This Film Is Not Yet Rated

Kirby Dick's 2006 documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated explores, or, rather, exposes, the Motion Picture Association of America's film rating system. We're all familiar with the system, which deals out ratings for movies that range from G up through NC-17, which forbids entry of any patron under the age of 17. The film begins with a brief history of the system, which was instituted in 1968 as a way to prevent outright censorship. It seems a noble cause; so long as movies come with a ticket warning you to the content, it was reasoned, then there was no reason to forbid the inclusion of most content. It gave way to an underhanded form of the same censorship; an NC-17 rating pulls the rug out of most films, immediately reducing the distribution potential, the marketing budget, and can ultimately mean the loss of millions upon millions of dollars. This encourages the filmmakers to edit their films down to receive an R rating. Sounds like censorship to me.

The ratings board consists of a small group of individuals, who view and rate all the media content released. I imagine this to be a very angry group of people; they have to watch a lot of very bad movies, and likely don't get to say anything to the fact. At least critics get to tear into films, and that makes them feel better. The raters are kept anonymous, to preserve them from outside pressures, and the one part of this film I didn't like was Kirby's quest to find their identities. Don't get me wrong; I don't think so powerful a group of malcontents should be kept anonymous, but the segments involving the chase seemed gimmicky. Not that they weren't fun. He hired a private detective to track them down, and she does good work.

This film will make you angry, so long as you care about freedom of expression. Whether you care about movies specifically or not shouldn't matter. It will ruffle your feathers either way. My two favourite bits: Sex is more actively suppressed than violence, which is about as backwards as anything I can imagine, and during an appeal, should a filmmaker choose to pursue one when their rating is handed down from the mountain, the filmmaker is not allowed to cite precedent. TFINYR shows the hypocrisy of Sharon Stone's vagina being allowed in the R-rated Basic Instinct, while a bit of Maria Bello's pubic hair in The Cooler earned the film an NC-17. And they had notes, so, yes, they do know it was the pubic hair that did it. As Bello points out, she is a mother, and she doesn't want some censorship board telling her how to raise her children. Which is essentially what they do.

Toy Story 3

Toy Story 3
(2010)
Directed by Lee Unkrich

Every Pixar film makes me nervous. The previews always make me worry that the film will finally be The One; the terrible one. Cars is the established black sheep of the family, followed by A Bug's Life, but those are both still very good films. Up until How to Train Your Dragon, Dreamworks would have killed to produce either of those films.

The point is that I'm always worried. I worried about Up all the way until I saw it. If regular Pixar films make me nervous, sequels practically give me breakdowns. It's on the principle of the matter. If Pixar are finally, truly going to trip, please, God, don't let it be with a cash-in sequel. I would lose respect for a company I have nothing but deep, deep love for.

So I was nervous about Toy Story 3. Was it going to live up to what's come before? Could it, is probably the bigger question. After eleven years, did the writers still have a feel for the same characters? Could they come up with a story that was worth telling all these years later? Fuck yes, as it turns out.

I'm not big on recaps, and all you need to know is that the story, much like 1 and 2, centers on Woody trying to get back to Andy. But this time, Andy's leaving for college in a matter of days, and Woody, along with the rest of the gang, have accidentally been donated to a kindercare center.

The majority of the film is very good, and would earn a very robust B+, but I want to focus on the last fifteen minutes. They are perfect. As a conclusion to the trilogy, you couldn't ask for anything more. It's impossible. Not only does the conclusion of this film end the movie in a satisfying way, it creates an emotional arc that started with the very first Toy Story. This film has made three separate movies work as a true trilogy, where your enjoyment of the first entry is increased with your knowledge of the end. I read a review earlier today which proclaimed "Bring on Toy Story 4!" This dumbass missed the whole point of the breathtaking film he just saw. I pray Pixar won't make such a thing. Certainly not while the current set remain in charge. It would break my heart, and that's not hyperbole. If you see this film, you'll understand why.

I spent the last ten minutes in a perpetual state of crying, because little moment after little moment hit me just right. I won't give any of it away, because the beauty of those last moments is in realising you knew what was going to happen the whole time, and that it's exactly what should occur. The film hits all the emotional bullseyes it wants, because it never once reaches for them. As with every Pixar film, and this is what they do so very right, there's no pandering. They aren't trying to sell you on this story, and they aren't dumbing it down for the kids. They make what they want to see, and it just so happens that the rest of us do, too.

Shutter Islander

I've attended a second showing of Shutter Island, and wish to redress my previous review. For one thing, the edits I mentioned before are, in fact, limited to the dream sequences, and are used for effect. They are quite effective once you figure out why they are there. There's still one shot involving a glass of water which I can't figure out, but other than that, I've no complaints. This is an immaculately assembled movie from a technical standpoint, though the sound issue in the beginning which I mentioned is still there.

I remain resolute that the acting is superb all-around. The performances are in fact better than I thought they were originally. When you see Shutter Island a second time, you realise how everything everyone says has two meanings, and the actors manage to convey this throughout. Whole conversations read with an entirely new tilt the second time. From a narrative standpoint, it is an airtight film. I do not know how the movie would fair on a third viewing, and I probably won't find out, but it is very much worth your time. Certainly, certainly twice. And I'm giving it an UpGrade.

Ed. Note; The Olympics have prevented me from getting caught up on reviews. I promise I will be back in a week with more reviews of Field Music, Joanna Newsom, Hot Chip, and likely more.

Dat-da-da Hollywood, ba-dup-du-dup-du-da-duh Hollywood

The Oscar Nominations have been announced, and so, as a blogger, it is my solemn duty to comment. That I didn't do so for the Grammys should tell you in itself the esteem with which I fail to regard that particular award show. The Grammys are to music what the Blockbuster Movie Awards were to movies, and should go the same way they did.

At any rate, let's start small and work our way up. I will list both my personal choice and my prediction, when those two things don't coincide.

Best Adapted Screenplay
'District Nine'
'An Education'
'In the Loop'
'Precious'
'Up in the Air'

My choice, and prediction, coincide on the superlative 'Up in the Air', but look for a possible upset from 'District Nine' or 'In the Loop,' which is the token "Excellent film we couldn't be arsed to nominate in any other category, so we're doing it here" entry. 'In Bruges' was given a similar distinction in its time, though it didn't win.

Best Original Screenplay
'The Hurt Locker'
'Inglorious Basterds'
'The Messenger'
'A Serious Man'
'Up'

My mind says 'The Hurt Locker,' but my heart says 'Up.' I would be surprised if it went elsewhere. 'Inglorious Basterds' was too messy to rightfully take this award home.

Best Animated Feature
'Coraline'
'Fantastic Mr. Fox'
'The Princess and the Frog'
'The Secret of Kells'
'Up'

It's going to go to 'Up.' I say so with certainty because of what I've cunningly coined the 'Crouching Tiger' Principle of Oscar Nominations; When and if a film is nominated both in a 'lesser' film category, such as Best Foreign Film or Best Animated Film, and in the 'greater' film category of Best Picture, said film will, inevitably, win the 'lesser' category, essentially by a process known as 'default.'

Oh, before I forget, I hadn't heard of 'The Secret of Kells' prior to reading the nominations, and so I looked it up. It's a foreign animated film, and it looks absolutely gorgeous. Gob-smackingly so. It doesn't come out in the United States until March, but I very much look forward to it.

Best Supporting Actress
Penelope Cruz, 'Nine'
Vera Farmiga, 'Up in the Air'
Maggie Gyllenhaal, 'Crazy Heart'
Anna Kendrick, 'Up in the Air'
Mo'nique, 'Precious'

The smart choice, both on buzz and on current award season success, is Mo'nique, and I won't stray from that. But I want Anna Kendrick to win. Her tightly-coiled performance in 'Up in the Air' was a source of much of that movie's humour and, more importantly, its emotional heart. Mo'nique should win for her incredible, brutal work in 'Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire,' but I want Kendrick to win. I know it's selfish. Leave me alone.

Best Supporting Actor
Matt Damon, 'Invictus'
Woody Harrelson, 'The Messenger'
Christopher Plummer, 'The Last Station'
Stanley Tucci, 'The Lovely Bones'
Christoph Waltz, 'Inglorious Basterds'

I like that The Tuc is getting all these nominations. It's nice to know 'The Lovely Bones' had at least one redeeming quality to it. Let me be clear, here and now, that Christoph Waltz will win, and Christoph Waltz should win, and Christoph Waltz gave what is, for my money, one of the all-time great performances of cinema. I mean it. Watch it, Oscars. Don't fail me here.

Best Actress
Sandra Bullock, 'Blind Side'
Hellen Mirren, 'The Last Station'
Carey Mulligan, 'An Education'
Gabourey Sidibe, 'Precious'
Meryl Streep, 'Julie and Julia'

Oooooh, a real knuckle biter, this one. Honestly. Sandra Bullock keeps winning awards, but so does Meryl Streep. Carey Mulligan won't win, but her career has been made, provided she uses this momentum properly, and we'll be seeing her name many, many times in the future. This much I promise. Hellen Mirren thinks it's nice to be nominated, I'm sure, and she's still got Oscar for 'The Queen.' It comes down to a vicious three-way fight between Meryl, Sandra and Gabourney. Gabourney hasn't won many of the major awards yet, despite across-the-board praise, and that could work in her favour. On the other hand, Meryl Streep hasn't taken an Oscar home since the early '80's, believe it or not. On the third hand, this is the only time Sandra Bullock will ever be nominated for an Oscar. So she has that going for her. Well, that and a Golden Globe and a SAG Award. She has all those things going for her, too. Consider my arms thrown up.

Best Actor
Jeff Bridges, 'Crazy Heart'
George Clooney, 'Up in the Air'
Colin Firth, 'A Single Man'
Morgan Freeman, 'Invictus'
Jeremy Renner, 'The Hurt Locker'

Jeremy Renner was overlooked by the Globes, and it really bothered me. Without him, 'The Hurt Locker' wouldn't have worked. So he's where my personal choice goes, though George was great in 'Up in the Air.' He's a close second. Jeff Bridges is going to win, as a beloved veteran actor who's rarely appreciated in awards seasons. But wouldn't it be swell if Renner or Clooney won? It certainly would.

Best Director
James Cameron, 'Avatar'
Kathryn Bigelow, 'The Hurt Locker'
Quentin Tarantino, 'Inglorious Basterds'
Lee Daniels, 'Precious'
Jason Reitman, 'Up in the Air'

I would ultimately be okay with this going to Cameron, under the strict, strict condition that he not take home Best Picture. I say this because it was an incredible job, arranging everything for 'Avatar' to function properly, and I'm not above awarding that accomplishment. Kathryn and Jason, however, should be the winners. There have been ties in the past at the Academy Awards. Wouldn't it be wonderful if they tied? They won't. James Cameron will win. But it, too, would be swell.

Best Picture
'Avatar'
'The Blind Side'
'District 9'
'An Education'
'The Hurt Locker'
'Inglorious Basterds'
'Precious'
'A Serious Man'
'Up'
'Up in the Air'

Let's start by getting rid of the films which certainly wouldn't have been nominated had it not been for the increased number of nomination slots. That kills 'The Blind Side,' 'An Education,' 'District 9,' and 'A Serious Man.' I'd have gotten rid of 'Up' as well had 'Beauty and the Beast' not set the precedent back in 1991 for Animated movies occasionally (re; twice) getting nominated for Best Picture.

This leaves us with 'Avatar,' 'The Hurt Locker,' 'Inglorious Basterds,' 'Precious,' 'Up,' and 'Up in the Air.' We can say with great confidence that 'Inglorious Basterds,' 'Precious,' and 'Up' will not win, though I may do flips if 'Up' wins. 'The Hurt Locker' and 'Up in the Air' were undoubtedly the two best movies made in the last year, with 'Up,' in my opinion, very close behind. I'd like it to go to 'Up in the Air,' but I think it needs to go, whatever that means, to 'The Hurt Locker.'

I can't say with as much confidence as I'd like that 'Avatar' won't win, but, honestly, it better not. That's a threat, Academy.

My Betting Ballet:

Best Adapted Screenplay: 'Up in the Air'
Best Original Screenplay: 'The Hurt Locker'
Best Animated Feature: 'Up'
Best Supporting Actress: Mo'nique, 'Precious: Based on the novel Push by Sapphire'
Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, 'Inglorious Basterds'
Best Actress: Sandra Bullock, 'The Blind Side'
Best Actor: Jeff Bridges, 'Crazy Heart'
Best Director: James Cameron, 'Avatar' *
Best Picture: 'The Hurt Locker'

* I would love to be wrong. You don't even know.

(500) Days of Summer

(500) Days of Summer
(2009)
Directed by Marc Webb
Written by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber
Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel

The genre of Romantic Comedy, or "Romcom" as all the time-pressed youngsters call it these days, is something best compared to a well-worn pair of dress shoes; over time, they've worn in to a comfortable shape, you know what to expect when you put them on, and you rarely regret having put them on. This is not necessarily a complement. We're talking about leaving a movie simply not minding that you've just lost ninety minutes, as opposed to having found great value in them.

It is a great, great pleasure to see a movie that manages to do something new with those shoes. (500) Days of Summer is a romantic comedy, but it is a smart one, it is fresh, it is idiosyncratic without being fey. It is testament to director Marc Webb's abilities that this movie came across perfectly; the jokes rely on perfect timing to not seem twee.

Zooey Deschanel is pitch-perfect as the titular Summer; you will have a hard time not falling in love with her early on. Much has been made of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's evolution into one of the finest actors of his generation, and his performance here justifies everything you've heard; he's an actor who knows how to inhabit the emotion of the moment, without making a show of it. Towards the end of the film, there is a scene on a train where he manages to imbue more genuine emotion into a pause then most actors could get out of a monologue. Stunning.

The story manages to go places you don't quite expect, and, assisted by its non-chronological sequence of presentation, it keeps you engaged and interested, without ever managing to be cheap. I would be remiss if I did not mention the music selection, all of which is perfect; the soundtrack consists of Regina Spektor, The Smiths, Doves, Hall & Oates, and Feist, to name a few; all the song choices fit the story and the mood exquisitely. The music supervisor for this film, Andrea von Foerster, did a superb job; she earned her paycheck during an absolutely hilarious segment involving "You Make My Dreams" by Hall & Oates. I haven't laughed that hard in a movie theater in years.

In short, there's nothing about this movie I didn't like, and there are very few things about it I didn't love. You should do yourself a favour and see it; life will just plain feel better.

Grade: A

Ponyo

Ponyo
(2009)
Written and Directed by Hayao Miyazaki

I'll start by telling you, at point-blank, that the visuals alone are worth the cost of admission to see Ponyo, the latest film from Japanese master Hayao Miyazaki. The backgrounds are often rendered in an almost child-like manner, with crayons and loose shapes; it's stunning to see. The animation itself is perhaps the best of Miyazaki's career; if it's second to anything, it's second only to the visual splendour of Princess Mononoke, and that, without exaggeration, is one of the most beautiful movies in all of cinema, animated or otherwise. So, then, it looks damn purdy.

What of the story? As with every Miyazaki film, it requires from the audience a certain amount of patience; the world doesn't explain itself to you, so much as you come to terms with the idea that this film's reality works in such and such a way, and you might as well accept that. Each of Miyazaki's movies has required such an effort, if you can call it that, from the audience, and each has required it more than the last, but Howel's Moving Castle, Miyazaki's last picture and arguably one of his weakest, seems to have represented his more esoteric tendencies at their peaks. In short, less diffused wording, Ponyo is simply easier to follow, and easier to enjoy.

The story is sort of about a boy who finds a mermaid, and then they have an adventure together. That's an awful, awful misrepresentation, and it doesn't relate to you the charm, the humour, and the beauty at the core of it, but I don't do summaries, really, so I won't try. What you need to know going in is that this is as magical a story as Miyazaki has written, and it's the spiritual heir to his masterful My Neighbor Totoro, which is to say it is his second "children's" film. That is a comment meant not in a belittling sense; a young child is unlikely to find Nausicäa all that entertaining, and Spirited Away could even frighten them, but Ponyo is adorable enough, and colourful enough (Oh, sweet merciful Jesus, the colours), and relatable enough, with both main characters being five, that younger members of the studio audience will enjoy it just as much as the bigger ones. I should know; there were a number of young'ns at the show I went to, and, if the sounds they made were any indication, they loved it. One girl, in fact, very helpfully pointed out rather loudly that "Ponyo is tired." It, uh, it was funnier if you were there.

Miyazaki is a brilliant man, no question. He can bring out the magic in anything, and he knows well enough to let it flourish. After the relative misstep of Howel's Moving Castle, and the participatory requirements of Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away, Ponyo is as purely enjoyable a film as Miyazaki has ever made, and it takes all the best qualities of his canon- the magic, the humour, the beauty- and presents them in their simplest form. One of his best films, and that's no small accomplishment.

Grade: A+

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
(2009)
Adapted by Steve Kloves
Directed by David Yates

There is a point where you have to decide if you're going to review a movie of a book as a fan of the book, or as a fan of movies. It is unfair, I think, to approach a film adaptation from the perspective of an ardent bibliophile. They are two very different mediums, and what works in one does not always work in the other. Because I feel the Potter films have been hindered by attempting to include too much from the books, while fans would argue they have not included enough, I look at this as a movie, not adapted from a source, but as its own creation.

There have been two constant sources of strength for the Harry Potter movies; the supporting cast, and the art direction. Filling out all the roles with great British character actors was a masterstroke that has kept the films nothing short of watchable, even in the weakest moments. As the students of Hogwarts have gained their sea legs, the adults have consistently delivered wondrous performances. That continues here, though Radcliffe and company are, fittingly, carrying greater loads. Fortunately, they are all very capable, if not exceedingly gifted, actors, and they do just fine.

The great triumph of this film is the art direction; the Potter films have never looked better. The memories Harry observes through the Pensieve look gorgeous, absolutely gorgeous. More impressive is how the art direction has changed, throughout the series, to reflect the darker moods. Hogwarts looked warm and inviting in the first film; it now seems a frightening, isolated place, a masterpiece of gothic construction that finally suggest a mood befitting its period. The scene where Belatrix Lestrange evicerates the Great Hall is astonishing, and I can't recommend the film enough, if only as eye candy.

The only problem I had with this film, and has been a worsening problem as the source material has grown in length, is the pacing. The final twenty minutes were rushed; when the Death Eaters invade Hogwarts and kill Dumbledo- oh, I'm sorry, I thought you knew already. That scene is rushed, and, when the identity of the titular Price is revealed, it passes by as a, "Oh, that's right, I forgot we were curious about that..." It leaves the impression that they disclosed his identity only because to not do so would be a major screenwriting gaffe. The run up is great, the movie navigates the tricks well, and then it just misses the landing. All in all, not bad, but I'm still waiting for an unquestionably great film in this series. They do keep getting better, so I wouldn't be surprised.

Grade: B

What a Good Fuckin' Movie

In Bruges
(2008)
Written and Directed by Martin McDonagh

What an unexpected movie. In essence, Colin Farrel and Mad-Eye Moody play two hitmen, sent to Bruges by their boss (the hilarious Ralph Fiennes), for reasons I won't divulge here. It was marketed as a comedy, but it's not a comedy in the typical modern sense. The humour is found in the events that happen. Some of the "jokes" take the entire movie to play out. Most of the humour is inherent in how these characters talk. I'd always suspected "fuck" to be a flexible word, but I had no idea as to the dizzying heights it could truly reach.

This movie will not be for everyone, if only for the language, and a few moments of extreme-ish violence towards the end. But to focus on those things is to miss the point. This is as magnificently written movie as you'll see. McDonagh is a playwrite, and it shows. Like the best plays, nothing here happens that isn't addressed later. It not only holds up on subsequent viewings, it demands them, and it certainly rewards them. The third time I watched In Bruges, I decided to try and spot something that didn't get addressed in one way or another, and I ended up stumped. The characters are seemless, their relationships are explained in perfect, subtle ways, the events all relate, and the humour, though sparse, is very real. A great movie.

Grade: A

Wednesday Classics, Vol. 5: Pixar

With the recent release of Up, Pixar Animation Studios have reached their tenth movie, and I wanted to take the occasion to take a look back at the amazing track record John Lasseter's merry band have left behind them. There are ten reviews to write, so I'll forgo the lengthy introductory essay and get right to it.

Toy Story
(1995)
The template for every Pixar film was already firmly in place with the release of their first movie, Toy Story. It featured a score provided by Randy Newman (he would score Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc., and Cars), state-of-the-art computer graphics, and a water-tight story, all of which have become Pixar trademarks. But what really makes it Pixar is the way the story is driven by the characters. Nothing in a Pixar movie happens just to have something happen; it all spins out of the characters and their motives, their relationships. By modern standards, it looks downright archaic, but Pixar's first film is still one of their best.
Grade: A

A Bug's Life
(1998)
An inconvenient hiccup of timing left A Bug's Life marked, in some circles, as a less intellectual, younger sibling to Dreamworks' Antz, released in the same season. That may be true, but they weren't aiming for the same audience. Antz was aiming for the adults, while A Bug's Life was for everyone. Toy Story suggested that Pixar had a way with slapstick, and they honed that sensibility here. Toy Story had a sophisticated edge to some of its jokes, and Pixar ran with the balance of humour for young and old here. The story and characters are strong as ever, and, while it may not measure up to most of the Pixar output, A Bug's Life is still a stellar achievement.
Grade: A-

Toy Story 2
(1999)
Toy Story 2 is a masterclass in writing a sequel. The continuity of the first film is preserved; we aren't given some half-baked excuse for a new adventure, it's logically built off of what's come before. The humour is still intact, and even developed. All the familiar characters from before have returned, and the new characters introduced neither outshine nor pale in comparison to the old guard; they feel as though they fit all along. We learn more about the histories of the characters; Buzz and Woody have their origins filled out in authentic, unforced ways. It's perfect, really.
Grade: A+

Monsters, Inc.
(2001)
I'm not sure how it works, exactly, but Pixar make their films in such a way that I am able to enjoy them simultaneously on both an artistic and a technical level. Yes, the story of Monsters, Inc. is clever and original. Yes, the characters are, as ever, strong. Yes, the sense of humour is there. But, my God, would you LOOK at that fur! Honestly. It was worth the cost of admission simply for the fur. It is not, objectively speaking, one of the stronger Pixar films, but it has a lot to live up to.
Grade: B

Finding Nemo
(2003)
Here we have what is widely considered the crown jewel of the Pixar empire. Finding Nemo actually is just as good as you've heard. It may even be better. The story, again, is water-tight (no pun intended), and the characters are wonderful. It speaks volumes for this movie that Ellen Degeneres was able to relaunch her career off the back of a voiceover role. It looks good, it's as colourful a movie as you'll ever see, and the relationships between the characters this time around are flawless. You can see Marlin growing fonder and fonder of Dory as the film progresses. In the Pixar canon, Toy Story 2 is the (relatively) unsung masterpiece, but Finding Nemo, thus far, is the studio's magnum opus.
Grade: A+

The Incredibles
(2004)
Brad Bird is responsible for this, and it shows. Bird has been around in animation for a long time, but he made his name with The Iron Giant, a masterpiece of animation that remains disconcertingly unfamiliar to the greater public. The Incredibles was written to be hand animated, but John Lasseter asked if Bird wanted to make it with Pixar. He said yes. A dramatic departure for the studio in tone and content, The Incredibles is one of their best films. It's more serious than the other Pixar movies. It has more to say about society; says Mr. Incredible, "They keep coming up with new ways to celebrate mediocrity!" The characters are defined, but subtle, and realistic. The motives are more complex than in any prior Pixar film, and, as a result, it is the most mature Pixar film, in every way. Not every animation studio would take a chance on a film like this.
Grade: A

Cars
(2006)
Every family has one, and most studios have several. The biggest "blemish" on Pixar's record is Cars, a film most animation studios would kill to make. It's not a surprise, though, and I'm disappointed Pixar didn't see it coming. Where Pixar has differed from every other studio is in, yes, I know, I keep saying, its characters, and that is the weakest link in Cars. The characters are enjoyable, and Tow Mater is the only thing Larry the Cable Guy should ever do, but they rely too heavily on stereotypes. The Volkswagon van is a stoner. The jeep is militaristic. Haha. Hoho. Now, I'm putting it down in relative light; it's a funny movie, it's never less than entertaining, and, as ever, it is well made. The stereotypes aren't so bad for a children's animated movie, but, by Pixar standards, it's for shame. You may ask yourself why there's a sequel in the works for their weakest film, and while I like to think it's because they feel like they could do better, it's hard to ignore the $5 billion in merchandise sales this film generated. Cars was a disappointment, but if the sequel isn't up to snuff, that will be the first blatant attempt at consumerism on Pixar's part, and that will truly break my heart.
Grade: B-

Ratatouille
(2007)
It's gotten to the point, with Pixar, where I hold my breath each time I hear about their next film. I keep waiting for The One, the irrifutably bad movie that will make them mortals, like any other studio. Before Brad Bird swooped in, at the urging of John Lasseter, Ratatouille was almost that film. During pre-production the previous director was removed, as the movie was not living up to the standards of Pixar. Bird was brought in, performed a major overhaul, and created an absolute gem of a film. It is the most visually sumptuous of all the Pixar movies, and marks a point of departure for the studio. The Incredibles aside, The Old Testament phase of Pixar was buddy comedies, with minor variations here and there. Ratatouille begins the New Testament, where Pixar started taking more chances with its stories. Given the results so far, I encourage the behaviour.
Grade: A

WALL-E
(2008)
Now the studio has balls. From Andrew Stanton, the director of Finding Nemo, we have the most unusual Pixar film. Consider a children's movie where the first half hour is practically silent. Consider an adult movie where that happens, even. WALL-E features two protagonists incapable of speaking much more than their names, but it never stops us from connecting. A powerhouse of animation, WALL-E's emotions are conveyed entirely through body language and "eye" movement. Again, he's got character. The story is involving and dramatic, and distinctly funny. If the environmental overtones are a bit too prominent, they don't distract from the story, and Pixar prove that risk-taking still makes for great movies.
Grade: A

Up
(2009)
Outside of the amazing rendering behind those balloons (the colours!), the trailer for Up had me less than excited. I was ready for this to be The One. When I saw it in theaters, the opening ten minutes put my fears to rest, and made me realise just how wrong I was. Those first ten minutes encompass everything that makes Pixar great; for one, there is some sublime slapstick comedy. For another, the childhood relationship between Carl Frederickson and his future wife is established quickly, effectively, and endearingly. There are no words spoken as we watch them live life together, nor as we watch her grow ill, and, ultimately, die. The first ten minutes of Up were more emotionally touching than anything I've seen in the last two or three years. The rest of the movie has all the trappings of a wonderful, New Testament Pixar movie; a slightly askew story, wonderful characters, and ample humour.
Grade: A

So, there you have it. The first ten Pixar films. All of them are classics of the medium, most of them are classic films regardless. The next Pixar venture is Toy Story 3. I'm nervous, as is my habit, that it will be The One. But then I saw the teaser trailer, which is nothing more than Woody, Buzz and the crew fashioning a logo for the movie; hearing Tom Hanks and Tim Allen voicing their roles again actually made me feel good. It was nice to hear the characters again, and I can't wait to see how they fair this time around. That's what Pixar does so well. In their best films, they create characters who become parts of your life, who feel more real in some ways than any real-life character ever could. Thanks to Pixar, animation isn't a genre anymore, it has risen to the level of Medium, through which any type of story can be told.