Monsters University (2013)

School never looked this scary.

The original outing of Mike Wazowski and James P. Sullivan in Monsters, Inc. is probably up there amongst my favourite Pixar films. In fact, if I were to make a top 5 list off the top of my head right now I would say: Monsters, Inc., Toy Story, Toy Story 3, WALL-E and Up – in no particular order. I love the charm, humour, originality and heart that Monsters, Inc. possesses, so it was with a blend of trepidation and excitement that I sat down to watch the prequel; released 12 years after the characters’ debut. Doesn’t that make you feel old?

Monsters University takes us back to when Mike and Sully first met; as students enrolled on the university’s ‘scare’ course, both with dreams of being the top scarer the university has ever seen. However, it quickly becomes clear they were not always friends, and things soon get heated between the nerdy Mike and the jock Sully. Eventually culminating in an altercation that gets them both kicked off the course. The quarrelsome twosome must then reluctantly team together with a band of unpopular misfits in order to reclaim their course places in the only way they can think of – by winning the annual Scare Games.

It may sound like the plot structure is taken from any number of college movies from the 1980’s, and that’s because it is. It’s entirely intentional though, and there are many jokes that pay homage to the cult classics from the decade of big hair and shoulder pads, including a scene in which Sully kidnaps the pig-like mascot of the rival university in an attempt to impress the coolest fraternity. All of these references are a fine example of Pixar showing once again that they cater for the parents as well as the children, and successfully so. No doubt all members of the audience will find themselves laughing at the jokes, gags and hijinks, and the charm of their delivery. Monsters University, like its predecessor, is very charming in its depiction of two best friends realising that they may not have much in common, but their differences unite them as a great partnership. It’s an impressive prequel that really does add a layer of depth to the story.

Where this film is lacking is in its distance from the human world that played such an important part in the original. The human interaction acted as a comparative mirror which showed that, despite the fear of human-monster contact, the worlds on each side of the wardrobe door are really not that different. The relationship between Sully and Boo in Monsters, Inc. is wonderfully heart-warming and never fails to bring a tear to my eye, but that feeling just doesn’t quite surface in the prequel. Sully and Mike’s friendship will make you smile, but no more than that.

Monsters University is funny, charming and entertaining for young and old alike, although you would expect no less from Disney-Pixar. You will laugh aplenty, and you may even find yourself teetering on the edge of your seat cushion, but you won’t shed a tear. I would have liked Pixar to take a bit more of a risk with this one, as their best work seems to come when they explore entirely unexpected sources and themes. However, don’t let that detract from the film’s qualities. It is immensely enjoyable and you will struggle to find any faults.

Rating: 

Certificate: U
Director: Dan Scanlon
Starring: Billy Crystal, John Goodman, Steve Buscemi and Helen Mirren
Running Time: 104 mins

Flight (2013)

Flight is the first live-action film that Robert Zemeckis has directed in over a decade, with his last three films being in motion capture CGI – and two of those being children’s films. However, the last live-action outing of Zemeckis to hit the screens was the brilliant Cast Away, which showed us that he can definitely handle a large scale plane crash. And when you couple that with some of his previous films – such as Forrest Gump – with a focused grasp on strong and fascinating characters, then it gives you an idea of the exciting potential behind Flight.

The draw of this film for many people would have been the breathtaking crash scene that the film begins with. The trailers were awash with tantalising clips of the dramatic sequence, including one in which the passenger plane is flying (or gliding) completely upside down. Blockbuster fans and action aficionados will undoubtedly have been drawn in by the enticement of a mile-high thrill ride. But they may not get what they expect, because while this incident is key to the plot, it is not the central aspect of the story. Instead, what Flight focuses on is the protagonist’s struggle with alcoholism and addiction, and the devastating effect it has on his life. Which ultimately allows for a much deeper, rewarding and more intelligent story. While this may not be what some cinema-goers wanted from Flight, I sincerely hope they did not leave entirely disappointed; because this is a great film with a lot to offer, and for what it’s worth – the crash scene is absolutely astounding.

Denzel Washington plays the troubled pilot, who is fantastically named William ‘Whip’ Whitaker, and the Oscar nominee delivers an emphatic and gripping performance. The character has such layered depths that there are few actors who could effectively portray the absolute lows that Whitaker reaches, but Denzel handles it wonderfully. It is arguably his best performance thus far, possibly even outshining his downtrodden and gritty role in Man on Fire, and the powerful Oscar-winning turn he gave in Training Day. A character-driven film can succeed or fail based solely on the quality of its lead, and Denzel plays a huge part in the success of this one.

Flight is almost entirely focused on the protagonist, with supporting characters only included where necessary. But this doesn’t mean that these roles are overlooked. One of the most striking supporting characters is Whitaker’s eccentric drug dealer, played enigmatically by a hilarious John Goodman. Although Goodman only has a couple of scenes in the film, they are amongst the most memorable and enjoyable. His roguish charm is a delight to watch, and his entrance is twice accompanied by the Rolling Stones’ Sympathy for the Devil, which – while a bit on-the-nose – is the perfect theme for the character.

Flight will not be to everyone’s taste. The starting third of the film, especially the flight scene, is laced with excitement and adrenaline,  but this subsides considerably as the plot flows into Whitaker’s addiction. This stark change of pace, so early on, stands a chance of being slightly detrimental to the feature, as it could accentuate that the later scenes of the film are rather slower. In a weaker film this could result in the slower scenes becoming boring after the early peak, but Flight has more than enough substance to ensure that it holds your attention.

Overall, this film is powerful, thought-provoking and immensely well made. It is immediately obvious why Denzel Washington was nominated for the Best Actor Oscar, and you can’t help but wonder whether the film itself came close to making the list of Best Film nominees. Perhaps it had the potential to make the shortlist, but the final product may have just missed the mark. Even so, this is a welcome return to live-action film-making for Zemeckis.

It should go without saying that this film may not be suitable for those with a fear of flying!

Rating: 8.1

Certificate: 15
Director: Robert Zemeckis
Starring: Denzel Washington, John Goodman and Don Cheadle
Running Time: 138 mins