Skip to main content

Do you think he’s scary?

Monsters University
(2013)

The second biggest animated hit of 2013 (until Frozen overtakes it) was, like the crown prince Despicable Me 2, a sequel. Okay, Monsters University is a prequel, but it’s symptomatic of a malaise one expected from rival DreamWorks but which has now infected Pixar; the relentless plundering of one’s back catalogue instead of striking out in new directions. Monsters University is exactly what you’d expect of the animation house that brought you Cars 2 and Toy Story 3 (admittedly, the latter is a good sequel) over the past couple of years; precision-engineered and immaculately realised, but completely uninspired.


I can’t say I was that enamoured by Monsters, Inc., which arrived way back in 2001. Something about the premise was all together twee, the kind of thing a parent comes up with in order to fit cutesy moppets into a tale when they should realise that gurgling burbling infantilism is the last thing kids need to watch. With all the imaginative possibilities at their disposal, Disney (and increasingly Pixar, albeit one and the same entity now) has fostered an unwholesome ethic of working on the latent sentimentality of those bringing their little ones to the cinema. Rather than, you know, treating everyone with a bit of respect.


So I wasn’t impressed to hear they were making a prequel, about the early days of Mike (Billy Crystal) and Sully (John Goodman). How they first met, the tribulations they overcame and the aspirations they nursed in order to become the child-frighteners they are today (or were yesterday). Pixar clearly knew better, since Monsters University has become one of their biggest hits (worldwide, at any rate). It seems the idea that a prequel is never a good idea has been well and truly kiboshed.


To be fair to director Dan Scanlon and his two co-writers (Daniel Gerson and Robert L Baird, both of whom contributed to the original), this is a far superior seq/prequel to Cars 2 (although to be fair to Cars 2, that’s a marginally more involving picture than the rancid original). But, as with the cutesy kids thing, you can hear these geeky animators impressing their lacklustre university experiences on the story. It becomes a hackneyed tale of jocks (Sully) versus nerds (Mike) and how mutual understanding and respect can make us all better people. Noble sentiments, to be sure, but offering nothing new to the campus mix (rarely challenged since Animal House).


There’s a question too of the cluelessness of making a family movie set at university. Perhaps Monsters University is entirely innocuous due to the virginal experiences of the Pixar alumni in their day. There’s no whiff of illegal substances, promiscuous encounters or even a kegger. Yet room is made for the entirely wholesome fraternity initiations, with all the sado-masochistic “harmlessness” they entail. There’s also an incest gag, an indication that Pixar has its priorities right.


The familiarity of Monsters University is what really disappoints. Of course there’s a stern tutor who turns out to mean well. No one here is really bad, not even Buscemi’s Randy (well maybe just a little). Even Mike’s journey of self-acceptance (he may not be scary, but he has other estimable qualities) lacks any bite. Seeing failure of achievement as a learning curve is most commendable, but it is toothless as depicted here. Because that’s what Pixar has become; toothless, unwilling to take risks, always playing it safe. One is left wondering just how Mike and Sully manage to scare all those they do at the climax, because what we see on screen wouldn’t fluster a ferret. This is another problem with making a movie about the fears of little ones for little ones; the makers inevitably have to pull their punches.


And its all accompanied by a relentlessly upbeat Randy Newman score. Newman is a purveyor of dawdling jollity, one whose spectre needs chasing from the land before he further afflicts large populated areas. It’s fortunate that he hasn’t been the composer of every Pixar movie, because one dose of Randy goes a long way and requires regular trips to the doctor.


Still, one thing you can usually rely on Pixar for is scrupulously honed story beats. There has to be a challenge, and Mike is threatened with expulsion by almost as soon as he arrives at Monsters University (by Helen Mirren’s Dean Hardscrabble). The only way to assure his place is to enter the Scare Games (like the Hunger ones, but… no, not really) and prove his worth against the Scare Simulator. So he takes up with the most feckless frat house (Oozma Kappa) on campus and reluctantly allows super-assured Sully, also under duress, along for the ride. And this section works. Of course it does, it’s about the triumph of the little guys. 


There are a couple of good characters too; straggly-legged Art (Charlie Day) and Scott Squibbles (Peter Sohn). But the monster design is mostly as undemanding as the basic plot. Only occasionally does something stick out from the crowd; Scott’s mom (Julia Sweeney) listening to Death Metal while she waits in her car, the Scare Pig (which at least is supposed to be unscary). None of the monsters are anything but loveable, so it beggars belief that 99% of kids wouldn’t be as unaffected by them as the ones Mike attempts to scare.


I’m not asking for a Pixar not to be life affirming. It’s part of the correctly so core values of kids’ animation. But it seems like the days where a Wall-E or The Incredibles could come along and surprise with ideas and content seem to be long gone. Now their films consist entirely of stock types and situations but without any real heart; they’re a slightly better quality junk food, in more appetising packaging. It’s understandable; all the animation houses are looking over their shoulders in an increasingly crowded market. These movies aren’t cheap (mostly) so they’re driven by fear of failure rather than a desire to impress or innovate. Maybe the shunting of The Good Dinosaur to 2014 is a good sign. Maybe it just means it isn’t formulaic enough (that’s why they changed Brave, isn’t it?) So this year there will be (shock!) no Pixar, while in 2015 there will be Dinosaur and Inside Out (which initially sounds distinctive, until you realise all the things it reminds you of; anything different there will be ironed out along the way). After that it’s back to the sequels, and Finding Dory. No doubt there’ll be a third Monsters around 2018. And a Cars 3. Branding and merchandising bonanzas, they’re what count most now. Right, Pixar?


***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

It was one of the most desolate looking places in the world.

They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)
Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, broadcast by the BBC on the centenary of Armistice Day, is "sold" on the attraction and curiosity value of restored, colourised and frame rate-enhanced footage. On that level, this World War I documentary, utilising a misquote from Laurence Binyon's poem for its title, is frequently an eye-opener, transforming the stuttering, blurry visuals that have hitherto informed subsequent generations' relationship with the War. However, that's only half the story; the other is the use of archive interviews with veterans to provide a narrative, exerting an effect often more impacting for what isn't said than for what is.

You look like an angry lizard!

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)
(SPOILERS) I can quite see a Queen fan begrudging this latest musical biopic for failing to adhere to the facts of their illustrious career – but then, what biopic does steer a straight and true course? – making it ironic that they're the main fuel for Bohemian Rhapsody's box office success. Most other criticisms – and they're legitimate, on the whole – fall away in the face of a hugely charismatic star turn from Rami Malek as the band's frontman. He's the difference between a standard-issue, episodic, join-the-dots narrative and one that occasionally touches greatness, and most importantly, carries emotional heft.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

It seemed as if I had missed something.

Room 237 (2012)
Stanley Kubrick’s meticulous, obsessive approach towards filmmaking was renowned, so perhaps it should be no surprise to find comparable traits reflected in a section of his worshippers. Legends about the director have taken root (some of them with a factual basis, others bunkum), while the air of secrecy that enshrouded his life and work has duly fostered a range of conspiracy theories. A few of these are aired in Rodney Ascher’s documentary, which indulges five variably coherent advocates of five variably tenuous theories relating to just what The Shining is really all about. Beyond Jack Nicholson turning the crazy up to 11, that is. Ascher has hit on a fascinating subject, one that exposes our capacity to interpret any given information wildly differently according to our disposition. But his execution, which both underlines and undermines the theses of these devotees, leaves something to be desired.

Part of the problem is simply one of production values. The audio tra…

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.