MONSTERS UNIVERSITY Pits Monster Geeks Vs. Greeks

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY Review:

- Is PIXAR slumping? I don't know. I hope not. Is this one of those late-period Simpsons things, where the argument is brought up that they're not as good as the glory days, but that a only-okay-for-Pixar movie is still better than most of the competition? Maybe. Pixar was so good for so long, churning out original hits like Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, and Wall-E, that everyone sort of wondered when the other shoe would drop. When Toy Story 3 came along and was (improbably) actually the best Toy Story yet (and one of Pixar's best), it was cemented: Pixar really could do no wrong. But lately, the momentum seems to have shifted a bit. Cars 2 was solid, but many were less than impressed. Brave didn't live up to its pre-release hype. And now, Monsters University is, of all things, a prequel. A prequel?! Aren't prequels where good franchises go to die? Isn't a prequel - that most hackneyed and cliched of Hollywood franchise-building tactics - a bit below the high standards of excellence that Pixar is known for? The very idea of it was off-putting.

On paper, Monsters University if not exactly a riveting concept. Was anyone really demanding the "secret origins" of Mike and Sulley from Monsters Inc., told as a send-up of 80's-style geeks vs. greeks college comedies? Not so much. But Pixar does tend to do these things well, and with Pixar you can expect a love and care put into the movie that other studios wouldn't bother with. You can also expect a level of thematic depth that most animated films don't possess. As familiar as the setting and conventions of Monsters U may be, the story undoubtedly takes some unexpected and thematically-complex turns. In short: I don't know that MU's jokey, cutesy, prequel premise was ever going to lend itself to cinematic greatness - but damned if Pixar doesn't aim high.

As mentioned, the movie's plot details the first meeting of Mike and Sulley, when both are just starting out as students at the prestigious MU. Mike is the classic monster underdog - not inherently good at being scary, but determined to succeed anyway thanks to a combination of perseverance, doggedness, hard work, and heart. He's convinced that if he studies hard enough and gives it his all, he'll overcome his deficiencies as a scarer, and become one of the greats. Meanwhile, Sulley arrives at MU with a rep as a gifted scarer, thanks to his family name, and the fact that his dad was a legend. Sulley is practically destined to be a great scarer - a second-generation blue-chipper who may not be much for studying and technique, but who makes up for it with good genetics and natural talent. Mike and Sully start out as rivals, but after getting into some trouble together and facing the wrath of MU's intimidating Dean Hardscrabble, both get kicked out of the scare program, and become desperate for a way back in. Enter the Scare Games - MU's annual inter-fraternity scaring competition. Mike and Sully make a deal with Hardscrabble to let them back into the scare program if they manage to win the games - though they'll face expulsion from MU if they lose. The Dean agrees, but that means that the unlikely pair has to join a fraternity. The only one that will have them is Oozma Kappa (OK!) - a motley crew of losers and rejects. Their chief competition is Roar Omega Roar - a bunch of big-shot frat-monsters with designs on winning the games.

What I quickly realized about Monsters U is that it's really a comedy, and maybe the most overtly comedic movie that Pixar has made. The movie has its roots in things like Animal House and Revenge of the Nerds. There's lots of homage to other college comedy classics, and there are a lot of winking references that movie fans will enjoy. What's more, the script from Dan Scanlon, Daniel Gerson, and Robert Baird is typical Pixar goodness. The dialogue is clever, the jokes (both verbal and visual) are snappy and at times hilarious, and the characters - even the side ones - are sharply defined and creatively conceived.

I'll focus in for a minute on those visuals. While MU doesn't have the scope or scale of Pixar classics like The Incredibles or Wall-E, its comedic elements allow Pixar's crack team of animators to really have some fun. There's all sorts of brilliant little Looney Tunes-esque visual gags (including a great one that pays off in a hilarious post-credits scene). And while there is an old-school, Saturday morning cartoon-style charm to some of the characters and jokes, there are also some undeniably cool action scenes (primarily the competitions from the Scare Games) that have a sleek, videogame-esque sense of dynamism. Finally, there are some moments of unexpected visual beauty in the movie that really wowed me. In particular, scenes in which the monsters travel into the "real" world - where us humans live - have a stunning look and feel to them, as the textures of the animation become grittier and darker, and the cartoonish monsters take on a legitmately-monstrous heft and weight. The character designs, overall, are are really cool. From the winged, demonic Dean Hardscrabble to the oddball members of Oozma Kappa, MU is overflowing with cool characters (loved the punk rock riot grrrls of the HSS sorority). So even if MU doesn't have the big, dazzling, jaw-dropping moments of a Wall-E, it's still got visual flair to spare.

Of course, the voice actors are another big reason as to why the movie succeeds. While it's a little hard to imagine the aging voices of Billy Crystal and John Goodman as belonging to fresh-faced college students, both (particularly the amazing Goodman) are so good in general that that initial weirdness factor soon dissipates. The movie overall though is loaded with smartly-cast voice actors. Helen Mirren shines as Dean Hardscrabble. Steve Buscemi is a lot of fun as Mike's geeky roommate Randy. And Aubrey Plaza has some of the movie's funniest moments as deadpan Scare Games ringleader Claire.

And what's interesting about the movie is that while much of its structure follows the usual college comedy template, it takes an interesting left turn towards the end. It doesn't get uber-dark or anything like that, but things also aren't *quite* as awesome-happy-everyone-is-amazing as you might expect. In the world of Disney, dreams always come true. But in the slightly-more-complex world of Pixar, sometimes it's less about dreams and more about making the best of what you have. It's a unique message - especially for a kids movie. A message that maybe not everyone is going to be a movie star, or a pro basketball player, or President. But maybe there are other things that are just as good, even if they're a little less reach-for-the-stars huge. In an age where kids and teens are constantly made to believe that they are one YouTube viral video away from being a TV star, it's a refreshing, if humbling, message from Pixar.

So what doesn't work? Well, for one thing, there's the line between paying homage and repeating what's come before. Sure, for kids the whole college setting and geeks/greeks rivalry may seem new, but there is something that's at times a little numbing about seeing a movie like this revisit so many tried-and-true genre conventions. Again, some of it may be the whole holding-Pixar-to-a-higher-standard thing. But it does feel a little disappointing to go from such a wholly original and imaginative idea in Monsters Inc. to a much less original and imaginative premise for its prequel. The comedy helps, and like I said, the movie is very sharp and funny. But it also feels relatively lightweight and fluffy as compared to the usual Pixar fare. I'd also chalk that up to the movie's rather mundane college campus setting. Pixar has fun with it, by subverting things to fit the whole monsters motif, but personally I don't think they go far enough. It seems like there is more opportunity for world-building, that isn't fully taken advantage of. And then there's just the usual case of prequelitis. You can't help but feel like it's sort of a stretch to shoehorn in this whole backstory to the world of Monsters Inc.

Overall though, I really enjoyed the film, and I think it will pleasantly surprise those who may have dismissed it offhand. It's funny, clever, a fun remix of college comedy films from back in the day, and has some really eye-popping character art and animation. Not a Pixar classic, but a positive sign that, hey, even when these guys don't hit a home run, they're still among the best in the biz.

My Grade: B+

HITCHCOCK Is a Fun Tribute to a Film Icon

HITCHCOCK Review:

- Its seems as though many critics are jumping aboard the "hate-on-Hitchcock" bandwagon, and I'm not sure why. While this true-life tale of the making of Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" has its flaws, it also features an incredible cast, highlighted by two fantastic performances from Anthony Hopkins as Hitch, and Helen Mirren as the iconic director's wife and creative partner, Alma. I greatly enjoyed the tone of the film - framed like a modern-day episode of Alfred Hitchcock presents. Quirky, funny, and surprisingly touching, HITCHCOCK does drag and meander at times - but at the end of the day, it won me over with its telling of an important chapter in the master director's life.

HITCHCOCK is set in 1959. At that point, Hitchcock was a living legend. He had just released North By Northwest to great acclaim, and was unquestionably the "Master of Suspense." And yet, it was becoming harder for him to take creative risks, and he was perceived as some less as a still-vibrant creative force, and more as a cartoon character. After all, he was the grimly funny host of the TV program Alfred Hitchcock Presents (back when TV was seen as a much lesser medium than film), and he was no longer the fresh young ingenue - he was now sixty years old. Hitchcock wanted to surprise audiences and challenge himself, so he took on an adaptation of the book Psycho as his next project. Now, especially for the time, Psycho was pretty hardcore. The nature of the material scared off the studios and ruffled the feathers of the censors. But Hitchcock remained adamant that Psycho would be his next film - he put up his own money to finance it, determined to prove the naysayers wrong. The film also focuses on the role that Hitch's wife Alma played on Psycho and in her husband's career in general. Alma was Hitch's secret weapon - a creative heavyweight and a talented editor, Alma was a key part of many of the director's biggest films. And she stuck with him, even though doing so undermined her own career. The film explores the strain that the collaboration put on Hitch and Alma's relationship. Hitch fixated on the shapely young starlets in his films. Alma strikes up a flirtatious friendship with writer Whitfield Cook. And so the question becomes: can Hitchcock save Psycho, his career, his reputation, and his marriage?

Anthony Hopkins is really good as Hitchcock, in my opinion. Okay, so he doesn't exactly resemble the director, even with prosthetics that perfectly mimic Hitch's iconic silhouette. But he does seem to capture the right spirit. Hitchcock was a really unique, pretty weird guy - and so in turn Hopkins' performance is very unique and a bit weird. But I think it fits. Some may say Hopkins doesn't go deep enough. Some may say he looks silly with an added neck bulge and protruding gut. But I think Hopkins' performance - a bit cartoonish, but plenty captivating - fits the tone of the film. Equally great is Helen Mirren. She makes us believe in her relationship with Hitch. It's a weird one, especially by modern standards - seemingly sexless and passionless. But Mirren makes us believe in the couple as a sweet, grandparently duo of geniuses who thrive in each other's company. But she also displays her frustration with her husband with fiery scorn and pent-up sizzle. What I love about both performances is the way in which they capture the joyfulness of creative inspiration and accomplishment. While their personal lives are a strange brew of simmering resentments and hang-ups, all is overcome by the power of shared creative spark. To quote Alanis Morisette, it's intellectual intercourse.

There is also a great lineup of supporting actors. Michael Stuhlbarg (apparently in everything now) as Hitch's loyal agent, Kurtwood Smith as the antagonistically prudish MPAA censor, and Danny Huston as Whit - the smarmy would-be suitor to Alma. Toni Colette is a lot of fun as Hitch's put-upon assistant, as is James D'Arcy as Anthony Perkins, the skittish actor who portrayed Norman Bates. The movie also features a great turn from Scarlett Johansson as the remarkably well-adjusted leading lady Janet Leigh. ScarJo mixes movie-star charisma with down-home sensibility to make Leigh come off as the sanest person in the movie - very much game for all of Hitchcock's intensity and personality quirks, but not afraid to talk straight with him. Jessica Biel is also pretty good as second banana Vera Miles - Hitch's would-be leading lady who feuded with the director over his controlling nature. Overall, it's an amazing cast.

Now, where HITCHCOCK fumbles is in its use of flashes to serial killer Ed Gein, the real-life basis for Norman Bates. The movie awkwardly uses Gein as a sort of muse / nightmare for Hitch, with Hitch having visions of Gein that both terrify him and motivate him to press onward with his movie. These imaginary sequences fall a bit flat though. A lot of this is because most of the film doesn't really explore the nature of the director's fascination with the morbid and the macabre. Most of the movie isn't really about that - so these sequences feel out of place and jarring. They pose a lot of questions about Hitch's psyche that seem largely tangential to the rest of the film.

The other stumbling block here is just the rather disproportionate time spent on creating a melodramatic rift between Hitch and Alma, as opposed to showing us the really fun stuff - the making of Psycho. Don't get me wrong - I really like the relationship between the couple, and the fireworks and chemistry between Hopkins and Mirren are fantastic. But there are moments where the storyline might have worked better as a running theme more in the background of the movie - where a subtler approach might have worked better. The fact that every petty squabble between Hitch and Alma is given such melodramatic weight at times gives the movie too sitcomish of a tone. Meanwhile, the bits that reveal how Hitchcock envisioned the famous shower scene, how he cast Norman Bates, how he at first protested the iconic soundtrack but then embraced it - are all really cool and interesting, and leave you wanting more of the behind-the-scenes stuff.

Still, there are moments of sublime fun where it all works really well. I really like Sacha Gervasi. I loved his first film, the rock-doc Anvil: The Story of Anvil, and he shows signs here of potential greatness in the world of scripted features. In fact, the movie's whole third act really recovers from a mid-movie slump and delivers the goods - I was riveted as we finally see Psycho come together, as Hitch's innovative marketing ideas go into effect to make the movie's premiere an event, and as Hitch proudly watches the first audience view the film - conducting their symphony of screams from outside the theater doors.

HITCHCOCK's self-aware, playful tone may turn off some, but I found it keeping with the spirit of Alfred Hitchcock. The man is a larger-than-life icon whose presence still looms large, so I enjoyed the film as a tribute to he and Alma, and didn't mind that it didn't dive too deep into the mind of the master. This is a great showpiece for Hopkins and Mirren, and a fun treat for anyone who appreciates Hollywood history.

My Grade: B+