"Monsters University" Review: Pixar Earns a Solid "B"

"We are not here to make mediocre monsters less mediocre." After leaving the theater, the words of Helen Mirren's character, Dean Hardscrabble, echoed in my head, as I come to the realization that this, at one point, was probably Pixar's motto. Apparently not so much any more. Ever since Pixar's first critical flop, "Cars 2" hit theaters in 2011, the house that brought us Buzz and Woody has had trouble finding it's groove. I suppose I, like many others, have been horribly spoiled by an untainted record of 15 years and 11 masterpieces (er maybe excluding the first "Cars"). But between the repellent "Cars" franchise designed only to make plastic toys, the severely lacking "Brave" (which was undeserving of the Best Animated Feature Oscar last year--should have gone to "Wreck-It Ralph"), and now the fair-to-okay "Monsters University", it seems like all Pixar's accomplished in the last 3 years has been going from mediocre to less mediocre with every movie. Gone are the days where genuinely original masterpieces like "Up" or "Wall-E" or "Ratatouille" were churned out of the idea house on a consistent basis, and it's something I miss more than Carl Fredricksen misses his wife Ellie (awwww snap!).

"Monsters University" is a movie that's certainly much better than "Brave" or "Cars 2." But if we're saying that this is Pixar's best movie since 2010's "Toy Story 3," it becomes quite a disappointing revelation, as the perfection and high standards we've come to expect no longer appear to be present. Does this mean that when "The Good Dinosaur" hits theaters next year, we should lower our expectations? I certainly hope not. But anyway, as ramble-filled as this review has been so far, I had to express this disappointment first to justify why I'm giving an otherwise pretty solid animated movie a lower-good grade. It's because it should be better--given the reputation of the studio behind it, and the charm and heart of the first film, and the affection we have for the original 2001 film, its characters, and its universe. We LOVE Mike and Sulley. We cherish the original as a modern day classic, and it's because of that love that we have an innate desire to want and expect more when given the opportunity to revisit this world and its characters.

Having said that, "Monsters University" is fine enough. There are a few pretty funny jokes scattered here and there, and a bit of heart and realism to it that make it better than most insipid animated films. And for the most part, the chemistry and affection we have for Mike and Sully hasn't waived at all. So it's fascinating and fun to see Mike and Sully and even Randall first meet each other. Upon the opening scene of seeing a 2 headed pigeon, we quickly establish how good it feels to be back in Monstropolis.

When the movie begins we are introduced to an adorable elementary school Mike Wazowski--young go-getter without friends or the respect of his fellow students--on a field trip to the legendary Monsters Inc. scare factory. Whilst sneaking into an activated child's door, Mike witnesses a real life adult monster at work, collecting the screams of a child for power (as established in the first film). Greatly inspired by what he just saw, as well as a complement from the adult monster, he decides from then on, he sets his goal and ambition is to become a top-scarer. And the only way to do that is to enroll in Monsters University. Mike grows up and does just that, moving into college, meeting his roommate Randall, and butting heads with a young Sulley ("Jimmy P. Sullivan"--son of the legendary Sullivan family, as he initially introduces himself). After getting kicked out of the scaring program by the ruthless Dean Hardscrabble, both Mike and Sully team up with the loser fraternity of Oozma Kappa to compete in the school's annual Scare Games. If they win, the dean will reinstate them to the program. If they lose, they get expelled from the school.

Once more, the film works, but mostly due to the good will built up from the previous movie. We know who Sulley and Mike are going to be, and we know they're going to end up friends. But we want to know how because we've cared about them since the first film. Perhaps the new bits of information that we get are that Mike used to dream about being a scarer, and sadly, that dream goes unfulfilled when he's repeatedly told he's not scary. I'd say that's a lot of where the heart and depth of the movie comes from--the theme that sometimes in life things don't always turn out how we want them to. I think it's a very strong mature theme to teach children, and it's sad that we only really deal with this towards the last third of the movie. But nevertheless, I'll give Pixar credit for tackling this, even if it's not handled in as mature a manner as the themes from other classics dating back to "Toy Story 3" and before.

It's interesting however to see how Mike and Sulley evolve as characters between the events in this film and the events in the first film, particularly how they start off as rivals and become friends. It's also interesting to see who Sulley and Mike are before they've matured. Pixar also thankfully makes the characterization of their friendship organic and realistic. They don't just start off as friends, and even when they begin to get closer, they are still struggling to achieve/earn the level of closeness we see between them in the first film. And you wouldn't expect any less from a company that's enabled us to sympathize with toys, fish, robots, bugs, and old men.

Billy Crystal and John Goodman are once again wonderful, and completely well suited as an on-screen team, with Crystal accomplishing one of his most heartfelt performances to date. As Mike, he's really the heart and soul of the movie, with so much spark/determination to achieve his dreams, and so much sympathy when he realizes he will never achieve them. Goodman is also great, at once portraying Sulley as a cocky, lazy jerk, coasting on the success of his family name, but still with a heart of gold--more arrogant than in the first film, which makes sense as this version of the character is naive, brash, stupid, and young. These are college kids after all. One of the highlight scenes in the movie, highlighting how well the two characters work together is a climactic scene where Mike and Sulley are stranded at a human summer camp, and have to "scare" their way back to the monster world, using Mike's strategic wit and book-smarts, and Sulley's physical intimidation. The sequence becomes intense and exciting and a is a joy to watch. On the other, less action-heavy, hand, another of the standout scenes comes when Sulley and Mike talk about their failures and disappointments in life, in a poignant, honest manner that solidifies their trust in one another, finally giving them mutual ground for which they can relate to one another on. It's that moment the friendship you witnessed in the original film is earned, and the relationship this franchise is based on and revolves around is achieved.

Adding to several comedic moments are a veritable who's-who of comedic supporting actors. The Oozma Kappa gang consists of Squishy (voiced by Peter Sohn--who also plays Emile in Ratatouille), who has a hilarious recurring gag about sneaking up on Mike, Joel Murray as Don, a former older sales monster looking for a new start at MU, the wonderfully hilarious Charlie Day as Art, the strange, out-there hippie monster, and Sean Hayes and Dave Folley as two-headed monster Terri and Terry. All of the OK fraternity's characters have various moments of hilarity, particularly Day as Art, and his complete randomness ("I CAN'T GO BACK TO PRISON AGAIN!), and Sohn's Squishy, who set up the frat house in his mom's old home. On the Roar Omega Roar fraternity, we get Mr. Malcolm Reynolds, Nathan Fillion himself, in a very Captain Hammer-esque role, as Johnny, leader of ROR, and SNL cast member Bobby Moynihan as his sidekick Chet. Then reprising his role from the first film, the always welcome Steve Buscemi as Randall--who starts out as really decent friends with Mike, before revealing his ambitious snake-like ways when he gets into ROR. All of these characters are fascinating to watch even if they're pretty limited in terms of development. Understandably, this is Mike and Sulley's movie, so the focus needs to be on them. But nevertheless, they bring a lot of fun, energy, and comedy to the movie (though here and there a joke will fall flat). The most welcome newcomer to the bunch is, of course, the wonderful and chilling Helen Mirren as Dean Hardscrabble. It becomes a bit inevitable and predictable that she ends up rooting for Mike and Sulley, but for the most part, she plays the role with a very callous, discouraging chill in her voice.

The animation in the film is good. It's not quite as technically or visually impressive as the gorgeous space scenes from Wall-E or the explosions from the Parisian kitchen of Gusteau's from Ratatouille, but it's impressive that Pixar was able to create incredibly huge crowd scenes with unique monsters. They also managed to get the look and feel of a real university correct, borrowing heavily from the aesthetic environment of UC Berkeley, Stanford, and other top schools.

Overall, the movie is not bad. But I can't help but admit that as much as I laughed, and as much as I enjoyed seeing these characters again, I ended up not really thinking about the movie all that much when I left. And that has never usually been the case with most Pixar films I see, which is a bit sad. "Monsters" is enjoyable but it leaves you feeling emptier than usual at a Pixar movie, because you were hoping for more--funnier scenes, stronger story, deeper message. And what you're left with is merely...acceptable. I know the folks at Pixar will get back to doing stronger movies someday--we've seen them at their best and we know they're capable of it. But for now we're honestly just being forced to deal with 'okay"--which I guess is apt given the initials of Oozma Kappa. I guess I'll just have to wait until they're out of their "mediocre" period for a true return to form.

Overall Rating: B

SIDE NOTE: The short that plays before "Monsters University" called "The Blue Umbrella" is quite good. Not as winning or sweet as Disney's "Paperman" last year, but Pixar gets you to feel and sympathize with an umbrella, so that's gotta count for something. Plus on a technical level, this is definitely Pixar's most reallistic looking animation to date. When you go to see "Monsters," look out for this one and enjoy!

"Man of Steel" Review: Thankfully the "S" Does Not Stand for Suck

I'm going to admit, I liked "Superman Returns." Everyone hated it. But frankly, the most appealing thing for me about the character are not the powers or the cape--it's the fact that despite being from another planet, he's really the most emotionally human superhero of all. He grew up in a normal family with good, moral upbringing. He attempts the see the best in everyone. He's overly critical about himself, and does everything he can to do right. It's not unlike how humans try to live every day. And that to me is something I felt the last movie attempted to touch upon, and something I respected. On a side note, getting into "Man of Steel," I also must admit, I fully expected this movie to suck hard. I HATE HATE HATE Zack Snyder. "Sucker Punch" was the most pretentious, crap movie I'd ever seen--one I was on the verge of walking out of, even.

However, my hand to God, "Man of Steel" runs (or flies) circles around "Superman Returns". In fact it blows away "Returns" in the one major strength "Returns" had--humanizing the god-like character. And in this respect, to me, it's almost THE perfect Superman movie made to date. It doesn't just touch upon the idea of Superman being the most human superhero because of his upbringing and his emotions, it flat out rubs it in your face (partially because Zack Snyder doesn't understand subtlety). But subtlety aside, that is what I'm looking for in a Superman movie. And "Man of Steel" really nails it!

The best, most different thing the movie does, that no other Superman movie before it has done before is to use a non-linear approach that allows the audience to fully analyze all sides of the Superman character--the boy on the farm with the moral upbringing; the last son of a doomed planet; the messianic alien Prometheus sent among the humans to save us; and finally the responsible reporter at the Daily Planet (for a split second only, perhaps). All other Superman movies have only explored a fraction of that list, but through non-linear flashbacks, Nolan and Goyer have allowed us to see all of them to really understand the character behind the powers. It's something that really addresses the "Superman is not relatable because he's not human" argument. We have a movie here that shows us an angry Superman, a guilt-ridden Superman, and emotionally caring and cautious Superman. In other words, it does accurate justice to the essence of what makes the character who he is. For my money, this has never been done before. And it's something I think deserves the most praise in this film. Henry Cavill does a good job portraying this too. Much more emotionally well-rounded than the flat Brandon Routh, and even the eternally optimistic Christopher Reeve. Cavill's Superman is lost, emotionally repressed, but always trying his hardest to persist in doing what's right. This is a lot more complex than any other live-action interpretation has gotten (the Timm-verse animated Superman still wins over this in my opinion). What's amazing is that the movie even puts Superman to the ultimate test, making the character do something completely extreme at the end to ensure the safety of humanity. It's unheard of, but brilliant. So I must give a lot of credit to how the character was written and portrayed overall.

Another strength is Michael Shannon's Zod. What makes this interpretation of Zod work so well was not only the vicious, menacing performance from Shannon, but also the fact that his motivations and goals are actually sympathetic--he's a man programmed to ensure the survival of his nearly extinct species. It's something that is completely worthy of an evil scheme because there's a slight sense of justification behind this cause. And it's one that Superman would and should have every motivation to accomplish. He's alone in this world. The last of his kind. And among a species that completely ostracizes and fears him because he's different. He has every right to want his species to thrive over humanity. But he doesn't because of his human adopted parents, his moral upbringing and how much he cares about humanity. In essence Zod is what Superman should be, but what Superman isn't. Therefore he's a perfect foil to Kal-El. And as such, Zod's character and motives also serve to enhance Superman's character completely for the audience.

Putting aside the character analyses, I'd like to acknowledge that as decent as Shannon and Cavill are, the acting MVPs for the film should go to the Robin Hoods, Russell Crowe as Jor-El, and Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent.  Both give powerful performances, with many of Costner's scenes acting as the heart and soul of the movie--particularly the one flashback of watching his son run around in a red cape, while Crowe's scenes speak to courageousness, majesty, and heroism--enhancing Superman's duty as the protector of mankind. It's fantastic to see these 2 shine, and many times throughout the movie, I just wanted to see these two coaching and counseling their only son.

I think it's also interesting that this film is the only Superman film to feature an extended role for Lara-El, Superman's birth mother. I really truly respected that she had a larger role, since most movies she doesn't even have lines. I also think Diane Lane did a good job as Martha Kent, Superman's adoptive mother, acting as the sole living testament to the only home Superman grew to know.

I'd also like to point out that Hans Zimmer's score here is top notch. I love the new Superman themes. Everything comes across as grand, epic, and triumphant. I found myself listening to and humming the musical themes after the film. The score really does make everything tearfully sentimental during the touching moments of the film, and genuinely exciting during the action scenes. It's definitely one of the film's strongest aspects.

Faring less well are the crew of the Daily Planet. As interesting a narrative framing device as having Lois Lane investigate her savior is, Amy Adams is still not spunky enough as Lois. I feel like the way the character was written, the performance should have had more...moxy.  Don't get me wrong, she's worlds better than Kate Bosworth, but she still doesn't seem to have as much fire as I think she was intended to have based on some of her lines (for example, "when you're done comparing dicks..."). And while I think Lawrence Fishburne would be great as Perry White, there really wasn't all that much of a point to his character or any of the other staff members outside of Lois, including pointless inclusion of the feminist take on Jimmy Olsen, "Jenny Olsen". I frankly never cared for these characters during the movie, and when in mortal danger, I figured they'd make it out just fine, so the suspense factor was diminished completely during scenes when they're in peril. Of the casualties being killed by the catastrophic climactic battle between Zod and Superman, why should we care about 3 Daily Planet employees when hundreds more are being crushed by debris? The movie gives us no real answer to that. I suppose this is forgivable because this is a Superman movie and the focus should be on him, but it'd be nice for us to be emotionally invested in the Daily Planet crew since they're legendary characters in the comic's mythology.

Now switching gears and focusing on the action, many of the set pieces are pretty fantastically orchestrated. Some of my favorite scenes are Superman's first flights, a really violent and exciting fight between Superman, Faora, and another one of Zod's men in Smallville, and the mega-battle fight sequence between Superman and Zod. And the visuals for these fights, along with a very imaginative version of Krypton in the beginning of the movie, are definitely strong points. However, and now comes the real judgement, these scenes can occasionally go on for too long, and end up looking insanely cartoonish after a while. And that's the unfortunate downside to having "Sucker Punch" direct your movie. Sooner or later his ADD impulses will kick in and make your movie look like cut scenes from the "Injustice" video game. *Sigh* For all the good Chris Nolan and David Goyer do in constructing a solid story with great character moments, we also get WWE Smackdown for Playstation, thanks to the one-track-video-game mind of Zack Snyder. It really puts a damper on a movie with such a strong character arc and ambition to explore deeper themes about what it's like to be Superman. Granted the movie needs to have action, but keeping the action simple and fun enough, without going overboard is valued in this genre. Case in point the climactic Battle for New York in "The Avengers." Or the Joker truck chase sequence in "The Dark Knight". Both of those movies, probably the pinnacle of the superhero genre, gave us like 3 really major incredible action sequences a piece, but made the non-action sequences just as interesting. "Man of Steel" was halfway there, until the action sequences themselves became the tedious aspect of the movie. In fact, one of the major unnecessary action sequences in the movie is a terrible looking tornado scene, which really destroys the impact of one of the more famous deaths in Superman lore. The fact that *spoiler alert* Jonathan Kent *spoiler alert* dies, not from natural causes or a heart attack no longer helps to emphasize the fact that at the end of the day Superman cannot save everyone. It instead serves to further the point that at certain times, he needs to take action. But the scene itself is so over-the-top ridiculous, that an amazing character like *spoiler alert* Jonathan Kent, *spoiler alert* with a great performance from *spoiler alert* Kevin Costner *spoiler alert* deserves much much better than being whisked away by a twister.

Nevertheless, complaining about "fun" scenes seems to be counter-productive when reviewing a summer blockbuster. And though I found it to be incredibly excessive, I still had fun with them, and with the movie as a whole--particularly with an amazingly strong exploration of the character. This may not be as good as "The Dark Knight" or "The Avengers." And it may not be the quintessential Superman movie of all time. But for now, it certainly is the best Superman movie to date. And I'm definitely looking forward to seeing this story continue, because I think WB is definitely starting to get on the right track. Overall, it's a step towards the quintessential Superman movie of all time. And I'm ready for the next steps.

Overall Rating: A-

"The Internship" Review: Funniest Google Commercial You'll See All Summer

If you are following this blog, you'll notice I just posted a review of "The Heat" where I criticized it for being quite formulaic. I won't make any excuses for "The Internship," since it too is very formulaic. But the key difference between "The Heat" and "The Internship" is that the latter is actually pretty funny, and enjoyable. And it's strange--I expected the movie to suck because the gags in the trailer are all really sort of lame (the Professor Xavier part excluded)--callbacks to Flashdance, Terminator, etc. But the joke, it appears, is on us, because the jokes for the movie actually come in spades, and the result is pleasantly surprising. It's possible that my level of enjoyment for the movie is the result of lowered expectations, but based on the audience reaction, I don't think it's just me. And I'm pretty grateful for that.

The premise of the movie: Nick (Owen Wilson) and Billy (Vince Vaughn) are the best sales team for a dying watch company. When their company goes belly-up, the two are left without jobs, but with loads of debt. Billy then comes up with the idea for him and Nick to apply for internship positions at Google, that could potentially lead to jobs and brighter futures for the both of them. The problem, of course, is that they know nothing about modern-day technology, coding, or social sharing as their competition would. They apply, get into the program due to the support of 2 senior votes with the Google application senior team, and are paired up with a ragtag group of brilliant but awkward misfits to compete for permanent positions against several groups of other tech-genius interns.

The movie plays a lot like your typical underdog story, in the vein of classics like Animal House, Stripes, or Dodgeball (only not as absurd as the latter), or TV shows like Community. Now, don't expect anything original. And if your gut feeling when initially watching the movie allows you to predict what's going to happen next and how it will end, your feeling will most likely be correct. But c'mon. If you're watching this movie, much like Wedding Crashers, the appeal is not the story, but the comedy. So take that into consideration when debating about paying for your ticket. The overall story isn't that bad--it's still enjoyable and worth investing your time in because the actors make you care about these misfits, but don't expect anything complex, obviously.

Lucky for us, the magic we saw between Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson in 2005's "Wedding Crashers" has not changed one bit! Their chemistry is the anchor of this movie. This comedic duo is reunited and the energy just flies, never feeling stale or overdone. We are engaged in their stories and the characters, no matter how cheesy or predictable the movie can get at times, because of what this tag team brings to the table. Vaughn's over-abundance of energy blends so well with Wilson's charming laid back attitude, and when the two banter, they just play off each other so well, that everything they say or do is just goofy, funny, and entertaining. Some of the best scenes include their initial interview, a scene where they take their misfit team of interns clubbing, and a Quidditch game in the middle of the Google campus.

Surprisingly enough, however, they are not alone, as they're joined by newcomers Dylan O'Brien (MTV's Teen Wolf), Josh Brenner (The Big Bang Theory), Tobit Raphael, and Tiya Sircar (The Vampire Diaries). Together with Vaughn and Wilson, they make up your pretty stereotypical group of underdogs to root for, ala Mighty Ducks, School of Rock. The result may be trite here and there, but it's ultimately funny as the kinetic energy of Vaughn and Wilson mesh very well with characters that find their hyperactive display both grating and endearing. And for many of them, as their first real film, they come across pretty well. It's unfortunate their characters aren't very complex, but the actors still manage to give them separate personalities, making each character stand out and become uniquely memorable. That much can be appreciated. Opposing our underdogs is the group's main boss (Aasif Mandvi from The Last Airbender, providing a very stern business expression at all times), and a group of pretentious Ivy League tech geniuses led by an ambitious slimeball (a smarmy Max Minghella from The Social Network).

There are also some fun roles from Rose Byrne (Damages), playing a Google senior manager and romantic interest for Wilson, and Josh Gad (Book of Mormon)  playing a fellow worker who helps Vaughn's character learn about tech support later in the film. Circling back to Byrne's character, she and Owen Wilson have very natural chemistry--moreso than Wilson and Rachel McAdams from Wedding Crashers, in fact--so it's believable that she'd have an excellent time going on "10 bad dates" with Nick halfway through the movie. It also makes it easier to become more invested in this particular romantic subplot. Gad on the other hand, only really gets 2-3 scenes, but they eventually become critical as the movie continues to play out.

And you basically know how a movie like this is going to play out, but that's okay. You're just in it to enjoy the comedy and the warmth of an underdog movie. So the moment the opening credits hit, and you see and hear Vaughn and Wilson singing Alanis Morresette's "Ironic" as part of their "Get Psyched" mix, you can't help but smile and feel comfortable from the get-go with how this is going to turn out. It's something we feel good revisiting, down to another welcome cameo from a fellow Crasher/frat pack member/"news anchor". The jokes come flying at the expense of Vaughn and Wilson's characters, thanks to a funny script by Vaughn, himself, and co-writer Jared Stern. The direction is reasonably conventional, being done by generic director Shawn Levy (Night at the Museum series, Date Night, Real Steel). But at least, Levy, if nothing else, lets Vaughn and Wilson do their schtick without interrupting, and the 2 stars go at it confidently.

The more disappointing part of the movie is how pandering it is as a Google commercial. Naturally, the company provides an effective backdrop for the story and our heroes to utilize, but you also end up hearing about every product and software Google has created since it's inception at least once, and always in a positive light. It's a little bit of a manipulative way to show everyone how wonderful Google is, but it's honestly not a deal breaker.

And that's because the second you see Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson chasing after a gold-spandex clad version of a Golden Snitch with a tennis ball dangling from between his legs, you don't seem to care that this is an advertisement, and start recognizing the movie for what it is--a light, fun, breezy, energetic comedy that will make you laugh. And frankly, so far, it's the best comedy film of the summer (given how terrible "Hangover III" was supposed to be, and how mediocre and unfunny "The Heat" was), at least before "This is the End" comes out. Welcome back Crashers.

Overall Rating: B+

"The Heat" Review: More Like "The Lukewarm" At Best

Yeah. What a waste of talent and potential. Here you have an Oscar winner and an Oscar nominee. Both are very funny women. And both are surrounded by a cast and crew of good comedians--Bridesmaids director, Paul Feig, who's normally a talented comedy director, Katie Dippold, a writer from probably the best comedy on TV right now, Parks and Recreation, and a veritable who's-who of really funny, great comedy actors, like SNL's Taran Killam, Mad TV's Michael McDonald, Kaitlin Olsen from Always Sunny in Philadelphia, the list continues. So it's a complete wonder how such a great team of funny people can make a movie that not only falls flat on several occasions, but also gets incredibly tired as well.

The premise of The Heat goes as follows: FBI Agent Sarah Ashburn (Sandra Bullock) is damn good at her job, but not at all a team player. She's high strung, and prim and proper to the near point of OCD. And the way she is has alienated her to any sort of real friends, to the point that she has to steal her neighbor's cat for company. She gets transferred to an assignment to go after a drug lord in Boston. On the opposite side of the tracks beat Boston detective Shannon Mullins (Melissa McCarthy) is brash, crass, and tough-as-nails, devoid of any tact or class. She does whatever the hell she wants and needs to do to protect her streets. When the drug dealer she's trying to arrest ends up being a key part of Ashburn's investigation, the two women cross paths, they team up, and their odd-couple contrasting personalities lead to various hi-jinks.

The whole exercise proves to be a formulaic buddy cop comedy, honestly. Two law-enforcement agents--one a wild card, the other a by-the-book type--start out hating each other, get to know each other, and are BFFs by the end. Granted that a movie like this does not need to be Shakespeare, but with two strong leads, you'd think they would have at least tried to do something different, much like Will Farrell's buddy cop comedy, The Other Guys--which was a straight up spoof. Unfortunately, The Heat is not ambitious enough to take the genre and lampoon it to ridiculous proportions, like that film. It's really playing things safe and straight, relying far too heavily on the two-dimensional characters Bullock and McCarthy are playing.

Though both women are talented actresses, and do their part to play their roles well, the unfortunate thing is how thinly these characters are written. Bullock's arrogant, type-A agent stays that way through the entire movie, only learning at the very end how to be a team player because of her relationship with McCarthy (who could have seen that coming). McCarthy's Mullins on the other hand, is the same schtick she's been playing since Bridesmaids--loud, obnoxious, crude. Between Bridesmaids, Identity Thief, and this, it seems to be the only role she can play. She's quickly becoming the female Kevin James in my opinion. And the welcome these characters get is completely worn out by the first 20 minutes of the movie because their gags get incredibly old. There's only so much of the "oh no, I'm so uptight" meets "oh,wow, I'm foul-mouthed and violent" bit you can take before nothing surprises you, and everything starts to feel forced. It's complete overkill and neither character is really all that interesting, nor is their relationship or the chemistry between them. The only thing redeeming about these characters is that they have pretty real problems that dictate the way they are. McCarthy's character is dealing with lots of familial issues involving the relationship with her and her criminal brother, while Bullock's character must contend with the fact that she's adopted and unliked by her peers. This might justify why the characters are the way they are, but it doesn't change the fact that they essentially stay pretty stagnant through the entire film.

Furthermore, the most of the other gags themselves fall completely flat. There's maybe only a handful of genuinely funny scenes in the movie, including a bar night where McCarthy and Bullock get completely drunk and go nuts, an emergency tracheostomy in a diner, a few scenes with McCarthy's family (including former SNL veteran, Jane Curtain), and a knife scene involving Sandra Bullock's leg. But other than that the entirety of my theatre, myself included, sat there in silence as gag after gag passed without so much as a chuckle here and there. The comedy is actually pretty lazy overall, becoming pretty trite more than anything.

The talented cast really does try their hardest to be funny, but they're overcompensating for the lazy script, to the point where it's really just trying too hard. To see Bullock and McCarthy carry on a schtick that's just not funny to begin with, but have them stay with it, is almost a train wreck--for example a scene where McCarthy is "looking for her captain's balls". The idea is funny at first, but drags on way too long, as the length tries to overcompensate for how stale the joke gets. The problem is the stale joke just gets rubbed in our faces--and if it didn't really work that well the first time, it won't 5 minutes later.

And that pretty much sums up the spirit of the movie. It's a giant one-note joke that carries on way too long, despite its stars trying to make it work, coupled with a formulaic buddy cop story that's been done over and over and over again. I'll give it credit for being a female buddy cop movie, which is so rarely done. But just because you turn the leads of a typical buddy cop movie into women, doesn't mean you're reinventing the wheel here. The Heat brings nothing new to the table in terms of the subgenre, making it lazy as a cop movie and as a comedy. As I said in the beginning of the review, what a waste.

Overall Rating: C