As big a fan as I am, I rarely find the
new Disney movies to be “Must See in the Theater” events. It's
not that I don't enjoy them, but I guess... Well... I should
just...
I have an addiction. I don't drink. I don't do drugs.
I don't buy hookers....
I go to movies by myself... like...
all the time.
Whenever I have an opportunity on an
off day, I hit a matinee and I love it. It's my quiet time. I get to
see allllll of the crappy movies that my wife doesn't care about or
just doesn't want to see. It's fantastic. My friend, a guy with a
degree in film, once said to me “Doesn't it get expensive going to
all of those movies?” and I simply told him that I didn't think it
was any more expensive than drinking at a bar once or twice a week.
That seemed to make a lot of sense to him.
In any case, one of
the only things I ever feel weird about is going to see kids movies
alone. I'll pretty much see anything. I went to see 'Magic Mike'
alone, and I was not ashamed. Still, the prospect of appearing to be
a creepy dude watching what would ostensibly be a kid's movie all by
himself while surrounded by many children and their parents... this
is not a scenario I relish.
Of course, you and I know that
Disney movies are definitely not JUST for kids, but that's not
necessary a position I want to defend at the movie theater, so I
usually just wait for them to come out on BluRay, or even better, I
make my wife join me. We saw 'Up' on one of our first dates, and it
was fantastic.
Anyway, I wanted to see a movie today, and the
pickings are slim, so I decided to suck it up and see 'Planes'. I
even selected the 3D screening. I can't say I was overly excited to
see the movie. Cars is probably my least favorite of the Pixar films,
and it's difficult to see how this movie would be all that much
different. I was even sort of viewing it as a spin-off, if not
directly a sequel.
But you know? 'Planes' wasn't all that
bad. I would even venture to say that it was largely successful, if
not particularly indelible. It definitely deserves a better MetaScore
than its current 39. That's just ridiculous.
So here are some thoughts.
The
Good.
- The Message.. Yes, the notion
that any Disney movie needs to have a message is perhaps a bit
outdated, and has always been something of a source of derision for
the haters out there. Well, you know what? It's a damned movie that
is meant to appeal to children, and I just don't see the downside to
presenting the little tots some food for thought. The message of this
movie is that you shouldn't allow society to tell that you're not
good enough or strong enough to achieve your dreams just because of
your station in life. The movie is about a Crop Duster plane named
Dusty who dreams of being a racing plane, and is constantly told that
he can't for no better reason than “You're a crop duster”.
-
The Visuals... I wouldn't go so far as to claim the visuals
in this movie are on the level as Wall-E or Finding Nemo, but
comparing a movie to 2 of the 5 move visually stunning animated films
of the past 20 years isn't particularly fair. 'Planes' presents a
visual world that is very similar to Cars in that it brings the lines
and silhouettes that are familiar in aviation to the natural
environment. The flying animations are beautifully done, the
different geographies you see as the movie takes you around the world
are stunning. It's really a great looking movie. If 'Cars' hadn't
already done it, I'd even say it was ground breaking. I don't see a
“Planes Land”” in the near future, but I can definitely see
some of the characters from Planes showing up in Cars Land. They
belong together.
The Not as Good- Dane
Cook. Look, I know it's become popular to bash Dane Cook at
any turn, and I don't hate the guy, but I really don't understand
what Disney was doing here with this casting choice. He's not at the
peak of his fame, which would have made at least some sense (though
he's probably totally unknown to a large group of the viewers of this
movie), he's not really an actor at all as much as a personality.
Sadly, that personality is sort of unpleasant, and there's something
about the way he articulates words that makes me want to punch him,
so it was very difficult to get past that. Not so great since he's
the lead character. Even with Larry the Cable Guy in Cars, you've got
a much better argument for casting him. He was HUGE at the time, and
more importantly, he was basically asked to play the character in the
movie that he already plays on stage. Not the case here.
-
The Romances... Okay, so here's where I'm gonna get weird. I
don't understand how Cars or Airplanes can have romantic
relationships. I don't want to think about how. I don't want to be
forced to imagine the mechanics (pun intended) of their intimacy.
Where do baby cars come from? Who's building them? Where to the
propellers go? I realize this is juvenile, but this is what watching
two airplanes romancing each other makes me think about. I will say
that the scene where the Mexican plane is serenading the French
Canadian (Why French Canadian and not just French?) plane is very
entertaining and the slow, Spanish Guitar rendition of “Love
Machine” is fantastic. Yes... it's a weird movie.
The
Muddy- The Message. “Wait, Muchacho! You
already said the message was a good thing!”
That's true, but
that's without any dissection, also. Once you start to think about
it, and once the movie plays out, you start to see that they're also
sort of saying that while that crop duster should totally go after
his goal of being a racer, in order to succeed he's going to have to
fully change himself to do it, including removing the one piece of
mechanics that makes him a crop duster to begin with. So... yeah...
maybe they could have figured out another way to get from A to Z.
Me
Intellectualizing ThingsSo really, why is Planes being so
negatively received? I think it has mostly to do with two things:
1)
It's very similar to 'Cars', which isn't universally beloved by
adults to start with. It's easily the most kid-targeted of all of the
Pixar flicks, and I imagine that doesn't go over that well.
2)
People love to build something up to iconic status and then tear it
down. The world is full of examples. Tiger Woods, Britney Spears,
Metallica, Pete Rose. Now... to some degree it could be argued that
each of those examples had at least some hand in their own unmaking,
but in each case there are examples of the same people writing odes
to their greatness subsequently feasting on the bones of their
downfall.
At some point, Pixar was bound to experience a
backlash. Once the kids who grew up on Toy Story and Nemo and
Monsters Inc were adults and the movies weren't hitting the same
emotional spot for them, possibly just because they're at different
places emotionally within their lives... you get the idea. At some
point it's impossible to separate the historical greatness from the
new product. The only thing that suffers is the new product.
My
fellow blogger,
DJPhob wrote about Horizons at Walt Disney World and
the complete nostalgia a certain block of fans has for it, and I've
heard many people bemoan the downfall of Disney (even right here on
my own blog in the comments section), and I wonder if that's fair. Is
it fair to judge something against their own lofty standard, when
it's also mixed with nostalgia (a thing that is literally undefeated
in this game.
I just wonder if that's what's
happening with 'Planes'. If Planes had come out in 1996 instead of
Toy Story, and there had been no history of these remarkable
cinematic achievements every year for the next 12 years... Would it
be the greatest thing ever? Maybe not, but certainly better than a 39
on MetaCritic. That's ridiculous.
