Monsters, Inc. (Docter, Silverman, Unkrich, 2001)

Last updated on: January 31, 2015 at 9:25 pm by Kenneth R. Morefield

Monsters, Inc. (Docter, Silverman, Unkrich, 2001) 2015-01-31T21:25:21-05:00 Kenneth R. Morefield

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Monsters, Inc.

You know the biggest shock about revisiting Monsters, Inc. ten years later? It was the “Coming Soon” preview for Disney’s Treasure Planet. It is a sign of how quickly things can change in a decade that I had to strain to recall that Pixar wasn’t always the seven hundred pound gorilla in the animation room. The Treasure Planet preview was even more disconcerting than the preview for Finding Nemo, which sent me scurrying to Wikipedia to recall the order in which Pixar films were released. Toy Story 2 was the third offering from the studio? Really? Monsters, Inc. won one Oscar, but it wasn’t for Best Animated Feature (that went to Shrek–think the Academy wants a do over?) but rather for Best Song. It probably says something about both me and the award that I just rescreened the film about two weeks ago for this column and I couldn’t hum a bar of it if my paycheck depended on it.

What I Said Then

In 2001, at Viewpoint (a personal film blog, now defunct), I posted a Top 5 (rather than 10) at the end of my film viewing year. Monsters, Inc. came in at #5:

The number 5 slot is usually reserved for a commercially successful studio film that succeeds in entertaining well even if it has little pretension of being important. I choose Monsters Inc. because I enjoyed it incrementally more than other successful pieces that sought primarily or solely to entertain rather than challenge (Shrek, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Oceans 11, Harry Potter). Why? Who knows. Like Toy Story 2, it really is a feel good movie at heart, with John Goodman’s Sully becoming the surrogate father that was so hauntingly absent from both Toy Story and Toy Story 2.

What I Say Now

Monsters, Inc. was enjoyable enough on a second viewing, but like most of the second tier Pixar films, the pleasures are almost all in the concept rather than the execution. The majority of the laughs are in the first thirty minutes. Granted, defenders of the film might say this, too, is by intention, following the formula of moving seamlessly from humor to pathos. I’m not buying, though. Oh, the heartstrings are plucked fairly well enough, but I do think it is trying to keep its edge well into the second and third act. As avatars for celebrity voices, Mike (Billy Crystal) is pretty generic, leaving only Sully (John Goodman) as a memorable character from the film. I’ll tell you one thing I do love about the film: the color palette. Through most of the first half of the film I kept thinking, “This is so bright!” Then it hit me…I’m already calibrated to the persistent, incessant, need to make everything in 3D, with the indoor glasses not dark enough to protect you from the rays of the sun but plenty dark enough to make everything you watch look like it has a grey haze over it.

The Verdict

I didn’t give the film a grade the first time around, but as it made my “Top 5” and I ranked it higher than at least one film I originally gave an A- to, I’m assuming I gave it the highest marks. That strikes me as way too generous today. The concept was and is wonderful, and you can see the studio taking its new technology out for a spin to see what it can do. My beef with a lot of the second tier Pixar films (Wall-e, Cars, Up, A Bug’s Life), though, is that so much of the creativity goes into Rube Goldber-esque chases and setting detail that the story and character development often get short shrift. Even so, Monsters, Inc. only really looks bad if you are comparing it against some of the very best animated features of all time. I’d still take it over Shrek in a heart beat, and while I may not think it as accomplished as Toy Story 3, which didn’t crack my top ten a decade later, its ranking has more to do with the volume of films I see now as opposed to then. In retrospect I think I inflated the film’s value–which is funny, because a decade later, I feel like the one who is forever throwing cold water on the Pixar lovefests, usually the one trying to hold the line between “very good” and ‘great.”

Previous Post

January 21, 2011

No Strings Attached (Reitman, 2011)

Next Post

February 5, 2011 Swordfish (Sena, 2001)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 10 Years Later 1999 Top 5 2007 Top 10 2008 Favorite Discoveries 2008 Top 10 2009 Favorite Discoveries 2009 Top 10 2010 Favorite Discoveries 2010 Top 10 2011 Top 10 2012 Top Ten 2013 Top Ten 2014 Top Ten Best Picture Winners Christian Spotlight on Entertainment Christianity Today Coming Soon Disclosure Disclosure--AS Disclosure--Book Disclosure--DVDS Disclosure--SEOL Disclosure--Travel Dissenting Opinion Elsewhere Emergenetics Essays Featured Film Fest DC--2014 Film Festivals Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2010 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2011 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2012 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2013 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2014 Headline Interviews Laura on the Oscar Winners Podcasts Quick Impressions Reviews RiverRun Film Festival 2014 Television The Criterion Collection The Thin Place To Stream or Not to Stream? Top 10s and Other Lists Toronto International Film Festival 2009 Toronto International Film Festival 2010 Toronto International Film Festival 2011 Toronto International Film Festival 2012 Toronto International Film Festival 2013 Toronto International Film Festival 2014 Uncategorized Video Virginia Film Festival 2011 Virginia Film Festival 2013 Women's Film Festival 2012

Select a Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What did Moses' staff turn into before Pharaoh?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A stone A serpent A pillar of fire A bird