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

Les Misérables* (2012)

Even though I was involved with my college’s student theatre group for four years, I have never considered myself a theatre person. I have no burning desire to see a Broadway show and I do not have enough experience with stage productions to form any preconceived notions of what a good movie-musical should look or sound like. I think the absence any personal stylistic biases helps me enjoy Les Misérables more objectively and fully than some of its critics.

This story is far too long and complex to summarize in one paragraph but I will do my best. After a moral conviction, parolee Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) reforms his life but, in doing so, violates his parole. An act of mercy exposes Valjean’s identity to the ruthlessly legalistic lawman Javert (Russell Crowe), who makes it his personal mission to hunt Valjean down. Years later, Valjean and the prostitute’s daughter in his care are caught up in the clamor of proposed revolution. Try as Valjean might, the lovely Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) falls in love with a charming wannabe revolutionary. Between protests in the streets and Javert hot on their heels, Valjean tries his best to maintain his freedom while providing a life of opportunity for his adoptive daughter.

Even at two and a half hours, cramming this much story together makes things feel more than a little rushed at times. Because of this, a lot of character development is either stunted or missing altogether. I would have particularly appreciated a little more focus on Javert. I get the stereotypical hardcore lawman bit but we could use a little more time to see his conflict growing as he considers how Jean Valjean’s selfless acts conflict with his beliefs that law and morality are equivalent.

Unlike some, I love the decision to have the cast singing live to the camera rather than lip syncing over a pre-recorded track. Les Misérables takes the audience into the gritty, dirty streets of impoverished 19th Century Paris. Using raw vocals fits the raw setting we find our characters in. It also lets the actors and actresses act through their singing instead of trying to make their expressions match the tone of voice on a recording. This is effective on pretty much all of Hugh Jackman’s songs and also very powerful for Anne Hathaway’s solo number “I Dreamed a Dream.” These pretty Broadway songs are made far more moving this way, helping this film stand out amongst its movie-musical peers for me.

I haven’t exactly followed Hugh Jackman’s career outside of the X-Men films but from all that he does here, I have to assume this is the performance of his career to date. This story requires a strong performance out of Valjean and that is precisely what Jackman delivers. We see anger, fear, determination, and tenderness that suck you in and break your heart by the end of it all. You get the sense that this role is something of a dream come true for him because he clearly gives it his all.

As supporting characters, Anne Hathaway delivers a powerful performance of desperation and Amanda Seyfried performs admirably as the love-struck Cosette. Russell Crowe is certainly the film’s weakest link in terms of singing ability but the man does play a good villain. Les Mis feels the most disjointed during the scenes featuring Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as the Thénardiers. Everything about them feels like it belongs in a separate world from the rest of the film. A tremendous amount of drama and realism abounds in Les Mis but the Thénardiers are just so wacky and bizarre that it feels very obviously like a comic relief sideshow. These characters serve an important purpose to the overall story but it is clear that Broadway yukked these folks up a little too much from the source material.

Combine this largely talented cast with beautiful but not showy costumes and splendid location and studio sets and it really is like you are there. In addition to the live singing, director Tom Hooper lets the camera follow characters through sets more, avoiding the stagy feel of most movie-musicals. Despite a few visual effects that fail to impress, Les Misérables has more than enough going right for it to make it a film that commands a large screen. If you did not catch this one in theaters, it is your loss. I went to see it because my wife loves the musical but I left the theater a fan.

RATING: 4 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 Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Over a decade after bringing the first Lord of the Rings film to life, director Peter Jackson finally brings us the first part of the first tale set in Middle Earth, that of Bilbo Baggins and his epic quest. Those anticipating a viewing experience on par with the quality of the award-winning trilogy will undoubtedly think my rating is too generous. Knowing the differences between the two as books, I got only slightly less than what I hoped for.

Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) lives the quiet life of a Hobbit until the wandering wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) volunteers him to host a gathering for a band of dwarves on a quest to reclaim their homeland from a dragon. The otherwise careful hobbit lets curiosity get the best of him and he sets out across Middle Earth into places and dangers he never imagined. Surrounded by orcs, elves, trolls, and the forces of darkness, Bilbo tries his best to earn the respect of his dwarf companions while keeping himself alive.

Having read The Hobbit several times, I was fully prepared for the lighter story being told. While The Lord of the Rings is an epic drama with sprinkles of humor and wit, The Hobbit has always been more popcorn friendly. Bilbo is setting out on a treasure hunt, not to save the world. Sure, the quest means everything to the dwarves he travels with but to him and to the audience, the journey to the Lonely Mountain is but a wide-eyed adventure. For the most part, that is exactly what you get with this film. It looks pretty good, it’s exciting, and it’s quite a good bit of fun.

So what holds this film back? More than a little, sadly. For starters, The Hobbit is a much shorter book than The Lord of the Rings, so Jackson runs the risk of spreading this tale far too thin over the planned three films. As all first films must, An Unexpected Journey introduces the main characters and sets the wheels in motion. We start out with a prologue narrated by an older Bilbo (Ian Holm from the LOTR series), which seems to run a tad long but also frees up a lot of time later on by dumping a pile of exposition on you first thing.

Two critical story elements throw a perpetual wrench into the film’s narrative. Even in the book, I felt there were too many dwarves in Thorin’s company. It is cumbersome to try to differentiate and involve that many characters in one story. The fact that they are all dwarves doesn’t help much either. Kudos to Jackson for trying to make them all look different but the end result is remembering only three or four out of the thirteen of them by name.

In an attempt to spread out the story, Jackson pumps quite a bit of expository filler and tangential scenes that form as a loose bridge to the events of The Lord of the Rings. I can understand the desire to throw some foreshadowing into the mix but because most people saw the LOTR trilogy first, much of the foreshadowing feels unnecessary. Perhaps future generations that watch the Hobbit trilogy first will think more highly of those tangents but to me it feels forced. It is wholly unrelated to the story being told and slows the film down. Tolkien fanatics may disagree but to casual observers, it’s a bit of a drag at times.

The biggest filmmaking flaw is the overuse of CGI. The Lord of the Rings flicks crossed the line occasionally but The Hobbit seems to ignore the fact that there is a line at all. Wide shots look pretty good for the most part but when Jackson launches the camera through the action to follow characters around or spin and pan between characters instead of cutting, sequences begin to look almost like a video game instead of a movie. Case in point, much of the scenes involving the Goblins inside the Misty Mountains don’t cut it.

Overall, I was pretty pleased with how An Unexpected Journey turned out. I didn’t mind the songs (a major turnoff for a number of people for some reason), Middle Earth still looks pretty spectacular, and the film sets things up pretty well for the rest of trilogy. The problems with this film largely stem from Jackson’s indulgence. He had some tight budget restrictions on The Lord of the Rings films but takes full advantage of budgetary carte blanche here. I would have been happy with fewer LOTR allusions, quite a bit less CGI, the total absence of Radagast the Brown, and a better ending point (they should have ended with Thorin’s company entering Mirkwood), but I can live with what we got.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Babe* (1995)

Here is one of those rare children’s / family films that just nails it. It’s cute but not sappy, simple but not stupid, and heartwarming without inducing your gag reflex. I don’t know that it deserved to be nominated for Best Picture, but Babe is a charming little puff piece that hasn’t lost much, if any, of its magic over the last two decades.

The runt of the litter and unwanted by his pork farm owners, he is offered up as the prize for a weight-guessing game at a local carnival. After guessing correctly, Farmer Hoggett (James Cromwell) brings him home to his small countryside farm. Some of the barnyard and household animals embrace him while others want nothing to do with him. Adopted by a family of sheep dogs, Babe’s spunk and desire to take up the “family” business catches the eye of Farmer Hoggett, leading him to defy convention and risk humiliation by registering Babe in a sheep-herding contest.

Live-action movies with talking animals strike me as risky business. You can do anything you want with animation, and there is a lot of leeway when the film is just about talking animals. Films like Babe, which set talking animals against a very real-world setting including humans have to be done just right. The animals have to act like animals and they can’t be too smart or the humans too dumb. Credit is due both the filmmakers and undoubtedly the author of the book the film is based on for fashioning a slate of animal and human characters that walk this tightrope act with ease.

Plain and simple, films like this live and die by the animal performances. To bring this film to life, the director, cinematographer, and animal trainers all have to be on the same page. The animals hit their marks (though I can imagine multiple takes required for each scene) and the cinematography captures the animal movements from angles and in lighting that complete the illusion.

Praise is also due to the people behind giving voices to the animal characters. All of the voice characterizations are terrific because the voice textures blend with the animal actions in such a way that you have no problem believing that these animals actually possess the personalities being expressed. The visual effects department also does a flawless job of making each animal look as if it is actually delivering the lines without defying animal anatomy. Between subtle mouth movements via animatronics in production and computer effects in post-production, the filmmakers make talking animals look plausible, eliminating most of the objections our brains would normally raise.

I think the only thing in this film that dates it is when Farmer Hoggett and his wife receive a fax machine as a gift to help keep in touch with their city-dwelling children and grandkids. Otherwise the film exists within a world insulated from changes in fashion and culture. You can watch Babe today and still presume it to be set at a modern quaint off-the-beaten-path English farm whose owners eschew fancy technology. Its setting is as close to timeless as you can hope for in a family friendly film and it comes with a whole lot of charm. This will be one to share with the kids and grandkids someday.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)

Here is Disney’s first true post-Renaissance misfire. While it has plenty of promising elements and interesting ideas to its credit, Atlantis: The Lost Empire is not a well-oiled machine. For some strange reason its components do not play well together. It may sound like I am about to come down harsh on this film but please know that I was left disappointed after rooting for it to right itself for most of its runtime.

In 1914, millennia after Atlantis sank into the ocean, Milo Thatch (Michael J. Fox), an overzealous Atlantis researcher at the Smithsonian Institution, believes he has discovered an ancient manuscript that will point the way to the lost civilization. Enter an eccentric millionaire friend of Milo’s grandfather who already has the manuscript and needs Milo to interpret the ancient Atlantean language to lead a crew, already waiting in port no less, for a grand adventure. While Milo is going purely for scientific discovery, upon arriving at the fabled kingdom, he learns that others have ulterior motives for making the trek.

Maybe I’m finally being too nitpicky with a children’s movie but there are a number of things that just don’t make sense in this film. The Atlantean people, culture, and history is interesting but do you really expect me to believe that Kida and her people can understand English because it shares a common root with the Atlantean language? That would be like expecting me to be able to understand Hindi because it stems from the Indo-European language tree. Also, how are some of the characters such renowned explorers if they are so prone to making bad decisions? How exactly have the Atlanteans survived with little to no air filtration in their subterranean rock bubble? And who built the robotic lobster that guards the entrance to Atlantis anyway? It couldn’t have been the Atlanteans.

Perhaps it’s the specific mixture of fantasy and realism attempted by the filmmakers that holds me up. Perhaps if this had been a book written in the 19th or early 20th century it would be easier to swallow. But this is an original tale gushing with rich fantasy elements that totally overpower the lost-world fantasy sub-genre construct. We’re used to the discoverers being more advanced than the lost civilization. I don’t mind turning the tables on convention (and legend almost requires Atlantis to be advanced) but I think Disney’s team went a little too far with it to the point that it’s hard to buy into.

A clunky and muddled story don’t help matters much either. After growing up on Indiana Jones, the whole scientific idealism vs. greed/power conflict doesn’t feel fresh. Atlantis also plays its cards close to the vest for too long. Secrets about Atlantis’s power, technology, and history are kept from audiences and the film’s characters until the eleventh hour and only in order to prevent calamity. Don’t ask your audience to process a huge amount of information late in the game like this. Had the filmmakers revealed a little bit at a time throughout the film, then a lot of things would have made more sense and would have actually added more tension to unfolding events because we would know at least a little about the stakes involved.

For all the good things at work in Atlantis: The Lost Empire, there are an equal amount of things that either work too hard or not hard enough. This results in the film feeling unbalanced. If you can keep everything straight in your head until all the secrets are revealed, you probably think my review is silly. Otherwise, you are probably like me and see a lot of potential for an old-school discovery adventure. It’s a shame that this film couldn’t hold it together because it could have marked a bold new direction for Disney to explore.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

12 Monkeys (1995)

This is what happens when you let an eclectic filmmaker fully realize his vision for a project that inspires him. Daring, jarring, and unsettling as it is, there is a strange beauty in 12 Monkeys that is hard to pin down. It features excellent performances by Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt and makes up for a lack of flashy sci-fi effects by being chock full of nerdy, intellectual talking points.

In the year 2038, inmate James Cole (Bruce Willis) is offered a chance at parole. In exchange for his freedom, he must help subject himself to crude time travel technology and help government scientists research the outbreak of a virus that decimated the world’s population and sent all survivors underground to avoid contamination. While in the past, Cole teams up with a psychiatrist (Madeline Stowe) and attempts to shed light on Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt) and his Army of the Twelve Monkeys, the group believed responsible for the virus’s release in 1996.

For me, it all starts with the story. If a film doesn’t have anything original to say or a unique spin on a concept or idea we’ve seen before, then it is already running behind. Hard core sci-fi nerds know that this film takes the same premise as French short film called Le Jetée but adds additional details and conflicts to bring it to full feature length. Audiences must digest issues like causality, mental instability, and radical environmentalism.

One thing viewers don’t get much time to think about is time travel itself. Tackling this subject is no easy task but the filmmakers treat it with care and respect. I appreciate the lack of a technological explanation. Being told that time travel exists and being forced to just go with it help to suspend disbelief. Sure, we inevitably ask ‘how?’ but I would much rather wonder about how it’s done than to mentally dissect and judge the acceptability of the filmmakers’ explanation of how it’s done. It’s more sleight of hand than movie magic but it’s effective all the same.

And really, 12 Monkeys is not a film about time travel. Time travel, though vital to the story, is just a tool used to tell the tale of a troubled man trying to earn his freedom by saving the world. Bruce Willis nails his role as a tormented lab rat. The world Cole returns to is both foreign and familiar. Cole has been in prison and surrounded by enough post-outbreak technology for enough time to find the world of his childhood memories confusing and alarming at times. Though my own acting experience is quite limited, I know that confusion is a very difficult emotion to convincingly portray; it is easy to overdo and under-do and audiences can typically spot when you’re doing it wrong.

The other standout performance in this film is Brad Pitt’s unstable and unhinged Jeffrey Goines. I don’t know where he pulled from to bring this character to life but it is nothing short of amazing. The physicality of Goines mannerisms, from his spastic outbursts down to his wild and contorted stare, is enough to make you feel tired just watching it. Madeline Stowe is stuck with the weakest of the three main characters but she carries her weight well enough. She conveys a different but equally effective form of confusion as she tries to figure out who Cole is and what he’s dragging her into.

Even more interesting is that director Terry Gilliam manages to share Cole’s sense of confusion with the audience. Through a number of tricks with lighting, camera angle, and his choice of camera and lens to take the shot, Gilliam finds clever and subtle ways to make the familiar feel bizarre. It disorients us slightly and helps increase our empathy for Cole. Gilliam also uses restraint in keeping the future looking just futuristic enough yet composed of technology left over from the pre-virus era. Some of the future set decorations don’t quite fit or even seem too strange but the overall effect works well.

I will always have a soft spot for intelligent cinema, especially intelligent sci-fi. This film is abundant with talking points but it isn’t too smart for its own good. Some filmmakers go overboard in an attempt to make themselves look intellectually superior (Matrix Reloaded anybody?) but you can watch 12 Monkeys at face value and still enjoy the ride. That comes from a careful mix of indulgence and restraint that is a real gift to cinema when balanced just right.

12 Monkeys is depressing yet hopeful, convoluted yet captivating. The fantasy of time travel mixes with the realities of dissidence and terrorism in ways that entertain but also hit close to home. This is a film that is watchable in its own right and worth repeat viewings simply for the thrill of seeing how it unfolds. It is also the kind of film that could launch you into a night-long conversation about all kinds of heady topics. The choice is yours. Either way, it is entirely worth it.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Scent of a Woman* (1992)

For years I avoided watching this film because the title sounded like a sappy romantic flick. Only after I decided to grin and bear it, because my wife wanted to see it, did I learn how wrong I was. It may not be a chick flick, or even a romance for that matter, but there is still a sap factor to Scent of a Woman that holds it back.

Prep school student Charlie Simms (Chris O’Donnell) takes a caretaker job over Thanksgiving break to earn money for a trip home for Christmas. He gets more than he bargains for when the man he is hired to watch, retired Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade (Al Pacino), drafts him into a road trip to New York City. The blind military man is full of anger, and at times finds himself at odds with his caretaker, but Slade and Simms find a kind of rapport that enables each of them to help the other through difficult situations.

This film serves as a vehicle for showcasing Al Pacino’s acting chops, end of story. Like many other Hollywood films before it, Scent of a Woman is a one man show without being a true solo performance. Pacino is fierce with his characters rage yet completely watchable. I’m not sure what blind advocates though of his performance but he seems to do well enough in playing a blind man. His line of sight never gets too focused on what a non-blind person would.

While Chris O’Donnell’s character is actually the main character of this story, he is completely overshadowed by his costar. The way the script is written, it almost feels like this was by design, because you only remember Pacino’s performance. Enjoyable as the film may be, it would have been nice to have a stronger actor playing Charlie Simms. O’Donnell has a few shining moments but he comes nowhere close to standing toe-to-toe with Pacino. I don’t know what young actor could have pulled it off but O’Donnell doesn’t convince me.

Scent of a Woman has some charm and plenty of heartwarming and uplifting moments but something feels a little paint-by-numbers. Pacino’s Oscar is certainly earned here but when one performance overpowers everything else, it takes something away from the film as a whole. This film may have something to say about honor and values but it doesn’t quite say enough to be the kind of film that people will remember forever. If it weren’t for Pacino, this film probably wouldn’t be remembered at all.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Emperor’s New Groove (2000)

The so-called Disney Renaissance supposedly runs from The Little Mermaid to Tarzan, yet here is a film that turns out to be Disney’s best non-Pixar venture since The Lion King. Perhaps it is because The Emperor’s New Groove was followed by several Disney misfires that was lost in the shuffle. Granted, it spawned a cartoon TV series for the House of Mouse but I don’t hear many people talking about this film like they do the Pixar products of the same general time frame. That, I am afraid, is a shame.

Kuzco (David Spade) is the spoiled, self-absorbed emperor of the Incan Empire. To celebrate his upcoming birthday, he plans to build a huge palace in a nearby village but things go awry when he fires his advisor Yzma (Eartha Kitt) and her lackey Kronk (Patrick Wharburton). The duo attempt to kill the young emperor but only turned him into a llama. Before they can dispatch the transformed Kuzco, they lose him. Kuzco winds up in a village and teams up with Pacha (John Goodman), whose home is threatened by the emperor’s palatial plans, to get him back to the palace. Meanwhile, Yzma and Kronk search desperately for Kuzco to clean up a very wooly loose end.

Maybe the folks at Disney decided to take a page out of the Pixar playbook with this film. That would explain the flurry of wit, references, and even a splash of sarcasm here and there. What is surprising is that Disney takes those tools and runs with them in a way not seen since Aladdin. Nothing is sacred in The Emperor’s New Groove and that is refreshing considering Disney’s recent non-Pixar flicks and their tendency to stay between the lines. This is not safe Disney. I wouldn’t call it edgy Disney either though. This film is more like Disney with its hair let down.

The story is predictable and the foreground animation may not be as lush as Disney’s best, but the characters and background animation really keep this film engaging. Kuzco’s wry narration is a fun take on a Hollywood cliché, especially when he interrupts the flow of the film in an attempt to make sure that we are focused on him and not Pacha, who is a far more worthy of our empathy. David Spade is exactly the right person to bring Kuzco to life. Spade’s tone and timing fit the mindset of our haughty protagonist and John Goodman’s deep, warm voice is perfect for a caring sidekick. The setting for this unlikely buddy flick is the Andes Mountains of South America. Disney’s animators wowed me with the colors and architecture used to bring the Incan Empire to life.

Despite a few structural flaws, The Emperor’s New Groove wins you over with its ability to entertain. Some of the things I can find fault with in this movie I have complained about in other Disney products. So how can I rate this film so much higher than latter-half Renaissance flicks? Unlike Hunchback, Mulan, and Tarzan, this movie never gets boring. After the success of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, Disney swung deeper into the dramatic end of the spectrum and it backfired.

Without the formula-friendly musical numbers, the filmmakers have to craft a lean, tight film that stays on target. They pull off this difficult task seemingly with ease, using a brisk pace and snappy rapid-fire dialogue keep you smiling for the duration of the film if not chuckling and laughing hysterically. Its screwball comedy tactics may come off as stale to anyone coming in with specific expectations. If you don’t have expectations (or are quickly able to let go of them) you will find yourself enjoying a funny little film. Its artistic merits may be suspect but Groove stands tall as one of Disney’s most non-stop entertaining films to date.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5