Monster's University reviewed

Image courtesy of Disney•Pixar

It was easy to think that Pixar movies were incapable of being poorly created or received.  For 15 years they had put out nothing but fantastic, story-driven movies that were visually amazing and reached the audience on emotional levels.

And then the summer of 2011 was upon us and Cars 2 hit the theaters, proving to be something of a bust, running Pixar right off the track. What a terrible pun. I'm sorry.  So what did Disney•Pixar do?

They released Brave.  Which bounced the company right back into the sort of success they have always been known for.

But wait, you say.  I thought this was a Monster's University review.  All you've done is rehashed stuff we already knew.

I'm getting there.

Monster's University is a great movie.  There you go.  That makes two in a row now, so we'll call that a "new" streak going for Pixar.

In M.U., we are treated to a prequel of Monster's, Inc.  That gave the creative team some room to play with in terms of character development and storyline.  How did our main characters get to be where we last saw them?  What challenges did they have?  Where was John Ratzenberger's voice going to pop up?  Will Randy Newman's songs sound any different than they do in all the other Pixar movies he's done?  The answers to the last two questions are 1.  He does do a voice and 2.  No. Randy Newman's songs always sound the same anytime and everywhere.  Moving on...

Mike Wazowski and James "Sulley" Sullivan are a fantastic duo.  Like a modern day "odd couple", we are treated to the comedy that ensues from the battle between obsessive Mike and carefree Sulley as they embark on their journey through college together.

We glimpse at the movie's opening what drives Mike in his youth, and Sulley makes his first appearance in an unforgettable manner.

M.U. is filled with twists and turns for our pair of future Scare Floor heroes, as they team up with the less-than-cool monsters in a sprawling campus battle of scares and wits against the very system itself.  The storytelling in M.U. really gets you feeling as if you are a part of all the antics going on and provides an immersion in the environment amongst the characters that a lot of comedy and action movies frequently fail to deliver on.

With peeks at many characters' beginnings and changes, M.U. fills the audience in with more of the enjoyment we received in Monstropolis the first time around with Pixar.  On top of the obvious things we are shown in the movie, there are probably plenty of "Easter eggs" tossed in, as well.  Unfortunately, I was too engrossed in the story and characters to watch for stuff on my first viewing, so I can't tell you anything to look for.  There is a very short segment after the credits are finished if you want to stick around for it.

If you were a fan of Monster's, Inc. then I'm confident in saying you will really like Monster's University, too.  It's theater worthy.  Especially if you have children.
I'm giving this:        7.5 out of 10

Man of Steel reviewed

Image copyright Warner Brothers Entertainment

     Man of Steel is not your grandfather's Superman.  Nor was it my Superman.  Zach Snyder, under the production leadership of Christopher Nolan, has given audiences a son of Krypton with more modern appeal and action than probably any of the previous Superman movies combined.
     I went into Man of Steel with the expectation that this was a true reboot, unlike the 2006 Superman Returns.  I suggest doing the same if you go see it.  It's best to understand you are not going to be watching Richard Donner directing Christopher Reeve.  Man of Steel does to Superman what Batman Begins did for Batman.  It gives us characters we've grown up with and puts them into a darker, grittier today.  This isn't the age of world wars, nuclear families, peace & love.  We live in an era of globalization, diminishing privacy, and deep social debates of rights and wrongs with no end in sight.  The comic book version Superman keeps up with this.  Why shouldn't the movie version?

     So who were these new faces underneath such established characters?

     I had to look through IMDB to see who Henry Cavill was.  I have not seen anything he has been in.  Not even Immortals, which appears to be about the only one that would have held any interest.  Did this matter?
     Not in the least.  Coming in at about 3" shorter than Christopher Reeve, Cavill's stature as Superman in the movie was not measured by height, but by the maturity (he's 4 years older than Reeve was at the time), physique, and boyish-charm he brings to the screen.  Clark Kent is put through a range of emotions for much of the movie, and Cavill covers them all.  Like Reeve, he carries an air of goodness about him, sort of a benevolent caretaker for us on Earth.  We learn who he is, where he came from, and what we can expect from someone with the strength and power that Superman possesses.

     You know who else I had to look up?  Michael Shannon, who plays General Zod.  With a much more extensive background than Cavill, I feel like I should have known who he is.  After going through the IMDB list, the only thing I *might* have seen him in were the two episodes of Early Edition he apparently was in.  And that's just because I think I watched most of Early Edition.
     Anyhow, Michael Shannon was phenomenal.  His portrayal of Zod cuts right to the heart of the tenuous relationship between the House of El (Superman's family) and himself.  His battle to fulfill his role and preserve a way of life at any cost is not so different from extremists in the world today.  Evil terrorists to some, heroes in their own way to their followers.  The energy Shannon brings to this role is simply electrifying.

     I can at least say I have seen Amy Adams in some other movies.  How was her Lois Lane?  Well, she doesn't smoke, so +1 for that.  She does seem to get into the same sort of stupid messes that Lois always gets into.  Every time you turn around, Superman is saving her.  But she does bring the same grit and determination that the intrepid reporter always seems to have, as evidenced by her first scene in the movie.  Does the romance between Superman and Lois seem as natural as in the original movie?  Probably not, but not to say it isn't blossoming.  I think what keeps it more at bay isn't the lack of on-screen chemistry between Cavill and Adams, but how they have made Cavill's Superman feel far more like the all-powerful alien being he is, than Reeve's ever felt.

     Some quick blurbs on the only others I feel like mentioning:

     Russell Crowe's version of Jor-El is much cooler than what Marlon Brando had to work with.  They gave him a deeper, more meaningful character and allowed much more screen time to advance the plot.  It wasn't self-serving Russell Crowe time--it was important, story driven Jor-El time.  He clearly cares about his son.  Just as much as...

     Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, who took over the reigns as Jonathan and Martha Kent, respectively.  They gave some emotional performances that made you feel their own difficulty in what it was like trying to raise someone as special as Clark.  Their support of their son in who he is never wavers and they share it well with the audience.

     I don't want to get into spoilers and specifics.  I will say that Man of Steel moves at a very quick pace, with plenty of action.  Clark Kent's backstory is tucked into relevant parts as flashbacks and the whole thing is fairly seamless.  Hans Zimmer composed the score for this, and once again hits another homerun with his choices throughout every scene.

     This is the sort of movie that is worth seeing in the theater.  I'm talking splurge on full-price tickets if you can't do a matinee.  I give this:          8.1 out of 10

Rotten Tomatoes is a stupid website, and I still use it.

     I enjoy going to the movies, and I enjoy writing in this blog.  Except for when I travel, I probably do the former far more than the latter.  The other day after watching This Is The End, I wrote a review of it.  Maybe some of you read it, some of you didn't.  Some who did read it didn't care what I had to write.  Some who didn't read it... well, you are missing out on a chance to ridicule my blogging skills.  I will fill both camps in on a little secret-- I enjoyed writing the review.

So, that is my new thing.  I hope I keep up with it.  One a week--that's my goal.  I'm going to throw in some quick research I've just done that prompted this blog, though.

I think Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com) is a stupid website.  And yes, I still use it anyhow.

I've been familiar with RT for probably a decade (they pretty much rolled it out in 2000, I think).  For an average movie, I usually do a quick look at the Tomatometer score from the critics and from the audience (average Joes like you or me that rate on there), maybe glance at the quick "consensus" write-up they have, and see how it stacks up to what else is opening or currently playing.

The scores don't sway me to see or not see a movie.  That's a choice I've already made prior to visiting RT.  What the scores do (for me, mind you) is give me an idea of whether most movie-going people (critics and audiences alike) cared for the movie or not, and gives me a ball-park idea on what I might expect out of it.

I had never given any thought to how this worked out behind-the-scenes at RT, though.  And now, I think some of these rotten" vs. "fresh" ideas could be skewed.  Do you think I was dumb for not thinking this before?  Yeah, I probably was.


My understanding of how a critic's review gets flagged as either "Fresh" or "Rotten" (after doing bad Google searches and finding nothing helpful) is as follows:

If the critic has marked it better than 60% in their own personal movie review (via their own newspaper, magazine, online source, website, etc.), and that critic's review is then used amongst the RT Reviews Counted, RT gives it a "Fresh" rating.  If it is marked below 60% on the critic's original review source, RT gives it a "Rotten" rating.  If there is no numerical/star/whatever score in the review to determine a percentage, then a "person" (yes, I am putting that in quotes) at RT reads the review and determines what to give it for the sake of including it in the Tomatometer score.

Simple math, then, provides the following:

If a movie is given 2.5 out of 4 stars or better, than it should be "Fresh".
If a movie is given 3 out of 5 stars or better, than it should be "Fresh".
Obviously (I hope) if a movie is given 6 out of 10 or better, than it should be "Fresh".

The number of Fresh reviews are then divided by the total reviews counted, and the average is the Tomatometer score.

It is really supposed to be that simple.  But if you take the time to sort through individual critic reviews (that is what prompted this whole thing for me) and look at the score they give, you will see RT marking 3/5 as "rotten", or even 2/4 as "fresh".

As I type this, Man of Steel has a score of 56%, making it "rotten"--however it has an average numerical rating from the critics of 6.3/10, making it (on average) "fresh".

By comparison, The Bling Ring has a score of 61%, making it "fresh"--however it has an average numerical rating from the critics of 6.4/10.  Clearly still fresh--but almost identical to Man of Steel, which is 5 points lower on the Tomatometer and "rotten".

This is not some stupid ratings conspiracy theory.  It is just plain stupid.  RT is putting a product out there that has, in my opinion, a simple thing wrong with it.  They are doing a poor job of aggregating the reviews.  Which just happens to be their main job.

Well, there you have it.  My long-winded rant on why I am now annoyed with RT.  More importantly, it's just a little bit of information on why I want to start doing reviews, too.  I think I will use a 10-point scale.

I am giving this post a 7.5/10 because it was angry.

This Is The End movie review

Image copyright Columbia Pictures

Let me put your mind at ease.  If you were worried that the funniest parts of This Is The End were shown in the various red band and green band trailers, they weren't.  Plenty of everything has been left for your viewing pleasure: humor, raunch, action, and ... horror?

Well, yeah.  Horror.  This is a film about "the end", after all.  There's demons, demonic possession, hellfire, brimstone, cheap scares.  The works.  And all of this is crafted through a pretty simple story.
Does this simple story work?  Well, these aren't high-end special effects in this movie, and it wasn't written by anyone that most moviegoers would argue is the greatest screenwriter of all time.

The bottom line is yes.  It works and for a great reason--the comedic talents of this group of guys.
The interplay of Rogen et al feels fresh from beginning to end.  Lines don't seem forced to make the jokes within and about each other.  They take things in stride and seem like what they are: rich, funny guys being put to the test of survival.  By comparison, my buddies and I would be poor guys dabbling in the mediocrity of funny being put to the test of survival.

I don't begrudge them for being richer though.  Especially because they seem to learn some valuable lessons about friendship and salvation as the movie continues.  Sort of.

Like any of their other movies, just know that hilarity ensues when they are put in a room together.  Is it their best work as individuals?  Definitely not.  But like chocolate cake, their whole turns out even better than their parts. **** out of 5