as remarkable as it is unsettling. All the more so considering it is not often the most dramatic event of the film. In this sense then Olympus Has Fallen is a first: after a brief prologue, the entire film dedicates itself to the destruction of the USA’s most famous building. Good on it.

But the work of Emmerich and Michael Bay – the two most fervent destroyers of everything American – is not the prime target of Olympus.

From labored set-up to the cat-and-mouse ventilation-based games, it’s obvious that Olympusdesperately wants to be a modern day Die Hard. However, it unfortunately has neither the humour nor the charm of Bruce Willis’s slaughterfest to come close to matching its long established benchmark.

Enigmatic foreigner terrorist occupies building because of reasons? Check. Burly rugged white man is the only one left who can save that building and everyone inside? Check. Black assistant helps Hero McWhitey over the telephone? Check. Hero meets a bad guy but doesn’t know it’s him and for some reason shares a cigarette? Check. Shooter McHunky makes quips and threats despite the impending wall of doom and death that faces him? They try at least: ‘Let’s play a game of f**k off. You go first’ Banning grunts, cue guffaws aplenty.

In a surprising cameo, Ross Geller wet-willys Gerard Butler

 Despite the largely failed homage, Olympus does action right in its own way. Mostly at least. The initial raid on the White House, while flamboyantly over-the-top, makes for exciting, frenetic viewing; as bodies pop and things explode there is a definite sense of real-world scale and horror at the destruction of the world’s most-protected building. The terrorist’s plan too, while entirely ridiculous (why wouldn’t that plane be noticed before it’s hovering over D.C.?), is suitably meaty and well presented enough to remain entertaining.

Everything after that though is set in an overly murky darkness, the innumerable grunty fistfights and shoot-outs obscured by an unending dusty gloom. Is this an artistic quirk to represent the impossible odds and impending darkness that faces ‘Murica? Perhaps. Or is it to compensate for the stunted post-production and budget restraints, an effort to hide its copious shortcomings behind the veil of night? Yes. Yes it is.

Olympus has clearly suffered from a rushed post-production to fit a sudden release deadline. Whether this was to avoid competition with Emmerich’s latest assault on the President’s pad - White House Down - released later this year or to crudely coincide with the current high pressure situation brewing in North Korea is unclear, but bottom line: it’s suffered because of it. CGI is often notably incomplete or plainly poor (the Washington Monument’s destruction looks like a PS1 game) and at one point the sound cuts out in such a way that the editors must simply not have noticed. Other small errors – like typos perplexingly – then mount up to create a general impression of mediocrity bordering on apathetic laziness.

Vidyer Garmez.

Unfortunately however, action is the beginning and the end, with characters seeming more like ad-ons merely necessary to give the action something to happen to. Leading men Eckhart and Butler are indistinguishable from one another besides the colour of their hair, while the supporting crew, featuring greats such as Morgan Freeman (Speaker Trumbull) and Melissa Leo (Secretary of Defence Ruth McMillan), are so watery and undeveloped the film needs subtitles just to classify who they are.

Olympus doesn’t believe in ridiculous notions such as ‘development’ and ‘depth,’ not when there are things to blow-up or screens to stare at with sweaty panicked faces. Bottom line, the clearest insight offered into any of the character’s lives is Trumbull’s coffee order. Freeman can doubtlessly expect the Academy’s call at the end of the year for such a heartfelt listing of drinkable things.

'Why am I here again??'

Talking of Melissa Leo, her ludicrous chanting of the Pledge of Allegiance whilst being dragged around by the hair typifies the viscous, saccharine dollops of stomach churning patriotism that drowns Olympus from start to finish. A film about an assault on the White House and its subsequent rescue was never going to be short of ‘HOO HA ‘MURICA’ but Olympuspushes the ideal so far down the throat you’d be well advised to bring a sick bucket. Lingering, grandiloquent shots of the ol’ Stars & Stripes; simpering, mournful brassy tunes; the constant reassertion of American pride and spirit: Olympus is the single greatest DudeBro fellatio-fest this side of Act of Valor.

Olympus Has Fallen is simultaneously bigger and emptier – dumber in the wrong way - than its apotheosised forebearer Die Hard. It is almost the perfect embodiment of ‘generic.’ The antagonists have their motives – some sort of convoluted vengeance plan – but it doesn’t matter. The style of the presentation is such that any half-discerning viewer will know exactly what to expect from explodey start to countdown finish; whatever happens in-between is rendered irrelevant by the sheer uniformity of its trajectory. It isn’t a tiresome experience – some scenes should get the adrenaline pumping – but you’re likely to forget the entire thing halfway through the walk home in a Kaiser Soze blip of the mind.

D-d-d-drop the bass!

Verdict

Olympus Has Fallen is the ultimate exercise in down-the-line action; it does not even try to do anything remotely new and is happy to stick to its guns, as it were. With a spare few hours and a box of popcorn, it’s perfectly merry escapism. But Die Hard it ain’t.

2/5 – or – 3/5with a mate and a couple of cans.

HOOOOOO HAAAAAAAA TRAILAAAAA:

Read More

Oblivion Review - OR - Oblivion Obliviousness

Plot

It’s the year 2077 and Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) is one of the last men left on Earth following a catastrophic war with an alien species 60 years ago. The humans won with the use of nuclear weapons but left the planet wasted, decimated by radiation and natural disasters following the invader’s destruction of the moon. Along with his partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) he is part of a ‘mop up crew,’ keeping the defensive drones operational against remaining aggressors. As he nears the end of his duty and prepares for his transfer to the new human colony on Titan, a ship crash-lands carrying cryogenically frozen humans including a frequent visitor to his dreams, Julia (Olga Kurlyenko), throwing his life into disarray.

They've a thing for smooth white balls it seems.

Review

Joseph Kosinksi made quite a splash when he landed with his debut feature Tron: Legacy in 2010. Lauded for it’s remarkable visual effects, world immersion and aesthetic commitment, it was considered a beautiful shell: superficially outstanding but ultimately somewhat soulless. Oblivion marks his anticipated return to the big screen, adapting his own previously unpublished and untitled graphic novel.

His challenge with Oblivion, then, was to round up all that made Tron: Legacy remarkable while pushing his own style forward with a bit more of those important ‘narrative’ and ‘character’ things people tend to go on about.

To his credit, he pushed it at least five feet up the hill before presumably collapsing in a sweaty heap the particle effects of which would BLOW YOUR MIND.

Unless you’re James Cameron with his personal magical dimension made of gold and rubies, it’s as good as impossible to predicate your entire film on visual gusto alone. It’s a failing similarly suffered by Oz The Great & Powerful earlier this year: a film of bounteous visual and aural beauty but, to put a dramatic edge on things, left wanting for a soul. Obliviondoes not suffer quite so badly from this sense of superficiality though. As said earlier it’s a rheumatic shuffle in the right direction.

No CGI, this is exactly what Iceland looks like. Nobody has a clue what they're up to.

Kosinski is clearly a man with an eye for detail. Oblivion is typified by its beauty, wonderfully conflating the natural vistas of Iceland (where much of the film was shot) and top quality CGI to create a visually striking production, all ordered according to a fantastically well realised design aesthetic; sleek, spherical whites versus sinister, clunky blacks.  There’s been a growing trend within recent films and video games – I Am Legend, The Last of Us - to treat apocalyptic dystopias not as grim grey miserable wastelands but instead as voluptuous declarations of nature’s power; the dominion of jungle life, flora & fauna burying the dusty mud and bringing new life to the crumbling dilapidated buildings. While Oblivion doesn’t push the style as far as the likes of Enslaved, it presents the most engagingly realistic interpretation yet to be seen on cinema screens, helped no end by the naturally glorious landscapes of Iceland.

The same cannot be said of the characters however, most (if not all) of which are paper-thin at best and downright inert at worst. Tom Cruise may be called Jack Harper here but have no doubts: this is Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise. Not that that’s a particularly bad thing – he’s one of the biggest and most likeable film stars in the world for a reason – but there’s a lingering desire for a character who can match the high-brow concept. If the planet has been literally reshaped and transformed, then a similar treatment for Mr. Cruise would not only make thematic sense but stand as a uniquely fascinating string to the film’s bow.

Elsewhere, Olga Kurlyenko’s survivor Julia is about as interesting as the greyest wall in Greyland while Morgan Freeman’s Beech and Jaime Lannister himself - Nikolaj Coster-Waldau’s Sykes - barely leave an impact in roles as substantial as soup water. At least Andrea Riseborough continues to impress as by-the-books Victoria.

Future engineers will apparently forget what 'colour' is.

Oblivion is an exercise in pacing; like an F1 track it slows to meander through corners before rocketing full-pelt down the straights. Setting its world up in minutes, Oblivionlaunches into a pondering exploration of its world and substantial lore. It’s filmmaking that could easily bore, but the blatant care and lavish attention paid to the minutest details create a naturally engrossing experience. Something helped no end by Kosinski’s flawless technical ability.

Plot twists, too, are well constructed and confidently delivered, creating a second act of effortless pace and intrigue. Action is the word of the day for the bulk of Oblivion’s second hour and it doesn’t disappoint, remaining refreshingly varied and exciting throughout

It’s just a shame then that, after laying all of its narrative trump cards on the table, Oblivion seems to stop caring. The ending is set up and then left to dangle while the characters play catch-up to create a conclusion that, while still entertaining, feels flat and deflated in comparison to what comes before it. It’s a feeling capitulated by the eventual unveiling of the resident Big Bad who, to avoid treading into spoiler territory, will remain undescribed. However, the impression when in it’s company is far more apathetic than fearful or excited.

Standard sci-fi mistakes are also present in spades, namely plot-holes and inconstancies. Narrative issues are left ignored and the inherent issues that accompany staple sci-fi devices (which cannot be specified in order to steer well clear of that dark irrepressible quagmire The Spoiler Zone) rear their ugly heads. Ultimately, much like Oblivion’s characters, the film attempts to ignore its respective Radioactive Zones rather than address them. Whereas Looper gleefully subverted the notion of time-travel for its own devices, Oblivionmerely seems to squeeze its eyes shut and hope that the pretty images will be enough to silence dissenting voices.

'I dunno dude, I can't see the Statue of Liberty anywhere.'

Verdict

Oblivion marks the creation of an accomplished, engaging sci-fi world. While the narrative may be riddled with inconsistencies and characters border on being cardboard cut-outs, there’s more than enough action packed entertainment and visual splendour on hand to be worthy of a spare evening.

3/5

Tom Cruise plays Tom Cruise in Tom Cruise: The Movie:

Follow on Twitter @Smariman for updates, attempts at humour and the warmth of my friendship.

Read More

Pixar: A Modern Tragedy - OR - Monsters Story 6: Finding Wall-E's Life

With the news that Finding Dory is a thing that is going to happen soon (alongside the recently rumoured Toy Story 4, the impending Monsters University and the previously released Cars 2) Pixar are systematically depressing an entire generation.

11/10 children know these faces better than their own parents

The story of Pixar is a heartfelt and charming one, filled with challenges, pitfalls, successes, setbacks and a whole lot of sweating before, eventually and deservedly, unrepentant triumph. It’s also a story told with far more care and nuance elsewhere, but let’s take a speed run:

Pixar were groundbreakers. Trendsetters. John Lassetter was but a graduate, a tiny smidge on the window shield of the world of cinema, when he determinedly falcon-punched the animation industry into a whole new dimension. Before him 3D (as in CGI, not the pointy sword through the screen kind) animation was as good as unheard of, a curio, a sideshow to the dominion of the two dimensions. But did John Lasseter care? Does the new Pope look like Woody Allen? (Yes he totally does, just to clarify.)

Y'see.

Getting fired, having no money or allies or any particular prospects: none of that fazed him. With a dogged determination that would in time be characteristic of his company’s beloved protagonists (and eventually the fiscal prowess of Steve Jobs behind him) he worked at the ultimate passion project, turning what was originally dismissed as a gimmick into a multi billion dollar art form.

Just under 20 years later he is the Principal Creative Advisor at Disney, the company who originally dumped him as a hopeless dreamer, after Pixar were bought for a brain melting $7.4 billion in 2006.

Every child – and adult and grandparent…and dog – can name Pixar’s back catalogue of work. Everybody now: Toy Story (1,2 & 3), A Bug’s Life, Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Cars, Ratatouille, Wall-E, Up, Brave. Everybody has a favourite, think some are brilliant while others stink, but the fact of the matter remains that while revolutionising the way films are made, Pixar simultaneously transformed the art of story telling. They were a breath of fresh air in a consistently stagnating industry, ceaseless paragons of originality up against a deluge of remakes, retreads, rereleases and adaptations.

But it’s all gone seven shades of wrong since their Noughties heyday, now focusing on market trends, brand identity sequeling, gimmicky rereleases and all manner of discomforting corporate terms and tactics in the bid for a positive fiscal report.

The question to ask then is: what happened?

So many memories...I appear to have something in my eye...

Business. In a word. Business happened. A general principle in business – as is being increasingly seen with the movie and video game industries – is that if you’re not growing you must therefore be shrinking. If you’re not making more money, you’re losing money, blindly ignoring any happy middle ground. It’s a shortsighted moronic approach to anything, negating accomplishments on an annual basis to make room for potential greater accomplishments in a cyclic system that can only end in defeat. It either assumes that there is no cap on gains or chooses to ignore that such a thing exists in the pursuit of short-term rewards. It is, in short, where recessions come from.

But let’s get way from the doom-and-gloom big-picture perspective for a second.

This is not to go into full-on manic alarmist mode and say that ‘this is exactly what Pixar is doing.’ Not at all. It’s merely an amateurish outline (I don’t, in any way whatsoever, claim to understand the intricacies of business) of a very real mentality, the sort of mentality that saw the CEOs of video game behemoths EA and Square-Enix lose their jobs within a week of each other due to ‘slow financial gain.’ By which it means: games that they wanted to sell 5 million+ copies only sold 3.5 million (pathetic, only 3.5 million? Really? You could only buy one country with that kind of money) evidencing flagrantly misjudged targets.

In Pixar’s case, it is further testament of a worrying trend amongst media content creators whereby putting your effort into new IPs or ideas is seen as a bad investment, with the ‘smart money’ going to sequels and that all important ‘brand-identity.’

Empty words for empty terms for empty targets; in the last few years Pixar have debased into the epitome of contemporary business: lazy, scared and money-mad.

This is not to say, however, that making money is an inherently bad thing. It is, in fact, one of the major purposes of any business in a capitalist system. It makes sense. What is condemnable however is the way in which it is done. And Pixar haven’t been particularly heroic about it, a fact which stings all the more considering that they were once the masters of such a method.

Dat feel after you've held one in for a while.

Pixar are not in dire financial straights, they are one of the most profitable film studios in the world, able to make $100 million by accident. What we are currently seeing is nothing short of fear; fear that the current golden age will soon take a downward turn. It’s a rational fear considering the still fragile global economic climate, but there are far healthier ways of dealing with it. Simply because the populace are tightening their purse strings does not inherently entitle you to do whatever it takes to lock-down profits.  In anticipating future difficulties, Pixar are turning their back on everything that so uniquely characterises them when in fact they should be at their most Pixar-y.

This is how they are fast developing into yet another brick in the bland wall of industry.

Indie game developers have proven that, with a dollop of smarts and genuine care for the consumer, it’s possible to not only survive but positively thrive during these turbulent times. While AAA publishers like EA and Square-Enix are collapsing under their own grandiloquent weight, small-scale Indie teams are enjoying a new era of success, utilizing online platforms and social networks to develop their industry into previously uncharted territory. It’s similar to what a certain animation studio did nearly 20 years ago…

Rather than focusing on creative ways of consolidating their position, Pixar have debased to the most mainstream of practices: sequels and rereleases. And prequels of course, as with Monsters University. Of all of Pixar’s IPs, Monsters Inc. perhaps make the least sense to prequel. The major plot twist of the original is that *SPOILERS* children’s laughter is more powerful than their screams, a revelation tainted by the fact that University will take audiences back to a world where the monsters can onlymake children scream. It’s a bizarre choice on Pixar’s behalf but one likely to pull in another billion dollars or so.

The Toy Story trilogy is frequently considered one of the greatest trilogies of all time, remaining consistently poignant and entertaining as a complete package with each installment managing to retain a unique identity, and was wrapped up in the neatest ribbon ever woven. People cried. People cheered. And it was done. Until a month ago where, completely out of the blue, a fourth film weed led nervously out of the woodwork to desperate cries of 'why!?'

Nothing has been officially confirmed by Disney or Pixar just yet (though the sudden deluge or rumour in February is suspicious) and so no comment can be made on potential narrative/characters/themes.

From the outside however, considering the story-telling perfection of the trilogy and the billion+ dollars Toy Story 3 pulled in, there would be one very clear reason for returning to Woody and the gang at some indeterminable future: safe money.

'Does my new tat make me look like Mike Tyson?'

Money also explains Pixar’s sudden obsession with 3D, the century’s favourite gimmick. Toy Story 1 & 2, Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo have all gone through conversion jobs in the last three years, the point apparently being to support future projects. If the conversions were well done and implemented from the ground up then fair enough, it would be a commendable effort to bring these classic tales to a generation of new children. The simple fact remains however that they aren’t, the more recent Finding Nemo and Monsters Inc. rereleases suffering from poor critical and financial reception.

Even Brave, while still undoubtedly a touching and original story, is a blatant cut from the rump of Hollywood’s current prized cash cow: fairytales. Red Riding Hood, Snow White & The Huntsman, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, Jack The Giant Slayer and so on ad nauseum; even Pixar’s doses of originality are tainted by perceived corporate necessity.

The only true anomaly at the moment is Finding Dory due to the dearth of concrete information. If it’s a film about finding a missing Dory then shame on you Pixar! If it’s - more likely - a film about finding outwho Dory is then…let’s keep an open mind. While the entire point of her character in the original was to be a goofy, indefinable abnormality, an investigation into her past would be a far less disingenuous enterprise than merely retreading old steps.

If Rex doesn't cameo I'll slay a dingo.

This isn’t to say that these won’t be good films however. Even Cars 2 – the bewildering sequel to Pixar’s least loved IP – while largely pointless, was widely considered a good film. But Pixar aren’t about good films. They’re about great films. Films that make children and adults alike stop and wonder for their 90 minutes or so runtime. Films that create worlds so gloriously alive and enticing that they transcend staunch generation boundaries.

Monsters University, Finding Nemo and whatever other sequels Pixar invariably have planned for the future will doubtlessly look gorgeous, be entertaining and delight audiences across the world. But will they ever be the same as the first time you saw those toys come to life? The first time you swooped through the coral reefs? Watched that little robot fly through space? See that boy and girl fall in love and grow old together?

It’s with a sad heart that I doubt it. Pixar have done little to indicate that they are looking to follow their own remarkable tradition as times become tougher. Monsters University and Finding Nemo aside, it’ll be 2014’s The Good Dinosaur that will prove where Pixar’s future plans lie.

Fingers crossed.

Smell that sweet nostalgia:

Follow on Twitter for updates, musings and failed attempts at humour in the hope of making new friends: @Smariman

Read More