Ranking Pixar's Films

Oh Lordy. I haven’t done one of these ranking thingys in the longest of times. Next up is the ranking of all of Pixar’s films. Pixar has most certainly done some of the most creative, clever, engrossing, and overall rich movies within the past 20 years. As a matter of fact, in my personal ranking of 25 greatest films, I can think of at least 3 Pixar flicks to make the list. Their attention to detail, their willingness to go the extra mile for laughs and tears, and their absurd creativity allows for Pixar to remain permanently 5 steps ahead of the next animation studio, including Disney. Without further interruption, here are all the Pixar flicks, ranking from worst to best.



#9: Cars

Don’t get me wrong it’s a lovely film, but it’s definitely Pixar’s weakest. The characters here aren’t as memorable as the ones in the other movies, and the running time here remains one of the longest of the 9. Then the movie’s slow pace makes it feel longer. But don’t let it discourage you; I’m just stating why it’s sitting in the bottom of the barrel. Cars still gets a nice 8/10 from me.


#8: A Bug’s Life

Easily one of the more underrated films of the past decade, a Bug’s Life is one of Pixar’s worst, yet remains one of the better animated efforts. Hilarious characters, memorable moments, and a nice soundtrack makes A Bug’s Life watchable.



#7: Monster’s Inc.

Believe it or not, but the most creative tale Pixar has woven is this one. An entirely separate world was crafted in front of our eyes, as they take a simple concept and stretch it to unbelievable heights. Voice acting here is phenomenal, and then we have one of the sweetest endings out there to wrap up the production.



#6: Wall-E

Yes, I know. It’s pretty low down the list considering it made a heavy push towards Best Picture last year. Personally, I believe it was everyone getting tired of an amazing movie studio not getting the recognition it deserves, as they delivered their 9th consecutive success story. Wall-E was a grand film full of good music, nice visuals, and a charming love story; but its not Pixar’s best. Nonetheless, it was the best movie of 2008 (Yes, trouncing Dark Knight) and raised the bar 8 times as high for detailed animation. The future looks extremely bleak, and boy did the visuals prove this.



#5: The Incredibles

Watchman was a disappointing outlook about superheroes after their life fighting crime is over. The movie (not the comic book) failed to make the characters sympathetic, likable, and worthy of us watching them for two and a half hours. Everything Watchman wasn’t, this film was. The Incredbiles is a spectacular look at what happens when your glory days are over and you are forced to lower your standards of life and become a product of everyday society. This film asks if superheroes once they pass their peak can adjust, or ultimately go nuts. Blending the wonderful themes is hyper action, superb action pieces, good hintage of humor, and a superb supporting cast of characters (Its hard to top a movie with Edna Mode and Syndrome).



#4: Toy Story

The top 4 Pixar films all gained perfect scores from me, and with good reason. Starting the perfection top 4 is Toy Story, the original that started it all. There isn’t a single wasted scene, a single weak moment in this film, and it was the beginning of a revolution in animation. Toy Story has a great story, great characters, great soundtrack, great music, great ending, and you know what…I don’t have to explain myself anymore. It’s Toy Story, which is usually associated with excellence. Toy Story’s biggest achievement is setting the benchmark in animation and the way it can intertwine with the story and action.

P.S. One of the best moments in film is when Buzz is flying with Woody towards the ending.



#3: Ratatouille

Animated films rarely ever have a flavor of indie filmmaking---they almost all look and feel like big-budget stories with big-budget spending. Ratatouille breaks this trend by providing a simple yet engrossing story about a rat in France that wants to become a chef in a rat-hating world. The premise is simple, the tale is fairy-tale like, and nothing is ever blown out of proportion. Its simplicity is its main strength. Ratatouille’s animation rivals that of even Wall-E’s, as it makes animated food look good—and that alone is worthy of an Academy Award. But of course, Pixar provides us with a seven-course meal in storytelling by giving us plot twists, lovely chase scenes, plenty of subtle humor, and a beautiful theme of following your dreams no matter what. Dreamworks, Sony, Warner Brothers, Disney Animation, watch this and start taking notes.




#2: Toy Story 2

How do you top Toy Story? Easy, by doing more of the same, and expanding upon it exponentially. Everything that made Toy Story a sensation was improved upon in every single conceivable way: The animation, the music, the pacing, the humor, the clever references, the subtle gags, and an even more lovable cast of characters. Underused characters in the original got more screentime and the payoff is fantastic, as Mr. Potato Head, Hamm, Rex, and Slinky provided with some of the better laughs in the movie.

Then there’s “When She Loved Me,” easily the saddest moment in Pixar history to date. The song, the images, and slow dream-like pacing, it hits you hard. Then there’s Emperor Zurg, a second Buzz Lightyear, and the return of those adorable three-eyed aliens. This isn’t just Pixar’s 2nd best effort; it’s also one of the greatest films of all-time. Its Golden Globe for Best Picture was well-deserved, and should have gotten at least a Best Picture nod at the Oscars. For the record, the rather overrated American Beauty won it that year. Toy Story 2 is magical, and started proving Pixar’s lasting power in the industry.










#1: Finding Nemo


Pixar at its peak. Surely the films afterwards were grand, but not this great. Pixar didn’t just craft a spectacular film, but pretty much destroyed anything an animation studio created since 1991’s Beauty and the Beast. Even then, Finding Nemo gives Beauty and the Beast a run for its money. Every frame of Finding Nemo looks like a work of art; the deep and vast ocean, the view of the sunset, Marlin holding his baby egg in the beginning, the tour through the coral reef, the abandoned submarine, and more. The cast of characters and the voice acting here is the best ensemble by an animated film since the Winnie the Pooh short films of the 1960s. It’s almost as if Walt Disney personally went to them and provided his personal touch.


Grossing over 800 million at the box office is no fluke; this was a magical film of grand proportions. It’s a beautiful story full of humor, heartbreak, self-discovery, delightful characters, plot twists and turns, and ultimately an ending that tugs at the heartstrings. Almost every animated film ever since has been loosely influenced by Finding Nemo; the way stories are told and the way voice actors are picked and presented. I can’t praise this movie enough, Finding Nemo is by far the best Pixar film to date, and easily of the greatest American films ever created.



Honorable Mention: I gave Up a 9/10, so that would put it whether on 5th or 6th place, depending on its lasting power. It can whether grow timeless like Finding Nemo, or become a bit less entertaining upon further viewings like Cars.

Up: 9/10

Up (2009)

Pixar delivers yet again. They must be cheating or somet---Squirrel!, 30 May 2009

However they do it, whether it is by steroids, stem cell, Egyptian secrets, Babylonian water, or selling their soul to some monster, Pixar has been providing hit after hit, success story after success story since 1995. Surely they don't profit as much as their rival Dreamworks, but Pixar's films have lasting appeal that can and will span decades and generations to come. I severely doubt a century from now we'll remember Shrek or Madagascar the same way. Pixar's strategy has always been top provide tugs at the heartstrings for every time they deliver a laugh. This mix of comedy and drama has served them well in the past, with Finding Nemo and the Toy Story films being the absolute best examples. Up on the other hand, has overwhelmingly more drama and sad moments than laughs. If you can survive this little shift of film-making from Pixar, then you are in for a treat. Up is yet another grand film from the company that seems to do no wrong and it has great appeal for moviegoers of all-ages.

Up is about Carl Fredrickson, a retired bitter old man whom is still reeling from the loss of his wife. Since children, they had a dream about going to Paradise Falls, a secluded location in South America. In her honor, Carl heads out on a quest to South America using his house, and thousands of balloons. Accidentally accompanying him is Russell, a trusty boy scout. Along the way, they'll meet all sorts of characters and more adventure than they could have ever imagined. Written by Bob Peterson (Responsible for Finding Nemo, need I say more?), the film explores themes of loneliness, letting go, life and friendship. The script excels with plenty of adventure, funny moments, and sentimental moments that will make you sniffle a bit.

Forget 3-D. It's a stupid trend that will soon go away. The movie looks absolutely beautiful in 2-D and does not need any special effects for it to be appreciated. The people and animals themselves are composed of different shapes, representing their personality. Unlike in other non-Pixar efforts, realism (in terms of people) wasn't attempted, instead focus was on detail. The movie is amazingly detailed, but the production didn't demand as much complicated animation like in Wall-E and Ratatouille. Nonetheless, the film looks great, and yet again proves that Pixar is on top of the animation heap.

The main strength of Up lies in the action and its characters. The film has plenty of exciting and perilous moments that keep you guessing how it's going to end. And then, there are the hilarious characters. Carl himself is likable, but doesn't provide as many laughs as Russell, and the eventual animals that are involved in their quest (especially the hilarious dog Dug with the special collar). Up falls more into the category of The Incredibles rather than Wall-E or Ratatouille because of its immense amount of peril. There's nothing wrong with that, just telling you it's not the Pixar fare you've seen in recent years.

Like previously stated though, Up is a very tough pill to swallow in terms of its dramedy. The first ten minutes of Up are among the most heart-wrenching in recent memory, and towards the climax we have another moment in which you can't help but feel that lump in your throat. This sort of heavy sentiment has not been present in any non-Pixar animated film this decade, not even Shrek. It is hard to make a cranky selfish old man likable or sympathetic, but like in Finding Nemo with Marlin, knowing the past definitely clears all confusion and answers all the questions we would ask about their challenging personality.

Bottom Line: Pixar strikes gold yet again, and in the form of a very creative story about an old man searching for adventure. All the elements that worked in all the Pixar films of the past are present here, and associated with a superb musical score by Michael Giacchino. The only reason you wouldn't like this film is if you don't like Pixar at all---in which afterwards it will be followed by questions concerning your taste in film. Ranking this film, I'd place it somewhere between The Incredibles and the original Toy Story as one of the 5 best they've ever released. How do they do it? It has to be steroids, there's no other explanation.

When you're with Pixar, the quality of film has nowhere to go but Up.

Highly recommend.

Bad Boys II: 7/10

Bad Boys II (2003)

boom, boom, crash, BOOOM, SMASH, crash, ouch, BOOOOOOOOOOOOM. That's the movie in a nutshell., 27 May 2009

Michael Bay is an offspring of the 90s action craze, which delivered about a dozen or so decent-to-incredible rated-R movies that pulled no punches whatsoever. Bay himself was responsible for two of them: The Rock and Bad Boys. However, starting in 1998 he became a softie with the weak Armageddon and even weaker Pearl Harbor. After those two softies, he treads back into familiar territory by crafting a sequel to the film that put his name on the map. Combining the same elements that made the original watchable (and rated-R within the first few seconds) and then expanding upon them infinitely, Bad Boys II was prepared to rock your socks into the stratosphere.

Bad Boys II does just that, deliver enough action to make you cheer, cringe, and cover your eyes even. There are head shots, butt shots, neck shots, shoulder shots, forehead shots and even eye shots. In this film we have at least 3 chases, at least 5 shootouts, and an on-screen death count that's among the highest you'll ever see in a measly buddy cop flick. Bad Boys had a slew of action within one city; the sequel's action spans different countries. Not bad for a couple of frustrated cops.

In the second installment, the relationship between Mike and Marcus (Will Smith and Martin Lawrence) begins deteriorating as partners and friends while at the same time there's a major drug operation busting loose between dealers in Miami and dealers overseas. The writers the second time around didn't touch the script of the original, which explains the different sort of cinematic flavor here. Bad Boys was rough around the edges and gritty, yet realistic. Bad Boys II cranks it up a couple of notches and turns it into an explosion-fest that uses more pyrotechnics than a war film. The script also allowed for plenty of improvisation between the comedian Lawrence and the always-reliable Smith, and the payoff isn't as strong since most of the time was spent bickering. Two movies in, the bickering gets old.

But you are not here for the character development (Don't worry, there is none). You are here to see fights, explosions, rage, carnage, and enough machoism to make the movie itself threaten you with a rusty utensil. Michael Bay absolutely loves blowing things up and making things crash until the set pieces become unrecognizable. Bad Boys II is an entire deck of cards in terms of action. Unfortunately, the better hands are dealt in the beginning, with the top action piece being the well-constructed chase in Miami involving plenty of cars. Bay's direction improves slightly over the two softies by delivering long shots of the action and some clever camera movement. Granted CGI is involved with the moving, but we won't complain as three cars launch themselves towards the screen.

What prevents Bad Boys II from being a totally grand throwback to the late 80s-early 90s action phenomenon is the immense amount of violence the movie actually contains. Surely movies like Commando, Die Hard, and The Rock had their share of deaths, but the deaths were delivered with at least an ounce of respect. In this case, dead bodies were used as jokes, and a lot of times. We see little to no respect for the fallen, and it becomes a guilt trip getting through some of these scenes and not feel a little disgusted. This movie isn't for the weak, and even the manliest of men might feel impure seeing just how destructive the chaos is.

Bottom Line: By the time the movie wraps up, there will be enough blowing up for the screen to increase in temperature. Bad Boys II is an admirable effort, but character chemistry and down-to-earth behavior is replaced with….explosions and….more explosions. Just like Transformers, the action is what keeps the movie afloat and bearable. There are indeed some amazing-looking scenes in Bad Boys II, but don't expect for the waters to run deeper than that.

A Few Dollars More: 9/10

Per qualche dollaro in più (1965)

The best of the trilogy, and that's saying a lot., 25 May 2009

Most film majors, film scholars, wanna-be film experts, and film historians will credit whether Once Upon a Time in the West and/or The Good, the Bad, and Ugly as Leone's best work. Well, they are all wrong. Going by the instinct that my opinion is better than everyone else's, For a Few Dollars More is Leone at his peak, and one of the better westerns of all-time. Unlike the two films first mentioned, this one doesn't overstay its welcome, doesn't drift off into unnecessary scenes, and ultimately presents Eastwood (and Lee Van Cleef) at his top form. For a Few Dollars More is spaghetti western at its absolute finest, and should be viewed at least once by any fans of the wild west.

For a Few Dollars More (No longer under the rage of Kurosawa) is about two bounty hunters after a vicious criminal that recently escaped from prison with the help of his friends. While Man With No Name (Eastwood, of course) is in it for the money, Mortimer's reasons seem a bit more blurred. The film becomes a massive cats-and-mice game as both bounty hunters compete to catch and kill the criminal first.

All the elements that made A Fistful of Dollars work were improved upon here: the directing, cinematography, acting, pacing, and musical score. The close-ups, long shots, and quick edits are all Leone's signature, and yet again keep the movie moving and entertaining. The story is not only more original the second time around, but is deeper, and more engrossing.

Geez Louise, can I discuss the music here? Morricone's music is truly epic and is twice as good as the first film in the trilogy, and arguably almost as good as his most popular score (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly). Whether it's the simple drumming during a stand-off, a bittersweet pocket watch song, or the fantastic theme in the beginning, Morricone's music should have earned him an Oscar that year (Does anybody even remember Doctor Zhivago's music?). Not only is it great music, but one of the best soundtracks of all-time. To this day the music's influence can be heard: Hans Zimmer's nods to him occur in the Pirates of the Caribbean series.

Like the previous installment, there are no heroes in this tale; just a lot of ruthless men fighting each other to reach their just rewards. What makes Few Dollars More better than The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly are two main things: the pacing and the balance of characters. In The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, the movie lasts more than 160 minutes and most of it is focused on The Ugly, by far the least interesting character. The Man With No Name doesn't even do much in the third installment, especially compared to this one. The other issue is pacing; the film like I previously stated is closing in on three hours. In this movie, a mere two hours, perfectly manageable two hours.

Bottom Line: A great western with plenty of action and superb storytelling to sink your teeth into. Leone's directing is at his best here, Eastwood is gripping and entertaining, and Morricone's music is sure to leave you enchanted. Unlike Leone's later films that drag on endlessly, this film is well-paced and well-equipped with plenty of tension and excitement. Recommend to all those whom enjoy a good western that pulls no punches.

In Bruges: 6/10

In Bruges (2008)

If you can't laugh at a man being blinded in one eye by a blank, then this isn't for you, 25 May 2009

2008 had two high-profile crime time comedies that blended action with suspense and a hintage of good ol' European humor. On one hand, we have the slick Rockn'Rolla that brought Guy Ritchie back into the spotlight, and now we have a new-school director delivering one of the most unique hit-man films in a very long time. In Bruges is one of those rare examples in which the comedy is so bleak, so dark, it can barely pass off as humor depending on the viewer. Marketed as a quirky action comedy; this film doesn't match the genre in the least bit. Instead we have a deep character study that focuses on the moral implications of the main characters, as they tour around a beautiful yet overlooked city. It's definitely not everyone's cup of tea. The film itself is interesting and fleshes out a clever story; but never quite gets off the ground, never quite propels itself to become a highly entertaining film. Then of course, we have the indie ending.

In Bruges follows two hit men that must lay low after a mission went horrifically wrong. While Ray (Colin Ferell) soaks in the bitterness and guilt over his murder, Ray's partner Ken soaks in all the beautiful scenery and curiosity of the area. They both become well-acquainted with the place, meeting all sorts of characters. However, things become complicated when their boss (Ralph Fieness) has a new job for one of them. This is the debut feature-film script and directorial effort by Martin McDonagh as he crafts a good tale that has the same style of dark humor and tense action as his acclaimed short film from years ago. Originality is all over the place in this film, as dark humor is a tough genre to sell and deliver; it's rarely ever done successfully.

The film is a delightful character study about people's actions, reactions, and the codes they must follow. Irony and subtle humor is also heavily present, as the mere premise of two murderous hit men touring around a secluded town like tourists is sure to tickle the funnybone. The script also calls for sympathy towards our anti-heroes, which is definitely a hard task that McDonagh tackled with ease. Helping the writing is superb acting by Ferell and Brendan Gleeson. If they don't interest you, Bruges certainly will. Bruges is basically a character in the film, as it adjusts and alters the mindsets and morality codes of our assassins. Beautiful scenery and nice cinematography makes In Bruges a travel documentary with a fictional story attached.

However, the dark humor in the movie is a bit too dark. The movie can barely classify as a comedy because there's so much tension, so much violence, and so many heavy themes. A few chuckles will occur, but it's offset by the bitter humor that leaves you cringing at times. In Bruges in other reviews has been described as "Irish humor." If that's the case, Irish humor is definitely not my cup of tea, as its comedy is disguised in heavy drama.

Bottom Line: A nicely written and acted film, marred by so-called "comedy." The humor comes off as bitterly dark and sometimes even dwells into the outright bizarre. If you can handle the dark chocolate-like taste (the 85% cacao bean kind), then you are in for a treat. The story is unique, so are the characters and situations they are involved in. This just might be American mainstream's first taste of Irish flavored film-making in years, and you can whether enjoy the flavor or move on. While the movie itself isn't amazing, this new-school director deserves a bit of attention for a strong first effort. In Bruges: a documentary with bullets and bodies.

The food there looks good though.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine: 6/10

Missing the "Ommph" of the first two X-Men movies, and missing a decent interpretation of the X-Men, 4 May 2009

The X-Men franchise has been riding on the backbone of Wolverine since the very beginning. Hugh Jackman's interpretation of the popular hero made him a major star and the character the frontrunning character of the long-running comic book series. After the mildly controversial Last Stand, 20th Century Fox decides to turn back the clock and focus all their attention on the lead character for an entire movie. Wolverine is the first of potentially many to receive his own movie, his own chance to truly shine. Now, hardcore readers and newcomers can see how he rose from outcast to killing machine. The end result is a totally mixed bag, however, and it boils down to just how hardcore a fan you really are.

If you are hardcore, then you'll most likely receive the same cringing feeling when watching the same movie studio pretty much mercilessly butcher Dragonball into nearly unrecognizable form. Otherwise, you might have a semi-decent time granted you can get past the inconsistent special effects and rather jumbled finale. One would wonder why on earth they skipped past Bryan Singer and even Brett Ratner to hand the director's seat to a man known for drama. One would also wonder why they didn't use the same writers from previous X-Men flicks. Now, this review will tread off into two different paragraphs; one dedicated to the hardcore, one dedicated to the casual.

Hardcore: Prepare to cry. Gambit, easily one of the coolest comic book characters out there, becomes amazingly watered-down and barely is used. Deadpool's look is absolutely different from his comic book counterpart, and is reduced to cameo screen time. As a matter of fact, despite it being a Wolverine movie, the entire film loses a lot of quality when compared to the X-Men movies because of the majority of the heroes and villains sharing such little time on screen. And when they are shown, they don't really resemble the ensemble we are used to seeing.

Casual: The film is a mixed bag in everything. The acting, the pacing, the directing, the editing, the music, the special effects all range from decent to mediocre to even terrible throughout the two hours. The fights themselves aren't very lengthy, and there aren't as many action pieces as one would hope. Jackman definitely isn't to blame here, but he has a tough task of carrying a film that can never quite lift off the ground. Maybe it's because it has to live up to the amazing comic book cinematic one-two punch of last year (Iron Man, Dark Knight). Whatever the reason, Wolverine doesn't quite entertain or overwhelm as much as the better comic book flicks.

Bottom Line: Don't expect the greatness of last year, or even X2 for that matter. The film does have its moments, does have its fun moments. However, the film doesn't appeal well to the hardcore and it doesn't fully explain the mannerisms and history of Wolverine, our famed hero. X-Men works best when the diverse cast of characters share equally good screen time with each other, and it definitely doesn't happen here. Butchered characters also hinder the experience.