Monsters, Inc.

[IronParrot]

LOTR aside, this film is the one I've been anticipating the most all year.

I'm so excited! Only five days to go!

[anduin]

You must tell us if there is a AOTC trailer attached!

[Darth Tater]

There will be. It's called "Breathing" and theatres aren't allowd to remove it from the print unless they breached their TPM contract, in which case they're not allowed to show it.

[Sakata]

It looks really funny, when is it coming out?

[IronParrot]

Friday, Nov 2

[IronParrot]

Review!

SUMMARY

Animated film built on the premise that the monsters in the closet are actually collecting kids' screams to power their parallel monster universe.

RECOMMENDED FOR:

Paranoid kids, parents of paranoid kids, kids with parents who were paranoid in childhood, or anyone who still sleeps with a night light.

REVIEW

Visual spectacle in digitally-animated films is gradually being taken for granted. This year has already seen two major entries in the field that raised the eye-candy standard to heights that any animator would only have dreamed of achieving when Toy Story birthed this new arena: Shrek and Final Fantasy. It is easy to dismiss Monsters, Inc. as merely yet another entry in a medium that has gone mainstream.

In some ways, such a dismissal would be justified; in most, it isn't. Monsters, Inc., certainly the most imaginatively designed animated flick of the year, takes digital animation to a realm opposite to that of Final Fantasy by abandoning the quest for photo-realism and instead striving for the surreal. In this respect, it is a significant achievement that will sadly be forgotten when the next film in this medium sweeps it aside.

Inanimate objects with character have always been staples of Pixar, from its humble beginnings with Luxo, Jr. and the trademark hopping lamp, up to the lush world of the Toy Story duology. Monsters, Inc. extends this idea of personification of things that don't move to things that don't exist. Imagine a film where virtually all the characters are of common heritage with the three-eyed rubber alien in Toy Story, and that would be a decent approximation. This movie is a freak show of creatures with some very human qualities and mannerisms.

It is, in fact, the parallels between the monster world and the human world that excel most notably. Everything from emergency decontamination squads to a sushi bar are conspicuously amusing, yet seamlessly integrated. Even the human world is presented with flair: an all-too-short encounter with the Abominable Snowman is superbly witty.

As expected, there are no worries about this film on the visual end of it. But on the subject of wit, it should be noted that the tri-dimensionality of the visuals has to be complemented by an equally rotund screenplay for such a film to be truly adorable. This was the case with Shrek and the Toy Story films, and not the Treknobabble-reminiscent banter of Final Fantasy or the childishly banal filler of Dinosaur. Monsters, Inc. lies between the two extremes, its charming macro-premise being diluted into disappointingly flat themes and characters, then pieced back together by workably delightful dialogue.

The recent trend in animated films has shown an increase in delightful and memorable action sequences that are, for the most part, on par with anything live-action has to offer. Notable examples are the pie machine in Chicken Run and the castle rescue in Shrek. Final Fantasy is essentially an action film on the whole, and an epitomization of this. Monsters, Inc. demonstrates its visual splendor in a more sublime way, but the climactic sequence involving a chase through thousands of doors is yet another entry to the list of great animated thrill-scenes.

The real flaws in the film show up in the pacing. The first third of the film is spent almost entirely on establishing the premise of the parallel monster world, which would be all right if it were adequately balanced by the main plot involving a little girl who crosses over from one universe to the other, and how our heroes James P. Sullivan (voiced by John Goodman) and Mike Wazowski (voiced by Billy Crystal) deal with the incursion. However, this is not really the case. Proportionally speaking, the exposition and denouement are both overlong, and make the plot seem like an overly brief afterthought. It is also disappointing that the characters are primarily confined to the interior of the power company Monsters, Inc., and whenever they get out, they manage to end up back in the building all too quickly. Because of these limitations, Monsters, Inc. lacks a certain adventurous grandeur, opting instead to take a brilliant concept and supplement it with a plot, instead of the other way around.

Don't get me wrong, though - this is a great film. It simply does not instantly strike one as classic, and it would be unfair to approach the movie expecting that to happen. Overall, Monsters, Inc. is a very entertaining movie that is hurt less by its few blemishes than by the absence of permanently endearing qualities.

As for the AOTC teaser: it's exactly that - a tease. Kind of like the January teaser for LOTR - not much there, but... hopes are high. Visually, it looks like this will push the envelope just like all the other Star Wars movies have in the past. No evidence on which to judge acting or writing yet, though!

[anduin]

Yes, but was it the same one that what's-his-name post line by line, scene by scene?? I have been very curious about that.

[IronParrot]

Um, what?

[Renille]

I just saw Monsters Inc. this afternoon. It was really cute and really funny. (Aside from the fact I was the oldest one there, other than all the parents! ) And the AOTC preview was very...intriguing. (Was it just me, or did they show a hologram of Qui-Gon floating in a tube-like thingy? )

[IronParrot]

I think that was Obi-Wan.

[anduin]

*Warning Ep. II Spoilers*

I was talking about this trailer, but have now just realized that what was shown with Monsters was just a teaser......my bad.

[IronParrot]

anduin, please warn me before you post a link to a spoiler forum thread.

[anduin]

DOH!!! AHHHH! I am soooo sorry. I'm an idiot.

[galadriel88]

Well, I've seen it twice. I anticipated it all year too...and was disappointed. Don't get me wrong, it's a great movie. I guess I was just hoping for something that had lots of puns and would keep me laughing. *sighs* Oh well, it was still good. I saw it again at Thanksgiving with my cousins who hadn't seen it yet, and I still laughed, so it's not that bad.
BTW, Sakata, thank you for putting a scripture on your signature - very refreshing!

[emplynx]

Ma, Another gater got in the house

That was a good movie!

[IronParrot]

I just saw it again, with the fake outtakes reel. I'd have to say, the movie ages very well, and repeat viewings are highly recommended. It's amazing how much more detail I caught, knowing how the movie would end. The film's actually very intricate.

The actual performance of the "put that thing back where it came from" musical at the end of the fake outtakes reel was classic.

[Brimvalir]

Monsters Inc was a cute film - I'm Glad it won an Oscar for music - my favorite line in movie "kitty"

[snoopy]

I realy liked Monsters Inc. I thought that it was pretty funny. Iwouldn't mind seeing it again.

[elf_princess]

This movie was good but not great. I thought it would have me rolling and wanting to see it again... but it kind of left me a little disappointed. I'm gonna have to agree with galadriel88. It was good but not great!

[Liviaine]

I loved this movie. Boo stole the show.