Movie Review: Pacific Rim

Pacific Rim/Rated PG-13/Warner Bros./132 min./Dir. Guillermo Del Toro

Guillermo Del Toro has carved a unique place out for himself in the annuls of genre film.  With films like "Pan's Labyrinth" and the "Hellboy" films, he has shown a flare for highly poetic fantasies/fairy tales that veer jarringly, yet organically from light to dark and back again.  His films have a reputation for being praised by critics, worshiped by movie geeks, and utterly ignored by the general movie going public.  His newest film, "Pacific Rim", is for better or worse the least "Del Toro" feeling film on his filmography.  That doesn't mean that it's a bad film by any means.  While it lacks the visual poetry and the quirky atmosphere of his other films, it takes one of the most juvenile of sci-fi sub-genres, the giant robot destructopalooza, and injects it with a heaping helping of humanity.  No, the biggest surprise about "Pacific Rim" isn't its groundbreaking special effects, but that it's actually about people as opposed to hardware.

In a well paced prologue, we're told about a group of skyscraper-sized aliens called the Kaiju that have been waging a war against Earth after having coming through an inter-dimensional rift in the Pacific.  When it became clear that the monsters were not going to stop, the countries of the Earth put aside their differences, pooled their resources, and created the Jaeger program, which involves giant robots that are connected to the cerebral functions of their pilots.  At first, it seemed that the humans would fairly easily win this war, but the Kaiju kept coming, kept getting bigger, and started coming more often, which depleted the world's supply of Jaegers.  Now, as the Jaeger program faces discontinuation and the human race faces extinction, the final group of brave pilots come up with a final plan to stop the end of the world.

Contrary to what one would believe from the commercials, "Pacific Rim" is not a two hour Godzilla-type battle scene.  There are a few stunning action set pieces, but Del Toro spends the bulk of the time building back stories and character-based motivations that get us to root for the pilots, not the robots.  It also helps that he has assembled strong actors even in the lesser roles.  Granted, they're not required to do any Oscar-level emoting, but they all approach the film with commitment and sincerity, which is a huge ace up the movie's sleeve.  A sci-fi film with uncommitted or untalented actors will fail to engage the audience on an emotional level, regardless of how lavish the special effects.  For an example of this, just look at the "Transformers" movies.  In those films, the abilities of the actors were uneven, with some fully believable and others simply laughable, and not in a good way.  Here, however, the cast is all on equal footing, making it easy to buy into their characters and into the more implausible aspects of the plot.

Del Toro has never directed an event film of this magnitude before, but it's clear that he's been inspired by some of the best.  The film has the grit and militaristic flair of the best of James Cameron's sci-fi efforts without the occasional horrible writing (I love "Avatar", but I can't hear the word "unobtainium" without bursting into fits of giggling).    Also, while the plot sounds like Godzilla vs. Transformers, it actually feels like a much more thoughtful version of "Independence Day", displaying a similar humor (particularly in the form of Charlie Day, who between this and his role as the scene stealing Art from "Monsters University" has made the leap to big-budget movies with great success), and hitting similar emotional beats to the 1996 blockbuster.

Visually, the film is spectacular.  In fact, it's one of the rare live-action films where I think the 3D is worth the extra-money.  Del Toro shows an understanding of how to connect the technology with the story telling in such away that the 3D technology actually feels fundamental to his overall directorial vision.  "Hugo" and "Life of Pi" also did a wonderful job with the 3D format, but an action movie hasn't used the technique with this level of success since Cameron's "Avatar", which is especially impressive when you consider how many scenes take place in the bark and in the rain, both of which are notorious for minimizing the 3D effect.

On the negative side, "Pacific Rim" is, in what is becoming the standard for big-budget tentpole films, about 20 minutes too long and it occasionally goes for the obvious joke or plot development (it won't take you long to figure out which characters will be around in the final frames), but when compared to other films with similar plots, it's thoughtfully created into something resembling art.  How many times can you say that about a giant summer special-effects extravaganza?

The last word is that "Pacific Rim" is thoughtful, fun, and exciting.  It is also a little overlong and a little predictable for its own good.  Overall, though, it's an easy recommendation and I hope that it will be financially successful if only to encourage Hollywood to give their giant sci-fi films a head and a heart as well as a love of explosive special-effects.

Grade: B+

The Blind Passion of the Fanboy

Believe it or not, it took me a while to recognize the symptoms of Fanboydom in myself.  I've collected movie posters, "Art of" and "Making of" books, toys, and soundtracks since I was in middle school, but I didn't see myself as a mega-movie geek (the term Fanboy did not exist back then).  In college, I decorated my apartment with Disney movie posters and action figures of all kinds, from "Star Wars" to "Jurassic Park" to "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" (yes, I own a Quasimodo action figure).   

It was recently that I was faced with my own super-fandom in the form of setting up my office in our new home.  I decided I'd pull out all my memorabilia in a fantasmagoric explosion of coolness.   So, I start pulling out the boxes.  And more boxes.  And more boxes.  I soon realized that over the course of 40 years I had collected enough stuff to decorate an entire megaplex movie theater rather than a small-sized home office/recording studio.  So, I've had to choose which posters and toys to keep out for display.  I think it was about the time that I took this picture.....

....that I realized I was a fanboy.  Not just because I owned all of these very disparate toys, but because of the perverse glee I got at combining them.  The idea of Superman in a battle with Marvin the Martian while riding a velociraptor is just waaaay to joyful to me.  In fact, right now, this epic battle is being observed by a little yellow minion, Pluto, and Crow T. Robot and Tom Servo from MST3K.  Yes, I fully own up to my movie nerd tendencies. 

However, there is one critical area in which I tend to differ from others of my ilk....blind passion.  Not to say that I don't at all suffer from this condition, but I would like to think that I'm more aware of when this passion is effecting my objectivity.  You see, this blind passion tends to cause a difficulty in objectively judging the quality of films, specifically of genre franchise films.  If a fanboy has been anticipating a  new chapter in a favorite franchise, expectations grow and grow, often to the point where a mere movie could not possibly live up.

The most notorious example is "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace."  No, I'm not going to argue that TPM is a great movie, or even an above average one.  The dialogue is pedestrian at best and the performances feel universally held back, as if the actors were directed to not emote (I could almost picture George Lucas yelling "Natalie!  Everytime you emote, attention is taken from Jar Jar!").  

However, I am going to say that it's still a victim of F.A.S. (Fanboy Anticipation Syndrome).  A 16 year span between films had made the original trilogy, especially "Star Wars" and "Return of the Jedi", take on a reputation of perfection that was quite exaggerated.  After recently revisiting the original trilogy, it was clear that, while Uncle George was a genius at inventing new worlds and characters, he was not the best at dialogue and, being the sole screenwriter of Episode I, he was clearly going to bring this flaw to the prequels as well.  

The prequels did, however, manage to build a genuine sense of dread and they were, each and every one, triumphs of special effects, creative designs, and fantastic set pieces.  Not perfect, but not horrible either, but "not horrible" is not enough to overcome almost two decades of expectation.  There wasn't a child that grew up with the originals that didn't wonder how Darth Vader became Darth Vader.  The fact is, even if TPM had been perfect, it would still have been likely to be viewed as a disappointment.

I believe that the most maligned film to suffer from F.A.S. was "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."  Sure, the CGI monkeys were awful and belief is called upon to be suspended on multiple occasions, but the same could be said of the original sequels (I don't include "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in this comparison, because it is pretty close to being a perfect film).  There were moments of weak special effects in those sequels and the character of Willie Scott from the 2nd film is 50 times more annoying than anything in KotCS.  Plus, the argument that the sci-fi elements found in the film's ending weren't faithful to the spirit of Indiana Jones doesn't hold water because Indiana Jones is inspired by the action/adventure serials of the 50's, which often incorporated similar elements in their plotlines.  If anything, it was highly faithful to the source material.

I think the problem comes down to this:  When you're passionate about something and you put it on a pedestal, any level of disappointment seems devastating, but it's important to remember that that disappointment is not as much a commentary on the quality of a film, but on the level of expectation associated with it.  These films, as well as reviled sequels such as "Spider-Man 3" (too many villains), "X-Men: The Last Stand" (too many deaths), "Shrek the Third" (too few laughs), or "Cars 2" (more disappointing when compared the whole of Pixar films rather than the original "Cars"), are remembered as being among the worst films ever made, but they weren't.  They were just disappointing.  Recently, I heard a film critic refer to "Cars 2" as the only Pixar film universally considered bad by critics.  Really?  According to Metacritic.com  (http://www.metacritic.com/movie/cars-2)  there were only four out of 38 reviews from top critics that were negative.  In fact, there were more positive reviews than there were mixed.  However, "Cars 2" is remembered as truly awful because it was the least sparkling film in Pixar's crown.  

F.A.S. can lead to misinterpretations to the positive as well.  I was recently called out by a reader for saying that last year's delightful "Brave" was a bad movie.  I never said that (here's the original review for reference ).  I said it was disappointing when one considers how great it could have been.  I gave the film a "B+" grade.  As a school teacher, I can assure you that a B+ does not indicate horrible work.  Possibly slightly below the capability of an exceptional student, and that was what "Brave" was for me: slightly below the capability of the most creatively electric film studio around.

None of the films I've mentioned actually received mostly bad reviews.  Most of them received largely mixed reviews, aside from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which actually received mostly positive reviews. 

So, it is with a sense of professional integrity that I promise I will try not to let my status as a self-proclaimed Fanboy lead me to bouts of F.A.S., neither positively or negatively.  Plus, I'll try to post picture of my new nerd lair (a.k.a. home office)  once it's done.  :)

Movie Review: White House Down

Movie Review: "White House Down"/Rated PG-13/Columbia/132 min./Dir. by Roland Emmerich

Director Roland Emmerich has made a career destroying landmarks, some of them repeatedly.  He has destroyed the Statue of Liberty twice, the U.S. Bank building twice, and twice blown up the Vatican.  In fact, if you take into consideration "2012", he has technically destroyed every single historical landmark in the world at least once.  However, there is one building that he takes a particular zealous glee in destroying over and over and over again.  The White House.

It's been wiped out by cataclysmic tsunami......

It's been blown up by aliens.....

All of those were part of global catastrophes though.  Now he's put the White House front and center in his cross-hairs of destruction with "White House Down", a big-budget, highly-predictable political thriller that, in spite of its flaws, is one of his most enjoyable films.

Channing Tatum plays John Cale, a character with qualities that could have been lifted from a action movie hero text book:  A former soldier who has been doing his best to balance a job guarding the House Majority Leader (Richard Jenkins) with getting closer with his estranged and angry teenage daughter (Joey King).  Through a series of somewhat contrived circumstances, he and his daughter happen to be visiting the White House on the exact day when militants blow up the senate and infiltrate the White House itself.  If you've seen the commercials, you know that Cale's daughter ends up a hostage and Cale ends up becoming the President's last remaining protector inside the residence.  

As I mentioned before, there are twists and turns in the plot, but none that you won't have figured out in the first 15 minutes.   Of course, you don't see an Emmerich movie for the complexity of the plot (although this one tries harder than his average fare).  No, you see an Emmerich movie for the pacing, the explosions, and the occasionally inappropriately broad bit of comedy (here in the form of a White House tour guide that is very protective of the antiques to be found there).

One of the things that sets Emmerich's films apart from those of fellow master of pyrotechnics, Michael Bay, is that Emmerich's films have a sincerity that makes you care about the characters even when they behave in unbelievable and illogical ways.  The performances throughout are uniformly enjoyable, especially Tatum and Jamie Foxx, who plays the President.  Tatum seems to recognize that he is in "Die Hard in the White House" and he does a terrific job keeping the proceedings light when they need to be, but equally able to kick anarchist butt with a fierce physicality.  For reasons based more in policy than race, it is clear that Jamie Foxx is playing a hyper-realized version of President Obama, but he makes the roll his own with humor and grace.

"White House Down" has dreams of being "Air Force One", but it's way to silly for that.  It does, however, make a welcome departure from Emmerich's disaster-of-the-millennium wheelhouse.  By keeping the action focused on a single location and by switching genres to political thriller, he seems more energized than he has on any film since "Independence Day".  It's a "turn off your brain and have fun" kind of movie with lots of fun performances, high-speed action, and suspenseful set pieces.

FINAL NOTE/WARNING:  I'd like to talk a little about the politics of the film and I can't do so without some MINOR SPOILERS.  This is NOT a bi-partisan movie.  In Emmerich's Washington D.C., all people who align politically on the left are thoughtful, altruistic, and disappointed that they have to play the political game in order to change the world for the better.  Conversely, all on the right are violent, selfish, greedy, and in bed with big business, especially weapons manufacturers (with the exception of a Glenn Beck-type talk show host who gets the opportunity to show some courageous backbone).  If you agree with this political stance, you'll root on the heroes with an increased fervor.  If you disagree, this movie will be nothing short of infuriating.  If you, like me, believe that good people and selfish people can be found throughout the political spectrum and that the political system is too corrupt for either party to lay sole claim to the angel or demon archetype, then you will recognize the propaganda, chuckle it away and enjoy the fireworks.  Again, I'm not making a political statement, but when deciding if you want to see the movie, I think you should have all the info.

Grade (as a film, not a political statement): B-

Movie Review: "The Lone Ranger"

Movie Review: "The Lone Ranger"/Rated PG-13/Walt Disney/149 min./Dir. by Gore Verbinski

In the press, much has been made of the re-pairing of Gore Verbinski and Johnny Depp for "The Lone Ranger".  The two team up for the fifth time with the film, having worked together on the original "Pirates of the Caribbean" trilogy and the animated western, "Rango" (a film that I believe to be criminally over-rated).  What people fail to mention is that they're reunited with the "Pirates" screenwriters Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, and it's that pairing that is the most influential on the final outcome of "The Lone Ranger".  The tone, the pacing, and the humor are clearly from the writers who brought the world the adventures of Will Turner, Elizabeth Swan, and the infamous Captain Jack Sparrow.

This incarnation of the venerable defender of justice in the wild, wild west could have been called "The Accidental Ranger", in that John Reid (Armie Hammer) doesn't start the film as a lawman, but as a lawyer.  The real lawman in the family is John's brother, Dan, played by James Badge Dale, who between this, "Iron Man 3", and "World War Z", is having quite the summer.   Not only is Dan the better lawman, but he also got the girl.  He married John's girlfriend, Rebecca (Ruth Wilson) while John was at law school.  However, circumstance (i.e., the script) force John to take a more active roll in bringing in the bad guy, no matter how awkward he is in that roll.  In fact, much of the humor of the film comes from the fact that, while originally from the west, John is a fish out of water and possibly not up the task of being a fearless lawman.  Certainly, his Native American sidekick Tonto (Johnny Depp) doesn't think he his, however, Tonto had received a vision that Reid was the spiritwalker destined to help him find justice of his own.  Fortunately for their partnership, the object of justice for both of them is the same man, the villainous Butch Cavendish (William Fitchner).

The acting in "The Lone Ranger" is solid across the board.  Of course, Johnny Depp is in full "Deppy"-mode, bringing the potentially boring sidekick to the forefront with humor, strength, and just a touch of insanity (although, it should be noted that he is more understated here than he was as Jack Sparrow).  Hammer has been given the thankless "Will Turner" roll here:  Look pretty, fight hard, step back and let Johnny Depp do what he does, although the script does give his character more physical humor than Orlando Bloom got in the "Pirates" films, and Hammer shows himself more than equal to the task.  While there's nothing particular about the rest of the cast that stands out, they all perform admirably.

The biggest problem with the movie is that it stands in need of three or four good re-writes to trim the fat a little (the story would make a fun and zippy 90-min. action movie, but clocks in at a borderline tedious 2 1/2 hours), and to sharpen the jokes, which mostly work, but are pretty bad when they don't. 

It's not until the last 15 minutes of the movie that everything works superbly.  Of course, many westerns wrap things up with a chase on board a train (heck, this one bookends the movie with train chases), but the finale has a joyous energy that was truly delightful on the big screen.  Much of the joy is that, finally, the movie stops being "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Western Plains", and it allows itself to be a full-fledged, fully realized "Lone Ranger" movie.  It's here that we're allowed to see how these classic characters can own a film that is armed with modern special effects and filming techniques.  It is also here that the screenwriters allow the title character to no longer be the good-hearted, but bumbling, comic relief, and truly become the hero of the film.  Even the music score, by the ever-talented Hans Zimmer, feels belabored and lethargic throughout the movie until this sequence.  At this point, we hear the familiar opening notes of the famous "Ranger" theme, the "William Tell Overture" by Rossini, and Zimmer fully embraces everything great, noble, and even a little cheesy about "The Lone Ranger".  He is especially successful when he takes the flourishes that end Rossini's famous overture and tweaks them with noticeably Zimmer-ian chord progressions and rhythmic intensity.

If only the other 135 minutes were this fun and energized.  There is great promise in this finale of what these actors and filmmakers could do to breathe new life into Tonto and his "Kemosabe" (a nickname that is given a different meaning here than in other versions).  If Rossio and Elliott are brought back for a sequel (which may be unlikely given the amount that the film would need to earn to re-coup it's astronomical budget), I hope that they back off on the needlessly complex and contrived plotting and just give us a full-blooded western.

Lastly, a parental note:  "The Lone Ranger" is a hard PG-13, with a few very disturbing scenes, not unlike similar scenes in the "Pirates" movies.  If your child enjoys those films, they'll be fine with this, but if those films were too intense for your little ones, this will be too.

In summary, "The Lone Ranger" is 115 minutes of an OK western action/comedy, followed by 15 minutes of pure awesome.  It's neither the sure-fire franchise starter that Disney was hoping it would be, nor the bomb it's being made out to be by the press.  If you're looking for an entertaining, if forgettable way to beat the heat and you enjoyed the first three "Pirates" movies (this is way better than the fourth one), than you should have a good time with "The Lone Ranger"

Grade: B-

Movie Review: Despicable Me 2

Despicable Me 2/Rated PG/Universal Pictures/Dir. by Pierre Coffin & Chris Renaud/98 min.

Let's just get this out of the way.  This summer has had some pretty terrific movies, but I can't imagine any movie coming between now and the end of the summer months that will be more inventive, clever, hilarious, colorful, mischievous, or flat-out fun than "Despicable Me 2", that rarest of movie sequels that maintains everything that made the original work, while keeping things fresh and surprising.

When the original "Despicable Me" was released three years ago, it was a huge surprise hit, winning over critics and audiences alike with Warner Bros.-style mayhem, Burton-esque appreciation of misunderstood villains, and Pixar-ian heart.  With over half-a-billion in box-office, a sequel was inevitable, but where could you go with this newly domesticated super-villain (if you'll remember, the original ended with him adopting, saving, and becoming very paternal with three adorable orphans)?  Much of his appeal was his flippant disregard for the niceties of daily life.  Would his humorous edge be lost with fatherhood?

The delightful and surprising answer is no.  While "Despicable Me 2" certainly shows his devotion to his children, he still doesn't deal with social annoyances in the most acceptable ways (his way of handling an obnoxious neighbor who is intent on setting him up on a blind date is particularly enjoyable).  However, his efforts to turn a new leaf for the good of his daughters has drawn the attention of the Anti-Villainy League, a secret organization not unlike S.H.E.I.L.D. in the Marvel Universe.  The A.V.L. decides they could use Gru's experience as a super villain in tracking down a mysterious figure who has stolen a particularly dangerous Dr. Jekyll-like formula.  His partner on this mission will be the awkwardly charming rookie agent, Lucy Wilde (voiced with energy by Kristin Wiig).  Various suspects are investigated and some red-herrings are thrown their way, but when the culprit is discovered, Gru realizes that the plan hits closer to home than he realized.

Gru is, once again, voiced by Steve Carell, brandishing an intentionally vague Eastern European accent.  His vocal work is really among Carell's best acting, showing a complete dedication to the emotional core of the character while simultaneously owning the comic value of the accent and awkward syntax.  He and Wiig have a genuine chemistry rarely seen in animated films (something difficult to achieve considering that the actors rarely record together).

Once again, the heart of the film rests with Gru's relationship with his adopted family, including his daughters and his genetically engineered minions.  "Despicable Me 2" realizes the comic value of the minions and finds creative ways to increase their screen time that feel completely organic to the plot, unlike, say, the "Ice Age" films, in which the delightful Scrat segments feel completely disassociated from the plot until they're poorly forced together in the climax (this happens in each "Ice Age" film).  The minions are comedy gold, with smiles abundant everytime they show up.  In fact, stick around through the beginning of the credits, because there is a really fun minion segment that references next year's untitled minion movie.

The film is delightful to look at as well.  The 3D is definitely worth the extra money, as the filmmakers don't lose an opportunity to throw explosions, bubbles, confetti, jars of jelly, and even the minions themselves at the audience, however, make sure that you see it in a theater where they show 3D in the brightest format because the colors are bright, playful, and engaging.

If the film has a fault, it is in the area of character arc and development.  Where Gru's change from super-villain to super-dad was the central to the original's plot, there really isn't much of a change in any of the characters from beginning to end, and most attempts to give characters motivation are basically played for laughs, which is a shame, especially when compared to the recently released "Monsters University", which did such a terrific job in the these areas.

Yes, I have seen better movies this summer, but this is simply the funniest movie I've seen so far this year, with sharply written jokes and terrific physical gags hitting strong and often.  The audience was enthralled from beginning to end, adults and children.  Between this and "Monsters University" families have an embarrassment of riches at the box-office right now.  For that matter, so do adults who just want to have a good time.  Yes, Gru may be a little less despicable, but he's every bit as entertaining.  

P.S. - Watch out for the scene where we learn the most macho way to die.  It may be hard to hear over the audience laughter.

Grade: A-

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-