Movie Review The Family Stone

The Family Stone (2005) 

Directed by Thomas Bezucha 

Written by Thomas Bezucha 

Starring Diane Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Dermot Mulroney, Craig T. Nelson, Sarah Jessica Parker

Release Date December 16th, 2005

Published December 16th, 2005 

Streaming on Starz via Amazon Prime 

The amazing Diane Keaton has become an icon of grace and sensibility. Her Oscar nominated roles in Reds , Annie Hall and Something's Gotta Give are marvelous examples of her range and exceptional talent. Even lesser works like The First Wives Club are elevated by her presence. Casting Diane Keaton is like buying insurance against a bad script. Even a script as weak as the one for Keaton's latest film The Family Stone, looks a lot better for having her in it.

It doesn't hurt that Keaton's involvement helped entice an A-list of actors to play her children, Rachel McAdams, Dermot Mulroney and Luke Wilson, in this tepid holiday dramedy. Proof that a great cast can make the bitter pill of cliche go down like eggnog.

Diane Keaton stars in The Family Stone, as Sybil the matriarch of a large brood of grown children. With her college professor hubby, Kelly (Craig T. Nelson), Sybil is welcoming her five kids, and their various tagalongs, home for christmas. This year the Stone's are playing host to one particularly interesting guest. Her name is Meredith and if all goes according to plans she will soon be the oldest Stone son Everett's (Dermot Mulroney) fiancee.

Unfortunately for Everett, Meredith's stick in the mud, buttoned up personality has already rubbed his family the wrong way. Everett's youngest sister Amy (Rachel McAdams) has met Meredith and decided she hates her. Amy has busily poisoned the family well, including older sister Susannah (Elizabeth Reaser), middle child Thad (Tyrone Giordano) and his partner, Patrick (Brian J. White). Dad and his other son Ben (Luke Wilson) at least attempt to be open to Meredith.

The Family Stone breaks down to a sort of red state-blue state conflict. The Stones are liberal, ivy leaguers with a gay son who is also deaf and dating a black guy and Meredith represents the uptight, conservative business-minded red staters. The conflict is a battle for Everett's soul. Will he return to his old liberal open-minded self or marry Meredith and become a Bush voter?

Supposedly helping Meredith fight this battle is her sister Julie (Claire Danes) but unfortunately her late arrival only serves to make things worse.

The Family Stone attempts to mix screwball family comedy and heartfelt family drama with subplots including a dramatic disease and a chase scene to stop a character from leaving town forever. It's a difficult and well-worn mixture and one the film bears only because of the expert cast. There is nothing new or innovative about writer-director Andrew Bezucha's approach to this commonplace material, so he relies on this likable group of pro actors to carry it off and, to a certain degree, it works.

Sarah Jessica Parker delivers the film's best performance. Her Meredith is sympathetic as the outsider in a group of overbearing tightly knit liberals. In the hole from the moment she arrives, she has our sympathies.  However, Meredith is never merely a victim. Her lack of social graces and occasions of running at the mouth when she shouldn't combined with a complete lack of a sense of humor make some of the family's negativity toward her understandable. Parker plays the conflicts well, especially playing against her natural likeability.

Parker is let down on more than one occasion by the script that forces in nearly every well-worn trope of this genre. There is the aforementioned chase scene, a comically inept fight scene and of course plenty of spilled food for characters to roll around in. That we forgive many of these cliches is a function of the lovable qualities of this terrific cast.

The Family Stone is a cousin to a number of memorable family Christmas comedies like Home For The Holidays starring Holly Hunter, the romance and family drama from Love Actually and the movie-of-the-week style tragedy of Meryl Streep's One True Thing. Andrew Bezucha does not lift elements from these films as much as mimic them with his own twist. These are well known tropes that each of these films use to push dramatic buttons and The Family Stone is merely the latest film to engage them.

The cast of The Family Stone makes the familiarity work for them. Like watching old friends gather at a holiday party you can't help but enjoy the way the cast bonds, bickers and eventually falls in food. A more pessimistic viewer might expect more from this excellent cast but that is reviewing the film that The Family Stone is not. Remarking on the film it is, The Family Stone is not to be taken seriously and likely not to be remembered by this time next year.  It is just an average good natured holiday comedy.

Not for the cynical, The Family Stone is an overly familiar holiday family movie that pushes all of the same emotional buttons as is the norm of the genre. That it manages to be quite often funny and occasionally heartfelt is due to a cast of real pros. Like the revival of a favorite play, you know what is going to happen next because you have seen it so many times before, you watch to see this new group of actors give new life to the material. The Family Stone makes familiarity work by dressing it in a whole lot of star power.

Movie Review The Incredibles 2

The Incredible 2 (2018) 

Directed by Brad Bird

Written by Brad Bird 

Starring Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, Samuel L. Jackson, Bob Odenkirk, Sarah Vowell

Release Date June 15th, 2018

Published June 14th, 2018

Why don't I love The Incredibles? I have been racking my brain trying to come up with reasons why I have fallen out of love with the Pixar franchise and there really are too many little issues with the story, characters and lack of laughs for me to narrow it down. After sitting through nearly 4 hours of an Incredibles 1 and Incredibles 2 double feature I walked out baffled that the magic I felt back in 2004 was missing.

The Incredibles 2 picks up the story of the Parr family led by Bob Parr AKA Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson) and Helen Parr AKA Elastigirl and including their three children, oldest daughter Violet (Sarah Vowell), middle child Dash (Huck Milner) and baby Jack Jack (Eli Fucile). Like their parents, the kids have superpowers as well with Violet possessing invisibility and being able to create force fields and Dash having super speed.

And then there is Jack Jack whose powers only came out at the end of the first Incredibles movie and only when mom and dad couldn't see them. In Incredibles 2 a significant subplot is dedicated to Jack Jack's developing more than half a dozen superpowers, none of which he can seem to control and some of them incredibly dangerous. Jack Jack's powers are the bright light of this otherwise drab outing.

The main story of Incredibles 2 centers on Helen taking a job as a superhero and leaving Bob at home to care for the kids. The CEO of a major corporation, Winston Deavor (Bob Odenkirk) has dedicated some of his vast fortune to helping bring superheroes out of hiding. If you remember the original film, Supers were driven underground following a series of catastrophes and lawsuits. Deavor wants to use Elastigirl to show the world it still needs superheroes.

Helen immediately finds a nemesis in The Screenslaver, a villain who uses screens to hypnotize people into doing his bidding. Using her smarts Helen is able to make quick work of The Screen Saver but she wonders why it turned out to be so easy, considering how brilliant the villain had seemed as he was executing his plan for world domination. The answer is rather unsurprising, I had the villain guessed rather quickly and had to hope that the movie would find a clever subversion of expectations. Sadly, that never comes.

There is nothing all that remarkable about the story being told in Incredibles 2. Where most other Pixar movies have invention and humor on their side, The Incredibles relies on vague allusions to deep issues intended to flatter the audience for recognizing them. This is however, only puddle deep philosophizing. The makers of Incredibles 2 claim to have something to say about gender roles as they put Helen in the workforce and Bob at home but there isn't much beyond that presentation of the idea.

Helen is a terrific hero, smart and tough and a great role model of how a woman can be both a world class superhero and a great mom. This isn't exactly new ground that we are covering here, The Incredibles 2 is set in a vague early to mid 60's aesthetic and is deeply rooted in the aged politics of the time which seem quaint in today's environment. The Incredibles 2 director Brad Bird brings nothing new to this and the lack of depth in the characters is exposed by how simple the empowerment message is.

Yes, it's a movie for kids, I can hear and I am well aware of what The Incredibles 1 & 2 are. Toy Story is also a movie for kids and yet the makers of that film franchise still find deep and meaningful messages about family and aging and acceptance that go beyond the surface while maintaining a story simple enough for kids to follow. The Toy Story movies are also wildly funny on top of the deep themes, something that neither of The Incredibles movies are.

There is a distinct lack of laughs in The Incredibles 1 & 2. In fact, Incredibles 1 is downright disturbing at times in its lack of a sense of humor. A running bit about the dangers of capes features multiple deaths of superheroes and eventually the death of the film's lead villain. Then there is the Razer Blade scene wherein our hero hides behind the rotting corpse of a former friend to escape detection by a high tech hunting gadget. Incredibles 2 doesn't have anything that rivals those dark moments but it's not much brighter in tone either.

Watching this double feature of The Incredibles I was taken aback by the lack of fun. There is a dourness that hangs over these films, an oppressiveness that edges into the movie in the subplot about superheroes forced into hiding. The stories nod toward Ayn Rand of all people in blatant talking points about how super people have to sublimate themselves to make average people feel better about themselves.

In The Incredibles 1 the super villain, Syndrome (Jason Lee), wants to give everyone high powered gadgets so that everyone can be super and thus no one can be super. The Incredibles 2 turns Winston Deavor into a John Galt like figure who aims to create a utopia where superheroes can once again take their rightful place in society, out of the shadows. I'm not here to argue Randian philosophy, I'm just expressing how off-putting it is to endure such mediocre philosophy during what should be a fun adventure.

In The Incredibles 2 there is an attempt to hypnotize supers and use them for villainy. Some have pointed out that this is akin to the government using the best and the brightest to further the agenda of the mediocre. I'm not saying that was Brad Bird's intention but the film is so obvious in the Randian comparisons that I can see how people would arrive at the conspiracy theory. Here again, even if there is an agenda at play, there is no depth or commitment to it just as there is no commitment or depth to notions about gender roles.

The makers of The Incredibles 1 and 2 seem to want credit for depth without actually having to be deep. The defenders of these movies want to claim they are 'just kids movies' while still wanting to claim they have deeper themes. None of it works because neither The Incredibles or The Incredibles 2 commits to a specific idea of what the movie is supposed to be beyond a pastiche of superhero cliches dressed up with the talent of Pixar animation.

Then there is the villain, The Screensaver. This is not a particularly compelling villain. I already mentioned how obvious the identity of the villain is and how the film fails to make the character or the plot all that interesting beyond the predictable reveal. What I haven't yet discussed is the very notion of The Screensaver as a character. The character uses screens to hypnotize people. The movie is set in the 60's so the screen in question is the television screen, for the most part.

The obvious joke however is like a dad joke observation at its most lame. The Screensaver is a puddle deep comment on our addiction to our screens, our phones, tablets and other such modern technology. Like the attempts at Randian philosophizing and gender role questions, this idea is underwritten and relies on surface level observations. Obsessing over screens is bad, put away your screens and spend time with your family and blah, blah, blah. Thankfully, this a mostly unformed idea and we don't spend too much time on it but it's another failed attempt at a deeper theme, a hallmark of The Incredibles movies.

I have long been a Pixar apologist, one who has gone as far as defending the quality of The Cars franchise, which yes, I do believe is a better and much funnier series than The Incredibles. I have loved nearly everything Pixar has done and back in 2004, I was a big fan of The Incredibles. I had misgivings then but I brushed them aside to focus on how fun the movie was. It's less fun on a rewatch however as its flaws stand out more now that I am so familiar with it.

The Incredibles 2 underlines the flaws of the original and piles on even larger flaws. Brad Bird's baby is filled with underwhelming ideas and a lack of laughter. There is a distinct joylessness to The Incredibles 2. The filmmakers need to lighten up a bit and while scenes involving baby Jack Jack have a light funny feel, the rest of the movie is rather drab and obvious. Worst of all, the fun is undermined by the faint notions of depth, ideas dressed up as deeper themes but lacking actual depth.