Skip to main content

Good day, Mr. Sheepsbutt.

Despicable Me 2
(2013)

The animated movie that came to mind repeatedly when watching Despicable Me 2 was Shrek 2. The sequel to a well-received original, it capitalised enormously on the interim embrace of the first picture in the home entertainment market. Shrek 2 became a monster. And it simply wasn’t very good. As unfocussed and sloppy as the first movie was tightly structured and finely observed in both character and gags, it was a clear example of an attempt to continue a story that has nothing left to give (nor would it until the too little, too late Shrek Forever After). And so with Despicable Me 2. There’s no more story to tell, so it becomes an attempt to further embed Gru (Steve Carell) as an acceptable member of society by preordained yardsticks (children, wife, job). And really directors Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud know this is window dressing, which is why the movie is such a mess. Despicable Me 2 is all about the minions, and any diversion from their diversion feels like filler.


So predominant is the presence of the minions, banana-coloured cyclopean creations bearing the disposition of an Ewok fused with Bobcat Goldthwait, that the end credits are a trailer for their own movie (due next year). And so the realisation that the whole movie is a form of extended advert for minions, as no doubt the toy market for them is stratospheric (put them in different outfits, sell toys of them in those outfits; feed them a formula to turn them into monstrous purple  - but still cute – parodies, sell toys of them thus).


I may be griping about by far DM2’s best element, but it’s dangerous territory when the supporting character or comic relief becomes the fuel stoking the boiler. It’s definitely possible to have too much of a good thing (not that I doubt Minions will clean up). As is often the case with quirky funny little cartoon characters that become the surprise stars (see also Madagascar), it’s the temp track voice artist with whom the filmmakers end up going, in this case Coffin himself (with additional support from Renaud). They’re dependably daft, excitable, mischievous and well meaning. And crucially, they have children’s (or childish adults’) sense of humour.


When Kevin and Bob hear that the head of the Anti-Villain League (which has called on Gru’s services) is called Silas Ramsbottom (voiced by Steve Coogan) they repeat “Bottom” and start sniggering. Called on to try Dr Nefario’s (Russell Brand) new blend of jelly, each minion gags in turn before pretending to like it and passing the jar onto the next of their number. Funny though the material usually is, the cutaway nature of their role means the movie increasingly feels like an assembly of vignettes, be it a minion-in-love fantasy sequence or an Invasion of the Body Snatchers homage, as Kevin and Bob, painted purple, attempt to infiltrate their mutant brethren. The mutant minions are possibly even funnier than the real deal, grunting, growling and slobbering their way through scenes like bastard stepchildren of Warner Bros’ Tasmanian Devil.  It’s a testament to their appeal that even a tired old idea and accompaniment (dressed as in appropriate fancy dress to the sound of YMCA) is fresh and funny as performed by minions.


I enjoyed the first Despicable Me despite my better judgement; it commits the cardinal sin of making cute cartoon moppets central to a story. Anyone can see the child identification in the movie is the minions; the kids are there for the parents to coo over, in particular Agnes who shamelessly presses “Ooooo, she’s so cute!” buttons. Thanks to Carell’s performance, Gru’s discovery of parental instincts isn’t nearly as sugary as it ought to be though, and the juxtaposition with his shaky latest super-villain plan is effective and sprightly.


In contrast, Despicable Me 2 has a consistently “That’ll do” vibe. Animated movies have been increasingly fixated on Bond/superhero knock-offs in recent years (with the villains filtering through them being much of a muchness). The Incredibles did it perfectly, Megamind indifferently. But when there’s Cars 2 at it as well, there aren’t many avenues left open. After the first instalment’s Moon theft, setting the action in a mall is actually not a bad move. I half expected a mini-satire, positing the mall as the centre of all that is wrong with American life; every vendor would be revealed as a super-villain bent on world-domination. 


Instead, we’re served weak sauce. Benjamin Bratt’s bad guy (in a role Al Pacino exited at a late stage) makes little impression, further emphasising the picture’s unfussed story beats. He isn’t especially witty, clever or nefarious. The directors even fail to the make the most of that staple, the comedy chicken (“I really hate that chicken”). One also feels there was much more to be made of the PX41 formula (first seen turning a cute bunny into a ravenous brute), maybe of a The Sword in the Stone transformative nature, but its use is disappointingly limited (such that the super-villain showdown is a big snooze).


As for Gru’s romance, it follows a cookie cutter formula that I’ll charitably put down to minion-obsession rather than cynically taking a one-size-fits-all plot from the rack. From his flashback to a rejected childhood (“Gru touched Lisa!”) to a neighbour’s attempts to get him dating (consistently presented is that fact of, no matter how much they warm to him, Gru’s ugliness, which he takes with good humour; his kids mock him as much as anyone), to the inevitable perfect partner (Kristen Wiig, as dependable as ever and with timing equal Carell’s, as Lucy Wilde), Despicable Me 2 never once veers into even marginally unexpected territory. Indeed, it retreads the same basic arc of the first movie, as Gru gradually warms to the idea of love and opening his heart to others. But, since he’s done it once already, this is a case of strictly diminishing returns.


It’s ironic that in the animation world, where the only limiting factor is imagination, sequels tend to a strict template that makes even their live action counterparts appear adventurous. Despicable Me 2 is more agreeable than Shrek 2, but only because of the constant display of minion magic. Like that series, it flounders in its attempts to manufacture conflict where all the dramatic threads have been resolved.


Oscar night is unlikely to look kindly on DM2 in the Best Animated Feature category, although a nomination at all beats the first movie; it’s recognition the movie doesn’t deserve. Frozen gets the statue. As for Original Song, a frequent feast for toons, Frozen’s is standard Disneyfaction , but the feature’s on such a roll I wouldn’t bet against it But no, Pharrell takes it, even if his video proves dressing people in minion costumes isn’t remotely amusing. The third encounter with Gru will arrive in three years time. Hopefully it won’t be the series low that Shrek the Third was (we’ll already have had the Puss in Boots equivalent spin-off). But by that point, if you can have a whole movie populated by minions, why settle for anything less?


***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.