It’s also been said of Dreamworks, more specifically their CG featured, which have uniformly involved wisecracking, usually animal characters, pop culture references and smarm, etc. are consistent no matter who directs, but Nick Park and Peter Lord are generally seen as the main movers there). Think of “Disney,” after all, and the same attitude and verbiage has been applied to Aardman (fairly rightly so, especially since design aesthetics like the teeth, the bead-with-pinhole eyes, etc. But as far as studio seen as an auteur, that’s not surprising or shocking with animation, especially feature films, given the collaborative or even “factory” nature of it. Ken, at least until CARS, with RATATOUILLE and UP excepted). Not a defender of the faith (though I’ve generally liked Pixar more than Mr. My suspicion is that nine years from now, I will have devoted about as much thought to Brave, which is only able to sort of live up to its title by stacking its deck. Someone pointed out to me that aspects of the movie are strikingly similar to Disney’s Brother Bear (2003)-something that hadn’t occurred to me, simply because I haven’t given a minute’s thought to Brother Bear in nearly nine years.

By the time it was over, I felt like I’d simply sat through a film that was marking off a checklist-something perfectly professional, but lacking the one thing professionalism can’t replace: inspiration. All too often, I felt like I was marking time waiting for the fairly obvious plot to follow its inevitable course. Maybe that last is where my problem arises. It’s a good-looking picture and it moves like clockwork. Oh, sure, the animation is fine and the voice work is utterly professional. There’s nothing really actively wrong with Pixar’s latest, Brave, but, frankly, this tale of female empowerment in ancient Scotland fell far short of wowing me.

Brother bear and brave