Latest Reviews

Entries in john krasinski (4)

Thursday
Jun202013

Monsters University

With last year’s middling, but still solid, “Brave” and 2011’s “Cars 2,” the only movie ever to receive negative reviews from the otherwise untouchable Pixar, people began to question whether or not the animation studio had lost its edge. Their warm, emotional and downright brilliant movies like “Up,” “Wall-E” and the “Toy Story” franchise had devolved into kiddie fare (as opposed to the family friendly movies that had come before and were accessible to everyone) with simplistic themes and unimpressive stories. Well, it looks like they’re back on track with “Monsters University,” a wholeheartedly impressive movie that takes a subject from the wonders of a child’s imagination and injects it with a truthful examination on failed dreams and the meaning of friendship.

The movie begins with Young Mike (Noah Johnston). He’s a happy-go-lucky kid with a wonderfully positive attitude despite his classmates’ negativity towards him. While on a field trip to Monsters Inc., the company responsible for scaring children and powering the monster world with their screams, he finds his calling. He’s going to be the greatest scarer that ever lived. Now he’s all grown up and Mike (Billy Crystal) is headed off to college at Monsters University. His entire life has led up to this moment and nothing will stand in the way of him achieving his dream. However, when it’s decided he’s just simply not scary, he’s taken out of Scare School along with the unfocused Sully (John Goodman). But his determination won’t keep him down, so he partners with the dorkiest fraternity on campus, Oozma Kappa, and his newfound frenemy to compete in the school hosted Scare Games. If they win, they’ll all be allowed back into Scare School and Mike will have a second chance at achieving his dreams.

And if you’ve seen “Monsters Inc.,” you know he doesn’t. While Sully goes onto break records while scaring children at night, Mike is relegated to sidekick, the unsung hero who lives vicariously through Sully. Yet as a child and a college student, Mike just knows that if he works hard, his aspirations will naturally fall into place. He has a naiveté that many in his position share, unaware of the fact that no matter how much you want something and no matter how hard you work for it, it may not pan out. Life throws curveballs and takes you down different roads than you originally imagined.

It’s a brave stance to take in a kid friendly movie and is opposite of the “you can be whatever you want to be” message so many kids are exposed to these days. It may even seem like a negative stance, but the opposite turns out to be true. Although the movie takes an honest look at failed dreams and shows that life sometimes doesn’t work out the way you had planned, it’s ultimately a hopeful and encouraging movie because it shows that other skills can lead to happiness and success. It emphasizes the idea that one dream crushed is another dream created and even though Mike is initially disheartened by the sudden realization that his lifelong dream will never come to fruition, he discovers other opportunities in his strengths.

This is exactly the type of theme Pixar needed to tackle, one that is necessary for children, but also relatable to adults. Very few people have lived their lives and achieved their one lifelong dream, so many in the audience may be shocked to see such a truthful representation of themselves in a movie about monsters learning to scare children. As far as storytelling goes, “Monsters University” is nearly flawless, if only one little inconsistency that fails to connect the two movies didn’t rear its ugly head. In “Monsters Inc.,” Mike specifically says to Sully, “You’ve been jealous of my good looks since the fourth grade,” implying that they have known each other nearly all their lives. But in “Monsters University,” they’re meeting for the first time at college. Although relatively minor in the big scheme of things, the stories of the two movies don’t connect as they should, which is a cardinal sin for any sequel or prequel.

Nevertheless, the most important aspect of “Monsters Inc.” carries over without a hitch: its amiable charm. In terms of pure wit, this is perhaps the cleverest movie Pixar has done since, well, “Monsters Inc.” As Mike walks down the main university strip on his first day, for instance, he passes by the debate team led by a monster with two heads that can’t seem to agree with each other and the improv club that can’t even improvise their pitch to get him to join. These small moments are delightful and really give the film a humorous appeal.

I’ll admit, I was skeptical of Pixar after their last couple films, especially when those disappointments followed their three best and most mature efforts to date, “Wall-E,” “Up” and “Toy Story 3,” but they’ve renewed my faith in them after this. “Monsters University” is gorgeously animated, wonderfully voiced (with additional help from John Krasinski, Nathan Fillion, Charlie Day, Aubrey Plaza and Helen Mirren as the Dean of the school) and all around magical. It’s that rare film that mixes childlike wonder with adult themes while never neglecting the details that are needed to bring the world to life. “Monsters University” is a joyous experience.

Monsters University receives 5/5

Friday
Dec282012

Promised Land

Promised Land has nothing but good intentions and I agree with what it has to say. It tries to expose the dangers of natural gas drilling by highlighting a small farming community, the inhabitants of which don’t have the slightest clue about what could possibly happen if these companies begin fracking, and a small group’s battle to stop the destruction of their community. After watching the terrific Oscar nominated documentary film, Gasland, the dangers of such a procedure are clearly evident, and even with all that on its side, Promised Land still doesn’t work, exaggerating nearly everything to the point of absurdity, including the lengths a company will go to begin the fracking process.

Steve Butler (Matt Damon) works for a natural gas company. He is working hard for a promotion and his latest job entails purchasing a local farming community’s land so they can begin drilling for gas. So, along with his partner, Sue (Frances McDormand), Steve sets off to do just that. However, before he’s even aware of it, an environmental group led by a sole activist named Dustin (John Krasinski) is in town and trying to change the people’s minds with horror stories of his own experiences with his community being overtaken by natural gas companies. It quickly becomes a showdown between the two factions, each fighting to convince the town that the other is trying to manipulate them.

Such a story is ripe for drama. The natural opposition between big business and small town, between those trying to make money through destruction and those trying to save their land despite their poverty, is gripping stuff. A small environmental group spreading truth and convincing the people to stand up against the bigwigs who think they can win any argument by throwing money at it is inspiring. But that’s not the direction Promised Land takes. Without ruining it, it instead approaches its topic from a “conspiracy theory” angle, with a late movie twist that is so ridiculous it somehow manages to over-demonize the corporation it has already made quite clear is up to no good anyway. Instead of feeling anger towards the characters in the movie, the ones that are aiming to harm the innocent townsfolk who don’t know any better, your anger is directed at the filmmakers for taking what should have been a simple, effective story and pushing it so far over the top as to be self-parody.

And that phrase isn’t used lightly in this context. In one scene, when Steve is sitting at a bar, the rest of the town now suspicious of what he’s trying to do, the film comes dangerously close to the clichéd “we don’t take kindly to strangers” bar scene that has been endlessly satirized at this point. In another, the townspeople stand in unison against the proposal to begin fracking in their town, similar to how soldiers in a war movie all step forward at the same time to fight the good fight. It’s like watching a movie come to life that was written by a first time screenwriter who wanted to tackle a serious issue, but knew nothing beyond the dramatic tropes he’s seen in television soap operas. All the more surprise comes when one finds out it was actually written by Damon and Krasinski, the former of who actually won an Academy Award for his Good Will Hunting screenplay in 1997 and should know how to avoid such typical Hollywood pratfalls.

The writing, put simply, lacks subtlety. It refuses to allow viewers to form their own opinions, instead forcing you to hop onboard with its heavy-handed approach or be left behind. Just when you think Promised Land can’t pile it on anymore, it somehow does and then continues to do so until the end. It’s as if the filmmakers made a bet with themselves to see if they could make each successive scene cheesier and more laughable than the last (and if that’s the case, bravo). The only thing saving the film from complete disaster is its surprising amount of humor, including its utilization of rack focus to create a number of visual gags that are downright inspired. The problem is that humor works counterproductive to the film’s serious goal, so when the drama does come into play, it feels out of place and exaggerated. If you’re really interested in the subject, watch the aforementioned Gasland, because it doesn’t matter if you’re for or against natural gas drilling, Promised Land reeks of manipulation.

Promised Land receives 2/5

Wednesday
Nov232011

The Muppets

In the mid-50’s, the late Jim Henson introduced the world to the Muppets and for over 50 years, they’ve entertained generations of children and the young at heart. Although it debuted before my time, reruns of The Muppet Show dominated my childhood. I loved the catchy tunes, celebrity appearances and silly puppetry that show spotlighted. Memories from watching it have stuck with me over the past 25 years and I’m grateful for them. In a way, they’ve kept me forever young and even today, those episodes are just as entertaining as ever. For those not yet old enough to have memories of the Muppets, the newest movie, succinctly titled The Muppets, is a great and lively introduction, but for people like me, this is a wondrous treat. It brings back everything that was great about the Muppets and is guaranteed to leave all but the most hardened moviegoers with a smile.

The Muppets follows two brothers, Gary (Jason Segel) and Walter (a puppet played by Peter Linz). Gary is in a relationship with Mary (Amy Adams) and they are on their way to Los Angeles for their 10 year anniversary. With Mary’s approval, Gary brings Walter along so they can tour the old Muppets studio. When they get there, they find out that the studio is about to be sold to Tex Richman (Chris Cooper), an oil tycoon who is going to tear it down and drill the ground it rests on. To save it, $10 million must be raised, so Walter, along with Gary and Mary, head off to reteam the old Muppet gang, beginning with the one and only Kermit the Frog (Steve Whitmire).

Thanks to movies like Muppet Treasure Island and The Muppets’ Wizard of Oz (the less said about both, the better), the public’s interest in the Muppets began to wane, and with good reason. They hadn’t done much in recent years and what they did do wasn’t particularly memorable. So what I’m about to say may surprise you: you miss them. You might not know it yet, but you do and this movie will prove it. But it doesn’t prove it simply by being a good movie. It does it with an emotional narrative wrapped around the revival of The Muppet Show that asks whether the Muppets are still relevant and if the public still cares about them. (They are and we do.) Watching The Muppets brings back a wave of nostalgia while simultaneously keeping you in the moment and it will set your imagination wild, a feat matched in recent years only by last year’s Toy Story 3.

As with most Muppet adventures, part of the fun of The Muppets is spotting all the cameos. Some are obvious, like Emily Blunt reprising her role from The Devil Wears Prada, and others will only be noticeable to a select few, like a certain rock star who plays the part of Animal in a Muppets cover band (humorously named The Moopets). But the real pleasure comes from the witty writing, which is filled with self-referential humor that acknowledges it’s a musical movie, and the song and dance numbers themselves. The songs are fun, catchy, occasionally sad and the choreography is excellent. By the time the film gets around to singing one of the Muppets’ most cherished and recognizable songs, tears of joy will be streaming down your face.

All in all, this is a delight and any faults are minor at most. Due to the fact that many of the original puppeteers did not participate in this movie, some of the voices sound a bit off and the love story between Mary and Gary is dispensable. The real heart comes in the form of Gary’s relationship with his brother Walter and Walter’s love for the Muppets, which ultimately leads to him finding himself. The tacked on relationship seems forceful and there only for the purpose of having a pretty leading lady, though to be fair, Amy Adams is radiant in the role; the most lovable she has been since winning everybody over in 2007’s Enchanted.

In a way, The Muppets almost feels like a send off for our old friends. It does what any final installment would and brings the story full circle, taking the characters back to their roots and having them relive their magic one last time. Though I’m sure not intended, if this is the last time we see those rascally puppets on the big screen, they can be proud they went out with style. But if we’re lucky, this will be only the first in a string of many more fantastical adventures.

The Muppets receives 4.5/5

Friday
May062011

Something Borrowed

Writing a review of a romantic comedy is a slog through tedium. How many times must I type the same thing about films in the genre before one comes along and does something different? There hasn’t been a truly unique romantic comedy since 2008’s Definitely Maybe. That’s a long time to go watching the same thing over and over again and this week’s genre entry, Something Borrowed, isn’t going to bring about change. Given the genre’s track record, it was only a matter of time before a rom-com earned a spot on my worst of the year list. It appears that time has come.

Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin) and Darcy (Kate Hudson) are best friends. They have been their whole lives. However, there’s an awkwardness that pervades the room every time they’re together—Rachel is in love with Darcy’s fiancée, Dex (Colin Egglesfield), though Darcy doesn’t know it. She has had a crush on him ever since they met in law school, but her timidity kept her from telling him. Now, finally, she does and he surprisingly reciprocates the feeling. A fling between the two begins, but Dex won’t leave Darcy. So Rachel turns to Ethan (John Krasinski) for advice, to which he replies, “Make him decide.”

So what makes Something Borrowed so terrible? Oh, a host of things. Aside from its predictability, clichés and mostly unintentional laughs, nearly every character in the movie is unlikable, some even deplorable. Rachel is the central character, the one we’re supposed to root for, but for the majority of the movie, she wallows in her own self pity. She whines and complains about Darcy and Dex, but thanks to the film’s non-linear approach, we get to see that their impending marriage is almost completely her fault. Rather than step up and say something, she allows Darcy to steal Dex right out from under her. You see that her pity party was self inflicted and listening to her sob stories eventually becomes tiresome.

Part of the reason you don’t like her, however, is because she frets so much about people who shouldn’t matter to her to begin with. Why is she friends with Darcy, an obnoxious, self centered floozy who points out her flaws—from her age to her ugly shoes—at every chance she gets? She puts up with and cares about this woman when, let’s be honest, she really shouldn’t. Again, it’s a problem she herself has created.

When it comes to her romantic interest, much is the same. Remember that guy in high school you hated because he was with the girl you liked, but cheating on her with someone else? Dex personifies that guy. He tells Rachel how much he cares about and wants to be with her, but then blatantly plays cute with Darcy in front of her. He strings her along, yet she still clings to him. If Dex is that guy in high school you hated, Rachel is the girl you liked who was too stupid to realize what was happening.

The only character in this entire movie without a romantic agenda, so to speak, is Ethan. He’s the only one with some sense, essentially playing the voice of reason. He can see that Dex is stringing Rachel along and he tells her about it. Of course, being the voice of reason doesn’t mean much when that voice is carrying itself into a head as empty as Rachel’s.

I’m aware I’ve spent nearly all of this review talking about how irritating the characters are, but frankly, it’s a substantial problem. Besides, complaining about the contrivances and cheesy speeches is frivolous because they’re expected. Most everyone knows how these movies play out by now. Still, I suppose there’s an audience for this tripe, so if you don’t mind formula and don’t care about interesting characters or a meaningful story, by all means, give it a go. If your brain still works, though, I’d suggest skipping Something Borrowed. Those brain cells should be cherished, not destroyed.

Something Borrowed receives 0.5/5