J-Severe

Most everyone knows of the recent rise of Walt Disney Animation Studios. After being stuck in a rut for the better part of the 2000s, the studio picked itself back up again and began delivering instant classics, beginning with 2009's The Princess and the Frog, a traditionally-animated princess flick that harked back to what Disney started with in the first place, followed by 2010's Tangled, a much more well-done CG princess movie, 2011's Winnie the Pooh, which was funny, simple, and made many feel like a child again, and lastly 2012's Wreck-It Ralph, the video game-centric picture I consider dear to my heart because of its subject matter. This year, WDAS brings us Frozen, and the question is, does it continue their trait of critically acclaimed 'toons?

GET A HORSE!
Before we get to that, let’s talk about the subject that precedes it in theaters, which is Get a Horse, a Mickey Mouse short using vintage voice acting which has been marketed as a black-and-white cartoon in the vein of Walt Disne'’s 1920s works. Without giving any too much, I must say that I really liked the way this unfolded. It's very fun to watch, beautifully animated, and extremely creative in the way it goes about things as it moves through its seven-minute run time. It compliments Frozen very well, and I can say I enjoyed even more than last year's Paperman.

Back to the film, the movie’s plot is partially inspired by Hans Christian Anderson’s fairy tale, "The Snow Queen." After Princess Elsa (Idina Menzel) accidentally reveals that she has the power to manipulate ice and snow, she runs away from her home kingdom and her sister Anna (Kristen Bell), recently bethroned to Prince Hans (Santino Fontana), must go on a journey to bring her back, with the help of some friends along the way – ice trader Kristoff (Jonathan Groff), his reindeer Sven, and snowman Olaf (Josh Gad).

For the most part, Frozen's script is pretty good. One of the things I like most about it is that it does a good job of subverting the typical Disney tropes. Neither of the two female leads end up hitched up with a guy in the end, and the villain doesn’t die (though I was slightly disappointed with the latter, as I was looking forward to seeing how the bad guy would get killed off after how well deaths were done in Frog, Tangled, and Ralph). When the movie introduced the "you need love to solve x problem" plot line, I mentally groaned, thinking "Come on Disney, you can do better than this," and was pleasantly surprised with how it all turned out. It also pokes fun at the "wanting to marry someone in one day" trope, almost deliciously insulting the likes of Snow White and Sleeping Beauty in its wake. The stakes aren’t that high in the climax, nor is the villain really threatening (a let-down after how great Ralph was in this regard) but it does provide some good emotional material, so it’s alright.

Regarding the characters, Anna is probably the most likable and relatable Disney Princess yet. Kind, outgoing, never wanting to give up on others, and a lover of chocolate, she really is someone you want to root for and can find yourself bonding with. Elsa is the best in the film; every scene she’s in is great and she provides most of the emotional backbone. From the ads, many predicted Olaf to be annoying, but it’s the exact opposite. He’s hilarious, adorable, and lovable; one of the best sidekick characters in a Disney movie in a long time. There’s not much to say about Kristoff other than that he’s likeable and gets the job done, and Hans... well you'll see. Alan Tudyk is also enjoyable as the Duke of Weselton, and I wouldn’t mind if Tudyk becomes WDAS's John Ratzenberger from this point on considering he also had a major role in their previous movie.

Being a musical, there are a good amount of songs, improving upon the thing I thought Tangled was lacking in. The problem though, is that that doesn't necessarily mean all of the songs are fantastic. Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez do a good job with the soundtrack, with their works being serviceable in the movie itself but not necessarily being memorable enough so that you'd stay humming them days after seeing it. The only song I’d say actually is is "Let It Go," which is spectacular and absolutely stands up there with the songs from the Disney Renaissance. With great lyrics and a masterful performance by Menzel coupled with breathtaking animation, its scene in the movie is my favorite and very much a showstopper like "A Whole New World" in Aladdin or I See the Light in Tangled, doing an excellent job of illustrating Elsa’s change from helpless girl who has to keep her magic concealed to one who’s free and can do whatever she wants. Following this are "Do You Want to Build a Snowman?" and "For the First Time in Forever," which are sweet, and "Vuelie," a previously-existing Norwegian song which began the flick excellently.

Frozen may also be one of the best looking CG films I’ve ever seen. Tangled did spectacular things with its oil painting-esque appearance which produced beautiful results, but there’s something about Frozen's style that I enjoy more. There are plenty of neat effects and details, from the shiny snow to the amazing ice to the art direction and use of colors at certain points. It’s very visually pleasing.

Prior to release, some reviewers called Frozen the best Disney movie since the likes of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. Is that true? Not at all, but Frozen is pretty good in its own right. It’s not a masterpiece, but it’s a grand effort on WDAS’s part; a majestically crafted flick with stupendous animation, pleasing songs, and a good message. It’s well worth seeing, and if you haven't yet, it'll be a joy to get wrapped up in the world of Frozen.

Score: 8/10 (yay, new non-alphebetic scoring system!)

(NOTE: I ended up seeing this in 3D, since it was my brother’s birthday and he wanted to. I’m glad we did, since it was actually pretty cool. The feature was excellent in Get a Horse!, which was worth the extra price just for the pop-out moments. It wasn’t quite as profound in Frozen, but it was still nice to have and added some roundness and depth to the picture. If you don’t have a thing against wearing glasses for almost two hours, I’d recommend seeing it in this).

Let's start off with a history lesson (sorry to make you learn stuff during the summer!). Pixar Animation Studios is known for making great movies that are enioyable for both kids and adults; well-crafted and often thought-provoking films with lovable characters that light up the box office and gain critical acclaim. Well, that is, up until about 2011, with the controversial "Cars 2" that landed a disappointing 39% on Rotten Tomatoes, with some regarding it as the end of Pixar's streak. The following year we got "Brave", which got better reviews but was still regarding as lacking by several.

But before these two came out, "Toy Story 3" was released, which made over a billion bucks and is currently the highest-grossing animated film of all time. It was then that Pixar discovered the power of nostalgia, and Disney greenlit "Monsters University", the prequel to 2001's "Monsters, Inc." It came out about a month and a half ago, on June 21, and I've finally gotten around to seeing it. Is it a hit, or is it a disappointing flick? I'll get to that, but first let's talk about:

THE BLUE UMBRELLA
Pixar has a tradition of including a short film before their main features, which are always a treat to see. This one follows a blue umbrella who wants to be with a red umbrella, but circumstances keep blowing them apart. It's a nice little love story, with good music and beautiful visuals (some of the most realistic-looking computer animation I've ever seen), even if it's a bit creepy because of the way some of the inanimate objects are given facial features.

Anyway, the feature presentation, which sadly doesn't start with Mike and Sully recounting the story to a now-teenage Boo, focuses on Monsters University alumni Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) and James P. Sullivan (John Goodman). Mike's the guy who's had to work really hard to get into the college since he's not exact scary material, while Sully got in easy because he comes from a family of frightening creatures, which creates a rift between the two and burdens a rivalry, which, as you should know if you've seen the original movie, ends up blossoming into a friendship. And somewhere in there, they join a fraternity called Oozma Kappa and must turn its looked-down-upon members into respectable beings.

Rounding out the principle cast is Steve Buscemi as Randall Boggs, who gets a delightful transformation throughout the film, Helen Mirren as Dean Abigail Hardscrabble, the jerky and somewhat badarse authority figure, and the Oozma Kappa members, Squishy (Peter Sohn), the token character who you just want to hug, Don (Joel Murray), the eldest member, Art (Charlie Day), and Terri and Terry (Sean Hayes and Dave Foley), the two-headed member of the gang.

The film itself is relatively good. It has a strong start, and though it drags a bit during the middle, it picks up with a fantastic and engaging third act which contains some fantastic "Monsters, Inc." fanservice. It also manages to subvert a bunch of tropes, cleverly dodging several clichés and taking interesting turns I didn't expect. One of the things I liked most about it was that it had a right balance of humor, excitement, and heart. Whereas "Cars 2" had too much excitement and not enough heart and "Brave" tried too much to be a tear-jerker with an odd sense of humor (still can't get over them nudity jokes), "Monsters University" is a good mix, with some funny stuff, exciting material, and much heart at the appropriate times. It's probably for this reason that I enjoyed it before than the other two (or at least, on first viewing) and that I think it's a fine Pixar flick, if not up to par with some of their earlier installments.

Onto some more of the more technical things, the film looks great visually, though that pretty much comes with the territory being a Pixar movie and all. Though I didn't lick my lips in hunger like with "The Blue Umbrella", it still looks very nice and has some beautiful shots. The visual upgrade to the characters and the settings, like with "Toy Story 3", makes them look mildly more realistic what with all the shading and stuff but still keeps their cartoony appearances intact. The score, composed by Randy Newman, is serviceable, with some nice tunes packed but nothing really outstanding, outside of the credits theme. Unfortunately, there is no new rendition of "If I Didn't Have You."

In short, "Monsters University" is another good Pixar offering and probably the best family-oriented movie in theaters this summer (miles above "The Smurfs 2", no doubt). If you're looking for a solid G-rated movie about college, this is your film.

Score: B+

Pro-tip: There's also a post-credits stinger that's pretty hilarious. Don't miss it!

"Man of Steel" and I have quite a history. I've followed the movie for a long time, ever since it was in the early development stages and have been eagerly anticipating it for years. After all, it looked like a recipe for success. It was being directed by Zack Snyder, a man known for having great visuals in his films, but lacking stories, which wasn't a problem since it was being written by David Goyer who co-wrote "The Dark Knight", which has been hailed as one of the greatest superhero movies of all time (though I haven't actually seen it in its entirety so I don't know if that's true).  Plus, with modern special effects, the movie would be able to achieve things which couldn't be done in the previous Superman film series that it would reboot. When trailers and commercials came out, my hype was at immeasurable levels. I believed it would be the superhero movie to end all superhero movies, the must-see film of the summer. Then the reviews came, and my excitement got put in its place.

It's pretty much known now that "Man of Steel" is something of a decisive film. It has a "56%" rotten rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Some love it. Some hate it. Me? For the most part, I think it's good. It takes awhile for the film to find its footing, but for the most part it's okay. Nothing great, nothing extraordinary. But when the movie gets stuff right, it gets it REALLY right, providing some amazing and breathtaking scenes. The scene where Superman tests out his flying is great, and the final act in which we get Supes beating up the baddies provides some of the best visual effects and exhilarating action I've ever seen. Heck, it even beats "The Avengers"'s alien invasion sequence. There I said it.

First off, the plot. It's basically the first "Superman" movie with a bit of "Superman II." You have the typical origin story – Krypton is about to blow up so Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and Lara Lor-Van (Ayelet Zurer) send their son, Kal-El to Earth, where he's adopted by Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha Kent (Diane Lane), who raise him as Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) and he must learn to live in the world with his awesome superpowers while not letting anyone know he actually has them. Then everything goes down the pooper when ex-Kryptonians General Zod (Michael Shannon), Faora (Antje Traue), and their band of merry men come to Earth to look for Kal-El and enact their evil plans. Nothing unusual here.

The cast does pretty well in their roles. Cavill is good as Supes and you can't even tell the actor is actually British. Amy Adams plays Lois Lane and, though it took awhile for me to get used to some of the things she says since she's in a PG-13 movie in this and I've only seen her previous in Disney's "Enchanted" and "The Muppets", she does a bang-up job as the curious and cocky reporter. Shannon, for the most part, is a fine Zod, though he hams it up a bit and has a couple of cool yet silly lines which don't really fit in the movie since it's trying to be realistic (as realistic as a film like this can be) and would be better fitting for a Saturday-morning cartoon. Most of the internet seems to have an infatuation with Traue as Faora for some reason, but I thought she did serviceable.

The music for this movie is something else. It's scored by Hans Zimmer, and while his songs don't reach the height of John Williams' iconic pieces (though who can really touch him?), his work is fantastic and they truly add something to the already epic scenes the film provides. Speaking of epic scenes, the action sequences in "Man of Steel" are DELICIOUS. With a budget of $225 million, the movie is expensive, and every penny shows up on screen. This is where it shines.  I was on the edge of my seat the entire time, watching as Supes, Zod, and Faora punched each other through buildings, causing massive destruction and CG explosions in their wake in ways that the makers of the 70s/80s films could only imagine. The final battle especially was the best – I had a big grin on my face the entire time, what with the dramatic camera angles, booming score, and heart-pounding violence providing a much entertaining experience. And it ends with something rather controversial – not as controversial as Iron Man 3's twist, mind you, but something that'll probably irritate the hardcore comic fans out there. Nevertheless, I'd say the last act of the movie is probably worth seeing the whole thing for.

Might seem like I'm praising it a bit much, but "Man of Steel" does have its faults. The movie didn't really click with me until the action started, so up until then it sort of just trudged, and wasn't particularly engaging, so I can understand why some may not have liked it. Likewise, it has some pacing problems, and it overly relies on flashbacks instead of showing things chronologically. Additionally, the trailer seemed to hint that the movie had some emotional stuff going on, but that's not so. There's a tear-jerker scene in there, but other than that, there's not really much weight to carry the film. So in the end you don't really end up caring deeply about the characters nor do you really feel bad about Metropolis getting decimated and all.

Is "Man of Steel" bad? No. Is it great? No. It's somewhere in the middle. It's a summer blockbuster that does the job. It's not an all-around perfect movie, but it's fun, it'll provide a good time, and it'll hopefully make enough money so we finally get a Justice League film, and that's pretty much all it needs to do.

Score: B-

In the film industry, people like to believe that if a series has been going good for two installments, its third entry will come along, be bad, and mess everything up. Granted, I've only seen this in the Shrek franchise, but apparently it's happened quite a bit. Of course, once in awhile, there comes a movie which shatters this theory by being great – a recent example of this being 2010's Toy Story 3. Iron Man 3 is one of those movies too.

Iron Man was the first movie to come out of Marvel Studios as part of their Cinematic Universe, whose goal was to take a bunch of superheroes, make some films out of them, and then unite them in one big action-packed flick. That goal was accomplished one year ago today with the release of "The Avengers," which went on to become the third highest grossing film of all time. Now we're in Phase II of the franchise – does IM3 hold its own against Avengers, or does it fails to live up to the hype of its precursor? The answer? The first one.

If you restrict IM3 to comparison with just its mini-series, it goes without saying that it's the best in the trilogy. Its prequel, Iron Man 2, in all honestly, wasn't that great… Not terrible by any means, but it didn't touch the first Iron Man, which was a breath of fresh air in the superhero genre. Iron Man 3 improves upon IM2 in every angle – better villain, better action, better humor, better everything. It even surpasses the initial entry, mostly thanks to new director Shane Black, who gives previous director Jon Favreau a run for his money.

IM3 is basically about Tony Stark wanting to get revenge on the Mandarin, mainly for doing a bunch of really mean terrorist stuff, like blowing up his swanky home in Malibu. Or at least, this is how it is at first, as the movie takes so many twists and turns during the course of itself that it's almost a different thing entirely at the end. This isn't a complaint though, the movie does start off kind of weak – and I was beginning to wonder if it had a 78% on Rotten Tomatoes for a reason – but it ramps up quickly, and it put me on the edge of my seat near its conclusion.

Iron Man 3 seems a lot more lenient on laughs than the first two Iron Men, but when it gets its comedy done right, it is done excellently. It has the best action in the series, and definitely the superior final battle sequence. While in Iron Men 1 & 2, they didn't last long and weren't particularly gripping, 3's final fight takes a note from The Avengers, as it's on a much bigger scale, is of a thankfully longer duration, and it might even make you nearly shed a tear. Of course, it doesn't feature a team of superheroes battling aliens all over New York City, but it's very much on par with Avengers', standing toe to toe with it, even if it doesn't quite eclipse it.

The supporting characters are great as well. With better material to act from, Don Cheadle shines as James Rhodey, and Gwyneth Paltrow is still great as Pepper Potts. Ty Simpkins certainly caught my attention as Harley, the first majorly featured kid in the series, and Ben Keighley does a hilarious job as the Mandarin. As usual, Robert Downey, Jr. continues to be the best thing about the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

If you have a chance to go see Iron Man 3, do so, it's a great way to kick off the summer blockbuster season. Oh, and in case you didn't know, yes there's a post-credits sequence, and it's a real treat.

Score: A

I first discovered "Wreck-It Ralph" whilst reading the Wikipedia page for the list of theatrically released Disney animated features. Back then, it was called "Reboot Ralph." I didn't care for it all - I thought the title was weird and I wanted it to get out of the way so we'd be closer to that Mickey Mouse movie that was in production (and still IS in production). Fast forward to some months ago. I caught the first whiff of the film in its current form - "Wreck-It Ralph", and was entranced by its inclusion of well-known video game characters and various references to games as, in case you didn't know, I'm a pretty big video game fan. Closer and closer to its release, my hype for it rose to critical levels; I fell in love with the film's universe and characters, and I shrieked at every new clip and commercial released. Finally the day came where it was finally thrown into theaters -- I saw it the day after that.

So earlier today, I went over to the cheapest movie theater nearby. In a situation similar to that of my Muppets viewage last year, the room was packed full of fellow watchers - as is always expected when you see a film early in its run - and I had to take a seat near the front. In retrospect, maybe it wouldn't have hurt if I had gotten there a few extra minutes prior, not only so I could find a comfortable seat, but so that I could have also seen the ad for "New Super Mario Bros. U" and the new trailer for "Despicable Me 2" said to be shown before it. Oh well, at least I got to see the previews for "The Croods" (directed by my man, Chris Sanders, from Lilo & Stitch! ), "The Hobbit", and "Monsters Inc. 3D" (which was actually the first I'd heard of this re-release).

I was also treated to the short film before the main feature, "Paperman", which I was excited for also in addition to Wreck-It Ralph. It combines both traditional 2D animation and CGI flawlessly, ushering into a beautiful art style in black and white (What's with Disney's infatuation with black and white this year, also? First "Frankenweenie" is done entirely in it, then the first half of that new trailer for "Oz The Great and Powerful" is in it, then this. Not that I'm complaining of course...) that's nothing but pure eyecandy. It follows the day of a guy on his way and at work, trying to get the attention of a lady he laid eyes on at a train station before going to his occupation. It's a sweet short that captures the feeling and magic of old Disney films (and has some pretty good music too, a necessity since it's a silent film), and easily outdoes "La Luna", the short before Disney Pixar's Brave this year, which is not an easy task.

Now onto the main dish: "Wreck-It Ralph" deals with a bad guy named... you guessed it, Wreck-It Ralph (John C. Reilly), who lives in the arcade game "Fix-It Felix, Jr." In a way akin to the toys of Toy Story, the video game characters of the arcade games come to life and do their stuff at night when the arcade game closes, and each has their own job to do in their respective game. Ralph is the villain of Fix-It Felix, Jr., and wrecks the apartment building his game is set outside of, following which the game's namesake, Fix-It Felix (Jack McBrayer, aka Irving from Phineas and Ferb!), fixes it with his magic hammer and, once the player wins, Ralph is picked up by the apartment's citizens and thrown off the roof into the mud below. Now, as you can imagine, this ain't fun -- now imagine doing it for thirty years!

Ralph decides he doesn't want to be a bad guy anymore and wants to gain the admiration of his fellow "Nicelanders." The only way to do it? Win a Hero's Medal! However, he can't do it in his own game since he's the villain in it, after all. What does he do now, you ask? Travel to the other games in the arcade (to be exact, Hero's Duty and Sugar Rush Speedway, the home games of the film's other two main characters next to Wreck-It and Fix-It, Vanellope Van Schweetz (Sarah Silverman) and Sergeant Calhoun (Jane Lynch). Soon, he finds himself helping Vanellope enter in her first race (as she's been prohibited from being in one her whole life), while a dangerous threat develops underground the candy-themed land.

The first thing I'm going to mention is, of course, the video game cameos in the film, since this is a video game movie. This is here in full-force. You can catch appearances from more modern characters (such as Sonic the Hedgehog, and Ryu, Ken, and Chun-Li from Street Fighter) to extremely retro cameos (Do Q*bert and the bartender from Tapper ring a bell?) and everything in between. There are some blink and you miss it cameos that you'll have to pause the film to notice (particularly in the scenes taking place in Game Central Station, the "hub" for all the games in the arcade) once you get it on Blu-ray or DVD. And even if characters from the series aren't represented themselves, there are still references to them spread throughout (such as for Metal Gear and Final Fantasy). While these are awesome, thankfully, they aren't in every moment of the film, as it has its own plot and characters that are greatly expanded on, so they're pretty much restricted to the first 20-30 minutes of the movie and the end credits (the latter of which had me fanboying so hard).

The characters of the movie are definitely top-notch and memorable. Wreck-It Ralph is a great guy, and he has us feeling for him the whole movie - after all, who hasn't a moment when they've wanted to break free of someone's expectations or thoughts of them and just be who they want to be or get respect from that person or people? Vanellope, though at first, you may want to punch her for being annoying (after all, she is a little girl who makes immature poop jokes on a frequent basis), she turns out to be a lovable character that we want to root for all the way, and a particularly sad scene featuring her may reduce you to tears. Fix-It Felix is good guy too, with enjoyable little Southern mannerisms. And Sergeant Calhoun, in addition to being pretty hot (don't judge me), is pretty badarse, and has an emotionally scarring backstory too (coincidentally, her voice actor, Lynch, has also guest-starred on Phineas and Ferb, in which of the characters, Dr. Doofenshmirtz has scarring backstories as well!).

The story is somewhat generic, but is pulled off extremely well, and it gets delightfully dark and twisty as it goes in a way that'll leave you quite surprised. In additional to being pretty funny, it has its suspenseful moments, between the races in Sugar Rush and the final climactic battle between Ralph and the movie's main antagonist. There's also a bit of product placement in this, with references to Subway, Diet Coke, Mentos, and Oreo. The middle two are actually pretty essential to the plot, and the last lends itself to an incredibly clever joke (along with a bunch of other candy puns in the Sugar Rush game), while the first is just flat-out product placement. Unlike most other Disney films, this isn't a musical, but it has some good music. The score during the actual film, while not exactly memorable, gets the job done, but the actual lyrical stuff comes during the credits. We have a song from Owl City during the first part, and then after that, a song from Japanese pop band AKB48 (the "Sugar Rush" theme song) which I swear is so freakin' catchy that I'm humming it at this exact moment and am an inch from flat-out buying the full version on iTunes. These make staying through the credits quite bearable as you wait for the post-credits gag.

So in short, is Wreck-It Ralph worth your money? Absolutely. It's the best animated film of the year, nay, the best film period of the year. It's a complete treat and you owe it to yourself if you're a video game fan to see it. Heck, even if you're not a video game fan but just an Average Joe, you should go see it, as it has its own characters and world that'll still be relatable and enjoyable to you even if you don't browse IGN or NeoGAF everyday. Disney Animation Studios has done a bang up job with this, so much so that I was heavily hyped by for it, thinking it'd be one of the best movies I'd ever seen, and it still managed to exceed my expectations.

Score: A++. A WINNER IS YOU!

Game on, faithful readers.