Movie Review: Monsters University

Monsters University / Rated G / Walt Disney - Pixar Animation / 110 min. / Dir. by Don Scanlon

As many of you know, I do not approach the release of a new film from Pixar Animation with a casual attitude.  The "supah-geniuses" at the world's most acclaimed animation studio have a truly remarkable and unparalleled streak of quality and financial success.  While I have bemoaned the lowering of quality of their last two films (you can read my feelings about those here), I do stand by the statement that they have yet to make a bad movie.  At their worst (the "Cars" franchise), they make passably entertaining films, but at their best ("Ratatouille", "Finding Nemo", "The Incredibles", "Up", the "Toy Story" films), they make works of art that stand next to the absolute best Hollywood has to offer, animated or otherwise.

In 2001, they released "Monsters, Inc." and at the time many film critics, while still giving it positive notices, couldn't help but point out that Pixar had begun to get a little formulaic in their plotting.  Now we have "Monsters University", a prequel that, while still clinging to a formulaic plot structure, is the first film from the studio since 2010's "Toy Story 3" that feels breezily, blessedly, unabashadly Pixar-ian.

The film begins with a young Mike Wazowski, the most adorable eyeball with appendages ever spawned, on a field trip with his elementary school class.  He's the smallest, so he gets pushed around a bit and is often left with the teacher when students are called upon to buddy up, but he has a boundless optimism.  This life-changing field trip is to Monsters Incorporated, the factory where energy is created by collecting screams from children in the human world.  After a hapless misadventure in which Mike finds himself in the human world witnessing an expert scream extraction, he becomes convinced that it his destiny to become the greatest scarer in the world.

15 years later, Mike (again, winningly voiced by Billy Crystal) finds himself at Monsters University, ready to take the world by storm.  From this point on, if you've ever seen a college campus comedy, you know the story, so don't expect any great surprises.  There are tests, parties, rush-week shenanigans, mean frat boys, misfit frat boys, a scary Dean (given extra powers of condescension from Helen Mirren), and a frustrating, stupid jock that ends up becoming Mike's best friend.  Of course, if you've seen the first film, you know that jock to be Jimmy Sullivan (John Goodman).  Sulley is there because his entire family have been great scarers and he is seemingly destined to follow the family legacy.  Mike represents hard work, tenacity, and the power of learning.  Sulley represents raw talent.  They both need what the other has in order to succeed, but neither are willing to admit it, which leads to their animosity as well as to their eventual friendship.

The two end up, of course, as members of the loser fraternity, a tribe of misfits known as Oozma Kappa.  They're a lovable bunch, but the most lovable (at least for me) is Art (hilariously voiced by Charlie Day), an easy going hippy-type that looks like a cross between Snuffleufugus and a bicycle lock.  His asides are consistently funny and delightfully random.

As I said before, there's no need to go into plot details.  It's basically a clean "Revenge of the Nerds" with a distinctly Pixar-esque sense of humor and heart.  Are they going to be embarrassed and ridiculed?  Of course.  Are they going to be underdogs without a chance of proving themselves?  No doubt.  Are they going to demonstrate spunk and heart and show what they're really made of? Sure.  What makes "Monsters University" feel fresh isn't the surprises, because there really aren't any.  It feels fresh because of the easy and expert manner in which is entertains.  Unlike "Cars 2", which also was just a flat-out comedy, it doesn't feel coldly calculated to sell toys.  "M.U." exists not merely as a cash grab, but out of a genuine affection for and a sincere desire to revisit these characters.  In fact, the most daring thing about the whole movie is the eventual message.  I won't spoil that for you, but is quite the opposite of the messages found in about every other animated film out there and it's quite refreshing.

One thing about "M.U." that marks a return to form for Pixar is its commitment to plot and character.  There is a satisfying character arc for every lead character and a definite prioritization of staying true to character rather than selling out to cheap jokes, a tendency that had began to creep into Pixar's more recent outings.

"Monsters University" is solidly and unapologeticly mid-tier Pixar.  It's what happens when brilliant artists decide to take a break from redefining the genre (or from trying to overcome sky high expectations) and just have a little bit of fun.  It doesn't reach the same dizzying levels of art and inspiration as their best films, but it is certainly a breath of fresh air compared to some of their more recent efforts.  "M.U." won't leave you stunned, but it certainly left me with smile on a face and an appreciation for a film whose main purpose is to lighten your day.  It's a winning film and terrific way to kick off the summer with your family.

Grade: A- 

Movie Review: Man of Steel

Movie Review: Man of Steel/Rated PG-13/Warner Bros./143 min./Dir. by Zack Snyder

In the mid-00's, Warner Bros. made major strides towards resurrecting two major franchises that had been killed by time and horrible sequels.  First, came "Batman Begins", a well-reviewed reboot that was directed by Christopher Nolan, a brainy and creative director who got his start in independent dramas.  It made a little over $200 million in the U.S. and was declared an unmitigated success, with a sequel instantly put into production.  One year later came "Superman Returns", a well-reviewed reboot that was directed by Bryan Singer, a brainy and creative director who got his start in independent dramas.  It made a little over $200 million in the U.S. and was declared a major disappointment, with the reins to the franchise quickly taken away from the director.  Much of the criticism leveled at the movie was that it was overly-reverential to the Richard Donner directed film "Superman: The Movie" and its follow-up, "Superman 2".  The criticism is a fair one if you consider that tributary tone to be a negative.  However, for me, it was delightful.  I loved having the opportunity to see a film that felt like the best of the old "Superman" films, but had the advantage of modern-day special effects and filming techniques.  I still maintain that the airplane rescue sequence from "Superman Returns" is one of, if not the most thrilling action sequence from any "Superman" film.  It had beautiful moments of character development and was terrifically acted, particularly by Brandon Routh, who seemed like Christopher Reeve's twin in looks, voice, and mannerisms.  However, since the fanboys didn't love "Superman Returns" with the same zealousness with which they embraced "Batman Begins", it was deemed a failure, in spite of comparable critical reception and box-office.  

Then came, "The Dark Knight" which finally gave Warner Bros. the superhero mega-blockbuster for which they were hoping.  Christopher Nolan was the golden child and they decided to offer him the keys to the Superman franchise as well.  He turned down directing, but was willing to produce and it was decided to give the directorial responsibilities to Zack Snyder, a man who had previously directed only five films, four of which were fairly well received:  "Dawn of the Dead", "300", "Watchmen", and "Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole", although all four of these were generally considered visually audacious, questionably plotted, and broodingly dark.  The fifth was "Sucker Punch", a critical and financial failure that showed the cracks in Snyder's technique:  He's great at giving events weight, but tends to skimp on character development that would give said event emotional resonance.  This was my concern about him being chosen to direct a new Superman movie.  If his being hired was in response to the backlash against "Superman Returns", then Warner Bros. was probably looking for a dark and brooding take on the character.  However, the problem is Superman ISN'T Batman, nor should he be.  Superman represents optimism, unfailing goodness, and the best that humanity can be, whereas Batman represents choosing good in spite of the constant temptation of revenge.  Metropolis is Rudy Guiliani's New York, clean, wholesome and filled to the brim with Disney Stores.  Gotham is the dirty and crime-ridden New York depicted in 70's era mob movies.

Well, for better or worse, "Man of Steel" is precisely what one would think they would get from a Superman movie directed by the man who brought us "300".  Visually stunning, conceptually derivative, and sadly lacking in character development.  It's certainly not a bad movie, but it's a surprisingly hollow and unfortunately chaotic one.

"Man of Steel" starts off well-enough.  We begin in Krypton, only this is a very different Krypton from what we've seen before.  Visually, it looks like a combination of "Avatar" and "The Matrix", with new C.G.I. wonders popping up in every corner of the screen.  Here, we meet Jor-El (Russel Crowe) who, with his wife  Lara (Ayelet Zurer) have unthinkably had a child by means of natural child birth, an act which has not happened for hundreds of years on Krypton.  Children are bred genetically with pre-programmed destiny, but Jor-El is convinced that the future of the planet will depend on children choosing their own life path.  At the same time, a military coup is being lead by the fearsome General Zod (Michael Shannon), a man who was bred to be a fierce warrior with one purpose: "Protect and preserve the people and the culture of Krypton".  He has decided that the grand council's actions are for the detriment of his people, so it is his duty to bring them down.  However, after his take-over attempt fails, he is condemned to the dimensional limbo known as "The Phantom Zone".

Much of the set up is well-known to anyone familiar with the Superman mythos, however there are enough interesting changes and thoughtfully constructed developments to make it all feel new.  Granted, there's nothing here we haven't seen in other sci-fi or war movies, but we've never seen them applied to the Superman backstory before and that alone makes them feel new.

In fact, some of the most enjoyable bits in the movie have to do with specific plot points that differ from previous versions of the movies.  Zod has far different motivations than in "Superman 2", Lois Lane is far more integral to the plot (although Amy Adams' portrayal of her does, at times, feel mannered and stilted), and Clark Kent (terrifically played by Henry Cavill) is more thoughtful.  Not brooding, as I worried he might be, Kent is simply worried that the very people he is drawn to protect would reject him if he were to reveal himself to them.  There are many neat moments which focus on Kent struggling to come to terms with his abilities that are beautifully handled and ask questions previously unbreached by other filmed versions of the story.

No, my issues with "Man of Steel" are not from plot deviations, nor the performances (which, aside from the previously mentioned issues about Adams' performance, are uniformly excellent), nor the music which is one of Hans Zimmer's more majestic efforts.  The major issues I have with the movie come with its finale, in which plot contrivances build in order to lead to battle sequences and destruction set-pieces that could have been lifted directly from a "Transformers" film.  While the ad campaign for the film (which is among the best ad campaigns ever mounted for a film) focused on the noble and inspiring moments of character interaction with a few thrilling moments of action, the final third of the film is nothing but exploding buildings, brutally violent fights, and random people running and screaming.  It's simultaneously numbing and exhausting, with the viewer feeling like they were the one that was pummeled rather than the super-powered characters and, unlike a similar finale in last summer's far superior "Avengers", there's no dramatic plot development to ground it all.  It's just scene after scene of soulless destruction which feels like it's there just to serve as summer blockbuster fodder.  It's those final action sequence which, more than anything, betray the spirit of the Superman legend.  Superman would have fought to find a way to lead the fight away from the city rather than laying waste to the city just as much as the villain in order to win.

Also missing was the humor that was integral to past incarnations.  There was one sight-gag, involving an loud mouth trucker, that was laugh-out-loud funny, but the remainder of the film was so self-serious that it is destined for the MST3K treatment from the guys over at rifftrax.com.

So, for me, overall "Man of Steel" was an exhausting and maddening experience.  Part beautiful and thrilling allegory, part mindless destruction, the good was very good, but the bad was patently unnecessary and disheartening.  Overall, I'd still say it's worth the ticket as long as you're not looking for anything more than a visually audacious destruct-o-fest.  If you're looking for a film that pays tribute to the spirit of Superman while deepening it for modern audiences, you might just have to look to the sequel for that.  Let's just hope that the sequel bucks the trend of sequels and goes smaller and quieter.  Much smaller and much quieter.

Grade: B-