Reviews by Joshua "LF"

Despite having never read the Harry Potter books, I was pretty sure what I was getting into before I watched the Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: a basic kid's fantasy with a few kid wizards get mixed up in an evil, magical, plot. And I was correct. Essentially, I got what I expected, which- in this case- isn't a bad thing, but is it unfair to have hoped for a bit more from one of the most famed film series of all time?

Harry Potter is an orphan child that is taken to Hogwarts (a school for wizards) upon being informed that he has magical abilities. Harry befriends Ron Weasely and Hermione Granger, and it isn't long until the trio discover a villainous plan to steal the Sorcerer's Stone.

As far as fantasy films go, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is pretty solid. A lot of things are going for it. The characters are likeable, the acting is good, and the story- while extremely familiar- is engaging. At the same time, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone has no small number of issues either.

The length is one of the biggest problems. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone has a two and a half hour run time, and frankly, the tale seems absurdly slight for a film of such length. Indeed, there seems to be no real middle in the story. Just an absurdly long beginning and a really fast ending. The film just kept building up to something, but ultimately there was nothing to build up to. The treasure here lays in the journey, not the destination, but it would've been nice to have a little more meat in the conclusion.

The other most notable issue is the special effects. While there are a number of effects that are pulled off quite well, the vast majority are hopelessly dated, cheap looking, and even phony at times. One's tolerance towards this may vary depending on the person. The film is entertaining enough to be enjoyed in spite of dubious effects, though they can be quite distracting at times (and downright laughable at others).

The acting is mostly good, though as the film deals with children, the acting is far from excellent. Daniel Radcliffe is respectable as Harry Potter, but there are a number of poorly delivered lines on Radcliffe's part. Emma Watson is good as Hermione Granger too, but the highlight of the children actors is Rupert Grint giving a standout performance as Ron Weasley. Richard Griffiths has a small, but highly memorable bit, as the father of a spoiled child.

The score, composed by John Williams, is appropriately magical. With a very memorable main theme, and some really excellent action music, this is a superb fantasy score.

The best thing about Harry Potter is that it creates an environment you want to return to. You want to spend more time with the characters, you want to spend more time at Hogwarts. But you also want to have something to do while you're there. And there's simply not enough going on to justify a 152 minute run time. Still, most of the film works, and there are some really good ideas here. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone isn't quite enchanting, but it does cast a rather good spell.

I suppose it might be important to note before I start this review, that I've never seen any of the Pink Panther movies before this one. This might explain why I was not as disgusted by this film as many others. The Pink Panther is not a film I can exactly recommend, but I didn't find it as horrendous as many others have.

In the film's simplistic plot, the dim-witted Inspector Jacques Clouseau is hired to discover who murdered a famous soccer coach, and who stole the famous Pink Panther diamond from said coach. However, unbeknownst to Inspector Clouseau, Chief Inspector Charles Dreyfus hired Clouseau knowing that Clouseau would be unable to solve the case. And the point of this is...well...actually, it seems there really isn't much point to hiring Clouseau and then firing him later.

The excuse the film uses is that Dreyfus, in an effort to win the Medal of Honor, tries to solve the case himself, while using Clouseau as the idiot mascot of the case. But couldn't Dreyfus have just solved the case without pointlessly hiring Clouseau as the press idiot? I know this is a children's film, but the least this film could've done is finished writing the plot!

On a more positive note, The Pink Panther manages to get a few good laughs. Some gags are really quite funny. But the problem here is that for every gag that works, there's at least one other that's painfully unfunny. Many gags fall victim to predictability, excessive overuse, and absurdly poor timing. Yes, there is laughter, but there are also many groans.

The comedy is not sophisticated by any means. Everything about this movie is stupid, but stupid can be funny, and The Pink Panther often shows us this. Slap stick, awful disguises, and silly accents flood the film. When the humor was successful, I laughed. When the humor was less successful, I groaned.

I feel that more of the gags might have worked had the rest of the characters been more intelligent. An idiot is always funnier when those surrounding the idiot are much more sensible. The problem here is that everybody in the film is just as stupid and dim-witted as Inspector Clouseau, which makes Inspector Clouseau seem less zany than he should.

There are fart jokes (of course), and there is silly dancing (of course), as these are the unfortunate staples of children's films. But much to my surprise, The Pink Panther had some very surprising sexual humor. This is a PG rated film, but some content was surprisingly risque. Had this content been in a film aimed towards adults, this might've been funny. But seeing this kind of humor in supposed children's entertainment only served to disgust me. There was also some surprising language in this film. I may not be a parent, but if I was, I would not feel comfortable letting my children watch The Pink Panther.

And yet, the film just isn't funny enough to recommend to older viewers. The Pink Panther is just too silly and immature to consistently entertain audience members older than 12. Indeed, the childish nature of The Pink Panther is more than likely to irritate most older audience members.

Steve Martin does his best in the lead. Between the exaggerated French accent and silly antics, Martin's performance is adequate, if unimpressive. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast is very weak. The weakest member of the cast is easily Kevin Kline as Chief Inspector Charles Dreyfus. He's stiff, dull, and frequently changes from his American accent, to his (very weak) French accent.

The score, composed by Christophe Beck, is fairly pedestrian. Though it benefits greatly from Henry Mancini's deliciously jazzy main theme, Christophe Beck's mediocre arrangements of theme do little to energize the score or events onscreen.

While not as painful as one could be lead to believe, The Pink Panther is simply not consistently funny enough to recommend to older viewers. At the same time, I can not- in good conscience- recommend the film to younger viewers either, due to risque material and language. In an odd attempt to please the entire audience, The Pink Panther fails to please anyone.

The Owls of Ga'Hoole is a flawed film, and it would be hard to deny that. However, like any good film, The Owls of Ga'Hoole overcomes its (many) shortcomings and provides an enjoyable and mostly engaging 97 minutes.

Soren, a naive and adventurous barn owl, has his life forever changed when he's kidnapped (along with his brother, Kludd) by henchmen of the Queen of the Pure Ones, Nyra. Soren manages to escape (along with another owl named Gylfie), though Kludd is deceived by Nyra and joins forces with the Pure Ones. Soren and Gylfie meet up with new friends, in hopes of stopping an evil plot concocted by the leader of the Pure Ones, Metal Beak.

Frankly, the story is nothing to write home about. Literally following every single fantasy cliche in the book, The Owls of Ga'Hoole is certainly predictable. And yet, Soren's quest is just interesting enough, and the characters are just likeable enough, that one can overlook the film's simplistic nature and can enjoy the film on its own terms.

The characters are relatively likeable (as previously mentioned). Though Soren is essentially like any other male fantasy lead (naive, hopeful, blindly heroic and almost eye-rollingly loyal), he grows on you as the movie continues. Glyfie is...well, uninteresting, but it's the supporting cast that really makes the film work. Digger is amusing and fun when he's onscreen, and Twilight is pompous and silly (and remarkably similar to Owl from the Winnie the Pooh films).

The action scenes are thrilling, and the animation dazzles. Some sequences are truly stunning, as the visuals continually show off.

One notable problem with the film is that it doesn't feel complete. This was obviously intended to be the start of a franchise, and the ending makes sure there's plenty of room for that. It's a bit bothersome to be given what appears to be only part of the finished story, but what's here is entertaining enough to make this less of an issue.

The voice talents are generally unremarkable. The standouts are limited to Helen Mirren as Nyra, and David Wenham as Digger. Barry Otto also has a funny little bit as The Echidna.

The score, composed by David Hirschfelder, is often glorious and triumphant. Heroic themes and softer melodies are spread throughout, creating a moderately satisfying score.

Though predictable, and a bit problematic in regards to pacing, The Owls of Ga'Hoole is still entertaining and at times, surprisingly gripping. It isn't especially memorable, nor particularly original, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a better film revolving entirely around owls.

Hitch just doesn't work. Plain and simple. The cast tries hard (for the most part), but this film just simply isn't funny. Featuring a bloated run time of nearly 2 hours, I laughed only once or twice. Yes, Hitch is that despicable kind of movie; a comedy that's not funny. And worse still, it's also absurdly predictable. Formula, formula, formula, and not a single unique character, gag, or plot point. If it wasn't for the big name cast, I might've assumed this was a made-for-TV film.

The paper-thin plot (that is stretched to the breaking point) is about a dating adviser named Alex Hitchens (though he goes by Hitch). While Hitch has matched many people up with their perfect partner, Hitch himself has not had a long-running relationship. So Hitch finally hooks up with a girl, though unfortunate events may destroy his relationship, and his reputation.

You want cheesy pick-up lines? You got it. You want slapstick? You got it. You want kicks to the groin? Heck, we've got that too. But you want laughs? Good luck buddy, nothing here but groans.

And the story is so predictable, I almost felt like I had seen this film before. This film is also ridiculously cheesy, as it tries to make the ending as perfect and happy as possible.

I haven't even mentioned the product placement, pacing issues, and some of the most clumsy dialogue I've ever heard in a romance film. I know this is a chick flick, but come on! Even the most easily moved individuals won't be able to resist a few eye rolls.

The cast, however, seems very committed. Will Smith gives it his all as Hitch, while Kevin James is very energetic as Albert Brennaman. The actors are so into their roles, we almost want to believe what they're saying is actually funny. But no amount of acting could ever fool the audience into believing this script is any good. Also, Eva Mendes is entirely bland as Hitch's love interest Sara Melas (though the character itself is fairly bland too).

Surprisingly, the score by George Fenton is pretty decent. Yes, it feels very dated. And the more sentimental bits are cliched and forgettable. But there is some really fun music and piano pieces throughout, so the score was a pleasant surprise.

As I watched Hitch, I just shook my head in amazement. Insulting doesn't even begin to describe the kind of immature "humor" is on display here. These are the kind of gags I might expect in a TV show on the Disney Channel. Why must Hollywood throw us all of this garbage and expect us to eat it and like it? I like to see some actual effort and creativity in the films I watch!

Staring at the screen in utter disgust, I began wondering how anyone could possibly find this film funny. And yet, 3 of my friends were laughing their heads off as they watched Hitch, repeating lines they found amusing (which was nearly all of them). Sigh. Looks like Hollywood wins again.

It's one loud action scene after another with Shanghai Noon, sandwiched with racist Asian jokes and lots of unfunny dialogue. When the occasional gag is funny, it's worth a good chuckle,. But these gags don't come nearly often enough, which is unfortunate because despite a less than intriguing plot, the two leads (Owen Wilson and Jackie Chan) really give it their all in this film, though it's not enough to save it.

Chon Wang, an imperial guard from China, travels to America in order to rescue Princess Pei-Pei, whom has been kidnapped and is being held for ransom. Wang gets caught up in a train robbery, which through a strange series of events, Wang becomes friends with outlaw Roy O'Bannon, whom are now both determined to rescue the princess.

There are loads of action scenes, but despite excellent choreography, they never come across as more than loud and dull. These scenes never generate tension, or do anything particularly unique.

The comedy itself is hardly sophisticated, and while there are a number of amusing lines, there aren't nearly enough to top the gags that fall flat.

The characters are generally weak. While Chon Wang and Roy O'Bannon have great chemistry and a surprisingly well done character arc, Roy O'Bannon is undeveloped. In his first couple scenes, Roy seems to be a very timid robber, but this is not referred to for the rest of the film. The villain, Lo Fong, has no personality at all.

The cast is surprisingly devoted. Jackie Chan portrays a perfect Asian stereotype. Yes, the portrayal might be a wee bit offensive, but no one can deny the talent in this role. Owen Wilson also gives a lot of energy into his role. The rest of the cast, however, is generally forgettable.

The score by Randy Edelman attempts to combine Western and Asian music, but the result is clumsy and awkward. The occasional rock elements and heavy percussion don't help much.

Shanghai Noon could be somebody's nightmare. It wasn't quite such an unpleasant experience for me, but it was far from positive. Often dull, often racist, and a lack of truly riotous humor makes for a long 2 hours. This isn't the train wreck it could've been, but that's hardly high praise.

For whatever reason, the Muppet films simply do not click with me. Granted, I think The Muppets Take Manhattan and the 2011 reboot are near masterpieces, but I've found myself relatively bored with the rest of the Muppet films. The Great Muppet Caper is a bit of a mixed bag for me. While the last 40 minutes or so is essentially devoid of any sort of laughter or entertainment, there are some parts in the first hour that are very funny. And yet the laughs were few, and while there were plenty of smiles, even a hesitant recommendation may not be hesitant enough.

The weirdly complicated plot involves Kermit, Fozzy, and Gonzo placed in charge of investigating a jewelry robbery (as they are newspaper reporters). The jewelry was stolen from Lady Holiday, whom Kermit wishes to interview, though due to an unfortunate mix-up, Kermit mistakes Miss Piggy for Lady Holiday, leading up to several complications. In addition, another jewelry thief takes place, and Miss Piggy is framed!

There's more to the plot than that, but most other details are unnecessary. And that's one of the problems with this film; unnecessary detail. The movie is way too busy. Nicky Holiday (Lady Holiday's brother) develops feelings for Miss Piggy, but this adds absolutely nothing to the story. Many other plot threads like this are in this film, and many of them should've been cut.

I've already mentioned that the last 40 minutes are dull, and believe me; they are an absolute snooze fest. And they're also completely nonsensical. The convoluted plot suddenly takes a sharp tune from the mildly serious, to an "anything goes" kind of finish. It's not particularly satisfying if you had to ask.

And then we have the breaking of the fourth wall which happens far too much. Personally, I find it funny when a film breaks the fourth wall, but this is a kind of humor that's much better in moderation. The fact that the fourth wall is broken over half a dozen times before the opening credits are over should tell you something about the over-use of this kind of humor.

And yet, despite these flaws, there are times when The Great Muppet Caper is pretty fun. John Cleese and Joan Sanderson have arguably the funniest scene in the film portraying a British elderly couple at breakfast having a deliciously droll and satirical conversation that's nearly impossible not to smile during. Jack Warden also gets a funny cameo as a newspaper editor, as does Robert Morley as a British Gentlemen.

Of course, there are a number of memorable lines as well, and the technical aspect of many scenes is quite astounding.

The musical numbers are certainly a mixed bag. "Hey, a Movie," is forgettable and the onscreen events are chaotic and cluttered. "Happiness Hotel" is an extremely clever and upbeat song, and one of the best songs in the film (it's also very well choreographed). "The First Time it Happens" is the standout of the film, with catchy lyrics, and great choreography. And lastly, "Couldn't We Ride" is immensely dull, despite some nifty onscreen special effects.

Charles Grodin as Nicky Holiday is forgettable, but then again, so is the character. Diana Rigg gets some great lines as Lady Holiday, and is easily the standout of the (admittedly small) human cast.

The score, composed by Joe Raposo, is a simple parody score. Like most of the Muppet scores, the music works fine for the film, but it's not likely to hold up well when taken away from it.

Falling squarely in the middle of the Muppet films, The Great Muppet Caper has some amusing scenes, but dull stretches, a convoluted plot, and fourth wall joke overkill, stops it from achieving a higher rating. Still, I came away from the film humming one or two of the songs, and recalling some funny cameos, so I suppose The Great Muppet Caper succeeds to at least some extent.

I can't say I didn't enjoy Despicable Me 2 because I did, in fact, have a good time watching it. The gags were funny enough, the visuals are nice enough, and the experience was pleasant overall. But at the same time, I couldn't help but feel a little let-down considering this is the much anticipated sequel to the surprisingly funny Despicable Me. It just seems a little weak, even rushed, but I can't deny it's entertainment value and easy appeal that- if nothing else- provides a relatively amusing, if unspectacular 98 minutes.

The paper-thin plot features Gru, adapting to the life of being a father, when out of the blue, he is approached by an agent of the AVL (Anti Villains League) named Lucy Wilde, who wants Gru's help in capturing the villain responsible for stealing a very dangerous chemical.

Despicable Me 2 is a welcome return to lovable characters, but it seems that many of them really don't know what to do. Dr. Nefario leaves Gru in order to go back to evil, but this serves no real purpose in the story, nor does it carry any emotional weight. It seems that since he has nothing to do in this story, the filmmakers might as well just get rid of him. Margo develops a relationship with a boy that goes absolutely no where, and the other two girls basically just stand around and look cute for the entirety of the film.

This isn't as big a problem as it might have been, however, because no matter what these characters are doing, it's funny. That's certainly no excuse for sloppy screen-writing, but it eases the pain a bit.

On the other hand, characters like Fred and Gru's mother from the first film only appear for a few seconds at the end in non-speaking roles. Not only do they serve no purpose in this film, but they also remind us of how funny they were in the original, which makes their lack of presence in this film noticeable and disappointing.

On the subject of characters, we have a couple new ones. Lucy Wilde, portrayed by Kristen Wiig, is essentially the same character Wiig plays in The Looney Tunes Show (though this isn't much of a problem as the character is reasonably funny). Eduardo Perez is worth a few laughs (especially during his dance number, a memorable highlight of the film), and Ken Jeong has a small but amusing bit as a hair stylist.

The script, while a bit uneven, is funny- sometimes very funny- but ultimately can't match that of the original. The gags come frequently enough, and there are many laughs to be had, but one can't help but shake the feeling that there should be more laughs. One of the funniest things about the original was it's villain-related satire humor, and sadly, that's almost entirely gone in this sequel.

The voice cast is adequate. Steve Carrel is just as funny and lovable as Gru as he was in the first film. Kristen Wiig is amusing as Lucy Wilde, and Benjamin Bratt (replacing Al Pacino who dropped out less than two months before the film's release date) is solid as Eduardo Perez.

The animation in the original film was simplistic, but worked for the film. And while the animation has significantly improved in the sequel, it's still not as consistently stunning as that of Pixar, Disney or even Dreamworks. Still, it looks nice enough, and the bold colors are appealing.

While Despicable Me 2 is, in many respects, a disappointment, it's also a reasonably fun film with plenty of laughs to go around. It doesn't match the original (or even come especially close), but it's easy enough to like, and those minions alone are worth the price of admission.

After a messy production period, various re-shoots, and a 190 million dollar budget- exceeding the original 125 million price tag- World War Z had been expected to flop both critically and financially. Much to the surprise of most, World War Z did moderately well with critics and performed well at box office.

As for me personally, I found it pretty difficult to even sit still during the film as it was a truly nerve-wracking experience. It was not only suspenseful, it was stressful (and certainly a little terrifying at times).

Needless to say, I had a great time.

World War Z imagines what would happen if a zombie outbreak occurred on the earth, and believe me, it ain't pretty. Humans are infected as soon as they are bitten by one of the undead, and then they become zombies too. Gerry Lane is forced to assist the UN and find a way to stop the zombies in order to secure his family's safety. From this point on, it's one exciting zombie scene after another.

Suspenseful doesn't even begin to describe the tension and fear within this film. It's frightening at times, and certainly startling (I can admit to jumping at a number of occasions), and I was most certainly at the edge of my seat for most of the run-time. Indeed, I haven't seen a film this suspenseful at the cinema since last year's The Hunger Games. In fact, this is even more so.

In a film as suspenseful as this one, you tend to really appreciate those small victories that occur throughout the movie, just as the characters do themselves. They give you a chance to relax before the next thrilling action scene.

And the action scenes never really feel predictable or tired. Quite the opposite. Each nail-biting zombie scene is often eclipsed by the next one, causing each new action bit to be bigger and better than the last. One might expect World War Z to eventually falter as a result (and I suppose one could argue that it does at the end, though I'll get to that), but honestly, I don't recall ever thinking to myself "Gee, this scene's pretty weak compared to the last one." I was in far, far too much suspense to even give that sort of opinion a second though. There was not a single action scene in this film where I felt I could relax, and in a film like this, that can only be counted as a strength.

The zombies are handled well. Some are bound to be put off by the fact that these zombies are fast (as opposed to the slower-moving beasts we're used to seeing), but they're grotesque and terrifying, making them seem immensely formidable. And the family aspect adds depth (though I couldn't help but feel a little less compassion for Gerry's wife Karin after she does something absurdly stupid in one of the earlier action scenes).

The one thing in World War Z, though, that just doesn't reach the standard the film has set for itself, is at the end. I will not spoil the events that occur at the end, but let's just say that somebody gets incredibly, eye-rollingly lucky.

The acting is good all round, but as one might expect, Brad Pitt is the stand-out here. Pitt perfectly displays his care for his family, and we see the stress in his face throughout the film. One could argue that his character is a wee bit bland (indeed, many characters are decidedly undeveloped), but it's hard to give things like that any kind of thought when you're so engaged with the events onscreen.

The score is composed by Marco Beltrami. Supposedly, World War Z received an R rating from the MPAA entirely because of Beltrami's brutal score, so the music had to be toned down to make the cut to PG-13. Still, one needn't be deceived into thinking that the score is tame as a result of this. It still provides the suspense, the emotion, and occasionally the triumph, displayed in the film. The main theme (often performed with a piano and various synthesizers) is not a theme I would've expected to work in a film like this, but work it does, and though it isn't especially memorable, it's at least different.

Truly gripping, and deliciously terrifying, World War Z never loses your attention. I could hardly take my eyes of the screen once the film started. In many respects, World War Z reminds me distinctly of I Am Legend. Both had strong male leads, both were portraying family men, and both involved fighting infected humans at some point in the near future. So while World War Z isn't quite as original or daring as I Am Legend, the result is still the same: A highly suspenseful, and completely absorbing little film.

World War Z is not a film I would necessarily return to (I don't think I could ever subject myself to so much suspense in the same film twice), but World War Z does exactly what a film should do, and that is entertain. And believe me; there is never a dull moment in World War Z.

Jack Reacher baffled me. This has nothing to do with the plot being complicated (as it's insulting to the intellect) or a twist I didn't see coming (as any twists in this film can be seen from a mile away). Jack Reacher baffled me because it was moderately successful at box office, moderately successful with critics, and moderately successful with audience members. The fact that this head-scratchingly terrible film has had even the slightest success with, well, anyone simply confounds me.

A man named James Barr is accused of shooting five random citizens. Jack Reacher, a relatively unknown status confronts Barr's attorney, Helen Rodin (the last name sounds remarkably like "rodent" in the film), and convinces her to examine the evidence before attempting to defend Barr. In the meantime, Reacher is in charge of...I don't really know...investigating? The problem is, the plot is decidedly muddled. They serve little purpose other than to loosely string action scenes and weak one liners together to assemble a "film."

It is impossible for me to discuss every little flaw in this film, so I will only cover the most important bits.

For one, the film is plagued with predictability. Countless cliches and a familiar story means few (if any) surprising events occur. There is a twist or two in the film (after all, this is a mystery film, if a poorly conceived one), but I saw them coming long before they actually occurred.

The back-stories behind the shooter victims represent some of the most emotionally manipulative content I've ever seen in a film. I was actually insulted that the audience was supposed to be moved by these stories as they are hopelessly cliched and melodramatic.

I can't remember the last time I saw a film where I was so uninterested in the events on screen, and so unattached to the characters. The story is boring, the characters have no personality. Was any actual effort put into any part of this film? Even the actual scenes are often nonsensical and cheap looking. They lack suspense, and many of them don't seem to fit into the movie very well (the latter point is most noticeable in one of the most boring and poorly made car chases I've ever seen).

Jack Reacher also suffers from being way too much like a kid's film. Seriously. Numerous kicks in the crotch, bumbling henchmen, and quite a bit of slapstick eat away at the screen time. And speaking of screen time, I should mention that this film is over 2 hours long, and every minute seems like an eternity.

Part of the boredom is a result of terrible dialogue. It is drop dead boring, and there's a lot of it. And when the dialogue isn't boring, it's laughably terrible. Did someone really get PAID to write this script?

And then the acting, which is extremely weak. Tom Cruise delivers no energy to his performance as Jack Reacher, and Rosamund Pike as Helen Rodin does an excellent job at portraying a plank of wood. Seriously, I don't think she changed her facial expression a single time in this film. The rest of the cast is just as bad, and the performances are never among sub-par.

The score, composed by Joe Kraemer, can't even be defined as music. I don't recall a single moment in the film where the score had an actual melody. The score is also pretty sparse, as a lot of scenes don't have any music (though some scenes desperately needed some). It doesn't help that the little music that's there often sounds like Howard Shore's much better score for Hugo.

I have hardly scratched the surface of everything I hated about this film. Truly insulting in every respect, this is an unwatchably bad film. I almost want to say that it's essentially a made-for-TV thriller, except that's an insult to made-for-TV films and thrillers. Aside from one amusing line about the antics of cops (which provided one meager chuckle), Jack Reacher is a complete waste of time and a shocking mess.

Almost 13 years ago, I, for the first time, stepped into a movie theater and saw the film, Monsters Inc. I scarcely remember the experience itself, but having seen the movie so many times since, the film has stayed with me. Personally, I think Monsters Inc. is the definition of a perfect film. It's one of the funniest and most original films I've ever seen, has one of the best movie endings (or quite possibly the best) I've ever witnessed, and I'll admit, I've never seen the film once without shedding a tear at some point or another.

Sadly, after being nominated for the first ever Academy Award for Best Animated Film, it lost to Dreamworks' Shrek, a decision that I think everyone is trying their best to forget. Depending on who you talk to, Monsters Inc. is considered one of Pixar's best films, or one of Pixar's more "eh" productions. Being sandwiched inbetween Toy Story 2 and Finding Nemo might have something to do with the latter reaction.

At any rate, I can't deny the impact Monsters Inc. has had on me (or even Pixar in general), so my expectations walking into Monsters University were understandably high. The verdict? It's funny. It's very funny. And I had a great time watching it. But is it as good as the original? Of course not; not even close. It's got moments of brilliance, and it's got moments of subtle poignancy. It may not be able to stack up with many of the other Pixar films, but it certainly possesses that Pixar magic that's kept me coming back for years.

For the benefit of those of you that have not yet seen the original (which you should certainly see as soon as possible), I'll explain the setting. In the world of monsters, everything is powered by human screams. Monsters enter the human world, scare sleeping children, and use their screams to power the monster world. Mike Wazowski, a green one-eyed monster, has dreamed of being a scarer all his life. The reality of this dream begins to form when Mike is accepted into Monsters University; the best scaring college around. Once there, Mike meets Sulley, the son of a much-respected scarer, who is considered the cool guy around campus. Put simply, the two don't get along very well. However, through a series of circumstances, Sulley and Mike are forced to work together and join a fraternity of losers in hopes of winning the annual "Scare Games" and proving to Dean Hardscrabble that they are capable of being scarers.

Monsters University is a riot. In the first 5 minutes Mike gets to college, the gags are coming at the audience in rapid succession. After that first 5 minutes, the film attempts to compose itself and begin telling the story, but with so much potential for humorous stereotypes and visuals gags, Monsters University just can't help itself. Have no fear, the story remains focused, but the numerous sight gags and hilarious dialogue definitely seems to be the priority here, which is not necessarily a bad thing at all.

The one odd thing I did notice about the humor, though, was that so little of it came from Mike. In the original, Sulley was the main focus, whilst Mike got away with the funniest dialogue. With Mike becoming more of the main character, one would expect the humor to be even more focused on Mike. And yet, I recall laughing considerably less at Mike as opposed to the rest of the cast. And this has nothing to do with Mike having any humorous lines that fall flat, it has more to do with Mike having few humorous lines, at least in comparison to the original.

This is not a major issue when one considers how funny the film is already. But Mike's hilarious antics and interactions with the other characters was one of many great things about Monsters Inc. With that missing, one feels just a wee bit let down. I do feel, however, that it's important to note that this isn't something I thought of until after the movie was over. The gags come often enough that I didn't have time to think of why I wasn't laughing at Mike as much as the other characters, which once again, perhaps limits the importance of this oversight.

Is the film as touching as other Pixar films? Of course not. But let it be known that it does have a few meaningful moments. I doubt that Monsters University will water many eyes -even I, who has, admittedly, teared up during at least 10 of the 14 Pixar films to date, never so much as sniffled- but there is a heart among the laughs.

The film runs at a perfect length of 104 minutes. It's not so long that one will be checking their watch, nor is it so short that the fun seems to end so soon.

Pixar takes full advantage of the film's "prequel" status by packing in as much foreshadowing and cameos as they could fit. Some hints at the events of the original are obvious. Some are a little more subtle. I suspect that many references to the original still remain unseen by myself. As if I needed another reason to see the film again. Especially noteworthy in this area of the film is Randall Boggs, the antagonist of the original, whose role in this film has been kept quite a secret in the trailers. The events of this film sets up Randall's motives in the next film beautifully. Also, watch for 3 character cameos in the last 10 minutes. They provide some of the biggest laughs in the film.

The voice cast is excellent, though maybe just a hair weaker than in most Pixar films. Billy Crystal, John Goodman and Steve Buscemi all reprise their roles as Mike, Sulley, and Randall respectively. Helen Mirren is menacing as Dean Hardscrabble, and the Oozma Kappa fraternity cast (Joel Murray, Peter Sohn, Charlie Day, David Foley, and Sean Hayes) are hilarious. Pixar regular Bonnie Hunt gets a small role as a kindergarten teacher. And while John Ratzenberger's cameo is hilarious, I'd love to see him in a bigger role again (his last three roles in a Pixar film have a combined total of four lines).

The animation, is gorgeous, though it's not quite as photo-realistic was what we witnessed in last year's Brave. It's still crammed with detail and bright colors, though, making it a visual treat.

Randy Newman composes his seventh score for a Pixar film. The score is good fun, and a particularly fun jazz track (which appears twice in the film, as well as in many of the trailers) is a toe-tapping standout. Just about every theme from the original film returns, though for some strange reason, the main theme of original ("If I Didn't Have You") is completely omitted. In fact, other than the Monsters University Anthem (which makes one appearance, features no music, and lasts about 20 seconds), Randy Newman does not a pen a new song for this film, which is immensely disappointing.

Flaws aside, I loved this film. While many would beg to differ, Pixar has not made a bad film in my eyes (excluding a couple short films), and this is no exception. Hilarious, touching, and visually impressive, Monsters University is more than worth a trip to the theater. Sure Monsters University isn't as excellent as Monsters Inc. (it's not as funny, and not as touching by a long shot), but it's not really trying to be. Monsters University's goal is to be a very funny film, at which it succeeds with flying colors.

Note: As is typical of a Pixar film, Monsters University is a preceded by a short film, this one is entitled, The Blue Umbrella. In addition to containing some of the most stunning animation I've ever seen, it's also charming and clever, so make sure you arrive at the theater early.