Originally Posted By brotherdave Anybody see this yet? We went to a matinee today and was pleasantly suprised. The storyline was original, especially having the house as the monster. Reminded me of old time scary stories we used to tell around a campfire. And it really felt like a Tim Burton-style film, even though he was not involved. The animation (ok, 'motion capturing' since they used live actors to help animate the characters) was decent, though nowhere as good as Pixar's and Dreamworks' quality. All of the characters' hair looked 'plastic'. When compared to the realistic look painfully created in such movies as Monsters, Inc., the Incredibles, and even Shrek, it sort of detracted from the story a little. Not a whole lot, but it does feel like watching toy dolls more than actual characters from time to time. This movie, I feel, is far superior in quality and story than Robert Zemeckis' last 'motion capture' film, The Polar Express. That movie left me feeling flat, even with all the spectacular visuals. Here, the storyline starts almost immediately, and the house becomes very frighteningly menacing. I can imagine there might be a few younger viewers who might have some nightmares after seeing it, though, no one in our audience ever cried. For every scary moment, there was some sort of laugh inducing counter-moment, I guess to help lessen the impact of the fright. Still, it's a fun 'Halloween' flick that will most likely become a perenial classic on TV and in home DVD players. Funny how they released it as a summer movie. It would have been more appropriate to release in late September. Of course, that's when Corpse Bride was released and did only 'fair' box-office. My guess is they thought it could pull enough summer movie goers in, then an early Oct release of the DVD will help to make more money, I'm sure. It was a fun family movie for th 7+ year old crowd. I think it might be just a tad bit intense for the younger kids, though.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Great! Thanks for the info, I am going to take a couple of my older kids tomorrow to see it. I appreciate the review, now I won't go in expecting TOO much and be therefore disappointed! Good review brotherdave!
Originally Posted By DlandDug I tried to start a thread about this film earlier today, but we had a rolling brown out before I could submit. The title of the thread was "Is it just me, or is Monster House interminable?" I did save the text, though. Here it is: OK, I just saw Monster House in 3D. The reviews I have seen have been mostly positive (even going so far as to say that MH is the shoo-in for Best Animated Feature). The pedigree is impeccable. The previews looked good. But... I found it really, really bad. The plot meandered all over the place (by meandered I mean it didn't seem to know where it was heading). There were also a number of incidents within the film I felt were wildly inappropriate for a movie aimed at kids. (Kids playing in a construction site and operating the heavy machinery. A boy stealing cough medicine from the drug store. An adult handing one of the kids dynamite and a match. Parents leaving their child alone in the house. Police acting like buffoons who are of no help.) And my DW was deeply offended that ***SPOILER*** the actual antagonist turned out to be not the house, but an immensely fat, crazed woman who has become the house. It was, for me, a very dull experience. So-- anyone else want to weigh in on this highly anticipated film?
Originally Posted By idleBrain Loved it. Lots of fun. Kids being real kids. Great animation. Scary enough to be entertaining but not frightening. And FWIW... this film was aimed more at an older tween audience like Goonies was, than a younger audience like Monsters, Inc was. Yet I feel the scenes with Boo in the Scare Extractor went way too far for kids in Kindergarten and preschool. And that's precisely the age group I saw (and heard) in abundance when Monsters debuted in 2001. But rarely do I ever hear folks complain about those Scare Extractor scenes being "inappropriate" for little ones. I did not find the scenes Doug is referencing to be "inappropriate" for kids aged 11 to 13, which the film was targeted for.
Originally Posted By DlandJB No surprise, but I'm with Doug on this one -- I really hated it. It was one note, relentless without being truly creative. I was offended by more than a few elements of it, and there were kids around us that were truly terrified at spots. Somehow I thought it would have more humor. Also, I can't understand why they are releasing a Halloween movie in July. Well, liking or not liking a movie is a personal thing. I do expect some people will love it, but it wasn't for me. However, the trailer before the movie for an upcoming 3D version of "Nightmare Before Christmas" was fabulous.
Originally Posted By mawnck Ebert and Roeper were smokin' something when they declared this the Oscar frontrunner. Guess they were so delighted to see that it wasn't about wacky animals, that they went a little crazy. I didn't exactly hate it. There were some mild laughs to be had, but on the whole I found it to be just a heavily toned-down but still by-the-numbers horror flick--predictable and rather dull. I'd'a probably liked it more if the character designs weren't so, uh, I don't even have a term for it. Unattractively lumpy-neutral? I never identified with or was concerned about about any of the characters, and I think that's sort of necessary in a horror movie with no real horror. And the motion-capture is still creepy, although not as creepy as Polar Express thanks to House's less realistic style. Like Polar Express, this movie would've been better if they'd done the identical same movie with the same CG house, but otherwise live action. I didn't buy several of the plot points, they being so flagrantly placed there to solve an upcoming sticking point in the story. (Spoiler: Uvula? Gag reflex? Oh, come the heck on! I wouldn't have bought that at age 7.) And (another spoiler) I hated that police deputy character. Hated him. Hated him almost as much as BEN in Treasure Planet. What the Jim Hill were they thinking? The house took way too long to eat him. I thought the house was pretty cool. Except that Howl's moving castle was about 20 times cooler. I saw the flick in 3D as well, and I don't recommend it. Watching it through those dim, slightly blurry glasses buys you very little in the way of 3D thrills, and in fact I found that many shots looked surprisingly flat and depth-less, especially the backgrounds. Not worth the trade-off. All the credits scenes come early, and are dumb, dumb, dumb. Once the little white credits start rolling, you can safely go home if you feel you must, although I personally think it's uncouth to walk out on the credits unless the movie stank and you really gotta pee. Short answer: It's mediocre. A mild thumbs down.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...the movie stank and you really gotta pee.<< You could always pee in a bottle, like the two boys in the film . That was another plot point that I found disturbing in a film aimed at kids. But then I guess I'm just old fashioned...
Originally Posted By Labuda My DH really wants to see this, but I honestly have NO interest. Much happier that I spent my hard-earned money on the vastly superior A Scanner Darkly this weekend.
Originally Posted By brotherdave Yeah, I forgot about that. I agreed with the girl character when she discovered that, too, "GROSS!". Yep, movies aimed at kids these days seem to go for the gross out more and more. A line later on in the film, "You mean that the house upchucked us? EWWWW!". Yep, gross and disturbing trends. Of course, flatulence, one of the most taboo of bodily functions in films and on TV during my childhood of the 60s and 70s is now mainstream jokes for children. The four letter word which I HATE to use to describe it used to be one of the censored words on television. Now, it's commonly heard on most TV cartoons today, not to mention what's disguised as 'public service announcements' on Nickelodeon about flatulence. In fact, only as far back as 1994, the word was creatively 'censored' by Timon during the Hakuna Matata sequence during Pumbaa's solo. I'm betting that if the Lion King were made today, that word just would have been freely used. Just my 2 cents...
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb I think censoring it made it funnier, IMHO. I have NO desire to see this movie! I don't like the style of animation and it looks like zero fun. That said, my son and his friend both want to see it (I'm not taking them).
Originally Posted By kennect I loved our local critic's take on it...Link below... <a href="http://www.accessatlanta.com/movies/content/shared/movies/reviews/M/monsterhouse/ajc.html" target="_blank">http://www.accessatlanta.com/m ovies/content/shared/movies/reviews/M/monsterhouse/ajc.html</a>
Originally Posted By movieguy I just wish that when all the mayhem was going on a neighbor or two had at least stuck their jeads out the window to see what all the hub-bub was about!
Originally Posted By HRM >>There were also a number of incidents within the film I felt were wildly inappropriate for a movie aimed at kids. (Kids playing in a construction site and operating the heavy machinery. A boy stealing cough medicine from the drug store. An adult handing one of the kids dynamite and a match. Parents leaving their child alone in the house. Police acting like buffoons who are of no help.)<< Just imagine if Pixar had all of those elements, the protests would be deafening compared to what's going on now with CARS... >>I can't understand why they are releasing a Halloween movie in July.<< Probably for an October DVD Release...
Originally Posted By HRM >>Parents leaving their child alone in the house.<< Happens more than you think
Originally Posted By HRM >>Police acting like buffoons who are of no help.<< Depends where you live...
Originally Posted By mawnck There's a lynch-mob of animation people forming in honor of the San Francisco Chronicle's reviewer, who dropped this little pearl of wisdom: "Animated films always had the advantage of being able to go anywhere and show anything, to defy the laws of physics and follow the imagination as far as it could go. But they never had the ability to show the human face. There was never any point to a close-up in an animated film -- there was never really anything to see. But with the motion-capture process, real actors give their performances with computer sensors attached to their face and body, and that recorded information becomes the template for the computer animation. If an actor is bug-eyed, the character will look bug-eyed. Moreover, if the actor is thinking or is full of doubt, the technology will be able to render subtle qualities of pensiveness or doubt in the animation. Imagine what Disney might have done with this in the creation of the Seven Dwarfs." The review is here: <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/DDGHTK1F471.DTL&type=movies" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/DDGHTK1F471.DTL&type=movies</a> For more on the topic, here's a good place to start: <a href="http://www.cartoonvbrew.com" target="_blank">http://www.cartoonvbrew.com</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck <a href="http://www.cartoonbrew.com" target="_blank">http://www.cartoonbrew.com</a> Works better.
Originally Posted By u k fan ^^^ I think that reviewer should be made to hand in his badge and get back to life as a civillian!!!
Originally Posted By lasvegasgirl saw it the day it opened.... kids really liked it.... was better than I thought it would be.....
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>There was never any point to a close-up in an animated film -- there was never really anything to see.<< Oh brother. <a href="http://www.pierotonin.com/doc.html" target="_blank">http://www.pierotonin.com/doc. html</a> <a href="http://www.pierotonin.com/witchcel.html" target="_blank">http://www.pierotonin.com/witc hcel.html</a> The motion capture in Monster House didn't do much for the character's weird plastic hair. But then, I suppose that was an integral part of the film's hip style...
