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

Calendar Girls (2003)

Seeing really is believing. Prior to this film I would have doubted very much that a story about older women stripping down could be something enjoyable. Sure enough, Helen Mirren leads a pack of seasoned British actresses to success in a risqué tale with a lot of heart.

After her husband dies of leukemia, Annie Clarke (Julie Walters) receives an outpouring of support from her friends. After spending many a day sitting in the hospital waiting room, Annie decides she wants to raise money to donate a more comfortable sofa to the hospital. Her friends in the social organization Women’s Institute come up with the idea of selling a calendar to raise funds for the donation. Annie’s bold friend Chris Harper (Mirren) sees the need to make the calendar something more exciting than the standard WI fundraiser. Her proposition is to have some of their club members strip down for tasteful, discreet nude pictures while engaged in typical WI activities.

Chris and Annie have a hard time convincing their friends to take part in what seems like a lewd gimmick and an even harder time convincing the WI organization to approve of their controversial fundraiser. Once it becomes a hit, the bonds of friendship are tested as Chris takes center stage in publicizing the calendar. Annie believes she has lost sight of their original mission in awe of her newfound celebrity status.

Even if you’re not a part of the film’s target demographic (I know I sure wasn’t), good comedy almost always prevails. Calendar Girls possesses a lot of witty but dry British humor but it doesn’t over-Brit the comedy. American audiences will be able to snicker, giggle and laugh at all the right moments. Older viewers may find more humor in the subtleties of post-middle age life but the film does its best to stay fresh and accessible to everyone.

Much like the ladies in the calendar, the film is not interested in being an explicit skin parade. Very little nudity is on display and occurs briefly while the women are getting into position for their tastefully risqué poses. While some ultra-prudes may object to even this minimal amount of nudity, a little exposure comes with the territory and it's carried out as tastefully as possible.

The film does get a little bogged down towards the end as Chris’s ego inflates and gets challenged but it would seem a little too conveniently perfect otherwise. This is a conundrum faced by most comedies these days. Do you go all out goofy, forsaking any possibility that the events of the film could actually occur and turn off cynics? Or, is it better to say ‘tough luck’ to the total escapism seekers and add that dose of reality in order to keep the film grounded? Calendar Girls makes the right decision and stays true to its ‘based on a true story’ roots and shows the bumpy road the girls face.

In the end, Calendar Girls will get a few laughs out of you. Just don’t expect it to last in your memory beyond being ‘the one where the old ladies make a nude calendar.’ So like Mirren’s character, even audiences will be hard pressed to remember the original purpose of the titular calendar. That’s not such a big deal though because that will be enough to remind you that it was a sweet and charming little movie.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

The Queen* (2006)

If it hadn’t been for The Departed, this would be your Best Picture winner. I say that now, still not having seen either Letters From Iwo Jima or Babel, but I get the sense that this film has all the makings of an Oscar winner. It’s sharp, balancing the dry witty humor I adore the British for with the heavy subject matter of Princess Diana’s death.

The Queen is a recreation and depiction of the days immediately before and following Diana’s death from the perspective of the Royal Family. The events and dialog presented are based off of the accounts given to the filmmakers by anonymous sources. There is also extensive use of real footage from news reports covering the accident, the outpouring of grief from the people of England, and even the funeral service itself.

All this in a trim 103 minute running time.

The amount of detail and careful documentation of everything is quite unique. If the filmmakers had chosen to take too many creative liberties, one can just imagine what Queen Elizabeth’s lawyers would have had to say! I think the fact that the real Queen approved of the film says it all. While I’m sure there are some parts of the film that aren’t true to life, The Queen manages to be one of the few docudrama/biopics that really excels at achieving its goal. Instead of playing it safe, the film takes chances and presents plenty of uncomfortable scenarios, and is rewarded for doing just that.

You really get a sense for how much the Queen and her husband disliked Diana and the cult of personality following she had. Sure, the woman did many good things for the world, but her visibility flies against time-honored traditions among the Royals. This is the other excellent aspect the film manages to include- showing the Queen’s struggle with what she knows from tradition and how it collides against the rapidly changing times she is living and ruling in.

Though parts of the film may be complete fiction, I felt like I gained a better understanding of Queen Elizabeth from watching it. I understand her distaste with Diana better, though I don’t completely agree with it. But that’s the point. The Queen is equal parts compassionate and condescending toward Elizabeth. In other words, it’s very real, which always helps when you’re making a docudrama or a biopic.

The acting is all very well done. Helen Mirren does a fine job in her portrayal of Elizabeth, and Michael Sheen is spot-on as newly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair. James Cromwell creates a memorable character out of Prince Phillip, the Queen’s husband- the inclusion of Phillip, who goes more or less unnoticed by the press, was a refreshing jolt of cynicism and sarcasm complimenting the film’s overall dry tone. My only complaint is that the filmmakers didn’t get someone ugly enough for Prince Charles. Actor Alex Jennings seriously looks nothing like him- he’s too handsome.

The Queen is a classy film, which some may find boring, but if you are really interested in Princess Diana and/or the Royal Family I’d definitely recommend it. Concise and complete, I recommend The Queen and would have voted for it over The Departed, were I a member of the Academy.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5