The Party is Coming

Party Central, a Monsters University short film, was set to be attached to what was going to be this year's Pixar event, The Good Dinosaur. That film was delayed to the autumn of next year, so it left us asking… What will happen to the short film?

I had suggested that it could be attached to either Muppets Most Wanted or Disney Animation's Big Hero 6, the former being the likely option since a Toy Story Toon was attached to The Muppets in 2011 plus Disney Animation makes their own shorts now, so we'll probably get something super cool (pun intended) before Big Hero 6.

Party Central is in fact playing before Muppets Most Wanted. Now we've got our first look, courtesy of Disney Insider!

First off, plot details…

When the Oozma Kappa fraternity brothers throw their first party and no one shows up, Mike and Sulley return to Monsters University with a plan to make sure it’s the most epic party the school has ever seen. It is directed by Kelsey Mann, the story supervisor from Monsters University, and features the following voice talent: Billy Crystal, John Goodman, Peter Sohn, Julia Sweeney, Charlie Day, Nathan Fillion, Dave Foley, Sean Hayes, Bobby Moynihan, and Joel Murray.

Entertainment Weekly also got this intriguing tidbit of information...

Fortunately, they have some extra inter-dimensional doors handy, which they put to creative use (we won’t spoil how here) to get the party rocking.

Inter-dimensional doors, you say? Now that ought to be interesting! Maybe it means… Other monster universes! Speculating too much, perhaps! Human world doors? Well, humans aren't deemed toxic until after the events of Monsters, Inc., and that's roughly 15 years later. The Oozmas would've graduated by then, so that rules out the human world doors… Unless there's something else in play here. Secrets, secrets...

Judging by Nathan Fillion and Bobby Moynihan being listed, we'll be seeing Roar Omega Roar rivals Johnny Worthington and Chet Alexander as well. I guess the Oozmas, since no one comes to their party, are still unpopular despite their performances in the Scare Games and the fact that they are scare students after the events of the film. Will the RORs try to crash the party and get some kind of funny comeuppance? Or are they nicer to the Oozmas?

So much to speculate! Well, Muppets Most Wanted is not too far away so we won't have to wait too long. We may not be getting a Pixar animated feature this year, but I think this short will somewhat fill the void along with the announced Toy Story Toons and Cars Toons entries (at D23), and - if all went according to plan - the next Toy Story television special.

Are you looking forward to the short? Sound off below!

'Disney Infinity' in Progress… (Part 1)

Well folks, I got it… Yep, Disney Infinity.

Instead of doing a sort of complete review or "overall thoughts" thing, I thought I'd review it as I get through it. So far, I have completed the Monsters University adventure. I did quite a few of The Incredibles levels, and just began working on Pirates of the Caribbean. Suffice to say, I'm well enough into it.

Before I get started, I got this for PlayStation 3 and of course the starter pack comes with Mr. Incredible, Sulley and Jack Sparrow. I haven't bought any other characters or play sets yet, though I plan to very soon. Right now, I'm thinking of getting Mike Wazowski, Wreck-It Ralph and Lightning McQueen.

So what do I think of it?

I love it.

When Disney Infinity was announced, I saw a lot of potential in it because it was going to bring multiple Disney characters and their worlds together. Crossovers are always fun and all, but this is actually a great opportunity for Disney to popularize some characters from their more "obscure" (or "lesser", as they would apparently think) films and shows. So far, they seem to be doing that little by little. For example, in a promo image, The Lone Ranger's Tonto is riding the goofy elephant Tantor from Tarzan. While Tarzan was a popular hit for Disney back in the day, for some reason they treat it like the rest of the post-Lion King Renaissance films. Unfair, but Disney could boost that film through this game.

In fact, Tarzan should be a play set soon given the jungle setting and tree-surfing action. It made for a solid movie-based video game back when the film came out (I had the PlayStation version), and a decade before this game was released, Disney gave us the underrated Disney Extreme Skate Adventure. Sure it was pretty much a family-friendly Tony Hawk's Pro Skater with Disney characters, but Tarzan was one of the three films they chose for settings. The other two were the Toy Story films and The Lion King. Imagine that, Disney actually giving something like Tarzan something of a popularity boost…

But enough babble about Tarzan and the way Disney treats their not-Lion King films, the point is, Disney Infinity could help popularize some of the Disney films that Disney tends to push aside. I would certainly love to see worlds or toy box items based on Treasure Planet or Atlantis, or maybe even 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Infinite possibilities, they say…

To start off, what I like about Disney Infinity is how open-ended it is. For the remainder of the review, I'll be focusing on the Monsters University adventure since I beat it. Next review will focus on The Incredibles…

Monsters University's adventure of course lets the player go around the campus itself, and you can also climb buildings and whatnot, getting a good look at everything. Like any good sandbox-style game, there's missions you have to take and there are also side challenges, and they're pretty damn fun! The story here is enjoyable too, basically you have to help Monsters University beat Fear Tech. Fear Tech is mentioned a few times in the film itself, though the rivalry between the two universities is ultimately minor: Sulley steals their freakish pig mascot, we see MU take them on in a football game and young Mike sees a Fear Tech graduate tell Frightening Frank McCay (the monster who Mike watched scare when he was little) monster that Fear Tech is better.

Anyways, you actually get to go to Fear Tech in this game and I must say, the designers did quite well with bringing it to life. It makes me want to see it in Pixar form, so I'm hoping the studio makes a Monsters University special or short film where we actually visit this competing campus. Will Party Central, whenever that comes out, take us there? Maybe. At Fear Tech, you have outsmart their students with pranks, get the message across that MU rules and for a grand finale… Steal Archie the Scare Pig!

In the mean time, you got to get the frat houses up, compete in a paintball tournament with Fear Tech students, undo the messes they brought to MU and many other things. It keeps you busy, and the story is surprisingly a little short. I'm hoping they expand it in some ways, because the setting alone is good-sized. Maybe we'll get more levels set in the Monster World outside of the university, maybe even Monsters, Inc. itself! One can dream, right?

The missions bring a lot of variety to the table, as they should. They test your abilities, too, from sneaking to climbing to bike riding. I admit it was pretty cool to run around roaring at things, and it's neat how you can ride across campus. (Surprised there's no skateboard for someone like Mike. That's a no-brainer, methinks!) If there's one complaint I have, it's that the missions are at times a bit too easy. I understand this is a family-friendly game, but I think it could've been a little more challenging. Some missions are just that, particularly some of the Fear Tech ones where you have to avoid the tough guy security guards. Non-mission activities such as challenges consist of timed puzzles and whatnot, making for some extra fun. You can also have a field day pranking your rivals with various objects that end up knocking the opponents across campus or something. Not to mention the ongoing search for Toy Box pieces and whatnot!

The graphics? They are impressive, and I think by making everything into toys, they were able to pull off a decidedly simplistic and cartoonish look. It's nice to look at, and of course, it's bursting with color and great art direction. The music at times can be repetitive, but what they have is a treat to the ears. Monsters University's backdrop recalls the jazzy tone of the first film's opening credits, rather than the bombastic score that Randy Newman did for the prequel. When you hit frat row, you get some rock while you get 80s synths when you visit Fear Tech (after all, Monsters University takes place in the mid-to-late 80s), other times… It's silent. This happens in Toy Box Mode too, the music just goes away for a while. But you know what? I kind of like that, a little breather and some silence, ya know?

Overall, while the Monsters University adventure was mostly a breeze in terms of the difficulty, it was undeniably fun. It was great to explore the campus, frat row and Fear Tech. The story was cool enough, and I'm hoping Pixar does some kind of special or something about MU vs. Fear Tech. I think that would be pretty cool.

As for Toy Box Mode, I'm already a huge fan.

I grew up playing games like Sim City, Rollercoaster Tycoon and Zoo Tycoon, so this is my kind of thing. Yes, I began building a world, though it is in its very early stages. I need to wait until I get even more toys and whatnot, but here it is so far… (If you are interested…)


What are your thoughts on Disney Infinity? Sound off below!

Not So Golden

It's old news by now, but yes… The Golden Globe nominations are out… And I'll put it bluntly, I'm not pleased with the animation results.

Only three nominees this year. A paltry three, instead of five. Who made the cut? The Croods, Despicable Me 2 and Frozen. Aside from Frozen's nomination - which I'm totally fine with - my reaction is a resounding, "Are you kidding me?"

No offense to anyone who enjoyed or loved The Croods or Despicable Me 2, but where is The Wind Rises? Oh wait, that's nominated for Best Foreign Film. Sheesh, these people like to put animation in its own category, yet don't nominate what is arguably the year's greatest animated film as Best Animated Feature. Who would've thought?

Where's Ernest & Celestine? Apparently that wasn't good enough, or they didn't even see it. Then again, we are talking about the same people who completely snubbed ParaNorman last year yet allowed the much inferior Hotel Transylvania to make the cut. Apparently box office plays a major role in this ceremony too, sorry, I don't follow it enough. I should know…

Anyways, if box office performances are taken in account, then… (and this is the biggest question…)

Where is Monsters University???

Did the voters truly not care for this year's Pixar offering? Or was it a clear case of them thinking, "It's a sequel/prequel, and Pixar totally fails at making those!" Probably the latter, but maybe the former. Monsters University garnered better critical reception than The Croods and Despicable Me 2, I certainly felt that it was way better than The Croods. I didn't see Despicable Me 2, but I for the life of me don't understand the appeal of The Croods. Good as the animation and art direction was, I couldn't get into it. All I saw was a good-looking movie with a bland story, one-dimensional characters and major tonal imbalances. Was it trying to be a good for-the-whole-family adventure? Or a slap-happy gabfest for little kids?

Basically, meh to this line-up. It should've been five slots, that way we get both Monsters University and The Wind Rises in. If they can't nominate The Wind Rises, then they need to rethink their ways a bit. I don't care if The Wind Rises was made in Japan, it's still an animated feature-length film. It should have been nominated for Best Animated Feature, simple as that. By leaving that out, they also leave out the praised Ernest & Celestine. Had it been five slots, those two could've gotten in and could've sat alongside the three American films.

Oh well, we'll see who wins… I'm guessing it'll most likely be Frozen, since that got the best reception of the bunch, is well-liked and touted as a new Disney masterpiece, and it is the safest choice. After all, Brave took the grand prize last year. Predictable, but damn… The results this year are disappointing as all hell. Hopefully the Oscar nominations for Best Animated Feature are a little more balanced…

What's your take? Do you think the choices for the nominees are just fine? Or do you think certain films got snubbed? Who do you think will win? Sound off below!

Regrading "Monsters University"

Monsters University was perhaps a film that didn't really need to be made, or even thought up… But you could say the same about the Toy Story sequels. We often look at sequels or prequels as unnecessary, especially to things that aren't broke, Pixar's films being prime examples. Far too often, sequels only exist to cash in on the success of the original and thus don't function as good companion pieces to the originals.

There are some fine exceptions. Pixar happened to make two, Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3…

It's also worth noting that both were films that they pretty much had to make. The former was commissioned as a direct-to-video production by the higher ups at Disney, during their DTV sequel binge. It ran into the wall, and John Lasseter and crew had to literally retool it in less than year as it went from video-only release to big budget theatrical production. It's a miracle that Toy Story 2 turned out to be as good as it was, even under such circumstances.

Toy Story 3 on the other hand started life as blackmail, Disney was going to make it along with a Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo sequel, and afterwards, sequels to other Pixar's films without Pixar's involvement. Pixar and Disney were close to splitting in 2004, Pixar was definitely planning to break away from the Mouse House given how the power really had gone to then-CEO Michael Eisner's head. The Circle 7 fiasco it was, but luckily Eisner resigned in late 2005 and Bob Iger took the reigns. Knowing how badly Eisner had messed up the company, he sought to get Pixar back and he did. With the studio under Disney, Toy Story 3 was redone and Pixar made the Toy Story 3 that they wanted to make. (Yes, Pixar had ideas for a third Toy Story as far back as 2002.)

But why did Pixar resume production on a third Toy Story after the acquisition took place? They had to…

Toy Story 3 and two more sequels - Monsters, Inc. 2 where Sulley and Mike get lost in the human world looking for Boo, and a Finding Nemo 2 - were far along by 2005. Scripts were prepared and copyrighted, now Pixar had to overwrite all three. This explains the sequel trio of Toy Story 3, Monsters University and Finding Dory. These films had to be made, no matter what… Plus, with such a huge empire owning Pixar, nudging did happen. Andrew Stanton himself even said this when interviewed about Finding Dory.

As for that other sequel? Disney cattle-prodded Pixar into making that one, obviously. $5 billion worth of merchandise sales speaks volumes…

A Monsters, Inc. follow-up could've gone many ways… Many, many ways. Pixar could've possibly blemished the original and its perfect ending by continuing Mike and Sulley's adventures. They also could've taken a very risky path and introduced a whole new cast for the sequel that was set in a different part of the monster world (this would've been great, if you ask me) with a story that had nothing to do with Mike and Sulley. Then there's the prequel route…

You could say it was a pretty safe bet, considering that it gave them a reason to bring Mike and Sulley back to the big screen. One upside was that they weren't going to taint that ending, the downside is that we know the outcome and we know several things. One fine example being the belief that humans are toxic is false… We'll get there!

Monsters University goes for a classic story that is simple and can easily resonate. We love Mike and Sulley in the first film, so a story of how they met makes perfect sense. We know they'll become the best of friends… But how? Why were Mike and Sulley at odd ends with each other in the past?

Mike is ambitious, Mike is a dreamer, Mike is dedicated. When he was a child on a field trip to Monsters, Inc., he followed a scarer into a kid's bedroom and watched him do his work - his fearlessness and desire to be a scarer is all laid out in the first five minutes. He wants to be a master scarer, but he's simply not scary. By contrast, Sulley comes from a long line of scarers and is scary much like his ancestry, terrifying even. He makes others around him jump, from Waternoose in the first film to the students on the first day of class. Unlike Mike, Sulley has no ambition and prefers to coast, thinking that his natural scariness will do everything. Because of this, Sulley is something of a jerk and is incredibly cocky. It's a good dynamic they build up, and it's never handled badly. The emotions and beats are all there from the minute they first meet up until the final seconds. Sulley also wants to get into the Roar Omega Roar fraternity, all the rich, respected and frightening monsters who are also jock-like. Problem is, his grades are shoddy and they don't let those kinds of students in - scary or not.

However, Monsters University's first act (roughly the first half hour) is a bit sloppy in its execution. Sure we meet the leads again, but the film didn't really give us enough time to sink into the college setting. It goes by very quick, much like the majority of Brave. Reportedly, there *was* a director change but very early on in development, Dan Scanlon apparently replaced Doug Sweetland. (Which could explain his departure from the studio in 2010, when Scanlon was announced as director.) Maybe Sweetland had a longer first act in his version that really explored Monsters University itself and even injected more college elements into the script.

I'm not saying the first act is weak, it just feels like it goes by a little too fast. I didn't quite get all of the college atmosphere, we zip through multiple things from orientation to a brief scene showing the rivalry between the titular university and rival Fear Tech. How about more scenes of Mike and Sulley on campus? Once class begins, we get very little between the first day and the exam. It's true that a good story is lean, and it cuts all of the superfluous stuff… But I think this portion of Monsters University is perhaps a little too lean. Not that it greatly derails it the film, more content just would've added to it and made for an excellent, near-perfect film. I think a longer running time would've been fine, it does inch past the 100-minute mark. Perhaps it should have been somewhere closer to two hours long.

What works in our first act? The characters all get proper introductions, especially Dean Hardscrabble. At least in rushed form, Pixar's crew can still develop characters and bring them into the picture suitably. Mike's dream and his rivalry with Sulley is also very well set up, especially during the thankfully quiet first act's capper where the two inadvertently get themselves shut out of the scare program.

Monsters University begins to click once the second act slowly rolls in, slowly being the key word. The film now takes its time a bit, and it brings out the Oozma Kappa fraternity. This rather ho-hum bunch of non-frightening scarers is socially unsafe to be a part of, but the members are welcoming and mean well. Their disadvantages and how they are perceived do launch the film into Revenge of the Nerds territory, as many have criticized the film for being that film and Animal House rather than a fresh new take on those stories. I felt that they took on the tried-and-true quiet well, much like how they did the story that was told over and over before Cars, or A Bug's Life's new spin on The Magnificent Seven.

Anyways, the Oozma Kappa members are all very likable and brimming with personality. Art would have to be one of my favorites, being the most enigmatic ("I can't go back to jail!") and certainly the weirdest of the bunch. The animators have loads of fun with this character because of what he can do, one of my favorite bits being when he makes himself into a fuzzy purple ring to avoid the fierce and monstrous librarian. Terri and Terry make for a fun two-headed monster with different personalities, Scott "Squishy" Squibbles is fun too - his method of scaring caught me by surprise. (Just staring? You got to admit, that's cool!) Don Carlton boasts a mishmash design (plump body, tentacles and bat beard) but a cool mature student demeanor - of course you have to a student his age in this story! Another fun gag is the fact that Squibbles lives with his mother, who is constantly embarrassing him - she makes for some very funny jokes.

For me, the best new characters would have to be them and Dean Hardscrabble. I love how she's intimidating without actually raising her voice or trying to frighten someone, particularly in the sequence where Mike and Sulley destroy her souvenir of a once-in-a-lifetime record-breaking scare. ("You're taking this remarkably well…") She could snap, but she doesn't. She's authoritative in a quiet but effective way, and she cuts you to the quick. When she tells Mike that he's simply not scary, it's quite a punch in the gut. She's stoic, but not without a personality. Other new additions such as Professor Knight and the two Greek council members are also fun and add to the atmosphere.

The Scare Games sequences make up for it if you ask me. They are inventive, fun and thrilling. The game concerning a roughly 50-foot gargantuan librarian makes for an incredibly fun sequence, the toxicity challenge also brings out the laughs and crazy distortions of the characters' designs. A visit to Monsters, Inc. itself is also a nice, slow and uplifting moment where we see Mike and Sulley starting to bond - then they begin to prepare themselves for the last couple of challenges, despite the odds. (i.e. the ROR members humiliating them and the other OK members by pulling a Carrie-esque plan on them.) The writers do a fine job with developing the Oozma Kappa characters and having their abilities under Mike's stewardship surprise everyone around them and us. Who would've thought they were good and impressed Dean Hardscrabble during the finale of the Scare Games? Meanwhile, the unfortunate reality still looms… Mike is not scary.

It's this reality that strengthens everything around what's going on, as we have a feeling that Mike will get the rug pulled out from under him in a very upsetting way. Since it is a prequel, we do know that he's not going to be a scarer, but it's done well because the emotional punch is expectedly strong. This is all thanks to great build-up, Mike's spirits are raised very high. The other Oozmas doing pretty well in the games also adds to it greatly; a lot is riding on Mike for his scare… And then we find out that Sulley rigged the scare simulator for Mike's turn. Mike is hit with a double-whammy of disappointment; finding out that he's not fearsome and that his friend did not really believe in him. Ouch…

This sets up a brilliant third act, which really rockets the film into high gear. Though no one would be afraid of Mike, the cyclops is fearless. He breaks into the door lab and attempts to scare an actual human child, only to realize that he has failed once again and he's now stuck in a cabin in a camp full of kids. The Dean, of course, won't reactivate the door until the CDA shows up. (Nice to see them return for a brief sequence! Plus, a nice Roz cameo!)

Sulley then goes after his friend that he let down, and the two have a brief, quiet and heartwarming conversation. Here, the master scarer reveals how frightened he is deep down inside and how he has a lot to live up to being a Sullivan. But then they find themselves on the run once again…

In fact, this entire third act could've been something of a disaster because we all know that human beings aren't toxic to these monsters, which would greatly lower the stakes. If it was Mike versus one child, then it would be a major letdown because we know he isn't in grave danger, nor is the monster world as a whole. Having him get into a camp full of kids who don't find him to be frightening at all makes things more interesting, plus adults aren't supposed to know of the monsters or the monster world. Add the police getting involved, Pixar successfully raised the stakes. Big time.

Not only are Mike and Sulley in jeopardy, but the monster world could be as well. Pixar pulls a Toy Story on us, having Mike and Sulley work together to scare the adults so that they could power the door themselves - again, all Mike's brilliant idea - and literally get out of the mess. Consequently, they scarred a bunch of human world police officers for life… But they could've made off like Sid, because Toy Story 3 shows that he's apparently A-OK as a garbageman, who seemingly isn't freaking about toys coming to life or telling people about what he experienced without getting the stamp of insanity thrown at him.

Mike's scheme does the impossible (and no, not saving him and Sulley), it impresses the Dean. Unfortunately, Mike and Sulley are expelled because they broke the rules. The seemingly cold Dean bids them a friendly goodbye and wishes them the best of luck; Mike and Sulley restart their adult life in Monsters, Inc.'s mailing room and… Well… You know the rest.

Monsters University's ultimate message was the subject of praise, one of the elements that a lot of its more critical observers had approved of. Like Disney Animation's Wreck-It Ralph before it, it slams the door on the "you can do it if you dream it" mentality that is applied to family films and kids-only films. (Planes and Turbo being good, recent examples.) Mike is repeatedly told that he can't be what he wants to be, regardless of his sheer dedication… And guess what? He doesn't become a scarer!

But what makes Monsters University's ending even better than it is is that Mike ended up succeeding elsewhere, greatly. Mike finds a forte in making children laugh at the end of Monsters, Inc., because laugh is much more powerful than scream - thus effectively ending a crisis and finding out something along with his good friend that no one else in the monster world from elites to scarers did not even know or had the guts to find out about. Monsters University's ending completes Monsters, Inc.

I will say it again… Monsters University's ending completes Monsters, Inc., a film that was already complete… And it does it with a bang, with a strong message to boot that's never hammered onto the audience.

That being said, it's not a high work of excellence like Pixar's best, and that's not a bad thing. Like I've stressed millions of times over, Pixar can't just make masterpiece after masterpiece.

Like I said earlier, Monsters University's first act is too quick and thus it doesn't really immerse one into the college setting. Much more could've been done with the campus itself since it's so massive and sprawling; the first film really set up the factory and the monster world as a whole and didn't rush. This one rushes a bit, and you can't rush art as a fictional chess player-turned-toy cleaner once said fourteen years ago. In fact, the Blu-ray contains a tour of the university… Some of the buildings I didn't even really see or notice in the film!

Since the first act doesn't really give us the full MU experience, the film feels a bit safe. There's nothing wrong with Pixar going for something conventional or a little safe once in a blue moon (not everything has to be some extravaganza), but I think they could've gone a little more "all out" with the college setting and the monster world in general, but what they do here is alright. More college-related shenanigans would've brought some PG humor to the table too. Not saying that the film needs PG or adult-level humor to be good or mature, it's just that given this film's college setting, it would've been nice to see some of that on display.

Early versions of the film had Mike meeting Sulley briefly in the fourth grade (expanding on that line from the original, before Scanlon essentially said that Mike was exaggerating) before moving, which would've been interesting as well, but that kind of slowed the beginning down a bit. There was also an interesting deleted scene showing flying insect-like monsters going into rooms and getting information on the children that the monsters scare (i.e. what they fear), which explained a few things in the first film and this film as well. Why did they cut that scene? They should've kept it! I'm sure there are other scenes like that where you saw more of the campus and MU's campus life.

Other than the first act, Monsters University has everything else down pat. It may not have all of the inventiveness or cohesiveness of the original, but it's a very worthy follow-up. Its heart is there, it's just not as potent as the other Pixar films. It's a more quiet, subdued emotional badge than anything, one that doesn't make for too many misty-eyed moments, but it does draw reaction from time to time. There's no center like Boo, but the film isn't weak without something like that. Monsters, Inc. was mostly about Sullivan to begin with, this is about Mike and his story arc is the glue that holds most of this together.

The new faces are welcome, too. All of them are fun, funny and well-developed over the course of the second act. Many found fault with the way they handled Randall, but I personally felt that he was handled well enough. Randall was nothing more than a bitter rival at the beginning of Monsters, Inc. before he became diabolical, so simply having him start off as Wazoswki's friend then shedding his geeky sheen in order to be in the "in" crowd to being an actual jerk to getting a deserved comeuppance from Sulley was all good to me. Again, if the first act had been longer, Randall could've gotten more screen time and a little more development. Even though Sulley was the one who ruined his big scare, he was a jerk to Mike… Hence why he is bitter towards both in Monsters, Inc. I was okay with how they used Randall in this film.

Monsters University succeeds on a technical level, being the first Pixar film done using the Global Illumination lighting system. This, to me, took computer animation to a new height. I'm often skeptical of photo-realism in computer animation, as I think that having a film look too real defeats of the purpose of telling a story in the animation medium. Gore Verbinski's Rango was also hyper-realistic, but yet you still knew you were watching an animated film and it didn't feel like it was shot with real cameras; initially some shots threw me off - I was thinking, "Okay… That's a little too realistic!"

Pixar once faced that problem over a decade ago when starting work on Finding Nemo, their initial water renderings were way too realistic and that it had to be toned down to where it felt real but you knew it was a work of art you were looking at. It's why I'm not fond of things like performance capture being used for everything in certain animated films (The Polar Express or other Zemeckis mo-cap films) or animation that tries to be realistic. Might as well make a painting that's essentially a painted photograph. Walt Disney found the right blend of realism and naturalism in his films, of course when we watch something like Bambi or Lady and the Tramp, we know it's an animated movie, but… We feel and connect with those drawings and paintings. In computer animated films, we feel for what is essentially something created on a machine. The power of animation at its finest!

Monsters University is very real-looking, but it never feels like a live action film or something that's actually happening on a set; it's not supposed to of course… But the realism is staggering, jaw-dropping even. This was also pushed in the accompanying short film, The Blue Umbrella, a masterwork of visual artistry that only suffers from having a simplistic storyline. That film has shots that look a little too real. But there are some standout shots in Monsters University, Mike and Sulley at the campsite lake is one, some of the full shots of the university are also amazing. Again, I don't feel like I'm looking at a photograph when I pause it.

Fortunately, this system's look isn't trying to make something look as if it were actual. It's just a leap for computer animation in general, it hits the right spot between photorealism and naturalism. You could say Pixar found what Walt had found back in the 1940s and 1950s with his films. Visually, Monsters University is like their Lady and the Tramp. Now it makes me even more excited for their future films… Inside Out, The Good Dinosaur and Finding Dory in particular are going to look stunning in many new ways that Pixar has not stunned before.

Meanwhile, Walt Disney Animation Studios is taking computer animation in a different direction. They seek to continue improving the painterly look that was first introduced in Bolt and is currently being used in their computer animated films, and though it has recently been said that Paperman's tech is not quite ready to carry a feature-length film (Moana will be an extension of the painterly CGI that Disney uses), it will be one day and we'll see where Disney brings CGI. Both studios are differentiating their films in the visual department, and from the competition as well. That's good…

As long as Pixar doesn't make what is essentially an animated live action film, I'll be fine. Monsters University isn't anything of the sort, The Blue Umbrella almost is. Other than the realistic coating, Monsters University is pure eye candy like every other Pixar film: Clever architecture, monster world variations of real world things, the character design, Dice Tsutsumi's extraordinary color work… Peerless. Randy Newman's score? It's typical Newman at times, but at other times its appropriately bombastic and energetic. A very good score with hummable parts, that's for sure. The cast also gives it their all, typical for Pixar films. They find the right people, and that talent immerses themselves into the story.

Monsters University doesn't quite sit on the top peak that the best Pixar films occupy, but it's on one that's just a few feet lower. Storytelling and character development win the day here, as Pixar proves, story is king. I know some would rather prefer experimentation and just going for quirkiness, feeling that story restrains too much... But experimenting only gets you so far. Monsters University is not bland, but it isn't anything new since we're revisiting a world that we once had the opportunity to take a trip to. This isn't WALL-E or Up, and it does not have to be. It wasn't trying to be weird or different or unexpected to begin with, so why knock it for not "scaling the heights" of the other Pixar films? A Bug's Life is no WALL-E, and I still think it's an excellent film.

The new saw amongst some is now that story is overrated and whatnot, meanwhile they go praise something like The Croods while knocking this film. The Croods might've been all-out wacky and at times weird, but where was the story? Where was the core? All I saw was a bland tale with bland stereotype characters taking a backseat to constant sight gags and noise, thus I found it forgettable. Story is king, methinks. Many filmmakers would tell you so, story and characters… I think Monsters University nails it in those departments.

It's great to see the new generation at Pixar finally going through with a film they can call their own, though it does have the first generation's stamp. While John Lasseter, Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton and all of them certainly aren't Nine "Old Men", they are passing the baton to younger Pixarians who are hungry for challenges and ambition. A more simple tale like this was the perfect place for them to start, as it seems like Pixar is now comfortable with letting new people take shots at directing films. Hopefully the recent director change (Bob Peterson with The Good Dinosaur) is the last one for a long while…

For me, Monsters University was more than a fun little companion piece to Monsters, Inc. It's a well-made and strong effort, with a fine mix of Pixar's brand of heart, humor and thrills. It adds to the monster world quite a bit and it does expand on our characters in a great way...

Where's The Party At?

Pixar's The Good Dinosaur was to have a Monsters University short film attached to it. Problem is, that Pixar film had been delayed from its planned summer 2014 release to the autumn of 2015. Of course, we all know this happened and why it had to happen, but…

What will happen with the short?

The short in question, Party Central, must be somewhere near completion at this point. At one point it was intended to be the obligatory short on the film's Blu-ray and DVD. It was unveiled for the first time at this year's D23 Expo during the Good Dinosaur presentation. However, was Party Central a Pixar Canada production? If so, then either the production is no more or it has been moved back to Emeryville so it can be completed.

Since there is no Pixar film coming out next year, what will Party Central be attached to?

First, let's rule out all of Disney's live action blockbuster releases. No way this thing is attached to something like Captain America: The Winter Soldier or Maleficent, obviously. Let's rule out all the PG-13 stuff along with the smaller-scale live action stuff… Only one live action release in 2014 is a legitimate possibility… Muppets Most Wanted.

Why Muppets Most Wanted? It's the closest release to The Good Dinosaur's original date (May 30th). Also, the Toy Story toon Small Fry was attached to The Muppets, so I can definitely see that Pixar/Muppets double-whammy happening again.

I can't see them attaching it to Planes: Fire and Rescue, because that film is really for kids only unlike Muppets Most Wanted and the other animated release for 2014. Adults and teens like Pixar, but they are the least likely audiences to pay to see something like the Planes sequel. Pixar wants everyone to see the short, so why attach it to a kids-only flick?

The other big possibility, and the last of Disney's animated and/or family-friendly releases for 2014, is Walt Disney Animation Studios' Big Hero 6. A Cars Toon was attached to Bolt in theaters back in 2008, plus, Big Hero 6 has the biggest box office potential of the three G/PG films Disney is releasing next year. However, Big Hero 6 might possibly be Disney Animation's first PG-13 film considering that it's based on a Marvel comic. Also, according to Blue Sky Disney way back in 2011, Wreck-It Ralph almost got that rating, believe it or not. I wouldn't be surprised if Disney Animation broke the tradition and made a PG-13 film, but that's pure speculation at this point.

If not those three films, then it will be a home media exclusive. I can imagine it popping up on a Blu-ray for something like Toy Story of Terror (if that gets a release next autumn, which would be nice), since it is about monsters and that would fit in with the Halloween theme of the special.

What do you think? Theatrical? Or home media only? What film could it possibly be attached to next year?

For Future Reference...

Well, the summer animation battle has pretty much come to a close. Yes, Planes might have been out for ten days, but it's pretty much over... So, what are the results and what can they teach distributors in the far future?

The Hollywood Reporter's click-bait title of an otherwise okay box office article would lead you to believe that there was an animation "curse". The Los Angeles Times also gets it dead wrong with their headline, suggesting that the recent string of duds is the result of the amount of animated features out there rather than the quality. Hollywood cranking out too many? Think again.

When will people realize that animated films that bomb do so for a good reason? Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 is more than going to make these people eat their words (pun shamelessly intended), as its inevitably going to be a big hit. Why's that? It's a sequel to a film that critics loved, audiences of all ages loved and one that's just well-known. The sequel is being marketed right, and many are excited for it. It's clearing $120 million this autumn, guaranteed.

So with that, let's look at the last 5 animated releases...

Monsters University kicked things off to a good start after Epic quietly walked out of the gate (a film that was saddled with its own problems, its performance doesn't really have too much to do with its scheduling), with a big $82 million, certainly a good-sized debut for a Pixar film. So this film was on its way to $300 million domestically, right? Well, along came the minions. Despicable Me 2 opened with $83 million and got an even bigger boost from its Wednesday opening, and in no time in passed $300 million at the domestic box office - the first animated film to do so since Toy Story 3! It will end up with a sub-$400 million gross, which is great for this sequel. Universal calls it their most profitable release ever...

But did Monsters University and Despicable Me 2 perform well together? Well... Sort of... Monsters University, by the time its out of theaters, will have scored below a 3.3x multiplier. That's one above the lowest for a Pixar film: Cars 2. I think Minionmania really sucked the audiences away from Pixar's prequel, plus it's possible that families gravitated towards the Illumination film because Monsters University certainly was one of Pixar's quieter films, one that didn't have a lot of action or spectacle. Despicable Me 2 on the other hand had the laughs, but also the minions, lots of fun action and everything else. Perhaps Monsters University was released a little too close to Despicable Me 2, which was undeniably going to be a titan.

However, both films did very good and that's all that matters. Both were highly anticipated, both delivered, and both certainly appealed to audiences enough. The next three films... Well, that's a different story.

I will give props to Fox marketing for this...

Turbo was shackled by its concept and the marketing didn't differentiate it from everything else, plus it was opening inside the Despicable Me 2 tidal wave. The Smurfs 2 had little to no adult appeal, plus families already saw three other films before it. Had it opened in August, maybe it would've done a little better. Planes? Obviously that wasn't going to be big to begin with.

You need to give adults and teenagers a reason to go see your animated film, and that also includes parents who might not want to subject themselves to something like The Smurfs 2 in the theater. You not only have to have one that's good for them, but you need to make it look good to them. Monsters University is a prequel to a beloved animated classic that adults and children adore. Despicable Me 2 is a sequel to a recent animated hit that both adults and children loved. No surprise those two did very well, and they are the first animated films to cross the $250 million mark since the original Despicable Me... Three summers ago!

It all boils down to the content of the films, the marketing and timing. Perhaps if these studios spaced their films out a bit more, I think all of them would've done okay business. Why wasn't something like Epic or Turbo an autumn release? Or a Christmas release? What about... Mid-August?

Now, what does this mean for the future?

2015 is crammed. Monster Trucks kicks off a similarly large animation battle that'll end in late July with the Smurfs three-quel. I think this isn't going to be pretty, and many other planned 2015 animation releases haven't even been scheduled yet, such as Aardman's Shaun the Sheep, Rainmaker's Ratchet & Clank and if one is coming, a Planes three-quel. (Going by what Blue Sky Disney's Honor Hunter said recently, there will be definitely be a third one.) That year's holiday season is going to get a bit hairy as well.

Which makes me wonder, how come studios aren't spacing their work out a little more? Shouldn't someone opt for an August release? Or an April one? I don't know, it just seems like a couple of them may underperform because they're being released so close to each other. We also don't know what the quality be like on films like Monster Trucks and B.O.O.. Also, 20th Century Fox's plans to open their own animated releases on the same days/months as some Disney or Pixar films (i.e. Blue Sky's Peanuts vs. Finding Dory in 2015, How To Train Your Dragon 3 vs. Dia De Los Muertos in summer 2016) could possibly backfire, or their plans to release them very close to whatever Disney or Pixar is releasing. People will go see the films that will appeal to them the most.

But aside from the timing, we need better quality films from all the studios and a much more diverse selection of films. I know that's a lot to ask for, but you can't just throw a cute family-friendly animated film out there expecting it to do well just because it's cute and it'll appeal to family audiences. You need to get the adults in the theater too! To do so, you got to make a film that will appeal to them or market it so that it will appeal to them!

Next year might just prove my point, look at what we're getting: The Lego Movie, Mr. Peabody & Sherman, The Good Dinosaur, How To Train Your Dragon 2, Big Hero 6. To me, those movies are guaranteed hits because they'll appeal to adults and some of them are sequels to beloved films (How To Train Your Dragon 2 might just pull a Despicable Me 2 next summer), and there's potential money to be made in films like Mr. Peabody & Sherman and Rio 2. The Boxtrolls and Book of Life are the risky types, but I've rambled about this before - we need to make these films successful. Things people should get excited about after seeing a trailer or commercial. It's time we really make more kinds of animated films successful with mainstream audiences, in theaters! More adults-only animation! A diverse selection of animated films from the big studios! Family films, adult films, independent films! Animation is more than just family films and silly comedies. That's another story, though...

So yeah, maybe some studios might want to look into the quality of their films and the timing. Some studios might want to try something new and not follow a formula. Not to sound like a broken record here, but look! Rango did it!

In the mean time... Shut up, press. And to the LA Times writer, animation is not genre. How many times does it have to be said?

Animation Box Office Update (July 2013)

Well July is almost over, and the big summer animation showdown is halfway done! The results so far?

Despicable Me 2 became the first animated film since Toy Story 3 - which came out three summers ago, let that sink in - to cross $300 million at the domestic box office. Man, what a wait! With $354 million in the tank overseas, the sequel has now crossed $660 million at the worldwide box office. It should end up with an even bigger total by the end of the summer. Minionmania is a force to be reckoned with!

The only downside is that this film really take quite a bite out of Monsters University. That film is looking to finish up with less than $265 million. Now that's a great total for any animated film, especially a Pixar film, but... This is a prequel to a beloved film whose adjusted domestic gross is nearly $370 million! This had the potential to make around $300 million with that great opening weekend behind it, but those Minions really wooed audiences left and right.

With that, Monsters University will have the second-to-lowest multiplier for a Pixar, even worse than Brave's. Again, competition did a lot of damage. Had it opened a month in advance (with Epic being an autumn release or something), do you think it would've made it to $300 million? Or somewhere close to that?

On the bright side, it has made $321 million overseas and now the film sits at $576 million. Considering how the big the first one was, this could've grossed even more. But it's still good, considering that it came nearly 12 years after its predecessor. The film should end up with around $650 million by the end of its run, making it Pixar's biggest since Toy Story 3.

Turbo seems to be picking up some steam, as it's actually quite a few millions ahead of Rise of the Guardians, which ended up taking in a little over $100 million domestically. Still, The Smurfs 2 and Planes are in the way, though it could still do okay enough through the next few weeks in order to pass $100 million. Or maybe not. I just don't want to know what DreamWorks will do in response. Wall Street is already pounding them, which is no surprise. Hopefully a solid overseas gross saves this film.

Epic has now grossed $106 million domestically as it should end up getting below $110 million by the end of its rather weak run, which is just a little bit more than what Guardians took in. Poor William Joyce... His recent film adaptations just can't do that well, can they? Oh well, at least he got an Oscar for one of his short films. Worldwide, it's made a decent $243 million. With Spain being the only market left to open in, it should settle for under $270 million for a final worldwide total. For a film that cost $93 million to make, that's not too, too bad. It's not great, either.

What's your on take on this? Will Turbo at least break even? Or will it be another money-loser for DreamWorks? How much more do you think Despicable Me 2 will make? Sound off below!

Spoiled

If there's one thing I've been noticing about Disney's marketing for Pixar's films lately, it's that they reveal a lot of things... Too many things. Spoilers that help someone piece the whole plot together, or spoilers that give away something that you would not have expected... Let's dive in, shall we?

Just to get one thing out of the way, I won't discuss the Japanese trailers for Pixar films because we all know they spoil a lot. Remember on Twitter when Pixar animators immediately warned people not to watch the Japanese Monsters University trailer? Well they were right, because it does in fact spoil the entire film. I'll be focusing on the domestic and European trailers for these films.

First off, one could say that Toy Story 3's marketing made it obvious that Lotso was essentially a deceptive Stinky Pete-esque villain, though most of the marketing didn't really show too much of him when he truly showed how evil he was (i.e. having Buzz reprogrammed). It just didn't help that he was a big and elderly teddy bear with a cane. But from the final domestic trailer, you got the sense that leaving the daycare wasn't going to be easy for the toys... Remember the shot of Lotso saying "You've got a playdate with destiny!"

But the great thing about Toy Story 3's American and European trailers was that they didn't show how truly evil Lotso was, you just knew he was going to be the big villain... But in what way was the question! This is what made the shocking revelation that precedes the incinerator sequence such a shock, because you might've thought for a moment that he possibly had a change of heart.

The problems slowly began with the marketing for Cars 2. An international trailer revealed that Francesco Bernoulli beats Lightning McQueen in the first race and the second race. Gee, talk about good trailer editing... Why in the world would you spoil the outcome of two of the three races in the film? Then again, one could argue that the racing was irrelevant since the main story was the spy plot, but still! McQueen losing the Tokyo race is what drives Mater to leave and get wrapped up in the spy hi-jinks. The American trailers, luckily, didn't spoil too much. Regardless of the quality of the film itself, it's still kind of dumb to spoil key moments.



Beyond the trailers, a promo for the film that coincided with Prince William's wedding (since the Cars world equivalents of the Queen herself and the Prince are in the film) pretty much gave away the ending, along with the character images for the two. Mater gets knighted, though one could assume that it wasn't Mater who was getting knighted... But still, someone gets knighted! Yes we know the day was going to be saved in the end, but did you really have to show the hero getting their particular reward?

But that's not a problem if you don't dive into the non-trailer marketing, which I currently don't do. However, I want to avoid all trailers (except the teasers) for Pixar films. Here's where the problems get bigger...

Things really kicked into high gear with Brave's marketing...

It's a shame, because the first teaser was excellent. One of the only Pixar teasers that I'd call good, because Pixar teasers are probably meant to be mediocre. They have a joke, but they only function to get audiences that don't normally care about animation as an art form to go see their film. Remember, most audiences want comedy and "warm fuzzies" (as Disney blogger Jim Miles put it) in their animated film trailers. Drama and heavier parts? Not so much... And then people wonder why Frozen's teaser turned out to be a little comedic sequence. But this isn't a rant about American trailers focusing on comedy... What was wrong with the subsequent trailers and promos for this film?

Brave's first official trailer showed the sequence where Merida's triplet brothers are bear cubs scaring Maudie. There's also a dark split-second shot of Elinor as a bear, running. Luckily that shot goes by quick... Unless you're the type that analyzes trailers frame-by-frame. So one could deduce that the twins become bears, and there's also the shot of a brewing cauldron... It totally implies that at least someone is magically turned into a bear. Or bears.

However, the final trailer spoils the film's major twist with a mere couple of shots. We see Elinor as a bear in two shots at the end of the trailer, the first of which being the scene where her and Merida follow the wisps to the eerie kingdom ruins. This is after we've seen a more terrifying-looked bear attack her in the teaser whilst popping up elsewhere. Then the final shot of the teaser is Merida jumping in an attempt to escape from Mor'du, while her mother is trying to save her. You can totally see her!

I mean, who else would that be? Add to the fact that you saw the triplets as little bear cubs in the last teaser and several other promos, it becomes clear that Merida inadvertently has someone (presumably a witch) turn her mother and her brothers into bears. Non-animation fans who normally don't pay attention to details may not notice, since all they see is pretty animation and appealing characters... But us fans do! And people who do notice spoilerific shots in trailers!

Then some promos spoiled it as well. Apparently Disney's marketing department felt that Toy Story 3's incredibly unique viral marketing campaign could be applied to something like Brave, which is why you saw the humorous fake ads for Kilt fashion, Witch's Brew and an album called Freedom Broch. Anyways, the Witch's Brew ad reveals the witch's appearance, whereas we only heard her voice quickly in the American trailers. We even saw shots from the fishing sequence in some other promos!

But if the trailers didn't spoil things for the fans, then the film's working title did. Look, I don't like the title Brave and I think The Bear and the Bow is a much better title because it perfectly defines the story, but it also gives away the twist. Of course, Pixar went against their grain and revealed quite a few details on their upcoming slate way back in the spring of 2008... In a time when Brave was called The Bear and the Bow and the plot was detailed. Rebellious princess? A curse that affects the kingdom? People already pieced that together on forums back in the day, or at least before the teaser showed up.

Maybe it was unwise of Pixar to unveil the title so early on, maybe things wouldn't have been easy to piece together from the start had Brave been announced after May 2009, when the title change was officially confirmed. Maybe... But the trailers were too spoilerific...

Oddly enough, there were many who seemed shocked by the twist upon seeing the film. Apparently they didn't get the "mother turns into a bear" plot twist from the trailers and marketing! I can't give Disney's marketing machine a pass for that though, because a lot of other people guessed that twist...

Now we get to Monsters University, and boy did the first official trailer spoil the third act with a couple shots and some dialogue! The shots of a determined Mike in the university's door lab, monsters trying to get into said door lab, Sulley grabbing a closet doorknob and Dean Hardscrabble's voice frantically calling "Don't go in there! It's dangerous!" gave it all away for me. Right off the bat, I could tell that the two (or at least one of them, which ended up happening!) were going take a crazy risk and enter the human world... And it was going to happen towards the end of the film. The following trailer built on those shots, showing Sulley going through the closet door he was about to open and worriedly climbing a mountain in the human world!

I get it. Most audiences probably wouldn't notice or if they did, they most likely wouldn't piece it all together like I did... And I avoided everything but the trailers for this film, but after giving the second trailer one viewing, I stayed away from the final trailer. I'm glad I did!

After Brave, my new code was to never go beyond the trailers. Just watch the trailers a couple times and avoid everything else as much as possible. Now, I will avoid the trailers for their films and only watch the teasers, look at some stills and a few thing others... But that's it! I know it may sound insane, but I feel that Pixar's recent trailers are giving away way too much. I am also a bit concerned for Disney Animation, as I feel that the marketing department may go this route for that studio's film as well.

Wreck-It Ralph's official trailer came close. In the rather epic "Some Nights" montage, there was a shot of Ralph breaking his way into the cell where Fix-It Felix, Jr. is locked up. From there, I knew that Felix was going to get in some sort of trouble in Sugar Rush with King Candy and that Ralph would come to his rescue... But I didn't know why, the trailer at least kind of implied that King Candy was going to be no good. There was so much they kept hidden so nothing was really, really spoiled for me before the film opened. The international trailer on the other hand explicitly shows how Ralph accidentally brings a Cy-Bug out of Hero's Duty and into Sugar Rush. But those two sequences weren't enough... I couldn't guess what big twists were going to occur in the second and third acts of film, so I was surprised the whole way through.

So this may mean that Frozen's official trailer won't have any shots that will spoil a lot, but you never know with Disney's marketing these days. I initially didn't even want to watch the Japanese teaser until hearing that nothing in it was spoiler-heavy. I'm now wary of the upcoming official domestic trailer...

In the mean time, I'm going to be extra-cautious about Disney's marketing of their animated output...

Some Movie Reviews...

Usually I review what I see right when I see it, but I've held things off... Especially a good review of Monsters University, but I'll mention a few things here along with my thoughts on other films that I've seen recently, so...

Warning: These reviews have spoilers...

Oblivion (viewed on April 27th) - Based on an unpublished graphic novel by TRON: Legacy director Joseph Kosinski, Oblivion seemed great from the trailers. I was certainly intrigued not only because Kosinski himself was directing, but the film had shades of great sci-fi classics, great imagery, a potentially awesome plot and a good cast. So was it any good? It was above average, but nothing truly spectacular.

It's a very basic but serviceable post-apocalyptic story, one that tends to drag a little too much. I'm all for quiet stretches in films, but this one spaced out a little too much for my tastes. The action was overall solid, especially the sequences involving the vicious drones. I loved the tech and the design of the film, typical Kosinski style here. Story-wise, I'd say it's on par with TRON: Legacy, and I did not hate the storyline in that film. I thought it was just alright, critics made it seem like it was on par with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen or something.

Anyways, it's not entirely memorable. Despite some good performances and things that work, Oblivion was just a decent sci-fi actioner. It's worth a watch, but I'm not sure if I'll be purchasing the Blu-ray or not. Need to rewatch this one!

Star Trek Into Darkness (viewed on June 8th) - I enjoyed the 2009 Star Trek very much, but I will admit, I haven't watched it since first viewing! Anyways, I saw this on a whim and loved it. I'm no Trek scholar, I barely know anything about it, so I really liked what I saw. Aside from spectacular action and thrills along with awesome effects (and some of the best post-conversion 3D I've seen), the story works and there's lots of little twists and turns. There may have been a few dull moments, but this film is an all-out action-packed ride though it takes some time to develop the Enterprise crew. Benedict Cumberbatch obviously stole the show as Khan, and there are some great moments.

I'll have to give it another watch to breathe it all in because it was so enjoyable the whole ride through. The dark aspect of it wasn't overdone, in fact it worked very well... Something I can't say about a certain other film that came out this summer. It was dark in a classic sense, where the stakes have been raised. Not "everything is depressing and bleak", and I think such a title and the marketing might've thrown audiences off, which is why it hasn't outgrossed its predecessor. Anyways, I really enjoyed it.

Man of Steel (viewed on June 15th) - More like "Meh" of Steel. I really, really wanted to love this. Despite my skepticism and my worries (with Zack Snyder directing, I was already unsure!), the final string of trailers and marketing made this film look amazing. I was pumped, since this is the first film in Warner Bros.' planned DC Cinematic Universe. Would it be like Marvel and Iron Man dashing out of the gate in 2008? Sadly, it wasn't. It trips out the gate.

David S. Goyer's script is weak, which makes me wonder... Why did they let him handle the script on his own?! The story structure was very jumbled, being told through flashbacks thanks to an overlong opening detailing Krypton's destruction. First he's an adult, then he's a kid, then he's a teenager, then he's an adult, then he's a teen... There was barely any development, they didn't make Kal-El/Clark Kent interesting, and despite great performances, the characters themselves felt like afterthoughts. Lois Lane? Totally wasted, which is horrible considering that Amy Adams was such a great choice to play her. Pa Kent was surprisingly a jerk ("Was I supposed to let them die?" "Maybe..."), which already rubbed me the wrong way when that aforementioned line was in the trailer. So that's the first half, the second half is just non-stop action. Great writing... Great writing...

But what I disliked most about this film was the tone. Dour, dire, downer! The desaturated color scheme (which is a shame, because the effects and action scenes were amazing) made this film seem like a wannabe arthouse film, and it suggested depression more than optimism. Hans Zimmers' disappointing score only adds to the tone. And when humorous bits came up, they were so out of place! Seriously, the Dark Knight formula did not work for this story. At all. I was expecting this Superman to be serious, but also optimistic and epic. Lighthearted? Maybe not all-out escapist fun, but jeez... I didn't want the polar opposite of fun and lighthearted. This is not The Dark Knight! And don't get me wrong, I love the Dark Knight trilogy (yes, even the third one!), but that tone suited Batman perfectly... But the films were also a lot of fun, not constantly depressing!

Okay, I have so much to say about it, but it's just a meh action film that's more for the crowds, because my audience applauded. A Superman film it is not, if you ask me. It's just decent, nothing more. If WB and DC apply this template (Dark Knight seriousness/bleakness, jumbled story) to any future DCU films, then I won't be excited. What's wrong with having fun with a superhero film? Also, iHop and 7-Eleven...

This Is The End (viewed on June 18th) - For me, this was the very definition of a pleasant surprise. I had heard a lot of great things about the film, but from the beginning, I thought "This is just going to be a stupid lowbrow comedy." It wasn't my cup of tea, but I ended up seeing this one on a whim because I had nothing better to do on a boring Tuesday... Plus, $5 Tuesdays at my local theater!

Anyways, that anecdote aside, I had a great time with this film. It started out kind of boring, as what was shown before the apocalypse occurs wasn't exactly to my liking. Some of the comedy was hilarious, but other jokes were kind of hit-or-miss for me... But when the apocalypse comes, that's when things shift into high gear. The film throws one surprise on top of the other, and it's just flat-out rip-roaringly hilarious. The theater burst into laughter throughout, so I had a great audience! What I like about it is that it's a movie that's well aware of how ridiculous it is. I mean, it's set in our world and the actors aren't playing characters. They're playing themselves (which makes for great movie references and jokes), and it's just hilarious to see what they go through during this apocalypse.

There's so many unexpected moments, from the guys filming a homemade Pineapple Express sequel to an encounter with cannibals. A lot of wickedly insane (and sometimes dark) humor litters the script, and it's totally okay with being tasteless. That's what makes it work, but the best thing about the film is not that it's extremely funny... But it's just loaded with unexpected brilliance. I loved it.

Monsters University (viewed on June 21st) - Well, it's great. Let's just get that out of the way, but I don't think it's excellent/near-perfect, or as great as Monsters, Inc.. But that's alright! Pixar is not dying, end of story. Anyways, Monsters University. First off, I liked the fact that they made this Mike's story. You really root for Mike, and at the same time in typical Pixar fashion, you feel bad for him because he's a not-so-scary cyclops trying to be a scarer. I also liked the fact that they made Sulley - a naturally terrifying beast - an arrogant slacker with no real passion for learning. Meanwhile, the monster who will never succeed in being a scarer has all the passion and ambition. It makes for a rather bittersweet ending, since we all know he becomes Sulley's assistant rather than a master of frightening children.

The characters are good, too. Oozma Kappa's lighthearted and friendly members were very likable new additions but the campus was also full of a lot of other colorful background characters. I especially liked faces such as the gargantuan librarian and the Greek Council presidents. How they handled some of the things that tied into the original worked out pretty well, I know some felt like they totally wasted Randall... I don't know, I think it worked because in Monsters, Inc., he's a big rival to Sulley before we really find out what he's up to. What happens to him here would totally motivate him to be Sulley's biggest rival, being a master scarer and whatnot. Or maybe I'm wrong and I need to see it again, but I felt it was handled well.

There's lots of fun and a lot of the same inventiveness that made the first one great, such as what we see in the Scare Games sequences. Those were all creative and lots of fun, and it certainly got me pumped up. The third act takes a hard turn, which a domestic trailer unfortunately spoiled for me with just two shots (seriously Disney Marketing, what the hell?!), but it all works story-wise. The end is nice, though it didn't make me bawl my eyes out. That's not a bad thing, not every Pixar film has to make you cry. It has a lot of heart, it's just not as potent as, say, Toy Story 3's emotional content.

On a second or third viewing, I shall be writing a bigger in-depth review. Overall, it's a damn good film. I'd say it's a little better than Brave, which I thought wasn't way inferior to Pixar's greatest. Just a little flawed and a bit below, that's all.

The Blue Umbrella was also fine. A visual masterpiece, though the story was typical. Paperman comparisons aside, it was just a simple boy-meets-girl story but the telling was very creative. Seriously, I absolutely loved what I was seeing. Now, can Saschka Unseld direct a feature at Pixar?

World War Z (viewed on July 6th) - Before I start, I just want to ask the press something... Why the hell are you always so enthusiastic about pile-driving salt into someone's wounds? Whenever a big budget film with production problems makes the waves, you always have to make up some bullshit story about the troubled production whilst predicting it'll be a floppily flop. Take John Carter instance. It's bad enough that the film had problems, the budget ballooned and the marketing was abysmal... But a lot of you started crafting stories about how Andrew Stanton was a total jerk on the set, was an egotistical maniac, changed the title from A Princess to Mars to John Carter of Mars because he's sexist and yadda yadda yadda. Then said film opens and then there's "FLOP!" and "Ishtar all over again!" Why do you get such joy out of a big budget movie failing at the box office? Why do you go all "Serves you right!" mode on studios? The very studios that are the reason why you have your jobs in the first place? Okay never mind, I'll save this for a rant!

So, World War Z... Well, I was surprised. It's not your typical big budget action film. In fact, for its $190 million budget (not $400 million you damn press wolves), it's rather small-scale. I was also surprised at the pacing and the running time... 116 minutes as opposed to two-and-a-half hours! The film takes off and doesn't stop, it never drags. The opening 10 minutes are intense, and there are touches of horror in this action thriller during a sequence where Gerry (Brad Pitt's character) and his family try to escape from an apartment building at dawn as the zombies run rampant through it.

Things start to get a little by-the-books and bland halfway through, but then that all washes away when the zombies successfully climb the wall protecting Jerusalem that later leads to an intense plane crash sequence... Then the third act kicks in... Oh man, the third act... Basically, Pitt in a health facility at night in a wing where idle zombies lurk, quietly trying to find what could possibly save the world. We got this suspense-filled half hour instead of a bland battle sequence in Russia where Pitt just takes on a bunch of zombies. Thank goodness that planned third act was left on the cutting room floor! That plane sequence and this act was a double-punch to my boredom that the middle portion of the film brought in. It's actually worth the price of admission, if you ask me.

So that's basically it. What did you think of these films?

Animation Box Office Update (June 2013)

Monsters University inevitably was a big hit on its opening weekend since, you know, it's a Pixar film. So did this college-set prequel do amazing business? Well, sort of...

Over the weekend, the film took in a very big and impressive $82 million (the actual total will be revealed tomorrow), making it Pixar's second biggest opening weekend behind 2010's Toy Story 3, and fifth when you adjust the opening weekend numbers of the other films. Not too shabby, but not super-spectacular... I was expecting a total north of $90 million for the opening weekend, not just a few notches above the usual Pixar opening ($60-70 million).

It may not have slammed the box office like a meteor (Toy Story 3, in my eyes, is a meteor-crash success) due to many things... Maybe it was the fact that it was a prequel that was mostly predictable. Maybe it was because the marketing wasn't as aggressive or as clever as Toy Story 3's, which successfully got many teen audiences interested... The audience that normally blows animation off. Maybe World War Z (which surprisingly took in $66 million over the weekend!) took away a good number teens and adults.

This isn't the first time a big blockbuster performed very well against a Pixar film. In 2008, Wanted opened the same weekend as WALL-E and both took in over $50 million domestically. WALL-E performed as expected, taking in a good $63 million and trumping Ratatouille's relatively disappointing opening weekend total from the previous summer. Pixar's $60 million+ opening weekends have been built in since.

With such a good-sized opening, it's possible that this film could hit $300 million at the domestic box office (which it can do if it performs just like Toy Story 3 did), making it the third Pixar film to do so and the sixth overall. It'll probably miss it because Despicable Me 2 is right around the corner, followed by more family-friendly options. Monsters University's early word of mouth is said to be highly positive (as usual for Pixar) so we can't rule $300 million out just yet.

Sadly, Blue Sky's Epic took a major league tumble this weekend. The film's weekend total was a 72% decrease from last weekend's, but it was able to make more than $100 million this weekend. At this rate, it'll have a hard time reaching $110 million. This usually happens when a new animated release comes along, the previous one drops like a rock that weekend. Monsters University cut the legs right off of Blue Sky's action-oriented fantasy. Luckily, the film has doubled its $100 million production budget worldwide by a considerably good margin so far. Will Fox and Blue Sky say it's a bomb or money-loser? Hopefully not! It's also kind of sad that it's another animated film based on a William Joyce book or property that underwhelmed at the box office: First Meet The Robinsons, then Rise of the Guardians and now this. Even back in 2005, Robot's $128 million gross was on the low end of the computer animation scale. What a shame.

As I've been saying since last summer, they should've stuck with the original title: Leaf Men. What is with Joyce stories and title changes? A Day with Wilbur Robinson is renamed Meet The Robinsons and The Guardians of Childhood is turned into the bland-sounding Rise of the Guardians... Ayeeee.

The Croods seems to be puttering out now, but the caveman comedy has made $183 million domestically off of its respectable $43 million opening... Talk about strong word of mouth! Worldwide, it seems like it will settle for a total below $590 million. A miracle for DreamWorks and then some, whose previous film was their most ambitious (and in my opinion, their best) yet was a big money-loser for them. It kind of pains me to think that the safe, messy and not-so-memorable film was the huge hit/franchise starter yet the creative, well-made and ambitious film wasn't.

What do you think Pixar's film will make in the long run? Were you expecting it to have a bigger opening? Or a smaller one? Do you think Epic had a chance at doing better? Or not?

 Sound off below!

MU Review Watch

Reviews for Monsters University are finally starting to trickle out.

As of now, June 10, 2013 - 2:21 PM Eastern, Monsters University is currently at a rather disappointing 71% on Rotten Tomatoes. Three of its reviews are also on Metacritic.

One of the two rotten reviews comes from IndieWire, but Tomatoes counts it as a "rotten". Metacritic counts it as a positive review, but the critic goes as far as saying "Pixar has lost its edge". *facepalm*

The other one is more mixed. Todd McCarthy of The Hollywood Reporter writes that the film is a "humdrum straight of line film" and also feels that it was "alarmingly lame". McCarthy was also negative on Brave but he called Cars 2 another "Pixar winner". Hmmmm...

Now, how about the 5 positive reviews? Justin Chang of Variety was pretty positive on the film, though he does state that doesn't attempt to "scale the heights of Pixar's past" and does give it credit for other things. The Wrap's Alonso Duralde says it's "solidly average". One pretty positive review says that the film is "proof that prequels can be done right".

So far, the vibe I'm getting is this: "It's good, but not 'Pixar Good'." I fear that this will be Brave all over again... (The critical reception, not the film itself.)

Update - June 10, 2013 - 4:04 PM Eastern

On Metacritic, it's at 66, which is a cut above "mixed reception", adding The Guardian's review that's been on Rotten Tomatoes.

Going against this batch of decidedly mixed reviews are some very positive reactions from other sites. /Film's Germain Lussier gave it a great 9 out of 10, the site had given Brave a 7. A good sign right there! Bleeding Cool? Also very positive, as their Brendon Connelly says it's their "funniest and most engaging since The Incredibles, and the most emotionally affecting since Finding Nemo and possibly even Monsters, Inc."

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic ought to count these two reviews...

Update - June 15, 2013 - 10:27 PM Eastern

Slowly but surely, the percentage went up. It's now at a very good 86%! 12 positive reviews against 2 negative. (Though that IndieWire one still gave it a B, so it's really 13 fresh.) But the reviews themselves share the same sentiment. They're saying it's just a minor effort from the Leaping Lamp, a particularly insulting review from Schmoes Know says it's a "kids movie through and through". Pixar doesn't make "kids films", people... The average score is a 7.

The Metacritic score is still a 66, since only 4 reviews have been counted.

Update - June 20, 2013 - 10:29 PM Eastern

Monsters University is now at 77% on Rotten Tomatoes... With a consensus: "It doesn't scale the heights of Pixar's finest efforts, but Monsters University is still funny and thoughtful family entertainment for viewers of any age."

Ughh, again with the "it doesn't match Pixar's best"... At this rate, people and critics will have to accept that not every Pixar film is going to be WALL-E or Up. Like I've been saying, they're not gonna churn out A+/perfect/10-out-of-10 films forever... And that's totally alright. A 77% is better than a 67% anyway, which also applies to Brave.

But I get the sense that the "Pixar is dead" bandwagon baddies will say that this film (since they did so with Brave) is another sign of Pixar's downward spiral... Get ready for another wave of that garbage, folks...

Metacritic has it at a positive, but not so great 63 with a total of 30 reviews: 17 positive, 13 mixed... No negatives whatsoever.

More updates to come...