Toy Story 5 (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: Old-fashioned toys teach us the dangers of technology in a film that will soon be released on Disney+ and made available to watch online.

I don’t care about this movie.

I don’t care that it’s missing one of the main voice actors due to him sadly passing on. I don’t care that it seems like a cash-grab. And I don’t care that it kind of overrides the perfect ending of Toy Story 3. I don’t care about any of this, because I fucking loved this movie.

Sorry, did I say it overrides the ending of Toy Story 3? I meant Toy Story 4. That’s embarrassing on my part. It’s easy to see how I made that mistake, though; I just copy-and-pasted the opening to my Toy Story 4 review. I think if you liked the first four, you’ll like this too. It’s more of the same, in a good way. It features the same characters, going through the same lessons. At this point Woody and friends have had to learn that children are their own people so many times that I genuinely think they should see a doctor (although they are American, so they probably can’t afford it). The toys appear to suffer from a condition where every life lesson evaporates from their minds after about eighteen months

That sounds overly negative. It’s not meant like it. I did love this movie. I love it BECAUSE I know what to expect. I know I’m going to laugh. I know it’s going to break my heart a little bit. I know that Pixar will somehow convince me that what happens to some pieces of plastic is the most important thing in the world. I also know it’s going to look fantastic. Toy Story 5 (TS5) is probably the best-looking one of the series. It actually tries something new. When Bonnie is playing with the toys, it animates them in a way that it looks like, well, the only way to say it is watercolour CGI. The backgrounds become softer, colours blend together differently, and everything feels slightly dreamlike. It’s a surprisingly bold visual choice for the fifth entry in a franchise that could easily coast on familiarity. It doesn’t last throughout the film, but the brief moments that it does really stand out.

My issues are very small; it repeats points the franchise has already made. That’s a pretty big one, and I’ve already gone into it. One of the kids is animated in a way that she looks older than she is supposed to be, so she comes off as slightly immature. Really, it’s just her height, and the fact that until we see her interact with the toys, she does seem more of a teen than a child. There are also a few moments where the “humans never notice the toys” rule gets stretched to breaking point. The scenes involving multiple Buzz Lightyears are the biggest example. While that subplot pays off later, opening the movie with it felt like a mistake. It’s one of those ideas that’s fun once you understand where it’s going, but not necessarily the strongest foot to start on. Similarly, the film introduces a toy capable of sending messages that people don’t remember writing. Not one adult involved seems remotely alarmed by this. If my phone started sending texts that I had no recollection of sending, my first assumption would not be “lol, I am a silly billy”, mainly because my name isn’t Billy.

Besides those very minor points? It works. There’s a slight change in narrative focus. For perhaps the first time since the original movie, Toy Story feels genuinely interested in the human side of the story again. Bonnie isn’t just the kid the toys belong to. She’s an actual character with wants, fears and problems of her own. The film spends more time examining her perspective than previous entries did, and it’s stronger for it. There’s also an increased focus on Jessie. It’s hard to believe she wasn’t in the original movie. There was a 4-year period where Jessie wasn’t a part of the Toy Story universe at all. But she slotted in perfectly. I love how much more Joan Cusack is given to do in this. She may not be the top-listed, but she’s arguably the main character. The transition is handled well. It never feels like the film is forcing her into the spotlight. If anything, it feels like a natural evolution. Bonnie would realistically gravitate more towards Jessie than Woody, and the story simply follows that logic.

One thing I particularly enjoyed was the film quietly shutting down the long-running fan theory that Jessie originally belonged to Andy’s mother. I was never the biggest fan of that. Not because it was impossible or stupid, but because it makes the world feel smaller if EVERYBODY is connected. Also, if your childhood toy suddenly reappeared in your house decades later, you’d probably notice. At the very least, you’d spend a few minutes wondering whether you’d stumbled into a Child’s Play sequel (hopefully not Seed).

As for the newcomers? They work well. Lilypad will inevitably get most of the attention, and for good reason. She’s built around an interesting contradiction. The film needs children within the story to find her appealing, while simultaneously making sure real children don’t immediately demand one for Christmas and accidentally prove the villain’s point. It’s a difficult balancing act, but the film mostly pulls it off. There is a toy made of her, but it’s a VERY basic educational one, with none of the social and addictive capabilities that are in the film. The other tech-based toys are fine, but if they weren’t in the inevitable Toy Story 6, you wouldn’t miss them. Blaze, meanwhile, ended up being one of the more interesting additions. Believable as a child projecting an air of confidence whilst simultaneously having an inner personality that’s mostly anxiety. Mykal-Michelle Harris does a great job, and I do hope Blaze and Bonnie are an integral part of the franchise going forward.

In summary: it’s another Toy Story movie. Whether that’s a glowing recommendation or a dire warning is up to you. For me, it’s the former. Also the case apparently for the woman at work who spent six minutes very passionately telling me how much she loved TS5 before I’d even seen it.

Looking back, that should probably have been a clue as to how good this is.

Elio (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: Elio is a small child who feels isolated and unloved. Those problems are solved when he is abducted by aliens.

It’s hard to explain, but Pixar films don’t seem like big deals anymore. The internet says it’s because they are jamming in adult themes. Themes such as “gay people can sometimes be in happy relationships and it’s not a big deal”, and “Mexican people exist”. Personally, I think it’s the opposite. Classic Pixar movies are great films that are for everything. It feels like the last few years they’ve aimed more at kids, which means it’s somewhat embarrassing to go see them at the cinema as an adult. The exceptions are sequels such as Inside Out 2, but mostly it’s felt like they’re marketed with “there is nothing for adults here” even if the messages apply to everyone.

I want to love Pixar films, I really do. But sometimes they make it difficult. It’s possible I just have very high standards for them, so a film that I would see as average, is rendered worse because I know Pixar can do better. Elio is better than average, for a start, it looks absolutely stunning. But it gets nowhere near the quality of their other work. The issues are mostly down to the script, specifically the characters. Most of the background characters are far too bland to make their moments near the end mean anything. A lot of the aliens are forgettable too; nobody is going to be making fan art for most of them. There are a few that are memorable, but mostly they’re much of a muchness.

A small issue, but it does break realism slightly that a small child can write “Abduct me” in the sand on a beach and lie there for hours without any adults staging an intervention. I also found the eye-patch a bit superflous, especially since it only really matters for 5 seconds of the entire runtime. I’m not asking for it to suddenly become “Elio: The Eyepatch Enfante”, but it feels like a massive character change for something so inconsequential. Was it just so they could do the “he’s a clone” reveal? If so, there must have been an easier way of doing that (plus, wouldn’t a super advanced cloning device be prepared for that? It does know things wear clothes, surely?).

This has seemed negative, I know. And it deserves a better reaction than that. On its own, it’s a solid 7/10. But films aren’t watched in a vacuum, and with the knowledge of just how good Pixar can be, this is disappointing. Especially when you look into the production of it, where Elio was a much more developed person. Executives forced the writers to make him more traditionally masculine by removing his love of fashion and *checks notes* environmentalism. Because, obviously, wanting to live on a planet that we can actually live on, instead of a burning ball of sewage and shit (otherwise known as New Jersey) is feminine and gay.

A massive plus is the way it looks. Visually, it’s absolutely stunning. The animation of a sentient hair crawling about on its own is cool. I said it when I saw Monsters University, and I’ll say it again; Pixar really should do a horror movie. Or do an 80’s kids movie where the aim is to traumatise as many children as possible.

In summary; perfectly fine for Disney+, but I’d have been frustrated if I left the house to see it at the cinema.

Inside Out 2 (2024) Review

Quick synopsis: Riley is now a teenager, and with increased age comes increase emotion.

With Pixar, you know what you’re getting; emotions. They’ve given emotions to a wide variety of things: toys, dinosaurs, Scottish people. Inside Out is the most obvious example of this: What if emotions had emotions? It wasn’t crying out for a sequel, it was pretty self-contained and didn’t leave any unanswered questions. That doesn’t mean a sequel doesn’t make sense. It was a film about childhood emotions, and (spoilers), emotions don’t stop when people hit their teens.

Let’s be honest, even if it didn’t NEED a sequel, it’s very easy to picture how to do one. As people grow, their emotions develop and become more complex. It’s the complexity of developing emotions that drives the plot of Inside Out 2 (IO2, pronounced Eye-owe-two, like the surname of a lower league Ghanaian footballer). As well as the returning Sadness, Joy, Disgust (sadly no longer voiced by Mindy Kaling over a pay dispute), Anger and Fear, there are also new emotions in the form of Anxiety, Envy, Embarrassment, and Ennui. Three of them slot effortlessly and are believable (albeit incredibly late arriving, are you saying other people didn’t have anxiety until they were teens? Lucky bastards), Ennui feels the most out of place and unnecessary.

The main difference in this entry is the importance placed on Sense Of Self. At first, it just seems like a clever way of displaying something, but the pay-off when Riley is affected by self-doubt, and how it affects her sense of self, is f*cking marvellous and one of the best things I’ve seen this year. It’s a perfect encapsulation of how you can crippled by anxiety and worries, and how they can lead to you keep making things worse in an attempt to make them better.

IO2 actually does a pretty good job of explaining the benefits of anxiety; preparing you for things which have not yet come to be (a bit like that super scary thing in The Muppet Christmas Carol). On the downside, that does mean that Joys arc of “oh, I see that negative emotions value now, I should help them and ease them into this system” is very similar to her arc in the first movie. I know there will be some narrative crossover, but there are times where it does feel like we’re just watching the same thing again.

That’s a very small issue though, overall it’s delightful, in a kind of depressing way. This, like all Pixar films, will break you slightly. But it will also rebuild you. That’s what Pixar do, they make you sad, but then they leave you feeling inspired and hopefull. They’re masters at it, and nobody does it better, except for Carly Simon.

Fun fact btw: When I left the cinema after seeing this I overheard a small child say it wasn’t very realistic because “why would someone’s brain make them feel worse?”. That poor sweet innocent child.

Elemental (2023)

Quick synopsis: A fire girl and water guy meet and fall in love.

Pixar are one of the few studios I actively trust. If a film has already piqued my interest, then finding out it’s being released by Blumhouse or A24 might make me go see it slightly quicker, but their name being attached to something is not going to be the deciding factor in me watching it. But Pixar is different, if a Pixar film is released, I’m going to see it, because 90% of the time it’s going to be a really good experience (okay I’ve just run the numbers and it’s actually 84% of the time, but that’s still a really good hit rate). With the exception of Cars 2, even low-grade Pixar is still better than 90% of stuff out there. So where does this rank? It’s not up there with the best, but it’s nowhere near the worst. In terms of the bad; the plot is predictable. Sometimes when I say that I mean it in a “when you get near the final third you can figure out what’s happening next”, sometimes I mean it in a “by the end of the first act I can guess the ending”, for this? I could figure out what was going to happen just by looking at the poster. It’s incredibly predictable, you can figure out what will happen, how it will happen, and when it will. But that doesn’t actually matter, sometimes predictability is okay. It would be weird if someone remade Romeo and Juliet but changed the ending so that both characters ended up being 3 otters in a trenchcoat who were intent on stealing the world’s supply of fish. Yes, it would be a surprise, but it would also be shit and not make any sense. Sometimes you want a simple story about a guy meeting a girl and they end up together.

That only works if the audience buys into the central concept, and to do that, they need to WANT the two people to be together. I can’t speak for everybody, but I REALLY wanted the two to be together, the way they react to each other is adorable. They’re played by performers I’m not too familiar with; Leah Lewis was in How To Deter A Robber, and Mamoudou Athie was in Patti Cake$, but I can’t remember them too much, all I can remember from Athie’s performance in PC was how much he reminded me of the guy from Lightspeed Champion. It’s a really fresh cast in terms of how unknown everybody is, the only name most people will recognise is Catherine O’Hara. It’s a brave move to anchor so much on unknown performers, but it works. From a vocal performance, they’re absolutely perfect, the voices match the body types; Lewis has a firey voice which speaks in short bursts, whereas Athie has a vocal performance that feels more fluid and like it’s a continuous flow.

The animation is stunning. Two things are notably difficult to animate; fire and water. So deciding to have a film based on characters comprised of those two things is a display of either bravery or stupidity. It could have looked awful. Thankfully it looks astounding, everything works together to create a visual treat. All the characters have a weight to them which means they don’t just feel like 2-dimensional images on screen, but feel incredibly real and wonderful. The way the buildings are designed around the different elements is delightful.

Now onto the best thing; the emotion. Pixar are bastards because they know how to emotionally manipulate you. They know how to make you cry like a child who has lost their ice cream. It’s not sophisticated; it’s pretty basic in terms of how they signpost it and pull it off, but it’s so damn effective that even when you know you’re being manipulated you can’t resist it.

As I said though, it is predictable, and there are a few plot points which don’t get to be as important as you feel they could be. When it has a choice between the big and the personal, it goes with the personal. But still sets up the big thing. It’s a bit weird and feels slightly first draft. If they paid more love to the script it could have been great, instead, it’s just pretty damn good.

The Bad Guys (2022)

Quick Synopsis: A criminal gang made up of anthropomorphic animals pretend to reform themselves into good guys to avoid prison.

It’s difficult to be an animated movie. Since Toy Story changed the game back in 1995, everybody else has followed suit and started producing films more in line with that visual style. So they usually look great, but it does have the downside of meaning it will get compared to Pixar, and being compared to one of the most consistent studios is not going to end well. Sometimes studios don’t help themselves, like when Dreamworks released Antz so close to the release of A Bugs Life. This has a similar problem, a not-dog animal who frequently breaks the law tries to move to the side of good, and the big bad actually turns out to be a somewhat “cute” animal.” It’s going to be difficult for this to leave the shadow of Zootropolis.

Oh, I guess that “big bad reveal” is technically a spoiler, but it’s one that will be incredibly obvious to anybody who has ever seen a film before. That’s the biggest issue I have with this, it just doesn’t seem very original. It wears its cinematic influences too brazenly, so no matter how much you like it, it’s not likely to be your favourite film, as you’re constantly comparing it to something else.

Also, the opening is a bit strange. Essentially just two characters sitting in a cafe preparing for a heist while discussing an upcoming birthday. It establishes the characters, shows that the general public are afraid of them, and is weirdly Pulp Fiction-esque for a kid’s film. It’s also completely unnecessary. Everything it does is repeated in the next scene, the aftermath of the bank robbery. The bank robbery scene would be a much better opener, it’s fast-paced, funny, and showcases the best visual trick this film has: when it blends CGI animation with cel-shaded effects. This would get you straight into the film and perfectly set the tone for the rest of it. The opening it currently has is far too slow, boring, and I’m not going to lie, it did make me worry that the film was going to be awful.

That’s a shame as the film is actually quite fun. The characters are well-defined in terms of motivations (although there is one doublecross that happens far too quickly), the voice-acting is pretty good (with the exception of the newsreader), and the jokes are genuinely funny.

The Pulp Fiction comparison earlier was apt, as this is essentially a Tarantino film for kids (although one of the female characters has 8 feet, and if Tarantino could make a film like that he’d never leave the edit suite). It makes the most of the concept beautifully. Sometimes in films like this, there are not many references to them being animals and it can feel like a strange creative choice. This depends on it, there are certain plot points, certain jokes etc, which only work if the characters are animals, and only if they’re these specific ones. The jokes are character and plot-specific. It’s overall a quite impressive watch.

It’s not going to change the world, but if you’re looking after young kids and want to keep them entertained, you could do a lot worse than choosing this.

Lightyear (2022)

Quick Synopsis: Buzz Lightyear deals with loss and mortality in this film-within-a-film

I love Pixar. They’re almost consistently brilliant (with the exception of Cars and Good Dinosaur), and a new film by them almost feels like an event. On the downside, this means that expectations are always high, but those expectations are usually met.

That’s definitely the case here, it won’t be remembered among the best that Pixar has made, but it does remind you WHY you love them. It’s funny, looks fantastic, has a great story, and breaks you slightly. Most studios would have a film like this as a lazy cash grab, but Pixar has done something different. Instead of just “put some shit together”, they’ve done this: the film that the Buzz Lightyear toys in the Toy Story universe were based on. It’s weird to explain, but it makes sense when they define it. It’s brave for them to do that, but what’s even braver is them deciding to do a film based around time dilation. It works, though. Kids films need to realise that children can understand most concepts as long as you explain them. So you can have films based around the multiverse, you can have films about time travel loops, but you can only do them if you do them well.

On the downside, this was supposed to be a film from the 90’s, but it never really feels like that. There’s a moment where he takes the robot autopilot out and blows it like a video game cartridge, but other than that there’s nothing that really makes you believe this is a 90’s movie. For starters, a film like that would not have that any gay characters that weren’t awful stereotypes. If they added some 90’s music, maybe had voice actors from that time instead of newer younger ones, actually looked at what was popular in that decade and referenced that then it would have worked. I mean, it would have been a MUCH worse film, and wouldn’t have worked, but still, at the moment there seems to be no reason for it to be sold in-universe as a film from the 90’s. Now if you had it as a “The toy company that makes Buzz Lightyear have released a new film” then it would have worked. If you bookended it with Andy watching it with his kids it would have slot into the Toy Story universe seamlessly and could have provided an emotional crux to anchor the film around.

I am aware that is a very minor point, but that’s how picky you have to be to criticise this. It’s incredibly well made and the voice cast is perfect. The biggest compliment I can give it is how well it would work as a standalone movie, cut out the opening card about Toy Story and you can watch this not knowing anything about Toy Story, and still enjoy it. There are no “wait, what’s that about?” “oh, it’s a reference to the other films”. It’s a solid action-adventure film even without the Toy Story references, the fact it’s set in that universe enhances the story rather than explains it.

So in summary, well worth a watch. And a good reminder of how good Pixar are.

Encanto (2021)

Quick Summary: A tale of the family Madrigal who live in a house that has blessed every child in the family with a unique gift — every child except Mirabel.

I had heard many people talk about this, and almost all good things. So I went in with high expectations, and this was good enough to meet them. In the last few years, Disney has released Moana, Big Hero 6, Raya And The Last Dragon, and Zootopia, so it’s fair to say they’re on one hell of a roll, the only major blot being Ralph Breaks The Internet (and maybe Frozen 2, I haven’t seen it so can’t judge). It may be too soon to judge but it does seem like they’re making progress to reclaim their crown from Pixar. While I don’t see that happening, the gap is closing, and not because Pixar is getting worse, but because Disney is getting a lot better.

Everything about this is really good, mostly non-American cast (US, not the continent), and I’m only personally familiar with two of the people who did the voices: Stephanie Beatriz and John Leguizamo. I like that Disney are going that route now, casting people who are true to the character rather than just getting random sitcom performers to do “ethnic” voices. All are really good, but Jessica Darrow needs highlighting as someone who really deserves to have her career made by this.

In terms of performances, this is really a showcase for Beatriz (it’s helped that in Mirabel, Disney seem to have created a visually interesting character they can market the hell out of). You never feel you’re listening to a 41 year old pretending to be a teenager, her vocal performance has the perfect mix of youthful exuberance and teenage angst/depression. This is doubled when she sings, I’m still not entirely sure how she nailed some of the rapid vocal tracks for the opening song.

About the opening song, it really sets the tone. On the surface, it’s happy and joyful and danceable, but when you listen to the lyrics you get a slight sense of sadness and “I don’t belong”. Her panic when the kids ask what her power is and she tries to distract them, her clear envy of her “perfect” sister, and then it’s capped with how casually her sister says “oh she didn’t get one”. It’s the first sign that this film has the potential to break you.

It lives up to that potential, and then some. Everybody is talking about We Don’t Talk About Bruno, when really they should be talking about Surface Pressure. It’s not as catchy, but a lot more emotional and has great storytelling. The reaction to it will break, just the words “i think you’re carrying way too much”.

On the subject of music, it’s clear from this and In The Heights that Lin Manuel Miranda is REALLY good at natural music, especially for opening numbers. He adjusts the universe so that it’s not the characters making the music, it’s the world. It adds a sense of playfulness to the whole thing and elevates a very good film to a great one.

It’s not perfect, there are a few moments (as in, 3-5 second bits) where the music doesn’t flow as naturally as it could, some of the characters could be better developed, and it would have really helped the ending if we saw more of how the non-family members live in that town.

But overall this is a great film about emotional abuse, parental pressure, and feelings of worthlessness. Probably the most emotional film I’ve seen this year, but also the most joyful. Strange how it can do both so well.

Luca (2021)

Quick Synopsis: A coming of age story with sea monsters set in an Italian seaside town.

Pixar do great stuff. I’ve often used “it seems very Pixar” as a compliment for great animated movies, and that’s for a good reason. Their films are usually among the best animated films of the year (with the exception of Cars and Good Dinosaur), and they’re usually full of emotion and heart. This is no exception. It has everything you want from a Pixar movie, but also a few more things. This has an air of something non-Pixar about it. That’s a good thing though considering the “non-Pixar” feeling it has is almost Miyazaki-like. I do not say that lightly, and it’s a great compliment. The almost dream-like state to the whole thing is magical and keeps you interested throughout.

Almost everything about this film just works beautifully. The casting is a great mix of known Western names, and Italian performers which mean the whole thing doesn’t feel like cultural appropriation, but also has enough names that it will appeal to people who watch films because “well I know that guy”. They’re divided up well too, with the humans being voiced by Italian performers (with one exception), and the “monsters” being the non-Italian ones. This makes sense as they just live in the Italian waters, they’re not specifically Italian, so it’s an acceptable break from reality.

The look? It looks absolutely gorgeous. It’s quite difficult to do water-based animation as everything is constantly moving and you have to account for that. It also has a great sun-like nature to it. You almost feel warm watching it, it has the air of a summer vacation.

The plot? It’s, not gonna lie, kind of basic. There’s not many surprises, but the way they tell it is wonderful. The idea of having the heaviness of “sea monsters that can walk on land and want to be accepted” and the lightness of “three new friends need to win a race so they can buy a vespa” works wonderfully and helps drive so many great moments. The way they overlap and influence each other is something that only works in this film, take away one of the aspects and the whole film falls apart.

It’s really hard to not love the characters in this. They’re all so well written that you identify with almost all of them. There is slight gay-coding in the story, with the “sea monsters” being a metaphor for homosexuality (feared for no reason, having to hide their true nature to fit in with people etc). This was unintentional on the film-makers part, but was welcomed by the director Enrico Casarosa. Its one of those film theories that once you think about it, you can’t unsee it, it really works and improves what is already a good film. It adds an unintentional layer to the central dynamic of the three characters as it means it’s not just about friendship, it’s a romantic triangle featuring characters who are too young to fully understand their feelings so they act out. It also adds another layer to a scene where one of the characters is revealed as a sea monster, and fearing repercussions, their friend joins in in the shunning and expulsion of them from the city. It’s an emotionally devastating scene and you can just feel the kids heart break. So powerful and one of the best scenes of the year

So in summary I’d highly recommend this. It’s so damn beautiful and I love it.

Soul (2020)

Two minutes into this I knew it would break me. Somehow I hadn’t even seen a trailer for this so I genuinely had no idea what to expect, I knew it had something to do with music, but other than that, nothing. This is the part where I say “and I’m glad as it meant I went in with no expectations so I enjoyed it more since it was all a surprise). I’m not entirely sure thats applicable here though as I feel that even if saw a trailer, I still would have enjoyed this. It has so much heart and soul (OMG that’s the title of the movie) that no trailer could have ruined this movie for me. It could have put all the plot points in, ruined the ending, used a Black Eyed Peas song, all things I normally hate from trailers. It could have done all of that and I still would have enjoyed the film.

By this point, you know what you’re getting with Pixar, you’re either going to get one of the greatest kids films you’ve ever seen (Monsters Inc, Ratatouille, Finding Nemo), or you’re going to get something that at some point will make you cry like a baby cutting onions while wearing menthol-shooting glasses in front of a stranger. This is the second one, and very much so. I’m not really sure whether this would count as a kids movie, would you show this to a child? It seems you’d only show this to a child if you wanted them to have an existential crisis. Disney have done stuff like this before, the obvious one being Inside Out, but that distracted you with it all taking place in a childs head, and having a colourful playfulness to a lot of the darkness. This is different, it has a certain playfulness to it, yes. But it’s still a playfulness rooted firmly in the concept that the main character is dead and scared of moving onto nothingness as he feels he’s accomplished nothing. There’s no sugarcoating the medicine in this, it’s incredibly in your face and there is a chance that this will hurt its chances of being loved among kids.

For someone like me? I loved it. Pixar know what they’re doing. They generally make films which can only be made as animated (with the possible exception of Wall-E maybe) and this is no exception. Yes, a lot of it takes place in this world featuring a person and a cat talking, so you can do that live action. But the moments taking place outside of the real world, which exist as more of an abstract concept than a reality? That does things that ONLY animation can do. The fluid nature of the characters being shown as shapes and concepts is not something that would be possible in live action.

So in summary, if you have disney+, you HAVE to watch this. If you don’t, find another way to watch it. The first truly great film I’ve seen this year, and in terms of animated films it will take something truly special to upstate it.

Onward (2020)

I was both looking forward to, and slightly apprehensive about this. Yes, it’s Pixar, and if a studio’s worst film is Cars (which, as much as I hate it, is MASSIVE financially) then you know you’re in for a good time, but since this film has been out I haven’t heard a lot of love for it. So maybe it’s just average, maybe it’s another Good Dinosaur, a film that’s perfectly serviceable but nothing special. After seeing the film, I don’t get it, it’s hard to say it’s one of Pixar’s best, but that’s only because their films are such high quality that it’s really hard to rank them. I will say this though: it’s going to take something special coming out for this not to be in consideration for one of the best films of the year.

I mean it could be argued that the plot is kind of generic, it’s essentially a road movie. But a lot of Pixar films are really when you think about it. For every brilliant plot of Ratatouille or Wall-E, you have the simple plot of Monsters University. Pixar are not about the story the telling, it’s about HOW they tell them, and they tell them perfectly. As to be expected it looks gorgeous, and the script and the characters are just as beautiful.

The best thing about this is just how deeply personal you can feel it is to the writer. I often criticise films by saying “I can’t imagine someone feeling they NEED to get this film made”. You could NEVER say that about this. It’s obviously deeply personal and that personal touch permeates every inch of the film.

It’s helped by the performances, Chris Pratt and Tom Holland work incredibly well together and their relationship is the true emotional core this film depends on. It depends on the brother relationship much more than the “sons missing their father” angle that you expect. I mean, the fact that they miss their deceased father is central to the film, and it does provide one or two deeply emotional moments, but the central emotional crux is the relationship between the two brothers. For a story about not-mythical creatures it is incredibly human, but then again that’s always been Pixars strength.

Now the downside: it feels like it doesn’t do enough with the premise. The film has two main concepts:

  1. Magic used to be a thing people could do, but then technology replaced it as it was simpler. Reminds me of the Arthur C. Clarke quote: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
  2. The legs.  Okay I should mention it: this film is about them trying to bring their dad back from the dead but it goes wrong and only his bottom half comes back (fully clothed thankfully).

I feel it could have done more with those premises, although then I suppose there is a risk that might have taken away from the emotional developments. The legs thing is weird, and should provide very unique scenarios, but it really doesn’t provide that many. It does provide a great moment where the legs realise that his sons are there. One of them lets him know by tapping on his foot like he did when he was a child, after that the legs immediately search for the other son, and press down on his foot with his own. It’s the closest it will get to a hug, and it’s beautiful. As is the moment near the end, when you see it you’ll know.

So yeah, go see it. It’s a great film, and all the cast are brilliant (I haven’t mentioned it but Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Octavia Spencer’s characters are crying out for a spin-off).