Cars 2

As any of the millions of readers of this blog can attest, I am a huge Pixar fan.  I frequently bemoan their lack of respect when it comes to the Oscars.  I consider them some of our greatest modern artists.  I also have raved about their story telling.  I have even ranked all the Pixar movies - just so you can have a handy authoritative guide on Pixar.  Even though I used to go to anys. movie that came out, finances and three kids have made that an impossibility now.  I frequently miss even movies I really want to see.  But, I never miss a Pixar movie.  [The fact that Disney almost pays you go to their movies now through promotional tie-ins certainly doesn't hurt.]

Cars 2 has now entered the Pixar universe.  Obviously, we were going.  I really liked the first movie.  My oldest son was a huge fan of the franchise and owned a bunch of the cars and tracks.  My youngest son has now discovered his older brother's cache of cars and is a fan himself.  All three kids have been waiting for the movie to come out.  And we had two free tickets.  In the words of Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber, "We're there."

I had heard some negative reviews of Cars 2.  That was a shock in and of itself.  Pixar movies don't get negative reviews.  They are bullet proof.  It wasn't going to stop us from going, but I was a big concerned.  Then I read a very interesting article on the Orlando Sentinel, of all places.  And it was written by Roger Moore, of all people.  I have usually felt Moore's movie reviews were useful for lining bird cages and not much else.  (Since I only read the electronic version of his reviews, I obviously meant lining Angry Bird cages.)  But, recently, I have noticed his commenting on the movie industry in general is vastly superior to his movie reviewing.  He talked about the "retroactive movie review."  This is where a critic rips into a movie that becomes a big hit, or overly praising a dog meat movie.  They usually will rectify this by going too far the OTHER way with a sequel.  His example was Siskel and Ebert ripping into Ace Ventura when it came out.  It was a runaway blockbuster.  So, they actually praised the idiotic sequel - even though it really sucked (even when considering it was a Jim Carrey movie).  It is the movie equivalent of basketball's "make up call."

The original Cars movie was overrated.  I was guilty of that.  It was undeniably gorgeous.  But it was a little boring, especially to kids.  And it was not very original.  I commented at the time that its plot was basically a retelling of Michael J Fox's Doc Hollywood - a movie no one is considering rebooting.  When I made my list of Pixar movies, it was last.  Admittedly, that is not necessarily an insult, since the worst Pixar movie is better than the best most other studios have to offer.  It was an adult movie masquerading as a kids' movie.  Kids don't understand the message of "take it slow and enjoy the ride."  They are too busy making life seem like it racing by.  So, according to Moore's theory, this attack by the critics was to make up for lavishing too much praise on the original film.

I don't know if Moore is right or not.  Personally, I think he has some validity.  Cars became a runaway hit NOT because of the movie itself.  Rather, it was because of the merchandise tie-ins.  It was the most licensed movie ever when it came out.  And those licensed toys made a fortune.  The little metal toy versions of the Cars characters were brilliant.  They created a third line of toy cars - right along side Matchbox and Hot Wheels.  And the sheer brilliance of it was that, while a Matchbox car costs 97 cents, a Cars car cost four bucks.  My son had tons of these cars.  You looked for the rare ones.  And they kept bringing them out.  There was regular McQueen, dirt track McQueen, tongue out McQueen, Radiator Springs McQueen, Dinoco McQueen.  They did the same thing with Ramone (available in just about every color) and Mater.  Then they brought out the "World of Cars" line and put the characters in different places.

Disney also realized that kids liked the Mater character way more than the Lightning McQueen character.  They liked the concept of McQueen.  But he was the straight man to the wild and crazy Mater.  You began to see more toys focusing on Mater.  It was a case of the sidekick superseding the star.  Pixar is far from stupid - they know where the money is.  They put out a line of shorts on Disney called Mater's Tall Tales - which spun into its own DVD and toy line.  Kids loved everything about Cars - except Cars itself.

So the second movie had a specific goal.  I know this had to be true.  They wanted to entertain the kids.  This was not going to be the well written, artistic home runs like some Pixar movies.  The last four films all could have earned Best Picture Oscars (Ratatouille, Wall-E, Up, Toy Story 3).  This was going to be an action-packed, comedy-filled, fun kids-magnet movie.  And on that front, they nailed it.  I remember taking Josiah to Cars and realizing that he zoned out for vast stretches of the Radiator Springs section.  When he watched the DVD, he would get really into the beginning and end.  Most of the middle he would go back and act out the beginning.  Gabe has been the same way.  He'll watch the first thirty minutes and then wander off or ask to watch Veggie Tales.

Last night, kids were engaged in the movie.  There was action and silliness.  There were four different racing scenes.  There was lots and lots of Mater.  It was everything the kids loved about the Cars universe with little of the adult navel gazing.  The "message" of the movie was even more kid friendly - love your friends just like they are.  Kids don't read movie reviews.  They see toys and cereal boxes and posters.  And so Disney got just what they wanted.  They reinforced a brand that was already very strong.  If possible, they made it even MORE kid friendly.  There are now more characters to spin adventures off from, more licensed products, more money.  And my oldest son walked out of the theater wondering when Cars 3 would be released.

It was far from original.  I think the whole alternative fuel plot may have actually been stolen from Quantum of Solace.  What was original was the amazing visuals.  They were incredible.  The scenes in Europe looks so realistic they were almost like photos.  The rolling waves in the opening were incredibly rendered.  And the way that Pixar worked this action movie around cars was pretty impressive.  I like how they give certain vehicles certain personalities.  The evil submarine/boat looks like sharks.  And I always find it funny how they represent facial hair with fenders and license plates.  (The Russian mobster cars all looked like they had scruffy beards.  The Italian cars had little pencil mustaches.)  And the vocal talent, as usual, was top notch.  My personal favorite was Bruce Campbell popping up as an American spy car - basically playing his Burn Notice "Sam Axe" character in car form.

The movie was fun.  It wasn't ground breaking or Oscar worthy.  But it was fun and exciting.  The kids will want to watch it again on DVD when it comes out.  Gabe and Josiah have already begun asking for the new cars and Lego sets.  It seems like Disney and Pixar accomplished their goals.  When a really respected actor makes some blockbuster movie with little artistic merit (Ben Kingsley in Prince of Persia, for example), they often will say, "I have to pay the bills.  I make these movies so I can make those other movies."  This was a bill paying movie for Pixar.

Oscar Nominations 2011

I know that I didn't get this thrown up there on Tuesday like about forty million other bloggers.  I apologize to all those people out there who rely on my pithy and insightful analysis.  But, I often like to weigh in after the initial storm surge of panicky comments.  That way I can 1) steal all the good stuff I already read and 2) come across as extremely timely and "of the moment."  It's really a brilliant strategy.  It also keeps me from having to be lost in the deluge of other opinions.  Instead, I can float onto shore like the last piece of wreckage from a rapidly sinking ship.

People are never going to be completely happy with the Oscar nomination process.  Even if there was a way to nominate every worthy candidate, there would be some loud mouthed blogger that Yogi Bear got overlooked for Best Visual Effects or something inane like that.  "Ashton Kutcher soooo should have gotten nominated for Killers."  I have heard a bunch of complaints this year, most of them centered around the one big problem I had as well.  I'll address that big glaring problem, and then I'll bring up my patented financial assessment too.

Christopher Nolan gets the shaft.  This was the biggest source of discontent out there.  How in the world did Nolan get passed over for Best Director for Inception?  I have no clue, either.  If I was voting for the Oscars (which, thank goodness I'm not), I would have a pretty simple way of assessing the directing award.  Would this movie be as good if someone else directed it?  Was this movie made good primarily by the acting?  Can the movie be separated from the director and stand strong?  Was the director's vision clear and executed well?  Was it the script, or the director's execution of it?  Those are some simple questions I would ask.  For some movies, you can see the acting is so strong, the director was almost irrelevant - kind of like how some football teams would win the Super Bowl with a monkey as a coach (1990s Dallas Cowboys, for example).  I kind of see that in movies like A Few Good Men or The Usual Suspects.  But, when you look at Inception, Nolan is all over that movie.  No one ever mentioned any of the actors for an award.  The effects were impressive, but they were critical to the story.  And, quite frankly, this movie wouldn't exist without him.

It would have been like James Cameron not being nominated for Titanic or Avatar.  He was essential to those movies.  HE was the most important element.  That was Nolan.  I think all of Hollywood recognized that - which is why even Hollywood types were stunned.  Hans Zimmer, who wrote the score for the movie, was very vocal about it.  Even the Coen brothers - nominated for True Grit - wrote they hoped they didn't take anyone's place.  Most entertainment people believe they were referring to Nolan.  He wrote the movie.  It was his vision, his execution.  Inception was the most talked about movie of the year.  It was a highly original, highly intelligent movie that made $294 million.  Read that again.  TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY FOUR MILLION DOLLARS.  It wasn't a franchise or a comic book or a beloved novel. According to all Hollywood wisdom, it should have tanked.  Instead, it was the fifth biggest movie of the year and the most talked about.

Nolan is a brilliant director.  He should have been nominated for his last four movies - Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, and Inception.  It's sad, but I doubt he'll get nominated for the next film either - Dark Knight Rises - since a superhero movie will NEVER win a major category Oscar.  I guess we'll have to wait to see if he ever gets his due.

Ten Best Picture Joke.  The ten best pictures nominations was supposed to open the category up to other deserving films (translation: more popular movies to make the show watchable).  While it has been good to see films like Up, Toy Story 3, Inception, District 9, and The Blind Side get nominated, there still is a very clear line between "the films that would have been nominated in years past" and "the other films that have no real chance of winning but that hopefully will bring more viewers."  Last year, the category was split between legitimate (Avatar, Hurt Locker, An Education, A Serious Man, Up in the Air) and the fillers (Up, District 9, Inglorious Basterds, The Blind Side, Precious).  This year is no different.  You have the starting five (Social Network, True Grit, King's Speech, Black Swan, Kids are Alright) and the other guys (Inception, Toy Story 3, The Fighter, 127 Hours, Winter's Bone).

So, is it really a benefit to add the five movies when they have no chance?  Really, only three films even have a chance this year - Social Network, True Grit, and King's Speech.  Adding other films doesn't really do much.  I'm glad that it allows Pixar movies to be nominated.  But it infuriates me that they still don't get the respect they deserve.  It almost seems like, with the expanded nominations, it guarantees that Pixar will NEVER win.  What more can they possibly do that they have done with their last four films?  Toy Story 3, Up, WALL-E, and Ratatouille were all deserving of serious consideration.  Now, it is like, "Shut up.  You got nominated.  What more do you want?"  Pixar, at this point, could make the Citizen Kane of animated films and not win.

Animated Shortchange.  There were not enough animated films to allow for the normal five picture category.  So, instead, there are only three films.  I understand the rules.  But it is a shame that it happened.  I think Despicable Me and Tangled both were deserving of nominations.  They just got caught up in a rule issue.  It's sad, too, because those two movies signified so much more than just a good kids' flick.  Despicable Me was an original film based on no franchise, children's book, action hero.  (Much like Inception.)  It was the seventh biggest movie of the year based completely on the quality of the movie and word of mouth (with $250 million gross).  That needs to be rewarded.  Tangled signified the return of Disney animation - NOT done by Pixar.  It was a very good movie.  It was funny, touching, engaging.  It had lovely music and was equally attractive to boys and girls.  Disney has needed a hit like that to show that they can pull off animated films outside of Pixar - which they certainly did.  Again, that should be rewarded.  (In my opinion, the more quality animated films the better.)

Financial Gripes.  The inflated Best Picture category has helped to bring the overall per picture average up - just like it did las year.  Bringing in big money films like Avatar, Toy Story 3, and Inception will do that.  But we still see a ridiculous obsession with low grossing movies in the acting categories.  I can overlook the infatuation with King's Speech because it has made $57 million, and probably will earn more, since it hasn't been in theaters that long.  Plus, from everything I've heard, it is just phenomenally acted.  I can even try to get past stuff like Kids Are Alright ($20.8 million) and 127 Hours ($11.3 million).  But then I start to have problems.  Winter's Bone generated just $6.3 million, but got a Best Picture and two acting nods.  Blue Valentine and its NC-17 rating earned just $4.5 million and one acting nomination.  Then you have Nicole Kidman's Rabbit Hole nomination ($1.3 million) and Jacki Weaver's Animal Kingdom spot ($1million).  Maybe people were drawn to the animal references.  I just don't understand how a picture gets a nomination when it barely generates enough money to cover the ticket costs for the Academy voters!  How in the word can people say those movies deserved anything?  NO ONE SAW THEM!!!  I have a real problem believing that everyone who voted for those people actually saw those movies.  The biggest joke, though, was Javier Bardem's nomination for Biutiful.  This movie has generated ZERO DOLLARS!  It is a Mexican film that has not even been released.  There have been some screenings.  Julia Roberts has campaigned for the film and has hosted some private screenings.  WHAT THE HECK!?!  How in the world can the Academy with a straight face nominate a movie that is not even out for the public to see?  To me, that is a real problem.  Who voted for this guy?  I know people love him and love Julia Roberts.  But that is not an accurate representation of the movies for 2010.  I know that a lot of people were unhappy with Mark Wahlberg being left out from a nomination for The Fighter.  Well, there was his spot right there.

Of course, the Oscars will never get it 100 percent right - just like the Grammys, Golden Globes, MVP races, and People's Choice Awards will always be lacking.  They involve people - people will opinions. The problem is that the people voting have different opinions than the vast majority of the people voting with their wallets.  And there isn't really a way to make those two sides agree.  I guess that is part of the fun of it all.  Hollywood loves ticking off the public with their goofy nomination process and Americans love to complain about the goofy nomination process.  It's what makes the Oscars so dang much fun.  Well, not for Christopher Nolan.

A Toy Story

After my last couple trouble making posts, I am back to my bright and cheery posts.  I'm sure all three of you still reading this will be delighted.  This past Friday, the Staples Family Five went to enjoy Pixar's latest masterpiece, Toy Story 3.  As you probably expect, it was phenomenal.  I am continually baffled as to how one movie production company can be so consistently on the top of their game.  Eleven movies.  Eleven home runs.  And I'm not talking eleven home runs that barely squeaked over the short wall in the right field corner.  Or even an inside the ball park home run that only happened because the center fielder misplayed it.  I am talking about eleven booming shots.  Two of them went to dead center, about twenty rows up.  Four of them were upper deckers that hit some drunk guy in the face.  Two of them landed out in the street.  And three smashed the lights, causing a shower of sparks and an awesome chill-inducing ending.  (If you want to read what my ranking is, here's a post I wrote around Oscar time.)

Where does Toy Story 3 rank?  I will have to watch it again to decide for sure.  But it is certainly one of those three light cluster destroyers.  It is up there with Up and WALL-E as the best Pixar movies ever.  And it had better get one of those ten Best Pictures slots.  I am still constantly amazed at the geniuses at that establishment.  The work they put into these things.  Even when they are putting out sequels, they still give each of them the same treatment as the originals.  Think about most third movies in a trilogy.  How many times can you say the third movie was the BEST movie?  (Honestly, I don't know if I can even think of one instance of that.)  Some would say Lord of the Rings, since the third one won all the Oscars.  But the second movie was the best one.  The Academy was rewarding the series with all those wins.

I'm not going to lie - I cried like a little girl.  It wasn't even just one scene, either.  These characters have so much emotional depth.  Their friendship and love is so intense.  I found myself hurting for them.  They were toys, for Pete's sake.  But I ached for them as they tried to deal with the fact that they just were not wanted (or appeared to be).  I actually thought about the toybox that I toted around for years as I moved.  It was filled with stuffed Garfields and vinyl California Raisins figurines and action figures.  And tons of rabbit toys from when I was Natalie's age.  I held on to them for years - not wanting to say goodbye to that part of my life.  I also held onto them thinking my kids would want them for some reason.  (Although, knowing my kids now, they would hardly be interested in most of that junk.)  So eventually most of that found its way into a garbage can or a donation box.  I could imagine the Dallas Cowboys action figure wondering what he did wrong.  Then I jerked myself to reality by saying, "Stupid.  They are just toys.  They can't feel anything."

But that was where the scenes between Andy and his mom got me.  That was where the tears started and didn't stop.  Because that is real.  Kids grow up.  They stop playing with their little toys and start using computers and iPods.  As I watched Andy using his laptop and Mollie listening to her iPod, I could see my kids in that.  I can already hardly believe Josiah is turning nine in less that three months.  Natalie starts FIRST GRADE.  My little baby girl is in FIRST GRADE?!?  Gabe is so tiny that it seems his babyhood has lasted longer.  But then we go through Publix and he is counting and saying the letters.  And I know his turn is just around the corner.  Before long, I'll be the parent getting my kid ready to go to college.  And that thought just kills me.  It is too soon.  I'm not ready for that.  Josiah will be driving in six years.  Gabe is old enough to go to preschool.  Natalie is doing cartwheels and handstands like a big girl.

So many times in my mind, I still see myself as a younger person.  It is like my brain got stuck at 25.  Since I have worked with students for so long, it is easy to still think young.  But when the reality really sets in, it is scary.  I'm 36.  The kids I taught last year at ICS were born after I graduated from high school.  They literally are young enough to be my kids.  And my kids are growing up - even if I don't want them to.  We already have seen Josiah outgrow Planet Heroes and Larry Boy.  Natalie thinks Strawberry Shortcake is for babies.  And Gabe has moved past Max and Ruby to Wow Wow Wubzy and Diego.  He actually sat through Toy Story 3 and points out the characters now.

That is what left me in tears at the end of the movie.  The thought of my kids one day packing up boxes and moving off to school.  Josiah one day will put the Puppy World dogs into a box and stuff them in the attic - or send them to Goodwill.  Natalie won't want her Build a Bear unicorn or her Love Bear or mermaid.  Gabe won't build trains of cars around the room.  They won't run across the room to give me a hug.  They won't bring me books and say, "Wead it!"  They won't squeal and race to the door when Heather gets home yelling, "MOMMA! MOMMA! MOMMA!"  People will think they are silly to hold onto those special toys.  And, I guess, as a parent we worry they will outgrow us too.  They won't cry at the thought that I am going out of town to teach at a seminar.  They won't think we are cool to hang around.  They won't grab my hand in a store, just because they love me.

The Toy Story franchise has never been just about toys.  The first movie presented such an interesting concept.  What do toys do when we aren't around?  But it blossomed into much more than that.  It was about loyalty and friendship and accepting change.  The second movie delved into the concepts of realizing our purpose.  We need to do what we were put here to do - even if it means sacrifice.  The third movie dealt with so much - friendship, loyalty, love, death, power, vengeance, rejection.  But most of all it was about letting go  - even when we desperately want to hold on.  We so badly want to fight the passage of time.  We are dragged kicking and screaming into the future.  People have developed so many efforts to delay it - plastic surgery, mid life crises, immaturity.  But our kids won't stop growing.  And, as parents, we should want our kids to reach their potential and change their world - something they can't do unless they go out on their own.  But, man it is hard.

The fact that an animated movie about toys is able to teach that is amazing.  As a life lesson, Toy Story 3 was great.  As a film, it was incredible.  It wrapped up both the toy story line AND the Andy story line perfectly.  It was gorgeously made.  It had real emotion - both happiness and sadness.  It really was a masterpiece.  And it was something that I was able to share with my kids.  We all were excited about the movie, enjoyed it, and had a great memory because of it.  They just couldn't understand my tears.  Not yet.

Pixar's Golden Moment

With the recent Oscar nominations coming out, I have thought a little bit more about movies lately.  I will put my reaction to the nominations up soon, but I am still trying to decide what I think.  One particular thing I have thought of, though, is the fact that one of the nominations for Best Picture was Pixar's masterpiece Up.  Now, most of you probably know that the Academy expanded their Best Picture category to ten movies this year.  It was supposedly a way to harken back to the old days, when there were ten pictures up.  But, anyone who knows anything about Oscar, knows that it actually was a pathetic attempt to get more public interest in the flagging show by giving more spots to "popular films."  This can be translated as, "Our snooty voters keep on nominating movies no one sees and no one give a crap about, so we are going to put on a show that we want more accessibility to our awards."

I think it was one of those moves that was necessary after last year - where there were two extremely legitimate "popular movies" that got rejected YET AGAIN.  The Dark Knight and WALL-E deserved to be nominated.  There was a pretty big public outcry, so the Academy scrambled to make it right this year.  [A similar thing will happen with the idiotic NFL overtime rules as soon as some team loses a Super Bowl without ever touching the ball in overtime.  It will help if that team has a player named "Manning" on it.]  So, this year the Oscars have ten pictures up.  But the stupid thing is that everyone knows which movies would have been the top five, if there had only been five.  And the other ones don't have a shot in Hollywood of winning.  If it had been five films, then Avatar, Up in the Air, Hurt Locker, Precious, and A Serious Man would have been the nominees.  One popular film, one pretty well watched film, three whiffs.  But, since they added five more slots, then Blind Side, Up, District 9, Inglorious Offsprings-of-Unmarried-Parents, and An Eduction also got up for the big golden nude guy.

The last five films are just happy to be there.  It is really just a three movie race - it has been for months.  It is between Avatar, Up in the Air, and Hurt Locker.  So, the other seven get to dress up pretty and go hear Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin make jokes.  But, there is one interesting side story I have thought about from this.  Up scored a Best Pictures nod - the first Pixar movie to do so.  They have been nominated for, and regularly won, the Best Animated Film.  They also have been nominated for Best Screenplay a few times - a big jump for an animated film.  But they couldn't shake that animated Best Picture curse.  Up is only the second animated movie EVER to be up for Best Picture (1991 Beauty and the Beast was the other).  That made me wonder - if there had been ten nomination slots for the whole of Pixar's run, how many Best Picture nominations would they have?  It is an interesting question.  That made me think through Pixar's library, rank them from bottom to top, and see which would have had a chance for Oscar's highest award.  Because that is how I roll.

10. CARS (2006)
Nominated for: Best Animated Feature, Best Song
Won: Nothing

Ten Picture Best Picture Field Deserving?  No

Breakdown: Don't get me wrong.  Being the worst Pixar movie is like being the third best Lord of the Rings movie.  It is like being the worst starter in an All Star Game.  Even the tenth place Pixar movie is better than 98% of all animated movies and 90% of all regular movies.  Cars was a great movie.  It was so fun.  My son and I had a blast at it and we had a whole garage full of cars from the movie.  It made tons of money, had the most merchandising opportunities, and is spawning a sequel.  It was fun and sweet and funny.  But it wasn't that original - the story was very similar to Doc Hollywood (something I pointed out, and that numerous others did as well).  It lost best Animated Feature to Happy Feet (?).  And there were about seven legitimate films that could have filled an expanded Best Picture category.

9. BUG'S LIFE (1998)

Nominated for: Best Music (no animated feature award that year)

Won: Nothing

Ten Picture Best Picture Field

 Deserving?  No

Breakdown: I think Bug's Life gets lost in the shuffle.  It was sandwiched between the two Toy Story films.  It is the lowest grossing Pixar movie (only a lousy $163 million).  But it is very entertaining.  Only, it is a lightweight film compared to the heftier Pixar fare.  It didn't get nominated for anything but score.  And there were too many other good movies that year.  Plus, that was the year that everyone in the Academy went absolutely insane and voted for Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan.  I'm getting angry just thinking about it.  Let's move on.

8. MONSTERS, INC (2001)

Nominated for: Best Animated Feature, Best Song, Best Music, Best Sound Editing

Won: Best Song

Ten Picture Best Picture Field

 Deserving?  No

Breakdown: It was a very beloved film and another raging box office success for Pixar, raking in $255 million.  And it was a very original, fun film that poked fun at decades of monster movies.  Brilliantly done and acted.  But it didn't even win Best Animated Feature in the first year of that award - being topped by a superior and even more creative Shrek.  So how could Monsters, Inc be up for Best Picture - even in a ten film field.  Shrek would have nabbed that spot, though.

7. TOY STORY 2 (1999)

Nominated for: Best Song (no animated feature award that year)

Won: Nothing

Ten Picture Best Picture Field Deserving?  No

Breakdown: It was one of the best sequels of all time.  It firmly put Pixar on the map as a consistent force.  But, it wasn't the earthshaking event of the first Toy Story.  And it hadn't moved into the powerful film realm of the later Pixar offerings.  On the other hand, it was a very weak year for movies.  American Beauty won.  There weren't a lot of movies to make up a ten movie Best Picture roster.  It wasn't a great year for movies - so Toy Story 2 did stand out.  Plus it was the first Pixar movie to top $200 million.  But it didn't get the Screenplay nod - which is always my Oscar code for "Pixar should be up for Best Picture."  So, I don't think that I can say it would be nominated - but it would be close.

6. INCREDIBLES (2004)

Nominated for: Best Animated Feature, Best Screenplay, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing

Won: Best Animated Feature, Best Sound Editing

Ten Picture Best Picture Field

 Deserving?  Yes

Breakdown: One of the best superhero movies ever was doubly cursed in its attempt at a Best Picture nod.  It got slammed for being animated and slammed for being a superhero movie.  It was the same curse that hurt Iron Man and The Dark Knight as well.  But the Incredibles was a phenomenal movie.  It made big money ($261 million), appealed to adults BIG TIME, and showed a very different side of Pixar.  It got the Screenplay nomination - which is what the Oscars always give to Pixar movies instead of Best Picture nominations.  But this year was a great chance for Pixar to sneak in with the film.  Only twelve movies were represented in the big categories (Picture, Director, Actor/Actress, Supporting Actor/Actress).  Usually there are about sixteen films.  That means that there were not a bunch of deserving movies floating around.  Incredibles made just about every top ten list there was.  And there wasn't a clear frontrunner for Best Picture.  In a ten picture field, it would have been hard to overlook these heroes.  

5. TOY STORY (1995)

Nominated for: Best Music, Best Song, Best Screenplay 

(no animated feature award that year)

Won: Special Achievement Award for New Technology

Ten Picture Best Picture Field 

Deserving?  Yes

Breakdown: Toy Story shocked the movie industry.  It was such a departure from anything before - and it basically marked the death of traditional animation.  It was such a big deal that John Lassiter received a special achievement award - something to acknowledge how huge a movie is to the industry.  And, this also started a precedent that the Academy used on five Pixar movies.  In lieu of a deserved Best Picture slot, they get a Best Screenplay nomination.  Toy Story was an amazing movie.  It was touching and funny and gorgeous.  If the roster was expanded to ten movies, it would be easy to see Toy Story snagging a slot.  Remember, this is the year that Il Postino and Babe both RECEIVED nominations.  The Usual Suspects, Twelve Monkeys, Se7en, Dead Man Walking, and Leaving Las Vegas all got left out.  I think that the 10 spots would have actually gotten those five, plus Toy Story, in  - while knocking out one of the two dumb nominations.  Braveheart still would have won.

4. RATATOUILLE (2007)

Nominated for: Best Animated Feature, Best Music, Best Sound, Best Sound Editing, Best Screenplay

Won: Best Animated Feature

Ten Picture Best Picture Field 

Deserving?  Yes

Breakdown: Ratatouille should have been a disaster.  It was the third lowest grossing Pixar film (a pathetic $206 million).  They couldn't merchandise it to death, because it was a bunch of rats.  But, when you stripped down the product tie-ins, the inevitable theme park attraction, you had a very special movie that was so moving and tender.  It began what has actually been the glory days of Pixar - three movies in three years that all legitimately deserved a Best Picture nominations.  But they actually all deserved that nomination in a field of five - not just a field of ten.  All three got Best Screenplay nominations, Top ten rankings, raving reviews.  I remember thinking that Ratatouille was easily one of the best movies out there.  And it was a pretty weak year for movies.  It easily could have taken Juno's spot in the five picture field.  And there is no doubt it would have been in with a ten film field.  And, I am still not convinced that it wasn't the best film of the year.  

3. FINDING NEMO (2003)

Nominated for: Best Animated Feature, Best Music, Best Sound Editing, Best Screenplay

Won: Best Animated Feature

Ten Picture Best Picture Field 

Deserving?  Yes

Breakdown: Nemo took Pixar to the next level.  It still is the highest grossing Pixar film - over $330 million.  The film itself was touching and heartbreaking and hilarious and very special.  This was the first Pixar film that really stirred debate over whether an animated film could make it into the big show.  (There is that Screenplay code nomination.)  I remember that 2003 was a pretty weak year for movies because the third Lord of the Rings movie was coming out.  The first two had been nominated and passed over.  And it was pretty well understood that the third one was going to win everything - which it certainly did.  So a lot of studios pulled their movies out of that year.  Aside from the five nominated, only Cold Mountain and House of Sand and Fog were close to getting nominations.  There was no way Nemo was going to win, but then again neither were the other four movies that made it.  Nemo definitely would have been in the top ten - and realistically should have bumped Seabiscuit out of the top five.  

2. UP (2009)

Nominated for: Best Animated Feature, Best Music, Best Sound Editing, Best Picture, Best Screenplay

Won: Nothing

Ten Picture Best Picture Field 

Deserving?  Yes

Breakdown: Pixar finally lucked out with the expansion to a ten film field.  Did it deserve its spot?  Oh, yes it did.  When you compare it to the other films, it easily deserves to be there.  I honestly think it was good enough to be in a field of five.  The first ten minutes of the movie was as good as most movies I have seen.  I could have walked out after the opening scenes and felt like I had seen a great and touching film.  The rest of the movie was even better - exciting, emotional, funny, thoughtful.  And I'm glad it got the nomination.  Would it have gotten a spot in a field of five?  Nope.  It would have gotten its Screenplay nomination and gone on its way.  And this year it has no chance of winning Best Picture.  But at least it finally broke its way into the club.

1. WALL-E (2008)

Nominated for: Best Animated Feature, Best Song, Best Music, Best Sound, Best Sound Editing, Best Screenplay

Won: Best Animated Feature

Ten Picture Best Picture Field 

Deserving?  Yes

Breakdown: For the first half of WALL-E, there was hardly any dialogue.  It was mostly just electronic noises as means of communication between two robots.  But there has hardly been a movie that communicated more.  It was a touching movie about love and loyalty and responsibility.  It was a warning to us to be careful with our planet.  The movie was beautiful and touching and glorious.  And it got robbed.  It didn't just deserve to be in a ten movie field.  It deserved to be in a five movie field.  And it deserved to win.  The two best movies of 2008 didn't even get a nomination - The Dark Knight and WALL-E.  The Reader was relentlessly depressing.  Benjamin Button got a C from tons of media outlets in their reviews.  There is no good reason why WALL-E got left out except that it was animated.  It is my personal favorite.  I think it was better than Up, but the score between the top four Pixar movies is separated by decimal points.  A ten film field would have easily put this movie into play.  And with the movies that wear actually nominated, it may have pulled off an upset.  It deserved to.


One final thing about Pixar movies.  A way to judge their Oscar-worthiness is to think about how that movie would look if it was live action and not animated.  How would that film have been received?  I know that can't work with the toys and bugs and cars.  But the basic story, applied to people.  How woud that have gone over?  I think that when you do that, you can see just how robbed Pixar was.  If Up was live action, I can guarantee that Ed Asner would bee looking at a Supporting Actor nomination.  If Ratatouille was live action, the story of a young restaurant worker and a homeless guy instead of a rat, it would have been seen as a powerful tale.  Finding Nemo - if it were people, a father searching for his lost son - would have had tons of acting awards too.  Personally I like the ten movie field because it gives movies like Pixar films a shot at Best Picture recognition.  Now, if we can just convince the voters to give them a shot at the trophy.

WALL-E Review

I haven't posted a movie review for a while. Mostly I have been putting them on my Rotten Tomatoes site. But this one was too good to not comment.

I don't always want to write my review of good movies right away. I want to dwell on them and twirl them around in my head before I try to distill them into a short(ish) posting. But then I'm torn when I see a fantastic moie because the storyteller in me wants to chat with someone about the piece of art I just saw. I guess waiting until the next morning is enough of a compromise.

Sooner or later, I guess we will stop being surprised by Pixar's genius. I keep hearing people say, "Sooner or later they have to make a flop. They can't keep this up forever." You know what that is starting to sound like? It sounds like sore losers, or people who just cannot enjoy beauty without trying to destroy it. When I walked out of WALL-E yesterday afternoon, I asked my wife, "What do you think the people who make all the OTHER animated films think when they walk out of a Pixar movie? Can they possibly feel good about what they are creating? Did the makers of Barnyard walk out of WALL-E and feel like they had done a good job on their film?"

SIDE NOTE: The animated short Presto was funnier and better made than just about any comedy I've seen in the last ten years. I laughed so hard that I wished they had made a full length version of it. It was in the legacy of Bugs Bunny and the truly classic Looney Tunes - even included a rabbit. If it doesn't win Best Animated Short, I give up on the Oscars.

Pixar long crossed the line of making kids films. Sure, their films are unbelievably popular with kids. And my kids loved WALL-E, running right home to start "playing WALL-E" (which largely consisted of hauling their toys around in boxes and dumping them behind the chairs). But they became full fledged artists with the beauty of Cars. And they proved they can compete with "grown up films" when they were nominated for the Oscar for Best Screenplay for Ratatouille. But, with WALL-E, they went farther. I really think that if there is any justice in the Academy of Awards, WALL-E will be up for Best Picture.

You may laugh to yourself, but I can say this. I love movies. I watch a LOT of movies. And I have only found myself sitting quiet at the end of a movie, just thinking about what I saw a handful of times. That is when I know a movie really hit me where it matters. Henry V, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, The Matrix, Batman Begins. Those are some of the ones that left me speechless and emotional. WALL-E did the same thing to me.

We have gotten so accustomed to the gorgeous animation that it isn't even surprising now. But the thing that I can't get over is the STORYTELLING. Pixar writes amazing stories. This one was so layered and intricate. It was a powerful environmental message, urging us to be more careful about our planet. It was a cautionary warning against materialist excess. It was an unbelievable love story - unlike anything I've seen in a while. I was a reminder that doing what you are told sometimes challenges doing what is right. It was a call to humans to be more than just robots - and to stop living behind screens, missing the beauty and joy of life all around us.

At the heart of the movie is WALL-E, a trash disposal robot left on Earth to clean up after the humans. Supposedly, once the robots cleaned the planet, the humans would return. But that, as we see from the opening zooming shots, is impossible. He is the last working robot and he spends his days working, exploring, interacting with his pet roach, and learning about love - all while being lonely. One day, EVE arrives on a huge, loud, disruptive spaceship. She is looking for something. WALL-E is smitten. EVE soon begins to grow fond of him and his quirks - developing a few of her own. Once her mission is completed, she is picked up and WALL-E cannot bear to see her go, hitching an intergalactic ride.

We soon see that the robots are more human than the humans - giving in to power lust and ego, sectoring off those who are different, developing consciences. The humans have become robots - blindly taking orders, living behind screens, losing their humanity. The story was powerful and convicting. It showed how people are going to be in trouble if we continue to live like we do - addicted to "stuff", hiding from interaction, ignoring warning signs, killing our emotions.

Removing all of that, you are left with a passionate and beautiful love story. You see WALL-E being the kind of person we should all be. He loves life, enjoys his work, find pleasure in the little things. And when he finds someone to love, he does it with everything he is. He loves her unconditionally. He wants her to be the best she can be, even if that means without him. His relentless and pure love affects everyone he sees. I know, as we saw it played out, there were moments where I felt myself wishing I could be more like that with the people I hold dear. I misted up several times as the movie built to its climax. And I felt something that most movies, especially summer ones, think they can do without - genuine emotion. I saw it in my
kids as they responded to scenes.

It was a fabulous experience, and one that made me think about a lot of things. WALL-E is a classic, powerful film. I haven't seen anything like it for a long time. I wish every filmmaker would see it just to be reminded of how films are supposed to be made. Animated or not, WALL-E was a true winner.