I don't remember the original _Incredibles_ (2004) very well. In fact, I hardly remember anything about it, at all. That probably has something to do with the fact that I first _and_ last watched it well over a decade ago. In hindsight, revisiting the first film before watching this sequel would have been wise… But since I effectively watched this movie with a fresh slate—both because of how long it had been since I saw the first movie, and because my film tastes have changed so much in the intervening years—I can judge this one on its own merits, without basing my opinion on (or making comparisons to) its predecessor.

So: _Incredibles 2_. It's… Pixar. That much is obvious. The animation style is unmistakable—and I don't just mean the visual design of everything. Pixar films have a certain quality to them in how things move, often manifested in physics that seem just slightly (or grossly) "wrong" for what you're actually seeing. Some people don't mind this (or even notice it, honestly), but it bugs me.

Obviously, in a movie about superheroes (or anthropomorphized emotions, or sentient toys, or…), things that can't happen in real life are going to happen. But stuff that's straight out of daily life, like cars driving around—that should be correct. Basic object physics should behave realistically, if only to avoid breaking immersion. I was pulled out of this movie more than a few times by some small thing, like a truck pulling out of its motel parking lot space too quickly.

Of course, it's hard to say whether the basic object physics in the film (we'll ignore anything involving powers) are objectively "wrong" without doing a bunch of math that I (frankly) avoided having to study in school, and don't want to start on now. But I like to _think_ that I have enough experience with the world that I can trust my own _feelings_ of "that's not how that works".


But I'm getting off into the weeds here. We all know that animation has certain common quirks, and one of those quirks is making objects behave slightly unrealistically for pacing or other reasons. As a reasonably avid anime viewer, and childhood fan of things like Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner cartoons, I'm well aware that animation doesn't have to follow the laws of physics to be believable.


Other things pulled me out as well, though. Still little things—like why, when [spoiler]Screenslaver's voice-over ended while Elastigirl was still tracking down "his" broadcast site[/spoiler], nobody in the television studio piped up. They were in the middle of an interview, after all. There should have been some chatter over the remote voice link. Details always get me.

Don't let my nitpicking dissuade you from seeing the film, though! I'm not the target audience, certainly—Pixar's films are _mostly_ targeted at kids, and I eventually got around to watching this mostly because my 13-year-old nephew talked about it. (Plus, Pixar films are usually good for those times when you don't have the mental energy to watch something "made for adults". They're easy viewing.)

As usual, Pixar inserted some apt social commentary. Just as _WALL·E_ (2008) made its points about corporate greed and consumerism to the adults while the kids enjoyed the space robots, _Incredibles 2_ had some thought-provoking words to say about technology and the role of television in our society for the adults to chew on while kids took in the superhero action. No one would accuse this movie of being anything but what it is—eye candy for kids with little tidbits to keep their parents from falling asleep—but it's always nice that PIxar _does_ throw those tidbits in, often in ways that parents of older children can use to jump-start their own discussions if they want to.

_Incredibles 2_ is watchable. It's not _amazing_, but I enjoyed it well enough despite my nitpicks above.