Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol (2011)

Just when you thought this film series was dead yet again, Tom Cruise comes storming back with a new team of special ops experts to make saving the world look super cool. While there is no shortage of death-defying antics, Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol passes on labyrinthine plots for a straight-forward action-heist flick with a few surprises along the way. In what may be an unprecedented turn of events, this- the fourth M:I film- is the best entry to date.

After a botched attempt to intercept top-secret Russian nuclear weapon launch codes, IMF breaks Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) out of a Russian prison to steal files that identify a dangerous person of interest code-named ‘Cobalt.’ Ethan and his team (Simon Pegg and Paula Patton) are outted during the attempt and the Kremlin is bombed, forcing the US government to initiate Ghost Protocol- disavowing any knowledge of IMF agents or operations. Now hot on the trail of Cobalt, Hunt and his team must clear their names, stop Cobalt from launching nuclear weapons, and diffusing the tension the USA and Russia, who blame the US for the Kremlin attack.

This film hearkens back to the original Mission: Impossible film while simultaneously moving the series forward. Just like in the first film, Ethan Hunt is trying to clear his name while also stopping the bad guy. As an added bonus, he gets to save the world too. While some might complain about Ghost Protocol’s straightforward approach, it actually helps to make the film’s spectacle action sequences a little more believable.

The film as a whole is less intelligent than the first and third films but it is also far less confusing. The filmmakers craft a tale that doesn’t need a final-reel exposition dump to explain key twists. We are treated to a complete story develop before our eyes that makes sense and is easy to digest. Perhaps this is why Ghost Protocol became the most popular installment of the franchise.

One of my peeves with the other three M:I films is that they don’t feature dynamic support teams for Ethan Hunt. Through three films, only Ving Rhames appeared more than once, rendering the rest of Hunt’s crews to be throwaway co-stars. Thankfully, M:I-GP features great chemistry between Ethan’s team members. Simon Pegg returns to add just the right touch of quirky awkwardness, Paula Patton is a great femme fatale, and Jeremy Renner’s caught-up-in-it-all character makes a great sidekick capable of standing toe-to-toe with Hunt. For once, everyone involved seems as lethal, smart, and daring as an M:I team ought to be. It would be a mistake not to bring all of these characters back for M:I 5.

Like any action/spy flick, M:I-GP has its moments of outlandishness and even silliness. The bit near the end where Jeremy Renner’s character wears a magnetic suit to access a server room is pretty absurd, and there are probably a number of action sequences that fly in the face of physics. None of this bothers me too much because this film is end-to-end fun. A few minor quibbles aside, M:I-GP has the right balance of danger, excitement, and spectacle to make it an undisputed winner. To watch an action film that doesn’t insult your intelligence and is fun to watch? We’ve been longing for summer flicks like this for quite some time.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Monsters University (2013)

Every successful movie leads to a film studio at least entertaining the notion of a sequel, but what do you do when the first film wrapped things up so well that a new adventure just doesn’t seem possible? Why, you make a prequel of course! As fun and enjoyable as it is to revisit the colorful and unique monster world, Monster’s University falls victim to a number of issues that should have been apparent from the get-go.

Ever since he was a little boy, Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) has dreamed of being a scarer for Monsters, Inc. Entering his freshman year at Monsters University, however, places several obstacles in his path. Few, if any, of his scare major peers think Mike is even scary and, while Mike studies his heart out, a cocky slacker named James P. “Sulley” Sullivan (John Goodman) coasts his way through classes on his family name and natural but raw talent. When an argument between Mike and Sulley breaks a professor’s prized Scream Container, they are initially kicked out of the Scare program. Then, a chance at redemption- if Mike and Sulley can help the team from the über-nerd fraternity Oozma Kappa win the annual Scare Games, they will be readmitted to the program.

There are three key roadblocks to this film matching the success of Monsters, Inc. First, its nature as a prequel automatically eliminates any lasting concern for Mike and Sulley, because we already know that they turn out to be a successful Scare Team later on in life. An event late in the film took me by surprise because it smashes the assumed cookie cutter ending to pieces. A pre-credits montage clues audiences in to Mike and Sulley’s rise to prominence within Monsters, Inc., showing that their hard work did not end with the Scare Games.

As with most films that are the second in a series, audience familiarity with returning characters presents a major problem. How do you make the same characters feel fresh all over again? Half the fun of watching a movie is getting to know the characters. If you don’t try new things, you’re just rehashing the same characters. If you try too many new things, you risk audiences not going along with your new direction for a character.

In Monsters University, Mike is still Mike but we are treated to a different Sulley. It takes a while to get used to rude, slacker Sulley but you see him start to grow into the character we met in the original film. Most of the supporting characters are throwaways that are funny while you’re watching but fail to stick in your memory later on. Our characters never branch out beyond what we saw from them in Monsters, Inc. because they have to grow into those characters. Because of this, character development is stifled. Starting in a new place and ending in a familiar one rather than the other way around leaves the film feeling inessential in the grand scheme of things.

The third and final aspect of Monsters University lacking freshness is the college setting. While college movies seem to have been around forever, I had the misfortune of growing up in the 90s and early 2000s, when most college movies were pretty lame. MU offers a few cute moments of spoofing college stereotypes in the monster world but the film feels confined by its attempt to pump as many references and spoofs as possible. Besides, a fair number of the scenes, gags, and lines alluded to are from films that little kids should never be allowed to see until they’ve outgrown Disney flicks.

Despite being held back conceptually, Monsters University is still a pretty fun movie to watch. Kids will love the crazy character antics while adults will snicker at the college movie references. Pixar’s animators continue to wow me in how much more detail they can put into their work. The group setting treats us to even more unique monsters of all shapes and sizes. The problem lies in the fact that this film tries to answer a question that nobody asked very seriously. Perhaps seeing how Mike and Sulley met as the first film in this series would make this film feel more essential. It’s certainly better than a number of other Disney films but if given a choice between the two, I would watch the first one again in a heartbeat.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Blue Umbrella (2013)

This computer animated short ran before Monster’s University when I saw it at the drive-in. Pixar has a solid track record with their full-length and short films, so I was surprised to feel very neutral about this one. It looks great but due to my film journey of watching every Disney (and thereby Pixar) animated film ever made, I quickly noticed that this short is lacking in originality storywise.

A blue umbrella and his owner are walking down a bustling city street on what seems to be a rainy evening. When they stop to wait at a crosswalk, the blue umbrella notices a pretty, red, female umbrella next to him and they trade awkward but interested glances. Presumably, the umbrellas’ owners are doing the same thing. A change of direction leaves the blue umbrella struggling against his owner to follow the object of his affection.

The fact that everything in this short film is computer generated speaks volumes for the commitment that Pixar’s programmers and animators have for their craft. You could swear that many parts of this film look real. This is not just blurring the lines between CGI and live action; here CGI completely supplants live action. Does this mean we’re heading toward the end of live action cinema? No. Many of the shots in Umbrella look so good because they are largely static shots of inanimate objects. Seeing faces on familiar objects is cute but there are no humans on display. Pixar, in my opinion, has struggled up to this point with making human characters look convincing. This short enables them to sidestep the issues completely.

So as amazing as this short looks, why do I rate it so low? Because it is little more than an update of Johnny Fedora and Alice Bluebonnet, an animated short from Disney’s Make Mine Music about a men’s hat who goes to great lengths to meet up with a women’s hat that he is smitten with. No credit is given to what precedes Umbrella by almost 60 years. You would think that someone under the Disney umbrella (pardon the pun) would have said something about this.

RATING: 3 out of 5