Tremendously disappointing

Rating: 4/10 (15 June 2018)

Let me spin you a bit of a Greek tragedy here; Coming back to a world and characters I loved 14 years ago when I saw the original at my 8th birthday party, only to discover something terrible.
I'm not going to sugarcoat it: Incredibles 2 was IMMENSELY disappointing.
Even as I sat in the middle of a dark theater, filled to the brim with people who were laughing and enjoying a film that seemed to turn so many nostalgia dials in the room...I just could not join them in letting my nostalgia glasses take control.
Because, in the end, with nostalgia put aside, this is a HEAVILY flawed film, and considering it's something of this magnitude, I simply can't let that slide.
So, with that said, let's slip our Nostalgia Goggles OFF for a moment, and let's begin...shall we?
'Incredibles 2' has been hyped for lord knows how long, as it is perhaps one of the few worlds that Pixar (And Brad Bird as well) created that had something to build-upon and create something new and different with a second installment. Unlike films like 'Cars 2' or 'Monsters University', a sequel truly felt necessary in a world where the market has become so saturated with superhero films. With all that considered, it seemed like a no-brainer that another Incredibles film could work in this current landscape and provide a new outlook on the genre of superhero films, just as the original film did back in 2004.
Only problem is, I think they forgot to write a new film.
My main gripe with 'Incredibles 2' is just how recycled and empty the entire experience feels. The film, without any self-awareness or irony about it, essentially carbon copies most of the plot-threads from the original film, only switching it up to provide parallels to the original. While this could have worked if executed cleverly, we instead receive these same plot points, played-out by different characters, but lacking most of the depth the first film.
The film intends to use Helen as the main character this time, which initially intrigued me in that it was an interesting twist on the original to give Elastigirl the main action/conflict and giving Bob the family struggle after we saw his story told in the original. Instead, however, we get a Helen sub-plot that feels so half-baked and without any depth to it, it truly might as well have just been pulled from the film and we would not have lost much.
None of the conflict of the original film is present. The themes of family and the struggles that come with being that are so surface level it borders on the cliche in some respects. Helen is given NOTHING to be her own character in this, and instead is given action scenes to play-out and a sub-plot that only serves to remind me how much better the first film was. Rather than giving us a great and in-depth character plot for Helen, we get something so weak and honestly regressive for how hard this film brandishes itself to be a feminist advocate that I would dare say it's offensive how shallow Helen's character arc and story comes off in this.
Bob's story arc doesn't fare much better. The concept of flipping the script and giving him the family to run and learning how to be a proper father on his own is an interesting way to parallel the first film and the story it gave him...but instead, we are only given small glimpses at the depth this story can provide.
Instead, make way for funny comic relief Jack-Jack scenes! Watch him fight a cartoon raccoon for 5 minutes! Watch everyone try to take care of the baby for 5 minutes! Funny poop joke! Funny baby sound!
Hopefully, you're beginning to see my point. This film, for all its attempts to TRY and prove it has depth and a reason to exist, lacks all the depth of the first film and lacks a reason to truly exist.
I found myself asking, at some point in the theater, "Why does this film NEED to exist?". Why did this story need to be told? What does this story tell us that the first one couldn't?
I think the answer is simply this; this film exists because it was going to make money.
This film feels so unnecessary in the thick of things. After 14 years, you mean to tell me you cannot do anything better than copying the plot of the first film, then writing a screenplay that lacks any of the depth from the original? You can't give us a compelling, introspective story about Helen dealing with being an extremely famous superhero AND a mother? You can't give us a deep story regarding Bob balancing being a father and his wish to be a superhero again? You can't give us ANY reason to invest emotionally into this film?
That, quite frankly, is frustrating beyond belief.
Not everything is bad in this film, much as I am deriding it. In fact, there IS a lot of fantastic stuff in this. The animation looks spectacular in every scene, the action scenes are actually tremendous to watch and were the few times I had my eyes glued to the screen, and the brass-y and jazz-y score by Michael Giacchino is just as excellent as the first film's. Indeed, there ARE great things in this film.
However...if you're going to make us wait 14 years to do something new with this endlessly-interesting world you built, you need to do something NEW and INTERESTING with a sequel like this. Not copy the first film, attempt weak commentary that has already been done better in other media, and expect us not to notice otherwise.
I'm tremendously disappointed in Brad Bird. I'm tremendously disappointed with Pixar. But most of all, I'm tremendously disappointed with 'Incredibles 2'.
But hey...at least we still have the first film, right?