A stylistic rollercoaster, which suffers from one instance of frankly dreadful casting. The problem is that when audiences in the UK see Matt Lucas with no trousers on and a comedy wig, it's more-often-than-not in the context of sketch comedy, where he'll deadpanningly play a ridiculous character with a look of bemusement on his face. That's also pretty much what he's doing in this film, but it's not what's required. Many of his scenes are performed alone, and he has no comedic foil to bounce off and the whole thing falls a bit flat. That said, I've got no idea who would play the part any better, so maybe it's the part itself?
Small Apartments is the Instagram of dark, quirky comedy; dreamlike one moment, wisecracking the next, slapstick the one after that followed by introspective pathos. It makes Seven Psychopaths look like Pulp Fiction, yet sadly it doesn't even have the character of the former, let alone the hipster attitude of the latter.
The worrying thing is that all the other characters seem to have been relatively well, but in roles that are defined by an outfit (and/or wig) with a facial expression. There's enough surreal action to maybe suggest that the entire episode is taking place inside one of the characters' minds (see also: Super), but since the closing scenes dwell more on the story-resolution of a previously incidental character, it seems unlikely, somehow.
I'd like to say that at least Small Apartments tries hard, but for about half of the runtime I just don't think that's the case. I many ways it's a noble failure, but a failure nonetheless.
The trailer is far more coherent than the actual film.
Not really, no.
I have no idea, but I do hope so.
If anything, free.
Yeah.
Nope.
Not that I heard.
Why do I bother?
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a 'catch-up' review. I watched this film at home, not at the cinema. I saw the trailer for this at the cinema, and I would have seen the film there too, but they didn't/couldn't show it. So now iTunes, Amazon, Netflix and Blockbuster get to reap the rewards of my local's advance-advertising, and I'm sure they're delighted. Now you may say "oh come on, they can't show everything down there", and that would be a valid point if they didn't do things like running Taken 2 for six weeks. Was it that successful? No, I don't think so. Twilight? Batman? Les Mes? Sure, go for it; if they're pulling the punters in then keep making that money. But Taken 2? I ask you. Anyway, this is essentially a DVD review, but still of a new(ish) film. There. I'm glad that's sorted.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Monsters University (Second-pass / 2D)
Cert: U / 110 mins / Dir. Dan Scanlon
Well, there's really not much more to add, watching MU again. Nothing new jumped out at me thematically, although I can say that it was just as much fun to watch a second time. The script, performances and animation are all absolutely flawless. Again, only got to see it in 2D; again, more by circumstance than judgement.
One thing that did keep tickling me, though: Is this a Hutt?
It wasn't so much Jabba he reminded me of, as a slightly older version of Rotta The Hutt. He keeps appearing throughout the film, and I first noticed him jostling for position at the safety line when the young ones visit Monsters Inc's scare-floor. In the absence of any overt Star Wars references, this'll do nicely.
Anyhow, if you only see one animated family movie this summer, make it this one.
In tangentially related news, the short The Blue Umbrella runs before the movie. While it's technically beautiful, it didn't connect with me the way that Paperman did, and yet the soundtrack from it has been stuck in my head for days.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Cinema.
Yep.
Yep.
Yepe.
As a third installment is doubtlessly going through the first stages of assembly as we speak, what would you like to see from it?
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
So if you were going to produce what many would see as an unnecessary sequel to what is generally considered to be a modern classic… I mean if you absolutely had to… how would you avoid re-hashing the ideas that made the first movie so great and undoing any resolution which made it such a satisfying story?
You'd make a film like Monsters University. Win.
By engineering a prequel which alludes to (but isn't held back by) the plot points of the first movie, Pixar have given themselves the blank slate needed to make the movie work at a story-level. The plot itself isn't outstanding in any way (in fact it occurred to me that structurally, it's essentially an animated version of The Internship), but it's carried out with such warmth and respect to the original movie that it doesn't matter.
The chemistry between Billy Crystal and John Goodman is the heart of the film, and their enjoyment really shines through their performances. The rest of the voice-cast support ably, and with one exception*1 the older members of the audience will be able to enjoy the characters without voice-spotting any exaggerated performances. With M.U., Pixar have demonstrated that a follow-up movie doesn't have to be straight-to-DVD fodder.
The real high-point, for me, is the animation. There's a nice transition early on, between the world of child-Mike Wazowski, with its boosted colour-palette and slightly stylised props, and teenager-Mike, which looks like its been filmed on an actual set. Pixar really have out-done themselves; the environments are rendered to a photo-realistic level that'll be hard to top, even so far as subtly altering the colours for the change of seasons without spelling out "It's winter!" to the audience. The only down-side is that I now want to see a re-rendered version of Monsters Inc.
Performance times meant that Mrs Blackout and I saw this in 2D; I'll definitely be giving it another watch to see how the 3D's been applied.
Monsters University is another triumph for Pixar, proving once again that U-rated films can be funny, engaging and relevant.
More like this, please.
Yes. Although the contents of that trailer aren't in the film. Yeah, I don't quite understand either.
Yes.
Yes.
For the quality of animation if nothing else, cinema.
Yes.
Yes.
YES! And in a film about monsters and scaring, it's pretty awesome to see it used in a scene with a someone polishing a floor.
The trailer for Disney's upcoming Planes features More Human Than Human by White Zombie.
What the hell has happened to this world? Is nothing sacred?
*1 To address the elephant in the room, Helen Mirren seems to be taking over Judi Dench's role of 'being wheeled out to play herself with little-to-no variation'. Her presence isn't unwelcome, but it's starting to get a bit samey.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Monsters Inc. (3D)
Cert: U / 92 mins / Dir. Pete Docter
While the 3D is nicely retrofitted to this timely re-release, it adds little, and the actual animation is starting to look a little dated. The only reason that's even noticeable is because of Pixar's continuing high standards. With storytelling this strong it wouldn't really matter but Boo is... well creepy-looking a lot of the time.
This is still a fantastic movie, but maybe save the cinema visit for the sequel?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
DVD.
No.
Yes.
No!*1
*1 I didn't hear one, anyway. Let me know if I missed it.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
It's that difficult time of year when you're not sure exactly what kind of punter is going to the cinema. Some will be spending cinema vouchers they got for Christmas, others will be getting away from the noise and chaos of their homes, and some will be just killing time while their respective other spends a day at the sales. It's not a time for 'worthy' cinema. Occasionally you'll get a real gem released on Boxing Day, while everything else will seem like filler…
So, if you're expecting a structured, formulaic comedy, which is gentle enough for the whole family to enjoy with enough safe casting to ensure people will take a gamble on seeing it… you won't be surprised when that's what you get. Parental Guidance is so 'safe' it's practically offensive, but without being twee, somehow. Sure, the ending sees an overflow of sentimentality and preaching in equal measure, but I honestly didn't mind as the rest of the film had been so enjoyable.
Yes. I've liked a film with Bette Midler in it. Let's just keep this between you and me, yes?
The saving grace of this hackneyed family comedy is that Billy Crystal, Bette Midler and Marisa Tomei are all good in it. Way better than the script should allow them to be (Tom Everett Scott is also good, but has very little to actually do). In addition to this, they've managed to find three children (Bailee Madison, Joshua Rush, Kyle Harrison Breitkopf) who are genuinely funny, convincing and not annoying. Right away, this casting lifts the film above what it could easily have been.
At 105 minutes, the final act starts to drag a little, and the whole thing could have been tied up more neatly at an hour and a half. I also thought that a lot of Billy Crystal's lines should have gotten bigger laughs. The delivery is perfect, but I suspect the timing's been lost in the edit.
All in all, I found Parental Guidance to be very enjoyable. Horrendously clichéd and thoroughly undemanding, it's unashamedly filler. It won't advance the careers of any of the adult cast, but is exactly what's needed if you want to get away from it all and smile for a couple of hours.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
