GaryWood
02-06-2007, 10:53 AM
Nominated for Best Animated Feature alongside Cars and Happy Feet, Monster House is certainly a technical achievement. About 10 minutes into the movie, however, I heard a wimper from my 2.5 year old. The second time the Old Man appeared, that was enough for MAX.
I realized...this is not a young kid's movie. It's rated PG, but the opening is pretty scary for younger viewers. So we shut it off and watched The Shaggy Dog.
I finished Monster House without Max and enjoyed it. I'm still not really understanding this "genre" of movie such as The Polar Express, where the filmmakers decide to actually shoot the movie, digitize it, then recreate what they've shot to life-like proportions...but....not quite.
Upon hearing how they shot Tom Hanks, digitized him, then recreated him in the movie, Dave Letterman said it best, "Why not just put Tom Hanks in the movie?" I agree. Instead of making an animated movie that looks like live-action, why not make a live-action movie and show us some amazing things??? Jurassic Park? Titanic? Narnia? Lord of the Rings?
I'll give Monster House credit, at least, for not creating exact replicas of humans. The characters did have exagerrated, almost Norman Rockwell-like features. I liked this. And the movie is fun and, at times, tense. But didn't really WOW me. I think the story of love and obsession......and anger, I think, is a bit mature for most kids.
More interesting, for me, are the wonderfully detailed docu-features on the DVD. They show you step-by-step how the created the film's look. +
Good, fun movie for family night. There were better animated films this year--Cars, Over the Hedge--but there were CERTAINLY worse.
I realized...this is not a young kid's movie. It's rated PG, but the opening is pretty scary for younger viewers. So we shut it off and watched The Shaggy Dog.
I finished Monster House without Max and enjoyed it. I'm still not really understanding this "genre" of movie such as The Polar Express, where the filmmakers decide to actually shoot the movie, digitize it, then recreate what they've shot to life-like proportions...but....not quite.
Upon hearing how they shot Tom Hanks, digitized him, then recreated him in the movie, Dave Letterman said it best, "Why not just put Tom Hanks in the movie?" I agree. Instead of making an animated movie that looks like live-action, why not make a live-action movie and show us some amazing things??? Jurassic Park? Titanic? Narnia? Lord of the Rings?
I'll give Monster House credit, at least, for not creating exact replicas of humans. The characters did have exagerrated, almost Norman Rockwell-like features. I liked this. And the movie is fun and, at times, tense. But didn't really WOW me. I think the story of love and obsession......and anger, I think, is a bit mature for most kids.
More interesting, for me, are the wonderfully detailed docu-features on the DVD. They show you step-by-step how the created the film's look. +
Good, fun movie for family night. There were better animated films this year--Cars, Over the Hedge--but there were CERTAINLY worse.