Planes (2013) Reviews

• Flies aimlessly - like a cropduster

  StevePulaski2013-08-11

  Planes is a mixture of its direct-inspiration Cars, Monsters University, and the forgotten PBS Kids show Jay Jay the Jet Plane. Even with reminders of brighter, more vivid animated works, Planes is a middling Disney effort and clearly a corporate byproduct from Disney (not Pixar as many will assume) to sell merchandise to children, with the quality of the actual film being a clear afterthought. The film was originally conceived as a direct-to-DVD film and have a series of sequels follow accordingly. Of course, last minute, Disney decided Planes and its planned sequels possessed enough promise to go theatrical. This decision isn't hard to comprehend; Cars and its sequel weren't critical favorites and their box office receipts were notably lower than previous Pixar films, but their merchandise sales totaled roughly $8 billion. From toy cars, to diecast collectibles, to blankets, to bedspreads, to posters, to stray DVD short films featuring the characters lining store shelves, the marketing behind the Cars name was stunning and blatant. Planes hasn't been graced with the brazenness of toys and TV commercials, making me question why Disney decided to allow the film to go to theaters if they weren't going to milk it for what's its worth. Whatever; it's probably best the marketing splash for the film was reduced to a quiet disruption in the cinematic ocean. The film focuses on Dusty Crophopper (voiced by Dane Cook), an ambitious cropdusting plane that predictably spends his days flying over tall grass spraying fertilizer. His ambition is to become a racing plane, flying high, soaring to unforeseen heights, and racing around the world. His biggest drawback isn't really the fact that he's not built for flying of this capacity but his fear of heights. Since he is so used to flying at pretty low heights for planes, he fears soaring to the "highway in the sky," as put by Skipper Riley (Stacy Keach), an F4U Corsair with a successful past, who also serves as Dusty's mentor. Backed by a crew of ground-ridden misfits (okay, vehicles) and his passion, which is incorruptible, Dusty's dreams literally soar as he competes in one of the most prestigious plane competitions in the world. The animation in the film is some of the strangest I've seen in the post-CGI animation takeover. Some scenes are truly evocative and breathtaking, and usually exist when we're somewhere like the Taj Mahal or in The Himalayas. They showcase the location in stark detail and really show off the beauty and majestic area that encompasses such a place. Other scenes, specifically ones that feature several characters on the screen at one time, appear stunningly bland and unfinished. They almost look like unfinished products of CGI animation – like the final still before all the finalizing and color-correcting is done. They lack detail and lighting specifics known in modern animated films, and before you tell me otherwise, remember Disney just brought us "Wreck-It Ralph," which showcased dozens of video game worlds through the beautiful medium that is animation. This is likely because the project was meant to line store shelves immediately rather than be blown on the big screen. On an average, living-room-size Television, Planes probably looks pretty damn good. On a gigantic theater screen before an audience of maybe fifteen people (in my case), it looked underwhelming. Whether or not you liked "Cars" or its sequel (I'm in the minority that loved the original film and tolerated the sequel), you can't say this film exists on the same level of visual beauty that the latter pictures did. Cars 2, alone, had a number of amazing set-pieces and lighting techniques that were used perfectly. Even Monsters University was beautiful in the way the animation was textured and the way the lighting was used to brighten and liven certain settings. In comparison to the look of other animated features such as Despicable Me 2 and Turbo (both of which currently attracting children now), Planes will likely not come close to the revenue of both of those films or inspire the true awes thanks to the animation. To all the people who criticized Larry the Cable Guy's Mater as being an insufferable character, I challenge the same people to not mention the stunning shallowness of the characters here, especially the international planes that could be the perfect example as to why other countries view Americans as close-minded and ignorant. Just to give you an inkling as to how deep the international planes are, one is named "El Chupacabra," and is known for being a passionate romantic, a gifted Mexican singer, and a telenovela star. He also boasts the most stereotypical Mexican accent in cinema history. For all you kids out there, imagine Juandissimo Magnifico from The Fairly Odd Parents and there you have it. Even the British plane at one point says, "I don't cry, I'm British!" There are children's films that will make both a child and their parent smile and have a rewarding time at the movies (most of them come from Pixar, but Dreamworks is known for several too). There are children's films that will appeal to children and leave the parents groaning at the thought they had to pay to get in as well. Then there are films like Planes that may appeal to some children, but the stimulating effect on their growth and mental health shouldn't be sacrificed for the ninety-two minute electronic babysitter that the film is. Everything about the film has been done in previous animated efforts, right down to the "be yourself and be brave" moral at the very end, only this time, it feels especially, almost unacceptably lazy and contrived.

• Disappointingly lazy

  TheLittleSongbird2013-08-22

  Feelings before seeing Planes was more the "not sure how it was going to turn out" sort of feeling. On one hand, there was the hope that Disney(or Disney Toon Studios to be exact) would continue the return to form trend started with 2009's The Princess and the Frog, which later saw even better films with Tangled(their best film since The Hunchback of Notre Dame) and Wreck it Ralph, Winnie the Pooh was also very sweet. There was also the feeling of trepidation as well because reading the plot line gives the sense that it would be predictable and unoriginal. Regardless of any initial feelings, the only way to judge Planes was to see it. Sadly, Planes was very disappointing for this viewer and possibly their weakest since Chicken Little. And this is coming from somebody who hopefully knows how to judge family films, yes guys this is a family film not a kids' film. Planes does have things that it did do well. The animation is the best aspect by some considerable distance, it is great, not the best animation there's ever been but it looks beautiful all the same. It manages to be colourful and well-textured with detailed backgrounds and well-designed characters. The camera angles as well are a source of wonder, they're very well-incorporated and really give the sense that you're journeying in the air with the character. The music is catchy, with very well-chosen songs, and serves the film very well, the mariachi version of Love Machine is very sweet and fun. The aviation at least shows that the writers have done their research. The voice acting too is commendable all round, with Dane Cook in particular voicing with enthusiasm. John Cleese, Julia Louis-Dreyfuss and Val Kilmer are pleasing too, though they have been better. Unfortunately Planes is also one of those films where it starts slowly and unpromising and never really takes off, sorry couldn't resist. The story just doesn't have any spark, the storytelling is predictable and lazy and the pacing sedate. People have said that it is basically Cars in the air with touches of Top Gun, Jay Jay the Jet Plane and The Ugly Duckling story and that is true, it is a very derivative film that makes a bigger problem in that there is nothing of surprise or distinction. The script lacks freshness, charm and wit, instead it's full of tedious down-time talk, tired one-liners and jokes(crazy like a firefox for example) and has no emotional impact. The air-force/aviation jargon might go over children's heads as well. The romance between Dusty and Ishani comes across as a cliché that is poorly developed, almost like an afterthought. The characters are annoyingly shallow, Dusty is not so bad but the rest are not very interesting and their development is thin, Skipper's back-story especially felt shoe-horned in and forced. El Chupacabra has his moments but is a stereotypical character(something that people may take a dislike to) and too many of his jokes are lame. In fact there are a lot of cultural stereotypes, and much of them border on the insensitive. The villain Ripslinger is also stereotypically designed and is possibly one of Disney's blandest villains, with some of the most annoying and unnecessary goons of any animated film in recent memory. The action looks good in the animation but fails to generate any excitement, much of it suffers from too much predictability and that the pacing is too sedate throughout. In conclusion, far from a truly terrible film or the plane wreck it's made out to be but a disappointingly lazy one where it's easy to see the things Planes has been criticised for. Then again this is personal opinion and be taken with a pinch of salt instead of being discarded for being an opinion being different to your own. 4/10 Bethany Cox

• Never takes off

  natashabowiepinky2013-08-23

  I've just bought a new food processor. If you put in every animated film ever made, and set it to the highest setting, you may come out with something like Planes. You have the plucky young dreamer who seems destined to a life of drudgery, but aspires for higher things. He has a stoopid best friend, who is charming in his own special way. There is an elderly mentor, who initially turns down the whippersnapper when he asks for his help... but gosh darn it, he changes his mind once he sees how determined the kid is. The bad guy is an irredeemable moustache-twirler with two giggling goons who follow him around everywhere. A 'comedy relief' is a cheeseball Mexican who is obsessed by dance and romance (of course, and this guy outstays his welcome from his first syllable). As for the love interest, she starts off working for the evil dudes, but soon discovers her true feelings, and... So on, and so forth. There isn't one original idea in the whole farrago... and that's without even getting into the recycled story or the below par animation. The fact is, this is film-making by committee: it ticks every box, caters for every demographic but missing that all important ingredient: soul. If you respect your kid's intelligence, take 'em to see something else this Summer. 5/10

• It *IS* a Cars spin off, and that's okay...

  dunstone2013-08-10

  There is a bimodal distribution (2 peaks) in the user review scoring of Planes: 1-star, this is a horrible rip- off, nothing new here, Pixar's image is tarnished - and 10-star, what a wonderful kid's film, details are excellent, funny, good message. First, this is not a Pixar film. You read that right. It's Disney, not Pixar. But it does have common cast of writers/producers. You may even note the tag line, "From above the world of Cars," overtly acknowledging the connection. If you can get past the notion of a rip-off, then, you'll find a lovely, joyful movie with enough to keep parents entertained while children are having a blast. Yes the characters resemble those in Cars. Yes some of the plot lines are familiar. Yes the animation is similar to Cars (although the flight scenes are spectacular in spots). You know what I remember? Cars was a great movie! I'm pretty sure I remember that since I've seen it 147 times with my son (not really). This is not an academy award winning movie. But it is a lot of fun. Before giving this children's cartoon 1-star, be clear what you're watching.

• Just awful

  jimscott2013-08-31

  Yea, its a kid's movie. Yea, the reviews were bad so I went in with low expectations. Despite that and other factors this movie disappointed even my diminished hopes that it would provide some entertainment. It was banal, completely trite, devoid of anything even slightly new, didn't even have any small chuckles from some slight unexpected twist or resolved tension. It was flat as a pancake. Even both my kids (7 an 16) remarked that it was like a thousand other things they have seen without anything new or interesting. The actors voices were flat too. Like they didn't really put much effort into the emotions. Of course, since there was no real substance to the dialog its hard for an actor I suppose.