Monsters, Inc. (2001)
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.
Adorable, funny, perfect voice casting for the lead roles
vchimpanzee
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.
Does For Monsters What "Toy Story" Did For Toys!
MovieAddict2016
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.
The best computer animated film of them all, and the most adult
Spleen
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.
See more:
vchimpanzee
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.
Does For Monsters What "Toy Story" Did For Toys!
MovieAddict2016
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.
Spleen
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.
See more:
- all the money in the world watch online free
- annihilation marvel
- charlie plummer related to christopher plummer
- watch agents of shield season 5 online free
- rampage movie release date
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét