Review: Monsters University

Pixar has had a rough go the last few years.  Brave and Cars 2 were lackluster (sorry Zach, but I think Wreck-it Ralph was robbed by mediocrity at last year's Oscars).  It seems that the Brain Trust has been brain-dead since Toy Story 3, which had me slightly worried about Monsters University.  The first film is a masterpiece in animation and story but it was certainly plausible that they could mess it up.  I needn't have worried: University is easily their best fare since Toy Story 3 and lives up to Pixar's gold standard of storytelling.

SYNOPSIS
A look at the relationship between Mike and Sulley during their days at Monsters University -- when they weren't necessarily the best of friends.

THE GOOD
First of all, as with all Pixar productions, the animation is beyond beautiful.  The colors are vibrant and it looks so real.  It was 'drawn' better than The Croods, which was the best animated feature from Dreamworks EVER.  Also, the short before it, entitled The Blue Umbrella, is the most beautifully animated piece to come out of ANY animation studio.

The voice acting is really good for the most part.  It was fun to hear Alfred Molina (Doc Ock from Spider-man 2) and Nathan Fillion (Castle) as supporting characters.  Billy Crystal really outdid himself in this one.  He provides more depth than his previous performance.

The film is remarkably funny and has an amazing sense of timing.  The jokes hit just right and the originality and creativity were in full swing.  It's a return to the cleverness that audiences have come to expect from the animation and storytelling giant.

What makes University so great is its characters.  Most of the new additions are refreshingly unconventional and original.  I just couldn't get enough of the main support cast.

Another amazing aspect of this movie are its stark moral messages.  They are strong and to the point, which makes me want to recommend it to parents and children alike.  I won't go into what these messages are in order to avoid spoilers, but suffice it to say that this is a refreshingly moral film.  It's easy to compare it to other college-themed films, which deploy cheap sex-themed humor to get its laughs.  It SHOULD be compared to such films to show that humor of such a base nature isn't required to make a great film.  In fact, that base humor can easily detract from the heart of a story.

THE BAD
The only bad things are John Goodman's simplistic performance and the formulaic nature of the first half of the story.  John Goodman plays a 'Rad, dude!' type character that is a little too undeveloped until the end.

The first little bit is REALLY formulaic but, luckily it redeems itself at the end.

CONCLUSION
This movie works so well, to the point that it's my favorite movie of the year so far.  It is so fun and has gobs of heart.  I wouldn't put it above Wreck-it Ralph, but i would say it's a solid entry into the Pixar canon.  I recommend this to everyone except Nate Cooley, who will somehow find a way to not like it.  4.75/5 stars.

PARENTS GUIDE
Although this movie is rated G, it should be PG.  I don't know what the MPAA was thinking.  The scary parts are scary enough that a sensitive 4-year-old (like the one that I have) would not fare well.

Review: Man of Steel

Superman: The Movie is my first love.  I was exposed to a lot of great movies as a child, but before Star Wars or Condorman, my little heart was smitten with Superman.  I recently got the movie on Blu-ray, and it has aged well.  It was an emotionally-driven story with remarkably well-defined characters.  There is a sense of magic and awe in seeing Clark become Superman and seeing the world react to him.  It was the first superhero movie, and the only one that was watchable for more than 25 years (or until the release of Bryan Singer's X-Men). 

This sense of awe and innocence is what I expect from a Superman movie and was greatly disappointed in 2006's Superman Returns.  In my last review I spoke of why I think that Superman Returns is a pale imitation of our hero.  My main question going into Superman's latest cinematic excursion, Man of Steel, was, 'Could this new movie keep that awe and innocence whilst delving into the grittiness that Christopher Nolan was known for?'  I am pleased to say that it did! 

THE GOOD

Henry Cavill, although a Brit, is an excellent Superman.  Better than Brandon Routh (Superman Returns), Dean Cain (Lois & Clark), and Tom Welling (Smallville) combined.  He is able to embody the type of hero that sincerely wants to do good in a world that is fighting against that good.  At first I was really nervous about him as Clark Kent, but he did such a brilliant job.  In all seriousness, his performance is on par with Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man with the way he just owned the role.

Kevin Costner (Jonathon Kent) and Diane Lane (Martha Kent) were easily the next best actors in the movie.  I was scared that Costner would give a crappy performance, but he did the opposite: he and Diane Lane really drive the emotional core of this story and I honestly don't think the movie would have worked without them.

Although Hans Zimmer's score is very repetative and doesn't necessarily work as a stand-alone piece of art, it is PERFECT for this movie.  It really struck the right notes (figuratively AND literally) for the tone of what they were portray with the emotions.

As with most of Zach Snyder's movies, it is beautiful to look at.  The color palate fits perfectly and a great experience to look at.  I will need to see it again in order to gauge the quality of the cinematography against some of his other movies (i.e. Watchmen, 300).  I was enthralled with the story that I didn't get a chance to notice, which is how a good movie should be.

THE BAD AND NEUTRAL 
Amy Adams did a decent job, but I wasn't really convinced that she was the Lois Lane of lore.  I suppose that they were trying to make this Lois different from other Lois's, but they really changed the character to the point of making her unrecognizable.  Although, it should be stated for the record that out of all characters in the Superman universe to cast/play, Lois is without a doubt the hardest.  I feel like Erica Durance (Smallville) was the only one that really worked for me.

This is a personal preference, but I really hate it when most people speak with a British accent in a place (i.e. Krypton) except for one person.  Michael Shannon was a fantastic Zod, but everyone around him had a British accent, whist he kept his Midwestern enunciation!  It felt inconsistent and almost ruined the Krypton-based scenes. ALMOST. 

Critics are being really hard on this movie, mostly because of the more or less mindless action in the middle of the movie.  I'll admit, I tend to agree with them on this: the action was not as good as it could have been (especially when compared to something like the The Dark Knight) and felt mind-numbing more often than not.  However, the person I brought with me to the screening had the opposite opinion of me in that enjoyed the action way more than the emotional core. I think that Mr. Snyder is trying to play it both ways:  he tried to make a good emotional story while keeping the potential for high international box-office present.  Also, I think another reason might have been that the studio wanted more action because the lack therefore was the most common complaint for Superman Returns.

CONCLUSION
Man of Steel is an emotionally-driven story with some popcorn action in the middle to please the public.  The emotional core of this film overrides the mind-numbing action.  However, I think that the general public won't mind the action in the same way that I did.  I can't recommend this movie enough.  It is better than Star Trek Into Darkness and Iron Man 3 and I have hard time believing that any other movie (except for Monsters University) will be able to beat it in my mind.  4/5 Disco Balls.

PARENTS GUIDE
This film is emotionally heavy, and should not be viewed by young children or even some adolescents.  It is very violent, although not distastefully so. There is no sex, and not much language at all. 

Why the world doesn't need Superman Returns: A Retrospective Review

With the release of what is considered to be the most anticipated movie of the summer/year, Man of Steel, there has been a lot of buzz defending Superman's last cinematic endeavor, Superman Returns. Folks are defending it both as a movie and its box office record.  While I can't speak with much authority about whether or not it was a flop, I can state with some authority as to why it belongs near the bottom of the superhero movie heap.

Bryan Singer came onto the scene, at least for me, with what I consider to be the advent of the modern comic book movie in X-Men (2000).  It brought a visceral realism (AKA verisimilitude) to a fictional modern universe, which is something that had never successfully been done before.  Then, with X2 he brought it to a whole other level, making the characters even more complex and likable while moving the audience through an entirely relevant story.  So, when Jon Peters (the producer who had been charged with producing the next Superman film) got together with Singer, it seemed like a match made in heaven.  Could Bryan Singer bring that same realism to a Superman movie?  Yes and no.

First of all, Superman Returns is a beautifully made film.  The cinemtography is top-quality.  The editing and pacing are just phenomenal.  The effects were the best of its time, and still stand up nicely today.  Singer's ability to utilize the camera in order to move the story along is just fantastic.

The acting is quite good as well.  Brandon Routh does a fantastic job embodying Singer's interpretation of Superman.  Kevin Spacey is a remarkably better Lex Luthor than his predecessor, Gene Hackman.  Every time I watch it, I wish that George Lucas would have cast this little kid as Anikan.  I could go on and on.

The music is really great too!  Easily Jon Ottman's best score to date (it doesn't hurt that he was encouraged to use John Williams' iconic themes).

You are probably wondering why, with all this praise, I can possibly find it to be a dismal disaster.  The heart of the matter is that by Singer bringing his verisimilitude to this project, he changed Superman's character to the point that he was no longer Superman.

Superman stands for many things, but encouraging infidelity is not one of them.  It's pathetic to think that Superman would even consider breaking up an engaged couple (and one that has supposedly produced a child, no less!) because he is in love.  I know this sounds cliche, but Superman is the ideal gentleman.  Recently Charlise Theron starred in a film where her character is a home wrecker and is rightly vilified for such behavior.  How is it that we are supposed to see Superman differently or hold him to a different standard?  Don't even get me started on Superman as a peeping Tom!

The creation of Superman has been classified as the creation of American mythology, and I certainly agree with that.  He is the ideal that we all strive for: a powerful man, both morally and physically, who uses that power for good.  Superman represents the best in us.  The type of story that Singer, et al. try to tell is a good story; it's just not good Superman story.

A Note on Box Office
People are bringing up that this film made almost as much as Batman Begins, and therefore should have deserved a sequel in the same way.  Well, I think that Warner Bros. decided (smartly, IMO) to go a different direction because of the negative reaction to the movie by the paying public, and not the critical community.  Fans and critics alike praised Begins, while this film received a lot more of a mixed reaction from both.  There is no way that the hype would be as strong for a sequel to Superman Returns as it was for The Dark Knight.

Review: The Internship

I'm not sure I would have thought that Google would ever be the type to buy and pay for a film in the same way that Lifelock did for Identity Thief.  Nor would I have guessed that Vince Vaughn would ever be one to sell out by making a more or less sequel to Wedding Crashers that doubles as a commercial for Google.  But, that appears to be exactly what The Internship is.

While I did find much of Wedding Crashers funny, I also found much of the humor to be too cude (I dislike crude humor because I find it offensive and I think it's the easy way out to get laughs, requiring no creativity).  So, my expectations were a bit mixed, and were actually quite low because of the REALLY bad press it has received from the critical community.  However, I was pleasantly surprised. 

THE GOOD

Vince Vaughn is one of the more charismatic comedic actors currently working in Hollywood.  His charm alone can carry a movie quite easily.  He is so likable and funny in this film.  The salesman character he embodies is the type of person you want to be inspired by.  

The film is quite funny when it works, which fortunately is the majority of the time.  Vaughn and Wilson have such a good sense of timing and director Shawn Levy knows how to utilize that.

The supporting cast is quite good and actually remarkably realistic.  As a software engineer, I can safely say that I know individuals that fit each of the personality types that they decided to showcase.  They may have augmented the personalities for comedic effect, but make no mistake: those are realistic nerds through and through.

THE BAD
The product placement got out of hand and I found myself rolling my eyes at some of the more ridiculous attempts.  Also, the jargon that they used tried to be realistic, and while they used the right words, the context was completely off.  The shining example of how to do geek culture and dialogue right is Big Bang Theory.  Everything they do in there is spot on.

Owen Wilson's character, while fun and charismatic, felt more shallow than almost any other performance I've seen him in.  It felt like he phoned it in, or wasn't given proper directing.  On a side note, iff you want the best performance that Owen Wilson can give, watch Midnight in Paris, which is a delightfully perfect film in every way.

CONCLUSION
I laughed pretty hard at this movie and had a great time.  Everyone else in the theater seem to as well.  If most folks go in with a grain of salt with regards to the 'Googliness' of the picture and I think they will enjoy it too. 3.25/5 Disco Balls.

PARENTS GUIDE
There is no nudity, but the sex references are plentiful to the point of me questioning the PG-13 rating.  Also there is a big scene that takes place in a strip joint. There is a lot of language, including an f bomb.