Not so Incredible pt 2

Rating: 5/10 (5 July 2018)

There are those that think that some movies should be "stand-alone" and not to be anchored with a sequel. It's a tough concept to subscribe to when, after all, a movie does some serious bank because of it's contributing factors such as originality, story, character development, special FX, etc., etc. I am not a gigantic movie buff, but if I reflected enough, I'm sure I can come with several as such. On the other hand, there are many sequels that equal or surpass the first, perhaps due to superior factors, and/or the the timing was just right to reach the right audiences and it became a "perfect storm" sequel that added up to a great sequel(s). This thinking is not just for animation either. I believe that one can reflect upon a sequel of movies (ie Rocky, Star Wars, Jaws, Pacific Rim, Nightmare Elm Street, for example) and come to the conclusion that the first was the primo. That's not to say that the sequels were all that helpless/hopeless, and may have in fact added to the future character arcs. But it would seem that once a Mona Lisa is painted, there is not a need for a Mona Lisa 2. Case in point would be Ratatouille. This was an excellent piece of animated cinema that contained a completely unique and innovative story, great characters and development, beautiful animation, and resolved excellently to it's conclusion. Could movie-land juice up a sequel? Of course. But would it be necessary? Another example is the Croods. And for me, the Incredibles falls into that category of "no sequel required". Was I2 a good movie? Yes. Was it a great sequel? Not really. Certainly the expectation was there when it was announced that after so many years a sequel was in the works. But I believe the challenge lies with "ok, we made a masterpiece, what can we do to move it forward?" Understanding that in some 14 years the industry has made exceptional technical advances, and I2 is brimming with awesome animation and visuals, the real work has to be in the story evolution, not relying on the previous movie's tropes. Now with that, the I2 team probably thought it may be better to revisit all of the original's plot devices so as not to loose anybody because of the 14 years gap? I don't know, I'm just guessing. But I2 really seemed like too much of a first movie rehash. All of the I1 plot vehicles were there with a lack of any character development or direction. Yes it was good to see Jack Jack use a bunch of powers, but the rest of the family seemed superfluous to the plot. It wasn't like we were able to see any different sides to the family so their entire time on the screen was uneventful. I1 had all of this cool inter-family dynamics going on, along with Bob's work struggles and his relationship with Lucius, the gov't crackdown on heros, and a great James Bond-like villain who kills all of the other supers...and all the other supers were done very well with cool names and nifty/goofy powers but it all worked. Yes, in I2 it was good to see Edna bond with the baby, but her short scene was also cookie-cutter from the first. And the villain was lame compared to Syndrome. The theater I was in along with my family was sold out. And I can count about 3 times when I heard any laughter or scene reaction. It was like everyone was waiting for something to happen and nothing did for long periods. I think many people may feel compelled to like the movie because of the great first movie and the 14 years gap. But it really felt like a letdown. And I can't stand that vocal lisp of Holly Hunter. Was it worth $12 to see it in the big theater? Kinda. Go, you will enjoy it. But let it not be over hyped, there was one Mona Lisa and Incredibles 1 was it. I give it a 5