This movie has reminded me why I didn’t just like Pixar, no matter how much so many fall in love with their movies.

 I am of the opinion that all fiction, however fanciful it may be, has to have some rules: and proof of this is that we can believe in a world of anthropomorphic blue alien cats and, despite this premise, it would not be worth it for us to They put a magical fairy on Pandora.

So I’m trying to say that there’s no “anything goes” to that “it’s a kids movie” statement (formerly called a “family movie” but that’s another topic) either.

 The movie as such is entertaining. It can be vaguely slow or slightly boring at times, but it generally keeps up with a good pace and attentiveness; and even believing itself to be predictable at some point, it ends up not being so, not knowing what course it is going to take in the face of such an argument, which is not necessarily good either, since there is a slight sensation of chaos in a narrative world that ends up not being stable. And I think that’s the crux of the matter:

 As the beloved (not for me) “Toy Story” already did (and I saw it as a child), Pixar presents us, in a quite realistic way, with the uncomfortable feelings of characters who have no possibility of existing in the real world. (that’s what makes them uncomfortable).

Something similar to what we might feel with “The Sausage Party” if it weren’t for the fact that that movie had no plot at all; but, if it did, it would expose us to the trauma of empathizing with a tomato that does not want to be eaten alive by a human, despite the fact that this is its most logical destination.

 What does Pixar want me to do with these feelings of hurt and misunderstanding, for the sake of entertainment?

 Toys cannot speak in the presence of humans, for the simple reason that they are lifeless, and rats cannot cook, because they lack the intelligence to do so.

And in the absence of explaining a fanciful but logical reason to understand why these toys do, or these rats do, they continue to normalize their hardships in a world that does not understand them.

 The only way a rat can cook, communicate intelligently with a human, or be appraised by a food critic, is in a fantasy world. And the scenario that this film proposes to us is the real world.

As a spectator, it is difficult for me to concentrate on when I have to use the fantasy resource and when the realistic one.

But even ignoring it, and understanding that rodent-homosapien “brotherhood” is possible, where does all this lead me?

If you present me with a rat with such talents, why limit it to being a restaurant owner’s assistant? Why not make her a chef with her own establishment? Or for that matter, why not a rat President of the United States?

Why does this sound exaggerated and the other questions that the film raises are not?

 “You don’t have to pretend you’re a rat, you don’t have to pretend you’re a human”, can you be…both?

What strange bizarre reflection does the film want to take me to? Or is it merely for entertainment and they really didn’t want to tell me anything and there is no metaphor to scratch?

 Ok, I’m not that obtuse. You just have to be yourself, “anyone can do it,” or in this case, “anyone can be.” I understand Pixar’s intentions in this movie, but once again, their meta-universe fails me, and I don’t quite make the trip to the end. that they want to take me

At least I can say, and I repeat, that it is trained.