Okay, are they gone? Good.
Monsters University
Quality acting/scripting?: Yes
Engaging Story?: Sort of
Relatable Characters?: Yes
Stuck to Story from Book it came from?: N/A
Balance between Movie/Real Logic?: N/A, Animated Film
My Rating: B
My Take: Having grown up on Disney/Pixar stuff, I was of course excited for this. (I would have watched Monsters Inc beforehand but our DVD of it was watched so many times my DVD player can't pick it up anymore. Hnnnngh!) I actually almost persuaded my brother to buy the DVD/Blu Ray combo because it came with free tickets at one time to go see the prequel. ...How serendipitous that then my brother gets a job at our new favorite theater in our area? (Edison 8, awesome place. Big screens, great sound, great prices on concessions/tickets.)
Moving on. I was disarmed by just how adorable Mike Wazowksi was as a child. I was disappointed however that a certain gigantic purple & turquoise monster did not make an adorable childhood appearance, but that's just me.
Being a detail-oriented person, I definitely loved seeing more behind the scenes things about another world. Their schools, their childhoods. How even as monsters they aren't immune to the most human of experiences: Being social outcasts, which is the primary focus of the film, it would seem. Another aspect is how if you rely on your family name/reputation but don't put in the work you're not going to succeed in a college setting.
This film pretty much hit all the 'prequel' points. Set up why they ended up where they are in the next film, established motivations, history and even showed how Randall and Sulley ended up archenemies in Monsters Inc. ...BUT... I have to agree with my brother's take on this one. This movie did not hold the same magic, the same spark that made Monsters Inc the standout, amazing film that it is. (Basically, it isn't the same Pixar amazing-sauce product we all adore and desire more of.) Don't get me wrong, it was plenty of fun to watch--especially rooting out which monster Nathan Fillion was the voice of.--but... eh. It wasn't as great. Fun to watch, in several years I'll have fun watching it along with the two baby cousins I have along with the rest of Disney and Pixar's work.
Though the great Nathan Fillion's character was enjoyable, I admit, my favorite of the 'new' characters in this movie was Dean Hardscrabble. Her design was brilliantly done, and the voice actor definitely captured her character. She was just creepy enough to justify her position as Dean and head of the Scare program, but elegant and graceful enough to still have an element of femininity. LOVED her wings!
Looking forward to seeing Despicable Me 2, while on the subject of animated movies...
World War Z
DISCLAIMER: I have NOT read the books.
Quality acting/scripting?: Eh...
Engaging Story?: Sort of
Relatable Characters?: Not really
Stuck to Story from Book it came from?: Not that I've heard, pretty certain it bastardized it.
Balance between Movie/Real Logic?: Believable to me.
My Rating: B
My Take: First and foremost, I love horror films. I love thrillers. I enjoy this genre in much of its incarnations and I am fascinated by the fictional subgenre of the Undead (vampires, zombies, etc.) I have been for years. I geeked a bit when the 'Rakshasa' was mentioned, a throwback to Eastern mythology relating to the undead maneaters. BUT. I think it was improperly used.
MOVING ON. This movie was ... a good time killer? I don't know that I'd go see it again. I remember the first time I saw 28 Days Later... I raved about it for weeks and weeks and it provided me with hours of enjoyment. (Cillian Murphy, mmm...)
World War Z was something I was interested in seeing if only because I enjoy zombie flicks. (I want to see Warm Bodies. It intrigues me.) But once I was actually watching WWZ? My brother and I both agree that they paced it poorly. I think they did not allow for adequate time for the viewer to become invested in this family, other than perhaps the girl who has asthma and the little boy they end up adopting into their circle.
Sure, Gerry Lane is an interesting character and he definitely has some badass moves. I liked that he seemed smart enough to be willing to throw himself from the apartment building roof in order to not put his family in danger of his possible infection. That was actually refreshing! Usually the main character or those around the main character are stupid enough to think they can hide it or fight it off. But the only reason that I felt any sort of connection with him is because A) Brad Pitt and B) They went through some effort to establish that he was the main character in this film. Other than that and his apparent previous employment with the UN, he did not seem all that interesting. He was the most interesting character IN the movie, other than the Mossad commando chick he amputates the hand of. She was definitely an interesting one, and I was very glad to see she didn't survive the siege of Israel just to get her face gnawed on for making too much noise in the WHO vaults.
Since I'm a medical nerd, I did like the fact that Gerry was able to put together that some folk were left alone because they were terminally ill. And that he was able to apply it to the situation and basically defense weaponize it? Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. My hat is off to the writer or whoever came up with this device.
Overall, my impression of this film I think has been said by other reviewers, but I have to agree. This was a B list movie with an A list budget.
Next time: The Lone Ranger
No comments:
Post a Comment