SECOND HELPINGS: The Incredibles (2004)

When this film came out, I was irked by the number of people who thought that describing this film as ‘incredible’ was witty. I was still in college when I got around to watching it and, rather than seeing it as an homage to comic book teams, I viewed this film as a rip-off fusion of the Fantastic Four and the X-Men. Had I known anything about Watchmen at the time, I probably would have been screaming rip-off of that too. Now that I’m older and wiser, my opinion of this film has improved significantly. Still though, I can’t help but feel that this film is just a smidge overrated.

I still have no reason to complain about the quality of Pixar’s animation. The textures and environments that they create really make you wonder at times if all action-oriented films will be done exclusively with CGI someday. Nothing seems impossible anymore with this production company. I’m not convinced yet that Pixar is very good at animating human characters in a realistic way, but The Incredibles gets a pass because it’s a faux-comic book movie. Anyone who’s looked at a comic book knows that most take at least a few liberties with dimensions and proportions.

Teams of superheroes are nothing new and three of the four members of the Parr family suiting up have powers just like three of the Fantastic Four. The filmmakers do throw freshness into the mix pretty well through juxtaposing our main characters’ abilities and their impact on a real-world setting. Thwarting bad guys causes some very real wear and tear on the people and buildings caught in the crossfire. Some of this juxtaposition is pretty subtle while some of it is used for immediate sight gags.

Overall, I can see now how The Incredibles pays homage to comic book superheroes but there is also a lot of satire involved. It’s got to be a pretty fine tightrope walk to poke fun at comic book conventions while including a number of them in your film. The balance may be uneven at different times but this film never gets too cynical nor too fanboy rah-rah on us. Syndrome, the film’s antagonist, has a few moments where he gets very mean-spirited and dark but he is usually yanked out of full-blown maniacal villain mode in a humorous way. Whether this makes that momentary intensity acceptable is up to you.

While The Incredibles looks great and is a lot of fun to watch, it is remarkably violent for a family film. I recall docking The Black Cauldron quite a bit for being very un-Disney with its darkness and creepy imagery but I think level of violence, peril, and intensity in this film surpasses even The Black Cauldron. You can try to argue that this is a Pixar film and that my Disney branding is inaccurate, or that the nature of the film’s subject, comic book superheroes, requires a higher level of violence. The tell-tale mark that justifies my criticism is this film’s PG rating. That tells you that this film is not appropriate for the entire family.

If you have little ones, particularly boys, what will they retain from this film? What will they reenact? Will it be the wholesome lesson of family togetherness and teamwork or will it be the high-flying kicks, punches, and action sequences? I’m not condemning this film for the violence but I do think a little less of it. It’s still a fun, feel-good kind of movie but it is one that I’ll have to think long and hard about sharing with my daughter. Putting all that danger and violence in context is a tricky thing.

ORIGINAL RATING: 3 out of 5

NEW RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986)

All too often, a successful film makes enough money and generates enough buzz that Hollywood can’t help but create a sequel. Not all sequels are bad but most are inevitably inferior to the original for one reason or another. The chief reason that Poltergeist II: The Other Side fails to find success is the original Poltergeist itself.

The original film was a breath of fresh air from the rising trend in splatter films and graphic horror. It used common yet creative scenarios to make the hairs on the back of our necks stand up. It was the fear of the seemingly normal that fueled the first film. Most importantly, the original was such a tight and complete film that it left no room for a sequel. The Freelings saved their daughter, found out why their house was haunted and got the heck out of Dodge.

This film does what should have been unthinkable- it undoes all the closure of the original and supplants it with reasoning that’s far harder to swallow (a tactic know as retroactive continuity or rectconning). The filmmakers are basically saying, “Remember that nice, neat ending in the original? Well there’s more!” Unfortunately, less is almost always more.

Before, the reason for the haunting had been because the Freeling homestead was built over a cemetery where only the headstones had been moved. Now the story is that a religious cult committed mass suicide in a cave under the house and their souls are still trying to cross over. The youngest Freeling, Carol Anne, is special and those lost souls need her to be led to the other side. The spirit of the cult leader, Kane, will stop at nothing to have her.

Retconning always cheapens a story because it takes what you thought you knew to be true and throws it out the window. Philosophers might not mind it but it’s quite irksome to moviegoers. It doesn’t take away the power and impact of the original Poltergeist but it certainly makes the sequel harder to accept and get into.

I think the biggest problem is that the film tries to force a potentially interesting plot onto the same family. There was such a sense of relief and triumph for the Freelings at the end of the first film that everything happening now just seems excessive and unfair. How much paranormal abuse does one family have to be subjected to? The events that unfold could have easily occurred to a new family and it could have been so much more than it turned out to be.

Other problems that plague the film are either omissions or forced inclusions. Dana Freeling, the eldest child, is absent without any explanation (though the actress who played her died shortly after the release of the first film). Carol Anne’s grandmother is introduced to reveal the young girl’s specialness and act as a sort of catalyst for things to come. There is also an awkward Native American element to the film that is never fully explained. Taylor, a shaman, has some kind of connection to Kane and can help open a portal into the first part of the other side, where Kane and his followers are stuck. Neither of these things get explained at all. Finally, when the Freelings travel into the other side to save Carol Anne the effects are anything but special, even for 1986.

Put simply, Poltergeist II: The Other Side strikes me as an interesting idea with plenty of potential. Had the story not been forced to fit around the Freeling family, that potential may have been realized. Poltergeist did not need a direct sequel and Poltergeist II did not need to be a direct sequel.

RATING: 1.5 out of 5

Poltergeist (1982)

More often than not, films billed under the horror genre leave much to be desired. Older horror films may come off as hokey with dated effects and an obviously low production budget, while modern horror films serve as little more than a test to see how much gratuitous violence and chunky gore you can handle. The sad truth of the horror genre is that very few horror films, or “scary movies,” are actually scary. Poltergeist is a rare horror film that actually delivers the scares.

There are two common misconceptions in the horror genre. The first is that members of the cast are expendable. The second is that violence is scary. Producer Steven Spielberg clearly knew that both of those misconceptions were untrue when bringing Poltergeist to life.

Instead of making a film about a bunch of otherwise uninteresting people getting picked off one by one by a mysterious, unseen killer, Poltergeist is a film about a middle class family that, though already struggling with their fair share of issues as it is, experiences bizarre and unexplained phenomena that threaten them individually and as a family unit. There is more to build off of emotionally when your main characters are related to each other and love each other in ways that a group of friends or strangers cannot even begin to approach.

While horror films often times include characters like the goofy stoner friend or the sex-crazed boyfriend/girlfriend, not everybody has friends or experienced people like this. Most moviegoers, however, do know what it’s like to have a mom or a dad, sisters and/or brothers, or some other relative or someone they consider family that cares for them on a deep, nurturing level. Because of this, there’s more for a viewer to connect with in Poltergeist.

The film also makes perfect use of its child actors. Poltergeist puts the children in harm’s way (sometimes to a very great extent) and that is one of the easiest ways to elicit fear in the minds of viewers. We seem hardwired to view children as innocent and precious and seeing them in danger somehow sits wrong with nearly everyone. This makes the fear, worry and panic from the girl’s parents resonate all the more hauntingly in the finished product.

An interesting bit of trivia for you is that, despite the horror label attached to it, nobody dies in Poltergeist. How many horror films can boast that? This proves that a high body count isn’t necessary. In fact, a body count is only really needed when a film is loaded with flat and underdeveloped (sometimes undeveloped) characters. Poltergeist ratchets up the fear and sense of danger by continually investing in the small, tight-knit cast it has. Five family members, a few supporting ghost hunters and a creepy house. That’s all it took for Poltergeist to be a winning formula. It’s clearly the work of Spielberg, taking a small cast and developing them to the fullest. He’s always been a very complete kind of filmmaker.

The other thing that makes Poltergeist stand out from the crowd is the lack of violence. While there is aggression and violence dished out by the house and supernatural elements within it, there isn’t any horror genre violence performed between the human cast. Instead, the film uses the intrigue and terror of the unknown and supernatural to keep you on the edge of your seats. Instead of hacked-off limbs and gore, some of Poltergeist’s most chilling moments are the quiet ones. Stillness and quiet are often times infinitely more terrifying than any masked killer.

Everything is utilized to its maximum potential in this film. It’s taught without stringing you along and scary without grossing you out. A few of the visual effects look dated but this film still manages to stand the test of time. While haunted house tales aren’t exactly anything new, Poltergeist crafts a jarring experience by telling its story through the all-too-real lens of the American family.

RATING: 4 out of 5