|
MONSTERS,
INC.
A film review by Mark R. Leeper.
CAPSULE: MONSTERS, INC., won't get many top ten-film nominations,
but it won't get many thumbs down votes either. MONSTERS, INC.,
is cute, likable, and a lot of fun.
The company of the title puts monsters in children's closets
to turn their screams to the energy to power their land. But monsters
are more afraid of children than vice versa.
Pixar animated films gets better and better.
Rating: 7 (0 to 10), +2 (-4 to +4).
While the quality of films from the majors in Hollywood seem to
be hitting a slump as bad as the stock market's, the field of the
animated feature film seems to be an exception.
Animation is getting better and the stories are even occasionally
keeping up. There are three major sources of major animated.
There
is Disney Enterprises who invented the animated feature; there is
Pixar, who do three-dimensional computer animation and release their
films through Disney; and there is Dreamscape, a Johnny-come-lately
who picked up the digital technology very quickly. Each has its
own style specialty.
Disney most frequently mangles some classic story or tells their
own story but in the same silly style. Pixar tells sentimental stories
aimed at children but so well done that all ages can appreciate
them.
It is too early to tell if Dreamscape will stay in the field and
have an identifiable style, but certainly their SHREK seems to indicate
they may be the wild, irreverent parallel to Disney that Warner
Brothers short animated films were in the 1940s and 1950s.
Each three sources should be commended for bucking the tide of
most of the majors and almost reliably turning out quality entertainment.
Pixar's MONSTERS, INC., is not a memorable film but it is a pleasant
way to spend an afternoon. Parents will enjoy it as much as the
kids do. In this modernized fairy tale monsters live in a world
parallel to that of children and enter our world to scare us.
One twist: so as not to scare the kiddos, the monsters are really
more scared of us than we are of them. Every monster knows that
just the touch of a human child can kill a monster. Having monsters
from the closet scaring little children is just a matter of business.
The monsters realize that nobody has more energy than children
do, so they power their world on the screams of children. The world's
power company is called Monsters, Inc. (which I guess is like us
naming our power company Humans, Inc.).
Their slogan is "We scare because we care." The best of the scarers
is James "Sully" Sullivan (voiced by John Goodman), a big fellow
whose "wild thing" looks belie a pleasant and sympathetic nature.
His best buddy is a walking eyeball by the name of Mike Wazowski
(Billy Crystal). He is Sully's trainer but has a hankering to try
his skills though he is not nearly as good at scaring children.
One day this neat set-up starts to go awry when a little girl,
a sweet confection of a child nicknamed Boo, crosses the border
to the world of the monsters.
The script by Andrew Stanton and Dan Gerson is full of in-jokes,
some in further than others. Few fans of fantasy film will not get
the reference to Harryhausen's. (One guy who may not have gotten
it is Billy Crystal who said the name as if it were "Harry Hausen.")
The script has some obvious logic gaps that should have been mended.
The little girl, supposedly toxic to monsters, touches Sully frequently
without his giving it much thought. At one point Boo is given a
suit to wear, which she does through a big portion of the film.
She seems much too adept at taking the suit off and putting it
back on for a girl of her age. The writing, which starts clever
and original toward the beginning, falls back on clichés
toward the end including a long time-filling chase and a theme of
corporate irresponsibility.
This is really a theme that has been used to death in other films
and it seems an atypical lapse in imagination in what otherwise
is a clever script.
Not all of the problems the film has are its own fault. Like many
films this film has unfortunate echoes of very recent American history.
For years the monsters have worried about the possibility of the
contamination from a human child entering their world.
Now it has happened and they try to ignore it and continue their
business while monsters in decontamination suits try to clean up
the problem.
Pixar's animation processes get better with each film they do.
Sully really looks like he is covered in real fur and there is real
expression in his face. His face seems more expressive than, for
example, the faces of the apes in this year's PLANET OF THE APES,
in spite of being wholly computer-generated.
In the case of one of the monsters we even see expression in multiple
eyes like a spider has and surprisingly it works. Pixar may tread
on what might be dangerous ground here.
Filmgoers got irritated at Steven Spielberg because he made them
feel sorry for what was really a piece of plastic in E.T. Here people
are feeling empathy for what is further from reality, just a set
of ones and zeroes stored in a computer.
It is not a problem for the film, but I am a little surprised that
being so accomplished in dimensional animation, they did the opening
credits in flat animation. It just does not seem like their style.
Pixar's style is the constant flow of ideas and jokes in the margins
of the film. This film has what must be hundreds of little film
references and ideas packed around the main story. Film allusions
are probably just to numerous for the viewer to catch even most
of them. In the world of monsters, even the grills of cars look
fierce.
There are fun references to films from POLTERGEIST to THE RIGHT
STUFF. There is an explanation for the existence of folklore monsters
in our world like the Nessie and Bigfoot. This is a funny and imaginative
film. It rates a 7 on the 0 to 10 scale and a +2 on the -4 to +4
scale.
Included with the film is an animated short, "For the Birds." It
is amusing, but is too simple and short to take the place of a cartoon.
It is really just a sketch.
Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 2001 Mark R. Leeper
|
OTHER CONTENT - December 2001
Brotherhood
of the Wolf
(FILM REVIEWS)
Monster
Monster
(FILM REVIEWS)
The
Women of Star Trek
(CONVENTIONS)
Pottering
About
(FILM REVIEWS)
Mammoth
SF and Farscape Tunes
(NEW BOOKS)
Unexpected?
(TV
REVIEWS)
The
New New Fan
(ARTICLES)
The
Long-Awaited Andorian Incident
(TV REVIEWS)
Dreamers
of Dune & Star Wars Trailers
(WEB SITE REVIEWS)

Graham Kerr. 01/12/2001
Disney kick's Pixar's ass when it comes to entertaining the kids.
For adults, Pixar seems to be ahead.
Rachael. 01/12/2001
Speak for yourself, my kids like Pixar cartoons a lot better than
the sing-along formula stuff pumped out by by the big D.
Monty Hyphen. 01/12/2001
I still listen to the Lion King theme tune CD.
Tina. 01/12/2001
Yeah, but you probably like the new music from Enterprise too.
WorldMaker. 01/01/2002
Point 1) The fact that kids are toxic is obviously a lie from the
corporation... Point 2) If you watch the credits, the flat animations
were directed by none other than Jay Ward. Jay Ward is the infamous
director of Rocky and Bullwinkle, etc... I think this helps explain
the unusual flat animations, and hopefully, we might see an interesting
relationship develop. Or, the credit may be an homage to him (they
did it in his style). Or, there may be a different Jay Ward at Pixar...
Point 3) Pixar's shorts aren't (and have not been) made merely for
their own sake. Every one of their shorts have been "Technology
Demos" generally created for the in-house staff to see the latest
techniques and capabilities of working with their software.
CHAT
ABOUT THIS STORY
Advertise
Here (More ...)
|