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

SECOND HELPINGS: Monsters, Inc. (2001)

The first time I saw this film, when it got its original rating, I was in college and did not appreciate the finer points of Disney and Pixar films. I liked what I grew up watching and cast a cynical gaze upon everything that came after the point at which I stopped watching kid flicks. As a parent, and as someone who better understands how movies are made, I now have a completely different viewpoint on this film.

The concept alone is brilliant. Pixar gets back to thinking outside the box and it pays off big time. The writers had to have had a firm outline in mind before pitching this film to the Disney execs because I can’t imagine anyone jumping right on board with a movie about monsters, creatures that have scared children silly for ages. The monster world is created so fully and carefully that you have no problem suspending disbelief. The story quickly gives a purpose for scaring children and provides a world of personalities that mirrors our own. All this, along with the fact that monsters are actually terrified of making physical contact with humans, softens the monster characters and makes it easy to slip into their world.

Just like the toys in Toy Story, Monsters, Inc. puts forth the illusion that monsters are just as quirky and flaky as we are. In true buddy flick fashion, Mike and Sulley are very different from each other but those differences help them complement and supplement each other. The film wouldn’t be as enjoyable if our protagonists were both like Sulley or both like Mike. The interplay between them and the way they interact with the supporting cast feels so effortless and right.

The animation in this film is gorgeous. Pixar continues to expand the possibilities of CGI animation with lush details and, in this films case, new and realistic looking textures. Somebody had a lot of fun designing all the monsters in this film and everyone in the animation department should be proud of the final product. Sulley’s fur is one of the standouts of the animation. Instead of matted down hair, each strand seems to have volume and life. I don’t know what kind of programming it takes to make all of Sulley’s fur look and behave like it does but the fact that Pixar can do it at all is a marvel.

I only have two minor quibbles with this film, neither of which are deal breakers. Both concern the film’s villain, Randall Boggs. First, Randall gets pretty creepy at times and that might scare younger viewers but that’s really only a concern for parents with kids four and under. Second, even though Randall’s secret scaring device is the very thing that necessitates the entire story, it’s easy to forget about. All I remembered from my first viewing was that Randall left the door on the scaring floor and was trying to cover his tracks for his role in letting a human through. Despite this, Monsters, Inc. is really about Mike and Sulley trying to do the right thing and get Boo home. Randall’s plot may be forgettable, but his character is antagonistic enough to make up for this minor story fault.

Disney may have the market on princesses and fairy tales but Monsters, Inc. cements Pixar as one of the most original and creative production companies in the business. Think about it- four films in and A Bug’s Life is your low point? That’s not bad at all. My original rating was way too low and future viewings may reveal that even this revised rating is a notch or two too low. Pixar’s story department may need to retool every now and again to tighten up the details but the animation department shows no signs of slacking off.

ORIGINAL RATING: 3.25 out of 5

NEW RATING: 3.75 out of 5

The Island (2005)

I enjoy pleasant surprises. One of the all-time US box office bombs, I picked up The Island expecting to watch a delightful disaster that would fit nicely in my lower ranks. As it turns out, there are only a few things wrong with The Island.

First, it should have been made for $80 million less than it was. Going low-tech on some of the special effects would have made the film grittier. There was just too much splash and polish. Second, Sean Bean is cast as a mastermind villain. This just doesn’t work people! He’s good at being a thug but Bean is simply incapable of portraying a highly intelligent person.

Third and lastly, Hollywood should know better than to release an intelligent film during the summer. Summer movie-goers just want flashy effects and pretty faces. Granted, The Island delivers this with Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson, but the movie has an intelligent concept at its core. This will make the summer crowd try to think, which almost always fails. Instead, the film puts up a brick wall and the crowds couldn't “get it.”

McGregor and Johansson are believed to be living in a colony of survivors from some devastating epidemic. In reality, they’re all clones of rich and famous people that will be used as a costly “insurance policy” when the rich folk need a healthy transplant. The colony has strict health guidelines and relationships are taboo. They discover what they are and escape into the real world but are pursued by the company that grew them.

Kind of a unique “fight for truth” and morally challenging film. I’m surprised there wasn’t more buzz over it, what with all the fuss over stem cell research and where it could go. This film takes it to one extreme and does so admirably. Shame on all of us for not making The Island a success.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

Quentin Tarantino’s original masterpiece, this film shows us what the director was capable of doing. The success of Reservoir Dogs on the Indie circuit elevated his credibility to the point where he acquired the funding to create his magnum opus, Pulp Fiction. Tarantino’s style is still in the refining stages here, and compared to Pulp Fiction, Dogs is grittier and less polished. But what do you expect from a first time indie director who learned all he knows about movies from working at a video store?

The thing that makes this movie stand out the most is the way it is told. Dogs covers the before and after events of a botched bank robbery. We never actually see the robbery and what makes it go wrong. Tarantino leaves that one gap for us to fill in with our imaginations. This is novel and at the same time risky. It pushes the edge of the fourth wall, but doesn’t tear it down completely. He merely gives us a chance to imagine part of the details. It’s subtle, but genius.

As far as themes go, Reservoir Dogs is about trust. There are several underlying themes and symbols throughout the movie, but trust is by far the biggest. Honor also plays a large factor into why some of the characters are thrust into their situations. While seemingly ultra-violent, the movie is also an examination of the male psyche. In a group of men unknown to each other, there are plenty of egos to flaunt and Alpha Male issues.

Other big pluses are sharp, witty writing that makes you question the archetypal brainless gangster, and Steve Buscemi (who excels in every one of his film roles). Despite some unrealistic parts (Mr. Orange would not have been able stay conscious after losing that much blood), the film is tense and a terrific first effort from one of the quirkiest directors in Hollywood.

PS- You’ll never be able to hear “Stuck in the Middle with You” again without thinking of this movie.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5