“Monsters University” is a decent rebound for Pixar.

By: Paul Zecharia | www.stonesdetroit.com

Pixar Animation is not been as strong as it used to be. I think we can all agree that the Golden Age of this top-of-the-line animation company ended in 2010 when Toy Story 3 (one of the best threequels of all time) was released. With mediocre efforts like Cars 2 and Brave following that, you’d think that Pixar would need something strong and gratifying to bring itself back on top in terms of critical status.Monsters University is not the film that Pixar deserves, but nevertheless, it’s the one it needs right now. This was a decent rebound. It certainly does not match up to the brilliance of Monsters, Inc. What made the original 2001 feature a classic was the creative and original premise filled with enough humor, suspense, and heart that Pixar has always been good at. Monsters University, however, feels like an unnecessary plea from the Walt Disney Company to buy more products based on all the characters created specifically for this film. However, as solid family entertainment, Monsters University has nothing awful or offensive for kids and adults. If anything, kids will enjoy how colorful and playful the film is. Adults will probably enjoy some of the humor and nostalgia. Because if there is anything that Disney/Pixar has always been best at, it’s touching the hearts of everybody, no matter how old. I was nine when I saw MI in theaters. It’s still one of my favorite Pixar films and yes, it was nice to see Mike and Sulley on the big screen again.

Dan Scanlon, a story artist for Cars and Toy Story 3, makes his directorial debut as well as sharing writingcredit with fellow story artists Robert L. Baird and Daniel Gerson. What is especially unique aboutMonsters University is that it decides to go back in time and tell the story of how Mike and Sulley first got started in the scaring business. They first meet as college students attending Monsters University, both majoring in Scaring. A rather interesting concept, but why college? It actually makes no sense. Because if you recall from Monsters, Inc., there’s a moment where Mike says to Sulley “You’ve been jealous of my good looks since the fourth grade, pal.” Continuity error much? Or was that just an exaggeration that Mike was making? It’s hard to believe that the filmmakers can overlook this detail. Maybe they did, but wanted to change things up a bit. It’s almost as if they are creating a whole new timeline for the universe ofMonsters, Inc. Maybe you have your own interpretation of that line, but it’s the writers who are at fault for not taking it into consideration. Regardless, an animated prequel is still a very bold move. But it’s also a bold move to set a G-rated animated film at a university. Some mature humor and innuendos are expected in this case, but Monsters University does keep it grounded to a more family-friendly tone.

Monsters University is mostly centered around Michael “Mike” Wazowski (Billy Crystal) and his longtime aspiration to be a scarer. He makes this his goal after visiting Monsters, Incorporated as a six-year-old on a school field trip. In a scene mirroring the beginning of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, an accomplished scarer and Monsters University alum named “Frightening” Frank McCay (John Krasinski) tells little Mike (Noah Johnston) how impressed he was with his ability to sneak into a closet door in the human world and actually gives him his MU cap. This is what makes Mike want to be a scarer. Jump ahead several years later and Mike Wazowski, now eighteen years old with a retainer, has been accepted into Monsters University, majoring in Scaring, and is absolutely excited for his first day. His roommate is Randall Boggs (Steve Buscemi), a shy nerd who would eventually become his rival. They share the same class taught by Professor Knight (Alfred Molina). Mike also ends up meeting James P. “Sulley” Sullivan (John Goodman), who is well-known and already praised for being from a very prominent scaring family. This makes him the Big Man on Campus and an immediate rival for Mike. However, nobody believes that Mike can be a real scarer because he’s clearly not scary. Mike is more book smart, instead. He aces every major scaring exam and studies real hard. Sulley, however, is more brawn instead of brains. He assumes that the ability to be good at scaring just come naturally. His family fame also earns him a place at the fraternity Roar Omega Roar (ROR), lead by Johnny Worthington (Nathan Fillion).

Mike and Sulley learn that in order for them to continue with the Scaring program at MU, they must complete the final exam at the end of their semester. Unfortunately, they both fail due to heavy tension and competition between each other. They are kicked out of the Scaring program by Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren). But Mike is determined to show Sulley, Hardscrabble, and the rest of the university that he is a good scarer. So he decides to enter in the Scare Games, a campus-wide competition among the fraternities and sororities of MU. But none of them will accept Mike as a member. So he must resort to the lowest of the low: Oozma Kappa, a fraternity consisting of pretty much the losers of the school, including middle-aged Don Carlton (Joel Murray), a two-head monster named Terri and Terry (Sean Hayes andDave Foley), a wimp named Squishy (Peter Sohn), and a purple hairy monster called Art (Charlie Day). Sulley is forced to join as well after getting kicked out of ROR (they accept Randall instead). Mike proposes a deal with Hardscrabble: if Oozma Kappa wins the Scare Games, he, Sulley, and the rest of Oozma Kappa gets readmitted into the Scaring program. If they lose, Mike will leave Monsters University. Hardscrabble accepts the deal. Mike and Sulley must now work together with the rest of the failing fraternity to win the games through heavy training and constant motivation. It’s a basic Revenge of the Nerds-style plot, but with more Pixar.

One strong element of Pixar films that Monsters University certainly has is its splendid voice acting. Goodman and Crystal bring so much personality and heart to the college-aged versions of Mike and Sulley. When they are introduced in Monsters, Inc., they are established as being a solid duo bent on being the top scare team at MI with Mike’s Napoleon Complex and Sulley’s roaring confidence. Here, they are immediately shown as rivals with differing personalities. Mike’s uppity bookworm attitude juxtaposes Sulley’s hot-shot image. The majority of the supporting voice actors also do well with bringing a lot of humor and energy to their characters. Even though Buscemi does not get enough screen time, he still manages to stick out a little bit to build up his eventual rivalry with Mike and Sulley. The members of Oozma Kappa also get a good laugh once in a while, especially Charlie Day. I mean, if you haven’t watched “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” or Horrible Bosses, you’re missing out on Charlie Day. Tyler Labineand Aubrey Plaza voice Claire and Brock, the leaders of the Greek Council in charge of the Scare Games and prove themselves to get a laugh every time they commentate the games. Helen Mirren is one of the best actors in the whole film. Not only does Dean Hardscrabble have a great half-dragon/half-centipede design, but Mirren brings a calm but intimidating demeanor with a wonderfully dignified persona.

But aside from some funny side characters and neat designs, it all comes down to the story. Sadly, the story for Monsters University is not up to par with the stories of past Pixar films. Even as its own creation, it certainly has very formulaic story elements when it comes to the typical underdog story with the losers against the jocks. It’s a shame, because the world that the film takes place in should lend itself to some creativity. The monster world is very similar to the human world in terms of schooling, working, and social life. But obviously it is also very different in many respects. Each monster is a different shape and size, they have distinguishable physical features (like suction cups, hair, and wings), they eat garbage in their cafeteria, and their power and electricity is built on the screams of children. The film does not take you into many surprising directions in the first two acts, mainly because a college setting for a children’s film is not particularly interesting. But without giving away the end, it does take a refreshing turn which makes it one of the more redeemable parts of the film. After competing in the Scare Games and developing the relationship between Mike and Sulley, you’ll actually find yourself satisfied with what they are given at the end. It’s very mature and very realistic. In the monster world, at least. IF anything, the resolution is the best part of Monsters University.

Even though Pixar has had a critical slump recently, even its lamest products can still showcase some creative elements. Not many good things can be said about the pointless Cars 2, but at least it had some good visuals. Brave deserves credit for tackling a mother-daughter relationship that’s pretty much never seen in children’s films. Monsters University is funny, nostalgic, and it has a great ending. Was it an unnecessary film? Absolutely. Should it cause any damage to the Monsters, Inc. franchise or even Pixar’s reputation? Absolutely not. Is it entertaining? Of course. But Pixar should go back to the drawing board with its new ideas. And now that it has been officially confirmed that a sequel to Finding Nemo (my favorite animated film of all time) is being made, I think we can all agree that Pixar’s Golden Age has turned into the Sequel Age. If anything, The Incredibles is the Pixar film that deserves a sequel. I remain skeptical about Finding Dory, but I look forward to it, nevertheless. Pixar is still a strong animation company, but for now it’s living in the shadows of Disney and DreamWorks. As for Monsters University, there is no shame in seeing it to revisit those memories of the first one and to see your favorite characters on the big screen again. You may enjoy it, but your kids will definitely enjoy it. It’s pointless, but harmless.

Three and a half out of five stars.

Monsters University is rated G.

Check out Paul’s Facebook page: www.facebook.com/paulzechariafanpage

“Man of Steel” is more like “Bland of Steel”.

By: Paul Zecharia | www.stonesdetroit.com

If there has ever been any superhero who has stood out as an American icon, it would have to be Superman. Created by Jerry Siegel and Joey Shuster in 1938, most people will agree that the Man of Steel has made a massive cultural impact over the last seventy-five years. There are, however, some who dismiss the hero and his stories for being too light-hearted and cheesy. And to be fair, Superman is indeed cheesy. Given the past Superman films, there is no denying that they have succeeded a level of cheesiness and light-heartedness. The original 1978 film directed by Richard Donner is widely considered to be one of the first, if not the first, major superhero film to jumpstart the popular genre of film that we know today. It was epic, cheesy, and an all around feel-good flick, especially for the time it came out. Donner’s Superman does happen to be one of my favorite superhero films. The equally amazing Superman II deserves recognition for being a great continuation of the series, but then the franchise was savagely murdered by the abominations known as Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Then several years later, we had the lackluster effort Superman Returns make its way into the Superman film canon. Even though it was praised by most critics and despised by most fans, I personally regard it as an okay film. So naturally, there had been a lot of anticipation for the new Superman film entitled Man of Steel. When I walked out of the theatre after seeing the film, an employee smiled at me and said “I hope you enjoyed the show!” I smiled back at her and said “I tried.”

Talk about a major disappointment, especially when you have Christopher Nolan, the man in charge of bringing Batman back to big screen popularity with The Dark Knight trilogy, responsible for both producer and story. Joining him on the story is his Batman co-writer David S. Goyer, who specifically wrote the screenplay for Man of Steel. You would think a powerhouse duo like would be able to handle a character as important as Superman in line on the Reboot List. But it certainly did not help to have Zack Snyder in the director’s chair. The man is responsible for hits like 300 and Watchmen. Slow-Mo Snyder surprisingly does not use any of those tricks in Man of Steel, but he did manage to make it a complete snore-fest, devoid of any real character development and strong performances. It is one of the many reasons why this film does not work. It also seemed pretty obvious that Snyder, Nolan, and Goyer wanted to replicate what Nolan and Goyer did with Batman. Yes, this is pretty much the Batman Begins of the Superman franchise. Now to be fair, that would not necessarily be a bad idea if done well. I have no problem with a serious Superman film. However, Man of Steel decides to go the extra mile and make it an all-out grim film with a darker-than-needed tone and lack of any joy or humanity that Superman has always been known for. I won’t lie, I’m not an incredibly big Superman fan, but even I know that you can’t make “truth, justice, and the American way” look like “a silent guardian, a watchful protector, a dark knight.”

Man of Steel essentially goes back to basics with the origin story of Superman. The first twenty minutes takes place on the planet Krypton, where it almost looks like something out of Avatar or John Carter. We see the landscapes, structures, and even some creatures. It does well with establishing the atmosphere of Superman’s home planet. But Krypton’s core happens to be faltering. Scientist Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and his wife Lara (Ayelet Zurer) have now become the parents of Krypton’s first naturally conceived child in a long time, whom they name Kal-El. At the same time, Jor-El is doing best to convince the main council of Krypton of the planet’s decadence. The council is also being threatened by General Zod (Michael Shannon) and his group of rebel followers. In order to preserve the safety of Kal-El after the planet is destroyed, Jor-El steals a genetic codex and installs the genes in his son to preserve the Kryptonian race and places him on a spacecraft bound for Earth. Zod then kills Jor-El and he and the rest of his followers are banished to the Phantom Zone. As baby Kal-El is flown away to Earth, Krypton explodes. Now, this is obviously similar to the beginning of the Richard Donner film. And it's not surprising that comparisons to the original 1978 film will be made. However, in Man of Steel, the film takes a detour away from showing baby Kal-El crash landing on Earth to cutting immediately to the present day, where a now-grown-up Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) is working on a fishing boat. So yeah, it jumps from origin story to “Deadliest Catch starring Clark Kent” to him saving people from a burning oil rig in the middle of the ocean.

I’m apologizing in advance for the upcoming constant comparisons to Superman, Superman II, and Batman Begins, but Man of Steel has decided to be even more like Batman Begins and feature a nonlinear structure. At times, the film randomly cut to scenes from Clark’s childhood in Smallville, Kansas. One scene shows a nine-year-old Clark (Cooper Timberline) traumatized in his classroom due to his developing ability of X-ray vision. He then gets some help and comfort from his adoptive mother Martha Kent (Diane Lane) by telling him to “make the world small, focus on her voice and pretend it’s an island.” Another random addition is thirteen-year-old Clark (Dylan Spayberry) saving his classmates from a sinking bus after it crashes in a river, showing his super-strength. After this incident, he gets a lecture from his adoptive father Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner), and even suggests that “maybe” Clark should have just let the kids on the bus die. What is the logic behind this? So Jonathan can make sure Clark can keep his powers a secret until the world is ready for someone like him. “Maybe” they should have died? Sure, this one word may have killed Jonathan’s reputation a bit, but it’s really David S. Goyer who is at fault here for writing sloppy dialogue. As an adult, Kent feels responsible for the eventual death of Jonathan (I’m not giving anything away here because it’s pretty obvious he’s gonna die) after a not-so-realistic tornado sequence. So he journeys off into the world to find himself.

As Clark reaches the Arctic during his adulthood, he comes across a crashed Kryptonian space shuttle where he activates a program that allows him to communicate with a hologram of Jor-El, who explains to him his backstory. This attracts the attention of Lois Lane (Amy Adams), a reporter for the Daily Planet in the city of Metropolis, as she also discovers the spacecraft and considers writing about him, although her boss Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) declines it due to the ludicrous nature of possible “aliens” living on Earth. But aside from activating the ship, Clark inadvertently frees Zod, his sub-commander Faora (Antje Traue), and his crew and they arrive on Earth. They demand that Earth turns over Kal-El, due to their believing he has the codex. This attracts the attention of the whole world as well as Lieutenant General Swanwick (Harry Lennix), Colonel Nathan Hardy (Christopher Meloni), and Dr. Emil Hamilton (Richard Schiff). Lois also finds herself caught in the battle between Kal-El, who is finally dubbed as Superman, and General Zod as they threaten the existence of the human race. Now Clark must realize the potential of his status and powers and must protect the planet and the ones he loves, including Lois and his mother Martha.

On the surface, Man of Steel does follow both the remake and reboot formulas, deriving off of Superman, Superman II, and Batman Begins, but also a little bit of The Amazing Spider-Man. Both films have a much more serious tone than its predecessors by having them start all over again with its comic book film adaptations, but they manage to just show us what we are already familiar with. There are certainly new tweaks due to the dark tone and given the nonlinear structure, it certainly adds to making it a new way of seeing Superman on film. Sadly, this does lead to the two biggest problems of Man of Steel: the script and direction. Most of the dialogue comprised is flat-out boring. Nearly 90% of it is either too much exposition or really dull conversations that are nothing to care about. Honestly, the serious levels are off the charts in this charmless picture. It is generally expected of reboots to give audiences something new while keeping the same ideas of the original story, but Superman is getting too serious here. And worst of all, it dives deep into generic blockbuster territory. No joke, but if you took out the fact that this is a story about Superman and just made it about a guy with superpowers and had to save the world from evil aliens through way too much CGI, you pretty much just have a brainless and soulless popcorn flick. Or maybe if you are a big Superman and you end up liking this style, that’s good for you. No, seriously. If you do like Man of Steel, I’m proud of you. Because that means there are people who see it in a whole new way that I’m rather curious about.

Extreme disappointment also goes for the performances. I would like to clarify that none of these actors were miscast, but the reason why we cannot connect to these characters emotionally and buy the performances of the actors is because Snyder has directed the majority of them to be robots. The biggest question is how well Cavill does as the titular character. He’s fairly new to superstardom, despite being on The Tudors and in Immortals in 2011. But based on what he was given to work with, he does fine as Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman/thank God he’s not doing a Christopher Reeve impression. But we also have the wasted talents of several other accomplished actors like Adams, Shannon, and Crowe. Adams, who is one of my favorite actresses, tries her best to be the tenacious and witty Lois Lane that we all know and (not really) love, but by playing it too seriously with no spunk, she falls flat. Even with ridiculous lines about “dick measuring” and “having to take a tinkle”, she’s barely effective. Shannon’s portrayal of Zod is perhaps one of the most boring onscreen comic book villains since Iron Man 3. I do give him credit for not trying to mimic the original Zod performance by Terrence Stamp and even he has a memorable line during the opening sequence, “I will find him!”, despite that he says it repeatedly then.

Russell Crowe, who was last seen in a less-than-impressive performance as Inspector Javert in Les Misérables back in December, nearly proves himself to be a decent Jor-El. He’s not Marlon Brando, but was he supposed to be? I mean, you have to admit that Crowe has a cool voice and it serves for being soft when it comes to saying goodbye to baby Kal-El and informative when it comes to teaching adult Kal-El, even though it's a lot of exposition. Amazingly enough, Kevin Costner, whom I have generally dismissed as being nothing but bland, proves to actually be one of the film’s “better” performances. He has this persona of a hard-working, rural American father figure that actually works someone like Clark Kent. Diane Lane is perhaps one of the best performers as a delicate and gentle mother to Clark, despite some obvious aging makeup that she had to go through. Laurence Fishburne, now the first African American actor to portray Perry White in a Superman film, was a good choice, especially during the third act when he and his employees Steve (Michael Kelly) and Jenny (newcomer Rebecca Buller) escape during the destruction of Metropolis caused by Zod (we’ll get to that soon). Even Kelly and Buller are fine. Although I wonder if Buller’s Jenny is a female substitute for Jimmy Olsen? But if there has to be a scene-stealer in this dull film, it would have to be Antje Traue as Ursa...er, I mean, Faora. The German actress is a newcomer to American cinema and she stands out as being more diabolical and scary than Shannon’s Zod. She has a dark look and dark attitude and does most of the battling against Superman. Maybe she should have been the villain. So even though the majority of the characters in this film have little to no personality, the actors tried their best.

Next to the improper story structure and weak direction given to weak performances, Man of Steel also suffers from some horrible camerawork. Cinematographer Amir Mokri, whose credits include Bad Boys II, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, and the upcoming The Wolverine, does not keep a single still shot in the entire film. Everything is shot in some sort of weird hybrid of the styles of Darren Aronofsky, Terrence Malick, and a Bourne film. Since when do we make art house superhero films? We don’t, that’s the point. Even though Snyder uses no slow-motion, I feel that would have been a much better idea instead of having the battle scenes shot with either too much shaky cam or extreme close-ups. Or worst of all, using both at the same time. He does not give the audience enough room to grasp what is going on, even though that what really isn’t going on is character development. Going back into the ideals of being a generic blockbuster, Man of Steel has a problem that was actually the opposite of what one of the main problems of Superman Returns was: too much action, especially in the third act with its overabundance of CGI. The film is so bent on focusing way too much on the “Super” rather than exploring what make the “man.” You’re probably thinking “But it’s a superhero movie! Things are gonna be destroyed” True, but it seems like Synder, Goyer, and Nolan substituted opportunities for good character development for unnecessary action. Superman and Zod created more destruction to Metropolis than the Avengers did to New York City and the Transformers did to Chicago combined. It’s also especially embarrassing during a scene in the middle of the film where Superman and Faora massively fight their way through several obvious product placements like 7-11, iHop, U-Haul, and Sears, but that’s a nitpick, I guess.

There are some positive notices in Man of Steel. Aside from the adequate performances, the opening sequence on Krypton is pretty stellar. Seeing the pain that Jor-El and Lara that have to go through with sending their infant son away is the closest that the film gets to an emotional level. Even moments like the main council is being infiltrated by Zod, Jor-El flying on a winged creature of Krypton, and Lara watching her planet die also reach levels of engaging. Speaking of Zod, even though Michael Shannon had little to work with while playing such an iconic villain, he does manage to ham up his portrayal. When it comes to Michael Shannon, hamming it up is something I have always appreciated. One pivotal scene where Zod interferes with the connection of every television on Earth as he makes his threat to turn over Kal-El was quite terrifying. It is one of the many highlights of the film that is not a downfall, for once. Most of the scenes involving Clark and Martha are quite touching, which again is thanks to Lane’s performance. Lane is very soft and heartwarming in the film, and that is something we should have needed more of. Also, to the credit of Snyder, he does manage to give Man of Steel something that I always look for when it comes to superhero films: size. The film feels big and it knows it. There are even a couple of funny moments, but nothing to memorable, nothing knee-slapping funny (thank goodness) but sadly no charm either. And we have Hans Zimmer to provide an impressive musical score. Because let’s be honest, you can never go wrong with Hans Zimmer.

There is a moment at the end of Man of Steel that may be controversial for fans, but it did not bother me due to the fact that it was essentially the best choice to end all the CGI madness. I certainly did not keep my expectations high for this film, because I do not get excited for films anymore. But Man of Steel is nothing to be excited about. Say what you will about Superman Returns, with its poor casting choices for Superman and Lois Lane and having too much drama, but I will say that at least it had both the size and spirit of Superman. Special thanks goes to the usage of the John Williams theme and Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. Man of Steel does not have the spirit that I was looking for. Instead of being CGI of Steel, it should have had a Script of Steel. Instead of overwhelming action sequences that pretty much made the film look like Transformers, there should have been a balance between that and drama. And instead of dark and gritty drama, the filmmakers should have known better than to make a Superman film that does not instill audiences with some sense of hope. Maybe if somebody like Steven Spielberg came on board to direct, he could have given a sense of seriousness with the right amount of light-heartedness Man of Steel should have had. What Nolan and Goyer did with Batman Begins and its successors was meant to be an inspiration for future reboots. Even though there is influence in Man of Steel, it is still an unsatisfying picture, and a real shame due to the amount of talent on board. We don’t specifically need cheesiness, but we do need something salvageable. I'm not asking for Man of Steel or any new Superman films to replicate the original films, but even though audiences are more cynical and critical than they were back in 1978, that is still no excuse to make what is basically just another formulaic action/sci-fi flick.

Two out of five stars.

Man of Steel is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence, action and destruction, and for some language.

Check out Paul’s Facebook page: www.facebook.com/paulzechariafanpage

Check out Paul’s Film Reviews: http://stonesdetroit.com/category/stones-detroit-writers/paul-zecharia/

As a hilarious apocalyptic comedy, “This Is the End” delivers what it promises.

By: Paul Zecharia | www.stonesdetroit.com

Throughout the years, several films about apocalypses and post-apocalyptic worlds have been made. In these films, we see the struggles of normal people having to survive through tough situations in a dark environment. It’s often very serious and depressing. But have we ever once stopped and asked ourselves “What are celebrities doing during the apocalypse?” This Is the End answers that question with a fictionalized approach. And to make it more interesting, it’s a comedy. Not just any comedy; we have Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, the writers of Superbad, to do the job. This Is the End is actually based on a short film called Jay and Seth versus the Apocalypse, written by Rogen and Golberg in 2007. In their feature debut with Rogen co-starring, This Is the End proves to be an outstandingly hilarious apocalyptic comedy featuring an all-star cast starring as fictionalized versions of themselves as well as several celebrity cameos. Every major comedy actor you can think of (from the world of Judd Apatow, at least) is in this film. It’s almost like the comedic version of The Expendables that we have been waiting for. This has everything you would expect from Apatow/Rogen-esque comedy but with all the zaniness and imagination of the world coming to an end. Surprisingly, Apatow had nothing to do with this film.

So Seth Rogen is picking up is good friend and actor Jay Baruchel at the airport for a weekend of fun in Los Angeles. However, Jay becomes incredibly reluctant when Seth takes him to a party at the new house of James Franco, where they are joined by their friends Jonah Hill and Craig Robinson. There are also several celebrity cameos including Jason Segel, David Krumholtz, Rihanna, Aziz Ansari, Mindy Kaling, Kevin Hart, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Emma Watson, and a very outrageous Michael Cera. But as the night goes on, beams of blue light come out of the sky and start carrying away several people. A powerful earthquake sets Hollywood on fire and a large crack opens up and several celebrities fall to their death. Among the survivors that run back into Franco’s house are Franco, Rogen, Baruchel, Hill, and Robinson. They board themselves up in the house to protect themselves and keep track of how much food and water they have, thinking that it’s just a major earthquake and that they’ll be rescued soon. The next morning, a passed out Danny McBride wakes up in the bathroom of Franco’s house and not realizing what has happened. From here on out, it’s all the bickering, joking, and self-deprecation between these six celebrities that you would expect. They also eat, drink, do drugs, and even shoot a sequel to Pineapple Express. However, Baruchel starts speculating that this could be the beginning of the Apocalypse, and signs of it are showing.

The real strength to This Is the End is not specifically the comedy, but the energy of the comedy and its actors. It goes the extra mile to amuse audiences with whatever jokes and scenarios they are willing to throw at us. It’s an epic self-parody, to say the least. The six main actors know they are making fun of themselves and they have a ball with it. We have Jay Baruchel, whose image has pretty much been a skinny and awkward fellow in most of his films. But the self-awareness of his “character” in This Is the End is a plot device that drives him into feeling uncomfortable around Seth Rogen’s friends. Rogen is still the typical bumbling and good-natured goofball, and even he knows it. There’s a funny meta moment at the beginning where he escorts Baruchel out of the airport and a reporter comes up to him and says “Why do you always play the same character in every movie?” Oscar-nominee Franco, who has proven to have the most range based on the amount of projects we’ve seen him in so far this year (Oz the Great and Powerful, Spring Breakers), is at his basic natural hilarity. Next to him is Hill, another Oscar-nominee, who plays the whole easy-going nice guy with a touch of creepiness. Robinson is a wild and lovable party freak who is always at his best at being naturally funny, and his performance here is no exception. And McBride is probably at his most outrageous at creating the most tension between him and the rest of guys, even leading up to a hilarious argument between him and Franco about masturbation.

Several other comedic highlights come from two of the biggest cameos...or maybe co-stars, since they are billed after the six leads. One of them is Michael Cera, who hasn’t been in a major film since Scott Pilgrim vs. the World in 2010 (but you can catch him on the fourth season of “Arrested Development” now available on Netflix). Cera has been known as a one-note actor; the awkward teenager. But in This Is the End, Rogen and Golberg decided to go the extra mile and turn his character into the complete opposite of what audiences expect. He is now an outrageously drunk and wild party animal. He slaps Rihanna’s butt, blows cocaine on Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and is even shown getting a blow-job from two hot chicks. His bare buttocks is shown and there seems to be no shame. But for the purpose of parodying Michael Cera, it was all worth it. The other set of hilarious moments involving a celebrity is Emma Watson. It’s so very odd to see this one needle of the Harry Potter world in a see of raunchy comedy. In the middle of the film, Watson breaks into Franco’s and the guys allow her to take shelter there, which leads to an inevitable conversation involving a possible rape vide with the whole “six guys, one girl” scenario. Watson ends up hitting Rogen in the face with an axe and forces them to hand over all their food and water. This essentially leads to, in my opinion, the funniest line in the whole film delivered by McBride via camcorder: “Hermione just stole all our sh*t.”

Besides This Is the End being an all-out parody of the actors, it also utilizes the essence of parodying and paying homage several apocalyptic and catastrophic elements. Films like Night of the Living Dead, The Exorcist and Rosemary’s Baby are referenced to make for oddball scenes when the guys are trying to figure out ways to survive the apocalypse. These parodies are handled in the way that the Scary Movie franchise, as well as their other knockoffs, should be handling it. Because there are funny jokes made about the actors by the actors in shamelessly self-deprecating ways. They even make references to their own films, like when McBride calls out Rogen for not giving decent performances in his last six films (notably The Green Hornet) and how Hill should be a better performer due to his being an “Oscar-nominated person.” The film manages to be funny and crazy while also throwing in some character there. Baruchel questions Rogen’s loyalty, everybody questions McBride’s antic, the audience questions Hill’s motivations, the list goes on. Seeing how This Is the End had a $32 million budget, the special effects look cheesy, but surprisingly acceptable for an apocalyptic comedy. We get some monstrously-designed creatures and an orange blaze that is seen for most of the film. 

So while the premise for This Is the End does some rather ridiculous, the filmmakers know that. It’s almost as if Seth Rogen and the rest of the gang sat around, got high, and came up with scenarios about what they would do if the world were coming to an end. These gags and jokes work because there is a strong sense of comedic energy mixed with supernatural and horror elements to make everything seem big. It has a wild imagination, and I greatly appreciate that. The backdrop of Franco’s house is also a good setting due to the many artifacts and items used for comedic pleasure. Why? Because six guys stationed in one setting is a great idea for comedy. There are even two more big cameos which I will not give away here, but needless to say, there are completely unexpected and piss-your-pants hilarious. And that is the best world to sum up this film: hilarious. Is it tasteless and obnoxious? You bet. But does it do its job of being downright funny? Absolutely. Ever actor, whether lead or cameo, has their moment. If you think This Is the End was a bad idea and actually very unfunny, I understand. But you know what? It did not disappoint me. It is, by far, the funniest comedy of 2013. But we still have Edgar Wright's The World's End to look forward to.

Four and a half out of five stars.

This Is the End is rated R for crude and sexual content throughout, brief graphic nudity, pervasive language, drug use and some violence.

Check out Paul’s Facebook page: www.facebook.com/paulzechariafanpage

Check out Paul’s Film Reviews: http://stonesdetroit.com/category/stones-detroit-writers/paul-zecharia/