Monsters Inc review

Mike: I think I have a plan here: using mainly spoons, we dig a tunnel under the city and release it into the wild.

Sulley: Spoons?

Mike: That's it, I'm out of ideas. We're closed. Hot air balloon? Too expensive. Giant slingshot? Too conspicuous. Enormous wooden horse? Too Greek.

Directors: Andrew Stanton, David Silverman, Lee Unkrich
(2001)

It’s an almost surreal experience being able to revisit Pixar films during their infancy after knowing just how successful the company’s streak would turn out. Almost singlehandedly responsible for the second golden age of animation with their pioneering piece of perfection that is Toy Story (1995) the studio has proliferated the use of computer animation to the point where no one does anything by hand anymore. Despite being universally adored by audiences of any age upon release, Monsters Inc critical reception was warm rather than blisteringly molten like Toy Story’s, and even to this day I find this baffling. In a near perfect run of films spanning more than a decade, Monsters Inc is one of the company’s absolute highlights.

Set in the monster populated Monstropolis, Monsters Inc follows Sully (John Goodman) and Mike (Billy Crystal), 2 best friends and employees at Monsters Inc, a factory that collects the scares from children in order to power everyday activities. The factory has doors that lead into children’s closets, allowing the monsters to infiltrate the human world to gather the required ‘scream’ energy that society has become so dependent upon. In a hilarious revelation, human children are considered to be poisonous, with a single touch being able to kill instantly. After a shift one day Sully finds a door left on the factories scare floor and accidently lets a human child called Boo (Mary Gibbs) into the monsters realm. This puts the duo on a crash course with the antagonistic Randall (Steve Buscemi) a malevolent camouflaged lizard who has bold ambitions about the future of the monsters world.

What makes the film work is its genius, high concept idea and precise, entertaining storytelling. The concept of another world inhabited solely by monsters whose way of life is powered by the screams of frightened children might sound like something out of an arthouse horror flick; the idea and its universe are developed sensationally by Pixar’s creative minds. The way the city of Monstropolis functions is so similar to ours, but is flipped on its head by the physical state of its creatively designed inhabitants. A janitor cleans up a trail of slime only to create another when he moves due to being a slug, a monsters tongue is so long it doubles up as a child’s skipping rope and deodorant is based upon foul smells (wet dog anyone?). These quirky aspects of an otherwise relatable society make for some tremendous laughs, as well as establishing just how original the film, and films in general, can truly be.

While both Toy Story’s and A Bugs Life are films that do an excellent job of catering to 2 broadly different audiences, it was with Monsters Inc that Pixar really began perfecting the art of pleasing such a varied audience. Mike and Celia go to a fancy restaurant called Harryhausens and Mike is put off by the idea of yellow snow cones (“they're lemon!”) while younger audiences will adore the slapstick humour and comedic violence. The written gags are razor sharp and are slanted more in favour of entertaining adults than they are of children, and this catering to such a diverse audience is executed flawlessly, making for a cohesive, well rounded feature.

Much like Toy Story 2, Pixar saves one of its strongest moments till last as Sully, Mike and Boo soar through the factory warehouse, using the door track line as a form of makeshift rollercoaster/getaway vehicle from the villainous Randall. Soon the characters are using the doors as portals, travelling to various locales around the world. The chase is visually stunning and totally exhilarating, culminating with an emotionally charged finale that could reduce a grown man to tears. The films flaws (obvious, cliché villain, the usual Pixar buddy comedy routine) are minor, the successes are astronomical. Watch it again on Blu Ray to remind yourself how the Cars films are minor lows in a company that’s only in the business of crafting phenomenal highs.

Wallace and Gromit: The Wrong Trousers review

Director: Nick Park
(1993)

There's only very little that needs to be said about Nick Parks Wallace and Gromit the Wrong Trousers, a short stop motion animation that's The Godfather of its genre. After renting out the spare room to an ambiguously sinister penguin, Gromit’s Techno Trousers are integral in the heist of a diamond by the malevolent bird. From start to finish Parks magnum opus is crammed with pitch perfect humour, genius gags and an astute sense of britishness. The low fi charm of Claymation is delightful that enhances every scene with such detail and ingenuity putting everything else similar to shame. And then there’s that climax, a chase on a miniature train track around Wallace’s home as Gromit lays down additional track as the locomotive barrels forward at an alarming and exhilarating rate. Quite possibly one of the greatest moments in the history of film, animation or otherwise.  A true masterpiece.

Short review: The Simpsons Movie

Director: David Silverman
(2007)

The Simpsons Movie simply doesn’t have the right to be this good. Constant rewrites and the weight of expectation should have buried it under a landslide of disappointment. Yet this feature length episode does what we've come to expect from the series. After Homer poisons Lake Springfield, the government enclose the town in a giant dome causing the famous family to go on the run. While the plot is mediocre, the humour is the true core of the film; perfectly blending smart jokes with postmodern nudges. The snide jabs at the government mostly fall flat however, often causing the laughs to dry up. While The Simpsons boasts a wonderful cast of side characters, very few are utilised beyond the odd joke, a severe waste of potential. The tiny 75 minute running time damages the film too, making this an accurate example of quality over quantity.

Short review: How to Train Your Dragon

While I'm not a particularly big fan of DreamWorks films, How to Train Your Dragon was something of an improvement upon their usually middling standard. The film centres on Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) a young Viking boy whose village is stuck in a constant battle with a gang of fearsome dragons. Things turn around when he befriends one of the injured fire breathers and learns the secrets of these flying monstrosities. Voice acting is solid yet the characters are very one dimensional, many of which are dull stereotypes despite the Nordic setting. The animation and use of colours is an improvement by DreamWorks standards as well, both of which render the impressive flying and action sequences incredible. Yet both of these features are offset by a story that is completely predictable and horribly cliché. Still, HTTYD remains a fun, family friendly film.

Short Review: Room on the Broom

From the studio that brought us the delightful ‘The Gruffalo’ has scored another hit with yet another short animation, complete with Narrator (Simon Pegg) who talks in rhyme. The story is basic yet charming, a witch and her cat keep accidently dropping items from their broom while flying. The items are recovered by a different animal who joins them on the journey. The complexity ends there. Dialogue is sparse and the delightful animation does a tremendous job of highlighting each new characters personality. Due to an appetite for witches, the group is followed and confronted by a hungry dragon during the climax, but this acts only as mild structure to prevent the entire short from becoming meandering in tone. While not quite as good as The Gruffalo, Room on the Broom is still a success that can be adored by the entire family.

Short review: A Christmas Carol

Director: Robert Zemeckis
(2009)

It’s been a long time since acclaimed director Robert Zemeckis made a film that isn’t motion capture. A Christmas Carol continues this streak, a retelling of the famous Charles Dickens story not with humans or Muppets, but actors in mocap suits. Jim Carrey is the unforgettable Ebenezer Scrooge, a money loving Christmas hating miserable excuse of a man. Visited by 3 ghosts to lead him on a journey of self redemption, we witness Scrooges past, present and future through an animated lens. While it’s a pretty film, the obnoxious English accents and hideous dead eye syndrome that plagues such a visual style does little to help recommending this film over the myriad of other Christmas Carol films. The performances and cinematography are solid, but by the end of the film things feel a little unnecessary, there are better alternatives.

Short Review: The Snowman and the Snowdog

Director: Hilary Audus
(2012)

After the beautiful wordless short hit that was short The Snowman in 1982, we have a sequel on the 30^th anniversary of such a beloved classic. Following the young child from the original as he moves house and suffers the loss of his dog, we’re once again drawn into the magical world of the snowman on the eve of Christmas. Much like its predecessor, no characters speak; TSATS is a silent short, the only words are lyrics from the song that erupts during the film’s most impressive scene. The flickering art style and gorgeous animation has been retained that adds to the magical splendour excellently. The story is light, the plot nearly identical to The Snowman and the Snowdog’s character almost superfluous, but TSATS is a worthy sequel, complete with one of the most graceful flying scenes you’re likely to ever witness.

Short review: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

Directors: Phil Lord and Chris Miller
(2009)

Coming from Sony animation, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is a solid if relatively unspectacular film that is as silly as it is fun. Flint Lockwood (Bill Hader) is an inventor down on his luck until he accidently makes food rain from the sky. While this phenomenon boosts his town’s economy, things spiral out of control when the giant food begins to wreck havoc. He aims to stop the surreal events by teaming up with weather girl Sam (Anna Faris) and his monkey Steve (Neil Patrick Harris). Featuring some vivid if simplistic animation, Cloudy is a visual treat, with its highlight being escaping from a tornado made of spaghetti. However, the supporting characters are annoying and the climax suffers from shoehorning in an underdeveloped antagonist to act as conflict and payoff for our characters journey

Short review: The Nightmare Before Christmas

Director: Henry Selick
(1993)

While directed by Henry Selick, Tim Burton is often seen as the driving force behind this quirky stop motion animation from Disney. Following Jack Skellington, King of Halloween town as becomes bored of celebrating his spooky holiday and instead decides to celebrate Christmas instead. Cue a good willed takeover from ‘Sandy Claws’ as Jack gets the residents of Halloween town to make toys for children, which turn out horrific due to their scary nature. The film is stuffed with songs, used to add exposition to events without the need for excessive dialogue. The tunes are solid, but some tarnish the experience somewhat by dragging the pacing to a near standstill. This charming tale is amplified by some stunning animation and set design giving the entire production a dark charm that's almost unrepeatable. It lacks substance, but remains fun nonetheless.

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn review

Tintin: There's a clue to another treasure. How's your thirst for adventure, Captain? 
Captain Haddock: Unquenchable, Tintin. 

Directors: Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson
(2011)

With Pixar failing to make a good film in 2011 and DreamWorks punching below their weight (again), masterful director Steven Spielberg has stepped up and delivered what could well be my favourite animation of the year, The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn.

Based on 3 of the original comics by Herge, Spielberg, Peter Jackson and their trio of writers and avid Tintin fans (Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish and Steven Moffat) has seamlessly blended these stories into one coherent narrative. After purchasing a model ship, our titular hero Tintin is pursued by the mysterious, yet threatening Sakharine (Daniel Craig). He teams up with Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis) to track down the clues to a long lost treasure. It’s not a particularly original or memorable story, but neither was Raiders of the Lost Ark. Its most definitely typical Spielberg, it’s all about the adventure and excitement of the journey between A to B rather than what the final destination actually is. In fact, it's a great deal like Raiders, only with gorgeous motion capture animation instead of dusty tombs and Harrison Ford.

And by gorgeous, I mean stunning, awe inspiring, face meltingly (see what I did there?) gorgeous. Textures are brimming with detail, sand and water effects are beautiful and the actual animation is lifelike. While motion capture technology has had its fair share of ups and downs (most notably characters with the cursed ‘dead eye’) Spielberg and Jackson have used it to what currently seems like its fullest potential. The performances are good too, with every actor donning the ball suits doing a solid job. Many don’t class motion capture as ‘true animation’,  and consider it cheating when live action performances are converted to digital characters, but when the results are as astounding as this, they really shouldn’t care as much as they do.

The highlight of Tintin is easily the delightful action scenes. Sword fights, shootouts and chases, Tintin is jammed full of action. The highlight, a motorbike chase through a desert city is done in one continuous take. The camera snakes through buildings and streets, effortlessly switching between different characters on the fly as explosions erupt and buildings crumble. Yet despite their visual splendour and ferocious tempo, the pacing of these scenes is poor. It takes almost half of the film until we get one of the great action scenes. Once the action does start, it doesn’t really stop, and at times it’s like Spielberg is trying to drown us in fights and the films climax suffers because it happens incredibly close to the aforementioned motorbike chase. There’s little to break these scenes up, and despite the climax being sensational, it feels like it overstays its welcome due to the lack of downtime beforehand.

The first 30 minutes also exhibit problems and are a little too focused on making events very black and white. Tintin constantly speaks to himself pointing out various, and obvious plot points. It’s as if Spielberg and Jackson don’t think we’ll understand the content in these scenes, despite the simple story and perfect camerawork that frames every detail. We’re shown what we’re needed to know; there’s no need to tell us as well. Humour is light in both quantity and quality in this opening 3^rd too, and we have half an hour of average scenes before we get too the good stuff.

If Tintin was directed by a director who starts as he means to go on, we would have had a distinctively average film on our hands. But Spielberg and Jackson just don’t make films that way. What we have are 2 fantastic directors using relatively new technology in ways that produce enjoyable content. The films conclusion may have been crafted for the sole purpose of setting up the inevitable sequel, but Tintin is a franchise that I would certainly love to see more of.

Short review: Watership Down

Director: Martin Rosen
(1978)

Watership Down does things a little differently than other animated children’s films. The goal for Hazel (John Hurt) and the other rabbits is to find a new warren after Fiver envisions the destruction of their current home. They achieve this goal half way through, and the story turns to liberating rabbits from a warren owned by the vicious dictator General Woundwort.

Despite its audience, Watership Down is remarkably violent, with rabbits slice through each other on a frequent basis. But nothing compares to the snare scene. Warrior rabbit Bigwig gets tangled around his neck, choking and throwing up blood. Its harrowing stuff, even today. The films emotionally upsetting too, with an ending seemingly constructed to make grown men weep. Watership Down will be, and to an extent is, a timeless classic, destined to go down as one of the most beloved animated features of all time.

Brave review

Princess Merida: There comes a day when I don't have to be a Princess. No rules, no expectations. A day where anything can happen. A day where I can change my fate.

Despite appearing to be Pixar attempting to do a classic Disney style fairytale, Brave is much more than what initially meets the eye. In the place of the stereotypically evil villain, we have a troubled relationship between a princess and her mother. Our heroine Merida (Kelly McDonald) isn't looking for a prince charming but is repulsed by the idea, in spite of a grand tournament being held to find the most eligible bachelor. When her mother Elinor (Emma Thompson) pushes her to breaking point with incessant nagging to be more like a princess, she utilizes magic to try to change her fate.

Despite what seemed like a promise of a fresh take on the fairytale genre, the first half of brave is rather run of the mill, and unfortunately plays to its predictable stereotype of being another Disney fantasy. There's a castle, a king and queen and a set up for the antagonist.  Only during the second half does brave transcend its genre and becomes an enjoyable film. To try and avoid the marriage that she desperately doesn’t want, she consults the help of a witch (Julie Walters). This is very much the point where Pixar show us the quality they can produce that was sorely lacking in cars 2. They effortlessly shift events into the high gear, just as we've come to expect from them. The amount of action is higher, scenes hold more tension and with more screentime for Merida’s triplet brothers, things are much funnier as well.

 The biggest stumbling block in the second half of brave is that it lacks the grand scale needed to accommodate its story. Much of the story continues to take place in and around Merida’s castle home, only once venturing far out into the highlands. This scene gives the required scope to augment the films adventurous side, an aspect that was sorely lacking and then disappears, once again becoming absent for the remainder of the film. Culminating with what is best described as a chase scene is merely good instead of the brilliance it could have been.

All in all, brave is still a good film. It features enjoyable characters, good dialogue and enough emotion to satisfy with a strong finish. Many were concerned after the stumble that was last year’s cars 2, worried that it marked the fall of Pixar’s golden age. While it was by far their worst entry in their 17 year history, brave can be considered as their revival, albeit a small one. It’s not as fun as the Incredibles or as poignant as UP, but is something of a landmark for Pixar; Merida is their first female protagonist after all. Brave is a solid film that appeals to both adults and their children, and could well become one of the best animated films of 2012.

Short review: Fantastic Mr. Fox

Director: Wes Anderson
(2009)

Rather than being a direct adaptation of the book, Wes Anderson’s fantastic Mr. Fox is more of a reimagining. Its hits most of the correct story notes, but is imbued with Andersons trademark charm and quirky humour. Its stop motion animation adds considerably to the films magic, and all of the characters (and their respective voice actors) are excellent. Clooney is perfect as Mr. Fox, the wiley animal who returns to his animal stealing ways. As well as the expected heists of chickens and ale, we get a heavy dose of peculiar oddities, a common trait of Andersons work.

Fantastic Mr. Fox is a loveable film throughout, but often covers its lack of plot and development with more hilarious eccentricities. This makes for a very sweet experience, but not necessarily a filling one.

8

Cars 2 review

Finn McMissile: My apologies, I haven't properly introduced myself. Finn McMissile, British intelligence. 
Mater: Tow Mater, average intelligence. 

Director: Jon Lasseter
(2011)

Like many film lovers, I adore Pixar films. Toy Story is ingrained in my childhood and since I saw toy story 2 (my first cinema experience), I've loved their films ever since. This affection continued for some time, why wouldn’t it? Yearly releases, excellent visuals and a focus on story made their films must watches. That was until 2006, when they released cars. The story of racing champion Lightening McQueen wasn’t a bad film, but more of an unspectacular one. Why a sequel to this underwhelming film would be made is beyond me, but needless to say, Cars 2 is unmistakably un-Pixar.

After the unfulfilling ending of the original Cars, Cars 2 returns to radiator springs, a thriving community once again. Racecar Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) is off winning races and his best friend mater (Larry the cable guy) spends his days towing broken down cars and planning his return. Events soon transpire, and McQueen enters the grand prix, a set of races through Japan, Paris and England. While this seems like a decent story, things quickly take a remarkable U turn and Mater becomes embroiled in a secret agent plotline with Finn Mcmissle (Michael Caine) and Holly Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer). The grand prix and lightening McQueen are tossed to the background as maters ‘hilarious’ antics take centre stage.

The focus on this shallow spy parody is what hurts Cars 2 the most. Its grating and unfunny thanks to the childish script. Whereas the rest of Pixar’s films appeal to all ages, Cars 2 is aimed solely at children, and boy does it show. From cars wetting themselves to characters speaking is silly voices. The worst culprit is the John Turturro voiced race car Francesco Bernoulli; equipped with a stereotypical Italian accent and not a single funny piece of dialogue. Worse can be said about Mater though. He has far too much screen time and is horrendously written, the choice to make him the main character is the most misjudged in Pixar’s history. It’s obvious from this alone that the animation giant has totally forgotten about their older audience.

While I'm not the biggest fan of the original cars, its story about a town that is getting forgotten in a rapidly advancing world was interesting and poignant, a factor that cars 2 eschews for outright speed. The races are furiously fast and are smartly paced to add adrenaline to the film at the right moments. The same can be said for the action scenes, which are in abundance. Explosions and fight scenes are littered throughout, and are actually quite enjoyable. This is the only time the spy subgenre is effectively utilized; various weapons and gadgets add considerable flair to set pieces.

Once cars 2 limply rolls over the finishing line, its safe to say the pangs of disappointment will be felt by every member of the audience who thought they were watching a Pixar film. In the place of brilliance we have been given a poor script and story, lacking the dimensions that we've come to expect from such a brilliant studio. Even the trademark credits that finish their films are dull and uninspired. Here’s to hoping brave will be a return to form.