Coco (2017) (1 Viewer)

[mattCR]

This is really strong stuff from Pixar. I felt as though Cars3/Good Dinosaur were just "eh" but CoCo is a return to a golden form for Pixar - this is a film with a whole lot of heart, and a film with a lot of levels that will appeal to adults and kids.

 

[mattCR]

I do want to add: the final act of this film is maybe the most emotional I've ever seen a Pixar film, and that says a lot. This film deals with some really, really difficult subject matter in the third act; not just life/death stuff, but also the loss of who we are as a person (our memory as we age); the things we desire, marriage, purpose, duty, responsibility, honor, and a lot of existential philosophical questions.

I can't think of any film in a very long time that has tried to take these kind of elements on and succeeded. I can think of several that have tried and failed spectacularly (What Dreams May Come stands out as one); but this is a film that, in a sequence near the close - one that gives us the title of the film - nails it so perfectly that I think people around me were .. yeah, if you go with a lot of older adults (50+) expect tears.

For kids, this is a film with some breakneck speed, fun jokes, action sequences; for adults, especially if you've ever lost a loved one, this is a film that will put a serious lump in your throat.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Saw this one last night and felt distinctly underwhelmed. Enjoyed it but thought it came with flaws - particularly a massive plot hole that relates to the movie's big "twist".

I also thought it borrowed too much from other movies - am I the only one who saw the "Back to the Future" elements in there?

 

[mattCR]

Colin- using spoilers, I assume

Spoiler

You're referring to the discovery that Hector is his great great grandfather? Which was the main twist? Or that De La Cruz murdered Hector? I'm trying to figure out the major plot hole you see here.. Thanks.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Colin- using spoilers, I assume

Spoiler

You're referring to the discovery that Hector is his great great grandfather? Which was the main twist? Or that De La Cruz murdered Hector? I'm trying to figure out the major plot hole you see here.. Thanks.

There are a few plot holes, but

Spoiler

the murder is the big one.

Maybe there's a detail I missed, but as I recall:

Hector plans to retire and this angers Ernesto, as the singer needs the songs, so he kills him to get to them.

Why didn't Hector just GIVE the songs to Ernesto? He's not gonna need 'em anymore - he's leaving the biz!

And how many songs had Hector written? Enough for a career?

I guess I can semi-swallow that latter complaint because Ernesto died young, but I still think it makes no sense for him to have killed Hector.

It also seems like a massive stretch for Hector to be the guy in the decapitated picture because he was so much thinner than Ernesto. We had to buy Hector's head on that fairly bulky body!

 

[Edwin-S]

Saw this one last night and felt distinctly underwhelmed. Enjoyed it but thought it came with flaws - particularly a massive plot hole that relates to the movie's big "twist".

I also thought it borrowed too much from other movies - am I the only one who saw the "Back to the Future" elements in there?

Why am I not surprised?

 

[mattCR]

There are a few plot holes, but

Spoiler

the murder is the big one.

Maybe there's a detail I missed, but as I recall:

Hector plans to retire and this angers Ernesto, as the singer needs the songs, so he kills him to get to them.

Why didn't Hector just GIVE the songs to Ernesto? He's not gonna need 'em anymore - he's leaving the biz!

And how many songs had Hector written? Enough for a career?

I guess I can semi-swallow that latter complaint because Ernesto died young, but I still think it makes no sense for him to have killed Hector.

It also seems like a massive stretch for Hector to be the guy in the decapitated picture because he was so much thinner than Ernesto. We had to buy Hector's head on that fairly bulky body!

What? Hmm

Spoiler

Hector's head wasn't on a bulky body, in the afterlife he was still a very thin man.. Ernesto was a big bulky guy in the afterlife. ? The construct is that they were a writing Duo, they say more than once that he claims to be the only person who writes his songs. He didn't need all of them, just enough. At the end, when people pilgrimage to Hector's home, they say he wrote many songs that De La Cruz never recorded. So, there are some he did write - including his biggest hit, which was "Remember Me"; and they also say that at the end, "Not just Remember Me" to point out that he wrote other songs they didn't know.

I think it was pretty explained that De La Cruz took the biggest hits from Hector, and likely wrote some of his own ones to compliment, but many of the best known he stole.. [/blockquote]

 

[Colin Jacobson]

What? Hmm

Spoiler

Hector's head wasn't on a bulky body, in the afterlife he was still a very thin man.. Ernesto was a big bulky guy in the afterlife. ? The construct is that they were a writing Duo, they say more than once that he claims to be the only person who writes his songs. He didn't need all of them, just enough. At the end, when people pilgrimage to Hector's home, they say he wrote many songs that De La Cruz never recorded. So, there are some he did write - including his biggest hit, which was "Remember Me"; and they also say that at the end, "Not just Remember Me" to point out that he wrote other songs they didn't know.

I think it was pretty explained that De La Cruz took the biggest hits from Hector, and likely wrote some of his own ones to compliment, but many of the best known he stole.. [/blockquote]

My point remains:

Spoiler

Why did he need to steal them? Why kill Hector for them? Why couldn't Hector let Ernesto use the songs? He wasn't going to do anything with them!

As for the body, it's the mismatch between the body in the decapitated picture - that's the one that doesn't match Hector as seen in therest of the film.

Hector was a scrawny guy in real life, while Ernesto was bulky. The movie uses a fairly bulky body in the decapitated pic so we'll believe it's Ernesto - which is fine until they reveal it's the much thinner Hector...

 

[DaveF]

I liked Coco. Will try to have something more productive to say tomorrow. Until then, I’ll share a Vox article on that horribly interminable “short”:
"People really hate the Frozen short playing before Pixar’s new film Coco - Vox" https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/11/25/16697898/coco-short-olafs-frozen-adventure-hate-pixar

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I liked Coco. Will try to have something more productive to say tomorrow. Until then, I’ll share a Vox article on that horribly interminable “short”:
"People really hate the Frozen short playing before Pixar’s new film Coco - Vox" https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/11/25/16697898/coco-short-olafs-frozen-adventure-hate-pixar

I didn't hate the short, but I did think it was too frickin' LONG! It would've been much better at half the length...

 

[Sam Favate]

This was a delightful movie from the great people at Pixar. Visually stunning, with the sort of images an audience hasn’t seen many times before. Much has been written about this film affecting adults more than children emotionally, and that may be true. Anyone who has ever lost anyone will be affected, and yet, the movie’s message remains positive and affirming.

I enjoyed the Frozen short. It was fun, and a nice taste of that world until the sequel in a couple of years.

 

[Edwin-S]

According to the linked article the "short" was actually a TV special that was re-purposed as a theatrical release.

 

[WillG]

According to the linked article the "short" was actually a TV special that was re-purposed as a theatrical release.

That makes sense. I was thinking exactly "this isn't a short, it's a full blown special." I got the feeling that many in the theater I was at were getting antsy. I even heard a couple of "are we in the right theater?"

Spoiler

I figure most of us here kind of saw the de la Cruz as the bad guy coming (especially if you say "Up"

Was kind of disappointed that (unless somehow I missed it, or it was post credits) no John Ratzenberger cameo (I guess in this case though I could see the challenge that would pose)

 

[Malcolm R]

Was kind of disappointed that (unless somehow I missed it, or it was post credits) no John Ratzenberger cameo (I guess in this case though I could see the challenge that would pose)

He was credited as "Juan Ortodoncia" (at IMDb). Haven't seen the film, so I'm not sure where he appears.

 

[TravisR]

I thought Coco started off a little slow but the last act was really emotional and made the movie. It's standard for Pixar but some of the environments that they created were incredible looking.

I didn't hate the short, but I did think it was too frickin' LONG! It would've been much better at half the length...

I think knowing that it was as long as it was made it easier to watch for me. Until I read about it, I assumed it was 7 or 8 minutes like the other shorts on Pixar movies (the Frozen short on the live action Cinderella was under 10 minutes) so I would have wondered why it was so long and that would have taken away from my enjoyment of it.

That makes sense. I was thinking exactly "this isn't a short, it's a full blown special." I got the feeling that many in the theater I was at were getting antsy. I even heard a couple of "are we in the right theater?"

My theater had put up a sign at the box office and on the door of the theater saying how the Frozen short was 20 minutes and they underlined it. I guess they anticipated or were tired of questions from people.

He was credited as "Juan Ortodoncia" (at IMDb). Haven't seen the film, so I'm not sure where he appears.

I didn't hear Ratzenberger but yeah, he's the last credited person in the end credits cast list. I don't know who Juan Ortodoncia is in the movie but I'm guessing he probably says one or two sentences just so they could keep the Ratzenberger streak going.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

That makes sense. I was thinking exactly "this isn't a short, it's a full blown special." I got the feeling that many in the theater I was at were getting antsy. I even heard a couple of "are we in the right theater?"

I was doubly confused - not only was the short like 5 hours long, but also it was 2D even though we were at a 3D screening,

I was surprised but I thought maybe they'd not bothered to convert "Olaf's" to 3D - even though some of the shots looked meant for 3D.

Nope - the theater just screwed up and ran a 2D version. When "Coco" started, it was 2D as well.

Told customer service - they quickly fixed it and gave us free passes for our trouble. Cha-ching!

 

[Jake Lipson]

I'm just going to put my entire post in spoiler brackets.

Spoiler

I've been looking forward to this one ever since they announced it and just really felt the plotting was very silly. "No music!" makes about as much sense as "No dancing!" in Footloose, which is also ludicrous. So much of the plot is reliant upon coincidence and circumstance to bring about and then extend Miguel's stay in the land of the dead -- of course his family destroys his guitar, of course no one will let him borrow one for five minutes, of course his family is going to put stupid conditions on the return home. Of course it doesn't come out right away that he's related to Hector because he has to hide from his family. Of course Ernesto de la Cruz ends up being a villain, because how many times has Pixar played the "person the protagonist idolizes is actually a stealth villain" card? Prospector, Waternoose, Charles Muntz...

I really just didn't find any of it emotionally effective.

It also felt like Miguel was more of a passive protagonist, following people around and doing what (fist) Hector, (then) de la Cruz says, rather than really driving the plot on his own.

The worldbuilding in the land of the dead was fantastic. It was really colorful and fun and inventive. I just wish the actual story had been as engaging as the world it was set in. It wasn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, but it's still B-material for Pixar.

 

[Jake Lipson]

In regards to the short: yes, Olaf's Frozen Adventure was developed for ABC and will probably air there in subsequent years. It's 21 minutes which is exactly the length of a half-hour special with commercials these days. That's also why its aspect ratio is 1.78:1 as opposed to the 2.35:1 of the original Frozen theatrical film.

I think what happened here is that Disney likely got nervous about how well Coco would sell on its own. Because it is not only a new property but also one extremely steeped specifically in Mexican culture, I can see a studio executive thinking that people from other cultures that are not Mexican or Spanish might be hesitant to go see that film. I don't agree, but I can see why a marketing person might infer that this is a tougher sell than something like Finding Dory or Toy Story 4.

So, they probably thought, "Hey, we have that Frozen special that we're working on. If we stick that in front of Coco, Frozen fans will pay to see that whether or not they want to see Coco." (It also probably helps to maintain the visibility of Disney Animation in an off year for them, since they don't have a release of their own.) Then, people would probably stick around and find Coco is actually good, since they paid for it anyway. I think it was intended to get butts in seats.

I also think this is shortsighted in terms of the value of Coco on its own, but it's not a huge leap to think that's why the studio made the decision to reroute Olaf's Frozen Adventure to the big screen from TV.

I didn't have a problem with it being long. Disney shorts used to be longer than they are now. Remember Mickey's Christmas Carol and The Prince and the Pauper? I thought it was good, and it's very likely that most of the audience for Coco are also Disney/Frozen fans, so together it's a pretty compelling package, I thought.

I think the problem is that Coco is a movie being aimed partially to children, and if you have 20 minutes of trailers + 20 minutes of Frozen + 1 hour 45 minutes of Coco, that's a very long total sit considering the age and attention spans of the audience.

Personally, I think the solution is for the theaters to simply run a shorter-than-usual trailer scroll on Coco: keep The Incredibles 2 and A Wrinkle in Time since those are both Disney, and ditch the rest, and then you'd have a more manageable running time. But ,of course, theaters don't want to do that, especially since Coco is a hit, because they want to make sure you see as many ads as possible so you're tempted to come back to the theater to see those films.

 

[DaveF]

I'm left unsure what to say about CoCo. I enjoyed it. It was fantastically gorgeous! The music was wonderful! I recommend it everyone. Depending on your life experiences and desires, you'll likely find it at least enjoyable and possibly deeply heartfelt and profoundly moving.

But it doesn't resonate with me. I won't buy it on disc; I have no interest in re-watching. It didn't much stir me emotionally.

Perhaps unfairly, I can best describe my experience by relating what didn't work for me:

Spoiler

The Day of the Dead theme has no cultural meaning to me. This isn't a bad thing, and I enjoyed the new experience. Learning about the holiday was a positive to the movie. But the film doesn't connect intrinsically to something I already deeply care about -- contrast to Toy Story, which connects to my cultural experience and childhood love of toys.

The themes of loss of community and loss of self and death are far more powerful in Toy Story 2 and Inside Out, for me.

The film's message that "your ultimate worth is in how big your family is and how much they remember you after you die" was ultimately a turn off to me, and diminished my enjoyment.

The overall Pixar experience is further diminished from intrusion by Disney direct-to-video dreck. Pixar should be Pixar and Disney should be Disney. Let me have a Pixar short (or none at all) in front of a Pixar film. And let Disney films by Disney films -- which as my weekend rewatch of Zootopia reminded me, are again pretty great.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Disney direct-to-video dreck

Whether you liked it or not is of course subjective, but I thought the production values on Olaf's Frozen Adventure were pretty high, and certainly better than the direct-to-video stuff Disney's done in the past. I don't think that a better holiday special featuring those characters would be possible. That isn't to say it was perfect by any means, but it achieved the desired goal of the featurette in a high-quality manner.