Monsters, Inc. (2001)

This is a resubmitted comment, the original was removed by a complaint from some anonymous aggrieved party. Let's hope the edits are sufficient this time.

You already know that this is the usual Pixar fare, which is to say that it is excellent, better than any non-Pixar animated film. Sure, you also know that and you probably know the usual reason given: that Pixar spends more time on basic storytelling values than anyone else.

Here are two elements of this that may deepen your appreciation. The first is that Pixar recognized early that 3D animation software allowed two types of advance in the third dimension. The first is obvious, that everything has depth and reflection and shadow more or less like reality.

The second is that once these objects and scenes are defined in the computer, it is no extra work to move the camera anywhere. it can loop and swoop in ways that we never could have before. Pixar decided to exploit this in their storytelling here and later in "Nemo."

Nemo was set in an environment where there was no horizon so the camera could flow and the watery feel of the place could make the unfamiliar fluidity of the camera seem more natural. Here, is where they tested some of those perspectives in the three dimensional door warehouse and the extra dimensions of going in and out. Those scenes make this for me.

The second interesting thing is some competitive background. In those days, there was a shooting war between Bill Gates, financier of Dreamworks Animation (and leader of Microsoft) and Steve Jobs of Pixar (and leader of Apple). This was in the heyday of Gates' dirty tricks and he was intent on burying Jobs forever. Pixar depended on the success of "A Bug's Life" their followon to "Toy Story," so Dreamworks rushed "Antz" -- a cheapy -- to open a week or so before to steal the market.

"Bugs" prevailed, sufficiently at least, and Pixar ramped up for their usual three year development of "Monsters." Dreamworks, getting wind of this, went all out with "Shrek," their "monster" movie that could be released six months earlier. It only took a year because the animation is less perfect. But they were overt in their attack this time: "Shrek" made literal fun of Disney, the Pixar partner. The head guy at Disney was the model for the blowhard King who reigned over a fairytale kingdom populated with -- can you guess? -- all the old Disney characters.

Pixar/Jobs would never do something so spiteful. But perhaps they did subtly appreciate the use of windows and gates to the future that always seemed to go wrong. And now you can too.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Fmovies: This is a very entertaining animated film. I've seen it twice and enjoyed even more the second time. Billy Crystal said he enjoyed making this film as much as any film he's ever done, so that's a good testimony that you'll get some laughs and enjoy this movie as an adult, too.

Kids will love it, I am sure. The "monsters" in here are funny-looking and almost lovable, nothing that would scare your kids (or you). Crystal has a bunch of funny lines but overall I found this to be as much if not more of a human interest story than a comedy.

There is a lot of sentimentality to it, even overdone a bit at the end, but that's okay. There is absolutely nothing offensive in here, either. The colors look spectacular, too.

Until now I couldn't bring myself to believe that computer animation was the equal of either stop motion animation or hand-drawn animation. All computer animated films looked a little (usually more than a little) too sterile, many were animated poorly ("Antz", "Shrek", "Final Fantasy"), and even the single unqualified success ("Toy Story 2") provided little evidence that a computer animated film COULD reach the heights other kinds of animation could. "Toy Story 2" had flawless character animation, but nothing as inspired as the best in "Tarzan" (released the same year, although I could have chosen almost any other Disney cartoon to make my point); effective art direction, but nothing to match "Fantasia" or "The Nightmare Before Christmas". And I thought that "Toy Story 2" was as good as the art was ever going to get.

I was wrong. This is far better. And what's more, there's no sense whatever that the script (an unusually rich and uninhibited script) is bumping up against the limits of what the medium will allow. It's now been proven that computer animation CAN be just as good as any other kind. Whether it will be allowed to be in future is another question, but for now, I'm hopeful. What we have here is computer animation's first ENTIRELY unalloyed artistic delight, with every character gracefully and characteristically animated, every virtual set just right and pleasing to look at, and an eye-tickling mastery of colour, light and shade that I thought would forever elude CGI artists.

It's not fair to judge anything good as "Monsters, Inc." as though it were a children's movie, but I can't resist comparing it with "Shrek" - which emphatically IS a children's movie. "Monsters, inc." is admittedly ABOUT children, in a sort of a way. The inhabitants of Monstropolis rely on children's screams for their energy, and the central story is kicked off when one of the monsters accidentally brings a small child (which he calls "Boo") into the city. But we never see things from her point of view. We see things from the point of view of the monsters, who are all adults - and who, like most adults, see children as frightening, almost incomprehensible members of another species. And they ARE. To be sure, Wazowski comes to feel strong affection for Boo, but she never becomes more than a humanoid pet (which is not to demean the relationship). This is a story about adults looking at childhood from the outside.

"Shrek", of course, is a children's movie through and through. Its attention span is short, it has an unthinking mean streak, and children will have a whale of a time watching the central characters (the bigger they are, the more fun it is) act childishly and make poo-poo jokes. "Monsters, Inc." has too much genuine wit, characters too rich, a world with too much depth, and a story at once too coherent and too complicated, to be PRIMARILY a film for children. This is not to say children won't like it. Maybe they will. (Who can say?) Here's the bonus: if they DO like it, it will (unlike "Shrek") actually have a beneficial effect. It will make them less frightened of the dark.

Monsters, Inc. fmovies. "Monsters Inc" came out on DVD this week, and now I have my own copy!! It is not very useful to try to evaluate this one against others since such an evaluation is so subjective. But I put it in the same superb category that such animated films as "Toy Story", "A Bug's Life", "Shrek", and "Disney's Tarzan" are in.

First, the quality of the animation and the picture quality. Unbelievably good. I can categorically say it is the best picture quality I have seen on DVD, and the movement and facial expressions of the animated characters makes it almost feel like they are real.

Second, the story. How inventive! The only thing separating the monster world from the real world are the doors. The company, Monsters Inc, must have millions of them in inventory, computerized for quick call-up to send in a monster to get screams and charge up their energy cells.

The main characters are voiced by John Goodman (big, blue, hairy "kitty" with purple spots) and Billy Crystal (short, green, one-eyed monster) and their acting add so much. Plus the great music provided by Randy Newman. Overall an hour and a half of pure edge of your seat entertainment. And that doesn't even include the 3+ hours of extras on the second disk.

You can select either standard or widescreen format, and I watched mine widescreen on a 16:9 HDTV with 5-channel surround system with powered subwoofer. Almost like being in a theater!!

MONSTERS, INC. (2001) **** (Voices of: Billy Crystal, John Goodman, James Coburn, Jennifer Tilly, Steve Buscemi, Mary Gibbs, Bonnie Hunt, Bob Peterson, John Ratzenberger, Frank Oz, Steve Susskind, Jeff Pidgeon, Sam "Penguin" Black, Daniel R. Gerson. (Dir: Peter Docter/Co-directors: David Silverman, Lee Unkrich)

There's something undeniably magical about a Disney movie that brings out your inner child and the streak continues to manifest itself in the latest with its fine track record with upstarts Pixar (the "Toy Story " films) in delighting children of all ages in one of the year's funniest (and most fun) films.

The childhood phenomena of imagining monsters lurking in one's bedroom closet or under the bed is in actuality a reality that exists solely for the world of the monsters to use all the energy extracted from a child's screams as their natural resource to power their communities and subsist in their parallel universe. Specifically Scream Heat ("We Scare Because We Care"), the corporate entity that harnesses the youngsters' reactions to its hard-working crew of creatures including our heroes James P. "Sulley" Sullivan (marvelously voiced by Goodman) and his best buddy Mike Wazowski (ditto Crystal). Sulley is a bear-like, blue and purple hairy and horned monster and Mike is a cyclopean lime green M&M clone. The two couldn't be more different yet both share their passion for their vocation and the only thing getting in their way is their rival colleague Randall Boggs (Buscemi, at his oiliest menacing), a reptilian nasty who wants to beat Sulley for the all-time factory record of most points racked up in a single day on the job … at any cost. Watching the proceedings is Sulley's father-figure boss Henry J. Waternoose (Coburn) – a cross between a crab and Edward G. Robinson – whose main priority is avoiding any "rolling blackouts" (in one of the film's subtle jabs at the current climate in our nation). Mike is in love with cutie pie receptionist Celia (Tilly) who also sports one eye and is afoot taller than him, with a hairdo sporting a Medusa twist (snakes sit atop her head) who wants something from him besides excuses to their frequently put-upon dates together. One day after work Sulley accidentally lets into their world a tiny 4 year old girl – a big no-no – legend has it that one touch is toxic and fatal! – which causes mass havoc wreaked upon the populace as the authorities attempt to corral the tyke while decontaminating the infected workshop's workers (a running gag has the SWAT like DEA agents popping in at a moment's notice whenever a sign of human contact – i.e. a small cotton white sock attached to an unsuspecting monster – makes its ugly presence known!) Mike is in a panicky sweat that they will lose their jobs and tells Sulley he can't hide Boo (the nickname the big guy dubs the adorable tot) and they must return her to her bedroom. Easier said than done when Randall gets wind of the partners abetting the unsuspecting crime and he too has his plans to use Boo for his own selfish endeavors…at any cost! The film is a laugh a minute romp and an incredible mix of state-of-the-art computer generated dynamics that truly enhance the candy-colored world of Mike & Sulley with its picture perfect depictions of moveable hair (see how Sulley's locks sway to and fro so naturally! A first for CGI imagery!) and expressiveness given to the one-eyed Mike who works his brow into a real sweat. Never

Pixar is the best! Of them all, Monsters, Inc. takes the cake. The realism of the characters' movements & feelings is perfect. The ending is a tear jerker on a happy note. At first I was concerned with the plot of monsters scaring children with a "business as usual" attitude, but right away you discover that the monsters are as terrified of the kids as the kids are of monsters.... wonderful juxtaposition throughout the film... a totally enjoyable, feel-good story. Buy it for the kids and let them watch it over and over. (adults may want to sit-in on more than one occasion themselves). Personal Note: For me, a mystery about this film was "Roz"; the voice reminded me so strongly of the grandmother in "Dinosaurs", and I thought the character drawing was similar as well; upon researching the two, I found they are definitely different actors.