An Uninspired Prequel, Monsters University Disappoints.

The Good: The voice acting is fine, Animation is all right
The Bad: Dull and predictable story, Not funny, Not clever, Exceptionally formulaic character progressions
The Basics: Pixar’s latest box office triumph, Monsters University is likely to lose its staying power fast as audiences realize it is a movie utterly lacking in sparkle or originality.


When one watches a lot of movies, one quickly becomes attuned to the conceits of the various genres. Horror and science fiction movies have become such fodder for comedic parody because they have, largely, become so formulaic as to be unsurprising and utterly predictable. So, it is somewhat surprising when Disney/Pixar releases a new film that utterly defies the conventions of the genre. I’m not talking about the college buddy movie genre; Monsters University is so utterly formulaic in that regard that the premise could be written by a college freshman with just the basic line “We want to do a prequel to Monsters, Inc. that puts Mike Wazowski and Sully in college, where they are not initially friends. Seriously, a high school student could probably have pounded out the exact film Monsters University given that working premise. It is that predictable. No, I’m talking about the Disney animated movie genre. Monsters University certainly defies that, but not in a good way.

Sadly, Monsters University is without charm, humor, memorable music (it is not a musical), heartwarming moments or moments of visual spectacle. Unfortunately, Monsters University defies the traditional Disney conceits by creating a movie that is neither timeless nor significant, not original or even particularly memorable. And, it is worth noting that I enjoyed Monsters, Inc. (reviewed here!) and purposely did not rewatch it before taking in Monsters University so I would not be burned out on the characters or traditional issues I have with Disney’s animated “wonders.” This was a very pure viewing of Monsters University and as close to a review unbiased by the original as one could have while still knowing who the principle characters are.

Smaller than his peers at Frighton Elementary, Mike Wazowski nevertheless determines on a field trip that he wants to be a Scarer and attend the prestigious Monsters University. After sneaking into a child’s room from the scare floor on a field trip, he is given an endorsement by one of the scarers and is determined to make it in the future as a scarer. Years later, he successfully enrolls in Monsters University and enrolls in their scaring program. He hits it right off with his roommate, Randy, who is also training to be a scarer. One night, while Mike is studying, his dorm room is broken into by a giant blue monster chasing down a monster pig, the mascot of one of the other monster schools. He is James P. Sullivan and he instantly derides Mike for being in the scaring program because he is convinced that Mike does not have what it takes to be a scarer.

Sullivan’s trek through Monsters University hits a snag pretty quickly, though, when he tries coasting through Professor Knight’s Scaring class on his family name (he’s a legacy at the university). While Mike is booksmart, he cannot get any of the major fraternities to recognize him or his abilities, so he falls in with the outcasts. In order to prove himself worthy of remaining in the scaring program (and for Sully to get back in the good graces of Dean Hardscrabble), Mike and Sully team up with Squishy, Don, Terry (and Terri), and Art to try to help Oozma Kappa win the monster games. In the process, they become friends, Sully hedges his bets, and they all learn a very important lesson, blah, blah, blah.

Seriously, blah, blah, blah is part of the plot because the actual plot is so thin and short that the writers and director had to flesh the movie out with an extended sequence wherein Mike arrives on campus, a pointless twist near the end, and an adventure that follows the bulk of the plot (which is the monster games, which dominates the screentime of the film). As a result, the movie feels like a remarkably thin idea stretched out to reach just over a hundred minutes (probably because it would be virtually impossible to get people to pay for a 3-D movie at today’s ticket prices for the forty-five minutes worth of actual substance the film might have). The padding does not make a better movie. Instead, Monsters University presents one college cliché after another. In fact, the only one that comes to mind missing from the movie is the romantic subplot that would have pit Mike and Sully against one another for the affections of a woman.

There is nothing audacious on the character front. As a prequel, viewers already know that Mike and Sully will end up as friends. There is nothing incredible in Monsters University that illustrates the way they became friends was at all unique or compelling.

What Monsters University does have is a decent cast. The voice acting talents in the film are top notch. Led by Billy Crystal and John Goodman, the cast includes Helen Mirren, Steve Buscemi, Nathan Fillion, Alfred Molina, David Foley, Joel Murray and, very briefly, Pixar mainstay John Ratzenberger. All of them perform fine.

The only other note I have on Monsters University is on the animation. I recall being impressed when I saw Monsters, Inc. at the quality of the animation. I marveled at how every hair on Sully’s fur was rendered and appeared to move independently. Monsters, Inc. left me impressed. Monsters University did not. The animation did not seem as vibrant or spectacular somehow and the 3-D did not pop either.

In short, Monsters University, like Cars 2, seems to illustrate that Pixar needs to think long and hard about revisiting its most successful properties; not all of them are the cash cows they appear to be.

For other Disney animated films, please visit my reviews of:
Frozen
Wreck-It Ralph
Brave
Tangled
Toy Story 3
A Christmas Carol
Up
Ponyo
The Princess And The Frog
Bolt
WALL-E
The Incredibles
Lilo & Stitch
Atlantis: The Lost Empire
Mulan
Hercules
The Lion King
Beauty And The Beast
The Little Mermaid
Lady And The Tramp
The Sword In The Stone
The Aristocats
Sleeping Beauty
Fantasia

3/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Droll Humor Plagues Parental Guidance.

The Good: Moments of humor, Moments of character
The Bad: No superlative performances, Predictable plot, Lame, interchangeable jokes, One-note characters
The Basics: Billy Crystal and Bette Midler lead a decent cast performing badly in the Christmas family comedy Parental Guidance.


Every now and then, I figure the studios give up on a project. Won’t Back Down (reviewed here!) was given such a push of advanced screenings that it is a wonder that there was anyone left who might have wanted to see the film who ended up having to pay for it. In a similar fashion, I suspect the distributors of the Christmas-release family comedy Parental Guidance have decided it is not going to be able to compete with Les Miserables and they aren’t even going to try. Having gone to a screening of the Parental Guidance, I can now say that Twentieth Century Fox, seems to have made the right decision and bailed on the family comedy early.

Parental Guidance is a family comedy that is plagued by being too obvious, too safe, and overly generic. So many of the jokes could have been interchanged into other movies for virtually any other situation – in order to get up to the 104 minute running time, Parental Guidance is diluted with generic travel jokes and humor that is based on differences between the generations. The film is utterly predictable and it is another unfortunate example of a film where all of the best jokes are in the trailer, making for another dismal experience where the movie is stretched out around one or two decent (I counted five smileworthy) jokes.

Alice and Phil have to leave town and they cannot take their children with them. In desperation, Alice calls her parents, Artie and Diane, to ask if they will come and spend the week watching the kids. After much kvetching about how uncomfortable Artie is about the Alice’s parenting and his feelings of awkwardness around his grandchildren: Harper, Turner, and Darker, Diane and Artie go to Alice’s home, mostly based on Diane’s desire to have a closer relationship with the grandchildren. Once there, the family has an awkward dinner out, wherein Alice lays out the rules she wants Diane and Artie to help enforce.

When their children leave, Diane and Artie make little effort to live up to Alice’s wishes. Diane tries to be the cool grandmother, bonding especially with Harper. As difficult as it is for Artie, he begins to relate to the boys and he starts taking some joy in being a grandparent for the first time in his life.

Parental Guidance is 100% predictable and the deluge of travel jokes are anything but audacious and feel like filler as the movie slowly progresses through Artie’s complaining. The character arcs for Diane, Artie, and Alice are entirely predictable, given the way the characters are initially established. Alice is so down on how Artie and Diane raised her and she has such rigid views on how her children should be raised – she wants her kids to have more experiences, as opposed to having firm limits placed on them, yet has strict dietary restrictions for them and a few other absolute positions that prevent her parenting style from being defined as “experience-based.”

Similarly, Billy Crystal’s Artie seems to be a very obvious, generic grumpy old man at the outset of the film. Artie clearly loves his wife, but he is not keen on how Alice turned out and he has little initial interest in actually spending time with Alice’s children. Conversely, Diane is characterized as a woman who truly feels a void in her life for not being closer to her daughter and grandchildren. So, there is really very little direction the characters could go in other than Artie loosening up and Diane getting her wish (whatwith Hollywood’s adamant refusal to promote the idea that children do not solve every relationship problem and that grandparents are not universally cool or wealthy enough to spoil their grandchildren). Given that most of the flick focuses on the adults’ relationship(s), their arcs are entirely obvious.

In a similar fashion, Alice is suddenly forced to rely upon her parents in a way that she is not initially comfortable with. Given that Parental Guidance is a family comedy that falls firmly into the camp of That Kind Of Movie, there is nothing surprising in the way that Alice slowly grows to appreciate her parents and their parenting style more. Parental Guidance is one of those movies that is not about to challenge those expectations and it doesn’t.

As it turns out, Parental Guidance is actually only the second film I have seen Bette Midler on screen in. Go figure. As Diane in Parental Guidance, Bette Midler is remarkably average. She plays an archetype (the cool, doting grandmother) and she is decent in the role, but she is not particularly funny or original in the part. This is not her watershed performance (I can only assume, because otherwise, I cannot see how her film career would have endured so long). The child actors in Parental Guidance are predictably mediocre, save Bailee Madison. In Parental Guidance, Madison is no longer simply playing off the “cute factor” of a round-cheeked girl her age; she actually performs with moments of maturity and manic deliveries that is different from anything else I have seen her in before. Madison is finally getting a chance to show some range and she seems up to the challenge.

But the heart and soul of Parental Guidance is Billy Crystal (Artie) and Marisa Tomei (Alice) and neither one really shines. Crystal’s comic timing is wasted on mediocre jokes and Tomei is anything but credible as the mother of three. Neither one makes the viewer care about their characters and given that their moves toward emotional reconciliation are the crux of the emotional journey of Parental Guidance, the serious moments fail to resonate. What one is left with is a silly slapstick comedy that does nothing viewers have not seen a hundred times before.

For other works with Bailee Madison, please check out my reviews of:
Once Upon A Time - Season 1
Just Go With It
Letters To God

3/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Subtle Perfection Of A Romantic Comedy Done Right: When Harry Met Sally. . .

The Good: Acting, Romance, Characters, Humor holds up over many viewings, Assembly, Direction
The Bad: Somewhat obvious set up (I'm stretching here!), None in truth
The Basics: Who are you and why haven't you seen this classic, perfect romantic comedy yet?! Funny, charming and well-developed, When Harry Met Sally. . . is a winner.


Romantic comedies tend to suffer in my reviews because the average romantic comedy is predictable beyond belief and when you've seen it once, you've seen it a hundred times. In short, because most romantic comedies are about the establishment of a romantic relationship and usually who the characters will end up with is pretty much a function of casting (i.e. usually the two top-billed performers are the ones who hook up), there's little surprise to most romantic comedies. The way the most successful romantic comedies get around that is by creating unique and interesting characters, like in Love Actually (reviewed here!) and/or playing with the notion of a romantic comedy exploding the limitations of the genre, like The Incredibly True Adventure Of Two Girls In Love (reviewed here!). One of the few romantic comedies that does this perfectly is When Harry Met Sally. . .

Harry Burns meets Sally Albright when they split driving responsibilities on a twelve hour drive to New York where they are starting their post college lives. Harry annoys Sally almost the entire way. Their trip concludes with Sally wishing they could be friends but Harry declaring that men and women cannot just be friends and they part way. Years later, Sally and Harry run into one another on a flight and Harry amends his prior comment; women and men can be friends if both are in relationships, so they can now be friends. Harry's wife soon leaves him, however, and Sally's relationship falls apart, too. They spend years becoming better and better friends while their mutual friends Marie and Jess fall in love and marry. As their friendship grows, they move toward an inevitable romantic relationship, but - of course - there are complications . . .

What makes When Harry Met Sally. . . work so well is that it follows an excruciatingly realistic pace. While so many romantic comedies rush into sex, relationship and forced conflict, this is a film that explores the conflict of various relationships and delays the romance for a long time. Featuring interstitials of couples telling how they fell in love between the various time jumps, When Harry Met Sally. . . takes the time to develop an actual friendship between the protagonists that makes their relationship viable, interesting and an intriguing basis for love. In short, by the time Harry and Sally start actually moving toward a relationship, they feel like they are already in a meaningful one.

It works extraordinarily well and this is one of the films that succeeds admirably because the lead actors have genuine chemistry. The characters spend much of the movie looking in every direction but each other and that makes for an interesting character study. Both are well defined and as they share common interests, like watching "Casablanca" together in their respective apartments by having each other on the line while viewing it, the viewer enjoys watching them bond.

These are two characters genuinely relating and that's something that we rarely see in films these days. Too often the chemistry between characters or actors is assumed. Far too often the characters in a romantic comedy follow the three date, have sex, be in a relationship formula - though lately, there is a tendency toward characters to "slip" and have sex on the first date and that provides much of what is supposed to be the comedy. Sigh. When Harry Met Sally. . . is still something different in that regard. Harry and Sally are around one another for years before romance even enters into their dialogue.

In some ways, this is also one of the last successful "odd couple" type pairings. Sally has underwear for each day of the week and a laundry list of dietary concerns. Harry is generally slovenly (I still laugh every time he starts spitting grape seeds out of the car while the window is still up). Harry is quirky and opens Sally up to absurdity like spending a day speaking in an accent while wandering a museum, Sally brings a sense of calm and care to Harry's life and opens him up to a broader life philosophy.

The relationship between Harry and Sally is mirrored by the much quicker, but no less solid, relationship between Marie and Jess. They are funny and watching their foibles realistically delays Sally and Harry from rushing their relationship. Moreover, it keeps the pace of the movie bearable. As Harry and Sally struggle for years to relate and befriend one another and move past their difficulties of past relationships, Marie and Jess offer a very satisfying pair to sink some of our hopes into. We accept the delay of the protagonists because the world they live in is still filled with less tenuous love and that makes the movie work.

As well, there's a wonderful moment when Jess and Marie turn to one another and say "Promise me I'll never be single again!" that is just beautiful. Jess is played by Bruno Kirby and it's refreshing to see such a realistic-looking adult get such a decent role. I'm not staying that Kirby stands out as the luckiest character actor in a long time to be married off (in the movie) to Carrie Fisher, but it's nice to see people who don't have the same homogenous "desperate to look young and sexy" look in movies. Carrie Fisher gives a memorable performance as Marie and it's nice to see her in a role that is so different from the nagging Princess Leia that made her career. Here she is mature, articulate, emotionally connected and a delight to watch.

Much of the movie hinges on Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan as Harry and Sally. Ryan's performance in this movie made her the darling of romantic comedies for almost a decade and it's easy to see why. In When Harry Met Sally. . ., Ryan is cute, articulate and her neurosis is fun to watch for most viewers. She plays the role with a simple, "good American girl" quality that she effortlessly portrays and does so well.

Ryan has surprisingly good on-screen chemistry with costar Billy Crystal. Crystal plays the oddball well and here he keeps it in check enough to create a genuine and memorable character. He slouches through the role and everything that comes out of his mouth, no matter how contrary to our personal experience he presents as perfectly credible, such is the strength of his performance. Even if the viewer does not believe what he is saying, we believe Harry believes his own philosophies. That's great acting on Crystal's part.

When Harry Met Sally. . . was written by Nora Ephron and she shows an excellent balance in her characterizations. Neither of the characters feels like they were written in a way that is inorganic (ever watched a movie where a male character says something and it pulls you out of the movie and you say "That line was written by a woman?" There's nothing like that in this script!). Director Rob Reiner does an excellent job keeping the movie flowing whenever it seems like it could fall into a slow point.

At the end of the day, this is a perfect romantic comedy and well worth the time and attention of all audiences. It shows an adult story of two people falling in love over a long period of time that does not feel so long. Told with humor that holds up over multiple viewings and great characters, When Harry Met Sally. . . is a must-see!

For other romantic comedies, please visit my reviews of:
Chasing Amy
The 40 Year Old Virgin
Valentine’s Day

10/10

For other movie reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Not Even Worth The Free Library Borrowing To Watch: America’s Sweethearts Flops.

The Good: A Somewhat decent cast, moments of Walken
The Bad: Not funny, Unlikable characters, Predictable, Low denominator humor
The Basics: In a film devoid of any characters who are empathetic and a plot that seems like it was written by a third grade student, the viewer has nothing to enjoy from America’s Sweethearts.


When was the last time you watched a romantic comedy that actually surprised you? One where you couldn't call the ending in the first two minutes of the film and where the characters were actually interesting and likable? How about one that was actually funny and that stood up over multiple viewings? If you're looking for a movie that meets all of those criteria . . .

. . . keep looking, it's not America’s Sweethearts.

The premise of this dullard is that a famous movie couple has broken up. Gwen and Eddie were box office magic when they worked together and their last film is ready to be released, but it needs the two of them to work the press to sell it. So, their agents work tirelessly to arrange a press junket where it will appear that the two are still together. The problems? Eddie has had a complete, crippling nervous breakdown and Gwen is a hellish diva.

Right off the bat, the only moment of this film I enjoyed was Christopher Walken's character. When Hal plays the movie he filmed that the press junket is supposed to be for, I laughed. That was once in 102 minutes. That's not enough.

What went wrong? The script is horrible. It's not funny. It resorts to stupid jokes like a dog nuzzling into a man's crotch (and the man is Billy Crystal). It resorts to stupid fat jokes in reference to Kiki, Gwen's sister and agent, and it tops it all off with stupid attempts to make Eddie's mental state seem funny.

All of the meetings between Gwen and Eddie at the resort are obvious, contrived and insult the intelligence of the viewers. That Eddie can't see Kiki's obvious love for him is ridiculous and the way all of the characters behave is appalling and insipid. This movie reads like a tabloid, without the emotional resonance of celebrities one actually cares about.

Catherine Zeta-Jones portrays Gwen as a hellion without any redeeming qualities such that it makes it impossible to see why the nice guy Eddie, much less anyone, would be attracted to her. John Cusack never makes Eddie anything special. He plays the wounded man much like his other parts, like Jonathan in Serendipity. Put Eddie and Jonathan in the same room and I couldn't tell them apart at this point.

America’s Sweethearts continues the trend of leaving me baffled as to how Julia Roberts continues to keep getting work. Indeed, like Cusak, there is nothing distinctive that she does as Kiki to differentiate from some of her other roles.

In short, America’s Sweethearts is a contrived piece that works under the idea that if you put two feuding, unlike people together in a situation where they have to be on their best behavior, hilarity will ensue. It does not. If you want a good romantic comedy that puts two different people together and actually works, try When Harry Met Sally.

For other works featuring Stanley Tucci, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Hunger Games
Captain America: The First Avenger
Easy A
Swing Vote
The Devil Wears Prada
The Terminal

2/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Quick Fairy Tale Of Worth: The Princess Bride!

The Good: Funny, Entertaining for all ages, Acting
The Bad: Plot is simple, Characters are all "types"
The Basics: With a great blend of humor and inventive dialog, The Princess Bride takes the tired old fairy tale formula and makes it new again.


The real magic of The Princess Bride is that it plays remarkably well for people of all ages with a fair amount of entertainment all the way around. This is a comedy that could be classified as "family entertainment" that actually succeeds in entertaining the entire family. It is funny, cute and well-told, despite the simplicity of the story.

The Princess Bride opens as a fair tale being told to a sick child by his grandfather. The tale is the typical fairy tale with an intriguing twist; none of the characters talk like they usually would in a fairy tale. So, Westley, a farm boy for Buttercup, spends his time being abused by her until she realizes that he loves her and she loves him. Far too poor to be married, Westley sets out to better himself and thus win her hand. Unfortunately, he is killed by the Dread Pirate Robert and five years later, she finds herself engaged to the nefarious Prince Humperdink. Humperdink is a war monger who wants to have Buttercup killed by what appears to be a neighboring kingdom so he has an excuse to bring his people to war there. Humperdink employs the ridiculous Vizzini and his henchmen Inigo Montoya and Fezzik. The trio of kidnapers runs into trouble when they are followed by a mysterious man in black who seems bent on recovering Buttercup and foiling their plans. The man in black turns out to be Westley and his resurfacing reignights the love he had with Buttercup in a weird race to save her life and his own and stop Humperdink's horrible plans.

Basically, this is a fair tale; man and woman fall in love, encounter obstacles and must overcome them to prove their love. There is revenge in the form of Inigo Montoya versus his mysterious six-fingered man, there is love in the form of Westley and Buttercup and there is scheming in the form of Prince Humperdink. But at the end of the day, the only thing that significantly distinguishes The Princess Bride from any other fairy tale is the dialog. The way the characters speak makes the movie a treat to watch and rewatch. For example, in most fair tales when two swordsmen square off, they hurl insults or barbs, when Westley and Inigo find themselves facing each other with foils, they spend the battle complimenting the swordsmanship of the other. Fezzik, the giant, discusses strategy while being suffocated by Westley when Westley, reluctantly must fight him. Outside his desire for making the fight as sportsmanlike as possible, Fezzik is basically a "type;" the adversary turned friend or simply, a Giant.

So while the characters are eccentric, they are essentially types: Westley a hero, Humperdink a villain, Inigo a hero seeking revenge, Count Rugen the object of Inigo's revenge who is mostly a coward, and Buttercup a would-be princess.

Why watch the movie? The dialog is truly great and funny and it stands up over multiple viewings. The acting is quite good. Seeing Mandy Patinkin on Dead Like Me and watching him as Inigo Montoya is a wonderful show of how much range he has as a great actor. Wallace Shawn - a favorite of mine - gives an incredibly ridiculous over-the-top performance as Vizzini and he steals every scene he is in.

Cary Elwes as Westley is phenomenal, escaping the bland roles he has often been condemned to since. Elwes is charismatic and has a great sense of timing in The Princess Bride. Similarly, Robin Wright performs well given the material she is given. Even Andre the Giant shines as Fezzik, bringing a strange lovable quality to the character.

It is Chris Sarandon who shines consistently in The Princess Bride. Sarandon does a great job of portraying a maniacal villain in Humperdink without ever appearing absurd. He uses a sense of timing and bearing to wonderfully convince the viewer that he could have risen to his position and station. He is quite the professional here.

Anyone will enjoy this movie and it is a worth addition to any DVD collection.

For other fantasy films, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Labyrinth
Breaking Dawn, Part 1
The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy

7.5/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2012, 2005 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Monsters That Are, But Don't Know Why: Monsters, Inc.

The Good: Funny, Good animation, Good voiceovers
The Bad: Predictable plot, Unsure of What It Wants to Be
The Basics: Recommended for the achievement in animation more than the story that begins at too ambitions and degenerates into too juvenile.


Occasionally, there's a film that looks like a kid's movie, but turns out to be an adult film. Monsters, Inc. almost does that. It starts out and after the opening credits, quickly establishes itself as something that is not simply a children's film. The lines and concept are too deep for most children.

Monsters, Inc. begins as the story of a town in a recession. The monster town is experiencing a power shortage based on an inability to scare children. Apparently, they power their town on children's screams. The concept is above the heads of most children: you're talking economic terms, many of the lines are thinly veiled references to nuclear energy (the parallels between scream energy and nuclear are uncanny). Moreover, it's not at all a stretch to see the thinly veiled homosexual motif throughout the film. I mean, that's pretty easy considering the number of closets in the film.

Okay, so the film focuses on the cyclops Mike and the Big Blue Monster Sully. They currently hold the record for most scares and life is good for them. Then, one of Sully's competitors decides to commit fraud and in the process, contaminates the monster town with a human child. Human children are feared and - in the nuclear metaphor - viewed as a contaminant.

Sully ends up with the child and basically, the rest of the film is a confused chase around the monster town and the human world.

If you've seen Toy Story, you know the plot to Monsters, Inc. It's just different characters and minor variations on the theme. The problem is, the film doesn't know what it wants to be. One moment, it's adult with all sorts of intelligence as a metaphor for power, economics and gay rights issues. The next moment, it's a predictable plot with an infantile approach to the world.

I would suggest that there's too much in this to be truly enjoyable to little children. That is, the villainy of the villains in the film are based on economics, terms outside a child's understanding. Adults are likely to not enjoy the film as much for the predictable plot and infantile resolution. The film is probably ideal for younger teens as it lacks real character depth and lasting intelligence.

What is likely to be enjoyable to all is that the film is often funny. And the animation is incredible. The hair moves like hair on Sully, the bodies move like bodies. The computer animators at Pixar show a greater appreciation of How Things Work than most Disney films of late have shown.

The film is fun, but inconsistent in its ability to make commentary and when it fails to do that, it degenerates into something far more meaningful and, for those who like things to make sense, supposedly "fun."

For other Disney animated films, please visit my reviews of:
Tangled
Toy Story 3
A Christmas Carol
Up
The Incredibles
The Little Mermaid
Lady And The Tramp
Sleeping Beauty

6/10

For other film reviews, please check out my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.




| |