OK, somewhat late to the party, but we finally watched
The Incredibles
last night.
That was one scary-ass movie.
Starting with the opinions that won't get me kicked off the board, the animation was scarily good. Just when I thought it couldn't get any better, it did! They used overcast days and nighttime lighting and all different ambient light effects perfectly, on all different materials. The details of the character movement were brilliant.
The voice acting was also tremendous, with special props to Samuel L. Jackson and (sigh) Brad Bird for Edna.
It was also fun naming all the shout-outs and references.
Now where I diverge with prevalent opinion here...I doubt I will ever watch it again, as the anvils of politics came thick and fast and repetitively, and they aren't politics I agree with. I'm not a big fan of propaganda anyway, and I'm especially suspicious when it's that slickly packaged. At worst,
The Incredibles
promoted an objectivist-fascist behaviour, with a side of Scientology. At best, it promoted the neo-con Republican stance against the liberal Democrat stance.
Even if you somehow put your thumb over the repeated political message, the sexism was bad enough.
Terry Gilliam was JK Rowling's pick to direct Harry Potter? Can you imagine?
Maybe they can get him to do the last two.
News or rumors about a Trek prequel . . . one of the rumors has David Boreanaz in the movie.
Goooooooofs... iiiiiiin... Spaaaaaaace....
the anvils of politics came thick and fast and repetitively
Yeah, I'm not sure I noticed this. Curious about Scientology, too.
I have read more than one essay by bitter Republicans (John Tierney, e.g.), using
The Incredibles
to make a point about the excesses of self-esteem classes in grade schools. I think it was a cockamamie point, because, in real life, there are no eight-year-old superheroes, but the idea was that the movie was expressing the axe that at least one republican was ready and willing to grind.
Right-wingers often cite noted lefty Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" story, too, as an example of art demonstrating what they consider the logical consequence of the left's adherence to social equality. But I think it's a spurious point; while the totalitarian left has implemented policies that enforce equality through oppression (such as the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge, Stalin's pograms), no democratic leftists has ever, or would ever, by definition, push such a program. And it's certainly not like the right-wingers have the moral high ground, what with their totalitarian governments enforcing inequality through oppression. In fact, I think it's safe to say that most democratic thinkers of all stripes find those totalitarian governments embarrassing.
So, I don't think that the politics are as cut-and-dried as that, Raq.
On another point, I used to often judge art by its politics. Now, though, while I may not agree with the politics of Dostoevsky, H.L. Mencken, G.K. Chesterton, or, hell, half of the great poets of the 20th Century (who, as Richard Hugo put it, often mistook their own personal conservatism for political), I figured out that I don't need to agree with them to love their work. And that cuts both ways: I find Michael Moore tiresome, Janeane Garofalo unfunny (at least when she talks about politics - and, y'know, that goes for David Cross, too, who is squandering his talent as the foremost satirist of his age bitching about how dumb Bush is, 'cause, yeah, we get it), and I wish Billy Bragg had learned from his experience playing Woody Guthrie songs that you can say much more about politics by talking about something else.
