TO make serious money in the movie business you cannot go far wrong investing in the silly stuff. Incredibles 2 has so far earned more than half a billion dollars at the US box office, the first animated picture to do so. At this rate, passing the billion dollars mark by the end of its worldwide roll out should be child’s play.
Such numbers, and the sheer enjoyment to be had from Brad Bird’s new picture, makes you wonder why audiences have had to wait 14 years for a follow up. Then again, Disney Pixar has been busy with other Oscar-winning movies, among them Bird’s Ratatouille. Moreover, Bird was caught up for a while in a little film franchise by the name of Mission: Impossible. Perhaps you have heard of it?
Bird starts his sequel where the 2004 picture left off. The Incredibles, ordinary bods by day, superheroes when required, are busy saving the world from another megalomaniac.
It is a messy old business catching super villains, with buildings being damaged, streets torn up, and a lot of other costly mayhem. With taxpayers fed up footing the bill, the special scheme under which The Incredibles and other superheroes could live undercover in the suburbs is to be closed down. Mr Incredible (voiced by Craig T Nelson), his wife Elastigirl (Holly Hunter), and their three children are out in the cold, along with every other superhero, including Lucius Best/Frozone (Samuel L Jackson).
With their money running out, a job offer arrives just in time to save the Parr family. A brother and sister team of tech billionaires believe they have found a way to make superheroes great again and they want Elastigirl to be the face of the campaign. With the missus out at work, that leaves Mr Incredible to stay at home and look after Violet, Dash, and baby Jack-Jack.
Bird’s screenplay mines every last drop of comedy from this role reversal set up, and then digs deeper to find some more. There is a touch of reverse sexism at work here, suggesting that dads are no match for multi-tasking mums, but the jokes are so funny, not to mention on the money, that only a super-curmudgeon could take offence. In any case, it is the mayhem of parenthood in general that is being lampooned. Bob and Helen Parr might be superheroes, but when it comes to dealing with a lovesick teenager or a baby that is always on the go, they are just as clueless and prone to exhaustion as mere mortals.
Jack-Jack the baby is proving a particular handful, largely because mum and dad do not yet know the extent of his superpowers. The audience gets the lowdown when Jack-Jack does battle with one of the neighbourhood raccoons. Every gag is a winner in a laugh out loud sequence relying on sheer physical comedy. For Jack-Jack and the raccoon read Laurel and Hardy.
Just as the gag rate cannot be faulted, so the animation is sublime, with every scene richly coloured, painstakingly detailed, and lick your lips gorgeous. Even after all this time with Disney Pixar movies, the sheer quality of the animation, and the endless inventiveness and daring, still take the breath away.
Where the film proves disappointing is in its thin storyline and the amount of crash-bang-wallop fighting that goes on. The latter is par for the course in any superhero movie, but the Incredibles are more than just another bunch of Lycra-clad warriors. Their charm, their unique selling point, lies in the fact that they are a family, at once extraordinary and ordinary. More of the family material, and less of the tedious clashes that have begun to make comic book films a bore, would have made for a more engaging mix. As it is, the film comes in at 125 minutes, a long time to keep younger cinemagoers in their seats, even for super-parents.
A late burst of energy sends the film over the line in style, with a follow-up clearly signalled. Here’s to not having to wait so long next time.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article