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-

Movie Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

Movie Review: "Star Trek Into Darkness"/Paramount/PG-13/132 min./Dir. by J.J. Abrams

For a series originally founded on the ideals of social tolerance, intelligent discourse, and open-minded exploration of issues, "Star Trek" has a profoundly emotional fan base.  "Star Trek" fans have taken an entertainment franchise and turned it into a way of life.  I don't make this statement as an outsider either.  I have bought the movies on VHS, then DVD, then Blu-Ray.  I have the action figures and ships of each cast of each film and series, with "Enterprise" as the only exception because I just couldn't get into it.  I've never dressed as a Vulcan or learned Klingon or been to a convention, but I really do love Star Trek, so I, like many, was a little nervous about the 2009 reboot.  Much of the charm of the original film series laid with its cast, an aging, yet still highly entertaining group who had become better known as personalities than actors.

So, it was with great relief and joy that I embraced the exhilarating 2009 film.  Abrams brilliantly figured out how to create something new, but respectful of what came before.  Best of all, he took what was great about Star Trek and approached it from a fully cinematic view, which had honestly never been done before.  Even the best of the previous film installments couldn't ever get past the feel of an ultra-special episode of a t.v. show.  The 2009 reboot never felt like one.  From frame one, it was grand, cinematic, and action-packed.  The opening scene not only threw the Star Trek canon on its ear, but it was purely, beautifully, heart-breakingly character based and emotionally resonant.  You didn't have to like or even know Star Trek.  It was simply great film-making.

Much has been made of Abrams love of light flares and, yes, they are plentiful, but they are part of the overall visual language of the film, which included camera angles that emphasized the three-dimensionality of space and attention to detail that was strikingly new to the series.  While there had been great Star Trek movies before, this was the first that was just a great movie, period.

Honestly, the easiest thing for Abrams and his creative partners to do would've been to go crazy and wild with the new time line and create new aliens and adventures.  However, "Star Trek Into Darkness" does something a little more complex and a lot more risky.  It deals with characters and situations with which Trek fans are intimately aware and looks at them through a different lens, subtly tweaking them so they meant different things and held a different significance.  

While Kirk (Chris Pine) has remained in the captains chair since the last outing, he hasn't grown much, remaining a bit cocky and holding himself above rules and regulations.  Of course, as is true with any military organization, such flagrant disregard for authority isn't met with well and Kirk must face the consequences  (Curse that nasty old Prime Directive anyway).  However, the internal politics of Starfleet are sharply and harshly put on hold after a terrorist attack on a Starfleet base in London.  After investigating and dealing with the aftermath of further attacks, Kirk is on the path of vengeance against the perpetrator, a mysterious ex-Starfleet officer named John Harrison (fantastically played by Benedict Cumberbatch, although his casting does perpetuate the image of smart and powerful British people being villainous).

I don't want to get to in depth into the plot on the off chance you haven't heard about the twists (unfortunately, I heard about the main twist over a year ago).  Suffice to say that the events lead to several breath-taking action set pieces that feel more like the best of Spielberg than Star Trek.  Through the events, the different lead characters who are so well known that they have been part of our national consciousness for decades, are given situations that change their personal motivations in subtle, but highly enjoyable ways.  There are several times during the film that we see that, while some events seem destined to repeat themselves regardless of the time line, the timing of those events in the characters lives force character arc in a different way than seen before.  Most satisfying is seeing the development of Spock.  Because of the events of the last film and this one, this Spock is forced to confront his half-human side far earlier in his own life than Spock Prime and his choices are, at times, startling.  Quinto's performance is a stand-out at every turn.  He brings the conflict between intellect and emotion a palpable intensity that is a joy to watch.

Michael Giacchino continues to make the musical world of Star Trek his own, although I do wish that he would've delved into new themes a little more.  Had he taken the same route that John Williams did with "The Empire Strikes Back", he could've kept the old musical themes, but created more melodic themes to add to the pantheon.  I know he's capable of it, so I wish he would've added a little more new thematic meat to his Star Trek auditory meal.

However, that's a small complaint.  "Star Trek Into Darkness" is exciting, fast-paced, and visually stunning while remaining true to the spirit and themes of the original series.  I know that J.J. Abrams will have his hands full with Star Wars for the foreseeable future, but I sure hope he comes back to the world of Trek.  After all, a lot of exciting things could happen on a five-year mission of exploration.

Grade: A

Movie Review: Iron Man 3

Iron Man 3/Paramount/Rated PG-13/130 min./Dir. by Shane Black

In 2008, when the cinematic world was first introduced to Tony Stark in Jon Favreau's "Iron Man", he was a revelation, especially as performed by Robert Downey Jr.  Unlike almost every other superhero Stark was deeply, deeply flawed.  Brilliant, but profoundly arrogant, Stark could've been almost impossible for an audience to relate to, but Downey Jr. gave him such a sly and surprisingly self-depreciating sense of humor that he was not only easy to root for, but surprisingly easy to relate to.  While few of us are genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropists, we are all flawed and most of us try to do the right thing even when it's difficult and so did Stark.

However, in "Iron Man 3", we find Tony Stark a changed man.  After the events in "The Avengers" he's anxious and suffering from insomnia.  Like many brilliant people, he channels his sleeplessness into his work and, as a result, has made more Iron Man suits.  More and more Iron Man suits.  42 to be exact (of course, he only owns up to about 14 in order to downplay his loosening grip on reality).

Unfortunately, he is unable to address his problems directly because of a new threat on the country, a mysterious and publicly flamboyant terrorist known simply as The Mandarin (brilliantly played by Ben Kingsley).  With a disregard for human life and a talent for hijacking the countries airwaves, The Mandarin begins a campaign or destruction that looks to have an end game targeted on the President himself.

Also in the mix are a couple scientists from Stark's past, an idea man named Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) and a brilliant biological engineer (don't call her a botanist), Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall).  Conveniently, Killian also has a past with Stark's main squeeze Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), which makes for some romantic tensions throughout the film.

To get too much more involved in plot description would rob the story of some of it's surprises and there are a few.  Suffice it to say that much of the plot involves standard comic book topics (villainous manipulation of DNA, the man behind the mask exploration of a superhero, the "save the innocent or save the girl" dilemma), however "Iron Man 3" approaches these well-known tropes with a fresh sense of humor and a firm sense of character

One of the most impressive things about the way Marvel has approached its "Avengers" films is that it recognizes that each of these characters actually belong to different genres and, therefore, should have directors and writers with a talent and passion for those genres, but grounded in character.  "Iron Man" was a modern action-comedy about a billionaire playboy, so they brought in Jon Favreau, the man behind the male-centric bromance "Swingers".  "Thor" needed a sense of old-school grandeur, so they brought in the modern-master of Shakespeare, Kenneth Brannagh.  "Captain America" was a WWII action epic with a tinge of sci-fi, so they brought in Joe Johnston, the man that directed the WWII action epic with a tinge of sci-fi  "The Rocketeer".  Now with "Iron Man 3", they have a story that feels like an 80's-style action movie, so who better to bring in than Shane Black, the man who wrote "Lethal Weapon" and re-juvenated Robert Downey Jr.'s career with the indy-comedy "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang".  Black shines here, both as director, and as co-writer.  The dialogue has all of the machismo humor you could hope for, with many of the lines sounding like they would be equally at home coming from Mel Gibson's Martin Riggs character from "Lethal Weapon".

"Iron Man 3" also has a couple of the best set pieces yet from a Marvel movie.  The rescue attempt on Air Force One is dizzying and easily the best use of 3D in the movie and the attack on Stark's Malibu mansion (some of which is spotlighted in the trailers) is quite impressive.

There have been rumors that this may be Iron Man's final stand-alone film (although Downey Jr. is a confirmed part of the cast for 2015's "The Avengers 2"), and that would be a bit of a shame.  Not that I would want too much of a good thing, but I'm very curious to see where Tony Stark's character goes from here.  "Iron Man 3" leaves him a much more evolved character and I would very much enjoy seeing his character in another adventure with his new sense of purpose and character.  For now though, it's a trip seeing him get there.

In regards to the 3D, if you enjoy 3D movies, you'll enjoy this, but it's certainly not necessary in the way it was for "Avatar" or "Life of Pi".  If you see it in 2D, you won't miss anything.

Grade: A-

Summer Movie Preview

The summer movie season is upon us.  The season of special effects, rapid-cut car chases, and adorably animated animals.  Whereas some women become football widows come fall, my wife kindly accepts the fact that many Fridays during the summer we will find ourselves hunkered down in an air-conditioned theater with our popcorn and Junior Mints waiting to see the latest "biggest movie of all-time".

This year, there aren't too many movies that look exceptional, but the ones that do have my little fanboy heart  all a flutter.  Six months ago, this summer merely meant that we FINALLY get a follow-up to J.J. Abrams "Star Trek."  However, that changed for me about two weeks ago with this.....

I sincerely think that I have never seen a more masterful use of music, dialogue, and visual in a trailer before. "Man of Steel" has officially gone from "Oh, interesting.  Another 'Superman' movie" to "Holy cow, I need to see that NOW!".   I'm relieved to see that Zack Snyder, who is best known for much darker films, has kept the optimism inherent in the comic books.  Also, Hans Zimmer's score sounds like a worthy successor to John Williams' iconic music from the 1978 Richard Donner film. "Man of Steel" opens nationwide on Friday, June 14th.

Now, back to "Star Trek".  In 2009, J.J. Abrams did something pretty extraordinary.  He made "Star Trek" relevant to non-Trekkers.  He made a film that felt instinctively, inherently faithful to Roddenberry, but also original and gorgeously cinematic.  You didn't leave thinking you'd seen a good "Star Trek" movie.  You left thinking you'd seen one of the best sci-fi films of the last 30 years.

That's a pretty huge act to follow, but it certainly looks like he did a great job with "Star Trek Into Darkness".  He's shown the same deft skill at casting as he demonstrated when re-casting the iconic "Star Trek" characters in 2009 by bringing Benedict Cumberbatch  as the mysterious baddie John Harrison and it looks to have the same visual energy that made the first movie so visceral.  This still remains atop my summer must-see list.  "Star Trek Into Darkness" opens nationwide on Friday, May 17th.

Then, of course, there's next week's epic landing of "Iron Man 3", a film that seems to be not merely a third installment in the story of Tony Stark, but an in-spirit sequel to last summer's behemoth "The Avengers".  Early word from international audiences (where it was released last week) is extremely positive with many saying it's the best of the "Iron Man" films and particular praise for its direction and screenplay from Lethal Weapon scribe Shane Black.  Also, Ben Kingsley is being singled out for his performance as The Mandarin, an international terrorist with his sights set on America's most flawed genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist.  In addition, the most recent commercials look to give Gwyneth Paltrow a little more to do than banter and almost get killed by bad guys.  "Iron Man 3" opens this Friday, May 3rd.  (Note:  The below trailer is from the U.K., hence the different release date)

For me, it wouldn't be summer without a new Pixar movie to devour.  It's been three years since I had a wholly satisfying experience with Pixar (with "Toy Story 3"), but I still have extraordinary faith in the studio.  Even with the occasional "Cars 2", they have the best track record around, and while I do get annoyed by the new propensity towards the sequelification (yes, I just invented that word) of every Pixar film (except for "The Incredibles", the one that is actually set up for a sequel), this summer's "Monsters University" looks for be old-school Pixar fun.  With each new bit of footage I see, it looks to maintain the play-time zippy fun of the original.  Plus, they've added some pretty terrific voices to the Monster world, including those of Helen Mirren, Nathan Fillion, John Krasinski, Aubrey Plaza, and Alfred Molina.  In addition, I just think a Pixarian take on a college movie could be a great amount of fun.  "Monsters University" opens nationwide on Friday, June 21st.

Here's a calendar of the noteworthy movies headed to your neighborhood theater this summer:

May 3rd:

"Iron Man 3" - (see above)

May 10th: 

 "The Great Gatsby" - This updated take on the famous story looks to have the same colorful, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink take on drama that Baz Luhrmann demonstrated in his last film, 2001's "Moulin Rouge", with a terrific cast that includes Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, and Tobey Maguire.

May 17th:

"Star Trek Into Darkness" - (see above)

May 24th:

"Epic" -Blue Sky studio's attempt to hit it big with something not starring a nut-obsessed prehistoric squirrel/rat, "Epic" looks visually stunning, but narratively extremely derivative.  Still, some of those creature designs look like they could be worth the price of admission on their own.

"Fast & Furious 6" - Who would have thought they would make six of these?  Not me, but something funny happened two years ago.  "Fast Five" was actually a pretty good movie, with one of the most electrifying action sequences of the past decade.  While I can't say I'm looking forward to a sixth outing, I'm still hopeful for something that may entertain beyond camp value.

"The Hangover Part III" - A follow-up to one of the most financially successful, but critically reviled comedy sequels of all-time.  Please don't see this, or they might be tempted to make another.

May 31st:

"After Earth" - ...or "Will M. Night Shaymalan Ever Make Another Good Movie".  Hiring Will Smith is always a smart move.  I'll keep my fingers crossed.

"Now You See Me" - A heist movie with a stage magic twist.  The commercials definitely give a "potential sleeper hit" vibe.

June 12th:

"This Is the End" - Yet another apocalyptic-themed comedy (when did that become a thing?!?), this brings the Apatow gang together playing themselves as pampered Hollywood stars trying to survive the end of times.  I'm a huge fan of the series "Freaks & Geeks" which introduced many of these actors to the world, so I just get disappointed when I see yet another film for them to indulge their distinctive brand of toilet humor when they're capable of the most poignant type of comedy.  Sigh.

June 14th:

"Man of Steel" - (see above)

June 21st:

"Monsters University" - (see above)

"World War Z" - Brad Pitt vs. horrible CGI......oh wait, I mean zombies.

June 28th:

"White House Down" - The director of "Independence Day" destroys the White House yet again, but this time it's Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx versus terrorists.  Well, at least Roland Emmerich (who also directed "Godzilla", "The Day After Tomorrow", and "2012") knows how to make stuff blow up real good.

July 3rd:

"Despicable Me 2" - The follow-up to one of the most effortlessly witty and charming animated films in recent memory.  Should be a fun time.

"The Lone Ranger" - "Pirate of the Caribbean" director Gore Verbinski and Johnny Depp re-team for this update on the radio serial hero.  Hopefully they can create something special once again.

July 12th:

"Grown-Ups 2" - Was anybody demanding a sequel to this movie?  I didn't think so.

"Pacific Rim" - Guillermo Del Toro gets to play with mammoth monsters and robots.  Heck, even if it was just him in his backyard with some toys I might pay money to see it.

July 19th:

"R.I.P.D." - Starring Ryan Reynolds and Jeff Bridges, this is, in essence, "Men In Black" with demons instead of aliens.  If Reynolds and Bridges can nail the buddy cop chemistry, it could be fun.

"Red 2" - More "The older the spy the better"-type fun.  The first one was a happy surprise.  Who wouldn't want to see this cast (Bruce Willis, Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Mary-Louise Parker, Catherine Zeta-Jones, John Malkovich) in an action comedy?

"Turbo" - It's a Ryan Reynolds weekend as he provides the voice of a snail with dreams of being a racer in this summer animation entry from DreamWorks.  The trailers look cute.  Not particularly special, but a perfectly pleasant way for a family to beat the heat.

July 26th:

"The Wolverine" - The second attempt at a stand-alone film for the iconic "X-Men" character, here's hoping that director James Mangold ("Walk the Line", "3:10 From Yuma") can deliver a better movie than the first one, which failed in spite of the efforts of one of the most innately likable actors in the world working his hardest in his signature role.

August 2nd:

"300: Rise of An Empire"  and "The Smurfs 2" - I'm lumping these two together because my reaction to both of them is the same.  Unnecessary retreads of movies that didn't warrant sequels.  

August 7th:

"Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters" - Another sequel that seems somewhat unwarranted, however, if they're more faithful to the source material than the first movie, this could genuinely be something special.  Also, adding Nathan Fillion to your cast is always a good idea.

August 9th:

"Elysium" - Neill Blomkamp showed himself capable of smart and creative sci-fi with the anti-prejudice actioner "District 9".  "Elysium" looks to continue with his trend of using sci-fi to comment on current societal issues, specifically the struggles among the classes.  Starring Matt Damon and Jodie Foster, you just know it'll at least have some terrific acting.

"Planes" - The last time a direct-to-video follow-up to a Pixar film was deemed worthy for a theatrical release we got "Toy Story 2", one of the best animated films of all-time.  While I doubt this Disney take on the Pixar "Cars" universe will be anywhere close to that league, Disney isn't known for taking chances, so they must think they have a hit on their hands.

Finally, here are my predictions on the summer box-office champs.  We'll only know if I'm right on Labor Day.

1.  Man of Steel

2.  Iron Man 3

3.  Star Trek Into Darkness

4.  Monsters University

5.  Despicable Me 2

6.  The Hangover III

7.  Fast and Furious 6

8.  The Lone Ranger

9.  The Wolverine

10. Pacific Rim

Happy summering!  Now I need to finish writing a play and get ready for a terrific PSC concert!

Movie Review: The Croods

Movie Review: The Croods/Rated PG/Dir. by Chris Sanders and Kirk De Micco/DreamWorks/98 min.

In the world of live-action film, there are a few directors with the level of name-recognition and fandom comparable to famous actors.  Your Spielbergs, your Hitchcocks, your Scorseses.  Recently J.J. Abrams and Joss Whedon have become the type of director that is almost more of a draw than any on-screen talent. However, in the world of animation, the director is usually a hidden hero.  Partly because most animated films are marketed to children, who really couldn't care less who directed the movie, and partly because directing an animated film is not as respectable as directing a live-action one among Hollywood types.  However, as an adult fan of the art form, I believe there are a few names in animation that should be as well-known as their live-action counterparts.  Brad Bird, who has successfully made the transition to live-action film, is also responsible for three of the best animated films of the past 20 years: "The Iron Giant", "The Incredibles", and "Ratatouille".  Then there's Andrew Stanton, who less successfully made the transition to live-action with "John Carter", but also directed the animated classics "Finding Nemo" and "WALL-E".

Another name that should be synonymous with quality work in animation is Chris Sanders.  Starting at Disney in the early 90's as a story writer, he helped craft the stories for "Beauty and the Beast", "Aladdin", and "The Lion King".  Then he was promoted to writing the screenplay for "Mulan".  A few years later, he was handed the reins of a film as director (along with his writing partner Dean Dublois) with "Lilo & Stitch", a movie that was marketed by Disney as a raucous and irreverent comedy, but turned out to be surprisingly heartfelt and beautiful.  He and Dublois then left Disney for DreamWorks and they directed "How to Train Your Dragon", a movie that was marketed  as a raucous comedy, but turned out to be surprisingly heartfelt and beautiful.  Now Sanders brings us "The Croods" (along side Kirk De Micco, whose previous directorial effort "Space Chimps" is far less promising), a film that has been heavily marketed as, you guessed it, a raucous and irreverent comedy, but turns out to be heartfelt and beautiful as well.  Sanders has a keenly sharp sense of humor, but he also understands that what makes a movie more than merely funny is heart and "The Croods" has heart to spare.  Thankfully, the most crude thing about the movie is its title.  

The Croods are the last family to survive the harsh dangers of their neighborhood and, as far as they know, the last humans left in a very frightening prehistorical landscape.  Grug (Nicolas Cage) knows that the only way he can protect his family is to instill in them a very primal sense of fear.  Bed time stories always end with curiosity being met with instant and unexplained death and fear and cave-cowering are met with survival.  While Grug's tactics have kept his family alive as others have been killed, his teenage daughter Eep (Emma Stone) longs for more than survival.  After encountering a rogue human aptly named Guy (Ryan Reynolds) and narrowly escaping a catastrophic earthquake, the family is forced to go on a road trip to find a safer place, which is great for the free-spirited Eep, but a nightmare for her father.

Along for the trip are mother Ugga (Catherine Keener), son Thunk (Clark Duke), the venerable Gran (Cloris Leachman) and a baby known merely as "The Baby", who is part adorable moppet, part feral animal, a personality trait that the movie uses frequently to hilarious effect.  While the family becomes intrigued by Guy's new ways and ideas, Grug is less trusting, especially as he sees his daughter's increasing infatuation with the free thinking Neander-dude.

Using the backdrop of the breaking of the continents and the constantly evolving wildlife of a prehistoric world, "The Croods" deals with the well-tread "rebellious teenager/strict father" story line, but because of the setting, the high level of humor and the terrific voice performances, it never feels cliched.  In fact, "The Croods" is one of those rare animated comedies that really gets the balance of humor and heart just right and it builds that humor from the character personalities and situation instead of building the situations around the humor, something that early DreamWorks films sometimes struggled with.  Plus, after an hour of consistent belly laughs, the poignancy of the ending packs a pretty powerful emotional punch.

We're also given themes and messages that are far removed from the traditional animated film.  No "Just be yourself" platitudes here, "The Croods" is all about change as the impetus of growth, which is a wonderful lesson for children and adults alike.  

The animation is quite lovely and in 3D it positively pops off the screen.  The 3D is used in obvious, "chuck things at the screen" ways, and also in subtle ways to tell the story.  While I would normally recommend people skip 3D, especially with the increasing expense of seeing a movie in the theater, this is one instance when the 3D is used to great effect which truly enhances instead of just costing more.

To say that "The Croods" is the best prehistoric-themed comedy ever made is not saying much.  Its competition is the likes of "Year One", the live-action "The Flintstones", and the Ringo Starr-staring "Caveman".  However, saying that it's among the upper-tier DreamWorks efforts is quite a compliment.  It stands easily among "Kung Fu Panda", "How to Train Your Dragon" and the other better efforts of the studio.  Hopefully, the studio will continue to attract talented filmmakers like Chris Sanders and these types of high-quality films will be the new norm for DreamWorks.

Grade: A-

Jack vs. Oz: Which fantasy is more bewitching?

Movie Review:  "Jack the Giant Slayer"/Rated PG-13/Warner Bros./Dir. by Bryan Singer/114 min.
                         "Oz: The Great and Powerful"/Rated PG/Walt Disney/Dir. by Sam Raimi/130 min.

In the past week and a half, there have been two big-budget period fantasy movies released.  Both were directed by auteurs originally known for independent films, but who took over major Marvel comic book franchises in the early 2000's.  Both of them directed two of the best-regarded superhero movies ever made and were looking to do something completely different.  However, both of them came up with very different films.

Last week brought the first of the two films, "Jack the Giant Slayer", a movie with a troubled history of bloated budgets and changed release dates (it was originally supposed to reach theaters last summer, but was suddenly moved to a lower-profile spring release, which is rarely a good sign).  It was clear from the commercials that Warner Bros. either didn't have much faith in the film or they didn't have the first inkling of how to market it, in spite of director Bryan Singer's triumph with the first two "X-Men" movies.  If one was to believe the advertising, "Jack" was a wacky, chew-the-scenery action comedy with Ewan MacGregor and Stanley Tucci mugging at the camera at every opportunity.  In actuality, it's a full-blooded adventure film with top-rate special effects, committed acting and multi-layered writing rarely found in this style of sword and sorcery flick.

"Jack" stars Nicholas Hoult ("About a Boy", "Warm Bodies") as, well, Jack, a noble, kind-hearted farm boy who was raised on stories of giants, beanstalks, and magic beans.  Unbeknownst to him, Princess Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson) was raised on the same stories by her mother, who taught her to seek independent adventures as they will make her a more wise leader.  Unfortunately, she's betrothed to the royal advisor, an older, shifty-eyed gentleman who is played by Stanley Tucci, so he's CLEARLY not villainous (Jafar from "Aladdin" was a more subtle traitor to the royal crown).  The princess' thirst for adventure leads her to Jack, the magic beans, a beanstalk, and, of course, giants.

"Jack the Giant Slayer" does a good job making the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk" more grounded and believable.  In fact, it addresses how the story gets changed through the ages into the more benign version we now know.  Once the giants show up, the story becomes infused with a genuine danger and menace that leads to some surprisingly tense scenes, truly showing homage to its swashbuckling cinematic DNA.  The special effects are quite effective, both when used to inspire awe and when used to repulse (the giants are pretty gross, with a particular love for biting the heads off of their enemies).

The second of the two fantasy films, "Oz: The Great and Powerful", has a far less troubled history.  Lead by Sam Raimi with the same confidence he brought to the original "Spider-Man" films, and scheduled in March to take advantage of the release date that brought such huge success to Tim Burton's similar "Alice in Wonderland", "Oz" was exquisitely marketed by the super-geniuses at Disney.  However, unlike "Jack", the finished product isn't as good as the commercials make it look.

"Oz" stars the woefully miscast James Franco as Oscar Diggs (nickname: Oz), a magician/flim-flam artist who gets sucked up into a twister and sent to the magical kingdom inexplicably named after him where he encounters three witch sisters, Theodora (the similarly miscast Mila Kunis), Evanora (Rachel Weisz, slipping in and out of accents so much that it's hard to tell which one she was really aiming for) and Glinda (Michelle Williams), the obviously good witch, but never shown to be much more than merely good.  He is also given standard-issue sidekicks in the form of a servant flying monkey (voiced by Zach Braff) and an enchantingly animated and voiced China doll (voiced by Joey King).  It's never a good thing when you find the sidekicks infinitely more interesting than both the protagonist and the antagonist, but such is the case here.  I'd pay money to see an entire movie just about the fragile China girl and her teapot-themed city.

Franco simply doesn't have the range required in this film.  Sure, he's believable as a lovable shyster, but not as show-stopping entertainer, and that's supposed to be his true talent.  Every time he flips into P.T. Barnum mode, he's clearly out of his element.  Plus, he struggles with anything that requires sincerity.  In addition, Kunis, who is delightful in every other role in which I've seen her, simply comes across as whiny and annoying in her most dramatic scenes.  In fact, I think that this movie would have been far more effective with and entirely new lead cast (not including Braff and King, who both do a great job with their voice work).

The one area where "Oz" excells is visual splendor.  The special effects, the production design, and the visual direction are all enchanting and engaging.  Every inch of the screen in every frame is cinematic beauty.  If you're only interested in eye-candy, "Oz" delivers.  It's one of the most beautiful looking films I've seen in years.

Unfortunately, "Oz" will make a lot more money than "Jack" will for two reasons:  "The Wizard of Oz" is a more universally beloved story than "Jack and the Beanstalk" and Disney marketed their film WAY better than Warner Bros. did.  However, in deciding which film you may make the splurge to see, let me give you the following thoughts to ponder:  If you're looking for a good movie, "Jack the Giant Slayer" is an infinitely better film than "Oz: The Great and Powerful".  If you're looking for a beautiful-looking and pleasant movie "Oz: The Great and Powerful" is infinitely more pretty than "Jack the Giant Slayer".  Neither are perfect, but overall "Jack" is the better movie.

Grades:  "Jack the Giant Slayer" - B+ , "Oz: The Great and Powerful" - C (but the production design and special effects get an A)