Coco (Lee Unkrich)

[Henry Gale]

IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2380307/) / Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coco_(2017_film))

https://shanafilms.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/wp-15082198116042043239849.jpg

[Henry Gale]

It's a lovely thing to feel that sigh of relief and recollection of, "Ah right, this is what a Pixar masterpiece feels like."

As much as I did really like Inside Out, Monsters University, and Toy Story 3, those were ultimately still somewhat mid-tier of their output for me, which probably tempered my expectations even more for Coco to astonish me like it did, having it now in my mind as easily the best thing they've made this decade, which is also to say it's my favourite thing they've created since the consecutive triple triumph of Ratatouille, WALL-E and Up through 2007 and 2009.

It just hit me perfectly. I can't even describe what it is that makes it so special, except possibly everything about it. I couldn't even tell you why certain sequences made me cry like they did (as in, not necessarily the obvious sob-points), but it just enveloped me and enchanted me in such a profound and thorough way. It's a masterfully constructed story (no matter how much of it you put together early on, as I did, before the way it unfolded still managing huge surprises) realized with boundless visual creativity and endless heart. Juuuust beautiful.

It feels good to push a Pixar film into a Top 10 list again. It's been far too long. (And if this really is the last non-sequel we get from them for a while, then hey, we still got this!)

[Ivan Drago]

I got to see this at a press screening last Monday, and my review will be up in the next couple days. Until then, all I can say is this: Henry is absolutely right. Despite its familiarity, it belongs in the upper tier of Pixar's filmography.

[Ivan Drago]

And voila: https://615film.com/2017/11/20/review-coco-continues-pixars-legacy-in-another-emotional-entertaining-adventure/

[Pop Trash]

That's good to hear. I'm a big Inside Out fan, so the reports of Pixar's death have been greatly exaggerated.

[TGM]

This was magnificent.

[Winston*]

That's good to hear. I'm a big Inside Out fan, so the reports of Pixar's death have been greatly exaggerated.

It's one of their best, I think. Better than Wall-E or Up. It's got a great message for kids.

[Irish]

How's the music?

[TGM]

How's the music?

Really damn good, though I admittedly would've liked more of it.

[Peng]

Maybe more thoughts later, but learning a few hours before the film that your 93-year-old grandma, whom we already plan to fly to visit in hospital this weekend, has conditions worsen is one way to be utterly devastated by it, not that it needs help in that department anyway. The 20-minute sickly sweet, all-cute-all-the-time Olaf short by Disney has also provided a contrast early on in the film why I love Pixar: in their world old people still look like old people (such realistic wrinkles) and stray dogs do look like stray dogs; details like these really add to the film (justtttt on the right side of slightly disgusting).

[TGM]

Posted my full thoughts on both this and the attached Frozen short on my blog, for anyone interested: https://cwiddop.blogspot.com/2017/11/double-feature-olafs-frozen-adventure.html

[Peng]

That Frozen short: You went full Jar Jar Binks, man. Never go full Jar Jar Binks. 4/10

Coco:

Feels like Pixar doing Disney, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. There's a lack of Pixar's innovation or madcap/unusual plotting in the overall arc, in which even my least favorite of theirs like A Bug's Life or the two Cars sequels still possess. Excepting the inspiringly telenova-influenced backstory bit, this has all the structure of most latter-day Disney's go-accomplish-a-mission-learn-a-thing-and-back features.

But in place of Pixar's thematic layers/conceptual ambitions, we have details after loving details of lovely character works, wondrous sights to behold, and lived-in cultural authenticity that never feel (to this non-Mexican foreign eye anyway) pandering or tourist-y, be it the incorporation of languages, places, or absolutely wonderful music. Plus, having an element of telenova alongsides Pixar's usual pathos of time make for an irresistibly big and earnest story that feel so appropriately winning in its reach for emotions. Even the visual conception of the titular character already has me a bit verklempt upon her first appearance, in how realistically she's rendered (perhaps optimally designed to inspire flashbacks to one's own relative) even in her cartoonish-ness. But maybe don't mind me on this one, I'm the weird one who still gets a bit misty at the sight of Toy Story 3's old, slow, and barely-bother-to-move Buster every damn time. 8/10

[Pop Trash]

FUCK OLAF

[TGM]

FUCK OLAF

http://24.media.tumblr.com/981db3e841680a7f4bce05c4084744 74/tumblr_mqb34dJa9x1rcgpm7o1_500 .gif

[Philip J. Fry]

As a Mexican I can say this movie gets Mexico more than most Mexicans (including me) and (as expected from Pixar) does storytelling and emotion better than pretty much every Mexican media. Amazing film. Made me cry.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Yeah, this is easily one of the best films of the year.

Easily.

Part of the pleasure too was knowing exactly where it was going with certain story assumptions, and then to see that - even with some expectations of the twists of the story - the character work and underlying theme was so expertly done that by the end you want those predictions to come true.

I was all but begging the screen that he sing "Remember Me" to Coco in that final stretch.

Fabulous. Wow. What a huge relief a great movie can be. How unbelievably therapeutic.

[Philip J. Fry]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7QAVmfFA2g

[Winston*]

Pixar's best movie I think.

[Philip J. Fry]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkCM-iO7IzM

[StanleyK]

Am I the only shriveled-hearted individual who didn't like this? Just seemed like more of the same from Pixar, who have made one good movie in the last 10 years. They can't seem to stop going back to the old 'seemingly good guy turns to be moustache-twirling villain' well either, much to my annoyance. I'll give it one thing, it's a million times better than the execrable The Book of Life.

[Pop Trash]

Am I the only shriveled-hearted individual who didn't like this? Just seemed like more of the same from Pixar, who have made one good movie in the last 10 years. They can't seem to stop going back to the old 'seemingly good guy turns to be moustache-twirling villain' well either, much to my annoyance. I'll give it one thing, it's a million times better than the execrable The Book of Life.

I think the story is a little paint-by-numbers, esp. the villain who you mention. That said, you know what isn't paint-by-numbers? The actual digital "paint" up on screen. Boy howdy is this a gorgeous movie! Pixar's best looking movie to date.

[Grouchy]

'seemingly good guy turns to be moustache-twirling villain'
What other examples do you have of this? I can only think of Toy Story 3 and The Incredibles movies but the latter ones don't really keep it a secret... From the moment that Syndrome or those two brothers walk into the plot anyone who has seen more than two movies knows that they will turn bad.

Anyway, this was great. I agree that Pixar has made less traditional films but this is still a very emotional story told with gorgeous animation and well-rounded characters. Few people have mentioned what a great debt it owes to Tim Schafer's Grim Fandango.

[Dead & Messed Up]

What other examples do you have of this? I can only think of Toy Story 3 and The Incredibles movies but the latter ones don't really keep it a secret... From the moment that Syndrome or those two brothers walk into the plot anyone who has seen more than two movies knows that they will turn bad.

Maybe a better term is "late-breaking villains." Where you either don't know if the villain is an emergent villain until late in the story, or you suspect as much, but they don't achieve their true villainy until late in the film. Their villainy is either absent or mysterious. Toy Story 2 and Up and Wall-E similarly had late-breaking villains, and Pixar-adjacent movies like Zootopia and Frozen withhold their villains (and their villainous motivations) until the final acts.

[Honestly, I don't think it matters whether or not we can see them coming as villains; the films are withholding clearly-motivated choices.]

These can work well thematically or narratively, but a friend of mine really doesn't like the practice anymore; she prefers the more direct and immediately impactful villainy of Disney Renaissance villains like Ursula, Jafar, Frollo, Hades, etc. where their motivations are clear and compelling from the beginning, and I tend to agree.

I suspect (but can't prove) that this whole "withhold the villain" practice is a symptom of fearful writing. It's easier to faceplant in front of the audience if your villain is presented as as villain from the beginning and fails to engage with the audience. It's harder to faceplant if you've hidden the villain for 2/3 of the story and play the negative action of the story as a mystery (or omit it entirely). That way, you can play their villainy as a surprise, and that way you can at least be guaranteed of hitting a big beat of surprise leading into the final act. Even if that big beat of surprise is more contrived and less a logical consequence of character conflicts.

[Think of Gaston in the original Beauty and the Beast for a good example of a "late-breaking" villain. It's because of Belle's choices that he devolves. It wasn't like he was hiding murderous intent the whole time.]