Monsters University (2013)

[Goffe]

don't you think that Pixar making bad movies right after Disney started making good movies is a bit of a coincidence? remember, Pixar had 8 masterpieces in a row (or close to it). Tangled was in development hell for 10 years, Disney bought Pixar and bam, Tangled was released 4 years after and received Pixar-like ovation. Disney was struggling to make decent animated movies for almost a decade, Bolt was decent/good and it was their best release in a long long time (let's not forget that John Lasseter along with other directors from Pixar viewed a couple of early cuts of the film and gave Chris Sanders notes on how to improve the story). I know it sounds crazy, but it makes a lot sense to me.

 

About PC bs, after 00:26

this is one of the many examples

Edited June 16, 2014 by Goffe

[lab276]

About PC bs, after 00:26http://youtu.be/8B4UErVggJwthis is one of the many examples

You're gonna have to explain.

[Ezen Baklattan]

don't you think that Pixar making bad movies right after Disney started making good movies is a bit of a coincidence? remember, Pixar had 8 masterpieces in a row (or close to it). Tangled was in development hell for 10 years, Disney bought Pixar and bam, Tangled was released 4 years after and received Pixar-like ovation. Disney was struggling to make decent animated movies for almost a decade, Bolt was decent/good and it was their best release in a long long time (let's not forget that John Lasseter along with other directors from Pixar viewed a couple of early cuts of the film and gave Chris Sanders notes on how to improve the story). I know it sounds crazy, but it makes a lot sense to me.

 

I'd give you more credence if it were people abandoning Pixar and heading for Disney. Lasseter began executive producing for Disney starting with Bolt, which does correllate with a spike n quality for Disney, a long with a new line up of very strong directors (Lee, Moore, Williams, Hall), but he's not the end all factor for quality. (After all, he did make Cars 2) Disney just began making great movies with Lasseter's help, but he still worked with Pixar. If Inside Out and Good Dinosaur end up dissapointing as well, I'll throw you a bone. Even so, Pixar is working itself up from Cars 2, and the original "brain trust" is playing a big role in these projects, so your idea that Disney is sucking Pixar's talent away doesn't make much sense to me.

 

About PC bs, after 00:26

this is one of the many examples

 

I'm sorry, what? What does Randall becoming squinty eyed because of not wearing glasses have to do with Politically Correct Bullsh!t?

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Could have better better, could have been worse. Among Pixar films, only better than Cars 2 and Brave.

[miketheavenger]

I really liked this movie. It was funny and especially the ending had a lot of heart. But while I would agree that it's the best Pixar movie since Toy Story 3 and on par with Monsters, Inc. it's still only in the middlefield of Pixar movies IMO.

 

Grade: B+ or 8/10

[Wormhole]

Perfectly passable fluff. It's not one of Pixar's best efforts, but it's definitely not bad.

[John Marston]

I love this movie. I don't care what people say. It is hilarious and has an interesting message. Not to mention looks beautiful. In fact I would say it is better than the first one. 

[Blankments]

On rewatch, it has a kinda eh first two-third but a stellar final act. Still mixed on it, but definitely lower-tier Pixar. B-

[Fancyarcher]

It's really fun and amusing, and quite underrated. It works really well as a prequel, making a few references to the original, while acting like it's own separate movie. it also works quite well as a spoof / play on typical college comedies of the 80's and 90's. I'd actually say it's on par with Monsters Inc. The only thing it lacks, that, that film had is a lot of real emotional scenes. Plus like most Pixar films, the animation is stunning, and there's things in the background that you only notice on subsequent viewings. 8.5 / 10 

Edited June 23, 2015 by Insidearcher

[Gopher]

The third act of this film ranks with Pixar's best work.

 

I still stand by this. They tried to add a layer to a purposeless, fun sequel and I thought it worked. 

[AniNate]

Still pretty pleasant, and on a rewatch I was fascinated by a lot of the lighting choices they made. They really put a lot of thought into the contrast of the squeaky-clean image of the University at day and the rowdier images of it at night. I suppose what keeps this film down is it really is just a college comedy with candy-colored monsters thrown in. The third act raises it up a bit but there's still a sense that they had to do a ton of hand-waving and retconning to make this movie work, so it really can't escape its image as a franchise cash-in.

 

One thing that really bugged me is I don't find the slug gag to be funny at all. Just nonsensical and mean-spirited.

Edited November 13, 2015 by tribefan695

[Blankments]

Monsters University is much better than it has any right to be but also never really proves it has a reason to exist. It's a lot of fun though, with a wonderful message that is near shocking to see an animated movie. The creativity is lacking though outside of that message, although the animation is beautiful. Monsters University is a fun time, even though it's nowhere near the fantastic work that is the original journey into the monster world. C+

 

(Please note: I was not able to watch some of the best parts of this film, thanks to regular bathroom breaks, misbehaving children, and a general actual responsibility to do my job rather than watch a movie. However, I plan on revisiting this movie before the release of Coco, so expect a better review from me by then.)

[Barnack]

3 minutes ago, Blankments said:

Monsters University is much better than it has any right to be but also never really proves it has a reason to exist.

From an interview with the people that made that movie it is apparently it became a bit of a personal for the Pixar veteran people, for almost everyone there Pixar was a backup plan because they did not achieve to make it in live action feature and they ended up in a better work place, more happy, or at least more than ok at the end, almost certainly better than in their dream movie live action feature career, that movie is really about that.

[cookie]

It's decent. You can predict pretty much every beat of the movie and the only things that make it stand out from every other college-centric comedy is that there are monsters in it and the jokes that spawn from that fact. That said the last ten minutes are genuinely great, only time the movie approaches the kind of excellence that Pixar made its name for.

 

Nowhere near Inside Out or Finding Dory but a step above the messy Good Dinosaur and way better than the crapfest that was Cars 2. Still haven't seen Brave, maybe I should get on that.

Edited August 29, 2017 by cookie

[Noctis]

"Come on, Karen! We're falling behind!"

 

"Please don't call me Karen."

LOL

[Daxtreme]

A clear step down from the 1st installment but still decent.

 

This movie suffers hard from Prequel Syndrome, where the story is limited in scope and possibility by what comes after. 

The self-contained part of the story was great, it's what comes after that's the problem. The ending montage, while fun, reeks of "hmm here is where the characters need to be so this has to happen."

 

It also seemed to be aimed at American audiences a bit too much, basing the Monsters school system fully on America and all. For non-Americans, the "college life" reality in the movie doesn't really reflect theirs and can be a bit confusing as other countries use other systems, while the movie simply just fully embraces the US version of it unapologetically and passes it as a "given" that this is how it works.

 

But there were a few kind of magical moments in there as well so I have to give it a pass overall. It was amusing to see a good-spirited Randall in the beginning.

 

C