The Incredibles II
- Thread starter AlexanderMBush
- Start date
-
Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
- Aug 18, 2017
- 5,117
- 6,182
Bumping this thread with the premiere tonight. Wonder if they’ll allow reactions on Twitter? Again, keeping my expectations muted.
EDIT: First reactions are in. I’m still skeptical, but I have a tiny bit of hope now.
Is Incredibles 2 worth seeing? First reviews from premiere screening - Radio Times
EDIT: First reactions are in. I’m still skeptical, but I have a tiny bit of hope now.
Is Incredibles 2 worth seeing? First reviews from premiere screening - Radio Times
Last edited:
Caught the preview at DHS. It's pretty fantastic. So for at least the first 10 minutes, it's a great sequel 
The trailer didn't wow me, but Brad Bird has directed three of the greatest animated films of his generation--I have to have faith this will be at the least very good.
- Mar 29, 2015
- 905
- 958
Just saw it. I loved it. Still has all the heart and great action from the original. And of course the score is insanely great (but that shouldn't come as a surprise).
The villain was kind of obvious but that didn't really detract from my enjoyment of the film. Also, the fight between Jack-Jack and the raccoon might be one of my favorite film sequences I've seen in quite some time.
The latter storyline being so good--and yeah, that sequence in particular--that it really left me bored with the "A story" until the climax. Still a good movie, but probably the weakest sequel beside Cars 2 (never saw Dory).
Yeah, Helen's story is inferior to the rest of the family until the third act. She still has a lot of cool stuff to do though.
Had a blast watching it: very funny and well-paced, imo. Jack Jack was wonderfully entertaining The movie had some nice conversation about being "other"-ed by the government, sexism in power structures, etc. which felt very topical and was a cool surprise. Now, if the A story was a part of that conversation, it would have elevated the movie ten fold. I think Zootopia is a really good example of handling a really tricky conversation exceptionally well. The A story was just a little too lackluster for me. The villain was super intriguing, but lacked the surprise and depth I think they could have gotten with a little more care. Also, I have to agree with the people calling for an epilepsy warning. The strobing is intense.
In all, a very solid sequel, but was hurt by a predictable villain who, imo, didn't live up to their potential.
The movie had some nice conversation about being "other"-ed by the government, sexism in power structures, etc. which felt very topical and was a cool surprise. Now, if the A story was a part of that conversation, it would have elevated the movie ten fold. I think Zootopia is a really good example of handling a really tricky conversation exceptionally well. The A story was just a little too lackluster for me. The villain was super intriguing, but lacked the surprise and depth I think they could have gotten with a little more care. Also, I have to agree with the people calling for an epilepsy warning. The strobing is intense.In all, a very solid sequel, but was hurt by a predictable villain who, imo, didn't live up to their potential.
- Jan 29, 2013
- 1,623
- 1,144
Didn't like it. Incomparable to films like Walle or Up. There's no heart. Usually Pixar films make me feel some type of way but this one was blah.
Seen it twice now. I thought it was good... just good. Brad Bird made a film with a plot that works, with fantastic action, hysterical comic sequences, and some decent heart, but didn't seem to want to do much else above that. In interviews he's been rather downplaying the film, as if he's a bit disappointed in it, and that doesn't surprise me. He keeps deriding it as a "summer popcorn flick" and lamenting the rushed schedule Disney forced him into.
As a "summer popcorn flick", you could do far, far worse. This is absolutely by all means a charming, entertaining movie with some spectacular animation but as a Pixar film, you could do better. As a sequel to The Incredibles, a small part of me feels like it could've been better. That film had a strong message, with a strong villain. This one... ah, better dip into the spoilers. This is going to get long.
As a "summer popcorn flick", you could do far, far worse. This is absolutely by all means a charming, entertaining movie with some spectacular animation but as a Pixar film, you could do better. As a sequel to The Incredibles, a small part of me feels like it could've been better. That film had a strong message, with a strong villain. This one... ah, better dip into the spoilers. This is going to get long.
Evelyn is an insanely predictable villain to the point that even the movie's most stringent supporters are even mocking it for. At first I thought Bird was messing with me and that it would've gone darker with it being both Winston and Evelyn, and Evelyn going rouge quickly after. Would've raised so many more questions and possibly have provoked a far more meaningful climax, with far greater payoff.
But nope. Evelyn is just bitter about her father dying due to his faith in superheroes. On the second watch I noticed there's a subtle hint to tying the plots together: to be a parent is also sort of being a superhero, whereas Evelyn wants faith in neither. She demands the human race to be independent, free of any guiding hands so we don't become weak. The thesis is very (very) subtly suggested that family is more than just familial, and even superheroes need help from us.
The problem is in the delivery of this thesis... it's delivered through the B-story, not the A-story. Why is this an issue? Because it robs our "main character" (Elastigirl) of an arc. There's kind of one, in the first act. Helen gets the assignment, but she's stubborn on her viewpoint... and then she changes that viewpoint and just embraces it. From there she's simply just taking names and kicking ass... it's very entertaining, but not very dramatically fascinating. It comes across as simple, which is what colored my poorer impression of the film overall compared to the first.
Instead, Bird throws the emotion and character building again on Bob Parr. Bob realizes that being a family man is just as heroic, if not more strenuous as being a superhero, with even more rewards. Very sweet lesson, and of course there's also the fact that we see Edna (a non-super) help Bob out in times of need. All nicely presenting our moral. Too bad Bob only gets what, two scenes and barely any dialogue exchanged with the antagonist? And none in a fashion wherein she's not BS'ing. Our moral and our villain never really meet.
The closest it gets is when Helen and Evelyn exchange their last lines.
Evelyn: Even though you saved me, it doesn't make you right.
Helen: It makes you alive.
Leaving it like that is such a confusing note, as though your immediate reaction is to think Bird is merely saying (with the hints of his alleged Randian objectivism) "shut up and be grateful". That, or "shut up and enjoy your flashy action cartoon". Helen never realizes anything in connection with Evelyn, and the whole structure kind of becomes wonky.
The first film worked wonders with this idea: Bob and Syndrome, like Helen and Evelyn, had the conversations about their viewpoint. Syndrome was made bitter because Bob himself refused to work with anyone else, wanting supers eradictated figuratively and literally. Through the course of the film, Bob realizes that his family (others) are more important than anyone else. He is not strong enough to risk losing his family again. They need each other, like society needs supers. Bam, moral hand-in-glove.
I2 of course has a similar moral delivered in a less controversial way (by hinting that Supers need help too), it just doesn't do it as finely as the first. It's structurally ajar.
Of course, I don't blame people for loving it. I just have mild OCD so this crap drives me nuts, even though I know there are many, many facets to this film that are objectively wonderful. That monorail sequence is by far the best action sequence I've seen in a film all year, yes I'm including Black Panther and Infinity War. The scene with the raccoon and Jack Jack had me belly laughing both times. The script has some wonderful lines, moody scenes and totally smart and irreverent wit. This is a film that has all the right pieces but a couple of them got put in the wrong order and man it's frustrating.
It's good, but it's frustrating.
But nope. Evelyn is just bitter about her father dying due to his faith in superheroes. On the second watch I noticed there's a subtle hint to tying the plots together: to be a parent is also sort of being a superhero, whereas Evelyn wants faith in neither. She demands the human race to be independent, free of any guiding hands so we don't become weak. The thesis is very (very) subtly suggested that family is more than just familial, and even superheroes need help from us.
The problem is in the delivery of this thesis... it's delivered through the B-story, not the A-story. Why is this an issue? Because it robs our "main character" (Elastigirl) of an arc. There's kind of one, in the first act. Helen gets the assignment, but she's stubborn on her viewpoint... and then she changes that viewpoint and just embraces it. From there she's simply just taking names and kicking ass... it's very entertaining, but not very dramatically fascinating. It comes across as simple, which is what colored my poorer impression of the film overall compared to the first.
Instead, Bird throws the emotion and character building again on Bob Parr. Bob realizes that being a family man is just as heroic, if not more strenuous as being a superhero, with even more rewards. Very sweet lesson, and of course there's also the fact that we see Edna (a non-super) help Bob out in times of need. All nicely presenting our moral. Too bad Bob only gets what, two scenes and barely any dialogue exchanged with the antagonist? And none in a fashion wherein she's not BS'ing. Our moral and our villain never really meet.
The closest it gets is when Helen and Evelyn exchange their last lines.
Evelyn: Even though you saved me, it doesn't make you right.
Helen: It makes you alive.
Leaving it like that is such a confusing note, as though your immediate reaction is to think Bird is merely saying (with the hints of his alleged Randian objectivism) "shut up and be grateful". That, or "shut up and enjoy your flashy action cartoon". Helen never realizes anything in connection with Evelyn, and the whole structure kind of becomes wonky.
The first film worked wonders with this idea: Bob and Syndrome, like Helen and Evelyn, had the conversations about their viewpoint. Syndrome was made bitter because Bob himself refused to work with anyone else, wanting supers eradictated figuratively and literally. Through the course of the film, Bob realizes that his family (others) are more important than anyone else. He is not strong enough to risk losing his family again. They need each other, like society needs supers. Bam, moral hand-in-glove.
I2 of course has a similar moral delivered in a less controversial way (by hinting that Supers need help too), it just doesn't do it as finely as the first. It's structurally ajar.
Of course, I don't blame people for loving it. I just have mild OCD so this crap drives me nuts, even though I know there are many, many facets to this film that are objectively wonderful. That monorail sequence is by far the best action sequence I've seen in a film all year, yes I'm including Black Panther and Infinity War. The scene with the raccoon and Jack Jack had me belly laughing both times. The script has some wonderful lines, moody scenes and totally smart and irreverent wit. This is a film that has all the right pieces but a couple of them got put in the wrong order and man it's frustrating.
It's good, but it's frustrating.
- Jun 21, 2016
- 3,802
- 8,322
That was a short- and he just showed the powers in front of the babysitter.
The biggest negative thing I have about this movie is the villain. She has no clear actual motivation other than "all supers are bad" kind of thing unlike Syndrome in the first movie. It's also weird considering she has a brother who genuinely wants to help superheroes and her brother doesn't notice a thing she is actually doing all along (not that he should know, but it's kinda weird everything happened behind his back). The "Screenslaver" who is thought to be hyped up as a main villain only turned out to be just a civilian who was brainwashed by Evelyn so as to get rid of Supers and to unwillingly place other people in a hypnotic trance on her behalf so no suspicion would be placed on her.
I enjoyed it a lot, although I probably need to rewatch it, as I saw it at 10pm and I was exhausted.
There isn't any bad thing that hasn't been said already. The villain was predictable as hell. I leaned over to my friend 20 minutes in and said who the villain was.
The cast was good, my favorite being Bob Odenkirk's character.
It was a good sequel that is super fun (pun intended). It is obviously not as great as the first one, but it is the first Pixar movie I have enjoyed in a long time.
There isn't any bad thing that hasn't been said already. The villain was predictable as hell. I leaned over to my friend 20 minutes in and said who the villain was.
The cast was good, my favorite being Bob Odenkirk's character.
It was a good sequel that is super fun (pun intended). It is obviously not as great as the first one, but it is the first Pixar movie I have enjoyed in a long time.
- Jul 14, 2015
- 1,592
- 2,573
Yeah... I didn't really like this. Pretty big disappointment for me. Plotting was thin, villain was awful, character development was all over the place, and for all of the hype about Helen being the hero she basically had zero arc or development. Hard MEH. The fight scenes, animation, and score were great though.
Book with our Travel Partners
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Halloween Horror Nights 33 (UOR) - Speculation & Rumors
- Latest: Casper Gutman
-
