Monsters University (2013)

4/5

Monsters University, the prequel to Monsters Inc., is another impressive installment in Pixar's already phenomenal canon. It tells the story of the unlikely meeting between Mike Wazowski (Crystal) and James P. Sullivan (Goodman) in the scare academy. Like the best prequels, it deepens our love for each character, enriching their personalities and unveiling their motivations. We learn how they got to where they are today, what obstacles they had to overcome, what imperfections they had to live with, what prejudices they had to endure. They become more compelling than ever before and so we treasure our time with them.

The story and animation are both absolutely charming. The pacing is spot-on, shifting from comedy to excitement to sentiment with seeming ease. It is a delight to watch and it will leave you grinning with glee. Part of what makes Monsters University so good is how good Monsters Inc. is, knowing how it all ends. And now that we have Monsters University to enjoy, Monsters Inc. becomes that much better too!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1453405/

Abduction (2011)

2/5

John Singleton's Abduction did little more than reaffirm my belief that Taylor Lautner is a terrible actor. The movie is just another excuse to try to put his shirtless body on as many screens as possible. What audiences actually saw was his lack of acting ability. The (terrible) story focuses on Nathan Price (Lautner), a high school student who finds out that his "parents" aren't his real parents on the same day that he witnesses their murder. And from that point on, he's running from multiple ne'er-do-well groups while trying to discover the truth behind his childhood.

Sounds like it could be good, right? Especially with John Singleton--who made the phenomenal Boyz N The Hood--helming the project. Unfortunately, he's working a pretty low standard this time. (By the way, did anybody else notice a nauseating amount of Apple product placement?) Singleton tries, and fails, at mixing emotion with action. He blasts loud rock music nearly nonstop in lieu of using intelligence and pacing to build suspense. The plotting is entirely preposterous, starting with a ludicrous pre-teen's fantasy of high school life and keeping up the laughs with unbearable dialogue. Not much of the movie makes sense when you think about it (so I suggest you don't), and the action scenes are surprisingly few and far between. All things considered, there's not much reason for me to recommend this film to anybody.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1600195/

Rango (2011)

3/5

Rango tells the story of a lizard (Depp) who stumbles into a Western. The town of Dirt is inhabited by other similarly-sized creatures, although sometimes it's really difficult to tell what kind of animal each character is supposed to be, and they are in the midst of a water shortage crisis. Rango manages to earn himself a sheriff's star by unwittingly taking out the town's predator and is soon tasked by the mayor (Beatty) with giving the townspeople hope in the face of rapidly dwindling resources. They must find out who is stealing their water and why before it's too late.

The acting is solid, the animation is fun, and the pacing is fluid. The plot is essentially a rehashing of Chinatown with the occasional twist and turn to make it a little bit more exciting and kid-friendly in the hopes that it doesn't feel predictable. Unfortunately, it is predictable. Adding failed plan after failed plan in the last 10 minutes doesn't make it surprising. It just makes it painful for everyone waiting for the film to end.

The best part about this movie is probably the character of Rango, who seems to be able to confabulate on the fly in a very entertaining manner. It makes for a clever script with sharp dialogue, including some excellent jokes, but on the whole I didn't get much out of it. Ultimately, the film tried too hard to satisfy too many different genres that it never really impressed me on any one of them. All in all, this is a strange but fairly mediocre film that entertains but doesn't stick with you. Watch it if it sounds interesting, but don't go out of your way to see it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1192628/

Dead Man (1995)

1/5

Jim Jarmusch's Dead Man is one of the most uninteresting, meandering, meaningless movies I've seen since Truffaut's The Soft Skin. I sat there for two hours watching scenes transition to different scenes with the barest semblance of plot or purpose. The movie follows William Blake (Depp) as he makes his way from Cleveland to the West in the late 19th century. He gets mixed up in violence and must go on the run to save his life, but I think the title is meant to insinuate that he is already dead. People who like the movie will tell you it's about a man's transformation in the time of our country's transformation, but I think those people are just seeing stuff that isn't there. Or, perhaps, seeing the bits and pieces of stuff beneath all the garbage piled on top of it.

Johnny Depp kind of reminded me of Guy Pearce in this movie, and I mean that in a bad way. He has dead expressions and no depth. He sounds entirely uninterested in just about everything going on, even when he's supposed to be scared or excited. Regardless of whether his affect is intentional or not, it's simply boring and painful to watch. I don't even want to talk about the dialogue, because I'll just get upset. The script tries to be edgy and badass, but instead it's spoken by what sounds like bad student actors trying to be edgy and badass. Mix this bad acting (or bad directing, I'm honestly not sure which it is) with crappy special effects and cheesy old-time film techniques and you have an entirely laughable production. It's times like these I wish I had waited before burning an entire director's oeuvre until I knew I liked them.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112817/

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

2/5

The Da Vinci Code is a faithful adaptation of a trashy airplane novel. Sure, it works, but at what level? The plot follows Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou as they try to uncover the mystery surrounding Tautou's grandfather's death in the Louvre. They soon realize that it is part of a far greater mystery involving the Holy Grail, the Priory of Scion, and Opus Dei. For those that care or know little about religion, this movie will surely bore you, as 90% of the time they are solving puzzles relating to ancient Christian cover-ups and lies. For those that hate the French, this movie will surely aggravate you, as 50% of it is in French. But for the rest, you might find it acceptable. After all, Hanks and Tautou are always excellent, and do their best with the somewhat lacking source material. While Howard's directing was expectedly subpar, it did provide some level of entertainment, albeit frustrating at some points.

After Howard and his incessant stylized flashbacks, mediocre cinematography, and terrible editing, the script was easily the next worst part about this movie. The writers were so faithful to the book that they decided to keep in all the bad parts. Novels must be adapted to work on the screen, not simply converted to the proper format. The first main problem is the pacing of the story. The book has about five different endings, which is bad enough in book form, but in movie form it just makes the last half hour drag painfully on and on and on. The second main problem is the atrocious dialogue. The plot elements themselves were quite silly and far-fetched, but interesting nonetheless. Still, I thought I would hate the movie based on all the negative reviews and anecdotal evidence I had heard about it, but I was surprised at how captivating it was. At least, how captivating it was late at night while simultaneously talking to friends online. I wouldn't go out of your way to check this out, but if you were excited about it at one point in your life, it might not hurt to catch it on TV.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/