Monsters, Inc.

I thought Billy Crystal and John Goodman were great. I like them anyway, but I can't imagine anyone else in their roles. John Goodman comes across as a warm, fuzzy teddy bear type in so many of his roles, and this time he was actually drawn that way. Crystal and Goodman were great together, even when their characters showed signs of not getting along. And Boo sounded so natural, so childlike. There's no way an adult could have done her lines the way they were executed.

And the writing was so intelligent, this movie was not just for kids. There were a lot of clever jokes that kids might not get. Still, the warm and fuzzy qualities of so many of the monsters make this a perfect choice for kids as well as adults, and I really don't get why ABC couldn't give this a TV-G rating. It may have been a little violent or scary at times, but never all that intense. Kids see worse on Saturday morning.

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.

You may admire the hair detail on Sully the Yeti's arm, but you will be amazed at the warmth of characterization in `Monsters, Inc.,' surpassing even the great `Shrek' earlier this year. Goodman and Crystal are a comedic team reminiscent of the zaniest Martin and Lewis days. Crystal's Borscht-belt routines brought smiles even to this jaded and admittedly tough-on-comedy critic. I thought Eddie Murphy's donkey in `Shrek' was smart and funny; Crystal's one-eyed monster is even better with its wry and annoying wit.

Cleaning the environment of child contamination is a hilarious conceit that turns around the usual fears children have of monsters in closets. It is also a chilling parallel to the challenge of removing anthrax from today's letters. Generally, the allegorical underpinnings of animation are natural for the medium, powerful like the images of the novel `Animal Farm' for political and sociological levels of meaning. For example, the endless-door motif in this film is an ingenious metaphor for the scary and glorious possibilities the present and future hold for kids.

Even before you see this feature, Pixar offers the short feature `For the Birds' -- a brilliant takeoff on Hitchcock's memorable film besides being a great commentary on diversity. The expressions around the animated eyes, as the little birds deal with the big bird interloper, are more expressive than those of most contemporary film actors, with the exception of Brando, Pacino, Depp, and Streep.

The short trailer for `Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones' may precede the showing as it did ours for an added delight.

`Monsters, Inc.' is the best animated feature this year and one of the greatest of all time.

Monsters, Inc.

We were all, at one time, scared of monsters under the bed. Shadows of clothes in the closet. Weird sounds outside in the trees. I remember thinking there were all kinds of monsters in my room - not as much under my bed as in the closet. And once again, Pixar, who brought us "Toy Story" 1 & 2, plays on both adults' memories and children's dreams, making it equally enjoyable for both children and adults.

John Goodman voices James P. Sullivan, known as "Sulley" to friends. He is a big, blue, hairy monster with horns on his head and hands the size of a watermelon. Billy Crystal is Mike Wazowski, his wisecracking, one-eyed best friend. Both of these monsters live in Monstropolis, a world where monsters roam freely. Their city is powered by a rare source of power - children's screams. That is where Monsters, Incorporated comes in. At Monsters, Inc., monsters like Sulley and Mike open portals into children's rooms - through closet doors - and scare the children, capturing their scream in a little yellow bottle. Sulley is the top-scarer, bringing in the most scares. But Randall (the always enjoyable - even when animated - Steve Buscemi), a wormy, multiple-armed lizard-monster with the ability to change appearances to its surroundings, is jealous of Sulley, and will attempt anything to get more scares...even if it means taking a child from the real world and bringing it into Monstropolis. But after the child escapes, Sulley and Mike reluctantly look after it, all the while trying to get it back to the real world before Mr. Waternoose (the late James Coburn) and others find out about the incident...

"Monsters, Inc." does for monsters what "Toy Story" did for toys. Pixar once again not only expands our mind, but our very worlds. I respect their company and commitment values very much, as you can read in my "Toy Story" review. They stick to the values that made Disney films so family-friendly back in the fifties and sixties: Respect for the audience, respect for quality, and respect for the audience's INTELLIGENCE, something Disney, who has recently coughed up a bunch of lousy, thoughtless sequels, has forgotten. Now, I know that LEGALLY Disney is co-creator of "Toy Story" and "Monsters, Inc.," but they really are not. They just give Pixar the money and get their name branded on the front box of the film. And even then, I have heard multiple claims that Disney is very mean-spirited towards Pixar (read into sequel trouble for "Toy Story 3") and gives them the bare minimum.

But that is straying off the subject. "Monsters, Inc." is one of the most enjoyable animated films I have ever had the pleasure of viewing. I didn't enjoy it as much the first time, but I then bought it, and have since watched it many times. It is an instant classic. I will be watching it years from now, when I am old and frail and in a rocking chair. It ranks right up there with "Toy Story" 1 & 2, and all the OLDER Disney films from the 50's-70's. It has all the elements of a sweet, charming, emotional and pleasurably good-natured animated film. And, more coudos to Pixar: Thank you for not packing it full of the language and inappropriate content that Disney shoves into the dark recesses of their films nowadays.

Not only has Pixar brought back the "Family Film" genre to what it should be, but it also redefines it. Pixar's animated films are some of the most thoughtful, imaginative and enjoyable animated films ever - not to mention 100 % family safe. Thank you, Pixar, for getting back on track.

5/5 stars

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.